Public Transportation: Preliminary Information on FTA's Implementation of SAFETEA-LU Changes
Published: 2006-06-27T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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. 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  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.
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 SAFETEA- LU. 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. 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  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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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 fixed- guideway 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  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. 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, 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  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. 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.
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. 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  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.
section_title: SAFETEA-LU’s Changes to the New Starts Program Range from Identifying New Evaluation Criteria to Establishing the Small Starts Program
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: FTA Has Started to Implement SAFETEA-LU Changes and Will Continue to Do So through the Rulemaking Process
paragraphs: 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. 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  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.
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.
section_title: Small Starts Program Is Intended to Offer a Streamlined Process, but Transit Community Members Question Whether It Will Do So
paragraphs: 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  project sponsors with an expedited and streamlined evaluation and rating  process. Table 2 compares New Starts and Small Starts program  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 cost- effectiveness without the use of complicated travel demand modeling  procedures in some cases, and possibly defining some classes of pre- 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” option and make the  before and after study optional for Small Starts projects to limit the time  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  interim guidance for the Small Starts program by August 2006. This  guidance will govern the program until the final rule is issued.
section_title: FTA Also Identified Possible Changes to the New Starts Program in Response to SAFETEA-LU as well as Implementation Challenges
paragraphs: 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 SAFETEA- LU 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 SAFETEA- LU 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 benefits in the New Starts evaluation process—land use and  economic development impacts. For example, FTA noted that its current  land use measures (e.g., land use plans and policies) indicate the transit- 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, 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. 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  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.
section_title: SAFETEA-LU Transformed the JARC Program from a Discretionary to a Formula-based Program
paragraphs: 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. 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.
subsections: section_title: SAFETEA-LU Created a Formula for Distributing JARC Funds and Amended Other Key Aspects of the Program
paragraphs: 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.  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. 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, SAFETEA- LU 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  provide funding for transportation-disadvantaged populations. 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, 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.
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. 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.
section_title: FTA Has Developed Interim JARC Guidance and Plans to Issue Final Program Guidance Later This Year
paragraphs: 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. 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  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.
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  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.
section_title: Transparency, Communication, and Accountability Issues Will Continue to Be Important
paragraphs: 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.
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. 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, we noted that a number of project sponsors were unable to  calculate a valid Transportation System User Benefits (TSUB) value, and  as a result, their projects received a “not rated” rating for the cost- effectiveness criterion. 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.
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. 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  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, as TEA-21 required. 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. 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.  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  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.
subsections: section_title: Contact Information
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Appendix I: FTA’s Proposed Changes to the New Starts Program
paragraphs: 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.
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. concerns because they continue to  define cost-effectiveness only in  terms of mobility.  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.
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. 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 cost-  effectiveness.
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.
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.
FTA’s previous measure—percentage of  low income households in the project  corridor—is somewhat imprecise.
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 cost- effectiveness evaluation measure to  address the operating efficiency  criterion.
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 cost- effectiveness 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. 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.  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.
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.
Securing an endorsement will be  overly burdensome and delay  project development.
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. 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.  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.
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.
section_title: Related GAO Products
subsections: section_title: New Starts reports and testimonies
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Other transit-related reports
paragraphs: 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.
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.