Chapter D: C. Faber, Industrial Engineer of the Iowa State College, goes so far (3)

─────────────┬─────────────┬────────┬──────────┬───────────────
Name of City │Number of Men│ Number │ Type of │ Number of
│ Employed │ of Men │Wagon Used│ Wagons Used
│ Collection │Employed│ │
│and Disposal │on Each │ │
│ │ Wagon │ │
│ │ │ │
├──────┬──────┤ │ ├───────┬───────
│Summer│Winter│ │ │Summer │Winter
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
─────────────┼──────┼──────┼────────┼──────────┼───────┼───────
Binghamton │ 17│ 21│ 3│Troy │ 3│ 5
│ │ │ │ chassis,│ │
│ │ │ │ Lee │ │
│ │ │ │ body. │ │
Brockton │ 17│ 17│ 3 to 2│Two │ 9│ 11
│ │ │ carts.│ wheeled │ │
│ │ │ │ dump and│ │
│ │ │ │ 4 │ │
│ │ │ │ wheeled │ │
│ │ │ │ rubbish.│ │
Cambridge │ 60│ 85│ 2–3│Shabolt, │Varies.│Varies.
│ │ │ │ single │ │
│ │ │ │ and │ │
│ │ │ │ double. │ │
Camden │ 30│ 30│ 1│Dump │ 18│ 18
│ │ │ │ wagons │ │
│ │ │ │ and │ │
│ │ │ │ carts. │ │
Cincinnati │ 98│ 120│ 2│Two horse │ 49│ 60
│ │ │ │ dump. │ │
Cleveland │ │ │ 5–6│Dump and │ │
│ │ │ │ trucks. │ │
Columbus │ 50│ 50│ 1│3–4–5 │ 45│ 45
│ │ │ │ dump, │ │
│ │ │ │ special │ │
│ │ │ │ 16 yd. │ │
│ │ │ │ for │ │
│ │ │ │ rubbish.│ │
Chicago │ 240│ 420│ 1–2│Wood box │ 380│ 675
│ │ │ │ hired by│ │
│ │ │ │ city at │ │
│ │ │ │ $7 per │ │
│ │ │ │ day. │ │
Dayton │ 22│ 28│ 3│Star │ 10│ 12
│ │ │ │ wagon, │ │
│ │ │ │ dump. │ │
Fall River │ 31│ 37│ 3│Low gear, │ 9│ 11
│ │ │ │ with │ │
│ │ │ │ sides │ │
│ │ │ │ head and│ │
│ │ │ │ tail │ │
│ │ │ │ board. │ │
Holyoke │ 28│ 48│ 4–5│Single, │ 14│ 26
│ │ │ │ dump, │ │
│ │ │ │ high │ │
│ │ │ │ sides. │ │
Hartford │ 46│ 69│ 4│Special, │ 16│ 22
│ │ │ │ bottom │ │
│ │ │ │ dump. │ │
Kingston │ 12│ 12│ 2│Box wagon.│ 4│ 6
Lynn │ 24│ 24│ 2│Ordinary │ 12│ 12
│ │ │ │ dump. │ │
Lowell │ 36│ 36│ 2│Two-horse │ 18│ 18
│ │ │ │ dump. │ │
Los Angeles │ 15│ 15│ 3│None. │ │
Milwaukee │ │ 600│ 3│Three yard│ │ 200
│ │ │ │ wagon. │ │
Newburgh │ 8│ 14│ 2│Dump. │ 3│ 6
New Bedford │ 34│ 40│ 2│End dump. │ 10│ 14
New York City│ │ │ 1–2–3–5│Single │ │
(Manhattan,│ │ │ │ horse │ │
Bronx, │ │ │ │ and 2- │ │
Brooklyn) │ │ │ │ wheeled │ │
│ │ │ │ dump. │ │
Norfolk │ 22│ 22│ 1│Dump. │ 22│ 22
New Orleans │ │ │ 1│Two- │ 183│ 183
│ │ │ │ wheeled │ │
│ │ │ │ dump. │ │
Passaic │ 14│ 18│ 2│Bottom │ 7│ 9
│ │ │ │ dump. │ │
Rome │ 10│ 10│ 2│Dump. │ 5│ 5
Syracuse │ 40│ 90│ 5│Dump. │ 20│ 45
Somerville │ 45│ 65│ 3│Dump. │ 19│ 32
Schenectady │ │ │ │ │ │
Wilmington │ 20│ 28│ 3│High │ 18│ 36
│ │ │ │ sides, │ │
│ │ │ │ dump. │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
─────────────┴──────┴──────┴────────┴──────────┴───────┴───────

ASH COLLECTION BY MUNICIPAL FORCES (Continued)

─────────────┬──────┬──────┬────────┬──────────┬───────┬───────
Boston[46] │ 235│ 439│ 2–3│Sheet │ 107│ 178
│ │ │ │ iron, │ │
│ │ │ │ single │ │
│ │ │ │ and │ │
│ │ │ │ double. │ │
Buffalo │ │ │ 2│Dump. │ │
Chattanooga │ 22│ 22│ 1–2│ │ │
Duluth │ │ │ │10 × 3½ │ 2│ 2
│ │ │ │ box, │ │
│ │ │ │ bottom │ │
│ │ │ │ lined │ │
│ │ │ │ with │ │
│ │ │ │ sheet │ │
│ │ │ │ iron. │ │
Glens Falls │ │ │ │ │ │
Memphis │ 62│ 62│ 1│2-wheeled │ 62│ 62
│ │ │ │ cart. │ │
Niagara Falls│ │ 13│ 1│Dump. │ │ 45
Peoria │ │ │ 1│Iron body,│ │
│ │ │ │ covered.│ │
Rochester │ 115│ 235│ 2–3│Bottom │ 38│ 84
│ │ │ │ dump. │ │
Spokane │ 35│ 11│ 2│Bottom │ 7│ 7
│ │ │ │ dump. │ │
─────────────┴──────┴──────┴────────┴──────────┴───────┴───────

─────────────┬──────────┬────────
Name of City │ Motor │ Motor
│ Vehicles │Vehicles
│ Used for │Used for
│Collection│Short or
│ │ Long
│ │ Haul
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
─────────────┼──────────┼────────
Binghamton │1. │Long
│ │
│ │
│ │
Brockton │None. │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
Cambridge │None. │
│ │
│ │
│ │
Camden │None. │
│ │
│ │
│ │
Cincinnati │None. │
│ │
Cleveland │47. │Long.
│ │
Columbus │ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
Chicago │None. │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
Dayton │None. │
│ │
│ │
Fall River │None. │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
Holyoke │None. │
│ │
│ │
│ │
Hartford │None. │
│ │
│ │
Kingston │None. │
Lynn │2 trucks. │Both.
│ │
Lowell │None. │
│ │
Los Angeles │7 trucks. │Both.
Milwaukee │3. │Long.
│ │
Newburgh │None. │
New Bedford │None. │
New York City│30. │Both.
(Manhattan,│ │
Bronx, │ │
Brooklyn) │ │
│ │
Norfolk │None. │
New Orleans │None. │
│ │
│ │
Passaic │None. │
│ │
Rome │None. │
Syracuse │None. │
Somerville │None. │
Schenectady │ │
Wilmington │None. │
│ │
│ │
│ │
─────────────┴──────────┴────────

ASH COLLECTION BY MUNICIPAL FORCES (Continued)

─────────────┬──────────┬────────
Boston[46] │3 in │Long.
│ summer, │
│ 8 in │
│ winter. │
│ │
Buffalo │None. │
Chattanooga │1. │
Duluth │None. │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
Glens Falls │ │
Memphis │1. │Short.
│ │
Niagara Falls│None. │
Peoria │None. │
│ │
Rochester │None. │
│ │
Spokane │Five. │Long.
│ │
─────────────┴──────────┴────────

Table IV (c)

ASH AND RUBBISH COLLECTION BY MUNICIPAL FORCES (Continued)

─────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Name of City │ Description of Collection System
│
│
─────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Binghamton │3 districts. Driver’s route approximately 14½ miles long.
│ One 5 ton truck, 14 and 8 trailers. Trailers divided
│ into 2 compartments, containing 2 yards of ashes and
│ one yard of garbage. When wagon is loaded team is
│ hitched to empty trailer which has been left by truck.
Brockton │6 districts.
│
Cambridge │6 routes, 1 each working day, not evenly distributed. Six
│ or eight men ahead of team roll barrels out of yard and
│ teamsters place them back at gate when empty.
Camden │3 districts, each receiving 2 collections a week.
Cincinnati │Divided into districts and those subdivided into beats
│ which are covered the same day each week. Two men
│ (driver and helper) assigned to each beat.
Cleveland │
Columbus │22 districts. Each covered by 2 wagons. Men work together
│ where it is necessary to handle heavy material.
Chicago │Wards divided into sections. Number of teams depends on
│ size of section and service required. Ward in charge of
│ ward superintendent. Districts in charge of section
│ foreman. Section foreman and laborers uniform.
Dayton │5 districts with ground foreman at head of each. Each
│ covered in 12 working days.
Fall River │
│
│ .
Holyoke │3 gangs work in business and one in residential sections
│ all the time.
│
Hartford │2 sections, each divided into 6 routes. Each route
│ extends into that portion of the central part of the
│ city within the corresponding district. One main squad
│ to each district covering one route daily. A section of
│ each squad takes the barrel to the curb on hand trucks.
│ These are followed by teams and two lifters who in turn
│ are followed by a man who returns empty receptacles.
Kingston │Rigs and men assigned to certain districts of each
│ section.
Lynn │Divided by wards. Men clean one section and move to
│ another.
Lowell │6 districts, one cleaned each day.
│ .
Los Angeles │
Milwaukee │26 wards. Ash collection all year. Once every month to
│ householders by wards. A gang comprises two teams and
│ three men as collection is made from basements. This
│ keeps men going while teams are on way to and from
│ dump.
Newburgh │Divided into three parts. By understanding between men,
│ each takes a certain street each time all are on
│ certain routes.
New Bedford │Collection made quickly from every street. No districts.
│
│
│
│
│
│
New York │Boroughs divided into districts, 13 in Manhattan, 2 in
│ Bronx, and 8 in Brooklyn. Each under control of
│ district superintendent. Districts divided into
│ sections, 103 in the aggregate and each in charge of
│ foreman.
Norfolk │22 districts with one man and one wagon in each.
│
New Orleans │
│
Passaic │Two drivers and 2 lifters in each gang. One wagon loaded
│ while other is on way to dump. District cleaned on
│ certain day each week.
│
Rome │Divided into 5 districts.
Syracuse │
Somerville │City divided into 6 districts, one for each working day.
│ Two lifters to each team.
Schenectady │5 districts.
Wilmington │4 districts. Driver and two lifters for each wagon.
─────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

ASH COLLECTION BY MUNICIPAL FORCES (Continued)

─────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Boston │10 districts with a foreman and inspection service in
│ each.
│
Buffalo │16 districts with foreman in each. Number of men and
│ wagons in each varies according to conditions.
│
Chattanooga │
Duluth │
Glens Falls │City removes all ashes that are clean and suitable for
│ street work.
Memphis │3 districts subdivided into routes, man and cart for each
│ route.
Niagara Falls│4 districts.
│
│
│
│
Rochester │10 districts with one or two gangs to district. Gangs
│ organized into truckers, who haul ashes from rear of
│ house to curb; lifters, who load wagon; and returners,
│ who replace empty receptacles. Teams apportioned
│ according to length of haul, so that empty wagon is
│ ready to take place of loaded one.
Peoria │16 districts. Routes changed as demand increases or
│ decreases.
Spokane │Ashes collected in business district by load, in
│ residential district by can. One 3 ton truck collects
│ ashes and garbage in residential district.
─────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

─────────────┬────────────────────┬─────────────┬─────────────┬────────
Name of City │ Method of Disposal │Does City Own│ How Much │Size of
│ │or Rent Dumps│Revenue Does │ Load
│ │ │City Receive │
─────────────┼────────────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼────────
Binghamton │Filling and covering│Own. │None. │2 yards.
│ garbage. │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Brockton │Dump. │Free. │None. │2 cu.
│ │ │ │ yds.
Cambridge │Dump. │1 rented, │None. │
│ │ others │ │
│ │ free. │ │
Camden │Fill. │Own and free.│None. │
Cincinnati │Dump. │Free. │None. │4.3 yds.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Cleveland │Dump. │Own. │None. │
Columbus │Dump. │Both. │None. │3–4–5
│ │ │ │ yds.
Chicago │Dump and fill. │Own and free.│None. │5 cu.
│ │ │ │ yds.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Dayton │Dump. │Free. │None. │5 cu.
│ │ │ │ yds.
Fall River │Fill. │ │None. │4.94 and
│ │ │ │ 1.71
│ │ │ │ cu.yds.
Holyoke │Dump. │Own. │None. │1½ and 2
│ │ │ │ cu.
│ │ │ │ yds.
Hartford │Fill. │Free. │None. │4–5 cu.
│ │ │ │ yds.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Kingston │Dump. │Free. │None. │
│ │ │ │
Lynn │Dump. │Own. │Very little.│2 cu.
│ │ │ │ yds.
Lowell │Fill. │Free. │None. │3.7
│ │ │ │ cu.yds.
Los Angeles │Dump. │Rent. │None. │
Milwaukee │Dump. │Free. │None. │3 yds.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Newburgh │Dump and fill. │No. │None. │2¾ yds.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
New Bedford │Dump and fill. │Own some. │City once │
│ │ │ collected │
│ │ │ and baled │
│ │ │ paper but │
│ │ │ could not │
│ │ │ make it │
│ │ │ pay. │
New York │Dump. │Own 27, │None. │
│ │ others │ │
│ │ provided by│ │
│ │ contractor.│ │
│ │ │ │
Norfolk │Dump. │Free. │None. │1½ cu.
│ │ │ │ yds.
New Orleans │Dump. │Own. │None. │1½ cu.
│ │ │ │ yds.
Passaic │Dump. │Own. │$500 for │2½ yds.
│ │ │ privilege │
│ │ │ of picking │
│ │ │ over dump. │
Rome │Dump. │No. │None. │1½ yds.
Syracuse │Dump. │No. │None. │3 yds.
Somerville │Fill. │Rent and │None. │
│ │ free. │ │
Schenectady │Dump. │Free. │None. │
Wilmington │Dump and fill. │Free. │None. │
─────────────┴────────────────────┴─────────────┴─────────────┴────────

ASH COLLECTION BY MUNICIPAL FORCES (Continued)

─────────────┬────────────────────┬─────────────┬─────────────┬────────
Boston │Dump. │Rent. │None. │2½ and 4
│ │ │ │ cu.
│ │ │ │ yds.
Buffalo │Dump. │Free but city│None. │5½ cu.
│ │ pays for │ │ yds.
│ │ upkeep. │ │
Chattanooga │Dump. │Free. │ │
Duluth │Dump. │Own. │None. │
Glens Falls │Fill. │Own. │Improved │
│ │ │ streets. │
Memphis │Dump. │Free. │None. │1-¾ cu.
│ │ │ │ yds.
Niagara Falls│Fill. │Free. │None. │Wagon 2½
│ │ │ │ cu.
│ │ │ │ yds.
│ │ │ │ truck
│ │ │ │ 6 yds.
Rochester │Dump. │Rent and │None. │
│ │ free. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Peoria │Dump. │Free. │None. │
│ │ │ │
Spokane │Dump. │Own and free.│None. │3½ cu.
│ │ │ │ yds.
│ │ │ │
─────────────┴────────────────────┴─────────────┴─────────────┴────────

-----

Footnote 37:

Trade wastes not collected by city.

Footnote 38:

Depends on quantity and condition.

Footnote 39:

Ashes and rubbish collected separately in business section.

Footnote 40:

Cost of labor.

Footnote 41:

Collected only when requested.

Footnote 42:

Includes cost of collecting rubbish.

Footnote 43:

Daily hotels and restaurant.

Footnote 44:

Part collected by city and part by private collector.

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.

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