Council committee advances repeal of fare‑box recovery policy and pauses major fare ordinance rewrite after broad stakeholder debate

The Budget Committee on Oct. 14 recommended reporting Resolution 25‑262 — which repeals the city’s policy on the fare‑box recovery ratio for municipal transit — out for adoption and held extensive discussion of Bill 54 (an ordinance that would amend multiple sections of Revised Ordinances of Honolulu Chapter 15B governing transit fares). The committee later postponed action on Bill 54 to allow further consultation.

Resolution and rationale: Council member Dos Santos Tam, who introduced the repeal resolution, argued the fare‑box recovery ratio metric is “unrealistic” and can force service reductions or fare increases that would harm efforts to grow ridership. “If you carry out the intention behind it… it would force us to either reduce bus service, reduce quality if we're not meeting it, or raise fares,” Dos Santos Tam said. Department of Transportation Services (DTS) Director Roger Morton (recorded as Morton in committee testimony) told the committee he supported elimination of the operating cost‑recovery policy for similar reasons.

Bill 54 overview and debate: Bill 54 as posted and later hand‑carried contained dozens of changes: renaming the low‑income category from “individuals with extremely low income” to “individuals with very low income;” adding Medicare cardholders as eligible reduced‑fare recipients; adding an adult nonresident passenger category; clarifying airport and special‑event fares; and expanding eligibility for certain reduced transit and paratransit fares to include holders of Section‑8 housing vouchers issued by the Department of Community Services. The hand‑carried CD2 also deleted language that would have exempted personal care attendants (PCAs) from paying fares on bus and rail (PCAs remain exempt on paratransit HandyVan under federal law, per testimony).

Administration analysis and fiscal effects: Director Morton urged caution on three major points the committee discussed: • Nonresident adult fare category: Morton opposed creating an immediately enforceable nonresident category for Holo cash/card use, saying operators cannot reliably distinguish resident from nonresident riders and the department lacks the back‑office and policy groundwork to vet and administer a new category at short notice. • Deeply discounted fares parity: Morton recommended parity among deeply discounted riders (seniors, people with disabilities, Medicare cardholders, very‑low‑income households) rather than carving out seniors for a special rate, noting seniors comprise roughly 70% of the deeply discounted fare riders. He said either keeping the current deeply discounted rate or setting a single new rate (e.g., $0.45 or $0.50 per ride in the posted proposals) for the category would be preferable to splitting the group. • Expanding low‑income eligibility: Morton said changing the eligibility definition from extremely low‑income (about 30% of Area Median Income) to very‑low‑income (about 50% AMI) could increase the eligible population from an estimated 110,000 to 180,000 people and cost the transit system an estimated $6–8 million in foregone fare revenue.

Accessibility and personal care attendants: The Disability and Communication Access Board (DCAB) and multiple disability‑advocacy testifiers opposed removing the PCA fare waiver on fixed‑route services. Brian Mick (DCAB) told the committee that PCAs perform essential functions beyond mobility assistance — medication management, operating medical devices, helping with complex interactions — and that removing the fixed‑route waiver would shift people toward paratransit and increase paratransit demand. Donald Sakamoto, a longtime paratransit rider, said waiving PCAs on bus and rail is essential for people with disabilities and cautioned that cash fare increases and higher Holo purchase requirements would be onerous for very low‑income riders.

Operational options discussed: Morton said one way to avoid placing bus operators in the position of adjudicating PCA claims would be to issue a disability/Holo designation that allowed a PCA waiver to be recognized at fare gates or on buses; that would require additional vetting and back‑office work. Committee members and DCAB staff discussed whether DCAB, another city office or the department might administer PCA identification cards or a dedicated Holo pass that signals caregiver status.

Outcome: The committee recommended reporting Resolution 25‑262 (fare‑box recovery repeal) out for adoption with no objection. On Bill 54, members and stakeholders raised multiple substantive concerns — cost, equity, operational feasibility and federal compliance for paratransit obligations — and the committee chair recommended postponing action on the ordinance to a future date to permit follow‑up discussions and technical fixes.