(Blue Diamond Road) Corridor Study - Regional Transportation ...

8. Estimated System Costs RTC SR-160 Corridor Study
place before the MAX project. Therefore, the cost for the additional TSP, vehicle emitter
equipment, and installations was only $216,171. The communications system and the
associated vehicle location and passenger counting systems were installed for a combined
cost of $298,810. These systems acquisition and installation costs were also relatively low.
Soft costs (including administration, agency and consultant costs) were not estimated for
the project costs and not included in EXHIBIT 8-1.
8.1.2 Alternative 1 –High Growth
While MAX project costs provide a baseline for estimating capital costs for the SR-160
corridor BRT alternatives, costs for the SR-160 corridor will be higher largely due to the
acquisition, design, and construction of Park & Ride facilities at two of the alignment’s five
proposed BRT stations and additional transit signal priority costs along the corridor where
such advances are not expected to be in place as they were for MAX.
A range of costs is provided for each alternative, reflecting variability in two cost elements:
1) whether additional 40 foot coaches would need to be purchased for conventional bus
transit services or service could be provided using the current CAT vehicle fleet, and 2) how
the property would be acquired from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for two Park &
Ride facilities along the BRT route. Alternatives for acquiring the land from BLM result in
very different costs for the corridor. If RTC can obtain a Right-of-Way (ROW) agreement
from BLM for the required land, RTC would incur virtually no costs paying only nominal
processing fees for the application review and ongoing monitoring. Outright purchase of the
land in question results in the highest costs identified and is based on current Clark County
assessed values on the land parcels in question.
EXHIBIT 8-2 provides an estimate of the capital costs for Alternative 1 alternatives. Capital
costs for both Options 1 and 2 increase dramatically in the year during which BRT service is
implemented – 2015 for Alternative 1 and 2025 for Alternative 2, reflecting the higher level
of capital investment required for such service. Note that capital costs are presented in
total for each horizon year, and include the costs for investment that may have occurred in
an earlier year. For example, costs for Alternative 1 (2015) are inclusive of costs required
to implement Alternative 1 (2008) so that each alternative can be evaluated in its entirety
rather than as an increment to full build-out in 2025.
8-3