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. ***