SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
-------
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX
Construction Cost Trends
Municipal Waste Treatment Works
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION,
AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control
Washington, D.C. 20201
-------
Public Health Service Publication No. 1069
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, Washington, D.C.—1963
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword v
Introduction 1
Background 2
Need for Index 3
Assumptions and Base Data for Index. _ 5
Development of the Cost Index 8
Computation of National Index _ _ 12
Computation of Individual City Index 13
Discussions 14
Conclusions 15
References 16
APPENDICES
A. Map of 20 Index Cities and Their Assigned Areas of PaBe
Influence 18
B. Design Data for a 1.0-MGD High Rate Trickling Filter
Plant 19
C. Material and Labor Cost Analysis of the Construction Cate-
gories for a 1.0-MGD High Rate Trickling Filter Plant
at Kansas City, Mo., August 1, 1962 (table) 22
D. Sewage Treatment Plant Process Equipment—Manufac-
turers' Composite Experience Curve and PHS Process
Equipment Index Curve (figure) 25
E. Table of Total Plant and Category Costs for 20 Index
Cities.. 26
F. Cost Curves for the Eight Construction Categories and
Total Construction of PHS Model Plant, Kansas City,
Mo., 1962 28
G. Municipal Waste Treatment Plant Cost Indexes 1930-62
(charts and table) 30
iii
-------
FOREWORD
Construction costs have risen steadily since the mid-1930's. The
rate of increase varies between the different construction elements such
as labor, materials and equipment, and between the different types of
construction.
Contract award data have proven useful for evaluating progress in
waste treatment works construction and in estimating future construc-
tion requirements. During a period of rising costs, however, such data
need to be adjusted to a standard base to assure comparability. This
can be done through use of an appropriate construction cost index.
Unfortunately, existing construction cost indexes were designed for
types of construction other than waste treatment works or are too gen-
eral in nature for this purpose.
After a preliminary investigation of earlier work, the design of a
construction cost index for municipal waste treatment plants was
undertaken nearly 2 years ago by the Construction Grants Branch,
Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control. Personnel of the
Construction Statistics Division, Bureau of the Census, and of the De-
partment of Civil Engineering, Northwestern University, were very
helpful in the initial stages of this work. The treatment plant con-
struction cost index, now complete, is presented in this report. A com-
panion cost index for sewer construction is currently under develop-
ment.
This work was produced by Prof. Raymond M. Jones of Howard
University under the supervision of Mr. Peter P. Rowan, Chief,
Evaluation Section, Construction Grants Branch, Division of Water
Supply and Pollution Control, Public Health Service. Engineering
consultation was provided by Mr. Paul D. Haney, Black & Veatch,
Consulting Engineers, Kansas City, Mo., and computer programing
by Mr. William H. Mills, Jr., of the Basic Data Branch, Division of
Water Supply and Pollution Control, Public Health Service.
DAVID H. HOWELLS, Chief,
Construction Grants Branch,
Division of Water Supply and
Pollution Control.
-------
INTRODUCTION
Grants-in-aid for municipal waste treatment works construction
authorized under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in 1956,
have been accompanied by a steady increase in the dollar volume of
construction contracts awarded for these facilities. An accurate as-
sessment of the increased construction activity and estimate of future
construction needs require a thorough understanding of the changing
purchasing power of the local and Federal funds invested in waste
treatment works construction. One approach was to consider cost in-
dexes already available. An examination of existing construction cost
indexes, however, disclosed no apparent applicability to waste treat-
ment works construction and it became evident that indexes designed
specifically for sewage treatment plants and sewers were needed.
Subsequently a sewage treatment plant construction cost index was de-
veloped and is the subject of this report, the latter portion of which
discusses the several cost indexes examined.
A price or cost index number is the ratio of the sum of the prices or
costs of a product or service in a given period divided by the sum of
the prices or costs for similar products or services for a base period (1).
A price index differs from a cost index in that a price index is in-
fluenced by the prices of factors, whereas a cost index is influenced b;
prices and quantities of factors entering the "standard product" at
two different periods. More specifically, a
Construction p
Index
where
PI, P2, P3 + ' * ' PI, are prices of the factors making up a "standard
product" of construction, "a" is any given construction period, and
"b" is the base period of construction; and a
Index .b
(2)
where
Pi,P2, P3 + ' • ' Pn, and "a" and "b" are the same as in equation (1) and
Qi» Qa» Qs + ' * ' Qn are the quantities of the factors making up a
"standard product" of construction.
-------
The "standard product" of construction in this development is a
sewage treatment plant of fixed design and specifications, combined
in proper proportion to represent the series evaluated. The factors
entering are: skilled and common labor, construction materials, proc-
ess equipment, construction equipment, and overhead and profit,
A cost index may either be a "floating base" type or a "fixed base"
type (#). The "floating base" refers to a quantity variable; i.e., the
quantity (Q) factors may vary from period to period with the price
(P) factors either increasing or decreasing due to internal or external
causes. The "fixed base" index has constant quantity factors; i.e.,
there is no change in the quantity (Q) factors from period to period
and consequently the cost may vary due to external causes only.
Indexes of each base type are common.
This report deals with the development of a fixed base, weighted,
cost index, which is believed to be a substantially accurate indication
of the purchasing power of funds invested in sewage treatment plant
construction. There is no better means of measuring the relative
purchasing power of money than is offered by a comparison of the
changing prices of the commodities with which an industry deals in
the units on which business transactions are based.
BACKGROUND
In its broad and generic meaning, an index number is an average of
relatives or variations. If the variations measured are those of com-
modity prices, an index of prices is obtained; index numbers of wages,
interest rates, profits, production, and a large number of other meas-
urable phenomena also have been computed. Each of the applications
of index numbers may be subject to peculiarities of its own; and, in
every case, the average is drawn for the specific purpose for which it
can appropriately be used.
Index numbers were first used to measure the rise or fall of prices,
i.e., the inverse movement of the general exchange value of money;
and the term itself was coined in this connection. In 1838 Porter
used the term "index prices," and in 1869 the London Economist
(#) called the sum of the relatives of 22 prices, which it compiled,
the "total index number." The term "index number" quickly came
into common usage to denote the prices of individual commodities
averaged at each period, their total sum, or an average of them—this
last meaning being the most popular.
-------
A price index number, whether it relates to all prices, or merely
to those of a single commodity group, is a series of averages for price
distribution at successive dates. As such, it measures only the change
in the general tendency of the distribution. It fails to reveal the
changes in their internal structure and conceals changes which may
reflect on the reliability of the index number as a representative value.
Only within the last several decades has attention been centered on
these aspects of changing prices. Previously, the complex variations
in the internal price structure, which are of vast economic significance,
were apt to be regarded merely as troublesome obstacles to the calcula-
tion of reliable averages.
History reveals that price indexes fail to reflect the changes in
internal structure, such as technological advances, progressive im-
provements in business organizations, and changes in the prices of the
various elements of production, all of which may result in increasing
output being accompanied by decreasing money costs.
Economically, "cost" means the surrender or destruction of value,
or the performance, of some irksome activity as a means of production
of commodities or the acquisition of income. The classical school
gives three rival explanations of cost; namely, (1) psychological or
pain costs, (2) labor costs, and (3) money costs, or, expenses of pro-
duction (3). Construction cost encompasses all these philosophies
and includes materials, machines, men, and money. More specifically,
construction cost is equal to the sum of the cost of:
(1) Materials =concrete, lumber, iron, steel, etc., used in
construction;
(2) Machines = process equipment and contractor's equipment
used in construction;
(3) Men = skilled and common (heavy construction)
labor employed during construction; and
(4) Money = overhead charged and profit earned during
construction,
or,
* Construction cost—M1+M2-fM3+M4 (3)
NEED FOR INDEX
A review of the several general-purpose construction cost indexes,
such as those of the American Appraisal Co., Associated General Con-
tractors, E. H. Boeckh & Associates, Marshall & Stevens, and Engi-
neering News-Record (ENR), disclosed no adequate basis for assum-
ing that any of these accurately measure the changing cost of waste
treatment plant construction due to weight and/or price bias. From
a practical standpoint, though, an index such as the ENR Construction
704-8780—68 3 3
-------
Cost Index (4) possesses certain advantages. It is well known, simple,
and fairly well understood—having been used for some time in the
construction industry (calculated back to the year 1903). This index
was established in 1921 to diagnose and track the wild fluctuations in
prices after World "War I. The quantity factors are:
(1) 200 hours of common labor (including fringe benefits),
(2) 25 CWT of structural steel,
(3) 1.088 Mbf of 2 by 4's S4S lumber,
(4) 6 barrels of cement.
This gives a rudimentary idea of the cost of building materials used
in general heavy construction as well as the cost of common labor. In
addition, the ENR Construction Index is published monthly over a
fairly broad base, using data from 20 selected cities. The disad-
vantages possessed by this index with respect to sewage treatment
plant construction are:
(1) It does not include the most important commodities used
('process equipment and skilled labor) in this type of con-
struction—a quantity bias.
(2) It does not represent materials cost-in-place or even on the
job, which could differ substantially from the wholesale
prices of these same materials—a price 'bias.
(3) It uses a weighting that is not representative of modern de-
sign and construction practices—a weight bias.
The development of a satisfactory index requires the elimination
of all or as many as possible of the disadvantages inherent in existing
indexes; namely, the quantity, weight, and price biases. A new index
must also be comparable throughout the required period in which
comparisons are to be made. Continuity for former periods can only
be maintained by calculating backward in time and there are many
reasons why this is sometimes not possible. The labor rates involved
constitute an important reason, especially where the series is long or
where there have been several changes in the components of the index.
In addition, the original data used in computations years ago may not
be readily available, requiring time and resources to assemble. Some-
times such data are not available.
There are two possibilities which might be investigated for the elim-
ination or reduction of the biases inherent in available indexes. The
first would necessitate the use of part of the various general construc-
tion index data (5, 6, 7, 8) and/or primary data from other sources,
e.g., Department of Commerce Reports, Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) Reports, and business and government magazines or journals,
to construct, by estimating quantity and weight parameters, an index
number for sewage treatment plant construction. This alternative
would require that the quantities and weights be estimated and there
4
-------
is considerable uncertainty as to the accuracy Avith which this could be
done.
The second alternative, the one developed herein, is the construction
of an econometric model from real prices and quantities for a statisti-
cally representative sewage treatment plant utilizing published price
data that are available for the period investigated. Theoretically,
this is the best method to pursue, for the index does reflect the true
quantities it represents. Furthermore, this index lias the obvious ad-
vantage of being its own test for the base period. Having a fixed base,
surveys could be made from time to time to see if the base still reflects
sewage treatment plant construction practice. This method will pro-
vide a good measuring stick to study the trends and magnitude of
sewage treatment plant construction in constant dollar values.
ASSUMPTIONS AND BASE DATA FOR INDEX
In the development of this construction cost index for sewage treat-
ment plants, designed as a fixed base, weighted index, certain assump-
tions were made:
1. The hourly output of labor remains constant in spite of
changing wage rates. That is, when the wage rates rise (or fall)
because labor supply lags behind (or exceeds) demand, the hourly
output of labor is assumed to remain constant.
2. The quantities and kinds of materials used will remain con-
stant and available during the periods under study.
3. Modern treatment plant construction techniques date back to
the year 1930.
"Within the limitations of these assumptions, the index may be used
for (a) estimating construction and equipment costs at various dates;
(&) checking present costs with costs for similar work during pre-
vious years; (c) verifying other cost data; and (d) forecasting future
cost trends.
Weighting
This index does not reflect the cost of land; engineering, legal, and
fiscal services; and errors, omissions, and changes subsequent to con-
-------
tract award. It does include the following "indicators" that are
common to sewage treatment works: (a) cost of materials, (b) cost
of process equipment, (c) construction labor cost, (d) contractor's
plant costs (contractor's equipment), and (e) overhead and profit.
Process equipment is peculiar to sewage treatment works.
Base Period
In order to provide a comparable base to other Federal indexes, the
ftf>-month period January 1, 1957, through December 31, 19f>9, was
selected as a base for this index. This time period conforms to the
postwar base period for Federal Index numbers as defined by the
Bureau of the Budget.
Geographical Locations
Prices of materials and services vary considerably throughout the
country. An index based on average prices and costs (countrywide)
would not necessarily be acceptable for local or regional use. Conse-
quently, regional indexes are necessary for each of the country's major
commercial marketing areas for which price data are available.
These areas, separated on a county line basis, represent areas of influ-
ence for each of the following 20 trade centers:
Atlanta, Ga. Kansas City, Mo.
Baltimore, Md. Los Angeles, Calif.
Birmingham, Ala. Minneapolis, Minn.
Boston, Mass. New Orleans, La.
Chicago, 111. New York, N.Y.
Cincinnati, Ohio Philadelphia, Pa.
Cleveland, Ohio Pittsburgh, Pa.
Dallas, Tex. St Louis, Mo.
Denver, Colo. San Francisco, Calif.
Detroit, Mich. Seattle, Wash.
These trade centers are those for which Engineering News-Record
publishes monthly price data. The National Index is based on the
sum of the cost of identical plants built in each of the 20 city areas.
A map showing the 20 cities and their assigned areas of influence is
to be found in appendix A (9).
Design Characteristics of Model Plant
An analysis of contract awards for sewage treatment plants, assisted
under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act during the period
1956 through 1962, revealed an average hydraulic capacity of 1.34
-------
million gallons daily (MGD), a design population of 12,000, and a
contract cost of $40 per capita (10,11}. The most frequent treatment
process was the high rate trickling filter. This information was to
provide the basis for the design of a hypothetical plant, but since
there is very little difference in the physical size of the structural
components or hydraulic requirements of a 1.34-MGD and a 1.0-MGD
high rate trickling filter plant, a 1.0-MGD plant was used as the
model for the cost index. Since various types of sewage treatment
plants are now being constructed, allowances were made to incorporate
unique units in the model plant in order that the index would be valid
for all types of municipal waste treatment works. The cost estimate
of this plant was predicated on idealized conditions, representing
minimal costs under circumstances prevailing in Kansas City, Mo.,
in August 1962. Design data and a layout of the plant are included
in appendix B. Design characteristics are as follows:
General. The plant was designed for a population of 10,000 people,
an average flow of 1.0 MGD, a maximum flow of 2.5 MGD, a biological
oxygen demand (BOD) of 200 mg/1, a recirculation ratio of 1% to 1,
and an overall BOD reduction of 92 percent.
The plant includes a comminutor, with a bar screen serving as a
bypass device, Parshall flume, preaeration tank with grit removal,
primary sedimentation tanks, a settled sewage pumping station with
provision for recirculation, high rate trickling filters, secondary sed-
imentation tank, chlorine contact tank, primary and secondary diges-
ters, and a sludge filter building which also contains an office and
laboratory. Sludge drying beds are provided as an auxiliary feature.
Facilities to allow for prechlorination and postchlorination are also
provided.
flow Through the Plant. The plant flow is divided into the follow-
ing segments:
(1) By gravity through the comminutor. Parshall flume, pre-
aeration tanks, and primary sedimentation tanks;
(2) By pumping from the wet well following the primary sedi-
mentation tanks to a distribution box for gravity application to
the trickling filters; and
(3) By gravity from the trickling filters to the secondary sedi-
mentation tank, recirculation structure, chlorine contact tank, and
to the outfall sewer.
Recirculation of Flow. Recirculation of plant flow is accomplished
by a pneumatically operated valve and piping system connecting the
recirculation structure with the wet well of the pumping station. The
operation of this valve is automatically controlled by the sewage level
in the pumping station wet well using an air bubbler system.
-------
Sludge collected in the primary sedimentation tanks is pumped to
the digester and sludge from the secondary sedimentation tank is
recirculated, by pumping, to the aerated grit chambers.
Bypass Connections. Provision for bypassing is provided as follows:
(1) Between the comminutor and the Parshall flume,
(2) From the wet well of the pumping station,
(3) Between the trickling filters and the secondary sedimenta-
tion tank, and
(4) From the recirculation structure.
Maintenance. Separate drains are provided in each of the basins to
allow for cleaning and maintenance. The piping and layout of the
aerated grit chambers and primary sedimentation tanks are arranged
so that any combination of these chambers and tanks can be removed
from service.
Other. Provision is made for doubling the capacity of the plant. All
utilities are available at the plant site.
DEVELOPMENT OF COST INDEX
Category Assignment
To develop the cost index it was necessary to consider the various
major categories of a construction job, in this instance the hypo-
thetical treatment plant. The construction categories were assigned
as follows:
A. Excavation and fill,
B. Reinforced concrete,
C. Miscellaneous iron and steel,
D. Pipe, valves, and fittings,
E. Process equipment, pumps, and motors,
F. Sand and rock for filter media and drying bed fill,
G. Buildings, and
H. Other items.
As discussed earlier, the costs of land; engineering; legal and
fiscal services; errors, omissions, and changes subsequent to contract
award are not included since the index is predicated on a contract cost
basis. For the purpose of estimating these excluded items, an allow-
ance of 20 percent of contract cost can be used.
8
-------
Basis for Unit Construction Cost. To obtain the unit construction
costs for the model plant, it was necessary to determine quantities of
material and labor required to build the plant. This was done by a
quantity analysis of materials and labor for the model plant, utilizing
prices and wages prevailing in the Kansas City area during August
1962, as locally reported.
I/nil Prices for Material and Labor. To provide for a continuing
pricing basis, the estimated material prices and labor wages ascer-
tained by the study of data from the Kansas City area were compared
with the corresponding prices and wages reported by Engineering
News-Record to be prevailing in Kansas City, Mo., during August
1962. Where differences were found, the ENR unit value prevailed
and the quantity of the unit was adjusted to produce the predeter-
mined dollar value for the component. This caused a slight modifi-
cation in design quantities. The modified design quantities were used
with the reported unit prices for each of the 20 cities included in
this report. Appendix C lists the various materials and labor that
comprise these components for each category of construction of the
model plant.
Process Equipment. Process equipment required a unique approach,
as an analysis of the literature, manufacturers' catalogs and brochures,
and discussions with consulting engineers disclosed no standardized
units of weights or measures as well as no continuing published pric-
ing data. Since it was found that the process equipment (category E)
amounts to approximately $156,000, or 34 percent of the total plant
construction cost, it became necessary to establish a common frame
of reference which could be priced on a continuing basis from regu-
larly reported unit prices.
Consultation with equipment manufacturers disclosed that process
equipment factory prices closely follow the production cost of the
following combination of materials with an equal allowance for
labor.
Percent
Steel and machine products , 90
Castings and forgings 10
The process equipment factory prices, however, are f.o.b. point of
manufacture and do not include freight, royalties, resale, and the
other after plant costs. The BLS (12) wholesale prices, which include
these after plant costs, were selected for use with this category as
follows:
Structural Steel Shapes—for steel and machine products,
and
Pig Iron, No. 2, Foundry—for casting and forgings.
-------
An index curve was developed using these materials in the pre-
viously defined ratio for the process equipment based on the BLS
wholesale prices. This curve was submitted to the manufacturers
for comparison and comment. In practically every instance, the
index curve was in close agreement with the manufacturers' experience.
This is demonstrated graphically in appendix D.
Construction Component Costs
The following fundamental components are normally used in cost
analyses of construction work: (a) material, (£>) labor, (c) con-
tractors plant costs, and (d) overhead and profit. Since material,
labor, and contractor's plant cost data were available for the model
plant, these components were used as a starting point in developing the
cost index. The fourth component, overhead and profit, was estimated
on a percent basis of the three preceding determinate values. The
allowance for overhead and profit was obtained by using approxi-
mately 15 percent of material costs, 15 percent of contractor's plant
costs, and 25 percent of the labor cost.
The table on page 11 shows the component costs for the eight con-
struction categories used in the development of the index.
The following assumptions and explanations refer to the categories
in the table.
1. It was assumed that the materials used for forms and shoring
for reinforced concrete could be used three times.
2. Category (F), Sand and Rock, includes only the filter media
of the trickling filters and the sand fill of the sludge drying beds.
3. Category (G), Buildings, includes the cost of concrete block,
brick, doors, and windows, etc., but does not include framing costs
which are included under iron and steel or reinforced concrete.
4. Category (H), Other Items, includes the costs of plumbing,
heating and ventilating, electrical and other items.
Category Division
A review of several studies (13,14,15,16,17,18, 19) made on the
construction cost of sewage treatment plants revealed that materials
are, indeed, the chief cost ranging from 48 to 74 percent for all types
of plants, and between 54 and 66 percent for trickling filter plants.
Labor ranged from a low of 20 percent to a high of 29 percent, and
the "other" (contractor's plant, overhead and profit, etc.) ranged from
a low of 16 percent to a high of 19 percent. The distribution of con-
struction cost for the hypothetical plant shown in the table is in close
agreement with these findings.
10
-------
Construction Categories, Components, Costs and Percent of Costs for a 1.0 High Rate Trickling Filter Plant (Kansas City, Mo.—August 1962)
Construction category
A. Excavation and Fill
B. Reinforced Concrete. _ - , ,
C- Miscellaneous Iron and SteeL
D. Pipes, Valves, and Fittings. _
E. Process Equipment, Pumps
and Motors.
F. Sand and Rock
G. Buildings _ __ _ _
H. Other Item? -
T. Total Plant ___
Material cost
Dollar value
$7, 370. 99
49, 295. 33
6, 542. 64
26, 241. 57
118, 659. 63
9, 259. 18
6, 167. 23
28, 241. 31
251, 777. 88
Percent of
category
17.01
43.91
51. 13
56.51
75.92
52.62
43.40
47.76
54.49
Labor cost
Dollar value
$11, 184. 44
41, 837. 98
3, 993. 05
13, 244. 17
14, 409. 93
4, 631. 26
6, 533. 50
21, 221. 74
117,055.97
Percent of
category
25.82
37.27
31.20
28.52
9.22
26.32
45.98
35.89
25.33
Contractor's plant
Dollar value
$18, 144. 91
3, 874. 41
249. 52
1, 030. 31
3, 766. 59
1, 002. 99
150. 61
lt 580. 75
29, 800. 09
Percent
of
category
41.88
3.45
1.95
2.22
2.41
5.70
1.06
2.67
6.45
Overhead and profit
Dollar value
$6, 615. 28
17, 287. 97
2, 010. 93
5, 922. 53
19, 453. 79
2, 702. 96
1, 359. 30
8, 085. 49
63, 440. 25
Percent
of
category
15.28
15.40
15. 71
12.75
12.44
15.36
9.57
13.67
13.73
Total category cost
Dollar value
$43, 315. 62
112, 259. 59
12, 796. 14
46, 438. 58
156, 289. 94
17, 596. 39
14, 208. 74
59, 129. 29
462, 034. 29
Percent
of
plant
9.376
24297
2.770
10. 051
33. 826
3.808
3.075
12. 797
100. 000
-------
Computation of Total Category Cost
Since material and labor unit prices are the only cost values his-
torically available in published form, it became necessary to express
contractor's plant, overhead, and profit as a fixed percent of the labor
and material cost. These percent values were determined from the
estimated costs for these items as reported for the model plant (table,
p. 11). This was done for each construction category in five steps as
follows:
For Category A—August 1962:
(1) Material plus labor cost=$18,555.43
=42.83 percent of total category cost
(2) Contractor's plant cost =$18,144.91
=41.88 percent of total category cost
(3) Material plus labor plus
contractor's plant cost = $36,700.34
=84.71 percent of total category cost
(4) Overhead and profit
cost =$6,615.28
=15.28 percent of total category cost
(5) Total category cost for
excavation and fill =$43,315.62
=100 percent of total category cost
Extending Unit Prices To Obtain Total Material and Labor Cost.
Unit prices were multiplied by the total quantity factors to deter-
mine the total quantity cost for each item. These total quantity costs
were then combined to yield total category costs for construction in
terms of material and labor. This is illustrated for each category in
appendix C for the Kansas City, Mo., area.
The combined labor and material cost for each category was then
increased by the appropriate percent values, allowing for contractor's
plant, and overhead and profit, to obtain the total category cost. This
procedure was followed for each of the 20 cities over the entire period
of this study, using unit prices prevailing in each location. The sum
of these total category costs for a given time determines the total
plant construction cost for that period.
COMPUTATION OF NATIONAL INDEX
The first step in computing the national index was to determine
the average plant cost for each of the 20 cities over the base period
from January 1957 through December 1959. The sum of these 20
average values is the base for the index and equals 100.
12
-------
The national index for any period is the ratio of the sum of the 20
cities' plant costs for that period, to the sum of 20 cities' average
plant costs for the base period, multiplied by 100.
For example, the national index for August 1962 was calculated
as follows:
Sum of the 20 cities' plant costs for August 1962=$9,552,556.78
Sum of the 20 cities' average plant costs for base=$8,928,457.60
period
National index=$9,552,556.78,
$8,028,457.60
X100 = 106.99
COMPUTATION OF INDIVIDUAL CITY INDEX
The plant index was determined for each city by substituting indi-
vidual city total plant cost in the index formula. The base period
plant cost is the sum of the average plant costs for the base period
divided by 20. The ratio of the particular city's plant cost to the base
period cost yields the city index. For August 1962 :
Base period average plant cost =$446,422.88
Kansas City plant cost =$462,034.29
Kansas City index = ' X 100 - 103.49
^ ip44t>,4ifii.oo
The various category costs and plant costs for the 20 cities for the
base period are included as appendix E. A graphic presentation of
these costs (and indexes) for the Kansas City, Mo., area are included
in appendix F.
Price data for each of the 20 cities for the month of August for the
years 1930 through 1962 were extracted from the ENR index and the
BLS wholesale prices. Where these sources did not cover the entire
range of time, interpolation was used based upon similarity of trades
or materials at the commencement of the series. This was done pri-
marily for labor values in the early 1930's. Electronic data proces-
sing equipment was used to calculate the individual city indexes and
the national index for each year.
Plant indexes for each of the 20 cities, and the national index from
1930 through 1962 for the month of August, -are tabulated in appen-
dix G. These indexes will be extended on a monthly basis from cur-
rent price data published by Engineering News-Record and the BLS
wholesale prices.
13
-------
DISCUSSIONS
Since waste treatment works have generally been considered to fol-
low the ENR Construction Cost Index, a comparison of this index
to the Public Health Service Sewage Treatment Plant (PHS-STP)
Construction Cost Index was undertaken.
In order to compare the indexes, both were converted to a base of
1930=100. The converted PHS-STP Index is included in appendix
G and is shown graphically in the following figure, along with the
converted ENR-C Index.
400
300
200
CONSTRUCTION COST INDEXES
1930*100
1930
1940
1950
I960
Only during 1930-40 did the two indexes follow a similar path.
Since 1940 there has been a widening divergence between the PHS-
STP Index and the ENR-C Index. Based on 1930= 100, these indexes
in 1962 were 430 for ENR-C and 310 for the PHS-STP Index.
A comparison of the last 6 years disclosed that the ENR-C Index
has increased at a rate almost twice as great as the PHS-STP Index.
This period of time coincides with the period of increased activity in
the municipal waste treatment works construction field.
Because the PHS-STP Index is based on information peculiar to
sewage treatment plant construction, its value for this specialized field
is believed to be much greater.
14
-------
In order to insure that the PHS-STP Index continues to reflect
current practice in the sewage treatment plant construction industry,
revaluation of the index base will be undertaken periodically at inter-
vals of not over 10 years. Alteration, revision, or modification of the
index may be required by changes in amount and/or kinds of materials,
new developments, or uses of process equipment. Changes in con-
struction methods and techniques will also be considered in each
revaluation.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Comparison of the PHS-STP Construction Cost Index with
the narrow-based, but widely accepted, ENR Construction Cost Index
disclosed that there were substantial differences.
(2) The PHS-STP Index is believed to be representative of cost
changes peculiar to municipal sewage treatment plant construction.
(3) The study shows that although sewage treatment plant con-
struction costs have increased steadily during the last 30 years, the
rate of increase has declined since 1956.
(4) This index may be used to evaluate past construction activity
and to estimate future sewage treatment plant construction cost re-
quirements for the 20 areas of influence in the United States as well
as for the Nation as a whole.
(5) As an indicator of sewage treatment plant cost trends and as
a service to the public, the PHS-STP Index will be extended on a
monthly basis, and reexamined periodically to account for changes in
fundamental assumptions.
15
-------
REFERENCES
1. Mudgett, B. D., "Index Numbers." John Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y.
(1951).
2. Anon., "Encyclopedia of Social Sciences." Vol. 7, p. 652, Macmillan Co.,
New York, N.Y. (1935).
3. Anon., "Encyclopedia of Social Sciences." Vol. 4, p. 467, Macmillan Co.,
New York, N.Y. (1935).
4. Anon., "ENR's 1956-57 Annual Report on Construction Cost.'' Engineering
News-Record, 159,16, 83 (Get. 17,1957).
5. Fick, H. H., "Coat Indexes for Water Works Property." Journal American
Water Works Assn., 45,779 (August 1953).
6. Fick, H. H., "Weber, Fick and Wilson Water Works Index." Engineering
News-Record, 168,12,87 (Mar. 22,1962).
7. Handy, W. W., "Public Utility Construction Cost Index Service." W. W.
Handy, Consulting Engineer, Baltimore, Md., Bull. No. 1 (1924).
8. Whitman, E. B., "Public Utility Construction Cost Indexes and Financial
and Operating Ratios." Whitman, Requardt & Smith, Consulting Engi-
neers, Baltimore, Md., Bull. No. 24 (1936).
9. Thoman, J. R., and Jenkins, K. H., "How To Estimate Sewage Plants
Quickly." Engineering News-Record, 161, 26, 64 (Dec. 25, 1958).
10. Rowan, P. P., Jenkins, K. H., and Butler, D. W., "Sewage Treatment Con-
struction Cost." Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 82, 6, 594
(June 1960).
11. Howells, D. H., and DuBois, D. P., "Design Practices and Costs for Small
Secondary Sewage Treatment Plants in the Upper Midwest." Sewage
and Industrial Wastes, SO, 11, 1327 (November 1958).
12. Anon., "Wholesale Price Index." Bull. No. 1168, Oha. 1 and 10, U.S. Dept.
of Labor, BLS, Washington, D.C. (1954).
13. Logan, J, A., "An Analysis of the Economics of Sewage Treatment.*' Un-
published report, Northwestern University Technological Institute (1962).
14, Anon., "Materials Chief Cost in Building New Sewage Works." Sewage and
Industrial Wastes, 23, 9,1123 (September 1951).
15. Anon., "Construction Studies of PWA Projects." Federal Works Agency,
Exhibits 33a, 34a, and 35a, Washington, D.C. (1943).
16. Picton, W. L., "Distribution of the Dollar Expenditure for Water and
Sewage Works—New Construction, 1952." Business Service Bulletin
No. 55, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Washington, D.C. (August 1954).
17. Picton, W. L., "Distribution of Water and Sewer Utilities Capital Ex-
penditures in 1958." Construction Review, 7, 2, 11 (February 1961).
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, BDSA, Washington, D.C.
18. Anon., "Relative Cost of Material and Labor—Construction of Water and
Sewage Systems." Monthly Labor Review, 40, 1, 145 (January 1935).
19. Dyer, H. B., "Relative Cost of Material and Labor—PWA Construction."
Monthly Labor Review, 41,1,117 (July 1935).
16
-------
Appendices
17
-------
APPENDIX A
The 20 Index Cities and Their Assigned Areas of Influence
18
-------
APPENDIX B
Design Data for a 1.0-MGD High Rate Trickling Filter Plant
DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
1. Comminutor and Par shall Flume
The comminutor structure and comminutor are sized for an average
flow of 1.0 MGD and a maximum flow of 2.5 MGD. The channel of
the comminutor structure is 1'3" wide. With the use of stop plates,
flow can be diverted either through the comminutor or a hand-cleaned
bar screen.
The Parshall flume has a 12" throat and is sized on the same
basis as the comminutor. This is the only metering device used in
the treatment plant.
2. Preaeralion Chamber
The preaeration chamber includes two rectangular units with a
combined detention time of 45 minutes based on a flow of 1.0 MGD.
The inside dimensions of each chamber are 8'0" wide, 26'0" long,
and a water depth of ll'O".
Aeration is provided by blowers forcing air through diffusers.
Each blower is sized to deliver 70 cfm of free air. This amount of air
allows for 0.1 cubic foot per gallon of sewage based on a flow of 1.0
MGD. These blowers are sized so that one unit shall act as a standby.
Mechanical grit-collecting equipment provides for removal of col-
lected grit and a manually operated skimmer is used to remove scum.
3. Primary Sedimentation Tank
This tank contains two parallel operated mechanically cleaned rec-
tangular units, at design flow having combined rates of: Surface set-
tling rate, 1,000 gpd per square foot; detention time, 1.5 hours; weir
rates, 10,000 gpd per linear foot.
The inside dimensions of each tank are 12'6" wide, 40'0" long,
with an average water depth of 8'4".
A manually operated skimmer is used to remove scum.
4. Pumping Station
The pumping station has three 1.0-MGD, constant speed, vertical-
turbine-type pumps which are located directly above the wet well.
Space is provided for the installation of two additional pumps when
required for plant expansion.
19
704-aTa o ea t
-------
These pumps are automatically controlled by the levels of the sewage
in the wet well using an air bubbler system, to maintain a flow of 3
MGD to the trickling filters, providing a recirculation ratio of from
1,5 to 1 to 0.2 to 1 as total plant flow varies. The pumps discharge
through a 12" discharge line to the distribution box.
The wet well dimensions are 7'0" wide, 26'0" long, and the depth
below the pump base is 14'0".
5. Trickling Filter
The trickling filters consist of two units. The hydraulic loading on
each filter of 10 MGD based on a total plant flow of 1.5 MGD. Each
unit has an inside diameter of 65'0" and the minimum filter media
depth above the underdrains is 6'0".
For future needs, provision is made in the distribution box to serv-
ice two additional filters.
The rotary distributor and jets for each filter are sized for a mini-
mum rate of 520 gpm and a maximum rate of 870 gpm.
6. Secondary Sedimentation Tank
Secondary settling is provided by a single, mechanically cleaned,
rectangular tank having a surface settling rate of 800 gpd per square
foot. Weir rates, 10,000 gpd per linear foot. Design flow for this
unit is 1.5 MGD.
This tank is 25'0" wide, 75'0" long, and has an average water depth
of 8'0".
7. Chlorine Contact Tank
The rectangular chlorine contact tank has a detention time of 45
minutes based on a flow of 1.0 MGD. The tank dimensions are 16'0"
wide, 26'0" long, and the average water depth of lO'O". Wood baf-
fles are placed to prevent currents and to allow for adequate mixing
of the chlorine.
8. Chlorinators
Two automatically controlled, solution-fed chlorinators are pro-
vided. One chlorinator feeds the influent end of the aerated grit
chamber and the other chlorinator feeds the chlorine contact tank.
These chlorinators are located together in a well-ventilated build-
ing with automatic chlorine detection devices for safety purposes.
The chlorine storage building is equipped with a hoist and a hoist
rail for unloading chlorine cylinders from a truck. This building has
space available to store seven 1-ton cylinders.
9. Digesters
Two digesters are provided—one for primary, and one for second-
ary sludge. A structure, located between the digesters, houses the
heat exchanger, motor control center, and sludge pumps.
20
-------
The primary unit is 25'0" inside diameter and has a capacity of
1.0 cubic feet per capita based on 10,000 population. This unit has
a fixed cover and the sludge is heated and mixed with two draft-tube-
type mixers.
The secondary unit is 35'0" inside diameter and has a capacity of 2.0
cubic feet per capita based on 10,000 population. This unit has a float-
ing cover and the sludge is not mixed or heated.
10. Sludge Filter Building
This building contains a vacuum filter, chemical storage space, labo-
ratory and office. The filter is designed for an allowable loading of 6
pounds dry solids per square foot per hour. Provision is made for
conditioning chemicals.
11. Sludge Drying Beds (Auxiliary)
The drying beds consist of three underdrained rectangular units.
Dimensions of each unit are 40'0" wide, 60'0" long, with earthen
sides. These beds allow for a loading of 0.75 square foot per capita
based on 10,000 population.
r
i i
L
10
10
10
Plan View of the Public Health Service Index 1.0-MGD High Rate
Trickling Filter Plant
1. Comminutor and Parshall Hum*
2. Preaeratton Grit Chamber
3. Primary Settling Tank
4. High Rate Trickling Rlt»r
5. Final Settling Tank
6. Recirculatlen Structure
7. Chlorine Contact Tank
8. Sludge Digesters
9. Sludge Filter Building
10. Sludge Drying Beds
11. Chlorine Storage Racks
12. Chlorlnation Building
21
-------
APPENDIX €
Material and Labor Cost Analysis of the Construction
Plant at Kansas City,
Category
Excavation and
Fill
Reinforced
Concrete
Miscellaneous
Iron and Steel
Piping, Valves,
and Fittings
Process Equip-
ment, Pumps
and Motors
Sand and Rock
Buildings
Other Items
Total Plant.
Components
Rock (cu yd)
Earth and sand (cu yd) . _
Transit mixed concrete
(cu yd)
Reinforcing steel (100 Ibs)
Plyform (1,000 sq ft) -
Structural shapes (100
Ibs)
Cast Iron (tons)
Reinforcing steel
Cast Iron (tons)
Vitrified clay pipe (ft)
Reinforced concrete pipe
//+•»
(ti)
Structural steel shapes
(100 Ibs)
Pig iron, No. 2 Foundry
tons)
Crushed stone (tons)
Sand (tons) ,
Common brick (1,000) _--
Concrete block (each)
Common brick (1,000)
Structural steel (100 Ibs)-
Structural steel shapes
(100 Ibs)
Pig iron, No. 2 Foundry
(tons)
Material
Quantity
1, 559. 05
2, 156. 31
I, 793. 42
2, 196. 15
46 30
192. 21
6. 88
507. 27
127. 69
747. 45
1, 952. 40
15, 392. 86
356. 87
3. 017. 14
267. 37
61.92
9, 883. 64
28.07
280. 28
3, 663. 50
84.94
Unit cost
$2. 10
1. 90
13.50
7. 10
205 00
10.34
138 60
7 10
138 60
3.751
2.94
6. 167
66.50
2 10
1 90
39.00
.22
39.00
10.34
6. 167
66.50
Item cost
$3, 274. 00
4, 096. 99
7, 370. 99
24, 211. 17
15, 592. 66
9, 491. 50
49, 295. 33
1, 987. 45
953. 57
3, 601. 62
6, 542. 64
17, 697. 83
2, 803. 68
5, 740. 06
26, 241. 57
94, 927. 77
23, 731. 86
118, 659. 63
6, 335. 99
508. 00
2, 415. 19
9, 259. 18
2, 174. 40
1, 094. 73
2, 898. 10
6, 167. 23
22, 592. 80
5, 648, 51
28, 241. 31
22
-------
Categories for a 1.0-MGD High Rate Trickling Filter
Mo., Aug. 1, 1962
Class/Trade
Equipment operators
Common labor
Carpenters -
Equipment operators
Ironworkers
Common labor
Ironworkers
Common labor
Ironworkers
Common labor
Iron workers
Common labor
Bricklayers
Common labor
Bricklayers
Carpenters -
Common labor
Electrical workers
Common labor
Labor
Man-hours
2, 040. 67
1, 159. 05
2, 727. 80
1, 054 57
1, 406. 57
7, 483. 16
662. 61
460. 43
2, 193. 20
1, 535. 52
1, 563. 30
2, 818. 63
314 46
1, 135. 84
697. 11
361. 03
735. 94
3, 108. 00
2, 512. 41
Unit cost
$3. 845
2.88
3. 875
3. 845
4. 025
2. 88
4.025
2.88
'
4025
2.88
4025
2.88
4325
2.88
4 325
3. 875
2.88
4 50
2.88
Item cost
$7, 846. 38
3, 338. 06
11, 184 44
10, 570. 22
4, 054 82
5, 661. 44
21, 551. 50
41, 837. 98
2, 667. 01
1, 326. 04
3, 993. 05
8, 827. 63
4, 416. 54
13, 244 17
6, 292. 28
8, 117. 65
14, 409. 93
1, 360. 04
3, 271. 22
4, 631. 26
3, 015. 00
1, 398. 99
2, 119. 51
6, 533. 50
13, 986. 00
7, 235. 74
21, 221. 74
Category
cost
$18,555.43
91, 133. 31
10, 535. 69
39, 485. 74
133, 069. 56
13, 890. 44
12, 700. 73
49, 463. 05
368 833 85
23
-------
APPENDIX D
Sewage Treatment Plant Process Equipment—Manufac-
turers' Composite Experience Curve and Public Health
Service Process Equipment Index Curve [1957—59rz
100]
1251-
100
I
PHS Index i
Manul'i Cr.+ «
''*'
I I I I I I i • i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1930 1935 1940
*No data available prior to 1947.
1945
Year
1950
1955
I960
25
-------
APPENDIX E
Total Plant and Category
[Base period
Cities
Atlanta - .__ _
Baltimore. -,
Birmingham _
Boston
Chicago . .-_.
Cincinnati T
Cleveland
Dallas _ - -
Denver .-_.
Detroit _
Kansas City __ _ -
Los Angeles
Minneapolis
New Orleans
New York City - -
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh- __
Sti Louis
San Francisco „,_.. „-
Seattle
A
Excavation and
Fill
$38, 968. 84
44, 987. 34
38, 346. 71
46, 405. 67
47, 959. 21
44, 215. 51
48, 986. 24
38, 404. 74
33, 549. 13
48, 214. 81
38, 064. 57
44, 360. 65
43, 582. 71
35, 781. 02
45, 979. 51
45, 450. 78
46, 440. 61
44, 389. 23
41, 929. 21
48, 924. 66
B
Reinforced
Concrete
$102, 780. 01
106, 917. 38
99, 453. 02
115, 605. 53
112, 281. 77
110, 280. 43
118, 404. 79
96, 963. 79
101, 193. 47
115, 094. 40
107, 001. 00
107, 830. 16
113, 942. 45
98, 666. 13
131, 252. 81
113, 417. 21
113, 255. 40
111, 130. 01
113, 169. 69
111, 937. 89
C
Miscellaneous
Iron and Steel
$12, 279. 14
12, 864. 07
12, 088. 07
13, 222. 69
12, 381. 49
13, 083. 64
12, 309. 09
12, 430. 90
12, 902. 00
12, 605. 16
12, 359. 98
12, 426. 52
13, 145. 45
11,623.00
14, 074. 87
13, 001. 86
12, 128. 17
12, 704. 97
13, 947. 90
13, 290. 28
26
-------
Coats for 20 Index Cities
=1957-59]
D
Pipes, Valves,
and Fittings
$39, 666. 30
41, 768. 17
37, 536. 12
45, 383. 76
46, 665. 89
41, 437. 68
44, 081. 30
38, 758. 30
40, 988. 08
46,008.11
41, 105. 66
45, 822. 95
48, 644. 77
39, 564. 92
48, 053. 44
46, 040. 45
45, 219. 28
42, 366. 08
45, 715. 20
46, 582. 22
E
Process
Equipment
Pumps and
Motors
$147, 551. 33
150, 111. 63
148, 125. 56
151, 738. 62
153, 025. 61
150, 980. 72
153, 034. 36
147, 754. 25
149, 278. 50
152, 870. 31
150, 132. 54
152, 130. 06
150, 786. 75
147, 840. 29
155, 340. 89
152, 377. 02
151,609.05
151, 559. 16
152, 116. 13
151, 738. 44
F
Sand and Bock
$15, 305. 22
19, 042. 68
17, 351. 12
16, 103. 60
18, 910. 08
19, 570. 56
24, 476. 48
15, 956. 77
14, 565. 64
19,989.20
15, 774. 13
18, 094. 30
23, 192. 07
14,034. 11
18, 160. 31
18, 481. 90
17, 325. 70
16, 154. 48
18, 002. 70
21,618.97
o
Buildings
$11, 181. 23
12, 204. 83
11, 246. 13
13, 452. 13
13, 719. 77
13, 116. 51
13, 917. 71
12, 438. 25
12, 452. 99
14, 225. 80
12, 762. 89
12, 572. 86
12, 833. 13
12, 692. 99
15, 652. 91
14, 024. 06
14, 084. 44
14, 132. 55
14, 287. 67
14, 260. 67
H
Otber Items
$50, 734. 54
52, 238. 85
50, 814. 61
54, 348. 44
56, 203. 55
54, 408. 80
56, 210. 82
50, 561. 91
52, 520. 43
56, 794. 93
53, 611. 04
56, 138. 26
54, 083. 41
50, 913. 94
59, 108. 81
56, 138. 83
56, 792. 89
56, 237. 34
56, 149. 54
55, 182. 43
T
Total Plant
$418, 466. 64
440, 134. 97
414, 961. 39
456, 260. 39
461, 147. 33
447, 090. 94
471, 420. 75
413, 268. 83
417, 450. 19
465, 802. 75
430, 811. 81
449, 375. 78
460, 210. 75
411,116.39
487, 623. 61
458, 932. 06
456, 855. 53
448, 673. 78
455,318. 11
463, 535. 61
704-878 O—6ft-
27
-------
APPENDIX F
Cost Curves by Category for a 1.0-MGD High Rate Trickling
Filter Plant, Kansas City, Mo., August 1930-62
[1957-59=100]
160
140
,-JSO
§.(00
eyt
J. 80
40
90
Excavation and Fill Material
I \
•
-
-
: :
: ''.
'. ". 1, , , ,1 ,, , , ! , ,, J ,, ,, 1, ,,. 1 ,"
160
140
^,190
§100
4*%
^ 80
3«
40
90
-
-
" Reinferecd Concrete ~
: _, •'"":
/*"
«*
: ,.-/ i
"•*
1 1 1 1 [ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1
1930 (935 1940 I94S 1950 I95S I960
Yco
1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 I960
Year
160
(40
^.190
§100
Jl 80
40
90
-
.
Miicellancout Iron and Steel
-
-
•Ti-.-r4-T-i-r"HTrTl-!T7" i Ti i 1 i 1 i i i i 1 i
160
140
§100
J, 80
40
90
-
_
Pipet, Valve* and Fittingi
-
-
.„-—*""-
-,..„ —..-'**
J i I 1 t I i c i 1 i i i i j | p | J 1 M I I 1 i 1 i 1 1 |
1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 (960
Year
(930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 I960
Year
28
-------
160
140
f'80
§100
*» 80
3-
40
M
19
160
140
2.100
w
•£ 80
40
SO
19-
"
Proccii Equipment, Pumpi and /
. Motor, /
; rx \
t
'- ,. /' :
*. . , , 1 , , . , 1 , . . . 1 . , , , 1 , , , • 1 , , , 1 1 l"
30 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 I960
H
-
I Buildin, -
•TTivrfTwr+iTr 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 I960
Y«ar
1
•
,'"'-
/ \
i ,,l, ,1 ili"
1955 I960
29
-------
APPENDIX G
Municipal Waste Treatment Plant Cost
[1957-59
Years
1030
1931
1932
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1MB
1046
1047
1048
1040
1950
1951
1962
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1950
I960
1961
1062
Atlanta
20.37
32.00
31.25
30.12
33.43
32.89
34.19
37.97
36.45
36.71
37.37
38.09
38.31
38.03
30.00
39.54
45.94
53.51
61.06
60.72
64.01
68.78
71.08
75.65
76.46
81.06
86.48
92.73
96.05
96.63
97.71
98.68
100.31
Balti-
more
34.02
33.60
32.53
33.08
35.17
35.28
35.74
30.12
37.95
38.08
38.69
30.72
40.55
41.09
41.20
41.03
47.10
54.45
63.60
65.46
60.41
73.67
76.48
80.77
82.02
84.61
80.30
06.62
100.08
102.46
103.20
103.67
105.19
Bir-
ming-
ham
32.37
28.32
27.33
28.57
30.12
30.72
32.31
35.51
33.64
33.80
34.44
35.27
38.30
38.32
38.32
30.02
43.87
61.16
59.02
60.37
63.37
67.82
71.10
75.07
76.31
80.31
85.08
90.68
93.76
95.82
98.08
97.25
06.86
Boston
34.33
31.45
31.42
30.74
33.79
34.72
34.58
38.37
37.16
37.65
38.54
40-15
41.99
41.86
42.68
42.46
46.69
55.02
66.27
67.80
71.22
76.02
78.47
81.43
84.10
89.09
04.76
100.41
103.36
105.84
106.88
107.86
108.27
Cblcago
37.26
34.78
32.81
35.03
36.75
36.78
37.08
39.60
39.96
40.81
40.75
41.04
42.21
42.32
42.31
43.56
47.26
57.48
66.38
67.39
70.39
75.79
78.06
83.32
86.59
80.54
05.02
102.10
104.60
107.39
107.61
108.94
109.41
Cincin-
nati
36.00
32.25
31.22
31.82
34.00
36.68
35.06
39.24
37.24
38.19
39.24
30.40
40.10
40.58
40.78
41.48
46.14
65.86
66.44
65.36
69.07
73.99
77.22
80.06
83.41
86.86
92.17
98.74
102.15
102.60
104.73
107.04
107.54
Cleve-
land
39.06
36.87
31.26
32.21
37.10
37.10
37.66
41.26
39.32
39.66
40.04
42.20
41.09
42.00
43.00
44.52
60.14
68.53
67.04
70.52
74.33
78.08
83.11
87.47
80.14
04.19
09.18
105.30
107.04
107.13
108.71
109.71
110.62
Dallas
35.24
35.09
30.24
32.18
33.72
32.19
33.03
35.33
35.45
35.80
36.66
37.30
40.79
40.76
41.37
42.04
46.54
53.05
62.69
63.87
66.15
71.28
72.61
75.11
76.74
79.66
84.63
01.11
03.64
95.74
06.64
96.39
07.23
Denver
37.51
34.69
31.31
31.47
35.30
35.32
36.24
40.23
39.03
30.06
39.44
30.69
39.69
41.80
41.46
41.75
46.52
65.61
63.65
63.49
67.68
71.02
73.68
77.43
78.63
82.33
86.15
91.32
94.10
98.13
09.43
99.43
101.16
Detroit
31.86
30.81
29.07
27.04
30.78
31.80
32.35
37.88
36.82
36.84
36.45
38.17
40.01
30.52
41.00
41.78
46.82
56.32
66.64
65.00
72.06
77.14
80.42
85.00
88.10
02.13
07.66
102.34
105.65
108.09
100.88
110.73
111.70
Kansas
City
32.45
34.78
30.35
29.61
33.53
34.70
35.82
38.62
38.24
35.27
38.47
38.66
30.82
41.31
41.84
41.78
46.39
52.66
62.20
63.33
68.25
72.24
76.06
79.16
81.24
85.93
00.08
94.54
97.70
100.43
101.72
102.77
103.49
30
-------
Indexes, 1930-62, August Values
=100]
Los
Angeles
80.88
31.41
27.08
29.80
85.69
34.86
33.08
37.28
38. 3«
36.91
36.01
36.46
40.00
40.19
40.10
40.42
48.60
64.26
64.87
6S.42
68.64
73.08
76.31
80.02
82.70
87.01
02.46
08.46
102.61
106.66
107.86
108.63
110.66
Mlnne
apolis
30.07
20.40
28.14
28.62
31.68
31,46
34.04
40.13
38.40
38.66
30.12
30.67
40.34
40.11
40.70
41.62
46.68
66.68
66.13
66.12
60.10
74.67
76.10
81.68
84.66
88.80
94.27
00.84
104.60
107.71
108.80
109.03
110. 10
New
Orleans
31.16
28.60
27.31
20.09
81.66
32.10
32.28
36.64
34.40
34.46
36.00
87.36
40.61
30.28
30.27
41.38
44.10
61.30
60.87
61.23
66.08
60.13
71.47
74. 71
76.00
79.89
86,17
00.16
93.43
06.20
06.00
07.41
08.88
New
York
41.30
38.18
86.71
36.72
37.20
36.81
36.24
41.00
30.68
30. 82
40.33
41.24
41.60
41.64
41.80
43.00
47.61
67.67
68.16
68.18
73.27
77.61
80.41
84.80
88.20
02.66
00.06
106.31
110.44
114.78
116.10
118.30
110.48
Phila-
del-
phia
33.03
31.96
28.46
29.27
34.29
36.84
36.26
30.76
38.17
30.06
40.73
41.30
43.16
48.22
44.33
46.40
40.00
69.03
66.63
67.82
71.04
77.62
70.80
84.62
86.47
01.44
06.18
100.30
106. 76
103.86
104.62
106.62
107.82
Pitts-
burgh
36.18
33.02
30.23
20.11
32.09
32.80
36.98
42.76
40.81
41.11
40.47
41.67
43.70
43.44
48.67
44.40
49.48
68.60
66.76
68.60
71.67
76.60
78.30
83.66
86.00
89.26
01.40
100.06
104.06
107,30
108.20
07.81
10.84
St.
Loots
36.66
37.04
32.66
32.61
36.78
33.86
34.81
30.91
38.12
38.16
30.66
40.61
41.86
42.24
42.38
43.63
40.24
67.22
66.00
66.61
60.06
74.40
77.80
81.40
83.16
04.17
02.02
07.03
102.07
104.02
106.64
106.28
08.20
Sao
Fran-
cisco
37.17
36.64
83.07
84.86
36.26
36.30
36.06
40.41
38.70
38.86
30.70
40.67
41.98
42.68
42.07
43.18
47.06
66.70
66.16
67.26
70.18
74.24
77.40
80.07
83.88
88.11
02.41
100.01
103.47
04.68
08.08
08.66
00.61
Seattl
81.02
31.47
27.87
27,71
33.33
83.36
33.62
40.07
38.40
38.40
38.67
30.60
41.20
42.60
42.60
46.12
48.20
66.64
66.60
67.80
70.70
76.67
78.62
80.60
84.33
87.67
04.12
100.88
106.67
107.86
00.20
11.63
12.40
Nation
al aver
ages
(1987-M
-100
34.43
83.12
30.48
30.98
34.12
34.10
34.84
30.00
37.77
37.02
38.67
30.41
40.02
41.23
41.67
42.40
47.17
66.61
64.76
66.61
69.32
73.92
76.76
80.77
82.80
87.23
91.87
98.04
101.60
103.66
104.06
06.83
06.90
Nation
a] are
age
(1930-
100)
100.00
06.18
88.61
80.06
00.08
09.28
101.17
113.26
100.68
110. 12
112.00
114.44
118.83
110.73
120.72
123.13
136.98
161.40
188.03
190.63
201.30
214.66
222.91
234.66
240.46
263.81
266.79
284.71
294.76
301.00
304.80
307.33
310.70
Year
1030
1031
1032
1033
1934
1038
1036
1037
1088
1030
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1046
1046
1047
1048
1049
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1066
1066
1067
1068
1960
1060
1061
062
31
-------
APPENDIX G—(Continued)
Individual City Indexes and National Index
City Index H^^^^MHMB National Index •• M •
1930 1935 1940 1945
Yea
1950 1955 I960
1930 1935 1940 1945
Ye,
1950 1955 I960
1930 1935 1940 1945
Year
IV 5
no
75
1950 1955 I960
1*
IS
Cleveland
1930 1935 1940 1945
Year
1*9
100
Denver
751
19
1950 1955 I960
1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 I960
Year
Dolrtmofc
1930 1935 1940 1945 (950 1955 I960
Year
185
100
Boom
75
19
I .... I
1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1915 I960
Year
125
100
75
a
Cincinnati
(930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 I960
Year
100
75
I.
U
Dollai
1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 I960
Year
1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 I960
Ytar
32
-------
100
C
Kama* City
1930 1995 1940 1945 1950 1955 I960
Year
ISS
!00
75
Lot Angelci
I I I 1 ' ' ' * ' * * ' ' . I " ' I i I I I I ' I I ' J I I I
1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 I960
Year
1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 I960
Year
IS5
100
New Orleani
1930 1935 19
1950 1955
125
100
r^cwYorlc
. I..... I.
1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960
Yccr
,00
75
Phil
------- |