2los Angeles County One Gateway Plaza z~3.gzz.z000 TelMetropolitan Transportation Authority los Angeles, CA gooi2-s9S2 metro.net

MetroREVISED

SYSTEM SAFETY, SECURITY AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEEFEBRUARY 19, 2015

SUBJECT: FARE GATE PROJECT

ACTION: RECEIVE AND FILE

RECOMMENDATION

Staff does not recommend implementing fare gates at Orange Line stations. Staffbelieves the fare gate equipment would not provide additional revenue over the 15useful life years to recover the costs of implementing fare gates on the Orange Line.

ISSUE

In response to the Motion by Directors Yaroslaysky and Krekorian to Item 6, "OrangeLine Fare Enforcement" dated January 15, 2014 (Attachment A), Metro staff would liketo report back on the analysis that was conducted on options to gate the followingOrange Line stations: North Hollywood, Van Nuys, Reseda, Sepulveda, Pierce College,and Canoga.

DISCUSSION

The Orange Line consists of 18 stations and operates 48 articulated buses on adedicated bus-way from North Hollywood to Warner Center and Chatsworth stations.Average weekday boardings are an estimated 25,369.

A vendor was contracted to perform a detailed engineering analysis (EquipmentQuantities Analysis and Queuing Analysis). The analysis was needed to determine therequired amount of fare gate equipment for each station. Metro staff also analyzedparcel maps, station activity, ridership, TAPs, TAP Vending Machine (TVM) sales alongwith loss of revenue to determine the feasibility of implementing fare gates at specificstations along the Orange Line. Based on the evaluation criteria, staff decided thatNorth Hollywood, Van Nuys, Reseda, Sepulveda, Pierce College, and Canoga stationsoffered the greatest potential. Based on the vendor's study, North Hollywood, VanNuys, and Reseda stations required more fare gate equipment than originally planned.

Orange Line stations are very open and accessible, which would decrease theeffectiveness of fare gates. To mitigate this weakness, a fencing strategy was included

in the conceptual design; however, fencing alone cannot prevent unauthorized entry topaid areas. Staff also believes the additional fencing would dirrainish station appeal andcompromise the architectural consistency of stations.Additionally, fare gates are costly and should not be viewed as a complete solution forloss of revenue on the Orange Line. A payback period with a sufficient level ofconfidence could not be provided because the entire Orange Line would not be gated.The inputs for calculating the payback period method include estimating the following:loss of revenues, number of boarding's, and average fare per boarding. These inputsare used to compute projected annual revenue increases. The absence of fare gatesacross the entire line creates opportunities for individuals to avoid stations with faregates and board at stations without fare gates. Therefore, the inputs become tooimprecise.

Even so, the estimated life expectancy for fare gate equipment is 15 years. Staff doesnot believe the fare gate equipment would provide additional revenue over the 15 usefullife years to recover the costs of implementing fare gates on the Orange Line.

Metro has prepared a rough order of magnitude (ROM) estimate of $13.1 million toimplement fare gates at these six stations. Please see attachment B.

The cost for Civil/Infrastructure along with Electrical/Systems and Communication workis $8.1 million. The scope of work includes relocating existing TVMs to accommodatefare gates with additional emergency swing gates and fencing along entire non-paidarea at stations. The ROM includes Metro's design criteria infrastructure required tosupport fare gate equipment with new canopy shelter at fare gate and TVM locations.Additional provisions to canopy structure shall include new lighting and overheadinstallation of closed-circuit television cameras. One emergency telephone and twoseparate gate telephones shall be located at every new fare gate entry to ensurecustomer safety. Please see attachment C.

The ROM estimate for fare gate equipment and installation is $5 million which includesan estimate $1.7 million to procure fare gate equipment, $3.3 million for reconfigurationand installation of fare gate equipment. Please see attachment B.

The ROM estimate for the Systems Support Services Contract OP02461010-Maint is$950 thousand, which would begin during FY16 and carry through FY19.

After careful consideration, staff does not recommend implementing fare gates atOrange Line stations because the options analyzed do not make the business case forimplementation of this gating initiative. However, staff will continue to assessopportunities to improve efficiencies and decrease revenue loss on the Metro system.

DETERMINATION OF SAFETY IMPACT

The Orange Line stations are not required to meet The National Fire ProtectionAssociation 130 requirements because NFPA 130 applies to rail systems not bus

Fare Gate Project Page 2

systems. Staff reviewed the conceptual designs including the amount of fare gateequipment required to ensure safe egress capacity for the six Orange Line stations.Based on the expected occupancy of these stations, two means of egress should beprovided at each boarding area. The means of egress should lead to a public way orother area that affords protection for customers. The means of egress shall not requireany special knowledge or tools for people to use. Signage and lighting should beprovided.

The construction phase of fare gate implementation at side and split platform stationswith only one paid entrance would likely cause operational challenges and introducenew obstacles for customers. For example, during construction it would be difficult toprovide customers with convenient access to fare equipment and station entranceswhile maintaining existing service levels. Staff would need to investigate whether or notthe construction period could be modified to minimize the impact on operations.

.. .• ..... . . - .-

.-.._„._

... --

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Staff performed a preliminary analysis on the Orange Line and determined it was notfeasible to implement fare gates on the entire line. Staff analyzed parcel maps, stationactivity, ridership, TAPs, TVM sales along with loss of revenue to determine thefeasibility of implementing fare gates at more demanding stations. Staff worked with avendor and performed a detailed analysis on six stations. Despite the increased activityand boarding's, staff concluded the concept was not feasible.

During September 2014, staff provided a comprehensive analysis of alternatives for theOrange Line.

Fare Gate Project Page 3

NEXT STEPS

1. Staff will continue to monitor and control education, media, and enforcementefforts to minimize loss of revenues on the Orange Line.

ATTACHMENTS

A. Motion by Directors Yaroslaysky and Krekorian to Item 6, "Orange Line FareEnforcement" dated January 15, 2014

B. Funding/Expenditure PlanC. Schematic Drawings for Six Stations

Prepared by: David Sutton, DEO TAPPatrick Preusser, DEO Rail Operations

Questions: Christopher Reyes, Senior Administrative Analyst, Operations(213) 922-4808

Fare Gate Project Page 4

,~/ ~ . ;~~~'," ~~

Interim Chief Operations Officer

C~~ ~.Arthur T. LeahyChief Executive Officer

Fare Gate Project Page 5

ATTACHMENTA

FINANCE AND BUDGET COMMITTEE

January 15, 2014

MOTION BY DIRECTORS YAROSLAVSKY AND I~CREKOF2IAN

ORANGE LINE FARE ENFORCEMENT

ITEM 6

!n response to the Board's directive in November, LASD conducted two 100% 11-hourfare check opera#ions on the Orange Line for al[ deboardings on Tuesday, December 3,2013 and Tuesday, December 17, 2013. Each operation focused on three stations withNorth Hollywood being in both operations.

The fare evasion rate for December 3`d was 22% and on December 17th it was 16%.Moreover, it was found that there are a significant number of misusers —those whohave an activated TAP card and do not tap.

The issue of fare evasion is not new to this agency. When the gates along the Red andPurp{e line were first locked, it was found that there had been a significant number offare evaders and misuers prior to the gates being locked. Unless we take this issuehead on, and begin to design all our stations with gates, including those at grade, fareevasion will continue to skyrocket and become a perpetual problem with no end in sight.We can no longer afford to have "business as usual" approaches to soEving the fareevasion problem system-wide.

WE, THEREFORE, MOVE that staff develop options to gate or partially gate all Orangeline stations and/or other actions as appropriate, that an educational/media campaignregarding TAP be explored, and that signage be placed on or adjacent to the SAVsinforming pa#roes of the need to TAP and the associated fine. Staff should report backto this committee at the March meeting with a plan of action and status.

WE FURTHER MOVE that staff report back to the board at the March meeting on thestatus of gating the Exposition Line, Foothill Extension and Crenshaw Line which arecurrently under construction/design.

ATTACHMENT B

FUNDING/EXPENDITURE PLAN

210090 Fare Gate Project -Orange Line

ofFY15 FY16 FY17 Total Total

Uses of Funds

Infrastructure $677,694 $677,694 5.19%

Fare Gate Equipment $959,462 $2,238,743 $3,198,205 24.50%

Other Equipment,Materials, Signage $4,100,000 $4,100,000 31.41%

Equipment Installation $2,840,850 $2,840,850 21.77%

Agency Costs $80,000 $655,070 $84,366 $819,436 6.27%

Contingency $1,413,040 $1,413,040 10.82%

Total Pro'ect Cost $1,039,462 $11,925,397 $84,366 $13,049,225 100%

Sources of Funds

State Repayment ofCa ital Pro'ect Loan $1,039,462 $11,925,397 $84,366 $13,049,225 100%

Total Pro'ect Fundin $1,039,462 $11,925,397 $84,366 $13,049,225 100%

Fare Gate Project Page 7

Metro

Date: January 15, 2015

To: Patrick Preussen Ph. No.

ATTACHMENT C

METRO ESTIMATING TRANSMITTAL

Estimating Reference No: 10388 Rev.1

213-922-7974 From: Agnes Reyes

Project No: 210090 Task No: '07.01

Contract No: TBD Title: MOL Fare Gates Project

Contract Action Type and Number (e.g., CN 1, CO 1, CWO 1): N/A

Contract Action Title: N/A

Budget Estimate (Not for bids or negotiations)

Description of Contents:

1. Basis of Updated Budget Estimate.2. Updated Rough Order Magnifizde (ROM) estimate report.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact

Agnes Reyes at extension 23975.

~Z~Zt~i1~ ~G~~.C~/

Paul Briggs — Director, Cost Estimating

Copies: Estimating files,

Date: „~_

Form No. A3.002Revised: 2J7/13 (pb)

ATTACHMENT CDate: 1/1S/15 Estimating No.: 103$8

Rev.1

BASIS OF BUDGET ESTIMATEMetro Orange Line Passenger dare Gate for Six Stations (Rev 1~

Executive Summarv~.As requested, Metro estimating has completed the revised Budget Estimate for options to gate the

following Orange Line stations: North Hollywood, Van Nuys, Reseda, Sepulveda, Pierce College, and

Canoga.

The work requires moclification of existing fencing and new fencing; existing station platforms have 3.5

foot high guardrails along the back side, which can easily be overcome by fare evaders. The fencing must

be replaced with 5 foot high fencing that is traditionally used at rail stations with fare gates. New fencing of

the same type must be installed along the curb edge of platform entrances and also along the centerline of

the Uusway of stations where adjacent platforms face one another. Emergency swing gates (ESG) are

placed in strategic locations in the station platform. Signage is also incorporated to provide direction.

Canopy coverage is also provided for the TVM's and for protection of fare gate equipment. It also includes

electrical and communication support requirements for the fare gate egU.ipment.

MOL Faze Gating

Total Construction Cost:

DJB Contractor:

Total Construction Cost WithMazkups:

Agency Costs:

Total Project Cost (4~ Qtr 2014)

MOL Fare Gann for six 6 Stations $4,572,372.00

Design &Construction Unallocated Cont. (3Q%) 1,371,712.00

$5,944,084.00

D/B Final Design Services (7%) 416,086.00

D JB Design Support During Construction (2%) 118,882.00

D B Construction Mana ement Costs 4% 237,763.00

$6,716,814.00

Prelimina Desi n Cost b Metro 3 % 201,5Q4.00

Des' n Cost- S' e b Metro 24,000.00

Third P Costs b Metro 50,000.OQ

en Cost U Metro 5% 335,841.00

Pro e Ac uisition Easements 0.00

$7,324,160.00

Metro Unallocated Conti en 10% 732,416.00

$8,056,576.00

Page 2 Form No. A4.001 Revised: 8/5/08

Date: 1/15 J15

Basis — General/Civil. and Infrastructure:

This Uudget estimate (ROM) is based on the following:

ATTACHMENT CEstimating No.: I0388

Rev.1

a. The estimate request package received on NovemUer 21, 2014 and January 3, 2015; E-mailsreceived and discussions with Jonathan Langteau, Patrick Preusser and Project Team.

U. The fare gate equipment and installation cost is by others.c. This estimate does not include any ROW costs.d. The signage cost is a placeholder for design and fabrication/installation of the wayfinding

signs from Maya Emsden.e. This estimate does not include any cost for revenue staffing requirements.f. This estimate includes an allowance for tra$'ic control for North Hollywood and Van Nuys

stations.g. The revised preliminary Scheme ̀A' for Reseda and Van Nuys stations include declicated

crosswalk and ADA ramp.h. For Canoga Station, the Archstone new entrance scheme dated December 24, 2013 and

connecting walkway to Eton Avenue were included and used for this budget estimate.i. Cost for temporary station entrances and temporary access location are placeholder costs

until more information and drawings are available.j. This estimate assumed Metro's facilities are open 24J7 and must remain in operation during

construction.k. A placeholder of 24 percent premium for labor shift work is included in this estimate until

shift work hours is specified.1. Current quoted material prices and RS Means 2014 4th quarter.m. Comprehensive local union labor rates including worker's compensation and general

liability.n. This estimate does not include any escalation. All costs are current as of today.o. This ROM estimate also includes markups such as contractor general requirements,

overhead and profit.p. At a very high level of design, a 30 percent design contingency amount is included to cover

and allow for unforeseen and unknown conclitions especially since this project is to be donein existing and live stations. It also covers possiUle design changes as project scopedevelops.

Aectrical & S ems: -See attached Notes and Basis for Electrical and Systems.

If additional assistance is required, please contact Agnes Reyes at extension 23759 or Paul Briggs atextension 21485.

Page 3 Form No. A4.001 Revised: 8/5/08

ATTACHMENT C

10388-A electrical &Systems Revs Summary

First —there have been a couple of scheduled pay increases by IBEW since the initial ROM es#imate wasdone, so this entire ROM estimate has been updated to reflect today's labor rates.

N. HOLLYWOOD STATION:

East Entrance:1. T'he faregate array is somewhat longer.2. i had not considered a canopy in the initial ROM, possibly because none was indicated on fine

drawings I had, but it appears obvious now that the faregates and TVM's, etc, are not located wherethe e~sting canopy is, so I have included some allowance for canopy lighting.

3. An additional power conduit was added (for canopy lighting).

West Entrance:1. The faregate array is somewhat longer.2. One more TVM has been added.3. T'he new canopy will need to Ue larger than originally considered, so some allowance was made for

additional canopy lighting.4. Additional power and communications conduits were included for the added TVM.

VAN NUYS STATION:

Westbound Platform Entrance:1. Mostly configuration changes

a. One TVM moved to new locationb. Swing gate moved to platform areaThere does not appear to be any added or deleted equipment.

Eastbound Platform:1. Same as Westbound -mostly just configuration changes — no adds or deletes.

RESEDA STATION:

Westbound Platform:1. Mostly configuration changes

a. Slightly longer faregate array —but still within the original. Floor Duct allowance.b. Swing gate moved to platform area.c. Possibly now keeping one TVM that was originally to be removed.There does not appear to be any added or deleted equipment.

eastbound Platform:1. Same as Westbound — configuration changes only, possibly keeping 1 TVM.

Estimate Company

Spreadsheet Report

Page t

~.

. ,.~

~MOL Face Gates REV Sch A

~h4Ma15 2:431'N

~ 2

_ Pr.. t.

pit.

__.~r

.F~

x, c

~~e?,~tt~

tx . ~

~~

~ #~,.}„ , 3

s.: {

qtr .t+.,a~~k

~ J

~k. ~

?d.•'t

~gam

_ _

y._ _

,nl

aX ~k,~~~Ct. .

. _

.. _

._.,. _

.~.

~

,,:.

..

~ ~_

r..

~ ~

~.

Project name

MOL Fare betas REV 3ch A

Estimator

AReyedBOanlelson

Lehof rate table

Ua-ab W-1

4 Wf

tNC&GL

Equi

pmen

t ra

te ta

ble

BBK 201

46 Eq~dp Rat

e

Report fo

rmat

So

rtet

l by 4tem/SeclbNAC6NW /Ph

ase'

'Del

ail'

summ

ary

Print s

ort l

evel nOt6s

Cost

lnCex

Califorrda~los Ang

eles

D n s m z

Estimate Company

Spreadsheet Report

Page 2

MOL Fare Gates REV Sch A

1H4/2015 2:45 PM

a ~

s `

'

r ~

~~

5` "F"~ G

, r

~ ~ ~, : ~ ~

P..

r C

Item

Secl

lc ~

p~?,1p6~

~ j

~~y e

~. n

~ T kuq}I

~

Z

),

,~,~

qr.

a

V ~

0 ~4`'PUA-

Ol~i

dRN!

Y ~

LaborM

ii ~

Hrn

L

cr

Later

C1 ~u

r7el

M~

B['n

~~

C

ym

~E

~ .̂,~f

,~~,

K~

IP ~'

Toth.l

Eo41 Pr

lca

I M~4~

C e~~1Bf

.fit

.{)1

Am 4 [

~,jiOlal

q~~

~~

-v

~,,,

.-.~~

~"'

a'.y~~~

PSI c~~t£`~`

furt~

~ Gre

1 ..

hlS

~~'~

I ~~~~ T,

S.E

_ r~

"~

,NORTH

'~~

,..v

S~4n

~SS~

S,,,

, ..

_...

~~ ~

HOLLYWOOD

__ .

~.'

L ~_ _.

..

0.~ _

~.

?7'A

t *x

%.°

~ ?

.01

ACIVIL

aREMOVE (E) PLATFORM FENCE &INSTALL NEW FENCE, 5'

H156.865

6,063

19,297

1,269

26,629

31,8

1258,541

bNEW FENCE (MEDIAN &STATION ENTRANCES), 5'

H134.146

4,540

27,617

1,04

333,200

39,574

72,7

75c

EMERGENCY SWING GATES (ESG)

5,20

016

,000

7,40

022,600

27,053

49,653

dNEW CANOPY OVER TVM S FAR~GATES

56.830

7,70

231,646

213

38,963

46,714

85,6

78e

SIGNAGE

13,000

30,800

43,800

52,991

96,7

91f

OTHERS

5,00

05,

000

10,W0

12,2

8122

,281

A CIV

IL34

7.84

040,904

130,

362

3,926

775,192

210,

526

385,719

BELECTRICAUSYSTEMS

154,

776

154,

176

173,161

327,

337

unas

sign

ed "

B ELECTRICAWSYSTEMS

754,176

16A,176

175,161

327,

337

.01 NORTM HOLLYWOOD

347.840

40,904

130,362

154,176

3 926

329,368

383,887

713,055

.02

VAN NUYS BLVD -REVISED SCHEME A

ACIVIL

aREMOVE (E) PiATFORM FENCE &INSTALL NEW FENCE, 5'

H36

1.16

913

,962

45,3

562,

748

62,065

74,3

86136,450

bNEW FENCE (MEDIAN 8 STATION ENTRANCES), S'

H74

4.96

64,699

33,897

1,060

39,656

47,225

86.681

cEMERGENCY SWING GATES (E3G)

70,4

0032,000

2,80

045,200

54,1

0699

,306

dNEW CANOPY OVER TVM 8 FAREGATES

56.830

7,10

23M1,648

213

36,963

46,714

85,678

eSIGNAGE

13,0

0030,800

48,80D

52,991

96,797

fOTHERS

5,00

05,

000

50,000

12,2

8122,281

gARA RAMP

2,00

05,

700

200

5,90

07,

138

13,0

39h

DEDICATED CROSSWALK &EXIT PATH OF TRAVEL

2.60

175

635

510

3614

729

1,34

2A CIVIL

565.566

56 319

182 757

7 122

246,

198

295.571

541,

769

BELECTRICAUSYSTEMS

747,

537

147,

537

165,704

313,

241

unas

sign

edB ELECTRICAIJSY3TEM3

1A7,

537

~b7,

537

165,704

313,

241

.02 VAN NUYS BLVD -REVISED SCHEME A

565.566

58,319

182,757147 537

7,122

393,

735

467,

275

855,

010

.03

RESEDA - REVISEI] SCHEME A

ACIVIL

aREMOVE (E) PLATFORM FENCE &INSTALL NEW FENCE, 5' H

361.169

13,9

8245

,356

2,746

62,065

74,3

86136,430

bNEW FENCE (MEDIAN &STATION ENTRANCES), 5'

H77.664

2,545

17,1

9236

920

,306

24,192

44,4

98c

EMERGENCY SWING GATES (ESG)

10,A

0032,000

2,80

045,200

54,1

0698,906

dNEW CANOPY OVER TVM & FAREGATES

56.830

7,70

231

,648

213

36,963

46,714

85,678

eSIGNAGE

18,000

30,800

43,800

32,9

9196

,791

fpTHERS

5,00

05,

000

10,0

0072,281

22,287

gADA RAMP

2,00

03,700

200

5,90

07,

139

13,039

hDEDICATED CROSSWALK &EXIT PATH OF TR4VEL

30.9

991,

961

1,45

3116

3,520

4,32

77,

847

A CIV

IL526.682

55 960

167,150

6 644

229,

754

276,

136

505,

890

8ELECTRICALISYSTEMS

unas

113,430

113,430

127,397

240,

827

sign

ed

B ELECTRICALISYS7EMS

113,430

113,430

127,387

240,

827

.03 RESEDA-REVISED SCHEME A

526.662

55,9

6016

7,15

017

3,43

08,644

343,

184

403,533

748,718

.04

SEPUIVEpA

ACIVIL

aREMOVE (E) PLATFORM FENCE &INSTALL NEW FENCE, 5'

H36

7.16

913

,962

45,356

2,746

62,0

6574

,388

136,

450

bNEW FENCE (MEDIAN &STATION EtJTRANCE5), 5'H

744.

966

4,699

33,8

971,060

39,6

5647

,225

86,881

cEMERGENCY SWING GATES (ESG)

10,400

32,000

2,800

45,2

0054

,706

99,3

06tl

NEW CANOPY OVER TVM & FAREGATES

30.3

353,

612

15,9

93106

19,712

23,635

43,347

eSIGNAGE

13,000

30,800

43,8

0052

,991

96,7

91f

OTHERS

5,000

5,00

010,000

12,2

8122

,287

A CIVIL

536.

470

50.6

74183 047

6.712

220,

433

264,625

485 057

BELECTRtCAUSYSTEMS

^D

TJ

y m z l~

Eslimata Company

Spre

adsh

eet Report

page 3

MOL Fare Gates REV Sch A

f/14

/20i

5 2:45 PM

fit} ~

:~~ 5$

~~

I. em

u,

-:.,, t

.. ....

- ... ,t

.r.

_ I

niht

i~

,.,, ,

1 k

::E

~

.,c

Tn?'

a,-

`""'

_

l~^-~T2

-

io`~

Labc

..

~u.b

~1

si S.

°,~~

, --'

- ~

---

-..

J~`_

t'

^"-53I

Tl"

',

a~,j~

,f

~ID~(,.

~' ~a

~r

r` r

La

~'u~

p :.sots.

'ntal

't

x i

~`F''~

~ ~'~~

'~~'~4

~"''`~

~ 6occ dPtloO i~Fw ., a

Qu~f

,~0~

da .

x H~~

~ Cc ~Artil

R7~"6~

~MP l~

rlsl

M' jorlal

E.

~

E~vI

P.Fr

lrn

~ MKK n

^~~'

i.II

M.~~~

GtendxTO~51 ~

~•~ ~~;r~

try

t rl

~o

a ay

n~

,HMO

unt

i Arrahnt

(.bS

UiIN

! gr

r~a~

nt~

~ t

,i ,

M

fit

'. ,~

,

+

~, gw

: -

i~;~'

»„.~

,.y _ ' -

_-

--

Sn,;?~

__

,iii

~ 131,640

131,640

147,850

279,

490

unas

sign

ed'

B ELEC7RICAlJSYS7EMS

131,640

131,640

147,

85D

279,

490

.04 SEPULVEDA

536.

470

50,674

163,

047

731,840

8,712

352,073

412,474

764,

547

.05

PIERCE COLLEGE

ACI

VIL

aREMOVE (E) PLATFORM FENCE &INSTALL NEW FENCE, 5'

H357.769

13,759

41,9

562,

709

58,4

2570.065

128,

490

bNEW FENCE (MEDIAN &STATION ENTRANCES), 5'

H26

.781

903

6,>66

208

7,87

89,

379

17,237

cEMERGENCY SWING GATES (ESG)

7,80

024,000

2,100

33,900

40,5

7974,479

dNEW CANOPY OVER TVM & FAREGATES

30.3

353,

612

15,993

106

19,7

1223,635

43,347

eSIGNAC,E

18,000

30,80D

43,8

9052

,981

96,7

91f

OTHERS

5,000

5,OD0

10,DOQ

12,281

22,2

81A CIVIL

414.

884

44,0

7572

4,51

65,

124

173,

715

208932

382,647

BELECTRICAIISYSTEMS

-

15T,

355

157,

355

176,

731

334,066

unas

sign

etl

B EIECTRIGAL/SYSTEMS

157,

355

157,358

176,

731

334,086

.05 PIERCE COLLEGE

414.884

44,075

124,516

157,355

5,12

4331,070

385,663

718,

733

.O6

CANOGAAVE

ACIVIL

eREMOVE (E) PLAITFORM FENCE 81NSTALL NEW FENCE, 5'

H33

8.81

573

,188

A2,5

302,598

58,276

69,846

128,

122

bNEW PENCE (MEpIAN &STATION ENTRANCES), 5'

H94

5.92

870,882

81,8

442,635

95,1

41113,293

208,376

eEMERGENCY SWING GATES (ESG}

70,400

32,000

2,800

A5,2

0054

,706

99,3

06d

NEW CANOPY OVER TVM & FAREGA7ES

60.697

7,226

31,770

216

39,2

12b7,020

86,2

32e

SIGNAGE

26,000

61,600

87,600

105,983

193,583

fOTHERS

5,Op0

5,000

70,0

0012,281

.22,

281

iCANOGAARCHSTONENEW ENTRANCE- CONCRETE

67.4

934,258

70,355

35,000

746

50,359

57,762

108,

141

WALKWAY TO (E)

jCANOGA NEW ENTRANCE -AT STATION PER DWG 12/

24N9

23,818

17,6

817,232

2,682

51,4

1162,241

113,

652

A CIV

IL813.937

100,

570

282,780

42 232

11,6

77437,798

522 484

959 694

BELECTRICALISYSTEMS

-~

Bt

EIECTRiCAL I SVS7EMS -CANOGA STATION

301,703

301,703

338,

654

640,

557

B2

ELECTRICAL f SYSTEMS • CANOC~A NEW ENTRANCE

238,000

258,000

288,

769

547,789

8 ELECTRICAUSYS7EMS

559,

703

559,703

628,

623

1,188,326

.06CANOGAAVE

873.

931

100,

510

282,

780

601,

935

71,677

996,

802

1,151,117

2,148,020

"'I

"'I

D n Z m z

Estimate Company

Spreadsheet Report

Paga 4

MOL Fare Gates REV Sch A

1/f4

/201

5 2:

45 PM

Estimate Tot

als

Descrfntton

Amoun!

Tota

ls

Hours

Rate

Cosf

Bas

isPercent of To

tal

Lahnr

348,943

3,1A5.354 h5

4.32%

Mate

Nel

1,050,672

13,p

gqSubcorNract

1,306,073

1621%

Egtt

lpme

M41

,205

2,88

8.28

6 hr

s0.

51%

OUier

2,745,333

2,74

6.33

334.09

Sa10S 78X

94,555

9.000 ~

C2.17q

94,555

2,84

0,68

81.17

ALLOWANCE Pre

m Labor Shk Wiic

68,689

20.000 4b

C0.

86%

Mate

rial

Mar

king

LIm

1laA

ore

27,012

2,000 %

C026%

90,707

2,937.589

t.13

Perf

orma

nce Br

nW43

,974

1,50

0 %

T0.

55%

General Re

gWre

ment

s743,890

25.000 %

T923%

Home Off

ice

371,945

70.0

00 %

T4.

62Y

Cont

reCt

oYS MU -S

ubco

ntra

ctor

65,304

5.000 %

C0.

81 Y

CoMrector's Fe

e476,670

10.0

00 %

T5.18°k

1,640,783

4,67

2,37

220.37

~eal

gn Cwi

at Cun

Urga

ncy

7,37

1,71

130.000 %

T17

.03%

1,971,711

5,944,089

17,03

OB Fl

nal ~a

sign

416.086

7.000 %

T5.16Yo

D/B De

algn

Sup

port

Dur

ing Con

718,

882

2.000 W

T7.

48

DIB Cw

~st Ma

r~eg

emen

t237,783

4.D00 %

T2.

85%

772,

731

6,718,814

9.59

McVO

•Pre

llm De

eign

201,504

3.000 %

T2.

50%

M6U'D-~8

61gn

Cosh Slp

nage

20,OOD

L025%

Metro-Th

Yd Party Cos

t50,000

L0.

62%

MaVO • Age

ncy CoSl3

336,

841

5.000

WoT

4.77Ho

607,345

7,324,159

7.54

Metr

o-Unellpceted COnlingency

732,416

10.0

00 W

oT

9.09

%

Tata

!8,

058,

575

D D n z m z