HomeMy WebLinkAboutSSFM International - County of Hawaii Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan (2018)`
COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I
COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I TRANSIT AND
MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION
MASTER PLAN
Final
August 2018
Prepared for County of Hawaii Mass Transit Agency
Contract No. c.005806
Prepared by SSFM International, Inc.
with Weslin Consulting Services, Inc. and Pacific Cartography
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • Table of Contents — i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
INTRODUCTION 1
Chapter One:
1.0 HELE-ON AND THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ON HAWAI‘I ISLAND 13
Roadways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Bicycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Pedestrian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Multi-Modal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
1.3 CURRENT SITUATION FOR BUS TRANSIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
1.4 CONTRACT TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
1.5 PARATRANSIT AND OTHER SPECIAL SERVICES FOR DISABLED AND LOW INCOME . . . . . . .20
Chapter Two:
2.0 VISION, GOALS, AND STRATEGIES 23
2.1 VISION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
2.2 GOALS TO ACHIEVE THE VISION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
2.3 STRATEGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
Chapter Three:
3.0 MULTI-MODAL PROGRAM AND RECOMMENDATIONS 29
3.1 RIDE SHARING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
3.2 BICYCLE MODE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
3.6 COORDINATION WITH COUNTY ROADWAY PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
3.7 ALTERNATE FUEL FOR GROUND TRANSPORTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
3.8 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
Chapter Four:
4.0 TRANSIT SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS 37
4.1 HELE-ON CURRENT SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
Hele-On Bus Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
Demand for Transit Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVED PERFORMANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
4.2.1 Customer Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
Public Schedules and Route Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
Hele-On Website . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
Developing App Ready Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
Creating a Hele-On Transit App . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
4.2.2 Improve Customer Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
4.2.3 Schedule Adherence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
Public Schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
Upgrade Vehicle Fleet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
ii — Table of Contents • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
4.3 SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
4.3.1 New Service Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
Flex Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
Zone Paratransit Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
4.3.2 Hub and Spoke Service Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
Hilo District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
North Kohala District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57
South Kohala District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59
Kona District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60
Ka‘ū District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64
Puna District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68
Lower Puna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72
4.3.4 Summary of Fixed Route Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75
4.4 Paratransit Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76
4.4.1 Providing Accessiblity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76
4.4.2 ADA Complementary Paratransit Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77
4.4.3 Shared Ride Taxi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78
4.4.4 Flex Paratransit Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78
4.4.5 Zone Paratransit Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78
Chapter Five:
5.0 RECOMMENDED ELEMENTS FOR THE TRANSIT CAPITAL PROGRAM 83
5.1 TRANSIT APP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83
5.2 TRANSIT FLEET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83
5.2.1 Transit Fleet Size and Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83
5.2.2 Fleet Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85
5.2.3 Fleet electronics package . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85
5.3 MAINTENANCE FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85
5.3.1 Hilo Maintenance Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85
5.3.2 Second Maintenance Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86
5.4 PASSENGER FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86
5.4.1 Hubs and Transit Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88
5.4.2 Bus Stops and Shelters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .905.4.2.1 Formalizing Bus Stops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .905.4.2.2 Passenger Shelters and Benches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .905.4.2.3 Park and Ride Lots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91
5.5 FARE COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91
Chapter Six:
6.0 CAPITAL AND FINANCIAL PLANS 93
6.1 CURRENT FINANCIAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93
6.2 CURRENT CAPITAL ASSETS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93
6.3 OPERATING BUDGET AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94
6.4 SOURCES OF FUNDING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95
6.5 FARES AND FARE STRUCTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95
6.5.1 Farebox Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
6.5.2 Current Fare Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96
6.5.3 Recommendation for Fares and Fare Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96
6.5.4 National Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97
6.6 OPERATIONS FINANCIAL PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98
6.6.1 Operating Costs by Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • Table of Contents — iii
6.6.2 Operating Revenues by Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99
6.7 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND CAPITAL FINANCIAL PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100
6.8 FINANCIAL PLAN BY YEAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100
6.9 SOURCES OF FUNDING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101
6.9.1 County Funding – Highway Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101
6.9.2 GET Surcharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101
6.9.3 County Fuel Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101
6.10 ALTERNATIVE FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102
6.10.1 Impact Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102
6.10.2 Capital Leasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102
Chapter Seven:
7.0 CONCLUSION 115
7.1 IMMEDIATE PRIORITIES (2018-2020) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115
Operating Contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115
Add Additional Service in a Hub and Spoke Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115
Paratransit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115
Multi-Modal System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116
Increase Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116
7.2 NEAR TERM (2020-2025) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116
Additional MTA Staffing for 2020-2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118
7.3 MID TERM (2025-2030) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
7.4 LONG TERM (2030-2035) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118
7.5 VISION (2035-2040) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118
7.6 PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND ACCOUNTABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118
REFERENCES 121
APPENDIX AQ 125
DEMOGRAPHICS OF HAWAI‘I COUNTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125
FIFTY LARGEST EMPLOYERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126
APPENDIX B 127
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ANALYSIS FOR HAWAI‘I COUNTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127
APPENDIX C 131
PROPOSED ROUTE NUMBERING OF CURRENT AND FUTURE ROUTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131
APPENDIX D 133
HELE-ON ROUTE MAPS FOR EXISTING SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .133
APPENDIX E 147
SERVICE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND PERFORMANCE MONITORING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147
iv — Table of Contents • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure i-1. Mo‘oheau bus terminal – actively used by bike, transit and tour companies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Figure i-2. New Bus Shelter at Ane Keohokālole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Figure i-3. Hele-On Bus Sign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Figure i-4. New Transit Maintenance Facility on Hololaulima Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Figure i-5: Passengers Boarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Figure i-6. Surveyor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Figure i-7 Second Round of Public Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Figure 1-1. Federal Aid Roadway Map of Hawaii County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Figure 1-2. Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities on Hawaii Island (source Bike Plan Hawaii, 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Figure 1-3. Sidewalks on State Facilities (source: Statewide Pedestrian Master Plan, 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Figure 3-1 A. Bike Share Station in Kailua-Kona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
Figure 3-1 B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
Figure 3-1 C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
Figure 3-2: Design Recommendation for Bus Stop Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
Figure 3-3. Recomended Design Profile for Multi-modal Treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
Figure 4-1. Hele-On System Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
Figure 4-2. Honolulu TheBus Website Language Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
Figure 4-3. Transit Direction Input Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
Figure 4-4. Passenger Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
Figure 4-5. Cutaway Van Size For Shorter Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
Figure 4-7. Hilo System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
Figure 4-8. Hilo Route 101 Keaukaha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47
Figure 4-9. Hilo Route 102 Kaumana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
Figure 4-10A. Hilo Circulator, Potential Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
Figure 4-10. Hilo Route 103 Waiakea Uka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
Figure 4-11. Hilo Route 104 Mohouli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
Figure 4-12. Route 1 Hilo-Kona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
Figure 4-13. Hilo-Kona-Route Insets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53
Figure 4-13A. Conditions Along Highway 19 Intersection Hakalai and Chin Chuck Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53
Figure 4-14. Blue Line Express . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54
Figure 4-15. Route 60 Hilo-Honoka’a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
Figure 4-16. Route 70 North Kohala-South Kohala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56
Figure 4-17. Route 75 North Kohala-Waimea-Kailua Kona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57
Figure 4-18. Route 301 Waimea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58
Kona Bus Waiting Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59
Figure 4-19. Green Line - Honoka’a-Waimea-Kona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60
Figure 4-20. Kona Hub and Spoke System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61
Figure 4-21. Intra Kona Routes 201 and 204 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62
Figure 4-22. Intra Kona Routes 202 and 203 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
Figure 4-23. Ocean View Park & Ride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64
Figure 4-24. Route 90 Pahala to South Kohala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
Figure 4-25. Route 10 Ka‘ū – Volcano – Hilo and Zone Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66
Figure 4-26. Red Line Express/Route 10/Route 403 Ka‘ū – Volcano – Hilo and Zone Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67
Figure 4-27. Route 403 Fern Forest, Eden Roc and Fern Acres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69
Figure 4-28. Route 40/401/402 Pāhoa Service Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71
Figure 4-29. Route 402 Hawaiian Paradise Park, Ainaloa, Hawaiian Acres, Orchidland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72
Figure 4-30. Lower Puna East Rift Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73
Figure 4-31 Fissure 8 in Leilani Estates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73
Figure 4-32. Route 401 Hawaiian Beaches, Nanawale, Kalapana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74
Figure 5-1. Hilo Baseyard Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85
Figure 5-2. Facility Amenities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87
Figure 5-3 Basic Stop Identification Sign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • Table of Contents — v
LIST OF TABLES
Table ES-1. Forecasts and Implications for Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ES-2Table ES-3. Recommended Hubs for Hawai‘i County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ES-9Table ES-4. Financial Plan Fiscal Years 2018-2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ES-12Table ES-4. Financial Plan Fiscal Years – 2023-2027 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ES-13Table i-1. Trends and Future Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Table i-1. Trends and Future Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10Table 1-1. Ten Year History of MTA Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21Table 3-1. Comparisons of Ride Share Costs & Subsidy to Commuter Bus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30Table 4-1. Public Service Suggestions and How They Were Incorporated Into Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44Table 4-2. South Kohala Resorts and Hele-On Bus Schedule Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50Table 4-3. Summary of Proposed Services by District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79Table 5-1. Hele-On Active Bus Fleet (as of June 2018) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83Table 5-3: Recommended Hubs for Hawai‘i County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88Table 5-4. National Fare Media Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92Table 6-1. Hele-On Bus Historical Information by Fiscal Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94Table 6-2. Operating Fund Sources 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95Table 6-3. Hele-On Fares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96Table 6-4. Hele-On Shared Ride Taxi Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96Table 6-5. Recommended Hele-On Shared Ride Taxi Program Fare Increase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97Table 6-6. Comparison to National Fares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97Table 6-7. Operating Costs by Fiscal Year 2018-2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104Table 6-7. Financial Plan Operating Costs by Fiscal Year 2023-2027 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105Table 6-8. Financial Plan Operating Revenues by Fiscal Year 2018-2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106Table 6-8. Financial Plan Operating Revenues by Fiscal Year – 2023-2027 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107Table 6-9. Capital Improvement Program Years 2018-2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108Table 6-9. Capital Improvement Program – Years 2023-2027 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109Table 6-10. Financial Plan Fiscal Years 2018-2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110Table 6-10. Financial Plan Fiscal Years – 2023-2027 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111Table 6-11. Financial Plan by Fiscal Year with Excise Tax Surcharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112Table 6-11. Financial Plan by Fiscal Year with Excise Tax Surcharge - Continued . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113
Figure 5-4 Simple Bus Bench (O‘ahu) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90
Figure 5-5 Current Design of Shelters in Hawai‘i County (Kuristown) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91
Figure 5-6 Design used on Ana Keohokalole in Kona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91
Figure 5-7 Smart Bracelet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92
Figure 6-1 Seven buses received from Honolulu 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93
Figure 6-2. Passenger Boardings by Fiscal Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94
Figure 6-3. 2016 Sources of Operating Funds for Bus (FY2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95
Figure 7-1. Passengers are eager for additional service that is reliable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117
Figure 7-2. Existing Organization Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119
Figure 7-3. Organization Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120
vi — Table of Contents • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • Executive Summary — ES-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Mayor and County Council for Hawai‘i County
have long supported public transit on the island . It
has been seen as an important means for connecting
workers with their jobs, oftentimes on opposite sides
of the island . Cost of public transit is a major compo-
nent of the County budget . The FY 2017-18 budget was
$14,031,908 which includes both major capital expendi-
tures and the operating budget .
By 2014-15 the Council was openly asking itself what was
the context for these expenditures, as well as how could
service expand to meet needs of a growing population .
The idea for a Master Plan appears to have been spawned
in the Puna CDP Action Committee and then champi-
oned by the area councilman of the time . Council placed
$500,000 into the county budget to undertake a next
generation Master Plan that looked ahead twenty years .
In the three years since Council called for a Master
Plan, the situation has become dire . Aging buses, over-
ly-stretched staff, rising costs per passenger mile, and
dropping ridership add to the urgency of creating both
immediate and longer term plans .
Hele-on is at a cross roads . It can continue as is and con-
tinue to lose both ridership and user confidence, or it can
make strategic investments and thereby lift up to a higher
level of performance . In making that
choice, it is essential to set clear goals
that can be achieved and make prior-
ities for addressing multiple needs .
New Developments
The island community and econo-
my were rocked in May 2018 when
Kīlauea Volcano began erupting .
As lava poured through 700 homes
and roads on its way to the sea,
earthquakes shook residents, and
severe air quality problems arose .
County government had to turn its
attention to temporary shelter and
care of those who lost their homes
and businesses throughout Puna .
Bus service was among things that
were disrupted when roads in lower
Puna became unpassable and riders
moved out of their homes . It will take time for recov-
ery efforts to create permanent housing solutions and
the mass transit system will need to adjust to relocated
homes, schools, and commercial activity .
In June 2018 the Hawai‘i County Council approved a
quarter of one percent surcharge on the state excise tax
for an eighteen month period . This new source of reve-
nues was made available for a limited time by the State
Legislature, meant for transportation improvements such
as roadways and transit . Collection will start in January
2019 and could raise as much as $10 million the first year
and $25 million in the second year . In the first year, MTA
will no longer receive funds from the General Fund,
freeing up $4 .9 million to be spent on relief costs and loss
of property tax revenues from properties destroyed by
the lava .
Planning for Current and Future Needs
Planning for public transit should reflect the island’s
shared vision for the future . It needs to address current
problems and also be forward looking . If the goal of
quality service provided in an efficient and equitable
manner is to be realized, then priorities must be set and
hard choices made . With a Master Plan, these choices can
be made transparently and based on data .
ES-2 — Executive Summary • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
Table ES-1. Forecasts and Implications for Transit
Category Discussion Implications to
Transportation System
Employment The Districts have unique characteris-
tics and the trends point to differences
within each District . All areas will
need to plan for a higher percentage of
elderly and disabled residents; how-
ever, Hilo and Kona have more of the
services geared to these populations .
Others will have more residents but
not enough jobs .
Several demographic indicators deter-
mine transit propensity . Many disabled
people cannot access jobs, education,
or services with a personal auto and
rely upon public transportation . Since
many are located outside the urban-
ized areas, looking at alternative trans-
portation modes other than ‘big bus’
may be more cost effective .
District Level Trends Other issues that may be exacerbat-
ed by the increased development are
issues of equity . Hilo’s airport is served
by 8 bus trips, while Kona’s has just a
couple . Consistency in service will be
much more important . Attractions and
neighborhoods may need more than 1
or 2 trips .
An increase in the elderly and dis-
abled populations will add demand
to transportation programs including
paratransit and the shared ride taxi .
It is advisable to continue efforts to
have the elderly and disabled use fixed
route transit as much as possible .
ADA Complementary Para-
transit and Shared Ride Taxi
Programs
Hele-On’s ADA Complementary Para-
transit program is new . It is offered in
the urban Hilo and Kona areas and
should be available in implemented in
other areas in the County . The Shared-
Ride Taxi Program is available in Hilo
only and has been available for over a
decade .
Both services can expect an increase
in demand in the future . The ADA
service is priced according to Federal
law; the Taxi Program has not had a
fare increase in at least 10 years . Both
services will need to be managed care-
fully to avoid unsustainable financial
subsidies .
Evolving Transportation
Systems
Developing a Complete Streets (CS)
Policy and incorporating CS principles
into the planning process is a Coun-
ty priority . Bike sharing launched in
Kona in 2016 . Both Lyft and Uber
started services in March 2017 .
Pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle alter-
natives are being incorporated into the
overall transportation palette offered
by many jurisdictions . Hele-On has
most of these options available to
incorporate into the overall system .
This is important in those areas that
are difficult to serve with traditional
fixed-route transit .
Technology Many transit systems are taking ad-
vantage of technology . Examples are
real-time GIS based Apps, real-time
electronic displays at transit hubs,
automated next stop announcements,
automated passenger counts, fare col-
lection systems some using smart card
technology to video surveillance on
buses and at transit centers and hubs .
Hele-On is currently pursuing a GIS
based real time App that will allow
passengers to locate their bus and
estimate its arrival . This is a good start
and can lead to real-time electronic
displays and other systems . The Master
Plan will review these systems in the
Financial and Capital Plans .
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • Executive Summary — ES-3
This Transit Master Plan includes policies and standards
for the delivery of service, as well as criteria for mea-
suring what can be expected . Among the most basic of
purposes for the Transit Master Plan is to assist decision
makers with funding and expenditure choices .
The Transit Master Plan (TMP) project prepared seven
detailed subject studies, an on-board passenger survey,
financial analyses, and public input . Two rounds of pub-
lic meetings were held to gather reaction to proposed
service changes . The latest round presented the Draft
Master Plan:
• Kona April 12, 2018 at West Hawai‘i Civic Center
• Kea‘au April 15, 2018 at Keeau Community Center
• Pāhoa April 7, 2018 at Pāhoa Neighborhood Facility
• Ocean View April 8, 2018 at Ocean View Community
Center
• Waimea April 10, 2018 at Waimea Elementary School
• Hilo April 16, 2018 at Aupuni Center
Service proposals were modified to incorporate the
public input and to develop a revised financial plan .
A series of important conditions, trends, and forecasts
influence what needs to be considered in a master plan
that covers both current needs and future needs . Table
ES-1 lists those .
THE TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM ON HAWAI‘I ISLAND
Transit
The Mass Transit Agency, MTA, providing service known
as the Hele-On Bus System, has been in existence since
1975 . For nearly forty years it has provided service across
the island with an emphasis on commute trips .
At its peak in 2012, Hele-On provided service to 1 .2 mil-
lion passengers . Ridership has dropped by a third, and
the primary cause is believed to be decreased reliability of
service . Ridership was 874,424 in 2016 while the shared
ride taxi program served 137,890 passenger trips .
Previous fleet size was 55 buses, but as of early 2017,
43 of these were out of commission . Most needed to be
decommissioned and sold off or re-purposed . The fleet
was boosted when Honolulu gifted the County of Hawai‘i
with seven of its retiring buses, but buses continued to
break-down . The current fleet size is 11 . Companion to
the aging of the fleet, breakdowns have become a major
issue and are the major cause of the drop in ridership .
MTA budget in FY17-18 was $14,031,908 . This amount
covers operating cost of bus drivers, the shared ride taxi
program, fuel, insurance, salary and wages for eleven
MTA employees and capital expenses . Ten percent of
costs comes from federal funds, about ten percent from
fares, and the balance is a County subsidy from the Gen-
eral Fund and $7,500,000 from the Highway Fund .
There is wide agreement within the community that hav-
ing a well- functioning and dependable transit system is
critical to quality of life for individuals and families as well
as to the economy of the island . Support for improving the
system is found in all districts, albeit with differing needs .
Cross island travel, inter district travel, and intra-commu-
nity circulation are all in need of improved public transit .
Clearly, there needs to be agreed upon, fair, and transpar-
ent criteria and methods for setting priorities .
Known as the “Big Island,” Hawai‘i County scale is a
factor that requires understanding when formulating a
transportation system . It is roughly the size of the State
of Connecticut . Puna District alone is the size of O‘ahu .
These comparisons put in perspective the distances that
are travelled regularly .
Transit Essential to Vital Economy
A well-functioning public transportation system is vital
to the economy of the county . Public transportation
helps build the community, connects workers to jobs,
customers to businesses, and opens up a wider mar-
ket for businesses hiring employees . Currently, Kona
businesses report needing to connect with potential
workers in Hilo and elsewhere on the island, and that
bus service makes that possible .
Transit is a lower cost option for individuals and families
allowing them to have options and opportunities . Public
transportation is good for the environment, reducing
pollution, and lessening dependence on foreign oil . Tran-
sit provides critical evacuation option during emergen-
cies . It creates mobility options for youth, elderly and the
disabled . Of the islands population just under 200,000,
16% are 65 or older and 13 .1% report living with a dis-
ability that affects their mobility . The County poverty rate
is 9 .3%, and most of those do not have access to a car .
ES-4 — Executive Summary • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
For those who already ride Hele On, 84 .5% report that
they are dependent on Hele On for their mobility . Only
36% state they would be able to find another ride if Hele
On were not available .
Roadways
The most common means of travel is by private auto-
mobile . The federal aid roadway system is under both
State and County jurisdictions . The system consists of
788 miles of roadway, most of this two lane roadways .
Major arterials comprise 129 miles; minor arterials
177 miles; and collectors 482 miles . While periodi-
cally new roads are built, such as Ane Keohokalole in
Kona(County) and upgrade to Saddle Road, aka Daniel
K . Inouye Highway (State), the pace of new roadway
improvements is such that the route system of today
is what will be available for the foreseeable future . The
county and communities are exploring priorities for
connector roads in Puna District .
Bicycling
Bicycling is a viable and affordable form of transpor-
tation capable of expansion on Hawai‘i island . Hawai‘i
District has 27 miles of designated facilities (paths, bike
lanes, and signed shared roadways) . Bike Plan Hawai‘i
(2003) identifies future facilities, primarily of the signed
shared roadway variety . If this occurs, it will go a long
way to making bicycling a more viable mode choice .
Pedestrian
Pedestrian infrastructure is practically non-existent,
and this is a challenge not only for walk trips, but also
for bus riders who need to walk to their stop . Most
state roadways have no sidewalk facilities at all, and a
few have sidewalks only on one side . Sidewalks exist
on county roads in Hilo and Kailua-Kona . But even in
those areas there are gaps, narrow shoulders, lack of
crosswalks, and other needs and deficiencies . Hopefully,
the adoption of Complete Streets Policies at both the
State and County level will provide the necessary spot-
light and lens for making changes .
VISION
A new vision has been created for a multi-modal trans-
portation system . It states,
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.
Accompanying this Vision is a set of five Polices and
35 Strategies for the Multi-Modal and the Transit
Programs .
Goal One:
Make riding transit easier, reliable, and
more desirable than other options.
Goal Two:
Create a transit system to serve the
employment and social needs of all people
Goal Three:
Implement technology to provide real
time transportation information
Goal Four:
Create transportation hubs and bus stops
with amenities that provide rider comfort
and safety and that help support community and
village gathering places
Goal Five:
Phase system implementation in a
fiscally sustainable manner
MULTI-MODAL PROGRAM
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Transit is one part of an overall multi-modal transpor-
tation system operating on Hawai‘i Island . Other modes
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • Executive Summary — ES-5
include ride share, bicycling, and walking . The intention
is for all modes to have maximum availability so that
driving is not the only option .
Four forms of Ride Share are available: carpool, vanpools,
taxi and transportation network companies such as Uber
and Lyft . There is evidence that quite a lot of ridesharing
is taking place through hitching a ride from someone . In
the on-board passenger survey, 36 .5% said they would
“ride with someone” if the bus were not available to them
for that ride . Further, 18 .1% said they were dropped off
by someone to get to the bus stop .
Vanpools are an option gaining renewed interest . Cur-
rently, Enterprise Hawai‘i is extending leases for people
to form vanpools for up to 15 passengers . It is a turnkey
program that includes insurance, maintenance and re-
pairs, fuel, registration, taxes, and emergency service . The
recommendation for Vanpool is for the county to enter
a two year demonstration program, subsidizing up to 25
vanpools at up to $1000 each per month . Total annual
program cost if at capacity: $300,000 .
Taxi. MTA has already been innovative in offering a
shared taxi program . It costs passengers $2 for a coupon
and is allowed towards any ride of four miles or less . The
program has been very popular, over 156,600 taxi rides
were taken last year .
This program can be expanded to other parts of the
island . It is recommended that the Council consider a re-
quirement that companies with over five cabs be required
to participate in the program . Also, it is timely to con-
sider an increase in fares due to the excellent but highly
subsidized service that is provided .
Transportation Network Companies are entering into
partnerships with transit agencies elsewhere to provide
single trip options . There are several possibilities for the
County including participation in the shared taxi pro-
gram, designated pick up locations, and agreements for
emergency support .
Bicycling has always been an inexpensive, healthy, and
environmentally desirable option for travel . Bike is a rea-
sonable option for distances under 3-4 miles . The coun-
ty-owned buses all have bike racks with two positions as
a standard feature . This is usually enough, but not always .
Bike Share has been active in Kona . It was financially
supported by the County in partnership with PATH
(People Advocating for Trails and Hikes) with an ini-
tial $250,000 for equipment, shipping, and one year of
insurance plus salary for an Operations Manager who
maintains and re-balancing the bikes as required . The
Bike Share Program is ripe for expansion: in Kona for 4-7
more ten stations; in Hilo for an initial 8-10 stations; and
in Waimea for an initial 3-4 stations . The initial cost per
station, which includes 7 bikes, kiosk and lighting plus
tools and spare parts is $43,750 plus $8,300 for shipping
and installation or $52,000 rounded .
The recommendation therefore is to fund $780,000 over
two years for a total of 15 new stations and 105 bikes .
To this should be added $120,000 per year for each
of three years to continue the operations, balancing,
customer service, publicity, and administration of the
program . Usage fees should be established to cover up
to half the administrative cost with the goal of becom-
ing self-sustaining .
Coordination with County Roadway
Program
The County road maintenance program repaves roads
on a thirty cycle, which comes to 32 miles per year .
Two years ago, the County Council approved a fuel tax
increase to fund an accelerated program . Of the approx-
imately $4 .5 million available each year, $1 million each
goes to Road Paving, Mass Transit, and an Emergency
Fund . The balance is shared with Traffic Signal up-
grades, Roads in Limbo, Striping and Equipment .
When roads are resurfaced, the plans are check to see
if a bike lane should be striped in . It will be prudent for
MTA and DPW to coordinate so that bus stop signs,
shelters and other transit amenities can be installed
when crews are out in the field . The Puna District
ES-6 — Executive Summary • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
Table ES-2. Summary of Proposed Services by District
CURRENT SERVICES PROPOSED SERVICES
DISTRICT Hele-On Refer-
ence
Number
of Trips
Route
Number
Number
of Trips Changes/Additions
Hilo
Hilo/Kona 3 OW 1 3 OW Serves new Kona Hub
Intra-Hilo
Keaukaha
8 RT 101 9 RT Modifies service to provide every other trip to
King's Landing offering a more direct trip to Banyan
Drive and MBT from Airport . Adds new service to
North Hilo . Sunday service is introduced .
Intra-Hilo
Kaumana
5 RT 102 7 RT Kaumana City is provided 1 RT departing KC at 7
AM and returning from MBT after 5 PM . 3 addi-
tional trips are offered to the Gentry subdivision
turnaround and 3 trips serve Waianuenue Ave .
Intra-Hilo
Waiakea-Uka*
2 RT 103 9 RT 6 trips will serve Waiakea-Uka and 3 additional trips
will serve as far as PKP . Service to gym is discontin-
ued and service to North Hilo is added .
104 6 RT New route serving center Hilo including Mohouli
housing, St . Joseph School, Kamana Senior Center
and housing and County agencies .
Blue
Line
Express
2 RT Express service between MBT and Kona Hub via
Daniel K . Inouye Highway . Sunday service is added .
Hilo/South
Kohala Resorts*
9 RT 80 9 RT 2 trips will travel from MBT to South Kohala Re-
sorts via Daniel K . Inouye Highway .
Hāmākua Hilo/Honoka‘a*2 RT 60 4 RT Flex service is introduced to provide access to tran-
sit to the villages and small towns along the coast .
The route will divert 3/4 mile off route to serve
prearranged pickups . Park and ride locations are
identified .
North
Kohala
North Kohala-
South Kohala
1 RT 70 1 RT none
North Kohala-
Waimea-Kona
1 RT 75 1 RT Service is added to the Kona Airport . Saturday ser-
vice to Waimea is added . Longer term flex service is
added as demand warrants .
South
Kohala
Waimea
Shuttle
11 RT 301 7 .5 RT Flex service is introduced . The route will divert 3/4
mile off route to serve prearranged pickups .
Green
Line
2 RT Express service added between Honoka’a, Waimea
and Kona Hub . Sunday service is added .
Waimea Hub is developed .
Kona
Kona/Hilo 3 OW 2 3 OW Provides service to Kona Hub
Intra-Kona*6 RT 201 7 RT 4 Kona oriented circulator routes replace the current
Intra-Kona service . All 4 routes connect at a new
Kona Hub located in the vicinity of the Old Kona
Airport . Route 201 provides South Kona service via
Alii Drive .
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • Executive Summary — ES-7
202 9 RT Connects the Kona Hub with the Airport via Ane
Keohokalole Highway .
203 9 RT Connects the Kona Hub with the Airport via High-
way 190 .
204 9 RT This route serves South Kona via Kuakini Highway .
New maintenance facility to be located in Kona .
Ka‘ū
Pahala/South
Kohala Resorts
3 RT 90 4 RT Added trip between Pahala and Kona Hub for a total
of 4 roundtrips .
2 RT Two RTs are added between Oceanview and Volca-
no for residents to connect with Route 10 to Hilo .
Zone 3 2 Days Zone paratransit service is added two days a week .
Puna
Hilo/Volcano 5 RT 10 5 RT Fern Acres service is provided by separate route .
Red
Line
2 RT 2 trips between MBT and Volcano are provided by
the Red Line . Sunday service is offered .
403 2 RT 2 AM and 2 PM trips are provided to Fern Forest,
Eden Roc, and Fern Acres communities scheduled
to provide commuter service .
Hilo/Pāhoa/
Pohoiki
11 RT 40 15 RT Service is provided between MBT and Pāhoa
without diverting into the residential communities .
Sunday service is added .
401 10 RT Flex service is added between Kea’au and Pāhoa
and Hawaiian Beaches and Nanawale . One new trip
for a total of 4 trips are provided to Kalapana and
Seaview via Highway 130 and 137 . This new trip is
designed to serve commuters . Service is extended
from Nanawale Blvd . to Mauna Kea Road (road
improvements may be needed on Mauna Kea) in
Nanawale serving further into the community .
402 2 AM
and 2
PM
New service is added in Hawaiian Paradise Park to
serve Shower Drive and the future park and regional
center on Kaloli Drive . The route is extended from
16th to 1st Avenue between Paradise Drive and
Makuu Drive in Hawaiian Paradise Park . Ainaloa ser-
vice is connected to Highway 11 via Hawaiian Acres
and new service is introduced through Orchidland .
Two hubs are developed; one in Keaau and one in
Pāhoa .
Zone 1 1 Day
extend-
ing to 5
days
Zone paratransit service is added one day a week for
areas along Highway 130 . This service is extended to
five days as demand warrants .
Zone 2 2 Days Zone paratransit service is added two days a week
for areas along Highway 11 .
*
OW
RT
Does not include trips operated by other routes .
One Way
Round Trip
ES-8 — Executive Summary • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
needs additional attention, not only due to the loss of
roads due to lava flow, but the community was already
actively working on identify new or improved roadway
projects that would create better connectivity between
communities . Creating better roadway connectivity
would allow MTA to use these roads for new routes as
part of the hub and spoke pattern .
SERVICE IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
The desirability of using transit depends on two things:
what is available and how reliable is the service . Rec-
ommendations to improve performance of the current
service include:
• Improve Customer Information including public
schedules and route identification
• Improve Schedule Adherence
• Improve Service Plan Development
Improved Customer Information
The recommendations for improved customer informa-
tion start with posting correct public schedules for the
current routes . This can be done on the Hele-On web page .
A route numbering scheme is proposed to prepare for a
Hele-On APP which would provide real time information .
One of the most frequent requests from the public was
to have a real-time bus tracking and live maps with
estimated arrival times . This could be integrated with
complementary multi-modal transportation options
such as bike share, taxis and commercial transporta-
tion options using a smart phone APP . This needs to
be compatible with Android and iOS platforms . Web
APP that are non-iOS and non-Android mobile devices
should also be available and connected to text messag-
ing, personal computers and audio visual displays . The
system must also be ADA friendly with stop announce-
ments to include transfer information, intersection and
major destinations, and requested stops .
Schedule Adherence and Safety
Upgrading the vehicle fleet needs to be MTA’s highest
priority . Passengers need to know their bus is going to
show up . Any hopes for expansion of routes and fre-
quencies will depend on having a full running fleet of 55
vehicles . The current running fleet is down to 11 vehicles
which necessitates the expense of daily rental of tour
buses . This drains the budget just to keep going .
Generally, 30-foot buses or larger are planned for a 12-
year life expectancy . These vehicles are built on bus or
heavy truck chassis . These vehicles frequently have longer
life-spans with on-going maintenance procedures, parts
replacement and depending upon service terrain and use .
Smaller vehicles built on SUV or smaller truck chassis
such as paratransit or cutaway vehicles have a 7 to 9-year
life depending upon maintenance and use .
To maintain a state of good repair, the average fleet age
should be about half of the expected life of the vehicles,
which would be six years . The smaller vehicles should
have an average age of 3 .5 to 4 .5 years . Hele-On’s vehicles
have an average age of twelve (12) years . A suggested bus
replacement schedule is presented in the Capital and Fi-
nancial Plan . While the current County practice is to only
use County funds to match federal funds when purchasing
vehicles, this will not get the County where it needs to be .
A focused vehicle application program of federal funds
(with local match) and local only funds will be necessary .
Service Plan Development
A comprehensive service improvement plan to expand
the routes and service is proposed to be implemented in
stages . New service would be introduced and trialed for a
six month period to ensure there is true demand for that
service . In more rural areas, service would be tested by
implementing Flex service and Zone service . Flex service
is deviations off a route for up to ¾ mile off the route .
It would use the smaller buses to provide ADA service,
but everyone would be eligible to use the service with a
24-hour advance call in . After one year, service would be
re-assessed to see if the Flex area should be expanded, or
if a new route is justified as having consistent demand .
Another option is the use of Zone service which would
trial service for 2-3 days per week rather than the full five
or six day week . Zone service would connect to regular
service and after the trial period ends, be considered for
route change or a new permanent route .
The vision and goal for the island-wide system is to be
operating as a Hub and Spoke System . The additional
routes and services being recommended by area are
shown in Table ES-2 . Addressing community concerns:
routes have been adjusted to better meet community
needs, routes have been expanded to operate farther into
large subdivisions of Puna, service is added; circulator
service is added in new growing areas of Kona and also
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • Executive Summary — ES-9
to serve both Hilo and Kona Airports; new cross island
service is added to shorten travel time; hours are extend-
ed for commuter routes; and Sunday service is added
on several routes . These adjustments and additions all
have financial implications for both capital and operating
expenses .
CAPITAL NEEDS AND CAPITAL
FINANCIAL PLAN
Rider Information
The top request from riders was for development of a
transit application (APP) that would provide real time
information showing whether buses are on schedule .
MTA has already started a procurement for such a sys-
tem using GPS based hardware and software features,
automatic vehicle tracking, APC, and audio/visual dis-
plays . The cost for the system is estimated at just under
$500,000, which can be funded over two years . Until a
Hawaii Island App can be created, Google App should
be used .
Transit Fleet
Far and away the most important capital need for the
current transit program is to get a reliable fleet, replac-
ing the current vehicles, and expanding to a fleet that
is dependable and suited to the type of services being
provided . Vehicle availability and reliability effects
service, rider confidence, and MTA pride . The current
Table ES-3. Recommended Hubs for Hawai‘i County
Hub Year Description
Pahoa 2021 The initial Pahoa hub would be temporary and located on street and can be
implemented in 2019 . Two passenger shelters would need to be installed . The
permanent Pahoa Hub would be located near the new Puna Kai development
and would require more passenger amenities including electronic signage, bike
parking, fare machines, restroom .
Waimea 2021 The current Waimea hub is located on street with one passenger shelter . There
is insufficient space for additional amenities on the sidewalk . However, adja-
cent land is undeveloped and may be available for expanded facilities including
customer information, bike share, bike parking, fare equipment . Many passen-
gers will cross the street to access shopping opportunities . Therefore, upgraded
pedestrian facilities will be appropriate .
Mo’oheau Bus
Terminal
2022 MBT is allocated $500,000 for upgrading facilities beyond normal maintenance .
Electronic information, fare machines, bike parking, bike share need secure,
covered space .
Ocean View 2022 Ocean View Park and Ride has minimal infrastructure with a gravel lot and
sign . Upgraded surface, bathroom (can be portable), access signage, shelter, and
seating should be added . Lighting needs to be assessed .
Honoka’a 2023 Honoka’a has two areas for bus traffic, the upper lot and lower lot . Both lots
need electronic signage, electronic information, bike parking, adequate shelter
and adequate seating .
Prince Kūhiō
Plaza
2023 Upgrades include electronic signage, fare machines, and additional shelter and
seating .
Kona 2024 The Kona Hub will be substantial and requires additional planning and design .
This Hub should be designed to hold a customer service center, bike share, bike
parking, restroom, electronic signage and bus bays for a minimum of 7 buses .
Potential for coordination with transit oriented development is available .
Kea’au 2025 The Kea’au Hub will include a park-and-ride lot, as well as enough room for 4
buses and passenger amenities .
ES-10 — Executive Summary • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
running fleet is 11 buses, well below what is required to
operate current bus routes . The CIP places an emphasis
on rebuilding the fleet .
The 40-foot buses have an average useful life of 12 years
by industry standard, the smaller vehicles generally
have a useful life of 7 to 9 years . Therefore, since MTA
will have a fleet composed of over 42 percent smaller
vehicles (by 2027), the overall average fleet age should
be below six years .
Starting in Fiscal Year 2019, it is recommended that
five (5) smaller vehicles be procured and added to the
fleet . The following year 2020 should add three (3) 40
foot and three (3) less than 30-feet . The replacement
and expansion schedule shows the number of vehicles
required to operate the service – listed as Peak Assign-
ment . Both currently and the over next several years
into the future, MTA will continue to require contract-
ing with private providers for buses . If funds become
available, such as additional grant opportunities, then
a more aggressive bus acquisition program should be
pursued .
By 2027, the fleet size of 55 vehicles required to operate
current and expanded services will be procured . This
total number includes all vehicles including commuter
services currently provided by private operators using
their coaches . If MTA desires to continue the commuter
service with coaches provided by private operators, then
the fleet acquisition plan can be reduced . The vehicle
spare ratio should be at 20 percent in 2027 .
From 2027 on, MTA should continue to purchase four
to five vehicles a year to maintain the fleet . The spare
ratio may need to increase slightly with the opening
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • Executive Summary — ES-11
of a second maintenance facility in Kailua-Kona . Both
maintenance facilities will need sufficient spares to
operate the required services .
Maintenance Facilities
For the past two years, MTA has invested in the plan-
ning, design, and construction of a new Hilo mainte-
nance facility . The previous shared facility with Public
Works was outdated and unable to accommodate the
needs of the MTA system . The new maintenance facility
opened in 2018 .
Due to the large number of routes operating through
the north and west sides of the island, it is recommend-
ed that a second maintenance facility be planned . It
will likely take several years to go through the steps of
planning, land acquisition, design and construction .
Therefore, the capital plan recommends starting as soon
as practicable to reserve the desired site . A site near
the police department on Hale Māka‘i off Highway 19
would be a good location . Certainly, a site owned by
a public agency will cost less than one that has to be
purchased on the open market .
Passenger Facilities
Hub planning and design is proposed to start in Fiscal
Year 2020 . Construction would begin in 2021 and con-
tinue through 2025 . Hubs to be developed and updated
are shown in ES-3 .
The planning, design, land acquisition and construction
of these multiple hubs and transfer point improvements
have been grouped together in the financial plan as a
single transit center development program comparable
to the ongoing bus stop and passenger shelter program .
Park and Ride Lots
Park and Ride lots require additional amenities; in particu-
lar, lighting and sometimes bathrooms . Most park and ride
lots serve commuters . Hele-On’s commuters leave in the
early morning hours when it is dark . Lighting adds safety .
Bathrooms (even portable) become necessary for many
commuters . Commuter trips are long . Having a bathroom
available can make a difference to an intending passenger .
Bus Stops
Formalizing a bus stop includes determining what type
of amenities should be included at the bus stop . The
most basic of bus stops would have a sign, route desig-
nation, and route schedule . Each bus stop needs to have
a unique bus stop number . These numbers need to be
posted at each bus stop .
Amenities at bus stops include signs, benches, shelter,
information, lighting and others items . The planning,
design, procurement, land acquisition and construction
line items in the CIP are to fund bus stop locations .
The MTA and County need to determine which stops
will have benches and/or shelters . Primary Local Stops
would add passenger shelters and seating to the basic
stop amenities . Adding additional amenities would be
dependent upon safety and space concerns, as well as
passenger usage at that stop and route frequency .
Fare Collection System
Most transit systems now have the ability to use the
same fare media for various types of passes and trip
based fare payment programs . There are four basic
types of pass media used: Non-magnetic Pass, Magnet-
ic Stored-Value Pass, Magnetic Stored-Time Pass, and
Smart Cards . Fare collection systems are continuously
evolving to incorporate new technologies and methods
to improve efficiency, reliability and convenience . Use
of Smart Card fare media is increasing and replacing
older technologies .
COMBINED CAPITAL AND
OPERATING FINANCIAL PLAN
The capital investments identified in this plan are ones
that are essential for the cost effective and productive
continued operation of Hele-On and other modal op-
erations . The operating expenses relate to the levels of
service being offered as they progress over the years of
the plan .
The Finacial Plan shows expenses and funding sourc-
es as presently known . In this Table ES-4, the GET is
only available for 18 months, will allow the program
for immediate priorities to move foward . After that the
program needs a new influx of revenue .
The largest source of revenues has been and will continue
to be the County, through the General Fund and High-
way Fund . Federal funds are available to MTA for both
capital and operating expenses, as formula grants and
discretionary grants . The third source of revenue is fares .
Over the past three years, fare box recovery has averaged
15 .9% .
ES-12 — Executive Summary • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
EXPENSES FISCAL YEAR
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Category
Administration & Marketing $672,100 $692,263 $713,031 $734,422 $756,454
Bus Operations $11,129,658 $10,785,818 $10,876,176 $12,503,915 $14,175,553
Other Modal Operations $3,083,279 $3,526,279 $3,817,729 $3,981,243 $4,001,341
Capital Investments $1,565,000 $3,048,900 $5,757,238 $5,540,700 $4,709,500
Total Expenses $16,450,037 $18,053,260 $21,164,174 $22,760,279 $23,642,849
FUNDING SOURCES 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Operating Revenue
Bus Fare Revenue $809,271 $950,697 $1,093,302 $1,290,096 $1,508,756
Other Modal Revenue $523,766 $722,738 $1,059,761 $1,174,029 $1,183,068
Total Fare Revenue $1,333,037 $1,673,435 $2,153,063 $2,464,125 $2,691,824
Grants
Federal Operating Grant $1,042,000 $1,042,000 $1,042,000 $1,042,000 $1,042,000
Federal Bus & Facilities $700,000 $880,000 $880,000 $880,000 $880,000
Federal Capital Investment*$575,000 $575,000 $575,000 $575,000 $575,000
Total Grants $2,317,000 $2,497,000 $2,497,000 $2,497,000 $2,497,000
General Excise Tax (18 months):
Estimated Excise Tax Revenue --$10,000,000 $25,000,000 ----
GET Transit Funding --$8,500,000 $11,350,000 ----
GET Other Transportation Projects &
Carryover
--$1,500,000 $13,650,000 ----
County Funding:
General Fund $5,600,000 $0 $0 $7,000,000 $7,000,000
Highway Fund $7,200,000 $5,382,825 $5,164,111 $10,799,154 $11,454,025
Total County non-GET Funding $12,800,000 $5,382,825 $5,164,111 $17,799,154 $18,454,025
SUMMARY 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Total Expenses $16,450,037 $16,450,037 $21,164,174 $22,760,279 $23,642,849
Fare Revenue $1,333,037 $1,333,037 $2,153,063 $2,464,125 $2,691,824
Grants $2,317,000 $2,317,000 $2,497,000 $2,497,000 $2,497,000
General Excise Tax --$8,500,000 $11,350,000 ----
County General Fund $5,600,000 $0 $0 $7,000,000 $7,000,000
County Highway Fund $7,200,000 $5,382,825 $5,164,111 $10,799,154 $11,454,025
Total Funding Sources $16,450,037 $18,053,260 $21,164,174 $22,760,279 $23,642,849
GET Other Transportation Projects &
Carryover
--$1,500,000 $13,650,000 ----
Table ES-4. Financial Plan Fiscal Years 2018-2022
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • Executive Summary — ES-13
EXPENSES FISCAL YEAR
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Category
Administration & Marketing $779,148 $802,523 $826,598 $851,396 $876,938
Bus Operations $15,259,062 $15,613,641 $16,258,494 $16,638,887 $17,028,544
Other Modal Operations $4,022,043 $4,043,366 $4,065,329 $4,087,950 $4,111,250
Capital Investments $5,284,100 $7,262,100 $12,481,300 $3,600,500 $2,591,000
Total Expenses $25,344,353 $27,721,630 $33,631,721 $25,178,733 $24,607,733
FUNDING SOURCES 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Operating Revenue
Bus Fare Revenue $1,659,632 $1,825,595 $2,091,828 $2,301,010 $2,591,858
Other Modal Revenue $1,187,930 $1,198,138 $1,209,569 $1,222,460 $1,237,094
Total Fare Revenue $2,847,561 $3,023,733 $3,301,397 $3,523,470 $3,828,952
Grants
Federal Operating Grant $1,042,000 $1,042,000 $1,042,000 $1,042,000 $1,042,000
Federal Bus & Facilities $880,000 $880,000 $880,000 $880,000 $880,000
Federal Capital Investment*$575,000 $575,000 $575,000 $575,000 $575,000
Total Grants $2,497,000 $2,497,000 $2,497,000 $2,497,000 $2,497,000
General Excise Tax (18 months):
Estimated Excise Tax Revenue ----------
GET Transit Funding ----------
GET Other Transportation Projects &
Carryover
----------
County Funding:
General Fund $7,000,000 $7,000,000 $7,000,000 $7,000,000 $7,000,000
Highway Fund $12,999,792 $15,200,897 $20,833,324 $12,158,263 $11,281,781
Total County non-GET Funding $19,999,792 $22,200,897 $27,833,324 $19,158,263 $18,281,781
SUMMARY 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Total Expenses $25,344,353 $27,721,630 $33,631,721 $25,178,733 $24,607,733
Fare Revenue $2,847,561 $3,023,733 $3,301,397 $3,523,470 $3,828,952
Grants $2,497,000 $2,497,000 $2,497,000 $2,497,000 $2,497,000
General Excise Tax ----------
County General Fund $7,000,000 $7,000,000 $7,000,000 $7,000,000 $7,000,000
County Highway Fund $12,999,792 $15,200,897 $20,833,324 $12,158,263 $11,281,781
Total Funding Sources $25,344,353 $27,721,630 $33,631,721 $25,178,733 $24,607,733
GET Other Transportation Projects &
Carryover
----------
Table ES-4. Financial Plan Fiscal Years – 2023-2027
ES-14 — Executive Summary • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
Future sources of revenue that may be considered are
Development Impact Fees, use of fuel tax and and ex-
tended period the excise tax surcharge .
CONCLUSIONS
The implementation of recommendations in the Transit
and Multi-Modal Master Plan will require phasing . This
is due to both funding constraints, and as a practical
reality how many things can be done at once .
Immediate Priorities (next two years)
1) Restore service reliability and get ridership back to
previous levels (1 .2 million revenue miles)
2) Acquire up to 14 buses/vans using previous grants and
new capital funds to bring the fleet to 25 .
3) Once fleet size is enlarged and reliability can be
restored, continue to add additional service hours and
routes to create a hub and spoke pattern
4) Start Hilo to Kona service using Saddle Road
5) Continue to review paratransit service per federal
requirements .
6) Create a multi-modal transportation system on the
island . Embrace multiple vendors for providing bicycle,
vanpool, transit and other multi modal services
7) Increase staffing of the MTA to adequately address the
range of responsibilities being assigned to them . Add
new positions for Garage Supervisor, Administrative
Services Assistant, and an Account Clerk
8) Create a Google Transit APP for rider information
Near Term (2020-2025)
1) Acquire 5-6 new and replacement vehicles per year
to bring the fleet to 40
2) Increase service to have all proposed circulators in place
3) Continue the multi-modal program
4) Plan, design, and build the Kona hub . Consider op-
tions to provide light service on Kona side .
5) Add staffing to include a Deputy Administrator,
Inventory Clerk, and a second shift of (4) mechanics
and working supervisor . By the time the fleet size is 35,
there should be no less than six mechanics .
6) Start to implement the Bus Stop numbering and
signage program at all time spots .
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • Executive Summary — ES-15
Mid Term (2025-2030)
1) Reassess the Paratransit program and expand it to
other parts of the island . Add a paratransit clerk posi-
tion .
2) Continue to acquire 5-6 buses per year to achieve a
fleet size of 55
3) Continue the multi-modal, bus stop and amenities
program
4) Design and develop a Puna hub and complete road-
way improvements to allow for Intra-Puna service .
5) Implement the multi-modal complete streets pro-
gram in Hilo .
Long Term (2030-2035)
1) Plan, design, and construct a Waimea hub
2) Upgrade Mooheau hub
3) Update this Transit Master Plan
4) Expand the number of runs for routes that have dem-
ostrated consistantly high ridership
Vision (2035-2040)
1) Service to operate on a full hub and spoke pattern
with hubs in Hilo, Kona, Waimea, and Puna and Keeau .
2) Conduct robust Bike Share, Vanpool and TNC pro-
grams
3) Have a full Public Information and Outreach Program
Implementing the Vision will require the hard work and
dedication of the MTA staff . A total of twelve new posi-
tions are recommended of which five are for the second
maintenance shift and working supervisor .
With commitment to funding and diligent implemen-
tation, the phased growth toward the Vision can be
realized .
ES-16 — Executive Summary • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • INTRODUCTION — 1
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION TO FINAL
MASTER PLAN
So much has changed since the Draft Transportation
Master Plan was released in February 2018, and yet so
much remains the same .
The changes that have occurred since the Draft Master
Plan was issued present challenges, but also opportuni-
ties .
• Comments received during the public comment
period from February through April and a round
of six Public Information Meetings conducted in
April 2018
• Eruptions coming from Kīlauea Volcano which
started May 3, 2018
• Issuance of a Legislative Auditor Report on Cash
Handling at MTA and subsequent concerns with
MTA management expressed during budget
hearings for the FY 2019 budget.
What remains the same is:
• The need for a public transit system throughout
the island is widely recognized and supported by
residents, businesses, and elected officials.
• Unfortunately the slide the system has been
experiencing over the past few years when budgets
were restricted and investments were not made,
continues to the present.
• Improvements and strategies described in this
Master Plan are essential to turning the situation
around.
• These will need new funding and finance
mechanisms.
Public Comments Received on Draft
Master Plan
A second round of public meetings was held during the
month of April 2018 in six locations around the island,
fulfilling one of the study guiding principles to “engage
the community and stakeholders through public work-
shops and presentations to establish consensus and broad
support for a transportation system.”
A report of all input received was prepared, distrib-
uted to Council members, and posted on the website .
Eighteen comment letters were received either on the
website, email or regular mail . In addition, nearly eighty
attendees at the public meetings shared their comments
verbally, or on one of the comment sheets provided .
The level of support for Multi-modal transportation
options presented in the Draft Master Plan was sought,
in particular, bike mode, taxi voucher program . Support
was very high for multi-modal options . When asked
how they would pay for this, reaction was distributed
among federal and state grants, user feeds, and new
taxes . Multi-modal comments and support are reflected
in Chapter 3.
Many of the comments provided specific recommenda-
tions on routes, schedules, and types of service (such as
express, circulators, paratransit) . Specific reaction was
sought to recommendations in the Draft Master Plan
for diversions, circulators, express trips between Hilo
and Kona, zone paratransit, flex service, Sunday service,
later evening service and more frequent service . Service
comments have all been addressed and can be found in
Chapter 4.
Various types of transit expenditures were presented
and all received high levels of support: Buy new buses,
build more shelters, put up information signs at bus
2 — INTRODUCTION • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
stops, paratransit, transit centers, improved security,
and a second maintenance facility .
These types of expenditures are explained in Chapter 5
and the capital financial plan presented in Chapter 6 .
Kilauea Eruptions Change the
Landscape
When Kīlauea Volcano began erupting on May 3, spew-
ing lava hundreds of feet in the air from over two dozen
fissures, channels moved in multiple directions and
eventually reached the sea . This forever changed the
landscape and way of life in Lower Puna and elsewhere
on the island . While the eruption is ongoing at the time
of writing this Final Master Plan, one month later, lava
had already covered 6000 acres and 700 plus homes,
including parts or all of the communities of Leilani Es-
tates, Lanipuna Gardens, Pohoiki, Kapoho Beach Lots,
and Vacationland . Lava also crossed Highways 132 and
137 (Government Road), Pohoiki Road and subdivision
streets, cutting off access for hundreds of residents,
although many of their homes are now covered by lava .
Of immediate impact to the Master Plan, service would
no longer be possible to the covered areas . Route
recommendations were changed to reflect that . Where
these residents relocate, on both a temporary and a per-
manent basis, means new routes and stops will have to
be developed and revised every few weeks or months as
the disaster continues to unfold . This is reflected in the
discussion and maps found in Chapter 5.
The disaster has immediate and long term impact to the
County budget . Faced with the needs of those evacuat-
ed, the county has focused all resources possible to help
shelter, feed, and support those impacted . Evacuation
shelters were set up at County parks in Pāhoa, Keeau,
and at a church . Effects from air pollution, dust, fumes
and gases are being felt by communities throughout
the island, especially downwind areas such as Ka‘u and
Kona and people there have medical and other needs
being expressed .
County resources, human and fiscal, are being stretched
thin . Increased needs are paired with loss of proper-
ty tax from the lava covered properties combine to
a shortfall estimate in the range of $5 million . The
Council is trying to find the money for this ongoing di-
saster in a manner that least impacts the needy . County
Council approved a quarter of one percent excise tax
surcharge to be collected from January 2019 to Decem-
ber 2010 . MTA budget has shifted to reflect the adjusted
financial tables and can be seen in Chapter 6.
Legislative Auditor Report on MTA
Cash Handling
In May 2018, the legislative auditor released its audit of
MTA Cash Handling and presented its findings to the
County Council . This shone light on the severe need for
improved procedures, management, oversight and new
fare box equipment . The auditor made over 30 recom-
mendations which management immediately began to
address . The Final Master Plan addresses the impor-
tance of staying focused on improvements recommend-
ed, as well as reporting progress to County Council
which wishes to provide a greater amount of oversight
and accountability . This can be found in Chapter 7.
BACKGROUND TO THE
MASTER PLAN
The Mayor and County Council for Hawai‘i County
have long supported public transit on the island . It
has been seen as an important means for connecting
workers with their jobs, oftentimes on opposite sides
of the island . Cost of public transit is a major compo-
nent of the County budget . The FY 2017-18 budget was
$14,031,908 which includes both major capital expendi-
tures and the operating budget .
By 2014-15 the Council was openly asking itself what
was the context for these expenditures, as well as how
could service expand to meet needs of a growing popu-
lation . The idea for a Master Plan appears to have been
spawned in the Puna CDP Action Committee and then
championed by the area councilman of the time . Coun-
cil placed $500,000 into the county budget to undertake
a next generation Master Plan that looked ahead twenty
years .
The administration prepared a set of guiding principles
for the Master Plan which would reflect the issues and
needs that should be addressed . The administration
selected SSFM International with Weslin Consulting to
undertake the study . Work began in the fall of 2016 .
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • INTRODUCTION — 3
In the three years since Council called for a Master
Plan, the situation has become dire . Aging buses, over-
ly-stretched staff, rising costs per passenger mile, and
dropping ridership add to the urgency of creating both
immediate and longer term plans .
Hele-on is at a cross roads . It can continue as is and
continue to lose both ridership and user confidence, or
it can make strategic investments and thereby lift up to
a higher level of performance . In making that choice,
it is essential to set clear goals that can be achieved and
make priorities for addressing multiple needs .
WHY HAVE A TRANSIT
AND MULTI-MODAL
TRANSPORTATION MASTER
PLAN?
This is the first County Master Plan for the Hele-On
system in over twenty five years . Previously, the state
of Hawai‘i Department of Transportation sponsored a
plan for Hawai‘i County in 1992 and then a tri-county
data analysis in 2005 . Since its inception forty years
ago under Mayor Matayoshi, the system has evolved
through trial and error and by being opportunistic . But
recent problems demonstrate that good fortunes can
also reverse themselves, buses get old and break down,
service can deteriorate, and ridership drop .
Planning for public transit should reflect the island’s
shared vision for the future . It needs to address current
problems and also be forward looking . If the goal of
quality service provided in an efficient and equitable
manner is to be realized, then priorities must be set and
hard choices made . With a Master Plan, these choices
can be made transparently and based on data .
This Final Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Mas-
ter Plan identifies policies and standards for the delivery
of service as well as criteria for measuring what can be
expected . Among the most basic purposes for the Mas-
ter Plan is to assist decision makers with funding and
expenditure choices .
Appreciation is extended to the Mayor Kim and Coun-
cil of Hawai‘i County, other officials, organizations &
associations, and most of all, to the citizens who so will-
ingly gave their time, passion, and ideas to the making
of this future generation foward looking Master Plan .
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The approach to developing this Master Plan followed
several Guiding Principles as provided by the County in
contract documents . The Guiding Principles are:
• Create a system that is safe, reliable, friendly, and
accessible for users of all ages
• Consider all modes of transportation, but
emphasize alternatives to the automobile, including
public transit, ride share, bicycle, and walking
• Be cognizant of persons with disabilities, which is
an increasing portion of the community. Modes of
transportation must comply with the Americans
with Disability Act (ADA)
• Set realistic priorities that are visionary, yet
practical, measureable, and achievable
• Identify features of the transportation network or
barriers that make it unsafe or uncomfortable for
users
• Provide a means to measure existing safety, access
and mobility, environmental health and economic
vitality, and then provide tools to measure change
over time
• Coordinate with the County of Hawai‘i General
Plan, Community Plans, and other relevant Plans
for State and County infrastructure
• Be environmentally sensitive by reducing
congestion, decreasing emissions, and encouraging
non-polluting modes of transportation
• Use the latest and best design criteria and
guidelines for bus stops, shelters, and hubs
• Engage the community and stakeholders
through public workshops and presentations
to establish consensus and broad support for a
transportation system
4 — INTRODUCTION • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
The initial focus of the master plan project was to
make an assessment of previous work, current con-
ditions, and future projections . The results of these
tasks was the preparation of seven Task Reports, each
on a specific topic which are briefly described below .
Task reports are available at the project website,
www .heleonmasterplan .com .
1) Review of Previous and Ongoing Studies.
A search was made of various island-wide plans, studies
and documents . County sources included the Gener-
al Plan (2005) and Community Plans (various years),
Complete Streets Resource Paper (2015), MTA Bus Stop
Location Study (2010), Keāhole to Honaunau Regional
Circulation Plan (2003), Hawai‘i County Health Needs
and Assessment (2013), Bikeway Plan (1979), and a study
by University of Michigan on Expanding Transportation
Opportunities on Hawai‘i Island (2014) .
State sources reviewed included the Coordinated Public
Transit Human Services Plan (2011), Statewide Mobili-
ty Management Report (2014), Transit Technical Study
for Kaua‘i, Maui and Hawai‘i (2004), Public Transit Plan
for Hawai‘i County (1991), Federal-Aid Highways 2035
Transportation Plan for Hawai‘i District (2014), Bike Plan
Hawai‘i Master Plan (2002), Statewide Transportation Plan
(2011), and Statewide Pedestrian Master Plan (2013) .
Collectively, these documents identify a shift in poli-
cy away from vehicles as a priority and toward a new
accommodation of multi-modal travel . Many of the
reports call for an increase in transit routes, transit
centers, stops, vehicles, and user amenities as well as
improvements for non-motorized modes .
A thorough review was made of the County General Plan
and the six adopted community plans, their technical
studies, as well as Envision Hilo and the Downtown Hilo
Multi-Modal Master Plan . Policies and themes that have
repeated themselves in the community plans are similar
to what was heard from the public during this study: look
at the needs of those who are transit dependent, create
ride-sharing and park-and-ride options which are secure
and convenient, improve bus stops, add more airport
service, and find financial resources for equipment, bus
service expansion and other needs .
Figure i-1. Mo‘oheau bus terminal – actively used by bike, transit and tour companies.
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • INTRODUCTION — 5
2) Transit Infrastructure Report
The County and MTA have made considerable in-
vestment in its fleet, passenger infrastructure, and by
building a new maintenance facility and operating base .
Some of the older investments have reached the end of
their useful life . Others need upgrading .
County owned vehicles in regular service of November
2017, 19 buses were running and in service . By June 2018
there were 12 . Lack of vehicles require MTA to lease large
numbers of buses from private tour operators at a con-
siderable daily cost . Only six county-owned buses were
under five years of age and three of those were inopera-
ble . The need for both a fleet replacement program and
preventative maintenance is stark .
The heart of the passenger facilities is at Mooheau Bus
Terminal on Kamehameha Highway in Hilo . Most
routes stop at this location which can accommodate up
to six buses at a time, although there is no designation
where to stop . Some commuters park in the adjacent
lot, however most use the park and ride lot located
2,000 feet away . The area is crowded on cruise ship days
when additional vehicles operated by commercial tour
services use the positions usually used by Hele-On .
Transit hubs for the system are located at Prince Kūhiō
Shopping Center (Hilo), University of Hawai‘i-Hilo,
Parker Ranch Shopping Center, and K-Mart in Kona .
PKSC has shelter, trash cans, street lighting, designated
bus lane, and fenced sidewalks to encourage people to
use the crosswalk . A security person is often present .
The UH-Hilo hub is located near the student center and
waiting passengers use adjacent buildings for shelter .
The Waimea hub is located on Pukalani Road where a
shelter was installed in March 2017 . It is a barren area
with little evidence of the purpose it serves and buses
have to pull over into a nearby field to layover . This is
not an ideal situation . Previously it was located behind
the shopping center parking lot where people could
wait closer to the food court and restrooms .
In Kona, the K-Mart serves as a hub for both Hele-On
transfers and other commercial services . While this is a
mutually advantageous activity with K-Mart, there is no
branding, rider information or other indication at this
location that gives notice of how it is used .
The system has five park and ride lots: Bayfront in Hilo
(104 spaces), Ocean View in Ka‘u (40 spaces), Honoka‘a
in Hāmākua (68 stalls), South Kona/Captain Cook (27
spaces), and Takeshi Kamigaki in Kona/Kealakekua (12
spaces) .
Bayfront Lot has portable toilets, street lighting, and
passenger shelters, which are good, but the area is prone
to flooding . The Ocean View lot, which is also used by
school buses, is gravel with a single sign and no other
amenities, including lighting . Honoka‘a lot on Lehua
Street is a well-designed paved parking lot with a pas-
senger shelter and sign, but minimal lighting . It is likely
underused because of security concerns . By contrast,
the South Kona lot is along Highway 11 and adjacent to
the senior center on Kinue Road, is paved with a large
passenger shelter and designated bus lane .
Many bus stops are used as major time points for the
routes and schedules . These are all marked as major
destinations . Time points exist at both airports, but
better signage is needed to direct arriving visitors to the
Hele-On stop, similar to wayfinding signage for rental
cars and taxis .
Figure i-2. New Bus Shelter at Ane Keohokālole
The system has just over fifty passenger shelters island-
wide . They are well designed and easily accessible .
Approximately 5-6 more are added each year, but all
need better route schedule information posting . In
remote and rural locations it is not unusual to find
makeshift seating at stop locations . MTA has been
moving away from flag stops where passengers wave
down the bus to stop as these are often both confusing
and sometimes unsafe . A 2010 study of these found
that of 575 recognized stop locations, 224 were
recommended to be improved with amenities, and 89
made official in the County code .
6 — INTRODUCTION • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
Figure i-3. Hele-On Bus Sign
Technology and information dissemination was among
the highest requests received during the course of this
study . Only Mooheau Terminal has notices posted in
glass cabinets mounted on the wall . Most but not all
the buses have destination signs, and some were hand
written . Current practices elsewhere have destinations
shown electronically on the front, rear and sides of the
buses . This needs to be incorporated into any bus order .
The most major change in the bus infrastructure is the
erection of a new maintenance facility and operating
yard on Hololaulima Road . The facility is 26,500 square
foot building with 19,500 square foot warehouse for
storage and space for administrative offices . The facility
has four working bays, double the number at the Leilani
Street facility, which was shared with DPW .
Figure i-4. New Transit Maintenance Facility on Hololaulima Road
Overnight parking of buses occurs at Hawai‘i County
Police Department in Kailua-Kona, at the Public Works
base in Waiohinu . But no other place does minor service
or repairs . Over time, it will be important to have remote
service agreements so every vehicle does not have to
come back to Hilo every time something goes wrong .
3) Existing Conditions Report
The study looked at the current and future demo-
graphics of Hawai‘i Island population, employment,
levels of disability and poverty, affordable housing, and
languages spoken . The graphs for these subjects can be
found in the Appendix A and the findings are briefly
described here .
County of Hawai‘i population was 180,362 in the 2010
census . The American Community Survey shows that
growth has been rapid, up to 198,449 in 2016, a ten
percent growth . Population continues to grow with
concomitant demands on services such as transit . The
median age is 41 .1 years of age, which continues to rise,
and also has an impact on providing transit service .
Figure i-5: Passengers Boarding
The concentration of settlements is scattered and rural
with the exception of Hilo and some parts of North
Kona . Yet, rural Puna has had the greatest percentage of
change for any district, 50 .8% between 1990 and 2000
and 44 .6% between 2000 and 2010 according to the
County Data Book 2015 . Districts of Ka‘u and South
Kohala also show high rates of growth . The implications
here are for more demand for transit from all districts,
but especially rural areas .
Close to 92% of the population over 16 years and under
64 of age is employed . Unemployment is not distributed
evenly; over 19 .4% of those in the Discovery Harbour
section of Ka‘u; 23 .4% in Hāmākua CDP; and 23 .1% in
Nanawale Estates in Puna . Part of this may be due to far
fewer employment opportunities in their community;
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • INTRODUCTION — 7
persons wanting to work must travel out of district,
sometimes long distances .
Disabilities as a percent of the total population hovers
just above 13% . Around 9% of the population of Ha-
wai‘i County lives below the poverty line as compared
to 5 .5% for the State of Hawaii .
The US Department of Transportation is committed to
and requires its grantees to also commit to principles of
Environmental Justice, which means to avoid, minimize
or mitigate high or adverse effects on minority or low
income populations; to ensure full and fair participation
by all affected communities; and to prevent the denial
of receipt of benefits by minorities and low income
populations .
Environmental Justice analysis was conducted for Ha-
wai‘i County by looking at the population at the block
level, using two accepted methods: Above Average and
Standard Deviation . The Above Average method identi-
fied the number of census blocks with a minority pop-
ulation over 67% and/or census blocks where 14 .6% or
more households are below the poverty line . Using this
method, 63 blocks met the minority population thresh-
old, 38 blocks met the poverty threshold, and 19 block
groups met both criteria . Using the second method, one
standard deviation above the mean, 16 blocks met the
minority criteria, 19 met the poverty criteria, and one
block met both . Areas with minority EJ qualification are
in Naalehu/Waiohinu and Discovery Harbour in Ka‘u,
Kuristown, and parts of Hilo . Areas which meet the
poverty EJ qualification are in Hawaiian Ocean View
and other parts of Ka‘u, most of Puna district, and areas
of Papaikou/Paukaa/ Wainaku, Pepe‘ekeo in northern
Hilo . This plan places particular attention to serving the
communities in EJ areas . Maps for these are shown in
the Appendix B .
Employment is a major reason for trip making . The
State DBEDT estimated the County had 65,400 non-ag-
riculture jobs in 2015 which was an 8 .5% increase over
2010 . Resort jobs are concentrated in the large resort
properties in Kohala and Kona coastlines which re-
quire 24-hour staffing . Other large employers are at
major shopping destinations (65 locations) and medical
facilities (25 locations) . Over half of all jobs are in small
establishments with 1-4 employees .
4) Passenger Survey Report
An on-board passenger survey was conducted in Febru-
ary –March 2017 on all routes . Passengers were hand-
ed a form and a pen and asked to fill out a two-sided
questionnaire before they de-boarded . Survey assistants
rode the bus to help this run smoothly . A total of 750
responses were received back .
Figure i-6. Surveyor
Characteristics of those responding: 32% have been
riding for six or more years, 19 .8% for 3-5 years; 18 .3%
for 1-2 years, and 29 .1% for one year or less . Males
were 56 .5% and females 43 .5% . Most were residents,
only 7 .6% were tourists . Employed full time 35 .2%,
employed part time 15 .4%, seeking work 14 .1% which
reflects the importance of the Hele-On system for em-
ployment (almost two-thirds of all participating riders) .
Most frequent trip purpose was work at 31% . Other trip
purposes included school and college, shopping, social,
personal business, medical and airport trips . Most pas-
sengers pay the base fare or the discounted senior and
student fare . 29 .4% use the bus ticket system which are
bought in blocks of ten rides .
If the bus were not available for their trip, 36 .5% say
they would try to find a ride with someone, 15 .6%
would drive, 34% would bike/taxi/walk, and perhaps
most importantly, 23 .9% say they would not be able to
make the trip at all .
8 — INTRODUCTION • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
Most passengers access the bus by walking 66 .3%,
18 .1% are dropped off, 7 .9% drive and park a car, and
the balance by bicycle . These results provide important
information for the kind of infrastructure needed at bus
stops and hubs .
Customer satisfaction question showed 20% rate the
system as Excellent, 43 .2% as Good, 29 .1% as Fair and
7 .7% as Poor . Those characteristics which were given
high ratings (more than sixty percent rated Excellent or
Good) were driver courtesy, safety, route identification
and route directness . Those characteristics with low
ratings (more than sixty percent rated as Fair or Poor)
were Service Frequency, Evening Service, Weekend
Service, and On-Time Performance .
The most frequent comment added by passenger
respondents was “get more buses that don’t break
down .” The survey occurred during a period of frequent
breakdowns, so this was not a surprise . Other repeated
comments concerned being on time and having realistic
schedules, having more information available on line
and/or on an APP, and having buses run more often,
5) Trends and Future Needs
An analysis was made of trends and future needs for the
transportation system . These are summarized in Table i-1 .
Ten major trends were identified:
• Population growth and aging
• Elderly and disabled growing at rate faster than the
rest of the population
• Development growth fastest in Puna, Kona, and Hilo
• Roadways are over capacity, but few new roads are
planned
• Housing growth is unevenly distributed
• Jobs will remain concentrated in Kona and Hilo
• Districts have uniquely different characteristics and trends
• ADA paratransit program is new and demand will
grow
• The transportation picture is evolving to include Complete Streets Policies and new service providers
• Technology for transit is evolving rapidly
• Autonomous vehicles
6) Second Round of Public Meetings
The Second Round of Public Meetings were advertised
and conducted in April 2018 . These were held at:
• Pāhoa, April 7 at Pāhoa Neighborhood Facility
• Ocean View, April 8 at Ocean View Community Center
• Waimea, April 10 at Waimea Elementary School
• Kona, April 12 at West Hawai‘i Civil Center
• Kea‘au, April 15 at Kea‘au Community Center
• Hilo, April 16 at Aupuni Center
The Draft Master Plan was presented . Two discussion
periods were held on 1) Proposed Services Improve-
ments, and 2) Multi-Modal Improvements, Financial
Plan and Priorities .
The input received was provided in a report (May 2018)
and posted on the website . This input guided changes
in the Final Master Plan .
Figure i-7 Second Round of Public Meetings
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • INTRODUCTION — 9
Category Discussion Implications to
Transportation System
Population The population is forecasted to grow by 60% by
the year 2040 from the last US Census in 2010 . In
addition to the 296,322-resident population will be
an average 36,320 daily visitors .
People will be looking to transit to avoid driving on
increasingly congested streets . Visitors will want easy
access to the County’s tourist sites .
Elderly and Disabled Pop-
ulation
The elderly and disabled population will grow at a
faster rate than other age groups .
The age 85 and older will increase from 2 .2 percent
of the population to 5 .2 percent .
An increase in the elderly and disabled populations
will add demand to transportation programs includ-
ing paratransit and the shared ride taxi .
Disabled clients require extra mobility options to
be full members of the community . Partnerships
with transportation providers should continue . All
vehicles purchased should be accessible .
Development Patterns Growth areas are Hilo, Kona, and Puna . The County
has identified Puna and Ka‘ū as underserved growth
areas . Underserved means limited services and
infrastructure .
Both Districts have long travel times to urban
centers . In addition, the zoning includes large tracts
resulting in low density, which is longer trip times .
Road Capacity The only roads connecting Puna to Hilo are current-
ly “significantly over capacity .” There are no major
new road projects to increase capacity to be able to
serve current demand let alone demand from new
development .
The single seat ride on transit may not be the best
mechanism to deal with increasing traffic congestion
on these long routes . Not all roads are suitable for
transit services .
Housing Housing growth will not be spread evenly through-
out the County . Growth will occur from a low of
29% in Hilo to a high of 171% in Hawaiian Paradise
Park-Orchidland . Three regions with the highest
projected housing growth rates are in the Puna
District .
Resources will need to be increased to serve the
expected demand . Long trips will need to be stream-
lined with passengers perhaps having to transfer to
another vehicle to complete their trip . This impacts
the fare system as well as operational system .
Employment Jobs, however, are projected to remain concentrated
in Hilo and Kona . Other areas will see an increase,
but the major job centers will be as today .
Affordable housing will be in Districts with long
commutes to the job centers . The roads will not be
able to accommodate additional single-occupant
vehicles, therefore, transit will be tasked with provid-
ing additional services .
District Level Trends The Districts have unique characteristics and the
trends point to differences within each District . All
will need to plan for a higher percentage of elderly
and disabled residents; however, Hilo and Kona have
more of the services geared to these populations .
Others will have more residents but not enough jobs .
Several demographic indicators determine transit
propensity . Many disabled people cannot access jobs,
education, or services with a personal auto and rely
upon public transportation . Since many are located
outside the urbanized areas, looking at alternative
transportation modes other than ‘big bus’ may be
more cost effective .
Other issues that may be exacerbated by the increased
development are issues of equity – Hilo’s airport is
served by 8 bus trips, while Kona’s has just a couple .
Consistency in service will be much more important
– attractions and neighborhoods may need more than
1 or 2 trips .
Table i-1. Trends and Future Needs
CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
10 — INTRODUCTION • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
Category Discussion Implications to
Transportation System
ADA Complementary
Paratransit and Shared Ride
Taxi Programs
Hele-On’s ADA Complementary Paratransit pro-
gram is new . It is offered in the urban Hilo and Kona
areas and should be available in other areas of the
County . The Shared-Ride Taxi Program is avail-
able in Hilo only and has been available for over a
decade .
The demand for paratransit and shared ride taxi will
continue to increase . These services are critical to
the client users . Fare policies should consider the
special needs of the low income clients . Sensitivity
training of staff and drivers is important .
Evolving Transportation
Systems
Developing a Complete Streets (CS) Policy and
incorporating CS principles into the planning pro-
cess is a County priority . Bike sharing launched in
Kona in 2016 . Both Lyft and Uber started services in
March 2017, but in general these are not accessible
vehicles .
Pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle alternatives are being
incorporated into the overall transportation palette
offered by many jurisdictions . Hele-On has most of
these options available to incorporate into the over-
all system . This is important in those areas that are
difficult to serve with traditional fixed-route transit .
Technology Many transit systems are taking advantage of tech-
nology, whether it is real-time GIS based Apps to
electronic displays at transit hubs, automated next
stop announcements, automated passenger counts,
fare collection systems some using smart card tech-
nology to video surveillance on buses and at transit
centers and hubs .
Hele-On is currently pursuing a GIS based real
time App that will allow passengers to locate their
bus and estimate its arrival . This is a good start and
can lead to real-time electronic displays and other
systems . The Master Plan includes these systems in
the Financial and Capital Plans .
Autonomous vehicles and
drones
Autonomous vehicles are projected to be part of
everyday life within a decade . The technology is ac-
celerating and being used in test cities for robotaxis .
This could reduce personal car ownership . Drones
are now widely used for surveillance, mapping and
research . Oversight by FAA requires registration
for commercial uses . Amazon is actively exploring
package delivery by drones .
Trends in autonomous vehicles and drones should
be tracked .
Table i-1. Trends and Future Needs
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • INTRODUCTION — 11
COUNTY COUNCIL INVOLVEMENT
WITH THE PLAN
Council was involved in many ways, including:
• An initial power point presentation on the Master
Plan study was made to the County Council on
September 9, 2017 just prior to the series of public
meetings. Council members all offered the support
of their offices to notify people of the public
meetings and to forward input received.
• A second presentation was made on January 23,
2018 to inform Council of the results of the public
input and how it was used. This presentation
was done just prior to releasing the Draft Transit
Master Plan. Several Council members attended
one or more of the public meetings in their
communities.
• A third presentation will be offered to present the
Final Master Plan.
Draft Master Plan
The Draft Transit Master Plan was released for com-
ment and input over a two and a half month comment
period in early 2018 . Comments were received by mail
or online at a dedicated web site .
Final Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation
Master Plan
The Master Plan has been revised to incorporate feed-
back . It was submitted to MTA and the County Admin-
istration .
12 — INTRODUCTION • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
CONSISTENCY WITH COUNTY
PLANNING
The Hawai‘i County General Plan was first adopted by
ordinance in 1989 and last revised in 2005 . The General
Plan is organized into thirteen elements, with policies,
objectives, standards, and principles for each . The trans-
portation policies tie the provision and improvement of
transportation service to other policies such as housing
density and economic vitality .
In addition to the General Plan, the County has six
Community Development Plans . The CDP and their
latest adoption date includes: Kona (2008), Puna
(2010), North Kohala (2008), South Kohala (2008), Kau
(2017) . A recommended draft for Hāmākua was issued
in January 2017 .
There is no adopted plan for Hilo . Several resource doc-
uments are used, in particular, Envision Hilo, which was
prepared by a grassroots group in 2004 . In response to
one of the action items in Envision Hilo and its Five Year
Action Plan (2010), the Planning Department is devel-
oping the Downtown Hilo Multimodal Master Plan to
make recommendations for traffic circulation, parking,
and pedestrian streetscape that would make downtown
Hilo a more vibrant place .
An update of the 2005 General Plan is currently un-
derway . The preparation of this Transit Master Plan
has closely tracked the General Plan Update which is
happening at the same time .
Population and residential location forecasts were taken
from work of the Planning Department on the General
Plan . The preliminary General Plan work looks at 13
Forecast Analysis Zones (FAZ) which represent cluster
locations for residences . See Figure i-8 .
Figure i-8. Forecast Analysis Zones
The population on Hawai‘i County is projected to
increase in 2040 by 75,100 people to 255,400 . This will
create a strain on all public services, including transpor-
tation and transit . The distribution of employment is
expected to remain similar to current, but the distribu-
tion of residences will vary greatly .
The number of housing units in these areas in 2015 is
compared to the number projected to be there in 2040
as shown in the Table below . For transit planners to ad-
dress future needs in their work, this data in this table
shows that the greatest amount of growth would come
in HPP-Orchidland, Upper Puna, and Lower Puna as
well as in North Kona and Hilo . Particular attention
needs to be paid to creating routes that can expand over
the next twenty years along with this growth .
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 1 — 13
Chapter One:
1.0 HELE-ON AND THE TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM ON HAWAI‘I ISLAND
The Mass Transit Agency, MTA, providing service
known as the Hele-On Bus System, has been in existence
since 1975. For over forty years it has provided service
across the island with an emphasis on commute trips.
It has expanded exponentially as needs arose. But these
shifts have occurred opportunistically and without the
benefit of a master plan to guide the system growth.
There is wide agreement within the community that
having a well- functioning and dependable transit sys-
tem is critical to the quality of life for individuals, and
families as well as to the economy of the island. Support
for improving the system is found in all districts, albeit
with differing needs. Cross island travel, inter district
travel, and intra-community circulation are all in need
of improved public transit. Clearly, there needs to be
agreed upon, fair, and transparent criteria and methods
for setting priorities.
Routes and stops have been added to provide service to
schools, social service agencies and medical facilities,
and to major shopping locations. Service within some
of the large rural subdivisions has proven difficult due
to dispersal of large acre home lots, limited connectivity,
unpaved roads, and in some cases high levels of eco-
nomic need.
Known as the “Big Island,” Hawai‘i County scale is a
factor that requires understanding when formulating a
transportation system. It is roughly the size of the State
of Connecticut. Puna District alone is the size of O‘ahu.
These comparisons put in perspective the distances that
are travelled regularly.
14 — CHAPTER 1 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
1.1 PUBLIC TRANSIT, THE
COMMUNITY, AND THE
ECONOMY
A well-functioning public transportation system is vital
to the economy of the county, the state, and the nation
and investments in public transportation generate sig-
nificant economic benefits. According to the American
Public Transportation Association (Public Transpor-
tation: Benefit for the 21st Century, 2007), nationwide
fifteen times more trips are taken on public transit
(bus, train, subway, trolley, and ferry) than on domestic
airlines. Residents and visitors have expectations that
transit is available, reliable, and accessible to them.
Economy. For the community, public transportation
builds economic revenues, keeps business districts
vital, and has proven to increase property values.
Expenditures on public transportation (both capital
and operating) generate three times as many dollars of
business sales (APTA, 2007). A million dollars in transit
expenditures results in supporting 47 jobs. Businesses
near public transportation experience more employee
reliability and less absenteeism.
Testifiers during public meetings for this Master Plan
state that Kona businesses have jobs available and need
to draw upon a wider base of workers. To make this
possible, expanded and reliable public transit between
Hilo and Kona is needed. The Master Plan proposes
new service between Kona and Hilo using Saddle Road
to reduce the travel time. With this new service, poten-
tial workers can access Kona regional opportunities for
training, interviews, and eventual employment.
Lower costs. For individuals, public transportation
saves money, and provides people with choices, free-
dom, and opportunities. Transit riders can save money
on gas (and the fluctuations of gas prices), car main-
tenance, depreciation, and insurance. AAA estimates
these costs to be $8,558 per year per car in 2017, or 57
cents per mile (AAA website, accessed June 8, 2018).
Environment. Public transportation helps support goals
for the environment, including reduced dependence
on foreign oil. When people travel by public transit
they take cars off the road. When transit vehicles move
to alternate fuels, as currently planned in the County,
then oil dependency is decreased. Taking cars off the
road, reduces the air pollution effects from cars. This
in turn helps produce better health, lowers emergency
room visits, and lowers death rates. Asthma, respirato-
ry illness, and cardiovascular/heart conditions are all
exacerbated by pollution from cars.
Assistance during Emergencies. Public transportation
provides critical response in emergencies. Transit can
help with evacuations during natural disasters, and it
can be flexible in providing transportation services to
dislocated and relocated persons.
Mobility Options for Youth, Elderly, Disabled. Public
transportation provides mobility options for everyone,
but is particularly important for those without cars or
access to cars. This includes youth, seniors, low income,
and persons with disabilities. Public transportation
assists them in being part of the community. The num-
bers below for percentages of people in each category
are compare against an island-wide population size of
198,449 in 2016.
• Seniors who can retain their mobility and
independence live longer. According to American
Community Survey (ACS) data in 2015, 32,169 or 16% of island residents was 65 or older. By 2025 one in every five persons will be over the age of 65 and for most of these, public transportation is a better option than driving alone, especially at night.
• The County disability rate was 13.1% in 2015
(ACS). Public transportation provides a vital
link to persons with disabilities allowing them
to remain actively involved in their community,
maintain productive roles in the economy, and have
access to the full range of facilities and services
needed to lead enjoyable and productive lives.
• The County poverty rate has been rising steadily and was at 9.3% in 2015. Many of these are without access to a vehicle.
• According to the on board survey taken for this
Master Plan, Youth rides to school represent 30% of
all rides on HeleOn.
• The bus survey also showed that 84.5% of the riders were dependent on transit, although 36% may be able to get a ride from someone if the bus were not available.
• The bus survey showed that 17.5% of riders have a
disability that limits their mobility
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 1 — 15
1.2 TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEMS ON HAWAI‘I ISLAND
Roadways
The most common means of travel in Hawaii county is
by private automobile. The federal aid roadway system is
under both State and County jurisdictions. The system
consists of 788 miles of roadway, most of this two lane
roadways. Major arterials comprise 129 miles; minor
arterials 177 miles; and collectors 482 miles.
Other roadways are under County or private ownership
and conditions vary widely. The Hele-On vehicles are
restricted to travelling on paved roads both for the pres-
ervation of the vehicles and for the comfort and safety
of riders. This means that many passengers must travel
(walk, bike or drive) several miles to get to a pick up
location to take a bus ride. While periodically new roads
are built, such as Ane Keohokalole in Kona(County) and
upgrade to Saddle Road, aka Daniel K. Inouye Highway
(State), the pace of new roadway improvements is such
that the route system of today is what will be available
for the foreseeable future. The county is focused on a
connection system in Puna and a resurfacing and up-
grades elsewhere on the island.
Bicycling
Bicycling is a viable and affordable form of transpor-
tation capable of expansion on Hawai‘i island. Hawai‘i
District has 27 miles of designated facilities (paths, bike
lanes, and signed shared roadways). Bike Plan Hawai‘i
(2002) identifies future facilities, primarily of the signed
shared roadway variety. If this occurs, it will go a long
way to making bicycling a more viable mode choice.
Public transit can support bicycling by continuing to
provide racks on buses. In addition, as hubs are built bus
storage lockers can be considered. Right now, bicycling
is most prevalent in Kona, where it is elevated to a major
sports activity due to the Triathlon and other races.
The demonstration Bike Share program in Kona has three
stations and 32 bikes, with hopes of expanding (through
sponsorships) to ten stations and 100 bikes. Seven stations
is considered a self-sustaining level. A grant from the
county ($250,000) provided purchase of the equipment,
shipping, insurance and one year of salary for an Oper-
ations Manager (to do the repairs and re-positioning) as
well as administrative costs. The demonstration year has
proven that expansion is desirable both within Kona and
in other more thickly settled areas like Waimea and Hilo.
The costs are modest compared to the transportation,
health, and community benefits. Cost to riders is $3.50 for
a single rate, or $20 for 300 minutes, or $25 for unlimited
monthly rides.
By comparison, the O‘ahu Biki Bike program which
launched on June 28, 2017, stationed at 100 locations and
1,000 turquoise colored bikes, mostly in urban Honolulu
and Waikīkī. In the first three months of this nascent
program, 180,000 rides were taken using one of four
pricing plans. This amounts to over 2,100 uses a day.
Pedestrian
Pedestrian infrastructure is practically non-existent,
and this is a challenge not only for walk trips, but also
for bus riders who need to walk to their stop. Most
state roadways have no sidewalk facilities at all, and a
few have sidewalks only on one side. Sidewalks exist
on county roads in Hilo and Kailua-Kona. But even in
those areas there are gaps, narrow shoulders, lack of
crosswalks, and other needs and deficiencies, as noted
in the Statewide Pedestrian Master Plan (2013). Hope-
fully, the adoption of Complete Streets Policies at both
the State and County level will provide the necessary
spotlight and lens for making changes.
Multi-Modal
The County has not been shy about trying new things:
a double decker bus (which strained to work on the
island varied terrain); alternate fuel (which may have
contributed to the break-down of some buses); creativi-
ty in providing trips to disadvantaged with both para-
transit service and taxi coupons; the new Bike Share
program in Kona; adoption of a complete streets policy;
and innovative markings to signify pedestrian areas.
This courage to try new things should continue.
1.3 CURRENT SITUATION FOR
BUS TRANSIT
The County Mass Transit Agency was created to provide
mass transit service. It provides service from 3:15 am to
11:00 pm with limited service on Sundays and holidays.
One-way Fares are $2.00 with discounts available to
seniors over 60, students, and persons with disability.
Monthly passes are $60, with a discount to $45 for those
named above. Sheets of ten tickets can be purchased for
$15, or half that for the discount eligible persons. Fares
were last raised (doubled) to be effective in July 2013.
16 — CHAPTER 1 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
The Hele-On system had a fleet of 19 running buses
as of December 2017, and is down to 12 in June 2018.
Breakdowns are a major and costly problem for MTA
and the passengers. Several buses are on order.
In addition to Hele-On, since 1990-1 the County has
offered a Shared-Ride taxi service that provides curb-
to-curb service within the urban area of Hilo and Kai-
lua-Kona through vouchers. Currently, the program is
heavily used in Hilo while taxi companies in Kailua-Ko-
na are not participating in the program. The programs
allows the public to purchase coupons and use the cou-
pons instead of cash with participating taxi companies.
Each coupon costs $2 and may be used for travel up to
four miles. In 2017, 134,986 rides were taken. A portion
of the taxicabs are accessible (20%).
Hele-On Kāko‘o paratransit service started in August
2016 for both the Hilo and Kona areas with service
Monday through Saturday. Participants have to be
deemed eligible by a clinician, complete an application
process, and call in reservations 24 hours in advance. By
agreement with FTA, service is provided within 1 mile
of regular service (the usual requirement is ¾ mile)
during the demonstration period. The one year evalua-
tion showed that usage in Kona greatly out-numbered
use in Hilo. Potential Hilo area participants are more
likely to use the Shared Taxi Program than the para-
transit service. Two primary factors for the Shared Taxi
Program are the paratransit program requires an ad-
vance reservation and the cash fare is higher for a ride.
Average service cost in Hilo was around $127.00 per ride
according to data kept by MTA for a sustained period
towards the end of the first year. It was about ten dollars
less in Kona. Most users traveled 1-2 times per month
and the most predominant trip purpose was medical.
The paratransit vans had 96% on time performance; and
Figure 1-1. Federal Aid Roadway Map of Hawaii County
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 1 — 17
Figure 1-2. Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities on Hawaii Island (source Bike Plan Hawaii, 2002)
18 — CHAPTER 1 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
Figure 1-3. Sidewalks on State Facilities (source: Statewide Pedestrian Master Plan, 2013)
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 1 — 19
there was only a 2% rate of “no show” or late cancels.
At its peak in 2012, Hele-On provided service to 1.2 mil-
lion passengers. Ridership has dropped by a third, and
the primary cause is believed to be decreased reliability of
service. Ridership was 874,424 in 2016 while the shared
ride taxi program served 137,890 passenger trips.
The reported fleet listing is 37(down from 55 in 2016).
Many needed to be decommissioned and sold off or
re-purposed. The fleet was boosted in 2017 when Hono-
lulu gifted the County of Hawai‘i with seven of its retiring
buses. This was a welcome relief, but will ultimately prove
to be only a temporary one. Companion to the aging of
the fleet, breakdowns have become a major issue and are
the major cause of the drop in ridership.
MTA budget in FY17-18 was $14,031,908. This amount
covers operating cost of bus drivers, the shared ride
taxi program, fuel, insurance, and salary and wages for
eleven MTA employees. Ten percent of costs comes
from federal funds, about ten percent from fares, and
the balance is a County subsidy from the General Fund
and $7,500,000 from the Highway Fund. The history of
MTA budgets is shown in Table 1-1.
1.4 CONTRACT
TRANSPORTATION
PROVIDERS
MTA contracts with others to provide certain custom
services to those who are low income, senior, or dis-
abled.
In 2017, this included contracts with Hawaii County
Economic Opportunity (known as HCEOC), Goodwill
and Bentley Center. The largest of these is HCEOC.
Their contract in the amount of $592,000 started Feb-
ruary 2017 with three one-year options. They provide
curb-to-curb service for qualified clients, who must call
in advance for appointment. Service hours are 4:30 AM
to 2:30 PM. They service areas such as Hilo, and also
Naalehu, Ocean View going to Kailua. In the past year,
HCEOC drove over 300,000 miles, providing 72,400
rides to employment, nutrition, and medical visits (dial-
ysis, chemotherapy, drug treatment, as well as domestic
violence cases).
HCEOC also has contracts with the Office of Aging to
take clients to congregate nutrition sites run by Parks
& Recreation and they have bid on transport for the
Kupuna Care Program (door-to-door service for people
who have lost at least one life function). No fares, but
voluntary contributions are accepted.
HCEOC currently has eight vans in Hilo and four in
Kona; but are due to receive fourteen additional vans,
including four that are accessible. They also received a
state GIA grant to build a new maintenance facility in
Hilo. With this added capacity, they are in a position
to continue to partner with MTA and perhaps expand
what they do.
The Bentley Center contracts runs year to year at a cost
of $21,000. Centered in Honoka‘a, they provide de-
mand responsive service for medically certified disabled
clients to go to employment, medical, training and
recreation trips.
The County Office of Aging, working with the County
Department of Parks and Recreation Elderly Activities
Division with the State Department of Business, Eco-
nomic Development & Tourism will develop a pilot
demonstration plan for seniors from North Hilo along
the Hāmākua Coast to have “social transportation”
opportunities within that District.
20 — CHAPTER 1 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
1.5 PARATRANSIT AND
OTHER SPECIAL SERVICES
FOR DISABLED AND LOW
INCOME
Hele-On Kāko‘o paratransit service started in August
2016 for both the Hilo and Kona areas with service
Monday through Saturday. Participants have to be
deemed eligible by a clinician, complete an application
process, and call in reservations 24 hours in advance. By
agreement with FTA, service is provided within 1 mile
of regular service (the usual requirement is ¾ mile)
during the demonstration period. The one year evalua-
tion showed that usage in Kona greatly out-numbered
use in Hilo. Potential Hilo area participants are more
likely to use the Shared Taxi Program than the pa-
ra-transit service. Two primary factors for the Shared
Taxi Program are the paratransit program requires an
advance reservation and the cash fare is higher for a
ride.
Average service cost in Hilo was around $127 per ride
according to data kept by MTA for a sustained period
towards the end of the first year. It was about ten dollars
less in Kona. sMost users traveled 1-2 times per month
and the most predominant trip purpose was medical
The paratransit vans had 96% on time performance; and
there was only a 2% rate of “no show” or late cancels.
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 1 — 21
Year Account Operating Budget Spent Difference
FY2008-2009
Totals
5311 4,983,244 4,054,627 -928,617
5316 1,177,480 1,943,149 765,669
6,160,724 5,997,776 -162,948
FY2009-2010
Totals
5311 4,820,711 8,105,376 3,284,665
5316 1,055,982 1,371,970 315,988
5,876,693 9,477,346 3,600,653
FY2010-2011
Totals
5311 5,753,999 5,934,103 180,104
5316 943,892 943,892 0
6,697,891 6,877,995 180,104
FY2011-2012
Totals
5311 3,955,499 2,765,720 -1,189,779
5316 4,044,593 3,982,377 -62,216
8,000,092 6,748,097 -1,251,995
FY2012-2013
Totals
5311 3,300,812 2,840,638 -460,174
5316 4,845,250 4,865,749 20,499
8,146,062 7,706,387 -439,675
FY2013-2014
Totals
5311 3,461,171 2,499,585 -961,586
5316 6,726,250 6,613,942 -112,308
10,187,421 9,113,527 -1,073,894
FY2014-2015
Totals
5311 4,395,978 3,619,197 -776,781
5316 7,449,005 6,482,305 -966,700
11,844,983 10,101,502 -1,743,481
FY2015-2016
Totals
5311 6,254,404 3,434,446 -2,819,958
5316 7,500,000 5,782,088 -1,717,912
13,754,404 9,216,534 -4,537,870
FY2016-2017
Totals
5311 5,510,898 2,723,245 -2,787,653
5316 7,400,000 6,660,178 -739,822
12,910,898 9,383,423 -3,527,475
FY2017-2018
Totals
5311 6,831,908 3,861,243 -2,970,665
5316 7,200,000 8,323,107 1,123,107
14,031,908 12,184,350 -1,847,558
FY2018-2019
Totals
5311 6,474,785
5316 9,200,000
15,674,785
Table 1-1. Ten Year History of MTA Budget
22 — CHAPTER 1 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 2 — 23
Chapter Two:
2.0 VISION, GOALS, AND STRATEGIES
A carefully crafted vision statement is at the heart of every successful transit agency. It should clearly and concisely
communicate where the agency wants to be in the future. It contains the core ideals that give an agency shape and
direction. Along with the County General Plan and Community Development Plans (CDP), it serves as a tool for
decision-making.
2.1 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.
24 — CHAPTER 2 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
2.2 GOALS TO ACHIEVE THE VISION
Five goals are identified which will help achieve the vision. This plan assigns icons to each of them.
GOAL ONE:
Make riding transit easier, reliable, and compatible with other
multi-modal options.
GOAL TWO:
Create a transit system to serve the employment and social
needs of all people.
GOAL THREE:
Implement technology to provide real time transportation
information.
GOAL FOUR:
Create transportation hubs and bus stops with amenities
that provide rider comfort and safety and that help support
community and village gathering places.
GOAL FIVE:
Phase system implementation in a fiscally sustainable manner.
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 2 — 25
GOAL ONE:
Make riding transit easier, reliable, and compatible
with other multi-modal options
Strategy One:
Implement transit as part of a
comprehensive multi-modal system
that includes programs for bicycles
and pedestrians.
Strategy Two:
Provide for the needs of island
residents whose disability limits
their mobility. Allow disabled
persons to have mobility options so
they can lead full productive lives
participating in the community.
Strategy Three:
Starting in FY 2018-19 and over the
next four years, acquire 6-7 buses
per year to replace half the current
fleet size and lower the average
fleet age to below 6 years. Target a
fleet size of 55 buses including 25
operating 35-40 foot buses and 5
spares and 20 operating cutaway
buses (30 feet or less) with 5 spares.
Move away from contracting for
tour buses.
Strategy Four:
Once the fleet is at optimum size
of 55, practice a fleet replacement
program to acquire 4-5 buses per
year on an on-going basis.
Strategy Five:
Develop protocols for daily main-
tenance, weekly maintenance, and
preventive maintenance for all
vehicles. Improve electronic re-
cord-keeping for all buses.
Strategy Six:
Increase the number of positions
at the maintenance facility from 5
mechanics to 8-10 mechanics in two
shifts, plus day and night supervi-
sors and an inventory clerk.
Strategy Seven:
Increase the hours for live customer
information during service hours
starting at 5AM to midnight, and
provide real time information on
each run from the dispatcher.
Strategy Eight:
Serve persons with disabilities
using a variety of accessible options
from paratransit to outside service
providers.
2.3 STRATEGIES
Strategies were developed for each of the goals. These are presented for a twenty-year horizon.
26 — CHAPTER 2 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
GOAL THREE:
Implement technology to provide
information to riders
and others
Strategy One:
Install a technology
package on each bus.
The package consists of:
mobile data router and
validators, automatic
vehicle locator, automatic
passenger counting, elec-
tronic signage and wifi.
Strategy Two:
Develop a Hele-On Tran-
sit APP. While waiting for
this to be done, develop a
Google Transit APP.
Strategy Three:
Develop and distribute
new route maps. Post
route information at bus
stops
Strategy Four:
Bus stop sign program.
Install signs at stops and
provide schedule in-
formation, trouble call
number, and web site.
Strategy Five:
Develop an Outreach
Program. Provide current
information on the Hele-
On website. Conduct
district meetings and/or
rider surveys every other
year.
Strategy Six:
Help achieve clean energy
goals through alternate
energy bus and infra-
structure purchase, doing
so in a fiscally responsible
manner.
GOAL TWO:
Create a transit system to serve the
employment and social needs of all
people
Strategy One:
Update and modify the
routes currently in exis-
tence to reach residential
and employment loca-
tions.
Strategy Two:
Add direct cross island
service for commuters
and job seekers.
Strategy Three:
Increase the hours of
service.
Strategy Four:
Add circulator routes in
Puna and continue them
in Hilo, Waimea, and
Kona
Strategy Five:
Add Flex service in
Waimea, along Route
130 in Puna, in Hawaiian
Beaches and Nanawale,
and along the Hāmākua
Coast.
Strategy Six:
Add Sunday and holiday
schedule service.
Strategy Seven:
Add Bike share in
Waimea and Hilo and
contract for this service
with PATH or another
non-profit.
Strategy Eight:
Provide bike lockers at
hubs and racks on all
buses.
Strategy Nine:
Subsidize a Vanpool
program.
Strategy Ten:
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.
Strategy Eleven:
Expand the current Para-
transit program in Kona
and Hilo to ¾ mile and
add to other areas of the
island, starting with Puna.
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 2 — 27
GOAL FOUR:
Create transit hubs and bus stops with amenities that provide rider comfort
and safety and that help support community and village gathering
Strategy One:
Upgrade the Mooheau hub.
Strategy Two:
Identify the site for the Kona hub,
plan for its design and construction.
Strategy Three:
Acquire the land for the hub in
Pāhoa, plan for the design and
construction. Plan the design of the
Keeau satellite hub and park & ride.
Strategy Four:
Identify the location for the Waimea
hub and add appropriate signage
and passenger features.
Strategy Five:
Bus stop program. Fund the bus
stop program at a level that up-
grades ten or more stops per year.
Include benches, rider information
systems, lighting, and protection
from the elements. Continue to
build bus shelters at major stops.
Strategy Six:
Enter into partnerships with others
to provide hub features and shelters.
Strategy Seven:
Establish roadway standards (width
and pavement condition) for flex
and new service.
Strategy Eight:
Create bus pullout design standards
and shelter standards.
Strategy Nine:
Establish hub standards and needs
for partnerships with community
associations and others.
28 — CHAPTER 2 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
GOAL FIVE:
Phase implementation in a fiscally sustainable manner
Strategy One:
Add and fill the following
staff positions:
• Deputy Administrator
• Fiscal and Records Officer,
Research, Data, and Grants
• Customer Service and Outreach
• Multi Modal Administrator
• Paratransit Clerk
• Garage Supervisor
• Second Shift of Mechanics
Strategy Two:
Create a partnership with Hawai‘i
Economic Office to connect with
social service agencies and others.
Strategy Three:
Create a stable level of funding,
accounting for inflation, at about
$16-18 Million per annum for the
combined operating and capital
programs.
Strategy Four:
Use FTA formula grants as part
of the bus replacement program
and for portions of the operating
program.
Strategy Five:
Pursue other sources of fund-
ing such as federal discretionary
grants, State support, and corporate
subsidies.
Strategy Six:
Address the State and island clean
energy goals in a fiscally responsi-
ble manner. Test alternate energy
fuels for the bus fleet, demonstrate
how well they work on the island’s
various climate and terrains. Once
proven, pursue conversion to the
most successful alternate energy
fuels for the fleet.
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 3 — 29
Chapter Three:
3.0 MULTI-MODAL PROGRAM AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Through most of this plan the focus has been on Hele-
On bus service as the heart of transportation services in
the County. The Hele-On analysis work was progressed
in light of the goal to create a multi-modal transportation
system. This Chapter focuses on other multi-modal and
non-vehicular modes, the role they can play, and steps to
be taken to improve their viability and usefulness.
Based on feedback from the six public information
meetings held in April 2018, there is wide support for
creation of a multi-modal transportation system on
the island. 77% responded “yes” to the question asking
their support for multi-modalism. 20% said “no.” The
remainder were unsure, or felt it depended on the area.
3.1 RIDE SHARING
Three forms of Ride-sharing will be discussed: carpools,
vanpools, taxi, and the newest form, transportation
network companies such as Uber and Lyft.
Carpools have long been an option for getting some-
where. They are negotiated and implemented on a
person to person basis. Some employers provide incen-
tives such as preferred parking locations or assistance
in forming carpools. The 2016 American Community
Survey indicated that of the 81,650 workers in Hawai‘i
County aged 16 and older, 74 percent drove alone to
work, 12.3 percent carpooled, and 1.4 percent used
public transportation. The remaining 12.3 percent work
at home, walk, taxi or use other means to get to work.
There is evidence that quite a lot of ridesharing is taking
place through hitching a ride from someone. In the
on-board passenger survey, 36.5% said they would “ride
with someone” if the bus were not available to them for
that ride. Further, 18.1% said they were dropped off by
someone to get to the bus stop.
Vanpools are a valuable option because it offers a trans-
portation solution for geographic pockets that presently
are not being served by public transportation. In 1991
a vanpool program was sponsored by the State Depart-
ment of Transportation but ended in 2011. Currently,
Enterprise Hawaii provides a program for groups of
up to 15 people to form a Vanpool group to share their
commute to and from work. It is a turnkey program
that includes the vehicle for a monthly Vanpool rate
(plus taxes and fees) and also covers the cost of insur-
ance; maintenance and repairs; 24-hour emergency
roadside service; registration and safety check.
There are currently about 15-20 Ride Share vanpools on
Hawaii island going to employment locations such as
Pohakuloa Training Area, Macadamia Farms, various
construction sites, and Kona Coast resorts. Transpor-
tation Incentive Programs offered by employers are a
proven way to assist employees with reliable transpor-
tation, especially those with fixed or shift schedules.
The State DOE, Hawaii Island District is interested in
vanpool as a way to recruit and retain teachers, espe-
cially in remote locations.
The federal government has established and imple-
mented a mass transit benefit program-- Transportation
Incentive Program (TIP) for all federal employees and
30 — CHAPTER 3 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
active military employees to help reduce their daily con-
tribution to traffic congestion and air pollution, as well
as expand their commuting alternatives. Effective Jan-
uary 1, 2018, the transit benefit participants are eligible
for transit benefits up to $260.00 per month (parking
fees are not included) for specific pre-approved com-
muter mass transit transportation costs not to exceed
actual expenses. TIP is designed to pay for mass transit
costs incurred by personnel in their local commute for
residence to work place or permanent duty station. The
recommendation is to create a Vanpod subsidy program
for up to 30 Vanpods.
Shared Taxi. The County has been innovative in of-
fering a shared taxi program which is administered by
MTA. Riders can purchase $2.00 for each coupon for
rides of four miles or less. MTA subsidizes drivers $6.00
(which is a 2/3, or $4 subsidy). The program only exists
in Hilo where it is very popular (70% say they support
it). In FY 2017, 134,986 share taxi rides were taken at a
program cost of $939,624. Revenues were $378,760.
This program can be expanded to other parts of the
island. It is recommended that Council consider a
requirement that companies with over five cabs be
required to participate in the program. It is timely to
consider an increase in coupon cost due to the excel-
lent, but highly subsidized service that is provided. An
increase to $3.00 - $5.00 should be considered.
Finally, participating cabs should be ADA accessible. The
County should consider a two- year incentive program
offering half the cost of the difference for an accessible
versus non- accessible vehicle. This cost is estimated to
be $14,000, so a 50% incentive would be $7,000.
Transportation Network Companies are entering into
partnerships with transit agencies elsewhere to provide
single trip options. There are several possibilities for
Hawaii County:
• Enter an agreement to allow Uber and Lyft to partic-
ipate in the shared taxi program currently available.
Coupons are sold worth $2 (this study recommends
having a higher price and value) for an under four mile
ride in Hilo and Kailua-Kona. With Uber and Lyft, this
program could be extended to any part of the island
under the same conditions.
• The State Department of Transportation Airports Di-
vision granted a temporary permit in December 2017
for a three-month pilot program with Uber and Lyft to
allow pick-up and drop-off at two designated locations
at Honolulu International Airport. The companies will
pay Airport Division seven percent of the prearranged
trip fares. More and more travelers expect to have this
option available to them, and it can be anticipated that
this demonstration will eventually extend to airports
statewide, including Kona and Hilo. No subsidies are
involved; pricing is dynamic and on a bid basis negoti-
ated prior to the passenger choosing their driver.
• MTA could have an agreement for emergency support
when there is a bus breakdown. In this case, MTA
would pay the full cost of rides as a customer service to
riders who are stranded and cannot wait for a new bus
to arrive.
• MTA can make accommodations at the hubs with
signed locations to allow the TNC drivers to pick up
and drop off passengers needing a final ride to their
destination.
Characteristic Commuter Bus Vanpool
Passengers 50 15 x 3 = 45
Daily Boardings 100 90
Cost $1,000 day $2,400 month each
$30,000 month $7,200 for 3
Passenger Boardings 3,000 month (30 days)1,800 month (20 days)
$1.5 bus ticket ($60 per month)$4,500 month fares $2,700 month fares
Subsidy $25,500 month $4,500 month for 3
$1,500 per vehicle
Net Subsidy per Passenger Trip $8.50 $2.50
Table 3-1. Comparisons of Ride Share Costs & Subsidy to Commuter Bus
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 3 — 31
3.2 BICYCLE MODE
Bicycling has always been an inexpensive, healthy, and
environmentally desirable option for travel. Bike is a
reasonable option for distances under 3-4 miles. Support
for bike mode expenditures was 64% at the April PIM
meetings. 30% were opposed, and 6% replied maybe, or
unsure. Again, this reflects high support, and that was so
at all meetings except Ocean View and Waimea (which
was 50-50). Those who oppose generally do so because
they feel the roads are not (yet) safe for bicycles. DPW
and State DOT are actively looking for the main routes
through Waimea to be more bike friendly.
The county-owned buses all have bike racks with two po-
sitions as a standard feature. This is usually enough, but
not always. However, during the public meetings, people
complained that when the tour buses are used in service,
they do not have bike racks. Since it cannot always be
predicted when a (substitute) tour bus may have to be
used, this is an uncertainty introduced to bike riders.
One recommendation of this study is that the County
move as quickly as possible to use all County owned
buses. In the meantime, this problem will remain and the
only recommendation is to post the information on the
web site and/or APP so bike riders can plan accordingly.
Another challenge for bike riders is the lack of suitable
biking facilities on most roads. Since both the State and
the County have adopted Complete Streets policies, this
should slowly change: each time a new road is built,
it needs to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians.
Retrofit treatments can occur when an existing road is
repaired or paved. But the most effective method would
be a proactive Bike Plan to build bike facilities as well as
place bike racks around developed areas. The last Bike
Plan for Hawaii County was developed in 1979.
Bike Share has been active in Kona since August 2016. It
was financially supported by the County in partnership
with PATH (Peoples Advocacy for Trails Hawaii) with
an initial $250,000 for equipment, shipping, and one
year of insurance plus salary for an Operations Manager
who maintains the bikes and stations and re-balances
the bikes as required. In Kona, there are three stations
with 32 bikes (each station accommodates 15 bikes when
full). However, for balancing purposes, the ideal ratio is
2 docking ports per bike to insure that there is always a
place for users to dock the bike at the end of their trip.
There are several possibilities for rider payment: single
ride at $3.50; 300 minutes for $20; or unlimited rides of
Figure 3-1 A. Bike Share Station in Kailua-Kona
32 — CHAPTER 3 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
30 minutes for $15 per month or 60 minutes rides for $20
per month.
The Bike Share Program is ripe for expansion in Kona.
Currently grants are being sought from the State
Legislature to help fund three additional stations with
27 bikes added plus operational assistance. The grants
could also cover Hilo with 8 stations in 2019. While it
is desirable to have a bike share program in Waimea,
that will await roadway improvements for either wider
shoulders and/or marked bike lanes from narrower lane
widths. The ultimate goal is for the Bike Share Program
to become self-sufficient from user fees, but in the
meantime, public support is needed.
The recommendation is for the County of provide
match support (from The Bike Fund) for outside grants
received to expand the bike share program, particularly
as roadway improvements can be made.
3.3 PARK AND RIDE LOTS
Off-road park and ride lots facilitate inter-modal trans-
fers and are convenient meet and pick-up locations.
They need to be made as secure as possible, should
accommodate no less than 15 parked cars, along with
bike racks and shelters with seating and lighting. In
many locations, co-location with churches is a benefi-
cial arrangement.
3.5 SUMMARY OF
MULTI-MODAL
RECOMMENDATIONS:
• 1) Van Pool Subsidy Program: $300,000 annual
• 2) Continue Taxi Voucher Program: $1,000,000
annual
• 3) Emergency support contract with transportation
network companies: $100,000 annual
• 4) Expand bike share: $120,000 annual plus
$750,000 one-time capital cost
• 5) Offer ADA vehicle incentives: $200,000 over 2
years.
• 6) Budget County match for bike grants: $50,000.
• 7) Create multiple secure park & ride lots that can
also serve as collection points for multi-modal
services: $150,000.
3.6 COORDINATION
WITH COUNTY ROADWAY
PROGRAMS
The County Roadway program would typically pave
and improve 32 miles of county roads using a 30-year
cycle with the fuel tax increase, an accelerated program
is underway. The accelerated program is complementa-
ry to this Transportation Master Plan. The accelerated
program is in addition to normal maintenance and
daily operation services provided.
In 2017 the County raised fuel tax revenues from 15
cents per gallon to 19 cents per gallon starting July 1,
2018. In the fiscal year 2018-19 the County collected an
additional $4,660,817 over the previous year. According
to a June 2018 report to Council, funds were used in the
following way as shown in Table 3-2.
Figure 3-1 B.Figure 3-1 C.
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 3 — 33
Table 3-2 Highway Fund Utilization
Fuel Tax Increase Reve-
nue Utilization
Fund Dollars
Emergency Fund $1,000,000
Road Paving $1,000,000
Mass Transit $1,000,000
Roads in Limbo $250,000
Signal Upgrades $750,000
Stripping for Roadway
Projects
$450,000
Equipment and Materials $210,817
Total:$4,660,817
The current list of projects due for resurfacing un-
der this program are listed here. There are several
multi-modal opportunities presented whenever a road
is resurfaced. First, it is an opportunity to stripe for a
bike lane. Indeed, DPW is widening the shoulders to
allow for this and to increase safety. Second, it is an op-
portunity to work with the MTA bus stop and signage
program to have these installed at the same time is an
efficient way to use resources.
• South Hilo: Kamehameha Avenue (Wainuenue to
Ponahawai) and Kinoole (Kawili to Mohouli)
• Puna: Pāhoa Post Office Road, Opae Street, Aku Street, North Peck Road
• Ka‘u: South Point Road, Wākea Avenue, Maile
Road, Ohai Road
• South Kona: Old Māmalahoa Highway (Teshima’s at Haukapili), Kealakaa
• South Kohala: Kamamalu Street (Highway 19 to
Kamanawa Street), Saddle Road, Paniolo Ave
• North Kohala: Kamakana Circle, Paaina Nani Street
• Hāmākua: Kukuihaele Road, Āhualoa (Old
Māmalahoa)
Special attention is warranted for Puna District where
the Puna Connectivity Committee has been working for
several years to identify the roadways (including some
private roadways) they would like improved in order
to achieve connectivity within the district. These are
also roads that, if improved, would be used by MTA to
expand the circular system in Puna. So in this way, they
work hand in hand. The Committee continues to meet,
and has thus far come up with the following:
CL-1 Kaleponi Drive and Punahele Avenue (Fern For-
est – Eden Rock)
CL-2 Punahele Avenue Extension (Eden Rock – Kopua
Farmlots)
CL-4 Orchid Street Extension (Fern Acres – Hawaiian
Acres)
CL-14 Puhala Street Extension (Fern Acres – Kopua/
Eden Rock)
Mauna Kea Road – Lower Puna: connects two Country
roads in Nanawale to create a loop for buses.
With the ongoing lava eruptions, it is expected that
some priorities may change. For example, the project
CL-5 ‘Ōla‘a Road to Kuauli Road Connection (Orchid-
land Estate–Hawaiian Acres) may no longer stay on the
list due to lava.
3.7 ALTERNATE FUEL FOR
GROUND TRANSPORTATION
As a policy directive, MTA has tried alternative biofuels in
place of diesel, but this has not been completely successful,
either for mileage or for how the alternate fuels sometimes
clog the fuel lines causing performance problems. This is a
problem that has been experienced by other properties, so
it is not unique in any way to the alternate fuel used here.
Decreased dependence on fossil fuels remains a strong
State and County goal. Specifically, the goal is to achieve
100% Clean Energy by 2045 and 75% by 2030. As of June
2017, Hawai‘i County was at 54% (twice the statewide lev-
el). Focus up to now has been on clean energy to produce
electricity, but the new emphasis has shifted to the trans-
portation sector.
The four County Mayors committed to 100% renewable
ground transportation by 2045 as part of the Aloha+ Chal-
lenge. In December 2017 the Mayors and counties fur-
thered that goal by signing proclamations that committed
them to moving the public and private ground transpor-
tation systems to 100 percent renewable fuel sources. The
intention is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and fossil
fuel imports, to ensure a more resilient future. The Big
Island goal is consistent with the goals of the Paris Climate
Agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and keep
global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius. In addition to
electric power, renewable biofuels and hydrogen will likely
become more prevalent.
34 — CHAPTER 3 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
The County bus system is an excellent entity to help
achieve these goals. But assistance will be needed from
others, as MTA’s mission and expertise is for providing
transportation and will be strained to have to properly
fulfill research/demonstration requirements.
One alternate fuel that MTA will test later in 2018-2020 is
hydrogen. The National Energy Lab of Hawaii (HELHA)
is gifting the County one vehicle and the hydrogen fuel at
a fueling station under construction. The vehicle will seat
29 passengers, and has space for two wheelchairs. It has
an electronic package with PA, camera surveillance, two
way radio, front and side vehicle electronic signs and a
bike rack. It will start its testing on the Kona and Waimea
routes, later adding others. Similar buses are being provid-
ed to the National Park Service, although closure of Volca-
no National Park may mean they are deployed elsewhere.
Should the vehicles operate well, and the County decides
to add more hydrogen powered vehicles, then the County
will also have to determine a permanent source of hydro-
gen fuel as storage locations. This has not yet been done.
A second alternate fuel of interest is electric. The County is
pursing Federal “Low-No” grants to purchase electric fu-
eled vehicles for testing. This is consistent with the Hawaii
County General Plan and with sentiments expressed by
the public during PIM meetings. Walk the Talk.
The downside, however, is that right now electric buses are
in high demand and they cost 30-50% more than a diesel
bus costs. This is offset by Federal “Low-No” grants up to
90%. It is hoped that the cost of electric buses and battery
technology will drop as current investment advance the
state of the art and if bought in larger quantities through a
state consortium.
An issue for electric buses or hydrogen in Hawaii County
will be the driving range. Today’s electric bus range is 150-
200 miles, which will not be sufficient for cross island trips.
Therefore, more immediate use will be for the circulators
and shorter routes. It is not desirable for the bus to have
to come in mid-day for a re-charge or battery swap. So
multiple battery packs must be considered.
Therefore, the recommendations for electric buses are: • Define the test “metrics” for demonstration periods.
• Do not convert any existing buses, they are too old.
• For electric, consider multiple battery packs.
• Purchase 1-2 electric buses under federal reimbursement program and demonstrate how well they handle Hawaii County roadways and route distances.
• Aim to achieve the clean energy goal for vehicles by
2045.
• Seek out state or federal incentives, grants, and subsidy programs for electric vehicles and if electric buses have proven productive, start acquiring them until the entire fleet is all electric.
• Once the fleet mix is determined, identify the best
generation and storage requirements for fuel.
Given that this will be a significant investment by
the County, partner with utilities to provide offsets,
investigate County source independent of the grid
(e.g. wind farms), and/or partner with private
entities who are developing waste-to-energy plants.
3.8 DESIGN
RECOMMENDATIONS
As the County moves in the direction of a multi-modal
transportation system, it is important to create design
standards for streets and roads, for bus pull outs, bus
shelters and bus stops, hubs, park & ride lots, informa-
tion displays, and signage. A sample of a design rec-
ommendation for placement of bus stops is shown in
Figure 3-3.
In addition, for service to expand into the desired hub
and spoke pattern throughout the communities in Puna
District, many roads will have to improve before bus
service can operate there. The County is embarking
on studies that examine the methods for making these
improvements as well as the legal options on private-
ly owned roads. Towards that end, standard roadway
geometrics for horizontal and vertical elements, sight
distance, depth and strength of pavement and shoulders
should be developed to inform the work on these roads.
A sample of a possible standard for developing two way
lanes along a sixty-foot collector that would have buses
on it and also bike lanes is shown in Figure 3-2. It comes
from the Honolulu Complete Streets Design Manual.
As the County mores forward with its Complete Streets
program, a design manual will prove helpful. There are
many resources for developing a full array of design
standards, including for bus stops, shelters, and hubs.
Some of the more prominent designs are shown in the
yellow call out box on the next page.
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 3 — 35
Credit: Lulu Chun, SSFM International
Source: Honolulu Complete Streets Design Manual
Figure 3-3. Recomended Design Profile for Multi-modal
Treatments
Credit: Michele Weisbart, Michele Designs
Figure 3-2: Design Recommendation for Bus Stop Placement
American Public Transit Association (APTA). Design of On-Street Transit Stops and Access from Surrounding Areas.
Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE)/Congress for New
Urbanism. Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A
Context Sensitive Approach (2010).
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO). Policy on Geometric Design of Highways
and Streets. 5th Edition (2004).
AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.
(2000).
AASHTO. Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of
Pedestrian Facilities (2004).
Federal Highway Administration. Designing Sidewalks for
Access: Best Practices Guide (2001).
FHWA. Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). 2009.
Transportation Cooperative Research Board. Report 19,
Guidelines for the Location and Design of Bus Stops (1996).
New York City, Department of Design and Construction.
Active Design Guidelines: Promoting Physical Activity and
Health in Design (2010)
City & County of Honolulu. Complete Streets Design Manual (2016)
36 — CHAPTER 3 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 4 — 37
Chapter Four:
4.0 TRANSIT SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS
The County of Hawai‘i is vast, encompassing 4,028.02
square miles of land area. The County has diverse cli-
mate, topography, and development patterns. Much of
the land area is protected and rural. Because of its ter-
rain, settlement has mostly occurred along the coastal
and some contiguous areas, with long swaths of unin-
habited and protected areas. The geographic features
found within the County have a profound influence on
the distribution of population and employment and
thus transportation provision. Major employment areas
are in Hilo and Kailua-Kona and the South Kohala Re-
sort (SKR) areas while residences are spread throughout
the island.
4.1 HELE-ON CURRENT
SERVICES
Hele-On provides bus service to all the Districts to
varying degrees. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
complementary paratransit service is provided in the
urban Hilo and Kona areas. Hele-On also provides a
shared ride taxi program in Hilo and contracts with
the Hawaii County Economic Opportunity Council
(HCEOC) and other agencies to provide paratransit
services.
Hele-On Bus Routes
The Mass Transit Agency (MTA) operates bus service
called Hele-On to most areas of the County. The system
map is shown in Figure 4-1. Thirteen routes are operat-
ed that can be classified into three categories: Connec-
tor, Commuter, and Circulator.
Connector routes provide some circulation within
their originating community and destination; howev-
er, their main function is to connect communities to
provide commute options. These routes include Vol-
cano, Pāhoa, Honoka‘a, and Kailua Kona connecting
with Hilo; and, Pahala and North Kohala-Waimea to
Kailua-Kona.
Circulator routes provide circulation within their es-
tablished community. They connect at a neighborhood
hub or transit center after completing their single cycle
trip. Community circulators provide timed connections
to other circulators and connector routes. These routes
stop at all local bus stops and frequently operate with
loops and branches. These routes include the three
intra-Hilo routes, the intra-Kona route, and the Waimea
Shuttle.
Commuter routes serve predominantly home-to-work
trips by connecting specific neighborhoods to em-
ployment centers. These trips are provided in the peak
period, peak direction with minimal scheduled depar-
tures. These routes include the Hilo to SKR trips and
the North Kohala to South Kohala route.
Demand for Transit Services
Passenger boardings on Hele-On’s bus routes grew
84.8 percent between the years 2006 and 2012 and was
averaging 15 percent growth per year between 2008 and
2012. Two events occurred since the ridership peaked
in 2012 at 1,315,222 passenger boardings. On July 1,
2013 fares increased, the general adult fare was raised to
$2.00 per trip from $1.00. This fare increase resulted in
38 — CHAPTER 4 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
Figure 4-1. Hele-On System Map
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 4 — 39
a 30 percent drop in passenger boardings the next year.
A rule of thumb is that for every 10 percent increase in
fare, a system can expect a 3 to 5 percent decrease in
passenger boardings. However, non-commute trips and
choice riders are more susceptible to a major price in-
crease which can explain why MTA did not see a larger
decrease in passenger boardings.
Ridership usually starts recovering within two years of a
price increase. However, the second event occurred and
is ongoing which has impacted passenger boardings
to the present time, that is the degradation of service.
Buses started breaking down with no replacements
available, several routes operated chronically late as the
system tried to get service on the road, and trips have
been cancelled daily.
The Transit Master Plan recognizes the need to return
the system to dependability that the public can count on
to meet their transportation needs. In doing so, rider-
ship will increase as improvements are made to the sys-
tem. Importantly, the Transit Master Plan based service
improvements on the demographics and transportation
needs of the County and individual Districts.
Technical studies identified that many of the more vul-
nerable populations, low-income, elderly, and disabled
residents live further away from the urban centers or
off the main highways and far from bus services and
bus stops. Jobs are concentrated in the Hilo, Kona, and
South Kohala Resort areas, while many of the employ-
ees live well outside these areas due to housing costs.
Demographic information was reviewed and matched
to current service provision. It was found that many of
the areas with highest unemployment or those areas
with higher levels of low-income people lived in areas
with little access to transit services. This chapter iden-
tifies the improved performance strategies and services
for Hawaii County.
4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
IMPROVED PERFORMANCE
Recommendations to improve performance range from
enhanced customer service information to identifying
system performance measures. Some of the recommen-
dations involve setting up programs or initiatives that
are meant to collect data in an ongoing manner and
monitoring activities.
The objectives for these recommended actions include:
• Improve Customer Information including public
schedules and route identification
• Improve Customer Service
• Improve Schedule Adherence
• Improve Safety
• Improve Service Design and Monitoring
4.2.1 Customer Information
Near term recommendations for customer informa-
tion include updating the public maps and sched-
ules, updating the Hele-On web site, and developing
information such that it can be easily incorporated
into programs or applications that can be accessed on
computers and mobile devices.
Public Schedules and Route Identification
The majority of the bus routes do not have publicly
identifiable route numbers as evidenced on the system
map shown in Figure 4-1. A numbering scheme for
the Hele-On system was developed and is contained
in Appendix C. Single digit numbers are major con-
nector routes serving Hilo. Two-digit numbers are the
remaining connector and commuter routes. Three-digit
numbers are the circulator routes with the first digit
referring to a geographic area. The number 1 referenc-
es Hilo, 2 Kona, 3 Waimea, 4 Pāhoa and so on. With
this scheme, it becomes clear that Routes 101, 102 and
103 serve Hilo, Route 201 serves Kailua-Kona, and 301
serves Waimea. Any new circulator routes would pick
up on the number scheme. A new Pāhoa circulator
would be Route 401. All buses, schedules, maps, and
any other public information should use the same route
number and description. Route descriptions may be
shortened to fit bus header and side signs.
New route maps were developed as part of this TMP that
show major trip generators. Arrows were added to show
route direction and dashed lines were added to show
where route segments have limited service. Time points,
shown with letters, match schedules so waiting passen-
gers know when the bus should arrive. These schematics
were prepared for all current Hele-On fixed routes and
submitted separately to the agency, so they can be imple-
mented immediately and are included in Appendix D.
40 — CHAPTER 4 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
Hele-On Website
Hele-On is doing a good job in notifying the public via
the Hele-On website on daily updates impacting service
delivery. These updates include revised routing, trip
cancellations, revised vehicle assignments, and other
news. As the website is redeveloped and expanded,
passengers should be able to input their contact infor-
mation to receive service updates via email or text mes-
sage. The revised route maps should be made available
on the website.
Hele-On recognizes that additional languages are neces-
sary to impart information to passengers. The website
invites people to contact MTA for assistance via a phone
number if information in another language is needed.
It would be more efficient to provide the information
on the website as shown in Figure 4-2 from Honolulu’s
TheBus website.
Figure 4-2. Honolulu TheBus Website Language Availability
• English
• Chinese
• Chuukese
• Ilocano
• Tagalog
• Japanese
• Korean
• Laotian
• Marshallese
• Spanish
• Thai
• Vietnamese
The US Census reported for the County overall that
18.2 percent speak a language other than English at
home. For Hele-On passengers that percent is 33.3
percent (221 of 664 responding to the question on the
passenger survey conducted in March 2017). Interest-
ingly only four percent (4%) of the passengers indicated
they spoke English less than well (27 of 671 responding
to this question). The top languages spoken by Hele-
On passengers are similar to those reported by the US
Census and should be a link on the website:
• Ilocano/Tagalog/Filipino 29.3%
• Hawaiian 15.2%
• Spanish 14.7%
• Marshallese 13.0%
The website should be redesigned in the near term to
prominently display a link to getting transit directions.
Intending passengers would then be able to input the
bus stop number into an App to receive information on
which routes serve that stop and when the next buses
would arrive.
Figure 4-3. Transit Direction Input Example
Start:Enter Start address
Destination:Enter Destination address
Leave or Arrive Date Time
Leave 9/3/2017 4:24pm
Get Transit Directions
Click to Get Directions
Developing App Ready Information
A number of steps are necessary to have the informa-
tion necessary to develop a computer and mobile device
app. A couple of steps have been undertaken by this
project. The updated route maps were provided to MTA
in a format compatible with app development. Addi-
tionally, known bus stops were described with latitude
and longitude coordinates.
Bus stop coordinates were provided for each route.
Since much of the system is accessed by flag stop, major
intersections were listed. Unique bus stop numbers
should be assigned to each bus stop. This will assist in
the development of an information app that will let
people know where their bus is located.
Creating a Hele-On Transit App
One of the most frequent requests from the public was to
have a real-time bus tracking and live map with estimat-
ed arrival times. This could be integrated with comple-
mentary multi-modal transportation options such as bike
share, taxis and commercial transportation options using
a smart phone app. This needs to be compatible with
Android and iOS platforms. Web app that do not require
use of an iOS or Android mobile devices should also be
available. It is desirable for the app to have features for
text messaging as well as connect to personal computers
and audio visual displays.
The system must also be ADA friendly with stop an-
nouncements to include transfer information, intersection
and major destinations, and requested stops. Both Hono-
lulu and Maui counties have systems in use and Hawai‘i
island should check with them on their experience with
various vendors systems, their advantages and disadvan-
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 4 — 41
tages. Currently the AVL tracking system (CalAmp RSI
AVL) uses a 2G technology. New devices use 4G or LTE
for the most advanced and fastest connection for mobile
internet. Possible WiFi hotspots on buses would be highly
desirable as well as broad band capabilities for the future.
These need to be in line with the National Urban Status
NTD reporting requirements such as:
• Fully automatic passenger counters (UTA counter)
• Usage and analytics
• Long term data retention
• AVL data
• Compatibility with Document Image Technology (DIT)
While waiting to procure and implement its own
system, MTA should pursue joining Google Transit.
Google Transit is lodged within Google Maps. Google
Transit states that their service is available for free to
“Any agency that provides publicly available transpor-
tation services and operates with fixed schedules and
routes is welcome to participate.”
There are different levels of interaction within Google
Transit. The static level uses scheduled times to indicate
when a bus is due to arrive. Static does not provide real
time information but relies upon scheduled times. Data
required for this service includes:
• Agency information
• Calendar which includes service days (weekdays,
Saturday, Sunday)
• Calendar dates which identifies if no service is
provided on holidays and identifies those holidays
or if weekend service is operated on holiday dates (specific dates)
• Fare attributes, describing fare media
• Fare rules by route (some systems have zone fares)
• Frequencies identified by route
• Route descriptions including deviations
• Shapes include the shape files this project provided
• Stops includes the stop name, latitude and longitude
• Stop times which are pulled for the public schedules
• Transfers including are transfers allowed between stops and transfer time allowance
• Trips which identifies by route each trip operated
Google Transit provides a step-by-step guide on how to pro-
vide the information in the required format. The real-time
capability requires an Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL)
system which allows for real time updates, service alerts and
vehicle positions. Since the real-time function requires an
AVL system, implementation may lag for funding.
4.2.2 Improve Customer Service
Comments made during the public meetings suggest
that several improvements can be made to customer
service. One of these is to train all drivers for how to
handle sensitive situations (such as domestic violence)
and courtesy to passengers with disabilities.
Another suggestion is better information for riders. For
example, alerting passengers by e-mail or text when-
Figure 4-4. Passenger Survey Results
42 — CHAPTER 4 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
ever the bus will be arriving more than fifteen minutes
late. People then should be able to re-plan their trips
using the transit agency web site. Another suggestion
is to have on-board wi-fi which makes the bus a rolling
“café.”
4.2.3 Schedule Adherence
Two short-term actions that are currently underway
include updating the public schedules and upgrading
the fleet. Both issues were mentioned by the passengers
during the passenger survey. Of the 818 comments
hand written on the survey forms by the passengers,
almost 33 percent were on these two issues. New/More
Buses/Buses that Don’t Break Down had 148 written
comments and 120 comments were in the Be on Time/
Realistic Schedules category as shown in Figure 4-4.
Public Schedules
On-time performance is a high priority for the agency.
The two major areas of frustration are vehicle break-
downs and schedules as expressed by riders.
The current public schedules were developed many
years ago. Public schedules give estimated departure
times for major bus stops known as timepoints. The
running times (which can be defined as the amount of
time it takes for buses to travel from one stop to another
stop) have not been adjusted. Running time is variable
based upon certain factors. These include:
• Route or route segment length
• Number of bus stops
• Number of passenger boardings
• Number of passenger alightings
• Time of day (peak period non-peak period)
• Direction of travel
• Number of intersections
• Number of turning movements
• Weather
• Wheelchair and bicycle loading/unloading
• Road construction and other obstacles; traffic accidents
• Bus mechanical issues
Due to residential growth with resultant congestion and
other factors listed above, buses are becoming increas-
ingly behind schedule. Some of the schedules are such
that it is almost impossible for a bus to make the trip
in the allotted time. Revised schedules were developed
as part of the short-term recommendations. Even with
these schedules, however, some incidents occur which
impact timely performance. These revised schedules
are being developed such that they are easy to read and
understand.
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 4 — 43
Revising schedules is not a one-time event. Schedules
should be reviewed quarterly and adjusted according-
ly. The quarterly reviews are in addition to temporary
reroutings due to road construction activities. The
vehicles should all have AVL transponders and moni-
toring system to allow supervisors to monitor schedule
performance. Monitoring allows supervisors to identify
those areas that exhibit consistent poor schedule per-
formance. This should be done in concert with driver
observations.
Upgrade Vehicle Fleet
Upgrading the vehicle fleet needs to be MTA’s highest
priority. Passengers need to know their bus is going to
show up. Granted any bus, including new buses, can
break down at any time. However, passengers need to
be assured that if their bus does break down, a replace-
ment bus or alternative means will be available within
a reasonable amount of time. MTA’s service area is vast,
what is considered reasonable? No passenger should be
stranded longer than 30 minutes without knowing when
a replacement or other transport will be arriving.
Generally, 30-foot buses or larger are planned for a 12-
year life expectancy. These vehicles are built on bus or
heavy truck chassis. These vehicles frequently have longer
life-spans with on-going maintenance procedures, parts
replacement and depending upon service terrain and use.
Smaller vehicles built on SUV or smaller truck chassis
such as paratransit or cutaway vehicles have a 7 to 9-year
life depending upon maintenance and use.
Knowing the average life span of their vehicle types,
systems create bus replacement schedules. If a system
requires 20 larger buses in the peak period, then they
should be purchasing an average of two buses a year to
maintain an acceptable average fleet age. To maintain a
state of good repair, the average fleet age should be about
half of the expectant life of the vehicles (average 6 years
for the example). Similarly, the smaller vehicles should
have an average age of 3.5 to 4.5 years. Hele-On’s vehicles
have an average age of twelve (12) years. A suggested
bus replacement schedule is presented in the Capital and
Financial Plan.
When federal funds are used, the cost of vehicles is
split between the local jurisdiction at 20 percent and 80
percent federal government funds. The County budget
should include a minimum of $550,000 a year as set aside
for matching funds for vehicles for the next several years.
This set aside would match five to six vehicles depend-
ing upon size (such as three 40-foot vehicles and three
smaller less than 30-foot vehicles). The County needs to
purchase buses every year to rebuild and then maintain
a working fleet, even if federal funds are not available.
Additionally, MTA may want to add to ongoing vehicle
orders from other counties in Hawaii instead of individu-
al procurements.
In addition to federal formula funding which MTA re-
ceives through the State, there are federal grant programs
that are made available periodically. These are competi-
tive programs that require an application to be submitted.
Receiving a grant award is not guaranteed, but MTA
should apply when the opportunities arise, and MTA
qualifies for the program. MTA should monitor for these
new or continuing grant opportunities as was recent-
ly done for the Buses and Bus Facilities Infrastructure
Investment Program. A good source to monitor for these
opportunities is the American Public Transportation
Association (APTA). APTA’s website provides a wealth of
transit related information and should be monitored.
4.3 SERVICE
RECOMMENDATIONS
Current fixed route transit services cannot efficiently
serve the County’s identified transit needs. Recommend-
ed service design guidelines and performance monitor-
ing for Hele-On have been developed in this study and
can be found in Appendix E.
4.3.1 New Service Types
Many systems throughout the Country have turned
to Flex and Zone services to provide essential life-line
services to their more rural populations. New service
types are described in the following sections. Additional
Express Routes along with a new Vanpool Program and
expanded BikeShare provides additional options for
intending passengers. Both programs will be discussed
in the Financial Plan.
Flex Services
Flex services are bus routes that operate on an identified
public schedule with an added paratransit function.
Flex services can divert or “flex” off the route to pick up
or drop off passengers that are within the Flex service
area. This Flex area is defined as up to ¾ mile off the
route. The Flex area should be reassessed after one year
of service. It may be possible to enlarge the Flex area or
if passenger usage is high, realign the route to provide
44 — CHAPTER 4 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
main route service in areas that are showing consistent
off-route service demand.
Zoned residential areas are large, have low-density, and
frequently have poor roads. The connecting bus routes
operate with larger 40-foot vehicles on long bus routes
so diverting into subdivisions with poor roads negatively
impacts system performance. Routes such as 10 and 40
serving Puna should not divert into these low-density,
low-ridership residential areas. These routes should re-
main on the main roads to maintain a predictable sched-
ule. Additional trips could then be added to these routes.
Intending passengers from the low-density residential
communities would connect to the mainline bus routes
using new Flex or Zone services and community routes.
Reservations are required for off-route stops. Reserva-
tion hours are 7:45 AM to 5:00 PM (similar hours of
scheduling as the ADA Paratransit reservations). Flex
service has the same cancellation and no-show policies
as the ADA Paratransit service as it provides the ADA
Paratransit service for the area.
Flex service uses smaller buses geared for ADA Para-
transit service although the service is available for all
passengers. The smaller buses are better able to divert
into subdivisions that have poorer road conditions;
although, Flex and Zone service will only operate on
navigable paved roads.
Flex services are not long-haul routes. Passengers will
transfer at major hubs, superstops or other bus stops if a
hub is not nearby to Connector routes to continue their
Comment Category Service Proposals
Provide Express Services New Express routes are Recommended:
• Green Line Express with service between Honoka’a and Kona
• Red Line Express with service between Hilo and Volcano
• Blue Line Express with service between Hilo and Kona (via Daniel K. Inouye Highway
formerly called Saddle Road)
Have Community Routes
Serve Commuter Needs
Community routes are all designed to accommodate commuter trips with AM and PM
peak period departures. For example:
• Kaumana City will have a 7 AM departure to MBT with the return scheduled to leave
MBT after 5 PM. Additionally, two new bus stops are proposed for Saddle Road at Ua
Nahele Street for residents to access the Blue Line.
• Instead of a 9:40 AM departure from Fern Acres, the new circulator will provide service
earlier in the morning and the return will be after 5:00 PM instead of the current 2:30 PM.
Add Community Routes in
Large Residential Areas
Recognizing that the Transit Master Plan is a 20-year document, and that the County can
upgrade roads for transit, new community routes are proposed for:
• Fern Forest
• Eden Roc
• Fern Acres
• Hawaiian Acres
• Ainaloa
• Orchidland
• Hawaiian Paradise Park
• Hilo
Serve Growing Areas Along
Ane Keohokalole Highway
The Kona area continues to grow and the Hub and Spoke services identified for Kona are designed
such that they can be altered or expanded as developments come on line. The Kona to Airport
circulators identify future alignments when roadways are opened.
Ka‘ū and Oceanview are
Isolated with Limited
Opportunities to Travel to
Kona or Hilo and Back
Additional trips are added:
• 1 additional trip from Pahala to Kona Hub
• 2 trips from Oceanview to Volcano to connect to Hilo
Add Formal Bus Stops The Capital Program identifies an ongoing bus stop program.
Add Sunday Service Current Sunday service is offered on selected Hilo to South Kohala Resorts and Pahala
to South Kohala Resorts trips. Sunday service would be initially supplemented with the
following routes:
• Hilo-Keaukaha-Airport
• Pahoa-Route 40
• Oceanview to Volcano
• Volcano-Red Line Express
• Green Line Express
• Blue Line Express
Table 4-1. Public Service Suggestions and How They Were Incorporated Into Proposals
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 4 — 45
trip. The hierarchy of bus stops (hub, superstop, bus stop)
and their amenities is discussed in the Capital Plan. Stops
that passengers will use to transfer to main line routes are
identified in the service maps. Days of service for Flex
routes will generally be five to six days a week.
Figure 4-5. Cutaway Van Size For Shorter Trips
Zone Paratransit Services
Zone paratransit service provides limited transit service
within rural areas in the County. Similar to Flex service,
there are no eligibility requirements for using zone ser-
vice. Anyone within the identified zone area can request
a ride. Service however, is only available to each zone
on certain days of the week, generally one or two days
a week. As with Flex service, reservations are required
with the same requirements as ADA services.
Zone paratransit service provides an opportunity for
residents to access shopping, medical, and business ser-
vices at least once or twice a week. Trips are scheduled
around time periods that passengers can access nearby
businesses or transfer to Connector routes. For exam-
ple, trips would occur once in the morning and twice in
afternoon. Service would be evaluated after one year. If
demand is high and consistent, then the service would
graduate to Flex services and potentially into the future,
fixed route hub and spoke services or additional days
could be added to the service.
4.3.2 Hub and Spoke Service Design
It is recommended that Hele-On redesign connector
routes to provide more predictable on-time performance,
so the majority of passengers can be assured the bus will
arrive. By doing so, Hele-On will also attract new riders
and win back past passengers. Converting services in Puna
and Kona to hub-and-spoke will provide that predict-
ability. Hubs are a centralized location within a specific
service area. The hub generally has a number of passenger
amenities including information, shelter, benches, bicycle
storage, restrooms, security, and lighting. Some have park-
ing available and others have concessions such food. Hubs
are a location for taxis, Uber, Lyft and demand-response
services to meet buses to continue passenger trips.
The hubs are served by transit routes or “spokes.” The
spokes are those localized routes providing neighborhood
connections to the hubs. Passengers can transfer to other
routes to continue their trip. The routes will serve a hier-
archy of bus stops: basic local bus stop, primary local bus
stop, park and ride lot, satellite hub, and hub. These stops
and associated potential amenities are discussed further in
the Capital Program.
Many suggestions, recommendations, and comments were
provided during the public meetings held in October and
November 2017. Additional comments were submitted
by mail and email. Each was carefully considered and the
impact on current services was reviewed and operating
costs were calculated. Table 4-1 groups the suggestions and
comments into categories and provides a brief discussion
of how they were addressed in the service proposals.
Revised service proposals based on the information
gathered were presented to the public in a second round
of public informational meetings (PIM). Comments were
received during the six meetings, on the project website,
from the Councilmembers’ outreach efforts, and from
other stakeholders. Attendees at the public meetings were
asked to rate on a scale of 1 – being the lowest to 5 – being
the highest their rating of eight service concepts that are
recommended in the revised service plan. All service
improvements received a rating higher than the median or
neutral as shown in Figure 4-6. The two lowest rated ser-
vices, Flex Paratransit and Zone Paratransit, are new con-
cepts and recommended for implementation in a limited
number of areas. Additional detail on the service proposals
is provided by District on the following pages.
Figure 4-6 PIM Rating of Service Improvements
46 — CHAPTER 4 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
4.3.3 Service Proposals by District
Service proposals are presented by District in the next
several pages. The proposals were developed based
upon the input from the Public Information Meetings,
as well as the passenger survey, identified trends and
issues, population and employment projections, needs
identified in the District Community Development
Plan, and a review of current operations. Some of these
proposals can be implemented in the immediate or
near-term because they involve route alignment ad-
justments that do not require additional equipment.
Those requiring additional equipment and perhaps bus
operators are identified as near-term or longer-term
recommendations.
Hilo District
Hilo is a major hub for services, education, and jobs.
It is expected to maintain its importance in providing
those jobs and services. Hilo is currently a hub for
transit services which will become even more important
into the future. Figure 4-7 shows how the Hilo routes
would serve the urban area. Each route is represented
with a different color. The four routes are supplemented
with Routes 10, 40, and the Red Line Express connect-
ing from Pāhoa and Volcano; the South Kohala Resorts
(SKR) and Honoka’a routes arriving from the north;
and, the Blue Line Express connecting Hilo to the SKR
and Kona via Saddle Road.
Route 101 Keaukaha serves the Hilo Internation-
al Airport with eight trips currently. Two alignment
changes are proposed for the route. One is the deletion
of service along Baker Avenue (shown in red) and the
second is the addition of service to North Hilo (shown
in green). With these changes, the route will be able to
add two more trips to the airport. The route current-
ly ends at Kings Landing at 5:40 PM. It is proposed
that the route complete the trip to the Mo’oheau Bus
Terminal and add one additional trip to the airport
ending service at 7:05 PM. In addition, it is proposed
service to Kings Landing occur every other trip pro-
viding a quicker ride from the Airport to Banyan Drive
and MBT. On those trips, the route would continue to
North Hilo via Kamehameha Avenue serving the Bay-
front Park and Ride, left on Kilauea Avenue to Keawe,
continuing to Puueo Street, left onto Kauila Street, left
onto Waimaku Street and returning to MBT via Wailu-
ku Drive, Kinoole Street, and Waianuenue Avenue.
Together with Route 103 (Waiakea Uka), this alignment
Figure 4-7. Hilo System
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 4 — 47
will provide service from the park and ride lot through
Downtown Hilo. Route 101 is presented in Figure 4-8.
The current Route 102 Kaumana has two distinct ser-
vice areas. One serves Waianuenue Avenue and Kau-
mana Drive. The second service area provides service to
Prince Kūhiō Plaza (PKP). Six trips depart MBT for the
Waianuenue Avenue service and five serve PKP. Three
of the PKP trips continue service on the Waiakea-Uka
Route.
Service to Kaumana City was recommended for deletion due
to very limited ridership. Comments from Kaumana City
residents indicated that even though the community was
served with three trips, they were not scheduled to allow for
people to attend work or school. It was suggested that service
to Kaumana City be scheduled such that a person could get to
work and back. The proposed new route would serve Kauma-
na City at 7:00 AM and would depart MBT at 5:15 PM.
The service within Kaumana City is changed from just
serving Nolemana Street to turning left onto Pakelekia
Street and continuing to left onto Ua Nahele Street to left
Figure 4-8. Hilo Route 101 Keaukaha
Span of Service:6:30 AM to 7:05 PM; Monday through Saturday (reduced route and
schedule on Sunday)
Headways:80-minutes; 60-minutes
Number of Trips:10 (2 added trips)
Number of Vehicles:1 40-foot bus - can be operated with cutaway (smaller vehicle).
Implementation Near-term. Change schedules, passenger notification. Add airport
information at PKP.
48 — CHAPTER 4 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
onto Saddle Road to return to Hilo. This change in routing
eliminates the current back up maneuver on Pakelekia
Street and provides more coverage within the community.
The shared ride taxi program or transportation network
companies (Lyft and Uber) would provide a more efficient
option for any passengers desiring midday service.
Additional comments included that the routes were too
complicated and should be simplified and that senior
housing and community centers should be served. This
service would be provided by new Route 104. Figure 4-9
shows the proposed route alignment.
Route 103 Waiakea Uka currently has five trips, three
of which are operated by the Kaumana Route. One
additional trip is added at 1:30 PM. Two alignment
changes are shown in Figure 4-10. Observations and
discussions with drivers indicated that the Gym did not
receive passengers and serving the gym requires a back-
up maneuver. Instead, it is suggested the route continue
on Haihai Street to Kupulau Road.
The other routing suggestion is to have the route con-
tinue service on Kilauea Avenue to Keawe, continuing
onto Puueo Street, left onto Kauila Street, left onto
Waimaku Street and returning to MBT via Wailuku
Drive, Kinoole Street, and Waianuenue Avenue. This
alignment was suggested in the Downtown Hilo Mul-
timodal Master Plan (DHMMP), Public Review Draft,
January 2017 as shown in Figure 4-10A.
Figure 4-9. Hilo Route 102 Kaumana
Span of Service:7:00 AM to 5:45 PM; Monday through Saturday
Headways:90-minute
Number of Trips:7
Number of Vehicles:1 smaller “cutaway” vehicle
Implementation Near-term. Change schedules, passenger notification.
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 4 — 49
Figure 4-10A. Hilo Circulator, Potential Route
An additional alignment change is suggested for all
routes traveling inbound from PKP to MBT via the
University. Instead of circling around Aupuni (with
Figure 4-10. Hilo Route 103 Waiakea Uka
Span of Service:6:45 AM to 6:00 PM; Monday through Saturday
Headways:90-minute
Number of Trips:6 trips Waiakea Uka; 3 additional trips to PKP
Number of Vehicles:1 smaller “cutaway” vehicle
Implementation Near-term. Change schedules, passenger notification.
50 — CHAPTER 4 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
three added turning movements), the buses remain on
Kilauea Avenue serving a new bus stop (sign, shelter
and bench).
Route 104 Mohouli is a new route serving central
Hilo and is shown in Figure 4-11. This new route will
provide service to the Mohouli Senior Residences and
other unserved residential streets along Mohouli Street.
The route will offer new service for senior housing and
the Kamana Senior Center on Kamana Street and pro-
vide service to St. Joseph’s School. All bus stops would
be signed.
Route 1 Hilo-Kona and Route 2 Kona-Hilo has minor
routing changes to take advantage of the new Kona hub
(see discussion starting page 34) and the new bus stop
on Kilauea Avenue to avoid the circling onto Aupuni
Street. This is a long trip from Kona (or south of Kona)
to Hilo. However, if a person is on the first trip leaving
Kona to Hilo, then they will have about three hours to
take care of business or appointments before the return
leaves PKP at 1:10 PM or MBT at 1:30 PM. This route
was given the Route 1 and 2 designations as they link
the two major centers of the County. Figure 4-12 shows
the entire alignment and Figure 4-13 shows the route
insets providing more detail in the communities.
A route alignment change is proposed connecting Hilo
(commuter lot and MBT) with the South Kohala Re-
sorts and Kona using the Saddle Road. The Human Re-
source offices of the major South Kohala Resorts were
contacted and surveyed regarding employee shift times
and other transportation issues. Several representatives
indicated their properties had difficulties with staffing
Resort Shift
Start Bus Arrives Shift
End Bus Departs
Mauna Kea Beach 7:30 AM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
5:30AM
--
--
7:00 AM
--
--
3:30 PM
10:00 PM
11:00 PM
2:50 PM
--
--
4:25 PM
--
--
Hapuna Prince 7:30 AM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
5:35 AM
1:10 PM
1:10 PM
7:05 AM
--
--
3:30 PM
10:00 PM
11:00 PM
4:20 PM
11:35 PM
11:35 PM
--
--
--
Hualalai Four
Seasons
8:00 AM
10:00 PM
6:40 AM
10:00 PM
--
--
4:00 PM
6:00 AM
4:10 PM
7:35 AM
--
--
Hilton Waikoloa
Largest Shift
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
--
5:20 AM
5:20 AM
6:25 AM
7:15 AM
--
--
6:05 AM
6:45 AM
--
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
2:30 PM
2:30 PM
2:30 PM
3:30 PM
4:05 PM
--
--
--
4:05 PM
4:10 PM
4:20 PM 4:35 PM
Mauna Lani Bay
Food & Beverage
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
5:40 AM
7:05 AM
1:30 PM
1:30 PM
5:50 AM
--
--
--
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
10:00 PM
11:00 PM
2:35 PM
4:20 PM
11:25 PM
11:25 PM
3:10 PM
--
--
--
Fairmont Orchid
Food & Beverage
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
3:00 PM
10:00 PM
5:35 AM
7:00 AM
7:00 AM
1:25 PM
9:10 PM
5:45 AM
--
--
--
--
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
11:00 PM
6:00 AM
1:45 PM
3:05 PM
4:20 PM
11:20 PM
8:15 AM
2:30 PM
--
--
--
--
Marriot (Waikoloa)8:00 AM 5:25 AM
6:10 AM
6:50 AM
6:30 AM
7:20 AM
4:00 PM 4:05 PM 4:10 PM 4:25 PM
7:00 AM Green denotes a bus miss or very tight arrival or departure from scheduled shift time.
Table 4-2. South Kohala Resorts and Hele-On Bus Schedule Comparison
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 4 — 51
Figure 4-11. Hilo Route 104 Mohouli
Span of Service:6:45 AM to 5:30 PM; Monday through Saturday
Headways:90-minute
Number of Trips:6
Number of Vehicles:1 smaller “cutaway” vehicle
Implementation Near-term. Change schedules, passenger notification.
due to transportation. Table 4-2 presents the shift start
and end times for the major reports. The scheduled bus
arrival and departure times are shown that are closest
to the shift times. The cells highlighted in green indicate
those bus arrivals or departures that miss the shift times
or are too tight.
Current Hele-On passengers stated they were frequently
late to work due to schedules and requested trips using
Saddle Road to shorten the travel time. The Blue Line
Express will shave 30 minutes from the current travel
time to the resorts. Two current Route 80 trips (4:15
AM and 4:40 AM) would use the Saddle Road and
Daniel K. Inouye Highway as shown in Figure 4-14.
The shortened travel time would allow passengers to
reach their destinations in time for work. The return
trips would depart the Kona Transit Center at 3:10 and
3:20 PM. It is expected that Hilo passengers would elect
to use the Blue Line Express trips which would free up
other departures for intending passengers along the
Hāmākua Coast and Waimea which currently pass up
intending passengers due to full buses.
52 — CHAPTER 4 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
Bus stops for the SKR Blue Line Express include:
• New bus stops serving Kaumana City located on Saddle Road and Ua Nahele Street
• Waikoloa Village (remaining on highway)
• Hilton Waikoloa
• Marriott
• Four Seasons
• Costco
• Kaiser
• Kona TC
Span of Service:3:40 AM to 7:00 PM; Monday through Saturday
Headways:N/A
Number of Trips:3 roundtrips; one is also listed as Intra-Kona and one is listed on
the Hilo-South Kohala Resorts schedule
Number of Vehicles:2 40 to 45-foot vehicles plus 1 SKR vehicle.
There are 10 Hele-on buses required for the Hilo to South Kohala
Resorts commuter trips including one that is also on the Hilo-Ko-
na schedule (3:35 AM departure from Bayfront parking).
Implementation Near term: Change schedules, passenger notification.
Figure 4-12. Route 1 Hilo-Kona
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 4 — 53
Figure 4-13. Hilo-Kona-Route Insets
Figure 4-13A. Conditions Along Highway 19 Intersection Hakalai and Chin Chuck Road
54 — CHAPTER 4 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
A new direct connecting route from Hilo to Kona using
Saddle Road and Māmalahoa Highway is proposed to
be called the Blue Line. It is intended for workers and
job seekers. Blue Line Express trips would depart MBT
at 6:00 and 8:00 AM for Kona. These two trips would
not serve the resorts, but travel Mamalahoa Highway
to Hina Lani Street to Ane Keohokalole continuing to
the Kona Transit Center. These two trips provide the
needed connections for non-resort work opportuni-
ties, business, and other trip purposes. The return trips
would depart the Kona TC at 5:30 and 7:00 PM.
Hāmākua District
Most of the population in Hāmākua is in villages along
both sides of Highway 19. The major road connection
is Highway 19 – Mamalahoa Highway. Most residential
access is from mauka/makai streets that are not through
streets and many are not suitable for transit provision.
Current bus service, is provided mostly by the Hilo-
South Kohala Resorts (SKR)/Kona commuter trips
traveling along the highway. However, many of
these trips are already full and have limited seats
for additional passengers. The limited number of
Figure 4-14. Blue Line Express
Span of Service:4:15 AM to 7:00 PM; Monday through Sunday
Headways:N/A
Number of Trips:4 roundtrips; two of which are from the current Hilo-South
Kohala Resorts schedule
Number of Vehicles:Four 40 to 45-foot vehicles
Implementation Near term: Change schedules, passenger notification.
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 4 — 55
Figure 4-15. Route 60 Hilo-Honoka’a
Span of Service:5:00 AM to 7:00 PM; weekdays
Headways:240-minute
Number of Trips:4
Number of Vehicles:1 smaller “cutaway” vehicle (additional vehicle)
Implementation Intermediate to long-term a second vehicle may become necessary.
One additional SKR trip to start service at MBT (4:50 AM trip)
bypassing Bayfront Park and Ride Lot. This trip may need to be
adjusted to start in North Hilo if bus does not have capacity for
passengers along the coast.
Change schedules, passenger notification, set up dispatch call
center or extend contract with A2B Transportation. This route
would be operated by Hele-On, but it could be contracted to A2B
or similar organizations.
56 — CHAPTER 4 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
seats has been impacted recently by the continuous
canceling of one of the SKR trips. The Hilo/Honoka’a
schedule indicates there are 13 trips to and 13 trips
from Honoka’a to Hilo. All but two of the trips from
Honoka’a are provided by these other routes. One
additional South Kohala Routes trip is recommended
to start at MBT (4:50 AM trip) to provide additional
seats for intending passengers along the coast.
Figure 4-15 shows that the Honoka’a Route 60 (service
not provided by other routes) be converted to flex ser-
vice. The route would operate along the main alignment
as shown, however, it would be able to divert or “flex”
off the route up to ¾ mile to pick up passengers that
have made a reservation. Reservation procedures are
the same as the ADA paratransit service. The flexing
allows Hele-On to expand paratransit service while
maintaining a public posted schedule. Flexing allows
service to destinations off of the regular routes such as
the Papaaloa Post Office.
It is approximately 42 miles from Honoka’a to MBT, one
way. Current schedules list about 50-minutes to one
hour for the buses to complete that trip. This is not re-
alistic requiring buses to operate averaging 42 miles per
hour. The flex service is designed for a 4-hour round
trip, allowing time for the vehicle to divert off the route.
Span of Service:6:20 AM to 5:35 PM; Monday through Saturday
Headways:N/A
Number of Trips:1
Number of Vehicles:1 40-foot vehicle
Implementation No change to service
Figure 4-16. Route 70 North Kohala-South Kohala
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 4 — 57
Another advantage of offering flex service is that MTA
can partner with churches or other organizations that
usually do not have maximum use of their parking lots
during the weekdays. Commuters can park in these
facilities and schedule the bus. Since most churches
are off the main highway, this approach allows greater
flexibility in providing commuter options.
North Kohala District
The North Kohala community is rural and residents de-
sire to keep development to a minimum. Densities are
low, with a few towns offering some services. Residents
commute to jobs and major shopping areas outside the
District as there are few available within the District.
North Kohala is served by two transit routes that would
emanate from a future Kona maintenance facility. Each
route provides one round-trip daily. One route is a
WAIMEA
HAWI
KAILUA-KONA
KEAUHOU
KAWAIHAE
WAIKOLOA Hwy 270U
po
l
o
R
d
Iole RdPratt Rd
H
w
y
2
5
0
/
K
o
h
a
l
a
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
R
d
Ala Kahu
a
Dr
Hwy 19
Kaimani Dr
H w y 19 Hwy 190Sad
dle R
dKona Int’lAirport
Kawaihae Harbor
HawaiiGatewayEnergyCenter
North Kohala - Waimea - Kona
schematic map – not to scalewww.heleonbus.org
Legend
Flex Service
75 Timepoint
Medical Facility
Transit Hub
Satellite Hub
Park & Ride
College/University
School
Key Destination
P
S
S
75
75
Waikoloa
R
dSEE INSET 1
SEE INSET 2
SEE INSET 3
Hele On Bus Route - #75 North Kohala - Waimea - Kailua-Kona
INSET 2
WAIKOLOAVILLAGE
Waikoloa Rd Pani
ol
o AveLua Kula StLaie StKAILUA-KONA
KEAUHOU
Al
i
’
i
D
r
La’aloaMakalaHenryHual
a
l
a
i
Hwy
1
1
Hwy
11Hwy
1
9
INSET 3
Keauhou Shopping Center
Kona Airport
Hawaii GatewayEnergy Center
Royal Sea Cliff Kona
Makae’oTransit Center
KmartWalmart
KonaCommons
INSET 1
Hwy
1
9 HokuulaOpeloLi
n
d
s
e
y
Puka
laniParkerRanchCenter
WaimeaPark
HPALowerCampus
Jaracanda Inn
Hwy 190WAIMEA
S
Span of Service:6:45 AM to 4:55 PM; Monday through Sunday
Headways:N/A
Number of Trips:1
Number of Vehicles:1 40-foot vehicle
Implementation Near term – add Kona International Airport, add Kona Hub, add Waimea
Saturday service. Change schedules, passenger notification.
Long-term - add Sunday service, set up dispatch call center or extend con-
tract with A2B Transportation. This route would be operated by Hele-On, but
it could be contracted to A2B or similar.
Figure 4-17. Route 75 North Kohala-Waimea-Kailua Kona
58 — CHAPTER 4 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
commuter run from North Kohala to the South Kohala
Resorts (Route 70-Figure 4-16). The second route, North
Kohala-Waimea-Kailua-Kona (Route 75-Figure 4-17)
has a dual purpose of providing school trips from North
Kohala to Waimea, then continuing to Kona for shopping
opportunities. Both routes operate Monday through Sat-
urday, although the North Kohala/Waimea/ Kailua-Kona
route does not serve Waimea on Saturdays.
A third route provided limited service from North
Kohala to Waimea three days a week. This route was
cancelled in 2016 following the demonstration period
due to low ridership. Passengers commented during the
passenger survey that not enough time was provided
for those intending to shop or eat in Waimea on that
third route. It is recommended to add Waimea into a
revised North Kohala/Waimea/Kailua-Kona Saturday
and a new Sunday trip that would offer several hours of
service in Waimea.
Span of Service:6:30 AM to 5:30 PM in Waimea; Monday through Saturday
Headways:90 minutes
Number of Trips:7.5
Number of Vehicles:1 smaller “cutaway” vehicle
Implementation Intermediate to long-term. Change schedules, passenger notifica-
tion, set up dispatch call center or extend contract.
Figure 4-18. Route 301 Waimea
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 4 — 59
There are no changes recommended for Route 70 North
Kohala to South Kohala Resorts. There are six suggestions
for Route 75 North Kohala – Waimea – Kailua Kona. Four
are near term that can be implemented quickly:
• Serve the Kona International Airport in both
directions. In addition to serving the airport, passengers will have the opportunity to transfer to Route 203 at this location
• Serve a new Kona Hub “Makaeo Transit Hub”
located at the entrance to the Old Airport Regional
Park. The hub is accessed by Kuakini Highway at
Makala Street
• Add Waimea to the Saturday trip. This will impact the running time by 45 minutes
• Add a Sunday trip including Waimea service.
• Add stops on Kawaihae Road at intersection to Ouli Ekahi access Road
The sixth suggestion for Route 75 is to consider flex
service for the North Kohala segment of the alignment
(shown in Figure 4-17). This would be a long-term
recommendation only to be considered if requests for
service are continuous and the service has proven suc-
cessful in other locations (Puna and Hāmākua).
South Kohala District
South Kohala has five bus routes running through the
District, Routes 1/2, 70, 75, 80, and 90. These routes
serve both South Kohala residents and businesses.
Route 301 Waimea provides service wholly within the
District in Waimea as shown in Figure 4-18. Current-
ly the route provides 11 trips with 60-minute service.
The route has limited ridership and is a candidate for
restructure. It is recommended that the route convert
to flex service. This will accommodate ADA paratransit
trips which are required as complementary service to
a fixed route. Providing more flexible service may also
prove to encourage more riders as the service area is ex-
panded. The hours of service are similar to the current
schedule, but the number of trips are reduced to 7.5
operating with 90-minute headways to accommodate
flexing off the route. However, there will be two new
trips operating from Honoka’a to the Waimea Hub via
the new Green Line Express.
Figure 4-19 shows the alignment of the new Green Line
Express providing another opportunity for passengers
to travel between Waimea and Kona. The initial trip
would leave Honoka’a at 8:00 AM to the Waimea Hub
and departing Waimea at 8:30 AM. The return trip would
Kona Bus Waiting Area
60 — CHAPTER 4 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
depart the Kona TC at 5:30 PM. It is anticipated that de-
mand would create the need for a second trip departing
Honoka’a at 7:00 AM with the return trip departing the
Kona Hub at 5:10 PM.
Kona District
Current transit service within Kona is complicated. Kona
is served by the North Kohala-Waimea-Kailua-Kona
Route (1 roundtrip), the Pahala to South Kohala Resorts
route (3 roundtrips), the Hilo-Kona Route (3 roundtrips)
and the Intra-Kona Route. The Intra-Kona Route incor-
porates the trips of the other three routes into its sched-
ule. Timepoints or major locations in the greater Kona
area are served intermittently. There is no single location
in Kona where an intending passenger can access the var-
ious routes and find information on the system.
Further confusing the situation in Kona is that the
Intra-Kona route may be served by different provid-
ers (changing day to day) that do not have bike racks,
selected trips may be cancelled, and certain destinations
may not be served as scheduled. This situation is due
to a lack of operating buses which points to a need to
establish a second maintenance facility (intermediate
or longer-term solution) or contract with one of the
private tour companies (short-term) that have a func-
tioning maintenance facility in Kona.
However, Kona continues to grow and will continue to
grow. The Kona and Hilo Districts currently provide al-
most the same number of jobs for County residents. By
2040, Kona is projected to provide 25 percent more jobs
than Hilo. Residential and commercial development are
expected to continue contributing to further congestion
and commute times. For example, Kamakana Villages
WAIMEA
HONOKA’A
HAWI
KAILUA-KONA
KEAUHOU
KAWAIHAE
WAIKOLOA Hwy 270Upolo
Rd
Iole RdPratt Rd
H
w
y
2
5
0
/
K
o
h
a
l
a
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
R
d
Ala Kahu
a
Dr
Hwy 19
Kaimani Dr
H w y 19 Hwy 19
Hwy 190Sad
dle
R
dKona Int’lAirport
Lehua St Park & Ride
S
P
GL
Waikoloa R
dSEE INSET 1
SEE INSET 2 MakalaLuhia
LolokuKama
k
a
e
h
a
H
w
y
1
9
Palani
PalaniAli
’
i
D
r HenryHwy
1
9
INSET 2
Makae’oTransit Center
Kmart
KonaCommons GL
INSET 1
Hwy 19
Lin
d
s
e
y
Puka
laniParkerRanchCenter
Hwy 190WAIMEA S
Hele On Bus Route - Green Line - Honoka’a-Waimea-Kona
GL Green LineWaimea - Kona
schematic map – not to scalewww.heleonbus.org
Legend
Timepoint
Medical Facility
Transit Hub
Satellite Hub
Park & Ride
College/University
School
Key Destination
P
S
Figure 4-19. Green Line - Honoka’a-Waimea-Kona
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 4 — 61
KEAUHOU
KAILUA-KONA
Kaiminani Dr
Hwy 19Ali
i
D
r
Hwy
1
1Hwy 19090
Kona International Airport
Costco
Kaiser
Natural Energy Lab Matsuyama Store
HCC
LokahiApts
Royal SeaCliff Kona
To Honaunau via
To Pahala via Sheraton Keauhou 201
To Hilo via
To Waimea via
To Kohala via
201
203
202
204
75
7590
Hele On Bus - Kona Service Area Map
Ali’i Dr
Kuakini Hwy
Kona Airport via Ane Keohokalole
Kona Airport via Hwy 190
schematic map – not to scalewww.heleonbus.org
Legend
Timepoint
Medical Facility
Transit Hub
College/University
School
Key Destination
201 selected trips
selected trips
202
203
204
BL Blue Line Hilo - Konaselected trips
selected trips
GL Green Line Waimea - Kona
North Kohala - Waimea - Kailua Kona
BL GLBL
75
Kohala - Pahala90
KAILA-KONA
INSET 2
Costco
Kaiser
West Hawaii Civic Center
Hina Lani
KealakeheAne KeohokaloleHwy 19KamanuBL
BL7590
202
Costco
Walmart
KMart
Kona Commons
Maka’eoTransit Hub
Kaiser
Macy’s
Friendly Place
West Hawaii Civic Center Hina Lani
Kealakehe
INSET 1
MakalaLolokuKaiwiPalaniPalaniAli
i
D
r
Ku
a
k
i
n
i
H
w
yHenryH
w
y
1
9
Kam
a
k
e
a
h
a
Hwy
1
1
Luhia
Kuaki
n
i
H
w
y An
e
K
eo
h
o
k
a
lo
l
e
Safeway
201
203
202
204
75
BL
GL
202
75
90
90
90
Judiciary
SEE INSET 2
SEE INSET 1
90
Figure 4-20. Kona Hub and Spoke System
is a 2,330-home project being developed along Palani
Road and Ane Keohokalole Highway (which will be
served by Route 203). Developing a transit system fo-
cused on Kona will provide an alternative for residents
and visitors alike.
Four routes comprise the hub and spoke system for
Kona shown in Figures 4-20 through 4-22. Instead of
one route providing a myriad of routing possibilities,
a system approach allows the routes to expand with
continuing development. Visitors have a difficult time
understanding how to use the current bus system. The
hub and spoke system requires additional buses to
be fully implemented with a minimum of 60-minute
service. However, the principles of the system can be
started with less frequent service.
Near to intermediate-term implementation requires 3
buses to service the system; one for each route. Route
201 South Kona-Alii Drive will operate on 2-hour
headways with service starting in Kona at 7:00 AM
and in Captain Cook (Yano Hall) at 8:00 AM. Earlier
trips are provided by Route 1 Hilo-Kona and Route
90 Pahala to South Kohala Resorts. Route 201 termi-
nates at the new “Makaeo Transit Hub” located at the
entrance to the Old Airport Regional Park. The hub is
accessed by Kuakini Highway at Makala Street. Ame-
nities need to be added to this site, but it is workable
for the near-term. Route 204 South Kona – Kuakini
Highway provides nine trips between 7:00 AM and
7:00 PM connecting the Hub with Keauhou Shopping
Center using Kuakini Highway.
62 — CHAPTER 4 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
Span of Service:7:00 AM to 9:00 PM; Monday through Saturday
Headways:Route 201 - 120 minutes
Route 204 – 90 minutes
Number of Trips:Route 201 – 7
Route 204 – 9 (7:00 AM to 7:00 PM)
Number of Vehicles:2 30 to 40-foot vehicles, can be served with “cutaway” vehicles
Implementation Near term: Change schedules, passenger notification if vehicles
are available.
Intermediate to long-term: Add additional route to serve between
the Hub and Keauhou Shopping Center via Kuakini Highway
(Route 204). This route would be implemented later in the phas-
ing of services.
Develop Transit Hub adding passenger amenities including re-
al-time information, restrooms, bike storage, bike share, security,
and perhaps other concessions. Long-term: As Kona continues to
grow, add frequency requiring additional buses and operators.
KAINALIU
HONALO
CAPTAIN COOK
Kealakekua Bay
KEALAKEKUA
KEAUHOU
KAILUA-KONA
HONAUNAUAli
i
D
r
Hwy 11
H
w
y
1
1
Keala O
KeawePuuhonuaNap
o
o
p
o
o
Konawaena
204
Kona Community Hospital
Yano Hall
Royal Sea Cliff Kona
Fujihara Store
P
201
201
203Hele On Bus Route - #201/204 Intra Kona - Ali’i Dr/Kuakini Hwy
INSET 2
Costco
Walmart
Safeway
KMart
Kona Commons
Maka’eoTransit Hub
Target
Kaiser
Macy’s
Friendly Place
West Hawaii Civic Center Hina Lani
Kealakehe
MakalaLolokuKaiwiPalaniPalaniAl
i
i
D
r
Ku
a
k
i
n
i
H
w
yHenryH
w
y
1
9
Kam
a
k
e
a
h
a
Hwy
1
1
LuhiaKuaki
n
i
H
w
y An
e
Keo
h
o
k
a
l
o
l
e
Judiciary
201
203
202
204
KeauhouShoppingCenter
SheratonKeauhou Alii DrKamehameha IIIKaleio
p
a
p
a
INSET 1
201
204201201
SEE INSET 1
SEE INSET 2
Ali’i Dr
Kuakini Hwy
Kona Airport via Ane Keohokalole
Kona Airport via Hwy 190
schematic map – not to scalewww.heleonbus.org
Legend
Timepoint
Medical Facility
Transit Hub
College/University
School
Key Destination
201 selected trips
selected trips
Road under construciton. Service to begin when complete.
202
203
204
Figure 4-21. Intra Kona Routes 201 and 204
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 4 — 63
KAILUA-KONA
Kaiminani Dr
Keahole Airport Rd
Makako Bay Dr
Hwy
19
H
w
y
1
9 Hwy 190PalaniAn
e
K
e
o
h
o
k
a
l
o
l
e
Hw
yAne KeohokaloleKonaInternationalAirport
Natural Energy Lab
MatsuyamaStore
HCC
LokahiApts
S
R
O
P
T
U
Q
203
202
204201
Hele On Bus Route - #202/203 IntraKona - Kona Airport
Ali’i Dr
Kuakini Hwy
Kona Airport via Ane Keohokalole
Kona Airport via Hwy 190
schematic map – not to scalewww.heleonbus.org
Legend
Timepoint
Medical Facility
Transit Hub
College/University
School
Key Destination
201 selected trips
selected trips
Road under construciton. Service to begin when complete.
202
203
204
KAILA-KONA
INSET 2
PCostco
Walmart
KMart
Kona Commons
Kaiser
Macy’s
Friendly PlaceCampus
West Hawaii Civic Center H in a Lani
KealakeheAne Keohoka
lo
leHwy
19Kamanu
O
202
INSET 1
Costco
Walmart
Safeway
KMart
Kona Commons
Maka’eoTransit Hub
Target
Kaiser
Macy’s
Friendly Place
West Hawaii Civic Center Hina Lani
Kealakehe
MakalaLolokuKaiwiPalaniPalaniAli
i
D
r
Ku
a
k
i
n
i
H
w
yHenryHw
y
1
9
Kam
a
k
e
a
h
a
Hwy
1
1
LuhiaKuaki
n
i
H
w
y An
e
K
e
oho
k
a
l
o
l
e
Judiciary
201
203
202
204
SEE INSET 1
SEE INSET 2
Figure 4-22. Intra Kona Routes 202 and 203
Span of Service:7:00 AM to 9:00 PM; Monday through Saturday
Headways:Routes 202 and 203 - 90 minutes
Number of Trips:Routes 202 and 203 – 9
Number of Vehicles:2 30 to 40-foot vehicles, can be served with “cutaway” vehicles
Implementation Near term: Change schedules, passenger notification if vehicles are available.
Intermediate to long-term: Develop Transit Hub adding passenger amenities
including real-time information, restrooms, bike storage, bike share, security,
and perhaps other concessions. Long-term: As Kona continues to grow, add
frequency requiring additional buses and operators.
64 — CHAPTER 4 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
Route 202 Airport via Ane Keohokalole Highway
and Route 203 Airport via Highway 190 provide
90-minute service in clockwise and counterclockwise
loops. The routes terminate at the Makaeo Transit Hub
and at the Kona International Airport where they are
interlined into two one-way loops. Figure 4-22 shows
that both Ane Keohokalole Highway and the connect-
ing road from HCC (Route 203) to Highway 19 are not
completed. This is depicted with dashed orange lines.
Route 202 will continue to the airport via Highway 19
after serving Costco and Route 203 will turnaround at
HCC to continue to the airport if they are implemented
prior to the road sections being completed.
Ka‘ū District
Ka‘ū District is considered an underserved area. Hous-
ing is affordable, and lots have been sub-divided. By
2040, the percent growth in housing units is expected
to be 64.7 percent over 2015. Ka‘ū District has very
few jobs available. Ka‘ū has the second lowest number
of jobs as compared to the other districts; this is not
expected to change. Residents must commute long dis-
tances to access both jobs and most services.
Hele-On provides commuter service to Ka‘ū residents.
One roundtrip is provided to Hilo and three roundtrips
are provided to Kona/South Kohala Resorts. One park-
and-ride lot located in Ocean View is used by both
Hele-On commuters and school bus passengers. This is
a basic lot with no amenities, including lighting, paving,
or restroom facilities.
Figure 4-23. Ocean View Park & Ride
With its rural, isolated area, housing is affordable,
although spread out. This attracts residents who have
limited resources. It also makes serving this vast area
difficult. Many roads are private, in poor repair, and
some are gated. Challenges to providing a transit cir-
culator or loop route include the large blocks that were
laid out in Ocean View. These blocks are quarter-mile
square and encompass almost all the community.
Ka‘ū has two bus routes serving the District: Route 10
Ka‘ū – Volcano – Hilo and Route 90 Pahala – South
Kohala. Route 10 has one roundtrip provided daily
starting at the Ocean View park and ride lot. Route 90
provides three roundtrips starting in Pahala.
The majority of service recommendations for Ka‘ū are
intermediate or longer-term as they require additional
vehicles. Near term recommendations include minor
alignment changes for Route 90. Route 90 will take
advantage of the hub location in Kona as shown in
Figure 4-24. Route 90 will serve the Kona International
Airport on all trips, but will no longer divert to HCC
or Kona Palisades (these destinations will be served by
new Route 203.
Intermediate to long-term recommendations include
adding:
• One additional round trip on Route 90 (to the
Kona Hub)
• Two additional roundtrips between Ocean View
and Volcano to connect with Route 10. One of
these trips would operate on Sunday to match the
Red Line Express
• On Mondays and Wednesdays, zone service (Zone 3) will be available to anyone within the zone (that has clear, safe access and paved roads). As with paratransit and flex services, intending passengers need to make a reservation at least 24 hours in advance for the pickup and return trips. Trips will be grouped within the zone, so passengers have the opportunity to reach the main route between Ocean View and Volcano
It is expected that the zone service will gauge the
public’s demand for additional transit services or
service days. A one-to-two-year trial period should
be implemented after which a review of the service
utilization should be conducted. Requests for commu-
nity circulation within the communities of Ka‘ū have
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 4 — 65
Span of Service:3:30 AM to 7:45 PM; Monday through Saturday; 1 trip on Sunday
Headways:N/A
Number of Trips:3 – Pahala to South Kohala
Intermediate or long term 1 - additional trip Pahala to Kona Hub (9 AM depar-
ture); intermediate-long term zone demand response on Mondays and Wednes-
days (same description on Route 10 in Figure 4-21)
Number of Vehicles:3 40-foot vehicles (Pahala to Kona)
1; additional 30 to 40-foot vehicle for added Pahala to Kona trip
1; cutaway (additional) ADA vehicle Mondays and Wednesdays
Implementation Near term: Change schedules, passenger notification
Intermediate to long-term: Upgrade Ocean View park and ride lot. Change
schedules, passenger notification, set up dispatch call center or extend contract
with A2B Transportation. This service would be operated by Hele-On, but it
could be contracted to A2B or similar.
Figure 4-24. Route 90 Pahala to South Kohala
66 — CHAPTER 4 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
Figure 4-25. Route 10 Ka‘ū – Volcano – Hilo and Zone Service
Span of Service:6:40 AM to 5:15 PM; Monday through Saturday (Ocean View)
Headways:N/A
Number of Trips:1 - Ocean View to Hilo near-term
2 - additional trips Ocean View to Volcano; intermediate-long
term Demand response on Mondays and Wednesdays (Zone 3)
Number of Vehicles:1 40-foot vehicles, near term
1; additional 30 to 40-foot vehicle (can use smaller cutaway)
2; cutaways (long term) to serve Fern Forest, Eden Roc, and Fern
Acres
1; cutaway (additional) ADA vehicle Mondays and Wednesdays
Implementation Near term: Change schedules, passenger notification. Identify
connecting services on maps.
Intermediate to long-term: Add service to Fern Forest, Eden
Roc, and Hawaiian Acres. Upgrade Ocean View park and ride
lot. Change schedules, passenger notification, set up dispatch call
center or extend contract with A2B Transportation. This service
would be operated by Hele-On, but it could be contracted to A2B
or similar.
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 4 — 67
KEA’AU
HILO
KURTISTOWN
MOUNTAINVIEW FERNACRES
EDEN ROC PAHOA
HAWAIIANBEACHES
KALAPANA
POHOIKI
SEAVIEW
FERNFOREST
PAHALA
PUNALU’U
NA’ALEHU
WAIOHINU
OCEAN VIEW
Hw y 11
Hwy 11Hwy 11 Hwy 130Hwy 132
Hwy 137
H
w
y
1
1
Hwy
1
3
0
Ocean ViewPark & Ride
ZONE 1
ZONE 2
ZONE 3
40
4010
10
10
90
90
10
S
P
401
401
SP
403
403
403 402
402
402
RL
RL
Hele On Bus Schedule - Red Line - Hilo to Volcano
Red Line Hilo - Volcano
HI Beaches - Nanawale - Seaview
Pahala - North Kohala
schematic map – not to scalewww.heleonbus.org
Legend
Hilo - Pahoa40
selected trips
selected trips
Ka’ū - Volcano10
Flex Service
Private Roads/Limited Access
Lava Flows (2018)
90
Zone Service
Timepoint
Medical Facility
Transit Hub
Satellite Hub
Park & Ride
College/University
School
Key Destination
P
S401
Fern Acres - Eden Roc - Fern Forest403
Paradise - Ainaloa - Orchidland402 SP Satellite Hub/Park & Ride
RL
Figure 4-26. Red Line Express/Route 10/Route 403 Ka‘ū – Volcano – Hilo and Zone Service
Span of Service:6:10 AM to 6:55 PM; Monday through Saturday; Sunday service
on Red Line
Headways:N/A
Number of Trips:5 roundtrips – Volcano to Hilo near-term
2 roundtrips– Red Line Express
2 AM and 2 PM trips Route 403 for each community
Demand response on Tuesdays and Thursdays (Zone 2)
Number of Vehicles:1 40-foot vehicle, near term
1 40-foot vehicle for Red Line Express
1; cutaway (additional) ADA vehicle Tuesdays and Thursdays
(same vehicle as used on Mondays and Wednesdays Zone 3)
2; cutaway ADA vehicles for Route 403
Implementation Near term: Identify connecting services on maps.
Intermediate to long-term: Change schedules, passenger notifi-
cation, set up dispatch call center or extend contract with A2B
Transportation. This route would be operated by Hele-On, but it
could be contracted to A2B or similar.
68 — CHAPTER 4 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
been made. Zone service will allow MTA to see where
service is used and in the longer term perhaps upgrade
to flex service with more service days. The zone service
will share the vehicle with two other zones to start. If
additional service days become necessary, then anoth-
er vehicle would be added assuming all zone services
continue to operate.
Puna District
Puna’s population is expected to continue to grow. Puna
has more affordable housing and is within an accept-
able distance to Hilo. Puna has multiple town centers
including Pāhoa, Kea’au, Kurtistown, and Volcano.
New development is proceeding in Pāhoa and a future
town center is identified in the Puna CDP for Hawaiian
Paradise Park.
Executive Order 12898, issued February 11, 1994, re-
quires Federal agencies to achieve environmental justice
by identifying and addressing disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects,
including the interrelated social and economic effects
of their programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations in the Unit-
ed States. The County as a recipient of federal funds is
required to identify environmental justice (EJ) popula-
tions to assess the distribution and equity of transporta-
tion projects.
An analysis of EJ populations within the county was
conducted. Using Census block groups, minority pop-
ulations and households below the poverty line were
plotted using a one standard deviation above mean.
For minority population, one standard deviation above
mean is 85.0 percent and for households below the
poverty line, one standard deviation above mean is 27.7
percent. In this analysis, 16 block groups are selected as
EJ for minority population, 19 block groups are selected
for households below the poverty line, and one block
group is selected based on both characteristics. EJ areas
are centered in Puna, Ka‘ū, Hilo and Hāmākua. These
findings show the importance of making sure transpor-
tation services are available in these geographic areas.
Appendix B contains the island’s EJ maps.
A full hub and spoke system is recommended to serve
Puna. Transit services will include express, connector,
circulator, flex, and zone routes. However, implemen-
tation cannot occur overnight. Infrastructure, vehicles,
and drivers are needed. Therefore, services will be
phased. Near, intermediate, and longer-range actions
to reach the full system are briefly listed below and
discussed more fully in the following pages:
• Near-term:
Update schedules for on-time performance; introduce
flex service for Hawaiian Beaches, Nanawale, and
between Pāhoa and Kea‘au; install passenger shelters
on Kahakai Boulevard for temporary hub; disconnect
residential service along Highway 130 from Route 40;
provide circulator/flex service for those areas; initiate
installation of formalized bus stops; and, start planning
process for hubs.
• Intermediate:
Continue planning and design for hubs and
start construction; continue formalized bus stop
installation; start zone service; add expanded
Hawaiian Paradise Park and Ainaloa/Hawaiian Acres
service; add expanded Nanawale service; separate
Fern Acres from Route 10 and add circulator; and,
add additional trips to Route 40.
• Intermediate to longer-term:
Add Red Line Express; add Orchidland, Fern Forest,
and Eden Roc circulator services; add Sunday
service to Red Line and Route 40; continue bus stop
installation; adjust flex and zone services as needed;
and, open fully developed hubs.
Two hubs are planned for Puna one in Pāhoa and one in
Kea‘au supporting the transit services. Kea‘au is recom-
mended to support a park-and-ride lot. Fully developed
hubs would be in a longer-term time frame. Puna Kai
is under development and will provide 103,600 square
feet of retail and business space. This new construction,
will add a transit stop in addition to road extensions.
It would be ideal to carve out space for a larger Pāhoa
hub to include a secure park-and-ride lot. Comments
during the CDP process included residents indicating
they would share rides and park to access the bus if a
secure location were available. Partnering with the new
development to provide security would increase transit
ridership and allow passengers to shop at the develop-
ment on the way to and from transit.
In the near-term a temporary hub could be located on
Kahakai Boulevard between Pāhoa Bypass Road and
Pāhoa Village Road. Buses would remain on-street in
this near-term scenario. Working with adjacent busi-
nesses may provide the opportunity for shared security
and shared use of parking spaces for park and riders.
Two passenger shelters should be scheduled for this
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 4 — 69
location. In the intermediate and longer-term, the new
Puna Kai development may offer an off-road hub where
expanded amenities can be added.
Puna is served by two Hele-On bus routes: Route 10
Ka‘ū-Volcano-Hilo oriented along Highway 11 and
Route 40 Hilo-Pāhoa serving along Highway 130,
shown in Figures 4-25 and 4-26. Both routes are fre-
quently behind schedule due to congestion and route
length. Route 10 currently has one diversion to Fern
Acres which is recommended to be provided by a new
Route 403 Fern Acres, Eden Roc, and Fern Forest,
shown in Figure 4-27. This will allow Route 10 to
remain on the highway. The roads in these subdivisions
are not geared for the larger buses. Currently Fern Acres
is served with one inbound to Hilo trip at 9:40 AM and
one return trip at 2:30 PM. A common discussion point
during the public outreach was that these times are not
sufficient to serve commuters. Therefore, the revised
Route 403 will be scheduled such that commuters from
all three communities will be able to access jobs and
school in Hilo and return in the late afternoon. Other
trips such as medical or shopping trips can be accom-
modated on the two days that zone service will be
offered.
Many of the roads in Puna communities are either not
paved or are in poor condition. Some of the roads
are not suitable for transit service. The Puna Communi-
ty Development Plan (CDP) Action Committee is
working with the Department of Public Works and
MTA to prioritize roads for upgrades. The roads that
are prioritized will provide connectivity between neigh-
borhoods and make it possible to extend transit
into the neighborhoods as demand warrants.
The new Red Line Express will provide an additional
trip between downtown Hilo and Volcano. The route,
Figure 4-27. Route 403 Fern Forest, Eden Roc and Fern Acres
70 — CHAPTER 4 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
operating on the Route 10 alignment, will depart MBT
at 8:30 AM. This trip plus the 9:50 AM inbound trip de-
parting Volcano National Park Visitor Center will pro-
vide the communities along Highway 11 with another
opportunity to access jobs, schools and other services.
An evening trip will depart MBT at 5:15 PM providing
a commute home option. Routes 10, 40, 402, 403 and
the Red Line Express will serve a future park and ride
lot in Kea’au proposed by the Office of Planning, State
TOD/TRD Strategic Plan. The site for the potential
park and ride lot is approximately .18 miles west of the
Kea’au Post Office. This will be a good location for flex
and zone services in the region to meet for passengers
to transfer.
On Tuesdays and Thursdays, zone service (Zone 2) will
be available to anyone within the zone (that has clear,
safe access and paved roads). As with paratransit and
flex services and as discussed for Zone 3, intending
passengers need to make a reservation for the pick-up
and return trips. Trips will be grouped within the zone,
so passengers have the opportunity to reach the main
route for a timed connection. It is expected the zone
service will gauge the public’s demand for additional
transit services or service days. A one-to-two-year trial
period should be implemented after which a review
of the service utilization should be conducted. Zone
service will allow MTA to see where service is used and
in the longer term perhaps upgrade to flex service with
more service days.
The zone service for Zone 2 will share the vehicle with
Zones 1 and 3 to start. If additional service days be-
come necessary, then another vehicle would be added
assuming all zone services continue to operate. Zone 1
will have service on Fridays. One day is suggested since
the proposed circulators in Hawaiian Paradise Park will
have more coverage than current services.
Many comments were received during the community
meetings and from individual mail and email submit-
tals from Puna District residents and from the Coun-
cilmembers representing the District. Overwhelming
support for expanding service into Puna’s large residen-
tial divisions was the overall theme of those comments.
Most were concerned about the ability to get to jobs
and schools in the morning and have return trips in the
afternoon and evening. A network of community com-
muter-oriented services has been designed for Puna
District. These routes will connect to the main connec-
tor Routes 10 and 40 and the new Red Line Express.
The routes are described as follows:
• Route 10 and Red Line Express Hilo to Volcano:
Operates between Hilo MBT and Volcano National
Park Visitors Center. The routes provide service to
Volcano Village via Wright Road, Kilauea Road,
Haunani Road and Old Volcano Road. Sunday ser-
vice will be provided by the Red Line Express
• Route 40 Hilo to Pāhoa: Operates current align-
ment from Hilo to Pāhoa along Kea‘au- Pāhoa Road
to Pāhoa Village Road, traveling through the town
and turning on Pāhoa Bypass Road to access the
Hub on Kahakai Boulevard where the route would
meet with the community circulators. Limited
number of trips will operate on Sundays. Route 40
is shown in Figure 4-28.
• Community commuter services are expanded in
Hawaiian Paradise Park, Ainaloa, Orchidland, and
Hawaiian Acres. These communities will be served
by Route 402 Hawaiian Paradise Park/Ainaloa-Ha-
waiian Acres/Orchidland shown in Figure 4-29.
Service within Hawaiian Paradise Park has been
substantially changed. New service will be provided
on Shower Drive from Kea‘au-Pāhoa Road (High-
way130) to right onto Ohe Avenue (24th Street) and
right onto Kaloli Drive to return to Highway 130.
This new routing will provide service to a future
Park and Town Center planned for development on
Kaloli Drive between 26th and 24th (Ohe) Streets in
addition to serving residents. Current service within
Hawaiian Paradise Park along Paradise Drive and
Makuu Drive will be extended to 1st Avenue.
• Currently Ainaloa is served only as far as the Ain-
aloa Community Association leaving much of the
community unserved. Hawaiian Acres is currently
not served by transit except from Route 10 operating
on Highway 11. Currently Ainaloa is served only as
far as the Ainaloa Community Association leaving
much of the community unserved. Hawaiian Acres is
currently not served by transit except from Route 10
operating on Highway 11.
• New Ainaloa/Hawaiian Acres service will extend
beyond the Ainaloa Community Association and
continue to a right on 9 Road, left on F Road, right
onto Moho Road (8 Road), to A Road and a left onto
Kuauli Road to Highway 11. This alignment con-
nects Ainaloa and Hawaiian Acres providing service
between Highways 11 and 130. The service will
provide two AM and two PM trips. Future plans may
include a bike and pedestrian connection between
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 4 — 71
Span of Service:5:20 AM to 10:45 PM; Monday through Saturday; Sunday service
on Route 40
Headways:75-minute with implementation
Number of Trips:15 roundtrips Route 40
15 trips Flex service
2 AM and 2 PM trips community circulators
Demand response Zone 1 on Fridays
Number of Vehicles:2 30 to 40-foot vehicles, near term Route 40
4-cutaways for flex services and community circulators
1; cutaway ADA vehicle Fridays (shared Zone service vehicle)
Implementation Near term: Change schedules, passenger notification. Identify
connecting services on maps. Formalize temporary hub/bus stop
and start discussions with Puna Kai Development.
Intermediate to long-term: Change schedules, passenger notifi-
cation, set up dispatch call center or extend contract with A2B
Transportation. These routes would be operated by Hele-On but
could be contracted to A2B or similar.
HILO
KEA’AU
PAHOA
KALAPANA
OPIHIKAO
SEAVIEW
POHOIKI
KAPOHO
NANAWALE
H
w
y
1
1
Hwy 130Hwy 130Ma
p
u
a
n
a
A
v
e
Hwy 132
Hwy 137Red RdHwy 13
7Kahakai BlvdParadise DrMaku’u DrShower DrKaloli DrFuture Park & Regional Town CenterAinaloa
Dr
Orchidla
n
d
Dr
R
d
8
4
0
t
h
A
v
e
R
d
9
1st
A
v
e
Pohoiki Rd
ZONE 1
ZONE 2
40
10
401
401
Hilo - Pahoa
Ka’ū - Volcano
HI Beaches - Nanawale - SeaviewSelected trips
Zone Service
Flex Service
schematic map – not to scalewww.heleonbus.org
Legend
40
Hele On Bus Route - #40 - Hilo-Pahoa-Seaview
40Paradise - Ainaloa - Orchidland402
Satellite Hub
Satellite Hub/Park & Ride
Park & RideP
S
Timepoint
Medical Facility
Transit Hub
College/University
School
Key Destination
SP
Lava Flows (2018)
SEE INSET 1
SEE INSET 2
SEE INSET 3
SEE INSET 4
Waianuenue Av e
Puainako St
Lanikaula
St
Kawili StKilauea
A
vePonahawai StPunahele
St
Kanoelehua AveRai
l
r
o
a
d
Ave
A in a ko Ave
Kamehameha Ave
Kaumana D rKawili StPauahiKanoelehua AveOhuohu StMaka’ala St
Ter
r
a
c
e
D
r
Moho
u
l
i
S
t Komohana StAirport RdHILO BAY
HILO
UH Hilo WaiakeaHigh School
HawaiiComm.College
PrinceKuhioPlaza
AupuniCenter
LiliuokalaniGardens
Hilo CruiseTerminal
RainbowFalls
Mo’oheauBus Terminal
Hilo MedicalCenter
Hilo HighSchool
INSET 1
Hilo ShoppingCenter
S
HW
Y
1
3
0
SEE INSET 2Hw
y
1
1
H
w
y
1
3
0Old VolcanoKukula
KEA’AU
Keaa
u By
p
as
s
K
e
a
a
u-Pahoa
INSET 2
KeaauHigh School
10 40
SP
Kahakai BlvdKahakaiPunimaukaPunimaukaPunipakaPo
p
a
a
INSET 3
HAWAIIANBEACHES
INSET 4
Forest Rd
Mauna Kea Rd
Flower RdKehau RdHw
y
1
3
0
Hwy 132
Hwy 130Nanawale Blvd
K ahakai Blvd Pa
h
oa Village Rd Nanawale Communtiy Association
Pahoa High & Intermediate School
PAHOA
NANAWALE
401
40
1010
S401
402
402
402
SP
Figure 4-28. Route 40/401/402 Pāhoa Service Area
72 — CHAPTER 4 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
the Ainaloa Community Association and Pāhoa
allowing users to bypass Highway 130. The new cir-
culator alignment will provide connections for users
to extend their trip via bus.
• Similar to Hawaiian Acres, Orchidland is not served
by transit except from the highway. Two AM and
two PM trips will provide service via Orchid Lane
Drive from Highway 130, to right onto 40th Avenue
and left onto Ola’a Road to Highway 11. This service
will be implemented later in the program due to an
approximate 2-mile section of roadway that would
need to be paved.
The Hawaiian Acres and Orchidland trips would
connect with Route 10 at the Kurtistown passenger
shelter or with Routes 10 and 40 at the Kea’au hub when
developed.
Lower Puna
Much has occurred in Lower Puna since the release of
the Draft Plan in January 2018. Almost two dozen
fissures from an ongoing Kīlauea eruption opened with-
in the Leilani Estates and nearby areas starting in
early May 2018. This latest event started in early May.
Figure 4-30 shows the fissures and lava flow as
reported by the United States Geological Survey on June
19, 2018. As shown the eruption has covered
communities and roads. Hundreds of homes have been
destroyed and other areas are isolated. Figure 4-31
shows current activity from fissure 8 in Leilani Estates.
Hele-On provided three daily trips serving Leilani Es-
tates, Kapoho, Pohoiki, Seaview, and Kalapana prior
to the eruption with a large one-way loop. Kapoho and
Pohoiki are are covered by lava as is most of Leilani
Estates. Kalapana and Seaview are currently not threat-
ened by lava although many residents have evacuated
due to gas emissions and volcanic glass fragments
Figure 4-29. Route 402 Hawaiian Paradise Park, Ainaloa, Hawaiian Acres, Orchidland
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 4 — 73
Figure 4-30. Lower Puna East Rift Zone
Figure 4-31 Fissure 8 in Leilani Estates
74 — CHAPTER 4 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
KEA’AU
PAHOA
KALAPANA
SEAVIEW
OPIHIKAO
POHOIKI
KAPOHO
NANAWALE
HAWAIIAN BEACHES
H
w
y
1
1
Hwy 130Hwy 130Hwy 132
Hwy 137Red RdHwy 137Ma
p
u
a
n
a
A
v
eKahakai BlvdParadise DrMaku’u DrShower DrKaloli DrAinaloa Dr
Orchidla
nd
Dr
R
d
8
4
0
t
h
A
v
e
R
d
9
1st
A
v
e
Pohoiki Rd
ZONE 1
ZONE 2
4010
401
401
Hilo - Pahoa
HI Beaches - Nanawale - Seaview
Zone Service
Flex Service
schematic map – not to scalewww.heleonbus.org
Legend
40
Paradise - Ainaloa - Orchidland402
Selected trips Satellite Hub
Satellite Hub/Park & Ride
Park & RideP
S
Timepoint
Medical Facility
Transit Hub
College/University
School
Key Destination
SPKa’ū - Volcano10
401
Lava Flows (2018)
Hele On Bus Route - #401 - Hawaiian Beaches-Nanawale-Seaview
10
402
402
402
402
SP
INSET 1
Forest RdKehau RdFlower RdMauna K
e
a
R
d
Hwy 132 Nanawale Blv d
Nanawale Communtiy Association
PAHOA
401
SEE INSET 1
Figure 4-32. Route 401 Hawaiian Beaches, Nanawale, Kalapana
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 4 — 75
(known as Pele’s hair). Highway 130 from Pahoa to
Kalapana has experienced cracks and steaming, but is
currently navigable.
The Master Plan recognizes that Lower Puna has expe-
rienced major events in the past and has recovered (see
the purple flows in Figure 4-30). Figure 4-32 shows a
modified Route 401.
• Route 401 Hawaiian Beaches/Nanawale/Kalapana
will use two vehicles serving these communities.
Flex service will be provided between Kea‘au and
Nanawale and Hawaiian Beaches. Service within
Nanawale is extended along Kehau Road to Mauna
Kea (this road may need upgrading to support tran-
sit service), then right onto Flower Road continuing
to Nanawale Boulevard. This extension further into
the community will provide service opportunities
to those who currently do not have easy access to
transit.
• Service to Kalapana and Seaview will operate from
the Pahoa TC to Highway 130 when service is
identified for restoration to Kalapana. The route
will continue along Highway 137 to Seaview. The
route will turnaround in the Seaview community
via Mapuana Avenue, Nahokulele Street, W. Po-
hakupele Loop, returning to Mapuana Avenue and
Pahoa. Four trips (currently three are provided) two
in the morning and two in the afternoon/evening
planned.
• It is anticipated that those who previously lived in
the destroyed communities will either rebuild in
place (if possible) or rebuild somewhere else within
lower Puna. The Master Plan is a twenty-year plan,
therefore the hours and miles of service originally
planned to serve this area, have been retained for
future services. It is expected that any service will
be phased.
The Pāhoa oriented flex service should be implemented
to serve ADA qualified passengers and to keep Route
40 on schedule by remaining on the highway and not
diverting into the neighborhoods. One additional bus
is required to make the hub and spoke system work in
Pāhoa.
4.3.4 Summary of Fixed Route
Recommendations
Table 4-4 provides a listing of which size bus is being
recommended according to the service improvement.
At full fleet size, there would be ten 20-foot buses,
eighteen 30-foot, and thirty-two 35-40 foot vehicles.
This fleet size assumes MTA provides all services
including commuter, flex and zone paratransit. If MTA
contracts commuter or paratransit services, then the
vehicle fleet can be reduced.
Many service improvements have been proposed for
MTA. These changes have been justified by the tech-
nical analysis presented in this report and by detailed
comments received from passengers documented
during the Passenger Survey. Discussions with bus driv-
ers and passengers have added to assessment of needs.
This detailed assessment included a thorough review of
the individual District Community Development Plans
and the County General Plan. Additional comments
and recommendations were provided by stakeholders
and the public during a series of community meetings.
Table 4-4 provides a description of the number and
types of bus vehicles that are needed to support this ser-
vice. The fleet information carries over into Chapter 5.2
which discusses the number of vehicles that need to be
purchased to increase the fleet size and to replace older
vehicles that have reached their useful life.
The proposed new routes and service concepts summa-
rized in Table 4-3 will require supporting infrastructure
including new bus stops, vehicles, infrastructure and ad-
ditional drivers. The service plan requires operating and
capital funds to be available for full implementation. The
Financial Plan and Capital Program defines those costs
and provides a timeline for implementation phasing.
76 — CHAPTER 4 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
4.4 Paratransit Services
MTA accommodates disabled passengers able to use
the bus by having lifts or ramps on all vehicles along
with other accommodations such as stop and route
notification. In addition to Commuter and fixed route
transit services the County of Hawaii provides ADA
Complementary Paratransit services in the Hilo and
Kona urban areas. Additionally, the County provides
funding for paratransit services through the HCEOC
and through the Hawaii County Parks and Recreation
and Coordinated Services for the Elderly (CSE). The
HCEOC paratransit services are provided to low-in-
come residents on a pre- screened basis. The HCEOC
provides paratransit services for other agencies includ-
ing the Office of Aging, Medicaid, and non-profit agen-
cies including The Brantley Center. The CSE provides
transportation service for the elderly for medical and
health related trips, to meal sites and other resource ser-
vices. There are a limited number of non-profit agencies
that provide transportation generally limited to serve
their clients and programs.
4.4.1 Providing Accessiblity
Transit facilities including bus stops must be accessible
to people with disabilities. Informational materials must
be provided in adequate forms that ensure individuals
with disabilities also have access to adequate informa-
tion, including schedules, routes, fares, service rules,
and temporary changes. There are a number of respon-
sibilities MTA has to its disabled or frail passengers who
are able to use the fixed and commuter route services.
The following key requirements are from the US De-
partment of Transportation Federal Transit Adminis-
tration guidance on implementing the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA):
• Route identification - Where vehicles for more than
one route serve the same stop such as Mooheau
Bus Terminal (MBT) or Prince Kūhiō Plaza (PKP),
MTA must provide a means by which an individual
with a visual impairment or other disability can
identify the proper vehicle to enter or be identified
to the vehicle operator as a person seeking a ride
on a particular route. Without an announcement
system, the driver must open the door and identify
the route. It is recommended that all new vehicle
purchases have the announcement system capabil-
ity.
• Commuter services – A bus route may have charac-
teristics of commuter and non-commuter service.
For example, if a bus route makes stops in a subur-
ban service area and operates as a local fixed service
(serving all the bus stops), then the regulations
require that local-service portion of the bus route to
have complementary paratransit service. However,
if this route proceeds on a highway with no inter-
vening stop until arriving at its destination then
complementary paratransit service is not required
on that portion of the route. This measure would
apply to Route 40 serving Pahoa. By this defini-
tion complementary paratransit service should be
offered within one-mile of the route between MBT
and PKP until 10 PM. It is recommended that MTA
use the Shared Ride Taxi program to provide this
service in the later evening hours.
• Stop Announcement - On fixed route systems bus
stops must be announced. This means that any
time a vehicle is to stop where a passenger can get
off and transfer to another bus, the stop must be
announced. The announcement can be made per-
sonally by the driver or can be made by a recording
system. Announcements also must be made at
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 4 — 77
major intersections or destination points. It is rec-
ommended that all future bus purchases have a next
stop announcement package as part of the vehicle
specifications.
• Lifts and Ramps – It is the responsibility of MTA
that when a lift is discovered to be inoperative,
either because of an in-service failure or as the
result of a maintenance check guidance states that
MTA must take the vehicle out of service before the
beginning of its next service day and repair the lift
before the vehicle is put back into service. Guid-
ance adds that when agencies do not have sufficient
accessible spare vehicles available, the rules and
regulations permit agencies to return vehicles with
inoperable lifts to service for limited periods as
follows: Vehicles with inoperable lifts may be re-
turned to service for up to three days if there are no
available spares and the transit agency’s service area
has a population of more than 50,000.
There are multiple actions possible to address the lifts
failing. This is a common issue in transit. Suggestions
include:
• Retraining drivers on how to properly use the lifts
and ramps.
• Have mechanics check that the lift is securely grounded after installation to ensure the electric system operates properly. This issue is more frequent in older vehicles and can be the cause for lifts that work intermittently.
• Lift springs wear out and break causing the lift
to run less smoothly and not be able to level. It is
recommended that the springs are lubricated and
checked regularly.
• Use the correct hydraulic fluid on the lift is of most importance. Ricon, builder of wheelchair lifts and other systems, recommends using an aircraft hydraulic fluid as changes in temperature do not impact the fluid.
• Establish proper preventative maintenance.
4.4.2 ADA Complementary Paratransit
Service
ADA paratransit service provides complementary
curb-to-curb service (door-to-door is available for
those requiring assistance) for those individuals who
are unable to use fixed route bus service due to disabil-
ity. It is provided in those areas that have fixed route
service such as the intra-Hilo and intra-Kona routes.
Since ADA paratransit service is demand-responsive,
vehicles do not travel a fixed route or schedule. Trips are
scheduled for those qualified individuals who have pre-
called to schedule their ride. A minimum of 24-hour
advanced reservations are required to schedule a trip.
This allows the provider to group trips within the same
area to provide efficiencies in service provision.
Currently ADA paratransit service is provided in Hilo
from 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM and Kona from 7:00 AM to
7:30 PM. These hours will change as the Intra-Hilo and
Intra-Kona routes service hours are extended. Routes
101 Keaukaha and 103 Waiakea-Uka in Hilo are recom-
mended to operate later in the evening until 7:00 PM
and 6:00 PM, respectively. Route 40 currently provides
fixed route service in Hilo between MBT and PKP until
10:00 PM, requiring later evening ADA service. The
Intra-Kona Routes 201 through 203 will provide service
until 9:00 PM. When those changes are implemented
ADA paratransit service will extend hours in those
service areas.
Most systems providing ADA paratransit service grap-
ple with the best way to offer services with increasing
demand. Strategies include:
• Grouping rides as much as possible
• Scheduling trips to allow for traffic delays or delays
in boarding passengers to avoid late arrivals and
missed appointments
• Asking passengers to vary their trip time (no more
than an hour earlier or later) to provide efficient
schedules when necessary
• Five minutes wait for the passenger to be ready to
board
• Temporarily suspending passengers from being able
to use the service for repeated no-shows. The no-
show designation can include late shows.
• GPS automatic vehicle locators and communication
terminals placed on all vehicles providing ADA
paratransit service. This allows for easier communi-
cations with drivers to report last minute cancella-
tions or rerouting due to no-shows
• Scheduling software to prepare efficient vehicle
schedules (this will become necessary as demand
grows)
• All persons desiring to use ADA paratransit service
must be reviewed for their capabilities
78 — CHAPTER 4 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
ADA complementary paratransit service is expected to
average three (3) to five (5) percent increase each year.
MTA has provided the ADA paratransit service for two
years. MTA contracts the rider assessment, call center/
scheduling, and service provision. Vehicles are provided
by the contractor and are therefore not included in the
vehicle replacement programs shown in Chapter 5. It
is recommended that MTA continues to contract the
assessment, call center/scheduling, and service provi-
sion for the foreseeable future. However, it is important
for MTA to review the contractor’s capacity to service
projected growth.
4.4.3 Shared Ride Taxi
The Shared Ride Taxi program is currently only avail-
able in the Hilo urban area. This program is available to
the general public and has proven to be very successful.
Of the seven taxi companies participating two have
accessible vehicles. These two companies, however, offer
24-hour service and serve the Hilo Airport. Currently
the passenger pays $2.00 to ride up to four miles with
another $2.00 to ride up to nine miles using pre-pur-
chased coupons. As discussed in Section 6.5.3, the
Transit Master Plan recommends increasing the fair to
$3.00 in 2019 and $4.00 in 2020. Currently passengers
are paying 40 percent of the cost with MTA paying 60
percent. As a comparison, the fares from the fixed and
commuter routes account for less than 15 percent of the
cost.
The demand for paratransit service will only increase as
the population continues to age. It is recommended that
MTA contract with ADA accessible taxis to supplement
the ADA Paratransit program. It is more cost effective
to use the accessible taxis for the later evening trips. The
call center will need to make sure that an ADA acces-
sible taxi is available for the later evening trips that are
pre-scheduled. MTA will need to verify in the agree-
ment with the taxis that they will make a pre-arranged
trip.
The Transit Master Plan recommends that MTA con-
tract with Kona taxi companies to provide Shared Ride
Taxi service in Kailua-Kona. Of particular importance
is identifying those taxi companies with ADA accessible
vehicles. The County should be proactive in develop-
ing supplement providers for the expected increase in
demand. The Intra-Kona circulators are proposed to
operate until 9:00 PM. Taxis may be better equipped to
provide the later evening paratransit trips.
4.4.4 Flex Paratransit Services
Additional curb-to-curb paratransit-type service is
recommended for areas in Waimea, along the Hamakua
Coast, Puna and in North Kohala (as demand warrants)
with the introduction of new Flex services. Flex routes
combine general public dial-a-ride with a fixed route.
Route 301 will replace the current Waimea shuttle to
provide service to anyone within 3⁄4 mile on either side
of the route alignment by pre-arrangement. The hours
and conditions of service are similar to the ADA para-
transit program except that it is available to the general
public. Route 60 will provide four Flex trips connecting
Honoka’a with downtown Hilo deviating 3⁄4 mile off the
route to provide service. Route 401 in Puna will provide
Flex service along the Highway 130 corridor between
Keaau and Pahoa, Hawaiian Beaches and Nanawale ser-
vice areas. Flex services will gage the demand for transit
beyond the identified route alignment. Flex routes also
provide needed paratransit service to areas that are not
currently served.
4.4.5 Zone Paratransit Services
Since a vast majority of MTA’s service is commuter, the
Transit Master Plan has recommended the introduction
of Zone service to provide weekly opportunities for
residents in areas not provided with Flex or other para-
transit service to schedule trips. These areas in Kau and
Puna are recommended for new services in FY 2021.
Both the Flex and Zone services are described in more
detail in Chapter 4.
As the Flex and Paratransit Zone services are imple-
mented, MTA will monitor demand to ensure that
service is able to accommodate demand. If it becomes
warranted due to excessive demand, fixed routes may
replace the Flex routes in which case, ADA comple-
mentary paratransit services would need to be imple-
ment-ed. Similarly, Zone service may become Flex
routes as demand warrants.
The TMP recommends new paratransit-type services in
Hamakua, North Kohala, South Kohala, Kau and Puna
Districts joining services already provided in Kona and
Hilo.
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 4 — 79
Table 4-3. Summary of Proposed Services by District
CURRENT SERVICES PROPOSED SERVICES
DISTRICT Hele-On Refer-
ence
Number
of Trips
Route
Number
Number
of Trips Changes/Additions
Hilo
Hilo/Kona 3 OW 1 3 OW Serves new Kona Hub
Intra-Hilo
Keaukaha
8 RT 101 9 RT Modifies service to provide every other trip to
King's Landing offering a more direct trip to Banyan
Drive and MBT from Airport. Adds new service to
North Hilo. Sunday service is introduced.
Intra-Hilo
Kaumana
5 RT 102 7 RT Kaumana City is provided 1 RT departing KC at 7
AM and returning from MBT after 5 PM. 3 addi-
tional trips are offered to the Gentry subdivision
turnaround and 3 trips serve Waianuenue Ave.
Intra-Hilo
Waiakea-Uka*
2 RT 103 9 RT 6 trips will serve Waiakea-Uka and 3 additional trips
will serve as far as PKP. Service to gym is discontin-
ued and service to North Hilo is added.
104 6 RT New route serving center Hilo including Mohouli
housing, St. Joseph School, Kamana Senior Center
and housing and County agencies.
Blue
Line
Express
2 RT Express service between MBT and Kona Hub via
Daniel K. Inouye Highway. Sunday service is added.
Hilo/South
Kohala Resorts*
9 RT 80 9 RT 2 trips will travel from MBT to South Kohala Re-
sorts via Daniel K. Inouye Highway.
Hāmākua Hilo/Honoka‘a*2 RT 60 4 RT Flex service is introduced to provide access to tran-
sit to the villages and small towns along the coast.
The route will divert 3/4 mile off route to serve
prearranged pickups. Park and ride locations are
identified.
North
Kohala
North Kohala-
South Kohala
1 RT 70 1 RT none
North Kohala-
Waimea-Kona
1 RT 75 1 RT Service is added to the Kona Airport. Saturday ser-
vice to Waimea is added. Longer term flex service is
added as demand warrants.
South
Kohala
Waimea
Shuttle
11 RT 301 7.5 RT Flex service is introduced. The route will divert 3/4
mile off route to serve prearranged pickups.
Green
Line
2 RT Express service added between Honoka’a, Waimea
and Kona Hub. Sunday service is added.
Waimea Hub is developed.
Kona
Kona/Hilo 3 OW 2 3 OW Provides service to Kona Hub
Intra-Kona*6 RT 201 7 RT 4 Kona oriented circulator routes replace the current
Intra-Kona service. All 4 routes connect at a new
Kona Hub located in the vicinity of the Old Kona
Airport. Route 201 provides South Kona service via
Alii Drive.
80 — CHAPTER 4 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
202 9 RT Connects the Kona Hub with the Airport via Ane
Keohokalole Highway.
203 9 RT Connects the Kona Hub with the Airport via High-
way 190.
204 9 RT This route serves South Kona via Kuakini Highway.
New maintenance facility to be located in Kona.
Ka‘ū
Pahala/South
Kohala Resorts
3 RT 90 4 RT Added trip between Pahala and Kona Hub for a total
of 4 roundtrips.
2 RT Two RTs are added between Oceanview and Volca-
no for residents to connect with Route 10 to Hilo.
Zone 3 2 Days Zone paratransit service is added two days a week.
Puna
Hilo/Volcano 5 RT 10 5 RT Fern Acres service is provided by separate route.
Red
Line
2 RT 2 trips between MBT and Volcano are provided by
the Red Line. Sunday service is offered.
403 2 RT 2 AM and 2 PM trips are provided to Fern Forest,
Eden Roc, and Fern Acres communities scheduled
to provide commuter service.
Hilo/Pāhoa/
Pohoiki
11 RT 40 15 RT Service is provided between MBT and Pāhoa
without diverting into the residential communities.
Sunday service is added.
401 10 RT Flex service is added between Kea’au and Pāhoa
and Hawaiian Beaches and Nanawale. One new trip
for a total of 4 trips are provided to Kalapana and
Seaview via Highway 130 and 137. This new trip is
designed to serve commuters. Service is extended
from Nanawale Blvd. to Mauna Kea Road (road
improvements may be needed on Mauna Kea) in
Nanawale serving further into the community.
402 2 AM
and 2
PM
New service is added in Hawaiian Paradise Park to
serve Shower Drive and the future park and regional
center on Kaloli Drive. The route is extended from
16th to 1st Avenue between Paradise Drive and
Makuu Drive in Hawaiian Paradise Park. Ainaloa ser-
vice is connected to Highway 11 via Hawaiian Acres
and new service is introduced through Orchidland.
Two hubs are developed; one in Keaau and one in
Pāhoa.
Zone 1 1 Day
extend-
ing to 5
days
Zone paratransit service is added one day a week for
areas along Highway 130. This service is extended to
five days as demand warrants.
Zone 2 2 Days Zone paratransit service is added two days a week
for areas along Highway 11.
*
OW
RT
Does not include trips operated by other routes.
One Way
Round Trip
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 4 — 81
Table 4-4. Intermediate to Long Term - Vehicle Needs To Match Service Proposals
ROUTE Current
Vehicle
Needs
Master Plan Vehicle Size Needs
Number Name Cutaway 20
feet or less
Cutaway 30
feet or less 35-45 feet Total
Vehicles
1 Hilo/Kona 1 1 1
2 Kona/Hilo 1 1 1
10 Hilo/Volcano/Kau 2 2 2
10 Kau/Volcano 1 1
Red Hilo/Volcano 1 1
40 Hilo/Pahoa/Pohoiki 4 2 2
60 Hilo/Honokaa 1 2 2
70 North Kohala-South Kohala 1 1 1
75 North Kohala-Waimea-Kona 1 1 1
Green Waimea/Kona 1 1
80 Hilo/South Kohala Resorts 10 8 8
80 Hilo/South Kohala Resorts via Saddle 2 2
Blue Hilo/Kona via Saddle 1 1
90 Pahala/South Kohala Resorts 3 4 4
101 Intra-Hilo Keaukaha 1 1 x 1
102 Intra-Hilo Kaumana 1 1 x 1
103 Intra-Hilo Waiakea Uka 1 x 1
104 Intra-Hilo Mohouli x 1 1
201 South Kona via Alii Drive 2 2 2
202 North Kona via Highway 19 x 1 1
203 North Kona via Highway 190 x 1 1
204 South Kona via Kuakini Highway 1 x 1
301 Waimea Circulator 1 x 1 1
401 Hawaiian Beaches/Nanawale/Kalapana 2 2
402 Hawaiian Paradise Park/Ainaloa 2 x 2
403 Fern Acres/Fern Forest/Eden Roc 2 2
Zones 1-3 Zone Paratransit Service in Kau and
Puna 4 4
Buses required for Maximum Service 29 8 13 27 48
Spares (minimum 20%)7 2 3 5 10
Total 36 10 16 32 58
82 — CHAPTER 4 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 5 — 83
Chapter Five:
5.0 RECOMMENDED ELEMENTS FOR THE
TRANSIT CAPITAL PROGRAM
Chapter Five describes the elements recommended for
the MTA Capital Program through text, figures, and
tables. The actual multi-year capital plan is presented in
Chapter Six. Therefore, it is recommended that the two
chapters be read together.
During the public information meetings held in April
2018, attendees were highly supportive of all the rec-
ommended capital expenditures including: buying new
buses; installing information signs at bus stops, build-
ing more bus shelters; locating transit centers in Puna,
Kona, and Waimea; improved security; and creating a
transit application for the island bus system.
5.1 TRANSIT APP
The top request from riders was for development of a
transit application (APP) that would provide real time
information. MTA previously started a procurement
for such a system by identifying the features it desires.
These are: upgrade of the GPS system including the
hardware and the software (compatible with existing
Calamp). In addition, to have the features with au-
tomatic vehicle tracking, APC, and audio/visual dis-
plays. The cost for the system is estimated at just under
$500,000, which can be funded over two years. In the
meantime, MTA will work with Google to create an
App on their system.
5.2 TRANSIT FLEET
Far and away the most important capital need for the cur-
rent transit program is to get a reliable fleet, replacing the
current vehicles, and expanding to a fleet that is dependable
and suited to the type of services being provided.
The effects on service, rider confidence, and MTA pride due
to breakdowns and the non-availability of the equipment
and “dead” vehicles has been described elsewhere in this
plan and will not be repeated here. As of 2015, Hele-On had
55 vehicles listed in their bus fleet. However, 18 buses were
listed as not operable or repairable. This was pared down to
37 in 2016. The current running fleet consists of 11 buses
shown in Table 5-1. Of those, four were gifted this past
summer from the City and County of Honolulu from their
retiring fleet. These buses are in good repair, but their useful
life is limited. MTA does not directly operate the paratransit
services and therefore, does not have a paratransit fleet.
Table 5-1. Hele-On Active Bus Fleet (as of June 2018)
Year Quantity Make Bus Numbers Seating Capacity
1997 4 Gillig 341-347 45
2007 2 Chevy 54-55 15
2008 1 Chevy 102 15
2010 2 MCI 601-602 50
2014 1 MCI 611 49
2015 1 MCI 612 49
Total 11
5.2.1 Transit Fleet Size and
Composition
The current running fleet is 11 vehicles, well below what
is required to operate current bus routes. The CIP places
an emphasis on rebuilding the fleet. Table 5-2 presents
a suggested fleet replacement and expansion plan based
on the proposed service plan in Chapter 4. The number
84 — CHAPTER 5 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
of vehicles needed for current service is 36. The number
needed for full implementation is 55, including spares.
No new vehicles were added to the fleet in FY 2018.
Starting in Fiscal Year 2019, it is recommended that
three smaller and four 40’ vehicles be procured and
added to the fleet. The following year 2020 should add
seven under 30’ vehicles. Table 5-2 is a replacement and
expansion schedule which shows the number of vehi-
cles required to operate the service. Currently and over
the next several years into the future, MTA will con-
tinue to require contracting with private providers for
buses. If funds become available, such as additional
grant opportunities, then a more aggressive bus acquisi-
tion program should be pursued.
The Financial Plan in Chapter Six uses the following
estimates for cost of the three types of vehicles needed
for service. The estimated cost includes the electronics
package described in Section 5.2.3. It averages to about
$19,000 per vehicle.
• 20-foot or less $220,000
• 25 to 30-foot $310,000
• 40-foot vehicle $576,300
These costs listed above are escalated by 1.2 percent per
year in the CIP.
Table 5-2. Fixed Route Bus Inventory and Fleet Expansion Plan – Fiscal Years 2017 to 2027BUDGETMODELBUSSIZE
YEAR YEAR DESCRIPTION (FT)2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
1997 Gillig 40'8 4 4 2 2
2006 Chevy-26 pass 25'12007Gillig40'2 2 2 2 2
2008 Chevy-15 Pass 16'1 1 1 1
2010 MCI 40'3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2014 MCI 40'1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12014Eldorado40'1
2015 MCI 40'2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2018 2019 Standard Diesel 40'
2018 2019 Standard Diesel <30'2019 2020 Standard Diesel 40'3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2019 2020 Standard Diesel <30'6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
2020 2021 Standard Diesel 40'5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
2020 2021 Standard Diesel <30'3 3 3 3 3 3 3 320212022Standard Diesel 40'3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2021 2022 Standard Diesel <30'3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2022 2023 Standard Diesel 40'3 3 3 3 3 320222023Standard Diesel <30'2 2 2 2 2 220232024Standard Diesel 40'3 3 3 3 3
2023 2024 Standard Diesel <30'3 3 3 3 3
2024 2025 Standard Diesel 40'3 3 3 320242025Standard Diesel <30'3 3 3 320252026Standard Diesel 40'3 3 3
2025 2026 Standard Diesel <30'3 3 3
2026 2027 Standard Diesel 40'1 120262027Standard Diesel <30'2 2
2027 2028 Standard Diesel 40'2
2027 2028 Standard Diesel <30'3Total Active Fleet 19 11 20 26 31 32 38 44 50 53 58
Peak Assignment 29 29 32 35 35 38 40 42 45 45 48
Spares -10 -18 -12 -9 -4 -6 -2 2 5 8 10
Spare Ratio -34.5%-62.1%-37.5%-25.7%-11.4%-15.7%-5.0%4.8%11.1%17.8%20.8%
<20 foot Buses/Vans 1 1 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 825 to 30 foot Buses 1 0 0 3 5 7 10 12 15 17 2035 to 40 foot Buses 17 10 13 16 19 18 21 24 27 28 30
Total Buses 19 11 20 26 31 32 38 44 50 53 58
Average Fleet Age in Years 12.2 12.6 7.1 4.1 3.7 1.9 2.3 2.7 3.1 3.8 4.4
FISCAL YEAR
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 5 — 85
5.2.2 Fleet Replacement
By 2027, the fleet size of 55 vehicles required to operate
current and expanded services have been procured.
This total number includes all vehicles including com-
muter services currently provided by private operators
using their coaches. If MTA desires to continue the
commuter service with coaches provided by private op-
erators, then the fleet acquisition plan can be reduced.
The vehicle spare ratio will be at 20 percent in 2027.
From 2027 on, MTA should continue to purchase four
to five vehicles a year to maintain the fleet. The spare
ratio may need to increase with the opening of a second
maintenance facility in Kailua-Kona. Both mainte-
nance facilities will need sufficient spares to operate the
required services. The 40-foot buses have an average
useful life of 12 years by industry standard, the smaller
vehicles generally have a useful life of 7 to 9 years. If
MTA contracts for the zone paratransit and flex service,
the fleet acquisition plan can be reduced. Therefore,
since MTA will have a fleet composed of over 48 per-
cent smaller vehicles (by 2027), the overall average fleet
age should be below six years.
MTA is currently using a van for revenue passen-
ger service and will order six more vans from a FTA
discretionary grant recieved in 2018. The current MTA
van and the rented vehicles from private carriers do not
have bike racks. Because this is a multi-modal plan, and
base on community feedback, it is recommended that
bike racks be installed on MTA vans.
The fleet replacement plan shows MTA owning all
required vehicles for fixed and commuter route service.
The renting of private carrier vehicles will be phased
out. Until that occurs, it will be important for MTA to
provide notice on which routes vehicles without bike
racks can be expected.
5.2.3 Fleet electronics package
Specifications for all buses should include the following
three systems:
• Mobile Data Router and Validators for a fare system
• Automatic Vehicle Locator and Automatic Passenger
Counting system
• Electronic Signage and Next Stop Announcement
system
These three systems will provide MTA with the data need-
ed to provide both internal monitoring purposes, (passen-
ger counting, boarding by stop, on-time performance) and
external information for the public including bus location
and next stop announcement for those with disabilities and
new to the system. The additional cost of these systems has
been included in the estimated costs for vehicles.
The CIP includes investigation of adding wifi on buses.
A project is identified in FY2022 to conduct this project.
There are three elements to providing wifi on moving
vehicles: 1) equipment on the buses, 2) providing the data
and 3) connectivity. Providing and installing the equipment
costs approximately $2,000 per vehicle. Many systems
provide wifi at no cost if the provider is allowed to include
advertising. The third element of connectivity may be the
most difficult to assess. Many parts of the County do not
have reliable cell service thereby causing loss of wifi service.
The CIP project would identify those areas needing up-
grades along with the optimum equipment.
5.3 MAINTENANCE FACILITIES
5.3.1 Hilo Maintenance Facility
For the past few years, MTA has invested in the planning,
design, and construction of a new Hilo maintenance facili-
ty. The current shared facility with Public Works is out-
dated and unable to accommodate the needs of the MTA
system. The new maintenance facility opened in 2018.
Figure 5-1. Hilo Baseyard Facility
86 — CHAPTER 5 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
This facility will provide all the maintenance for the
fleet. Currently, buses are stored in Kailua-Kona and in
Ka‘ū since the service area is so vast and drivers cannot
drive buses to Kona or Pahala from Hilo to start a 4:00
AM trip. Those buses are switched with buses based in
Hilo for maintenance to occur.
While the new Hilo structure has already been pro-
grammed, it is likely that there will be a need for
additional capital expenditures for parts, outfitting the
inventory storeroom, software for tracking each bus
through preventive maintenance and repairs.
5.3.2 Second Maintenance Facility
Due to the large number of routes operating through
the north and west sides of the island, it is rec-
ommended that a second maintenance facility be
planned. It will likely take several years to go through
the steps of planning, land acquisition, design and
construction. Therefore, the capital plan recommends
starting as soon as practicable to reserve the desired
site. A site near the police department on Hale Māka‘i
off Highway 19 would be a good location. Certainly, a
site owned by a public agency will cost less than one
that has to be purchased on the open market.
The CIP includes the planning, design, land acquisi-
tion, construction, equipment and installation costs
for a transit maintenance and operations facility
to be located in the Kailua-Kona area. This second
facility would be constructed in the longer term as
the Kona system continues to grow. Bus base facility
needs are created by changes in fleet size, technology
advances, shifts in fleet composition, modifications
in service delivery characteristics, introduction of
new public transportation modes, and new com-
prehensive initiatives requiring a substantial transit
system response.
Extensive planning is required to identify and investi-
gate alternative sites for a maintenance and operations
facility. The County may have land available for the
maintenance and operations facility, but the suitability
of any possible site needs to be confirmed and evalu-
ated against possible alternative locations. Consider-
ation of non-revenue versus revenue service time and
miles by route is a critical component of the evaluation
because a poorly located facility can contribute sig-
nificantly to excess operating costs over the life of the
facility. When fuel was relatively expensive this was
much more of a concern. But now, even with today’s
lower fuel costs, unnecessary non-revenue mileage
should be considered of paramount importance since
low fuel cost may not continue.
The size of the site needs to account for the residu-
al possible site configuration after consideration of
topographical constraints and creation of reasonable
buffer zones between the site and adjoining land uses.
Operational efficiency given knowledge of the existing
system and how it might evolve, overall community
impacts, evident environmental impacts and other ob-
vious or readily available information for a candidate
site. Land costs could be significant for a properly lo-
cated and sized site. Various resources were researched
to determine the best screening criteria to identify the
most viable sites including:
• Zoning: industrial use or compatible current use
• Size: five or more acres
• Accessibility: ingress and egress for buses
• Proximity: relationship to revenue service to
minimize deadheading
• Compatibility: fit with adjacent land uses
• Environmental: avoid wetlands, cultural, sensitive
areas and other restricted site considerations
• Configuration: ability to use site efficiently to
support bus service functions
• Topography: relatively level terrain
• Availability: available for use or sale
A site with 5 acres of industrial land would have to be
acquired if County land is not available. A smaller site
may be viable; however, a maintenance facility should
be designed with a 50-year life expectancy and it is
recommended that the site be able to serve and store 25
buses. Recent examples indicate that construction costs
should be around $200,000 per vehicle or $5,000,000.
This generally excludes equipment, installation and oth-
er related costs which have been included in the CIP.
5.4 PASSENGER FACILITIES
For the recommended Hub and Spoke Service program
described in Chapter Four, three types of passenger
facilities are desirable: Hubs, Sheltered Stops, and Bus
Stops. Each has different desirable amenities which are
shown in Figure 5-2.
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 5 — 87
Figure 5-2. Facility Amenities
88 — CHAPTER 5 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
5.4.1 Hubs and Transit Centers
Figure 5-2 identifies two levels of hubs or transit centers:
Satellite and Hub. Full Hubs are identified for Mo’oheau
Bus Terminal (MBT), Kona, and Pāhoa. These locations,
will have buses converging to transfer passengers and
need more space for passengers and vehicles. Of these,
only MBT is developed, although upgrades are needed.
Hubs, whether satellite or full, provide the most ameni-
ties as they serve the most number of passengers. Satel-
lite hubs are those locations that may not have the space
for all desired amenities. This would include the current
Waimea stop located on Pukalani. This stop is located
on street and has a single shelter with seating.
As the system expands, it will become important to
have passenger amenities at a Waimea hub, particular-
ly electronic information and bike parking. Adjacent
land is available to add these amenities. Satellite hubs
are identified for Waimea, Ocean View, Kea’au, Prince
Kūhiō Plaza, and Honoka’a.
Hub planning and design is proposed to start in Fiscal
Year 2020 as shown in the financial plan in chapter
6. Construction would begin in 2021 and continue
through 2025. Hubs to be developed and updated are
shown in Table 5-3.
Hub Year Description
Pahoa 2021 The initial Pahoa hub would be temporary and located on street and can be
implemented in 2019. Two passenger shelters would need to be installed. The
permanent Pahoa Hub would be located near the new Puna Kai development
and would require more passenger amenities including electronic signage, bike
parking, fare machines, restroom.
Waimea 2021 The current Waimea hub is located on street with one passenger shelter. There
is insufficient space for additional amenities on the sidewalk. However, adja-
cent land is undeveloped and may be available for expanded facilities including
customer information, bike share, bike parking, fare equipment. Many passen-
gers will cross the street to access shopping opportunities. Therefore, upgraded
pedestrian facilities will be appropriate.
Mo’oheau Bus
Terminal
2022 MBT is allocated $500,000 for upgrading facilities beyond normal mainte-
nance. Electronic information, fare machines, bike parking, bike share need
secure, covered space.
Ocean View 2022 Ocean View Park and Ride has minimal infrastructure with a gravel lot and
sign. Upgraded surface, bathroom (can be portable), access signage, shelter,
and seating should be added. Lighting needs to be assessed.
Honoka’a 2023 Honoka’a has two areas for bus traffic, the upper lot and lower lot. Both lots
need electronic signage, electronic information, bike parking, adequate shelter
and adequate seating.
Prince Kūhiō Plaza 2023 Upgrades include electronic signage, fare machines, and additional shelter and
seating.
Kona 2024 The Kona Hub will be substantial and requires additional planning and design.
The location would not add land acquisition costs. This Hub should be de-
signed to hold a customer service center, bike share, bike parking, restroom,
electronic signage and bus bays for a minimum of 7 buses. Potential for coor-
dination with transit oriented development is available.
Kea’au 2025 The Kea’au Hub will include a park-and-ride lot, as well as enough room for 4
buses and passenger amenities. The hub may require land costs (not shown) if
landowners are unwilling to deed sufficient space for the hub.
Table 5-3: Recommended Hubs for Hawai‘i County
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 5 — 89
The planning, design, land acquisition and construction
of these multiple hubs and transfer point improvements
have been grouped together in the financial plan as a
single transit center development program comparable
to the ongoing bus stop and passenger shelter program.
Costs for these major improvements will depend upon
extensive site location planning and could vary consid-
erably depending upon land costs and site conditions.
Cost estimates are based on the experience of Honolulu
over the past fifteen years. Upgrades to current facilities,
such as MBT, PKP, and Ocean View, are included in the
construction column.
The types of features to be provided at Hubs will vary by
site. All facilities should passenger shelter, seating, light-
ing and trash receptacles. Other considerations include:
• Access: Including bus-only signs to access the facility.
Drop-off locations and commuter parking areas
should be clearly signed. Transit facilities should
have pedestrian access such as sidewalks or separated
walking areas.
• Bus Stop Positions: There are two prominent designs
for the bus positions: straight curb and saw tooth. MBT
has a straight curb design. The individual bus stops at
a hub should be constructed with reinforced concrete.
Park and ride lots are generally built with asphalt.
• Passenger Waiting Area: There are three types of
passenger waiting
areas: center island,
plaza and sidewalk.
The center island is
where buses stop on
both sides and
passengers can transfer
between buses without
vehicle conflicts. Plaza
designs are similar, but
the center pedestrian
area is built on a larger
scale and may include
fountains, food kiosks
and other services.
The third type is the sidewalk, where the majority of
passengers are waiting in the sidewalk area. This is
envisioned for the initial Pahoa hub and currently
occurs at Waimea. It is important to make sure this
design does not encourage passengers crossing a
street to access their next bus.
• Lighting: A range of lighting treatments are
employed at the transit facilities from standard high-
mast street lamps to specialized lighting treatments
designed specifically for a facility such as in-ground
lighting. Passenger shelters at hubs should have
overhead lights underneath the shelter roof.
• Passenger Seating: A variety of seating treatments
are provided at the transit facilities. These include
individual stools, standard benches, supplemental
seating offered by large tree planters and other
landscaping features (such as low, decorative walls).
• Bicycle Access and Storage: These amenities
including bicycle racks and lockers will become more
important as the County embraces multi-modal
transportation. Bicycle access routes will need to be
clearly defined. Connecting bicycle facilities to transit
centers helps extend the trip length for cyclists and
reduces automobile travel. Secure bicycle parking
must be provided at or within close proximity to
the passenger waiting area. At a minimum, the
accommodations can be bike racks or lockers. Bike
stations and automated bicycle parking can be located
at areas with high levels of transit and bicycle use.
Bike Sharing stations should be located near major
hubs or bus stops.
• Passenger Shelter: Passenger shelter should be
provided at all major facilities for waiting passengers.
Shelters can be the standard sized passenger shelter
such as those located in Waimea or Kurtistown.
Other facilities can have larger, unique shelter designs
matching adjoining land use. For example, a new
Kona Hub should be incorporated into the planned
Transit Oriented Development design.
• Public Restrooms: Restrooms should be provided at
all hubs.
• Way-Finding Display or Maps: Way finding should
be at all hubs. These tie community destinations to
transit and provide information for tourists.
• Vending: Newspaper/free publication machines,
vending snack/drink machines, ATM’s, can be
considered.
• Communication/Public Telephones: All transit
hubs should have signs indicating which bus routes
stop at the individual bus positions. Electronic
reader boards indicating bus arrival times are
important to the transit user.
• Community Functions: Available space should be
set aside for functions including Goodwill drop offs,
90 — CHAPTER 5 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
staffed customer service offices, recycle facilities, day
care center or other community functions.
5.4.2 Bus Stops and Shelters
5.4.2.1 Formalizing Bus Stops
Formalizing a bus stop includes determining what type
of amenities should be included at the bus stop. The
most basic of bus stops would have a sign, route desig-
nation, and route schedule. Each bus stop needs to have
a unique bus stop number as shown in the example
from Honolulu in Figure 5-3. These numbers need to be
posted at each bus stop.
MTA is currently in the process of developing a system
app which intending passengers would use to get current
information including when their bus is expected to
arrive. A waiting passenger can then type in the posted
bus stop number to get real time information on the next
bus arrival time.
5.4.2.2 Passenger Shelters and Benches
Amenities include signs, benches, shelter, informa-
tion, lighting and others identified in Figure 5-2. The
planning, design, procurement, land acquisition and
construction line items in the CIP are to fund bus stop
locations. The MTA and County need to determine
which stops will have benches and/or shelters. Primary
Local Stops would add passenger shelters and seating to
the basic stop amenities. As shown in Figure 5-2 there
are other amenities that might prove beneficial to the
passenger.
Adding additional amenities would be dependent upon
safety and space concerns, as well as passenger usage at
that stop and route frequency. Many of the commuter
routes start very early in the morning and operate on
roads and highways without lighting. Shelters should
have lights that can be powered by solar energy. A
design that would automatically have the light come
on when an intending passenger is in the shelter would
assist in letting drivers know a passenger is waiting. For
these areas that are not compatible for shelters, passen-
gers could signal drivers with a flash light.
Generally, the more frequent the route the less ameni-
ties are needed. For example, if a route has 15-minute
service or less, then perhaps real-time information is
not necessary as it is known a bus will arrive every 15
Figure 5-3 Basic Stop Identification Sign Figure 5-4 Simple Bus Bench (O‘ahu)
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 5 — 91
minutes. However, if a route has a limited number of
trips, such as Route 10 Hilo-Volcano, then it becomes
more important to have information and seating, espe-
cially if that stop has more than 20 people boarding at
that location. Guidelines for stop amenities need to be
flexible. It becomes more important if a bus stop serves
predominantly elderly passengers such as one located
by a senior center, to have shelter and seating even if the
number of daily passengers is limited. Figure 5-4 shows
a simple bench recently placed on O‘ahu.
The type of passenger shelter that Hawai‘i County is
currently using is shown in Figure 5-5 which is a recent
new shelter in Kuristown. Figure 5-6 shows the shelter
design and bus pullout used on Ane Keohokalole.
5.4.2.3 Park and Ride Lots
Park and Ride lots require additional amenities; in
particular, lighting and bathrooms. Most park and ride
lots serve commuters. Hele-On’s commuters leave in the
early morning hours when it is dark. Lighting adds safety.
Bathrooms (even portable) become necessary for many
commuters. Commuter trips are long especially Hilo to
Kona or Pahala to Kona. In many cases, passengers have
driven or been driven over 30 minutes to access the bus
(Puna locations to Hilo) and their bus trip may be up to
two hours to their job site. Having a bathroom available
can make a difference to an intending passenger.
County park and ride lots should be used only as day
parking. Overnight parking is not desirable as security
is limited or not available. Park and ride lots should
have bike racks and shelters.
5.5 FARE COLLECTION
As recommended in the City Audit Report on Cash
Handling, all buses and vans should have secured fare
boxes. In the future, a more advanced system is recom-
mended. There are four basic types of pass media used:
• Non-magnetic Pass: A single piece of paper,
cardboard or some other material without a magnetic
strip good for an unlimited number of trips during
a specified time period that is not surrendered or
altered as each trip is taken.
• Magnetic Stored-Value Pass: A single piece of paper,
cardboard or some other material with a magnetic
strip good for an unlimited number of trips during
a specified time period that is altered by machine
removal of some or all of the stored value as each trip
is taken.
• Magnetic Stored-Time Pass: A single piece of paper,
cardboard or some other material with a magnetic
strip good for an unlimited number of trips during
a specified time period that is not surrendered or
altered as each trip is taken.
• Smart Cards: A single piece of material without a
magnetic strip but with a small computer chip good
for one or more trips that is usually not surrendered
but altered by machine removal of some or all of the
stored value as each trip is taken.
Most U.S. transit systems are now using some form
of magnetic based stored value or time base cards as
shown in Table 5-4. Many systems are using multiple
types of fare media with 42% reporting they are still
using non-magnetic passes. Honolulu is in the process
of implementing a smart card fare payment method. The
Figure 5-5 Current Design of Shelters in Hawai‘i County
(Kuristown)
Figure 5-6 Design used on Ana Keohokalole in Kona
92 — CHAPTER 5 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
technology chosen by Honolulu is capable of including
bike share and parking payments with the same card.
Honolulu has discussed having the same technology be-
ing able to be used on all transit systems in Hawaii. MTA
will need to upgrade their fare collection system in the
next ten years and would benefit from joining Honolulu’s
system.
Table 5-4. National Fare Media Examples
Fare Media Type # of
Systems
% of Systems Reporting
Non-Magnetic Passes 65 42%
Magnetic Stored-Value Cards 52 34%
Magnetic-Stored-Time Cards 79 52%
Smart Cards 44 29%
Source: 2014 American Public Transportation Association
Survey of 153 Bus Systems
Fare collection systems are continuously evolving to
incorporate new technologies and methods to improve
efficiency, reliability and convenience. Use of Smart
Card fare media is increasing and replacing older tech-
nologies. Over the past year the percent of bus systems
using smart cards increased from 25% to 29%. This
trend is expected to continue. This is because of the
substantial benefits of smart cards. Some of the benefits
of advanced fare media systems include:
• Customer Convenience: People of all ages and
abilities, whether frequent or occasional riders, are
offered pricing that fits their personal need using fare
products at a variety of prices that are easy to use.
Methods of payment for smart cards include the use
of devices that only need to be in close proximity to
the reading device. Smart cards need not be a “card”
but can be a “bracelet” such as shown to the right
• Service Requirements: Smart cards can be used on
any type of transit service offered in any location.
Smart card technology was originally applied to just
large rail systems. Those systems then partnered with
connecting bus systems. Those applications were
expanded to paratransit services. Honolulu is now in
the process of procuring a comprehensive smart card
system that will start with the bus and paratransit
operations before the rail system is operational
• Complete Data Recording and Processing: Transit
fares comprise a significant portion of transit system
funding, so it is critical fare collections systems
are accurate, complete and secure in accepting
and processing revenue. The fare collection and
validation systems provide the ridership data for
transit service development and refinements
Figure 5-7 Smart Bracelet
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 6 — 93
Chapter Six:
6.0 CAPITAL AND FINANCIAL PLANS
This chapter provides an overview of the current finan-
cial setting, analyzes revenue sources, and the impact
of revenue structure on capital and financial programs.
Sections 6.6 through 6.8 present future capital needs
and operating expenditures for a ten-year period. Sec-
tion 6.10 presents The Financial Plan.
During the public information meetings held in April
2018, attendees were highly supportive of creating a
multi-modal system including expenditures for the bus
and bicycling. They were supportive at a level of about
sixty percent of the taxi voucher program (probably
because it is now just in Hilo). Attendees recognized
that improvements were going to cost something and
they generally supported taxes and grants over increas-
ing fares.
6.1 CURRENT FINANCIAL
SETTING
Hele-On provides public transportation service for
county residents and visitors through regularly sched-
uled fixed route and commuter service. These services
are contracted with Polynesian Adventure Tours and
back up service by Roberts Hawai‘i.
Complementary paratransit demand-response service
for eligible people with disabilities under the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) is provided in the Hilo
and Kona urban areas. ADA paratransit services began
service in Fiscal Year 2017. Human service paratransit
transportation is provided for special needs and dis-
abled persons outside the ADA service area.
MTA provides funding to the HCEOC and other agen-
cies to provide transportation, including paratransit
services, to low-income, elderly and disabled citizens.
Transportation for those who qualify are for medical,
rehabilitation centers, nutrition sites, shopping, and
other trip sites.
6.2 CURRENT CAPITAL
ASSETS
The current running fleet consists of 11 buses. Of those,
four out of a total of seven buses were given in summer
of 2017 by the City and County of Honolulu from their
retiring fleet. These buses are in good repair, but their
useful life is limited. MTA does not directly operate
the paratransit services and therefore, does not have a
paratransit fleet.
Figure 6-1 Seven buses received from Honolulu 2017
A new bus maintenance facility was completed in early
2018 and MTA moved in. The bus stop and passenger
shelter capital improvement program is an ongoing ex-
pense of approximately $300,000 yearly. There are fifty
bus shelters in place island-wide.
94 — CHAPTER 6 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
6.3 OPERATING BUDGET AND
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
Table 6-1 provides a review of the past four years of the
number of passengers served, operating expenditures as
reported to the National Transit Database (NTD) and
from County sources. The number of passenger board-
ings has continued to decline from a high of about 1.2
million passengers recorded in Fiscal Year 2011 shown
in Figure 6-2. The reasons for the decline in ridership is
due mainly to service deterioration based upon vehicles
being unavailable and an increase in breakdowns on
the road. Service had become unreliable with buses not
available for their assigned trips and others breaking
down on the road. These issues are being addressed in
the short-term by leasing vehicles from private provid-
ers, although not all scheduled trips are being accom-
modated. That is why the Capital Program puts an
emphasis on rebuilding the fleet.
Fiscal Year Passenger
Boardings
Bus
Operations Fare Revenue Farebox
Recovery Ratio
Cost Per
Passenger
2014 920,280 $6,847,105 $1,253,244 18.3%$7.44
2015 945,000 $6,540,528 $1,044,885 16.0%$6.92
2016 874,424 $6,782,598 $903,472 13.3%$7.76
2017 786,472 $8,257,412 $821,017 10.0%$10.50
Table 6-1. Hele-On Bus Historical Information by Fiscal Year
Source: National Transit Database and County of Hawaii Budget
Source: County of Hawai‘i Department of Finance Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, June 30, 2011 through June 30, 2016
Figure 6-2. Passenger Boardings by Fiscal Year
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 6 — 95
6.4 SOURCES OF FUNDING
MTA sources of funding come primarily from Coun-
ty Highway and General Funds. Over 77 percent of
bus operating funds came from these two sources in
fiscal year 2017 as shown in Figure 6-3 and detailed in
Table 6-2. Passenger fares accounted for ten percent of
the funding and 12.6% came from Federal assistance.
Approximately 85% of MTA’s entire budget is dedicated
to bus operations. With the implementation of ADA
paratransit services and other programs detailed in
the Financial Plan, the percentage of operations in the
overall budget will decrease. MTA receives no State
operating funding support.
Table 6-2. Operating Fund Sources 2017
Operating Fund Sources Amount
County General Fund $1,929,987
County Highway Fund $4,464,408
Federal Operating
Assistance Grant
$1,042,000
Passenger Fares $821,017
Total $8,257,412
Source: Fiscal Year 2016 NTD and County Budget
In June 2018, the County Council approved a quarter
of one percent GET surcharge to be collected between
January 2019 and June 2020 (18 months). During this
time, no General Funds will be used in the MTA bud-
get, as the GET revenue source collection exceeds what
had been the amount realized from the General Fund.
6.5 FARES AND FARE
STRUCTURE
6.5.1 Farebox Recovery
Farebox recovery identifies the percent passenger fares con-
tribute to funding operation expenses. In Fiscal Year 2014
passengers paid $1,253,244 in fare revenue which provided
18.3 percent of the funding for reported operation expense
for bus. Since then the farebox recovery ratio for the Hele-
On bus service has ranged from 16 percent to 10 percent
over the past four years, shown in Table 6-1. The average
for the four years is 14.4 percent.
The human service program, including special needs and
non-ADA paratransit services, does not collect a fare. The
ADA complementary paratransit service demand response
program was not operational in Fiscal Year 2016. In Fiscal
Year 2017, fares were not collected for the first several
months of service. Fares were introduced mid-fiscal year in
January 2017. The shared ride taxi program reported 40.3
percent fare box recovery in 2017 (operating expense of
$939,624 with $378,760 in passenger fares).
The cost per passenger for the bus service was $7.76 in
Fiscal Year 2016. This was higher than the $6.92 cost per
passenger from the previous fiscal year. The increase in cost
per passenger is due in part to the reduction in ridership
noted in Figure 6-2.
Figure 6-3 Bus Pass Examples
Figure 6-3. 2016 Sources of Operating Funds for Bus (FY2017)
96 — CHAPTER 6 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
6.5.2 Current Fare Structure
The current fare structure is shown in Table 6-3. Fares
are set by the County Council. Current fares became
effective July 1, 2013 when the adult cash fare was
increased to $2.00 per trip from $1.00 and senior and
student fares were increased from free to $1.00.
Table 6-3. Hele-On Fares
Fare Type Cost
Cash Fare:
Non-discounted $2.00, fixed route,
commuter
Discounted – Seniors (60 and
over), Persons with Disabilities
with ID card, Students with ID
$1.00, fixed route,
commuter
Monthly Passes:
Non-discounted $60.00, fixed
route, commuter
Discounted (see above for re-
quirements)
$45.00, fixed
route, commuter
Bus Tickets:
Regular $15.00 for sheet of
10 tickets
Senior, Disabled, Students all
with ID
$7.50 for sheet of
10 tickets
Source: County of Hawai‘i Mass Transit Agency (MTA)
Hele-On Bus provides free transfers to complete a one-
way trip which may be used only once. Each route has a
specific color and the driver must fill out the transfer by
hand which can cause route delay.
Fare choices include cash, monthly pass or bus tickets.
The bus tickets are one ticket per ride with one free
transfer. Baggage is allowed at a cost of $1.00 for each
piece. Bicycles placed on the front rack are free.
The new paratransit service was initiated in the summer
of 2016. This is a door-to-door, advance reservation ser-
vice for individuals unable to use the fixed route service.
Intending users are interviewed for eligibility. When
approved, passengers are issued a Paratransit Eligibility
card shown below. Hele-On Kako‘o fare is $4.00 per
ride. Federal law mandates that ADA paratransit fares
may be no more than twice the fixed route fare.
The taxi shared ride program is available to everyone in
the Hilo urbanized area. It is currently
not offered in Kailua-Kona or other areas
of the County. Seven taxi companies are
participating in the program with two of
them offering ADA accessible vehicles
and two companies serving the Hilo
International Airport.
Passengers may use the service to travel
up to nine miles within the Hilo ur-
banized area. People intending to use the service must
purchase coupons in increments of one, five, ten, or 15. A
maximum of 15 coupons may be purchased each week. A
trip of 0.1 to 4.0 miles requires one coupon (for a fare of
$2.00 if purchasing a 15-coupon book) and a trip of 4.1
to 9.0 miles requires two coupons. Coupon book fares are
shown in Table 6-4.
Table 6-4. Hele-On Shared Ride Taxi Program
Description Fare
15 Coupon Book $30.00
10 Coupon Book $25.00
5 Coupon Book $15.00
1 Coupon $6.00
The coupons do not have an expiration date and are
non-transferable and non-refundable.
The taxi program carried 134,986 in 2017 as reported
to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) National
Transit Database (NTD).
6.5.3 Recommendation for Fares and
Fare Policies
The Transit Master Plan does not recommend a fare
increase on the fixed rate and commuter service t this
time. Rather, the emphasis is on achieving system reli-
ability. The Transit Master Plan recommends a review
of fare policies once reliability is restored. The following
subjects are recommended to be part of the fare struc-
ture review:
• Eliminate the free transfer between buses including
transfers for the discounted bus tickets. A fare would
be required for each boarding.
• In lieu of free transfers offer a $5.00 daily pass. The
discounted fare would be $2.50. The daily pass would
be good on all buses for the day it is purchased. The
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 6 — 97
Fare Type Cost Number of
Systems
Percent of Sys-
tems Reporting
Hele-On
Comparison
Average Single Trip Base Fare $1.56 153 100%$2.00
Express Single Trip Surcharge Up to $10.75 46 30%None
Single Trip Zone Surcharge
(Distance Based)
Up to $13.50 23 15%None
Average One Day Pass Cost $4.45 95 62%None
Monthly Pass Average Cost $55.07 135 88%$60.00
Table 6-6. Comparison to National Fares
Source: 2014 American Public Transportation Association Survey of 153 Bus Systems
goal of this policy shift away from providing transfers
is to take the driver out of policing fare payment.
Hand writing transfers or making sure the transfer is used within the time frame allowed, causes bus delay and places drivers in situations where they may have to challenge a fare payment.
• Review increasing the passenger fare for the Shared
Ride Taxi Program to $3.00 and $4.00 in Fiscal
Year 2020 per coupon for the 15-Coupon Book. The
single-ride coupon fare remains the same, while
the other coupon book options will have a price
increase.
Table 6-5. Recommended Hele-On Shared Ride Taxi Program
Fare Increase
Description 2020 2021
15 Coupon Book $45.00 $60.00
10 Coupon Book $35.00 $45.00
5 Coupon Book $20.00 $25.00
1 Coupon $6.00 $6.00
• Upgrade fare collection system. Investigate options
and start procurement process in Fiscal Year 2025. An
upgraded fare collection system offers possibilities
such as a 24-hour or 48-hour fare ticket that can be
automatically read.
In 2014 the nation wide average single trip base fare of
the 153 bus systems surveyed was $1.56. This was report-
ed in the Public Transportation Fare Database, a report
prepared by the American Public Transportation Associ-
ation through a voluntary survey of members. The survey
included all public transportation modes; 153 systems
reported data for the bus mode.
Forty-six systems or about 30% of those participating
had an express trip surcharge of up to $10.75 over their
base fare. This express surcharge was primarily associ-
ated with peak-period, peak-direction, and limited-stop
services comparable to the Hele-On commuter routes.
Twenty-three bus systems reported a trip distance or zone
surcharge of up to $13.50. This is also mostly associated
with peak-period, peak-direction, limited stop services
over longer distances. These single trip fare surcharges are
included in Table 6-6.
Sixty-two percent of all bus systems offer a one-day pass at
an average cost of $4.46. The majority of systems offering
a one-day pass have discontinued use of transfers. Issuing
and policing use of transfers frequently causes route delay
and eliminating their use also reduces driver and passenger
conflict. TheBus in Honolulu instituted use of the one-day
pass and discontinued issuing transfers in summer 2017.
The fare for the one-day pass costs $5.50 starting January 1,
2018, raising .50 cents from the introduction fare of $5.00.
An example of the one-day pass is shown to the right.
Eighty-eight percent of all bus systems offered a monthly
bus pass indicating that this method of fare payment is
commonly used. Most systems now have the ability to use
the same fare media for various types of passes and trip
based fare payment programs.
6.5.4 National Comparison
In 2014 the nation wide average single trip base fare
of the 153 bus systems surveyed was $1.56. This was
reported in the Public Transportation Fare Database, a
report prepared by the American Public Transportation
Association through a voluntary survey of members.
The survey included all public transportation modes;
153 systems reported data for the bus mode.
Forty-six systems or about 30% of those participating
had an express trip surcharge of up to $10.75 over their
base fare. This express surcharge was primarily associat-
98 — CHAPTER 6 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
ed with peak-period, peak-direction, and limited–stop
services comparable to the Hele-On commuter routes.
Twenty-three bus systems reported a trip distance or
zone surcharge of up to $13.50. This is also mostly as-
sociated with peak-period, peak-direction, and limit-
ed-stop services over longer distances. These single trip
fare surcharges are included in Table 6-6.
Sixty-two percent of all bus systems offer a one-day pass
at an average cost of $4.46. The majority of systems of-
fering a one-day pass have discontinued use of transfers.
Issuing and policing use of transfers frequently causes
route delay and eliminating their use also reduces driver
and passenger conflict. TheBus in Honolulu instituted
use of the one-day pass and discontinued issuing trans-
fers in summer 2017. The fare for the one-day pass costs
$5.50 starting January 1, 2018, raising.50 cents from the
introduction fare of $5.00. An example of the one-day
pass is shown in Figure 6-3.
Eight-eight percent of all bus systems offered a monthly
bus pass indicating that this method of fare payment is
commonly used. Most systems now have the ability to
use the same fare media for various types of passes and
trip based fare payment programs.
6.6 OPERATIONS FINANCIAL
PLAN
6.6.1 Operating Costs by Year
The recommended ten-year operating budget is shown
in Table 6-8. No new services are planned for imple-
mentation in Fiscal Year 2018 (current year) as shown
in Table 6-8. Therefore, operation costs reflect the cur-
rent budget. Subsequent years have a two percent (2%)
inflation factor built into the operating costs through
Fiscal Year 2022, after which the inflation factor in-
creases to three percent (3%). Operating costs for the
bus routes are expected to decrease in FY19 and FY20
due to MTA procuring new buses to replace rentals.
The operational costs shown in years 2019 through
2025 are drawn from a detailed description of each
service improvement provided in the Service Plan. The
Service Plan gives the operational details of the services
which serves as input to the annual hours and miles of
service and ultimately the operational costs for each
year. The following provide a brief description of service
changes by Fiscal Year.
• FY2019: Route 40 Pahoa will be converted into a hub
and spoke operation starting in 2019. This allows one (1)
additional trip to start and ultimately four (4) additional
roundtrips to be provided between Hilo and Pahoa. Two
new Routes 401 and 402 will be introduced; Route 401 as
Flex service later in the year. These routes will connect to
Route 40 in Pahoa.
The Blue Line Express operating between Hilo and Kona
via Saddle Road and the Daniel K. Inouye Highway will
be introduced in the second half of FY2019.
Discussions with MTA’s current paratransit provider
should occur early in Fiscal Year 2019 to determine if they
are capable of providing Flex service. MTA could provide
the service using current drivers with the scheduling
of Flex trips being done by MTA’s ADA Paratransit
providers.
The negative number shown for current routes in Table
6-7 is the cost of current service hours that are redeployed
into new Routes 401 and 402. The New Blue Line Express
will start one roundtrip during the weekdays in FY2019.
• FY2020: Routes 101, 102 and 103 are changed per the
service plan. This includes added trips on all three routes.
Saturday service to Waimea on Route 75-North Kohala/
Waimea/Kailua-Kona is implemented this fiscal year.
The Honokaa Route 60 is converted to Flex service
providing two (2) additional trips a day. The Waimea
Circulator Route 301 offering Flex service is also
implemented during this fiscal year.
• FY2021: Route 10 adds two weekday trips between
Ocean View and Volcano Village in this fiscal year shown
as additions to current routes. The Blue, Green, and Red
Line Expresses are introduced in Fiscal Year 2021. The
Red Line will offer two weekday and Saturday trips. The
Green Line will provide one weekday trip and a second
weekday and Saturday trip are provided on the Blue Line.
Fiscal Year 2021 sees the introduction of Zone service in
the Kau and Puna Districts.
• 2022: Three new routes are introduced in 2022. Routes
201, 202, and 203 provide the hub and spoke system for
Kona. Since these are new routes, the operating cost for
current Route 201 is shown as a negative number under
“Additions to Current Routes”.
Extended service and additional trips are added to Routes
402 and 403. This includes service to Hawaiian Acres via
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 6 — 99
Ainaloa, service in Orchidland and Eden Roc.
FY2022 also sees the expansion of Sunday service.
Limited Sunday service is provided on the Blue, Green,
Red Lines Express Routes and Routes 40, 75, 101, and
Route 10 from Ocean View to Volcano (to connect to the
Red Line.) A second weekday trip and Saturday service is
provided on the Green Line.
• 2023: One new trip between Pahala and Kailua-Kona is
added to Route 90 during this fiscal year. New Route 104
Mohouli is added. Zone paratransit service is extended in
Zone 2 to five days a week as demand warrants.
• 2024: No new services are scheduled for FY2024.
• 2025: Route 204 adds to the hub and spoke system in
Kona providing service between the Hub and Keauhou
Shopping Center via Kuakini Highway providing new
service to residential areas, medical services, shopping
opportunities.
Table 6-8 also provides the operating costs for other
services in addition to bus. These are described in the
following paragraphs.
• Shared Ride Taxi: Shared Ride Taxi is currently
operating in urban Hilo. While, the program may extend
to Kona it is capped in the Financial Plan at $1,000,000
as reflected in the 2018 budget. This budget includes a
demonstration project of $100,000 with Transportation
Network Companies (Uber/Lyft) to provide shared ride
services to supplement the taxi program.
• Bike Share: This Master Plan recommends that MTA
take an active role in the expansion and administration
of the current Bike Share program currently operating in
Kona. Fifteen bike share stations are recommended for
installation in Fiscal Year 2019 and 2020. Four stations
would be placed in Kona, eight in Hilo, and three in
Waimea. The procurement and installation of the 15
stations is expected to be provided by a grant. $120,000
is added to each year for program operations, balancing
(moving bikes around to rebalance the stations),
customer service, and publicity
• Paratransit: MTA provides paratransit service to the
elderly and disabled in areas throughout the County. This
service is provided by contract with various programs. The
paratransit costs shown provide an escalation of 3 percent
per year.
• ADA Paratransit: MTA instituted ADA Paratransit
service in Fiscal Year 2017 for the urban Hilo and Kona
areas. ADA paratransit costs are escalated 3 percent per
year. ADA service will expand hours of service as the
Hilo and Kona hub and spoke routes are expanded
• Vanpool: This plan recommends MTA work to establish
a vanpool program. This is recommended to start with
a two-year demonstration project. The costs shown in
Table 6-7 are based upon six vanpools of 15 members
each being established, a total of 10 vanpools in 2020
and 17 vanpools in 2021. Each 15-member vanpool
traveling from Hilo to the South Kohala Resorts is
expected to cost approximately $28,800 annually. The
table shows the costs over several years. The costs are
additive and do not consider that if successful, one or
two South Kohala Resorts bus trips per day may be able
to be discontinued
6.6.2 Operating Revenues by Year
The annual revenue for each year is determined by
multiplying annual passenger trips by expected revenue
rate per unlinked trip. That rate is expected to increase
as new services are implemented and system consis-
tency and reliability are improved. Since this plan does
not include a fare increase (other than the elimination
of transfers in favor of a day pass), the revenue per
unlinked trip is e xpected to remain fairly constant at
$1.20 per trip after reaching that number in FY2022,
then rising to $1.28 in FY2027. Total annual passenger
boardings are projected to increase to past high levels
by 2022 and continue to increase as new services are
introduced.
The ADA paratransit operating revenues per year are
impacted by the growth in the service. ADA paratransit
ridership is expected to grow by 10 percent per year
through 2021. This high rate of growth is expected as
potential eligible people become aware of the service.
The rate of growth will slow to approximately three
percent per year starting in 2022.
Two fare increases have been recommended for the
shared taxi service: one in 2019 and another in 2020
to $4.00 per coupon based on a 15-coupon book. The
increase in average fare per trip is reflected in Table 6-8.
This will also impact the total number of passengers
using the service although the fare revenue will continue
to increase.
Bike share user fees are expected to increase a minimum
of 20 percent per year from an initial $20,000 in 2020.
The ultimate goal is for bike share user fees to cover the
administrative cost of the system. This could happen
much sooner if bikes are stationed around the university
and college campuses as well as major transit hubs and
employment areas. Biki Bike in Honolulu has seen a huge
100 — CHAPTER 6 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
increase in usage by workers during the lunch hour and
on Fridays after work.
Vanpool revenues are based upon a total cost of $28,800
per year per 15-member vanpool with an annual Coun-
ty subsidy of $12,000 per vanpool. Vanpool members
pay the remaining $16,800 per vanpool per year. This
equates to about $93 per month per vanpool member.
The benefit of a vanpool which would include more re-
liability and a quicker trip to work should outweigh the
higher monthly cost as compared to the monthly cost to
ride the bus. A vanpool administrator could work with
the major resorts to help defray the additional monthly
cost.
Operating revenues by year include a line item for
other revenue associated with the capital investment in
electronic information systems. The full capital cost has
been included in Table 6-9 for these investments. Other
systems have recognized these can be revenue neutral
or revenue generating activities and this line item iden-
tifies that possibility starting in 2020.
Table 6-8 on page 96-97 provides the details of the
calculations used to estimate the operating revenues
by year for each of the modes.
6.7 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM AND CAPITAL
FINANCIAL PLAN
The cost estimates for the Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) are provided in Table 6-9 (see pages 98-99). The
MTA CIP covers the period from Fiscal Year 2019 to 2027.
The CIP includes three major elements: transit facilities,
passenger systems and fleet purchases.
The CIP Transit Facilities section includes the existing bus
stop and shelter program and the additional stops required
to formalize current flag stops and due to service expan-
sion included in the service plan. The Master Plan recom-
mends all new routes such as the Intra-Kona routes have
formalized bus stops. The Transit Facilities section also
includes transit centers, a maintenance facility and signs.
6.8 FINANCIAL PLAN BY YEAR
This section discusses the combined expenses for op-
erations and capital for the period 2018 to 2027 shown
in Table 6-10 on pages 100-101. There are four sections
in the Financial Plan: Expenses, Operating Revenue,
Grants, and County Funding. Each section has total
costs shown. The administration and marketing line
item under Expenses is based upon current budgeting
for those items not associated with individual modes
plus an escalation of three percent per year. The admin-
istration and marketing line item does not include the
additional staff MTA will need to oversee the Capital
Improvement Program. These costs are included within
the planning, design and specifications line items for
each project budget included in Table 6-9 for each year.
The operations line items are the total numbers from
the last row in Table 6-7, Financial Plan Operating
Costs by Year. The capital investments line item is the
last row in Table 6-9, Capital Improvement Program.
The fare revenue is from the annual revenue in Table
6-9 on pages 98-99, Financial Plan Operating Revenues
by Fiscal Year. The deficit has been identified as being
supported from the County General Fund Operating
Budget and the County Highway Fund.
Grant funding is consistent with historic Federal grants
MTA has received and is included in current budgets
under Federal Operating Grants and Bus & Facilities.
The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act,
December 4, 2015 provides general fund authorizations
for FTA’s public transportation assistance programs for five
years (fiscal years 2016 through 2020). The Financial Plan
assumes current funding levels. The third line item under
Grants funding is Federal Capital Investment. These are
discretionary grants, are not predictable but have been in-
cluded for minimal levels for transit centers, park and ride
lots, and a second operating base. This category of grants
are dependent on pass through funds as determined by
the State. Other Federal Grant opportunities are available
under discretionary grants. This category has not been
included in the financial plan since these grants are very
competitive and not predictable. The County should apply
for any discretionary grants that become available for the
Capital Improvement Program (Table 6-9). If discretionary
or bus & facility grants are not available, then the County
would absorb the total cost for the Capital Improvement
Program.
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 6 — 101
The difficulty in using Federal discretionary funds for
fixed capital assets such as the proposed maintenance and
operations facility or transit centers is that often these are
not scalable investments in that a minimum lump sum
amount is necessary to make the project viable whereas the
fleet replacement program is alterable in that the number
of vehicles being replaced can be reduced or deferred to a
subsequent year. Therefore, the discretionary grant funds
are identified for fleet and fare equipment. County prac-
tice in purchasing has been to only fund the local share to
match federal funds for vehicles. However, this is unlikely
to be sufficient for replacing the bus fleet in the near term.
Therefore, it is recommended than an accelerated schedule
be used for the vehicles needed for implementing hub-
and-spoke. Through this approach, the County can move
expeditiously and consider newer used vehicles that may
be available in the local market.
With fixed investments, the Federal government shares
ownership of the assets where the fixed investment is
constructed. This can include land. This has proven to be
an awkward situation with other transit operations if they
later change the use to either a different public operation
or joint partnership with private interests.
The balance of the capital funding is expected to be sup-
ported by County Capital Improvement Program budget
requests. The capital investments identified in this plan
are ones that are essential for the cost effective and pro-
ductive continued operation of Hele-On and other modal
operations. Capital funding is expected to be supported
by county Capital Improvements Program (CIP) budget
requests which use a variety of financing sources including
General Obligation Bonds. The funding for the Capital
Investments is allocated to County General and Highway
Funds or the GET surcharge.
6.9 SOURCES OF FUNDING
6.9.1 County Funding – Highway Fund
As shown in Table 6-10 in FY2020 County funding
from the Highway Fund would be $5,164,111 when the
GET is available. FY21 through FY27 when GET is not
available show that total County funding ranges starts at
$18,389,354 in FY21. This high cost in FY25 is due to the
costs associated with a second maintenance facility.
Table 6-10 shows that a combined $15,150,000 ($1,500,000
in FY19 and $13,650,000 in FY20) is available from the
GET surcharge for other roadway projects. The use of the
GET in these two years greatly reduces County funding
from the General and Highway Funds allowing those
monies to be used for other needed programs and services.
Table 6-11 shows how the Financial Plan would be
modified if the County extends the GET surcharge. No
additional county funding would be required from the
General or Highway Fund accounts except for FY25 when
$3,000,000 is required from the Highway Fund. Capital
Investment costs in FY25 include construction of a second
maintenance facility.
6.9.2 GET Surcharge
In June 2018 the County of Hawaii Council voted to
increase the County excise tax by .025 percent for 18
months. Collections of the surcharge will begin on January
1, 2019. This funding will be available for half of fiscal year
2019 and all of fiscal year 2020. County estimates indicate
$10,000,000 will be generated in FY2019 and $25,000,000
in FY2020.
The GET funds are proposed to be split between MTA
for buses and DPW for roads. As shown in Table 6-10, in
FY 2019, when only six months of GET are available, $8.5
million are assigned to MTA and $1.5 million are assigned
to DPW. The dollars for MTA replace $4.94 million that
would have come from the General Funds, and provide an
additional $3.6 million to fund immediate term priorities.
In FY 2020 a full year GET collection would yield $25
million. Of this, $11.35 million would be for MTA and
used to purchase additional buses as well as the passenger
amenity programs. The balance of $13.54 million would be
for roadways or carry-over.
Table 6-11 shows an expenditure plan for MTA and the
multi-modal programs in the event that County Council
determines the GET should be extended beyond FY 2020.
State law allows the collection period to run through 2030.
6.9.3 County Fuel Tax
The County raised the gas tax by 6.2 cents in 2017. Reve-
nues from this source go into the County Highway Fund.
These funds are allocated to roads and mass transit. An
additional 4 cent increase in the gas tax is scheduled to
occur in 2018 and 2019. These two increases are depen-
dent upon the Public Works Department submitting a
plan to the Council on how those funds will be used. If the
higher revenue levels are approved, then the County would
be able to use additional Highway Funds to fund MTA,
thereby reassigning General Funds to other programs.
102 — CHAPTER 6 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
6.10 ALTERNATIVE FUNDING
OPPORTUNITIES
Alternative funding opportunities can include various
types of business endeavors, advertising revenues and
impact fees. Business endeavors might include part-
nerships with technology vendors interested in using
electronic displays to provide real time bus arrivals and
other transit information, public announcements and
news reports in combination with customer advertising.
Other opportunities for advertising exist in combina-
tion with interior bus displays.
6.10.1 Impact Fees
Some of the future Hele-On needs will be the result of
new development. This is especially true for the Kai-
lua-Kona area. Impact fees are defined by HRS §46-141
as the charges imposed upon a developer by a county
or board to fund all or a portion of the public facility
capital improvement costs required by the develop-
ment from which it is collected, or to recoup the cost of
existing public facility capital improvements made in
anticipation of the needs of a development. Investments
suitable for impact fees can be included within the per-
mitting process including:
• Bus stops
• Acquisition of transit and paratransit vehicles intended to operate on roadways, land and easements for physical facilities,
• Purchase and installation of equipment supporting
transit service including, but not limited to,
dispatching and vehicle location equipment, capital
maintenance equipment, passenger amenities such
as bus shelters, information kiosks and bus pass
vending machines, route signing, and
• Construction of facilities necessary to support the provision of transit services including, but not limited to, maintenance and storage facilities, passenger shelters, park and ride lots, and terminals.
6.10.2 Capital Leasing
The county may wish to explore the possibility of ac-
quiring vehicles through a capital lease-to-own pro-
gram. Many private entities are offering such services
to public transit authorities. This option allows for a
phased program to be implemented by the private sec-
tor and possibly making vehicles available sooner with a
fixed payment over time.
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 6 — 103
104 — CHAPTER 6 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
Table 6-7. Operating Costs by Fiscal Year 2018-2022
SERVICE OPERATING COST BY FISCAL YEAR
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
EXISTING SERVICE
Current Routes $10,360,872 $10,129,658 $9,500,000 $9,405,110 $10,017,751
Additions to Current Routes -$320,350 -$279,304 $416,215 -$105,520
NEW ROUTES
Blue Line Express $200,000 $204,000 $237,880 $242,638
Green Line Express $237,880 $242,638
Red Line Express $475,760 $485,275
Route 60 Hilo/Honokaa Flex Service $333,920 $340,598 $347,410
Route 104 Mohouli
Route 201 South Kona via Alii Drive $365,400
Route 202 North Kona via Highway 19 $438,200
Route 203 North Kona via Highway 190 $438,200
Route 204 South Kona via Kuakini Hwy
Route 301 Waimea Circulator Flex $325,520 $332,030 $338,671
Route 401 Hawaiian Beaches/Nanawale Flex $375,870 $383,387 $391,055 $398,876
Route 402 Paradise Park/Ainaloa $200,320 $204,326 $208,413 $212,581
Route 403 Fern Acres/Fern Forest/Eden Roc $200,320 $204,326 $208,413 $212,581
Zones 1 - 3 Kau and Puna Districts $250,560 $255,571
Sunday Service expansion $285,280
Subtotal $10,360,872 $10,785,818 $10,876,176 $12,503,915 $14,175,553
SHARED TAXI $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
BIKE SHARE (Expansion Kona, Hilo, Waimea)$120,000 $120,000 $123,600 $127,308
DISABLED & SPECIAL NEEDS $592,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000
TAXI INVESTIGATIONS & HILO
DOWNTOWN
$126,900 $126,900 $126,900 $126,900 $126,900
PARATRANSIT & RURAL ASSISTANCE $864,379 $864,379 $864,379 $864,379 $864,379
ADA PARATRANSIT $500,000 $515,000 $530,450 $546,364 $562,754
VANPOOL $300,000 $576,000 $720,000 $720,000
Subtotal $3,083,279 $3,526,279 $3,817,729 $3,981,243 $4,001,341
Totals $13,444,151 $14,312,097 $14,693,905 $16,485,157 $18,176,894
Notes:
2% escalation per year has been added to the fixed route, flex, zone, and commuter routes to 2022, then
increased to 3%.
Fixed route and commuter services are based on $95 per hour. Flex and Zone routes are $80 per hour.
Shared Taxi is capped at $1,000,000 per year, expenses will decrease with an increase in fare. This category
includes introduction of working with Transportation Network Companies (TNC) such as Uber/Lyft.
Bike Share has an annual operation fee to maintain bikes, includes escalation of 3% starting in FY2021.
ADA Paratransit current service cost is based upon an estimate of $500,000 for FY18 (approximately double
the inaugural year cost) with a 3% escalation per year.
Vanpool is expected to have 10 vanpools form in FY2019, 20 total in FY2020 and 25 in FY2021.
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 6 — 105
Table 6-7. Financial Plan Operating Costs by Fiscal Year 2023-2027
SERVICE OPERATING COST BY FISCAL YEAR
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
EXISTING SERVICE
Current Routes $10,110,476 $10,525,662 $10,736,175 $10,950,898 $11,169,916
Additions to Current Routes $208,800 $0 $0 $0 $0
NEW ROUTES
Blue Line Express $249,917 $257,414 $265,137 $273,091 $281,283
Green Line Express $249,917 $257,414 $265,137 $273,091 $281,283
Red Line Express $499,833 $514,828 $530,273 $546,182 $562,567
Route 60 Hilo/Honokaa Flex Service $357,833 $368,568 $379,625 $391,013 $402,744
Route 104 Mohouli $89,205 $91,881 $94,638 $97,477 $100,401
Route 201 South Kona via Alii Drive $376,362 $387,653 $399,282 $411,261 $423,599
Route 202 North Kona via Highway 19 $451,346 $464,886 $478,833 $493,198 $507,994
Route 203 North Kona via Highway 190 $451,346 $464,886 $478,833 $493,198 $507,994
Route 204 South Kona via Kuakini Hwy $281,700 $290,151 $298,856
Route 301 Waimea Circulator Flex $348,831 $359,296 $370,075 $381,177 $392,613
Route 401 Hawaiian Beaches/Nanawale Flex $410,843 $423,168 $435,863 $448,939 $462,407
Route 402 Paradise Park/Ainaloa $218,959 $225,527 $232,293 $239,262 $246,440
Route 403 Fern Acres/Fern Forest/Eden Roc $218,959 $225,527 $232,293 $239,262 $246,440
Zones 1 - 3 Kau and Puna Districts $722,598 $744,276 $766,604 $789,602 $813,290
Sunday Service expansion $293,838 $302,654 $311,733 $321,085 $330,718
Subtotal $15,259,062 $15,613,641 $16,258,494 $16,638,887 $17,028,544
SHARED TAXI $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
BIKE SHARE (Expansion Kona, Hilo, Waimea)$131,127 $135,061 $139,113 $143,286 $147,585
DISABLED & SPECIAL NEEDS $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000
TAXI INVESTIGATIONS & HILO
DOWNTOWN
$126,900 $126,900 $126,900 $126,900 $126,900
PARATRANSIT & RURAL ASSISTANCE $864,379 $864,379 $864,379 $864,379 $864,379
ADA PARATRANSIT $579,637 $597,026 $614,937 $633,385 $652,387
VANPOOL $720,000 $720,000 $720,000 $720,000 $720,000
Subtotal $4,022,043 $4,043,366 $4,065,329 $4,087,950 $4,111,250
Totals $19,281,105 $19,657,007 $20,323,822 $20,726,837 $21,139,795
Notes:
2% escalation per year has been added to the fixed route, flex, zone, and commuter routes to 2022, then
increased to 3%.
Fixed route and commuter services are based on $95 per hour. Flex and Zone routes are $80 per hour.
Shared Taxi is capped at $1,000,000 per year, expenses will decrease with an increase in fare. This category
includes introduction of working with Transportation Network Companies (TNC) such as Uber/Lyft.
Bike Share has an annual operation fee to maintain bikes, includes escalation of 3% starting in FY2021.
ADA Paratransit current service cost is based upon an estimate of $500,000 for FY18 (approximately double
the inaugural year cost) with a 3% escalation per year.
Vanpool is expected to have 10 vanpools form in FY2019, 20 total in FY2020 and 25 in FY2021.
106 — CHAPTER 6 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
Table 6-8. Financial Plan Operating Revenues by Fiscal Year 2018-2022
SERVICE
CURRENT
SERVICES OPERATING REVENUE BY FISCAL YEAR
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
BUS SERVICES
Annual Passenger Trips 742,250 779,363 802,743 826,826 868,167
Revenue per Unlinked Trip $1.04 $1.04 $1.11 $1.15 $1.20
Annual Revenue $771,940 $810,537 $891,045 $950,850 $1,041,800
ADA PARATRANSIT
Annual Passenger Trips 7,880 8,668 9,535 10,488 10,803
Revenue per Unlinked Trip $1.33 $3.20 $3.20 $3.20 $3.20
Annual Revenue $10,490 $27,738 $30,511 $33,562 $34,569
SHARED TAXI
Annual Passenger Trips 169,000 160,000 155,000 155,775 156,554
Revenue per Unlinked Trip $2.19 $3.25 $4.15 $4.15 $4.15
Annual Revenue $370,531 $520,000 $643,250 $646,466 $649,699
SHARED TAXI
Taxi Licenses $26,940 $27,000 $27,000 $27,000 $27,000
BIKE SHARE
User Fees $20,000 $24,000 $28,800
VANPOOL
Member Contribution $175,000 $336,000 $420,000 $420,000
OTHER (advertising)$30,000 $50,000 $50,000
TOTALS $1,179,901 $1,560,275 $1,977,807 $2,151,878 $2,251,868
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 6 — 107
Table 6-8. Financial Plan Operating Revenues by Fiscal Year – 2023-2027
SERVICE OPERATING REVENUE BY FISCAL YEAR
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
BUS SERVICES
Annual Passenger Trips 911,575 957,154 1,005,012 1,055,262 1,108,025
Revenue per Unlinked Trip $1.20 $1.20 $1.25 $1.25 $1.28
Annual Revenue $1,093,890 $1,148,585 $1,256,265 $1,319,078 $1,418,273
ADA PARATRANSIT
Annual Passenger Trips 11,127 11,461 11,805 12,159 12,524
Revenue per Unlinked Trip $3.20 $3.20 $3.20 $3.20 $3.20
Annual Revenue $35,606 $36,675 $37,775 $38,908 $40,075
SHARED TAXI
Annual Passenger Trips 157,337 158,123 158,914 159,709 160,507
Revenue per Unlinked Trip $4.15 $4.15 $4.15 $4.15 $4.15
Annual Revenue $652,947 $656,212 $659,493 $662,790 $666,104
$27,000 $27,000 $27,000 $27,000 $27,000
BIKE SHARE
User Fees $29,376 $35,251 $42,301 $50,762 $60,914
VANPOOL
Member Contribution $420,000 $420,000 $420,000 $420,000 $420,000
OTHER (advertising)$50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
TOTALS $2,308,820 $2,373,723 $2,492,834 $2,568,538 $2,682,366
108 — CHAPTER 6 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
Table 6-9. Capital Improvement Program Years 2018-2022
Item Cost By Budget Year
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
FACILITIES
Bus Stops
planning & design $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000
procurement and
land acquisition $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000
installation $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000
Signs & Wayfinding
planning & design $50,000
procurement $200,000
installation $150,000 $75,000
Transit Centers
planning $350,000 $100,000
design $200,000 $300,000
land acquisition $1,000,000
construction $1,500,000 $1,000,000
Maintenance Facility
planning $200,000 $200,000
design $400,000
land acquisition
construction
equipment
installation
Park & Ride Lots $150,000 $200,000
PASSENGER SYSTEMS
Fare Collection System
planning
specifications
procurement
Electronic Information
transit app $250,000 $250,000
planning & specifications $100,000
procurement & installation $300,000 $100,000
WI-FI on buses $300,000
FLEET
specifications $20,000
procurement $1,565,000 $2,328,900 $3,857,238 $2,630,900 $2,434,500
Totals $1,565,000 $3,048,900 $5,757,238 $6,130,000 $4,909,500
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 6 — 109
Item Cost By Budget Year
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 SUBTOTALS
FACILITIES
Bus Stops
planning & design $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $180,000
procurement and
land acquisition $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $1,170,000
installation $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $1,350,000
Signs & Wayfinding
planning & design $50,000 $100,000
procurement $100,000 $250,000 $550,000
installation $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $450,000
Transit Centers
planning $300,000 $750,000
design $500,000 $1,000,000
land acquisition $500,000 $1,500,000
construction $700,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $7,200,000
Maintenance Facility
planning $400,000
design $400,000
land acquisition TBD TBD
construction $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $9,000,000
equipment $1,500,000 $1,700,000
installation $500,000 $500,000
Park & Ride Lots
PASSENGER SYSTEMS
Fare Collection System
planning $50,000 $50,000
specifications $60,000 $60,000
procurement $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $4,000,000
Electronic Information
transit app $500,000
planning & specifications $100,000
procurement & installation $565,000
WI-FI on buses $300,000
FLEET
specifications $20,000 $40,000
procurement $2,789,100 $2,727,100 $2,856,300 $1,300,500 $2,291,000 $24,780,538
Totals $5,284,100 $7,262,100 $12,481,300 $3,600,500 $2,591,000 $52,630,538
Table 6-9. Capital Improvement Program – Years 2023-2027
110 — CHAPTER 6 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
Table 6-10. Financial Plan Fiscal Years 2018-2022
EXPENSES FISCAL YEAR
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Category
Administration & Marketing $672,100 $692,263 $713,031 $734,422 $756,454
Bus Operations $10,360,872 $10,785,818 $10,876,176 $12,503,915 $14,175,553
Other Modal Operations $3,083,279 $3,526,279 $3,817,729 $3,981,243 $4,001,341
Capital Investments $1,565,000 $3,048,900 $5,757,238 $6,130,900 $4,909,500
Total Expenses $15,681,251 $18,053,260 $21,164,174 $23,350,479 $23,842,849
FUNDING SOURCES 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Operating Revenue
Bus Fare Revenue $771,940 $810,537 $891,045 $950,850 $1,041,800
Other Modal Revenue $407,961 $749,738 $1,086,761 $1,201,029 $1,210,068
Total Fare Revenue $1,179,901 $1,560,275 $1,977,807 $2,151,878 $2,251,868
Grants
Federal Operating Grant $1,042,000 $1,042,000 $1,042,000 $1,042,000 $1,042,000
Federal Bus & Facilities $700,000 $880,000 $880,000 $880,000 $880,000
Federal Capital Investment*$575,000 $575,000 $575,000 $575,000 $575,000
Total Grants $2,317,000 $2,497,000 $2,497,000 $2,497,000 $2,497,000
General Excise Tax (18 months):
Estimated Excise Tax Revenue --$10,000,000 $25,000,000 ----
GET Transit Funding --$8,500,000 $11,350,000 ----
GET Other Transportation Projects &
Carryover
--$1,500,000 $13,650,000 ----
County Funding:
General Fund $3,861,243 $0 $0 $7,000,000 $7,000,000
Highway Fund $8,323,107 $5,495,985 $5,339,368 $11,701,601 $12,093,981
Total County non-GET Funding $12,184,350 $5,495,985 $5,339,368 $18,701,601 $19,093,981
SUMMARY 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Total Expenses $15,681,251 $18,053,260 $21,164,174 $23,350,479 $23,842,849
Fare Revenue $1,179,901 $1,560,275 $1,977,807 $2,151,878 $2,251,868
Grants $2,317,000 $2,497,000 $2,497,000 $2,497,000 $2,497,000
General Excise Tax --$8,500,000 $11,350,000 ----
County General Fund $3,861,243 $0 $0 $7,000,000 $7,000,000
County Highway Fund $8,323,107 $5,495,985 $5,339,368 $11,701,601 $12,093,981
Total Funding Sources $15,681,251 $18,053,260 $21,164,174 $23,350,479 $23,842,849
GET Other Transportation Projects &
Carryover
$1,500,000 $13,650,000 ----
*Discretionary grant funding is not guaranteed.
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 6 — 111
Table 6-10. Financial Plan Fiscal Years – 2023-2027
EXPENSES FISCAL YEAR
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Category
Administration & Marketing $779,148 $802,523 $826,598 $851,396 $876,938
Bus Operations $15,259,062 $15,613,641 $16,258,494 $16,638,887 $17,028,544
Other Modal Operations $4,022,043 $4,043,366 $4,065,329 $4,087,950 $4,111,250
Capital Investments $5,284,100 $7,262,100 $12,481,300 $3,600,500 $2,591,000
Total Expenses $25,344,353 $27,721,630 $33,631,721 $25,178,733 $24,607,733
FUNDING SOURCES 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Operating Revenue
Bus Fare Revenue $1,093,890 $1,148,585 $1,256,265 $1,319,078 $1,418,273
Other Modal Revenue $1,214,930 $1,225,138 $1,236,569 $1,249,460 $1,264,094
Total Fare Revenue $2,308,820 $2,373,723 $2,492,834 $2,568,538 $2,682,366
Grants
Federal Operating Grant $1,042,000 $1,042,000 $1,042,000 $1,042,000 $1,042,000
Federal Bus & Facilities $880,000 $880,000 $880,000 $880,000 $880,000
Federal Capital Investment*$575,000 $575,000 $575,000 $575,000 $575,000
Total Grants $2,497,000 $2,497,000 $2,497,000 $2,497,000 $2,497,000
General Excise Tax (18 months):
Estimated Excise Tax Revenue ----------
GET Transit Funding ----------
GET Other Transportation Projects &
Carryover
----------
County Funding:
General Fund $7,000,000 $7,000,000 $7,000,000 $7,000,000 $7,000,000
Highway Fund $13,538,533 $15,850,907 $21,641,887 $13,113,195 $12,428,367
Total County non-GET Funding $19,999,792 $22,200,897 $27,833,324 $19,158,263 $18,281,781
SUMMARY 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Total Expenses $25,344,353 $27,721,630 $33,631,721 $25,178,733 $24,607,733
Fare Revenue $2,308,820 $2,373,723 $2,492,834 $2,568,538 $2,682,366
Grants $2,497,000 $2,497,000 $2,497,000 $2,497,000 $2,497,000
General Excise Tax ----------
County General Fund $7,000,000 $7,000,000 $7,000,000 $7,000,000 $7,000,000
County Highway Fund $13,538,533 $15,850,907 $21,641,887 $13,113,195 $12,428,367
Total Funding Sources $25,344,353 $27,721,630 $33,631,721 $25,178,733 $24,607,733
GET Other Transportation Projects &
Carryover
----------
*Discretionary grant funding is not guaranteed.
112 — CHAPTER 6 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
Table 6-11. Financial Plan by Fiscal Year with Excise Tax Surcharge
EXPENSES FISCAL YEAR
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Category
Administration & Marketing $672,100 $692,263 $713,031 $734,422 $756,454
Bus Operations $10,360,872 $10,785,818 $10,876,176 $12,503,915 $14,175,553
Other Modal Operations $3,083,279 $3,526,279 $3,817,729 $3,981,243 $4,001,341
Capital Investments $1,565,000 $3,048,900 $5,757,238 $6,130,900 $4,909,500
Total Expenses $15,681,251 $18,053,260 $21,164,174 $23,350,479 $23,842,849
FUNDING SOURCES 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Operating Revenue
Bus Fare Revenue $771,940 $810,537 $891,045 $950,850 $1,041,800
Other Modal Revenue $407,961 $749,738 $1,086,761 $1,201,029 $1,210,068
Total Fare Revenue $1,179,901 $1,560,275 $1,977,807 $2,151,878 $2,251,868
Grants
Federal Operating Grant $1,042,000 $1,042,000 $1,042,000 $1,042,000 $1,042,000
Federal Bus & Facilities $700,000 $880,000 $880,000 $880,000 $880,000
Federal Capital Investment*$575,000 $575,000 $575,000 $575,000 $575,000
Total Grants $2,317,000 $2,497,000 $2,497,000 $2,497,000 $2,497,000
General Excise Tax (18 months):
Estimated Excise Tax Revenue --$10,000,000 $25,000,000 $25,000,000 $25,000,000
GET Transit Funding --$8,500,000 $11,350,000 $18,701,601 $19,093,981
GET Other Transportation Projects &
Carryover
--$1,500,000 $13,650,000 $6,298,399 $5,906,019
County Funding:
General Fund $3,861,243 $0 $0 $0 $0
Highway Fund $8,323,107 $5,495,985 $5,339,368 $0 $0
Total County non-GET Funding $12,184,350 $5,495,985 $5,339,368 $0 $0
SUMMARY 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Total Expenses $15,681,251 $18,053,260 $21,164,174 $23,350,479 $23,842,849
Fare Revenue $1,179,901 $1,560,275 $1,977,807 $2,151,878 $2,251,868
Grants $2,317,000 $2,497,000 $2,497,000 $2,497,000 $2,497,000
General Excise Tax --$8,500,000 $11,350,000 $18,701,601 $19,093,981
County General Fund $3,861,243 $0 $0 $0 $0
County Highway Fund $8,323,107 $5,495,985 $5,339,368 $0 $0
Total Funding Sources $15,681,251 $18,053,260 $21,164,174 $23,350,479 $23,842,849
GET Other Transportation Projects &
Carryover
--$1,500,000 $13,650,000 $6,298,399 $5,906,019
*Discretionary grant funding is not guaranteed.
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 6 — 113
Table 6-11. Financial Plan by Fiscal Year with Excise Tax Surcharge - Continued
EXPENSES FISCAL YEAR
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Category
Administration & Marketing $779,148 $802,523 $826,598 $851,396 $876,938
Bus Operations $15,259,062 $15,613,641 $16,258,494 $16,638,887 $17,028,544
Other Modal Operations $4,022,043 $4,043,366 $4,065,329 $4,087,950 $4,111,250
Capital Investments $5,284,100 $7,262,100 $12,481,300 $3,600,500 $2,591,000
Total Expenses $25,344,353 $27,721,630 $33,631,721 $25,178,733 $24,607,733
FUNDING SOURCES 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Operating Revenue
Bus Fare Revenue $1,093,890 $1,148,585 $1,256,265 $1,319,078 $1,418,273
Other Modal Revenue $1,214,930 $1,225,138 $1,236,569 $1,249,460 $1,264,094
Total Fare Revenue $2,308,820 $2,373,723 $2,492,834 $2,568,538 $2,682,366
Grants
Federal Operating Grant $1,042,000 $1,042,000 $1,042,000 $1,042,000 $1,042,000
Federal Bus & Facilities $880,000 $880,000 $880,000 $880,000 $880,000
Federal Capital Investment*$575,000 $575,000 $575,000 $575,000 $575,000
Total Grants $2,497,000 $2,497,000 $2,497,000 $2,497,000 $2,497,000
General Excise Tax (18 months):
Estimated Excise Tax Revenue $25,000,000 $25,000,000 $25,000,000 $25,000,000 $25,000,000
GET Transit Funding $20,538,533 $22,850,907 $24,941,887 $20,113,195 $19,428,367
GET Other Transportation Projects &
Carryover
$4,461,467 $2,149,093 $58,113 $4,886,805 $5,571,633
County Funding:
General Fund $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Highway Fund $0 $0 $3,700,000 $0 $0
Total County non-GET Funding $0 $0 $3,700,000 $0 $0
SUMMARY 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Total Expenses $25,344,353 $27,721,630 $33,631,721 $25,178,733 $24,607,733
Fare Revenue $2,308,820 $2,373,723 $2,492,834 $2,568,538 $2,682,366
Grants $2,497,000 $2,497,000 $2,497,000 $2,497,000 $2,497,000
General Excise Tax $20,538,533 $22,850,907 $24,941,887 $20,113,195 $19,428,367
County General Fund $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
County Highway Fund $0 $0 $3,100,000 $0 $0
Total Funding Sources $25,344,353 $27,721,630 $33,031,721 $25,178,733 $24,607,733
GET Other Transportation Projects &
Carryover
$4,461,467 $2,149,093 $58,113 $4,886,805 $5,571,633
*Discretionary grant funding is not guaranteed.
114 — CHAPTER 6 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 7 — 115
Chapter Seven:
7.0 CONCLUSION
The charge for this Master Plan has been to identify a
twenty year program for multimodal transportation
improvements. Knowing the large number of needs, and
the competition for tax dollars, these have to be assigned
priorities. Further, in many instances, they can be consid-
ered building blocks to the desired system. Some services
need to be tested before they are fully implemented.
This chapter looks at the Immediate Priorities, followed
by four five-year periods.
7.1 IMMEDIATE PRIORITIES
(2018-2020)• Restore service reliability and get ridership back to previous levels (1.2 million passenger boardings)
• Acquire up to 14 buses/vans using previous grants and new capital funds to bring the fleet to 25
• Once reliability is restored, continue to add additional service hours and routes to create a hub and spoke pattern, starting in Puna
• Start Hilo to Kona service using Saddle Road
• Continue to review and implement paratransit service per federal requirements
• Create a multi-modal transportation system on the island. Embrace multiple vendors for providing bicycle, vanpool, transit and other multi modal services
• Increase staffing of the MTA to adequately respond to the range of responsibilities needed to serve the public. Add three new positions: Garage Supervisor, Administrative Services Assistant and Account Clerk. Re-classify an existing position to serve as Multi-Modal Mobility Manager and Planner
• Create a Transit APP for rider information and print new and accurate maps for service and schedules
Restore Service Reliability and
Ridership; Acquire Buses
The best way to achieve this is through building up the
fleet to 55 (25 in the next two years). County owned
vehicles and the maintenance capability to support
keeping these on the road. The strategies here are to
accelerate bus and cutaway van purchases (as described
in the capital plan). With a new maintenance facility
comes the opportunity to start fresh with equipment
and with procedures.
Operating Contract
The bus operating service contract is renewed every
three years. The next renewal comes in 2018. This is an
excellent opportunity to address customer service, on-
time performance, and cash handling procedures.
Add Additional Service in a Hub and
Spoke Pattern
Service for circulators would be added in Puna, Kona,
and Hilo. New express cross County service would
be added using Saddle Road which is time saving and
allows for additional trips.
Paratransit
Review operations and investigate additional op-
tions for paratransit such as taxis and transportation
network companies. Expand paratransit options to
other parts of the island. New Flex and Zone services
will provide new paratransit operations to Hāmākua,
North Kohala, South Kohala, Ka‘u, and Puna.
116 — CHAPTER 7 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
Multi-Modal System
Expansion of the bike share program in Kona and new
service to Waimea and Hilo would be started. A van-
pool subsidy program would be started for commuters.
Increase Staffing
These recommendations and other findings of this
transportation master plan study confirm that the
positions and organization of the current MTA are
stretched too thin, become ineffective with administra-
tors focused on putting out fires, which in turn, lead to
burn-out and staff turnover. Success of the program is
linked to having qualified and committed staff.
In 2018 MTA hired a new Executive Administrator.
Three additional positions are recommended for the
immediate term: Administrative Services Assistant, a
Garage Supervisor, and Account Clerk at a combined
annual cost of $220,000.
• Administrative Services Assistant (ASA).
This position would be responsible for developing
the budget, overseeing accounts receivable/payable,
purchasing, applying for and managing federal
grants, vehicle purchase and contracts. Right now
these duties are lodged with the Administrator.
With the size and complexity of the current and
anticipated transit system, this function needs to be
separated out. The ASA would also be responsible
for IT, record keeping, and annual submissions to the
National Transit Database (NTD) along with grant
management and fiscal reports. Finally, the ASA
would be responsible for Human Resources.
• Garage Supervisor.
Now that the County has a brand new facility with
four bays, it is time to take a hold of the program,
including developing policies and procedures for
daily maintenance, dispatch, preventive maintenance,
warranty work, and minor and major repairs. This
would be the responsibility of the garage supervisor
(with initial consultant assistance to help it move
quickly). It is also critical to establish a database
and records for each bus so its use and efficiency
can be tracked. Maintenance positions are proposed
to increase to create a second shift, and the Garage
Supervisor will oversee this expansion, training,
inventory and record keeping.
• Account Clerk.
This position is needed to fulfill the recommendations
of the Legislative Auditor for cash handling and
receipt. This function needs two people. It also will
help cover time periods later in the afternoon to
properly receive cash boxes.
• Multi-Modal Mobility Manager.
It is anticipated that this position can be created
by revising the duties of an existing position. This
position would negotiate with third parties for
provision of services such as bike share, vanpool,
Transportation Network Companies, and human
service agencies. The Multi-Modal Mobility Manager
would also participate in the program to identify
hubs, the bus stop program, and coordination of
standards with DPW and others. This position would
also oversee implementation of the Transit APP.
In 2015, the State Department of Transportation con-
ducted a study of needs statewide for human services.
For Hawai‘i island, the following recommendations
were made:
• Public Awareness and Education. There is a need for
more public awareness of different modes of trans-
portation and service eligibilities.
• Mobility Manager and Coordination among service
providers and to facilitate future planning, develop a
directory of providers, conduct resource inventory,
and tackle challenges among providers.
• Mobility Center to screen, assess and schedule trans-
portation rides. This includes human services pro-
viders and private providers who operate on different
scheduling systems. This would also involve working
with Hawai‘i County Economic Opportunity Council
(HCEOC), Hawai‘i Office of Aging/ADRC and Coor-
dinated Services for the Elderly.
• Building Transportation Service Capacity. Prepare
a sustainable mobility plan and business model to
look at different revenue sources such as foundations.
See who can afford to pay. Work with health plans to
expand coverage for travel to medical and essential
destinations.
7.2 NEAR TERM (2020-2025)
• Acquire 5-6 new and replacement vehicles per year
to bring the fleet to 40
• Increase service to have all proposed circulators in
place
• Continue the multi-modal program and expand
bike share to Hilo
• Plan, design, and build the Kona hub. Consider
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 7 — 117
Figure 7-1. Passengers are eager for additional service that is reliable
118 — CHAPTER 7 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
options to provide light maintenance on Kona side
• Add staffing to include a Deputy Administrator /
Operations Manager, Inventory Clerk, and a second
shift of (4) mechanics and (1) working supervisor.
By the time the fleet size is 25, there should be no
less than six mechanics
• Implement the Bus Stop numbering program at all time spots and connect with geographic location data
Additional MTA Staffing for 2020-2025
It is recommended that the following new positions be
created. They do not all have to be established at once,
in fact that would be a lot of people to absorb into the
organization at one time. The second shift of mechan-
ics should be in place by the time the fleet size reaches
thirty-five county owned vehicles.
• Deputy Administrator/Operation Manager.
This position would oversee day-to-day operations of
assigning buses to routes and trouble shooting. It is
not possible for the Administrator to be available 24-
7, 365 days a year. A Deputy not only fills in for the
Administrator for short or long term absences, but
can trouble shoot, explore new technologies, and take
on special assignments.
• Second shift of four automotive mechanics and one
working supervisor.
Two shifts means sixteen hour use of the facility, and
the opportunity to divide the type of work done by
each shift.
• Inventory Clerk.
Having an inventory person is the most efficient
way to handle parts. The mechanics fill out a request
form and give it to inventory clerk rather than roam
through the inventory storeroom. It prevents theft
and helps with replacement of inventory in a timely
manner.
7.3 MID TERM (2025-2030)
• Reassess the Paratransit program and expand it to
other parts of the island as needed.
• Paratransit support staff. One person is
recommended to assist the program manager for
Paratransit
• Continue to acquire 5-6 buses per year to achieve a
fleet size of 58
• Continue the multi-modal, bus stop and amenities
programs
• Design and develop a Puna hub and complete
roadway improvements to allow for Intra-Puna
service
• Implement the multi-modal complete streets program in Hilo
7.4 LONG TERM (2030-2035)
• Plan, design, and construct a Waimea hub
• Upgrade Mooheau hub
• Update this Transportation Master Plan
• Expand number of runs for routes that have demonstrated consistently high ridership
7.5 VISION (2035-2040)
• Service to operate on a full hub and spoke pattern
with hubs in Hilo, Kona, Waimea, Puna, and
Keeau
• Conduct robust Bike Share, Vanpool and TNC
programs
• Have a full Public Information and Outreach
Program
Implementing the Vision will require the hard work
and dedication of the MTA staff. Figures 7-2 and 7-3
are a comparison of the existing organization chart to
what would be proposed for twenty years out, with the
expectation that positions are added during each period
as shown above.
7.6 PERFORMANCE
MONITORING AND
ACCOUNTABILITY
When it passed the GET surcharge for 18 months, the
County Council provided MTA the opportunity to work on
the immediate term priorities.
To ensure transparency and build confidence and trust, it
is recommended that MTA regularly report back to Coun-
cil on its progress. Examples of progress include: service
restoration and expansion, new routes instituted, schedule
changes and adherence, bus purchases, and similar metrics.
Appendix E provides examples metric tracking that would
prove helpful.
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 7 — 119
Figure 7-2. Existing Organization Chart
120 — CHAPTER 7 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
Figure 7-3. Organization Chart
----------
Figure 7-3 PROPOSED RE-ORGANIZATION
Fiscal Vehicle Maintenance Operations Paratransit
Inventory ClerkSR-8
Program Manager SR-24Administrative ServicesAssistant SR-22
Account ClerkSR-11 00-04892SR-11 00-04957
Clerk IISR-08 00-04090
Shift 1AutomotiveMechanic I
BC-10 00-03358BC-10 00-04714BC-10 00-04875BC-10 00-04876
Shift 2AutomotiveMechanic II
Working SupervisorWS-10
Shift 2AutomotiveMechanic I
BC-10 00-03358BC-10 00-04714BC-10 00-04875BC-10 00-04876
Shift 1AutomotiveMechanic II
Working SupervisorWS-10 00-03357
County Transportation SpecialistSR-22 (reclassify) 00-04125
Account ClerkSR-11
Mass Transit AdministratorEM-030 00-0335 Transportation Commission
Secretary SR-16 Deputy Administrator / Operations Manager EM-02
Multi-Modal Mobility Manager SR-22Garage Supervisor F2-10
Mass Transit Assistant (Taxi)SR-12 00-04893
Transit Operations AssistantSR-15 (reclassify) 00-03356
Account ClerkSR-11
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • CHAPTER 7 — 121
REFERENCES
AAA-Website Accessed June 8, 2018
American Community Survey. 2016
American Public Transit Administration (APTA), Public Transportation Fare Data Base.
American Public Transit Administration (APTA), Benefit for the 21st Century, 2007
2014 City & County of Honolulu, Complete Streets Design Manual. 2016 .
County of Hawai‘i, Department of Finance . Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. June 30, 2016 .
County of Hawaii Data Book. 2015 .
County of Hawaii General Plan. 2005 . Also, current General Plan update working papers .
County of Hawaii Kona Community Development Plan. 2008 .
County of Hawaii Puna Community Development Plan. 2010 .
County of Hawaii North Kohala Community Development Plan. 2008 .
County of Hawaii South Kohala Community Development Plan. 2008.
County of Hawaii Kau Community Development Plan. 2017.
County of Hawaii Draft Hamakua Community Development Plan. 2017.
County of Hawaii, Downtown Hilo Multi-Modal Master Plan (Draft) . 2017.
County of Hawaii Complete Streets Resource Paper. 2015.
County of Hawaii, MTA Bus Stop Relocation Study. 2010.
County of Hawaii, Keahole to Hounaunau Regional Circulation Plan. 2013.
County of Hawaii, Hawaii County Health Needs and Assessment. 2012.
County of Hawaii, Bike Plan. 1979.
Envision Hilo, 2000 and Five Year Update. 2005
Federal Transit Administration . National Transit Data Base (NTD) .
State of Hawaii, Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism . Population and Employment Pro-
jections. 2015.
State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Hawaii County Transportation Plan. 1991 .
State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Coordinated Pubic Transit Human Services Plan. 2011 .
State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Transit Technical Study for Kauai, Maui, Hawaii. 2014 .
State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Statewide Mobility Management Report. 2014 .
State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Statewide Transportation Plan. 2011 .
State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Federal-Aid Highways 2035 Transportation Plan for Hawaii Dis-
trict. 2014 .
State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Bike Plan Hawaii Master Plan. 2002 .
State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Statewide Pedestrian Master Plan. 2013 .
University of Michigan, Expanding Transportation Opportunities on Hawaii Island. 2014 . United States Census .
2010 .
United States Executive Order No . 12898 on Environmental Justice . February 16, 1994 .
SSFM International, Inc., Transit Master Plan Report on Vision and Goals (February 2017).
SSFM International, Inc., Report on Existing Conditions (April 2017).
SSFM International, Inc., Report on Transit Infrastructure (February 2017).
SSFM International, Inc., Review of Previous and Ongoing Studies (February 2017).
SSFM International, Inc., Report on Passenger Survey (May 2017).
SSFM International, Inc., Report on Trends and Future Needs (August 2017).
SSFM International, Inc., Report on Service Improvement Plan (September 2017).
SSFM International, Inc., Public Input Plan I (December 2017).
SSFM International, Inc., Public Input Plan II (May 2018).
122 — CHAPTER 7 • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • APPENDICES — 123
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A:
Demographic Analysis for Hawai‘i County
APPENDIX B:
Environmental Justice Analysis for Hawai‘i County
APPENDIX C:
Proposed Route Numbering System of Current and Future Routes
APPENDIX D:
Hele-On Route Maps for Existing Service
APPENDIX E:
Service Design Guidelines and Performance Monitoring
124 — APPENDICES • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • APPENDIX A — 125
APPENDIX AQ
DEMOGRAPHICS OF HAWAI‘I COUNTY
126 — APPENDIX A • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
FIFTY LARGEST EMPLOYERS
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • APPENDIX B — 127County of Hawai‘i Transit Master Plan • APPENDIX B — 127
APPENDIX B
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ANALYSIS FOR HAWAI‘I COUNTY
Hilo
Volcano
Kalaoa
Honalo Mountain
View
Honaunau-Napoopoo
Hawaiian
Ocean View
Puako
Waimea
Kailua
Holualoa
Hawaiian Beaches
Hawaiian Acres
Waikoloa Village
Fern Forest
Captain Cook
Eden Roc
Hawaiian Paradise Park
Kealakekua
Fern Acres
Kurtistown
Keaau
Kapaau
Pahoa
Halaula
Kahaluu-Keauhou
Leilani Estates
Naalehu
Hawi
Discovery Harbour
Papaikou
Laupahoehoe
Kukuihaele
Wainaku
Paauilo
Honokaa
Pahala
Pepeekeo
Nanawale
Estates
Honomu
Paukaa
Ainaloa
Waiohinu
200
137
250
270
19
19
19
190
11
11
11
Environmental Justice Populations in Hawaii County
PUNA
NORTH
KONA
SOUTH
KOHALA
NORTH
KOHALA
HAMAKUA
HILO
KAU
Census block group environmental justice designations
Data Sources: Hawaii State DBEDT (2017).American Community Survey (2015).
0 10 205Miles
Hilo
Minority EJ Block Groups
Low Income EJ Block Groups
Low Income and Minority EJ Block GroupsCensus block groups were designated as Environmental Justice
areas if they were above the Hawaii County averages of 67.0%
for minorities and 14.6% for households with poverty level income.
128 — APPENDIX B • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
Environmental Justice Analysis for Hawai‘i County
Hilo
Volcano
Kalaoa
Honalo Mountain
View
Honaunau-Napoopoo
Hawaiian
Ocean View
Puako
Waimea
Kailua
Holualoa
Hawaiian Beaches
Hawaiian Acres
Waikoloa Village
Fern Forest
Captain Cook
Eden Roc
Hawaiian Paradise Park
Kealakekua
Fern Acres
Kurtistown
Keaau
Kapaau
Pahoa
Halaula
Kahaluu-Keauhou
Leilani Estates
Naalehu
Hawi
Discovery Harbour
Papaikou
Laupahoehoe
Kukuihaele
Wainaku
Paauilo
Honokaa
Pahala
Pepeekeo
Nanawale
Estates
Honomu
Paukaa
Ainaloa
Waiohinu
200
137
250
270
19
19
19
190
11
11
11
Environmental Justice Populations in Hawaii County
PUNA
NORTH
KONA
SOUTH
KOHALA
NORTH
KOHALA
HAMAKUA
HILO
KAU
Census block group environmental justice designations
Data Sources: Hawaii State DBEDT (2017).American Community Survey (2015).
0 10 205Miles
Hilo
Minority EJ Block Groups
Low Income EJ Block Groups
Low Income and Minority EJ Block Groups
Census block groups were designated as Environmental Justice
areas if they were one standard deviation above mean values
for minority race (>85.7%) and/or households with income below
the poverty line (>27.7%).
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • APPENDIX B — 129
STANDARD DEVIATION METHOD
Minority Population
Geography Total
Population
Block
Groups Total Mean (%)
One Standard
Deviation
Above Mean
Block Groups
One Standard
Deviation
Hawaii County 185,079 106 127,248 67.0%85.0%16
Puna 45,326 21 30,108 1
Hilo 45,714 33 38,132 14
Kau 8,451 4 5,326 1
Kona 47,872 26 28,377 0
Hamakua 13,767 11 9,921 0
North Kohala 6,322 4 4,369 0
South Kohala 17,627 7 11,015 0
Households Below Poverty Line
Geography Number of
Households Total Mean (%)
One Standard
Deviation Above
Mean
Block Groups
One Standard
Deviation
Hawaii County 43,306 6127 14.6%27.7%19
Puna 10,161 2208 10
Hilo 10,366 1239 6
Kau 1,638 426 1
Kona 12,072 1324 1
Hamakua 3,139 336 1
North Kohala 1,453 229 0
South Kohala 4,477 365 0
Minority and Poverty EJ
Geography
Number of Block
Groups Minority and
Poverty EJ
Population Minority
and Poverty EJ
Hawaii County 1 1,296
Puna 0 0
Hilo 1 1,296
Kau 0 0
Kona 0 0
Hamakua 0 0
North Kohala 0 0
South Kohala 0 0
130 — APPENDIX B • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
ABOVE AVERAGE METHOD
Minority Population
Geography Total
Population Block Groups Total Mean (%)
Number of Block
Groups Above
Average
Hawaii County 185,079 106 127,248 67.0%63
Puna 45,326 21 30,108 10
Hilo 45,714 33 38,132 32
Kau 8,451 4 5,326 2
Kona 47,872 26 28,377 7
Hamakua 13,767 11 9,921 7
North Kohala 6,322 4 4,369 3
South Kohala 17,627 7 11,015 2
Households Below Poverty Line
Geography Number of
Households Total Mean (%)
Number of Block
Groups Above
Average
Hawaii County 43,306 6127 14.6%38
Puna 10,161 2208 15
Hilo 10,366 1239 10
Kau 1,638 426 1
Kona 12,072 1324 7
Hamakua 3,139 336 3
North Kohala 1,453 229 1
South Kohala 4,477 365 1
Minority and Poverty EJ
Geography
Number of Block
Groups Minority and
Poverty EJ
Population Minority
and Poverty EJ
Hawaii County 19 29,801
Puna 6 13,320
Hilo 10 11,105
Kau 0 0
Kona 1 2,634
Hamakua 2 2,742
North Kohala 0 0
South Kohala 0 0
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • APPENDIX C — 131
ROUTE DESCRIPTION
Hele-On Reference Number
of Trips
Proposed
Route
Number
Home Transit
Center
Major Inter-
mediate Stops
Extensions and
Diversions
Blue Line Express to
Kona
2 RT Blue Line MBT/ Bayfront None
Red Line Express to
Volcano
2 RT Red Line MBT None
Green Line Express to
Kona
2 RT Green Line Waimea None
Hilo/Kona 3 OW 1 MBT Waimea, Hono-
ka’a
Prince Kūhiō Plaza
Kona/Hilo 3 OW 2 Kona TC Waimea, Hono-
ka’a
Kealia
Hilo/Volcano 5 RT + 2
RT OV to
Volcano
10 MBT Kurtistown,
Kea’au
Ka‘ū; 2 RTs between
Ocean View and Vol-
cano
Hilo/Pāhoa/ Pohoiki 15 RT 40 MBT,/
Pāhoa TC Kea’au,
UH,
Prince
Kūhiō
Plaza
None
Hilo/Honoka’a*4 RT 60 MBT None
North Kohala-South
Kohala
1 RT 70 None None
North Koha-
la-Waimea-Kona
1 RT 75 None Waimea, Waiko-
loa Village
Kona Airport
Hilo/South Kohala
Resorts*
7 RT 80 MBT/ Bayfront Honoka’a,
Waimea
None
Hilo/South Kohala
Resorts via Saddle
Road
2 RT 80 MBT/ Bayfront None None
Pahala/South Kohala
Resorts
4 RT 90 Pahala/ Kona TC Ocean View Kaiser, HCC, West
Hawaii Civic Center
Intra-Hilo Keaukaha 9 RT 101 MBT UH, Prince
Kūhiō Plaza,
Airport
North Hilo
Intra-Hilo Kaumana 7 RT 102 MBT None
APPENDIX C
PROPOSED ROUTE NUMBERING OF CURRENT AND FUTURE
ROUTES
132 — APPENDIX C • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
Intra-Hilo Waiakea-
Uka
9 RT 103 MBT UH, Prince
Kūhiō Plaza
Banyan Drive, North
Hilo
Intra-Hilo Mohouli 6 RT 104 MBT None
Intra-Kona Alii Drive 7 RT 201 Kona TC None
Intra-Kona Airport
via Ane Keohokalole
Hwy
9 RT 202 Kona TC Civic Center,
Kaiser, Costco
None
Intra-Kona Airport
via Hwy 190
9 RT 203 Kona TC HCC None
Intra-Kona Kuakini
Hwy
9 RT 204 Kona TC None
Waimea Shuttle 7.5 RT 301 Waimea Honoka’a, MBT, Prince
Kūhiō Plaza on one
trip only
Hawaiian Beaches/
Nanawale
10 RT 401 Pāhoa TC Kea’au TC
Hawaiian Paradise
Park/Orchidland/
Ainaloa/Hawaiian
Acres
3 AM/3
PM
402 Kea’au TC Kurtistown None
Western Puna Circu-
lator
2 AM/2
PM
403 Kea’au TC Eden Roc, Fern
Acres, Fern
Forest
None
Zone 1 1 Day
extending
to 5 Days
Zone 1 Pāhoa TC
Zone 2 2 Days Zone 2 Kea’au TC
Zone 3 2 Days Zone 3 Ocean View/
Pahala
* Does not include trips operated by other routes.
OW One Way
RT Round Trip
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • APPENDIX D — 133
APPENDIX D
HELE-ON ROUTE MAPS FOR EXISTING SERVICE
WAIMEA
KAILUA-KONA
HILO
PEPEEKEO
PAPAIKOU
HONOMUHAKALAU
LAUPAHOEHOE
NINOLEPAPAALOA
PAAUILO
HONOKAA
KEAUHOU
HONAUNAU
Hwy 180Alii Dr Hwy 190Hwy 19
Hwy 19
Hwy 250
CAPTAIN COOK Fujihara Store
Yano Hall
Fujihara Store
Matsuyama Store
O
P
Q
RS
U
V W
T
X
Y
Z
SEE INSET 1
SEE INSET 2
SEE INSET 3
SEE INSET 4
SEE INSET 5
SEE INSET 6
SEE INSET 7
SEE INSET 8
SEE INSET 9
#1 Hilo - Kona
schematic map – not to scalewww.heleonbus.org
Legend
1
1
selected trips1
Timepoint
Medical Facility
Transit Hub
College/University
School
Key Destination
Hele On Bus Schedule - #1 Hilo-Kona
Hwy 190
Mamane
Akia
LehuaPlumeria
Hwy 190
HONOKAA
INSET 6
O
HonokaaPark
INSET 2
Hilo Bay FrontWainakaHwy 19Wailuku
WainakaKahilu Rd
H
a
l
o
a
R
d Ho
h
o
l
a
D
r
Ma
n
a
R
d
Pukalani
Li
n
d
s
e
y
Hwy 190
K
am
am
a
l
u
Hwy 19
Hw y 190Hwy19
250/KohalaMountainRd
MamalahoaHwy301
INSET 7
ParkerRanchCenter
Ali
i
D
r
Kamakaeha
H
w
y
1
9
KAILUA-KONA
Kmart/Macys
KonaCommons Hwy 1
1
PalaniPalaniRoyal Sea Cliff Kona
Kealakaa
JackHall U luaoa
U
R
ST
INSET 8
KeauhouShoppingCenter
SheratonKeauhou Ali
i
DrAli
i
DrKamehameha IIIKaleio
p
a
p
a
INSET 9
INSET 3
PapaikouPost Office
Hwy 19Ol
d Mamal
ahoaHwy 1
9
Plan ta tion R d
Mill Rd
PAPAIKOU Hwy 19 KaakepaKumulaKulaimanoElderlyHousing
INSET 4
INSET 5
HONOMU
Hwy
1
9
HonomuOl
d Ma
mala
h
oa
WaianuenueAv e
Puainako StLanikaula St Kawili StKilaeua
AvePonahawai StPunahele StKanoelehua AveRai
l
road
A
ve
A i n akoAve
Kamehameha Ave
KaumanaDrKawili StPauahiOhuohu StMaka’ala St
Te
r
r
a
c
e
D
r
Moh
o
u
l
i
S
t Komohana StAirport RdHILO BAY
HILO
UH Hilo WaiakeaHigh School
HawaiiComm.College
PrinceKuhioPlaza
AupuniCenter
LiliuokalaniGardens
Hilo CruiseTerminal
RainbowFalls
Mo’oheauBus Terminal
Hilo MedicalCenter
Hilo HighSchool
INSET 1
Hilo ShoppingCenter
WAIMEA
P
V
W
134 — APPENDIX D • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
KEA’AU
HILO
KURTISTOWN
MOUNTAINVIEW
FERN ACRES
VOLCANO VILLAGE
PAHALA
PUNALU’U
NA’ALEHU
WAIOHINU
OCEAN VIEW
Hw y 11
Hwy 11Hwy 11Ocean ViewPark & Ride
O
P
Q
10
10
10
#10 Ka’u/ Volcano
schematic map – not to scalewww.heleonbus.org
Legend
10
selected trips10
Timepoint
Medical Facility
Transit Hub
College/University
School
Key Destination
Hele On Bus Schedule - #10 Ka’u/Volcano
SEE INSET 1
SEE INSET 2
SEE INSET 3
SEE INSET 4
SEE INSET 5
SEE INSET 6Hwy 11Maile
Ka
m
a
n
i
PAHALA
INSET 5
PikakePahalaShoppingCenter
PUNALU’U
INSET 6
Black SandBeachHwy 11Ninole Lp
P
u
n
alu
u
R
dVolcanoVolcanoKilaueaWri
g
h
t
H
a
u
n
a
n
i
Mamalahoa H
w
y
Crater Rim
INSET 4
Volcano National ParkVisitors Center
Note: Passengers deboarding at Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park will need to pay a $5.00 entry fee, which will be collected by the bus operator.
10
INSET 3
Volcano
R
d
PuhalaPi
k
a
k
e
L
e
h
u
a
Orchid
HW
Y
1
3
0
SEE INSET 2Hw
y
1
1
Hwy 11Old VolcanoKEA’AU K
e
a
au
By
passINSET 2
Kea’auPost Office
Waianuenue Ave
Puainako St
Lanikaul
a St
Kawili StKilae
u
a
A
v
ePonaha
wai StPunahele
St
Kanoelehua AveR
a
i
l
r
o
ad
A
v
e
A inako Ave
Kamehameha Ave
Kaumana DrKawili StPauahiKanoelehua AveOhuohu StMaka’ala St
Ter
r
a
c
e
D
r
Moho
u
l
i
S
t Komohana StAirport RdHILO
UH Hilo WaiakeaHigh School
HawaiiComm.College
PrinceKuhioPlaza
AupuniCenter
LiliuokalaniGardens
Hilo CruiseTerminal
RainbowFalls
Mo’oheauBus Terminal
Hilo MedicalCenter
Hilo HighSchool
INSET 1
Hilo ShoppingCenter
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • APPENDIX D — 135
HILO
KEA’AU
PAHOA
KALAPANA
OPIHIKAU
POHOIKI
KAPOHOKaloli DrH
w
y
1
1
H
w
y
1
3
0
Hwy 130Hwy 132
Leilani Ave Hwy 137Hwy 137Kahakai BlvdParadise DrMaku’u DrAinaloa Dr
16t
h
A
v
e
Pohoiki Rd
40
40
40
40
#40 Hilo-Pahoa
schematic map – not to scalewww.heleonbus.org
Legend
40
selected trips40
Timepoint
Medical Facility
Transit Hub
College/University
School
Key Destination
Hele On Bus Schedule - #40 Hilo-Pahoa-Pohoiki
SEE INSET 1
SEE INSET 2
SEE INSET 3
SEE INSET 4
Waianuenue Ave
Puainako St
Lanikaul
a St
Kawili StKilae
u
a
A
v
ePonaha
wai StPunahele
St
Kanoelehua AveR
a
i
l
r
o
ad
A
v
e
A in ako Ave
Kamehameha Ave
Kaumana DrKawili StPauahiKanoelehua AveOhuohu StMaka’ala St
Ter
r
a
c
e
D
r
Moho
u
l
i
S
t Komohana StAirport RdHILO
UH Hilo WaiakeaHigh School
HawaiiComm.College
PrinceKuhioPlaza
AupuniCenter
LiliuokalaniGardens
Hilo CruiseTerminal
RainbowFalls
Mo’oheauBus Terminal
Hilo MedicalCenter
Hilo HighSchool
INSET 1
Hilo ShoppingCenter
HW
Y
1
3
0
SEE INSET 2Hwy
1
1
H
w
y
1
3
0Old VolcanoKukula
KEA’AU
Keaa
u B
y
p
a
s
s
K
e
a
a
u-Pahoa
INSET 2
KeaauHigh School
Kahakai BlvdKahakaiPunimaukaPunimaukaPunipakaPo
p
a
a
Op
i
h
i
INSET 3
HAWAIIANBEACHES
Kahakai BlvdINSET 4
Forest RdKehau RdHw
y
1
3
0
Hwy 132
Pohi
k
i
R
d
Hwy 132
Hwy 130Nanawale Blvd
P
a
hoa Village Rd Nanawale Communtiy Association
Pahoa High & Intermediate School
PAHOA 40
O
136 — APPENDIX D • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
HILO
PEPEEKEO
PAPAIKOU
HONOMU
HAKALAU
NINOLE
LAUPAHOEHOE
PAAUILOHONOKAAHwy 19
Hwy 19
SEE INSET 1
SEE INSET 2
SEE INSET 3
SEE INSET 4
SEE INSET 5
SEE INSET 6
#60 Hilo - Honoka’a
schematic map – not to scalewww.heleonbus.org
Legend
60
selected trips60
Timepoint
Medical Facility
Transit Hub
College/University
School
Key Destination
Hele On Bus Schedule - #60 Hilo - Honoka’a
60
60
Puainako StLanikaula StKawili StKilaeua
Ave
Ponaha
wai St
Punahele StKanoelehua AveRail
road
Ave
Kamehameha Ave
Kawili StPauahiOhuohu StMaka’ala St
Airport RdHILO BAY
HILO
UH Hilo WaiakeaHigh School
HawaiiComm.College
PrinceKuhioPlaza
AupuniCenter
LiliuokalaniGardens
Hilo CruiseTerminal
Mo’oheauBus Terminal
INSET 1
Hilo ShoppingCenter
Hwy 190
Mamane
Akia
LehuaHONOKAA
INSET 6
HonokaaPark
INSET 2
Hilo Bay FrontWainakaHwy 19Wailuku
WainakaINSET 3
PapaikouPost Office
Hwy 19Ol
d MamalahoaHwy 1
9
Plan tatio n R d
Mill Rd
PAPAIKOUHwy 19 K a a kepaKumulaKulaimanoElderlyHousing
INSET 4 INSET 5
HONOMU
Hwy
1
9
H onomuOl
d Ma
mala
h
o
a
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • APPENDIX D — 137
HAWI
KAPA’AU
KAWAIHAE
WAIKUIAkoni Pule HwyUpo
l
u
R
d
Puak
e
a
B
a
y
D
r
Hawi RdIole RdPratt Rd
Hall RdH
o
n
o
i
p
u
-
P
u
u
h
u
e
R
d
K
o
h
a
l
a
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
R
d
Ala Kahua
Dr
Kalooloo
D
rKaala RdKawaihae Rd
Hwy 19Kawaihae Harbor
70
#70 North Kohala - South Kohala
schematic map – not to scalewww.heleonbus.org
Legend
70
selected trips70
Timepoint
Medical Facility
Transit Hub
College/University
School
Key Destination
Hele On Bus Schedule - #70 North Kohala - South Kohala
SEE INSET 1
SEE INSET 2
Mauna Lani DrN Kaniku DrHwy 19
INSET 2
Mauna Lani BayHotel & Bungalows
Hilton Waikoloa
Waikoloa Beach Marriott
Queen’s Marketplace
King’s Shops
Hapuna BeachPrince Hotel
Fairmont Orchidat Mauna Lani
Hwy 19Ma una Kea Beach Dr
Hwy 19K
aunoa D rMauna KeaBeach Hotel
Hapuna BeachPrince Hotel
INSET 1
Waik
oloa Beach Dr
138 — APPENDIX D • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
WAIMEA
HAWI
KAILUA-KONA
KEAUHOU
KAWAIHAE
WAIKOLOA Hwy 270Upo
l
u
R
d
Iole RdPratt Rd
H
w
y
2
5
0
/
K
o
h
a
l
a
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
R
d
Ala Kahua
Dr
Hwy 19
Kaimani Dr
H w y 19 Hwy 190Sad
dle R
dKona Int’lAirport
Kawaihae Harbor
HawaiiGatewayEnergyCenter
#75 N Kohala - Waimea - Kailua-Kona
schematic map – not to scalewww.heleonbus.org
Legend
75
selected trips75
Timepoint
Medical Facility
Transit Hub
College/University
School
Key Destination
Hele On Bus Schedule - #75 North Kohala - Waimea - Kailua-Kona
75
75
SEE INSET 1
SEE INSET 2
SEE INSET 3
Waikolo
a Rd
INSET 2
WAIKOLOAVILLAGE
Waikol oa Rd Pani
ol
o AveLua Kula StLaie StKAILUA-KONA
KEAUHOU
Al
i
’
i
D
r
La’aloaMakalaHenryHualal
a
i
Hwy
1
1
Hwy 1
1Hwy 1
9
INSET 3
Keauhou Shopping Center
Kona Airport
Hawaii GatewayEnergy Center
Royal Sea Cliff Kona
Target
KmartWalmartKonaCommons
INSET 1
Hwy
1
9
HokuulaOpelo
Li
n
d
s
e
y
Puka
laniParkerRanchCenter
WaimeaPark
HPALowerCampus
Jaracanda Inn
Hwy 190WAIMEA
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • APPENDIX D — 139
WAIMEA
HILO
PEPEEKEO
PAPAIKOU
HONOMU
NINOLE
LAUPAHOEHOE
PAAUILOHONOKAA
KEAUHOU
H w y 19Alii Dr Hwy 190Hwy 19
Hwy 19
Hwy 19
H
w
y 2
5
0
Pinky’s Store
Mo’oheau Bus TerminalBayfront Parking Lot
80
80
80
SEE INSET 3 SEE INSET 2
SEE INSET 1
SEE INSET 4
#80 Hilo - South Kohala
schematic map – not to scalewww.heleonbus.org
Legend
80
selected trips80
Timepoint
Medical Facility
Transit Hub
College/University
School
Key Destination
Hele On Bus Schedule - #80 Hilo - South Kohala
Hwy 190
Mamane
Akia
LehuaPlumeriaHwy 190
HONOKAA
INSET 1
WAIMEA
Kahilu Rd
H
a
l
o
a
R
d Ho
h
o
l
a
D
r
Ma
n
a
R
d
Puk
alani
Li
n
d
s
e
y
Hwy 190
K
am
am
a
l
u
Hwy 19
Hwy 190 Hwy 19
Hwy 250/Kohala Mountain Rd
Mamalahoa Hwy M ahu a St
301
INSET 2
Mauna Lani DrN Kaniku Dr Waikoloa Beac h R d Hwy 19
INSET 4
Mauna Lani BayHotel & Bungalows
Hilton Waikoloa
Waikoloa Beach Marriott
Hapuna BeachPrince Hotel
Fairmont Orchidat Mauna Lani
Queen’s Marketplace
King’s Shops
Waik
oloa Beach Dr
Hwy 19INSET 1
M a una Kea Beach Dr
Hwy 19K
aunoa D rINSET 3
Mauna KeaBeach Hotel
Hapuna BeachPrince Hotel
INSET 3
Four Seasons
ParkerRanchCenter
HonokaaPark
140 — APPENDIX D • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
KAINALIU
CAPTAIN COOK
KEALIA
OCEAN VIEW
NAALEHU
PAHALA
PUNALUU
KEAUHOU
KAILUA-KONA
Mauna Kea Beach
Four Seasons Hualalai
Kona International Airport
Fujihara Store
Park & Ride Wong YuenStore Naalehu School
Yano Hall
O
P
Q
R S
T
SEE INSET 6
SEE INSET 4
SEE INSET 5
SEE INSET 3
SEE INSET 1
SEE INSET 2
#90 Pahala - South Kohala
schematic map – not to scalewww.heleonbus.org
Legend
90
selected trips90
Timepoint
Medical Facility
Transit Hub
College/University
School
Key Destination
Hele On Bus Schedule - #90 Pahala - South Kohala
Hawaii BeltMaile
Kam
a
n
i
PAHALA
INSET 1
Pahala Shopping Center
Alii DrMakalaPalaniHwy
11
KamehamehaIII RdKmartKonaCommons
KeauhouShoppingCenter
INSET 3
90Royal Sea Cliff KonaHwy
1
9
Keala kehe
Hon okohau Ka
ma
n
uHwy 19 Kaiser Permanente
INSET 4
Mauna Lani Dr
Waikoloa Beach R d Hwy 1
9
INSET 6
Mauna Lani BayHotel & Bungalows
Hilton Waikoloa
Hapuna BeachPrince Hotel
Mauna Lani Orchid
Q
R
S
N Kaniku Dr KaiminaniAne Keohokalole KonaInt’lAirport
West HawaiiExplorationsAcademy Kona Palisades
HCCPalamanui
O
Hwy 19INSET 5
PUNALU’U
INSET 2
Black SandBeachHwy 11Ninole Lp
Punalu
u R
dPikake
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • APPENDIX D — 141
KUHIO BAY
PUHI BAY
HILOBAY
Ohuohu StMaka’ala St
Airpor t R dPuainako StLanikaula St
Kawili
St
Kalaniani
ol
e
A
v
e An
d
r
e
w
s
A
v
e
B
a
k
e
r
A
v
e
Krauss A
ve
Kalaniani
ol
e
A
v
e
Kawili St
Au
p
u
n
i
S
t
Kilaeua
Ave
K
a
p
i
o
l
a
n
i
S
tPonahawai StHualani St
Piilani St
Kuawa St Silva StP
u
a
A
v
e
Kapili Ave
Lelani St
Kekuanoa St
Ki
n
o
o
l
e
S
t
Ki
n
o
o
l
e
S
tPunahele StKanoelehua AveRail
road
Ave
Kamehameha Ave
B any an Dr
UH Hilo
WaiakeaHigh School
HawaiiComm.College
PrinceKuhioPlaza
AupuniCenter
LiliuokalaniGardens
Hilo CruiseTerminal Loko
w
a
k
a
P
o
n
d
Hilo International Airport
US Post Office
Keaukaha Market
OnekahakahaBeach Park King’s Landing
SeasideRestaurant
Mo’oheauBus Terminal
Hilo ShoppingCenter
RichardsonBeach Park
101
101
101
#101 Intra-HiloKeaukaha
schematic map – not to scalewww.heleonbus.org
Legend
101
selected trips101
Timepoint
Medical Facility
Transit Hub
College/University
School
Key Destination
Hele On Bus Schedule - #101 Intra-Hilo Keaukaha
142 — APPENDIX D • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
Waianuenue Av e
Hilo B
ay Front Dr
Ioana St
Puainako St
Puainako StLanikaula StKawili StKilaeu
a
Ave
Saddle
R
d
Ponaha
wai StPunahele St
Lahi St Kanoelehua AveRail
ro
ad
Ave S Wilder RdNolem
ana
S
t
A in ako Ave
Kamehameha Ave Bany an Dr
Kaumana DrK aumana Dr Kawili StPauahiKanoelehua AveOhuohu StMaka’ala St
Akolea RdCh
o
n
g
S
t
Ter
r
a
c
e
D
r
Moh
o
u
l
i
S
t
Wailuku Dr
Komohana StAirport RdHILO BAY
HILO
UH Hilo WaiakeaHigh School
HawaiiComm.College
PrinceKuhioPlaza
AupuniCenter
LiliuokalaniGardens
Hilo CruiseTerminal
RainbowFalls
Mo’oheauBus Terminal
Hilo MedicalCenter
Boiling Pots
Hilo PublicLibrary
Hilo HighSchool
#102 Kaumana
schematic map – not to scalewww.heleonbus.org
Legend
102
selected trips102
Timepoint
Medical Facility
Transit Hub
College/University
School
Key Destination
Hele On Bus Schedule - #102 Intra-Hilo Kaumana
102
102
102
102
102
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • APPENDIX D — 143Kanoelehua AveOhuohu StMaka’ala St
Airport RdPonahawai StHilo
B
a
y F
ro
nt Dr
Hualani St
Piilani St
Kuawa St
Lelani St
Kekuanoa St
Ki
n
o
o
l
e
S
t
Ki
n
o
o
l
e
S
t
Kinoole StKilauea AveNohea StKahaopea St
Kawailani StNaniakea StKanoelani StKapualani StKikaha StHanohano StKuulei StPuainako StLanikaula StKawili StKilaeua
AveKanoelehua AveRail
road
Ave
Kamehameha Ave Bany an Dr
Kawili StPauahiK
a
p
i
o
l
a
n
i
S
t
A inaloa D rAinalo a D rHaihai St
Kupulau RdKawailani St Iwalani StUH Hilo
WaiakeaHigh School
HawaiiComm.College
PrinceKuhioPlaza
AupuniCenter
LiliuokalaniGardens
Hilo CruiseTerminal
Hilo International Airport
Mo’oheauBus Terminal
Hilo ShoppingCenter
Waiakea-Uka Gym
Life CareCenter
103
103
103
103
#103 Waiakea Uka
schematic map – not to scalewww.heleonbus.org
Legend
Timepoint
Medical Facility
Transit Hub
College/University
School
Key Destination
103
selected trips103
Hele On Bus Schedule - #103 Intra-Hilo Waiakea Uka
144 — APPENDIX D • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
KAINALIU
HONALO
CAPTAIN COOK
Kealakekua Bay
KEALAKEKUA
KEAUHOU
KAILUA-KONA
HONAUNAU
Kaiminani Dr
Hwy 19Alii
D
r
Hwy
1
1
H
w
y
1
1
Keala O
KeawePuuhonuaNap
o
o
p
o
o
KonawaenaHwy 190Kona Community Hospital
Yano Hall
KonaInternationalAirport
Matsuyama Store
HCC
LokahiApts
Royal Sea Cliff Kona
Fujihara Store
S
R
O
P
T
U
Q
#201 Intra Kona
schematic map – not to scalewww.heleonbus.org
Legend
201
201
selected trips201
201
Timepoint
Medical Facility
Transit Hub
College/University
School
Key Destination
Hele On Bus Schedule - #201 Intra Kona
71
201
INSET 3
P
Costco
Walmart
KMart
Kona Commons
Kaiser
Macy’s
Friendly PlaceCampus
West Hawaii Civic Center Hina Lani
KealakeheAne KeohokaloleHwy 19KamanuO
INSET 2
Costco
Walmart
KMart
Kona Commons
Target
Kaiser
Macy’s
Friendly Place
West Hawaii Civic Center Hina Lani
Kealakehe
MakalaLolokuPalaniPalaniAli
i
D
r HenryHw
y
1
9
Kam
a
k
e
a
h
a
Hwy 1
1
Kuakini Hwy
An
e
K
eo
h
o
k
a
l
o
le
Q
R
KeauhouShoppingCenter
SheratonKeauhou Alii DrKamehameha IIIKaleio
p
a
p
a
INSET 1
INSET 4
K
e
a
l
a
k
a
a Hwy 190Palani SJackHall
KealakeheIntermediateKealakeheElementary Uluaoa
SEE INSET 1
SEE INSET 2
SEE INSET 3
SEE INSET 4
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • APPENDIX D — 145
WAIMEA Mud LnLala
m
i
l
o
F
a
r
m
R
d Kekehau StMealan
i
RdUikeoni StKahilu Rd
H
a
l
o
a
R
d
H
a
l
e
A
l
l
i
i
S
t
H
o
h
o
l
a
D
r Kalake
S
tWhi
te
Rd
Mana
R
dMan
a
R
d
Pukala
ni RdOld Mamalahoa Hwy
Li
n
d
s
e
y
R
d
Hwy 19
Hwy 19 Hwy 19
Hwy 250/Kohala Mountain Rd
Mamalahoa Hwy M ahu a St
#301Waimea Shuttle
schematic map – not to scalewww.heleonbus.org
Legend
301
301
301
Timepoint
Medical Facility
Transit Hub
College/University
School
Key Destination
Hele On Bus Schedule - #301 Waimea Shuttle
Kahilu Rd
INSET 1
Hal
e
A
l
i
i
Hwy 19Hwy
1
9
K
am
am
a
l
u
HiiakaHokuulaOpeloLi
n
d
s
e
y
Puka
laniSEE INSET 1
NorthHawaiiComm.Hospital
ParkerRanchCenter
WaimeaPark
HPALowerCampus
Jaracanda Inn
KuhioVillage
Kamuela ViewEstates
KamuelaLakeland
Hawaii PreparatoryAcademy
146 — APPENDIX D • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • APPENDIX E — 147
APPENDIX E
SERVICE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND
PERFORMANCE MONITORING
MTA serves both small urban and rural areas. Service
design guidelines are used so the agency has guidance
in developing new services or incorporating changes to
existing services.
Fixed route network configuration is a very important
factor in the way potential riders perceive the system. If it
appears too complicated or takes too long to get to desired
destinations, they may never use transit. However, some
complications are necessary to provide cost-efficient oper-
ations that offer as much coverage to as many service area
residents as possible.
When fixed routes, flex services, zone services, and para-
transit services are assembled into a complete network,
they should convey a public transportation service that
operates effectively as a system. Given the size and geog-
raphy of MTA’s service area, it is apparent that the system
has two areas (urban Hilo and Kona) where transportation
services are centralized. Connections from intermediate
and outlying Districts feed into these two major centers.
The two centers are connected by Route 1, a northern
route through Waimea. The guidelines presented in the
following paragraphs build upon this goal of strengthening
the overall system. They have also been used to assure a
continuation of reasonable route design practices:
The following sections offer classic industry design guide-
lines currently used by many transit systems to evaluate
existing services and make warranted changes with some
necessary customization to account for the geographic,
cultural, visitor and other attributes within the Hele-On
Bus service coverage area.
Service Coverage
Service Coverage measures the extent to which the de-
fined geographic area is being served. Service coverage
is commonly measured by the percentage of the pop-
ulation that resides within ¼ mile walking distance of
a bus stop. It is generally accepted that a user will walk
a ¼ mile to reach a bus stop to use the service. Hele-
On riders frequently walk much longer distances. This
will be a developing measure as much of the current
Hele-On system operates with without formalized bus
stops using flag stops. This measure is also known as
service area population in the National Transit Data-
base (NTD). Examples of service coverage threshold
standards include:
• Service Thresholds -- An area is considered “well-
served” if a stop is no more than ¼ mile from
the passenger’s origin point and a minimum
of 30 minutes of service frequency is provided.
An area is considered “served” if a stop is no
more than ½ mile from the passenger’s origin
point and minimum of 60 minutes service
frequency is provided (Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority)
• Coverage by Service Type -- The population should
be considered as “served” when it is within ¼
mile walking distance from a bus stop for local
service and ½ mile from express or rapid service
(Milwaukee County Transit System)
• Service Coverage --A location is considered
“served” if transit service operates within ¼ mile of
the location (San Antonio, Texas)
Route Structure
The following service design guidelines are based upon
a review of industry best practices.
148 — APPENDIX E • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
Route Alignment
Route alignment is determined based upon satisfying
service directness design guidelines. Service directness
refers to the degree to which a route deviates from the
shortest path between the start and end points of the
route. Service directness has an inverse relationship to
service coverage, a route that deviates provides greater
coverage at the expense of directness, while a more di-
rect route provides less coverage to the benefit of those
already served who have a subsequent destination.
Transit agencies often provide standards for service
directness, so routes operate to maximize average speed
and minimize travel time for most passengers being
served. Agencies approach service directness standards
using several different methods. One method is to set a
standard based on the ratio of transit route distance to
highway route distance.
Examples include:• Route Alignment Ratio -- Transit routes will have no more than a ratio of 1.5 of the transit fixed route length divided by the highway route
• Route Distance Percent Limit -- Transit route
distances should not exceed auto travel distances
for the same trip by more than 20 to 40 percent
• Route Distance Mileage -- Transit routes should not be more than 50 percent longer in route mileage distance than a comparable route by car (Madison Metro)
Another method used for service directness is to limit
the time spent for deviations to some relationship to the
main service being provided. When considering a devi-
ation, the gain in convenience for those passengers who
are boarding or alighting during the deviation must
be balanced against the additional travel time for the
other passengers not using the services provided by the
deviation, but who are forced to endure the additional
time needed to serve others. The temptation is to divert
a bus for example the Pāhoa route from the main part
of the alignment to serve another adjacent area such as
Ainaloa.
• Route Deviation Limits -- Route deviations will not
exceed eight minutes roundtrip and will only be
permitted if the market potential is 10 passengers
per roundtrip or greater (Massachusetts Bay
Transit Authority)
• Route Deviation Time Limit -- Route deviations
will be limited to five minutes of additional travel
time for a one-way bus trip (Transit Cooperative Research Program)
• Route Deviation Time Limit -- Route deviations
from a direct path from end-to-end of the route
shall account for no more than ¼ of the end-to-end
travel time of the route (Denver RTD)
• Route Deviation Added Time -- Route deviations should not have more than three additional minutes of additional travel time for all through passengers (Denver RTD)
• Percent of Passengers Deviated --Route deviation
passengers served should be no less than 25
percent of the passengers affected by the deviation
(York, PA)
Transfer and Extensions
Another measure of service directness is the number
of transfers required for a passenger to reach their final
destination. The more transfers required in a system,
the longer an individual’s total travel time. Transit
systems reduce overall travel time by coordinating bus
schedules to reduce wait times at key transfer locations
(also known as timed transfers). About one-fourth of
the passengers participating in the passenger survey
indicated they transferred or would transfer to another
bus to complete their trip.
Timed transfers are not a substitute for direct service
when the majority of the on-board passengers between
two routes have common destinations. A route should
be extended when the majority of those on-board desire
to continue along the same path. Examples of standards
for coordinating schedules and setting transfer rates
include:
• Transfer Times -- Transfers between buses should
be as convenient as possible and efforts should be made to reduce patron travel time. Circulator service should be scheduled to arrive no more than 10 minutes after the arrival of express buses (San Antonio, Texas)
• Maximum Number of Transfers -- No more than 25
percent of transit customers should require more
than one vehicle to complete their trip (Boston,
Massachusetts)
• Percent Not Transferring -- Direct local service must be made to 70 percent of riders and express service to 80 percent of riders (Federal Transit Administration)
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • APPENDIX E — 149
Interlining
A popular practice transit agencies use to reduce the
amount of transfer activity is interlining. Interlining is
considered when two separate routes have a common
transfer location and that specific pair of routes are
creating a large number of forced transfers. Interlined
buses operate on both routes, allowing passengers
to remain onboard. Route frequencies and hours of
service should be nearly identical and combined run
times should not exceed four hours for two routes to be
potential candidates for interlining. A typical standard
would be that if the transfer rate is 20 percent or higher
between two routes, then they are potential candidates
for interlining.
Route Configuration Options
The most effective route design guidelines use loops,
branches and turnbacks to balance the length of the
route and the elapsed time required to serve that length
with other transit service objectives. These route config-
uration options are most often described as follows:
• Loops -- may be included at the ends of a route.
They should be anchored by a time point at the
beginning of the loop. The total elapsed time to
complete the loop should not exceed five minutes
• Branches -- may be included at the ends of a route.
They should be anchored by a time point at the
common juncture of the two branches. Only one
branch should be served on each trip, typically
resulting in service headways equal to half of the
trunk headway
• Turnbacks -- should be used when possible to increase service frequency on trunk portions of routes where the majority of the route’s boardings occur on less than half of the route’s alignment. The location of the turnback should also be a time point
• Cycle times -- should be in clock headway intervals
such as sixty-minute increments including recovery
time to allow for interlining and pulse scheduling
at transfer points. This is more important for the
shuttle and intra-community services, then the
connector routes
Bus Stop Spacing
Bus stop spacing presents a quandary for transit operators:
maximizing access to intending passengers versus travel
time impacting on-time performance. Customer satisfac-
tion with bus stop spacing is tricky – many want bus stops
as close as possible to their origin or destination; while
others want a faster trip without excessive stopping.
A number of studies have found the optimal spacing to
be four to five bus stops per mile for more urban areas
and two to three for more rural areas. This is with the
proviso that spacing should be flexible in areas with
higher numbers of seniors and persons with disabilities
and in areas serving tourists or geographic and roadway
considerations. Even with these considerations, bus stops
should be placed further than 660 feet apart. As MTA
formalizes more bus stops, it is recommended that four
to five bus stops per mile in the urban areas and two to
three per mile for the rural areas be the standard.
150 — APPENDIX E • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
Route Operations
Hele-On route operations were reviewed in the con-
text of three route features: route span of service, route
frequency and route scheduling. The following service
design guidelines are based upon a review of industry
best practices.
Span of Service is the number of hours and days when
service operates. The span of service will usually vary
by route depending on service type, the day of the week
and route performance. Generally, high-performing
routes will have longer service spans, and weekday
spans of service are longer than for weekends.
• Service Span -- When considering changes in a
route’s service start or finish time, an earlier or later
trip should be considered if the first or last trip of
the existing service is performing better than 50
percent of the system average in passengers per
revenue hour (West Palm Beach, Florida)
Service frequency refers to how often buses arrive at a
stop. Headways refer to the interval in minutes between
two successive bus departures. The terms are often used
interchangeably. There are two different aspects to con-
sider when setting headways for transit: headway based
on policy and headways based on demand.
• Policy-Based Headways -- The minimum base
period policy headways for regularly scheduled
weekday service should be sixty minutes. The
minimum evening or Saturday policy headway is
sixty minutes. Only the Waimea Shuttle operates
with sixty-minute headways
• Demand-Based Headways -- Demand-based
headways are established to provide a sufficient
number of trips to accommodate the maximum
passenger volume within the loading standards.
Overcrowding of buses on a route is an indicator
that either larger vehicles need to be used or a
demand-based headway should be instituted to
increase the overall capacity of the route
Clock-face headways refer to setting headways to
intervals that divide evenly by 60. For example, 12 or
15-minute schedules are used, but 13 or 17 minutes are
not used. Clock-face headways help passengers better
predict bus arrival times at stops and eliminate the need
for complex schedules, thus allowing passengers to be
less dependent on timetables. For example, at major
transit hubs in Hilo and Kona, routes should be on easy
to remember and understand increments.
Performance Monitoring
Regular performance monitoring provides the informa-
tion MTA needs to determine the effectiveness of the
system overall and of the individual services. It pro-
vides a historical benchmark for which the system can
compare itself and lets the decision-makers and public
know how the system is performing against goals and
how it is improving. MTA reports to the Federal Transit
Administration National Transit Database (NTD) as a
rural general public transit agency. MTA must submit
annual reports to the NTD, but due to its designation,
does so with Reduced Reporting. MTA reports operat-
ing characteristics and financial information including
operating and capital expenses and their sources includ-
ing fares and passenger boardings for the following
three modes of service:
• Bus Service
• Paratransit Service with separate columns for ADA Complementary Paratransit service and human services
• Shared Ride Taxi
Additional reporting for the three modes includes
information on the vehicle fleet (except for purchased
transportation such as the paratransit and taxi service),
annual vehicle revenue miles, annual vehicle revenue
hours, and unlinked passenger trips (each passenger
boarding is counted even if the passenger has trans-
ferred to the vehicle).
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • APPENDIX E — 151
The following performance measures are the most com-
mon used in the industry to assess system productivity
and to compare performance among services within the
same category. It is important to maintain data to track
performance in each of the following measures. Some
of these measures are described using annual numbers,
however, MTA should maintain and report data month-
ly. Performance measures using data reported for Fiscal
Year 2016 are included.
• Cost per revenue hour: Annual (monthly)
operating expenses divided by annual (monthly)
vehicle revenue hours:
Commuter Bus $83.96
Demand Response $26.38
Taxi $9.80
• Cost per trip: Annual operating expenses divided
by annual unlinked passenger boardings:
Commuter Bus $7.76
Demand Response $11.37
Taxi $4.93
• Cost per revenue mile: Annual operating expenses
divided by annual vehicle revenue miles:
Commuter Bus $2.27
Demand Response $1.82
Taxi $1.50
• Passenger Trips per revenue hour: Annual
boardings divided by annual vehicle revenue hours.
This measure does not include deadhead time (such
as the travel time between the base yard and start of
the route):
Commuter Bus 10.8
Demand Response 2.3
Taxi 2.0• Passenger trips per revenue mile: Annual passenger boardings divided by annual revenue miles. This measure does not include deadhead mileage (such as the travel miles between the base yard and start of the route):
Commuter Bus 0.3
Demand Response 0.2
Taxi 0.3• Passenger trips per vehicle trips: Annual passenger boardings divided by annual vehicle trips by route type (commuter, connector, circulator). This measure is useful for monitoring services that have few trips. Vehicle trips are not reported to NTD
• Farebox recovery ratio: Percentage of operating costs that are recovered through the fares paid by the ridership. Minimum farebox standard would be 20 percent:
Commuter Bus 13.3%
Demand Response 0.0%
Taxi 61.2%• On‐time performance: Defined as a bus being late by more than five minutes or early by one minute. This data is not reported to NTD, however, with automatic vehicle location (AVL) system this data would be provided in reports
• Number of accidents per miles operated. Safety
data is not included in reduced reporting, but
needs to be collected and locations plotted
In addition to number of accidents per miles operated,
the following monitoring mechanisms are typically
reported to track vehicle reliability and condition.
• Vehicle miles per vehicle
• Revenue miles per vehicle
• Revenue hours per vehicle
• Spare ratio
• % of deadhead miles
• Vehicle miles between service disruptions (road
calls)
• Average age of fleet (currently 12.2 years for the active fleet)
152 — APPENDIX E • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
Metrics
Ridership and other statistics are gathered and recorded
daily, it is important to present a monthly report to the
Administrator for dissemination to identified stake-
holders including th Major. Once the spreadsheets are
set up for data input, the reporting of the data is straight
forward. It is important that the data is maintained and
monitored. By doing this, abnormalities can be quickly
identified. The following shows an example of how a
report card would look.
The report card would also show selected key perfor-
mance indicators in graphic form to show how the cur-
rent fiscal year performance measures against the prior
year’s performance. Potential mapped performance
indicators are checked in the above table. The following
shows an example of four measure TheBus in Honolu-
lu tracks. The goal is shown in a dashed gray line and
the current and previous fiscal years are mapped using
different colors. TheBus maps eleven measures.
A similar report card would be developed for the ADA
Paratransit service.
Service Review
Regular review of performance is necessary for MTA
to serve constituents with the best service possible. To
do that, MTA should establish a Service Review Team
(SRT) that meets at a minimum quarterly. Three of
the meetings should review the monthly report cards
discussed above to identify any abnormalities in service
consumption. In addition to reviewing service and
route performance, the Service Review Team should
review major employer and school schedules and other
factors that impact route schedules. Route schedules
should be reviewed for revision at least twice a year.
At least once a year, the SRT will review the perfor-
mance of MTA services: Express, Commuter, Connec-
tor, and Circulator routes; ADA Paratransit; and, Shared
Ride Taxi. The following performance measures, which
are included in the monthly report card, would be used
in the service review:
• Boardings per revenue mile
• Boardings per revenue hour
• Boardings per revenue trip
• Farebox Recovery
• On-time performance
The following table shows a first review of the MTA bus
routes would be represented. Routes would be ranked
within their service classification. That way perfor-
mance ranking is based on similar services. Any route
ranked in the bottom for two performance measures is
identified for further analysis and may be considered
non-performing.
New routes or major route changes would be expected
to reach a satisfactory performance within two years.
If a route after two years is not found to be performing
satisfactorily the Service Review Team would identify
if modifications to the alignment or schedule should
be made, targeted marketing engaged, or if the route
should be eliminated.
When a route is identified for further review, the SRT
should consider other factors including the demograph-
ics of the neighborhoods served, whether there are a
high number of low-income, disabled, young or elderly
residents in determining what actions if any should be
taken. If a route shows improvement after actions have
been taken, but continues to perform below others in
the same classification, then it should continue to be
monitored to determine if additional actions should
be implemented. The SRT may determine that a route
or perhaps certain trips offer a service to a community
that may have limited other options and recommend
retention of the service based on policy.
County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan • APPENDIX E — 153
Performance Indicators June
2019
June
2018
Percent
Change
Fiscal Year
to Date 2019
Fiscal Year
to Date 2018
Percent
Change Goals Mapped
Total Monthly Ridership 100,000
Average Weekday Ridership 4,500 x
Cost per Revenue Hour $100 x
Cost per Passenger Trip $5.50 x
Cost per Revenue Mile
Passenger Trips per Hour x
Passenger Trips per Mile
Percent of Trips On Time 85%x
Percent Maintained Pullouts/Base 100%x
Percent of Maintenance Inspections Completed
on Time
98%
Spare Ratio 20%
Bus Miles/Major Collisions 200,000
Bus Miles/Mechanical Road Calls 10,000 x
Farebox Recovery 25%x
Complaint Rate (Complaints per 100,000 board-ings)5 x
Percent Complaints Responded to Within 30
Days
100%
Mass Transit Agency - Fixed and Commuter Routes Service Review For the Month Ending:
Performance Indicators June
2019
June
2018
Percent
Change
Fiscal Year
to Date 2019
Fiscal Year
to Date 2018
Percent
Change Goals Mapped
Total Monthly Ridership
Average Weekday Ridership x
Cost per Revenue Hour <3% incr x
Cost per Passenger Trip <3% incr x
Cost per Revenue Mile <3% incr
Passenger Trips per Hour x
Percent of Trips On Time or Early >90%x
Very Early Trips (>30 minutes)<1%x
Very Late Trips (>30 minutes)<1%
No Show/Late Cancellation Rate <5%
Advance Cancellation Rate <15%
Missed Trip Rate 0%x
Farebox Recovery x
Complaint Rate (Complaints per 1,000 board-
ings)
<1%x
Calls Answered within 5 Minutes 95%
Mass Transit Agency - ADA Paratransit Report Service Review For the Month Ending:
154 — APPENDIX E • County of Hawai‘i Transit and Multi-Modal Transportation Master Plan
Route
Performance Measures
Board-
ings/Revenue
Mile
Rank
within
Category
Board-
ings/Revenue
Hour
Rank
within
Category
Board-
ings/Revenue
Trip
Rank
within
Category
Farebox Recovery
Rank
within
Category
On-Time
Perfor-
mance
Rank
within
Category
Express
Blue Line
Red Line
Green Line
Totals
Commuter
Route 70 North Kohala/South Kohala
Route 75 North Kohala/Waimea/Kona
Route 80 South Kohala Resorts
Route 90 Pahala/South Kohala Resorts
Totals
Connectors:
Route 1 Hilo/Kona
Route 2 Kono/Hilo
Route 10 Hilo/Volcano/Kau
Route 40 Hilo/Pahoa
Totals
Community Circulators Urban:
Route 101 Intra-Hilo Keaukaha
Route 102 Intra-Hilo Kaumana
Route 103 Intra-Hilo Waikea Uka
Route 104 Intra-Hilo Mohouli
Route 201 South Kona via Alii Drive
Route 202 North Kona via Highway 19
Route 203 North Kona via Highway 190
Route 204 South Kona via Kuakini Highway
Totals
Community Circulators Rural:
Route 301 Waimea
Route 401 Hawaiian Beaches/Nanawale/Kalapana
Route 402 Hawaiian Paradise Park/Ainaloa
Route 403 Fern Acres/Fern Forest/Eden Roc
Totals
Mass Transit Agency - Bus Route Review Performance Report For the Month Ending: