SUMMARY
The State of Art in Transit Programs

The study team intended for this synthesis to document the use of art in public transit systems throughout the United States and Canada, including what types of programs exist and why and how agencies use art in their transit systems. An art in transit program is defined broadly for this purpose and refers to any initiative to integrate art into a transit system, whether established or ad hoc. Art also is defined broadly and may be anything created by an artist, including temporary works and performance art but excluding advertising campaigns.

Through a literature review, survey, and six case examples, this report addresses the following descriptive questions:

• What is “art in transit”?
• What examples of art can be found in transit systems?
• Where is art in transit located?
• What kinds of transit agencies have art in transit programs?
• Why do transit agencies include art in their transit systems?
• How are the benefits of art in transit documented or captured?
• How is art in transit funded?
• How do transit agencies procure, select, and install art?
• How do transit agencies maintain, curate, and decommission or deaccession art?
• Who are the stakeholders involved in art in transit, and how are they engaged?
• What are the challenges related to art in transit?

The results of the literature review show that many sources are available on art in transit, including guidance produced by the U.S. Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), the U.S. National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), historical documents, and agenciesʼ websites and published reviews of their art collections. Much of the information contained in these documents, such as descriptions of the benefits of art in transit and the NEAʼs creative placemaking approach to public art, is still relevant to current programs. These sources, however, do not describe the effects of recent developments on current art in transit programs, especially the 2015 U.S. Fixing Americaʼs Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, which restricts FTA grants from funding art components or artists. In addition, there is no source that provides a clear overview of the policies and procedures of existing art in transit programs beyond the APTA best practices recommendations.

The purpose of the survey was to obtain additional information on the current state of art in transit programs in the United States and Canada beyond what was gathered in the literature review and to identify likely case examples and volunteers for case example interviews. The survey was intended for any representative of a transit agency that has integrated art into its system, and it was distributed widely and open to responses for more than 2 months.

A total of 17 responses were received, representing 14 art in transit programs, all of which are permanent programs within large and urban transit agencies.

The survey received a limited number of responses that did not include many known art in transit programs, including large, long-established programs and less formal programs in smaller and rural agencies. Because of this, the survey results describe kinds of art in transit programs and related practices, expected benefits, and challenges that exist but do not offer a representative sample or inventory of existing art in transit programs in the United States and Canada. The results confirm much of the information found in the literature review, provide additional descriptive information on the existing programs and their governance, and provide additional information on benefits that agencies ascribe to art programs and the challenges they encounter in administering them.

The following six case examples, selected from volunteer survey respondents, elaborate on the survey results and provide a richer depiction of how programs have evolved over time and important factors in their operations and governance:

1. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) Art in Los Angeles, California
2. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) in Atlanta, Georgia
3. Metro Transit Public Art in Transit in Minneapolis–St. Paul, Minnesota
4. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) in Seattle, Washington
5. South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (TransLink) in Metro Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
6. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) in Washington, DC

Common themes among the case examples include funding, program management, engaging with artists and communities, and maintenance and decommissioning.

By synthesizing the three components of this project, the report results address the study questions:

• Defining “Art in Transit”: Art in transit is a broad category that encompasses any aesthetic component (visual, performance, and such) designed by an artist that is integrated into a transit system or other facilities owned by a transit agency and is viewable by paying customers or the public. This includes installations and performances procured through a variety of means, including dedicated art in transit programs.
• Art in Transit Programs: The majority of the identified art in transit is commissioned by large, urban transit agencies that operate rail systems and bus networks. In general, these agencies either have established art in transit programs or have established processes for procuring art. Many also use ad hoc processes for projects. There appears to be a common progression where art is commissioned for capital projects, and then an art in transit program is established only if major capital projects continue to be funded and commission artwork or if there is concerted support from agency leadership to continue funding the program.
• Forms and Locations of Art in Transit: Common forms of art in transit include visual (2-dimensional and 3-dimensional), literary, digital/media/electronic, and performance pieces. Many transit systems also have kinetic, interactive, audio, digital, and light art; although, art in transit programs now frequently avoid installing these, because experience has shown that this art is prone to breaking under the conditions of the transit environment. Many transit systems site art in transit stations in fare-restricted and publicly accessible areas and on other agency property, such as construction sites, office buildings, and bus garages. Many programs also place art on bus shelters and onboard buses (e.g., wrapping or poetry posters). Art in transit programs install permanent, temporary, and rotating exhibits.

• The scale and siting of artwork also frequently diversify as art in transit programs develop to support larger, architecturally integrated pieces and smaller, rotating exhibits that help showcase temporary art.
• Benefits: Almost all the surveyed art in transit programs establish expected impacts and benefits. These programs universally aim to encourage ridership and, relatedly, benefit passengersʼ experience and sense of safety. These goals also complement economic goals, which are lower priorities for many programs. Benefits not commonly cited include reducing vandalism, educational opportunities, and supporting artists, although some programs value these highly. Metro Transitʼs Bus Stop Beautification Program and other vandalism-resistant installations have seen significant success in reducing rates of vandalism.

  The main method used by art in transit programs to evaluate success is through community engagement and soliciting feedback through social media or surveys. Many programs believe these methods are insufficient and are interested in new ways to evaluate and demonstrate success.

• Funding: Public art best practices recommend allocating around a percent of construction costs to commissioning art. Some U.S. art in transit programs that were successful before the 2015 FAST Act now are operating with insufficient funding. Other programs continue to maintain successful percent-for-art policies based on robust capital budgets, funded by nonfederal sources (e.g., regional tax initiatives for major system expansions). Policies that also allocate funding upfront or that require a minimum allocation, as opposed to supporting up to a percentage allocation, ensure stability for the programs. Many art in transit programs also receive funding from agenciesʼ operational budgets to support art program management and programs that are not associated with capital projects, such as musical performances. A significant challenge for many programs is having insufficient funding for maintenance, which is usually allocated through budget requests from the operational budget. Many art in transit programs also pursue partnerships with local governments, business and community improvement districts, arts councils, and other organizations, which help fund commissions and other programming. As of 2025, the state of federal funding for public art in the United States is in flux as the NEAʼs grantmaking criteria are being realigned retroactively to new priorities; art in transit programs and their partners may need to pursue alternative funding sources to maintain existing budget levels.
• Siting, Procurement, Commissioning, and Installation: Most art in transit programs site integrated or permanent artwork as part of the capital projects. Some programs ensure visual connections to outside of fare-restricted spaces to improve the public image of the transit system and help encourage new ridership.

  Art in transit programs mainly commission artists through competitive processes overseen by selection panels or community members. Best practices state that evaluation criteria should include the quality of the artwork, site-specificity of the proposed artwork, and durability of materials.

  The commissioning, fabrication, and installation processes can be time-consuming, challenging, and costly both for artists and for the art in transit programs. Many programs are working on different methods for commissioning artists that address these issues, including artist rosters, paying artists for project-specific proposal work, using design-only contracts that leave fabrication and installation responsibilities and contracts to the projectʼs general contractor, and providing smaller-scale and temporary opportunities that do not require complex contracting or fabrication.

• Maintenance and Decommissioning/Deaccessioning: Artwork is subjected to damaging environmental and physical conditions, but many art in transit programs are unable to access artwork consistently or to fund regular maintenance work. Beyond the given context of artwork placed within crowded and busy spaces, no programs identify vandalism or graffiti as significant maintenance concerns. Regardless of an artworkʼs durability,

• degradation and changes in the physical context (e.g., station renovation) are inevitable. Many programs, therefore, manage decommissioning of artwork. While programs follow federal, state, and local regulations, including the U.S. Visual Artists Rights Act, there is limited guidance on decommissioning public art, and multiple art in transit programs identify the need to develop best practices.
• Stakeholders: Most art in transit programs have an art program manager or director, and the case examples emphasize that it is essential that this manager has expertise in both public art and transit operations and project management. Support from agency executive leadership also is essential for programs that depend on discretionary funding allocations from operational budgets or to fulfill percent-for-art policies that do not ensure minimum levels. When other departments are familiar with the art programsʼ processes and projects, they can offer important support, such as flexible contracting or identifying potential sites for art.

  Artists are essential to art in transit programs, and many programs are working to reduce demands on artists. While many literature sources emphasize including the artist at the earliest stages in transit planning, design, and development processes to offer a creative perspective and ensure that there are physical provisions for artwork, the art program manager undertakes this responsibility in many agencies.

  When agencies engage the public, it primarily is through a local government (for site selection and artist selection) or neighboring residents (for artist selection). Neighboring residents may be included in selection panels or help judge proposals through public competitions. Art in transit programs also consult community members during project design stages. Many art in transit programs intend for at least some of their artwork to reflect the community, although that does not require artists to be local.

  Other external stakeholders, including local governments, arts councils and organizations, and business improvement districts, provide essential partnership to some art in transit programs, including with funding, locations for art, participation in selecting artists, and artists themselves.

Using the results of this study, further research could be undertaken to develop methods and best practices to address challenges faced by art in transit programs. Relevant topics include funding structures that take advantage of any nonfederal funds while adhering to federal regulations, methods for evaluating art in transit programs, and best practices and policies for decommissioning or deaccessioning artwork. Finally, further research could explore creative programming ideas, such as exchanging artists among programs to bring non-local artists to programs that usually commission local artists out of necessity and provide artists with new opportunities and collaborations.

This report also includes a bibliography intended to be a resource for practitioners; it describes relevant reports and other documents from the 1970s to the present. Many of these reports include case studies on art in transit or creative placemaking applications in transit.