Part 31

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.

A few cities which have adopted the can collection system have wagons 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.