background image
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EXPANDING  TRANSPORTATION  
OPPORTUNITIES  ON  HAWAI`I  
ISLAND  
 
 
 
2014  
A  project  submitted  in  partial  fulfillment  of  the  requirements  for  the  degree  of  Master  of  Science  at  the  
University  of  Michigan  |  School  of  Natural  Resources  and  Environment  
April  2014  
Authors:  Jonas  Epstein,  Trevor  McManamon,  Maite  Madrazo,  Daphne  Medina,  and  Xiaofei  Wen  
Faculty  Advisor:  Jeremiah  Johnson,  Ph.D.  
 
MADE  POSSIBLE  WITH  SUPPORT  FROM  The  Kohala  Center,  The  University  of  Michigan  |  School  of  Natural  Resources  and  
Environment,  and  The  Frederick  A.  and  Barbara  M.  Erb  Institute  for  Global  Sustainable  Enterprise  at  the  University  of  Michigan  
background image
 
 
 
background image
i  |  Page    
 
ABSTRACT  
Residents  of  Hawai`i  Island  pay  some  of  the  highest  rates  for  electricity  and  petroleum  products  among  
residents  of  the  United  States.  Moreover,  the  islands  of  the  Hawaiian  archipelago  rely  almost  entirely  on  
imported  petroleum  fuels  for  both  transportation  and  energy  generation.  Though  Hawai`i  Island  has  
integrated  more  renewable  energy  onto  its  electrical  grid  than  anywhere  else  in  the  U.S.,  the  reliance  on  
fossil  fuel  remains  high  because  more  than  half  the  energy  demand  of  the  island  can  be  attributed  to  
transportation.  Traditionally  mass  transit  systems  can  be  used  to  increase  energy  efficiency,  as  well  as  
energy  sustainability  of  a  transportation  system;  as  a  result  the  University  of  Michigan  team  was  
engaged  by  The  Kohala  Center  to  examine  and  analyze  the  public  transit  system  of  Hawai`i  Island  for  
potential  improvements.    
The  primary  objective  of  the  project  is  to  develop  a  set  of  recommendations  for  the  County  of  Hawai`i  
focused  on  high-­?impact  solutions  to  reduce  fossil  fuel  use  in  the  island?s  ground  transportation  system,  
while  improving  accessibility  and  lowering  travel  times  for  commuters.  Our  team  completed  initial  
research  to  gain  a  background  on  Hawai`i  and  its  energy  and  transit  challenges,  completed  data  
collection  and  analysis  through  a  research  trip  to  Hawai`i,  and  designed  a  set  of  recommendations  for  
optimizing  the  current  system,  as  well  as  potential  alternatives  that  include  the  establishment  of  
carpooling  and  ride-­?sharing  networks  that  would  employ  new  business  models  to  help  solve  some  
additional  transit  issues.    
 
 
background image
ii  |  Page    
 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  
We  would  like  to  thank  and  acknowledge  the  support  of:  
The  Kohala  Center  and  our  client  Betsy  Cole;  
Our  faculty  advisor,  Dr.  Jeremiah  Johnson;  
The  individuals  and  organizations  who  offered  us  their  expertise,  insights  and  guidance  for  our  
research  including  Alissa  Altmann,  Sara  Brydges,  Nelson  Chan,  Tina  Clothier,  Adithya  Dahagama,  Kyle  
Datta,  Laura  Dierenfield,  Alex  Frost,  Ryan  Fujii,  Celeste  Gilman,  Jo  Anne  Johnson,  Tiffany  Kai,  Jay  
Kimura,  Olin  Lagon,  Wally  Lau,  Jonathan  Levine,  Ray  L?Heureux,  Margaret  Masunaga,  Bill  Medeiros,  
Carol  Norton,  Laverne  Omori,  David  Parsons,  Will  Rolston,  Sharon  Sakai,  Marc  Takamori,  Jonathan  
Wong,  and  Miles  Yoshioka;    
The  University  of  Michigan  |  School  of  Natural  Resources  and  Environment;  
The  Frederick  A.  and  Barbara  M.  Erb  Institute  for  Global  Sustainable  Enterprise  at  the  University  of  
Michigan;  
Our  family  and  friends;  
And  finally  each  other  for  being  such  a  great  team.  
Mahalo!  
 
 
background image
1|  
P a g e
 
 
 
TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  
ABSTRACT  .............................................................................................................................................  i  
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  ........................................................................................................................  ii  
1:  EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY  .....................................................................................................................  4  
INTRODUCTION  ................................................................................................................................  4  
HAWAI`I  ISLAND  GROUND  TRANSPORTATION  INFRASTRUCTURE  .....................................................  4  
COMMUTING  ON  HAWAI`I  ISLAND  ...................................................................................................  5  
The  Challenges  of  Transit  .....................................................................................................................  5  
Characteristics  of  Hawai`i  County  Commuters  ....................................................................................  5  
Hawai`i  County  Mass  Transit  Agency  ...................................................................................................  7  
MAPPING  TRANSIT  ON  HAWAI`I  ISLAND  ..........................................................................................  7  
MAUI  COUNTY  PUBLIC  TRANSIT  .......................................................................................................  9  
THE  CASE  FOR  IMPROVING  THE  TRANSPORTATION  ON  HAWAI`I  ISLAND  .......................................  10  
Optimizing  Public  Transit  with  Technology  Solutions  ........................................................................  10  
Private  Investments  and  Transportation  Alternatives  .......................................................................  12  
CONCLUSION  ..................................................................................................................................  15  
2:  PROJECT  OVERVIEW  .......................................................................................................................  16  
INTRODUCTION  ..............................................................................................................................  16  
PROJECT  OBJECTIVES  ......................................................................................................................  16  
PROJECT  APPROACH  ......................................................................................................................  17  
Project  Hypotheses  ............................................................................................................................  17  
Project  Methodology  .........................................................................................................................  17  
3:  AN  OVERVIEW  OF  HAWAI`I  ISLAND  ................................................................................................  19  
GEOGRAPHY  ...................................................................................................................................  19  
GOVERNANCE  ................................................................................................................................  19  
ECONOMICS  ...................................................................................................................................  20  
SOCIO-­?ECONOMICS  AND  DEMOGRAPHY  ........................................................................................  21  
4:  GROUND  TRANSPORTATION  ON  HAWAI`I  ISLAND  AND  OTHER  RURAL  LOCALITIES  .........................  22  
RURAL  TRANSIT  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  .........................................................................................  22  
Characteristics  of  Rural  Populations  ..................................................................................................  22  
Rural  Transit  Providers  ......................................................................................................................  23  
Challenges  for  Rural  Transit  Service  Providers  ..................................................................................  23  
HAWAI`I  COUNTY  GROUND  TRANSPORTATION  ..............................................................................  24  
Transportation  Infrastructure  ............................................................................................................  24  
Characteristics  of  Hawai`i  County  Commuters  ..................................................................................  25  
HAWAI`I  COUNTY  MASS  TRANSIT  AGENCY  .....................................................................................  31  
background image
2|  
P a g e
 
 
Analysis  of  the  Mass  Transit  Agency  ..................................................................................................  32  
MAPPING  TRANSIT  ON  HAWAI`I  ISLAND  ........................................................................................  33  
Analysis  of  Maps  ................................................................................................................................  33  
Limitations  of  Analysis  .......................................................................................................................  42  
Creating  These  Maps  .........................................................................................................................  42  
5:  MAUI  COUNTY  -­?  A  PUBLIC  TRANSIT  CASE  STUDY  ............................................................................  43  
MAUI  COUNTY  PUBLIC  TRANSIT  .....................................................................................................  43  
Maui  County  Short  Range  Transit  Plan  ..............................................................................................  44  
Technology  Currently  Employed  by  Maui  ..........................................................................................  46  
Comparing  Hawai`i  and  Maui  ............................................................................................................  47  
Conclusion  .........................................................................................................................................  48  
6:  THE  CASE  FOR  IMPROVING  THE  TRANSPORTATION  INFRASTRUCTURE  OF  HAWAI`I  ISLAND  ...........  49  
OVERCOMING  THE  TRANSPORTATION  CHALLENGES  ......................................................................  49  
THE  TECHNOLOGY  VALUE  PROPOSITION  FOR  HELE-­?ON  ..................................................................  49  
PRIVATE  INVESTMENTS  IN  TRANSIT  INFRASTRUCTURE  OF  HAWAI`I  ISLAND  ...................................  50  
7:  OPTIMIZING  PUBLIC  TRANSIT  WITH  TECHNOLOGY  SOLUTIONS  ......................................................  51  
TECHNOLOGY  IN  MASS  TRANSIT  ....................................................................................................  51  
Existing  Technology  Options  and  their  Benefits  ................................................................................  52  
RURAL  TRANSIT  TECHNOLOGY  CASE  STUDIES  .................................................................................  57  
Case  Study  1:  Modoc  County,  California  ............................................................................................  57  
Case  Study  2:  Poinciana,  Florida  ........................................................................................................  58  
CUTTING  EDGE  RESEARCH  ..............................................................................................................  59  
CONCLUSIONS  ABOUT  TECHNOLOGY  .............................................................................................  60  
Key  Technologies  for  Hele-­?On  ...........................................................................................................  61  
ANALYSIS  OF  POTENTIAL  VENDORS  ................................................................................................  61  
ActSoft  ...............................................................................................................................................  62  
NextBus  ..............................................................................................................................................  63  
Syncromatics  ......................................................................................................................................  64  
Teletrac  ..............................................................................................................................................  65  
Trapeze  ..............................................................................................................................................  66  
TSO  Mobile  ........................................................................................................................................  68  
Summary  of  Companies  and  Services  ................................................................................................  69  
CONCLUSIONS  AND  NEXT  STEPS  .....................................................................................................  70  
8:  PRIVATE  INVESTMENTS  AND  TRANSPORTATION  ALTERNATIVES  ....................................................  72  
OPPORTUNITY:  BUILDING  A  RIDESHARE  NETWORK  ........................................................................  72  
The  Need  for  Ridesharing  Networks  in  Hawai`i  County  .....................................................................  72  
Best  Practices  for  Ridesharing  Networks  ...........................................................................................  73  
Considerations  for  Establishing  a  Rideshare  Network  on  Hawai`i  Island  ..........................................  75  
OPPORTUNITY:  ESTABLISHING  A  VANPOOL  NETWORK  ...................................................................  81  
Vanpool  Network  Structures  .............................................................................................................  82  
background image
3|  
P a g e
 
 
Best  Practices  For  Vanpooling  Networks  ...........................................................................................  82  
Funding  a  Vanpool  Network  ..............................................................................................................  83  
RECOMMENDATIONS  .....................................................................................................................  84  
Creating  a  Rideshare  Network  on  Hawai`i  Island  ..............................................................................  84  
Comparison  of  Rideshare  Options  .....................................................................................................  91  
User  Cost  Comparisons  ......................................................................................................................  92  
Feasibility  Analysis  .............................................................................................................................  93  
9:  APPENDICIES  ................................................................................................................................  102  
APPENDIX  A:  PROJECT  PLAN  AND  HYPOTHESES  ............................................................................  103  
Project  Plan  ......................................................................................................................................  103  
Project  Hypotheses  ..........................................................................................................................  104  
APPENDIX  B:  SOURCES  OF  INFORMATION  ....................................................................................  105  
APPENDIX  C:  COUNTY  OF  HAWAI`I  FINANCIAL  DATA  ....................................................................  107  
APPENDIX  D:  CREATING  THE  MAPS  ..............................................................................................  108  
APPENDIX  E:  TRANSPORTATION  MANAGEMENT  ..........................................................................  110  
APPENDIX  F:  EXISTING  MOBILE  RIDESHARE  PROVIDERS  ...............................................................  114  
APPENDIX  G:  THE  ECONOMICS  OF  CARPOOLING  ..........................................................................  116  
APPENDIX  H:  UNIVERSTY  OF  MICHIGAN  TEAM  BIOGRAPHIES  .......................................................  117  
APPENDIX  I:  MASTERS  PROJECT  CLIENT  ........................................................................................  119  
ILLUSTRATIONS,  TABLES,  AND  FIGURES  ........................................................................................  121  
REFERENCES  .................................................................................................................................  123  
                                                                                                                                 
background image
 
4|  
P a g e
 
 
1:  EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY  
 
INTRODUCTION  
Residents  of  Hawai`i  Island  pay  some  of  the  highest  rates  for  electricity  and  petroleum  products  among  
residents  of  the  United  States.
1
 Moreover,  the  islands  of  the  Hawaiian  archipelago  rely  almost  entirely  
on  imported  petroleum  fuels  for  both  transportation  and  energy  generation.
2
 Though  Hawai`i  Island  has  
integrated  more  renewable  energy  onto  its  electrical  grid  than  anywhere  else  in  the  U.S.,
3
 the  reliance  
on  fossil  fuel  remains  high  because  more  than  half  the  energy  demand  of  the  island  can  be  attributed  to  
transportation.
4
 Traditionally  mass  transit  systems  can  be  used  to  increase  energy  efficiency,  as  well  as  
energy  sustainability;  as  a  result  we  have  designed  this  project  to  explore  the  need  for  improvements  to  
this  system.  We  will  develop  suggestions  for  optimizing  the  current  system,  as  well  as  potential  
alternatives  that  include  the  establishment  of  carpooling  and  ridesharing  networks  that  would  decrease  
the  number  of  private  vehicles  used  and  thus  fuel  consumption.  
The  University  of  Michigan  team  was  engaged  by  The  Kohala  Center  to  examine  and  analyze  the  public  
transit  system  of  Hawai`i  Island.  The  primary  objective  of  the  project  is  to  develop  a  set  of  
recommendations  for  public  and  private  investments  focused  on  high-­?impact  solutions  to  reduce  fossil  
fuel  use  in  the  island?s  ground  transportation  system,  while  improving  accessibility  and  lowering  travel  
times  for  commuters.  
HAWAI`I  ISLAND  GROUND  TRANSPORTATION  INFRASTRUCTURE  
On  Hawai`i  Island  the  vast  majority  of  residents  (69%)  choose  to  commute  alone  via  personal  vehicles  
like  cars,  trucks  and  vans,  while  only  2%  of  commuters  choose  public  transit  to  get  to  work.
5
 The  
remainder  of  the  workforce  either  carpools  to  work  or  works  from  home.
6
     
Currently,  commuters  are  served  by  a  few  major  two-­?lane  
highways  that  transport  residents  from  one  side  of  the  
island  to  the  other.  Hawai`i  Belt  Road  (Highway  19)  is  a  
major  route  from  Hilo  to  Kailua-­?Kona  and  it  takes  a  driver  
2  hours  and  approximately  95  miles.
7
 This  is  the  road  
preferred  by  the  Mass  Transit  Agency  because  the  
population  lives  along  this  road  making  pick-­?ups  ideal.
8
 
The  other  option  for  this  trip  is  the  newly  opened  Daniel  
K.  Inouye  Highway  passing  between  Mauna  Kea  and  
Mauna  Loa  and  connecting  the  existing  Saddle  Road  
(Highway  200)  to  Mamalahoa  Highway.
9
 This  route  
starting  in  Hilo  and  ending  in  Kona  is  about  77  miles  long  
and  will  take  drivers  1  hour  and  38  minutes  to  traverse.
10
   
HAWAI`I  ISLAND  
Figure  1-­?1:  Road  Map  of  Hawai`i  Island  
background image
 
5|  
P a g e
 
 
COMMUTING  ON  HAWAI`I  ISLAND  
THE  CHALLENGES  OF  TRANSIT  
The  population  of  Hawai`i  Island  is  highly  dispersed  and  rural,  making  efficient  transportation  and  
particularly  public  transit  challenging.  Those  that  commute  alone  using  their  personal  vehicles  must  
cover  vast  distances  on  a  daily  basis  and  are  often  paying  a  premium  for  fossil  fuels.  Transit  service  
providers  also  face  a  number  of  challenges  in  delivering  high  quality,  convenient  and  cost-­?effective  
transit  options  for  their  clientele.  They  are  asked  to  serve  a  large  area  with  a  dispersed  population  with  a  
limited  budget.  Providers  must  optimize  their  systems  to  cover  long  distances  and  occasionally  difficult  
terrain.
11
 They  must  rely  on  a  variety  of  fleet  vehicles,  causing  the  need  for  more  administrative  
capacity,  operational  and  maintenance  knowledge  and  general  coordination.    
CHARACTERISTICS  OF  HAWAI`I  COUNTY  COMMUTERS  
As  mentioned  previously  Hawai`i  Island  residents  primarily  choose  to  commute  to  work  by  personal  
automobile  (cars,  trucks  and  vans).  While  most  commute  alone,  about  15%  participate  in  carpooling  to  
get  to  work.  Compared  to  the  United  States  as  a  whole,  carpooling  is  highly  successful  on  Hawai`i  Island.  
Less  than  2%  of  the  population  takes  public  transit  to  get  to  work,  but  at  the  same  time  that  is  almost  
three  times  the  national  average  for  other  rural  areas.    
Table  1-­?1:  Modes  of  Commuting  
   
United  
States  
Rural  
Hawai'i  County  
Maui  County  
Mode  Used  
 
 
 
 
Commuting  
alone    
76.4%  
81.4%  
72.7%  
68.4%  
Carpooling  
9.8%  
9.9%  
14.5%  
14,9%  
Public  Transit  
5.0%  
0.6%  
1.7%  
2.3%  
Other  
8.8%  
8.1%  
11.1%  
14.9%  
 
 
Data from American Community Survey 
 
 
The  median  income  in  Hawai`i  County  is  slightly  below  the  rest  of  the  United  States  and  other  rural  
populations.  Figure  1-­?2  shows  that  those  who  commuted  alone  using  their  own  personal  vehicle  on  the  
whole  earned  more  than  those  who  carpooled  or  used  public  transit.  Interestingly,  in  Hawai`i  County  
public  transit  commuters  had  a  much  lower  median  earnings  level.  They  only  earned  $16k,  while  those  
that  commuted  alone  or  via  carpool  earned  almost  twice  that  amount.  This  suggests  that  lower  income  
commuters,  who  do  not  have  access  to  or  cannot  afford  a  personal  vehicle,  predominantly  use  the  
public  transit  system  on  Hawai`i  Island.    
background image
 
6|  
P a g e
 
 
Figure  1-­?2  
 
The  Figure  1-­?3  shows  average  commute  lengths  for  the  different  types  of  Hawai?i  Island  commuters..  
Among  all  the  residents  of  the  island,  the  average  time  it  takes  to  commute  to  work  is  between  25  and  
30  minutes,  which  is  similar  to  the  national  average.  Public  transit  commutes  in  the  United  States  tend  
to  be  longer  than  solo  and  carpool  commutes  with  the  average  of  48  minutes;  public  transit  commutes  
on  Hawai`i  Island  are  substantially  longer  at  68  minutes.  In  fact,  more  than  50%  of  public  transit  
commuters  on  the  island  have  a  commute  of  60  minutes  or  longer.    
Figure  1-­?3  
 
Total  
Commulng  
Alone  
Carpooling  
Public  Transit  
United  States  
$32,417    
$35,132    
$26,013    
$30,950    
Rural  
$31,653    
$32,287    
$27,690    
$31,920    
Hawai'i  County  
$29,492    
$30,393    
$27,714    
$16,343    
 $-­?        
 $5,000    
 $10,000    
 $15,000    
 $20,000    
 $25,000    
 $30,000    
 $35,000    
 $40,000    
E
ar
n
i
n
g
s
 
P
e
r
 
C
ap
i
ta  
Hawai'i  County  Median  Earning  
 -­?        
 10.00    
 20.00    
 30.00    
 40.00    
 50.00    
 60.00    
 70.00    
 80.00    
0%  
10%  
20%  
30%  
40%  
50%  
60%  
70%  
80%  
90%  
100%  
Total  
Commulng  
Alone  
Carpooling   Public  Transit  
Hawai'i  County  Commute  Length  
   60  or  more  minutes  
   45  to  59  minutes  
   30  to  44  minutes  
   20  to  29  minutes  
   10  to  19  minutes  
   Less  than  10  minutes  
   Mean  travel  lme  to  work  
(minutes)  
background image
 
7|  
P a g e
 
 
HAWAI`I  COUNTY  MASS  TRANSIT  AGENCY  
The  Hawai`i  County  Mass  Transit  Agency  began  collecting  ridership  data  again  in  2005  and  currently  
delivers  public  transportation  with  its  Hele-­?On  bus  service  and  shared  taxi  program.
12
 The  Hele-­?On  bus  
offers  16  route  options  that  range  from  intra-­?city  (i.e.  Kona  and  Hilo)  to  inter-­?city  (i.e.  Hilo  to  Waimea)  to  
trans-­?island  (i.e.  Hilo  to  Kohala  resorts).  The  fare  for  riding  the  bus  has  recently  increased  (as  of  July  1,  
2013)  from  $1.00  to  $2.00  per  ride  and  from  free  to  $1.00  for  students,  disabled  individuals  and  
seniors.
13
 The  shared  taxi  program  offers  door-­?to-­?door  taxi  service  within  Hilo  and  Kona  for  between  
$2.00-­?3.00  for  trips  fewer  than  four  miles  and  between  $6.00-­?9.00  for  trips  fewer  than  nine  miles.  The  
agency  is  funded  by  money  from  the  local  and  federal  governments,  but  receives  no  state  funding  for  
their  operations.
14
   
Figure  1-­?4  
Ridership  has  been  gradually  increasing  since  the  service  began.  According  to  the  most  recent  available  
Comprehensive  Fiscal  Report  produced  by  Hawai`i  County  for  the  Fiscal  Year  ending  on  June  30,  2011,  
the  ridership  surpassed  1  million  passengers  in  2010  and  reached  approximately  1.15  million  in  2011.
15
 
As  of  2011,  the  agency  owned  a  fleet  of  56  vehicles  to  serve  these  riders.
16
 
MAPPING  TRANSIT  ON  HAWAI`I  ISLAND  
In  the  spatial  analysis  section,  we  first  mapped  current  bus  routes  and  the  spatial  distribution  of  
population  density,  work  hubs  and  recreational  hubs.  Next,  we  compared  the  transit  needs  (implied  by  
the  spatial  distribution  maps)  around  Hawai`i  Island  with  current  bus  route  coverage  to  develop  a  
preliminary  understanding  about  whether  the  current  mass  transit  system  reaches  enough  riders  while  
evaluating  the  possibilities  of  potential  improvements.    
Not  surprisingly,  these  maps  we  created  show  that  population,  work  hubs  and  recreational  hubs  of  
Hawaii  Island  are  clustered  around  the  perimeter  of  the  island  at  major  towns  including  Hilo,  Keaau,  
Mountain  View,  Pahoa,  Ocean  View,  Kealakekua,  Keauhou,  Kailua-­?Kona,  Waikoloa,  Waimea  and  Hawi.  
Work  hubs  are  especially  clustered  around  Hilo  and  Kailua-­?Kona.  Based  on  our  analysis  of  the  current  
 -­?        
 0.2    
 0.4    
 0.6    
 0.8    
 1.0    
 1.2    
 1.4    
2006  
2007  
2008  
2009  
2010  
2011  
2012  
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
 
o
f
 
P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
s
 
Year  
Hawaii  County  Mass  Transit  Agency  Ridership  
background image
 
8|  
P a g e
 
 
public  transit  system  we  have  determined  that  Hilo  and  Kailua-­?Kona  are  two  of  the  most-­?served  areas  in  
terms  of  routes  passing  through  or  within,  with  four  routes  within  Hilo,  six  routes  to  or  from  Hilo  and  
four  routes  to  or  from  Kailua-­?Kona.  
Our  results  show  that  two  or  more  bus  routes  serve  most  of  the  works  hubs,  recreation  hubs,  and  
population  clusters.  However,  Mountain  View,  Pahoa  and  Pahala  are  only  served  by  one  bus  route.  
Moreover,  Mauna  Kea  State  Park,  a  very  popular  attraction,  is  completely  out  of  bus  service  at  this  point  
because  it  is  on  Saddle  Road,  which  lacks  bus  routes.  Hilo  International  and  Kona  International  Airport,  
the  major  airports  on  the  island,  also  have  limited  bus  service.  
This  preliminary  analysis  suggests  that  the  Mass  Transit  Authority  may  be  able  to  streamline  the  Hele-­?On  
bus  system  by  identifying  redundancies  or  unnecessary  overlap  in  the  current  routing  and  scheduling  
system.    
Figure  1-­?5  
 
 
 
background image
 
9|  
P a g e
 
 
MAUI  COUNTY  PUBLIC  TRANSIT  
Of  the  Hawai`ian  Islands,  Maui  County  is  most  similar  to  Hawai`i  County  due  to  their  relatively  rural  
settings.  Because  of  these  similarities  we  completed  a  case  study  of  the  bus  system  on  Maui.  
Investigating  the  origins  of  the  Maui  bus  system,  its  current  status,  and  its  plans  for  future  
improvements  can  provide  some  useful  information  for  Hele-­?On.  Maui?s  routes  and  schedules  were  
initially  developed  based  on  an  objective  scoring  system,  and  today  service  expansion  is  generally  driven  
by  demand  from  the  public.  Maui  currently  uses  Geographic  Information  Systems  (GIS)  to  a  much  
greater  extent  than  Hele-­?On  does.  This  has  allowed  Maui  to  develop  route  maps  and  schedules  that  are  
visually  appealing  and  clear  (see  the  figure  below).  Additionally,  Maui  uses  Google  Transit  to  publish  
information  about  their  services,  and  the  process  for  collaborating  with  Google  was  not  difficult  at  all.  
While  other  technological  solutions  are  not  currently  used  by  Maui,  they  are  looking  into  investing  in  
Global  Positioning  Systems  (GPS),  as  well  as  a  system  that  can  automatically  track  ridership.    The  Maui  
system?s  budget  is  over  double  that  of  Hele-­?On,  as  is  its  ridership.  While  Hawai?i  Island?s  ability  to  
immediately  offer  all  of  the  same  services  that  Maui  offers  in  these  areas  is  not  feasible,  collaborating  
with  Maui  Transit  officials  and  looking  into  incorporating  some  of  their  innovations  offers  the  best  path  
forward  and  could  provide  benefits  to  the  residents  of  Hawai`i  Island.  
Figure  1-­?6:  Map  of  Maui  Transit  
 
 
 
From  http://www.mauicounty.gov  
background image
 
10|  
P a g e
 
 
THE  CASE  FOR  IMPROVING  THE  TRANSPORTATION  ON  HAWAI`I  ISLAND
 
Transportation  on  Hawai`i  Island  is  complicated  and  presents  great  challenges.  There  is  rising  and  more  
complex  demand  for  public  transit  service,  operational  costs  are  increasing,  and  resources  are  limited.  In  
recent  years,  the  Mass  Transit  Agency  (MTA)  has  persistently  worked  towards  expanding  its  Hele-­?On  
services  and  providing  residents  with  suitable  transportation  options  and  an  improved  experience.  
However,  the  Agency  still  faces  many  challenges  to  expand  while  maintaining  high  quality  service.  At  the  
same  time  the  Island?s  traffic  is  getting  worse,  fuel  expenses  are  a  huge  burden  and  vehicle  carbon  
emissions  are  increasing,  as  many  people  commute  alone  in  their  personal  vehicles.  
We  have  developed  a  set  of  recommendations  for  stakeholders  to  consider  when  working  to  mitigate  
these  issues.  First,  we  will  focus  on  technology  investments  for  the  Hele-­?On  public  transit  system.  Then,  
we  will  discuss  private  sector  investments  that  could  provide  alternative,  cost-­?effective  ways  to  
commute  on  Hawai`i  Island.  
OPTIMIZING  PUBLIC  TRANSIT  WITH  TECHNOLOGY  SOLUTIONS  
To  address  the  complexity  of  transportation  on  Hawai`i  Island  and  the  challenges  that  the  Mass  Transit  
Agency  is  facing,  we  identified  two  overarching  areas  of  opportunity  that  can  facilitate  the  transition  to  a  
more  economically,  socially  and  environmentally  sustainable  mass  transit  system  for  Hawai`i  Island.  The  
following  graphic  introduces  these  two  areas,  the  different  segments  in  which  they  may  be  targeted,  
and  the  potential  benefits  they  could  provide.  Subsequently,  we  identified  key  technologies  that  can  
improve  these  segments  when  implemented.  
Figure  1-­?7:  Areas  of  Opportunity  
 
background image
 
11|  
P a g e
 
 
There  are  many  available  technologies  for  improved  transportation  systems  used  worldwide.  After  an  
extensive  analysis  of  available  technology  options,  we  identified  the  following  as  the  most  beneficial  for  
the  Hele-­?On  transit  system:    
1.  Automated  Passenger  Counting  (APC)  to  determine  ridership  trends  and  optimize  routes,  vehicle  
types  and  pricing  depending  on  capacity  vs.  demand.  
2.  Geographic  Information  Systems  (GIS)-­?  to  create  and  provide  easy  and  appealing  information  on  
routes  and  schedules  and  maintain  a  clear  vision  of  the  system.  
3.  Automatic  Vehicle  Location  (AVL)-­?  to  understand  current  operations  and  optimize  route,  fleet  
and  driver  performance.  It  can  also  increase  accountability  of  drivers.  
4.  Mobile  Data  Terminals  (MDT)-­?  to  make  the  integration  of  technology  systems  easier  and  more  
seamless,  and  to  maintain  digital  records  of  all  operations.  
5.  Real  Time  Passenger  Information  (RTPI)-­?  to  provide  better  predictability,  reliability  and  service  
to  passengers  and  improve  their  overall  experience  to  increase  ridership.  
ANALYSIS  OF  POTENTIAL  VENDORS  
As  in  any  growing  market,  there  are  multiple  companies  offering  products  and  services  for  
transportation  management  or  optimization  purposes.  We  performed  extensive  research  on  existing  
companies  and  their  offerings.  This  analysis  can  serve  as  a  tool  for  the  Mass  Transit  Agency  to  determine  
which  company  might  best  fit  Hele-­?On?s  requirements,  while  staying  within  the  County?s  budget  or  
making  the  case  for  extra  funding  to  be  raised  via  public  or  private  investment.  Aside  from  economic  
considerations,  an  ideal  vendor  should  be  able  to  provide  multiple  items  from  the  ?Key  Technologies  for  
Hele-­?On?  listed  above  and  present  customizable  solutions.  Additional  value  will  come  from  firms  with  
products  designed  specifically  for  public  transportation  systems  and  previous  experience  with  rural  or  
island-­?based  clients.  
Figure  1-­?8:  Potential  Companies  and  Their  Services  
 
Company
Services
Au
to
m
at
ed
 Pa
sse
ng
er
 
Co
un
tin
g  
(A
PC)
Ro
ut
in
g  a
nd
 Fl
ee
t  
Ef
fic
ie
nc
y  
Op
tim
iza
tio
n
Op
er
at
or
 a
nd
 V
eh
icl
e  
Pe
rfo
rm
an
ce
Re
al
-­?ti
m
e  
Pa
sse
ng
er
 
In
fo
rm
at
io
n  
(R
TPI)
M
ob
ile
 D
at
a  T
er
m
in
al
s  
(M
DT
)
Ha
s  S
pe
cif
ic  
Se
rv
ice
 fo
r  
Pu
bl
ic  
Tr
an
sp
or
t?
Ha
s  w
or
ke
d  
on
 R
ur
al
 o
r  
Isl
an
d  
Pr
oj
ec
ts
Actsoft
x
x
NextBus
x
x
Syncromatics
x
x
x
x
x
Teletrac
x
x
x
x
x
Trapeze
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
TSO  Mobile
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
background image
 
12|  
P a g e
 
 
As  shown  in  the  figure  above,  the  companies  reviewed  in  this  research  provide  a  wide  array  of  services,  
and  finding  the  best  option  for  Hele-­?On  to  implement  will  depend  on  the  costs  of  each  and  the  
availability  of  resources  in  the  County  of  Hawai`i.  After  contacting  and  reviewing  these  companies,  we  
determined  that  TSO  Mobile  offers  the  full  range  of  products  and  services  the  County  may  consider  and  
has  experience  working  or  rural  systems  and  in  islands.  It  would  therefore  be  the  best  option  to  work  
with,  even  though  the  investment  required  is  higher.    
RECOMMENDATIONS  FOR  IMPLEMENTING  TECHNOLOGY  SOLUTIONS  
We  have  identified  three  different  stages  of  activities  and  investments  for  the  County  to  consider.  There  
are  some  easy  and  low-­?cost  solutions  that  we  recommend  should  be  implemented  right  away,  and  some  
pricier  but  more  impactful  solutions  for  which  additional  funds  must  be  procured.  
IMMEDIATE  SHORT  TERM  
!
 
Google  Transit:  Low  cost  option  with  easy  and  fast  implementation  that  can  help  passengers  
identify  ideal  routes,  schedules,  and  connections.  It  will  be  necessary  to  develop  a  
communication  strategy  to  let  users  know  of  its  availability  once  it  is  in  place.  
!
 
Website  enhancements  for  easier  navigation.  
!
 
Develop  clear  route  schedules  and  maps  that  can  be  seen  on  website  without  the  need  to  
download  the  file.  
SHORT  TO  MEDIUM  TERM  
!
 
Procure  funding  for  large  technology  investment.  Tentative  sources  include:  federal  grants,  
private  impact  investment  opportunities,  environmental  or  social  Impact  foundations.  
MEDIUM  TERM  
!
 
Make  large  technology  investment  
o  Determine  appropriate  vendor  and  obtain  a  customized  quotes  
o  Determine  new  staff  requirements  and  cost  (if  any)  
o  Set  project  manager  responsible  for  implementation  
PRIVATE  INVESTMENTS  AND  TRANSPORTATION  ALTERNATIVES  
We  recommend  that  Hawai`i  County  consider  partnering  with  private  enterprises  for  both  rideshare  
and  vanpool
.  As  fuel  costs  increase  and  government  funding  for  transportation  becomes  more  
uncertain,  there  will  be  a  shifting  of  priorities  at  the  federal  and  state  level.  The  time  for  action  is  now:  
energy  efficiency  and  peer-­?to-­?peer  ridesharing  have  come  to  the  forefront  of  transportation  energy  
innovations  and  this  emergence  has  not  gone  unnoticed  at  the  state  level.  Private  solutions  in  vanpool  
and  rideshare  could  reduce  the  burden  on  the  Mass  Transit  Agency,  while  providing  cost-­?effective  
realized  savings  for  both  short-­?  and  long-­?  distance  commuters.  
RIDESHARE  NETWORKS  
Peer-­?to-­?peer  ridesharing  occurs  when  passengers  use  mobile  applications  and  GPS  tracking  to  ?find?  
rides.  Ridesharing  is  increasingly  popular  at  universities  among  both  students  and  faculty,  as  well  as  
among  middle-­?income  commuters  who  would  otherwise  commute  alone.    
background image
 
13|  
P a g e
 
 
Despite  its  popularity,  we  are  skeptical  about  government  incentives  and  subsidies  like  the  Commuter  
Tax  Benefits  Program,  the  Guaranteed  Ride  Home  Program  (GRHP)  and  Job  Access  Reverse  Commute  
program  (JARC);  these  programs  may  not  necessarily  do  an  effective  job  of  enticing  ridesharing  due  to  
state  priorities,  competition  with  more  populated  counties  which  spend  more  on  transportation,  the  
actual  cost  of  allocating  money  to  the  island  for  these  programs,  and  the  general  lack  of  knowledge  of  
said  opportunities.  We  are,  however,  hopeful  about  a  new  state  Car-­?Sharing  Vehicle  Surcharge  Tax  bill  in  
the  works  and  the  2007  Energy  Efficient  Transportation  Strategy  Act,  which  recognizes  and  sanctions  
ridesharing  companies  as  legitimate  tax-­?paying  entities,  reducing  the  economic  uncertainty  of  these  
markets  while  setting  a  standard  for  administration  and  oversight  which  can  act  as  catalyst  for  further  
expansion.  It  is  expected  that  the  future  implementation  of  ridesharing  networks  will  be  complementary  
to  mass  transit  ridership  rather  than  competitive;  ridesharing  exists  to  address  unmet  demand  for  
lower-­?cost  travel  alternatives  for  middle-­?income  and  more  affluent  commuters.  
In  spite  of  our  concerns  with  public  policy,  the  private  sector  is  robust  with  a  rapidly  expanding  market  
with  increasing  private  investment.  As  we  mentioned  previously,  carpooling  is  already  very  popular  on  
Hawai`i  Island  and  has  the  potential  to  save  participants  money,  as  well  as  limit  the  consumption  of  
gasoline  and  the  release  of  carbon  into  the  atmosphere.  For  long-­?distance  commuting  a  driver  pays  an  
average  of  $640/month  on  Hawai`i  Island.  That  cost  is  cut  almost  in  half  by  taking  on  one  additional  
passenger  ($332.80  returned  to  the  driver),  and  fully  recovered  with  additional  profit  by  taking  on  two  
or  three  passengers  (making  $25.60  or  $358.40  per  month  respectively).  For  shorter  distances,  the  gains  
are  more  modest  ?  the  $40/month  average  cost  of  gasoline  for  a  single  commuter  is  recovered  with  the  
driver  earning  an  additional  $1.60  for  two  more  riders  and  $22.40  for  three  more  riders  (see  Appendix  G  
for  cost  calculations).  
Figure  1-­?9  
 
 
 $(400.00)  
 $(200.00)  
 $-­?        
 $200.00    
 $400.00    
 $600.00    
City  Commute  
Cross-­?Island  Commute  
Mo
n
t
h
l
y
 
C
o
s
t
 
o
f
 
T
r
a
v
e
l
 
Distance  of  Commute  
Carpool  Economics  
Commute  Alone  
Carpool  -­?  2  people  
Carpool  -­?  3  people  
Carpool  -­?  4  people  
Carpool  Rider  
Public  Transit  
background image
 
14|  
P a g e
 
 
VANPOOL  NETWORKS  
The  County  could  also  benefit  from  enhancing  private  vanpool  network  opportunities  for  all  residents,  
where  users  pay  a  fee  to  cover  fuel  and  a  company  provides  vehicles.  Hawai`i  Island  is  an  ideal  place  to  
utilize  this  type  of  service,  as  vanpools  are  particularly  effective  in  providing  long-­?distance  
transportation  between  work  and  residential  hubs.  In  fact,  the  privatized  VRide  system  is  already  in  
place,  but  underutilized.  There  are  still  inherent  tradeoffs:  the  system  may  poach  from  mass  transit,  
taking  away  lower-­?income  commuters.  Additionally,  many  commuters  must  still  drive  to  reach  start  
nodes.  Because  the  system  is  already  online,  the  County?s  largest  effort  should  be  focused  on  outreach  
to  employers  and  commuters  and  educating  them  of  the  potential  subsidies  and  user  benefits  of  
vanpool  commuting.  The  public  vanpool  system  (Vanpool  Hawai`i)  was  defunded  in  2011,  so  VRide  
remains  the  only  viable  vanpool  option.  
RECOMMENDATIONS  FOR  ESTABLISHING  RIDESHARE  AND  VANPOOL  NETWORKS    
There  are  three  major  steps  that  ensure  the  stability  of  vanpool  and  rideshare  private  networks  moving  
forward:  
!
 
Engage  Public  Agencies  in  Developing  Sustainable  Transportation  Goals:  Ensure  better  
coordination  between  departments  to  secure  future  funding;  conduct  outreach  to  commuters  
to  educate  them  of  various  options;  hire  staff  to  liaise  between  business  interests  and  
commuters;  oversee  rideshare/vanpool  programs.  
!
 
Support  the  Existing  Vanpool  System:  Immediately  encourage  users  to  sign  on  to  existing  
vanpool  system.  
!
 
Understand  Public  Needs:  Develop  a  population  survey  that  reaches  a  broad  sample  of  
commuters  and  employers  gauging  user  preferences,  as  well  as  their  current  knowledge  of  
available  and  developing  commuting  alternatives.  
If  the  County  wishes  to  proceed  specifically  with  creating  a  rideshare  network  on  Hawai`i  Island,  three  
options  for  moving  forward  include:  
!
 
Send  out  a  Request  For  Proposal  (RFP)  to  existing  rideshare  Transportation  Network  
Companies  (TNCs)
.  Traditionally,  TNC  expansion  in  the  past  has  been  limited  to  dense  urban  
areas.  They  also  rely  more  on  private  investments  to  keep  them  afloat  and  expand  their  services  
and  features.  Although  TNC?s  pay  for  themselves  (rather  than  through  public  agencies),  fierce  
competition  both  intra-­?market  and  inter-­?market  (i.e.  taxi,  vanpools,  buses)  may  require  heavier  
and  more  burdensome  regulation  by  the  already  understaffed  and  overworked  County.  
!
 
Establish  a  public-­?private  partnership  (P3)  with  the  County  for  a  unique  regional  program.  In  
this  situation  a  public  agency  subcontracts  to  a  third-­?party  vendor  (Cubic,  Trapeze,  Rideshare)  
for  a  ride  matching  platform,  marketing  &  outreach,  and  technical  guidance  and  operation.  
Though  it  is  more  expensive  upfront  due  to  consulting  services  required,  this  kind  of  partnership  
is  less  risky  and  capacity-­?intensive  because  the  private  company  assumes  an  operational  role  
and  some  financial  risk.  They  also  work  with  the  agency  to  find  external  funding  sources,  which  
might  supplement  project  costs.  Ultimately,  the  private  entity  can  help  establish  a  more  
individualized  network  uniquely  tailored  to  fit  the  Island?s  needs.  Because  this  arrangement  is  
not  sensitive  to  potential  company  acquisitions,  buy-­?outs  or  changes  in  structure  and  ownership  
(as  is  frequent  with  emerging  TNCs  and  startups),  there  is  greater  long-­?term  stability  in  a  P3  
contract.  
background image
 
15|  
P a g e
 
 
!
 
Establish  a  pilot  project  at  the  University  of  Hawai`i  ?  Hilo.  A  University  project  partnership  
with  either  an  existing  rideshare  network  or  another  third  party  vendor  to  test  ridesharing  on  
Hawai`i  Island.  These  types  of  projects  have  taken  been  piloted  on  the  Mainland;  results  have  
varied  depending  on  school  and  commuter  populations.  
CONCLUSION  
Despite  the  geographical  complexities  associated  with  island-­?wide  transportation  connectivity  and  
accessibility,  there  are  a  number  of  optimizing  cost-­?effective  technological  innovations  available  both  in  
public  transit  and  through  the  private  sector.  This  report  is  intended  to  evaluate  the  existing  
transportation  alternatives  available  within  the  existing  administrative  framework  and  organizational  
structure  in  order  to  provide  County  officials  with  the  most  comprehensive  information  in  weighing  their  
options  moving  forward.  We  hope  these  recommendations  are  useful  and  salient  as  the  County  
government  begins  to  develop  sustainable  transportation  planning  strategies  well  into  the  future.  
 
background image
 
16|  
P a g e
 
 
2:  PROJECT  OVERVIEW
 
INTRODUCTION  
Residents  of  Hawai`i  Island  pay  some  of  the  highest  rates  for  electricity  and  petroleum  products  among  
residents  of  the  United  States.
17
 Moreover,  the  islands  in  the  Hawaiian  archipelago  rely  almost  entirely  
on  imported  petroleum  fuels  for  both  transportation  and  energy  generation.
18
 Though  Hawai`i  Island  
has  integrated  more  renewable  energy  onto  its  electrical  grid  than  anywhere  else  in  the  U.S.,
19
 the  
reliance  on  fossil  fuel  remains  high  because  more  than  half  the  energy  demand  of  the  island  can  be  
attributed  to  transportation.
20
 
This  project  has  been  undertaken  to  understand  the  current  transportation  situation  on  the  island  and  
offer  suggestions  that  will  improve  accessibility  for  the  island?s  residents,  while  decreasing  fossil  fuel  
dependence  and  promoting  more  energy  efficient  options  for  commuting  and  transit.  We  chose  this  
focus  because  ground  transportation  is  particularly  energy  intensive  on  Hawai`i  Island  due  to  a  reliance  
on  a  large  energy  inefficient  fleet  of  personal  vehicles.
21
   
On  Hawai`i  Island  the  vast  majority  of  residents  (69%)  choose  to  commute  alone  via  personal  vehicles  
like  cars,  trucks  and  vans,  while  only  2%  of  commuters  choose  public  transit  to  get  to  work.
22
 The  
remainder  of  the  workforce  either  carpools  to  work  or  works  from  home.
23
 Traditional  mass  transit  
systems  can  be  used  to  increase  energy  efficiency,  as  well  as  energy  sustainability;  as  a  result  we  have  
designed  this  project  to  explore  the  need  for  improvements  to  this  system.  We  will  develop  suggestions  
for  optimizing  the  current  system,  as  well  as  potential  alternatives  that  include  the  establishment  of  
carpooling  and  ridesharing  networks  that  would  decrease  the  number  of  private  vehicles  trips  used  and  
thus  fuel  consumption.  
PROJECT  OBJECTIVES  
The  University  of  Michigan  team  was  engaged  by  The  Kohala  Center  to  examine  and  analyze  the  public  
transit  system  of  Hawai`i  Island.  The  primary  objective  of  the  project  is  to  develop  a  set  of  
recommendations  for  public  and  private  investments  focused  on  high-­?impact  solutions  to  reduce  fossil  
fuel  use  in  the  island?s  ground  transportation  system,  while  improving  accessibility  and  lowering  travel  
times.  The  plan  recommendations  include:  
?  Consolidating  and  analyzing  the  data  collected  by  the  County  of  Hawai`i  on  their  transportation  
infrastructure  and  public  transit  system;  
?  Ensuring  an  inclusive  process  by  engaging  a  diverse  set  of  stakeholders  on  Hawai`i  Island  to  
understand  and  communicate  their  needs  and  experiences;  
?  Providing  a  number  of  technological,  business  and  infrastructure  solutions  for  the  issues  
identified  by  the  project  stakeholders;  
 
background image
 
17|  
P a g e
 
 
PROJECT  APPROACH  
The  University  of  Michigan  team  approached  the  project  from  a  macro  to  micro  perspective,  starting  
with  understanding  of  the  energy  and  fossil  fuel  dependence  challenges  of  Hawai`i  Island  and  identifying  
a  specific  issue  area,  from  which  we  could  narrow  the  scope  of  the  project.  Upon  selecting  the  public  
transit  system  as  our  focus,  we  developed  a  set  of  testable  hypotheses  to  guide  our  research.  
PROJECT  HYPOTHESES  
Improvements  in  the  current  public  transportation  system  will  increase  ridership  and  reduce  personal  
vehicle  use.
   
The  introduction  of  car-­?share  and  ride-­?share  services  will  reduce  the  number  of  personal  vehicles  used.  
(See  Appendix  A  for  more  details  on  Project  Hypotheses.)  
PROJECT  METHODOLOGY  
We  then  followed  the  project  methodology  depicted  in  Figure  2-­?1  below.  
Figure  2-­?1  Project  Methodology  Diagram  
 
Our  team  continued  our  research  by  performing  a  literature  review  to  help  broaden  our  knowledge  of  
existing  comparable  transportation  systems  to  identify  potential  solutions  through  improvements  to  
existing  infrastructure  or  introduction  of  new  practices.  We  continued  gathering  data  with  an  on-­?site  
research  trip.  The  primary  goal  of  our  August  2013  trip  to  Hawai`i  Island  was  to  meet  and  engage  with  
the  groups  and  people  working  on  a  variety  of  issues  related  our  own  project.    
OVERVIEW  OF  STAKEHOLDERS  
Residents  of  Hawai`i  Island  
?  Urban  Residents  of  Hilo  and  Waimea    
?  Residents  living  outside  the  urban  centers  of  Hilo  or  Waimea  in  dispersed  communities  
?  Residents  and  visitors  of  the  Kona-­?Kohala  Coast  
Initial 
Research on 
Hawai`i Island 
and Public 
Transit 
On-site 
Research Trip 
Mapping of 
Current System 
Analysis of Key 
Findings from Trip 
Research and Analysis 
Recommendations 
Updating the Current 
Technology 
New Business Models 
background image
 
18|  
P a g e
 
 
 
Government  Agencies  and  Officials  
Our  group  was  fortunate  enough  to  meet  with  representatives  of  the  Mass  Transit  Authority,  Office  of  
the  Mayor,  Department  of  Research  and  Development,  Department  of  Planning,  as  well  as  the  County?s  
Energy  Coordinator.    
NGOs  and  other  community  groups  
?  The  Kohala  Center  
?  The  Ulupono  Initiative    
?  Peoples  Advocacy  for  Trails  Hawai`i  (PATH)  
?  Hawai`i  County  Economic  Opportunity  Council  
?  UH  Hilo  Student  Association  Sustainability  Committee  
Businesses  and  business  interests  
We  spoke  with  representatives  of  various  business  associations  on  Hawai`i  Island,  including  Hawai`i  
Island  Chamber  of  Commerce  and  the  Kohala  Coast  Resort  Association  
MAPPING  PROJECT  
Our  team  analyzed  existing  available  data  to  develop  a  set  of  maps  of  the  Mass  Transit  System.  These  
maps  were  used  to  understand  the  basic  efficiency  of  the  system  and  where  to  focus  our  research  on  
necessary  improvements.  (See  Mapping  Transit  on  Hawai`i  Island  on  page  33  for  more  details.)  
DEVELOPING  OUR  RECOMMENDATIONS  
The  final  step  in  our  process  was  to  synthesize  all  our  data  and  analysis  into  a  set  of  cohesive  
recommendations.  Based  on  our  original  hypotheses  and  this  synthesis  we  focused  on  two  sets  of  
recommendations.  
Opportunities  for  improvements  to  the  current  mass  transit  system  and  technology  (See  page  51.)  
New  business  models  to  introduce  ridesharing  and  car-­?  or  van-­?pooling  (See  page  72.)  
 
 
 
background image
 
19|  
P a g e
 
 
3:  AN  OVERVIEW  OF  HAWAI`I  ISLAND  
GEOGRAPHY  
The  Hawaiian  Islands  are  an  
archipelago  encompassing  
many  small  volcanic  islands  
stretched  along  a  2,400  
kilometer  swath  of  the  North  
Pacific  Ocean.  There  are  eight  
main  islands  in  the  
archipelago,  Hawai`i,  Maui,  
O`ahu,  Kaua`i,  Moloka`i,  
Lana`i,  Ni`ihau,  and  
Kaho`olawe.
24
   Hawai`i  Island,  
also  known  as  ?The  Big  
Island,?  is  the  youngest  and  
biggest  of  all  of  the  Hawaiian  
Islands;  covering  10,432  
square  kilometers,  it  is  
roughly  the  size  of  the  State  
of  Connecticut.
25
   
Hawai`i  Island  is  comprised  of  five  shield  volcanoes:  Kohala  on  the  north  tip  of  the  island  and  considered  
extinct,  Mauna  Kea  on  the  northeast  of  island  and  considered  dormant,  Hualalai  in  the  west  and  active,  
but  has  not  erupted  since  the  early  1800s,  Mauna  Loa  in  the  central  part  of  the  island  and  still  active,  
Kilauea  on  the  southeast  side  of  the  island  and  very  active  as  it  has  been  erupting  since  1983.
26
 The  
presence  of  these  large  volcanoes  creates  a  unique  ?microcosm  of  environments?  on  Hawai`i  Island.  
Within  this  single  island  visitors  and  residents  experience  such  diverse  ecosystems  as  tropical  
rainforests,  volcanic  deserts,  polar  tundra,  grasslands,  and  of  course,  beaches.
27
 On  average,  however,  
the  daytime  temperature  in  summer  is  29.4°C  and  25.6°C  in  the  winter.
28
 
Though  the  volcanoes  play  an  integral  part  in  the  geological,  environmental,  and  cultural  history  of  the  
island,  they  do  have  their  drawbacks,  particularly  for  transportation.  The  elevation  of  the  volcanoes  and  
the  threat  of  volcanic  activity  and  other  natural  disasters  make  a  rail  system  cost-­?prohibitively  
expensive,  as  well  as  limits  the  reach  and  upkeep  of  roads  and  highways.  The  unique  habitats  are  also  
part  of  the  natural  and  cultural  heritage  of  the  islands.  Their  preservation  also  restricts  the  construction  
of  an  extensive  transportation  infrastructure  on  Hawai`i  Island.    
GOVERNANCE  
In  1959,  after  more  than  60  years  of  being  a  Territory,  Hawai`i  became  the  50
th
 state  to  join  the  United  
States  of  America.  Hawai`i  has  all  the  rights  and  privileges  afforded  to  other  states,  including  
(From  lonelyplanet.com)  
Figure  3-­?1  
background image
 
20|  
P a g e
 
 
participating  in  federal  legislation  with  two  senators  and  two  representatives.  The  state  government  is  
modeled  closely  on  the  U.S.  Federal  Government.
29
 The  seat  of  government  is  Honolulu  in  the  Island  of  
O?ahu,  where  the  executive  branch  is  led  by  Governor  Neil  Abercrombie
30
 and  Lieutenant  Governor  Shan  
S.  Tsutsui.
31
 The  legislative  branch  is  bi-­?cameral  and  composed  of  a  51-­?member  Hawai`i  House  of  
Representatives
32
 and  a  25-­?member  Hawai`i  Senate.
33
     
The  county  governments  are  charged  with  the  administration  of  each  island.  Hawai`i  County  is  governed  
by  the  County  Mayor,  and  legislated  by  a  nine-­?member  County  Council,  which  passes  laws  and  creates  
public  policy.  The  Mayor  is  elected  in  a  county-­?wide  election  and  the  Council  Members  are  elected  by  
the  constituents  from  a  geographically  distinct  county  district.
34
   
The  Mayor  supervises  and  oversees  the  functions  of  all  Executive  branch  departments  and  agencies  and  
appoints  the  county  officials  that  work  to  achieve  the  public  policy  goals  of  the  county  government.  
Included  in  this  purview  are  the  Departments  of  Planning,  Public  Works,  and  Research  and  
Development,  and  the  Mass  Transit  Agency,  all  of  which  are  important  in  the  development  and  
implementation  of  transportation  policy  across  the  island.    
ECONOMICS  
Traditionally  one  of  the  biggest  economic  sectors  in  the  Hawaiian  Islands  has  been  agriculture.  Because  
of  the  mild  year  round  climate,  companies  began  to  come  to  Hawai`i  to  build  plantations  to  ramp  up  
production  of  agricultural  goods  for  export.  In  the  mid-­?1830s,  sugar  plantations  gained  their  footholds  
on  Kaua?i  and  soon  began  to  spread  to  the  other  islands  and  rapidly  became  one  of  the  chief  products  of  
the  islands.
35
 The  sugar  industry  economy  continued  to  
prosper  with  a  peak  production  of  1  million  tons  of  sugar  
in  1931.  In  the  intervening  years  the  industry  dwindled  
with  growing  foreign  competition  and  availability  of  
substitutes  and  the  last  sugar  plantations  on  Hawai`i  
Island  closed  in  the  1990s.
36
 
 Agriculture  still  plays  a  pretty  big  role  in  the  economy  of  
Hawai`i.  The  state  exported  an  estimated  $395  million  in  
agricultural  products  to  the  Mainland  United  States  and  
$499  million  to  foreign  countries.
37
 Agricultural  lands  are  
now  being  farmed  and  ranched  in  support  of  a  number  of  
diversified  products  including  macadamia  nuts,  coffee,  
and  pineapples.
38
 Hawai`i  Island  is  particularly  famous  for  
its  Kona  coffee  and  beef  from  the  vast  Parker  Ranch.      
Tourism  is  another  important  industry  for  the  Hawaiian  
Islands.  In  2012,  8  million  tourists  spent  approximately  
$14.4  billion  while  visiting  the  islands.
39
   Hawai`i  Island  
specifically  hosted  1.6  million  tourists  who  spent  $1.7  
Rank Employer
Employees
1
State  of  Hawai'i
8063
2
County  of  Hawai'i
2663
3
United  States  Government
1421
4
Hilton  Waikoloa  Village
881
5
Wal-­?Mart
770
6
KTA  Super  Stores
700
7
The  Fairmont  Orchid,  Hawai'i
618
8
Four  Seasons  Resort  Hualalai
550
9
Mauna  Kea  Beach  Hotel
550
10
Mauna  Lani  Resort  (Operations)  Inc.
529
Rank Employer
Employees
1
State  of  Hawai'i
7608
2
County  of  Hawai'i
2291
3
United  States  Government
1221
4
Hilton  Waikoloa  Village
1100
5
KTA  Super  Stores
785
6
The  Fairmont  Orchid,  Hawai'i
600
7
Mauna  Lani  Bay  Hotel
580
8
Four  Seasons  Resort  Hualalai
557
9
Mauna  Kea  Beach  Hotel
556
10
Hapuna  Beach  Prince  Hotel
542
2010
Principal  Employers,  County  of  Hawai'i
2004
Source: Haw ai'i County Annual Financial Report 2011
Figure  3-­?2  
background image
 
21|  
P a g e
 
 
billion.
40
 Tourism,  in  particular,  shapes  the  transportation  needs  of  the  county  residents  and  visitors.  
Some  of  the  biggest  employers  on  the  island  are  the  large  resorts  on  the  Kohala  coast.  Employees  of  
those  resorts  generally  live  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  island
41
 and  efficient  and  cost-­?effective  travel  
options  are  very  important  to  them.  Therefore,  the  Mass  Transit  Agency  has  designed  the  island?s  public  
transit  system,  in  part,  for  these  commuters.
42
   
SOCIO-­?ECONOMICS  AND  DEMOGRAPHY
43
 
In  2010  Census,  the  population  of  Hawai`i  Island  was  185,079,  almost  tripling  the  population  of  the  
island  since  1970.  A  plurality  (31%)  of  the  population  identify  as  ?White.?  The  next  largest  demographic  
group  (24%)  is  ?Other?  which  consists  of  non-­?specified  races  and  those  that  identify  with  multiple  races.  
Those  that  identify  as  ?Asian?  make  up  23%  of  the  population,  while  Native  Hawaiians  and  Hispanics  
make  up  10%  and  12%  respectively.  Of  the  64,925  households  on  the  island,  17,417  or  26.8%  had  
children  under  the  age  of  18.  The  majority  of  the  people  living  in  the  county  (88%)  are  U.S.  Citizens  and  
57.4%  were  born  in  Hawai`i.  Residents  of  Hawai`i  County  are  less  likely  to  move  residences  as  85%  are  
living  in  the  same  house  they  were  living  in  one  year  previously  and  75%  of  those  who  moved  remained  
in  Hawai`i  County.  This  data  suggests  that  Hawai`i  Island  residents  form  ?tight-­?knit?  communities  and  
are  reluctant  to  break  up  these  communities.      
 
 
background image
 
22|  
P a g e
 
 
4:  GROUND  TRANSPORTATION  ON  
HAWAI`I  ISLAND  AND  OTHER  RURAL  
LOCALITIES  
 
 
RURAL  TRANSIT  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  
According  to  the  American  Community  Survey  (ACS),  rural  areas  are  defined  by  their  small  populations,  
low-­?population  density,  and  geographic  isolation.
44
 About  75  million  or  25%  of  the  US  population,  
including  many  residents  of  Hawai`i  County,  lives  in  rural  parts  of  the  country,  many  of  whom  are  heavily  
reliant  on  automobiles  for  transportation.
45
 Developing  and  maintaining  rural  transit  networks  to  serve  
these  populations  is  a  daunting  prospect,  but  can  reap  rewards  through  the  improvements  to  quality  of  
life,  the  environment,  and  cost  of  living.  According  to  the  AARP,  public  transit  is  key  to  helping  older  
individuals  remain  independent  and  active  and  important  in  providing  access  to  health  care,  social  
services  and  employment.
46
 
CHARACTERISTICS  OF  RURAL  POPULATIONS  
The  US  Census  and  ACS  data  is  helpful  in  understanding  the  characteristics  of  rural  population  that  
distinguish  them  from  urban  and  suburban  populations  and  require  special  consideration  when  
providing  services  like  transportation.  Generally,  U.S.  rural  populations:
47
 
?  Have  a  higher  median  income  than  urban  populations  as  urban  populations  have  more  
individuals  living  under  the  poverty  line.  (This  income  disparity  is  reversed  in  Hawai`i,  as  the  
urban  populations,  like  Honolulu  have  a  higher  median  income  than  rural  Hawai`i.);  
?  Have  a  higher  median  age  than  urban  populations;  
?  Are  less  likely  to  move  and  when  they  do  move  they  are  less  likely  to  move  long  distances;  
?  Are  more  likely  to  own  a  car  and  to  use  that  car  for  commuting;  
?  Are  more  likely  to  have  a  longer  commute  than  urban  populations.  
These  characteristics  suggest  that  rural  transit  systems  must  be  designed  to  serve  older  residents  and  
residents  who  are  used  to  having  the  flexibility  of  using  their  own  vehicles  and  commute  slightly  longer  
distances.    
In  terms  of  transit  itself,  rural  residents  are  less  likely  to  have  access  to  public  transit  amenities.  
According  to  the  2011  Transit  and  Community  Livability  Report  produced  by  Ripplinger,  Ndembe,  and  
Hough  at  North  Dakota  State  University,  only  13-­?22%  of  people  living  in  rural  areas  have  access  to  public  
transit,  compared  to  57%  of  the  national  population.  They  are  also  more  likely  to  have  longer  commutes  
to  reach  public  transit,  averaging  more  than  8  minutes  to  the  6-­?minute  national  average.
48
   
background image
 
23|  
P a g e
 
 
RURAL  TRANSIT  PROVIDERS  
According  to  the  Rural  National  Transit  Database,  in  2011  there  were  1,392  Rural  Transit  Providers  
serving  2,410  counties  across  the  United  States.
49
 These  providers  offered  a  variety  of  types  of  service,  
including  fixed-­?route,  demand-­?response,  ferries,  commuter  buses,  vanpools  and  various  combinations  of  
those  modes  of  transportation,  demonstrating  that  rural  transit  is  not  a  ?one  size  fits  all?  situation.    
On  average,  fleet  sizes  have  been  increasing  over  the  last  few  years,  up  from  14.3  vehicles  per  agency  in  
2007  to  16.6  vehicles  per  agency  in  2011.
50
   Rural  transit  relies  on  a  number  of  types  of  vehicles,  with  
the  most  popular  being  the  Cutaway,  a  small  adaptable  bus  or  van.  This  is  likely  because  Cutaways  are  
easy  to  customize  and  are  more  practical  for  serving  smaller  rural  populations,  as  on  average  they  can  
seat  14.9  people.
51
 
Rural  transit  systems  experienced  growing  ridership,  with  an  increase  from  120.9  million  rides  in  2010  to  
122.6  million  rides  in  2011  or  about  1%.
52
 Reviewing  the  data  more  closely,  however,  we  see  that  there  
is  not  an  even  gain  across  all  rural  transit  networks.  Only  61%  of  transit  providers,  including  the  Mass  
Transit  Authority  of  Hawai`i  County,  saw  an  increase  in  ridership,  with  36%  seeing  an  increase  of  20%  or  
more.  On  the  other  hand,  28%  saw  a  decrease  of  at  least  5%  and  12%  saw  a  decrease  of  at  least  20%.
53
       
There  are  federal  tax  subsidies  that  can  be  realized  by  the  employer  or  employee,  or  both,  by  using  
public  transit  for  commuting  under  the  Commuter  Tax  Benefits  program.  The  current  limit  is  
$130/month  per  employee,  but  it  recently  dropped  to  this  level  from  $245/month  after  Congress  failed  
to  renew  the  tax  credit  before  January  1,  so  there  is  a  possibility  that  the  limit  will  be  increased  again.
54
 
These  are  tax  savings  that  are  realized  through  accounting  procedures,  and  details  on  the  process  can  be  
found  at  the  IRS  website.
55
 If  employers  were  not  interested  in  working  through  the  process  themselves,  
they  could  use  outside  help  in  the  form  of  a  third-­?party  agency,  such  as  WageWorks,  or  an  accounting  
firm.
56
 While  it  likely  would  not  result  in  hugely  significant  savings,  increasing  participation  in  the  
program  would  reduce  the  cost  of  using  public  transit  for  the  people  of  Hawai`i  Island  without  reducing  
revenues  realized  by  Hele-­?On.  
CHALLENGES  FOR  RURAL  TRANSIT  SERVICE  PROVIDERS  
Rural  Transit  Service  Providers  face  a  number  of  challenges  in  delivering  high  quality,  convenient  and  
cost-­?effective  transit  options  for  their  clientele.  Generally  they  are  being  asked  to  serve  a  large  area  with  
a  dispersed  population  with  a  limited  budget..  Service  providers  must  optimize  their  systems  to  cover  
long  distances  and  occasionally  difficult  terrain.
57
 They  must  rely  on  a  variety  of  fleet  vehicles,  causing  
the  need  for  more  administrative  capacity,  operational  and  maintenance  knowledge,  and  general  
coordination.    
Providers  have  three  models  for  transporting  populations.  They  can  offer  fixed  route  transportation  that  
serves  a  pre-­?set  route  on  a  particular  schedule.  They  can  also  provide  demand  response  service  that  
employs  a  fleet  of  vehicles  to  pick  users  up  at  a  requested  time  and  location.  The  last  option  is  a  hybrid  
of  the  other  two  systems.  This  means  that  a  vehicle  will  follow  a  prescribed  route  only  when  users  
request  it.  Rural  service  providers  are  serving  a  relatively  isolated  population  with  intermittent  demand.  
background image
 
24|  
P a g e
 
 
It  can  be  time-­?consuming  and  inconvenient  for  the  users  to  use  a  fixed  route  system.  A  demand  
response  system  is  flexible  and  adaptable,  but  can  be  extremely  expensive  to  maintain.    
HAWAI`I  COUNTY  GROUND  TRANSPORTATION  
TRANSPORTATION  INFRASTRUCTURE  
Hawai`i  Island  is  the  size  of  the  State  of  Connecticut  and  consists  of  five  volcanoes,  three  of  which  are  
still  somewhat  active.
58
 Its  size,  unique  geography,  and  propensity  for  earthquakes,  volcanic  eruptions  
and  tsunamis  make  it  a  challenge  for  developing  a  transportation  infrastructure.  The  island  had  a  
number  of  railroads  from  the  1800s  through  1940s  to  transport  sugar  and  other  agricultural  goods  for  
export,  passengers  from  Hilo  up  to  Waimea,  and  even  tourists  to  the  Hamakua  Coast.  These  railroads  
were  extremely  expensive  to  build  and  maintain  and  were  sold  off  by  the  Hawai`i  Consolidated  Railroad  
after  the  destructive  tsunami  of  1946.  The  rights-­?of-­?way,  tracks  and  remaining  bridges,  trestles  and  
tunnels  were  eventually  bought  by  the  Territory  of  Hawai`i  and  became  the  routes  for  the  current  
highway  system.
59
   
 Currently  Hawai`i  Island  is  served  by  a  
few  major  two-­?lane  highways  that  
transport  residents  from  one  side  of  the  
island  to  the  other.  Hawai`i  Belt  Road  
(Highway  19)  is  a  major  route  from  Hilo  to  
Kailua-­?Kona  and  it  takes  a  driver  
approximately  2  hours,  or  95  miles.
60
 This  
is  the  road  preferred  by  the  Mass  Transit  
Agency  because  it  circumnavigates  the  
volcano  peaks  and  the  population  lives  
along  this  road  making  pick-­?ups  ideal.
61
 
The  other  option  for  this  trip  is  the  newly  
opened  Daniel  K.  Inouye  Highway,  which  
completed  the  realignment  and  widening  
of  this  route,  passing  between  Mauna  Kea  
and  Mauna  Loa  and  connecting  the  
existing  Saddle  Road  (Highway  200)  to  
Mamalahoa  Highway.
62
 This  route  is  
approximately  78  miles  long  and  will  take  
drivers  1  hour  and  40  minutes  to  traverse.
63
   
Hawai`i  Belt  Road  also  continues  south  from  Kailua-­?Kona  as  Highway  11.    This  road  travels  down  the  
Kona  coast  to  the  most  southern  point  on  the  island  in  Ka`u,  then  northeast  past  the  Kilauea  Crater,  
Puna  and  arrives  in  Hilo  125  miles  and  almost  3  hours  later.
64
 This  route  is  likely  popular  with  tourists  
visiting  Hawai`i  Volcanoes  National  Park.  Puna  is  served  by  Highways  130,  132,  and  137,  though  parts  of  
Highway  130  have  been  buried  under  the  current  eruption  from  the  Pu`u  `  O`o  vent.
65
   
HAWAI`I  ISLAND  
Figure  4-­?1:  Road  Map  of  Hawai'i  Island  
background image
 
25|  
P a g e
 
 
CHARACTERISTICS  OF  HAWAI`I  COUNTY  COMMUTERS  
Residents  of  Hawai`i  Island  face  many  of  the  same  transit  challenges  as  other  rural  populations,  though  
their  characteristics  are  slightly  different  than  those  of  the  average  rural  commuter  on  the  mainland.  
The  following  graphs  detail  the  trends  and  characteristics  of  Hawai`i  commuters  and  were  created  from  
data  gathered  during  the  2012  American  Community  Survey.  
COMMUTER  TYPES  
Hawai`i  Island  residents  primarily  choose  to  commute  to  work  by  personal  automobile  (cars,  trucks  and  
vans).  While  most  commute  alone,  about  15%  participate  in  carpooling  to  get  work.  Less  than  2%  of  the  
population  takes  public  transit  to  get  to  work.  Compared  to  the  United  States  as  a  whole,  carpooling  is  
more  frequent  on  Hawai`i  Island.  While  the  majority  of  residents  of  Hawai`i  County  commute  using  an  
individual  personal  vehicle,  14.5%  carpool  to  work,  50%  above  the  national  average  for  carpooling  in  
rural  areas.  Fewer  residents  of  Hawai`i  County  commute  using  public  transit  than  other  transit  options,  
but  the  level  is  almost  three  times  the  national  average  for  other  rural  areas.  In  general  comparing  
Hawai`i  County  to  other  rural  populations,  fewer  residents  of  the  county  use  personal  vehicles  to  get  to  
work,  while  more  carpool  and  take  public  transit.    
Table  4-­?1:  Modes  of  Commuting  
   
United  
States  
Rural  
Hawai'i  County  
Maui  County  
Mode  Used  
 
 
 
 
Commuting  
alone    
76.4%  
81.4%  
72.7%  
68.4%  
Carpooling  
9.8%  
9.9%  
14.5%  
14,9%  
Public  Transit  
5.0%  
0.6%  
1.7%  
2.3%  
Other  
8.8%  
8.1%  
11.1%  
14.9%  
 
 
Data from American Community Survey 
 
 
 
 
background image
 
26|  
P a g e
 
 
INCOME  
Compared  to  the  rest  of  the  United  States  and  other  rural  populations,  residents  of  Hawai`i  County  
generally  earn  less  income.  Figure  4-­?2  below  shows  that  those  who  commuted  alone  using  their  own  
personal  vehicle  on  the  whole  earned  more  than  those  who  carpooled  or  used  public  transit.  
Interestingly,  in  Hawai`i  County  public  transit  commuters  had  a  much  lower  median  earnings  level.  They  
only  earned  $16k,  while  those  that  commuted  alone  or  via  carpool  earned  almost  twice  that  amount.  
This  suggests  that  lower  income  commuters,  who  do  not  have  access  to  or  cannot  afford  a  personal  
vehicle,  are  the  predominant  user  of  the  public  transit  system  on  Hawai`i  Island.    
Figure  4-­?2  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total  
Commulng  
Alone  
Carpooling  
Public  
Transit  
United  States  
$32,417    
$35,132    
$26,013    
$30,950    
Rural  
$31,653    
$32,287    
$27,690    
$31,920    
Hawai'i  County  
$29,492    
$30,393    
$27,714    
$16,343    
 $-­?        
 $5,000    
 $10,000    
 $15,000    
 $20,000    
 $25,000    
 $30,000    
 $35,000    
 $40,000    
E
ar
n
i
n
g
s
 
P
e
r
 
C
ap
i
ta  
Hawai`i  County  Median  Earning  
background image
 
27|  
P a g e
 
 
OCCUPATIONS  
The  workforce  of  Hawai`i  Island  is  relatively  evenly  dispersed  between  management-­?level,  service  and  
sales/office  jobs.  Sorting  these  occupations  by  commute  type  shows  that  those  who  commute  alone  and  
carpool  have  a  similar  breakdown  to  the  island  as  a  whole.  Public  transit  commuters,  however,  are  
predominantly  service,  construction  and  maintenance  workers,  suggesting  that  a  majority  of  bus  users  
likely  fall  in  the  lower-­?income  brackets.  
Figure  4-­?3    
 
 
 
0%  
10%  
20%  
30%  
40%  
50%  
60%  
70%  
80%  
90%  
100%  
Total  
Commulng  
Alone  
Carpooling  
Public  Transit  
Hawai`i  County  Occupagons    
Military  
Produclon  and  Transportalon  
Construclon  and  Maintenance  
Sales  and  O?ce  
Service  
Management  
background image
 
28|  
P a g e
 
 
INDUSTRY  
Overall  Hawai`i  County  residents  tend  to  work  in  three  key  industries:  Retail  Trade,  Social  Services  
(Education,  Healthcare,  etc.)  and  Hospitality.  Public  transit  commuters,  however,  are  much  more  likely  
to  work  in  the  Agriculture  and  Hospitality  industries.  Traditionally  these  are  lower-­?wage  industries  and  
data  is  again  consistent  with  the  theory  that  public  transit  users  are  low-­?income  and  may  use  the  system  
because  it  offers  a  more  a  cost-­?effective  commuting  option  compared  to  the  cost  of  vehicle  ownership  
along  with  high  gas  prices.  
Figure  4-­?4  
 
 
0%  
10%  
20%  
30%  
40%  
50%  
60%  
70%  
80%  
90%  
100%  
Total  
Commulng  
Alone  
Carpooling   Public  Transit  
Hawai`i  County  Industries  
Military  
Public  Administralon  
Other  
Recrealon/  Food/  
Accomodalon  
Educalon/  Healthcare/  
Social  
Management  
Real  estate/  Finance/  
Insurance  
Transportalon/  Ulliles  
Retail  trade  
Wholesale  trade  
Manufacturing  
Construclon  
Agriculture  
background image
 
29|  
P a g e
 
 
VEHICLE  AVAILABILITY  
Unlike  the  rest  of  the  United  States,  virtually  all  of  the  residents  of  Hawai`i  County  have  access  to  a  car.  
Similar  to  other  rural  populations,  fewer  than  2%  of  residents  of  the  county  have  no  vehicle  access,  
illustrating  their  extreme  reliance  on  personal  vehicles  for  transportation.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  
the  data  collected  by  the  ACS  indicates  that  most  if  not  all  of  the  public  transit  commuters  also  own  a  
vehicle.  This  is  very  different  from  the  United  States  on  a  whole;  the  countrywide  data  shows  that  37%  
of  public  transit  commuters  have  no  vehicle  available  for  their  use.  This  suggests  that  public  transit  
commuters  on  Hawai`i  choose  to  travel  this  way  for  reasons  other  than  simple  vehicle  availability.      
Figure  4-­?5    
 
 
 
Total  
Commulng  
Alone  
Carpooling  
Public  Transit  
   3  or  more  vehicles  available  
35.9%  
37.4%  
36.8%  
33.7%  
   2  vehicles  available  
40.8%  
42.1%  
36.6%  
44.2%  
   1  vehicle  available  
21.8%  
19.4%  
25.8%  
22.1%  
   No  vehicle  available  
1.5%  
1.2%  
0.7%  
0.0%  
0%  
10%  
20%  
30%  
40%  
50%  
60%  
70%  
80%  
90%  
100%  
County  of  Hawai'i  Vehicle  Availability  
background image
 
30|  
P a g e
 
 
COMMUTING  TIME  
The  chart  below  shows  average  commute  lengths  for  the  different  types  of  commuters  of  Hawai`i  Island.  
Among  all  the  residents  of  the  island,  the  average  time  it  takes  to  commute  to  work  is  between  25  and  
30  minutes.  This  is  consistent  with  the  data  from  the  United  States  and  the  rural  areas  of  the  United  
States.  Public  transit  commutes  in  the  United  States  tend  to  be  longer  than  solo  and  carpool  commutes  
with  the  average  of  48  minutes.  Rural  areas  have  slightly  longer  public  transit  commutes  (50  minutes),  
while  Hawai`i  Island  is  substantially  longer  at  68  minutes.  In  fact,  more  than  50%  of  public  transit  
commuters  on  the  island  have  a  commute  of  60  minutes  or  longer  and  almost  75%  have  a  commute  of  
45  minutes  or  longer.    
Figure  4-­?6  
 
 
 
 -­?        
 10.00    
 20.00    
 30.00    
 40.00    
 50.00    
 60.00    
 70.00    
 80.00    
0%  
10%  
20%  
30%  
40%  
50%  
60%  
70%  
80%  
90%  
100%  
Total  
Commulng  
Alone  
Carpooling   Public  Transit  
Hawai'i  County  Commute  Length  
   60  or  more  minutes  
   45  to  59  minutes  
   30  to  44  minutes  
   20  to  29  minutes  
   10  to  19  minutes  
   Less  than  10  minutes  
   Mean  travel  lme  to  work  
(minutes)  
background image
 
31|  
P a g e
 
 
HAWAI`I  COUNTY  MASS  TRANSIT  AGENCY  
The  Hawai`i  County  Mass  Transit  Agency  began  collecting  ridership  data  again  in  2005  and  currently  
delivers  public  transportation  with  its  Hele-­?On  bus  service  and  shared  taxi  program.
66
 The  Hele-­?On  bus  
offers  16  route  options  that  range  from  intra-­?city  (i.e.  Kona  and  Hilo)  to  inter-­?city  (i.e.  Hilo  to  Waimea)  to  
trans-­?island  (i.e.  Hilo  to  Kohala  resorts).  The  fare  for  riding  the  bus  has  recently  increased  (as  of  July  1,  
2013)  from  $1.00  to  $2.00  per  ride  and  from  free  to  $1.00  for  students,  disabled  individuals  and  
seniors.
67
 The  shared  taxi  program  offers  door-­?to-­?door  taxi  service  within  Hilo  and  Kona  for  between  
$2.00-­?3.00  for  trips  fewer  than  four  miles  and  between  $6.00-­?9.00  for  trips  fewer  than  nine  miles.  The  
agency  is  funded  by  the  local  and  federal  governments,  but  receives  no  state  funding  for  their  
operations.
68
   
As  of  2011  the  agency  had  a  staff  of  seven  full-­?time  equivalent  employees.
69
 According  to  the  Mass  
Transit  Administrator,  the  agency  has  hired  a  new  transit  assistant,  account  clerk,  and  mechanic  and  will  
be  adding  an  additional  mechanic  in  the  first  quarter  of  2014  to  meet  the  increasing  demand  for  service,  
particularly  in  fast-­?growing  areas  like  Puna.
70
   
Figure  4-­?7  
 
Ridership  has  been  gradually  increasing  since  the  service  began.  According  the  most  recent  available  
Comprehensive  Fiscal  Report  produced  by  Hawai`i  County  for  the  Fiscal  Year  ending  on  June  30,  2011,  
the  ridership  surpassed  1  million  passengers  in  2010  and  reached  approximately  1.15  million  in  2011.
71
 
As  of  2011,  the  agency  owned  a  fleet  of  56  vehicles  to  serve  these  riders.    These  vehicles  ranged  in  size  
 -­?        
 0.2    
 0.4    
 0.6    
 0.8    
 1.0    
 1.2    
 1.4    
2006  
2007  
2008  
2009  
2010  
2011  
2012  
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
 
o
f
 
P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
s
 
Year  
Hawai`i  County  Mass  Transit  Agency  Ridership  
background image
 
32|  
P a g e
 
 
from  a  43-­?foot  double-­?decker  bus  with  a  seating  capacity  of  89  people  to  40-­?foot  buses  with  seating  
capacities  of  45-­?49  people  to  minibuses  with  a  capacity  of  20-­?32  people  to  minivans  with  a  capacity  of  
10  people.
72
 
ANALYSIS  OF  THE  MASS  TRANSIT  AGENCY  
In  order  to  provide  the  most  useful  suggestions  to  help  to  Mass  Transit  Agency  achieve  its  goals  of  
providing  transportation  to  those  who  desire  it,  we  completed  a  SWOT  analysis  to  identify  the  strengths,  
weaknesses,  opportunities,  and  threats  to  the  Island?s  transit  agency.  This  framework  acted  as  a  guide  
for  the  analysis  phase  of  this  project  and  helped  us  focus  our  recommendations  on  those  that  are  
feasible  and  implementable.    
Figure  4-­?8:  Hawai`i  County  Mass  Transit  Agency  SWOT  Analysis  
 
Helpful  
Harmful  
In
te
r
n
a
l
 
STRENGTHS  
WEAKNESSES  
?  Many  routes  are  available  and  cross  the  island.  
?  Trans-­?island  commuter  routes  are  popular  and  
used  extensively.  
?  New  staff  joining  the  agency  in  Fall  2013,  more  
capacity.  
?  New  administrator,  who  is  interested  in  
optimizing  the  current  system  and  increasing  
services  available.  
?  County  officials  are  engaged  in  the  project  and  
support  innovative  solutions.  
?  County  government  is  committed  to  improving  
quality  of  life  for  residents  of  the  island.  
?  The  Transit  Agency  does  not  employ  technology  to  
track  ridership  or  optimize  its  current  route  and  
schedule  planning.  
?  Communications  and  knowledge  sharing  about  
transit  routes  is  limited.  
?  There  is  a  funding  gap  between  the  cost  of  service  
and  the  revenue  received  from  providing  service.  
E
x
te
r
n
a
l
 
OPPORTUNITIES  
THREATS  
?  Many  new  cost-­?effective  technologies  are  
available  to  help  optimize  Hawai`i  Island?s  current  
system.  
?  New  businesses  are  in  development  on  the  
mainland  and  the  other  Hawaiian  Islands  that  
could  partner  with  the  Mass  Transit  Agency  to  
provide  other  types  of  services.  
?  Many  groups  on  the  island  can  share  
knowledge  and  ideas  to  help  the  Mass  Transit  
Agency  achieve  its  goals.  
?  There  are  a  number  of  businesses  and  students  
at  the  UH-­?Hilo  to  participate  in  pilot  programs.    
   
?  Mass  transit  must  serve  very  large  county  with  a  
dispersed  population.  
?  Island  geography  makes  creating  new  
infrastructure  infeasible  or  cost-­?prohibitive.    
?  Residents  are  reliant  on  their  cars  and  it  may  be  
hard  to  convince  them  to  use  public  transit  instead.    
?  Federal  funding  sources  are  beholden  to  political  
forces  in  Washington,  DC.  
   
 
background image
 
33|  
P a g e
 
 
MAPPING  TRANSIT  ON  HAWAI`I  ISLAND    
Because  transit  systems  are  tied  so  profoundly  to  the  geography,  our  team  analyzed  existing  available  
GIS,  Census,  County  of  Hawai`i  and  other  data  to  understand  the  unique  transit  patterns  and  other  
interactions  between  the  people  and  places  on  the  island.  We  created  maps  of  bus  routes,  work  hubs,  
recreation  hubs  and  population  density  to  illustrate  these  unique  patterns.  
ANALYSIS  OF  MAPS  
POPULATION  DENSITY  
The  population  density  map  in  Figure  4-­?9  shows  that  population  is  clustered  around  the  perimeter  of  the  
island  at  major  towns  including  Hilo,  Keaau,  Mt.  View,  Pahoa,  Ocean  View,  Kealakekua,  Keauhou,  Kailua-­?
Kona,  Waikoloa,  Waimea  and  Hawi.    
 
Figure  4-­?9  
 
 
 
background image
 
34|  
P a g e
 
 
BUS  ROUTES    
Figure  4-­?10  displays  the  current  bus  routes  on  Hawai`i  Island.  The  map  in  Figure  4-­?11  compares  the  bus  
route  coverage  with  the  population  density  on  the  island.  Population  density  can  indicate  the  transit  
need  of  the  corresponding  areas.  The  higher  the  density,  the  more  transportation  services  are  needed.  
Bus  route  coverage  roughly  represents  transportation  accessibility.  The  more  bus  routes  covered  in  an  
area,  the  better  the  possibility  that  the  mass  transit  system  fulfills  the  transit  requirements  of  residents.  
However,  different  bus  routes  could  have  different  bus  frequencies,  and  different  buses  could  have  
different  capacities.  These  factors  make  a  comprehensive  analysis  of  transportation  accessibility  nearly  
impossible  based  on  the  existing  data.  Nevertheless,  the  following  table  regarding  bus  frequency  can  
hopefully  provide  supporting  information  to  the  map.  
Table  4-­?2:  Bus  Frequency  for  Each  Route  
73
 
Bus  Routes  
Buses  Per  Day  
Downtown/Ainako/Kaumana  
11  
Downtown  Hilo/Aupuni  
Center/Prince  Kuhio  Plaza  
49  
Mooheau/Keaukaha  
17  
Downtown/Waiakea-­?Uka  
10  
Hilo/South  Kohala  Resorts  
12  
Honokaa/Hilo  
26  
Ka??/Volcano/Hilo  
10  
Kona/Hilo  
12  
Intra-­?Kona  
20  
North  Kohala/South  Kohala  
2  
North  Kohala/Waimea/Kailua-­?Kona  
2  
Pahala/Kona/South  Kohala  
6  
Pohoiki/Pahoa/Hilo  
22  
Kamuela  Lakeland/Kamuela  View  Est  
22  
Waimea/Hilo  
21  
Waikoloa  Village  
16  
 
We  overlaid  the  bus  route  layer  and  the  population  density  layer  to  roughly  indicate  whether  the  
regions  that  require  more  transit  frequency  -­?  actually  have  enough  transportation  accessibility.  If  an  
area  has  a  high  population  density  and  requires  more  transit  frequency  but  has  limited  bus  route  
coverage,  that  area  would  be  worth  further  studying  to  determine  if  the  current  mass  transit  system  
providing  sufficient  service  to  the  area.  Analysis  of  bus  route  coverage  relative  to  work  hubs  and  
recreational  hubs  are  carried  out  in  the  following  paragraphs  with  the  same  objective.  
background image
 
35|  
P a g e
 
 
Hele-­?On  Double  Decker  Bus  
(source:  hawaiicountymayor.com)
 
 
Table  4-­?3  quantifies  the  number  of  routes  serving  each  of  the  most  densely  populated  areas.  Hilo  and  
Kailua-­?Kona  are  two  of  the  most-­?served  areas  with  four  routes  within  Hilo,  six  routes  to  or  from  Hilo  and  
four  routes  to  or  from  Kailua-­?Kona.  However,  areas  around  Mountain  View  and  Pahoa  are  only  covered  
by  one  bus  route.  
 
 
Table  4-­?3:  Bus  Route  Coverage  Compared  to  Population  Density  
Area  
Hilo  
Keaau  
Mt.  View  
Pahoa  
Ocean  View  
Bus  route  coverage  
>  8  
3  
1  
1  
2  
Area  
Kealakekua   Keauhou   Kailua-­?Kona   Waikoloa  
Hawi  
Bus  route  coverage  
3  
4  
4  
2  
2  
 
 
 
background image
 
36|  
P a g e
 
 
Figure  4-­?10  
 
background image
 
37|  
P a g e
 
 
 
 
Figure  4-­?11  
background image
 
38|  
P a g e
 
 
The  map  in  Figure  4-­?12  compares  the  bus  routes  with  recreation  site  density.  Hot  spots  for  recreation  
are  around  Hilo,  Pahala,  Honaunau,  Kailua-­?Kona,  Kawaihae,  Mahukona,  Honokaa  and  Honomu.  Their  
bus  route  coverage  is  shown  accordingly  below.  It  is  worth  noting  that  Pahala  is  only  covered  by  one  bus  
route.  Mauna  Kea  State  Park,  a  very  popular  attraction,
74
 is  completely  out  of  bus  coverage  because  it  is  
on  Saddle  Road,  which  lacks  bus  routes.    
Table  4-­?4:  Bus  Route  Coverage  Compared  to  Recreation  Areas  
Recreation  Area  
Hilo  
Pahala  
Honaunau  
Kailua-­?Kona  
Bus  route  coverage  
>  8  
1  
3  
4  
Recreation  Area  
Kawaihae  
Mahukona  
Honakaa  
Honomu  
Bus  route  coverage  
3  
2  
4  
4  
It  is  important  to  note  that  the  map  of  recreational  hubs  simply  shows  location  of  recreational  sites.  An  
analysis  of  the  density  of  visitation  would  be  more  informative,  but  we  are  not  able  to  get  visitation  data  
from  recreation  sites  other  than  federal-­?level  and  state-­?level  sites.  The  visitation  data  we  have  is  
presented  below.  All  of  the  federal  site  data  is  actual  2013  data  from  the  U.S.  National  Park  Service.
 75
 
The  state  park  data  is  from  the  2007  Hawai`i  State  Parks  Survey.
 76
 The  Survey  estimates  visitation  data  
with  its  own  methodology.  Obviously  it  is  not  ideal  to  use  estimated  data  and  data  from  separate  years,  
but  this  should  at  least  provide  some  context  for  the  map  of  recreational  hubs  since  the  federal-­?level  
and  state-­?level  recreation  sites  are  labeled  on  the  map.  
Table  4-­?5:  Annual  Visitation  of  Federal  and  State  Recreation  Sites  on  Hawai`i  Island  
Federal  and  State  Recreation  Sites  
Annual  Visitations  
Hawai`i  Volcanoes  National  Park  
1,583,209 
Hapuna  Beach  State  Recreation  Area  
514,300 
Pu?uhonua  o  H?naunau  National  Historical  Park  
363,282 
Kekaha  Kai  State  Park  
235,700 
Old  Kona  Airport  State  Recreation  Area  
217,000 
Wailuku  River  State  Park  
211,200 
?Akaka  Falls  State  Park  
189,400 
Kaloko-­?Honokohau  National  Historical  Park  
158,124 
Kealakekua  Bay  State  Historical  Park  
155,900 
Wailoa  River  State  Park  
155,400 
Puukohola  Heiau  National  Historic  Site  
125,645 
Kiholo  State  Park  Reserve  
76,300 
Mauna  Kea  State  Recreation  Park  
64,600 
Lava  Tree  State  Monument  
44,400 
Lapakahi  State  Historical  Park  
30,600 
Manuka  State  Wayside  Park  
25,900 
keolonahihi  State  Park  
22,300 
MacKenzie  State  Wayside  
11,900 
Kohala  Historical  Sites  
9,800 
Kalopa  State  Recreation  Area  
5,500 
 
background image
 
39|  
P a g e
 
 
 
Figure  4-­?12  
background image
 
40|  
P a g e
 
 
The  map  in  Figure  4-­?13  shows  bus  routes  compared  to  density  of  businesses  within  a  given  area.  A  large  
number  of  businesses  are  centered  in  and  around  Hilo,  which  is  covered  by  more  than  eight  bus  routes  
and  Kailua-­?Kona,  which  is  covered  by  four  bus  routes.  
Hawai`i  Island  has  two  primary  airports,  Hilo  International  Airport  (ITO)  and  Kona  International  Airport  
at  Keahole  (KOA).  These  two  airports  serve  as  major  hubs  for  arrival  to  and  departure  from  Hawai`i  
Island.  According  to  the  Federal  Aviation  Administration  (FAA),  the  enplanements  (passenger  boardings)  
of  ITO  and  KOA  in  2012  were  641,904  and  1,367,091  respectively.
77
 Given  the  amount  of  passengers,  it  is  
necessary  to  study  the  public  transit  connectivity  of  the  airports.    
Currently,  ITO  is  not  covered  by  the  Hawai`i  County  Mass  Transit  Agency  Hele-­?On  bus  service.  KOA  is  
covered  by  two  bus  routes,  which  are  the  Intra  Kona  route  and  the  Pahala/Kona/South  Kohala  route,  
but  the  number  of  buses  involved  is  limited.  These  two  routes  each  have  only  one  bus  going  to  KOA  at  
8:20  a.m.  and  two  buses  leaving  from  KOA  at  8:30  a.m.  and  4:50  p.m.  every  Monday  to  Saturday.
78
 Apart  
from  the  very  limited  bus  service,  the  airports  are  also  accessible  by  car,  taxi  and  shuttle.
79  80
 The  
alternative  transportation  approaches,  however,  have  smaller  capacity  and  are  often  more  expensive.  
As  a  result,  we  think  increasing  Hele-­?On  bus  connectivity  to  the  two  primary  airports  should  be  
considered  in  future  bus  route  planning.  
As  a  result  of  the  analysis,  we  can  see  that  the  current  mass  transit  system  serves  key  areas  of  the  island,  
especially  business  hubs,  in  terms  of  number  of  routes,  but  we  cannot  tell  if  those  routes  run  frequently  
enough  to  meet  demand.  Overall,  most  recreation  hubs  and  population  clusters  are  served  by  multiple  
bus  routes,  except  that  Mauna  Kea  State  Park  is  not  accessible  by  bus,  and  Mountain  View,  Pahoa  and  
Pahala  are  all  only  covered  by  one  bus  route.  The  bus  route  connectivity  to  the  two  major  airports  is  
limited  as  well.  These  findings  are  one  important  factor  for  evaluating  overall  network  efficiency.  Other  
considerations  should  include  redundancy  in  routes,  scheduling,  and  demand  for  inter-­?town  and  intra-­?
town  service.  We  examine  technologies  available  for  gathering  data  on  these  considerations  in  the  
OPTIMIZING  PUBLIC  TRANSIT  WITH  TECHNOLOGY  SOLUTIONS  section  starting  on  page  47.  
 
Figure  3-­?12  
background image
 
41|  
P a g e
 
 
 
 
Figure  4-­?13  
background image
 
42|  
P a g e
 
 
LIMITATIONS  OF  ANALYSIS  
Data  acquisition  is  the  major  issue  in  creating  accurate  and  useful  maps  and  producing  relevant  analysis.  
Different  recreation  sites  can  generate  vastly  different  annual  numbers  of  visitors.  For  instance,  
Volcanoes  National  Park  gets  a  lot  more  visitors  than  the  much  smaller  Onekahakaha  Beach  Park  in  Hilo.  
We  were  able  to  get  the  annual  number  of  visitors  of  national  parks  and  state  parks,  but  this  data  was  
lacking  for  most  of  smaller  recreation  sites  (the  annual  visitor  data  does  not  exist  as  visitors  are  not  
tracked  in  many  of  these  sites).    National  Parks  and  State  Parks  are  labeled  separately  to  better  show  
those  recreation  sites  on  the  Island  for  which  we  have  visitation  data.    
Likewise,  one  business  may  employ  1,000  people,  while  another  may  employ  only  10.  The  data  of  the  
number  of  employees  for  all  businesses  of  the  island  was  difficult  to  obtain.  As  a  result,  we  developed  
the  map  of  work  hubs  just  based  on  their  locations.  In  fact,  getting  locations  of  all  the  businesses  was  in  
itself  also  quite  difficult,  given  the  overall  number  of  businesses  is  more  than  20,000  with  no  single  
public  database  storing  all  of  their  locations.  Instead,  we  chose  to  make  estimations  of  work  hub  
distributions  based  on  the  most  popular  businesses  (based  on  Google  Analytics),  hoping  the  pattern  of  
estimated  work  hubs  on  the  map  could  more  or  less  reflect  the  true  pattern  in  reality.    
Continuous  updates  are  important  to  increase  the  accuracy  all  of  the  maps  and  should  be  undertaken  as  
new  data  becomes  available.    
CREATING  THESE  MAPS  
Data  sources  and  contents,  data  processing  approaches  and  map-­?making  techniques  are  explained  in  
the  Appendix  D.  
 
background image
 
43|  
P a g e
 
 
5:  MAUI  COUNTY  -­?  A  PUBLIC  
TRANSIT  CASE  STUDY  
 
MAUI  COUNTY  PUBLIC  TRANSIT    
Maui  County  was  chosen  as  a  case  study  because  of  the  similar  rural  nature  of  Maui  and  Hawai`i  
Island,  relative  to  the  other  Hawaiian  Islands.  While  Maui  County  encompasses  four  islands,  only  
the  island  of  Maui  has  a  public  transit  system.    The  very  first  public  bus  service  on  Maui  was  
started  in  2002.
81
   Today,  the  Maui  Department  of  Transportation  (DOT)  runs  the  system  in  the  
County  government,  and  the  DOT  essentially  functions  as  the  Mass  Transit  Agency  on  Maui.  The  
Maui  DOT  also  runs  paratransit,  which  is  a  flexible  transit  service  that  involves  demand  response  
and  is  commonly  used  to  transport  ADA  passengers.    However,  paratransit  is  outside  of  the  
realm  of  Hele-­?On  and  thusly  not  a  focus  of  investigation  in  this  report.  There  are  a  total  of  13  
fixed  routes  along  with  four  routes  that  are  designated  as  commuter  service.    All  of  the  routes  
are  contracted  out  to,  and  operated  by,  Roberts  Hawaii.    The  non-­?commuter  routes  have  
standardized  schedules  that  run  throughout  the  day,  leaving  at  regular  intervals  of  0.5,  1,  or  1.5  
hours.    The  commuter  routes  cater  to  the  working  schedules  of  resort  employees,  similar  to  
some  of  the  longer  Hele-­?On  routes.    The  fares  are  similar  to  Hele-­?On  at  $2  per  ride,  $4  per  daily  
pass,  and  $45  for  a  monthly  pass  with  discounts  for  students  and  seniors.
82
   A  similar  system  
operational  structure  exists  as  well,  with  the  management  done  by  the  government,  but  the  
day-­?to-­?day  operation  of  the  routes  is  contracted  out.
83
   A  couple  of  basic  differences  between  
the  Maui  bus  system  and  Hele-­?On  are  that  Maui  has  bus  stop  signs  more  consistently,  and  the  
presentation  of  route  maps  and  schedules  are  more  readable  (see  Figures  5-­?1  and  5-­?2).
84
   
Figure  5-­?1:  Maui  Bus  Schedule  
 
From  http://www.mauicounty.gov  
background image
 
44|  
P a g e
 
 
Figure  5-­?2:  Map  of  Maui  Bus  System  
 
Most  of  Maui?s  route  analysis  and  updates  are  now  based  on  public  feedback,  which  often  
comes  through  public  hearings.    The  simplicity  of  the  non-­?commuter  route  schedules,  with  
regular  intervals,  is  cited  as  a  reason  for  not  having  pursued  GPS  technology.  
MAUI  COUNTY  SHORT  RANGE  TRANSIT  PLAN  
Maui  County  released  a  short-­?range  transit  plan  in  2005.  At  this  stage,  the  bus  system  was  still  in  
relative  infancy  with  three  routes  run  by  Roberts  Hawaii  and  only  six  fixed  routes  in  total.    As  a  
result,  much  of  this  transit  plan  focused  on  planning  and  implementing  expansions  to  their  
services.  The  report  was  prepared  by  Urbitran  Associates,  which  was  a  consulting  firm  that  
specializes  in  urban  transit  planning,  but  has  since  been  bought  out  by  AECOM.
85,86
 In  order  to  
identify  areas  of  need  for  bus  service,  a  scoring  system  was  used  with  demographic  variables  to  
create  a  ?transit  needs  index.?  The  variables  considered  were:  1)  population  density;  2)  
employment  density;  3)  median  household  income;  4)  disability  status;  5)  age.    Some  maps  were  
provided  for  each  of  these,  including  an  Employment  Density  map  (see  Figure  5-­?3).  
From  http://www.mauicounty.gov/  
background image
 
45|  
P a g e
 
 
Figure  5-­?3:  Maui  Employment  Density  Map
87
 
 
Within  each  category,  neighborhoods  were  scored  in  a  range  of  1-­?5.    Summing  up  the  scores  
then  allowed  for  a  map  to  be  created  with  differing  shades  for  ranges  of  transit  needs  scores  
(see  Figure  5-­?4).  
Figure  5-­?4:  Maui  Transit  Need  Map
88
 
 
background image
 
46|  
P a g e
 
 
Other  considerations  were  made  for  major  destinations  ranging  from  shopping  and  recreation  
to  senior  citizen  centers,  hotels,  and  medical  facilities.  A  proactive  stakeholder  engagement  
strategy  was  used  as  well,  including  interviews,  drop-­?in  sessions  with  passengers  and  drivers,  
public  workshops,  and  comment  forms.
89
 
As  for  technological  recommendations,  one  key  suggestion  was  for  ridership  data  to  be  
collected  via  some  sort  of  counter  system,  which  would  allow  for  more  effective  tracking;  this  
includes  breaking  down  data  by  route,  time  of  day,  trip,  and  passenger  type.  This  information  
would  be  valuable  for  future  route  and  system  planning  along  with  analyzing  usage  of  current  
routes.  Along  those  lines,  Urbitran  recommended  replacing  the  manual  fare  boxes  with  an  
electronic  fare  payment  system  to  improve  system  efficiency.  Other  recommendations  for  
future  additions  to  the  public  transit  system  were  Automatic  Vehicle  Location  (AVL)  and  real-­?
time  public  information  and  displays,  or  Traveler  Information  Systems  (TIS).  It  is  important  to  
note  that  these  suggestions  were  made  in  January  of  2005.  While  none  of  these  upgrades  have  
been  made,  most  of  them  are  being  investigated  by  the  County  government.  
TECHNOLOGY  CURRENTLY  EMPLOYED  BY  MAUI  
A  couple  of  technologies  that  are  currently  used  by  Maui  are  Geographic  Information  Systems  
(GIS)  and  Google  Transit.  From  speaking  to  one  of  the  GIS  specialists  in  the  Maui  government,  
the  initial  development  of  the  GIS  route  maps  required  ?a  good  amount  of  effort,?  while  making  
updates  is  relatively  easy.  One  of  the  lessons  learned  by  Maui  in  developing  GIS  maps  is  that  it  is  
particularly  helpful  to  have  people  working  on  the  GIS  aspects  who  understand  the  transit  side  
as  well  as  people  who  understand  the  GIS  side  working  on  the  transit  aspects,  for  quality?s  
sake.
90
   
Camera  systems  are  also  currently  in  use,  which  have  helped  police  investigating  incidents  such  
as  vandalism.  While  they  did  not  purchase  the  full  GPS  option  that  came  along  with  the  cameras,  
they  do  get  warnings  for  events  such  as  accidents  or  speeding.  While  current  ridership  data  
collection  is  done  manually,  there  have  been  talks  to  move  towards  a  technological  solution  for  
such  information  gathering.  Reasons  cited  for  deciding  to  look  into  this  include  efficiency  on  the  
buses,  as  well  as  allowing  for  better  management  of  the  system.  The  County  government  is  also  
looking  into  the  acquisition  of  GPS.
91
 
 
 
background image
 
47|  
P a g e
 
 
COMPARING  HAWAI`I  AND  MAUI  
Based  on  the  data,  Maui  has  a  larger  bus  system  than  Hawai`i  Island.  The  ridership  is  
approximately  double  that  of  Hawai`i,  and  it  is  growing  at  a  faster  rate  as  well  (see  the  Table  5-­?
1).  
Table  5-­?1:  Hawai'i  and  Maui  Ridership  (in  millions)  
Year
 
Hawai`i  Ridership
92
 
 
Maui  Ridership
93
 
2012
 
1.32  
2.7  
2011
 
1.15  
2.3  
2010
 
1.06  
2.14  
2009
 
0.91  
2.01  
2008
 
0.82  
1.5  
2007
 
0.73  
Not  available  
2006
 
0.71  
Not  available  
Correspondingly,  Maui  spends  much  more  on  its  bus  system  than  Hawai`i,  and  this  gap  grows  
even  larger  when  viewed  on  a  per  resident  basis  (See  Table  5).    The  population  data  shown  is  for  
2010,  but  the  operational  budgets  used  were  the  actual  budgets  for  2012  in  order  to  match  up  
with  the  most  recent  ridership  data  available.    The  budget  number  used  for  Maui  does  not  
include  paratransit  funding  in  order  to  allow  for  a  more  accurate  comparison.    The  source  for  
the  budget  data  comes  from  the  2014  operating  budgets  for  each  county.    Within  these  
documents,  actual  budgets  for  2012  were  used  for  the  purpose  of  this  analysis.    Both  budgets  
are  actual,  as  opposed  to  proposed,  budget  numbers,  and  they  are  operational,  as  opposed  to  
capital  expenditures.    This  allows  for  a  more  accurate  measurement  across  the  transit  agencies  
that  would  not  be  swayed  by  one  agency  or  the  other  making  significant  investments  in  
increasing  their  vehicle  fleets.    Another  conclusion  that  can  be  drawn  is  the  Maui  system  has  a  
passenger  board  more  frequently  in  general  than  the  Hawai`i  system,  and  a  likely  explanation  
for  this  is  that  Hele-­?On  has  a  greater  portion  of  long,  commuter-­?type  routes.    Additionally,  Maui  
spends  over  four  times  more  per  vehicle-­?mile  traveled,  meaning  their  system  may  not  be  as  
efficient,  although  the  conclusion  cannot  necessarily  be  drawn  that  they  spend  more  per  
passenger-­?mile  traveled.  
Table  5-­?2:  Hawai'i  and  Maui  Transit  Data  Comparison  
 
Hawai`i  County  
Maui  County  
Population  
189,191
94
 
144,444
95
 
Transit  Operational  Spending
 
$2,765,720
96
 
$6,977,500
97
 
Per  Capita  Expenses
 
$14.62
 
$48.31
 
Ridership  (#  of  Boardings)
 
1,315,222
98
 
2,703,411
99
 
Cost  per  Rider
 
$2.10
 
$2.58
 
Cost  per  Vehicle-­?Mile
 
$1.04
 
$4.27
 
Miles  per  Boarding
 
2.021
 
0.605
 
background image
 
48|  
P a g e
 
 
CONCLUSION  
Obviously,  differences  do  exist  between  the  two  islands,  but  because  of  the  similarities,  some  of  
what  has  been  successfully  utilized  on  Maui  can  also  be  applied  on  Hawai`i  Island,  and  lessons  
that  Maui  has  learned  along  the  way  should  be  taken  advantage  of  by  Hele-­?On.  Some  simple  
upgrades  to  Hele-­?On  that  could  be  made  are  improving  the  visual  appeal  and  clarity  of  route  
maps  and  schedules.  In  looking  to  expand  service,  creating  an  objective  scoring  system  could  
help  with  the  ideal  placement  of  routes  in  order  to  maximize  societal  benefit  and  minimize  
costs.  Since  Hele-­?On  is  much  more  mature  today  than  Maui?s  system  was  at  the  time  of  the  
Short  Range  Transit  Plan,  perhaps  they  can  use  that  strategy  in  combination  with  any  requests  
for  additional  service  in  order  to  minimize  the  amount  of  time  that  must  be  spent  analyzing  
areas  into  which  expanding  service  would  not  yield  significant  benefits.    In  terms  of  technology,  
Maui  is  not  a  leader  amongst  public  transit  agencies,  but  they  have  been  at  least  somewhat  
innovative  with  their  maps  and  Google  Transit,  and  Maui  is  looking  to  invest  in  additional  
technology  solutions  to  improve  the  efficiency  of  their  system.  Lastly,  Maui  outspends  Hele-­?On  
on  its  bus  system  and  has  over  double  the  ridership.  Overall,  the  emphasis  on  public  transit  
appears  to  be  more  significant  on  Maui.  
 
background image
 
49|  
P a g e
 
 
6:  THE  CASE  FOR  IMPROVING  THE  
TRANSPORTATION  
INFRASTRUCTURE  OF  HAWAI`I  
ISLAND    
OVERCOMING  THE  TRANSPORTATION  CHALLENGES  
Transportation  on  Hawai`i  Island  is  complicated  and  presents  great  challenges.  There  is  rising  
and  more  complex  demand  for  public  transit  service,  operational  costs  are  increasing,  and  
resources  are  limited.  In  recent  years,  the  Mass  Transit  Agency  (MTA)  has  persistently  worked  
towards  expanding  its  Hele-­?On  services  and  providing  residents  with  suitable  transportation  
options  and  an  improved  experience.  However,  the  Agency  still  faces  many  challenges  to  expand  
while  maintaining  high  quality  service.  At  the  same  time  the  Island?s  traffic  is  getting  worse  
according  to  locals,  fuel  expenses  are  a  huge  burden  and  vehicle  carbon  emissions  are  naturally  
increasing,  as  many  people  commute  alone  in  their  personal  vehicles.  
In  the  following  sections  we  will  evaluate  a  number  of  alternatives  in  order  to  provide  some  
recommendations  for  dealing  with  these  issues.  In  Section  6  we  will  focus  on  technology  
investments  for  the  Hele-­?On  public  transportation  system.  In  Section  7,  we  will  discuss  private  
sector  investments  that  could  provide  alternative,  cost-­?effective  ways  to  commute  on  Hawai`i  
Island.  
THE  TECHNOLOGY  VALUE  PROPOSITION  FOR  HELE-­?ON  
We  have  identified  two  overarching  areas  of  opportunity  that  can  facilitate  the  transition  to  a  
more  economically,  socially  and  environmentally  sustainable  mass  transit  system  for  Hawai`i  
Island.  The  following  graphic  introduces  these  two  areas,  the  different  segments  in  which  they  
may  be  targeted,  and  the  potential  benefits  they  could  provide.  We  believe  that  focusing  on  
employing  technologies  that  improve  the  efficiency  of  the  current  system  and  also  increase  
customer  service  offerings  will  help  the  MTA  achieve  their  goals  of  expansion,  while  minimizing  
costs  and  maintaining  their  high  level  of  service.  
background image
 
50|  
P a g e
 
 
Figure  6-­?1:  Areas  of  Opportunity  for  Implementing  Technology  
 
In  Section  7,  we  will  also  explore  how  rural  mass  transit  agencies  across  the  United  States  are  
implementing  this  technology  to  enhance  their  operations.  We  will  go  through  available  
technologies  and  how  they  can  benefit  Hawai`i?s  Hele-­?On  system,  and  analyze  two  rural  transit  
case  studies  in  which  some  of  these  technologies  have  been  applied  successfully.  Finally,  we  will  
determine  which  of  the  analyzed  technologies  will  have  the  biggest  potential  positive  impact  for  
the  County  of  Hawai`i  Mass  Transit  Agency,  Hele-­?On  and  its  passengers  and  provide  an  overview  
of  potential  vendors.  
PRIVATE  INVESTMENTS  IN  TRANSIT  INFRASTRUCTURE  OF  HAWAI`I  ISLAND  
While  public  transit  remains  a  key  issue  for  the  future  growth  and  mobility  of  the  Hawai`i  
County,  our  analysis  has  shown  that  a  substantial  majority  of  riders  hail  from  low-­?income  
communities,  forgoing  automobile  transportation  due  to  its  high  cost  of  consumption  relative  to  
income.  For  this  reason,  we  believe  there  is  a  great  need  for  private  investments  in  innovative  
alternative  modes  of  transportation  that  serve  those  that  do  not  use  the  public  transit  system.  
Additionally,  alternative  ridesharing  networks  or  vanpool  systems  targeted  towards  middle-­?
income  residents  and  (possibly)  tourists  offer  commuter  incentives  beyond  simply  the  cost  of  
travel.    
Section  8  outlines  our  analysis  of  ridesharing  and  vanpool  networks  and  provides  our  
suggestions  for  best  practices  for  implementing  them  on  Hawai`i  Island.  We  weigh  the  merits  of  
a)  introducing  an  existing  rideshare  network  onto  the  island;  b)  establishing  a  public-­?private  
partnership  to  create  a  rideshare  network  unique  to  the  island;  or  c)  alternative  frameworks  for  
implementing  a  vanpool  network.  In  addition,  we  discuss  possible  funding  channels,  as  well  as  
offer  a  possible  business  model  that  examines  how  uniquely  partnered  rideshare  networks  
might  function  on  Hawai`i  Island.  
background image
 
51|  
P a g e
 
 
7:  OPTIMIZING  PUBLIC  TRANSIT  
WITH  TECHNOLOGY  SOLUTIONS    
TECHNOLOGY  IN  MASS  TRANSIT  
Technology  has  been  used  in  multiple  forms  and  for  various  purposes  related  to  public  
transportation.  There  are  three  stages  of  trip.  For  each  of  these  stages,  the  customer  requires  
different  information,  and  this  information  should  be  delivered  using  different  methods.  The  
following  graphic  illustrates  this  process  and  the  different  ways  in  which  information  can  be  
delivered  to  the  passenger.  
Figure  7-­?1:  Stages  of  Transportation  and  Information  Delivery  
 
Similarly  real-­?time  dynamic  passenger  information  systems  depend  on  three  main  stages:  data  
collection,  data  integration  and  analysis,  and  the  delivery  of  the  information  to  passengers.  
Effective  systems  rely  on  three  main  pieces  of  information:  1)  real-­?time  vehicle  location;  2)  GIS  
maps;  and  3)  information  about  traffic  conditions  and  delays.
100
 Being  aware  of  the  specific  
information  requirements,  as  well  as  the  appropriate  methods  of  information  distribution  based  
on  what  resources  customers  have  available  to  them,  is  an  important  aspect  of  incorporating  
technology  into  public  transportation.  In  the  case  of  Hawai`i  Island,  it  will  be  important  to  keep  
in  mind  the  types  of  technology  in  which  people  actually  have  access.  For  example,  according  to  
a  survey  performed  by  Kanu  Hawai`i,  out  of  a  sample  of  100  people  only  around  30  use  a  
background image
 
52|  
P a g e
 
 
?smartphone?;  therefore  smartphone  apps  are  currently  not  an  ideal  method  of  communication  
in  Hawai`i.
101
 
EXISTING  TECHNOLOGY  OPTIONS  AND  THEIR  BENEFITS  
There  are  many  Intelligent  Transportation  System  (ITS)  technologies  that  have  successfully  
penetrated  the  public  transportation  market,  but  not  all  are  currently  used  in  rural  public  
transit.  A  2009  national  survey  of  rural  transit  agencies  investigated  technology  use,  obtaining  
responses  from  451  different  agencies  across  45  states.  The  survey  analyzed  the  technologies  
being  used,  as  well  as  the  technology?s  purpose  and  benefits.
102
 A  summary  table  of  the  
identified  technologies  is  included  below:  
Table  7-­?1:  Available  Technologies  
Technology  Name  
Brief  Description  
Selected  Benefits  
Automatic  Vehicle  Location  
(AVL)  
Tracking  of  vehicle  location  
Vehicle  fuel  efficiency;  
safety/security.    
Computer  Automated  
Scheduling  &  Dispatch  
(CASD)  Software  
Software  package  that  helps  
automate  scheduling  and  
dispatch,  particularly  for  
demand  response  service  
Operational  efficiency;  
reporting/record  keeping  
Geographic  Information  
Systems  (GIS)  
Spatial  data  containing  various  
information;  often  required  for  
other  technologies  
Planning/scheduling;  maps  
Mobile  Data  Terminals  
(MDTs)  
Devices  with  screens  that  allow  
for  communication  and  data  
transfer/display  
Vehicle  status  information;  
reliable  communication  
Electronic  Fare  Payment  
(EFP)  
Collection  and  processing  of  
fares  is  done  electronically,  
often  using  cards  of  some  form  
Ridership  data  collection;  ease  
of  fare  collection;  passenger  
convenience  
Traveler  Information  
Systems  (TIS)  
A  wide  range  of  technologies  
that  deliver  information  to  
passengers  
Passenger  convenience  
Google  Transit  
Schedule  is  available  through  
Google  Maps  and  has  trip  
planner  capabilities  
Passenger  convenience;  live  
updates  can  be  incorporated  
There  are  a  wide  variety  of  benefits  that  can  be  garnered  from  ITS  technologies.  In  general,  
some  benefits  of  implementing  ITS  in  Hawai`i  include  operational  efficiency,  economic  
productivity,  a  reduction  in  energy  use  and  environmental  impacts,  convenience  and  comfort  
for  users  through  information  availability  and  awareness,  and  safety  and  security  through  
improved  driving  behavior.
103
   More  specific  benefits  associated  with  certain  technology  types  
will  be  discussed  below.  
 
 
background image
 
53|  
P a g e
 
 
AUTOMATIC  VEHICLE  LOCATION  
One  relatively  common  technology  is  Automatic  Vehicle  Location  (AVL).  The  specific  method  can  
vary,  but  the  most  common  one  uses  Global  Positioning  System  (GPS)  technology,  which  
requires  on-­?vehicle  technology  to  determine  the  location  of  each  vehicle.
104
 Sometimes  satellite-­?
based  AVL  systems  are  not  available  in  rural  areas,  so  this  could,  but  does  not  necessarily,  
present  an  obstacle  for  Hele-­?On.
105
 The  reported  purposes  of  AVL  include  dispatching,  service  
quality,  safety,  customer  information,  scheduling,  and  communication,  among  others.  One  of  
the  related  benefits  of  AVL  is  that  emergency  response  times  are  reduced.
106,107
 AVL  also  allows  
transit  agencies  to  monitor  their  vehicles  to  ensure  they  are  on-­?schedule,  which  can  help  with  
planning  as  well  as  dealing  with  customer  grievances.
108
   Beyond  simply  dealing  with  complaints,  
customer  relations  are  often  improved  as  well  for  agencies  that  add  AVL  technology.
109
 In  terms  
of  financials,  companies  that  use  GPS  technology  save  an  average  of  $5,484  per  employee  per  
year.  Furthermore,  the  installation  of  GPS  systems  resulted  in  a  reduction  in  fuel  costs  by  13.2%  
on  average,  and  the  majority  of  these  reductions  were  through  minimizing  speeding  and  time  
spent  idling.
110
 Beyond  these  benefits,  AVL  can  facilitate  the  implementation  of  other  
technologies,  as  the  data  collected  can  be  used  for  many  different  purposes.  
COMPUTER-­?AIDED  SCHEDULING  AND  DISPATCH  
Another  commonly  used  technology  is  Computer-­?Aided  Scheduling  and  Dispatch  (CASD)  
software.  These  packages  vary  in  exactly  what  they  offer,  but  generally  they  streamline  
operations  by  automating  a  transit  agency?s  scheduling  and  dispatch.  This  is  particularly  useful  
for  demand-­?response  service,  which  could  be  useful  if  the  Hawai`i  County  Mass  Transit  Agency  
decides  to  pursue  vanpool  networks  (which  we  will  discuss  in  Section  7).  The  primary  uses,  
however,  are  for  reporting  and  record  keeping,  as  well  as  scheduling.
111
 
GEOGRAPHIC  INFORMATION  SYSTEMS  
Geographic  Information  Systems  (GIS)  are  another  application  of  technology  commonly  used  
within  rural  transport.  While  GIS  has  many  different  applications,  the  two  most  common  uses  of  
GIS  are  for  scheduling  and  operations.  GIS  can  be  useful  for  Hele-­?On  because  it  can  assist  in  the  
management  and  communication  of  large  amounts  
of  collected  data  through  GPS  or  other  methods,  
and  it  can  do  so  in  a  visually  appealing  manner  like  a  
detailed  map.  It  is  also  helpful  as  a  planning  tool  
since  it  can  include  demographic,  economic,  and  
road  network  data  that  can  improve  travel  demand  
modeling.
112
 
MOBILE  DATA  TERMINALS  
Mobile  Data  Terminals  (MDTs)  allow  for  non-­?vocal  communication  between  vehicle  drivers  and  
the  transit  agency.  They  are  installed  in  the  vehicles  and  can  communicate  information  such  as  
vehicle  location  and  performance  and  passenger  counts.    Because  MDTs  rely  on  the  collection  of  
 (
Source:  US  DOT)
 
background image
 
54|  
P a g e
 
 
a  number  of  types  of  data,  they  are  often  integrated  with  other  forms  of  technology.  For  
example,  in  order  to  communicate  vehicle  location,  MDTs  would  need  to  be  integrated  with  
Automatic  Vehicle  Location  (AVL).  Similarly,  integration  between  MDTs  and  Electronic  Fare  
Payment  (EFP)  systems  would  allow  for  the  communication  of  passenger  counts.    The  primary  
uses  of  MDTs  are  to  identify  vehicle  location  or  passenger  boarding  and  drop-­?off.    MDTs  can  also  
relay  information  about  a  specific  vehicle?s  mechanical  status,  which  is  useful  to  determine  
when  preventative  maintenance  is  necessary.
113
   Additionally,  they  are  generally  a  more  reliable  
form  of  communication  than  voice,  which  can  be  particularly  useful  on  Hawai`i  where  there  are  
gaps  in  cell  phone  coverage.
114
     
ELECTRONIC  FARE  PAYMENT  
There  are  multiple  varieties  of  Electronic  Fare  Payment  (EFP)  systems,  but  they  all  assist  with  
both  the  collection  and  processing  of  fare  payments  and  can  provide  Automated  Passenger  
Counting  (APC)  and  other  trip  information.  Oftentimes  they  use  cards  or  tickets  of  some  form,  
which  use  a  magnetic  stripe,  bar  code,  or  Radio  Frequency  
Identification  (RFID)  technology.  RFID  technology  allows  for  
information  to  be  communicated  by  simply  placing  the  card  
near  a  sensor,  and  it  is  often  referred  to  as  smart  card  
technology.  In  the  survey,  all  of  the  agencies  that  use  EFP  
reported  using  magnetic  stripe  cards  or  tickets,  while  25%  also  
use  smart  cards  and  12%  use  barcodes.
115
 EFP  systems  
eliminate  the  driver?s  responsibility  of  handling  cash  and  the  
corresponding  losses  that  come  with  the  task.  Additionally,  
ridership  can  be  automatically  tracked,  and  when  integrated  
with  an  AVL  system  the  ridership  data  can  be  location-­?specific  
for  boarding.  Boarding  speed  is  increased  as  well,  which  can  
improve  convenience  for  passengers,  and  result  in  increased  
satisfaction  and  ridership  through  increased  customer  loyalty.
116
 
TRAVELER  INFORMATION  SYSTEMS  
Traveler  Information  Systems  (TIS)  encompass  a  wide  range  of  technologies  that  deliver  
information  to  passengers.  These  can  be  divided  up  by  the  different  stages  of  a  trip,  previously  
discussed.  Pre-­?trip  information  can  be  made  available  to  users  via  the  internet  or  phone,  and  
should  include  trip  planning  tools,  as  well  as  both  static  and  real-­?time  information  related  to  bus  
routes  and  schedules.  During  the  trip,  both  variable  message  signs  and  audible  announcements  
can  be  employed.  While  mobile  telephone  companies  claim  to  have  cellular  phone  coverage  
almost  everywhere  on  the  entire  island,  we  realize  that  this  is  not  true  in  all  parts  of  the  island  
as  there  are  gaps  due  to  geographic  characteristics.  However,  diversifying  the  modes  of  
communication  in  which  the  information  is  delivered  can  solve  this  problem  and  reach  more  
people.  The  primary  benefit  of  TIS  is  to  improve  service  quality  and  passenger  experience  
through  predictability,  reliability  and  ease  of  use.  For  example,  an  experiment  at  a  bus  station  in  
 (
Source:  Lehman  Center)
   
background image
 
55|  
P a g e
 
 
London  found  that  waiting  times  were  perceived  to  be  lower  by  passengers  simply  by  providing  
real  time  information  about  bus  arrivals  at  the  stop.
117
 This  provides  further  evidence  that  
customer  satisfaction  could  be  improved  by  incorporating  technology  into  Hele-­?On.
118
 
HISTORIC  ADOPTION  BY  RURAL  TRANSIT  AGENCIES  
The  Table  7-­?2  shows  the  usage  rates  of  the  previously  discussed  technologies  amongst  the  rural  
public  transit  agencies  that  responded  to  the  national  survey  we  mentioned  previously.  
Agencies  that  used  one  technology  were  more  likely  to  use  other  technologies.
119
 
Table  7-­?2:  Current  and  Prospective  Adoption  Rates  
Technology  Type  
Percent  That  Currently  Use   Of  Remaining,  Percent  Will  Use  
In  5  Years  
Automatic  Vehicle  Location  
(AVL)  
6%  
45%  
Computer-­?Aided  Scheduling  
and  Delivery  (CASD)  Software  
33%  
46%  
Geographic  Information  
Systems  (GIS)  
25%  
43%  
Mobile  Data  Terminals  (MDTs)  
9%  
31%  
Electronic  Fare  Payment  (EFP)  
2%  
32%  
Traveler  Information  Systems  
(TIS)  
4%  
20%  
While  these  rates  may  seem  extremely  low,  it  is  important  to  note  that  the  majority  of  the  rural  
agencies  surveyed  are  significantly  smaller  than  the  Hawai`i  County  Mass  Transit  Agency.  Within  
the  survey,  the  larger  an  agency  was  (measured  by  vehicle-­?hours  of  service,  ridership,  fleet  size,  
or  budget)  the  more  likely  they  were  to  use  technology.  The  adoption  rates  for  the  largest  
agencies  included  in  the  survey,  which  Hele-­?On  far  exceeds  in  each  case,  are  shown  in  the  table  
below.
120
 
Table  7-­?3:  Technology  Adoption  Rates  
Technology  
1,000,000+  
Vehicle-­?Hours  
of  Service  
150,000+  
Passenger  Trips  
(Ridership)  
20+  Vehicles  in  
Fleet  
$1.5  million+  
Annual  Budget  
AVL  
38%  
40%  
42%  
38%  
CASD  
70%  
47%  
64%  
55%  
GIS  
52%  
51%  
53%  
55%  
MDTs  
26%  
25%  
30%  
22%  
EFP  
5%  
8%  
2%  
6%  
TIS  
7%  
11%  
5%  
8%  
Hawai`i  values  
 
1.15  million
121
 
56  vehicles
122
 
~$3.5  million
123
 
background image
 
56|  
P a g e
 
 
A  range  of  technology  options  exist,  and  each  of  them  have  different  benefits,  but  when  
multiple  options  are  incorporated  together,  additional  benefits  can  be  created  that  do  not  exist  
from  the  options  by  themselves.  It  is  not  uncommon  for  joint  adoption  of  technologies  to  occur  
with  AVL,  GIS,  and  MDTs.  Accordingly,  it  is  not  uncommon  for  transportation  technology  
companies  to  offer  multiple  technology  solutions  in  a  bundled  package  as  technologies  are  
complementary  to  each  other.  As  more  technologies  are  properly  incorporated,  the  value  
received  from  them  is  exponential.  
GOOGLE  TRANSIT  
While  it  was  not  included  in  the  survey  of  rural  transit  agencies,  Google  Transit  is  an  easily  
achievable  target  for  Hele-­?On.  Incorporating  Hele-­?On  into  Google  Transit  can  provide  benefits  
both  to  the  Mass  Transit  Agency  as  well  as  current  and  potential  future  riders.  Google  Maps  is  
the  world?s  largest  mapping  website  and  is  accessible  in  over  forty  languages.  By  including  all  of  
Hele-­?On?s  routes,  riders  will  not  have  to  pick  and  choose  the  best  route  on  their  own.  Trip  
planning  will  be  available  through  Google  Maps,  both  on  desktop  and  mobile  devices,  so  
passengers  can  simply  input  their  starting  point  and  desired  ending  point,  as  well  as  requested  
times  of  departure  and/or  arrival,  and  they  will  be  provided  with  the  public  transit  options  that  
best  meet  their  requirements.
124
 This  trip  planner  tool  can  even  be  incorporated  into  the  Hele-­?
On  website.  A  mass  transit  agency  in  Virginia,  Hampton  Roads  Transit,  that  began  using  Google  
Transit  previously  used  6-­?8  hours  of  employee  time  to  update  a  new  print  transit  schedule,  
which  they  would  have  to  do  for  each  route,  often  multiple  times  per  year;  with  Google  Transit,  
that  task  has  been  reduced  to  only  a  few  minutes.  They  also  improved  their  image  through  their  
association  with  Google.
125
 The  only  drawback  for  Google  Transit  is  that  it  is  not  designed  to  
supply  information  about  demand  response  service,  a  major  service  offering  for  many  rural  
transit  operators.  Hawai`i  County,  however,  relies  on  fixed-­?schedule  buses,  so  we  believe  the  
system  has  a  lot  to  gain  from  this  relatively  simple  process.    
Participating  in  Google  Transit  does  not  cost  anything  and  the  process  to  get  started  is  simple.  
The  requirements  for  participating  in  Google  Transit  are  only  that  your  public  transit  service  
operates  fixed  schedules  and  routes,  and  Hele-­?on  satisfies  these.
126
     
The  first  step  in  implementation  would  be  to  format  the  Hele-­?On  data  in  the  format  required  by  
Google  (specifications  for  this  can  be  found  on  the  cited  website).
127
 This  will  require  time  
and/or  resources,  but  is  mostly  of  a  one-­?time  upfront  investment,  and  future  updates  will  be  
much  less  time-­?intensive.  Additionally,  there  are  open  source  tools  available  to  expedite  this  
process.
128
 Examples  of  these  feeds  can  be  found  on  the  cited  website.
129
 The  Northwest  Oregon  
Transit  Alliance,  which  is  made  up  of  five  different  rural  transit  agencies,  developed  a  web-­?based  
application  to  assist  in  the  process  of  integrating  rural  transit  agency  routes  and  schedules  with  
Google  Transit  because  these  agencies  often  do  not  have  the  resources  available  to  hire  external  
consultants  for  this  purpose.
130
 Once  this  data  is  created,  it  must  be  run  through  a  validator,  and  
then  the  routes  can  be  previewed  to  make  sure  the  data  has  been  correctly  interpreted.  The  
next  steps  are  to  zip  the  data  file  and  host  the  feed  on  a  web  server,  from  which  Google  will  be  
background image
 
57|  
P a g e
 
 
able  to  download  it.  At  that  point,  the  Mass  Transit  Agency  will  need  to  contact  Google  and  sign-­?
up  for  the  partnership,  a  private  preview  will  be  setup  and  an  online  agreement  will  be  made.  
Once  everything  is  functioning  satisfactorily,  Google  Transit  will  launch  its  Hele-­?On  segment.  
While  Hele-­?On  would  first  need  to  be  integrated  with  Google  Transit,  Google  Transit  has  the  
ability  to  include  Live  Transit  Updates  as  well.
131
     
 
The  Maui  DOT  reported  that  the  process  of  integrating  Google  Transit  was  not  at  all  difficult.  All  
that  was  required  was  updating  a  spreadsheet  and  uploading  it  to  Google.
132
 Based  on  their  
experience,  we  estimate  that  the  data  conversion  would  cost  $7,500.  This  would  include  the  
initial  conversion,  as  well  as  the  development  of  a  web  app  that  would  allow  for  easy  updates  as  
routes  change.  If  Google  Transit  were  to  require  a  new  data  feed  specification,  then  this  
conversion  could  be  worked  on  at  an  hourly  rate  of  $95.
133
 All  in  all,  Google  Transit  is  likely  the  
most  simple  of  all  potential  upgrades.  
RURAL  TRANSIT  TECHNOLOGY  CASE  STUDIES  
The  purpose  of  this  section  is  to  demonstrate  that  the  employment  of  technology  has  been  
useful  in  mass  transit  systems  and  specifically  in  rural  situations,  where  population  density  is  low  
and  sparse.  While  we  did  not  find  specific  case  studies  of  island  mass  transit  systems  using  this  
technology,  we  believe  the  cases  we  have  developed  present  certain  similarities  to  Hawai`i,  
which  makes  them  pertinent  to  this  report.  
CASE  STUDY  1:  MODOC  COUNTY,  CALIFORNIA  
IMPLEMENTATION:  
Modoc  County,  a  rural  frontier  county  in  California  with  fewer  than  six  people  per  square  mile,  
was  a  pioneer  of  rural  transit  agencies  incorporating  Intelligent  Transportation  System  (ITS)  
tools.    There  were  multiple  tools  installed  in  the  system  during  this  project,  but  the  ones  most  
relevant  to  Hele-­?On  were  Automatic  Vehicle  Location  (AVL)  and  Electronic  Fare  Payment  (EFP),  
as  well  as  Google  Transit  for  a  trip  planner  tool.  AVL/swipe  cards  allowed  for  automatic  
collection  of  fares  as  well  as  ridership  data.  Modoc  County  was  the  first  rural  area  to  attempt  to  
incorporate  Google  Transit,  and  they  did  so  successfully.  
FINDINGS:  
In  order  to  get  data  in  the  proper  format,  Modoc  County  hired  an  external  consultant,  the  Mary  
Jaffe  Company.  The  process  was  a  learning  experience  that  could  be  used  by  fellow  rural  transit  
agencies,  including  Hele-­?On,  in  their  own  future  implementation.  Unavailability  of  high  quality  
route  maps  and  unreliability  of  internet  access  and  speeds  were  obstacles  encountered  by  
Modoc  County.  Additionally,  they  found  that  it  was  important  to  make  a  contractor  prove  in  the  
field  that  their  technology  can  apply  on  a  smaller  scale  than  is  typical,  as  opposed  to  simply  
taking  the  contractor?s  word  for  it.  One  particularly  important  comment  was  that  ?future  rural  
background image
 
58|  
P a g e
 
 
ITS  projects  should  have  clear,  specific  milestones  that  can  be  accomplished  in  six  to  nine  
months,?  which  fits  with  the  focus  on  short-­?term  solutions.
134
     
APPLICATION  TO  HAWAI`I  COUNTY:  
One  significant  difference  between  Modoc  County?s  service  and  Hele-­?On  is  that  there  is  a  much  
larger  emphasis  on  demand  response  transport  in  Modoc  County.  As  a  result,  only  the  parts  of  
the  project  that  apply  to  fixed-­?route  service  were  included  in  this  analysis.  An  example  of  using  
multiple  technologies  was  the  combination  of  AVL  and  EFP  to  allow  for  automatic  ridership  data  
collection.  Additionally,  based  on  the  cooperation  between  Modoc  County  and  Google  Transit,  
Google  has  revised  its  system  to  better  allow  for  the  incorporation  of  rural  transit  where  trips  
are  less  frequent  than  hourly  or  even  daily.  This  ensures  that  most  of  the  issues  have  been  
worked  out  for  Google  Transit  with  regard  to  rural  transit  operators,  so  the  process  should  be  
smoother  for  Hele-­?On.  Still,  a  significant  investment  of  some  form,  either  time,  new  
employee(s),  or  consultants  may  be  necessary  to  get  schedules  in  the  proper  data  format  for  
Google  Transit.  
CASE  STUDY  2:  POINCIANA,  FLORIDA  
IMPLEMENTATION:  
A  partnership  between  the  Central  Florida  Regional  Transportation  Authority  (LYNX)  and  Polk  
County  Transit  Services  (PCTS)  resulted  in  the  implementation  of  a  rural  ITS  demonstration  
project  in  Poinciana,  FL  from  2006-­?2007.  The  technologies  deployed  in  this  project  that  are  
particularly  relevant  for  Hele-­?On  were  Automatic  Vehicle  Location  (AVL),  Geographic  
Information  Systems  (GIS),  Global  Positioning  Systems  (GPS),  and  Mobile  Data  Terminals  
(MDTs).  
FINDINGS:  
This  project  resulted  in  a  number  of  impacts  to  the  transit  system.  While  there  are  multiple  
contributing  factors  to  this,  including  linking  a  flex-­?route  with  the  fixed-­?route  system,  overall  
fixed-­?route  ridership  increased  24%  after  implementation.  Similarly,  total  transit  ridership  
increased  27%.    Additionally,  customer  and  driver  satisfaction  were  both  improved  as  a  result  of  
the  project.  
Since  it  was  a  demonstration  project,  both  LYNX  and  PCTS  learned  some  important  lessons  along  
the  way  that  can  be  used  by  future  adopters  of  technology,  including  Hele-­?On.  For  procurement,  
it  is  crucial  to  make  sure  that  the  AVL  supplier  can  use  the  transit  operator?s  base  maps.  A  small  
implementation  issue,  but  important  nonetheless,  is  that  the  GPS  antenna  needs  to  be  a  
minimum  distance  away  from  the  radio  antenna  to  prevent  interference  (the  specific  distance  
depends  on  the  technology  employed).  If  possible,  installing  the  GPS  receiver  and  MDT  in  close  
proximity  helps  simplify  and  shorten  the  wiring  process,  but  it  is  also  important  to  make  sure  
that  the  MDT  is  placed  in  a  location  that  will  prevent  boarding  passengers  from  damaging  it  
background image
 
59|  
P a g e
 
 
accidentally.  Another  lesson  learned  during  implementation  is  that  there  needs  to  be  a  
connection  between  the  MDT  and  the  vehicle?s  digital  odometer  in  order  to  get  the  AVL  system  
to  function  properly,  and  this  process  proved  to  be  more  complicated  than  had  been  
anticipated.  For  operations,  training  was  required  for  agency  employees  on  the  technology  
being  implemented  which  increased  costs  of  the  agency.  As  an  example,  all  operating  
employees  took  a  two-­?hour  training  class  on  using  the  MDTs.      
APPLICATION  TO  HAWAI`I  COUNTY:  
Similarly  to  Modoc  County,  demand  response  is  a  component  of  the  transit  service  provided  by  
these  agencies,  but  it  is  not  nearly  as  significant  since  there  are  still  plenty  of  fixed  routes  that  
the  agencies  operate.    Like  Hawai`i  County,  a  great  deal  of  riders  use  the  LYNX/PCTS  systems  to  
commute  to  work;  41%  of  those  who  completed  a  ridership  survey  claimed  travel  to  work  as  a  
purpose  for  traveling  via  public  transit.  Additionally,  there  was  a  wide  range  of  trip  lengths  
reported,  ranging  from  0-­?15  minutes  to  over  2  hours.  The  survey  also  asked  how  the  riders  
found  out  about  the  transit  services.  More  than  40%  responded  that  they  had  seen  a  transit  
vehicle  on  the  street.  Almost  30%  stated  they  heard  about  the  availability  of  transit  services  
from  a  friend.  While  the  lessons  that  LYNX  and  PCTS  learned  during  implementation  are  simple,  
they  apply  in  all  settings  and  would  be  useful  in  making  the  future  process  smoother  for  Hele-­?
On.  
CUTTING  EDGE  RESEARCH  
There  is  a  great  deal  of  relevant  research  related  to  new  and/or  cutting  edge  ideas  for  improving  
rural  public  transit  through  technology.  One  pilot  program,  called  Bus  Coming,  uses  a  
smartphone  system  integrated  with  Google  Maps  in  Trinidad  &  Tobago  and  allows  for  wayside  
passengers  to  see  how  long  until  the  bus  arrives  at  their  specific  location,  as  opposed  to  how  
long  until  it  gets  to  a  certain  stop.
135
 This  idea  would  be  particularly  useful  to  Hele-­?On,  where  
there  can  be  tens  of  miles  between  officially  listed  stops.  Additionally,  with  some  routes  running  
service  before  sunrise,  it  would  improve  safety  for  passengers  catching  the  bus  in  the  middle  of  
its  route  in  the  dark.  Another  similar  idea  is  a  system  in  which  riders  can  digitally  flag  the  bus,  
alerting  the  drivers  that  they  are  waiting  for  them.
136
 This  also  would  be  particularly  appropriate  
for  Hele-­?On?s  long  routes,  especially  when  it  is  dark  out  and  bus  drivers  have  difficulty  spotting  
passengers  along  the  side  of  the  road.    
A  number  of  other  experiments  use  crowd-­?sourced  data  supplied  by  the  passengers  themselves.  
Crowdsourcing  is  becoming  popular  as  a  way  in  which  companies  or  organizations  can  collect  
desired  data  or  information  through  the  collaboration  of  a  large  group  of  people  who  are  willing  
to  connect  digitally  through  their  phones  or  computers.  This  would  overcome  the  lack  of  
infrastructure  present  for  obtaining  real  time  vehicle  location,  as  well  as  help  deliver  
information  to  passengers.  To  get  around  this  challenge,  passengers?  smartphones  are  used  
both  to  obtain  data  and  to  deliver  information.
137
 One  example  of  using  crowd-­?sourced  data  is  
Tiramisu,  an  Italian  app  that  provides  access  to  real-­?time  arrival  data  for  local  public  transit,  
background image
 
60|  
P a g e
 
 
although  it  is  currently  only  used  in  urban  areas.
138
   The  Informed  Rural  Passenger  project,  which  
is  a  massive  research  project  investigating  technology  use  in  rural  transit,  is  being  carried  out  by  
the  dot.rural  research  center  at  the  University  of  Aberdeen  and  has  investigated  using  crowd-­?
sourced  data  as  well.  This  project  has  led  to  the  development  of  GetThere,  which  is  a  real-­?time  
passenger  information  system  that  takes  data  from  multiple  sources  and  delivers  information  
through  multiple  methods.  Passengers  are  one  of  the  sources  for  data,  and  all  of  the  others  used  
are  open  data  sources.  GetThere  delivers  information  through  web  sites,  SMS  messages,  and  a  
smartphone  app.  Since  cell  phone  service  is  unreliable  in  parts  of  rural  Scotland,  this  flexibility  in  
delivery  method  is  crucial.
139
   Even  with  this  limited  coverage,  the  pilot  of  GetThere  was  still  
successful  at  identifying  bus  locations.  Other  examples  of  data  that  can  be  crowd-­?sourced  are  
occupancy  levels  as  well  as  facilities  present  in  the  vehicle,  such  as  if  there  is  a  restroom  and  if  
there  are  bike  racks  available.  When  dealing  with  crowd-­?sourced  data  some  issues  that  arise  
include  privacy  and  security,  and  the  quality  must  be  monitored  as  well.
140
 Because  there  are  
similar  infrastructure  issues  that  must  be  overcome  on  Hawai`i  Island,  these  crowd-­?sourced  data  
methods  could  prove  helpful.  
CONCLUSIONS  ABOUT  TECHNOLOGY  
There  are  multiple  reasons  why  these  technology  solutions  would  be  particularly  beneficial  
when  applied  to  Hawai`i  Island.  There  is  significant  potential  for  operational  efficiency  
improvements,  which  can  result  in  fuel  savings,  route  optimization  and  reduced  maintenance  
cost.  Collecting  data  on  ridership,  driver  performance  and  commonly  used  stops  can  give  the  
planning  department  full  visibility  of  their  system  operations,  which  is  necessary  for  determining  
the  optimal  number  of  routes  and  buses  needed  to  serve  Hele-­?On  riders  effectively,  without  
redundancy.  With  little  technology  currently  being  used  in  Hele-­?On,  the  opportunity  for  
efficiency  improvements  could  be  even  larger.  
Through  reliability,  predictability  and  clear  communication,  technology  can  help  the  customers  
as  well.  It  can  make  current  riders?  experience  a  much  more  pleasant  one  and  could  also  bring  in  
new  riders  that  are  not  fully  aware  of  or  do  not  yet  trust  the  public  transit  system,  boosting  
ridership  and  revenues  and  potentially  reducing  operational  costs.  While  a  smartphone  can  be  
useful  for  accessing  data  while  away  from  home,  not  all  people  in  Hawai`i  currently  use  
smartphones.  However,  passengers  can  still  take  advantage  of  technology  solutions  by  either  
using  the  Internet  on  computers  or  by  phone.  Since  the  demand  for  public  transit  in  Hawai`i  
County  is  often  intermittent  and  related  to  work  schedules,  it  is  particularly  important  for  
passengers  to  know  when  their  bus  will  be  arriving  because  the  next  bus  on  the  route  may  not  
come  for  many  hours.  Since  travel  times  to  mass  transit  stops  tend  to  be  longer  in  rural  areas,  
having  confidence  in  exactly  when  a  bus  will  arrive  can  help  passengers  plan  the  appropriate  
amount  of  buffer  time  in  order  to  catch  it  without  arriving  too  early  and  wasting  time.  
Since  expanding  public  transit  service  is  commonly  brought  up  at  public  meetings,  doing  it  in  the  
proper  areas  would  likely  be  well  perceived  and  adopted.  We  have  identified  key  technologies  
background image
 
61|  
P a g e
 
 
that  we  believe  will  be  most  beneficial  for  the  County  of  Hawai`i  Mass  Transit  Agency,  the  Hele-­?
On  bus  system  and  its  passengers.  
KEY  TECHNOLOGIES  FOR  HELE-­?ON  
Automated  Passenger  Counting  (APC):  In  order  to  thoroughly  understand  which  routes  are  over  
or  underserved  and  determine  ideal  routing,  sophisticated  ridership  data  is  crucial.  This  data  can  
provide  valuable  insight  into  demand  patterns,  passenger  behavior,  duration  of  trips,  and  other  
reference  points  to  properly  design  a  transit  system  that  effectively  serves  the  needs  of  its  
customers  while  maintaining  operation  costs  low.  Reliable  data  can  determine  optimal  routes,  
sizing  of  the  fleet  vehicles  for  each  route  (i.e.  a  van  versus  a  bus),  and  real  time  information  
about  changes  in  demand  that  will  allow  easy  and  prompt  adjustment.  APC  can  be  included  with  
an  Electronic  Fare  Payment  (EFP)  system  or  through  an  independent  system  of  sensors  at  the  
bus  doors.  
Geographic  Information  Systems  (GIS),  Automatic  Vehicle  Location  (AVL)  and  Mobile  Data  
Terminals  (MDT)
:  These  three  technologies  can  have  a  positive  impact  on  routing  and  fleet  
efficiency,  as  well  as  operator  and  vehicle  performance;  the  greatest  impact  of  these  systems  
would  be  felt  through  simultaneous  implementation,  as  they  are  complementary  to  one  
another.  A  mix  of  these  can  result  in  significant  reductions  in  fuel  and  overhead  costs.  One  of  
the  key  benefits  these  technologies  provide  is  fleet  visibility.  Because  Hele-­?On  will  be  able  to  
track  its  entire  fleet  at  all  times,  routes  and  vehicles  can  be  used  and  allocated  optimally.  Driver  
execution  can  also  be  tracked,  increasing  accountability.  Finally,  these  technologies  facilitate  
easier  planning  and  more  efficient  operations.  
Real-­?time  Passenger  Information  (RTPI):  A  subset  of  general  Traveler  Information  Systems  (TIS),  
real  time  passenger  information  has  potential  to  improve  customer  service  and  satisfaction,  
ultimately  increasing  ridership  and  willingness  to  pay.  When  a  potential  bus  rider  has  access  to  
information  on  bus  routes  and  real-­?time  arrival  times,  the  stress  of  traveling  in  public  
transportation  is  significantly  reduced.  Having  an  easy-­?to-­?use  mobile  phone  application,  
computer  website,  or  text/call  center  that  can  provide  this  information  will  improve  the  rider?s  
full  experience  and  could  attract  new  customers  while  making  current  ones  even  more  loyal.  
ANALYSIS  OF  POTENTIAL  VENDORS    
As  in  any  growing  market,  there  are  multiple  companies  offering  products  and  services  for  
transportation  management  or  optimization  purposes.  We  performed  extensive  research  on  
existing  companies  and  their  offerings.  This  analysis  can  serve  as  a  tool  for  the  Mass  Transit  
Agency  to  determine  which  company  might  best  fit  Hele-­?On?s  requirements,  while  staying  
within  the  County?s  budget  or  making  the  case  for  extra  funding  to  be  raised  via  public  or  private  
investment.  Aside  from  economic  considerations,  an  ideal  vendor  should  be  able  to  provide  
multiple  items  from  the  ?Key  Technologies  for  Hele-­?On?  listed  above  and  present  customizable  
background image
 
62|  
P a g e
 
 
solutions.  Additional  value  will  come  from  firms  with  products  designed  specifically  for  public  
transportation  systems  and  previous  experience  with  rural  or  island-­?based  clients.  
The  following  section  will  highlight  the  top  transportation  technology  companies  and  describe  
their  product  and  service  offerings.  It  will  analyze  potential  benefits  and  implementation  costs,  
and  list  some  examples  of  implementation  or  case  studies.  It  is  important  to  note  that  all  
implementation  examples  were  provided  by  each  vendor  and  results  are  self-­?proclaimed.  Before  
any  particular  vendor  is  contracted,  we  suggest  contact  their  customers  to  confirm  their  
satisfaction  with  the  vendor.  It  is  equally  important  to  note  that  while  the  companies  provided  
costs  of  implementation,  these  are  not  official  quotes  and  the  price  of  their  products  or  services  
will  vary  depending  on  each  project  and  its  customized  solutions.  These  numbers  serve  as  an  
approximation,  but  it  will  be  essential  for  the  County  to  contact  the  vendors  directly  to  receive  a  
real  price  offering.  Cost  calculations  are  based  on  a  fleet  of  56  vehicles  (48  buses,  5  cutaway  
vans  and  3  minivans).
141
 
ACTSOFT  
ActSoft
142
 is  a  custom  software  development  company  based  out  of  Tampa,  Florida.  The  
company  specializes  in  tracking  fleets  and  optimizing  the  system  through  timekeeping,  
dispatching  and  tracking  forms.  Its  main  fleet  management  product,  CometFleet
143
 focuses  on  
providing  tools  to  improve  routing,  reduce  downtime,  and  cut  costs.  CometFleet  is  composed  of  
a  GPS  tracking  system  and  the  company?s  Comet  Suite  applications  to  provide  visibility  of  the  
fleet  and  create  reports  to  identify  improper  use  of  vehicles  or  inefficient  behavior.  
POTENTIAL  BENEFITS  
?  Reduced  fuel  and  overhead  costs  
?  Availability  of  location  data  for  fleet  vehicles  at  all  times  
?  Identification  of  idle  and  stop  times  
?  Can  be  used  to  improve  routing  and  eliminate  redundant  routes    
?  Reduced  downtime  and  unnecessary  wear  
?  Scheduled  maintenance  alerts  
POTENTIAL  CONCERNS  
?  No  analysis  capabilities.  Analysis  would  have  to  be  performed  by  Hele-­?On  or  County  
?  No  previous  experience  with  work  on  islands  
?  Not  designed  specifically  for  mass  transit  systems  
?  More  appropriate  for  fleet  tracking  and  driver  supervision  
?  Does  not  provide  Traveler  Information  Systems  
COSTS  
ActSoft  works  on  24-­?  and  36-­?  month  term  contracts  and  a  month-­?to-­?month  payment.  A  one-­?
time  licensing  fee  of  $100  is  required  and  the  monthly  payments  cover  the  equipment  rental  
background image
 
63|  
P a g e
 
 
and  data  monitoring  and  access.  Hardware  installation  can  be  performed  by  the  customer  or  
through  a  referred  installer.  Installation  services  typically  costs  a  total  of  around  $125.  However,  
installation  is  relatively  simple  and  takes  approximately  30  minutes  per  vehicle.  
Price"  $23.99  per  vehicle  per  month  +  licensing  fee  +  installation  costs  
Approximate  investment  for  Hele-­?On  (for  3  years)"  $48,589  
Additional  resources  needed"  Because  ActSoft  does  not  provide  any  analytics  services,  it  
would  likely  be  necessary  to  hire  a  specialist  to  do  the  routing,  fleet  and  passenger  optimization  
analysis.  The  hiring  and/or  training  of  a  Data  Manager  should  also  be  taken  into  consideration.  
EXAMPLES  OF  IMPLEMENTATION  
STAR  Transit  is  a  demand  response  public  transportation  company  for  Kaufman  and  Rockwell  
Counties  in  Texas.  STAR  uses  ActSoft?s  Comet  Fleet  software  for  mileage  tracking,  driver  
behavior  monitoring,  and  maintenance  reports  and  reminders.  Since  it  installed  the  software,  
the  company  has  increased  fuel  efficiency  by  50%  and  is  saving  hundreds  of  dollars  per  
month
144
.  
Floyd  County  Schools  Transportation  Department  is  in  charge  of  transporting  students  safely  
for  all  school-­?related  activities,  as  well  as  communicating  with  parents  if  any  issues  or  concerns  
arise.  ActSoft  provided  visibility  of  vehicle  location  and  therefore  reduced  safety  concerns  and  
complaints  from  parents.  The  installation  of  this  software  allowed  Floyd  County  Schools  to  
improve  their  operation  efficiency  and  to  properly  follow  the  location  of  dispatched  buses  and  
children
145
 
CONTACT  INFORMATION  
http://www.actsoft.com/
 
(888)  732-­?6638  
NEXTBUS  
NextBus
146
 is  a  real-­?time  passenger  information  solutions  provider  that  offers  a  GPS  enabled  
website  for  mobile  users  to  identify  the  nearest  bus  stops  and  provides  up-­?to-­?the-­?minute  arrival  
times.  Information  is  made  available  through  the  Internet,  SMS  text  or  a  phone  call,  which  
enables  all  types  of  users  to  access  the  service.  NextBus  currently  serves  over  135  transit  
agencies  and  more  than  300  million  riders  every  year.  
POTENTIAL  BENEFITS  
?  Interface  is  easy  to  use  and  allowed  for  easier  planning  and  transportation  
?  Increased  visibility  of  the  transit  system  for  passengers  with  live  mapping  of  rider,  stop  
and  bus  
?  Automatic  alarms  help  riders  arrive  to  the  stop  on  time  
background image
 
64|  
P a g e
 
 
?  Customized  installation  to  meet  passenger,  management  and  budget  needs  
?  Focused  solely  on  public  transportation  systems  
?  Experience  with  many  fleet  sizes  and  broad  client  base  
?  Potentially  low  cost  solution  
 
 
POTENTIAL  CONCERNS  
?  No  focus  on  fleet  optimization  
?  No  focus  on  passenger  or  route  tracking  
?  Does  not  solve  most  of  Hele-­?On?s  needs  on  its  own.    
?  Requires  investment  in  other  technologies,  like  GPS  to  get  required  data  
?  No  previous  experience  on  islands  
?  No  previous  experience  in  rural  or  dispersed  areas    
?  Not  very  responsive,  no  contact  phone  number  available  
 
COSTS  
Unfortunately,  NextBus  did  not  respond  to  our  inquiries  and  therefore  cost  information  is  not  
available.  However,  on  their  website  they  claim  having  customizable  options  to  fit  any  budget.  
EXAMPLES  OF  IMPLEMENTATION  
NextBus  serves  a  broad  range  of  transit  systems  in  North  America,  from  small  towns  and  
colleges  to  large  cities.  Some  of  its  biggest  successes  include:  LA  Metro,  San  Francisco?s  
Municipal  Transportation  Agency,  Chapel  Hill  Transit,  and  Massachusetts  Institute  of  
Technology
 (MIT).  
CONTACT  INFORMATION  
http://www.nextbus.com/  
SYNCROMATICS
 
Based  in  Los  Angeles,  California,  Syncromatics
147
 is  focused  on  providing  Intelligent  
Transportation  Systems  (ITS).  It  serves  fixed-­?route  transit  clients  in  university,  municipal,  and  
private  markets  and  currently  serves  the  entire  fleet  of  the  City  of  Los  Angeles  and  has  
customers  in  30  states  in  the  United  States.      
Syncromatics?  product  and  service  line  includes  cloud  hosting,  transit  dispatch,  real-­?time  bus  
tracking,  transit  reporting,  stop  annunciators,  automated  passenger  counting  and  transit  
schedule  performance  reports.    
POTENTIAL  BENEFITS  
?  Real  time  passenger  information,  including  arrival  predictions  
background image
 
65|  
P a g e
 
 
?  Accessible  information  through  multiple  platforms:    smartphone  apps,  text  messaging,  
Interactive  Voice  Response  (IVR)  phone  system  
?  Wayside  LED  signs  
?  Access  to  web-­?based  tools  for  planners,  dispatchers  and  executives  
?  On-­?time,  ridership  and  management  reports  
?  Includes  Computer  Aided  Dispatch  (CAD),  Automated  Vehicle  Location-­?  GPS  (AVL),  
Automated  Passenger  Counting  (APC),  Automated  Vehicle  Annunciation  System  (AVA)  
POTENTIAL  CONCERNS  
?  No  previous  experience  on  islands  
?  No  previous  experience  in  rural  or  dispersed  areas  
?  Strongly  focused  on  dispatching  and  complex  transit  systems  (emergency  response),  not  
necessarily  at  resource  optimization  
COSTS  
Unfortunately,  Syncromatics  has  not  responded  to  our  inquiries  and  therefore  no  cost  data  is  
available.    
EXAMPLES  OF  IMPLEMENTATION  
City  of  Los  Angeles
148
:  With  incredibly  varied  traffic  patterns,  a  large  number  of  pedestrians,  and  
regular  special  events,  downtown  LA  was  a  highly  unpredictable  environment  for  transit  buses.  
Syncromatics  provided  real-­?time  operations  tools  to  solve  the  multiple  challenges  this  
environment  created.  For  this  particular  client  and  its  needs,  Syncromatics  developed  a  new  
software  program  that  allowed  both  dispatchers  and  drivers  to  identify  the  relative  spacing  of  
buses.  
University  of  South  Florida
149
:  With  a  large  and  complex  transit  operation  system,  the  University  
of  Florida  required  an  all-­?inclusive  solution  to  their  operation  issues.  Syncromatics  provided  a  
real-­?time  passenger  information  system  (RTPI),  automated  passenger  counters  (APC),  mobile  
data  terminals  (MDT),  and  in-­?depth  reporting  and  dispatching  functions.  This  system  has  
generated  over  200,000  hits  per  month  from  students,  faculty  and  staff.  
CONTACT  INFORMATION  
http://www.syncromatics.com/
 
(310)  728-­?6997  
TELETRAC  
Teletrac
150
 provides  an  array  of  services  including  asset  location,  diagnostics,  fuel  efficiency,  
safety,  and  compliance.  Its  Fleet  Director  software  is  aimed  at  fleet  management  issues  and  
requires  no  up-­?front  cost.  They  provide  unlimited  training  and  support  as  well  as  a  lifetime  
guarantee  on  hardware.  They  have  worked  with  more  than  20,000  fleets  around  the  world.  
background image
 
66|  
P a g e
 
 
POTENTIAL  BENEFITS  
?  Fleet  and  route  optimization  
?  Improved  communication  with  customers  and  reliability  
?  Reduced  traffic  violations,  enhanced  security  and  safety  
?  All-­?around  business  solution  
?  Customizable  for  public  transportation  systems  
?  Experience  in  the  field  
POTENTIAL  CONCERNS  
?  No  previous  experience  on  islands  
?  No  previous  experience  in  rural  or  dispersed  areas  
?  Less  focus  on  rider  experience  
COSTS  
Teletrac  provides  free  installation,  web  training,  lifetime  warrantee  and  unlimited  service.  
Equipment  rent  and  subscription  to  their  system  requires  two  month  down  payment  and  a  one-­?
time  $95.00  process  fee.    
Price"  $39.00  per  vehicle  per  month  +  process  fee  
Approximate  investment  for  Hele-­?On  (for  3  years)"  $78,720  
Additional  resources  needed"  Teletrac  can  help  Hele-­?On  with  tracking  and  efficiency  but  they  
do  not  provide  analysis  or  passenger  information  systems,  so  an  additional  investment  would  be  
required  for  those  separately.  Further,  these  costs  are  for  their  basic  tracking  software  package,  
there  are  additional  added  value  products  that  could  be  considered  for  more  sophisticated  
hardware  or  services  but  would  require  additional  investment.  
EXAMPLES  OF  IMPLEMENTATION  
A  recent  survey  performed  by  Teletrac  to  all  supported  fleets  using  Fleet  Director  showed  a  30%  
reduction  in  fuel  consumption,  a  15%  reduction  of  overtime,  a  12%  reduction  of  unauthorized  
vehicle  use  and  a  12%  increase  in  productivity.  
CONTACT  INFORMATION  
http://www.teletrac.com/
 
1-­?800-­?TELETRAC  
TRAPEZE  
Trapeze  Group  provides  transportation  solutions  through  technology,  systems  and  services  in  
North  America.  The  ?Transportation  Solutions?  department  within  the  company  focuses  on  
public  transportation  management  to  improve  service  quality,  control  costs  and  optimize  the  
fleet  resource  productivity.    
background image
 
67|  
P a g e
 
 
Trapeze  Group  has  experience  working  with  small  and  dispersed  fleets  and  offers  customization  
options  to  serve  diverse  fleets?  individual  needs.  Its  product  and  service  lines  span  from  asset  
management  and  fuel  efficiency  to  routing,  ridership  and  operations  analysis  of  current  fleet.    
BENEFITS  
?  Customizable  solutions  
?  Increased  productivity  of  fleet  and  operators  
?  Route  optimization  
?  Visibility  and  accessibility  for  passenger  through  real  time  information  
?  On-­?the-­?bus  technology  for  easy  operation  
?  Driver-­?dispatcher  communication  
?  Available  customer  care  program  
POTENTIAL  CONCERNS  
?  Potentially  requires  large  investment  
COSTS  
Unfortunately  Trapeze  Group  has  not  yet  provided  pricing  information  to  the  team.  The  quote  
order  is  in  place  but  we  have  not  had  any  response.  
EXAMPLES  OF  IMPLEMENTATION  
Regina  Transit  is  the  public  transportation  system  in  Regina,  Saskatchewan,  Canada.  The  transit  
agency  dealt  with  inefficiencies  and  problems  with  manual  dispatching  and  recording.  
Dispatchers  were  lacking  real  time  information  and  location  status  of  their  fleet.  The  Regina  
fleet  consisted  of  30  vehicles  to  serve  200,000  inhabitants  and  performed  an  average  of  200  
trips  per  day.  After  installing  Trapeze  system,  weekday  ridership  increased  by  16%  and  
passengers  per  hour  numbers  increased  from  2.96  to  3.0.  
Kiwanis  Transit  (K-­?Transit)  is  a  demand  response  transportation  provider  in  Ontario,  Canada  
that  provides  services  in  three  rural  townships  and  whose  vehicles  average  over  450  kilometers  
during  a  single  shift.  K-­?Transit  required  detailed  client  history  tracking  and  customizable  
reporting  functions  to  provide  accurate  data  to  federal,  provincial  and  municipal  stakeholders.  
The  chosen  Trapeze  solution  automatically  scheduled  rides  and  maximized  the  number  of  
passengers  riding  each  vehicle  through  routing  redesign  and  automated  dispatching  
information.  
CONTACT  INFORMATION  
http://www.trapezegroup.com/
 
(403)  777  3760  ext.  427  
 
background image
 
68|  
P a g e
 
 
TSO  MOBILE  
TSO  Mobile
151
 focuses  on  Mobile  Resource  Management  and  logistics  products  and  services.  
With  headquarters  in  the  US,  Mexico,  Colombia,  Peru  and  Venezuela,  it  has  worked  on  projects  
across  North,  Central  and  South  America,  as  well  as  the  Caribbean.  TSO  Mobile  provides  GPS  
vehicle  tracking,  dispatching  tools,  and  other  specialized  products  for  public  transportation  
systems.  
TSO  provides  customized  solutions  depending  on  industry  and  size  of  fleet.  It  also  provides  a  
strong  focus  on  customer  satisfaction  and  passenger  benefits.  Public  sector  specific  services  
include  real-­?time  GPS  tracking,  TSO  public  tracker  for  real-­?time  information  for  passengers,  
arrival  forecast,  Automated  Voice  and  Text  Information  Services  (AVIS  and  ATIS),  passenger  
counters,  live  video  monitoring  of  buses,  LED  signs  and  annunciators,  and  public  information  
displays  and  bus  stops.    
POTENTIAL  BENEFITS  
?  Maximized  productivity  and  reduced  operational  costs  
?  Improved  dispatching  
?  Increased  security  
?  Previous  experience  with  rural  or  dispersed  and  low  density  areas  
?  Previous  experience  on  island  systems  
?  All-­?around  and  customizable  business  solution  
?  Focused  on  public  transit  systems  
?  Provides  analytics/consulting  services  for  optimization  
 
POTENTIAL  CONCERNS  
?  Requires  large  investment  
COSTS  
TSO  Mobile  provided  an  itemized  quote  that  includes  prices  for  all  of  the  following  systems:  
Automatic  Vehicle  Locator  (AVL),  Automated  Passenger  Counting  (APC),  Video  Security,  LED  
signs/annunciators,  public  information  displays,  Automatic  Text  and  Voice  Information  Systems  
(ATIS  and  AVIS).  They  charge  a  total  project  management  fee  of  2%  and  a  monthly  services  fee,  
which  depends  on  the  final  installed  systems  (if  all  were  installed,  this  fee  would  be  $170  per  
unit).  This  price  includes  all  on-­?site  installation,  training  and  unlimited  service.  
Price"  $7,797.32  per  vehicle  +  project  fee  (equipment).  $170  per  vehicle  per  month  (services).  
Approximate  investment  for  Hele-­?On    
Up-­?front  investment"  $445,210  
Annual  investment"  $114,240  
background image
 
69|  
P a g e
 
 
Additional  resources  needed"  None.  If  anything,  the  County  might  choose  not  to  install  all  
options  and  the  investment  would  be  lower.  
IMPLEMENTATION  STATISTICS  
From  TSO  Mobile  Website:  
?  Over  30  hours  per  week  can  be  saved  thanks  to  the  automation  of  operations.  
?  Over  30%  increase  in  ridership  can  be  achieved  through  proper  dispatching  and  an  
efficient  public  transportation  service.  
?  Over  10%  reduction  in  costs  annually  can  be  achieved  depending  on  the  entity's  size,  
operations  and  goals.  
CONTACT  INFORMATION  
http://www.tsomobile.com/
 
1-­?877-­?477-­?2922  
SUMMARY  OF  COMPANIES  AND  SERVICES  
Figure  7-­?2:  Analysis  of  Companies  and  Services  
 
As  shown  in  Figure  7-­?2,  the  companies  reviewed  in  this  research  provide  a  wide  array  of  
services,  and  finding  the  best  option  for  Hele-­?On  to  implement  will  depend  on  the  costs  of  each  
and  the  availability  of  resources  in  the  County  of  Hawai`i.  If  resources  were  not  an  issue,  we  
believe  TSO  Mobile  would  be  the  best  option.  Their  previous  experience  with  island  
transportation  systems  was  evident  when  talking  to  their  sales  representative.  Options  like  
Automated  Voice  and  Text  Information  Services  (AVIS  and  ATIS)  are  ideal  for  Hawai`i  because  a  
large  part  of  the  population  does  not  own  a  ?smartphone?  or  technology  to  use  an  ?app?.  For  
those  that  do  use  smartphones,  an  app  is  available  as  well.  Finally,  TSO  Mobile  provides  
Company
Services
Au
to
m
at
ed
 Pa
sse
ng
er
 
Co
un
tin
g  
(A
PC)
Ro
ut
in
g  a
nd
 Fl
ee
t  
Ef
fic
ie
nc
y  
Op
tim
iza
tio
n
Op
er
at
or
 a
nd
 V
eh
icl
e  
Pe
rfo
rm
an
ce
Re
al
-­?ti
m
e  
Pa
sse
ng
er
 
In
fo
rm
at
io
n  
(R
TPI)
M
ob
ile
 D
at
a  T
er
m
in
al
s  
(M
DT
)
Ha
s  S
pe
cif
ic  
Se
rv
ice
 fo
r  
Pu
bl
ic  
Tr
an
sp
or
t?
Ha
s  w
or
ke
d  
on
 R
ur
al
 o
r  
Isl
an
d  
Pr
oj
ec
ts
Actsoft
x
x
NextBus
x
x
Syncromatics
x
x
x
x
x
Teletrac
x
x
x
x
x
Trapeze
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
TSO  Mobile
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
background image
 
70|  
P a g e
 
 
analytics  and  consulting  services  at  no  extra  charge,  which  is  essential  in  Hawai`i  County  where  
the  staff  is  not  specialized  in  that  type  of  work.  
CONCLUSIONS  AND  NEXT  STEPS  
After  an  extensive  analysis  of  available  technology  options  for  improved  transportation  services,  
we  have  determined  that  there  are  many  opportunities  for  the  Hawai`i  County  Mass  Transit  
Agency  to  invest  in  its  future  operations.  Further,  we  realized  that  the  value  of  a  technology  
investment  is  exponential  when  several  technologies  are  used  together.  The  following  were  
identified  as  the  most  beneficial  technologies  for  the  Hele-­?On  transit  system:    
1.  Automated  Passenger  Counting  (APC)  through  Electronic  Fare  Payment  (EFP)  to  
determine  ridership  trends  and  optimize  routes  and  pricing  depending  on  capacity  vs  
demand.  
2.  Geographic  Information  Systems  (GIS)-­?  to  create  and  provide  easy  and  appealing  
information  on  routes  and  schedules.  
3.  Automatic  Vehicle  Location  (AVL)-­?  to  understand  current  operations  and  optimize  route,  
fleet  and  driver  performance.  
4.  Mobile  Data  Terminals  (MDT)-­?  to  make  the  integration  of  technology  systems  easier  and  
more  seamless.  
5.  Real  Time  Passenger  Information  (RTPI)-­?  to  provide  better  predictability,  reliability  and  
service  to  passengers  and  improve  their  overall  experience  to  increase  ridership.  
 
While  Google  Transit  is  not  in  this  list,  as  it  lies  in  a  different  category  of  technology,  it  can  
provide  incredible  benefits  at  a  low  cost  and  we  believe  it  is  the  first  important  step  the  Mass  
Transit  Agency  should  take.  
We  have  identified  three  different  stages  of  activities  and  investments  for  the  County  to  
consider.  There  are  some  easy  and  low-­?cost  solutions  that  we  recommend  should  be  
implemented  right  away,  and  some  pricier  but  more  impactful  solutions  for  which  additional  
funds  must  be  procured.  
IMMEDIATE  SHORT  TERM  
!
 
Google  Transit:  Low  cost  option  with  easy  and  fast  implementation  that  can  help  
passengers  identify  ideal  routes,  schedules,  connections,  etc.  It  will  be  necessary  to  
develop  a  communication  strategy  to  let  users  know  of  its  availability  once  it  is  in  place.  
!
 
Website  enhancements  for  easier  navigation.  
!
 
Develop  clear  route  schedules  and  maps  that  can  be  seen  on  website  without  the  need  
to  download  the  file.  
SHORT  TO  MEDIUM  TERM  
!
 
Procure  funding  for  significant  technology  investment.  Tentative  sources  include:  federal  
grants,  private  impact  investment  opportunities,  and  environmental  or  social  impact  
foundations  
background image
 
71|  
P a g e
 
 
 
MEDIUM  TERM  
!
 
Make  technology  investment  
o  Determine  appropriate  vendor  and  obtain  a  customized  quotes  
o  Determine  new  staff  requirements  and  cost  (if  any)  
o  Set  project  manager  responsible  for  implementation  
 
 
background image
 
72|  
P a g e
 
 
8:  PRIVATE  INVESTMENTS  AND  
TRANSPORTATION  ALTERNATIVES    
OPPORTUNITY:  BUILDING  A  RIDESHARE  NETWORK  
THE  NEED  FOR  RIDESHARING  NETWORKS  IN  HAWAI`I  COUNTY  
Ridesharing  networks  offer  an  alternative,  inexpensive  method  of  transportation  that  would  be  
well  suited  for  coordinating  commuting  across  the  County?s  dispersed  and  rural  populations.    
According  to  the  American  Automobile  Association,  in  2008  it  cost  the  average  American  54.1  
cents  per  mile  to  drive,  including  gasoline,  oil,  maintenance,  and  vehicle  depreciation;  a  40-­?mile  
daily  round  trip  would  end  up  costing  $21.64  per  day,  $454  monthly,  or  $5,453  annually.
152
 
These  costs  are  increased  substantially  for  Hawai`i,  where  gasoline  prices  average  almost  
$0.80/gallon  more  than  national  levels.
153
   
A  German  employer-­?based  rideshare  network  (TwoGo)  recently  implemented  trial  runs  of  its  
service  in  Canada,  the  United  States  and  Singapore  between  July  2011  and  April  2013;  the  trial  
analyzed  patterns  of  22,000  employees,  8,500  of  which  registered  with  the  network.  In  this  two-­?
year  period,  there  were  36,000  matches,  400,000  miles  eliminated,  88  kilotons  of  greenhouse  
gas  emissions  avoided,  and  $5  million  realized  in  fuel  savings,  car  maintenance  and  resale  
value.
154
 A  U.S-­?based  service  specializing  in  corporate  and  university  partnerships,  Zimride,  had  
facilitated  over  26,000  carpools,  acquired  350,000  registered  users,  and  saved  users  over  $50  
million  in  vehicle  operating  expenses  within  the  two  years  since  its  inception.
155
 
Ridesharing  networks  allow  for  greater  cost  sharing  among  users,  reduced  car  maintenance  
costs,  and  could  ease  overall  congestion  on  roads.  As  these  networks  penetrate  the  national  
market,  rivalry  among  services  is  increasing  and  fees  are  becoming  more  cost-­?competitive  
between  both  networks  as  well  as  taxi  services.  UberX  recently  reduced  fares  to  make  them  10%  
lower  than  average  taxi  prices  (base  UberX  fare  of  $7  plus  $0.80-­?$3.80/mile),
156
 while  Lyft,  an  
app  created  by  Zimride,  has  maintained  an  average  cost  of  $15  per  hour  with  drivers  keeping  
80%  of  the  total  donations.
157[158][159]
   
In  addition  to  lowered  costs,  rideshare  networks  allow  for  flexibility  of  unintended  scheduling  
conflicts,  work  delays,  and  the  reassurances  of  GPS-­?tracked  reliability  and  sharing  of  information  
unparalleled  by  bus  transit  ?  each  trip  is  specifically  tailored  to  the  needs  of  passenger  and  
driver.    
Commuters  are  realizing  real  benefits,  reflected  by  the  rapid  expansion  of  regional  and  urban  
networks,  increased  capital  investment  funding,  and  increased  average  growth  of  up  to  60%  
monthly.
160
 Travelers  are  also  attracted  to  the  network  by  the  sense  of  community,  informality,  
and  public  good  derived  by  users.  Ridesharing  networks  are  under  consideration  nationwide  in  
background image
 
73|  
P a g e
 
 
order  to  adequately  address  the  unmet  demand  for  lower-­?cost  travel  alternatives  for  middle-­?
income  residents.  For  this  reason,  we  do  not  foresee  that  future  implementation  will  adversely  
impact  mass  transit  ridership  on  Hawai`i  Island,  which  mainly  relies  on  lower-­?income  workers  
for  a  majority  of  its  fare  revenue.  
The  biggest  challenges  to  implementation  of  these  alternative  systems  remains  the  population  
density  resulting  from  land  use  and  residential  planning,  which  has  led  to  heavy  reliance  on  
existing  cars  for  daily  travel.  To  date,  ridesharing  networks  have  experienced  success  in  dense  
urban  areas,  but  their  applicability  to  more  rural  situations  is  still  questionable.  We  are  unsure  
whether  the  County  has  the  sheer  number  of  coast-­?to-­?coast  commuters  necessary  to  facilitate  a  
rideshare  network  (although  shorter  rides  may  have  the  population  densities  required  to  
support  the  system).  On  the  other  hand,  the  15%  of  islanders  who  carpool  present  a  
substantially  larger  proportion  of  potential  ridesharers  and  vanpoolers  than  their  mainland  
counterparts.  
Currently,  there  is  a  small  Shared  Ride  Taxi  Program  managed  by  the  Mass  Transit  Agency,  which  
charges  approximately  $2  per  coupon  for  four  miles,  or  two  coupons  ($4)  for  eight  miles.  The  
County  reimburses  the  $2  to  the  driver  for  each  coupon  they  submit.  Many  of  the  independent  
taxi  drivers  enrolling  in  the  program  cater  to  the  elderly  and  disabled  in  Hilo.  This  system  also  
has  had  some  success  in  distributing  coupons  through  the  County  Prosecutor?s  Office  to  bars  to  
discourage  drunk  driving  around  the  holiday  season.  However,  participation  is  limited  to  an  
eight-­?mile  radius  on  the  Hilo  side  of  the  island,  while  west-­?coast  taxi  companies  usually  decline  
applications  for  permits  because  the  returns  are  not  as  lucrative.
161
 Additionally,  passenger  
registration  for  this  service  is  required  beforehand,  so  it  does  not  have  the  flexibility  of  a  real-­?
time  demand-­?response  rideshare  network.  The  greatest  potential  impacts  of  ridesharing  and  
realized  cost  savings  depend  on  the  ability  of  a  newly  created  service  to  bring  adequate  long-­?
distance  ridership  from  residential  clusters  in  Puna,  Hilo,  Waimea,  and  Ocean  View-­?South  Kona  
to  the  Kohala  Coast  and  Kona.  New  networks  are  not  meant  to  reduce  travel  time,  but  rather  
provide  more  cost-­?effective,  flexible  and  community-­?oriented  commuting  alternatives.  
BEST  PRACTICES  FOR  RIDESHARING  NETWORKS  
We  studied  a  variety  of  existing  private  global  rideshare  networks  and  synthesized  a  set  of  best  
practices  and  amenities  that  have  allowed  for  their  success.  We  determined  that  these  networks  
have  become  increasingly  popular  in  attracting  ridership  both  domestically  and  abroad,  because  
they  offer  the  user  a  specific  value  proposition:  avoiding  the  costs  and  congestion  of  individual  
daily  commuting.  Lyft  now  provides  an  estimated  30,000  rides  per  week,
162
 while  UberX  has  
launched  in  40  cities  around  the  world  in  the  last  three  years.
163
 Such  rapid  success  and  
expansion  has  not  gone  unnoticed  ?  venture  capital  firms  have  realized  that  such  networks  
could  provide  substantial  returns  on  investment,  and  have  heavily  financed  these  networks  with  
startup  capital.  Though  each  network  varies  in  its  marketing  and  branding  strategies,  the  general  
design  of  these  systems  is  quite  similar:  
background image
 
74|  
P a g e
 
 
TYPICAL  COMPONENTS  OF  A  RIDESHARING  NETWORK    
1) 
?Drivers?  and  ?passengers?  each  create  log-­?in  accounts  via  smartphone,  tablet  or  
computer.  In  order  to  ensure  driver  safety  and  avoid  insurance  risks,  security  
background  checks  are  completed  on  all  active  account  members  before  they  are  
entered  into  the  system.  This  process  verifies  that  drivers  have  violation-­?free  records  
and  no  criminal  history.    
2) 
Passengers  log  into  their  accounts  when  they  would  like  to  be  picked  up  for  a  ride  from  
a  driver  who  has  made  plans  to  drive,  and  whose  route  coincides  with  the  passenger.  
This  is  determined  through  GPS  real-­?time  tracking  and  coordination  to  select  the  most  
optimal  route  for  the  passenger  to  reach  their  destination.  The  passenger  is  presented  
with  a  variety  of  choices  and  can  select  the  driver  who  best  meets  his  criteria  through  
Driver  Ratings  and  Profile  Information  from  past  rides.  The  driver  is  then  notified  via  the  
app  on  their  smart  device.  
3) 
Upon  arrival  at  the  final  destination,  passengers  either  pay  ?suggested  donations?  to  the  
driver  based  on  their  level  of  satisfaction  with  trip,  or  are  charged  a  mileage  fee  directly  
to  their  account  (which  is  connected  to  a  working  credit  card).  Factors  incorporated  into  
donation  include  distance,  time  of  day,  duration  and  location,  with  the  company  
retaining  a  percentage  of  the  donation.  
4) 
Both  driver  and  passenger  have  the  option  to  leave  a  review  or  rating  for  each  other,  to  
boost  their  membership  points  within  the  rideshare  network  and  expand  opportunities  
for  later  rides.  
 
OPTIMIZING  FEATURES  
!
 
Flexibility  of  scheduling:  The  best  systems  allow  drivers  and  passengers  to  make  plans  
anywhere  from  a  week  in  advance  to  ten  minutes  prior  to  departure.  We  also  
recommend  the  integration  of  calendar  functionality  to  notify  the  user  for  friendly  
reminders  for  those  that  make  their  plans  in  advance.  
!
 
Matching  algorithm:  We  recommend  a  system  that  allows  the  driver  or  rider  to  filter  ride  
requests  to  a  specific  drop-­?off  location  or  area  (i.e.  setting  filter  to  only  accept  rides  that  
end  near  your  work).  This  technology  was  first  utilized  successfully  by  Sidecar  in  San  
Francisco.
164
   
!
 
Integrated  GPS:  GPS  real-­?time  synchronization  and  information  tracking  between  Driver  
and  Passenger  allows  the  rider  to  receive  up-­?to-­?the-­?minute  details  regarding  departure,  
arrival  and  current  status  of  the  trip.  Shared  data  alleviates  uncertainty  for  both  parties.  
!
 
Cancellation  and  Damage  Fees:  Regardless  of  whether  donations  are  voluntary  or  
mileage  fees  are  mandatory,  cancellation  and  damage  fees  (penalty  payments  from  
skipped  rideshare  arrangements  or  car  damages)  mitigate  the  risk  of  accident  or  
inconvenience  on  the  part  of  the  driver  or  passenger.    
!
 
Marketing  promotions:  In  order  to  build  name  recognition  and  ease  skepticism  within  
communities,  many  rideshare  networks  have  organized  promotional  and  philanthropic  
events  and  bargains  upon  initial  expansion  to  a  new  coverage  zone.  UberX  expansion  
background image
 
75|  
P a g e
 
 
promotions  include  a  first  month  of  rides  free  of  charge  offered  to  new  users,  as  well  as  
promotional  codes  and  sales  partnerships  with  retail  vendors  like  Stubhub  and  
LivingSocial.
165
   
!
 
Useful  client  services:  automatic  fare-­?splitting,  calculable  greenhouse  gas  emissions  
saved,  and  account  management.  
!
 
Local  partnerships:  There  are  a  number  of  local  taxi  companies  in  Hilo  and  Kona,  most  of  
which  do  not  operate  for  distances  greater  than  nine  miles  (intra-­?town  only).  Rideshare  
networks  can  partner  with  these  independent  taxi  companies  and  link  licensed  and  
insured  drivers  to  customers  ?  this  can  be  mutually  beneficial  in  allowing  the  networks  to  
gain  initial  traction  by  exposure  to  taxi  customers,  while  attracting  new  business  to  taxi  
services.  This  would  be  regulated  under  the  authority  of  the  Hawai`i  Public  Utilities  
Commission,  and  is  already  practiced  with  UberX  in  Honolulu.
166
[
167
].  
!
 
Long-­?term  integration  of  ridesharing  networks  with  other  nearby  transportation  
alternatives:
 Existing  software  applications  like  Ridescout  incorporate  GPS  real-­?time  
tracking  and  scheduling  with  bus,  rail,  taxi,  Sidecar  (rideshare)  and  bike  sharing  networks  
in  close  proximity.  This  would  allow  for  users  to  assess  the  cheapest  and  most  efficient  
nearby  transportation  options  while  simultaneously  reducing  uncertainty  for  these  
services  (last-­?five-­?miles  compatibility).
168
 This  implementation  would  be  contingent  upon  
GPS  coordination  and  installation  on  an  island-­?wide  scale.  
CONSIDERATIONS  FOR  ESTABLISHING  A  RIDESHARE  NETWORK  ON  HAWAI`I  ISLAND  
The  following  section  clarifies  the  regulations  and  policies  essential  for  creating  a  viable  
environment  for  the  network  to  thrive.  In  addition,  the  section  outlines  funding  concerns  and  
startup  costs,  steps  for  implementation,  and  possible  barriers  to  overcome.    
POLICIES  IN  EXISTENCE  
In  order  to  apply  for  grants,  an  individual,  non-­?governmental  organization  or  public  entity  must  
formalize  a  proposal  to  the  Hawai`i  Department  of  Transportation,  who  will  subsequently  
evaluate  the  proposal  before  granting  the  request,  or  submitting  to  the  federal  Department  of  
Transportation  for  prioritization.  
EMPLOYER-­?RELATED  SUBSIDIES  
Employer-­?related  subsidies  can  increase  productivity  by  promoting  commuter  habits  that  
reduce  employee  absenteeism  and  late  arrivals,  while  saving  on  overhead  costs  associated  with  
maintaining  parking  through  the  encouragement  of  carpools.  Employees  and  businesses  must  
be  enrolled  in  the  federal  Transportation  Incentive  Program  (TIP)  in  order  to  benefit  from  
commuting  incentives.  
COMMUTER  TAX  BENEFITS  PROGRAM  
This  program,  which  is  introduced  in  the  Ground  Transportation  on  Hawai`i  Island  and  Other  
Rural  Localities  section,  reduces  payroll  taxes  by  allowing  employees  to  use  pre-­?tax  dollars  for  
background image
 
76|  
P a g e
 
 
transport  as  subsidies  for  carpooling.  It  applies  to  work-­?related  trips  taken  on  a  bus,  rail,  
subway,  ferry,  subscription  bus,  shuttle,  vanpool,  or  rideshare  network.  Employers  can  structure  
the  benefits  in  three  ways:
169
 
!
 
Provision  of  transit  passes,  vanpool  vouchers  or  cash  reimbursement  directly  to  employees.  
Businesses  can  deduct  up  to  $130  per  month  per  employee  for  any  qualified  commuting  
subsidy  as  a  normal  business  expense,  nontaxable  to  the  employee.  
!
 
Employers  can  set  aside  their  employees?  pre-­?tax  income  amount  used  for  qualified  
commuting  expenses,  up  to  a  maximum  of  $130  per  month  before  payroll  taxes;  taxes  are  
paid  on  this  reduced  amount  of  the  employees?  salary.  
!
 
Employers  can  pay  both  part  of  an  employee?s  commuting  costs,  deducting  that  amount,  
then  deduct  the  remaining  cost  up  to  $130  per  month  per  employee  from  their  salary  
before  calculating  taxes.  
Businesses  and  regional  authorities  must  ensure  that  tax  benefits  apply  to  user  rideshare  
payments.  
GUARANTEED  RIDE  HOME  PROGRAM  (GRHP)  
This  regionally  based  program  exists  for  commuters  who  vanpool,  carpool,  bike,  walk  or  take  
public  transit  ?  it  exists  as  an  emergency  or  contingency  plan  for  getting  home.  Operated  by  the  
local  transit  authorities  (Mass  Transit  Agency),  it  is  relatively  inexpensive  to  implement.  For  
many  businesses,  participation  in  a  GRHP  is  free  for  employers.  The  program  requires  
employees  to  commute  alternatively  to  work  a  minimum  number  of  times  each  week,  and  in  
return  allows  a  ride  home  either  by  taxi  or  rental  car  up  to  an  annual  ride  limit  (usually  between  
two  to  eight  rides).  Payment  for  the  ride  is  either  reimbursed  by  the  sponsoring  agency  or  
employer-­?paid  to  the  transit  provider  in  the  form  of  a  small  annual  base  rate  determined  by  size  
of  the  company  work  force.  The  sponsoring  agency  sets  program  eligibility  criteria,  allowable  
destinations  and  maximum  distance,  service  hours,  payment  method,  membership  fees  and  
program  procedures.
170
 Companies  must  register  for  the  program  on  an  individual  basis,  usually  
coordinated  through  the  region?s  respective  regional  transit  authority.  An  FTA  study  of  regional  
GRHPs  in  2006  revealed  a  median  cost  per  claim  of  $36.95  and  a  median  cost  per  registrant  of  
$0.35;  the  average  amount  of  time  spent  weekly  to  manage  the  program  (per  100  participants)  
was  only  15  minutes  in  rural  areas.
171
   
The  benefits  expand  business  service  hours  without  increasing  costs  by  allowing  flexible  or  
staggered  work  hours  only  available  through  increased  access  to  transportation  alternatives  
(such  as  ridesharing).  Furthermore,  businesses  that  actively  participate  in  transportation  
planning  initiatives  have  the  opportunity  to  network  with  other  businesses  and  entities  with  a  
stake,  making  them  well  positioned  to  voice  their  priorities.  Other  states  (such  as  Maryland  and  
Minnesota)  have  implemented  their  own  state  tax  credit  initiatives  allowing  businesses  to  claim  
a  tax  credit  for  a  percentage  of  what  employers  have  contributed  towards  commuting  costs.  
background image
 
77|  
P a g e
 
 
Either  way,  these  federal  subsidy  programs  offer  substantial  dividends  to  businesses  that  utilize  
them.
172
 
This  program  is  important  to  providing  reliability  and  flexibility  in  extending  contingency  
coverage  for  long-­?distance  commuters.  The  successful  implementation  and  desirability  of  the  
network  relies  on  the  strength  of  its  service  convenience  and  certainty,  so  this  type  of  benefit  
could  attract  new  ridership  and  substantial  business  registration.  However,  it  is  important  not  to  
overstate  this  program  as  a  strong  ridesharing  incentive  ?  most  regional  programs  only  offer  a  
severely  restricted  annual  ride  limit.  Additionally,  Hawai`i  County?s  geographic  location  and  lack  
of  state  transportation  demand  management  (TDM)  initiatives  will  be  a  difficult  obstacle  to  
overcome  in  terms  of  adequate  program  funding.  Funding  for  the  program  varies  by  region,  but  
can  either  be  supplemented  with  state  and  federal  monies,  or  completely  supported  by  the  
private  sector  or  through  grants  from  local  organizations.  Funding  may  prove  difficult  for  Hawai`i  
County  ?  most  federal  grants  are  only  available  for  congestion  mitigation  initiatives  in  more  
dense  areas,  or  programs  addressing  transit  for  the  disabled.
173
 
PARKING  INCENTIVES  
Preferential  parking  incentives  may  also  be  used  to  promote  carpooling  and  ridesharing  
networks  for  work.  This  may  include  reduced  fees  for  parking,  or  designated  rideshare  parking  
spaces  located  close  to  places  of  work.  
STATE  CAR-­?SHARING  VEHICLE  SURCHARGE  TAX:  HB1894  &  SB2731  
(Pending  Final  Review  as  of  1/31/14)
 174
   
These  proposed  bills,  passed  on  first  reading  in  both  the  Hawai`i  House  and  Senate,  require  a  
vehicle  surcharge  tax  (current  amount  undecided)  to  be  levied  upon  all  vehicles  used  by  
members  of  car-­?sharing  organizations  each  month.  Additionally,  a  $20  first-­?time  registration  fee  
also  must  be  issued  to  the  person  who  registers  the  vehicle.  Currently,  the  definition  ?car-­?
sharing  organization?  is  too  narrow,  and  specifying  the  term  with  regard  to  peer-­?to-­?peer  
ridesharing  programs  would  have  substantial  implications  moving  forward  into  the  future.    
Official  acknowledgement  of  the  emerging  car-­?share  (rideshare)  market  as  ?a  green  
transportation  innovation  that  can  significantly  reduce  vehicle  miles  traveled,  oil  imports,  
greenhouse  gas  emissions,  and  household  transportation  costs  for  residents?
175
 could  be  
instrumental  in  establishing  a  precedent  for  encouraging  competition  and  development  within  
the  state,  but  the  imposed  tax  could  also  be  another  way  to  discourage  new  users  from  
registering  vehicles  with  car-­?sharing  organizations  by  treating  them  like  a  public  utility.  
In  addition,  the  2007  state  legislature  passed  HB869,  the  Energy  Efficient  Transportation  
Strategy  
Act,  signed  into  law  as  Act  254  ?  it  requires  strategic  professional  working  groups  to  
develop  strategies  that  optimize  energy  usage  in  the  transportation  sector.  It  highlights  
carpool/vanpool  programs,  government  subsidies  and  marketing  campaigns  as  essential  
strategies  in  offering  more  choices  in  mode  of  travel.
176
 While  there  is  still  a  disconnect  between  
background image
 
78|  
P a g e
 
 
level  of  state  governmental  commitment/funding  and  actual  prioritization,  the  past  five  years  
have  seen  forward  steps  in  recognizing  ridesharing  as  a  viable  entity  moving  into  the  future,  
which  may  coincide  well  with  the  timing  for  rollout  of  Requests  for  Proposals  (RFPs)  or  setting  
up  vendor  contracts.      
Together,  these  pieces  of  legislation  could  reduce  economic  and  social  uncertainty  and  set  a  
standard  that  recognizes  the  ridesharing  network  as  a  functioning  transportation  entity,  while  
fostering  support  from  legislators  by  generating  additional  revenue  for  the  state.  However,  in  
order  to  encourage  expansion,  there  must  be  further  legislative  clarification  whether  or  not  
these  companies  will  be  grouped  into  the  same  categories  as  existing  public  utilities,  and  
elaborate  on  which  services  and  practices  will  be  allowed.  In  California,  a  September  2013  
legislative  ruling  legally  authorized  ridesharing  entities  within  the  purview  of  the  state  public  
utility  commission;  the  ruling  was  hailed  as  a  success  by  existing  Transportation  Network  
Companies  (TNCs),  which  could  operate  more  freely  without  having  to  comply  with  the  same  
restrictions  as  traditional  transit.
177
 If  ridesharing  companies  are  legally  established  with  
properly  defined  regulatory  guidelines,  it  could  be  a  major  boon  in  attracting  rideshare  
expansion  to  the  county,  and  perhaps  even  expand  the  capacity  for  allocating  tax  incentives  to  
employers  and  commuters  as  more  revenue  is  generated  from  these  enterprises.  
NETWORK  MANAGEMENT  
TRANSPORTATION  MANAGEMENT  ASSOCIATIONS  
Transportation  Management  Associations  (TMAs)  are  nonprofit,  member-­?controlled  
organizations  that  coordinate  transportation,  vanpool,  and  rideshare  services  between  regional  
businesses  ?  these  coordinated  regional  authorities  are  established  by  a  sponsoring  agency,  
usually  a  state,  regional  or  county  transportation  board,  metropolitan  planning  organization  
(MPO),  or  regional  Council  of  Governments  (COG).  Private  enterprises  that  wish  to  join  a  TMA  
are  accepted  on  an  individual  basis  and  are  allowed  to  share  the  federally  recognized  benefits  of  
commuter-­?oriented  ridesharing  and  carpooling.  This  organization  can  be  structured  as  follows:    
!
 
A  Hawai`i  County  Transportation  Management  Association  could  be  established  by  the  
County  of  Hawai`i  and  Mass  Transit  Agency  with  input  from  the  Hawai`i  County  Economic  
Opportunity  Council,  the  Energy  Coordinator,  the  Planning  &  Economic  Development  
Department,  and  the  Research  &  Development  division.  
!
 
Transportation  planning  within  a  TMA  should  be  an  inclusive  process,  considering  the  
perspective  of  various  stakeholders  including,  but  not  limited  to:  users,  citizens/taxpayers,  
impacted  residents,  businesses,  employees/workers,  public  officials,  affected  
organizations/interest  groups.  
!
 
Among  the  responsibilities  of  the  TMA  are  commute  trip  reduction,  commuter  financial  
incentives,  flextime  support,  parking  management  and  brokerage,  rideshare  matching  and  
vanpool  coordination,  shuttle  services,  special  event  transport  management,  and  tourist  
transport  management.
178
 
background image
 
79|  
P a g e
 
 
!
 
Regional  or  local  governments,  chambers  of  commerce,  or  developers  of  a  major  facility  
usually  provide  seed  funding.  TMAs  are  generally  funded  through  member  fees  paid  by  
businesses  and  government  transportation  grants.  
!
 
A  Board  of  Directors  may  be  necessary  to  oversee  administrative  responsibilities  of  the  TMA  
?  this  Board  should  consist  of  members  from  the  business  community,  transportation  and  
economic  development  government  officials  at  the  County  level,  as  well  as  Chamber  of  
Commerce  representatives  from  both  Kailua-­?  Kona  and  Hilo.    
It  is  important  to  note  that  there  is  an  inherent  tradeoff  involved.  Establishment  of  a  federally  
recognized  Transportation  Management  Association  (TMA)  offers  benefits  for  increasing  the  
infrastructure  around  ridesharing,  specifically  for  employees  and  commuters,  as  this  type  of  
arrangement  makes  Commuter  Tax  Benefits  and  the  Guaranteed  Ride  Home  Program  available  
and  much  easier  to  facilitate.  TMAs  provide  the  organizational  structure  necessary  to  gauge  
potential  ridership  from  alternative  commuting  programs,  garner  public  interest  around  new  
network  opportunities,  and  work  cooperatively  to  identify  new  company  registrants  and  apply  
for  external  funding.  However,  it  may  be  much  more  difficult  to  establish  a  TMA  in  a  rural  
county  with  a  dispersed  population  distribution  and  limited  accessibility  to  public  services  and  
utilities.  Because  TMAs  rely  on  a  structured  public-­?private  partnership  with  registered  users  
stored  and  detailed  in  an  online  database,  the  county?s  high  percentage  of  socially  and  
technologically  isolated  communities  (like  Puna)  may  impede  transition  to  such  a  system.  
There  are  also  tradeoffs  as  to  which  public  entity  should  partially  administer  the  ridesharing  
network.  The  Mass  Transit  Agency  is  already  in  existence,  but  would  require  additional  staff  
members  because  the  current  staff  must  focus  on  operating  the  Hele-­?On  bus  systems.  Any  
additional  responsibilities  would  require  at  least  two  new  coordinating  positions  in  order  to  
spearhead  funding  and  oversight.  While  a  Transportation  Management  Association  or  
Metropolitan  Planning  Organization  might  be  a  better  long-­?term  option  in  terms  of  its  broad  
capacity  for  coordination  and  outreach/participation  among  key  officials  and  business  leaders,  
there  are  no  current  authorities  in  existence  in  Hawai`i  County  ?  any  effort  to  establish  such  an  
entity  would  require  time  and  more  capital  than  adding  duties  to  the  existing  agency.  
TMA  budgetary  data  from  1998  showed  that  California  TMAs  averaged  $140,833  in  expenses  
(office  operations,  marketing  and  promotions,  capital  services,  other  services),  while  yielding  
$152,941  in  revenue  (member  dues,  grants  and  subsidies,  service  fees,  developer  funding  
agreements).
179
 
There  are  venture  capital  firms  that  have  invested  in  early  financing  rounds  for  existing  TNCs.  
Many  of  the  companies  invest  in  seed,  series  a/b  and  growth  stages  of  development;  many  of  
the  companies  also  consult  with  a  design,  marketing,  recruiting  and  engineering  perspective  
with  portfolio  companies  in  order  to  maximize  financial  return.  Refer  to  Appendix  F  for  more  
information  on  investors  and  existing  rideshare  companies.  
A  complete  list  of  national  TMAs  and  their  corresponding  websites  are  listed  in  Appendix  E.
180
 
background image
 
80|  
P a g e
 
 
PUBLIC-­?PRIVATE  PARTNERSHIPS  (PPP  OR  P3)  
Public-­?private  partnerships  (PPP  or  P3)  represent  a  bright  future  for  the  funding  of  
transportation  projects  and  may  prove  advantageous  to  long-­?term  ridesharing  solutions  for  
Hawai`i  Island.  These  public-­?private  partnerships  make  it  possible  for  transit  agencies  or  
transportation  projects  to  find  integrative  and  comprehensive  solutions  without  driving  up  
fares.  The  agencies?  main  objective  is  not  so  much  profits,  but  rather  to  address  mandates  from  
government  to  reduce  congestion,  air  quality  and  greenhouse  gas  emissions.  In  a  P3  agreement,  
projects  are  privately  financed  with  the  transit  agency  maintaining  full  or  partial  control  of  the  
project.  The  private  partner  will  assume  all  or  part  of  the  financial  risk  in  exchange  for  a  share  of  
potential  profits.
181
   
Public-­?private  partnership  agreements  must  clearly  define  Key  Performance  Indicators  (KPIs),  
which  serve  as  the  basis  for  payment  and  ensuring  that  the  partner  is  addressing  the  needs  of  
the  public  agency.  Partners  should  also  have  a  history  of  demonstrable  experience  in  providing  
technical  support  and  efficient  delivery  or  functionality  in  production.  
ADVANTAGES  OF  P3  SYSTEM:
182
 
!
 
Risk  Transfer  ?  private  partners  assume  responsibility  for  delivering  at  a  fixed  price  by  a  
predefined  date.  
!
 
Accelerated  Project  Delivery  ?  these  agreements  usually  employ  a  design-­?build  contract  
approach,  as  opposed  to  design-­?bid-­?build  procurement  process  that  often  expands  the  
timeline  of  the  project.  
!
 
External  Funding/Lower  Operating  Costs  and  Higher  non-­?transit  revenues  ?  transit  agencies  
shift  financial  burden  to  private  partners,  which  allow  for  consistently  low  fares  while  both  
parties  profit.  
!
 
Private  Partner  Networks  ?  private  partners  can  potentially  improve  and  streamline  
rideshare  networks  by  leveraging  past  experiences,  established  services,  standard  
administrative  tasks,  business  processes  and  connections.  
DISADVANTAGES  OF  P3  SYSTEM:
183
 
!
 
Transit  agency  must  cede  certain  elements  of  control  in  order  to  acquire  adequate  funding  
and  other  benefits;  depends  on  which  partner  is  interested  in  retaining  primary  authority.  
!
 
Risk  Transfer  ?  there  are  certain  risks  that  private  partners  will  not  assume,  including  
changes  in  law,  and  interference  or  approval  by  third-­?party  governmental  entities.  
!
 
Most  P3  projects  to  date  have  been  implemented  for  transit  solutions  and  improvements,  
rather  than  establishment  of  new  rideshare  networks.  
HAWAI`I  PUBLIC  UTILITIES  COMMISSION  
The  Hawai`i  Public  Utilities  Commission  (HPUC)  should  be  involved  the  establishment  of  a  
ridesharing  network  as  regulatory  authority.  In  order  to  attract  private  growth,  investment  and  
economic  certainty  of  an  existing  network,  the  state  should  legally  recognize  ridesharing  as  a  
separate  entity  ?  this  provides  legitimacy  to  the  shared  economy,  and  thus  allows  the  HPUC  to  
background image
 
81|  
P a g e
 
 
standardize  a  set  of  rules  for  transportation  network  companies  (TNCs).  As  the  national  leader  in  
peer-­?to-­?peer  ridesharing  networks,  California  has  experienced  rapid  cultivation,  expansion  and  
adoption  of  various  networks  throughout  the  state,  and  as  a  result  has  recently  become  the  first  
state  to  adopt  standards  for  ridesharing  networks.  In  order  to  acquire  a  license  from  the  
California  Public  Utility  Commission,  TNC  services  were  mandated  to  provide  a  minimum  of  $1  
million  in  insurance  coverage,  vehicle  inspections,  driver  training  programs,  and  a  zero-­?tolerance  
drug  and  alcohol  policy.
184
   
RECOMMENDATIONS  FOR  AN  EXISTING  RIDESHARE  NETWORK  (TNC)  
Existing  ridesharing  companies,  like  UberX  and  Lyft,  have  the  flexibility  and  could  work  within  
the  framework  of  an  island  environment,  as  they  require  only  GPS  technology,  cars,  community,  
and  little  additional  capital.  Administrative  oversight  and  long-­?term  recognition  of  these  entities  
by  the  state  public  utility  commission,  an  established  Transportation  Management  Association,  
the  state  transportation  office  (Rural  Transit  Assistance  Program),  or  Mass  Transit  Agency  would  
be  necessary  to  ensure  growth  and  success  into  the  future,  if  a  public-­?private  partnership  is  not  
sought  out.  However,  UberX  introduced  their  service  to  Oahu  with  a  ?soft  launch?  in  2013.  The  
company  is  testing  out  promotional  specials  and  experimenting  with  prices  to  meet  an  optimal  
demand  for  the  island.  
Because  there  are  no  existing  TNCs  on  the  island,  we  recommend  that  the  County  issue  a  
Request  for  Proposal  (RFP)  to  mainland  companies  if  they  wish  to  connect  with  s  an  existing  
service.  
We  cannot  say  with  certainty  whether  one  peer-­?to-­?peer  mobile  service  works  more  
efficiently  for  this  unique  situation  than  another,  so  we  should  allow  them  to  compete  in  a  
bidding  process  for  procurement.  The  County  can  prioritize  key  attributes  that  they  desire  in  a  
rideshare  network  (minimizing  costs  to  user  and  public,  service  convenience/flexibility/  
frequency,  ease  of  administration,  technological  requirements,  capital  required,  socially  
equitable,  etc.)  and  let  the  TNCs  compete.  Appendix  F  provides  a  table  with  information  on  
existing  rideshare  mobility  providers  for  reference  during  the  RFP  process.    
OPPORTUNITY:  ESTABLISHING  A  VANPOOL  NETWORK  
Vanpool  networks  are  an  attractive  transit  alternative  to  establishing  a  rideshare  network  on  
Hawai`i  Island.  A  vanpool  network  on  Hawai`i  Island  would  ostensibly  serve  long-­?distance  
commuters  along  a  designated  route  with  hubs  at  both  ends.  The  Vanpool  Hawai`i  system  
originally  implemented  around  Honolulu  utilized  a  third-­?party  provider  to  provide  cost-­?efficient  
rides  to  both  commuters  and  daily  travelers.  In  order  for  this  type  of  network  to  attract  an  
adequate  base  of  commuters,  costs  must  be  subsidized  by  federal  policies  while  the  vans  must  
be  flexible  enough  to  reach  individual  homes  as  well  as  central  nodes.  However,  this  type  of  
funding  is  not  readily  available;  residents  and  businesses  could  look  to  private  vendor  VRide  if  
they  wish  to  procure  vanpool  services,  which  already  serve  the  island.  
 
background image
 
82|  
P a g e
 
 
VANPOOL  NETWORK  STRUCTURES  
Federal  policies  have  encouraged  businesses  to  develop  alternative  methods  of  work  
commuting  (Guaranteed  Ride  Home,  Commuter  Tax  Benefits).  As  a  result  vanpool  networks  
have  been  expanded  in  many  regions  in  order  to  efficiently  sustain  a  mobile  working  
community.  Company  vanpool  protocols  have  been  shown  to  save  on  parking  costs  by  
decreasing  the  number  of  individual  employee  drivers,  expand  company  recruitment  options  
through  better  networking,  reduce  employee  absenteeism,  promote  companies  as  employee-­?
friendly,  as  well  as  reduce  travel  costs  for  workers.
185
 There  are  three  possible  frameworks  for  
coordination  of  employee  vanpool  systems:
186
 
!
 
Employer-­?sponsored  or  operated  programs  where  vans  are  leased  and  insurance  is  obtained  
through  the  company?s  regular  fleet  policy.  
!
 
Third-­?party  providers  (such  as  VPSI  Inc.,  LOTMA,  or  2Plus)  where  the  employer  contracts  
with  a  private  company  or  organization  to  provide  the  vanpool  service  ?  this  includes  
purchasing  or  leasing  the  actual  vans,  vehicle  liability  and  collision  coverage,  forming  
vanpool  groups,  program  administration,  marketing,  and  van  maintenance.  
!
 
Individually  owned  and  operated  vanpools  where  the  employee  owns  and  maintains  the  
van,  coordinating  daily  operation  of  the  vanpool.  Rider  fares  cover  the  purchase  and  
maintenance  costs  of  the  van.  
Riders  usually  meet  at  a  designated  location  (shopping  center  parking  lot,  church,  park-­?and-­?ride  
location,  etc.)  ?  from  there,  vans  can  either  have  one  or  several  pick-­?up  and  drop-­?off  points.  
There  are  determined  starting  and  ending  nodes  for  both  morning  and  evening  commutes  for  all  
weekdays.
187
   This  could  also  be  expanded  to  include  commutes  on  weekend  days.  
BEST  PRACTICES  FOR  VANPOOLING  NETWORKS  
The  Transportation  to  Work  toolkit
188
 emphasizes  Keys  to  Success  for  vanpool  programs  
nationwide  through  comprehensive  case  studies.  They  have  summarized  that  the  strongest  
elements  of  successful  systems  include  development  of  innovative  partnerships,  involvement  of  
area  employers,  understanding  the  unique  needs  of  communities,  obtaining  political  support  
from  local  officials,  emphasis  on  ease  of  use  for  businesses  and  commuters,  as  well  as  ensuring  
flexibility  in  guaranteed  rides.  
!
 
Drivers  workshops,  background  checks  to  ensure  safe  driving;  reduced  fees  for  drivers  
!
 
Optimum  capacity  for  vans  should  be  anywhere  between  4-­?15  people,  depending  on  route  
and  travel  demand.  The  minimum  of  four  riders  ensures  that  fares  will  be  kept  low  due  to  
shared  cost.  
!
 
Timing  of  funding  cycles  can  significantly  affect  start-­?up  goals  ?  county  officials  should  
consider  the  costs  associated  with  promotional  materials,  outreach  and  partnership  
development.  
background image
 
83|  
P a g e
 
 
!
 
Employees  and  business  owners  should  both  be  consulted  when  developing  time/route  
schedules,  even  if  the  service  is  to  be  provided  through  a  third  party  contract.  This  ensures  
that  adequate  attention  is  paid  to  meeting  geographical  transportation  demand.  
!
 
Optional  fuel  card  program  and  either  monthly  fares  or  flexible  pay-­?as-­?you-­?go  agreements  
that  cover  costs  of  the  van,  insurance,  roadside  assistance,  and  emergency  rides.  In  a  third  
party  system,  private  companies  will  recruit  the  drivers.  
!
 
Online  account  and  database  which  tracks  daily  van  routes  along  a  map  
FUNDING  A  VANPOOL  NETWORK  
In  the  past,  funding  for  Transportation  Management  Association  (TMA)  vanpool  networks  has  
been  allocated  via  voter-­?approved  sales  taxes  or  federal  grants  from  the  Federal  Transit  
Administration.  While  a  majority  of  the  funding  goes  towards  administrative  duties  and  
oversight  through  state  agencies,  Metropolitan  Planning  Organizations  (MPOs)  or  TMAs,  most  
federal  funding  allows  for  up  to  50%  of  the  total  allocations  to  be  kept  for  the  vanpool  
operations  themselves.  In  addition,  some  states  have  their  own  Vanpool  Investment  Funds;  
Washington  uses  such  a  fund  in  order  to  enable  regional  TMAs  to  put  vans  into  operation,  with  
costs  (fuel,  maintenance,  insurance)  being  recovered  through  fares  and  federal  subsidization.
189
   
There  are  three  primary  channels  of  federal  funding  available  for  the  County  of  Hawai`i  to  
establish  its  own  network,  all  enacted  through  the  U.S.  Department  of  Transportation?s  Safe  
Accountable  Flexible  Efficient  Transportation  Equity  Act  (SAFETEA-­?LU):  
Keeping  these  funding  channels  available  is  essential  if  the  County  wishes  to  administer  its  own  
vanpool  program.  However,  it  is  important  to  note  that  the  Hawai`i  County  Economic  
Opportunity  Council  has  had  some  recent  difficulty  with  securing  funding  through  the  Job  Access  
and  Reverse  Commute  Program  (discussed  below)  for  an  additional  vanpool  vehicle  to  take  
commuters  from  Ocean  View  to  the  major  work  hub  along  the  Kohala  Coast.
190
 Actual  monthly  
savings  are  still  realized  (between  $120-­?$160  per  month  to  the  user),  but  there  are  currently  
only  1,600  estimated  vanpoolers  statewide.
191
 The  Hawai`i  Department  of  Transportation  
currently  only  sets  aside  a  small  portion  of  funding  through  its  Rural  Transit  Assistance  Program  
for  vanpool  driver  training  scholarships,  while  responsibility  has  been  ceded  to  a  third  party  
(VRide)  for  network  operations.  This,  coupled  with  the  state?s  discontinuation  of  the  Vanpool  
Hawai`i  program  altogether,  highlights  the  difficulties  of  subsidizing  and  prioritizing  county  
transit  efforts  despite  public  interest  in  alternative  commuter  networks.  
FORMULA  GRANTS  FOR  OTHER  THAN  URBANIZED  AREAS  (SECTION  5311  GRANTS)
192
   
Federal  discretionary  funding  is  also  available  to  states  for  supporting  public  transportation  in  
rural  areas  with  populations  of  less  than  50,000.  These  projects  must  demonstrate  
enhancement  of  accessibility  to  health  care,  shopping,  education,  and  employment,  and  can  
improve  existing  systems,  while  encouraging  the  most  efficient  use  of  coordinated  services  and  
networks.  The  funding  also  seeks  out  support  for  private  transportation  providers  in  low-­?
population  areas.  The  federal  share  of  capital  expenses  may  not  exceed  80%,  while  the  share  of  
background image
 
84|  
P a g e
 
 
operating  costs  should  not  exceed  50%.  Funding  is  apportioned  by  a  formula  using  census  
information  and  analyzing  land  area,  administered  through  the  Federal  Transit  Authority.  In  
2012,  there  was  $40.1  million  appropriated  to  Hawai`i  through  these  grants.  
JOB  ACCESS  AND  REVERSE  COMMUTE  PROGRAM  (JARC  SECTION  5316  FUNDS)
193
   
This  Federal  Transit  Authority-­?authorized  program  was  established  to  address  the  
transportation  challenges  faced  by  low-­?income  workers  seeking  to  obtain  and  maintain  
employment  to  moderate  success.  Eligible  recipients  are  state  and  public  entities,  private  
nonprofits,  and  private  operators,  who  are  working  to  enhance  mobility  of  these  disadvantaged  
communities  through  transporting  people  to  and  from  work.  In  2007,  there  was  $59.6  million  
allocated  nationally,  with  20%  given  to  small  urbanized  areas  and  20%  apportioned  for  rural  
areas.  Potential  program  candidates  currently  must  apply  individually  to  receive  funding.    
RECOMMENDATIONS  
CREATING  A  RIDESHARE  NETWORK  ON  HAWAI`I  ISLAND    
BUSINESS  MODEL  
We  have  developed  the  business  model  represented  in  Figure  8-­?1.  The  following  section  will  
discuss  the  key  elements  we  have  highlighted  below.  
Figure  8-­?1:  Public-­?Private  Partnership  Rideshare  Network  Business  Model  
 
Value&Driven,Investors
Independent,Taxi,
Companies
Transit,Authority
Key$Partners
Mobile,phones,,tablets,,
Cloud&based,support
Key$Activities
Acquiring,funding,and,
private,investment
Platform,,database,,
account,development
GPS,calibration,&,
coordination
Application,software,
development
Possible,partnerships,
with,taxi,companies
Marketing,&,outreach
Key$Resources
Technology,
infrastructure
Ridesharing,Community
Cost$Structure
Development,phase,
(GPS,,ridematch,
platform,,tech,support,,
marketing)
Regional,transit,authority,
consolidation/administra
tion
Cost,of,driving,(gas,,
maintenance)
Suggested,minimum,+,
per,mile,passenger,
donations
Advertising/promotional,
deals,and,events,,
partnerships,with,
existing,vendors
Existing,commuter,and,
business,tax,incentives
Value$Propositions
Connectivity,,community,,
networking,potential
Reduced,cost,of,
individual,travel
Carpool,engagement,is,
friendly,,safe,,
personalized,,flexible
Revenue$Streams
Customer$Relationships
Customer$Segments
Same&side,network,effect,,
(drivers,and,riders,
mutually,beneficial)
Private,partner&public,
agency,intercoordination
Channels
Mobile,Application
Online,Calendar,
Automation
Website
Rideshare,Board
County&wide,commuters
Employers
Advertisers,and,
Marketers
Tourists
background image
 
85|  
P a g e
 
 
KEY  PARTNERS  
The  network  should  be  comprised  of  the  following  groups  of  suppliers  and  strategic  partners:  
1)  A  transit  authority  or  Transportation  Management  Association  is  necessary  for  
administrative  coordination,  daily  functionality  and  management  of  an  online  account  
database  of  users.  Within  a  public-­?private  partnership  (P3)  framework,  the  public  agency  
must  cede  a  majority  of  its  control  to  the  private  investor.  Another  possibility  is  for  the  
private  entity  to  engage  in  a  partnership  with  the  local  university  (University  of  Hawai`i  at  
Hilo)  to  facilitate  transportation  for  students,  faculty  and  workers.  
2)  Value-­?driven  entrepreneurs,  like  the  Rideshare  Company,  Cubic,  TwoGo  and  Trapeze  will  be  
necessary  to  finance  initial  startup  costs  of  GPS,  account  and  software  development,  
technical  support  and  marketing  ?  as  well  as  provide  support  and  guidance  to  the  
necessary  administrative  agency.    
3)  Independent  taxi  companies  could  be  subcontracted  to  build  more  of  an  initial  client  base  
while  maintaining  friendly  relations  and  a  mutually  beneficial  with  this  industry.  This  is  
more  of  a  long-­?term  goal,  as  taxi  systems  would  have  to  be  calibrated  with  GPS  technology  
and  ridesharing  payment  options  in  order  for  drivers  to  pick  up  multiple  riders  and  split  
fares.  Costs  would  also  have  to  come  down  considerably.  
KEY  ACTIVITIES    
A  key  advantage  of  the  P3  structure  over  a  traditional  TNC  company  will  be  forgoing  the  tedious  
process  of  securing  and  sourcing  funds,  from  venture  capital  groups  as  well  as  the  federal  
funding  sources  mentioned  above  ?  this  is  essential  in  the  earliest  stages  of  development,  where  
the  most  technical  support  and  administrative  coordination  is  needed.  There  may  need  to  be  
some  external  sourcing  of  funding  in  order  to  partially  cover  the  cost  of  compensation  to  the  
vendor,  but  usually  the  third  party  has  the  expertise  to  guide  the  agency  in  finding  available  
financial  assistance.  In  addition,  the  network  must  maintain  platform  and  account  development  
(keeping  up  a  functioning  and  accessible  database  which  screens  users  and  provides  feedback),  
GPS  calibration  and  coordination  between  drivers  and  riders,  application  software  development,  
and  marketing/outreach  to  garner  interest.    
Marketing  and  outreach  should  account  for  a  substantial  portion  of  developing  a  consistent  
customer  base.  Press  releases  in  local  newspapers,  emails  to  community  groups,  promotional  
deals  broadcasted  via  radio,  and  in-­?person  tabling  in  populous  areas  to  disseminate  information  
and  greet  potential  riders.  
KEY  RESOURCES    
The  success  of  the  network  will  rely  on  technology  infrastructure  (both  through  mobile  and  
computer-­?based  users  and  the  interactive  platform,  which  links  them  to  rideshare  information),  
an  easy-­?to-­?use  payment  option  linked  to  credit  card  information,  the  enthusiasm  and  network  
support  of  drivers  and  riders  alike,  and  an  accessible  and  attractive  interface.    
background image
 
86|  
P a g e
 
 
VALUE  PROPOSITIONS    
Ultimately,  the  rideshare  networks  should  be  marketed  in  a  way  that  emphasizes  connectivity  
and  networking  potential  with  the  surrounding  community  (i.e.  island  pride  and  heritage  in  
community).  Additionally,  ridesharing  saves  the  cost  of  individual  travel,  while  allowing  
commuters  to  engage  and  carpool  in  a  friendly  and  safe  environment  with  a  personalized  
service.  It  should  also  be  emphasized  that  drivers  can  actually  make  a  profit  based  on  distance  
and  the  number  of  carpoolers  they  select.  
CUSTOMER  RELATIONSHIPS    
Same-­?side  network  effects  exist  where  both  drivers  and  riders  benefit  from  a  shared  system.  
The  business  will  benefit  from  increased  usage  and  operation  streamlining  as  the  network  
expands  and  gets  increasing  exposure.  There  must  also  be  a  positive  working  relationship  
between  private  partner  and  public  agency,  where  the  responsibilities  and  duties  of  both  parties  
are  clearly  defined  prior  to  implementation.  
CHANNELS    
It  is  important  to  consider  the  way  in  which  the  network  communicates  and  targets  customer  
segments.  It  should  rely  on  a  functional  mobile  application,  calendar  automation  (i.e.  Google  
calendar  notification),  as  well  as  a  website  for  those  without  access  to  smart  phones  or  tablets.    
A  rideshare  board  might  also  be  useful  for  residents  with  limited  internet  access  in  order  for  
residents  to  either  register  for  the  service,  or  find  out  when  rides  are  departing/entering  their  
locale.    
CUSTOMER  SEGMENTS    
Primarily  this  service  will  be  targeted  at  island  commuters  and  employers.  Other  prospective  
targets  include  tourists,  university  and  high  school  students,  university  faculty  and  staff.  
COST  STRUCTURE    
If  the  County  opts  to  enter  into  agreement  with  a  private  vendor  (via  a  public-­?private  
partnership),  that  vendor  will  cover  operational  expenses  and  technical  support  in  exchange  for  
compensation  for  fare  revenue  and  software  costs.  For  reference,  a  Regional  Rideshare  
interface  and  online  ridematching  platform  in  the  Los  Angeles  metropolitan  area  through  the  
Trapeze  Group?s  RidePro  program  cost  a  total  of  $208,929;  the  Riverside  County  Transportation  
Commission  paid  $81,553,  while  the  national  Mobile  Source  Air  Pollution  Reduction  Review  
Committee  (MSRC)  covered  $127,376,  through  the  state  of  California?s  discretionary  funds.
194
 
From  there,  most  of  the  cost  is  incurred  upon  the  drivers,  who  would  normally  pay  for  gasoline  
and  car  maintenance  from  commuting  anyway.  The  attractiveness  of  the  network  is  the  shared  
(reduced)  cost  of  commuting  through  encouraged  carpooling  and  accessibility  to  ride  
information.  
 
background image
 
87|  
P a g e
 
 
REVENUE  STREAMS    
Because  the  system  relies  on  ?suggested?  donations  to  the  driver  (average  of  $0.13/mile  based  
on  existing  systems)  to  cover  gas  and  car  maintenance,  actual  revenue  and  ROI  is  difficult  to  
determine.  This  system  should  provide  a  small  percentage  of  the  donation  to  go  towards  the  
network  (20%),  with  additional  sources  coming  from  advertising  or  promotional  deals.  
Additional  partnerships  with  retail  vendors  (i.e.  LivingSocial,  StubHub,  Groupon)  could  be  
utilized  to  entice  new  users  to  the  network.  Tax  incentives  for  commuters  may  encourage  more  
riders  to  pay  for  the  system?s  use,  as  well  as  full  cost  recovery  for  drivers  through  a  mechanized  
(or  cash-­?based)  payment  plan.  Most  of  the  revenue  is  returned  in  the  sale  of  the  ridesharing  
software  platform  and  coordination  of  technical  guidance  and  support.  
There  are  potential  opportunities  available  for  rideshare  networks  and  independent  island  taxi  
companies  to  partner  ?  Uber  has  already  reached  out  to  work  with  taxi  and  limo  drivers  to  
provide  their  service.  This  is  a  good  way  to  reduce  animosity  and  resentment  between  the  two  
services,  fueled  by  increased  competition.  However,  partnership  in  this  area  may  be  slow,  as  taxi  
regulations  are  complex  and  based  on  entirely  different  business  models  developed  pre-­?
smartphone.    
VENDOR  OPTIONS  FOR  AN  ISLAND  P3-­?BASED  NETWORK  
Ultimately  we  recommend  that  a  public  agency  partners  with  a  private  ?product  vendor?  to  
develop  a  finance  stream  and  organizational  structure  for  individualized  ridesharing  network.  
We  have  completed  a  preliminary  analysis  on  the  following  vendors  for  their  suitability  for  a  
public-­?private  partnership  to  develop  a  ridesharing  network  on  Hawai`i  Island.  
THE  TRAPEZE  GROUP  
The  Trapeze  Group  claims  to  be  ?a  company  at  the  forefront  of  tackling  global  transportation  
challenges  through  technologically  integrated  solutions.?  The  company  provides  end-­?to-­?end  
service  programs  from  product  innovation  and  development  to  solutions  delivery  and  technical  
support.  Most  recently,  they  have  acquired  the  assets  of  GreenRide,  a  suite  of  sustainable  
ridesharing  solutions  specializing  in  mobility  management,  demand  response  and  software  
expertise.  Trapeze  offers  the  most  comprehensive  rideshare  management  online  solutions  
package  to  date  (through  RidePro).
195
 The  capabilities  of  RidePro  include:  
!
 
Automated  ridematching,  both  individually  or  in  batches  
!
 
Integration  with  social  media  enabled  for  individual  networking  
!
 
Web  site  support  to  brand  a  public  interface  for  the  ridesharing  service  
!
 
Commuter-­?recorded  trips  to  support  savings  calculations  and  incentive  
programs  (i.e.  promotional  drawings)  
!
 
Maintenance  of  contact  with  registrants  while  tracking  program  success  through  
email  and  surveys  
!
 
Integrated  vanpool  matching  software  
background image
 
88|  
P a g e
 
 
THE  RIDESHARE  COMPANY  
The  Rideshare  Company  is  a  nonprofit  organization  offering  interactive  demand-­?oriented  
ridematching  solutions  and  consulting,  marketing  strategies  and  fleet  vehicular  provisions  for  
ridesharing  and  vanpooling  programs.  This  company  focuses  on  employees  and  brings  together  
federal  tax  incentives,  mass  transit  options,  commuter  incentives,  and  user  tracking  tools  to  
deliver  commuter  services  uniquely  tailored  to  fit  each  business.  Originating  in  the  New  
York/New  England  region,  the  company  has  expanded  their  consulting  services  nationally  to  
Washington,  DC,  Chicago  and  Los  Angeles  while  procuring  a  General  Services  Administration  
contract  that  allows  them  to  provide  support  directly  to  federal  government  agencies  as  well.  
The  company  places  high  emphasis  on  outreach,  marketing,  and  education  from  conception  to  
implementation  in  order  to  educate  employers,  commuters,  state  governments  and  NGOs  while  
helping  them  optimize  commuting  alternatives.
196
 
CUBIC  TRANSPORTATION  SYSTEMS  
This  global  corporation  provides  integrated  revenue  management  solutions  within  the  mass  
transit  industry.  They  assist  with  the  design  and  delivery  of  technological  services  that  provides  
the  business  model  and  fare  payment  infrastructure  (gates,  ticketing,  smart  card  readers,  back  
end  or  central  systems  for  processing  and  reporting  revenue).  In  addition,  the  company  assumes  
responsibility  in  providing  customer  and  software  support  as  well  as  operations  services.  The  
company  has  delivered  over  400  projects  in  40  major  markets  on  five  continents.
197
 
A  UNIVERSITY  RIDESHARE  NETWORK  
We  recommend  investigating  the  possibility  of  a  ridesharing  pilot  project  at  the  University  of  
Hawai`i  at  Hilo  to  understand  the  benefits  and  barriers  of  this  kind  of  network  on  Hawai`i  Island.    
University  of  Hawai'i  at  Hilo  Campus  
(Source:  hilo.hawaii.edu)
 
   
background image
 
89|  
P a g e
 
 
The  success  of  ridesharing  networks  in  attracting  university  students  depends  upon  the  
proportion  of  automobile-­?reliant  commuters  at  the  school  and  the  relative  travel  distances  
between  their  residences  and  campus.  Further  commuting  distances  from  campus  have  
traditionally  been  favorable  for  ridesharing,  with  larger  universities  often  proving  more  
successful  at  attracting  new  users  to  rideshare  than  their  smaller,  more  campus-­?focused  
counterparts.
198
 The  University  of  Washington  in  Seattle  (UW)  campus,  for  example,  registered  
2,336  users  through  Zimride/Lyft  on  its  launch  date  ?  the  largest  in  Zimride  history.  Over  six  
weeks  later,  there  were  4,039  users  (those  who  had  logged  onto  the  site).  Zimride  usually  
averages  1,500-­?2,000  campus  users  within  the  first  year  of  its  launch.
199
 The  success  of  the  UW  
rideshare  network  may  be  attributed  to  its  strategic  communications  campaign,  based  on  
results  from  student  behavioral  studies  and  focus  group  analyses.  Furthermore,  only  13%  of  
undergraduate  students  live  on  campus,  which  indicates  a  strong  demand  for  residence-­?to-­?
campus  service.
200
 Commuter  service  emails  and  messages  to  those  holding  parking  permits  
yielded  statistically  significant  influence  on  user  registration.  It  is  unlikely  that  out-­?of-­?state  
university  students  at  Hilo  would  rely  on  ridesharing  to  get  from  the  local  airport  to  campus,  as  
the  distance  spans  just  four  miles.  However,  out  of  the  4,100  undergraduate  students,  only  26%  
live  on  campus,  so  rideshare  commuting  to  campus  might  be  an  option  depending  on  user  
preferences  ?  this  number  does  not  even  take  into  account  the  university  faculty  and  staff  that  
may  live  further  from  campus  and  find  carpooling  an  attractive  option  in  getting  to  campus.
201
 
Marketing  and  branding  should  account  for  a  substantial  portion  of  accumulating  a  critical  mass  
of  users  essential  for  network  functionality.  Characteristics  of  past  marketing  campaigns  have  
included  extensive  emails  to  target  audiences  (social  clubs,  parking  permit  holders),  commuter-­?
targeted  tabling  in  student  activities  areas  and  parking  lots  to  disseminate  information,  poster  
advertisements  and  added  incentives  (raffles  for  tablets  and  iPods,  promotional  deals  with  social  
media  vendors  like  LivingSocial  and  StubHub).  Once  the  network  has  attracted  a  broad  base  of  
consistent  users,  coordinators  need  to  leverage  their  authority  to  incorporate  larger  campus  
groups  and  organizations  in  order  to  expand  credibility  and  personal  outreach  for  the  network.  
Engagement  from  orientation  is  also  recommended  in  order  to  familiarize  students,  while  
fostering  a  sense  of  community  and  security  by  emphasizing  personal  referencing  and  user  
recommendations/ratings.  
The  rideshare  industry  is  highly  competitive  and  as  result  is  reluctant  to  disclose  information  
about  their  revenues  and  costs.  We  were  able  to  collect  limited  data  from  public  records  and  by  
contacting  the  companies  themselves.  For  example,  Zimride  (purchased  in  2013  by  Lyft)  typically  
charges  approximately  $10,000/year  to  large  universities  for  rideshare  partnerships  -­?  major  
costs  will  be  realized  in  the  development  phase,  where  initial  technical  and  marketing  capital  is  
required  to  get  the  ridesharing  platform  up  and  running.
202
 
Students  who  are  actively  engaged  in  both  environmental  stewardship  and  campus-­?wide  social  
groups  have  traditionally  initiated  project  development.  We  connected  with  members  of  UH-­?
Hilo?s  Students  for  Sustainability  Committee,  who  do  not  currently  work  on  commuting  issues,  
but  were  interested  in  engaging  in  them  in  the  future.    
background image
 
90|  
P a g e
 
 
If  the  County  wishes  to  pursue  partnership  with  the  University  of  Hawai`i  -­?Hilo  as  a  pilot  project,  
information  gathered  from  previous  college  networks  suggest  that  UH  should  develop  its  own  
uniquely  tailored  and  marketed  rideshare  network.  It  is  important  for  the  university  to  plan  for  
the  ability  to  change  providers  in  the  future  without  losing  all  prior  market  development;  
ridesharing  platforms  are  still  in  their  infancy  and  are  still  subject  to  market  fluctuations  and  
acquisitions  by  larger  companies  who  may  wish  to  diversify  and  re-­?prioritize  their  capabilities.  
Significant  student  involvement  in  the  partnership  process  has  also  been  a  recurring  theme  of  
past  implementation  projects  at  the  university  level.
203
 
UNIVERSITY  RIDESHARE  COMMUTING  PATTERNS  ?  A  CURSORY  GLANCE  
Figure  8-­?2,  below,  indicates  the  success  of  ridesharing  at  attracting  both  short-­?  and  long-­?
distance  commuters  at  the  University  of  Washington?s  Seattle  campus  between  2010  and  2014.  
There  have  been  a  total  of  3,704  cumulative  ride  posts  (approximately  8%  of  all  campus  
students  and  faculty)  since  December  13,  2010,  with  13  average  ride  matches  per  post.    
Figure  8-­?2  
 
The  numbers  reflect  that  the  dense  urban  student  population  has  utilized  the  network  for  a  
substantial  majority  of  short  distances  rather  than  long  distances;  26.6%  of  commutes  were  
between  0-­?5  miles,  while  29%  of  commutes  were  5-­?10  miles,  22.4%  of  commutes  were  10-­?20  
miles,  and  22%  of  commutes  were  longer  than  20  miles.  Despite  the  more  substantial  gains  in  
cost-­?effectiveness  from  further  driving  distances,  it  appears  that  density  and  a  higher  number  of  
potential  commuters  are  a  more  significant  factor  behind  rideshare  usage  than  distance  savings.  
This  implies  that  the  University  of  Hawai`i  at  Hilo  could  potentially  benefit  from  a  rideshare  
network  despite  short  distances  from  town  to  campus.
204
 
 
27%  
30%  
23%  
15%  
1%   2%  1%  
1%  
Rideshare  Commugng  Parerns  at    
University  of  Washington  
0-­?5  miles  
5-­?10  miles  
10-­?20  miles  
20-­?60  miles  
60-­?100  miles  
100-­?160  miles  
160-­?220  miles  
220+  miles  
background image
 
91|  
P a g e
 
 
COMPARISON  OF  RIDESHARE  OPTIONS    
Table  8-­?1  provides  an  overview  of  the  major  decision  points  for  moving  forward  with  either  an  
existing  rideshare  network,  a  newly  developed  network  or  a  vanpool  network.    
Table  8-­?1:  Rideshare  Options  for  Hawai'i  Island  
Criteria  
Third  Party  Existing  
Rideshare  Network  (TNC)  
Third  Party  Unique  Rideshare  Network  
(P3)  
Vanpool  Network  
Cost  for  
Average  
User  
Optimal  driver  donation  
has  been  determined  to  be  
$0.13/mile  with  the  
company  retaining  a  20%  
fee.  
Optimal  driver  donation  has  been  
determined  to  be  $0.13/mile.  
$141-­?164  per  person/month  
(estimate  specific  to  
Vanpool  Hawai'i)
205
   
Capital  
Needed  
Average  cost  to  rollout  
service  at  the  university  
level  is  approximately  
$10,000/year.
206
 
Trapeze  Group  RidePro  ridematching  
software  cost  a  total  of  $208,  929;  the  
Riverside  County  Transportation  
Commission  paid  $81,553,  while  the  
national  Mobile  Source  Air  Pollution  
Reduction  Review  Committee  (MSRC)  
covered  $127,376,  through  the  state  of  
California?s  discretionary  funds.
207
 
The  average  cost  for  a  single  
carpool  in  Hawai`i  is  $1,300/  
month  for  a  7-­?person  van.
208
 
JobJet  Iowa  was  initially  
funded  by  $146,000.
209
 
Service  
Conven-­?
ience  
Optimal  
Optimal  
The  van  is  assigned  starting  
and  ending  nodes  at  the  
same  time  every  working  
day.  It  lacks  the  flexibility  of  
the  rideshare  networks,  but  
maintains  reliability.  
Ease  of  
Admini-­?
stration  
TNCs  are  already  in  
existence  and  easily  
transferable  to  new  
markets.  However,  a  
regional  transit  authority  
must  be  available  to  
coordinate  and  regulate  
the  TNC.    
Development  of  a  P3  is  time-­?intensive  
and  requires  technical  consulting  to  
adopt  a  suitable  model.  However,  
longer  term  stability  could  make  
securing  funding  from  external  sources  
easier.  Private  vendors  assume  the  
administrative  role,  relieving  the  public  
agency  of  much  of  the  burden.    
There  is  no  current  
MPO/TMA  for  the  county.  
The  statewide  vanpool  
program  was  dropped  in  late  
2010,  so  the  commuter  
network  is  largely  privately-­?
managed.  (Vride)  
Availabil-­?
ity  of  
Techno-­?
logy  
GPS  user  technology  is  
readily  available;  the  
ridematching  platform  is  
provided  by  TNC.  
Ridematching  platform  and  technical  
support  and  GPS  database  provided  by  
the  company.    
Software  from  VRide  already  
implemented  
Require-­?
ments  
Cars,  drivers,  riders,  mobile  
phone  or  tablet  with  GPS  
capability,  ridematching  
platform  and  database  with  
accessible  account  
information  
Ridematching  platform  and  
marketing/development  depends  on  
each  unique  situation,  but  could  either  
be  provided  by  the  company  or  
coordinating  agency.  
Van  fleet  provided  either  by  
third  party  provider  or  an  
employer.  Database  both  
online  and  via  hard  copy.    
background image
 
92|  
P a g e
 
 
USER  COST  COMPARISONS  
Figure  8-­?3  illustrates  the  monthly  user  costs  associated  with  ridesharing  and  compares  them  to  
the  cost  of  commuting  alone  and  commuting  via  public  transit.  The  chart  also  compares  cost  
recovery  for  drivers  based  on  how  many  passengers  are  served  in  the  carpool  and  distance  
traveled  daily  (short  city  commutes  of  10  miles  and  long  intra-­?island  commute  of  160  miles).  The  
economic  returns  from  long-­?distance  commuting  are  much  more  substantial  in  ridesharing  than  
for  shorter  distances.  Although  the  driver  pays  an  average  of  $640/month  for  long-­?distance  
commuting  on  the  island,  that  cost  is  cut  almost  in  half  by  taking  on  one  additional  passenger  
($332.80  returned  to  the  driver),  and  fully  recovered  with  additional  profit  by  taking  on  two  or  
three  passengers  (making  $25.60  or  $358.40  per  month  respectively).  For  shorter  distances,  the  
gains  are  more  modest  ?  the  $40/month  average  cost  of  gasoline  for  a  single  commuter  is  
recovered  with  the  driver  earning  an  additional  $1.60  for  two  more  riders  and  $22.40  for  three  
more  riders.  (See  Appendix  G  for  more  details  on  these  calculations.)  Despite  these  findings,  the  
pilot  project  completed  at  the  University  of  Washington  clearly  indicated  that  short-­?distance  
(<20  miles)  commutes  were  the  most  heavily  frequented  routes  of  rideshare  users,  indicating  
that  the  potential  of  a  loyal  ridership  community  is  more  contingent  upon  a  dense  user  base  in  
which  to  draw,  rather  than  relying  on  only  long-­?distance  commuters  that  live  in  more  isolated  
neighborhoods.  
Figure  8-­?3  
 
 
 $(400.00)  
 $(200.00)  
 $-­?        
 $200.00    
 $400.00    
 $600.00    
City  Commute  
Cross-­?Island  Commute  
Mo
n
t
h
l
y
 
C
o
s
t
 
o
f
 
T
r
a
v
e
l
 
Distance  of  Commute  
Carpool  Economics  
Commute  Alone  
Carpool  -­?  2  people  
Carpool  -­?  3  people  
Carpool  -­?  4  people  
Carpool  Rider  
Public  Transit  
background image
 
93|  
P a g e
 
 
FEASIBILITY  ANALYSIS    
THIRD  PARTY  EXISTING  RIDESHARE  NETWORKS  (TNC)  
ADVANTAGES  
Existing  Rideshare  Networks  provide  quick  entry  into  the  marketplace.  These  heavily  frequented  
and  tested  networks  already  have  substantial  technical  expertise  in  developing  efficient  
demand-­?responsive  ridematching  software.  The  networks  also  bring  experience  and  guidance  in  
community  engagement  and  marketing,  making  them  effective  communicators  with  the  
practiced  ability  to  promote  new  ridership  and  attract  a  wide  variety  of  clientele  across  a  social  
media  landscape.  Technical  support  is  centralized  and  readily  available,  as  is  the  capacity  for  
organizational  partnerships  ?  Lyft,  Zimride  and  UberX  in  particular  have  demonstrated  a  knack  
for  partnering  with  universities,  corporations  or  independent  taxi  providers  in  order  to  broaden  
their  customer  bases  while  cultivating  mutually  beneficial  relationships  with  existing  companies.  
Service  convenience  (as  included  as  a  key  performance  criterion)  refers  to  the  flexibility,  
certainty,  responsiveness,  and  reliability  of  the  transportation  system.  Rideshare  networks  have  
near  optimal  service  convenience  due  to  the  fact  that  the  technology  utilized  is  tailored  to  
drivers  picking  up  passengers  along    routes  to  be  established  ahead  of  time.  They  have  proven  
to  be  used  in  cities  as  both  commuting  practices  as  well  as  established  connection  points  
between  the  workplace,  larger  transit  hubs,  and  home.  
Carpool  savings  to  the  user  (driver  or  rider)  naturally  accrue  over  time,  growing  increasingly  
large  depending  upon  number  of  users  carpooling  together.  Carpool  savings  are  generally  much  
more  substantial  for  longer  commuting  trips.  As  noted  in  User  Cost  Comparisons  (above),  drivers  
can  recover  their  monthly  spending  on  gasoline  with  just  two  more  passengers,  and  can  
potentially  earn  over  $350  per  month  with  three  additional  passengers.  Although  the  average  
cost  to  the  passenger  in  said  carpool  may  round  out  to  about  $416  per  month,  this  is  still  lower  
than  the  $640/month  standard  commuter  fare  for  the  160-­?mile  round  trip  from  Hilo  to  Kona.    
Finally,  as  we  mentioned  in  the  section  entitled  ?Characteristics  of  Hawai`i  County  Commuters,?  
residents  of  Hawai`i  Island  are  already  more  prone  to  carpooling  practices  than  their  mainland  
counterparts.  If  these  ridesharing  networks  are  able  to  promote  ridesharing  as  a  community-­?
strengthening  culturally  cohesive  tool  to  network  and  support  fellow  Hawaiians,  the  companies  
may  have  a  much  more  meaningful  and  long-­?lasting  impact.  The  greatest  chance  for  potential  
consumer  impact  on  the  island  remains  in  long-­?distance  commuting  from  residential  clusters  in  
Ocean  View-­?South  Kona,  Puna,  Hilo,  and  Waimea  to  work  destinations  along  the  Kohala  Coast  
and  Kona.  
 
 
background image
 
94|  
P a g e
 
 
DISADVANTAGES  
These  ridesharing  enterprises  have  recently  become  very  popular  and  have  begun  to  expand  
rapidly;  this  expansion,  however,  has  been  limited  to  populous  urban  centers  and  their  
surrounding  suburbs.  The  ideal  geographical  arrangement  for  proven  rideshare  success  has  
been  a  populous  metropolitan  setting;  sprawling  enough  from  the  city  center  for  substantial  
rider  savings  from  carpool  to  be  realized,  yet  dense  enough  to  ensure  a  healthy  supply  of  daily  
commuters.  It  is  unclear  whether  the  introduction  of  a  rideshare  network  would  attract  a  
consistent  customer  base  on  Hawai`i  Island  given  the  region?s  mostly  rural,  geographically  
dispersed  population.  Until  this  point,  the  success  of  existing  rideshare  networks  have  hinged  
not  only  upon  attractive  cost  savings  to  the  user,  but  also  upon  the  capacity  for  the  existing  
infrastructure  to  support  the  network  (both  social  and  technological)  ?  while  mobile  
technological  capabilities  and  Wi-­?Fi  coverage  seem  fairly  comprehensive  on  the  island,  
population  density  for  ridesharing  commutes  may  not  support  regular  ridership  on  a  consistent  
basis.  This,  coupled  with  the  networks?  greater  proven  cost-­?effectiveness  at  a  longer-­?distance  
scale,  may  be  a  moderate  complication  to  island-­?wide  success.    
Another  potential  area  of  concern  lies  in  the  administrative  oversight  and  regulation  of  these  
entities.  In  California,  taxi  providers  resentful  of  the  competitive  pricing  of  rideshare  
transportation  network  companies  (TNCs)  lobbied  against  them,  while  investors  remained  
uncertain  of  whether  financial  backing  was  in  their  best  interest  due  to  increasing  economic  
discord.  It  was  not  until  the  California  Public  Utility  Commission  (PUC)  officially  recognized  TNCs  
as  a  separate  and  legitimate  entity  that  ridership  and  investment  in  the  networks  rapidly  
expanded  ?  this  essentially  served  as  the  PUC?s  assumption  of  responsibility  for  regulation  and  
coordination  of  the  networks.  
Other  than  the  Hawai`i  County  Mass  Transit  Agency  (already  focused  on  maintaining  the  Hele-­?
On  system),  there  is  no  clear  transportation  management  authority,  regional  planning  
organization,  or  council  agency  with  the  resources  necessary  to  oversee  ridesharing  expansion.  
Because  the  existing  companies  are  emerging  in  a  competitive  market,  many  of  the  already  
established  TNCs  are  in  open  competition  both  among  themselves  and  with  other  industries  
(taxi,  vanpool,  transit),  pay  for  themselves,  and  rely  more  on  private  investments  and  venture  
capital  to  keep  expanding  new  features  and  services.  This  will  require  more  burdensome  
regulation  by  an  administrative  authority  going  into  the  future  (as  opposed  to  a  singular  P3  
network  established  in  conjunction  with  an  existing  public  agency).  Establishment  of  a  regional  
Transportation  Management  Authority  that  integrates  mass  transit  with  vanpool,  rideshare,  and  
taxi  services  could  be  costly  ?  the  national  average  annual  budget  for  a  TMA  is  priced  at  
$200,000,  generally  from  state  appropriations.
210
 However,  the  County  is  already  geographically  
constrained,  as  an  island  while  most  of  the  TNC  infrastructure  is  already  web-­?based,  making  the  
current  lack  of  a  coordinated  regional  authority  a  minor  issue.  Expansion  could  be  rolled  out  in  
conjunction  with  Oahu?s  UberX  launch,  and  is  not  foreseen  to  require  heavy-­?handed  
technological  regulation  or  an  extremely  large  professional  staff  presence  on  Hawai`i  Island.  
Implementation  could  potentially  be  achieved  with  existing  oversight  from  the  state?s  Public  
background image
 
95|  
P a g e
 
 
Utility  Commission  or  through  the  Statewide  Transportation  Planning  Office?s  Rural  Transit  
Assistance  Program,  though  the  latter  is  probably  unlikely.  
TARGETED  USER  GROUPS  
Due  to  the  unlikelihood  of  last-­?mile  travel  for  Hawai`i  Island  ridesharing  (lack  of  cost-­?
effectiveness  of  short-­?term  travel),  general  reliance  on  normal  business  hours  for  a  large  
commuter  working  base  and  relatively  higher  cost  than  mass  transit,  any  rideshare  network  
introduced  on  the  Island  will  likely  support  middle-­?class  professionals  or  company  employees  
within  a  corporate  partnership  with  a  transportation  network  company.  Ridesharing  is  unlikely  
to  pull  ridership  away  from  mass  transit  due  to  the  higher  price  of  travel,  and  seems  to  be  
geared  more  towards  riders  that  would  otherwise  drive  themselves  (i.e.  those  preferring  the  
intimacy,  flexibility  and  luxury  afforded  by  automobile  travel).  The  regularity  of  mass  transit  with  
regard  to  operating  hours  and  predetermined  bus  routes  ensures  continued  ridership  by  the  
same  commuters  and  students  who  currently  rely  on  Hele-­?On.  Ridesharing  networks  will  
probably  not  gain  much  traction  for  lower-­?income  families  reliant  on  service  sector  shift  labor  
due  to  these  discrepancies.  
INCENTIVES  AND  DISINCENTIVES  
Federal  subsidies  for  ?alternative  commuters?  like  the  Commuter  Tax  Benefit  Program,  the  
Guaranteed  Ride  Home  Program  (GRHP),  and  the  Job  Access  Reverse  Commute  (JARC)  program  
are  without  an  agency  or  representative  body  that  can  efficiently  allocate  these  incentives  to  
commuters  and  businesses  on  Hawai`i  Island.  The  onus  is  on  the  partnering  employer  or  
enterprising  individual  to  get  in  contact  with  the  representative  governing  body  to  apply  for  tax  
credits  or  subsidies  in  exchange  for  provision  of  ridesharing  commuter  reliance.    
The  difficulties  of  securing  these  federal  subsidies,  combined  with  the  lack  of  regional  authority  
necessary  to  push  for  application  of  these  incentives  and  make  programs  known  to  commuters,  
indicates  that  they  have  not  been  strong  enough  to  encourage  ridesharing  practices  on  the  
Island.  Additionally,  it  may  be  very  expensive  to  implement  the  Guaranteed  Ride  Home  Program  
due  to  the  lengthy  distances  between  work  and  residence  for  many  islanders,  and  most  federal  
funding  is  limited  to  congestion-­?prone  service  areas  or  targeted  towards  disabled  populations.    
This  is  not  to  say  that  tax  benefits  and  commuter  subsidies  cannot  significantly  impact  driving  
habits  in  the  future  ?  if  state-­?directed  legislation  is  any  indication,  Hawai`i  might  be  seeing  a  
significant  push  in  rideshare  and  carpool  efforts  in  the  near  future  as  potential  energy  savings  
are  realized  (see  Policies  in  Existence  ?  Carsharing  Vehicle  Surcharge  Tax).  Furthermore,  if  the  
County  works  to  support  regional  transportation  oversight  beyond  existing  mass  transit,  it  
would  create  a  more  influential  governing  body  in  which  to  communicate  the  needs  of  its  
citizens  to  the  state  in  order  to  apply  for  subsidies.  
 
 
background image
 
96|  
P a g e
 
 
NEXT  STEPS  FOR  EXPANSION  OF  AN  EXISTING  RIDESHARE  NETWORK  
Although  the  largest  uncertainty  remains  in  whether  an  existing  and  tested  ridesharing  service  
can  attract  adequate  ridership  given  sprawling  population  dispersal,  a  formal  governing  entity  
must  be  established  and  federally  recognized  in  order  for  the  full  range  of  capital  investment  
and  commuter  incentive  structures  to  be  developed  and  cultivated.    
A  final  criterion  to  be  considered  when  comparing  options  for  expansion  is  social  equity,  
measuring  both  attractiveness  and  accessibility  to  the  general  public.  While  vanpool  systems  are  
utilized  for  commuters,  the  availability  of  technology  must  be  assessed  so  that  residents  have  
the  option  to  rideshare.  We  suggest  that  the  County  develop  a  population  survey  to  gauge  the  
potential  popularity  of  the  networks  before  implementation  is  considered.  Such  a  survey  should  
reach  across  a  broad  range  of  residents,  from  commuters  to  public  officials,  as  well  as  employers  
and  families.  Such  a  survey  could  also  be  developed  by  University  of  Hawai`i  -­?Hilo  students  in  an  
effort  to  measure  how  students  and  faculty  might  respond  to  ridesharing  as  a  means  of  
alternative  transportation  in  commuting  to  and  from  campus.    
Looking  into  the  future,  it  would  be  in  Hawai`i  County?s  best  interest  to  either  adopt  a  type  of  
regional  transportation  management  agency,  planning  organization  or  otherwise  coordinate  
priorities  between  its  Energy,  Planning  &  Economic  Development,  Research  &  Development,  
Mass  Transit  departments  and  large-­?business  employers  to  form  a  more  cohesive  approach  to  
targeting  sustainable  transportation  solutions.    Currently,  most  ridesharing  companies  (TNCs)  
are  regulated  by  state  public  utility  commissions;  to  date,  regulation  typically  entails  ensuring  
that  ridesharing  networks  are  registered  and  approved,  that  rides  facilitated  between  
passengers  and  private  drivers  utilize  the  drivers?  own  vehicles,  and  that  the  companies  
maintain  an  insurance  policy  providing  per-­?incident  minimum  coverage  standards.  The  
regulating  entity  might  also  seek  to  cultivate  partnerships  between  local  taxi  companies  and  
TNCs  to  avoid  open  hostility  between  competing  businesses  while  allowing  for  incorporation  of  
available  network  technology.  
If  the  County  does  decide  to  go  forward  with  an  existing  rideshare  network,  a  Request  for  
Proposal  should  be  solicited  to  all  existing  national  rideshare  network  vendors.  This  would  
encourage  bidding  by  successful  companies,  allowing  the  networks  to  determine  whether  they  
might  benefit  from  expansion  into  unique  territory  beyond  the  purview  of  traditional  systems.  If  
an  ensuing  partnership  with  the  local  university  or  with  larger  corporations  is  desired,  Zimride  
(recently  sold  to  Lyft)  is  recommended  for  its  expertise  in  coordinating  these  partnerships  at  
over  100  universities  and  50  company  offices.
211
 
INDIVIDUAL  PUBLIC-­?PRIVATE  (P3)  RIDESHARE  NETWORK  
ADVANTAGES  
Transit-­?related  public-­?private  partnerships  (P3)  generally  provide  benefits  in  the  form  of  risk  
transfer  (the  private  software  company  assumes  liability  of  service)  while  maintaining  a  proven  
background image
 
97|  
P a g e
 
 
track  record  of  reliability  and  technical  support.  Instead  of  wasting  time  and  resources  on  
outsourcing  and  bidding  to  existing  ridesharing  companies  (TNCs)  that  may  not  see  the  demand  
as  adequate  for  expanding  their  network  to  the  Island,  selecting  a  solutions-­?based  vendor  may  
provide  accelerated  project  delivery  through  a  fixed  contract  that  forgoes  the  typical  
procurement  process.  The  vendors  are  also  familiar  with  ways  to  streamline  operating  costs  
through  proven  cash  collection  techniques,  while  helping  the  transit  agency  in  maximizing  new  
sources  of  revenue.    
Generally,  most  regional  public  officials  have  favored  P3s  in  an  era  where  federal,  state,  and  city  
resources  are  increasingly  scarce.  Initially  expensive  contract  costs  could  relieve  transit  agencies  
of  administrative  and  financial  burdens,  while  it  would  be  in  the  best  interest  of  such  vendors  to  
streamline  operations  to  keep  attracting  riders  while  keeping  maintenance  costs  low.  This  could  
prove  to  be  very  attractive  for  Hawai`i  County,  where  the  Mass  Transit  Agency  is  already  
stretched  thin  in  terms  of  financial  and  labor  resources  for  oversight  of  the  Hele-­?On  system.  It  
would  also  be  highly  unlikely  for  federal  or  state  funding  to  be  available  for  a  coordinated  
county  TMA  in  the  future  without  clear  assurance  that  the  program  will  pay  for  itself.  
Additionally,  a  privately  operated  system  unique  to  Hawai`i  County  would  provide  optimal  
reliability  and  flexibility  in  service,  rather  than  a  one-­?size-­?fits-­?all  pre-­?existing  rideshare  model  
that  has  only  demonstrated  successful  results  in  metropolitan  regions.  There  is  more  sensitivity  
to  branding  and  targeting  selected  groups,  and  private  companies  can  work  with  the  partnering  
public  agency  to  help  find  external  sources  to  supplement  project  compensation  fees.  More  
importantly,  there  is  less  sensitivity  to  potential  company  turnovers,  acquisitions,  or  changes  in  
company  structure  and  ownership.  Where  TNCs  might  graft  their  existing  network  onto  the  
Island,  a  unique  P3  working  in  tandem  with  the  County  would  require  less  oversight  and  foster  a  
better  relationship  with  existing  residents  and  businesses.  
A  P3  system  requires  much  more  capital  and  more  initial  input  from  county  officials  ?  however,  
the  benefits  of  such  a  system  will  be  realized  in  the  form  of  a  more  responsive  and  flexible  
rideshare  network  with  a  greater  capacity  for  coordinating  solutions  to  meet  shifting  
transportation  demands  into  the  future.  Compared  to  establishment  of  an  existing  rideshare  
network,  a  P3  structure  could  ultimately  provide  greater  long-­?term  stability  for  the  island,  with  
less  dependence  on  uncertain  future  public  funding.    
DISADVANTAGES  
The  major  distinction  in  choosing  between  implementation  of  an  existing  rideshare  service  or  
entering  into  a  contract  with  a  private  vendor  for  an  individualized  network  lies  in  the  
administrative  oversight.  While  a  P3  system  might  be  lauded  for  its  greater  assumed  role  in  
managing  the  network  almost  in  its  entirety,  the  implication  is  that  the  public  good  (in  this  case,  
transit)  has  been  transferred  to  a  private  entity.  This  could  mean  that  the  public  becomes  
subject  to  the  company?s  efforts  to  keep  business  costs  low.  The  company  could  raise  utility  
rates  and  fees  over  a  period  of  time  (for  example,  fare-­?raising  of  parking  meters  and  private  toll  
bridges  in  Chicago  via  Cubic  Transportation  Systems
212
),  or  similarly  adjust  costs  based  on  
background image
 
98|  
P a g e
 
 
perceived  market  risks.  Additionally,  there  are  certain  risks  that  private  partners  will  not  assume  
-­?  including  changes  in  regional  law  and  interference  or  approval  by  third-­?party  government  
entities  ?  which  could  accordingly  raise  user  costs.    
The  initial  startup  costs  of  operation  for  a  P3  network  are  also  much  more  expensive.  Because  
each  system  is  uniquely  tailored  to  the  geographical  or  infrastructure  constraints  of  the  project  
at  hand,  the  coordinating  public  agency  must  pay  for  consultants  to  visit  the  island  to  make  
recommendations  and  decide  exactly  how  an  optimal  rideshare  network  should  be  
implemented  (instead  of  relying  on  a  pre-­?scripted  format).      
TARGETED  USER  GROUPS  
Ridesharing  networks  on  Hawai`i  Island  are  speculated  to  attract  the  same  demographic  of  
ridership  despite  organizational  structure,  as  user  costs  generated  (at  least  in  the  beginning)  
would  be  relatively  similar.  P3  networks  are  expected  to  rely  on  middle-­?class  commuting  
professionals  or  commuting  university  students  and  faculty  for  a  majority  of  daily  ridership.  
INCENTIVES  AND  DISINCENTIVES  
Again,  many  of  the  incentives  offered  for  carpooling  provide  the  same  commuter  and  employer  
benefits  for  any  rideshare  network  regardless  of  structure.    
There  is  one  possible  innovation  that  may  prove  more  feasible  given  a  unique  third-­?party  
rideshare  system  over  a  publicly  administered  expansion  of  a  more  rigid  existing  network.  A  
former  project  consultant  and  current  University  of  Michigan  Sustainable  Systems  graduate  
student  originally  came  to  us  with  an  idea  that  could  provide  an  incentive  for  passengers  to  
recruit  each  other  for  higher-­?occupancy  carpooling.  It  applies  the  Game  Theory  as  well  as  our  
User  Cost  findings  for  carpool  ?  adding  passengers  to  a  carpool  bring  down  costs  for  the  driver  
until  he  breaks  even,  at  which  point  adding  additional  riders  would  increase  his  own  profit.  
While  this  provides  an  incentive  for  the  driver  to  find  people  to  take  to  work,  the  realized  
savings  from  a  passenger  standpoint  may  not  be  as  apparent  (though  they  do  exist).  Once  the  
carpool  exceeds  the  break-­?even  point  and  a  surplus  is  reached,  some  of  the  profit  could  be  
returned  to  the  passengers  in  the  form  of  cost  subsidization,  or  simply  a  monthly  payment.  As  
more  passengers  are  added  to  the  carpool,  the  subsidy  recovered  by  the  riders  increases  with  
the  profit.  Although  the  concept  was  originally  prescribed  for  public  bus  systems  in  India,  the  
value  might  prove  more  beneficial  for  a  private  individualized  rideshare  network  with  the  
flexibility  to  both  implement  its  own  system  and  manage  itself.
213
 This  is  especially  pertinent  
given  the  fact  that  most  public  buses  operate  at  a  loss  without  government  subsidization.  
NEXT  STEPS  FOR  IMPLEMENTATION  OF  A  P3-­?AGENCY  PARTNERED  RIDESHARE  
NETWORK  
While  it  is  not  of  paramount  importance  that  a  fully  functioning  agency  be  established  to  
oversee,  regulate  and  administer  a  P3  ridesharing  entity,  there  should  be  a  specified  staff  
person  (or  persons)  at  the  regional  agency  level  to  be  tasked  with  coordinating  the  day-­?to-­?day  
background image
 
99|  
P a g e
 
 
operations  of  the  network.  This  person  would  work  in  accordance  with  the  mutually  agreed  
upon  contract  binding  said  agency  with  the  private  vendor.  This  staff  member  should  also  be  
charged  with  implementing  and  monitoring  any  additional  policies  enacted  by  the  federal,  state  
or  local  public  agencies  that  may  have  an  impact  ridesharing  practices.  Again,  any  overseeing  
entity  might  want  to  focus  attention  on  creating  lasting,  mutually  beneficial  relationships  
between  said  ridesharing  service  and  local  taxi  companies  in  order  to  ease  hostility  and  realize  
full  potential  of  technology-­?  and  customer-­?  sharing.    
If  the  County  wishes  to  proceed  with  implementation  of  an  individualized  rideshare  network,  
this  direction  is  relatively  straightforward.  There  are  a  number  of  transportation  technology  
vendors  with  a  proven  track  record  with  significant  investor  backing  ?  contacting  a  sales  
representative  from  one  of  these  companies  to  obtain  a  quote  would  be  the  next  logical  step.  
ISLAND-­?WIDE  PRIVATE  VANPOOL  NETWORK  
ADVANTAGES  
Private  vanpooling  (with  vans  provided  by  a  third  party)  has  been  the  preferred  network  within  
the  state  due  to  lack  of  prioritization  by  the  Hawai`i    Department  of  Transportation,  as  
evidenced  by  past  budgetary  cuts.  The  private  VRide  system  is  already  in  implementation,  and  
its  mapping  tools  and  online  surveys  produce  overviews  of  employee  commuting  patterns  in  
order  to  establish  travel  nodes.  The  island  is  ideal  in  geography  for  vanpool  commutes,  where  
many  large  employers  (e.g.  resorts)  draw  from  concentrated  residential  clusters  (e.g.  Hilo)  and  
can  pick  up  commuters  along  the  way  northward  (via  Waimea)  and  southward  (via  Puna,  Ocean  
View)  towards  Kona  and  the  Kohala  coast.  The  existing  network  is  entirely  private  ?  Vride  both  
provides  the  vehicles  and  oversees  the  online  registration  database  and  mapping  tools,  while  
members  sign  up  individually  to  drive  and  are  reimbursed  for  fuel  through  ?seat  fees?  by  
passengers.
214
 
The  organizational  structure  and  technological  infrastructure  is  already  in  place  ?  commuters  
can  create  online  accounts  to  immediately  begin  registering  for  existing  vanpools  on  the  Island,  
or  even  start  their  own  vanpools.  It  is  a  federally  recognized  method  of  commuting,  and  requires  
no  additional  governmental  oversight.  Vanpooling  can  save  long-­?distance  commuters  up  to  
$4,000  a  year  (or  more)  in  travel  costs  otherwise  incurred  through  individual  travel  (assuming  
average  monthly  single-­?commuter  cost  of  $640  from  Hilo  to  Kona).  Currently  the  system  is  not  
close  to  reaching  full  capacity,  with  most  commuters  relying  on  mass  transit  or  individual  
vehicles  for  daily  travel.  Higher  carpooling  capacities  into  the  future  (as  opposed  to  traditional  
rideshare)  mean  greater  cost  savings  for  the  users.  
Employer  vanpools  within  the  county  are  non-­?existent,  but  offer  tax  benefits  to  employers  and  
employees  as  well  as  the  additional  savings  in  cost  per  mile.    
 
background image
 
100|  
P a g e
 
 
DISADVANTAGES  
While  the  network  saves  even  more  costs  for  riders  and  implementation  has  already  been  
achieved,  it  only  accounts  for  an  insignificant  fraction  of  daily  travel  for  islanders.  The  driver  is  
only  reimbursed  up  until  the  point  where  his  fuel  costs  are  covered,  and  no  more  ?  while  this  is  
still  an  incentive  for  the  driver  to  find  willing  vanpoolers,  it  still  may  not  be  worth  the  effort  of  
receiving  training  and  driving  a  large  van  back  and  forth  across  the  island  five  times  a  week.  
Ridesharing  services,  in  comparison,  offer  potential  profits  to  the  driver  for  his  time  and  
services.    
The  vanpool  network  still  lacks  the  flexibility  of  mobile  ridesharing  and  ridematching.  Routes,  
though  optimized  to  meet  large  concentrations  of  commuters,  are  still  pre-­?determined  and  
depart  and  arrive  at  specific  nodes.  Often  times,  riders  in  a  vanpool  might  still  find  themselves  
having  to  drive  just  to  reach  the  starting  node,  which  may  be  more  than  ten  miles  away  for  
those  living  on  the  interior  of  the  island  away  from  the  hubs  in  Hilo  or  Kona.  Furthermore,  
irregular  shift  hours  between  service-­?sector  workers  may  hinder  the  effectiveness  of  filling  
employer-­?provided  or  VRide  vans;  if  there  is  too  much  variation  in  the  traveling  times  of  workers  
within  a  single  resort  area,  pre-­?determined  vanpool  route  times  may  do  little  to  meet  the  
scheduling  demands  of  the  workers.    
If  the  vans  do  reach  full  capacity  and  increase  ridership,  it  could  also  divert  riders  from  existing  
mass  transit,  which  has  traditionally  been  subsidized  with  county  dollars  to  ensure  that  
passengers  do  not  have  to  pay  more  than  a  few  dollars.  
TARGETED  USER  GROUPS  
To  date,  the  few  vans  already  transporting  passengers  on  the  island  serve  the  handicapped  and  
elderly  in  rural,  isolated  communities  ?  these  vans  transport  residents  to  city  centers  (mostly  
within  Hilo)  for  shopping  and  health  appointments.  A  more  comprehensive  vanpool  system  
would  ideally  focus  on  transporting  commuters  and  service-­?sector  employees  working  
consistent  schedules  to  and  from  a  starting  node  in  Hilo  to  a  final  destination  point  along  the  
Kohala  Coast,  possibly  picking  up  riders  along  the  way.  While  the  cheaper  user  costs  of  vanpool  
make  it  a  more  attractive  option  for  lower-­?income  groups  (around  $150/person  each  month  for  
a  7-­?9  person  van),
215
 the  cheaper  cost  of  vanpooling  compared  to  ridesharing  indicates  that  this  
service  may  be  better  suited  for  lower-­?income  workers  who  have  difficulty  meeting  scheduled  
bus  routes,  or  cannot  afford  the  luxury  of  driving  their  own  vehicle  or  even  ridesharing.  
INCENTIVES  AND  DISINCENTIVES  
There  is  already  paratransit  available  on  the  island  managed  by  the  Hawai`i  County  Economic  
Opportunity  Council  (HCEOC)  through  a  federal  contract  with  the  Department  of  Transportation.  
However,  though  they  have  applied  for  vehicle  funding  in  the  past  through  the  Job  Access  
Reverse  Commute  program  (JARC),  the  state  has  been  stalling  in  allocating  the  vehicles  to  the  
County  for  usage.  Currently,  this  program  only  provides  rides  for  the  elderly  and  handicapped,  
although  the  HCEOC  is  waiting  on  a  single  van  that  will  transport  ALL  commuters  from  Ocean  
background image
 
101|  
P a g e
 
 
View  to  Kona  for  work  purposes.  Such  difficulties  with  the  reimbursement  process  suggest  that  
although  applications  for  funding  through  federal  incentives  are  granted,  the  state?s  stalled  
implementation  reflects  a  lack  of  prioritization  when  it  comes  to  the  island?s  transportation  
needs.  Because  of  the  difficulties  associated  with  acquiring  government  funding,  it  is  unlikely  
that  public  vanpool  incentives  are  likely  to  induce  new  ridership,  or  even  play  a  major  role  in  
vanpool  development  for  some  time.  These  issues  may  exacerbate  if  the  County  is  to  rely  on  
federal  subsidies  for  future  vanpool  programs  ?  in  2011,  the  Hawai`i  Department  of  
Transportation  cut  vanpool  subsidies  entirely  after  17  years,  immediately  raising  user  fees  and  
eventually  forcing  Vanpool  Hawai`i  to  sub-­?contract  out  to  a  private  vendor  (VRide)  to  head  the  
program.
216
 Such  difficulties  with  implementing  incentive  programs  also  suggest  the  need  for  a  
stronger  and  more  cohesive  regional  voice  to  represent  county  interests,  reflecting  the  need  for  
a  planning  organization,  authority  or  council  to  facilitate  and  expedite  grant  proposals  for  new  
projects.    
The  VRide  system,  while  allowing  for  riders  to  pay  the  driver  to  reimburse  for  the  cost  of  gas,  
does  not  allow  the  driver  to  generate  a  profit  of  his  own.  Without  adjusting  this  payment  
mechanism,  there  is  little  incentive  for  the  driver  to  find  more  carpoolers  beyond  meeting  fuel  
coverage  costs  ?  a  mileage  or  time-­?oriented  payment  plan  might  be  more  suitable  in  allowing  
for  the  driver  to  earn  extra  money  for  his  efforts  in  getting  trained  and  driving  the  van  daily.  
NEXT  STEPS  FOR  IMPLEMENTATION  OF  A  PRIVATE  VANPOOL  NETWORK  
There  is  already  a  state  vanpool  program  (VRide),  which  offers  its  services  to  Hawai`i  County,  
though  it  clearly  has  not  been  attainable  for  most  of  the  island?s  residents.  To  remedy  this  while  
presenting  the  network  as  a  cost-­?effective  solution  for  many  commuters,  marketing  and  
outreach  campaigns  should  be  expanded  via  radio  and  community  newspapers.  Forums  could  
be  held,  accessible  to  both  employers  and  employees,  in  which  businesses  can  share  employee  
travel  information  in  order  to  gauge  the  effectiveness  of  partnering  together  to  provide  vanpool  
services.  Employers  should  also  be  made  more  aware  of  the  Commuter  Tax  Benefits  available  to  
the  company  should  they  opt  with  providing  vanpool  services  to  their  employees.  At  the  state  
level,  the  Department  of  Transportation  could  establish  additional  tax  credits  for  employers  who  
provide  their  own  vans  (Maryland,  Georgia,  Minnesota).    
If  vanpooling  exposure  and  ridership  increases  on  the  island,  the  county  should  establish  a  point  
of  contact  within  the  state  VRide  office  in  order  to  bring  in  more  vans.    
 
background image
 
102|  
P a g e
 
 
9:  APPENDICIES  
?  Appendix  A:  Project  Plan  and  Hypothesis  
?  Appendix  B:  Sources  of  Information  
?  Appendix  C:  County  of  Hawai`i  Financial  Data  
?  Appendix  D:  Creating  the  Maps  
?  Appendix  E:  Transportation  Management  
?  Appendix  F:  Existing  Mobile  Rideshare  Providers  
?  Appendix  G:  The  Economics  of  Carpooling  
?  Appendix  H:  University  of  Michigan  Team  Bios  
?  Appendix  I:  Masters  Project  Client  
?  Illustrations,  Tables  and  Figures  
?  References  
 
 
background image
 
103|  
P a g e
 
 
APPENDIX  A:  PROJECT  PLAN  AND  HYPOTHESES    
PROJECT  PLAN  
STAGE  I:  (MARCH  ?  APRIL  2013)  
Preliminary  Research  and  Defining  Testable  Hypotheses  
Following  our  preliminary  research  on  Hawai`i  Island  and  its  public  transit  system,  the  team  
developed  two  hypotheses  for  reducing  fossil  fuel  usage.  The  following  hypotheses  guided  our  
onsite,  background  and  best  practices  research:  
1.  Technological  and  communication  upgrades  to  the  current  public  transportation  system  
will  increase  ridership  and  reduce  personal  vehicle  use.  
2.  The  introduction  of  car-­?share  and  ride-­?share  services  will  reduce  the  number  of  personal  
vehicles  used.  
Metrics  were  subsequently  selected  in  order  to  test  the  efficacy  of  determined  hypotheses  on  
reduction  of  overall  Vehicle  Miles  Traveled  (VMT)  and  reduced  gasoline  consumption.  
STAGE  II:  (APRIL  ?  MAY  2013)  
Review  of  Hawai`i  Island  Transportation  Infrastructure  
In  order  to  draft  recommendations  that  are  achievable  and  reflect  the  values  of  the  community  
and  all  the  stakeholders,  the  team  completed  further  research  to  build  a  basic  understanding  of  
the  local  culture  and  stakeholder,  the  policy-­?making  landscape,  the  available  financial  resources,  
the  current  transportation  system,  and  the  economics  of  the  island.  
STAGE  III:  (JUNE  ?  JULY  2013)  
Comparative  Studies  of  Existing  Regional  Transportation  Systems  
The  team  performed  a  literature  review  to  help  broaden  our  knowledge  of  existing  
transportation  systems  and  identify  potential  solutions  through  improvements  to  existing  
infrastructure  or  introduction  of  new  practices.    
STAGE  IV:  (JULY  ?  AUGUST  2013)  
Onsite  Research  and  Meetings  
The  team  traveled  to  Hawai`i  Island  to  engage  with  project  stakeholders  directly.  This  trip  
ensured  that  we  got  some  sense  of  the  wants,  needs,  goals  and  objectives  of  those  using  and  
involved  in  the  public  transit  system  and  energy  sustainability  on  the  island.  (See  Appendix  B  for  
a  comprehensive  list  of  all  project  participants  and  contributors.)    
background image
 
104|  
P a g e
 
 
STAGE  V:  (SEPTEMBER  2013  ?  FEBRUARY  2014)  
Data  Analysis  and  Final  Report    
This  process  will  require  synthesizing  Stage  II  and  III  research,  as  well  as  taking  into  account  the  
concerns  and  attitudes  of  the  commuters  and  employers  (after  meeting  with  key  stakeholders)  
identified  in  Stage  IV.  We  have  prepared  this  report  with  our  analysis  and  recommendations.    
PROJECT  HYPOTHESES  
1.  Improvements  in  the  current  public  transportation  system  will  increase  ridership  and  
reduce  personal  vehicle  use.  
 
Tactics:  
a.  Introduction  of  vanpools  
i.  Will  maximize  efficient  occupancy  of  vehicles  
ii.  Allows  for  more  frequent  trips  
b.  Redesign  routes  
i.  More  direct  and  ?express?  trips  
ii.  Clearly  defined  stops  
iii.  Optimized  times  and  peak  hours  
c.  Improve  communication  
i.  Major  upgrade  and  redesign  of  web  page:  user-­?friendly,  interactive  and  
intuitive  
ii.  Clear  signs  at  designated  bus  stops  
iii.  Clear  and  more  intuitive  route  mapping  (times,  stops,  etc.)  
iv.  Major  communication  campaign  when  changes  are  implemented  
v.  Web  and  mobile  phone  application  with  GPS  tracking  of  buses  and  vans  
 
2.  The  introduction  of  car-­?share  and  ride-­?share  services  will  reduce  the  number  of  personal  
vehicles  used.  
 
Tactics:  
a.  Engage  the  business  community  
i.  Introduce  rideshare  or  carpooling  programs  with  employees  
ii.  Implement  car-­?share  services  in  existing  rental  car  agencies  
iii.  Introduce  rideshare  service  companies  
b.  Develop  coordination  and  communication  tools  
i.  Ride-­?share  software  
ii.  Web-­?based  apps  
iii. 
Analog  options
 
 
 
background image
 
105|  
P a g e
 
 
APPENDIX  B:  SOURCES  OF  INFORMATION  
 
Our  Master?s  Project  team  conducted  interviews  with  a  number  of  local  stakeholders  during  our  
August  2013  trip  to  Hawai`i  Island.  These  interviews  helped  us  understand  the  culture,  political,  
economic,  and  social  dynamics  present  on  Hawai`i  Island.  We  focused  on  methods  and  patterns  
of  transit  on  the  island  and  connected  with  interviewees  about  the  professional  work  in  the  
transportation  sector,  as  well  as  their  personal  experiences  getting  around  the  island.  The  team  
spoke  with  the  following  individuals:  
 
?  Tina  Clothier  ?  Peoples  Advocacy  for  Trails  Hawai`i  
?  Elizabeth  Cole  ?  The  Kohala  Center  
?  Kyle  Datta  ?  The  Ulupono  Initiative    
?  Laura  Dierenfield  ?  Queen  Liliuokalani  Trust  
?  Alex  Frost  ?  University  of  Hawai`i  Manoa  
?  Tiffany  Kai  ?  Hawai`i  County  Mass  Transit  Agency  
?  Jay  Kimura  ?  Hawai`i  County  Economic  Opportunity  Council  
?  Wally  Lau  ?  Office  of  the  Mayor  
?  Ray  L?Heureux  ?  Hawai`i  State  Department  of  Education  
?  Margaret  Masunaga  ?  Hawai`i  County  Department  of  Planning  
?  Laverne  Omori  ?  Hawai`i  County  Department  of  Research  and  Development  
?  Will  Rolston  ?  Hawai`i  County  Energy  Coordinator  
?  Sharon  Sakai  ?  Kohala  Coast  Resort  Association  
?  Jonathan  Wong  ?  University  of  Hawai`i  Hilo  
?  Miles  Yoshioka  -­?  Hawai`i  Island  Chamber  of  Commerce  
 
We?d  also  like  to  acknowledge  and  give  thanks  to  the  following  transportation  experts  for  their  
support,  guidance,  and  advice  in  helping  us  complete  this  report:  
 
?  Alissa  Altmann  ?  Customer  Care,  VRide  
?  Sara  Brydges  ?  Rideshare  Coordinator,  University  of  Washington  
?  Nelson  Chan  -­?  Survey  Researcher,  UC-­?Berkeley  Institute  of  Transportation  Studies  
?  Adithya  Dahagama  ?  Graduate  Student,  University  of  Michigan  School  of  Natural  
Resources  &  Environment  
?  Ryan  Fujii  ?  Programming  Section  Manager,  Statewide  Transportation  Planning  Office,  
Hawai`i  Department  of  Transportation  
background image
 
106|  
P a g e
 
 
?  Celeste  Gilman  ?  Commute  Options  Manager,  Transportation  Services  at  the  University  
of  Washington  
?  Jonathan  Levine  ?  Taubman  School  of  Architecture  and  Regional  Planning,  University  of  
Michigan  
?  Carol  Norton  ?  Program  Manager,  Center  for  Environmental  Policy  &  Management,  
University  of  Louisville  
?  Bill  Medeiros  ?GISP  Geographic  Services  Manager,  Maui  County  Government  
?  Olin  Lagon  ?  Kanu  Hawai`i  
?  Jo  Anne  Johnson  ?  Director  of  Department  of  Transportation,  Maui  County  Government  
?  David  Parsons  ?  Hawai`i  Public  Utilities  Commission    
?  Marc  Takamori  -­?  Deputy  Director  of  Department  of  Transportation,  Maui  County  
Government  
 
NOTE:  We  spoke  with  the  above  listed,  but  this  does  not  constitute  any  endorsement  by  them  
or  the  agencies,  businesses  and  organizations  they  represent.  
 
 
background image
 
107|  
P a g e
 
 
APPENDIX  C:  COUNTY  OF  HAWAI`I  FINANCIAL  DATA  
 
Table  9-­?1  
 
 
 
Account  Description
FY  2010-­?11
Actuals  
FY  2011-­?12
Estimate
FY  2012-­?13
Estimate
FY  2013-­?14
Estimate
FY  2014-­?15
Estimate
Mass  Transit  -­?  S&W
329,217.68
$              
359,700.00
$            
344,553.00
$          
359,700.00
$                  
359,700.00
$              
Mass  Transit  -­?  OCE
2,741,181.00
$      
846,799.00
$            
902,199.00
$          
1,447,699.00
$          
1,302,199.00
$        
Mass  Transit  -­?  Equipt
199,999.31
$              
300,000.00
$            
200,000.00
$          
200,000.00
$                  
200,000.00
$              
Taxicab  Investigation
29,249.82
$                  
29,000.00
$                  
29,000.00
$                
29,000.00
$                      
29,000.00
$                    
Rural  Transit  Assist  Pgm
10,863.39
$                  
20,000.00
$                  
10,500.00
$                
10,500.00
$                      
10,500.00
$                    
Sec  5309  Capital  Grant
36,230.00
$                  
-­?
$                                          
-­?
$                                        
-­?
$                                                
-­?
$                                            
Sec  5309  Capital  Grt  05-­?06
1,279,707.01
$      
1,500,000.00
$      
-­?
$                                        
-­?
$                                                
-­?
$                                            
Job  Access  &  Reverse  Commute
312,716.00
$              
-­?
$                                          
62,305.00
$                
-­?
$                                                
-­?
$                                            
Sec  5311  Non-­?Urbanized  Formula
21,305.00
$                  
-­?
$                                          
-­?
$                                        
-­?
$                                                
-­?
$                                            
Sec  5309  Captial  Grt  FY12-­?13
-­?
$                                            
-­?
$                                          
1,000,000.00
$    
1,000,000.00
$          
1,000,000.00
$        
New  Freedom  Funds
-­?
$                                            
-­?
$                                          
52,255.00
$                
-­?
$                                                
-­?
$                                            
Fed  Transit  Admin
973,632.61
$              
900,000.00
$            
-­?
$                                        
-­?
$                                                
-­?
$                                            
Fed  Transit  Admin  FY12-­?13
-­?
$                                            
-­?
$                                          
700,000.00
$          
700,000.00
$                  
700,000.00
$              
General  Fund  Expenditures
5,934,101.82
$      
3,955,499.00
$    
3,300,812.00
$  
3,746,899.00
$        
3,601,399.00
$      
Account  Description
FY  2010-­?11
Actuals  
FY  2011-­?12
Estimate
FY  2012-­?13
Estimate
FY  2013-­?14
Estimate
FY  2014-­?15
Estimate
Hwy  Mass  Transit  OCE
943,892.00
$              
4,044,593.00
$      
4,845,250.00
$    
4,345,250.00
$          
4,445,250.00
$        
Highway  Fund  Expenditures
943,892.00
$            
4,044,593.00
$    
4,845,250.00
$  
4,345,250.00
$        
4,445,250.00
$      
FY  2010  -­?11  Revenues
General  Fund
Highway  Fund
HWYS:  PUBIC  TRANSPORTATION
Mass  Transportation  Agency
3,300,812.00
$      
4,845,250.00
$      
Public  Transportation  Revenues
8,146,062.00
$      
Source:  County  of  Hawai'I  Operating  Budget  FY  2012-­?2013  
County  of  Hawai'i  Mass  Transit  Expenditures  and  Revenue
General  Fund
Highway  Fund  (020)
background image
 
108|  
P a g e
 
 
APPENDIX  D:  CREATING  THE  MAPS  
Data  sources  and  contents,  data  processing  approaches  and  map  making  techniques  are  
explained  in  the  following  appendix.  
Data  sources  and  contents  
Bus  Routes  
Bus  route  data  is  from  the  County  of  Hawai`i  in  Shapefile  format.  Each  bus  route  is  a  polyline  
with  its  name.  
Recreation    
Recreation  data  is  from  the  County  of  Hawai`i  in  Shapefile  format.  Recreation  sites  are  from  
three  different  layers  according  to  its  level:  federal  level  recreation  sites  such  as  Hawai`i    
Volcanoes  National  Park;  state  level  recreation  sites  such  as  Kekaha  Kai  State  Park;  county  level  
recreation  sites  such  as  Keokea  Beach  Park.  
Work  hubs  
Employers?  addresses  are  found  online  and  then  geocoded  into  Shapefile.  
Census  
We  obtained  spatial  census  data  from  the  U.S.  Census  Bureau  in  the  form  of  TIGER/Line®  
Shapefiles  pre-­?joined  with  Demographic  Data,
217  
where  Hawai`i  Island  is  divided  into  8,888  
census  blocks.  Each  census  block  has  its  own  population  data.  
Spatial  data  processing  
Recreation  data  processing  
We  merged  all  of  the  179  recreation  sites  into  one  file  and  calculated  its  density  using  Kernel  
Density  tool  in  ArcGIS  10.  This  tool  calculates  the  density  of  features  in  a  neighborhood  around  
those  features.  In  other  words,  it  smoothes  out  the  information  represented  by  a  collection  of  
points  in  a  way  that  is  more  visually  pleasing  and  understandable  because  it  is  often  easier  to  
look  at  a  raster  with  a  stretched  color  ramp  than  it  is  to  look  at  blobs  of  points,  especially  when  
the  points  cover  up  large  areas  of  the  map.
218
 It  also  shows  areas  where  POI  (Points  of  Interest,  
?recreation  sites?  in  this  case)  are  clustered  (i.e.  have  a  high  density).  
Work  hubs  data  processing  
First,  we  put  all  of  the  employer?s  addresses  that  were  found  into  a  Microsoft  Excel  table  with  
the  four  columns:  ?name,?  ?address,?  ?city,?  and  ?state.?  Then,  we  performed  geocoding  in  
ArcGIS  10.  Geocoding  is  the  process  of  transforming  street  addresses  and/or  zip  codes  (like  440  
Church  St.,  Ann  Arbor,  MI  48105)  into  associated  geographic  coordinates  (often  expressed  as  
background image
 
109|  
P a g e
 
 
latitude  and  longitude,  like  42.277658,-­?83.736595).  Finally,  we  calculated  the  kernel  density  
based  on  the  geocoding  results.  
Census  data  processing  
We  calculated  population  density  in  each  census  block  by  dividing  population  by  its  
corresponding  census  block  area.  
Data  visualization  
There  are  a  total  of  19  bus  routes  and  we  presented  them  in  different  colors.  Some  of  them  are  
overlapped  with  each  other,  which  makes  it  hard  to  display.  As  a  result,  the  overlapped  routes  
were  offset  slightly  in  order  to  be  able  to  see  all  of  them.  
Density  of  recreation  sites,  employers  and  population  are  presented  on  the  maps  as  well.  
Individual  federal  recreation  sites  are  also  presented,  and  road  centerlines  and  airports  are  
displayed  as  reference  data.  
 
 
 
background image
 
110|  
P a g e
 
 
APPENDIX  E:  TRANSPORTATION  MANAGEMENT  
Table  9-­?2:  Existing  Transportation  Management  Associations
219
 
LOCATION  
SPONSORING  
AGENCY  
TYPE  OF  
AGENCY  
CONTACT  
INFO  
WEBSITE  
Atlanta,  GA  
Commuter  
Connections,  Atlanta  
Regional  Commission  
MPO,  
Ridesh
are  
87-­?
RIDEFIND  
www.commuteconnections.com  
Albany,  NY  
Capital  District  
Commuter  Register  
Transit  
Agenc
y,  
Ridesh
are  
518-­?458-­?
2164  
www.commuter-­?register.org
 
Augusta,  
ME  
Go  Augusta  
Ridesh
are  
800-­?280-­?
RIDE  
www.goaugusta.org
 
Birmingham
,  AL  
CommuteSmart  
Rideshare  
Ridesh
are  
800-­?826-­?
RIDE  
www.commutesmartrideshare.com
 
Contra  
Costa  
County,  CA  
Contra  Costa  
CountyCommute  
Alternative  Network  
Public  
consor
tium  
800-­?215-­?
3035  
www.traks.org/incentive/guarantee/ince
ntive.html
   
Denver,  CO  
Ride  Arrangers  
Ridesh
are,  
COG  
303-­?455-­?
1000  
www.drcog.org/ridearrangers/
   
Detroit,  MI  
Southeast  Michigan  
Council  of  
Governments  
COG  
313-­?961-­?
4266  
www.semcog.org/index.html
   
Houston,  TX   METROVan  
Ridesh
are  
713-­?224-­?
RIDE  
www.hou-­?
metro.harris.tx.us/METVAN.HTM
   
Kansas  City,  
MO  
Mid-­?America  
Regional  Council  
Ridesh
are,  
COG  
816-­?842-­?
RIDE  
Rideshare.marc.org    
Las  Vegas,  
NV  
Regional  
Transportation  
Commission  
MPO  
702-­?228-­?
RIDE  
www.catride.com/catmatch
   
background image
 
111|  
P a g e
 
 
Long  Island,  
NY  
Long  Island  
Ridesharing  
Ridesh
are  
631-­?737-­?
CARS  
www.737cars.com
   
Miami,  FL  
South  Florida  
Commuter  Services  
Ridesh
are  
973-­?267-­?
7600  
www.transpotions.org
   
Twin  Cities,  
MN  
Metro  Council  
MPO,  
Transit  
Agenc
y  
651-­?602-­?
1602  
www.metrocommuterservices.org/index.
asp
   
Morris  
County,  NJ  
TransOptions  
Ridesh
are  
973-­?267-­?
7600  
www.transoptions.org
   
Nashville,  
TN  
Regional  
Transportation  
Authority  
MPO,  
Transit  
Agenc
y  
615-­?862-­?
8833  
www.rta-­?
ride.org/ridehome/ridepolicy/htm
   
New  
Hampshire  
New  Hampshire  DOT  
State  
DOT  
800-­?462-­?
8707  
www.state.nh.us/dot/rideshare
   
New  Haven,  
CT  
Rideworks  
Ridesh
are  
800-­?ALL-­?
RIDE  
www.rideworks.com
   
New  York,  
NY  
Commuter  Link  
Ridesh
are  
718-­?886-­?
1343  
www.commuterlink.com
   
Phoenix,  AZ   Valley  Metro  
Transit  
Agenc
y  
602-­?262-­?
7242  
www.valleymetro.maricopa.gov
   
Portland,  
ME  
RideShare  
Ridesh
are  
800-­?280-­?
RIDE  
www.ridesharemaine.org
   
Rhode  
Island  
RI  Public  Transit  
Authority  
Transit  
Agenc
y  
888-­?88-­?
RIPTA  
www.ripta.com
   
San  Diego,  
CA  
San  Diego  Commute  
Ridesh
are,  
COG  
800-­?
COMMUTE  
www.sdcommute.com/van_pool.html
   
background image
 
112|  
P a g e
 
 
San  
Francisco  
Bay  Area,  
CA  
RIDES  for  Bay  Area  
Commuters  
Ridesh
are  
800-­?755-­?
POOL  
www.rides.org
   
San  Mateo  
County,  CA  
Peninsula  Traffic  
Congestion  Relief  
Alliance  
Public-­?
privat
e  
Assoc.  
650-­?994-­?
7924  
www.commute.org
   
Seattle,  WA   Metro  Rideshare  
Operations  
Count
y  
206-­?625-­?
4500  
Transit.metrokc.gov/van_car/vancar.html    
Stamford,  
CT  
Metropool  
Ridesh
are  
800-­?346-­?
3743  
www.metropool.com
   
Tallahassee,  
FL  
Commuter  Services  
of  North  Florida  
Ridesh
are  
973-­?267-­?
7600  
Tmi.cob.fsu.edu/commute    
Tampa,  FL  
Bay  Area  Commuter  
Services  
Ridesh
are  
813-­?282-­?
8200  
www.tampabayrideshare.org
   
Vermont  
Vermont  Public  
Transit  Authority  
Transit  
Agenc
y  
800-­?685-­?
RIDE  
www.vpta.net
   
Vermont  &  
New  
Hampshire  
Upper  Valley  
Rideshare  
Ridesh
are,  
COG  
802-­?745-­?
RIDE  
www.uppervalleyrideshare.com//uvrs.grh
.html
   
Washington
,  DC  
Commuter  
Connections  
MPO  
800-­?745-­?
RIDE  
www.mwcog.org/commuter
   
Windsor,  CT   The  RideShare  
Company  
Ridesh
are  
800-­?972-­?
3279  
www.rideshare.com
   
 
 
 
 
 
background image
 
113|  
P a g e
 
 
Figure  9-­?1
220
 
 
 
 
background image
 
114|  
P a g e
 
 
APPENDIX  F:  EXISTING  MOBILE  RIDESHARE  PROVIDERS  
Table  9-­?3:  Existing  Mobile  Rideshare  Providers
221
 
Provider  
Location  
Services  Provided  
Sustainabilit
y  
Investors  
Additional  Notes  
Carma  
(car.ma)  
HQ  in  Cork,  
Ireland;  Serves  
Ireland,  Norway,  
U.S.  (Austin,  D.C.,  
San  Francisco)  
Real-­?time  shared  car  
trips;    automatic  
payment  from  rider  
based  on  distance  
traveled  
SOS  funded  
$10M  over  
several  
years,  each  
time  
investing  
larger  
amounts  
Venture  capital  
funding  from  
SOSVentures  
In  October  2011,  
began  a  real-­?time  
ridesharing  pilot  in  
Arlington  and  
released  a  real-­?
time  information  
and  management  
system  for  vanpool  
operation  rolled  
out  by  VPSI  
Carpooling.co
m  
Founded  in  
Germany.  Serving  
40  countries,  
mostly  European  
Detailed  user  profiles,  
with  info  about  where  
they  want  to  meet  and  
what  they  are  willing  to  
pay;  multimodal  
platform  also  
integrating  bus,  train,  
plane  
Yes,  been  
around  for  
15  years  in  
Europe  
Earlybird  
Venture  
Capital,  
Daimler  
Over  5  million  
registered  users,  
50  million  people  
transported  since  
launch.  1.3  million  
people  carpooling  
each  month.  1  
million  downloads  
of  mobile  apps  
Hailo  
(hailocab.com
)  
Started  in  London  
and  also  serves  
selected  cities  in  
North  America,  
Europe  and  Asia  
Flags  licensed  taxis  
through  mobile  devices  
and  pays  automatically  
by  registered  card  on  
account,  or  pay  driver  
directly.  
Yes,  Hailo  
has  carried  
8.5  million  
passengers  
and  grown  
to  
annualized  
sales  of  well  
over  $100M  
Union  Square  
Ventures,  
Accel  Partners,  
Wellington  
Partners,  
Atomico  
Ventures,  and  
Sir  Richard  
Branson  
A  Hailo  is  taken  
every  four  seconds  
by  tens  of  
thousands  of  
drivers  and  
hundreds  of  
thousands  of  
passengers  
Lyft  (lyft.me)  
Started  in  San  
Francisco;  
currently  serves  
17  major  U.S.  
cities,  with  plans  
for  further  
domestic  and  
international  
expansion  
Peer-­?to-­?peer  
ridesharing  via  
smartphones  and  
required  Facebook  
accounts.  Payment  
system  via  donation  
from  passengers  
Yes,  for  now  
and  will  
probably  be  
spun-­?off  like  
Zimride.  Lyft  
has  more  
than  
100,000  
registered  
users  and  
facilitates  
more  than  
30,000  rides  
per  week  
within  first  
year  
 Andreeson  
Horowitz  
The  service  has  
more  than  300  
drivers  in  San  
Francisco  along,  
who  report  
earning  as  much  as  
$30  to  $35  an  
hour.  As  of  the  
summer  of  2013,  
Lyft  had  raised  
more  venture  
funding  than  any  
other  peer-­?to-­?peer  
ridesharing  or  app-­?
based  car  service  
background image
 
115|  
P a g e
 
 
Provider  
Location  
Services  Provided  
Sustainabilit
y  
Investors  
Additional  Notes  
NuRide  
(nuride.com)  
Connecticut-­?
based;  also  
available  in  
Massachusetts,  
Hampton  Roads,  
San  Antonio,  
Houston,  DC  
Rewards  program  for  
alternative  commute  
trips  tracked  through  
Nuride  software.  
Include  trips  via  bike,  
carpool,  transit,  
telework  
Yes,  NuRide  
has  been  in  
business  for  
12  years  and  
continues  to  
be  
supported  
by  several  
state/local  
government
s  
Funded  by  
state  and  local  
gov't  where  
they  operate  
Focusing  on  
rewarding  trip  
logging.  No  
payment/money  
needed  for  rides.  
Incentive  through  
rewards  for  
tracked  trips  
RelayRides  
(relayrides.co
m)  
Service  launched  
in  Boston  in  
summer  2010  
and  expanded  
nation-­?wide  in  
2012  
A  peer-­?to-­?peer  
carsharing  service,  
allowing  private  car-­?
owners  to  rent  out  
vehicles  via  an  online  
interface.  Car  owners  
can  set  their  own  
prices,  and  the  
company  takes  25%.  
Unknown.  
Onstar  
partnership  
with  GM  
cancelled  in  
Sept.  2013  
to  focus  on  
long  
duration  car  
rentals  
Received  $19M  
in  funding  from  
GM  Ventures,  
Google  
Ventures  and  
others  
Focusing  more  on  
driver  eligibility  
requirements  
RideScout  
(ridescout.co
m)  
An  Austin  startup  
which  later  
expanded  to  DC  
RideScout  is  a  free  
mobile  app  that  
provides  real-­?time  
information  on  all  
available  ride  options,  
including  both  rail,  
taxis,  bikeshare,  car2go,  
Sidecar  and  more  
Unknown.  
Working  on  
online  
marketing  
ad  co-­?
marketing  
with  the  
carsharing  
service  
Car2Go  
Funded  by  
employees'  
friends  and  
family  as  well  
as  angel  
investors  
RideScout  is  a  
mobile  app  that  
aggregates  all  of  
the  ride  options  
available  to  a  user.  
It  is  not  a  service  
provider,  instead  a  
clearinghouse  of  
sorts  
Sidecar  
San  Francisco,  CA  
Sidecar's  smartphone  
app  matches  people  in  
their  own  car  with  
people  nearby  for  
shared  rides  
Yes,  it's  in  
over  60  
metro  
regions  in  
the  country  
 Investors  
include  
Lightspeed  
Ventures,  
Google  
Ventures  and  
others  
All  drivers  are  pre-­?
vetted  for  safety,  
all  rides  are  GPS  
tracked  and  
everyone  who  
rides  is  covered  by  
$1  million  dollar  
insurance  policy  
Uber  
Started  in  San  
Francisco  and  is  
currently  rolling  
out  UberX  
rideshare  
network  in  most  
major  U.S.  cities  
and  Honolulu  
Independent  
ridesharing  network  
with  a  mobile  app  
which  connects  
passengers  with  drivers  
of  vehicles  for  
ridesharing  and  pickup  
services  
Yes,  founded  
in  2009  and  
is  in  over  50  
cities  
worldwide  
Lowercase  
Capital,  First  
Round  Capital,  
Benchmark,  
Goldman  
Sachs,  Menlo,  
Google  
Ventures  
   
 
   
 
background image
 
116|  
P a g e
 
 
APPENDIX  G:  THE  ECONOMICS  OF  CARPOOLING  
Table  9-­?4:  Long  Distance  Intra-­?Island  Commuting  
 
Table  9-­?5:  Short  Distance  City  Commuting  
 
 
Costs
Revenue
Total
Costs
Revenue
Total
Commute  Alone
$32.00
($32.00)
$640.00
($640.00)
Carpool  -­?  2  people
Driver
$32.00
$16.64
($15.36)
$640.00
$332.80
($307.20)
Carpool  Service
$4.16
$4.16
$83.20
$83.20
Carpool  -­?  3  people
Driver
$32.00
$33.28
$1.28
$640.00
$665.60
$25.60
Carpool  Service
$8.32
$8.32
$166.40
$166.40
Carpool  -­?  4  people
Driver
$32.00
$49.92
$17.92
$640.00
$998.40
$358.40
Carpool  Service
$12.48
$12.48
$249.60
$249.60
Carpool  Riders
$20.80
($20.80)
$416.00
($416.00)
Public  Transit
$60.00
($60.00)
Assumptions
Cost  of  gas:
$4.00/gallon
Fuel  efficiency:
20  miles/gallon
Distance  traveled:
160  miles  (roundtrip  -­?  Hilo  to  Kona)
Gallons  used:
Distance/Efficiency  =  8  gallons
Days  traveled:
20  days  in  a  month
Rider  fee:
$0.13/mile  paid  to  drive
Carpool  service  fee:  
20%  of  the  fee  paid  by  the  rider
Daily
Monthly
Costs
Revenue
Total
Costs
Revenue
Total
Commute  Alone
$2.00
($2.00)
$56.00
($56.00)
Carpool  -­?  2  people
Driver
$2.00
$1.04
($0.96)
$56.00
$29.12
($26.88)
Carpool  Service
$0.26
$0.26
$7.28
$7.28
Carpool  -­?  3  people
Driver
$2.00
$2.08
$0.08
$56.00
$58.24
$2.24
Carpool  Service
$0.52
$0.52
$14.56
$14.56
Carpool  -­?  4  people
Driver
$2.00
$3.12
$1.12
$56.00
$87.36
$31.36
Carpool  Service
$0.78
$0.78
$21.84
$21.84
Carpool  Riders
$1.30
($1.30)
$36.40
($36.40)
Public  Transit
$60.00
($60.00)
Assumptions
Cost  of  gas:
$4.00/gallon
Fuel  efficiency:
20  miles/gallon
Distance  traveled:
10  miles  (intra-­?Hilo  or  Kona)
Gallons  used:
Distance/Efficiency  =  0.5  gallons
Days  traveled:
20  days  (work  commute)  +  8  days  (non-­?regular  travel)
Rider  fee:
$0.13/mile  paid  to  drive
Carpool  service  fee:  
20%  of  the  fee  paid  by  the  rider
Daily
Monthly
background image
 
117|  
P a g e
 
 
APPENDIX  H:  UNIVERSTY  OF  MICHIGAN  TEAM  BIOGRAPHIES  
 
Jonas  Epstein  is  a  2
nd
-­?year  MS  student  in  the  Environmental  Policy  &  Planning  track  in  the  School  
of  Natural  Resources  and  Environment  and  the  University  of  Michigan.  He  originally  hails  from  
Maryland  and  graduated  from  Bucknell  University  in  2011  majoring  in  Economics  and  
Environmental  Studies.  Jonas  has  past  work  experience  in  ecosystem  services  valuation  for  the  
U.S.  Department  of  Transportation  (working  under  the  Assistant  Secretary  for  Transportation  
Policy),  environmental  cost-­?benefit  analyses,  and  has  completed  extensive  research  analyzing  
economic  impacts  resulting  from  agricultural  conservation,  stormwater  management,  and  
wastewater  treatment  initiatives  in  the  Chesapeake  Bay  watershed.  He  would  like  to  hone  his  
policy  skills  in  order  to  develop  a  lifelong  career  in  land  use/urban  planning  and  natural  resource  
management.    
Maite  Madrazo  is  a  2
nd
 year  dual-­?degree  MS/MBA  student  at  the  University  of  Michigan  School  
of  Natural  Resources  and  Environment  and  the  Stephen  M.  Ross  School  of  Business.  She  is  in  the  
Sustainable  Systems  track.  Maite  is  from  Mexico  City  and  has  a  Bachelor?s  in  Mechanical  and  
Electrical  Engineering.  Previous  to  coming  to  the  University  of  Michigan,  she  worked  in  
renewable  energy  project  development  with  Potencia  Industrial  S.A.,  where  she  coordinated  a  
20MW  wind  power  project  in  northern  Baja  California,  Mexico;  oversaw  small-­?wind  turbine  
manufacturing,  sales  and  projects;  and  started  the  development  of  a  mini-­?hydroelectric  plant.  
Maite  is  passionate  about  creating  social  and  environmental  impact  by  transitioning  to  clean  
and  renewable  energy  sources  and  improving  energy  efficiency.  
Trevor  McManamon  is  a2nd  year  dual  MS  student  between  the  University  of  Michigan?s  School  
of  Natural  Resources  and  Environment  and  the  School  of  Engineering,  studying  Sustainable  
Systems  and  Energy  Systems  Engineering.  He  grew  up  in  San  Jose,  CA  and  majored  in  Chemistry  
and  minored  in  Earth  Sciences  at  Boston  University,  graduating  in  December  2011.  Trevor  has  
internship  experience  at  the  environmental  research  consultancy  AltaTerra  Research  Network  
and  at  the  concentrated  solar  power  startup  Combined  Power.    Trevor  is  passionate  about  
contributing  towards  climate  change  mitigation  and  is  hoping  to  enter  the  renewable  energy  
sector  upon  graduation  in  May  of  2015.  
Daphne  Medina  is  a  3
rd
 year  student  at  the  University  of  Michigan?s  Erb  Institute  for  Sustainable  
Global  Enterprise,  working  toward  a  dual  degree  MS/MBA  at  the  School  of  Natural  Resources  
and  Environment  and  the  Stephen  M.  Ross  School  of  Business.  She  joined  the  program  after  four  
years  working  at  Environmental  Defense  Fund  on  green  business  practices  in  the  Corporate  
Partnerships  Program  and  on  catch  shares  fishery  management  in  the  Oceans  Program.  Daphne  
is  currently  pursing  a  career  in  corporate  social  responsibility  focused  on  incorporating  
sustainability  into  all  aspects  of  corporate  strategy  in  order  to  create  a  greener  and  more  
equitable  global  economy.  Hailing  from  Boston,  she  attended  Boston  University,  graduating  with  
BA  in  Political  Science  
background image
 
118|  
P a g e
 
 
Xiaofei  Wen  is  a  2
nd
 year  MS  student  in  the  Environmental  Informatics  track  in  the  School  of  
Natural  Resources  and  Environment  and  the  University  of  Michigan.  He  is  from  China  and  
majored  in  Remote  Sensing  Science  and  Technology  at  Wuhan  University,  graduating  in  June  
2012.  Xiaofei  has  research  experience  of  information  extraction  using  remote  sensing  imagery  
and  GIS  modeling.  Xiaofei  is  passionate  about  applying  his  expertise  of  spatial  analysis  to  
support  the  decision  making  of  environmental  &  urban  planning  challenges  in  his  future  career.  
 
 
background image
 
119|  
P a g e
 
 
APPENDIX  I:  MASTERS  PROJECT  CLIENT  
 
From  
http://www.kohalacenter.org
:  
?The  Kohala  Center  is  an  independent,  not-­?for-­?profit,  community-­?based  center  for  research,  
conservation,  and  education.  The  Kohala  Center  was  established  in  direct  response  to  the  
request  of  island  residents  and  island  leaders  to  create  greater  educational  and  employment  
opportunities  by  caring  for?and  celebrating?Hawai?i  Island?s  natural  and  cultural  landscape.    
The  sheer  diversity  of  Hawai?i  Island?s  ecosystems  and  climate  zones  makes  the  island  a  model  
of  the  planet.  Furthermore,  the  island?s  root  culture  is  embedded  in  knowledge  of  the  natural  
world  and  excels  in  natural  resource  management  practices.  In  this  remarkable  local  context,  
the  island  becomes  a  model  for  the  planet  whenever  island  communities  successfully  address  
contemporary  challenges  at  the  intersection  of  human  and  natural  systems.    
By  focusing  on  the  needs  of  island  residents  and  the  research  interests  of  our  university  and  
agency  partners,  three  core  areas  of  work  have  emerged:  energy  self-­?reliance,  food  self-­?
reliance,  and  ecosystem  health.  These  areas  of  work  involve  basic  and  applied  research,  policy  
research,  conservation  and  restoration  initiatives,  public  outreach  and  education  ?  all  carried  
out  through  local,  regional,  national,  and  international  partnerships.  Through  these  partnerships  
and  by  recognizing  that  we  work  in  a  model  environment,  we  help  communities  on  the  island,  in  
the  Pacific,  and  around  the  world  thrive?ecologically,  economically,  culturally,  and  socially.    
In  addition,  we  have  committed  ourselves  to  supporting  K-­?12  education,  so  that  island  youth  can  
assume  the  knowledge-­?rich  jobs  that  The  Kohala  Center  and  its  partners  are  creating.  Our  work  
has  generated,  for  example,  the  further  need  for  ecologists,  conservation  biologists,  economists,  
fence  builders,  archivists,  agronomists,  hydrologists,  expert  cultural  practitioners,  environmental  
educators,  ethnographers,  landscape  architects,  community  organizers,  writers,  editors,  
geographic  information  scientists,  cultural  historians,  engineers,  geographers,  media  relations  
professionals,  field  managers,  grant  managers,  and  information  technology  specialists,  among  
others.  
We  also  support  the  development  of  island  scholars,  so  that  those  from  Hawai?i  can  lead  
educational  and  research  institutions  in  Hawai?i  and  around  the  world.  Toward  this  end,  we  
created  the  Mellon-­?Hawai?i  Doctoral  and  Postdoctoral  Fellowship  Program  in  collaboration  with  
The  Andrew  W.  Mellon  Foundation  and  Kamehameha  Schools.    
Our  mission:  to  respectfully  engage  the  Island  of  Hawai?i  as  a  living  model  for  humanity.  
background image
 
120|  
P a g e
 
 
Our  vision:  a  state  of  pono,  in  which  individuals  realize  their  potential,  contributing  their  very  
best  to  one  another,  to  the  community,  and  to  the  ??ina  (the  land)  itself,  in  exchange  for  a  
meaningful  and  happy  life.  ?  
 
 
background image
 
121|  
P a g e
 
 
ILLUSTRATIONS,  TABLES,  AND  FIGURES  
ILLUSTRATIONS  
Front  Cover:  Photo  at  Akaka  Falls  State  Park  by  Daphne  Medina.  All  rights  reserved.  
Page  35:  
http://hawaiicountymayor.com/wp-­?content/uploads/2011/06/doubledecker-­?bus.jpg
 
Page  53:  
http://www.pcb.its.dot.gov/factsheets/comm/images/comm4.jpg
 
Page  54:  
http://floridaapts.lctr.org/images/GFIfarebox.jpG  
Page  88:  
http://hilo.hawaii.edu/alumni/images/faderimages/1072012131911000000.jpg
 
 
TABLES  
Table  1-­?1:  Models  of  Commuting  
5  
Table  4-­?1:  Models  of  Commuting  
25  
Table  4-­?2:  Bus  Frequency  for  Each  Route  
34  
Table  4-­?3:  Bus  Route  Coverage  Compared  to  Population  Density  
35  
Table  4-­?4:  Bus  Route  Coverage  Compared  to  Recreation  Areas  
38  
Table  4-­?5:  Annual  Visitation  of  Federal  and  State  Recreation  Sites  on  Hawai`i  Island  
38  
Table  5-­?1:  Hawai`i  and  Maui  Ridership  
47  
Table  5-­?2:  Hawai`i  and  Maui  Transit  Data  Comparison  
47  
Table  7-­?1:  Available  Technologies  
52  
Table  7-­?2:  Current  and  Prospective  Adoption  Rates  
55  
Table  7-­?3:  Technology  Adoption  Rates  
55  
Table  8-­?1:  Rideshare  Options  for  Hawai`i  Island  
91  
Table  9-­?1:  County  of  Hawai`i  Mass  Transit  Expenditures  and  Revenue  
107  
Table  9-­?2:  Existing  Transportation  Management  Associations  
110  
Table  9-­?3:  Existing  Mobile  Rideshare  Providers  
114  
Table  9-­?4:  Long  Distance  Intra-­?Island  Commuting  
116  
Table  9-­?5:  Short  Distance  City  Commuting  
116  
 
FIGURES  
Figure  1-­?1:  Road  Map  of  Hawai`i  Island  
4  
Figure  1-­?2:  Hawai`i  County  Median  Earning  
6  
Figure  1-­?3:  Hawai`i  County  Commute  Length  
6  
Figure  1-­?4:  Hawai`i  County  Mass  Transit  Agency  Ridership  
7  
Figure  1-­?5:  Hawai`i  Island  Bus  Routes  
8  
background image
 
122|  
P a g e
 
 
Figure  1-­?6:  Map  of  Maui  Transit  
9  
Figure  1-­?7:  Areas  of  Opportunity  
10  
Figure  1-­?8:  Potential  Companies  and  Their  Services  
11  
Figure  1-­?9:  Carpool  Economics  
13  
Figure  2-­?1:  Project  Methodology  
17  
Figure  3-­?1:  Map  of  Hawaiian  Islands  
19  
Figure  3-­?2:  Principal  Employers,  County  of  Hawai`i  
20  
Figure  4-­?1:  Road  Map  of  Hawai`i  Island  
24  
Figure  4-­?2:  Hawai`i  County  Median  Earning  
26  
Figure  4-­?3:  Hawai`i  County  Occupations  
27  
Figure  4-­?4:  Hawai`i  County  Industries  
28  
Figure  4-­?5:  Hawai`i  Vehicle  Availability  
29  
Figure  4-­?6:  Hawai`i  County  Commute  Length  
30  
Figure  4-­?7:  Hawai`i  County  Mass  Transit  Agency  Ridership  
31  
Figure  4-­?8:  Hawai`i  County  Mass  Transit  Agency  SWOT  Analysis  
32  
Figure  4-­?9:  Hawai`i  Island  Population  Density  Map  
33  
Figure  4-­?10:  Hawai`i  Island  Bus  Route  Map  
36  
Figure  4-­?11:  Hawai`i  Island  Bus  Route  and  Population  Density  Map  
37  
Figure  4-­?12:  Hawai`i  Island  Bus  Route  and  Recreation  Site  Density  Map  
39  
Figure  4-­?13:  Hawai`i  Island  Bus  Route  and  Business  Density  Map  
41  
Figure  5-­?1:  Maui  Bus  Schedule  
43  
Figure  5-­?2:  Map  of  Maui  Bus  System  
44  
Figure  5-­?3  Maui  Employment  Density  Map  
45  
Figure  5-­?4:  Maui  Transit  Need  Map  
45  
Figure  6-­?1:  Areas  of  Opportunity  for  Implementing  Technology  
50  
Figure  7-­?1:  Stages  of  Transportation  and  Information  Delivery  
51  
Figure  7-­?2:  Analysis  of  Companies  and  Services  
69  
Figure  8-­?1:  Public-­?Private  Partnership  Rideshare  Network  Business  Model  
84  
Figure  8-­?2:  Rideshare  Commuting  Patterns  at  University  of  Washington  
90  
Figure  8-­?3:  Carpool  Economics  
92  
Figure  9-­?1:  The  CMAQ  Funding  Process  
113  
 
 
 
 
background image
 
123|  
P a g e
 
 
REFERENCES  
                                                                                                                         
1
 "The  Official  U.S.  Government  Source  for  Fuel  Economy  Information."  Fuel  Economy.  U.S.  Department  of  
Energy,  2013.  Web.  11  Apr.  2013.  <http://www.fueleconomy.gov/>.  
2
 "Hawai`i  :  State  Profile  and  Energy  Estimates."  U.S.  Energy  Information  Administration,  2013.  Web.  11  
Apr.  2013.  <http://www.eia.gov>.  
3
 Cooke,  Christopher  P.,  and  David  C.  Parsons.  County  of  Hawai'i  Energy  Sustainability  Plan:  Five  Year  
Roadmap.  Rep.  Kohala  Center,  6  Dec.  2012.  Web.  
<http://www.kohalacenter.org/pdf/energy/CoH_EnergySustainabilityProgram_Final.pdf>.  
4
 "Hawai`i  :  State  Profile  and  Energy  Estimates."  U.S.  Energy  Information  Administration,  2013.  Web.  11  
Apr.  2013.  <http://www.eia.gov>.  
5
 "
 
2012  American  Community  Survey  1-­?Year  Estimates."  American  FactFinder  .  United  States  Census  
Bureau.,  2013.  Web.  1  Nov.  2013.  
<http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_11_5YR_DP03
>.  
6
 Ibid.  
7
 "Island  of  Hawai`i."  Google  Maps.  Google,  2014.  Web.  30  Jan.  2014.  
<https://www.google.com/maps/preview/place/Island%2Bof%2BHawai%25E2%2580%2598i/%4019.5896
792%2C-­?
155.434294%2C9z/data%3D%213m1%214b1%214m2%213m1%211s0x7953e7c1c5f73a59%3A0x1455a49
2f9d78134>.  
8
 "Interview  with  Tiffany  Kai,  Mass  Transit  Administrator."  Personal  interview.  20  Aug.  2013.  
9
 Miller,  Erin.  "New  Saddle  Road  Connector  to  Open  Sept.  7."  Hawai`i    Tribune  Herald.  Stephens  Media  
LLC,  22  Aug.  2013.  Web.  8  Nov.  2013.  <http://hawaiitribune-­?herald.com/sections/news/local-­?news/new-­?
saddle-­?road-­?connector-­?open-­?sept-­?7.html>.  
10
 "Hawai`i  Island."  Google  Maps.  Google,  2013.  Web.  8  Nov.  2013.  <http://maps.google.com/>.  
11
 Hosen,  Kenneth  I.,  and  S.  Bennett  Powell.  Innovative  Rural  Transit  Services.  Rep.  no.  TCRP  Synthesis  94.  
Transportation  Research  Board,  2011.  Web.  
<http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_syn_94.pdf>.  
12
 Cooke,  Christopher  P.,  and  David  C.  Parsons.  County  of  Hawai'i  Energy  Sustainability  Plan:  Five  Year  
Roadmap.  Rep.  Kohala  Center,  6  Dec.  2012.  Web.  
<http://www.kohalacenter.org/pdf/energy/CoH_EnergySustainabilityProgram_Final.pdf>.  
13
 Ibid.  
14
 "Interview  with  Tiffany  Kai,  Mass  Transit  Administrator."  Personal  interview.  20  Aug.  2013.  
15
 Crawford,  Nancy  E.  Comprehensive  Annual  Financial  Report  FY  2011.  Rep.  County  of  Hawai'i,  27  Dec.  
2011.  Web.  <http://records.co.hawaii.hi.us/Weblink8/1/doc/58499/Electronic.aspx>.  
16
 2011  Rural  NTD  Database.  15  Feb.  2013.  Raw  data.  National  Transportation  Database,  n.p.  
17
 "The  Official  U.S.  Government  Source  for  Fuel  Economy  Information."  Fuel  Economy.  U.S.  Department  
of  Energy,  2013.  Web.  11  Apr.  2013.  <http://www.fueleconomy.gov/>.  
18
 "Hawai`i  :  State  Profile  and  Energy  Estimates."  U.S.  Energy  Information  Administration,  2013.  Web.  11  
Apr.  2013.  <http://www.eia.gov>.  
background image
 
124|  
P a g e
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
19
 Cooke,  Christopher  P.,  and  David  C.  Parsons.  County  of  Hawai'i  Energy  Sustainability  Plan:  Five  Year  
Roadmap.  Rep.  Kohala  Center,  6  Dec.  2012.  Web.  
<http://www.kohalacenter.org/pdf/energy/CoH_EnergySustainabilityProgram_Final.pdf>.  
20
 "Hawai`i:  State  Profile  and  Energy  Estimates."  U.S.  Energy  Information  Administration,  2013.  Web.  11  
Apr.  2013.  <http://www.eia.gov>.  
21
 Cooke,  Christopher  P.,  and  David  C.  Parsons.  County  of  Hawai'i  Energy  Sustainability  Plan:  Five  Year  
Roadmap.  Rep.  Kohala  Center,  6  Dec.  2012.  Web.  
<http://www.kohalacenter.org/pdf/energy/CoH_EnergySustainabilityProgram_Final.pdf>.  
22
 "
 
2012  American  Community  Survey  1-­?Year  Estimates."  American  FactFinder.  United  States  Census  
Bureau.,  2013.  Web.  1  Nov.  2013.  
<http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_11_5YR_DP03
>.  
23
 Ibid.  
24
 The  Hawaiian  Islands.  Hawaii  Visitors  and  Convention  Bureau,  2013.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
<http://www.hvcb.org/schoolreport/eightmajorislands.htm>.  
25
 "Hawai`i  Island."  Google  Maps.  Google,  2013.  Web.  8  Nov.  2013.  <http://maps.google.com/>.  
26
 Doughty,  Andrew,  and  Leona  Boyd.  Hawaii,  the  Big  Island  Revealed:  The  Ultimate  Guidebook.  Lihu?e,  
Hawai?i:  Wizard  Publications,  2011.  Print.  
27
 Hawaii  Island  Weather  Forecast  &  Report:.  Hawaii's  Official  Tourism  Site,  2013.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
<http://www.gohawaii.com/big-­?island/about/weather>.  
28
 Ibid.  
29
 State  of  Hawai'i  Elected  Officials.  Hawaii.gov,  2013.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
<https://portal.ehawaii.gov/government/elected-­?officials/>.  
30
 Governor  of  the  State  of  Hawai`i.  Hawaii.gov,  2013.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  <http://governor.hawaii.gov/>.  
31
 Lt.  Governor  of  the  State  of  Hawai`i.  Hawaii.gov,  2013.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  <http://ltgov.hawaii.gov/>.  
32
 House  of  Representatives  of  the  State  of  Hawaii.  Hawaii.gov,  2013.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  <  
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/members/legislators.aspx?chamber=H/>.  
33
 Senate  of  the  State  of  Hawai`i.  Hawaii.gov,  2013.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
<
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/members/legislators.aspx?chamber=S/>
 
34
 County  of  Hawaii  -­?  Council.  County  of  Hawai'i,  2013.  Web.  10  Nov.  2013.  
<http://www.hawaiicounty.gov/council/>.  
35
 "Early  History."  The  History  of  Sugar  Plantations  in  Hawaii.  Grovefarm.org,  2012.  Web.  10  Nov.  2013.  
<http://grovefarm.org/kauai-­?history/>.  
36
 Goldberg,  Carey.  "As  Sugar  Fades,  Hawaii  Seeks  a  New  Cash  Crop."  The  New  York  Times.  The  New  York  
Times,  09  Aug.  1996.  Web.  10  Nov.  2013.  <http://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/09/us/as-­?sugar-­?fades-­?
hawaii-­?seeks-­?a-­?new-­?cash-­?crop.html?pagewanted=all>.  
background image
 
125|  
P a g e
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
37
 Hawaii  Agricultural  Exports.  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture,  2013.  Web.  10  Nov.  2013.  
<http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Hawaii/Publications/Annual_Statistical_Bulletin/stat11-­?
88.pdf>.  
38
 "How  Important  Is  Agriculture  Today?"  State  of  Hawaii  Department  of  Agriculture.  State  of  Hawaii  
Department  of  Agriculture,  2013.  Web.  10  Nov.  2013.  <http://hdoa.hawaii.gov/blog/ag-­?resources/how-­?
important-­?is-­?agriculture-­?today/>.  
39
 2012  Annual  Visitor  Research  Report.  Rep.  Hawaii  Tourism  Authority,  2013.  Web.  10  Nov.  2013.  
<http://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/visitor/visitor-­?research/2012-­?annual-­?visitor.pdf>.  
40
 Ibid.  
41
 "Interview  with  Sharon  Sakai,  Kohala-­?Kona  Resort  Association."  Personal  interview.  19  Aug.  2013.  
42
 "Interview  with  Tiffany  Kai,  Mass  Transit  Administrator."  Personal  interview.  20  Aug.  2013.  
43
 "2010  Census."  2010  Census.  U.S.  Census  Bureau,  2013.  Web.  8  Nov.  2013.  
<http://www.census.gov/2010census/>.  
44
 "  2012  American  Community  Survey  1-­?Year  Estimates."  American  FactFinder  .  United  States  Census  
Bureau.,  2013.  Web.  1  Nov.  2013.  
<http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_11_5YR_DP03
>.  
45
 Mattson,  Jeremy.  2013  Rural  Transit  Fact  Book.  Rep.  National  Center  for  Transit  Research,  July  2013.  
Web.  <http://www.surtc.org/transitfactbook/downloads/2013_rural_transit_fact_book.pdf>.  
46
 Public  Transit  in  Rural  Communities.  AARP,  2012.  Web.  
<http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/livable-­?communities/act/transportation/public-­?transit-­?in-­?rural-­?
communities-­?aarp.pdf>.  
47
 Mattson,  Jeremy.  2013  Rural  Transit  Fact  Book.  Rep.  National  Center  for  Transit  Research,  July  2013.  
Web.  <http://www.surtc.org/transitfactbook/downloads/2013_rural_transit_fact_book.pdf>.  
48
 Ripplinger,  David,  Elvis  Ndembe,  and  Jill  Hough.  2011  Transit  and  Livability  Report.  Rep.  North  Dakota  
State  University:  Upper  Great  Plains  Transportation  Institute,  Dec.  2012.  Web.  
<http://www.ugpti.org/pubs/pdf/DP262.pdf>.  
49
 2011  Rural  NTD  Database.  15  Feb.  2013.  Raw  data.  National  Transportation  Database,  n.p.  
50
 Mattson,  Jeremy.  2013  Rural  Transit  Fact  Book.  Rep.  National  Center  for  Transit  Research,  July  2013.  
Web.  <http://www.surtc.org/transitfactbook/downloads/2013_rural_transit_fact_book.pdf>.  
51
 2011  Rural  NTD  Database.  15  Feb.  2013.  Raw  data.  National  Transportation  Database,  n.p.  
52
 Ibid.  
53
 Mattson,  Jeremy.  2013  Rural  Transit  Fact  Book.  Rep.  National  Center  for  Transit  Research,  July  2013.  
Web.  <http://www.surtc.org/transitfactbook/downloads/2013_rural_transit_fact_book.pdf>.  
54
 "Commuter  Tax  Benefits  |  National  Center  for  Transit  Research."  National  Center  for  Transit  Research.  
National  Center  for  Transit  Research,  2013.  Web.  29  Jan.  2014.  
<http://www.nctr.usf.edu/programs/clearinghouse/commutebenefits/>.  
55
 "Employer's  Tax  Guide  to  Fringe  Benefits."  Internal  Revenue  Service.  U.S.  Department  of  Treasury,  2014.  
Web.  <http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-­?pdf/p15b.pdf>.  
background image
 
126|  
P a g e
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
56
 "Commuter  Benefits."  Wageworks.  Wageworks,  2014.  Web.  20  Feb.  2014.  
<https://www.wageworks.com/employees/benefits/commuter.aspx>.  
57
 Hosen,  Kenneth  I.,  and  S.  Bennett  Powell.  Innovative  Rural  Transit  Services.  Rep.  no.  TCRP  Synthesis  94.  
Transportation  Research  Board,  2011.  Web.  
<http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_syn_94.pdf>.  
58
 Doughty,  Andrew,  and  Leona  Boyd.  Hawai`i  ,  the  Big  Island  Revealed:  The  Ultimate  Guidebook.  Lihu?e,  
Hawai?i:  Wizard  Publications,  2011.  Print.  
59
 History  of  Hawai`i    Consolidated  Railroad.  Laupahoehoe  Train  Museum,  2013.  Web.  8  Nov.  2013.  
<http://www.thetrainmuseum.com/history.html>.  
60
 "Hawai`i  Island."  Google  Maps.  Google,  2013.  Web.  8  Nov.  2013.  <http://maps.google.com/>.  
61
 "Interview  with  Tiffany  Kai,  Mass  Transit  Administrator."  Personal  interview.  20  Aug.  2013.  
62
 Miller,  Erin.  "New  Saddle  Road  Connector  to  Open  Sept.  7."  Hawai`i    Tribune  Herald.  Stephens  Media  
LLC,  22  Aug.  2013.  Web.  8  Nov.  2013.  <http://hawaiitribune-­?herald.com/sections/news/local-­?news/new-­?
saddle-­?road-­?connector-­?open-­?sept-­?7.html>.  
63
 "Hawai`i  Island."  Google  Maps.  Google,  2013.  Web.  8  Nov.  2013.  <http://maps.google.com/>.  
64
 Ibid.  
65
 Doughty,  Andrew,  and  Leona  Boyd.  Hawai`i  ,  the  Big  Island  Revealed:  The  Ultimate  Guidebook.  Lihu?e,  
Hawai?i:  Wizard  Publications,  2011.  Print.  
66
 Cooke,  Christopher  P.,  and  David  C.  Parsons.  County  of  Hawai'i  Energy  Sustainability  Plan:  Five  Year  
Roadmap.  Rep.  Kohala  Center,  6  Dec.  2012.  Web.  
<http://www.kohalacenter.org/pdf/energy/CoH_EnergySustainabilityProgram_Final.pdf>.  
67
 "Hawai'i  County  Mass  Transit  Agency  ?  Hele-­?On  Bus."  Hawai'i  County  Mass  Transit  Agency  ?  Hele-­?On  
Bus.  County  of  Hawai'i,  2013.  Web.  30  Jan.  2014.  <http://heleonbus.org/>.  
68
 "Interview  with  Tiffany  Kai,  Mass  Transit  Administrator."  Personal  interview.  20  Aug.  2013.  
69
 Crawford,  Nancy  E.  Comprehensive  Annual  Financial  Report  FY  2011.  Rep.  County  of  Hawai'i,  27  Dec.  
2011.  Web.  <http://records.co.hawaii.hi.us/Weblink8/1/doc/58499/Electronic.aspx>.  
70
 "Interview  with  Tiffany  Kai,  Mass  Transit  Administrator."  Personal  interview.  20  Aug.  2013.  
71
 Crawford,  Nancy  E.  Comprehensive  Annual  Financial  Report  FY  2011.  Rep.  County  of  Hawai'i,  27  Dec.  
2011.  Web.  <http://records.co.hawaii.hi.us/Weblink8/1/doc/58499/Electronic.aspx>.  
72
 2011  Rural  NTD  Database.  15  Feb.  2013.  Raw  data.  National  Transportation  Database,  n.p.  
73
 "Bus  Schedules  &  Maps."  Hele-­?On  Bus  Hawai'i  County  Mass  Transit  Agency.  N.p.,  n.d.  Web.  26  Feb.  
2014.  
74
 "Big  Island  Feature."  Top  Things  to  Do  on  the  Big  Island.  N.p.,  n.d.  Web.  26  Jan.  2014.  
<http://www.fodors.com/world/north-­?america/usa/hawaii/big-­?island/feature_30006.html>.  
75
 "Annual  Recreation  Visitation  by  Park  Type  or  Region  For:  2013."  U.S.  National  Park  Service.  N.p.,  n.d.  
Web.  26  Feb.  2014.  
76
 2007  Hawai?i  State  Parks  Survey.  N.p.:  Hawaii  Tourism  Authority,  Dec.  2007.  PDF.  
77
 "Passenger  Boarding  (Enplanement)  and  All-­?Cargo  Data  for  U.S.  Airports."  Federal  Aviation  
Administration.  Federal  Aviation  Administration,  31  Oct.  2013.  Web.  07  Feb.  2014.  
http://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/passenger_allcargo_stats/passenger/  
background image
 
127|  
P a g e
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
78
 "Bus  Schedules  &  Maps."  Hele-­?On  Bus  Hawai'i  County  Mass  Transit  Agency.  Hawai'i  County  Mass  Transit  
Agency,  n.d.  Web.  07  Feb.  2014.  http://www.heleonbus.org/schedules-­?and-­?maps  
79  
"Ground  Transportation."  Hilo  International  Airport.  N.p.,  n.d.  Web.  07  Feb.  2014.  
http://hawaii.gov/ito/ground-­?transportation  
80
 "Ground  Transportation."  Kona  International  Airport  at  Keahole.  N.p.,  n.d.  Web.  07  Feb.  2014.  
http://hawaii.gov/koa/ground-­?transportation  
81
 Bernardo,  Rosemarie.  "Joint  Venture  to  Start  Maui  Bus  Service."  Honolulu  Star-­?Bulletin  Hawaii  News.  
Honolulu  Star-­?Bulletin,  23  Aug.  2002.  Web.  30  Jan.  2014.  
<http://archives.starbulletin.com/2002/08/23/news/story4.html>.  
82
 "Maui  Bus  Service."  Maui  County,  HI.  County  of  Maui,  2013.  Web.  30  Jan.  2014.  
<http://www.mauicounty.gov/index.aspx?NID=605>.  
83
 Ibid.  
84
 Ibid.  
85
 Ibid.  
86
 "MTA  Names  New  Construction  Head  As  AECOM  Buys  His  Former  Firm  -­?  ENR  |  McGraw-­?Hill  
Construction."  ENR.com.  ENR.com,  01  Aug.  2008.  Web.  30  Jan.  2014.  
<http://enr.construction.com/news/transportation/archives/080801a.asp>.  
87
 Urbitran  Associates.  County  of  Maui  Short  Range  Transit  Plan.  Rep.  County  of  Maui,  2005.  Web.  
<http://www.mauicounty.gov/documents/21/srtp.PDF>.  
88
 Ibid.  
89
 "Maui  Bus  Service."  Maui  County,  HI.  County  of  Maui,  2013.  Web.  30  Jan.  2014.  
<http://www.mauicounty.gov/index.aspx?NID=605>.  
90
 Interview  with  Bill  Medeiros,  Maui  GISP  Geographic  Services  Manager."  Personal  interview.  17  Jan.  
2014.  
91
 Interview  with  Jo  Anne  Johnson,  Maui  County  Department  of  Transportation  Director,  and  Marc  
Takamori,  Maui  County  Department  of  Transportation  Deputy  Director."  Personal  interview.  23  Jan.  2014  
92
 Crawford,  Nancy  E.  Comprehensive  Annual  Financial  Report  FY  2012.  Rep.  County  of  Hawai'i,  30  Jun.  
2012.  Web.  <http://records.co.hawaii.hi.us/Weblink8/1/doc/63773/Electronic.aspx>.    
93
 Agsalog,  Danilo  F.  "Comprehensive  Annual  Financial  Report."  County  of  Maui.  County  of  Maui,  30  June  
2012.  Web.  30  Jan.  2014.  
<http://www.co.maui.hi.us/documents/3/515/COMCAFRFY%202012_201301101533124039.pdf>.  
94
 "
 
2012  American  Community  Survey  1-­?Year  Estimates."  American  FactFinder  .  United  States  Census  
Bureau.,  2013.  Web.  1  Nov.  2013.  
<http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_11_5YR_DP03
>.  
95
 "Maui  County  General  Plan  2030."  Maui  County,  HI.  Maui  County,  HI,  2013.  Web.  
<http://www.co.maui.hi.us/documents/17/69/71/3828/Chapter%201_201304191329387793.pdf.>.  
96
 "County  of  Hawaii  -­?  Operating  Budget  FY  2013-­?4."  County  of  Hawai'i.  County  of  Hawai'i,  2013.  Web.  20  
Feb.  2014.  <http://records.co.hawaii.hi.us/weblink/DocView.aspx?id=792118>.  
background image
 
128|  
P a g e
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
97
"Transportation  -­?  Department  Summary  FY  2014."  County  of  Maui.  County  of  Maui,  n.d.  Web.  
<http://co.maui.hi.us/documents/50/51/3734/3735/3738/060-­?18-­?
Transportation_201310041315295723.pdf>.    
98
 "2012  NTD  Data  Tables."  2012  NTD  Data  Tables.  American  Public  Transportation  Association,  2012.  
Web.  20  Feb.  2014.  <http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/NTDDataTables.aspx>.  
99
 "2012  NTD  Data  Tables."  2012  NTD  Data  Tables.  American  Public  Transportation  Association,  2012.  
Web.  20  Feb.  2014.  <http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/NTDDataTables.aspx>.  
100
 Velaga,  Nagendra  R.  et  al.,  ?Transport  Poverty  Meets  the  Digital  Divide:  Accessibility  and  Connectivity  
in  Rural  Communities,?  Journal  of  Transport  Geography,  Volume  21,  March  2012.  
101
 Interview  with  Olin  Lagon,  Kanu  Hawai`i  ."  Personal  interview.  17  Jan.  2014.  
102
 Ripplinger,  David  and  Bethany  Brand-­?Sargent,  ?Technology  Adoption  by  Small  Urban  and  Rural  Transit  
Agencies,?  Upper  Great  Plains  Transportation  Institute,  North  Dakota  State  University,  June  2010.  
103
 Information  about  Rural  ITS,  <http://www.ruralits.org/>.  Accessed  November  1,  2013.  
104
 Ripplinger,  David  and  Bethany  Brand-­?Sargent,  ?Technology  Adoption  by  Small  Urban  and  Rural  Transit  
Agencies,?  Upper  Great  Plains  Transportation  Institute,  North  Dakota  State  University,  June  2010.  
105
 Velaga,  Nagendra  R.  et  al.,  ?Development  of  a  Map-­?Matching  Algorithm  for  Rural  Passenger  
Information  Systems  through  Mobile  Phones  and  Crowd  Sourcing,?  Journal  of  Computing  in  Civil  
Engineering
,  Volume  27,  November  2013.  
106
 Ripplinger,  David  and  Bethany  Brand-­?Sargent,  ?Technology  Adoption  by  Small  Urban  and  Rural  Transit  
Agencies,?  Upper  Great  Plains  Transportation  Institute,  North  Dakota  State  University,  June  2010.    
107
 ?Central  Florida  Regional  Transportation  Authority  d.b.a.  LYNX  &  Polk  County  Transit  Services  Rural  
Intelligent  Transportation  System  Demonstration  Project,?  U.S.  Department  of  Transportation  Federal  
Transit  Administration,  December  2010.  
108
 Ripplinger,  David  and  Bethany  Brand-­?Sargent,  ?Technology  Adoption  by  Small  Urban  and  Rural  Transit  
Agencies,?  Upper  Great  Plains  Transportation  Institute,  North  Dakota  State  University,  June  2010.  
109
 ?Central  Florida  Regional  Transportation  Authority  d.b.a.  LYNX  &  Polk  County  Transit  Services  Rural  
Intelligent  Transportation  System  Demonstration  Project,?  U.S.  Department  of  Transportation  Federal  
Transit  Administration,  December  2010.  
110
 Brown,  David,  ?GPS  Monitoring  Keeps  Buses  on  Track,?  Mass  Transit,  December  20,  2011,  
<http://www.masstransitmag.com/article/10453259/gps-­?monitoring-­?keeps-­?buses-­?on-­?track>.  Accessed  
November  1,  2013.      
111
 Ripplinger,  David  and  Bethany  Brand-­?Sargent,  ?Technology  Adoption  by  Small  Urban  and  Rural  Transit  
Agencies,?  Upper  Great  Plains  Transportation  Institute,  North  Dakota  State  University,  June  2010.    
112
 Ibid.    
113
 Ibid.    
114
 ?Central  Florida  Regional  Transportation  Authority  d.b.a.  LYNX  &  Polk  County  Transit  Services  Rural  
Intelligent  Transportation  System  Demonstration  Project,?  U.S.  Department  of  Transportation  Federal  
Transit  Administration,  December  2010.  
115
 Ripplinger,  David  and  Bethany  Brand-­?Sargent,  ?Technology  Adoption  by  Small  Urban  and  Rural  Transit  
Agencies,?  Upper  Great  Plains  Transportation  Institute,  North  Dakota  State  University,  June  2010.    
116
 Ibid.  
background image
 
129|  
P a g e
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
117
 Edwards,  Peter,  et  al.,  ?A  Rural  Real-­?Time  Passenger  Information  Ecosystem,?  10
th
 International  
Conference  on  Mobile  Systems,  June  2012.  
118
 Ripplinger,  David  and  Bethany  Brand-­?Sargent,  ?Technology  Adoption  by  Small  Urban  and  Rural  Transit  
Agencies,?  Upper  Great  Plains  Transportation  Institute,  North  Dakota  State  University,  June  2010.  
119
 Ibid.  
120
 Ibid.  
121
 Crawford,  Nancy  E.  Comprehensive  Annual  Financial  Report  FY  2011.  Rep.  County  of  Hawai'i,  27  Dec.  
2011.  Web.  <http://records.co.hawaii.hi.us/Weblink8/1/doc/58499/Electronic.aspx>.  
122
 2011  Rural  NTD  Database.  15  Feb.  2013.  Raw  data.  National  Transportation  Database,  n.p.  
123
 Operating  Budget  FY2012-­?13.  Rep.  County  of  Hawai'i,  2012.  Web.  
<http://records.co.hawaii.hi.us/Weblink8/DocView.aspx?id=770538>  
124
 Google  Transit  Partner  Program,  
<http://maps.google.com/help/maps/mapcontent/transit/index.html>.  Accessed  November  4,  2013.  
125
 ?Hampton  Roads  Transit  improves  customer  service  and  enhances  web  marketing  efforts  with  Transit  
in  Google  Maps,  Analytics,  YouTube,  Gadgets,  Calendar  and  Picasa,?  Google  Case  Study,  2008,  <  
http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/maps.google.com/en/us/help/ma
ps/mapcontent/transit/case_study_hampton_roads.pdf>.  Accessed  November  6,  2013.    
126
 Google  Transit  Partner  Program,  
<http://maps.google.com/help/maps/mapcontent/transit/index.html>.  Accessed  November  4,  2013.  
127
 ?General  Transit  Feed  Specification  Reference,?  Google  Developers,  
<https://developers.google.com/transit/gtfs/reference?hl=en&csw=1>.  Accessed  November  4,  2013.  
128
 Google  Transit  Partner  Program,  
<http://maps.google.com/help/maps/mapcontent/transit/index.html>.  Accessed  November  4,  2013.  
129
 ?Google  Transit  Data  Feed,?  Google,  
<https://code.google.com/p/googletransitdatafeed/wiki/PublicFeeds?hl=en>.  Accessed  November  4,  
2013.    
130
 Rahman,  Mazedur,  ?Five  Transit  Agencies,  One  Goal:  Big  Savings  through  Partnership  and  Innovation,?  
Institute  of  Transportation  Engineers,  
<http://www.ite.org/Membersonly/techconference/2012/CB12C3301.pdf>.  Accessed  November  2,  2013.  
131
 Google  Transit  Partner  Program,  
<http://maps.google.com/help/maps/mapcontent/transit/index.html>.  Accessed  November  4,  2013.  
132
 Interview  with  Jo  Anne  Johnson,  Maui  County  Department  of  Transportation  Director,  and  Marc  
Takamori,  Maui  County  Department  of  Transportation  Deputy  Director."  Personal  interview.  23  Jan.  2014  
133
 Interview  with  Olin  Lagon,  Kanu  Hawai`i  ."  Personal  interview.  17  Jan.  2014.  
134
 Modoc  County  Transportation  Commission,  ?Evolution  of  Intelligent  Transportation  Systems  for  
Mobility  Management  and  Coordination  Serving  California?s  Rural  Frontier,?  U.S.  Department  of  
Transportation  Federal  Transit  Administration,  January  2012.    
135
 Thompson,  Arthur  and  Goodridge,  Wayne,  ?Bus  Coming:  A  Service  for  Tracking  Buses  in  Rural  Areas  
based  on  Passenger  Locations,?  GEOProcessing  2012,  The  Fourth  International  Conference  on  Advanced  
Geographic  Information  Systems,  Applications,  and  Services,  January  30,  2012.  
background image
 
130|  
P a g e
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
136
 Anderson,  Ruth  E.,  et  al.,  ?Experiences  with  a  Transportation  Information  System  that  Uses  Only  GPS  
and  SMS,?  International  Conference  on  Information  and  Communication  Technologies  and  Development,  
December  2010.  
137
 Edwards,  Peter,  et  al.,  ?A  Rural  Real-­?Time  Passenger  Information  Ecosystem,?  dot.rural  Digital  Economy  
Hub,  University  of  Aberdeen,  The  International  Conference  on  Mobile  Systems,  Applications,  and  Services,  
June  2012.  
138
 Edwards,  Peter,  et  al.,  ?Building  an  Information  Ecosystem  for  Public  Transport  in  Rural  Areas,?  
Proceedings  of  Digital  Engagement  2011,  November  2011.  
139
 Corsar,  David,  et  al.,  ?A  Rural  Passenger  Information  System  Utilising  Linked  Data  &  The  Crowd,?  Digital  
Futures  2012  The  Third  Annual  Digital  Economy  All  Hands  Conference,  October  2012.  
140
 Edwards,  Peter,  et  al.,  ?Building  an  Information  Ecosystem  for  Public  Transport  in  Rural  Areas,?  
Proceedings  of  Digital  Engagement  2011,  November  2011.  
141
 2011  Rural  NTD  Database.  15  Feb.  2013.  Raw  data.  National  Transportation  Database,  n.p.  
142
 "Actsoft."  Actsoft  Website.  N.p.,  2014.  Web.  30  Jan.  2014.  <http://www.actsoft.com/>.  
143
 "Comet  Fleet.?  Actsoft  Website.  N.p.,  2014.  Web.  30  Jan.  2014.  <http://www.actsoft.com/  
products/cometfleet/>.  
144
 "Case  Studies.?  Actsoft  Website.  N.p.,  2014.  Web.  30  Jan.  2014.  <http://www.actsoft.com/  about/case-­?
studies/>.  
145
 Ibid.  
146
 "NextBus:  Real-­?Time  Passenger  Information  Solutions."  Cubic  CTS.  NextBus  Inc.,  2014.  Web.  30  Jan.  
2014.  <http://cts.cubic.com/solutions/realtimepassengerinformation/nextbus%2Cinc.aspx>.  
147
 "Transit  Bus  Tracking,  CAD,  Real-­?Time  Passenger  Information."  Syncromatics.  N.p.,  2014.  Web.  30  Jan.  
2014.  <http://www.syncromatics.com/>.  
148
 "Case  Study:  LA  DOT."  Syncromatics.  N.p.,  2014.  Web.  30  Jan.  2014.  
<http://www.syncromatics.com/company/casestudies?ladot/>  
149
 "Case  Study:  USF."  Syncromatics.  N.p.,  2014.  Web.  30  Jan.  2014.  
<http://www.syncromatics.com/company/casestudies?usf/>  
150
 "Teletrac  GPS  Fleet  Tracking  Software."  Teletrac  ®|  GPS  Fleet  Tracking.  N.p.,  2014.  Web.  30  Jan.  2014.  
<http://www.teletrac.com/>.  
151
 "Real  Time  Fleet  Tracking,  Management  and  Logistics  Solutions."  TSOMobile.  N.p.,  2014.  Web.  30  Jan.  
2014.  <http://www.tsomobile.com/index.html>.  
152
 "AAA  Reports  Cost  of  Owning  &  Operating  a  New  Vehicle  Is  Now  54.1  Cents  Per  Mile."  NewsRoom.  
AAA,  4  Apr.  2008.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://newsroom.aaa.com/2008/04/aaa-­?reports-­?cost-­?of-­?owning-­?
operating-­?a-­?new-­?vehicle-­?is-­?now-­?54-­?1-­?cents-­?per-­?mile/
   
153
 "Average  Gas  Prices  in  Hawai`i    Fall  3.8  Cents  per  Gallon  the  past  Week  |  Hawai`i    24/7  |  Hawai`i  
247.com  |  Hawai`i  's  News  Now  ?  News,  Weather,  Sports  from  the  Big  Island."  Hawai`i    24/7  Media  
Releases
.  N.p.,  3  June  2013.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://www.hawaii247.com/2013/06/03/average-­?gas-­?
prices-­?in-­?hawaii-­?fall-­?3-­?8-­?cents-­?per-­?gallon-­?the-­?past-­?week-­?2/
   
154
 Goldberg,  Michael.  "SAP's  TwoGo  App  Combines  Data,  Design  to  Address  Carpool  Challenge."  Data  
Informed  RSS.  Wellesley  Information  Services,  1  July  2013.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://data-­?
informed.com/saps-­?twogo-­?app-­?combines-­?data-­?design-­?to-­?address-­?carpool-­?challenge/
   
background image
 
131|  
P a g e
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
155
Empsom,  Rip.  "Zimride  Nabs  LinkedIn  Design  Lead,  Brings  Its  Ridesharing  Service  To  
Mobile."  TechCrunch.  N.p.,  5  Apr.  2012.  Web.  20  Jan.  2014.  
 
http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/05/zimride-­?goes-­?mobile/
 
156
 Tam,  Donna.  "Uber  Cuts  Ride-­?share  Prices  below  Taxi  Fares."  CNET  News.  CBS  Interactive,  12  June  
2013.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://news.cnet.com/8301-­?1035_3-­?57588963-­?94/uber-­?cuts-­?ride-­?share-­?prices-­?
below-­?taxi-­?fares/
   
157
 Almendrala,  Anna.  "Lyft  Driver  In  Los  Angeles  Explains  It  All  In  Reddit  AMA."  The  Huffington  Post.  
TheHuffingtonPost.com,  23  Sept.  2013.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/23/lyft-­?driver-­?reddit-­?ama_n_3976553.html
   
158
 Baker,  Chris.  "Is  Lyft  Too  Cool  to  Go  National?  |  Fast  Company  |  Business  Innovation."Fast  Company.  
N.p.,  2  July  2013.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://www.fastcompany.com/3013759/is-­?lyft-­?too-­?cool-­?to-­?go-­?
national?utm_source=twitter
   
159
 "Lyft."  Lyft.  N.p.,  2013.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://www.lyft.me/
   
160
 "My  Ride  Is  Your  Ride."  Sidecar.  N.p.,  n.d.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://www.side.cr/
   
161
 Kimura,  Jay  (2014,  January  15).  Interview  by  J.  Epstein  (phone).  Hawai`i    County  Economic  Opportunity  
Council.  Hilo,  HI.  
162
 "Lyft  Lifts  $60  Million  From  Andreessen  Horowitz,  Gives  30,000  Rides  A  Week  A  Year  After  
Launch."  TechCrunch.  N.p.,  23  May  2013.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/23/lyft-­?
a16z/
   
163
 Tam,  Donna.  "Car-­?sharing  Showdown:  UberX  Offers  Free  Rides  in  Lyft's  New  Cities."CNET  News.  CBS  
Interactive,  05  Sept.  2013.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://news.cnet.com/8301-­?1035_3-­?57601515-­?94/car-­?
sharing-­?showdown-­?uberx-­?offers-­?free-­?rides-­?in-­?lyfts-­?new-­?cities/
   
164
 "My  Ride  Is  Your  Ride."  Sidecar.  N.p.,  n.d.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://www.side.cr/
   
165
 "Uberx."  Uber  Blog.  N.p.,  2013.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://blog.uber.com/tag/uberx/
   
166
 Ozawa,  Ryan.  "Uber  ?Black  Car?  Service  Arrives  in  Honolulu."  Hawai`i    Blog  RSS.  N.p.,  16  July  2013.  Web.  
11  Nov.  2013.  
http://www.hawaiiweblog.com/2013/07/16/uber
   
167
 Genegabus,  Jason.  "Uber  Provides  Rides  in  Style."  Honolulu  Hawai`i    Calendar  of  Events  Hawai`i    
Entertainment  and  Nightlife  Honolulu  Pulse  RSS.  Star  Advertiser,  1  Oct.  2013.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://www.honolulupulse.com/2013/10/in-­?the-­?mix-­?uber/
   
168
 "RideScout?."  RideScout?.  N.p.,  2013.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://ridescoutapp.com/
   
169
 Internal  Revenue  Service.  Employer?s  Tax  Guide  to  Fringe  Benefits.  Washington,  DC.  
http://www.irs.gov/publications/p15b/index.html
   
170
 "Transportation  Toolkit  for  the  Business  Community."  Community  Transportation  Association  of  
America.  N.p.,  Jan.  2012.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://web1.ctaa.org/webmodules/webarticles/articlefiles/13_GuaranteedRideHomePrograms.pdf
   
171
 United  States.  Department  of  Transportation.  Federal  Transit  Administration.  Guaranteed  Ride  Home  
Programs:  A  Study  of  Program  Characteristics,  Utilization,  and  Cost.  By  William  Menczer.  N.p.,  19  May  
2006.  Web.  
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Guaranteed_Ride_Home_Program_final_study_web.pdf
   
172
 "Transportation  to  Work:  Toolkit  for  the  Business  Community."  Joblinks  Employment  Transportation.  
N.p.,  2012.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://web1.ctaa.org/webmodules/webarticles/anmviewer.asp?a=1442&z=75
   
background image
 
132|  
P a g e
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
173
 "Guaranteed  Ride  Home  Program:  Giving  Peace  of  Mind  to  Commuters."  Joblinks  Employment  
Transportation,  n.d.  Web.  
http://web1.ctaa.org/webmodules/webarticles/articlefiles/GuaranteedRideHomePrograms.pdf
   
174
 United  States.  Cong.  Hawai`i    State  Legislature.  By  Yamane,  Aquino,  Nakashima,  Takayama,  and  
Yamashita.  27th  Cong.  Cong  HB1894/SB2731.  N.p.,  21  Jan.  2014.  Web.  
http://www.capitol.hawaii  
.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=1894&year=2014
   
175
 United  States.  Cong.  Hawai`i    State  Legislature.  By  Yamane,  Aquino,  Nakashima,  Takayama,  and  
Yamashita.  27th  Cong.  Cong  HB1894/SB2731.  N.p.,  21  Jan.  2014.  Web.  
http://www.capitol.hawaii  
.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=1894&year=2014
 
176
 Energy  &  Efficiency  Transportation  Strategies  Working  Group.  State  of  Hawai`i    Energy  Efficiency  in  
Transportation  Strategies  Study  -­?  Phase  I.  Rep.  Hawai`i    Energy  Policy  Forum,  University  of  Hawai`i    at  
Manoa,  15  Jan.  2008.  Web.  
http://www.hawaiienergypolicy.hawaii.edu/programs-­?
initiatives/transportation-­?options-­?efficiency/_downloads/act-­?254-­?final-­?report.pdf
   
177
 Snider,  Brett.  "Lyft  and  Sidecar  Legal  in  California  Under  New  Regulations."  Weblog  post.  FindLaw  -­?  
California  Case  Law.  N.p.,  20  Sept.  2013.  Web.  
http://blogs.findlaw.com/california_case_law/2013/09/lyft-­?and-­?sidecar-­?legal-­?in-­?california-­?under-­?new-­?
regulations.html
   
178
 "Online  TDM  Encyclopedia  -­?  Transportation  Management  Associations."  TDM  Encyclopedia.  Victoria  
Transport  Policy  Institute,  15  Apr.  2011.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm44.htm
   
179
 Cervero,  Robert,  Chester  Colby,  Gordon  Fielding,  David  Forkenbrock,  Jose  Gomez-­?Ibanez,  Naomi  Lede,  
William  Millar,  Steven  Polzin,  Sandra  Rosenbloom,  Lawrence  Schulman,  George  Smerk,  and  Vukan  Vuchic.  
"TDM."  Journal  of  Public  Transportation  104  (2007):  n.  pag.  Center  for  Urban  Transportation  Research.  
National  Center  for  Transit  Research,  2007.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT%2010-­?4.pdf
   
180
 "Carpool  Incentive  Programs."  Best  Workplaces  for  Commuters.  U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency  
Office  of  Air  and  Radiation,  Nov.  2005.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://www.bestworkplaces.org/pdf/carpool_June07.pdf
   
181
 Cole,  Matt.  "Public-­?Private  Partnerships:  The  Future  of  Transportation  Funding  Cubic  CTS."  Public-­?
Private  Partnerships:  The  Future  of  Transportation  Funding  Cubic  CTS.  Cubic  Transportation  Systems,  
2013.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://cts.cubic.com/Publications/CubicBlog/tabid/531/ID/134/language/en-­?
US/Public-­?Private-­?Partnerships-­?The-­?Future-­?of-­?Transportation-­?Funding.aspx
   
182
 Wei,  Min.  "What  Are  the  Pros  and  Cons  of  a  P3?"  What  Are  the  Pros  and  Cons  of  a  P3?Cubic  
Transportation  Systems,  2013.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://cts.cubic.com/Publications/CubicBlog/tabid/531/ID/94/categoryId/21/language/en-­?US/What-­?are-­?
the-­?Pros-­?and-­?Cons-­?of-­?a-­?P3.aspx
   
183
 Wei,  Min.  "What  Are  the  Pros  and  Cons  of  a  P3?"  What  Are  the  Pros  and  Cons  of  a  P3?Cubic  
Transportation  Systems,  2013.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://cts.cubic.com/Publications/CubicBlog/tabid/531/ID/94/categoryId/21/language/en-­?US/What-­?are-­?
the-­?Pros-­?and-­?Cons-­?of-­?a-­?P3.aspx
   
184
 Geron,  Tomio.  "California  Becomes  First  State  To  Regulate  Ridesharing  Services  Lyft,  Sidecar,  
UberX."  Forbes.  Forbes  Magazine,  19  Sept.  2013.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2013/09/19/california-­?becomes-­?first-­?state-­?to-­?regulate-­?
ridesharing-­?services-­?lyft-­?sidecar-­?uberx/
   
background image
 
133|  
P a g e
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
185
 "Investing  in  Vanpools."  Transportation  Toolkit  for  the  Business  Community.  Joblinks  Employment  
Transportation,  Jan.  2012.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://web1.ctaa.org/webmodules/webarticles/articlefiles/InvestingInVanpools_8_2013.pdf
   
186
 "Innovative  Vanpool  Programs."  Transportation  Toolkit  for  the  Business  Community.  Joblinks  
Employment  Transportation,  Jan.  2012.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://web1.ctaa.org/webmodules/webarticles/articlefiles/InnovativeVanpoolPrograms.pdf
 
187
 "VPSI  Inc.  -­?  Vpsiinc.com."  VPSI  Inc.  -­?  Vpsiinc.com.  N.p.,  2013.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://www.vpsiinc.com/home/submenu.asp?MMID=1
   
188
 "Innovative  Vanpool  Programs."  Transportation  Toolkit  for  the  Business  Community.  Joblinks  
Employment  Transportation,  Jan.  2012.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://web1.ctaa.org/webmodules/webarticles/articlefiles/InnovativeVanpoolPrograms.pdf
   
189
 "Innovative  Vanpool  Programs."  Transportation  Toolkit  for  the  Business  Community.  Joblinks  
Employment  Transportation,  Jan.  2012.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://web1.ctaa.org/webmodules/webarticles/articlefiles/InnovativeVanpoolPrograms.pdf
   
190
 "Jay  Kimura."  Personal  interview.  22  Aug.  2013.  
191
 "Life  Without  Subsidies:  Vanpool  Hawaii  Announces  New  Group  Rate  Hawaii  Free  Press."  Hawaii  Free  
Press.  N.p.,  22  June  2011.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/4529/Life-­?Without-­?Subsidies-­?Vanpool-­?
Hawaii-­?Announces-­?New-­?Group-­?Rate.aspx
   
192
 "Formula  Grants  for  Other  than  Urbanized  Areas  (5311)."  FTA-­?SAFETEA-­?LU.  U.S.  Federal  Transit  
Administration,  2013.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://www.fta.dot.gov/grants/13093_3555.html
   
193
 "Job  Access  and  Reverse  Commute  Program  (5316)."  FTA-­?SAFETEA-­?LU.  U.S.  Federal  Transit  
Administration,  2013.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://www.fta.dot.gov/grants/13093_3550.html
   
194
 "Regional  Rideshare  Database  Enhancements."  Clean  Transportation  Funding  from  the  MRSC.  Mobile  
Source  Air  Pollution  Reduction  Review  Committee,  n.d.  Web.  
http://www.cleantransportationfunding.org/projects/view/regional_rideshare_database_enhancements
   
195
 "Welcome  to  Trapeze  Group."  Passenger  Transportation  Software  and  Solutions.  N.p.,  2013.  Web.  11  
Nov.  2013.  
http://www.trapezegroup.com/
   
196
 The  Rideshare  Company.  Our  Products  and  Services  and  the  Story  of  The  Rideshare  Company  through  
the  Years.  N.p.,  2013.  Web.  http://www.rideshare.com/Customer-­?
Content/WWW/CMS/files/TRC_White_Paper.pdf    
197
 "Cubic  CTS  Home."  Cubic  Transportation  Systems.  N.p.,  2013.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://cts.cubic.com/
   
198
 Norton,  Carol.  (2014,  January  15).  Interview  by  J.  Epstein  (phone).  University  of  Louisville  Committee  of  
Sustainable  Transportation,  Louisville,  KY.  
199
 Curtis,  Kate,  Lindsey  Grad,  Chris  Hoffer,  Chris  LaRoche,  McKenna  Morrigan,  Emmett  Nelson,  and  Dan  
Welch.  Project  Zimtervention:  2011  Environmental  Management  Degree  Certificate  Program  Keystone  
Project
.  University  of  Washington  Environmental  Stewardship  and  Sustainability  Office,  2011.  Web.  20  
Jan.  2014.  
200
 "University  of  Hawaii  -­?  Hilo."  The  College  Board.  N.p.,  n.d.  Web.  29  Jan.  2014.  
<http://www.collegeboard.org/>.  
201
 Ibid.  
background image
 
134|  
P a g e
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
202
 Tozzi,  John,  Stacy  Perman,  and  Nick  Leiber.  "2009  Finalists:  America's  Best  Young  
Entrepreneurs."  Bloomberg  Businessweek.  Bloomberg  News,  2009.  Web.  
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/10/1009_entrepreneurs_25_and_under/26.htm
   
203
 Curtis,  Kate,  Lindsey  Grad,  Chris  Hoffer,  Chris  LaRoche,  McKenna  Morrigan,  Emmett  Nelson,  and  Dan  
Welch.  Project  Zimtervention:  2011  Environmental  Management  Degree  Certificate  Program  Keystone  
Project
.  University  of  Washington  Environmental  Stewardship  and  Sustainability  Office,  2011.  Web.  20  
Jan.  2014.  
204
 Brydges,  Sara.  "Reaching  out  to  UW  Transportation  Services."  E-­?mail  interview.  20  Jan.  2014.  
205
 Life  Without  Subsidies:  Vanpool  Hawai`i    Announces  New  Group  Rate  Hawai`i    Free  Press."  Hawai`i    
Free  Press.  N.p.,  22  June  2011.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/4529/Life-­?Without-­?Subsidies-­?Vanpool-­?
hawaii-­?Announces-­?New-­?Group-­?Rate.aspx  
206
 Tozzi,  John,  Stacy  Perman,  and  Nick  Leiber.  "2009  Finalists:  America's  Best  Young  
Entrepreneurs."  Bloomberg  Businessweek.  Bloomberg  News,  2009.  Web.  
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/10/1009_entrepreneurs_25_and_under/26.htm
 
207
 "Regional  Rideshare  Database  Enhancements."  Clean  Transportation  Funding  from  the  MRSC.  Mobile  
Source  Air  Pollution  Reduction  Review  Committee,  n.d.  Web.  
http://www.cleantransportationfunding.org/projects/view/regional_rideshare_database_enhancements
   
208
 Life  Without  Subsidies:  Vanpool  Hawai`i    Announces  New  Group  Rate  Hawai`i    Free  Press."  Hawai`i    
Free  Press.  N.p.,  22  June  2011.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/4529/Life-­?Without-­?Subsidies-­?Vanpool-­?
hawaii-­?Announces-­?New-­?Group-­?Rate.aspx  
209
 "Innovative  Vanpool  Programs."  Transportation  Toolkit  for  the  Business  Community.  Joblinks  
Employment  Transportation,  Jan.  2012.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://web1.ctaa.org/webmodules/webarticles/articlefiles/InnovativeVanpoolPrograms.pdf  
210
 Cervero,  Robert,  Chester  Colby,  Gordon  Fielding,  David  Forkenbrock,  Jose  Gomez-­?Ibanez,  Naomi  Lede,  
William  Millar,  Steven  Polzin,  Sandra  Rosenbloom,  Lawrence  Schulman,  George  Smerk,  and  Vukan  Vuchic.  
"TDM."  Journal  of  Public  Transportation  104  (2007):  n.  pag.  Center  for  Urban  Transportation  Research.  
National  Center  for  Transit  Research,  2007.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
211
 "Carpool  Solutions  for  University  and  Corporate  Networks."  Zimride.  N.p.,  n.d.  Web.  21  Jan.  2014.  
http://www.zimride.com/
   
212
 Prechtel,  Jason.  "Our  Coming  Public-­?Private  CTA:  How  Much  Will  We  Pay?"  Gapers  Block.  N.p.,  7  Feb.  
2013.  Web.  
http://gapersblock.com/mechanics/2013/02/07/our-­?coming-­?public-­?private-­?cta-­?how-­?much-­?
will-­?we-­?pay/#.Ut6jkuMo5-­?U
   
213
 Puttagunta,  Sudhakar,  PhD,  and  Dahagama,  Adithya..  A  Sustainable  Fair  Fare  System  for  a  Public  
Carrier.  N.p.,  2012.  Web.  21  Jan.  2014.  
214
 "Alissa  Altmann  of  Vride."  E-­?mail  interview.  24  Jan.  2014.  
215
 "Life  Without  Subsidies:  Vanpool  Hawai`i    Announces  New  Group  Rate  Hawai`i    Free  Press."  Hawai`i    
Free  Press.  N.p.,  22  June  2011.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/4529/Life-­?Without-­?Subsidies-­?Vanpool-­?
hawaii-­?Announces-­?New-­?Group-­?Rate.aspx
 
216
 "Life  Without  Subsidies:  Vanpool  Hawai`i    Announces  New  Group  Rate  Hawai`i    Free  Press."  Hawai`i    
Free  Press.  N.p.,  22  June  2011.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
background image
 
135|  
P a g e
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/4529/Life-­?Without-­?Subsidies-­?Vanpool-­?
hawaii-­?Announces-­?New-­?Group-­?Rate.aspx
 
217
 TIGER/Line®  with  Demographic  Data.  Accessed  11  Nov.  2013.  
218
 Krause,  Eric.  "How  Should  I  Interpret  the  Output  of  Density  Tools?"  ArcGIS  Resources.  N.p.,  28  May  
2013.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
219
 "Online  TDM  Encyclopedia  -­?  Transportation  Management  Associations."  TDM  Encyclopedia.  Victoria  
Transport  Policy  Institute,  15  Apr.  2011.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm44.htm
 
220
U.S.  Federal  Highway  Administration.  U.S.  Department  of  Transportation.  A  Guide  to  the  Congestion  
Mitigation  and  Air  Quality  Improvement  Program.  Intermodal  Transportation  Efficiency  Act.  Bureau  of  
Transportation  Statistics,  n.d.  Web.  11  Nov.  2013.  
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/9000/9300/9317/00489-­?f.gif
   
221
 "Shared  Use  Rideshare  Mobility  Service  Providers."  Mwcog.org.  Metropolitan  Washington  Council  of  
Governors,  2013.  Web.  29  Jan.  2014.  <https://www.mwcog.org/uploads/committee-­?
documents/al1ZXlhb20140117155212.pdf>.