Bus rapid transit systems have achieved important benefits in terms of travel time savings, increased ridership, land development impacts and improved safety.

Travel time reductions resulting from the introduction of BRT services have exceeded 40% compared to the former local bus routes. Bus operations in exclusive freeway lanes or busways have achieved savings of 47% in Houston, 44% in Pittsburgh, 38% in Los Angeles (compared to former limited stop service), and 32% in Adelaide, compared to local bus routes.  Seattle’s bus tunnel has achieved a 33% reduction in bus travel times for the CBD portion of the express bus routes that use it.

The Metro Rapid BRT line on San Pablo Blvd. in Oakland, California (San Francisco Bay Area) has reduced travel times by 17% compared to the former limited stop bus route operating in the corridor.

BRT services along arterial have achieved savings of 23% to 28% in Los Angeles compared to the former limited stop bus service, 29% in Porto Alegre, and 32% in Bogotá compared to the fastest alternative bus services. The time savings in Los Angeles and Oakland are impressive in that buses operate in mixed traffic. They have been achieved by increasing the spacing between stops, by using a signal priority system and by using low floor vehicles.

Total time savings range from 5 minutes with Seattle Bus tunnel to over 20 minutes along Pittsburgh’s East and West Busways. Most facilities achieve time savings of 2 to 3 minutes per mile.

Busways and reserved bus lanes on freeways that bypass traffic backup on approaches to river crossings save up to 7.5 minutes per mile. Busways on partially grade separated rights of way generally save two to 3 minutes per mile over the previous bus service. BRT lines on arterial streets typically save 1 to 2 minutes per mile. The savings are greatest where the previous bus routes experienced major congestion.

Some evidence suggests that many of the new riders of BRT services were previously motorists and that improved bus service results in more frequent travel. In Houston, for example, up to 30% of the riders did not make the trip before, and up to 72% were diverted from automobiles.  In Los Angeles the Metro Rapid Bus service, which operates in mixed traffic, had a roughly 33% increase in riders. The increase was made up of customers totally new to transit, riders diverted from other corridors, and existing transit users that rode transit more often. In Vancouver, 20% of new riders previously used automobiles, 5% represented new trips, and 75% were diverted from other bus lines.

Ridership on Las Vegas MAX, increased more than 20% compared to the former local bus service – after only two months of operation, while ridership on Boston’s Silver Line’s Phase I was up over 100% in less than 2 years. In Oakland and Berkeley, California, ridership is up over 30% on San Pablo Boulevard with the implementation of Rapid Bus service compared to the former limited bus route after a little over one year of operation.

Adelaide’s Guided Busway reported a 76% gain in ridership at a time when overall system ridership declined by 28%. Brisbane’s South East Busway reported over a 40% gain in riders during the first six months of service and a reduction of 375,000 auto trips annually. More recent ridership data is summarized in Table 4 below.

Table 4: BRT Ridership Effects

Table 5 reflects results of the MBTA’s Silver Line, illustrates the ability of new BRT lines to effectively “compete” with other types of rapid transit, in this case conventional subways. It also shows BRT’s ability to “induce” totally new trips not here-to-fore thought possible or desirable by potential travelers.

Table 5 - Boston Silver Line Phase I: Before/After Ridership Data

It should be noted that this does not add to 100% as some respondents picked two or more modes in some instances.

Similar results were obtained by the San Pablo Rapid Bus Line in Oakland, California. 

Many of the “previously not made” trips shown in the above before/after tables were made in the off-peak for non-work purposes. This is further reinforced by the ridership growth data that appears in Table 7 below for the South Miami-Dade Busway.

Clearly, as fast as typical weekday ridership, dominated by work trips was growing, off-peak (e.g., weekend) transit travel was growing even more dramatically.

Operating and Environmental Benefits

The travel time savings associated with buses operating on their own rights-of-way have also achieved cost savings as well as safety and environmental benefits.

• Ottawa’s Transitway requires 150 fewer buses than if the Transitway system did not exist, resulting in savings of roughly $49 million in vehicle costs and $19 million in annual operating costs.
• Seattle’s bus tunnel has reduced surface street bus volumes by 20%. Buses using the tunnel also had 40% fewer accidents than in mixed-traffic operations.
• Bogotá’s TransMilenio Busway had 93 percent fewer fatalities. In addition a 40% decrease in pollutant emissions was recorded during the first five months of operation.
• Curitiba uses 30% less fuel per capita for transportation than other major Brazilian cities. This has been attributed in part to the success of the BRT system.

Like rapid rail transit modes, BRT stations can provide a focal point for transit-oriented development (TOD). Reported land development benefits are shown in Table 8. Ottawa reported over $675 million (m) in new construction around transitway stations. Pittsburgh reported $302 million in new or improved developments along the East Busway stations. Property values located near Brisbane’s South East Busway grew two to three times as fast as those located at greater distances.  These impacts are similar to those experienced along rail transit lines.

In Boston, a recent study reported over $500 m (now $700 m) in new development and redevelopment along the Silver Line since construction first began.

In several of the case studies, local governments implemented land use planning policies that encourage development near BRT facilities. In the Ottawa-Carleton region, major activities such as regional shopping centers are required to locate near the Transitway. In Curitiba, the arterial median busways are integral parts of the structural axes along which high-density development has been fostered.

Table 8: Benefits, Selected BRT Systems

Author: Ian McNamara