Footnote 45:
City has 2 teams which take care of central part twice daily all year.
Footnote 46:
Suburbs collected by contract.
Footnote 47:
Per man per day.
Table V
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL BY CONTRACT
────────────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────
│ Ashes and Rubbish
├─────────────┬──────────────┬────────────
│Indianapolis,│Mechanicville,│ Cohoee, N.
│ Ind. │ N. Y. │ Y.
────────────────────────┼─────────────┼──────────────┼────────────
Number of collections │ │ │
each week— │ │ │
Business Section— │ │ │
Winter │ 1[48]│ 2│ 2
Summer │ ½[52]│ 2│ 2
Residential Section— │ │ │
Winter │ 1│ 2│ 1
Summer │ ½│ 2│ 1
Outlying Section— │ │ │
Winter │ 1│ 0│ 1
Summer │ ½│ 0│ 1
│ │ │
Miles, length of haul │ 6│ 1│ 1½
│ │ │
Cost of collection and │ │ │
disposal per cubic │ │ │
yard │ │ │
Per capita served │ │ │
Per ton │ │ │
│ │ │
Where is can collected │Rear. │Curb. │Curb.
from and where left │ │ │
│ │ │
Size and type of can │Covered │Not larger │Not
│ barrel. │ than flour │ specified.
│ │ barrel. │
│ │ │
Quantity collected in │ │ │
year— │ │ │
Tons │ 96,552│ │
Cubic yards │ 64,368│ │
Loads │ 32,184│ │
Size of load │ 3 ton.│ │
Cubic yards per man │ 201│ │
employed │ │ │
Cubic yards per capita │ 214│ │
served │ │ │
│ │ │
Population served per │ 938│ │
man employed │ │ │
│ │ │
Number of men employed— │ │ │
Summer │ 24│ 2│
Winter │ 50│ 2│
│ │ │
Number of men on each │ 2│ 2│ 2
wagon │ │ │
│ │ │
Type of wagon used │Steel King. │Covered. │Covered,
│ │ │ Dump.
│ │ │
Number of wagons— │ │ │
Summer │ 12│ 1│ 5
Winter │ 37│ 1│ 5
│ │ │
Number of motor vehicles│ │ │
│ │ │
Motor vehicles used for │ │ │
short or long haul │ │ │
│ │ │
Description of │ │3 districts. │
collection system │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Disposal of Ashes │Dump. │ │
│ │ │
City own or rent dumps │River bottom.│Free. │Free.
│ │ │
Annual cost to city for │ │ $2,700│ $3,900
collection and │ │ │
disposal │ │ │
│ │ │
Average quantity │ │ │
collected daily— │ │ │
Summer │10 tons. │ │
Winter │10 tons. │ │
────────────────────────┴─────────────┴──────────────┴────────────
────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────────────────────────
│ Ashes and Rubbish
├────────────────────────────────────────────────
│ Philadelphia, Pa.
│
────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────
Number of collections │
each week— │
Business Section— │
Winter │ 1
Summer │ 1
Residential Section— │
Winter │ 1
Summer │ 1
Outlying Section— │
Winter │ 1
Summer │ 1
│
Miles, length of haul │ 1–2
│
Cost of collection and │ .37
disposal per cubic │
yard │
Per capita served │ .39
Per ton │ .95
│
Where is can collected │Curb.
from and where left │
│
Size and type of can │Can’t weigh with contents over 150 lbs.
│
│
│
Quantity collected in │
year— │
Tons │ 676,200
Cubic yards │ 1,229,456
Loads │
Size of load │
Cubic yards per man │
employed │
Cubic yards per capita │ .67
served │
│
Population served per │
man employed │
│
Number of men employed— │
Summer │
Winter │
│
Number of men on each │
wagon │
│
Type of wagon used │Wooden body, metal covered. Metal body, metal
│ covered. Trucks, metal and canvas covered.
│
Number of wagons— │
Summer │
Winter │
│
Number of motor vehicles│ 31
│
Motor vehicles used for │Both.
short or long haul │
│
Description of │City divided into 9 districts. Each district
collection system │ divided into 12 sub-districts; from each of
│ these districts each day ashes and rubbish
│ collected. Ashes placed at curb line and
│ rubbish kept inside premises in readily
│ accessible place. Rubbish card hung at gate
│ and gives evidence that there is rubbish to be
│ collected. Rubbish must be bagged or bundled.
│ Ashes collected in amount not exceeding 400
│ lbs. from all buildings with certain
│ exceptions. Rubbish collection in unlimited
│ amount from residences and not exceeding 4
│ barrels from retail business houses. City has
│ experienced difficulty in having ashes and
│ rubbish placed separately in proper container.
│ Unsuccessful attempt was made to facilitate
│ this by having ashes and rubbish collected on
│ separate days. In 1918 both will be collected
│ on the same day.
│
Disposal of Ashes │Fill.
│
City own or rent dumps │Mostly privately owned.
│
Annual cost to city for │ $710,240
collection and │
disposal │
│
Average quantity │
collected daily— │
Summer │1,565[51] 2½ tons.
Winter │6,524[51] 15 tons.
────────────────────────┴────────────────────────────────────────────────
────────────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────────
│ Ashes Only
├────────────────────────┬────────────────────────
│ Washington, D. C. │ North Tonawanda, N. Y.
│ │
────────────────────────┼────────────────────────┼────────────────────────
Number of collections │ │
each week— │ │
Business Section— │ │
Winter │ 2[49]│ 1[50]
Summer │ 1[49]│ 1[50]
Residential Section— │ │
Winter │ 2│ 1
Summer │ 1│ 1
Outlying Section— │ │
Winter │ 1│ 1
Summer │ 1│ 1
│ │
Miles, length of haul │ 1.64│ 1½
│ │
Cost of collection and │ .51│
disposal per cubic │ │
yard │ │
Per capita served │ .109│ .15
Per ton │ .85│ .11
│ │
Where is can collected │Rear alley or areaway. │Curb.
from and where left │ │
│ │
Size and type of can │Metal covered, 5 to 24 │ Metal.
│ gals. │
│ │
│ │
Quantity collected in │ │
year— │ │
Tons │ 91,070│
Cubic yards │ 151,783│
Loads │ 37,946│
Size of load │ 4 cubic yds.│
Cubic yards per man │ 12 in winter, 6 in│
employed │ summer.│
Cubic yards per capita │ .43│
served │ │
│ │
Population served per │ Varies.│ 4,343
man employed │ │
│ │
Number of men employed— │ │
Summer │ 12│ 1
Winter │ 120│ 3
│ │
Number of men on each │ 2–3│ 2
wagon │ │
│ │
Type of wagon used │Bottom dump, canvas │Dump.
│ covered. │
│ │
Number of wagons— │ │
Summer │ 8│ 1
Winter │ 60│ 2
│ │
Number of motor vehicles│ 4│
│ │
Motor vehicles used for │Both. │
short or long haul │ │
│ │
Description of │Layout depends upon │6 districts are arranged
collection system │ density and amount to │ according to quantity
│ be removed. Large part│ of ashes collected as
│ of city set aside to │ ascertained on trial
│ receive service on │ collection of 3
│ certain days. This is │ months.
│ subdivided and │
│ definite routes │
│ assigned each wagon. │
│ Both city and │
│ contractor maintain │
│ inspection forces. │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
Disposal of Ashes │Dump. │Fill.
│ │
City own or rent dumps │Some owned. │Free.
│ │
Annual cost to city for │ │ $2,000
collection and │ │
disposal │ │
│ │
Average quantity │ │
collected daily— │ │
Summer │ │
Winter │ │
────────────────────────┴────────────────────────┴────────────────────────
-----
Footnote 48:
Not collected from public buildings or from steam, hot water or power
plants, except in private residences or apartment houses of not more
than 4 apartments each.
Footnote 49:
No collection made from stores, hotels, etc.
Footnote 50:
Not more than 10 bushels collected from any one place in a week.
Footnote 51:
Collected by 9 contractors, one for each district. Steam ashes
collected by private collectors.
Eleven cities report that the number of cubic yards of ashes and rubbish
collected a year per capita served was from .46 to 1.72, the average
being .89. Four other cities report that the number of cubic yards of
ashes only collected a year per capita served was 1.016. The lowest was
.73 and the highest 1.33.
Cost Data
An effort to compare the unit cost of collection and disposal in one
city with that in another will prove to be most unsatisfactory for the
reason that local conditions make necessary different methods, length of
haul and systems, and these affect the cost of operation. Also, there
are very few cities which keep any accurate and detailed cost data.
Reports from thirteen cities which collect ashes and rubbish by
municipal forces show that the average cost of collection and disposal
for 1916 was $0.4018 per cubic yard, the highest being $.72, and the
lowest $.1025. Five other cities report that the average cost of
collecting and disposing of ashes only was $.5596 per cubic yard.
The cost depends upon the cost of loading and the cost of haul.
GARBAGE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SYSTEMS AND PRACTICES IN AMERICAN CITIES—FACTORS WHICH AFFECT THE COST—
OPINIONS OF EXPERTS—COST DATA
Local conditions are so variable that the problem of collecting and
disposing of garbage is one of the most complex with which city
officials have to deal. The results obtained by one city cannot in
detail be applied to another city, although there are many
characteristics common to all. Each city must study its conditions and
then apply general principles with such modifications as its
peculiarities make necessary.
The garbage problem divides itself into two natural divisions:
1. Collection, including house treatment and haul.
2. Final disposal.
The two are so closely related that the cost of different systems should
be compared on the basis of combined cost of collection and final
disposal. These two divisions may be subdivided as follows:
1. COLLECTION SYSTEMS.
1. Type:
(a) Combined (garbage, rubbish and ashes).
(b) Separate (each kind of refuse).
2. Method:
(a) By scavengers.
(b) By contract.
(c) By city.
3. Organization:
(a) Districts.
(b) Force.
4. Kind of Equipment:
(a) Receptacles.
(b) Vehicles.
(c) Loading stations.
5. Location of receptacles.
6. Frequency of collection.
7. Time of removal.
8. Enforcement of regulations.
2. DISPOSAL.
1. Method:
(a) Dumping on land, for fill or at sea.
(b) Plowing under.
(c) Feeding to swine.
(d) Incineration.
(e) Reduction.
2. By-Products.
3. METHODS OF FINANCING COST.
Types of Collection Systems
There are two types of garbage collection systems—the separate and the
combined. Before deciding which is the better adapted to local
conditions the method of disposal of all municipal waste—rubbish, ashes,
dead animals, street sweepings and stable manure—must be considered. A
further study should be made of the five combinations which have been
adopted by American cities and which are outlined in the chapter on ash
and rubbish collection. When garbage is collected separately, the method
of disposing of it is by the reduction process, incineration or feeding
to hogs. If it is collected with rubbish the two wastes must be
incinerated. If ashes, rubbish and garbage are collected together the
wastes are either dumped or incinerated.
As with ashes, reports generally agree, that if all wastes are collected
together as a rule the cost of collection will be less than if each is
collected separately. The method of final disposal, the net cost of that
method after deducting revenues, and the length of haul should be
considered and carefully determined before any system of collection is
adopted. The same arguments presented in the chapter about ash
collection for and against the combined and separate methods of
gathering ashes apply with equal force to the collection of garbage.
Robert H. Wylde, sanitary expert, advocates the mixed collection. He
says: “There can be no doubt that the mixed collection is preferable
from practically every point of view and possesses such great advantages
that it is doubtful if it is ever compensated for (from the citizen’s
point of view) by economies realized from any method of disposal
requiring separate collection.” He also points out that for a separate
collection, a city must have three distinct styles of carts, collections
should be made in the early morning or during the night, and each house
should be visited daily or at least every other day. Householders must
be required to keep the materials in three separate receptacles; three
calls must be made at each house and the same ground must be covered by
three different classes of collector.
The Chicago City Waste Report, by I. S. Osborn and J. T. Fetherston,
says that combined collection requires more frequent collection of ashes
and rubbish than if garbage were collected separately. If separate
collection of garbage is made a more frequent collection of garbage and
a less frequent collection of rubbish and ashes can be made. If all
wastes are collected together, it says, as a rule the unit cost for
collection will be less than if collected separately.
In smaller communities, says Samuel A. Greeley, sanitary expert, it does
not seem advisable to place all classes of refuse in one receptacle as
ashes can be easily disposed of. By separating the garbage the bulk to
be removed is smaller, the disposal by burial requires less land, much
of the garbage can be sent to the farms for feeding, and the general
cost of refuse disposal is reduced without seriously lowering the
efficiency. In cities of from 30,000 to 50,000, he asserts, the mixed
system requiring only one can at a house and permitting incineration
without the use of additional fuel, has many advantages. In such small
communities, he believes, garbage does not have the advantages for
reduction purposes that it has for the larger cities.
Methods of Collection
There are three methods of collecting garbage:
(1) _License System_, by which the city licenses certain cartmen, the
individuals paying the expenses, usually under regulation of the Board
of Health.
(2) _Contract System_, which provides that city pay a fixed amount
annually for service, that certain schedule be paid by householder, or
that contractor pay a certain amount to the city for privilege of
collecting, and charging the householder for the service.
(3) _Municipal System_, by which the city does work with own or hired
teams. In some cities, city employees collect a part and scavengers or
collectors, or both, collect the remainder.
Experts are generally agreed that the best of the three systems is the
last. They say that there is always much trouble when the contractor is
allowed to collect pay from citizens served, and that to sanitary
officers must be given full authority to fine those who fail to have
garbage removed. Contractors’ wagons also must be under the close
supervision of sanitary officers.
The Chicago Waste Commission’s report says that efficient service can be
obtained by contract when the work is specified and the requirements are
such as to obligate the contractor to furnish the desired service. The
contractor, it asserts, must maintain an effective organization,
sufficiently equipped and managed to be able to render proper service.
Under this method, it points out, a rigid inspection is necessary on the
part of the city and full compliance on the part of the contractor in
carrying out his agreement. The report also says that efficient service
can be obtained by a municipal collection when the city conducts the
work with its own teams and equipment and the men employed on the work
are directly responsible to their superiors who in turn are responsible
to the public for the service rendered. It gives the following
advantages of this method:
(a) The service is rendered as desired. It is not necessary to specify
how and what work is to be done, but the work can be conducted so as to
meet conditions as they may arise.
(b) The work comes directly under the control of the officials whose
chief object is to render satisfactory service at a reasonable cost.
(c) Better equipment can be provided and the work planned on a more
systematic basis when investments are permanent.
(d) Municipal operation eliminates the tendency on the part of the
contractors (when the work is done by contract) to obtain the largest
remuneration possible at the least cost.
It is impossible, says the report, to develop efficient organization or
to render the best service in collection with hired teams where the
driver receives his pay from the employer, who in turn receives his pay
from the city for furnishing the team and driver.
In the majority of cities in the United States, the collection is done
by the city, which owns its equipment and conducts the work under the
supervision of its officials. It has been the experience of these cities
that the results of municipal operation have, in most cases, proven
satisfactory.
John H. Gregory, sanitary expert, believes that as a general rule the
best results may be expected from municipal ownership and operation of
collection equipment. A similar opinion is expressed in the report of
the Special Commission on the Collection of Municipal Waste, Worcester,
Massachusetts.
Grand Rapids, Michigan, reports that under the municipal system, the
cost per householder is $1.63 a year, while under the private contract
system the cost was $3.00 a year.
Whatever system and method are selected to make it successful a city
must (1) provide sufficient appropriation; (2) secure or insist upon an
efficient organization; (3) have or require sanitary and economical
methods of work, and (4) secure and foster cooperation on the part of
the public.
House Treatment
Many cities require that garbage be drained and some that it be wrapped
in paper as well as drained. Wrapping aids combustion when the disposal
is by incineration. Wheeling, West Virginia, claims that wrapping
garbage eliminates smell, preserves can, provides fuel and makes work
much less unpleasant for the collector. Dr. P. M. Hall and Samuel A.
Greeley advocate wrapping if garbage is burned. Seven cities, of those
from which statistics have been received, require that garbage be
wrapped—Dunkirk, Jamestown, Mount Vernon, Trenton, Milwaukee, Grand
Rapids and Minneapolis.
Organization
It is agreed that the number and location of districts into which a city
is divided must depend upon the size, topography and population, the
location of sub-stations or the place of final disposal, the frequency
of collection and the hauling equipment. It is also agreed that the
divisions should be made with the purpose of shortening the haul as much
as possible and to avoid steep grades with loaded wagons. Some cities
haul direct from the district to the place of disposal, others establish
loading stations or bunkers to which the garbage is hauled in wagons and
from which it is taken for disposal in automobiles, train or trolley.
Still others have loaded wagons taken to a central place and from there
hauled by tractors to the place of disposal.
The type of equipment, system of collection, organization of city,
location of receptacles, frequency of collection and hours of removal
must be considered when organizing the force. These vitally affect the
cost. Some cities require one man to act as driver and collector. This
system is regarded as uneconomical as the whole collection is retarded.
Other cities have two men with a wagon, one to drive and the other to
collect. In some cities the gang system, described in the chapter on ash
collection, is used.
The Chicago Waste Commission makes these recommendations to insure an
effective organization:
1. Individual responsibility for work assigned.
2. Employees should be paid for work performed instead of for hours of
labor.
3. Published records of employees individually by sections under foremen
and by districts under inspectors or superintendents will create a
healthy rivalry and conduce to better work.
4. Unit cost of all work should be maintained and the keeping of these
records will more than pay for the cost of the clerical work involved.
All agree that special effort should be made to get intelligent drivers
who are willing to take pains to do the work at each house in a cleanly
fashion. Others urge keeping one man on the same route.
In planning districts and force, the findings of the Chicago Civil
Service Commission may assist some officials. It required on an average
under ordinary conditions three hours and fifty-five minutes to collect
a full load of two and one-half tons. The average in summer was 3.9
hours and in winter 4.7 hours. The average rate of haul was 3 miles per
hour in summer and 2.7 miles per hour in winter. Collections were at a
minimum in winter and a maximum in summer, especially in September. The
quantity collected from several districts for different years was not
constant, but continually decreased or increased, depending upon local
conditions, such as change of character of population, growth of
residence, business and manufacturing. The fluctuations make it
necessary that the organization be flexible and easily adapted to
changing conditions.
As the quantity will vary from season to season, the collector assigned
to a district should make daily reports of work performed and territory
covered. By so doing it can easily be determined whether he is
delinquent or the work has increased so as to require auxiliary
equipment or extra assistance. The plan is also valuable for rearranging
districts.
The Ohio State Board of Health has expressed the belief that the routes
should be so arranged that each collector covers about the same mileage
and so that each wagon is as near as possible to the point of disposal
by the time the wagon is loaded in order that the productive time of the
collector, or the time he spends in collecting from houses, may be as
great as possible and his unproductive time, or the time he spends in
driving his loaded wagon to the point of disposal, as small as possible.
In some cities, owing to poor routing, the unproductive time has been as
high as 40 per cent. of the collector’s working hours. Routes should
also be so arranged that grades are climbed with light loads and
descended with heavy loads.
Receptacles and Vehicles
Most cities specify a standard sized can. It is agreed that this is
necessary to secure the best results. The size varies in different
cities and with the type of system. All reports show that the can should
be metallic, water-tight and as nearly air-tight as possible, and should
be securely covered. A 20-gallon can, it is claimed, will take care of
an average size family for a week and is easily handled by the
collector. The size of the can should be limited so as to be easily
handled by one man.
For collecting garbage many types of wagons are being used by American
cities. The design materially affects the cost and efficiency of
results. Most cities are now using a steel tank wagon with either a
bottom or rear dump, depending upon the house treatment of the garbage
and whether the system is combined or separate. All reports show that
any garbage wagon to be sanitary and satisfactory must be metallic,
fitted with covers, easily cleaned and disinfected, and as large as
consistent with the grades and type of pavement on the routes traversed.
Particular attention should be given to the loading height. This should
be at a convenient distance from the ground so that the collector can
easily empty the can. The arrangements for dumping are also important.
They should be quick and simple. It is claimed that bottom dumping
wagons are best, but these cannot be used for raw garbage unless
wrapped. They can be used for mixed refuse. Many cities successfully use
the rear dump wagon, which is tilted by a hand-turned gear at front.
The right kind of cover is also important. Greeley says the most
satisfactory cover is the light fixed roof, arched over the top of the
wagon at sufficient height to give a free space above the whole of the
garbage, and to allow trap doors in the side of the wagon for emptying
the can. Many cities use canvas covers. The Worcester Waste Commission
reports that its inquiries show that wooden or iron covers are
impracticable because they do not allow expansion of load during periods
when the amount of garbage is greatest. It says that wooden covers warp,
do not fit tightly and need repairs often and are much in the way during
collection. Iron covers, it avers, are almost universally condemned on
account of their weight, and if very light get out of shape easily, wear
loose and in a short time become a noisy nuisance. Some types of wagons
are equipped with rubber buffers to lessen the noise and others have
automatic covers.
Wagons made for garbage collection range in cost from $150 to $375 each.
The capacity of the average garbage wagon has been from a yard to two
yards cubic contents. The tendency in many large cities is to increase
this to four and five yards and even larger. Greeley believes that a
wagon having a capacity of about three cubic yards is desirable.