UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Design of the Vancouver Heights sewerage system Larson, Arthur George 1935

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1935_A7_L2_D3.pdf [ 41.39MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0105508.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0105508-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0105508-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0105508-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0105508-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0105508-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0105508-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0105508-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0105508.ris

Full Text

D B S I G - H OF T H S 7 A K C O U V S B H B f G H T S S E I E B 1 S E S Y S T E M ' B Y AETBUR OEQRGE LARSOH A Thesis submitted for the Degree of  MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCE in the Department of CIVIL ENGINE 5RING-THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. APRIL, 1955 PES I SB OFTTHlTTAgCGUYER: HEIGHTS SEWERAGE -5YSTKM C O N T E N T S . PAGE. INTRODUCTION — • I. LOCAL CONDITIONS AND POLICIES • 3 NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE VANCOUVER AND DISTRICTS SEWERAGE BOARD « — 4 ADOPTION OF THE COMBINED SYSTEM — 5 PRELIMINARY LAYOUT OF SEWERS ON TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP 8 LOCATION OF TRUNK SEWER II FIELD WORE AND DRAUGHTING REQUIRED FOR DESIGN OF DETAILS • 12 SETTING LINE AND GRADE FOR LATERALS 13 SETTING GRADES FOR TRUNK SEWER : 16 CALCULATION OF SEWAGE FLOW AND, SIZES OF PIPES 17 DETAILS — • 20 ESTIMATE OF COST AND ASSESSMENT RATE 22 CONCLUSION , — - 26 APPENDIX --• I. DESIGN OF THE VANCOUVER. HEIGHTS SEWERAGE SYSTEM. BURNABY. B. C. INTRODUCTION. General Description of the Sewerage Area. The Willingdon Avenue Sewerage Area is located in North Burnaby, east of Vancouver City, on the northern slope draining to Burrard Inlet*.' It consists of about five hundred acres in VancouveriHeights and six hundred acres in Capitol H i l l , and extends from Boundary Road to Ellesmere Avenue, and from Union Street to Burrard Inlet„ ( see Plate I. ) Vancouver Heights slopes east-e r l y and Capitol H i l l westerly toward the Willingdon Avenue Ravine, which runs through the middle of the area and slopes northerly toward Burrard Inlet. The Ravine forms a natural drainage outlet for the d i s t r i c t which has, for this reason, been called the Willingdon Avenue Drainage Area, »/ Vancouver Heights Sewerage Systems. . Settlement in North Burnaby has been concentrated mostly in the Vancouver Heights Area, and therefore the construction of sewers has been confined to this d i s t r i c t . The f i r s t system was built in the year 1910 by the Gault Real Estate Company, on the D. L. 186 subdivision. It was of the sanitary type, and served the area between Boundary Road and Gilmore Avenue, from Albert Street to Burrard Inlet. Because of the poor quality of concrete pipes used in its construction, this system has proved unsatisfactory, and has for some time been due for replacement. The second sewerage scheme, constructed in the years 1930 and 1931, serves the remainder of the Vancouver Heights Area,consisting of the d i s t r i c t between Gilmore Avenue and Willingdon Avenue, from Union Street to Burrard Inlet. The construction of this system was f i r s t advocated in the year 1924, by ratepayers of Ward 5, in a petition sent to the Municipal Council. At that tirae, the use of outdoor closets and defective septic tanks in this rapidly growing d i s t r i c t constituted a menace to public health. However, i t was not u n t i l the year 1930 that definite action was taken, and authority given to the Municipal Engineer to proceed with investigations. The design and estimate of this second sewer--age system for Vancouver Heights, known as the Vancouver.,Heights Sewerage System, forms the subject of this thesis. This work Involved a careful study of local conditions and requirements, and the application of knowledge about these matters in making decisions between alternative proposals. The main objective was, obviously, the design of an efficient, economical sewerage system of the type best suited to serve the peculiar needs of the Vancouver Heights District,. However, due to uncertainty about the replacement of sewers in the G-ault Area, i t was necessary to prepare alternative schemes, one including this area, and the other omitting i t . It seemed probable that the general layout of these schemes would consist of a main on Willingdon Avenue, designed to carry the sewage flow from Vancouver Heights and Capitol H i l l , and a system of laterals i n thea streets, sloping easterly and connecting with the main. The exact location of this main or trunk sewer could be either in the west boulevard of Willingdon Avenue or in the Eavine parallel to the Avenue. In order to determine which of these locations was more desirable, further investigation was required. Finally, when a l l such preliminary problems had been considered, there was required, a complete detailed design, an estimate of cost, and an estimate of the rate of assess--ment. This information, submitted to the Kupicipal Council in an Engineers Report, as required by Section 30 of the Local Improvement Act, would enable the Municipal Clerk to draw up a By-law authorizing the construction of the sewerage system-. A description of the designing and estimating work outlined above w i l l be treated under the following headings * 1. Local Conditions and Policies 2. Negotiations with the Vancouver and Districts Joint Sewerage and Drainage Board. 3. Adoption of the Combined System. 4. Preliminary Layout of Sewers on Topographical Map. 5. Location of Trunk Sewer. 6. Fi e l d Work and Draughting Required for Design of Details, 7 0 Setting Line and Grade for Laterals and Main Sewer, 8, Designing the Size of Pipes by the Rational Method. 9. Details 10. Estimate of Cost and Assessment Sate. / LOCAL CONDITIONS AND POLICIES. On commencing the investigation of this project, i t was found necessary to taker.into consideration, local conditions and policies which might have an influence upon the planning of public works. It was observed that Burnaby was a large municipality, being thirty five square miles in area. Its population of twenty three thausand was distributed among numerous small d i s t r i c t s . The residents were mostly tradesmen and laborers who worked in the neighboring cities of Vancouver and New Westminster. Also, there were many residents who were unemployed, and who sought work on municipal construction projects. A l l these conditions contributed to the d i f f i c u l t y of providing public services. An extensive and costly system of utilitiesvvwas required for the use of a small scattered population. The cost of constructing these u t i l i t i e s was especially high due to the practice of employing inexperienced local workmen on the day-labor basis. On the other hand, the abil i t y of the Municipality to finance such work was limited, because of the small incomes of the taxpayers. Thus, i t was apparent that the polieyein designing municipal construction projects, such as the Vancouver/Heights Sewerage System, should be to produce a design of greatest simplicity and lowest cost of construction. Simplicity of design was necessary because of the policy of employing inexperienced local workmen. Low cost was necessary because of the limited a b i l i t y of the people to pay for u t i l i t i e s . In each step of the design of the VancouverrHeights Sewerage System, i t was necessary to adhere to this policy. NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE VANCOUVER AMD DISTRICTS JOINT SEWERAGE ;&i;pRAlNAGE..BOARD. As a result of preliminary studies, i t was apparent that responsibility for the construction of the Willingdon Avenue Trunk Sewer would be divided between Burnaby Municipality and the Vancouver Sewerage Board. By an act of the Provincial Legislature, the Board was required to construct each Burnaby trunk sewer from i t s oxitlet up to a point where the tributary area was four?/ hundred acres. The Municipality was responsible for the construction of fchp trunk sewer above the four hundred acre point. Information concerning the extent of the Willingdon Sewerage Area was found in a report made to the Sewerage Board in 1913 by R. S. Lea, consulting engineer. In this report i t was stated that no Burnaby sewerage area draining into Burrard Inlet, exceeded four hundred acres. However, i t was stated further that, due to the lack of topographical plans, such recommendations with regard to North Burnaby were not f i n a l . Consequently, the Sewerage Board later made a more intensive study from topographical plans. This resulted in the discovery that the Willingdon Avenue Drainage Area contained 500 acres in Vancouver Heights and 600 acres in Capitol H i l l , making a total area of 1100 acres. It was also revealed that the Board was responsible for the construction of the Willingdon Avenue Trunk Sewer from Burrard Inlet to the 400 acre point at Triumph Street. • The completion of the trunk sewer from Triumph Street to Union Street, and the Installation of a l l mains and laterals, was the responsibility of the Jiffunicipality. The Burnaby Engineering Department proceeded with the design and estimate for these sewers. In preparation for immediate construction, a l l details concerning the Vancouver Heights Area were prepared accurately and f u l l y . The detailed design of sewers for the Capitol H i l l Area was postponed t i l l a later date, when settlement would be sufficiently advanced to warrant their installation. In this area, the design consisted only of a preliminary layout and an approximate calculation of the sewage flow tributary to the Willingdon Avenue Trunk Sewer at each point of entry. / / ADOPTION OF THE COMBINED SYSTEM. There were three types of sewerage systems which appeared to be suitable for the Willingdon Avenue Sewerage Area. These were the Separate System, the Sanitary System, and the Combined System. The Separate System is that in which separate sewers are provided for sanitary sewage and storm water drainage. The Sanitary System is that which is constructed to carry only the waste liquids from the plumbing fixtures in buildings. The Combined System is that in which storm water and sanitary sewage flow in the same sewer. Of these three types, the Combined System was found to be most suitable for North Burnaby., after an examination of the following facts. The Separate System was unsatisfactory because i t included storm sewers which were not needed in this d i s t r i c t . On the steep North Burnaby slopes, existing road ditches provided adequate drainage f a c i l i t i e s at a low cost. The installation of storm sewers to replace this existing service was consid-e r e d extravagent. Consequently, the Separate System was rejected, and a l l further investigation was confined to the Sanitary and the Combined Systems<, The Sanitary System is usually considered most suitable for suburban districts, such as North Burnaby. Its adoption i s favored under the following conditions: v 1. Where i t is impossible to dispose of sewage "by emptying i t into large bodies of water, treatment is necessary, and the Sanitary System is most economical» 2. Where sewers must be flushed, the Sanitary System is most economical. It requires only a small quantity of water for flushings 3. Where an inexpensive sewerage system is required, the Sanitary Type is most suitable. The f i r s t of the above conditions did not exist in the Willingdon Avenue Area, because sewage could be emptied into Burrard Inlet, and therefore did not require treatment. The second condition did not exist, because the steep North Burnaby sewers would not require flushing. However, the third condition was present, and was of great importance. It was imperative that the cost of the sewerage system should be low, in order that the residents might be able, to pay for i t , out of their meagre incomes. It was obvious that a Sanitary System would cost less than any other type of system. This advantage of low cost was discounted considerably by the fact that Sanitary Sewers provide incomplete service and are sometimes unsatisfactory in their operation. Service is incomplete, in that, no provision is made for the removal of storm water ffom yards or basements. Unsatisfactory operation res-u l t s from the admission of storm water into small sewers which were not desig-ned to carry i t . During storms these sewers flow under pressure causing water to overflow in manholes, and to flow through house connections into basements. Measures undertaken to remedy these conditions have proved ineffective. Begul--ations prohibiting the disposal of storm water in sanitary sewers have been disregarded by residents who persist in this wrong practice. Under these con--ditions, Burnaby o f f i c i a l s have come to look with disfavor upon Sanitary Sewerage Systems. Thus, i t was believed that satisfactory service could be obtained only "by means of a Combined System. It was hoped that the cost of a Combined System for the Willingdon Avenue Area would not be prohibitive. The Combined Type of Sewerage System was found to have the following characteristics: 1. It is suitable only for di s t r i c t s which drain into large bodies of water. In such cases, sewage treatment is unnecessary. 2. The Combined System ensures complete, trouble-free service by providing for storm water drainage. 3» Flushing is unnecessary, because these sewers are kept clean by the flow of storm water during rainy weather. 4, Combined Sewers are large, and are therefore more accessible when repairs are required. 5. Under certain conditions, the cost of the Combined System is only slightly higher than that of the Sanitary System. These conditions are as follows: (a) Where the sewerage area is close to the point of disposal.. (b) Where a short trunk sewer is located i n the middle of the drainage area. (c) Where road grades are moderately steep, and i t is possible to use small pipes for laterals. The afcove characteristics of the Combined System indicated that i t would be well suited to conditions in the Willingdon Avenue Area. In the f i r s t place, sewage treatment was not necessary, because sewage from this area could be emptied into Burrard Inlet. In the second place, the complete satisfaction guaranteed by the Combined System was highly desired. In the southern portion of the area, i t was d i f f i c u l t to drain f l a t land by road ditches., and better provision for storm water drainage was required. In the steep northern portion, road ditches were destroyed by erosion, and It was advisable to i n s t a l l a Combined System which would eliminate this trouble, and would at the same time, provide convenient drainage for yards and basements. These advantages of the Combined System justified a certain amount of expenditure for i t s construction^ . 8 0 in excess cf the cost of a Sanitary System. It was expected that a Combined System for the Willingdon Avenue Area would be inexpensive, because a l l the conditions conducive to low cost existed in this d i s t r i c t . A convenient point of disposal was available in Burrard Inlet. A short trunk sewer on Willingdon Avenue would be located in the middle of the drainage area and would serve both Vancouver Heights and Capitol H i l l . The streets in this d i s t r i c t were moderately steep, therefore small size sewers could be used. The belief that a Combined Sewer would be low in cost was confirmed by preliminary estimates made by Sewerage Board Engineers. They estimated that a Combined System for the Willingdon Avenue Area would cost approximately $ 323,000, and that a Sanitary System would cost $ 272,000. Thus, i t was expected that the cost of the Combined System would be about twenty per cent greater than that of the Sanitary System. This extra expendit-u r e was considered well justified by the extra services provided. As a result the Combined System was f i n a l l y chosen as being the most suitable for the Willingdon Avenue Area, PRELIMINARY LAYOUT OF'SEWERS ON TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP. A preliminary layout of a Combined Sewerage System was made on a contour plan of the Willingdon Avenue Area, as shown in Plate II. In commencing this preliminary design, i t was necessary to decide whether the sewers should be laid in the lanes or in the streets. Arguments in favor of the location of sewers i n lanes were: * 1. House connections la i d through back yards to sewers In lanes would cause less harm to private property than connections laid through front lawns to sewers in streets. 2. By laying sewers in lanes, destruction of street surfacing could be avoided. Arguments favoring the location of sewers in streets were: I. The destruction of #oad surfaces could he largely avoided by constructing sewers in boulevards. Damage done to roads by house connection crossings could be repaired with asphalt patches. 2. Combined sewers must be located on streets in order to provide drainage for street intersections. The length of the?connection from house to sewer was, on the average, the same for lane and street locations. The greater damage resulting from the street location constituted an argument against i t s adoption. However, this was unimportant when compared with the necessity of the street location for drainage purposes. Therefore the street location was chosen. At the same tirae i t was understood that, on steep slopes, sewers would be required i n both streets and lanes. The Burnaby standard offset for sewers in roads was fourteen feet from the center l i n e . This line was two feet outside the edge of the standard road, which was twenty four feet in width. The standard location for sewers in lanes was on the center l i n e . The layout of the Combined Sewerage System for the Willingdon Avenue Area was designed so as to f u l f i l l the following requirements: 1. Laterals must be lai d so as to give service to every lot in the sewerage area. When the layout has been completed, each lot should b© abutting on a sewer. 2. Where the grade from the street to the lane is over six perccent, property on the lower side of the street is more cheaply drained to an extra lateral in the lane. It is cheaper, in such cases, to build two sewers, each six feet deep, than to build one sewer fourteen feet deep. 3. Laterals draining both sides of the street should be located in the boulev--ard on the lower side. Laterals draining only the higher side of the street should be placed in the boulevard on the higher side, 4. The direction of flow in sewers should be the same as the direction of the fa l l i n g grade of the road. The most direct route to the main and trunk sewers should be taken. In this way, a system with the shortest length of sewers, involving a minimum of cost, is obtained. 5. The route of each lateral should be such as to make possible a minimum grade of 0.8 %, without excessive excavation..At th© same time, i t is necessary to avoid excessive grades, which w i l l cause a velocity of flow greater than sixteen feet per second. 6 0 There should be the least possible number of dead ends. It is in the vicinity of dead ends that sewage flow is shallow, and deposits are formed. A layout conforming with the above requirements was plotted as shown i n Plate II. The following description explains how this was done. The Vancouver Heights portion of the Willingdon Avenue Drainage Area has a north-easterly slope. The best layout for this area consisted of a system of laterals on the streets sloping from Esmond Avenue easterly to Willingdon Avenue. In the f l a t southern portion of the area, laterals were required only in the streets. In the steep northern portion, i t was necessary to have sewers in bothsstreets and lanes. A l l laterals drained into the trunk sewer located on Willingdon Avenue. The Gapitol H i l l Area sloped south-easterly toward Willingdon Avenue. In the portion of the area lying south of Hastings Street, the best layout cdnsfcs--ted of parallel laterals l a i d in the streets and sloping westerly toward Willingdon Avenue. In the area north of Hastings Street, the best arrangement was to have laterals on the Avenues sloping southerly. These laterals were joined to the Willingdon Avenue Trunk Sewer by mains located on Hastings iv.tf Street and Albert Street. This simple layout conformed with a l l the requirements of a good sewerage system as outlined above. Every lot in the area'was served, and the system of laterals was of the shortest possible length. These laterals were located on streets which were sufficiently steep to ensure self-cleansing sewer grades. The system contained the least possible number of dead ends. The only weak point of the design was that some of the Capitol H i l l laterals were located on excessive grades. However, i t was understood that these grades would be decreased see a result of the Capitol H i l l Replotting Scheme, which was being undertaken at that time. . -At this point i t is advisable to repeat that any preliminary investiggt--ions' of the Capitol H i l l Area, such as the above, were only incidental to the immediate task of designing a sewerage system for Vancouver Heights, Also, i t is necessary to remember that in the Vancouver Heights System, two proposals were to be investigated. One proposal was that a sewerage system should be constructed to serve the entire Vancouver Heights D i s t r i c t , including the Gault Area, which was already served by an unsatisfactory Sanitary System. The other proposal was to construct sewers to serve only that portion of the district which lay between Gilmore Avenue and Willingdon Avenuef and to omit the Gault Area, LOCATION OF THE TRUNK SEWER. • In the above layout i t was planned to have the trunk sewer din the v i c i n -i t y of Willingdon Avenue. This was not sufficiently definite. The exact line for the trunk could be chosen only after an investigation of the two possible locations, one in the west boulevard of Willingdon Avenue, and the other in the ravine parallel to the Avenue. A study of this problem revealed the follow-i n g facts. The desirable features of the ravine location were: 1. TQJhe excavation cost would be small» 2. A trunk sewer in the ravine would serve laterals from the east as well as from the west. These features were unimportant, however, when compared with the follow-i n g advantages of the boulevard location: 1. The straight line location in the boulevard would "be shorter than the crooked location in the ravine, 2. In the boulevard location i t would not be necessary to use costly ramps, such as would be required in the ravine location. 3. In the case of the boulevard location, materials could be transported td the job over existing roads. On the other hand, the ravine location w%s inaccessible, and would require the building of a temporary road for const--ruction purposes. ; 4. Adequate and economical provision for Capitol H i l l sewerage requirements could be made by constructing mains on Hastings Street and Albert Street, which would connect laterals with the trunk sewer located on WI1lihgdon.v-on Avenue. 5. In the case of the boulevard location, property required for the trunk sewer and outfall was already owned by Burnaby. In the case of the ravine location, property would have to be purchased from private owners. Sewerage Board Engineers anticipated that the cost of construction would be about the same for both locations, i f allowances were made for the cost of ramps required in the ravine location. However, because of i t s features of simplicity and convenience, the boulevard location was chosen as being more desirable« The exact position for the center line of the trunk sewer was set at fourteen feet three inches east of the west property line of Willingdon Avenue. This placed the sewer in the west boulevard, cleat of the road paving, sidewalk, watermain, and pole line. FIELD WORK AND DRAUGHTING REQUIRED FOR DESIGN OF DETAILS. Up to this point, only general features of the sewerage system had been studied, and for this purpose, existing topographical maps had been used. In the next step, which was the preparation of construction drawings, more 13. detailed information was required. Profiles necessary for this purpose were not available, and therefore had to "be run by a survey party, and plotted. Field work was confined to the Vancouver Heights Area, which required i sewerage f a c i l i t i e s immediately. The work of the survey party consisted in running profiles, locating, houses, and noting the position of existing u t i l -i t i e s . On each side of the street i t was necessary to have profiles of the center line,and of lines on the 14* and 90* offs e t so on ^  each side. OfIthe center line. In the northern portion of the area, where double sewer lines would be required, additional profiles were run on the center lines of lanes. In conn--ection with street profiles, the basement elevation of each house was recorded opposite the street chainage of the house. The above mentioned profiles were plotted as follows. The center line profile was shown as a f u l l black line. The line 90 feet north of the centre line, known as the north sewer limit, was shown red. The profile 90 feet south of the centre line, known as the south sewer limit, was marked yellow. The basements of houses on the north side of the street were shown YeA, and those on the south side, yellow. The profiles of the 14 feet offsets-were le f t unplotted t i l l a later stage in the designing work. A l l the above infor--mation was plotted on the lower portions of standard sewer profile sheets, on a scale of 100 feet to the inch horizontally, and 10 feet to the inch vertically. In the upper portions of these sheets, the streets, blocks, lots and houses were plotted on a scale of 100 feet to the inch, from information obtained from subdivision plans and f i e l d notes. SETTING LINE AND SHADE FOR LATERALS A The f i r s t step in-the detailed designing work was the striking of grades for laterals. This had to be done in such a way as to conform with the follow-i n g requirements: I. The minimum depth for drainage was 4* 6 " below the basement level of a house, or 8' 0 " "below the elevation of the lower sewer limit at any given street chainage. 2. The minimum depth of cover needed for pipe protection was 61 0 "•. 3. The minimum grade was that which would give a velocity of sewage flow of three feet per second. For smaller sewers a grade of at least 0.8 #> was desirable. 4. The maximum grade was that which would cause a velocity of sewage flow of 16 feet per second. Any velocity exceeding this would cause excessive wear of pipes. 5. The maximum allowable length of a sewer run was 330 feet. This was the greatest length of sewer in which cleaning rods could be used successfully. The minimum and maximum depths and grades described above, had been determined from previous experience. However, in the case of depth required for drainage, the 4f 6 " f a l l from basement to sewer could be calculated as follows: F a l l in t i l e drain half way around house - — ~ — I » 6 " F a l l from house to sewer on grade of 2% % — - — — — •—— 2 5 0 " F a l l at sewer - — — — — • — — - - - - — i« o " Total f a l l from basement to invert of sewer — — - — 4' 6 " The 8* 0 " f a l l from the lower sewer limit to the sewer invert at any given chainage could be calculated as follows: Depth of future house basement below sewer limit • 3f 6 " F a l l in t i l e drain half way around house •—— I • 6 " F a l l from house to sewer on grade of 2-J-% — • •-- 2* 0 " F a l l at sewer • • — — • — • — I« 0 " Total f a l l from sewer limit to invert of dewer 8» 0 w The maximum length of a sewer run was 330 feet. It wasifound that, i f this maximum length were used, two sewer runs would "be required for each •block. This, in turn, would require one manhole at each street intersection, and one manhole in the middle of each "block. This arrangement was considered satisfactory, and was adopted as standard. It was further decided that man--holes at street.intersections should be located 14 feet downhill from the centre line of the intersecting street, and that other manholes should be spaced midway between those at street intersections. In designing laterals to conform with the above requirements, the f o l l --owing procedure was adopted. F i r s t , the position of each manhole was located in accordance with the standard described above, and was indicated on the profile sheet by a Vertical line.(see Plate VII). Next, the minimum depth required for drainage was shown by marks placed 4' 6 " below existing-'base--ment levels, and 8' 0 "below the elevation of the lower sewer limit at each station. The grade line was then struck in such a way as to give a min--imum average depth of excavation, while at the same time being below the marks indicating depth necessary for drainage. Also, in each sewer run, the grade was made to conform with the minimum and maximum requirements described above. • • . • In the steeply sloping area north of Cambridge Street, a sewer .to drain both sides of any street would have to be more than 14 feet deep. Under such conditions, i t was.found to be more economical to provide service by means of two sewers, each 6 feet deep. One of these, located in the upper boulevard of the street, would drain property on the south side. The other, located in the lane north of the street, would serve the property on the lower side of the road. In such cases, where double lines of sewers were used, grade lines had to be struck so as to give aiminimum depth of 6 feet, while at the same time conforming with the requirements of minimum and maximum grade. Each sewer was plotted in plan on the upper portion of a standardiprofile sheet. A sewer serving "both sides of a street was shown in the lower boulevard, 14 feet from the centre line of the road. One which drained only the property on the high side, was placed in the upper "boulevard, on a 14 foot offset from the centre line of the street. Where a sewer was required in a lane, i t was shown on the centre line of the lane. To complete this portion of the design, the length, grade, and average depth of each sewer run was calculated, and marked on the profile, below the grade line of the sewer. SETTING- GRADES FOB TRUNK SBffBB. The Willingdon Avenue Trunk Sewer, from Burrard Inlet to Triumph Street, was designed by engineers of the Vancouver Sewerage Board. The remainder of the trunk sewer, south of Triumph Street, was designed by Burnaby engineers. The design of the Burnaby portion only, w i l l be described here. This design was carried out in such awway as to conform with the following requirements! 1. The elevation of the trunk sewer at each avenue was controlled by the elevation of the lateral or main entering the trunk. At each Avenue, the crown elevation of the trunk had to be either the same or lower than the crown elevation of the tributary sewer. This was necessary in order that the flow of sewage in the trunk should not interfere with the flow in the tributary. 2. The minimum grade was that which would cause a velocity of sewage flow of three feet per second, under conditions of decreased flow during dry weather. 3. The maximum grade was that which would produce a velocity of sewage flow of 16 feet per second. 4. Manholes were located at the junctions of tributary sewers with the trunk sewer as follows: (a) Any tributary sewer of 15 inches diameter or less, entered the trunk sewer at right angles. A manhole was placed at the inter--section of the tributary sewer and the trunk sewer. (b) Any tributary sewer with a diameter greater than 15 inches, entered the trunk sewer at an angle of forty-five degrees. One manhole was placed on the tributary sewer at a point 14 feet from the trunk sewer. Another manhole was placed on the trunk sewer at a point 14 feet downhill from the line of the tributary sewer. The grades on the trunk sewer, set in accordance with the above require--ments, were only tentative. It was anticipated that changes would be required during the process of determining the size of the trunk sewer„ CALCULATION OP SEWAG-E FLOW AND SIZES OF PIPES.. In computing the sizes of sewers, i t was necessary to determine the rate of sewage flow in each sewer run. This was found by calculating the maximum runoff during severe rainstorms. The sanitary sewage flow was disregarded, being considered negligible in comparison with the storm water flow. . *.:. • A l l calculations were made by the Rational Method, which is based upon the relation between r a i n f a l l and runoff, as expressed by the equation Q = C I A. where Q is the runoff from the area, in cubic feet per second. C is the coefficient of imperviousness. I is the intensity of r a i n f a l l , in inches per hour. A is the number of acres in the tributary drainage area. Before proceeding to apply this formula, i t was necessary to determine values for the coefficient of imnerviousness C, and the intensity of r a i n f a l l I. which would be most suitable for the North Burnaby Area. As a result of the following analysis of a typical bloc&, the coefficient of imperviousness was found to be 0.4 , 18, Area i n acres Imperviousness Roads • 0.82 x 0.80 = 0.66 acres impervious Sidewalks —• 0.16 x 0.40 = 0.06 " " Roofs : 0.75 x 0.90 = 0090 " " G-ardens and boulevards - 5.77 x 0.20 = 0.65 " " Total impervious area •—• 2.04 acres. Total area of block • • — 5.00 acres. Coefficient of imperviousness = 2.04/5.00 » 0.41 • Impervious SAY 0.4 Impervious. Information concerning r a i n f a l l intensity was obtained from the engineers of the Vancouver Sewerage Board and of Vancouver City. Their records indicated that the intensity of r a i n f a l l i n North Burnaby was best represented by the red r a i n f a l l curve of Vancouver City. ( shown in Plate IV.) This curve showed the intensity of r a i n f a l l for storms ranging in duration from five minutes to one hour. The method of estimating the sewage flow in a sewer run was as follows. It was f i r s t assumed that i t would take five minutes for storm water to reach the uppermost section of the sewer. Next, i t was calculated how long i t would take this water to flow through the sewer to the given run. The total of these two lengths of time, known as the time of concentration, was located on the r a i n f a l l curve, and the corresponding intensity recorded. The rate of sewage flow 'Q/ , was then calculated by substituting in the formula Q» = C I A , the value of the intensity , found above, the value of 0.4 for 'C, and the estimated number of acres in the tributary area for 'A'. • When the rate of flow in the given run had been calculated, the size of pipe required to carry this flow was easily estimated by the use of the slide rule specially constructed for this purpose. This was simply a matter of 19* setting the rale for the given rate of flow, and noting the sige of pipe marked opposite the given grade. It was found that, for this operation, the slide rule was more convenient than tables. The graduations of the slide rule were based upon calculations made with Kutter's Formula, in which''n' was 0.013. Calculations, carried out as described above, were tabulated on standard sheets as shown in Table I. The estimated size of pipe for each run was then marked on the standard profile sheet, above the grade line for that run. In this way, a l l necessary information concerning length, average depth, grade, and size of pipe in each run, was recorded on profiles. This information was s t i l l further condensed by transferring i t to the general sewerage plan shown i n Plate~v7. The pro'ceedure has been described above as simply as possible, for purposes of clearness. During the process of the work, however, involved t r i a l and error methods had to be used, and much revision was required in order to make poss-i b l e the most economical design. For instance, i t was in many cases necessary to alter the grade of the sewer in order to make i t conform with requirements of rate and velocity of flow for a certain size of pipe. This was especially true in the design of the trunk sewer. Computations in connection with the Vancouver Heights Sewers were made accurately, with the aid of detailed plans. Calculations for the Capitol H i l l Area were only approximate, being based upon information obtained from contour plans. Three distinct designs were prepared for the Vancouver Heights D i s t r i c t . The f i r s t included the whole Vancouver Heights Area tributary to Willingdon Avenue, including the Gault Area west of Gilmore Avenue. The second included only that portion of the area lying east of Gilmore Avenue, but had sewers which were large enough to drain future extensions into the Gault Area. The third was designed solely to serve the area lying east of Gilmore Avenue. 20. It w i l l later "be shown how these three proposals were submitted to the Munic--ipal Council, and how the third proposal was adopted. DETAILS. Structures used in the Vancouver Heights Sewerage System were of standard design. Details of the standard 2' 6 " x 4' 0 " manhole are shown in Plate i T l . Manholes for the trunk sewer were of similar design but of larger size, in accordance, with the lar&er diameters of pipes. Where tributary sewers inter--sected the trunk at too high an elevation, ramps on an angle of 45 degrees with the horizontal were constructed so as to enter at the berm of the manhole. Catch basins were built of four pre-cast concrete sections, each bine inches deep. The lower three sections were two feet square on the inside. ( see Plate IV.) The top section had two sides battered, so that i t would supp-o r t the 24" x 12^ " cast iron grating. Each of the middle two sections had a semi-circular hole in the side, so that when placed together, they contained a six inch circular outlet hole. Above this bole, hooks were placed So as to hold a trap. Catch basins were placed at street intersections so as to dispose of ditch water before i t reached sidewalk, crossings. This was done by setting catch basins in ditches, opposite property lines, on roads draining toward the intersections. Hume centrifugally-cast concrete pipes were chosen in preference to v i t -r i f i e d clay pipes, as a result of the following comparison of their merits* Arguments in favor of the use of v i t r i f i e d clay pipes were: 1. V i t r i f i e d clay pipes were known to have a l i f e exceeding forty years. The l i f e of the recently invented concrete pipes had not been determined. 2. Experience had shown that v i t r i f i e d clay pipes were not affected by the chemical action of sewage. On the other hand, Hume concrete pipes had not been in use long enough to prove their a b i l i t y to resist chemical action of sewage. 21. Arguments in favor of Hume concrete pipes were: 1. Sand-blast tests showed that Hume concreie pipes had "better wearing qualit--ies than v i t r i f i e d clay pipes. It was therefore considered that the con-c r e t e pipes would have a longer l i f e than v i t r i f i e d clay pipes, on the steep Vancouver Heights Sewers. 2. laboratory tests showed that concrete pipes resisted the action of acids but were attacked by chloride gas produced from stale sewage. This latter fact was of no significance in the case of the Vancouver Heights Sewers, because in this system, sewage would reach the outlet before i t could become stale. 3. Hume concrete pipes were stronger ahdr.;of more uniform quality than v i t r i f --ied clay pipes. This additional strength was required in the deep Vancouver Heights sewers. Also, extra-strength pipes required for especially deep sewers, could be supplied more cheaply in concrete than in v i t r i f i e d clay. 4. Prompt delivery of Hume concrete pipes could be guaranteed, because they were manufactured locally. V i t r i f i e d clay pipes, being of eastern manufact--ure, were not so readily available. 5. The price of Hume concrete pipes was fifteen per cent below that of v i t r i f --ied clay pipes. The above facts were summarized as follows. V i t r i f i e d clay pipes had been proven satisfactory under operating conditions. The suitability of concrete pipes for sewers had not been established by experience. However, as a result of durability and strength tests made in the laboratory, i t was expected that concrete pipes would give satisfactory, service 0 The desirable features of concrete pipes were their availability and low cost. It was mainly for these two reasons that concrete pipes were f i n a l l y chosen for sewerage construction purposes in Vancouver Heights, The conclusion of the study of concrete and v i t r i f i e d clay pipes marked 22. the completion of the designing work. Therefore, i t was possible at this stage to proceed with the calculation and tabulation of quantities, in prepar-a t i o n for the f i n a l process of estimating the cost and assessment rate. ESTIMATE OF COST AND ASSESSMENT RATS.  Unit Costs. The cost of the Vancouver Heights Sewerage System was calculated by multiplying schedule quantities by unit costs. Unit costs for sewers, manholes and catch basins were estimated as follows. The cost of sewers, per linear foot, included the cost of excavating, timbering, backfilling, pipe laying, and the cost of pipe* However, the cost of excavating, timbering,and backfilling was f i r s t estimated inlterms of cubic yards of excavation, on the following basis: Depth Cost per cu. yd. Cost per ou. yd. Trench 5' to 5' 6 " wide. Trench 4* to 5' 6 "wide. 0' 'to : ,8» $ 2.20 per cu. yd. $ 2.20 per cu. yd. S' ;to 12' $3.20 " " "«• $3,40 " " " 12' to 16' $ 4.20 " " " $4.80 " " '" 16' to 20' $ 5„20 M M $ 7.00 " " " The cost of excavating, timbering and backfilling, per linear foot of trench, for various widths and depths of trenches, was calculated on this basis, and recorded as shown in Table 2. The cost of pipe and pipe laying,v.for each size of pipe, was recorded as shown i n Table 3. From the information in Tables 2 and 3, Table 4 was compiled so as to show the total cost per linear foot, of any sewer of given size and depth, ••r The cost of manholes was estimated at $ 11.50 per foot of depth. This included the cost of the cast iron framesaand. coversw^Large^jnanholeB.'1.required on the trunk sewer, were estimated at $ 13.00 per foot of depth. Each catch basin was estimated to cost $ 60.00. This allowed $ IQo00 for 23. the concrete catch "basin, $7.70 for the cast iron frame, grating and hood, and $ 42.30 for the cost of installing the catch "basin, and connecting i t to the sewer with six inch diameter pipe. It is easy to observe that the unit costs quoted above were high. However, 'r • • • these costs compared favorably with the costs of previous Burnaby sewerage projects constructed under similar conditions, by local workmen. Total Cost. The total costsodf sewers, manholes and catch basins were estimated by multiplying schedule quantities by the unit costs determined above. Th® cost of each run of sewer was noted as shown in Table 5, and the total cost of a l l runs was found from the table. The cost o f manholes, at the rate o f $ 11.50 per foot o f depth, was tabulated as shown in Table 6, and the total was obtain-e d . The cost of catch basins, at the rate of $ 60.00 each, was tabulated and totalled as shown in Table 7. The total cost of construction was found by adding together the costs for sewers, manholes, catch basins, clearing, tools, workman's compensation, public l i a b i l i t y insurance, contingencies, and engin-eering. For purposes of assessment calculations, i t was necessary to add to this cost of construction, allowances for interest on temporary loans and for discounts. The amount of each of these costs is shown in Table 8. A preliminary report on costs, estimated in the manner described above, was submitted to the Municipal Council. This report showed the costs of three possible sewerage schemes. Scheme «A* was a system designed to serve the whole Vancouver Heights Area tributary to the Willingdon Avenue Trunk. This included the Gault Area, and was estimated to cost $ 275,000. Scheme «B' included only that portion of the area, which was east of Gilmore Avenue, but was designed with sewers large enough to drain future extensions into the Gault Area. It was estimated that this project would cost $ 215,000. Scheme 'C was designed to serve only the area east of Gilmore Avenue, and was . 24. estimated at $ 190,000. It was apparent that Schemes 'A' and «B' were most desirable from the standpoint of economy and efficiency. Scheme 'C was con--sidered desirable becan.se of i t s low cost, which was made possible "by deferr-i n g a l l expenditures fortthe:r.ec6ns.truction of the Gault System. The Municipal Council, favoring the policy of keeping expenditures at a minimum, adopted Scheme 'C # Consequently, the engineer was instructed to prepare a report on this project, under Section 30 of the Local Improvement Act, so as to enable the Municipal Clerk to draw up a by-law authorizing the construction of sewers« Assessment Details. Assessment details were prepared according to Section 30 of the Local Improvement Act, as follows. F i r s t , the cost of the work was divided'between the Corporation as a whole, and the owners of property served by the sewer. This segregation was made so as to conform with Section 21 of the Local Improve -ment Act, which read as follows: " There shall be included in the Corporation* portion of the cost: (a) At least one third of the cost of a sewer having a sectional area of more than four feet; and (b) Three quarters of the cost of a l l culverts, gullies, and other works in connection with a sewer or pavement which are provided for surface drainage; and (c) So much of the cost of the work as is incurred at street intersections The segregation, made in accordance with the above requirements, showed that the Corporation's share of the cost was $ 43,265.00, and that the owners' share was $ 146,735.00. By authority of Section 26 of the Local Improvement Act, the owners' share of the cost was divided between those in Vancouver Heights who were directly "benefited, and those in Capitol H i l l who were indirectly benefited by virtue of the provision in the trunk sewer for future draining of that area. 25. This segregation was made so as to agree with the ratio "between the calculated sewage flows from the two areas. As a result, i t was found that the Capitol H i l l owners' share of the cost was $ 15,490,00, and that the total cost to "be "borne "by the owners in Vancouver Heights was $ I3I,245<,00, In the calculation of assessment i t was assumed that the interest rate on "bonds would "be 5 per cent, and that the earnings of sinking fluids would "be 4|;- per cent per annum. Computations made on this "basis showed that the annual payment required from the Vancouver Heights Area would "be $ 8,902,36. This amount, when divided "by the 41,508 feet of assessable frontage, necessitated an annual assessment rate of $ 0o2I477 per front foot. In the case of the Capitol H i l l Area, which was indirectly benefited, the total annual payment was $ 1,050,68, the total assessable frontage was 65,750, and the annual assess--ment rate was $ 0o01598 per -front foot. The above information was embodied in the Engineer's Eeport, under Section 30 of the Local Improvement Act. A by-lav/, based upon the information in this report,was drawn up by the Municipal Clerk. Notices were sent to the ratepayers of the Willingdon Avenue Sewerage Area, to inform them of the Council's intent--ion to construct sewers in that area. In the notices i t was stated that,if within thirty days, f i f t y per cent of the ratepayers in the d i s t r i c t petitioned against the project, i t would be abandoned. There weretfew petitions against the scheme, and therefore i t s construct--ion was authorized by the Willingdon Avenue Sewerage By-law, Construction of the sewers was commenced in the autumn of 1930 and was completed in the summer of I93I, The actual cost of the work was $• 185,000, as compared with the estimated cost of $ 190,000. Thus the f i n a l assessment rates were nearly the same as the estimated rates. 26. CONCLUSION. The designing of the Vancouver Heights Sewerage System is summarized as follows. At f i r s t , only a general study of the problem was made. On referring to a topographical map of the area, i t was apparent that the design would consist of a trunk sewer on Willingdon Avenue, and a set of laterals on the avenues draining into the trunk. Further investigation showed that the most suitable location for the trunk sewer was in the west boulevard of Willingdon Avenue, rather than in the ravine parallel to the avenue. Negotiations with the Vancouver Sewerage Board resulted in this body assuming the responsibility for the trunk sewer from Burrard inlet to Triumph Street. Also, as a result of studies made by Sewerage Board and Burnaby Engineers, i t was decided that the combined system was more suitable for North Burnaby than either the separ-a t e or the sanitary system. The more detailed work of preparing working drawings and wstimates requir--ed the preparation of profiles from information obtained in the f i e l d by survey parties. On these profiles, tentative grades were plotted in such a way as to f u l f i l l certain requirements of depth and slope. The size of pipe for each sewer run was then calculated by the Eational Method^and with the assistance of the sewer slide rule. In order to complete this portion of the work, i t only remained necessary to determine the details of structures. For many of these structures, standard Burnaby designs had already been adopted. Three sewerage schemes were submitted to the Burnaby Council. The Council rejected two of these schemes which had provisions for the replacement of sewers in the Adjoining Gault Area. They adopted the proposal which was desig-ned to serve the Vancouver Heights Area east of Gilmore Avenue, and which made provision in the size of the trunk sewer for the future sewerage require-ments of Capitol H i l l . 27„ Costs were estimated "by multiplying schedule quantities by unit costs. Expenses for overhead and financing were added to the total construction cost in order to determine the total cost required as a basis for assessment calcul--ations. This total cost was then segregated according to instructions in the Local Improvement Act, between the Corporation, the owners directly benefited in Vancouver Heights, and the owners indirectly benefited in Capitol H i l l . Finally, i t was estimated that, in order to provide for the repayment of these costs within thirty years time, i t would be necessary to levy an annual local improvement tax which would amount to $ 0o2I477 per front foot in the case of property directly benefited, and $ 0.01598 per front foot in the case of prop-e r t y indirectly benefited. The description of this work has been treated in such a way as to emphas--ize the important features rather than the details. Most attention has been paid to the general description of methods employed, to the principles under— -lying them, and to the selection of factors controlling their application. However, a complete record of a l l computations and details has been made avail-a b l e in the appendix, in the form of tables and sketches, which are self-explan-a t o r y . A P P E N D I X . A P P E N D I X . CONTENTS. PLATE I — KEY PLAN OF DRAINAGE AREA. PLATE II PRELIMINARY LAYOUT OF SEWERS ON TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP. PLATE III — MANHOLE DETAILS. PLATE IV • CATCH BASIN DETAILS. PLATE V RAINFALL INTENSITY CURVE. PLATE VI PLAN OF SEWERS. .PLATE VII — PROFILES OF SEWERS. TABLE I CALCULATIONS OF RUNOFF AND OF SIZES OF PIPES. TABLE 2 COST OF EXCAVATING, TIMBERING & BACKFILLING I LINEAR FOOT OF TRENCH. TABLE 3 COST PER LINEAR FOOT, fOB PIPES AND PIPE LAYING. TABLE 4 TOTAL COST FOR I LINEAR FOOT OF SEWER, TABLE 5 — C O S T OF SEWERS. TABLE 6 COST OF MANHOLES. TABLE 7 COST OF CATCH BASINS. TABLE 8 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF SEWERAGE PROJECT, & ASSESSMENT DETAILS. TABLE 9 ESTIMATES FOR REJECTEE SCHEMES, «A' & 'B* . 37f?/VOf7&D M/JNWOL-J5-CONC^P T£ CP? TC/-/ tf/JSZ/V. Sca/e~f//?c/? =- J foo/\ S6 24-Ten r/z/=rr • V \ \ NI N , I , NJ I N\ A!) N l NI N ^ I .. f ! r I 1 1 I s ! i - • J •'•1 ! .7: •i » • • 1 / /. f / / f, / /• o in 6 o RAILWAY | V y -\ v V N X T ' v ' ' ° , » ^ > ^ \ V 1 8 7 v * v v V S V * X ^ N X S. V v \ V X X x SAeetjV92_ S SAee/- /A. 3 \ \ _ sA.ee/ J?*Jh " Sheet /V? 7 S/reef/V9 0 Shee? SY*S S/?ee/- /V9 /o /87 " /Z/ -CORPORA -NORTH BUt -COMBINED SB S7//A///OL£Ss* CATC// - 3/75//VS h - - 240 \ j h i i SB ! > I t ~ - ZSS | *4 k 5 - zeo xj k L r e * * * * ^ X r g ~ 3/S <0 - 330 L \5 3 C > r /67 /2/ c - • «- — k a xj 3 So y\ < I N O S I O V W r -i - X. -— „ V - V - ! -ran ti K rvr- * il „ N\ PTT- -J-v k „„ 1 • \ s; < \ A V • N \ — i _ H, .11 * r ~ \ ! ' \ i M -,* * \ k j« \ i -i **" \ V \ Y i 1 j 3AV 3 « 0 W H 5 3AV n 3 s s o y ti i Xx y'-.X ;,X \ ; So: ;4 >: ti ti )^ • : ^ •0-; X t s. s N .- X X , X X - 0 • ft s ••|.-.tN(- ; s % ti ; <a-X s N X;X x % ti :i' X ti • X N ; \ r \. V : % •: N-s :- \ ti \ N ti X \ x % • X X : V V K \ ti ti so : X X X ; . ' : X x> ) ti X.o* XX : > : V *) ^  •\ y § \ : N : K ti ; to "i ; ^ ! I X ; ^ : ::, X • ^ > • ^ \ : ^ •; Hx — v ~ — !o ... ^ x-^ ; ; ^ • ^ j : ^ \ ti .' li : : = ^  .i X ; X; : ti: _ ^ ;" % ; : ^ ; S \o so • ^ . K • .x- " jy " " 1 ] X), : ^ ti V. : ^ : \ : V; N % : 0^ \ ; Q \ X ^ X <i\o-: s x X V x, X • ti. > X ? •so" ^ : <\ y " x « \ •:X X V '-. X V t\; <3i • ti ti •ti '*)• Q ^ . V )^ •*> X: i ' ; \ N i " ' K •H: ^ : s n ti ti ti to ti[ • '• • y. : 0 N , 'O \: N ; \ . ti ti h ti ti. «i i'-k J ....... \>: • '• % , \ \ & 0 ^ N. --• - • : • j J; ' •• ' tif • ti ;h • ' •- \; : )| • !i • X? s X 1$ CO •n X 0 Xl N <0 i AO : \ ; x X ' ... X • ^ > X : • X • \ : ^  . x • > X .: ^ X \ s I 1 :X -.X X y . \ ' • ' ^ 0 : <0 \ s N ', X .: X : N •. X • • \ ; \ ! ^ ' •• H X-\ ::. \ X X X " X X ':. <x K i : : \ ON X v0 X x v X ; \ 0 ^ • N : \ : ^ •x*i: : \\ \ X X X k : Q V V • ^ 0 • •Is . •' x ; X !V \ f % :• ^ i. % :v <*> x V : <h *i . \ K \ ^ _ : ^ °? : . > • • lV >" \ \ : \ ; V \ N ^ : • S . '. X • S ; V N • X f «\? V ^ . «N> ^ : % : ^ • N i •x :' X X :«V iv. Xcy "&\ • ^ : ^ : ^) A) X X 0 • . .i \ N % : ^ : ^ : ".. ;i • ^  _ :i 1 % \ ! ^ ; % r ; ^ ^ : X" • • • ;L X 1 'X-• ; < • '•' . ' ~i • -s • , : : • s X & -A. - --••';::'3 ' X;ij N NI N) X X Ni N X ti It I I: I X X fx *Xto ; I |s iX ^ I Ni I J 1 x X: x 0 to) <x X to X ft. x ti, ti X X X •ft ft X X to X X *X to Co-x> X. ti ti ti ti. X .X N X X ft . t i ti x . to" 'a ti V ti X ti ti % •ti ft ft % ti ti x •a V ft) <3 N to to> ti ti ti <ft ti ti V X X X. to ti tor ti ti ti ti ft to to to to to) ti ti: ti ti I ti ti X ti ti <0 X X-x> X X to \ X to ti X .X X 4 ft x ti to x ti to xY X X X X1 to) to X ft X ft. x X X x x. x x X to) X X X ti \ ft x X ti ti to) x ti X ft V) ft X X X 0 v x X X ti ti °5 to X ti ti to X 1.x, :x. X X x X ft> ft X 4 to, X X \ X to) to X X ft) X X ft> 'ft X to) X) X X to: ti ti X X \ X X-X X X ftN ti ft X to> to) to) X ft . ft , ft X H ti ti to ti x ti ••<ft. ti to ti-ti x X X X v) X X: r x ) Xi X ti ti \ X ft x ti X) to) ft ft-x v. X X ti-ti X ti ti ti ti x-V) X X to to X to X X \ X \ to s> v; ft ft x X ti-ft X X x to ti ti . t i ti ti: X - f t "ft X X x-X X to .x' X X ft X X X to) X ft X X X X X -x: N X X X x X N C> X l H x <0 I \ / X x^\ x ' X :; AO : \ N x X x : X 3 ,^ : : ^ X X •;. X -; X : ,;x. • "x x> X x X ' - f t ; 'x. \ ; ^ X 1 ' X ; ' : V ; x X y • ^ 1% X : ^ ' f t - X <J - \ \ \ ' : Q ': X v : K H l- X X " . • X ' . : X 1 '••'^ :.' ^ ft ;' x !• § ; ^ \.i • \ i : X . " Q : ^ : ^ ; N < > ^ x M \ X ) : \ : N X X •: • % . • ^ ; i X : ^ • ^ X : 1 ' X . X : H tl x X : & ; V X X ' -; x ;XD : V X *i .. x X i X ! :h : X . X • I i s k ^ \ X X ; \ :p X 0 ^ . x-X X X ^ 0 X |^ ;-x -V ' X-A9 X x % •h AO \ x X t V •.% Xi •" 'I: . . . •')• .1 • 1. '' I I -!• 'X.': ft Q % ••" .«V. . Y X ; S • 'X I X • X '. ^ ) '% X X V I ft x X X) ; X X •'• ' ••.•[ . • '! • : • ..|<j : # x 1 : X ; H ' X ^,: X X X " X X X X X ; X X r X : V • ' .' ''*•!'( . : , ; |;j : • . " : I I •'..!•! N ft : X i X ^ V X X x X X X X X : ^ , X X x x ; X • X : \ •—^—-—~r I 7 • • iili ' ' .;.7 • • . ~ X - c ^ X X ° Xy ^ : x :* \ o N ' • \ V : , \ V X . ' i X X X? H X ftx Q : X °x X X X \ •fix." ^ x X \ o • x x x \ S X -Q X X x ; X j *)• x> : - • • .,- .?:]! if ; o : xx xy 'ft'. : Y > % <x ^ •: ^ ; v ; V ii".1 X • ^ -X X X ; ^ X X X . • S • X Q *x ° 0 : \ % 0 ON X X • x . ft Q x . X \ % - ''!;]' ki X \ l l > • x^  x/; ..-•-^ • >• -•: • yi| ";. '• • ' • j-jl' • •' xl /ill. N X N I 5 5 X N to N %: N N ft 1 : ti '. X 4' ft X. .. ft ft X" ft;-X • t o ; X ft ft* ! ti :*ti ^ ft' ft; ft X ti : X - K • \ ft X : X : t i ' ti X x l k x. V • : 1 ftX •; ft : ' "N X C x X ?. \ to •• to-ft;X X ft '•• X v ft X ti 'ti '•i ft - L ft ft • ' ^ ft : ft ^ •A ft : ft. to ti • -: to ft ft ; ! N . f t • s ; x I •:. V ;-'.X \ ti ft. i. ti X ti X ft •.V ft ft-ti ft X to ft 1 ft Xy : X • Q ti • ^ . ^ t { V X X X ft X ; x - : to : * f t X -; X to .X' . ft • 'Q ti V ^ ft X ft -—.—'": '.i o f t . oft \ X *ti ti ti ;> • V. to V titi-X) ft ; ^ S X : i ft too ft : % i: \ti 1—;—-; X -,ft> >: X-'ti ft ; • X : s : to .; X 1 ft" ' ft ti In to to to). i ti : S) ftX' . /: . --..[. - • ' .f J; — \— ; X ft I ft' ; X : X I ^ ti • ti ft : \: ! X ' I ft ti ti ft ft ft X $ : ft ; ^ to ft ft^ X : \ : ft <ft ——;—^ f.' ; ; ' :".-[•. " f t • 'i n X X v I 5 x V X to) ti . x : x -X ft , ti : ti '. to K to ft X •\. i : X : v) : x - • -i i • -" - .. to I ft (ft ft. ft-~ x \ . X X ; \ X : ti X <ft ^ ft X ti X x.. • : ! f t : - > i X ft — — — — , 0 ' f t X =\ •'V ft \° X . toy •V ft °x °^ X •N ft ft X ' : f t N ft ft ftx ft <Y oft cto X. ft °x toft X ; e x ft ' ' f ' ' ft B ft 1 ft ft ti. ft) •' X' = x : ti)-• to ••: X. ti to : ft to ' ft ft • \ ' 1 ft to ft. ft ti ft) <ft - f t V Y ft V ft\ V ft ft — — t i - • :A . f t ; ti to . ti ti; . V ti to K -.. ^  ti On. ft •' x ft X -3 X ft X : V ft, to ft X \ ft X ftX' \ X ti ti ti' v X to) X ; ' f t to) :t i \ X ft X ft X X • f t x •; ft X ft X ft X ' -ti\ <*> ft , K XV Mft V ft-ft; ft ft! * ' f t : t -* ' :' • ii ft :.::;|( • ' '. ftij ' X X N x x o .\> s. ft ! ft i l l I I • 0 X X AO. X 0 ft ft ft) ft ft IS * A* X X. X 5 I? ft c 1 ft-11 | v | X AO • ft X, ft ft ft1 ft X ft ! ft ft ft ft ft ft \ X X X ft ft X ;ft X : X ^ ^ cx llx v X1 Si ft) X X x X ft, % ft ft A, X ft ft Y ft ft % X ft ft ft v ft ft: A X 1 X ft ft % ft ft ft % 1 % ft x ft X X ft ft X. ft ! f t . Ay ft. *<Y ;°ft ft X ' f t ft ft ft ft ft. ft \ ft ft X AO X ft ft x A, ft ft ft ft ft ft ft V x x; ft ft ft \ ' $ ' ft •V x ft ft ft ft :tft X ft ; <\ X X Q X ft> X ft ft ft 0 : ft ft ft Y ft ft X ft X ft) ft X ft X ft\ ft\ ft X . X A r x X : X ft xfti x ft ft ft 'ft X ft \ X ft X "1 s \ X \ X X X ft X \ 5 ft ftx ft : f t ft' IT ft ft ft A ft AX ft I V \ft ft) ft) X X AO ft ft AO V X. \ X ft X \% X ft ft : ft ft X ft' ft-ft X ft ft ft M ft ft A ' ' " . 't • •'; • ' x X ft-'ft-xx • ft ft ft ti - . f t , ft ti : :ti ,• " f t ft ' • " f t • t i , • ft X ftX' ft ft y ft. - X ft ; : ' - f t •ftx. to ; ft X t ft . t o . ft i ft ti ti !\ • ; X ft , to :s ft y x -.'• X. x ft ft • X ; ft ft : X V ft ; X - ft A ti to) ft ftX ; ti ft ti :. X s ft ft ti ft ft :•• s ;• ftx ti ti ti ft ft ft ft XN ;1 ;;ftto ft • X ft. ; ft ft; ft ft ft ft ft-X :% ti ti: ti :X <ft • to to x fts X . X •x : x ft ft X : X X X > t i titi. ti " f t \ *\ ^  XX ft ft X. ftft to) X ft ft v X. X ti ti ft ft — ^ i l ft ti ft ti ft ft X ft ft§ ft ti 0 X : N( X : x X ft; •'• . f t - ' - i ,v lift.*'-:—V 1 ' to ti '.ti. -X \ ti 'ft • ft ft; ft ft ft to 1 ti: to. X • ti '•\ ft to }^ ti :| — f t " ..ft -• ti\ • • ft • - \ ' ^ : f t : : •ti to • ft : ft "iy. to ft < f t ti ft K V X • to : x '• :• ti ' x| ' * ; ! I ti ft X ft : ft ft ft ;,X. ; to ti X ' X ft X v: ',^ - • I : ti ft- : ft ftft ft :, ti X ftX ft ft Y: ft »\ >T ft 'oft? v ' & aftv X '" • f t x ft : ' \ . ft ft : • ".-1 ' v 'Ell X I "ti--H ti ft ti : ti ' " t o ft X to V ^ ft -. ft : V X X ft X 0 !ft X X --- -.••,! ' - -• t l • ' . f'l I' l l ti ti •• ft X ti i X ti ft <ft X X \ . ft ft X' x ft : i. 1 s 'X 't? .5: .1: ft X: . t i % ft ft V ft; X ' to, • f t ft "ft to ft ti -" • '" - ;'i' X ' ft V ^ N X ft- •: ti ti ft ! - f t ; - - -= ; ' ' '• ft. ft! Xt-it ; ' ' ftftft '•ft ft! N ft N X ft 5: •N ft 0 ft N N ft i X\ft ft X v; x v. 'ft ; ft X : X ftX . Iftft X X • ft ft'-% ft' : \ : f t ^ X X ft^ \ ft X 1 " ft ftft ft. ft i # - — -ft • f t f t ft : ft X ft k) : ft) • •' "< ft ft-:**: \-\ ft ft : x ; ft" ft ft ft A ft • ^ ' ft 1 X ft X ft^ K :•. X ft :' ft ft; ft ; ft ft ft •so "4 X ft ft X ftftV X ft ',X A • ft ft 1 ft : l ft;: : ft x S ft ft i- ft ft ft i ft K L-:':'ft X •¥ X-ft X •; X' ft ft X Vy : ft : $ • X ft ft X ft ft : X S ft X ft, .•.:X--AO ; X Xkv <3 ft \ X 1 >• y\ AS; ft>; Y X X ft ft • " f t X X : \ X °N ft X ft X N ft ft : V ft : ft ft ft ft; • X ft X X X AO: ft ; ft>' fti ;.  x X^ •' ^ S -:/ i ft. 1 ^ - ; ftftft •.' ft) X ft ft : ,x: <ft NS X X •: ' f t ft.! ft • M) X /ft i ft) ft \ \ ft ft X NO X • XQ .A • ^ x X ft: ftf ft ft) ft) X ftft ft . ft-"X ft ft , X ' ft : ft ft ft ft \ : . X ft ;X ft) X XI . ft X x> X : x v i '• • ' 3 ft "f 1 % • fto ft : X; ' V X X ft X ft ft f %' ^ \ ft ' f t : ' f t ft *• ft ft ft ft • f t : ft ~:—-4 • '1 : ft; ••: i ftX.. <ft •ft ft) • x ft . ft) vft V Q ° \ ft X \ t . ftX X X ftx -ft-sx ft • f t -ftN ft v ft ft: \ ft ° \ X N ' • \ 1 ft <\; ft Vft; ft) ft) V) Vft. Aft) ft ft ft) 0 <ft ft ft : ft ft ft ft ft ft • ^ . ft < c f t ft • ft ft ft ft ft ft AO ft ft) ft ft : )^ ft .JS, I I X ft-X Y-1 X ft 4 ^ , xft : ft) xt x! 1 X r X : »•< '• - j| : 1 ft*v-.' ft 1 15, t V V. 1 fti • X- .; x. :• : 1 V • ^ • ! ft • s: i i ft^ X X xV ft): ft 1 ft 'X ' i ^ i v x I; •  :'M - -i it x :• X ^ AX \ : X 1 1; x-. • x - > - ' ; I:*1" : 'ftfl ft|:' '••ii' • - I! T A B L E 2 ( • & ) . ' cosr_m^mimmf TIMBERING & B A C K F I L L I N G ? T T . T W R A H F O O T OF . T B S N C H . Trench 3! wide • . Trench 3!.3 "wide -Trench 3' 6 " wide Depth Excav. Cost Excav. Cost Excav. Cost. cu.yd. Iner. Total cu.yd. Incr. Total cu.yd. Incr. Total 5' .55 $1,21 .60 $1.32 .65 $1.43 6' 0 6 6 $1.45 .72 $1.56 .78 $1.72 7» .77 $1.69 .84 $1.85 .91 $2.00 8 ' , 8 8 $1.94 . . . 9 6 $2.11 1.04 $ 2 . 2 9 9» oil $0.36 $2.30 . 1 2 $0.40 $2.51 .13 $0.43 $2.72 1 0 ' . 2 2 $0.73 $2.67 .24 $0.79 $2.90 .26 $0.96 $3.15 I P .33 $ 1 . 0 9 $ 3 . 0 3 .36 $1.19 $3.30 .39 $1.29 $3.58 12' .44 $1.45 $3.39 ,48 $1.58 $3.69 .52 $1.72 $4 . 0 1 1 3 ' oil $0.48 $3.87 .12 $0.53 $4.22 .13 '$0.57 $4.58 •14K; .22 $0o97 $4 . 3 6 ,24 $1.06 $4.75 .26 $1.14 $5.15 15' ,33 $l 045 $4084 " •••36' $1.58 $5.27 .39 :ki..yz. $ 5 . 7 3 1 6 ' ,44 $1.94 $ 5 . 3 3 ' ,48 $2.11 $5.60 .52 $2.29 $ 6 . 3 0 1 7 * o i l $ 0 . 6 1 $5.94 ,12 $0.66 $6.46 • 13 $0.72 $7.02 1 8 ' . 2 2 . $ 1 . 2 1 $6,54 ,24 $1,32 $7.12 , 2 6 $1.43 ; $ 7 , 7 3 , 19' .33 $1.82 $ 7 , 1 5 .36 $ I 0 9 8 $7,78 ,39 $2.15 $8.45 2 0 * ,44 $2.42 $7.75 .48 $2,64 $8.44 .52 $2,86 J 9 . I 6 Note: In the above table, excavating, timbering and backfilling were estimated together in'terms of dollars per cubic yard of excavation, as follows: 0* to 8' deep @ $2.20 per cu. yd. I 2 » to 16' deep @ $4,40 per cu. yd. 8» to 12' deep#$3.30 per-cu. yd. 16' to 20» deep @ $5.50 per cu, yd. S^LW^MSAYkTim. T 1MB BRING & BACKFILLING I LINEAR FOOT OF TRENCH. Trench 4' wide Trench 4' 6 " wide Trench 5' wide. Depth Excav. Cost Excav. Cost Excav . Cost cu.yd. Incr. Total cu.yd* Incr. Total cu.yd „ Incr. Total 5' .74 $1.63 .83 $1.83 .93 $2.05 6' .89 $1,96 1.00 $2.00 1.10 $2.42 7' • 1.04 $2,19 1.17 $2.57 1.29 $2,84 8» 1.18 $2.60 1,34 $2.95 1,48 $3,26 9' .15 $0,51 $3.11 .17 $0.58 $3.53 .18 $0.61 $3.87 10' .30 $1,02 $3.62 ,34 $1,16 $4.11 .32 $1.22 $4,48 II' .45 $1.53 $4.13 .51 $1,74 $4,69 ,54 $1,83 $5.09 12' .60 $2,04 $4,64 .68 $2,32 $5.27 .72 $2.44 $5,70 13' .15 $0.72 $5.36 .17 $0,82 $6.09 .18 $0.86 $6.56 14' .30 $1.44 ' $6,08 .34 $1.64 $6.91 .32 $1.72 $7.42 15' ,45 $2,16 $6.80 .51 $2.42 $7.69 ,54 $2.58 $8,28 16' .60 $2.88 $7.52 .68 $3.24 $8.51 .72 $3.44 $9.14 17' .15 $1,05 $8.57 .17 $1.19 $9.70 .18 .$1.26 $10,40 18* .30 $2.10 $9,62 ,34 $2.38 $10.89 .32 $2,52 $11.66 19? .45 $3.15 $10.67 ,51 $3.52 $12.03 .54 $3.78 $12.92 20» .60 $4,20 $11.72 ,68 $4.71 $13,22 .72 $5.04 $14.18 Note: In the above table, excavating, timbering and backfilling were estimated together in terms of dollars per cubic yard of excavation, as follows: 0' to 8* deep @ $2.20 per cu. yd. 12' to 16' deep © $4.80 per cu. yd. 8' to 12'deep <§ $3.40 per cu. yd. 16' to 20' deep @ $7.00 per cu. yd. COST OF EXCAVATING-, TIMBERING & BACKFILLING I LINEAR FOOT OF TRENCH. Trench 5' 6 "wide. Depth Excavation in cu. yds. Cost Increment Total 5» 1.02 $2.24 6» 1.22 $2.68 7« 1.42 $3.12 8' 1.63 $3.59 . 9f .20 $0.68 $4.27 10' .40 $1.36 $4.95 II' .60 $2.04 $5.63 IE' .80 . $2.72 $6.31 13' ... .20 $0.96 $7.27 14' .40 $1.92 $8.23 15' .60 $2.88 $9.19 16 • .80 $3.84 iI0oJ5 17' .20 $1.40 $11.55 18' .40 $2.80 $12.95 19' .60 $4.20 $14.35 20» .80 $5.60 Note: In the above table, excavating, timbering and backfilling were estimated together in terms of dollars per cubic yard of excavation, as follows: 0' to 8' deep @ $2.20 per cu. yd. 12' to 16' deep @ $4,80 per cu. yd. 8' to 12'deep © $3.40 per cu. yd. 16' to 20' deep @ $7.00 per cu. yd. TABLE 5. COST PER LINEAR FOOT FOB PIPES AMD PTPE LAYING. t - * i .am. of Cost of pipe Cost of laying .'Total cost per pipe and specials per foot foot 6 " $ 0.30 $ 0.15 $ 0.45 8 " $ 0.39 $ 0.17 $ 0.56 10" $ 0.51 $ 0.20 $ 0.71 12 " $ 0.68 $ 0.22 $ 0.90 15 " $ 1.13 $ 0.25 ' $ 1.38 18 » $ 1.48 $ 0.30 $ 1.78 20 " $ 2.25 $ 0.35 $ 2.60 24" »• $ 2.63 $ 0.45 $ 3.08 30 " $ 3.28 $ 0.85 $ 4.13 35 « $ 4.28 $ 1.00 $ 5.28 41 " $ 5.63 $ 1.40 $ 7.03 TOTAL COST FOB I LTNBAB FOOT OF SSflSR Depth, 6 " 8 " 10 " 12 " 15 " 18 " 24 " 30 " 35 " 41 " 5' $1,66 $1.77 $1.92 $2,11 $2,70 $3.21 $4,71 $5.96 $7,33 $9,27 6' $1.90 $2.01 $2.16 $2.35 $2.94 $3.50 $5.04 $6.33 $7.72 $9.71 7» $2.14 $2.25 $2,40 $2,59 $3.23 $3.78 $5.37 $6.70 $8.12 $10.15 8» $2,39 $2.50 $2,65 $2.84 $3.49 $4.07 $5.68 $7.08 $8.54 $10.62 9' $2,75 $2,86 $3,01 $3,20 $3.89 $4.50 $6.19 $7.66 $9.15 $11.30 IO» $3,12 $3,23 $3.38 $3.57 $4.28 $4.93 $6,70 $8.24 $9.76 $11,98 II' $3,48 $3,59 $3.74 $3.93 $4.68 $5.36 $7.21 $8.82 $10.37 $12.66 12* $3„84 $3.95 $4.10 $4.29 $5.07 $5,79 $7,72 $9,40 $10.98 $13.34 13* $4,32 $4.43 $4,58 $4,77 $5.60 $6,36 $8,44 $10.22 $11.84 $14.30 14' $4,81 $4,92 $5,07 $5,26 $6,13 $6,93 $9.16 $11.04 $12,70 $15.26 15' $5,29 $5,40 $5,55 $5.74 $6,65 $7.51 $9.88 $11.86 $13,56 $16,22 16' $5,78 $5,89 $6.04 $6,23 $7.18 $8.08 $10.60 $12.68 $14.42 $17,18 17' $6,39 $6,50 $6,65 $6,84 $7,84 $8.80 $11.65 $13,87 $15.68 $18,58 18' $6.99 $7.10 $7.25 $7.44 $8,50 $9.51 $12.70 $15.06 $16.94 $19.98 19' $7.60 $7.71 $7,86 $8.05 $9,16 $10,23 $13.75 $16.25 $18.20 $21,38 20' $8 ,20 $8#3I $8.46 $8.65 $9,82 $10.94 $14,80 $17.44 $19.46 $22,78 TABLE 5 (a). COST OF SEWERS.. Average Diam.- of Cost; per Length Cost of run. depth pip©. • Lin.foot of run 19 20 7» ;8 " $ 2.25 330' $ 742,50 20 21 6' 8 " $ 2.01 330* $ 663.30 21 22 6' 8 " $ 2.01 330* $ 663.30 22 23 6« 8 " $ 2.01 330' $ 663.30 23 24 7» 10 " $ 2.40 330" $ 792.00 24 25 6& 12 " $ 2.47 330' $ 815.10 25 26 64' 15 " $ 3.10 323' $1001.30 26 27 64' 15 " $ 3,10 287' $ 889.70 28 29 8» 6 $ 2,39 274' $ 654,86 29 30 6' 6 " $ 1,90 344' $ 653,60. 30 31 54' 8 " $ 1,89 330' $ 623.70 31 32 7s • 8 " $ 2,25 330' $ 742,50 32 33. 9« 10 " $ 3.01 330' $ 993.30 33 34 74' 10 *' $ 2.53 330* $ 834.90 • 34 35 6« 15 " $ 2,96 3I4» $ 929.44 35 36 8« 15 " $ 3,49 296' $1033.04 ' 37 38 6« 8 '« $ 2,01 _ 330' $ 663,30 38 39 54' 8 " $ 1,89 • 330' $ 623,70 . 39 40 54' 8 " $ 1.89 330' $ 623,70 40 41- . 6» 10 " $ 2.16 330' $ 712.80 41 42 6' •ie n $ 2,16 330' $ 712.80 Carry forward .—--• $I6032„I4 . TABLE 5 COST OF SEWERS. M.H. to M.H. Average . Mam. of Cost per Length Cost of n depth pipe. lin.foot of run Brought forward — $16032.14 42 43 6« 12 " $ 2.35 330' $ 775.50 43 44 6' 15 " $ 2.96 323* $ 956,08 44 45 • «i» 15 " ,$ 3.10 287' $ 889,70 46 47 7» 6 " $ 2.14 275' $ 588.50 47 48 7|' 6 " $ 2.27 343s $ 778.61 48 49 6' 8 " $ 2.01 330' $ 665,30 49 50 7*»'=." 8 " $ 2.38 330' $ 785,40 50 51 7» 8 " $ 2.25 316' $ 711.00 51 52 5» 10 " $ 1.92 326' $ 625,92 52- 53 12 " $ 2.72 337' $ 916.64 53 54 7» 12 " $ 2.59 301» $ 779.59 55 56 6' 8 " $ 2.01 330' ' , $ 663.30 56 • 57 8 " •  $ 2.25 339' $ 742.50 57 58 10 " $ 2.40 330' $ 792.00 59 10 " $ 2.28 330' $ 752.40 59 60 H « 10 ••»' $ 2,04 330' $ 673.20 60 61 6' 12 " $ 2.35 330' $ 775,50 61 62 6|' 15 " $ 3.10 323' $1001,30 62 63 7' 15 " $ 3.23 288" $ 930.24 64 65 •8-1' 8 " $ 2,68 330' $ 884.40 65 66 9|' 10 " $ 3.20 . 330' $1056,00 Carry Forward - $32773.22 TABLE 5 ( c ) . COST OF SBWBB3-M.H. to M.H. Average depth Mam, of pipe. Cost per lin.foot Length of run Cost of n Brought forward $32773,22 66 67 I04« 12 " $ 3.75 330* $1237.50 67 68 10' 12 " $ 3,57 330' $1178.10 68 69 I2| ' 12 " $ 4.53 330' $1494.90 69 70 I2| ' 15 » $ 5.34 330'v $1762.20 70 71 11' 18 " $ 5.36 331' $1774.16 71 72 I I ' 18 " $ 5.36 27'9«'.'-" $1495,44 '• 73 X 74 84' 8 " $ 2.68 330' $ 884.40 74 75 9»--- 10 » $ 3,01 330' $ 993.30 75 76 9« 10 " $ 3,01 330' $ 993.30 76 77 9* 12 " $ 3.20 330s $1056,00 77 78 9' 12 " $ 3.20 330' $1056.00 78 79 ro« 15 " $ 4.28 330' $1412.40 79 80 10' 15 " $ 4,28 323' $1382.44 80 81 n * 18 " $ 5.36 287 $1538,32 82 83 10 " $ 3.01 330' $ 993.30 83 84 10" $.'2«83 330* $ 933.90 84 85 8' 10 " ' $ 2.65 330' $ 874.50 85 86 84' 12 " $ 3.02 330 $ 996.60 86 87 84' 12 »» : $ 3.02 330* $ 996.60 87 88 9' 15 " $ 3.89 330' $1283.70 C a r r y forward — — . • $57110,28. TABLB 5 (d). COm OF SEffSBS M»Ho ** to M.H. Average ,depth Diam. of pipe. Cost per lin.foot Length of run Cost of n Brought forward — — — - $57110.23 88 89 io|« 15 "• $ 4.48 323* $1447.04 89 90 .io£» 18 " $ 5.15 287' $1478,05 91 92 6» 8 » $ 2.01 . 330' $ 663,30 92 93 64' 8 " $ 2.13 330' $ 702,90 93 94 ?*• 10 " $ 2.53 330' $ 834.90 94 95 8' 10 " $ 2.65 330' $ 874.50 95 96 8* 12 " $ 2.84 330' $ 937.20 96 97 84' 15 «' $ 3.69 330' $1217,70 97 98 10' 15 " $ 4.28 323' $1382.44 98- 99 94» 15 " $ 4.09 304-1' $1244,38 IOI 102 8* 8 $ 2.50 330' $ 825.00 102 103 10» 8 " $ 3.23 330' $1065.90 103 104 94' 10 «. $ 3.20 330' $1056,00 104 105 11' 15 " $ 4,68 330' $1544.40 . 105 106 10' 15 " $ 4.28 323' $1382,44 106 107 10' 15 " $ 4.28 304|» $1302,19 109 n o 134' 8 " $ 4,68 330« $1544.40 110 i n 14' 12 " $ 5.26 330' $1735,80 III 112 13' 12 " $ 4.77 323' $1540,71 112 113 12-4' 15 ." $ 5.34 304f $1624,70 115 116 94' 10 " $ 3,20 Carry forward 330' $1056.00 $.825701,23 TABLE 5 f e ) .  COST OF SSJtfERS. M.H. to M.H. Average Diam. of Cost per Length Cost of depth pipe. lin.foot of run Brought — $825,70.23 116 117 iofc* 12 " . 330' $1237,50 117 . 118 10-4' 12 " $ 3.75 323' $1211,25 118 119 -9fX 12 " $ 3.39 304|» $1031.41 123 124 9' 8 " $ 2,86 310' $ 886.60 124 125 84' 10 " $ 2,83 3 H i ' $ 880.84 129 130 94' 8 " $ 3.05 302' $ 921,10 ISO 131 9» 8 " $ 2.86 " 330' $ 943.80 132 133 n 4 ' -8.." $ 3,77 293 $1104,61 133 134 124' 10 " $ 4.34 335» $1453,90 134 135 84' 10 " $ 2.83" 320' $ 905,60 135 131 I24» 18 " $ 6.08 179' $1088,32 131 125 134' 24 " $ 8.80 330' $2904,00 125 119 . 15«; 30 " $11.86 330' $3913,80 119 113 13' 30 " $10.22 348' $3556.56 113 107 164' 35 " $15.05 312' $4695,60 107 99 174' 41 " $19,28 330' $6362,40 99 YDSBT ' 19' 41 " $21.38 328' $7012.64 Connections to trunk sewer 12' 15 " $ 5.07 168' $ 851,76 Connections' to trunk sewer 12' 18 " $ 5.79 96' $ 555.84 $1-24087*76 TABLE 5 It). COST OF SEffERS M.H. to M.H, 131 125 113 107 125 Haunching 113 Haunching 107 Haunching VDSBT Haunching Biam. of pipe Cost per lin.foot Length of run Cost of run • Brought forward -— 24 " $ 0.70 330* 30. " $ 1.41 6789 35"11 # 1.63 SI2.» 41 " $ 1.84 658' — $124087.76; $ 231.00 $ 955.. 98 $ 508.56 $ 1210.72 $126994.02 TABLE 6 (a).  COST OF MANHOLES . Depth Rate Cost M.H. Depth Rate Cost 19 6» $11.50 •$•69.00 hrought forward. 42 6' $11.50 - $1696,25 $ 69e00 20 6' $11.50 $ 69.00 43 6' $11.50 $ 69.00 •21 6» $11.50 $ 69.00 44 6' $11.50 $ 69,00 22 6«;. $11.50 $ 69,00 45' 54' $11.50 $ 63.25 23 64' $11.50 $ 74,75, 46 64' $11,50 $ 74.75 24 . IP $11.50 $126.50 47 64' $11.50 $ 74,75 25 6' ' $11.50 $ 69,00 48 6' $11.50 $ 69.00 26 6' $11.50 $ 69.00 49 54' $11.50 $ 63.25 27 64' $11.50 $: 74-$? 50 6' $11.50 $ 69.00 28 74' $11,50 $ 86.25 51 64' $11.50 $ 74.75 29 6' $11.50 $ .-69.00 52 6|' $11.50 $ 74.75 30 64' $11.50 $ 74.75 53 6' $11.50 $ 69.00 31 64' $11.50 $ 74,75 54 7« $11.50 $ 80,50 32 6' $11.50 $ 69:. 00 55 5' $11.50 $ 57.50 33 74' $11.50 $ 86.25 56 54' $11.50 $ 63.25 34 7' $11.50 $ 80.50 57 • 7» $11.50 $ 80,50 35 64' $11.50 $ 74,75 58 6' $11.50 $ 69.00 36 54' $11.50 $ 63.25 • • 59 .54' $11,50 $ 63.25 37 6' $11,50 $ 69.00 60 6* $11.50 $ 69.00 38 54' $11.50 $ :63..i25 61 7» $11.50 $ 80.50 39 6' $11.50 $ 69.00 62 6» $11.50 $ 69.00 40 ; 54* .. $11,50 $ 63.25 63 8* $11.50 $ 92.00 41 .54' $11,50 $ 63.25 • 64 7' $11.50 $ 80.50 Carry forward — r $1696.25 Carry forward $3340.75 M-.'H, Depth Rate . Cost M.H. Depth Eate Cost •brought forward 65 8^ * $11,50 - $3340,75 $ 97,75 •brought forward-™--87 94' $11,50 - $568I~.O0 $109.25 66 10s $11,50 $115,00 88 •'s $11,50 $109,25 6? 9« $11.50 $103,50 89 II' $11.50 $126.50 68 II' $11,50 $126.50 90 9|' $11.50 $109,25 69 I2» $11,50 $138.00 91 54' $11,50 $ 63.25 70 I4|' $11.50 $166.75 92 6' $11.50 $ 69,00 71 10-1-' $11.50 $120.75 93 74' $11.50 $ 86.25 72 9' $11.50 $103.50 94 74' $11.50 $ 86.25 73 7» $11.50 $ 80,50 95:;, 8» $11.50 $ 92,00 74 9» $11,50 $103.50 96 74' $11.50 $ 86.25 75 8» $11.50 $ 92.00 97 10' $11.50 $115,00 76 9« $11.50 $103,50 98 9« $11.50 $103,50 77 6« $11.50 $ 69*00 99 . 18' $13.00 $234.00 78 8-|-« $11,50 $ 97,75 101 54' $11.50 . $ 63.25 79 I0-|» $11.50 $120.75 102 94' $11.50 $109,25 80 10' $11.50 $115.00 103 10' $11.50 $115.00 81 I0« $11.50 $115.00 104 12' $11,50 $138.00 82 8' , $11.50 $ 92,00 105 10' $11.50 $115.00 83 $4' $11.50 $109,25 106 94' $11,60 $109,25 84 8' $11.50 $ 92,00 107 16' $13.00 $208.00 85 7^' $11.50 $ 86,25 109 13' $11.50 $149.50 86 8' $11.50 $ 92,00 n o 14' $11,50 $161.00 Carry f orv/ard Carry forward $8239.00 M.H. Depth Rate Cost Ramp Cost Drought III forward — — — 13' $11.50 - $8239.00 $149.50 "brought forward •— Ramp at M.H. #.:24 —$10458,go $ 14.00 112. I3fc» $11.50 $155.25 Ramp at M.H. #70 $ 5.00 113 15' $11,50 $172.50 Ramp at M.H. #' 99 $ 60.00 115 8' $11,50 $ 92.00 Ramp at M.H. #104 $ 10,00 116 II s $11,50 $126.50 Ramp at M.H. #107 $ 50-00 117 I0« $11,50 $115.00 Ramp at M.H. #113 $ 90,00 118 $11.50 $109,25 Ramp at H.H. #119 $ 2-1.00 119 15' $11,50 $172,50 Ramp at MJEL. #125 $ 20,00 • 123 124 7|' 9« $11.50 $11.50 $ 86.25 $103.50 ;- TOTAL -—--„___„^ __ $10728.-50 125 15' $11.50 $172,50 129 74' $11.50 $ 86.25 ISO 10' $11.60 $115,00 131 10' $11,50 $115,00 132 94' $11,50 $109,25 133 II' $11.50 $126.50 134 10' $11,50 $115,00 135 84' $11,50 $ 97,75 Carry forward $10458.50 • TABLE ,7. COST OF CATCH BARTER Street Number of C.B18 Hate Cost Mc G i l l Street IE $60.00 $720.00 Eton ti 16 $60.00 $960.00 Cambridge f! 16 $60,00 $960.00 Oxford n 16 $60,00 $960,00 Dundas ti 16 $60,00 $960.00 Triumph H 16 $60,00 $960.00 Pandora tt 15 $60.00 $900.00 Albert If 10 $60,00 $600.00 Hastings ft 8 $60.00 $480.00 Pender tl ' 8 $60,00 $480.00 Keefer tt 4 $60.00 $240.00 Georgia tt • • 5 . . $60.00 $300.00 TOTAL -~$ 8520.00 TABLE 8_ ESTIMATED COST OF SCHEME 'C Sewers — .$,126,994.02 Manholes — ~ $ 10,728.50 Catch Basins — — •- $ 8,520.00 Clearing •»——— • , $ 2,000.00 Tools, Public L i a b i l i t y , $ 4,200.00 & Workman's Compensation Contingencies ——•-- $ 15,557.48 Engineering — — — — — $ 7*500,00 Interest on temporary l o a n s — — $ 5,000.00 Discounts, costs, etc. $ 9,500.00 TOTAL ----•• • - — $190,000,00 ASSESSMENT DETAILS Cost Sinking fund Interest Total Frontage Bate 4^ % 5 '% ' Corporation $ 43265.00 $ 761.41 $2163.25 $2924.66 Owners directly $131245.00 $2340.11 $6562,25 $8902.36 41508* $0,21477 benefited Owners indirectly $15490.00 $ 276.18 $ 774.50 $1050.68 65750 $0.01598 benefited .. TABLE 9 SCHEME 'A' - REJECTED BY COUNCIL ESTIMATE OF COST Sewers — — $ 2218000o00 Manholes — • • $ 16,500,00 Catch "basins • • — $ I2,500o00 Clearing — — - $ 2,000.00 Tools, Public Li a b i l i t y Insurance - $ 7,000.00 Workman's Compensation Contingencies .—— • •— $ 260000.00 Engineering — « ~ - — — - - $ I3„QGQe0Q Interest on temporary loans • — — - — $ 8,000.00 Discounts, costs, etc. $ 16,000.00 TOTAL ~ — — —--' — — $ 322,000.00 SCHEME 8B' ~ REJECTED BY COUNCIL Sewers — -~ $ 172^000^00 Manholes --—— .—._.-.._..___„ $ 12,000.00 Catch basins — — — ~ $ 9,500.00 Clearing — - - t — $ 2,000.00 Tools, Public L i a b i l i t y Insurance - $ 5,500.00 & Workman's Compensation Contingencies • — — •—. $ 20,000o00 Engineering — — — • — — $ I09000o00 Interest on temporary loans :—--- $ 6,000.00 Discounts, costs, etc. $ 15.000.00 TOTAL - — — — • $ 250,000.00 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0105508/manifest

Comment

Related Items