ASHES AND RUBBISH COST AND METHODS OF COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL IN AMERICAN CITIES--EQUIPMENT--REGULATIONS--BY-PRODUCTS

So many cities either collect ashes and rubbish together or the two are collected by the same department or under the same contract that any attempt to give the experience of American municipalities with the collection of each of these wastes would be of little value. The collection of both kinds of waste will, therefore, be discussed with the idea of presenting such information as will give any city, large or small, a basis for determining the feasibility of ash and rubbish collection by municipal employees or by contract, giving the various methods used in the larger American communities, so that the one best adapted to local conditions may be adopted, and the price a city should pay for the service.

Any city contemplating the collection of its refuse or wishing to determine the efficiency and economy of the service it is giving or receiving must consider:

• (1) Type of Collection system:
  • a. Combined collection of garbage, rubbish and ashes.
  • b. Separate collection of each kind of refuse.
• (2) Method of Collection:
  • a. By whom done.
  • b. Districting of city.
    • Number and location of districts.
  • c. Organization of collecting force.
  • d. Kind of equipment.
    • Receptacles.
    • Vehicles.
    • Incinerators.
    • Paper presses.
  • e. Location of receptacles.
  • f. Frequency of collection.
  • g. Time of removal.
• (3) Enforcement of collection regulations.
• (4) Disposal:
  • Dumping exclusively.
  • Incineration, wholly or in part.
• (5) By-products:

Collection Systems

The systems of collection and disposal are so closely related that they must be considered together. There are two kinds of collection systems, the combined and the separate. The combined system may be further divided.

Many large cities collect garbage, rubbish and ashes separately. Garbage is then incinerated or disposed of by the reduction method. Ashes are used for fill and the rubbish is sorted either at the dumps or in utilization plants and the unsalable material either dumped or incinerated or both.

The separate system is profitable only in the larger cities where reduction plants can be operated at or near a profit, where an incineration plant can be centrally located in order to reduce the cost of haul or the heat can be used to produce power or where the reclaimable rubbish is sufficient to pay for rescuing it.

A system that can be used with nearly all methods of disposal is the separate collection of garbage and the combined collection of rubbish and ashes. This is the most popular system in America, for in many cities garbage is disposed of separately and rubbish is dumped. In many such cases, and especially where the ashes are used for fill, separation is required to allow the disposal of the ashes in places not suitable for mixed material.

In cities which have destructors for the incineration of garbage and rubbish and which use the ashes for fill, the separate collection of ashes and the combined collection of garbage and rubbish is the best system. In some cases a part of the ashes is added to the garbage to aid combustion.

Where the combined collection of garbage, rubbish and ashes is used the city disposes of all these wastes either by dumping or by total incineration.

In a few places furnace ashes are collected separately and rubbish, garbage and stove ashes together. When this system is used the furnace ashes are used for fill and the other wastes are incinerated.

There is considerable difference of opinion as to which plan is desirable, but practically all agree that local conditions should contribute the chief factor in determining which system is the best for a city.

The method of disposal is another factor. Reports agree that if all wastes are collected together as a rule the cost of collection will be less than if each is collected separately.

John H. Gregory, sanitary expert, says that separate collection will be found in many instances to be less convenient at the house and more complicated and more expensive than the combined collection. He asserts that the combined collection will usually prove to be cleaner and to have fewer objectionable features, and with this system it should be easier to secure and to keep a better grade of employees. He points out that the mixing of garbage with rubbish and ashes will prevent in a large measure the blowing about of the latter, will lessen the dust nuisance, and indirectly may lessen the cost of street cleaning. The decomposition of garbage is far less noticeable and from the point of view of preventing a nuisance the receptacles and wagons will not require such frequent cleaning. He says, also, that the fly nuisance is reduced to a minimum and that there is less likelihood of odor should the refuse be stored up for final disposition. As but one type of wagon is required for collection Mr. Gregory believes that the system is probably easier to adopt and easier to enforce, fewer regulations being required.

In a discussion of the advantages of the incineration method of disposal the American Journal of Public Health says that ashes may be used for incineration on account of the percentage of unburned coal which they usually contain. The percentage of unburned coal in ashes is between 19½ and 24½. Several experts call attention to the cost of incineration. Mr. Gregory believes that when refuse is incinerated it may be more expensive to burn all ashes with garbage and rubbish than simply to burn the garbage and rubbish. He points out that in some cities it may be found advantageous to adopt the combined system in certain districts and separate collections in others, depending upon local conditions.

Careful consideration should be given to the following reasons for and against keeping ashes and garbage separate: It is not necessary to collect ashes so frequently as it is garbage; different methods of disposal require separate handling; garbage with its moisture when mixed with ashes will not freeze in the can as readily in winter, thus facilitating collection. Some experts, however, assert it is more desirable to keep the wastes separate in order to use the ashes for fill and to sell the reclaimable rubbish. Many cities require the separation either of all wastes or of garbage. Of the fifty largest cities in the United States and all cities in New York State only thirteen do not require that each class of refuse be kept separate. One or two report that the plan had to be abandoned as it was found difficult to get the people, especially those living in the poorer districts, to comply with the rule of keeping the wastes separate. Other cities, which do require a separation, report that while it was found difficult at the beginning to enforce the regulation, persistent educational work and patience eventually brought their reward. Where all of the waste is dumped many cities prohibit the mixing of paper or combustibles with ashes and rubbish. If this is not done the experience of many cities is that there are liable to be serious dump fires.

Methods of Collection

Some cities have ash and rubbish collection done by contract; in others the work is done by city employees; in a few both plans are used; and in many small communities the work is done by licensed collectors. The last Census Report shows that in eighty-five of the 158 cities for which statistics are given the collection is made either by contract or by the city, 72 per cent. being collected by the cities and 28 per cent. by contract.

Collection by private collectors is by no means confined to the small cities, as the following table indicates:

---

John H. Gregory is of the opinion that, as a general rule, the best results may be expected from municipal ownership and operation of collection equipment. The Chicago City Waste Commission reports that where the householder hires a private scavenger to remove ashes and rubbish it usually results in greater cost than when the work is systematically done by the city at public expense. If work is done by contract supervision at public expense is almost imperative when the best results are desired. Regulation must be strict and well enforced. The experiences of cities which have used all three methods are in favor of municipal collection.

The stringent contract regulating the collection of garbage and ashes by contract in West Orange, New Jersey, contains some suggestions. That part referring to the collection of ashes provides that the contractor must have an office in town with a telephone and a person in attendance from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m. If notified of the failure of any employee to remove ashes the same must be removed within two hours. Ashes must be kept separate from garbage and collected in a different vehicle. Ashes must be placed in covered wagons and “properly constructed so as to conceal the contents and to prevent scattering on public streets and highways. Rubbish, papers, tin cans, etc., shall be considered ashes.” It further requires that wagons must not be overloaded, must be numbered and painted once a year and cleaned each day. The contractor must discharge employees guilty of neglect or insolence. The dumping ground must be kept clean, and papers, tin cans, etc., must be covered with three inches of dirt. “If the work is unsatisfactory the Council may by resolution terminate the contract and the surety company will be compelled to make good the damages the city shall suffer as a result of the breach of contract.”

In some cities where the refuse is disposed of by incineration, the municipality does the collecting and delivers to a privately owned disposal plant.

Districting the City

The number and location of the districts into which a city is divided depends upon the size, topography and population of the municipality. The layout should also be influenced somewhat by the kind of collection equipment used. Particular attention should be given to the various kinds of collection vehicles and especially to the desirability of employing motor or horse-drawn vehicles or a combination of both, before the city is districted. The location of the dumps or incinerators and the frequency of collection are also important factors. It is generally agreed that the division should be such as to shorten the length of haul as much as possible and to avoid steep grades with loaded wagons.

Organization of Collection Force

The organization of the force depends upon the kind of equipment, system of collection, districting of city, location of receptacles, frequency of removal and time of collection. The common system abroad where the can is placed at the curb, is to have one or two workmen accompany the wagon, one acting as driver, while the other empties the cans. Some authorities say this is the most economical way. The common method of operating in this country is to have the driver make the collection from the back yard. This is claimed by many to be uneconomical, as the whole collection work is retarded. In some cities the so-called gang system is used. Workmen go down each side of the street about one hour ahead of the wagon and roll the cans to the curb. The driver empties the cans and workmen following the wagon take the empty cans to the back yard. Many believe that this makes the best use of the more expensive part of the equipment. John H. Gregory points out that when possible one man should always have the same route in order that he may become acquainted with the district and households.

The organization of the collecting force must be elastic so that changes may be easily and quickly made on account of the seasons and weather conditions. More wagons and more men are employed in winter than in summer. It is also found necessary to increase the collection force when traffic conditions are made difficult by a snow storm and other causes.

Type of Equipment

The essential features to be considered in connection with the design and installation of equipment are sanitation, freedom from nuisance and selection of proper apparatus for economical operation.

Very definite conclusions have been reached by experts and officials about the kind of ash can to be used. It is agreed that the size must be limited because of the difficulty of lifting heavy receptacles into the collecting wagon. Workman’s compensation insurance for city employees has forced cities to give more attention to this part of the equipment than previously for the reason that many employees are injured by straining. It is also agreed that the receptacles must be of metal or lined with metal to prevent fire from hot ashes. All receptacles, if left at the curb, should be covered to prevent dust.

Some cities require householders to use regulation size cans. It is asserted that this plan facilitates the collection. The attached tables contain a description of the type and size of can used.

There has been much discussion about the best type of wagon for ash collection, and much experimenting has been done and is still commanding attention. It is agreed that special attention must be given to ease in loading and emptying, to provision against leakage, dust and unsightly appearance, to noise when loading and in motion, to durability and to cost of maintenance. As a considerable portion of the men employed in collecting suffer strains and rupture caused by lifting heavy cans, it is imperative that the wagon be as low as possible. Most of those now in use are five feet or more from the sidewalk to the top of the sides. If the bodies of these wagons hung low, as they do in some cities, and the capacity were made up in length, there would be less strain on the men and time would be saved in dumping.

The capacity of the wagon is influenced by the length of haul and topography of the city. In its study of the collection and disposal of waste in Ohio cities the Ohio State Board of Health says it is the consensus of opinion that for best economic results the wagon capacity should be from three to four cubic yards for the combined collection of ashes and rubbish. The average weight of rubbish and ashes is from 800 to 1100 pounds per cubic yard, according to some reports. H. DeB. Parsons, a sanitary expert, says the average weight of ashes per cubic yard is 1350 pounds and rubbish 200 pounds. Generally the mixture in summer is 35 per cent. ashes and 65 per cent. rubbish; in winter 75 per cent. ashes and 25 per cent. rubbish.

Until recently practically all of New York City’s ash carts carried approximately one ton. The point was made that with this type of vehicle there is a great loss of time in carrying the load to the dump and returning empty. William H. Edwards, former Commissioner of Street Cleaning, claimed that there would be a greater saving if five-ton vehicles drawn by three horses and operated by four men were used. Mr. Edwards said that a test had proved that six cartloads could be collected and dumped in just about twice the time it took for one cartload under the conditions existing then. The city is now experimenting with motor apparatus designed for dustless and odorless collection of all kinds of refuse.

In a few cities one type of wagon is used for ashes and another type for rubbish. One new type of wagon has the body swung low on running gear, with dumping edges three feet, six inches above the pavement, and is pivoted at one end to facilitate dumping. It holds nine cubic yards and is divided by cross partitions into compartments, one for ashes and the other for garbage. The relative capacity of the compartments can be varied. Some of the types used in American cities are described in the accompanying tables.

Some American and German cities are using, and others are considering the purchase and use of, motor trucks for collection purposes. It is generally agreed that motor trucks are economical only where the haul is long. A discussion of the merits of motor vehicles as compared with horse drawn carts will be found in the chapter on garbage collection. In some cities where the haul to the loading stations is long, trucks with detachable bodies are used for garbage, ashes and rubbish. The bodies are lifted by derricks from the truck and placed either on the train or on the trolley cars. In a few other cities horse-drawn wagons are taken to a central point in a district and then as trailers are hauled by tractors to the dumping grounds. The best system to be adopted depends entirely upon local conditions.

Location of Receptacles

Where should the can be taken from by the collector and to what place returned? The answer is important for it is one of the chief factors in determining the cost of collection. The location seriously affects the speed of collection. In Milwaukee it was found in 1911 that the average collector could enter from fifty to one hundred houses in an eight-hour day, and that the time consumed in cleaning one house was slightly over three minutes. The Cleansing Superintendent of London reports that a one-horse van of four cubic yards capacity, hauling to a dump two miles away, under normal conditions could make from 240 to 260 calls and collections each ten hours. If the can is placed on the edge of the curb, he says, it is possible to make 500 collections a day.

Some cities require that the can be carried by the residents to the curb. Others collect from rear yard, cellar, areaway or alley. In cities which collect during the day and require the cans to be left at the curb serious objections are reported because the array of cans and rubbish along the street on the day of collection makes the thoroughfare unsightly. To overcome this objection several plans have been carried out:

(1) To collect at night.

(2) To require that cans cannot remain on the street more than one hour after being emptied.

(3) To require collectors to go into basements and back yards and to return the cans to these places.

(4) To collect in rear alleys.

Experience has shown that it is very difficult to enforce a regulation by which cans should be taken from the curb by householders at any particular time after they have been emptied. In many homes the husband is the only person who does this kind of work. The can has to be taken in the morning to the curb. The empty, therefore, must remain in the street until noon and if the collection is not made until afternoon or the husband does not go home to his midday meal, it remains there until night. Many cities report that to eliminate the unsightliness of miscellaneous boxes, pails, cans and barrels which line the curb on collection day the citizens are willing to pay the extra cost of having the collectors take the cans from the basements or rear yards and return them to the same place. It has also been found that rear yard collection facilitates and somewhat reduces the cost of street cleaning.

It is generally agreed that the best plan is to collect from rear alleys, but these do not exist in many cities. In a few places which have alleys the officials say their experience has not been satisfactory; but in nearly every instance there has not been found to exist any cooperation between the collection force and the public, due to the failure of the officials to educate the people.

Time of Collection

Usually ashes and rubbish are collected during the working hours of the day, but often it is customary to collect them in the early hours of the morning, especially in the business section.

Night collection has been satisfactory in some cities. A few having this system require cans to be placed at the curb the night before. These are collected early in the morning and the empty ones taken to the back yard. The principal objection to night collections is the noise of the wagons and the dropping of the empty metal cans.

William H. Edwards, former Commissioner of Street Cleaning in New York, gives the following advantages and disadvantages of day and night collection:

Unsightliness of cans in front of buildings much less evident at night.

Retention of cover on receptacle easier in day time. When covers are removed day work has its disadvantages by the spreading of the dust by the wind.

Interference with sidewalk and roadway traffic less at night.

When receptacle is placed in areaway it is more difficult for the collector to see at night whether or not there is material to remove.

Intense heat in summer is a drawback both to men and animals in the day collections.

Spilling of material is of less importance at night.

Night collection necessitates the extra charge of lighting the dump.

Supervision of night collection is considerably more difficult.

Night collection was tried in New York, but was abandoned after the strike in 1911.

Frequency of Collection

The number of collections that should be made in a given period depends upon the amount of ashes, the density of population, the season of the year, the climate and the degree of cleanliness desired. Most cities collect more frequently in winter than in summer and some collect more often in the business districts than they do in residential and outlying districts.

Samuel A. Greeley, sanitary engineer, believes that ashes and rubbish should be collected at least twice monthly even in summer. Most cities do better than that, some collecting daily and many collecting more than once a week.

Enforcement of Collection Regulations

In cities in England and on the Continent, where the ashes, garbage and rubbish are collected together, collections are in general made three times a week; when collected separately, one collection a week is regarded as sufficient.

Detailed regulations should be made and distributed on cards among householders. They should include the kind of receptacle to be used, how the waste should be prepared to facilitate collection and where the cans should be placed. For example, Richmond, Virginia, provides by ordinance that the occupant of any house shall cause all ashes and other non-combustible refuse matter to be put in receptacles of not less than five or more than twenty-four gallons capacity. Ashes and other non-combustible matter is construed to mean ashes from coal and other fuel and such material substances as may collect in connection with the ordinary conduct of a household, but not such as may result from building operations or repairs. Any person violating any of these provisions must pay a fine of not less than $1 or more than $20.

The enforcement of regulations is facilitated by and grows easier with the growth and development of the collection system and with the regularity of collection. It is always difficult at first. The rules and regulations, a description of the collection system and the aims of the collecting department should be printed on cards and hung in every household. Annual clean-up campaigns have been found useful by officials who desire to educate the public.

The following methods of disposal are used by cities:

(1) Dumping.

(2) Burning combustible rubbish that is not salable and using the ashes to fill in low land, or for road or sidewalk making, or selling part for use in partitions for fireproof buildings or for laying cellar floors.

(3) Incinerating with garbage.

When the dumping method is used cities either own their own dumps or secure the privilege for or without a fee for disposing of the waste upon land privately owned. In most cases the waste is used for fill and no fee is paid by the city. A few seacoast cities dump their combined refuse at sea, but this practise is condemned. Where only ashes and rubbish are used the most common practise is to place the rubbish and light material near the bottom and to surface the dump to a depth of several feet with ashes. This makes a neat and finished appearance. Where ashes, rubbish and garbage are collected and dumped together, many cities have found that the so-called sanitary fill method, described in the chapter on garbage, is the most satisfactory. It is becoming more and more difficult for cities to maintain dumps on account of the congestion of population, which forces the municipality to seek disposal places far away from the centers, thus increasing the length of haul. If paper, garbage and combustibles are allowed on the dump, fires are apt to result and these make odors and smoke which are unpleasant and unhealthful. These fires are often very difficult to extinguish, especially if the dump is a deep one. Iron cages are sometimes used at the dump for burning the valueless combustible rubbish.

Some cities are successfully operating incinerating plants for the destruction of garbage and combustible rubbish; others have plants which burn the garbage and rubbish and a part of the ashes. Where ashes are burned they are collected with the rubbish and garbage in those districts nearest to the incinerating plant in order to reduce the length of haul.

Revenue from By-Products

Many cities as yet make no effort to secure and dispose of the by-products, which consist of metal, rags, paper, tin cans, bottles, and ashes; in others the problem is being studied seriously. In comparatively few considerable revenue is derived. Generally junk dealers are allowed to overrun the dump and select what they want. A few cities charge for this privilege, the price being determined by bidding. The cities which derive the most revenue are those which do the sorting and selling themselves.

The St. Paul Sanitation Committee came to the conclusion that 33 per cent. of rubbish has value and that of this salable material 80 per cent. is paper, 10 per cent. rags, 5 per cent. tin cans, 3 per cent. bottles and 2 per cent. is miscellaneous. It says further: “The best authorities agree that in cities of 500,000 or over the recovery and utilization of wastes may result in some profit, but in cities of less population the amount recovered will not warrant the construction of expensive plants to make the separation and recovery.” In the smaller places some revenue can usually be secured by letting out to junk dealers the privilege of picking over the dump.

It has been estimated that in New York City 48 per cent. of a ton of rubbish is worth $1.44 to the picking contractor and the remaining 52 per cent. is worth at least $1.25 when burned and transformed into electrical energy.

It has been suggested in one or two large cities that the unskilled and handicapped labor out of employment and seeking city aid be employed on dumps to pick out the unconsumed coal from the ashes screened automatically. Besides furnishing employment at any season of the year, it is claimed that coal in paying quantities could be secured for municipal consumption. This claim is based on the reports of experts who have analyzed ashes and found the amount of unburned coal to run as high as 24½ per cent.

In Passaic, New Jersey, the papers, rags, etc., are picked out at the dump by junk dealers. In Cincinnati, Ohio, the revenue from salable rubbish has been over $2,000 a year. Evanston, Illinois, which dumps its ashes on the river front, was compelled to find some way of disposing of its waste paper so that it would not scatter through the neighborhood. A baling press was put into service and it is reported by the city that excellent results followed. The city collects and bales the paper in both business and residential districts. The paper is placed in gunny sacks and these are hung just inside the alley gate, or barn or stable on the morning of the designated day. It is said this system (1) takes a day’s work each week from the routes of each of six men who collect rubbish on the east side of the city; (2) prevents the blowing of loose paper about the street and alley and in the neighborhood of the dump; (3) pays for the operation of the press and leaves a balance to aid the rest of the service. A man, employed eight hours a day, drives the wagon and presses the paper. Camden, New Jersey, which keeps its ashes separate, collects its rubbish and paper, and takes them to a sorting place. Prisoners in the city jail for minor offenses are kept busy sorting and baling the rags and paper. Nearly a million pounds of paper were baled and sold in one year. Cleveland in one year spent $230,000 for removal of its ashes and rubbish, and received $30,000 from the sale of the material sorted from its rubbish. The paper was sold for $5.60 a ton in bags at the plant of a boxboard company. Tin cans were sold for $5 a ton loaded on cars and delivered to a company making silk skirts. The metal, bottles, rags, etc., were sold to local dealers under competitive bidding. The rubbish not valuable was used for fill. The caretakers of dumps are expected to recover the salable portions of the rubbish. One of the small New York cities gives the privilege of sorting the dump to a man who in payment therefor acts as caretaker of the dump. A few cities sell their ashes to contractors for cellar floors and partitions in fireproof building.

The high prices paid for reclaimable rubbish since the war began and the demand of the Federal Government that nothing be wasted have caused many cities to give much attention to the matter of rescuing salable rubbish.

Cleveland’s specifications for picking the scrap materials from the various city dumps contain among other provisions the following:

“The successful bidder and his employees shall have free access to the dumps and shall have the exclusive right to gather and sell or remove the salable refuse, scrap and other waste material, except the soil, earth and ashes, for the period of one year; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to give the successful bidder the right to charge either the cities or other parties for dumping on such dumps.

“The Superintendent of the Division of Street Cleaning shall have complete supervision of the dumps and shall designate what material and refuse shall be deposited on the dumps and the manner and the places where such deposits shall be made; and should he deem it necessary shall have the right to place Street Cleaning Department employees on the dumps to supervise such dumping.

“The successful bidder shall shovel and level all refuse or materials and shall keep the dumps clean and free from nuisance of all kinds. He shall be responsible for all damages caused by the dumps and shall extinguish all fires which shall arise thereon.

“The successful bidder if he desires to store or pile upon the dumps any refuse, scrap or waste material, which he may gather shall pile or store it at places designated by the Superintendent of the Division of Street Cleaning or his employees and any material or stores so piled shall be removed within ten days (10) after the expiration of the contract, and if not removed within that time shall be the property of the city.

“The City reserves the rights to use the dumps for any purpose whatsoever in such manner as not to interfere with the picking, gathering and carting away of waste material by the successful bidder.

“The contractor shall pay to the city on or before the 15th day of each month, the amount due for the use of the dumps during the previous months. On failure of the contractor to make payment to the city within the specified time, The Director of Public Service may declare the contract forfeited and refuse the contractor the further use of the dumps and may hold the contractor and his surety for the full amount due the city.

“In case the contract is forfeited the city reserves the right and the bidder agrees that the city shall have the right to let out in the open market or otherwise, the use of such dumps, and if the price thereon realized is less than that specified in the contract with the successful bidder, the difference in price, together with any additional expense incurred in arranging for the letting out to other parties, will be charged to the contractor and his surety.

“Should it become necessary for the city to abandon dumping on any or all of the dumps herein specified, the city shall notify the contractor in writing that dumping is to be discontinued on such dump or dumps, and in such case the contract covering such dump or dumps is to be terminated with the closing of the dumps, and the contractor shall pay the city for any fraction of the month which he may have picked from such dump or dumps.

“The city reserves the right to reject any or all bids or part of any bid.”

The following specifications explain how Los Angeles, California, cares for its rubbish dumps and obtains a revenue:

“The service required by these specifications is to furnish facilities for disposing of the non-combustible rubbish collected from that portion of the city south of the summit of the Cahuenga Pass, north of Manchester Avenue, and east of a line parallel to and three hundred (300) feet distant westerly from Beechwood Avenue, in that portion of the city known as the Palms Annex, for a period of four years from April 20, 1917.

“The contractor shall maintain a dumping ground for the rubbish, which said dumping ground shall be accessible at all seasons of the year by one or more suitable graded and surfaced streets or roads. The location of the dumping ground must be such that in the opinion of the Board of Public Works it will not be unduly objectionable to the public.

“The unloading points within the grounds must be convenient of access for all vehicles used by the city for rubbish transportation.

“The rubbish will be brought to the dumping ground by the city, will be unloaded by the city at such readily accessible points as the contractor shall designate, and will, after unloading, become the property of the contractor.

“The contractor shall keep the dumping grounds in an orderly condition and shall so direct the dumping as to avoid congestion of vehicles or delay to same on the dump. He shall not use the dump for storing material in a manner which will interfere with the passage of the city’s vehicles.

“In case accidents or conditions beyond the control of the contractor temporarily deprive him of the use of his facilities for disposing of the rubbish the city will, upon notification by the contractor of his inability to receive it, dispose of it elsewhere, and charge the contractor twenty-five (25) cents per load of ten cubic yards for the disposal of same.

“In case the contractor fails to pay the city for the disposal of such rubbish from the hereinabove described district as the contractor is unable to receive the contract may be declared forfeited.

“Bidders shall name a price per month which they will pay for the privilege of having the entire output of non-combustible rubbish from the above described territory dumped on their ground.”

Efficiency Tests and Suggestions

A simple and effective plan for keeping accurate records is a great help in checking up the efficiency of a collecting force. In fact, records are imperative if any attempt is made to operate economically, for the cost is influenced by the many and small details of the work. A systematic record of all complaints should be kept and the activity of each collector should be definitely checked up. Some suggest that complaints should be recorded in a loose leaf ledger and a slip handed to the driver of the particular district from which the complaint comes. As an offset to the citizens’ complaints the ledger should have leaves adjoining giving the reports of the driver. By referring to the ledger the complaint clerk can explain to the citizen why he is not receiving service. Others suggest that records should be kept of the daily, weekly and monthly work of each collector so that work of the various collectors may be equalized. They also suggest that there be recorded for each district the number of loads collected, miles traveled and complaints made. Some suggest a card system with cross index as more convenient than a ledger.

The following scheme has been suggested to check up the amount of work done: W, number of collection wagons; V, capacity of one wagon in cubic feet; F, interval between collection in days; T, time required to collect from one house expressed as part of an hour; C, percentage of working time spent by collectors in the actual time of collecting as distinguished from hauling to and from the point of disposal; D, length of working day in hours; S, number of trips to point of disposal per wagon per day; P, total population; N, average number of people per house; R, daily quantity of refuse per capita-cubic foot; g, daily quantity of garbage per capita-cubic foot; d, daily quantity of rubbish per capita-cubic foot:

	D × C	1
S =		× F × N × R × V
	T

	P × R
W ×
	S × V

The person making this suggestion says it is frequently easy for a superintendent to determine how much time his collectors are spending unproductively in going to and from the dump. He should also be able, he says, to determine quite accurately the frequency of collection, total refuse, capacity of wagon and average number of trips per wagon per day. With this data he can estimate from Equation No. 1 the time required to collect from one house. If excessive he may find it advisable to secure better cooperation between the collector and the housewife.

Per Capita Production

Any attempt to estimate the local ash production of a community based on the experience of any other city will end in failure unless all peculiar conditions in both are known and compared. Some authorities say that the rubbish and ashes produced per capita is from 325 to 530 lbs. a year. The following table gives the figures for some large cities:

	Lbs. per Capita per Year	Lbs. per 1,000 Population per Day	Average Weight per Cubic Yard
New York	1,162	3,175	1,100
Boston	975	3,120	943
Washington	825	2,640	1,200
Cambridge			1,150
Rochester			900

d class="brt c021">