built with two tiers. Some are using automobile trucks constructed in
this way. The Ohio State Board of Health, in its report, says that
platform wagons are somewhat less economical than tank wagons but are
entirely suited for small cities where the quantity is not large.
It seems to be the opinion of those who have had experience that
automobile trucks for refuse collection are neither economical nor
convenient, owing to the many stops and starts and the slow general
progress. None of the 224 cities from which data have been received uses
automobile trucks exclusively. Several have automobile trucks in service
but practically all of these use them for hauling from transfer stations
over long distances to the place of disposal. At some of these loading
stations a crane is used to lift the detachable body or tank from the
wagon and place it on the truck. Another method adopted by a few cities
is to use wagons for collection and tractors for hauling. The horse
drawn wagons when filled are taken from a common meeting place to the
disposal site by a tractor which draws them as a trailer. The horses are
hitched to empty wagons and continue collecting.
R. T. Dana has compiled statistics which will interest those who
contemplate using motor trucks. He says for hauling ashes, street
pavement, etc., it is cheaper to use horses if the haul is less than one
mile. If motor power is used for a haul of a quarter of a mile the loss
is 1.8 per cent.; if half a mile, 9.1 per cent. loss. For one mile haul
there is no difference in cost. Above that the saving is in favor of
motor trucks. Similar investigations have been made at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. These show that for distances greater than 1.7
miles, electric driven vehicles are cheaper than either horse drawn or
gasoline driven and that gasoline driven are cheaper than horse drawn.
Investigations made by the Efficiency Division of the Chicago Civil
Service Commission showed that electric trucks are more efficient than
gasoline trucks where the short hauls with many stops are encountered.
Its conclusion was that for the long hauls electric trucks were more
economical than horse drawn or gasoline driven trucks. The following
table gives a detailed comparison of the advantages of gasoline and
electric trucks as determined by the Commission:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ GASOLINE TRUCK ELECTRIC TRUCK │
│ │
│(a) Greater average speed (a) More efficient where the haul │
│ possible. with many stops are encountered.│
│(b) Can be run continuously day (b) More efficient within its │
│ and night. limits of operation, 50 to 60 │
│ miles per eight hour day. │
│(c) Are essential outside of the (c) More economical motive power. │
│ radius of operation of the │
│ electric truck. │
│(d) Can do more work in a given (d) Less average per cent. │
│ time if speed restrictions do maintenance and repair costs. │
│ not interfere. │
│(e) Less balking on unimproved (e) Less per cent. depreciation. │
│ streets. │
│ (f) Requires less skill to drive. │
│ (g) Affected less in winter by │
│ temperature. │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
The Commission’s study led to the following conclusion: “That at the
present prevailing cost of team hire the saving in the use of electric
motor trucks for hauling garbage in such wards as have a considerable
haul, would amount to 5.1 per cent. of the total cost of removing such
garbage by teams. 2. That either the gasoline or electric power trucks
can handle the hauling of garbage with approximately equal satisfaction.
3. That the more economical power truck has been found to be electric.
This is governed in a measure by the low cost rate of electrical energy
from the Sanitary District to the city for night power and by the fact
that the rates for depreciation, maintenance, repair and insurance are
less than for the gasoline truck. 4. That the haul below which an
electric truck carrying three tons would not be economical when measured
against a $5.50 per day team is found to be about 1.8 miles and when
measured against a $6 per day team is 0.8 miles. 5. That the three ton
gasoline truck at present cost price would not haul economically when
traveling in the city at the economical rate of speed, as would the
horse drawn vehicle at either $5.50 or $6 per day and traveling at the
rate of speed found by experiment on garbage wagons.”
Greeley believes that the cost of loading a motor truck will be greater
per hour and the rate of load will have to be increased proportionately
to make the cost comparable with loading a team drawn wagon. The cost of
hauling by motor will be less. He contends that the use of trucks in
refuse collection service will increase and that the cost of loading can
be reduced by limiting the motor truck to transportation after the
loading of the wagon by the tractor and trailer system.
St. Louis recently made computations comparing the existing cost of
hauling garbage from the long haul district with mule teams and the
probable cost of haul with or by tractors. The motor apparatus was
assumed to be a Knox tractor with two trailers and the assumed haul of
seven miles. This would replace ten teams. The investment for a ten-ton
tractor would be $3,750, and two trailers, $1,000, with a total of
$4,750 for the motor apparatus. Ten teams of mules cost $3,000 and ten
wagons, $1,350, a total for animal power of $4,350. The cost of
operating per day is assumed to be for the motor, making three trips a
day, 42 miles, $4.07.
This computation assumes a loading station located at the center of the
long-haul district, which, including lot, building, paving, platform,
sewer and water connections, would cost $6,300. The equipment would
therefore be $10,650. Interest on the investment is computed at 6 per
cent. The annual charges against the motor equipment would therefore
become $3,034.92. The year is assumed at 156 days, as the district is
collected from three times a week. The charges against the team
equipment amount to $6,503.88. The saving in adopting the truck system
is thus $3,468.96 a year from this long-haul district. Under these
assumptions the equipment is idle one-half the time.
The New York City Department of Street Cleaning made a test of motor
trucks and proved their efficiency over the present system, giving a
possible 18 per cent. for time lost in hauling, loading and returning
light as against 43 per cent. under the existing system. A ten-year test
in England proved the superiority of motor trucks.
The Worcester Commission reports that for heavy, long hauls and under
conditions where a truck can be kept moving, a motor truck is probably
more economical than a horse drawn vehicle of the same capacity. It
concludes that the motor trucks are not economical for short hauls with
many stops.
The Health Commissioner of Seattle in 1913 made the claim that auto
trucks save from one-fourth to one-fifth as much time as is consumed by
horse drawn vehicles. He expressed the belief that 45 cents on a dollar
is saved by using auto trucks. Seattle hauls its garbage by auto from
bunkers to place of final disposal.
A few cities haul from transfer stations to place of final disposal by
trolley and steam cars and by barges. Greeley estimates that assuming
600 cu. yds. of refuse weigh 375 tons, the cost of trolley
transportation will be 40 cents per ton. Barge transportation, he
estimates, will be about 22 cents per ton. Transportation by steam
railroads, he says, depends upon switching charges. These will range
from $5 to $15 per car. He figures the switching charges will average
about 20 cents per ton.
Collection Regulations
The location of the receptacle and the time and frequency of collection
have a very important bearing on the efficiency and cost of the service.
The degree of cleanliness desired and the convenience of the householder
are the chief factors which determine these questions.
Most cities specify where the can must be left for collection and to
what place it must be returned. Some collect from the curb, areaway or
alley, but the majority of them take the can from and return it to the
house or back yard. Garbage can be collected much more speedily if the
cans are left at the curb for collection days, but most cities object to
the unsightliness of the thoroughfares which results. The citizens, for
their own convenience, and to eliminate the objection of a littered
street, are willing to pay the extra cost of having the garbage taken
from the yard or the house.
The almost universal practise in America is to collect garbage during
the daytime. Of those from which facts have been received and whose
systems are described in the accompanying tables, only two collect all
garbage at night. One collects at night during the summer and four
collect at night in the business section. Two collect during both day
and night.
The number of collections made in a stated period of time depends
entirely upon the amount of garbage, the density and character of
population, the climate and the season of the year. Some cities maintain
a daily service in all except the outlying sections. Practically all
collect at least once a week. In cold climates more collections are
required during the summer than during the winter. Usually the
collections are more frequent in the business sections than in the
residential sections and less frequent in the outlying districts than in
the residential sections, the density of population being the
determining factor.
As with ash collection the promulgation and enforcement of specific
regulations are very helpful in increasing or maintaining the efficiency
of a garbage collection system. Cooperation of the public is essential
and this can be secured to a great extent by an efficient system. All
reports agree that regular collections should be made at stated
intervals and so far as possible at the same time each day according to
a regular schedule. Laxity on the part of the collection department will
breed indifference among the householders. The Chicago Waste Commission
expresses the opinion that where the householders become accustomed to a
systematic service they will depend upon the collector and will more
readily comply with laws and ordinances. All experts agree that the
regulation as to house treatment of refuse should not only be enforced,
but that considerable time should be spent by officials in educating and
training people to cooperate for mutual advantage. Such time will be
well spent, and eventually it will reduce the cost of operation.
The rules and regulations respecting the collection of garbage and
refuse in a small progressive New York State city are as follows:
“All persons intending to have their ashes, garbage and other refuse
removed by the collector, shall provide sufficient standard ash cans,
sixteen to twenty inches in diameter, and twenty-six inches high,
manufactured of galvanized iron with proper handles and cover.
“Into this can should be put old bottles, rubbers, tin cans, broken
bottles and glass, old shoes, sweepings, paper and other rubbish.
“Ash cans containing swill, water, offensive and decomposing material,
or the contents of which are frozen and not easily removed, will not be
emptied by the collector.
“Provide sufficient garbage cans composed of galvanized, G. I. Standard
make, with covers and handles, to hold one week’s accumulation. Put into
this can all swill and other kitchen refuse. Garbage cans containing
ashes, old bottles, tin cans, glass, shoes, sweepings, paper or other
rubbish, or the contents of which are frozen, will not be emptied by the
collector.
“The cans must be placed where the collector can conveniently have
access to them, and if placed on the sidewalk or in front yard, must be
returned as soon as emptied.
“The collector will collect but once each week and on the day and at the
time specified for the street on which you reside.
“Burn as much rubbish, paper, sweepings, etc., as possible.
“Piles or accumulations of garbage, old bottles, tins, papers and any
other substances, liquid or solid, or of anything that may become a
breeding place for flies or mosquitoes, or which in any way may become a
nuisance, are prohibited.
“Accumulations of garbage or other refuse of more than one week is
prohibited.
“Any incivility on the part of any collector, or any complaint should be
made at once in writing to the Clerk of the city.”
Cost of Collection
The cost of collection is vitally affected by so many different factors
and by local conditions that any attempt to compare the economy of the
system in one city with that in another will generally be
unsatisfactory. Also actual cost data are kept by very few cities, and
where they are available the methods of determining them often vary so
that they are misleading for comparative purposes. The cost depends upon
the cost of loading and the cost of hauling, as described in the
discussion of ash collection. Such facts about the cost as are available
in printed reports and as have been sent to the New York State Bureau of
Municipal Information by the cities will be found in the accompanying
table.
An investigation by the Ohio State Board of Health in Ohio cities showed
that the cost averaged from $2 to $2.75 per ton. The report says that
the cost of collection in Cleveland for several years averaged $2.17 to
$2.79 per ton; Dayton, $2.11; Zanesville, $2.13. In the smaller cities
where hauls are comparatively short, the cost frequently did not exceed
$1.50 per ton, and “on the average with proper routing should not exceed
$2.00 per ton.”
The cost of the collection and disposal may be met by a draft on the
general fund, by assessment upon property benefited, or by assessment
upon the people directly served. The particular method selected will be
determined by the legal limitations, the difficulty of collection, tax
limitations, and so forth.
Per Capita Production
Experts have agreed within fifty pounds as to the per capita garbage
output of a community. W. F. Morse, Sanitary Expert, gave one hundred
and ninety pounds per capita per year as approximate figures for an
estimate. William N. Venable estimated the annual amount per capita to
be from 150 to 200 pounds.
Recent reports from six cities which have complete collection systems
show considerable variation in the per capita amount collected. These
cities report as follows:
┌────────────┬──────────────────────────┐
│ │Lbs. of Garbage per Capita│
├────────────┼──────────────────────────┤
│Columbus │ 203⅓│
│Grand Rapids│ 97 │
│Buffalo │ 80 │
│Worcester │ 127 │
│Rochester │ 260 │
│Cleveland │ 162 │
└────────────┴──────────────────────────┘
The average weight of garbage per cubic yard according to statistics
from nine large American cities has been from 1,100 to 1,475 pounds, and
the number of pounds per one thousand of population per day from 331 to
875.
The food conservation campaign throughout the nation since our entry
into the world-wide war, however, has created havoc with garbage
production figures and estimates. Although it was known for many years
that the American housewife has been a most notorious profligate in the
waste of food, it was not until the war forced upon America the
necessity for food conservation that there was any decrease in the
contents of the garbage pail. Remarkable changes have been reported by
cities, the following reductions by New York State cities being typical:
┌─────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│Name of City │ Amount of Garbage Collected During │
├─────────────┼─────────────┬─────────────┬─────────────┬─────────────┤
│ │ June, 1916 │ July, 1916 │ June, 1917 │ July, 1917 │
├─────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┤
│Rochester │ 2563 tons │ 2580 tons │ 1,870 tons │ 2,167 tons │
│New York City│ │ │ │ │
│ (Boro. │ 82,503 cu. │ 89,568 cu. │ 76,550 cu. │ 84,628 cu. │
│ Manhattan) │ yds. │ yds. │ yds. │ yds. │
│ (Boro. │ │ │ │ │
│ Brooklyn) │ │ │ │ │
│Kingston │ 140 tons │ 140 tons │ 120 tons │ 120 tons │
│Cortland │ 37½ tons │ 37½ tons │ 31½ tons │ 31½ tons │
│Schenectady │312 tons, 680│ 350 tons │330 tons, 655│ 398 tons, │
│ │ lbs. │ │ lbs. │ 1,400 lbs. │
│[52]Syracuse │ 1,100 tons │ 1,373 tons │ 1,062 tons │ 1,087 tons │
│Albany │ 954 bbls. │ 1,094 bbls. │ 786 bbls. │ 877 bbls. │
│Buffalo │ 2,319.770 │ 1,250.280 │ 2,247.790 │ 1,748.700 │
│ │ tons │ tons │ tons │ tons │
│Utica │40 tons daily│40 tons daily│35 tons daily│35 tons daily│
└─────────────┴─────────────┴─────────────┴─────────────┴─────────────┘
-----
Footnote 52:
Increase probably due to change from contract to municipal system of
collection.
Omaha, Nebraska, reports that for the year 1917 the bulk of garbage was
about the same as the previous year, but that no meats, bread or
potatoes were found in it. The collection of garbage has been a little
over one-third less since the conservation of food went into effect.
What percentage of this reduction will continue after the war is
problematical, but it is agreed by all experts that never again will the
American garbage pail be so productive as it has been in the past.
Garbage Disposal
A choice of seven methods is offered for the disposal of garbage. They
are feeding to swine, dumping on land, dumping into large volumes of
water, disposing by sanitary fill, burial, incineration and reduction.
In selecting its disposal system a city should bear in mind the
importance and cost of a collection system.
Some cities collect and dispose of their garbage by contract, others
collect by contract and dispose of it themselves, or vice versa, and
still others have all the work done by the municipality. Experience has
proved that a city can operate a disposal plant just as efficiently as
they can a collection system.
Feeding to Swine
Most of the smaller cities in this country dispose of a part of or all
their garbage by feeding to swine, but so far as the State Bureau of
Municipal Information has been able to learn, only four maintain
municipal piggeries. These are Worcester, New Haven, Brockton, and
Taunton, Massachusetts. The others either collect their garbage by
contract and sell it or give it to farmers or those operating piggeries,
or maintain a municipal collection and sell to a contractor who
maintains a piggery.
Among the cities which dispose of their garbage by feeding to pigs and
derive a revenue are the following:
Denver, Colo.—Collected by a Hog Growers’ Association which disposes
of it by feeding.
Cambridge, Mass.—Sells to hog farmers at 70¢. per cd. foot and has
no difficulty in disposing of all. Cost of collection, $50,000 a
year; receipts, $16,000 a year.
Grand Rapids, Mich.—Sold to live stock company for 45¢. per ton f.
o. b. cars. Last year collection cost $28,659 and receipts were
$4,450.20.
Camden, N. J.—Incinerator burned and since then garbage has been
collected and fed to hogs.
Brockton, Mass.—Municipal piggery (description below).
Colorado Springs, Colo.—Contractor pays $1,440 a year for the
privilege of removing all table refuse from city. Feeds to hogs.
Garbage must be sterilized before feeding.
Salem, Mass.—City Poor Farm uses about 200 loads a year. Remainder
is sold to contractor, who pays $13,255 for five years. Last year
city paid $10,948.30 for collection.
Taunton, Mass.—Municipal piggery.
Somerville, Mass.—Sold to farmers for 50¢. per cord foot. Cost of
collection last year, $25,134.80; receipts, $8,865.50.
Lawrence, Mass.—Sold for $1.25 a load. Ready and increasing demand.
Two loads used daily at Poor Farm piggery. Cost of collection,
$10,000 a year. Estimated receipts, $6,000 a year.
New Haven, Conn.—Cost of collection, $18,000 a year. Fed to hogs on
farm owned by city (description below).
Fall River, Mass.—City pays contractor $7,800 a year for the removal
of garbage. He feeds it to pigs on farm owned by him.
Worcester, Mass.—Municipal piggery (description below).
Corning, N. Y.—Contractor pays city $122 a year for privilege of
collecting at 10¢. a can. Garbage taken by him to his hog farm.
The city of Brockton, Massachusetts, owns the land and buildings
necessary for feeding swine, also the horses and teams necessary for
collection. The Mayor’s office reports that the city has not been able
to make any profit on this method of disposal. In fact, for the last ten
years the average cost to the city has been about $5,000 annually.
Taunton, Massachusetts, collects garbage only in the center of the city.
The remainder is taken by private parties. The city has only two teams
and two men at work. The Secretary of the Board of Overseers says that
“in consequence of doing things in this way it is of little or no
expense and gives quite good satisfaction.”
The expense and receipts during one year for the piggery were as
follows:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│Wages of employees $1,299.90│
│ │
│Expenses, not including board of two horses belonging to 375.92│
│ department │
│ —————————│
│ $1,675.82│
│Receipts from swine 3,260.91│
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
New Haven, Connecticut, pays $18,000 a year for the collection of its
garbage, which is hauled to a farm rented by the city and fed to hogs
owned by the city. The Board of Health reports: “Outside of some
complaints from the piggeries we have got along. Our Board has
repeatedly recommended the destruction of the same, but as yet nothing
has materialized.”
A special commission made an investigation and report on the collection
and disposal of municipal waste in Worcester, Massachusetts. After
investigating all methods of disposal it reached these conclusions:
“That the disposal by feeding is the most economical method; that the
greatest intrinsic value of the garbage, the feeding value, is made use
of; that the garbage of Worcester can not only be disposed of without
cost but that the revenue from the sale of hogs has almost been
sufficient to pay for the collection.”
The Commission recommended that the present method of feeding to swine
be continued.
In its report it gives the per capita cost of collection and disposal as
$.072 for Worcester and $.095 for Brockton.
The Worcester municipal piggery is the largest and most successful. The
garbage collected by the city is fed to a herd of hogs numbering about
1700 in winter and 4000 in summer. During the winter practically all
hogs are housed.
The necessity for sterilizing garbage before it is fed to hogs is
disputed. Salem, Cambridge, Grand Rapids, Taunton and Brockton report
that garbage is not sterilized. New Haven reports that some is
sterilized. Colorado Springs and Omaha require all garbage to be
sterilized.
In his report of the sanitary survey of St. Joseph, Missouri, J. H.
White, Surgeon, United States Public Health Service, makes the following
statement with regard to the disposal of garbage in that city:
“Kansas City, Providence, Denver, Omaha, Colorado Springs and other
cities have their garbage fed to hogs, with the uniform result that the
cost of removal is reduced to some extent to the city and that the
contractor, according to his business capacity, is able to make more or
less profit from the feed so obtained. There is no danger in this system
under proper handling. Any supposed danger to the hogs can be prevented
by prompt handling of the garbage to prevent unnecessary fermentation
and by the use of the hog cholera serum to prevent disease. The proper
cleaning of the pens, if in the city, eliminates any danger to man. The
Board recommends this system and I heartily concur with them that it
offers the best available solution of the garbage problem.”