City officials ponder bus issues

By Mike Leidemann
Advertiser Transportation Writer

As the possibility of a bus strike, service cuts and new fare increases grew last week, Ann Kobayashi, chairwoman of the City Council's Budget Committee asked a simple question: "How did we get to this point?"

The answer is anything but simple.

It involves public policy issues, Sept. 11, local political in-fighting and people from 6 to 96 who have come to expect an ever-growing, heavily subsidized transit system in Honolulu.

With islandwide service cuts set to go into effect Sunday and a possible bus strike to follow two days later, officials are scrambling to find more money to keep the system operating at current levels.

The planned cutbacks — 100,000 service hours per year, or about 6 percent of TheBus operations — are at the heart of the contract dispute between O'ahu Transit Services and the Hawai'i Teamsters and Allied Workers Local 996, which represents the city's 1,300 bus workers.

The union opposes the service cuts because they could mean laying off 40 drivers. On Thursday the company, in its latest offer, promised that "operator layoffs are no longer under consideration for the immediate future."

But the union rejected the proposal, saying it didn't provide a "time frame" for ensuring a no-layoff period.

Other unresolved issues include wages, health benefits, pension and sick leave.

The beginnings of the dispute go back to a City Council resolution passed in 2000 that requires bus fares to account for 27 percent to 33 percent of all bus operating costs, said Cheryl Soon, city director of transportation services. Trying to stay within those guidelines when the city considered a $117 million 2004 bus operating budget set off the changes that riders are facing, Soon said.

"The only way to meet those guidelines was to have both fare increases and decreases in service," she told Kobayashi and other council members trying to get to the bottom of the problem last week.

Transit systems nationwide are facing similar choices this year, said Paul Steffans, chief of the city's public transit division. Oakland, San Diego, Denver, New York and Philadelphia are among the cities this year that have reduced service or raised rates, in part to cope with lost ridership and increased security costs that resulted after 9-11.

Bus service rose in the past decade, reaching an all-time high in 2001 with the introduction of city and country express service, but revenues from paying passengers declined from 27 percent to 25 percent of the bus system's operating costs in the past two years, forcing officials to re-evaluate how long subsidized service could continue to expand.

To help offset the loss, one-way bus fares were raised to $1.75 and monthly bus passes increased to $30 in June. Even with the additional revenue, however, the budget came up $6 million short, forcing city officials to plan service cuts that would bring bus service back to 2000 levels.

That's when things got dicey for local politicians.

The first round of service cuts in June involved dozens of morning and evening express-bus runs used by commuters from suburban O'ahu. Because the cuts went into effect with little public notice, riders who suddenly found themselves without a seat on some buses howled to their lawmakers, some of whom complained they weren't fully informed of what the city was planning.

Kobayashi said the City Council might have been willing to raise even more money for the bus but was never asked to.

"When the transportation budget was cut, nobody showed up to tell us the impact," added Councilman Romy Cachola.

Since then, the Council has responded with a bill that would raise bus fares again for most users. Monthly bus passes would increase to $37; youth passes would go up to $18.50 and individual riders would be charged 25 cents for a transfer. The most controversial part of the new bill would institute a 25-cent one-way fare for senior citizens, who now get unlimited free rides after paying for a $25 two-year pass.

Soon said the new fares, designed to be spread over the widest variety of users, would allow the city to raise enough money to call off the next round of service cuts, which would increase the time between most buses anywhere from 1 minute to 5 minutes.

"Bill 53 would allow us to not have to cut services," she said.

At an expedited hearing for the bill last week, however, council members expressed reservations about raising some fares, even though the city presented evidence that Honolulu's monthly bus-pass rates are among the lowest in the nation.

Council members say they are getting an earful from constituents who don't think seniors should have to pay more and from those who think the city should deal with inefficiencies in the current system before asking for more money.

"The real clue is cleaning up this transfer business," said Warner King, an "almost 80"-year-old bus rider from Waikiki. "There's all kinds of abuse. I don't think cutting down the service will do anything and I don't think senior citizens should have to pay more."

Others think seniors could afford to pay a little more.

"Twenty-five bucks for two years — that's a real deal," said Harold Silva, a retired post-office worker from Wai'anae. "I can afford to pay a little more, but I can't say it's the same for everybody."

Next Monday, the City Council is scheduled to take up the fare increase proposal on the second of three required readings.

So, with time running out, council members and city policy-makers will have to decide next week which is worse for their constituents — raising fares, cutting service or risking a bus strike.