Changes

You can find practice-specific life cycle cost estimates for each LID BMP type listed below. Each page provides a brief overview of the design assumptions and summarizes net present value estimates of construction, and life cycle operation and maintenance costs over 25 and 50 year timeframes, in Canadian dollars.

You can find practice-specific life cycle cost estimates for each LID BMP type listed below. Each page provides a brief overview of the design assumptions and summarizes net present value estimates of construction, and life cycle operation and maintenance costs over 25 and 50 year timeframes, in Canadian dollars.

To read more about the specific design and operation and maintenance assumptions for each estimate, please see below:

To read more about the specific design, operation and maintenance assumptions for each estimate, please see below:

*[[LID LCCT: Bioretention]]

*[[Bioretention: Life Cycle Costs]]

*[[LID LCCT: Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavers]]

*[[Permeable pavements: Life Cycle Costs]]

*[[LID LCCT: Porous Asphalt]]

*[[Porous Asphalt: Life Cycle Costs]]

*[[LID LCCT: Infiltration Trench]]

*[[Infiltration Trench: Life Cycle Costs]]

*[[LID LCCT: Infiltration Chamber]]

*[[Infiltration Chamber: Life Cycle Costs]]

*[[LID LCCT: Enhanced Swales]]

*[[Enhanced Swales: Life Cycle Costs]]

*[[LID LCCT: Rainwater Harvesting Cistern]]

*[[Rainwater Harvesting Cistern: Life Cycle Costs]]

*[[Green Roof: Life Cycle Costs]]

<small>'''Note''': All practice cost estimates are based on a Contributing Drainage Area (CDA) of 2000 m², runoff retention or treatment depth of 25 mm, and a drainage period of 72 hours. For infiltration practices, native soil infiltration rates for Full, Partial and No Infiltration Design scenarios were assumed to be 20 mm/h, 10 mm/h and 2 mm/h, respectively, and a safety factor of 2.5 was applied to calculate the design infiltration rate. Construction cost estimates assume the practice is built as part of an overall greenfield site construction project so do not include equipment mobilization/demobilization costs, nor additional costs associated with retrofit/redevelopment scenarios.  Operation and maintenance (O&M) cost estimates assume annual inspections, removal of trash and debris twice a year, removal of sediment from pretreatment structures annually, and removal of weeds twice a year (where applicable). Verification inspections are included every 5 years to confirm adequate maintenance, and every 15 years to confirm adequate drainage performance through in-situ surface infiltration rate testing (where applicable).</small>

<small>'''Note''': All practice cost estimates are based on a Contributing Drainage Area (CDA) of 2000 m², runoff control target of 25 mm depth (retention or treatment), and a drainage period of 72 hours. For infiltration practices, native soil infiltration rates for Full, Partial and No Infiltration Design scenarios were assumed to be 20 mm/h, 10 mm/h and 2 mm/h, respectively, and a safety factor of 2.5 was applied to calculate the design infiltration rate. Construction cost estimates assume the practice is built as part of an overall greenfield site construction project so do not include land value, equipment mobilization/demobilization costs, nor additional costs associated with retrofit/redevelopment scenarios.  Operation and maintenance (O&M) cost estimates assume annual inspections, removal of trash and debris twice a year, removal of sediment from pretreatment structures annually, and removal of weeds twice a year (where applicable). Verification inspections are included every 5 years to confirm adequate maintenance, and every 15 years to confirm adequate drainage performance through in-situ surface infiltration rate testing (where applicable).</small>

==Comparison of Life Cycle Costs by BMP Type==

==Comparison of Life Cycle Costs by BMP Type==

The following bar charts compare construction and life cycle cost estimates by LID BMP type for three main design scenarios: Full Infiltration Design; Partial Infiltration Design; and No Infiltration Design.  Design and O&M assumptions for each BMP type and design scenario are as indicated in the above note.  All cost estimates generated by the LCCT have been divided by 2000 m² to produce values in Canadian dollars per square metre (CAD$/m²) of Contributing Drainage Area.  Cost estimates for a 2000 m² asphalt parking lot serviced by two catch basins and an oil and grit separator (OGS) are also provided for comparison.  

The following bar charts compare construction and life cycle cost estimates by LID BMP type for three main design scenarios: Full Infiltration Design; Partial Infiltration Design; and No Infiltration Design.  Design and O&M assumptions for each BMP type and scenario are as indicated in the above note.  All cost estimates generated by the LCCT have been divided by 2000 m² to produce values in Canadian dollars per square metre (CAD$/m²) of Contributing Drainage Area.  Cost estimates for a 2000 m² asphalt parking lot serviced by two catch basins and an oil and grit separator (OGS) are also provided for comparison.  

Construction Cost Comparisons:

===Construction Cost Comparisons:===

Life Cycle Cost Comparisons:

*[Life Cycle Costs Per Unit Drainage Area (CAD$/m²) - Full Infiltration Design, 25 mm Retention]

 

*[Life Cycle Costs Per Unit Drainage Area (CAD$/m²) - Partial Infiltration Design, 25 mm Retention]

*[Life Cycle Costs Per Unit Drainage Area (CAD$/m²) - No Infiltration Design, 25 mm Treatment]

 

 

 

===Life Cycle Cost Comparisons:===

 

[[File:LCCT 25mm Retention Full.png|thumb|right|400px|'''Life Cycle Costs Per Unit Drainage Area (CAD$/m²) - Full Infiltration Design, 25 mm Retention''']]

 

[[File:LCCT 25mm Retention Partial infiltration.png|thumb|left|400px|'''Life Cycle Costs Per Unit Drainage Area (CAD$/m²) - Partial Infiltration Design, 25 mm Retention''']]

 

[[File:LCCT 25mm Retention No infiltration.png|thumb|center|400px|'''Life Cycle Costs Per Unit Drainage Area (CAD$/m²) - No Infiltration Design, 25 mm Treatment''']]<br>

 

==References==

==References==