U.S. BRT Projects Incorporate Many Features, but Most Lack Dedicated Running Ways

		BRT Projects’ Features

Based on our questionnaire results, we found that many U.S. BRT  projects incorporate at least some station amenities and most other BRT  features that distinguish them from standard bus service, and improve  riders’ transit experience. 3.) 4.) 5 for an example.) In  particular, stakeholders frequently mentioned cost considerations,  community needs and input, and the ability to phase in additional physical  features over time as factors influencing their decisions. Kansas City ATA officials explained that residents’ safety concerns  along Troost Avenue resulted in well-lighted shelters designed with  transparent backings and real-time information displays, which helped  increase passengers’ sense of safety while waiting for the bus during  the evening. Several major stations were also equipped with security  cameras. Moreover, project sponsors in four of the five  site-visit locations told us that they plan to incorporate (or are considering  incorporating) additional features into their BRT projects. Most BRT Projects Reported Increased Ridership and Improved Service

		BRT Increased Ridership and Travel Time Savings, Although Rail Transit Generally Serves More Riders

For systems where changes in ridership could be calculated, almost all  BRT project sponsors (13 of 15), reported increased ridership over the  previous transit service—typically a standard bus service—according to  results from our questionnaires (see fig. Several BRT project sponsors highlighted BRT features that  helped reduce travel times and attract riders. BRT Ridership Compared to Rail

Even with gains in ridership, BRT projects in the U.S. usually carry fewer  total riders compared to rail transit projects, based on our analysis of  project sponsor questionnaires. However, the M15  BRT in New York City has the highest total ridership of any project—more  than 55,000 riders per day. However, as discussed earlier, BRT project sponsors told us that the  perceptions about bus for “choice riders” can be overcome with rail-like  features. In some international cities, however, given  their more comprehensive systems, higher population densities, and  more positive attitudes about bus service, BRT ridership in some cities  exceeds rail transit ridership in the U.S.

	BRT Projects Generally Have Lower Capital Costs than Rail Transit

		Capital Costs and New Starts Funding

Of the planned or completed New, Small, or Very Small Starts projects  that received construction grant agreements under FTA’s Capital  Investment Grant program from fiscal year 2005 through February 2012,  BRT projects generally had lower capital costs than rail transit projects. Factors Affecting Capital Costs

The difference in capital costs between BRT and rail transit is due in part  to elements needed for rail transit that are not required for BRT projects. Cleveland RTA told us the Healthline BRT  reduced the overall operating budget and the average costs per rider  decreased. Some BRT Projects Have Potential to Contribute to Economic Development and Other Benefits

		Overview of Case Study Findings

In general, we found that project sponsors and other stakeholders in each  of our five case study locations believe that the BRT project is having  some positive effect on economic development. However, these  individuals were unsure about how much of the economic activity can be  attributed to the presence of BRT versus other factors or circumstances  (See table 2 for a summary of economic development activities near the   In addition, stakeholders mentioned that  five BRT projects we visited).the recent recession limited the number of development projects to date,  but they expect increased economic development in the future along  select areas of the BRT corridors as economic conditions improve. Project sponsors, local officials, and transit experts we spoke to believe  that, in general, rail transit is a better economic development catalyst than  BRT; however, this opinion was not universal. In addition, stakeholders mentioned  that certain factors can enhance BRT’s ability to generate economic  development similar to rail transit. Specifically, they described how  economic development near BRT can be supported by having: physical BRT features that convey a sense of permanence to  developers; major institutional, employment, and activity centers along or near the  BRT corridor that can sponsor development projects; and  transit-supportive local policies and development incentives. Differences in cost partly reflect BRT project sponsors’ limited use of the  more costly features commonly associated with BRT—such as dedicated  running ways, stations with major infrastructure investments, and off- board fare collection. DOT did not comment on the draft  report. Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

To examine the features, costs, and community benefits of Bus Rapid  Transit (BRT) projects recommended for funding by the Federal Transit  Administration (FTA), we addressed the following four questions:  1. Which BRT features are included in BRT projects and why? 4. To what extent do BRT projects provide economic development and  other benefits to communities? To assess how BRT projects have performed in terms of ridership and  service and how they compare to rail transit projects, we reviewed  existing literature on BRT and rail transit projects’ ridership and service  levels. We received completed questionnaires for 18 of the 20  To assess how BRT projects compare to rail transit projects in terms of  capital project costs and the New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small  Starts share of funding, we used FTA project grant data compiled by FTA  to identify the 55 (30 BRT and 25 rail transit) existing or planned projects  that had signed grant agreements from fiscal years 2005 through  February 2012. We  did not attempt to model other factors that contribute to land values, such  as broader economic conditions, other major infrastructure investments  and amenities, and demographic characteristics.
Why GAO Did This Study

BRT is a form of transit that has generated interest around the world to help alleviate the adverse effects of traffic congestion and potentially contribute to economic growth. BRT features can include improvements to infrastructure, technology, and passenger amenities over standard bus service to improve service and attract new riders. The use of federal funding for BRT in the United States has increased since 2005, when the Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users expanded eligibility for major capital projects under FTAs Capital Investment Grant Program to include corridor-based bus projects. BRT projects can be funded through New, Small, and Very Small Start grants under the Capital Investment GrantProgram.
GAO was asked to examine (1) features included in BRT projects funded by the FTA; (2) BRT project performance in terms of ridership and service and how they compare to rail transit projects; (3) how BRT-projects costs differ from rail transit project costs; and (4) the extent to which BRT projects provide economic development and other benefits. To address these objectives, GAO sent questionnaires to officials of all 20 existing BRT and 20 existing rail-transit projects that the FTA recommended for funding from fiscal year 2005 through 2012 to collect information on project features, ridership, and service and interviewed select project sponsors. GAO also reviewed documents and interviewed government, academic, and industry group officials. The U.S.Department of Transportation did not comment on the draft report.

What GAO Found

U.S. bus rapid transit (BRT) projects we reviewed include features that distinguished BRT from standard bus service and improved riders experience. However, few of the projects (5 of 20) used dedicated or semi-dedicated lanes a feature commonly associated with BRT and included in international systems to reduce travel time and attract riders. Project sponsors and planners explained that decisions on which features to incorporate into BRT projects were influenced by costs, community needs, and the ability to phase in additional features. For example, one project sponsor explained that well-lighted shelters with security cameras and real-time information displays were included to increase passengers sense of safety in the evening. Project sponsors told us they plan to incorporate additional features such as off-board fare collection over time.
The BRT projects we reviewed generally increased ridership and improved service over the previous transit service. Specifically, 13 of the 15 project sponsors that provided ridership data reported increases in ridership after 1 year of service and reduced average travel times of 10 to 35 percent over previous bus services. However, even with increases in ridership, U.S. BRT projects usually carry fewer total riders than rail transit projects and international BRT systems. Project sponsors and other stakeholders attribute this to higher population densities internationally and riders who prefer rail transit. However, some projectssuch as the M15 BRT line in New York Citycarry more than 55,000 riders per day.
Capital costs for BRT projects were generally lower than for rail transit projects and accounted for a small percent of the Federal Transit Administrations (FTA) New, Small, and Very Small Starts funding although they accounted for over 50 percent of projects with grant agreements since fiscal year 2005. Project sponsors also told us that BRT projects can provide rail-like benefits at lower capital costs. However, differences in capital costs are due in part to elements needed for rail transit that are not required for BRT and can be considered in context of total riders, costs for operations, and other long-term costs such as vehicle replacement.
We found that although many factors contribute to economic development, most local officials we visited believe that BRT projects are contributing to localized economic development. For instance, officials in Cleveland told us that between $4 and $5 billion was invested near the Healthline BRT projectassociated with major hospitals and universities in the corridor. Project sponsors in other cities told us that there is potential for development near BRT projects; however, development to date has been limited by broader economic conditionsmost notably the recent recession. While most local officials believe that rail transit has a greater economic development potential than BRT, they agreed that certain factors can enhance BRTs ability to contribute to economic development, including physical BRT features that relay a sense of permanence to developers; key employment and activity centers located along the corridor; and local policies and incentives that encourage transit-oriented development. Our analysis of land value changes near BRT lends support to these themes. In addition to economic development, BRT project sponsors highlighted other community benefits including quick construction and implementation and operational flexibility.