Recommendations and best practices for BRT planning and project delivery:

• Regularly update and assess a comprehensive risk register to ensure project stability. It was suggested in this study to have a risk register, categorizing potential risks from various departments and considering their worst-case scenario impacts and probabilities. By scheduling monthly risk assessment meetings and having a clear process for change orders, agencies can navigate unforeseen challenges while preventing costly delays.
• Consider both cost and productivity when evaluating the financial viability of BRT systems to avoid any misleading conclusions. As evident from this study, it is crucial to consider not only the cost of operation but also the productivity (e.g., passengers attracted) associated with the BRT service to avoid any misleading conclusions regarding the sustainability of cost-effective operations of the system. As summarized in Table 1, two of the peer agencies reported cost comparisons of BRT and conventional bus services.
  • Lane County, Oregon found that even though the BRT service cost more to operate than traditional bus service, it attracted twice the number of riders, with a savings of 5 cents-per-passenger mile to operate over a traditional bus.

  • The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Agency's BRT system reduced the number of buses in the corridor from 23 to 16 due to increased service efficiency. As a result, overall operating expenses decreased, even though BRT vehicles have a higher per-mile operating cost.

     

Table 1. Comparison of BRT and Conventional Bus Performance