PUBLIC TRANSIT

Information on Job 

Access and Reverse 

Commute Activities 

after 2012 Statutory

Changes

Report to Congressional Committees

May 2017

GAO-17-483

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-17-483, a report to 

congressional committees

May 2017

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Information on Job Access and Reverse Commute 

Activities after 2012 Statutory Changes

What GAO Found

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) communicated changes that Moving 

Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) made to public 

transportation programs, including the Job Access and Reverse Commute 

(JARC) program, to designated recipients through program guidance and 

outreach. For example, in an October 2012 Federal Register notice, FTA 

addressed the consolidation of the JARC program and its eligible activities

(JARC activities) into the existing Urbanized Area Formula Program (urban 

transit program) and the Formula Grants for Rural Areas Program (rural transit 

program). Additionally, in 2014, FTA issued final guidance on JARC activities

allowed under the urban and rural transit programs. In addition to written 

guidance, FTA officials offered webinars and made staff available via in-person 

meetings, calls, and e-mail messages to answer any questions or concerns 

about the 2012 program change. Of the 34 selected JARC recipients (selected 

recipients) GAO interviewed, most (22) stated that they found the guidance 

provided to them, either by FTA directly or by other means, to be sufficient and 

effective in communicating program changes. 

Most of the selected recipients we interviewed (30 of 34) said that they have 

continued to provide some level of JARC activities after the 2012 statutory

changes. Selected recipients cited several reasons why they continue—or plan 

to continue—providing JARC activities, including: 

• recipients still have remaining dedicated JARC funds,

• overall federal transit formula amounts were unchanged, and

• JARC activities have already been integrated into existing transit

services.

The 34 selected recipients GAO interviewed also identified an array of 

challenges in continuing their JARC activities. All but one of the selected 

recipients specified funding challenges related to MAP-21 changes. In particular, 

21 selected recipients reported JARC activities had difficulty competing against 

other public services, including transit services, for funds, and 17 reported yearto-year funding allocations for continued JARC activities could change. In 

addition, 25 selected recipients specified service challenges linked to the location 

of low-income housing and employment centers. GAO found that it is too soon to 

determine the full impact of the statutory changes on JARC activities. This

finding is in part due to the number of grant recipients and subrecipients still 

spending dedicated funds apportioned before the 2012 statutory changes. Half of 

the 34 selected recipients GAO interviewed reported that they were still spending 

dedicated JARC funds, and recent FTA data indicate that as of February 2017, 

there were approximately 265 active program grants funding JARC activities. 

Officials from 7 of the 17 selected recipients that have already expended all of 

their JARC program funding stated that they are uncertain whether or not they 

will be able to obtain long-term funding to continue to support JARC activities 

into future years. 

View GAO-17-483. For more information, 

contact Mark Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or 

goldsteinm@gao.gov. 

Why GAO Did This Study

Established in 1998, the JARC

program, which was administered by 

FTA, provided grants to states and 

localities for improving the mobility of 

low-income individuals to and from 

jobs and employment-related activities. 

In 2005, statute changed JARC into a 

formula program with dedicated funds 

apportioned by FTA. Then in 2012, 

MAP-21 repealed and consolidated the 

JARC program. However, activities 

previously funded through the JARC 

program are still eligible for funding 

through other programs administered 

by FTA. 

The Fixing America’s Surface 

Transportation Act included a provision 

for GAO to examine the impact of 

changes that MAP-21 had on public 

transportation. This report examines: 

(1) how FTA communicated the 2012 

statutory changes to JARC activities to 

transit providers and (2) whether and 

how selected states and transit 

providers have continued to fund and 

provide JARC activities since the 2012 

statutory changes. GAO reviewed FTA

program guidance. GAO interviewed 

FTA officials and 34 selected recipients 

of JARC funding, including 

transportation officials and transit 

providers, from six states (Arizona, 

Michigan, Mississippi, Oregon, Texas, 

and Virginia). GAO judgmentally 

selected these JARC recipients for 

interviews to represent diverse 

geographic locations, including largeurban, small-urban, and rural funding 

areas within each state, among other 

factors. 

GAO provided a draft of this report to 

DOT for comment. DOT had no 

comment on this report.
Page i GAO-17-483 Public Transit

Letter 1

Background 3

FTA Issued Guidance and Conducted Outreach to Communicate 

That JARC Activities Remain Eligible for Federal Funding 7

Selected Recipients Continue to Provide JARC Activities, but the 

Full Impact of Statutory Changes Is Unclear 9

Agency Comments 17

Appendix I Selected Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) Designated 

Recipient and Subrecipient Interviews 18

Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements 20

Tables

Table 1: Selected Recipients Reported Challenges in Continuing 

the Goals of the Dedicated Job Access and Reverse 

Commute (JARC) Program 15

Table 2: Selected Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) 

Designated Recipient and Subrecipient Interviews 18

Figures

Figure 1: Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) 

Authorization Timeline 4

Figure 2: Dedicated Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) 

Grant Process under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA-LU) 6

Contents
Page ii GAO-17-483 Public Transit

Abbreviations

DOT U.S, Department of Transportation 

FAST Act Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act 

FTA Federal Transit Administration 

JARC Job Access and Reverse Commute 

MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act 

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity

 Act—A Legacy for Users of 2005 

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century of 1998 

TriMet Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-17-483 Public Transit

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

May 4, 2017

The Honorable Michael Crapo

Chairman

The Honorable Sherrod Brown

Ranking Member

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Bill Shuster

Chairman

The Honorable Peter A. DeFazio

Ranking Member

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

Access to transportation is critical for enabling low-income individuals to 

find and retain employment and attend to other life needs. To help 

provide this access, Congress established the Job Access and Reverse 

Commute (JARC) program in 1998.1 Administered by the U.S. 

Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), the JARC program provided grants to states and localities to fill 

gaps in transportation services for low-income individuals needing access 

to jobs and related services, such as child care and training. JARC funds 

could also be used for public transportation activities designed to 

transport residents in both urbanized and rural areas to suburban 

employment opportunities regardless of income.2 In 2012, the Moving 

Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21)3 made a number of 

changes to public transportation programs, including repealing and 

consolidating the JARC program.4 However, activities previously funded 

through the JARC program are still eligible for funding through other 

programs administered by FTA. Since this change, questions have been 

 1 Pub. L. No. 105-178 § 3037, 112 Stat. 107, 387 (1998).

2 An urbanized area is an incorporated area with a population of 50,000 or more that is 

designated as such by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Rural 

areas have populations of less than 50,000. 

3 Pub. L, No 112-141 § 20002(a), 126 Stat. 405. 622 (2012).

4 When we use JARC program in this report, we are referring to the funds apportioned 

and grant projects started under JARC prior to the 2012 statutory changes.

Letter
Page 2 GAO-17-483 Public Transit

raised about the impacts of the program’s consolidation on funding 

recipients, and any effects it has had on transit services targeting lowincome users.

The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) included a 

provision for us to analyze and evaluate possible impacts of changes 

made to public transportation activities under MAP-21 on low-income 

riders.5 This report examines (1) how FTA communicated the 2012 

statutory changes to JARC activities to transit providers and (2) whether 

and how selected states and transit providers have continued to fund and 

provide JARC activities since the 2012 statutory changes.

To determine how FTA communicated the MAP-21 changes to the JARC 

program we reviewed FTA program guidance, including a federal register 

publication and applicable program circulars. We also interviewed FTA 

officials and representatives of relevant stakeholder groups, such as the 

Community Transportation Association of America, American Association 

of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the National Rural 

Transit Assistance Program. To determine the current status of JARC 

program activities that started before the 2012 statutory changes, we 

reviewed fiscal year 2009 through 2012 funding information on program 

apportionments, and FTA program information about ongoing JARC 

activities as of February 2017.6

To answer both objectives, we interviewed a total of 34 entities from six 

states (Arizona, Michigan, Mississippi, Oregon, Texas, and Virginia).7

This population included officials from the 6 selected state transportation 

agencies, as well as 13 selected large-urban JARC program’s designated 

recipients and 15 subrecipients, which consisted of local transit agencies 

and nonprofit organizations, among others.8 We selected states and 

JARC recipient agencies to interview to include a range of geographic 

 5 Pub.L. No.114-94, § 3027,129 Stat. 1312, 1495 (2015).

6 When we use the term JARC activities in this report, we are referring to all eligible JARC 

projects, programs, and services previously funded under the dedicated JARC program, 

which have since been consolidated into other existing FTA funding streams.

7 See appendix I for a table listing all 34 selected JARC recipients we interviewed. 

8 A designated recipient is a state or local entity that has been designated to administer 

and distribute JARC funds to local agencies and subrecipient agencies. Subrecipients of 

JARC funds could be local transit agencies, non-profit organizations, or local government 

authorities that received JARC funds for eligible activities.
Page 3 GAO-17-483 Public Transit

locations, states that received large amounts of JARC program funds, as 

well as states that received smaller JARC funding amounts. We also 

reviewed a list provided by FTA of ongoing JARC program activities 

funded prior to the MAP-21 statutory changes to assist in our selection. 

All selected recipients we interviewed had received dedicated JARC 

program funds and were either actively administering, or had recently 

completed, their eligible JARC grant activities. We developed interview 

question sets to use with designated recipients and subrecipients. We 

then analyzed responses from our interview question set with the 34 

selected JARC recipients (selected recipients). To conduct this analysis, 

we established high-level categories of responses, and reviewed the 

recipients’ answers to interview questions to determine any common 

themes in selected recipient responses, and quantify those responses. 

One analyst conducted the categorization of responses, and a second 

analyst reviewed this analysis. Results of this analysis are not 

generalizable.

We conducted this performance audit from April 2016 to May 2017 in 

accordance with the generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Public transportation provides many groups with wide-ranging benefits. 

Those served include transportation disadvantaged populations, such as 

“low-income individuals”.

9 Congress created the JARC program in the 

1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) to support 

national welfare-reform goals,10 including helping adults meet new work 

 9 The term “low-income individual” is defined in an FTA circular as an individual whose 

family income is at or below 150 percent of the poverty line, as defined in Section 673(2) 

of the Community Services Block Grant Act Pub, L. No. 97-35, § 673, 95 Stat. 357, 512

(1981) as amended by Pub . L. No. 105-285, § 201, 112 Stat, 2729 (1998), codified at 42 

U.S.C. § 9902(2), including any revision required by that Section, for a family of the size 

involved.

10 Pub. L. No. 105-178, § 3037, 112 Stat. 197, 387 (1998)

Background
Page 4 GAO-17-483 Public Transit

requirements to receive federal assistance.11 A purpose of the program 

was to improve low-income individuals’ ability to access jobs and jobrelated needs by providing grants to states and localities for the provision 

of additional or expanded transportation services. Under TEA-21, JARC 

was a discretionary program, with projects selected by FTA for funding 

through a competitive process or congressionally designated for funding.

Figure 1 provides a timeline of subsequent surface transportation 

authorizations that affected the program.

Figure 1: Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) Authorization Timeline

a

The FAST Act is the current surface transportation authorization.

In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act —A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) changed JARC into a formula 

program.12 FTA apportioned dedicated program funds to states for 

projects in small urbanized and rural areas, and to large urbanized areas, 

based on a statutory formula. State transportation agencies were required 

to be JARC designated recipients for small urbanized and rural areas. 

Designated recipients for large urbanized areas include major transit 

 11 The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Pub. L. 

No. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105 (1996) substantially changed the system for providing 

assistance to low-income families with children by replacing existing entitlement programs 

with a fixed block grant to states to provide Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

(TANF). Among other things, TANF imposed a work requirement for adults.

12 For more details on the SAFETEA-LU changes to JARC see GAO, Federal Transit 

Administration: Progress Made in Implementing Changes to the Job Access Program, but 

Evaluation and Oversight Processes Need Improvement, GAO-07-43 (Washington, D.C.: 

Nov.17, 2006).
Page 5 GAO-17-483 Public Transit

agencies and metropolitan planning organizations.13 SAFETEA-LU also 

required that designated recipients develop and conduct a competitive 

selection process for their projects, and competitively allocate funds to 

subrecipients. After projects were selected, designated recipients had to 

apply to FTA to fund the projects. FTA awarded grants to designated 

recipients and funds were obligated at the time of award. Figure 2 below 

provides an overview of the JARC grants process under SAFETEA-LU. 

Program-eligible activities included, among others: late-night and 

weekend transit service, expansion of fixed-route public transit routes 

(e.g., bus routes), ride-sharing activities, local car loan programs, or 

capital expenditures such as vehicle purchases to support a transit 

service.14 In fiscal year 2012, the last year before the program was 

consolidated, FTA apportioned approximately $176.5 million to urbanized 

and rural areas. Funds were available for obligation for 3 years from the 

time of apportionment. JARC funds remain subject to the program 

requirements that were in place at the time the funds were apportioned.

 13 Small urbanized areas as used in the context of FTA formula grant programs are 

urbanized areas with a population of at least 50,000 but less than 200,000. Rural area is 

any area outside of an urbanized area where the population is under 50,000. Large 

urbanized areas as used in the context of FTA formula grant programs are urbanized 

areas with a population of 200,000 or more.

14 For a complete listing of eligible JARC activities under SAFETEA-LU, see Appendix II in 

GAO, Job Access and Reverse Commute Program: Progress Made in Using Funds and 

Stakeholder Views on Proposed Program Changes, GAO-11-518 (Washington, D.C.: May 

26, 2011).
Page 6 GAO-17-483 Public Transit

Figure 2: Dedicated Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) Grant Process 

under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 

for Users (SAFETEA-LU)

In 2012, the JARC program was one of several FTA grant programs that 

MAP-21 changed or did not renew. Specifically, the statute consolidated 

eligible JARC activities into the existing Urbanized Area Formula Program 

(urban transit program) and Formula Grants for Rural Areas Program 

(rural transit program). Eligible activities of the consolidated urban and 

rural transit programs are as follows.

• Urban transit program: In addition to providing funds for eligible 

JARC activities in urbanized areas, this program provides funds for 

activities including: (1) planning, certain operating costs, engineering, 

design, and evaluation of transit projects and other technical 

transportation-related studies; (2) capital investments in bus and busrelated activities; and (3) capital investments in new and existing 

fixed-guideway systems including, but not limited to, rolling stock, 

overhauling and rebuilding of vehicles, and communications.
Page 7 GAO-17-483 Public Transit

• Rural transit program: In addition to providing funds for eligible 

JARC activities in rural areas, this program provides funds for 

activities including: (1) planning; (2) capital expenses for the 

acquisition of buses and vans or other paratransit vehicles; (3) 

preventive maintenance, vehicle rehabilitation, remanufacture, or 

overhaul; and (4) operating expenses directly related to system 

operations

We have previously noted that consolidation was seen as a means of 

continuing the goals of the program while offering greater efficiency and 

flexibility, including decreasing administrative burdens, to recipients.15

FTA communicated changes that MAP-21 made to public transportation 

programs, including the JARC program, to designated recipients through 

program guidance and outreach. Initially, FTA issued a Federal Register

notice regarding FTA transit program changes in October 2012.16 The 

notice provided interim guidance and emphasized that under MAP-21, 

activities that were funded through the former JARC program are eligible 

under the urban transit program and the rural transit program. The notice 

also stated that there is no set-aside or spending cap on JARC activities.

After the 2012 consolidation, DOT applied all of the JARC eligibility 

requirements and existing activities in the urban transit program and rural 

transit program. For example, FTA officials explained that they 

incorporated a unique aspect of grantee eligibility under the JARC 

program—the eligibility of private nonprofit organizations as subrecipients—in the urban transit program.17 FTA issued circulars with the 

final MAP-21 program guidance in 2014.18 The circulars reiterated that 

there is no limit to the amount of allocated and unobligated formula funds 

that can be used for JARC activities until Congress rescinds or redirects 

the funds to other programs, and outlined the eligibility requirements for 

these activities.

 15 GAO-11-518.

16 Notice 77 Fed. Reg. 63,670 (Oct. 16, 2012).

17 For the rural program, private nonprofit organizations were eligible sub-recipients for 

FTA funds prior to MAP-21 changes. 

18 FTA Circular 9030.1E Urbanized Area Formula Program: Program Guidance And 

Application Instructions and FTA Circular 9040.1G Formula Grants For Rural Areas: 

Program Guidance And Application Instructions.

FTA Issued Guidance 

and Conducted 

Outreach to 

Communicate That 

JARC Activities 

Remain Eligible for 

Federal Funding
Page 8 GAO-17-483 Public Transit

As part of its outreach to funding recipients, FTA held webinars 

highlighting new and consolidated programs under MAP-21, and the 

JARC program was among the programs covered. Additionally, FTA 

officials stated that headquarters and regional FTA officials made 

themselves available through conferences, or other means such as 

telephone calls or e-mail, to answer questions or concerns regarding the 

consolidation and its potential impacts on JARC activities. Selected 

recipients we spoke with said they found out about changes to the JARC 

program through FTA webinars or designated JARC recipients.

• Of the 19 selected designated recipients we interviewed, a majority 

(12 of 19) said they found out about the JARC consolidation primarily 

through webinars and FTA’s summer 2012 conference.19 Some also 

reported they viewed their contact with FTA officials as a useful 

resource as they navigated the program changes. For example, an 

official with the Texas Department of Transportation said he found 

FTA staff to be the most important resource during program changes, 

because the staff was available for questions and feedback. 

Furthermore, this official told us that his agency had meetings twice a 

year with subrecipients, and FTA staff joined those meetings to assist 

in answering a range of questions or concerns, including those on 

JARC activities, from subrecipients.

• Of the 15 selected subrecipients we interviewed, about half (7) 

reported finding out about the JARC program changes through their 

state’s transportation agency or other designated recipient. For 

example, an official with a Mississippi subrecipient said it found out 

about the JARC consolidation and its implications at the annual 

workshop held by the Mississippi Department of Transportation to 

assist agencies with grant applications. In Arizona, an official with a 

selected subrecipient said he learned about the JARC program 

changes through its metropolitan planning organization’s committee 

meeting.

Of the 34 total selected recipients we interviewed, 22 stated they found 

the guidance provided to them, either from FTA directly or through their 

respective designated recipients, to be sufficient and effective in 

 19 The 19 selected designated recipients we interviewed consist of 6 state DOTs and 13 

non-state DOT organizations, such as local transit agencies and metropolitan planning 

organizations.
Page 9 GAO-17-483 Public Transit

communicating program changes.20 For example, an official from a 

designated recipient in Mississippi who characterized FTA’s 

communications as effective noted that the information was readily 

available, but that it was primarily up to recipients to read the guidance 

and follow up with FTA on any questions or concerns. An official from a 

selected subrecipient in Virginia said that the state’s communication 

regarding the MAP-21 program changes was good and that FTA’s written 

resources also provided useful details on the changes.

Almost all (30 of 34) selected recipients reported that they have continued 

providing JARC activities, such as transportation services, that were 

started prior to the 2012 MAP-21 consolidation.21 About two-thirds (22) of 

the selected recipients we interviewed have maintained all such activities. 

Officials from half of the selected recipients (17) reported that they still are 

expending dedicated JARC program funds received prior to the 2012 

statutory changes to support their ongoing JARC activities, and that they 

plan to continue using those funds until they are depleted.22 Further, all 

selected recipients reported that they have had to address, or anticipate 

having to address, service or funding challenges in order to continue their 

JARC activities. Despite reported challenges, all selected recipients 

except one reported they are working to maintain their JARC activities, 

including service hour expansions and commuter bus routes. Some 

selected recipients reported that it is too soon to tell whether they will 

need to make additional adjustments to their JARC activities in the future 

because of possible year-to-year funding challenges.

 20 Of the remaining 12 agencies we interviewed, 9 either had no response or could not 

provide an answer about the 2012 transition period. The remaining 3 agencies said the 

level of detail in the guidance was not sufficient to meet their needs during the transition.

21 The remaining 4 recipients used dedicated JARC funds for activities that they have 

completed, such as capital expenditures for vehicles, or transit pilot programs that the 

MAP-21 consolidation did not affect.

22 As noted above, under SAFETEA-LU funding remained available for obligation for 3 

years from the time of apportionment for eligible JARC activities, but there was no time 

limit on when the funds had to be fully expended. 

Selected Recipients 

Continue to Provide 

JARC Activities, but 

the Full Impact of 

Statutory Changes Is 

Unclear
Page 10 GAO-17-483 Public Transit

Of the 34 selected recipients we interviewed, 30 had continued JARC 

activities, such as ongoing transit service, started prior to the MAP-21 

changes. These selected recipients reported that they have maintained 

some level of JARC activities using a number of funding sources, 

including urban or rural transit program funds and remaining JARC 

program funds. Specifically, about two-thirds of selected recipients (22 of 

34) reported continuing all of their previous JARC activities to date, and 

just under one-quarter (8 of 34) said they continue to provide downsized 

or redesigned JARC activities. The remaining 4 selected recipients had 

used their JARC program funds to complete short-term activities, such as 

capital expenditures for vehicles or pilot transit programs, which were not

affected by the MAP-21 changes.

Through analysis of our interviews with selected recipients, we identified 

a number of reasons recipients have been able to continue JARC 

activities after the MAP-21 program changes. These reasons include the 

following:

• Remaining dedicated JARC funds: Seventeen of the 34 recipients 

reported that they have not yet expended all of their dedicated funds 

and continue to use them to fund JARC activities. Officials from 5 

selected recipients reported that when MAP-21 was implemented in 

2012, they started planning their expenditure of remaining dedicated 

funds to sustain existing JARC activities into future years.23 For 

example, officials at Texas Department of Transportation, a selected 

designated recipient, reported redistributing dedicated funds that their 

subrecipients had not expended in a timely manner to other eligible 

subrecipients’ ongoing JARC activities. Those funds were fully 

expended in August 2016. Additionally, in Oregon, officials from TriCounty Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet), a 

selected designated recipient, said they distributed remaining 

dedicated JARC funds to subrecipients, which used this funding in 

combination with local funds to maintain their transit services 

connecting residential neighborhoods and employment centers to 

longer or more heavily used transit routes. The officials said they 

expect to close out their final dedicated program grant in June 2017.

• Overall federal transit formula funding amounts were 

unchanged: None of the 19 selected designated recipients we 

 23 Three of these five selected JARC recipients reported they still had JARC funds 

remaining at the time we interviewed them.

Selected Recipients 

Stated That to Date, They 

Have Continued Funding 

and Providing JARC 

Activities
Page 11 GAO-17-483 Public Transit

interviewed reported a significant overall change to their annual FTA 

formula funding allocations attributable to the statutory changes. In 

addition, five of those designated recipients noted that the changes 

led to overall benefits, including reduced administrative burden and 

increased spending flexibility of federal funds. For example, officials 

from Maricopa Association of Governments, a selected designated 

recipient in Arizona, explained that they were able to re-evaluate

ongoing service and capital needs and reallocate some unused funds 

(in this case, urban transit program funds that they had initially chosen 

to set aside for JARC activities) to undertake bus stop capital 

upgrades. According to the officials, the reallocation had no impact on 

their subrecipients’ JARC activities, and the added funding flexibility 

was beneficial to the region’s transit system as a whole.

• JARC activities integrated into existing transit services: Half of 

selected recipients (17 of 34) reported that their JARC program 

funded activities fulfilled a variety of citizens’ transportation needs, 

encouraging the providers to continue those JARC activities using 

alternate funding sources after the 2012 statutory changes. For 

example, officials with Ride Connection, a selected Oregon 

subrecipient, stated that their ongoing JARC transit service has 

become an important transportation option serving the broader 

community with trips to schools and grocery stores, in addition to job 

centers. A dedicated program grant currently funds this service, but 

officials we spoke with said they are actively seeking alternate funds 

to maintain it. Additionally, officials with Blue Water Area Transit, a 

selected Michigan subrecipient, told us that late-night bus service 

initially funded under the JARC program has become popular with a 

wider population, helping increase ridership on their other transit 

services. Due to the ridership increase, officials reported that the 

agency is able to cover a greater portion of operating expenses using 

revenue from fares, providing an overall benefit to the system. Four of 

the recipients we selected provide transit service in university 

communities. Those transit officials said that students, faculty, and 

other campus employees make up a large portion of transit riders in 

their jurisdictions. This customer base creates demand for expanded 

transit service hours, like extended weekday hours of operation and 

weekend service, which JARC program grants had previously funded. 

These selected recipients all reported that they now receive dedicated 

local transit funding from the university or surrounding jurisdiction to 

maintain these services.

• Importance of JARC activities to the community: Officials from just 

over one-third of selected recipients we interviewed (12 of 34) stated 

that transportation for low-income workers is a high priority in their 
Page 12 GAO-17-483 Public Transit

communities, and they are willing to seek out additional funds in order 

to sustain JARC activities.24 For example, TriMet reported receiving 

political support from its regional business community for transit 

access to low-wage employment centers, particularly during off-peak 

hours such as evenings and weekends when transit service can be 

limited. TriMet officials explained that their transit system attracts 

relatively high interest from employers because their main local 

funding source is a payroll tax. Additionally, officials with Flint Mass 

Transportation Authority, a selected Michigan designated recipient, 

reported that limited job availability in their metropolitan area creates a 

high demand for JARC commuter bus routes that service employment 

centers in other jurisdictions. According to the officials, the funding 

needs of their commuter service limit the amount of funding available 

for other needs such as capital purchases.

Officials from the eight selected recipients said they continue to provide 

downsized or redesigned JARC activities, service modifications or other 

changes that have enabled them to maintain a level of JARC activities to 

help meet low-income riders’ needs. Reported adjustments fell into three 

categories:

• Realigning service and funding: Two selected recipients reported 

redesigning their JARC activities. Lower Rio Grande Valley 

Development Council, a selected designated recipient in Texas, 

reported realigning one 50-mile long JARC funded route into three 

separate routes to more efficiently meet rider needs. These bus 

routes serve affordable housing projects in rural areas—locations that, 

according to officials, had limited transit options before the service 

began—and job centers in urban areas such as industrial parks and 

universities. Additionally, officials with Suburban Mobility Authority for 

Regional Transportation, a selected Michigan designated recipient, 

reported that one of their subrecipients, a nonprofit transit provider, 

adjusted service on a JARC funded demand response bus service to 

better align it with community needs and funding sources.25 The 

 24 The remaining 22 selected recipients we interviewed did not discuss how, if at all, the 

importance of the JARC activities affected their abilities to continue them after 

consolidation. 

25 Demand response transit service is any non-fixed route system transporting individuals 

and requiring advanced scheduling by the customer. The vehicles typically do not operate 

over a fixed route or on a fixed schedule, can be dispatched to pick up several passengers 

at different pick-up points before taking them to their respective destinations, and can 

deviate to pick up or drop off other passengers en route to those destinations. 
Page 13 GAO-17-483 Public Transit

officials said the service primarily served elderly and disabled riders; 

after fully expending dedicated JARC funds, the officials have used 

funds from FTA’s Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Persons with 

Disabilities program to maintain the service.26 However, they also said 

that as a result of this funding change, the service’s target ridership 

now focuses exclusively on seniors and persons with disabilities in 

order to comply with program requirements.

• Adjusting service hours or frequencies: Two selected recipients 

informed us that they were unable to sustain all activities started with 

JARC program grants, but have adjusted service hours and 

frequencies to allow them to continue some such activities after the 

program changes. Officials with the Oregon Department of 

Transportation, a selected designated recipient, reported that a 

number of their subrecipients that provide transit service used 

dedicated JARC program grants to fund enhancements such as 

expanded service hours, more extensive service areas, and increased 

bus frequencies. After the statutory changes, some of Oregon 

Department of Transportation’s subrecipients had to partially cut back 

their transit service enhancements, but aspects of the enhancements 

remain. More specifically, officials said that one of their subrecipients 

maintained 2 of the 4 hours of enhanced bus service, but eliminated 

the 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. window after the JARC funds ran out. 

Blacksburg Transit, a selected Virginia subrecipient, reported reducing 

service on a JARC commuter bus route from two round trips per day 

to one daily round trip, which it said allowed them to fulfill a 

community need while reducing the cost of the service.

• Discontinuing select low-ridership JARC activities: Officials with 4 

selected recipients explained that they discontinued some JARC 

activities with limited ridership.27 According to these recipients, they 

have found ways to provide alternate services for transportationdisadvantaged individuals, including those commuting to low-wage 

jobs. For example, officials with Detroit Department of Transportation, 

a selected designated recipient in Michigan, reported discontinuing a 

demand response service after their dedicated JARC funding was 

expended. The officials explained that they used city resources to 

 26 The Enhanced Mobility for Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities program, codified at 

49 U.S.C. § 5310, provides formula funding to states to serve the special needs of transitdependent populations beyond traditional public-transportation services. These funds can 

be used for capital, planning, and operations expenditures.

27 These recipients started their JARC activities using funds apportioned prior to the MAP21 consolidation.
Page 14 GAO-17-483 Public Transit

assist individuals that used the demand response service in finding 

more transit-accessible workplaces, and utilized federal and local 

funds to enhance existing fixed route bus service. Additionally, 

officials with Brownsville Metro, a selected subrecipient transit agency 

in Texas, reported that they discontinued one of their JARC bus 

routes when a local university that directly benefited from the service 

could no longer provide the required matching funds to maintain the 

route. However, a different JARC route funded through a partnership 

with a neighboring county continues operation.

Selected recipients reported facing service and funding challenges in 

continuing JARC activities after the statutory changes in 2012. FTA 

officials explained that low-income transit users may live or work in areas 

that are not adjacent to heavily-serviced transit areas, a situation that can 

make JARC activities more expensive to provide than other transit 

service. A majority of our selected recipients (25 of 34) reported service 

challenges due to factors such as location of housing or employment 

characteristics of low income individuals (e.g., working late-night hours or 

weekends). Additionally, officials with almost all selected recipients (33 of 

34) reported facing challenges pertaining to funding. For example, many 

noted that they have had difficulty competing for funds against other 

public services. Table 1 below highlights some of the service and funding 

challenges our selected recipients identified, as well as examples of 

methods some selected recipients used to address these challenges.

Selected JARC Recipients 

Identified Some Ongoing 

Funding and Service 

Challenges, as well as 

Possible Methods for 

Addressing Challenges
Page 15 GAO-17-483 Public Transit

Table 1: Selected Recipients Reported Challenges in Continuing the Goals of the Dedicated Job Access and Reverse 

Commute (JARC) Program

Challenge GAO’s summary of common issues selected 

recipients identified

Examples of methods used to address challenges

JARC service 

challenges 

• Low-income residential areas can be located 

far from job centers, locations that can make 

provision of transit between the two locations 

difficult. (21 recipients)

• Some low-income employment may require 

regularly working weekends, late nights, or 

early morning hours that do not always 

coincide with transit hours of operation. (12 

recipients)

• Recipients in Arizona, Michigan, and Mississippi 

reported obtaining funds from employers served 

by commuter bus routes.

• Twenty-nine recipients reported continuing 

coordinated planning efforts to address service 

gaps and expend funds more efficiently. 

JARC related funding 

challenges after 2012 

statutory changes 

• JARC activities can have difficulty competing 

against other public services, including transit 

services, for funds. This can result in reduced 

overall competitive funding allocations from 

designated recipients to subrecipients, among 

other issues. (25recipients)

• Year-to-year funding allocations for continued 

JARC activities can vary or be uncertain. (17 

recipients)

• Regulatory changes affected how recipients 

can fund and manage JARC activities (8 

recipients). 

• Designated recipients in Arizona, Oregon, and 

Michigan reported setting aside a portion of their 

existing federal urban or rural transit program 

formula funds for JARC activities.

• Almost all recipients reported using public funds 

in addition to those from the urban and rural 

transit programs, including the Federal Transit 

Administration Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and 

Individuals with Disabilities program (6 

recipients), state or local funds designated for 

transportation activities (10 recipients), and state 

or local general funds. (20 recipients)

Source: GAO analysis of interviews with selected JARC recipients. | GAO-17-483

Note: In addition to the funding challenges listed above, 11 of the 34 selected JARC recipients 

reported that other funding challenges, such as broader economic issues and population changes 

affecting their formula funds, occurred at about the same time as the Moving Ahead for Progress in 

the 21st Century Act program changes. As such, the recipients faced a challenge in funding transit 

service, including JARC activity continuation, but the issue was broader and less impacted by the 

statutory changes.

A substantial amount of dedicated JARC funds apportioned in 2012 and 

earlier under SAFETEA-LU remains unspent. According to FTA data, as 

of February 2017, there are approximately 265 federally funded JARC 

program grants accounting for about $147.9 million still open with funds to 

expend. As noted earlier, half of our selected recipients reported that they 

have not yet expended all of their dedicated federal JARC funds.28 For 

those with dedicated funding still available, they may not yet have faced 

the decision of whether to continue to fund—or at what level to fund—

eligible JARC activities under the urban or rural transit program, whether 

 28 The JARC program’s funding amount is comprised of grants funded with JARC funds 

obligated in 2005 or later.

It Is Too Soon to 

Determine the Full Impact 

of Statutory Changes on 

JARC Activities
Page 16 GAO-17-483 Public Transit

to fund other eligible activities under those programs, or whether to seek 

additional nonfederal funds to continue their eligible JARC activities.

Officials with nine of the selected recipients with dedicated funds 

remaining said they have not yet finalized plans for continuing their 

current JARC activities after the funds are expended and that they were 

not sure if the activities would be maintained as-is or be adjusted. For 

example, Sun Metro Mass Transit Department, a selected designated 

recipient in Texas, reported that it plans to re-evaluate eligibility 

requirements for its JARC activities and analyze its regional transit 

priorities before making a final future funding decision. Also, officials with 

RADAR Transit, a selected Virginia subrecipient, reported that they are 

working to educate regional government officials about the benefits of the 

current JARC activities in advance of dedicated funds being expended, 

but officials are not sure whether they will be able to obtain local funds to 

replace their expended monies. However, the remaining eight of the 17 

selected recipients with dedicated funds remaining have developed plans 

to continue their JARC activities after spending all of the funds.29

Officials from 7 of the 17 selected recipients that have already expended 

all of their dedicated funds stated that they are uncertain whether they will 

be able to obtain long-term funding to continue to support JARC activities 

into future years. For example, a selected subrecipient transit agency in 

Michigan reported that to date the state has provided funding in the 

annual budget to sustain its JARC activities. However, that funding is not 

guaranteed to continue beyond year to year. Officials with a selected 

Mississippi subrecipient nonprofit transportation provider explained that 

the funding amounts they receive from local jurisdictions for their rural 

JARC transit service can be inconsistent, making it challenging for them 

to cover the local portion of their operating expenditures. Also, officials 

with Charlottesville Area Transit, a selected Virginia subrecipient, 

explained that the level of local and state funding, which they currently 

use to help sustain expanded transit service hours started with a JARC 

program grant, could change in the future. According to the officials, at 

any time their jurisdiction could redirect municipal funds to non-transit 

activities such as the city’s fire or police departments. Furthermore, these 

officials reported that Virginia’s state gas tax, which provides transit 

operating funds, is scheduled to sunset in 2019 and might not be 

 29 Methods these selected recipients developed to continue their JARC activities are 

included in Table 1.
Page 17 GAO-17-483 Public Transit

renewed. However, all seven selected recipients that have expended their 

dedicated funds and face such uncertainty indicated that they are seeking 

sustained, long-term funding sources to help them continue JARC 

activities in the future.

We provided a draft of this report to DOT for comment. DOT had no 

comments on this report.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Administrator of FTA, the Secretary of the Department of 

Transportation, and interested congressional committees. In addition, the 

report is available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at 202-512-2834 or GoldsteinM@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found at the 

last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix II.

Mark L. Goldstein,

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

Agency Comments
Appendix I: Selected Job Access and Reverse 

Commute (JARC) Designated Recipient and 

Subrecipient Interviews

Page 18 GAO-17-483 Public Transit

Table 2: Selected Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) Designated Recipient and Subrecipient Interviews

State Organization Name Description Recipient Type

Arizona Arizona Department of Transportation State transportation agency Designated recipient

Maricopa Association of Governments Metropolitan planning organization Designated recipient

City of Tucson Transit Services Division Local transit agency Designated recipient

Pima Association of Governments Metropolitan planning organization Subrecipient

Glendale Urban Shuttle Local transit agency Subrecipient

Michigan Michigan Department of Transportation State transportation agency Designated recipient

Detroit Department of Transportation Local transit agency Designated recipient

Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional 

Transportation

Local transit agency Designated recipient

Flint Mass Transportation Authority Local transit agency Designated recipient

Blue Water Area Transit Local transit agency Subrecipient

Twin Cities Area Transportation Authority Local transit agency Subrecipient

Mississippi Mississippi Department of Transportation State transportation agency Designated recipient

Coast Transit Authority Local transit agency Designated recipient

DJ Transit, Inc. Nonprofit organization Subrecipient

Climb-Up Nonprofit organization Subrecipient

Oregon Oregon Department of Transportation State transportation agency Designated recipient

Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of 

Oregon

Local transit agency Designated recipient

Lane Transit District Local transit agency Designated recipient

Corvallis Transit System Local transit agency Subrecipient

Ride Connection Nonprofit organization Subrecipient

Swan Island Business Association Nonprofit organization Subrecipient

Texas Texas Department of Transportation State transportation agency Designated recipient

Sun Metro Mass Transit Department Local transit agency Designated recipient

Lower Rio Grande Valley Development Council Metropolitan planning organization Designated recipient

Dallas Area Rapid Transit Local transit agency Designated recipient

Brownsville Metro Local transit agency Subrecipient

Sun City Cab Company For-profit company Subrecipient

Virginia Virginia Department of Rail and Public 

Transportation

State transportation agency Designated recipient

Greater Richmond Transit Company Local transit agency Designated recipient

Hampton Roads Transit Local transit agency Designated recipient

Charlottesville Area Transit Local transit agency Subrecipient

Blacksburg Transit Local transit agency Subrecipient

RADAR Transit Nonprofit organization Subrecipient

Appendix I: Selected Job Access and 

Reverse Commute (JARC) Designated 

Recipient and Subrecipient Interviews
Appendix I: Selected Job Access and Reverse 

Commute (JARC) Designated Recipient and 

Subrecipient Interviews

Page 19 GAO-17-483 Public Transit

State Organization Name Description Recipient Type

Human Kind Nonprofit organization Subrecipient

Source: GAO interviews with selected recipients. | GAO-17-483
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgements

Page 20 GAO-17-483 Public Transit

Mark L. Goldstein, (202) 512-2384, or goldsteinm@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, the following individuals made 

important contributions to this report: Heather MacLeod (Assistant 

Director), Betsey Ward-Jenks (Analyst-in-Charge), Dwayne Curry, 

Andrew Furillo, Delwen Jones, Elizabeth Wood, Rachel Frisk, Cheryl 

Peterson, and Max Sawicky.

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgements

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(100795)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov and read The Watchblog.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.