6.0 PARATRANSIT SERVICES IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU
Periodically , entrepreneurs will speak in favor of allowing jitney service operations in the City and County of Honolulu. The request is often coupled with criticism of a regulatory system that jitney proponents believe prohibits or at the least discourages jitneys.
As described in Section 4.1, the general characteristics of
a jitney service are:
In loosely defined terms, jitney services are often described as hybrids of bus and taxi services. Unlike taxis, however, jitneys generally follow fixed routes and carry unrelated passengers to unrelated destinations.
The section examines the current state of regulation in
Hawaii, and explores the issues that should frame any proposed policy on jitney
service for the City.
6.1 CURRENT REGULATIONS
Independent
small vehicle carriers are most likely to fall under the City and County's
taxicab rules and regulations. administered by the Department of Customer Service-Chapter
12, Regulations of Common Carriers and Their Fees. Revised Ordinances of
Honolulu (see Appendix A). As of 1998, there were 1365 taxicabs licensed to
do business in the City and County –
Upon
initial reading, jitney services would not appear to be allowed under the City
rules, except when there is a total stoppage in the public bus service (see
Sec. 12-1.11 Special operations). This section appears to treat jitney
services as an extreme exception, rather than an allowable practice under
certain conditions. Taxicabs, however, are allowed to provide shared-ride
service, as long as each passenger agrees to share the ride with the other
passenger( s} ( see Sec. 12-1.24 Shared-ride service: Sec. 12-1.4 Prohibited
acts. (d) Additional Passengers). This section on shared ride
service specifically allows for limousines and multi-passenger vans. Under the
shared ride service rule, any taxicab could technically operate as a jitney by
having signage indicating that it is a shared ride taxicab for a particular
street or route.
The State
Public Utilities Commission (PUC) regulates non-taxicab transportation service carriers-Hawaii
Administrative Rules, Title 6. Chapter 62, Motor Carrier Rules
and Classification of Property and Passenger Carriers (see Appendix B). In
general, the PUC-regulated carriers are companies with one or more fleets of
vehicles ranging in size from large vans to shuttles to mini-buses to full-size
buses.
The PUC
issues two types of certificates for non-taxicab transportation service
carriers: irregular route and regular route. The certificate of irregular route
service is for service of a general nature, which may have fixed stops but not
on a regular schedule. All of the major transportation and tour companies have
certificates of irregular route service. The certificate of regular route service
is for service over a fixed route with stops at fixed locations and on a time
schedule, which could be daily or hourly. Examples of regular route service are
E Noa Tours' Waikiki Trolley, and Trans Hawaiian's Ala Moana Shuttle. Companies
under regular route certificates operate in such areas as Maui's
Kapalua/Kaanapali/Wailea/Lahaina loop, and between resort areas on the island
of Hawaii. Regular route service is almost akin to a private bus service.
Although, there is
no public
subsidy, some companies keep passenger fares low by seeking cost sharing from
resort properties and attractions serviced by the regular route service.
Specifically
exempt from PUC rules are .county-regulated passenger carrying operations known
as .jitney services.... .utilizing motor vehicles that have seating
accommodations for six to twenty-five passengers, operate along specific routes
during defined service hours, and levy a flat fare schedule" (see Hawaii
Revised Statutes, Chapter 271-5(18), Exemptions, generally) (see
Appendix C). The intent of this exemption seems to be one of avoiding doubly
regulating jitney operations. However, as described earlier, the City and
County of Honolulu does not currently regulate jitney services, except for
providing an exception for service during a total bus stoppage. In fact, under
the PUC's current rules structure, a regulated motor carrier could operate a
service that would have many of the same features as a jitney service,
i.e., fixed route, semi-regular schedule of smaller vehicles such as trolleys
or shuttle vans or mini-buses.
6.2 ISSUES TO CONSIDER IN SHAPING A JITNEY POLICY
One of the
primary reasons for discouraging or forbidding jitney services is to deter the
siphoning of fare-paying passengers from the public transit and bus systems.
Jitney services have been most successful when confined to exclusive routes or
regulated in ways designed to complement rather than compete with other
transportation modalities. In these situations, they have been welcomed
additions to the total transportation network.
Under
public transportation policy, private jitney services can offer the benefits of
choice and frequency without extending public costs. However, these services
would not be .free" from public costs if ridership on the public transportation
systems were to be negatively affected, causing either fares or subsidies to
increase.
The City
should also consider the cost of regulation. A policy that encouraged
independent jitney operators might require a regulatory process similar to the
licensing of taxicabs.
Another
factor is the impact of jitney regulation on the marketplace. Jitney services
are unlikely to survive if fares are equal to taxicab fares. Taxicabs, on the
other hand, could face serious competition if jitney fares are competitively
priced and the services are frequent and efficient. As it is, taxi fares are
considered high as compared to other cities of similar density- Taxicab
operators argue that the fare structure must take into consideration the large
number of taxis and the higher cost of operations and fuel.
Technical
Paper on Privatization
Options rimary Corridor Transportation Swdy 6-2
Preliminary Working Document