SB195 would require Hawaii counties to look for alternative revenue sources before creating a new mass transit fare or raising an existing one. The bill specifically directs counties to assess whether the needed revenue can be obtained through means such as transit-based advertising, and to seek fair market compensation for ads placed inside buses, on the outside of vehicles, and at transit stops. Counties would also be allowed to impose reasonable limits on ad placement and content for safety and public welfare reasons.
If a county still determines that a fare increase is necessary after considering alternatives, it must submit a justification report to the Department of Transportation describing the proposed fare change and its efforts to raise revenue in other ways. The department would then have 30 days to approve or reject the proposal; if it does not act in time, the fare change is deemed approved. Revenue from both fares and transit advertising would be restricted to operating and maintaining the county mass transit system.
Impact
The bill would amend Chapter 51 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes by adding a new section governing county mass transit fares and transit-based advertising. It would create a procedural hurdle before any county can adopt a new fare or increase an existing one, and it would give the Department of Transportation a review role over county fare decisions. The measure would also authorize and encourage expanded use of paid advertising on transit vehicles and at transit stops, while limiting the use of those revenues to transit operations and maintenance.
Sentiment
The bill’s stated purpose reflects a generally supportive posture toward keeping transit affordable and reducing the burden of fare increases on riders, especially given Hawaii’s high cost of living. The framing suggests a consumer- and accessibility-oriented approach, with counties encouraged to use advertising and other non-fare revenue sources first. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no additional evidence of formal support or opposition beyond the bill text itself.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are the bill’s restriction on county discretion and the new state-level approval process. Counties may object to being required to justify fare changes to the Department of Transportation and to wait for state approval before acting, particularly because the bill allows a fare increase to be denied or delayed. Another likely issue is the advertising mandate: while the bill promotes transit-based ads as an alternative revenue source, counties would still need to manage content restrictions and decide how far to allow commercial advertising on public transit property.
A resolution to direct the Clerk of the House of Representatives to only present to the Governor enrolled House bills finally passed by both houses of the One Hundred Third Legislature.
Relating to nonsubstantive additions to, revisions of, and corrections in enacted codes, to the nonsubstantive codification or disposition of various laws omitted from enacted codes, and to conforming codifications enacted by the 88th Legislature to other Acts of that legislature.