National Academies Press: OpenBook

Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258 (2001)

Chapter: 4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice

« Previous: 3. Conceptual Framework and Previous Studies on Contracting
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×

4
Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice

As discussed in Chapter 1, the conduct and analysis of a nationwide survey of transit systems formed a major part of this study. This chapter describes the survey and its coverage, and reviews those results that indicate the extent and practice of transit service contracting in the United States.

Survey Design and Method

FTA collects information on purchased transportation as part of the National Transit Database (NTD). Recipients of federal transit grants must report how much transportation they purchase from outside entities for each mode by dollar amount and quantity of services supplied (such as peak vehicles, vehicle-hours, and vehicle-miles). The NTD shows general trends and overall patterns in purchased transportation, as noted in Chapter 1. Yet it does not reveal program- or contract-level details, nor does it offer insight on the reasons for contracting and its results. The committee designed its survey to obtain both quantitative and qualitative information.

FTA furnished a list of 502 public transportation systems from 50 states and the District of Columbia that report to the NTD. These systems provide a mix of transit services. Most offer fixed-route bus or demand-responsive services or both. Many of the larger systems provide other services as well, such as rail

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×

transit. A small number do not offer bus or demand-responsive services, but specialize in commuter rail, vanpool, or ferryboat operations.

The survey was mailed in November 2000 to the top executives of each of the 502 systems, accompanied by a letter from the committee chair explaining the purpose of the survey and urging participation; stamped return envelopes were also provided.1 The chair mailed a follow-on letter to recipients in January 2001. Appendix B contains facsimiles of the original cover letter and survey, along with a listing of the recipients and respondents (as of March 15, 2001).

As noted in Chapter 1, the survey consisted of two parts. General managers were asked to forward Part 1 to the members of their staffs most familiar with service contracts. This part asked general questions about the kinds of services provided by the agency and its overall use of contracting. It also included detailed questions about the terms and structure of individual contracts and the history of contractor changes and bid activity. Because the four-digit FTA designator for each grant recipient surveyed was available, it was possible to cross-reference the most recent NTD reports (1998) as needed. Since some of the smallest systems (those operating fewer than 10 vehicles) do not report annually to the NTD, however, these systems were asked to provide NTD data in their response, including current fleet size (maximum vehicles in service) and most recent annual ridership and operating expenditures.

Each agency was asked to report whether it now contracts for any public transit services. All systems surveyed, whether they answered “yes” or “no” to this question, were requested to return the survey. Those answering “yes” were asked more detailed questions on up to four specific contracts: their two largest for fixed-route bus service and their two largest for demand-responsive paratransit services. For each contracted service, information was requested about the length of the contract; basis of payment; treatment of fare revenues; use of performance incentives and penalties; and parties responsible for the provision of vehicles, facilities, and equipment. Respondents were also asked to describe each contractor—whether publicly owned, private, or not-for-profit—and to indicate whether the services provided in the contract had replaced a directly operated service, created a new service, or succeeded a previously contracted service.

Additional information was sought on experience in obtaining the contracted services, particularly for bidding contracts. For each reported contract, respondents were asked to identify the year the current contract was awarded, the number of bidders for the current award, the number of bidders the last time the contract was awarded, the number of times the contract had been rebid, and the number of times the service contractor had changed.

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×

The general managers were asked to complete the perceptual questions in Part 2 of the survey, which addressed the rationale for contracting and the outcomes of contracting programs. This part also solicited from the general mangers advice on how to make contracting work better. The results from this part of the survey are discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.

Survey Coverage and Representation

Of the 502 transit systems surveyed, more than half—259—returned Part 1 (the contract staff survey), while 237 returned Part 2 (the general manager survey). Most of the systems that returned one part of the survey also returned the other: 233 returned both parts; 26 returned Part 1 only; and 4 returned Part 2 only. Figure 4–1 shows the response rates (respondents as a percentage of recipients) for Parts 1 and 2 by system size.

The survey respondents are comparable in composition to federal grant recipients as a whole. The 259 Part 1 respondents—the focus of this chapter—form a large and diverse group. Systems of all sizes responded in close proportion to their overall numbers (see Figure 4–2). About 60 percent are relatively small systems, operating fleets of 50 or fewer vehicles (in maximum service); this percentage is similar to the share of small systems that reported to the 1998 NTD. The large systems (those operating fleets of more than 250 vehicles) had the highest response rate; hence these systems represent a slightly higher share of the survey respondents than of reporters to the NTD. Eight of the country’s 10 largest bus systems (by fleet size) and 17 of the top 25 returned the survey.

The respondents consist of regional and local authorities that specialize in transit, municipal and county departments of public works, and state agencies that receive federal transit aid. The pattern of respondents by agency type is quite close to that of all federal grant recipients (see Figure 4–3). The respondents are well distributed geographically, with their geographic distribution being comparable to that of all federal grant recipients (see Figure 4–4), although a slightly disproportionate number are from the Pacific Southwest—the FTA region consisting of Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada. Information on the number of respondents by region and the states that make up each region is provided in Appendix B.

As a group, the 259 Part 1 respondents represent about half of all of federal grant recipients reporting in the 1998 NTD. Moreover, they account for about 55 percent of all bus and demand-responsive vehicles in service and for similar shares of total vehicle-miles and vehicle-hours in revenue service (see Table 4–1).

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×

FIGURE 4–1 Response rates by transit system size for Parts 1 and 2 of the survey.

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×

FIGURE 4–2 Distribution of Part 1 survey respondents by transit system size, compared with distribution of all federal grant recipients surveyed.

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×

FIGURE 4–3 Distribution of Part 1 survey respondents by agency type, compared with distribution of all federal grant recipients surveyed.

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×

FIGURE 4–4 Distribution of Part 1 survey respondents by region of the country, compared with distribution of all federal grant recipients surveyed. (NOTE: The ten regions correspond to FTA definitions—see Appendix B.)

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×

TABLE 4–1 Part 1 Survey Respondents’ Share of Total Fixed-Route Bus and Demand-Responsive Vehicles, Revenue-Miles, Revenue-Hours, and Operating Expenses Reported in 1998 National Transit Database

Service

Respondents’ Percentage of Total

Fixed-Route Bus

 

Total Vehicles (Maximum in Service)

59.4

Vehicle Revenue-Miles

59.3

Vehicle Revenue-Hours

59.5

Total Operating Expenses

62.4

Demand-Responsive

 

Total Vehicles (Maximum in Service)

45.2

Vehicle Revenue-Miles

45.7

Vehicle Revenue-Hours

44.4

Total Operating Expenses

49.0

Total

 

Total Vehicles (Maximum in Service)

55.8

Vehicle Revenue-Miles

56.7

Vehicle Revenue-Hours

56.9

Total Operating Expenses

61.1

NOTE: The 1998 National Transit Database was the most recent available at the time of the analysis.

SOURCE: 1998 National Transit Database, Federal Transit Administration.

According to the 1998 NTD, the 259 survey respondents as a group contract for a smaller proportion of their transit services than those systems not responding to the survey (see Table 4–2). This may be attributable to the fact that the survey respondents include most of the country’s largest transit systems. While many of these systems do contract for transit services, the total amount of service for which they contract is typically small relative to their overall operations. Altogether, the 259 respondents are responsible for half the purchased transportation reported in the 1998 NTD.

Overall, the survey respondents are broadly representative of systems receiving federal aid. Their responses are therefore highly informative about the extent of contracting by federal aid recipients today, how that contracting is practiced, and what the competitive landscape for contracts looks like.

The results of Part 1 of the survey are examined next, often with reference to cross-tabulations of the responses to more than one question. Tabulations of responses to individual Part 1 survey questions are provided Appendix C.

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×

TABLE 4–2 Part 1 Survey Respondents’ Use of Purchased (Contracted) Services for Fixed-Route Bus and Demand-Responsive Services, 1998 National Transit Database

Survey Respondents

Total Vehicles in Maximum Service

Vehicle Revenue-Miles

Vehicle Revenue-Hours

Total Operating Expenses

Percentage of Bus Service Purchased

6.7

6.7

5.3

4.4

Percentage of Demand-Responsive Service Purchased

74.7

70.5

70.6

69.2

Percentage of All Transit Service Purchased

20.4

16.5

14.0

9.4

Systems Not Participating in Survey

 

Percentage of Bus Service Purchased

8.3

7.9

6.5

7.4

Percentage of Demand-Responsive Service Purchased

67.2

63.8

63.8

62.2

Percentage of All Transit Service Purchased

26.5

21.3

21.3

14.4

 

SOURCE: 1998 National Transit Database, Federal Transit Administration.

Extent of Transit Contracting

Of the 259 Part 1 respondents, 156, or about 60 percent, reported having contracts for transit service, and the remaining 103 reported not contracting at all. About one-third of those that contract—57 of 156—do so for all their services (see Figure 4–5); the other 99 have contracts for only some of their services.

Because information was requested on each agency’s largest contracts only, the survey results do not reveal how much contracting takes place in individual systems relative to their total operations. Hence the amount of service contracted by each of the 99 systems that reported “some” (but not all) contracted services may vary widely—from as little as 1 percent of total service to as much 99 percent. To gain a better understanding of the amount of contracting that occurs, the survey results were cross-referenced with data on purchased transportation from the 1998 NTD, which included information for 89 of the 99 systems reporting “some” contracting in the survey. According to these data, about 30 percent of these 89 systems contract for more than 25 percent (but less than 100 percent) of their revenue vehicle-miles, 45 percent contract for 11 to 25 percent, and the remaining 25 percent contract for 10 percent or less.

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×

FIGURE 4–5 Percentage of Part 1 survey respondents that contract for all, some, and no transit services (total respondents=259).

Taken together, the survey results and NTD data suggest that of the systems that contract for some service, most do so for more than 10 percent of total service, but relatively few do so for more than 25 percent (see Figure 4–6).

The survey results and NTD data suggest further differences in the incidence of contracting by system size, type of service, agency type, and region. These differences are discussed next.

System Size

About half (75) of the 156 respondents that reported use of contracting are from small systems with fewer than 50 fixed-route bus and demand-responsive vehicles in maximum service. About 30 percent (45) are from medium-sized systems with 50 to 249 vehicles. Large systems with 250 or more vehicles account for about 20 percent (34) of respondents (see Figure 4–7). (System size could not be determined for 2 respondents.)

Small systems make up a large share of those that contract, primarily because they account for about 60 percent of all transit systems. Yet small systems reported contracting less often than large systems in relation to their overall numbers.

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×

FIGURE 4–6 Share of transit systems that contract all, some, and no services (as estimated using Part 1 survey results augmented by NTD data).

FIGURE 4–7 Distribution of Part 1 survey respondents that reported contracting by system size.

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×

More than three-quarters of the responding medium-sized and large systems contract for at least some service, compared with half of small systems, even though the latter represent 60 percent of all transit systems. It appears that larger systems are likely to do at least some contracting because they offer a large amount of service and have more opportunity to engage in the practice. Estimates based on the survey results and NTD data indicate that nearly two-thirds of medium-sized and more than half of large systems contract for more than 10 percent of their services (see Figure 4–8). By comparison, about 45 percent of small systems contract for more than 10 percent of their services.

On the other hand, small systems are much more likely than larger ones to contract for all their services. Among small systems, nearly 30 percent (43 of 153) reported contracting for all services, as compared with not quite 20 percent (11 of 58) of medium-sized systems and about 5 percent (2 of 43) of large systems (see Figure 4–9).

The survey findings, supplemented with information from the NTD, indicate that small systems are less likely to engage in contracting than larger ones, but when they do contract they are more likely to do so for all their services.

FIGURE 4–8 Percentage of large, medium-sized, and small transit systems that contract for all, some, and none of their transit services (as estimated from Part 1 survey results augmented by 1998 NTD data).

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×

FIGURE 4–9 Share of Part 1 survey respondents that contract for all services, by system size.

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×

Moreover, a majority of medium-sized and large systems contract for more than 10 percent of their services.

Service Type

Demand-responsive services are much more likely than bus services to be contracted out. Of the 271 survey respondents reporting demand-responsive services (188 ADA and 83 dial-a-ride), about two-thirds (192) contract for some of these services, and more than half (157) contract for all of them. Likewise, more than 85 percent (71 of 83) of the dial-a-ride systems reported some contracted services, with more than two-thirds contracting for all services. By comparison, only about 40 percent (82 of 203) of the bus systems contract for some services. Estimates using NTD data suggest that more than 60 percent of systems with demand-responsive services contract out more than 25 percent of these services (see Figure 4–10), whereas only 30 percent of systems with bus services contract out more than 25 percent of these services.

FIGURE 4–10 Share of transit services contracted, by service type (as estimated from Part 1 survey results augmented by 1998 NTD data).

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×

A majority of both small systems (53 percent) and larger (both medium-sized and large) systems (63 percent) contract for all of their demand-responsive services. Yet small systems are more likely than larger ones (33 percent compared with 14 percent) to contract for all their bus services.

Agency Type

Agency type—whether a state or regional transit authority or a county or city agency—is correlated with both the likelihood and the level of contracting, but in different directions. About two-thirds of the state and regional transit agencies that responded to the survey have contracts for service. They are more likely to contract than city and county agencies, only half of which reported having contracts (see Figure 4–11). However, when city and county agencies do contract, they are much more likely than state and regional transit agencies to do so for all

FIGURE 4–11 Proportion of Part 1 survey respondents that contract for all and for some or all services, by agency type.

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×

their services. About one-quarter of these types of agencies responding to the survey contract for all their services (accounting for about half of those city and county agencies that have contracts). By comparison, fewer than 15 percent of regional and state transit agencies contract for all their services, despite the fact that two-thirds have at least some contracts.

Region

Figure 4–12 shows the percentage of systems that contract for all their services, by region. The responses suggest that systems in the Pacific Southwest region are much more likely to contract for all their services. Indeed, such is the case for more than half the systems that do contract in this region. A possible explanation for this finding is that the rules governing California’s financing of public transit (as discussed in Chapter 2) encourage contracting.

Contract Terms and Provisions

The 156 contracting systems reported information for 277 contracts: 98 for bus service, 170 for demand-responsive (ADA and dial-a-ride) service, and 9 for other service. Although these 277 contracts do not make up the universe of contracts for all systems or even for these 156 systems (since respondents were asked to report only up to 4 contracts), they reveal much about how transit service contracts are structured and administered, such as their duration, methods of payment, and use of performance penalties and incentives. The contract data, combined with results from Part 2 of the survey, offer insights into the nature of transit service contracting relationships, particularly the importance of a clear and detailed contract that spells out the duties and responsibilities of the contracting parties.

Contractor Types

More than 85 percent of the contracts reported are with private entities. About three-quarters are with for-profit companies. The percentage is slightly lower for demand-responsive services because 18 percent of contracts for these services are with private nonprofit organizations (typically social service agencies), as opposed to 6 percent of bus contracts.

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×

FIGURE 4–12 Share of Part 1 survey respondents that contract for all services, by region. (NOTE: The ten regions correspond to FTA definitions—see Appendix B.)

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×

Contract Monetary Amounts

Because surveyed systems were asked to report their largest contracts, it is not possible to determine from the survey results how the distribution of the reported contracts by monetary amount compares with that of all other transit service contracts. Nonetheless, the average annual amounts of the reported contracts vary widely—from very small to large. Respondents reported about the same number of contracts valued at less than $100,000 and at more than $5 million (12 to 14 percent) (see Table 4–3).

The large systems responding (those with more than 250 vehicles in maximum service) account for nearly half the reported contracts exceeding $ 1 million in value and more than 80 percent of those exceeding $5 million (see Table 4–4). Thus one can have confidence in the finding that large systems generate most of the large transit contracts; however, the same systems may also have many smaller contracts not reported in the survey.

Contract Duration

The most prevalent contract length reported is 3 years, with options for 2 additional years (expressed as two 1-year options). More than 45 percent of reported contracts have 3-year terms (see Table 4–5), and 37 percent contain two 1-year options.

Bus contracts tend to be longer than contracts for demand-responsive service. Only about one in five reported bus contracts are for periods of less than 3 years, compared with one in three demand-responsive contracts. As discussed later, the larger capital investment required for fixed-route bus service may explain this difference in contract duration.

Provision of Vehicles, Facilities, and Other Support

In the majority of reported contracts, the agency furnishes the buses and paratransit vehicles to be used for the service (see Table 4–6). However, this practice does differ by type of service. Contracting agencies are more likely to provide the large buses used for fixed-route service than the smaller vehicles used for demand-responsive service. In about three-quarters of reported bus contracts, the agency supplies the vehicles, compared with about half of demand-responsive contracts. Only 10 percent of all reported contracts mix this respon-

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×

TABLE 4–3 Number of Reported Contracts, by Monetary Amount and Service Type

Contract Amount (Annualized)

Bus Contracts

Percentage of All Bus Contracts

Demand-Responsive Contracts

Percentage of All Demand-Responsive Contracts

Other Contracts

Total Contracts

Percentage of Total Contracts

Less than $100,000

8

8.4

23

15.1

0

31

12.2

$100,000 to $499,000

24

25.3

38

25.0

0

62

24.4

$500,000 to $1 million

16

16.8

20

13.2

4

40

15.7

More than $1 million to $3 million

22

23.2

40

26.3

1

63

24.8

More than $3 million to $5 million

7

7.4

15

9.9

0

22

8.7

More than $5 million

18

18.9

16

10.5

2

36

14.2

Total responding

95

100.0

152

100.0

7

254

100.0

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×

TABLE 4–4 Number of Reported Contracts, by Monetary Amount and System Size

Contract Amount (Annualized)

Small Systems (50 vehicles or less)

Percentage of Small Systems

Medium-Sized Systems (51 to 250 vehicles)

Percentage of Medium-Sized Systems

Large Systems (more than 250 vehicles)

Percentage of Large Systems

Less than $100,000

22

20.8

6

7.5

2

3.0

$100,000 to $499,000

41

38.7

18

22.5

3

4.5

$500,000 to $1 million

24

22.6

10

12.5

6

9.0

More than $1 million to $3 million

18

17.0

34

42.5

11

16.4

More than $3 million to $5 million

1

0.9

6

7.5

15

22.4

More than $5 million

0

0.0

6

7.5

30

44.8

Total responding

106

100.0

80

100.0

67

100.0

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×

TABLE 4–5 Number of Reported Contracts, by Duration and Service Type

Term (Years)

Bus Contracts

Percentage of Bus Contracts

Demand-Responsive Contracts

Percentage of Demand-Responsive Contracts

Other Contracts

Total Contracts

Percentage of Total

1

13

14.6

36

22.5

2

51

19.9

2

6

6.7

21

13.1

1

28

10.9

3

52

58.4

63

39.4

1

116

45.3

4

3

3.4

8

5.0

0

11

4.3

5

13

14.6

30

18.8

3

46

18.0

More than 5

2

2.2

2

1.3

0

4

1.6

Total responding

89

100.0

160

100.0

9

256

100.0

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×

TABLE 4–6 Number of Reported Contracts, by Parties Responsible for Providing Vehicles

Party Responsible for Vehicle Provision

Bus Contracts

Percentage of Bus Contracts

Demand-Responsive Contracts

Percentage of Demand-Responsive Contracts

Other Contracts

Total Contracts

Percentage of Total

Transit agency

69

72.6

72

48.3

5

146

58.2

Contractor

20

21.1

57

38.3

1

78

31.1

Shared

6

6.3

20

13.4

1

27

10.8

Total responding

95

100.0

149

100.0

7

251

100.0

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×

sibility, although such arrangements are somewhat more common in demand-responsive than in bus contracts.

Likewise, transit agencies usually provide the scheduling hardware and software. In about 60 percent of reported contracts, however, the contractor provides vehicle storage sites, maintenance facilities, and related equipment. Contractors are more likely to provide these assets under demand-responsive than bus contracts. Demand-responsive contractors usually (about two-thirds of the time) handle dispatching, reservations, and routing. However, most transit agencies retain responsibility for determining passenger service eligibility under ADA.

Public agencies may have a number of possible reasons for choosing to furnish transportation vehicles and related facilities, especially for large-bus service. These assets can usually be obtained with federal and state capital grants and loans, and such public acquisitions are seldom subject to state and local sales and property taxes. Moreover, an agency can increase the number of potential contractors by effectively eliminating the private investment risk of such a large and specialized capital acquisition. The contract duration, or interval between rebid cycles, can be shorter since there is no need for the contractor to amortize the buses and related facilities over many years. Moreover, if the contractor does not perform as required, the agency can rebid the contract more quickly and easily if it owns the buses and facilities used for the service.

Methods of Contractor Payment

The contracts reported have many criteria for payment, and in about 20 percent payment is based on multiple criteria. The survey did not give respondents instructions on how to define payment bases; nevertheless, some common patterns emerge. Table 4–7 shows that contractor payments are usually based in whole or in part on revenue-hours, revenue-miles, riders, or some other measure of service supplied. This pattern holds true for both bus and demand-responsive services.

Payment based on output tends to shift the responsibility for controlling costs from the agency to the contractor. The contractor usually agrees to measure the amount of service it provides by a particular unit of output, such as monthly vehicle-hours of revenue service; thus payments are most commonly made on the basis of an agreed-upon fee per unit. The contractor therefore has an incentive to control costs. In only 25 percent of the reported contracts (those contracts that have a cost-plus-fixed-fee basis for payment) does the contractor receive compensation solely on the basis of service costs as opposed to the amount of measurable service provided.

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×

TABLE 4–7 Number of Reported Contracts, by Basis of Contractor Payment

Payment Basis

Sole Factor in Payment

Partial Factor in Payment

Cost plus fixed fee

55

11

Fixed fee

9

23

Hours supplied

85

45

Miles supplied

20

25

Passenger boardings

25

4

Other

8

9

Incentives and Penalties

Only about one-quarter of the reported contracts offer monetary rewards as incentives for good or superior performance. Yet to discourage poor performance, 43 percent include monetary penalties, and 39 percent include related provisions for liquidated damages2 (see Table 4–8). Moreover, 63 percent of reported contracts have either a penalty clause or a provision for liquidated damages, and an additional 18 percent have both. These findings suggest that deterrents to poor performance are much more prevalent than enticements for good performance in transit service contracts.

Retention of fares by the contractor is rarely offered as an incentive for increasing service amounts and quality; very few reported contracts allow the contractor to keep fare revenues as an independent source of income. Nevertheless, more than two-thirds of reported contracts permit the contractor to retain fares as an offset to future payments. This practice can benefit the contractor by improving its cash flow. Likewise, the practice can confer benefits on the agency by reducing expenses incurred in fare revenue collection and counting, although periodic auditing may be required to confirm reported fare revenues.

Contracting Methods and Competition

As discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, an oft-cited advantage of contracting is that it can create a more competitive environment to spur cost savings. Several questions in the survey sought information on the level of competition in transit service contracting. The 156 contracting systems were asked to report how their contracted services are usually obtained, the most recent number of bidders for each of their reported contracts, how the number of bidders changed over time for each, and the number of contractor changes since initiation of the contracted

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×

TABLE 4–8 Number of Reported Contracts with Performance Incentives and Penalties, by Service Type

Performance Provisions

Bus Contracts

Percentage of Bus Contracts

Demand-Responsive Contracts

Percentage of Demand-Responsive Contracts

Other Contracts

Total Contracts

Percentage of Total Contracts

Liquidated damages

45

45.9

61

35.9

1

107

38.6

Penalties

43

43.9

72

42.4

4

119

43.0

Incentives

25

25.5

45

26.5

3

73

26.4

Total

98

 

170

 

9

277

 

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×

service. The responses to these and other questions provide a rich picture of contracting processes across the country and the degree of competition involved.

Methods of Obtaining Contracts

In Part 2 of the survey, general managers were asked to characterize how fixed-route bus and demand-responsive contracts are typically obtained—whether through competitive bidding, negotiation, or a combination of the two. In retrospect, these terms should have been defined more clearly in the questionnaire, but the results are informative nonetheless.

About three-quarters of respondents characterized the process as competitive in nature—using bidding or a combination of bidding and negotiation. Fewer than 20 percent described their process as negotiated procurement, such as a sole-source negotiation or periodic renegotiation with a long-time incumbent (see Table 4–9).

Bid Activity

From the agency’s standpoint, having a large number of qualified bidders is desirable because it allows the greatest choice in both quality and price. Thus for each reported contract, the survey asked for the number of bidders during the most recent bid period. Table 4–10 shows that a majority of the contracts had at least three bidders during the most recent bid period, yet one-quarter had a single bidder. The demand-responsive contracts tended to have fewer bids: 44 percent had fewer than 3 bids, as compared with 33 percent of bus contracts.

There appears to be a relationship between the size of the transit system and the number of bidders attracted to a contract. Nearly 40 percent of the contracts reported by small systems attracted only one bidder, and nearly 70 percent attracted fewer than three (see Table 4–11). Contracts reported by medium-sized and large systems, by comparison, attracted three or more bidders most of the time. Yet because these systems reported larger contracts, this apparent relationship may be a function of contract size.

Changes in Bid Activity

Changes in the number of bidders from one bid cycle to the next are also indicative of the state of competition. A decline in the number of bidders over time suggests a decline in competition.

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×

TABLE 4–9 Number of Contracting Agencies Using Competitive and Negotiated Methods of Contract Procurement, by Service Type

Method

Bus Services

Percentage of Agencies Contracting Bus Services

Demand-Responsive Services

Percentage of Agencies Contracting Demand-Responsive Services

All Services

Percentage of All Contracting Agencies

Competitive bidding

36

46.8

57

47.5

93

47.5

Negotiated Procurement

10

13.0

22

18.3

32

16.2

Combination

27

35.1

32

26.7

59

29.8

Other

4

5.2

9

7.5

13

6.6

Total responding

77

100.0

120

100.0

198

100.0

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×

TABLE 4–10 Number of Reported Contracts, by Number of Bidders and Service Type

Number of Bidders

Bus Contracts

Percentage of Bus Contracts

Demand-Responsive Services

Percentage of Demand-Responsive Contracts

Other Contracts

Total Contracts

Percentage of Total Contracts

1

16

18.4

41

28.5

2

59

24.7

2

13

14.9

36

25.0

3

52

21.8

3

25

28.7

23

16.0

2

50

20.9

4

14

16.1

16

11.1

1

31

13.0

5 or more

19

21.8

28

19.4

0

47

19.7

Total responding

87

100.0

144

100.0

8

239

100.0

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×

TABLE 4–11 Number of Reported Contracts, by Number of Bidders and System Size

Number of Bidders

Contracts by Small Systems

Percentage of All Contracts by Small Systems

Contracts by Medium-Sized Systems

Percentage of All Contracts by Medium-Sized Systems

Contracts by Large Systems

Percentage of All Contracts by Large Systems

1

39

38.6

11

14.5

9

14.5

2

30

29.7

19

25.0

3

4.8

3

14

13.9

22

28.9

14

22.6

4

7

6.9

11

14.5

13

21.0

5 or more

11

10.9

13

17.1

23

37.1

Total responding

101

100.0

76

100.0

62

100.0

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Change in Bidders from Previous Bid Cycle

Those systems that currently contract were asked to report the number of bidders from the previous bid cycle to the most recent rebid. Of the 189 reported contracts that have been rebid (that is, those that have been through more than one full bid cycle), 150 had more than 1 bidder during the previous bid cycle. The remaining 39 had only 1 bidder during the previous bid cycle and were not included in this analysis.

Of the 150 contracts that had at least two bidders in their previous bid cycle, 36 percent experienced a decline in bidders during the most recent rebid, 23 percent experienced an increase, and about 41 percent had no change (see Figure 4–13). The results differ for bus and demand-responsive services: about as many bus contracts experienced an increase as a decline in bidders; by comparison, 40 percent of demand-responsive contracts experienced a decline in bidders, while fewer than 20 percent experienced a gain.

Change in Bid Activity by Contract Age

One would expect the number of bidders on a contract to vary somewhat with each successive bid cycle. Whether a pattern emerges and contracts tend to generate more or fewer bids as they go through additional bid cycles might provide some indication of the dynamics of competition over time. Figure 4–14 shows the percentage of contracts that have experienced various levels of bid activity according to the number of times each was rebid. Among those contracts that have been rebid once or twice, about 60 percent attracted more than two bidders during their most recent bid period. There appears to have been only a slight decline in bidder interest over time. About half of those contracts that had been rebid three or more times attracted three or more bidders during their most recent rebid period.

Change in Contractors

For contracts that have been through many rebids, periodic changes in contractor may be indicative of a competitive environment. Presumably, if incumbent contractors are subjected to competitive discipline, some turnover should be expected, although the minimum amount of contractor turnover that is indicative of a competitive situation is not presupposed.

Change in Contractors by Contract Age

In general, one would expect to see more contractor changes for those contracts that have been rebid several times, simply because there have been sev-

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×

FIGURE 4–13 Percentage of contracts reported by Part 1 survey respondents with increasing or decreasing number of bids from previous to most recent bid cycle (excluding contracts that had only one bid in previous cycle).

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×

FIGURE 4–14 Percentage of contracts with one, two, three, and four or more bidders by number of bid cycles (contracts reported in survey Part 1).

eral opportunities for change. Figure 4–15 presents the number of contractor changes for 200 reported contracts, grouped according to the number of times the contracts have been rebid. As expected, those contracts that have been rebid only once or twice are most likely to have had a single contractor: 57 percent of these contracts have had only one contractor, and therefore have not experienced a change. By the third and fourth rebid cycles, however, most contracts have been through more than one contractor; 40 percent have had one or two contractor changes, and 26 percent have had at least three contractor changes. Two-thirds of the contracts that have had five or more rebids have experienced a contractor change.

Change in Contractors by System Size

Small and medium-sized systems appear somewhat less likely than the largest systems to change contractors. Among those contracts that have been rebid at least once, more than 55 percent reported by small and medium-sized systems

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×

FIGURE 4–15 Percentage of reported contracts rebid at least once that have had contractor changes, (a) by number of changes; (b) by number of times rebid.

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×

have not changed hands, compared with about 40 percent for the largest systems (see Figure 4–16).

History of Contractor Changes and Bid Activity

One might suspect that those contracts with a history of contractor changes would elicit more bidder interest and activity because of the higher potential to challenge the incumbent successfully. Figure 4–17 shows the most recent number of bidders for those contracts that have been rebid at least twice (and therefore have a record of change or no change) by the number of times the contract has changed hands during its life.3 The results suggest that contracts without a record of changing hands are most likely to have only one bidder—the incumbent. It is important to note, however, that even among those contracts that do not have a history of contractor changes, most still attract multiple—though so far unsuccessful—bidders when they are rebid.

Summary of Results

The results from the survey, augmented by NTD data, yield several findings about the extent of contracting, contract terms and provisions, and competition in contracting:

Extent of Contracting

  • About half of all transit systems contract for 10 percent or more of their services. About 60 percent have at least some contracted service. Yet in the aggregate, only about 15 percent of combined bus and demand-responsive services (measured in vehicle revenue-hours) are contracted in the United States, and this percentage has changed very little in recent years (see Chapter 1).

  • Transit systems are much more likely to contract out demand-responsive than fixed-route bus services: more than two-thirds of surveyed systems have contracts for their demand-responsive services, whereas fewer than 40 percent have contracts for bus services. More than half the systems with demand-responsive services contract out all of these services.

  • Larger systems are more likely than small ones (operating fewer than 50 vehicles) to contract for at least some transit services, although usually for less than 25 percent of their total services. Small systems contract less often than larger ones, but when they do contract are much more likely to do so for all their services. City and county agencies are more likely than state and regional transit agencies to contract for all their transit services.

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×

FIGURE 4–16 Percentage of rebid contracts that have experienced contractor changes: (a) by number of changes; (b) by system size (contracts reported in survey Part 1).

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×

FIGURE 4–17 Percentage of all reported contracts (among those that have been rebid at least twice) by numbers of bidders during the most recent rebid and by number of contractor changes over the contract life.

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×

Contract Terms and Provisions

  • Most contracts are for multiyear periods, usually 3 years. Bus contracts tend to be longer than contracts for demand-responsive services.

  • Transit agencies usually provide the vehicles and other major assets for bus service contracts. For demand-responsive contracts, there is a much greater likelihood that the contractor will either provide the vehicles or share this responsibility with the contracting agency.

  • Most contracts are structured to pay contractors on a predetermined fee per unit of output produced—usually revenue- or vehicle-hours of service. The contractor is therefore responsible for controlling costs; only one-quarter of reported contracts pay contractors on the basis of cost plus a fixed fee.

  • Monetary penalties to discourage poor performance are common in contracts. Fewer contracts contain monetary incentives for good performance.

Contracting Methods and Competition

  • Most transit service contracts are awarded through a competitive process.

  • Most contracts attract more than two bidders, although smaller contracts are more likely to attract only a single bidder. Demand-responsive contracts tend to attract fewer bidders than bus contracts. Small systems are least successful in attracting multiple bidders; most receive fewer than three bids.

  • Transit systems report that the number of bidders on contracts has been relatively stable, but demand-responsive contracts are more likely than bus contracts to have experienced a decline in bidders from the previous bid cycle.

  • The contracts of larger systems are more likely than those of small systems to have changed contractors at least once.

  • As contracts go through successive bid cycles, they continue to attract interest among bidders, suggesting continued competition. Moreover, most contracts that have been rebid at least three times have experienced a change in contractors. Even those contracts that have had only one contractor have continued to attract bidder interest.

Notes

1.  

Electronic versions of the survey were also made available to recipients on request.

2.  

Penalty disputes are typically resolved in court, while disputes over liquidated damages are more likely to be subject to arbitration.

3.  

The fact that these contracts tend to attract only one bidder may be the reason for the lack of contractor changes; however, it may also be the consequence. The direction of causality cannot be established.

Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"4. Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice." Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. 2001. Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10141.
×
Page 97
Next: 5. Transit Contracting Experiences and Advice from General Managers »
Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience: Special Report 258 Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!

In the interest of learning more about contracting as a method of transit service delivery, the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) called on the Transportation Research Board (TRB) to conduct a study of contracting by recipients of federal transit grants. TEA-21 called for an examination of the extent and practice of transit service contracting and its effects on operating costs, customer service, safety, and other aspects of service quality and quantity. To conduct the study, TRB convened a 12-member committee of experts in public transportation management, labor, economics, and public policy. In carrying out the study, the committee reviewed previous reports on transit service contracting; conducted its own nationwide survey of public transit systems and their general managers; and interviewed transit managers, labor union leaders, contractors, and members of transit policy boards. Resulting findings and conclusions are summarized in this report, along with additional insights and ideas for follow-on study. The contents are organized as follows: (1) Introduction; (2) Public and Private Provision of Transit in the United States; (3) Conceptual Framework and Previous Studies on Contracting; (4) Transit Service Contracting in the United States: Extent and Practice; (5) Transit Contracting Experiences and Advice from General Managers; and (6) Summary and Assessment.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!