Part 2

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