Laserfiche WebLink
<br />SECTION IX <br />BE~EfIT/COST A~ALY$IS <br /> <br />1X-2 <br /> <br />GENERAL <br /> <br />lA6LEIX-I <br />UNllPRICES <br />(Dec. InI) <br /> <br />The alternatives selected tobeinvestigdted under thebenefit/eost dnalysis <br />llavebeenapprovedbytheUrbanDraindgeandFloodContl"ol Distriet,tneCity <br />of Golden and Jefferson County. <br /> <br />Item <br /> <br />Unit Cost <br />C.y. I 3-00 <br />C.Y. I 2.50 <br />C.Y. I 350.00 <br />C.Y. I 250.00 <br />C.Y. I 3').0) <br />C.Y. I 16.00 <br />"" I l,600.~ <br />l.F. I 275.00 <br />,.f. I 60.',)0 <br />,.F. I 100.00 <br />Acre I 5 ,Ollil. 0',) <br /> <br />Costs associated with capital construction, right-of-way, and opel"ation and <br />maintenance have been develop€d for each altel"nativeseleeted fo l"considel"a- <br />tion. These costs were dedved fl"om the unit pl"ices presented in Tables <br />JX.land IX-2. <br /> <br />CHANNEL WORK <br />Exca~ at iOIl <br />Embankment <br />Reinforced Concrete (Vertical) <br />Reinforced Concrete (flat) <br />Riprap <br />Gl"avel Filter <br />Gl"assSeeding <br />OropStructul"e <br /> <br />HIGHWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT <br /> <br />The l"elative economic merit of each alternative has been determined by the <br />benefit/cost analysis. The impOl"tantconsideration in this analysis is that <br />all evaluations be mutually consistent. In each altel"native, the samecri. <br />tel"iafor estimating costs and economic factors were used. Thecontinuityin <br />calculation methods results in a reali,tic com;>arison behleen each alter- <br />native. Thecompal"ison is in the fOl"mofllenefit/cost ratios,pl"esent\>()rtn <br />Of net benefits, dndtotal annual co,ts. The figures calculated may not be <br />the actual dollars to be paid, but this analysis indicates the best compara- <br />tiv,," alternative and its approximate cost range. Only a final engineering <br />design pl~r, '~"Cu~d p~c\'~d(' detailed costs a~d fin~nc;n~ Stl"atp9Y. The con- <br />struction costs for channel and bl"idge !mpl"ovements, selected structural im- <br />provements, floodproofing and remedial improvements include a 3Jpercenteon- <br />tingency cost for engineering de~ !gn and inspection fees. <br /> <br />RAilROAD 8RIOGE REPLACEME~T <br /> <br />CLEARING, GRlJBBING&CLEANUP <br />U,llITY RELOCATIONS <br />GAS <br />2" <br />4" <br />8" <br />lti" <br /> <br />12" <br /> <br />L.F. \ 15.JO <br />L.F. I 20.00 <br />L.F. $ 30.00 <br />L.F. I 50.00 <br />L.f. I 35.00 <br />L.F. I 40.00 <br />~. F. I 45.00 <br />~.r. $ 5~.OO <br />L.F. I 45.00 <br />l.F. \ 60.00 <br />L.F. I 75.00 <br />L.F. I 80.00 <br />L.F. , 35.00 <br />L.f. I 100.00 <br />TO' I 55.00 <br />TO' I 45.00 <br /> <br />I<IATER <br />6" <br />8" <br /> <br />14" <br /> <br />To realize what future co,ts l"epresent today or what annual cost, may be l"ea- <br />li~ed in the future, an 8-1/4 percent interest rate has been used. The costs <br />have been annualized ovel" a 50-year period which is based on structural and <br />other improvement lives. Tne effects of infldtion h3veuniformly not been <br />considered in the develo>J'lent of the benefit/cost an"lys!s. The inflation <br />rate is and has been quite unpred ic t ~b 1 e, and with the compar at i ve effect of <br />lncreasing benefit/cost rotios, its inclusionhel"e O'/Ould not serve a pur;>ose <br />other than emphdsizing the present need for the im~rovements. <br /> <br />REINFORCEO CONCRETE PIPE <br />24" <br />30" <br />36" <br />J9" <br />42" <br />48" <br /> <br />ROAD REPLACE~ENT <br />Asphalt (2" <Jverlay) <br />Base Course <br />