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 />5-4 <br /> <br />include prices associated with pipeline installation, pavement <br />replacement, clearing and grubbing over cross country routes, and the <br />cost of acquisition of easements for each route. In addition, it is <br />assumed that a 10-foot deep cut will be required for all' wash <br />crossings as a safety measure against downcutting and eventual <br />pipeline washout. Pipeline costs assume unrestrained ductile iron <br />pipe is utilized except in wash crossing, rough areas, or where <br />considerable rock is apparent in which case restrained-joint ductile <br />iron pipe will be used. <br /> <br />The major difference in capital cost between Alternatives I and 2 <br />is caused by the difference in pipeline length, and the additional <br />easements which have to be obtained. It is likely that the cost of <br />re-establishing the easement for Alternative I may not cost $4,000 <br />per acre since the present pipeline goes through this land already. <br />Construction along the State Highway right-of-way will probably add <br />extra traffic control costs for Alternative 2, however, these costs <br />are not shown in Table 5-3. The cost for Alternative 3 is penalized <br />by the additional length of pipeline required. This route does not <br />show major advantages over the other two routes, that could justify <br />the extra $590,000 in capital costs. <br /> <br />selection of Best Apparent Alternative. <br /> <br />Based on economic and subjective considerations Alternative I is <br />selected as the best apparent alignment. This alignment requires the <br />minimum easement acquisition and also requires the shortest total <br />length of pipe. <br /> <br />BROWN AND CALDWELL ~ <br /> <br />CONSULTING ENGINEERS <br />