> ![](media/image1.png){width="0.53125in"
> height="0.5416666666666666in"}**Federal Transit Administration United
> States Department of Transportation**

Job Access and Reverse Commute Program Report to Congress

October 2002

> **Federal Transit Administration Report to Congress**
>
> **On**
>
> **The Job Access and Reverse Commute Program (JARC)**
>
> **Table of Contents**

I.  Executive Summary 4

II. Background 8

III. Program Goals and Funding 8

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Goals 8

2.  Funding 9

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
IV. Program Data 10

V.  Profile of Service Provided 11

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Geographic Distribution 11

2.  Types and Costs of Services Provided 12

3.  Cost of Services Per Ride 15

VI\. Program Assessment by Primary Goals and Objectives 15

> 6.1 Employment Site Accessibility, Number of Jobs and Job Support
>
> Services Made Accessible through JARC 16

1.  Employment Site Accessibility 16

2.  Time Sensitive and Location Sensitive Transit

> Service to Employment Sites 17

3.  Employment Site Access by Type of Services 18

4.  Access to Employment Support Service Sites 19

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
2.  Ridership 19

3.  User Characteristics and Program Impact 21

4.  Planning Partnerships and Resources Leveraging 23

> VII\. Case Studies 26

1.  Services 26

2.  Partnerships 37

*Appendices* 40

> **A: Description of University of Illinois Study 40**
>
> **B: Next Steps for JARC Program Evaluation and Assessment 41**
>
> **Federal Transit Administration Report to Congress**
>
> **On**
>
> **The Job Access and Reverse Commute Program (JARC)**
>
> **I. Executive Summary**

The Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program has had a dramatic
impact on the lives of thousands of welfare recipients and low-income
families, helping individuals successfully transition from welfare to
work. JARC was established as part of the Transportation Equity Act for
the 21^st^ Century (TEA-21) to address the unique transportation
challenges faced by welfare recipients and low-income persons seeking to
get and keep jobs. With many new entry-level jobs located in suburban
areas, low-income and/or welfare recipients find it difficult to access
these jobs from their inner city, urban and rural homes on a daily
basis. Car ownership is prohibitively expensive, and many suburban job
sites are not served by existing transportation routes. Further, many
entry-level jobs offer only night or weekend hours, when conventional
transit services are either reduced or non-existent. Finally, many
welfare recipients and low-income persons face transportation challenges
in reaching employment support services, such as child care, training
and counseling services. The\
JARC program was created to address these\
needs.

> TEA-21 authorized up to \$750 million from\
> FY 1999 through FY 2003 for the Access to\
> Jobs program. TEA-21 authorized \$150\
> million annually for the JARC program, with\
> no more than \$10 million per year of the total being allocated for
> reverse commute activities. Congress provided \$75 million for this\
> program in both FY 1999 and 2000, \$100\
> million in FY 2001, and \$125 million in FY\
> 2002.
>
> ***Profile of Grant Recipients and Services***
>
> • During the first three years of the program (FY 1999, 2000 and
> 2001), 368 Job Access projects were selected for grants totaling\
> \$248 million.
>
> As of August 26, 2002, \$207.3 million in JARC grant awards were
> obligated to 209 grant recipients in 44 states and the District of
> Columbia in all 10 FTA regions.

-   Sixty-two percent of the JARC funds were awarded to Major Urban
    Areas. Non-\
    Urbanized Areas received 23.6 percent of the funds, and Medium Urban
    Areas\
    received 13.8 percent.

-   Surveyed grantees have used JARC funds for a wide variety of
    services that range\
    from the expansion of fixed route bus systems to the establishment
    of centralized\
    customer information systems that provide individuals information
    regarding their\
    transportation options to reach employment and other destinations.
    Sixty percent of\
    JARC funds were obligated for fixed route services, 34 percent for
    demand response\
    services, 3 percent for ridesharing, and 3 percent for information
    services.

> ***Summary of JARC Performance***

*Making Employment Sites Accessible*

> In each community that received a grant, new JARC transportation
> services reached new employment sites, making thousands of entry-level
> jobs and employers accessible for the program\'s target populations.
> New stops also increased access to critical employment support sites,
> such as childcare and job training facilities.

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) asked grantees to report the
number of new employment sites reached by JARC services. An employment
site was defined as a new transit stop directly reaching (demand
responsive service) or within a *V\** mile (fixed-route transit) of an
employer or set of employers not previously served by public
transportation service. Such employment sites were characterized as:
geographically reaching employers never reached before; or reaching
employers during time periods not previously covered by transit such as
for shift work jobs occurring late at night or on weekends.

• Based on an analysis of 56 grant reports describing grantee
performance through FY 2001, a total of 7,453 new employment sites were
reached due to the JARC program. Of these, 2,840 sites (38%) were
reached in Major Urban areas, 913 (12%) in Medium Urban Areas and 1,373
(18%) in Non-Urbanized areas.

**Project OUTREACH Guarantees a Ride in Santa Clara, California**

> Peggy, a person with a disability, was already a passenger of the
> Project OUTREACH paratransit service when she enrolled in the Job
> Access-sponsored Guaranteed Ride Program (GRP). She used the JARC
> program to get to employment training and job interviews, saving the
> \$39 cost of monthly transportation assistance from the county for
> paratransit service. Peggy now has a part-time job, and continues to
> look for additional employment. She thinks the program served her
> needs very well, and in her words, helps \"make an incredible
> difference for people who have no other options.\"
>
> Betsy, another disabled client, enrolled in the GRP while attending
> the local community college. Like all GRP clients, she is able to take
> her children to school on her way to class. Taking advantage of this
> program simplified transportation for her family while she completes
> her education.

-   Based on 56 grant reports describing grantee performance through FY
    2001, over\
    one-third (34.8%) of the new sites reached made employment options
    possible during\
    a previously unavailable time period. Two-thirds of the sites made
    employment\
    locations available that otherwise could not be reached previously
    by public\
    transportation.

-   Based on 56 grant reports describing grantee performance through FY
    2001, JARC-\
    funded services created access to 2,261 employment support facility
    sites. Childcare\
    facilities account for the majority (nearly 62%) of support sites
    accessed through\
    JARC.

*Number of Riders Using JARC to Access Jobs and Services*

> JARC services are creating significant low-income ridership, according
> to two surveys of grant recipients in 2000 and 2002.

-   Based on 63 grant reports describing\
    grantee performance through FY 2001,\
    JARC services carried 3.6 million riders.\
    Over 80 percent were in major urbanized\
    areas with populations over 200,000.

-   Eighty-two percent of the trips occur\
    during regular working hours between

> 5 a.m. and 8 p.m. Only 8.2 percent of the trips occur during late
> night hours, and 10.2 percent occur on weekends.

-   Based on 41 grant reports describing\
    grantee performance through FY 2001,\
    462,211 low-income residents and welfare\
    clients received new access to\
    transportation services. The vast majority\
    of these individuals (73.4%) reside in\
    Major Urban Areas.

-   Based on FY 1999 and the first quarter of\
    FY 2000 performance, 28 grantees\
    reported that they provided 63,000 vehicle\
    hours of service. During the three-month\
    survey period, 26 grantees provided\
    approximately 421,000 passenger trips,\
    resulting in operating performance levels\
    of 7.6 passengers per vehicle hour for 23\
    of these grantees.

**New Rides in Chattanooga, Tennessee**

> Aimee, a mother of seven who had been on welfare for years, obtained
> employment because a major route expansion made possible with JARC
> funds connected her low-income public housing community to a
> commercial district. Prior to the change in routing, this trip took
> over an hour and was not even possible after 5 p.m. on weekdays or on
> Sundays. Now, the 15-minute trip is available from 4:55 a.m. to 11:45
> p.m., Monday through Saturday and from 11:30 a.m. to 7:45 p.m. on
> Sundays. George, who works in a restaurant in a regional mall, takes a
> Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority Dial-A-Ride
> Neighborhood Route with his children, drops them off at their
> elementary school, and then transfers to a Main Line route and
> continues on to his place of employment. Neighborhood Routes, with
> 50-cent fares and 30-minute round trip frequencies, were instituted
> after consultation with riders, as well as job training, human
> service, and employment agencies, during the JARC planning process.
>
> *User Characteristics and Program Impact*

Riders report that JARC services play a \"very important\" role in their
lives, and have made jobs accessible. An overwhelming majority (93%) of
passengers surveyed in May and June 2002 indicated that JARC services
were either \"very important\" (81%) or \"important\" (12%) to them.

-   Two-thirds (66%) of the respondents indicated that they would not be
    able to access\
    their destination without the JARC service they were currently
    riding, a response\
    influenced, in part, by the fact that 84 percent of those surveyed
    did not own a car.\
    Sixty-four percent (64%) did not have a driver\'s license.

-   JARC services are used most frequently to travel to and from a work
    site.\
    Approximately 62.5 percent of JARC trips are work trips.

-   The JARC Program is making employment accessible to its target
    population. The\
    2002 survey of JARG users found that 56 percent were employed
    full-time and 24\
    percent were employed part-time. About 38 percent of respondents
    were employed\
    for less than six months at their current job, and a majority are
    working at entry-level\
    positions, earning \$7 - \$9 per hour (48%) or less than \$7 per
    hour (20%). Twenty-\
    seven percent (27%) of respondents did not work prior to making use
    of the service.

-   The 2002 survey of JARC users found that 73 percent of JARC riders
    use the service\
    frequently (more than 10 times a month) and 9 percent used it fairly
    frequently (five\
    to 10 times a month). Half of the riders reported that they saved
    time using JARC\
    services over previous travel modes.

> *Encouraging Inter-Agency and Inter-Governmental Partnerships*
>
> A primary objective of the JARC program was to establish collaborative
> partnerships among transportation and human services entities involved
> in welfare-to-work programs. Coordination among various Federal human
> service transportation activities has been an ongoing goal.
> Ultimately, the JARC program has established this collaboration
> institutionally. JARC grant recipients have forged successful
> collaborations with a variety of transportation services, human
> service agencies, and local, state, and national government.

-   Planning partnerships have been established. Based on 56 grant
    reports describing\
    grantee performance through FY 2001, the planning partnerships
    include the\
    following participants: Human and Employment Service entities
    (42.7%),\
    Transportation entities (31.1%), Community Representatives and
    Employers (26.4%).

-   JARC grant recipients have been highly successful in enlisting the
    financial\
    participation of human services agencies. In an assessment conducted
    in 2000,\
    Federal human services agencies participated in 41 of the 66
    projects analyzed, and

> state and local human services programs participated in 23 of those
> projects. This represented 20 percent of the overall JARC funded
> program, or nearly 38 percent of the match requirement. TEA-21
> legislation authorizing the JARC Program permits non-DOT federal funds
> to be used to meet the match requirement.

-   Fifty-four percent of the respondents in the GAO survey used
    Temporary Assistance\
    for Needy Families (TANF) funds as part of their local match
    demonstrating financial\
    partnerships between human service and transportation funding
    entities.

-   In FY 2000, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
    reported that\
    nearly \$11 million in TANF funds were applied as matching funds to
    the JARC\
    program, nearly 15 percent of the required match. TANF funded an
    additional \$75\
    million in other low-income transportation-related employment
    services.

> II\. **Background**

The growth of suburban employment centers has resulted in a geographic
mismatch between entry-level jobs and potential employees. While
three-quarters of welfare recipients live in either central cities or
rural areas, two-thirds of all new jobs are in suburban areas. About 70
percent of the new jobs in manufacturing, retailing and
wholesaling---sectors employing large numbers of entry-level
workers---are located in the suburbs.

> The dispersal of new employment sites has created a challenge for
> transit operators in linking people with low incomes to entry-level
> jobs. Existing systems were originally established to transport
> central-city residents to city locations and bring suburban residents
> to central-city work locations. Even in metropolitan areas with
> extensive mass transit systems, studies have shown that less than half
> of available jobs are accessible by public transportation.
> Furthermore, many entry-level jobs require shift work in the evenings
> or on weekends, when public transit services are either unavailable or
> limited.
>
> Social service and transportation professionals generally recognize
> access to transportation as a prerequisite for work and for welfare
> reform. Nationally, more than 10 million people do not own
> automobiles, including an estimated 94 percent of welfare recipients.
> Among people with an annual income under \$10,000, 40 percent do not
> commute by car. Without adequate transportation, welfare recipients
> face significant barriers in trying to move from welfare to work.
> These challenges are particularly acute for urban mothers receiving
> welfare who do not own cars and must get children to and from
> childcare, and for rural poor who must often drive long distances in
> poorly maintained cars.
>
> **III. Program Goals and Funding\
> **3.1 *Goals*
>
> With the enactment of TEA-21, which established the JARC program, the
> DOT became an important partner in welfare-to-work initiatives.
>
> **8**
>
> Stated broadly, JARC provides grants to local agencies and
> authorities, non-profit organizations, and transit authorities, among
> others, to improve mobility for low-income individuals seeking
> employment.
>
> The new and expanded transportation services funded through JARC are
> intended and designed to increase access to jobs and
> employment-related activities for low-income individuals. In addition,
> Reverse Commute funds are intended to increase access to suburban
> employment opportunities for everyone, including welfare recipients
> and low-income individuals.
>
> In consonance with these goals, the JARC program has three primary
> objectives:

1.  To establish effective transportation-related services that help
    low-income\
    individuals and welfare recipients reach jobs and employment support
    services,\
    such as child care, training, counseling and job interviews;

2.  To develop reverse commute transit services that connect urban and
    non-urban\
    residents with suburban employment opportunities; and

3.  To increase planning, financial, and service delivery collaboration
    among local\
    transportation providers, human service and job placement agencies,
    employers,\
    metropolitan planning organizations, and other relevant
    organizations in providing\
    access to employment and employment support services.

> In order to achieve these goals and objectives, the JARC program seeks
> to increase planning, financial, and service delivery collaboration
> among such parties as transportation providers, human service and job
> placement agencies, employers, metropolitan planning organizations,
> states, and low-income community representatives.
>
> In support of these purposes, FTA uses four criteria to evaluate
> applications: (1) project effectiveness, (2) need for services in the
> area, (3) degree of local coordination and (4) the project\'s
> financial viability.
>
> **3.2 *Funding***
>
> TEA-21 authorized up to \$750 million from FY 1999 through FY 2003 for
> the JARC program. Of the \$150 million authorized annually for the
> JARC program, no more than \$10 million per year of the total may be
> allocated for reverse commute activities. In FY 1999, Congress
> appropriated \$75 million for the program and all recipients were
> competitively selected. In FY 2000, Congress appropriated \$75 million
> for the program, directing \$48.2 million for specific purposes in the
> appropriations report. In fiscal year 2001, Congress appropriated
> \$100 million for the program, with \$75.3 million directed to
> specific purposes in the appropriations report. For fiscal year 2002,
> Congress provided \$125 million, directing \$110 million for specific
> purposes.

From FY 1999 through FY 2001, DOT selected a total of 368 JARC projects
for grants totaling \$248 million (GAO Survey). TEA-21 requires DOT to
allocate the program funds as follows: 60 percent to projects in Urban
Areas with populations of at least 200,000; 20 percent to projects in
Urban Areas with populations of less than 200,000; and

9

20 percent to Non-Urbanized areas. In order to ensure broad program
coverage, FTA suggests that Urban Areas with populations of over 1
million generally limit their request to \$1 million, while Rural Areas
with populations of less than 50,000 should request no more than
150,000.

TEA-21 limits FTA funding to 50 percent of a grantee\'s project.
However, the 50 percent local match can be obtained from a variety of
sources, including programs administered by other Federal agencies, such
as DHHS\'s TANF, the Department of Labor\'s Welfare-to-Work program, and
the Department of Housing and Urban Development\'s Community Development
Block Grants.

> **IV. Program Data**
>
> Program data collection has been particularly challenging for the JARC
> program. With so many non-traditional grantees providing unique and
> highly personalized services, regular quarterly and annual reporting
> has been less than satisfactory. To compensate for these deficiencies,
> FTA has undertaken a number of special studies and evaluations
> intended to provide an overview of program accomplishments and
> challenges. In addition, FTA is working with grant recipients to
> strengthen their data-reporting capacity and to design reporting
> requirements that ensure accountability, yet do not impose untenable
> data collection and reporting burdens.
>
> Data for this report was drawn from several sources:

-   In 2000, FTA first assessed JARC performance through reports
    submitted from 34\
    (24%) of the JARC program\'s 139 first grant recipients. These
    reports described\
    program effectiveness as of January 1, 2000. (2000 Assessment)

-   In May 2002, an independent contractor completed a program
    evaluation of JARC\
    that analyzed data provided in grantees\' fourth quarter 2001
    reports, which\
    provided the foundation for their analysis, hi order to improve the
    accuracy and\
    consistency of the data received, each grantee was asked to use a
    standardized\
    reporting system for submission of the fourth quarter data.
    Quarterly reports were\
    received from 64 (42%) grantees for 93 (43%) grants. This
    assessment\
    considered the primary goals of employment site accessibility,
    ridership, and\
    JARC\'s effectiveness in encouraging, planning, operating and
    financial\
    partnerships. (2002 Assessment)

-   To determine the views of JARC grantees, GAO surveyed all of the
    JARC\
    grantees for the 194 projects selected in FY 1999. GAO received
    responses from\
    89 percent of them. Data from this survey have been incorporated in
    a GAO\
    Report to Congressional Committees entitled, \"Welfare Reform,
    Competitive\
    Grant Selection Requirement for DOT\'S Job Access Program Was Not\
    Followed\", Appendix JJI, dated December 2001. (GAO Survey)

-   Finally, to gauge JARC riders\' perspectives on services provided,
    as well as their\
    characteristics, researchers at the University of Illinois at
    Chicago conducted a

> 10
>
> survey of 534 JARC riders at 21 sites. Results of these surveys,
> conducted in May and June 2002, are incorporated into this report.
> (University of Illinois Survey)
>
> Because the 2000 and 2002 Assessments are based on grantee quarterly
> reports received from only 25 percent and 43 percent of grantees,
> respectively, this report does not capture JARC\'s accomplishments
> nationwide. It under-reports the number of employment sites accessed,
> the number of riders, and the number of services provided through
> JARC. Thus, since the grantees who submitted reports in 2000 and 2002
> are not necessarily representative of grantees overall, it could be
> misleading to project general JARC performance from these reports
> alone. Plans for future data collection and assessment of JARC are
> included in Section 8.
>
> V. **Profile of Services Provided**
>
> This section profiles JARC services nationwide, including the
> geographic distribution of grants, the types of services provided, and
> the cost of services.
>
> 5.1 *Geographic Distribution*
>
> As of September 30, 2001, JARC grants were awarded to recipients in 44
> States and the District of Columbia. Only Idaho, Utah, Wyoming,
> Montana, South Dakota, and Hawaii had not received JARC grants. Table
> 1, lists all States in which JARC awards have been made.

**Table 1**

**States and Territories Receiving JARC Funds**

**through September 30, 2001**

**by FTA Region**

+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| > **FTA  | > **States and Territories in which JARC Recipients are   |
| >        | > Located**                                               |
| Region** |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Region 1 | Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode   |
|          | Island, Vermont                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Region 2 | New York, New Jersey                                      |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Region 3 | District of Columbia, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania,   |
|          | Virginia, West Virginia                                   |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Region 4 | Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North   |
|          | Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee                       |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Region 5 | Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin   |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Region 6 | Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas          |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Region 7 | Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska                          |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Region 8 | Colorado, North Dakota                                    |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Region 9 | Arizona, California, Nevada                               |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Region   | Alaska, Oregon, Washington                                |
| 10       |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+

Source: FTA Office of Program Management

> 11

As shown in Table 2, 62.2 percent of JARC funds, about \$137 million,
were awarded to Major Urban areas. Medium Urban areas received about
13.9 percent of total funds (approximately \$30.6 million).
Non-Urbanized areas received approximately 23.9 percent of the funds
(about \$52.8 million).

> Table 2
>
> JARC Funds Appropriated and Obligated by Fiscal Year and Type of Area

(\$ in millions)

+-------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| > **Fiscal  | >       | >        | >        | **Medium | > **Non-  |
| > Year of   | **Total |  **Total |  **Major | Urban    | Urbanized |
| > Appr      | >       | > Amount | > Urban  | Areas**  | > Areas** |
| opriation** | Appropr | > Obl    | >        |          |           |
|             | iated** | igated** |  Areas** |          |           |
+-------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| **1999**    | \$75.0  | \$73.2   | > \$43.8 | \$14.4   | \$15.0    |
+-------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| **2000**    | 75.0    | 69.5     | > 43.2   | 12.0     | 14.3      |
+-------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| **2001**    | 99.8    | 64.6     | > 42.7   | 2.2      | 19.7      |
+-------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| **2002\***  | 125.0   | 13.1     | > 7.3    | 2.0      | 3.8       |
+-------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| > Total     | \$374.8 | \$220.4  | >        | \$30.6   | *         |
|             |         |          |  \$137.0 |          | *\$52.8** |
+-------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| > Percent   | n.a.    | 100%     | > 62.2%  | 13.9%    | **23.9%** |
| > of        |         |          |          |          |           |
| > **Total   |         |          |          |          |           |
| >           |         |          |          |          |           |
| Obligated** |         |          |          |          |           |
+-------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+

> Source: FTA Office of Program Management
>
> \* As a result of the GAO finding that funds designated in the
> Congressional committee report language could not be distributed
> without being incorporated in the JARC project competitive selection
> process, obligations in FY 2002 were delayed. The Supplemental
> Appropriations Act, which became law in August 2002, directed FTA to
> fund the designated projects. Competitive selections of projects to be
> funded with remaining funds were completed thereafter. FTA anticipates
> fully obligating the \$125 million appropriated for the JARC Program
> in FY 2002.
>
> 5.2 *Types **and** Costs of Services Provided*
>
> As of January 1, 2000, FTA had awarded 60 JARC grants. FTA surveyed
> these 60 grantees in April 2000 and found that 34 grant recipients had
> sufficient history to provide information on services provided. These
> surveys indicated that the JARC Program provides a wide variety of
> services, ranging from the expansion of fixed route bus systems to the
> provision of customer information. Service diversity exists in Major,
> Medium, and Non-Urbanized areas. This variety of services poses a
> challenge to simple measurement of performance, as does the fact that
> many of the grants involve more than one service type. (2000
> Assessment)

Although JARC grants have supported a diverse array of transportation
services, the majority of grantees have used funds: (1) to establish or
expand fixed routes, particularly by extending routes or establishing
feeder service to routes, or (2) to provide demand responsive or other
specialized services, particularly during late night or early morning
hours. Fewer grantees have used funds to establish rideshare carpools or
vanpools, and the even fewer have used funds for marketing or
information services. Vanpools were created most often in Medium Urban
areas, where fixed route transit was probably not widely available.

> **12**

Information services were funded most often in Major Urban areas. The
need for information services in large metropolitan areas is a common
barrier to public transportation use, particularly where the systems are
extensive and can be confusing to new riders. Based on grantee reports
for fiscal year 2001 (Table 3), the largest allocation of JARC funds was
to extend the hours or expand the number of days of fixed route service.
Major Urban areas received \$5.94 million for this purpose, and Medium
Urban areas received \$2.65 million. New routes in Major Urban areas
also received a high level of funds (\$3.89 million), as did new routes
in Non-Urbanized areas (\$2.15 million). In general, the expansion of
fixed route service has received the highest funding levels. Overall, 60
percent of JARC funds were obligated to fixed route services, 34 percent
to demand response services, 3 percent to ridesharing, and 3 percent to
information services. (2002 Assessment)

> **13**

**Table 3**

> **FTA Grant Funds Obligated by Type of Service and Type of Area, FY
> 2001**

**(\$ in thousands)**

+----------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+---------+
| > **Type of    | >       |         |          |          |         |
| > Service**    |  **Type |         |          |          |         |
|                | > of    |         |          |          |         |
|                | >       |         |          |          |         |
|                |  Area** |         |          |          |         |
+----------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+---------+
|                | >       | > *     | >        | > **     | > **    |
|                | **Major | *Medium |  **Non-U | Non-Desi | TOTAL** |
|                | > Urban | > Urban | rbanized | gnated** |         |
|                | >       | >       | >        |          |         |
|                | Areas** | Areas** |  Areas** |          |         |
+----------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+---------+
| > **Fixed      |         |         |          |          |         |
| > Route**      |         |         |          |          |         |
+----------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+---------+
| > Expanded     | \$5,942 | \$2,651 | \$1,501  | \$717    | \       |
| > Service      |         |         |          |          | $10,811 |
| > Period       |         |         |          |          |         |
| > (days/hours) |         |         |          |          |         |
+----------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+---------+
| > Feeder       | 0       | 0       | 80       | 0        | 80      |
| > Service      |         |         |          |          |         |
+----------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+---------+
| > Increased    | 333     | 0       | 0        | 184      | 517     |
| > Service      |         |         |          |          |         |
| > Frequency    |         |         |          |          |         |
+----------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+---------+
| > New Fixed    | 3,890   | 1,514   | 2,151    | 542      | 8,098   |
| > Route        |         |         |          |          |         |
+----------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+---------+
| > Route        | 1,700   | 1,212   | 0        | 0        | 2,912   |
| > Deviation    |         |         |          |          |         |
+----------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+---------+
| > Route        | 1,924   | 957     | NA       | 115      | 2,996   |
| > Extension    |         |         |          |          |         |
+----------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+---------+
| > **Subtotal** | \       | \$6,334 | \$3,732  | \$1,559  | \       |
|                | $13,789 |         |          |          | $25,413 |
+----------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+---------+
|                |         |         |          |          |         |
+----------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+---------+
| > **Demand     |         |         |          |          |         |
| > Response**   |         |         |          |          |         |
+----------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+---------+
| > ADA          | \$ 0    | **\$    | \$910    | \$368    | \$1,278 |
| > Paratransit  |         | 0**     |          |          |         |
+----------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+---------+
| > C            | 197     | **2**   | 0        | 0        | 199     |
| arpool/Vanpool |         |         |          |          |         |
+----------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+---------+
| > Disability   | 0       | 0       | 167      | 13       | 179     |
| > related      |         |         |          |          |         |
+----------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+---------+
| > Expanded     | 0       | 393     | 0        | 0        | 393     |
| > Service      |         |         |          |          |         |
| > **period**   |         |         |          |          |         |
+----------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+---------+
| > Feeder       | 200     | 268     | 236      | 105      | 809     |
| > Service      |         |         |          |          |         |
+----------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+---------+
| > Guaranteed   | 499     | 192     | 0        | 0        | 691     |
| > Ride Home    |         |         |          |          |         |
+----------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+---------+
| > Increased    | 50      | 0       | 0        | 0        | 50      |
| > Service      |         |         |          |          |         |
| > Frequency    |         |         |          |          |         |
+----------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+---------+
| > Late         | 500     | 80      | 200      | 1,181    | 1,961   |
| > Night/Early  |         |         |          |          |         |
| > Morning      |         |         |          |          |         |
+----------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+---------+
| > Late         | 0       | 0       | 69       | 318      | 386     |
| > Night/Early  |         |         |          |          |         |
| > Mo           |         |         |          |          |         |
| rning/Weekends |         |         |          |          |         |
+----------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+---------+
| > Specialized  | 1,958   | 926     | 404      | 2,699    | 5,988   |
| > other        |         |         |          |          |         |
+----------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+---------+
| > Supplement   | 1,617   | 50      | 568      | 0        | 2,235   |
| > to Fixed     |         |         |          |          |         |
| > Route        |         |         |          |          |         |
+----------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+---------+
| > **Subtotal** | \$5,023 | \$1,911 | \$2,553  | \$4,684  | \       |
|                |         |         |          |          | $14,171 |
+----------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+---------+
|                |         |         |          |          |         |
+----------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+---------+
| > *            | \$      | \$      | \$       | \$ **0** | **\     |
| *Ridesharing** | **373** | **980** | **30**   |          | $1384** |
+----------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+---------+
| >              |         |         |          |          |         |
|  **Information |         |         |          |          |         |
| > Services**   |         |         |          |          |         |
+----------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+---------+
| > ITS Service  | 64      | 0       | 0        | 166      | 230     |
| > Technology   |         |         |          |          |         |
+----------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+---------+
| > Mark         | 332     | 110     | 0        | 0        | 443     |
| eting/Customer |         |         |          |          |         |
| > Information  |         |         |          |          |         |
+----------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+---------+
| > Mobility     | 172     | 62      | 0        | 0        | 234     |
| >              |         |         |          |          |         |
| Manager/Broker |         |         |          |          |         |
+----------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+---------+
| > Non-Transit  | 120     | 0       | 0        | 349      | 470     |
| > Service      |         |         |          |          |         |
+----------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+---------+
| > **Subtotal** | \$ 689  | \$ 172  | \$ 0     | \$ 515   | \$      |
|                |         |         |          |          | 1,377   |
+----------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+---------+
|                |         |         |          |          |         |
+----------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+---------+
| > **TOTAL**    | **\$1   | **\$    | **\      |          |         |
|                | 9,874** | 9,397** | $6\^14** |          |         |
|                |         |         | I        |          |         |
|                |         |         | *        |          |         |
|                |         |         | *\$6,758 |          |         |
|                |         |         | \|       |          |         |
|                |         |         | \        |          |         |
|                |         |         | $42344** |          |         |
+----------------+---------+---------+----------+----------+---------+

Source: 2002 Assessment

> 5.3 *Cost of Services Per Ride*
>
> Grantee reports for 2001 indicate (See Table 4) that the highest
> average cost per ride among JARC projects was \$18.42 in Non-Urbanized
> areas. With less fixed route service to rely upon, these higher costs,
> particularly for demand response services, are likely attributable to
> the low population densities and widely scattered destinations in
> rural areas that result in fewer, but longer trips. Costs are also
> affected by the higher administrative costs associated with
> personalized demand response services. The cost of labor (facilitators
> and drivers) makes these services expensive, yet they are often the
> only choice for individuals who need transportation in Non-Urbanized
> areas.
>
> The second highest average cost per ride was \$12.72 in Major Urban
> areas. Medium Urban areas had the lowest average cost per ride at
> \$8.57. Average cost per ride is highest for demand response
> specialized services in Non-Urbanized areas, and lowest for
> ride-sharing services in Major Urban areas, where such services can be
> arranged more easily. Fixed route service had the lowest overall
> costs. (2002 Assessment)
>
> Table 4
>
> Average Cost Per Ride by Category of Service **and** Type of Area, FY
> **2001**

+----------------+------------+--------------+------------+----------+
| > **Category   | > **Type   |              |            |          |
| > of Service** | > of       |              |            |          |
|                | > Area**   |              |            |          |
+----------------+------------+--------------+------------+----------+
|                | > **Major  | > **Medium   | > **Non    | > *      |
|                | > Urban    | > Urban      | -Urbanized | *Average |
|                | > Areas**  | > Areas**    | > Areas**  | > Cost   |
|                |            |              |            | > per    |
|                |            |              |            | > Ride** |
+----------------+------------+--------------+------------+----------+
| > Fixed Route  | \$8.22     | \$5.10       | > \$7.52   | > **     |
|                |            |              |            | \$7.60** |
+----------------+------------+--------------+------------+----------+
| > **Demand**   | 27.98      | 14.30        | > 36.84    | > *      |
| > Response     |            |              |            | *19.68** |
+----------------+------------+--------------+------------+----------+
| > Ridesharing  | 3.79       | 24.48        | > 13.08    | > *      |
|                |            |              |            | *15.29** |
+----------------+------------+--------------+------------+----------+
| > **Average    | *          | **\$8.57**   | > *        | > **     |
| > Cost per     | *\$12.72** |              | *\$18.42** | \$9.41** |
| > Ride**       |            |              |            |          |
+----------------+------------+--------------+------------+----------+

> Source: 2002 Assessment **VI. Program Assessment by Primary Goals and
> Objectives**
>
> This section reviews JARC performance by key goals and objectives,
> including increased accessibility of employment sites and employment
> support services. The analysis of site accessibility includes data on
> the types of access created and the modes of access (i.e., fixed route
> expansion). Other subsections record the number of riders, report
> riders\' assessments of the impact of JARC services on their lives,
> and provide several assessments of JARC performance in specific
> communities.

This section presents findings from both the 2000 Assessment of grant
recipients and the 2002 Assessment, as well as results from the
University of Illinois\'s 2002 Rider Survey and a GAO survey of JARC
grant recipients.

> 15
>
> *6.1 Employment Site Accessibility, Number of Jobs, **and Job**
> Support Services **Made** Accessible **through JARC***
>
> 6.1.1 Employment Site Accessibility
>
> The number of new employment sites made accessible by the new and
> additional transportation services funded by the JARC program reflects
> the program goal of improving access to jobs.

Based on data extracted from 56 fourth-quarter 2001 grantee reports
analyzed in the 2002 Assessment (Table 6), a total of 7,453 new
employment sites were reached as a result of JARC projects in these
locations. Of these employment sites, 2,840 (38%) were in Major Urban
Areas, 913 (12%) in Medium Urban Areas and 1,373 (18%) in Non-Urbanized
Areas. An additional 2,327 new employment sites (31%) were made
accessible by programs that included more than one type of jurisdiction
(i.e. both a Medium Urban Area and a Non-Urbanized Area). (2002
Assessment)

Because these data represent only 43 percent of all JARC grantees, the
figures do not reflect JARC results nationwide. Based on the data
available, however, it was estimated that approximately 17,750 new
employment sites were made accessible through programs funded by JARC in
FY 2001.

Table 6 summarizes grantee performance as revealed in the 2002
Assessment. Twenty-three grantees provided access to nearly 13,500 new
employers. Nineteen grantees provided access to over 1,000
employment-related service sites. Fifteen grantees provided access to
sites with approximately 124,000 employees. Eight grantees provided
access to a total of 19,000 entry-level positions. (2000 Assessment)

> The number of entry-level positions each grantee accessed illustrates
> that Major Urban areas generally serve more target market areas, had
> more riders, and had more riders per vehicle hour than Non-Urbanized
> areas (Table 5). Two Major Urban area grantees reported providing JARC
> service to 15,320 entry-level positions, while four Medium Urban area
> grantees served 3,625 entry-level jobs, and grantees in two
> Non-Urbanized areas served 257 entry-level jobs. This result is
> consistent with the greater density of population, employment, and
> employment services in Major Urbanized areas. In assessing programs,
> the higher productivity of transit service in densely populated areas
> must be weighed against the greater user dependence on JARC transit
> services in sparsely populated areas, where low-income individuals
> have more limited transportation options. (2000 Assessment)
>
> 16
>
> **Table 5 JARC Performance on Employment Access**

**Table 5a Stops at Employment Sites**

+--------------------+----------------------+--------------------------+
| **Type of Area**   | > **Stops at         |                          |
|                    | > Employment Sites** |                          |
+--------------------+----------------------+--------------------------+
|                    | > **Day**            | > **Late Night Weekend** |
+--------------------+----------------------+--------------------------+
| Major Urban        | 1,068                | > 3,812                  |
+--------------------+----------------------+--------------------------+
| Medium Urban       | 726                  | > 1,893                  |
+--------------------+----------------------+--------------------------+
| Non-Urbanized      | 66                   | > 9                      |
+--------------------+----------------------+--------------------------+
| > **TOTAL**        | **1,860**            | > **5,714**              |
+--------------------+----------------------+--------------------------+

**Table 5b Employment**

+----------------+-----------------+---------------+------------------+
| **Type of      | > **Employers** | > *           |                  |
| Area**         |                 | *Employment** |                  |
+----------------+-----------------+---------------+------------------+
|                |                 | > **Day**     | > **Late Night   |
|                |                 |               | > Weekend**      |
+----------------+-----------------+---------------+------------------+
| Major Urban    | 7,902           | 1,068         | > 3,812          |
+----------------+-----------------+---------------+------------------+
| Medium Urban   | 3,443           | 726           | > 1,893          |
+----------------+-----------------+---------------+------------------+
| Non-Urbanized  | 2,146           | 66            | > 9              |
+----------------+-----------------+---------------+------------------+
| > **TOTAL**    | **13,491**      | **1,860**     | > **5,714**      |
+----------------+-----------------+---------------+------------------+

**Table 5c Number of Stops**

+--------------------+----------------------+--------------------------+
| **Type of Area**   | > **Number of Stops  | > **Number of Stops at   |
|                    | > in Low-Income      | > Employment Service     |
|                    | > Areas**            | > Facilities**           |
+--------------------+----------------------+--------------------------+
| Major Urban        | > 3,230              | > 637                    |
+--------------------+----------------------+--------------------------+
| Medium Urban       | > 446                | > 322                    |
+--------------------+----------------------+--------------------------+
| Non-Urbanized      | > 293                | > 88                     |
+--------------------+----------------------+--------------------------+
| > **TOTAL**        | > **3,969**          | > **1,047**              |
+--------------------+----------------------+--------------------------+

Source: 2000 Assessment 6.1.2 Time-Sensitive and Location-Sensitive
Transit Service to Employment Sites

> Improving access to potential jobs may involve adding new routes or
> destinations, or it may include the addition of a new time frame for a
> current route. This section provides information on transit access to
> employment sites according to whether the new services are
> time-sensitive or location-sensitive.
>
> New time-sensitive transit to employment sites refers to services
> offered during a time of day for which services were not previously
> provided. For example, if a route was served only during peak-hour
> periods and the new service provided transportation during off-peak
> periods, then the employment sites served were classified as
> time-sensitive. New location-sensitive employment sites refer to
> locations that were not being served by public transportation prior to
> initiation of a JARC-funded service. For example, if a route had ten
> transit stops and two new ones were added, then the new stops were
> classified as location-sensitive.
>
> As shown in Table 6, over one-third (34.8%) of the new sites reached
> made employment options possible during a time period not previously
> available. Two-thirds of the sites made employment locations available
> to the targeted populations that could not be reached via transit
> prior to JARC-funded transportation services. (2002 Assessment)

**Table 6**

> **New Time-Sensitive and Location-Sensitive Employment Sites Reached**

**by Type of Area**

+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| > **Type  |          |          |          |          |           |
| > of New  |          |          |          |          |           |
| > E       |          |          |          |          |           |
| mployment |          |          |          |          |           |
| > Site**  |          |          |          |          |           |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
|           | >        | >        | >        | > **     | >         |
|           |  **Major | **Medium |  **Non-U | Non-Desi | **TOTAL** |
|           | > Urban  | > Urban  | rbanized | gnated** |           |
|           | >        | >        | >        |          |           |
|           |  Areas** |  Areas** |  Areas** |          |           |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| Time-     | > 1,792  | > 273    | > 223    | > 304    | > 2,592   |
| Sensitive | >        | > *      | > **(    | >        | > (34.8%) |
|           |  (63.1%) | *(30%)** | 16.4%)** |  (13.1%) |           |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| Location- | > 1,048  | > **640  | >        | > 2,023  | > 4,861   |
| Sensitive | >        | >        |  **1,150 | >        | > (65.2%) |
|           |  (36.9%) |  (70%)** | > (      |  (86.9%) |           |
|           |          |          | 83.6%)** |          |           |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| **E       | >        | > **913  | >        | >        | > **7,453 |
| mployment |  **2,840 | >        |  **1,373 |  **2,327 | >         |
| Sites     | >        |  (12%)** | >        | >        |  (100%)** |
| Total**   |  (38%)** |          |  (18%)** |  (31%)** |           |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+

Source: 2002 Assessment

> If all JARC funded services reflect similar distributions, the
> estimated number of new location-sensitive employment sites nationwide
> would be approximately 11,750 in FY 2001. The estimated number of new
> time-sensitive employment sites nationwide would be approximately
> 6,000.
>
> 6.1.3 Employment Site Access by Type of Service
>
> Overall, 95% of JARC-funded transportation services were provided by
> fixed route and demand response options in FY 2001. As Table 7
> indicates, in FY 2001, fixed route service was the primary type of
> service provided with JARC funds overall, as well as in Major Urban
> and Non-Urbanized areas. Fixed route systems reach new employment
> sites in Major Urban areas and Non-Urbanized areas as any other
> category of service. Demand response services were the most prevalent
> (43.9%) in Medium Urban areas. Fixed route and demand responsive
> services equally accessed new employment sites in Medium Urban areas.
> (2002 Assessment)
>
> **Table 7**
>
> **Number of New Employment Sites Accessed by Type of Service and Type
> of Area**

+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+
|          |          |          |          |           |           |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+
| > **     | >        | >        | >        | >         | >         |
| Category |  **Major | **Medium |  **Non-U | **Non-Des | **TOTAL** |
| > of     | > Urban  | > Urban  | rbanized | ignated** |           |
| > S      | > Area** | > Area** | >        |           |           |
| ervice** |          |          |  Areas** |           |           |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+
| Fixed    | > 1,941  | > 318    | > **779  | 663       | > **3,701 |
| Route    | > **(    | > **(    | > (      |           | >         |
|          | 68.3%)** | 34.8%)** | 56.7%)** | (28.5%)   | (49.7%)** |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+
| Demand   | > 853    | > 401    | > **417  | > 1,632   | > **3\^03 |
| Response | > **(    | > **(    | > (      | > (70.1%) | >         |
|          | 30.1%)** | 43.9%)** | 30.4%)** |           |  (443%)** |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+
| Rid      | > **46   | > **59   | > **65** | 0         | > **170   |
| esharing | >        | >        | >        |           | > (23%)** |
|          | (1.6%)** | (6.5%)** | > **     |           |           |
|          |          |          | (4.7%)** |           |           |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+
| Not      | **0**    | > 135    | > **112  | > 32      | > **279   |
| De       |          | > **(    | >        | > (1.4%)  | >         |
| signated |          | 14.8%)** | (8.2%)** |           |  (3.7%)** |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+
| *        | >        | > **913  | >        | > **2327  | > **7,453 |
| *TOTAL** |  **2,840 | >        |  **1,373 | > (31%)** | >         |
|          | >        |  (12%)** | >        |           |  (100%)** |
|          |  (38%)** |          |  (18%)** |           |           |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+

Source: 2002 Assessment

> 6.1.4 Access to Employment Support Service Sites
>
> Many job seekers encounter obstacles such as lack of training and
> childcare options. Moreover, they may lack transportation to reach job
> interviews. Through the FY 2001 grants analyzed in FY 2002,
> JARC-funded services created access to 2,261 employment support
> facility sites. If these data are projected nationwide, it is
> estimated that JARC programs provided access to approximately 11,000
> employment support facilities.
>
> In all categories, childcare facilities accounted for the majority of
> sites, especially in Medium Urban and Major Urban areas (Table 8).
> Training facilities are most important in Non-Urbanized areas,
> accounting for nearly one-fourth of the support sites. The \"Other\"
> category includes trips to job interviews and makes up the balance of
> the trips. (2002 Assessment)

Table 8

> Number of New Employment Support Facility Sites Accessed by Type of
> Area

+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
|           |          |          |          |          |           |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
|           | **Major  | >        | > *      | > No     | >         |
|           | Urban**  | **Medium | *Non-Urb | n-**Desi | **TOTAL** |
|           |          | >        | anized** | gnated** |           |
|           |          |  Urban** |          |          |           |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| >         | > **864  | > 324    | > 83     | > 125    | > 1,396   |
| Childcare | > (      | > **(    | >        | >        | > (61.7%) |
| >         | 59.7%)** | 64.3%)** |  (50.0%) |  (87.4%) |           |
|  Facility |          |          |          |          |           |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| >         | > 235    | > **94   | > 41     | > 14     | > 384     |
|  Training | > **(    | > (      | >        | > (9.8%) | > (17.0)  |
| >         | 16.2%)** | 18.7%)** |  (24.7%) |          |           |
|  Facility |          |          |          |          |           |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| > Other   | > 349    | **86**   | > 42     | > 4      | > 481     |
|           | > **(    |          | > (25.3) | > (2.8%) | > (21.3%) |
|           | 24.1%)** | **(      |          |          |           |
|           |          | 17.1%)** |          |          |           |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| >         | >        | > **504  | **166**  | > **143  | > **2,261 |
| **TOTAL** |  **1,448 | >        |          | > (6%)** | >         |
|           | >        |  (22%)** | (7%)     |          |  (100%)** |
|           |  (64%)** |          |          |          |           |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+

Source: 2002 Assessment *6.2 Number of People Using the New
Transportation Services*

> Ridership
>
> The 2002 JARC assessment gathered information from 43 percent of JARC
> grantees for the quarter ending on September 30,2001. As depicted in
> Table 9,462,211 low-income residents and welfare clients accessed
> transportation and other related employment services during the
> quarter report. The data reports indicated that 73.4 percent of these
> individuals reside in Major Urban areas, where population densities
> make a single point of access available to a greater number of people.
> (2002 Assessment)

**Table 9**

> **Low Income Residents and Welfare Recipients Served By Type of Area**

+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+
|          | >        | > **     | >        |           |           |
|          |  **Major | Medium** | **Non-** |           |           |
|          | >        |          |          |           |           |
|          |  Urban** |          |          |           |           |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+
|          | > *      | >        | > **Urb  | >         |           |
|          | *Areas** |  **Urban | anized** |  **Non-** |           |
|          |          | >        |          |           |           |
|          |          |  Areas** |          |           |           |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+
|          |          |          | > *      | > **Des   | >         |
|          |          |          | *Areas** | ignated** | **TOTAL** |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+
| Number   |          |          |          |           |           |
| of       |          |          |          |           |           |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+
| > Low    | >        | > 32,693 | > 60,185 | > 30,272  | > 462,211 |
| > Income |  339,061 |          |          |           |           |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+
| > R      | >        | > (7.1%) | > (13%)  | > (6.5%)  | > (100%)  |
| esidents |  (73.4%) |          |          |           |           |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+
| > and/or |          |          |          |           |           |
| >        |          |          |          |           |           |
|  Welfare |          |          |          |           |           |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+
| > Re     |          |          |          |           |           |
| cipients |          |          |          |           |           |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+
| Using    |          |          |          |           |           |
| Service  |          |          |          |           |           |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+

> Source: 2002 Assessment
>
> For the purposes of this report, ridership is defined as the number of
> unlinked trips taken by people using a transportation system in a
> given time period. JARC ridership data reported a total of 3.6 million
> rides for 63 grants in the fourth quarter of 2001.
>
> As shown in Table 10, 81.6 percent of all ridership was in Major Urban
> areas. Non-Urbanized areas only account for 3.4 percent of total
> ridership. This may be attributed to the fact that Non-Urbanized areas
> have lower population densities and tend to have clusters of trip
> origins and destinations, and thus it is typically more difficult to
> serve people in these areas.
>
> **Table 10 Ridership by Type of Area**

+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+
|          | >        | >        | >        | > **Co    | >         |
|          |  **Major | **Medium |  **Non-U | mbination | **TOTAL** |
|          | > Urban  | > Urban  | rbanized | > Areas** |           |
|          | >        | >        | >        |           |           |
|          |  Areas** |  Areas** |  Areas** |           |           |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+
| > R      | 2        | 399,326  | > 96,484 | > 79,415  | >         |
| idership | ,391,702 |          |          |           | 2,966,927 |
| >        |          |          |          |           | > (81.6%) |
| Weekdays |          |          |          |           |           |
| > 5am-8  |          |          |          |           |           |
| > pm     |          |          |          |           |           |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+
| R        | 251,120  | 24,453   | > 20,838 | > 2,451   | > 297,862 |
| idership |          |          |          |           | > (8.2%)  |
| Weekdays |          |          |          |           |           |
| 8pm-5am  |          |          |          |           |           |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+
| R        | 324,384  | 32,795   | > 7,782  | > 8,581   | > 373,542 |
| idership |          |          |          |           | > (10.2%) |
| Weekends |          |          |          |           |           |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+
| > *      | > **2    | > *      | > *      | >         | > *       |
| *Total** | ,967,206 | *455,574 | *125,104 |  **90,447 | *3,638331 |
|          | > (      | > (      | >        | >         | >         |
|          | 81.6%)** | 12.5%)** | (3.4%)** |  (2.5%)** |  (100%)** |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+

Source: 2002 Assessment

> More modest results appear in the earlier assessment. In April 2000,
> 28 grantees reported that they provided 63,000 vehicle hours of
> service (Table 11). Additionally, during the three-month survey
> period, 26 grantees served approximately 421,000 passenger trips,
> resulting in operating performance levels of 7.6 passengers per
> vehicle hour for these 23 grantees. (2000 Assessment)
>
> **Table 11**
>
> **Riders and Vehicle Hours by Type of Area October 1-Dec 31, 1999**

+-------------+-------+---------+-------+---------+-------+---------+
| > Type of   | >     |         | >     |         | **R   |         |
| > **Area**  | **Rid |         |  **Ve |         | iders |         |
|             | ers** |         | hicle |         | per   |         |
|             |       |         | > Ho  |         | Ve    |         |
|             |       |         | urs** |         | hicle |         |
|             |       |         |       |         | H     |         |
|             |       |         |       |         | our** |         |
+-------------+-------+---------+-------+---------+-------+---------+
|             | > **N | > *     | **N   | > *     | > **N | > *     |
|             | umber | *Number | umber | *Number | umber | *Number |
|             | > of  | > of    | of    | > of    | > of  | > of    |
|             | > Rid | > G     | Ve    | > G     | > R   | > G     |
|             | ers** | rantees | hicle | rantees | iders | rantees |
|             |       | > Repo  | Ho    | > Repo  | > per | > Repo  |
|             |       | rting** | urs** | rting** | > Ve  | rting** |
|             |       |         |       |         | hicle |         |
|             |       |         |       |         | > H   |         |
|             |       |         |       |         | our** |         |
+-------------+-------+---------+-------+---------+-------+---------+
| Major Urban | 24    | >       | **30, | >       | > **  | 9       |
| Area        | 1,059 |  **10** | 894** |  **12** | 9.1** |         |
+-------------+-------+---------+-------+---------+-------+---------+
| Medium      | 16    | >       | **21, | >       | > **  | 10      |
| Urban       | 5,270 |  **10** | 134** |  **12** | 9.5** |         |
+-------------+-------+---------+-------+---------+-------+---------+
| > No        | 1     | > **6** | **11, | > **4** | > **  | **4**   |
| n-Urbanized | 4,941 |         | 191** |         | 1.2** |         |
+-------------+-------+---------+-------+---------+-------+---------+
| > **TOTAL** | *     | >       | **63, | >       | > **1 | **23**  |
|             | *421, |  **26** | 219** |  **28** | 9.8** |         |
|             | 270** |         |       |         |       |         |
+-------------+-------+---------+-------+---------+-------+---------+

Source: 2000 Assessment When People Use JARC Services

> One important aim of the JARC program is to tailor transportation
> services to meet the specific employment-related transportation needs
> of low-income individuals, including the sometimes atypical days of
> the week or times of day during which entry level jobs are available.
> While 8.2 percent of JARC ridership occurred during off-hours and 10.2
> percent was on weekends, Figure 1 shows that most of the JARC-funded
> transportation service being provided during typical working hours.
> Eighty-two percent of the ridership was from 5 a.m. to 8 p.m. on
> weekdays. (2002 Assessment)

![](media/image2.wmf){width="5.539583333333334in"
height="2.4833333333333334in"}**Figure 1: Time/Day of JARC Ridership**

Source: 2002 Assessment

> ***6.3 User Characteristics and Program Impact***
>
> In May and June 2002, researchers at the University of Illinois
> surveyed 534 riders on JARC-funded transportation services. The
> respondents were split almost equally between men (52%) and women
> (48%). A third of the respondents (34%) were 40 years or older, while
> approximately 22 percent of the respondents were age 21 or younger.
>
> The median age was 31 years. About 92 percent of the respondents
> indicated that they had had at least some high school education.

Significantly, most respondents did not own a car (84%). This is
consistent with the finding that 68 percent of the respondents earned
less than \$9 per hour, which makes it financially difficult to own and
maintain an automobile. Also, many of the respondents indicated that
they did not possess a driver\'s license (64%). About 73 percent of the
respondents used the JARC-supported services quite frequently (more than
10 times a month).

> Additionally, the respondents did not have stable work histories
> overall. For example, the employee tenure of the respondents was lower
> than the workforce in general. The median number of years that wage
> and salary workers had been with their current employer (referred to
> as employee tenure) was 3.5 years (Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S.
> DOL, 2000^1^). Workers in lower-paid occupations in the service
> industries had substantially shorter employee tenure (2.5 years), and
> within the service industries, food service workers had the lowest
> median tenure (1.5 years). Among the survey respondents, only 23
> percent of respondents had been with the same employer for more than
> two years; about 27 percent reported job tenure of 6 months to a year
> with the same employer; and 29 percent indicated they had been with
> their employer for less than 6 months. Further, about 31 percent of
> the respondents indicated that they had received some form of public
> aid in the last five years.
>
> Two-thirds (66%) of the University of Illinois respondents said that
> they would not be able to access their destination without the service
> that they were currently riding. It is, therefore, not surprising that
> an overwhelming majority (93%) indicated that these services were
> either \"very important\" or \"important\" to them. About 73 percent
> of the respondents started their trip either at work or at home, and
> for 75 percent the destination was either work or home. These figures
> underscore the fact that these transportation services are used
> primarily to transport people to and from work.
>
> The survey also queried JARC service users about the travel time
> aspects of their trip, compared to earlier methods of travel. Before
> using the JARC service, 44 percent of the respondents had used some
> form of the automobile (drove, rode with someone, or took a taxi) to
> their destination, and 21 percent rode the bus or train. Almost 50
> percent of the respondents indicated that they saved time by using
> JARC-services, with another 22 percent indicating that their travel
> time was the same as before. Slightly more than one-quarter of the
> respondents (28%) indicated that they spent more time to travel using
> the JARC service when compared to their previous mode of
> transportation.
>
> About 70 percent of respondents who used a bus or train prior to
> taking the current service reported travel-time savings, while only 19
> percent of the people who drove prior to taking the current service
> indicated that they saved time. For JARC service users, travel time is
> not the only criteria for choosing the mode/method of travel to work.
> Particularly JARC service users consider the cost of owning and
> operating a car.
>
> ^1^ \"Employee Tenure in 2000\"available at
> http://www.bls.gov/news.release/tenure.nrO.htm.
>
> 22

A number of respondents indicated that they owned a car but were not
using it due to mechanical problems with the vehicle, the vehicle having
been rendered unusable due to an ace: dent, insurance costs, or because
someone else was using the car. (University of Illinois Survey)

In FY 1999, GAO surveyed all of the 194 project sponsors selected for
the JARC program in FY 1999, receiving responses from 89 percent of
them. These respondents confirmed that the JARC program is meeting its
goals. Almost 90 percent of the GAO respondents said they were satisfied
with the goals and intent of the JARC program. In addition, in narrative
responses to open-ended survey questions, 55 percent of the respondents
noted that the JARC program was helping them get people to work. A
number of respondents indicated mat the program created new
transportation services where none was previously available, or expanded
existing services. The new JARC projects also provided work for some
former welfare recipients. In fact, one JARC program sponsor hired
former welfare recipients as drivers and dispatchers for the program.
(GAO Survey)

> ***6.4 Planning Partnerships** and Resource **Leveraging***
>
> The key to the success of JARC projects is collaboration among
> multiple public and private partners. FTA emphasizes the importance of
> coordination in the JARC grant notice, which cites increased
> collaboration among transportation providers, human service agencies,
> employers, metropolitan planning organizations, states, and affected
> communities and individuals as a major goal of the JARC program. FTA
> also encourages applicants to work in partnership to secure matching
> funds from both federal and local sources in order to encourage and
> facilitate longer-term project sustainability.
>
> The collaboration and coordination process has three potential
> components: planning, financing, and operation of service. In GAO\'s
> 1999 survey of project sponsors, 23 percent of the respondents
> commented that the JARC program had improved coordination among
> different organizations involved in getting people to work. The
> comments indicated that the program promoted closer,
> better-coordinated relations between social and human services
> agencies at the local level (GAO Survey).
>
> Planning Partnerships
>
> JARC sponsors report four primary planning partnership categories:
> Human and Employment Services; Transportation; Employers; and
> Community Representatives. Over 40 percent of the planning partners
> were designated as Human and Employment Services partners. Nearly half
> of the planning partners with oversight authority of the implemented
> services were identified as Transportation partners. Partners having
> an ongoing relationship with the grantees were either Human and
> Employment Service or Community Representatives. (2000 Assessment)
>
> Similar planning partnership patterns are evident. As shown in Figure
> 2, Human and Employment Services agencies were about 43 percent of all
> partners, and Transportation partner, totaled 31 percent of the
> partnerships.
>
> **23**

Community Representatives and Employers represented 26 percent of all
partners. (2002 Assessment)

> **Figure 2: Summary of Planning Partnership Categories (Number of
> Partners)**

![](media/image3.wmf){width="4.045138888888889in"
height="2.011111111111111in"}

> Source: 2002 Assessment

Financial Partnerships

> JARC grants recipients appear to be very successful in enlisting the
> participation of human services agencies. All JARC grantees are
> required to meet a 50 percent matching requirement (dollar for
> dollar). To encourage the leveraging of non-transportation dollars,
> grantees are permitted to use other Federal dollars toward part, or
> all, of the required program match. The data suggests that, in some
> cases, the 50 percent match requirement was not only met, but
> exceeded. State and local entities were the primary sources of
> matching funds. They accounted for over 50 percent of the matching
> funds obtained in Major Urban areas, and 80 percent of the matching
> funds in Medium Urban areas. Over 71 percent of the matching funds in
> Non-Urbanized areas came from local sources. (2002 Assessment)
>
> Federal human services programs participated financially in 41 of the
> 66 projects and State and local human service program participated in
> 23 of the projects. Unlike other FT A projects that are financed
> almost entirely through transportation funding sources, approximately
> 20 percent of JARC program funding was from human service
> organizations. In addition, approximately 3 percent of the funding
> came from private contributions.
>
> **24**
>
> Table 12
>
> JARC Financial Partnerships

+--------------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| > **Funding Source**           | **Amount (S      | **% of Total     |
|                                | millions)**      | Funds**          |
+--------------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| > **FEDERAL**                  |                  |                  |
+--------------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **Federal Transit              | > \$22.2 **0.8** | > 44.7% 1.6      |
| Administration**               | > \$23.0 **0.2   | > 46.2% 0.5      |
|                                | > \$23.2**       | > **46.7%**      |
+--------------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| Job Access Reverse Commute     |                  |                  |
| JARC TOTAL Other **FTA Total** |                  |                  |
+--------------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **Human Service Programs**     | > **3.0 1.3 0.6  | > 6.1            |
|                                | > 0.9 \$5.8**    | >                |
|                                |                  | > 2.7            |
|                                |                  | >                |
|                                |                  | > 1..3           |
|                                |                  | >                |
|                                |                  | > 1.8 **11.8%**  |
+--------------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| TANF                           |                  |                  |
|                                |                  |                  |
| WtW                            |                  |                  |
|                                |                  |                  |
| HUD                            |                  |                  |
|                                |                  |                  |
| Other                          |                  |                  |
|                                |                  |                  |
| **Human Services Total**       |                  |                  |
+--------------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| > **Total Federal Funding**    | **\$29.0**       | **58.5%**        |
+--------------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| > **STATE, LOCAL and PRIVATE** |                  |                  |
+--------------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| > **[Public                    | > 10.7 **4.0**   | > 21.6           |
| > Funding]{.underline}**       | >                | >                |
| > Transportation               | > **4.4 \$19.1** | > 8.0            |
| >                              |                  | >                |
| > Human Services               |                  | > 8.9 **38.6%**  |
| >                              |                  |                  |
| > Other                        |                  |                  |
| >                              |                  |                  |
| > **Total Public Funding**     |                  |                  |
+--------------------------------+------------------+------------------+

+--------------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| > **[Private                   | 0.1              | 0.1              |
| > Funding]{.underline}**       |                  |                  |
| >                              | 0.4              | 0.7              |
| > Human Service                |                  |                  |
| >                              | 1.0              | 2.1              |
| > Employers                    |                  |                  |
| >                              | **\$1.5**        | **2.9%**         |
| > Other                        |                  |                  |
| >                              |                  |                  |
| > Total Private Funding        |                  |                  |
+--------------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| > **Total** State, **Local and | **\$20.6**       | **41.5%**        |
| > Private Funding**            |                  |                  |
+--------------------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **TOTAL FUNDING**              | **\$49.6**       | **100%**         |
+--------------------------------+------------------+------------------+

> **VII. Case Studies 7.1 *Services ***Worcester, **Massachusetts**
>
> The Worcester Regional Transit Authority (WRTA) is using its \$491,998
> JARC grant to modify its fixed route service and expand its ADA
> paratransit service to provide improved access to employment in this
> Medium Urban area. WRTA restructured its mainline fixed route service
> between Brittan Square and Webster Square, the primary bus corridor in
> the WRTA service area. WRTA is also expanding late night fixed route
> bus service on ten routes to accommodate second-and third-shift
> employees. WRTA implemented changes to its fixed route in October
> 1999, when it added two rehabilitated buses to its fixed-route fleet.
> In the first full quarter of operation of expanded services, WRTA
> attracted 46,290 riders.
>
> WRTA routes serve much of the Worcester area\'s low-income population.
> Fifty-seven percent of the bus stops are within one-quarter mile of
> welfare residences. Twenty-five percent of the families in late night
> service areas have incomes below 150 percent of the poverty level.
>
> WRTA\'s late night bus services reach 30 employers, with a total of
> 4,763 second-and third-shift jobs. Late-night employment opportunities
> with these companies were identified through surveys conducted as part
> of WRTA\'s public outreach effort. The ten late-night routes also
> connect 24 of 39 area childcare facilities, 26 of 30
> literacy/workforce development centers and both General Equivalency
> Diploma test centers.
>
> **Table 13**
>
> WRTA JARC Services Quarterly Service Hours **and** Ridership

+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
|                       | **Fixed Route        | **Ridership**         |
|                       | Service Hours**      |                       |
+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| > **Additional        | **1,536**            | **27,664**            |
| > Daytime Service**   |                      |                       |
+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| > **Additional        | 1,490                | 9,576                 |
| > Late-Night          |                      |                       |
| > Service**           |                      |                       |
+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| > Additional Weekend  | 1,577                | 9,050                 |
| > Service             |                      |                       |
+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| **TOTAL**             | **4,603**            | **46,290**            |
+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+

**Source: 2000 Assessment**

> **Chattanooga, Tennessee**
>
> Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority (CARTA), which
> services a Medium Urban area, is using its \$500,000 grant to provide
> improved job access through fixed route service expansion, demand
> responsive service for children, and expanded marketing efforts.
>
> 26
>
> Thirteen of CARTA\'s routes serve neighborhoods where 57 percent of
> the households have incomes at or below the 150 percent poverty level.
> Sixty-seven percent of the county\'s welfare recipients live within a
> quarter mile of CARTA routes. CARTA\'s JARC service has reached 1,539
> employers, 14,942 entry level jobs, 60 registered child care centers
> with a total capacity of 1,864 children, and 19 human services and
> other agencies. All of these sites are located within one-quarter mile
> of stops on new or expanded routes or routes with extended service
> hours.
>
> Table 14
>
> Chattanooga JARC Performance in Vehicle Hours and Ridership
> August-December 1999

+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| > Location  | >           | >           | >           | > Ridership |
|             |  Additional |  Additional |  Additional |             |
|             | > Daytime   | >           | > Weekend   |             |
|             | > Service   |  Late-Night | > Service   |             |
|             | > (Vehicle  | > Service   | > (Vehicle  |             |
|             | > Hours)    | > (Vehicle  | > Hours)    |             |
|             |             | > Hours)    |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| > Alton     | 902         | > 0         | > 132       | 10,931      |
| > Park      |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Eastdale    | 66          | > 0         | > 0         | 709         |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Golden      | 0           | > 100       | > 0         | 1,733       |
| Gateway     |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| North       | 55          | > 0         | > 0         | 614         |
| Brainerd    |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Total       | 1,034       | > 100       | > 132       | 13,987      |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

Source: 2000 Assessment

> To implement its demand response transportation service, CARTA
> contracted with Special: Transit Services to operate 15-passenger vans
> with monitors to transport children traveling without parents to two
> daycare facilities. The vans are also available to transport children
> to before- and after-school daycare. Child passenger trips were made
> 6,063 times during the calendar quarter, with an average of 12
> passengers per vehicle hour.
>
> Oshkosh, Wisconsin
>
> Oshkosh is a Non-Urbanized area with a population of 60,000. Oshkosh
> Transit System (OTS) and Valley Transit are using a \$211,500 JARC
> grant to provide a demand-responsive taxi rideshare service, new fixed
> routes services, and information services.
>
> A taxi rideshare service, begun in August 1999, served 3,844 rides
> through December 1999, and an additional 9,880 rides between January
> and April of 2000. OTS also operates a new fixed-route service. The
> new route links the downtown transit center with the northern edge of
> the city where county facilities are located. From August to December
> 1999, this route carried 9,761 passengers, an average of 76 riders per
> day. From January to April 2000, it carried 11,199 riders, an average
> of 91 riders per day.
>
> Through the JARC grant, Valley Transit in Appleton, Wisconsin began
> operation of weekday peak period fixed route service in June 2000. In
> response to positive customer feedback, the service was expanded to
> all-day service in January 2001. The new JARC route serves several
> dozen employers that offer entry-level jobs.
>
> 27

Table 15

> Oshkosh Transit System JARC Vehicle Hours and Ridership August to
> December 1999

+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| > Type of   | >           | >           | >           | > Ridership |
| > Service   |  Additional |  Additional |  Additional |             |
|             | > Daytime   | >           | > weekend   |             |
|             | > Service   |  Late-Night | > Service   |             |
|             | > (Vehicle  | > Service   | > (Vehicle  |             |
|             | > Hours)    | > (Vehicle  | > hours)    |             |
|             |             | > Hours)    |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| > Fixed     | 1,524       | > 0         | > 240       | > 1,761     |
| > Route     |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Demand      | 720         | > 181       | > 130       | > 3,884     |
| Response    |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| > Total     | 2,244       | > 181       | > 370       | > 13,645    |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

Source: 2000 Assessment Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District; Oakland,
CA

> In FY 1999, Alameda-Contra Costa Transit (AC Transit) was awarded a
> \$143,000 JARC grant for its \"Bus Line 376.\" Line 376 is a late
> evening 8 p.m. to 2 a.m. line specifically designed to link unemployed
> or low-income workers to local sites where entry-level, evening,
> graveyard shift, and weekend jobs are available. The bus route enables
> workers to get to jobs at a UPS facility, two malls, and to jobs in
> Marin Country, which has one of the lowest unemployment rates in
> California. The route carries approximately 300 riders a month (337 in
> May 2002). Ridership is higher at the beginning of the service at 8
> p.m., and again at major changes in shift times along the route.
> (University of Illinois Survey)
>
> Once broad community support was established, the North Richmond
> Municipal Advisory Council and AC Transit Schedules Department worked
> together to link key community locations with key work sites. Line 376
> service was expanded to a 30-minute frequency through the JARC grant.
> As a result of the more frequent service, ridership increased
> immediately by 66 percent and as of March 2000, it had doubled. The
> local match for the JARC-supported services is provided by Alameda
> Contra Costa Transit. AC Transit computes the cost of the Line 376
> route at approximately \$7 per passenger trip. (Source: University of
> Illinois Survey) In North Richmond, the percentage of CALWORKS
> recipients working increased from 19.6 percent in January 1998 to 35%
> in January 2000. The establishment of Line 376 is playing a central
> role in facilitating the North Richmond community\'s stunning
> transition from welfare to work. (APTA Awards)
>
> Anne Arundel and Howard Counties, Maryland
>
> In November 2000, the Arundel Mills Mall opened south of Baltimore.
> The 1.3 million square foot \"megamall\" is the largest in Maryland,
> and is expected to draw over 17 million visitors per year. Over 3,000
> jobs were created when the mall opened, with an additional 3,000
> expected over the next five years as the mall area is fully developed.
> Entry-level workers needed transit services to access the mall from
> various locations and areas, including Baltimore City, Anne Arundel
> County, Columbia (Howard County), and
>
> 28
>
> Laurel, so Job Access and Reverse Commute grant funds were utilized to
> implement three new bus routes. The Maryland Transit Administration
> (MTA), Howard transit, and Corridor Transportation Corporation (CTC),
> along with other transportation providers and workforce
> representatives, began working with Arundel Mills officials long
> before the mal 1 opened to ensure transit services were in place.
> These new bus routes, initiated in November 2000, connect both Urban
> and Suburban communities with Arundel Mills Mall and serve many
> additional employment sites:

-   CTC\'s Route J service between Glen Burnie and Laurel connects
    residents of both\
    areas with the mall. This new service also connects with MTA Light
    Rail and bus\
    sendees, providing Baltimore City and Annapolis area residents with
    bus service to\
    Arundel Mills. Through June 2002, over 112,000 passenger trips were
    provided.

-   CTC also implemented new Route K service between the mall and the\
    Odenton/Severn areas, connecting several low-income neighborhoods
    with job\
    opportunities at the mall. Over 47,600 passenger trips have been
    provided through\
    June 2002 on this new service.

-   Howard Transit initiated new \"Red Express\" bus service between
    Columbia and the\
    BWI Airport that services the mall. This service also connects with
    the MTA Light\
    Rail service, increasing access to jobs at the mall for Baltimore
    City residents.\
    Through June 2002,105,808 passenger trips have been provided.

> Each of these routes is part is part of the core CTC or Howard Transit
> systems, providing connections to various areas within Central
> Maryland. In addition, as part of Maryland\'s effort to improve
> coordination and integration between the State\'s providers, the MTA,
> CTC, arid Howard Transit agreed to honor each system\'s day pass so
> customers can easily transfer at the mall. These projects are
> indicative of Maryland\'s Job Access and Reverse Commute Program, with
> required matching funds from various sources. For these services, the
> MTA, Arundel Mills Mall, Anne Arundel Economic Development
> Corporation, and the Anne Arundel County Department of Social Services
> have provided matching funds.
>
> **Red Rose Transit Authority, Lancaster, PA**

Lancaster\'s Access to Jobs program, supported by a \$121,000 JARC
grant, provides late night and weekend paratransit service to people who
live and work along a bus route, but for whom no bus service is
available at the time they need to travel. Red Rose Transit Authority
(RRTA) reaches out to the County Office of Assistance and to job
training agencies to identify people entering the work force who are
having transportation difficulties. In addition, RRTA works closely with
area businesses that have trouble hiring second and third shift workers
so that they can refer prospective workers to the program. Between July
1, 2000 and February 28, 2001, RRTA provided 15,902 one-way trips to
people through the JARC program. As of January 15,2001,35.6 percent were
transported to light industrial jobs, 22.6 percent were in health care,
17.3 percent were in cleaning, 14.4 percent were in food service, and
8.7 percent were in hotel work. (APTA Awards)

> 29
>
> **Wheels to Access Vocation and Education, Sanford, Maine**

In 1997, a chronic shortage of workers plunged many businesses in
Southern Maine\'s York County into a staffing crisis that threatened
their financial stability. Despite a high demand for their goods and
services, some companies eliminated shifts or closed early, while others
resorted to paying workers overtime to work longer days. Working through
local Chambers of Commerce, the business community joined together with
the county\'s anti-poverty agency and economic development groups to
investigate the key barriers to filling jobs with area workers. A JARC
grant of \$150,000 in 1999, matched with state and local money, has
helped launch the Wheels to Access Vocation and Education (WAVE)
Program, an innovative transportation service that provides rides for
TANF participants and other low-income residents to jobs, childcare and
employment training sites in York Country. The program is tailored to
the particular situations of low-income residents in York County, where
many people do not own reliable vehicles or have access to public
transportation. The WAVE van service maintains flexibility in its
operations while also adhering to some consistent routes and schedules.
To maximize its effectiveness, the WAVE integrates existing transit bus
and trolley services into its routes.

> Since WAVE began operation in 1999, four 15-passenger vans have made
> over 42,000 trips for area workers. It currently provides services to
> 25 different job sites. The vans regularly provide more than 2,000
> rides per month, up from the 45 rides it carried out in its first two
> weeks of service. The service has quickly become important to
> low-income residents. The vans are critical in getting people to jobs
> for first, second and third shifts in the expanding corridor of
> industrial parks between Wells and Sanford, along Maine\'s southern
> coast.
>
> The impact of the WAVE Program is evident in the profiles of riders: A
> young mother who rides the WAVE six days a week now can get her
> children to daycare and hold down a job. Previously, she paid \$40 per
> day for taxi rides to work. With her steady income and the WAVE\'S low
> fares she has ended her reliance on state aid and food stamps. As
> another example, two men, both living temporarily in the York County
> Shelter, are now able to get to well- paying jobs because of the WAVE,
> thus allowing them to save money toward rent and living expenses when
> they move out on their own. (APTA Awards)
>
> **The Bee-line System, Westchester, New York**

The Westchester Department of Transportation was awarded a \$2 million
JARC grant in January 2001 to operate a fixed route service between
Getty Square, Yonkers City and Stew Leonard Drive until March 2007. The
bus route serves passengers going to three employers - Home Depot,
Costco, and Stew Leonard\'s store - located in close proximity to each
other.

30

> The respondents to the University of Illinois at Chicago survey of
> Bee-line passengers were equally split between men (47%) and women
> (53%) with a majority of them younger than 30 years of age (53% under
> 30). The riders were predominantly transit dependent, as evidenced by
> the fact that 92 percent of the respondents did not own a car and 68
> percent did not possess a driver\'s license. Over 90 percent of those
> who responded indicated that they held a high school degree or better.
> Only 14 percent of the respondents indicated that they had received
> any form of public aid in the last\'5 years. These figures present a
> picture of a typical JARC transportation user in Westchester who is
> poor, young, possessing basic education, and transit dependent.
>
> The majority of the respondents indicated that they came to know about
> the JARC service through their friends (41%), and this service was
> perceived as very important by 92 percent of the respondents. Over 70
> percent of the respondents indicated that they could not get to their
> destination without the JARC service. While only 15 percent of the
> respondents indicated that they used the bus or train before to reach
> the same destination, a significant portion of those who responded
> indicated that they did not go the same destination before the service
> was available.
>
> This service plays a very important role in helping people get to
> work: 81 percent of the respondents used the service to go to work and
> most of the respondents had been with the same employer for less than
> 2 years. However, at the same time, almost 35 percent of those
> respondents indicated that they earned more than \$9 per hour.
> (University of Illinois Survey)
>
> **Neighborhood Transportation Service (NTS), Cedar Rapids, Iowa**
>
> With a population of 121,000, Cedar Rapids is the second largest city
> in Iowa. The recipient of the JARC grant is Five Seasons
> Transportation and Parking, Cedar Rapids, and the local match for this
> grant is provided by the city of Cedar Rapids and Five Seasons
> Transportation and Parking. NTS is a sub-recipient of the JARC grant
> and provides door-to-door transportation to and from work, school, and
> life-skills class at night and on weekends in Cedar Rapids, Marion,
> and Hiawatha between the hours of 4 p.m. and 2 a.m. on weekdays, with
> extended service hours on weekends. It operates six buses, each with a
> capacity of 20 and all equipped with wheel chair lifts.
>
> NTS charges its passengers a fee of \$3 per trip, unless the
> JARC-qualified individual has been referred to NTS by a social service
> agency, in which case the service is free of charge. *The* program
> began with seed money from HUD and United Way. Annual operating
> expenses for the NTS service are currently at \$350. NTS receives
> approximately \$60,000 per year from JARC to compensate for the free
> rides allowed for JARC users.

The survey respondents were equally split between men and women, with
three-fourths of the respondents older than 30 years of age. Over 90
percent of the respondents had at least a high school degree. Most did
not drive 82 percent did not own a car and 61 percent did not have a
valid driver\'s license. The survey also indicated that an overwhelming
majority of the respondents were frequent users of the NTS service.

31

> A little more than two-thirds of the respondents indicated that they
> would not be able to access their current destination without the JARC
> service and 95 percent of the respondents indicated that the service
> was \"very important\" to them.
>
> All of the respondents had a job, with 95 percent of them working
> full-time. A majority of them started the trip at work (57%) with
> another 22 percent starting the trip at home. This indicates that the
> service caters mainly to the trip from work to home. The majority of
> the respondents (60%) had worked with their current employer for less
> than a year, with only 14 percent indicating that they had the same
> job for more than two years. More than one-third (36%) of the
> respondents did not work prior to their current job.
>
> The evening and late night service provided by the NTS fulfills a very
> important need in the lives of people who are trying to enter the
> labor force. This service not only caters to the home to work commute,
> but it also provides service to drug rehabilitation centers that play
> a crucial role in job retention for some clients. (University of
> Illinois Survey)
>
> PacifiCAB Company of Hillsboro Oregon
>
> Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (Tri-Met) is
> the recipient of a JARC grant, and has contracted with Rides
> Connection to provide transportation services in west suburban
> Portland, Oregon, and the adjacent rural area. Rides Connection, in
> turn, has arranged for PacifiCAB to carry JARC passengers principally
> between home and work, or to public transportation, mainly the
> Portland-area light rail system. The annual JARC allocation to Rides
> Connection is approximately \$240,000 for direct transportation
> services. Matching funds are provided by Tri-Met (the Portland-area
> public transportation provider), the City of Portland and the
> Multnomah County Department of Adult and Family Services.
>
> The PacifiCAB JARC-supported service is available to those individuals
> who meet the low-income criteria screened by Rides Connection. All of
> the riders complete an eligibility survey and are individually
> registered as eligible riders. Rides are scheduled a day in advance
> and PacifiCAB prepares trip itineraries so that when the driver
> reports to work the destinations are known. Service typically begins
> at 4 a.m., but is available whenever it is needed. Non-JARC users are
> scheduled as time permits. In the course of the day, the driver may
> carry JARC passengers, riders sponsored by human-services
> organizations, or regular fare-paying clients/customers.
>
> Rides Connection has contracted with PacifiCAB for a rate of \$2.75
> per rider plus \$1.65 per mile. The cost to the user is \$.50 per
> ride. While the cost per ride is moderately high, the JARC program is
> charged per ride, and there are no costs in the midday when there are
> no users.

Most of the riders who responded to the University of Illinois survey
were male (66 percent) and 75 percent had completed at least some
college. Most were over 30 years of age and few had a driver\'s license
or a car. Nearly all used it as part of a work trip 95 percent of the
trips were from home and 83 percent were to work.

> 32
>
> Almost 90 percent were employed either full or part time.
> Consequently, the vast majority were regular riders, with 85 percent
> using the service at least ten times a month.
>
> Riders clearly valued the service, with 95 percent ranking it as
> \"very important.\" Although 30 percent previously drove to their
> destination, 80 percent indicated that they could not now reach their
> destination without the service. (Source: University of Illinois
> Survey)
>
> **Christians Helping Arrange New Growth Enterprises (Change, Inc.) in
> Follansbee and Weirton West Virginia**
>
> Change Inc. is one of the first community-action organizations to
> operate with JARC funding. During FY 2001 Change INC. received a JARC
> grant for \$114,000. Change, Inc. provides a wide range of services
> primarily in a two-county area in the most northern panhandle section
> of West Virginia that includes the Steubenville-Weirton Metropolitan
> area. *The* entire service area includes half a dozen communities in
> West Virginia, as well as downtown Steubenville, Ohio and the Robinson
> Town Mall in west suburban Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The FY 2001 JARC application indicates that the number of high-paying
industrial jobs declined in the two-county West Virginia portion from
20,700 jobs in 1980 to 13,200 jobs in 1995, a decline of 7,500 jobs.
This 36 percent drop in high-paying manufacturing jobs was slightly
offset by an increase of 2,700 low-paying industrial jobs. The greatest
employment gains have been at the Mountaineer Track, a casino, racetrack
and entertainment center featuring renowned performers. The complex is
approximately 15 miles north of Weirton in a somewhat remote part of
Hancock County, which makes public transportation service connecting the
Mountaineer complex with a host of communities along the Ohio River
important for potential employees as well as the employer. Similarly, a
major training facility, the John D Rockefeller IV Vocational and
Technical Center, is located in isolated site over ten miles north of
Weirton.

> Change, Inc. operates seven vehicles, two of which are used on the
> fixed route service. Both of these routes have off-peak periods,
> during which they are converted to demand responsive service. For
> example, the local service has a gap from approximately 4 p.m. to 9
> p.m. when it is demand responsive. In this way, the operation has the
> flexibility to meet local needs. The two lines carry approximately 50
> passengers per day and 14,000 passengers annually.
>
> A majority of the University of Illinois survey respondents were
> regular users, with 60 percent riding more than ten times a month.
> About two-thirds (65%) of those surveyed indicated that they could not
> reach their destination without the service, 85 percent rated the
> service \"very important\" and the remaining 15 percent rated it as
> \"important.\"
>
> Many of the respondents used this service for work; 80 percent listed
> work as either the trip origin or the destination. Although 85 percent
> indicated that they worked either part time or full time, half earned
> less than \$7 an hour and the other half earned less than \$9 an hour.
>
> 33

Since 60 percent have been working at their current work site for less
than six months, it appears that the service is providing the
opportunity to reach a work site that previously was not accessible.
(University of Illinois Survey)

> **Island Transit of Galveston Texas**

Located approximately an hour drive southwest of Houston, Galveston is
on an island in the Gulf of Mexico. It is an elongated community with
numerous bus routes. In its third year, the JARC program supports
several late night fixed routes with an annual grant of \$300,000 and
local match provided by the city of Galveston.

> The primary service area stretches approximately seven miles and has
> two large traffic generators at each end. At the east end is the
> University of Texas Medical Branch and at the west end is the Moody
> Gardens recreation complex. Both of these areas are sources of
> entry-level jobs.
>
> The JARC-funded service begins at 8:30 p.m. and runs until
> approximately 11:30 p.m. The bus network focuses on a central
> terminal, where the evening buses congregate and allow transfers. This
> terminal is also a station on the daytime light rail line. The two
> routes together carry nearly 14,000 rides annually after 7 p.m. The
> base fare for the users is \$.60 for adults and \$.30 for seniors,
> students and children. Monthly passes are available for \$24 for
> adults, and for \$12 for seniors and students.
>
> Half of the surveyed riders were female, and approximately half had
> received public aid in the last five years. Roughly a quarter were
> over 40 years of age and a quarter were 20 or less. While 56 percent
> of the riders had a driver\'s license and 22 percent had cars, over 70
> percent earned less than \$7 per hour, making the operating cost of
> using a car prohibitive. Most of the riders found out about the
> service from friends (52%) and were regular users, with 84 percent
> using it at least ten times a month. Not surprisingly, 75 percent of
> those surveyed rated the service \"very important: and another 21
> percent rated it \"important.\" (University of Illinois Survey)
>
> **SEED Transportation, Hennepin County, Minnesota**
>
> SEED Transportation offers van services for access to jobs in the
> greater Minneapolis area, which are tightly coordinated with family
> services organization and employment and training centers. The SEED
> Transportation van service, operated by the New Unity Center of the
> Pillsbury United Neighborhood Services, currently receives \$750,000
> of JARC funds. The van service has been operating for about five
> years. Although riders were not initially required to pay a fare,
> currently, there is a fare of \$3 per trip.
>
> The Hennepin County welfare-to-work transportation program has a
> budget of one million dollars annually, with \$500,000 from JARC and
> the local match from the Minnesota Family Investment Plan (MFIP).
> Hennepin County funds five transportation projects with JARC funds.
> The first is a van service operated by SEED Transportation for New
> Unity center of Pillsbury United Neighborhood Services, Inc., an
> employment, training and family services provider.
>
> 34

The second is a van service serving the Summit Academy, a non-profit
private educational institution. The third is for transportation
services offered by RISE, a placement organization and another provider
of MFIP services. The fourth use of JARC funding in Hennepin County is
for a computerized information system linking transportation and
child-care services using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping.
Additionally, JARC funding in Hennepin County is used for a reverse
commute bus going from South Minneapolis to jobs in the City of Eden
Prairie, southwest of Minneapolis. The local match source in all cases
is the MFIP.

The University of Illinois survey was conducted on a route that
originated in Sieyza, a fast food packaging company. Sieyza hires
temporary labor to work in its northern Minneapolis plant. Most riders
of this van were members of the rapidly increasing Somali community in
Minneapolis, part of an increasing group of immigrants to Minneapolis.

The 2000 Census shows that the city\'s \"Other\" race/ethnicity
population increased by 323 percent, whereas the white population
declined by 13.3 percent and the Black/African American population
increased by 43.5 percent. Therefore, most of the van riders surveyed
did not speak English.

> Most of the respondents were young females (35 years and younger) and
> all had at least some high school education. A large number of
> respondents (75%) did not have a driver\'s license and none of the
> respondents owned a vehicle. About 67 percent of the respondents had
> received some form of public assistance in the last five years.
>
> The vast majority (75%) used the service frequently, more than ten
> times per month. About 67 percent of the respondents indicated that
> the service was \"very important\" to them and the remaining
> respondents indicated that it was important to them. All respondents
> indicated that without this van service they had no other way of
> getting to their destination.
>
> Before the service began, almost 46 percent of the respondents used
> public transportation to access the destination to which they were
> traveling. Another 33 percent indicated that they used a taxi or
> car-pooled. In doing so, however, almost 80 percent incurred travel
> times of more than an hour. In contrast, the JARC-funded van service
> took none of the respondents more than half-an-hour to travel to the
> same destination. This represents a significant travel time savings,
> which can be particularly helpful on late-night return home trips.

All riders surveyed were employed, with most (67%) employed full-time.
However, only 14 percent of the riders had their current job for more
than a year, and the vast majority had the job for less than a year,
with 43 percent of the respondents in the same job for less than 6
months. About 85 percent of the respondents worked before, but earned
less than what they earned currently. (University of Illinois Survey).

**35**

> **City of Loveland Transit, Colorado - COLT**
>
> The City of Loveland received JARC support to operate one route of a
> two-route transit system. JARC support has allowed the system to
> establish itself as an important facet of life in Loveland. With a
> JARC grant of \$103,000 plus the local match, the total cost of this
> service is approximately \$200,000 annually. Dividing this figure by
> the nearly 30,000 passengers that ride the JARC-supported route
> produced an average cost-per-ride of approximately \$7. This is
> consistent with the cost of new service in a low-density setting.

Service begins at 6:38 a.m. on the two Loveland routes at the downtown
transfer center, where they meet the first Fox Trot bus operated by
Transfort (Fort Collins) on its run from the South Transit Center in
Fort Collins. All three lines complete their route in one hour and all
three buses arrive at 38 minutes after the hour at the transfer center
until the service ends at 6:38 p.m.

In May 2002, the two fixed routes carried 6,150 passengers annually, of
whom 39 percent rode the JARC-supported \'Tango\" route. The 2,400 Tango
ridership level was a 66 percent increase over the 1,400 riders two
years earlier (May 2000). It is common for ridership to grow in the
first several years of operation, but this represents an unusually high
growth rate.

> The fare structure encourages ridership. The base fare of \$1.00 and
> \$0.50 for students and seniors, coupled with an annual low-income
> pass available for \$100, means that cost is not a significant barrier
> to most riders. Low-income riders may also purchase a 20-ride pass for
> ten dollars.
>
> The respondents overwhelmingly indicated that the service was either
> \"very important\" (72 percent) or \"important\" (21 percent).
> Previously, 60 percent either rode in a car or walked to their
> destination, but the bus is currently the preferred mode. Half of the
> riders were either part or full-time employees, split almost equally,
> and another quarter were looking for work. Just over half had worked
> less than six months and, just under a half of the riders were either
> going to work or coming home from work.
>
> With a two-route system, JARC supports half of the fixed-route service
> in Loveland Colorado. The operation is well run, and transfers to the
> other Loveland bus and the Fort Collins bus are coordinated through
> radio communications. Transfers are used frequently, and the service
> to Fort Collins opens up possibilities not available in Loveland. In
> this context, the question of how many jobs are served by Tango (JARC
> supported) within its service area does not provide a true picture of
> all the jobs available to JARC riders. The ability to reach Fort
> Collins, a University town (Colorado State), more than doubles the
> accessible job base.

36

> *7.2 Partnerships* Abilene, Texas
>
> The Abilene JARC project was developed around employers\' needs for
> late-night transportation for entry-level workers.

*Planning*

> The JARC planning process in Abilene began with a series of meetings
> held during the spring and summer of 1997. These meetings were
> organized by an employer organization, the Abilene Restaurant
> Association. Many members of this association hire entry-level workers
> for second-and third-shift nighttime work. The meetings brought
> together employers and their representatives including the West
> Central Texas Workforce Development Board, representatives of
> low-income populations, the Texas DHS, and local transportation
> providers.
>
> A Transportation Workgroup was formed to address the needs of
> low-income populations. The Workgroup included employers and employer
> organizations, transportation providers, and representatives of
> targeted populations. The Workgroup identified existing transportation
> resources, surveyed TANF recipients and other low-income individuals
> to identify transportation needs, and determined what resources were
> necessary to fill transportation gaps.
>
> The Workgroup found that significant gaps in service existed between
> 6:15 p.m. and 2 a.m., when large numbers of people with low incomes
> were unable to reach potential employment opportunities at restaurants
> and fast food establishments. The Workgroup prepared a Regional JARC
> plan and a proposal for FTA JARC funds.
>
> Additional partners have joined the planning effort since the
> formation of the Transportation Workgroup. The Abilene Housing
> Authority, representing targeted populations, has collaborated with
> CityLink, a transportation provider, to identify JARC strategies.
>
> *Finance*
>
> The diversity of project participants is reflected in the roster of
> organizations providing funds for Abilene\'s project. The \$200,000
> JARC project is funded with \$100,000 in FTA JARC funds and matching
> funds from United Way of Abilene, the West Central Texas Council of
> Governments (WCTCOG), the City of Abilene, the Texas DHS, The West
> Central Texas Workforce Development Board (WCTWDB), and the Abilene
> Restaurant Associations. FTA awarded the JARC grant on November
> 29,1999.
>
> In addition, partnership between the WCTCOG and CityLink was
> successful in obtaining funds from the Texas DOL. Those funds are
> being used to purchase bus passes. The WCTWDB has also committed to
> the use of TANF funds to purchase transportation vouchers for
> nighttime transportation services.
>
> **37**
>
> *Operations*
>
> Operating partnerships were formed in advance of the JARC grant. In
> 1997, after an initial series of meetings, project partners initiated
> a number of Job Access activities. A daycare center extended its hours
> to 12 midnight to better serve late-night workers. Employer
> organizations, employment services, and human service agencies
> representing low-income populations collaborated to organize job
> fairs. These fairs included information on the public transit system
> provided by CityLink.
>
> The FTA Job Access grant supports extension of CityLink
> demand-responsive service into the evening. A wide variety of partners
> (DHS, the Housing Authority, Career Stop, WCTCOG, and other
> organizations) assist clients with scheduling trips and purchasing
> tickets. The Abilene Restaurant Association has committed to hiring
> people with low income if reliable transportation to work can be
> provided.
>
> [Connecticut]{.underline}
>
> The JARC program proposed by the State of Connecticut demonstrates
> effective partnership activities at three different levels of
> government: state, regional, and local. At each of these levels,
> partners representing targeted populations, employers, and
> transportation providers collaborated on planning, funding, and
> operation. The Connecticut program also demonstrates the effective use
> of a top-down project approach with the state taking the initiative in
> program development. This section describes the state and regional
> coordination efforts generally and uses the North Central Region of
> Connecticut as a case study for inter-regional and local partnerships.
>
> *Planning*
>
> At the state level, the Connecticut Office of Policy and Management
> organized a collaborative planning effort that included statewide
> entities involved in social services (Connecticut Department of Social
> Services \[DSS\]), employment (Connecticut DOL), and transportation
> (Connecticut DOT). This effort helped many of the non-transportation
> agencies to understand the importance of their participation in
> project planning and funding. The decision to submit a consolidated
> statewide application was met with general consensus by participating
> organizations at both state and local levels.
>
> Regional government agencies also collaborated during the planning
> process to coordinate planning of JARC services. These efforts ensured
> that the proposed program would utilize the most appropriate
> transportation providers to link labor markets that extended across
> regional boundaries. When FTA announced the JARC program the state
> decided to reinforce the regional structure and the existing
> partnerships mat had been established within the state\'s five human
> service regions.
>
> While the state received and distributed FTA funds, it delegated
> authority for project planning and implementation to regional
> partners.
>
> Job Access planning activities began in 1997, when the region was
> selected for a Connecticut welfare to work pilot project.
>
> **38**

The Capital Region Council of Governments (CRCOG) served as a nexus for
the JARC planning process. The Capital Regional Job Access Task Force,
which meets monthly, includes representatives of all major
transportation providers, social service agencies, and job development
agencies in the region. Transportation providers on the task force
include Connecticut DOT, Connecticut Transit, the Greater Hartford
Rideshare Corporation (a vanpool company), and the Greater Hartford
Transit District, which provides paratransit service. Employers were
represented through job development agencies, including Connecticut DOL,
the Connecticut Business and Industry Association, the Capitol Region
Growth Council, the Capitol Region Workforce Development Board, and the
Community Renewal Team, a job training and placement company. Targeted
low-income populations were represented by Social Service organizations
such as Connecticut DSS, Hartford DHS, and the greater Hartford Legal
Assistance Center.

> The Task Force solicited direct input from welfare recipients and
> low-income individuals through two surveys. One was a survey of all
> new TANF clients and the other was a survey of former clients who had
> recently found jobs. These two surveys provided important information
> that was incorporated into the regional JARC plan developed by the
> Task Force.
>
> *Finance*
>
> The early involvement of many state agencies has ensured a strong
> commitment of matching funds and has strengthened the potential for
> long-term funding. The statewide collaboration introduced JARC
> concepts into a State of Connecticut application for a new Federal DSS
> grant program.
>
> The partners, representing the five regions, agreed that a share of
> the overall funding should be set aside as a discretionary fund to
> support inter-regional services and to address equity issues
> statewide. Approximately 20 percent of the total funding was reserved
> for these uses.
>
> The coordination among regional partners limited regional competition
> for state funds. In the North Central Region, a \$950,000 grant from
> the Connecticut Division of Social Services will more than match FTA
> JARC funds of \$533,000. In addition substantial in-kind services
> complemented state and federal funds. These in-kind services, provided
> through the CRCOG and the member agencies of the JARC Task Force,
> include identification of potential clients\' transportation brokerage
> services, and job training, development, and placement services.
>
> Operations
>
> JARC funds will be used to support service expansion and
> marketing/information efforts. Existing transportation providers will
> provide services, and the CRCOG will act as a transportation brokers,
> matching JARC clients with the most efficient and cost-effective
> transportation services.
>
> 39
>
> Different transportation providers will be utilized for different
> needs: one will provide vanpool services, one will provide
> demand-responsive services, and one will provide fixed-route bus
> service.
>
> Ridershare, one of the project partners, will conduct a campaign to
> increase employer-based programs. Rideshare staff will meet with
> employers to make them aware of the JARC program and to assess the
> potential for meeting their employment needs through the program. A
> second phase will involve broad-based marketing and telemarketing
> campaigns directed at employers throughout the region.

*Appendices*

*A: Description of University of Illinois Study*

> Researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago studied the
> effects of the JARC program on JARC service users. They surveyed
> riders in May and June 2002, as a part of site visits to 23 JARC
> project locations (Table 17). At least one representative site was
> selected from each of the ten FTA regions. Further, the population
> (size) of the area, the grant amount received by the provider, and the
> type of service offered (fixed route and demand response) were also
> considered in site selection. For the purposes of this study
> paratransit and vanpool services were considered demand response
> services. Recognizing that more responses would be obtained from users
> of fixed routes with higher ridership levels, the researchers visited
> almost as many demand responsive services, even though the majority of
> JARC funds are applied to fixed routes. Each site visit yielded data
> from service providers and program managers, as well as data from a
> survey of passengers. The passenger data collection effort yielded 534
> usable surveys.

**40**

> Table 16 Sites Visited by University of Illinois at Chicago

+-------+-------+---------------------------+-------+----------------+
| > *   | >     | > **Service Provider**    | > *   | **Type of      |
| *Site | **FTA |                           | *Type | Area\"**       |
| > Num | > Reg |                           | > of  |                |
| ber** | ion** |                           | > s   |                |
|       |       |                           | ervic |                |
|       |       |                           | e\*** |                |
+-------+-------+---------------------------+-------+----------------+
| **1** | **1** | **Brockton Area Transit,  | *     | **Medium       |
|       |       | MA**                      | *FR** | Urban**        |
+-------+-------+---------------------------+-------+----------------+
| **2** | **2** | **WestchesterDOT.NY**     | *     | **Medium       |
|       |       |                           | *FR** | Urban**        |
+-------+-------+---------------------------+-------+----------------+
| **3** | **2** | **Monmouth County, NJ     | *     | **N            |
|       |       | Transit, NJ**             | *FR** | on-Urbanized** |
+-------+-------+---------------------------+-------+----------------+
| **4** | **3** | **Weirton, Change Inc.,   | *     | **N            |
|       |       | WV**                      | *DR** | on-Urbanized** |
+-------+-------+---------------------------+-------+----------------+
| **5** | **3** | **Howard County Transit,  | *     | **N            |
|       |       | MD**                      | *FR** | on-Urbanized** |
+-------+-------+---------------------------+-------+----------------+
| **6** | **4** | **Spartanburg. SC**       | *     | **N            |
|       |       |                           | *DR** | on-Urbanized** |
+-------+-------+---------------------------+-------+----------------+
| **7** | **5** | **Chicago Transit         | *     | **Major        |
|       |       | Authority, IL**           | *FR** | Urban**        |
+-------+-------+---------------------------+-------+----------------+
| **8** | **5** | **Bloomington YWCA, IL**  | *     | **Medium       |
|       |       |                           | *DR** | Urban**        |
+-------+-------+---------------------------+-------+----------------+
| **9** | **5** | **Seed Transportation,    | *     | **Major        |
|       |       | Hennepin Co., MN**        | *DR** | Urban**        |
+-------+-------+---------------------------+-------+----------------+
| *     | **5** | **La Crosse Transit, La   | *     | **Medium       |
| *10** |       | Crosse, WI**              | *FR** | Urban**        |
+-------+-------+---------------------------+-------+----------------+
| *     | **5** | **MTA, Minneapolis, MN**  | *     | **Major        |
| *11** |       |                           | *FR** | Urban**        |
+-------+-------+---------------------------+-------+----------------+
| *     | **6** | **Jefferson Parish, LA**  | *     | **Major        |
| *12** |       |                           | *FR** | Urban**        |
+-------+-------+---------------------------+-------+----------------+
| *     | **6** | **Galveston, TX**         | *     | **Medium       |
| *13** |       |                           | *FR** | Urban**        |
+-------+-------+---------------------------+-------+----------------+
| *     | **7** | **Five Seasons Transit,   | *     | **Medium       |
| *14** |       | Cedar Rapids, IA**        | *DR** | Urban**        |
+-------+-------+---------------------------+-------+----------------+
| *     | **8** | **Transfort, Fort         | *     | **Medium       |
| *15** |       | Collins, CO\"\"**         | *FR** | Urban**        |
+-------+-------+---------------------------+-------+----------------+
| *     | **8** | **Loveland, CO**          | *     | **N            |
| *16** |       |                           | *FR** | on-Urbanized** |
+-------+-------+---------------------------+-------+----------------+
| *     | **9** | **Santa Rosa Transit,     | *     | **Medium       |
| *17** |       | CA**                      | *FR** | Urban**        |
+-------+-------+---------------------------+-------+----------------+
| *     | **9** | **Outreach, San Jose, CA  | *     | **Major        |
| *18** |       | \***                      | *DR** | Urban**        |
+-------+-------+---------------------------+-------+----------------+
| *     | **9** | **Alameda Contra Transit, | *     | **Major        |
| *19** |       | CA**                      | *FR** | Urban**        |
+-------+-------+---------------------------+-------+----------------+
| *     | *     | **Pacific Cab, Hillsboro, | *     | **N            |
| *20** | *10** | OR**                      | *DR** | on-Urbanized** |
+-------+-------+---------------------------+-------+----------------+
| *     | *     | **Mt Hood Cora College,   | *     | **Major        |
| *21** | *10** | Portland, OR**            | *DR** | Urban**        |
+-------+-------+---------------------------+-------+----------------+
| *     | *     | **North Seattle Community | *     | **Major        |
| *22** | *10** | College, WA**             | *DR** | Urban**        |
+-------+-------+---------------------------+-------+----------------+
| *     | *     | **King County Workforce,  | *     | **Major        |
| *23** | *10** | Seattle, WA**             | *DR** | Urban**        |
+-------+-------+---------------------------+-------+----------------+

> *B: Next Steps for JARC Program Evaluation and Assessment*
>
> With the assistance of a contractor who is familiar with the JARC
> program as well as program evaluation techniques, FTA is currently
> re-examining its strategies for collecting data and evaluating the
> JARC program in light of the difficulty that JARC grantees have
> demonstrated in submitting full reports on a timely basis. FTA will
> consider the reasonableness and the appropriateness of its reporting
> requirements, the means by which data is collected, and alternative
> strategies for data collection.

Earlier this year, FTA assembled a group of grantees to discuss
evaluation and data collection issues. This group suggested that the
frequency for reporting be reduced for all but ridership and cost data.
They also suggested that additional measures of program accomplishments
be developed to reflect the outcomes of activities such as providing
customer information and brokerage systems. Additionally, they concurred
that FTA should measure the impact of services on individuals served.
User surveys conducted by the University of Illinois at Chicago
initiated this effort, the results of which have been incorporated in
this report.

> **• FR- - Fixed Route; DR - Demand Responsive**
>
> **\*\* Based on the size of the city operating the service; not the
> size of the grantee area population**
>
> **\*\*\* Passengers surveyed by operator; these data not included in
> this summary**
>
> 41