PROJ00507 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3.11 Comparison of Alternatives Compari sons were made of the twel ve cost estimates presented in the previ ous section. The three primary factors to be comoared are: 1) Pipe type; ?\ Pipeline capacity; and 3) Alignment. While there are differences in the total cost estimated due to pipe type, the differential costs are within 10 percent. The comhined plastic and permastran pipe type appears to be the lowest in cost of all pipe types over the range of size and alignment. Its low cost for the hosrt, small capacity pipeline is extremely attractive. The other pipe types are not higher by much and when final supply quotations are received, many factors can come into play that could alter the order of least cost pipe type. The price of base materials such as ductile iron, steel plate, reinforcing rods, plastic resins, or cement could have a bearing on the final price, as could the work load and backlog of orders in the various plants of the pipe manufacturers, or 1 abor rate changes. There is recently a general small i nf1 ati onary trend whi ch coul d translage into some hi gher supply costs. On the other hand, competition among the various suppliers and manufacturers is keen and prices could he reduced below those used in these estimates. It is our conclusion to use an averaqe IJf the three pipe tyoe estimates tIJ represent the potential cost of the alignment and size options. Table 3.1';> summarizes the resulting four options. =============~========================~========================~=============== Table 3.12 Cost Summary of Alignment and Size Options Alignment A Alignment B $ 3,494,000 $ 3,664,000 Q = 2.5 Q = 3.0 $ 3,';>54,000 3,401 ,000 =============~========================~========================~=============== 3-<;1 1060c