One of the biggest controversies regarding urban mass transportation over the past five years has revolved around the issue of federal policy for the elderly and handicapped (E&H). The general intent, to assure the provision of equal public transportation services for the E&H, is certainly appropriate as an objective of public policy and is consistent with the trend in federal legislation aimed at eliminating discrimination on the basis of handicap as well as the general philosophy underlying the mass transit assistance programs. The major issue concerns implementation and service delivery, and the main alternatives are making regular urban transit systems fully accessible to handicapped persons versus providing supplementary demand responsive services for individuals who cannot use regular transit. This issue has been clouded, however, by disagreement over goals and objectives, which in turn stems from a lack of consensus about the real domain of the issue, e.g., transportation policy or civil rights policy. This article traces the evolution of federal policy concerning transportation for the E&H and attempts to determine what that policy is supposed to achieve and what its impact actually will be. The primary argument to be advanced is that as the policy currently stands it will not tangibly benefit the majority of the target population. The article contends that the Section 504 Regulations which embody present policy, and in particular the requirement that regular fixed route transit vehicles be made wheelchair accessible, are neither cost-effective nor responsive to clients' needs. Conversely, they are likely to have an adverse effect on the total amount of service available to the E&H. The analysis presented here reflects the difficulties inherent in developing sound policy in an area characterized by basic disagreements between service providers and intended consumers, and a scarcity of information regarding costs as well as the nature and prevalence of needs. Furthermore, the article illustrates the complexity of policy analysis when multiple and crosscutting issues are involved. On a higher plane, for example, the choice between accessible transit and specialized paratransit services is a question of whether the real objective is equal rights in the form of accessibility to service or mobility in the form of actual tripmaking. Similarly, although mainstreaming-facilitating interaction with nonhandicapped persons-is generally considered to be desirable in terms of helping the E&H to pursue a normal lifestyle, it is not clear whether immediate physical integration on board transit vehicles as opposed to * This article analyzes the development of federal policy toward urban transportation for the elderly and handicapped, focusing on the alternatives of through making regular transit accessible versus the provision of separate specialized service. This case illustrates the difficulty of policy making in an area characterized by widely divergent views between service providers and consumers and the complexity of policy analysis when the real domain of the issue is unclear, e.g., transportation policy or civil rights policy. The article concludes that the policy finally arrived at by the U.S. Department of Transportation, requiring all regular fixed route transit systems to be made fully accessible, is neither effective nor efficient, and that a return to local prerogative on service delivery would benefit the intended clientele more in terms of not only transportation and mobility, but in the long run the broader mainstreaming of individuals in society.