Federal Transit Administration: Bus Rapid Transit Offers Communities a Flexible Mass Transit Option
Published: 2003-06-24T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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 bus-ways, high-occupancy 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 rights-of-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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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 bus-ways, $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 bus-ways, 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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 barrier- separated 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-of- 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.
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. 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,  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.
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.  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.   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  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 high- occupancy vehicle lanes, and $680,000 per mile for buses on city streets,  when adjusted to 2000 dollars. 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. 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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  (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. 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.
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.
section_title: Federal Grants and a Demonstration Program Are Available to Help Support Bus Rapid Transit Projects
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: One Bus Rapid Transit Project Is Receiving Federal New Starts Grant Funding
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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.
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.
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. 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  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.
section_title: FTA Supports Bus Rapid Transit through a Demonstration Program
paragraphs: 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. 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  station structures, and reconstructed sidewalks along the corridor. Table 2  summarizes differences in the components of Bus Rapid Transit  demonstration projects.
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.
section_title: Several Factors Affect the Selection of Bus Rapid Transit As a Mass Transit Option
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Capital and Operating Costs
paragraphs: 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  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. 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.  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.
section_title: System Performance
paragraphs: 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 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. 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.
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-of- way 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.
section_title: Other Advantages and Disadvantages of Bus Rapid Transit
paragraphs: 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. 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  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.
section_title: Contact and Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Appendix I: Locations in FTA’s Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration Program
paragraphs: 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.
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.