Combinations of Bus Rapid Transit Elements The possible combinations considered are:

system. The other approach was to perform a macroscopically-based and analytically-driven evaluation of the Wilshire Metro Rapid corridor.

In addition to the attention devoted to capturing the details of BRT systems SmartBRT includes traffic simulation, which is based on Paramics, with extensions using the Paramics API (Application Program Interface). Paramics is a widely used program for modeling large scale traffic networks. However, Paramics itself cannot represent the variety of BRT elements in the scope of SmartBRT. Work was performed to extend Paramics with models of bus stops (passenger and bus arrival), passenger motion (boarding, alighting, seating, transferring), and bus motion (release from terminal, lane selection, behavior when approaching signals and stops) in the context of BRT

technologies and policies (signal priority, headway, payment mechanisms, door usage).

In order to realistically mimic bus motion and operation, one of the inherent and core functions of Paramics that describes vehicle behavior has to be overridden, which has proved to be a difficult and time-consuming task. Consequently, the development of SmartBRT was delayed, and when we exercised the deployment planning framework, work on SmartBRT had not yet been completed to the extent that was necessary to serve this project. This limitation leaves us with the macroscopic approach, which we present in the subsections 4.7.1 through 4.7.5. Nevertheless, the macroscopic approach has provided adequate results to address the project’s objective.

4.7.1 Combinations of Bus Rapid Transit Elements The possible combinations considered are:

• Alternative A: Elements a, b, c, d, e and f (see above)

• Alternative B: Elements a, b, c, d, e, f and g

Alternative B contains all seven candidate elements while Alternative A doesn't include element g (precision docking). Precision docking is a low-speed automated positioning of buses relative to the curb or loading/unloading platform at bus stops under direct bus driver supervision. It offers precisely controlled lateral positioning with tolerances of 1 to

2 cm to allow boarding and alighting of passengers as easily as for rail transit vehicles, reducing dwell times at bus stops and improving accessibility for mobility-impaired passengers, especially those in wheelchairs). Precision docking is an emerging ITS bus technology and the BRT Consortium and the national Transit Intelligent Vehicle Initiative Committee have identified it as a critical technology for both BRT and other transit services.

• Alternative C: Elements a, b, e and f

• Alternative D: Elements a, b, e, f and g

Compared with Alternatives A and B, these two alternatives exclude element c - the costly element of articulated buses, and element d - the associated element of multiple door boarding and alighting.

• Alternative E: Elements a, c, d, e and f

• Alternative F: Elements a, c, d, e, f and g

Similarly, these two alternatives are created without element b - exclusive bus lanes.

• Alternative G: Elements a, b, c and d

There are certainly other possible combinations of elements. However, most of them are likely to be dominated in terms of efficiency by the above combinations.

4.7.2 Cost Assessment for Each Combination

4.7.2.1 Unit Costs of Bus Rapid Transit Elements

The unit costs of each element under consideration were estimated as follows:

• Bus signal priority

The capital cost of bus signal priority is primarily associated with the necessary instrumentation of intersections and transit buses. Typically cost data is reported in terms of average dollars per intersection. Depending on the specific technology being used and equipped transit fleet size, capital cost varies widely. Prior deployments indicate cost ranges between $8,000 and $35,000 per intersection. The average cost of LADOT’s signal priority system is $15,000 per intersection (23), covering control software, specific loop detectors, transponders, dynamic passenger information signs and other hardware. It should be cheaper to expand the TSP system to cover the entire corridor (given that it is feasible to do) since the costs associated with equipping buses and software development will be saved. However, due to lack of detailed information about signal control systems on the intersections within parts of the Wilshire corridor in jurisdictions outside the city of Los Angeles, it is hard to determine whether additional hardware replacement (such as controllers) and software change are indeed required. Therefore, the unit cost of $15,000 per intersection is maintained.

• Exclusive lanes

Communities opposed construction of two exclusive parallel bus lanes operating 24 hours/day in the median lane of Wilshire Boulevard. Nonetheless, a peak-period curb bus-only lane is institutionally feasible through the cities of Los Angeles and Beverly Hills only. The total repair and reconstruction cost was estimated to be six million dollars (19).

• Articulated buses

Single-articulated (60-foot-long) buses can provide an average seating capacity of 65 passengers, with space available for another 13 to 30 standees. Such buses operate on Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) or Electric/Hybrid technologies, and are designed to provide three doors for faster boarding and alighting. Based on bus manufacturers’ quotes, each bus costs approximately $800,000. The fleet size is approximately 100 buses.

• Stop enhancements

BRT stops will provide shelter for passengers, boarding gates, wayfinding maps, security telephones, a bus schedule display, electronic “Next Bus” arrival message, etc. The stop enhancement to the existing Metro Rapid stops will cost around $600,000 each (10).

• Electronic Fare Payment

Smart Card fare media would be read by validators located on-board the buses at each of the doors. Transit riders would debit fares by using their Smart Card upon boarding and exiting the vehicle. The cost for such an electronic fare payment system is about $13,000 per unit (24).

• Precision docking

The costs of equipping buses for precision docking are estimated to be $15,000 each in the relatively near term (when only hundreds of buses would be equipped, rather than thousands), and the cost per bus stop is estimated to be $500 for installation of reference markers.

With the above unit costs, it is straightforward to obtain the following cost estimates.

Note that the cost estimates do not include project contingency and professional services like engineering, construction management and specialty consultants.

4.7.2.2 Cost Estimates of Bus Rapid Transit Combinations

With the above unit costs, it is straightforward to obtain the following cost estimates (Table 4-15). Note that the cost estimates do not include project contingency and professional services like engineering, construction management and specialty consultants.

TABLE 4-15 Cost Estimates of Combinations of Bus Rapid Transit Elements

Alternative BRT Elements Cost ($M)

A a, b, c, d, e, f 99.9

B a, b, c, d, e, f, g 101.4

C a, b, e, f 19.9

D a, b, e, f, g 21.4

E a, c, d, e, f 93.9

F a, c, d, e, f, g 95.4

G a, b, c, d 86.6

4.7.3 Constraints and Feasible Combinations

The budget limit for implementing the sets of BRT elements is considered as given with the amount of $90M³. Therefore the financially feasible alternatives are C, D and G.

Moreover, by refining Alternative E through excluding the element e - stop enhancement, and making it financially feasible, a new Alternative H is created. This alternative includes the BRT elements a, c, d and f, and the total cost is $83.9M.

In summary, the feasible alternatives are C, D, G and H. Since Alternative D surely outperforms Alternative C, only Alternatives D, G and H are subject to an evaluation process.