Part 30

Chapter 302,715 wordsPublic domain

────────────────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────────────── │ 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.

3. Organization:

(a) Districts.

(b) Force.

4. Kind of Equipment:

(a) Receptacles.

(b) Vehicles.

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.

(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.

(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.