HomeMy WebLinkAboutHawaii-Island-Shared-Mobility-Roadmap-February-2020_LG
Hawai‘i Island
Shared Mobility Roadmap
February 2020
Project Partners
Hawaiʻi County is one of four counties in the State of Hawaiʻi,
with jurisdiction over Hawaiʻi Island. The County is nearly 4,028
square miles and is home to over 185,000 people. The County
seeks to build a community of trust based on transparency,
community, and collaborative problem solving to protect the
environment and plan for the future of kamaliʻi (children). Hawaiʻi
County is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Ulupono Initiative is a Hawai‘i-focused impact investment firm
working to improve the quality of life for island residents in four
key areas: locally produced food; clean, renewable energy; and
better management of water and waste.
The Shared-Use Mobility Center (SUMC) is a public-interest
organization dedicated to achieving equitable, affordable, and
environmentally sound mobility across the U.S. through the efficient
sharing of transportation assets. By connecting the public and
private sectors, piloting programs, conducting new research, and
providing policy and technical expertise to cities and regions,
SUMC seeks to extend the benefits of shared mobility for all.
Page 2 of 43
Core Planning Team
April Suprenant, County of Hawai‘i, Planning
Brenda Carreira, County of Hawai‘i, Mass Transit
Greg Gaug, Ulupono Initiative
Karissa Moffett, County of Hawai‘i, R&D
Kathleen Rooney, Ulupono Initiative
Margaret Larson, State Energy Office
Michelle Agbigay, County of Hawai‘i, R&D
Natasha Soriano, County of Hawai‘i, Planning
Riley Saito, County of Hawai‘i, R&D
Ron Whitmore, County of Hawai‘i, R&D
Roy Takemoto, County of Hawai‘i, Mayor’s
Office
Tiffany Kai, County of Hawai‘i, Mass Transit
Tina Clothier, PATH Hawai‘i
Stakeholder Group
Aki Marceau, Elemental Excelerator
Aza Summers, Summers Architects
Carol Ignacio, Blue Zones Project -Sharecare
Chandler Carlson, Elemental Excelerator
Charles Melton, Turo
David Yamamoto, County of Hawai‘i, Public
Works
Debbie Baker, Kailua Village Improvement
Business District (KVBID)
James Hustace, South Kohala Traffic Safety
Committee
Jason Young, Roberts Hawai‘i
Jay Kimura, Hawai‘i County Economic
Opportunity Council
Kanani Iaea, Enterprise Holdings
Kelly Alonzo, Waikoloa Beach Marriott
Kelvin Kohatsu, Hawai‘i Electric Light
Kelvin Tjia, Secure Bike Share Hawai‘i
Kris Kindschuh, Polynesian Adventure Tours
Lauren Reichelt, Blue Planet Foundation
Lea Kapuni, County Council, District 5
Margo Bunnell, Roberts Hawai‘i
Marisa Oishi, Secure Bike Share Hawai‘i
Matt Rubin, County of Hawai‘i
Nahelani Webster, BT Consulting, Inc.
Noel Morin, Hawaiʻi Island Electric Vehicle
Association
Paul Strauss, Hawai‘i Department of Health
Richard Ha, Hamakua Springs
Rob Mora, Lyft
Robert Miyasaki, Hawai‘i DOT
Ryan Fujii, Hawai‘i DOT
Sharon Hirota, County of Hawai‘i, Housing and
Community Development
Sherilyn Wee, UH Mānoa Public Policy Center
Stephanie Donoho, Kohala Coast Resort
Association
Sue Lee Loy, County of Hawai‘i
Toby Taniguchi, Hawai‘i Island Chamber of
Commerce
Wendy Laros, Kona-Kohala Chamber of
Commerce
Page 3 of 43
Table of Contents
Glossary of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................6
Summary of Roadmap Strategies ...........................................................................................................7
1. Project Overview ..............................................................................................................................10
1.1 Planning Process and Roadmap Contents.......................................................................................................10
1.2 Stakeholder Engagement...................................................................................................................................12
2. Existing Conditions ...........................................................................................................................14
2.1 Land Use and Demographics............................................................................................................................. 14
2.2 Housing and Jobs Access.................................................................................................................................... 14
2.3 Travel Patterns and Challenges........................................................................................................................ 15
2.3.1 Commuting..................................................................................................................................................... 15
2.3.2 Town Centers ................................................................................................................................................ 16
2.3.3 Social Service Trips ..................................................................................................................................... 17
2.3.4 Tourism and Visitor Trips ............................................................................................................................ 17
2.4 Transportation Energy and GHG Emissions....................................................................................................18
2.5 Existing Transit and Multimodal Services ........................................................................................................ 18
2.5.1 County Transit............................................................................................................................................... 20
2.5.2 Other Private Sector Services ...................................................................................................................21
2.5.3 Bikesharing.................................................................................................................................................... 21
2.6 Policy Context....................................................................................................................................................... 21
2.6.1 County General Excise Tax Surcharge ................................................................................................... 21
2.6.2 Transit and Multimodal Transportation Master Plan ............................................................................ 22
2.6.3 Downtown Hilo Multimodal Master Plan.................................................................................................23
2.6.4 Federal-Aid Highways 2035 Transportation Plan................................................................................ 23
3. Mobility Goals and Strategies...........................................................................................................24
Foundational Strategies ........................................................................................................................................... 24
FS1. Mobility Management Framework............................................................................................................. 24
FS2. Pilots and Partnerships ................................................................................................................................. 25
FS3. Scaling and Integration................................................................................................................................27
FS4. Stakeholder Engagement ............................................................................................................................ 27
FS5. Community Outreach .................................................................................................................................... 28
FS6. Funding ............................................................................................................................................................ 28
FS7. Reliable Transit .............................................................................................................................................. 30
FS8. Clean Fleets....................................................................................................................................................30
Page 4 of 43
FS9. Urban Form..................................................................................................................................................... 31
Targeted Strategies.................................................................................................................................................... 32
TS1. Bikesharing in Town Centers........................................................................................................................ 32
TS2. Carsharing Partnerships ...............................................................................................................................32
TS3. Pooled Rides for Long Trips ........................................................................................................................ 33
TS4. Employer-led Initiatives................................................................................................................................ 33
TS5. Mobility Options for Tourism....................................................................................................................... 35
TS6. Visitor Education ............................................................................................................................................ 36
TS7. Services for Vulnerable Populations..........................................................................................................36
TS8. Improve Student Mobility............................................................................................................................. 38
TS9. Infrastructure for Shared Mobility ............................................................................................................. 39
4. Conclusion and Next Steps ...............................................................................................................40
Appendix 1: Shared Mode Penetration Levels and Potential Outcomes ...............................................41
Appendix 2: Image Sources ..................................................................................................................43
Page 5 of 43
Glossary of Acronyms
ADA Americans with Disability Act
BEV Battery Electric Vehicles
County R&D The County Office of Research and Development
EV Electric Vehicles
FCEV Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles
FS Foundational Strategy
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GET General Excise Tax
GHG Greenhouse Gas
MIP Mobility Innovation Partnership
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MTA Metropolitan Transportation Authority
SOV Single-Occupancy Vehicles
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TMA Transportation Management Association
TNC Transportation Network Company
TS Targeted Strategy
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VTO Volunteer Transportation Organization
WAV Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles
ZEV Zero-Emission Vehicles
Page 6 of 43
Summary of Roadmap Strategies
Foundational Strategies (FS)
Strategy
No. Name Description
FS1 Mobility Management
Framework
Build internal capacity to guide mobility policy and
implementation through a Mobility Management Framework
and dedicated staff.
FS2 Pilot and Partnerships Create a Mobility Innovation Partnership (MIP) program to
identify, test, and evaluate mobility pilot projects.
FS3 Scaling and Integration Create opportunities for transit riders to conveniently connect
with shared mobility services through multi-modal integration
platforms.
FS4 Stakeholder Engagement Engage diverse stakeholders in shared mobility planning and
implementation.
FS5 Community Outreach Develop a sustained community outreach campaign that
builds understanding and support for transportation options.
FS6 Funding Optimize existing County revenue allocations and pursue
additional sources of funding.
FS7 Reliable Transit Restore and expand reliable mainline bus service.
FS8 Clean Fleets Incorporate zero emission vehicles (ZEV) into existing shared
mobility services, and ensure new County-supported services
are zero-emission.
FS9 Urban Form Pursue housing, land use, and urban design approaches that
increase mobility options for residents.
Page 7 of 43
Page 8 of 43
Targeted Strategies (TS)
Strategy
No. Name Description
TS1 Bikesharing in Town
Centers
Continue bikeshare expansion with an emphasis on populations who
are currently unserved or unable to use the system.
TS2 Carsharing Partnerships Develop creative partnerships to deploy carsharing services in select
locations.
TS3 Pooled Rides for Long
Trips Build on early success in carpooling and vanpooling to expand the
availability of shared rides for longer trips.
TS4 Employer-led Initiatives Pursue County Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
programs and employer-led initiatives to incentivize using shared
mobility options.
TS5 Mobility Options for
Tourism
Develop mobility options to provide more flexibility to visitors in
meeting different types of tourism-related travel needs.
TS6 Visitor Education Communicate the availability of multi-modal mobility options to the
hospitality industry, and work with the industry to help educate visitors.
TS7 Services to Increase
Mobility
Pursue innovative partnerships to expand mobility services for seniors
and disabled populations.
TS8 Improve Student
Mobility Address student mobility challenges and school trips’ ripple effect
throughout Hawaiʻi Island’s transportation system.
TS9 Infrastructure for Shared
Mobility
Develop “quick-build” infrastructure and right-of-way improvements
that improve safety and efficiency for shared mobility.
Page 9 of 43
1. Project Overview
Hawai‘i Island is a diverse and dynamic region with deeply held values around family, community, and
sustainability. The County of Hawai‘i is committed to ensuring that the Island’s transportation systems reflect
those values, enabling residents and visitors to enjoy everything this special place has to offer.
Building and maintaining a vibrant transportation system is fundamental to quality of life on Hawai‘i Island.
The transportation network can promote economic opportunity, social equity, and environmental
sustainability, but it can also exacerbate challenges around economy, equity, and environment when
improvements to the network do not keep pace with change. The Island is undergoing change locally relating
to demographics, jobs access, and associated travel patterns, and residents are also concerned about the
role that local transportation plays in contributing to global climate change.
Shared mobility holds promise in addressing many of these challenges. New, shared mobility options that
can complement the Island’s existing transportation system include various forms of carsharing, bikesharing,
and ridesharing. These new services and technologies also offer a means by which the Island can more
quickly transition to cleaner fuels and zero emission vehicles (ZEV). However, new policies, plans, and
programs are needed to harness the potential benefits of shared mobility.
The Hawai‘i Island Shared Mobility Roadmap (Roadmap) brings together a cross-sectoral group of
stakeholders to establish strategies for building out a County-wide, multi-modal transportation system
founded on partnerships, technology, and innovation. The Roadmap aligns with a variety of important efforts
emerging around the Island, including the County’s Transportation Hui process, implementation of the County
Transit and Multimodal Master Plan,1 programming of the County General Excise Tax (GET) surcharge funds,
the forthcoming 2040 General Plan, and multi-faceted efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Ultimately, the Roadmap can serve as a shared playbook for Island stakeholders as they collaborate in
creating a reliable, affordable, and sustainable transportation system for all.
1.1 Planning Process and Roadmap Contents
The Roadmap was developed over a 12-month process beginning in January 2019. The process was led by
the Shared-Use Mobility Center (SUMC) in close collaboration with the Hawai‘i County Office of Research
and Development. The effort included a variety of research and analysis activities and an extensive
stakeholder engagement component, with an overarching goal to build capacity and create buy-in among
stakeholders around new mobility approaches.
Specific project activities and deliverables included:
Existing Conditions Research. SUMC conducted literature reviews and interviews to establish current area
conditions and projected trends.
1 The Roadmap is intended to reinforce and complement the Transit and Multimodal Master Plan, which contains
implementation details on many of the strategies presented in this document. While the Roadmap presents new
strategies that go beyond the Master Plan, the Master Plan should continue to serve as the primary document informing
transit planning and investments, as the Roadmap does not address traditional public transit strategies.
Page 10 of 43
Goals and Benefits Analysis. SUMC utilized its Shared Mobility Benefits Calculator to create several
scenarios for shared mode penetration, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reductions, and emissions and cost
outcomes. This analysis was used to inform development of cost-effective and impactful Roadmap strategies.
Stakeholder Engagement. SUMC formed a stakeholder working group, conducted a series of stakeholder
interviews, and held a full-day workshop in May 2019 to elicit community input on goals and strategies, in
addition to a Transportation Hui meeting earlier in the year.
Draft Shared Mobility Roadmap. SUMC prepared a Draft document containing strategic recommendations
for stakeholder review, and collected comments on the document.
Final Shared Mobility Roadmap. SUMC prepared this final Roadmap document containing strategic
recommendations for County Council acceptance.
The planning process is described in more detail below.
January February March April May June July August September October November December
Project Kickoff
Held meetings
with stakeholders
to discuss the
scope of the
project.
Research and Opportunity Analysis
Analyzed shared mobility use cases,
potential deployment, and achievable
GHG benefits.
Shared Mobility Roadmap
Refined strategies from the
stakeholder workshop and began
developing the Shared Mobility
Roadmap.
Site Analysis
Conducted on-site visits and
stakeholder interviews to
build understanding of local
transportation landscape.
Stakeholder Workshop
Held a workshop in Hilo with
nearly 40 stakeholders from the
public, private, and non-profit
sectors, including many that were
new to Big Island transportation
discussions.
Shared Mobility Roadmap
Refined Shared Mobility Roadmap
and finished version draft.
Page 11 of 43
1.2 Stakeholder Engagement
Stakeholder engagement in the development of Roadmap goals and strategies occurred through several
different groups and venues, as described below.
A Core Planning Team was composed of organizations and County departments who would ultimately be
responsible for implementing any Roadmap recommendations. The Core Team provided direction and insight
throughout the process, including:
● Input on project design and key topics during kickoff meeting and on-site research.
● Input on formation of the stakeholder group and workshop approach.
● Participation in stakeholder workshop as speakers and facilitators.
● Feedback on Draft Roadmap.
The Roadmap Stakeholder Committee was composed of organizations with a strong interest in mobility.
These organizations were engaged through:
● Input during information-gathering (interviews).
● Participation in the May 2019 stakeholder workshop (below)
The Transportation Hui consists of members of the above two Roadmap groups, as well as additional
stakeholders focused on other elements of transportation such as public health and pedestrian facilities. The
County Office of Research and Development (County R&D) organized the first Transportation Hui on
February 1st, 2019 and developed the network map shown below in Figure 1. Subsequent Hui meetings
have occurred on a regular basis and will continue to convene as needed to advance further dialogue.
Page 12 of 43
Figure 1. Transportation Hui Network Map
Page 13 of 43
2. Existing Conditions
New mobility strategies must be informed by an understanding of the transportation landscape of Hawaiʻi
Island. This section summarizes land use, demographics, travel patterns and challenges, existing
transportation services, and policy context that underpins the Island’s transportation systems.
2.1 Land Use and Demographics
Hawaiʻi Island is largely rural. Only 60% of the population lives in its eight urban areas, and even in those
places population density is low. These land use patterns present special challenges for mobility. The
dispersal of people and the distances between trip origins and destinations often discourage utilization of
transit and other shared modes, which rely on concentrations of people and destinations to function efficiently.
This low-density land use pattern instead creates a reliance on personally owned (and often single-occupant)
vehicles to get from point A to point B in a more flexible manner. Mobility strategies for Hawai‘i County
operate within these constraints and must be tailored to locations based partly on their density and typical
trip lengths.
Hawai‘i County is undergoing demographic changes that are putting increasing strain on the existing
transportation system. The County’s population is expected to grow by 50% by 2040.2 A significant share
of the population has special mobility needs or constraints that should be reflected in the County’s mobility
strategies:
● Around 17% of residents live in poverty,3 and many of these do not have access to a car.
● Beyond those living in poverty, around 45% of households are ALICE (Asset Limited, Income
Constrained, Employed) families, living on a household survival budget that does not leave a cushion
for savings or unexpected expenses.4
● Seniors comprise a large and growing share of the population.
● Around 13% have a disability that affects their mobility.
Visitors make up more than 15% of the population on any given day (around 35,000 in 2018), and over
the course of the year, more than 1.7 million visitors pass through the island.5
2.2 Housing and Jobs Access
Hawai‘i Island faces a shortage of affordable housing, with more than 50% of households qualifying as
“shelter-burdened.” Overcrowding in homes is also common. Much of the Island’s more affordable housing is
located distant from jobs, approximately 25% of which are tourism-related and thereby clustered in tourist
areas. Commute-related travel demand is increasing due to these imbalances between job and housing
centers on the Island, leading to higher VMT and associated GHG emissions as well as higher transportation
2 County of Hawai‘i Planning Department. Key Findings from the General Plan Comprehensive Review Trends and
Forecasts Report, Sept. 2016 http://www.hiplanningdept.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/01/TrendsForecastsKeyFindings.pdf
3 US Census, American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates, 2013-2017. Retrieved from:
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF
4 United for ALICE National Comparisons, 2016. Retrieved from: https://www.unitedforalice.org/national-comparison
5 Hawai‘i Tourism Authority Monthly Visitor Statistics, December 2018
http://files.Hawaii.gov/dbedt/visitor/tourism/2018/Dec18.pdf
Page 14 of 43
costs, which only further strain household finances. Planning for a multimodal transportation system should be
geared towards providing more affordable and convenient options for residents at all income levels.
2.3 Travel Patterns and Challenges
In developing strategies for providing new mobility options, it is helpful to characterize travel patterns such
as trip types, mode share, and common origins and destinations. This section describes the characteristics of
long-distance commutes, travel in “town centers,” social service trips, and visitor travel, identifying key
challenges associated with each trip type.
2.3.1 Commuting
Solo driving is the dominant means of getting to work on the Island, though the solo driving rate is lower than
that of the mainland. Carpooling takes place at nearly twice the rate of the mainland and at a greater rate
than the state as a whole. Public transit, however, makes up only a small proportion of work trips.
According to stakeholders who helped inform the Roadmap, these patterns may reflect cultural attitudes
about mobility and independence. Stakeholders shared that shared mobility as it is presently conceived is
“not in the tradition” of the Island, and that residents are independent and used to driving their own vehicles.
A number of stakeholders pointed to solo driving and vehicle preferences being part of a “strong truck
culture,” especially in rural areas. This can be seen in vehicle registration figures: more than 41,000 trucks
were registered in the county as of 2018—some 20% of vehicles registered on the Island—of which fewer
than 60 were classified as tax-exempt farm vehicles.6 For the state as a whole, trucks made up 15% of
total registrations.
Commute mode split (% of workers age 16+, 2018) 7
Mode Hawai‘i County State of Hawai‘i United States
Drove Alone 71.5 67.3 76.3
Carpooled 17.5 14.7 9.0
Public Transit 1.2 5.7 4.9
Walked or Biked 2.1 4.4 3.1
Worked at Home 6.6 5.4 5.3
Other (includes
taxi/transportation network
companies)
1.2 2.6 1.3
6 2018 State of Hawai‘i Data Book, Tables 18.08 and 18.09. http://dbedt.hawaii.gov/economic/databook/2018-
individual/_18/
7 American Community Survey 2018 1-year data. Figures in table may not sum to exactly 100% due to rounding.
Page 15 of 43
Commute Flows
The Island experiences major commute flows from the Hilo area to Kona and the Kohala Coast. Many of
these commutes are undertaken by mobility-disadvantaged and transit-dependent workers travelling to
tourism-related service jobs. Other important commuter flows include Puna to Hilo, Ocean View to Kona,
and Hawi/Honoka‘a to Waimea. Extremely long commutes are very common. In 2015, some 2 in 5
workers (nearly 20,000 people) had commutes longer than 50 miles, as shown in Figure 2 below.
Challenges Identified
● Many residents live in low-density areas with poor street connectivity and walkability, conditions
that are hard to serve productively with public transit.
● Lack of efficient alternatives & complements to support alternatives to single occupancy vehicle
(SOV) commutes.
● Transit reliability, service levels impacting ridership.
● Often intertwined with/aggravated by school drop-off/pick-up.
Figure 2. Job Counts by District and Direction
2.3.2 Town Centers
While much of the Island's population is dispersed in more rural areas, there are concentrations of residents
in higher-density communities referred to here as town centers. Town centers include Kailua Village in the
Kona area, Waimea in the north of the Island, and downtown Hilo and surrounds, as well as smaller centers
such as Hawi, Honoka‘a, and Volcano.
Page 16 of 43
Downtown Hilo, the Island’s largest town center
Tourist destination Kailua Village,in the Kailua Kona area
Trips within town centers tend to be shorter and more focused on errands, social activities, recreation, and
other daily purposes. Because of their relatively higher density, town centers are also more disposed to a
wider variety of shared mobility options, including bikesharing, carsharing, and microtransit.
Challenges Identified
● Ensuring that new mobility services
reinforce and do not compete with existing
transit.
● Traditional reliance on personal
automobiles for even short trips.
● Barriers to extending benefits of new
services to low-income town center
residents.
2.3.3 Social Service Trips
Social service trips are defined specifically to consider the unique needs of vulnerable or traditionally
underserved populations such as the elderly, disabled, or youth. While social service trips may also be
commutes or “town center” trips as above, mobility strategies should be designed for these specific travelers
and use cases, such as errands, medical appointments, and school drop-off/pick-up.
Challenges Identified
● Limited mobility options for older adults.
● Limited services with wheelchair accessible vehicles (vehicles with sufficient space and lifts/ramps
for wheelchairs, also known as WAVs) and for American with Disability Acts (ADA) compliant trips.
● Many neighborhoods are not served by school buses, resulting in additional congestion from
parent trips and adverse spillover impact on transit services.
2.3.4 Tourism and Visitor Trips
Tourism-related travel is a significant contributor
to congestion and emissions from Island
transportation, but is also an essential ingredient
in the Island’s appeal to visitors. Trips to and from
the airports, short trips at neighboring destinations,
and day-long excursions are all common, and
stakeholders have observed the following
patterns:
● Most visitors arrive in Kona. -● Cruise ship visitors often stay for a day
and are not really venturing beyond port
neighborhoods or utilizing many mobility
services.
● Visitors arriving by plane typically rent a car at the airport for the duration of their visit.
● Many visitors stay the duration of their visit on the Kona side, especially in resort communities on the
Kohala Coast.
● Day trip destinations include to South Kona, Volcano Nat’l Park, Hilo.
Page 17 of 43
Challenges Identified
● Visitors who are international, city-dwellers, and/or millennials expect multimodal options that are
not often available on the Island.
● Renting a car is viewed as a necessity due to limited alternatives at the airports, but airport-resort
trips contribute to VMT/GHG emissions, and vehicles are not always necessary at resorts.
2.4 Transportation Energy and GHG Emissions
The State of Hawai‘i has established a goal to reach carbon-neutrality by 2045.8 In 2017, Hawai‘i County
Mayor Harry Kim signed a proclamation committing the County to transition to 100% renewable
transportation fuels by 2045. Achieving these reductions will require aggressive efforts, as transportation
is the most significant emissions source on the Island, comprising 53% of all GHG emissions in 2015.9 The
County has jurisdictional authority and other influence to reduce transportation emissions primarily through
two mechanisms, each with a shared mobility component:
● Reducing travel demand and VMT by enabling more efficient transportation modes. Transit and other
types of shared mobility are usually more efficient than personal vehicles and produce fewer GHG
emissions per passenger mile travelled. When implemented, many of the strategies identified in the
Transit and Multimodal Transportation Master Plan and in this Roadmap will lead to emissions
reductions.
● Promoting a shift to cleaner fuels and vehicles such as battery electric vehicles (BEV) and fuel cell electric
vehicles (FCEV). Transportation electrification will reduce Hawai‘i Island GHG emissions more rapidly
than in many other regions nationally, because the share of clean, renewable generation sources on
the Island’s electricity grid is more significant (around 57% of generation before the 2018 Kilauea
eruption). Electrification of shared mobility has already begun with plans to test two battery electric
buses and a partnership with the University of Hawai‘i to test hydrogen fuel cell shuttles.
County R&D is coordinating climate mitigation efforts, which will soon include development of a GHG
emissions inventory that will more clearly define transportation-related emissions and development of a
climate action plan with transportation emissions policies and programs.
2.5 Existing Transit and Multimodal Services
New mobility services should build upon the existing backbone of public transit, as well as other more flexible
options already operating. This section describes existing mass transit services along with bikesharing,
ridesharing, and carsharing services already present on the Island.
8 HB 2182 (2018).
9 Hawaii County Office of Research and Development. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory for 2015. retrieved on
February 6, 2020 from
http://records.hawaiicounty.gov/Weblink/1/edoc/102649/COH%20GHG%20Emissions%20Inventory%20for%20
2015%20Report.pdf://
Page 18 of 43
What are Shared Mobility Services
and Where Do They Work Best?
Bikeshare: dockless or docked bikes available for short-term rental. Bikeshares succeed in
moderate or high density, generally around mixed-use, recreational, or commercial areas;
they are best suited for trips in the 1-3-mile range.
Carpool: shared rides between auto-dependent areas and activity centers. New technologies
are making on-demand one-off carpooling possible, as opposed to traditional pre-arranged
formats. Carpools require concerted marketing and outreach.
Carshare: cars available for short-term rentals (<1 day) used in moderate to higher density
neighborhoods and job centers. Vehicles must be in walking distance of many users to be well
utilized.
Microtransit: demand-responsive flexible transit service in mid-sized vehicles (12-20
passengers). Microtransit is a first/last mile service to higher-capacity bus routes and to
moderate density areas with poor connectivity or walkability that are difficult to serve with
fixed route transit.
Scootershare: docked or dockless rentable scooters in moderate or higher density, generally
centered in mixed-use, recreational, or commercial areas. Useful for very short trips, often <1
mile.
Shared taxis and pooled ridesourcing: Shared for-hire rides that pool riders with common
destinations and offer a lower price point than exclusive rides. They increase mobility and
lower VMT; they work best in areas with higher density. TNCs are generally available only in
the most active markets, but may be offered through public agency partnerships.
Taxis and ridesourcing: Hailed or pre-arranged rides that work in all but the lowest density
areas, since they require passenger density at both ends of the trip to be worthwhile for
drivers. Generally, more focused on airport and recreational trips than commutes.
Transit Bus: usually express service buses that run between nodes of activities. They require
moderate and higher density corridors for frequent service.
Vanpool: Subscription-based, commute-focused mode for lower to moderate density areas
with concentrations of people traveling daily to similar destinations. Along with carpooling, this
is a highly effective way to reduce VMT.
Volunteer Transportation Organizations (VTO): Mobility service for people without vehicle
access in highly auto-dependent areas or corridors where transit and commercial services
(including taxis/TNCs) are not present or productive.
Page 19 of 43
2.5.1 County Transit
While the vast majority of trips on the island take
place in private cars (either solo or shared), public
transit remains an important option for many
residents of the Island—especially those who live in
the 7% of households without personal vehicles, or
the nearly one-third of households with only one car
available.10 In recent surveys of transit riders, 24
percent of respondents indicated they would not
have been able to make their trip without transit.
Despite the high number of transit-dependent
households, bus ridership has seen significant
declines recently, dropping more than a third
between 2012 and 2018. Declines in ridership Hele-On Bus Service, the Island’s primary form of transit have been attributed primarily to issues with
reliability, as the aging MTA bus fleet saw frequent
breakdowns and decommissioning. The fully functioning fleet at its height in 2012 included 55 buses
operating on the agency’s 33 routes (serving more than 1.2 million trips that year), but by 2017 this number
had fallen to just 12 County-owned buses. Boardings declined in line with the fleet’s size and reliability, with
MTA providing 742,000 trips in 2018.11 To fill the gap, MTA contracts with private sector operators
Polynesian Adventure Tours and Roberts at very high daily rates while it negotiates a long-term operating
contract and endeavors to rebuild the fleet.
Despite these discouraging trends, a number of promising developments have emerged since 2018:
● The County adopted the Transit and Multimodal Transportation Master Plan, with specific steps and
financial plan for reconstituting bus services.
● The County enacted a 0.50% surcharge on top of the State General Excise Tax (GET), expected to
generate $50M annually to fund transportation as described in greater detail in Section 2.6.1.
● MTA brought on new leadership from the private sector to manage the rebuilding process.
● MTA has procured one hydrogen fuel cell bus and two zero emission buses and received federal
funding for an additional four buses, with a goal of adding 10 buses over the next two years.
In addition to Hele-on bus services, MTA also operates the following specialty services:
● Paratransit: Wheelchair accessible shuttle in Hilo and Kona urbanized areas. Rides are $4.00 and
reservations must be made 24 hours in advance, with 30-minute pickup window.
● Shared Ride Taxi Program: Taxi ride subsidies targeted towards the elderly or disabled as well as
mitigating drunk driving. Participants may receive up to 15 discounted coupons per week, purchased
with cash in person at the Hilo bus terminal, Hilo transit yard, or by mail. Taxi operators determine
when and whether to consolidate rides. The program has been popular, logging approximately
156,000 rides in 2016, but abuse of the system has led to a pause in implementation as providers
are audited.
● Other Social Service Rides: Curb-to-curb rides for low-income, elderly, or disabled for employment,
nutrition, and medical visits. Delivered under contract with the Hawai‘i County Economic Opportunity
Council (HCEOC), which provided approximately 40,000 rides in 2019.
10 ACS 2018 1-yr, Table B080201, Household Size by Vehicles Available.
11 National Transit Database 2018 Annual Agency Profile.
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/transit_agency_profile_doc/2018/9R03-91080.pdf
Page 20 of 43
2.5.2 Other Private Sector Services
There are multiple micro mobility options that may be implemented throughout the County. Some private
sector carsharing and ridesharing services include the following:
● Turo peer-to-peer (P2P) carsharing. Web platform where residents rent out their personal vehicles
on a daily or weekly basis when not in use. Currently there are more than 750 vehicles across the
Island on the Turo platform, which have been used more than 38,000 rental-days over the past 12
months.
● Transportation Network Companies (TNCs, e.g. Uber/Lyft). TNCs have been operating in Hilo and
Kona since March 2017 and are now permitted to serve the Kona and Hilo airports.
● Enterprise Vanpools. Approximately 22 vanpools serving employment destinations, including
MacFarms, Royal Kona Resort, and federal facilities. Vanpools are operated by Enterprise at
market rates.
● Historic Kailua Village Shuttle. Fixed route shuttle operated by the Kailua Village Business
Improvement District.
● Airport shuttles. Roberts, SpeediShuttle, Polynesian Adventure Tours, and others serving Kona
airport and surrounding destinations.
● Rental car companies. Conventional rental cars available primarily at Kona and Hilo airports.
Alamo, Hertz, and National also have rental facilities at resorts in Kohala and South Kona.
● Multiple taxi operators.
2.5.3 Bikesharing
Public bikesharing on the island was launched in 2016 as a partnership between the County Department of
Research and Development, the Mayor’s Active Living Advisory Council, and PATH. Bikeshare Hawai‘i Island
(BHI) operates as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. Originally located only in Kona, the dock-based system was
expanded in 2019 to a total of 10 stations, six in Kona and four in Hilo, with about 90 bikes total across
the two areas. Operations are supported by a combination of grant and public monies as well as user fees.
2.6 Policy Context
The County of Hawai‘i has a number of plans, policies, and implementation measures that may be leveraged
to encourage the adoption of new integrated and shared mobility options, described in greater detail in
this section.
2.6.1 County General Excise Tax Surcharge
In March 2019, the County enacted ordinance No. 19-29 that imposed a 0.5% surcharge on the GET
applicable to business activity in the County. Ordinance 19-29 increased the 2018 Ordinance (No. 18-74)
of a 0.25% surcharge by an additional 0.25% and extended the surcharge sunset data from December
2020 by an additional 10 years. The GET is expected to generate $50 million in County revenue in the next
fiscal year.12
The surcharge is enabled by State Act 247, which allows Hawai‘i’s counties to use surcharge monies for
operations or capital costs of public transportation systems, including buses, trains, ferries, pedestrian paths,
sidewalks, bicycle paths, public roads or highways, and expenses complying with ADA. The 2018 Transit
12 Cook Lauer, N. “Council Passes General Excise Tax Hike.” Hawaii Tribune Herald. Retrieved on February 6, 2020
from https://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/2019/03/14/hawaii-news/council-passes-general-excise-tax-hike/
Page 21 of 43
and Multimodal Transportation Master Plan identified a variety of capital and operating costs that could be
supported with revenue from the original 0.25% surcharge; additional revenue from the expanded
surcharge has not been planned for in the same manner.
2.6.2 Transit and Multimodal
Transportation Master Plan
The County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multimodal
Transportation Master Plan (Master Plan) was adopted
in August 2018 after extensive analysis, survey
administration, and public input. The Master Plan is a
comprehensive plan for enhancing transit and other
modes in pursuit of the following vision:
“Create a high quality multi-modal transportation system
that provides safe, reliable, convenient mobility choices
that meet the commuting, social service, and other needs
of our residents and visitors. The multi-modal system should
be environmentally responsible and cost effective.”
The Plan is organized around five overarching goals
illustrated here, reinforced by 35 strategies and
detailed implementation recommendations addressing
service planning, capital programming, and
financial/budget projections.
The Shared Mobility Roadmap and the Master Plan are
mutually reinforcing; for example, the Master Plan
includes the following recommendations, with
corresponding Roadmap strategies shown in bold:
● Master Plan -Immediate Priority (before 2020): Create a multi-modal transportation system on
the Island. Embrace multiple vendors for providing bicycle, vanpool, transit and other multi modal
services.
Roadmap -FS2: Create a Mobility Innovation Partnership (MIP) program to identify, test, and
evaluate mobility pilot projects.
Roadmap -FS3: Create opportunities for transit riders to conveniently connect with shared mobility
services through multi-modal integration platforms.
● Master Plan -Strategy: Add bikeshare in Waimea and Hilo, and contract for this service with
PATH or another non-profit.
Roadmap – TS1: Continue bikeshare expansion with an emphasis on populations who are currently
unserved or unable to use the system
● Master Plan -Strategy: Subsidize a vanpool program.
Roadmap – TS3: Build on early successes in carpooling and vanpooling to expand the availability
of shared rides for longer trips.
● Master Plan -Strategy: Continue the Shared Taxi Program and expand it to other parts of the
Island. Ensure a percentage of taxis are accessible by offering an incentive.
Page 22 of 43
Roadmap -TS7: Pursue innovative partnerships to expand and improve mobility for seniors and
people with disabilities.
● Master Plan -Strategy: Help achieve clean energy goals through alternative fuel bus and
infrastructure purchases, doing so in a fiscally responsible manner.
Roadmap -FS8: Incorporate ZEVs into existing shared mobility services, and ensure new County-
supported services are zero-emission.
2.6.3 Downtown Hilo Multimodal Master Plan
The Downtown Hilo Multimodal Master Plan was adopted by the County in April 2018 to re-envision the
transportation environment of downtown Hilo. The Plan focuses on policies and actions for advancing
“complete streets” that accommodate a variety of transportation modes, with specific recommendations on
design infrastructure and streetscapes for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit vehicles, and vehicle parking. The
Roadmap reinforces the Downtown Hilo Multimodal Master Plan in Targeted Strategy 9: Develop “quick-
build” infrastructure and right-of-way improvements that improve safety and efficiency for shared mobility.
2.6.4 Federal-Aid Highways 2035 Transportation Plan
Hawai‘i County is not part of a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), the traditional regional agency
format for developing regional transportation plans and distributing federal transportation funding to local
jurisdictions. Instead, the State of Hawai‘i develops a statewide plan (the Federal-Aid Highways 2035
Transportation Plan) and acts as a pass-through for federal transit funds to the County. The Highways 2035
plan is focused exclusively on state highways, and largely does not address strategies that can contribute
to building out a multimodal system with shared mobility options.
Page 23 of 43
3. Mobility Goals and Strategies
This section of the Shared Mobility Roadmap presents a set of strategies intended to move Hawai‘i Island
toward the following overarching goals:
• Enhance access to affordable and reliable mobility options for County residents and visitors.
• Reduce transportation-related GHG emissions by shifting travel to more efficient modes and cleaner
vehicles.
• Build capacity and create stakeholder buy-in around new mobility approaches.
Strategies are organized into nine “foundational strategies” and nine “targeted strategies.” Foundational
strategies are cross-cutting approaches that are essential conditions for the success of any shared mobility
initiative. Targeted strategies are more specific to the types of trips described in Section 2 (commute, visitor,
town center, and social service) or to types of shared mobility (e.g. carsharing, vanpooling, or bikesharing).
Taken together, implementation of the strategies presented here would yield significant benefits in terms of
travel demand and associated GHG emissions. With aggressive action over the next 5-7 years, it is
estimated that these strategies can reduce annual VMT on the Island by more than 100 million miles and cut
annual GHG emissions by approximately 39,000 metric tons, similar to taking around 8,300 vehicles off the
road.13
Foundational Strategies
FS1. Mobility Management Framework
Build internal capacity to guide mobility policy and implementation through a Mobility
Management Framework and dedicated staff.
County administrative structures should reflect the dynamic, multi-faceted nature of the transportation system
that is envisioned for the Island. To realize a future in which many clean mobility options are provided with
many public, private, and community-based partners, the County should build upon its role as a convener
and facilitator. Existing functions will always be necessary—the Planning Department sets policy and
undertakes transportation planning, Public Works builds and maintains assets, and MTA operates services—
but an additional function of “mobility management” is needed, in which a County office catalyzes and
coordinates activities across many new services and stakeholders. The County should establish a mobility
manager position (or section) to satisfy this need, supported at least in part by cost savings associated with
both administrative efficiencies and more efficient, cleaner fleets.
Key Approaches:
● Mobility Management Framework. A new mobility manager role would be responsible for
advancing a collaborative framework for implementing Roadmap strategies through piloting,
scaling, and integrating transportation solutions. Elements of a mobility management framework,
detailed in the Foundational Strategies below, would include:
○ Pilots and Partnerships (FS2)
○ Scaling and Integration (FS3)
○ Stakeholder Engagement (FS4)
13 Based on the High Penetration scenario detailed in Appendix A.
Page 24 of 43
○ Community Outreach (FS5)
○ Funding (FS6)
● Inter-Departmental Coordination. The mobility manager would be responsible for advancing the
mobility management framework and pursuing many of the strategies contained in this Roadmap.
In addition, the role would be responsible for coordinating shared mobility activities with inter-
related efforts around land use, housing, infrastructure, transit services, clean energy, and climate
planning. Key efforts underpinning shared mobility, detailed in additional Foundational Strategies
below, include:
○ Reliable Transit (FS7)
○ Clean Fleets (FS8)
○ Urban Form (FS9)
FS2. Pilots and Partnerships
Create a Mobility Innovation Partnership (MIP) program to identify, test, and evaluate
mobility pilot projects.
The County is well positioned to facilitate partnerships with private sector mobility providers to test innovative
models of shared and zero emission mobility on the Island. The County can serve as a convener and facilitator
of projects by:
● Identifying interested mobility operators and other vendors for potential shared use of mobility
devices/equipment, fueling, and charging infrastructure.
● Engaging additional partners such as philanthropic foundations, startup incubators, and research
institutions.
● Identifying internal and external resources to contribute.
● Utilize HRS 36-42 to enter into transportation service performance savings contract to finance
procurement of vehicles, vehicle fleets (including mass transit), fueling, and charging infrastructure.
Public-private partnerships can harness the capabilities and flexibility of emerging companies while
mitigating risks associated with traditional County contracts. By piloting promising solutions, the County can
Page 25 of 43
experiment on a limited-term basis and distill lessons learned that can inform larger investments over the
long-term.
Key Approaches:
● Advance Mobility through innovative financing and procurement approaches, including
transportation services performance savings contracts. The MIP program could deploy a structured
procurement approach utilizing HRS103d Request for Proposal to identify potential partners for
further discussion, or a less structured mechanism such as allowing for unsolicited proposals that may
offer alternatives that advance the quality and economics of mobility.
● County Incentives. To minimize outside funding requirements while sharing risk with partners, the
program could offer incentives to mobility operators, such as streamlined applications for operating
certificates; expedited, reduced-cost permitting for infrastructure; or free parking at metered spots.
● Pilot Evaluation. The program should include an evaluation component to understand how pilots
have performed. This evaluation may include metrics around community transportation access,
changes in travel behavior, and/or cost-benefit analysis to understand return on investment in both
financial and GHG terms. Evaluation efforts may be aided by partnerships with universities or other
research institutions.
● Event-based Approaches. The County should test mobility management and shared mobility
approaches during large events like the Merrie Monarch Festival. For example, event-goers could
try out an on-demand shuttle service powered by neighborhood electric vehicles, or test drive shared
fuel cell electric vehicles. Special bikeshare promotions could be tied in with the annual Ironman
World Championship. Other tactics and demonstration opportunities include Car Free Days or
events where sections of roadway are closed down to automobiles and reserved for pedestrians
and cyclists.
The Merrie Monarch Festival Parade
Page 26 of 43
FS3. Scaling and Integration
Create opportunities for transit riders to conveniently connect with shared mobility
services through multi-modal integration platforms.
As new mobility services are tested and evaluated, some will demonstrate potential for long-term
sustainability and scaling. These services can reinforce one another as an integrated network and yield
mobility outcomes greater than the sum of its parts. Integrating various elements of the transportation system
(such as payment, reservations, and trip planning) across multiple modes can make the network more
convenient and reliable for riders, encouraging changes in behavior towards a less auto-centric and more
multi-modal lifestyle.
Key Approaches:
● Payment Platforms. Payment processes can be a barrier to navigating trips across multiple modes.
Currently, residents must carry cash to access transit and maintain multiple accounts and apps to
access different mobility services. Shared Taxi Program coupons can only be purchased in-person
in Hilo or ordered with a check by mail, and employer bus pass programs for Kohala resort workers
were discontinued due to issues with cash handling. An advanced payment system that supports
transactions across transit, bikeshare, and the shared taxi program would facilitate usage of all
three services. Such a system would rely on smart card technology such as the HOLO card developed
in Honolulu, which MTA may be able to leverage.14 Short of this, MTA should develop online
payment systems and stored value cards that would allow employers and residents around the Island
to pay for transit services without the risks associated with cash handling or the inconveniences of in-
person payment.
● Trip Planning. The Transportation Master Plan recommends the development of a mobile
application that would provide real-time transit service information to riders. This transit-focused
app should be developed in a way that can accommodate further development of multi-modal trip
planning features, allowing riders to identify the best options for completing trips involving other
shared modes. Such an app would be especially useful for connecting to first/last-mile options in
the Island’s town centers, including shared bikes, cars, and TNC rides.
FS4. Stakeholder Engagement
Engage diverse stakeholders in shared mobility planning and implementation.
The County has taken a stakeholder-driven approach to recent planning efforts associated with
transportation master plans, the new General Plan, and the Shared Mobility Roadmap. This approach should
be augmented with ongoing stakeholder engagement around implementation of the Roadmap.
Key Approaches:
● County Inter-Departmental Mobility Team. Staff from multiple County departments—including
R&D, Planning, Mass Transit, and the Mayor’s Office--guided development of the Roadmap as a
“Core Planning Team.” Such a team should continue to meet regularly to coordinate on Roadmap
implementation.
● Transportation Hui. The Transportation Hui process convened by County R&D has been creating
alignment among a broader set of public, private, and non-profit stakeholders around the Island’s
transportation goals. This format provides a venue for input on Roadmap implementation and could
continue to meet on a quarterly basis to review progress and discuss emerging issues. In this case,
14 Transportation Master Plan, p.92.
Page 27 of 43
the Hui should be expanded to include stakeholders who participated in the Roadmap workshop,
including representatives from the tourism industry, social services providers, and other major
employers.
● Working Groups. While quarterly Hui meetings provide an outlet for high-level discussion, focused
stakeholder conversations on specific Roadmap strategies will be needed to achieve results.
Working Groups should be formed (or leveraged where there are existing forums such as the
Mayor’s Active Living Council) as needed, to tackle specific sets of strategies such as transportation
electrification, employer programs, and tourism/visitor transportation.
FS5. Community Outreach
Develop a sustained community outreach campaign that builds understanding and
support for transportation options.
Community involvement in transportation decision-making is a critical component of social equity, particularly
in places where transportation access is unevenly distributed between groups such as Hawai‘i County.
Effective outreach also helps to ensure that communities need, are aware of, and ultimately use new services.
While dialogue on transportation has been active among key organizations and stakeholders, community
residents and neighborhoods have sometimes been less engaged. A comprehensive community outreach
effort could support the County’s goals by:
● Generating insights about community mobility needs and preferences to better inform programs and
investments.
● Building understanding in communities about mobility options, and how they can contribute to both
household goals and big-picture goals like climate action.
● Creating channels for promoting new mobility services and programs as they arise, including to
populations who are traditionally harder to reach.
Key Approaches:
● Outreach Partnerships. Support community organizations that have the relationships and influence
to convene and lead outreach.
● Informal Networks. With a highly dispersed and hard-working population, there is only a limited
set of formal community-based organizations that represent and connect to neighborhood residents.
To engage hard-to-reach populations, outreach efforts may engage informal groups and networks,
including churches or other faith-based groups or school-related associations.
● Hawaiʻi Island Framing. Tailoring messaging to the concerns and goals of local residents will be
important in getting people engaged. Framing should address prevalent attitudes identified by
stakeholders, including strong support for climate action; some resistance to change and aversion to
risk; and vehicles as a symbol of independence and capability among residents. Shared mobility
services should be framed as additional “clean transportation options” that support independence
and access to family/social networks, jobs, and other opportunities.
FS6. Funding
Optimize existing County revenue allocations and pursue additional new sources of
funding.
Substantial resources will be required to transition the Island’s current transportation system—largely based
on personally owned, internal combustion cars and trucks--to a clean, multimodal network of transportation
Page 28 of 43
options. The County has taken steps to ensuring a significant source of long-term revenue from the GET
surcharge, and can leverage this resource base to attract additional sources of funding to implementation
of the Roadmap and related transportation plans.
Key Approaches:
● GET Surcharge. Upon increasing the County GET surcharge from 0.25% to 0.5%, revenue
projections from the surcharge increased from $25M annually to around $50M. The 2018 Transit
and Multimodal Transportation Master Plan offered recommendations on capital investments and
operational improvements relying on the smaller figure, and plans should be updated to incorporate
new revenue assumptions, with an additional focus on mobility management and multimodal
strategies beyond the bus fleet and roadway network. In addition, GET surcharge funds can be used
to reduce a traditional barrier to accessing federal funds, which has been a lack of local matching
resources; GET surcharge monies can provide match for the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
programs described below, for example.
● FTA Complete Trip Deployment. This forthcoming solicitation will make up to $40 million available
to enable communities to showcase innovative business partnerships, technologies, and practices that
promote independent mobility for all. “Complete Trip” means that a user can get from point A to
point B seamlessly, regardless of the number of modes, transfers, and connections.
● FTA Mobility for All. This program seeks to improve mobility options and access to community
services for older adults, individuals with disabilities, and people with low incomes. The $3.5 million
initiative will fund projects that enhance transportation connections to jobs, education, and health
services.
● ZEV Fleet Performance Contracting. The State of Hawai‘i passed HRS 36-42 in early 2019 with
active engagement from the County. HRS 36-42 expands the definition of “energy performance
contract” to enable inclusion of transportation fleets. Energy performance contracts can now allow
fleet managers to finance upfront capital costs—including purchase of ZEV, charging and fueling
infrastructure, and associated renewable energy generation for powering chargers—using
projected energy cost savings as collateral for the lender.
● Bus Fleet -Volkswagen (VW) Settlement Funds and the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA).
In January 2019, the State of Hawai‘i submitted a Beneficiary Mitigation Plan to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to claim its share of funding under the VW settlement
agreement. The Plan allocates $6.9M to zero emission bus purchases, part of which will help to meet
non-federal match requirements for accessing federal DERA funding. The County should work with
the State Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism’s (DBEDT) Hawai‘i State
Energy Office (HSEO) to direct VW settlement and DERA funding to MTA zero emission bus
procurement.
● Bus Fleet -FTA. FTA’s Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities program (49 U.S.C. 5339) provides funding
for bus procurement. The program has three components, including one discretionary fund for clean
bus purchases, the Low or No Emissions Bus Discretionary Program or Low-No program.
● Philanthropic Foundations. Philanthropy is increasingly recognizing the importance of
transportation access to long-held goals around sustainability and social equity. Continued
partnerships around Ulupono Initiative priorities such as transportation demand management (TDM)
could reinforce Roadmap implementation, and the County should continue to scan for grant programs
like the AARP Community Challenge, which supports mobility programs for aging populations.
Page 29 of 43
FS7. Reliable Transit
Restore and expand reliable mainline bus service.
Reliable public transit service is the backbone of an efficient transportation system. Shared mobility services
work to extend and supplement public transit, particularly in the times and places when fixed-route transit
is harder to run productively, but they cannot replace it. Restoring the reliability and building the frequency
of the County’s public bus service is a core step toward making the other transportation investments outlined
in the Roadmap. Despite the recent advancements in inexpensive GPS, routing, and payment that have
helped shared mobility take off, the fundamentals driving productive public transit have not changed:
frequency and reliability remain the key drivers of ridership and must remain central to the County’s mobility
approach.
The following approaches are described in detail in the County’s Transportation Master Plan.
Key Approaches:
● Rebuild the transit bus fleet.
● Improve customer information including public schedules and route identification.
● Expand services and routes using a hub and spoke model paired with flex and zone-based models
in rural areas.
● Develop transit hubs and improve park-and-ride facilities and bus stops.
FS8. Clean Fleets
Incorporate ZEVs into existing shared mobility services, and ensure new County-
supported services are zero-emission.
Moving transportation away from reliance on fossil fuels and into a zero emission vehicle future is critical to
reaching climate mitigation goals. Electrification of shared mobility services can contribute to more rapid
uptake of ZEVs, more miles travelled in shared ZEVs compared with personal vehicles, and increased
consumer acceptance and personal ZEV purchases after experiencing ZEVs in a shared mobility setting. In
addition, this strategy supports the County’s goal to transition the County fleet to ZEVs by 2035.
Key Approaches:
● ZEV Fleets. The County’s light-duty and MTA bus fleets are prime candidates for ZEV replacement.
Battery-electric vehicles are reaching a tipping point in range and affordability and are poised to
become the industry standard over the next ten years. As long as range for light-duty vehicles is a
concern, plug-in hybrid vehicles such as those already being incorporated into the County fleet offer
a bridge. New, high-quality electric buses properly calibrated to the Island’s topography should be
capable of serving many MTA routes, despite past challenges with older electric buses delivered to
the County. As vehicle manufacturers and policymakers embrace battery-electric vehicles, it is
important that the County invest in the services and infrastructure necessary to seize the opportunity.
At the same time, hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles offer promising benefits in terms of additional
range and flexibility. Resources permitting, the County may wish to pursue pilots around both battery
electric and fuel cell vehicles to compare performance, cost-benefit, and user experience.
● EV Charging Infrastructure. With the increasing availability of affordable, longer-range battery
electric vehicles, charging infrastructure is primed for greater utilization. The County should work
with HELCO to advocate for DC fast charge infrastructure investments that would enable mid-trip
charging around the Island by long-distance commuters, touring visitors, and TNC drivers. In addition,
DC fast charge equipment and associated service upgrades (480 volt, three-phase power) will be
Page 30 of 43
needed at the MTA bus yard if the agency continues to pursue electric bus acquisitions. In addition
to DC fast charge stations, slower Level 2 equipment may be helpful where shared vehicles are
charged overnight and travel shorter distances, such as carshare vehicles.
● Hydrogen Fuel. Hydrogen for fuel cell electric vehicles can be produced in a variety of ways, with
varying degrees of carbon-intensity and other environmental impacts. If the County is interested in
producing hydrogen fuel locally, pilot projects should be focused on local and clean production
techniques. These may include hydrogen production from the methane-rich gas captured at West
Hawai‘i Sanitary Landfill, or isolating hydrogen from water through electrolysis, an energy-intensive
process that would ideally be powered by renewable energy. If the County cannot develop a local,
clean source for hydrogen, fuel cell vehicle fleets should be avoided as they would likely require
regular deliveries of dirtier imported gas.
FS9. Urban Form
Pursue housing, land use, and urban design approaches that increase mobility options
for residents.
Land use patterns are entrenched and slow to change, especially with the cost and limited pace of new
construction. However, as new construction and redevelopment does take place, it should create housing for
families at all income levels, and make environments that let residents take care of their daily needs largely
by walking, biking, riding transit, or otherwise getting around without having to get into a car.
Key Approaches:
● Context-sensitive density and design. Evaluate opportunities to zone for higher densities in
appropriate neighborhood centers. Evaluate opportunities to remove other regulatory barriers to
developing housing, such as parking minimums or setback requirements. Build complete streets like
those outlined in the Downtown Hilo Multimodal Master Plan.
● Mixed-income housing. Encourage incorporation of a variety of affordable home choices like
duplexes and triplexes into new developments through inclusionary zoning.
● New affordable housing projects. Partner with local builders and contractors, community
development organizations, and other institutions to develop housing for lower-income renters on
underutilized County land.
Page 31 of 43
Targeted Strategies
TS1. Bikesharing in Town Centers
Continue bikeshare expansion with an emphasis on populations who are currently
unserved or unable to use the system.
Bikesharing can be a valuable asset in denser areas of the Island such as Kailua Kona, Hilo, and Waimea.
Opportunities for expanding the existing dock-based system remain, especially where electric assist bicycles
(e-bikes) can be deployed to enable riders to navigate longer trips or more challenging terrain. Centrally-
located, high-traffic bus stops in the town centers remain an attractive option for siting new bikeshare docking
stations to facilitate first/last-mile connections to the Hele-On bus system.
While the primary goal should be to continue building out the bikeshare system in order to reinforce its value
as a component of the public transportation system, bikeshare should be made available to the broadest
user base possible. At its most basic, this means creating more corridors for safe biking through the
construction of protected bike infrastructure. The program should also offer solutions for people who need
mobility but cannot afford the full priced program. Cities across the US have piloted bikeshare equity
programs that serve as models for a program on the island. While the county has thus far invested in a dock-
based system, it might explore dockless bikes as a way to move toward a more flexible hybrid system that
may offer lower capital costs.
To further broaden bikeshare’s appeal and utility for different populations, the county should explore
devices beyond standard bicycle designs, including electric or pedal-assist bikes and trikes and adaptive
models for people who can’t use upright pedal bikes because of a disability.
TS2. Carsharing Partnerships
Develop creative partnerships to deploy carsharing services in select locations.
Carsharing services make vehicles available for short-term rental (in intervals as short as an hour), enabling
members to borrow vehicles for long enough to make trips that require a vehicle without having to pay the
full cost of owning and operating. Commercially operated, station-based carsharing works well in higher-
density neighborhoods where many potential users can access the vehicles, but is often not financially
sustainable in lower-density areas with less utilization. However, peer-to-peer models, in which members
access the vehicles of other members (rather than commercially maintained fleet vehicles), don’t have the
same utilization requirements and can be a good option in lower-demand areas. Another way to drive
utilization of commercial fleet-based models is for public agencies to use carsharing to fill some motorpool
needs, since demand for traditional carsharing is generally lower during work hours when motorpool demand
is greatest.
While residents would benefit from having vehicles available as needed, even the more urban areas of
Kailua-Kona and Hilo may not contain enough potential users to support traditional commercial carsharing.
To drive higher utilization and financial sustainability, the County could pursue creative partnerships with
either peer-to-peer or fleet providers for shared motorpool, creating a level of utilization that could
supplement the demand from individual carshare members while lowering costs for public entities that also
use the vehicles.
Key Approaches:
● Explore shared fleet carsharing. Continue to explore opportunities to repurpose the County light-
duty vehicle fleet into carsharing service at times of low County utilization, such as weekends and
Page 32 of 43
evenings. With County support, the carshare fleet could also be transitioned to zero-emission vehicles
consistent with County climate goals.
● Look for other institutional partners to expand the user base. Explore partnerships with other
institutions such as University of Hawai‘i at Hilo, where carshare vehicles could be used by University
operations or by students living on campus.
TS3. Pooled Rides for Long Trips
Build on early successes in carpooling and vanpooling to expand the availability of
shared rides for longer trips.
The County of Hawai‘i already has a fairly high rate of carpooling, with some 17% of commuters sharing
rides15, slightly more than the State of Hawai‘i and almost double the rate of the US as a whole. This number
appears to be growing. In addition to informal carpools, more than 20 commuter vanpools, provided through
Enterprise, already serve commutes to a number of large employers on the island. The County should build
on this thriving usage of shared commutes and work with employers to encourage even greater uptake.
While the difficulty of discovery and matching between riders and drivers has traditionally been a challenge
with both modes, technology-driven platforms offer new ways to match rides on the fly, enabling the creation
of casual, ad-hoc carpools that may be more appealing than traditional arrangements.
Key Approaches:
● App-based carpooling. Using many of the same technologies that underlie TNCs, some platforms
have begun offering dynamic carpool services, available on demand, that match riders with drivers
who are going in the same direction. These services are distinct from TNCs in that they’re actually
matching rides, not offering a commercial vehicle-for-hire service. The new wave of apps offers
more flexible and appealing versions of carpooling that users can decide day by day whether to
participate or not, rather than being locked into a daily ride with the same group of people. The
platforms may offer additional features like geofencing, linking to specific company email domains,
and guaranteed ride home that make them useful for application by employers that want to provide
services for their employees or limit driving to their facilities.
● Commuter vanpools. For workers with fairly predictable work schedules and locations, vanpooling
can be a cost-effective way to combine resources for work trips. Vanpools are one of the single
most effective ways to reduce commute-related VMT compared to solo driving, as they combine as
many as 12 passenger trips in a single vehicle trip every day. Vanpool programs should be part of
the menu of commute options offered in a county-wide TDM approach.
TS4. Employer-led Initiatives
Launch a County-led TDM program and collaborate with employer-led programs.
The County should position itself as the lead implementer and provide the initial participant pool for an
Island-wide employer TDM program. The County should also consider the formation of a transportation
management association (TMA) to formalize these efforts and give them a permanent home.
Employer TDM programs are employer-sponsored efforts to reduce SOV trips to and from the workplace.
Programs generally contain some combination of three main approaches to reduce the number of car trips
and related demand for parking and road capacity, all of which are addressed elsewhere in the Roadmap:
15 ACS 2018 1-year estimates, Table B08006.
Page 33 of 43
1. Encouraging employees to shift travel to modes other than solo driving.
2. Increasing vehicle occupancy rates through carpooling, vanpooling, and other ridesharing approaches.
3. Reducing the number of work trips altogether or shifting them to non-peak times through telecommuting
or flexible schedules.
Programs are often supported and administered through a TMA, a non-profit organization dedicated to
providing TDM solutions over a district or region. While this is not essential, it does provide the mechanism
for larger TDM efforts that span a number of employers in a geographic area, and the TMA is a common
mechanism for focusing this work. TMAs may be supported by a variety of revenue sources, including business
improvement districts, federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program funds, or other
monies, and are most effective when bolstered by state or local trip reduction ordinances, which are often
directed at large employers or property developers.
While the organizational framework and common practices for TDM have been in place for decades, the
US EPA has maintained a set of standards under the Commuter Choice Leadership Initiative since 2001.
According to the program, fundamental elements of employer plans include:16
● Emergency ride home services.
● Transit pass and vanpool/carpool subsidies.
● Parking cash-out programs.
● Telecommuting options.
Complementary TDM strategies can also include:
● Rideshare matching services for carpools and/or vanpools.
● Preferential parking for carpools and/or vanpools.
● First-/last-mile shuttle service.
● Provision of bike lockers, showers, or changing facilities to support bicycle commuters.
● Rewards, incentives, and recognition programs that encourage shared trips.
● Flexible/compressed work schedules.
Key Approaches:
● Establish the viability of TDM programs through the participation of County staff. Center
program recruitment activities on County employees first, and build out from there to other
organizations. Similarly, the County could be the charter member and initial organizational home of
a transportation management association.
● Outreach, coordination, and TDM services for employers. Make sure HR managers and new
employees have access to resources for easing commutes. Beyond outreach and informational
resources, the County could offer smaller organizations, who have access to fewer resources and a
smaller network of users, with access to broader-based ride-matching services based on employee
commute origins.
● Consider a commute trip reduction platform to centralize TDM functions. Enterprise commute trip
reduction (ECTR) software platforms have emerged in recent years as a way to support TDM efforts.
Most ECTR platforms operate on a subscription basis, hosted in the cloud by the vendor, and
accessed by both users and administrators via web interface. ECTRs improve on sporadic
transportation surveys and disconnected payroll-based commute benefit programs by providing a
unified system that allows employers to manage resources, benefits, and incentives, and employees
to plan and log multimodal commutes. The tools offer real-time analytics to both employees and
transportation coordinators, tracking commute features such as the mode of transportation, parking
16 https://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm9.htm
Page 34 of 43
usage, and miles traveled, and translating these into emissions, dollar, or caloric savings from mode
shifts, while providing employers with an organization-wide picture of utilization and progress.
● Encourage telecommuting for companies and employees whose work allows it. A growing
number of large public agencies, including many federal agencies, have established policies to allow
and encourage remote work, while reducing possible downsides. In Hawai‘i County, public agencies
and other large employers could follow suit, including the establishment of shared satellite offices
to provide needed infrastructure for telecommuters while reducing cross-island trips.
TS5. Mobility Options for Tourism
Develop mobility options to provide more flexibility to visitors in meeting different types
of travel needs.
Presently, visitor mobility needs are satisfied in large part through the use of rental cars, even though many
trips don’t require personal vehicles. This is a highly inefficient system that spends fuel, VMT, and road space
on the least efficient mode of passenger transportation, requires excessive land for the storage of idle
vehicles around resorts and transportation hubs, and contributes to congestion experienced by visitors and
residents alike.
By providing shuttles and other pooled
mobility options between airports/ports and
resort areas and hotels, and building out or
enhancing shared mobility options like
micromobility, carsharing and car rental,
and TNCs/taxis at these destinations, more
trips could take place on the most
appropriate (and least energy-intensive and
congesting) modes for their length or
distance, while still allowing visitors to access
vehicles for longer trips that will continue to
require a car.
Key Approaches:
● Expand shuttles to resorts. The same
fleet of vehicles could both support visitor trips from ports/airports to resort areas and employee
trips from park-and-ride areas or transit connections. While the cost of running and maintaining
shuttles may be a challenge for an individual property, this could be addressed through more
communication among resorts and other tourism industry stakeholders on the benefits of shared
shuttles, along with partnership with an entity that could provide the mechanism and opportunity for
cost sharing, such as the Kohala Coast Resort Association. This could follow the example of many
business improvement districts, campuses, or other commercial consortiums elsewhere in the country
which collaborate to provide mobility for employees and customers.
● Improve shared mobility near passenger terminals. Concentrate and improve shared mobility
infrastructure around ports, including access to tour shuttles, rental cars, bikeshare, safe
streets/sidewalks, and clear and consistent signage and wayfinding.
● Reduce VMT and parking demand by placing carsharing and rental services at resorts. Build car
rental or carshare opportunities at hotels and resorts for day trips, rather than visitors renting cars
at the airport for stretches of several days in which the vehicle will largely sit idle. Through policy
Kohala Coast resorts are a common destination for both
commuting employees and visitors
Page 35 of 43
supports, parking policy, and fee structures, encourage providers to offer more competitive rates at
resorts relative to the airport sites.
● Create micromobility options. For the shortest trips within or around resorts, the most space-and
energy-efficient option is to make available fleets of shared scooters, bikes, and e-bikes (including
adaptive models for people with mobility limitations). Depending on the business model, this could
be largely supported through user fees, without public cost beyond the administration of a permit
program. For dockless bikes and scooters, the County should coordinate parking and location
preferences with the resorts and other local stakeholders, to ensure safety, maximize availability
and utilization, and minimize obstruction of the public way. Building the share of trips on these modes
would require a commitment to creating safe paths and biking infrastructure in resort areas.
● Explore outside-the-box solutions. Explore possibilities to fund island mobility projects and
capitalize on tourism dollars by showcasing alternative & innovative mobility options, even if not
everyday practice. Examples include “bicycle bars” oriented towards bicycle traffic; zip line routes
between visitor hot spots; or a tourist-only hitchhiker phone app.
TS6. Visitor Education
Communicate the availability of multimodal transportation options to visitors by way of
the hospitality industry, and work with the industry to help educate.
Even as more multimodal mobility services are made available to visitors, potential users need to be made
aware of the options through a concerted education and communications campaign on the part of the
hospitality industry, as well as signage, wayfinding, and orientation materials to support discovery and
utilization.
Key Approaches:
● Communicate with visitors on their way to the island through cruise ship operators and airlines.
● Place wayfinding signage and information kiosks at the ports and airports. Shuttles and shared
options should be as easy to find and access as rental cars and TNCs/taxis.
● Coordinate with the Hawai‘i Visitors and Convention Bureau. The HVCB communicates directly
with tour operators and others who make travel decisions for larger groups of visitors. They can
place communications materials and direct those overseeing large groups of visitors to the best ways
to get around Hawaiʻi Island.
TS7. Services for Vulnerable Populations
Pursue innovative partnerships to expand and improve mobility for seniors and people
with disabilities.
Funding responsibility for mobility services for older adults, people with disabilities, and other groups of
riders requiring services beyond mainline transit are shared between MTA and the Hawai‘i County Economic
Opportunity Council (HCEOC).
Around the country, public agencies and private mobility providers have collaborated on improving
paratransit and social services transportation using new technologies and emerging business models. These
range from subsidized TNC-based programs for ambulatory riders that resemble traditional taxi-scrip
reimbursement programs, to contracted provision of wheelchair-accessible rides in larger vehicles for curb-
to-curb trips dispatched on demand (often under a broader microtransit service). Many of these approaches
Page 36 of 43
aim to reduce costs by making excess capacity on the services available to the general public at a full fare,
although thus far, few appear to have reduced costs in practice. The outcomes are generally more about
improving convenience and what users experience at roughly the same total cost to public agencies. A number
of these programs could help increase mobility and improve the rider experience of social service
transportation users on Hawaiʻi Island.
Key Approaches:
● Expand Shared Ride Taxi Program through TNC Partnerships. The MTA Shared Ride Taxi
Program has been a popular resource for elderly and disabled populations who have limited
mobility but who don’t require a wheelchair lift. Pending the results of an audit investigating abuse
of the program by non-target populations, the program should be expanded with new controls in
place to discourage abuse of the system. Expansion of the program could be aided by partnerships
with TNCs, who may be more capable of ensuring that subsidies are only used by qualified riders
through app-based account management. The major TNCs also have “concierge” dashboard
available that allow third-party booking, tracking, and payment of rides, enabling caregivers or
social service providers to book trips on behalf of clients who don’t use a mobile phone.
● Incentivize the acquisition of WAVs and fold existing WAV providers into new programs. As the
prior approach noted, the lack of availability of WAVs through basic TNC platforms limit their
usefulness for riders who need a ramp-or lift-equipped vehicle. To ensure the availability of services
for all riders, regardless of ability, some jurisdictions have experimented with incentivizing TNCs to
make WAVs available directly on their platforms.17 More commonly, agencies bring existing WAV
providers under the umbrella of a program and use them to fulfill rides requiring a WAV, with
customers paying the same fare regardless of vehicle.
● Ensure that any new microtransit service uses WAVs. As the County considers new flexible, on-
demand services for the general public, they should be scoped from the beginning to use WAV.
Agencies that have deployed microtransit services often find that a disproportionate part of their
ridership comes from wheelchair users, who previously would have used ADA paratransit (or not
made a trip at all). By making general public flex services available to all users from the start,
agencies can divert trips from costlier, and less convenient, traditional ADA paratransit services.
● Consider volunteer transportation services for some social service rides. Especially in an area as
large as Hawaiʻi Island, TNCs and taxis are not going to be a viable solution for all trips, as these
market-oriented services tend to stay close to population centers where they are likely to find the
greatest density of riders. As areas without taxi/TNC service also tend to be those without frequent
transit, volunteer transportation services can provide a safety net that can supplement publicly
provided services. Typically, volunteer drivers are reimbursed at the prevailing IRS mileage rate,
with those costs coming directly from users or from transportation funds under a program such as
Medicaid. A VTO is generally administered through a social services or mobility management
agency, which qualifies riders, recruit drivers, handles trip matching and dispatch (often through an
online interface) and handles reimbursement and other administrative tasks.
17 https://learn.sharedusemobilitycenter.org/overview/massdot-and-mbta-partner-with-uber-and-lyft-for-accessible-
rides-boston-ma-2019/
Page 37 of 43
TS8. Improve Student Mobility
Address student mobility challenges and school trips’ ripple effect throughout Hawaiʻi
Island’s transportation system.
Many students receive rides from parents or relatives in SOV to get to campus, increasing congestion on
roads as many school start times coincide with regular commute hours. Unfortunately, school buses only service
students that live within 1.5 mile of each respective campus and their service hours are limited to the
beginning and end of school hours. Similarly, public transportation is infrequent and services a very limited
geographic region, making transit inaccessible to much of the student population. Safety concerns for students
and transit vehicles have also risen. Because of lack of monitoring personnel, some students opt to damage
transit property, posing a threat to the vehicles and themselves. The lack of safety on transit, inaccessible
buses, and infrequent services causes many students to regrettably depend on private vehicles to commute
to campuses.
To lessen congestion and support student outcomes, the County should consider expanding dependable
student mobility options. The County may face initial difficulties providing these alternatives given they lack
of system for monitoring student transportation data. However, emphasizing empirically-based approaches
to solutions may teach lessons that may improve student mobility and the transportation network as a whole.
Key Approaches:
● Track student travel data separately from general transit to better understand transportation costs
and travel behavior to make the best decisions accordingly. The County could administer surveys
and questionnaires to inquire on how students get to campus and then make decisions on how to best
support student travels.
● Leverage technology to improve safety and the rider experience. Combine student identification
cards with ridership passes to better monitor who boards transit vehicles and improve the safety of
students and vehicles. Cameras could also be installed on transit vehicles to remotely monitor the
activity and well-being of students on transit property. App-based platforms or frequent text
services that notify students about their ride may also be implemented to avoid unnecessary student
waiting and improve transportation safety and the rider experience.
● Create multiple designated pick-up and drop-off zones along the school route to incentivize
students to use school bus services. Rather than having geographical service areas with designated
stops, school buses should develop pickup zones—similar to park-and-rides—with multiple buses to
diminish the dependency on private vehicles. These designated pick-up zones decrease wait times
because each bus needs not travel to furthest pick-up zone.
● Offer discounted bus passes for students. Discounted transit passes encourage students and their
families to use transit rather than driving to get to campus.
● Offer bikeshare systems that connect to pick-up and drop-off zones and the campus. Bikeshare
systems could be leveraged by the County to provide students opportunities to get to designated
pick-up zones or campus. In this manner, students need not rely on private vehicles to get to-and-
from campuses during instances when they stay extended hours.
Page 38 of 43
TS9. Infrastructure for Shared Mobility
Develop “quick-build” infrastructure and right-of-way improvements that improve safety
and efficiency for shared mobility.
Relatively inexpensive improvements to public land and reconfigurations of the right-of-way can help
organize transit and shared mobility services and concentrate them where demand is greatest, make them
easier for users (especially visitors) to find and access, and market them to the public as a constellation of
known, reliable, and safe ways to make trips. As the County and others consider adding shuttles to the visitor
mobility mix, these more efficient modes, along with public transit, should receive priority at locations and
times when there’s competition for scarce right of way or curb space. As a general rule, the greater the
public benefit of a transportation service (in terms, for instance, of passenger capacity, shared status, EV
usage, whether it’s public or private, and who it is moving), the greater priority it should receive—that is, the
easier it should be for users to access--while services whose benefits are available to relatively fewer people
should be lower priority.
Key Approaches:
● Designate and prioritize pickup zones/curb space. This should take place especially at ports and
airports, hotels and resorts, and in town centers. Since much of the demand for many mobility
services, particularly TNCs and taxis, is tied to spikes in demand from arrivals and departures at
the ports and airports, designating clear locations for pick-up/drop-off is essential, as is
communicating them to operators so they can direct customers and drivers to the right location.
● Prioritize curb access according to services’ level of public benefit. Public transit and multi-
passenger shuttles should enjoy pride of place.
● Expand the number of convenient park and ride locations. As long-distance and cross-island bus
services are expanded, or if a shuttle system is established for resort workers as suggested
elsewhere in the Roadmap, more park and ride locations will be needed, particularly in areas or
times without good feeder bus service. In addition to the eight transit hub facilities identified for
improvements in the Multi-Modal Transportation Plan18, stakeholders and members of the
Transportation Hui identified several pieces of publicly owned land that could provide locations for
new or expanded park and ride facilities, highlighting improvements for the Ocean View park and
ride as well as a University-owned site near the mouth of Saddle Road. Key challenges to be
addressed in the expansion of park and ride locations are the security of cars parked for long
periods of time, the availability of bathrooms or other facilities for riders arriving very early or late
at night, and the costs of land acquisition or improvement for locations without existing parking.
● Establish a chain of mobility hubs to concentrate and organize connecting shared mobility
services. The connection points between transit routes in town centers, as well as new and existing
park and rides, are logical locations for establishing a series of mobility hubs, where carshare
vehicles and EV charging, bikeshare docks, micromobility parking, and shuttle/TNC/taxi pickup
zones should be located. Beyond mobility assets, these locations can also include package delivery
lockers, small vendors, information kiosks, seating, and other placemaking elements.
18 The Plan identifies new or upgraded facilities in Pahoa, Waimea, Mo’oheau Bus Terminal, the Ocean View lot,
Honoka’a, Prince Kūhiō Plaza, Kona, and Kea’au.
Page 39 of 43
4. Conclusion and Next Steps
The Hawai‘i Island Shared Mobility Roadmap introduced foundational and targeted strategies useful to
implement shared mobility services by the County of Hawai‘i. Whether strategies be policy-based
approaches or solutions that target specific populations, the County has an opportunity to take actionable
steps in order to reduce congestion, improve the economic well-being of the area, and increase overall
sustainability.
While a comprehensive set of action items and timetables is beyond the scope of this Roadmap, the following
next steps are offered as a “2020 Game Plan” that can serve as a starting point for the County of Hawai‘i
to move forward with policy implementation:
1. Share the Roadmap with the Transportation Hui members and other stakeholders, and present the
Roadmap strategies at an upcoming Hui meeting, soliciting input on prioritization of strategies and
interest in forming Working Groups around the strategies.
2. Continue to convene the Core Planning Team to build a shared understanding of roles and
responsibilities around the strategies.
3. Establish the Mobility Manager position(s) and build out a workplan around the mobility
management framework / foundational strategies.
4. Issue a Request for Information to solicit private sector interest in pilot projects consistent with the
Roadmap’s targeted strategies.
5. Complete the feasibility assessment for carsharing using County fleet vehicles currently underway.
6. Budget for a pilot project subsidizing additional vanpools in underserved communities in partnership
with vanpool operators such as Enterprise.
7. Partner with PATH to pursue grant funding for additional bikesharing services in Waimea and
inclusion of adaptive bicycles and e-bikes.
8. Prioritize implementation of the Transportation Master Plan to make necessary investments in transit
capital and operations that form the backbone of the Island’s multi-modal system.
Page 40 of 43
Appendix 1: Shared Mode Penetration Levels
and Potential Outcomes
The table below provides broad estimates of the levels of VMT and GHG impact and public cost that
could be expected with various shared mobility modes and levels of penetration. These figures should be
taken as coarse estimates that provide a sense of the magnitude of benefit and cost of various
interventions. This section is intended as a reference to inform consideration of the Mobility Goals and
Strategies in the main body of this document. These benefits, as well as the division of responsibility for the
cost and effort of implementation, should be expected to be refined and updated as specific strategies
are pursued.
Potential Outcomes by Mode and Penetration Level
Marginal Marginal Mode / Difference in Difference in Marginal cost vs Penetration Description Annual GHG Annual VMT Current Level vs Current vs Current (mtCO2e)
Transit
Low Return to 2016 ridership 524,467 201 $1,077,000
Medium 10% increase over 2016 ridership 871,440 334 $1,790,000
High 25% increase over 2016 ridership 1,391,898 533 $2,859,000
Bikeshare
Low 10 stations/110 bikes 51,406 20 $242,000
Medium 15 stations/165 bikes 87,654 34 $412,000
High 20 stations/220 bikes 123,901 47 $583,000
Private Carshare
Low 10 cars 282,450 108 $440,000
Medium 20 cars 564,900 216 $880,000
Page 41 of 43
High 30 cars 847,350 324 $1,320,000
Vanpool
Low
Medium
High
County Fleet / C
Low
Medium
High
Scootershare
Low
Medium
High
Airport Shuttles
Low
Medium
High
25 new 15-person vanpools 1,813,766 694 $300,000
30 new 15-person vanpools 2,720,649 1,042 $360,000
40 new 15-person vanpools 4,534,414 1,736 $480,000
arshare Program
25% of light-duty fleet (7 vehicles) 317,756 122 $297,000
50% of light-duty fleet (14 Vehicles) 635,513 243 $594,000
100% of light-duty fleet (27
Vehicles) 1,271,025 487 $1,188,000
100 scooters (350 rides/day) 65,905 25 $50,000
200 scooters (700 rides/day) 131,810 50 $100,000
300 scooters (1,050 rides/day) 197,715 76 $150,000
Shuttles serving 10% of visitors to
ride RT from airport vs. renting 7,200,000 2,757 $1,027,000
Shuttles serving 20% of visitors to
ride RT from airport vs. renting 14,400,000 5,513 $2,055,000
Shuttles serving 30% of visitors to
ride RT from airport vs. renting 21,600,000 8,270 $3,082,000
Page 42 of 43
Appendix 2: Image Sources
All photographs contained in this document are either property of Shared Use Mobility Center or used under
a Creative Commons license, as noted below.
Section 1.2 – Stakeholder Engagement: Brian Holland, Shared Use Mobility Center
Section 2.3.2 – Town Centers: Wikimedia Commons User Thomas Tunsch
Section 2.3.4 – Tourism and Visitor Trips: Flickr User Dronepicr
Section 2.5.1 – County Transit: Flickr User Ian Fisher
Foundational Strategy 2 – Pilots and Partnerships: Vimeo User Oiwi TV
Targeted Strategy 5 – Mobility Options for Tourism: Wikimedia Commons User MBZ1
Page 43 of 43