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 />With a number of pi pe types bei ng consi dered, the pipe suppl i ers are bei ng <br />competitive and yet final pipe quotations for delivery can vary either upward <br />or down in price. These suppliers are still subject to the fluctuation in <br />basic materials prices, changes in manufacturer's labor rates, or shortages of <br />supply. Although a contingency was applied to the estimate of the total <br />pipeline, the pipe material costs have a good probability of decreasing. <br /> <br />Installation costs will vary for the type of pipe due to the trench backfill <br />requirements and the cost of handling. The installation cost estimates have <br />been prepared based on bids and estimates of other recent pipeline projects. <br />Rarely is the installation cost equal to the supply cost of the pi~e. <br /> <br />Estimates have been ma1e and lumped into groups for the controlling, metering, <br />va1ving, drainage, and special crossings. While there could be some <br />significant contingencies in estimating these items, they represent a small <br />percentage of the total pipeline cost. <br /> <br />As noted earlier, rights-of-way cost will vary significantly by parcel due to <br />the wi de range of property type and 1 and uses of the 1 ands where easements <br />will be needed. It is estimated that $450,000 will account for the total cost <br />of obtaining right-of-way, provided no condemnations are required. <br /> <br />The major cost of the pipeline is associated with the 105,000 to 113,000 feet <br />of pipe in Alignments A and B. A lO-percent change in alignment length or <br />unit cost would be significant in relation to the other cost elements. For <br />this study, a twenty percent contingency factor was applied to all estimates. <br /> <br />The previ ous secti ons have descri bed the basi s for sel ecti ng two a1; gnments <br />and two design flow capacities for comparison. The combination forms four <br />primary alternatives to be compared. In ar11ition, the foregoinq r1iscussions <br />have described three pipe type alternatives which, when combined with the <br />primary alternatives, form twelve combinations. <br /> <br />Once the two alignments and two design flow cases were determined, hydraulic <br />computations were marle for each to determine pipe sizes. In adrlition, the <br /> <br />3-42 <br /> <br />l060c <br />