a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

September 2001 MASS TRANSIT

Bus Rapid Transit 

Shows Promise

GAO-01-984

Page i GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 5

Federal Funding Available for Bus Rapid Transit Projects, but Use Is 

Constrained 8

Capital Costs Appear to Favor Bus Rapid Transit, While Results Are 

Mixed for Operating Costs 16

Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail Have a Variety of Advantages and 

Disadvantages 28

Conclusions 32

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 33

Appendixes

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 36

Appendix II: Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration Projects 40

Appendix III: Capital Costs of Light Rail Systems 50

Appendix IV: Capital Costs of Bus Rapid Transit Systems 52

Tables Table 1: Capital Costs for Selected Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail 

Projects 4

Table 2: New Starts Program Funding for Bus Rapid Transit Fiscal 

Year 2001 10

Table 3: Elements of Bus Rapid Transit in the FTA Demonstration 

Projects 16

Table 4: Capital Costs of Bus Rapid Transit Busways 52

Table 5: Capital Costs of Bus Rapid Transit Using HOV Lanes 53

Table 6: Capital Costs of Bus Rapid Transit on Arterial Streets 54

Figures Figure 1: Example of Bus Rapid Transit System 2

Figure 2: Examples of Bus Rapid Transit Facilities in Los Angeles 

and San Diego 6

Figure 3: Light Rail Transit in San Diego 7

Figure 4: Initial Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration Projects and 

Consortium Members 14

Figure 5: Artist Renderings of Planned Bus Rapid Transit System in 

Eugene, Oregon 15

Figure 6: Capital Cost Per Mile for Light Rail and Bus Rapid 

Transit 17
Contents

Page ii GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

Figure 7: Operating Cost Per Vehicle Revenue Hour, 1999 22

Figure 8: Operating Cost Per Vehicle Revenue Mile, 1999 23

Figure 9: Operating Cost Per Unlinked Passenger Trip, 1999 24

Figure 10: Average Speed of Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail 

Service, 1999 27

Abbreviations

FTA Federal Transit Administration

GAO General Accounting Office

HOV High-Occupancy Vehicle
Page 1 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

September 17, 2001 Letr

Congressional Requesters

Each day millions of Americans face traffic congestion as they commute to 

work in automobiles. The impact from this congestion is substantial in 

time, resources, and pollution. For example, it is estimated that in 68 urban 

areas congestion cost U.S. travelers 4.5 billion hours of delay, 6.8 billion 

gallons of wasted fuel, and $78 billion in 1999.1

 In an attempt to present 

buses as a more reliable and effective high-speed transit alternative, a 

concept involving the improved use of buses--Bus Rapid Transit--has 

emerged. Bus Rapid Transit includes operating buses on exclusive bus 

highways, High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, or improving service on 

busier routes on city streets. Bus Rapid Transit may also include a variety 

of technological and street design improvements, including traffic signal 

prioritization for buses; exclusive lanes; better stations or bus shelters; 

fewer stops; faster service; and cleaner, quieter, and more attractive 

vehicles. 

Bus Rapid Transit as a comprehensive transportation option is exemplified 

in Curitiba, Brazil. Curitiba’s Bus Rapid Transit system is an extensive 

commuter bus system that includes exclusive busways and a number of 

other features designed to increase speed, such as traffic signal 

prioritization, rail-like stations with level-floor boarding, and advance fare 

collection. In the United States at least 17 cities are planning to 

incorporate aspects of Bus Rapid Transit. The Department of 

Transportation’s Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has begun to 

support this concept and expand awareness of new ways to design and 

operate high capacity Bus Rapid Transit systems as an alternative to 

building Light Rail systems. Light Rail systems generally are electric trains 

that may operate on streets with other traffic.

1

The 2001 Urban Mobility Report, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University 

System, 2001.
Page 2 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

Figure 1: Example of Bus Rapid Transit System

Source: Charlotte area transit system.

You asked us to (1) examine the federal role in supporting Bus Rapid 

Transit; (2) compare the capital costs, operating costs, and performance 

characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail systems; and (3) 

describe the other advantages and disadvantages of Bus Rapid Transit and 

Light Rail. 

To address these questions, we identified where Bus Rapid Transit is being 

used extensively in the United States and determined how FTA supports 

Bus Rapid Transit projects. In addition, we visited transit agencies in 

Dallas, Denver, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, San Diego, and San Jose to obtain 

capital and operating cost information on Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail 

systems in those cities. We also interviewed FTA officials and industry 

experts to identify the advantages and disadvantages of Bus Rapid Transit 

and Light Rail systems. Appendix I provides a detailed discussion of our 

scope and methodology.

Results in Brief Federal support for Bus Rapid Transit projects may come from several 

different sources, including FTA’s New Starts, Bus Capital, and Urbanized 

Busway in Charlotte, NC
Page 3 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

Area Formula Grants programs, but its use is constrained. Two Bus Rapid 

Transit projects have received funding commitments from the current New 

Starts Program, totaling about $831 million. Few additional Bus Rapid 

Transit projects will likely receive funding commitments under the current 

New Starts Program, which expires in 2003, because (1) few Bus Rapid 

Transit projects are ready to compete for funding, (2) there are a large 

number of projects eligible to compete for the approximately $462 million 

that is projected to remain available for fiscal year 2003, and (3) certain 

types of Bus Rapid Transit projects are not eligible for New Starts funding 

due to the requirement that projects operate on separate right-of-ways for 

the exclusive use of mass transit and high-occupancy vehicles. FTA also 

supports Bus Rapid Transit through a demonstration program that began in 

1999. Under this program, $50,000 was provided to each of 10 initial 

grantees to improve information sharing among transit agencies about 

issues pertaining to Bus Rapid Transit. The demonstration program is 

designed to determine the extent to which Bus Rapid Transit can increase 

ridership, improve efficiency, and provide high-quality service. The 

grantees’ projects include dedicated busways, bus lanes on city arterial 

streets, improved technology on buses, and other innovations.

The Bus Rapid Transit systems generally had lower capital costs per mile 

than the Light Rail systems in the cities we reviewed, although neither 

system had a clear advantage in operating costs. Adjusting to 2000 dollars, 

the capital costs for the various types of Bus Rapid Transit systems in cities 

that we reviewed ranged from a low of $200,000 per mile for an arterial 

street-based system to $55 million per mile for a dedicated busway system 

(see table 1). Light Rail systems had capital costs that ranged from $12.4 

million to $118.8 million per mile. 
Page 4 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

Table 1: Capital Costs for Selected Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail Projects

Source: Our analysis of data supplied by FTA and local transit agencies. We did not independently 

verify this information. See appendix I for additional details on the methodology used.

Precise operating cost comparisons for Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail 

systems within and between cities are difficult due to differences among 

transit agencies, transit systems, and how they account for costs. We found 

mixed results when we compared the operating costs for Bus Rapid Transit 

and Light Rail systems in the cities we reviewed that operated both types of 

systems. Bus systems generally had lower vehicle operating costs. 

However, we found no clear pattern for operating cost per trip. In some 

cases Light Rail had higher operating costs per trip than Bus Rapid Transit, 

and in other cases the reverse was true. The performance characteristics 

of Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail systems also varied widely, with the 

largest Bus Rapid Transit system ridership about equal to the largest Light 

Rail ridership. Finally, Bus Rapid Transit routes showed generally higher 

operating speeds than the Light Rail lines in these cities.

Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail systems offer various advantages and 

disadvantages. Bus Rapid Transit provides a more flexible approach than 

Light Rail because buses can be routed to eliminate transfers; operated on 

busways, HOV lanes and city arterial streets; and implemented in stages. 

However, transit officials repeatedly noted that buses have a poor public 

image. As a result, transit planners are designing Bus Rapid Transit 

systems that offer improved service from standard bus service. Transit 

officials believed that because Light Rail is permanent in a given corridor it 

could influence economic development over time. Such long-term 

changes, they said, help justify the higher capital cost of Light Rail.

Capital cost per mile

Project type

Number of

facilities

examined Cost range Average cost

Bus Rapid Transit

 Busways 9 $7 million to $55 million $13.5 million

 HOV lanes 8 $1.8 million to $37.6 million $9.0 million

 Arterial streets 3 $200,000 to $9.6 million $680,000

Light Rail 18 $12.4 million to $118.8 million $34.8 million
Page 5 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

Background Bus Rapid Transit involves coordinated improvements in a transit system’s 

infrastructure, equipment, operations, and technology that give preferential 

treatment to buses on urban roadways. Bus Rapid Transit is not a single 

type of transit system; rather it encompasses a variety of approaches, 

including buses using exclusive busways or HOV lanes with other vehicles, 

and improving bus service on city arterial streets. Busways--special 

roadways designed for the exclusive use of buses--can be totally separate 

roadways or operate within highway rights-of-way separated from other 

traffic by barriers. Busways currently exist in Pittsburgh, Miami, and 

Charlotte. Buses on HOV lanes operate on limited-access highways 

designed for long-distance commuters. Dallas, Denver, Houston, Los 

Angeles, and Seattle provide examples of extensive HOV lane use by 

buses.2

 Bus Rapid Transit on busways or HOV lanes is sometimes 

characterized by the addition of extensive park and ride facilities along 

with entrance and exit access for these lanes. Bus Rapid Transit systems 

using arterial streets may include lanes reserved for the exclusive use of 

buses and street enhancements that speed buses and improve service. Los 

Angeles recently instituted a Bus Rapid Transit type of service on two bus 

arterial corridors. 

Bus Rapid Transit may also include any of the following features:

• Traffic signal priority. Buses receiving an early or extended green light 

at intersections reduce travel time--in Los Angeles, for example, by as 

much as 10 percent.

• Boarding and fare collection improvements. Convenient and rapid fare 

collection through prepaid or electronic passes and low-floor and/or 

wide-door boarding results in timesavings.

• Limited stops. Increasing distances between stations or shelters 

improves operating speeds.

• Improved stations and shelters. Bus terminals and unique stations or 

shelters differentiate Bus Rapid Transit service from standard bus 

service. (See fig. 2.)

• Intelligent Transportation System technologies. Advanced technology 

can maintain more consistent distances between buses and inform 

passengers when the next bus is arriving.

2

Los Angeles and Houston originally built part of their systems as exclusive busways and 

later converted them to HOV facilities.
Page 6 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

• Cleaner and quieter vehicles. Improved diesel buses and buses using 

alternative-fuels are cleaner than traditional diesel buses.

• Exclusive Lanes. Traffic lanes reserved for the exclusive use of buses 

help buses pass congested traffic.

Figure 2: Examples of Bus Rapid Transit Facilities in Los Angeles and San Diego

Source: Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority and San Diego Metropolitan Transit 

Development Board.

Light Rail transit is a metropolitan-electric railway system characterized by 

its ability to operate in a variety of environments such as streets, subways, 

or elevated structures. (See fig. 3 for an example of a Light Rail System.) 

Since Light Rail systems can operate on streets with other traffic, they 

typically use an overhead source for their electrical power and boardings 

take place from the street or platforms. According to a transportation 

consultant, because Light Rail systems operate in both exclusive and 

NEXT BUS IN 9 MIN
Page 7 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

shared right-of-way environments, they have stricter limits on their length 

and the frequency of service than heavy rail systems.3

Figure 3: Light Rail Transit in San Diego

Source: San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board.

Light Rail systems gained popularity as a lower-cost option to heavy rail 

systems, and a number of cities have constructed Light Rail projects over 

the past 20 years. Since 1980, Light Rail systems have opened in 13 

metropolitan areas: Baltimore, Buffalo, Dallas, Denver, Northern New 

Jersey (Hudson and Bergen counties), Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, Portland, 

Sacramento, San Diego, San Jose, St. Louis, and Salt Lake City. Several 

other cities, including Minneapolis and Seattle, are in the process of 

planning Light Rail systems. 

3

Heavy rail transit systems, such as in New York City, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., are 

defined by their operation on a totally separated right-of-way, and use a third rail on the 

ground to power the trains. Heavy rail systems require platform boarding, typically have 

longer distances between stations, and have greater capacity than Light Rail systems.
Page 8 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

Federal Funding 

Available for Bus Rapid 

Transit Projects, but 

Use Is Constrained

While there is no federal program specifically designed to fund Bus Rapid 

Transit, several FTA programs can be used to help fund these projects. FTA 

provides funding for new Bus Rapid Transit projects primarily through its 

New Starts Program but eligible projects face stiff competition from Light 

Rail, Heavy Rail, and Commuter Rail projects. Funding for additional New 

Starts projects of all types is constrained--FTA projects little remaining 

authority to make funding commitments to new projects and the 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) identified a large 

number of projects eligible for funding under the program. In addition to 

the New Starts Program, transit agencies may use other FTA funds, such as 

those from the Bus Capital Program and the Urbanized Area Formula Grant 

Program, to fund Bus Rapid Transit projects. However, the Bus Capital 

Program grants tend to be relatively small, thus limiting this program as a 

significant contributor to large projects. In addition, some Bus Rapid 

Transit projects may qualify for certain types of federal highway funding, 

notably Surface Transportation Program and Congestion Mitigation and Air 

Quality Improvement funds administered through the Federal Highway 

Administration. Since these funds are provided to state governments, local 

transit agencies must compete with many other state needs for these funds. 

In addition to providing capital funding, FTA began a demonstration 

program in 1999 to highlight the benefits of Bus Rapid Transit. Under this 

program, FTA awarded $50,000 grants to 10 transit agencies to share 

information and data on new Bus Rapid Transit projects. The program 

provides workshops and information-sharing opportunities for the transit 

agencies, but no capital funding. The grantees’ projects include a wide 

variety of busways, arterial bus lanes, and bus technologies.
Page 9 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

New Starts Funding 

Provided to Few Bus Rapid 

Transit Projects 

FTA’s New Starts Program is the primary federal program to support 

construction of new transit systems and extensions to existing systems. 

Projects for bus and rail systems that operate on exclusive rights-of-way 

compete for FTA grants of up to 80 percent of their costs.4

 To obtain funds, 

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

develop preliminary engineering plans, and meet FTA approval of final 

design. FTA proposes New Starts projects to the Congress for funding on 

an annual basis based on an evaluation of their technical merits, including 

mobility improvements and cost effectiveness, and the stability of the local 

financial commitment. In making its funding proposal each year, FTA gives 

preference to projects with existing grant agreements. Following that, 

consideration is given to projects with overall ratings of “recommended” or 

“highly recommended” under the evaluation criteria. The Transportation 

Equity Act for the 21st Century authorized about $6 billion in “guaranteed” 

funding over 6 years for New Starts transit projects.5

 

4

A Full Funding Grant Agreement establishes the terms and conditions for federal 

participation, including the maximum amount of federal funds to be made available to the 

project. The administration has recommended reducing the cap on new starts funding to 50 

percent of a project's cost starting in 2004 to ensure that local governments play a major role 

in funding these transit projects. As under the current program, transit agencies could 

supplement New Starts funds with other federal funds for a total federal contribution of up 

to 80 percent. 

5

These funds are subject to a procedural mechanism designed to ensure that minimum 

amounts are provided each year. In addition, TEA-21 authorized FTA to make contingent 

commitments subject to future authorizations and appropriations. This contingent 

commitment authority is designed to allow FTA to execute grant agreements that extend 

beyond the 6-year authorization period.
Page 10 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

Bus Rapid Transit projects compete with many other projects for New 

Starts funding, including Light Rail, Heavy Rail, and Commuter Railroads. 

In total there are over 200 projects in various stages of development. As 

shown in table 2, for the 26 projects with Full Funding Grant Agreements in 

fiscal year 2001, two projects with Bus Rapid Transit components have 

commitments of about $831 million in New Starts funds.6

 The total New 

Starts commitment for these 26 projects is about $8.3 billion, which 

includes $4.67 billion for Light Rail, $2.69 billion for Heavy Rail, and $111 

million for Commuter Rail projects.7

Table 2: New Starts Program Funding for Bus Rapid Transit Fiscal Year 2001

Legend: N/A = Not applicable.

a

For projects with Full Funding Grant Agreements, figures represent amounts committed while figures 

for other categories represent amounts being proposed by transit agencies for New Starts funding.

b

Miami, FL, South Miami-Dade Busway Extension project.

c

Specifically identified Bus Rapid Transit projects are in Cleveland, OH; Hartford, CT; Los Angeles, CA; 

Miami, FL; Stamford, CT; and Washington, D.C.

d

The five locations that have identified projects with aspects of Bus Rapid Transit are Bridgeport, CT; 

Chicago, IL; Honolulu, HI; and two in Boston, MA.

6

Houston received a commitment of $500 million in New Starts funds for systemwide bus 

improvements, including Bus Rapid Transit elements. It is not solely a Bus Rapid Transit 

project.

7

Funding commitments for some of the projects were made under prior authorizations.

Dollars in millions

Category of projects

Number of

New Starts

projects

Actual or

proposed

fundinga

Number of

Bus Rapid

Transit

projects

Actual or

proposed

fundinga

Projects with Full Funding 

Grant Agreements

26 $8,296 2 $831

Projects pending Full 

Funding Grant 

Agreements 

2 157 0 0

Projects in final design 9 1,456 1b 23

Projects in preliminary 

engineering

31 8,350 6c 490

Other projects authorized 137 N/A 5d N/A

Total 205 $18,259 14 $1,344
Page 11 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

Source: GAO analysis of FTA data.

For a number of reasons, few Bus Rapid Transit projects are likely to be 

considered for New Starts funding in the final year of the period covered by 

TEA-21. First, few Bus Rapid Transit projects are ready for funding 

consideration. Only 1 of the 11 projects with pending grant agreements or 

in the final design stage is a Bus Rapid Transit project. Further, of the 31 

projects in the preliminary engineering stage that have proposed about $8.3 

billion in support from the New Starts program, only 6 Bus Rapid Transit 

projects proposing about $490 million are included. Reasons for the 

relatively few projects being ready for funding consideration include the 

newness of the Bus Rapid Transit concept and the decisions of local transit 

agencies, which are responsible for conducting analyses of various 

alternatives and proposing projects for funding. Second, FTA’s authority to 

make new funding commitments for projects of any type will be highly 

limited through 2003 if FTA makes the funding commitments proposed in 

its fiscal year 2002 New Starts report and funding request. It projects about 

$462 million in remaining commitment authority for the last year of the 

current program. Lastly, some Bus Rapid Transit projects are not eligible 

for New Starts funding because projects must operate on separate rightsof-way for the exclusive use of mass transit and high-occupancy vehicles. 

While some Bus Rapid Transit projects, such as busways, would fit this 

requirement, some would not. For example, the Wilshire-Whittier Bus 

Rapid Transit Service in Los Angeles operates on city streets in mixed 

traffic; it is not, therefore, on a separate right-of-way. 

Agencies Can Use Other 

Federal Funds for Bus 

Rapid Transit Projects

Local transit agencies may use other types of federal funds, in addition to 

New Starts funds, to build Bus Rapid Transit and other systems. For 

example, transit agencies can apply funds obtained through FTA’s 

Urbanized Area Formula Grant program to Bus Rapid Transit and rail 

projects. This program provides capital and operating assistance to 

urbanized areas with populations of more than 50,000. However, areas 

with populations over 200,000 may only use the funds for capital 

improvements. For example, in fiscal year 2001, one Bus Rapid Transit 

project, Boston’s Silver Line project, planned to use $150 million from the 

formula grant program, about $331 million from the New Starts Program, 

and $120 million in Massachusetts state bond funds. In addition, one 

commuter rail, one heavy rail, and six Light Rail projects planned to use 

about $629 million in formula grant funds, in addition to New Starts funds, 

as part of their overall funding. 
Page 12 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

An additional potential source for bus system improvements is the Bus 

Capital Program, which provides funds to states and local transit agencies 

for bus improvements. This program is characterized by a large number of 

relatively small grants. For example, for fiscal year 2001 the Congress 

appropriated about $574.1 million for 314 grants, ranging from $39,000 to 

$15.5 million; the largest amounts typically were provided for statewide bus 

grants. While these funds can be combined with funds from other 

programs, such as New Starts, they are generally not sufficient to fund a 

major Bus Rapid Transit project alone.

Bus Rapid Transit and other transit projects can qualify for certain types of 

federal highway funds administered by the Federal Highway 

Administration. For example, transit agencies have used Surface 

Transportation Program and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 

Improvement funds to help pay for transit projects.8

 Neither of the two Bus 

Rapid Transit projects with Full Funding Grant Agreements in fiscal year 

2001 planned to use federal highway funds. Six of the Light Rail projects 

with Full Funding Grant Agreements plan to use about $171 million in 

federal highway funds. The South Miami-Dade Busway Extension project 

in Final Design plans to use about $39 million in these funds.

FTA Supports Bus Rapid 

Transit Concept Through 

Demonstration Program

From FTA’s perspective, Bus Rapid Transit is a step toward developing 

public transit systems that have the performance and appeal of Light Rail 

transit, but at a lower capital cost. FTA contends that using technological 

advancements will allow buses to operate with the speed, reliability, and 

efficiency of Light Rail. FTA promotes the Bus Rapid Transit concept with 

the slogan “think rail, use buses.” 

8

Among other things, Surface Transportation Program funds are provided to states to be 

used for the capital costs of transit projects. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 

Improvement Program funds are generally available to states for transportation projects 

designed to help them meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
Page 13 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

In 1999, the FTA initiated a demonstration program to generate familiarity 

and interest in Bus Rapid Transit. The goal of the program was to promote 

improved bus service similar to model systems in Curitiba, Brazil; Adelaide, 

Australia; and Ottawa, Canada, as an alternative to more capital-intensive 

rail projects. The program initially provided $50,000 to 10 transit agencies 

to share information and data on new Bus Rapid Transit projects.9

 FTA 

wanted the Bus Rapid Transit program to show how using technological 

advancements and improving the image of buses would allow buses to 

increase ridership and operate with the speed, reliability, and efficiency of 

Light Rail. The grantees in the demonstration program may be eligible for 

federal capital funds such as New Starts, Bus Capital, and Urbanized Area 

Formula Grant funds. FTA has held workshops for consortium members 

focusing on developing Bus Rapid Transit's component features, such as 

vehicles, image, marketing, fare collection, and traffic operations. (See fig. 

4.)

9

FTA recently added Los Angeles to the Demonstration program and provided funding. The 

program includes six additional members of the Bus Rapid Transit consortium. These 

consortium members do not receive direct funding, but attend workshops and support the 

program goals. 
Page 14 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

Figure 4: Initial Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration Projects and Consortium Members

Source: FTA.

Some locations participating in the demonstration program have more 

extensive elements of a Bus Rapid Transit system than others. For 

example, Miami and Charlotte have busways for the exclusive use of buses, 

while San Jose is implementing technological and service improvements 

such as signal prioritization on a high-ridership HOV lane arterial corridor. 

In Eugene, plans are to purchase buses that will have a train-like 
Page 15 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

appearance and operate on special bus lanes (see fig. 5). In Cleveland, an 

extensive Bus Rapid Transit project is planned that involves the extensive 

reconstruction of Euclid Avenue, including signal prioritization, bus station 

structures, and reconstruction of the sidewalks along the corridor. Table 3 

illustrates the variations in the Bus Rapid Transit concept among the 10 

initial demonstration projects.

Figure 5: Artist Renderings of Planned Bus Rapid Transit System in Eugene, Oregon

Source: FTA.
Page 16 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

Table 3: Elements of Bus Rapid Transit in the FTA Demonstration Projects

Note: Individual elements may change as demonstration projects evolve.

a

Washington, D.C., includes the use of a limited-access airport road.

Source: FTA.

FTA plans to conduct evaluations of each project participating in the 

demonstration program after the projects are implemented. FTA also plans 

to evaluate Pittsburgh’s Bus Rapid Transit project. Through these 

evaluations, FTA wants to determine the most effective Bus Rapid Transit 

elements so that other transit agencies can model similar systems. The 

Department of Transportation’s Volpe Center will conduct the first 

evaluation on Honolulu’s CityExpress! bus program. FTA does not plan to 

include all the consortium members' projects in the evaluation.

Capital Costs Appear 

to Favor Bus Rapid 

Transit, While Results 

Are Mixed for 

Operating Costs 

Bus Rapid Transit capital costs were generally lower than Light Rail capital 

costs in the cities we reviewed, when compared on a cost-per-mile basis. 

We found mixed results when we compared the operating costs of Bus 

Rapid Transit and Light Rail systems. In examining performance 

characteristics, we found that the ridership and operating speeds of Bus 

Rapid Transit and Light Rail systems were similar in many respects.

Boston Charlotte Cleveland

Washington, 

D.C., Dulles Eugene Hartford Honolulu Miami

San 

Juan

San 

Jose

Busways • • • •

Bus lanes • • • • •

Bus on HOVExpressways• • a

 ••

Signal priority • • • • •

Fare collection 

improvements

•• • •

Limited stops • • • • • • •

Improved stations & 

shelters

• • • •• • •

Intelligent 

transportation 

systems

• • • • • • • • ••

Cleaner/quieter 

vehicles

•• •
Page 17 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

Bus Rapid Transit Capital 

Costs Per Mile Generally 

Lower Than Light Rail

The Bus Rapid Transit projects that we reviewed cost less on average to 

build than the Light Rail projects, on a per-mile basis. As shown in figure 6, 

Bus Rapid Transit capital costs averaged about $13.5 million per mile for 

busways, $9.0 million per mile for buses on HOV lanes, and $680,000 per 

mile on city streets, when escalated to 2000 dollars.10 For 13 cities that 

built Light Rail lines, since 1980, capital costs averaged about $34.8 million 

per mile, ranging from $12.4 million to $118.8 million per mile, when 

escalated to 2000 dollars. On a capital cost per-mile basis, the three 

different types of Bus Rapid Transit systems have average capital cost that 

are 39 percent, 26 percent, and 2 percent of the average cost of Light Rail 

systems we reviewed.

Figure 6: Capital Cost Per Mile for Light Rail and Bus Rapid Transit

Notes: Cost escalated to fiscal year 2000 dollars.

Average Light Rail capital costs are for 13 cities that built 18 Light Rail lines since 1980. Busway 

capital costs are for nine busways built in four cities; in two cities these facilities were subsequently 

10Project capital costs typically include the costs to plan, design, and construct a project.

Light Rail Busways Bus on HOV

Lanes

Bus on Arterial

34.79

13.49

8.97

0.68

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Dollars in millions
Page 18 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

opened to private vehicles as HOV lanes. Capital costs for buses using HOV lanes are for eight HOV 

facilities in five cities. Capital costs for buses on arterial streets are for three lines in two cities. 

Source: GAO analysis of FTA and transit agency data. 

Bus Rapid Transit capital costs vary considerably, depending on the type of 

system built. Costs of Bus Rapid Transit projects include the cost of the 

roadway—busways or bus lanes, station structures, park-and-ride facilities, 

communications and improved traffic signal systems, and vehicles, if 

additional or special buses are needed for the project. Given the variety of 

ways in which Bus Rapid Transit may be designed, we classified the 

systems into three broad categories: busways, bus-HOV lanes, and Bus 

Rapid Transit on arterial streets. Appendixes III and IV provide information 

on the Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail systems that we analyzed.

Exclusive busways, which are essentially separate highways for buses, 

generally had the highest capital cost per mile for those systems we 

analyzed, averaging $13.5 million per mile in 2000 dollars. The capital costs 

of nine busways in four cities ranged from $7 million to $55 million per 

mile.11 The most expensive one was the Pittsburgh West Busway, which 

cost significantly more than other busways we analyzed. However, 

according to local transit agency officials, they needed to construct only 5 

miles of busway to achieve their goal of rapid transit to the airport because 

the buses could exit the busway and use existing highways. They added 

that an alternative Light Rail system would have been longer, cost two to 

three times as much to construct and significantly more to operate and 

maintain, while attracting essentially no additional passengers.

Other types of Bus Rapid Transit systems had lower capital costs. For HOV 

facilities where buses used HOV lanes in five cities we reviewed, capital 

costs ranged from $1.8 million to $37.6 million per mile. For bus-HOV 

facilities we considered the capital cost of HOV lanes, bus stations, parkand-ride facilities, and additional vehicles. See appendix I for additional 

details.

Bus Rapid Transit improvements on arterial streets can have the lowest 

cost per mile. For example, Los Angeles completed the Wilshire Boulevard 

and Ventura lines at a cost of about $200,000 per mile. These two lines 

operate on major arterial streets, but without a dedicated right-of-way. The 

Bus Rapid Transit improvements included in this cost were signal 

11Because the current bus-HOV lanes in Houston and Los Angeles were initially built as busonly facilities, we include them as examples of busways for this analysis.
Page 19 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

prioritization, improved stations, and real-time information systems 

informing riders of bus arrival times. While this type of surface street 

treatment was the least expensive Bus Rapid Transit option in the cities we 

reviewed, Bus Rapid Transit lines on arterial streets can have higher costs 

if they involve more extensive construction, such as building special bus 

lanes. In Orlando Bus Rapid Transit on arterial streets included lane 

construction and vehicle costs, and averaged $9.6 million per mile.

Light Rail systems we reviewed also vary considerably in their capital cost 

per mile. Included in capital costs are the stations, structures, signal 

systems, power systems, utility relocation, rights-of-way, maintenance 

facilities, transit vehicles, and project oversight. Again, we adjusted the 

historic capital cost of the projects to fiscal year 2000 dollars to provide a 

better basis of comparison. For the systems we reviewed the cost per mile 

for Light Rail averaged $34.8 million per mile, ranging from $12.4 million to 

$118.8 million per mile.

The higher capital costs per mile for Light Rail systems compared with Bus 

Rapid Transit arise from several factors. First, Light Rail systems contain 

elements not required in Bus Rapid Transit systems. Light Rail systems 

typically require train signal, communications, and electrical power 

systems with overhead wires to deliver power to trains. A consultant study 

of eight Light Rail lines in five cities (Dallas, St. Louis, Denver, Salt Lake 

City, and Portland) found the average costs of these elements to be $2.8 

million per mile.12 Light Rail systems also require additional materials 

needed for the guideway--rail, ties, and track ballast. In addition, if a Light 

Rail maintenance facility does not exist, one must be built and equipped. 

Finally, Light Rail vehicles, while having higher carrying capacity than most 

buses, also cost more--about $2.5 million each.13 In contrast, according to 

transit industry consultants, a typical 40-foot transit bus costs about 

$283,000 and an articulated, higher capacity bus costs about $420,000. 

However, buses that incorporate newer technologies for low emissions or 

that run on more than one fuel can cost more than $1 million each. For 

12Pilgrim, Richard D., "Are We Pricing Light Rail Transit Systems Out of Range? A 

Comparison of Cost Experiences," paper published at the 8th Joint Conference on Light 

Rail, Dallas, Texas, November 2000, sponsored by the Transportation Research Board and 

the American Public Transportation Association. 

13Generally, the seating capacity of a single Light Rail vehicle is about 110 passengers while a 

40-foot bus would seat about 50 passengers and an articulated bus can seat about 70 

passengers. 
Page 20 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

example, the Boston Silver Line low-floor, articulated, compressed natural 

gas-hybrid electric buses will cost $1.5 million each according to FTA 

officials.

Another factor that can affect the cost of the systems is the amount and 

availability of required right-of-way. Right-of-way costs are affected by the 

design requirements of Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail. Transit planners 

told us that a basic busway required a wider right-of-way than Light Rail. 

They estimated a two-lane busway required a right-of-way about 30 feet 

wide, compared with 24 feet wide for a double-track Light Rail system.14 

Regardless of the transportation mode---bus or rail—the basic design has a 

major effect on the capital costs. Specifically, projects that use tunneling 

or elevated structures are more expensive than those with surface level 

construction. For example, the Boston South Piers Transitway, a 1-mile 

tunnel with three stations built adjacent to the Boston Central 

Artery/Tunnel project, has an estimated cost of $601 million. Tunneling can 

be three to six times more expensive than surface construction, regardless 

of the type of system—bus or rail.

Operating Costs Vary for 

Bus Rapid Transit and Light 

Rail Systems

We found mixed results when we compared the operating costs for Bus 

Rapid Transit and Light Rail in each of the six cities that operated both 

types of systems.15 We used three measures to examine operating costs: 

cost per vehicle revenue hour, cost per vehicle revenue mile, and cost per 

passenger trip.16 We also compared these measures, correcting for vehicle 

capacity. Each measure resulted in somewhat different relative operating 

cost levels.

Part of the reason for the variation in results is that the Bus Rapid Transit 

systems in our example cities operate in different ways. The systems 

14Pittsburgh officials noted that a 30-foot busway requirement was not uniform and that 

busways can be narrowed to Light Rail standards for short sections to fit through tunnels or 

accommodate obstructions. In Pittsburgh, for example, buses share a tunnel with Light Rail 

vehicles.

15The six cities with both Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail systems in our study are Dallas, 

Denver, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, San Diego, and San Jose.

16These three measures, while not the only possible measures of operating cost, are 

commonly used in transit. We also attempted to determine operating cost per passenger 

mile as a measure of comparison; however, we could not obtain sufficient data for such an 

analysis. See appendix I for details on the methodology used.
Page 21 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

ranged from arterial bus routes in Los Angeles to freeway express buses on 

barrier-separated HOV lanes in Denver, Dallas, and San Diego to exclusive 

busways in Pittsburgh. In addition, the Light Rail systems in these cities 

also serve different functions in different ways. The Light Rail systems 

range from local distributor systems sharing downtown city streets with 

cars and trucks, as in Dallas and Denver, to commuter-type service along 

tracks separated from all other traffic, such as the Los Angeles Green Line. 

The route, type of service, size of vehicles, and function of the systems—

long haul commuter service or downtown circulator—each have an impact 

on the operating cost. Greater speed can also lower operating and capital 

costs by permitting a bus route or rail line to be serviced with fewer 

vehicles. 

Operating costs for Bus Rapid Transit systems included such costs as 

driver's salaries, fuel, vehicle maintenance, and maintenance of the busway 

or HOV lane. In Dallas it also includes the cost to move 5.2 miles of road 

barriers twice each day to change the direction of an HOV lane that the Bus 

Rapid Transit system and other HOVs use as well as the cost to provide 

daily enforcement of lane restrictions and motorist assistance. Light Rail 

operating costs include driver's salaries, electricity, and maintenance of the 

vehicles and track system. Light Rail systems require at least one repair 

facility and specialized maintenance staff, while Bus Rapid Transit vehicle 

maintenance is often done at existing maintenance facilities by current 

employees whose costs can be spread over the regular bus service.

Operating Cost Per Vehicle Hour To determine operating cost per vehicle hour, the annual operating costs 

are divided by the number of hours the buses or trains operate in that year. 

This measure shows the average cost to operate a vehicle for 1 hour, 

regardless of the number of passengers carried. As shown in figure 7, using 

this measure, Bus Rapid Transit had lower costs in five cities and Light Rail 

in one. 
Page 22 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

Figure 7: Operating Cost Per Vehicle Revenue Hour, 1999

Source: National Transit Database and six transit agencies.

Operating Cost Per Revenue 

Mile

Operating cost per revenue mile is another way of measuring the cost of 

operating individual vehicles. Operating cost per revenue mile is a vehicle’s 

annual operating cost divided by the total annual number of miles traveled 

while actually in passenger service. It calculates the average cost of the 

vehicles to travel 1 mile. As shown in figure 8, all six cities' Light Rail 

systems showed higher costs per vehicle mile than Bus Rapid Transit 

routes. According to one transit expert, Bus Rapid Transit lines often run 

only during the busiest rush hour periods while Light Rail systems typically 

offer all-day service, which may in part explain this result. 

$201

$125

$434

$224

$89

$199

$96 $78

$56

$143

$100 $109

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

$450

$500

Dollars

Dallas Denver Los Angeles Pittsburgh San Diego San Jose

Light Rail

Bus Rapid Transit
Page 23 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

Figure 8: Operating Cost Per Vehicle Revenue Mile, 1999

Source: National Transit Database and six transit agencies.

Operating Cost Per Passenger 

Trip

Transit operating costs can also be measured on a per passenger trip basis. 

Operating cost per passenger trip measures the total annual operating cost 

divided by the total annual passenger boardings, regardless of whether the 

passenger is transferring from a bus to a Light Rail vehicle, or vice versa. 

Thus, it shows how much it costs to carry a person on a trip, regardless of 

the length of that trip. Using this measure, four of six Bus Rapid Transit 

routes had lower operating costs per passenger trip than did Light Rail 

systems, as shown in figure 9.

$12.54

$11.72

$13.72

$15.60

$12.68

$4.20 $3.45 $3.86

$8.52

$3.95

$2.24 $1.74

$0.00

$2.00

$4.00

$6.00

$8.00

$10.00

$12.00

$14.00

$16.00

$18.00

Dollars 

Dallas Denver Los Angeles Pittsburgh San Diego San Jose

Light Rail

Bus Rapid Transit
Page 24 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

Figure 9: Operating Cost Per Unlinked Passenger Trip, 1999

Source: National Transit Database and six transit agencies.

Dallas Denver Los Angeles Pittsburgh San Diego San Jose

Light Rail

Bus Rapid Transit

$3.79

$2.40

$1.68

$2.68

$4.07

$1.19

$5.10

$5.60

$2.16

$1.21 $1.06

$0.31

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

Dollars 
Page 25 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

The wide disparities in operating costs and ridership levels are likely due to 

the variety of Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail systems we reviewed. For 

example, our evaluation of Bus Rapid Transit service in Dallas included the 

costs to move 5.2 miles of barriers twice a day to allow Bus Rapid Transit 

and other HOVs to use the lanes, as well as enforcement and roadway 

assistance costs. In Los Angeles, the Bus Rapid Transit service on the 

Wilshire-Whittier line has very high ridership—about as high as the highest 

ridership levels achieved by Light Rail lines in the United States. High 

ridership generally reduces the cost per rider. In contrast, both San Diego 

and San Jose have lower Bus Rapid Transit ridership, which contributes to 

higher costs per rider. In addition, vehicle sizes and passenger capacity can 

vary greatly between Light Rail and bus vehicles, which can affect vehiclebased comparisons. 17 The Light Rail systems also have varied functions 

that can affect operating costs. For example, Denver’s initial Light Rail 

system operated as a slower local circulator system on city streets shared 

with vehicular traffic, while San Diego’s system is used more for longer 

commuting trips.18 

Ridership and Speed of Bus 

Rapid Transit and Light Rail 

Vary Widely 

Two elements of transit system performance are ridership and system 

speed. We found that while ridership varied considerably, the largest 

ridership on Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail systems were quite similar. 

We also found that speed varied but that Bus Rapid Transit projects in our 

review were generally faster. This was likely due to the nature of the Bus 

Rapid Transit systems that we visited; express bus operations or operations 

with longer stop spacing have higher speeds.

We found that ridership on Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail systems varies 

widely and depends, in part, on frequency of service, number of stops, 

17Light Rail vehicles had a capacity about double that of the Bus Rapid Transit vehicles used 

on the routes we examined. To account for these differences, we also compared cities' 

operating costs per passenger space per hour and operating costs per passenger space per 

mile. These measures, based on the actual seating and standing spaces of the rail and bus 

vehicles used on the routes we examined, compared the cost of carrying enough room to 

carry a passenger for 1 hour and for 1 mile. The analysis again showed a mixed pattern of 

costs; Light Rail was less expensive in four of six cities in cost per passenger space per hour 

and in half the cities in terms of cost per passenger space per mile. 

18The slower Central Corridor was the first completed section of the Denver Light Rail 

system. The Southwest Corridor, which opened in 2000, does not operate on city streets 

because it is grade-separated and runs on exclusive tracks, allowing it to achieve higher 

speeds. 
Page 26 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

hours of operation, and customer demand. For example, ridership on 4 

busways ranged from 7,000 riders per day to about 30,000 per day and 

averaged about 15,600 riders per day. For 13 bus lines on HOV lanes, 

ridership ranged from 1,000 to about 25,000 riders per day, with an average 

ridership of about 8,100. In addition, the ridership on the two arterial street 

Bus Rapid Transit lines in Los Angeles was about 9,000 to 56,000 per day, 

with an average of 32,500 per day. The highest Bus Rapid Transit ridership 

was on Los Angeles’ Wilshire-Whitter line, which runs buses about every 5 

minutes and operates all day. Light Rail system ridership also varies 

widely. For example, ridership on 18 Light Rail lines ranged from 7,000 

riders to 57,000 daily riders and averaged about 29,000 per day. The largest 

Light Rail ridership was also found in Los Angeles on its Blue Line.

According to a transportation consultant, system speeds generally depend 

on characteristics such as the distance between stops, fare-collection 

methods, and the degree to which the tracks or roadway are exclusive to 

transit vehicles or share right-of-way with cars and other vehicular traffic, 

as both buses and Light Rail lines typically do in downtown areas. In the 

cities with both Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail, Bus Rapid Transit speeds 

were higher than Light Rail in five of six cities. The high-speed Bus Rapid 

Transit lines, as shown in figure 10, are generally commuter bus routes that 

run much or their entire route on highway HOV lanes.
Page 27 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

Figure 10: Average Speed of Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail Service, 1999

Source: National Transit Database and six transit agencies.

Bus Rapid Transit improvements to service such as exclusive bus lanes, 

skipped stops, dual bus lanes, and busways each may provide incremental 

improvements in vehicle speeds. Improvements such as bus traffic signal 

priority, level boarding onto low-floor buses, schedules based on time 

between buses rather than set schedules, fewer stops, and active 

management of bus spacing and traffic signal priority from a bus 

operations control center, can also each contribute to better service. For 

example, the Los Angeles Wilshire-Whitter Rapid Bus route made many of 

these improvements, resulting in a 29-percent improvement in average bus 

speeds. According to transit officials, one-third of the speed improvement 

along the Wilshire Avenue route was from the bus signal priority system 

and the rest from the other improvements. 

Dallas Denver Los Angeles Pittsburgh San Diego San Jose

Light Rail

Bus Rapid Transit

16

11

23

14

21

16

56

35

17

29

24

32

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Miles per hour
Page 28 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

Bus Rapid Transit and 

Light Rail Have a 

Variety of Advantages 

and Disadvantages

Besides cost and performance characteristics already discussed, Bus Rapid 

Transit and Light Rail each have a variety of advantages and disadvantages. 

Bus Rapid Transit generally has the advantage of (1) having more flexibility 

than Light Rail, (2) being able to phase in service rather than having to wait 

for an entire system to be built, and (3) being used as an interim system 

until Light Rail is built. Transit operators with experience in Bus Rapid 

Transit systems told us that one of the challenges faced by Bus Rapid 

Transit is the negative stigma potential riders attach to buses regarding 

their noise, pollution, and quality of ride. Light Rail has advantages, 

according to transit officials, associated with increased economic 

development and improved community image. On the negative side, 

building a Light Rail system can have a tendency to provide a bias toward 

building additional rail lines in the future. 

Bus Rapid Transit Is 

Generally More Flexible 

Than Light Rail

Bus Rapid Transit systems operate more flexibly than Light Rail systems. 

Bus Rapid Transit can respond to changes in employment, land-use, and 

community patterns by increasing or decreasing capacity. Bus Rapid 

Transit routes can also be adjusted and rerouted over time to serve new 

developments and dispersed employment centers that may have resulted 

from urban sprawl.19 For example, an official in San Jose noted that 

because of development outside the city center, there are now eight 

employment centers that need to be considered in its transit analysis. On 

the other hand, Light Rail lines are fixed and cannot easily change to adjust 

to new patterns of housing and employment. For example, the western 

portion of the Los Angeles Light Rail Green Line was built in part to provide 

mass transit service for workers in defense production facilities in Los 

Angeles. However, by the time the Green Line opened these facilities had 

been closed. As a result, projected ridership levels were not achieved. 

Although Bus Rapid Transit sometimes uses rail-style park-and-ride lots, 

Bus Rapid Transit routes can also collect riders in neighborhoods and then 

provide rapid long-distance service by entering a busway or HOV facility. 

Transit agencies have considerable flexibility to provide long distance 

service without requiring a transfer between vehicles. This is a significant 

19Urban sprawl is often characterized as a form of growth that is low-density, autodependent development that rapidly spreads on the fringes of existing communities. 

Community Development: Extent of Federal Influence on “Urban Sprawl” is Unclear

(GAO/RCED-99-87, Apr. 30, 1999).
Page 29 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

benefit, because some research has shown that transit riders view 

transferring to be a significant disincentive to using mass transit. In 

contrast, Light Rail systems frequently require a transfer of some type—

either from a bus or a private automobile. When Light Rail lines are 

introduced, transit agencies commonly reroute their bus systems to feed 

the rail line. This can have the effect of making overall bus operations less 

efficient when the highest-ridership bus route has been replaced by Light 

Rail; the short feeder bus routes can be relatively costly. 

Finally, bus-based systems’ ability to operate both on and off a busway or 

bus lane provides Bus Rapid Transit the flexibility to respond to operating 

problems. For example, buses can pass disabled vehicles, while Light Rail 

trains can be delayed behind a stalled train or other vehicle on the tracks. 

Thus, the impact of a breakdown of a Bus Rapid Transit vehicle is limited, 

while a disabled Light Rail train may disrupt portions of the system.

Bus Rapid Transit Operation 

Can Be Phased in

Bus Rapid Transit systems differ from Light Rail systems in that they 

provide greater flexibility in how they can be implemented and operated. 

In constructing a Bus Rapid Transit system, it is not necessary to include all 

the final elements before beginning operations; it is possible to phase in 

improvements over time. Improvements such as signal prioritization and 

low-floor buses, which improve capacity and bus speed, can be added 

incrementally. These incremental changes can have significant effects. For 

example, one Los Angeles Bus Rapid Transit route increased its speed and 

cut 10 percent off its schedule time, by installing signal priority for buses to 

provide several additional seconds to allow buses to pass through 

intersections before the signal changed. Overall, the line was able to 

reduce travel time by 29 percent with all the improvements. In contrast, a 

transit expert noted that a Light Rail line segment must be fully completed 

and tested before starting operation and realizing benefits.

Bus Rapid Transit Can Be an 

Interim System 

Bus Rapid Transit also has the advantage of establishing a mass transit 

corridor and building ridership without precluding future changes. The 

development of a busway secures a transit right-of-way for the future. 

Some cities have identified Bus Rapid Transit as a means of building transit 

ridership in a travel corridor to the point where investment in a rail 

alternative becomes a cost-effective choice. For example, one of the 

projects in FTA’s demonstration program, the Dulles Corridor Bus Rapid 

Transit project in Virginia, hopes to build transit ridership in this fashion. 

However, converting a bus facility to Light Rail involves additional capital 
Page 30 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

costs. The idea of converting a Pittsburgh busway to rail was studied by 

the Port Authority of Allegheny County, and the agency concluded that the 

$401 million capital cost of the conversion was too high.

Bus Service’s Negative 

Image Can Be Overcome 

With Equal Service 

Characteristics

Officials we interviewed from FTA, transit agencies, academia, and private 

consulting stated that a negative image exists for bus service, particularly 

when compared to rail service. Communities may prefer Light Rail systems 

to Bus Rapid Transit in part because the public sees rail as faster, quieter, 

and less polluting than buses, even though Bus Rapid Transit is designed to 

overcome those problems. While transit officials noted a public bias 

toward Light Rail, research has found that riders have no preference for rail 

over bus when service characteristics are equal. 

While environmental benefits have helped justify Light Rail systems, the 

gap in environmental benefits between rail and buses may be narrowing. 

FTA and bus manufacturers have focused on improving the design of buses 

not just to increase their attractiveness, but also to reduce their noise levels 

and emissions. In December 1999, we reported that diesel buses are 

becoming much cleaner.20 We noted that according to the EPA, emissions 

from individual buses declined substantially between 1988 and 1999. 

Improvements in diesel technology have resulted in heavy-duty diesel 

engines that are more reliable and less polluting than their predecessors. 

In addition, we found that newer buses can use alternative fuels, such as 

liquefied natural gas, fuel cells, and hybrid technologies, which may have 

some beneficial effect on urban air quality as they are adopted into bus 

fleets. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, FTA officials said that the poor 

image of buses was probably a result of a history of slow bus service due to 

congested streets, slow boarding and fare collection, and traffic lights. Bus 

Rapid Transit is essentially designed to eliminate delays and provide faster 

service on better vehicles. FTA believes that the image of buses can be 

improved over time through bus service that incorporates Bus Rapid 

Transit features. This change could replicate the improved image that Light 

Rail systems experienced when modern Light Rail systems began to be 

built in the 1980’s.

20Mass Transit: Use of Alternative Fuels in Transit Buses (GAO/RCED-00-18, Dec. 14, 

1999).
Page 31 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

Light Rail Seen as a 

Stimulus for Community 

Economic Development 

Transit agency officials told us that Light Rail provides the opportunity for 

improved economic development along the rail lines. Several city transit 

officials and transit consultants told us that communities see Light Rail as a 

mark that a city is "world-class," and could help a city improve its image 

and ability to attract economic development. According to transit agency 

officials, because Light Rail systems have permanent stations and routes, 

developers are more likely to locate new business, residential, or retail 

development along a Light Rail line than along a bus route. For example, 

Dallas transit officials cited $800 million in commercial development along 

its Light Rail line. The Light Rail line itself cost $860 million to build in 

1994, so these officials saw the Light Rail line as an excellent investment.21 

On the other hand, San Jose transit officials noted that while some 

residential development had occurred along its Light Rail line, the 

expectation is for changes in land use over a longer period of time, perhaps 

over 20 years, resulting in a more densely developed corridor. 

Transit officials we interviewed disagreed on the extent that Bus Rapid 

Transit could spur economic development. For example, officials in Dallas 

said they had not experienced development near their Bus-HOV stations 

that they could trace to the Bus Rapid Transit service. However, the 

Director of the Cleveland Bus Rapid Transit project cited development 

already occurring in the Euclid Avenue corridor in anticipation of the Bus 

Rapid Transit line. Here the Bus Rapid Transit line would operate much 

like a Light Rail system, with the same kind of fixed route on city streets 

and identifiable station structures that allow for transit-oriented 

development on Light Rail routes. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, FTA officials said that Light Rail’s 

economic development impact comes about, in part, because of the high 

capital investment that gives a sense of permanence. Rail’s economic 

development impact at stations also results from a pattern of rail service 

where there is excellent service to rail stations but much poorer service 

requiring a transfer beyond the stations. According to FTA officials, most 

development attributed to rail service occurs within walking distance of 

the rail station. In contrast, bus service that can leave the guideway and 

eliminate the need for a transfer places less emphasis on the stations as a 

21Transit experts noted that it is difficult to determine how much of investment is additional 

investment that would not have otherwise occurred, and how much investment is redirected 

from somewhere else in a city to areas near the transit facility.
Page 32 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

focus for economic development. This may diffuse the economic 

development impact of Bus Rapid Transit guideways and stations.

Light Rail Systems Are 

Usually Expanded Over 

Time

Most cities that built Light Rail systems did not end construction with the 

first rail line. Rather, the early Light Rail lines were often later extended or 

additional lines added. Of the 13 cities that built Light Rail systems since 

1980, 

• 5 cities already have more than one Light Rail line operating,

• 4 cities have already extended their initial Light Rail lines,

• 3 cities are doing initial expansions of earlier systems, and 

• Buffalo is the only city of the 13 that has not expanded or is not 

expanding its initial Light Rail system.

In addition, of the 13 cities,

• 9 cities have current Full Funding Grant Agreements amounting to over 

$2.6 billion and have construction under way on 10 projects to expand 

existing Light Rail systems. Overall, the cost estimates for these 

projects range from $19.5 million per mile to $238.3 million per mile with 

an average cost of about $54 million to construct a mile of Light Rail 

line.

• 10 cities have proposed 15 additional New Starts Light Rail projects that 

are in various levels of design or development.

Two transportation experts told us that Light Rail systems, once installed, 

tend to expand because of the ease of making rail to rail connections, as 

opposed to bus to rail connections. In addition, they said that expansion 

also occurs because once a system has incurred the initial costs of building 

rail maintenance and repair facilities and training a new labor force of 

drivers and specialized maintenance workers, the initial costs can be 

spread over a larger system.

Conclusions A number of transit options are available to communities to help address 

growing traffic congestion. One such option is Bus Rapid Transit. Bus 

Rapid Transit is an emerging approach to using buses as an improved highspeed transit system. By employing innovative technologies such as signal 

prioritization, better stations or shelters, fewer stops, and faster service on 

more attractive vehicles, Bus Rapid Transit shows promise in meeting a 
Page 33 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

variety of transit needs. In addition, in many communities Bus Rapid 

Transit systems can have lower capital costs than Light Rail systems yet 

can often provide similar performance. Further, Bus Rapid Transit’s 

flexibility may be a potentially valuable feature for many communities with 

sprawling patterns of development, where public transportation needs can 

be more complex and difficult to address than focusing on a single central 

business district. 

While Bus Rapid Transit shows promise, the primary federal program to 

support new and expanded transit systems, the New Starts Program, will 

provide little capital funding for Bus Rapid Transit over the next 2 years. 

First, the New Starts Program is stretched to its capacity to respond to the 

growing number of eligible projects and few projects of any kind will 

receive funding for the remainder of the current program. In addition, 

some of the Bus Rapid Transit projects do not fit the exclusive right-of-way 

requirements of the New Starts Program and thus would not be eligible for 

funding consideration. Further, since Bus Rapid Transit is a relatively new 

concept, some of the projects have not reached the point of being ready for 

funding consideration and there are many other rail projects further along 

in development with which they will ultimately have to compete.

FTA is encouraging Bus Rapid Transit through a Demonstration Program. 

This program does not provide funding for construction but rather focuses 

on obtaining and sharing information on projects being pursued by local 

transit agencies. The evaluations of the Bus Rapid Transit projects, which 

are under way and planned, will hopefully provide additional needed 

information on the effectiveness of this transit option. 

The future of Bus Rapid Transit in the United States largely rests with the 

willingness of communities to consider it as they explore transit options to 

address their specific situations. Such decisions are difficult and made on 

a case-by-case basis considering a variety of factors including cost, 

ridership, environmental impacts, and community needs and attitudes. No 

one transit option is right for all situations. However, given the merits of 

Bus Rapid Transit and its potential cost advantages, we believe that it 

should be given serious consideration as options are explored and 

evaluated.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Transportation for 

review and comment. Officials from the Department generally agreed with 

the report. Officials from FTA’s Office of Research, Demonstration, and 
Page 34 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

Innovation; Office of Planning; and Office of the Chief Counsel provided 

observations on the public’s poor image of bus service and the economic 

development impact of rail and bus service, which we included in the 

report. These officials also provided technical comments, which we 

incorporated into the report as appropriate.

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after the 

date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the 

Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of the Federal Transit 

Administration. We will also make copies available to others upon request.

If you or your staff have questions about this report, please call me at (202) 

512-2834 or write to heckerj@gao.gov. Key contributors to this report were 

Samer Abbas, Robert Ciszewski, David Ehrlich, and Glen Trochelman.

JayEtta Z. Hecker

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Page 35 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

List of Congressional Requesters

The Honorable Tom DeLay

Majority Whip

The Honorable Don Young

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

The Honorable Thomas Petri

Chairman, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

The Honorable Tom Tancredo

House of Representatives
Page 36 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

To identify the status of federal funding for Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail 

systems, we reviewed FTA budget and program data, reports on New Starts 

projects, and prior GAO reports. To analyze support being provided to Bus 

Rapid Transit and Light Rail, we used the most recent report on the New 

Starts Program Annual Report on New Starts, Proposed Allocation of 

Funds for Fiscal Year 2002, Department of Transportation, Federal 

Transportation Administration, May 25, 2001. To describe FTA’s Bus Rapid 

Transit Demonstration Program, we interviewed officials from FTA, 

reviewed program documents, and contacted the demonstration project 

sponsors for additional information. 

To determine the capital costs of Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail projects, 

we obtained cost data from FTA and transit agencies for selected cities. 

For Bus Rapid Transit systems, we initially selected the cities of Dallas, 

Denver, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, San Diego, and San Jose because they had 

both Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail systems. We added Houston and 

Seattle because they have extensive Bus Rapid Transit type systems and 

are in advanced stages of planning to build Light Rail systems. We also 

added Miami and Charlotte because they are operating dedicated busways. 

Lastly, we added Orlando because it is operating a Bus Rapid Transit type 

system on arterial streets. For Light Rail, we identified 13 cities that built 

systems between 1980 and 2000. We limited systems to this timeframe due 

to concerns about the availability of data from earlier dates. To obtain the 

capital costs for the Bus Rapid Transit systems, we used prior reports, if 

available, or contacted the local transit agency. For the Light Rail projects, 

FTA and transit agency officials provided total capital expenditures. 

We calculated capital costs based on the cost to complete the transit line, 

escalated to 2000 dollars. To escalate project costs, we used the Gross 

Domestic Product Implicit Price Deflator applied to the lump-sum capital 

cost at the year of completion. The only exception to this method was for 

the San Diego Light Rail system. Due to the way in which this system was 

built over time, escalating from the final lump-sum cost of the projects was 

not appropriate. However, the transit agency provided us annual capital 

expenditures, and we escalated each of these annual costs to 2000 dollars 

to determine the capital cost of this system. 

The capital cost analysis we conducted focused on capital cost per mile 

that was derived by dividing the total escalated costs by the number of 

miles of the various systems. We used cost per mile as our measure 

because it presents comparable information on a common basis. While 

other measures might have been attempted, such as annualized costs or 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 37 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

cost per passenger, sufficient data were not available to do so. However, in 

our view, cost per mile presents a reasonable representation of the 

magnitude of the cost differences.

In determining operating costs, we selected cites that had both significant 

Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail systems—Dallas, Denver, Los Angeles, 

Pittsburgh, San Diego, and San Jose. We believed it important to use cities 

with both types of systems so that accounting of costs would be more 

consistent. Local transit agencies did not collect or maintain operating 

costs for Bus Rapid Transit systems or their individual lines. As a result, 

transit authorities had to calculate or estimate the operating costs 

associated with their operations. Because of the difficulty of this, we were 

able to analyze a limited number of Bus Rapid Transit lines in the cities. 

Based on discussions with the transit agencies, we judgmentally selected 

routes that had the most Bus Rapid Transit elements. The following 

identifies the Bus Rapid Transit type line in each city and the source of that 

data. For Light Rail operating costs, data were obtained from the 1999 

National Transit Database. 

• Dallas: We examined express bus routes on two Dallas area barrierseparated HOV lanes: I-35 East (Stemmons), and I-30 (Thornton). The 

Dallas Area Rapid Transit agency calculated the operating costs for 

buses using the HOV lanes. The reported operating costs are actual 

operating costs, not estimates, and are "fully loaded" to include direct, 

indirect, and general and administrative allocations. This includes the 

cost to move 5.2 miles of barriers twice a day to provide an extra HOV 

lane during rush hours.

• Denver: At the suggestion of local transit officials, we used the 120X 

Express Bus Route as an example of Bus Rapid Transit in Denver, since 

it includes all-day service and a substantial portion of the route runs on 

a freeway HOV lane. Operating costs were estimated according to 

average operating cost per vehicle hour for regular bus service. A 

Regional Transportation District official told us that he believed that the 

operating costs for the 120X route would be similar to regular bus 

operating costs, and that the same buses and drivers are used for both 

the 120X and regular buses. 

• Los Angeles: We examined two Bus Rapid Transit routes: one runs 

along Wilshire-Whittier Boulevard and the other along Ventura 

Boulevard. Los Angeles officials provided an estimate of the operating 

costs for these lines. These lines operate all-day on routes that run 

concurrently with local buses, but with fewer stops and higher 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 38 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

ridership. The buses travel on streets with other traffic and do not run 

on HOV lanes or bus lanes.

• Pittsburgh: Two Bus Rapid Transit busways were examined in 

Pittsburgh: the East Busway and the South Busway. The West Busway 

was not included because it was not open in 1999. Pittsburgh officials 

provided actual ridership figures and estimated the operating costs, 

vehicle hours, and vehicle miles for all routes using each busway from 

the outer end of the busway and including the downtown loop circulator 

portion where buses pick up and drop off passengers. Operating costs 

included all busway expenses for the two busways, including salaries 

and wages for operators, maintenance, and administration; diesel fuel; 

maintenance of facilities; materials and supplies; utilities; and 

purchased services.

• San Diego: We examined several express commuter bus routes in San 

Diego: the 810, 820, 850, 860, and 870. All travel at least part of their 

route on barrier-separated HOV lanes. San Diego officials provided 

estimates for the operating cost for these lines. 

• San Jose: On the recommendation of local transit officials, we examined 

one Bus Rapid Transit route of the Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority, 

Route 102, from South San Jose to Stanford Research Park. Route 102 is 

a 32-mile long express commuter bus route that is 70 percent on HOV 

lanes--the highest HOV level of any Valley Transit bus route. Operating 

costs were estimated according to average operating cost per vehicle 

hour for regular bus service.

In analyzing operating cost we used three measures: cost per vehicle 

revenue hour, cost per vehicle revenue mile, and cost per passenger trip. 

These are commonly used comparisons in this industry. To arrive at the 

results, the operating cost for 1999 was divided by the number of hours the 

vehicles operated in service that year, the number of miles the vehicles 

traveled when in service that year, or the number of passenger trips on 

each route that year. We also tried to calculate cost per passenger mile, but 

sufficient information was not widely available on where and how many 

passengers were getting on and off vehicles along their routes. 

To obtain information on the ridership and performance of Bus Rapid 

Transit and Light Rail systems, we relied on information obtained from 

transit agencies, supplemented with information from the National Transit 

Database, and interviewed FTA and transit agency officials, academic 

researchers, and private consultants.
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 39 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

To determine other advantages and disadvantages of Bus Rapid Transit and 

Light Rail systems, we reviewed FTA documents, academic and private 

consultants’ reports, and interviewed FTA officials and study authors. We 

also interviewed transit agency officials to determine what additional 

factors they considered when they made choices to develop bus or rail 

systems, and what they had observed in the actual construction and 

operation of the systems.

Certain limitations apply to the data presented in this report. First, the 

report primarily focuses on the cost of transit projects; we have not 

attempted to quantify all the possible benefits of these projects. Therefore, 

our review is not a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis. Second, because 

of differences among transit agencies in how they report operational 

information, analyses in this report generally are restricted to operating 

cost comparisons between bus and Light Rail within a given transit agency. 

Conclusions on the relative operating efficiency of one transit agency 

versus another should not be drawn from this report. In addition, not all 

the transit agencies we reviewed were able to totally segregate Bus Rapid 

Transit costs from their overall bus operating costs, which limited our 

analysis to overall operating cost rather than the various elements that 

contribute to it. Finally, transit agencies collect ridership information in a 

variety of ways, ranging from actual farebox counts to periodic ridership 

surveys. Because transit agencies are the only available source for such 

information, we relied on ridership data they provided. 

In addition, for some of the Light Rail analyses in this report we relied on 

information contained in FTA’s 1999 National Transit Database, the most 

recent at the time of our analysis. While we did not perform a 

comprehensive data reliability assessment of this information, we did 

determine that FTA has procedures in place to monitor data quality. We 

performed our review from July 2000 through August 2001 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Page 40 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

Appendix II

Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration Projects ApendxiI

For each of the 10 Bus Rapid Transit demonstration projects supported by 

the Federal Transit Administration, the following provides a project 

description, construction cost estimates, a summary of the comparative 

analysis used to choose Bus Rapid Transit, and status of the project. The 

projects are:

• Boston, MA – Silver Line

• Charlotte, NC – Independence Corridor

• Cleveland, OH – Euclid Corridor Transportation Project

• Dulles Corridor, VA – Dulles Corridor Bus Rapid Transit

• Eugene, OR – Pilot East-West Corridor

• Hartford, CT -- Hartford-New Britain Busway

• Honolulu, HI – CityExpress!

• Miami, FL – South Miami-Dade Busway

• San Jose, CA – Line 22 Rapid Transit Corridor

• San Juan, PR – Rio Hondo Connector Bus Rapid Transit

Boston, MA – Silver Line

Project Description The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority is constructing a twophased Silver Line project, which will run from Dudley Square to Logan 

Airport, via downtown and the South Boston Waterfront. As of January 

2001, funding has been secured for one of the project’s two phases. The 

project calls for the buses to operate on exclusive lanes on surface streets 

and in an exclusive busway-tunnel. Vehicles are expected to feature lowfloors and real-time information. Some buses will use alternative-fuels to 

reduce emissions. When it begins operations, the Silver Line is expected to 

make 17 trips per hour with a round-trip running time of 48 minutes. Once 

completed, the Silver Line expects to serve 60,000 riders daily. 

Cost Estimates According to a Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority official, the 

estimated cost for developing the two phases of the Silver Line is $1.34 

billion, of which $641 million has been secured. The Authority is seeking 

an additional $700 million from federal, state, and local sources. 

Estimated Time Savings The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority estimates a 3 to 5 minute 

time savings from Washington Street to downtown. Time savings for the 

completed Silver Line and the service from South Station to the Piers area 

and Logan Airport are not possible to calculate because this is a new 

service.
Appendix II

Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration Projects

Page 41 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

Comparative Analysis The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority decided that Bus Rapid 

Transit could attract similar ridership as a Light Rail system. In addition, 

according to the Project Manager, the Bus Rapid Transit project could be 

built at a much lower cost than Light Rail. Further, a busway would create 

fewer disturbances to Boston’s infrastructure than Light Rail. However, the 

construction of the Bus Rapid Transit system allows for possible 

construction of a future Light Rail system. 

Status According to the Project Manager, as of January 2001, the project was 35 

percent to 40 percent complete. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation 

Authority plans to provide a fully integrated Silver Line service by 2008.

Charlotte, NC – 

Independence Corridor

Project Description Charlotte’s project involves extending the existing busway on 

Independence Boulevard, adding intelligent transportation systems on its 

buses, and adding new stations. In 1998, the Charlotte Area Transit System 

opened a 2.6-mile two-way express busway (without stations) in an unused 

HOV lane that, according to the Project Manager, cannot open to carpools 

until 2006, when the next phase of the Independence freeway project is 

completed. The project allows buses to bypass congestion. Under the 

current Bus Express Lane system, the Charlotte Area Transit System 

estimates that the monthly total ridership for January 2000 on the busway 

was about 15,700 —an increase of 55 percent from the previous year. The 

express bus routes make 32 trips during the morning period and 29 trips 

during the afternoon. The plan consists of retrofitting 3.6 miles of 

Independence Boulevard into a busway facility with five new stations and 

adding intelligent transportation systems technology such as automated 

vehicle locators and automatic passenger counters. The long-range goal is 

to extend the busway 13.5 miles, according to the Project Manager. The 

Metropolitan Transit Commission began a Major Investment Study that will 

cover the entire corridor and involve an evaluation of various forms of 

transit, including Bus Rapid Transit, Light Rail, and Commuter Rail. The 

Commission expects to complete the study in late 2001.

Cost Estimates According to the Project Manger, the Major Investment Study will 

determine the cost of the next phase. Federal, state, and local funding is 

planned for the project with the local share coming from a sales tax 

approved in a countywide referendum in 1998. The Charlotte Area Transit 
Appendix II

Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration Projects

Page 42 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

System plans to dedicate this revenue source to public transportation 

expenditures. The Charlotte Area Transit System estimated that the sales 

tax would generate over $50 million annually for transit in the Charlotte 

area.

Estimated Time Savings The Charlotte Area Transit System estimates that the current Bus Rapid 

Transit system saves 10 to 15 minutes in the afternoon rush hour trips and 2 

to 4 minutes in the morning. According to the Project Manager, the Major 

Investment Study will estimate time savings for the next phase.

Comparative Analysis The Major Investment Study will compare various forms of transit, 

including Bus Rapid Transit, Light Rail, and Commuter Railroad, according 

to the Project Manager. 

Status The 2.6-mile express busway has been in use since 1998. In January 2000, it 

carried over 15,000 passengers. The Major Investment Study is under way 

to analyze the remaining phase of this project. It is expected to be 

complete in late 2001. 

Cleveland, OH – Euclid 

Corridor Transportation 

Project 

Project Description The Euclid Corridor Transportation Project, located in the cities of 

Cleveland and East Cleveland, will connect the region’s two largest 

employment centers—downtown/central business district and University 

Circle. The project calls for bus stations to be located over 7 miles on a 

landscaped center median, on the city’s major arterial street. The exclusive 

bus lane would be located along the median, with the curb lane available 

for other vehicle traffic. The last 2.5 miles of the route will have buses 

operating at the curb lane in mixed traffic. According to the Project 

Director, the vehicles are expected to be 60 foot, articulated, low-floor, 

diesel/electric buses. The system features an exclusive busway, intelligent 

transportation systems technologies, traffic signal preemption, and faster 

boarding and alighting due to off-board fare collection. 

Cost Estimates The Euclid Corridor Transportation Project estimates the capital cost for 

the program at $220 million. 
Appendix II

Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration Projects

Page 43 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

Estimated Time Savings The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority estimates a travel time 

reduction of 30 to 40 minutes along the route. 

Comparative Analysis In December 1995, Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority’s 

management planning organization, the Northeast Ohio Area Wide 

Coordinating Agency, selected the Bus Rapid Transit project. Prior to this 

selection, rail options were evaluated against the Bus Rapid Transit 

approach. The Authority’s decision was heavily influenced by the costs as 

compared with the expected benefits of the options. The Authority 

selected the Bus Rapid Transit option because it was estimated to cost 

about one-half of the best rail option, yet would achieve many of the transit 

benefits. 

Status The FTA New Starts Program has given the project a “recommended” 

rating. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority is currently working 

on design completion. It expects to begin limited service by 2005 and 

complete service in 2007, according to the Project Director.

Dulles Corridor, VA – Dulles 

Corridor Bus Rapid Transit

Project Description The Dulles Corridor Bus Rapid Transit project is part of a multiyear, fourphased effort to bring rail service to the rapidly growing Dulles Corridor in 

the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. The Virginia Department of Rail 

and Public Transportation’s goal is to build a 23.5-mile rail transit system in 

the area that will serve as an extension to the 103-mile Metrorail service. 

The Bus Rapid Transit segment of the project is to serve as an interim step 

to rail. The plan calls for vehicles in the Bus Rapid Transit project to 

operate between an existing Metrorail stop and Dulles International Airport 

and beyond to Loudon County. Most of the route to the airport would be on 

the existing limited access road. A total of four stations would be 

constructed. Consideration is being given to buses that would feature 

intelligent transportation systems technology such as real-time and parking 

information and automated vehicle location. The plan calls for buses to 

run every 10 to 20 minutes in peak hours and every 20 to 60 minutes during 

the off-peak and weekend hours. The Virginia Department of Rail and 

Public Transportation estimates an average weekday ridership of 23,000 for 

the fully operating Bus Rapid Transit system. It plans to start operations in 

2003 and begin conversion to rail by 2006. The Virginia Department of Rail 

and Public Transportation plans full implementation of rail by 2010. 
Appendix II

Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration Projects

Page 44 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

Cost Estimates The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation estimates a total 

cost of $287.3 million for the Bus Rapid Transit portion of the project and 

$2.2 billion for the entire project including rail service.

Estimated Time Savings The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation Project Manager 

estimates that for the Bus Rapid Transit portion of the project, average rush 

hour time savings will be about 18 minutes. 

Comparative Analysis In 1997, a Major Investment Study on the Dulles Corridor recommended a 

“seamless” extension of the Metrorail system. The Virginia Department of 

Rail and Public Transportation evaluated Light Rail as an alternative, but it 

did not offer any cost savings or operational advantages. A 1999 

supplement to the Major Investment Study concluded that Bus Rapid 

Transit could provide interim mobility improvements in the corridor but, 

due to operating constraints in the Tysons Corner area and projected future 

demand, a rail line was the most appropriate long-term solution. Current 

analysis will determine the most effective alignment for the future 

Metrorail extension.

Status According to the Project Manger, in 2000, FTA approved advancing the Bus 

Rapid Transit portion of the project into preliminary engineering, and the 

entire Bus Rapid Transit-to-rail project into the National Environmental 

Policy Act process. The Bus Rapid Transit portion of the project received a 

“recommended” rating from FTA.

Eugene, OR – Pilot EastWest Corridor 

Project Description Eugene’s Lane Transit District is directing a two-phased, 10-mile Pilot EastWest Corridor Bus Rapid Transit project that will connect east Springfield 

to west Eugene. The Lane Transit District’s goal is to provide fast “rail-like” 

transit service along major corridors with smaller buses providing access 

from neighborhoods to the Bus Rapid Transit Lines, nearby shopping, and 

employment. The project calls for the system to use exclusive busways, 

traffic signal priority, prepaid fares, real-time information, and fewer stops. 

At implementation, the pilot corridor will operate at 10-minute intervals 

during weekdays and 20-minute intervals during evenings and weekends.
Appendix II

Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration Projects

Page 45 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

Cost Estimates The Lane Transit District estimates a total cost of $44 million to construct 

the project.

Estimated Time Savings The Lane Transit District estimates that the Bus Rapid Transit system 

would decrease travel time by 20 percent compared to regular bus service 

in the year it begins operation. It also estimates that this may grow to 40 

percent by 2015. 

Comparative Analysis According to the Project Manager, the Lane Transit District conducted a 

Major Investment Study that determined that Bus Rapid Transit is the 

preferred approach to Eugene’s transportation needs. The evaluation 

concluded that Eugene currently does not have the population density to 

support a rail system. 

Status The Bus Rapid Transit project is in preliminary engineering and 

environmental assessment. According to the Project Manager, the Lane 

Transit District developed a public input process to educate residents and 

business owners about the Bus Rapid Transit project and to gather input on 

corridor issues such as engineering solutions and system image and 

character. The Project Manager stated that the goal is to complete Phase I 

by 2003 and Phase II by 2005. Once Phase I is completed, 4 miles of the 

project would be operational. The completion of Phase II would complete 

the 10-mile project and allow for full Bus Rapid Transit operation. 

Hartford, CT – Hartford 

New Britain Busway 

Project Description The Hartford-New Britain Busway project consists of a two-way, 9-mile 

exclusive busway linking downtown New Britain with Hartford’s Union 

Station. The plan calls for buses to use intelligent transportation systems 

technologies, possibly including signal priority, automatic vehicle location, 

real-time information, and a smart signal system for grade crossing control. 

The Connecticut Department of Transportation estimates that daily 

ridership will increase by almost 11,500 new riders to 28,500 riders in the 

selected busway system, according to the Planning Manager. 

Cost Estimates The Connecticut Department of Transportation estimates a total project 

cost of $100 million, according to the Planning Manager.
Appendix II

Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration Projects

Page 46 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

Estimated Time Savings The Connecticut Department of Transportation estimates a 40.5 percent 

time savings using the busway from Hartford to New Britain. 

Comparative Analysis The Connecticut Department of Transportation recommended the busway 

project after considering six alternatives. The agency selected the busway 

project as the preferred option based on transit-related, highway, and 

arterial-roadway performance measures and cost.

Status FTA approved the project into preliminary engineering with a 

“recommended” New Starts project rating. The Connecticut Department of 

Transportation expects to begin design in 2001. The plan calls for the Bus 

Rapid Transit system to begin operating in 2003.

Honolulu, HI – CityExpress!

Project Description The City and County of Honolulu plans to expand its current bus system 

and implement Bus Rapid Transit in the primary urban corridor. Honolulu 

began a limited-stop express bus service in 1999 in the corridor as a 

precursor to Bus Rapid Transit. Known as “CityExpress!” the system 

operates between Kalihi Transit Center and the University of Hawaii. 

During the first 6 months of operation, CityExpress! experienced a 50-

percent increase in ridership. Honolulu plans to implement the Bus Rapid 

Transit system in the same corridor by providing exclusive lanes where 

heavy traffic congestion impedes the transit operation. According to the 

Public Transit Chief, the plan calls for Bus Rapid Transit to include transit 

centers, signal prioritization, and traveler information systems. A fully 

constructed Bus Rapid Transit system would produce an estimated 46,000 

additional daily riders on mass transit in 2025.

Cost Estimates Total capital cost is estimated at $1.06 billion over 25 years. 

Estimated Time Savings Bus Rapid Transit would result in estimated time savings of approximately 

35 percent. 

Comparative Analysis The Major Investment Study/Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

recommended Bus Rapid Transit over Light Rail. Furthermore, it stated 

that the Bus Rapid Transit alternative forecasts the highest level of transit 

usage compared with other alternatives. The study deleted the rail option 

through a collaborative process after the analyses indicated that Bus Rapid 
Appendix II

Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration Projects

Page 47 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

Transit would provide an equal level of service and performance with less 

cost and impacts. 

Status The Honolulu City Council selected Bus Rapid Transit as the Locally 

Preferred Alternative in November 2000. According to the Public Transit 

Chief, it expects to complete the Final Environmental Impact Study in 2001. 

Upon competition of the study, the Chief said that Honolulu plans on 

seeking New Starts funding assistance from FTA. 

Miami, FL – South MiamiDade Busway

Project Description The South Miami-Dade Busway project is an 11.5-mile expansion of the 

existing busway south to the cities of Homestead and Florida City. In 1997, 

the Miami-Dade Transit Agency implemented the original 8.5-mile busway. 

According to a transit agency official, this was to facilitate increased 

economic development to the region in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew. 

The system features exclusive lanes, signal priority, low-floor buses, and 

automated vehicle location and real-time announcements. The original 

busways resulted in significant growth in transit use, with ridership rising 

by 40 percent, according to the Management Chief. 

Cost Estimates The Miami-Dade Transit Agency states that the total estimated cost for the 

extension is $85.5 million, according to the Management Chief. 

Estimated Time Savings Currently, the Miami-Dade Transit Agency states that the scheduled time 

savings is less than 10 percent. The agency states that the time savings is 

minimal because buses operate at-grade and are interrupted at 

intersections located at half-mile intervals. Thus, service is not much faster 

than when the buses operate on U.S. Highway 1. 

Comparative Analysis The Management Chief stated that the Miami-Dade Transit Agency 

evaluated various modes of transit before building the South Miami-Dade 

Busway. It found other options too expensive: Heavy Rail would have cost 

10 times as much to build, while Light Rail would cost 4 times as much in 

comparison with a busway. In addition to the cost disparities, the agency 

concluded that Light Rail would be too disruptive to existing surface 

traffic.
Appendix II

Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration Projects

Page 48 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

Status Construction is scheduled to begin in November or December 2001, with 

completion of the extension by 2003. The U.S. Department of 

Transportation is working with the Miami-Dade Transit Agency to 

coordinate the construction of the extension with its repair project of U.S. 

Highway 1 to reduce disruptions, according to the Management Chief. 

San Jose, CA – Line 22 

Rapid Transit Corridor

Project Description The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority plans to expand the 

“backbone” of its bus system—the 27-mile Line 22 corridor--into a Bus 

Rapid Transit project. The plan calls for enhanced station areas, fare 

prepayment, low-floor buses, and intelligent transportation systems 

technology such as automatic vehicle location and signal prioritization. 

Line 22 runs every 10 minutes during peak hours and operates near 

capacity with 28,000 average daily riders (18 percent of total system 

ridership). Based on projections for one segment of the project, the Santa 

Clara Valley Transportation Authority estimates that ridership could 

increase by over 9 percent. 

Cost Estimates Consultants for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority estimated a 

total cost of $38 million. 

Estimated Time Savings After developing Line 22 into a Bus Rapid Transit line, the Santa Clara 

Valley Transportation Authority expects to experience time savings in the 

range of 25 percent to 40 percent over current travel times.

Comparative Analysis According to a Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority official, Line 

22’s proximity to Caltrain—the Bay Area’s commuter railroad—served as a 

disincentive in considering a Light Rail transit project for this corridor.

Status The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority has begun the preliminary 

engineering needed to complete elements of the line. The agency expects a 

fully operational Bus Rapid Transit system by late summer or fall 2002 

using federal highway and FTA Bus Capital funds, in addition to state and 

local funds.
Appendix II

Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration Projects

Page 49 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

San Juan, PR – Rio Hondo 

Connector Bus Rapid 

Transit

Project Description The Rio Hondo Connector Bus Rapid Transit project is to provide highspeed bus shuttle service between the Tren Urbano rapid transit line now 

under construction and intermodal transfer facilities. The plan calls for the 

the construction of a plaza and park-and-ride lot at the end of the 

connector, and a 2.5-mile length of limited-access HOV lanes in each 

direction. The project will feature intelligent transportation system 

technology, including automated vehicle location, computer-aided 

dispatching systems, traffic signal priority, and vehicle monitoring systems.

Cost Estimates The Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority estimates a total 

cost of approximately $66 million for the entire project, including 

construction of HOV lanes and stations. The agency estimates $7 million to 

$8 million for the Bus Rapid Transit portion of the project. 

Estimated Time Savings The Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority expects a 10-

minute travel time savings on the Bus Rapid Transit route. 

Comparative Analysis The Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority did not conduct an 

alternative analysis for this project.

Status The Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority is advancing its 

work on the highway element and expects to implement its Bus Rapid 

Transit system by 2003.
Page 50 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

Appendix III

Capital Costs of Light Rail Systems Appendix I

Dollars in millions

Location or system

Total cost (year

of expenditure)

Year system

opened

Escalated total

cost

(year 2000

dollars)

System length

(miles)

Cost per mile

(year 2000

dollars)

Baltimore, MD

 Central Line 364.00 1992 424.54 22.6 18.78

 Three extensions 106.30 1997 111.82 6.8 16.44

Buffalo, NY 510.60 1984 760.50 6.4 118.83

Dallas, TX

 S&W Oak Cliff 280.70 1996 300.21 9.6 31.27

 Park Lane 579.30 1997 609.40 10.4 58.60

Denver, CO

 Central Corridor 116.00 1994 129.05 5.3 24.35

 Southwest Extension 176.30 2000 176.30 8.7 20.26

Los Angeles, CA

 Blue Line 775.00 1990 954.55 22.0 43.39

 Green Line 900.00 1995 980.29 20.0 49.01

N.E. New Jersey

 Hudson Bergen 992.10 2000 992.1 10.0 99.21

Pittsburgh, PA 540.00 1985 780.01 25.2 30.95

Portland, OR

 Banfield 282.00 1986 398.64 15.0 26.58

 Westside/Hillsboro 963.50 1998 1,001.77 17.7 56.60

Sacramento, CA

 Original line 165.00 1987 226.71 18.3 12.39

 Mather Field Road Extension 34.00 1998 35.35 2.3 15.37
Appendix III

Capital Costs of Light Rail Systems

Page 51 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

Source: FTA and transit agencies.

Salt Lake City, UT

 South Light Rail Line 312.50 1999 320.22 15.0 21.35

San Diego, CA

 Blue Line 473.93 1981 788.52 25.2 31.29

 Orange Line 302.46 1986 506.69 21.6 23.46

San Jose, CA

 Guadalupe 400.00 1987 549.60 21.0 26.17

 Tasman West 325.00 1999 333.03 7.6 43.82

St. Louis, MO

 Metrolink 348.00 1993 395.27 19.0 20.80

Total $8,946.69 $10,774.58 309.7 34.79

Dollars in millions

Location or system

Total cost (year

of expenditure)

Year system

opened

Escalated total

cost

(year 2000

dollars)

System length

(miles)

Cost per mile

(year 2000

dollars)
Page 52 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

Appendix IV

Capital Costs of Bus Rapid Transit Systems ApendxiIV

Table 4: Capital Costs of Bus Rapid Transit Busways

Note: In Houston and Los Angeles these systems were originally built as busways. However, they 

were subsequently converted to HOV lanes carrying buses and other vehicles.

Source: FTA and transit agencies.

Dollars in millions

Location or system

Total cost (year

of expenditure)

Year system

opened

Escalated total

cost

(year 2000

dollars)

System length

(miles)

Cost per mile

(year 2000

dollars)

Houston, TX

 Katy (I-10) 103.50 1984 154.16 15.3 10.08

 North (I-45S) 138.90 1984 206.88 19.9 10.40

 Northwest (US 290) 113.50 1988 150.87 13.5 11.18

 Gulf (I-45) 98.90 1988 131.46 15.5 8.48

Los Angeles, CA

 El Monte Busway 58.00 1973 127.25 11.0 11.57

Miami, FL 60.00 1997 63.12 8.5 7.43

Pittsburgh, PA

 South Busway 27.00 1977 63.34 4.3 14.73

 East Busway 113.00 1983 174.54 6.8 25.67

 West Busway 275.00 2000 275.00 5.0 55.00

Total $987.80 $1,346.62 99.8 $13.49
Appendix IV

Capital Costs of Bus Rapid Transit Systems

Page 53 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

Table 5: Capital Costs of Bus Rapid Transit Using HOV Lanes

Source: FTA and transit agencies.

Dollars in millions

Location or system

Total cost (year

of expenditure)

Year system

opened

Escalated total

cost

(year 2000

dollars)

System length

(miles)

Cost per mile

(year 2000

dollars)

Dallas, TX

 I-30 18.90 1991 26.75 5.2 3.64

 I-35E 11.60 1996 13.96 6.6 1.76

Denver, CO

 I-25 228.00 1995 248.34 6.6 37.63

Houston, TX

 Southwest (US 59) 129.60 1993 147.21 14.3 10.29

 Eastex (US 59) 146.80 1999 150.43 20.2 7.45

Seattle, WA

 I-5 7.60 1985 10.98 6.0 1.83

 I-405 10.20 1986 14.42 6.0 2.40

San Diego, CA

 I-15 31.40 1988 41.74 8.0 5.22

Total $584.12 $653.82 72.9 $8.97
Appendix IV

Capital Costs of Bus Rapid Transit Systems

Page 54 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit

Table 6: Capital Costs of Bus Rapid Transit on Arterial Streets

Source: FTA and transit agencies.

Dollars in millions

Location or system

Total cost (year

of expenditure)

Year system

opened

Escalated total

cost

(year 2000

dollars)

System length

(miles)

Cost per mile

(year 2000

dollars)

Los Angeles, CA

 Wilshire-Whittier 5.01 2000 5.01 25.7 0.19

 Ventura 3.26 2000 3.26 16.7 0.20

Orlando, FL

 Lymmo 21.00 1997 22.09 2.3 9.60

Total $29.27 $30.36 44.7 $0.68

(348233) Letr
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting Office, the 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.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents is through the 

Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full-text files of 

current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The 

Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using key words 

and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and 

other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO E-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to our home page and complete the easy-to-use 

electronic order form found under “To Order GAO Products.”

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check 

or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO 

also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single 

address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, D.C. 20013

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

TDD: (301) 413-0006 

Fax: (202) 258-4066

Visit GAO’s Document 

Distribution Center

GAO Building 

Room 1100, 700 4th Street, NW (corner of 4th and G Streets, NW)

Washington, D.C. 20013

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov, or

1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system).

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G. Street NW, Room 7149, 

Washington, D.C. 20548

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00