CHAPTER 5
Summary of Findings

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 a series of descriptive questions. The results of the literature review show that there in fact are many sources available on art in transit, including FTA, APTA, and NEA guidance, historical documents, agenciesʼ websites, and published reviews of their art collections. Much of the information in these documents, such as descriptions of the benefits of art in transit, 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 FAST Act, which restricts FTA grants from funding art components or artists. In addition, there is no preexisting source that provides a clear overview of the policies and procedures of existing art in transit programs beyond the APTA best practices recommendations.

The survey received a limited number of responses, and the results offer information on the kinds of art in transit programs that exist and their common characteristics rather than an inventory of existing programs. These 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 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.

Study Results

The results are discussed in sections that align with the study questions that guided this project. The most significant challenges identified in the study are funding, selecting sites for art, decommissioning art, and support from agency staff.

Defining “Art in Transit”

Art in transit is a broad category that encompasses any aesthetic component (visual, performance, and the like) 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 procured through a variety of means, including dedicated art in transit programs.

In determining eligibility and ineligibility for grant funding, the FTA defines art as “most decorative murals, sculptures, statues, musical installations, or similar objects or elements included for primarily aesthetic purposes” that “do not have a meaningfully functional, structural or transit-related purpose” (FTA 2025). Another integral component of art is that it is designed by or engages with an artist. Many art in transit programs support the aesthetic design of functional and integral elements in stations, and it is the commissioning and participation of artists for this work that indicates it is art.

Art in Transit Programs

Most of the identified art in transit is commissioned by large, urban transit agencies that operate rail systems and bus networks. In general, these agencies have established art in transit programs or established processes for procuring art. Many also use ad hoc processes for projects.

There appears to be a common progression among these art in transit programs that depends on the transit systemsʼ stage of development. As rail systems are constructed and expanded, transit agencies commission art for stations with funding tied to capital projects. Beyond this stage, maintaining an art collection or commissioning new art requires concerted support from agency leadership and adequate maintenance funding. Systems with aging art collections risk art falling into disrepair. Moreover, when agencies are not implementing major capital expansion programs, further art commissions happen only if dedicated agency staff attention and resources are in place. Sometimes, art in transit programs inherit legacy artworks that were procured without the establishment of long-term management strategies.

For transit agencies in the United States, the opportunities for commissioning art as part of these major capital projects now are restricted to projects or project components that are not funded by the FTA, because of the FAST Act of 2015. Multiple transit agencies are undertaking long-term, major system expansions largely funded through state, regional, and local initiatives and are maintaining significant art in transit programs. At the same time, multiple legacy art in transit collections are experiencing challenges with funding and keeping up with maintenance requirements.

Rural, small, and medium-sized transit agencies commission art, including bus wrappings and bus shelter designs. Many of these art in transit programs are not formal and therefore procure art as needed. Given this situation, the survey and other study components found fewer examples of these programs.

Types 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., bus wrapping or poetry posters). Art in bus systems may be a secondary development after a program is established, because many of the programs studied were established for commissioning art under rail capital projects.

Art in transit programs install permanent, temporary, and rotating exhibits. Frequently, programs begin with commissioning permanent murals or sculptures for transit stations. As the programs develop and expand, many begin to commission pieces that are inherently temporary,

such as performance art and art-related community events. Stronger connections with a large community of artists and robust commissioning processes can support other temporary or rotating exhibits, such as rotating poster displays and event-based murals.

The scale and siting of artwork also frequently changes as art in transit programs develop. With more experience and better collaboration with other agency departments, programs are able to commission larger-scale and architecturally integrated pieces. As programs expand to more offerings, they may also be able to commission smaller-scale pieces more easily, such as artwork printed on fare media.

Benefits and Evaluation

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. Programs understand passenger experience in a variety of ways, including aesthetic beauty and interest, community image-building and representation, and a feeling of being cared for. These in and of themselves also could be considered social benefits. Increased ridership also complements lower-priority economic goals, such as local economic development and increased tourism.

Benefits not commonly cited include reducing vandalism, improving educational opportunities, and supporting artists, although some programs value these highly. A central motivation and successful outcome for the Metro Transit Public Art in Transit program is reducing vandalism and graffiti. Multiple programs also view educational opportunities as important goals.

Although creative placemaking is an influential approach for public art and community engagement in general, most art in transit programs do not share the approachʼs emphasis integrating artistsʼ creative perspectives to enhance transit infrastructure planning. In fact, some programs are developing new contracting structures focused solely on designing art to reduce the demands of artists.

The main method used by art in transit programs to evaluate success is through community engagement and soliciting feedback through social media or surveys. Although the literature identifies a tension between using traditional evaluation methods for creative projects, many art in transit programs believe evaluation methods are insufficient and are interested in new ways to evaluate and demonstrate success. The Metro Transit Public Art in Transit program tracks instances of vandalism, which are reduced when art is installed on bus shelters and other properties.

Funding

In the United States, the 2015 FAST Act had a significant impact on art in transit programs by restricting FTA grants and matching funds from being used to procure art or commission artists. Some programs that were successful beforehand now are operating without sufficient funding. APTAʼs best practices, however, continue to recommend using a percent-for-art allocation from capital costs for design, fabrication, and installation of artwork. Many U.S. art in transit programs continue to maintain successful percent-for-art policies that are based on robust capital budgets, funded from nonfederal sources. Policies that allocate funding upfront or that require a minimum allocation, as opposed to supporting up to a percentage allocation, ensure stability for the programs. The survey results show that multiple programs use federal funds for selection, installation, and maintenance, but the survey responses do not specify how they accomplish this, given the restrictions instated by the FAST Act.

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. Transit agencies frequently disburse this funding at their discretion in response to budget requests from the art program. Many programs also do not have significant or sufficient funding for maintenance. Programs with unrestricted funding, where the percent-for-art allocation is not restricted to specific capital projects or to procurement, have the most flexibility to allocate sufficient funding to maintenance. In line with APTAʼs recommended best practices, many other programs have the ability to request maintenance funds from the agencyʼs operational budget for individual projects.

Many art in transit programs also pursue grants and partnerships with local governments, BIDs and community improvement districts, arts councils, the NEA, and other organizations. These partnerships frequently provide funding, in addition to sites for art, programming support, and connections with artists. Sometimes local governments fund capital projects, such as infill stations, and allocate a portion of the construction costs to commissioning art, in line with art in transit best practices. As of 2025, the state of funding for public art in the United States is in flux because the federal government canceled grants that may fund art in transit programs and their partner organizations to realign grantmaking criteria with the priorities of the U.S. president. 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, which frequently provide the budget for procuring the artwork. Sites also are chosen in collaboration with external stakeholders, including local governments and community members. Some programs place art on property owned by other stakeholders, but many do not. This can restrict options, especially for bus shelters, which might be owned by municipalities or advertising companies. Art in transit programs choose internally focused sites to beautify fare-restricted areas and externally focused sites to help build connections to the broader community and encourage new ridership. The survey results showed that selecting sites for artwork is a significant challenge for art in transit programs. Reasons for this could include site restrictions from funding sources or coordinating with the appropriate internal and external stakeholders.

All the identified art in transit programs follow APTAʼs best practices for procuring art and commissioning artists to a significant degree. These include commissioning artists through a competitive process overseen by a selection panel or selected in a public competition. The selection panel evaluates proposals using criteria related to the quality of the artwork, site-specificity of the proposed artwork, and durability of materials. Depending on the physical constraints and other context, the artwork and artist may be guided to specific types of artwork or materials. Representatives of the largest art programs interviewed in this project emphasized the importance of commissioning and curating the highest quality public art collections and the value of their art as a cultural asset within the larger community.

The commissioning, fabrication, and installation processes can be time-consuming, challenging, and costly for artists and for the art in transit programs. Many programs are working on different methods for commissioning artists that address these issues, such as the following:

• Establishing a roster of artists or soliciting nominations from expert arts professionals to augment open calls
• Paying artists for project-specific work beyond submitting a portfolio and a preliminary proposal
• Using design-only contracts that leave fabrication and installation responsibilities and contracts to the projectʼs general contractor or an independent fabricator
• Providing low-intensity opportunities that do not require complex contracting or fabrication

A roster has proven to be effective for Metro Transit Public Art in Transitʼs Bus Stop Beautification Program, in which artists are selected to design pieces for bus shelters using standardized media and standardized surface sizes. LA Metro Artʼs Lightbox Exhibition program showcases temporary, less-durable, 2-dimensional media (i.e., posters and photography) and provides a less-intensive opportunity for artists.

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. Given this, programs universally prioritize commissioning pieces made of durable materials and frequently avoid installing kinetic, interactive, audio, digital, and light art. Beyond the given context of artwork placed within crowded and busy spaces, few programs identify vandalism or graffiti as significant maintenance concerns. To help protect artwork when there are adjacent facilities projects and to guide future required maintenance, WMATA AIT requires every artist to complete a template maintenance form for each artwork, in line with APTAʼs best practices.

Regardless of an artworkʼs durability, degradation and changes in the physical context are inevitable, and some art in transit programs do not refer to artwork as “permanent” and instead use terms like “architecturally integrated.” As legacy artworks degrade beyond repair and pose safety hazards or as stations are gut-renovated, many programs are starting to manage decommissioning artwork. Programs follow federal, state, and local regulations, including the U.S. Visual Artists Rights Act, but limited guidance exists on decommissioning public art, and multiple art in transit programs identify the need to develop best practices.

Stakeholders

The survey results show that selecting artists involves the widest range of stakeholders. External stakeholders, including local governments and executive leadership, are involved with site selection. Following installation, external experts advise on maintenance and decommissioning.

Internal

In line with APTAʼs best practices, most art in transit programs have an art program manager or director. The case examples emphasize that it is essential that this manager has expertise in both public art and transit operations and project management. Regardless of where the art in transit program is housed, the program manager coordinates with departments in the capital and operational programs and aims to maintain support from the transit agencyʼs executive leadership. This support 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. As art program managers collaborate with other departments, these other departments become more familiar with the art programsʼ processes and projects. This allows art in transit programs to implement more flexible contracting through contract departments or earns enthusiasm from facilities departments for identifying potential sites for art.

Artists

Historical UMTA and FTA documents emphasize the importance of including artists at the earliest stages of capital projects to improve aesthetic design and make integrating artwork into the transit system easier. The creative placemaking approach highlights the value of incorporating artistsʼ creative perspectives and their roles as community representatives into the earliest stages of transit planning and development. The survey results and case examples show that artists are involved in designing the artwork after the planning process is well underway and that few art

in transit programs host artist-in-residency programs. Beyond this, art in transit programs are working to reduce demands on artists and provide options for others to manage fabrication and installation after the artist designs the artwork. Instead of the selected artists, the art program manager fulfills the role of presenting the artistic perspective to other stakeholders at the transit agency in general and during project planning and design. TransLink Art and Culture Programʼs Senior Public Art Planner starts to collaborate with the projectʼs architect at the 30 percent design stage or earlier when appropriate, in line with the historical UMTA and FTA recommendations.

Community

As shown by the survey results, when agencies engage the public, it primarily is through a local government (for site selection and artist selection) or neighboring residents (for artist selection). Few of the survey respondents include the general public and transit customers in any part of managing the art program. 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. Many programs still consider and some prioritize artistsʼ personal representation of the local community when making selections. Some programs mainly commission local artists because these are the artists who submit proposals. While local representation is valued, none of the reviewed art in transit programs commission artists specifically as community representatives.

External

Other external stakeholders, including local governments, arts councils and organizations, and BIDs, provide essential partnership to some art in transit programs. These organizations can provide funding, locations for art, participation in selecting artists, and artists themselves. In some cases, local governments fund capital projects, such as transit stations, and include a budget for art. Other arts organizations and professionals frequently are represented on selection panels. These organizations also collaborate on performance art and other temporary art programs and provide artists to create art or perform in the transit system.

Further Research

This study identifies multiple common challenges and needs for art in transit programs. The following research could be undertaken to develop methods and best practices to address them:

• Existing processes for integrating art into smaller and rural transit systems. The survey responses did not include less formal programs in smaller and rural agencies. Additional targeted outreach beyond a broadly distributed survey could identify additional programs and methods for integrating art into smaller transit systems.
• Best practices and strategies for funding while adhering to U.S. federal regulations. Many art in transit programs are able to obtain funding from capital and operational budgets that is not associated with FTA grants but can be used to procure art and commission artists for capital projects. Further research could identify and describe detailed strategies for arranging these funding structures beyond depending on major nonfederal capital funding initiatives.
• Methods for evaluating art in transit programs. Art in transit programs aim to achieve a wide range of benefits, and many are interested in methods of evaluating their impacts beyond in-person customer engagement and surveys. In addition to helping refine the kinds of programs implemented, results of additional more comprehensive analyses could help make a case for maintaining art in transit programs when facing significant budget constraints.

• Best practices and policies for decommissioning/deaccessioning. Limited guidance exists on decommissioning or deaccessioning art in transit or public art in general, but many art in transit programs are decommissioning artworks that pose safety hazards or must be removed during station renovations. Some artwork that is beyond repair is left in place because of the significant costs associated with removal. Further research could identify best practices and recommend policies for guiding these tasks.

Additional ideas for creative programming were introduced during this project and could be addressed in further research. One idea is for art in transit programs or public art programs in general to swap artists for projects of similar sizes and budgets. This could allow more cross-pollination among regions and programs. Art in transit programs could collaborate with non-local artists, and local artists could work elsewhere and pursue new collaborations.