Laserfiche WebLink
DQ <br /> entiai fiat kind of land value might be <br /> a typical utility, consider the utility <br /> tFii;tue 5. Its depth is 2.0 m and its <br /> in. Other utilities will not be <br /> to be placed above this utility or <br /> I i neither side of the utility. The <br /> rld .jection of the space occupied is thus <br /> end y:m wide. If a easement value (for <br /> 'depth) of 30 percent is applied to the 2m <br /> Of the land adjacent to the street (say <br /> . per m2) then the cost of the easement <br /> 1110.00 .., <br /> thteal meter of utility would be $36.00. y <br /> ch compares to a 1-994 estimated-construction 3 OT•M <br /> 00iifor a 0.6 m utility ata 2 m depth of around <br /> S9O.00 per lineal meter (i.e, the easement value <br /> MOlid represent about 40% of the direct € <br /> c0nstruction cost). <br /> Figure 5 Section of Buried Utility <br /> It is clear from attempting to do simple <br /> '`''" calculations such as this for the value of the <br /> ice occupied that the procedures of multiplying the value of the surface land by a percentage based <br /> oa the depth of the construction do not properly take into account the differences among the space <br /> efficiencies of various utility layout approaches. In the example given, the value of the easement <br /> would be the same whether the utility allowed another utility to be placed above its service or not. <br /> A more useful measure of the value of the space taken would be one based on volume usurped as <br /> modified by factors such as depth, impact on current and future uses of the surface, geological <br /> conditions, etc. A simple equation for the decrease in value with depth (as suggested in Funes 1988) <br /> can be integrated over depth to provide a value for the volume taken but this requires first an <br /> estimate of the value if all of the underground space were taken beneath a certain surface area but <br /> leaving the surface intact. <br /> • <br /> 15 <br /> k y t <br /> •d <br /> rJ <br />