My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP07502
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
7001-8000
>
WSP07502
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:27:37 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 2:25:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8441.100
Description
The Colorado Big Thompson Project - Project Description
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
1
Date
4/28/1950
Title
Public Hearing on Estes Park Area Transmission Lines - General Statement by James H Knights
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Project Overview
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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 />Co <br />a <br />~... <br />t<', <br /> <br />,- <br /> <br />....J <br /> <br />Estes Park residents have objected would cost $841,000 more than the <br /> <br />Bureau's overhead plan plus a considerable amount representing indetermi- <br /> <br />:.: <br /> <br />nant factors such as damage claims resulting from stopping Route A con- <br /> <br />struc ti on, temporary construction which would be undertaken to bypa$s <br /> <br />Route A lines until underground cables could be installed, and extra costs <br /> <br />incurred from revamping of communication facilities. To those who remember <br /> <br />that the Bureau erred somewhat in estimating the relative costs of the <br /> <br />Adams Tunnel cable and the Estes to Granby overhead line, I would like to <br /> <br />point out that the cost comparison of Routes A and B here presented is <br /> <br /> <br />quite straightforward and does not involve the type of "unknown factor" <br /> <br />inherent in our Estes to Granby line estimates. That estimating job, you <br /> <br />m<ty remember, was. unique in 2 ways; first the overhead line was to have <br /> <br />gone over l2,000-foot high Buchanen Pass--an area extremely difficult for <br /> <br />construction contractors to reach; second, the Adams Tunnel cable alternate <br /> <br />required the utilization of materials and methods never before experienced <br /> <br />by the Bureau, and, so far as we know, by any construction contractor, In <br /> <br />the circumstances, we decided not to rely on our estimating ability alone, <br /> <br />and asked for bids on both schemes. Here, in comparing costs for Routes <br /> <br />A and B, unknown factors do not exist. Both routes are about the same <br /> <br />length, and both traverse the same terrain. Estimating factors used on <br /> <br /> <br />each are backed up by a wealth of experience in constructing similar facil- <br /> <br />ities elsewhere. I mention this in $upport of our view that our cost com- <br /> <br />parison presented here is sound, and represents what probably would have <br /> <br />been revealed even if alternate bids for Routes A and B had been taken. <br /> <br />Exhibit "E" portrays the types of construction which will be used in <br /> <br />erecting the overhead transmission lines along Route "A" as portrayed in <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />,'-,,-.,.' ' <br /> <br />J <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.