    Mass Transit: Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise (17-SEP-01,
    GAO-01-984).

    To make buses a more reliable and effective high-speed transit
    alternative, a new concept-- Bus Rapid Transit--proposes (1)
    running buses on highways exclusively for them or on HOV lanes or
    (2) improving service on busier routes on city streets. 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, but its use is constrained. Two Bus Rapid Transit
    projects have received about $831 million in funding commitments
    from the current New Starts Program. Few additional Bus Rapid
    Transit projects will likely receive funding commitments under
    the current New Starts Program, which expires in 2003, because
    few Bus Rapid Transit projects are ready to compete for funding;
    many projects are eligible to compete for the $462 million that
    is projected to remain available for fiscal year 2003; and some
    types of Bus Rapid Transit projects are ineligible for New Starts
    funding because projects are required to operate on separate
    right-of-ways for the exclusive use of mass transit and
    high-occupancy vehicles. The Bus Rapid Transit systems generally
    had lower capital costs per mile than did the Light Rail systems
    in the cities GAO reviewed, although neither system had a clear
    advantage in operating costs. Precise operating cost comparisons
    for Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail systems within and between
    cities are difficult because of differences among transit
    agencies, transit systems, and how they account for costs. The
    performance characteristics also varied widely, with the largest
    Bus Rapid Transit system ridership about equal to the largest
    Light Rail ridership. Each program offers various advantages and
    disadvantages. Bus Rapid Transit provides a more flexible
    approach than light rail because buses can be routed to eliminate
    transfers; buses can operate on busways, HOV lanes, and city
    arterial streets; and the Bus Rapid Transit concept can be
    implemented in stages. However, transit officials repeatedly said
    that buses have a poor public image.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-01-984
        ACCNO:   A01774
      TITLE:     Mass Transit: Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise
         DATE:   09/17/2001
      SUBJECT:   Mass transit funding
    	     Mass transit operations
    	     Cost analysis
    	     Motor vehicle pollution control
    	     Traffic regulation
    	     FTA Bus Discretionary Capital Program
    	     FTA New Starts Program
    	     FTA Urbanized Area Formula Grant
    	     DOT Intelligent Transportation System
    	     Program
    	     DOT Surface Transportation Program
    	     FHwA Congestion Mitigation and Air
    	     Quality Improvement Program
                 FTA Bus Capital Program

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Testimony.                                               **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-01-984

    A

    Report to Congressional Requesters

    September 2001 MASS TRANSIT Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise

    GAO- 01- 984

    Letter 1 Results in Brief 2 Background 5 Federal Funding Available for Bus
    Rapid Transit Projects, but Use Is Constrained 8

    Capital Costs Appear to Favor Bus Rapid Transit, While Results Are Mixed for
    Operating Costs 16 Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail Have a Variety of
    Advantages and

    Disadvantages 28 Conclusions 32 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 33

    Appendixes

    Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 36

    Appendix II: Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration Projects 40

    Appendix III: Capital Costs of Light Rail Systems 50

    Appendix IV: Capital Costs of Bus Rapid Transit Systems 52 Tables Table 1:
    Capital Costs for Selected Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail Projects 4

    Table 2: New Starts Program Funding for Bus Rapid Transit Fiscal Year 2001
    10 Table 3: Elements of Bus Rapid Transit in the FTA Demonstration

    Projects 16 Table 4: Capital Costs of Bus Rapid Transit Busways 52 Table 5:
    Capital Costs of Bus Rapid Transit Using HOV Lanes 53 Table 6: Capital Costs
    of Bus Rapid Transit on Arterial Streets 54

    Figures Figure 1: Example of Bus Rapid Transit System 2 Figure 2: Examples
    of Bus Rapid Transit Facilities in Los Angeles

    and San Diego 6 Figure 3: Light Rail Transit in San Diego 7 Figure 4:
    Initial Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration Projects and

    Consortium Members 14 Figure 5: Artist Renderings of Planned Bus Rapid
    Transit System in Eugene, Oregon 15

    Figure 6: Capital Cost Per Mile for Light Rail and Bus Rapid Transit 17

    Figure 7: Operating Cost Per Vehicle Revenue Hour, 1999 22 Figure 8:
    Operating Cost Per Vehicle Revenue Mile, 1999 23 Figure 9: Operating Cost
    Per Unlinked Passenger Trip, 1999 24 Figure 10: Average Speed of Bus Rapid
    Transit and Light Rail Service, 1999 27

    Abbreviations

    FTA Federal Transit Administration GAO General Accounting Office HOV High-
    Occupancy Vehicle

    Lett er

    September 17, 2001 Congressional Requesters Each day millions of Americans
    face traffic congestion as they commute to work in automobiles. The impact
    from this congestion is substantial in time, resources, and pollution. For
    example, it is estimated that in 68 urban areas congestion cost U. S.
    travelers 4.5 billion hours of delay, 6. 8 billion gallons of wasted fuel,
    and $78 billion in 1999. 1 In an attempt to present

    buses as a more reliable and effective high- speed transit alternative, a
    concept involving the improved use of buses-- Bus Rapid Transit-- has
    emerged. Bus Rapid Transit includes operating buses on exclusive bus

    highways, High- Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, or improving service on
    busier routes on city streets. Bus Rapid Transit may also include a variety
    of technological and street design improvements, including traffic signal
    prioritization for buses; exclusive lanes; better stations or bus shelters;

    fewer stops; faster service; and cleaner, quieter, and more attractive
    vehicles. Bus Rapid Transit as a comprehensive transportation option is
    exemplified in Curitiba, Brazil. Curitiba?s Bus Rapid Transit system is an
    extensive commuter bus system that includes exclusive busways and a number
    of

    other features designed to increase speed, such as traffic signal
    prioritization, rail- like stations with level- floor boarding, and advance
    fare collection. In the United States at least 17 cities are planning to
    incorporate aspects of Bus Rapid Transit. The Department of Transportation?s
    Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has begun to

    support this concept and expand awareness of new ways to design and operate
    high capacity Bus Rapid Transit systems as an alternative to building Light
    Rail systems. Light Rail systems generally are electric trains

    that may operate on streets with other traffic. 1 The 2001 Urban Mobility
    Report, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A& M University System, 2001.

    Figure 1: Example of Bus Rapid Transit System

    Busway in Charlotte, NC Source: Charlotte area transit system.

    You asked us to (1) examine the federal role in supporting Bus Rapid
    Transit; (2) compare the capital costs, operating costs, and performance
    characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail systems; and (3)
    describe the other advantages and disadvantages of Bus Rapid Transit and

    Light Rail. To address these questions, we identified where Bus Rapid
    Transit is being used extensively in the United States and determined how
    FTA supports Bus Rapid Transit projects. In addition, we visited transit
    agencies in

    Dallas, Denver, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, San Diego, and San Jose to obtain
    capital and operating cost information on Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail
    systems in those cities. We also interviewed FTA officials and industry

    experts to identify the advantages and disadvantages of Bus Rapid Transit
    and Light Rail systems. Appendix I provides a detailed discussion of our
    scope and methodology. Results in Brief Federal support for Bus Rapid
    Transit projects may come from several different sources, including FTA?s
    New Starts, Bus Capital, and Urbanized

    Area Formula Grants programs, but its use is constrained. Two Bus Rapid
    Transit projects have received funding commitments from the current New
    Starts Program, totaling about $831 million. Few additional Bus Rapid

    Transit projects will likely receive funding commitments under the current
    New Starts Program, which expires in 2003, because (1) few Bus Rapid Transit
    projects are ready to compete for funding, (2) there are a large number of
    projects eligible to compete for the approximately $462 million that is
    projected to remain available for fiscal year 2003, and (3) certain types of
    Bus Rapid Transit projects are not eligible for New Starts funding due to
    the requirement that projects operate on separate right- of- ways for the
    exclusive use of mass transit and high- occupancy vehicles. FTA also
    supports Bus Rapid Transit through a demonstration program that began in

    1999. Under this program, $50,000 was provided to each of 10 initial
    grantees to improve information sharing among transit agencies about issues
    pertaining to Bus Rapid Transit. The demonstration program is designed to
    determine the extent to which Bus Rapid Transit can increase ridership,
    improve efficiency, and provide high- quality service. The grantees?
    projects include dedicated busways, bus lanes on city arterial streets,
    improved technology on buses, and other innovations.

    The Bus Rapid Transit systems generally had lower capital costs per mile
    than the Light Rail systems in the cities we reviewed, although neither
    system had a clear advantage in operating costs. Adjusting to 2000 dollars,
    the capital costs for the various types of Bus Rapid Transit systems in
    cities that we reviewed ranged from a low of $200,000 per mile for an
    arterial street- based system to $55 million per mile for a dedicated busway
    system

    (see table 1). Light Rail systems had capital costs that ranged from $12.4
    million to $118.8 million per mile.

    Table 1: Capital Costs for Selected Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail
    Projects Capital cost per mile Number of

    facilities Project type

    examined Cost range Average cost

    Bus Rapid Transit Busways 9 $7 million to $55 million $13. 5 million HOV
    lanes 8 $1.8 million to $37. 6 million $9. 0 million Arterial streets 3
    $200,000 to $9. 6 million $680,000 Light Rail 18 $12. 4 million to $118.8
    million $34. 8 million Source: Our analysis of data supplied by FTA and
    local transit agencies. We did not independently verify this information.
    See appendix I for additional details on the methodology used.

    Precise operating cost comparisons for Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail
    systems within and between cities are difficult due to differences among
    transit agencies, transit systems, and how they account for costs. We found
    mixed results when we compared the operating costs for Bus Rapid Transit and
    Light Rail systems in the cities we reviewed that operated both types of
    systems. Bus systems generally had lower vehicle operating costs.

    However, we found no clear pattern for operating cost per trip. In some
    cases Light Rail had higher operating costs per trip than Bus Rapid Transit,
    and in other cases the reverse was true. The performance characteristics

    of Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail systems also varied widely, with the
    largest Bus Rapid Transit system ridership about equal to the largest Light
    Rail ridership. Finally, Bus Rapid Transit routes showed generally higher
    operating speeds than the Light Rail lines in these cities.

    Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail systems offer various advantages and
    disadvantages. Bus Rapid Transit provides a more flexible approach than
    Light Rail because buses can be routed to eliminate transfers; operated on
    busways, HOV lanes and city arterial streets; and implemented in stages.
    However, transit officials repeatedly noted that buses have a poor public

    image. As a result, transit planners are designing Bus Rapid Transit systems
    that offer improved service from standard bus service. Transit officials
    believed that because Light Rail is permanent in a given corridor it could
    influence economic development over time. Such long- term

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

    Background Bus Rapid Transit involves coordinated improvements in a transit
    system?s infrastructure, equipment, operations, and technology that give
    preferential treatment to buses on urban roadways. Bus Rapid Transit is not
    a single type of transit system; rather it encompasses a variety of
    approaches, including buses using exclusive busways or HOV lanes with other
    vehicles, and improving bus service on city arterial streets. Busways--
    special roadways designed for the exclusive use of buses-- can be totally
    separate roadways or operate within highway rights- of- way separated from
    other traffic by barriers. Busways currently exist in Pittsburgh, Miami, and

    Charlotte. Buses on HOV lanes operate on limited- access highways designed
    for long- distance commuters. Dallas, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, and
    Seattle provide examples of extensive HOV lane use by buses. 2 Bus Rapid
    Transit on busways or HOV lanes is sometimes characterized by the addition
    of extensive park and ride facilities along with entrance and exit access
    for these lanes. Bus Rapid Transit systems using arterial streets may
    include lanes reserved for the exclusive use of buses and street
    enhancements that speed buses and improve service. Los

    Angeles recently instituted a Bus Rapid Transit type of service on two bus
    arterial corridors. Bus Rapid Transit may also include any of the following
    features:  Traffic signal priority. Buses receiving an early or extended
    green light

    at intersections reduce travel time-- in Los Angeles, for example, by as
    much as 10 percent.  Boarding and fare collection improvements. Convenient
    and rapid fare collection through prepaid or electronic passes and low-
    floor and/ or wide- door boarding results in timesavings.

     Limited stops. Increasing distances between stations or shelters improves
    operating speeds.  Improved stations and shelters. Bus terminals and unique
    stations or

    shelters differentiate Bus Rapid Transit service from standard bus service.
    (See fig. 2.)  Intelligent Transportation System technologies. Advanced
    technology

    can maintain more consistent distances between buses and inform passengers
    when the next bus is arriving.

    2 Los Angeles and Houston originally built part of their systems as
    exclusive busways and later converted them to HOV facilities.

     Cleaner and quieter vehicles. Improved diesel buses and buses using
    alternative- fuels are cleaner than traditional diesel buses.  Exclusive
    Lanes. Traffic lanes reserved for the exclusive use of buses

    help buses pass congested traffic.

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

    NEXT BUS IN 9 MIN Source: Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority
    and San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board.

    Light Rail transit is a metropolitan- electric railway system characterized
    by its ability to operate in a variety of environments such as streets,
    subways, or elevated structures. (See fig. 3 for an example of a Light Rail
    System.) Since Light Rail systems can operate on streets with other traffic,
    they typically use an overhead source for their electrical power and
    boardings take place from the street or platforms. According to a
    transportation consultant, because Light Rail systems operate in both
    exclusive and

    shared right- of- way environments, they have stricter limits on their
    length and the frequency of service than heavy rail systems. 3

    Figure 3: Light Rail Transit in San Diego

    Source: San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board.

    Light Rail systems gained popularity as a lower- cost option to heavy rail
    systems, and a number of cities have constructed Light Rail projects over
    the past 20 years. Since 1980, Light Rail systems have opened in 13
    metropolitan areas: Baltimore, Buffalo, Dallas, Denver, Northern New Jersey
    (Hudson and Bergen counties), Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, Portland, Sacramento,
    San Diego, San Jose, St. Louis, and Salt Lake City. Several other cities,
    including Minneapolis and Seattle, are in the process of planning Light Rail
    systems.

    3 Heavy rail transit systems, such as in New York City, Chicago, and
    Washington, D. C., are defined by their operation on a totally separated
    right- of- way, and use a third rail on the ground to power the trains.
    Heavy rail systems require platform boarding, typically have longer
    distances between stations, and have greater capacity than Light Rail
    systems.

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

    Available for Bus Rapid Transit, several FTA programs can be used to help
    fund these projects. FTA provides funding for new Bus Rapid Transit projects
    primarily through its Transit Projects, but

    New Starts Program but eligible projects face stiff competition from Light
    Use Is Constrained Rail, Heavy Rail, and Commuter Rail projects. Funding for
    additional New Starts projects of all types is constrained-- FTA projects
    little remaining authority to make funding commitments to new projects and
    the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century (TEA- 21) identified a
    large

    number of projects eligible for funding under the program. In addition to
    the New Starts Program, transit agencies may use other FTA funds, such as
    those from the Bus Capital Program and the Urbanized Area Formula Grant
    Program, to fund Bus Rapid Transit projects. However, the Bus Capital
    Program grants tend to be relatively small, thus limiting this program as a
    significant contributor to large projects. In addition, some Bus Rapid
    Transit projects may qualify for certain types of federal highway funding,

    notably Surface Transportation Program and Congestion Mitigation and Air
    Quality Improvement funds administered through the Federal Highway
    Administration. Since these funds are provided to state governments, local
    transit agencies must compete with many other state needs for these funds.
    In addition to providing capital funding, FTA began a demonstration program
    in 1999 to highlight the benefits of Bus Rapid Transit. Under this program,
    FTA awarded $50, 000 grants to 10 transit agencies to share information and
    data on new Bus Rapid Transit projects. The program provides workshops and
    information- sharing opportunities for the transit

    agencies, but no capital funding. The grantees? projects include a wide
    variety of busways, arterial bus lanes, and bus technologies.

    New Starts Funding FTA?s New Starts Program is the primary federal program
    to support Provided to Few Bus Rapid

    construction of new transit systems and extensions to existing systems.
    Transit Projects Projects for bus and rail systems that operate on exclusive
    rights- of- way compete for FTA grants of up to 80 percent of their costs. 4
    To obtain funds, a project must progress through a local or regional review
    of alternatives, develop preliminary engineering plans, and meet FTA
    approval of final design. FTA proposes New Starts projects to the Congress
    for funding on

    an annual basis based on an evaluation of their technical merits, including
    mobility improvements and cost effectiveness, and the stability of the local
    financial commitment. In making its funding proposal each year, FTA gives
    preference to projects with existing grant agreements. Following that,

    consideration is given to projects with overall ratings of ?recommended? or
    ?highly recommended? under the evaluation criteria. The Transportation
    Equity Act for the 21st Century authorized about $6 billion in ?guaranteed?
    funding over 6 years for New Starts transit projects. 5 4 A Full Funding
    Grant Agreement establishes the terms and conditions for federal

    participation, including the maximum amount of federal funds to be made
    available to the project. The administration has recommended reducing the
    cap on new starts funding to 50 percent of a project's cost starting in 2004
    to ensure that local governments play a major role in funding these transit
    projects. As under the current program, transit agencies could supplement
    New Starts funds with other federal funds for a total federal contribution
    of up to 80 percent. 5 These funds are subject to a procedural mechanism
    designed to ensure that minimum amounts are provided each year. In addition,
    TEA- 21 authorized FTA to make contingent commitments subject to future
    authorizations and appropriations. This contingent commitment authority is
    designed to allow FTA to execute grant agreements that extend beyond the 6-
    year authorization period.

    Bus Rapid Transit projects compete with many other projects for New Starts
    funding, including Light Rail, Heavy Rail, and Commuter Railroads. In total
    there are over 200 projects in various stages of development. As shown in
    table 2, for the 26 projects with Full Funding Grant Agreements in fiscal
    year 2001, two projects with Bus Rapid Transit components have

    commitments of about $831 million in New Starts funds. 6 The total New
    Starts commitment for these 26 projects is about $8.3 billion, which
    includes $4. 67 billion for Light Rail, $2. 69 billion for Heavy Rail, and
    $111 million for Commuter Rail projects. 7

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

    Dollars in millions

    Number of Number of

    Actual or Bus Rapid

    Actual or New Starts

    proposed Transit

    proposed Category of projects

    projects funding a

    projects funding a

    Projects with Full Funding 26 $8, 296 2 $831 Grant Agreements Projects
    pending Full 2 15700

    Funding Grant Agreements

    Projects in final design 9 1, 456 1 b 23 Projects in preliminary

    31 8, 350 6 c 490 engineering Other projects authorized 137 N/ A 5 d N/ A

    Total 205 $18, 259 14 $1, 344

    Legend: N/ A = Not applicable. a For projects with Full Funding Grant
    Agreements, figures represent amounts committed while figures

    for other categories represent amounts being proposed by transit agencies
    for New Starts funding. b Miami, FL, South Miami- Dade Busway Extension
    project.

    c Specifically identified Bus Rapid Transit projects are in Cleveland, OH;
    Hartford, CT; Los Angeles, CA; Miami, FL; Stamford, CT; and Washington, D.
    C. d The five locations that have identified projects with aspects of Bus
    Rapid Transit are Bridgeport, CT; Chicago, IL; Honolulu, HI; and two in
    Boston, MA.

    6 Houston received a commitment of $500 million in New Starts funds for
    systemwide bus improvements, including Bus Rapid Transit elements. It is not
    solely a Bus Rapid Transit project. 7 Funding commitments for some of the
    projects were made under prior authorizations.

    Source: GAO analysis of FTA data.

    For a number of reasons, few Bus Rapid Transit projects are likely to be
    considered for New Starts funding in the final year of the period covered by
    TEA- 21. First, few Bus Rapid Transit projects are ready for funding
    consideration. Only 1 of the 11 projects with pending grant agreements or in
    the final design stage is a Bus Rapid Transit project. Further, of the 31
    projects in the preliminary engineering stage that have proposed about $8. 3

    billion in support from the New Starts program, only 6 Bus Rapid Transit
    projects proposing about $490 million are included. Reasons for the
    relatively few projects being ready for funding consideration include the
    newness of the Bus Rapid Transit concept and the decisions of local transit
    agencies, which are responsible for conducting analyses of various
    alternatives and proposing projects for funding. Second, FTA?s authority to
    make new funding commitments for projects of any type will be highly limited
    through 2003 if FTA makes the funding commitments proposed in its fiscal
    year 2002 New Starts report and funding request. It projects about

    $462 million in remaining commitment authority for the last year of the
    current program. Lastly, some Bus Rapid Transit projects are not eligible
    for New Starts funding because projects must operate on separate rightsof-
    way for the exclusive use of mass transit and high- occupancy vehicles.
    While some Bus Rapid Transit projects, such as busways, would fit this
    requirement, some would not. For example, the Wilshire- Whittier Bus Rapid
    Transit Service in Los Angeles operates on city streets in mixed traffic; it
    is not, therefore, on a separate right- of- way. Agencies Can Use Other

    Local transit agencies may use other types of federal funds, in addition to
    Federal Funds for Bus

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

    example, transit agencies can apply funds obtained through FTA?s Urbanized
    Area Formula Grant program to Bus Rapid Transit and rail projects. This
    program provides capital and operating assistance to urbanized areas with
    populations of more than 50, 000. However, areas with populations over
    200,000 may only use the funds for capital improvements. For example, in
    fiscal year 2001, one Bus Rapid Transit project, Boston?s Silver Line
    project, planned to use $150 million from the formula grant program, about
    $331 million from the New Starts Program, and $120 million in Massachusetts
    state bond funds. In addition, one commuter rail, one heavy rail, and six
    Light Rail projects planned to use about $629 million in formula grant
    funds, in addition to New Starts funds,

    as part of their overall funding.

    An additional potential source for bus system improvements is the Bus
    Capital Program, which provides funds to states and local transit agencies
    for bus improvements. This program is characterized by a large number of
    relatively small grants. For example, for fiscal year 2001 the Congress
    appropriated about $574.1 million for 314 grants, ranging from $39,000 to
    $15.5 million; the largest amounts typically were provided for statewide bus

    grants. While these funds can be combined with funds from other programs,
    such as New Starts, they are generally not sufficient to fund a major Bus
    Rapid Transit project alone.

    Bus Rapid Transit and other transit projects can qualify for certain types
    of federal highway funds administered by the Federal Highway Administration.
    For example, transit agencies have used Surface Transportation Program and
    Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement funds to help pay for
    transit projects. 8 Neither of the two Bus Rapid Transit projects with Full
    Funding Grant Agreements in fiscal year

    2001 planned to use federal highway funds. Six of the Light Rail projects
    with Full Funding Grant Agreements plan to use about $171 million in federal
    highway funds. The South Miami- Dade Busway Extension project

    in Final Design plans to use about $39 million in these funds. FTA Supports
    Bus Rapid From FTA?s perspective, Bus Rapid Transit is a step toward
    developing Transit Concept Through public transit systems that have the
    performance and appeal of Light Rail Demonstration Program

    transit, but at a lower capital cost. FTA contends that using technological
    advancements will allow buses to operate with the speed, reliability, and
    efficiency of Light Rail. FTA promotes the Bus Rapid Transit concept with
    the slogan ?think rail, use buses.? 8 Among other things, Surface
    Transportation Program funds are provided to states to be used for the
    capital costs of transit projects. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality

    Improvement Program funds are generally available to states for
    transportation projects designed to help them meet the requirements of the
    Clean Air Act.

    In 1999, the FTA initiated a demonstration program to generate familiarity
    and interest in Bus Rapid Transit. The goal of the program was to promote
    improved bus service similar to model systems in Curitiba, Brazil; Adelaide,
    Australia; and Ottawa, Canada, as an alternative to more capital- intensive

    rail projects. The program initially provided $50,000 to 10 transit agencies
    to share information and data on new Bus Rapid Transit projects. 9 FTA
    wanted the Bus Rapid Transit program to show how using technological
    advancements and improving the image of buses would allow buses to increase
    ridership and operate with the speed, reliability, and efficiency of Light
    Rail. The grantees in the demonstration program may be eligible for federal
    capital funds such as New Starts, Bus Capital, and Urbanized Area Formula
    Grant funds. FTA has held workshops for consortium members focusing on
    developing Bus Rapid Transit's component features, such as

    vehicles, image, marketing, fare collection, and traffic operations. (See
    fig. 4.) 9 FTA recently added Los Angeles to the Demonstration program and
    provided funding. The program includes six additional members of the Bus
    Rapid Transit consortium. These consortium members do not receive direct
    funding, but attend workshops and support the program goals.

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

    Source: FTA.

    Some locations participating in the demonstration program have more
    extensive elements of a Bus Rapid Transit system than others. For example,
    Miami and Charlotte have busways for the exclusive use of buses, while San
    Jose is implementing technological and service improvements such as signal
    prioritization on a high- ridership HOV lane arterial corridor. In Eugene,
    plans are to purchase buses that will have a train- like

    appearance and operate on special bus lanes (see fig. 5). In Cleveland, an
    extensive Bus Rapid Transit project is planned that involves the extensive
    reconstruction of Euclid Avenue, including signal prioritization, bus
    station structures, and reconstruction of the sidewalks along the corridor.
    Table 3 illustrates the variations in the Bus Rapid Transit concept among
    the 10 initial demonstration projects.

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

    Source: FTA.

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

    San Boston Charlotte Cleveland D. C., Dulles Eugene Hartford Honolulu Miami
    Juan Jose

    Busways *    Bus lanes      Bus on HOVExpressways  a  Signal
    priority      Fare collection    improvements Limited stops

    Improved stations &     shelters Intelligent

    transportation systems Cleaner/ quieter

      vehicles Note: Individual elements may change as demonstration projects
    evolve.

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

    FTA plans to conduct evaluations of each project participating in the
    demonstration program after the projects are implemented. FTA also plans to
    evaluate Pittsburgh?s Bus Rapid Transit project. Through these

    evaluations, FTA wants to determine the most effective Bus Rapid Transit
    elements so that other transit agencies can model similar systems. The
    Department of Transportation?s Volpe Center will conduct the first
    evaluation on Honolulu?s CityExpress! bus program. FTA does not plan to
    include all the consortium members' projects in the evaluation.

    Capital Costs Appear Bus Rapid Transit capital costs were generally lower
    than Light Rail capital to Favor Bus Rapid

    costs in the cities we reviewed, when compared on a cost- per- mile basis.
    We found mixed results when we compared the operating costs of Bus Transit,
    While Results

    Rapid Transit and Light Rail systems. In examining performance Are Mixed for

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

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

    Bus Rapid Transit Capital The Bus Rapid Transit projects that we reviewed
    cost less on average to Costs Per Mile Generally build than the Light Rail
    projects, on a per- mile basis. As shown in figure 6,

    Lower Than Light Rail Bus Rapid Transit capital costs averaged about $13.5
    million per mile for

    busways, $9. 0 million per mile for buses on HOV lanes, and $680,000 per
    mile on city streets, when escalated to 2000 dollars. 10 For 13 cities that
    built Light Rail lines, since 1980, capital costs averaged about $34.8
    million per mile, ranging from $12. 4 million to $118.8 million per mile,
    when escalated to 2000 dollars. On a capital cost per- mile basis, the three
    different types of Bus Rapid Transit systems have average capital cost that
    are 39 percent, 26 percent, and 2 percent of the average cost of Light Rail
    systems we reviewed.

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

    40

    34. 79

    35 30 25 20 15

    13. 49

    10

    8.97

    5

    0.68

    0 Light Rail Busways Bus on HOV

    Bus on Arterial Lanes

    Notes: Cost escalated to fiscal year 2000 dollars. Average Light Rail
    capital costs are for 13 cities that built 18 Light Rail lines since 1980.
    Busway capital costs are for nine busways built in four cities; in two
    cities these facilities were subsequently

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

    opened to private vehicles as HOV lanes. Capital costs for buses using HOV
    lanes are for eight HOV facilities in five cities. Capital costs for buses
    on arterial streets are for three lines in two cities. Source: GAO analysis
    of FTA and transit agency data. Bus Rapid Transit capital costs vary
    considerably, depending on the type of system built. Costs of Bus Rapid
    Transit projects include the cost of the roadway- busways or bus lanes,
    station structures, park- and- ride facilities, communications and improved
    traffic signal systems, and vehicles, if additional or special buses are
    needed for the project. Given the variety of ways in which Bus Rapid Transit
    may be designed, we classified the systems into three broad categories:
    busways, bus- HOV lanes, and Bus

    Rapid Transit on arterial streets. Appendixes III and IV provide information
    on the Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail systems that we analyzed.

    Exclusive busways, which are essentially separate highways for buses,
    generally had the highest capital cost per mile for those systems we
    analyzed, averaging $13.5 million per mile in 2000 dollars. The capital
    costs

    of nine busways in four cities ranged from $7 million to $55 million per
    mile. 11 The most expensive one was the Pittsburgh West Busway, which cost
    significantly more than other busways we analyzed. However, according to
    local transit agency officials, they needed to construct only 5 miles of
    busway to achieve their goal of rapid transit to the airport because the
    buses could exit the busway and use existing highways. They added that an
    alternative Light Rail system would have been longer, cost two to three
    times as much to construct and significantly more to operate and

    maintain, while attracting essentially no additional passengers. Other types
    of Bus Rapid Transit systems had lower capital costs. For HOV facilities
    where buses used HOV lanes in five cities we reviewed, capital costs ranged
    from $1.8 million to $37.6 million per mile. For bus- HOV

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

    Bus Rapid Transit improvements on arterial streets can have the lowest cost
    per mile. For example, Los Angeles completed the Wilshire Boulevard and
    Ventura lines at a cost of about $200, 000 per mile. These two lines operate
    on major arterial streets, but without a dedicated right- of- way. The Bus
    Rapid Transit improvements included in this cost were signal 11 Because the
    current bus- HOV lanes in Houston and Los Angeles were initially built as
    busonly

    facilities, we include them as examples of busways for this analysis.

    prioritization, improved stations, and real- time information systems
    informing riders of bus arrival times. While this type of surface street
    treatment was the least expensive Bus Rapid Transit option in the cities we
    reviewed, Bus Rapid Transit lines on arterial streets can have higher costs
    if they involve more extensive construction, such as building special bus

    lanes. In Orlando Bus Rapid Transit on arterial streets included lane
    construction and vehicle costs, and averaged $9. 6 million per mile.

    Light Rail systems we reviewed also vary considerably in their capital cost
    per mile. Included in capital costs are the stations, structures, signal
    systems, power systems, utility relocation, rights- of- way, maintenance
    facilities, transit vehicles, and project oversight. Again, we adjusted the
    historic capital cost of the projects to fiscal year 2000 dollars to provide
    a better basis of comparison. For the systems we reviewed the cost per mile
    for Light Rail averaged $34.8 million per mile, ranging from $12.4 million
    to $118.8 million per mile.

    The higher capital costs per mile for Light Rail systems compared with Bus
    Rapid Transit arise from several factors. First, Light Rail systems contain
    elements not required in Bus Rapid Transit systems. Light Rail systems
    typically require train signal, communications, and electrical power

    systems with overhead wires to deliver power to trains. A consultant study
    of eight Light Rail lines in five cities (Dallas, St. Louis, Denver, Salt
    Lake City, and Portland) found the average costs of these elements to be $2.
    8 million per mile. 12 Light Rail systems also require additional materials
    needed for the guideway-- rail, ties, and track ballast. In addition, if a
    Light Rail maintenance facility does not exist, one must be built and
    equipped.

    Finally, Light Rail vehicles, while having higher carrying capacity than
    most buses, also cost more-- about $2.5 million each. 13 In contrast,
    according to transit industry consultants, a typical 40- foot transit bus
    costs about $283,000 and an articulated, higher capacity bus costs about
    $420,000. However, buses that incorporate newer technologies for low
    emissions or that run on more than one fuel can cost more than $1 million
    each. For

    12 Pilgrim, Richard D., "Are We Pricing Light Rail Transit Systems Out of
    Range? A Comparison of Cost Experiences," paper published at the 8th Joint
    Conference on Light Rail, Dallas, Texas, November 2000, sponsored by the
    Transportation Research Board and the American Public Transportation
    Association. 13 Generally, the seating capacity of a single Light Rail
    vehicle is about 110 passengers while a 40- foot bus would seat about 50
    passengers and an articulated bus can seat about 70 passengers.

    example, the Boston Silver Line low- floor, articulated, compressed natural
    gas- hybrid electric buses will cost $1. 5 million each according to FTA
    officials.

    Another factor that can affect the cost of the systems is the amount and
    availability of required right- of- way. Right- of- way costs are affected
    by the design requirements of Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail. Transit
    planners told us that a basic busway required a wider right- of- way than
    Light Rail. They estimated a two- lane busway required a right- of- way
    about 30 feet wide, compared with 24 feet wide for a double- track Light
    Rail system. 14 Regardless of the transportation mode--- bus or rail- the
    basic design has a major effect on the capital costs. Specifically, projects
    that use tunneling

    or elevated structures are more expensive than those with surface level
    construction. For example, the Boston South Piers Transitway, a 1- mile
    tunnel with three stations built adjacent to the Boston Central

    Artery/ Tunnel project, has an estimated cost of $601 million. Tunneling can
    be three to six times more expensive than surface construction, regardless
    of the type of system- bus or rail.

    Operating Costs Vary for We found mixed results when we compared the
    operating costs for Bus Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rapid Transit and Light
    Rail in each of the six cities that operated both

    types of systems. 15 We used three measures to examine operating costs: Rail
    Systems cost per vehicle revenue hour, cost per vehicle revenue mile, and
    cost per passenger trip. 16 We also compared these measures, correcting for
    vehicle capacity. Each measure resulted in somewhat different relative
    operating

    cost levels. Part of the reason for the variation in results is that the Bus
    Rapid Transit systems in our example cities operate in different ways. The
    systems 14 Pittsburgh officials noted that a 30- foot busway requirement was
    not uniform and that

    busways can be narrowed to Light Rail standards for short sections to fit
    through tunnels or accommodate obstructions. In Pittsburgh, for example,
    buses share a tunnel with Light Rail vehicles. 15 The six cities with both
    Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail systems in our study are Dallas, Denver,
    Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, San Diego, and San Jose. 16 These three measures,
    while not the only possible measures of operating cost, are commonly used in
    transit. We also attempted to determine operating cost per passenger mile as
    a measure of comparison; however, we could not obtain sufficient data for
    such an analysis. See appendix I for details on the methodology used.

    ranged from arterial bus routes in Los Angeles to freeway express buses on
    barrier- separated HOV lanes in Denver, Dallas, and San Diego to exclusive
    busways in Pittsburgh. In addition, the Light Rail systems in these cities
    also serve different functions in different ways. The Light Rail systems

    range from local distributor systems sharing downtown city streets with cars
    and trucks, as in Dallas and Denver, to commuter- type service along tracks
    separated from all other traffic, such as the Los Angeles Green Line. The
    route, type of service, size of vehicles, and function of the systems-

    long haul commuter service or downtown circulator- each have an impact on
    the operating cost. Greater speed can also lower operating and capital costs
    by permitting a bus route or rail line to be serviced with fewer

    vehicles. Operating costs for Bus Rapid Transit systems included such costs
    as driver's salaries, fuel, vehicle maintenance, and maintenance of the
    busway or HOV lane. In Dallas it also includes the cost to move 5.2 miles of
    road barriers twice each day to change the direction of an HOV lane that the
    Bus Rapid Transit system and other HOVs use as well as the cost to provide

    daily enforcement of lane restrictions and motorist assistance. Light Rail
    operating costs include driver's salaries, electricity, and maintenance of
    the vehicles and track system. Light Rail systems require at least one
    repair facility and specialized maintenance staff, while Bus Rapid Transit
    vehicle maintenance is often done at existing maintenance facilities by
    current employees whose costs can be spread over the regular bus service.

    Operating Cost Per Vehicle Hour To determine operating cost per vehicle
    hour, the annual operating costs are divided by the number of hours the
    buses or trains operate in that year. This measure shows the average cost to
    operate a vehicle for 1 hour,

    regardless of the number of passengers carried. As shown in figure 7, using
    this measure, Bus Rapid Transit had lower costs in five cities and Light
    Rail in one.

    Figure 7: Operating Cost Per Vehicle Revenue Hour, 1999 Dollars $500 $450

    $434 $400 $350 $300 $250

    $224 $201

    $199 $200

    $143 $150

    $125 $96 $100 $109 $100

    $78 $89

    $56 $50

    Dallas Denver Los Angeles Pittsburgh San Diego San Jose Light Rail Bus Rapid
    Transit

    Source: National Transit Database and six transit agencies.

    Operating Cost Per Revenue Operating cost per revenue mile is another way of
    measuring the cost of Mile

    operating individual vehicles. Operating cost per revenue mile is a
    vehicle?s annual operating cost divided by the total annual number of miles
    traveled while actually in passenger service. It calculates the average cost
    of the vehicles to travel 1 mile. As shown in figure 8, all six cities'
    Light Rail systems showed higher costs per vehicle mile than Bus Rapid
    Transit routes. According to one transit expert, Bus Rapid Transit lines
    often run

    only during the busiest rush hour periods while Light Rail systems typically
    offer all- day service, which may in part explain this result.

    Figure 8: Operating Cost Per Vehicle Revenue Mile, 1999 Dollars $18.00

    $16.00

    $15.60

    $14.00

    $13.72 $12.54

    $12.68

    $12.00

    $11.72

    $10.00

    $8. 52

    $8. 00 $6. 00

    $3. 95 $4. 20 $3. 86

    $3. 45 $4. 00

    $1. 74 $2. 24 $2. 00

    $0. 00 Dallas Denver Los Angeles Pittsburgh San Diego San Jose

    Light Rail Bus Rapid Transit

    Source: National Transit Database and six transit agencies.

    Operating Cost Per Passenger Transit operating costs can also be measured on
    a per passenger trip basis. Trip

    Operating cost per passenger trip measures the total annual operating cost
    divided by the total annual passenger boardings, regardless of whether the
    passenger is transferring from a bus to a Light Rail vehicle, or vice versa.
    Thus, it shows how much it costs to carry a person on a trip, regardless of
    the length of that trip. Using this measure, four of six Bus Rapid Transit
    routes had lower operating costs per passenger trip than did Light Rail
    systems, as shown in figure 9.

    Figure 9: Operating Cost Per Unlinked Passenger Trip, 1999 Dollars $6. 00

    $5. 60 $5. 10

    $5. 00

    $4. 07

    $4. 00

    $3. 79

    $3. 00

    $2. 68 $2. 40

    $2. 16

    $2. 00

    $1. 68 $1. 21

    $1. 06 $1. 19

    $1. 00

    $0. 31

    $0. 00 Dallas Denver Los Angeles Pittsburgh San Diego San Jose

    Light Rail Bus Rapid Transit

    Source: National Transit Database and six transit agencies.

    The wide disparities in operating costs and ridership levels are likely due
    to the variety of Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail systems we reviewed. For
    example, our evaluation of Bus Rapid Transit service in Dallas included the
    costs to move 5.2 miles of barriers twice a day to allow Bus Rapid Transit
    and other HOVs to use the lanes, as well as enforcement and roadway

    assistance costs. In Los Angeles, the Bus Rapid Transit service on the
    Wilshire- Whittier line has very high ridership- about as high as the
    highest ridership levels achieved by Light Rail lines in the United States.
    High ridership generally reduces the cost per rider. In contrast, both San
    Diego and San Jose have lower Bus Rapid Transit ridership, which contributes
    to higher costs per rider. In addition, vehicle sizes and passenger capacity
    can vary greatly between Light Rail and bus vehicles, which can affect
    vehiclebased

    comparisons. 17 The Light Rail systems also have varied functions that can
    affect operating costs. For example, Denver?s initial Light Rail system
    operated as a slower local circulator system on city streets shared with
    vehicular traffic, while San Diego?s system is used more for longer
    commuting trips. 18 Ridership and Speed of Bus

    Two elements of transit system performance are ridership and system Rapid
    Transit and Light Rail speed. We found that while ridership varied
    considerably, the largest Vary Widely ridership on Bus Rapid Transit and
    Light Rail systems were quite similar. We also found that speed varied but
    that Bus Rapid Transit projects in our review were generally faster. This
    was likely due to the nature of the Bus

    Rapid Transit systems that we visited; express bus operations or operations
    with longer stop spacing have higher speeds.

    We found that ridership on Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail systems varies
    widely and depends, in part, on frequency of service, number of stops,

    17 Light Rail vehicles had a capacity about double that of the Bus Rapid
    Transit vehicles used on the routes we examined. To account for these
    differences, we also compared cities' operating costs per passenger space
    per hour and operating costs per passenger space per mile. These measures,
    based on the actual seating and standing spaces of the rail and bus vehicles
    used on the routes we examined, compared the cost of carrying enough room to
    carry a passenger for 1 hour and for 1 mile. The analysis again showed a
    mixed pattern of costs; Light Rail was less expensive in four of six cities
    in cost per passenger space per hour and in half the cities in terms of cost
    per passenger space per mile. 18 The slower Central Corridor was the first
    completed section of the Denver Light Rail system. The Southwest Corridor,
    which opened in 2000, does not operate on city streets because it is grade-
    separated and runs on exclusive tracks, allowing it to achieve higher
    speeds.

    hours of operation, and customer demand. For example, ridership on 4 busways
    ranged from 7,000 riders per day to about 30, 000 per day and averaged about
    15, 600 riders per day. For 13 bus lines on HOV lanes, ridership ranged from
    1, 000 to about 25, 000 riders per day, with an average ridership of about
    8, 100. In addition, the ridership on the two arterial street Bus Rapid
    Transit lines in Los Angeles was about 9,000 to 56, 000 per day, with an
    average of 32, 500 per day. The highest Bus Rapid Transit ridership

    was on Los Angeles? Wilshire- Whitter line, which runs buses about every 5
    minutes and operates all day. Light Rail system ridership also varies
    widely. For example, ridership on 18 Light Rail lines ranged from 7, 000
    riders to 57, 000 daily riders and averaged about 29,000 per day. The
    largest Light Rail ridership was also found in Los Angeles on its Blue Line.

    According to a transportation consultant, system speeds generally depend on
    characteristics such as the distance between stops, fare- collection
    methods, and the degree to which the tracks or roadway are exclusive to
    transit vehicles or share right- of- way with cars and other vehicular
    traffic,

    as both buses and Light Rail lines typically do in downtown areas. In the
    cities with both Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail, Bus Rapid Transit speeds
    were higher than Light Rail in five of six cities. The high- speed Bus Rapid
    Transit lines, as shown in figure 10, are generally commuter bus routes that
    run much or their entire route on highway HOV lanes.

    Figure 10: Average Speed of Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail Service, 1999
    Miles per hour 60

    56 50 40

    35 32 29 30

    23 24

    21 20

    16 17

    16 14

    11 10

    0

    Dallas Denver Los Angeles Pittsburgh San Diego San Jose Light Rail Bus Rapid
    Transit

    Source: National Transit Database and six transit agencies.

    Bus Rapid Transit improvements to service such as exclusive bus lanes,
    skipped stops, dual bus lanes, and busways each may provide incremental
    improvements in vehicle speeds. Improvements such as bus traffic signal
    priority, level boarding onto low- floor buses, schedules based on time
    between buses rather than set schedules, fewer stops, and active management
    of bus spacing and traffic signal priority from a bus operations control
    center, can also each contribute to better service. For example, the Los
    Angeles Wilshire- Whitter Rapid Bus route made many of these improvements,
    resulting in a 29- percent improvement in average bus speeds. According to
    transit officials, one- third of the speed improvement along the Wilshire
    Avenue route was from the bus signal priority system and the rest from the
    other improvements.

    Bus Rapid Transit and Besides cost and performance characteristics already
    discussed, Bus Rapid

    Light Rail Have a Transit and Light Rail each have a variety of advantages
    and disadvantages. Bus Rapid Transit generally has the advantage of (1)
    having more flexibility

    Variety of Advantages than Light Rail, (2) being able to phase in service
    rather than having to wait and Disadvantages

    for an entire system to be built, and (3) being used as an interim system
    until Light Rail is built. Transit operators with experience in Bus Rapid
    Transit systems told us that one of the challenges faced by Bus Rapid

    Transit is the negative stigma potential riders attach to buses regarding
    their noise, pollution, and quality of ride. Light Rail has advantages,
    according to transit officials, associated with increased economic
    development and improved community image. On the negative side, building a
    Light Rail system can have a tendency to provide a bias toward building
    additional rail lines in the future. Bus Rapid Transit Is

    Bus Rapid Transit systems operate more flexibly than Light Rail systems.
    Generally More Flexible Bus Rapid Transit can respond to changes in
    employment, land- use, and Than Light Rail community patterns by increasing
    or decreasing capacity. Bus Rapid Transit routes can also be adjusted and
    rerouted over time to serve new developments and dispersed employment
    centers that may have resulted from urban sprawl. 19 For example, an
    official in San Jose noted that because of development outside the city
    center, there are now eight employment centers that need to be considered in
    its transit analysis. On the other hand, Light Rail lines are fixed and
    cannot easily change to adjust to new patterns of housing and employment.
    For example, the western

    portion of the Los Angeles Light Rail Green Line was built in part to
    provide mass transit service for workers in defense production facilities in
    Los Angeles. However, by the time the Green Line opened these facilities had
    been closed. As a result, projected ridership levels were not achieved.

    Although Bus Rapid Transit sometimes uses rail- style park- and- ride lots,
    Bus Rapid Transit routes can also collect riders in neighborhoods and then
    provide rapid long- distance service by entering a busway or HOV facility.
    Transit agencies have considerable flexibility to provide long distance
    service without requiring a transfer between vehicles. This is a significant
    19 Urban sprawl is often characterized as a form of growth that is low-
    density, autodependent

    development that rapidly spreads on the fringes of existing communities.

    Community Development: Extent of Federal Influence on ?Urban Sprawl? is
    Unclear (GAO/ RCED- 99- 87, Apr. 30, 1999).

    benefit, because some research has shown that transit riders view
    transferring to be a significant disincentive to using mass transit. In
    contrast, Light Rail systems frequently require a transfer of some type-

    either from a bus or a private automobile. When Light Rail lines are
    introduced, transit agencies commonly reroute their bus systems to feed the
    rail line. This can have the effect of making overall bus operations less
    efficient when the highest- ridership bus route has been replaced by Light
    Rail; the short feeder bus routes can be relatively costly. Finally, bus-
    based systems? ability to operate both on and off a busway or bus lane
    provides Bus Rapid Transit the flexibility to respond to operating problems.
    For example, buses can pass disabled vehicles, while Light Rail trains can
    be delayed behind a stalled train or other vehicle on the tracks. Thus, the
    impact of a breakdown of a Bus Rapid Transit vehicle is limited,

    while a disabled Light Rail train may disrupt portions of the system. Bus
    Rapid Transit Operation

    Bus Rapid Transit systems differ from Light Rail systems in that they Can Be
    Phased in provide greater flexibility in how they can be implemented and
    operated. In constructing a Bus Rapid Transit system, it is not necessary to
    include all the final elements before beginning operations; it is possible
    to phase in improvements over time. Improvements such as signal
    prioritization and

    low- floor buses, which improve capacity and bus speed, can be added
    incrementally. These incremental changes can have significant effects. For
    example, one Los Angeles Bus Rapid Transit route increased its speed and cut
    10 percent off its schedule time, by installing signal priority for buses to
    provide several additional seconds to allow buses to pass through
    intersections before the signal changed. Overall, the line was able to
    reduce travel time by 29 percent with all the improvements. In contrast, a

    transit expert noted that a Light Rail line segment must be fully completed
    and tested before starting operation and realizing benefits. Bus Rapid
    Transit Can Be an

    Bus Rapid Transit also has the advantage of establishing a mass transit
    Interim System corridor and building ridership without precluding future
    changes. The development of a busway secures a transit right- of- way for
    the future. Some cities have identified Bus Rapid Transit as a means of
    building transit ridership in a travel corridor to the point where
    investment in a rail alternative becomes a cost- effective choice. For
    example, one of the projects in FTA?s demonstration program, the Dulles
    Corridor Bus Rapid Transit project in Virginia, hopes to build transit
    ridership in this fashion. However, converting a bus facility to Light Rail
    involves additional capital

    costs. The idea of converting a Pittsburgh busway to rail was studied by the
    Port Authority of Allegheny County, and the agency concluded that the $401
    million capital cost of the conversion was too high. Bus Service?s Negative

    Officials we interviewed from FTA, transit agencies, academia, and private
    Image Can Be Overcome consulting stated that a negative image exists for bus
    service, particularly With Equal Service

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

    to Bus Rapid Transit in part because the public sees rail as faster,
    quieter, and less polluting than buses, even though Bus Rapid Transit is
    designed to overcome those problems. While transit officials noted a public
    bias toward Light Rail, research has found that riders have no preference
    for rail over bus when service characteristics are equal. While
    environmental benefits have helped justify Light Rail systems, the gap in
    environmental benefits between rail and buses may be narrowing. FTA and bus
    manufacturers have focused on improving the design of buses

    not just to increase their attractiveness, but also to reduce their noise
    levels and emissions. In December 1999, we reported that diesel buses are
    becoming much cleaner. 20 We noted that according to the EPA, emissions from
    individual buses declined substantially between 1988 and 1999. Improvements
    in diesel technology have resulted in heavy- duty diesel engines that are
    more reliable and less polluting than their predecessors. In addition, we
    found that newer buses can use alternative fuels, such as liquefied natural
    gas, fuel cells, and hybrid technologies, which may have

    some beneficial effect on urban air quality as they are adopted into bus
    fleets. In commenting on a draft of this report, FTA officials said that the
    poor image of buses was probably a result of a history of slow bus service
    due to congested streets, slow boarding and fare collection, and traffic
    lights. Bus Rapid Transit is essentially designed to eliminate delays and
    provide faster service on better vehicles. FTA believes that the image of
    buses can be improved over time through bus service that incorporates Bus
    Rapid Transit features. This change could replicate the improved image that
    Light Rail systems experienced when modern Light Rail systems began to be
    built in the 1980?s.

    20 Mass Transit: Use of Alternative Fuels in Transit Buses (GAO/ RCED- 00-
    18, Dec. 14, 1999).

    Light Rail Seen as a Transit agency officials told us that Light Rail
    provides the opportunity for Stimulus for Community

    improved economic development along the rail lines. Several city transit
    Economic Development officials and transit consultants told us that
    communities see Light Rail as a mark that a city is "world- class," and
    could help a city improve its image and ability to attract economic
    development. According to transit agency

    officials, because Light Rail systems have permanent stations and routes,
    developers are more likely to locate new business, residential, or retail
    development along a Light Rail line than along a bus route. For example,

    Dallas transit officials cited $800 million in commercial development along
    its Light Rail line. The Light Rail line itself cost $860 million to build
    in 1994, so these officials saw the Light Rail line as an excellent
    investment. 21 On the other hand, San Jose transit officials noted that
    while some residential development had occurred along its Light Rail line,
    the

    expectation is for changes in land use over a longer period of time, perhaps
    over 20 years, resulting in a more densely developed corridor. Transit
    officials we interviewed disagreed on the extent that Bus Rapid Transit
    could spur economic development. For example, officials in Dallas said they
    had not experienced development near their Bus- HOV stations that they could
    trace to the Bus Rapid Transit service. However, the Director of the
    Cleveland Bus Rapid Transit project cited development already occurring in
    the Euclid Avenue corridor in anticipation of the Bus Rapid Transit line.
    Here the Bus Rapid Transit line would operate much

    like a Light Rail system, with the same kind of fixed route on city streets
    and identifiable station structures that allow for transit- oriented
    development on Light Rail routes.

    In commenting on a draft of this report, FTA officials said that Light
    Rail?s economic development impact comes about, in part, because of the high
    capital investment that gives a sense of permanence. Rail?s economic
    development impact at stations also results from a pattern of rail service
    where there is excellent service to rail stations but much poorer service
    requiring a transfer beyond the stations. According to FTA officials, most
    development attributed to rail service occurs within walking distance of

    the rail station. In contrast, bus service that can leave the guideway and
    eliminate the need for a transfer places less emphasis on the stations as a

    21 Transit experts noted that it is difficult to determine how much of
    investment is additional investment that would not have otherwise occurred,
    and how much investment is redirected from somewhere else in a city to areas
    near the transit facility.

    focus for economic development. This may diffuse the economic development
    impact of Bus Rapid Transit guideways and stations.

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

    Usually Expanded Over first rail line. Rather, the early Light Rail lines
    were often later extended or Time additional lines added. Of the 13 cities
    that built Light Rail systems since

    1980,  5 cities already have more than one Light Rail line operating,  4
    cities have already extended their initial Light Rail lines,  3 cities are
    doing initial expansions of earlier systems, and  Buffalo is the only city
    of the 13 that has not expanded or is not expanding its initial Light Rail
    system.

    In addition, of the 13 cities,  9 cities have current Full Funding Grant
    Agreements amounting to over

    $2. 6 billion and have construction under way on 10 projects to expand
    existing Light Rail systems. Overall, the cost estimates for these projects
    range from $19.5 million per mile to $238.3 million per mile with an average
    cost of about $54 million to construct a mile of Light Rail line.  10
    cities have proposed 15 additional New Starts Light Rail projects that

    are in various levels of design or development. Two transportation experts
    told us that Light Rail systems, once installed, tend to expand because of
    the ease of making rail to rail connections, as opposed to bus to rail
    connections. In addition, they said that expansion

    also occurs because once a system has incurred the initial costs of building
    rail maintenance and repair facilities and training a new labor force of
    drivers and specialized maintenance workers, the initial costs can be spread
    over a larger system.

    Conclusions A number of transit options are available to communities to help
    address growing traffic congestion. One such option is Bus Rapid Transit.
    Bus Rapid Transit is an emerging approach to using buses as an improved
    highspeed transit system. By employing innovative technologies such as
    signal prioritization, better stations or shelters, fewer stops, and faster
    service on more attractive vehicles, Bus Rapid Transit shows promise in
    meeting a

    variety of transit needs. In addition, in many communities Bus Rapid Transit
    systems can have lower capital costs than Light Rail systems yet can often
    provide similar performance. Further, Bus Rapid Transit?s

    flexibility may be a potentially valuable feature for many communities with
    sprawling patterns of development, where public transportation needs can be
    more complex and difficult to address than focusing on a single central
    business district.

    While Bus Rapid Transit shows promise, the primary federal program to
    support new and expanded transit systems, the New Starts Program, will
    provide little capital funding for Bus Rapid Transit over the next 2 years.
    First, the New Starts Program is stretched to its capacity to respond to the
    growing number of eligible projects and few projects of any kind will
    receive funding for the remainder of the current program. In addition,

    some of the Bus Rapid Transit projects do not fit the exclusive right- of-
    way requirements of the New Starts Program and thus would not be eligible
    for funding consideration. Further, since Bus Rapid Transit is a relatively
    new

    concept, some of the projects have not reached the point of being ready for
    funding consideration and there are many other rail projects further along
    in development with which they will ultimately have to compete. FTA is
    encouraging Bus Rapid Transit through a Demonstration Program. This program
    does not provide funding for construction but rather focuses on obtaining
    and sharing information on projects being pursued by local

    transit agencies. The evaluations of the Bus Rapid Transit projects, which
    are under way and planned, will hopefully provide additional needed
    information on the effectiveness of this transit option. The future of Bus
    Rapid Transit in the United States largely rests with the willingness of
    communities to consider it as they explore transit options to address their
    specific situations. Such decisions are difficult and made on

    a case- by- case basis considering a variety of factors including cost,
    ridership, environmental impacts, and community needs and attitudes. No one
    transit option is right for all situations. However, given the merits of Bus
    Rapid Transit and its potential cost advantages, we believe that it should
    be given serious consideration as options are explored and

    evaluated. Agency Comments and

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

    review and comment. Officials from the Department generally agreed with the
    report. Officials from FTA?s Office of Research, Demonstration, and

    Innovation; Office of Planning; and Office of the Chief Counsel provided
    observations on the public?s poor image of bus service and the economic
    development impact of rail and bus service, which we included in the report.
    These officials also provided technical comments, which we incorporated into
    the report as appropriate.

    As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
    earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after
    the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to
    the Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of the Federal Transit
    Administration. We will also make copies available to others upon request.

    If you or your staff have questions about this report, please call me at
    (202) 512- 2834 or write to heckerj@ gao. gov. Key contributors to this
    report were Samer Abbas, Robert Ciszewski, David Ehrlich, and Glen
    Trochelman. JayEtta Z. Hecker Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

    List of Congressional Requesters The Honorable Tom DeLay Majority Whip The
    Honorable Don Young Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
    The Honorable Thomas Petri Chairman, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure The Honorable Tom Tancredo
    House of Representatives

    Appendi Appendi xes x I

    Scope and Methodology To identify the status of federal funding for Bus
    Rapid Transit and Light Rail systems, we reviewed FTA budget and program
    data, reports on New Starts projects, and prior GAO reports. To analyze
    support being provided to Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail, we used the most
    recent report on the New Starts Program Annual Report on New Starts,
    Proposed Allocation of Funds for Fiscal Year 2002, Department of
    Transportation, Federal Transportation Administration, May 25, 2001. To
    describe FTA?s Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration Program, we interviewed
    officials from FTA, reviewed program documents, and contacted the
    demonstration project sponsors for additional information.

    To determine the capital costs of Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail projects,
    we obtained cost data from FTA and transit agencies for selected cities. For
    Bus Rapid Transit systems, we initially selected the cities of Dallas,
    Denver, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, San Diego, and San Jose because they had
    both Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail systems. We added Houston and Seattle
    because they have extensive Bus Rapid Transit type systems and are in
    advanced stages of planning to build Light Rail systems. We also added Miami
    and Charlotte because they are operating dedicated busways. Lastly, we added
    Orlando because it is operating a Bus Rapid Transit type

    system on arterial streets. For Light Rail, we identified 13 cities that
    built systems between 1980 and 2000. We limited systems to this timeframe
    due to concerns about the availability of data from earlier dates. To obtain
    the capital costs for the Bus Rapid Transit systems, we used prior reports,
    if available, or contacted the local transit agency. For the Light Rail
    projects,

    FTA and transit agency officials provided total capital expenditures. We
    calculated capital costs based on the cost to complete the transit line,
    escalated to 2000 dollars. To escalate project costs, we used the Gross
    Domestic Product Implicit Price Deflator applied to the lump- sum capital
    cost at the year of completion. The only exception to this method was for

    the San Diego Light Rail system. Due to the way in which this system was
    built over time, escalating from the final lump- sum cost of the projects
    was not appropriate. However, the transit agency provided us annual capital

    expenditures, and we escalated each of these annual costs to 2000 dollars to
    determine the capital cost of this system. The capital cost analysis we
    conducted focused on capital cost per mile that was derived by dividing the
    total escalated costs by the number of miles of the various systems. We used
    cost per mile as our measure because it presents comparable information on a
    common basis. While other measures might have been attempted, such as
    annualized costs or

    cost per passenger, sufficient data were not available to do so. However, in
    our view, cost per mile presents a reasonable representation of the
    magnitude of the cost differences. In determining operating costs, we
    selected cites that had both significant Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail
    systems- Dallas, Denver, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, San Diego, and San Jose.
    We believed it important to use cities with both types of systems so that
    accounting of costs would be more consistent. Local transit agencies did not
    collect or maintain operating

    costs for Bus Rapid Transit systems or their individual lines. As a result,
    transit authorities had to calculate or estimate the operating costs
    associated with their operations. Because of the difficulty of this, we were

    able to analyze a limited number of Bus Rapid Transit lines in the cities.
    Based on discussions with the transit agencies, we judgmentally selected
    routes that had the most Bus Rapid Transit elements. The following
    identifies the Bus Rapid Transit type line in each city and the source of
    that

    data. For Light Rail operating costs, data were obtained from the 1999
    National Transit Database. Dallas: We examined express bus routes on two
    Dallas area barrierseparated

    HOV lanes: I- 35 East (Stemmons), and I- 30 (Thornton). The Dallas Area
    Rapid Transit agency calculated the operating costs for buses using the HOV
    lanes. The reported operating costs are actual operating costs, not
    estimates, and are "fully loaded" to include direct,

    indirect, and general and administrative allocations. This includes the cost
    to move 5.2 miles of barriers twice a day to provide an extra HOV lane
    during rush hours. Denver: At the suggestion of local transit officials, we
    used the 120X

    Express Bus Route as an example of Bus Rapid Transit in Denver, since it
    includes all- day service and a substantial portion of the route runs on a
    freeway HOV lane. Operating costs were estimated according to average
    operating cost per vehicle hour for regular bus service. A Regional
    Transportation District official told us that he believed that the operating
    costs for the 120X route would be similar to regular bus operating costs,
    and that the same buses and drivers are used for both

    the 120X and regular buses.  Los Angeles: We examined two Bus Rapid Transit
    routes: one runs along Wilshire- Whittier Boulevard and the other along
    Ventura

    Boulevard. Los Angeles officials provided an estimate of the operating costs
    for these lines. These lines operate all- day on routes that run
    concurrently with local buses, but with fewer stops and higher

    ridership. The buses travel on streets with other traffic and do not run on
    HOV lanes or bus lanes.  Pittsburgh: Two Bus Rapid Transit busways were
    examined in Pittsburgh: the East Busway and the South Busway. The West
    Busway

    was not included because it was not open in 1999. Pittsburgh officials
    provided actual ridership figures and estimated the operating costs, vehicle
    hours, and vehicle miles for all routes using each busway from the outer end
    of the busway and including the downtown loop circulator portion where buses
    pick up and drop off passengers. Operating costs included all busway
    expenses for the two busways, including salaries and wages for operators,
    maintenance, and administration; diesel fuel;

    maintenance of facilities; materials and supplies; utilities; and purchased
    services.  San Diego: We examined several express commuter bus routes in
    San

    Diego: the 810, 820, 850, 860, and 870. All travel at least part of their
    route on barrier- separated HOV lanes. San Diego officials provided
    estimates for the operating cost for these lines. San J ose: On the
    recommendation of local transit officials, we examined

    one Bus Rapid Transit route of the Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority,
    Route 102, from South San Jose to Stanford Research Park. Route 102 is a 32-
    mile long express commuter bus route that is 70 percent on HOV lanes-- the
    highest HOV level of any Valley Transit bus route. Operating costs were
    estimated according to average operating cost per vehicle hour for regular
    bus service.

    In analyzing operating cost we used three measures: cost per vehicle revenue
    hour, cost per vehicle revenue mile, and cost per passenger trip. These are
    commonly used comparisons in this industry. To arrive at the results, the
    operating cost for 1999 was divided by the number of hours the vehicles
    operated in service that year, the number of miles the vehicles traveled
    when in service that year, or the number of passenger trips on

    each route that year. We also tried to calculate cost per passenger mile,
    but sufficient information was not widely available on where and how many
    passengers were getting on and off vehicles along their routes.

    To obtain information on the ridership and performance of Bus Rapid Transit
    and Light Rail systems, we relied on information obtained from transit
    agencies, supplemented with information from the National Transit Database,
    and interviewed FTA and transit agency officials, academic researchers, and
    private consultants.

    To determine other advantages and disadvantages of Bus Rapid Transit and
    Light Rail systems, we reviewed FTA documents, academic and private
    consultants? reports, and interviewed FTA officials and study authors. We
    also interviewed transit agency officials to determine what additional
    factors they considered when they made choices to develop bus or rail
    systems, and what they had observed in the actual construction and

    operation of the systems. Certain limitations apply to the data presented in
    this report. First, the report primarily focuses on the cost of transit
    projects; we have not attempted to quantify all the possible benefits of
    these projects. Therefore, our review is not a comprehensive cost- benefit
    analysis. Second, because of differences among transit agencies in how they
    report operational information, analyses in this report generally are
    restricted to operating cost comparisons between bus and Light Rail within a
    given transit agency. Conclusions on the relative operating efficiency of
    one transit agency versus another should not be drawn from this report. In
    addition, not all the transit agencies we reviewed were able to totally
    segregate Bus Rapid Transit costs from their overall bus operating costs,
    which limited our analysis to overall operating cost rather than the various
    elements that contribute to it. Finally, transit agencies collect ridership
    information in a variety of ways, ranging from actual farebox counts to
    periodic ridership

    surveys. Because transit agencies are the only available source for such
    information, we relied on ridership data they provided.

    In addition, for some of the Light Rail analyses in this report we relied on
    information contained in FTA?s 1999 National Transit Database, the most
    recent at the time of our analysis. While we did not perform a

    comprehensive data reliability assessment of this information, we did
    determine that FTA has procedures in place to monitor data quality. We
    performed our review from July 2000 through August 2001 in accordance

    with generally accepted government auditing standards.

    Appendi x II

    Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration Projects For each of the 10 Bus Rapid
    Transit demonstration projects supported by the Federal Transit
    Administration, the following provides a project description, construction
    cost estimates, a summary of the comparative analysis used to choose Bus
    Rapid Transit, and status of the project. The projects are:

     Boston, MA - Silver Line  Charlotte, NC - Independence Corridor
    Cleveland, OH - Euclid Corridor Transportation Project  Dulles Corridor, VA
    - Dulles Corridor Bus Rapid Transit  Eugene, OR - Pilot East- West Corridor
     Hartford, CT -- Hartford- New Britain Busway  Honolulu, HI - CityExpress!
     Miami, FL - South Miami- Dade Busway  San Jose, CA - Line 22 Rapid
    Transit Corridor  San Juan, PR - Rio Hondo Connector Bus Rapid Transit

    Boston, MA - Silver Line Project Description The Massachusetts Bay
    Transportation Authority is constructing a twophased Silver Line project,
    which will run from Dudley Square to Logan Airport, via downtown and the
    South Boston Waterfront. As of January

    2001, funding has been secured for one of the project?s two phases. The
    project calls for the buses to operate on exclusive lanes on surface streets
    and in an exclusive busway- tunnel. Vehicles are expected to feature
    lowfloors

    and real- time information. Some buses will use alternative- fuels to reduce
    emissions. When it begins operations, the Silver Line is expected to make 17
    trips per hour with a round- trip running time of 48 minutes. Once
    completed, the Silver Line expects to serve 60, 000 riders daily. Cost
    Estimates According to a Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
    official, the estimated cost for developing the two phases of the Silver
    Line is $1. 34

    billion, of which $641 million has been secured. The Authority is seeking an
    additional $700 million from federal, state, and local sources. Estimated
    Time Savings The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority estimates a 3 to
    5 minute

    time savings from Washington Street to downtown. Time savings for the
    completed Silver Line and the service from South Station to the Piers area
    and Logan Airport are not possible to calculate because this is a new
    service.

    Comparative Analysis The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority decided
    that Bus Rapid Transit could attract similar ridership as a Light Rail
    system. In addition, according to the Project Manager, the Bus Rapid Transit
    project could be built at a much lower cost than Light Rail. Further, a
    busway would create fewer disturbances to Boston?s infrastructure than Light
    Rail. However, the

    construction of the Bus Rapid Transit system allows for possible
    construction of a future Light Rail system. Status According to the Project
    Manager, as of January 2001, the project was 35 percent to 40 percent
    complete. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority plans to provide a
    fully integrated Silver Line service by 2008.

    Charlotte, NC - Independence Corridor

    Project Description Charlotte?s project involves extending the existing
    busway on Independence Boulevard, adding intelligent transportation systems
    on its buses, and adding new stations. In 1998, the Charlotte Area Transit
    System opened a 2. 6- mile two- way express busway (without stations) in an
    unused

    HOV lane that, according to the Project Manager, cannot open to carpools
    until 2006, when the next phase of the Independence freeway project is
    completed. The project allows buses to bypass congestion. Under the

    current Bus Express Lane system, the Charlotte Area Transit System estimates
    that the monthly total ridership for January 2000 on the busway was about
    15,700 -an increase of 55 percent from the previous year. The express bus
    routes make 32 trips during the morning period and 29 trips during the
    afternoon. The plan consists of retrofitting 3.6 miles of

    Independence Boulevard into a busway facility with five new stations and
    adding intelligent transportation systems technology such as automated
    vehicle locators and automatic passenger counters. The long- range goal is
    to extend the busway 13.5 miles, according to the Project Manager. The

    Metropolitan Transit Commission began a Major Investment Study that will
    cover the entire corridor and involve an evaluation of various forms of
    transit, including Bus Rapid Transit, Light Rail, and Commuter Rail. The
    Commission expects to complete the study in late 2001.

    Cost Estimates According to the Project Manger, the Major Investment Study
    will determine the cost of the next phase. Federal, state, and local funding
    is planned for the project with the local share coming from a sales tax
    approved in a countywide referendum in 1998. The Charlotte Area Transit

    System plans to dedicate this revenue source to public transportation
    expenditures. The Charlotte Area Transit System estimated that the sales tax
    would generate over $50 million annually for transit in the Charlotte

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

    Transit system saves 10 to 15 minutes in the afternoon rush hour trips and 2
    to 4 minutes in the morning. According to the Project Manager, the Major
    Investment Study will estimate time savings for the next phase.

    Comparative Analysis The Major Investment Study will compare various forms
    of transit, including Bus Rapid Transit, Light Rail, and Commuter Railroad,
    according to the Project Manager. Status The 2. 6- mile express busway has
    been in use since 1998. In January 2000, it carried over 15, 000 passengers.
    The Major Investment Study is under way

    to analyze the remaining phase of this project. It is expected to be
    complete in late 2001. Cleveland, OH - Euclid Corridor Transportation
    Project

    Project Description The Euclid Corridor Transportation Project, located in
    the cities of Cleveland and East Cleveland, will connect the region?s two
    largest employment centers- downtown/ central business district and
    University Circle. The project calls for bus stations to be located over 7
    miles on a

    landscaped center median, on the city?s major arterial street. The exclusive
    bus lane would be located along the median, with the curb lane available for
    other vehicle traffic. The last 2. 5 miles of the route will have buses
    operating at the curb lane in mixed traffic. According to the Project
    Director, the vehicles are expected to be 60 foot, articulated, low- floor,
    diesel/ electric buses. The system features an exclusive busway, intelligent
    transportation systems technologies, traffic signal preemption, and faster
    boarding and alighting due to off- board fare collection. Cost Estimates The
    Euclid Corridor Transportation Project estimates the capital cost for the
    program at $220 million.

    Estimated Time Savings The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority
    estimates a travel time reduction of 30 to 40 minutes along the route.

    Comparative Analysis In December 1995, Greater Cleveland Regional Transit
    Authority?s management planning organization, the Northeast Ohio Area Wide
    Coordinating Agency, selected the Bus Rapid Transit project. Prior to this
    selection, rail options were evaluated against the Bus Rapid Transit
    approach. The Authority?s decision was heavily influenced by the costs as

    compared with the expected benefits of the options. The Authority selected
    the Bus Rapid Transit option because it was estimated to cost about one-
    half of the best rail option, yet would achieve many of the transit
    benefits.

    Status The FTA New Starts Program has given the project a ?recommended?
    rating. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority is currently working on
    design completion. It expects to begin limited service by 2005 and complete
    service in 2007, according to the Project Director.

    Dulles Corridor, VA - Dulles Corridor Bus Rapid Transit

    Project Description The Dulles Corridor Bus Rapid Transit project is part of
    a multiyear, fourphased effort to bring rail service to the rapidly growing
    Dulles Corridor in the Washington, D. C., metropolitan area. The Virginia
    Department of Rail and Public Transportation?s goal is to build a 23. 5-
    mile rail transit system in the area that will serve as an extension to the
    103- mile Metrorail service.

    The Bus Rapid Transit segment of the project is to serve as an interim step
    to rail. The plan calls for vehicles in the Bus Rapid Transit project to
    operate between an existing Metrorail stop and Dulles International Airport
    and beyond to Loudon County. Most of the route to the airport would be on
    the existing limited access road. A total of four stations would be
    constructed. Consideration is being given to buses that would feature
    intelligent transportation systems technology such as real- time and parking
    information and automated vehicle location. The plan calls for buses to run
    every 10 to 20 minutes in peak hours and every 20 to 60 minutes during the
    off- peak and weekend hours. The Virginia Department of Rail and Public
    Transportation estimates an average weekday ridership of 23,000 for the
    fully operating Bus Rapid Transit system. It plans to start operations in
    2003 and begin conversion to rail by 2006. The Virginia Department of Rail
    and Public Transportation plans full implementation of rail by 2010.

    Cost Estimates The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation
    estimates a total cost of $287.3 million for the Bus Rapid Transit portion
    of the project and $2. 2 billion for the entire project including rail
    service. Estimated Time Savings The Virginia Department of Rail and Public
    Transportation Project Manager

    estimates that for the Bus Rapid Transit portion of the project, average
    rush hour time savings will be about 18 minutes.

    Comparative Analysis In 1997, a Major Investment Study on the Dulles
    Corridor recommended a ?seamless? extension of the Metrorail system. The
    Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation evaluated Light Rail
    as an alternative, but it did not offer any cost savings or operational
    advantages. A 1999 supplement to the Major Investment Study concluded that
    Bus Rapid Transit could provide interim mobility improvements in the
    corridor but, due to operating constraints in the Tysons Corner area and
    projected future demand, a rail line was the most appropriate long- term
    solution. Current

    analysis will determine the most effective alignment for the future
    Metrorail extension. Status According to the Project Manger, in 2000, FTA
    approved advancing the Bus

    Rapid Transit portion of the project into preliminary engineering, and the
    entire Bus Rapid Transit- to- rail project into the National Environmental
    Policy Act process. The Bus Rapid Transit portion of the project received a
    ?recommended? rating from FTA.

    Eugene, OR - Pilot EastWest Corridor

    Project Description Eugene?s Lane Transit District is directing a two-
    phased, 10- mile Pilot EastWest Corridor Bus Rapid Transit project that will
    connect east Springfield to west Eugene. The Lane Transit District?s goal is
    to provide fast ?rail- like? transit service along major corridors with
    smaller buses providing access from neighborhoods to the Bus Rapid Transit
    Lines, nearby shopping, and

    employment. The project calls for the system to use exclusive busways,
    traffic signal priority, prepaid fares, real- time information, and fewer
    stops. At implementation, the pilot corridor will operate at 10- minute
    intervals during weekdays and 20- minute intervals during evenings and
    weekends.

    Cost Estimates The Lane Transit District estimates a total cost of $44
    million to construct the project.

    Estimated Time Savings The Lane Transit District estimates that the Bus
    Rapid Transit system would decrease travel time by 20 percent compared to
    regular bus service in the year it begins operation. It also estimates that
    this may grow to 40 percent by 2015.

    Comparative Analysis According to the Project Manager, the Lane Transit
    District conducted a Major Investment Study that determined that Bus Rapid
    Transit is the preferred approach to Eugene?s transportation needs. The
    evaluation concluded that Eugene currently does not have the population
    density to support a rail system. Status The Bus Rapid Transit project is in
    preliminary engineering and

    environmental assessment. According to the Project Manager, the Lane Transit
    District developed a public input process to educate residents and business
    owners about the Bus Rapid Transit project and to gather input on corridor
    issues such as engineering solutions and system image and character. The
    Project Manager stated that the goal is to complete Phase I by 2003 and
    Phase II by 2005. Once Phase I is completed, 4 miles of the project would be
    operational. The completion of Phase II would complete the 10- mile project
    and allow for full Bus Rapid Transit operation.

    Hartford, CT - Hartford New Britain Busway

    Project Description The Hartford- New Britain Busway project consists of a
    two- way, 9- mile exclusive busway linking downtown New Britain with
    Hartford?s Union Station. The plan calls for buses to use intelligent
    transportation systems technologies, possibly including signal priority,
    automatic vehicle location, real- time information, and a smart signal
    system for grade crossing control. The Connecticut Department of
    Transportation estimates that daily ridership will increase by almost 11,500
    new riders to 28, 500 riders in the

    selected busway system, according to the Planning Manager. Cost Estimates
    The Connecticut Department of Transportation estimates a total project cost
    of $100 million, according to the Planning Manager.

    Estimated Time Savings The Connecticut Department of Transportation
    estimates a 40.5 percent time savings using the busway from Hartford to New
    Britain. Comparative Analysis The Connecticut Department of Transportation
    recommended the busway

    project after considering six alternatives. The agency selected the busway
    project as the preferred option based on transit- related, highway, and
    arterial- roadway performance measures and cost.

    Status FTA approved the project into preliminary engineering with a
    ?recommended? New Starts project rating. The Connecticut Department of
    Transportation expects to begin design in 2001. The plan calls for the Bus

    Rapid Transit system to begin operating in 2003. Honolulu, HI - CityExpress!
    Project Description The City and County of Honolulu plans to expand its
    current bus system

    and implement Bus Rapid Transit in the primary urban corridor. Honolulu
    began a limited- stop express bus service in 1999 in the corridor as a
    precursor to Bus Rapid Transit. Known as ?CityExpress!? the system operates
    between Kalihi Transit Center and the University of Hawaii.

    During the first 6 months of operation, CityExpress! experienced a 50-
    percent increase in ridership. Honolulu plans to implement the Bus Rapid
    Transit system in the same corridor by providing exclusive lanes where heavy
    traffic congestion impedes the transit operation. According to the Public
    Transit Chief, the plan calls for Bus Rapid Transit to include transit
    centers, signal prioritization, and traveler information systems. A fully

    constructed Bus Rapid Transit system would produce an estimated 46, 000
    additional daily riders on mass transit in 2025. Cost Estimates Total
    capital cost is estimated at $1.06 billion over 25 years. Estimated Time
    Savings Bus Rapid Transit would result in estimated time savings of
    approximately 35 percent. Comparative Analysis The Major Investment Study/
    Draft Environmental Impact Statement recommended Bus Rapid Transit over
    Light Rail. Furthermore, it stated

    that the Bus Rapid Transit alternative forecasts the highest level of
    transit usage compared with other alternatives. The study deleted the rail
    option through a collaborative process after the analyses indicated that Bus
    Rapid

    Transit would provide an equal level of service and performance with less
    cost and impacts. Status The Honolulu City Council selected Bus Rapid
    Transit as the Locally Preferred Alternative in November 2000. According to
    the Public Transit Chief, it expects to complete the Final Environmental
    Impact Study in 2001. Upon competition of the study, the Chief said that
    Honolulu plans on seeking New Starts funding assistance from FTA. Miami, FL
    - South MiamiDade Busway

    Project Description The South Miami- Dade Busway project is an 11.5- mile
    expansion of the existing busway south to the cities of Homestead and
    Florida City. In 1997, the Miami- Dade Transit Agency implemented the
    original 8.5- mile busway. According to a transit agency official, this was
    to facilitate increased

    economic development to the region in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew. The
    system features exclusive lanes, signal priority, low- floor buses, and
    automated vehicle location and real- time announcements. The original
    busways resulted in significant growth in transit use, with ridership rising

    by 40 percent, according to the Management Chief. Cost Estimates The Miami-
    Dade Transit Agency states that the total estimated cost for the extension
    is $85.5 million, according to the Management Chief. Estimated Time Savings
    Currently, the Miami- Dade Transit Agency states that the scheduled time
    savings is less than 10 percent. The agency states that the time savings is
    minimal because buses operate at- grade and are interrupted at intersections
    located at half- mile intervals. Thus, service is not much faster than when
    the buses operate on U. S. Highway 1. Comparative Analysis The Management
    Chief stated that the Miami- Dade Transit Agency

    evaluated various modes of transit before building the South Miami- Dade
    Busway. It found other options too expensive: Heavy Rail would have cost 10
    times as much to build, while Light Rail would cost 4 times as much in
    comparison with a busway. In addition to the cost disparities, the agency
    concluded that Light Rail would be too disruptive to existing surface

    traffic.

    Status Construction is scheduled to begin in November or December 2001, with
    completion of the extension by 2003. The U. S. Department of Transportation
    is working with the Miami- Dade Transit Agency to coordinate the
    construction of the extension with its repair project of U. S. Highway 1 to
    reduce disruptions, according to the Management Chief. San Jose, CA - Line
    22

    Rapid Transit Corridor Project Description The Santa Clara Valley
    Transportation Authority plans to expand the ?backbone? of its bus system-
    the 27- mile Line 22 corridor-- into a Bus

    Rapid Transit project. The plan calls for enhanced station areas, fare
    prepayment, low- floor buses, and intelligent transportation systems
    technology such as automatic vehicle location and signal prioritization.
    Line 22 runs every 10 minutes during peak hours and operates near capacity
    with 28,000 average daily riders (18 percent of total system ridership).
    Based on projections for one segment of the project, the Santa

    Clara Valley Transportation Authority estimates that ridership could
    increase by over 9 percent.

    Cost Estimates Consultants for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation
    Authority estimated a total cost of $38 million.

    Estimated Time Savings After developing Line 22 into a Bus Rapid Transit
    line, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority expects to experience
    time savings in the range of 25 percent to 40 percent over current travel
    times. Comparative Analysis According to a Santa Clara Valley Transportation
    Authority official, Line

    22?s proximity to Caltrain- the Bay Area?s commuter railroad- served as a
    disincentive in considering a Light Rail transit project for this corridor.

    Status The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority has begun the
    preliminary engineering needed to complete elements of the line. The agency
    expects a fully operational Bus Rapid Transit system by late summer or fall
    2002 using federal highway and FTA Bus Capital funds, in addition to state
    and local funds.

    San Juan, PR - Rio Hondo Connector Bus Rapid Transit

    Project Description The Rio Hondo Connector Bus Rapid Transit project is to
    provide highspeed bus shuttle service between the Tren Urbano rapid transit
    line now under construction and intermodal transfer facilities. The plan
    calls for the

    the construction of a plaza and park- and- ride lot at the end of the
    connector, and a 2.5- mile length of limited- access HOV lanes in each
    direction. The project will feature intelligent transportation system
    technology, including automated vehicle location, computer- aided
    dispatching systems, traffic signal priority, and vehicle monitoring
    systems.

    Cost Estimates The Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority
    estimates a total cost of approximately $66 million for the entire project,
    including construction of HOV lanes and stations. The agency estimates $7
    million to $8 million for the Bus Rapid Transit portion of the project.
    Estimated Time Savings The Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority
    expects a 10minute

    travel time savings on the Bus Rapid Transit route. Comparative Analysis The
    Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority did not conduct an
    alternative analysis for this project. Status The Puerto Rico Highway and
    Transportation Authority is advancing its

    work on the highway element and expects to implement its Bus Rapid Transit
    system by 2003.

    Appendi x II I Capital Costs of Light Rail Systems Dollars in millions

    Escalated total cost

    Cost per mile Total cost (year

    Year system (year 2000

    System length (year 2000 Location or system of expenditure) opened

    dollars) (miles) dollars) Baltimore, MD

    Central Line 364. 00 1992 424.54 22. 6 18. 78 Three extensions 106. 30 1997
    111.82 6. 8 16.44

    Buffalo, NY 510. 60 1984 760. 50 6. 4 118. 83

    Dallas, TX

    S& W Oak Cliff 280. 70 1996 300.21 9. 6 31.27 Park Lane 579. 30 1997 609.40
    10. 4 58. 60

    Denver, CO

    Central Corridor 116. 00 1994 129.05 5. 3 24.35 Southwest Extension 176. 30
    2000 176.30 8. 7 20.26

    Los Angeles, CA

    Blue Line 775. 00 1990 954.55 22. 0 43. 39 Green Line 900. 00 1995 980.29
    20. 0 49. 01

    N. E. New Jersey

    Hudson Bergen 992. 10 2000 992. 1 10. 0 99. 21

    Pittsburgh, PA 540. 00 1985 780.01 25. 2 30. 95

    Portland, OR

    Banfield 282. 00 1986 398.64 15. 0 26. 58 Westside/ Hillsboro 963. 50 1998
    1, 001.77 17. 7 56. 60

    Sacramento, CA

    Original line 165. 00 1987 226.71 18. 3 12. 39 Mather Field Road Extension
    34. 00 1998 35.35 2. 3 15.37

    Dollars in millions

    Escalated total cost

    Cost per mile Total cost (year

    Year system (year 2000

    System length (year 2000

    Location or system of expenditure) opened dollars) (miles)

    dollars) Salt Lake City, UT

    South Light Rail Line 312. 50 1999 320.22 15. 0 21. 35

    San Diego, CA

    Blue Line 473. 93 1981 788.52 25. 2 31. 29 Orange Line 302. 46 1986 506.69
    21. 6 23. 46

    San Jose, CA

    Guadalupe 400. 00 1987 549.60 21. 0 26. 17 Tasman West 325. 00 1999 333.03
    7. 6 43.82

    St. Louis, MO

    Metrolink 348. 00 1993 395.27 19. 0 20. 80

    Total $8, 946. 69 $10,774.58 309. 7 34. 79

    Source: FTA and transit agencies.

    Appendi x I V

    Capital Costs of Bus Rapid Transit Systems Table 4: Capital Costs of Bus
    Rapid Transit Busways

    Dollars in millions

    Escalated total cost

    Cost per mile Total cost (year

    Year system (year 2000

    System length (year 2000 Location or system of expenditure) opened

    dollars) (miles) dollars) Houston, TX

    Katy (I- 10) 103. 50 1984 154.16 15. 3 10. 08 North (I- 45S) 138. 90 1984
    206.88 19. 9 10. 40 Northwest (US 290) 113. 50 1988 150.87 13. 5 11. 18 Gulf
    (I- 45) 98. 90 1988 131.46 15. 5 8.48

    Los Angeles, CA

    El Monte Busway 58. 00 1973 127.25 11. 0 11. 57

    Miami, FL 60. 00 1997 63.12 8. 5 7. 43

    Pittsburgh, PA

    South Busway 27. 00 1977 63.34 4. 3 14.73 East Busway 113. 00 1983 174.54 6.
    8 25.67 West Busway 275. 00 2000 275.00 5. 0 55.00

    Total $987. 80 $1,346.62 99. 8 $13.49

    Note: In Houston and Los Angeles these systems were originally built as
    busways. However, they were subsequently converted to HOV lanes carrying
    buses and other vehicles. Source: FTA and transit agencies.

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

    Dollars in millions

    Escalated total cost

    Cost per mile Total cost (year

    Year system (year 2000

    System length (year 2000 Location or system of expenditure) opened

    dollars) (miles) dollars) Dallas, TX

    I- 30 18. 90 1991 26.75 5. 2 3. 64 I- 35E 11. 60 1996 13.96 6. 6 1. 76

    Denver, CO

    I- 25 228. 00 1995 248.34 6. 6 37.63

    Houston, TX

    Southwest (US 59) 129. 60 1993 147.21 14. 3 10. 29 Eastex (US 59) 146. 80
    1999 150.43 20. 2 7.45

    Seattle, WA

    I- 5 7. 60 1985 10.98 6. 0 1. 83 I- 405 10. 20 1986 14.42 6. 0 2. 40

    San Diego, CA

    I- 15 31. 40 1988 41.74 8. 0 5. 22

    Total $584. 12 $653.82 72. 9 $8. 97

    Source: FTA and transit agencies.

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

    Dollars in millions

    Escalated total cost

    Cost per mile Total cost (year

    Year system (year 2000

    System length (year 2000 Location or system of expenditure) opened

    dollars) (miles) dollars) Los Angeles, CA

    Wilshire- Whittier 5. 01 2000 5. 01 25.7 0. 19 Ventura 3. 262000 3. 26 16.7
    0. 20

    Orlando, FL

    Lymmo 21. 00 1997 22.09 2. 3 9. 60

    Total $29. 27 $30.36 44. 7 $0. 68

    Source: FTA and transit agencies.

    (348233) Lett er

    GAO?s Mission The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of
    Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
    responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of
    the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of
    public funds; evaluates federal programs and

    policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to
    help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO?s
    commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
    accountability, integrity, and reliability.

    Obtaining Copies of The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
    documents is through the Internet. GAO?s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains
    abstracts and full- text files of GAO Reports and current reports and
    testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The Testimony Web site
    features a search engine to help you locate documents using key words and
    phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, including charts
    and other graphics.

    Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
    correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ?Today?s Reports,? on its Web
    site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files. To
    have GAO E- mail this list to you every afternoon, go to our home page and
    complete the easy- to- use electronic order form found under ?To Order GAO
    Products.?

    Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free.
    Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to
    the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
    Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
    percent. Orders should be sent to:

    U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington, D. C. 20013

    To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (301) 413- 0006 Fax: (202)
    258- 4066

    Visit GAO?s Document GAO Building Distribution Center Room 1100, 700 4th
    Street, NW (corner of 4th and G Streets, NW)

    Washington, D. C. 20013 To Report Fraud, Contact: Waste, and Abuse in

    Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm, E- mail: fraudnet@ gao.
    gov, or

    Federal Programs 1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system).

    Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202)
    512- 4800 U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G. Street NW, Room 7149,
    Washington, D. C. 20548

    a

    GAO United States General Accounting Office

    Page i GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Contents

    Contents

    Page ii GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 1 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit United States General Accounting
    Office

    Washington, D. C. 20548 Page 1 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    A

    Page 2 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 3 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 4 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 5 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 6 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 7 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 8 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 9 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 10 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 11 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 12 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 13 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 14 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 15 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 16 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 17 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 18 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 19 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 20 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 21 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 22 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 23 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 24 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 25 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 26 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 27 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 28 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 29 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 30 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 31 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 32 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 33 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 34 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 35 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 36 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Appendix I

    Appendix I Scope and Methodology

    Page 37 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Appendix I Scope and Methodology

    Page 38 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Appendix I Scope and Methodology

    Page 39 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 40 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Appendix II

    Appendix II Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration Projects

    Page 41 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Appendix II Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration Projects

    Page 42 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Appendix II Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration Projects

    Page 43 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Appendix II Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration Projects

    Page 44 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Appendix II Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration Projects

    Page 45 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Appendix II Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration Projects

    Page 46 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Appendix II Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration Projects

    Page 47 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Appendix II Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration Projects

    Page 48 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Appendix II Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration Projects

    Page 49 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 50 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Appendix III

    Appendix III Capital Costs of Light Rail Systems

    Page 51 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Page 52 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Appendix IV

    Appendix IV Capital Costs of Bus Rapid Transit Systems

    Page 53 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    Appendix IV Capital Costs of Bus Rapid Transit Systems

    Page 54 GAO- 01- 984 Bus Rapid Transit

    United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001

    Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

    Address Correction Requested Presorted Standard

    Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. GI00
    *** End of document. ***