Why Bus-Rapid-Transit Has Become Popular

Am I ahead of my time or simply out of step with the times? When I began studying light rail, I quickly realized that buses could do everything light rail could do except cost a lot of money. I was especially heartened when Kansas City, whose voters had rejected light rail in something like eight different elections, spent about $3 million a mile (about $4 million a mile in today’s money) installing two bus-rapid-transit (BRT) lines and got 30 to 50 percent increases in ridership, which is more than some light-rail lines get.

Bus Rapid Transit takes cars off the road and moves people quickly, providing the benefits of metros at a fraction of the cost while cutting CO2 emissions.

Learn more: https://t.co/nP40VAgWun #LivablePlanet pic.twitter.com/fx337y0gsa

— World Bank (@WorldBank) October 23, 2023

So I should be happy about recent reports favoring BRT.

• As noted above, the World Bank reports that “Bus Rapid Transit takes cars off the road and moves people quickly, providing the benefits of metros at a fraction of the cost.”
• An article in Research in Transportation Economics found that the values of homes within a 20-minute walk of a bus-rapid transit station increased by 5 to 7 percent and the total increase in property values was six times the cost of the BRT projects.
• Jarrett Walker reports “good outcomes” from a new BRT line in Portland, specifically a 30 to 40 percent increase in ridership.

Yet in fact I’ve become disillusioned by BRT and I suspect it is for the same reason BRT has become popular: transit agencies have found ways to make it expensive. Portland’s BRT line took nine years of planning and cost $175 million, or around $15 million a mile. The Federal Transit Administration’s latest list of projects being considered for federal funding includes 34 BRT routes whose average cost is $22 million a mile. Six of them cost more than $40 million a mile and one is a cool $99 million a mile.

When light rail was first proposed, it was supposed to be the low-cost alternative to subways and elevateds. Most light-rail projects in the 1980s cost around $20 to $30 million a mile, or about $50 to $70 million a mile in today’s money. The projects were difficult to justify at those costs, bus since then, the average cost of the projects on the FTA’s list has ballooned to $384 million a mile with none less than $110 million a mile. Streetcars were supposed to be the low-cost form of light-rail but today the average streetcar project is more than $90 million a mile. BRT is following this pattern, rising in cost each year and the average cost will probably soon be more than light rail used to cost.

These creeping increases in costs are an example of mission creep: where transit agencies once saw their job as cost-effectively moving people around their regions, today their primary mission is to enrich special interest groups, especially construction companies, engineering and design firms, and labor unions. For example, Kansas City is now planning to convert one of its BRT routes to a streetcar line, thus replacing one of the nation’s most cost-effective transit projects with one of the dumbest modes of transit found today. (I’ve often said that streetcars are an intelligence test: anyone who thinks they are a good idea today should be excused from having any say over transportation in their region.)

On city streets, my own ideal BRT line would cost practically nothing. Existing buses would be repainted a distinctive color at a cost of, perhaps, $10,000 a bus. New signs costing, perhaps, $500 would be added at bus stops located about three-quarters of a mile apart. Shelters might also be added to each bus stop costing perhaps $15,000. Total cost would be under $30,000 per mile. Perhaps the agency running the buses would have to buy new buses, which would cost around $500,000 apiece. The total cost would still be well under $1 million a mile but the buses would offer better service by being more frequent and stopping less frequently (thus higher average speeds) than conventional buses.

Instead, transit agencies are demanding dedicated lanes so that lanes that now move hundreds of cars, trucks, and buses per hour will only move perhaps six buses per hour carrying a total of maybe 60 people per hour. Agencies also want their buses to have priority at traffic signals, putting the needs of 60 people per hour ahead of the thousands of people per hour in vehicles on streets crossing the BRT route.

On urban freeways, my ideal BRT route can be found on U.S. 36 between Denver and Boulder. Flatiron Flyer buses makes nine stops in the 28 miles between these two cities and average 32 miles per hour, more than any light-rail line in the country. The route also offers express buses (something that usually can’t be done with rail) that make only 5 stops and average 43 miles per hour.

To start the route, the Colorado Department of Transportation built new lanes on US 36, but they weren’t dedicated solely to buses. Instead, they were high-occupancy/toll lanes, which means anyone can drive on the lanes but low-occupancy vehicles had to pay a toll that varied to ensure the lanes never became congestion. By taking cars off of existing lanes, the new lanes relieved congestion for everyone and provided a route for a popular bus. The transit agency only had to cover a small portion of the cost of those lanes since most of the cost was paid by highway users.

I don’t know of any other BRT lines as fast as the Flatiron Flyer. In fact, the 2022 National Transit Database reports the average speed (vehicle-revenue-miles divided by vehicle-revenue-hours) of BRT lines to be 10.3 miles per hour, which is almost 2 mph less than the average speed of convectional buses. That’s another reason to be disillusioned by BRT: agencies are spending money without really providing better transportation. In both Portland and Eugene, BRT created an illusion of speed, but by actual measure the buses weren’t going significantly faster than the local buses they replaced.

Incidentally, the claim that BRT increases property values may be useful to counter those who claim that only rail transit increases property values, but both claims are specious. At best, any change in property values from transit improvements (at least outside of the New York urban area) is a zero-sum game, meaning that increase near transit routes are countered by decreases (or slower than average increases) elsewhere in the urban area. This is because so few people ride transit that installing a new transit line won’t make the overall value of property in an urban area any greater (other than possibly New York), so agencies can’t rationalize their out-of-control spending on the notion that it will be “paid for” by increased property taxes.

As I’ve noted in two recent reports, instead of bus-rapid transit, I am now favoring non-stop buses. While I am not personally convinced that transit subsidies are a moral imperative, if we are going to subsidize transit, it should at least be cost-effective and serve as many people as possible. The best way to do this, I propose, is a system of non-stop buses between major economic centers scattered throughout each urban area combined with local buses radiating away from each center. This would create a polycentric system whose average speeds will be competitive with automobiles for many different trips.

In making these proposals, I’ve stressed that the buses should rely on existing infrastructure, using existing freeways or, if new road capacity is added, making it high-occupancy/toll lanes so everyone, not just a few transit riders, will benefit. Bus centers would be simple curbside stops with room for four or more buses, marked by a few signs and perhaps with some simple bus shelters. Neither expensive transit centers nor dedicated bus lanes can be justified by the small proportion of passenger travel that relies on transit in U.S. urban areas outside of the New York urban area.

If I’m ahead of my time, perhaps we will see transit agencies consider polycentric express bus networks in a few years. But if transit agencies are only interested in spending the maximum amount of dollars while carrying the minimum number of people needed to justify their existence, then I am simply out of step (and proud of it).