The Roanoke times. [volume] (Roanoke, Va.) 1890-1895, 1891-11-15
Mr.. w. w. Coe, Member Sewer Cor

Mr.. w. w. Coe, Member Sewer Com
mittee, Roanoke, Va.
DEAR SIR: In answer to your request
/ have examined the estimate of City
Engineer Dunlap, dated June 18th,
1901. pom the sewer system proposed
by him.
| find the cost of Il number of items
to he placed, in my estimation, consid-
erably too low and have placed question
marks after them. l think the item,
ITO build nine-foot sewer down lower
Lick run and run ten-inch drain pipes
along side of same" is estimated OK
tremelY too low. l would place the
cost of this work as follows:
$500 ineal feet of ninc-foot brick sewer
Excava,ing to allow for the passage of '@''~'
water during the constructson of nine
foot sewer, space To be occupied finally
by tcn-inch drains. OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES. II 500
Two tcn-inch drain pipes $4,000 feet in
length G0c... ................... 1900
Total cost of improvement on lower Lick
In place Of $4,000 Mr. Dunian est
mates $50, 600 for this work.
In this connection l will state that
there will be many questions of emer-
gency in connection with this work, as
it will not be simple matter to build
nine foot egg-shaped sewer down Lick
run in irstclass manner and take care
of the large amount of water which con-
stantly flows in the creek. | do not see
how it would be possible to allow for
this without the extra excavation
mentioned in my estimate.
think all tho brick sewer work in
this estimate Of Mr.. Dunlap is placed
too low to the extent Of the cost of the
excavation at least. There should be
o1I a1
estimate in round numbers
For the proposed work along Lick Run 5 | 900
For brick sewers ndercstimatcd and for
cost OF excavation omitted. ............. 5000
$4,000
However, even after these lain sew
ers are built, they will not be sufficient
in area to take care of water reaching
them and the expenditure of the large
amount of money on Lick run would be
simply money wasted. The sewer along
Lick run as proposed by Mr.. Dunlap is
certainly too small in area for tho
amount of work it will be called upon to
do by at least 80 square feet, while that
of upper Lick run is too small by about
25 square feet. In other words the
whole estimate is gotten up on basis
which will prove wholly inadequa to for
the needs of the city of Roanoke. You
recollect. l stated before the sewer COM
mlttee few days ago, that Mr.. Her
ing, in the original consideration of
the sewer system of the town of
Roanoke, dated i'll 1882, considered it
impracticable to put an arch sewer
along Lower Lick run on the ground
that it would require asewer at least 12
feet in diameter. The growth of Roam
oke has been so great since 1882 that ne
now thinks it necessary to have main
sewer down this run of 100 square feet
section, in addition to an interceptor.
am very sure that he is quite right in
this requirement.
If, therefore, the main nine foot
sewer. as proposed by Mr.. Dunlap,
should be built now at an expense of
S97, 900, in few years the whole work
would have to be abandoned, or paral-
lei sewer would have to be built in order
to take care of the water-quite an i'm
practicable method of procedure II,
on the other side, Mr.. Dunlap should
maintain that all the drainage should
be taken down Lick run, the width of
the main sewer required would have to
be from 25 feet to % feet, and the cost
of building and covering such q sewer
would exceed that of the impracticable
one proposed by Mr.. Dunlap by an
amount abous equal to thG cost of the
interceptor proposed by Mr.. Herring,
and while such q main sewer, % feet or
20 feet in width. might take care OF all
the water that would come into it, still
one OF the main sections of the city,
which should be cared for, would not
be benefited in any way, viz: the Sec
ton from Jefferson street to Commerce
street.
The Same trouble would exist there
under such plan as exists there at
present; whereas. il the interceptor pro.
posed by Mr.. Herring be built, the very