Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Sub-alternative B-3: Concrete Lined Open Channel <br /> <br />This sub-alternative is similar to B-2, but with a slip-formed concrete lining <br />the full length of the drainage channel. This option features erosion <br />protection at a slightly lower cost, but has inherent operational problems due <br />to high velocities. <br /> <br />Sub-alternative B-4: Pipeline <br /> <br />A full-length buried pipeline would be utilized for this sub-alternative, <br /> <br /> <br />capitalizing on static head to reduce pipe diameter to 16". A cement-lined, <br /> <br />tape-wrapped steel pipe, initial cost is again very high. <br /> <br />3.4 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION <br /> <br />In order to further compare and evaluate alternatives, an Alternatives Matrix <br />was prepared (Table 3-1), by which to develop the alternatives ranking system <br />shown in Table 3-2. The categories used to evaluate alternatives and <br />corresponding weighted value multipliers are as follows: <br /> <br />CATEGORY <br /> <br />WEIGHTEO VALUES <br /> <br />Total project cost <br />Operation and maintenance considerations <br />Flexibil ity <br />Transmission Losses <br />Environmental and political considerations <br /> <br />10 <br />5 <br />3 <br />5 <br />5 <br /> <br />3-8 <br />