BUS RAPID TRANSIT

Projects Improve 

Transit Service and 

Can Contribute to 

Economic 

Development

Report to the Committee on Banking, 

Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate

July 2012

GAO-12-811

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-811, a report to the 

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 

Affairs, U.S. Senate

July 2012

BUS RAPID TRANSIT

Projects Improve Transit Service and Can 

Contribute to Economic Development

Why GAO Did This Study

BRT is a form of transit that has 

generated interest around the world to 

help alleviate the adverse effects of 

traffic congestion and potentially 

contribute to economic growth. BRT 

features can include improvements to 

infrastructure, technology, and 

passenger amenities over standard 

bus service to improve service and 

attract new riders. The use of federal 

funding for BRT in the United States 

has increased since 2005, when the 

Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users expanded eligibility for major 

capital projects under FTA’s Capital 

Investment Grant Program to include 

corridor-based bus projects. BRT

projects can be funded through New, 

Small, and Very Small Start grants 

under the Capital Investment Grant 

Program. 

GAO was asked to examine 

(1) features included in BRT projects 

funded by the FTA; (2) BRT project 

performance in terms of ridership and 

service and how they compare to rail 

transit projects; (3) how BRT-projects’ 

costs differ from rail transit project 

costs; and (4) the extent to which BRT 

projects provide economic 

development and other benefits. To 

address these objectives, GAO sent 

questionnaires to officials of all 20 

existing BRT and 20 existing rail-transit 

projects that the FTA recommended for 

funding from fiscal year 2005 through 

2012 to collect information on project 

features, ridership, and service and 

interviewed select project sponsors. 

GAO also reviewed documents and 

interviewed government, academic, 

and industry group officials. The U.S. 

Department of Transportation did not 

comment on the draft report. 

What GAO Found

U.S. bus rapid transit (BRT) projects we reviewed include features that 

distinguished BRT from standard bus service and improved riders’ experience. 

However, few of the projects (5 of 20) used dedicated or semi-dedicated lanes—

a feature commonly associated with BRT and included in international systems to 

reduce travel time and attract riders. Project sponsors and planners explained 

that decisions on which features to incorporate into BRT projects were influenced 

by costs, community needs, and the ability to phase in additional features. For 

example, one project sponsor explained that well-lighted shelters with security 

cameras and real-time information displays were included to increase 

passengers’ sense of safety in the evening. Project sponsors told us they plan to 

incorporate additional features such as off-board fare collection over time. 

The BRT projects we reviewed generally increased ridership and improved 

service over the previous transit service. Specifically, 13 of the 15 project 

sponsors that provided ridership data reported increases in ridership after 1 year 

of service and reduced average travel times of 10 to 35 percent over previous 

bus services. However, even with increases in ridership, U.S. BRT projects 

usually carry fewer total riders than rail transit projects and international BRT 

systems. Project sponsors and other stakeholders attribute this to higher 

population densities internationally and riders who prefer rail transit. However, 

some projects—such as the M15 BRT line in New York City—carry more than 

55,000 riders per day.

Capital costs for BRT projects were generally lower than for rail transit projects 

and accounted for a small percent of the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) 

New, Small, and Very Small Starts’ funding although they accounted for over 50 

percent of projects with grant agreements since fiscal year 2005. Project 

sponsors also told us that BRT projects can provide rail-like benefits at lower 

capital costs. However, differences in capital costs are due in part to elements 

needed for rail transit that are not required for BRT and can be considered in 

context of total riders, costs for operations, and other long-term costs such as 

vehicle replacement. 

We found that although many factors contribute to economic development, most 

local officials we visited believe that BRT projects are contributing to localized 

economic development. For instance, officials in Cleveland told us that between 

$4 and $5 billion was invested near the Healthline BRT project—associated with 

major hospitals and universities in the corridor. Project sponsors in other cities 

told us that there is potential for development near BRT projects; however, 

development to date has been limited by broader economic conditions—most 

notably the recent recession. While most local officials believe that rail transit has 

a greater economic development potential than BRT, they agreed that certain 

factors can enhance BRT’s ability to contribute to economic development, 

including physical BRT features that relay a sense of permanence to developers; 

key employment and activity centers located along the corridor; and local policies 

and incentives that encourage transit-oriented development. Our analysis of land 

value changes near BRT lends support to these themes. In addition to economic 

development, BRT project sponsors highlighted other community benefits 

including quick construction and implementation and operational flexibility.

View GAO-12-811. For more information, 

contact David J. Wise at (202) 512-2834 or 

wised@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

Letter 1 

Background 4

U.S. BRT Projects Incorporate Many Features, but Most Lack 

Dedicated Running Ways 8

Most BRT Projects Reported Increased Ridership and Improved

Service 20

BRT Projects Generally Have Lower Capital Costs than Rail Transit 26

Some BRT Projects Have Potential to Contribute to Economic 

Development and Other Benefits 32

Concluding Observations 40

Agency Comments 41

Appendix I Project Information for Bus Rapid Transit Case Studies 43

Appendix II Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 44

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 48

Tables

Table 1: Summary of GAO Questionnaire Results for BRT Projects’ 

Physical Features, by Number of Features 9

Table 2: Summary of Economic Development near BRT Case 

Studies 33

Table 3: Project Information for Bus Rapid Transit Case Studies 43

Figures

Figure 1: Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit 6

Figure 2: Number of BRT Projects That Reported Select Amenities 

at Half or More Stations 12

Figure 3: Example of a Standard Bus Stop versus Basic BRT 

Station in Los Angeles 13

Figure 4: Number of BRT Projects That Reported Select Features 

in Half or More Vehicles 15

Figure 5: Example of a BRT Vehicle Tracking System Display 17

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

Figure 6: Percentage Change in Ridership for BRT Projects after 1 

Year of Operation Compared to Previous Transit Service 21

Figure 7: BRT Projects’ Reported Travel Time Savings Compared to 

Previous Transit Service 22

Figure 8: Reported Average Weekday Ridership Data for First Year 

of Operation, by Mode 25

Figure 9: Range and Individual Capital Costs for BRT and Rail 

Transit Projects Receiving a Grant Agreement from Fiscal 

Year 2005 through February 2012 27

Figure 10: Total Number of Projects and Percentage of Total New 

Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small Starts Committed 

Funding from Fiscal Year 2005 through February 2012 28

Figure 11: Total Projects in New Starts, Small Starts, and Very 

Small Starts with Grant Agreements by Mode, Fiscal Year 

2005 through February 2012 29

Figure 12: Land Value Changes along Cleveland’s Healthline BRT 

Corridor, 2006 through 2011 35

Figure 13: Land Value Changes near Eugene/Springfield, Oregon, 

EmX, 2005 through 2010 37
Page iii GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

Abbreviations

ATA Area Transportation Authority (Kansas City)

BHX Boulder Highway Express

BRT bus rapid transit

CR commuter rail

DOT Department of Transportation

EmX Emerald Express

FTA Federal Transit Administration 

HR heavy rail

ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems 

LTD Lane Transit District (Eugene, OR)

LRT light rail transit

MAX Metro Area Express (Kansas City)

RTA Regional Transit Authority (Cleveland)

RTC Regional Transportation Commission (Washoe County, 

 Nevada)

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

 Act: A Legacy for Users

TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program

TIGER Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery

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

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

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

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

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

July 25, 2012

The Honorable Tim Johnson

Chairman

The Honorable Richard C. Shelby

Ranking Member

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

United States Senate

Bus rapid transit (BRT) has generated interest around the world for its 

potential to alleviate the adverse effects of traffic congestion and support 

economic growth, while generally having lower capital costs than rail 

transit. According to an international think tank, there are BRT corridors in 

more than 120 cities around the world, carrying over 27 million 

passengers a day.1 Many of these BRT systems incorporate dedicated 

lanes; large stations; higher passenger capacities; and quick service that 

can rival rail transit. In the U.S., BRT features vary, but generally include 

improvements to infrastructure, technology, and passenger amenities 

over standard bus service to attract new riders. BRT can provide several 

benefits to riders and the community, including improved mobility and 

reliability for riders, reduced travel times, reduced carbon emissions, and 

increased economic development.2

Since 2005, opportunities for federal capital funding for BRT projects in 

the U.S. have expanded due in part to changes made in the Safe, 

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

Users (SAFETEA-LU).3 Specifically, SAFETEA-LU revised eligibility for 

major capital investment projects4

 

1 The World Resources Institute. 

to include not only fixed-guideway 

systems but also corridor-based bus capital projects if specific criteria are 

2 Public transit investments are one of many factors determining a locale’s economic 

development. 

3 Pub. L. No. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144 (Aug. 10, 2005). 

4 49 U.S.C. § 5309(b)(1).

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

met.5

You asked us to examine the features of BRT projects recommended for 

funding by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), as well as assess 

how these projects compare to rail transit. Accordingly, this report 

addresses the following four questions:

In a fiscal environment in which state and local governments are 

looking to build high-capacity transit systems with limited funding, BRT 

has emerged as a potentially cost-effective alternative to new or extended 

rail transit projects.

1. Which BRT features are included in BRT projects and why?

2. How have BRT projects performed in terms of ridership and service 

and how do they compare to rail transit projects?

3. How do the costs of these projects differ from rail transit projects? 

4. To what extent do BRT projects provide economic development and 

other benefits to communities?

To determine which features are included in BRT projects and information 

on ridership and service, we sent questionnaires to the sponsors of all 20 

completed BRT projects since fiscal year 2005 that FTA recommended 

for New Start, Small Start, Very Small Start, or Bus and Bus Facilities 

 

5 Fixed-guideway systems use and occupy a separate right-of-way for the exclusive use of 

public transportation services, such as fixed rail and exclusive lanes for buses and other 

high-occupancy vehicles. According to FTA officials, the criteria FTA uses to determine if 

corridor based bus projects qualify as a fixed guideway system under 49 U.S.C. § 

5309(b)(1) follows language in SAFETEA-LU that allows corridor-based bus capital 

projects if— ‘‘(A) a substantial portion of the project operates in a separate right-of-way 

dedicated for public transit use during peak hour operations; or ‘(B) the project represents 

a substantial investment in a defined corridor as demonstrated by features such as parkand-ride lots, transit stations, bus arrival and departure signage, intelligent transportation 

systems technology, traffic signal priority, off-board fare collection, advanced bus 

technology, and other features that support the long-term corridor investment.” See 49 

U.S.C. § 5309(e)(10).
 

Page 3 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

funding under the Capital Investment Grant program.6,7 We prepopulated 

the questionnaires with information on BRT features and service obtained 

from an existing interest group’s BRT database, project websites, and 

other project sponsor documentation submitted to FTA and asked project 

sponsors to verify or correct the prepopulated information and complete 

any missing information.8 In addition, we visited five BRT projects to 

obtain information about why certain BRT features were or were not 

included in the projects.9 (see app. 1.) Information from these visits 

cannot be generalized to all BRT projects. To assess how all 20 BRT 

projects have performed in terms of ridership and service and how they 

compare to all 20 rail transit projects, we used data from the completed 

BRT project questionnaires, and compared this data to the data from the 

questionnaires we sent to the sponsors of all completed rail transit 

projects that met the criteria outline above.

10

 

6 The Capital Investment Grant Program also includes Fixed Guideway Modernization 

grants and Exempt projects that are not included in our scope. 49 U.S.C. § 5309. Within 

our scope, BusPlus, Franklin EmX, MetroRapid 741, M15, BHX, and RTC Rapid received 

grants through Bus and Bus Facilities. All others received grants through New Starts, 

Small Starts, or Very Small Starts.

We also reviewed existing 

literature on BRT and rail transit projects’ ridership and service levels. To 

assess how BRT projects compare to rail transit projects in terms of 

capital project costs and New Starts, Small Starts, or Very Small Starts 

share of funding, we collected and analyzed project grant data compiled 

by FTA. We included 55 (30 BRT and 25 rail transit) planned or 

completed projects that had construction grant agreements from fiscal 

year 2005 through February 2012. To verify and assess the reliability of 

7 A New Starts projects is a project that has a total estimated capital project cost of $250 

million or more or a New Starts contribution of $75 million or more. A Small Starts project 

has a total estimated project capital cost of under $250 million and a Small Starts 

contribution of under $75 million. Very Small Starts are very low cost projects within the 

Small Starts program that have an even further streamlined evaluation and rating process. 

Projects may also have other sources of federal funds, such as Federal Highway 

Administration’s Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement funds.

8 We received completed questionnaires for all 20 BRT projects in our scope for a 

response rate of 100 percent.

9 We interviewed project sponsors and visited the following BRT projects: the Healthline in 

Cleveland, OH; the RapidRide A Line in Seattle, WA; the Troost MAX in Kansas City, MO; 

the Metro Rapid System in Los Angeles, CA; and the Franklin EmX in Eugene, OR. 

Information obtained from our site visits is limited to the 5 BRT projects we visited. 

10 For rail transit projects, we received completed questionnaires for 18 of the 20 rail 

transit projects in our scope for a response rate of 90 percent.
 

Page 4 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

the data compiled by FTA, we compared and updated project capital cost 

data based on FTA’s Annual Reports on Funding Recommendations for 

fiscal years 2005 through 2012. To examine the extent to which BRT 

projects stimulate economic development and other benefits to 

communities, we reviewed existing literature on the impact of transit on 

economic development and land values. Also, during our five site visits—

selected by consideration of several factors, including the number and 

extent of BRT features as well as ridership, length of route, peak 

headway, and geographic diversity—we interviewed project sponsors, 

transit experts, non-profit business organizations, and economic 

development professionals about development that has occurred (or is 

expected to occur) in and around the BRT corridors. To supplement 

testimonial evidence obtained during site-visit interviews, we collected 

land value assessment data for properties located within 1⁄4 mile of the 

five BRT projects we visited and analyzed trends in the assessed inflation 

adjusted value of these properties for the 2 years prior to the project’s 

implementation to the 3 years after it began operating.11

We conducted this performance audit from July 2011 through July 2012 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

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

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

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

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. See appendix II for more 

information about our scope and methodology.

In addition to 

collecting data from FTA and sponsors of BRT and rail transit projects, we 

also reviewed relevant academic literature on BRT and rail transit and 

interviewed academic experts and BRT stakeholders.

In the U.S., while BRT projects vary in design, they generally include 

service enhancements designed to attract riders and provide similar 

transit-related benefits to rail transit. Specifically, as shown in figure 1, 

BRT generally includes improvements to seven features–running ways, 

 

11 We collected data from five locations; however we are only reporting data from 

Cleveland and Eugene. For other locations, preliminary analysis did not find changes in 

land values, data did not separate out land values, or the project was too new to analyze 

the land values after opening.

Background 
 

Page 5 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

stations, vehicles, intelligent transportation systems, fare collection, 

branding, and service.12

These enhancements are designed to replicate features found in rail 

transit and provide similar benefits including increases in ridership, travel 

time savings, and contribution to economic development. While few 

existing studies have examined the link between BRT and economic 

development, numerous studies have investigated the link between rail 

transit and economic development.

 

13 We have previously reported that, 

overall, these studies have shown that the presence of rail transit tends to 

positively impact surrounding land and housing values.14 However, in 

some cases the increases are modest and the impact throughout an 

entire system can vary depending on several characteristics. For 

instance, retail development, higher relative incomes, and proximity to job 

centers, parks, or other neighborhood amenities tend to increase land 

and housing values near transit, while non-transit oriented land uses, 

crime, and poor economic environments around a transit station can limit 

increases or even be a negative influence.15

 

12 GAO, Intelligent Transportation Systems: Improved DOT Collaboration and 

Communication Could Enhance the Use of Technology to Manage Congestion, 

GAO-12-308. (Washington, D.C.: March, 2012).

13 We identified studies on BRT and economic development which are primarily based on 

case study examples and are in some cases based on foreign examples and 

acknowledge limitations. These studies suggest that BRT can increase property values 

and promote various forms of economic development in nearby communities.

14 GAO, Affordable Housing in Transit-Oriented Development: Key Practices Could 

Enhance Recent Collaboration Efforts between DOT-FTA and HUD, GAO-09-871, 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2009).

15 GAO-09-871. 
 

Page 6 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

Figure 1: Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit
 

Page 7 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

In the U.S., multiple federal-funding sources have supported BRT 

systems. FTA’s Capital Investment Grant program provides capital funds 

to help project sponsors build larger-dollar new or extensions to existing 

fixed guideway transit capital systems—often referred to as “New Starts 

projects.” In 2005, SAFETEA-LU established the Small Starts program 

within the Capital Investment Grant program; the Small Starts program 

simplifies the New Starts evaluation and rating criteria and steps in the 

project development process to lower cost projects. It also added 

corridor-based bus systems as eligible projects.16 According to FTA’s 

guidance, BRT projects must (1) meet the definition of a fixed-guideway 

for at least 50 percent of the project length in the peak period or (2) be a 

corridor-based bus project with certain elements to qualify as a Small 

Starts project.17

 

16 Under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, or MAP-21, a corridorbased bus rapid transit project, in which the majority of the project does not operate in a 

separated right-of-way dedicated for public transportation use during peak periods, is 

eligible for Small Starts funding; New Starts funding eligibility is limited to those fixed 

guideway bus rapid transit projects in which the majority of the project operates in a 

separated right-of-way dedicated for public transportation use during peak periods. See 

sections 20004 and 20008 of Pub. L. No. 112-141 (July 6, 2012).

FTA subsequently introduced a further streamlined 

evaluation and rating process for very low cost projects within the Small 

Starts program, which FTA calls Very Small Starts. Very Small Starts are 

projects that must contain the same elements as Small Starts projects 

and also contain the following three features: be located in corridors with 

more than 3,000 existing transit riders per average weekday who will 

benefit from the proposed project; have a total capital cost of less than 

$50 million (for all project elements); and have a per-mile cost of less than 

$3 million, excluding rolling stock (e.g., buses and train cars). Any transit 

project that fits the broader definition of a fixed-guideway system is 

eligible, whether it is a BRT, streetcar, or other rail transit project (e.g.,

17 Fixed-guideway systems use and occupy a separate right-of-way for the exclusive use 

of public transportation services, such as fixed rail and exclusive lanes for buses and other 

high-occupancy vehicles. For Small Starts projects, the fixed-guideway portion of the 

project need not be contiguous, but it should be located to result in faster and more 

reliable running times. Peak period refers to periods with high ridership or demand.
 

Page 8 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

commuter rail, heavy rail, and light rail).18 BRT projects are also eligible 

for federal funding from other sources such as Congestion Mitigation and 

Air Quality Improvement grants, the Urbanized Area Formula grants, and 

the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Transportation Investment 

Generating Economic Recovery discretionary grants (TIGER).19

Based on our questionnaire results, we found that many U.S. BRT 

projects incorporate at least some station amenities and most other BRT 

features that distinguish them from standard bus service, and improve 

riders’ transit experience. However, few BRT project sponsors reported 

the use of dedicated or semi-dedicated running ways for at least 30 

percent of the route and less than half use off-board fare collection 

infrastructure (see Table 1 for an overview of BRT projects’ physical 

features).20

 

18 Commuter rail systems operate along electric or diesel-propelled railways and provide 

train service for local, short distance trips between a central city and adjacent suburbs. 

Heavy rail systems operate on electric railways with high-volume traffic capacity and are 

characterized by separated rights-of-way, sophisticated signaling, high platform loading, 

and high-speed, rapid-acceleration rail cars operating singly or in multi-car trains on fixed 

rails. Light rail systems operate on electric railways with light-volume traffic capacity and 

are characterized by shared or exclusive rights-of-way, low or high platform loading, single 

or double car trains, and overhead electric lines that power rail vehicles.

19 TIGER grants to communities fund road, rail, transit, and port projects expected to have 

a significant impact on the nation, a region, or a metropolitan area.

20 The table includes the six physical features included in the questionnaire; the improved 

service feature is discussed later in this report.

U.S. BRT Projects 

Incorporate Many 

Features, but Most 

Lack Dedicated 

Running Ways

BRT Projects’ Features
 

Page 9 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

Table 1: Summary of GAO Questionnaire Results for BRT Projects’ Physical Features, by Number of Features

Project (Location)

Running ways 

(at least 30 percent of 

route length)

Station 

amenitiesa

Fare 

collection 

(off board

(by number of 

amenities)

b

Vehicle 

features

) 

c

Branding 

and

marketing

 

(at least 

5 of 11 

features)

ITS 

featuresd

Dedicated

 

(at least 

3 of 6 

features)

Semi -

dedicated 4-6 7-12

Healthline 

(Cleveland, OH)

● ● ● ● ● ● 

Franklin EmX 

(Eugene, OR)

● ● ● ● ● ● 

Gateway EmX 

(Eugene, OR)

● ● ● ● ● ● ● 

RapidRide A

(Seattle, WA)

● ● ● ● 

M15 

(New York, NY)

● ● ● 

RTC Rapid (Reno, NV) ● ● ● ● ● 

BusPlus 

(Albany, NY)

● ● ● ● ● 

Metro Express 44

(San Joaquin, CA)

● ● ● ● ● 

Boulder Hwy. Express 

(BHX) 

(Southern NV)

● ● ● ● 

Troost MAX 

(Kansas City, MO)

● ● ● ● 

The Rapid 

(Livermore, CA)

● ● ● ● 

RapidRide B 

(Seattle, WA)

● ● ● 

Mountain Links 

(Northern AZ)

● ● ● 

Metro Rapid Gap 

Closuree 

(Los Angeles, CA)

● ● ●

Metro Rapid 741

(Los Angeles, CA)

f

● ●

Total (out of 20) 3 3 8 4 7 20 20 9 

Source: GAO analysis of project sponsors’ questionnaire data.

Note: The groupings of project sponsor data displayed in the table (i.e., 30 percent or more dedicated 

running way, 4 to 6 station amenities) are for illustrative purposes only and not meant to reflect critical 

numbers or percentages in BRT project design.
 

Page 10 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

a

Our questionnaire asked BRT project sponsors to provide information about 12 amenities commonly

associated with BRT stations, including: greater curb width or raised curb; route maps and schedules; 

safety improvements; next bus displays; level boarding; public art, and landscaping; seating; bicycle 

parking; physically separated passing lane; median-located stations; nearby park and ride lots; and 

weather protection.

b

Our questionnaire asked BRT project sponsors to provide information about off-board fare collection 

infrastructure, including off-board fare card vending machines and off-board barrier systems.

c

Our questionnaire asked BRT project sponsors to provide information about 11 BRT vehicle 

features, including: low floors, multiple boarding doors, internal bike racks, vehicle guidance 

technology, security cameras, audio stop announcements, visual stop announcements, technology 

for expedited wheelchair boarding, and whether buses were lower-emissions vehicles, articulated, 

and distinguishable from other buses.

d

Our questionnaire asked BRT project sponsors to provide information about six intelligent 

transportation systems: transit signal priority, transit signal preemption, “queue jumps,” vehicle 

tracking systems, automated scheduling dispatch systems, and collision warning systems.

e

The Gap Closure Project includes six Metro Rapid routes: 762, 770, 728, 794, 733, and CC-6.

f Metro Rapid Route 733.

Our questionnaire results indicate that most BRT projects (16 of 20) 

operate in mixed traffic—primarily arterial streets—for 50 percent or more 

of their routes.21 In contrast, 5 of the 20 BRT projects travel along a 

dedicated or semi-dedicated running way for 30 percent or more of their 

routes.22 According to FTA research, BRT projects with more fully 

dedicated running ways generally experience the greatest travel time 

savings as compared to the corridors’ local bus route. (See below for 

other BRT features that affect travel time savings.) However, our analysis 

of questionnaire data did not show a correlation between the type of 

running ways BRT projects operate on and travel time savings.23

 

21 Arterial streets typically have intersections with traffic signals, whereas freeways have 

entrance and exit ramps and use methods such as signs and gates to control access.

For 

example, Cleveland’s Healthline and the M15 in New York City operate 

along fully or semi-dedicated running ways for at least 60 percent of their 

routes, but these projects did not achieve the same percentage gains in 

travel time savings as projects such as Kansas City’s Troost MAX or 

Mountain Links in Arizona, both of which run in mixed traffic for at least 75 

percent of their routes. Some of the difference between our results and 

those of previous research may be attributable to the relative lack of 

22 One of the projects—Eugene’s Gateway EmX—uses both a semi-dedicated running 

way and a dedicated running way for 30 percent or more of its route; therefore, it is 

counted only once in this statistic.

23 Four of the 20 BRT project sponsors did not report data on travel time savings because 

the BRT either did not replace a previous route or it operated for less than a full year when 

the questionnaire was completed.

Running Ways 
 

Page 11 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

congestion in some of the BRT corridors, which helps these projects 

generate travel time savings while running in mixed traffic. For instance, 

the Troost MAX reported the highest travel time savings of any project, 

yet it runs almost entirely in mixed traffic along a corridor with minimal 

traffic congestion. In contrast, previous BRT research often includes 

international and other U.S. BRTs, such as the TransMilenio in Bogota, 

Columbia, and the East Busway in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, that have 

used dedicated running ways to achieve significant travel time savings 

because of the cities’ congestion levels. 

According to FTA research, station amenities can help shape the identity 

of a BRT project by portraying a premium service and enhancing the local 

environment. Based on responses to our questionnaire, most BRT 

projects (12 of 20) have at least four station amenities present at half or 

more of their stations, while four projects include at least seven amenities. 

The most common station amenities reported by BRT project sponsors 

included seating, weather protection, level boarding, and route maps and 

schedules. (See fig. 2.) Cleveland’s Healthline and Eugene’s Franklin and 

Gateway EmX incorporate the most station amenities. However, U.S. 

BRT projects generally do not include stations of the size and scale of 

those found in Latin American BRT systems such as Curitiba, Brazil; 

Bogota, Columbia; or Mexico City, Mexico.

Station Amenities
 

Page 12 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

Figure 2: Number of BRT Projects That Reported Select Amenities at Half or More 

Stations 

Through our site visits we found that BRT stations providing relatively few 

amenities may still be enhanced compared to standard bus stops in the 

same area. For example, in Los Angeles, standard bus stops are 

designated by a single flagged pole with limited route information, 

whereas all Metro Rapid stations provide detailed route information and 

many will have weather protection and safety improvements, such as 

lighting.24

 

24 Los Angeles Metro staff informed us that these bus stop improvements have been 

funded, but not yet implemented in all locations.

(See fig. 3.) Likewise, Kansas City Area Transportation 

Authority (ATA) officials informed us that Troost MAX stops were 
 

Page 13 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

designed significantly larger and with more rail-like features than 

traditional bus stops.25

Figure 3: Example of a Standard Bus Stop versus Basic BRT Station in Los Angeles

 

25 According to our questionnaire data, the following station amenities are present at half 

or more Troost MAX stations: greater curb width or raised curb; route maps and 

schedules; next bus displays; public art and landscaping; seating; and weather protection.
 

Page 14 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

BRT projects have different combinations of fare collection and 

verification methods. According to our questionnaire results, most BRT 

projects (14 of 20) allow on-board driver validation—typical of standard 

bus service—as a fare collection option for riders.26 Fewer projects 

incorporate alternative fare collection methods, such as proof-of-payment 

systems that allow riders to board without presenting payment directly to 

a driver, or off-board fare collection infrastructure (i.e., fare card vending 

machines or barrier systems). Specifically, half of the project sponsors 

(10 of 20) reported that their projects use a proof-of-payment system and 

seven reported that their projects incorporate off-board fare collection 

infrastructure.27

With respect to BRT vehicle features, according to our questionnaire 

results, all project sponsors reported the use of low floor vehicles and 

nearly all reported the use of lower emissions vehicles, technology for 

expedited wheelchair boarding, security cameras, and audio stop 

announcements. (See fig. 4.)

According to FTA research, off-board fare collection 

infrastructure may contribute to customers’ perception of BRT as a highquality transit service and can improve service reliability and travel time 

savings. Project sponsors also mentioned this feature as important in 

generating travel time savings.

28

 

26 Some projects have more than one fare collection or verification method; therefore the 

total number of methods used exceeds the total number of BRT projects.

According to FTA research, the design 

and features of BRT vehicles can affect the projects’ ridership capacity, 

environmental friendliness, and passengers’ comfort and overall 

impression of BRT. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) 

officials told us that the transit agency went through several iterations with 

the manufacturer to design a BRT vehicle that looked and felt more like a 

rail car. Among other features, the Healthline vehicles were designed to 

include hybrid technology—which according to local officials provides a 

quieter ride than standard buses—doors on both sides, and expedited 

wheelchair-boarding capabilities to reduce passenger-loading times.

27 Two of the projects that incorporate off-board fare collection infrastructure also use a 

proof-of-payment method to ensure fare payment. 

28 Low floor vehicles help reduce passengers’ boarding times by reducing the height 

differential between the curb and the bus.

Fare Collection

Vehicle Features
 

Page 15 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

Figure 4: Number of BRT Projects That Reported Select Features in Half or More 

Vehicles

All BRT project sponsors responding to our questionnaire have used 

some form of branding and marketing to promote their BRT service, such 

as website improvements specific to BRT and uniquely branded BRT 

vehicles and stations. Research on BRT, as well as project sponsors and 

other experts we spoke with, emphasized the importance of strong 

branding and marketing in shaping the identity of a line or system and 

attracting riders. Los Angeles Metro officials told us that they employed a 

number of additional marketing techniques to increase awareness of the 

BRT service before it opened, such as hosting big media events and 

ambassador programs in which Metro staff handed out brochures at bus 

stops. To create a brand name and generate revenue, Cleveland’s RTA 

sold the naming rights of its BRT project and select stations for $10 

million, over 25 years.

Branding and Marketing 
 

Page 16 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

According to responses to our questionnaire, 9 BRT projects have at least 

3 of the 6 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) features and almost all 

(18 of 20) incorporate at least one feature. The most common ITS 

technologies included as part of BRT projects were transit signal priority 

systems (18 of 20), and vehicle tracking systems (17 of 20), which 

monitor vehicles to ensure arrivals are evenly spaced and transit 

connections are on schedule. (See fig. 5 for an example.)29 Research by 

FTA and others has found that incorporating ITS into BRT projects can 

help transit agencies increase safety, operational efficiency, and quality of 

service. In addition, these systems can improve riders’ access to reliable 

and timely information. Los Angeles Metro officials told us that traffic 

signal priority represents one of Metro Rapid’s most important attributes. 

These officials informed us that while the system does not override traffic 

lights, it can extend green signals to get BRT vehicles through the lights 

and to the next stop, helping keep the vehicles on time.30

 

29 Transit signal priority systems can alter the timing of traffic signals in various ways to 

give priority to BRT vehicles at intersections. New York City Transit’s M15 project was not 

included in these counts; however, according to the project sponsors, several ITS 

technologies will be incorporated throughout 2012 and 2013, including transit signal 

priority and vehicle tracking systems.

30 Transit signal-preemption systems override traffic signals, for example, by changing a 

red light to green as a BRT vehicle approaches an intersection. Based on our survey 

results, none of the existing BRT projects incorporate this feature.

Intelligent Transportation 

Systems Features 
 

Page 17 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

Figure 5: Example of a BRT Vehicle Tracking System Display

While less common, some BRT projects use queue jump lanes, a feature 

that generally involves BRT vehicles traveling in restricted lanes and 

receiving early green light signals at select intersections.31 According to 

officials of Eugene’s Lane Transit District (LTD), the use of a queue jump 

lane has helped generate travel time savings for EmX riders by allowing 

the BRT vehicles to by-pass traffic stopped at an intersection.

Based on our interviews with BRT project sponsors and planners, several 

factors influenced the design of BRT projects and the presence or 

absence of physical features commonly associated with BRT. In 

particular, stakeholders frequently mentioned cost considerations, 

community needs and input, and the ability to phase in additional physical 

features over time as factors influencing their decisions. Officials in four of 

our five site-visit locations described instances in which costs or financial 

constraints factored into their decision-making or resulted in a change of 

plans regarding the project’s physical features. For example, Kansas City 

 

31 According to our questionnaire results, 6 of 20 BRT projects incorporate queue jumps.

Factors Affecting 

Decisions on Physical 

Features
 

Page 18 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

ATA officials told us that a dedicated running way was not acquired for 

the Troost MAX in part because this feature would have added costs 

without providing substantial travel time savings benefits given Troost 

Avenue’s minimal traffic congestion. In Seattle, King County Metro 

officials told us that several common BRT features, including level or 

raised boarding and off-board ticket or fare card vending machines, were 

not incorporated into the RapidRide system because of costs. For 

instance, they explained that level or raised boarding was not included 

because of the costs associated with implementing this feature at a large 

number of stations and stops (120 and 155 respectively) and addressing 

the limitations of the different sites.

Three projects we visited during site visits were Very Small Starts projects 

and therefore, had total project capital costs of less than $50 million. (See 

app. I for the list of our case study projects.) The sponsors of two of these 

projects told us that while Very Small Starts projects can create incentives 

for communities to pursue BRT by offering streamlined requirements and 

grants for up to 80 percent of a project’s total capital cost, the program’s 

$50-million limit on projects’ total capital costs provides an incentive to 

keep costs low. As a result, project sponsors may only incorporate those 

physical features that are the most cost-effective or critical to achieving 

the projects’ objectives and omit other features commonly associated with 

BRT.

Several project sponsors we visited also mentioned that the input of 

community residents, business owners, and other stakeholders affected 

by a project can help shape final decisions about its design and features, 

for instance:

• Los Angeles city officials explained that only 80 percent of the 

Wilshire Metro Rapid route within the city limits will have bus-only 

lanes during weekday peak hours because some neighborhoods 

resisted bus-only lanes and were unwilling to give up a travel lane on 

such a congested street.

• Officials in Eugene told us that the Franklin Avenue EmX was 

originally intended to run on a dedicated running way for 90 percent of 

its route. However, in part due to the public input process, which 

raised concerns over loss of parking and business access, the agency 

reduced the dedicated portion of the route to 50 percent.
 

Page 19 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

• Kansas City ATA officials explained that residents’ safety concerns 

along Troost Avenue resulted in well-lighted shelters designed with 

transparent backings and real-time information displays, which helped 

increase passengers’ sense of safety while waiting for the bus during 

the evening. Several major stations were also equipped with security 

cameras.

Some transit experts we spoke to also pointed out that some BRT 

features may not be incorporated into a project’s initial design, since—

unlike rail transit projects—it is fairly easy to add features to BRT projects 

after they start operating. Moreover, project sponsors in four of the five 

site-visit locations told us that they plan to incorporate (or are considering 

incorporating) additional features into their BRT projects. According to 

local officials, Eugene’s transit agency may increase the portion of the 

EmX line that runs on a designated running way, particularly through 

sections of neighboring Springfield that are planned for redevelopment. 

These officials noted that stakeholders generally view the EmX’s 

implementation as an incremental process and its flexibility as an 

important benefit. In Seattle, transit agency staff explained that although 

level boarding and off-board fare card vending machines were not 

incorporated into the initial design of the RapidRide lines, these features 

will be periodically reevaluated for future lines and off-board fare card 

vending machines may be added to some locations on existing lines.
 

Page 20 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

For systems where changes in ridership could be calculated, almost all 

BRT project sponsors (13 of 15), reported increased ridership over the 

previous transit service—typically a standard bus service—according to 

results from our questionnaires (see fig. 6.)32

 

32 We could not calculate ridership changes for five of the 20 BRT projects because the 

BRT route either did not replace a previous route or the BRT operated for less than a full 

year when the project sponsors filled out the questionnaires. Project sponsors were not 

asked to report the type of service the BRT route replaced. 

Of the 13 existing BRT 

projects that increased ridership, more than half (7 of 13) reported 

increases of 30 percent or more during the first year of service. Three of 

the eight BRT project sponsors who reported ridership data for additional 

years continued to increase ridership. For example, ridership for the RTC 

Rapid in Nevada increased at least 5 percent each year for the first 3 

years of service.

Most BRT Projects 

Reported Increased 

Ridership and 

Improved Service

BRT Increased Ridership 

and Travel Time Savings, 

Although Rail Transit

Generally Serves More 

Riders 
 

Page 21 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

Figure 6: Percentage Change in Ridership for BRT Projects after 1 Year of Operation Compared to Previous Transit Service

Note: Officials for Metro Rapid 733 and Metro Rapid 741 projects in Los Angeles reported a decrease 

in ridership. According to Los Angeles Metro officials, while ridership for the BRT lines decreased, 

overall ridership has increased along the corridor. Officials said that the decline in Metro Rapid’s 

share of riders could be attributed to riders adjusting their travel behavior back to standard bus 

service after trying Metro Rapid’s service. Generally, the travel time savings from the use of Metro 

Rapid service accrues to longer distance trips within a corridor; standard bus service can be faster 

when wait time is factored into the equation.

BRT project sponsors stated that they attracted riders, in part, by 

reducing travel times and incorporating BRT features. All BRT projects 

that replaced existing transit service reported travel time savings during 

peak hours ranging from about 10 percent to 35 percent, as shown in 

figure 7.33

 

33 Four of the 20 project sponsors did not report data for travel time savings because the 

BRT route did not replace a previous route or they were unable to provide current travel 

times at the time they completed the questionnaire for a number of reasons. We didn’t 

differentiate travel time savings between peak and off-peak. Rather, we asked project 

sponsors to report travel time savings before and after implementation of the BRT.

Several BRT project sponsors highlighted BRT features that 
 

Page 22 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

helped reduce travel times and attract riders. New York City Transit 

reported an average travel time savings of 13 minutes (or 16 percent), 

from 81 to 68 minutes for the M15 BRT (an 8.5 mile route). Analysis done 

by New York City Transit and others showed that the travel time savings 

for riders was due to shorter waiting times from the off-board fare 

collection. Similarly, Eugene LTD officials told us that one of the ways 

they attracted riders was to reduce travel times for the EmX BRT using 

two ITS components–-transit signal priority and a queue jump. According 

to research and transit stakeholders we spoke to, travel time savings is 

one of the greatest contributors to ridership gains.34

Figure 7: BRT Projects’ Reported Travel Time Savings Compared to Previous Transit Service

 

34 Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide

(Washington D.C.: 2007).
 

Page 23 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

In addition to decreased travel times, BRT project sponsors also 

improved ridership by shortening “headways”—the time interval between 

buses moving in the same direction on a particular route—and decreasing 

riders’ wait times. More than half of BRT project sponsors (13 of 20) 

reported having headways of 10 minutes or less during peak hours.

Furthermore, during off-peak hours, over half of these existing BRT 

systems (11 of 20) operated headways of 15 minutes or less. Local 

officials told us that the EmX’s 10-minute headways—5 minutes shorter 

than the previous bus route—improved ridership by university students 

and made it easier for them to live further from campus where rents are 

less expensive. Moreover, according to FTA guidance and other 

research, frequent headways are important for riders’ perception of 

service quality. Specifically, research suggests that during peak hours 10 

minutes is the maximum time between vehicles that riders are willing to 

wait without planning ahead of time.

BRT project sponsors also reported providing service enhancements to 

attract riders and, in some cases, reduce travel times. Service 

enhancements included extended hours of service (e.g., more than 16 

hours per day), weekend service, and limited-stop service. All project 

sponsors reported providing at least one service enhancement and 

almost half (8 of 20) reported offering all three expanded service 

characteristics in our questionnaire. Project sponsors highlighted how the 

service enhancements helped reduce travel times. For example, Kansas 

City ATA officials attributed part of the Troost BRT’s travel time savings to 

greater spacing between stops which allowed the vehicles to stop less 

frequently and travel at higher speeds.

Gains in ridership are due in part to the BRT’s ability to attract new riders 

to transit. All five BRT project sponsors we spoke with attributed a portion 

of the gains in ridership to an increase in choice riders—those who prefer 

to use transit even though they have the option to drive. Cleveland RTA’s 

Healthline BRT, for example, replaced the busiest bus route in the city 

and surpassed its 5-year ridership projection in the second year of 

service. Specifically, according to Cleveland RTA officials, some riders 

are using the Healthline for mid-day trips that they may have previously 

taken in cars. Similarly, the Seattle’s RapidRide A line also replaced one 

of the busiest bus routes and achieved an increase in ridership of more 

than 30 percent in the first year, an increase that included new riders from 

the local community college, according to King County Metro officials.
 

Page 24 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

Research suggests that at least some of these choice riders would be 

unwilling to ride a traditional bus, but will ride BRT.35

Even with gains in ridership, BRT projects in the U.S. usually carry fewer 

total riders compared to rail transit projects, based on our analysis of 

project sponsor questionnaires. The rail transit projects we examined 

generally had higher average weekday ridership than BRT lines, although 

there were some exceptions. As figure 8 shows, nine of the 10 projects 

with the highest total ridership are rail transit projects. However, the M15 

BRT in New York City has the highest total ridership of any project—more 

than 55,000 riders per day. This illustrates how, given the right conditions, 

BRT projects can generate ridership similar to rail transit. In addition, 

three other BRT projects—Cleveland’s Healthline, Los Angeles’ Metro 

Rapid 733, and Southern Nevada’s BHX—average over 10,000 weekday 

riders, more than light rail projects in Los Angeles, Salt Lake City, and 

San Diego.

 

35CALSTART, Bus Rapid Transit Ridership Analysis, a special report prepared at the 

request of the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration Office of 

Research, Demonstration and Innovation and Office of Mobility Innovation, Service 

Innovation Division (June 2005).

BRT Ridership Compared

to Rail
 

Page 25 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

Figure 8: Reported Average Weekday Ridership Data for First Year of Operation, by Mode

Notes: Project sponsors reported ridership data for the first year of operations, which ranged between 

2005 and 2011.

CR=commuter rail, BRT=bus rapid transit, LRT=light rail transit, and HR=heavy rail. 

Several factors, including the number of available riders and rider 

preferences, affect total ridership. The M15’s high ridership is in part due 

to its location in densely populated Manhattan, the high number of transitdependent riders living and working along the corridor, and the distance 
 

Page 26 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

to the nearest subway line. In comparison, two commuter rail lines we 

examined were among the five projects with the lowest number of 

average daily riders likely due to shorter hours of service and the fact 

that, with the exception of a few peak hours, commuter rail lines generally 

have fewer trips throughout the day.

Further, we heard from stakeholders that, in general, riders prefer rail 

transit compared to bus due to the greater perceived prestige of rail 

transit. Rail transit project sponsors and city officials for all rail projects we 

looked at told us that their projects would likely not have attracted the 

same number of riders had they been developed as BRT, citing the 

perception some riders have about the quality and permanence of bus 

service. According to project sponsors, rail transit projects have the ability 

to attract riders who would not be interested in any form of bus given 

perception and features. Research suggests that many intangible factors, 

including perception, play a role in making rail transit more attractive than 

bus. However, as discussed earlier, BRT project sponsors told us that the 

perceptions about bus for “choice riders” can be overcome with rail-like 

features. Cleveland RTA officials attribute increased BRT ridership to 

more professionals and students riding the Healthline. According to these 

officials, professionals and students find the Healthline attractive because 

of the increased frequency of service; quicker travel times; enhanced 

safety; limited stops; quality of ride; and quieter, more attractive, and 

more fuel-efficient vehicles. In some international cities, however, given 

their more comprehensive systems, higher population densities, and 

more positive attitudes about bus service, BRT ridership in some cities 

exceeds rail transit ridership in the U.S.

Of the planned or completed New, Small, or Very Small Starts projects 

that received construction grant agreements under FTA’s Capital 

Investment Grant program from fiscal year 2005 through February 2012, 

BRT projects generally had lower capital costs than rail transit projects. 

Median costs for BRT and rail transit projects we examined were about 

$36.1 million and $575.7 million, respectively. Capital costs for BRT and 

BRT Projects 

Generally Have Lower 

Capital Costs than 

Rail Transit

Capital Costs and New 

Starts Funding
 

Page 27 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

rail transit projects ranged from about $3.5 million to over $567 million 

and almost $117 million to over $7 billion, respectively. Of the 30 BRT 

projects with a grant agreement, only five had higher capital costs than 

the least expensive rail transit project. While initial capital costs are 

generally lower for BRT than rail transit, capital costs can be considered 

in context of total riders, as discussed earlier, and other long-term 

considerations, which we discuss below, depending on the purpose of the 

analysis. Figure 9 shows the range and individual project capital costs by 

mode.

Figure 9: Range and Individual Capital Costs for BRT and Rail Transit Projects Receiving a Grant Agreement from Fiscal Year 

2005 through February 2012

Note: Exempt projects were excluded from our analysis Cost data for New Starts, Small Starts, and 

Very Small Starts projects are through February 2012.

a

One streetcar project, the Portland Streetcar Loop, is included in this analysis as a light rail project.

More than half of projects (30 of 55) that received grant agreements since 

fiscal year 2005 have been BRT projects, yet these projects account for 

less than 10 percent of committed funding, as shown in figure 10. Based 

on our analysis of project cost estimates, we estimate $12.8 billion of 

Capital Investment Grant funds committed for New, Small, and Very 

Small Starts will be used for transit projects that received grant 

agreements since fiscal year 2005. Of this $12.8 billion, $1.2 billion will be

for BRT projects. The amount of New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small 

Start projects’ funding committed for BRT projects ranged from almost $3 

million to $275 million. Rail transit projects accounted for less than half of 

projects with grant agreements (25 of 55) and more than 90 percent of 
 

Page 28 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

funding. Federal Capital Investment Grant contributions under the New 

Starts, Small Starts, or Very Small Start categories for rail transit projects 

ranged from almost $60 million to over $2 billion.

Figure 10: Total Number of Projects and Percentage of Total New Starts, Small 

Starts, and Very Small Starts Committed Funding from Fiscal Year 2005 through 

February 2012

Note: Exempt projects were excluded from our analysis. 

a

One streetcar project, the Portland Streetcar Loop, is included in this analysis as a light rail project.

Since fiscal year 2005, most projects with grant agreements under Small 

Starts and Very Small Starts have been BRT projects while most New 

Starts projects have been rail transit. With two exceptions, all 30 BRT 

projects funded since fiscal year 2005 were funded under Small Starts or 

Very Small Starts. Twenty-one of 25 rail-transit projects were funded 

under New Starts and the remaining were funded under Small Starts. 

(See fig. 11.)
 

Page 29 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

Figure 11: Total Projects in New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small Starts with Grant Agreements by Mode, Fiscal Year 2005 

through February 2012

Note: Exempt projects were excluded from our analysis. 

a

One streetcar project, the Portland Streetcar Loop, is included in this analysis as a light rail project.

We heard from all of the BRT project sponsors we spoke with that, even 

at a lower capital cost, BRT could provide rail-like benefits. For example, 

Cleveland RTA officials told us the Healthline BRT project cost roughly 

one-third of what a comparable light rail project would have cost them.

Similarly, Eugene LTD officials told us that the agency pursued BRT 

when it became apparent that light rail was unaffordable and that an LTD 

light rail project would not be competitive in the New Starts federal grant 

process.

The difference in capital costs between BRT and rail transit is due in part 

to elements needed for rail transit that are not required for BRT projects. 

Light rail systems, for example, often require train signal communications, 

electrical power systems with overhead wires to power trains, and rails, 

ties, and switches. Further, if a rail maintenance facility does not exist, 

one must be built and equipped. On the other hand, transit experts who 

have evaluated both rail transit and BRT told us that while initial capital 

costs are higher for rail transit than for BRT, life-cycle capital costs for rail 

transit are potentially lower than BRT. For instance, although more 

Factors Affecting Capital 

Costs 
 

Page 30 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit 

expensive up front (typically $1.5 million to $3.4 million per car), life 

cycles of rail transit cars are longer (typically 25 years or more) than most 

BRT vehicles (12 to 15 years).36 However circumstances affecting costs 

will vary among projects, and research has not yet been done to compare 

life-cycle costs of BRT systems in the U.S., as they are still relatively new. 

BRT capital costs depend on each project’s features and service levels. 

Specifically, costs are affected by: 

 Type of running way. As mentioned above, most BRT projects we 

reviewed run in mixed traffic rather than dedicated or semi-dedicated 

running ways. According to research, capital costs for BRT projects 

that operate in mixed traffic range from $50,000 to $100,000 per mile 

compared to $2 to $10 million per mile for projects that have 

dedicated lanes.37

 Right-of-way or property acquisition. Many BRT projects use 

running ways and stations areas in existing streets and sidewalk 

space. However, BRT projects designed with rail transit-like dedicated 

right-of-ways could require more property acquisition or leasing to 

make room for guideways, stations, or other infrastructure. 

 Type of vehicles and services selected. Capital costs for BRT 

vehicles can range from about $400,000 to almost $1 million. The 

number of BRT vehicles needed for a route can depend on the length 

of the project, travel time, and peak headway, among other things. For 

example, Cleveland RTA spent about $21 million dollars for vehicles 

on the Healthline compared to Kansas City ATA which spent about 

$6.3 million for vehicles on the Troost MAX BRT. Differences in price 

were a result of (1) Cleveland’s needing nine more vehicles than 

Kansas City (24 compared to 15 respectively) to maintain shorter 

headways and (2) the cost of the vehicles ($900,000 compared to 

$366,000 respectively).38 Cleveland’s vehicles have more features, 

including hybrid technology for a quieter ride, multiple boarding doors 

to expedite boarding, and articulated vehicles to increase capacity. 

 

36 GAO, Transit Rail: Potential Rail Car Cost-Saving Strategies Exist, GAO-10-730

(Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2012). 

37 TCRP, 2007. 

38 According to Kansas City ATA officials, 4 of the 15 vehicles were hybrid buses that cost 

$538,000 each. 
 

Page 31 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

• Non-transit related features. Some projects’ costs include 

streetscaping, landscaping, or updates to utilities, while others do not.

For example, three of the five project sponsors we met with used 

federal funding to purchase artwork along the line to increase a sense 

of permanence and better incorporate the BRT system into the 

community. (See next section for a discussion of the role of 

permanence in economic development.)

As with capital costs, a project’s total operating costs can vary based on 

several project factors, including length of the route, headways, vehicle 

acquisition, and other non-transit related features. As a result of the many 

factors involved, it can be challenging to generalize differences in 

operating costs within and across modes. In some cases BRT projects 

have lower operating costs than the previous bus service. For example, 

according to Eugene LTD officials, the Eugene EmX decreased overall 

operating costs per rider. Officials attributed the savings to improved 

schedule reliability and travel-time savings from the dedicated right-ofway, which reduced labor costs because fewer buses are needed to 

maintain the schedule. Cleveland RTA told us the Healthline BRT 

reduced the overall operating budget and the average costs per rider 

decreased. For RTA, the 18 vehicles that operate during peak hours 

replaced the 28 buses that were needed to operate the standard bus 

service the BRT replaced. Hourly labor costs are about the same for BRT, 

standard bus service, and heavy rail; however, the cost per rider is lower 

for the BRT than standard buses due to higher capacities and ridership 

on the BRT.

We also heard from stakeholders and project sponsors that operating 

costs for BRT and rail transit depend strongly on the density and ridership 

in the corridor. For example, according to one transit expert, while 

signaling and control costs are high for rail transit, there is a tipping point 

where given a high enough density and ridership, rail transit begins to 

have lower operating costs overall. New York City Transit officials 

commented that while construction costs for a street-running BRT are 

about 1/500th of the cost of building a heavy rail, operating costs for a 

bus operation can be higher. Two operators can carry close to 2,000 

riders on a single heavy rail train, whereas in a BRT system, 24 operators 

are needed to carry the same number of riders.

Factors Affecting 

Operating Costs
 

Page 32 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

In general, we found that project sponsors and other stakeholders in each 

of our five case study locations believe that the BRT project is having 

some positive effect on economic development. However, these 

individuals were unsure about how much of the economic activity can be 

attributed to the presence of BRT versus other factors or circumstances 

(See table 2 for a summary of economic development activities near the 

five BRT projects we visited).39 In addition, stakeholders mentioned that 

the recent recession limited the number of development projects to date, 

but they expect increased economic development in the future along 

select areas of the BRT corridors as economic conditions improve. 

 

39 While the term economic development can refer to wide range of activities, for the 

purposes of our case studies we generally use the term to refer to components of transitoriented development, such as high-density, mixed-use developments and pedestrianfriendly environments and streetscapes.

Some BRT Projects 

Have Potential to 

Contribute to 

Economic 

Development and 

Other Benefits

Overview of Case Study 

Findings 
 

Page 33 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

Table 2: Summary of Economic Development near BRT Case Studies

Healthline,

Cleveland, OH

Cleveland RTA officials told us that the Healthline has contributed to rail-like economic development 

benefits, and the amount of development is impressive given Cleveland’s economic challenges. Officials 

estimate that between $4-$5 billion worth of investment has occurred in the corridor since the Healthline 

began operations; however, much of that development is associated with nearby institutions including 

hospitals and universities.

Franklin EmX,

Eugene, OR

City officials informed us that $100 million worth of construction projects are under way downtown near the 

Franklin EmX line, including a boutique hotel, office space renovations, and expansions to a community 

college. City officials also said that the University of Oregon is looking to lease space downtown and that 

there has been developer interest in new student housing. Although these officials expect land values to 

increase along Franklin Ave., they noted it is hard to measure the extent to which BRT is contributing to the 

increase. 

Troost MAX, 

Kansas City, MO

Local officials told us that BRT has helped Troost Ave. position itself for future development. The city 

recently received a $25-million federal grant for urban reinvestment, which is being used for a variety of 

streetscape improvements within a 150 square block area that includes three Troost MAX stations.40

Metro Rapid System,

According to transit agency staff, the area was chosen for federal investment in part due to its proximity to 

the BRT. 

Los Angeles, CA

Metro staff attributed a few development projects to the presence of Metro Rapid lines, but noted that other 

factors have likely influenced most of the development. For instance, many Metro Rapid routes are already 

developed because they tend to follow the city’s old streetcar routes, which concentrated development in 

these corridors. In addition, they told us that the BRTs run on busy streets that the city has been targeting 

for more density anyway.

RapidRide A Line

Seattle, WA

Local officials told us development along the RapidRide A has been limited, but some developers are 

interested in the corridor, in part because of complimentary planned light rail service. In addition, they 

noted that other BRT corridors in the region are attracting transit-oriented development and that BRT will 

eventually connect most of the region’s significant growth centers.

Source: GAO analysis of interviews with local officials.

Project sponsors, local officials, and transit experts we spoke to believe 

that, in general, rail transit is a better economic development catalyst than 

BRT; however, this opinion was not universal. For example, Cleveland 

officials told us that they do not believe that economic development along 

Euclid Avenue would have been any different if a light rail line had been 

built in the corridor instead of a BRT. In addition, stakeholders mentioned 

that certain factors can enhance BRT’s ability to generate economic 

development similar to rail transit. Specifically, they described how 

economic development near BRT can be supported by having:

• physical BRT features that convey a sense of permanence to 

developers;

 

40 Kansas City received federal funding for urban reinvestment through a TIGER grant. 

Factors Affecting 

Economic Development 

Near BRT
 

Page 34 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

• major institutional, employment, and activity centers along or near the 

BRT corridor that can sponsor development projects; and

• transit-supportive local policies and development incentives.

A number of project sponsors, local officials, and other stakeholders we 

spoke to emphasized the importance of BRT projects’ physical features—

particularly those that are perceived as permanent—in helping to spur 

economic development. They explained that BRTs with dedicated running 

ways, substantial stations with enhanced amenities, and other fixed 

assets represent a larger investment in the corridor by the public sector 

and assure developers that the transit service and infrastructure will be 

maintained for decades into the future. For example, Los Angeles local 

officials told us that the city’s Orange Line BRT can come close to light 

rail in terms of economic development because its station infrastructure 

and enhanced amenities relay a sense of permanence to developers.

The results of our land value analysis of BRT corridors also is consistent 

with the perception that the permanence of BRT features may play a role 

in spurring development and increasing land values.41

 

41 For this analysis, we collected land value assessment data for properties within 1⁄4 mile 

of the five BRT projects we visited and analyzed trends in the assessed value of these 

properties for the 2 years prior to the project’s implementation to the 3 years after it began 

operating. We did not attempt to model other factors that contribute to land values, such 

as broader economic conditions, other major infrastructure investments and amenities, 

and demographic characteristics.

For example, the 

University Circle portion of the Healthline, which received significant 

infrastructure and private institutional investments (i.e., investments that 

are more likely to be perceived as permanent by developers and others), 

experienced modest to large increases in land values. In contrast, the 

East Cleveland segment of the Healthline—which includes fewer BRT 

features and less investment than other segments of the line—

experienced a slight decline in land values in the years immediately 

before and after BRT operations began. (See fig. 12)

Physical BRT Features 
 

Page 35 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

Figure 12: Land Value Changes along Cleveland’s Healthline BRT Corridor, 2006 through 2011
 

Page 36 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

During our site visits, local officials noted that major institutions and 

employment centers are playing an important role in supporting economic 

development in BRT corridors. In Kansas City, most of the larger 

development projects along Troost Avenue have been sponsored by 

universities and medical institutions situated along or near the corridor. 

For example, the Research Medical Center has partnered with a private 

developer to build a 13.5 acre senior housing center that will include 

commercial space and connect to a BRT station.

Likewise, in Eugene, city officials told us that the University of Oregon has 

supported the EmX by supplying land for the line’s running way and 

recently building a $250-million arena near one of the stations. (See fig. 

13.) Moreover, the results of our land value analysis in Eugene suggest 

that investments by the university are having a positive impact on land 

values along the Franklin EmX corridor. Specifically, we found that from 

2005 through 2010, assessed land values in downtown Eugene and near 

the University of Oregon campus have increased at a greater rate than 

other segments of the Franklin EmX corridor.

Institutional, Employment, and 

Activity Centers 
 

Page 37 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

Figure 13: Land Value Changes near Eugene/Springfield, Oregon, EmX, 2005 through 2010

a

Lane County Assessment and Taxation did not provide data for 2008.
 

Page 38 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

BRT projects also may be aiding development in their corridors simply by 

providing connections between major employment and activity centers.42

BRT project sponsors and experts we spoke to told us that transitsupportive policies and development incentives can play a crucial role in 

helping to attract and spur economic development. Local officials in four 

of our five site-visit locations described policies and incentives that were 

designed (or are being developed) to attract development near BRT and 

other transit projects. For example, Los Angeles city officials told us that 

the city’s mayor recently created a transit-oriented development cabinet 

tasked with improving and maintaining coordination between Los Angeles 

Metro and city staff and developing policies and procedures in support of 

transit-oriented developments. They told us that the city is currently 

working on lifting requirements that require large amounts of parking and 

allow for only one- or two-story developments along many of the Metro 

Rapid lines. Officials in Eugene, Cleveland, and Seattle also told us that 

local governments either have in place, or are currently drafting, land use 

policies that are supportive of transit-oriented development. In contrast, 

Kansas City officials told us that the city has not used local policies and 

development incentives to generate economic development along Troost 

Avenue but that it is continuing to look at partnerships for future 

investments and pursue development opportunities. Much of Troost 

Avenue has suffered economically for several decades and possesses 

characteristics that literature suggests can negatively affect land values 

near transit, such as low household incomes.

According to one transit expert we spoke with, transit projects need to link 

residential areas to employment centers or attractions, such as hospitals 

or stadiums, to successfully generate economic development. Without 

these types of connections, developers are less likely to view the project 

as capable of drawing sufficient ridership to be attractive for development.

Stakeholders also mentioned several factors that could lead to different 

amounts and types of economic development in BRT corridors compared 

to rail transit corridors. For instance, the greater prestige and permanence 

associated with rail transit may lead to more development and investment 

in rail transit corridors than in BRT corridors. Transit agency and other 

local officials also noted that BRT station areas might experience less 

 

42 Project sponsors from each of our five site visit locations told us that BRT has provided 

new or improved connections between regional employment and activity centers. 

Transit-supportive Local 

Policies and Development 

Incentives 

Other Factors Affecting 

Development near BRT 
 

Page 39 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

investment and development than rail station areas because transit 

agencies may not own large amounts of land around BRT stations on 

which to build or support transit-oriented developments.43 Los Angeles 

city officials told us that one of the primary economic development 

benefits of light rail is that surplus property around the stations can be 

developed. Kansas City ATA officials told us that the agency owns only a 

few properties along Troost Avenue, which limits its ability to incentivize 

economic development in and around the BRT corridor. One real estate 

expert we spoke with noted that BRT may be better at supporting smallscale retail and residential developments, affordable housing 

developments, and medical facilities than rail transit, since these types of 

developments are often priced out of rail station-area markets.

Although BRT projects have been contributing in various ways to 

economic development along their corridors, project sponsors informed 

us that in three of our site-visit locations, economic development was a 

consideration for the BRT project, but not among the primary objectives. 

Consequently, project sponsors highlighted several other benefits BRT 

projects have provided to their communities aside from—or in addition 

to—economic development. Specifically, they cited BRT’s operational 

flexibility and shorter implementation time frames as benefits, as well as 

its ability to serve as a stepping stone for rail transit in the community.

Experts and project sponsors we spoke with mentioned BRT’s operational 

flexibility as a community benefit, since unlike rail transit, BRT operators 

can temporarily extend routes and change service plans if necessary, 

without the construction of additional infrastructure or major service 

disruptions. For instance, Cleveland RTA officials told us that—although 

the Healthline is permanent—they avoided otherwise shutting down the 

service while a movie filmed in the Public Square by detouring the 

vehicles two blocks for a few days, an option that wouldn’t be available for 

a rail transit project. Likewise, Kansas City ATA officials told us that when 

a bridge along Troost Avenue needed repair, the agency was able to 

reroute the Troost MAX temporarily until the bridge construction was 

finished.

 

43 Transit agencies sometimes purchase land beyond what is needed for a future rail 

transit station to serve as a staging area for equipment during the station’s construction. 

Transit agencies may use the excess land to build or incentivize development projects. 

Other BRT Community 

Benefits 
 

Page 40 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

Local officials in four of our five site-visit locations, as well as transit 

experts we spoke with, stated that another advantage of BRT projects is 

the ability to design and build them more quickly than rail transit projects. 

For instance, King County Metro officials told us that the agency 

completed two to three RapidRide BRT projects in the time it might have 

taken to build and design one light rail project. Likewise, in Kansas City, 

ATA officials informed us that the light rail planning had been ongoing for 

decades, but stakeholders eventually turned their attention to BRT in part 

due to projects’ shorter implementation time frames. These shorter time 

frames could result in communities experiencing economic development 

benefits sooner than they would have with rail transit, although BRT might 

ultimately have less of an impact on economic development than rail 

transit.

Finally, project sponsors and other stakeholders we spoke with 

mentioned that BRT can benefit communities by laying a foundation for 

future rail transit service in the corridors. According to one real estate 

expert we spoke with, a successful BRT line can serve as a precursor to 

rail transit since it allows nearby property owners to see the actual and 

potential increase in property values stemming from the presence of 

transit. Another expert also pointed out that communities can use BRT 

systems to test out potential corridors for light rail or heavy rail systems 

and provide some insight into the number and spacing of stops, as well 

as ridership. Project sponsors and stakeholders in four of our five site-visit 

locations indicated that the BRT projects could one day transform into rail 

transit service. Los Angeles Metro officials explained that Wilshire 

Boulevard, which is currently serviced by the Metro Rapid system, is the 

preferred location for a long-deferred subway extension project. 

According to Metro officials, the agency is still interested in establishing a 

subway line along this corridor, but it might be 20 or 25 years before this 

happens. In Seattle, King County Metro officials believe that the 

RapidRide A Line has established the transit agency’s commitment to 

capital and service investments that build a foundation for future light rail 

service in the corridor.

Although BRT has become more common in the U.S. in recent years, it 

remains an evolving and diverse concept. BRT projects encompass a 

range of designs and physical features and provide varying levels of 

service, economic development, and other benefits to communities. The 

flexibility of BRT has allowed cities and regions across the country—with 

differing public transportation needs and goals—to improve transit service 

and demonstrate investment in surrounding communities, often at a lower 

Concluding 

Observations 
 

Page 41 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

initial capital cost than with rail transit. However, cost differences between 

U.S. BRT projects and rail transit projects are sensitive to individual 

project features and each transit agencies’ unique circumstances. 

Differences in cost partly reflect BRT project sponsors’ limited use of the 

more costly features commonly associated with BRT—such as dedicated 

running ways, stations with major infrastructure investments, and offboard fare collection. Cleveland’s Healthline incorporates the most BRT 

features of any project we examined and cost $200 million to construct, 

which is comparable to some of the less costly rail transit projects. Some 

of the more costly BRT features are the same features stakeholders view 

as critical to contribute to economic development because they portray a 

sense of permanence to developers and demonstrate investment by the 

public sector. Therefore, project sponsors in cities with limited transit 

funding sources and without major congestion issues may find the added 

cost of these features worthwhile only if economic development is among 

their projects’ primary objectives.

The limited use of BRT’s more costly features might also partly reflect the 

relatively large role that the Small and Very Small Starts programs have 

played in funding recent BRT projects as compared to state and local 

funding sources. The funding these programs provide to smaller transit 

projects has allowed communities that otherwise may not have been as 

competitive in the New Starts process to obtain federal transit support. 

However, it is possible that limits on the total project cost create 

incentives for BRT project sponsors to omit more costly BRT features. In 

general, though, it appears that BRT project sponsors are using the Small 

and Very Small Starts programs to design and implement projects that 

address their communities’ current transit needs and align with the 

projects sponsors’ overall objectives. Moreover, project sponsors may 

develop initial plans for BRTs that do not include a comprehensive range 

of features, knowing that they can incorporate additional features into 

BRT projects incrementally as communities’ transit needs and financial 

circumstances change. 

We provided U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) with a draft of this 

report for review and comment. U.S. DOT did not comment on the draft 

report. 

Agency Comments
 

Page 42 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees and the Secretary of the Department of Transportation. In 

addition, this report will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions or would like to discuss this work, 

please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov. Contact points 

for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be 

found on the last page of this report. Individuals making key contributions 

to this report are listed in appendix III.

David J. Wise, 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Appendix I: Project Information for Bus Rapid 

Transit Case Studies

Page 43 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

GAO selected five bus rapid transit projects in cities across the U.S. to 

serve as case studies for this report. This appendix lists these five 

projects and provides links to the projects’ websites. See Table 3 below.

Table 3: Project Information for Bus Rapid Transit Case Studies

Project, Location

(Transit Agency) Hyperlink to Project Website

Troost MAX, Kansas City, MO

(Kansas City Area Transportation Authority)

http://www.kcata.org/light_rail_max/troost_max_route1/

Rapid Ride A Line, Seattle, WA

(King County Metro)

http://metro.kingcounty.gov/travel-options/bus/rapidride/a-line/

Franklin EmX, Eugene, OR

(Lane Transit District)

http://www.ltd.org/search/showresult.html?versionthread=d385193626

72c662c61a9300c1dd78be

Healthline, Cleveland, OH

(Regional Transportation Authority)

http://www.rtahealthline.com/healthline-what-is.asp

LA Metro Rapid Gap Closure Projects, Los Angeles, CA

(Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority)

http://www.metro.net/projects/rapid/

Source: Various project websites (see hyperlinks in table).

Appendix I: Project Information for Bus 

Rapid Transit Case Studies
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 44 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

To examine the features, costs, and community benefits of Bus Rapid 

Transit (BRT) projects recommended for funding by the Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA), we addressed the following four questions:

1. Which BRT features are included in BRT projects and why?

2. How have BRT projects performed in terms of ridership and service 

and how do they compare to rail transit projects?

3. How do the costs of these projects differ from rail transit projects?

4. To what extent do BRT projects provide economic development and 

other benefits to communities?

To determine which features are included in BRT projects and why, we 

sent questionnaires to sponsors of all 20 completed BRT projects FTA 

recommended for New Start, Small Start, and Very Small Start or Bus 

and Bus Facilities funding under the Capital Investment Grant Program 

since fiscal year 2005.1 We limited our scope to BRT projects with 

upgrades of existing infrastructure so as to institute a fixed guideway or 

new corridor-based service or a significant extension of an existing route.2

To develop our questionnaire, we reviewed academic literature and 

interviewed industry officials to identify seven features commonly 

associated with BRT.3 We then developed questions about these 

features; ridership; and capital and operating costs. We conducted three 

telephone pretests for the questionnaire, two with project sponsors of 

completed BRT projects and one with the National Bus Rapid Transit 

Institute.4

 

1 The Capital Investment Grant program also includes Fixed Guideway Modernization 

grants. 49 U.S.C. § 5309. Among projects we sent questionnaires to, BusPlus, Franklin 

EmX, MetroRapid 741, M15, BHX, and RTC Rapid received grants through Bus and Bus 

Facilities. All others received grants through New Starts, Small Starts, or Very Small 

Starts. 

We pre-populated the questionnaires with information obtained 

from an existing interest group BRT database, project websites, and other 

2 To be included in our scope, projects had to be a minimum of 2 miles in length and 

include at least three stations.

3 Features include: running ways, vehicles, stations, intelligent transportation systems, 

fare collection, improved service, and branding.

4 We selected the two BRT projects due in part to their variety in terms of the number of 

BRT features and types and amount of federal funding.

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 45 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

project sponsor documentation submitted to FTA.5 Project sponsors were 

asked to verify or correct the pre-populated information and complete any 

missing information. We sent an e-mail announcement with the 

questionnaire to all 20 BRT project sponsors.6

• the Healthline in Cleveland, Ohio;

We received completed 

questionnaires for all 20 BRT projects in our scope for a response rate of 

100 percent. In addition, we visited five sites, and we obtained information 

about the presence or absence of BRT projects’ features as well as why 

BRT features were or were not included through interviews with the 

sponsors of the following BRT projects:

• the RapidRide A Line in Seattle, Washington;

• the Troost MAX in Kansas City, Missouri;

• the Metro Rapid System in Los Angeles, California; and

• the Franklin EmX in Eugene, Oregon.

We selected site visit locations based on consideration of several factors, 

including the number and extent of BRT features; ridership, length of 

route, peak headway, and geographic diversity.7

To assess how BRT projects have performed in terms of ridership and 

service and how they compare to rail transit projects, we reviewed 

existing literature on BRT and rail transit projects’ ridership and service 

levels. In addition, we sent questionnaires to the sponsors of all 20 

completed rail transit projects that met the criteria outlined above and 

compared the responses of BRT project sponsors to those of rail transit 

We considered all 20 

existing BRT projects that received federal funding and selected projects 

with a range of each factor listed above. Because we selected a 

nonprobability sample of projects, the information we obtained from these 

interviews and visits cannot be generalized to all BRT projects.

 

5 Specifically, data sources included: the National Bus Rapid Transit Institute’s BRT 

database, FTA’s Annual Report on Funding Recommendations for fiscal years 2005 

through 2012, and project sponsor documentation including, among other things, 

environmental assessment documents, economic analyses, or other relevant guidance on 

sponsor’s websites.

6 We collected this information from project sponsors from December 2011 through March 

2012.

7 We selected projects that ranged in terms of these features across our broader scope of 

projects. 
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 46 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

project sponsors.8

To assess how BRT projects compare to rail transit projects in terms of 

capital project costs and the New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small 

Starts share of funding, we used FTA project grant data compiled by FTA 

to identify the 55 (30 BRT and 25 rail transit) existing or planned projects 

that had signed grant agreements from fiscal years 2005 through 

February 2012.

We received completed questionnaires for 18 of the 20 

rail transit projects in our scope for a response rate of 90 percent. We 

supplemented the data collected through our questionnaires with 

information obtained during our site-visit interviews (from the locations 

listed above).

9

To examine the extent to which BRT projects provide economic 

development and other benefits to communities, we reviewed existing 

literature on the impact of transit on economic development and land 

values. During our site visits, we interviewed project sponsors, transit 

experts, non-profit business organizations, and economic development 

professionals about development that has occurred (or is expected to 

occur) in and around the BRT corridors. To supplement testimonial 

evidence obtained during site visit interviews, we collected land value 

assessment data for properties located within 1⁄4 mile of the five BRT 

projects we visited and analyzed trends in the assessed value of these 

properties for the 2 years prior to the project’s implementation to the 3 

We then used project cost data from FTA’s Annual 

Reports on Funding Recommendations for fiscal years 2005 through 

2012 to ensure that we had the most recent project cost estimates. We 

discussed data collection and maintenance with FTA and determined the 

data are reliable for our purposes. In addition to collecting data from FTA, 

we also reviewed relevant academic literature on BRT and rail transit 

capital costs and interviewed academic experts, BRT stakeholders, and 

select BRT project sponsors to better understand how BRT and rail transit 

projects compare in terms of costs.

 

8 Questionnaires sent to rail transit projects sponsors resembled those sent to BRT project 

sponsors and were also pre-populated based on the sources identified above with the 

exception of the National Bus Rapid Transit Institute. In addition, we pre-tested our rail 

questionnaire with two rail project sponsors over the phone.

9 We received the New Starts data on April 6, 2012, for projects through February 2012 

and Small Starts and Very Small Starts data on March 21, 2012.
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 47 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

years after operations began.10

We conducted this performance audit from July 2011 through July 2012 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

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

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

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

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

We used the gross domestic product price 

index compiled by Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic 

Analysis, to convert the nominal land value into constant 2010 dollars. We 

did not attempt to model other factors that contribute to land values, such 

as broader economic conditions, other major infrastructure investments 

and amenities, and demographic characteristics.

 

10 We collected data from five locations; however, we are only reporting data from 

Cleveland and Eugene. For other locations, preliminary analysis did not find changes in 

land values, data did not separate out land values, or the project was too new to analyze 

the land values after opening. 
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 48 GAO-12-811 Bus Rapid Transit

David J. Wise, (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Cathy Colwell (Assistant 

Director), Nathan Bowen, Lorraine Ettaro, Colin Fallon, Kathleen Gilhooly, 

Terence Lam, Matthew LaTour, Jaclyn Nidoh, Josh Ormond, and Melissa 

Swearingen made key contributions to this report.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(542191)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

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

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

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

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

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

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

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

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

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

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

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

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

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.