Existing Conditions Existing Conditions Final - City & County of ...

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICESCITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUShort Range Transit PlanExisting Conditions ReportFINAL DRAFT

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULURoute Performance by Service Category .......................................................................................................... 5-18Top 25 Performing Routes ................................................................................................................................. 5-19Route Performance by Service Subarea ........................................................................................................... 5-20Chapter 6. Issues for Further Analysis ................................................................................................................ 6-1Service Efficiency and Effectiveness ................................................................................................................... 6-2Route Network Structure ..................................................................................................................................... 6-5System Capacity .................................................................................................................................................. 6-6Transition to Fixed Guideway Transit .................................................................................................................. 6-8Key Focus Issues ................................................................................................................................................ 6-8Chapter 7. Overview of Paratransit Service Delivery .......................................................................................... 7-1Background/Overview of ADA Requirements ...................................................................................................... 7-1Program Oversight .............................................................................................................................................. 7-1System Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 7-2Paratransit Eligibility and Certification Process.................................................................................................... 7-3Paratransit Fleet and Other Capital Investments ................................................................................................. 7-3Reservation and Scheduling Practices ................................................................................................................ 7-4Use of Taxis ......................................................................................................................................................... 7-5Subscription Trips ................................................................................................................................................ 7-7Chapter 8. Operational Assessment .................................................................................................................... 8-1Performance Measures ....................................................................................................................................... 8-1Performance Standards ....................................................................................................................................... 8-2Analysis and Trends ............................................................................................................................................ 8-4Comparison to Other Agencies .......................................................................................................................... 8-13Comparison to ADA Parameters ....................................................................................................................... 8-19Chapter 9. Service Gaps and Unmet Needs ........................................................................................................ 9-1Chapter 10. Conclusions and Key Findings ........................................................................................................ 10-2Appendix A: TheBus Route Service CharacteristicsAppendix B: TheBus Weekday Route Boarding and Alighting Charts for Top 30 RoutesAppendix C: TheBus Weekday Route Boarding and Alighting MapsAppendix D: Key Focus IssuesAppendix E: DTS Paratransit Performance Monitoring MemorandumAppendix F: TheHandi-Van FleetAppendix G: 5-Year (FY2008-FT2012) ADA Compliance Program PlanAppendix H: The Handi-Van Performance Monitoring DataAppendix I: Geographic Data SourcesPage ii • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUGlossary of TermsADA – The Americans with Disabilities Act. Federal legislation that governs the provision ofpublic transportation services to persons with disabilities.AVL – Automated Vehicle Location System. Technology that allows bus operations to monitorthe current location of every vehicle in the system in real time. Honolulu has AVL capabilities.DTS/PTD – Department of Transportation Services, Public Transit Division.Clockface headway – Any headway that is ten minutes or more and divides evenly into sixtyminutes.HDOT – Hawaii Department of Transportation.Headway – The frequency of operation for a public transportation service expressed as thenumber of minutes between the arrival of vehicles at a point along their route, or interval betweenbuses. The shorter the headway, the more frequent the service.Makai - toward or by the sea; seaward.Mauka - toward the mountains; inland.Oahu Transit Services, Inc. (OTS) - An instrumentality of the City that was created by Cityordinance specifically for the task of managing the City’s bus and paratransit services andfacilities, and other unspecified transit related services. OTS is unique among transit systemcontract management organizations in the United States, in that it is a creation of, as well as acontractor to, the City.Performance Measure – A basis for comparison; a reference point against which other factorscan be evaluated. For example, a performance measure would be the number of boardingpassengers per hour on individual routes when in weekday operation.Performance Standard - A recommendation that leads or directs a course of action to achieve acertain goal. An example standard might be that routes carrying fewer than 30 passengers perhour will be subject to modification including route or schedule changes. Performance measurestell what evaluation tools will be used while standards set the height of the bar.TheBus – Operating name for the network of fixed route transit services operated by OTS.TheHandiVan – ADA Paratransit services operated by OTS.TheBoat – A one-year passenger ferry demonstration project that tested the feasibility ofoperating passenger-only ferry service. Service began in September 2007 and was discontinuedin June 2009.Timed Transfer – A service design method where transit routes are scheduled to arrive at acentral transfer point within a defined time window, allowing passengers to transfer buses within ashort timeframe, typically between five and ten minutes.Title VI – Within a public transportation setting, this generally refers to Title VI of the Civil RightsAct of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in the provision of public transportation services. Thefederal government has implemented this requirement through a series of regulations that identifyprohibited practices which are considered evidence of discrimination.Page v • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUTransit Center – A central location where several transit routes converge. Transit centersfacilitate timed transfer operations.Transit Ridership Database (TRD) Project – A project conducted by DTS in 2004.Page vi • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUExecutive SummaryThis existing conditions report is the first work product emerging from the City and County ofHonolulu’s short range planning process for TheBus and TheHandi-Van services. It summarizesthe existing operating environment, focusing on trends that affect the delivery and effectiveness ofpublic transportation services. Future working papers will build on this effort, focusing on specificissues and suggesting strategies for their resolution.Several major themes have emerged during this initial project phase that have implications for theShort Range Transit Plan (SRTP) as well as continuing implications for Honolulu’s publictransportation services. The following section summarizes the most significant themes.TheBus ServicesHonolulu’s public transit system is very productive, comprising a major element ofHonolulu’s transportation infrastructure.1. According to the Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization, in 2005 approximately 6 percentof all island residents commuting to/from work utilized transit. 12. As illustrated in the figure below, Honolulu’s fixed route bus operations are extremelyproductive, averaging more than 50 passengers per revenue hour in 2008. 2 This ranksamong the highest in the country and is only comparable to systems in major metropolitanareas such as New York, Chicago and Los Angeles.Figure ES-1 Passengers per Revenue Hour – Peer Systems and TheBusPassengers perSystemRevenue HourNew York City (NYCT) 68.2Chicago (CTA) 46.6Los Angeles (LACMTA) 51.0Dallas (DART) 22.1Philadelphia (SEPTA) 47.0Miami (MDT) 31.2San Francisco (MUNI) 64.4San Diego (MTS) 28.9Seattle (King County Metro) 36.5Boston (MBTA) 42.7Portland (Tri Met) 34.8National Average 34.8Honolulu 50.7Source: 2008 National Transit Database1 Oahu Regional Transportation Plan 2030 Amendment #1. Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2007.2 Passengers per hour is a standard performance measure for transit operations. It is gained by dividing the totalnumber of people boarding a bus by the number of hours that vehicles were in service during a period.Page ES-1 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU3. The system operates a variety of fixed route service types that experience varying levelsof ridership and productivity. Urban Trunk services in particular are extremely productive,averaging 74 passengers per revenue hour and carrying close to 45 percent of thesystem’s ridership.Figure ES-2 TheBus Fixed Route Service TypesCategoryRapid BusUrban TrunkUrban FeederSuburban TrunkSuburban FeederCommunityCirculatorPeak ExpressDescriptionLimited-stop express service along heavily traveled corridorsin both directions all dayDirect service connecting neighborhoods within the primaryurban centerRoutes that connect the Mauka/Makai neighborhoods with theprimary urban centerAll day service from outlying communities to the primaryurban centerService in suburban areas linking residential neighborhoodswith local activity centersCirculation in established communities that connectsneighborhoods with transit centersPeak commuter service connecting specific neighborhoods tomajor employment centersPassengersper HourPercent ofSystemRiders63.8 15.3%74.3 44.9%41.1 5.1%46.5 26.1%29.3 0.9%34.0 3.1%38.8 4.6%Source: APC data that has been adjusted to equal reported 2009 NTD average weekday boardings4. Productivity varies greatly within individual service categories, suggesting the need forcareful analysis of individual route operations. For example, as a group peak expressroutes carry 46 passengers per trip but the productivity of individual express routes rangesfrom about 4 to 67 passengers per trip. Following are the productivities achieved by fivedifferent express routes.Route 88A – North Shore Express53.0 passengers per tripRoute 97 – Village Park ExpressRoute 84 – Mililani Express NorthRoute 96 – Waipio Gentry ExpressRoute 80A – Hawaii Kai Park & Ride Express49.6 passengers per trip44.8 passengers per trip35.8 passengers per trip26.8 passengers per tripPage ES-2 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUOverall, cost recovery of TheBus is excellent.1. The Honolulu City Council has established a policy that fares should recover between 27and 33 percent of operating costs. On average the system recovers about 28 percent ofits expenses from the farebox, one percent above the system’s minimum threshold policy.This exceeds the cost recovery for many systems of similar size around the country. Theaverage cost per passenger transported is $2.13, which is below the national average ofabout $3.30 per passenger.2. The most efficient services are urban trunk routes which recover 48 percent of expensesand cost only $1.30 per passenger.3. The least efficient services are suburban feeders which recover about 10 percent ofexpenses and cost more than $7.00 per passenger.A few routes carry most of the system’s riders.The top 25 routes in the system by ridership carry 83 percent of riders (about 198,000 boardingson a typical weekday); they utilize 74 percent of revenue hours, 69 percent of revenue miles, and60 percent of the peak hour vehicles. This group is comprised almost exclusively of Rapid Bus,Urban Trunk and Suburban Trunk routes.The system’s design guidelines are not fully understood by people outside the agency.1. The current network of routes and service categories (rapid bus, urban trunk, urbanfeeders, etc.) employs a clear set of design principles that are not written in a singledocument.2. The system is under continuous pressure to implement changes in coverage, servicehours and frequency. Historically these changes have not always been implemented in amanner consistent with the basic design of the system. In some places the end result hasbeen the establishment of routes and route segments that are not coordinated in terms ofscheduling or route design with other parts of the system.Most routes are designed to serve destinations in and around Downtown Honolulu.1. On an average weekday the system records about 237,000 boarding passengers. Of thistotal, more than 140,000 board in Downtown Honolulu, the Ala Moana Center, or Waikiki.2. Most routes provide direct connections to these core activity centers from neighborhoodsaround the entire island. They are designed to do this in a single trip without needing totransfer (a one-seat ride). Although this provides a high level of service and encouragesridership, it also requires a large number of routes, many with one-way travel times inexcess of an hour. This also increases the number of buses operating on DowntownHonolulu streets.3. There are 34 peak express routes in the system. Most of them have Downtown Honoluluas the final destination, operating along King Street during the AM peak and Beretaniaduring the PM commute. The concentration of express service trips during the relativelyshort commute period adds to the volume of buses traveling through each corridor. Thisadditional bus traffic, coupled with Downtown traffic volumes in the PM peak, creates buscongestion. The congestion is less a factor of the overall volume of buses than thecapacity of the bus stops located in the Downtown corridors.Page ES-3 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUSeveral factors combine to slow Downtown bus operations.1. Operating speeds on Downtown Honolulu streets average about 9 miles per hour. Thisaffects the on-time performance, ability to maintain even time spacing between buses onthe same routes or corridors, and service reliability.2. During the morning and evening commute hours many Downtown bus stops do not havesufficient curb space to accommodate the number of buses that are queued to board ordischarge passengers. This creates delays while buses wait to pull into the bus stop,reducing operating speeds and on-time performance for all routes operating Downtown.Overcrowding is a problem.On an average weekday the automatic passenger counting (APC) system reports that nearly sixpercent of trips experience standing loads. 3 Operators maintain the actual occurrence ofstanding loads is actually higher. More than 90 percent of these trips occur on rapid bus, urbantrunk and suburban trunk services operating in Honolulu’s major highways and arterial streets.Urban trunk routes alone account for over 50 percent of trips with standing load situation in thesystem.The system’s most productive services focus on several major travel corridors.The 25 most heavily patronized routes all operate along one of the seven major travel corridors inthe system:• Ala Moana Blvd. from Aloha Tower Dr to Kalakaua• Farrington Highway & 99 from Fort Weaver to Nimitz• Hotel from King to Richards• Kalakaua & Kuhio from Ala Wai to Kapahulu• Kapiolani Blvd from King to Harding• King/Beretania/Waialae from Middle to Kahala Mall• Nimitz Hwy/DillinghamVirtually all the routes serving these major travel corridors experience significantovercrowding. This suggests the need for more frequent service, vehicle capacity, andmanagement of operations (headway maintenance) on key system corridors to improveservice reliability and operation of rapid bus, urban trunk and suburban trunk services. Inaddition, there is a need for priority treatments on key system corridors to speed up transitoperations.3 Source: Urban Transportation Associates, Overcrowding Analysis, Frequency of Overcrowding Summary Table,Weekdays, August 2009 Signup.Page ES-4 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUThe system does not meet its on-time performance goals.The system’s goal is that at least 70 percent of trips operate on time, defined as between 2minutes early and 5 minutes late. Current schedule adherence is relatively poor, with just over 60percent operating on time. This varies greatly by type of service:• 74 percent for peak express services. This is the best on-time performance in the system.• 55 percent of trips on suburban trunk services. This is the lowest on-time performance inthe system.• 57 percent of trips on rapid bus services and suburban feeders.• 58 percent of trips on community circulators.On-time performance is a significant issue for operation of the suburban feeder and communitycirculator services. These routes tend to be relatively infrequent and often have scheduled timedtransferconnections. Their low levels of schedule adherence are likely creating major reliabilityissues for riders. One example where this occurs is at the Waipahu Transit Center. The majortrunk routes serving Waipahu Transit Center are routes A, E, and 40/40A. Routes 432, 433, and434 are community circulator routes that radiate out from the transit center. The communitycirculator routes use pulse scheduling to facilitate transfers. In general, these routes operate on30-minute clockface headways. Following is a summary of scheduled arrival and departure timesat the Waipahu Transit Center.Minutes Past the HourRoute Arrive Time Depart Time Percent Late432 EB :58/:28 :00/:30 22%432 WB :22/:52 :00/:30 6%433 :25/:55 :00/:30 13%434 :26/:56 :00/:30 24%Source: On time performance from December 2009 Schedule Adherence ReportThis impacts the operational viability of the ‘hub and spoke’ operations, which depend upon ontimeoperations to provide reliable transfer connections.Some express routes are very productive. Others fail to meet the system’sexpectations.The performance of individual express routes varies greatly. The average productivity forexpress routes is 39 passengers per hour, which is lower than the system’s average, whileutilizing 23 percent of the vehicle fleet.Integration of fixed guideway transit will reshape the system in the west end of theisland over the next 10 years.1. The first phase of the Honolulu High Capacity Transit Corridor (HCTC) project isscheduled to occur during the five-year lifetime of this SRTP.Page ES-6 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU2. In the long term, the project will dramatically change the structure of the bus system.While detailed planning for coordination of bus and fixed guideway operations will be acontinuing process, services changes to the bus routes that are undertaken as part of thisplan will pave the way for longer term integration of the two systems.TheHandi-Van ServicesDTS attempts to operate TheHandi-Van services in compliance with The Americanswith Disabilities Act.1. Compliance with the ADA is the City’s highest stated paratransit service goal.2. TheHandi-Van is currently not reporting any trip denials or capacity constraints.3. This has likely been achieved by increasing TheHandi-Van’s use of taxis and othercontractors to provide back-up service when needed.Some of TheHandi-Van’s service policies and procedures exceed minimum standardsset by the ADA. These include:1. Trip-by-trip eligibility is not conferred upon those considered conditionally eligible.2. Fares are lower than what is allowed to be charged according to the ADA.3. There are no consequences for customers with excessive no-shows.Several identified problem areas have been addressed in recent years.1. Over the past five years, on-time performance for TheHandi-Van has improved. On-timeperformance had been mentioned by customers as an area of concern.2. OTS’s ability to answer reservation calls in a timely manner has improved in recentmonths, but is still falling short of stated performance goals.3. A new “paperless” ADA certification process was recently enacted. It is intended tofacilitate certification decisions that are based on an applicant’s functional abilities, ratherthan on a medical certification.4. The proportion of subscription trips, a subject of criticism in previous reviews, has declinedfrom 65% of the total ridership in 2006 to 47% in 2009. This should benefit the systemover time. A pilot project with Goodwill Industries is expected to further reduce thenumber of subscription trips.5. During informal discussions with paratransit drivers, they were unanimous in observingthe system is vastly improved over the past few years, especially with respect to vehiclemaintenance.Page ES-7 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUOperating costs and service productivities are emerging as issues for the operation ofTheHandi-Van.1. Overall, service is more productive than most of its peers and cost are comparable withother large paratransit operators.2. Paratransit costs have increased over the past five years at a rate greater than inflation.3. System productivity, as measured in trips per hour, has steadily declined over the pastfive years; however, the rate of 2.35 trips per hour realized in 2009 exceeds the internalestablished goal of 2.0 trips per hour, and TheHandi-Van also performs better than itspeers in this category.TheHandi-Van service faces several other challenges that will demand managementattention in the near future.1. Performance expectations and standards are not codified in any one place. As a result, itis not always clear what internal goals and objectives have been established to measuresystem performance and quality of service. In addition, there is no regular or structuredapproach for DTS to exercise routine daily oversight of OTS paratransit functions.2. The rate of no-shows and late cancellations is trending upward. TheHandi-Van has notestablished clear guidance for determining what constitutes an “excessive rate” of noshowsor late cancellations, nor are such violations enforced.3. The customer complaint rate has jumped in the last half year (2009).4. A new maintenance facility for TheHandi-Van program was completed several years ago.It has not been used because it lacks required maintenance equipment and systems.Current discussions intended to increase van capacity in order to address trip denials mayresult in vehicle storage capacity limitations at the Middle Street facility and increaseddemand on the new maintenance facility.5. Not all employees are comfortable using new technologies for dispatching and monitoringparatransit operations. This has the potential to limit their effectiveness.Page ES-8 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

OAHU’S TRANSPORTATIONENVIRONMENT

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUChapter 1. BackgroundProject Background and IntroductionThe City and County of Honolulu provides public transit service for the entire island of Oahu.TheBus provides regularly scheduled, fixed route motor bus service, while TheHandi-Vanprovides paratransit demand-response service for people with disabilities who are eligibleaccording to standards established by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The CityAdministration, through the Department of Transportation Services (DTS) Public Transit Division(PTD), is responsible for the administration and operation of these services. Oahu TransitServices, Inc. (OTS), a nonprofit operating company, furnishes management services and carriesout the day-to-day operation of the transit services.TheBus is one of the most productive, best utilized services in the United States. This successhas led to a large number of planning and operational challenges. For example, buses are oftenovercrowded, but funding limitations restrict the system’s ability to expand services. Theseproblems are compounded by a limited roadway infrastructure with significant congestion thatslows travel for buses and autos alike. This traffic congestion not only degrades the quality of life,it also impacts the capacity and quality of the transit system.To address this congestion, the City is beginning construction of a new fixed guideway transitservice. The Honolulu High Capacity Transit Corridor (HCTC) project is a 20-mile fixed guidewayline that will connect West Oahu (East Kapolei) with Downtown Honolulu and Ala Moana Center.Trains will have the capacity to carry more than 6,000 passengers per hour in each direction,providing significantly improved east-west capacity that will supplement the congested roadsystem. As part of this project, bus routes will be realigned to provide direct connections to thefixed guideway stations, converting many long bus rides to short bus trips that allow passengersto transfer to the fixed guideway system. The first 4.5-mile segment (East Kapolei to PearlHighlands) is scheduled to open in 2014, so it will begin operating within the time period that thisSRTP is implemented. The entire fixed guideway system is targeted for completion by 2019.The Short Range Planning ProcessThis Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) is intended to map transit’s role to support enhancedmobility for Oahu’s residents and visitors, reduce traffic congestion, and provide a transit-basedstrategy to create livable communities. To accomplish this, the plan’s focus is on mitigatingoperational problems in the near term and setting the stage for fixed guideway service. TheSRTP identifies and recommends service improvements for existing bus and paratransit services.It also serves as a tool to prioritize capital improvements, including acquisition of replacement andexpansion service buses and paratransit vans.While the City and County of Honolulu has an ordinance requiring a transit plan, 4 there is no statelaw or regulation that sets its requirements. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA)encourages the use of short range plans as a tool for coordinating the planning process of localjurisdictions because they have found that such coordination typically results in better projects. 5In addition, the FTA requires that specific planning activities be undertaken as part of majorinvestment studies.4 Revised Ordinances of Honolulu (ROH), Chapter 13, Section 13-6.1, City bus system.5 23 CFR Parts 450 and 500; 49 CFR Part 613; FTA Circular C8100.1B, October 25, 1996.Page 1-1 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUProject ThemesFour project themes emerged during the project’s initial stages. Each theme will be pivotal to theeventual success of public transportation services in Honolulu:• Service Structure – TheBus and TheHandi-Van are the lifeblood of Oahu. The mobilityand access needs of many citizens and visitors are directly tied to this system. Highquality, reliable service is important to the economic vitality of the island and so theservice structure (the way service is put together) must reflect demand and the travelneeds of Oahu’s residents.• Efficiency and Effectiveness – There is a need to work harder to ensure cost-efficiencyand service effectiveness from investments in capital and service. Quick fixes may solvecurrent problems; however, service changes must also represent the most efficient longterm choices.• System Capacity – There are “hard” and “soft” capacity limitations throughout thesystem. For example, a finite number of people can safely board a single bus, thecarrying capacity of Downtown streets and transit centers is limited, and maintenancefacilities can only accommodate so many buses. All have the potential to limit the amountof service that is provided. There needs to be thought given to resolving hard limitationssuch as maintenance and depot facilities, as well as finding more effective ways toincrease capacity on city streets and on buses.• Transition to Fixed Guideway Transit – Investments in capital, in particular, and inservice, to a lesser degree, must be consistent with construction and introduction of fixedguideway transit into the transit system structure. Developing a road map for bus-fixedguideway service integration is a key project theme.Study ObjectivesGiven the significance of the issues involved, and their potential impacts on the community, it isimportant that a consistent and well reasoned project approach be employed throughout theplan’s development cycle. The SRTP’s primary objectives are as follows:1. Provide a “road-map” of key implementation steps needed to guide city officials and transitoperators to put key service improvements in place.2. Develop concrete steps that meet the “road-map” towards addressing Honolulu Countyresidents’ public transportation needs for the next six years.3. Develop an operating and capital investment plan that clearly confirms current actions areconsistent with a future transit system with fixed guideway service.4. Develop a resource deployment plan and standards to ensure the transit system isfinancially sustainable.5. Identify constraints in the current service delivery system that affect capacity, servicequality and efficiency and provide alternatives to address these constraints.6. Develop and execute a public participation plan that pro-actively seeks input fromstakeholders and members of the public with respect to their transportation needs, and totest the viability of a range of preliminary service alternatives.Page 1-2 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUOrganizational StructureThe City and County of Honolulu currently provides public transit service for the entire Island ofOahu. TheBus provides regularly scheduled, fixed-route motor bus service and TheHandi-Vanoperates demand responsive curb-to-curb service for ADA Paratransit eligible individuals.Responsibility for these services is divided between several bodies and organizations.City CouncilThe nine members of the City Council develop and establish the policy guidelines for publictransit. Specifically, the Council provides policy direction by establishing:• Transit system goals and objectives.• Transit budget items in the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) budget.• Transit budget items in the annual Operating Budget.• Fare policies and fare structures.Prior to consideration by the full City Council, policy decisions related to public transit matters aresent to the Council’s Transportation and Public Works Committee. Funding for public transit isincluded annually in the City’s Operating and CIP budgets, along with other City departmentalfunding requests. TheBus and TheHandi-Van rely on subsidies from the City’s General andHighway Funds to make up operating deficits.Department of Transportation Services (DTS)The Department of Transportation Services (DTS) manages issues related to design, operationand maintenance of the transportation system throughout Oahu. Five divisions make up DTS:Traffic Engineering, Traffic Signals and Technology, Transportation Planning, Rapid Transit andPublic Transit.The Public Transit Division (PTD) is responsible for oversight and management of the TheBusand TheHandi-Van. Division responsibilities include ADA eligibility determinations for TheHandi-Van, rider complaints, planning route locations, route service levels and service hours ofoperation, facilities development, planning of bus stop locations and improvements, purchase ofrolling stock, marketing, budgeting and regulatory compliance.Transportation CommissionThe Transportation Commission consists of seven members. It makes recommendations abouttransportation issues to the director of transportation services, mayor, and council. Its dutiesinclude:• Evaluating the performance of the director of transportation services.• Reviewing and making recommendations on rules concerning the administration andoperation of the department of transportation services.• Reviewing and making recommendations on the annual budget.• Receiving, reviewing and making recommendations on complaints regarding the systems,programs, and facilities under the department of transportation services.• Recommending changes to the public transit fare structure when deemed necessary andappropriate.Page 1-3 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU• Reviewing and making recommendations concerning the performance of public transitand other transportation system contractors under the jurisdiction of the department oftransportation services.• Submitting an annual report to the mayor and council.Committee for Accessible Transportation (CAT)The Committee for Accessible Transportation provides counsel and advice to the Director of theDepartment of Transportation Services about the transportation goals and objectives for theelderly and persons with disabilities. Goals and objectives of the CAT include:• Providing guidance and advice regarding accessible public transportation services for theelderly and persons with disabilities.• Providing guidance and advice about how to achieve efficient service at the lowestpossible cost to the consumer.• Ensuring that the public participation process conforms to national policy and is sensitiveto changing conditions.• Ensuring that all transit services and facilities are in compliance with appropriate City,State, and Federal requirements.Oahu Transit Services, Inc. (OTS)Oahu Transit Services, Inc. (OTS) is a private, non-profit corporation instrumentality of the City.OTS manages the day-to-day operation of TheBus and TheHandi-Van systems under policiesand standards established by the City. Five departments make up OTS: TransportationOperations, Paratransit Operations, Maintenance, Planning and Marketing, Finance, andAdministration. There are approximately 1,800 persons employed at OTS, including all operatingpersonnel such as drivers and mechanics.Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization (OMPO)The Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization (OMPO) is the designated metropolitan planningorganization responsible for coordinating transportation planning on Oahu. It ensures thatexisting and future expenditures for transportation projects and programs are based on acomprehensive, cooperative, and continuing (3-C) planning process. Federal funding fortransportation projects and programs are channeled through this planning process.The OMPO Policy Committee, comprised of City Council members, State legislators, anappointee from the Mayor, and an appointee from the Governor, sets the policy and direction forOMPO and makes the final approval on OMPO matters. In addition, public involvement ishandled by the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC), which in turn provides public input to thePolicy Committee and OMPO Executive Director on transportation planning issues. As such, theCAC is involved early in the process - often meeting face-to-face with agency representatives.Previous StudiesNumerous previous studies were utilized for the preparation of this report. Together theydocument prior system improvements, other studies being conducted that may impact the SRTP,and future plans that have the potential to impact local public transportation activities. Plans thatwere reviewed include the following:Page 1-4 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU• Oahu Trans 2K Island-wide Mobility Concept Plan• Leeward Hub-and-spoke Bus Route System Plan• Central Oahu Hub-and-spoke System Plan• Primary Corridor Transportation Project• Bus Service Improvement Plan• Transit Rider Database & Route Profile Analysis• Pearl City Livable Communities Plan• Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Alternatives Analysis• Waikiki Livable Community Project• Waipahu TOD Neighborhood PlanMany of these studies are reviewed in detail in later chapters of this report.Stakeholder Inputs Regarding Operation of TheBusWhen this study was initiated, a series of meetings were conducted with DTS and OTS staff andother key stakeholders. The goal of these meetings was to review key issues and concernsregarding the transit operation and provide some direction for the consulting team to identifysome of the pivotal issues to be addressed in this plan.The following bullets identify some key issues. Each includes a couple of examples of the typesof concerns and questions that were expressed by stakeholders:• Circulation and congestion challenges. Ala Moana Center circulation and routing canbe slow and impacts the overall system’s efficiency and effectiveness. Service quality andcongestion impact the effectiveness of Route 73 at Leeward Community College.Stakeholders reported that buses experience routine delays at times when classes aregetting out. This appears to be the result of the college’s location and street design.• Missing links/better connections. Need for better connections between University ofHawaii, Manoa and Waikiki. Is there enough demand to warrant connecting Kaneohe andKailua? Is there enough service on the Windward side?• Crowding. Bus overloads are a problem. Staff members expressed concerns that theforty-foot low-floor buses have a smaller capacity than the high-floor buses, makingcrowding issues more severe.• Fixed Guideway Transit impacts. Concerns exist about the impact that fixed guidewayconstruction is going to have on have on bus service in Waipahu. Staff members wereunsure whether the fixed guideway system will dovetail with current service. Are thereopportunities to begin the transition early?• Transit centers. Concerns were voiced regarding the effectiveness and operation oftransit centers, including existing ones and planned ones. Some people questionedwhether transit centers benefit riders or simply impose a forced transfer. They alsoquestioned whether reliable connections are possible at transit centers.Page 1-5 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU• Park-and-rides. Will people actually park their vehicle in an unsecured facility where it issubject to vandalism? Their practicality needs to be evaluated.• Service hours. Does the express system shut down too early? Should service hours beextended weekdays and weekends?• Operational efficiencies. In some locations stop spacing seems too close to facilitateefficient operations. Can the proportion of buses used in express service be optimized toreduce peak pull? Should hybrid buses shift to the Kalihi Division to get the hybridsoperating more in the urban area? Is a third maintenance facility required? Doopportunities exist for traffic signal priority and other transit priority measures?• Fleet Issues. Many are concerned about the age of the existing fleet and the challengesassociated with operating older vehicles. Once fixed guideway transit is operating, will thefleet need as many articulated buses?• TheHandi-Van issues. Is performance meeting agency and communitygoals/expectations? Are dispatch functions efficient? Will coordination with human servicetransportation providers reduce subscription trips for TheHandi-Van? Are there additionalcapital investments needed to support mobility management? What is the right type ofvehicle?• Public information. There is concern about public information and the public’s ability tounderstand what is going on when changes occur. What can be done to strengthencustomer communications? Can more information be provided at the transit centers?TheBus has implemented real-time information. Is it functional for users?These represent only a selection of challenges identified by stakeholders. In the next phase ofdevelopment for this SRTP, a comprehensive public involvement process will be implemented tosolicit additional feedback from the public and other key stakeholders.While Honolulu’s public transportation efforts are organizationally unified, TheBus and TheHandi-Van each face unique challenges.TheHandi-Van IssuesSeveral topics specific to paratransit have been identified by the City as areas of interest toexplore through this project. These include:• Performance Issues:− Is performance meeting agency and community goals and expectations?−−−−Are dispatch functions efficient?Is Trapeze (scheduling software) being used to its full capability?Are measures in place to control excessive demand for TheHandi-Van trips?Will coordination with human service transportation providers remove subscriptiontrips from TheHandi-Van?• Fleet Issues:− Is the fleet composition appropriate? What is the “right” type of vehicle?Page 1-6 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU−−Are cutaway diesel vehicles reliable? What can be done to improve maintenanceconcerns?What is the potential for fleet expansion or contraction if coordination is verysuccessful?• Other Issues:− Would a real time arrival system for paratransit make sense in the future?− How well is the new certification process working?− Are there additional capital investments needed to support mobility management?− What is the status of implementing recommendations emerging from previous studiesand reports, particularly with regards to compliance to the Americans with DisabilitiesAct (ADA)?Page 1-7 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUChapter 2. Service Area DescriptionPopulation and Employment DensityTheBus serves the entire island of Oahu, which is approximately 600 square miles. In 2008, itspopulation was estimated to be 914,351. 6 Visitors to the island add nearly 82,000 more peopleon any given day. 7 On a typical day the island’s population is about 1 million people.Most of the island is virtually uninhabited, with the overwhelming majority of population andemployment focused on the south central fringe (Pearl Harbor and Honolulu). This reality isillustrated in 2-1, on the next page. In general, the majority of the population is concentratedalong the Leeward Coast (western side of the island), the Windward Coast (eastern side of theisland), and in Pearl Harbor and Honolulu/Waikiki. Population concentrations also exist in Mililaniand Wahiawa on the Wahiawa Valley between the Koolau and Waianae mountain ranges thatcover most of the island. Employment is greatly concentrated in Pearl Harbor and throughout thegreater Honolulu area. The majority of transit service, also shown on 2-1, logically operates withinthe same area.Figure 2-2 illustrates a combined measure for population and employment density in the southcentral area of the island, which includes Kapolei, Ewa Beach, Waipahu, Pearl Harbor, Pearl City,Downtown Honolulu, and Waikiki. The colored graphics employed in the figure apportiondensities according to the following values:Population Density(persons per acre)Employment Density(jobs per acre)5 or less (lowest) 5 or less (lowest)5 to 15 5 to 1515 to 30 15 to 3030 or more (highest) 30 or more (highest)Most residential neighborhoods from Kapolei to Hawaii Kai follow the coastline, branching intoadjacent valleys and plateaus going up the hills. Downtown Honolulu has a mix of majoremployment centers combined with dense high-rise housing. While residential densities remainrelatively high throughout the Pearl City, Waipahu, Ewa Beach, and Kapolei communities,employment densities drop sharply outside Honolulu. This suggests that residents in these areasneed to travel relatively long distances to jobs that are more focused in and around Downtown,Ala Moana and Waikiki.Both the road and transit networks provide local streets and routes that follow topographicfeatures onto the coastal plain where they intersect the mainline transportation facilities. The H-1Freeway, Kamehameha Highway, Kalanianaole Highway, and Nimitz Highway provide east-westtravel corridors that link these geographically distinct neighborhoods with Honolulu’s employmentand retail centers. Similarly, many transit routes fulfill the same functions, as will be discussedlater in this report.6 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 Population Estimates, State of Hawaii, Department of Business, EconomicDevelopment & Tourism.7 Source: State of Hawaii; Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism; 2008 Annual Visitor ResearchReport.Page 2-1 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUThis page intentionally left blank.Page 2-2 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUThe Land Use/Transportation LinkMore than any other factor, the success of public transportation is determined by the density ofthe neighborhoods being served. Figure 2-3 summarizes research that was conducted during the1970s and is still considered valid. 8 It relates residential densities to the type of transit servicethat is appropriate for neighborhoods. It concluded that, within a defined geographicneighborhood, as densities increase the absolute number of trips that utilize public transportationincreases dramatically. At the same time the absolute number of vehicle trips declines (manymore trips are made on alternative modes), further reducing the significance of automobiles as atravel option.Figure 2-3Transit Density RequirementsModeDial-a-Bus“Minimum”Local Bus“Intermediate”Local Bus“Frequent”Local BusExpress Bus –Foot accessExpress Bus –Auto accessLight RailRapid TransitService TypeDemand response servinggeneral public (not justpeople with disabilities)1/2-mile route spacing, 20buses per day (~30-minutefrequency)1/2-mile route spacing, 40buses per day (~15-minutefrequency)1/2-mile route spacing, 120buses per day (~5-minutefrequency)5 buses during two-hourpeak period5 to 10 buses during twohourpeak period5-minute headways or betterduring peak hour.5-minute headways or betterduring peak hour.MinimumDensity(Dwelling UnitsPer Acre)MinimumDensity(PopulationPer Acre)*3.5 to 6 9 to 16 Community-wide4 10 Neighborhood7 18 Neighborhood15 39 NeighborhoodArea and Location15 39 Average density over 20-squaremilearea within 10 to 15 miles ofa large downtown15 39 Average density over 20-squaremiletributary area, within 10 to 15miles of a large downtown9 23 Within walking distance of transitline, serving large downtown12 31 Within walking distance of transitstations serving large downtownCommuter Rail 20 trains a day. 1 to 2 2.6 to 5.2 Serving very large downtown*Assumes an average household size of 2.59, which was the national average in 2000. The average for Honolulu County was 2.95.8 Boris S. Pushkarev and Jeffrey M. Zupan, Public Transportation and Land Use Policy, Indiana University Press,Bloomington, IN, USA, 1977.Page 2-5 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUThis study and numerous subsequent research papers have confirmed the relationship betweentransit use and residential density. Together they form the basis to foster more compactdevelopment patterns, such as TOD, as a strategy for increasing transit use and reducing theimpacts of auto congestion on local communities. Figures 2-1 and 2-2 show that Oahu has manyareas with dense population, which helps explain why many TheBus routes have very highridership. Increased density should lead to even higher transit ridership.Factors Leading to Transit UsageWhile population density is the most significant factor in determining transit success, a largenumber of demographic factors – including household size, household income, age, access to anautomobile, and race/ethnicity – tend to be associated with transit patronage. Honolulu is aunique community that presents both challenges and opportunities for public transportation.Figure 2-4 below illustrates several key demographic statistics for the region as a whole andcompares them to national averages.Figure 2-4Comparisons of Selected Demographic Factors to National AveragesSelected Demographic VariablesHonoluluCounty NationalPopulation percent change (April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008) 3.3% 8.0%Persons 65 years old and over, 2008 15.4% 12.8%Homeownership rate, 2000 54.6% 66.2%Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000 $309,000 $119,600Persons per household, 2000 2.95 2.59Median household income, 2008 $70,010 $52,029Per capita money income, 1999 $21,998 $21,587Persons below poverty level, 2008 8.5% 13.2%Source: US Census Bureau Summary StatisticsAverage Household SizeOahu’s households are significantly larger than the national average at almost 3 people perhousehold compared to the national average of 2.6. At the same time, household incomes andthe value of housing units are significantly higher. 9 This suggests that many extended familieslive within one housing unit and/or that more than one household live in a single unit in order toafford the cost of housing in Oahu. In both cases, the result is that fewer housing units areneeded within a given area in order to generate the demand associated with successful transitservices.In relation to the spatial distribution of households, larger households (more than 3.5 persons) arefound in Waimanalo, East Honolulu, Salt Lake/Foster Village, Waipio, Waipahu, Ewa Beach,Waianae and Makaha. Smaller households (less than 2.5 persons) are found in DowntownHonolulu, Ala Moana and Waikiki (see Figure 2-5 on page 2-9).9 Note that household income is from a 2008 estimate while personal income is from 1999. Subsequent analyses ofhousehold income by block group utilize 1999 dollar figures from U.S. Census 2000.Page 2-6 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUSenior PopulationAlso of interest are the relatively high percentage of persons over age 65 and the relatively lowpercentage of persons living below the poverty level within the county.Two factors may explain this: there are (1) relatively high percentages of seniors and retireesliving in Honolulu and particularly in Waikiki; and (2) households are relatively large in sizebecause of cultural issues (extended families), but also due to economic reality. The cost of livingin Oahu is higher than in the rest of the nation, on average, and may require several members ofthe household to work and bring the necessary income. Also, many retirees from the mainlandwho move to Honolulu have more income and are relatively better off than the rest of thepopulation having saved throughout their lifetime and achieved higher income levels.Figure 2-6 on page 2-10 shows the spatial distribution of seniors. As indicated before, mostseniors live in areas where there are either large households with extended families (Waipahu,Pearl City, Aeia Heights, and West Honolulu) or small households (Downtown, Ala Moana,Waikiki, Diamond Head, and Aina Haina). 10School/College Age PopulationSchool/College age persons (15 to 24 years old) are even more broadly distributed, withconcentrations on several military installations, the North Shore, Wahiawa Valley and along theKalanianaole Highway (see Figure 2-7 on page 2-11). Significantly, except in its immediatevicinity, there is no significant concentration of persons under age 25 around the University ofHawaii. Meanwhile, older adults with young children are strongly concentrated in the island’seastern areas – Honolulu, Waikiki, Hawaii Kai, Kailua, and Kaneohe.Median Household IncomeLow-income people tend to be more frequent users of public transit and for a wider variety of tripsbeyond commuting to work. The Census Bureau considers a person to be in poverty if theirfamily’s income is below a threshold based on family size and the ages of family members.Figure 2-8 on page 2-12 illustrates the distribution of household incomes by block group acrossthe island. The highest income households, averaging more than $75,000 per year in 2000(roughly $100,000 in today’s dollars), are concentrated in Kaneohe, Hawaii Kai, and in the valleysbelow the Watershed Forest Reserve. High income households are also found in Makakilo andKapolei on the western end of the island. Conversely, the largest concentrations of lower incomehouseholds are in Downtown Honolulu, Waikiki, Pearl City and Waipahu, and along the WahiawaValley, and the Leeward and Windward coasts. Neither focus is absolute with both higher andlower income households distributed across the entire island and Honolulu neighborhoods.Access to an AutomobileSimilarly, the incidence of adults without access to an automobile is distributed across much ofthe island, with large concentrations around Kalihi, Kamehameha Heights, Downtown Honoluluand Waikiki, Waipahu, and in the relatively distant Makaha Valley and Waimanalo. Comparingmedian household income to auto access, the two maps are dissimilar with several relativelyaffluent neighborhoods near Downtown Honolulu having relatively high proportions of personsable to drive with limited access to automobiles. This is due to both large households in Kalihi and10 While seniors tend to comprise a major portion of the market for ADA paratransit services, many systems find theyare not a large portion of fixed route riders.Page 2-7 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUKamehameha Heights, and one or two person households without an automobile in Downtownand Waikiki, possibly by choice. The result is that many areas in Honolulu have populations thatrely on transit for their mobility and daily travel within the city (see Figure 2-9 on page 2-13).Page 2-8 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUTransit Orientation IndexThe review of selected demographic and socioeconomic characteristics above shows that thereare three major factors explaining transit use in Oahu. These include population density,household income, and access to automobiles, as described below:• Population Density – As indicated before, population density is a major factor explainingtransit use. In general, population density summarizes not only the number of personsliving within a defined unit of area (acre or square mile), but it also serves as a proxy forhousehold size, number of housing units and/or households per unit of area, and for agegroup distribution. In theory, the larger the household, the more diverse its memberswould be across age groups, including small children, adults, seniors, and high school andcollege populations.• Average Household Income – Household income is the second major factor explainingtransit use. In general, high income households do not use transit regularly, not even forthe commute to work, because they have other means and options. Low incomehouseholds generally depend on transit for their commute to work but also for a widerarray of trips and mobility needs.• Access to Automobiles – Access to automobiles is affected by both population densityand average income. Household income is related to the number of vehicles availableand population density is related to the number of persons per households and of adultsthat are able to drive. The ratio between vehicles available and adults able to drivedetermines a measure of accessibility to automobiles. Neighborhood areas with a relativelack of access to automobiles then have a greater propensity to use transit.The combination of these three factors creates a Transit Orientation Index (TOI), which inessence is an evaluation or scoring of areas that have a strong presence of factors with directincidence in the use of transit.Figure 2-10 on the following page categorizes areas that may exhibit low to high propensity touse transit. In general, high propensity areas coincide with high transit boardings locations (seeFigure 5-3 on page 5-5). There are exceptions, such as Waimanalo, where household sizes arelarger (about 4 persons per household, among the biggest in the island), average householdincomes are lower, and access to vehicles is moderate; however, residential densities are verylow and therefore the overall TOI scoring is low.As shown in Figure 2-10, the TOI reinforces the notion that the areas with the highestpropensities to use transit are found in the “primary urban core” (Pearl City to Honolulu), alongMililani and Wahiawa, along the Leeward coast, and in Kaneohe and Kailua.Page 2-14 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUFactors Affecting Paratransit OperationsDisability PopulationA demographic profile was prepared to document important characteristics about the City andCounty of Honolulu as they relate to this planning effort. In particular, the profile examines thepresence and locations of older adults and persons with disabilities within the region, becausethey are most likely to be users of paratransit services. Figure 2-11 illustrates these basicpopulation characteristics for the State of Hawaii, the City and County of Honolulu, and for theUnited States as a whole.Figure 2-11Basic Population CharacteristicsAreaTotalPopulation% PersonsAged 65+% PersonsAged 85+% Personsw/ Disability% PovertyLevelState of Hawaii 1,211,537 13.3% 1.4% 18.4% 10.7%City and County ofHonolulu876,156 13.4% 1.5% 17.9% 9.9%United States 281,421,906 12.4% 1.5% 19.3% 12.4%Source: 2000 US Census*The US Census only counts persons 5 years and older for disabilities, which are self reported.Older AdultsOlder adults, defined as those persons aged 65 or older, comprise 13.4% and 13.3% for the Cityof Honolulu and the State of Hawaii’s total population, respectively. This is slightly higher than thenational average of 12.4%.As is the case nationwide, the population in Honolulu County is aging. Figure 2-11 shows that13.4% of the county’s population was 65 or older in 2000. Between 2000 and 2025, the numberof older adults in Honolulu is expected to increase by 82%, so by 2025, more than one in fivecounty residents will be senior citizens.The oldest old (persons 85 years old and over) are a small but rapidly growing group, comprisingjust over 1 percent of the American population in 1994, and 1.5% in 2000. From 1960 to 1994,this group increased 274 percent, compared with an increase of 100 percent for persons 65 yearsold and over, and an increase of 45 percent for the total population. Overall, the oldest old areprojected to be the fastest growing part of the elderly population into future decades.Figure 2-12Population Change for Persons aged 65 Years and OverArea 2000 2007PopulationChange2007-2010 2015PopulationChange2007-2015 2025PopulationChange2015-2025Honolulu County 117,737 134,364 14% 165,988 23.5% 213,784 29%Percent of Total 13.4% 14.9% 17.6% 21.5%Source: OFM/Forecasting, February 2002Page 2-16 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUPersons with DisabilitiesThe definition of “disability” varies; for this project, information cited is consistent with definitionsreported in the Census 2000. The Census 2000 included two questions with a total of sixsubparts with which to identify people with disabilities. 11 It should be noted that this definitiondiffers from that used to determine eligibility for paratransit services required by the Americanswith Disabilities Act (ADA). To qualify for ADA paratransit services, an individual’s disability mustprevent them from independently being able to use the fixed-route transit service, even if thevehicle itself is accessible to persons with disabilities (i.e. lift or ramp equipped).Density and Distribution of Transit DependentPopulationsA transit-dependency index was calculated to help identify the density and geographic distributionof transit-dependent populations within TheHandi-Van service area. The index is based on thecombined densities of three demographic groups – older adults, persons with disabilities, andlow-income residents – using 2000 U.S. Census data. Figure 2-13 shows that the Census blockgroups with moderately high to high levels of transit-dependency generally correspond to theexisting bus route network. Individuals with disabilities also tend to have a significant need forpublic transit services and often rely on public transportation for everyday travel and/or commuteneeds.11 These questions were: 18. Does this person have a physical, mental, or other health condition that has lasted for 6 ormore months and which (a) limits the kind or amount of work this person can do at a job? (b) prevents this person fromworking at a job? 19. Because of a health condition that has lasted for 6 or more months, does this person have anydifficulty—(a) going outside the home alone, for example, to shop or visit a doctor’s office? (b) taking care of his or herown personal needs, such as bathing, dressing, or getting around inside the home?Page 2-17 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUTheHandi-Van Passenger ProfileAt present, 14,429 persons are registered for TheHandi-Van program. Of these, 42 percent areconsidered active users of the service, meaning they have taken at least one trip in the last sixmonths. TheHandi-Van rider is likely to be aged 65 or older, female, and needing a personal careattendant.Specifically,• Sixty percent of all registered TheHandi-Van users are female and 40 percent are male.• Fifty-six percent need a personal care attendant and 44 percent do not.• Over half (55 percent) of the customer base is considered “conditionally” eligible, whichmeans that these customers can use fixed route transit for at least some of their trips. Insuch cases, the ADA allows for, and in fact encourages, application of “trip-by-tripeligibility.”• Seventeen percent of TheHandi-Van users are aged 85 or older, compared to 1.5% forthe population at large.Figure 2-14 illustrates TheHandi-Van Customer base by age group.Figure 2-14TheHandi-Van Customers by Age GroupUnder 1818‐6465‐86Over 85Page 2-19 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUChapter 3. Service Planning ContextThis section provides an overview of transit planning efforts that have been undertaken during thepast ten years. It places special emphasis on the period from 1999 to 2004, when transitplanning was integrated with land use and multi-modal planning. Both the hub-and-spoke busnetwork and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor plans, discussed at length in this section, weredeveloped during that timeframe.Several community plans undertaken across the island include transit elements that set the stagefor future services within the individual communities. Many were integrated into the Bus ServiceImprovement Plan, which is discussed later in this report.The Hub-and-Spoke NetworkSeveral planning efforts led to the implementation of hub-and-spoke route networks that use localfeeder services to connect with mainline routes at a central transfer facility. This sectiondescribes those efforts. It should be noted that inclusion here is not an endorsement of the huband spoke concept. The inability to dedicate adequate resources to maintain timed-transferoperations at hub and spoke locations is a known problem and is one of the weaknesses of theconcept when feeder networks are operating relatively infrequently, every 30 minutes, or more.Oahu Trans 2K Island-wide Mobility Concept PlanThe Oahu Trans 2K Island-wide Mobility Concept Plan (2000) identified the need for improvedmobility links between land use and transportation. 12 The plan endorsed an integratedtransportation approach with roadway, high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) and transit improvementsfunctioning as a coordinated system.Oahu Trans 2K was a visioning process initiated in 1999 that led to the development of the Islandwide Mobility Concept Plan. This plan contained an interrelated group of major multi-modalprojects ranging from traffic calming to bicycle master plans to the successful hub-and-spoke busnetwork. 13 It was a community-based process aimed at creating an integrated, multi-modaltransportation system. The process included the work of nineteen community teams andhundreds of meetings, workshops and forums to define a balanced, integrated transportationvision for Oahu. The overarching goal was to create increased accessibility to livablecommunities, with the intent that solutions would be both sustainable and economically sound.Livable Community Plans were completed for Waipahu, Aiea-Pearl City, and Waikiki andintroduced the concept of transit hubs. Hubs are transit centers where buses connect to increasetravel options. Route schedules are designed so buses arrive at the same time, thus providingconvenient connections and minimizing passenger waiting. 1412 Oahu Trans 2K Islandwide Mobility Concept Plan; City and County of Honolulu; 2000.13 Source: Integration of Context Sensitive Solutions in the Transportation Planning Process; The Center forTransportation and the Environment; North Carolina State University; July 2006 See:http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/context/integrat.cfm.14 Leeward Oahu Community Transit Guide, August 20, 2000.Page 3-1 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUThe Waipahu Livable Community Plan established the initial planning work for creating a transithub in Waipahu. This hub became the focus of significant route transit planning work involvingthe neighborhood board, community workshops and other public outreach efforts. 15 Communitycirculators anchored at this hub were given the 43x number series.Leeward Hub-and-Spoke Bus Route System PlanThe Leeward Hub-and-Spoke Bus Route System Plan designed and implemented newcommunity-oriented routes. It led to the planning, design and construction of major “hubs” inKapolei, Waianae, and Waipahu. It also led to the development of new community-orientedservices in the fastest growing parts of Oahu. Prior to the implementation of the Hub-and-SpokePlan, only one long local route served growing areas of Kapolei during the middle of the weekday.Route 50 meandered through the subdivisions of Makakilo, Kapolei Villages and Village Park. Itoften traversed multiple one-way loops diverting riders far from their ultimate destination. It alsohad irregular headways. Obviously, it tried to perform too many functions and achieved none ofthem well.The Leeward Bus Network Plan restructured routes to make them more easily understood by thepublic. They were scheduled on clockface headways and, when possible, timed connectionswere provided at transit centers. The new services included ten community circulators (Routes401, 402, 403, 411, 412, 413, 414, 431, 432 and 433) making timed connections to a newCountryExpress! (Route C) at transit centers in Waianae and Kapolei or with CityExpress! (RouteA) at the transit center in Waipahu.In addition, several new local routes (Routes 40, 41 and 42) connected the transit centers to eachother and the major attractions along Farrington Highway, Kamehameha Highway, NimitzHighway and Dillingham.Following implementation of the Leeward Bus Network, the City and County of Honoluluproceeded with the Central Oahu Hub-and-Spoke System Plan. The Central Oahu plan includedfourteen new routes designed to complement current express and local routes. Two major hubswere planned for Mililani and Wahiawa. Planning was underway to introduce comparableimprovements in Central Oahu when the September 11, 2001 attack occurred. After that,implementation of any new routes proceeded with caution given the uncertainty of the localeconomy. Since then, three of the route recommendations were implemented and the Mililanihub was constructed.Mobility Planning: BRT Corridor DevelopmentPrimary Corridor Transportation ProjectThe Primary Corridor Transportation Project (2000) followed the Oahu Trans 2K Island wideMobility Concept Plan focusing on alternatives that could be constructed within existingtransportation rights-of-way. The intent was to provide lower cost mobility improvements withfewer impacts then previous proposals. A Major Investment Study and Environmental Impact15 The Waipahu hub was designated as number 43. This was part of a numbering system designed to give each hub aset of community circulators with a series of routes with a 43x number where x is the number of the route connected tothat hub starting at the number “1”. For Waipahu, this resulted in numbering routes 432, 433 and 434. The routeswere all designed with cycle times such that they all met at the Waipahu transit center at the same time. The routesare still in operation today. The project also placed emphasis on one local route (with the same number as the hub)timed to connect with the community circulators. For Waipahu, this was route 43. This route is still in operation today.Page 3-2 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUStatement for a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) operation was recommended with roadway revisionsdesigned to offer preferential treatment for buses over general purpose traffic. 16BRT-related facility improvements completed by HDOT included extension of the morningreversible vehicle traffic flow zipper lane for buses and HOVs on the H-1 freeway betweenRadford Drive and the Keehi Interchange. BRT service improvements completed by DTSincluded planning and implementing Routes A, B, and C. These services reduced travel times,attracting both new and existing riders from other routes. 17 CityExpress! Route A wasinaugurated in 1999 providing limited stop service between the University of Hawaii and theMiddle Street Transit Center. The success of this service resulted in its extension to Pearlridgeand then to Leoku Street in Waipahu in 2000.DTS recognized the need to upgrade services on a broader scale after the successful launch ofCityExpress! Route A. Plans were prepared to introduce CityExpress! Route B; and, in August2000, DTS launched many other new bus route improvements for Oahu based upon the LeewardHub-and-Spoke Bus Route System Plan.Waikiki Livable Community ProjectThe Waikiki Livable Community Project, which was conducted between 2000 and 2003, provideda blueprint for land use and transportation in the Waikiki area. It included an analysis and set ofrecommendations predicated upon the creation of a high quality transit link to Ala Moana Center,Downtown Honolulu, and other nodes along the primary urban corridor.Bus Service Improvement PlanDTS continued bus service planning concurrent with the high capacity transit corridor work. Busplanning efforts culminated in the Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP) completed in October2006. 18 It contained a set of proposals to restructure portions of Oahu’s TheBus network. Theseproposals were based on an extensive review of TheBus involving system-wide goal-basedperformance assessments, detailed data compilations from the Transit Rider Database & RouteProfile Analysis (2004), ongoing Bus Route Study network evaluations and proposals, and acareful evolution of a three-tiered system structure. A geographical orientation was used tominimize disruptions and maximize public awareness. The BSIP was consistent with currentpolicies and future plans to provide for High Capacity Transit investments.The City and County of Honolulu’s BSIP prepared by DTS guided decision-making during theservice change process to ensure a fair and consistent link between the evaluation of service andremedial actions. It identified service adjustments that best met customer needs andexpectations. It reflected extensive public involvement and requests for service starting in 1999with the series of Hub-and-Spoke and Oahu Trans 2k meetings. It prioritized those serviceadjustments to respond to budget limitations and equipment availability.The guiding principles providing the basis for the DTS BSIP were consistent with threerecommended strategic initiatives:16 Major Investment Study/Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Primary Corridor Transportation Project, August2000.17 Honolulu Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project Evaluation Final Report; June 2006.18 Bus Service Improvement Plan; Department of Transportation Services, City and County of Honolulu; October 2006.Page 3-3 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU• Service Reliability – Making service modifications to improve on-time performance, toincrease overall system speed, and to take advantage of traffic engineeringimprovements.• Service Productivity – Making service modifications to reallocate non-productive servicehours.• Revenue Enhancement – Making service modifications to reallocate service hours savedfrom concession transfer and to allocate hours as needed to respond to special revenuegenerating opportunities.The BSIP included six subarea bus service restructuring plans:1. The Leeward Oahu Plan2. The Central Oahu Plan3. The Urban Area Plan - Pearl City to Middle Street Transit Center4. The Urban Area Plan - Middle Street Transit Center to Waikiki5. The East Honolulu Plan6. The Windward and North Shore Oahu Plan.The Urban Area Plan – Pearl City to Middle Street Transit CenterThe Urban Area Plan – Pearl City to Middle Street Transit Center is currently being used as thebaseline bus network for both the Aiea-Pearl City Neighborhood TOD Plan development andrefinement of the Honolulu High Capacity Transit Corridor Project (HHCTCP) Pearlridge stationlayout. It is offered as an example of how these plans are presented.The BSIP proposed route modifications to implement the bus service concept included in theAiea-Pearl City Livable Communities Plan. 19 It considers the geographic area from Pearl City tothe Kalihi Transit Center and addresses long standing bus service efficiency issues in thisgeographic area.Lacking a strong local transit center, the area experiences a number of operating issues,including:• Routes 20 and 32 follow a time-consuming loop around the Pearlridge shopping center.• Two suburban feeders provide weekday peak period service only.• One major route that provided service to Ala Moana Center now terminates at the AlapaiTransit Center to address schedule reliability problems.• Some newer residential areas constructed over the past fifteen years are not served at all,or are under-served in light of their population and passenger demands.• Routes to outlying neighborhoods are often delayed by afternoon traffic in DowntownHonolulu, creating on-time performance problems.• Some lower productive route segments are included in the statistics for long local routes,making them appear more productive.19 Bus Service Improvement Plan; prepared for the City and County of Honolulu Department of TransportationServices; prepared by Weslin Consulting Services, Inc.; October 2006.Page 3-4 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU• Existing transit routes would benefit from restructuring to make timed connections at acentrally located Pearl City – Aiea Transit Hub.The transit hub concept identified in the Aiea-Pearl City Livable Communities Plan and the BSIPwas developed to emphasize community circulator routes with high schedule reliability connectedat a single location. This concept would maximize the ability to make easy transfers betweenroutes for those people traveling within the Pearl City-Aiea area, while still making connections toDowntown Honolulu and Ala Moana Center.High Capacity Transit CorridorIn 2005, the State Legislature passed Act 247, which authorized the City to levy a General Exciseand Use Tax surcharge to construct and operate a mass transit system. The City and County ofHonolulu adopted Ordinance 05-027 to levy a tax surcharge to fund public transportation.The subsequent Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project (HHCTCP) Alternatives Analysisevaluated a range of transit mode and general alignment alternatives in terms of their costs,benefits, and impacts. 20 The Alternatives Analysis evaluated four alternatives, with the CityCouncil selecting a fixed guideway from Kapolei to UH Manoa and Waikiki as the LocallyPreferred Alternative (LPA) 21 Authorization was given to proceed with planning and engineeringof a first segment from East Kapolei to Ala Moana. 22 A Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS) was released in November 2008 and a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) wasreleased in June 2010. 23 Design and Implementation of the first portion of the LPA is expected tobegin in 2010, and the entire project is expected to be completed in 2019. 24 Since the time frameof the SRTP goes to 2016, it needs to be consistent with the bus network changes assumed bythe HHCTCP FEIS work.DTS, in cooperation with FTA, is developing the HHCTCP, the fixed guideway transit system thatwill provide new transit service on Oahu. The project area is within the overall travel corridorbetween Kapolei and the University of Hawaii at Manoa (UH Manoa) as shown in Figure 3-1below.The corridor includes the majority of housing and employment on Oahu. The east-west length ofthe corridor is approximately 23 miles. The north-south width is, at most, four miles because theKoolau and Waianae mountain ranges bound much of the corridor to the north (mauka, mountainside) and the Pacific Ocean bounds it to the south (makai, sea side). Between Pearl City andAiea, the corridor’s width is less than one mile between Pearl Harbor and the base of the KoolauMountains. 25The General Plan for the City and County of Honolulu directs future population and employmentgrowth to the Ewa and Primary Urban Center Development Plan areas and the Central Oahu20 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Alternatives Analysis Report; City and County of Honolulu DTS;2006.21 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Alternatives Analysis; City and County of Honolulu, Department ofTransportation Services; October 2006.22 City and County of Honolulu Ordinance 07-001, January 6, 2007; and, Resolution 07-039.23 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Section 4(f) Evaluation; U.S.Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration and the City and County of Honolulu Department ofTransportation Services; June 2010.24 HHCTCP FEIS; Figure 2-42, page 2-48.25 HHCTCP FEIS, page 1-6.Page 3-5 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUSustainable Communities Plan area. The largest increases in population and employment areprojected in the Ewa, Waipahu, Downtown, and Kakaako districts, which are all located in thecorridor. 26Figure 3-1Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project VicinitySource: Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, November 2008According to the 2000 US Census, 63 percent of Oahu’s population of 876,200 and 80 percent ofits 501,100 jobs were located within the study corridor. By 2030, these distributions will increaseto 69 percent of the population and 83 percent of the employment as development continues tobe concentrated into the Primary Urban Center and Ewa Development Plan areas. 27Kapolei, the center of the Ewa Development Plan area, is designated as Oahu’s “second city.”City and State government offices have opened in Kapolei. The University of Hawaii isdeveloping a master plan for a new West Oahu campus in the area. The Kalaeloa CommunityDevelopment District covers 3,700 acres adjacent to Kapolei and is planned for redevelopment.The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands is a major landowner in the area and has plans forresidential and retail development. In addition, developers have several proposals to continuethe construction of residential subdivisions and mixed-use development. 2826 HHCTCP FEIS, page 1-6.27 HHCTCP FEIS, page 1-6.28 HHCTCP FEIS, page 1-6.Page 3-6 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUThe corridor follows Farrington and Kamehameha Highways through a mixture of low-densitycommercial, light industrial and residential development. This part of the corridor passes throughthe makai portion of the Central Oahu Sustainable Communities Plan area. 29The corridor includes the Primary Urban Center Development Plan area bounded by commercialand residential densities that gradually increase in the vicinity of Aloha Stadium. The PearlHarbor Naval Reserve, Hickam Air Force Base, and Honolulu International Airport border thecorridor on the makai side. Military and civilian housing are the dominant land uses mauka of theH-1 Freeway with a concentration of high-density housing along Salt Lake Boulevard. 30The corridor continues through Chinatown and Downtown. The Downtown area, with 63,400jobs, has the highest employment density in the corridor. The Kakaako and Ala Moananeighborhoods, comprised historically of low-rise industrial and commercial uses, are beingrevitalized with a mixture of high-rise residential, commercial, retail, and entertainment-relateddevelopment. Ala Moana Center, both a major transit hub and shopping destination, is served bymore than 2,000 weekday bus trips 31 and visited by more than 56 million shoppers annually. 32The corridor includes Waikiki and the McCully neighborhood to UH Manoa. Today, Waikiki hasmore than 20,000 residents and provides more than 44,000 jobs. It is one of the densest touristareas in the world, serving approximately 72,000 visitors daily. 33 UH Manoa has an enrollment ofmore than 20,000 students and approximately 6,000 staff. 34 Approximately 60 percent ofstudents do not live within walking distance of campus 35 and must travel by vehicle or transit toattend classes.System Design Details as Presented in the Final Environmental Impact StatementFour alternatives were identified during the EIS process: a no build alternative and three buildalternatives with different alignments called the Salt Lake, Airport & Salt Lake, and AirportAlternatives. The City Council passed resolution 08-261, which authorizes planning, engineering,design, and construction of the Airport Alternative. 36 FTA has granted authorization to enter intopreliminary engineering for a 20-mile double-track line. 37 The line will travel from a westernterminus in Kapolei on an alignment generally along the North-South Road, Farrington Highway,Kamehameha Highway, Nimitz Highway, Dillingham Boulevard, Halekauwila Street, QueenStreet, and Kona Street to an eastern terminus at Ala Moana Center. This is a portion of theoverall project that can be constructed with anticipated funding. Future extensions will go to WestKapolei, Salt Lake Boulevard, UH Manoa, and Waikiki. 38The fixed guideway system will be in exclusive right-of-way. 39 It will operate between 4:00 AMand midnight, with a train arriving in each direction at each station every three to ten minutes, with29 HHCTCP FEIS, page 1-9.30 HHCTCP FEIS, page 1-9.31 Note: The bus trips are for TheBus operations only and do not include private bus trips such as Ala Moana Center’sshopping shuttle bus to Waikiki and E Noa Tours bus routes.32 HHCTCP FEIS, page 1-9.33 State of Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism, 2003.34 University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2005.35 University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2002.36 HHCTCP FEIS, page 2-22-23.37 FTA Memorandum regarding the “Approval of Entry into Preliminary Engineering: Honolulu High-Capacity TransitCorridor Project in Honolulu, HI; October 7, 2009.38 HHCTCP FEIS, page 2-24.39 HHCTCP FEIS, page 2-29.Page 3-7 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUthe more frequent service during the morning and afternoon peak hours. A unified fare structurewith TheBus (i.e., transfers and passes would be usable on both systems) is planned. 40Bus service will be reconfigured to transport riders on local buses to nearby fixedguideway transit stations (emphasis added. This is a key consideration in some of thestrategies presented in the SRTP). To support this system, the bus fleet will be expanded up to465 buses operating in the peak period as compared to 426 today. The total fleet requirementincluding spare vehicles is estimated to be about 558 buses by 2030.Most fixed guideway stations will offer connections to local bus routes. In some cases, an offstreettransit center either already exists or will be built to accommodate transfers. In othercases, on-street bus stops with dedicated curb space or a pullout will be located adjacent to thefixed guideway station. Paratransit vehicles will be accommodated at all stations, and in somecases, space for private tour buses or special shuttles also would be included. 41Bus access in station areas was determined through review of existing (effective February 2008)information on TheBus routes. The extent of local bus access to stations areas variessubstantially. Some station areas have more extensive coverage since they are located nearexisting transit centers. Examples include the Waipahu, Middle Street and Ala Moana stationareas. The extent of local bus coverage also relates to the extent of development and associatedtransit coverage. Examples include areas in the vicinity of Pearlridge and Downtown stationareas. Some locations, such as East Kapolei, currently do not have local transit bus service.Off-street transit centers adjacent to fixed guideway stations are planned at UH West Oahu, WestLoch, Waipahu Transit Center, Pearl Highlands, Pearlridge, Aloha Stadium, and the Middle StreetTransit Center. On-street bus transfers would be accommodated at most other fixed guidewaystations. 42Park-and-ride lots would be constructed at several stations to provide commuters an option ofdriving to the fixed guideway transit system. With the exception of Pearl Highlands, which wouldbe a multi-level garage, all park-and-ride lots are expected to be constructed as surface parking. 43HHCTCP Implications for the SRTPThe SRTP will need to consider how short range bus route changes will need to dovetail withHHCTCP plans for 2019. It must be understood that the change in the way many peopleexperience transit will change markedly with the inception of the high capacity transit system.Many trips that are served by one seat rides today will, in the future, require one or two transfersto reach the final destination. In many cases, even including the transfers, the actual door to doortravel time will be reduced due to the avoidance of traffic congestion. However, the perceptionthat the system provides a lower level of service will be commonplace. This change has beenexperienced in many high capacity transit network introductions throughout the US. It is not newor unique to Honolulu. Well-conceived strategies, designed to specifically prepare the systemand the system’s users for these changes, will assist in the adaptation process. The length anddifficulty of this process should not be underestimated. The implementation will change the dailytravel habits of thousands of people. The adaptation of people to the new system will not occurovernight, nor will it occur with their full support and acceptance. At the same time, it must also40 HHCTCP FEIS, page 2-30.41 HHCTCP FEIS, page 2-43.42 HHCTCP FEIS, page 3-33.43 HHCTCP FEIS, page 2-44.Page 3-8 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUwithin the timeframe of the SRTP. The Waipahu Transit Center Station is best classified as atransit transfer station. This station is scheduled to be open for service by 2013, within thetimeframe of the SRTP. The on-street bus transit center along Hikimoe Street is retained, but willbe significantly impacted by construction and HHCTCP modifications.Paratransit StudiesWithin the past few years, a number of reports and studies have been completed to assessHonolulu’s TheHandi-Van services or to otherwise comply with certain federal planningrequirements in order to access transportation funding. Because the findings andrecommendations emerging from these studies have direct relevance to this plan, they aredescribed in some detail within this chapter. These include:• Honolulu Paratransit Service Study, completed 2007.• City Bus Internal Operations Review, completed March 2009.• City and County of Honolulu Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan,completed 2009.Honolulu Paratransit Service Study, 2007This project, initiated in 2005, resulted in a comprehensive overview of TheHandi-Van services.Completed in 2007, it entailed an assessment of operations, and also included extensive publicoutreach to learn more about customers’ perceptions of paratransit services. Seven separatetasks and reports were prepared as discreet deliverables. These elements included:• Review of paratransit operations, including peer review and demand forecast.• Analysis of ridership.• ADA paratransit monitoring strategies.• Service delivery and alternative service strategies.• Taxi service plan.• Subscription service plan.• Coordination and cost-sharing plan.The goals of the study were cited as: identifying ADA compliance issues, identifying theunderlying reasons for factors that affect on-compliance, and to recommend ways to achievecompliance. The study focused on how to augment capacity constraints, such as through moreextensive use of taxis or through a separate agency-based subscription service. Another goalwas to improve service quality and cost-effectiveness of the system. Finally, the study examinedopportunities to enhance service coordination.The study included the following findings and recommendations:1. The study found that OTS paratransit services were at risk of non-compliance with theADA due to capacity constraints imposed by OTS. At the time the study was completed,trip denials were a regular occurrence.Page 3-11 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU2. The study also found a compelling need to establish performance standards and monitorresults. Although certain performance indicators were tracked, they were not done so in asystematic way, or one in which performance was compared to goals and objectives.3. The report recommended that OTS seek to offset the impact subscription trips have onservice. Given the high number of subscription trips, there were capacity constraints thatresulted in trip denials because the service was overly committed to ongoing tripsprovided on behalf of social service agencies.4. The report suggested a number of ways to make better use of taxi services, andrecommended that their use be increased in order to alleviate capacity constraints.5. A number of operational improvements were suggested, especially having to do withparatransit fueling practices, which were perceived as inefficient, adding road supervisors,and improving the telephone system.6. The study recommended implementing a number of pilot projects to test the effectivenessof providing shopper shuttles and feeder service to fixed route.7. The report recommended that the fleet capacity be increased by purchasing additionalvehicles.8. Numerous recommendations were included with respect to improving the processes bywhich persons are determined eligible for ADA paratransit services.City Bus Internal Operations Review, March 2009This performance review was sponsored by the Department of Transportation Services for thepurpose of assessing the operation and management of TheBus and TheHandi-Van. The review,completed in March 2009, consists of two parts: a performance audit; and an internal busoperations review, which included an evaluation of the paratransit service monitoring process.The review resulted in the following key findings and recommendations:• There is a need to clarify roles, responsibilities and lines of authority between PTD andOTS.• Improvement is needed in handling customer service contacts.• A series of recommendations for more inclusive tracking of TheHandi-Van performancewas suggested.With respect to TheHandi-Van performance monitoring, the report pointed out that Section II, 2.2of the management agreement between the City and County of Honolulu and OTS states that“OTS shall collect and produce demand responsive information and rider complaint informationnecessary…to determine the degree of compliance of the special transit service with therequirements of 49CFR 37.131 (a) 1, (b), and (c) and 37.165.” The report further points out thatthe current OTS Paratransit Monthly Performance Report does not include all the items requiredby the contract, or that would better assist PTD to monitor contract and ADA compliance.Specific recommendations were offered to PTD as follows:• Refocus monitoring efforts to a daily tracking of on-time performance.• Continue to monitor and report trip denials, late and missed trips on a monthly basis, asdetailed in the PTD Memorandum.Page 3-12 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU• Revise the OTS Management Agreement to reflect the revised monitoring programmeasures and standards.• Include additional performance measures to the monthly performance reportingrequirements.City and County of Honolulu Human Services TransportationCoordination Plan, April 2009This plan was completed pursuant to federal legislation, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, EfficientTransportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, commonly referred to as SAFETEA-LU. Thelegislation authorized the provision of $286.4 billion in guaranteed funding for federal surfacetransportation programs over six years through Fiscal Year 2009, including $52.6 billion forfederal transit programs. Starting in Fiscal Year 2007, projects funded through three programs inSAFETEA-LU, including the Job Access and Reverse Commute Program (JARC, Section 5316),New Freedom (Section 5317), and the Formula Program for Elderly Individuals and Individualswith Disabilities (Section 5310), are required to be derived from a locally developed, coordinatedpublic transit-human services transportation plan. SAFETEA-LU guidance issued by the FTAindicates that the plan should be a “unified, comprehensive strategy for public transportationservice delivery that identifies the transportation needs of individuals with disabilities, older adults,and individuals with limited income, laying out strategies for meeting these needs, and prioritizingservices.” 54The Honolulu Coordinated Transportation Plan included the following steps:• Completion of a service provider inventory.• Consultation with key transportation stakeholders, including public transit as well ashuman service agency personnel, and members of the public.• Definition of service gaps and unmet transportation needs.• Identification of strategies and priorities to address unmet needs.• Recommended action plan.The assessment of service gaps and unmet transportation needs considered challenges faced byboth customers and providers of service. The findings were generated from stakeholderinterviews as well as comments received in public meetings. These findings are described inmore detail in Chapter 9.Two significant programs have been initiated subsequent to the adoption of the Coordinated Plan.First, as described further in Chapter 7, the City has instituted a new method for certifying ADAeligible persons. Previously, City staff had determined eligibility based on information submitted ina written application and medical certification. The certification process is now contracted out to athird-party (Innovative Paradigms). The new process is “paperless,” meaning that all candidatesare interviewed in person, and certification is based on the applicant’s functional ability to usefixed route transit.54 Federal Register: March 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 50, page 13458).Page 3-13 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUSecondly, efforts are underway to transition some subscription trips currently provided byTheHandi-Van on behalf of Goodwill Industries. Under this pilot project, Goodwill Industries willreceive vehicles through Vanpool Hawaii and will provide services to their clients directly, ratherthan relying on TheHandi-Van. This effort is described in more detail in Chapter 7.Page 3-14 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

FIXED ROUTE TRANSIT SYSTEMTHEBUS

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUChapter 4. Transit System DescriptionTheBus currently operates 96 fixed routes. In addition, the paratransit division operates fourCommunity Access deviation routes, bringing the system-wide total to 100 routes. Of these, fourare limited-stop service routes and 34 are peak-period, peak-direction-only express routes. Thefigures on the following pages depict the extent of all current fixed-route bus services operated onthe island by weekday peak, off-peak, Saturday and Sunday off-peak time periods. Supportingthese services are about 3,800 bus stops, 980 passenger shelters, and 2,400 benches. Figure4-1 on page 4-3 shows that on a regular weekday TheBus is present in every community,providing local transit service and connectivity with Downtown Honolulu and other activity centersof regional and local significance.Fixed-Route NetworkRoute Service ClassificationsThe fixed-route system network operated by TheBus is comprised of several service modes ortypes that fall within eight service classifications, as designated by DTS:• Rapid Bus – Rapid Bus services provide limited-stop express service along heavilytraveled corridors in both directions all day on weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays. Thereare four (4) rapid bus services in operation. CityExpress! (Routes A and B) offer 15-minuteservice, with some service every ten minutes during commute hours. CountryExpress!(Routes C and E) provide 30-minute service.• Urban Trunk – There are 11 Urban Trunk routes providing frequent, direct serviceconnecting neighborhoods within the primary urban center (Pearl Harbor and Honolulu)and operating along the major Ewa/Diamond Head corridors (SR 76/Fort Weaver Rd andSR 72/Kalanianaole Hwy). Urban trunk routes typically offer service as frequent as every15-minutes or less. These routes include most major east-west urban corridors.• Urban Feeder – There are 11 Urban Feeder routes that connect the mauka/makaineighborhoods with the primary urban center. These routes serving the hills and valleysof Honolulu connect residents to the urban trunk and limited-stop express routes and alsoprovide service to major destinations such as Downtown Honolulu, the University ofHawaii at Manoa, and Waikiki. Urban feeder services typically offer service as frequent asevery 30-minutes or less.• Suburban Trunk – There are 15 Suburban Trunk routes that provide all day service fromoutlying communities to the primary urban center. These routes also provide connectionsbetween suburban communities connecting with community circulators at transit centers.Suburban trunk routes stop at all local bus stops typically, provide 30-minute service, andoperate every day of the week. Many suburban trunk routes operate along the samemajor corridors leading to Honolulu such as Kamehameha Highway, Nimitz Highway andDillingham Boulevard. Service levels along these corridors are much higher due to thecombined number of trips provided by these and other system routes.• Suburban Feeder – There are 7 Suburban Feeder routes that provide service in lowerdemand areas linking mostly residential neighborhoods with local activity centers such asshopping areas, hospitals or schools. Typically these routes provide 60-minute servicewith some routes offering intermittent or peak-period-only service such as those operatingin Pearl City/Aiea.Page 4-1 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU• Peak Express – There are 34 Peak Express services that predominantly serve home-toworktrips by connecting specific neighborhoods to major employment centers. Thesetrips are provided in the peak period and on the peak direction only with minimalscheduled departures. A subset of the Peak Express classification is the servicedesigned for Pearl Harbor and Hickam Air Force Base destinations. These routes aredesignated with a “PH” preceding the route number.• Community Circulators – There are 14 Community Circulator routes providingcirculation within established communities and connecting local neighborhoods with aneighborhood hub or transit center. Community circulators provide timed connections toother feeder and trunk routes. These routes stop at all local bus stops and typically followroutings that include one-way loops and branches.• Community Access – There are four (4) Community Access routes that operate on astandard schedule serving regular bus stops utilizing specially branded TheHandi-Vanvehicles. TheHandi-Van type service is provided for registered TheHandi-Van customerswith a 24-hour advance notice within a one-half mile of the service route. These routesprovide 60-minute service. Time is provided in the schedule to allow for route deviations.These deviations are rare and used only when a regular The-HandiVan vehicle cannot bedispatched. Fixed route operation and schedule maintenance is the priority.Figure 4-4 on page 4-7 provides a complete list of routes by service classification.Network CoverageAs indicated above, TheBus system network provides service to every community in the Island ofOahu, connecting individual neighborhoods and urban areas with Downtown Honolulu and otherlocal and regional activity centers. In general, the extent of the fixed-route service network doesnot vary significantly by time of day or day of week as illustrated in Figures 4-1 to 4-3 on thefollowing pages. However, the level of service (span of service hours and frequency of service)and the number of service modes in operation (express, rapid, trunk, feeder and circulatorservices) varies by time of day and day of week.• Weekday Peak Network – During the peak (before 9 a.m. & 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.) period onweekdays, the full system of 100 service routes and eight different service modes andlayers is running. The system provides connections and coverage to every communityand employment center in the island.• Weekday Off-Peak Network – During the midday (9 a.m. to 2 p.m.) period on weekdays,the all-day system of service routes that includes 66 rapid, trunk, feeder, and circulatorservice routes is running in full. Peak express services are not running. The impact on thenetwork footprint is minimal.• Weekend Network – During weekends (Saturday, Sunday and on State Holidays), asystem of 60 routes is running covering the entire island that includes all rapid bus, urbanand suburban trunk, and feeder services with the exception of routes 1L, 16, 71, 73, 74,and 77. Most peak express services do not run, with the exception of routes 88A, 201,202, and 203, which provide service from Waipahu to Honolulu and from Kalihi to Waikiki.Most community circulator services are also running, except for routes 234, 235, 413, and415. Community access services (Routes 414, 501, 503, and 504) run on weekends.Page 4-2 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUThis page intentionally left blank.Page 4-6 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUFigure 4-4RouteTheBus Route System by Service TypeRouteNumber Description Classification Number Description ClassificationA City Express! A Rapid Bus PH3 Wahiawa Heights-Pearl Harbor ExpressB City Express! B Rapid Bus PH4 Kaneohe-Kahaluu-Pearl Harbor ExpressC Country Express! C Rapid Bus PH5 Windward-Pearl Harbor ExpressE Country Express! E Rapid Bus PH6 Hawaii Kai-Pearl Harbor Express1L Downtown-Hawaii Kai Limited Urban Trunk 80 Hawaii Kai Park & Ride Express1 Kaimuki-Kalihi Urban Trunk 80A Hawaii Kai Park & Ride-University Express2 Waikiki-School-Middle Street Urban Trunk 80B Upper Aina Haina Express Express3 Kaimuki-Salt Lake Urban Trunk 81 Waipahu Express Express4 Nuuanu-Punahou Urban Trunk 82 Kalama Valley Express Express6 Pauoa-Woodlawn Urban Trunk 83 Wahiawa Town Express Express8 Waikiki-Ala Moana Urban Trunk 84 Mililani Express-North Express9 Palolo Valley-Pearl Harbor Urban Trunk 84A Mililani Express-South Express13 Waikiki-Liliha Urban Trunk 85 Windward Express-Kailua Express19 Waikiki-Airport-Hickam Urban Trunk 85A Windward Express-Haiku Express20 Waikiki-Pearlridge Urban Trunk 88 Kahaluu-Ahuimanu Express Express11 Honolulu-Aiea Heights22 Beach Bus23 Hawaii Kai-Sea Life Park40/40A Honolulu-Makaha41 Kapolei-Ewa Beach42 Ewa Beach-Waikiki43 Waipahu St-Honolulu-Ala Moana52 Wahiawa-Circle Island53 Honolulu-Pacific Palisades54 Honolulu-Pearl City55 Kaneohe-Circle Island56 Honolulu-Kailua-KaneoheSuburbanTrunkSuburbanTrunkSuburbanTrunkSuburbanTrunkSuburbanTrunkSuburbanTrunkSuburbanTrunkSuburbanTrunkSuburbanTrunkSuburbanTrunkSuburbanTrunkSuburbanTrunk88A North Shore Express Express89 Waimanalo-Kailua Express Express90 Pearl City Express Express91 Ewa Beach Express Express92 Makakilo City Express Express93 Waianae Coast Express-CBD Express94 Villages of Kapolei-Kaupea Express96 Waipio Gentry Express Express97 Village Park Express Express98 Wahiawa-Mililani Park & Ride Express98A Kunia-Wahiawa-Mililani Express101 Ewa Gentry Express ExpressPage 4-7 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULURouteRouteNumber Description Classification Number Description Classification57/57A Kailua-Waimanalo-Sea Life Park62 Honolulu-Wahiawa Heights65 Honolulu-KahaluuSuburbanTrunkSuburbanTrunkSuburbanTrunk102 Villages of Kapolei Express Express103 Paiwa-Waikele Express Express201 Waipahu via Farrington Express Express5 Ala Moana-Manoa Urban Feeder 202 Waipahu via Paiwa Express Express7 Kalihi Valley Urban Feeder 203 Kalihi via School Express Express10 Kalihi-Alewa Heights Urban Feeder 44 Waipahu-Ewa Beach14 St. Louis-Kahala-Maunalani Urban Feeder 231 Hawaii Kai-Hahaione Valley15 Makiki-Pacific Heights Urban Feeder 234 Kahala Mall-Waialae Nui16 Moanalua Valley Urban Feeder 235 Kahala Mall-Waialae Iki17 Makiki-Ala Moana Urban Feeder 401 Waianae Valley18 University-Ala Moana Urban Feeder 402 Lualualei Homestead24 Aina Haina-Ala Moana Urban Feeder 403 Nanakuli-Maili-Waianae31 Tripler-Moanalua Urban Feeder 411 Makakilo Heights32 Kalihi-Pearlridge Urban Feeder 412 Panana-KapoleiCommunityCirculatorCommunityCirculatorCommunityCirculatorCommunityCirculatorCommunityCirculatorCommunityCirculatorCommunityCirculatorCommunityCirculatorCommunityCirculator70 Lanikai-Maunawili71 Pearlridge-Newtown72 Schofield-Wahiawa-Whitmore73 Leeward Community College74 Aiea-Halawa Heights76 Waialua-Haleiwa77 Waimanalo-KaneoheSuburbanFeeder 413 Campbell Industrial ParkSuburbanFeeder 415 Kapolei Transit Center-KalaeloaSuburbanFeeder 432 East-West WaipahuSuburbanFeeder 433 Waipahu-Waikele Shopping CenterSuburbanFeeder 434 Waipahu-Village ParkSuburbanFeeder 414 Makakilo-Palahia St-KapoleiSuburbanFeeder 501 Mililani MaukaCommunityCirculatorCommunityCirculatorCommunityCirculatorCommunityCirculatorCommunityCirculatorCommunityAccessCommunityAccessPH1 Waianae Coast-Pearl Harbor Express 503 Lanunani Valley-Waipio AcresPH2 Mililani Town-Pearl Harbor Express 504 Mililani SouthCommunityAccessCommunityAccessPage 4-8 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUBus FleetCurrent FleetTheBus fixed-route fleet consists of 549 buses, of which 530 are active. 55 The active fleet iscomprised of the following bus types (further detailed on Figure 4-5 below):• 25 are 30-foot vehicles (including 15 low floor vehicles)• 12 are 35-foot vehicles• 403 are 40-foot vehicles (including 97 low floor vehicles)• 91 are 60-foot low-floor articulated buses (including 20 hybrids)Figure 4-5TheBus Vehicle InventorySeatingYear Make Propulsion Length Bus Number Series Capacity Quantity Number Active1993 TMC T70608 Conventional Diesel 35’ 51-62 35 12 121993 TMC Conventional Diesel 40’ 202-283 43 36 231994 Gillig Conventional Diesel 40’ 601-659 46 59 591995 Gillig Conventional Diesel 40’ 660-699 45 39 371995 Gillig Conventional Diesel 40’ 740-773 45 34 341996 Gillig Conventional Diesel 40’ 774-795 45 22 221997 Gillig Conventional Diesel 40’ 301-347 45 47 471998 Gillig Conventional Diesel 40’ 348-365 45 18 181998 Gillig Conventional Diesel 40’ LF 366-368 40 3 31998 Gillig 30/96 TB Conventional Diesel 30’ 40-49 29 10 102000 New Flyer Conventional Diesel 60’ LF 70-99 58 30 302000 Gillig Conventional Diesel 40’ 801-835 45 35 332001 Chance Conventional Diesel 29’ LF 30-39 23 10 92002 Gillig Conventional Diesel 40’ 836-853 45 18 182002 Chance RT-50x Conventional Diesel 29’ LF 25-29 23 5 52002 New Flyer Conventional Diesel 60’ LF 100-115 58 16 162003 Gillig Conventional Diesel 40’ 854-868 45 15 152003 New Flyer Hybrid 60’ LF 116-131 58 16 162004 Gillig Conventional Diesel 40’ LF 501-555 40 55 552004 New Flyer Hybrid 60’ LF 132-141 58 10 102006 New Flyer Hybrid 40’ LF 901-940 37 40 392007 New Flyer Clean Diesel 60’ LF 142-150 58 9 92009 New Flyer Hybrid 60’ LF 151-160 58 10 10Total Buses in Inventory 549 530LF = Low FloorSource: City and County of Honolulu/TheBus NTD FY 2009 Revision 1/14/1037 City and County of Honolulu NTD FY2009 Revision 1 1/14/10.Page 4-9 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUDTS has pursued a hybrid-electric strategy. It purchased nine clean diesel buses in 2007 at acost of $609,588 each. Ten articulated hybrid-electric buses were purchased in 2009 at a cost of$921,770 each. The hybrid propulsion system adds about $312,182 to the cost of eacharticulated vehicle. However, due to the high costs of each coach and the necessity to makesignificant progress on emissions and reducing fleet age, the strategy of purchasing hybrid busesis being revisited. The fleet can be updated more expeditiously if new technology diesel busesare purchased rather than the higher cost hybrid buses. The fixed route service requires 426vehicles operating in maximum service, which are deployed from two operating bases (Pearl Cityand Kalihi/Middle Street). 56Fleet ExpansionFigure 4-6 below is the fleet expansion plan for fiscal years 2009 – 2016. The fleet size isprojected to expand to 550 in 2016.Figure 4-6 TheBus Fleet Expansion Plan 2009-20162009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Active Fleet 531 532 535 538 541 544 543 550New Buses 10 78 38 50 50 55 40 49Source: DTS Recommended Procurement Plan for the Period FY 2009 through FY 2016.Maintenance and Transit Center FacilitiesMaintenance FacilitiesThere are two maintenance and operations facilities for fixed route vehicles: Kalihi-Middle Streetand Pearl City:• Kalihi – Middle Street Facility: This 15-acre site includes the OTS AdministrativeOffices, Maintenance Shop, Unit Repair Shop, home base for 295 buses of the fixed-routefleet, and the central communications control center and dispatch office. An additionalnine (9) acres of adjacent property were purchased for expansion.• Pearl City Bus Facility: This 21-acre site (17 of which are developed) provides space fortransportation offices, maintenance shop, vehicle storage for 235 buses of the fixed-routefleet, fueling facilities, and dispatch functions.DTS in July 2009 developed a Public Transit Facility (PTF) Master Plan that, among other things,examined the existing facilities and assessed their ability to meet the needs of the fixed-route andparatransit systems in the future. The PTF Master Plan conducted an assessment of existingtransit operations and maintenance functions. It found that current facilities were in “good generalrepair” but also operating at or above their design capacity. It described existing facility utilizationas follows:1. Kalihi-Palama: This facility operates 295 buses in a congested site with no expansioncapability.56 OTS December 09 Scheduled Information.Page 4-10 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU2. Pearl City: This site cannot be enlarged but bus parking can expand and is presentlybeing expanded from a facility with a capacity of 228 buses in 2009 to a possible capacityof 337 buses.3. TheHandi-Van Operations Facility: This new facility’s capacity is 185 to 195 vehicles.The analysis found that the two facilities that serve bus operations are important to the delivery ofefficient public transit services, but are congested and have few expansion options. Theyrecommended a number of measures that would help address current demands and likely futuredemands.1. Relocate the existing Kalihi-Palama Body and Paint Shop to Pearl City and convert thetwo bus maintenance bays that exist at Kalihi-Palama.2. Provide new fuel and wash facilities for TheHandi-Van vehicles in the southern portion ofthe Kalihi-Palama site. This action will remove the conflict between buses and TheHandi-Van vehicles, which will improve efficiency for bus and TheHandi-Van operations.3. Redevelop TheHandi-Van parking area to its maximum capacity. Projected growth inTheHandi-Van fleet necessitates this action.4. Redevelop an employee parking area at Kalihi-Palama to increase the size of the parkingarea and where possible to reduce the conflict between cars and buses on this site. Thisaction will improve bus operation efficiency and enhance safety.5. Provide for a new centralized Body and Paint facility at Pearl City. In order to accomplishthis, existing bus maintenance bays will have to be converted into body and paint bays.The master plan recommended a system wide 750 bus target capacity for facilities to meet futuredemands, based on a design standard of 250 buses per facility. This target fleet size wouldaccommodate 42 percent growth over the existing fleet level. The study noted:“In establishing the new facilities’ target capacity, the Team recommends oneapproach from a strategic view point because the high capacity rail project’simpact on public transit system remains uncertain. This impact not only relatesto fleet size but also to bus service distribution throughout Oahu and also forthe need to provide the continued assurance that the vehicle operating andmaintenance facility network will be effectively and efficiently provided while therail project and future growth impacts become understood.”The PTF study concluded that the two existing facilities do not have the capability ofaccommodating a fleet of this size and that a third fixed-route bus facility and a secondparatransit facility (in addition to Kalihi) would be required for Honolulu’s public transit system.Page 4-11 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUTransit CentersThe system operates eight transit centers. Together they span much of the island’s geographicarea and provide a central location where customers have the ability to conveniently transferbetween routes. While some centrally located centers, like the Ala Moana Center, have been inoperation for many years, other centers in the suburbs are the direct result of land opportunityand the hub-and-spoke service design strategy. Developed over many years, the eight transitcenters offer varying levels of passenger amenities and completion. Figure 4-7 in the followingpages summarizes the features associated with each center currently in operation, which include:• Ala Moana • Kapolei (temporary)• Alapai • Mililani• Hawaii Kai • Waianae• Kalihi • WaipahuFigure 4-7Transit Center FacilitiesAla Moana CenterAn off-street center and the system’smost utilized transit center, Ala Moana iscollocated with a regional shopping mall.It serves as a terminus for numeroustransit routes.Routes Serving Bays/Buses Daily BoardingsRapid Bus: C, EUrban Trunk: 6, 8, 19, 20Suburban Trunk: 23, 40/40A, 42, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57/57A, 62, 65Urban Feeder: 5, 17, 18, 24Express: 88, 88A, 98A5 (inside mall)4 (on street)7,553Page 4-12 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUAlapai Transit CenterOff-street terminal with center islandpassenger area.Amenities include large passengershelters with benches and restrooms(portable).Routes Serving Bays/Buses Daily BoardingsRapid Bus: A, CUrban Trunk: 3, 4, 9 – Urban Feeder: 15Suburban Trunk: 11, 40/40A, 42, 43, 52, 53, 54, 62Express: 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 84A, 85A, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 96,97, 98, 98A, 101, 102, 1034 (inside facility)1 (on street)2,440Hawaii Kai Park & RideAn off street facility with a park & ride andbus waiting zones.Amenities include passenger shelters withbenches.Routes Serving Bays/Buses Daily BoardingsUrban Trunk: 1, 1LSuburban Trunk: 23Express: 80, 80A, 82, PH6Community Circulator: 2316 (inside facility)1 (on street)239Page 4-13 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUKalihi Transit CenterAn off-street facility adjacent tomaintenance yard. Amenities includepassenger shelters with benches,restrooms, lighting, and a bus pass andinformation center. The IntermodalCenter Master Plan will provide additionalpassenger amenities.The city is currently constructing a new$8.2 million Middle Street Transit Centerat Middle Street and KamehamehaHighway. It will be one component for theMiddle Street Intermodal Center. A 1,000-stall parking structure to cost an estimated$50 million is also planned.The facility will include bays for stagingbuses, electronic informational boards todisplay bus schedules, a customer servicecenter, two restrooms, a utility buildingand a security office.Routes Serving Bays/Buses Daily BoardingsRapid Bus: A, BUrban Trunk: 1, 2Suburban Trunk: 43Urban Feeder: 16, 31, 32Express: 2034 (inside facility) 2,834Page 4-14 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUKapolei Transit Center (temporary)A temporary on-street transit center alongHaumea Street between Uluohia andWakea Streets has replaced the formeroff-street facility located approximatelyone block away, to allow construction of anew set of ramps to H-1.The new Kapolei Transit Center isawaiting the design of the Kapolei Wakeatransit station.Source: Bing MapsRoutes Serving Bays/Buses Daily BoardingsRapid Bus: CSuburban Trunk: 40/40A, 41Community Circulator: 411, 412, 413, 415Community Access: 4145 (on street) 512Mililani Transit CenterAn off-street facility that opened in 2007.Amenities include a passenger islandplatform, kiss-and-ride drop off location,large passenger shelters with benches,restrooms, lighting, community room, andan elevator for ADA accessibility to thenearby shopping center.Routes Serving Bays/Buses Daily BoardingsSuburban Trunk: 52Express: 84A, 98ACommunity Access: 501, 503, 5047 (inside facility) 190Page 4-15 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUWaianae Transit CenterAn off-street facility that opened in 2007.Features include a center passengerisland, large passenger shelters withbenches, and lighting. A park-and-ride lotwith 100 spaces will be developed in afuture phase.Source: Bing MapsRoutes Serving Bays/Buses Daily BoardingsRapid Bus: CSuburban Trunk: 40/40AExpress: 93, PH1Community Circulator: 401, 402, 4037 (inside facility) 308Waipahu Transit CenterAn on-street transfer facility.Features include large passengershelters, benches, extensive lighting,restrooms, and six large bus bays.Routes Serving Bays/Buses Daily BoardingsRapid Bus: A, ESuburban Trunk: 40/40A, 42, 43Express: 201Community Circulator: 432, 433, 4346 (on street) 3,087Page 4-16 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUPark-and-Ride LotsDTS has established five park-and-ride lots with a total of 529 spaces. Figure 4-8 belowdescribes each park-and-ride facility. Existing facilities are located on the eastern end of Honoluluin Hawaii Kai and along Highway 99 (Kamehameha Hwy) on Waipahu, Mililani, Wahiawa, andHaleiwa.Figure 4-8LocationHawaii Kai Park-and-Ride240 Keahole StreetHonolulu, HawaiiTheBus Park-and-Ride FacilitiesParkingSpaces134StatusMililani Mauka Park-and-Ride95-1101 Ukuwai StreetMililani, Hawaii 96789Royal Kunia Park-and-Ride94-640 Kupuohi StreetWaipahu, HawaiiWahiawa Park-and-RideHawaii National Guard Facility across fromWheeler Air Force BaseHaleiwa Park-and-RideLocated at Waialua CommunityAssociation Facility in Haleiwa Town176 Expandable to 457 spaces. Master Plan completedin 2003 recommended alternative site plan.14950 Executed shared use agreement with HawaiiNational Guard Facility. No cost to the City.20 Executed shared use agreement with WaialuaCommunity Association. Agreed to pave andmaintain stalls designated for park-and-ride use.In the near future, Kapolei and Ewa are planned to accommodate new growth in residential,commercial, and institutional development. This growth will also be spurred by the construction offixed guideway transit in the area with stations planned in East Kapolei, the University of HawaiiWest Oahu Campus, Hoopili, and the Pearl Harbor West Loch. New park-and-ride capacity isbeing planned in conjunction with two stations. The new capacity will certainly influence the modeof access to fixed guideway transit in the future and the structure of the transit system in the area,once the system is completed from Kapolei to Honolulu. The system is currently planned to startoperating in late 2018 or early 2019.TheBus Fare StructureFares for TheBus are set by the City and County of Honolulu City Council. By policy, fares arerequired to pay for between 27 and 33 percent of TheBus operations. Current bus fares are setin the Revised Ordinances of Honolulu; Chapter 13 Public Transit. 57 New fares went into effectduring July 2009 and again in July 2010. These are shown in Figure 4-9 below.57 City and County of Honolulu web site address: http://www.co.honolulu.hi.us/refs/roh/13.htm.Page 4-17 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUFigure 4-9TheBus Fare StructureFare CategoryJuly2010July2009Effective Date of Fare StructureOctober2003July2003July2001July1995Adult $2.50 $2.25 $2.00 $1.75 $1.50 $1.00Youth $1.25 $1.00 $1.00 $0.75 $0.75 $0.50Senior/Disabled $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $0.75 $0.75 $0.50Transfer $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Monthly Adult Pass $60.00 $50.00 $40.00 $30.00 $27.00 $25.00Monthly Youth Pass $30.00 $25.00 $20.00 $13.50 $13.50 $12.50Monthly Senior/Disabled $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 NA NA NAAnnual Adult Pass $660.00 $550.00 $440.00 NA NA NAAnnual Youth Pass $330.00 $275.00 $220.00 NA NA NAAnnual Senior/Disabled $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $25.00* $25.00* $20.00*NA = Not Applicable – new fare categories introduced in October 2003. Prior to October 2003, seniors and disabledpassengers were offered a two-year transit pass. Source: City and County of Honolulu records.Current transfer policy allows each customer to receive one transfer for no additional fee onboarding when paying with a cash fare. The transfer is valid for a two-hour period and may onlybe used once. Passengers paying cash and requiring a third bus to reach their destination needto pay another cash-fare. A visitor pass offering unlimited use for four (4) consecutive days isavailable for $25. A University Student Discount Bus Pass (UPASS) program was inaugurated inAugust 2005 offering college students a semester pass at a discount. This pass costs $100 to$125 depending upon the institution. To date, sixteen (16) higher education institutions havejoined the UPASS program.Figure 4-10 summarizes ridership by fare category during 2009. The chart shows that cash-farepassengers represent only 16 percent of riders. More than 40 percent of riders use an AdultPass, and about 27 percent of riders use a Senior/Disabled Pass. U-Pass and Youth passesrepresent only 9 percent of the system. In all about 80 percent of riders use a pass. 58 Thenumber of transfers that occur in the system is unknown as paper transfers represent a marginalsample of the fare transactions in the system.58 Trailing Twelve Month GFI Route Cost-Effectiveness Report for December 2009. This is an unaudited report that isbased upon GFI farebox calculations. As such, it is not entirely consistent with other published data but provides abasis for considering ridership by fare category.Page 4-18 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUFigure 4-10Ridership by Fare CategoryTransferPassengers6.9%StadiumExpress 0.0%OtherPassengers0.4%4‐DayPasses 0.5%U PassSticker 2.3%CashPassengers16.3%Adult Pass40.6%Senior/DisabledPass 26.5%Youth Pass6.5%Fixed Route OperationsFigure 4-11 on the next page summarizes system-wide operating statistics for FY 2000 throughFY 2009 based on TheBus annual performance reports submitted to the National TransitDatabase (NTD). During this period:• Service levels (revenue hours and revenue miles) increased by about twelve percent andeight percent respectively. A slightly higher increase in revenue hours suggests that thesystem is losing operating speed.• Average speed decreased by about four percent in the period from 13.7 to 13.2 miles perhour, most likely due to increased traffic congestion. This has had an impact in the overallproductivity and efficiency of the system.• Total operating expenses increased by about 59 percent.• Although ridership has only increased by about 16 percent, overall revenues increased byalmost 57 percent. This is explained mostly by increases in fares (as shown in Figure 4-9above) to offset expenses.• Passengers’ average trip length and average loads increased by 13 and 21 percent,respectively. People are traveling farther when they ride. Combined with overall ridershipgrowth, this is increasing the average load on buses.Page 4-19 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUFigure 4-11TheBus System Operating StatisticsService Operated 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Percent Change(2000 - 2009)Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours* 1,245,021 1,339,604 1,350,609 1,349,590 1,218,486 1,365,082 1,344,221 1,354,565 1,375,600 1,398,821 12.4%Annual Total Service (Platform) Hours 1,345,000 1,415,000 1,473,877 1,474,365 1,332,148 1,492,857 1,471,177 1,481,567 1,510,600 1,525,269 13.4%Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles* 17,066,511 18,568,681 18,674,279 18,331,577 16,530,804 18,388,911 18,019,030 17,923,724 18,471,800 18,462,001 8.2%Annual Total Service (Platform) Miles 21,732,000 22,966,000 21,800,354 21,482,533 19,380,256 21,558,149 21,166,957 21,075,502 21,536,700 21,502,932 -1.1%Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service* 431 442 427 427 425 416 415 424 439 439 1.9%Vehicles Available for Maximum Service* 509 529 525 525 525 525 525 531 532 531 4.3%Passenger BoardingsAnnual Unlinked Trips* 66,602,820 70,384,025 73,524,474 69,100,627 61,297,980 67,406,827 70,384,355 71,749,456 69,759,900 77,329,670 16.1%Annual Passenger Miles* 309,099,919 351,624,017 313,831,301 302,238,898 267,648,544 291,109,916 318,371,265 316,939,301 301,159,500 405,039,626 31.0%ExpensesTotal Operating Expenses* $ 103,906,748 $ 112,701,457 $ 114,075,121 $ 119,674,261 $ 118,938,461 $ 127,068,678 $ 137,935,534 $ 142,867,394 $ 154,331,288 $ 165,078,95258.9%Total Capital Expenses* (NTD Capital Fundi $ 25,488,391 $ 23,470,070 $ 32,979,852 $ 20,609,550 $ 35,286,488 $ 8,924,626 $ 970,866 $ 20,202,343 $ 7,554,400 $ 11,228,062-55.9%Operating RevenuesFare Revenues* $ 27,055,656 $ 26,963,518 $ 30,602,648 $ 30,114,566 $ 33,652,238 $ 39,925,419 41,531,437 41,742,352 41,984,132 42,454,923 56.9%System Speed (Rev Miles/Rev Hours) 13.7 13.9 13.8 13.6 13.6 13.5 13.4 13.2 13.4 13.2 -3.7%Pass/Rev Hour 53.5 52.5 54.4 51.2 50.3 49.4 52.4 53.0 50.7 55.3 3.3%Average Load (Pass Miles/Rev Miles) 18.1 18.9 16.8 16.5 16.2 15.8 17.7 17.7 16.3 21.9 21.1%Average Trip Length (Pass Miles/Pass) 4.6 5.0 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.4 4.3 5.2 12.9%Source: Annual National Transit Database Reports.Note 1: A strike in 2004 affected reported ridership.Note 2: The annual ridership numbers are derived through an FTA approved sampling plan that is designed to achieve an annual ridership number within a 95%confidence limit and 10% precision. It is not an absolute number; rather the singular number is a representation of a range of numbers. The annual ridership figuresreported have a 95% probability of being plus or minus 10% from the actual number. For example, in 2009 this means there is a 95% probability the real annual ridershipnumber is between 69,596,703 and 85,062,637.Therefore, annual variations expressed in these numbers should be considered approximate and not absolute changes inridership.Page 4-20 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUmonthly reports for fixed-route services and for paratransit services are prepared. In addition, anextensive set of performance data maintained by OTS is accessible to PTD staff electronically.As of November 2009, the following performance goals have been established for the fixed-routeservice network as a whole.Figure 4-12Performance GoalsPerformance MeasureGoalAverage Weekday Boardings 60 235,000Schedule Adherence (June 2010 Goal) 61 >68%Percent Early Operation (June 2010 Goal) 1.5Operator Sick Leave 85%Spare Ratio 50%Maintenance Overtime

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUPerformance MeasureGoalComplaints about Poor Operator Attitude/100,000 Trips

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUUsing farebox data, the system has traditionally reported route performance using a number ofinformal measures including passengers per hour (productivity), miles per hour (system speed),revenue per passenger, cost per passenger, subsidy per passenger, and percentage of tripsoperating on schedule. Routes have also been subdivided into route categories so that theperformance of routes with similar operating characteristics may be compared.Figure 4-14 below summarizes the average weekday performance of these eight servicecategories during the fall of 2009. The table shows that the majority of passengers carried in thesystem utilize Urban and Suburban Trunk and Rapid Bus routes totaling over 86 percent of thesystem ridership. These service categories also post the highest productivity averages in thesystem at 74, 47, and 64 passengers per revenue hour.In relation to average operating speeds, Urban Trunk and Feeder routes are the slowest at 9 to11 miles per hour, and Peak Express routes are the highest at 22 miles per hour. SuburbanTrunk and Feeder routes operate at higher speeds than urban routes at 14 to 16 miles per hour,while Rapid Bus routes which operate at both urban and suburban environments post an averageof 15 miles per hour. Cost per passenger boarding is highest on Suburban Feeder services at$7.04 per passenger, and lowest on Urban Trunk services at only $1.30 per passenger.Figure 4-14 Weekday Route Performance by Service Category (Dec 2008 – Dec 2009)CategoryNumber ofRoutesPercent ofRidersPassengersper HourMilesper HourRevenue perPassengerCost perPassengerRapid Bus 4 15.3% 63.8 14.5 $0.66 $2.35Urban Trunk 11 44.9% 74.3 9.0 $0.63 $1.30Urban Feeder 11 5.1% 41.1 11.0 $0.62 $2.86Suburban Trunk 16 26.1% 46.5 15.6 $0.71 $3.32Suburban Feeder 7 0.9% 29.3 13.8 $0.73 $7.04Community Circulator 14 3.1% 34.0 13.5 $0.60 $2.96Peak Express 33 4.6% 38.8 21.3 $0.71 $3.92System Total 96 100.0% 55.3 13.1 $0.66 $2.13Source: APC counts of boarding passengers, adjusted to be consistent with NTD reports, and GFI Route CostEffectiveness Report for Dec. 2009.Ongoing Service Improvement ProgramOne contributing element of the SRTP will be the establishment of measures that allow theongoing monitoring, evaluation, and modification of services to improve the performance ofindividual routes and the system overall. The goal is to establish policies and procedures that areconsistent throughout the system, while allowing for consideration of the unique operatingcharacteristics of individual services and neighborhood areas.This program will provide DTS with a systematic method for implementing remedial serviceimprovements. It will need to be understandable by the public while being viewed by policymakers as unbiased and systematic. While it may not eliminate all controversy from servicePage 4-24 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUchanges, especially service reductions, it will provide a systematic basis for makingrecommendations that is consistent throughout the entire service area.By law, any significant service change needs to include both a Title VI and Environmental Justiceanalysis to determine whether services provide equal access and mobility for any person,including disadvantaged populations, without regard to race, ethnicity, or national origin.Accordingly, any consideration that potential service changes will have on affected populationgroups needs to be part of the service improvement program’s policies and methodology.Peer Systems BenchmarkingA performance audit that was released in 2009 contained a peer system review that illustratessystem performance relative to other large transit systems. While this information is derived fromother studies, it highlights system performance and illustrates the agency’s standing among othersimilarly sized systems. Twelve systems were chosen as peers:1. Alameda-Contra Costa County Transit District (AC Transit)2. Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART)3. Denver Regional Transportation District (Denver RTD)4. King County Metro Transit Division (Metro)5. Long Beach Transit6. Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)7. Sacramento Regional Transit District8. San Diego Metropolitan Transit District (San Diego MTS)9. San Mateo County Transit District (SAMTRANS)10. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)11. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon12. Utah Transit Authority (UTA)Data used in this assessment were taken from the National Transit Database (NTD). Figure 4-15summarizes several key operational attributes for Honolulu’s transit services during 2006 andcompares it with the peer systems.These data show that while the population and square miles of Honolulu are significantly smallerthan the average of the peer systems, ridership and passenger miles are significantly higher thanthe average of the peers. At the same time, Honolulu’s operating expenses are 14 percent lowerthan the average and the estimated operating subsidy is 26 percent lower than the average. Inshort, Honolulu carries 63 percent more passengers at the same service levels as its peers, and itis less costly to operate than its peers, with 14 percent lower total costs.A selection of measures of effectiveness is illustrated in Figure 4-16. Effectiveness, as used here,refers generally to the response of the market as measured by ridership per unit of service. Thistends to reflect the combined effectiveness of service planning and design, pricing, marketing,and system safety, reliability, and convenience. The context for evaluating service effectivenessmust also include a comparison of the population density of the service area and other modes ofservice available. The Honolulu metro area is about 20 percent less densely populated than thePage 4-25 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUaverage of the peer group metro areas, which tends to reduce the viability of the transit market ofHonolulu compared to the peer systems.In addition, several of the peer systems operate in areas with other modes of transit availablefrom other transit systems. These other modes include light rail, heavy rail, commuter rail, andferries. The fact that the Honolulu system only consists of fixed-route bus and paratransit servicesgenerally works in its favor in these comparisons.The performance audit went on to calculate several key ratios that illustrate a system’s ability toeffectively serve local residents. Figure 4-16 illustrates several key factors that will stronglyinfluence the SRTP. First, the system, as illustrated by rides per capita, is much more intensivelyused by residents than its peer systems. Dividing total boardings by the service area population,each Honolulu resident would ride TheBus more than 80 times a year on average. This is nearlythree times the average of the peer systems. Moreover, the system approaches twice theproductivity (passengers per hour) of its peers.Page 4-26 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUFigure 4-15Comparison of Key Operating Statistics – Peer Cities and TheBusTopic (2006 numbers) Peer Average TheBus TheBus vs. PeersService area population 1,600,763 876,156 54.7%Service area square miles 747 277 37.1%Passenger trips 43,306,361 70,384,355 162.5%Passenger miles 185,655,614 318,371,265 171.5%Vehicle miles 20,786,182 21,166,957 101.8%Revenue miles 17,242,669 18,019,030 104.5%Vehicle hours 1,507,727 1,471,177 97.6%Revenue hours 1,337,793 1,344,221 100.5%Route miles 1,382 920 66.6%Passenger fares (estimated) 30,751,329 42,934,457 139.6%Operating expense 159,891,920 137,935,534 86.3%Estimated operating subsidy 129,140,591 95,001,077 73.6%Full time equivalent employees 1,395 1,387 99.4%Operating FTEs 938 1,012 107.9%Maintenance FTEs 284 280 98.6%Administrative FTEs 164 94 57.3%Available vehicles 547 532 97.3%Peak vehicles 437 439 100.5%Gallons of diesel fuel consumed 6,172,438 6,155,818 99.7%Figure 4-16Comparison of System Effectiveness – Peer Cities and TheBusMeasure (2006 numbers) Peer Average TheBus TheBus vs. PeersSpeed (mph) 13.54 14.4 106.2%Route miles per square mile 3.29 3.32 100.9%Revenue hours per capita 0.99 1.68 170.2%Rides per capita 28.6 80.3 280.9%Population density per sq. mile 3,916 3,163 80.8%Average trip length 4.28 4.52 105.7%Rides per revenue hour 27.97 47.84 171.1%Rides per revenue mile 2.53 3.91 154.6%Page 4-27 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUService Design PrinciplesTheBus operates a complex network of fixed-route transit services in the City and County ofHonolulu, comprised of eight different service modes or categories, serving a variety ofneighborhoods and trip purposes. Parts of the island are densely urbanized, boasting populationand employment densities well in excess of 50 people/jobs per acre, mostly in Honolulu. Otherparts are mostly rural, with little development, but depend on Honolulu for many of their dailyneeds. As such, the transit system attracts significant numbers of commuters during rush hoursbut also it provides mobility to residents on a broader variety of trips throughout the day and theweekend. In addition, the system caters to visitors of the island and supports the tourist industry.To meet these varied operating environments and customer demands, TheBus operates a varietyof routes and services: Rapid Bus, Urban Trunk, Urban Feeder, Suburban Trunk, SuburbanFeeder, Peak Express, Community Circulator and Community Access routes. Each has a distinctpurpose and is designed to serve specific transportation need and market.In observing the operations of the system and its environment, our team has identified a commonset of “design principles” that appear to guide the system’s development and its response tocustomer needs and service requests. While some principles, such as the hub-and spokenetwork,are formalized in adopted policy documents, others have grown up with the system.Virtually all principles are evolving as the island community changes. These are certainly notrigid rules and exceptions to each can probably be identified in the system. Still, they do providea uniform design philosophy that has allowed TheBus services to grow and prosper. The nextsection summarizes observed and documented service design principles.TheBus Observed Service Design Principles1. Service AccessibilityTransit services should be available within convenient walking distance of every urbanizedneighborhood on the island.How the Principle Is EvolvingThis remains a system goal. As new development occurs, the system is increasingly challengedwhen attempting to serve these new developments. Strategies that have been employed include:• Mid route deviations to serve the new development (for example: Route 1L deviation inHawaii Kai).• The extension of existing routes.• Creation of new routes or branches (for example: Route 41 in Kapolei and Ewa Beach).2. Competitive/Comparable Travel TimesProvide travel times that compete effectively with private autos. While no formal standardexists, the system appears to try to provide point-to-point travel times that are no more than 1½ to 2 times auto travel times for the same trip. Several strategies have traditionally beenemployed to accomplish this principle:• Provide a one-seat ride (no transfers required) for most urban and suburban trunk routesto Downtown Honolulu.Page 4-28 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU• Provide a timed-transfer connection to a trunk route at suburban transit centers for feederand circulator routes.• Provide express bus services to Downtown during peak hours.• Provide limited-stop service routes (rapid bus service), linking Downtown with suburbanneighborhoods, that utilize the freeway network and/or major arterial streets.• Provide transit priority features on freeways.• Consolidate bus stops to speed travel along routes.• Utilize Hotel Street as a bus-only street.How the Principle Is EvolvingThis remains a system priority. Since 2000 the system has been moving away from the conceptof one-seat rides. In its place, TheBus has established a series of transit centers that featurelocal feeder routes connecting to the rapid bus and suburban trunk routes. No consistentpriorities have yet emerged for situations when a forced transfer increases total customer traveltime but allows the more efficient deployment of vehicles.With the emergence of rapid bus routes, which are fed by suburban feeder services, the futurerole of the express service network has not been fully articulated. It may be that some expressroutes can be consolidated into the rapid bus network.3. Service ReliabilityMaintain schedule reliability. The current goal is 68 percent on time by June 2010. Longer term,the system is working to increase this goal to 70% percent.How the Principle Is EvolvingThe speed and timeliness of transit services is emerging as a major system issue. Numerousstrategies have been employed, all with the goal of speeding bus travel, but the average systemspeed has been declining for at least ten years. The system is now considering transit signalpriority and more stop consolidations and/or skip stop operations in attempts to reverse this trend.4. Service ProductivityMaintain or increase system productivity (passengers per revenue hour). To accomplish this goalthe system has so far:• Implemented numerous service improvements that are designed to increase ridership,including creation of the rapid bus network and redesign of Route 1 to increase operatingspeeds and reliability.• Deployed articulated buses to increase capacity on major routes, maintaining headways,thus effectively increasing the vehicle carrying capacity of the systemHow the Principle Is EvolvingAgency staff views the system’s remarkable productivity is the product of many programs andservice improvements. However, it is not clear whether service performance standards and amonitoring system to measure overcrowding, load, and headway maintenance exist along urbanPage 4-29 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUcorridors experiencing the heaviest passenger demand and service delay, and whether aconsistent set of guidelines for action and response have been developed or implemented.5. Support Visitors Travel and the Tourism IndustryFacilitate visitor travel to Downtown Honolulu and other major tourist destinations. Many of thepriorities outlined above are intended to advance this goal:• Provide links to significant tourist destinations.• Service linking the airport with Waikiki.• Circle island route on the North Shore.• Service to beaches and other tourist attractions (such as Hanauma Bay and the Sea LifePark).How the Principle Is EvolvingThis remains a priority. The agency continues to struggle with the relative demand and priority oftourist-oriented services relative to other markets.6. Service Expansion StandardsDevelop standards for service expansion that are warranted by proven passenger demand.How the Principle Is EvolvingRidership has grown so fast that the system has not been able to keep pace. Many of its majorcorridors and routes experience overcrowding issues that necessitate increases in carryingcapacity through more frequent service, higher capacity vehicles or both. The high capacitytransit project is one of several initiatives that work to expand capacity along key travel corridorsin the future. An analysis of capacity constraints in its major travel corridors and strategies toimprove their operation appears to be needed in the short term.Page 4-30 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUChapter 5. Route Service PerformanceThis chapter focuses on the performance of individual routes throughout the system, as well ason ways they are integrated to function as a comprehensive system. It begins with a discussionof the levels of service operated on individual routes, by time of day and day of week, followed bya section summarizing passenger activity trends in the system and at the route level. The finalsection develops an analysis of service effectiveness and productivity by service category andservice subarea.A great amount of individual route data was compiled and analyzed during the preparation of thischapter. Much of it has allowed the project team to gain a broader understanding of the networkof TheBus fixed-route services. A detailed profile of each route’s performance and operation hasnot been included, as it is not pertinent to the SRTP itself. However, a summary of passengeractivity at each bus stop on the system’s most significant routes has been included in AppendixB. These summaries are accompanied by boarding and alighting maps for each route in thesystem. Together they provide a visual summary of route operations and a solid basis for theservice analyses that will be performed in the project’s next phases.Route Service LevelsFigure 5-1 summarizes weekday service levels for TheBus by service category. Appendix Afurther details levels of service by route. A peak fleet of 426 buses operate a total of 4,077 dailytrips, each lasting a bit more than one hour on average.Figure 5-1Service Levels by Route ClassificationTotalTripsRevenueHoursDeadheadHoursRevenueMilesDeadheadMilesRapid Bus 399 569 29 8,087 744Urban Trunk 1,212 1,434 82 12,445 1,430Urban Feeder 540 293 22 3,173 323Suburban Trunk 950 1,333 147 21,407 3,516Community Circulator 556 217 10 2,795 343Suburban Feeder 183 76 5 1,037 160Express 237 281 182 6,110 4,662Total 4,077 4,203 477 55,054 11,178Source: TheBus service summary data for January 16, 2010 service changeWhile express routes consume nearly one-quarter of the system’s peak fleet, they operate lessthan 7 percent of the system’s revenue hours and 11 percent of the revenue miles. Mostnoteworthy, express routes consume more than 40 percent of all deadhead miles. This isbecause most express trips require a different pull-out. Conversely, while Rapid Bus, UrbanTrunk, and Urban Feeder routes utilize about one-third of the peak fleet, they consume nearly 55percent of revenue hours. Buses are out making many more trips throughout the day.Page 5-1 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUSystem RidershipDuring the year that ended in December 2009, TheBus fixed route services carried about77,329,670 passengers. 62 This annual ridership figure translates into an average of about237,000 passengers in the system on a typical weekday. Ridership on weekend days is about172,000 on Saturday and 142,000 passengers on Sunday. Figure 5-2 below summarizes annualridership for the years 2000 through 2009 based on NTD report data.Figure 5-2TheBus Annual RidershipUnlinked Passenger Boardings80,000,00075,000,000Annual Boardings70,000,00065,000,00060,000,00055,000,00050,000,0002000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Fiscal YearSource: NDT Data Reports.While TheBus is truly an island-wide system, the overwhelming majority of passenger activityoccurs inside the urban core extending from Waipahu and Pearl City to Waikiki. Figure 5-3 andFigure 5-4 (on the following pages) illustrate recorded boarding activity by bus stop for the entiresystem, for a typical weekday. Each small circle on the map indicates a bus stop location. Thelarger the circle, the more people get on a bus at that stop.62 Source: 2009 NTD Report, which is based upon a statistically valid sample of total ridership. This annual total isemployed throughout this report. Daily and route level totals have been adjusted to be consistent with this annual total.While it constitutes the system’s ‘official’ ridership, agency staff believe it somewhat overstates actual ridership. Theannual ridership number is derived through an FTA approved sampling plan that is designed to achieve an annualridership number within a 95% confidence limit and 10% precision. It is not an absolute number; rather the singularnumber is a representation of a range of numbers. The annual ridership figures reported have a 95% probability ofbeing plus or minus 10% from the actual number. For example, in 2009 this means there is a 95% probability the realannual ridership number is between 69,596,703 and 85,062,637.Therefore annual variations expressed in thesenumbers should be considered approximate and not absolute changes in ridership.Page 5-2 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUOutside the urban core, there is major passenger boarding activity along Makaha and Waianae,Makakilo and Kapolei, Ewa Beach, Wahiawa and Mililani, and Kaneohe, Kailua and Waimanalo.Persistent but much smaller passenger boarding activity occurs on the Circle Island services,along the North Shore and Laie. Also, significant activity is recorded in Hawaii Kai and HanaumaBay. As noted in Chapter 2: Service Area Description, the biggest concentration of people andemployment opportunities occur in Downtown Honolulu, Ala Moana and Waikiki and so themajority of boardings and service hours are devoted to this area and part of the system.Figure 5-4 shows boarding activity per stop within the urban core area. Major passenger activityin Honolulu is concentrated in Chinatown and Downtown, the Ala Moana Center, Waikiki, and theUniversity of Hawaii at Manoa.Page 5-3 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUThis page intentionally left blank.Page 5-4 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUAs opposed to Honolulu, passenger boarding activity around Pearl Harbor occurs mostly alongthe corridor circling the harbor – formed by Highway 76 and 99, which provides distribution andconnecting services to most neighborhoods and communities, in a hub-and-spoke and/or trunkand-feederpattern. In Honolulu, the passenger activity pattern is neatly organized along majorstreet corridors including major east-west corridors such as King, Beretania, School, Dillingham,Ala Moana, Kapiolani, Kapahulu, and Waialae, and also significant north-south corridors such asKalihi/Likelike Highway, Liliha, Nuuanu/Pali Highway, and University.As seen in the boarding maps and in the population and employment density maps, most peoplereside, work, study, and shop in Honolulu, thus drawing most trips to Downtown and majoractivity centers (Chinatown, Ala Moana Center, Waikiki, and University of Hawaii) from all overthe island. Most fixed-route services are designed to provide these connections on a single trip(or one-seat ride) from as far away as Makaha, Wahiawa, Waimanalo or Kaneohe. Most of theseservices travel in Honolulu along the same transit corridors listed above.Route by route boarding and alighting activity was collected and analyzed for the entire system.Appendix C at the end of this report provides weekday boarding activity maps (by direction oftravel) for each route in the system. In addition, detailed loading profiles were developed for thetop 30 largest routes in the system (Appendix B). Two loading profile samples are included in thefigures below:Figure 5-5Route 3, Daily Passenger Activity and LoadRoute 3 Eastbound ‐ Daily Passenger Activity and Load per Stop8002,0006001,5004001,000Aligtings/Boardings2000‐2005000‐500Load‐400‐1,000‐600‐1,500‐800LIKINI ST OPP ALA AKULIKULIKINI ST ALA AWAPUHI PLLIKINI ST ALA ALOALO STLIKINI ST 4613LIKINI ST 4557WANAKA ST LIKINI STWANAKA ST MIKO STWANAKA ST MALUNA STPUUKU MAUKA DR WANAKA STALA ALOALO ST PUUKU MAUKAALA ALOALO ST LIKINI STLIKINI ST OPP ALA AWAPUHILIKINI ST ALA ILIMA STLIKINI ST ALA LAULANI STALA ILIMA ST ALA MAILE PLALA ILIMA ST ALA NIOI PLALA ILIMA ST ALA NAPUAA PALA ILIMA ST ALA NAPUNANIPUKOLOA ST MAPUNAPUNA STAHUA ST KIKOWAENA STVINEYARD BL PALAMA STVINEYARD BL PUA LNVINEYARD BL LILIHA STLILIHA ST N KING STRIVER ST N HOTEL STRIVER ST N BERETANIA STN BERETANIA ST OPP AALA SN KING ST N BERETANIA STN HOTEL ST RIVER STN HOTEL ST SMITH STS HOTEL ST BETHEL STS HOTEL ST BISHOP STS HOTEL ST ALAKEA STS HOTEL ST RICHARDS STS KING ST PUNCHBOWL STKAPIOLANI BL SOUTH STKAPIOLANI BL COOKE STKAPIOLANI BL WARD AVEKAPIOLANI BL KAMAKEE STKAPIOLANI BL PIIKOI STKAPIOLANI BL KONA IKI STKAPIOLANI BL KEEAUMOKU STKAPIOLANI BL MAHUKONA STKAPIOLANI BL ATKINSON DRKAPIOLANI BL KALAKAUA AVEKAPIOLANI BL MCCULLY STKAPIOLANI BL OPP PAANI STKAPIOLANI BL OPP ISENBERGKAPIOLANI BL UNIVERSITY AKAPIOLANI BL DATE STDATE ST KAPIOLANI BLDATE ST LAAU STDATE ST OPP OLOKELE AVEDATE ST OPP LUKEPANE AVEDATE ST OPP EKELA AVEDATE ST OPP PALANI AVEDATE ST KAPAHULU AVEMOOHEAU AVE WINAM AVEMOOHEAU AVE 6TH AVEMAUNALOA AVE 7TH AVEMAUNALOA AVE 9TH AVE9TH AVE KILAUEA AVEKILAUEA AVE 11TH AVEKILAUEA AVE POKOLE STMAKAPUU AVE MAUNALEI AVEMAKAPUU AVE ALOHEA AVEDIAMOND HEAD RD OPP KAPIODIAMOND HEAD RD MAKAPUU ‐ EOLDIAMOND HEAD RD OPP 18TH18TH AVE DIAMOND HEAD RD18TH AVE KILAUEA AVE18TH AVE MAUNALOA AVE18TH AVE KAIMUKI AVE18TH AVE PAHOA AVEPAHOA AVE 16TH AVEPAHOA AVE 13TH AVEKOKO HEAD AVE WAIALAE AV ‐ EOL‐2,000Boardings Alightings LoadSource: Automated passenger counts for the fall of 2009.Page 5-7 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULURoute 3 above travels from Salt Lake to Kapiolani Community College via the H-1 Freeway toDowntown Honolulu, and via Kapiolani and Date to the Community College. The daily passengeractivity chart shows that ridership turns over several times throughout the route. The bars on thechart represent the daily level of boarding and alighting activity at each stop. The black load linerepresents the daily sum of all riders on every trip at that point along the route. Major pick-up anddrop-off locations along the route include Liliha and King, River and Hotel, Bishop and Hotel,Punchbowl and King, and Kapiolani and Keeaumoku. The single major deboarding locationoccurs at the Community College. This pattern suggests a combination of long trips from SaltLake to KCC, and shorter trips between Salt Lake and Chinatown or Downtown, but also betweenChinatown/Downtown and Ala Moana Center, and between Ala Moana Center and KCC. Insummary, it reflects the variety of the on and off activity, and of transit trips, that occurs alongeach of the major transit corridors in Honolulu.Figure 5-6Route 42, Daily Passenger Activity and LoadRoute 42 Eastbound ‐ Daily Passenger Activity and Load per Stop3001,5002001,000Aligtings/Boardings10005000Load‐100‐500‐200FORT WEAVER RD OPP KUHINAKUHINA ST OPP PAILANI STKUHINA ST OPP AHONA STHANAKAHI ST KAUIKI STHANAKAHI ST NORTH RDNORTH RD OPP KILAHA STNORTH RD FORT WEAVER RDEWA BEACH TRANSIT CENTERFORT WEAVER RD KUHINA STWAIPAHU TRANSIT CENTER E ‐ EOLFORT WEAVER RD KEAUNUI DRFORT WEAVER RD KOLOWAKA DFORT WEAVER RD OPP EWA FAFORT WEAVER RD LAULAUNUIFARRINGTON HWY PUPUKAHI SFARRINGTON HWY OPP ANIANIFARRINGTON HWY OPP MOKUOLFARRINGTON HWY WAIPIO POIFARRINGTON HWY WAIAWA RDKAMEHAMEHA HWY OPP WAIMANKAMEHAMEHA HWY OPP PUU POKAMEHAMEHA HWY H‐1 FWYKAMEHAMEHA HWY KALUAMOI PKAMEHAMEHA HWY HEKAHA STKAMEHAMEHA HWY OPP KAONOHKAMEHAMEHA HWY OPP HONOMAKAMEHAMEHA HWY FORD ISLANKAMEHAMEHA HWY ARIZONA STKAMEHAMEHA HWY CENTER DRNIMITZ HWY ELLIOTT STNIMITZ HWY RODGERS BLNIMITZ HWY OHOHIA ST NEARNIMITZ HWY OPP PELTIER AVKAMEHAMEHA HWY OPP MIDDLEDILLINGHAM BL PUUHALE RDDILLINGHAM BL KALIHI STDILLINGHAM BL WAIAKAMILODILLINGHAM BL KOKEA STDILLINGHAM BL OPP AKEPO LN KING ST N BERETANIA STN KING ST MAUNAKEA STS KING ST ALAKEA STPUNCHBOWL ST HALEKAUWILAALA MOANA BL CORAL STALA MOANA BL WARD AVEALA MOANA BL OPP QUEEN STALA MOANA BL OPP ATKINSONKALIA RD PAOA PLKALIA RD SARATOGA RDKUHIO AVE OPP LAUNIU STKUHIO AVE SEASIDE AVEKUHIO AVE LILIUOKALANI AVKAPAHULU AVE KALAKAUA AVE‐1,000Boardings Alightings LoadRoute 42 travels from Ewa Beach to Waikiki Beach, on a much longer route and diverse urbanenvironment than Route 3, which is mostly contained within Honolulu.Route-by-Route PerformanceFigure 5-7 summarizes route level performance statistics utilizing six separate performancemeasures. The following is a summary of each measure and the derivation of the standardsemployed for this analysis.Page 5-8 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU• Revenues versus Expenses – This represents a ratio (also known as Farebox RecoveryRatio) between collected and funded revenues and allocated operating expenses perroute. It is a cost-efficiency indicator that measures passenger demand versus operatingcost per route. The City and County of Honolulu has established a minimum threshold of27 percent recovery ratio for TheBus services. This was used for all routes.• Cost per Passenger – This represents the calculated cost of operating each routedivided by the reported total number of boarding passengers. The informal OTS serviceperformance standards specify that routes should not have a cost per boarding passengerthat is greater than 1.5 times the average of all routes in the route’s service category.• Passengers per Hour – This is the number of passenger boardings divided by thenumber of vehicle revenue hours. Again, no specific standard exists at OTS. The projectteam employed a standard for analysis that is roughly the average of actual productivitiesbeing experienced for each service category.• Operating Speed – This is the number of revenue miles operated in weekday servicedivided by the number of revenue hours. No specific standard exists at OTS. For thisanalysis the project team employed a standard that is roughly the average of actualspeeds for each route category, but never below 10 miles per hour, which was considereda floor for acceptable service speeds.• Schedule Adherence – This is the percentage of weekday trips arriving at timepointswithin a window extending from 2 minutes early to 5 minutes late. The informal OTSservice performance standards specify that routes should arrive ‘on time’ at least 70percent of the time. This was used for all service categories.• Percent of Trips with Standees – This is the percentage of trips on a route where themaximum load was greater than the number of seats on the bus. It does not consider theextent or duration of the standing load. There is no formal or informal standard for thismeasure. The project team employed a 5 percent standard for all routes as a way ofhighlighting routes where standing loads are relatively common.Data sources utilized in this analysis include:• Annual Operating Statistics (boardings, hours, miles, and expenses) from Trailing TwelveMonth GFI Route Cost-Effectiveness Report’ for December 2009.• Schedule Adherence from the October 2009 Schedule Adherence Report.• Percent of Trips with Standees from the Weekday Frequency of Overcrowding SummaryTable, August 2009 signup.The analysis in Figure 5-7 is intended to highlight operating issues being experienced byindividual routes, not to suggest whether remedial measures are appropriate on individual routes.Performance measures that do not meet the analysis standard or threshold have beenhighlighted to facilitate route identification and issues by service group.Page 5-9 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUFigure 5-7Route Performance Summary (See notes at end of summary pages)Service CategoryAverageWeekdayBoardings*WeekdayRevenueHours*AverageMonthlyRevenue**AllocatedMonthlyExpense**Revenue vs.ExpensesCost perPassengerPassengersper HourOperatingSpeed**ScheduleAdherence***% of TripswithStandees *Rapid BusA- CityExpress! A 15,603 195.50 $217,632 $539,388 40.3% $1.66 79.8 12.4 65.0% 7.3%B- CityExpress! B 9,729 112.50 $135,916 $282,902 48.0% $1.29 86.5 8.5 56.0% 12.6%C- CountryExpress! C 6,185 144.95 $85,833 $593,365 14.5% $4.58 42.7 20.3 49.0% --E- CountryExpress! E 4,778 116.20 $83,768 $435,439 19.2% $3.87 41.1 16.8 53.0% 1.2%Subtotal/Average 36,295 569.15 $523,149 $1,851,094 28.3% $2.35 63.8 14.5 56.7% 8.1%Analysis Standard 27.0% $3.53 40.0 15.0 70.0% 5.0%Urban Trunk1- Kaimuki-Kalihi 20,466 230.7588.768.0% 12.8%$309,640 $725,798 42.7% $1.329.51L- Downtown-Hawaii Kai Limited 3,306 65.50 50.5 70.0% 4.7%2- Waikiki-School-Middle Street 16,619 174.5195.257.0% 18.2%$464,163 $766,407 60.6% $0.967.413- Waikiki-Liliha 14,138 152.94 92.4 69.0% 13.2%3- Kaimuki-Salt Lake 15,338 189.55 $228,887 $473,738 48.3% $1.33 80.9 9.8 60.0% 17.1%4- Nuuanu-Punahou 10,192 140.70 $137,335 $344,805 39.8% $1.67 72.4 8.6 70.0% 6.3%6- Pauoa-Woodlawn 5,890 98.45 $87,082 $227,094 38.3% $1.44 59.8 8.5 74.0% 0.5%8- Waikiki-Ala Moana 4,566 88.87 $328,318 $680,673 48.2% $1.67 51.4 8.8 71.0% 2.0%Page 5-10 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUService CategoryAverageWeekdayBoardings*WeekdayRevenueHours*AverageMonthlyRevenue**AllocatedMonthlyExpense**Revenue vs.ExpensesCost perPassengerPassengersper HourOperatingSpeed**ScheduleAdherence***% of TripswithStandees *19- Waikiki-Airport-Hickam 5,248 110.33 47.6 59.0% 8.4%20- Waikiki-Pearlridge 3,667 68.65 53.4 56.0% 14.3%9- Palolo Valley-Pearl Harbor 7,207 114.20 $140,328 $298,790 47.0% $1.35 63.1 10.4 60.0% 6.5%Subtotal/Average 106,635 1,434.45 $1,695,753 $3,517,305 48.2% $1.30 74.3 9.0 64.9% 10.3%Analysis Standard 27.0% $1.95 40.0 10.0 70.0% 5.0%Urban Feeder5- Ala Moana-Manoa 985 23.20 $21,942 $59,533 36.9% $1.59 42.5 9.0 86.0% 0.0%7- Kalihi Valley 3,795 51.35 $51,924 $120,819 43.0% $1.48 73.9 9.5 64.0% 5.2%10- Kalihi-Alewa Heights 602 27.70 $6,441 $70,274 9.2% $6.41 21.7 10.3 73.0% 0.0%14- St. Louis-Kahala-Maunalani 960 44.85 $14,298 $145,132 9.9% $6.32 21.4 13.9 46.0% 0.0%15- Makiki-Pacific Heights 393 22.80 $7,436 $68,368 10.9% $5.79 17.2 12.9 62.0% 0.0%16- Moanalua Valley 17 3.55 $791 $9,119 8.7% $7.32 4.9 16.1 79.0% 0.0%17- Makiki-Ala Moana 1,428 18.35 $18,259 $39,037 46.8% $1.10 77.8 6.2 76.0% 0.1%18- University-Ala Moana 691 15.00 $8,893 $36,079 24.6% $2.59 46.1 8.0 66.0% 0.3%24- Aina Haina-Ala Moana 690 18.40 $16,038 $65,454 24.5% $3.47 37.5 10.9 61.0% 1.8%31- Tripler-Moanalua 744 22.95 $6,837 $61,844 11.1% $4.73 32.4 12.1 77.0% 0.0%32- Kalihi-Pearlridge 1,722 44.50 $20,918 $123,301 17.0% $3.84 38.7 12.4 71.0% 0.6%Page 5-11 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUService CategoryAverageWeekdayBoardings*WeekdayRevenueHours*AverageMonthlyRevenue**AllocatedMonthlyExpense**Revenue vs.ExpensesCost perPassengerPassengersper HourOperatingSpeed**ScheduleAdherence***% of TripswithStandees *Subtotal/Average 12,029 292.65 $173,777 $798,960 21.8% $2.86 41.1 11.0 68.2% 1.1%Analysis Standard 27.0% $4.29 30.0 12.0 70.0% 5.0%Suburban Trunk11- Makalapa-Halawa-Aiea Heights 1,294 34.20 $17,567 $119,945 14.6% $4.19 37.8 15.2 56.0% 1.7%22- Beach Bus 1,367 20.65 $36,268 $92,439 39.2% $2.81 66.2 16.2 56.0% 30.4%23- Hawaii Kai-Sea Life Park 3,199 49.00 $30,975 $179,288 17.3% $4.62 65.3 14.8 53.0% 6.8%40- Honolulu-Makaha51.0% 10.0%10,300 219.15 $169,244 $809,222 20.9% $3.19 47.0 16.240A- Honolulu-Makaha 49.0% 8.1%41- Kapolei-Ewa Beach 1,409 37.50 $27,507 $115,493 23.8% $2.78 37.6 16.2 46.0% 1.0%42- Ewa Beach-Waikiki 10,494 171.65 $194,758 $531,320 36.7% $2.14 61.1 11.3 52.0% 18.3%43- Waipahu-Honolulu-Ala Moana 2,168 51.70 $34,972 $194,294 18.0% $3.08 41.9 15.8 64.0% 5.0%52- Wahiawa-Circle Island 5,367 125.3442.845.0% 7.6%62- Honolulu-Wahiawa heights 6,526 119.15 54.8 54.0% 7.3%$307,444 $1,692,815 18.2% $3.9219.355- Kaneohe-Circle Island 4,208 118.58 35.5 50.0% 7.4%65- Honolulu-Kahaluu 2,174 49.19 44.2 66.0% 2.9%53- Honolulu-Pacific Palisades 2,542 68.50 $43,040 $202,713 21.2% $2.90 37.1 14.4 55.0% 1.9%54- Honolulu-Pearl City 2,944 80.20 $42,042 $236,684 17.8% $3.45 36.7 13.2 66.0% 2.8%Page 5-12 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUService CategoryAverageWeekdayBoardings*WeekdayRevenueHours*AverageMonthlyRevenue**AllocatedMonthlyExpense**Revenue vs.ExpensesCost perPassengerPassengersper HourOperatingSpeed**ScheduleAdherence***% of TripswithStandees *56- Honolulu-Kailua-Kaneohe 3,294 74.45 $47,278 $274,613 17.2% $3.98 44.2 16.8 55.0% 1.4%57- Kailua-Waimanalo-Sea Life Park 4,750 113.50 $97,886 $437,722 22.4% $3.54 41.8 17.9 56.0% 1.7%Subtotal/Average 62,035 1,332.76 $1,048,981 $4,886,548 21.5% $3.32 46.5 15.6 54.6% 6.7%Analysis Standard 27.0% $4.98 30.0 15.0 70.0% 5.0%Suburban Feeder70- Lanikai-Maunawili 256 13.70 $3,292 $48,886 6.7% $11.95 18.7 14.4 -- 0.0%71- Pearlridge-Newtown 128 5.50 $1,233 $15,259 8.1% $7.01 23.2 16.4 67.0% 0.0%72- Schofield-Wahiawa-Whitmore 676 14.10 $7,360 $42,119 17.5% $4.12 47.9 11.9 77.0% 0.0%73- Leeward Community College 409 11.65 $2,789 $24,414 11.4% $5.87 35.1 12.1 55.0% 0.0%74- Aiea-Halawa Heights 100 4.90 $620 $12,278 5.0% $13.36 20.5 11.7 73.0% 0.0%76- Waialua-Haleiwa 309 12.95 $4,085 $45,435 9.0% $8.32 23.9 12.9 71.0% 0.0%77- Waimanalo-Kaneohe 334 12.70 $4,020 $36,476 11.0% $7.40 26.3 17.5 73.0% 0.1%Subtotal/Average 2,212 75.50 $23,399 $224,867 10.4% $7.04 29.3 13.8 57.8% 0.0%Analysis Standard 27.0% $10.56 15.0 13.0 70.0% 5.0%Page 5-13 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUService CategoryAverageWeekdayBoardings*WeekdayRevenueHours*AverageMonthlyRevenue**AllocatedMonthlyExpense**Revenue vs.ExpensesCost perPassengerPassengersper HourOperatingSpeed**ScheduleAdherence***% of TripswithStandees *Peak Express80-Hawaii Kai Park & Ride Express 455 11.7138.886.0% 0.0%$47,757 $3.1917.882-Hawaii Kai Park & Ride Express 293 5.79 50.6 -- 2.4%80A- Hawaii-Kai Park & RideExpress (UH)161 6.10$19,094 $5.0126.318.199.0% 0.0%80B- Upper Aina Haina Express 30 0.80 37.3 100.0% 0.0%81- Waipahu Express 1,303 22.55 $64,760 $2.48 57.8 19.3 80.0% 2.7%83- Wahiawa Town Express 666 19.00 $59,134 $4.44 35.1 22.2 76.0% 6.9%84- Mililani Express-North 358 10.25 $31,322 $4.37 34.9 21.4 86.0% 7.1%84A- Mililani Express-South 415 8.70 $28,538 $3.44 47.7 25.0 75.0% 9.8%85- Windward Express-Kailua 605 17.45 $50,868 $4.20 34.7 20.5 78.0% 0.0%85A- Windward Express-Haiku 311 6.10 $16,747 $2.70 50.9 18.5 82.0% 5.0%88- Kahaluu-Ahuimanu Express 148 4.60 $14,177 $4.80 32.1 20.4 50.0% 10.0%88A-North Shore Express 212 11.75 $36,517 $8.61 18.0 16.1 32.0% 16.7%89- Waimanalo-Kailua Express 115 3.30 $10,240 $4.47 34.7 21.4 61.0% 0.0%90- Pearl City Express 67 3.45 $9,986 $7.46 19.4 20.4 67.0% 25.0%91- Ewa Beach Express 1,051 21.60 $61,942 $2.95 48.7 19.4 82.0% 5.0%92- Makakilo City Express 283 7.20 $22,452 $3.97 39.3 22.8 82.0% 22.2%93- Waianae Coast Express-CBD 1,087 35.35 $118,143 $5.43 30.8 26.5 71.0% 6.7%Page 5-14 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUService CategoryAverageWeekdayBoardings*WeekdayRevenueHours*AverageMonthlyRevenue**AllocatedMonthlyExpense**Revenue vs.ExpensesCost perPassengerPassengersper HourOperatingSpeed**ScheduleAdherence***% of TripswithStandees *94- Villages of Kapolei-Kaupea 107 4.65 $15,860 $7.38 23.1 24.9 53.0% 0.0%96- Waipio Gentry Express 143 3.20 $9,627 $3.36 44.8 22.1 68.0% 0.0%97- Village Park Express 397 6.45 $22,246 $2.80 61.6 25.2 61.0% 9.2%98/98A- Kunia-Wahiawa-Mililani 496 11.60 $37,128 $3.74 42.7 24.1 52.0% 2.8%101- Ewa Gentry Express 466 10.15 $31,443 $3.37 45.9 21.8 56.0% 8.6%102-Villages of Kapolei Express 167 6.35 $20,686 $6.19 26.3 24.4 69.0% 0.0%103- Paiwa-Waikele Express 136 3.45 $9,602 $3.52 39.6 20.0 52.0% 2.1%201-Waipahu via Farrington Express 602 15.10 $41,509 $3.45 39.8 17.7 80.0% 6.5%202-Waipahu via Paiwa Express 226 6.65 $19,273 $4.26 34.0 20.9 84.0% 0.0%203-Kalihi via School Street Express 223 4.00 $7,910 $1.78 55.7 10.1 83.0% 0.0%PH1-Waianae Coast-Pearl HarborExpressPH2- Mililani Town-Pearl HarborExpressPH3-Wahiawa Heights-Pearl HarborExpressPH4- Kaneohe-Kahaluu-PearlHarbor ExpressPH5- Windward-Pearl HarborExpress107 2.70 $10,921 $5.08 39.8 26.6 63.0% 25.0%54 2.10 $7,269 $6.72 25.8 23.9 75.0% --8 2.25 $6,841 $40.71 3.7 18.2 44.0% --31 2.40 $7,902 $12.87 12.8 24.0 23.0% 0.0%55 2.05 $15,841 $4.30 26.9 24.7 27.0% 0.0%Page 5-15 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUService CategoryAverageWeekdayBoardings*WeekdayRevenueHours*AverageMonthlyRevenue**AllocatedMonthlyExpense**Revenue vs.ExpensesCost perPassengerPassengersper HourOperatingSpeed**ScheduleAdherence***% of TripswithStandees *PH6- Hawaii Kai-Pearl HarborExpress129 2.65 48.8 22.7 68.0% 0.0%Subtotal/Average 10,909 281.45 $147,438 $855,736 17.2% $3.92 38.8 21.3 74.0% 5.1%Analysis Standard 27.0% $10.07 20.0 20.0 70.0% 5.0%Community Circulator44- Waipahu-Ewa Beach 786 35.35 $11,712 $76,059 15.4% $4.61 22.2 13.6 52.0% 1.7%231- Hawaii Kai-Hahaione Valley 149 15.30 $1,263 $27,744 4.6% $8.87 9.7 8.8 70.0% 0.0%234-Kahala Mall-Waialae Nui3.7060.0% 0.0%121$1,364 $11,921 11.4% $3.05 32.7 11.9235- Kahala Mall-Waialae Iki 2.00 75.0% --401- Waianae Valley 368 8.2544.661.0% 0.5%$10,952 $47,008 23.3% $2.8318.8402- Lualualei Homestead 158 9.45 16.8 52.0% 0.0%403- Nanakuli-Maili-Waianae 512 18.95 $11,201 $43,941 25.5% $4.09 27.0 14.5 52.0% 0.4%411- Makakilo Heights 465 20.35 $2,373 $46,885 5.1% $4.80 22.9 14.9 58.0% 0.3%412- Panana-Kapolei 505 14.30 $5,136 $27,781 18.5% $2.62 35.3 10.7 35.0% 0.3%413- Campbell Industrial Park 48 5.35 $1,988 $14,798 13.4% $14.79 8.9 17.9 79.0% 0.0%415- Kapolei Transit Center-Kalaeloa38 2.70 $975 $7,682 12.7% $9.72 13.9 13.9 68.0% 0.0%432- East-West Waipahu 1,607 36.85 $22,430 $70,447 31.8% $2.09 43.6 11.1 63.0% 0.0%Page 5-16 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUService CategoryAverageWeekdayBoardings*WeekdayRevenueHours*AverageMonthlyRevenue**AllocatedMonthlyExpense**Revenue vs.ExpensesCost perPassengerPassengersper HourOperatingSpeed**ScheduleAdherence***% of TripswithStandees *433- Waipahu-Waikele ShoppingCenter1,257 27.25 $20,932 $53,534 39.1% $2.03 46.1 12.0 73.0% 0.3%434- Waipahu-Village Park 1,383 17.65 $15,689 $39,726 39.5% $1.37 78.4 14.0 27.0% 0.7%Subtotal/Average 7,398 217.45 $106,015 $467,526 22.7% $2.96 34.0 13.5 57.9% 0.4%Analysis Standard 27.0% $4.94 20.0 13.0 70.0% 5.0%System Total/Average**** 237,512 4,203 $3,718,512 $12,602,037 28.0% $2.13 55.3 13.1 61.2% 5.8%Indicates that route does not achieve the analysis standardData Sources:*From APC data that has been adjusted to equal reported 2009 NTD average weekday boardings unless otherwise noted below**From GFI 12-Month Report for December 2009 unless otherwise noted below***From December 2009 Schedule Adherence Report****System Average ratios for Revenue vs. Expenses, Cost per Passenger, and Passengers per Hour calculated from reported 2009 NTD totals. These vary somewhat from themonthly averages reported in the previous columns.Notes:Note 1. Allocated Monthly Expense for Express and Community Circulator routes estimated by dividing total monthly expenses calculated by GFI by GFI monthly revenuehours and then multiplying this cost per hour by the number of revenue hours the service actually operates per day times 21 days per month. This is done to accountfor inaccurate estimates of service hours in GFI data.Note 2. Cost per Passenger - All service categories except Express and Community Circulator calculated by dividing allocated GFI expenses by monthly passengers ascalculated by GFI. Express and Community Circulator utilized allocated GFI expenses divided by 21 and then divided the product by average weekday riders.Note 3. Average weekday ridership extracted from APC count data with the following exceptions: Routes 86, 86A, 234/235, PH3 data from monthly GFI counts divided by 21.Note 4. Average Monthly Revenue for Peak Express routes not available at route level. Therefore, “revenue versus expense” performance is not calculated at route level forPeak Express.Page 5-17 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULURoute Performance by Service CategoryThe performance analysis in Figure 5-7 illustrates the prevalence of schedule adherence issues,which are distributed across the system’s operating areas and service routes, while overcrowdingis more confined to Downtown-based routes (rapid bus, urban and suburban trunk) and somepeak express services. Farebox recovery appears as a major issue on services outsideHonolulu, with the exception of urban feeders, and especially on express services and suburbanfeeders which average about 10 percent recovery only.• Rapid Bus – There are efficiency and productivity issues on CountryExpress! servicesand overcrowding issues on CityExpress! services. There are schedule adherence issueson all routes (57 percent average for the group) operating on major urban corridors withinHonolulu and connecting Honolulu with outside areas. Productivity on CityExpress!services is well above average for the group.• Urban Trunk – Efficiency (recovery and cost per passenger) and productivity (passengersper hour) are well above the analysis threshold on all routes in this category, whichspeaks for the productivity of service within Honolulu. However, service in Honolulu ischaracterized by slow operating speeds, high overcrowding rates (over 10 percent onaverage), and schedule adherence issues.• Urban Feeder – There are efficiency and productivity issues on many smaller routes andon longer routes, which are well below the analysis threshold. Operating speeds varywidely and depend on route neighborhood and alignment. Schedule adherence results aremixed, with some routes having poor on-time performance. Route 14 is on-time only 46percent of the time. Overcrowding does not appear as an issue.• Suburban Trunk – Farebox recovery ratio is an issue for most routes, despite relativelyhigh passenger productivity and moderate cost per passenger. The discrepancy reflectshow expensive to operate, yet vital, these routes are that cover many miles and servevery long trips. Schedule adherence is a major issue, despite relatively high operatingspeeds, mostly due to the length of routes and trips. Major passenger productivity routesexperience frequent overcrowded trips.• Suburban Feeder – These routes have relatively low productivity ratios and so theirfarebox recovery ratio is low and cost of operation per passenger is high. Low passengerdemand is also reflected on near absence of overcrowded trips, and relatively fastoperating speeds which help achieve higher schedule adherence percentages for thisgroup but still lower than threshold on average, only 58 percent.• Peak Express – Due to the nature of the service, peak express services are veryexpensive to operate and thus achieve very low recovery ratios in general. Although costper passenger for the group is below the standard on average, it varies widely from $1.78per passenger on Route 203 to $40.71 on Route PH3. In general, routes operating alarger number of trips or more frequent trips capture more riders and achieve higherproductivity per hour and lower costs per passenger than routes operating one or ahandful of trips. There are many peak express services well over the productivitythreshold for the group with some having recurring trips in high demand andovercrowding.Page 5-18 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU• Community Circulator – Farebox recovery ratio appears as the major issue for thisservice type. Many routes have productivity levels over the group’s threshold, which is afunction of limited service hours. In the end, their relatively low demand impacts thebottom line. Schedule adherence is relatively low, despite the need for timed connectionswith trunk services.Top 25 Performing RoutesMore than 83 percent of the system daily ridership (about 198,000 passengers a day) is carriedon just 25 routes, out of 100 routes in the system. These top 25 routes consume 74 percent ofrevenue hours, 69 percent of revenue miles, and 60 percent of vehicles. The group includes allrapid bus and urban trunk routes, plus many suburban trunk routes and just one urban feeder(Route 7 connecting Downtown with the Kalihi Valley). Figure 5-8 below ranks the Top 25 routesin the system by their average weekday boardings. The five biggest routes (1, 2, A, 3, and 13)also record five of the six highest passenger per hour ratios.Figure 5-8Top 25 Performing Routes, Weekday BoardingsRouteNumberRoute DescriptionRoute TypeAverage WeekdayBoardingsBoardings perRevenue Hour1 Kaimuki-Kalihi/Downtown-Hawaii Kai Limited Urban Trunk 20,466 88.72 Waikiki-School-Middle Street/Waikiki-Liliha Urban Trunk 16,619 95.2A CityExpress! A Rapid Bus 15,603 79.83 Kaimuki-Salt Lake Urban Trunk 15,338 80.913 Waikiki-School-Middle Street/Waikiki-Liliha Urban Trunk 14,138 92.442 Ewa Beach-Waikiki Suburban Trunk 10,494 61.140/40A Honolulu-Makaha Suburban Trunk 10,300 47.04 Nuuanu-Punahou Urban Trunk 10,192 72.4B CityExpress! B Rapid Bus 9,729 86.59 Palolo Valley-Pearl Harbor Urban Trunk 7,207 63.162 Honolulu-Wahiawa Heights/Honolulu-Kahaluu Suburban Trunk 6,526 54.8C CountryExpress! C Rapid Bus 6,185 42.76 Pauoa-Woodlawn Urban Trunk 5,890 59.852 Wahiawa-Circle Island/Kaneohe-Circle Island Suburban Trunk 5,367 42.819 Waikiki-Airport-Hickam/Waikiki-Pearlridge Urban Trunk 5,248 47.6E CountryExpress! E Rapid Bus 4,778 41.157/57A Kailua-Waimanalo-Sea Life Park Suburban Trunk 4,750 41.88 Waikiki-Ala Moana Urban Trunk 4,566 51.455 Wahiawa-Circle Island/Kaneohe-Circle Island Suburban Trunk 4,208 35.57 Kalihi Valley Urban Feeder 3,795 73.920 Waikiki-Airport-Hickam/Waikiki-Pearlridge Urban Trunk 3,667 53.41L Downtown-Hawaii Kai Limited Urban Trunk 3,306 50.556 Honolulu-Kailua-Kaneohe Suburban Trunk 3,294 44.223 Hawaii Kai-Sea Life Park Suburban Trunk 3,199 65.354 Honolulu-Pearl City Suburban Trunk 2,944 36.7Page 5-19 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUAs a group the Top 25 routes serve all major travel origins and destinations in the system,connecting all suburban areas with Honolulu. Within Honolulu, they operate along all major streetcorridors, providing accessibility to all major destinations in the city, including the Kalihi industrialarea, Downtown, Chinatown, Ala Moana Center, Waikiki, the University of Hawaii at Manoa,Kapiolani Community College, and Kahala Mall. What this suggests is that a reduced group ofroutes that includes mostly Rapid Bus, Urban Trunk and Suburban Trunk services provide thestructuring network or “backbone” of the system, and that the operation, performance, andreliability of the system as whole depends on the efficient and effective operation of this primarynetwork. Every trip in the system depends on these routes to reach their final destination, and sothe system should emphasize the highest level of performance and quality of service on this routegroup to improve overall performance in the system.Route Performance by Service SubareaOperating conditions and service performance vary greatly throughout Honolulu County aspresented in the previous section. While Downtown Honolulu experiences levels of congestionand patronage that rival any large city in America, other parts of the island are dispersed, moreauto-oriented and suburban in flavor, and/or rural. Each part of the island experiences differentmobility challenges and opportunities and the transit service network that is appropriate for one islikely less effective for the other. Recognizing this fact, eleven service subareas have beenpreliminarily identified for analysis; these include four areas in Honolulu and seven areas outsidethe main urban center. Together, these areas account for over 80 percent of the systemboardings, leaving only the Waianae Coast, Central Oahu, North Coast and Hawaii Kai out of thelarger caldron:• Honolulu (4 areas)• Ewa Village−−−−Ala Moana/PawaaDowntownEast HonoluluWaikiki• Kailua-Kaneohe• Kapolei• Leeward Coast• Mililani/Wahiawa• North Shore• Waipahu-Pearl CityThese areas pose the most significant operational issues and experience the highest levels oftransit service and ridership in the island. Additional subareas may be considered later in thestudy if appropriate to address emerging operating issues. The following pages summarize thetransit service that is operated within each subarea and the transit ridership generated. Based onthis analysis, additional performance indicators, service variables and design parameters orguidelines may be included in subsequent project phases.Page 5-20 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUAla Moana/PawaaThis is the area in the vicinity of the Ala Moana Shopping Center. This includes neighborhoodseast of the Alapai Transit Center, south of the H-1 Freeway, and west of Kalakaua and the AliWai Canal.Transit ServicesTransit services focus on the shopping center from all over the island including routes fromMakaha, Kapolei, Ewa, Haleiwa, Mililani, Waipahu, Pearl City, Salt Lake, Kaneohe, Kailua,Waimanalo, and Hawaii Kai. The Ala Moana/Pawaa Center is as much a destination as it is atransfer location to urban routes from these regional services (or suburban trunk). Passengeractivity is split between transferring customers and people going to/from the mall.Major Transit CorridorsFour major transit corridors serve the area: King and Beretania Streets that connect Downtownwith places east, Kapiolani Boulevard that connects the area with Downtown, the University ofHawaii, Kapiolani College and places east, and Ala Moana Boulevard that connects Downtownwith Waikiki. Major north-south streets include Pensacola and Keeaumoku.Every major route in the system (including the top 25) serves the area, which accounts for over10 percent of the system’s ridership and about 13 percent of routes serving the area (seeFigure 5-10 on the next page).Outstanding Service Issues1. Layover and bay capacity for all buses that operate inside mall on Kona Street, andoutside mall – Piikoi Street and Ala Moana Boulevard.2. Bus trip volumes, circulation, and routing around mall consume time and significantsystem resources.3. Eventual integration of bus and fixed guideway services at mall terminus station calls forrevision of bus-fixed guideway interface, pedestrian movements, and amount of busservice in and around the mall.Page 5-22 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUFigure 5-11 Routes Serving the Ala Moana/Pawaa SubareaRoutesDaily BoardingsRoute DescriptionRoute TypeServingRoute In Subarea PercentRapid BusA CityExpress! A Rapid Bus 15,603 1,702 11%B CityExpress! B Rapid Bus 9,729 1,485 15%C CountryExpress! C Rapid Bus 6,185 757 12%E CountryExpress! E Rapid Bus 4,778 544 11%Subtotal 36,295 4,488 12%Urban Trunk1 Kaimuki-Kalihi/Downtown-Hawaii Kai Limited Urban Trunk 20,466 2,338 11%1L Downtown-Hawaii Kai Limited Urban Trunk 3,306 344 10%2 Waikiki-School-Middle Street/Waikiki-Liliha Urban Trunk 16,619 2,160 13%3 Kaimuki-Salt Lake Urban Trunk 15,338 2,472 16%4 Nuuanu-Punahou Urban Trunk 10,192 40 0%6 Pauoa-Woodlawn Urban Trunk 5,890 1,655 28%8 Waikiki-Ala Moana Urban Trunk 4,566 1,290 28%9 Palolo Valley-Pearl Harbor Urban Trunk 7,207 1,051 15%13 Waikiki-School-Middle Street/Waikiki-Liliha Urban Trunk 14,138 2,099 15%19 Waikiki-Airport-Hickam/Waikiki-Pearlridge Urban Trunk 5,248 940 18%20 Waikiki-Airport-Hickam/Waikiki-Pearlridge Urban Trunk 3,667 522 14%Subtotal 106,635 14,911 14%23 Hawaii Kai-Sea Life ParkSuburban TrunkSuburban Trunk 3,199 318 10%40/40A Honolulu-Makaha Suburban Trunk 10,300 786 8%42 Ewa Beach-Waikiki Suburban Trunk 10,494 589 6%52 Wahiawa-Circle Island/Kaneohe-Circle Island Suburban Trunk 5,367 630 12%53 Honolulu-Pacific Palisades Suburban Trunk 2,542 407 16%55 Wahiawa-Circle Island/Kaneohe-Circle Island/ Suburban Trunk 4,208 528 13%56 Honolulu-Kailua-Kaneohe Suburban Trunk 3,294 361 11%57/57A Kailua-Waimanalo-Sea Life Park Suburban Trunk 4,750 694 15%62 Honolulu-Wahiawa Heights/Honolulu-Kahaluu Suburban Trunk 6,526 521 8%65 Honolulu-Wahiawa Heights/Honolulu-Kahaluu Suburban Trunk 2,174 149 7%Subtotal 52,853 4,983 9%Urban Feeder5 Ala Moana-Manoa Urban Feeder 985 427 43%15 Makiki-Pacific Heights Urban Feeder 393 3 1%17 Makiki-Ala Moana Urban Feeder 1,428 907 64%18 University-Ala Moana Urban Feeder 691 320 46%24 Aina Haina-Ala Moana Urban Feeder 690 73 11%Subtotal 4,189 1,730 41%Express88A North Shore Express Express 212 14 7%98/98A Wahiawa-Mililani Park & Ride/Kunia-Wahiawa-Mililani Express 496 13 3%Subtotal 708 28 4%Total 200,679 26,140 13%Page 5-24 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUDowntownThe Downtown area is bounded by Middle Street on the west, School Street on the north, AlapaiTransit Center on the east and the harbor on the south.This area includes not only the Central Business District but also state capital areas, as well asHonolulu Community College, the Kalihi industrial area and the Queen’s Medical Center.Transit ServicesAlmost every route in the system serves this subarea. Downtown Honolulu is the majordestination to all rapid bus, urban trunk, suburban trunk and peak express service in the system.Routes serving to and through the area carry over 90 percent of the system ridership. TheDowntown area alone accounts for 35 percent of the system’s ridership and close to 40 percentof routes serving the area. Passenger activity at the Alapai and Kalihi transit centers are includedin this subarea’s totalsMajor Transit CorridorsA number of east-west corridors of regional significance go through this area, including School,King, Dillingham and Beretania. In addition, several north-south corridors of local and regionalsignificance serve the area and connect with major east-west bus routes, including Kalihi, Liliha,Nuuanu, and Pali Highway.Outstanding Service Issues1. Traffic congestion and delays along east-west arterial streets in the central businessdistrict and along most arterial streets, often extending to Middle Street, to the west of theCBD. This leads to slow operating speeds.2. High bus trip volumes along same streets.3. Transit only operations along Hotel Street; single lane and no pass ups possible.4. General bus overloads on major routes throughout the Downtown area, despite high bustrip volumes.5. Conflicts with turning vehicles on King at Punchbowl.Page 5-25 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUFigure 5-13 Routes Serving the Downtown SubareaRoutesDaily BoardingsRoute DescriptionRoute TypeServingRoute In Subarea PercentRapid BusA CityExpress! A Rapid Bus 15,603 5,478 35%B CityExpress! B Rapid Bus 9,729 5,836 60%C CountryExpress! C Rapid Bus 6,185 1,845 30%E CountryExpress! E Rapid Bus 4,778 659 14%Subtotal 36,295 13,818 38%Urban Trunk1 Kaimuki-Kalihi/Downtown-Hawaii Kai Limited Urban Trunk 20,466 11,454 56%1L Downtown-Hawaii Kai Limited Urban Trunk 3,306 942 28%2 Waikiki-School-Middle Street/Waikiki-Liliha Urban Trunk 16,619 10,177 61%3 Kaimuki-Salt Lake Urban Trunk 15,338 5,279 34%4 Nuuanu-Punahou Urban Trunk 10,192 3,136 31%6 Pauoa-Woodlawn Urban Trunk 5,890 1,686 29%9 Palolo Valley-Pearl Harbor Urban Trunk 7,207 3,243 45%13 Waikiki-School-Middle Street/Waikiki-Liliha Urban Trunk 14,138 5,946 42%19 Waikiki-Airport-Hickam/Waikiki-Pearlridge Urban Trunk 5,248 1,839 35%20 Waikiki-Airport-Hickam/Waikiki-Pearlridge Urban Trunk 3,667 1,299 35%Subtotal 102,069 45,000 44%11 Honolulu-Aiea HeightsSuburban TrunkSuburban Trunk 1,294 521 40%40/40A Honolulu-Makaha Suburban Trunk 10,300 1,999 19%42 Ewa Beach-Waikiki Suburban Trunk 10,494 2,762 26%43 Waipahu St-Honolulu-Ala Moana Suburban Trunk 2,168 1,244 57%52 Wahiawa-Circle Island/Kaneohe-Circle Island Suburban Trunk 5,367 1,960 37%53 Honolulu-Pacific Palisades Suburban Trunk 2,542 905 36%54 Honolulu-Pearl City Suburban Trunk 2,944 1,599 54%55 Wahiawa-Circle Island/Kaneohe-Circle Island/ Suburban Trunk 4,208 767 18%56 Honolulu-Kailua-Kaneohe Suburban Trunk 3,294 729 22%57/57A Kailua-Waimanalo-Sea Life Park Suburban Trunk 4,750 1,331 28%62 Honolulu-Wahiawa Heights/Honolulu-Kahaluu Suburban Trunk 6,526 2,254 35%65 Honolulu-Wahiawa Heights/Honolulu-Kahaluu Suburban Trunk 2,174 620 29%Subtotal 56,059 16,692 30%Urban Feeder7 Kalihi Valley Urban Feeder 3,795 1,408 37%10 Kalihi-Alewa Heights Urban Feeder 602 189 31%15 Makiki-Pacific Heights Urban Feeder 393 227 58%16 Moanalua Valley Urban Feeder 17 6 35%31 Tripler-Moanalua Urban Feeder 744 301 40%32 Kalihi-Pearlridge Urban Feeder 1,722 297 17%Subtotal 7,273 2,429 33%Page 5-27 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUFigure 5-14 Routes Serving the Downtown Subarea (continued)RoutesDaily BoardingsRoute DescriptionRoute TypeServingRoute In Subarea PercentExpressPH4 Kaneohe-Kahaluu-Pearl Harbor Express 31 3 10%PH6 Hawaii Kai-Pearl Harbor Express 129 63 48%80 Hawaii Kai Park & Ride/Kalama Valley Express Express 455 215 47%80A Hawaii Kai Park & Ride-University Express 161 6 4%80B Upper Aina Haina Express Express 30 8 26%81 Waipahu Express Express 1,303 421 32%82 Hawaii Kai Park & Ride/Kalama Valley Express Express 293 137 47%83 Wahiawa Town Express Express 666 349 52%84 Mililani Express-North Express 358 177 49%84A Mililani Express-South Express 415 179 43%85 Windward Express-Kailua Express 605 131 22%85A Windward Express-Haiku Express 311 109 35%88 Kahaluu-Ahuimanu Express Express 148 116 78%88A North Shore Express Express 212 24 11%89 Waimanalo-Kailua Express Express 115 51 45%90 Pearl City Express Express 67 38 57%91 Ewa Beach Express Express 1,051 450 43%92 Makakilo City Express Express 283 80 28%93 Waianae Coast Express-CBD Express 1,087 355 33%94 Villages of Kapolei-Kaupea Express 107 44 41%96 Waipio Gentry Express Express 143 53 37%97 Village Park Express Express 397 208 52%98/98A Wahiawa-Mililani Park & Ride/Kunia-Wahiawa-Mililani Express 496 202 41%101 Ewa Gentry Express Express 466 210 45%102 Villages of Kapolei Express Express 167 83 50%103 Paiwa-Waikele Express Express 136 69 51%203 Kalihi via School Express Express 223 117 53%Subtotal 9,856 3,899 40%Total 211,552 81,838 39%Page 5-28 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUMoiliili/KaimukiThis area includes neighborhoods east of Kalakaua Avenue and north of the Ala Wai Canalcontinuing to Kahala Mall. Neighborhoods in the adjacent valleys have been included (Manoa,Saint Louis Heights, Palolo Valley, and Maunalani Heights).The area includes a number of attractions including the University of Hawaii, ChaminadeUniversity, Kapiolani Community College, Kahala Mall, Diamond Head, Kapiolani Medical Center,and Market City Center. It also includes the Moiliili, Kapahulu, and Kaimuki neighborhoodsTransit ServicesMost transit services in this area are “tails” of major routes connecting high density residentialneighborhoods with Downtown and local destinations as well as other destinations such as AlaMoana/Pawaa and Waikiki. In addition, a number of urban feeder and community circulationroutes operate in the area connecting residential neighborhoods in the valleys and heights witharea destinations. The Moiliili/Kaimuki area accounts for over 10 percent of the system’s ridershipand about 20 percent of routes serving the area.Major Transit CorridorsMajor transit corridors include King/Beretania and Waialae, Kapiolani and Date, University,Kapahulu, and KilaueaOutstanding Service Issues1. Routing/transition of major east-west routes from Ala Moana to Moiliili/Kaimukidestinations, changes in grid pattern and residential density.2. Routing of north-south routes serving the valleys and connections with east-westcorridors.3. Route 14 meanders throughout the subarea and does not provide direct connections andreliable operations.Page 5-29 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUFigure 5-16 Routes Serving the Moiliili/Kaimuki SubareaRoutesDaily BoardingsRoute DescriptionRoute TypeServingRoute In Subarea PercentRapid BusA City Express! A Rapid Bus 15,603 2,970 19%B City Express! B Rapid Bus 9,729 431 4%Subtotal 25,332 3,401 13%Urban Trunk1 Kaimuki-Kalihi/Downtown-Hawaii Kai Limited Urban Trunk 20,466 6,195 30%1L Downtown-Hawaii Kai Limited Urban Trunk 3,306 947 29%2 Waikiki-School-Middle Street/Waikiki-Liliha Urban Trunk 16,619 646 4%3 Kaimuki-Salt Lake Urban Trunk 15,338 4,863 32%4 Nuuanu-Punahou Urban Trunk 10,192 2,625 26%6 Pauoa-Woodlawn Urban Trunk 5,890 1,927 33%9 Palolo Valley-Pearl Harbor Urban Trunk 7,207 2,442 34%13 Waikiki-School-Middle Street/Waikiki-Liliha Urban Trunk 14,138 1,097 8%Subtotal 93,155 20,742 22%Suburban Trunk22 Beach Bus Suburban Trunk 1,367 293 21%23 Hawaii Kai-Sea Life Park Suburban Trunk 3,199 880 28%Subtotal 4,566 1,173 26%5 Ala Moana-ManoaUrban FeederUrban Feeder 985 559 57%14 St. Louis-Kahala-Maunalani Urban Feeder 960 856 89%18 University-Ala Moana Urban Feeder 691 202 29%24 Aina Haina-Ala Moana Urban Feeder 690 214 31%Subtotal 3,327 1,830 55%Express80A Hawaii Kai Park & Ride-University Express 161 64 40%83 Wahiawa Town Express Express 666 1 0%84 Mililani Express-North Express 358 - 0%84A Mililani Express-South Express 415 2 1%85 Windward Express-Kailua Express 605 145 24%85A Windward Express-Haiku Express 311 6 2%90 Pearl City Express Express 67 - 0%94 Villages of Kapolei-Kaupea Express 107 15 14%Subtotal 2,691 234 8%Total 129,070 27,380 21%Page 5-31 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUWaikikiThis area is bounded by Diamond Head on the east, ocean on the south, and the Ala Wai Canalon the north and west.This is the focus of Honolulu’s tourism industry with numerous quality hotels, tourist attractionsand high-rise residential buildings. Boasting a major residential population, Waikiki also hosts thezoo and aquarium. Its mix of residential, leisure activities, retail, and hospitality serviceemployment make this a prime transit destination.Transit ServicesMajor transit routes connect Waikiki with Mililani, Ewa Beach, Waipahu, Pearl City, Salt Lake,Honolulu, East Honolulu, Hawaii Kai, and tourist attractions at Hanauma Bay and Sea Life Park.Waikiki accounts for close to 10 percent of the system’s ridership and generates 25 percent ofridership on routes serving the area. The subarea as a whole is a major employment center anddestination in the region. A number of peak express routes provide commuter service to Waikiki.Major Transit CorridorsMajor transit corridors in the area are Kuhio and Kalakaua Avenues and the connection of Waikikiwith Ala Moana Boulevard via Kalia and Saratoga Roads. Connections to Downtown are providedmostly via Kalakaua and King/Beretania, and Kapiolani and Ala Moana Boulevards. Thesecorridors provide service to tourists, day visitors and workers alike.Outstanding Service Issues1. Traffic congestion along Kuhio Avenue, in particular at p.m. peak times.2. In keeping with the complexity of this markets being served, it is difficult and complex todesign and operate services that meet the needs of these diverse groups.3. How to best connect with major tourist destinations in Downtown, the North Shore, andHanauma Bay/Sea Life Park.4. Infrequent service on the developing Kapahulu corridor.5. Connections with University of Hawaii at Manoa and other student residential areas.Page 5-32 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUFigure 5-18 Routes Serving the Waikiki SubareaRoutesDaily BoardingsRoute DescriptionRoute TypeServingRoute In Subarea PercentRapid BusB CityExpress! B Rapid Bus 9,729 1,977 20%E CountryExpress! E Rapid Bus 4,778 943 20%Subtotal 14,506 2,920 20%2 Waikiki-School-Middle Street/Waikiki-LilihaUrban TrunkUrban Trunk 16,619 3,631 22%4 Nuuanu-Punahou Urban Trunk 10,192 1,661 16%8 Waikiki-Ala Moana Urban Trunk 4,566 3,276 72%13 Waikiki-School-Middle Street/Waikiki-Liliha Urban Trunk 14,138 2,921 21%19 Waikiki-Airport-Hickam/Waikiki-Pearlridge Urban Trunk 5,248 1,574 30%20 Waikiki-Airport-Hickam/Waikiki-Pearlridge Urban Trunk 3,667 1,080 29%Subtotal 54,429 14,142 26%22 Beach BusSuburban TrunkSuburban Trunk 1,367 547 40%23 Hawaii Kai-Sea Life Park Suburban Trunk 3,199 1,213 38%42 Ewa Beach-Waikiki Suburban Trunk 10,494 1,728 16%Subtotal 15,060 3,488 23%Urban Feeder14 St. Louis-Kahala-Maunalani Urban Feeder 960 130 14%24 Aina Haina-Ala Moana Urban Feeder 690 268 39%Subtotal 1,651 399 24%Express98/98A Wahiawa-Mililani Park & Ride/Kunia-Wahiawa-Mililani Express 496 58 12%201 Waipahu via Farrington Express Express 602 190 32%202 Waipahu via Paiwa Express Express 226 53 24%203 Kalihi via School Express Express 223 121 54%Subtotal 1,547 423 27%Total 87,193 21,371 25%Page 5-34 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUEwa VillageThis area encompasses the communities straddling Fort Weaver Road between FarringtonHighway and Ewa Beach.It is comprised of a mix of residential communities, with strip commercial development along FortWeaver Rd.Transit ServicesRoutes E and 42 form the backbone of transit services through Ewa Village. These aresupplemented by all-day service on routes 41 and 44, which both feature service along GeigerRoad. A variety of commute hour services supplement these routes, providing links to majoremployment centers.Major Transit CorridorsFort Weaver Road is the dominant corridor in the area and receives the overwhelming bulk oftransit service. Geiger Road and Renton Road continue as Franklin D. Roosevelt Avenue,offering access to the Kapolei area. While this a relatively small transit corridor today, plannedgrowth in Kapolei may elevate its future significance.Outstanding Service Issues1. While not on the fixed guideway system, the Eva Village area will be greatly impacted byits operations.2. Route 44 features a very indirect routing that is limited by the area’s incomplete streetnetwork in neighborhoods west of Fort Weaver Road. It may be that future roadimprovements will allow the creating of more direct and efficient routing options.3. Carrying about 32 passengers per hour, Route 41 barely meets the system’s performanceexpectations. However, it serves the developing neighborhoods between Eva Village andKapolei. The needs and potential of this emerging market should be carefully considered.Page 5-35 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUFigure 5-20 Routes Serving the Ewa Village SubareaRoutesDaily BoardingsRoute DescriptionRoute TypeServingRoute In Subarea PercentRapid BusE Country Express! E Rapid Bus 4,778 1,144 24%Subtotal 4,778 1,144 24%Suburban Trunk41 Kapolei-Ewa Beach Suburban Trunk 1,409 417 30%42 Ewa Beach-Waikiki Suburban Trunk 10,494 1,891 18%Subtotal 11,903 2,309 19%91 Ewa Beach ExpressExpressExpress 1,051 614 58%101 Ewa Gentry Express Express 466 265 57%201 Waipahu via Farrington Express Express 602 233 39%Subtotal 2,119 1,111 52%Community Circulator44 Waipahu-Ewa Beach Community Circulator 786 634 81%Subtotal 786 634 81%Total 19,586 5,198 27%Page 5-37 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUKailua-KaneoheThis subarea encompasses Kaneohe, Kailua, and Enchanted Lakes districts. It also includesWaimanalo and Waimanalo Beach.This area is primarily residential, with many residents commuting to Honolulu for work. WindwardCommunity College and the Windward Mall are the largest transit destinations in the area.Transit ServicesRecognizing the suburban character of the area and rural character in Waimanalo, most routeshave been designed to link area neighborhoods with outside destinations. The area’s mostproductive routes are suburban trunk services that travel to/from Honolulu. This includes theCircle Island service that goes through Kaneohe on its way to Honolulu. A number of peakexpress services also operate in the area, connecting Kaneohe, Kailua, and Waimanalo withHonolulu and Pearl Harbor. Ridership generated in the area accounts for about 3 percent of thesystem, however it represents over 40 percent of ridership on subarea routes.Major Transit CorridorsMajor transit corridors in the area are represented by the highways connecting the differentresidential neighborhoods of Kaneohe, Kailua, Enchanted Lakes, and Waimanalo. These includePali Highway (SR 61), Likelike Highway (SR 63), the H-3 Freeway, and Kalanianaole Highway(SR 72 and SR 83). All day services to Honolulu operate on Pali Highway. SR 63 and H-3 providepeak express connections only.Outstanding Service Issues1. Residential areas are dispersed and there is no clear center for all three areas to developa hub-and-spoke network. At the same time, three top 25 suburban trunk routes operatein the area (Routes 55, 56 and 57/57A), serving Kaneohe, Kailua and Waimanalo,respectively. A frequent trunk-feeder system appears as more effective and efficient forthis service area. Routing of feeder services is key to maintain and strengthen ridership oftrunk routes.2. No direct and frequent transit link between Kaneohe and Kailua.Page 5-38 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUFigure 5-22 Routes Serving the Kailua-Kaneohe SubareaRoutesDaily BoardingsRoute DescriptionRoute TypeServingRoute In Subarea PercentSuburban Trunk55 Wahiawa-Circle Island/Kaneohe-Circle Island/ Suburban Trunk 4,208 1,131 27%56 Honolulu-Kailua-Kaneohe Suburban Trunk 3,294 2,096 64%57/57A Kailua-Waimanalo-Sea Life Park Suburban Trunk 4,750 1,757 37%65 Honolulu-Wahiawa Heights/Honolulu-Kahaluu Suburban Trunk 2,174 1,016 47%Subtotal 14,425 6,000 42%Suburban Feeder70 Lanikai-Maunawili Suburban Feeder 256 255 100%77 Waimanalo-Kaneohe Suburban Feeder 334 227 68%Subtotal 590 482 82%ExpressPH4 Kaneohe-Kahaluu-Pearl Harbor Express 31 11 37%PH5 Windward-Pearl Harbor Express 55 35 63%85 Windward Express-Kailua Express 605 331 55%85A Windward Express-Haiku Express 311 203 65%88 Kahaluu-Ahuimanu Express Express 148 5 3%88A North Shore Express Express 212 12 5%89 Waimanalo-Kailua Express Express 115 5 4%Subtotal 1,476 601 41%Total 16,491 7,083 43%Page 5-40 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUKapoleiThis area includes Barbers Point Harbor, Makakilo, the James Campbell Industrial Park, andKapolei.The island’s ‘second city,’ Kapolei will soon become the western terminus of the fixed guidewayservices. It already supports major industrial areas, old social housing neighborhoods, andrapidly developing and sprawling new residential neighborhoods.Transit ServicesTwo major trunk routes and one rapid bus route provide service in the area; these include Routes40/40A, and CountryExpress! C. A number of peak express routes provide commuter servicefrom the different neighborhoods in the subarea to Pearl Harbor and Honolulu from Waialae,Makakilo, and Kapolei. An additional layer of service provides community circulation servicesbased at the Kapolei Transit Center to Makakilo, James Campbell Industrial Park, and BarbersPoint.Major Transit CorridorsThe major transit corridors in the area are the Farrington Highway and Roosevelt Avenue, whichconnect the West Coast with Kapolei and Honolulu, and Kapolei with Ewa Beach, respectively.Passenger boardings in the area represent just over 1 percent of the system’s ridership (about 15percent of area routes).Outstanding Service Issues1. Ridership in the area does not appear to justify the number of routes and communitycirculation services operating in the area.2. How can current routes be redesigned to effectively serve emerging new business andresidential developments?3. What sort of service should be provided to the Veterans’ Housing Area?4. How will the long-term Kapolei Transit Center, once constructed, interface with the fixedguideway terminus station, park-and-ride, and transit center?Page 5-41 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUFigure 5-24 Routes Serving the Kapolei SubareaRoutesDaily BoardingsRoute DescriptionRoute TypeServingRoute In Subarea PercentRapid BusC CountryExpress! C Rapid Bus 6,185 859 14%Subtotal 6,185 859 14%40/40A Honolulu-MakahaSuburban TrunkSuburban Trunk 10,300 3 0%41 Kapolei-Ewa Beach Suburban Trunk 1,409 994 71%Subtotal 11,709 997 9%PH1 Waianae Coast-Pearl HarborExpressExpress 107 16 15%92 Makakilo City Express Express 283 217 77%93 Waianae Coast Express-CBD Express 1,087 28 3%94 Villages of Kapolei-Kaupea Express 107 56 52%102 Villages of Kapolei Express Express 167 2 1%Subtotal 1,752 319 18%Community Circulator44 Waipahu-Ewa Beach Community Circulator 786 7 1%411 Makakilo Heights Community Circulator 465 465 100%412 Panana-Kapolei Community Circulator 505 506 100%413 Campbell Industrial Park Community Circulator 48 48 100%415 Kapolei Transit Center-Kalaeloa Community Circulator 38 38 100%Subtotal 1,842 1,064 58%Total 21,488 3,239 15%Page 5-43 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULULeeward CoastThe Leeward Coast Subarea extends along Farrington Highway from the northern edge ofKapolei to Makaha, where transit service ends.This is an area marked by small coastal communities and little development inland. Theexceptions are the Makaha Valley Road, which provides access to resort developments in theMakaha Valley, and the Waianae Valley area.Transit ServicesRoutes C, 40/40A, 93, and PH1 all serve the length of Farrington Highway through the subarea.Together they provide effective 15 minute headways. Routes 401, 402, and 403 radiate out fromthe Waianae Transit Center, providing local service to neighborhoods not along FarringtonHighway.Major Transit CorridorsFarrington Highway is the single significant road and transit corridor within the subarea. Mostbusiness activity within the area is focused on this roadway.Outstanding Service Issues1. Kili Drive, near the north end of the route, has become unsuitable for buses. This hasforced buses to turn back on Makaha Valley Road, bypassing what was previously part ofthe route.2. Staff members report that they continue to receive requests that bus service be extendedfarther north from Makaha along Farrington Highway.3. The turnback loop at Makaha travels through residential neighborhoods and generatescomplaints from local residents.Page 5-44 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUFigure 5-26 Routes Serving the Leeward Coast SubareaRoutesDaily BoardingsRoute DescriptionRoute TypeServingRoute In Subarea PercentRapid BusC Country Express! C Rapid Bus 6,185 2,679 43%Subtotal 6,185 2,679 43%Suburban Trunk40/40A Honolulu-Makaha Suburban Trunk 10,300 2,646 26%Subtotal 10,300 2,646 26%93 Waianae Coast Express-CBDExpressExpress 1,087 737 68%PH1 Waianae Coast-Pearl Harbor Express 107 43 40%Subtotal 1,195 780 65%Community Circulator401 Waianae Valley Community Circulator 368 368 100%402 Lualualei Homestead Community Circulator 158 158 100%403 Nanakuli-Maili-Waianae Community Circulator 512 512 100%Subtotal 1,038 1,038 100%Total 18,717 7,142 38%Page 5-46 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUMililani/WahiawaThis subarea includes the communities of Mililani and Wahiawa, as well as Schofield Barracksand Wheeler Army Airfield. The area includes long-established neighborhoods in Wahiawa andemerging subdivisions in Mililani.Transit ServicesRoutes 52, 84, and 88A, all pass through Mililani/Wahiawa, connecting the North Coast with otherparts of the island. Route 62 originates in Wahiawa, connecting the area with Ala Moana Centerabout every 35 minutes seven days a week. It is supplemented by five commute hour expressroutes – 84, 84A, 98, 98A, and PH2 – and three community access routes – 501, 503, and 504.The Mililani Transit Center serves as the focus for local services while park and ride access isprovided near the intersection of the Meheula Parkway with the H-2 Freeway. The WahiawaArmory Park and Ride provides a second access option for Wahiawa residents.Major Transit CorridorsThrough services generally utilize the Kamehameha Highway while the express routes areoriented to the H-2 Freeway. In Wahiawa, transit services are focused along California Avenue.Outstanding Service Issues1. Route 62, which provides the spine service to Mililani/Wahiawa, is a long route, with onewaytravel times approaching two hours. On-time performance is barely above 50%.2. All transit services are oriented towards Downtown Honolulu. People who want to gotowards Ewa Beach or Kapolei must transfer in the vicinity of the Pearl City ShoppingCenter. The proposed but unfunded Route 50 would address this issue.Page 5-47 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUFigure 5-28Routes Serving the Mililani/Wahiawa SubareaRoutesDaily BoardingsRoute DescriptionRoute TypeServingRoute In Subarea PercentSuburban Trunk52 Wahiawa-Circle Island/Kaneohe-Circle Island Suburban Trunk 5,367 1,536 29%62 Honolulu-Wahiawa Heights/Honolulu-Kahaluu Suburban Trunk 6,526 1,697 26%Subtotal 11,893 3,233 27%Suburban Feeder72 Schofield-Wahiawa-Whitmore Suburban Feeder 676 676 100%Subtotal 676 676 100%ExpressPH2/PH3* Mililani Town/Wahiawa Heights - Pearl Harbor Express 62 57 91%83 Wahiawa Town Express Express 666 262 39%84 Mililani Express-North Express 358 189 53%84A Mililani Express-South Express 415 242 58%88A North Shore Express Express 212 35 17%98/98A Wahiawa-Mililani P&R/Kunia-Wahiawa-Mililani Express 496 245 49%Subtotal 2,210 1,030 46%Total 14,778 4,939 33%* Ridership figures are for EB direction only.Page 5-49 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUNorth ShoreThis subarea encompasses the expansive North Shore area extending from Kaneohe to Waialua.The narrow coastal plain supports numerous small residential and recreational communities,nearly all along Kamehameha Highway. They are home to world class resorts, breathtakingscenery, surfing competitions, and staggering traffic jams.Transit ServicesThe three circle island routes – 52, 55, and 88A – link communities along the KamehamehaHighway with other parts of the island. Routes 52 and 55 combine to form a large loop.Clockwise trips first serve Route 52 and then continue on Route 55. Counter clockwise trips firstoperate as Route 55 and then continue on Route 52. Route 76 provides local service in Waialuaand Mokuleia, while Route 83 provides commute hour express service linking those twocommunities with Downtown Honolulu and the University of Hawaii at Manoa.Major Transit CorridorsThe major transit corridor is the only major road in the subarea: Kamehameha Highway. Itextends the length of the coastline and continues inland to Wahiawa.Outstanding Service Issues1. Combined, routes 52 and 55 form a long route that takes nearly 4 ½ hours to drive.Slightly more than one-half the scheduled travel time provided on these routes is outsidethe subarea (1:16 from Ala Moana to Wahiawa and 56 minutes from Kaneohe to AlaMoana on one clockwise trip.) If a strict 30-minute headway were provided, the two routeswould require at least 18 buses2. Traffic is highly variable and is dependent upon weather conditions, community events,and time of the year. Combined with the long route, this makes schedule reliabilitydifficult.Page 5-50 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUFigure 5-30 Routes Serving the North Shore SubareaRoutesDaily BoardingsRoute DescriptionRoute TypeServingRoute In Subarea PercentSuburban Trunk52 Wahiawa-Circle Island/Kaneohe-Circle Island Suburban Trunk 5,367 1,130 21%55 Wahiawa-Circle Island/Kaneohe-Circle Island/ Suburban Trunk 4,208 1,667 40%65 Honolulu-Wahiawa Heights/Honolulu-Kahaluu Suburban Trunk 2,174 300 14%Subtotal 11,748 3,097 26%Suburban Feeder76 Waialua-Haleiwa Suburban Feeder 309 309 100%Subtotal 309 309 100%ExpressPH4 Kaneohe-Kahaluu-Pearl Harbor Express 31 15 50%83 Wahiawa Town Express Express 666 70 11%88 Kahaluu-Ahuimanu Express Express 148 26 18%88A North Shore Express Express 212 172 81%Subtotal 1,057 284 27%Total 13,114 3,689 28%Page 5-52 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUWaipahu-Pearl CityThis area includes the traditional suburban communities of Waipahu and Pearl City, extendingfrom Aloha Stadium to Ft. Weaver Road. It includes Village Park and Waipio Gentry, as well asresidential communities above the H-1 Freeway, Aiea and Halawa Heights.This subarea grew historically along the Kamehameha and Farrington Highways (SR-99 and SR-93) and more recently has been experiencing significant growth on its fringes.Transit ServicesThree rapid bus routes (A, C, and E) and several major suburban trunk routes in the Top 25 (20,40/40A, 42, 52, 54, and 62) connect residential neighborhoods in this subarea with Honolulu, theAla Moana Center and Waikiki. A number of peak express services connect differentneighborhood areas with Honolulu. Also, feeder and community circulator routes provide localmobility for residents going to local destinations and connecting with major trunk services to thecity. Routes come together for timed-transfer connections at the Waipahu Transit Center andalong the Kamehameha Highway on Pearl City and Pearlridge.Major Transit CorridorsThe two major transit corridors in the area are the H-1 Freeway and the Kamehameha Highway,which carry most express and rapid services and most urban and suburban trunk services,respectively. This area generates over 10 percent of the system’s ridership and over 30 percentof ridership on routes serving and going through the subarea.Outstanding Service Issues1. Effectiveness of suburban feeder routes, providing limited service hours and servingneighborhoods that already have regular bus service.2. Effectiveness of peak express routes, providing limited service hours and trips and servingneighborhoods that already have trunk service and connections to rapid service.3. Extent of area along east-west highway corridors lends itself to stronger trunk and rapidservices and direct feeding connections from neighborhoods along the corridor.4. Overall service frequency and seat capacity along Kamehameha Highway.Page 5-53 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUFigure 5-32 Routes Serving the Waipahu-Pearl City SubareaRoutesDaily BoardingsRoute DescriptionRoute TypeServingRoute In Subarea PercentRapid BusA City Express! A Rapid Bus 15,603 4,948 32%E Country Express! E Rapid Bus 4,778 1,424 30%Subtotal 20,381 6,372 31%20 Waikiki-Airport-Hickam/Waikiki-PearlridgeUrban TrunkUrban Trunk 3,667 161 4%Subtotal 3,667 161 4%11 Honolulu-Aiea HeightsSuburban TrunkSuburban Trunk 1,294 622 48%40/40A Honolulu-Makaha Suburban Trunk 10,300 3,007 29%42 Ewa Beach-Waikiki Suburban Trunk 10,494 2,692 26%43 Waipahu St-Honolulu-Ala Moana Suburban Trunk 2,168 885 41%52 Wahiawa-Circle Island/Kaneohe-Circle Island Suburban Trunk 5,367 58 1%53 Honolulu-Pacific Palisades Suburban Trunk 2,542 1,099 43%54 Honolulu-Pearl City Suburban Trunk 2,944 1,252 43%62 Honolulu-Wahiawa Heights/Honolulu-Kahaluu Suburban Trunk 6,526 1,517 23%Subtotal 41,634 11,132 27%32 Kalihi-PearlridgeUrban FeederUrban Feeder 1,722 252 15%Subtotal 1,722 252 15%71 Pearlridge-NewtownSuburban FeederSuburban Feeder 128 128 100%73 Leeward Community College Suburban Feeder 409 388 95%74 Aiea-Halawa Heights Suburban Feeder 100 95 95%Subtotal 637 612 96%ExpressPH2/PH3 Mililani Town/Wahiawa Heights - Pearl Harbor Express 62 3 4%81 Waipahu Express Express 1,303 893 68%88A North Shore Express Express 212 32 15%90 Pearl City Express Express 67 29 43%96 Waipio Gentry Express Express 143 100 70%97 Village Park Express Express 397 190 48%103 Paiwa-Waikele Express Express 136 79 58%201 Waipahu via Farrington Express Express 602 200 33%202 Waipahu via Paiwa Express Express 226 176 78%Subtotal 3,149 1,700 54%Community Circulator44 Waipahu-Ewa Beach Community Circulator 786 173 22%432 East-West Waipahu Community Circulator 1,607 1,609 100%433 Waipahu-Waikele Shopping Center Community Circulator 1,257 1,261 100%434 Waipahu-Village Park Community Circulator 1,383 1,387 100%Subtotal 5,033 4,431 88%Total 76,223 24,660 32%Page 5-55 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUChapter 6. Issues for Further AnalysisThis final chapter summarizes the issues that will be the focus of subsequent project phases.Each represents a challenge that today confronts TheBus and is likely to continue throughout thenext five years and beyond. In most cases, these issues expand upon subjects identified in theSystem Description and Service Performance chapters, and explore the system-wide implicationsof local operational issues and transit service demand.A recurring theme that cuts through many of these issues is the very real capacity constraints thatTheBus is experiencing on its daily operations. Overcrowding on buses, roadway congestion,and congested bus stop zones all result in slow operating speeds, poor schedule adherence, andservice quality and reliability issues that push the system’s various facilities beyond their designcapacity. While many of these capacity constraints raise long term needs or hard limits (i.e.maintenance facilities), others are soft limits and can be dealt with in the short term (i.e. bus tripvolumes and fleet assignment). Consistent with the project themes identified at the outset of thisstudy, system issues for further analysis include the following:Service Efficiency and Effectiveness1. System Speed – What can be done to speed transit operations throughout the system?This is a complex issue that is appropriately divided into separate elements.a. Traffic Congestion – What strategies can be employed to mitigate the impacts ofincreasing traffic congestion on transit operating speeds and costs?b. Downtown Bus Stops – How may the finite capacity of bus stops in DowntownHonolulu accommodate the number of passengers and buses that utilize them?2. Bus Overloads – How can the system address overloads that affect service quality,reliability, and the overall customer experience?3. Performance Measures – What measures should TheBus use to evaluate the success ofindividual routes and service categories? What standards should be adopted and howshould they be employed to ensure that services are effective and efficient?Route Network Structure4. Design Principles – What changes to the system’s design principles are needed toappropriately address current design priorities and future system growth?5. Service Re-Design – What changes to individual routes will allow them to better conformto the system’s design principles in light of capacity constraints and improvements inefficiency and productivity?6. Market Demand and Travel Needs – What changes to the system network will betteraddress current and future travel demand and mobility needs?System Capacity7. Street Carrying Capacity and Bus Stops – How much service can be reliably putthrough major urban corridors? How much service can be handled by existing stopzones? Can different corridor and stop operations increase system capacity?8. Bus Vehicle Capacity – In conjunction with street carrying capacity and stop zones, howmuch bus capacity is needed to reduce overloads?Page 6-1 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU9. Maintenance and Vehicle Storage Facilities – Are existing facilities sufficient to addressfuture needs? Can efficiencies in scheduling, bus size, and fleet assignment improvecapacity constraints at bus depots?10. Transit Centers – Are transit centers of sufficient size and properly located to handle thefuture demands that will be placed on them? Are they needed in all cases?Transition to Fixed Guideway Transit11. Bus-Fixed Guideway Interface – How will the bus system network adjust, incorporate,and take advantage of a higher capacity service mode?12. Construction Detours – What strategies will be employed during fixed guidewayconstruction to ensure the effective continuation of affected bus services?This is a challenging set of issues and each issue is discussed in more detail in the sectionsbelow. Each will demand the continuing attention of DTS for many years. The SRTP is intendedto provide a blueprint for how to address these issues. The plan will not try to identify specificremedial measures for every route in the system. Instead, the purpose of the plan is to identifythe policy directions and develop the strategy framework that will guide future service changesand improvements.Service Efficiency and Effectiveness1. System SpeedThe average system speed has been declining steadily since at least 1984 from a systemaverage of 14.6 miles per hour in 1984 to 13.2 miles per hour in 2009; this represents a decline of1.4 miles per hour on a 25-year period. 63 While this may appear to be relatively insignificantwhen first considered, its impact becomes significant overtime, requiring more running time to beadded to schedules and increases in vehicle fleet commitments system wide to meet routeheadways.As was noted in the previous chapter, actual operating speeds vary greatly depending upon theoperating environment that individual routes operate within. The slowest operating speedsgenerally occur on urban trunk routes operating in Honolulu and rapid bus and trunk routesoperating on Downtown streets. Two strategies that have the most promise for reducing thisdecline in operating speed are (1) to increase the carrying capacity of Downtown streets throughimplementation of transit priority strategies and (2) reducing bus congestion and delays at stops.Transit Priority StrategiesA broad range of transit system priority treatments can be considered for implementation onDowntown streets and other congested and slow operating corridors in the system, including:• Bus Signal Priority (BSP) strategies that re-program traffic signal controllers and systemsto improve general traffic flow in the corridor and interact with transit vehicles, giving themextended green times when needed to help clear intersections more rapidly and maintainheadways and reliability.63 Source: DTS reported NTD (and formerly Section 15) reports Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles and Annual VehicleRevenue ours.Page 6-2 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU• Physical roadway improvements, such as queue jumps at critical intersections, HOV ortransit-only lanes along congested segments, or sidewalk bump-outs to keep bus vehiclesin travel lanes and reduce delays pulling in and out of traffic.• Service operation strategies along congested corridors, such as relocating stops to the farside of intersections to take advantage of traffic signal cycles (green time) and BSP,spacing of stops farther apart to reduce dwell times, and/or segregation of stops into routegroups, for corridors with a high number of routes such as those in Honolulu.• Real-time monitoring and management of corridor operations becomes a necessarycomplement to BSP to manage headways and service gaps along corridors with highpassenger demand to avoid bus overloads and efficient use of seating capacity.• Use of contra-flow lanes at key locations to improve circulation and routing of buses incongested areas. For example, a contra-flow lane could help reducing vehicle turnaroundsin Waikiki.• Use of reversible lanes or streets during rush-hour periods. For example, Hotel Street,which effectively functions as a transit only street, could provide faster and better service ifbuses were able to pass around and skip stops by operating the street one-way in themorning (eastbound) and evening (westbound).Reducing Congestion at Bus StopsThe placement and design of bus stops has the potential to slow corridor operations. A greatdeal of academic research has been dedicated to calculating the bus carrying capacity of citystreets. 64 Numerous factors, including street width and number of general purpose lanes,location and length of bus stops, number of boarding passengers and boarding times, whether atraffic signal is present and its green time ratio, and how difficult it is to get in and out of the stopand merge back into traffic, all impact the number of buses that can operate effectively along acity street.Research in other communities has quantified the cost and delay associated with placing morestops than are required for efficient operations. Costs also increase when more buses try to usea single zone than it will accommodate, or when buses are delayed trying to reenter the vehiclestream.Local officials have noted that, during commute hours, many of the Downtown streets experiencebus congestion that significantly impacts the timeliness of transit operations. At this point in theproject there is not sufficient data to determine where bus stop capacities are being exceeded.Subsequent project phases will analyze a sample of locations that experience the most significantproblems and investigate how they can most effectively be addressed.2. Bus OverloadsIn theory, a transit service provider can address overloads by providing more frequent service(more bus trips) that spread the passenger load over expanded seat capacity, or by maintainingthe frequency (same number of trips) but utilizing larger buses that provide more seats.Attempting to expand the system’s capacity, TheBus already is utilizing 60-foot low-floorarticulated buses on its most heavily patronized routes, leaving only more frequent service (more64 Part 4 of TCRP Report 100 ‘Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, Transportation Research Board, isconsidered the authoritative source on this subject.Page 6-3 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUbus trips) as an option. Three factors combine to limit how much more frequency the system canprovide:1. As noted above, so many buses already operate through Downtown that stops are fullduring commute hours. More vehicles would slow travel through the Central BusinessDistrict even more.2. At least until fixed guideway service begins operation, maintenance capacity is limited,placing hard limits on the system’s capability to expand the total size of the fleet.3. Most significantly, the system’s financial resources are extremely limited. Throughout, thisSRTP assumes that any service expansion will need to be offset by reductions in otherparts of the system. This limits the system’s flexibility.The consultant team is working with OTS to identify specific trips that are experiencingovercrowding and the duration of these events. Strategies for addressing these situations willform a core element of the SRTP. Subsequent phases of the project will analyze:• Passenger Demand – passenger demand and bus loads along key corridor segmentsthat are known locations of overcrowding to understand occurrence of crush loads by timeof day. Some corridors may have overcrowding on specific trips; others may have it for alonger period of time.• Vehicle Capacity – passenger demand and bus load analysis should be analyzed againstseating capacities and throughput along corridors; this will take into account the capacityby vehicle type and assignment to routes, but also the capacity of stops to serve bus tripsand seats.• Fleet Assignment – Fleet assignments to routes operating on corridors withovercrowding should be analyzed to estimate average vehicle capacity and seat supplythroughout the day.3. Performance Measures and StandardsThe SRTP will develop a set of performance measures and standards that will be used toevaluate route performance. Performance standards are increasingly viewed as an effectivestrategy for monitoring and comparing the effectiveness of individual services and identifyingappropriate remedial measures. A system of performance measures is not intended to take theplace of public process and informed political discussion. Instead, they provide transit agencystaff members with a tool for presenting the basis for recommendations and a defense againstcharges that recommended changes are biased or exhibit favoritism. They point to problems,helping staff to focus on the system’s most significant operational issues.Once adopted, performance measures are typically employed with few changes for many years.The standards that are set for each route category typically evolve over time as the system’sexpectations change. Also, while most systems use a similar set of measures to evaluate allroutes, the standards usually vary. For example, the number of passengers per hour on a routeis the most common performance measure used by transit systems across the country.However, the acceptable number of passengers per hour on rapid bus services will likely be verydifferent from community circulator services.It will be important to very carefully consider each proposed measure and standard. If they do notreflect the system’s true priorities then their use may not point to routes that need change.Page 6-4 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULURoute Network Structure4. Design PrinciplesWhile not explicitly stated in writing, the design principles outlined in “Chapter 4: Transit SystemDescription” have been successfully employed for many years and have allowed TheBus to enjoysignificant success. They have evolved, and will likely continue to do so. As part of this SRTP,DTS and the consultant team will review existing routes to identify services that no longerconform to the larger system’s design. An example of such services may be routes that functionas local collectors at one end and then turn into rapid bus services to travel Downtown. Whilethis design offers riders a one-seat ride, it may also mean that oversized vehicles are beingunnecessarily used in local residential neighborhoods. Using a smaller vehicle and requiringpassengers to transfer at a transit center or central location may speed service in residentialneighborhoods and reduce capital costs.Design guidelines should be consistent with the system’s service standards. Generally, routesthat do not conform to effective design guidelines will also fail to meet performance expectations.For this reason, design and operating standards are often developed as a single document, andserve as the basis for future service changes and system management to improve efficiency andeffectiveness, but also quality, reliability, and attractiveness.5. Service RedesignAs the plan moves forward, specific service initiatives will be identified that implement emergingpolicy objectives. These initiatives will take three forms:1. Service Changes – The identification of specific service changes that implement policyobjectives outlined in the SRTP. These may include route or scheduling changesincluding changes to routing, headways and span of service. The plan will provideenough detail that planners and schedulers will have clear direction regarding thechanges. Numbers of buses and service hours needed to operate services will becalculated.2. Capital Equipment and Facilities – Appropriate changes to the capital plan, togetherwith the costs of these changes, will be identified.3. Planning Studies – Some issues are more complex and their implications so significant,that they may merit a separate planning effort. These may be transit corridor/areastudies, facilities analyses, or fixed guideway integration studies. The scope of theseplanning studies, along with the appropriate timeframe and probable costs, will beprovided.6. Market Demand and Travel NeedsNew residential growth and urban development will keep adding pressure to the system networkto get its routes extended and serve new areas in the same fashion that the system is doingtoday, with specific service modes and dedicated routes that connect with Honolulu’s maindestinations, or circulate through the community connecting with local destinations, and/orprovide direct fast connections with major employment centers.New residential areas and trip attractors are developing, particularly outside Honolulu in Kapoleiand Ewa which are slated for growth in the future. This growth will be spurred by the fixedPage 6-5 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUguideway transit system and large employers and trip generators such as the University ofHawaii, West Oahu Campus.This new urban development requires the definition of an appropriate service response toemerging transit demand in the future in areas that will likely be more dispersed and less friendlyto transit than Honolulu or Waikiki, but may have strong demand for commute trips and feederservice to fixed guideway transit. This will require a market-based strategy and set of policiesand performance standards to manage resources efficiently and effectively in the future.Any changes or updates in service policy and service design philosophy will likely trickle down thesystem to other areas of low transit demand such as Kaneohe, Kailua, Mililani, and others.System Capacity7. Street Carrying Capacity and Bus Trips VolumesThe system is operating large bus trip volumes at key corridor segments in the Downtown areaand in Waikiki that may be over the current vehicle capacity of the street. Many corridors in theprimary urban area appear congested and carrying significant bus trip volumes that:• May be exceeding the operational capacity of the curb lane, or• Bus operations cannot be managed efficiently due to congestion on mixed-flow lanes thatdoes not allow for passing up and skip stops or more efficiently operate a limited-stopservice like the CityExpress!Most routes outside Honolulu go to Downtown and then to Ala Moana or Waikiki or both,however, there are significant passenger turnovers in the city and many trips to thesedestinations are internal city trips and not regional trips.• Utilization of the King/Beretania pair by suburban trunk and peak express services addssignificant bus traffic that may be streamlined and/or balanced to reduce bus trip volumesin the Downtown area.• Market prioritization and origin-destination hierarchies may help in sorting out criticalconnections, serving demand from the outer areas more appropriately, reducing bus tripvolumes in Downtown, while shortening vehicle-revenue miles on average, thus freeing upvehicles to augment headways and improve reliability on key trunk corridors.8. Seating Supply and Bus Stop CapacityAs mentioned earlier, many bus zones on major transit corridors in Honolulu and the Downtownarea are operating above capacity, thus impacting service reliability, schedule adherence, and theactual seat capacity that is put on the street, which often results in bus overloads. This is ofparticular concern to major system routes such as the rapid bus and urban trunk services. Issuesto be addressed include:• Several bus zones in Downtown, Chinatown, and Waikiki have limited capacity. One ortwo buses can serve them at any single time and thus are effectively managing busthroughput along key transit corridors.• Excess bus volumes result in bus-zone operation breakdowns where buses cannot enterthe zone or have to wait for others to pull out before loading/unloading passengers.Page 6-6 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU• Potential strategies to consider include thinning out bus trips and/or distributing stops bydiscrete route groups to help with speeds and reliability. This assumes the ability ofpassing up between buses which may not be possible at all locations and times.9. Maintenance and Vehicle Storage FacilitiesAs indicated in the public transit facilities study, bus parking and maintenance space is nearingcapacity at both the Kalihi-Middle Street and Pearl City facilities. Potential approaches tomaintenance and storage capacity issues will depend to a great extent on the future of TheBussystem as it responds to construction and operation of fixed guideway transit in the next 5 to 10years. In particular, it may be necessary to investigate the following:• Whether the system needs a third facility to operate its current levels of service andwhether it can safely continue to operate the system from two facilities in the short-term.• Whether fleet requirements will increase or decrease in the future when fixed guidewaytransit is fully operational. It is unclear what would be the optimal fleet composition of thesystem in the future and whether more buses will be needed. Potentially, the system mayrequire a larger number of smaller buses to feed the fixed guideway system, a largernumber of articulated buses, and a smaller number of 40-foot buses• Potentially, the system may require a significant fleet increase in the short-term to mitigatefixed guideway system construction impacts on traffic congestion and a smaller fleet intothe future. If so the need for a third facility may be temporary and not long-termDeadheads and SchedulingIn addition to changes in the structure of the system network that may result in reductions in fleetrequirements in the system, there may be an opportunity to optimize fleet utilization throughscheduling and blocking, deadheading, and assignment to depots.• The current system may be able to operate from two facilities in the future if fleetassignments, vehicle blocking, and deadheads have room for improvements in efficiency.• Vehicle resource efficiencies may be created by reviewing the current system design andstructure to improve fleet utilization. This will also need to be analyzed when fixedguideway transit becomes operational and during the transition/construction period.10. Transit CentersThe system operates eight transit centers that were identified and discussed in Chapter 4.Together they span much of the island’s geographic area. While some, like the Ala MoanaCenter, have been in operation for many years, others (like Kapolei and Waianae) are the directresult of the hub-and-spoke program. All provide a central location where customers have theability to conveniently transfer between routes. Construction of the fixed guideway system maychange their function and location value, and will undoubtedly affect their operation. Theirappropriate role and scale needs to be identified along with the changes that will be needed toadjust to the fixed guideway system. In the short-term two issues that will require attention tooperate the current system more efficiently include:• Bay Capacity and Layover – Moving the system to a hub-and-spoke and/or trunk-feedersystem can potentially create more demand and vehicle trips at transit centers, adding tobus circulation and layover needs.Page 6-7 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU• Bus Routing – Additional transit centers or additional routes serving transit centers mayresult in more out-of-direction deviations for passengers and increased travel times; thismay increase the need for more vehicles and service hours and impact headways.Transition to Fixed Guideway Transit11. Bus-Fixed Guideway InterfaceDeveloping a road map for bus-fixed guideway service integration is a key project theme for theSRTP. According to the project schedule in the HHCTCP Final EIS, in the year 2010 the designand implementation of the segment between East Kapolei and Pearl Highlands will begin. Duringthe five-year lifetime of this SRTP the Honolulu HCT Project will at the most completeconstruction and start operation of its first and second phases or segments from East Kapolei toPearl Highlands. The SRTP will work toward:• The identification of service changes, if any, to mitigate construction of the first andsecond segments of the fixed guideway system.• Identify system changes that will be required in the future to integrate fixed guidewaytransit into the transit system structure as an additional mode, taking full advantage of thesynergy and increased passenger demand that fixed guideway transit will bring on thetransit system as a whole.12. Construction DetoursDetour plans will remain a concern throughout the fixed guideway system’s construction. TheSRTP will attempt to:• Identify areas of greatest impact and concern for bus operations during initial fixedguideway construction phases.• Identify service priorities during fixed guideway construction.• Identify procedures that will be used to develop, evaluate, and publicize detour routingswhen necessary.Key Focus IssuesThese themes are reflected in a series of focus issues that have emerged during the project’sinitial stages. While the specific issues that will be addressed will undoubtedly evolve throughoutthe project, Appendix D depicts a comprehensive listing of issues that the project team plans toaddress.Many of these issues duplicate items addressed above but others touch on several areas. Forexample, the first focus issue identified in Appendix D addresses the circulation and routing ofbuses at Ala Moana Center. This review will touch on issues of transit center capacity, busroutings, and bus-fixed guideway interfaces.Page 6-8 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

PARATRANSIT SYSTEMTHEHANDI-VAN

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUChapter 7. Overview of ParatransitService DeliveryBackground/Overview of ADA RequirementsThe Americans with Disabilities Act, which was signed into law in 1990, stipulates that any entityoperating fixed route transit services must also provide a complementary paratransit program forpersons with disabilities who are unable, due to their disability, to make independent use of thefixed route service. Honolulu’s paratransit program (TheHandi-Van) is responsible for complyingwith these federal requirements. According to the ADA, the paratransit program is intended to becomparable to services available to the general public in that it is required to operate within thesame service area and operate the same hours as fixed route. Other service criteria were alsoestablished by statute, which are discussed later in this report. Most significant among thesecriteria is that transit operators are not allowed to have any capacity constraints, meaning that triprequests for eligible persons cannot be prioritized, limited or denied.The ADA also requires that transit operators ensure their fixed routes are accessible and usablefor persons with disabilities by equipping them with ramps or lifts to accommodate wheelchairusers, requiring that drivers call out stops for blind or visually impaired persons, and by makingother improvements or modifications so that persons with disabilities can use the same transitservices as the general public. The overall intent of the ADA is to “mainstream” or allow use of thesame public services for persons with disabilities that other persons enjoy. ADA paratransit isintended as a safety net for those who, even with these accommodations, are prevented by thenature of their disability from using those services.TheBus fleet is fully accessible, meaning that all buses are equipped with ramps or lifts toaccommodate wheelchair riders. It is much more cost-effective to provide service on fixed routeservice compared to providing specialized paratransit service which, for 2009, averaged $36.35per trip. Therefore, strong incentives exist for the operator to make sure that passengers withdisabilities are able to use the service by ensuring that equipment is well maintained, drivers aretrained to call out stops for persons with visual impairments, to ensure that priority seats aredesignated for elderly and disabled persons, and to develop awareness of these services andprograms. Many transit agencies have also successfully trained persons with disabilities to makeuse of fixed route services, at least for some of their trips. To date, the City has not sponsoredtravel training for persons with disabilities, although this concept is under discussion.Program OversightThe City and County of Honolulu is responsible for the provision of public transit, includingparatransit, on the island of Oahu. These services are housed within the within the Public TransitDivision of DTS. The Committee for Accessible Transportation provides counsel and advice tothe Director of the DTS concerning the transportation goals and objectives for the elderly andpersons with disabilities, including both fixed route and paratransit services.The City’s agreement with OTS is documented in the Management and Operations Agreement.This agreement requires that OTS provide detailed information to the City regarding TheHandi-Van, including:• List of all trip denials and whether ride was subscription or non-subscription.Page 7-1 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU• List of all untimely pick-ups.• List of all missed trips.• List of all trips of excessive length.• List of the date and time of day when subscription service is in excess of 50%.• List of events in which transportation is denied to a wheelchair user because of thesecurement system.• Regular reports on customer complaints.DTS is responsible for monitoring the performance of TheHandi-Van in accordance with thescope of services established in the Management Agreement. Currently, efforts are underway toestablish a formalized process to establish performance and productivity goals and objectives forTheHandi-Van, to develop a reporting mechanism to capture actual service performancecharacteristics, and to monitor or compare actual performance to the stated goals and objectives.To report on its performance, OTS prepares Paratransit Monthly Performance Report, whichprovides information on that month’s service operations, and compares the performance to that ofthe year prior. In 2007, guidance was issued by DTS to OTS 65 to clarify certain definitions andcriteria for monitoring service. Likewise, the City Bus Internal Operations Review document,prepared for the City and County of Honolulu by Shelly Brown Associates (See Chapter 3),pointed out the need to enhance the OTS Paratransit Monthly Performance Report by includingadditional data points. For example, late trips, trips with excessive ride time, and the percentageof subscription trips are not included in the monthly performance report, although the informationcan be extracted through the scheduling software program. That report also suggested thatoperating statistics be captured on a daily basis, an approach that was tested in November 2009discontinued, at least for the time being, because of the perceived time and effort involved in datacollection, reporting and analysis.System OverviewParatransit service hours are consistent with those of TheBus in that it operates from 4:30 AM to12:30 AM daily. Service is available in some areas 24 hours a day to mirror those fixed routesthat also operate continually. The service area includes the entire island of Oahu, which has aland area of 600 square miles.Oahu Transit Services (OTS) manages and operates TheHandi-Van, and in this capacity hiresdrivers, and performs reservation, scheduling, dispatching, maintenance, customer service andfare ticket sales activities as well as driving. OTS runs TheHandi-Van from the City’s MiddleStreet Bus Facility, which houses administrative, reservation, scheduling, dispatch, customerservice and other support functions. Maintenance and most fueling are also performed at theMiddle Street complex. Consideration is being given to base some TheHandi-Van vehicles out ofthe City’s Pearl City facility to address capacity constraints at the Middle Street facility and tobetter accommodate trips completed west of Honolulu. While taking this step may help alleviatevehicle congestion at Middle Street, it is also important to make sure that the Pearl City facility isequipped to take on this function.65 Memorandum from James Burke to J. Roger Morton, “Paratransit Performance Monitoring,” Dated October 26, 2007.See Appendix A.Page 7-2 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUDuring 2009, costs to operate the TheHandi-Van program totaled nearly $30 million (includingdirect operating costs and administrative costs assumed by DTS). A total of 774,675 trips wereprovided at an average operating cost per trip of $35.11. As discussed in more detail in Chapter5, the paratransit budget has been increasing every year; since 2004, costs have nearly doubled.Paratransit Eligibility and Certification ProcessAccording to the ADA, paratransit eligibility is intended to be strictly limited to those personswhose disability prevents use of fixed route, and such eligibility is not based solely on thepresence of a disability, on age, or lack of other transportation resources. If an individual meetsthe eligibility criteria for some trips but not for others, the individual is considered eligible only forthose trips for which he or she meets the criteria. For example, a developmentally disabledperson may be able to take some or many trips on the fixed route service if the trips are familiar,or if the passenger has been trained to make those particular trips. However, he or she may beentitled to paratransit services for other trips if those trips cannot be independently navigated onfixed route transit due to the nature of the individual’s disability. Likewise, an individual’s healthcondition may be episodic in nature, or, extreme weather conditions, in combination with thedisability, may trigger paratransit eligibility for some but not all trips. Due to the complexities ofimplementing a trip-by-trip process, very few transit agencies actually do so.Until recently, City staff was responsible for eligibility certification. As of October 2009, however,the City has entered into an arrangement with a private contractor to conduct certificationactivities. All applicants are now required to complete an in-person interview and to participate ina functional assessment that is intended to gauge his or her abilities to use fixed route transit.The process is now “paperless,” meaning that no paper application is submitted; rather, theinformation is entered electronically at the time of the in-person assessment. The applicant’scertification status is then available to OTS when a ride is requested.The City’s support of the new certification center represents both a significant financial investmentas well as a shift in how persons are determined eligible for ADA paratransit. In this way,Honolulu mirrors other transit agencies’ efforts to ensure its certification process is rigorous andaccurate. Overall, the goals are to ensure:• Only persons with disabilities who are unable to use fixed route for some or all of theirtrips are determined eligible for TheHandiVan, thereby encouraging use of fixed routetransit for those who can use it, and managing demand for the more expensive paratransitservice; and• Customers are well informed and provided mobility options most appropriate for theirtransportation needs.As part of the next phase of this project, documentation of the certification results at the newassessment center will be provided.Paratransit Fleet and Other Capital InvestmentsThe City and County of Honolulu owns the capital equipment to support TheHandi-Vanoperations, accounting for any equipment replacements or expansion in PTD’s CapitalImprovement Plan (CIP). OTS has 166 vehicles in the paratransit fleet (see Appendix F forTheHandi-Van fleet roster including vehicle age and mileage). More than half of the fleet is oversix years old, reaching or surpassing their useful lives. In addition, 28 of the vehicles do not havethe full communication package, including Mobile Data Terminals (MDTs), which are procuredPage 7-3 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUwith new vehicles. OTS has historically maintained a large fleet (including many older vehicles) inan effort to limit the number of denials. As discussed in the Taxi section, cabs have been usedsince last year primarily to eliminate denials.In response to recommendations emerging from the Honolulu Paratransit Service Study,completed by Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates in 2007, as well as a 2006 FTA TriennialReview, OTS prepared a 5-year (FY2008 to FY2012) ADA Compliance Program Plan (seeAppendix G) that specified a fleet replacement and expansion plan to reduce denials. This plancalls for 168 vans in FY10, then retiring an additional 52 vehicles and procuring 77 new ones byFY2012, increasing the fleet to 193. The procurement plan addresses the 28 vehicles withoutMDTs as new purchases will have the required communication equipment and replace the oldervans. The retirement of only 52 vehicles by 2012 will not fully address the age of the fleet. As aresult, 30 more vehicles will be 8 years old in 2012 and another 32 will have reached 6 years old.The current CIP identifies a slightly reduced procurement plan with 35 new vehicles in FY2011and 30 each year through FY2016. Expansion to the FY2012 fleet will require an expansion toparking capacity at the Middle Street facility (the proposed relocation of some vehicle to PearlCity may address part of this constraint).OTS has been using a temporary maintenance facility at the Middle Street site. The newmaintenance building has been completed but requires additional equipment and furnishingsbefore it can be operational. The CIP programmed this for FY2009 and the facility should beoperational during the summer of 2010.The paratransit vehicles currently refuel at TheBus fueling facility at the Middle Street site, butcan only use it midday as not to conflict with fixed-bus refueling needs. Many of the paratransitvans are not available to use the fueling facility during this limited window and need to usecommercial stations, increasing fuel costs.As detailed in the following section, staff have been dedicated to the “where’s my van” function inorder to respond to customer inquiries about van arrival times. OTS staff highlighted a need toupgrade the two “where’s my van” computer workstations for full dispatch capability, upgradingthe dispatch application software.Reservation and Scheduling PracticesOTS is moving toward the real-time scheduling process and away from the practice of manuallyallocating trips to hour windows as detailed in the previous studies and called out in the Five-YearADA Compliance Program to reduce denials and improve on-time performance. The reservationand scheduling staff are becoming familiar with the process by scheduling weekend using the fullcapability of the Trapeze software. And OTS has appointed a full-time Information TechnologyDirector to facilitate the migration and oversee the incorporation of other call-center and dispatchtechnologies. OTS is taking greater advantage of Computer Aided Dispatch system andassociated communications/AVL technologies to better manage day of trip monitoring. Additionalstaff has been added to provide these functions, bringing the totals to: 17 reservationists, 4schedulers and 12 dispatchers. The dispatch function has been expanded to included dedicatedstaff to handle the “where’s my van” and cancellations calls, freeing up reservationists to focus onprocessing trip requests.Page 7-4 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUUse of TaxisMany transit agencies, especially those in urban areas, use taxi services to supplement theirdemand response services, whether those services are operated in-house or under contract.Taxis can be effectively employed to provide peak overflow trips, trips in low demand areas ortimes of the day, and long out-of-the-way (i.e., “non-ridesharable”) trips that would otherwiseadversely affect the productivity of dedicated fleets. In addition, transit agencies may make usethese non-dedicated services to more efficiently and swiftly respond to accidents andbreakdowns; to respond to “no-shows” that suddenly materialize after the dedicated vehicle hasresumed its run; to transfer away trips on dedicated vehicles that are running late (in order to getthat vehicle back on schedule); to handle seasonal or event fluctuations in demand; to testwhether or not the dedicated fleet should be expanded; to more cost efficiently meet the ADA’szero denial requirement; and in general to better match the dedicated run structure to the demandcurve.The general approach taken by these systems is to try to maximize the productivity of theirdedicated fleet by ensuring that trips that do not positively contribute to a productive dedicatedfleet get assigned to taxis and/or other non-dedicated service providers.While TheHandi-Van has made use of taxis over the years, previous studies andrecommendations have suggested that the use of taxis be expanded in the system; primarily, toensure there are no capacity constraints that could result in non-compliance with the ADA.Currently, supplemental transportation services are provided by one taxi company (TheCab) andtwo specialized transportation companies, Silver Cross Handi-Trans and Hawaii Medi-Cab Inc.While no formal policy exists, DTS and OTS staff stated the goals for taxi use include:• Travel to inaccessible locations• Reduce van deadhead miles• Eliminate denials• Improve on-time performancePage 7-5 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUThe Five-Year ADA Compliance Program called for annual increases in the number of taxi trip toreduce denials. As of July 2009 OTS did not book any rides outside of ADA window (even ifclient was willing to accept one) using taxis for overflow trips in compliance with the five yearprogram. For 2009, a total of 71,397 trips were provided by taxi, which represents 9% of all therides. As illustrated by Figure 7-1 and Figure 7-2 below, the number of annual taxi trips hasincreased by 70 percent between 2007 and 2009; likewise, the expenses dedicated to taxiservices have increased by 77%.Figure 7-1Annual TheHandi-Van Taxi Passengers FY2007-FY2010Annual Taxi Passengers90,00085,00080,00075,00070,00065,00060,00055,00050,00045,000FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10*Source: OTS Paratransit Operations Monthly Performance ReportsFigure 7-2Annual Taxi Service Expense FY2007-FY2010Annual Taxi Service Expense$1,700,000$1,600,000$1,500,000$1,400,000$1,300,000$1,200,000$1,100,000$1,000,000$900,000$800,000$700,000FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10*Source: OTS Paratransit Operations Monthly Performance ReportsPage 7-6 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUSubscription TripsSubscription rides are considered as those trips that are pre-arranged, scheduled for the sametimes and days, and traveling between the same origins and destinations. Once the subscriptiontrip has been arranged, passengers do not need to schedule each ride. Some subscription tripsare provided on behalf of social service agencies, which need to arrange for transportation fortheir clients for agency-sponsored activities, such as meal programs, adult day health care, etc.Other subscription trips may be provided for individuals not affiliated with an agency, for example,for work or school purposes.According to an analysis completed by Nelson\Nygaard in 2006, 70 percent of weekday morningpeak ridership (and 65% of all rides for that day) consisted of subscription trips made to publicand private human service agency programs. The ten most common trip destinations were tohuman service agency locations. The analysis pointed out the significant costs associated withdedicating so much subscription service. In addition, because so much of system resources werededicated to subscription trips, there was not enough capacity to handle other trip requests. Astrip denials or other capacity constraints are not allowable under the ADA, the system was at riskof being non-compliant with the ADA.The report suggested that the City either (1) split off the agency service from the rest of theprogram in order to ensure ADA compliance is the highest priority or (2) seek additional revenuesfrom human service agencies whose clients use TheHandi-Van Service.In 2009, while subscription trips still represent a significant level of service, in a sample day(April 23, 2009) they accounted for 47% of all trips compared to 65% in 2006. During that periodof time, the system has added an additional 45,874 revenue service hours, an increase of 15%.According to OTS, the top ten agencies sponsoring client trips accounted for roughly half of allsubscription trips and include:• Goodwill Industries of Hawaii—Kilihau• Home and Community Services—Waipahu• Family Services of Oahu• The ARC in Hawaii—Pearl City• The ARC in Hawaii—Ruger• SECOH—Ewa Beach• Mananwa Lea Health Services-Waipahu• Easter Seals Hawaii• Maluhia Day Care• Kokua VillaBecause Goodwill Industries was identified as the largest user of TheHandi-Van for regular clienttrips, and as an agency that might be appropriate to operate service for its own clients, it hasagreed to participate in a pilot project to test an alternative service delivery approach.Page 7-7 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUA preliminary analysis conducted 66 to determine the impact of Goodwill operating its own serviceversus that being operated by TheHandi-Van indicates that service provided by Goodwill wouldachieve productivity (passengers per service hour) of nearly 5.0, compared to the 2.18 currentlybeing achieved by TheHandi-Van service. The analysis suggests that TheHandi-Van servicelevel under this scenario could be reduced by nearly 50 revenue hours per day. Goodwillproposes to operate service accommodating up to 119 client trips per day that are currentlyserved by TheHandi-Van. This package would be provided through the use of Vanpool Hawaiivehicles. The total cost of the project would be $200,000 with $100,000 coming from an FTANew Freedom grant. The remaining $100,000 in local match is proposed to be provided by theCity and County of Honolulu. A next step will be to verify and update these assumptions, and toassess the extent to which adding additional projects similar to that undertaken by Goodwill wouldoffset TheHandi-Van costs.66 Assessment conducted by Innovative Paradigms in consultation with OTS staff.Page 7-8 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUChapter 8. Operational AssessmentThis section presents information specific to TheHandi-Van performance characteristics in orderto assess its productivity, evaluate its actual performance compared to established goals, and toreview system trends over the past five years.As with other transit systems throughout the country, paratransit demand—and associated costsfor providing the services—have been steadily increasing in Honolulu. For FY21010, $31.7 millionwas dedicated to providing TheHandi-Van services; 67 this represents 15% of the overall costs forOTS. Operating expenses for the Van program have increased 56% over the past four years. 68An evaluation of cost-effectiveness goals and measures will be a main element of thisassessment.Performance MeasuresThe following performance measures are used in the industry to assess system productivity andADA compliance. These indicators are among common performance measures used for demandresponse transportation 69 and rely on the collection of key performance data. They are oftenexpressed as a ratio normalizing costs or benefits to a unit of service delivered.• Cost per revenue hour: defined as annual operating costs divided by annual vehicleservice hours. This measure highlights an agency’s cost effectiveness, normalizingoperating costs (primarily labor and fuel) to the number of hours the service is provided,which is useful when comparing operations between agencies and when analyzing theimpact of service expansion or contraction.• Cost per trip: defined as annual operating costs divided by the number of trips provided.For ADA paratransit services, it is common to include rider companions and attendants inthe number of trips (i.e. total boardings). This measure allocates operating costs on a perpassenger basis which is often useful when analyzing growth trends or when comparingmodes.• Cost per revenue mile: defined as annual operating costs divided by annual vehicleservice miles. This measure highlights cost effectiveness, normalized to service milesprovided.• Trips per hour: defined as annual boardings (again including attendants andcompanions) divided by annual vehicle service hours. This productivity measure is a keyperformance indicator highlighting the number of passengers carried for a unit of servicedelivered. For demand-response services, it reflects the level of shared rides and amountof slack time in a route.• Revenue miles per trip: defined as annual vehicle service miles divided by the number ofannual boardings. This measure can show variations or trends in trip length which isuseful when examining factors contributing to the efficiency of a demand-response system(longer trips are harder to schedule with shared rides and create more deadhead timewhere the vehicle is operating without a passenger onboard).67Budget Information, Department of Transportation Services, DTS Paratransit Operations and OTS Handivan lineitems – Van and Taxi services.68OTS Paratransit Operations Consolidated Statistical Information reports FY2005 toFY2009.69Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 124, page 31.Page 8-1 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU• Percent of trips on-time: defined as the percent of all trips where the passenger ispicked up within the allotted appointment time window. This measure is a keyperformance indicator, especially from the customer’s perspective, indicating the reliabilityof the service.• No-show/late cancellation rate: defined as the percent of scheduled trips where thepassenger is a no-show or failed to provide adequate notice that they cannot completetheir trip. This measure shows how much unproductive vehicle and driver time isexpended making unnecessary trips and not being available to transport otherpassengers.• Advance cancellation rate: defined as the percent of scheduled trips that were cancelledprior to the day of the trip. This measure shows the degree to which the schedulingsystem has to respond to customer changes, also negatively impacting an agency’s abilityto efficiently schedule vehicle utilization.• Missed-trip rate: defined as the percent of scheduled trips that were not completedbecause the agency vehicle failed to arrive at the scheduled pickup time. The measure isa key indicator of on-time performance and customer satisfaction.• Average passenger trip length: defined as the total number of passenger miles dividedby the number of passenger trips. This measures the relative amount of longer tripswhich can result in longer deadhead times and/or fewer shared rides – resulting in lowerproductivity rates.• Average passenger travel time: defined as the total passenger travel time divided by thetotal number of passenger trips. This indicator reflects the amount of time a passengerhas to ride in the vehicle to complete his/her trip but is not typically monitored in theindustry. The sampling of individual trips to make sure a customer does not spend anexcessive amount of time in a vehicle (especially compared to the equivalent trip time fora fixed-route trip).• Abandoned call rate: defined at the percent of reservation calls where the customerhangs up before talking with a reservationist. This measure provides a reflection of the callcenter’s capacity to handle calls and of customer satisfaction. The associated measuresof the time to answer a call and the time before abandonment also indicate the capacity ofa call center.• Complaint rate: defined as the number of complaints per 1,000 passenger trips. Thismeasure shows trends in customer satisfaction levels. While the complaint rate showsthe level of negative feedback from customers, a commendation rate shows the level ofpositive feedback.• Vehicle availability: defined as the percent of the fleet available for revenue service.This is not a commonly used indicator, but the mean time between vehicle failures and anagency’s ability to address mechanical failures directly impacts operations and capitalinvestments.Performance StandardsPerformance standards are target values set for specific measures based on agency goals. DTShas not codified a comprehensive set of performance standards for TheHandi-Van. ADAcompliance is a primary goal of TheHandi-Van program resulting in DTS and OTS trackingperformance to a number of de facto standards associated with ADA paratransit regulations andPage 8-2 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUgoals. Many of these measures are specified in DTS’ contract with OTS along with suggestedstandards. Other unwritten standards have become conventions with the two organizations aspart of ongoing service monitoring and performance improvement efforts.The following table, Figure 8-1, specifies where TheHandi-Van performance standards exist orare implied, the source of the standard and a target associated with commonly understoodindustry targets.Figure 8-1TheHandi-Van Performance StandardsPerformanceMeasureTheHandi-VanPerformanceStandard Source or Comment Industry NormCost per revenue hour N/A Monitored (1)Varies based on local labor,insurance, fuel etc. costs.Cost per trip N/A Monitored (1)Cost per revenue mile N/A Monitored (1)Varies based on local labor,insurance, fuel etc. costs.Varies based on local labor,insurance, fuel etc. costs.Trips per hour Informal goal of 2.00Target Value is provided in OTS'draft Daily Performance Report.Between 1.8 and 2.7 for largeurban systems (2)Revenue miles pertripN/AVaries based on system designand scheduling prioritiesTarget Value is provided in OTS'draft Daily Performance Report.Percent of trips ontimeInformal goal of95%The DTS/OTS Agreement Section2.2.2 specifies "untimely pick-up"as those over 45 minutes afterreserved time. But trips arrivinglater than 30 minutes after thescheduled pick up are consideredlate per the OTS practice (per Oct26,2007 DTS Memorandum),TheHandi-Van Rider's Guide andcommon industry practice. OTSconvention is to classify earlyarrivals as on-time.Between 80% and 95% for largeurban systems (2)No-show/latecancellation rateInformal goal of 3%Objective for FY09 and FY10 isprovided in OTS’ ParatransitMonthly Performance ReportNo Show/Late Cancellation ratesgreater than 5% are often a pointof concernAdvance cancellationrateInformal goal of 5%Objective for FY09 and FY10 isprovided in OTS’ ParatransitMonthly Performance ReportMissed-trip ratePage 8-3 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUPerformanceMeasureAverage passengertravel timeTheHandi-VanPerformanceStandard Source or Comment Industry Norm1.5 time fixed-routeequivalentDTS/OTS Agreement Section2.2.4Abandoned call rateInformal goals forcalls answered of80% in 2 minutesand 100% in 3minutesTarget Value is provided in OTS'draft Daily Performance Report.Industry standards suggest that91% of calls should be answeredwithin 3 minutes (3)Complaint rate Informal goal of 15Objective for FY09 and FY10 isprovided in OTS’ ParatransitMonthly Performance ReportVehicle availabilityInformal goal of80%Objective for FY09 and FY10 isprovided in OTS’ ParatransitMonthly Performance Report(1) Itemized in the Oahu Transit Services Inc. - Paratransit Operations Consolidated Statistical Information Reports.(2) TCRP 124 page 55.(3) Recommended Practice for Reservation Hold Times for ADA Complementary Paratransit Call Center (2009).Analysis and TrendsData required to calculate the various performance measures were collected from DTS and OTSstaff. Appendix H summarizes the data sources, available data and calculated measures for thelast five years. The following sections highlight TheHandi-Van performance against the identifiedmeasures. Data were not available to analyze average passenger travel time.Unit CostsThe cost to operate TheHandi-Van has been steadily increasing in recent years. Van operatingexpenses increased by 56% between FY2005 and FY2009. Part of the increase in totaloperating expense can be associated with the 16% increase in annual service hours during thisperiod. The Five-Year ADA Compliance Program Plan called for ~1.5% annual increases inservice levels to reduce denials. During this period, ridership only increased by six percent,resulting in a large increase in the van expenses per trip. The following figure shows the trends incosts per passenger, mile and service hour. The final graph in the figure highlights that vanoperating costs have increased much faster than the rate of inflation.Page 8-4 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUFigure 8-2Van Operating Costs$6.00$5.50$5.00$4.50$4.00Van Operating Cost per Service Mile$85.00$80.00$75.00$70.00$65.00$60.00Van Operating Cost per Service Hour$3.50$55.00FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09Van Operating Cost Per PassengerCost per Passenger vs. Inflation$40.00$38.00$36.00$34.00$32.00$30.00$28.00$26.00$24.00$22.00$20.00FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09Op Expense/Psgr & CPI Indexed to 2005150.00140.00130.00120.00110.00100.00FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09Op. Expense CPI All Items CPI TransportationSource: OTS Paratransit Operations Consolidated Statistical Information Reports, U.S. Bureau of Labor StatisticsConsumer Price Index data for HonoluluProductivityTheHandi-Van productivity is exceeding the internal standard of 2.0 passengers per service hourfor van operations (excluding taxi trips). This indicates that many trips are being scheduled asshared rides, which can be expected with the high number of subscription trips in the system.However, asPage 8-5 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUFigure 8-3 illustrates, the system productivity has been trending down over the last five years,dropping by nine percent over the period. The next phase of this study will examine potentialsources for the decline in productivity. Recent efforts to eliminate denials and improve on-timeperformance may have had a negative impact on productivity. Similarly, future actions to removesubscription trips from TheHandi-Van may lower system productivity. These and other causesneed to be evaluated in order to determine if declines in productivity are of concern, or simply anartifact of other necessary management actions.Page 8-6 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUFigure 8-3Van Operation ProductivityVan Passengers per Service Hour2.652.602.552.502.452.402.352.302.252.20FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09Source: OTS Paratransit Operations Consolidated Statistical Information Reports (total van passengers)Trip Lengths and DeadheadThe amount of service delivered in terms of revenue miles per passenger trip has been slowlyincreasing over the last five years. Figure 8-4 shows the trend toward longer trips during thisperiod, an 11% increase. Total van miles (including deadhead and other non-revenue miles)increased 13% over the same period. Looking at deadhead another way, total service mileage asa percent of total van mileage dropped from 82% to 79% during this period. Data reported to theNational Transit Database (NTD) tracks passenger miles traveled (sum of the distances ridden byeach passenger). This dataset shows an eight percent drop in passenger miles per unlinked trip(boarding) between 2006 and 2009 for TheHandi-Van. The next phase of this project will explorethis discrepancy and identify trends in actual passenger trip lengths versus vehicle deadheadmiles and options to control the trend, if appropriate.Page 8-7 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUFigure 8-4Average Trip LengthsService Miles per Passenger Boarding6.206.106.005.905.805.705.605.505.405.305.205.10FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09Source: OTS Paratransit Operations Consolidated Statistical Information Reports (total van passengers)On-Time PerformanceOTS has been measuring on-time performance, noting trips that fail to meet a 10 to 30 minutewindow around the scheduled pick-up time since June 2009. Initial results for June 2009 throughJanuary 2010 averaged 78% on time, trending up through the period (see figure below). Duringthe fall, OTS was working to update subscription reservations to better reflect actual pickup times,accounting for some of the recent improvement in this measure. The latest results areapproaching the 95% target and well into the range experienced in the industry.Figure 8-5On-Time PerformanceOn‐Time Performance95.00%90.00%85.00%80.00%75.00%70.00%65.00%60.00%55.00%50.00%Source: OTS Paratransit Operations Monthly Performance ReportsPage 8-8 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUNo-show/Late Cancellation RateThe rates of no-shows and late cancellations are both within the OTS targets of three and fivepercent, respectively. The combined rate has been increasing in recent years and is approachingfive percent. An increase in the rate of late cancellations is the primary cause of the negativetrend. OTS follows the industry practice of allowing for the suspension of clients that habituallygenerate no shows. While the rate of cancellations at the door is small, this has been trending upas well, from 0.34% in 2005 to 0.70% in 2009.Figure 8-6No Show RateNo Shows/Late Cancellations6.00%5.00%4.00%3.00%2.00%No Shows & LateCancelsNo Shows1.00%0.00%2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Source: OTS Paratransit Operations Monthly Performance ReportsAdvanced Cancellation RateThe advanced cancellation rate has been relatively stable over the last five years, averaging12.5%. This rate is somewhat typical in the industry. Advanced cancellations tend to increasewhen agencies allow reservation requests well in advance the travel date. OTS allowsreservations to be made up to seven days in advance of the trip while some agencies permitreservation two weeks in advance and others are reducing the window down to 1 to 3 days tocontrol the rate of advanced cancellations. Same day cancellations (those made the day of thetrip, but ahead of the 2-hour cutoff) are also significant and holding steady around 7%.Missed-trip rateThe missed trip rate has averaged 0.30% over the last five years. This represents between 1,500and 2,600 missed trips per year. The rate of missed trips peaked (~.0.35%) in 2007 and 2008with 2009 dropping back to levels seen in 2005 and 2006 (~0.25%).Abandoned call rateThe new OTS call center data reporting system implemented in September 2009 permits thetracking of call response times to the 2- and 3-minute target values. During December, 72.91%of calls were answered within 2 minutes and 84.50% were answered within 3 minutes. Thisperformance falls slightly short of the OTS targets and the industry goal of 91% within 3 minutes.Page 8-9 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUAn examination of call center data for the last two years shows improvement with respect to thenumber of abandoned calls and the associated time it took to answer a call.Figure 8-7Call Center Performance TrendsCall Center Performance Trends18.00%16.00%14.00%12.00%10.00%8.00%6.00%4.00%2.00%0.00%6:004:483:362:241:120:00% Abandoned Avg Answer SpeedSource: OTS Monthly Telephone statistics (Jan, Jul and Aug 2009 had incomplete data)Complaint RateData for the last year highlights that the complaint rate frequently exceeds the 15 complaints per100,000 trip target. The number of complaints has risen sharply since last fall.Figure 8-8Customer Complaints and CommendationsCustomer Complaints and Commendations100806040200Commendations per 100,000 TripsComplaints per 100,000 TripsSource: OTS Paratransit Operations Monthly Performance ReportsPage 8-10 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUVehicle AvailabilityThe maintenance performance measure for vehicles available has had pretty consistent resultsover the last year. Data reported in the OTS Paratransit Operations Monthly PerformanceReports indicated that on the average, 85% of paratransit vans were available for servicebetween January 2009 and January 2010. The worst month had 81% available while the bestmonth had 89% available, all better than the target value of 80%. Given the current fleet inventoryof 166 vehicles, this suggests that 132 vehicles should be regularly available for service.Vehicle UtilizationVarious stakeholders have expressed concern that the vehicles are not constantly available forservice. A number of operators felts that vehicles out on AM shifts did not return in time for PMshifts and/or maintenance issues or a limitation in the fleet size resulted in more operators beingavailable than vans. The restriction requiring paratransit vans to fuel in the midday, oftenbetween shifts, also raised concerns about vehicle availably.Figure 8-9 illustrates the demand for vehicles based on scheduled trip pickups. In the figure, theterm “Active Vans” refers only to the number of vans scheduled for one or more pickups during agiven hour. This is different than the total number of vans in revenue service in that total revenueservice vans also includes vans in revenue operation without scheduled pickups in that hour, thatis, those completing a trip that was picked up in the previous hour. The “active vans” statisticexcludes those vans from the count. The peak number of active vehicles scheduled in any givenhour is 68 during the 7:00 AM hour when both the demand for subscription and casual demandtrips peak. There is another peak demand period around 2:00 PM when many of the subscriptiontrips require return travel. Even though the PM peak in ridership is greater than AM peakridership, there are fewer scheduled active vehicles as many of the afternoon vans are moreefficiently shared – carrying well over four passengers per van on the average. This analysisshows that at most 68 vans are active in terms of scheduled to be picking up passengers during asingle hour, but as discussed in the following section, additional vans need to be in use toaccount for dropping off passengers in a subsequent hour and/or deadheading to/from service.Page 8-11 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUFigure 8-9Vehicle Demand vs. Scheduled Trips80Active Vans Total Rides Subscription Rides35070300Number of Active Vans60504030201025020015010050Number of Rides04:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00Time of Day0Source: Trapeze scheduled pickups for April 23, 2009The van demand numbers in the previous chart do not reflect the need for additional vans thatmay be dropping off passengers picked up in the prior hour and not scheduled for additionalpickup in the subsequent hour. It also doesn’t reflect any vehicles deadheading to or from theoperations center in a given hour. Looking at individual runs specified by the scheduling softwareduring this sample day, 112 different vehicles were deployed to cover 178 different runs (manyvehicles were split between AM and PM runs). This indicates the 132 regularly available vanswere more than adequate to cover the demand for vehicles on this random day and may indicatea surplus of vehicles. This indicator needs to be studied over a longer period of time to draw anyfirm conclusionsAlternately, an examination of van pullouts for the current vehicle/operator runs 70 highlights thevehicle demand based on the expected trip demand and planned operator shifts. These operatorshifts call for 219 pull outs on weekdays, with a maximum of 109 vehicles pulled out at the sametime. There are two roughly equal peak demand periods from 8:30 to 9:45 AM and from 2:30 to3:45 PM. Again, the current fleet size and vehicle-availability goal combine to provide enoughvehicles to cover this anticipated demand.A review of sample manifests highlights a number of situations were vans reported back to theMiddle Street facility after their scheduled pull-in time. For the split shifts identified in the currentrun-cut, most have on the average of 3 hours between the shifts, but the time between the checkinand check-out can be as little as 90 minutes. In a number of cases, vans scheduled to returnafter AM runs were over 30 minutes late. The time required to fuel vans did not appear to be anissue, as it takes about five minutes to fuel a van (vehicle operators take the vans to and from the70 Weekday Run and Van Pullout for 2/7/10 through 8/7/10Page 8-12 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUfueling facility as part of their shift), and the van was already late in returning to the fueling facility.Vehicle failures did not appear to be a major reason for the late returns, either. Add-on trips, tripsadded by vehicle dispatchers during an operator’s shift, were common and may have contributedto some of the late returns.Comparison to Other AgenciesIn addition to evaluating performance measures against standards, it is often informative tocompare an agency’s operations against its peer providers. This section compares some resultsfor TheHandi-Van to four industry peers. The representative data are provided for King County(Seattle, WA) Access, TriMet’s LIFT program in Portland, OR, Metro Mobility in Minneapolis, MN,and RTD’s Access-a-Ride program in Denver, CO. These peers have been identified andincluded in this analysis because data were available and considered replicable to Honolulu. Anew peer review was not conducted for this effort. The following figures highlight TheHandi-Vanoperations to this set of agencies, noting:• Figure 8-10 highlights that TheHandi-Van represents one of the smaller large urban areasystems in terms of service area population and operating budget, but carried morepassengers than the larger Denver system.• Figure 8-11 indicates that the van program has the highest unit costs of the peer set,except for Denver’s higher cost per boarding with its limited ridership base. The table alsoshows that the limited size of TheHandi-Van service area helps limit trip lengths relative tothe other providers and the van program has the highest productivity of the group. Thehigh number of subscription trips is a key factor in achieving this high level of productivity.• Figure 8-12 compares the relative levels of staffing versus services delivered. TheHandi-Van has a relatively high level of ridership for Oahu’s population base. In FY2008 OTSwas delivering these services with a lower level of operations staff as compared to theother agencies.• Figure 8-13 examines the efficiency and proficiency of the reservationist, scheduling anddispatch staff. In 2008, OTS had relatively long time to answer calls, but as previouslydiscussed, the performance in this area has recently improved with additional reservationstaff and dedicated “where’s my van” functions in place. OTS management staff feel theyhave a low turnover rate in the call center. Reservation staff currently receive a week offormal training before working two to week weeks under the guidance of a supervisor.OTS’ goal is to migrate reservationists to dispatchers, further developing their proficiencywith the Trapeze environment.Page 8-13 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUFigure 8-10 Peer Review Selection Criteria (2008)Potential criteriaKing CountyMetroDenverRTDMinneapolis MetroMobilityPortlandTriMetCity and County ofHonoluluContracts out Yes Yes Yes Yes YesAnnual paratransitboardings1,121,776 674,419 1,430,090 1,122,041 838,470Annual operating budget $43,942,066 $30,000,000 $34,942,762 $31,132,000 $26,732,947Service area (sq mi) 2,134 2,326 1,057 574 597Service area population 1,861,300 2,619,000 2,315,548 1,253,502 902,168Source: OTS Paratransit Operations Consolidated Statistical Information Reports (total van passengers/costs) and OTS Paratransit Operations Monthly PerformanceReports (total taxi passengers/costs); peer agenciesFigure 8-11Productivity Indicators for TheHandi-Van Van Programs and Peer Programs (FY08)IndicatorKing CountyMetroDenverRTDMinneapolisMetro MobilityPortlandTriMetCity and County ofHonoluluCost per boarding $39.17 $43.88 $24.43 $27.75 $32.95Cost per hour $65.95 $56.49 $50.49 $54.43 $80.32Cost per mile $4.14 $3.81 $3.01 $3.73 $4.48Miles per boarding 9.5 11.5 8.1 7.4 7.4Boardings per hour 1.68 1.29 2.07 1.96 2.4Source: OTS Paratransit Operations Consolidated Statistical Information Reports (total van passengers/costs); peer agenciesPage 8-14 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUFigure 8-12TheHandi-Van Van Program Staffing Comparisons (FY2008)King County Denver 71 Minneapolis Portland HonoluluTotal operating costs $43,942,066 $30,000,000 $34,942,762 $31,132,000 $25,780,962ADA applications received 10,024 4,186 6,217 4,500Paratransit vehicles 303 323 353 72 269 166Staffing Breakdown by PositionReservationists 22.5 33 33 26 14Schedulers/ Dispatchers 48 25 30 18 10Drivers 403 420 554 73 415 228Maintenance 36.5 15 34 13.5 36 74IT 8 1 75 10 4Operations 21 17 28 11Passenger Services 10 8 2.5 3Training/Safety 16 76 8 3 3ADA Certification 8 4 3.5 6Administrative 37.33 24 16 28.5Total 610.63 555 714 528 31671 Some FY08 data were not available for Denver due to problems with scheduling software. In these cases, FY07 data were used.72 This figure includes vehicles for the surrounding counties’ general dial-a-ride service, which are shared with ADA service.73 This figure includes drivers for the two largest contracted providers. In addition, it includes 65% of drivers for the surrounding counties’ ADA/general public dial-a-ridebecause ADA trips make up 65% of this service.74 Includes 16 mechanics plus service attendants and utility workers.75 Denver has access to an entire IT department that is responsible for assisting the district, but these positions aren’t included in the table. There are no dedicated ITstaff at the agency.76 The services for an additional travel trainer is paid for by Sound Transit and is not included in this total.Page 8-15 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUKing County Denver 71 Minneapolis Portland HonoluluStaffing Breakdown by OrganizationTotal agency staff 24 6 9 10 5Total contractor staff 587 549 761 518Contractor staff / Agencystaff24.5 91.5 84.6 51.863.2Boardings/Contractor staff 1,911 1,228 1,879 2,166 2,653Staffing Performance IndicatorsBoardings per driver 2,784 1,606 2,581 2,704 3,678Vehicles per mechanic 8.3 21.5 10.4 N/A 10.4Boardings per capita 0.60 0.26 0.62 0.90 0.93Ratio of total boardings todispatch, reservationist, andscheduler staff15,912 11,628 22,700 25,501 34,936Source: OTS Paratransit Operations Consolidated Statistical Information Reports (total van passengers/costs); and peer agenciesPage 8-16 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUFigure 8-13Reservation Process Peer Data (FY2008)King County Denver Minneapolis PortlandCity and Countyof HonoluluReservation Process - Productivity of StaffAverage time on hold 0:51 2:55 0:34 1:31 2:42% of reservation calls answered in 3 min 94.2% 100% Not available Not available Not AvailableAverage time to process trip request 3:04 3:35 1:27 3:00 Not AvailablePercent dropped or incomplete (abandoned) 10.9% 11.3% Not available 7.0% 10.5%Ratio of total calls received relative to dispatch,reservationist, and scheduler staff (annual)15,099 4,267 10,317 14,654 9,646Reservation Process - Proficiency of StaffTraining provided (orientation) in hours 80 120 Not available 2 40Training provided (ongoing in hours per month) 2 As needed Not available 1 Not availableAverage length of experience (years) 3.9 1 Not available 3 Not availableTurnover rate 31% 60% Not available 26% Not availableReservation Process - Use of TechnologyUse Interactive Voice Response (IVR) to automatesome of the call processingYes No No No NoSource: OTS Monthly Telephone statistics (Calendar Year 2008), OTS Paratransit Operations Consolidated Statistical Information Reports (total van passengers/costs),and peer agenciesPage 8-17 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUFigure 8-14Scheduling Process Peer Data (FY2008)King County Denver Minneapolis PortlandCity and County ofHonoluluScheduling Practices – ProductivityRatio of total boardings relative to dispatch,reservationist, and scheduler staff (annual)Number of trips (boardings) actually providedper hour (service hour)15,912 11,628 22,700 25,501 34,9361.68 1.29 2.07 1.96 2.4Scheduling Practices - Level of Uncompleted TripsPercent advance cancellations 14% 11-14% 15% Not available 11%Percent no-Shows and Late Cancellations 7% Not available 2% 6% 4.7%Number of days in advance a reservation canbe requested3 3 4 14 7Scheduling Practices – Proficiency of StaffAverage length of experience (years) 5.7 1 Not available 4 Not availableTurnover rate19% 60% Not available0%(in 4 years)Not availableTraining provided (orientation) in hours 80 120 Not available 160-240 Not availableTraining provided ( hours per month) 2 As needed Not available 1-4 Not availableSource: OTS Monthly Telephone statistics (Calendar Year 2008), OTS Paratransit Operations Consolidated Statistical Information Reports (total van passengers/costs);and peer agencies.Note: OTS Advanced cancellations do not include same day cancellations (an additional 6.4%)Page 8-18 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUComparison to ADA ParametersFigure 8-15 below compares TheHandi-Van’s current service policies with the minimalrequirements of the ADA. As it points out, TheHandi-Van exceeds these requirements in that itsservice area covers the entire island which, in some cases, extends beyond ¾ mile from a fixedroute, trip-by-trip eligibility is not conferred, and paratransit fares are below what could becharged.Figure 8-15Policy CategoryADA Service ParametersADA MinimalRequirement/PolicyKing CountyMetroHours of service Same as fixed route Exceeds ADAService areaWithin ¾ mile of fixedrouteExceeds ADALevel of service Curb to curb Exceeds ADAAdvancereservation timeTrip request windowSubscription serviceTrip bytrip/conditionaleligibilityNo showsTripdenials/capacityconstraintsDay before to 7 days inadvance1 hour on either sideNo more than 50% oftotal service if demand isnot met; no restriction ifdemand is metEncouragedAllows penalties,including suspension ofservice for repeated noshowsNot allowedConsistent withADAConsistent withADAConsistent withADAConsistent withADASix no-showswithin 30 daysallowed, thenwarning lettersent.Suspensionbegins 30 dayslater unlessappealed.Consistent withADAFares Twice fixed-route fare Exceeds ADADenver RTDConsistentwith ADAConsistentwith ADAExceedsADAConsistentwith ADAExceedsADAConsistentwith ADAExceedsADACustomerswith six noshows ormore in a 30-day periodwill besuspendedfor twoweeks.Consistentwith ADAConsistentwith ADA 77MinneapolisMetro MobilityConsistent withADAConsistent withADAExceeds ADAConsistent withADAConsistent withADAConsistent withADAExceeds ADA30-daysuspension for 3consecutive noshowswithin 30daysConsistent withADAPortlandTriMetExceeds ADAExceeds ADAExceeds ADAExceeds ADAExceeds ADAConsistent withADAExceeds ADAParticipantswith more thanthree no showsin 30 days aresubject tosuspension.Consistent withADAExceeds ADA 78 Exceeds ADA 79City andCounty ofHonoluluConsistent withADAExceeds ADAConsistent withADAConsistent withADAConsistent withADAConsistent withADAExceeds ADARiders whohave repeated"no-shows"may besuspendedfromTheHandi-VanserviceConsistent withADAExceedsADA 8077 Denver is charging exactly twice ($2.00-fixed, $4.00 paratransit).78 Minneapolis just under twice ($1.75 for non-peak fixed and $3.00 for non-peak paratransit.79 TriMet’s paratransit fare is $1.80 compared to $2.00-$2.30 on fixed route.80 TheHandi-Van fare is $2.00 compared to $2.25 on TheBus.Page 8-19 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUChapter 9. Service Gaps andUnmet NeedsA comprehensive needs assessment was recently completed as part of the Human ServicesTransportation Coordination Plan. The plan focuses on riders and service providers among threeclient groups: elderly, persons with disabilities and low income households.Rider concerns specific to TheHandi-Van were identified as follows:Need for expanded hours of service: Although paratransit is provided during hours that areconsistent with the hours the fixed route transit service operates, some people have indicated theneed for the service to operate earlier in the day, or later into the evening.Trip length for riders provide on TheHandi-Van: Some trips, especially for those coming intoHonolulu from outlying areas, can be lengthy, which can be a burden on some people. Trafficcongestion has worsened over the past few years, contributing to the time on the road.Timeliness of TheHandi-Van: Some people pointed out that the on-time performance ofTheHandi-Van is not always reliable.Lack of service and access on some parts of Oahu: Most public transit services within Oahuare concentrated within the urban core of Honolulu. As a result, service is less frequent in othercommunities or locations some distance from the city. Most services and key destinations arelocated within Honolulu.Need for travel care and assistance: Some paratransit passengers need personal care aboveand beyond what can be provided on TheHandi-Van. They may need help with packages, to beescorted to, or through, the door, or help navigating their trip. Even though a personal careattendant can ride on paratransit for free, not all passengers are accompanied by one. This is anissue raised both by passengers and by drivers.Affordability of the service: The cost of paying for public transit, passenger fares, especiallythose who take recurring trips, was raised by some.Safety and security while waiting or accessing service: Some people may be able to use thefixed route if they had a safe and accessible route to the nearest bus stop. The lack of sidewalksor an inaccessible route of travel is a factor, and some people are concerned about their personalsafety and security while waiting for a bus.Need for improved information about what services are available: There is the need toimprove public information or materials that describe the services available, as not everyone isaware of them.Capacity constraints: Because of regular trips taken to adult day care and other agencyfacilities, it is difficult to access TheHandi-Van during morning and later afternoon when thesefacilities open and close.Need for same day service: It is necessary to reserve a trip on paratransit at least one daybefore the service is needed. In some cases, same day service is needed.Page 9-1 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUChapter 10. Conclusions andKey FindingsThis Existing Conditions Report has presented and analyzed information to describe existingdemographic and paratransit service characteristics specific to TheHandi-Van, the paratransitprogram that operates in Honolulu and throughout the island of Oahu. This section of the reportsummarizes these initial observations and key findings. These key findings provide the baselinefor next steps of the project: identifying and quantifying capacity constraints, and developingrecommendations to improve or enhance service delivery for TheHandi-Van.This portion of the report also seeks to respond to topics posed at the onset of the planning effortwith respect to paratransit, including:• Performance Issues:− Is performance meeting agency and community goals and expectations?− Are dispatch functions efficient?− Is Trapeze (scheduling software) being used to its full capability?− Are measures in place to control excessive demand for TheHandi-Van trips?−Will coordination with human service transportation providers remove subscriptiontrips from TheHandi-Van?As indicated elsewhere in this report (and others), agency and community goals are currently notwell documented or clarified. While steps are being taken to better define performance andservice expectations, until the process is in place to document and monitor system performance,it is not completely feasible to indicate whether such goals are being met.Likewise, important steps have been taken to improve dispatch functions and to ensure that thescheduling software is used to its full capacity. While there is always room for improvement, OTShas taken pro-active steps, such as testing real-time scheduling for weekend trips, to better takeadvantage of the Trapeze software. Similarly, steps have been taken to fully incorporate featuresassociated with the mobile data terminals and vehicle location equipment into the dispatchprocess. Dispatch and reservationist staff efficiency have also been improved with the use ofdedicated “where’s my van” personnel.This report points out several steps taken to control TheHandi-Van demand for trips. Amongthese are instituting a more rigorous certification process to ensure only those persons who areADA eligible are provided with certification status, and planning to divert some subscription tripsto non-profit agencies. Currently, TheHandi-Van, through utilizing more taxis and by adding moreresources, is not experiencing capacity constraints.• Fleet Issues:− Is the fleet composition appropriate? What is the “right” type of vehicle?−−Are cutaway diesel vehicles reliable? What can be done to improve maintenanceconcerns?What is the potential for fleet expansion or contraction if coordination is verysuccessful?Page 10-2 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULUThere is no quantitative analysis of vehicle size versus fleet need to date. A number of smallervans were added to the fleet in the last procurement cycle. Stakeholder feedback on the use andmaintenance of these vehicles were inconclusive. The next phase of this study will examine anyniche uses of these vehicles, their maintenance costs/benefits, and lifecycle concerns.The examination of vehicle availability data and discussions with maintenance staff indicate thatvehicle reliability is not a major issue (and has been improving over time). A further review ofroad-call data will be used to confirm this and look for any common failure modes.The recent and pending changes to address on-time performance and denials will have an impacton fleet size needs. The next phase of this study will analyze the trends in the use of taxis,scheduling policy changes, possible demand reductions from the certification process, and themoving of subscription trips off of TheHandi-Van in order to evaluate the potential for fleetexpansion or contraction.• Other Issues:− Would a real time arrival system for paratransit make sense in the future?− How well is the new certification process working?− Are there additional capital investments needed to support mobility management?− What is the status of implementing recommendations emerging from previous studiesand reports, particularly with regards to compliance to the Americans with DisabilitiesAct (ADA)?The use of real time arrival information has some value in paratransit systems in terms ofcustomer convenience and no-show performance. Application of this technology for paratransitmarkets is not universally applied in the industry. The use of “vehicle-on-the-way” calls from adispatch system may be more appropriate than having a customer pull the information via acomputer or cell phone. A review of paratransit application of these technologies will be includedin the next part of the study.Experiences with the new certification have been limited to date. The next phase of this study willreview the system’s performance measures and evaluate them against overall program needs.All capital needs for TheHandi-Van will be reviewed when making final recommendation in thefinal phase of this study. Similarly, the study will summarize ADA compliance issues based onrecent and planned actions by DTS and OTS.The key findings are described below:1. The City’s highest stated paratransit service goal is that of ensuring that TheHandi-Van isin compliance with the provisions of the ADA. Previous studies (i.e. Nelson\Nygaard,Honolulu Paratransit Service Study, 2007; 2007 FTA Triennial Audit) had raised concernsabout potential lack of compliance with the ADA, especially with respect to capacityconstraints, which are not allowable under the ADA.The FTA is responsible for ensuring compliance with the ADA and the Department ofTransportation (DOT) regulations implementing the ADA. As part of its complianceefforts, FTA, through its Office of Civil Rights, conducts periodic reviews of fixed routetransit and ADA complementary paratransit services operated by Federal grantees. InJanuary 2010, The City and County of Honolulu was subject to an ADA Compliance Audit.While the preliminary findings may not be released for several weeks or months, it isimportant to keep in mind that any guidance or findings resulting from the ADA audit maydictate future service priorities.Page 10-3 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU2. TheHandi-Van is currently not reporting any trip denials or capacity constraints, the mainarea of concern with respect to compliance with the ADA.3. Over the past three years, TheHandi-Van has increased its use of taxis and othercontractors to provide back-up service when needed and to offer additional capacity. Thistrend has most likely contributed to TheHandi-Van’s ability to meet all trip requests.4. Paratransit costs, as measured in cost per hour, cost per mile, and cost per trip, havesteadily increased over the past five years, at a rate greater than inflation.5. TheHandi-Van’s cost per mile and cost per trip are comparable to its peers; however, itscost per hour is significantly higher, namely 22% higher than the closest operatorevaluated in this category (King County Metro).6. System productivity, as measured in trips per hour, has steadily declined over the pastfive years; however, the rate of 2.35 trips per hour realized in 2009 exceeds the internalestablished goal of 2.0 trips per hour, and TheHandi-Van also performs better than itspeers in this category.7. Trip lengths and deadhead mileage have been trending upward over the past five years.8. The rate of no-shows and late cancellations is trending upward. Although allowed by ADAregulations, TheHandi-Van has not established clear guidance for determining whatconstitutes an “excessive rate” of no-shows or late cancellations, nor are such violationsenforced.9. Over the past five years, on-time performance for TheHandi-Van has improved. On-timeperformance had been mentioned by customers as an area of concern.10. OTS’ ability to answer reservation calls in a timely manner has improved in recent months,but is still falling short of stated performance goals.11. Based on current trip demand and recent vehicle maintenance efforts, the current fleetsize is adequate, perhaps more than adequate. Actions to improve on-time performanceand eliminate denials may increase the need for vehicles while efforts to move trips totaxis or outside agencies may decrease the need. The age of the current fleet is an issueand current replacement plans may not fully address this problem. The balancing of theseefforts and needs will be examined in the next phase of this study.12. For currently unknown reasons, the customer complaint rate has jumped in the last halfyear (2009), well above the stated goal.13. Current discussions intended to increase van capacity in order to address trip denials mayresult in vehicle storage capacity limitations at the Middle Street facility and increaseddemand on the new maintenance facility. Consideration is being given to the relocation ofvans to the Pearl City facility which may alleviate the storage constraints.14. For the most part, TheHandi-Van’s service policies and procedures are consistent with theprovisions of the ADA. In some cases, its policies exceed minimal standards. Theseinclude:• Trip-by-trip eligibility is not conferred upon those considered conditionally eligible.Page 10-4 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Short Range Transit Plan • Existing Conditions ReportDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU• Fares are lower than what is allowed to be charged according to the ADA.• There are no consequences for customers with excessive no-shows because thepractice is not readily enforced.15. Informal discussions with paratransit drivers reveal that most have extensive experienceand a long tenure with OTS. The drivers are unanimous in observing the system is vastlyimproved over the past few years, especially with respect to vehicle maintenance.16. Discussions with drivers and other OTS staff reveal there is not universal acceptance ofnew technology, such as use of mobile data terminals. Not all drivers are comfortableusing the technology, some have expressed a difficult learning curve, and, due to a “deadzone” on some parts of the island, there is inconsistency in being able to communicatewith the dispatch center. Most drivers acknowledged the benefits of the new technologiesand offer their qualified (when the systems work) support.17. Performance expectations and standards are not codified in any one place. As a result, itis not always clear what internal goals and objectives have been established to measuresystem performance and quality of service.18. Likewise, the process for DTS to monitor OTS’ service performance is in flux. Variousmethods (such as daily tracking of performance) have been tested, but at present there isnot a regular or structured approach for oversight between DTS and OTS.19. Previous studies and reports have highlighted the impact the high number of subscriptionand/or agency-sponsored trips have had on the system. The proportion of subscriptiontrips has declined from 65% of the total ridership in 2006 to 47% in 2009. A pilot projectwith Goodwill Industries is expected to further reduce the number of subscription trips.20. A new ADA certification process has been in place since October 2009. The new processis “paperless,” in that it relies on an in-person interview and functional assessment for allapplicants. This process is now contracted out rather than administered by DTS staff. Thenew process is intended to result in certification decisions that are based on an applicant’sfunctional abilities, rather than on a medical certification.21. Current fueling policies for TheHandi-Van are restrictive and may limit options formaximizing efficiency. This will be investigated further in the next stage of the project.22. A new maintenance facility was completed several years ago for TheHandi-Van program;however, to date, it has not been utilized, waiting for the procurement of requiredmaintenance equipment and systems.Page 10-5 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.