This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-811 
entitled 'Bus Rapid Transit: Projects Improve Transit Service and Can 
Contribute to Economic Development' which was released on July 25, 
2012. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. 
Senate: 

July 2012: 

Bus Rapid Transit: 

Projects Improve Transit Service and Can Contribute to Economic 
Development: 

GAO-12-811: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-12-811, a report to the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate. 

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 FTA’s Capital Investment Grant Program to 
include corridor-based bus projects. BRT projects can be funded 
through New, Small, and Very Small Start grants under the Capital 
Investment Grant Program. 

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 projects-—such as the M15 BRT line in New York 
City-—carry more than 55,000 riders per day. 

Capital costs for BRT projects were generally lower than for rail 
transit projects and accounted for a small percent of the Federal 
Transit Administration’s (FTA) New, Small, and Very Small Starts’ 
funding although they accounted for over 50 percent of projects with 
grant agreements since fiscal year 2005. Project sponsors also told us 
that BRT projects can provide rail-like benefits at lower capital 
costs. However, differences in capital costs are due in part to 
elements needed for rail transit that are not required for BRT and can 
be considered in context of total riders, costs for operations, and 
other long-term costs such as vehicle replacement. 

We found that although many factors contribute to economic 
development, most local officials we visited believe that BRT projects 
are contributing to localized economic development. For instance, 
officials in Cleveland told us that between $4 and $5 billion was 
invested near the Healthline BRT project-—associated with major 
hospitals and universities in the corridor. Project sponsors in other 
cities told us that there is potential for development near BRT 
projects; however, development to date has been limited by broader 
economic conditions—-most notably the recent recession. While most 
local officials believe that rail transit has a greater economic 
development potential than BRT, they agreed that certain factors can 
enhance BRT’s ability to contribute to economic development, including 
physical BRT features that relay a sense of permanence to developers; 
key employment and activity centers located along the corridor; and 
local policies and incentives that encourage transit-oriented 
development. Our analysis of land value changes near BRT lends support 
to these themes. In addition to economic development, BRT project 
sponsors highlighted other community benefits including quick 
construction and implementation and operational flexibility. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-811]. For more 
information, contact David J. Wise at (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

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

Most BRT Projects Reported Increased Ridership and Improved Service: 

BRT Projects Generally Have Lower Capital Costs than Rail Transit: 

Some BRT Projects Have Potential to Contribute to Economic Development 
and Other Benefits: 

Concluding Observations: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Project Information for Bus Rapid Transit Case Studies: 

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Summary of GAO Questionnaire Results for BRT Projects' 
Physical Features, by Number of Features: 

Table 2: Summary of Economic Development near BRT Case Studies: 

Table 3: Project Information for Bus Rapid Transit Case Studies: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit: 

Figure 2: Number of BRT Projects That Reported Select Amenities at 
Half or More Stations: 

Figure 3: Example of a Standard Bus Stop versus Basic BRT Station in 
Los Angeles: 

Figure 4: Number of BRT Projects That Reported Select Features in Half 
or More Vehicles: 

Figure 5: Example of a BRT Vehicle Tracking System Display: 

Figure 6: Percentage Change in Ridership for BRT Projects after 1 Year 
of Operation Compared to Previous Transit Service: 

Figure 7: BRT Projects' Reported Travel Time Savings Compared to 
Previous Transit Service: 

Figure 8: Reported Average Weekday Ridership Data for First Year of 
Operation, by Mode: 

Figure 9: Range and Individual Capital Costs for BRT and Rail Transit 
Projects Receiving a Grant Agreement from Fiscal Year 2005 through 
February 2012: 

Figure 10: Total Number of Projects and Percentage of Total New 
Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small Starts Committed Funding from 
Fiscal Year 2005 through February 2012: 

Figure 11: Total Projects in New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small 
Starts with Grant Agreements by Mode, Fiscal Year 2005 through 
February 2012: 

Figure 12: Land Value Changes along Cleveland's Healthline BRT 
Corridor, 2006 through 2011: 

Figure 13: Land Value Changes near Eugene/Springfield, Oregon, EmX, 
2005 through 2010: 

Abbreviations: 

ATA: Area Transportation Authority (Kansas City): 

BHX: Boulder Highway Express: 

BRT: bus rapid transit: 

CR: commuter rail: 

DOT: Department of Transportation: 

EmX: Emerald Express: 

FTA: Federal Transit Administration: 

HR: heavy rail: 

ITS: Intelligent Transportation Systems: 

LTD: Lane Transit District (Eugene, OR): 

LRT: light rail transit: 

MAX: Metro Area Express (Kansas City): 

RTA: Regional Transit Authority (Cleveland): 

RTC: Regional Transportation Commission (Washoe County, Nevada): 

SAFETEA-LU: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users: 

TCRP: Transit Cooperative Research Program: 

TIGER: Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

July 25, 2012: 

The Honorable Tim Johnson:
Chairman:
The Honorable Richard C. Shelby:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs:
United States Senate: 

Bus rapid transit (BRT) has generated interest around the world for 
its potential to alleviate the adverse effects of traffic congestion 
and support economic growth, while generally having lower capital 
costs than rail transit. According to an international think tank, 
there are BRT corridors in more than 120 cities around the world, 
carrying over 27 million passengers a day.[Footnote 1] Many of these 
BRT systems incorporate dedicated lanes; large stations; higher 
passenger capacities; and quick service that can rival rail transit. 
In the U.S., BRT features vary, but generally include improvements to 
infrastructure, technology, and passenger amenities over standard bus 
service to attract new riders. BRT can provide several benefits to 
riders and the community, including improved mobility and reliability 
for riders, reduced travel times, reduced carbon emissions, and 
increased economic development.[Footnote 2] 

Since 2005, opportunities for federal capital funding for BRT projects 
in the U.S. have expanded due in part to changes made in the Safe, 
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 
for Users (SAFETEA-LU).[Footnote 3] Specifically, SAFETEA-LU revised 
eligibility for major capital investment projects[Footnote 4] to 
include not only fixed-guideway systems but also corridor-based bus 
capital projects if specific criteria are met.[Footnote 5] In a fiscal 
environment in which state and local governments are looking to build 
high-capacity transit systems with limited funding, BRT has emerged as 
a potentially cost-effective alternative to new or extended rail 
transit projects. 

You asked us to examine the features of BRT projects recommended for 
funding by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), as well as assess 
how these projects compare to rail transit. Accordingly, this report 
addresses the following four questions: 

1. Which BRT features are included in BRT projects and why? 

2. How have BRT projects performed in terms of ridership and service 
and how do they compare to rail transit projects? 

3. How do the costs of these projects differ from rail transit 
projects? 

4. To what extent do BRT projects provide economic development and 
other benefits to communities? 

To determine which features are included in BRT projects and 
information on ridership and service, we sent questionnaires to the 
sponsors of all 20 completed BRT projects since fiscal year 2005 that 
FTA recommended for New Start, Small Start, Very Small Start, or Bus 
and Bus Facilities: 

funding under the Capital Investment Grant program.[Footnote 
6],[Footnote 7] We prepopulated the questionnaires with information on 
BRT features and service obtained from an existing interest group's 
BRT database, project websites, and other project sponsor 
documentation submitted to FTA and asked project sponsors to verify or 
correct the prepopulated information and complete any missing 
information.[Footnote 8] In addition, we visited five BRT projects to 
obtain information about why certain BRT features were or were not 
included in the projects.[Footnote 9] (see appendix 1.) Information 
from these visits cannot be generalized to all BRT projects. To assess 
how all 20 BRT projects have performed in terms of ridership and 
service and how they compare to all 20 rail transit projects, we used 
data from the completed BRT project questionnaires, and compared this 
data to the data from the questionnaires we sent to the sponsors of 
all completed rail transit projects that met the criteria outline 
above. [Footnote 10] We also reviewed existing literature on BRT and 
rail transit projects' ridership and service levels. To assess how BRT 
projects compare to rail transit projects in terms of capital project 
costs and New Starts, Small Starts, or Very Small Starts share of 
funding, we collected and analyzed project grant data compiled by FTA. 
We included 55 (30 BRT and 25 rail transit) planned or completed 
projects that had construction grant agreements from fiscal year 2005 
through February 2012. To verify and assess the reliability of the 
data compiled by FTA, we compared and updated project capital cost 
data based on FTA's Annual Reports on Funding Recommendations for 
fiscal years 2005 through 2012. To examine the extent to which BRT 
projects stimulate economic development and other benefits to 
communities, we reviewed existing literature on the impact of transit 
on economic development and land values. Also, during our five site 
visits--selected by consideration of several factors, including the 
number and extent of BRT features as well as ridership, length of 
route, peak headway, and geographic diversity--we interviewed project 
sponsors, transit experts, non-profit business organizations, and 
economic development professionals about development that has occurred 
(or is expected to occur) in and around the BRT corridors. To 
supplement testimonial evidence obtained during site-visit interviews, 
we collected land value assessment data for properties located within 
¼ mile of the five BRT projects we visited and analyzed trends in the 
assessed inflation adjusted value of these properties for the 2 years 
prior to the project's implementation to the 3 years after it began 
operating.[Footnote 11] In addition to collecting data from FTA and 
sponsors of BRT and rail transit projects, we also reviewed relevant 
academic literature on BRT and rail transit and interviewed academic 
experts and BRT stakeholders. 

We conducted this performance audit from July 2011 through July 2012 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. See appendix 
II for more information about our scope and methodology. 

Background: 

In the U.S., while BRT projects vary in design, they generally include 
service enhancements designed to attract riders and provide similar 
transit-related benefits to rail transit. Specifically, as shown in 
figure 1, BRT generally includes improvements to seven features-
running ways, stations, vehicles, intelligent transportation systems, 
fare collection, branding, and service.[Footnote 12] 

These enhancements are designed to replicate features found in rail 
transit and provide similar benefits including increases in ridership, 
travel time savings, and contribution to economic development. While 
few existing studies have examined the link between BRT and economic 
development, numerous studies have investigated the link between rail 
transit and economic development.[Footnote 13] We have previously 
reported that, overall, these studies have shown that the presence of 
rail transit tends to positively impact surrounding land and housing 
values.[Footnote 14] However, in some cases the increases are modest 
and the impact throughout an entire system can vary depending on 
several characteristics. For instance, retail development, higher 
relative incomes, and proximity to job centers, parks, or other 
neighborhood amenities tend to increase land and housing values near 
transit, while non-transit oriented land uses, crime, and poor 
economic environments around a transit station can limit increases or 
even be a negative influence.[Footnote 15] 

Figure 1: Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Running Ways: 
Running ways—-lanes in which BRT vehicles operate—-are improved to 
help decrease travel time, increase predictability, and increase a 
sense of permanence. Examples of improvements include: vehicles using 
dedicated lanes or guideways; semi-dedicated lanes (including high 
occupancy boarding with multiple vehicle (HOV) or high occupancy toll 
(HOT) lanes).  

Stations: 
Stations or shelters provide additional rider amenities and 
differentiate BRT from standard bus service. Amenities can include, 
among other things, weather-proofing, safety improvements, public art 
and landscaping.  

Vehicles: 
Stylized vehicles run on alternative fuels or hybrid technology for a 
cleaner and quieter trip. BRT vehicles are also often designed to 
carry more riders and improve boarding doors or low floors. 

Improved Service: 
BRT systems provide service for riders that is faster, more reliable, 
and more frequent than standard bus service.  

Fare Collection: 
Pre-paid or electronic passes can increase the convenience and speed 
of fare collection decreasing boarding times and providing travel time 
savings.  

Branding: 
Distinguishes BRT from standard bus service by marketing the BRT as a 
separate service, or unique branding of stations or vehicles.  

Intelligent Transportation  Systems (ITS) 
Improves service reliability by providing priority for BRT vehicles at 
intersections or extending a green light. 

Source: GAO analysis of bus rapid transit research. 

[End of figure] 

In the U.S., multiple federal-funding sources have supported BRT 
systems. FTA's Capital Investment Grant program provides capital funds 
to help project sponsors build larger-dollar new or extensions to 
existing fixed guideway transit capital systems--often referred to as 
"New Starts projects." In 2005, SAFETEA-LU established the Small 
Starts program within the Capital Investment Grant program; the Small 
Starts program simplifies the New Starts evaluation and rating 
criteria and steps in the project development process to lower cost 
projects. It also added corridor-based bus systems as eligible 
projects.[Footnote 16] According to FTA's guidance, BRT projects must 
(1) meet the definition of a fixed-guideway for at least 50 percent of 
the project length in the peak period or (2) be a corridor-based bus 
project with certain elements to qualify as a Small Starts project. 
[Footnote 17] FTA subsequently introduced a further streamlined 
evaluation and rating process for very low cost projects within the 
Small Starts program, which FTA calls Very Small Starts. Very Small 
Starts are projects that must contain the same elements as Small 
Starts projects and also contain the following three features: be 
located in corridors with more than 3,000 existing transit riders per 
average weekday who will benefit from the proposed project; have a 
total capital cost of less than $50 million (for all project 
elements); and have a per-mile cost of less than $3 million, excluding 
rolling stock (e.g., buses and train cars). Any transit project that 
fits the broader definition of a fixed-guideway system is eligible, 
whether it is a BRT, streetcar, or other rail transit project (e.g., 
commuter rail, heavy rail, and light rail).[Footnote 18] BRT projects 
are also eligible for federal funding from other sources such as 
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement grants, the 
Urbanized Area Formula grants, and the U.S. Department of 
Transportation's Transportation Investment Generating Economic 
Recovery discretionary grants (TIGER).[Footnote 19] 

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. However, few BRT project sponsors 
reported the use of dedicated or semi-dedicated running ways for at 
least 30 percent of the route and less than half use off-board fare 
collection infrastructure (see Table 1 for an overview of BRT 
projects' physical features).[Footnote 20] 

Table 1: Summary of GAO Questionnaire Results for BRT Projects' 
Physical Features, by Number of Features: 

Project (Location): Healthline (Cleveland, OH); 
Running ways (at least 30 percent of route length): 
Dedicated: [Check]; 
Semi-dedicated: [Empty]; 
Station amenities[A](by number of amenities): 
4-6: [Empty]; 
7-12: [Check]; 
Fare collection (off board[B]): [Check]; 
Vehicle features[C] (at least 5 of 11 features): [Check]; 
Branding and marketing: [Check]; 
ITS features[D] (at least 3 of 6 features): [Check]. 

Project (Location): Franklin EmX (Eugene, OR); 
Running ways (at least 30 percent of route length): 
Dedicated: [Check]; 
Semi-dedicated: [Empty]; 
Station amenities[A](by number of amenities): 
4-6: [Empty]; 
7-12: [Check]; 
Fare collection (off board[B]): [Check]; 
Vehicle features[C] (at least 5 of 11 features): [Check]; 
Branding and marketing: [Check]; 
ITS features[D] (at least 3 of 6 features): [Check]. 

Project (Location): Gateway EmX (Eugene, OR); 
Running ways (at least 30 percent of route length): 
Dedicated: [Check]; 
Semi-dedicated: [Check]; 
Station amenities[A](by number of amenities): 
4-6: [Empty]; 
7-12: [Check]]; 
Fare collection (off board[B]): [Check]; 
Vehicle features[C] (at least 5 of 11 features): [Check]; 
Branding and marketing: [Check]; 
ITS features[D] (at least 3 of 6 features): [Check]. 

Project (Location): RapidRide A (Seattle, WA); 
Running ways (at least 30 percent of route length): 
Dedicated: [Empty]; 
Semi-dedicated: [Check]; 
Station amenities[A](by number of amenities): 
4-6: [Check]; 
7-12: [Empty]; 
Fare collection (off board[B]): [Empty]; 
Vehicle features[C] (at least 5 of 11 features): [Check]; 
Branding and marketing: [Check]; 
ITS features[D] (at least 3 of 6 features): [Empty]. 

Project (Location): M15 (New York, NY); 
Running ways (at least 30 percent of route length): 
Dedicated: [Empty]; 
Semi-dedicated: [Check]; 
Station amenities[A](by number of amenities): 
4-6: [Empty]; 
7-12: [Empty]; 
Fare collection (off board[B]): [Empty]; 
Vehicle features[C] (at least 5 of 11 features): [Check]; 
Branding and marketing: [Check]; 
ITS features[D] (at least 3 of 6 features): [Empty]. 

Project (Location): RTC Rapid (Reno, NV); 
Running ways (at least 30 percent of route length): 
Dedicated: [Empty]; 
Semi-dedicated: [Empty]; 
Station amenities[A](by number of amenities): 
4-6: [Empty]; 
7-12: [Check]; 
Fare collection (off board[B]): [Check]; 
Vehicle features[C] (at least 5 of 11 features): [Check]; 
Branding and marketing: [Check]; 
ITS features[D] (at least 3 of 6 features): [Check]. 

Project (Location): BusPlus (Albany, NY); 
Running ways (at least 30 percent of route length): 
Dedicated: [Empty]; 
Semi-dedicated: [Empty]; 
Station amenities[A](by number of amenities): 
4-6: [Check]; 
7-12: [Empty]; 
Fare collection (off board[B]): [Check]; 
Vehicle features[C] (at least 5 of 11 features): [Check]; 
Branding and marketing: [Check]; 
ITS features[D] (at least 3 of 6 features): [Check]. 

Project (Location): Metro Express 44 (San Joaquin, CA); 
Running ways (at least 30 percent of route length): 
Dedicated: [Empty]; 
Semi-dedicated: [Empty]; 
Station amenities[A](by number of amenities): 
4-6: [Check]; 
7-12: [Empty]; 
Fare collection (off board[B]): [Check]; 
Vehicle features[C] (at least 5 of 11 features): [Check]; 
Branding and marketing: [Check]; 
ITS features[D] (at least 3 of 6 features): [Check]. 

Project (Location): Boulder Hwy. Express (BHX) (Southern NV); 
Running ways (at least 30 percent of route length): 
Dedicated: [Empty]; 
Semi-dedicated: [Empty]; 
Station amenities[A](by number of amenities): 
4-6: [Check]; 
7-12: [Empty]; 
Fare collection (off board[B]): [Check]; 
Vehicle features[C] (at least 5 of 11 features): [Check]; 
Branding and marketing: [Check]; 
ITS features[D] (at least 3 of 6 features): [Empty]. 

Project (Location): Troost MAX (Kansas City, MO); 
Running ways (at least 30 percent of route length): 
Dedicated: [Empty]; 
Semi-dedicated: [Empty]; 
Station amenities[A](by number of amenities): 
4-6: [Check]; 
7-12: [Empty]; 
Fare collection (off board[B]): [Empty]; 
Vehicle features[C] (at least 5 of 11 features): [Check]; 
Branding and marketing: [Check]; 
ITS features[D] (at least 3 of 6 features): [Check]. 

Project (Location): The Rapid (Livermore, CA); 
Running ways (at least 30 percent of route length): 
Dedicated: [Empty]; 
Semi-dedicated: [Empty]; 
Station amenities[A](by number of amenities): 
4-6: [Check]; 
7-12: [Empty]; 
Fare collection (off board[B]): [Empty]; 
Vehicle features[C] (at least 5 of 11 features): [Check]; 
Branding and marketing: [Check]; 
ITS features[D] (at least 3 of 6 features): [Check]. 

Project (Location): RapidRide B (Seattle, WA); 
Running ways (at least 30 percent of route length): 
Dedicated: [Empty]; 
Semi-dedicated: [Empty]; 
Station amenities[A](by number of amenities): 
4-6: [Check]; 
7-12: [Empty]; 
Fare collection (off board[B]): [Empty]; 
Vehicle features[C] (at least 5 of 11 features): [Check]; 
Branding and marketing: [Check]; 
ITS features[D] (at least 3 of 6 features): [Empty]. 

Project (Location): Mountain Links (Northern AZ); 
Running ways (at least 30 percent of route length): 
Dedicated: [Empty]; 
Semi-dedicated: [Empty]; 
Station amenities[A](by number of amenities): 
4-6: [Check]; 
7-12: [Empty]; 
Fare collection (off board[B]): [Empty]; 
Vehicle features[C] (at least 5 of 11 features): [Check]; 
Branding and marketing: [Check]; 
ITS features[D] (at least 3 of 6 features): [Empty]. 

Project (Location): Metro Rapid Gap Closure[E] (Los Angeles, CA); 
Running ways (at least 30 percent of route length): 
Dedicated: [Empty]; 
Semi-dedicated: [Empty]; 
Station amenities[A](by number of amenities): 
4-6: [Empty]; 
7-12: [Empty]; 
Fare collection (off board[B]): [Empty]; 
Vehicle features[C] (at least 5 of 11 features): [Check]; 
Branding and marketing: [Check]; 
ITS features[D] (at least 3 of 6 features): [Check][F]. 

Project (Location): Metro Rapid 741 (Los Angeles, CA); 
Running ways (at least 30 percent of route length): 
Dedicated: [Empty]; 
Semi-dedicated: [Empty]; 
Station amenities[A](by number of amenities): 
4-6: [Empty]; 
7-12: [Empty]; 
Fare collection (off board[B]): [Empty]; 
Vehicle features[C] (at least 5 of 11 features): [Check]; 
Branding and marketing: [Check]; 
ITS features[D] (at least 3 of 6 features): [Empty]. 

Project (Location): Total (out of 20); 
Running ways (at least 30 percent of route length): 
Dedicated: 3; 
Semi-dedicated: 3;
Station amenities[A] (by number of amenities): 
4-6: 8; 
7-12: 4; 
Fare collection (off board[B]): 7; 
Vehicle features[C] (at least 5 of 11 features): 20; 
Branding and marketing: 20; 
ITS features[D] (at least 3 of 6 features): 9. 

Source: GAO analysis of project sponsors' questionnaire data. 

Note: The groupings of project sponsor data displayed in the table 
(i.e., 30 percent or more dedicated running way, 4 to 6 station 
amenities) are for illustrative purposes only and not meant to reflect 
critical numbers or percentages in BRT project design. 

[A] Our questionnaire asked BRT project sponsors to provide 
information about 12 amenities commonly associated with BRT stations, 
including: greater curb width or raised curb; route maps and 
schedules; safety improvements; next bus displays; level boarding; 
public art, and landscaping; seating; bicycle parking; physically 
separated passing lane; median-located stations; nearby park and ride 
lots; and weather protection. 

[B] Our questionnaire asked BRT project sponsors to provide 
information about off-board fare collection infrastructure, including 
off-board fare card vending machines and off-board barrier systems. 

[C] Our questionnaire asked BRT project sponsors to provide 
information about 11 BRT vehicle features, including: low floors, 
multiple boarding doors, internal bike racks, vehicle guidance 
technology, security cameras, audio stop announcements, visual stop 
announcements, technology for expedited wheelchair boarding, and 
whether buses were lower-emissions vehicles, articulated, and 
distinguishable from other buses. 

[D] Our questionnaire asked BRT project sponsors to provide 
information about six intelligent transportation systems: transit 
signal priority, transit signal preemption, "queue jumps," vehicle 
tracking systems, automated scheduling dispatch systems, and collision 
warning systems. 

[E] The Gap Closure Project includes six Metro Rapid routes: 762, 770, 
728, 794, 733, and CC-6. 

[F] Metro Rapid Route 733. 

[End of table] 

Running Ways: 

Our questionnaire results indicate that most BRT projects (16 of 20) 
operate in mixed traffic--primarily arterial streets--for 50 percent 
or more of their routes.[Footnote 21] In contrast, 5 of the 20 BRT 
projects travel along a dedicated or semi-dedicated running way for 30 
percent or more of their routes.[Footnote 22] According to FTA 
research, BRT projects with more fully dedicated running ways 
generally experience the greatest travel time savings as compared to 
the corridors' local bus route. (See below for other BRT features that 
affect travel time savings.) However, our analysis of questionnaire 
data did not show a correlation between the type of running ways BRT 
projects operate on and travel time savings.[Footnote 23] For example, 
Cleveland's Healthline and the M15 in New York City operate along 
fully or semi-dedicated running ways for at least 60 percent of their 
routes, but these projects did not achieve the same percentage gains 
in travel time savings as projects such as Kansas City's Troost MAX or 
Mountain Links in Arizona, both of which run in mixed traffic for at 
least 75 percent of their routes. Some of the difference between our 
results and those of previous research may be attributable to the 
relative lack of congestion in some of the BRT corridors, which helps 
these projects generate travel time savings while running in mixed 
traffic. For instance, the Troost MAX reported the highest travel time 
savings of any project, yet it runs almost entirely in mixed traffic 
along a corridor with minimal traffic congestion. In contrast, 
previous BRT research often includes international and other U.S. 
BRTs, such as the TransMilenio in Bogota, Columbia, and the East 
Busway in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, that have used dedicated running 
ways to achieve significant travel time savings because of the cities' 
congestion levels. 

Station Amenities: 

According to FTA research, station amenities can help shape the 
identity of a BRT project by portraying a premium service and 
enhancing the local environment. Based on responses to our 
questionnaire, most BRT projects (12 of 20) have at least four station 
amenities present at half or more of their stations, while four 
projects include at least seven amenities. The most common station 
amenities reported by BRT project sponsors included seating, weather 
protection, level boarding, and route maps and schedules. (See figure 
2.) Cleveland's Healthline and Eugene's Franklin and Gateway EmX 
incorporate the most station amenities. However, U.S. BRT projects 
generally do not include stations of the size and scale of those found 
in Latin American BRT systems such as Curitiba, Brazil; Bogota, 
Columbia; or Mexico City, Mexico. 

Figure 2: Number of BRT Projects That Reported Select Amenities at 
Half or More Stations: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Amenities: Route maps and schedules; 
Number of projects: 14. 

Amenities: Seating; 
Number of projects: 13. 

Amenities: Weather protection; 
Number of projects: 13. 

Amenities: Level boarding; 
Number of projects: 12. 

Amenities: Safety improvements; 
Number of projects: 10. 

Amenities: Greater curb width or raised curb; 
Number of projects: 8. 

Amenities: Next bus display; 
Number of projects: 7. 

Amenities: Public art/landscaping; 
Number of projects: 5. 

Amenities: Bicycle parking; 
Number of projects: 5. 

Amenities: Physically separated passing lane; 
Number of projects: 2. 

Amenities: Station located in median; 
Number of projects: 2. 

Amenities: Nearby park and ride; 
Number of projects: 2. 

Source: GAO analysis of transit agency reported data. 

[End of figure] 

Through our site visits we found that BRT stations providing 
relatively few amenities may still be enhanced compared to standard 
bus stops in the same area. For example, in Los Angeles, standard bus 
stops are designated by a single flagged pole with limited route 
information, whereas all Metro Rapid stations provide detailed route 
information and many will have weather protection and safety 
improvements, such as lighting.[Footnote 24] (See figure 3.) Likewise, 
Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (ATA) officials informed us 
that Troost MAX stops were designed significantly larger and with more 
rail-like features than traditional bus stops.[Footnote 25] 

Figure 3: Example of a Standard Bus Stop versus Basic BRT Station in 
Los Angeles: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 2 photographs] 

Standard bus stop; 
Basic BRT station. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Fare Collection: 

BRT projects have different combinations of fare collection and 
verification methods. According to our questionnaire results, most BRT 
projects (14 of 20) allow on-board driver validation--typical of 
standard bus service--as a fare collection option for riders.[Footnote 
26] Fewer projects incorporate alternative fare collection methods, 
such as proof-of-payment systems that allow riders to board without 
presenting payment directly to a driver, or off-board fare collection 
infrastructure (i.e., fare card vending machines or barrier systems). 
Specifically, half of the project sponsors (10 of 20) reported that 
their projects use a proof-of-payment system and seven reported that 
their projects incorporate off-board fare collection 
infrastructure.[Footnote 27] According to FTA research, off-board fare 
collection infrastructure may contribute to customers' perception of 
BRT as a high-quality transit service and can improve service 
reliability and travel time savings. Project sponsors also mentioned 
this feature as important in generating travel time savings. 

Vehicle Features: 

With respect to BRT vehicle features, according to our questionnaire 
results, all project sponsors reported the use of low floor vehicles 
and nearly all reported the use of lower emissions vehicles, 
technology for expedited wheelchair boarding, security cameras, and 
audio stop announcements. (See figure 4.)[Footnote 28] According to 
FTA research, the design and features of BRT vehicles can affect the 
projects' ridership capacity, environmental friendliness, and 
passengers' comfort and overall impression of BRT. Greater Cleveland 
Regional Transit Authority (RTA) officials told us that the transit 
agency went through several iterations with the manufacturer to design 
a BRT vehicle that looked and felt more like a rail car. Among other 
features, the Healthline vehicles were designed to include hybrid 
technology--which according to local officials provides a quieter ride 
than standard buses--doors on both sides, and expedited wheelchair-
boarding capabilities to reduce passenger-loading times. 

Figure 4: Number of BRT Projects That Reported Select Features in Half 
or More Vehicles: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Feature: Low floors; 
Number of projects: 20. 

Feature: Distinguishable from other buses; 
Number of projects: 20. 

Feature: Lower emissions vehicles; 
Number of projects: 19. 

Feature: Expedited wheelchair boarding; 
Number of projects: 19. 

Feature: Security cameras; 
Number of projects: 19. 

Feature: Audio stop announcements; 
Number of projects: 18. 

Feature: Visual stop announcements; 
Number of projects: 17. 

Feature: Articulated; 
Number of projects: 10. 

Feature: Multiple boarding doors; 
Number of projects: 9. 

Feature: Internal bike racks; 
Number of projects: 5. 

Feature: Vehicle guidance; 
Number of projects: 3. 

Source: GAO analysis of transit agency reported data. 

[End of figure] 

Branding and Marketing: 

All BRT project sponsors responding to our questionnaire have used 
some form of branding and marketing to promote their BRT service, such 
as website improvements specific to BRT and uniquely branded BRT 
vehicles and stations. Research on BRT, as well as project sponsors 
and other experts we spoke with, emphasized the importance of strong 
branding and marketing in shaping the identity of a line or system and 
attracting riders. Los Angeles Metro officials told us that they 
employed a number of additional marketing techniques to increase 
awareness of the BRT service before it opened, such as hosting big 
media events and ambassador programs in which Metro staff handed out 
brochures at bus stops. To create a brand name and generate revenue, 
Cleveland's RTA sold the naming rights of its BRT project and select 
stations for $10 million, over 25 years. 

Intelligent Transportation Systems Features: 

According to responses to our questionnaire, 9 BRT projects have at 
least 3 of the 6 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) features and 
almost all (18 of 20) incorporate at least one feature. The most 
common ITS technologies included as part of BRT projects were transit 
signal priority systems (18 of 20), and vehicle tracking systems (17 
of 20), which monitor vehicles to ensure arrivals are evenly spaced 
and transit connections are on schedule. (See figure 5 for an 
example.)[Footnote 29] Research by FTA and others has found that 
incorporating ITS into BRT projects can help transit agencies increase 
safety, operational efficiency, and quality of service. In addition, 
these systems can improve riders' access to reliable and timely 
information. Los Angeles Metro officials told us that traffic signal 
priority represents one of Metro Rapid's most important attributes. 
These officials informed us that while the system does not override 
traffic lights, it can extend green signals to get BRT vehicles 
through the lights and to the next stop, helping keep the vehicles on 
time.[Footnote 30] 

Figure 5: Example of a BRT Vehicle Tracking System Display: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

A BRT vehicle is tracked along its route. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

While less common, some BRT projects use queue jump lanes, a feature 
that generally involves BRT vehicles traveling in restricted lanes and 
receiving early green light signals at select intersections.[Footnote 
31] According to officials of Eugene's Lane Transit District (LTD), 
the use of a queue jump lane has helped generate travel time savings 
for EmX riders by allowing the BRT vehicles to by-pass traffic stopped 
at an intersection. 

Factors Affecting Decisions on Physical Features: 

Based on our interviews with BRT project sponsors and planners, 
several factors influenced the design of BRT projects and the presence 
or absence of physical features commonly associated with BRT. In 
particular, stakeholders frequently mentioned cost considerations, 
community needs and input, and the ability to phase in additional 
physical features over time as factors influencing their decisions. 
Officials in four of our five site-visit locations described instances 
in which costs or financial constraints factored into their decision-
making or resulted in a change of plans regarding the project's 
physical features. For example, Kansas City ATA officials told us that 
a dedicated running way was not acquired for the Troost MAX in part 
because this feature would have added costs without providing 
substantial travel time savings benefits given Troost Avenue's minimal 
traffic congestion. In Seattle, King County Metro officials told us 
that several common BRT features, including level or raised boarding 
and off-board ticket or fare card vending machines, were not 
incorporated into the RapidRide system because of costs. For instance, 
they explained that level or raised boarding was not included because 
of the costs associated with implementing this feature at a large 
number of stations and stops (120 and 155 respectively) and addressing 
the limitations of the different sites. 

Three projects we visited during site visits were Very Small Starts 
projects and therefore, had total project capital costs of less than 
$50 million. (See appendix I for the list of our case study projects.) 
The sponsors of two of these projects told us that while Very Small 
Starts projects can create incentives for communities to pursue BRT by 
offering streamlined requirements and grants for up to 80 percent of a 
project's total capital cost, the program's $50-million limit on 
projects' total capital costs provides an incentive to keep costs low. 
As a result, project sponsors may only incorporate those physical 
features that are the most cost-effective or critical to achieving the 
projects' objectives and omit other features commonly associated with 
BRT. 

Several project sponsors we visited also mentioned that the input of 
community residents, business owners, and other stakeholders affected 
by a project can help shape final decisions about its design and 
features, for instance: 

* Los Angeles city officials explained that only 80 percent of the 
Wilshire Metro Rapid route within the city limits will have bus-only 
lanes during weekday peak hours because some neighborhoods resisted 
bus-only lanes and were unwilling to give up a travel lane on such a 
congested street. 

* Officials in Eugene told us that the Franklin Avenue EmX was 
originally intended to run on a dedicated running way for 90 percent 
of its route. However, in part due to the public input process, which 
raised concerns over loss of parking and business access, the agency 
reduced the dedicated portion of the route to 50 percent. 

* Kansas City ATA officials explained that residents' safety concerns 
along Troost Avenue resulted in well-lighted shelters designed with 
transparent backings and real-time information displays, which helped 
increase passengers' sense of safety while waiting for the bus during 
the evening. Several major stations were also equipped with security 
cameras. 

Some transit experts we spoke to also pointed out that some BRT 
features may not be incorporated into a project's initial design, 
since--unlike rail transit projects--it is fairly easy to add features 
to BRT projects after they start operating. Moreover, project sponsors 
in four of the five site-visit locations told us that they plan to 
incorporate (or are considering incorporating) additional features 
into their BRT projects. According to local officials, Eugene's 
transit agency may increase the portion of the EmX line that runs on a 
designated running way, particularly through sections of neighboring 
Springfield that are planned for redevelopment. These officials noted 
that stakeholders generally view the EmX's implementation as an 
incremental process and its flexibility as an important benefit. In 
Seattle, transit agency staff explained that although level boarding 
and off-board fare card vending machines were not incorporated into 
the initial design of the RapidRide lines, these features will be 
periodically reevaluated for future lines and off-board fare card 
vending machines may be added to some locations on existing lines. 

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 figure 6.)[Footnote 32] Of the 
13 existing BRT projects that increased ridership, more than half (7 
of 13) reported increases of 30 percent or more during the first year 
of service. Three of the eight BRT project sponsors who reported 
ridership data for additional years continued to increase ridership. 
For example, ridership for the RTC Rapid in Nevada increased at least 
5 percent each year for the first 3 years of service. 

Figure 6: Percentage Change in Ridership for BRT Projects after 1 Year 
of Operation Compared to Previous Transit Service: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Bus rapid transit route name and location: 

Franklin EmX (Eugene, Oregon): 
Change in ridership: 79%. 

Metro Rapid 770 (Los Angeles, California): 
Change in ridership: 70%. 

BHX (Southern Nevada): 
Change in ridership: 69%. 

Mountain Links (Northern Arizona): 
Change in ridership: 68%. 

Metro Rapid 794 (Los Angeles, California): 
Change in ridership: 64%. 

Healthline BRT (Cleveland, Ohio): 
Change in ridership: 46%. 

RapidRide A BRT (Seattle, Washington): 
Change in ridership: 34%. 

The Rapid (Livermore, California): 
Change in ridership: 17%. 


12.1331
6.66667
5.44505
5.03278
1.65424
-0.239215
-1.70032

M15 (New York, New York): 
Change in ridership: 12%. 

Troost MAX (Kansas City, Missouri): 
Change in ridership: 7%. 

Metro Rapid 728 (Los Angeles, California): 
Change in ridership: 5%. 

RTC RAPID (Washoe County, Nevada): 
Change in ridership: 5%. 

Metro Rapid 762 (Los Angeles, California): 
Change in ridership: 2%. 

Metro Rapid 723 (Los Angeles, California): 
Change in ridership: -0.2%. 

Metro Rapid 741 (Los Angeles, California): 
Change in ridership: -7%. 

Source: GAO analysis of transit agency reported data. 

Note: Officials for Metro Rapid 733 and Metro Rapid 741 projects in 
Los Angeles reported a decrease in ridership. According to Los Angeles 
Metro officials, while ridership for the BRT lines decreased, overall 
ridership has increased along the corridor. Officials said that the 
decline in Metro Rapid's share of riders could be attributed to riders 
adjusting their travel behavior back to standard bus service after 
trying Metro Rapid's service. Generally, the travel time savings from 
the use of Metro Rapid service accrues to longer distance trips within 
a corridor; standard bus service can be faster when wait time is 
factored into the equation. 

[End of figure] 

BRT project sponsors stated that they attracted riders, in part, by 
reducing travel times and incorporating BRT features. All BRT projects 
that replaced existing transit service reported travel time savings 
during peak hours ranging from about 10 percent to 35 percent, as 
shown in figure 7.[Footnote 33] Several BRT project sponsors 
highlighted BRT features that helped reduce travel times and attract 
riders. New York City Transit reported an average travel time savings 
of 13 minutes (or 16 percent), from 81 to 68 minutes for the M15 BRT 
(an 8.5 mile route). Analysis done by New York City Transit and others 
showed that the travel time savings for riders was due to shorter 
waiting times from the off-board fare collection. Similarly, Eugene 
LTD officials told us that one of the ways they attracted riders was 
to reduce travel times for the EmX BRT using two ITS components--
transit signal priority and a queue jump. According to research and 
transit stakeholders we spoke to, travel time savings is one of the 
greatest contributors to ridership gains.[Footnote 34] 

Figure 7: BRT Projects' Reported Travel Time Savings Compared to 
Previous Transit Service: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Bus rapid transit route name and location: 

Troost MAX (Kansas City, Missouri): 
Change in travel time: 35%. 

Mountain Links (Northern Arizona): 
Change in travel time: 33%. 

Franklin EmX (Eugene, Oregon): 
Change in travel time: 29%. 

Metro Express 44 (San Joaquin, California): 
Change in travel time: 28%. 

RTC RAPID (Washoe County, Nevada): 
Change in travel time: 25%. 

Healthline BRT (Cleveland, Ohio): 
Change in travel time: 22%. 

Metro Rapid 728 (Los Angeles, California): 
Change in travel time: 22%. 

Metro Rapid 741 (Los Angeles, California): 
Change in travel time: 19%. 

BusPlus (Albany, New York): 
Change in travel time: 19%. 

Metro Rapid 762 (Los Angeles, California): 
Change in travel time: 17%. 

The Rapid (Livermore, California): 
Change in travel time: 17%. 

M15 (New York, New York): 
Change in travel time: 16%. 

Metro Rapid 794 (Los Angeles, California): 
Change in travel time: 15%. 

Metro Rapid 770 (Los Angeles, California): 
Change in travel time: 15%. 

RapidRide A (Seattle, Washington): 
Change in travel time: 9%. 

RapidRide B (Seattle, Washington): 
Change in travel time: 5%. 

Source: GAO analysis of transit agency reported data. 

[End of figure] 

In addition to decreased travel times, BRT project sponsors also 
improved ridership by shortening "headways"--the time interval between 
buses moving in the same direction on a particular route--and 
decreasing riders' wait times. More than half of BRT project sponsors 
(13 of 20) reported having headways of 10 minutes or less during peak 
hours. Furthermore, during off-peak hours, over half of these existing 
BRT systems (11 of 20) operated headways of 15 minutes or less. Local 
officials told us that the EmX's 10-minute headways--5 minutes shorter 
than the previous bus route--improved ridership by university students 
and made it easier for them to live further from campus where rents 
are less expensive. Moreover, according to FTA guidance and other 
research, frequent headways are important for riders' perception of 
service quality. Specifically, research suggests that during peak 
hours 10 minutes is the maximum time between vehicles that riders are 
willing to wait without planning ahead of time. 

BRT project sponsors also reported providing service enhancements to 
attract riders and, in some cases, reduce travel times. Service 
enhancements included extended hours of service (e.g., more than 16 
hours per day), weekend service, and limited-stop service. All project 
sponsors reported providing at least one service enhancement and 
almost half (8 of 20) reported offering all three expanded service 
characteristics in our questionnaire. Project sponsors highlighted how 
the service enhancements helped reduce travel times. For example, 
Kansas City ATA officials attributed part of the Troost BRT's travel 
time savings to greater spacing between stops which allowed the 
vehicles to stop less frequently and travel at higher speeds. 

Gains in ridership are due in part to the BRT's ability to attract new 
riders to transit. All five BRT project sponsors we spoke with 
attributed a portion of the gains in ridership to an increase in 
choice riders--those who prefer to use transit even though they have 
the option to drive. Cleveland RTA's Healthline BRT, for example, 
replaced the busiest bus route in the city and surpassed its 5-year 
ridership projection in the second year of service. Specifically, 
according to Cleveland RTA officials, some riders are using the 
Healthline for mid-day trips that they may have previously taken in 
cars. Similarly, the Seattle's RapidRide A line also replaced one of 
the busiest bus routes and achieved an increase in ridership of more 
than 30 percent in the first year, an increase that included new 
riders from the local community college, according to King County 
Metro officials. Research suggests that at least some of these choice 
riders would be unwilling to ride a traditional bus, but will ride 
BRT.[Footnote 35] 

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. The rail transit projects 
we examined generally had higher average weekday ridership than BRT 
lines, although there were some exceptions. As figure 8 shows, nine of 
the 10 projects with the highest total ridership are rail transit 
projects. However, the M15 BRT in New York City has the highest total 
ridership of any project--more than 55,000 riders per day. This 
illustrates how, given the right conditions, BRT projects can generate 
ridership similar to rail transit. In addition, three other BRT 
projects--Cleveland's Healthline, Los Angeles' Metro Rapid 733, and 
Southern Nevada's BHX--average over 10,000 weekday riders, more than 
light rail projects in Los Angeles, Salt Lake City, and San Diego. 

Figure 8: Reported Average Weekday Ridership Data for First Year of 
Operation, by Mode: 

[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph] 

Average weekly ridership: 

M15 BRT (New York, NY): 
Bus rapid transit: 57,300. 

East Valley Light Rail LRT (Phoenix, AZ): 
Rail: 34,809. 

Northwest/Southeast LRT (Dallas, TX): 
Rail: 24,865. 

Southeast Corridor LRT (Denver, CO): 
Rail: 24,000. 

Hiawatha Line LRT (Minneapolis, MN): 
Rail: 23,756. 

Tren Urbano HR (San Juan, Puerto Rico): 
Rail: 21,644. 

Mission Valley East LRT (San Diego, CA): 
Rail: 20,930. 

South Corridor Blue LRT (Charlotte, NC): 
Rail: 16,139. 

Central Link (Initial Segment and Airport Link) LRT (Seattle, WA): 
Rail: 15,547. 

Hudson-Bergen Light Rail (MOS-2) LRT (Northern New Jersey): 
Rail: 13,959

Healthline BRT (Cleveland, OH): 
Bus rapid transit: 13,200. 

Metro Rapid 733 BRT (Los Angeles, CA): 
Bus rapid transit: 12,511. 

BHX BRT (Southern Nevada): 
Rail: 11,000. 

Gold Line East Side LRT (Los Angeles, CA): 
Rail: 10,300. 

Mountain Links BRT (Northern Arizona): 
Bus rapid transit: 10,000. 

Metro Rapid 770 BRT (Los Angeles, CA): 
Bus rapid transit: 9,899. 

Mid Jordan Route (Red Line) LRT (Salt Lake City, UT): 
Rail: 8,757. 

Metro Rapid 728 BRT (Los Angeles, CA): 
Bus rapid transit: 8,482. 

Troost MAX BRT (Kansas City, MO): 
Bus rapid transit: 8,000. 

RapidRide A BRT (Seattle, WA): 
Bus rapid transit: 7,440. 

The Sprinter LRT (San Diego, CA): 
Rail: 7,291. 

Metro Rapid 794 BRT (Los Angeles, CA): 
Bus rapid transit: 6,306. 

Metro Rapid 762 BRT (Los Angeles, CA): 
Bus rapid transit: 5,592. 

RTC RAPID BRT (Washoe County, NV): 
Bus rapid transit: 4,967. 

Franklin EmX BRT (Eugene, OR): 
Bus rapid transit: 4,771. 

Weber County to Salt Lake City CR (Salt Lake City, UT): 
Rail: 4117. 

Metro Rapid 741 BRT (Los Angeles, CA): 
Bus rapid transit: 3,700. 

The Rapid BRT (Livermore, CA): 
Bus rapid transit: 3,400. 

Gateway EmX BRT (Eugene, OR): 
Bus rapid transit: 2,242. 

Northstar CR (Minneapolis, MN): 
Rail: 2214. 

Source: GAO analysis of transit agency reported data. 

Notes: Project sponsors reported ridership data for the first year of 
operations, which ranged between 2005 and 2011. 

CR=commuter rail, BRT=bus rapid transit, LRT=light rail transit, and 
HR=heavy rail. 

[End of figure] 

Several factors, including the number of available riders and rider 
preferences, affect total ridership. The M15's high ridership is in 
part due to its location in densely populated Manhattan, the high 
number of transit-dependent riders living and working along the 
corridor, and the distance to the nearest subway line. In comparison, 
two commuter rail lines we examined were among the five projects with 
the lowest number of average daily riders likely due to shorter hours 
of service and the fact that, with the exception of a few peak hours, 
commuter rail lines generally have fewer trips throughout the day. 

Further, we heard from stakeholders that, in general, riders prefer 
rail transit compared to bus due to the greater perceived prestige of 
rail transit. Rail transit project sponsors and city officials for all 
rail projects we looked at told us that their projects would likely 
not have attracted the same number of riders had they been developed 
as BRT, citing the perception some riders have about the quality and 
permanence of bus service. According to project sponsors, rail transit 
projects have the ability to attract riders who would not be 
interested in any form of bus given perception and features. Research 
suggests that many intangible factors, including perception, play a 
role in making rail transit more attractive than bus. However, as 
discussed earlier, BRT project sponsors told us that the perceptions 
about bus for "choice riders" can be overcome with rail-like features. 
Cleveland RTA officials attribute increased BRT ridership to more 
professionals and students riding the Healthline. According to these 
officials, professionals and students find the Healthline attractive 
because of the increased frequency of service; quicker travel times; 
enhanced safety; limited stops; quality of ride; and quieter, more 
attractive, and more fuel-efficient vehicles. In some international 
cities, however, given their more comprehensive systems, higher 
population densities, and more positive attitudes about bus service, 
BRT ridership in some cities exceeds rail transit ridership in the U.S. 

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. Median costs for BRT and rail transit projects we examined 
were about $36.1 million and $575.7 million, respectively. Capital 
costs for BRT and rail transit projects ranged from about $3.5 million 
to over $567 million and almost $117 million to over $7 billion, 
respectively. Of the 30 BRT projects with a grant agreement, only five 
had higher capital costs than the least expensive rail transit 
project. While initial capital costs are generally lower for BRT than 
rail transit, capital costs can be considered in context of total 
riders, as discussed earlier, and other long-term considerations, 
which we discuss below, depending on the purpose of the analysis. 
Figure 9 shows the range and individual project capital costs by mode. 

Figure 9: Range and Individual Capital Costs for BRT and Rail Transit 
Projects Receiving a Grant Agreement from Fiscal Year 2005 through 
February 2012: 

[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph] 

Mode: Commuter rail; 
Cost range: Project cost: $1.5 to 7.4 billion; 
Individual project costs: 
$7.38 billion; 
$6.12 billion; 
$20.43 billion; 
$3.57 billion; 
$3.17 billion; 
$1.17 billion; 
$1.5 billion; 
$2.32 billion. 

Mode: Heavy rail; 
Cost range: Project cost: $3.1 to $4.9 billion; 
Individual project costs: 
$3.14 billion; 
$4.87 billion. 

Mode: Light rail transit[A]; 
Cost range: Project cost: $1.3 to $1.9 billion; 
Individual project costs: 
$1.4 billion; 
$0.8 billion; 
$0.8 billion; 
$0.5. billion; 
$0.2 billion; 
$1.9 billion; 
$0.7 billion; 
$1.4 billion; 
$1.0 billion; 
$0.6 billion; 
$0.4 billion; 
$0.2 billion; 
$0.4 billion; 
$0.2 billion; 
$0.1 billion.  

Mode: Bus rapid transit; 
Cost range: Project cost: $0.01 to $0.567 billion;  
Individual project costs: 
$0.567 billion; 
$0.168 billion; 
$0.04 billion; 
$0.082 billion; 
$0.126 billion; 
$0.192 billion; 
$0.205 billion; 
$0.041 billion; 
$0.096 billion; 
$0.033 billion; 
$0.035 billion; 
$0.047 billion; 
$0.048 billion; 
$0.024 billion; 
$0.035 billion; 
$0.027 billion; 
$0.031 billion; 
$0.039 billion; 
$0.035 billion; 
$0.043 billion; 
$0.01 billion; 
$0.022 billion; 
$0.032 billion; 
$0.004 billion; 
$0.01 billion; 
$0.048 billion; 
$0.027 billion; 
$0.037 billion; 
$0.025 billion; 
$0.028 billion. 

Source: GAO analysis of FTA documents. 

Note: Exempt projects were excluded from our analysis Cost data for 
New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small Starts projects are through 
February 2012. 

[A] One streetcar project, the Portland Streetcar Loop, is included in 
this analysis as a light rail project. 

[End of figure] 

More than half of projects (30 of 55) that received grant agreements 
since fiscal year 2005 have been BRT projects, yet these projects 
account for less than 10 percent of committed funding, as shown in 
figure 10. Based on our analysis of project cost estimates, we 
estimate $12.8 billion of Capital Investment Grant funds committed for 
New, Small, and Very Small Starts will be used for transit projects 
that received grant agreements since fiscal year 2005. Of this $12.8 
billion, $1.2 billion will be for BRT projects. The amount of New 
Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small Start projects' funding committed 
for BRT projects ranged from almost $3 million to $275 million. Rail 
transit projects accounted for less than half of projects with grant 
agreements (25 of 55) and more than 90 percent of funding. Federal 
Capital Investment Grant contributions under the New Starts, Small 
Starts, or Very Small Start categories for rail transit projects 
ranged from almost $60 million to over $2 billion. 

Figure 10: Total Number of Projects and Percentage of Total New 
Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small Starts Committed Funding from 
Fiscal Year 2005 through February 2012: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Mode: Bus rapid transit; 
Number of projects: 30; 
Percentage of funding: 9%. 

Mode: Light rail transit[A]; 
Number of projects: 15; 
Percentage of funding: 40%. 

Mode: Commuter rail; 
Number of projects: 8; 
Percentage of funding: 35%. 

Mode: Heavy rail; 
Number of projects: 2; 
Percentage of funding: 16%. 

Source: GAO analysis of FTA documents. 

Note: Exempt projects were excluded from our analysis. 

[A] One streetcar project, the Portland Streetcar Loop, is included in 
this analysis as a light rail project. 

[End of figure] 

Since fiscal year 2005, most projects with grant agreements under 
Small Starts and Very Small Starts have been BRT projects while most 
New Starts projects have been rail transit. With two exceptions, all 
30 BRT projects funded since fiscal year 2005 were funded under Small 
Starts or Very Small Starts. Twenty-one of 25 rail-transit projects 
were funded under New Starts and the remaining were funded under Small 
Starts. (See figure 11.) 

Figure 11: Total Projects in New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small 
Starts with Grant Agreements by Mode, Fiscal Year 2005 through 
February 2012: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 4 pie-charts] 

Bus rapid transit (30 total): 
Small Starts/Very Small Starts: 28; 
New Starts: 2. 

Light rail transit[A] (15 total): 
Small Starts/Very Small Starts: 13; 
New Starts: 2. 

Commuter rail (8 total): 
Small Starts/Very Small Starts: 6; 
New Starts: 2. 

Heavy rail (2 total): 
Small Starts/Very Small Starts: 0; 
New Starts: 2. 

Source: GAO analysis of FTA documents. 

Note: Exempt projects were excluded from our analysis. 

[A] One streetcar project, the Portland Streetcar Loop, is included in 
this analysis as a light rail project. 

[End of figure] 

We heard from all of the BRT project sponsors we spoke with that, even 
at a lower capital cost, BRT could provide rail-like benefits. For 
example, Cleveland RTA officials told us the Healthline BRT project 
cost roughly one-third of what a comparable light rail project would 
have cost them. Similarly, Eugene LTD officials told us that the 
agency pursued BRT when it became apparent that light rail was 
unaffordable and that an LTD light rail project would not be 
competitive in the New Starts federal grant process. 

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. Light rail systems, for example, often require train signal 
communications, electrical power systems with overhead wires to power 
trains, and rails, ties, and switches. Further, if a rail maintenance 
facility does not exist, one must be built and equipped. On the other 
hand, transit experts who have evaluated both rail transit and BRT 
told us that while initial capital costs are higher for rail transit 
than for BRT, life-cycle capital costs for rail transit are 
potentially lower than BRT. For instance, although more expensive up 
front (typically $1.5 million to $3.4 million per car), life cycles of 
rail transit cars are longer (typically 25 years or more) than most 
BRT vehicles (12 to 15 years).[Footnote 36] However circumstances 
affecting costs will vary among projects, and research has not yet 
been done to compare life-cycle costs of BRT systems in the U.S., as 
they are still relatively new. 

BRT capital costs depend on each project's features and service 
levels. Specifically, costs are affected by: 

* Type of running way. As mentioned above, most BRT projects we 
reviewed run in mixed traffic rather than dedicated or semi-dedicated 
running ways. According to research, capital costs for BRT projects 
that operate in mixed traffic range from $50,000 to $100,000 per mile 
compared to $2 to $10 million per mile for projects that have 
dedicated lanes.[Footnote 37] 

* Right-of-way or property acquisition. Many BRT projects use running 
ways and stations areas in existing streets and sidewalk space. 
However, BRT projects designed with rail transit-like dedicated right-
of-ways could require more property acquisition or leasing to make 
room for guideways, stations, or other infrastructure. 

* Type of vehicles and services selected. Capital costs for BRT 
vehicles can range from about $400,000 to almost $1 million. The 
number of BRT vehicles needed for a route can depend on the length of 
the project, travel time, and peak headway, among other things. For 
example, Cleveland RTA spent about $21 million dollars for vehicles on 
the Healthline compared to Kansas City ATA which spent about $6.3 
million for vehicles on the Troost MAX BRT. Differences in price were 
a result of (1) Cleveland's needing nine more vehicles than Kansas 
City (24 compared to 15 respectively) to maintain shorter headways and 
(2) the cost of the vehicles ($900,000 compared to $366,000 
respectively).[Footnote 38] Cleveland's vehicles have more features, 
including hybrid technology for a quieter ride, multiple boarding 
doors to expedite boarding, and articulated vehicles to increase 
capacity. 

* Non-transit related features. Some projects' costs include 
streetscaping, landscaping, or updates to utilities, while others do 
not. For example, three of the five project sponsors we met with used 
federal funding to purchase artwork along the line to increase a sense 
of permanence and better incorporate the BRT system into the 
community. (See next section for a discussion of the role of 
permanence in economic development.) 

Factors Affecting Operating Costs: 

As with capital costs, a project's total operating costs can vary 
based on several project factors, including length of the route, 
headways, vehicle acquisition, and other non-transit related features. 
As a result of the many factors involved, it can be challenging to 
generalize differences in operating costs within and across modes. In 
some cases BRT projects have lower operating costs than the previous 
bus service. For example, according to Eugene LTD officials, the 
Eugene EmX decreased overall operating costs per rider. Officials 
attributed the savings to improved schedule reliability and travel-
time savings from the dedicated right-of-way, which reduced labor 
costs because fewer buses are needed to maintain the schedule. 
Cleveland RTA told us the Healthline BRT reduced the overall operating 
budget and the average costs per rider decreased. For RTA, the 18 
vehicles that operate during peak hours replaced the 28 buses that 
were needed to operate the standard bus service the BRT replaced. 
Hourly labor costs are about the same for BRT, standard bus service, 
and heavy rail; however, the cost per rider is lower for the BRT than 
standard buses due to higher capacities and ridership on the BRT. 

We also heard from stakeholders and project sponsors that operating 
costs for BRT and rail transit depend strongly on the density and 
ridership in the corridor. For example, according to one transit 
expert, while signaling and control costs are high for rail transit, 
there is a tipping point where given a high enough density and 
ridership, rail transit begins to have lower operating costs overall. 
New York City Transit officials commented that while construction 
costs for a street-running BRT are about 1/500th of the cost of 
building a heavy rail, operating costs for a bus operation can be 
higher. Two operators can carry close to 2,000 riders on a single 
heavy rail train, whereas in a BRT system, 24 operators are needed to 
carry the same number of riders. 

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 five BRT projects we visited).[Footnote 39] In 
addition, stakeholders mentioned that 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. 

Table 2: Summary of Economic Development near BRT Case Studies: 

Healthline, Cleveland, Ohio; 
Cleveland RTA officials told us that the Healthline has contributed to 
rail-like economic development benefits, and the amount of development 
is impressive given Cleveland's economic challenges. Officials 
estimate that between $4-$5 billion worth of investment has occurred 
in the corridor since the Healthline began operations; however, much 
of that development is associated with nearby institutions including 
hospitals and universities. 

Franklin EmX, Eugene, Oregon; 
City officials informed us that $100 million worth of construction 
projects are under way downtown near the Franklin EmX line, including 
a boutique hotel, office space renovations, and expansions to a 
community college. City officials also said that the University of 
Oregon is looking to lease space downtown and that there has been 
developer interest in new student housing. Although these officials 
expect land values to increase along Franklin Ave., they noted it is 
hard to measure the extent to which BRT is contributing to the 
increase. 

Troost MAX, Kansas City, Missouri; 
Local officials told us that BRT has helped Troost Ave. position 
itself for future development. The city recently received a $25-
million federal grant for urban reinvestment, which is being used for 
a variety of streetscape improvements within a 150 square block area 
that includes three Troost MAX stations. According to transit agency 
staff, the area was chosen for federal investment in part due to its 
proximity to the BRT. 

Metro Rapid System, Los Angeles, California; 
Metro staff attributed a few development projects to the presence of 
Metro Rapid lines, but noted that other factors have likely influenced 
most of the development. For instance, many Metro Rapid routes are 
already developed because they tend to follow the city's old streetcar 
routes, which concentrated development in these corridors. In 
addition, they told us that the BRTs run on busy streets that the city 
has been targeting for more density anyway. 

RapidRide A Line, Seattle, Washington; 
Local officials told us development along the RapidRide A has been 
limited, but some developers are interested in the corridor, in part 
because of complimentary planned light rail service. In addition, they 
noted that other BRT corridors in the region are attracting transit-
oriented development and that BRT will eventually connect most of the 
region's significant growth centers. 

Source: GAO analysis of interviews with local officials. 

[End of table] 

Factors Affecting Economic Development Near BRT: 

Project sponsors, local officials, and transit experts we spoke to 
believe that, in general, rail transit is a better economic 
development catalyst than BRT; however, this opinion was not 
universal. For example, Cleveland officials told us that they do not 
believe that economic development along Euclid Avenue would have been 
any different if a light rail line had been built in the corridor 
instead of a BRT. In addition, stakeholders mentioned that certain 
factors can enhance BRT's ability to generate economic development 
similar to rail transit. Specifically, they described how economic 
development near BRT can be supported by having: 

* physical BRT features that convey a sense of permanence to 
developers; 

* major institutional, employment, and activity centers along or near 
the BRT corridor that can sponsor development projects; and: 

* transit-supportive local policies and development incentives. 

Physical BRT Features: 

A number of project sponsors, local officials, and other stakeholders 
we spoke to emphasized the importance of BRT projects' physical 
features--particularly those that are perceived as permanent--in 
helping to spur economic development. They explained that BRTs with 
dedicated running ways, substantial stations with enhanced amenities, 
and other fixed assets represent a larger investment in the corridor 
by the public sector and assure developers that the transit service 
and infrastructure will be maintained for decades into the future. For 
example, Los Angeles local officials told us that the city's Orange 
Line BRT can come close to light rail in terms of economic development 
because its station infrastructure and enhanced amenities relay a 
sense of permanence to developers. 

The results of our land value analysis of BRT corridors also is 
consistent with the perception that the permanence of BRT features may 
play a role in spurring development and increasing land values. 
[Footnote 40] For example, the University Circle portion of the 
Healthline, which received significant infrastructure and private 
institutional investments (i.e., investments that are more likely to 
be perceived as permanent by developers and others), experienced 
modest to large increases in land values. In contrast, the East 
Cleveland segment of the Healthline--which includes fewer BRT features 
and less investment than other segments of the line--experienced a 
slight decline in land values in the years immediately before and 
after BRT operations began. (See figure 12): 

Figure 12: Land Value Changes along Cleveland's Healthline BRT 
Corridor, 2006 through 2011: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration and line graph] 

Illustration depicts the following: 

Midtown; 
University Circle; 
East Cleveland; 
Healthline route; 
Healthline stations; 
Analysis district boundary. 

Land value changes: 
Decrease of more than 5 cents per square foot; 
No change within 5 cents per square foot; 
Increase of between 5 cents and $10 per square foot; 
Increase of $10 per square foot or more. 

Line graph: 

Percent change in land value from 2 years before opening: 

University Circle: 
Year -2: 
Year -1: 
Opening (2008): 
Year +1: 
Year +2: 
Year +3: 

Midtown: 
Year -2: 
Year -1: 
Opening (2008): 
Year +1: 
Year +2: 
Year +3: 

East Cleveland: 
Year -2: 
Year -1: 
Opening (2008): 
Year +1: 
Year +2: 
Year +3: 

Source: GAO analysis of Cuyahoga County Office of the Fiscal Officer 
information. 

[End of figure] 

Institutional, Employment, and Activity Centers: 

During our site visits, local officials noted that major institutions 
and employment centers are playing an important role in supporting 
economic development in BRT corridors. In Kansas City, most of the 
larger development projects along Troost Avenue have been sponsored by 
universities and medical institutions situated along or near the 
corridor. For example, the Research Medical Center has partnered with 
a private developer to build a 13.5 acre senior housing center that 
will include commercial space and connect to a BRT station. 

Likewise, in Eugene, city officials told us that the University of 
Oregon has supported the EmX by supplying land for the line's running 
way and recently building a $250-million arena near one of the 
stations. (See figure 13.) Moreover, the results of our land value 
analysis in Eugene suggest that investments by the university are 
having a positive impact on land values along the Franklin EmX 
corridor. Specifically, we found that from 2005 through 2010, assessed 
land values in downtown Eugene and near the University of Oregon 
campus have increased at a greater rate than other segments of the 
Franklin EmX corridor. 

Figure 13: Land Value Changes near Eugene/Springfield, Oregon, EmX, 
2005 through 2010: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration and line graph] 

Illustration depicts the following: 

Downtown Eugene; 
University of Oregon area; 
Glenwood; 
Downtown Springfield; 
Franklin EmX Stations; 
Franklin EmX Route; 
Analysis district boundary. 

Land value changes: 
Decrease of more than 5 cents per square foot; 
No change within 5 cents per square foot; 
Increase of between 5 cents and $10 per square foot; 
Increase of $10 per square foot or more. 

Line graph: 

Percent change in land value from 2 years before opening: 

University of Oregon area: 
Year -2: 
Year -1: 
Opening (2007): 
Year +1: 
Year +2: 
Year +3: 

Downtown Eugene: 
Year -2: 
Year -1: 
Opening (2007): 
Year +1: 
Year +2: 
Year +3: 

Downtown Springfield: 
Year -2: 
Year -1: 
Opening (2007): 
Year +1: 
Year +2: 
Year +3: 

Glenwood: 
Year -2: 
Year -1: 
Opening (2007): 
Year +1: 
Year +2: 
Year +3: 

Source: GAO analysis of Lane County Assessment and Taxation data. 

[A] Lane County Assessment and Taxation did not provide data for 2008. 

[End of figure] 

BRT projects also may be aiding development in their corridors simply 
by providing connections between major employment and activity 
centers.[Footnote 41] According to one transit expert we spoke with, 
transit projects need to link residential areas to employment centers 
or attractions, such as hospitals or stadiums, to successfully 
generate economic development. Without these types of connections, 
developers are less likely to view the project as capable of drawing 
sufficient ridership to be attractive for development. 

Transit-supportive Local Policies and Development Incentives: 

BRT project sponsors and experts we spoke to told us that transit-
supportive policies and development incentives can play a crucial role 
in helping to attract and spur economic development. Local officials 
in four of our five site-visit locations described policies and 
incentives that were designed (or are being developed) to attract 
development near BRT and other transit projects. For example, Los 
Angeles city officials told us that the city's mayor recently created 
a transit-oriented development cabinet tasked with improving and 
maintaining coordination between Los Angeles Metro and city staff and 
developing policies and procedures in support of transit-oriented 
developments. They told us that the city is currently working on 
lifting requirements that require large amounts of parking and allow 
for only one-or two-story developments along many of the Metro Rapid 
lines. Officials in Eugene, Cleveland, and Seattle also told us that 
local governments either have in place, or are currently drafting, 
land use policies that are supportive of transit-oriented development. 
In contrast, Kansas City officials told us that the city has not used 
local policies and development incentives to generate economic 
development along Troost Avenue but that it is continuing to look at 
partnerships for future investments and pursue development 
opportunities. Much of Troost Avenue has suffered economically for 
several decades and possesses characteristics that literature suggests 
can negatively affect land values near transit, such as low household 
incomes. 

Other Factors Affecting Development near BRT: 

Stakeholders also mentioned several factors that could lead to 
different amounts and types of economic development in BRT corridors 
compared to rail transit corridors. For instance, the greater prestige 
and permanence associated with rail transit may lead to more 
development and investment in rail transit corridors than in BRT 
corridors. Transit agency and other local officials also noted that 
BRT station areas might experience less investment and development 
than rail station areas because transit agencies may not own large 
amounts of land around BRT stations on which to build or support 
transit-oriented developments.[Footnote 42] Los Angeles city officials 
told us that one of the primary economic development benefits of light 
rail is that surplus property around the stations can be developed. 
Kansas City ATA officials told us that the agency owns only a few 
properties along Troost Avenue, which limits its ability to 
incentivize economic development in and around the BRT corridor. One 
real estate expert we spoke with noted that BRT may be better at 
supporting small-scale retail and residential developments, affordable 
housing developments, and medical facilities than rail transit, since 
these types of developments are often priced out of rail station-area 
markets. 

Other BRT Community Benefits: 

Although BRT projects have been contributing in various ways to 
economic development along their corridors, project sponsors informed 
us that in three of our site-visit locations, economic development was 
a consideration for the BRT project, but not among the primary 
objectives. Consequently, project sponsors highlighted several other 
benefits BRT projects have provided to their communities aside from--
or in addition to--economic development. Specifically, they cited 
BRT's operational flexibility and shorter implementation time frames 
as benefits, as well as its ability to serve as a stepping stone for 
rail transit in the community. 

Experts and project sponsors we spoke with mentioned BRT's operational 
flexibility as a community benefit, since unlike rail transit, BRT 
operators can temporarily extend routes and change service plans if 
necessary, without the construction of additional infrastructure or 
major service disruptions. For instance, Cleveland RTA officials told 
us that--although the Healthline is permanent--they avoided otherwise 
shutting down the service while a movie filmed in the Public Square by 
detouring the vehicles two blocks for a few days, an option that 
wouldn't be available for a rail transit project. Likewise, Kansas 
City ATA officials told us that when a bridge along Troost Avenue 
needed repair, the agency was able to reroute the Troost MAX 
temporarily until the bridge construction was finished. 

Local officials in four of our five site-visit locations, as well as 
transit experts we spoke with, stated that another advantage of BRT 
projects is the ability to design and build them more quickly than 
rail transit projects. For instance, King County Metro officials told 
us that the agency completed two to three RapidRide BRT projects in 
the time it might have taken to build and design one light rail 
project. Likewise, in Kansas City, ATA officials informed us that the 
light rail planning had been ongoing for decades, but stakeholders 
eventually turned their attention to BRT in part due to projects' 
shorter implementation time frames. These shorter time frames could 
result in communities experiencing economic development benefits 
sooner than they would have with rail transit, although BRT might 
ultimately have less of an impact on economic development than rail 
transit. 

Finally, project sponsors and other stakeholders we spoke with 
mentioned that BRT can benefit communities by laying a foundation for 
future rail transit service in the corridors. According to one real 
estate expert we spoke with, a successful BRT line can serve as a 
precursor to rail transit since it allows nearby property owners to 
see the actual and potential increase in property values stemming from 
the presence of transit. Another expert also pointed out that 
communities can use BRT systems to test out potential corridors for 
light rail or heavy rail systems and provide some insight into the 
number and spacing of stops, as well as ridership. Project sponsors 
and stakeholders in four of our five site-visit locations indicated 
that the BRT projects could one day transform into rail transit 
service. Los Angeles Metro officials explained that Wilshire 
Boulevard, which is currently serviced by the Metro Rapid system, is 
the preferred location for a long-deferred subway extension project. 
According to Metro officials, the agency is still interested in 
establishing a subway line along this corridor, but it might be 20 or 
25 years before this happens. In Seattle, King County Metro officials 
believe that the RapidRide A Line has established the transit agency's 
commitment to capital and service investments that build a foundation 
for future light rail service in the corridor. 

Concluding Observations: 

Although BRT has become more common in the U.S. in recent years, it 
remains an evolving and diverse concept. BRT projects encompass a 
range of designs and physical features and provide varying levels of 
service, economic development, and other benefits to communities. The 
flexibility of BRT has allowed cities and regions across the country--
with differing public transportation needs and goals--to improve 
transit service and demonstrate investment in surrounding communities, 
often at a lower initial capital cost than with rail transit. However, 
cost differences between U.S. BRT projects and rail transit projects 
are sensitive to individual project features and each transit 
agencies' unique circumstances. Differences in cost partly reflect BRT 
project sponsors' limited use of the more costly features commonly 
associated with BRT--such as dedicated running ways, stations with 
major infrastructure investments, and off-board fare collection. 
Cleveland's Healthline incorporates the most BRT features of any 
project we examined and cost $200 million to construct, which is 
comparable to some of the less costly rail transit projects. Some of 
the more costly BRT features are the same features stakeholders view 
as critical to contribute to economic development because they portray 
a sense of permanence to developers and demonstrate investment by the 
public sector. Therefore, project sponsors in cities with limited 
transit funding sources and without major congestion issues may find 
the added cost of these features worthwhile only if economic 
development is among their projects' primary objectives. 

The limited use of BRT's more costly features might also partly 
reflect the relatively large role that the Small and Very Small Starts 
programs have played in funding recent BRT projects as compared to 
state and local funding sources. The funding these programs provide to 
smaller transit projects has allowed communities that otherwise may 
not have been as competitive in the New Starts process to obtain 
federal transit support. However, it is possible that limits on the 
total project cost create incentives for BRT project sponsors to omit 
more costly BRT features. In general, though, it appears that BRT 
project sponsors are using the Small and Very Small Starts programs to 
design and implement projects that address their communities' current 
transit needs and align with the projects sponsors' overall 
objectives. Moreover, project sponsors may develop initial plans for 
BRTs that do not include a comprehensive range of features, knowing 
that they can incorporate additional features into BRT projects 
incrementally as communities' transit needs and financial 
circumstances change. 

Agency Comments: 

We provided U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) with a draft of 
this report for review and comment. U.S. DOT did not comment on the 
draft report. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 
committees and the Secretary of the Department of Transportation. In 
addition, this report will be available at no charge on GAO's website 
at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions or would like to discuss this 
work, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov. Contact 
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs 
may be found on the last page of this report. Individuals making key 
contributions to this report are listed in appendix III. 

Signed by: 

David J. Wise: 
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Project Information for Bus Rapid Transit Case Studies: 

GAO selected five bus rapid transit projects in cities across the U.S. 
to serve as case studies for this report. This appendix lists these 
five projects and provides links to the projects' websites. See Table 
3 below. 

Table 3: Project Information for Bus Rapid Transit Case Studies: 

Project, Location: (Transit Agency): Troost MAX, Kansas City, MO; 
(Kansas City Area Transportation Authority); 
Hyperlink to Project Website: [hyperlink, 
http://www.kcata.org/light_rail_max/troost_max_route1/]. 

Project, Location: (Transit Agency): Rapid Ride A Line, Seattle, WA; 
(King County Metro); 
Hyperlink to Project Website: [hyperlink, 
http://metro.kingcounty.gov/travel-options/bus/rapidride/a-line/]. 

Project, Location: (Transit Agency): Franklin EmX, Eugene, OR; (Lane 
Transit District); 
Hyperlink to Project Website: [hyperlink, 
http://www.ltd.org/search/showresult.html?versionthread=d38519362672c662
c61a9300c1dd78be]. 

Project, Location: (Transit Agency): Healthline, Cleveland, OH; 
(Regional Transportation Authority); Hyperlink to Project Website: 
[hyperlink, http://www.rtahealthline.com/healthline-what-is.asp]. 

Project, Location: (Transit Agency): LA Metro Rapid Gap Closure 
Projects, Los Angeles, CA; (Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation 
Authority); 
Hyperlink to Project Website: [hyperlink, 
http://www.metro.net/projects/rapid/]. 

Source: Various project websites (see hyperlinks in table). 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

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? 

2. How have BRT projects performed in terms of ridership and service 
and how do they compare to rail transit projects? 

3. How do the costs of these projects differ from rail transit 
projects? 

4. To what extent do BRT projects provide economic development and 
other benefits to communities? 

To determine which features are included in BRT projects and why, we 
sent questionnaires to sponsors of all 20 completed BRT projects FTA 
recommended for New Start, Small Start, and Very Small Start or Bus 
and Bus Facilities funding under the Capital Investment Grant Program 
since fiscal year 2005.[Footnote 43] We limited our scope to BRT 
projects with upgrades of existing infrastructure so as to institute a 
fixed guideway or new corridor-based service or a significant 
extension of an existing route.[Footnote 44] To develop our 
questionnaire, we reviewed academic literature and interviewed 
1ndustry officials to identify seven features commonly associated with 
BRT.[Footnote 45] We then developed questions about these features; 
ridership; and capital and operating costs. We conducted three 
telephone pretests for the questionnaire, two with project sponsors of 
completed BRT projects and one with the National Bus Rapid Transit 
Institute.[Footnote 46] We pre-populated the questionnaires with 
information obtained from an existing interest group BRT database, 
project websites, and other project sponsor documentation submitted to 
FTA.[Footnote 47] Project sponsors were asked to verify or correct the 
pre-populated information and complete any missing information. We 
sent an e-mail announcement with the questionnaire to all 20 BRT 
project sponsors.[Footnote 48] We received completed questionnaires 
for all 20 BRT projects in our scope for a response rate of 100 
percent. In addition, we visited five sites, and we obtained 
information about the presence or absence of BRT projects' features as 
well as why BRT features were or were not included through interviews 
with the sponsors of the following BRT projects: 

* the Healthline in Cleveland, Ohio; 

* the RapidRide A Line in Seattle, Washington; 

* the Troost MAX in Kansas City, Missouri; 

* the Metro Rapid System in Los Angeles, California; and: 

* the Franklin EmX in Eugene, Oregon. 

We selected site visit locations based on consideration of several 
factors, including the number and extent of BRT features; ridership, 
length of route, peak headway, and geographic diversity.[Footnote 49] 
We considered all 20 existing BRT projects that received federal 
funding and selected projects with a range of each factor listed 
above. Because we selected a nonprobability sample of projects, the 
information we obtained from these interviews and visits cannot be 
generalized to all BRT projects. 

To assess how BRT projects have performed in terms of ridership and 
service and how they compare to rail transit projects, we reviewed 
existing literature on BRT and rail transit projects' ridership and 
service levels. In addition, we sent questionnaires to the sponsors of 
all 20 completed rail transit projects that met the criteria outlined 
above and compared the responses of BRT project sponsors to those of 
rail transit project sponsors.[Footnote 50] We received completed 
questionnaires for 18 of the 20 rail transit projects in our scope for 
a response rate of 90 percent. We supplemented the data collected 
through our questionnaires with information obtained during our site-
visit interviews (from the locations listed above). 

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.[Footnote 51] We then used project cost 
data from FTA's Annual Reports on Funding Recommendations for fiscal 
years 2005 through 2012 to ensure that we had the most recent project 
cost estimates. We discussed data collection and maintenance with FTA 
and determined the data are reliable for our purposes. In addition to 
collecting data from FTA, we also reviewed relevant academic 
literature on BRT and rail transit capital costs and interviewed 
academic experts, BRT stakeholders, and select BRT project sponsors to 
better understand how BRT and rail transit projects compare in terms 
of costs. 

To examine the extent to which BRT projects provide economic 
development and other benefits to communities, we reviewed existing 
literature on the impact of transit on economic development and land 
values. During our site visits, we interviewed project sponsors, 
transit experts, non-profit business organizations, and economic 
development professionals about development that has occurred (or is 
expected to occur) in and around the BRT corridors. To supplement 
testimonial evidence obtained during site visit interviews, we 
collected land value assessment data for properties located within ¼ 
mile of the five BRT projects we visited and analyzed trends in the 
assessed value of these properties for the 2 years prior to the 
project's implementation to the 3 years after operations 
began.[Footnote 52] We used the gross domestic product price index 
compiled by Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, to 
convert the nominal land value into constant 2010 dollars. We did not 
attempt to model other factors that contribute to land values, such as 
broader economic conditions, other major infrastructure investments 
and amenities, and demographic characteristics. 

We conducted this performance audit from July 2011 through July 2012 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

David J. Wise, (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Cathy Colwell (Assistant 
Director), Nathan Bowen, Lorraine Ettaro, Colin Fallon, Kathleen 
Gilhooly, Terence Lam, Matthew LaTour, Jaclyn Nidoh, Josh Ormond, and 
Melissa Swearingen made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] The World Resources Institute. 

[2] Public transit investments are one of many factors determining a 
locale's economic development. 

[3] Pub. L. No. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144 (Aug. 10, 2005). 

[4] 49 U.S.C. § 5309(b)(1). 

[5] Fixed-guideway systems use and occupy a separate right-of-way for 
the exclusive use of public transportation services, such as fixed 
rail and exclusive lanes for buses and other high-occupancy vehicles. 
According to FTA officials, the criteria FTA uses to determine if 
corridor based bus projects qualify as a fixed guideway system under 
49 U.S.C. § 5309(b)(1) follows language in SAFETEA-LU that allows 
corridor-based bus capital projects if--''(A) a substantial portion of 
the project operates in a separate right-of-way dedicated for public 
transit use during peak hour operations; or '(B) the project 
represents a substantial investment in a defined corridor as 
demonstrated by features such as park-and-ride lots, transit stations, 
bus arrival and departure signage, intelligent transportation systems 
technology, traffic signal priority, off-board fare collection, 
advanced bus technology, and other features that support the long-term 
corridor investment." See 49 U.S.C. § 5309(e)(10). 

[6] The Capital Investment Grant Program also includes Fixed Guideway 
Modernization grants and Exempt projects that are not included in our 
scope. 49 U.S.C. § 5309. Within our scope, BusPlus, Franklin EmX, 
MetroRapid 741, M15, BHX, and RTC Rapid received grants through Bus 
and Bus Facilities. All others received grants through New Starts, 
Small Starts, or Very Small Starts. 

[7] A New Starts projects is a project that has a total estimated 
capital project cost of $250 million or more or a New Starts 
contribution of $75 million or more. A Small Starts project has a 
total estimated project capital cost of under $250 million and a Small 
Starts contribution of under $75 million. Very Small Starts are very 
low cost projects within the Small Starts program that have an even 
further streamlined evaluation and rating process. Projects may also 
have other sources of federal funds, such as Federal Highway 
Administration's Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement 
funds. 

[8] We received completed questionnaires for all 20 BRT projects in 
our scope for a response rate of 100 percent. 

[9] We interviewed project sponsors and visited the following BRT 
projects: the Healthline in Cleveland, OH; the RapidRide A Line in 
Seattle, WA; the Troost MAX in Kansas City, MO; the Metro Rapid System 
in Los Angeles, CA; and the Franklin EmX in Eugene, OR. Information 
obtained from our site visits is limited to the 5 BRT projects we 
visited. 

[10] For rail transit projects, we received completed questionnaires 
for 18 of the 20 rail transit projects in our scope for a response 
rate of 90 percent. 

[11] We collected data from five locations; however we are only 
reporting data from Cleveland and Eugene. For other locations, 
preliminary analysis did not find changes in land values, data did not 
separate out land values, or the project was too new to analyze the 
land values after opening. 

[12] GAO, Intelligent Transportation Systems: Improved DOT 
Collaboration and Communication Could Enhance the Use of Technology to 
Manage Congestion, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-308]. (Washington, D.C.: March, 
2012). 

[13] We identified studies on BRT and economic development which are 
primarily based on case study examples and are in some cases based on 
foreign examples and acknowledge limitations. These studies suggest 
that BRT can increase property values and promote various forms of 
economic development in nearby communities. 

[14] GAO, Affordable Housing in Transit-Oriented Development: Key 
Practices Could Enhance Recent Collaboration Efforts between DOT-FTA 
and HUD, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-871], 
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2009). 

[15] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-871]. 

[16] Under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, or 
MAP-21, a corridor-based bus rapid transit project, in which the 
majority of the project does not operate in a separated right-of-way 
dedicated for public transportation use during peak periods, is 
eligible for Small Starts funding; New Starts funding eligibility is 
limited to those fixed guideway bus rapid transit projects in which 
the majority of the project operates in a separated right-of-way 
dedicated for public transportation use during peak periods. See 
sections 20004 and 20008 of Pub. L. No. 112-141 (July 6, 2012). 

[17] Fixed-guideway systems use and occupy a separate right-of-way for 
the exclusive use of public transportation services, such as fixed 
rail and exclusive lanes for buses and other high-occupancy vehicles. 
For Small Starts projects, the fixed-guideway portion of the project 
need not be contiguous, but it should be located to result in faster 
and more reliable running times. Peak period refers to periods with 
high ridership or demand. 

[18] Commuter rail systems operate along electric or diesel-propelled 
railways and provide train service for local, short distance trips 
between a central city and adjacent suburbs. Heavy rail systems 
operate on electric railways with high-volume traffic capacity and are 
characterized by separated rights-of-way, sophisticated signaling, 
high platform loading, and high-speed, rapid-acceleration rail cars 
operating singly or in multi-car trains on fixed rails. Light rail 
systems operate on electric railways with light-volume traffic 
capacity and are characterized by shared or exclusive rights-of-way, 
low or high platform loading, single or double car trains, and 
overhead electric lines that power rail vehicles. 

[19] TIGER grants to communities fund road, rail, transit, and port 
projects expected to have a significant impact on the nation, a 
region, or a metropolitan area. 

[20] The table includes the six physical features included in the 
questionnaire; the improved service feature is discussed later in this 
report. 

[21] Arterial streets typically have intersections with traffic 
signals, whereas freeways have entrance and exit ramps and use methods 
such as signs and gates to control access. 

[22] One of the projects--Eugene's Gateway EmX--uses both a semi-
dedicated running way and a dedicated running way for 30 percent or 
more of its route; therefore, it is counted only once in this 
statistic. 

[23] Four of the 20 BRT project sponsors did not report data on travel 
time savings because the BRT either did not replace a previous route 
or it operated for less than a full year when the questionnaire was 
completed. 

[24] Los Angeles Metro staff informed us that these bus stop 
improvements have been funded, but not yet implemented in all 
locations. 

[25] According to our questionnaire data, the following station 
amenities are present at half or more Troost MAX stations: greater 
curb width or raised curb; route maps and schedules; next bus 
displays; public art and landscaping; seating; and weather protection. 

[26] Some projects have more than one fare collection or verification 
method; therefore the total number of methods used exceeds the total 
number of BRT projects. 

[27] Two of the projects that incorporate off-board fare collection 
infrastructure also use a proof-of-payment method to ensure fare 
payment. 

[28] Low floor vehicles help reduce passengers' boarding times by 
reducing the height differential between the curb and the bus. 

[29] Transit signal priority systems can alter the timing of traffic 
signals in various ways to give priority to BRT vehicles at 
intersections. New York City Transit's M15 project was not included in 
these counts; however, according to the project sponsors, several ITS 
technologies will be incorporated throughout 2012 and 2013, including 
transit signal priority and vehicle tracking systems. 

[30] Transit signal-preemption systems override traffic signals, for 
example, by changing a red light to green as a BRT vehicle approaches 
an intersection. Based on our survey results, none of the existing BRT 
projects incorporate this feature. 

[31] According to our questionnaire results, 6 of 20 BRT projects 
incorporate queue jumps. 

[32] We could not calculate ridership changes for five of the 20 BRT 
projects because the BRT route either did not replace a previous route 
or the BRT operated for less than a full year when the project 
sponsors filled out the questionnaires. Project sponsors were not 
asked to report the type of service the BRT route replaced. 

[33] Four of the 20 project sponsors did not report data for travel 
time savings because the BRT route did not replace a previous route or 
they were unable to provide current travel times at the time they 
completed the questionnaire for a number of reasons. We didn't 
differentiate travel time savings between peak and off-peak. Rather, 
we asked project sponsors to report travel time savings before and 
after implementation of the BRT. 

[34] Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), Bus Rapid Transit 
Practitioner's Guide (Washington D.C.: 2007). 

[35] CALSTART, Bus Rapid Transit Ridership Analysis, a special report 
prepared at the request of the U.S. Department of Transportation 
Federal Transit Administration Office of Research, Demonstration and 
Innovation and Office of Mobility Innovation, Service Innovation 
Division (June 2005). 

[36] GAO, Transit Rail: Potential Rail Car Cost-Saving Strategies 
Exist, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-730] 
(Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2012). 

[37] TCRP, 2007. 

[38] According to Kansas City ATA officials, 4 of the 15 vehicles were 
hybrid buses that cost $538,000 each. 

[39] While the term economic development can refer to wide range of 
activities, for the purposes of our case studies we generally use the 
term to refer to components of transit-oriented development, such as 
high-density, mixed-use developments and pedestrian-friendly 
environments and streetscapes. 

[40] Kansas City received federal funding for urban reinvestment 
through a TIGER grant. 

[41] For this analysis, we collected land value assessment data for 
properties within ¼ mile of the five BRT projects we visited and 
analyzed trends in the assessed value of these properties for the 2 
years prior to the project's implementation to the 3 years after it 
began operating. 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. 

[42] Project sponsors from each of our five site visit locations told 
us that BRT has provided new or improved connections between regional 
employment and activity centers. 

[43] Transit agencies sometimes purchase land beyond what is needed 
for a future rail transit station to serve as a staging area for 
equipment during the station's construction. Transit agencies may use 
the excess land to build or incentivize development projects. 

[44] The Capital Investment Grant program also includes Fixed Guideway 
Modernization grants. 49 U.S.C. § 5309. Among projects we sent 
questionnaires to, BusPlus, Franklin EmX, MetroRapid 741, M15, BHX, 
and RTC Rapid received grants through Bus and Bus Facilities. All 
others received grants through New Starts, Small Starts, or Very Small 
Starts. 

[45] To be included in our scope, projects had to be a minimum of 2 
miles in length and include at least three stations. 

[46] Features include: running ways, vehicles, stations, intelligent 
transportation systems, fare collection, improved service, and 
branding. 

[47] We selected the two BRT projects due in part to their variety in 
terms of the number of BRT features and types and amount of federal 
funding. 

[48] Specifically, data sources included: the National Bus Rapid 
Transit Institute's BRT database, FTA's Annual Report on Funding 
Recommendations for fiscal years 2005 through 2012, and project 
sponsor documentation including, among other things, environmental 
assessment documents, economic analyses, or other relevant guidance on 
sponsor's websites. 

[49] We collected this information from project sponsors from December 
2011 through March 2012. 

[50] We selected projects that ranged in terms of these features 
across our broader scope of projects. 

[51] Questionnaires sent to rail transit projects sponsors resembled 
those sent to BRT project sponsors and were also pre-populated based 
on the sources identified above with the exception of the National Bus 
Rapid Transit Institute. In addition, we pre-tested our rail 
questionnaire with two rail project sponsors over the phone. 

[52] We received the New Starts data on April 6, 2012, for projects 
through February 2012 and Small Starts and Very Small Starts data on 
March 21, 2012. 

[53] We collected data from five locations; however, we are only 
reporting data from Cleveland and Eugene. For other locations, 
preliminary analysis did not find changes in land values, data did not 
separate out land values, or the project was too new to analyze the 
land values after opening. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
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 GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
“E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, DC 20548.