ARCHIVED REPORTS_1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The effect of changes in assumptions involving collection, transfer, and haul costs is summarized as follows: • If the proposed central county landfill is located 10 miles further south and/or east from the assumed base case location, the Foothill Landfill becomes the least costly alternative, but by very small amounts over the other alternatives. • If public and other nonfranchised hauler costs are not considered--i.e., only franchised collector, transfer station, and landfill costs are considered --then the Foothill Landfill and proposed central county landfill alternatives are much less costly than the Harney Lane Landfill alternative. Furthermore, eliminated or reduced mileage costs for public and other commercial haulers increases the total cost for alternatives that include the Eight Mile Road transfer station relative to alternatives without the station. ® If the County franchisee used the California Waste Removal Systems transfer station, the franchisee's costs would be reduced over direct haul to the Foothill or the proposed central county landfills, but total costs are not significantly changed over the base case (assuming no change in disposal charges to the franchisee). • If in the unlikely event that all public, other commercial, and County franchisee trips were directly to a landfill, with no transfer stations (except for the Lodi City franchisee), costs for all alternatives would increase dramatically, especially for the Foothill Landfill alternative. In this case, the Harney Lane and proposed central county landfill alternatives would each cost about the same and be much less costly than the Foothill Landfill alternative. As with disposal costs, none of these changes improves the economic justification of the Eight Mile Road transfer station. None of the above statements nor any taken together should be considered a clear-cut recommendation for any of the alternatives. Selection of an alternative for the north CEO