Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Sum", of the alternatives ",,;n, ><uY'Y'.ested fur r..vi.e... in the cOn- <br />tract and others were added as the study progressed as they appeared <br />to be logical and justifiable alternatives. <br /> <br />alternative is shown to have an estimated cost of $740,000.00 <br />'"hile providing bcnefits on the order of $600,000.00. This gives <br />a benefit/cost ratio of 0.8l. <br /> <br />In each case, where applicable, preliminary alternatives were <br />reviewed with the attorney for a legal opinion on the alternative. <br />In addition, an independent planner provided input on each <br />alternative concerning the cnvironmental and aesthetic impact <br />of the alternative. <br /> <br />Table VI-~ shows the economic comparison of the alternatives <br />on Sanderson Gulch in Lakewood. In this area thc recommended <br />alternative is based on a 10 year design frequency. The re- <br />commended alternative rcprescnts a cost of $)~),OOO.OO, <br />providing $280,000.00 in benefits. The benefit/cost ratio <br />for this total reach is 0.87. <br /> <br />Using the approach of review of preliminary plans on an engineering, <br />planning and legal basis permitted the elimination of some alter- <br />native approaches. Other alternatives, particularly the major <br />underground conduits, which appeared impractical and uneconomical <br />in most reaches were, however, considered as plausible alternatives <br />in the alternative summary sheets. <br /> <br />Figure VI-) gives the alternative comparison for No. Sanderson <br />Gulch. Included in this comparison were variations in reservoir <br />improvements in Green Gables Park, referred to on the chart <br />as Robbins Dasher Lake. The recommended approach for No. <br />Sanderson represented an estimated cost of $324,000.00 for a <br />realization of $73,000.00 in benefits. The benefit/cost ratio <br />is 0.22. The unfavorable benefit/cost ratio is characteristic <br />of improvements in upper areas of a drainage basin where flood <br />damage potential is low. <br />~igure VI-4 shows the comparison of alternatives considered for <br />Weir Gulch through Denver. The first reach from the So. Platte <br />River to Federal waS analy~ed for two conditions, with and with- <br />out improvements provided at Barnum Lake. A compa~ison of <br />the benefits to be derived from improvements at Barnum Lake <br />certainly justify the work. Above Federal Blvd. and between <br />Hooker and First the recommended alternative is not the lowest <br />co~t ~ince an effort waR made to continue the strip park through <br />these areas as desired by the Parks Department. It is felt <br />that the acquisition of real estate to make room for the channel <br /><Ictually made the alternative more expensive. The cost of land <br />acquisition used in the estimate was based on typical land <br />valu~~ f0r the ar~a and did not reflect th~ actual lo~~tion of <br />the property being in the flood plain. At the bottom of the <br />sheet the recommended alternative for Weir Gulch in Dcnvcr <br />indicated an estimated cost of ~1,530,000.OO. The tradeoff <br />in benefits was set at Sl,896,000.00. The benefit/cost ratio <br />is 1.24. <br /> <br />ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY SHEETS <br /> <br />TO assist in the selection of the desired alternative for drainage- <br />way improvements, alternativc summary sheets wcre prepared. Thcsc <br />sheets broke the channel into representative design reaches and <br />for each design frequency presented the average discharge, approxi- <br />mate reduction in flood damage, estimated cost for alternatives <br />considered and the recommended approach for total channel improve- <br />ment. <br /> <br />The approximatc reduction in flood damage columns represent the <br />benefit to be derived by designing the facility to accommodate <br />the particular storm frequency indicated. In all cases, the 100 <br />year reduction in flood damage is equal to the total damage poten- <br />tial in the reach being considered. The difference between the <br />100 year reduction in flood damage and the reduction in flood <br />damage for the frequency being considered represents the remaining <br />flood damage potential in the reach after completion of the im- <br />provemcnts. <br /> <br />Table VI-l is the s~~ary sheet for Sanderson Gulch through Denver. <br />In this partic~lar suwmary sheet, the two righthand columns <br />indicate the estimated cost and approximate benefits derived from <br />the recommended improvements. The recommended approach was <br />slightly different from the specific alternative tabulated. The <br />10 year frequency was not tightly adhered to so that more existing <br />culverts could be utilized. It was felt the minimal damaqes to <br />roads during overtopping was ~cceptable, thus the benefits for the <br />recommended alternative are slightly less than those for a com- <br />plete 10 year design. At the bottom of the shcet, the recommended <br /> <br />Weir Gulch In L<;lkewood, Figure VI-S, is not as complex. The <br />only point to be made is that the reach from Agricultural Ditch <br />to Main Reservoir had only one practical solution at the time. <br />~h~~ W~~ ~o cx~c~c ~ 10 yc~r cc~ign ~tor~ ~cwcr fro~ ~hc ditch <br />to the reservoir. Thus only one cost estimate was considered <br />for the reach. The recolMlendation for this portion of the gulch <br />had an estin..ted cost of $420,000.00 with recognizable benefits <br />set at $305,000.00. The benefit/cost ratio is 0.73. <br /> <br />-69- <br /> <br />-,"- <br />