A little less than half of it is management and drawings.
Think of it this way. First they made several designs, all within some scope of size, shape and cost. These were drawn with a materials list, each had a structural analysis to make sure they would each survive some wind, snow, rain and earthquake as well as a car ramming into it.
Then these designs were modeled; and each design was then presented to some authority committee who decided which approach that they would take. Each design was given equal representation, and equal testing data.
The committee chose one from among the various designs offered - and the taxpayer paid for each design effort.
Now, the final design had to undergo ADVANCED analysis. 3D modeling, stress analysis, had to have timelines drawn up, and go out for bids for each of the particular aspects of building the stop. Time studies were taken for each step; such that the NEXT build will be faster.
Whenever you make a new design - the first product is MUCH more expensive than the second, third and so forth.
The question I would ask is “What was wrong with designs used previously, or used by other cities in the USA?”
This would have saved the $400k initial phase.