Laserfiche WebLink
The accuracy and limitations of the above disposal cost <br />estimates are further discussed in the section on sensitivity <br />analyses. <br />Cost Comparison <br />® The overall cost differences among the basic alternatives are <br />discussed first. The construction of a new transfer station <br />at Eight Mile Road and Highway 99 is evaluated separately. <br />Basic Alternatives. Table 4 shows that use of Foothill <br />Landfill would cost about the same as or less than use of the <br />new Harney Lane Landfill. For use of Foothill, collection and <br />transfer costs are higher, but disposal costs are lower. <br />Disposal costs for using the existing Foothill landfill are <br />shown to be less than the new Harney Lane Landfill primarily <br />because no land acquisition and site development would be <br />required at Foothill. However, the cost for using Foothill is <br />subject to negotiation with the landfill operator. The effect <br />of changes in cost of using Foothill on total costs is <br />discussed in the next section. <br />Table 4 shows that Alternative D.1, use of the proposed <br />central county landfill, is actually slightly less costly than <br />the Harney Lane Landfill alternative. This is because <br />(1) collection and haul cost are reduced to many stotbn area <br />individual haulers, and (2) disposal costs are reducedy <br />economies of scale in acquiring a large landfill for both <br />north and central county refuse. <br />However, as previously <br />discussed, since no decision on the central county landfill <br />has been made, a hypothetical location was chosen for the <br />landfill. Collection and haul costs are sensitive to the <br />landfill location and these costs will affect the total cost <br />of the alternatives. This and other factors affecting the <br />20 <br />