Laserfiche WebLink
Preliminary Design Report Addendum No.2 <br />For cost estimation purposes, the pipe material is considered to be ductile iron with HDPE pipe when <br />HDD is proposed. Road crossings, which also include canal crossings, were evaluated to determine the <br />construction method needed (i.e. open cut, HDD, or jack and bore) and cost associated with each method <br />was included in this cost estimate. The preliminary cost estimate was developed using the Tabula 3.1 <br />Conveyance System Estimate Software. Tabula is a computer program that has been developed by King <br />County to provide conveyance cost estimates at the planning level. Costs related to surface restoration <br />includes the restoration of any disrupted surface whether it is roadway, sidewalk, or undisturbed <br />landscape. A detailed breakdown of the cost estimate is located in Exhibit B. <br />According to these criteria the most favorable routes based on construction cost of installation in each <br />section, shown in italics, are Routes 3 and 5respectively. <br />4.4.3 Pump Energy Cost <br />Preliminary hydraulic analysis and estimated pump horse power based on elevations and hydraulic <br />friction loss of the FM are summarized below for each route. The energy consumption is relatively small <br />as compared to the large difference of capital cost for the pipeline construction. Detailed hydraulic <br />analysis for the five different Routes can be found in Appendix A- 5. <br />Preliminary power consumption costs for different routes have been estimated for route comparison <br />purposes. <br />Table 4- 2 Preliminary Estimate of Power Consumption <br />Route <br />Pump Head <br />(ft) <br />Pump Horse Power <br />(HP) <br />Annual Energy <br />Cost <br />1 <br />84 <br />2.6 <br />369 <br />2 <br />85 <br />2.7 <br />373 <br />3 <br />21 <br />0.7 <br />93 <br />4 <br />62 <br />2.0 <br />274 <br />5 <br />63 <br />2.0 <br />278 <br />Note: 0.10 dollar/Kwh, 5 hours per day continuous pumping <br />4.4.4 Non - Cost - Identifiable Evaluation <br />Development /Ranking of Criteria <br />The alternative pipeline routes in each section have been evaluated and compared on the basis of an array <br />of non -cost identifiable criteria. For purposes of evaluation, these criteria are assumed to have little or no <br />cost value. The non -cost identifiable criteria are possible characteristics or special requirements <br />associated with each route. Although they are not evaluated with a cost value, these criteria are of critical <br />importance in determining the appropriate route. The non -cost identifiable criteria developed for this <br />evaluation are shown in Table 4 -3. <br />URS 26 <br />25F -158 <br />