Changes

<small>'''Note:''' Click on each image to enlarge to view associated life cycle cost estimate.</small><br>

<small>'''Note:''' Click on each image to enlarge to view associated life cycle cost estimate.</small><br>

==Design Summary & Total Cost==

==Cost Summary Tables==

As previously discussed total cost summaries for the three [[Bioretention]] configurations vary greatly dependent on whether you want you feature to possess full infiltration, no infiltration, or partial infiltration. In short, the most expensive of these options is the [[Bioretention: Partial infiltration]] option ($113,800.83 vs. $109,113.76 - no infiltration and $80,392.33 - full infiltration). The same can be said for construction + associated retrofit costs with each configuration design ($132,008.97 vs. $126,571.96 - no infiltration and $93,255.10 - full infiltration) This configuration allows for the greatest storage volume (187.5 m³) compared to its counterparts at 145³ for no infiltration and 107.5³ for full infiltration; all while having the exact same surface area footprint of 250m². As reminder, it is important to understand your site's surrounding native soil infiltration rate to ensure you are selecting the appropriate design.<br>

As previously discussed total cost summaries for the three [[Bioretention]] configurations vary greatly dependent on whether you want you feature to possess full infiltration, no infiltration, or partial infiltration. In short, the most expensive of these options is the [[Bioretention: Partial infiltration]] option ($113,800.83 vs. $109,113.76 - no infiltration and $80,392.33 - full infiltration).<br>

A final note regarding the accuracy of the LCCT. A follow up sensitivity analysis study was conducted by CVC & STEP back in 2019 to test the tool's accuracy. The analysis took designs from 6 completed projects (4 [[bioretention]], 1 [[permeable pavement]], and 1 [[infiltration trench]]), and ran them through the tool comparing construction costing results from the LCCT to actual construction costs for the projects. The accuracy target set for the tool was plus-or-minus 30% of actual construction costs.<br>

A sensitivity analysis was conducted in 2019 to compare construction cost estimates generated by the tool to actual costs of implemented projects. '''The analysis found that tool estimates were typically within ±14% of actual construction costs'''<ref>Credit Vally Conservation (CVC). 2019. Life-cycle costing tool 2019 update: sensitivity analysis. Credit Valley Conservation, Mississauga, Ontario. https://sustainabletechnologies.ca/app/uploads/2020/04/LCCT-Sensitivity-Analysis_March2020.pdf</ref>

 

'''The analysis found that the tool was on average (±14%) to actual construction costs'''<ref>Credit Vally Conservation (CVC). 2019. Life-cycle costing tool 2019 update: sensitivity analysis. Credit Valley Conservation, Mississauga, Ontario. https://sustainabletechnologies.ca/app/uploads/2020/04/LCCT-Sensitivity-Analysis_March2020.pdf</ref>

===Full Infiltration===

===Full Infiltration===