


































UAFS Advances in Business Research 2012 LOWREZ (2).pdf


Rahal                                                                                                                                                                             Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                           2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 130-140 

 

130 

 

Barriers to and Strategies for Transportation Coordination among the Transportation/ 

Human Service Providers: The Case of the River Valley Providers 
 

Ahmad Rahal, University of Arkansas-Fort Smith 
 

 

This research note seeks to identify the barriers to and strategies for transportation coordination among the River 

Valley transportation/Human Service providers (RVTP), in Western Arkansas, for the purpose of facilitating full 
community access and participation of the transportation disadvantaged as proposed by the Executive Order of 

Human Service Transportation Coordination signed by President Bush in February 2004. A comprehensive survey 

of the RVTP revealed that lack of awareness, lack of knowledge, lack of guidance, financial concerns, and false 

perceptions as the main culprits to the lack of coordination among the RVTP in the River Valley area. As a result, 

we propose the creation of a permanent local champion position “Mobility Manager” to build cooperation and trust 

among the RVTP and commit the time and energy needed to develop acceptable solutions to issues of concerns and 
assist in minimizing duplications, improving efficiencies, and expanding the range of both transportation services 

(traditional and non-traditional) for the transportation disadvantage. 
 

 

Transportation is a key element to meeting life sustaining activities (Rosenbloom, 1993) as it facilitates access to 

employment (Anderson, 1998; Blumenberg and Ong, 2001; Dasinger et al., 2000; Holzer, 1991; Lacombe, 1998), 

education (McWhirter, 1997), and health care services (Ahmad et al. 2001; McCray, 2000; Straight, 1997).  

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics’ (BTS) 2009 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) revealed that 

8.7% of the US households do not own a vehicle. The survey also revealed that of those 50 or older, 7.7% do not 

own any vehicle with 17.5% of them having some kind of disability with a disproportional percentage for the oldest 

groups (22.6% disability for the 70-79, and 41.3% for the 80-older group).  

Given the current state of many of the transportation systems in the United states, it is widely believed that the 

rapid growth of the older population in the United States (65 or older) will present various transportation challenges 

as the number of older American is expected to increase from a current of 13% of the U.S. population (about 40 

million) to reach 20% by 2030 (or about 72 million) with about 8.8 million being 85 or older in 2030 increasing to 

about 19 million in 2050 as shown in the Table 1.  
 

Table 1: Projections and Distribution of the Total Population by Age class 

for the United States 2010 to 2050 (Numbers in thousands) 
 

      

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008. 

 

For the economically or the physically disadvantaged (individuals with lower incomes, the unemployed, older 

adults, people with disabilities), transportation represents a formidable mobility barrier to seeking life sustaining 

activities and independence in their communities as many are unable to provide or afford their own transportation 

services (Rosenbloom, 2003) resulting in lower mobility than the general population (Pusher and Renne, 2003). For 

such groups, transportation, if and when available, is often provided by traditional transportation services such as 

public transit or by many independently operated nonprofit transportation organizations (social services) resulting in 

costly, duplicative, and overlapping services with high inefficiencies (U.S. Government Accounting Office, 1999).   

The Federal government has encouraged and required transportation coordination plans for eligibility for certain 

federally funded program such as sections 5310 (Formula Grants for Special needs of Elderly Individuals and 

Individuals with Disabilities), 5316 (JARC-Job Access and Reverse Commute), and 5317 (New Freedom provision 

for the disabled) of the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

(SAFETY-LU). Furthermore, research undertaken by  several federal agencies (the Federal Transit Administration, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Housing, and the Department of Health and Human 

Services) have identified that coordination among local and regional transportation providers as the key to serving 

the transportation disadvantaged (Schlossberg, 2004) and reduce federal transportation program cost. Hence the 

2010 % 2020 % 2030 % 2040 % 2050 %

Population………….. 310,233 341,387 373,504 405,655 439,010

Under 20years…….. 84,150 27.12% 90,703 26.57% 97,682 26.15% 104,616 25.79% 112,940 25.73%

20 to 64 years……… 185,854 59.91% 195,880 57.38% 203,729 54.55% 219,601 54.13% 237,523 54.10%

65 years and over…. 40,229 12.97% 54,804 16.05% 72,092 19.30% 81,238 20.03% 88,547 20.17%

85 or over 5,751 1.85% 6,597 1.93% 8,745 2.34% 14,198 3.50% 19,041 4.34%



Rahal                                                                                                                                                                             Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                           2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 130-140 

 

131 

 

Executive Order of Human Service Transportation Coordination (EO13330) signed by president Bush in February 

2004, called for facilitating the use and accessibility of the federally assisted transportation by requiring federal 

agencies to work together and coordinate the federal programs that fund transportation, and called for the 

development, implementation, and maintenance of responsive, coordinated community and transportation system to 

maximize benefits gleaned from federally supported transportation resources, and allow the full participation of the 

transportation disadvantaged and access to community services of in their communities. 

As a result, the concept of coordinated mobility or mobility management has grown to address and meet the 

specific needs of individual customer and provide a platform to improve and stimulate coordination among 

transportation agencies, minimize or eliminate duplication, and improve the use and efficiencies of available 

transportation resources. 
 

Research Objective 
 

This research will seek to identify the barriers to and strategies for transportation coordination among the River 

Valley transportation/Human Service providers (RVTP) in Western Arkansas for the purpose of facilitating full 

community access and participation of the transportation disadvantaged as proposed by the Executive Order of 

Human Service Transportation Coordination 
 

REGIONAL DESCRIPTION 
 

Geography 
 

The planning region (Figure 1) covers the counties of: Crawford, Franklin, Logan, Sebastian, Scott and Polk. 

This is referenced as the “West” district of the Arkansas Planning and Development Districts. This planning region 

includes the River Valley which, for the purposes of this plan, encompasses the economic region of Fort Smith 

which extends outward approximately 50 miles. 
 

 
                           Figure 1: River Valley Demographic Area 

 

Demographics 
 

Except for Sebastian County, the River Valley area is rural with a below average population density. 

Demographics listed in Table 2 clearly show the following: 
 

Table 2: River Valley Area Demographic Data 
 

 

              Source: US Census Bureau State & County QuickFacts. 



Rahal                                                                                                                                                                             Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                           2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 130-140 

 

132 

 

I. Persons 65 years or older in the River Valley area, represent a bigger percentage of the population when 

compared to Arkansas’ or the National percentages.  

II. Persons with disability ages 5+ in the River Valley area far exceeds both Arkansas’ and the national level 

sometimes by as much as 50%. 

III. The median household income is a third (1/3) less than that of the national average, and almost consistently 

below that of Arkansas. 

IV. The percentage of persons below poverty level is much higher than that of the national average where the 

difference can be as high as 50% in the case in the case of Scott and Polk Counties. 
 

Partners 
 

A mobility management partnership between the Bi-State Metro-Planning Organization (BS-MPO), the Fort 

Smith Transit, and the University of Arkansas-Fort Smith (UAFS) initiated contact with the RVTP to determine 

those interested in becoming stakeholders in the transportation coordination process. Introduction letters were sent 

and multiple individual meeting sessions were set up to explain the objective of the project, identify needs, and 

determine potential barriers to coordination.  

It is worth noting that many of the RVTP who initially expressed interest in this project anticipated an increase in 

funding and associated privileges as the Mobility Management project was mistakenly perceived to act as a proxy or 

an agent for the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD). Despite multiple meetings 

between the designated researchers and the RVTP over the duration of this research period, the coordination and 

cooperation among the RVTP proved to be very challenging.   
 

Methodology 
 

A survey (see appendix) addressing the RVTP was developed to assist in identifying opportunities for and 

possible local barriers to coordination. The survey was hand-delivered to the RVTP who were asked to provide as 

much information as possible. Unfortunately, the timing of this survey coincided with an AHTD survey (the 10 year 

financial plan hence creating confusion among the agencies causing a lower than expected return. 

A total of 10 completed and usable surveys were received from Human Service Agencies (4), Senior Centers (4), 

and Assisted Living (2)  with seven agencies (70%) being private non-profit, two federally supported (20%), and 

one that was privately held and supported. Although only half of the respondents were aware of some coordination 

plan at the local or the regional level, 80% were not even aware or did not have any knowledge of whether their 

agency is involved in any coordination plan. Furthermore, the respondents were evenly split on whether their elected 

officials or transit agencies are interested or committed in facilitating and maximizing the use of available resources 

for the transportation disadvantaged as proposed by the Executive Order of Human Service Transportation 

Coordination. The majority of the respondents found the public transit to be the most useful mobility option, but 

asked for expanded services to cover rural areas. 

When asked about the enhancements that are most needed to improve coordination among the RVTP, increased 

funding and improved traveler information were at the top of the list. As to the greatest barriers to coordination 

among the RVTP, funding issues, confusing regulations and policies, concerns over insurance, accounting and 

billing, lack of awareness or understanding of the available services, and lack of information on whom to coordinate 

with were the common answers. At the end, the respondents were asked about their level of interest in applying 

some coordination strategies (see attached survey) only half were possibly interested while the rest did not show any 

interest at all. 
 

Survey Results and Discussion 
 

Further Analysis of the RVTP survey revealed many barriers that inhibit coordination which can be categorized 

as financial, operational, regulatory, informational, or attitudinal as summarized below: 
 

Regulatory barriers 
 

  The belief that certain federal and state regulations, or organizational policies that disallow cooperation, hence 

the reluctance on the part of the local representative (s) to devote time and resources to the coordination process. 

  The belief that vehicle use is governed by funding or use restrictions, hence limiting coordination abilities. 

  The perception that regulatory restrictions and client specialized needs make coordination for the purpose of 

sharing rides or services very challenging. 



Rahal                                                                                                                                                                             Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                           2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 130-140 

 

133 

 

Informational barriers 
 

  Lack of awareness or ability of many of the RVTP to identify organizations to coordinate with. This is especially 

true for agencies where transportation is ancillary, rather than primary. 
 

Financial barriers 
 

  Concerns about billing as many providers are uncertain about the real cost and allocations of funds among the 

participating agencies. 

  Lack of expertise and knowledge of coordination strategies which can be attributed to the high turnover rate of 

representatives who have previously been exposed to the concept of mobility management. 
 

Operational barriers 
 

  The need by the RVTP to protect transportation resources and facilities as they are not easily acquired. 

  Concerns about insurance coverage and liability issues, and accounting imposed by funding sources as a barrier 

to coordination. 

  Concerns about data confidentiality and incompatible client needs. 

  Concerns about protecting own service area and avoid turf squabbling. 
 

Further analysis of the survey revealed a great need for the development of a process for disseminating 

information about the coordination efforts as many of the RVTP respondents either had inadequate information or 

were not aware of any coordination efforts or processes, or did not know where to find such information.  

When asked about the types of enhancements that are most needed to improve the coordination of public and 

human service agencies, improved marketing and traveler information were the most obvious answers by the RVTP. 
 

Conclusion and Recommendations 
 

The results of the survey clearly show that many of the coordination barriers may be attributed categorized as 

financial, operational, informational, regulatory, or attitudinal. 

As a conclusion we believe the dissemination of information about the coordination efforts is a necessary to but 

not sufficient to achieve the stated goal of The Executive Order of Human Service Transportation Coordination. 

Hence it is recommended that building and sustaining trust and communications through the creation of a permanent 

mobility management position might be the key to mitigating the impact of the coordination barriers, and can assist 

in improving the rate of success of any coordination efforts, and the author strongly believes that time and money 

spent in developing support, resources, and a framework for coordination such as the creation of an office 

specifically focused on coordinating transportation will pay off over the long term. 
 

REFERENCES 
 

Ahmed, S., Lemkau, J., Nealeigh, N., & Mann, B. 2001. Barriers to healthcare access in a non-elderly urban poor 

American population. Health & Social Care in the Community, 9(6), 445-453.  
 

Anderson J. 1998. Welfare reform: Transportation’s role in moving from welfare to work: RCED-98-161. 

GAO Reports, 1. 
 

Blumenberg, E., & Ong, P. 2001. Cars, buses, and jobs: Welfare participants and employment access in Los 

Angeles. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1756(1), 22-31. 
 

Danziger, S., Corcoran, M., Danziger, S., Heflin, C., Kalil, A., Levine, J., Rosen, D. et al. 2002. Barriers to the 

employment of welfare recipients (No. Report No. 02-508). PSC Research Report (p. 45).  
 

Gamm, L., Hutchison, L., Bellamy, G., & Dabney, B. 2002. Rural healthy people 2010: Identifying rural health 

priorities and models for practice. Journal of Rural Health: Official Journal of the American Rural Health 

Association and the National Rural Health Care Association, 18(1), 9-14. 
 

Holzer, H. 1991. The spatial mismatch hypothesis: What has the evidence shown? Urban Studies, 28(1), 105-122.  
 

Lacombe, A. 1998. Welfare reform and access to jobs in Boston. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 



Rahal                                                                                                                                                                             Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                           2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 130-140 

 

134 

 

Mccray, T. 2000. Delivering healthy babies: Transportation and healthcare access. Planning Practice & Research, 

15(1), 17-29. 
 

McWhirter, E. 1997. Perceived barriers to education and career: Ethnic and gender differences. Journal of 

Vocational Behavior, 50(1), 124-40. 
 

Pucher, J., & Renne, J. 2003. Socioeconomics of urban travel: Evidence from the 2001 NHTS. Transportation 

Quarterly, 57(3), 49-77. 
 

Rosenbloom, S. 1993. The impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act transportation requirements on older 

Americans: Will older persons lose mobility? Consumer Affairs, Program Division, American Association of 

Retired Persons. 
 

Rosenbloom, S., & Policy, B. I. C. on U. and M. 2003. The mobility needs of older Americans: implications for 

transportation reauthorization. 
 

Schlossberg, M. 2004. Coordination as a strategy for serving the transportation disadvantaged. Public Works 

Management & Policy, 9(2), 132 -144.  
 

US Census Bureau. 2012. Statistical abstract: Elderly, racial and Hispanic origin population profiles. Retrieved 

January 23, 2012, from http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/population/elderly_racial_and_hispanic_ 

origin_population_profiles.html. 
 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. 2011. 2009 National Household Travel 

Survey. 
 

U.S. General Accounting Office. 1999. Transportation coordination: Benefits and barriers exist, and planning 

efforts progress slowly. GAO/RCED-00-1).  
 

Wallace, R. 1997.  Paratransit customer: Modeling elements of satisfaction with service. Transportation Research 

Record, (1571). Retrieved from http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=577321. 
 

Wallace, R., Hughes-cromwick, P., Mull, H., & Khasnabis, S. Access to Health Care and Nonemergency Medical 

Transportation Two Missing Links. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi= 10.1.1. 

114.4660. 
 

 

Ahmad Rahal is an associate professor of management at the University of Arkansas-Fort Smith. He received his 

Ph.D. from University of Central Florida. His current research interests include quality management, supply chain 

management, and innovation management. He has published in Journal of Management and Engineering 

Integration, Journal of Technology management & Innovation, Journal of Engineering Management, and others. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Rahal                                                                                                                                                                             Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                           2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 130-140 

 

135 

 

Appendix 

Transportation Stakeholder Survey 

 

Survey Letter 

 

Dear Transportation Colleague: 

 

To meet the planning requirements of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), and the Federal Transportation 

Administration (FTA), the Bi-State Metro Planning Organization (BI-MPO), the Fort Smith Transit, 

and the University of Arkansas in Fort Smith (funding support provided by a grant from the Arkansas 

Highway and Transportation Department AHTD) have teamed up to identify barriers to and strategies for 

improving coordinated transportation services between public, private and non-profit transit and human 

service providers to facilitate improvements of transportation services for persons with disabilities, older 

adults, and individuals with limited incomes. 

 

Your response to the enclosed survey will assist us in updating and compiling the inventory of 

the existing transportation services in the region, in identifying unmet transportation needs, and in 

identifying opportunities for and possible local barriers to coordination. Please provide as much of the 

information as possible, and mail the survey back using the self-stamped and addressed envelope. 

 

If you have any questions about the survey, please contact ------------ 

 

Sincerely, 

 

-------------------------- 

Transit Mobility Manager 

Fort Smith Transit 

6821 Jenny Lind, P.O. Box 1908 

Fort Smith, AR 72902 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Rahal                                                                                                                                                                             Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                           2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 130-140 

 

136 

 

I. ORGANIZATION CHARACTERISTICS     

 

1. Identification of Organization: 

o Name: _________________________________________________________________ 

o Address: _______________________________________________________________ 

o Telephone: ________________________ Fax: _________________________________ 

o E-mail: _________________________________________________________________ 

o Name of Individual Who Can Answer or Respond to Questions Posed in the Survey: 

o ________________________________________________________________________ 

o Title: ___________________________________________________________________ 

o Agency Website: _________________________________________________________ 

 

2. Is your agency:   

o Public 

o Private Non-Profit 

o Private for Profit 

o Other (please specify)________

3. Please check the box that best describes your organization. (Check only one.) 

o Elderly Service Provider (Adult Day Care/ Nursing Home/ Senior Center)  

o Education 

o Faith Based Organization 

o Health Care Provider (Hospital/Medical Center) 

o Publicly Sponsored Transit Agency 

o Private Transportation Company 

o Sheltered Workshop  

o Social Service Agency(Government)  

o Social Service Agency – Nonprofit 

o Other (please specify) ______________________ 

4. What are the major functions/services of your organization? (Check all that apply.) 

o Counseling 

o Health Care 

o Social Services 

o Transportation 

o Other (please specify) ______________________ 

 

5. Please list the counties and cities your agency serves? If you have a map of the service area, please attach 

a copy to the survey. 

_______________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________ 
 

6. Does your agency operate multiple sites?                    Yes                    No 

If ”yes” can you please give locations? 

_______________________________________________________________ 
 

7. Does your organization purchase/contract transportation services on behalf of clients from other service 

providers?  

 

o Yes o No 



Rahal                                                                                                                                                                             Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                           2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 130-140 

137 

 

8. Is your organization involved in the direct operation of transportation services for clients?   

o Yes 

o No (please skip to Section III-Funding on page 7)

9. Does your transportation program restrict/ limit services? (Check all that apply.) 

o Clients only 

o Trip purpose 

o Number of rides per month 

o Advanced reservations 

o Other (please specify) 

o None- no transportation restrictions (Please go to question 15) 

10. If your transportation program restricts/limits services, please let us know the reasons? 

o Funding 

o Federal regulations 

o State regulations 

o Other (please specify)------------- 
 

11. Define the level of passenger assistance provided for users of your transportation service (check all that 

apply). 

o Curb-to-curb (Drivers will assist passengers in and out of vehicle only) 

o Door-to door (Drivers will assist passengers to the entrance of their origin or destination) 

o Drivers are permitted to assist passengers with a limited number of packages 

o Drivers are permitted to assist passengers with a unlimited number of packages 

o Provide personal care assistants to those passengers who require such services 

o Passengers are permitted to travel with personal care assistants 
 

12. How do clients/customers access your transportation services? 

o There are no advanced reservation requirement (Please go to question18) 

o Clients/customers must make an advance reservation (e.g.’ by telephone, facsimile, internet, arrangement 

through a third party) 
 

13. If advance reservations are required, what notice must be provided? 

o We use real-time reservation policy 

o Customers/clients must call for a reservation the day before travel  

o Customers/clients must call for a reservation two days before travel  

o Other (please specify)--------------------------------------------------- 
 

14. What is your agency’s transportation service strength? 

______________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________ 
 

15. Thinking of your agency/organization, what transportation needs are not being met adequately? (Please 

list all that apply) 

_______________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________ 
  

16. What are the barriers/obstacles to meeting your transportation needs adequately? (Please list all that 

apply) 

_______________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________ 
 

17. Thinking outside of your agency/organization, what coordinated transportation needs are you aware of 

that are not being met adequately? (could be at the federal, state, or the local level) 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

 



Rahal                                                                                                                                                                             Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                           2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 130-140 

138 

 

II. FUNDING 
 

18. By source, what percentage of your transportation budget comes from-------% Federal, --------------% 

State, and ------------------% local funds (must equal 100%)? 
 

19. Please check all the funding sources that provide money for your transportation program 
 

a. Federal 

o CSBG (Community Service Block Grant Program) 

o HHS (Department of Health & Human Services) 

o FTA section 5310 (Transportation for Elderly Person and Persons with Disabilities) 

o FTA section 5311 (Rural Formula program) 

o FTA section 5307 (Urbanized Area Program) 

o FTA section 5316 JARC 

o FTA section 5317 New Freedom Act  

o Title IIIB (Program targeted for older adults at risk for institutionalization 

o Non emergency Medicaid 

o Title XX 

o Other (please specify)-------------------- 
 

b. State 

o Bureau of Public Health 

o Bureau of Senior Services 

o Bureau of Human Resources for Children and Families 

o Division of Public Transit 

o Division of Rehab Services 

o Lottery Funds 

o State car rentals sales tax proceeds 

o Other (please specify)------------ 

 

c. Local 

o County Commission 

o Donation 

o Fares 

o Grants from charity organization 

o County/Local Tax 

o Other (please specify)-----------

 

 

III. LOCAL COORDINATION EFFORTS 
 

20. Are you aware if an organization or committee that has been established in the River Valley Area to 

coordinate transportation? 

o No I am not aware of any transportation coordination or organization committee 

o Yes- I am aware of any transportation coordination or organization committee which operate at a 

regional level 

o Yes- I am aware of any transportation coordination or organization committee which operate at a 

local level 
 

21. Does your institution has or is involved in a transportation coordination plan? 

o No my institution does not have and/or is not involved in any coordination plan 

o Yes my institution has and/or is involved in a coordination plan with clear missions and goals 

o Yes my institution has a coordination plan, but the missions and goals are not clear 

o A coordination plan is still under discussion at my institution 

o I don’t know 
 



Rahal                                                                                                                                                                             Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                           2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 130-140 

139 

 

22. In your opinion, is there sustained support for coordinated transportation planning among elected 

officials, agency administrators, and other community leaders? 

o No support 

o Yes- Low level of support 

o Yes- Moderate level of support 

o Yes- Good level of support 

o Yes- High level of support 
 

23. How do you rate the level of interest and commitment among local elected officials, transit agencies, and 

human service organizations to coordinating transportation services and maximizing the use of available 

resources? 

o No commitment 

o Commitment at Low level   

o Commitment at Moderate level   

o Commitment at Good level   

o Commitment at High level   
 

24. Are you aware of an on-going process for identifying duplication of transportation services, underused 

assets, and service gaps? 

o Yes I am aware (please explain the process) ----------------------------------------------------------- 

o No I am not aware 
  

25. What issues or problems; if any; do you perceive to be a hinder to your transportation coordination 

efforts?  Please check all that apply: 

o None/ No issues 

o Insurance issues 

o Drivers issues 

o Funding issues 

o Billing/ eligibility issue 

o Regulatory issues 

o Volunteers issues 

o Other (please specify)---------

26. What elements of the existing transportation network provide the most useful mobility options for your 

clients? 

o Public Transit 

o Medical Transportation Services 

o Volunteer Programs 

o Other (please specify)--------- 

o I am not sure 
 

27. What enhancements are most needed to improve the coordination of public and human service 

transportation in your service area? Please choose three and rank them in order where “1” is the most 

important. 

o ------------Improve transit (please specify how)-------------------------------------------- 

o ------------Increased funding 

o ------------Improve traveler information 

o ------------Improve coordination(please specify how)--------------------------------------- 

o ------------Improve marketing (please specify how)----------------------------------------- 

o -----------Other (please specify how)----------------------------------------------------------- 

o I am not sure 
 

 
 

 

 



Rahal                                                                                                                                                                             Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                           2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 130-140 

140 

 

28. What do you see as the greatest barriers to coordination and mobility in your service area? Please choose 

three and rank them in order where “1” is the most important.  

o ----------Insurance/ Liability issues 

o ----------Federal Regulations 

o ----------State Regulations 

o ----------Funding issues 

o ----------Scheduling issues (Drivers/Volunteers) 

o ----------Turf battles 

o ----------Not enough equipment 

o ----------Reluctance of transportation providers to coordinate 

o ----------Incompatible clients 

o ----------Other (please specify)--------------------------------------------------------------- 

o Satisfied with present transportation program; do not see need to coordinate 
 

Below are a number of possible strategies for improving the coordination among transportation providers. 

Please indicate your level of interest in each of these strategies by checking the appropriate box. 

 

 

 Intere

sted 

Possibly 

Interested 

Not  

Interested 

Not 

Applicable 

1- Providing transportation services, or more 

transportation services, under contract to another 

agency 

    

2- Purchasing transportation services from another 

organization, assuming that the price and quality of 

service met your needs. 

    

3- Coordinating schedules and vehicle operation with 

nearby transit providers so that riders can transfer from 

one service to another 

    

4- Joining together with another municipality or agency to 

consolidate the operation of transportation services 
    

5- Highlighting connections to other fixed-route or 

demand-responsive services on your schedules or other 

information materials 

    

6- Adjusting hours or frequency of service 

 
    

7- Coordinating activities such as procurement, training, 

vehicle maintenance, and public information with other 

providers 

    

8- Participating in an organized area-wide transportation 

marketing program 
    

 


