May 15, 2014 - Item 28 - Systems Safety and Operations...

One Gateway Plaza

Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952

213.922.2000 Tel metro. net

28

SYSTEM SAFETY AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MAY 15,2014

SUBJECT: FARE GATE PROJECT

ACTION: AUTHORIZATION FOR INCREASE IN LIFE-OF-PROJECT BUDGET

RECOMMENDATION

A. Approve an increase in Life-of-Project budget (LOP) for Fare Gate Project 210090 in the amount of $300,000 increasing the LOP from $9,495,000 to $9,795,000 for "agency costs" (e.g ., preliminary engineering analysis) associated with work connected to the Fare Gate Project; and

B. Discuss and approve options presented below:

Orange Line

1. Approve an increase in LOP for Fare Gate Project 210090 in the amount of $58,500 to implement a virtual gate configuration pilot at Van Nuys and Reseda station on the Orange Line; or

2. Approve an increase in LOP budget for Fare Gate Project 210090 in the amount of $153,000 to perform a detailed engineering analysis at all Orange Line stations (Physical Layout, Equipment Quantities Analys is, and Queuing Analysis). and;

Expo 1

3. Approve an increase in LOP for Fare Gate Project 210090 in the amount of $4.9 million to implement fare gate Scheme A at three aerial stations on Expo Phase 1; or

4. Approve an increase in LOP for Fare Gate Project 210090 in the amount of $6.2 million to implement fare gate Scheme Bat three aerial stations on Expo Phase 1.

ISSUE

In response to the Motion by Directors O'Connor, Yaroslavsky and Najarian to Item 41, "Gate Latching Feasibility Studies (Attachment A)," Metro staff is reporting back on a fare evasion analysis for the Blue, Gold, and Expo lines.

In response to the Motion by Directors Yaroslavsky and Krekorian to Item 6, "Orange Line Fare Enforcement dated January 15, 2014 (Attachment B)," Metro staff is reporting back on options to gate or partially gate all of the Orange Line Stations, that educational/media campaign regarding Transit Access Pass (TAP) be explored and that signage be placed informing customers of the need to TAP and the associated fines.

Metro staff is also reporting back on the status of fare gates on the Expo Phase 1, Expo Phase 2, Foothill Gold Line Extension Phase 2A, Crenshaw/LAX, Blue Line, Gold, and Green Lines.

DISCUSSION

A Metro Agency Costs (Fare Gate Project): In an effort to optimize resources to determine the feasibility of implementing fare gates at rail and Orange Line stations Metro requested authorization to establish an LOP budget under Fare Gate Project 210090. Metro is requesting an increase in LOP to fund agency costs associated with preliminary work (e.g., preliminary engineering analysis) for the Fare Gate Project.

B. Fare Enforcement (Blue, Expo, Gold, and Orange Lines): In an effort to estimate Metro's fare evasion rate system wide, the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department (LASD) conducted six 100 percent fare checks on the Blue, Expo, Gold, and Orange Lines. The fare checks focused on de-boardings and spanned between the hours of 5:30-11:30 and 14:00-20:00.

Fare checks were conducted using mobile-phone validators (MPV), which are devices used to check fares by placing a customer's TAP card on the face of a phone reader. A valid TAP card will display green when a customer has tapped before boarding. All nonvalid TAP cards will display red on the MPV screen indicating fare evasion or misuse of an active pass.

The findings were as follows:

Line Date Day Stations Fare Evasion Misuse Comment Orange 12/3/2013 Tuesday North Hollywood, Van Nuys, Sherman Way 22% 9% Uniformed operation at North Hollywood Orange 12/17/2013 Tuesday North Hollywood, Reseda, Canoga 16% 6% Uniformed operation at North Hollywood Orange 2/11 /2014 Tuesday North Hollywood, Van Nuys, Canoga 7% 5% Uniformed operation at North Hollywood Blue 3/12/201 4 Wednesday 1 03rd StreeUWatts Towers, Compton, Willow St. 26% 3% No uniformed operations Gold 3/19/2014 Wednesday Atlantic, Highland Park, Lake 4% 4% Uniformed operation at Atlantic Expo 4/2/2014 Wednesday Expo/Western, Expo/Crenshaw, Culver City 11 % 4% Uniformed operation at Culver City

Fare Gate Project

Red Checks - Misuse

...

'"'

'""

Red Checks- Fare Evasion

C. Orange Line

ORANGE LINE

ORANGE LINE

• 1UJ!U

'10 l~ll~.~ ...

The Orange Line consists of 18 stations and operates 48 articulated buses on a dedicated busway from North Hollywood to Chatsworth station . Average weekday boardings are an estimated 29,475.

In an attempt to reduce fare evasion rates, staff is currently assessing a number of alternatives which include:

Fare Gate Project

1. Educational/Media Campaign: To better educate Orange Line customers on proper use of the TAP card and encourage fare compliance, Communications has launched a series of new messages specifically targeting Orange Line customers. These include the following :

On February 26 , 2014, a 30-second educational video featuring LASD Commander Michael Claus explaining how to TAP began playing repeatedly on the onboard Transit TV system. The video was posted on metro.net (The Source and El Pasajero) and was distributed to the media at a press event at the Van Nuys station.

During March, new interior posters were displayed on Orange Line buses with a message specifically advising Orange Line customers to TAP before boarding . The posters indicate how to use TAP cards properly. A total of eight posters (four in English and four in Spanish) were displayed in each vehicle .

Additionally, new audio announcements and scrolling variable messages were implemented at each station . The verbal announcements and written messages, presented in English and Spanish , are intended to remind customers they must have valid TAP cards and tap before boarding. These messages are being repeated at least once every five minutes during service hours.

Staff will proceed with implementing bright new decals for station SAVs to increase visibility and provide a clear "tap here" instruction. In conjunction , a vinyl floor graphic will be implemented at platforms adjacent to SAVs. This floor graphic is intended to create a visual barrier, reinforcing the "tap here" message with a "do not cross this line without tapping" stripe across the width of the platform.

Staff will proceed with implementing decals on Orange Line bus doors. The decals include a message reminding customers they must have valid fare and tap their cards before boarding , and citing the penalties for failure to do so.

The estimated cost to produce and install these materials is $35,000 for all Orange Line buses and stations. SAV decals and vinyl floor graphics are temporary and last approximately six months; depending on the effectiveness of the Educational/Media Campaign , a permanent installation using durable longer lasting materials would be explored.

2. Fare Boxes/Mobile Validators: Staff completed a preliminary engineering analysis (site survey, preliminary equipment needs, conceptual drawings, and Rough Order-ofMagnitude (ROM)) of the of various fare collection alternatives for the Orange Line. The analysis required that each station be assessed to determine the feasibility of implementing fare gates or a virtual gate with SAVs. The analysis included a review of on-board fare collection and potential impacts to bus operations.

The results of the analysis indicate the implementation of fare boxes and/or mobile validators (MVs) on buses would cause significant impact to bus operations and are not

Fare Gate Project

being recommended . While implementing on board equipment can be achieved quickly and at a reduced cost, there are other costs that must be considered. For example, fare boxes and/or MVs require payment upon entry which impact boarding and dwell times and result in delays as well as longer travel times. Increased dwell time at stations would affect traffic signal timing because bus arrivals would be out of sync with traffic lights along the alignment. Re-synchronization of traffic signals would be challenging as dwell times are the result of unpredictable factors . Delays would ultimately amount to higher operating costs.

The deployment of fare boxes and/or MVs would eliminate the paid area and would pose challenges for fare enforcement. For example, non-customers could congregate in this area. The existing Orange Line load capacity would make it extremely difficult for LASD to conduct fare checks onboard buses. Rear and center door boardings would be more susceptible to fare evasion. Bus Operations estimated the annual operational costs associated with fare boxes and/or MVs to be $3 to $4 million .

3. Fare Gates: The results of the preliminary engineering analysis indicate that all Orange Line stations could accommodate fare gates with a few exceptions. The Orange Line stations requ ired four basic fare gate configurations with the most common being an inline fare gate array consisting of one turnstile, one Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) gate, and one Emergency Swing Gate (ESG). Due to high ridership patterns at the North Hollywood station , preliminary equipment analysis indicates that the East entrance requires two turnstiles one ADA gate and one emergency swing gate and the West entrance requires one turnstile , one ADA gate and one emergency swing gate.

Additionally, the Warner Center Station is located on a public side walk. Staff was able to identify a gating strategy; however, implementation of fare gates at this location would require a land acquisition from a private parking lot adjacent to the station. The acquisition of private property is necessary to maintain a public sidewalk around the station .

Orange Line stations are very open and accessible, which could decrease the effectiveness of fare gates. To mitigate this weakness, a fencing strategy would have to be implemented. The existing 3.5 foot barrier fencing along the backside of platforms would have to be modified or replaced with 5 foot fencing . Fencing would also have to be installed along the curb edge of platform entrances leading up to the entrance and along the center median of the busway at stations with side platforms directly across from each other. The fencing cannot prevent unauthorized entry to paid areas but would help discourage individuals from evading fare arrays.

Metro has prepared a preliminary ROM estimate of $24.6 million to implement fare gates at the 18 stations. The preliminary ROM includes construction, equipment, and installation NOT costs associated with property acquisition , easements, or lane takes. Property may need to be acquired or an easement may be needed to implement fare gates at Warner Center station.

Fare Gate Project

$30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000

$5,000,000 $0

• Infrastructure

•Equipment

• Installation

• Agency Costs (7%) . ~ +- =

• Bus Operating Costs '

• Annual Maintenance

• Total

Orange Line

- ·- _. ·- · SAV Virtual Gate Mobile Validator

$850,000

$3,000,000

$339,496

$293,265 w ••••••••••••• ' ww ow •-•--•·•••••w

so $334,000

$4,816,761

•·

$850,000

$480,000

$276,000

$112,420

$3,927.287

$50,000 -

$5,695,707

Fare Sox

$850,000

$103,320

$4.909,109

$236,000

$6,724,429

The cost for General/Civil and Electrical/Systems work is $14.2 million, which includes modification of existing stations and equipment relocation such as bollards, poles, map cases, including signage etc. The ROM estimate includes installation of equipment to support fare gates including the installation of ESG, gate telephones, closed-circuit television, cameras, canopies (or modifications to existing} , signage, lighting, Fire Alarm Control Panel interface etc. The ROM estimate also includes $1 .7 million for agency costs.

The cost of fare gate equipment is estimated to be $8,208,000 which includes an estimate $4,332 ,000 to procure fare gate console equipment and $3,876,000 for equipment installation and necessary infrastructure work.

A detailed engineering analysis (Physical Layout, Equipment Quantities Analysis and Queuing Analysis) needs to be performed to finalize the estimate to implement fare gates. Metro has received a ROM estimate of $153,000 to complete the analysis.

4. SAV Virtual Gate Configuration: A virtual gate consists of at least four SAVs installed between the paid and non-paid area at station entrances similar to a fare gate array. The results of the preliminary engineering analysis indicate that all stations along the alignment have the infrastructure (power and communications) in place to support a virtual gate configuration. A virtual gate configuration has already been implemented at the West entrance of the North Hollywood station with five (5) SAVs installed. This station is not representative of the entire line because of the high volume of customers' transferring from the Red Line and an elevated fare enforcement presence.

Virtual gates are low cost alternative to fare gates and can be implemented fairly quickly. Staff has prepared a ROM estimate of $4.9 million to implement virtual gating at the 18 stations. The ROM estimate includes $3 million for equipment, $339,496 for installation , $293,265 for agency costs, $850,000 for infrastructure/signage, and $334,000 per year for maintenance costs.

Fare Gate Project

To measure the impact virtual gates would have on fare evasion along the Orange Line, staff recommends implementing a pilot at Reseda and Van Nuys stations. The pilot would consist of installing five (5) SAVs at Reseda and four (4) SAVs at Van Nuys and would include new SAV decals and a vinyl floor graphic on the platform adjacent to the SAVs. Both stations are high volume with average fare enforcement presence and would allow staff to collect data and monitor the effectiveness of this alternative.

Staff has prepared a ROM estimate of $58,500 to implement the pilot. The ROM estimate includes $30,341 for equipment installation and $28,093 per year for maintenance costs . Staff intends to use existing equipment from storage to reduce the cost of the pilot. The ROM estimate does not include permanent signage or agency costs.

D. Expo Phase 1: Item 41 .1 dated February 27, 2014, authorized staff to perform a detailed engineering analysis for eight at-grade stations. Staff is in the process of entering into a contract with an engineering firm to perform the analysis. Staff will continue to provide the Board with regular progress updates.

Expo Phase 1 Aerial Station Fare Gate Alternatives $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000

$0

• Infrastructure

: • Equipment

• Installation

w Agency Costs (7%)

• Annual Maintenance

• Total .

Scheme A

$1,325,609

$1,189,026

$1,938,967

$311,7 52

$ 19 1,843

$4,957,197

$1,595,995

$1,635,871

$2,372,652

$392,316

Item 41 .1 dated February 27, 2014, requested staff re-evaluate the cost for implementing fare gates at three aerial stations. Staff re-evaluated the cost and developed a ROM estimate for two options: Scheme A $4.9 mill ion and Scheme B $6.2 million (Attachment H, please note the fare gate arrays depicted in the schematic drawings are symbolic and do not represent the actual quantity of fare gate equipment). The original estimate for Scheme B, which was presented in the February 27, 2014 Board report , increased from $4.7 to $6.2 million because system costs (e.g., electrical, communications) , equipment maintenance costs , and agency costs were included in the revised estimate.

• La Cienega Station - East Plaza Scheme A has more fence and two (2) sets of fare gates; may cost less compared to Scheme B, which has less fence but three (3) sets of fare gates.

Fare Gate Project

• Culver City Station - West Plaza Scheme A has more fence and two (2) sets of fare gates; may cost less compared to Scheme B, which has less fence but has three (3) sets of fare gates.

• La Brea Station - East Plaza Scheme A has more fence and two (2) sets of fare gates; may cost less compared to Scheme B, which has less fence but has three (3) sets of fare gates.

E. Expo Phase 2: Item 41.1 dated February 27, 2014, authorized staff to perform a detailed engineering analysis for three at-grade stations. The Expo Construction Authority has initiated an engineering study to evaluate station layouts for placement of Latch gates and update exit calculations to determine compliance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 130 requirements. The Expo Construction Authority plans to complete the analysis in June 2014. Staff will continue to provide the Board with regular progress updates.

F. Expo Phase 24th Street Terminus Station in Downtown Santa Monica: Item 41 dated February 27, 2014, authorized staff to proceed with fare gate implementation. Staff provided notice to proceed for Expo Construction Authority to implement Latch Gates at 4th Street Station. Expo executed a change order with Skanska-Rados Joint Venture (SRJV) to implement latch gates at 4th Street.

G. Foothill Gold Line Extension Phase 2A: Item 41.1 dated February 27, 2014, authorized staff to perform a detailed engineering analysis for 16 stations. The Foothill Construction Authority has initiated an engineering study to evaluate station layouts for placement of latch gates and update exit calculations to determine compliance with NFPA 130 requirements. The Foothill Construction Authority plans to complete the analysis in June 2014. Staff will continue to provide the Board with regular progress updates.

H. Crenshaw/LAX: Item 41 dated February 27, 2014, authorized staff to proceed with fare gate implementation. The design change has been executed for contract C0988 with Walsh/Shea Corridor Constructors (WSCC) for $239,000. The design change to implement fare gates at the four at-grade stations was initiated in March, 2014. The construction change for contract C0988 is in Fact Finding and is expected to be executed by April 30, 2014.

I. Blue Line: Item 41.1 dated February 27, 2014, authorized staff to perform a detailed engineering analysis for 17 stations. Staff is performing a preliminary engineering analysis. Staff has completed site visits and preliminary conceptual design drawings for each station. Staff will continue to provide the Board with regular progress updates.

J. Gold Line: Item 41 .1 dated February 27,2014, authorized staff to perform a detailed engineering analysis for 16 stations. Staff has focused on the Blue Line effort. Staff will begin the preliminary engineering analysis on the Gold Line after the Blue Line

Fare Gate Project

preliminary analysis has been completed. Staff will continue to provide the Board with regular progress updates.

K. Green Line: On April 9, 2014, Metro latched Crenshaw, Vermont/Athens and Harbor Freeway stations. Redondo Beach , Douglas, El Segundo, Mariposa, Aviation/LAX, Hawthorne/Lennox, and Avalon stations are latched. Metro plans to latch the four remaining Green Line stations by the end of May 2014.

DETERMINATION OF SAFETY IMPACT

The Orange Line stations are not required to meet NFPA 130 requirements. NFPA 130 requires half of the exiting capacity at fare gate arrays to be swing type gates. Fire/Life Safety (FLS) has reviewed the subject of emergency egress for Orange Line stations if fare gates were to be implemented. Based on the expected occupancy of these stations, two means of egress should be provided at each station. The means of egress should lead to a public way or other area that affords protection for customers . The means of egress shall not require any special knowledge or tools for people to use. Signage and lighting should be provided. FLS will support any fare gate initiatives that provide adequate egress capacity at stations.

A detailed engineering analysis must be performed on the Orange Line to determine optimal fare gate quantities and safe egress capacity.

The construction phase of fare gate implementation at side and split platform stations with only one paid entrance will likely cause operational challenges and introduce new obstacles for passengers. For example, during construction it will be difficult to provide passengers with convenient access to fare equipment and station entrances and maintain existing service levels at these stations.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

The LOP increases required for the recommended efforts will be added to project 210090 Fare Gate Project, under cost centers 8510 Engineering & Construction and 3020 TAP Operations. The funds required for education and media costs are budgeted in cost center 3020, project 300016, and account 50499.

Since this is a multi-year project the cost center manager, project manager, and Executive Director, Finance will ensure that costs are included in future fiscal year budgets.

Impact to Budget

The funding source for this effort is Measure R Rail 2% which is eligible for operation systems improvement. Other local funds, eligible for bus and rail operations, will be considered as the need arises.

Fare Gate Project

NEXT STEPS

1. Proceed with implementation of SAV decals, vinyl floor graphics and bus decals at Orange Line stations; and

2. Upon Board authorization , Metro to implement virtual gate configuration pilot at Van Nuys and Reseda stations on the Orange Line; or

3. Upon Board authorization , Metro to perform a detailed engineering analysis (Physical Layout, Equipment Quantities Analysis , and Queuing Analysis) on the Orange Line; and

4. Upon Board authorization , Metro to implement fare gate Scheme A or Scheme B at three aerial stations on Expo Phase 1;

ATTACHMENT

A. Motion by Directors O'Connor, Yaroslavsky and Najarian to Item 41 , "Gate Latching Feasibility Studies"

B. Motion by Directors Yaroslavsky and Krekorian to Item 6, "Orange Line Fare Enforcement dated January 15, 2014

C. Orange Line: Station Photos of Basic Platform Configurations (Offset Side Platform Station, Opposite Side Platform Station , Single Side Platform Station , Warner Center Unique Single Platform Station , Canoga Station Unique Junction Station with Two Sets of Parallel Side Platforms)

D. Orange Line: Virtual Gate Configuration- North Hollywood Station E. Orange Line: Station Table F. Orange Line: Basic Fare Gate Array Configurations G. Expo Phase 1: Estimates for Implementing fare gates at three aerial stations H. Expo Phase 1: Schematic Drawings for three aerial stations

Prepared by:

Questions:

Fare Gate Project

David Sutton, DEO TAP Operations Patrick Preusser, DEO Rail Operations

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

Arthur T. Leahy Chief Executive Officer

Fare Gate Project

ATTACHMENT A

Motion by Directors O'Connor, Yaroslavsky and Najarian

Amendment to Construction Committee Item No. 41

Gate Latching Feasibility Studies

This past January, staff presented a Receive and File report at the Systems, Safety and Operations Committee which addressed the criteria for designing at-grade stations with gates, and the feasibility of implementing fare/security gate latching at all stations, including at-grade stations.

In the report, staff broke down the costs associated with (a) detailed engineering analysis for Expo Phase 1 and 2, Foothill Extension, Crenshaw/LAX, Blue Line and Gold Line to implement gating for at-grade stations and (b) cost of implementing installation of fare gates at existing aerial stations.

In its conclusion, staff recommended that the Board of Directors initiate the detailed engineering analysis through the Board Motion Process.

In light of the most recent information regarding the high rate of fare evasion and the success of latching those stations with gates, it is important that we pursue staff's recommendation and prepare the necessary feasibility studies.

We, therefore Move that the Metro Board of Directors authorize the CEO to include in the FY 14-15 Metro Budget the funding to perform the following staff recommendations consistent within the NFPA Section 130 guidelines and requirements:

1. Expo Phase 1: perform detailed engineering analysis (Physical Layout, Quantities Analysis, Queuing Analysis, and Exit calculations) for eight at-grade stations.

2. Expo Phase 1: re-evaluate the proposed cost of implementing fare gates at three aerial stations and look for ways to reduce those cost. Return to the board with a revised budget.

3. Expo Phase 2: initiate detailed engineering analysis (Physical Layout, Quantities Analysis, Queuing Analysis, and Exit Calculations) for three at-grade stations.

4. Foothill Extension: initiate detailed engineering analysis (Physical Layout, Quantities Analysis, Queuing Analysis, and Exit Calculations) for eight at-grade stations.

5. Crenshaw /LAX: Complete a detailed engineering analysis (Physical Layout, Quantities Analysis, Queuing Analysis, and Exit Calculations) for four at-grade stations.

6. Blue Line: initiate detailed engineering analysis (Physical Layout, Quantities Analysis, Queuing Analysis, and Exit Calculations) for 17 stations. Update the Board during the June 2014 Board meeting.

7. Gold Line: initiate detailed engineering analysis (Physical Layout, Quantities Analysis, Queuing Analysis, and Exit Calculations) for 16 stations. Update the Board during the June 2014 Board meeting.

WE FURTHER MOVE that staff conduct a fare evasion analysis similar to the one recently completed along the Orange Line, which used TAP data and boarding data to determine the level of evasion, for the Blue, Gold, and Expo lines and return to this committee in the May, 2014 Board cycle.

ATTACHMENT B

FINANCE AND BUDGET COMMITTEE

January 15, 2014

MOTION BY DIRECTORS YAROSLAVSKY AND KREKORIAN

ORANGE LINE FARE ENFORCEMENT

ITEM 6

In response to the Board's directive in November, LASD conducted two 100% 11-hour fare check operations on the Orange Line for all deboardings on Tuesday, December 3, 2013 and Tuesday, December 17, 2013. Each operation focused on three stations with North Hollywood being in both operations.

The fare evasion rate for December 3rd was 22% and on December 1ih it was 16%. Moreover, it was found that there are a significant number of misusers -those who have 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 and Purple line were first locked, it was found that there had been a significant number of fare evaders and misuers prior to the gates being locked. Unless we take this issue head on, and begin to design all our stations with gates, including those at grade, fare evasion 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 solving the fare evasion problem system-wide.

WE, THEREFORE, MOVE that staff develop options to gate or partially gate all Orange Line stations and/or other actions as appropriate, that an educational/media campaign regarding TAP be explored, and that signage be placed on or adjacent to the SAVs informing patrons of the need to TAP and the associated fine. Staff should report back to 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 the status of gating the Exposition Line, Foothill Extension and Crenshaw Line which are currently under construction/design.

ATTACHMENT C Metro Orange Line: Station pictures (Staggered (Offset) side platform, Parallel

(Opposite) side platform, Single side platform, Sidewalk platform, and Junction Station with Two Sets of Parallel side platforms and Island entrance)

Laurel Canyon - Typical At-Grade Staggered (Offset) Side Platform Station (3 Photos Below)

Top View

One side platform diagonally opposite other side platform across street intersection.

Typically single entrance to each platform at platform end closest to street crossing BRT Right-of-Way

Area behind platforms may include traffic lane of parallel street, landscaping, bike trail, or adjacent

property structure depending on station location

Example above is for station in median of street, with traffic lanes behind each platform

Eastbound Platform

View of Eastbound Platform looking East from West end entrance of platform

Fare gate array would be located in area just before start of boarding area indicated by yellow platform

edge using a Typical Layout 'A' in-line configuration

This station platform also includes entrance at East end of platform accessed by crosswalk

Emergency egress would be provided in-line with the fare gate array due to location of structure due to

lack of area between back of platform and parallel traffic lane.

back of platform

ATTACHMENT C

Westbound Platform

Insert Correct Photo

View of Westbound Platform looking West from East end entrance of platform

Fare gate array would be located in current area of SAVs just before start of boarding area indicated by

yellow platform edge using a Typical Layout 'C' in-line configuration, with Rail Right-of-Way style

emergency swing gate located in back railing of fence just beyond opening directly to dirt area between

back of platform and traffic lane

In addition, a second Rail Right-of-Way style emergency swing gate would be located in back railing of

fence at opposite (West) end of boarding area near current emergency exit end of platform also leading

directly to dirt area between back of platform and traffic lane.

Sepulveda- Typical At-Grade Parallel (Opposite} Side Platform Station (3 Photos Below}

Top View

One side platform directly across from other side platform on busway, with one end typically near street

crossing BRT Right-of-Way.

Typically single entrance to each platform at platform end closest to cross-street

Area behind platforms may include traffic lane of parallel street, landscaping, bike trail, or adjacent

property structure depending on station location

In this station example, area directly behind Westbound Platform is Bike Trail, and area directly behind

Eastbound Platform is structure on adjacent property

Fencing will need to be installed in median of busway to prevent jaywalking of patrons across busway

between boarding areas of opposite platforms

ATTACHMENT C

Westbound Platform

View of Westbound Platform looking West from East end entrance of platform

Fare gate array would be located in current area of SAV just before start of boarding area indicated by


emergency swing gate located in back railing of fence just beyond opening directly to Bike Trail running

along back of platform


fence at opposite (West) end of boarding area near current emergency exit end of platform also opening

directly to Bike Trail running along back of platform

Eastbound Platform

View of Eastbound Platform looking West from East end entrance of platform


yellow platform edge using a Typical Layout 'B' configuration

Emergency egress would be provided in-line with the fare gate array due to location of structure along

back of platform.

ATTACHMENT C

North Hollywood -Single Side Platform Station (2 Photos Below)

Top View

One side platform for boarding passengers at East end of the Orange Line

Alighting passengers use bus bays along lower portion of photo opposite from boarding platform

Heavy transfer patronage to and from the Metro Red Line North Hollywood Station

Area behind platform is parallel street sidewalk.

New entrance to Red Line North Hollywood Station to occupy area between bus turnaround and sidewalk

on East end of BRT station

Boarding Platform- East End

View of Boarding Platform looking West from East end entrance of platform


yellow platform edge using a modified Typical Layout 'C' in-line configuration with one additional

Turnstile aisle, with Rail Right-of-Way style emergency swing gate located in back railing of fence just

beyond opening directly to Bike Trail running along back of platform


fence at opposite (West) end of boarding area near current emergency exit end of platform also opening

directly to Bike Trail running along back of platform

Fencing would be installed along curb line to direct patrons to fare gates and run continuously back to

start of Bus Bays for alighting passengers on opposite side of station to discourage patron jaywalking into

buswav

ATTACHMENT C Boarding Platform- West End

View of Boarding Platform looking East from current Emergency Exit end of platform

Entrance would be converted to regular public entrance


yellow platform edge using Typical Layout 'D' in-line configuration with a TVM installed on end of array

closest to sidewalk, and with Rail Right-of-Way style emergency swing gate located in back railing of

fence just beyond opening directly to sidewa lk running along back of platform

Fencing would be installed along curb line to direct patrons to fare gates

Warner Center- Unique Single Platform Station on Public Sidewalk (2 Photos Below)

Top View

One side platform for boarding and alighting passengers on public street sidewalk, similar to normal bus

stop

Area behind back edge of sidewalk is private property.

To maintain public use as a sidewalk, property will need to be acquired to provide a bypass walkway

running behind the existing fenced boarding area in order to provide of path for pedestrians around the

fare gates and paid boarding area of the station.

Boarding Platform- South Entrance

View of Boarding Platform area on Sidewalk looking North from South end

Fare gate array would be located just past TVM before start of boarding area indicated by change in

pavement color using Typical Layout 'A' in-line configuration,

Fencing would be installed along curb line back toward street corner to direct patrons to fare gates

Boarding Platform- North Entrance

View of Boarding Platform area on Sidewalk looking South from North end

ATTACHMENT C

Fare gate array would be located in area past TVM before start of board ing area indicated by change in

pavement color using Typical Layout ' B' in-line configuration,

Fencing would be installed along curb line back toward street corner to direct patrons to fare gates

ATTACHMENT C Canoga - Unique Junction Station with two sets of Parallel Side Platforms and Island Entrance (2 Photos Below)

Top View

Two sets of parallel side platforms at junction point on the Orange Line- One set (Eastbound and

Westbound) for continuation of run to Warner Center and other set (Norhtbound and Southbound) for

continuation of run to Chatsworth.

All four platforms connected together by crosswalks served by Island entrance from Parking Lot.

Additionally there are Entrances on West end of Eastbound and Westbound Platforms and partial

provisions for future entrance on the Northe End of the Northbound platform

Median fence exists in busway between Northbound and Southbound. Additional median fence need

between Eastbound and Westbound platforms.

ATTACHMENT C Westbound Platform

View of Westbound Platform looking East from West end entrance of platform


yel low platform edge using a Typical Layout 'D' in-line configuration, with Rail Right-of-Way style

emergency swing gate located in back railing of fence just beyond opening directly to sidewalk/parking

lot running along back of platform


fence at opposite (East) end of boarding area near current crosswalk and also opening directly to

sidewalk/parking lot running along back of platform

Eastbound Platform

View of Eastbound Platform looking East from West end entrance of platform



emergency swing gate located in back railing of fence just beyond opening directly to Bike Trail running



fence at opposite (East) end of boarding area near current crosswalk and also opening directly to Bike

Trail running along back of platform

ATTACHMENT C

Island Entrance

View of South side of Island entrance from Parking Lot serving all4 platforms

Fare gate array would be located in current area of SAVs using a modified Typical Layout 'C' in-line

configuration with one additional Turnstile aisle, and with Rail Right-of-Way style emergency swing gate

located in fencing just to right of photo opening directly to area of Bike Lockers and parking lot

Additional fencing would be added to direct patrons to the fare gates and to both sides of walkway on

paid side to limit access to the two crosswalks leading to all4 platforms

Northbound Platform

View of North end of Northbound platform looking South- Currently not a public entrance

May be converted to public entrance to serve high density housing on private property behind platform.

If so new entrance will need to be constructed off existing end of platform in area of palm trees to

provide covered area with canopy for TVMs, Map Cases, CCTV, GTEL, and other equipment.

Fare gate array would be located in current area at North End of platform using a Typical Layout 'B' in

line configuration

Emergency egress wou ld be provided in-line with the fare gate array due to private property boundary

along back of platform.

Southbound Platform

Vi~w of South end of Southbound platform looking South- No change required as patrons using this

platform would be served by the Island entrance from Parking lot.

Median fencing in busway is typical of what needs to be added at all Parallel Platform BRT stations to

discourage patron jaywalking between platforms.

Chatsworth -Single Side Platform Station (2 Photos Below)

Top View

ATTACHMENT C

ATTACHMENT C

North Entrance

One side platform for boarding and alighting passengers at West end of the Orange Line

Two entrances, one on North end and one on South end of Boarding area

Transfer point to adjacent Metrolink Chatsworth station to the North

Area behind platform is parallel sidewalk adjacent back edge of platform

se Correct Photo

View of Boarding Platform looking South from North end entrance of platform



emergency swing gate located in back railing of fence just beyond opening directly to sidewalk running



portion of turnaround area to discourage patron jaywalking into busway

ATTACHMENT C South Entrance

se Correct Photo

View of Boarding Platform looking North from South end entrance of platform


yellow platform edge using a Typical Layout 'D' in-line configuration, with Rail Right-of-Way style

emergency swing gate located in back railing of fence just beyond opening directly to sidewalk running



portion of turnaround area to discourage patron jaywalking into busway

ATTACHMENT D

Virtual Gate Array at MOL North Hollywood Station

ATTACHMENT E Metro Orange Line: Station Table

Number of Fare Gate Fare gate Impacts

Station Entrance Fare Gate Location Aisles* layout City ROW Comments North

East End At Start of Platform Boarding Area 3 In-line No Ref. Detail Layout Hollywood

North Ref. Typical Layout

Hollywood West End At Start of Platform Boarding Area 2 In-line No 'B' (except for In-

Line ESG)

Laurel WB

Ref. Typical Layout Platform, At Start of Platform Boarding Area 2 In-line No Canyon East End 'C'

Laurel EB Platform, At Start of Platform Boarding Area 2 In-line No

Ref. Typical Layout Canyon West End 'A' Laurel EB Platform, At Start of Platform Boarding Area 2 In-line No

Ref. Typical Layout Canyon East End 'B'

Valley WB

Ref. Typical Layout Platform , At Start of Platform Boarding Area 2 In-line No College East End

'C'

Valley EB Platform, At Start of Platform Boarding Area 2 In-line No

Ref. Typical Layout College West End 'A'

Woodman WB

Ref. Typical Layout Platform, At Start of Platform Boarding Area 2 In-line No Ave. West End 'D'

Woodman EB Platform, At Start of Platform Boarding Area 2 In-line No Ref. Typical Layout

Ave. West End 'A'

Van Nuys WB

Ref. Typical Layout Platform, At Start of Platform Boarding Area 2 In-line No Blvd . West End 'D'

Van Nuys EB Platform, At Start of Platform Boarding Area 2 In-line No

Ref. Typical Layout Blvd. West End 'C'

WB Ref. Typical Layout Sepulveda Platform, At Start of Platform Boarding Area 2 In-line No 'C' East End

Sepulveda EB Platform,

At Start of Platform Boarding Area 2 In-l ine No Ref. Typical Layout

East End 'D' WB

Ref. Typical Layout Woodley Platform, At Start of Platform Boarding Area 2 In-line No East End 'C'

Woodley EB Platform,

At Start of Platform Boarding Area 2 In-line No Ref. Typical Layout

West End 'A' WB

Ref. Typical Layout Balboa Platform, At Start of Platform Boarding Area 2 In-line No West End 'B'

Balboa EB Platform,


West End 'C' WB

Ref. Typical Layout Reseda Platform, At Start of Platform Boarding Area 2 In-line No 'C' East End

Reseda EB Platform,


West End 'C' WB

Ref. Typical Layout Tampa Platform, At Start of Platform Boarding Area 2 In-l ine No East End

'A'

Tampa EB Platform,


West End 'C'

Pierce WB

Ref. Typical Layout College

Platform, At Start of Platform Boarding Area 2 In-line No 'A' East End

Pierce EB Platform, At Start of Platform Boarding Area 2 In-line No

Ref. Typical Layout College West End 'C'

WB Ref. Typical Layout De Solo Platform, At Start of Platform Boarding Area 2 In-line No

East End 'C'

De Solo EB Platform,


West End 'C' WB

Ref. Typical Layout Canoga Platform, At Start of Platform Boarding Area 2 In-line No West End 'D'

Canoga EB Platform,

At Start of Platform Board ing Area 2 In-line No Ref. Typical Layout

West End 'C' Island-Remote

Canoga Area At Start of Platform Boarding Area 2 In-l ine No Ref. Detail Layout Adjacent All 4 Platforms

Ref. Typical Layout 'B'. Will need to construct provisions

NB Platform, for TVMs, Map

Canoga North End

At Start of Platform Boarding Area 2 In-line No Cases and Canopy to support opening this end of platform as a regular entrance Ref. Detail Layout;

Warner EB Platform, Existing Boarding

Center North End At Start of Platform Boarding Area 2 In-line Yes Area on Sidewalk -

Private Property behind Ref. Detail Layout;

Warner EB Platform, Existing Boarding

Center South End At Start of Platform Boarding Area 2 In-line Yes Area on Sidewalk -

Private Property behind

Sherman SB Platform, At Start of Platform Boarding Area 2 In-line No Ref. Typical Layout

Way North End 'C' Sherman NB Platform,


Way North End 'D'

Roscoe SB Platform,


North End 'C'

Roscoe NB Platform,


South End 'A' Ref. Typical Layout

'B'. Will need to construct provisions

NB Platform, for TVMs, Map

Roscoe North End

At Start of Platform Boarding Area 2 In-line No Cases and Canopy to support opening this end of platform as a regular entrance

Nordhoff SB Platform,


North End 'C'

Nordhoff NB Platform,


South End 'A'

Chatsworth South End At Start of Platform Boarding Area 2 In-line No Ref. Typical Layout

'D'

Chatsworth North End At Start of Platform Boarding Area 2 In-line No Ref. Typical Layout

'C'

Gate Latching Project Page 2

~/

-.-0'

~ .

' .:' ;l

1 ...

·')

\ " ~ .)

(. J ~

I .. > j

-~

1' ~

"" '"" ) _, , " ., .. , ., J

"' ··:J .··)

! _1

"' ~

:: "' > r<

·::; c ,, . .,

\ )I

7

, ?

'

..

~ j ~-4-~ ~ ~ .

~ I I ! I 'M

\}l ~ ~

~

m i ~ ' t.

·f ., r

" ., ., ~

p ., r

0 1. :1 " t

::)

i;' ~ c ~

" z r

" ~ 7 ~

-; (_

p ~! ~ ~

'I' I'

--$'

-~ " .. -~

ATTACHMENT F

~~ 'f" '\ .,.. )

~ 1l ' "' ,.. II\

1. " ill ~ ~

,. ~

~ "' !fl "' r ~ l

~

,fl ;r. ~ , ,., ,. r ~

"J ~' ~

(""'. . -l

l ' N

~ " ~ 'P ~

., ~

v (\ " c l

\f\ '-' V' .. ~

_, ~ ::· • v ,. 0

~ '

{.

-~

-i ; ,., - -l

:t

'"

m-·-

~

~ 0 't

0 ,. JJ "' k

I

} ~

I(;

~

J. 2 ··<''·· ~ r? "' J

l.i' ;n l ;;j

~·· "' .. ,,

-i " f'

~ ' I" ... -~ 1- "

~ V7 ,;

0 ~ ~

Cl

1.- r :r l" r J

~ ~

( ' "' " ~ ' ~

..... 11\ ,, ~ ~ ;n

\,._,

r I ... '-· ~

~

' ()

J:Y_

8

I '2 '- I i ,, o V'#!!Jit.Aa ---· --------- --·- ---- ------ ·

.... rJ ~ -~

--~ 1 '

~ j: .;2 ~ ~ ::r· . ...... ,

I I

"77~ ..... --- ·-·- ~- -------r-__,_.,...., . -~

"' "' ~

.t _.,.". ~ _./ ~ ~

~ g ~ ~

~ \):)'

' ~ ~

·I " + 1 -- - ~ r-.. -

I ~

~ i ~ : I ~ J ;

v I

-j ~ ~

' L ~ r-

~ ""

~ '{\

~ ~ ~ LJ ~ "' '-._.,/

~ ~" ~

:)> I

f ~

r:1 H 8h "' ...... ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ .:::

~ 7- r- (b ~

c ~

~ 7

I" I J r-..... > ~

~ -I

~ ~l t ~ r { -' (5

] h I )' ( } f• .. 7

J. .;:; "'i'·-, ' ~ ~ -.{ fO

~-~ ~

C\~ \' \l' _i ~ 2 ~ 1-' '--' ~ ~ A - .,, ~

<:7 ~ v 0 r-

$ '\ - _..,..

7 z ... ~

t '-' 1' ' ~ ,.. -

"" ,, ~

.\tt· v-, ~ ' .o/

):; cr , " - ( 0 0~~ .u--·-·

~ r·

~ -L :t"'

~·~ ...-- ___ r-:-.u~ - -

~···· · ····-- '- - 1-;-------:---~ , ___ ---

___ .. ___ h«'• ·'~ - -

r"'

"' .... ' ~

-: A

~ '

~ , ~ 3(. ,, -zo Zo"

~ ~ ....._ -- ...__ .....__. v w ~ ~ ,....... N h

0:::: ~ ~ ~ ~

n I' ,.

... --1-·-r---.

;1 r n ~ i \ "" l ,.\: ('

z v ;<,

"' r ~ '-? c

~ ~ ~ ...... - •/

~ ~ \1' ~ f. ::\ ~- --,.,

~ r-' ~

f)p. " '-...-, ~ ~ A . -6'\ ~ r \N ' "' ~ t, ._

-r

-;::[;\ 1 t

"' 9 ;:;

"' r -; ,0

f '.i.

~

£ (.)

4 ,.....

~ \1' '\ ~

~ ~

~ i I'

'I'

~ j v

(

! y

'{ ., c " "

~

,?; l.' ( "' ·p ': ( !

0

~i' '

~' .,J\)

~" l

) ~ () ")

! " 7'

~ "' ,,

~" ~ r

,...

"' .. , ...\ 2 I"

" , ~

.. ~

"" J .,.

('

~ ~

~ I" v

-I .J. ~

ATTACHMENT G

~Metro METRO ESTIMATING TRANSMITIAL

Date: April9, 2014 ----------~---------------

Estimating Reference No: _____ 10_4_0_2 __ _

To: Patrick Preusser Ph. No. 213-922-7974 From: Agnes Reyes

Project No: 210090 Task No: ---------------------------------------'01.01

Contract No: ___ T_B_D ___ Title: ____ E_xp~o_1_F_a_r_e_G_a_te_s_-_A_e_n_·al __ S_ta_ti_o_n_Al __ te_rn_a_u_·v_e_s_A_& __ B_R_O __ M __ _

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 Budget Estimate. 2. Rough Order Magnitude (ROM) estimate report.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact Agnes Reyes at extension 23975~

Paul Briggs- Director, Cost Estimating

Copies: Estimating Hles,

Date: t/~U 7'

Form No. A3.001 Revised: 2{7/13 (pb)

Date: 4/9/14 Estimating No.: 10402

BASIS OF BUDGET ESTIMATE Project 86301 - Metro Expo 1 Passenger Fare Gate

Aerial Station Alternatives A & B

Executive Summary: As requested, Metro Estimating has completed a revised Budget Estimate for fare gating at the three (3) Metro Expo 1 aerial stations. This revision includes two alternatives, A & B which have a different fencing & faregate array for each aerial station.

Construction Cost ROM: Metro Expo 1 Aerial Stations Scheme A Scheme B

La Brea Station $435,453.00 $510,133.00

La Cienega Station $438,767.00 $511,907.00

Culver City Station $451,389.00 $573,955.00

Total Construction Cost $1,325,609.00 $1,595,995.00

~ This budget estimate (ROM) is based on the following:

General I Civil: j

a. The estimate request package received on March 17, 2014 and April7, 2014. b. The fare gate equipment cost is by others. c. There is no canopy requirement for the aerial stations. d. This estimate did not include ROW costs. e. This estimate assumed that work is not allowed in the public area during peak hours of

station operation. £ This estimate assumed Metro's facilities are open 24/7 and must remain in operation during

construction. g. A placeholder of 20 percent premium for labor shift work is included in this estimate until

shift work hours is specified. h. Current quoted material prices and RS Means 2013 4th quarter. i. Comprehensive local union labor rates including worker's compensation and general

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

overhead and profit. A 30 percent design contingency amount is also included.

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

Date: 4/9/14 Estimating No.: 10402 Electrical/Systems:

1. First, and foremost, each faregate ROM we do is another step in the evolutionary process and more knowledge becomes available regarding required work scope. In the first ROM estimate for Expo-1 it was not known that two G-Tels are required at each faregate array or group, one outside the paid area, and one outside. Since we included only one G-Tel in the first ROM, we now include two in this revised ROM.

m. Secondly, in January of this year IBEW electricians received a planned wage increase, so we have updated our electrician union labor rates accordingly.

n. Some refinements in the unit costs of some items, specifically conduit and wire, some increases and some decreases. Also, the price allowances for PTZ cameras and for G-Tel units was increased to account for mounting hardware, evolving G-Tel cost, and other miscellaneous requirements.

o. Lastly- We reviewed the revised fencing & faregate array layout for the three aerial stations, and while the quantity of fencing may have gone up, the number of faregates has been reduced by one in some locations. So this reduction has also been taken into account.

Scheme B layout: p. At the east platform at both La Cienega and La Brea stations, we are adding a 3rd faregate

array at the east stairs. This will require additional underfloor ducting and rough-in, two additional PTZ CCTV cameras and one additional G-Tel on the Paid (stairs) side of the east stair since it is now isolated from the other lower level paid area.

q. At the west side of the Culver City station we are separating and isolating the west stair and by that we are adding two faregate arrays. Besides the underfloor duct & rough-in this will require 4 more PTZ CCTV cameras and 2 more G-Tels (in my opinion) because there is some distance between the added arrays and those near the elevator.

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

Page 3 Form No. A4.001 Revised: 8fSf08

Estlm•t• Comp•ny Spreadsheet Report

Project name

Eattmator

Labor race table

Equipment rate lable

Report formal

Cost lndtx

EXPO FARE GATE ROM REV A

AReyes/B[lanlelson

U-l.ab 07-13 wM'e&GL

RSMeans 13 Eq Rates

Sor1ed bV 'STATION/ENTRANCE/SECTION' 'Del~' summary

Calffoml.t.os Arqelos

Page1

Estimate Company Spreadsheet Report EXPO FAREGA TE ROM REV A

Page2 418/2014 4:56PM

Estimate Company Spreadsheet Report EXPO FAREGATE ROM REV A

Page 3 4/B/2014 4:56PM

Estimate Company Spreadsheet Report EXPO FAREGA TE ROM REV A

Page4 4/8/2014 4:56PM

Estimate Company Spreadsheet Report Pltfle5 EXPO FAREGATE ROM REV A 41812014 4:56PM

Estimate Totals

Description .Amount Totals: Hours Rite · Cost ·B11 .Cost p.r Un1t cent of"Tottil

Labor 25,643 432.275 IV'S 1.93%

Matertal 138,761 10.32%

SLC>conmct 135,600 10.23%

E~enl 5,937 287.407 IV'S 0.45%

Other 435,684 32.87%

739,625 739,625 55.80

Sales Tax 12,308 9.000 'll c 0.93'¥o

12,308 751,933 0.93

Premllnllo Lebar SNit WOI1< 5,129 20.000 'll c 0.39%

Material harding lmnattons 2,735 2.000 'll c 0.21%

7,8S. 759,797 0.59

Pertormance Bard 11,094 1.500 'll c 0.84%

General Cordlllons 184,906 25.000 'll c 13.95%

Home office 73,962 10.000 'll c 5.58%

Contractor's Fee 73,962 10.000 'll c 5.58%

343,924 1,103,721 25.94

De~gn C0011ruclk>n Contingency 221,887 30.000 % c 16.74%

221,887 1,325,608 16.74

Total 1,325,6{}8

Estimate Comp•ny Spreadsheet Report

Project name

Ettlmator

Labor rete table

Equipment rate table

Report format

Costll\dex

EXPO FAREGATE ROM REV B

AReyos/BDanlelsoo

U-lsb 07-13w!WC&GL

RSMeans 13 Eq Rata

Sorted by 'STATIONIENTRANCEISECTION' 'Delsl' sunmOIY

Collfomla-loo Angeles

Poge1

Estimate Company Spreadsheet Report EXPO FAREGA TE ROM REV 8

Page2 41812014 3:56PM

Estimate Company

·AERIAL STATION

Spreadsheet Report EXPO FAREGATE ROM REV B

Page3 41812014 3:56 PM

'Estimate Company Spreadsheet Report EXPO FAREGATE ROM REV B

Page4 4/8/2014 3:56PM

Estimate Company

Ducrlption Amount

LafJor 20,873

Material 107,291

Slbcontract 180,800

Equipment 5,318

Other 580,912

895,194

Sales Tax 9,656

9,656

Premtun to Labor St;ft WOII< 4,175

Material handing umnattons 2,146

6,321

Performance Bond 13.428

General Corxltlons 223,799

Home office 89,519

Cortractor'S Fee 89.519

41 6,265

Design Contructlon Contlnger<y 268,558

268,558

Total

Spreadsheet Report EXPO FAREGATE ROM REV B

Estimate Totals

Totals HOUIS " Rate

351.545 ""

246.087 ITs

895,194

9.000 %

904,850

20.000 'll

2.000 'll

911 ,171

1.500 'll

25.000 'll

10.000 'll

10.000 %

1,327,436

30.000 'll

1,595,994

1,595, 994

CostBa! Cost per Uiilt cent of Total

1.31%

6.72%

11.33%

0.33%

36.40%

56.09

c 0.61'Yo

0.61

c 0 .26%

c 0 .13%

0.40

c 0.84%

c 14.02%

c 5.61%

c 5.61%

26.08

c 16 .83%

16.83

PageS 41812014 3:56PM

, ..........•........

ATTACHMENT H

EXPO 1 AERIAL STATIONS Q NORTH

£ ARE GATES

~ """"" "-./

/ "

CULVER CITY STATION- EAST PLAZA SCHEME A,B SAME

r:ENCE

-----'-'-----~ t::LEVATCP

/ ,•,--,- .:\.

/ " :; '; 1 : .... ;;

----~" CULVER CITY STATION- WEST PLAZA SCHEME A

~ ..

CULVER CITY STATION- WEST PLAZA SCHEME B

EXPO 1 AERIAL STATIONS NORTH

. E:LEVATOH

/ "

LA BREA STATION- WEST PLAZA SCHEME A, B SAME

~EH3 L;..i u: ' /

4 ···: ..• l,i.: '

L~:

~·7 / '

LA BREA STATION- EAST PLAZA SCHEME A

~ ..... , .... ~E ·

LA BREA STATION- EAST PLAZA SCHEME B

EXPO 1 AERIAL ST AllONS Q NORTH

ARE GATES

: : ' ; ~ : :

_,____n~ .

LA CIENEGA STATION- WEST PLAZA SCHEME A, 8 SAME

LA CIENEGA STATION- EAST PLAZA SCHEME A

~~me e__2:~ '>: I

••• ml

LA CIENEGA STATION- EAST PLAZA SCHEME 8

May 15, 2014 - Item 28 - Systems Safety and Operations...

Documents

Transcript of May 15, 2014 - Item 28 - Systems Safety and Operations...