United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Housing and 

Transportation, Committee on Banking, 

Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate

PUBLIC 

TRANSPORTATION 

Preliminary Information on 

FTA’s Implementation of 

SAFETEA-LU Changes 

Statement of Katherine Siggerud 

Physical Infrastructure 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 2:30 p.m. EDT

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

 

GAO-06-910T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

June 27, 2006

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 

Preliminary Information on FTA’s 

Highlights of GAO-06-910T, a testimony Implementation of SAFETEA-LU Changes 

for the Subcommittee on Housing and 

Transportation, Committee on Banking, 

Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate 

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEALU) authorized a significant level of

investment—over $52 billion—for 

federal transit programs.

SAFETEA-LU also added new 

transit programs and made changes

to existing programs, including the

New Starts and Job Access and

Reverse Commute (JARC) 

programs. The New Starts program 

is a discretionary grant program for 

public transportation capital 

projects. The JARC program is 

intended to improve the mobility of 

low-income individuals seeking 

work. SAFETEA-LU authorized 

$8.6 billion for these two programs. 

The Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA) manages both of these

programs. 

This testimony discusses GAO’s 

preliminary findings on the (1) 

changes SAFETEA-LU made to the 

New Starts program, (2) changes

SAFETEA-LU made to the JARC 

program, and (3) issues that may 

be important as FTA moves 

forward with implementing the act. 

To address these objectives, GAO 

interviewed FTA officials, sponsors 

of New Starts projects, and

representatives from industry 

associations and reviewed FTA’s 

guidance on the New Starts and 

JARC programs and federal 

statutes, among other things. 

The changes SAFETEA-LU made to the New Starts program range from 

establishing the Small Starts program to introducing new evaluation criteria. 

FTA has taken some initial steps in implementing SAFETEA-LU changes,

including issuing an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) 

for the Small Starts program and guidance for the New Starts program in 

January 2006. The Small Starts program is intended to offer small projects 

an expedited and streamlined application and review process; however, the 

transit community has questioned whether the Small Starts program, as 

outlined in the ANPRM, would provide such a process. FTA’s guidance for 

the New Starts program identified and sought public input on possible 

changes to the program that would affect traditional New Starts projects, or 

large starts, such as revising the evaluation process to incorporate the new 

criteria identified by SAFETEA-LU. 

SAFETEA-LU also made a number of changes to the JARC program. One

key change was to change JARC from a discretionary to a formula-based 

program, which provides funds to states and large urbanized areas for JARC 

projects. Other SAFETEA-LU changes include allowing JARC recipients to 

use a portion of funds for planning activities and removing a limit on the 

amount of funds available for reverse commute projects. To implement 

these changes, FTA solicited comments and input through public listening 

sessions and program notices. FTA has released interim guidance for fiscal

year 2006, is currently developing draft final guidance for the JARC program, 

and plans to issue final guidance later this year. 

GAO’s past work suggests that transparency, communication, and 

accountability issues will be important as FTA moves forward in

implementing SAFETEA-LU changes to the New Starts and JARC programs. 

Since 1998, GAO has issued numerous reports on these programs, and many

of the reports contained recommendations to FTA on ways to improve the 

implementation of these programs. For example, GAO has reported that 

FTA could increase the transparency of the New Starts program by obtaining 

public input on proposed policy changes before they are implemented. 

SAFETEA-LU addressed some of these issues, and FTA has also taken steps 

to resolve some of them. For example, SAFETEA-LU requires FTA to 

publish for notice and comment any proposals that make significant changes 

to the New Starts program. Nevertheless, given the number of changes that 

are being made to both programs, continued focus on efforts to improve 

transparency, communication, and accountability will be important. 

FTA officials provided technical comments on a draft of this testimony, 

which were incorporated where appropriate. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-910T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Katherine 

Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or 

siggerudk@gao.gov. 
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on the Federal Transit 

Administration’s (FTA) implementation of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). 

As you know, SAFETEA-LU authorized a significant level of investment—

over $52 billion—for federal transit programs. This authorization provides 

funding for fiscal years 2004 through 2009, adds new transit programs, and 

makes changes to existing programs, including the New Starts and Job 

Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) programs. The New Starts program 

provides much of the federal government’s share of new fixed-guideway 

investments. Through the New Starts program, FTA identifies and selects

new fixed-guideway transit projects for funding—including heavy, light,

and commuter rail; ferry; and certain bus projects. The JARC program is 

intended to assist low-income individuals in accessing employment 

opportunities by attempting to fill gaps in public transportation services.

My testimony today examines the (1) changes SAFETEA-LU made to the

New Starts program, (2) changes SAFETEA-LU made to the JARC 

program, and (3) issues that may be important as FTA moves forward with 

implementing the act. My comments are based on our ongoing work for 

the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and the 

House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure as well as our 

body of work on the New Starts and JARC programs.1

 We will complete 

our ongoing work and report in full to the Committees later this year. For

our ongoing work, we interviewed FTA officials, sponsors of New Starts 

projects, a metropolitan planning organization, and representatives from

industry associations. We also reviewed FTA’s guidance on the New Starts 

and JARC programs, the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making 

(ANPRM) for the new capital investment program for Small Starts—a 

subcategory of new fixed guideway projects—and the public comments 

submitted to FTA’s docket on these documents. We also reviewed the 

provisions of SAFETEA-LU and of its predecessor, the Transportation 

Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), dealing with the New Starts and 

JARC programs, and attended FTA’s New Starts/Small Starts Seminar and 

 1

TEA-21 required GAO to evaluate both the New Starts evaluation and rating process and 

the JARC program on a regular basis. SAFETEA-LU continued similar requirements. In 

particular, we are required to review the New Starts evaluation and rating process each 

year and the JARC program beginning 1 year after the enactment of SAFETEA-LU and 

every 2 years thereafter. See the Related GAO Products at the end of this testimony for a 

listing of previous reports on these programs. 

Page 1 GAO-06-910T 
Listening Sessions in March and June 2006. We conducted our work from

February 2006 through June 2006 in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. 

In summary: 

• The eight changes SAFETEA-LU made to the New Starts program range 

from establishing the Small Starts program to identifying new evaluation

criteria. FTA has taken some initial steps to implement these changes, 

including issuing an ANPRM for the Small Starts program and guidance for 

the New Starts program, both in January 2006. The Small Starts program is 

a new component of the New Starts program and is intended to offer an

expedited and streamlined application and review process for small 

projects. The transit community, however, questioned whether the Small 

Starts program, as outlined in the ANPRM, would provide such a process. 

In its January 2006 guidance, FTA also identified and sought public input 

on possible changes to the New Starts program that would have an impact 

on traditional New Starts projects, or large starts, such as revising the 

evaluation process to incorporate the new criteria identified by SAFETEALU. According to FTA, a potential challenge in moving forward is 

incorporating both land use and economic development criteria into the 

evaluation process, including developing appropriate measures for the 

criteria and avoiding duplication in counting benefits. To address this 

issue, FTA suggested combining land use and economic development into 

a single measure. However, in the comments submitted to FTA, members 

of the transit community repeatedly stated that land use and economic 

development should not be combined into a single measure and that they 

should receive the same weight as cost-effectiveness in the evaluation and

rating process. 

• SAFETEA-LU made a number of changes to the JARC program. One key 

change was to change JARC from a discretionary to a formula-based 

program. Whereas funds for JARC projects were congressionally 

designated in recent years, SAFETEA-LU’s formula distributes funds to 

states and large urbanized areas.2

 This will significantly change the 

allocation of JARC funds as some states and urbanized areas receive more 

funds than under the discretionary program, others receive less, and some 

areas will receive funds that had not received JARC funds in the past. 

Other key changes resulting from SAFETEA-LU include allowing JARC 

 2

For this testimony, the term “states” includes the District of Columbia, American Samoa, 

Guam, the Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Large urbanized areas

are those areas with populations of 200,000 or more. 

Page 2 GAO-06-910T 
recipients to use a portion of funds for planning activities and removing a 

limit on the amount of funds available for reverse commute projects. To 

implement these changes, FTA began soliciting comments and input 

through public listening sessions and program notices in November 2005.

FTA has released interim guidance for fiscal year 2006, is currently 

developing draft final guidance for the JARC program, and plans to issue 

final guidance later this year. Potential challenges that FTA faces in 

moving forward include issuing guidance in a timely manner so that 

recipients can implement JARC programs, and determining how to 

incorporate JARC recipients into FTA’s oversight processes. 

• Our past work suggests that transparency, communication, and 

accountability issues will be important as FTA moves forward in 

implementing SAFETEA-LU changes to the New Starts and JARC 

programs. Since 1998, we have issued numerous reports on these 

programs, and many of the reports contained recommendations to FTA on 

ways to improve the programs’ implementation. For example, we have 

reported that FTA could increase the transparency of the New Starts 

program by obtaining public input on proposed policy changes before they 

are implemented. We have also reported that FTA could better measure 

the outcomes of the JARC program—an important step in holding the 

program accountable for results. SAFETEA-LU addressed some of these 

issues, and FTA has also taken steps to resolve some of them. For 

example, SAFETEA-LU requires FTA to publish for notice and comment 

any proposals that make significant changes to the New Starts program, 

which FTA did in January 2006. Members of the transit community and 

FTA officials have stated that they have been pleased with the review and

comment process. Nevertheless, given the number of changes that are 

being made to both programs, continued focus on efforts to improve 

transparency, communication, and accountability will be important. 

SAFETEA-LU authorized over $52 billion for federal transit programs, 

including the New Starts and JARC programs, from fiscal year 2005 

through fiscal year 2009. SAFETEA-LU authorized $7.9 billion for the New 

Starts program and $727 million for the JARC program. Both of these 

programs are managed by FTA. 

The New Starts program is a discretionary grant program for investments 

in new fixed-guideway projects. Under the statutorily-defined evaluation 

process for the New Starts program, FTA identifies and selects fixedguideway transit projects—including heavy, light, and commuter rail; 

ferry; and busway projects—for funding. FTA generally funds New Starts 

projects through full funding grant agreements (FFGA), which establish 

Background 

Page 3 GAO-06-910T 
the terms and conditions for federal participation in a New Starts project 

and also define a project’s scope, including the length of the system and 

the number of stations; the project’s schedule, including the date when the 

system is expected to open for service; and the project’s cost. To obtain an

FFGA, a project must progress through a local or regional review of 

alternatives and meet a number of federal requirements, including 

providing information for the New Starts evaluation and rating process. As 

required by SAFETEA-LU, New Starts projects must emerge from a 

regional, multimodal transportation planning process. The first two phases 

of the New Starts process—systems planning and alternatives analysis—

address this requirement. The systems planning phase identifies the 

transportation needs of a region, while the alternatives analysis phase 

provides information on the benefits, costs, and impacts of different 

corridor-level options, such as rail lines or bus routes. The alternatives 

analysis phase results in the selection of a locally preferred alternative—

which is intended to be the New Starts project that FTA evaluates, as 

required by statute. After a locally preferred alternative is selected, project 

sponsors seek FTA’s approval for entry into the preliminary engineering 

phase.3

 Following completion of preliminary engineering and federal 

environmental requirements—and assuming New Starts requirements 

continue to be met—FTA may approve the project’s advancement into 

final design,4

 after which FTA may approve the project for an FFGA and 

proceed to construction, as provided for in statute. FTA oversees grantees’ 

management of projects from the preliminary engineering phase through 

construction and evaluates the projects for advancement into each phase

of the process, as well as annually for the New Starts report to Congress. 

To help inform administration and congressional decisions about which 

projects should receive federal funds, FTA assigns ratings based on a 

 3

During the preliminary engineering phase, project sponsors refine the design of the

proposal, taking into consideration all reasonable design alternatives. This process results 

in estimates of the project’s costs, benefits, and impacts (e.g., financial or environmental).

According to FTA officials, to gain approval for entry into preliminary engineering, a

project must (1) have been identified through the alternatives analysis process, (2) be 

included in the region’s long-term transportation plan, (3) meet the statutorily defined

project justification and financial criteria, and (4) demonstrate that the sponsors have the

technical capability to manage the project during preliminary engineering. Federal New 

Starts funding may be used for preliminary engineering activities, if so appropriated by

Congress.

4

Final design is the last phase of project development before construction and may include

right-of-way acquisition, utility relocation, and the preparation of final construction plans 

and cost estimates. 

Page 4 GAO-06-910T 
variety of financial and project justification criteria, and then assigns an 

overall rating. For the fiscal year 2007 evaluation cycle, FTA used the 

financial and project justification criteria identified in TEA-21.

5

 These 

criteria reflect a broad range of benefits and effects of the proposed 

project, such as cost-effectiveness, as well as the ability of the project 

sponsor to fund the project and finance the continued operation of its 

transit system (see fig. 1). FTA assigns the proposed project a rating for 

each criterion, then assigns a summary rating for local financial 

commitment and project justification. Finally, FTA develops an overall 

project rating. Projects are rated at several points during the New Starts 

process—as part of the evaluation for entry into preliminary engineering 

and final design, and yearly for inclusion in the New Starts annual report 

that is submitted to Congress. 

 5

As will be discussed, SAFETEA-LU identified additional criteria for FTA to use in its 

evaluation and rating process. However, according to FTA’s January 2006 guidance, FTA 

does not plan to change the current framework and methodology for evaluating and rating 

New Starts projects (i.e., non-Small Starts projects) before publishing the new final rule for 

its New Starts program, which is expected in January 2008.

Page 5 GAO-06-910T 
Figure 1: New Starts Evaluation Process 

More recent than New Starts, the JARC program was created in 1998 in 

order to support the nation’s welfare reform goals. Without adequate 

transportation, welfare recipients face significant barriers in moving from 

welfare to work. In 1998, we reported that three-fourths of welfare 

recipients live in central cities or rural areas, while two-thirds of new 

entry-level jobs are located in suburbs. Public transportation facilities 

often offer limited or no access to many of these jobs.6

 JARC, which is 

administered by FTA, was designed to fill these gaps in transportation 

services for low-income individuals. 

JARC is intended to increase collaboration among transit agencies, local 

human service agencies, nonprofit organizations, and others and to 

improve the mobility of low-income individuals seeking work. Programs 

selected to receive grants—including the expansion of public 

 6

GAO, Welfare Reform: Implementing DOT’s Access to Jobs Program, GAO/RCED-99-36 

(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 8, 1998). 

Page 6 GAO-06-910T 
transportation routes, ridesharing activities, and promotion of transit 

voucher programs—are designed to assist low-income individuals in 

accessing employment opportunities and related services, such as child 

care and training. 

SAFETEA-LU made changes to the New Starts program that range from 

identifying new evaluation criteria to establishing the Small Starts 

program. FTA has taken some initial steps in implementing these changes,

including issuing an ANPRM for the Small Starts program and guidance for 

the New Starts program, both in January 2006. The Small Starts program is 

a new component of the New Starts program and is intended to expedite

and streamline the application and review process for small projects. The 

transit community, however, questioned whether the program, as outlined 

in the ANPRM, would streamline the process. In its January 2006 guidance, 

FTA also identified and sought public input on possible changes to the 

New Starts program that would affect traditional New Starts projects, or 

large starts, such as revising the evaluation process to incorporate the new 

evaluation criteria identified by SAFETEA-LU. FTA also identified possible 

implementation challenges, including how to distinguish between land use 

and economic development criteria in the evaluation framework. 

SAFETEA-LU’s

Changes to the New 

Starts Program Range 

from Identifying New 

Evaluation Criteria to 

Establishing the Small 

Starts Program

FTA Has Started to 

Implement SAFETEA-LU 

Changes and Will Continue 

to Do So through the 

Rulemaking Process 

SAFETEA-LU introduced eight changes to the New Starts program, 

codified an existing practice, and clarified federal funding requirements. 

These changes range from the creation of the Small Starts program to 

introducing new evaluation criteria. For example, SAFETEA- LU added 

economic development to the list of criteria that FTA must use in the New

Starts evaluation process. In addition, SAFETEA-LU codified FTA’s 

requirement that project sponsors conduct before and after studies for all

completed projects.7

 SAFETEA-LU also clarified the federal share 

requirements for New Starts projects. In particular, SAFETEA-LU states 

that the federal share for a New Starts project may be up to 80 percent of 

the project’s net capital project cost, unless the project sponsor requests a 

lower amount. SAFETEA-LU also prohibits the Secretary of 

Transportation from requiring a nonfederal share of more than 20 percent

of the project’s total net capital cost. This language addresses FTA’s policy 

 7

A before and after study is similar to an outcome evaluation in that it compares the 

forecasted benefits and costs of a project with the actual benefits and costs of the project

after the project is completed. 

Page 7 GAO-06-910T 
of favoring projects that seek a federal New Starts share of no more than 

60 percent of the total cost. FTA instituted this policy beginning with the 

fiscal year 2004 evaluation cycle in response to language contained in 

appropriation committee reports. Table 1 describes SAFETEA-LU 

provisions for the New Starts program and compares them to TEA-21’s 

requirements. 

Table 1: Comparison of SAFETEA-LU’s and TEA-21’s New Starts Provisions

Provisions SAFETEA-LU TEA-21 

Establish the Small Starts 

program

• Projects seeking less than $25 million in New 

Starts funds will no longer be exempt from the 

ratings process once the Small Starts final rule is 

issued. 

• Establishes a new capital investment program

called Small Starts for projects that (1) are corridor 

based, (2) have a total project cost of less than 

$250 million, and (3) are seeking less than $75 

million in federal Small Starts funding. 

• Projects seeking less than $25 million 

in New Starts funding were exempt 

from the ratings process. 

• No separate program for small transit 

projects. 

Codify the before and after study

requirement 

Project sponsors with FFGAs must conduct a study 

that (1) describes and analyzes the impacts of the 

new fixed guideway capital project on transit services 

and transit ridership, (2) evaluates the consistency of 

predicted and actual project characteristics and 

performance, and (3) identifies sources of differences 

between predicted and actual outcomes. Project 

sponsors must prepare an information collection and 

analysis plan, which must be approved prior to 

execution of the FFGA. 

Not required under TEA-21, but FTA

required project sponsors to conduct a 

before and after study on completed

projects. 

Revise New Starts overall project 

rating scale 

Overall project rating is based on a 5-point scale of 

“high,” “medium-high,” “medium,” “medium-low,” and 

“low.” Projects are required to receive a rating of 

“medium” or higher to be recommended for funding. 

Overall project rating was based on 3-

point scale: “highly recommended,” 

“recommended,” “not recommended.” 

Identify reliability of cost 

estimate and ridership forecast 

as a consideration in evaluation

process 

Requires Secretary to analyze, evaluate, and 

consider the reliability of the forecasting methods 

used by New Starts project sponsors and their 

contractors to estimate costs and ridership. 

Not required under TEA-21. 

Add economic development 

criterion to evaluation process 

Projects will be evaluated based on a review of their 

effects on local economic development. 

Not required under TEA-21. 

Identify land use as a specific 

evaluation criterion

Projects will be evaluated based on a review of their 

public transportation supportive land use policies and 

future patterns.

Land use was not identified as an 

evaluation criterion by TEA-21. However, 

TEA-21 identified land use as a 

“consideration” in the evaluation process 

and FTA incorporated it into the 

evaluation process. 

Page 8 GAO-06-910T 
Provisions SAFETEA-LU TEA-21 

Clarify nonfederal financial 

commitment 

The Secretary is not authorized to require a 

nonfederal financial commitment for a project that is 

more than 20 percent of its net capital cost. 

Federal share could not exceed 80 

percent. But, in response to language 

contained in appropriations committee 

reports, FTA instituted a preference 

policy favoring projects that seek a 

federal New Starts share of no more than 

60 percent of the total project cost 

beginning with the fiscal year 2004 

evaluation cycle. 

Establish incentives for accurate 

cost and ridership forecasts

A higher share of New Starts funding may be made 

available to project sponsors if project’s cost is not 

more than 10 percent higher and ridership is not less 

than 90 percent of those estimates when project was 

approved for preliminary engineering. 

No similar provision in TEA-21. 

Require FTA to publish policy

guidance

New Starts policy guidance must be published for 

notice and comment no later than 120 days after the 

enactment of SAFETEA-LU, each time significant 

changes are made, and at least every 2 years. 

Not required under TEA-21. 

Assess contractors’ 

performance 

The Secretary will submit an annual report to 

congressional committees analyzing the consistency 

and accuracy of cost and ridership estimates made by 

contractors to public transportation agencies

developing new capital projects. 

Not required under TEA-21. 

Source: GAO analysis of SAFETEA-LU and TEA-21. 

FTA has taken some initial steps in implementing SAFETEA-LU changes.

For example, in January 2006, FTA published the New Starts policy 

guidance and, as will be discussed later, the ANPRM for the Small Starts 

program. FTA will continue to implement the changes outlined in 

SAFETEA-LU through the rulemaking process over the next year and a 

half. Specifically, in response to SAFETEA-LU changes, FTA is developing 

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the New Starts and Small 

Starts programs. FTA plans to issue the NPRM in January 2007, with the 

goal of implementing the final rule in January 2008. Figure 2 shows a time 

line of FTA’s actual and planned implementation of SAFETEA-LU changes. 

Page 9 GAO-06-910T 
Figure 2: Time Line for Implementing SAFETEA-LU Changes to the New Starts 

Program 

Source: GAO.

2006 

January 2006: FTA issued Guidance on New Starts Policies and Procedures, which 

proposes a number of procedural changes and identifies longer-term changes to the 

New Starts program.

FTA releases the ANPRM for the Small Starts program.

February & March 2006: FTA conducted three listening sessions to discuss with 

project sponsors the changes proposed in its January guidance on New Starts and 

the ANPRM for Small Starts.

FTA’s docket for public comment on the proposed procedural changes and long-term 

changes for the New Starts program and the ANPRM for the Small Starts program 

closes in mid-March.

May 2006: FTA issued guidance on the New Starts fiscal year 2008 evaluation cycle.

June 2006: FTA issued interim guidance on the Small Starts program for public comment, 

and held two listening sessions to discuss these proposals with project sponsors. 

August 2006: FTA plans to review comments and issue final interim guidance on Small 

Starts for the fiscal year 2007 budget cycle.

 New Starts project applications for the fiscal year 2008 evaluation cycle are due.

January 2007: FTA plans to release the final NPRM for Small Starts and New Starts to 

the public for comment.

2005 August 2005: SAFETEA-LU, which reauthorized the New Starts program and required 

a handful of changes to the ratings and evaluation process, is signed into law.

2007 

2008 January 2008: FTA plans to issue the final rule for Small Starts and New Starts.

Small Starts Program Is 

Intended to Offer a 

Streamlined Process, but 

Transit Community 

Members Question 

Whether It Will Do So 

A significant SAFETEA-LU change was the creation of the Small Starts 

program. The Small Starts program is a discretionary grant program for 

public transportation capital projects that (1) are corridor-based, (2) have 

a total cost of less than $250 million, and (3) are seeking less than $75 

million in federal Small Starts program funding. The Small Starts program 

is a component of the existing New Starts program, but, according to the 

conference reports accompanying SAFETEA-LU, is intended to provide 

Page 10 GAO-06-910T 
project sponsors with an expedited and streamlined evaluation and rating 

process. Table 2 compares New Starts and Small Starts program 

requirements. 

Table 2: Comparison of New Starts and Small Starts Program Requirements 

Program 

requirements New Starts Small Starts 

Definition of 

eligibility 

Total project cost is $250 million or more, or $75 million 

or more in federal New Starts funding is sought. 

Provides funding for new fixed guideway systems and 

extensions. 

Total project cost is less than $250 million, and less 

than $75 million in federal New Starts funding is 

sought. 

Provides funding for new fixed guideway systems and 

extensions, as well as corridor-based bus capital 

projects. 

Project 

justification

criteria 

• Mobility improvements 

• Environmental benefits 

• Operating efficiencies 

• Cost-effectiveness 

• Public transportation supportive land use policies 

• Economic development 

• Reliability of forecasting 

• Cost-effectiveness (based on opening year of

service) 

• Public transportation supportive land use policies 

• Economic development 

• Reliability of forecasting 

Local financial 

commitment 

criteria 

• Stability and reliability of financial plan for capital 

costs 

• Stability and reliability of financial plan for operating 

and maintenance costs 

• Level of non-New Starts funding 

• Stability and reliability of financial plan for capital 

costs 

• Stability and reliability of financial plan for operating 

and maintenance costs 

• Level of non-New Starts funding 

Project 

development 

process 

• Alternatives analysis 

• Preliminary engineering 

• Final design

• Construction 

• Alternatives analysis 

• Project development 

• Construction 

Funding

instrument

Projects are required to sign an FFGA, which sets 

scope, cost, and schedule, as well as maximum New 

starts share, source of other funds, and schedule for 

obligating funds. 

Project will use a Project Construction Grant

Agreement, which will be a streamlined version of the 

FFGA. 

Source: GAO analysis of New Starts and Small Starts requirements.

In January 2006, FTA published an ANPRM to give interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on the characteristics of and requirements for the 

Small Starts program. In its ANPRM, FTA suggests that the planning and 

project development process for proposed Small Starts projects could be 

simplified by allowing analyses of fewer alternatives for small projects, 

allowing the development of evaluation measures for mobility and costeffectiveness without the use of complicated travel demand modeling 

procedures in some cases, and possibly defining some classes of prePage 11 GAO-06-910T 
approved low-cost improvements as effective and cost-effective in certain 

contexts. FTA also sought the transit community’s input on three key 

issues in its ANPRM, including eligibility, the rating and evaluation 

process, and the project development process. For each of these issues, 

FTA outlined different options for how to proceed, and then posed a series 

of questions for public comment, including the following questions on the 

rating and evaluation process: 

• How should the evaluation framework for New Starts be changed or 

adapted for Small Starts projects? 

• How might FTA evaluate economic development and land use as distinct 

and separate measures? 

• How might FTA incorporate risk and uncertainty into project evaluations 

for Small Starts? 

• What weights should FTA apply to each measure? 

FTA’s ANPRM for Small Starts generated a significant volume of public 

comment. While members of the transit community were supportive of 

some proposals for the Small Starts program, they also had a number of 

concerns. In particular, the transit community questioned whether FTA’s 

proposals would, as intended, provide smaller projects with a more 

streamlined evaluation and rating process. As a result, some commenters 

recommended that FTA simplify some of its original proposals in the final

NPRM to reflect the smaller scope of these projects. For example, several

project sponsors and industry representatives thought that FTA should 

redefine the baseline alternative as the “no-build” option8

 and make the 

before and after study optional for Small Starts projects to limit the time 

 8

FTA requires that the benefits and costs of the proposed New Starts project be assessed in

comparison with a baseline alternative defined as the best that can be done without 

building a new fixed guideway. The purpose of the baseline alternative is to distill the 

benefits (and costs) of the proposed New Starts project from the benefits that could be 

achieved through low-cost improvements, such as route realignments and increases in 

service frequency, that would not entail the significant cost of a New Starts project’s

infrastructure. FTA defines the no-build alternative in two ways: (1) an alternative that 

incorporates “planned” improvements that are included in the fiscally constrained longrange plan for which need, commitment, financing, and public and political support are

identified and are reasonably expected to be implemented, or (2) an alternative that adds 

only “committed” improvements together with minor transit service expansions or

adjustments that reflect a continuation of existing service policies in newly developed 

areas. 

Page 12 GAO-06-910T 
and cost of project development. In addition, others were concerned that

FTA’s proposals minimized the importance of the new land use and 

economic development evaluation criteria introduced by SAFETEA-LU, 

and they recommended that the measures for land use and economic 

development be revised.

Since FTA does not plan to issue its final rule for the New Starts and Small 

Starts programs until early 2008, FTA issued proposed interim guidance 

for the Small Starts program in June 2006 to ensure that project sponsors 

would have an opportunity to apply for Small Starts funding and be 

evaluated in the upcoming cycle (i.e., the fiscal year 2008 evaluation cycle,

which begins in August 2006). The proposed interim guidance describes 

the process that FTA will use to evaluate proposed Small Starts projects to 

support the decision to approve or disapprove their advancement to 

project development and the decision to recommend projects for funding, 

including whether proposed projects are part of a broader strategy to 

reduce congestion in particular regions. In addition, although not required 

by SAFETEA-LU, FTA introduced a separate eligibility category within the 

Small Starts program for “Very Small Starts” projects in the proposed 

interim guidance. Small Starts projects that qualify as Very Small Starts are 

projects that

• do not include the construction of a new fixed guideway, 

• are in corridors with existing riders who will benefit from the proposed 

project and number more than 3,000 on an average weekday, including at 

least 1,000 riders who board at the terminal stations, and 

• have a total capital cost of less than $50 million and less than $3 million 

per mile (excluding rolling stock). 

According to the proposed interim guidance on the Small Starts program, 

FTA intends to scale the planning and project development process to the 

size and complexity of the proposed projects. Therefore, Very Small Starts 

projects will undergo a very simple and streamlined evaluation and rating 

process. Small Starts projects that do not meet all three criteria for Very 

Small Starts projects will be evaluated and rated using a framework 

similar to that used for traditional, or large starts, New Starts projects. 

However, FTA officials have indicated that this evaluation and rating 

framework would be modified, for example, to include only those criteria 

listed in the statute. FTA is seeking public input on the Small Starts 

proposals contained in the proposed interim guidance through July 9, 

2006. FTA plans to review the comments received and issue its final 

Page 13 GAO-06-910T 
interim guidance for the Small Starts program by August 2006. This 

guidance will govern the program until the final rule is issued. 

In response to SAFETEA-LU, FTA identified possible changes to the New 

Starts program that would affect traditional New Starts projects, or large 

starts, in its January 2006 guidance. According to FTA, some of SAFETEALU provisions could lead to changes in the definition of eligibility, the 

evaluation and rating process, and the project development process. In the 

guidance, FTA outlines changes it is considering and solicits public input,

through a series of questions, on the potential changes. For example, FTA 

identified two options for revising the evaluation and rating process to 

reflect SAFETEA-LU’s changes to the evaluation criteria. The first option 

would extend the current process to include economic development 

impacts and the reliability of cost and ridership forecasts. Specifically, 

FTA suggested that economic development impacts and the reliability of

forecasts simply be added to the list of criteria considered in developing 

the project justification rating. The second option would be to develop a 

broader process to include the evaluation criteria identified by SAFETEALU and to organize the measures to support a more analytical discussion 

of the project and its merits. According to FTA, the second option would 

broaden the evaluation process beyond a computation of overall ratings 

based on individual evaluation measures and develop better insights into 

the merit of a project than are possible from using the quantified 

evaluation measures alone. (See app. I for a description of the different 

changes FTA is considering.) 

FTA also identified potential challenges in implementing some of 

SAFETEA-LU changes in its guidance. In particular, FTA described the 

challenges of incorporating and distinguishing between two measures of 

indirect benefits9

 in the New Starts evaluation process—land use and 

economic development impacts.10 For example, FTA noted that its current 

land use measures (e.g., land use plans and policies) indicate the transitFTA Also Identified 

Possible Changes to the 

New Starts Program in 

Response to SAFETEA-LU 

as well as Implementation 

Challenges 

 9

Direct benefits of transportation investments, such as lowered transportation costs and

improved access to goods and services, result in individuals, households, and firms acting 

to take advantage of those benefits. These actions can then lead to several types of indirect

benefits, such as increased property values and new development. 

10SAFETEA-LU added economic development to the list of evaluation criteria; it also 

identified land use as a specific evaluation criterion. Under TEA-21, land use was not

identified as an evaluation criterion, but rather as a “consideration” in the evaluation 

process and FTA incorporated it into the evaluation process. 

Page 14 GAO-06-910T 
friendliness of a project corridor both now and in the future, but they do

not measure the benefits generated by the proposed project. Rather, they 

describe the degree to which the project corridor provides an environment 

in which the proposed project can succeed. According to FTA’s guidance, 

FTA’s evaluation of land use does not include economic development 

benefits because FTA has not been able to find reliable methods of 

predicting these benefits. FTA further stated that because SAFETEA-LU 

introduces a separate economic development criterion, the potential role 

for land use as a measure of development benefits becomes even less clear

given its potential overlap with the economic development criterion. In 

addition, FTA noted that many economic development benefits result from 

direct benefits (e.g., travel time savings), and therefore, including them in 

the evaluation could lead to double counting the benefits FTA already 

measures and uses to evaluate projects. Furthermore, FTA noted that 

some economic development impacts may represent transfers between 

regions rather than a net benefit for the nation,11 raising questions as to 

whether these impacts are useful for a national comparison of projects. To

address some of the challenges, FTA suggested that an appropriate 

strategy might be to combine land use and economic development into a 

single measure. 

We have also reported on many of the same challenges of measuring and 

forecasting indirect benefits, such as economic development and land use 

impacts.12 For example, we noted that it is challenging to predict changes 

in land use because current transportation demand models are unable to 

predict the effect of a transportation investment on land-use patterns and

development, since these models use land-use-forecasts as inputs into the 

model. In addition, we noted that certain benefits are often double 

counted when evaluating transportation projects. In particular, indirect 

benefits, such as economic development, may be more correctly 

considered transfers of direct user benefits or economic activity from one 

area to another. Therefore, estimating and adding such benefits to direct 

benefits could constitute double counting and lead to overestimating a 

 11Indirect benefits, such as economic development, may represent transfers of economic 

activity from one area to another; and, while, such a transfer may represent real benefits 

for the jurisdiction making the transportation investment, it is not a real economic benefit 

from a national perspective because the economic activity is simply occurring in a different 

location. 

12GAO, Highway and Transit Investments, Options for Improving Information on 

Projects’ Benefits and Costs and Increasing Accountability for Results, GAO-05-172

(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 24, 2005). 

Page 15 GAO-06-910T 
project’s benefits. Despite these challenges, experts told us that evaluating 

land use and economic development impacts is important, since they often 

drive local transportation investment choices. 

FTA received a large number of written comments on its online docket in

response to its proposed changes. (See app. I for common comments 

submitted for each proposed change.) While members of the transit 

community were supportive of some proposals, they expressed concerns 

about a number of FTA’s proposed changes. For example, a number of 

commenters expressed concerns about FTA’s options for revising the 

evaluation process, noting that both proposals deemphasized the 

importance of economic development and land use. Some commenters 

also noted that land use and economic development should not be 

combined into a single measure and that they should receive the same 

weight as cost-effectiveness in the evaluation and rating process. 

SAFETEA-LU made a number of changes to the JARC program, the most 

notable of which was the creation of a formula to distribute JARC funds. 

Whereas funds for JARC projects were congressionally designated in 

recent years, SAFETEA-LU’s formula distributes funds to states and large 

urbanized areas. This is a significant change because some states and 

urbanized areas will receive substantially more funds than under the 

discretionary program, while others will receive substantially less. In 

addition, the formula program will result in some areas receiving JARC 

funds that had not received them in the past. Other JARC changes 

resulting from SAFETEA-LU include the ability to use a portion of JARC 

funds for planning activities and the removal of a restriction on the JARC 

funding available for reverse commute projects, which are designed to 

help individuals in urban areas access suburban employment 

opportunities. FTA has worked to develop guidance to help JARC 

recipients implement these changes by soliciting comments and input 

through program notices and listening sessions beginning in November 

2005. FTA issued interim JARC guidance in March 2006 and is currently 

working to develop draft final guidance for the program.13 Final guidance

for JARC is expected later this year. Two potential challenges for FTA as it 

moves forward will be to issue final JARC guidance in a timely manner and 

to determine its plan for oversight of the JARC program. 

SAFETEA-LU 

Transformed the 

JARC Program from a 

Discretionary to a 

Formula-based 

Program 

 13FTA refers to guidance for grantees and stakeholders as a “circular;” in this testimony, we 

refer to FTA’s draft and final circulars for JARC as draft final guidance and final guidance. 

Page 16 GAO-06-910T 
A key SAFETEA-LU change to the JARC program was the creation of a 

formula to distribute JARC funds. Under TEA-21, JARC was a 

discretionary grant program for which FTA competitively selected JARC 

projects and, more recently, awarded funds for congressionally designated

projects. Under SAFETEA-LU, states and large urbanized areas have been 

apportioned funding for JARC projects through a formula based on the 

number of low-income individuals and welfare recipients in each area.14

This is a significant change because some states and urbanized areas will

receive substantially more funds than under the discretionary program, 

while others will receive substantially less. In addition, the formula 

program will result in some areas receiving JARC funds that had not 

received them in the past. Forty percent of JARC funds each year are 

required to be apportioned among states for projects in small urbanized 

and other than urbanized areas, and the remaining 60 percent are required

to be apportioned among urbanized areas with a population of 200,000 or 

more.15 The governor of each state must designate a recipient for JARC 

funds at the state level to competitively select and award funds for 

projects in small urbanized and other than urbanized areas within the 

state. In large urbanized areas, the recipient must be designated by the 

governor, local officials, and publicly owned operators of public 

transportation. 

In addition to creating a formula for distributing JARC funds, SAFETEALU also extended a JARC requirement related to coordinated planning to 

additional FTA programs and made a number of other changes to key 

aspects of the JARC program. In the past, JARC projects were required to 

be part of a coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan; 

a similar requirement is included in SAFETEA-LU. However, this 

requirement will apply in fiscal year 2007 to two other FTA programs that 

SAFETEA-LU Created a 

Formula for Distributing 

JARC Funds and Amended 

Other Key Aspects of the 

Program 

 14The SAFETEA-LU formula apportions JARC funds on the basis of “eligible” low-income 

individuals in an area. Eligible low-income individuals are defined in SAFETEA-LU as

individuals whose family income is at or below 150 percent of the poverty line. 

15In information on the JARC program, FTA refers to urbanized areas with a population of 

200,000 or more as large urbanized areas, urbanized areas with a population of between 

50,000 and 200,000 as small urbanized areas, and rural and small urbanized areas with 

populations of less than 50,000 as other than urbanized areas.

Page 17 GAO-06-910T 
provide funding for transportation-disadvantaged populations.

16 In 

addition, recipients in states and urbanized areas that select JARC projects 

must now certify that their selections were based on this plan. Another 

change resulting from SAFETEA-LU is the ability of a recipient to use up 

to 10 percent of its JARC allocation for administration, planning, and 

technical assistance,17 and the expansion of the definition of eligible 

activities to include planning as well as capital and operating activities. 

SAFETEA-LU also removed a restriction on the amount of funding 

available for reverse commute projects to help individuals in urban areas 

gain access to suburban employment opportunities. Table 3 compares key 

JARC provisions under SAFETEA-LU and TEA-21. 

Table 3: Comparison of SAFETEA-LU’s and TEA-21’s JARC Provisions 

Provision SAFETEA-LU TEA-21

Distribute JARC funds by formula • Requires the Secretary of Transportation to apportion 

funds among states and designated recipients of large 

urbanized areas through a formula that considers the 

number of eligible low-income individualsa

 and welfare 

recipients in each state or large urbanized area relative 

to other states or large urbanized areas. 

• Sixty percent of JARC funds are apportioned to 

designated recipients of urbanized areas with a 

population of 200,000 or more, 20 percent are 

apportioned to states for projects in urbanized areas with 

a population of less than 200,000, and 20 percent are 

apportioned to states for projects in other than urbanized

areas. 

• The Secretary of Transportation 

required to conduct a national 

solicitation for applications for

grants and to select grantees on a 

competitive basis. 

• The same percentage of JARC 

funds allocated among large 

urbanized areas, small urbanized 

areas, and other than urbanized 

areas as provided under 

SAFETEA-LU. 

Designate JARC recipient The governor must designate a recipient at the state level

to competitively select and award funds for projects in small 

urbanized and other than urbanized areas, and within each 

large urbanized area to competitively select and award 

funds in that area. 

Not required under TEA-21. Rather, 

FTA competitively selected JARC 

projects and more recently awarded 

funds for projects that were 

congressionally designated. 

 16“Transportation-disadvantaged populations” refers to populations that lack the ability to 

provide their own transportation or have difficulty accessing whatever conventional public 

transportation may be available. FTA programs in addition to JARC that serve these 

populations are the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities program, which 

provides formula funding for capital projects to assist in meeting the transportation needs 

of the elderly and persons with disabilities; and the New Freedom program, which provides

formula funding for new public transportation services and public transportation 

alternatives that assist individuals with disabilities with transportation, including 

transportation to and from jobs and employment support services. 

17While TEA-21 had not included a statutory provision regarding a percentage that could be 

used for administration and technical assistance, FTA allowed JARC grantees to use up to 

10 percent for these activities. 

Page 18 GAO-06-910T 
Provision SAFETEA-LU TEA-21

Use coordinated public transithuman services transportation 

plan to select projects for funding 

• JARC projects selected for funding must be derived from 

a locally developed coordinated public transit-human 

services transportation plan; designated recipients must 

certify that selected projects were derived from this plan. 

• Additional FTA programs that provide funding for 

services for transportation-disadvantaged populations 

also subject to this requirement beginning in fiscal year 

2007.b

JARC projects required to be part of 

a coordinated public transit-human 

services transportation planning 

process, but no requirement to certify 

that selected projects were derived 

from this plan. 

Use competitive selection 

process 

Designated recipients in urbanized areas required to 

conduct a solicitation for applications for grants in 

cooperation with the appropriate metropolitan planning 

organization;c

 designated recipients in states required to 

conduct a statewide solicitation for applications for grants. 

Grants are to be awarded on a competitive basis. 

Secretary of Transportation required

to conduct a national solicitation for 

applications for grants and to select 

grantees on a competitive basis. In 

practice, however, projects were 

congressionally designated in recent 

years. 

Allow the use of funds for 

administration, planning, and 

technical assistance 

• A recipient may use up to 10 percent of its 

apportionment to administer, plan, and provide technical 

assistance for JARC projects. 

• Planning is also included as an eligible expense along 

with capital and operating expenses. 

No statutory provision for 

administration and technical

assistance under TEA-21.d

 Planning 

and coordination activities were 

prohibited expenses. 

Provide for transfers of JARC

funds 

States may transfer funds among the small urbanized area 

and other than urbanized area apportionments if the 

governor certifies that JARC objectives are being met in the

specified area. States may also transfer funds from the 

small urbanized area and other than urbanized area

apportionments to projects in any area in the state if it has 

a statewide program for meeting JARC objectives. 

No provision under TEA-21. 

Increase government’s share of 

capital costs 

JARC grants for capital projects may not exceed 80 percent 

of the net capital costs of the project; grants for operating 

assistance may not exceed 50 percent of the net operating

costs of the project. 

Grants for projects could not exceed

50 percent of the total project cost; 

no differentiation among capital and 

operating projects. 

Remove limit on reverse 

commute project funding 

No limit on the amount that can be used for reverse 

commute projects. 

No more than $10 million could be 

used each fiscal year for reverse 

commute project grants. 

Source: GAO analysis of TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU.

 

a

Eligible low-income individuals are those whose family income is at or below 150 percent of the 

poverty line. 

b

FTA programs in addition to JARC that serve these populations are the Elderly Individuals and 

Individuals with Disabilities program and the New Freedom program. 

c

Metropolitan planning organizations are federally mandated regional organizations responsible for 

comprehensive transportation planning and programming in urbanized areas. 

d

FTA allowed JARC grantees to use up to 10 percent for administration and technical assistance 

activities. 

Page 19 GAO-06-910T 
Some of these changes address issues that we have raised in past reports 

on JARC and the coordination of transportation services for 

transportation-disadvantaged populations.18 For example, in 2004 we 

reported that a majority of the JARC grantees we spoke with supported a 

proposal to use grant funds for administrative, planning, and technical 

assistance activities, because these activities could increase coordination 

with potential partners. In 2003, we also reported that some federal and 

state officials believed that providing financial incentives or mandates for 

coordination was one way to improve the coordination of transportation 

services among federal programs. In addition, officials of one metropolitan 

planning organization that we spoke to about changes to the JARC 

program also note that the change to a formula program may better 

facilitate cooperation between organizations. They explained that the 

required coordinated plans for JARC projects became irrelevant in the 

past when JARC funds were congressionally designated. 

FTA Has Developed 

Interim JARC Guidance 

and Plans to Issue Final 

Program Guidance Later 

This Year 

FTA has been working to develop guidance to help JARC recipients 

implement changes to the program. In November 2005, FTA published a 

notice of changes for FTA programs, including JARC. This notice provided 

information on the JARC program and solicited public comment on 

aspects of the program such as technical assistance needs and the 

coordinated planning process. FTA also held five public listening sessions 

across the country in December 2005 on a number of programs, including 

JARC, to obtain comments and input on the questions and issues that 

should be included in future guidance. In March 2006, drawing on the 

information FTA received through comments and the listening sessions, it 

released interim JARC guidance for fiscal year 2006 and proposed 

strategies for fiscal year 2007, and sought comments to assist in the 

development of program guidance.

19 FTA received more than 200 

comments on this notice, and the comments addressed a variety of issues, 

including the coordinated planning requirement for JARC and other 

programs and the selection of designated recipients. For example, several

private operators of transportation services have requested that FTA 

 18GAO, Job Access and Reverse Commute: Program Status and Potential Effects of 

Proposed Legislative Changes, GAO-04-934R (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 20, 2004). GAO, 

Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Some Coordination Efforts Among 

Programs Providing Transportation Services, but Obstacles Persist, GAO-03-697 

(Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2003). 

19The March 2006 notice also addressed the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with 

Disabilities program and the New Freedom program.

Page 20 GAO-06-910T 
include language that private transportation operators be involved in the 

coordinated planning process. A number of comments have also 

addressed whether there would be a potential conflict of interest in having

a provider of transportation services also serve as the designated recipient

that will select JARC projects for funding. FTA officials have indicated that

they plan to address many of the issues raised in the comments in draft 

final guidance for JARC that they plan to release later this summer. FTA 

plans to solicit comments on the draft final guidance and issue final 

guidance for JARC later this year. Figure 3 presents a time line for FTA’s 

implementation of changes to the JARC program.

Page 21 GAO-06-910T 
Figure 3: Time Line for FTA’s Implementation of SAFETEA-LU Changes to the JARC 

Program 

Source: GAO.

2006

2005

August 2005: SAFETEA-LU, which reauthorized the Job Access and Reverse 

Commute (JARC) program and changed the program from a discretionary 

program to a formula-based program, is signed into law.

November 2005: FTA issued a notice of changes in programs, including the JARC 

program, in accordance with SAFETEA-LU and provided preliminary instructions

and guidance for public comment.

December 2005: FTA issued a notice of apportionments and allocations for fiscal 

year 2006 programs, including the JARC program. 

 FTA conducted informal 2-day listening sessions with stakeholders in five cities to 

discuss transit-related issues, including the JARC program. 

 FTA’s docket for public comment on the preliminary instructions and guidance for 

programs, including the JARC program, closed in late December.

February 2006: FTA issued amended apportionments and allocations for fiscal year 

2006 programs, including the JARC program. 

March 2006: FTA issued interim guidance for the fiscal year 2006 implementation 

of the JARC program and solicited public comment on proposed strategies for the 

fiscal year 2007 implementation of three programs, including JARC. 

 FTA met with stakeholders to discuss program requirements, cross-cutting issues, 

and program implementation. 

May 2006: FTA’s docket for public comment on proposed strategies for the fiscal 

year 2007 implementation of programs closed late May.

July - August 2006: FTA plans to issue draft final guidance for the JARC program. 

Fall 2006: FTA plans to issue final guidance for the JARC program. 

Through our preliminary work, we have identified two challenges that FTA

may encounter as it moves forward in its implementation of changes to 

JARC. One potential challenge for FTA will be to ensure that it develops 

JARC guidance in a timely manner so that JARC recipients can implement 

the program. Officials from one metropolitan planning organization we 

spoke with about JARC changes noted that the guidance will be important 

because it will address questions that JARC recipients have raised about 

the program’s implementation and to which they have received conflicting

answers from FTA headquarters and regional staff. A publicly available

schedule of FTA deliverables related to SAFETEA-LU’s implementation 

Page 22 GAO-06-910T 
stated that draft final guidance for JARC was anticipated between May and 

July 2006. However, FTA officials told us that they now expect to issue the 

draft final guidance in late July or early August. This change reflects FTA’s 

extension of the comment period for the March 2006 notice by 1 month to

receive additional comments, and the submission of more than 100 

comments on or after the last day of the comment period. The additional 

comments raised a number of issues for FTA to consider, according to 

FTA officials. While FTA has stated that criteria in the final guidance will 

not apply retroactively to issued grants so that areas can proceed with 

JARC projects, FTA officials as well as officials from an association that 

represents metropolitan planning organizations have told us that some 

recipients of JARC funds will likely wait for final program guidance before 

proceeding. In addition, few states and urbanized areas have taken formal 

steps to apply for fiscal year 2006 funds. As of late May, 5 states had 

notified FTA of their designated recipient for JARC funding, and 1 of the 

152 urbanized areas that receive a JARC apportionment had obligated 

fiscal year 2006 JARC funds, according to FTA officials. 

Another potential challenge for FTA in moving forward will be to 

determine its plan for overseeing the JARC program. FTA officials have 

told us that they are still developing this plan, and that at a minimum they 

expect to use routine grant management tools—such as progress reports 

and site visits—to oversee JARC recipients. In its interim guidance, FTA 

also indicates that it intends to use existing oversight mechanisms from 

the federal urbanized area and nonurbanized area formula programs, such 

as triennial reviews and state management reviews. However, FTA 

officials acknowledge they need to determine how to incorporate JARC 

grant recipients into these oversight processes. 

Our past work suggests that transparency, communication, and 

accountability issues will be important as FTA moves forward in 

implementing SAFETEA-LU changes to the New Starts and JARC 

programs. Like SAFETEA-LU, TEA-21 required GAO to regularly review 

the New Starts and JARC programs. Since 1998, we have issued numerous 

reports on these programs, and many of the reports contained 

recommendations to FTA on ways to improve the implementation of these 

programs. SAFETEA-LU addressed some of these issues, and FTA has also 

taken steps to resolve some of them. Nevertheless, given the number of 

changes that are being made to both programs, continued focus on 

improving transparency, communication, and accountability will be 

important. 

Transparency, 

Communication, and 

Accountability Issues 

Will Continue to Be 

Important 

Page 23 GAO-06-910T 
In our recent reports on the New Starts program, we noted several cases in 

which FTA could have improved the program’s transparency. Typically, 

these cases dealt with FTA’s decisions not to seek public input on 

proposed policy changes before they were implemented. In our 2005 

report, we found that FTA had made 16 changes to the New Starts process 

since fiscal year 2001, but had not published information about the 

changes in the Federal Register or instituted a rulemaking process for 9 of 

the changes; moreover, for 6 of the 9 changes, FTA did not provide any 

avenues for public review and comment.20 For example, during the fiscal

year 2004 cycle, FTA instituted a preference policy in its ratings process 

favoring current and future projects that do not request more than a 60 

percent federal funding share. However, FTA did not amend its regulations 

to reflect this change in policy or its existing procedures, and the public 

did not have an opportunity to comment on the impact of the change prior 

to its adoption. 

SAFETEA-LU addressed our past concerns about the transparency of the 

New Starts program by requiring FTA to publish for notice and comment 

any proposals that make significant changes to the New Starts program. 

FTA has already implemented this requirement. For instance, earlier this 

year, FTA gave the transit community an opportunity to review and 

comment on proposed procedural changes (i.e., nonregulatory changes) to 

the New Starts process as well as possible changes FTA was considering 

for the New Starts program in the future. Although members of the transit 

community expressed concerns about some of FTA’s proposed changes in

their comments, project sponsors and industry representatives repeatedly 

told us that they appreciated the opportunity to review and comment on 

the proposals. FTA officials have also stated that they have been pleased

with the review and comment process, noting that it helps to ensure that 

FTA’s guidance is more complete, more responsive to stakeholders’ needs, 

and more likely to take into account on-the-ground realities.

We have also previously reported shortfalls in FTA’s communication of 

New Starts program changes to project sponsors that in several cases, 

have resulted in implementation problems. For example, in our 2003 

report,21 we noted that a number of project sponsors were unable to 

 20GAO, Public Transportation: Opportunities Exist to Improve the Communication and

Transparency of Changes Made to the New Starts Program, GAO-05-674 (Washington, 

D.C.: June 28, 2005). 

21GAO, Mass Transit: FTA Needs to Provide Clear Information and Additional Guidance 

on the New Starts Rating Process, GAO-03-701 (Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2003). 

Page 24 GAO-06-910T 
calculate a valid Transportation System User Benefits (TSUB) value, and 

as a result, their projects received a “not rated” rating for the costeffectiveness criterion.22 Project sponsors commented that they would 

have benefited from additional guidance and technical support on how to 

generate the required data for the TSUB measure. Similarly, during the 

fiscal year 2005 evaluation cycle, FTA introduced a requirement for project 

sponsors to submit a “make the case” document to articulate the benefits 

of a proposed New Starts project. FTA officials intended to use the 

document to help interpret data produced by the local travel forecasting 

models, but FTA did not prepare any written guidance on what 

information to include or provide report templates. Without such 

information, project sponsors stated that they did not understand what 

should be included in the document or how it would be used, and FTA 

officials later acknowledged that many of the submissions did not meet 

their expectations. 

SAFETEA-LU addressed these communication problems by requiring that

FTA routinely publish policy guidance. Specifically, SAFETEA-LU requires 

that FTA publish policy guidance for comment and response no later than

120 days after the enactment of SAFETEA-LU, each time significant 

changes are made, and at least every 2 years. FTA responded to this 

requirement by publishing policy guidance for the New Starts program in 

January 2006 and soliciting public comments on the proposed changes 

outlined in the guidance. Furthermore, in its January guidance, FTA 

included possible long-term changes to the large starts component of the 

New Starts program that FTA is considering. FTA stated that it hoped to 

use the policy guidance as a forum for discussing possible changes with 

the transit community so that FTA could take the community’s comments 

into account when developing the NPRM for the New Starts program. In 

addition, FTA held multiple listening sessions across the country, during 

which officials told project sponsors about proposed changes to the New 

Starts program and their rationale for implementing these changes. Most 

of the project sponsors and industry representatives we interviewed told 

us that they appreciated FTA’s efforts to solicit their feedback and to 

encourage an open discussion about the proposed changes. 

 22FTA noted that the projects received “not rated” ratings because project sponsors were

not following FTA requirements for development of alternatives, resulting in a 

misrepresentation of the projects’ user benefits. 

Page 25 GAO-06-910T 
Finally, we have identified steps for increasing the accountability of the 

New Starts and JARC programs. For example, we previously reported that

outcome evaluations of completed transit and highway projects were not 

usually conducted to determine whether proposed outcomes were 

achieved.23 We noted that because outcome evaluations are not usually 

completed, agencies miss an opportunity to learn from the successes and 

shortcomings of past projects to better inform future planning and 

decision making and increase accountability for results. FTA also 

identified such evaluations as an opportunity to hold agencies accountable

for results and identify lessons learned, and therefore, starting in fiscal 

year 2003, FTA required project sponsors to complete before and after 

studies for completed New Starts projects. SAFETEA-LU codified the 

requirement for before and after studies, and required that these studies 

(1) describe and analyze the impacts of the new fixed guideway capital 

project on transit services and transit ridership, (2) evaluate the 

consistency of predicted and actual project characteristics and 

performance, and (3) identify sources of differences between predicted 

and actual outcomes. In addition, SAFETEA-LU included several 

provisions, including the following, that emphasize the accuracy and 

consistency of project cost and ridership estimates in the New Starts 

process: 

• SAFETEA-LU requires the Secretary of Transportation to consider the 

reliability of the forecasting methods used by New Starts project sponsors 

and their contractors to estimate costs and ridership as part of the New 

Starts evaluation process. 

• SAFETEA-LU allows the Secretary of Transportation to provide a higher 

grant percentage than requested by the project sponsor if the net cost of 

the project is not more than 10 percent higher than the net cost estimated 

at the time the project was approved for advancement into preliminary 

engineering and the ridership estimated for the project is not less than 90 

percent of the ridership estimated for the project at the time the project 

was approved for advancement into preliminary engineering. 

• SAFETEA-LU requires the Secretary of Transportation to submit an annual 

report to congressional committees analyzing the consistency and 

 23GAO, Highway and Transit Investments: Options for Improving Information on 

Projects’ Benefits and Costs and Increasing Accountability for Results, GAO-05-172 

(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 24, 2005). 

Page 26 GAO-06-910T 
accuracy of cost and ridership estimates made by contractors to public 

transportation agencies developing new projects. 

Likewise, we have raised issues associated with FTA’s measurement of the 

JARC program’s results and made recommendations for improvement. In 

April 2002, we testified that FTA had not yet completed its evaluation of

the JARC program or reported to Congress,24 as TEA-21 required.25 We also 

expressed concerns about FTA’s plan to evaluate the program using one 

performance measure—the number of accessible employment sites—

because it would not allow FTA to fully address key aspects of the 

program or criteria for selecting grantees. We reiterated these concerns in 

our December 2002 report and recommended that FTA report to Congress 

on the results of its evaluation of JARC, as required by law, and consider 

as part of its evaluation of the effectiveness of the JARC program in 

meeting both of its goals.

26 Our most recent review of the JARC program 

concluded that the data used in FTA’s 2003 evaluation of the JARC 

program lacked the consistent, generalizable, and complete information 

needed to draw any definitive conclusions about the program as a whole.27

According to FTA, it has faced obstacles in evaluating the JARC program 

primarily because grantees have had difficulty collecting and reporting 

information on their programs. SAFETEA-LU requires the Secretary of 

Transportation to evaluate the JARC program and submit a report 

describing the results of this study to Congress by August 2008. 

Specifically, the Secretary must conduct a study to evaluate the 

effectiveness of the grant program and the effectiveness of recipients 

making grants to subrecipients. FTA has already begun to take some steps 

to meet its evaluation requirements, even prior to issuing its final program 

guidance. These steps may also address some of the concerns we 

previously raised about FTA’s evaluation of the JARC program. For 

example, FTA has identified new performance measures and goals, 

developed a preliminary performance evaluation framework to guide its 

data collection efforts, and is currently in the process of researching 

 24GAO, Welfare Reform: DOT Has Made Progress in Implementing the Job Access 

Program but Has Not Evaluated the Impact, GAO-02-640T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 17, 

2002). 

25TEA-21 required DOT to evaluate the JARC program and submit a report to Congress by

June 2000. 

26GAO, Welfare Reform: Job Access Program Improves Local Coordination, but 

Evaluation Should Be Completed, GAO-03-204 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 6, 2002). 

27GAO-04-934R. 

Page 27 GAO-06-910T 
options for simplifying its data collection system and reducing the 

reporting requirements for grantees.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer 

any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have at 

this time. 

For further information on this testimony, please contact Katherine 

Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov. Individuals making key 

contributions to this testimony include Vidhya Ananthakrishnan, Nikki 

Clowers, John Finedore, Lauren Heft, Daniel Hoy, Jessica Lucas-Judy, 

Nancy Lueke, and Kimanh Nguyen. 

Contact Information 

Page 28 GAO-06-910T 
Page 29 GAO-06-910T 

In its January 2006 guidance, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

identified possible changes to the New Starts program in response to the 

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

for Users (SAFETEA-LU). According to FTA, some of SAFETEA-LU’s 

provisions may lead to changes in the program’s definition of eligibility, 

evaluation and rating process, and project development process. The 

following table summarizes the changes FTA has proposed in these three 

areas, FTA’s rationale for the proposed changes, and the transit 

community’s response to the proposed changes.

Proposed change FTA’s rationale for change

Comments submitted by the transit 

community

Eligibility definition

Definition of a fixed guideway: FTA asks 

whether a Bus Rapid Transit project is a “fixed

guideway” project and whether it should fund

high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) projects to the 

degree that they provide benefits to public 

transit riders. 

A fixed guideway has not been specifically 

defined in the statute. 

• The current definition of fixed 

guideway works well; thus, FTA

should make no changes. 

• A minimum percentage of the 

guideway (e.g., 30-75 percent)

should be dedicated in order for a 

project to get funding. 

• HOV projects should be funded by 

the Federal Highway Administration. 

Project evaluation and ratings process •

Evaluation framework: FTA proposes two 

options for revising the evaluation framework. 

Option 1 would extend the current framework to 

include economic development impacts and the 

reliability of forecasting methods for costs and 

ridership. Option 2 would be a broader 

framework that incorporates the new evaluation 

factors specified by SAFETEA-LU and, 

according to FTA, organizes the measures to 

support a more informative, analytical 

discussion of the project and its merits for New 

Starts funding.

The current evaluation framework might 

be improved upon. 

• Both proposed options raise 

concerns because they continue to 

define cost-effectiveness only in 

terms of mobility. 

• Neither proposed option gives

enough weight to land use and 

economic development. 

Nature of the problem or opportunity

evaluation measure: FTA asks whether 

measures that represent the nature of the 

problem or the opportunity the proposed 

projects are designed to address should be 

included in the evaluation framework, and how 

FTA should evaluate or rate projects that 

address significant transportation problems 

compared with projects that take advantage of 

opportunities to improve service. 

New Starts projects are intended to solve 

specific transportation problems, take 

advantage of opportunities to improve 

transportation services, or support 

economic development. 

• Funding should be available for 

projects seeking to shape economic 

development or to provide a solution 

to mobility problems. 

Appendix I: FTA’s Proposed Changes to the 

New Starts Program 
Proposed change FTA’s rationale for change

Comments submitted by the transit 

community

Economic development impacts measure: 

FTA identifies two options for characterizing

economic development benefits: (1) regional 

economic benefits and (2) station area 

development impacts. FTA sought comment on 

whether there was preference for either option, 

as well as on how to evaluate economic 

development and land use as distinct and 

separate measures. 

SAFETEA-LU identified economic impacts 

as a new evaluation criterion.

• Station area development benefits 

better isolate the effect of the transit 

project. There are too many other 

variables associated with regional 

economic benefits. 

• FTA should use both regional and 

station area economic benefits. 

• Land use and economic development 

should be separate measures and 

carry as much weight as costeffectiveness. 

• Differentiating between land use and 

economic development is difficult. 

Mobility benefits measure: FTA proposes to

measure mobility by using a combination of 

user benefits per passenger mile and project 

ridership. FTA also asked whether other 

measures of mobility benefits could be used.

The measure of mobility benefits ought to 

capture as many benefits as possible. 

• FTA should continue to work toward 

capturing transportation benefits to 

highway users in a project corridor. 

• FTA should analyze the impact of 

non-home-based trips, trips 

generated by special events, and 

automobile trips not taken because of 

enhanced pedestrian activity 

established in a project corridor. 

Mobility for transit dependents measure: 

FTA proposes to measure mobility for transit 

dependents by the share of user benefits 

accruing to the passenger in the lowest income 

stratum compared with the regional share of the 

lowest income stratum. FTA asked whether this 

proposed measure would cause any 

implementation difficulties, and whether there 

were other measures FTA should consider. 

Since low-income populations and 

households without access to automobiles 

depend critically on the public 

transportation system to provide basic 

mobility, access to jobs, health care and 

other critical services, projects that 

improve transit services for these 

populations have special merit. 

FTA’s previous measure—percentage of 

low income households in the project 

corridor—is somewhat imprecise. 

• An implementation difficulty would be 

the inconsistencies in regional travel 

demand models—that is, some 

models are based on income, others 

on automobile ownership, and some 

on both. 

Environmental benefits measure: FTA 

proposes to continue using the same 

environmental benefits measure, which uses 

the projected change in regional vehicle miles 

traveled to estimate the change in various 

harmful types of vehicle emissions and energy 

consumption. 

SAFETEA-LU maintained environmental 

benefits as an evaluation criterion. 

• FTA should retain its current 

measure of environmental benefits. 

Operating efficiency measure: FTA proposes 

removing this measure as a separate evaluation 

criterion, relying instead on an evaluation of 

cost-effectiveness to address the statutory 

criterion. According to FTA, the impact of the

project on operating and maintenance costs is 

captured in the calculation of cost-effectiveness. 

The current measure—projected 

systemwide change in operating cost per 

passenger mile—does not distinguish 

among proposed projects. 

• FTA should use the costeffectiveness evaluation measure to 

address the operating efficiency 

criterion. 

Page 30 GAO-06-910T 
Proposed change FTA’s rationale for change

Comments submitted by the transit 

community

Cost-effectiveness measure: FTA proposes to 

broaden the current cost-effectiveness measure 

to include nontransportation benefits, such as

economic development benefits, land use 

impacts, and mobility benefits to transit 

dependents. FTA also suggests using two costeffectiveness measures—one for the forecast 

year as is done today and the second

calculated for the year the project opens. 

The current measure of cost-effectiveness 

does not capture non-transportation 

benefits. 

• Broadening the cost-effectiveness 

measure would increase the time and 

cost of project development. 

• FTA should use the consumer price 

index, not the gross domestic product 

index, to adjust the dollar value of the 

cost-effectiveness threshold. 

Financial capabilities measure: FTA proposes 

changing the way the financial rating factors 

related to uncertainty are incorporated into the 

evaluation process. Specifically, FTA suggests

using the project sponsor’s ability to absorb 

funding shortfalls and cost overruns as an

explicit measure of financial risk. 

SAFETEA-LU identifies the following 

factors that FTA must use in evaluating 

financial capability: (1) the reliability of 

forecasting methods for costs and 

ridership, (2) existing grant commitments, 

(3) the degree to which funding sources 

are dedicated, (4) debt obligations of the 

project sponsor, and (5) the non-New 

Starts funding share. 

• It is unclear from the guidance who is 

responsible for assessing the 

reliability of financial forecasts. 

• The emphasis placed on the 

reliability of the financial forecast 

should correlate to the stage of 

project development. 

Reliability of forecasts measures: FTA 

proposes to assess the risk and uncertainty 

inherent in project evaluation. Specifically, FTA

plans to evaluate the uncertainty associated

with the nature and severity of the problem, as 

well as individual measures of project merit and 

cost-effectiveness measures. 

SAFETEA-LU requires that the reliability 

of the forecasting methods used to 

estimate costs be considered in the 

evaluation of New Starts projects. 

• Proposal is confusing. 

• Recent experience with risk 

assessments suggests that the 

proposal would require substantial 

effort with little reduction in 

uncertainty. 

• FTA should place significant weight 

on the project sponsor’s ability to 

enhance the reliability of forecasts 

through the proven quality control 

methods. 

Development of project ratings: Currently, 

FTA develops separate ratings for project 

justification and local financial commitment, and 

then derives an overall project rating from these 

component ratings using decision rules. FTA

proposes to use a similar process for rating 

projects. However, FTA states that the reliability 

of forecasts needs to be incorporated into the 

ratings process, and suggests different options

for accomplishing this, such as using probability 

weightings or using uncertainty indicators to 

decide the outcome for ratings at the margins. 

FTA also seeks input about the weights that

should be assigned to each measure. 

SAFETEA-LU requires that the reliability 

of the forecasting methods used to 

estimate costs be considered in the 

evaluation of New Starts projects. 

• Economic development and land use 

should receive the same weight as 

cost-effectiveness. 

Page 31 GAO-06-910T 
Proposed change FTA’s rationale for change

Comments submitted by the transit 

community

Project development process 

Local endorsement of the financial plan: FTA 

proposes to require that project sponsors 

specify all proposed sources of funding in the

financial plan, and that the sponsoring agency 

provide a letter endorsing the proposed financial 

strategies and amounts of planned funding by

those agencies identified as funding sources. 

SAFETEA-LU requires that FTA ensure 

that proposed New Starts projects are 

supported by an acceptable degree of local 

financial commitment and resources. 

FTA has experienced situations in which a 

project’s financial plans state that local

agencies will provide funding, but in reality 

those local agencies do not support the 

project plan. 

• Securing an endorsement will be 

overly burdensome and delay

project development. 

• FTA should not dictate when project 

sponsors receive financial 

commitments. 

• Hard to fully secure funding 

commitments in preliminary 

engineering and final design. 

Approval of the baseline alternative: FTA 

proposes to maintain the current approval 

process and definition of the baseline 

alternative. However, FTA asks whether the 

baseline can be more clearly defined and 

whether there is a way to report on the benefits 

of the project including the benefits attributable 

to the difference between the no-build and the 

baseline alternatives. 

There has been significant confusion over 

the definition of the baseline alternative. 

• More clarity needed on how FTA

defines baseline alternative. 

• Selection of baseline alternative 

should not be driven by FTA. 

On-board transit survey: FTA is considering 

requiring that a recent survey of transit riders be 

used to inform the technical work completed 

during alternatives analysis. FTA suggests that 

“recent” could be defined as within the 5 years 

preceding a request to enter preliminary 

engineering. 

Data on current ridership patterns are 

essential to the development of reliable 

forecasts. 

• Surveys are expensive and may be 

unnecessary in some areas. 

• FTA should consider other means of 

collecting data on ridership, such as 

electronic fare collection data and 

small sample surveys. 

Preliminary engineering purpose and exit 

criteria: FTA is considering defining the 

preliminary engineering phase as the process of 

finalizing the project’s scope, cost, and financial 

plan such that (1) all environmental impacts are 

identified and adequate provisions are made for 

their mitigation in accordance with National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), (2) all major 

or critical project elements are designed to the 

level that no significant unknown impacts 

relative to their costs will result, and (3) all cost 

estimating is complete to a level of confidence 

necessary for the sponsor to implement the 

financing strategy. 

Since the completion of preliminary 

engineering for proposed projects 

represents the completion of nearly all the 

steps needed to make a final decision on

the actual implementation of the proposed

project, the information for making that final 

decision must be reliable. 

• Need a clearer definition of 

preliminary engineering phase to 

help project sponsors target 

resources. 

• Design costs will be frontloaded, 

thereby increasing the costs of 

preliminary engineering. 

Page 32 GAO-06-910T 
Proposed change FTA’s rationale for change

Comments submitted by the transit 

community

Project reaffirmation by the metropolitan

planning organization (MPO): FTA is

considering requiring that the sponsoring 

agencies reaffirm their adoption of the project in 

its final configuration and costs into the MPO’s 

long range transportation plan as part of the 

application to advance the project to final 

design. 

Before a project is approved for 

advancement into preliminary engineering, 

the project must be adopted by the MPO

into its long-range transportation plan. 

However, a project’s scope and costs may 

change during the preliminary engineering 

phase. Thus, this requirement would 

ensure that a revised project still conforms 

to the MPO’s transportation plans and 

financial investment strategies. 

• Creates another step that will

increase time and cost of project 

development. 

• Duplicates sponsors’ ongoing work 

with the MPO and provides no

added certainty. 

• Will likely have limited impact on 

local financial endorsement. 

• Inconsistent with Federal Highway 

Administration regulations. 

New Starts funding share incentives: FTA 

asks how it should implement the provision in

SAFETEA-LU that would give FTA discretion to 

provide a higher percentage of New Starts 

funding than that requested by the project 

sponsor as an incentive to produce reliable 

ridership and cost estimates. 

SAFETEA-LU allows the Secretary to 

provide a higher grant percentage than 

requested by the project sponsor if (1) the 

net cost of the project is not more than 10

percent higher than the net cost estimated 

at the time the project was approved for 

advancement into preliminary engineering, 

and (2) the ridership estimated for the 

project is not less than 90 percent of the 

ridership estimated for the project at the 

time the project was approved for 

advancement into preliminary engineering. 

• Incentive money should be invested 

back into the New Starts program. 

• Incentive should focus on the 

project’s outcomes like project 

impacts. 

Source: GAO analysis of FTA guidance and public comments posted on FTA’s docket. 

Page 33 GAO-06-910T 
Related GAO Products 

Opportunities Exist to Improve the Communication and Transparency 

of Changes Made to the New Starts Program. GAO-05-674. Washington,

D.C.: June 28, 2005. 

Mass Transit: FTA Needs to Better Define and Assess Impact of Certain 

Policies on New Starts Program. GAO-04-748. Washington, D.C.: June 25, 

2004. 

Mass Transit: FTA Needs to Provide Clear Information and Additional 

Guidance on the New Starts Ratings Process. GAO-03-701. Washington,

D.C.: June 23, 2003. 

Mass Transit: Status of New Starts Program and Potential for Bus Rapid 

Transit Projects. GAO-02-840T. Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2002. 

Mass Transit: FTA’s New Starts Commitments for Fiscal Year 2003. 

GAO-02-603. Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2002. 

Mass Transit: FTA Could Relieve New Starts Program Funding 

Constraints. GAO-01-987. Washington, D.C.: August 15, 2001.

Mass Transit: Implementation of FTA’s New Starts Evaluation Process 

and FY 2001 Funding Proposals. GAO/RCED-00-149. Washington, D.C.: 

April 28, 2000. 

Mass Transit: Status of New Starts Transit Projects With Full Funding 

Grant Agreements. GAO/RCED-99-240. Washington, D.C.: August 19, 1999. 

Mass Transit: FTA’s Progress in Developing and Implementing a New 

Starts Evaluation Process. GAO/RCED-99-113. Washington, D.C.: April 26,

1999. 

Job Access and Reverse Commute: Program Status and Potential Effects 

of Proposed Legislative Changes. GAO-04-934R. Washington, D.C.: August 

20, 2004. 

Welfare Reform: Job Access Program Improves Local Service 

Coordination, but Evaluation Should Be Completed. GAO-03-204. 

Washington, D.C.: December 6, 2002.

New Starts reports and 

testimonies 

JARC reports and 

testimonies 

Page 34 GAO-06-910T 
Welfare Reform: DOT Has Made Progress in Implementing the Job 

Access Program but Has Not Evaluated Impact. GAO-02-640T. 

Washington, D.C.: April 17, 2002. 

Welfare Reform: Competitive Grant Selection Requirement for DOT’s Job 

Access Program Was Not Followed. GAO-02-213. Washington, D.C.: 

December 7, 2001. 

Welfare Reform: GAO’s Recent and Ongoing Work on DOT’s Access to 

Jobs Program. GAO-01-996R. Washington, D.C.: August 17, 2001. 

Welfare Reform: DOT Is Making Progress in Implementing the Job 

Access Program. GAO-01-133. Washington, D.C.: December 4, 2000. 

Welfare Reform: Implementing DOT’s Access to Jobs Program in Its First 

Year. GAO/RCED-00-14. Washington, D.C.: November 26, 1999. 

Welfare Reform: Implementing DOT’s Access to Jobs Program. 

GAO/RCED-99-36. Washington, D.C.: December 8, 1998. 

Welfare Reform: Transportation’s Role in Moving from Welfare to Work. 

GAO/RCED-98-161. Washington, D.C.: May 29, 1998. 

Highway and Transit Investments: Options for Improving Information 

on Projects’ Benefits and Costs and Increasing Accountability for 

Results. GAO-05-172. Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2005. 

Transportation Disadvantaged Populations: Some Coordination Efforts 

Among Programs Providing Transportation Services, but Obstacles 

Persist. GAO-03-697. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2003. 

Transit Labor Arrangements: Most Transit Agencies Report Impacts Are 

Minimal. GAO-02-78. Washington, D.C.: November 19, 2001. 

Mass Transit: Many Management Successes at WMATA, but Capital 

Planning Could Be Enhanced. GAO-01-744. Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2001. 

Transit Grants: Need for Improved Predictability, Data, and Monitoring

in Application Processing. GAO/RCED-00-260. Washington, D.C.: August 

30, 2000. 

Other transit-related 

reports 

(542095) Page 35 GAO-06-910T 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It 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. 
GAO’s Mission 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 Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER