|
<br />I
<br />
<br />6UZC# :5snc/er~on
<br />dCY-4.rd?/VZtJni fo.
<br />
<br />Wi
<br />,
<br />
<br />f2e ~ ervai,..~
<br />
<br />sr..4//V'/Y "7+00
<br />c#.A'#Ar"EL' LeA/4Th'
<br />
<br />a,,'I
<br />TQ 80+09_
<br />,
<br />/$00
<br />
<br />COST A~ALYSIS METP.ODS
<br />
<br />The results of the danagc potential analysis together with
<br />investigations of channel characteristics, indicated that certain
<br />types of improvements would be the most logical. These alter-
<br />natives were cost estimated,in some detail including individ~al
<br />costs for crossings, drop-structures, excavation, grading and
<br />grassing, and other miscellaneous costs. It was impractical
<br />to attempt to develop cost analysis for all alternatives on
<br />this basis. so relative costs curves were developed for differ-
<br />ent types of alternatives, various quantities of flew and varying
<br />spacing of street crossings. By checking these curves against
<br />actual detailed cost estimates, it was p<>ssible to keep the
<br />estimatea costs for "Ill alternatives within reasonable cal-
<br />culation limits.
<br />
<br /> I C//4+'Y.:'"L i <<::Rb''''-S'/#~:J
<br /> '~6Mi ~._'?W..~~_~, 1 ~N# 7<':';'"""'",
<br />~R.:'"cp(J",e) .a.-R_~ A-<'","~"-
<br />/M / te,o: I' 1 4,10 0)."0 4.0' 14.400 Q,730
<br />;0 2 2'5'-0171 3.40 4,410 3,q' 4.000 8,420
<br />2' 4 :?'O~ Ii, 5,00 5,QOo '.,' 3,<800 7,700
<br />@ /0 ;/8'-011.'5 1,~0 l,qqO '.4' .5.100 ~, /90
<br />5 20 1 qqO /0 1.00 I, Soo 2.0 1,"200 ~ 'S00
<br />2 '0 14701 8 0 0 0 0 0
<br />
<br />LIMITATION Of BENEfIT/COST &~ALYSIS
<br />
<br />Flood DamBre
<br />E'X/jfinq ZU/)/ C"ro-,jt'l?q.
<br />\/-Tota/ Damaqe- Cro~~;n94
<br />\, Properf'::J =~2{70 /yesr
<br />
<br />\" ( I../c.j.: O'Ul' ",,/ in c/<J.,Ie
<br />'-. ch,t'tn,,~/ dS"""411t!: b~';'J<Ju"
<br />\ Zl,)n..; C/~!/.)
<br />
<br />Due
<br />
<br />to
<br />
<br />Several limitations to the Benefit/Cost Analysis as utilized
<br />in this report are evident. The nost obvious limitation is the
<br />lack of recognition given to the benefit of park land, open
<br />space and other aesthetic benefits. Theoretical approaches
<br />have been suggested for evalu"Iting these aesthetic benefits
<br />but their basis does not appear to be sufficiently well defined
<br />for use in ~n engineering analysis o~ this type. Other benefits
<br />not analyzed include the reduction in nuis~nce uncertainty
<br />costs due to interruption of business, traffic, utility service,
<br />and otl,er day to day operations. The inclusion of uncertainty
<br />costs alone might represent ~n incre~se in benefits of ZO to
<br />30% over those listed in this report.
<br />
<br />.2*,,~
<br />
<br />""1\
<br />
<br />Since these benefits [that is, aesthetic and uncertainty reduc-
<br />tion benefits] ~r() tho ones normally manipulated to establish
<br />t..€nefit/cost :r;;;tios,for t.his r€port., the ..P?ro.::.ch was to lea",1'"
<br />them out of the direct benefit/cost analysis and refer to them
<br />as additional fringe benefits to be derived from the improve-
<br />ments.
<br />
<br />Q / .
<br />~
<br />,
<br />3
<br />,
<br />
<br />\ /oM'
<br />.\
<br />"
<br />j
<br />,
<br />I
<br />"
<br />
<br />of","",O
<br />
<br />\
<br />~ Da/nsqe 10
<br />"-_< \. ~7'50 I t.jear
<br />'-\.
<br />--
<br />----
<br />
<br />CrO~.jinq
<br />
<br />In considering the Benefit/Cost Analysis, it should be kept
<br />in mind that much of the area under study has already been
<br />developed by the Denver Parks ~nd Recreation Department on
<br />the basis of Parks benefits alone. If public funds have been
<br />expended for construction along the gulches for park purposes,
<br />iL ,;jmCllJ"''''dll LiI<<L LlJ",rdLK" D"'lIdLLou",nL ["",1" LiJdLl;""",[iL"
<br />cUe to park development alone are oqual to the cost of
<br />development as park land.
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br /><
<br />
<br />."':-.
<br />
<br />.i"~'
<br />
<br />"',,'''
<br />
<br />M
<br />
<br />.('>cTU..e..v ,&'"REo:PCE..vCY - ./.
<br />-62-
<br />
<br />Figure IV-2
<br />
<br />-63-
<br />
|