This paper describes how cities and human service agencies have tried many approaches over the years to provide transportation for elderly, handicapped, and rural citizens. These approaches included attempts to contract with private transportation providers for service. Such contractual arrangements have often times provided benefits for both parties. Agencies and cities, which have neither the expertise nor the desire to be in the transportation business: (1) have found they can achieve the same or better levels of service for less cost; (2) have been able to retain some control overthe availability of transportation service without the problem of runningit; (3) have found themselves in a more comfortable position working with, rather than competing with, private transportation providers; and (4) inthe same case of agencies, once again have been able to concentrate theirresources on their primary service. From the perspective of the private transportation provider, such contractual arrangements have removed what isviewed as unfair subsidized competition, and returned the responsibility for transportation service, along with revenues, to those who have the ability to best provide the service. The paper presents four case studies andrecommendations from the Transfer Program in Lawrence, Massachusetts, theCommunity Responsive Transit Program in Cleveland, Ohio, the Dial-a-ride Program in Hartford, Connecticut; and the LIFT Program in Portland, Oregon.
Samenvatting