Cleveland, Scranton, Columbus and New Bedford, Mass. Cleveland furnishes
and maintains the flusher cars, pays the cost of operating them,
including the wages of employees and the cost of power, but contributes
nothing toward fixed charges or for track maintenance or renewal.
Commissioner John T. Fetherston, of New York City, reports that the Mack
truck flushing machines which the city put into use during the summer of
1917 are capable, according to preliminary investigation, of cleaning
from 100,000 to 120,000 square yards of street per machine per eight
hour shift, and that they will do the work with the use of approximately
400 gallons of water per thousand square yards.
Hose Flushing
There is a difference of opinion as to the efficiency of flushing by
hose. In Philadelphia all alleys and streets whose width between curbs
is too narrow to permit the use of street brooms are cleaned once each
week with hose. When additional cleaning is necessary it is done with
hand brooms.
Very says that hose flushing is ineffective and uneconomical, and that
water does not reach the pavement in such manner as to give full effect
and usually is doing no work at all.
One city report makes this comment: “Four or five sweepers hold a hose
and play it in some sections as though the object were to wash away the
asphalt block pavement and car tracks. Target shooting, with a stream of
water, so-called flushing, will never supplant wetting and scrubbing.”
Very also claims that water to be effective must reach the pavement
surface in a chisel shape and at a proper angle to remove and carry off
the filth. He says that no man is properly constructed to hold the hose
at a proper angle with the pavement to obtain the best results for any
length of time. Commissioner Fetherston says New York’s experience shows
that a hose gang consisting of two men is able to clean well from 23,000
to 25,000 square yards of the dirtiest Belgian block pavement in eight
hours, and will clean upward of 30,000 square yards of smooth pavement
of modern granite block in the same time, using 2-inch hose, which is
that city’s standard size for use with its new hose reels. The amount of
water required to clean 1,000 square yards is approximately 1,000
gallons.
Cleaning by Squeegeeing
The squeegee method is used on smooth pavements. Batteries of two and
three squeegees are usually preceded by sprinklers, which use as much
water as possible without flooding the pavement, while the squeegees use
just enough water to create a wash. The idea of sprinkling the pavement
is to soften the surface and enable the squeegee to cleanse the street
of slime as well as coarser material. Squeegees are followed by men who
sweep up windrows of dirt into piles and a sufficient number of carts
follow to remove the dirt. In New York where no sprinkling cart is used
they average 50,000 square yards per machine per day with the use of 200
gallons of water per one thousand square yards. In Washington with a
sprinkling cart they get about 80,000 square yards per machine per day.
Parlin says that squeegeeing produces very effective results with a
limited use of water on smooth pavements in good repair.
Very believes that squeegee machines have their value, and if the
sprinkler cart is used in advance better results are obtained.
In Milwaukee machines are in constant operation on smooth surface
pavements. In certain sections where streets are exceptionally wide,
three machines are used in staggered formation and necessitate but one
and one-half complete trips over a street to perfect cleaning. They are
routed in such a manner that little idle travel is necessary and filling
plugs are specified to prevent empty haul to any great extent. The same
system is applied to territories where only two machines can be
operated, except that four return trips are necessary to complete the
work. In no wise are operators allowed to confine their work within a
given block unless conditions prevent, but must continue until tanks are
emptied, which usually occurs at end of second block. Two laborers are
employed with these machines to keep gutters free from dirt and
obstructing the water from flowing to the catch basins.
The average area cleaned in one year was 377,712 square yards at a cost
of $96.35 per day or 25.5 cents per 1,000 square yards. Of the total
yardage of pavement in the city 1,105,324 square yards are free from car
tracks and subject to squeegee process. Some are squeegeed twice a week
while others are cleaned but once and each have the additional service
of White Wings and sprinkler.
The Milwaukee Bureau of Municipal Research gives the cost of squeegeeing
as follows:
Cost of machine $1,250.00
Fixed charges
Depreciation and repairs at 10% on machine $111.00
Depreciation & repairs at 50% on roller 70.00
Interest at 4½% 56.25 237.25
——————— —————————
Maintenance:
Painting (each season) 20.00
Hose and coupling (each season) 15.00 35.00
——————— —————————
Season cost, $272.25
150 days operation, cost per day 1.815
Operation:
Team hire per day 5.00
One sweeper at $2 2.00
Water at 6¢ per 1,000 gal .82
——————— —————————
Cost per machine per day $9.635
Manufacturers have placed on the market a modern motor driven squeegee
said to be efficient and economical to a city with large area of smooth
pavement. The capacity of this tank is increased to 750 gallons (an
increase of 200 gallons over horse-drawn machine), which will permit a
large area to be cleaned uninterrupted by constant filling, and reduce
the lost time at hydrants. There are two sets of sprays, one directly in
front of machine and one directly in front of squeegee. Back of the
first spray or sprinkler head is a set of two brushes to loosen any
hardened matter that might not be subjected to the squeegee process. By
using this machine, the employment of laborers to continue the flow of
water to catch basins is unnecessary, as the discharge of water is
sufficient to remove any slight particles that are removed by the horse
drawn equipment. At the end of the season, the machine can be dismantled
and a box attached to make it available for other purposes. The cost of
operating this style is estimated by the Milwaukee Bureau to be as
follows:
Cost of machine $4,000.00
Depreciation and repairs at 25% on machine (one- $481.25
half chargeable to street cleaning)
Interest investment 4½% (one-half chargeable to 90.00
street cleaning)
One roller per season 85.00
———————
Maintenance: 656.25
Hose, couplings, 4 tires depreciation at 50%
Replacement of two brushes 69.00
———————
Season cost 725.75
150 days operation on street cleaning $4.84
Operation:
1 sweeper per day $2.00
1 chauffeur per day 3.00
Gas and oil 1.82
Water at 6¢ per gal. 1.60
—————
8.42
Daily cost 13.26
Average square yards cleaned per day, 80,000
Cost square yards, 16.5¢
Assessment for foot front based on a street 30 feet wide and cleaned
fifty times a season would be $1.37.
This cost data shows motor driven squeegees will perform twice the
amount of work as horse drawn at a reduced unit cost. The difference in
operating cost of two types would be:
Horse drawn, average cost per 1,000 square yards 25.5¢
Motor driven, average cost per 1,000 square yards 16.5¢
Whinery says that while it is true that flushing methods, if thoroughly
used, do carry the removed dust into the sewers or drains, which is
regarded by many objectionable and to clog the pipes, this might happen
where the whole of the street dirt, coarse and fine, is thus carried
together into the sewers. He does not know of any instances where actual
trouble has resulted. The practise of cleaning the streets wholly by
squeegeeing or flushing is not, however, to be recommended, he believes,
if for no other reason than that it would be impracticable to do the
work several times each day and thus prevent the formation and flying of
dust. The danger of clogging the sewers by flushing dust only into them
is, he thinks, very remote, as the quantity of the dust remaining after
proper coarse cleaning is small. Careful determination by the New York
Commission on Street Cleaning and Waste Disposal showed that on smooth
pavements cleaned by the patrol system the accumulation of dust in 48
hours after the street has been washed either by hard rains or by
flushing, does not exceed five per cent. or six per cent. of the total
daily quantity of street dirt, though on rough stone block pavement it
may be much larger. This quantity is so small that its disposal through
the sewers could hardly cause serious trouble. In fact, the large volume
of water used tends rather to flush and clean out the sewers.
In a paper read before the American Society of Municipal Improvements,
Mr. Parlin summarizes as follows the results of a study made by him to
determine the economy of the various types of flushing equipment: “Hose
flushing on small areas was the most economical method; that up to
40,000 square yards, the horse drawn equipment was next in economy; that
from 40,000 square yards to 90,000 square yards the hose was about as
economical as the automobile; that from 90,000 square yards to 120,000
square yards automobile was supreme, and for daily schedule areas of
over 120,000 square yards the automobile and street car equipment give
nearly the same economy.”
The street washing equipment of the future will probably be a
combination affair. This has been used in Europe for several years. New
York City is now developing combination equipment.
The ideal system of street cleaning would, therefore, be efficient
patrol or hand cleaning through the day or during a longer period if the
volume of travel in the evening requires it, and thorough scrubbing with
squeegees or washing with water under pressure by flushing machines or
hose at night as often as may be necessary.
Although the automobile equipment has not been in use long, experience
has shown that it is both efficient and economical, particularly in the
larger cities.
Disposal of Street Refuse
In most cities the final disposal of sweepings and waste collected from
the streets is a troublesome problem, and the cost is no small item in
the expenses of the street cleaning department. The majority dispose of
the sweepings on city dumps. A few cities are able to dispose of a part
of the sweepings from paved streets to farmers and gardeners in the near
vicinity on terms that repay at least a part of the cost that would
otherwise have to be incurred, but the expense of handling and
transporting the material to any considerable distance and its great
bulk compared with its commercial value as a fertilizer place a limit on
its disposal in this way. Nevertheless, it should be possible in the
smaller cities at least to interest farmers and gardeners in the use of
this material to a greater extent than is now common and to dispose thus
of the sweepings at a price that would reduce the cost of disposal
otherwise. The use of street refuse for filling low ground or reclaiming
areas of shallow water and marshes has not been so seriously considered
as it should be.
In some cities the street dirt is used as a fill between sidewalks and
curb or in low alleys and vacant lots which are adjacent to the streets
cleaned.
In other cities where the so-called “short haul” system is used, the
street dirt is collected from stations at which the street sweepers
deposit it, for filling purposes within the ward. The haul seldom
exceeds three-quarters of a mile. One mile has been used as a standard
for short hauls within wards.
Relative Cost of Street Cleaning
Most experts agree that little can be gained by comparing unit costs in
different cities as local conditions and prices paid for labor, etc.,
vary so widely. Another reason is the lack of uniformity in standards
and records maintained in the various cities. And still another reason
is the varying standards of cleanliness. Very few cities in considering
the sum to be appropriated first determine the standard of cleanliness
to be attained. An investigation conducted by the United States Bureau
of Census indicated that the unit cost of street cleaning in cities
having less than 300,000 inhabitants is less than that in cities having
over 300,000.
When the many different methods of record and cost keeping are
considered as well as the difficulties encountered in obtaining accurate
information as to conditions and methods used in the cleaning of
streets, the reasons for these differences are apparent.
_The Municipal Journal_ in January, 1915, printed a table which shows
that the average number of cleanings per year in thirty-one of the
largest cities was 156, varying from 37½ to 300. The cubic yards of
sweepings per year per thousand square yards of street area averaged
20.5, varying from 5.7 to 48; the latter being in Boston and nearly four
times that reported from Washington. The average amount of sweepings
collected at each cleaning was 191 cubic yards per million square yards
cleaned, varying from 32 to 440. The cost per thousand square yards of
cleaning done averaged 35½ cents, varying from 14 cents to $1.53. The
cost per cubic yard of sweepings averaged $2.70, varying from 79 cents
to $8.75.
Table I (a)
STREET CLEANING IN AMERICAN CITIES
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Name of City │Population│ Miles of Streets Swept per Year
│ │
│ │
│ ├─────────────┬──────────┬───────────
│ │ By Hand │By Machine│ Total
│ │ │ │
──────────────┼──────────┼─────────────┼──────────┼───────────
Buffalo, N. Y.│ 461,335│ 9,600│ 34,000│
Beacon, N. Y. │ 10,165│ 1.5│ │
Binghamton, N.│ 53,000│ 2│ 25.6│ 27.6
Y. │ │ │ │
Cincinnati, │ 402,175│ 20,112│ 10[1]│
Ohio │ │ │ │
Cambridge, │ 110,000│ 15│ 108.5│
Mass. │ │ │ │
Chicago, Ill. │ 2,200,000│4,674,396,308│12,039,859│
│ │ S.Y.│ S.Y.│
Camden, N. J. │ 95,000│ │ │ 2,249,314
Columbus, Ohio│ 220,000│ │ │
Cleveland, │ 561,000│ │ │
Ohio │ │ │ │
Cortland, N. │ 13,000│ 6│ │
Y. │ │ │ │
Dunkirk, N. Y.│ 17,870│ │ │ 26
Denver, Col. │ 245,523│ 102,501,230│ │215,046,848
│ │ S.Y.│ │ S.Y.
Elmira, N. Y. │ 40,093│ │ │ 20,672
Fall River, │ 124,791│ │ │
Mass. │ │ │ │
Grand Rapids, │ 131,000│ │ │
Mich. │ │ │ │
Hudson, N. Y. │ 13,000│ │ │ 21.5
Jamestown, N. │ 38,000│ 1│ 30│
Y. │ │ │ │
Kansas City, │ 319,000│ │ │ 462.65[2]
Mo. │ │ │ │
Kingston, N. │ 27,000│ 4│ │
Y. │ │ │ │
Los Angeles, │ 550,000│ 333│ │
Cal. │ │ │ │
Louisville, │ 224,000│ │ │ 8,331
Ky. │ │ │ │
Lowell, Mass. │ 106,294│ │ │
Lynn, Mass. │ 96,000│ │ │ 35
Lackawanna, N.│ 17,500│ │ 5.5│
Y. │ │ │ │
Little Falls, │ 13,000│ 6│ │
N. Y. │ │ │ │
Milwaukee, │ 450,000│ 82│ 252.5│
Wis. │ │ │ │
Middletown, N.│ 18,000│ 4.2│ │
Y. │ │ │ │
Mechanicville,│ 8,208│ 5.│ │
N. Y. │ │ │ │
New York City │ 4,551,860│ │ │ 1,487
(Manhattan, │ │ │ │
Bronx & │ │ │ │
Brooklyn) │ │ │ │
New Orleans, │ 400,000│ │ │
La. │ │ │ │
New Bedford, │ 111,000│ │ │
Mass. │ │ │ │
Newark, N. J. │ 370,000│ │ │
Norwich, N. Y.│ 8,500│ │ 6│
New Rochelle, │ 35,500│ 58│ │
N. Y. │ │ │ │
Niagara Falls,│ 45,000│ │ 400│
N. Y. │ │ │ │
Newburgh, N. │ 27,876│ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │
Oakland, Cal. │ 215,000│ 4,128│ 5,160│
Oswego, N. Y. │ 24,000│ │ 90│
Ogdensburg, N.│ 14,388│ 1–3│ 10│
Y. │ │ │ │
Philadelphia, │ 1,800,000│ 461│ 1,165│
Pa. │ │ │ │
Providence, R.│ 248,000│ │ │
I. │ │ │ │
Rochester, N. │ 248,465│ │ │ 258,171
Y. │ │ │ │
Rensselaer, N.│ 11,112│ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │
Reading, Pa. │ 110,000│ │ │ 209,659
│ │ │ │ squares
Richmond, Va. │ 160,000│ │ │
St. Louis, Mo.│ 835,000│ │ │ 405
San Francisco,│ 500,000│ │ │ 460
Cal. │ │ │ │
Salt Lake │ 120,000│ 30│ │ 54
City, Utah │ │ │ │
Springfield, │ 102,971│ │ │
Mass. │ │ │ │
Seattle, Wash.│ 238,000│ │ │
Scranton, Pa. │ 130,000│ │ │
Troy, N. Y. │ 76,000│ │ 40.89│
Utica, N. Y. │ 85,000│ │ ½ sq. mi.│
│ │ │ daily.│
Washington, D.│ 360,000│ │ │
C. │ │ │ │
──────────────┴──────────┴─────────────┴──────────┴───────────
──────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Name of City │ AREA IN SQUARE YARDS SUBJECT TO CLEANING
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────
│ Hand Sweeping
├──────────┬─────────┬─────────┬───────────┬──────────
│ Smooth │ Rough │ Macadam │ Total │Smooth and
│ │ │ │ │ Rough
──────────────┼──────────┼─────────┼─────────┼───────────┼──────────
Buffalo, N. Y.│ │ │ │ 749,600│
Beacon, N. Y. │ │ │ │ │ 26,400
Binghamton, N.│ │ │ │ 114,829│
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Cincinnati, │ │ 254,951│ │ │
Ohio │ │ │ │ │
Cambridge, │ │ │ │ 350,000│
Mass. │ │ │ │ │
Chicago, Ill. │19,841,482│7,551,053│6,605,237│ │
│ │ │ │ │
Camden, N. J. │ │ │ │ │
Columbus, Ohio│ │ │ │ │
Cleveland, │ │ │ │ │
Ohio │ │ │ │ │
Cortland, N. │ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Dunkirk, N. Y.│ │ │ │ │
Denver, Col. │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Elmira, N. Y. │ 41,000│ │ │ │
Fall River, │ │ │ │ │
Mass. │ │ │ │ │
Grand Rapids, │ │ │ │ │
Mich. │ │ │ │ │
Hudson, N. Y. │ │ │ │ │
Jamestown, N. │ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Kansas City, │ │ │ │ │
Mo. │ │ │ │ │
Kingston, N. │ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Los Angeles, │ │ │ │ 9,150,000│
Cal. │ │ │ │ │
Louisville, │ │ │ │ │
Ky. │ │ │ │ │
Lowell, Mass. │ │ │ │ │
Lynn, Mass. │ │ │ │ │
Lackawanna, N.│ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Little Falls, │ 74,000│ 5,000│ 3,000│ │
N. Y. │ │ │ │ │
Milwaukee, │ │ │ │ 1,600,170│
Wis. │ │ │ │ │
Middletown, N.│ 88,235│ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Mechanicville,│ │ │ │ │
N. Y. │ │ │ │ │
New York City │ │ │ │ │28,429,785
(Manhattan, │ │ │ │ │
Bronx & │ │ │ │ │
Brooklyn) │ │ │ │ │
New Orleans, │ │ │ │ │
La. │ │ │ │ │
New Bedford, │ │ │ │ │
Mass. │ │ │ │ │
Newark, N. J. │ │ │ │ │
Norwich, N. Y.│ │ │ │ │
New Rochelle, │ 4.67 Mi.│ 47.1 Mi.│ 6.3 Mi.│ │
N. Y. │ │ │ │ │
Niagara Falls,│ │ │ │ │
N. Y. │ │ │ │ │
Newburgh, N. │ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Oakland, Cal. │ │ │7,333,000│ │ 180,800
Oswego, N. Y. │ │ │ │ │ 412,866
Ogdensburg, N.│ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Philadelphia, │ 750,139│ │3,835,217│ │
Pa. │ │ │ │ │
Providence, R.│ │ │ │ │
I. │ │ │ │ │
Rochester, N. │ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Rensselaer, N.│ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Reading, Pa. │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Richmond, Va. │ │ │ │ 56,820,400│
St. Louis, Mo.│ │ │ │ │
San Francisco,│ │ │ │525,105,551│
Cal. │ │ │ │ │
Salt Lake │ │ │ │ │
City, Utah │ │ │ │ │
Springfield, │ │ │ │ │
Mass. │ │ │ │ │
Seattle, Wash.│ │ │ │ 3,521,624│
Scranton, Pa. │ │ │ │ │
Troy, N. Y. │ │ │ │ │
Utica, N. Y. │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Washington, D.│ │ │1,513,562│ │ 3,682,766
C. │ │ │ │ │
──────────────┴──────────┴─────────┴─────────┴───────────┴──────────
──────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────
Name of City │ AREA IN SQUARE YARDS SUBJECT TO CLEANING
├─────────────────────────────────────────────
│ Machine Sweeping
├──────┬───────┬───────┬───────────┬──────────
│Smooth│ Rough │Macadam│ Total │Smooth and
│ │ │ │ │ Rough
──────────────┼──────┼───────┼───────┼───────────┼──────────
Buffalo, N. Y.│ │ │ │ 7,964,500│
Beacon, N. Y. │ │ │ │ │
Binghamton, N.│ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Cincinnati, │ │ │ │ │
Ohio │ │ │ │ │
Cambridge, │ │ │ │ 1,250,000│
Mass. │ │ │ │ │
Chicago, Ill. │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Camden, N. J. │ │ │ │ │
Columbus, Ohio│ │ │ │ │
Cleveland, │ │ │ │ │
Ohio │ │ │ │ │
Cortland, N. │ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Dunkirk, N. Y.│ │ │ │ │
Denver, Col. │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Elmira, N. Y. │ │ │ │ │
Fall River, │ │ │ │ │
Mass. │ │ │ │ │
Grand Rapids, │ │ │ │ │
Mich. │ │ │ │ │
Hudson, N. Y. │ │ │ │ │
Jamestown, N. │ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Kansas City, │ │ │ │ │
Mo. │ │ │ │ │
Kingston, N. │ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Los Angeles, │ │ │ │ │
Cal. │ │ │ │ │
Louisville, │ │ │ │ │
Ky. │ │ │ │ │
Lowell, Mass. │ │ │ │ │
Lynn, Mass. │ │ │ │ │
Lackawanna, N.│ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Little Falls, │ │ │ │ │
N. Y. │ │ │ │ │
Milwaukee, │ │ │ │ │
Wis. │ │ │ │ │
Middletown, N.│ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Mechanicville,│ │ │ │ │
N. Y. │ │ │ │ │
New York City │ │ │ │ │10,391,283
(Manhattan, │ │ │ │ │
Bronx & │ │ │ │ │
Brooklyn) │ │ │ │ │
New Orleans, │ │ │ │ │
La. │ │ │ │ │
New Bedford, │ │ │ │ │
Mass. │ │ │ │ │
Newark, N. J. │ │ │ │ │
Norwich, N. Y.│ │ │ │ │
New Rochelle, │ │ │ │ 25,000│
N. Y. │ │ │ │ │
Niagara Falls,│ │ │ │ │
N. Y. │ │ │ │ │
Newburgh, N. │ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Oakland, Cal. │ │ │187,851│ │
Oswego, N. Y. │ │ │ │ │ 778,374
Ogdensburg, N.│ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Philadelphia, │ │ │ │ │
Pa. │ │ │ │ │
Providence, R.│ │ │ │ │
I. │ │ │ │ │
Rochester, N. │ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Rensselaer, N.│ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Reading, Pa. │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Richmond, Va. │ │ │ │208,031,600│
St. Louis, Mo.│ │ │ │ │
San Francisco,│ │ │ │ 65,228,812│
Cal. │ │ │ │ │
Salt Lake │ │ │ │ │
City, Utah │ │ │ │ │
Springfield, │ │ │ │ │
Mass. │ │ │ │ │
Seattle, Wash.│ │ │ │ 12,324,340│
Scranton, Pa. │ │ │ │ │
Troy, N. Y. │ │727,112│ 53,542│ │
Utica, N. Y. │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Washington, D.│ │ │ │ │ 1,584,524
C. │ │ │ │ │
──────────────┴──────┴───────┴───────┴───────────┴──────────
Table I (b)
STREET CLEANING IN AMERICAN CITIES (Continued)
─────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────────────
City │ AREA IN SQUARE YARDS SUBJECT TO CLEANING
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────
│ Hand and Machine Sweeping
├──────────┬─────────┬─────────┬───────────┬──────────
│ Smooth │ Rough │ Macadam │ Total │Smooth and
│ │ │ │ │ Rough
─────────────┼──────────┼─────────┼─────────┼───────────┼──────────
Buffalo │ │ │ │ 8,714,100│
Beacon │ │ │ │ │
Binghamton │ │ │ │ │
Cincinnati │ │ 651,213│4,981,710│ │
Cambridge │ │ │ │ 35,000│
Chicago │ │ │ │ 38,466│
Camden │ │ │ │ │
Columbus │ │ │ │ │
Cleveland │ │ │ │ │
Cortland │ │ │ │ │
Dunkirk │ │ │ │ │
Denver │ │ │ │ │
Elmira │ │ │ │ │
Fall River │ │ │ │ │
Grand Rapids │ │ │ │ │
Hudson │ │ │ │ │
Jamestown │ │ │ │ │
Kansas City │ │ │ │ │
Kingston │ │ │ │ │
Los Angeles │ │ │ │ │
Louisville │ │ │ │ │
Lowell │ │ │ │ │
Lynn │ │ │ │ │
Lackawanna │ │ │ │ │
Little Falls │ │ │ │ │
Milwaukee │ │ │ │ │
Middletown │ │ │ │ │
Mechanicville│ │ │ │ │
New York City│ │ │ │ │10,391,283
New Orleans │ │ │ │ │
New Bedford │141,098.22│98,843.03│ │ │
Newark │ │ │ │ │
Norwich │ │ │ │ │
New Rochelle │ │ │ │ │
Niagara Falls│ │ │ │ │
Newburgh │ │ │ │ │
Oakland │ │ │ │ │
Oswego │ │ │ │ │
Ogdensburg │ │ │ │ │
Philadelphia │ │ │ │ │
Providence │ │ │ │ │
Rochester │ │ │ │ │
Rensselaer │ │ │ │ │
Reading │ │ │ │ │
Richmond │ │ │ │264,852,000│
St. Louis │ │ │ │ │
San Francisco│ │ │ │590,394,363│
Salt Lake │ │ │ │ │
City │ │ │ │ │
Springfield │ │ │ │ │
Seattle │ │ │ │ 15,845,994│
Scranton │ │ │ │ │
Troy │ │ │ │ │
Utica │ │ │ │ │
Washington │ │ │ │ │
─────────────┴──────────┴─────────┴─────────┴───────────┴──────────
─────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────────
City │ AREA IN SQUARE YARDS SUBJECT TO CLEANING
├──────────────────────────────────────────
│ Sweeping and Flushing
├──────────┬─────────┬───────┬─────────────
│ Smooth │ Rough │Macadam│ Total
│ │ │ │
─────────────┼──────────┼─────────┼───────┼─────────────
Buffalo │ │ │ │ 187,400[3]
Beacon │ │ │ │
Binghamton │ │ │ │ 71,804.4
Cincinnati │ 1,272,846│2,963,948│ │
Cambridge │ │ │ │
Chicago │ │ │ │ 8,339,014[4]
Camden │ │ │ │
Columbus │ │ │ │
Cleveland │ │ │ │
Cortland │ │ │ │
Dunkirk │ │ │ │
Denver │ │ │ │
Elmira │429,442[2]│ │ │
Fall River │ │ │ │
Grand Rapids │ │ │ │62,474,499[2]
Hudson │ │ │ │
Jamestown │ │ │ │
Kansas City │ │ │ │
Kingston │ │ │ │
Los Angeles │ │ │ │ 8,000,000[6]
Louisville │ │ │ │
Lowell │ │ │ │
Lynn │ │ │ │
Lackawanna │ │ │ │
Little Falls │ │ │ │
Milwaukee │ │ │ │ 6,375,676[7]
Middletown │ │ │ │
Mechanicville│ │ │ │
New York City│ │ │ │
New Orleans │ │ │ │
New Bedford │ │ │ │
Newark │ │ │ │
Norwich │ │ │ │
New Rochelle │ │ │ │
Niagara Falls│ 900,000│ │ │
Newburgh │ │ │ │
Oakland │ │ │ │
Oswego │ │ │ │
Ogdensburg │ │ │ │
Philadelphia │ │ │ │ 17,335,027
Providence │ │ │ │
Rochester │ │ │ │
Rensselaer │ │ │ │
Reading │ │ │ │
Richmond │ │ │ │ 2,846,000[2]
St. Louis │ │ │ │
San Francisco│ │ │ │ 704,240,828
Salt Lake │ │ │ │
City │ │ │ │
Springfield │ │ │ │
Seattle │ │ │ │ 189,038,712
Scranton │ │ │ │
Troy │301,878[2]│ │ │
Utica │ │ │ │
Washington │ │ │ │
─────────────┴──────────┴─────────┴───────┴─────────────
─────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────
City │ AREA IN SQUARE YARDS SUBJECT TO CLEANING
├─────────────────────────────────────────
│ Sweeping and Flushing
├────────────┬────────────
│ Smooth and │ Total
│ Rough │
─────────────┼────────────┼────────────
Buffalo │ │
Beacon │ │
Binghamton │ │
Cincinnati │ │ 10,124,668
Cambridge │ │
Chicago │ │
Camden │ │
Columbus │ │
Cleveland │ │
Cortland │ │ 172,226
Dunkirk │ │ 316,601
Denver │ │
Elmira │ │
Fall River │ │
Grand Rapids │ │
Hudson │ │
Jamestown │ │ 531,582
Kansas City │ │
Kingston │ │7,526,762[5]
Los Angeles │ │
Louisville │ │
Lowell │ │
Lynn │ │
Lackawanna │ │ 100,000
Little Falls │ │
Milwaukee │ │
Middletown │ │
Mechanicville│ │
New York City│ 10,280,982│
New Orleans │ │
New Bedford │ │
Newark │ │
Norwich │ │
New Rochelle │ │
Niagara Falls│ │
Newburgh │ │
Oakland │ │
Oswego │ │ 174,830
Ogdensburg │ │ 75,000
Philadelphia │ │
Providence │ │
Rochester │ │ 4,265,061
Rensselaer │ │
Reading │ │
Richmond │ │ 267,698,000
St. Louis │ │ 9,427,212
San Francisco│ │
Salt Lake │ │
City │ │
Springfield │ │
Seattle │ │
Scranton │ │
Troy │ │
Utica │ │
Washington │2,671,963[4]│
─────────────┴────────────┴────────────
Table I (c)
STREET CLEANING IN AMERICAN CITIES (Continued)