Testimony 

Before the Committee on Banking, 

Housing, and Urban Affairs 

U.S. Senate

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT 

Tuesday, June 24, 2003 FEDERAL TRANSIT 

ADMINISTRATION 

Bus Rapid Transit Offers 

Communities a Flexible 

Mass Transit Option 

Statement of JayEtta Hecker, Director 

Physical Infrastructure Issues 

GAO-03-729T 
Federal grants are available for Bus Rapid Transit projects, primarily 

through the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) New Starts program. 

However, only one project currently has a funding commitment since few 

Bus Rapid Transit projects are ready to compete for funding, competition for 

New Starts funding is intense, and certain types of Bus Rapid Transit 

projects are not eligible for New Starts funding because the program 

provides grants only for projects that operate on a separate right-of-way for 

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

proposing to change this requirement so that more Bus Rapid Transit 

projects can be eligible for New Starts funding. In addition, constraints on 

the use or size of the other federal grants may limit their usefulness for Bus 

Rapid Transit projects. Under a demonstration program that began in 1999, 

FTA awarded $50,000 to each of 10 grantees for projects designed to help 

determine the extent to which Bus Rapid Transit can increase ridership, 

improve efficiency, and provide high-quality service. FTA plans to evaluate 

the demonstration projects to determine their most effective elements. 

When selecting a mass transit system, communities consider its capital and 

operating costs, performance, and other advantages and disadvantages. In 

the cities that GAO reviewed, the per-mile capital costs of Bus Rapid Transit 

varied with the type of system—averaging $13.5 million for busways, $9.0 

million for buses on high-occupancy vehicle lanes, and $680,000 for buses on 

city streets—and compared favorably with the per-mile capital costs of Light 

Rail. In the cities that GAO reviewed with both Bus Rapid Transit and Light 

Rail service, neither type of service had a consistent advantage in terms of 

operating costs, and Bus Rapid Transit was comparable to Light Rail in 

terms of ridership and operating speed. A major advantage of Bus Rapid 

Transit is its flexibility: buses can be rerouted to accommodate changing 

traffic patterns and can operate on busways, high-occupancy vehicle lanes, 

and city arterial streets. However, the public may view Bus Rapid Transit as 

less likely than Light Rail to improve a community’s image and spur 

economic development. 

Bus Rapid Transit Service on a Barrier-Separated Busway 

Buses form the backbone of the 

nation’s mass transit systems. 

About 58 percent of all mass transit 

users take the bus, and even in 

many cities with extensive rail 

systems, more people ride the bus 

than take the train. In recent years, 

innovative Bus Rapid Transit 

systems have gained attention as 

an option for transit agencies to 

meet their mass transit needs. 

These systems are designed to 

provide major improvements in the 

speed, reliability, and quality of bus 

service through barrier-separated 

busways (see photo), highoccupancy vehicle lanes, or 

reserved lanes or other 

enhancements on arterial streets. 

The characteristics of Bus Rapid 

Transit systems vary considerably, 

but may include (1) improved 

physical facilities or specialized 

structures such as dedicated rightsof-way; (2) operating differences 

such as fewer stops and higher 

speeds; (3) new equipment such as 

more advanced, quieter, and 

cleaner buses; and (4) new 

technologies such as more efficient 

traffic signalization and real-time 

information systems. 

This testimony, which updates a 

report GAO issued in September 

2001, provides (1) information on 

federal support for Bus Rapid 

Transit systems and (2) an 

overview of factors affecting the 

selection of Bus Rapid Transit as a 

mass transit option. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-729T. 

To view the full testimony click on the link 

above. For more information, contact JayEtta 

Hecker, (202) 512-8984, heckerj@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-03-729T, a testimony 

before the Senate Committee on Banking, 

Housing, and Urban Affairs 

June 24, 2003 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION 

Bus Rapid Transit Offers Communities a 

Flexible Mass Transit Option 
Page 1 GAO-03-729T 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

We appreciate the opportunity to testify today on Bus Rapid Transit as an 

innovative option for improving bus service. Buses form the backbone of 

the public mass transit system in the United States. The majority of those 

who use mass transit, about 58 percent of all riders, take the bus. Even in 

many cities with extensive rail networks, such as Chicago and San 

Francisco, more people ride buses than use the rail systems. 

In recent years, innovative Bus Rapid Transit systems have gained 

attention as an option for transit agencies to meet their mass transit needs. 

In general, Bus Rapid Transit is designed to provide major improvements 

in the speed, reliability, and quality of bus service through barrierseparated busways (see fig. 1), high-occupancy vehicle lanes, or reserved 

lanes or other enhancements on arterial streets. Bus Rapid Transit systems 

vary considerably in their characteristics but may include (1) improved 

physical facilities or specialized structures such as dedicated rights-ofway; (2) operating differences such as fewer stops and higher speeds; (3) 

new equipment such as more advanced, quieter, and cleaner buses; and (4) 

new technologies such as more efficient traffic signalization and real-time 

information systems. 
Page 2 GAO-03-729T 

Figure 1: Barrier-Separated Busways 

My testimony today will provide (1) information on federal support for 

Bus Rapid Transit systems and (2) an overview of the factors affecting the 

selection of Bus Rapid Transit as a mass transit option. My statement is 

primarily based on information presented in our September 2001 report on 

Bus Rapid Transit.1

 To complete that effort, we visited transit agencies in 

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

capital and operating cost information. We made cost and other 

comparisons between Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail transit systems, 

 1

U.S. General Accounting Office, Mass Transit: Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise, 

GAO-01-984 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 17, 2001). 
Page 3 GAO-03-729T 

which often compete as project alternatives. We also interviewed federal 

officials and industry experts to identify the advantages and disadvantages 

of Bus Rapid Transit. In addition, for the testimony, we obtained updates 

of the information in our 2001 report from Federal Transit Administration 

officials. 

In summary: 

• Federal support for Bus Rapid Transit projects may come from several 

different sources, including the Federal Transit Administration’s New 

Starts, Bus Capital, and Urbanized Area Formula Grants programs.2

However, few Bus Rapid Transit projects are scheduled to receive New 

Starts grant funding. Through fiscal year 2004, one Bus Rapid Transit 

project in Boston was awarded a New Starts grant, totaling about $331 

million. New Starts commitments for Bus Rapid Transit projects are 

limited because (1) few Bus Rapid Transit projects are ready to compete 

for funding; (2) competition for New Starts funds is intense—currently, 85 

mass transit projects at various stages are competing for funds; and (3) 

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

funding because the program provides funding only for projects that 

operate on separate right-of-ways for the exclusive use of mass transit and 

high-occupancy vehicles. In addition, constraints on the use or size of the 

other federal grants may limit their usefulness for Bus Rapid Transit 

projects. However, some programs that expand the capacity of highways, 

such as introducing new variable toll lanes, can be used in conjunction 

with Bus Rapid Transit to the mutual benefit of transit and highway users.3

 

Besides awarding grants to construct systems, the Federal Transit 

Administration supports Bus Rapid Transit through a demonstration 

program that began in 1999. Under this program, $50,000 was provided to 

each of 10 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 

 2

The New Starts program is the primary federal program that supports the construction of 

new fixed-guideway transit systems. As a result, its grants have generally been used to fund 

rail projects. The Bus Capital and Urbanized Grants programs provide funds to states that 

may be used to help fund Bus Rapid Transit projects as well as other state transit 

programs. 

3

The Federal Highway Administration’s Value Pricing Pilot Program allows high-occupancy 

vehicle lanes to be converted to variable toll lanes. In one pilot program, toll revenues were 

used to operate an express bus service on the toll lanes. Expansion of this concept, where 

toll revenues fund Bus Rapid Transit service along the toll lanes, has been proposed in new 

pilot projects. 
Page 4 GAO-03-729T 

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

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

streets, improved technology on buses, and other innovations. 

• Communities consider several factors when they select mass transit 

options. Our 2001 report examined such factors as capital cost and 

operating costs, system performance, and other advantages and 

disadvantages of Bus Rapid Transit. We found, for example, that the 

capital costs of Bus Rapid Transit in the cities we reviewed averaged $13.5 

million per mile for busways, $9.0 million per mile for buses on highoccupancy vehicle lanes, and $680,000 per mile for buses on city streets, 

when adjusted to 2000 dollars.4

 For comparison, we examined the capital 

costs of several Light Rail lines and found that they averaged about $34.8 

million per mile, ranging from $12.4 million to $118.8 million per mile.5

 In 

addition, in the cities we reviewed that had both types of service, neither 

Bus Rapid Transit nor Light Rail had a consistent advantage in terms of 

operating costs. We also found that Bus Rapid Transit compared favorably 

with Light Rail systems in terms of operating speed and ridership. 

Furthermore, Bus Rapid Transit has the advantage of being flexible: buses 

can be rerouted more easily to accommodate changing travel patterns to 

eliminate transfers; buses can operate on busways, high-occupancy 

vehicle lanes, and city arterial streets. However, Bus Rapid Transit has 

some disadvantages as well. For example, the public may view buses as 

slow, noisy, and polluting. Moreover, according to some transit agency 

officials, alternatives to Bus Rapid Transit, such as Light Rail, may be 

viewed as a hallmark of a “world-class” city and a means to improve the 

community’s image and spur economic development. 

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 designed to improve speed, reliability, and quality of service. 

We identified three general types of Bus Rapid Transit systems—those that 

 4

Capital costs typically include the costs to plan, design, and construct a project. 

5

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. 

Because Light Rail systems can operate on streets with other traffic, they typically use an 

overhead source for their electrical power, and passengers board from the street or 

platforms. 

Background 
Page 5 GAO-03-729T 

(1) use buses on exclusive busways, (2) share high-occupancy vehicle 

(HOV) lanes with other vehicles, and (3) provide improved bus service on 

city arterial streets. Busways—special roadways designed for the 

exclusive use of buses—can be totally separate roadways or separated by 

barriers from other traffic within highway rights-of-way. 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 make extensive use of 

HOV lanes for buses.6

 Bus Rapid Transit service on busways or HOV lanes 

is sometimes augmented by park and ride facilities and entrances and 

exits for these lanes. Bus Rapid Transit systems using arterial streets may 

have lanes reserved for buses and street enhancements that speed buses 

and improve service. Los Angeles has instituted a type of Bus Rapid 

Transit service on two 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. Prepaid or electronic passes 

increase the convenience and speed of fare collection, and low-floor or 

wide-door boarding saves time. 

• 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 consistent distances between buses and inform passengers when 

the next bus is arriving. 

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

alternative fuels are cleaner than traditional diesel buses. 

 6

Los Angeles and Houston originally built their systems as exclusive busways and later 

converted them to HOV facilities. 
Page 6 GAO-03-729T 

In our September 2001 review of Bus Rapid Transit systems, we found that 

at least 17 U.S. cities were planning to incorporate aspects of Bus Rapid 

Transit into their operations. 

Figure 2: Improved Stations and Shelters 

A variety of federal grant programs could be used to help fund Bus Rapid 

Transit projects, but few projects are in line to receive awards. The 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has also provided funding for 

several Bus Rapid Transit projects through a demonstration program. 

Federal Grants and a 

Demonstration 

Program Are 

Available to Help 

Support Bus Rapid 

Transit Projects 
Page 7 GAO-03-729T 

Grant funds administered primarily by FTA and, to a lesser extent, by the 

Federal Highway Administration are available for Bus Rapid Transit 

projects. However, few Bus Rapid Transit projects are ready to compete 

for these funds, competition for funding is intense, and constraints on the 

use and size of the grants limit their usefulness for Bus Rapid Transit 

projects. 

FTA’s New Starts Program is the primary source of federal funding for the 

construction of new transit systems and extensions to existing systems. It 

provides grants of up to 80 percent of the capital costs of bus and rail 

projects that operate on exclusive rights-of-way.7

 To obtain funds, a 

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

develop preliminary engineering plans, and receive FTA’s approval of the 

final design. FTA annually proposes New Starts projects to the Congress 

for funding, basing its proposal on an evaluation of each project’s 

technical merits, including its planned mobility improvements and cost 

effectiveness, and the stability of the locality’s financial commitment. In 

making its funding proposal each year, FTA gives preference to projects 

with existing grant agreements. FTA then considers projects with overall 

ratings of “recommended” or “highly recommended” under the evaluation 

criteria. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) 

authorized about $6 billion in “guaranteed” funding over 6 years for New 

Starts transit projects.8

As table 1 indicates, few Bus Rapid Transit projects are ready to compete 

for New Starts funding. Apart from the one project that has already 

received a funding commitment, none has progressed far enough for FTA 

to evaluate it for funding, and not all of the six projects that are in the 

preliminary engineering and final design categories may decide to compete 

for New Starts funding. 

 7

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 to ensure that local governments play a major role in funding 

these transit projects. Under the current program, transit agencies could supplement New 

Starts funds with other federal transit funds for a total federal contribution of up to 80 

percent. In addition, for fiscal year 2003, FTA instituted a preference policy of favoring 

projects seeking only 60 percent for the maximum federal share for all current and future 

projects because it wanted to fund more projects. 

8

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 acts. 

One Bus Rapid Transit 

Project Is Receiving 

Federal New Starts Grant 

Funding 
Page 8 GAO-03-729T 

Table 1: Proposed Fiscal Year 2004 New Starts Program Funding for Bus Rapid Transit 

Dollars in millions 

Total New Starts Bus Rapid Transit portion 

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 $7,375 1 $331

Projects pending full-funding grant 

agreements 3 772 0 0

Projects in final design 14 3,622 1 123

Projects in preliminary engineering 42 19,343 5 1,149

Other projects authorizedb 123 N/A 8 N/A

Total 208 $31,112 15 $1,603

Legend: N/A = Not applicable. 

Source: GAO analysis of FTA data. 

a

For projects with full-funding grant agreements, figures represent amounts committed; for projects in 

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

b

Includes projects that were specifically identified in FTA’s Proposed Fiscal Year 2004 Annual Report 

on New Starts as having Bus Rapid Transit as one of the transit options being considered. 

In addition to Bus Rapid Transit projects, Light Rail, Heavy Rail, and 

Commuter Railroad projects can compete for New Starts funding. 

Nationwide, over 200 projects are now in various stages of development, 

and these other types of projects outnumber Bus Rapid Transit projects in 

all of the New Starts program categories. Of the approximately $7.4 billion 

in proposed commitments for New Starts projects with full-funding grant 

agreements for fiscal year 2004, about $4.6 billion is for Light Rail, $2.0 

billion for Heavy Rail, $430 million for Commuter Rail, and $330 million for 

Bus Rapid Transit. The funding for Bus Rapid Transit was awarded to a 

project in Boston. 

A constraint on the use of New Starts funding further limits its use for Bus 

Rapid Transit projects. Currently, the program requires that, to be eligible 

for funding, a project must operate on separate rights-of-way for the 

exclusive use of mass transit and high-occupancy vehicles. While some 

Bus Rapid Transit projects, such as busways, fit this requirement, others, 

such as those that operate buses on city streets in mixed traffic, do not. 

FTA has proposed changing the fixed-guideway requirement in its fiscal 

year 2004 budget proposal. Under the proposal, new non-fixed-guideway 

improvements done on a corridor basis would be eligible for New Starts 

funds. This change could allow New Starts funds to be used for arterial 

street Bus Rapid Transit projects, because these projects operate in 

specific corridors. 
Page 9 GAO-03-729T 

Other federal programs also provide grants for transit projects, but 

constraints on the use or size of these grants may limit their usefulness for 

Bus Rapid Transit projects. For example: 

• As we noted in our 2001 report, transit agencies can apply funds obtained 

through FTA’s Urbanized Area Formula Grants program to Bus Rapid 

Transit and other transit 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. 

• The Bus Capital Program provides a large number of relatively small 

grants to states and local transit agencies for bus improvements. In fiscal 

year 2003, the Congress appropriated about $651 million for 387 grants, 

ranging from $30,000 to $16 million; the largest amounts were typically 

provided for statewide bus projects. In fiscal year 2003, a number of Bus 

Rapid Transit projects are expected to receive funds under this program. 

For example, the Hartford-New Britain busway project in Connecticut was 

allocated about $7.4 million, and the Bus Rapid Transit system in Honolulu 

was allocated about $7.9 million. 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, as noted in our 2001 report, transit agencies 

have used Surface Transportation Program and Congestion Mitigation and 

Air Quality Improvement funds to help pay for transit projects.9

 The 

Boston Bus Rapid Transit project, with a full funding grant agreement, did 

not plan to use highway funds as part of its project financing. 

• Bus Rapid Transit can also be utilized in conjunction with the Federal 

Highway Administration’s Value Pricing Pilot Program. This program 

allows high occupancy vehicle lanes to be converted to variable toll lanes, 

where the toll varies with the level of congestion on the highway. In a 

project on the I-15 freeway in San Diego, the revenue generated from the 

tolls is used to help fund an express bus service operating on the toll lane. 

Plans to build additional variable toll lanes in San Diego include expansion 

 9

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 10 GAO-03-729T 

of Bus Rapid Transit to operate on the new lanes. Projects such as this are 

limited, however, by a prohibition on charging tolls on the Interstate 

Highway System and by the inherently limited scope of the pilot program. 

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

interest in Bus Rapid Transit. From FTA’s perspective, Bus Rapid Transit 

is a step toward developing public transit systems that have the 

performance and appeal of Light Rail systems, but lower capital costs. 

FTA contends that using technological advancements will allow buses to 

operate with the speed, reliability, and efficiency of rail systems. FTA 

promotes the Bus Rapid Transit concept with the slogan “think rail, use 

buses.” 

The goal of the demonstration program was to promote improved bus 

service as an alternative to more capital-intensive rail projects. The 

program provided $50,000 to 10 transit agencies to share information and 

data on new Bus Rapid Transit projects.10 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 also be eligible for federal 

capital funds through the New Starts, Bus Capital, and Urbanized Area 

Formula Grants programs. FTA has held workshops focusing on 

developing components of Bus Rapid Transit systems, such as vehicles, 

marketing and promoting the system’s image, fare collection, and traffic 

operations. 

Some localities participating in the demonstration program have planned 

or put in place more extensive components 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 look like trains and operate in special bus lanes. In Cleveland, an 

extensive Bus Rapid Transit project is planned that involves the extensive 

reconstruction of Euclid Avenue, including signal prioritization, bus 

 10FTA recently provided funding to Los Angeles, California and Las Vegas, Nevada. The 

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

consortium members attend workshops and support the program’s goals. 

FTA Supports Bus Rapid 

Transit through a 

Demonstration Program 
Page 11 GAO-03-729T 

station structures, and reconstructed sidewalks along the corridor. Table 2 

summarizes differences in the components of Bus Rapid Transit 

demonstration projects. 

Table 2: Elements of Bus Rapid Transit in the FTA Demonstration Program’s Projects 

Elements 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 

and shelters • • • • • • •

Intelligent 

transportation 

systems • • • • • • • • • •

Cleaner/quieter 

vehicles • • •

Source: GAO presentation of FTA information. 

Note: Individual elements may change as demonstration projects evolve. 

a

Includes the use of a limited-access airport road. 

FTA plans to evaluate the demonstration projects after they are 

implemented. Through these evaluations, FTA wants to determine the 

most effective Bus Rapid Transit elements so that other transit agencies 

can model similar systems. 

Decisions to pursue a Bus Rapid Transit project require significant 

planning and analysis of factors associated with transit options. Our 2001 

report examined such factors as capital and operating costs, system 

performance, and other advantages and disadvantages of Bus Rapid 

Transit. 

The cost of constructing a mass transit system is a major consideration for 

communities as they evaluate their transportation options. Our September 

2001 report examined 20 existing Bus Rapid Transit lines and found that 

Several Factors Affect 

the Selection of Bus 

Rapid Transit As a 

Mass Transit Option 

Capital and Operating 

Costs 
Page 12 GAO-03-729T 

Bus Rapid Transit capital costs, when adjusted to 2000 dollars, averaged 

$13.5 million per mile for busways, $9.0 million per mile for buses on HOV 

lanes, and $680,000 per mile for buses on city streets.11 To put this 

information in perspective, we also determined the capital costs for 18 

existing Light Rail lines and found that, when adjusted to 2000 dollars, 

they averaged about $34.8 million per mile, ranging from $12.4 million to 

$118.8 million per mile. Bus Rapid Transit has some capital cost 

advantages because it does not require certain features typical of rail 

systems, such as train signals, electrical power systems, and overhead 

wires to deliver power to trains, nor does it need rail, ties, and track 

ballast. As a result, Bus Rapid Transit projects typically cost less to build 

than some alterative approaches. 

The operating cost associated with alternatives also need to be considered 

in selecting a transit option. Our 2001 report analyzed operating costs for 

six cities that had some form of Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail systems.12

In general, we found that the operating cost of Bus Rapid Transit varied 

considerably from city to city and depended on what cost measure was 

used. In considering operating costs, we did not find a systematic 

advantage of one mode over the other. 

An important objective of any mass transit system is to move as many 

people as quickly as possible. Ridership and the speed of a system are 

therefore factors to be considered in selecting transit options. In the 

systems we examined, these factors varied considerably for Bus Rapid 

Transit. For example, we found that Bus Rapid Transit ridership on 4 

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

about 15,600 per day. For 13 bus lines on HOV lanes, ridership varied from 

about 1,000 to 25,000 per day. In addition, the ridership on the two arterialstreet Bus Rapid Transit lines in Los Angeles was about 9,000 to 56,000 per 

day, with an average of 32,500 per day. Thus, Bus Rapid Transit systems 

are capable of moving large numbers of passengers each day. We also 

found that Light Rail ridership varied widely on the 18 lines we reviewed, 

ranging from 7,000 to 57,000 riders per day and averaging about 29,000 per 

day. 

 11Project capital costs typically include the costs to plan, design, and construct a project. 

12The six cities were Dallas, Denver, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, San Diego, and San Jose. 

System Performance 
Page 13 GAO-03-729T 

According to a transportation consultant we contacted for our 2001 report, 

system speed generally depends on characteristics such as the distance 

between stops, fare-collection methods, and the degree to which the 

roadway or tracks are reserved for transit vehicles or share the right-ofway with cars and other vehicles. Our analysis for the 2001 report showed 

a range of average speeds for Bus Rapid Transit, from 17 miles an hour for 

an arterial system on city streets to over 55 miles an hour for a system that 

used HOV lanes. We also found that, in most instances, Bus Rapid Transit 

was faster than Light Rail in the six cities in our study. 

The other advantages and disadvantages of Bus Rapid Transit could also 

affect a community’s decision to pursue it as a mass transit option. For 

example, Bus Rapid Transit generally has the advantage of being a flexible 

system that can respond to changes in employment, land-use, and 

community patterns by increasing or decreasing capacity. In addition, Bus 

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

developments and dispersed employment centers that may have resulted 

from urban sprawl. Bus Rapid Transit systems also have the ability to 

operate both on and off a busway or bus lane, giving them the flexibility to 

respond to operating problems. Furthermore, Bus Rapid Transit has 

flexibility in how it is implemented and operated. For example, it is not 

necessary to include all the final elements of a system before beginning 

operations; improvements, such as signal prioritization or new low-floor 

buses, can be added as they become available. Another advantage is that 

Bus Rapid Transit can be coupled with other transportation system 

improvements, such as newly added toll or variable toll lanes, to the 

mutual benefit of both transit and highway users.13 Transit users benefit 

from a new high-speed transit option, which could be funded from the toll 

revenues generated by the new lanes, while highway users would benefit 

from fewer drivers on the highway as a result of adding the high-speed 

transit option. 

Bus Rapid Transit also presents some disadvantages that may influence 

communities’ decision-making. For example, according to a number of 

transit agency officials and experts, bus service has a negative image, 

particularly when compared with rail service. Communities might not 

 13For example, under the Federal Highway Administration’s Value Pricing Pilot Program, a 

project in San Diego has proposed using toll revenue generated by newly constructed 

variable toll lanes to pay for Bus Rapid Transit service operating on the new capacity. 

Other Advantages and 

Disadvantages of Bus 

Rapid Transit 
Page 14 GAO-03-729T 

favor Bus Rapid Transit, in part because the public often views buses as 

slow, noisy, and polluting. In addition, the public might view an alternative 

to Bus Rapid Transit, such as Light Rail, as the mark of a “world-class” city 

and a means to improve the community’s image and stimulate economic 

development. According to transit agency officials, because rail systems 

have permanent stations and routes, developers are more likely to locate 

new business, residential, or retail development along a rail line than along 

a bus route. As more experience is gained with Bus Rapid Transit, its 

advantages and disadvantages will become better understood. 

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

any questions that you or Members of the Committee may have. 

For further information on this testimony, please contact JayEtta Hecker 

at (202) 512-2834 or heckerj@gao.gov. Samer Abbas, Robert Ciszewski, 

Elizabeth Eisenstadt, and Glen Trochelman made key contributions to this 

testimony. 

Contact and 

Acknowledgments 
Page 15 GAO-03-729T 

Ten locations were originally included in FTA’s Bus Rapid Transit 

Demonstration programs. In addition, various locations are consortium 

members that do not receive direct funding, but attend workshops and 

support program goals. The demonstration and consortium locations are 

shown below. 

Demonstration Site Consortium Member 

Boston, MA Alameda and Contra Costa, CA 

Charlotte, NC Albany, NY

Cleveland, OH Chicago, IL

Dulles Corridor, VA Las Vegas, NV 

Eugene, OR Louisville, KY 

Hartford, CT Montgomery County, MD 

Honolulu, HI Pittsburgh, PA 

Miami, FL 

San Jose, CA 

San Juan, PR 

Appendix I: Locations in FTA’s Bus Rapid 

Transit Demonstration Program 

(542024) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal 

government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; 

evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

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

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

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

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext 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 www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily 

E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading. 

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 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

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

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs