My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PROJ00032
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
PROJ00032
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2009 11:29:56 AM
Creation date
10/5/2006 11:30:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
C153465
Contractor Name
City of Cortez and Dolores Water Conservancy District
Contract Type
Loan
Water District
71
County
Dolores
Bill Number
HB 83-1102
Loan Projects - Doc Type
Feasibility Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
63
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<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 />CHAPTER 5 <br /> <br />CORRIDOR EVALUATION <br /> <br />In order to determine the most cost-effective route for a raw <br />water supply line, all available information must be carefully <br />evaluated against a set of criteria established for this purpose. <br />selection of alternative routes which satisfy the criteria must be <br />based on an understanding of the existing system, existing and <br />planned utilities, environmental features, traffic conditions, and <br />consideration of future development within the study area. <br /> <br />Criteria for Route Selection <br /> <br />Although the primary objective for studying alternative routes is <br />to determine the least cost al ternat i ve, other factors of a more <br />subjective nature will also be considered to determine initial and/or <br />future impacts. The following criteria summarize factors upon which <br />the selection of alternative routes was based, and against which they <br />will be evaluated. The criteria are in approximate order of <br />importance. <br /> <br />1. Construction cost <br />2. Easement acquisition cost <br />3. Cost of operation <br />4. Special structures/highway crossings <br />5. utility interference <br /> <br />The fOllowing sections discuss the above criteria and provide an <br />insight into the rationale employed in selecting and ,evaluating the <br />desirability of alternative pipeline routes. <br /> <br />Construction Cost. Al though the construction cost of a pipeline <br />includes the cost of all pipeline structures, it can be assumed that <br />the total cost of a pipeline route alternate is related to the length <br />of pipe installed, and, as a consequence, al ternati ve routes are <br />normally selected to provide the most direct alignment possible. It <br />is the objective of the alternative route analysis to determine the <br />least cost alternative consistent with achieving the secondary <br />criteria listed above. Table 4-1 sets forth unit installed pipeline <br />costs utilized in the preparation of cost estimates for the various <br />alternatives. <br /> <br />Easement Acquisition Cost. Route selections are normally made to <br />minimize the necessity of obtaining easements and rights-of-way. The <br />effort associated with obtaining either of these can be costly, time <br />consuming, and require additional surveying and engineering work. <br /> <br />BROWN AND CALDWELL C <br /> <br />CONSULTING ENGINEERS <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.