MUNICIPAL HOUSECLEANING
THE METHODS AND EXPERIENCES OF AMERICAN CITIES IN COLLECTING AND
DISPOSING OF THEIR MUNICIPAL WASTES—ASHES, RUBBISH, GARBAGE, MANURE,
SEWAGE, AND STREET REFUSE
BY
WILLIAM PARR CAPES
DIRECTOR NEW YORK STATE BUREAU OF MUNICIPAL INFORMATION SECRETARY NEW
YORK STATE CONFERENCE OF MAYORS AND OTHER CITY OFFICIALS
AND
JEANNE DANIELS CARPENTER, A.M., LL.B.
BOSTON UNIVERSITY EXPERT IN ECONOMICS AND MUNICIPAL RESEARCH
WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY
CORNELIUS F. BURNS
PRESIDENT OF NEW YORK STATE CONFERENCE OF MAYORS AND OTHER CITY
OFFICIALS
E. P. DUTTON & COMPANY
NEW YORK
1918
COPYRIGHT, 1918
BY E. P. DUTTON & COMPANY
_All rights reserved_
Printed in the United States of America
DEDICATED
TO THE
HONORABLE CHARLES C. DURYEE, M.D.
WHO, AS THE FOUNDER AND FIRST
PRESIDENT OF THE NEW YORK STATE
CONFERENCE OF MAYORS AND OTHER CITY
OFFICIALS, WHICH DEVELOPED THAT
UNIQUE INSTITUTION, THE STATE BUREAU
OF MUNICIPAL INFORMATION, RENDERED A
SERVICE OF INESTIMABLE VALUE TO THE
CITIES OF THE EMPIRE STATE AND
BLAZED A TRAIL FOR BETTER
COORDINATION OF MUNICIPAL
UNDERTAKINGS, AND MORE EFFECTIVE
COOPERATION AMONG AMERICAN CITIES.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PREFACE
In a home free from nuisances which offend the esthetic tastes, and
either directly or indirectly cause disease, more contentment and thrift
will be found than in the one permeated with odors and befouled with
dirt and domestic wastes.
So it is with a city, the great home, workshop, and playground of its
people. Keeping it clean, therefore, is one of the most important duties
of its officials. None other is more conducive to health, happiness and
comfort, the three great objects for which every community through
organized effort is striving.
And there is no group of municipal problems which demands and is now
commanding, more scientific thought and more intelligent business
management than the collection and disposal of a city’s wastes. With
every nation applying the last ounce of economy and with the increase of
population and its consequent congestion, these problems grow in
importance and complexity. Higher living standards, a better
understanding of the causes of disease, and a keener appreciation of
preventive work have forced municipalities to frown upon primitive
methods involving individual effort, especially where congestion exists.
As a substitute therefore, more effective means have been and are being
adopted to eliminate by community activity, the nuisances caused by
ashes, rubbish, garbage and dirty streets. We are also appreciating the
need for more efficient management than is now prevalent and for the
development of revenue-producing by-products.
An official or layman interested in the solution of these six important
municipal housecleaning problems will find in this book information
which we believe will answer all his questions. Our judgment has been
influenced entirely by the hundreds of questions which have come to the
State Bureau of Municipal Information from city officials in their
effort either to establish efficient systems or to reorganize existing
ones.
City officials, federal, state and municipal reports, engineering,
medical and other publications, as well as the proceedings of various
municipal, civic and scientific organizations have contributed their
quota to this work.
THE AUTHORS.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
_STREET CLEANING_:
Milwaukee, Wis. Bureau of Municipal Research. Efficiency and Economy
in Municipal Work by Modern Type of Equipment.
Philadelphia. Highways and Street Cleaning, Bureau of Highways—A
Problem in Municipal Housekeeping.
Fox, R. T. Report on Examination of Personnel, Methods of Work and
Equipment of the Department of Street Cleaning, New York City.
Parlin, R. W. Flushing—Its Place in the Street Cleaning Field.
_SEWAGE DISPOSAL_:
Daniels, F. E. Operation of Sewage Disposal Plants.
Kershaw, G. B. de B. Guide to the Reports, Evidence, and Appendices
of the Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal.
Kershaw, G. B. de B. Sewage Purification and Disposal.
Metcalf, L., and Eddy, H. P. American Sewerage Practice. Disposal of
Sewage.
Eddy, H. P. Extent to which Sewage can be Purified by Practical
Methods of Artificial Treatment now in Use.
Faber, D. C. Operation and Care of Sewage Disposal Plants.
Fuller, W. B. Sewage Disposal by the Activated Sludge Process.
Bristol, L. D. Municipal Sewage and its Care.
American Public Health Association. Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Sewage.
Hammond, G. T. Sewage Treatment by Aeration and Activation.
Weston, R. S., and Turner, C. E. Studies on the Digestion of a
Sewage Filter Effluent by a Small and Otherwise Unpolluted Stream.
_REFUSE AND REFUSE DISPOSAL_:
Chicago. City Waste Commission.
Gerhard, W. P. Disposal of Household Wastes.
Matthews, E. R. Refuse Disposal.
Turrentine, J. W. Preparation of Fertilizer from Municipal Wastes.
Conant, E. R. Refuse Disposal in Southern Cities, with Particular
Reference to Savannah, Ga., with its new Incinerator.
Rich, E. D. Garbage Collection and Disposal.
Gerhard, W. P. Sanitation and Sanitary Engineering.
CONTENTS
PAGE
PREFACE vii
BIBLIOGRAPHY ix
INTRODUCTION xix
CHAPTER
I STREET CLEANING, Elements to be Considered—Contract versus
Municipal Cleaning—Spring Cleaning—Street Sprinkling—Street
Cleaning Methods—Machine Sweeping—Pick-up Machines—Cleaning
by Flushing—Hose Flushing—Cleaning by Squeegeeing—Disposal
of Refuse—Relative Cost 3
II SEWAGE DISPOSAL METHODS, Need for Proper Disposal—Sewerage
Systems—Purification of Sewage—Processes of Purification—
Dilution—Screening—Grit Chambers—Straining or Roughing—
Treatment in Tanks—Plain Sedimentation—Septic Process—The
Imhoff Tank—Chemical Precipitation—Slate Beds—Dosing
Chambers—Contact Filters—Trickling, Percolating or
Sprinkling Filters—Intermittent Sand Filters—Broad
Irrigation—Disinfection—Activated Sludge Process—Other
Processes—Trade Wastes—Sludge Disposal and Value—Management
and Supervision 71
III ASH AND RUBBISH COLLECTION, Types of Collection Systems—
Methods of Collection—Districting the City—Organization of
Collection Forces—Kinds of Equipment—Location of
Receptacles—Time of Collection—Frequency of Collection—
Enforcement of Collection Regulations—Methods of Disposal—
Revenues from By-Products—Efficiency Tests and Suggestions—
Per Capita Production—Cost Data 119
IV GARBAGE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL, Collection Systems—Methods
of Collection—House Treatment—Kinds of Equipment—Location
of Receptacles—Time and Frequency of Collection—Enforcement
of Collection Regulations—Cost—Per Capita Production—
Feeding to Swine—Dumping on Land—Dumping in Large Bodies of
Water—Disposal by Sanitary Fill—Burial—Disposal Plants—
Incineration—Reduction 151
V CARE AND DISPOSAL OF MANURE, Methods Used by Cities—The
Columbus System—Municipal Regulations—Exceptional
Regulations 203
VI MUNICIPAL CLEAN-UP CAMPAIGNS, Agencies for Propaganda—
Programs—Organization—Procedure—Publicity—Miscellaneous
Activities—Methods—Prizes—Fire Prevention and Inspection—
Sanitary Inspection—Slogans—Flies and Mosquitoes—
Ordinances—Revenue from Waste—Cost—Results 213
TABLES
1. METHODS AND COSTS OF STREET CLEANING IN AMERICAN CITIES
2. METHODS AND COSTS OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL IN AMERICAN CITIES
3. ASH DISPOSAL BY PRIVATE COLLECTION
4. COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF ASHES AND RUBBISH BY MUNICIPAL FORCES
5. COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF ASHES AND RUBBISH BY CONTRACT
7. METHODS AND COST OF DISPOSAL OF GARBAGE
ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS
STREET CLEANING
PAGE
Contract versus Municipal Cleaning 5
Philadelphia, experience of 5
Washington, experience of 5
Elements of Street Cleaning Program 3
Classes of street litter 4
Lack of accurate data 4
Records 4
Methods of Reducing Litter 5
Carelessness of Citizens 6
How public and officials can cooperate 8
Philadelphia’s plan 7
Preventive work 8
Educational campaigns 6
Street Cleaning Factors and Standards 9
Conditions and factor 9
Horse traffic 10–11
Paving and repair policy 11–12–13
Quantity and volume of dirt 11
Schedule of Street Cleaning 14
Amount and character of cleaning affected by
kinds of pavement 15
Assignments 16
Block system 14
Organization of employees 15
Unit of work 15
Spring Cleaning 16
Character of pavement a factor 17
Rates per man 17
Number of men required in gang 16
Unit cost according to character and kinds of
pavement 17
Sprinkling 17
Bureau of Municipal Research, Milwaukee,
Wis., Cost data 19
Dust prevention 17
Effect on pavement 18
Experts, opinions of 18–19
Ordinances and regulations 20
Practices in various cities 21
Sprinkling by railway companies 20
Methods 22
Patrol system 22
Area a sweeper can clean 22
Philadelphia’s system 24
Machine Sweeping 24
Cost 26
Experts, opinions of 25
Los Angeles, Cal., report 28
Oakland, Cal., experience of 27
Pomona, Cal. 28
Flushing 29
Atlanta Sanitary Dept., report of 29
Bureau of Municipal Research, Milwaukee,
Wis., report of cost data 31–32
Experts, opinion of 29–30
Effect on pavement 31
Machine 30–31
Railway car flushing 32
Hose Flushing 33
New York City, experience of 33–34
Squeegeeing 34
Horse drawn squeegees, cost of operation 35
Methods 34
Milwaukee, report of 35
Motor drawn squeegees 35–36
Square yards per day cleaned 37
Combination of methods 37–38
Danger of clogging sewers 35–36–37
Disposal of Street Refuse 38
Experience of cities 38
Length of haul 38
Used as fill 38
Relative Cost of Street Cleaning 39
Experts, opinions of 39
U. S. Census Bureau, investigation of 39
SEWAGE DISPOSAL
Bureau of Surveys, Philadelphia Testing Station 72
Composition of Sewage 72
Importance of Sewage Disposal Problem 71
Massachusetts State Board of Health
conclusions 72
Preliminary Study 72
The Sewerage System 73
Authorities, opinion of 73–74
Domestic Wastes 74
Degree of Purification 75
Trade and industrial wastes 77
Processes of Treatment 78
Main group 78
Chemical precipitation 91–92
Colloidal tanks 85
Dilution 80–81
Grit Chambers 82–83
Plain sedimentation 84–85
Preliminary or preparatory 78
Screening 81–82
Septic tank treatment 85
Imhoff tanks 87–88–89–90–91
Cameron tanks 85–86–87
Single contact beds 93–94
Straining or roughing 83–84
Slate beds 92–93
Final process 78
Dosing chambers 93
Double contact beds 93–94–95–96
Trickling-sprinkling filters 96–97
Intermittent sand filters 98–99
Broad irrigation 100–101
Disinfection 100
Hypo-chlorite of lime 101
Liquid chlorine 101
Activated sludge process 101–102–103–104
Combination of processes 79
Electrolytic process 104
Efficiency of processes 80
Management and supervision 108–109
Miles acid sludge process 105
Sludge disposal and value 106–107–108
Trade wastes 105
ASHES AND RUBBISH
Collection Systems:
Types of systems 120–121
Combined 121–122–123
Separate 120–122–123
Method of collection:
Municipal 123–124
Contract 124
Private 123
Districting the city 124–125
Organization of force 125
Type of equipment 126–127–128
Cans 126
Vehicles 127–128
Location of receptacles 128–129
Time of collection 129–130
Frequency of collection 130–131
Enforcement of regulations 131
Disposal of Ashes and Rubbish 132
Dumping 132
Burning 132–133
Revenue from By-Products 133–134
Specifications 135–136–137
Efficiency Tests and Suggestions 138–139
Per Capita Production 139
Cost data 140
GARBAGE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
Types of Collection Systems 152–153–154
Combined 153
Separate 153
Method of Collection 154–155–156
Scavengers 154
Contract 154–155
City 154–155
Organization 156–157–158
Districts 156
Force 157–158
House treatment 156
Receptacles 158
Vehicles 159–160
Motors vs. horse drawn 160–161–162–163
Collection Regulations 164–165–166
Cost of Collection 166–167
Per Capita Production 167–168
Garbage Disposal 168–169
Feeding to swine 169–170–171–172–173–174
Dumping on land 175
Dumping in large bodies of water 175
Disposal by sanitary fill 175–176–177
Burial 178
Disposal Plants 178–179–180–181
Incineration 181
Crematories 181–182–186
Destructors 183–184–185–186–187
Reduction 187–190
Cooking 188–189
Drying 189
By-Products 190–191–192
CARE AND DISPOSAL OF MANURE
Methods of Collection 203
Municipal 204–205
Private 204
Contract 204
Municipal Regulations 206–207–208–209–210
For care and storage of manure 206–207–208–210
For transportation of manure 206–207–208
For disposal of manure 206–207–208
MUNICIPAL CLEAN-UP CAMPAIGN
History of the Movement 213–214
Initiating a Campaign 214–215
Organization 215–216–217
Publicity plans 217–218–219–220–221–222
Cooperating forces 222–223–224–225–226–227
Work of children 222–223–224–225–226
Work of organizations 225–226–227
Special Activities 227–228
Cleaning roofs 227
School gardens 228
Planting trees 228
Fire Prevention and Inspection 228–229
Sanitary Inspectors 230
Flies and Mosquitoes 230–231
Results of Campaigns 231–232
INTRODUCTION
Never in the history of our country has the work of the public official
demanded so much of him as now. The expansion and increasing complexity
of municipal activities, the desire of women for more knowledge about
their new responsibilities, the need for better living conditions
brought about by greater congestion, the necessity for conserving every
ounce of man and woman power, the demand for greater efficiency and
rock-bottom economy in every line—all these conditions are making
themselves felt with the public official.
The time when public office was held by the grace of God and the
majority of votes has become almost a thing of the past. The official’s
worth now is not measured by his good-fellowship and vote-getting
capacity, but rather by his ability to produce results—not at the polls
on Election Day, but in the City Hall every day.
Because municipal government is closer to the people and affects them in
more ways than the government of any other political subdivision, and
also because our citizens are now taking a keener interest than ever
before in community work, it is to-day almost useless for a public
official to attempt to escape responsibility or to excuse his
shortcomings. He must be efficient and constantly apply his efficiency.
I believe that most of our urban citizens appreciate the importance of
keeping our cities clean and healthful by the proper removal and
disposal of the mass of wastes that accumulates daily. I know that every
public official appreciates the need for this service, and most of them
by bitter experiences realize the complexity of these problems.
To equip himself to do his difficult duty as he should, the public
official must be able to acquaint himself thoroughly with the best
methods, experiences and opinions of others. “Municipal Housecleaning”
goes into all of the matters pertaining to the collection, care and
removal of municipal wastes. It should be of the greatest value in
assisting public officials—mayors, engineers, sanitarians and members of
health, street cleaning, public works and sewer departments—to select
the systems best adapted to local conditions and to operate them
efficiently. We officials in New York State have found this information
to be of inestimable value in solving our problems.
But no municipal effort can succeed without the cooperation of the
citizen. He can help most by informing himself on these problems so that
he can intelligently participate in the cooperative community effort to
keep clean, and if need be, to offer constructive criticism. If the
citizen—and particularly the woman, for it is her intelligent
cooperation that will make for more effective service—will read this
book, it will be easier for us to obtain in America what the authors
have so aptly referred to as “better places in which to live, work and
play.”
CORNELIUS F. BURNS,
President New York State Conference
of Mayors and other City Officials.
STREET CLEANING
SYSTEMS AND APPARATUS USED IN AMERICAN CITIES—METHODS OF REDUCING
LITTER—COST DATA.
In establishing or rearranging its street cleaning system, every city
must consider the problem from three angles: (1) Cheapest method of
cleaning pavement; (2) Method of reducing litter; (3) Paving policy with
a view to saving cost of cleaning.
The proper solution of each one of these problems will materially reduce
the cost.
In outlining a program for a street cleaning department the following
elements must be known and carefully considered:
(1) Kind of and state of repair of pavement.
(2) Traffic to which they are subjected.
(3) Facilities for disposing of street sweepings.
(4) Climatic peculiarities.
(5) Degree of cleanliness it is desired or expected to maintain.
(6) Miscellaneous local circumstances.
Mr. S. Whinery, Consulting Engineer, says that in most cities the data
afforded by local past experience and results, furnish the best basis
for future projects and programs. Unfortunately few cities have records
of these. The head of the department usually relies upon his own memory
or that of his predecessor. While the methods followed and results
obtained in other cities may and should be studied, it must be borne in
mind that it is not safe to base conclusions upon such data without a
full knowledge and careful consideration of all facts and conditions
affecting them. This is particularly true of reported cost data, for in
addition to differing physical conditions, it is unfortunately true that
the present methods of accounting in many street cleaning departments
make it next to impossible to ascertain the actual or relative unit cost
of the various details of the work, and intelligently to compare results
in one city with those in another. The experience of the New York State
Bureau of Municipal Information in seeking data from the fifty largest
American and all New York State cities provides ample proof of this
condition. Fifty were able to give some data, but of these only a few
had any accurate and detailed cost statistics.
The relative amount of dirt from the different sources of dust depends
on the character of construction and condition of street surface, amount
and character of traffic, character of neighborhood and people in the
neighborhood, and street railway tracks.
Street dirt is divided into two general classes: (a) Natural, and
therefore unavoidable, and (b) that due to carelessness and therefore
avoidable. In the first class are dust from the air, and dirt coming
from the wear of pavements, vehicles, tires and horses’ shoes; excrement
of animals, dirt and sand which work up through the joints of pavements,
laid on earth or sand foundations and having sand or gravel joints; dirt
brought in from adjacent unpaved or macadam streets, and leaves from
shade trees. In the second class are soot, refuse swept from sidewalks,
thrown from buildings and discarded by pedestrians, dirt dropped from
overloaded vehicles and débris from construction operations.
The real duty of the street cleaning department is the removal of the
first class, but in doing so it is compelled also to sweep up and cart
away the material in the second class. In order to reduce its operations
as much as possible, it must, therefore, in cooperation with the police
and health authorities do everything it can to prevent the accumulation
of the avoidable material by enforcing ordinances and through the
cooperation of the public in general.
Contract vs. Municipal Cleaning
It is generally agreed that street cleaning by municipal employees is
more satisfactory and economical than by contract. Even the officials of
those few cities which still have the contract system favor municipal
operation. Philadelphia is the only one of the twenty-five largest
cities in the country which does the work by contract. The chief of the
highway department has recommended a change, giving the following
reasons: “Street cleaning work involves so much detail for which there
are no definite units to specify and bid for, and it is of such a
character that the overhead charges for proper inspection are so
disproportionate to the cost of the work, that unquestionably it would
be much more effectively and economically carried on directly by the
municipal forces instead of by contract.”
Washington’s experience is illuminating. Notwithstanding changes in
method as work progressed and considerable expense attached to the
purchase of new equipment the street cleaning department was able to
show at the end of the year under the municipal system that the average
costs were less than contract prices. At the end of the second year for
the expenditure of the same amount of money over 25 per cent. more work
was accomplished than during the last year of the contract system and
the general opinion was that the streets were in better condition than
they had ever been before.
Method of Reducing Litter
Street cleaning departments of many progressive cities within the last
few years have given particular attention to the preventive side of
street cleaning work, _i. e._, reducing the amount of avoidable dirt on
street pavements. Various methods have been adopted to secure results.
Local civic pride and the cooperation of the public have been stimulated
by means of educational campaigns. One result has been the more general
use of waste paper and refuse street cans. Cleveland tried to organize
volunteer corps among the school children to use their influence against
the useless littering of streets. Departments have also established a
closer relationship with the health and police authorities for the
enforcement of street cleaning regulations, such as those prohibiting
the sweeping of litter from stores and houses onto paved streets. The
success of preventive work depends upon the amount of cooperation the
street cleaners can get from these sources.
In Chicago an analysis was made of the character and percentage of waste
thrown about by pedestrians in the streets and by business houses in
densely populated sections of the city. It was found that a great
portion of the street dirt collected by street cleaners consisted of
waste paper and other light litter. The Chicago Civil Service Commission
in a special report says: “It would appear that with the cooperation of
merchants a considerable portion of such litter could be kept off the
streets and if street cleaners would patrol the street for loose paper
and deposit the same in the street dirt boxes provided at different
points along such streets, a great portion of the cleaning work would be
saved and the streets would generally appear cleaner. The litter of
streets in tenement and manufacturing districts is a matter which can be
greatly minimized by proper distribution of work and cooperation of the
street cleaning forces and residents. The quantity of street dirt
collected from the pavements in market places illustrates an instance
where pavements become unavoidably littered.”
Gustave H. Hanna, when head of the Cleveland Street Cleaning Department,
expressed the belief that nothing encourages carefulness on the part of
the public so much as efficient and careful cleaning. He argued that a
man does not hesitate to throw paper or rubbish into a foul street, but
thinks twice if the street is clean. If there is a waste box at hand
with a printed suggestion on the outside, Mr. Hanna thinks he is apt to
use the box.
The greatest source of expense comes from those who use the street as a
place of business, such as resorts of professional hucksters. Mr. Hanna
and others think it would be a small return for the permission of doing
business in these streets to require the hucksters to keep the
surroundings clean at their own expense under pain of arrest or
forfeiture of privilege.
In an effort to get the cooperation of the general public, Philadelphia
placed waste paper receptacles in prominent locations throughout the
city, such as two in every block in the principal business sections, in
front of school houses and entrances to business, elevated and subway
stations, etc. Circulars were sent to each householder throughout the
city containing information and instruction as to improving conditions
by using uniform and suitable receptacles.
Bulletins and letters of information were distributed among business and
civic associations. The officials learned that one of the most effective
methods in reaching the householder is through the women’s
organizations. A woman inspector was appointed to keep in touch with the
activities of the women’s clubs and to secure their cooperation. This
inspector during the year gave over two hundred lectures to various
organizations and enlisted the cooperation of householders, women and
children in connection with preventive street cleaning measures. To the
housekeeper it was shown how vital is her part in an efficient
collection of all waste. Children were impressed with their duties as
citizens, and to them was given an opportunity to demonstrate their
knowledge in the home, school and on the street. As a reward of such
activity 5,000 buttons were distributed in six months. Twenty thousand
folders for children and adults relating to the care of streets and the
collection of waste were also put into circulation.
Former Street Cleaning Commissioner William H. Edwards, of New York,
says that four kinds of cooperation are needed by street cleaning
departments:
(1) “Cooperation with the force by showing a human interest in the work
of the men. This can be done by establishing a pension fund so that when
a man has served faithfully for twenty years and has reached the age of
60 or has become incapacitated after he has served ten years, or is
injured in the performance of his duty at any time after service has
begun so that he is disabled for future service, he can be retired on
half pay. This instills in men a keen desire to do better work and
permits the Commissioner to retire men who are no longer able to do good
work. The danger of street sweepers in busy streets is apparent to any
one. More than 2,500 accidents resulting in death or personal injury or
damage to property occurred in one year in connection with the New York
City Department’s activities. The percentage of killed in the street
cleaning force was considerably higher than that in the police force.
(2) “Cooperation of women in the communities in New York. The Women’s
Municipal League and other bodies have cooperated with the department.
Every year they offer a medal to the sweeper, driver or foreman who does
the best all around work.
(3) “Cooperation with citizens. Carelessness up to the present time has
added to the work and expense and has been an obstacle to real
cleanliness. It must be remembered that before the sweeper can begin
that part of the work which is beyond prevention, he must remove the
litter carelessly thrown on the street.
(4) “The formation of ordinances for the prevention of this
carelessness. If the department has the effective cooperation of the
police department and of the magistrates, in the enforcement of the
ordinances, then and only then can this particular condition be reduced
to a practical minimum. In an attempt to enforce ordinances forbidding
the throwing of litter in the streets, New York City in 1915 caused the
arrest of 5,400 persons for violating ordinances relating to street
conditions of the scattering of refuse. In addition to these arrests in
the last three months of the year more than 18,000 formal written
warnings were issued for the violation of ordinances.”
Street Cleaning Factors and Standards
The conditions and factors controlling the amount and frequency of
cleaning of any pavement, are as follows:
1. Density of horse drawn vehicles and other traffic.
2. Width of street.
3. Character of district and population.
4. Location of streets.
5. Proximity of streets and alleys.
6. Location of public buildings, parks, etc.
7. Kinds and condition of pavement.
A study made by the Chicago Civil Service Commission definitely
established that the density of horse traffic, which is the total number
of horses passing through a given street divided by the width of the
street, is the principal factor which determines the number and
frequency of cleanings one street should be given.
The Commission has also learned that there are at least thirty-eight
distinct movements which a street cleaner makes in street cleaning work.
Of these some have been found to be unproductive, resulting in loss of
time and energy and less effective street cleaning. The most important
of these, according to the Commission’s report, are as follows:
Observation of time wheeling push carts into alleys or other dumping
places, disclosing that practically one-fifth of time was consumed in
this activity. The study disclosed that some sweepers are more efficient
than others, due to the stroke of the broom which they make. The
practise of hitting a broom on the pavement is not necessary on dry
pavements and very seldom on wet pavements. Effective and practical
street cleaning can be obtained by bringing the brush down forcibly at
the beginning of each stroke, thus reducing the work at least 15 per
cent. The time schedules disclosed that time lost by street cleaners in
dodging horses and automobiles where traffic is dense is unappreciable
and does not exceed 8 per cent. of the total time in the business
district and not more than 2 per cent. of the total time in the outlying
district. It is occasioned more through congestion of traffic than
through density of traffic. In cleaning light traffic asphalt pavements
it was disclosed that after the one morning thorough cleaning three-
fourths of the area to be covered during the remainder of the day does
not require thorough cleaning. The Commission believes that scoops
equipped with rollers would be well adapted for use on light traffic
pavements, and with them one man could patrol a much larger pavement
area and still keep the pavement in good condition. Time studies of work
performed by street laborers working in gangs showed that work done by
groups and gangs was not as economical as the division of such work
through individual arrangements. Considerable time is lost in
conversation. When one man rests every man on the street does the same
thing. While working in gangs the good sweeper does no more work than
the poorest of the gang. Where it is desired to cover a large area of
street with men working in groups rather than in gangs it would be
better, the Commission thinks, for each man to have a definite uniform
area to cover and to require the foreman to time each individual.
Mr. Edward D. Very, Sanitary Engineer, says that any attempt to estimate
the amount of materials which accumulate on a city street must end in
failure as the contributing elements vary in different localities in a
city and in different cities, and where figures are given they do not
really present any valuable data. Some general principles, however, have
been determined. The Chicago Commission in its investigation declares
that the quantity and volume of dirt attributed to horse drawn vehicle
traffic is the most important source of street dirt. The loss of sand
and coal and crushed stone, hay, manure and other loose material from
poorly constructed vehicles or overloaded vehicles adds greatly to the
quantity of street dirt to be removed. Important in a wet season is the
dirt carried by moving vehicles through streets and alleys onto hard
pavements, but the Commission says that the amount of dirt actually
attributable to this source is considerably less than is usually
believed. There is also considerable refuse in the form of leaves and
grass which accumulates in the residential streets and along boulevards
and parks, which has a tendency to lodge in catch basin inlets and stop
the free flow of storm water. The quantity of leaves accumulating in the
short leaf season on streets far exceeds that which naturally drops onto
the surface of streets alone, because of the additional cleaning from
lawns and parkway spaces.
Some reports express the belief that when a fixed standard is
established of basing street cleaning schedules carefully on density of
traffic, condition of pavement, character of frontage and kind of
pavement, a definite relation will be found between the amount of street
sweepings collected and the number of sweepers employed. In Chicago it
has been found that different sweepers average daily collections of
quantities varying from three-fourths of a cubic yard to three cubic
yards. It has also been noted that street sweepings collected by regular
block sweepers average about .0045 cubic feet per square yard. The
weight of sweepings will, under ordinary conditions, approximate 36
pounds per cubic foot.
The paving and repair policy of a city is a very important factor in
cleaning rates. Comparatively few cities as yet give any thought when
selecting a particular pavement as to the relative cost of keeping it
clean. It is also a fact that in many cities repair work is neglected at
the expense of cleaning.
A smooth, hard surface pavement will cost less to keep clean than one
with a rough or uneven surface. A brick pavement, for instance, costs
more to keep clean than sheet asphalt. For the same reason a street out
of repair is more expensive to clean than one in good repair.
Officials agree that a paving policy should be carried out with a view
to having a minimum number of unpaved approaches to existing pavements
in order to prevent mud being tracked from the highway to pavement.
There is need also of protecting narrow rural pavements from the
overflow or tracking of mud that originates on adjacent portions of the
same highway.
In a discussion of paving policies and their relation to street cleaning
Mr. Hanna says: “The construction and maintenance of pavements that are
easy to clean are important and effectual in saving the cost of street
administration. Little weight is given to cleaning cost when paving
questions are settled and an actual expense of $500 a mile in repairing
residence streets would be considered an appreciable item of
maintenance, yet that figure for cleaning a mile of residence streets
through a season is extremely low. A street cleaner looks upon two
qualities in a pavement. It must be smooth and particles of litter must
not stick to the surface. The question of smoothness opens up the whole
matter of durability. Any material that deteriorates or roughens becomes
more difficult each year to clean. Any neglect of needed repairs means a
larger cleaning bill until the repairs have been completed. The twofold
expense resulting from wear, the cost of repairs plus the increased cost
of cleaning should enter into all calculation of expense. Additional
calculation of cleaning expense must be made for all bituminous
pavements on account of the sticking of particles of litter to the
surface. These surfaces are never quite so clean as non-adhesive
materials and it costs from 25 per cent. upwards in additional cost to
put them in a reasonably presentable condition on account of this
quality. This difficulty is seen at its worst in a new creosoted wood
block pavement, when the oil is gradually working out between the pores
of the wood. The use of steel scrapers must often be employed as the
flushing by water is not at all effective in removing the dirt from the
surface.
“Substances most easily cleaned that enter into pavements are brick and
stone. Neither originates any dirt, and both wash off readily. The only
ground for discrimination between them is on the question of smoothness
where brick has a slight advantage as a rule. In the use of these
materials the choice of a filler is all important. A bituminous filler
has all the disadvantages of a bituminous surface. Being softer than the
brick or block it recedes, leaving a crevice that invites lodgment of
dirt; with edges of brick or block unprotected it is sure to roughen,
thus adding to the difficulties of cleaning. Such a street after a few
years presents the appearance of cobble stones with the filler invisible
or else melted and run to the gutter where it impedes work of follow-up
gang.”
Mr. Hanna recommends only a cement grout filler. He says that West 14th
Street in Cleveland has a grouted brick pavement ten years old and a
traffic of two vehicles a minute. It is cleaned on an average of five
times a week, being flushed by night and hand swept by day. The cost of
cleaning is almost exactly 15 cents per 10,000 of square feet. This is
the lowest figure the city has been able to reach on any type of
pavement. Mr. Hanna says that the cost on the best asphalt would not be
less than 20 cents and would rise to 30 cents if the surface became wavy
or rough. Wood block costs approximately $1.00 a square to clean in its
initial condition, and it would be at least two years before oil will
have dried out sufficiently to admit its being cleaned for 30 cents a
square. Tar filled brick pavement will cost not less than 30 cents a
square, and if the filler disappears and the block roughens this cost
will amount to 60 cents or more. In the case of a pavement 40 feet wide
there are about 21 squares to a mile.
Thus Mr. Hanna points out that as between a material that can be cleaned
for 15 cents and one that can be cleaned for 30 cents, there is a
difference of $3.15 per mile for cleaning, a difference of $15.75 per
week, or $630 per season of 40 weeks—$6,300 in ten years. In Mr. Hanna’s
judgment cleaning costs can be greatly reduced by a policy of prompt
repair. He believes in the continual patrol of all city streets by men
whose duty it is to discover defects in pavement and prescribe repair.
Schedule of Street Cleaning
The unit work must be established and the responsibility of each
employee fixed in order to secure an economical administration of street
cleaning. This principle is illustrated by the so-called “block system.”
By this, each man is allotted to a definite area of pavement to clean,
which varies in extent depending upon local conditions as to traffic,
physical condition of pavement, location of street, proximity to public
buildings, population, paving, alleys, street cars, right of way and
frontage of streets.
It is the practise of up-to-date cities to prepare schedules showing the
character of pavement, area of pavement, number of cleanings or patrols
per week, and the standard of work required of each street cleaner.
Changes in these schedules are necessary from time to time on account of
climatic conditions, street repair and other necessities. The Chicago
Civil Service Commission says that to obtain definite standards of
schedules for cleaning streets and alleys and the need of repairing such
streets, the routing of teams and vehicles, collecting of city waste,
the amount and character and physical condition of all pavements must be
obtained.
Pavements are usually classified according to physical character for the
purpose of determining the amount and character of cleaning as follows:
* * * * *
Improved—Permanent (a) Smooth pavements, including asphalt, creosote
block and bitulithic. (b) Rough pavements, including brick, granite,
cobble and rubble and other pavements which require that dirt be picked
from interstices.
Improved—Not permanent. All macadam pavements and country roads.
Unimproved pavements. All streets that have not been paved.
The oiling of macadam within the past few years has had an excellent
effect on this kind of pavement and has given it the solidity and
usefulness almost approaching improved permanent pavements. On macadam
surface streets, periodical removal of rough material with hoes, brooms
and shovels from street surface and gutters and sprinkling in dry
weather with water or oil is about the best that can be done. An
analysis in Chicago of the standard of work which one man can perform on
an oiled macadam street, indicates that the rate of cleaning one and
three-quarters miles of oiled macadam of average width in an eight hour
day can be reasonably expected of any man.
Much waste is caused by lack of system in laying out the work and
improperly directing the street cleaning gangs and teams. The attached
tables give the systems now being used in fifty American municipalities.
A study of these will show that some very definite ideas have been
developed by street cleaning officials in this country. For example,
most cities prefer having patrolmen work singly instead of in gangs.
In making assignments attention should be given to the smallest details,
such as correct reports from foremen as to the number of streets swept
and loads carted away, and the correct number of sweepers in each
street. In many cities three are sent through a street when two would
do. Dirt wagons should not be started immediately behind sweeping gangs
as it usually takes thirty minutes to an hour before a gang can sweep up
enough dirt for a full load. Dirt teams should not start for at least
one hour after the sweeper begins. Gangs should have allotted to them
enough work to keep them busy until quitting time so that they do not
have to kill time. Laxity in any part of the system eats up the
department appropriation.
Spring Cleaning
The spring cleaning system usually calls for the piling up and removal
of the heavy dirt which is washed from the center of the street and
which accumulates in the gutters during the winter season. The
experience of cities with such work indicates that the assignment of one
man to a definite length of street, or the assignment of a small gang of
not exceeding three men, to definite lengths of streets is more
effective and economical.
The Chicago Commission says that where a gang of three men is assigned
to the work, team work is developed by the use of one man in removing
the dirt from the roadway and one man each from the gutters. In the
granite and brick pavements considerably more brooming is necessary on
the roadway. Granite, brick and cedar block pavements require that the
dirt be scraped from the center of the street to the gutter before
piling in the gutters can be commenced. The center cleaning rates per
man in Chicago are given as follows:
┌─────────────────────┬─────────────────────┬─────────────────────┐
│ │ Car Track │ Outside Car Track │
│ │ Sq. Yds. per Day │ Sq. Yds. per Day │
├─────────────────────┼─────────────────────┼─────────────────────┤
│Good Asphalt │ 16,500│ 18,500│
│Fair Asphalt │ 12,900│ 14,800│
│Poor Asphalt │ 9,200│ 11,100│
│Good Brick │ 4,400│ 5,500│
│Fair Brick │ 3,540│ 3,700│
│Poor Brick │ 1,850│ 2,960│
│Good Granite │ 4,400│ 5,550│
│Fair Granite │ 3,340│ 3,700│
│Poor Granite │ 1,850│ 2,220│
│Cobblestone │ 1,470│ │
└─────────────────────┴─────────────────────┴─────────────────────┘
The single gutter rates in miles per day per man are given as follows:
┌──────────────┬────────────────┬────────────────┬────────────────┐
│Times Cleaned │ │ │ Poor Brick and │
│ per Week │ Asphalt │ Good Brick │ Granite of All │
│ │ │ │ Kinds │
├──────────────┼────────────────┼────────────────┼────────────────┤
│ 2 │ 1.8 miles │ 1.4 miles │ 1.4 miles │
│ 3 │ 1.4 miles │ 1.1 miles │ 0.7 miles │
│ 6 │ 0.7 miles │ 0.5 miles │ 0.3 miles │
│ 9 │ │ 0.3 miles │ 0.2 miles │
│ 12 │ │ 0.2 miles │ 0.2 miles │
└──────────────┴────────────────┴────────────────┴────────────────┘
Chicago has found that the unit cost of spring cleaning of macadam and
cedar block streets of different physical condition is as follows:
┌─────────────────────┬─────────────────────┬─────────────────────┐
│ First Class │Fair Condition, Cost │Poor Condition, Cost │
│ Condition, Cost for │for Cleaning 100 Lin.│for Cleaning 100 Lin.│
│Cleaning 100 Lin. Ft.│ Ft. │ Ft. │
├─────────────────────┼─────────────────────┼─────────────────────┤
│ Traffic │ Traffic │ Traffic │
│ Heavy Light │ Heavy Light │ Heavy Light │
├─────────────────────┼─────────────────────┼─────────────────────┤
│ $1.18 $.90 │ $1.97 $1.46 │ $2.25 $1.89 │
└─────────────────────┴─────────────────────┴─────────────────────┘
Street Sprinkling
Although many cities sprinkle their streets for dust laying only, it is
agreed by all experts and the heads of most street cleaning departments
that the use of sprinkling carts for this purpose is of no value, _i.
e._ it is a temporary makeshift and the result is nil. Sprinkling alone
does not clean pavements, but only converts temporarily the fine dust
into mud, which is a nuisance. It is quite generally agreed, too, that
sprinkling is responsible for much repair work on pavements.
The number of times a street is sprinkled daily depends upon weather
conditions, nature of pavement and location, and rarely exceeds four
trips. Where flushing and squeegeeing are done sprinkling is eliminated
entirely.
In Providence, Rhode Island, bituminous pavements are not sprinkled by
water. They are kept clean by patrol system and reasonably free from
dust. It is the belief of officials of that city that the use of water
has an injurious effect on the pavement.
George D. Warren, of Boston, an expert on paving, says that street
sprinkling as it is generally practised is worse than a useless expense.
He points to the fact that there has been no sprinkling in Providence in
seven years on all kinds of pavement, except that water bound pavement
is occasionally sprinkled with oil or oil emulsion. If bituminous
pavement surfaces are dry and clean the oil which drips from automobiles
is quickly spread by auto tires to an extremely thin sheet, which not
only preserves the pavement, but the slight amount of oil takes up the
fine dust and materially helps to prevent the surface from even becoming
dusty.
Mr. Warren believes that while some forms of pavement are doubtless more
affected by water and mud than others, sprinkling injuriously affects
all classes of pavement. Continuing he says: “I believe that repairs
required to all classes of pavement are more generally the result of
wetting down the dirt, leaving the surface in a more or less muddy
condition than by traffic, or rather what would be traffic under dry
cleaning conditions. A city or street in or on which sprinkling or other
methods of continual wetting of pavement surface has not been practised
is almost usually one where the pavements are the best of their kind.
Washington has the enviable reputation of having the most durable
pavement of all kinds. For many years the system of cleaning there has
been hand patrol without sprinkling, except a very light sprinkling,
just enough to lay the dust, not to convert it into mud—immediately in
advance of night sweeping.
“Fifth Avenue, New York, is always dry except during rains, and we find
one of the most durable asphalt pavements in the world. The pavement is
always clean and never dusty.
“Asphalt pavement on Alexander Street, Rochester, New York, laid in
1885, is still in existence and has a record for low cost of repairs,
and has until quite recently been free from street sprinkling. It is now
rapidly deteriorating.
“Rutger Street, in Utica, New York, laid in 1886, has been through a
similar experience of no sprinkling. Michigan Boulevard in Chicago, from
Jackson Boulevard to 10th Street, was paved partly with creosoted wood
block and partly with asphalt. It was always in a dry condition and
carried very heavy traffic for ten years and was in a good condition
until about four years ago when it was removed on account of widening
the street. The bituminous pavement on Michigan Boulevard is always
clean and never cleaned or sprinkled other than by patrol cleaning,
except as to narrow strips about four feet wide which are sprinkled and
hand broomed at night to remove the slight dust which collects near the
curb.”
The Bureau of Municipal Research of Milwaukee reports that in that city
298 miles of street are sprinkled at a cost of $60,310.05. Of this
amount $55,104.77 is assessable.