My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
25F - AGMT - DELHI DIVERSION PROJECT
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2014
>
12/16/2014
>
25F - AGMT - DELHI DIVERSION PROJECT
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/11/2014 4:17:06 PM
Creation date
12/11/2014 4:08:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Agency
Public Works
Item #
25F
Date
12/16/2014
Destruction Year
2019
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
240
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).
View images
View plain text
Preliminary Design Report Addendum No.2 <br />Table 4- 3 Non -Cost Identifiable Route Evaluation Criteria <br />Criteria Impacts <br />Pipeline Length - Duration of construction; date of initial operation <br />- Number of pipe joints and potential latent defects <br />- Number of appurtenances requiring O &M <br />- Duration of public inconvenience <br />Public Inconvenience <br />- Number and duration of roadway /lane closures <br />1 <br />- Traffic volume along route <br />Special Crossings <br />- Duration of construction <br />5 <br />- Permitting <br />40 <br />- Future maintenance accessibility <br />ROW /Easement Availability <br />- Administrative, surveying and engineering costs <br />18 <br />- Design and bidding schedules <br />Operation and Maintenance <br />- O &M convenience <br />2 <br />- Maintenance accessibility <br />An evaluation matrix is a convenient tool for identifying priority criteria for each alternative route. The <br />matrix is a method of rating each route against each of the 10 weighted non -cost identifiable route <br />selection criteria previously discussed. The weight for cost used is 40 in addition to the six non -cost <br />factors with a total of 100. The alternative routes in each section have been evaluated on the basis of non- <br />cost identifiable criteria using the "Route Evaluation Matrix." Each alternative route was compared and <br />rated against the cost and non -cost identifiable criteria on a scale of 1 (poor) to 10 (excellent). A weight <br />factor was applied to each criteria rating for each route. <br />The overall weighted scores for each route are summarized in Table 44. <br />Table 4- 4 Route Evaluation Weighted Overall Scores <br />Route <br />Weight <br />1 <br />2 <br />3* <br />4 <br />5 <br />Cost <br />40 <br />13 <br />18 <br />40 <br />18 <br />19 <br />Pipeline Length <br />10 <br />2 <br />2 <br />10 <br />3 <br />3 <br />Public Inconvenience <br />10 <br />5 <br />5 <br />10 <br />5 <br />5 <br />Special Crossings <br />10 <br />3 <br />5 <br />5 <br />5 <br />10 <br />ROW/EasementAvailability <br />10 <br />3 <br />5 <br />5 <br />t0 <br />10 <br />Operation and Maintenance <br />10 <br />10 <br />10 <br />0 <br />10 <br />10 <br />Weighted Overall Scores <br />100 <br />36 <br />45 <br />70 <br />50 <br />56 <br />* Most Preferred Route <br />Italicized values in Table 411 indicate the most preferred route in that particular section based on the <br />selected non -cost identifiers in Table 4 -3. The most favorable routes are Route 3 and 5. <br />URS 27 <br />25F -159 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.