Bus Rapid Transit: Projects Improve Transit Service and Can Contribute to Economic Development
Published: 2012-07-25T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: BRT is a form of transit that has generated interest around the world to help alleviate the adverse effects of traffic congestion and potentially contribute to economic growth. BRT features can include improvements to infrastructure, technology, and passenger amenities over standard bus service to improve service and attract new riders. The use of federal funding for BRT in the United States has increased since 2005, when the Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users expanded eligibility for major capital projects under FTAs Capital Investment Grant Program to include corridor-based bus projects. BRT projects can be funded through New, Small, and Very Small Start grants under the Capital Investment GrantProgram.
GAO was asked to examine (1) features included in BRT projects funded by the FTA; (2) BRT project performance in terms of ridership and service and how they compare to rail transit projects; (3) how BRT-projects costs differ from rail transit project costs; and (4) the extent to which BRT projects provide economic development and other benefits. To address these objectives, GAO sent questionnaires to officials of all 20 existing BRT and 20 existing rail-transit projects that the FTA recommended for funding from fiscal year 2005 through 2012 to collect information on project features, ridership, and service and interviewed select project sponsors. GAO also reviewed documents and interviewed government, academic, and industry group officials. The U.S.Department of Transportation did not comment on the draft report.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: U.S. bus rapid transit (BRT) projects we reviewed include features that distinguished BRT from standard bus service and improved riders experience. However, few of the projects (5 of 20) used dedicated or semi-dedicated lanes a feature commonly associated with BRT and included in international systems to reduce travel time and attract riders. Project sponsors and planners explained that decisions on which features to incorporate into BRT projects were influenced by costs, community needs, and the ability to phase in additional features. For example, one project sponsor explained that well-lighted shelters with security cameras and real-time information displays were included to increase passengers sense of safety in the evening. Project sponsors told us they plan to incorporate additional features such as off-board fare collection over time.
The BRT projects we reviewed generally increased ridership and improved service over the previous transit service. Specifically, 13 of the 15 project sponsors that provided ridership data reported increases in ridership after 1 year of service and reduced average travel times of 10 to 35 percent over previous bus services. However, even with increases in ridership, U.S. BRT projects usually carry fewer total riders than rail transit projects and international BRT systems. Project sponsors and other stakeholders attribute this to higher population densities internationally and riders who prefer rail transit. However, some projectssuch as the M15 BRT line in New York Citycarry more than 55,000 riders per day.
Capital costs for BRT projects were generally lower than for rail transit projects and accounted for a small percent of the Federal Transit Administrations (FTA) New, Small, and Very Small Starts funding although they accounted for over 50 percent of projects with grant agreements since fiscal year 2005. Project sponsors also told us that BRT projects can provide rail-like benefits at lower capital costs. However, differences in capital costs are due in part to elements needed for rail transit that are not required for BRT and can be considered in context of total riders, costs for operations, and other long-term costs such as vehicle replacement.
We found that although many factors contribute to economic development, most local officials we visited believe that BRT projects are contributing to localized economic development. For instance, officials in Cleveland told us that between $4 and $5 billion was invested near the Healthline BRT projectassociated with major hospitals and universities in the corridor. Project sponsors in other cities told us that there is potential for development near BRT projects; however, development to date has been limited by broader economic conditionsmost notably the recent recession. While most local officials believe that rail transit has a greater economic development potential than BRT, they agreed that certain factors can enhance BRTs ability to contribute to economic development, including physical BRT features that relay a sense of permanence to developers; key employment and activity centers located along the corridor; and local policies and incentives that encourage transit-oriented development. Our analysis of land value changes near BRT lends support to these themes. In addition to economic development, BRT project sponsors highlighted other community benefits including quick construction and implementation and operational flexibility.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Bus rapid transit (BRT) has generated interest around the world for its  potential to alleviate the adverse effects of traffic congestion and support  economic growth, while generally having lower capital costs than rail  transit. According to an international think tank, there are BRT corridors in  more than 120 cities around the world, carrying over 27 million  passengers a day. Many of these BRT systems incorporate dedicated  lanes; large stations; higher passenger capacities; and quick service that  can rival rail transit. In the U.S., BRT features vary, but generally include  improvements to infrastructure, technology, and passenger amenities  over standard bus service to attract new riders. BRT can provide several  benefits to riders and the community, including improved mobility and  reliability for riders, reduced travel times, reduced carbon emissions, and  increased economic development.
Since 2005, opportunities for federal capital funding for BRT projects in  the U.S. have expanded due in part to changes made in the Safe,  Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for  Users (SAFETEA-LU).  Specifically, SAFETEA-LU revised eligibility for  major capital investment projects to include not only fixed-guideway  systems but also corridor-based bus capital projects if specific criteria are  met. In a fiscal environment in which state and local governments are  looking to build high-capacity transit systems with limited funding, BRT  has emerged as a potentially cost-effective alternative to new or extended  rail transit projects.
You asked us to examine the features of BRT projects recommended for  funding by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), as well as assess  how these projects compare to rail transit. Accordingly, this report  addresses the following four questions:  1.  Which BRT features are included in BRT projects and why?  2.  How have BRT projects performed in terms of ridership and service  and how do they compare to rail transit projects?  3.  How do the costs of these projects differ from rail transit projects?   4.  To what extent do BRT projects provide economic development and  other benefits to communities?
To determine which features are included in BRT projects and information  on ridership and service, we sent questionnaires to the sponsors of all 20  completed BRT projects since fiscal year 2005 that FTA recommended  for New Start, Small Start, Very Small Start, or Bus and Bus Facilities   funding under the Capital Investment Grant program. We prepopulated  the questionnaires with information on BRT features and service obtained  from an existing interest group’s BRT database, project websites, and  other project sponsor documentation submitted to FTA and asked project  sponsors to verify or correct the prepopulated information and complete  any missing information. In addition, we visited five BRT projects to  obtain information about why certain BRT features were or were not  included in the projects. (see app. 1.) Information from these visits  cannot be generalized to all BRT projects. To assess how all 20 BRT  projects have performed in terms of ridership and service and how they  compare to all 20 rail transit projects, we used data from the completed  BRT project questionnaires, and compared this data to the data from the  questionnaires we sent to the sponsors of all completed rail transit  projects that met the criteria outline above. We also reviewed existing  literature on BRT and rail transit projects’ ridership and service levels. To  assess how BRT projects compare to rail transit projects in terms of  capital project costs and New Starts, Small Starts, or Very Small Starts  share of funding, we collected and analyzed project grant data compiled  by FTA. We included 55 (30 BRT and 25 rail transit) planned or  completed projects that had construction grant agreements from fiscal  year 2005 through February 2012. To verify and assess the reliability of  the data compiled by FTA, we compared and updated project capital cost  data based on FTA’s Annual Reports on Funding Recommendations for  fiscal years 2005 through 2012. To examine the extent to which BRT  projects stimulate economic development and other benefits to  communities, we reviewed existing literature on the impact of transit on  economic development and land values. Also, during our five site visits— selected by consideration of several factors, including the number and  extent of BRT features as well as ridership, length of route, peak  headway, and geographic diversity—we interviewed project sponsors,  transit experts, non-profit business organizations, and economic  development professionals about development that has occurred (or is  expected to occur) in and around the BRT corridors. To supplement  testimonial evidence obtained during site-visit interviews, we collected  land value assessment data for properties located within ¼ mile of the  five BRT projects we visited and analyzed trends in the assessed inflation  adjusted value of these properties for the 2 years prior to the project’s   In addition to  implementation to the 3 years after it began operating.collecting data from FTA and sponsors of BRT and rail transit projects, we  also reviewed relevant academic literature on BRT and rail transit and  interviewed academic experts and BRT stakeholders.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2011 through July 2012 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. See appendix II for more  information about our scope and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: In the U.S., while BRT projects vary in design, they generally include  service enhancements designed to attract riders and provide similar  transit-related benefits to rail transit. Specifically, as shown in figure 1,  BRT generally includes improvements to seven features–running ways,  stations, vehicles, intelligent transportation systems, fare collection,  branding, and service.
These enhancements are designed to replicate features found in rail  transit and provide similar benefits including increases in ridership, travel  time savings, and contribution to economic development. While few  existing studies have examined the link between BRT and economic  development, numerous studies have investigated the link between rail   We have previously reported that,  transit and economic development. overall, these studies have shown that the presence of rail transit tends to  positively impact surrounding land and housing values. However, in  some cases the increases are modest and the impact throughout an  entire system can vary depending on several characteristics. For  instance, retail development, higher relative incomes, and proximity to job  centers, parks, or other neighborhood amenities tend to increase land  and housing values near transit, while non-transit oriented land uses,  crime, and poor economic environments around a transit station can limit  increases or even be a negative influence.
In the U.S., multiple federal-funding sources have supported BRT  systems. FTA’s Capital Investment Grant program provides capital funds  to help project sponsors build larger-dollar new or extensions to existing  fixed guideway transit capital systems—often referred to as “New Starts  projects.” In 2005, SAFETEA-LU established the Small Starts program  within the Capital Investment Grant program; the Small Starts program  simplifies the New Starts evaluation and rating criteria and steps in the  project development process to lower cost projects. It also added  corridor-based bus systems as eligible projects. According to FTA’s  guidance, BRT projects must (1) meet the definition of a fixed-guideway  for at least 50 percent of the project length in the peak period or (2) be a  corridor-based bus project with certain elements to qualify as a Small  Starts project. FTA subsequently introduced a further streamlined  evaluation and rating process for very low cost projects within the Small  Starts program, which FTA calls Very Small Starts. Very Small Starts are  projects that must contain the same elements as Small Starts projects  and also contain the following three features: be located in corridors with  more than 3,000 existing transit riders per average weekday who will  benefit from the proposed project; have a total capital cost of less than  $50 million (for all project elements); and have a per-mile cost of less than  $3 million, excluding rolling stock (e.g., buses and train cars). Any transit  project that fits the broader definition of a fixed-guideway system is  eligible, whether it is a BRT, streetcar, or other rail transit project (e.g.,  commuter rail, heavy rail, and light rail). BRT projects are also eligible  for federal funding from other sources such as Congestion Mitigation and  Air Quality Improvement grants, the Urbanized Area Formula grants, and  the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Transportation Investment  Generating Economic Recovery discretionary grants (TIGER).
section_title: U.S. BRT Projects Incorporate Many Features, but Most Lack Dedicated Running Ways
subsections: section_title: BRT Projects’ Features
paragraphs: Based on our questionnaire results, we found that many U.S. BRT  projects incorporate at least some station amenities and most other BRT  features that distinguish them from standard bus service, and improve  riders’ transit experience. However, few BRT project sponsors reported  the use of dedicated or semi-dedicated running ways for at least 30  percent of the route and less than half use off-board fare collection  infrastructure (see Table 1 for an overview of BRT projects’ physical  features).
Our questionnaire results indicate that most BRT projects (16 of 20)  operate in mixed traffic—primarily arterial streets—for 50 percent or more  of their routes. In contrast, 5 of the 20 BRT projects travel along a  dedicated or semi-dedicated running way for 30 percent or more of their  routes. According to FTA research, BRT projects with more fully  dedicated running ways generally experience the greatest travel time  savings as compared to the corridors’ local bus route. (See below for  other BRT features that affect travel time savings.) However, our analysis  of questionnaire data did not show a correlation between the type of  running ways BRT projects operate on and travel time savings. For  example, Cleveland’s Healthline and the M15 in New York City operate  along fully or semi-dedicated running ways for at least 60 percent of their  routes, but these projects did not achieve the same percentage gains in  travel time savings as projects such as Kansas City’s Troost MAX or  Mountain Links in Arizona, both of which run in mixed traffic for at least 75  percent of their routes. Some of the difference between our results and  those of previous research may be attributable to the relative lack of  congestion in some of the BRT corridors, which helps these projects  generate travel time savings while running in mixed traffic. For instance,  the Troost MAX reported the highest travel time savings of any project,  yet it runs almost entirely in mixed traffic along a corridor with minimal  traffic congestion. In contrast, previous BRT research often includes  international and other U.S. BRTs, such as the TransMilenio in Bogota,  Columbia, and the East Busway in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, that have  used dedicated running ways to achieve significant travel time savings  because of the cities’ congestion levels.
According to FTA research, station amenities can help shape the identity  of a BRT project by portraying a premium service and enhancing the local  environment. Based on responses to our questionnaire, most BRT  projects (12 of 20) have at least four station amenities present at half or  more of their stations, while four projects include at least seven amenities.  The most common station amenities reported by BRT project sponsors  included seating, weather protection, level boarding, and route maps and  schedules. (See fig. 2.) Cleveland’s Healthline and Eugene’s Franklin and  Gateway EmX incorporate the most station amenities. However, U.S.  BRT projects generally do not include stations of the size and scale of  those found in Latin American BRT systems such as Curitiba, Brazil;  Bogota, Columbia; or Mexico City, Mexico.
Through our site visits we found that BRT stations providing relatively few  amenities may still be enhanced compared to standard bus stops in the  same area. For example, in Los Angeles, standard bus stops are  designated by a single flagged pole with limited route information,  whereas all Metro Rapid stations provide detailed route information and  many will have weather protection and safety improvements, such as   (See fig. 3.) Likewise, Kansas City Area Transportation  lighting.Authority (ATA) officials informed us that Troost MAX stops were  designed significantly larger and with more rail-like features than  traditional bus stops.
BRT projects have different combinations of fare collection and  verification methods. According to our questionnaire results, most BRT  projects (14 of 20) allow on-board driver validation—typical of standard  bus service—as a fare collection option for riders. Fewer projects  incorporate alternative fare collection methods, such as proof-of-payment  systems that allow riders to board without presenting payment directly to  a driver, or off-board fare collection infrastructure (i.e., fare card vending  machines or barrier systems). Specifically, half of the project sponsors  (10 of 20) reported that their projects use a proof-of-payment system and  seven reported that their projects incorporate off-board fare collection  infrastructure. According to FTA research, off-board fare collection  infrastructure may contribute to customers’ perception of BRT as a high- quality transit service and can improve service reliability and travel time  savings. Project sponsors also mentioned this feature as important in  generating travel time savings.
With respect to BRT vehicle features, according to our questionnaire  results, all project sponsors reported the use of low floor vehicles and  nearly all reported the use of lower emissions vehicles, technology for  expedited wheelchair boarding, security cameras, and audio stop  announcements. (See fig. 4.) According to FTA research, the design  and features of BRT vehicles can affect the projects’ ridership capacity,  environmental friendliness, and passengers’ comfort and overall  impression of BRT. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA)  officials told us that the transit agency went through several iterations with  the manufacturer to design a BRT vehicle that looked and felt more like a  rail car. Among other features, the Healthline vehicles were designed to  include hybrid technology—which according to local officials provides a  quieter ride than standard buses—doors on both sides, and expedited  wheelchair-boarding capabilities to reduce passenger-loading times.
All BRT project sponsors responding to our questionnaire have used  some form of branding and marketing to promote their BRT service, such  as website improvements specific to BRT and uniquely branded BRT  vehicles and stations. Research on BRT, as well as project sponsors and  other experts we spoke with, emphasized the importance of strong  branding and marketing in shaping the identity of a line or system and  attracting riders. Los Angeles Metro officials told us that they employed a  number of additional marketing techniques to increase awareness of the  BRT service before it opened, such as hosting big media events and  ambassador programs in which Metro staff handed out brochures at bus  stops. To create a brand name and generate revenue, Cleveland’s RTA  sold the naming rights of its BRT project and select stations for $10  million, over 25 years.
According to responses to our questionnaire, 9 BRT projects have at least  3 of the 6 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) features and almost all  (18 of 20) incorporate at least one feature. The most common ITS  technologies included as part of BRT projects were transit signal priority  systems (18 of 20), and vehicle tracking systems (17 of 20), which  monitor vehicles to ensure arrivals are evenly spaced and transit  connections are on schedule. (See fig. 5 for an example.) Research by  FTA and others has found that incorporating ITS into BRT projects can  help transit agencies increase safety, operational efficiency, and quality of  service. In addition, these systems can improve riders’ access to reliable  and timely information. Los Angeles Metro officials told us that traffic  signal priority represents one of Metro Rapid’s most important attributes.  These officials informed us that while the system does not override traffic  lights, it can extend green signals to get BRT vehicles through the lights  and to the next stop, helping keep the vehicles on time.
While less common, some BRT projects use queue jump lanes, a feature  that generally involves BRT vehicles traveling in restricted lanes and  receiving early green light signals at select intersections. According to  officials of Eugene’s Lane Transit District (LTD), the use of a queue jump  lane has helped generate travel time savings for EmX riders by allowing  the BRT vehicles to by-pass traffic stopped at an intersection.
section_title: Factors Affecting Decisions on Physical Features
paragraphs: Based on our interviews with BRT project sponsors and planners, several  factors influenced the design of BRT projects and the presence or  absence of physical features commonly associated with BRT. In  particular, stakeholders frequently mentioned cost considerations,  community needs and input, and the ability to phase in additional physical  features over time as factors influencing their decisions. Officials in four of  our five site-visit locations described instances in which costs or financial  constraints factored into their decision-making or resulted in a change of  plans regarding the project’s physical features. For example, Kansas City  ATA officials told us that a dedicated running way was not acquired for  the Troost MAX in part because this feature would have added costs  without providing substantial travel time savings benefits given Troost  Avenue’s minimal traffic congestion. In Seattle, King County Metro  officials told us that several common BRT features, including level or  raised boarding and off-board ticket or fare card vending machines, were  not incorporated into the RapidRide system because of costs. For  instance, they explained that level or raised boarding was not included  because of the costs associated with implementing this feature at a large  number of stations and stops (120 and 155 respectively) and addressing  the limitations of the different sites.
Three projects we visited during site visits were Very Small Starts projects  and therefore, had total project capital costs of less than $50 million. (See  app. I for the list of our case study projects.) The sponsors of two of these  projects told us that while Very Small Starts projects can create incentives  for communities to pursue BRT by offering streamlined requirements and  grants for up to 80 percent of a project’s total capital cost, the program’s  $50-million limit on projects’ total capital costs provides an incentive to  keep costs low. As a result, project sponsors may only incorporate those  physical features that are the most cost-effective or critical to achieving  the projects’ objectives and omit other features commonly associated with  BRT.
Several project sponsors we visited also mentioned that the input of  community residents, business owners, and other stakeholders affected  by a project can help shape final decisions about its design and features,  for instance:
Los Angeles city officials explained that only 80 percent of the  Wilshire Metro Rapid route within the city limits will have bus-only  lanes during weekday peak hours because some neighborhoods  resisted bus-only lanes and were unwilling to give up a travel lane on  such a congested street.
Officials in Eugene told us that the Franklin Avenue EmX was  originally intended to run on a dedicated running way for 90 percent of  its route. However, in part due to the public input process, which  raised concerns over loss of parking and business access, the agency  reduced the dedicated portion of the route to 50 percent.
Kansas City ATA officials explained that residents’ safety concerns  along Troost Avenue resulted in well-lighted shelters designed with  transparent backings and real-time information displays, which helped  increase passengers’ sense of safety while waiting for the bus during  the evening. Several major stations were also equipped with security  cameras.
Some transit experts we spoke to also pointed out that some BRT  features may not be incorporated into a project’s initial design, since— unlike rail transit projects—it is fairly easy to add features to BRT projects  after they start operating. Moreover, project sponsors in four of the five  site-visit locations told us that they plan to incorporate (or are considering  incorporating) additional features into their BRT projects. According to  local officials, Eugene’s transit agency may increase the portion of the  EmX line that runs on a designated running way, particularly through  sections of neighboring Springfield that are planned for redevelopment.  These officials noted that stakeholders generally view the EmX’s  implementation as an incremental process and its flexibility as an  important benefit. In Seattle, transit agency staff explained that although  level boarding and off-board fare card vending machines were not  incorporated into the initial design of the RapidRide lines, these features  will be periodically reevaluated for future lines and off-board fare card  vending machines may be added to some locations on existing lines.
section_title: Most BRT Projects Reported Increased Ridership and Improved Service
subsections: section_title: BRT Increased Ridership and Travel Time Savings, Although Rail Transit Generally Serves More Riders
paragraphs: For systems where changes in ridership could be calculated, almost all  BRT project sponsors (13 of 15), reported increased ridership over the  previous transit service—typically a standard bus service—according to  results from our questionnaires (see fig. 6.) Of the 13 existing BRT  projects that increased ridership, more than half (7 of 13) reported  increases of 30 percent or more during the first year of service. Three of  the eight BRT project sponsors who reported ridership data for additional  years continued to increase ridership. For example, ridership for the RTC  Rapid in Nevada increased at least 5 percent each year for the first 3  years of service.
BRT project sponsors stated that they attracted riders, in part, by  reducing travel times and incorporating BRT features. All BRT projects  that replaced existing transit service reported travel time savings during  peak hours ranging from about 10 percent to 35 percent, as shown in  figure 7. Several BRT project sponsors highlighted BRT features that  helped reduce travel times and attract riders. New York City Transit  reported an average travel time savings of 13 minutes (or 16 percent),  from 81 to 68 minutes for the M15 BRT (an 8.5 mile route). Analysis done  by New York City Transit and others showed that the travel time savings  for riders was due to shorter waiting times from the off-board fare  collection. Similarly, Eugene LTD officials told us that one of the ways  they attracted riders was to reduce travel times for the EmX BRT using  two ITS components–-transit signal priority and a queue jump. According  to research and transit stakeholders we spoke to, travel time savings is  one of the greatest contributors to ridership gains.
In addition to decreased travel times, BRT project sponsors also  improved ridership by shortening “headways”—the time interval between  buses moving in the same direction on a particular route—and decreasing  riders’ wait times. More than half of BRT project sponsors (13 of 20)  reported having headways of 10 minutes or less during peak hours.  Furthermore, during off-peak hours, over half of these existing BRT  systems (11 of 20) operated headways of 15 minutes or less. Local  officials told us that the EmX’s 10-minute headways—5 minutes shorter  than the previous bus route—improved ridership by university students  and made it easier for them to live further from campus where rents are  less expensive. Moreover, according to FTA guidance and other  research, frequent headways are important for riders’ perception of  service quality. Specifically, research suggests that during peak hours 10  minutes is the maximum time between vehicles that riders are willing to  wait without planning ahead of time.
BRT project sponsors also reported providing service enhancements to  attract riders and, in some cases, reduce travel times. Service  enhancements included extended hours of service (e.g., more than 16  hours per day), weekend service, and limited-stop service. All project  sponsors reported providing at least one service enhancement and  almost half (8 of 20) reported offering all three expanded service  characteristics in our questionnaire. Project sponsors highlighted how the  service enhancements helped reduce travel times. For example, Kansas  City ATA officials attributed part of the Troost BRT’s travel time savings to  greater spacing between stops which allowed the vehicles to stop less  frequently and travel at higher speeds.
Gains in ridership are due in part to the BRT’s ability to attract new riders  to transit. All five BRT project sponsors we spoke with attributed a portion  of the gains in ridership to an increase in choice riders—those who prefer  to use transit even though they have the option to drive. Cleveland RTA’s  Healthline BRT, for example, replaced the busiest bus route in the city  and surpassed its 5-year ridership projection in the second year of  service. Specifically, according to Cleveland RTA officials, some riders  are using the Healthline for mid-day trips that they may have previously  taken in cars. Similarly, the Seattle’s RapidRide A line also replaced one  of the busiest bus routes and achieved an increase in ridership of more  than 30 percent in the first year, an increase that included new riders from  the local community college, according to King County Metro officials.
Research suggests that at least some of these choice riders would be  unwilling to ride a traditional bus, but will ride BRT.
section_title: BRT Ridership Compared to Rail
paragraphs: Even with gains in ridership, BRT projects in the U.S. usually carry fewer  total riders compared to rail transit projects, based on our analysis of  project sponsor questionnaires. The rail transit projects we examined  generally had higher average weekday ridership than BRT lines, although  there were some exceptions. As figure 8 shows, nine of the 10 projects  with the highest total ridership are rail transit projects. However, the M15  BRT in New York City has the highest total ridership of any project—more  than 55,000 riders per day. This illustrates how, given the right conditions,  BRT projects can generate ridership similar to rail transit. In addition,  three other BRT projects—Cleveland’s Healthline, Los Angeles’ Metro  Rapid 733, and Southern Nevada’s BHX—average over 10,000 weekday  riders, more than light rail projects in Los Angeles, Salt Lake City, and  San Diego.
Several factors, including the number of available riders and rider  preferences, affect total ridership. The M15’s high ridership is in part due  to its location in densely populated Manhattan, the high number of transit- dependent riders living and working along the corridor, and the distance  to the nearest subway line. In comparison, two commuter rail lines we  examined were among the five projects with the lowest number of  average daily riders likely due to shorter hours of service and the fact  that, with the exception of a few peak hours, commuter rail lines generally  have fewer trips throughout the day.
Further, we heard from stakeholders that, in general, riders prefer rail  transit compared to bus due to the greater perceived prestige of rail  transit. Rail transit project sponsors and city officials for all rail projects we  looked at told us that their projects would likely not have attracted the  same number of riders had they been developed as BRT, citing the  perception some riders have about the quality and permanence of bus  service. According to project sponsors, rail transit projects have the ability  to attract riders who would not be interested in any form of bus given  perception and features. Research suggests that many intangible factors,  including perception, play a role in making rail transit more attractive than  bus. However, as discussed earlier, BRT project sponsors told us that the  perceptions about bus for “choice riders” can be overcome with rail-like  features. Cleveland RTA officials attribute increased BRT ridership to  more professionals and students riding the Healthline. According to these  officials, professionals and students find the Healthline attractive because  of the increased frequency of service; quicker travel times; enhanced  safety; limited stops; quality of ride; and quieter, more attractive, and  more fuel-efficient vehicles. In some international cities, however, given  their more comprehensive systems, higher population densities, and  more positive attitudes about bus service, BRT ridership in some cities  exceeds rail transit ridership in the U.S.
section_title: BRT Projects Generally Have Lower Capital Costs than Rail Transit
subsections: section_title: Capital Costs and New Starts Funding
paragraphs: Of the planned or completed New, Small, or Very Small Starts projects  that received construction grant agreements under FTA’s Capital  Investment Grant program from fiscal year 2005 through February 2012,  BRT projects generally had lower capital costs than rail transit projects.  Median costs for BRT and rail transit projects we examined were about  $36.1 million and $575.7 million, respectively. Capital costs for BRT and  rail transit projects ranged from about $3.5 million to over $567 million  and almost $117 million to over $7 billion, respectively. Of the 30 BRT  projects with a grant agreement, only five had higher capital costs than  the least expensive rail transit project. While initial capital costs are  generally lower for BRT than rail transit, capital costs can be considered  in context of total riders, as discussed earlier, and other long-term  considerations, which we discuss below, depending on the purpose of the  analysis. Figure 9 shows the range and individual project capital costs by  mode.
More than half of projects (30 of 55) that received grant agreements since  fiscal year 2005 have been BRT projects, yet these projects account for  less than 10 percent of committed funding, as shown in figure 10. Based  on our analysis of project cost estimates, we estimate $12.8 billion of  Capital Investment Grant funds committed for New, Small, and Very  Small Starts will be used for transit projects that received grant  agreements since fiscal year 2005. Of this $12.8 billion, $1.2 billion will be  for BRT projects. The amount of New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small  Start projects’ funding committed for BRT projects ranged from almost $3  million to $275 million. Rail transit projects accounted for less than half of  projects with grant agreements (25 of 55) and more than 90 percent of  funding. Federal Capital Investment Grant contributions under the New  Starts, Small Starts, or Very Small Start categories for rail transit projects  ranged from almost $60 million to over $2 billion.
Since fiscal year 2005, most projects with grant agreements under Small  Starts and Very Small Starts have been BRT projects while most New  Starts projects have been rail transit. With two exceptions, all 30 BRT  projects funded since fiscal year 2005 were funded under Small Starts or  Very Small Starts. Twenty-one of 25 rail-transit projects were funded  under New Starts and the remaining were funded under Small Starts.  (See fig. 11.)
We heard from all of the BRT project sponsors we spoke with that, even  at a lower capital cost, BRT could provide rail-like benefits. For example,  Cleveland RTA officials told us the Healthline BRT project cost roughly  one-third of what a comparable light rail project would have cost them.  Similarly, Eugene LTD officials told us that the agency pursued BRT  when it became apparent that light rail was unaffordable and that an LTD  light rail project would not be competitive in the New Starts federal grant  process.
section_title: Factors Affecting Capital Costs
paragraphs: The difference in capital costs between BRT and rail transit is due in part  to elements needed for rail transit that are not required for BRT projects.  Light rail systems, for example, often require train signal communications,  electrical power systems with overhead wires to power trains, and rails,  ties, and switches. Further, if a rail maintenance facility does not exist,  one must be built and equipped. On the other hand, transit experts who  have evaluated both rail transit and BRT told us that while initial capital  costs are higher for rail transit than for BRT, life-cycle capital costs for rail  transit are potentially lower than BRT. For instance, although more  expensive up front (typically $1.5 million to $3.4 million per car), life  cycles of rail transit cars are longer (typically 25 years or more) than most  BRT vehicles (12 to 15 years). However circumstances affecting costs  will vary among projects, and research has not yet been done to compare  life-cycle costs of BRT systems in the U.S., as they are still relatively new.
BRT capital costs depend on each project’s features and service levels.  Specifically, costs are affected by:    Type of running way. As mentioned above, most BRT projects we  reviewed run in mixed traffic rather than dedicated or semi-dedicated  running ways. According to research, capital costs for BRT projects  that operate in mixed traffic range from $50,000 to $100,000 per mile  compared to $2 to $10 million per mile for projects that have  dedicated lanes.   Right-of-way or property acquisition. Many BRT projects use  running ways and stations areas in existing streets and sidewalk  space. However, BRT projects designed with rail transit-like dedicated  right-of-ways could require more property acquisition or leasing to  make room for guideways, stations, or other infrastructure.   Type of vehicles and services selected. Capital costs for BRT  vehicles can range from about $400,000 to almost $1 million. The  number of BRT vehicles needed for a route can depend on the length  of the project, travel time, and peak headway, among other things. For  example, Cleveland RTA spent about $21 million dollars for vehicles  on the Healthline compared to Kansas City ATA which spent about  $6.3 million for vehicles on the Troost MAX BRT. Differences in price  were a result of (1) Cleveland’s needing nine more vehicles than  Kansas City (24 compared to 15 respectively) to maintain shorter  headways and (2) the cost of the vehicles ($900,000 compared to  $366,000 respectively). Cleveland’s vehicles have more features,  including hybrid technology for a quieter ride, multiple boarding doors  to expedite boarding, and articulated vehicles to increase capacity.
Non-transit related features. Some projects’ costs include  streetscaping, landscaping, or updates to utilities, while others do not.  For example, three of the five project sponsors we met with used  federal funding to purchase artwork along the line to increase a sense  of permanence and better incorporate the BRT system into the  community. (See next section for a discussion of the role of  permanence in economic development.)
section_title: Factors Affecting Operating Costs
paragraphs: As with capital costs, a project’s total operating costs can vary based on  several project factors, including length of the route, headways, vehicle  acquisition, and other non-transit related features. As a result of the many  factors involved, it can be challenging to generalize differences in  operating costs within and across modes. In some cases BRT projects  have lower operating costs than the previous bus service. For example,  according to Eugene LTD officials, the Eugene EmX decreased overall  operating costs per rider. Officials attributed the savings to improved  schedule reliability and travel-time savings from the dedicated right-of- way, which reduced labor costs because fewer buses are needed to  maintain the schedule. Cleveland RTA told us the Healthline BRT  reduced the overall operating budget and the average costs per rider  decreased. For RTA, the 18 vehicles that operate during peak hours  replaced the 28 buses that were needed to operate the standard bus  service the BRT replaced. Hourly labor costs are about the same for BRT,  standard bus service, and heavy rail; however, the cost per rider is lower  for the BRT than standard buses due to higher capacities and ridership  on the BRT.
We also heard from stakeholders and project sponsors that operating  costs for BRT and rail transit depend strongly on the density and ridership  in the corridor. For example, according to one transit expert, while  signaling and control costs are high for rail transit, there is a tipping point  where given a high enough density and ridership, rail transit begins to  have lower operating costs overall. New York City Transit officials  commented that while construction costs for a street-running BRT are  about 1/500th of the cost of building a heavy rail, operating costs for a  bus operation can be higher. Two operators can carry close to 2,000  riders on a single heavy rail train, whereas in a BRT system, 24 operators  are needed to carry the same number of riders.
section_title: Some BRT Projects Have Potential to Contribute to Economic Development and Other Benefits
subsections: section_title: Overview of Case Study Findings
paragraphs: In general, we found that project sponsors and other stakeholders in each  of our five case study locations believe that the BRT project is having  some positive effect on economic development. However, these  individuals were unsure about how much of the economic activity can be  attributed to the presence of BRT versus other factors or circumstances  (See table 2 for a summary of economic development activities near the   In addition, stakeholders mentioned that  five BRT projects we visited).the recent recession limited the number of development projects to date,  but they expect increased economic development in the future along  select areas of the BRT corridors as economic conditions improve.
Project sponsors, local officials, and transit experts we spoke to believe  that, in general, rail transit is a better economic development catalyst than  BRT; however, this opinion was not universal. For example, Cleveland  officials told us that they do not believe that economic development along  Euclid Avenue would have been any different if a light rail line had been  built in the corridor instead of a BRT. In addition, stakeholders mentioned  that certain factors can enhance BRT’s ability to generate economic  development similar to rail transit. Specifically, they described how  economic development near BRT can be supported by having: physical BRT features that convey a sense of permanence to  developers; major institutional, employment, and activity centers along or near the  BRT corridor that can sponsor development projects; and  transit-supportive local policies and development incentives.
A number of project sponsors, local officials, and other stakeholders we  spoke to emphasized the importance of BRT projects’ physical features— particularly those that are perceived as permanent—in helping to spur  economic development. They explained that BRTs with dedicated running  ways, substantial stations with enhanced amenities, and other fixed  assets represent a larger investment in the corridor by the public sector  and assure developers that the transit service and infrastructure will be  maintained for decades into the future. For example, Los Angeles local  officials told us that the city’s Orange Line BRT can come close to light  rail in terms of economic development because its station infrastructure  and enhanced amenities relay a sense of permanence to developers.
The results of our land value analysis of BRT corridors also is consistent  with the perception that the permanence of BRT features may play a role  in spurring development and increasing land values.University Circle portion of the Healthline, which received significant  infrastructure and private institutional investments (i.e., investments that  are more likely to be perceived as permanent by developers and others),  experienced modest to large increases in land values. In contrast, the  East Cleveland segment of the Healthline—which includes fewer BRT  features and less investment than other segments of the line— experienced a slight decline in land values in the years immediately  before and after BRT operations began. (See fig. 12)
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: Although BRT has become more common in the U.S. in recent years, it  remains an evolving and diverse concept. BRT projects encompass a  range of designs and physical features and provide varying levels of  service, economic development, and other benefits to communities. The  flexibility of BRT has allowed cities and regions across the country—with  differing public transportation needs and goals—to improve transit service  and demonstrate investment in surrounding communities, often at a lower  initial capital cost than with rail transit. However, cost differences between  U.S. BRT projects and rail transit projects are sensitive to individual  project features and each transit agencies’ unique circumstances.  Differences in cost partly reflect BRT project sponsors’ limited use of the  more costly features commonly associated with BRT—such as dedicated  running ways, stations with major infrastructure investments, and off- board fare collection. Cleveland’s Healthline incorporates the most BRT  features of any project we examined and cost $200 million to construct,  which is comparable to some of the less costly rail transit projects. Some  of the more costly BRT features are the same features stakeholders view  as critical to contribute to economic development because they portray a  sense of permanence to developers and demonstrate investment by the  public sector. Therefore, project sponsors in cities with limited transit  funding sources and without major congestion issues may find the added  cost of these features worthwhile only if economic development is among  their projects’ primary objectives.
The limited use of BRT’s more costly features might also partly reflect the  relatively large role that the Small and Very Small Starts programs have  played in funding recent BRT projects as compared to state and local  funding sources. The funding these programs provide to smaller transit  projects has allowed communities that otherwise may not have been as  competitive in the New Starts process to obtain federal transit support.  However, it is possible that limits on the total project cost create  incentives for BRT project sponsors to omit more costly BRT features. In  general, though, it appears that BRT project sponsors are using the Small  and Very Small Starts programs to design and implement projects that  address their communities’ current transit needs and align with the  projects sponsors’ overall objectives. Moreover, project sponsors may  develop initial plans for BRTs that do not include a comprehensive range  of features, knowing that they can incorporate additional features into  BRT projects incrementally as communities’ transit needs and financial  circumstances change.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) with a draft of this  report for review and comment. U.S. DOT did not comment on the draft  report.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional  committees and the Secretary of the Department of Transportation. In  addition, this report will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions or would like to discuss this work,  please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov. Contact points  for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be  found on the last page of this report. Individuals making key contributions  to this report are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Project Information for Bus Rapid Transit Case Studies
paragraphs: GAO selected five bus rapid transit projects in cities across the U.S. to  serve as case studies for this report. This appendix lists these five  projects and provides links to the projects’ websites. See Table 3 below.
section_title: Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: To examine the features, costs, and community benefits of Bus Rapid  Transit (BRT) projects recommended for funding by the Federal Transit  Administration (FTA), we addressed the following four questions:  1.  Which BRT features are included in BRT projects and why?  2.  How have BRT projects performed in terms of ridership and service  and how do they compare to rail transit projects? 3.  How do the costs of these projects differ from rail transit projects?  4.  To what extent do BRT projects provide economic development and  other benefits to communities? the Healthline in Cleveland, Ohio;  the RapidRide A Line in Seattle, Washington;  the Troost MAX in Kansas City, Missouri;  the Metro Rapid System in Los Angeles, California; and  the Franklin EmX in Eugene, Oregon.
We selected site visit locations based on consideration of several factors,  including the number and extent of BRT features; ridership, length of  route, peak headway, and geographic diversity. We considered all 20  existing BRT projects that received federal funding and selected projects  with a range of each factor listed above. Because we selected a  nonprobability sample of projects, the information we obtained from these  interviews and visits cannot be generalized to all BRT projects.
To assess how BRT projects have performed in terms of ridership and  service and how they compare to rail transit projects, we reviewed  existing literature on BRT and rail transit projects’ ridership and service  levels. In addition, we sent questionnaires to the sponsors of all 20  completed rail transit projects that met the criteria outlined above and  compared the responses of BRT project sponsors to those of rail transit  project sponsors.rail transit projects in our scope for a response rate of 90 percent. We  supplemented the data collected through our questionnaires with  information obtained during our site-visit interviews (from the locations  listed above).
We received completed questionnaires for 18 of the 20  To assess how BRT projects compare to rail transit projects in terms of  capital project costs and the New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small  Starts share of funding, we used FTA project grant data compiled by FTA  to identify the 55 (30 BRT and 25 rail transit) existing or planned projects  that had signed grant agreements from fiscal years 2005 through  February 2012. Reports on Funding Recommendations for fiscal years 2005 through  2012 to ensure that we had the most recent project cost estimates. We  discussed data collection and maintenance with FTA and determined the  data are reliable for our purposes. In addition to collecting data from FTA,  we also reviewed relevant academic literature on BRT and rail transit  capital costs and interviewed academic experts, BRT stakeholders, and  select BRT project sponsors to better understand how BRT and rail transit  projects compare in terms of costs.
We received the New Starts data on April 6, 2012, for projects through February 2012  and Small Starts and Very Small Starts data on March 21, 2012. years after operations began.index compiled by Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic  Analysis, to convert the nominal land value into constant 2010 dollars. We  did not attempt to model other factors that contribute to land values, such  as broader economic conditions, other major infrastructure investments  and amenities, and demographic characteristics.
We used the gross domestic product price  We conducted this performance audit from July 2011 through July 2012 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Cathy Colwell (Assistant  Director), Nathan Bowen, Lorraine Ettaro, Colin Fallon, Kathleen Gilhooly,  Terence Lam, Matthew LaTour, Jaclyn Nidoh, Josh Ormond, and Melissa  Swearingen made key contributions to this report.