|
<br />Alternative ~l
<br />
<br />Alternative ~2
<br />
<br />Alternative _3
<br />
<br />Alternative '4
<br />
<br />Alternative #5
<br />
<br />TABLE XII
<br />
<br />Benefits Costs SIC natio
<br />3,583,8001'
<br />1,186,900 13,111,000 1.53
<br />726,900 1,803,000 0.40
<br />5,497,600 4,914,000
<br />3,583,80011
<br />1,186,900 4,6RO,000 1.02
<br />726,900 1,804,000 0.40
<br />5,997,600 6,492,000
<br />3,583'80011
<br />1,186,900 (8,337,000
<br />726,900 4,302,000
<br />S,997,600 12,639,000
<br />2,907,SOOII
<br />7~S,000
<br />849,800
<br />482,100 1,~26,000
<br />4,239,4002,171,000
<br />
<br />Ket Benefits
<br />
<br />I
<br />i
<br />I
<br />I Z
<br /> 0
<br /> -
<br />I z I-
<br />u
<br />- ::>
<br />I en 0
<br />I <C lJJ
<br />I llJ a::
<br />,
<br />I ~ lJJ
<br /> W ~
<br /> W ::!:
<br /> 0:: C!
<br /> U
<br /> -
<br /> >- -<(
<br /> 0:: =
<br /> 0 ~
<br /> lJJ
<br /> a::
<br /> ~
<br /> "~
<br /> ~~
<br /> ~g
<br /> 0
<br /> " "~
<br /> ~ ~~
<br /> "Z
<br /> g. ~~
<br /> "Ii
<br /> ~.
<br /> ~~
<br />
<br />BENEFIT;COST by REACHES*
<br />
<br />1,6S9,900
<br />
<br />82,700
<br />
<br />0.57
<br />
<br />0.17
<br />
<br />5.04
<br />
<br />3,012,300
<br />
<br />Reach A
<br />Reach ,
<br />Reach ,
<br />Totals
<br />Reach A
<br />Reach ,
<br />Reach ,
<br />Totals
<br />Reach A
<br />Reach ,
<br />Reach ,
<br />Totals
<br />Reach A
<br />Reach B
<br />Reach ,
<br />Totals
<br />Reach A
<br />Reach B
<br />
<br />0.34
<br />
<br />nz 5", "00
<br />1,186,900)(' ,"
<br />
<br />1.69
<br />
<br />1,800,800
<br />
<br />1.804,000
<br />
<br />0.40
<br />
<br />Reach C 726,900
<br />Totals 5,124,700
<br />Sa-year project life and
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />Assumes
<br />
<br />
<br />4,401,000
<br />a 6-7/8\ lending
<br />
<br />rate
<br />
<br />The alternatives presented here were described in detail earlier
<br />in this report.
<br />
<br />This table shows that three of the five alternatives considered
<br />have associated benefits that exceed costs for reaches A and B.
<br />^ fo~rth ~ltcr~ative has benefits a?proximately equal ~~ c~~t.~.
<br />None of the alternatives has positive net bencfit~ whe~ co~side~in~
<br />~each C or.ly. !n addition, alte~nativcs ,l,.~2, #4 and .S for
<br />
<br />"
<br />"
<br />
<br />"
<br />"
<br />
<br />.
<br />o
<br />
<br />"
<br />"
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />-35-
<br />
<br />(S!:l'11l0a 30 SNOITlIV'I) NI 3!)'1l'frt(J
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />.
<br />o
<br />
<br />~
<br />i3
<br />"
<br />
<br />,
<br />"
<br />
<br />.
<br />o
<br />
<br /> w
<br /> U
<br /> 2
<br /> W
<br />. "
<br />" "
<br /> 0
<br /> 8
<br /> 0
<br /> "
<br /> 0
<br />. >
<br />d "
<br /> "
<br /> ~
<br /> .
<br /> 0
<br /> "
<br /> .
<br />"
<br />"
<br />
<br />N
<br />"
<br />
<br />d
<br />
<br />o
<br />"
<br />
<br />o
<br />
|