| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: Municipal Housecleaning - The Methods and Experiences of American Cities In Collecting - and Disposing of Their Municipal Wastes
Author: Carpenter, Jeanne Daniels, Capes, William Parr
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Municipal Housecleaning - The Methods and Experiences of American Cities In Collecting - and Disposing of Their Municipal Wastes" ***
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)
MUNICIPAL HOUSECLEANING
THE METHODS AND EXPERIENCES OF AMERICAN CITIES IN COLLECTING AND
DISPOSING OF THEIR MUNICIPAL WASTES—ASHES, RUBBISH, GARBAGE, MANURE,
SEWAGE, AND STREET REFUSE
BY
WILLIAM PARR CAPES
DIRECTOR NEW YORK STATE BUREAU OF MUNICIPAL INFORMATION SECRETARY NEW
YORK STATE CONFERENCE OF MAYORS AND OTHER CITY OFFICIALS
AND
JEANNE DANIELS CARPENTER, A.M., LL.B.
BOSTON UNIVERSITY EXPERT IN ECONOMICS AND MUNICIPAL RESEARCH
WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY
CORNELIUS F. BURNS
PRESIDENT OF NEW YORK STATE CONFERENCE OF MAYORS AND OTHER CITY
OFFICIALS
E. P. DUTTON & COMPANY
NEW YORK
1918
COPYRIGHT, 1918
BY E. P. DUTTON & COMPANY
_All rights reserved_
Printed in the United States of America
DEDICATED
TO THE
HONORABLE CHARLES C. DURYEE, M.D.
WHO, AS THE FOUNDER AND FIRST
PRESIDENT OF THE NEW YORK STATE
CONFERENCE OF MAYORS AND OTHER CITY
OFFICIALS, WHICH DEVELOPED THAT
UNIQUE INSTITUTION, THE STATE BUREAU
OF MUNICIPAL INFORMATION, RENDERED A
SERVICE OF INESTIMABLE VALUE TO THE
CITIES OF THE EMPIRE STATE AND
BLAZED A TRAIL FOR BETTER
COORDINATION OF MUNICIPAL
UNDERTAKINGS, AND MORE EFFECTIVE
COOPERATION AMONG AMERICAN CITIES.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PREFACE
In a home free from nuisances which offend the esthetic tastes, and
either directly or indirectly cause disease, more contentment and thrift
will be found than in the one permeated with odors and befouled with
dirt and domestic wastes.
So it is with a city, the great home, workshop, and playground of its
people. Keeping it clean, therefore, is one of the most important duties
of its officials. None other is more conducive to health, happiness and
comfort, the three great objects for which every community through
organized effort is striving.
And there is no group of municipal problems which demands and is now
commanding, more scientific thought and more intelligent business
management than the collection and disposal of a city’s wastes. With
every nation applying the last ounce of economy and with the increase of
population and its consequent congestion, these problems grow in
importance and complexity. Higher living standards, a better
understanding of the causes of disease, and a keener appreciation of
preventive work have forced municipalities to frown upon primitive
methods involving individual effort, especially where congestion exists.
As a substitute therefore, more effective means have been and are being
adopted to eliminate by community activity, the nuisances caused by
ashes, rubbish, garbage and dirty streets. We are also appreciating the
need for more efficient management than is now prevalent and for the
development of revenue-producing by-products.
An official or layman interested in the solution of these six important
municipal housecleaning problems will find in this book information
which we believe will answer all his questions. Our judgment has been
influenced entirely by the hundreds of questions which have come to the
State Bureau of Municipal Information from city officials in their
effort either to establish efficient systems or to reorganize existing
ones.
City officials, federal, state and municipal reports, engineering,
medical and other publications, as well as the proceedings of various
municipal, civic and scientific organizations have contributed their
quota to this work.
THE AUTHORS.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
_STREET CLEANING_:
Milwaukee, Wis. Bureau of Municipal Research. Efficiency and Economy
in Municipal Work by Modern Type of Equipment.
Philadelphia. Highways and Street Cleaning, Bureau of Highways—A
Problem in Municipal Housekeeping.
Fox, R. T. Report on Examination of Personnel, Methods of Work and
Equipment of the Department of Street Cleaning, New York City.
Parlin, R. W. Flushing—Its Place in the Street Cleaning Field.
_SEWAGE DISPOSAL_:
Daniels, F. E. Operation of Sewage Disposal Plants.
Kershaw, G. B. de B. Guide to the Reports, Evidence, and Appendices
of the Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal.
Kershaw, G. B. de B. Sewage Purification and Disposal.
Metcalf, L., and Eddy, H. P. American Sewerage Practice. Disposal of
Sewage.
Eddy, H. P. Extent to which Sewage can be Purified by Practical
Methods of Artificial Treatment now in Use.
Faber, D. C. Operation and Care of Sewage Disposal Plants.
Fuller, W. B. Sewage Disposal by the Activated Sludge Process.
Bristol, L. D. Municipal Sewage and its Care.
American Public Health Association. Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Sewage.
Hammond, G. T. Sewage Treatment by Aeration and Activation.
Weston, R. S., and Turner, C. E. Studies on the Digestion of a
Sewage Filter Effluent by a Small and Otherwise Unpolluted Stream.
_REFUSE AND REFUSE DISPOSAL_:
Chicago. City Waste Commission.
Gerhard, W. P. Disposal of Household Wastes.
Matthews, E. R. Refuse Disposal.
Turrentine, J. W. Preparation of Fertilizer from Municipal Wastes.
Conant, E. R. Refuse Disposal in Southern Cities, with Particular
Reference to Savannah, Ga., with its new Incinerator.
Rich, E. D. Garbage Collection and Disposal.
Gerhard, W. P. Sanitation and Sanitary Engineering.
CONTENTS
PAGE
PREFACE vii
BIBLIOGRAPHY ix
INTRODUCTION xix
CHAPTER
I STREET CLEANING, Elements to be Considered—Contract versus
Municipal Cleaning—Spring Cleaning—Street Sprinkling—Street
Cleaning Methods—Machine Sweeping—Pick-up Machines—Cleaning
by Flushing—Hose Flushing—Cleaning by Squeegeeing—Disposal
of Refuse—Relative Cost 3
II SEWAGE DISPOSAL METHODS, Need for Proper Disposal—Sewerage
Systems—Purification of Sewage—Processes of Purification—
Dilution—Screening—Grit Chambers—Straining or Roughing—
Treatment in Tanks—Plain Sedimentation—Septic Process—The
Imhoff Tank—Chemical Precipitation—Slate Beds—Dosing
Chambers—Contact Filters—Trickling, Percolating or
Sprinkling Filters—Intermittent Sand Filters—Broad
Irrigation—Disinfection—Activated Sludge Process—Other
Processes—Trade Wastes—Sludge Disposal and Value—Management
and Supervision 71
III ASH AND RUBBISH COLLECTION, Types of Collection Systems—
Methods of Collection—Districting the City—Organization of
Collection Forces—Kinds of Equipment—Location of
Receptacles—Time of Collection—Frequency of Collection—
Enforcement of Collection Regulations—Methods of Disposal—
Revenues from By-Products—Efficiency Tests and Suggestions—
Per Capita Production—Cost Data 119
IV GARBAGE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL, Collection Systems—Methods
of Collection—House Treatment—Kinds of Equipment—Location
of Receptacles—Time and Frequency of Collection—Enforcement
of Collection Regulations—Cost—Per Capita Production—
Feeding to Swine—Dumping on Land—Dumping in Large Bodies of
Water—Disposal by Sanitary Fill—Burial—Disposal Plants—
Incineration—Reduction 151
V CARE AND DISPOSAL OF MANURE, Methods Used by Cities—The
Columbus System—Municipal Regulations—Exceptional
Regulations 203
VI MUNICIPAL CLEAN-UP CAMPAIGNS, Agencies for Propaganda—
Programs—Organization—Procedure—Publicity—Miscellaneous
Activities—Methods—Prizes—Fire Prevention and Inspection—
Sanitary Inspection—Slogans—Flies and Mosquitoes—
Ordinances—Revenue from Waste—Cost—Results 213
TABLES
1. METHODS AND COSTS OF STREET CLEANING IN AMERICAN CITIES
2. METHODS AND COSTS OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL IN AMERICAN CITIES
3. ASH DISPOSAL BY PRIVATE COLLECTION
4. COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF ASHES AND RUBBISH BY MUNICIPAL FORCES
5. COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF ASHES AND RUBBISH BY CONTRACT
7. METHODS AND COST OF DISPOSAL OF GARBAGE
ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS
STREET CLEANING
PAGE
Contract versus Municipal Cleaning 5
Philadelphia, experience of 5
Washington, experience of 5
Elements of Street Cleaning Program 3
Classes of street litter 4
Lack of accurate data 4
Records 4
Methods of Reducing Litter 5
Carelessness of Citizens 6
How public and officials can cooperate 8
Philadelphia’s plan 7
Preventive work 8
Educational campaigns 6
Street Cleaning Factors and Standards 9
Conditions and factor 9
Horse traffic 10–11
Paving and repair policy 11–12–13
Quantity and volume of dirt 11
Schedule of Street Cleaning 14
Amount and character of cleaning affected by
kinds of pavement 15
Assignments 16
Block system 14
Organization of employees 15
Unit of work 15
Spring Cleaning 16
Character of pavement a factor 17
Rates per man 17
Number of men required in gang 16
Unit cost according to character and kinds of
pavement 17
Sprinkling 17
Bureau of Municipal Research, Milwaukee,
Wis., Cost data 19
Dust prevention 17
Effect on pavement 18
Experts, opinions of 18–19
Ordinances and regulations 20
Practices in various cities 21
Sprinkling by railway companies 20
Methods 22
Patrol system 22
Area a sweeper can clean 22
Philadelphia’s system 24
Machine Sweeping 24
Cost 26
Experts, opinions of 25
Los Angeles, Cal., report 28
Oakland, Cal., experience of 27
Pomona, Cal. 28
Flushing 29
Atlanta Sanitary Dept., report of 29
Bureau of Municipal Research, Milwaukee,
Wis., report of cost data 31–32
Experts, opinion of 29–30
Effect on pavement 31
Machine 30–31
Railway car flushing 32
Hose Flushing 33
New York City, experience of 33–34
Squeegeeing 34
Horse drawn squeegees, cost of operation 35
Methods 34
Milwaukee, report of 35
Motor drawn squeegees 35–36
Square yards per day cleaned 37
Combination of methods 37–38
Danger of clogging sewers 35–36–37
Disposal of Street Refuse 38
Experience of cities 38
Length of haul 38
Used as fill 38
Relative Cost of Street Cleaning 39
Experts, opinions of 39
U. S. Census Bureau, investigation of 39
SEWAGE DISPOSAL
Bureau of Surveys, Philadelphia Testing Station 72
Composition of Sewage 72
Importance of Sewage Disposal Problem 71
Massachusetts State Board of Health
conclusions 72
Preliminary Study 72
The Sewerage System 73
Authorities, opinion of 73–74
Domestic Wastes 74
Degree of Purification 75
Trade and industrial wastes 77
Processes of Treatment 78
Main group 78
Chemical precipitation 91–92
Colloidal tanks 85
Dilution 80–81
Grit Chambers 82–83
Plain sedimentation 84–85
Preliminary or preparatory 78
Screening 81–82
Septic tank treatment 85
Imhoff tanks 87–88–89–90–91
Cameron tanks 85–86–87
Single contact beds 93–94
Straining or roughing 83–84
Slate beds 92–93
Final process 78
Dosing chambers 93
Double contact beds 93–94–95–96
Trickling-sprinkling filters 96–97
Intermittent sand filters 98–99
Broad irrigation 100–101
Disinfection 100
Hypo-chlorite of lime 101
Liquid chlorine 101
Activated sludge process 101–102–103–104
Combination of processes 79
Electrolytic process 104
Efficiency of processes 80
Management and supervision 108–109
Miles acid sludge process 105
Sludge disposal and value 106–107–108
Trade wastes 105
ASHES AND RUBBISH
Collection Systems:
Types of systems 120–121
Combined 121–122–123
Separate 120–122–123
Method of collection:
Municipal 123–124
Contract 124
Private 123
Districting the city 124–125
Organization of force 125
Type of equipment 126–127–128
Cans 126
Vehicles 127–128
Location of receptacles 128–129
Time of collection 129–130
Frequency of collection 130–131
Enforcement of regulations 131
Disposal of Ashes and Rubbish 132
Dumping 132
Burning 132–133
Revenue from By-Products 133–134
Specifications 135–136–137
Efficiency Tests and Suggestions 138–139
Per Capita Production 139
Cost data 140
GARBAGE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
Types of Collection Systems 152–153–154
Combined 153
Separate 153
Method of Collection 154–155–156
Scavengers 154
Contract 154–155
City 154–155
Organization 156–157–158
Districts 156
Force 157–158
House treatment 156
Receptacles 158
Vehicles 159–160
Motors vs. horse drawn 160–161–162–163
Collection Regulations 164–165–166
Cost of Collection 166–167
Per Capita Production 167–168
Garbage Disposal 168–169
Feeding to swine 169–170–171–172–173–174
Dumping on land 175
Dumping in large bodies of water 175
Disposal by sanitary fill 175–176–177
Burial 178
Disposal Plants 178–179–180–181
Incineration 181
Crematories 181–182–186
Destructors 183–184–185–186–187
Reduction 187–190
Cooking 188–189
Drying 189
By-Products 190–191–192
CARE AND DISPOSAL OF MANURE
Methods of Collection 203
Municipal 204–205
Private 204
Contract 204
Municipal Regulations 206–207–208–209–210
For care and storage of manure 206–207–208–210
For transportation of manure 206–207–208
For disposal of manure 206–207–208
MUNICIPAL CLEAN-UP CAMPAIGN
History of the Movement 213–214
Initiating a Campaign 214–215
Organization 215–216–217
Publicity plans 217–218–219–220–221–222
Cooperating forces 222–223–224–225–226–227
Work of children 222–223–224–225–226
Work of organizations 225–226–227
Special Activities 227–228
Cleaning roofs 227
School gardens 228
Planting trees 228
Fire Prevention and Inspection 228–229
Sanitary Inspectors 230
Flies and Mosquitoes 230–231
Results of Campaigns 231–232
INTRODUCTION
Never in the history of our country has the work of the public official
demanded so much of him as now. The expansion and increasing complexity
of municipal activities, the desire of women for more knowledge about
their new responsibilities, the need for better living conditions
brought about by greater congestion, the necessity for conserving every
ounce of man and woman power, the demand for greater efficiency and
rock-bottom economy in every line—all these conditions are making
themselves felt with the public official.
The time when public office was held by the grace of God and the
majority of votes has become almost a thing of the past. The official’s
worth now is not measured by his good-fellowship and vote-getting
capacity, but rather by his ability to produce results—not at the polls
on Election Day, but in the City Hall every day.
Because municipal government is closer to the people and affects them in
more ways than the government of any other political subdivision, and
also because our citizens are now taking a keener interest than ever
before in community work, it is to-day almost useless for a public
official to attempt to escape responsibility or to excuse his
shortcomings. He must be efficient and constantly apply his efficiency.
I believe that most of our urban citizens appreciate the importance of
keeping our cities clean and healthful by the proper removal and
disposal of the mass of wastes that accumulates daily. I know that every
public official appreciates the need for this service, and most of them
by bitter experiences realize the complexity of these problems.
To equip himself to do his difficult duty as he should, the public
official must be able to acquaint himself thoroughly with the best
methods, experiences and opinions of others. “Municipal Housecleaning”
goes into all of the matters pertaining to the collection, care and
removal of municipal wastes. It should be of the greatest value in
assisting public officials—mayors, engineers, sanitarians and members of
health, street cleaning, public works and sewer departments—to select
the systems best adapted to local conditions and to operate them
efficiently. We officials in New York State have found this information
to be of inestimable value in solving our problems.
But no municipal effort can succeed without the cooperation of the
citizen. He can help most by informing himself on these problems so that
he can intelligently participate in the cooperative community effort to
keep clean, and if need be, to offer constructive criticism. If the
citizen—and particularly the woman, for it is her intelligent
cooperation that will make for more effective service—will read this
book, it will be easier for us to obtain in America what the authors
have so aptly referred to as “better places in which to live, work and
play.”
CORNELIUS F. BURNS,
President New York State Conference
of Mayors and other City Officials.
STREET CLEANING
SYSTEMS AND APPARATUS USED IN AMERICAN CITIES—METHODS OF REDUCING
LITTER—COST DATA.
In establishing or rearranging its street cleaning system, every city
must consider the problem from three angles: (1) Cheapest method of
cleaning pavement; (2) Method of reducing litter; (3) Paving policy with
a view to saving cost of cleaning.
The proper solution of each one of these problems will materially reduce
the cost.
In outlining a program for a street cleaning department the following
elements must be known and carefully considered:
(1) Kind of and state of repair of pavement.
(2) Traffic to which they are subjected.
(3) Facilities for disposing of street sweepings.
(4) Climatic peculiarities.
(5) Degree of cleanliness it is desired or expected to maintain.
(6) Miscellaneous local circumstances.
Mr. S. Whinery, Consulting Engineer, says that in most cities the data
afforded by local past experience and results, furnish the best basis
for future projects and programs. Unfortunately few cities have records
of these. The head of the department usually relies upon his own memory
or that of his predecessor. While the methods followed and results
obtained in other cities may and should be studied, it must be borne in
mind that it is not safe to base conclusions upon such data without a
full knowledge and careful consideration of all facts and conditions
affecting them. This is particularly true of reported cost data, for in
addition to differing physical conditions, it is unfortunately true that
the present methods of accounting in many street cleaning departments
make it next to impossible to ascertain the actual or relative unit cost
of the various details of the work, and intelligently to compare results
in one city with those in another. The experience of the New York State
Bureau of Municipal Information in seeking data from the fifty largest
American and all New York State cities provides ample proof of this
condition. Fifty were able to give some data, but of these only a few
had any accurate and detailed cost statistics.
The relative amount of dirt from the different sources of dust depends
on the character of construction and condition of street surface, amount
and character of traffic, character of neighborhood and people in the
neighborhood, and street railway tracks.
Street dirt is divided into two general classes: (a) Natural, and
therefore unavoidable, and (b) that due to carelessness and therefore
avoidable. In the first class are dust from the air, and dirt coming
from the wear of pavements, vehicles, tires and horses’ shoes; excrement
of animals, dirt and sand which work up through the joints of pavements,
laid on earth or sand foundations and having sand or gravel joints; dirt
brought in from adjacent unpaved or macadam streets, and leaves from
shade trees. In the second class are soot, refuse swept from sidewalks,
thrown from buildings and discarded by pedestrians, dirt dropped from
overloaded vehicles and débris from construction operations.
The real duty of the street cleaning department is the removal of the
first class, but in doing so it is compelled also to sweep up and cart
away the material in the second class. In order to reduce its operations
as much as possible, it must, therefore, in cooperation with the police
and health authorities do everything it can to prevent the accumulation
of the avoidable material by enforcing ordinances and through the
cooperation of the public in general.
Contract vs. Municipal Cleaning
It is generally agreed that street cleaning by municipal employees is
more satisfactory and economical than by contract. Even the officials of
those few cities which still have the contract system favor municipal
operation. Philadelphia is the only one of the twenty-five largest
cities in the country which does the work by contract. The chief of the
highway department has recommended a change, giving the following
reasons: “Street cleaning work involves so much detail for which there
are no definite units to specify and bid for, and it is of such a
character that the overhead charges for proper inspection are so
disproportionate to the cost of the work, that unquestionably it would
be much more effectively and economically carried on directly by the
municipal forces instead of by contract.”
Washington’s experience is illuminating. Notwithstanding changes in
method as work progressed and considerable expense attached to the
purchase of new equipment the street cleaning department was able to
show at the end of the year under the municipal system that the average
costs were less than contract prices. At the end of the second year for
the expenditure of the same amount of money over 25 per cent. more work
was accomplished than during the last year of the contract system and
the general opinion was that the streets were in better condition than
they had ever been before.
Method of Reducing Litter
Street cleaning departments of many progressive cities within the last
few years have given particular attention to the preventive side of
street cleaning work, _i. e._, reducing the amount of avoidable dirt on
street pavements. Various methods have been adopted to secure results.
Local civic pride and the cooperation of the public have been stimulated
by means of educational campaigns. One result has been the more general
use of waste paper and refuse street cans. Cleveland tried to organize
volunteer corps among the school children to use their influence against
the useless littering of streets. Departments have also established a
closer relationship with the health and police authorities for the
enforcement of street cleaning regulations, such as those prohibiting
the sweeping of litter from stores and houses onto paved streets. The
success of preventive work depends upon the amount of cooperation the
street cleaners can get from these sources.
In Chicago an analysis was made of the character and percentage of waste
thrown about by pedestrians in the streets and by business houses in
densely populated sections of the city. It was found that a great
portion of the street dirt collected by street cleaners consisted of
waste paper and other light litter. The Chicago Civil Service Commission
in a special report says: “It would appear that with the cooperation of
merchants a considerable portion of such litter could be kept off the
streets and if street cleaners would patrol the street for loose paper
and deposit the same in the street dirt boxes provided at different
points along such streets, a great portion of the cleaning work would be
saved and the streets would generally appear cleaner. The litter of
streets in tenement and manufacturing districts is a matter which can be
greatly minimized by proper distribution of work and cooperation of the
street cleaning forces and residents. The quantity of street dirt
collected from the pavements in market places illustrates an instance
where pavements become unavoidably littered.”
Gustave H. Hanna, when head of the Cleveland Street Cleaning Department,
expressed the belief that nothing encourages carefulness on the part of
the public so much as efficient and careful cleaning. He argued that a
man does not hesitate to throw paper or rubbish into a foul street, but
thinks twice if the street is clean. If there is a waste box at hand
with a printed suggestion on the outside, Mr. Hanna thinks he is apt to
use the box.
The greatest source of expense comes from those who use the street as a
place of business, such as resorts of professional hucksters. Mr. Hanna
and others think it would be a small return for the permission of doing
business in these streets to require the hucksters to keep the
surroundings clean at their own expense under pain of arrest or
forfeiture of privilege.
In an effort to get the cooperation of the general public, Philadelphia
placed waste paper receptacles in prominent locations throughout the
city, such as two in every block in the principal business sections, in
front of school houses and entrances to business, elevated and subway
stations, etc. Circulars were sent to each householder throughout the
city containing information and instruction as to improving conditions
by using uniform and suitable receptacles.
Bulletins and letters of information were distributed among business and
civic associations. The officials learned that one of the most effective
methods in reaching the householder is through the women’s
organizations. A woman inspector was appointed to keep in touch with the
activities of the women’s clubs and to secure their cooperation. This
inspector during the year gave over two hundred lectures to various
organizations and enlisted the cooperation of householders, women and
children in connection with preventive street cleaning measures. To the
housekeeper it was shown how vital is her part in an efficient
collection of all waste. Children were impressed with their duties as
citizens, and to them was given an opportunity to demonstrate their
knowledge in the home, school and on the street. As a reward of such
activity 5,000 buttons were distributed in six months. Twenty thousand
folders for children and adults relating to the care of streets and the
collection of waste were also put into circulation.
Former Street Cleaning Commissioner William H. Edwards, of New York,
says that four kinds of cooperation are needed by street cleaning
departments:
(1) “Cooperation with the force by showing a human interest in the work
of the men. This can be done by establishing a pension fund so that when
a man has served faithfully for twenty years and has reached the age of
60 or has become incapacitated after he has served ten years, or is
injured in the performance of his duty at any time after service has
begun so that he is disabled for future service, he can be retired on
half pay. This instills in men a keen desire to do better work and
permits the Commissioner to retire men who are no longer able to do good
work. The danger of street sweepers in busy streets is apparent to any
one. More than 2,500 accidents resulting in death or personal injury or
damage to property occurred in one year in connection with the New York
City Department’s activities. The percentage of killed in the street
cleaning force was considerably higher than that in the police force.
(2) “Cooperation of women in the communities in New York. The Women’s
Municipal League and other bodies have cooperated with the department.
Every year they offer a medal to the sweeper, driver or foreman who does
the best all around work.
(3) “Cooperation with citizens. Carelessness up to the present time has
added to the work and expense and has been an obstacle to real
cleanliness. It must be remembered that before the sweeper can begin
that part of the work which is beyond prevention, he must remove the
litter carelessly thrown on the street.
(4) “The formation of ordinances for the prevention of this
carelessness. If the department has the effective cooperation of the
police department and of the magistrates, in the enforcement of the
ordinances, then and only then can this particular condition be reduced
to a practical minimum. In an attempt to enforce ordinances forbidding
the throwing of litter in the streets, New York City in 1915 caused the
arrest of 5,400 persons for violating ordinances relating to street
conditions of the scattering of refuse. In addition to these arrests in
the last three months of the year more than 18,000 formal written
warnings were issued for the violation of ordinances.”
Street Cleaning Factors and Standards
The conditions and factors controlling the amount and frequency of
cleaning of any pavement, are as follows:
1. Density of horse drawn vehicles and other traffic.
2. Width of street.
3. Character of district and population.
4. Location of streets.
5. Proximity of streets and alleys.
6. Location of public buildings, parks, etc.
7. Kinds and condition of pavement.
A study made by the Chicago Civil Service Commission definitely
established that the density of horse traffic, which is the total number
of horses passing through a given street divided by the width of the
street, is the principal factor which determines the number and
frequency of cleanings one street should be given.
The Commission has also learned that there are at least thirty-eight
distinct movements which a street cleaner makes in street cleaning work.
Of these some have been found to be unproductive, resulting in loss of
time and energy and less effective street cleaning. The most important
of these, according to the Commission’s report, are as follows:
Observation of time wheeling push carts into alleys or other dumping
places, disclosing that practically one-fifth of time was consumed in
this activity. The study disclosed that some sweepers are more efficient
than others, due to the stroke of the broom which they make. The
practise of hitting a broom on the pavement is not necessary on dry
pavements and very seldom on wet pavements. Effective and practical
street cleaning can be obtained by bringing the brush down forcibly at
the beginning of each stroke, thus reducing the work at least 15 per
cent. The time schedules disclosed that time lost by street cleaners in
dodging horses and automobiles where traffic is dense is unappreciable
and does not exceed 8 per cent. of the total time in the business
district and not more than 2 per cent. of the total time in the outlying
district. It is occasioned more through congestion of traffic than
through density of traffic. In cleaning light traffic asphalt pavements
it was disclosed that after the one morning thorough cleaning three-
fourths of the area to be covered during the remainder of the day does
not require thorough cleaning. The Commission believes that scoops
equipped with rollers would be well adapted for use on light traffic
pavements, and with them one man could patrol a much larger pavement
area and still keep the pavement in good condition. Time studies of work
performed by street laborers working in gangs showed that work done by
groups and gangs was not as economical as the division of such work
through individual arrangements. Considerable time is lost in
conversation. When one man rests every man on the street does the same
thing. While working in gangs the good sweeper does no more work than
the poorest of the gang. Where it is desired to cover a large area of
street with men working in groups rather than in gangs it would be
better, the Commission thinks, for each man to have a definite uniform
area to cover and to require the foreman to time each individual.
Mr. Edward D. Very, Sanitary Engineer, says that any attempt to estimate
the amount of materials which accumulate on a city street must end in
failure as the contributing elements vary in different localities in a
city and in different cities, and where figures are given they do not
really present any valuable data. Some general principles, however, have
been determined. The Chicago Commission in its investigation declares
that the quantity and volume of dirt attributed to horse drawn vehicle
traffic is the most important source of street dirt. The loss of sand
and coal and crushed stone, hay, manure and other loose material from
poorly constructed vehicles or overloaded vehicles adds greatly to the
quantity of street dirt to be removed. Important in a wet season is the
dirt carried by moving vehicles through streets and alleys onto hard
pavements, but the Commission says that the amount of dirt actually
attributable to this source is considerably less than is usually
believed. There is also considerable refuse in the form of leaves and
grass which accumulates in the residential streets and along boulevards
and parks, which has a tendency to lodge in catch basin inlets and stop
the free flow of storm water. The quantity of leaves accumulating in the
short leaf season on streets far exceeds that which naturally drops onto
the surface of streets alone, because of the additional cleaning from
lawns and parkway spaces.
Some reports express the belief that when a fixed standard is
established of basing street cleaning schedules carefully on density of
traffic, condition of pavement, character of frontage and kind of
pavement, a definite relation will be found between the amount of street
sweepings collected and the number of sweepers employed. In Chicago it
has been found that different sweepers average daily collections of
quantities varying from three-fourths of a cubic yard to three cubic
yards. It has also been noted that street sweepings collected by regular
block sweepers average about .0045 cubic feet per square yard. The
weight of sweepings will, under ordinary conditions, approximate 36
pounds per cubic foot.
The paving and repair policy of a city is a very important factor in
cleaning rates. Comparatively few cities as yet give any thought when
selecting a particular pavement as to the relative cost of keeping it
clean. It is also a fact that in many cities repair work is neglected at
the expense of cleaning.
A smooth, hard surface pavement will cost less to keep clean than one
with a rough or uneven surface. A brick pavement, for instance, costs
more to keep clean than sheet asphalt. For the same reason a street out
of repair is more expensive to clean than one in good repair.
Officials agree that a paving policy should be carried out with a view
to having a minimum number of unpaved approaches to existing pavements
in order to prevent mud being tracked from the highway to pavement.
There is need also of protecting narrow rural pavements from the
overflow or tracking of mud that originates on adjacent portions of the
same highway.
In a discussion of paving policies and their relation to street cleaning
Mr. Hanna says: “The construction and maintenance of pavements that are
easy to clean are important and effectual in saving the cost of street
administration. Little weight is given to cleaning cost when paving
questions are settled and an actual expense of $500 a mile in repairing
residence streets would be considered an appreciable item of
maintenance, yet that figure for cleaning a mile of residence streets
through a season is extremely low. A street cleaner looks upon two
qualities in a pavement. It must be smooth and particles of litter must
not stick to the surface. The question of smoothness opens up the whole
matter of durability. Any material that deteriorates or roughens becomes
more difficult each year to clean. Any neglect of needed repairs means a
larger cleaning bill until the repairs have been completed. The twofold
expense resulting from wear, the cost of repairs plus the increased cost
of cleaning should enter into all calculation of expense. Additional
calculation of cleaning expense must be made for all bituminous
pavements on account of the sticking of particles of litter to the
surface. These surfaces are never quite so clean as non-adhesive
materials and it costs from 25 per cent. upwards in additional cost to
put them in a reasonably presentable condition on account of this
quality. This difficulty is seen at its worst in a new creosoted wood
block pavement, when the oil is gradually working out between the pores
of the wood. The use of steel scrapers must often be employed as the
flushing by water is not at all effective in removing the dirt from the
surface.
“Substances most easily cleaned that enter into pavements are brick and
stone. Neither originates any dirt, and both wash off readily. The only
ground for discrimination between them is on the question of smoothness
where brick has a slight advantage as a rule. In the use of these
materials the choice of a filler is all important. A bituminous filler
has all the disadvantages of a bituminous surface. Being softer than the
brick or block it recedes, leaving a crevice that invites lodgment of
dirt; with edges of brick or block unprotected it is sure to roughen,
thus adding to the difficulties of cleaning. Such a street after a few
years presents the appearance of cobble stones with the filler invisible
or else melted and run to the gutter where it impedes work of follow-up
gang.”
Mr. Hanna recommends only a cement grout filler. He says that West 14th
Street in Cleveland has a grouted brick pavement ten years old and a
traffic of two vehicles a minute. It is cleaned on an average of five
times a week, being flushed by night and hand swept by day. The cost of
cleaning is almost exactly 15 cents per 10,000 of square feet. This is
the lowest figure the city has been able to reach on any type of
pavement. Mr. Hanna says that the cost on the best asphalt would not be
less than 20 cents and would rise to 30 cents if the surface became wavy
or rough. Wood block costs approximately $1.00 a square to clean in its
initial condition, and it would be at least two years before oil will
have dried out sufficiently to admit its being cleaned for 30 cents a
square. Tar filled brick pavement will cost not less than 30 cents a
square, and if the filler disappears and the block roughens this cost
will amount to 60 cents or more. In the case of a pavement 40 feet wide
there are about 21 squares to a mile.
Thus Mr. Hanna points out that as between a material that can be cleaned
for 15 cents and one that can be cleaned for 30 cents, there is a
difference of $3.15 per mile for cleaning, a difference of $15.75 per
week, or $630 per season of 40 weeks—$6,300 in ten years. In Mr. Hanna’s
judgment cleaning costs can be greatly reduced by a policy of prompt
repair. He believes in the continual patrol of all city streets by men
whose duty it is to discover defects in pavement and prescribe repair.
Schedule of Street Cleaning
The unit work must be established and the responsibility of each
employee fixed in order to secure an economical administration of street
cleaning. This principle is illustrated by the so-called “block system.”
By this, each man is allotted to a definite area of pavement to clean,
which varies in extent depending upon local conditions as to traffic,
physical condition of pavement, location of street, proximity to public
buildings, population, paving, alleys, street cars, right of way and
frontage of streets.
It is the practise of up-to-date cities to prepare schedules showing the
character of pavement, area of pavement, number of cleanings or patrols
per week, and the standard of work required of each street cleaner.
Changes in these schedules are necessary from time to time on account of
climatic conditions, street repair and other necessities. The Chicago
Civil Service Commission says that to obtain definite standards of
schedules for cleaning streets and alleys and the need of repairing such
streets, the routing of teams and vehicles, collecting of city waste,
the amount and character and physical condition of all pavements must be
obtained.
Pavements are usually classified according to physical character for the
purpose of determining the amount and character of cleaning as follows:
* * * * *
Improved—Permanent (a) Smooth pavements, including asphalt, creosote
block and bitulithic. (b) Rough pavements, including brick, granite,
cobble and rubble and other pavements which require that dirt be picked
from interstices.
Improved—Not permanent. All macadam pavements and country roads.
Unimproved pavements. All streets that have not been paved.
The oiling of macadam within the past few years has had an excellent
effect on this kind of pavement and has given it the solidity and
usefulness almost approaching improved permanent pavements. On macadam
surface streets, periodical removal of rough material with hoes, brooms
and shovels from street surface and gutters and sprinkling in dry
weather with water or oil is about the best that can be done. An
analysis in Chicago of the standard of work which one man can perform on
an oiled macadam street, indicates that the rate of cleaning one and
three-quarters miles of oiled macadam of average width in an eight hour
day can be reasonably expected of any man.
Much waste is caused by lack of system in laying out the work and
improperly directing the street cleaning gangs and teams. The attached
tables give the systems now being used in fifty American municipalities.
A study of these will show that some very definite ideas have been
developed by street cleaning officials in this country. For example,
most cities prefer having patrolmen work singly instead of in gangs.
In making assignments attention should be given to the smallest details,
such as correct reports from foremen as to the number of streets swept
and loads carted away, and the correct number of sweepers in each
street. In many cities three are sent through a street when two would
do. Dirt wagons should not be started immediately behind sweeping gangs
as it usually takes thirty minutes to an hour before a gang can sweep up
enough dirt for a full load. Dirt teams should not start for at least
one hour after the sweeper begins. Gangs should have allotted to them
enough work to keep them busy until quitting time so that they do not
have to kill time. Laxity in any part of the system eats up the
department appropriation.
Spring Cleaning
The spring cleaning system usually calls for the piling up and removal
of the heavy dirt which is washed from the center of the street and
which accumulates in the gutters during the winter season. The
experience of cities with such work indicates that the assignment of one
man to a definite length of street, or the assignment of a small gang of
not exceeding three men, to definite lengths of streets is more
effective and economical.
The Chicago Commission says that where a gang of three men is assigned
to the work, team work is developed by the use of one man in removing
the dirt from the roadway and one man each from the gutters. In the
granite and brick pavements considerably more brooming is necessary on
the roadway. Granite, brick and cedar block pavements require that the
dirt be scraped from the center of the street to the gutter before
piling in the gutters can be commenced. The center cleaning rates per
man in Chicago are given as follows:
┌─────────────────────┬─────────────────────┬─────────────────────┐
│ │ Car Track │ Outside Car Track │
│ │ Sq. Yds. per Day │ Sq. Yds. per Day │
├─────────────────────┼─────────────────────┼─────────────────────┤
│Good Asphalt │ 16,500│ 18,500│
│Fair Asphalt │ 12,900│ 14,800│
│Poor Asphalt │ 9,200│ 11,100│
│Good Brick │ 4,400│ 5,500│
│Fair Brick │ 3,540│ 3,700│
│Poor Brick │ 1,850│ 2,960│
│Good Granite │ 4,400│ 5,550│
│Fair Granite │ 3,340│ 3,700│
│Poor Granite │ 1,850│ 2,220│
│Cobblestone │ 1,470│ │
└─────────────────────┴─────────────────────┴─────────────────────┘
The single gutter rates in miles per day per man are given as follows:
┌──────────────┬────────────────┬────────────────┬────────────────┐
│Times Cleaned │ │ │ Poor Brick and │
│ per Week │ Asphalt │ Good Brick │ Granite of All │
│ │ │ │ Kinds │
├──────────────┼────────────────┼────────────────┼────────────────┤
│ 2 │ 1.8 miles │ 1.4 miles │ 1.4 miles │
│ 3 │ 1.4 miles │ 1.1 miles │ 0.7 miles │
│ 6 │ 0.7 miles │ 0.5 miles │ 0.3 miles │
│ 9 │ │ 0.3 miles │ 0.2 miles │
│ 12 │ │ 0.2 miles │ 0.2 miles │
└──────────────┴────────────────┴────────────────┴────────────────┘
Chicago has found that the unit cost of spring cleaning of macadam and
cedar block streets of different physical condition is as follows:
┌─────────────────────┬─────────────────────┬─────────────────────┐
│ First Class │Fair Condition, Cost │Poor Condition, Cost │
│ Condition, Cost for │for Cleaning 100 Lin.│for Cleaning 100 Lin.│
│Cleaning 100 Lin. Ft.│ Ft. │ Ft. │
├─────────────────────┼─────────────────────┼─────────────────────┤
│ Traffic │ Traffic │ Traffic │
│ Heavy Light │ Heavy Light │ Heavy Light │
├─────────────────────┼─────────────────────┼─────────────────────┤
│ $1.18 $.90 │ $1.97 $1.46 │ $2.25 $1.89 │
└─────────────────────┴─────────────────────┴─────────────────────┘
Street Sprinkling
Although many cities sprinkle their streets for dust laying only, it is
agreed by all experts and the heads of most street cleaning departments
that the use of sprinkling carts for this purpose is of no value, _i.
e._ it is a temporary makeshift and the result is nil. Sprinkling alone
does not clean pavements, but only converts temporarily the fine dust
into mud, which is a nuisance. It is quite generally agreed, too, that
sprinkling is responsible for much repair work on pavements.
The number of times a street is sprinkled daily depends upon weather
conditions, nature of pavement and location, and rarely exceeds four
trips. Where flushing and squeegeeing are done sprinkling is eliminated
entirely.
In Providence, Rhode Island, bituminous pavements are not sprinkled by
water. They are kept clean by patrol system and reasonably free from
dust. It is the belief of officials of that city that the use of water
has an injurious effect on the pavement.
George D. Warren, of Boston, an expert on paving, says that street
sprinkling as it is generally practised is worse than a useless expense.
He points to the fact that there has been no sprinkling in Providence in
seven years on all kinds of pavement, except that water bound pavement
is occasionally sprinkled with oil or oil emulsion. If bituminous
pavement surfaces are dry and clean the oil which drips from automobiles
is quickly spread by auto tires to an extremely thin sheet, which not
only preserves the pavement, but the slight amount of oil takes up the
fine dust and materially helps to prevent the surface from even becoming
dusty.
Mr. Warren believes that while some forms of pavement are doubtless more
affected by water and mud than others, sprinkling injuriously affects
all classes of pavement. Continuing he says: “I believe that repairs
required to all classes of pavement are more generally the result of
wetting down the dirt, leaving the surface in a more or less muddy
condition than by traffic, or rather what would be traffic under dry
cleaning conditions. A city or street in or on which sprinkling or other
methods of continual wetting of pavement surface has not been practised
is almost usually one where the pavements are the best of their kind.
Washington has the enviable reputation of having the most durable
pavement of all kinds. For many years the system of cleaning there has
been hand patrol without sprinkling, except a very light sprinkling,
just enough to lay the dust, not to convert it into mud—immediately in
advance of night sweeping.
“Fifth Avenue, New York, is always dry except during rains, and we find
one of the most durable asphalt pavements in the world. The pavement is
always clean and never dusty.
“Asphalt pavement on Alexander Street, Rochester, New York, laid in
1885, is still in existence and has a record for low cost of repairs,
and has until quite recently been free from street sprinkling. It is now
rapidly deteriorating.
“Rutger Street, in Utica, New York, laid in 1886, has been through a
similar experience of no sprinkling. Michigan Boulevard in Chicago, from
Jackson Boulevard to 10th Street, was paved partly with creosoted wood
block and partly with asphalt. It was always in a dry condition and
carried very heavy traffic for ten years and was in a good condition
until about four years ago when it was removed on account of widening
the street. The bituminous pavement on Michigan Boulevard is always
clean and never cleaned or sprinkled other than by patrol cleaning,
except as to narrow strips about four feet wide which are sprinkled and
hand broomed at night to remove the slight dust which collects near the
curb.”
The Bureau of Municipal Research of Milwaukee reports that in that city
298 miles of street are sprinkled at a cost of $60,310.05. Of this
amount $55,104.77 is assessable.
The balance is the city’s portion for public property and street and
alley sections which is charged to the general city fund. The city used
275,498,112 gallons of water, costing $28,416.65 including $8,800 for
hydrant rental. The average rate of assessment per foot front is about
.017¢. In some cities where water is unavailable outside of city limits,
or available only for a short time, oil has been used to meet the
demands for dust prevention. What seems to be the best is some non-
volatile oil that will quickly penetrate the wearing surface of the road
incorporating itself with the fine particles so that it forms a dense,
smooth, waterproof coating, or else renders the surface dressing so
heavy that wind will not hold it in suspension in the air. In addition
to this its non-volatile character gives it lasting qualities.
The Milwaukee Bureau of Municipal Research believes that “The service at
its best is of no value as it does not clean but only allays dust on the
street where in its wet condition it requires a further process of
cleaning by the squeegee or flusher and White Wings. If the city had a
sufficient amount of modern equipment to clean streets more frequently,
the valueless method of sprinkling could be eliminated and an enormous
expense saved.”
In some cities street railway companies are required to sprinkle between
their tracks and for certain distances on either side of the track. The
legal question has several times arisen, whether a Municipal corporation
has authority to enact an ordinance to compel railway companies to
sprinkle in this way and also whether the particular ordinance in
question is reasonable, or so unreasonable as to be void. Generally
speaking it has been decided that such an ordinance must be specific,
not burdensome, and confined to the company’s tracks, though in one case
in Massachusetts, under the statutory powers conferred upon municipal
authority, an ordinance requiring sprinkling from curb to curb was
sustained. Courts have held that an ordinance providing that “each and
every Company or Corporation operating street car lines within the
limits of the city of ——— shall water their tracks so as to effectually
keep the dust on the same laid,” and provides a penalty for its
violation, is neither indefinite nor wanting in uniformity.
The question of sprinkling streets before sweeping has been discussed
repeatedly. Following are the methods used in some cities:
_New York._—Sprinkling before machines. No sprinkling before hand
sweeping.
_Chicago._—Sprinkling before sweeping. The Chicago Code of 1911
requires that street car companies shall keep well sprinkled with
water in a manner satisfactory to the Commissioner of Public
Works, all streets on which they maintain and operate their
tracks. They are required to sprinkle such streets twice each day.
By another section such street car companies shall clean such
portions of streets as lie between the two outermost rails of such
tracks and also every additional service as may be prescribed in
any railway ordinance relating to or affecting any street.
_Philadelphia._—The proposals and specifications for the cleaning of
streets, roads, alleys, inlets and markets for 1915, contained the
following provision: In addition to the cleaning by blockmen
required under these specifications, all streets must be
periodically cleaned by machines, the number of weekly cleanings
being given in the classification of streets, the remaining
machine work shall be done with machine brooms immediately
preceded by sprinklers.
_St. Louis._—Sprinkling before sweeping is very rarely done, except
in the case of certain large sweeping machines used by the city.
_Baltimore._—Sprinkles before sweeping.
_Pittsburgh._—Principal thoroughfares including all streets in
business district cleaned by machine sweepers. Water cart precedes
sweeping machine. The cart must never be more than one block ahead
of the sweeper.
_Washington._—Superintendent of street cleaning gives his opinion
that much more effective sweeping can be done without sprinkling
and in hand patrol work where dirt is not allowed to collect in
any considerable quantity is not necessary. In machine sweeping,
however, he finds it necessary to sprinkle with a small amount of
water. In cold weather sprinkling is omitted; but at such times
many complaints are received on account of dust.
_Minneapolis._—In general the orders of the street district
commissioners are to sprinkle the streets before sweeping.
Street Cleaning Methods
Four methods are used in American cities for street cleaning, hand
sweeping, machine sweeping, flushing by machine and hose and
squeegeeing.
All experts advocate the sweeping of streets by hand, commonly called
the patrol system. The implements used in patrol cleaning are broom, pan
scraper, squeegees, can carrier and cans. The broom is usually one which
has a 4 × 18 inch block, filled with split bamboo, rattan, hickory,
steel wire or black African bass. The block is usually fitted with a
steel scraper. The pan scraper is constructed like a dust pan, turned up
sides and back. It is about 36 inches wide by 15 inches deep. The
squeegee is a board about 36 inches wide fitted with a rubber strip
which extends below the lower edge of the board. Brooms, pan scrapers
and squeegees have handles about 66 inches long. The cans are made to
hold about three cubic feet of dirt and taper 19 inches in diameter at
the top to 17 inches at the bottom. The can carrier has two large wheels
and two small, and a platform upon which the can or cans rest.
A new carrier has been devised which carries two cans and is so balanced
that the two cans are more easily manipulated than the one. Some cities
are now substituting canvas bags for cans.
Whinery says that when street surfaces are of such character as to admit
it, hand sweeping is the most effective method.
J. W. Paxton says that hand cleaning work is capable of better
distribution than any other method, because more attention can be given
to dirtier areas by increasing the number of men who only clean the
portions of the street which are dirty and work on those portions until
they are clean. There is a fine scum which is not apparent when the
pavements are dry but rises up in a thin sheet of mud when moist, making
the pavements very slippery. This and fine dust cannot be removed by
hand cleaners, but by washing about twice a week in addition to hand
cleaning, these troubles can be eliminated.
Very believes that this method of cleaning is fairly effective but is a
dust raiser and the ability of the man to cover areas is very limited,
especially since the automobile has come into such general use, as it
interferes with the sweeper and his work. He says that there are hand
machine brooms built on the principle of the carpet sweeper which are
not dust raisers and which as a matter of fact do much more effective
work. The pan scraper is only valuable to remove manure and mud and
coarse litter, and its use should be limited to the time necessary for
such work, and the broom used for dust removal.
The area a sweeper can clean depends upon the existence of local
conditions. A test was made in New York City for one week and it was
found that the area one sweeper was able to clean in a day of eight
hours varied from 2,212 square yards to 16,075 square yards, with an
average over the whole city of 5,745 square yards. The efficiency
division of the Civil Service Commission of Chicago reports: “From an
analysis of the findings of the time and motion studies of street
cleaners the following table has been deduced, upon which are based the
relative difficulty of cleaning different pavements under varying
conditions and the standard and equivalent areas to be cleaned by one
man in one eight-hour day.”
┌────────────────┬────────────┬────────────┐
│ Pavement │ Condition │Square Yards│
├────────────────┼────────────┼────────────┤
│Asphalt │Good │ 21,500 │
│Asphalt │Fair │ 19,300 │
│Asphalt │Bad │ 17,200 │
│Creosote Blocks │Good │ 21,500 │
│Brick │Good │ 16,000 │
│Brick │Fair │ 14,400 │
│Brick │Poor │ 12,800 │
│Granite │Good │ 13,400 │
│Granite │Fair │ 12,100 │
│Granite │Poor │ 10,700 │
└────────────────┴────────────┴────────────┘
In Philadelphia, which cleans its streets by contract, block men are
assigned to sections designated by the chief. The area to be covered
depends upon the character and amount of traffic. The duties of block
men consist in patrolling the areas, gathering all papers and refuse and
sweeping dirt as fast as it accumulates, and putting it into dust proof
bags ready for loading into special wagons and hauling to a dumping
station. The equipment used in hand patrol work consists of hand
machines, bag carrier, burlap sacks, push brooms, hand scrapers, special
cans and shovels. The dirt collected is placed in sacks and left at
convenient points to be collected by special wagons and taken to the
dump in sacks, these being returned by the drivers. Sacks are used in
preference to cans because of the weight, bulk and noisiness of the
latter.
Machine Sweeping
Machine sweeping and cleaning is almost universally condemned, although
this method is used in many cities. The machine broom is preceded by a
sprinkling cart to loosen the filth and in a measure to prevent the dust
rising. This is seldom effected. A broom is found to cover about 40,000
square yards per eight hours. The material is swept into windrows at the
side and finally delivered to a windrow in the gutter, where it is
picked up. The efficiency of the rotary broom system is considerably
reduced because the sweepers meet continual obstructions in busy streets
and when operating over paved streets the brooms remove the coarser
fragments of dirt only and leave the finer particles on the pavement.
Where the rotary broom is preceded by a street sprinkler, the dust forms
into mud and clings to the surface of the pavement, and where the
pavement is rough the mud is forced into the joints between paving
blocks. As the street becomes dry, the dirt pulverizes and appears again
as a dust nuisance. In all but one instance machine sweepers have been
dispensed with in Chicago. South Water Street, the heavy wholesale fruit
district of the city, is badly congested during the day, which makes it
impossible effectively to clean this district by the “block” system.
This street becomes very dirty during the day and is covered with a
thick layer of dirt and débris at night. In this instance, the broom
machines appear to be effective and give fairly good results in the
cleaning of this coarse material.
The Chicago Commission believes that the mixing of calcium chloride with
the water which is sprinkled in the different sections of the city would
greatly add to the effectiveness of street cleaning and eliminating the
perils of dust.
According to Very horse drawn brooms of the rotary style are not as
effective as the hand broom.
Whinery says, “Sweeping by power sweepers at intervals of one or more
days, while less expensive is far less effective and satisfactory than
hand sweeping, though if properly done and supplemented by sprinkling
with water or oil at intervals sufficiently near together to prevent
dust flying it serves a good purpose.”
J. W. Paxton is of the opinion that the machine broom raises so much
dust that heavy sprinkling is required. The fine dust mixed with water
produces mud which is smeared on the street by the broom and when this
becomes dry it turns to dust again. The broom sweeps only the coarser
particles and many of these are thrown over the broom by centrifugal
force to the pavement again.
In Philadelphia, machine broom cleaning is done in batteries of two or
three, preceded by sprinklers, the number of brooms in each battery
depending upon the width and character of the streets to be cleaned. The
average gang consists of two machine brooms and one sprinkler, and four
to seven broomers and a sufficient supply of wagons to remove the
refuse, the number depending upon the haul to the dump and season of
year, together with amount and character of traffic.
An investigation made by the Milwaukee Bureau of Municipal Research into
the cost of rotary broom service brought out the following facts: In
industrial and outlying residential section and upon streets adjacent to
wharfs, where pavements are constructed of brick, sandstone, limestone
or granite, the rotary brooms are usually used. The process is done
nightly and to prevent dust, a sprinkler is used in advance of broom.
The following analysis of the cost of operation has been made by the
Bureau:
Cost of machine $250.00
Depreciation of 10 per cent. on machine $25.00
Interest at 4½ per cent. 11.25
—————— ———————
$36.25
Minor repairs and replacements
6 brooms at 50 lbs. bamboo $20.00
ea. at 8¢. per lb 24.00
48 hrs. labor @ 24¢ hr 12.00 56.00
—————— ———————
$92.25
150 days operation $0.615
2 sweepers at $2 per day ea. 4.00
Team and driver per day 5.00
Grease, etc. 0.05
——————
$ 9.665
Average yards cleaned, 40,000
Average cost per 1,000 sq. yds., 24.1
Combined with sprinkler
Sprinkler, team per day $5.00
Water 0.90 5.90
——————
40,000 sq. yds. sprinkled, cost per 1,000 sq. 14.7
yds
Broom cost per 1,000 sq. yds 24.1
———————
Combined cost per 1,000 sq. yds 38.8
The assessment per front foot on a street 30 ft. wide and cleaned 50
times a season would be 3.2¢.
Pick-up Machines
To improve on machine sweeping various types of motor pick-up machines
have been invented. Most of them have proved of no value. Some, however,
are being used by cities with good results on dry, smooth pavement in
good repair. Most experts question whether vacuum cleaning will ever be
able to remove effectively mud or wet dust. Some experts, however,
believe that these pick-up machines will solve the problem of cleaning
macadam pavements, as it is the only method that can be employed without
serious results. These machines will travel at a rate of four miles an
hour, which exceeds the speed attained by any horsepower sweeper.
The experience of Oakland, Cal., with this method of cleaning is
interesting. Adjacent to the congested district a suction sweeper had
been used for several years. The district had been swept from three to
six times a week, by contract, to the satisfaction of the city
officials. The department reports that the cost was rather high in
comparison with that for rotary sweeping, but that the results were more
satisfactory. It cost the city 35¢. per 1,000 square yards to clean with
the suction sweeper and 26¢. per 1,000 square yards with the rotary
brooms. It had been generally assumed that the patrol system was the
most expensive until the Street Commissioner readjusted the routes
according to area and traffic. He then found that hand sweeping could be
done on streets not swept by rotary brooms at the same cost or not to
exceed a ten per cent. increase. He found also that it could be done for
much less than cleaning by suction machines. The city has, therefore,
entirely superseded this method of cleaning at an estimated annual
saving of $3,000 and with much better results.
Pomona, California, found that moisture upon the surface of a pavement
or in any form of refuse cannot be lifted by a suction sweeper. Instead
it is in effect smeared over the surface of the street. In all cases
where the street is dry and the surface of the pavement is reasonably
dry the city has found the machine very positive in its operation.
Los Angeles, California, is thoroughly testing the vacuum method of
street cleaning following a report by the Efficiency Commission, which
has estimated a saving of $65,071 a year if the streets are swept with
vacuum cleaners instead of flushed. The report says that supplementary
observations and calculations show that the cost of flushing under
present conditions is 24.06¢. per 1,000 square yards, and the cost of
vacuum cleaning 10.96 cents per 1,000 square yards. These figures
include the cost of supervision, maintenance of equipment, workman’s
compensation, gutter cleaning and water at cost of production. The cost
of operating one of these machines is given by the Milwaukee Bureau of
Municipal Research, as follows:
Purchase price $4,000
Depreciation 50 per cent. $2,000
Interest 4½ per cent. 180
——————
$2,180
Repairs (estimated) 25
Replacement of brooms, 30 @ $6 ea. 180
Labor making brooms 60
——————
Yearly cost $2,445
150 days operation, cost per day $16.30
1 Chauffeur $3.00
2 sweepers 4.00
1½ time 2.50
Gasoline and oil 1.25
Water .12 $10.87 10.87
————— ——————
$27.17
From personal observation it was calculated this machine can operate at
a speed of four miles per hour and perform work at about 75 per cent.
efficiency, or at a cost of 21.4¢. per 1,000 square yards.
The assessment per front foot based on a street 30 feet wide and cleaned
50 times a season would be 1.77 cents.
Raymond W. Parlin, Deputy Commissioner Street Cleaning, New York City,
says: “So definite are the needs of the cities for results better than
those produced by sweeping that it may be safely prophesied that
sweeping in the future will cease to be a primary method of cleaning a
modern city and will become an auxiliary to other more efficient methods
or used where only rough cleaning is desired.”
Cleaning by Flushing
All authorities agree that whatever method for primary cleaning is
adopted, it is important that the street surface be frequently washed by
the use of hose, horse drawn flushers, flushing cars, or power
squeegees. Reports from cities show that flushing is replacing machine
sweeping and that the automobile flusher is becoming popular. The Chief
of the Atlanta Sanitary Department favors doing away with sweeping
machine and cleaning the streets entirely with flushing machines. He
says that sweeping machines are out of date and that flushers are the
ideal machines.
The squeegee is a vehicle having a tank and a revolving rubber roller,
which washes the pavement as the vehicle moves along the street and the
water from the tank is sprinkled in front of the roller. Hose flushing
is used in cities having graded streets and sufficient water supply.
Street flushers have pressure tanks which depend for their pressure
either upon the pressure from the water mains or upon the pressure
obtained from a pump operated by a gasoline engine. The latter plan
gives the better results.
Whinery is of the opinion that on well paved streets the most efficient
and satisfactory method so far devised with the apparatus now available
is hand cleaning by the patrol system by day, followed with hose or
flushing wagons or scrubbing squeegees during the night. While this is
somewhat more expensive than plain machine sweeping he thinks that no
other method yet devised will produce equally clean streets at a lower
cost.
Gustave H. Hanna says: “The use of flushers has proven not only the
cheapest but the most satisfactory method of street cleaning that our
experience in Cleveland has been able to develop. Statistics of the
department show an average cost of 15.3 cents per square of 10,000
square feet for flushing to which must be added practically 9 cents for
pick-up work, a total of some 24 cents per square as against 42 cents
for work with White Wings. The White Wings are too convenient and
necessary an adjunct to be wholly displaced under any consideration.
Down town streets must be swept continually during the day and the hand
sweeper with his small cart can also work to advantage in gutters of
residential streets collecting dirt that has either been flushed or
blown to the curb; but so far as our experience goes, the lessening of
cleaning cost by cheaper methods means simply the extension of the use
of flushers at every practical point.
“There is an argument of sanitation in favor of flushing. Hand sweeping
causes a certain amount of dust and mechanical sweeping usually causes
still more. I am opposed to the use of simple sprinkling as a means of
laying dust. Ammonia and other products leach out of damp manure and
form a scum on the surface that is nearly impossible to remove, and
makes pavement slippery and foul smelling.
“Water should also be applied with force enough to carry the refuse to
gutter where it should be properly collected with broom and shovel and
removed. In Philadelphia flushing machines are used only on poorly paved
streets and block pavement. High pressure flushing machines are usually
operated similarly.”
Very reports that objection is made to flushing because materials are
washed into sewers. The same objection, he says, might be made to hand
sweeping, as many sweepers are like housemaids and sweep the dust into
the catch basins to make work easy. The material need not reach the
sewers if the operator knows his business. Many fear that the action of
water when used in flushing will wear away the pavement surface or the
joint materials. His answer is that it should, if such a class of
pavement or of jointing is allowed to be laid, to expose the paving
contractor.
The Chicago Civil Service Commission says that personal inquiry and
analysis of reports from cities using flushing machines seem to indicate
that the use of flushing machines on rough and smooth pavement and the
use of squeegees on smoother permanent pavements have given more
effective cleaning than the ordinary block or gang cleaning where it is
practicable to make the substitution.
The Milwaukee Bureau of Municipal Research, in its investigation of
street cleaning in that city, says the contention of some is that
flushing is detrimental to pavement as it removes grout, but such has
not been proven in Milwaukee. The one fact that remains uncontradicted
is that they clean the streets of every particle of débris and leave the
thoroughfares in a sanitary condition; a matter of most vital
importance.
In Milwaukee night work is confined to two territories comprising the
heavy traffic and commercial territories and each alternating night the
streets are flushed. This requires the use of four machines and they
operate in a staggered double formation, cleaning the entire area
without a return movement. When intersecting streets are encountered,
the two rear machines perform the work and then return to the original
function. A great deal more territory is thus covered than if machines
were paired and each allotted a given area. Day work is performed in
like manner except that the remaining four machines are assigned to
outlying districts and confined thereto. The following is the cost of
operating machine flushers as computed by the Bureau:
Cost of machine $1,500.00
Fixed charges.
Depreciation of 10% on (wagon & tank) $100.00
Depreciation of 25% on engine 125.00
Interest at 4½% 67.50
——————— $292.50
Maintenance
Painting (each season) 20.00
Hose and coupling, each season 15.00 35.00 $327.50
——————— ———————
150 days operation—cost per day $2.18
———————
In recommending the flushing process the Milwaukee Bureau says that
sprinkling will be greatly reduced, the slippery surface of
thoroughfares due to this valueless method will no longer exist, and
that a cleaner and more sanitary condition will be the result.
The experience of Scranton, Pa., with flushers is that in going over the
streets but once satisfactory results are not obtained. The director of
public works says that this has also been found in other cities he has
visited where flushers are used. He has concluded that the only
practical and efficient way to clean streets is by the use of automobile
flushers, one to about one and a half minutes ahead of the other, the
first flusher dampening the horse droppings and other material that may
stick to the pavement, thus loosening them, and the second flusher
sweeping them into the gutter.
Birmingham, Alabama, reports that its experience has been that a great
saving and better results are obtained by substituting street flushers
for sprinklers and brooms.
Some cities are having success with street railway flushers, among them
Cleveland, Scranton, Columbus and New Bedford, Mass. Cleveland furnishes
and maintains the flusher cars, pays the cost of operating them,
including the wages of employees and the cost of power, but contributes
nothing toward fixed charges or for track maintenance or renewal.
Commissioner John T. Fetherston, of New York City, reports that the Mack
truck flushing machines which the city put into use during the summer of
1917 are capable, according to preliminary investigation, of cleaning
from 100,000 to 120,000 square yards of street per machine per eight
hour shift, and that they will do the work with the use of approximately
400 gallons of water per thousand square yards.
Hose Flushing
There is a difference of opinion as to the efficiency of flushing by
hose. In Philadelphia all alleys and streets whose width between curbs
is too narrow to permit the use of street brooms are cleaned once each
week with hose. When additional cleaning is necessary it is done with
hand brooms.
Very says that hose flushing is ineffective and uneconomical, and that
water does not reach the pavement in such manner as to give full effect
and usually is doing no work at all.
One city report makes this comment: “Four or five sweepers hold a hose
and play it in some sections as though the object were to wash away the
asphalt block pavement and car tracks. Target shooting, with a stream of
water, so-called flushing, will never supplant wetting and scrubbing.”
Very also claims that water to be effective must reach the pavement
surface in a chisel shape and at a proper angle to remove and carry off
the filth. He says that no man is properly constructed to hold the hose
at a proper angle with the pavement to obtain the best results for any
length of time. Commissioner Fetherston says New York’s experience shows
that a hose gang consisting of two men is able to clean well from 23,000
to 25,000 square yards of the dirtiest Belgian block pavement in eight
hours, and will clean upward of 30,000 square yards of smooth pavement
of modern granite block in the same time, using 2-inch hose, which is
that city’s standard size for use with its new hose reels. The amount of
water required to clean 1,000 square yards is approximately 1,000
gallons.
Cleaning by Squeegeeing
The squeegee method is used on smooth pavements. Batteries of two and
three squeegees are usually preceded by sprinklers, which use as much
water as possible without flooding the pavement, while the squeegees use
just enough water to create a wash. The idea of sprinkling the pavement
is to soften the surface and enable the squeegee to cleanse the street
of slime as well as coarser material. Squeegees are followed by men who
sweep up windrows of dirt into piles and a sufficient number of carts
follow to remove the dirt. In New York where no sprinkling cart is used
they average 50,000 square yards per machine per day with the use of 200
gallons of water per one thousand square yards. In Washington with a
sprinkling cart they get about 80,000 square yards per machine per day.
Parlin says that squeegeeing produces very effective results with a
limited use of water on smooth pavements in good repair.
Very believes that squeegee machines have their value, and if the
sprinkler cart is used in advance better results are obtained.
In Milwaukee machines are in constant operation on smooth surface
pavements. In certain sections where streets are exceptionally wide,
three machines are used in staggered formation and necessitate but one
and one-half complete trips over a street to perfect cleaning. They are
routed in such a manner that little idle travel is necessary and filling
plugs are specified to prevent empty haul to any great extent. The same
system is applied to territories where only two machines can be
operated, except that four return trips are necessary to complete the
work. In no wise are operators allowed to confine their work within a
given block unless conditions prevent, but must continue until tanks are
emptied, which usually occurs at end of second block. Two laborers are
employed with these machines to keep gutters free from dirt and
obstructing the water from flowing to the catch basins.
The average area cleaned in one year was 377,712 square yards at a cost
of $96.35 per day or 25.5 cents per 1,000 square yards. Of the total
yardage of pavement in the city 1,105,324 square yards are free from car
tracks and subject to squeegee process. Some are squeegeed twice a week
while others are cleaned but once and each have the additional service
of White Wings and sprinkler.
The Milwaukee Bureau of Municipal Research gives the cost of squeegeeing
as follows:
Cost of machine $1,250.00
Fixed charges
Depreciation and repairs at 10% on machine $111.00
Depreciation & repairs at 50% on roller 70.00
Interest at 4½% 56.25 237.25
——————— —————————
Maintenance:
Painting (each season) 20.00
Hose and coupling (each season) 15.00 35.00
——————— —————————
Season cost, $272.25
150 days operation, cost per day 1.815
Operation:
Team hire per day 5.00
One sweeper at $2 2.00
Water at 6¢ per 1,000 gal .82
——————— —————————
Cost per machine per day $9.635
Manufacturers have placed on the market a modern motor driven squeegee
said to be efficient and economical to a city with large area of smooth
pavement. The capacity of this tank is increased to 750 gallons (an
increase of 200 gallons over horse-drawn machine), which will permit a
large area to be cleaned uninterrupted by constant filling, and reduce
the lost time at hydrants. There are two sets of sprays, one directly in
front of machine and one directly in front of squeegee. Back of the
first spray or sprinkler head is a set of two brushes to loosen any
hardened matter that might not be subjected to the squeegee process. By
using this machine, the employment of laborers to continue the flow of
water to catch basins is unnecessary, as the discharge of water is
sufficient to remove any slight particles that are removed by the horse
drawn equipment. At the end of the season, the machine can be dismantled
and a box attached to make it available for other purposes. The cost of
operating this style is estimated by the Milwaukee Bureau to be as
follows:
Cost of machine $4,000.00
Depreciation and repairs at 25% on machine (one- $481.25
half chargeable to street cleaning)
Interest investment 4½% (one-half chargeable to 90.00
street cleaning)
One roller per season 85.00
———————
Maintenance: 656.25
Hose, couplings, 4 tires depreciation at 50%
Replacement of two brushes 69.00
———————
Season cost 725.75
150 days operation on street cleaning $4.84
Operation:
1 sweeper per day $2.00
1 chauffeur per day 3.00
Gas and oil 1.82
Water at 6¢ per gal. 1.60
—————
8.42
Daily cost 13.26
Average square yards cleaned per day, 80,000
Cost square yards, 16.5¢
Assessment for foot front based on a street 30 feet wide and cleaned
fifty times a season would be $1.37.
This cost data shows motor driven squeegees will perform twice the
amount of work as horse drawn at a reduced unit cost. The difference in
operating cost of two types would be:
Horse drawn, average cost per 1,000 square yards 25.5¢
Motor driven, average cost per 1,000 square yards 16.5¢
Whinery says that while it is true that flushing methods, if thoroughly
used, do carry the removed dust into the sewers or drains, which is
regarded by many objectionable and to clog the pipes, this might happen
where the whole of the street dirt, coarse and fine, is thus carried
together into the sewers. He does not know of any instances where actual
trouble has resulted. The practise of cleaning the streets wholly by
squeegeeing or flushing is not, however, to be recommended, he believes,
if for no other reason than that it would be impracticable to do the
work several times each day and thus prevent the formation and flying of
dust. The danger of clogging the sewers by flushing dust only into them
is, he thinks, very remote, as the quantity of the dust remaining after
proper coarse cleaning is small. Careful determination by the New York
Commission on Street Cleaning and Waste Disposal showed that on smooth
pavements cleaned by the patrol system the accumulation of dust in 48
hours after the street has been washed either by hard rains or by
flushing, does not exceed five per cent. or six per cent. of the total
daily quantity of street dirt, though on rough stone block pavement it
may be much larger. This quantity is so small that its disposal through
the sewers could hardly cause serious trouble. In fact, the large volume
of water used tends rather to flush and clean out the sewers.
In a paper read before the American Society of Municipal Improvements,
Mr. Parlin summarizes as follows the results of a study made by him to
determine the economy of the various types of flushing equipment: “Hose
flushing on small areas was the most economical method; that up to
40,000 square yards, the horse drawn equipment was next in economy; that
from 40,000 square yards to 90,000 square yards the hose was about as
economical as the automobile; that from 90,000 square yards to 120,000
square yards automobile was supreme, and for daily schedule areas of
over 120,000 square yards the automobile and street car equipment give
nearly the same economy.”
The street washing equipment of the future will probably be a
combination affair. This has been used in Europe for several years. New
York City is now developing combination equipment.
The ideal system of street cleaning would, therefore, be efficient
patrol or hand cleaning through the day or during a longer period if the
volume of travel in the evening requires it, and thorough scrubbing with
squeegees or washing with water under pressure by flushing machines or
hose at night as often as may be necessary.
Although the automobile equipment has not been in use long, experience
has shown that it is both efficient and economical, particularly in the
larger cities.
Disposal of Street Refuse
In most cities the final disposal of sweepings and waste collected from
the streets is a troublesome problem, and the cost is no small item in
the expenses of the street cleaning department. The majority dispose of
the sweepings on city dumps. A few cities are able to dispose of a part
of the sweepings from paved streets to farmers and gardeners in the near
vicinity on terms that repay at least a part of the cost that would
otherwise have to be incurred, but the expense of handling and
transporting the material to any considerable distance and its great
bulk compared with its commercial value as a fertilizer place a limit on
its disposal in this way. Nevertheless, it should be possible in the
smaller cities at least to interest farmers and gardeners in the use of
this material to a greater extent than is now common and to dispose thus
of the sweepings at a price that would reduce the cost of disposal
otherwise. The use of street refuse for filling low ground or reclaiming
areas of shallow water and marshes has not been so seriously considered
as it should be.
In some cities the street dirt is used as a fill between sidewalks and
curb or in low alleys and vacant lots which are adjacent to the streets
cleaned.
In other cities where the so-called “short haul” system is used, the
street dirt is collected from stations at which the street sweepers
deposit it, for filling purposes within the ward. The haul seldom
exceeds three-quarters of a mile. One mile has been used as a standard
for short hauls within wards.
Relative Cost of Street Cleaning
Most experts agree that little can be gained by comparing unit costs in
different cities as local conditions and prices paid for labor, etc.,
vary so widely. Another reason is the lack of uniformity in standards
and records maintained in the various cities. And still another reason
is the varying standards of cleanliness. Very few cities in considering
the sum to be appropriated first determine the standard of cleanliness
to be attained. An investigation conducted by the United States Bureau
of Census indicated that the unit cost of street cleaning in cities
having less than 300,000 inhabitants is less than that in cities having
over 300,000.
When the many different methods of record and cost keeping are
considered as well as the difficulties encountered in obtaining accurate
information as to conditions and methods used in the cleaning of
streets, the reasons for these differences are apparent.
_The Municipal Journal_ in January, 1915, printed a table which shows
that the average number of cleanings per year in thirty-one of the
largest cities was 156, varying from 37½ to 300. The cubic yards of
sweepings per year per thousand square yards of street area averaged
20.5, varying from 5.7 to 48; the latter being in Boston and nearly four
times that reported from Washington. The average amount of sweepings
collected at each cleaning was 191 cubic yards per million square yards
cleaned, varying from 32 to 440. The cost per thousand square yards of
cleaning done averaged 35½ cents, varying from 14 cents to $1.53. The
cost per cubic yard of sweepings averaged $2.70, varying from 79 cents
to $8.75.
Table I (a)
STREET CLEANING IN AMERICAN CITIES
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Name of City │Population│ Miles of Streets Swept per Year
│ │
│ │
│ ├─────────────┬──────────┬───────────
│ │ By Hand │By Machine│ Total
│ │ │ │
──────────────┼──────────┼─────────────┼──────────┼───────────
Buffalo, N. Y.│ 461,335│ 9,600│ 34,000│
Beacon, N. Y. │ 10,165│ 1.5│ │
Binghamton, N.│ 53,000│ 2│ 25.6│ 27.6
Y. │ │ │ │
Cincinnati, │ 402,175│ 20,112│ 10[1]│
Ohio │ │ │ │
Cambridge, │ 110,000│ 15│ 108.5│
Mass. │ │ │ │
Chicago, Ill. │ 2,200,000│4,674,396,308│12,039,859│
│ │ S.Y.│ S.Y.│
Camden, N. J. │ 95,000│ │ │ 2,249,314
Columbus, Ohio│ 220,000│ │ │
Cleveland, │ 561,000│ │ │
Ohio │ │ │ │
Cortland, N. │ 13,000│ 6│ │
Y. │ │ │ │
Dunkirk, N. Y.│ 17,870│ │ │ 26
Denver, Col. │ 245,523│ 102,501,230│ │215,046,848
│ │ S.Y.│ │ S.Y.
Elmira, N. Y. │ 40,093│ │ │ 20,672
Fall River, │ 124,791│ │ │
Mass. │ │ │ │
Grand Rapids, │ 131,000│ │ │
Mich. │ │ │ │
Hudson, N. Y. │ 13,000│ │ │ 21.5
Jamestown, N. │ 38,000│ 1│ 30│
Y. │ │ │ │
Kansas City, │ 319,000│ │ │ 462.65[2]
Mo. │ │ │ │
Kingston, N. │ 27,000│ 4│ │
Y. │ │ │ │
Los Angeles, │ 550,000│ 333│ │
Cal. │ │ │ │
Louisville, │ 224,000│ │ │ 8,331
Ky. │ │ │ │
Lowell, Mass. │ 106,294│ │ │
Lynn, Mass. │ 96,000│ │ │ 35
Lackawanna, N.│ 17,500│ │ 5.5│
Y. │ │ │ │
Little Falls, │ 13,000│ 6│ │
N. Y. │ │ │ │
Milwaukee, │ 450,000│ 82│ 252.5│
Wis. │ │ │ │
Middletown, N.│ 18,000│ 4.2│ │
Y. │ │ │ │
Mechanicville,│ 8,208│ 5.│ │
N. Y. │ │ │ │
New York City │ 4,551,860│ │ │ 1,487
(Manhattan, │ │ │ │
Bronx & │ │ │ │
Brooklyn) │ │ │ │
New Orleans, │ 400,000│ │ │
La. │ │ │ │
New Bedford, │ 111,000│ │ │
Mass. │ │ │ │
Newark, N. J. │ 370,000│ │ │
Norwich, N. Y.│ 8,500│ │ 6│
New Rochelle, │ 35,500│ 58│ │
N. Y. │ │ │ │
Niagara Falls,│ 45,000│ │ 400│
N. Y. │ │ │ │
Newburgh, N. │ 27,876│ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │
Oakland, Cal. │ 215,000│ 4,128│ 5,160│
Oswego, N. Y. │ 24,000│ │ 90│
Ogdensburg, N.│ 14,388│ 1–3│ 10│
Y. │ │ │ │
Philadelphia, │ 1,800,000│ 461│ 1,165│
Pa. │ │ │ │
Providence, R.│ 248,000│ │ │
I. │ │ │ │
Rochester, N. │ 248,465│ │ │ 258,171
Y. │ │ │ │
Rensselaer, N.│ 11,112│ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │
Reading, Pa. │ 110,000│ │ │ 209,659
│ │ │ │ squares
Richmond, Va. │ 160,000│ │ │
St. Louis, Mo.│ 835,000│ │ │ 405
San Francisco,│ 500,000│ │ │ 460
Cal. │ │ │ │
Salt Lake │ 120,000│ 30│ │ 54
City, Utah │ │ │ │
Springfield, │ 102,971│ │ │
Mass. │ │ │ │
Seattle, Wash.│ 238,000│ │ │
Scranton, Pa. │ 130,000│ │ │
Troy, N. Y. │ 76,000│ │ 40.89│
Utica, N. Y. │ 85,000│ │ ½ sq. mi.│
│ │ │ daily.│
Washington, D.│ 360,000│ │ │
C. │ │ │ │
──────────────┴──────────┴─────────────┴──────────┴───────────
──────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Name of City │ AREA IN SQUARE YARDS SUBJECT TO CLEANING
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────
│ Hand Sweeping
├──────────┬─────────┬─────────┬───────────┬──────────
│ Smooth │ Rough │ Macadam │ Total │Smooth and
│ │ │ │ │ Rough
──────────────┼──────────┼─────────┼─────────┼───────────┼──────────
Buffalo, N. Y.│ │ │ │ 749,600│
Beacon, N. Y. │ │ │ │ │ 26,400
Binghamton, N.│ │ │ │ 114,829│
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Cincinnati, │ │ 254,951│ │ │
Ohio │ │ │ │ │
Cambridge, │ │ │ │ 350,000│
Mass. │ │ │ │ │
Chicago, Ill. │19,841,482│7,551,053│6,605,237│ │
│ │ │ │ │
Camden, N. J. │ │ │ │ │
Columbus, Ohio│ │ │ │ │
Cleveland, │ │ │ │ │
Ohio │ │ │ │ │
Cortland, N. │ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Dunkirk, N. Y.│ │ │ │ │
Denver, Col. │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Elmira, N. Y. │ 41,000│ │ │ │
Fall River, │ │ │ │ │
Mass. │ │ │ │ │
Grand Rapids, │ │ │ │ │
Mich. │ │ │ │ │
Hudson, N. Y. │ │ │ │ │
Jamestown, N. │ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Kansas City, │ │ │ │ │
Mo. │ │ │ │ │
Kingston, N. │ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Los Angeles, │ │ │ │ 9,150,000│
Cal. │ │ │ │ │
Louisville, │ │ │ │ │
Ky. │ │ │ │ │
Lowell, Mass. │ │ │ │ │
Lynn, Mass. │ │ │ │ │
Lackawanna, N.│ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Little Falls, │ 74,000│ 5,000│ 3,000│ │
N. Y. │ │ │ │ │
Milwaukee, │ │ │ │ 1,600,170│
Wis. │ │ │ │ │
Middletown, N.│ 88,235│ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Mechanicville,│ │ │ │ │
N. Y. │ │ │ │ │
New York City │ │ │ │ │28,429,785
(Manhattan, │ │ │ │ │
Bronx & │ │ │ │ │
Brooklyn) │ │ │ │ │
New Orleans, │ │ │ │ │
La. │ │ │ │ │
New Bedford, │ │ │ │ │
Mass. │ │ │ │ │
Newark, N. J. │ │ │ │ │
Norwich, N. Y.│ │ │ │ │
New Rochelle, │ 4.67 Mi.│ 47.1 Mi.│ 6.3 Mi.│ │
N. Y. │ │ │ │ │
Niagara Falls,│ │ │ │ │
N. Y. │ │ │ │ │
Newburgh, N. │ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Oakland, Cal. │ │ │7,333,000│ │ 180,800
Oswego, N. Y. │ │ │ │ │ 412,866
Ogdensburg, N.│ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Philadelphia, │ 750,139│ │3,835,217│ │
Pa. │ │ │ │ │
Providence, R.│ │ │ │ │
I. │ │ │ │ │
Rochester, N. │ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Rensselaer, N.│ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Reading, Pa. │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Richmond, Va. │ │ │ │ 56,820,400│
St. Louis, Mo.│ │ │ │ │
San Francisco,│ │ │ │525,105,551│
Cal. │ │ │ │ │
Salt Lake │ │ │ │ │
City, Utah │ │ │ │ │
Springfield, │ │ │ │ │
Mass. │ │ │ │ │
Seattle, Wash.│ │ │ │ 3,521,624│
Scranton, Pa. │ │ │ │ │
Troy, N. Y. │ │ │ │ │
Utica, N. Y. │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Washington, D.│ │ │1,513,562│ │ 3,682,766
C. │ │ │ │ │
──────────────┴──────────┴─────────┴─────────┴───────────┴──────────
──────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────
Name of City │ AREA IN SQUARE YARDS SUBJECT TO CLEANING
├─────────────────────────────────────────────
│ Machine Sweeping
├──────┬───────┬───────┬───────────┬──────────
│Smooth│ Rough │Macadam│ Total │Smooth and
│ │ │ │ │ Rough
──────────────┼──────┼───────┼───────┼───────────┼──────────
Buffalo, N. Y.│ │ │ │ 7,964,500│
Beacon, N. Y. │ │ │ │ │
Binghamton, N.│ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Cincinnati, │ │ │ │ │
Ohio │ │ │ │ │
Cambridge, │ │ │ │ 1,250,000│
Mass. │ │ │ │ │
Chicago, Ill. │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Camden, N. J. │ │ │ │ │
Columbus, Ohio│ │ │ │ │
Cleveland, │ │ │ │ │
Ohio │ │ │ │ │
Cortland, N. │ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Dunkirk, N. Y.│ │ │ │ │
Denver, Col. │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Elmira, N. Y. │ │ │ │ │
Fall River, │ │ │ │ │
Mass. │ │ │ │ │
Grand Rapids, │ │ │ │ │
Mich. │ │ │ │ │
Hudson, N. Y. │ │ │ │ │
Jamestown, N. │ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Kansas City, │ │ │ │ │
Mo. │ │ │ │ │
Kingston, N. │ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Los Angeles, │ │ │ │ │
Cal. │ │ │ │ │
Louisville, │ │ │ │ │
Ky. │ │ │ │ │
Lowell, Mass. │ │ │ │ │
Lynn, Mass. │ │ │ │ │
Lackawanna, N.│ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Little Falls, │ │ │ │ │
N. Y. │ │ │ │ │
Milwaukee, │ │ │ │ │
Wis. │ │ │ │ │
Middletown, N.│ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Mechanicville,│ │ │ │ │
N. Y. │ │ │ │ │
New York City │ │ │ │ │10,391,283
(Manhattan, │ │ │ │ │
Bronx & │ │ │ │ │
Brooklyn) │ │ │ │ │
New Orleans, │ │ │ │ │
La. │ │ │ │ │
New Bedford, │ │ │ │ │
Mass. │ │ │ │ │
Newark, N. J. │ │ │ │ │
Norwich, N. Y.│ │ │ │ │
New Rochelle, │ │ │ │ 25,000│
N. Y. │ │ │ │ │
Niagara Falls,│ │ │ │ │
N. Y. │ │ │ │ │
Newburgh, N. │ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Oakland, Cal. │ │ │187,851│ │
Oswego, N. Y. │ │ │ │ │ 778,374
Ogdensburg, N.│ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Philadelphia, │ │ │ │ │
Pa. │ │ │ │ │
Providence, R.│ │ │ │ │
I. │ │ │ │ │
Rochester, N. │ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Rensselaer, N.│ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Reading, Pa. │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Richmond, Va. │ │ │ │208,031,600│
St. Louis, Mo.│ │ │ │ │
San Francisco,│ │ │ │ 65,228,812│
Cal. │ │ │ │ │
Salt Lake │ │ │ │ │
City, Utah │ │ │ │ │
Springfield, │ │ │ │ │
Mass. │ │ │ │ │
Seattle, Wash.│ │ │ │ 12,324,340│
Scranton, Pa. │ │ │ │ │
Troy, N. Y. │ │727,112│ 53,542│ │
Utica, N. Y. │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Washington, D.│ │ │ │ │ 1,584,524
C. │ │ │ │ │
──────────────┴──────┴───────┴───────┴───────────┴──────────
Table I (b)
STREET CLEANING IN AMERICAN CITIES (Continued)
─────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────────────
City │ AREA IN SQUARE YARDS SUBJECT TO CLEANING
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────
│ Hand and Machine Sweeping
├──────────┬─────────┬─────────┬───────────┬──────────
│ Smooth │ Rough │ Macadam │ Total │Smooth and
│ │ │ │ │ Rough
─────────────┼──────────┼─────────┼─────────┼───────────┼──────────
Buffalo │ │ │ │ 8,714,100│
Beacon │ │ │ │ │
Binghamton │ │ │ │ │
Cincinnati │ │ 651,213│4,981,710│ │
Cambridge │ │ │ │ 35,000│
Chicago │ │ │ │ 38,466│
Camden │ │ │ │ │
Columbus │ │ │ │ │
Cleveland │ │ │ │ │
Cortland │ │ │ │ │
Dunkirk │ │ │ │ │
Denver │ │ │ │ │
Elmira │ │ │ │ │
Fall River │ │ │ │ │
Grand Rapids │ │ │ │ │
Hudson │ │ │ │ │
Jamestown │ │ │ │ │
Kansas City │ │ │ │ │
Kingston │ │ │ │ │
Los Angeles │ │ │ │ │
Louisville │ │ │ │ │
Lowell │ │ │ │ │
Lynn │ │ │ │ │
Lackawanna │ │ │ │ │
Little Falls │ │ │ │ │
Milwaukee │ │ │ │ │
Middletown │ │ │ │ │
Mechanicville│ │ │ │ │
New York City│ │ │ │ │10,391,283
New Orleans │ │ │ │ │
New Bedford │141,098.22│98,843.03│ │ │
Newark │ │ │ │ │
Norwich │ │ │ │ │
New Rochelle │ │ │ │ │
Niagara Falls│ │ │ │ │
Newburgh │ │ │ │ │
Oakland │ │ │ │ │
Oswego │ │ │ │ │
Ogdensburg │ │ │ │ │
Philadelphia │ │ │ │ │
Providence │ │ │ │ │
Rochester │ │ │ │ │
Rensselaer │ │ │ │ │
Reading │ │ │ │ │
Richmond │ │ │ │264,852,000│
St. Louis │ │ │ │ │
San Francisco│ │ │ │590,394,363│
Salt Lake │ │ │ │ │
City │ │ │ │ │
Springfield │ │ │ │ │
Seattle │ │ │ │ 15,845,994│
Scranton │ │ │ │ │
Troy │ │ │ │ │
Utica │ │ │ │ │
Washington │ │ │ │ │
─────────────┴──────────┴─────────┴─────────┴───────────┴──────────
─────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────────
City │ AREA IN SQUARE YARDS SUBJECT TO CLEANING
├──────────────────────────────────────────
│ Sweeping and Flushing
├──────────┬─────────┬───────┬─────────────
│ Smooth │ Rough │Macadam│ Total
│ │ │ │
─────────────┼──────────┼─────────┼───────┼─────────────
Buffalo │ │ │ │ 187,400[3]
Beacon │ │ │ │
Binghamton │ │ │ │ 71,804.4
Cincinnati │ 1,272,846│2,963,948│ │
Cambridge │ │ │ │
Chicago │ │ │ │ 8,339,014[4]
Camden │ │ │ │
Columbus │ │ │ │
Cleveland │ │ │ │
Cortland │ │ │ │
Dunkirk │ │ │ │
Denver │ │ │ │
Elmira │429,442[2]│ │ │
Fall River │ │ │ │
Grand Rapids │ │ │ │62,474,499[2]
Hudson │ │ │ │
Jamestown │ │ │ │
Kansas City │ │ │ │
Kingston │ │ │ │
Los Angeles │ │ │ │ 8,000,000[6]
Louisville │ │ │ │
Lowell │ │ │ │
Lynn │ │ │ │
Lackawanna │ │ │ │
Little Falls │ │ │ │
Milwaukee │ │ │ │ 6,375,676[7]
Middletown │ │ │ │
Mechanicville│ │ │ │
New York City│ │ │ │
New Orleans │ │ │ │
New Bedford │ │ │ │
Newark │ │ │ │
Norwich │ │ │ │
New Rochelle │ │ │ │
Niagara Falls│ 900,000│ │ │
Newburgh │ │ │ │
Oakland │ │ │ │
Oswego │ │ │ │
Ogdensburg │ │ │ │
Philadelphia │ │ │ │ 17,335,027
Providence │ │ │ │
Rochester │ │ │ │
Rensselaer │ │ │ │
Reading │ │ │ │
Richmond │ │ │ │ 2,846,000[2]
St. Louis │ │ │ │
San Francisco│ │ │ │ 704,240,828
Salt Lake │ │ │ │
City │ │ │ │
Springfield │ │ │ │
Seattle │ │ │ │ 189,038,712
Scranton │ │ │ │
Troy │301,878[2]│ │ │
Utica │ │ │ │
Washington │ │ │ │
─────────────┴──────────┴─────────┴───────┴─────────────
─────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────
City │ AREA IN SQUARE YARDS SUBJECT TO CLEANING
├─────────────────────────────────────────
│ Sweeping and Flushing
├────────────┬────────────
│ Smooth and │ Total
│ Rough │
─────────────┼────────────┼────────────
Buffalo │ │
Beacon │ │
Binghamton │ │
Cincinnati │ │ 10,124,668
Cambridge │ │
Chicago │ │
Camden │ │
Columbus │ │
Cleveland │ │
Cortland │ │ 172,226
Dunkirk │ │ 316,601
Denver │ │
Elmira │ │
Fall River │ │
Grand Rapids │ │
Hudson │ │
Jamestown │ │ 531,582
Kansas City │ │
Kingston │ │7,526,762[5]
Los Angeles │ │
Louisville │ │
Lowell │ │
Lynn │ │
Lackawanna │ │ 100,000
Little Falls │ │
Milwaukee │ │
Middletown │ │
Mechanicville│ │
New York City│ 10,280,982│
New Orleans │ │
New Bedford │ │
Newark │ │
Norwich │ │
New Rochelle │ │
Niagara Falls│ │
Newburgh │ │
Oakland │ │
Oswego │ │ 174,830
Ogdensburg │ │ 75,000
Philadelphia │ │
Providence │ │
Rochester │ │ 4,265,061
Rensselaer │ │
Reading │ │
Richmond │ │ 267,698,000
St. Louis │ │ 9,427,212
San Francisco│ │
Salt Lake │ │
City │ │
Springfield │ │
Seattle │ │
Scranton │ │
Troy │ │
Utica │ │
Washington │2,671,963[4]│
─────────────┴────────────┴────────────
Table I (c)
STREET CLEANING IN AMERICAN CITIES (Continued)
─────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────────────
City │ SQUARE YARDS CLEANED PER WEEK
├───────────────────────────────────────────────────
│ Hand Sweeping
├───────────┬──────────┬──────────────┬─────────────
│ Smooth │ Rough │ Macadam │ Total
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
─────────────┼───────────┼──────────┼──────────────┼─────────────
Buffalo │ │ │ │ 8,714,100[8]
Beacon │ │ │ │
Binghamton │ │ │ │
Cincinnati │ │ │ │ 5,747,174
Cambridge │ 700,000│ │ │
Chicago │119,048,892│45,306,308│ 39,631,422│
Camden │ │ │ │
Columbus │ │ │ │
Cleveland │ │ │ │
Cortland │ │ │ │
Dunkirk │ │ │ │
Denver │ │ │ │
Elmira │ │ │ │
Fall River │ │ │ │
Grand Rapids │ │ │ │
Hudson │ │ │ │
Jamestown │ │ │ │
Kansas City │ │ │ │
Kingston │ │ │ │
Los Angeles │ [9] │ [9] │ [9] │
Louisville │ │ │ │
Lowell │ │ │ │
Lynn │ │ │ │
Lackawanna │ │ │ │
Little Falls │ │ │ │
Milwaukee │ │ │ │4,742,044[10]
Middletown │ │ │ │
Mechanicville│ │ │ │
New York City│ │ │ │
New Orleans │ │ │ │
New Bedford │ │ │ │
Newark │ │ │ │ 11,754,257
Norwich │ │ │ │
New Rochelle │ │ │ │
Niagara Falls│ │ │ │
Newburgh │ │ │ │
Oakland │ │ │ 11,480,833[8]│ 2,477,196
Oswego │ 350,000│ │ │
Ogdensburg │ │ │ │
Philadelphia │ │ │ 3,835,217│
Providence │ │ │ │
Rochester │ │ │ │
Rensselaer │ │ │ │
Reading │ │ │ │
Richmond │ │ │ │
St. Louis │ │ │ │
San Francisco│ │ │ 75,015,076│
Salt Lake │ │ │ │
City │ │ │ │
Springfield │ │ │ │
Seattle │ │ │ │
Scranton │ │ │139,377,763[8]│
Troy │ │ │ │
Utica │ │ │ │
Washington │ │ 984,000│ │ 21,772,596
─────────────┴───────────┴──────────┴──────────────┴─────────────
─────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
City │ SQUARE YARDS CLEANED PER WEEK
├───────────┬──────────────────────────────────────────────
│Hand Sweeping│ Machine Sweeping
├───────────┼─────────┬───────┬─────────────┬──────────────
│Smooth and │ Smooth │ Rough │ Macadam │ Total
│ Rough │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
─────────────┼───────────┼─────────┼───────┼─────────────┼──────────────
Buffalo │ │ │ │ │511,111,111[8]
Beacon │ │ │ │ │
Binghamton │ │ │ │ │
Cincinnati │ │ │ │ │ 53,276
Cambridge │ │ 100,000│ │ │
Chicago │ │ │ │ │
Camden │ │ │ │ │
Columbus │ │ │ │ │
Cleveland │ │ │ │ │
Cortland │ │ │ │ │
Dunkirk │ │ │ │ │
Denver │ │ │ │ │
Elmira │ │ │ │ │
Fall River │ │ │ │ │
Grand Rapids │ │ │ │ │
Hudson │ │ │ │ │
Jamestown │ │ │ │ │
Kansas City │ │ │ │ │
Kingston │ │ │ │ │
Los Angeles │ │ │ │ │
Louisville │ │ │ │ │
Lowell │ │ │ │ │
Lynn │ │ │ │ │
Lackawanna │ │ │ │ │
Little Falls │ │ │ │ │
Milwaukee │ │ │ │ │
Middletown │ │ │ │ │
Mechanicville│ │ │ │ │
New York City│539,611,598│ │ │ │
New Orleans │ │ │ │ │
New Bedford │ │ │ │ │
Newark │ │ │ │ │
Norwich │ │ │ │ │
New Rochelle │ │ │ │ │
Niagara Falls│ │ │ │ │
Newburgh │ 180,800│ │ │ │
Oakland │ │ │ │ │
Oswego │ │ 264,717│ │ │
Ogdensburg │ │ │ │ │
Philadelphia │ │ │ │ │
Providence │ │ │ │ │
Rochester │ │ │ │ │
Rensselaer │ │ │ │ │
Reading │ │ │ │ │
Richmond │ │ │ │ │
St. Louis │ │ │ │ │
San Francisco│ │ │ │ 9,326,973│
Salt Lake │ │ │ │ │
City │ │ │ │ │
Springfield │ │ │ │ │
Seattle │ │ │ │ │
Scranton │ │ │ │27,844,483[8]│
Troy │ │1,453,224│107,086│ │
Utica │ │ │ │ │
Washington │ │ │ │ │ 789,000
─────────────┴───────────┴─────────┴───────┴─────────────┴──────────────
─────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────
City │ SQUARE YARDS CLEANED PER WEEK
├──────────┬───────────────────────────
│Machine Sweeping│ Hand and Machine Sweeping
├──────────┼──────────────┬────────────
│Smooth and│Total, Smooth,│ Smooth and
│ Rough │ Rough and │ Rough
│ │ Macadam │
─────────────┼──────────┼──────────────┼────────────
Buffalo │ │519,825,210[8]│
Beacon │ │ │
Binghamton │ │ │
Cincinnati │ │ │
Cambridge │ │ │
Chicago │ │ 230,796│
Camden │ │ │
Columbus │ │ │
Cleveland │ │ │
Cortland │ │ │
Dunkirk │ │ │
Denver │ │ │
Elmira │ │ │
Fall River │ │ │
Grand Rapids │ │ │
Hudson │ │ │
Jamestown │ │ │
Kansas City │ │ │
Kingston │ │ │
Los Angeles │ │ │
Louisville │ │ │
Lowell │ │ │
Lynn │ │ │
Lackawanna │ │ │
Little Falls │ │ │
Milwaukee │ │ │
Middletown │ │ │
Mechanicville│ │ │
New York City│17,300,158│ │ 17,300,158
New Orleans │ │ │
New Bedford │ │ │
Newark │ │ │
Norwich │ │ │
New Rochelle │ │ │
Niagara Falls│ │ │
Newburgh │ │ │
Oakland │ 3,449,606│ │
Oswego │ │ │
Ogdensburg │ │ │
Philadelphia │ │ │
Providence │ │ │
Rochester │ │ │
Rensselaer │ │ │
Reading │ │ │
Richmond │ │ │
St. Louis │ │ │
San Francisco│84,342,051│ │
Salt Lake │ │ │
City │ │ │
Springfield │ │ │
Seattle │ │ │
Scranton │ │ │
Troy │ │ │1,811,268[2]
Utica │ │ │
Washington │ │ │
─────────────┴──────────┴──────────────┴────────────
─────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────────────
City │ SQUARE YARDS CLEANED PER WEEK
├───────────────────────────────────────────────────
│ Sweeping and Flushing
├─────────────┬───────────────┬─────────┬───────────
│ Smooth │Total, Smooth, │ Smooth │ Total
│ │ Rough and │and Rough│
│ │ Macadam │ │
─────────────┼─────────────┼───────────────┼─────────┼───────────
Buffalo │ │5,622,000[8][2]│ │
Beacon │ │ │ │
Binghamton │ │ │ │
Cincinnati │ │ 4,617,277│ │ 10,417,677
Cambridge │ │ │ │
Chicago │ │ 50,034,064│ │
Camden │ │ │ │
Columbus │ │ │ │
Cleveland │ │ │ │
Cortland │ │ │ │
Dunkirk │ │ │ │
Denver │ │ │ │
Elmira │ │ │ │
Fall River │ │ │ │
Grand Rapids │ │ │ │
Hudson │ │ │ │
Jamestown │ │ │ │ 1,679,593
Kansas City │ │ │ │
Kingston │ │ │ │
Los Angeles │ │ 10,000,000[6]│ │
Louisville │ │ │ │
Lowell │ │ │ │
Lynn │ │ │ │
Lackawanna │ │ │ │ 100,000
Little Falls │ │ │ │
Milwaukee │ │ │ │
Middletown │ │ │ │
Mechanicville│ │ │ │
New York City│ │ │5,273,638│562,184,394
New Orleans │ │ │ │
New Bedford │ │ │ │
Newark │ │ │ │
Norwich │ │ │ │
New Rochelle │ │ │ │ 7,743,792
Niagara Falls│ 18,000│ │ │
Newburgh │ │ │ │
Oakland │ │ │ │
Oswego │ 566,532│ │ │
Ogdensburg │ │ │ │
Philadelphia │ │ 59,238,912│ │
Providence │ │ │ │
Rochester │ │ │ │ 4,265,062
Rensselaer │ │ │ │
Reading │ │ │ │
Richmond │ │ │ │
St. Louis │ │ │ │
San Francisco│ 100,605,832│ │ │
Salt Lake │ │ │ │
City │ │ │ │
Springfield │ │ │ │
Seattle │ │ │ │
Scranton │236,000[2][8]│ │ │
Troy │ │ │ │
Utica │ │ │ │
Washington │ │ 782,000[4]│ │
─────────────┴─────────────┴───────────────┴─────────┴───────────
Table I (d)
STREET CLEANING IN AMERICAN CITIES (Continued)
─────────────┬────────────────────────────────────────
City │ CUBIC YARDS OF STREET SWEEPING REMOVED PER WEEK
│
├────────────────────────────────────────
│ Hand Sweeping
├──────┬─────┬─────────┬──────────┬──────
│Smooth│Rough│ Macadam │ Total │Smooth
│ │ │ │ Smooth, │ and
│ │ │ │Rough and │Rough
│ │ │ │ Macadam │
─────────────┼──────┼─────┼─────────┼──────────┼──────
Buffalo │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Beacon │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Binghamton │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Cincinnati │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Cambridge │ 500│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Chicago │ 9,329│5,428│ 1,558│ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Camden │ │ │ │ │
Columbus │ │ │ │ 10,586[8]│
Cleveland │ │ │ │ │
Cortland │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Dunkirk │ │ │ │ │
Denver │ │ │ │ │
Elmira │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Fall River │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Grand Rapids │ │ │ │ │
Hudson │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Jamestown │ │ │ │ │
Kansas City │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Kingston │ │ │ │ │
Los Angeles │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Louisville │ │ │ │ │
Lowell │ │ │ │ │
Lynn │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Lackawanna │ │ │ │ │
Little Falls │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Milwaukee │ │ │ │75,423[11]│
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Middletown │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Mechanicville│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
New York City│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
New Orleans │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
New Bedford │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Newark │ 2,001│1,500│ 388│ │
│ │ │ │ │
Norwich │ │ │ │ │
New Rochelle │ │ │ │ │
Niagara Falls│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Newburgh │ │ │ │ 48│
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Oakland │ │ │31,276[8]│ │ 170
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Oswego │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Ogdensburg │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Philadelphia │ │ │51,961[8]│ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Providence │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Rochester │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Rensselaer │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Reading │ │ │ │ │
Richmond │ │ │ │ │
St. Louis │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
San Francisco│ │ │ │ │
Salt Lake │ │ │ │ 24 a day.│
City │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Springfield │ │ │ │ │
Seattle │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Scranton │ │ │ │ │
Troy │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Utica │ │ │ │ │
Washington │ │ │ 8,602│ │63,242
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
─────────────┴──────┴─────┴─────────┴──────────┴──────
─────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
City │ CUBIC YARDS OF STREET SWEEPING REMOVED PER WEEK
│
├───────────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────
│ Machine Sweeping │ Sweeping and Flushing
├──────┬─────────┬──────┼────────────┬──────────┬─────────
│Smooth│ Total │Smooth│ Total │Smooth and│ Total
│ │ Smooth, │ and │ Smooth, │ Rough │
│ │Rough and│Rough │ Rough and │ │
│ │ Macadam │ │ Macadam │ │
─────────────┼──────┼─────────┼──────┼────────────┼──────────┼─────────
Buffalo │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Beacon │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Binghamton │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Cincinnati │ │ │ │ │ │ 2,496
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Cambridge │ 500│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Chicago │ │ 288│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Camden │ │ │ │ │ │14,871[8]
Columbus │ │27,348[8]│ │12,284[2][8]│ │
Cleveland │ │ │ │ │ │
Cortland │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Dunkirk │ │ │ │ │ │
Denver │ │ │ │ │ │58,214[8]
Elmira │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Fall River │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Grand Rapids │ │ │ │ │ │
Hudson │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Jamestown │ │ │ │ │ │ 90
Kansas City │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Kingston │ │ │ │ │ │
Los Angeles │ │ │ │ │ │ 1,500
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Louisville │ │ │ │ │ │
Lowell │ │ │ │ │ │
Lynn │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Lackawanna │ │ │ │ │ │
Little Falls │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Milwaukee │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Middletown │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Mechanicville│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
New York City│ │ │ │ │ │ 15,625
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
New Orleans │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
New Bedford │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Newark │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Norwich │ │ │ │ │ │
New Rochelle │ │ │ │ │ │ 72
Niagara Falls│ │ │ │ │ │ 150
│ │ │ │ │ │
Newburgh │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Oakland │ │ │ 288│ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Oswego │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Ogdensburg │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Philadelphia │ │ │ │ │377,345[8]│
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Providence │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Rochester │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Rensselaer │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Reading │ │ │ │ │ │
Richmond │ │ │ │ │ │
St. Louis │ │ │ │ │ │ 1,000 a
│ │ │ │ │ │ day.
│ │ │ │ │ │
San Francisco│ │ │ │ │ │ [12]
Salt Lake │ │ │ │ │ │
City │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Springfield │ │ │ │ │ │
Seattle │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Scranton │ │ │ │ │ │
Troy │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Utica │ │ │ │ │ │
Washington │ │ │29,089│ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
─────────────┴──────┴─────────┴──────┴────────────┴──────────┴─────────
─────────────┬─────────────────────────┬─────────────────────────
City │ Number of Weeks in │ Average Number of
│ Cleaning Season │ Cleanings per Week
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
─────────────┼─────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────
Buffalo │35 to 40 for hand │6 for hand sweeping all
│ sweeping, machine │ kinds of pavement, 2
│ sweeping, and hand and │ for machine sweeping
│ machine sweeping. 25 │ all kinds of pavement,
│ for flushing. This is │ and one for sweeping
│ for all kinds of │ and flushing all kinds
│ pavement. │ of pavement.
Beacon │35 weeks in cleaning │6 times.
│ season. │
Binghamton │27 for hand sweeping, │6 for hand sweeping all
│ smooth and rough, 29 │ kinds of pavement, 6
│ for machine sweeping, │ for machine sweeping
│ smooth and rough, and │ smooth and rough, and
│ 32 for sweeping and │ sweeping and flushing,
│ flushing, smooth and │ smooth and rough.
│ rough. │
Cincinnati │52 weeks. │Business daily,
│ │ residential one to two
│ │ times a week.
Cambridge │52 for hand sweeping │Six for hand sweeping
│ smooth pavement, 10 for│ smooth pavement, 2 to 3
│ machine sweeping smooth│ times a year for hand
│ pavement. │ sweeping rough and
│ │ macadam.
Chicago │36 for hand sweeping all │Six for hand sweeping
│ kinds of pavement. │ smooth and rough, and
│ │ three for hand sweeping
│ │ macadam.
Camden │ │
Columbus │ │
Cleveland │ │
Cortland │32 weeks. │Six for hand sweeping
│ │ smooth, and one for
│ │ hand sweeping macadam.
Dunkirk │ │6 times.
Denver │52 weeks. │
Elmira │40 weeks. │Seven for hand sweeping
│ │ smooth, and 2 for
│ │ flushing rough, and one
│ │ for flushing macadam.
Fall River │52 weeks. │Nine for hand sweeping
│ │ smooth and rough.
Grand Rapids │ │
Hudson │ │Six for hand sweeping
│ │ rough, and 3 or 4 times
│ │ a year for machine
│ │ sweeping smooth.
Jamestown │27 weeks. │4½ times.
Kansas City │52 weeks for hand │Business section 35,
│ sweeping all kinds of │ semi-business 7, and
│ pavement, and 6 times a│ residential section
│ month for sweeping and │ one.
│ flushing all kinds of │
│ pavement. │
Kingston │ │
Los Angeles │52 for hand sweeping and │5 times daily for
│ for flushing all kinds │ congested and once
│ of pavement. │ daily for residential
│ │ hand sweeping all kinds
│ │ of pavement. 3 times
│ │ daily for congested,
│ │ and one and one-half
│ │ times daily for
│ │ residential flushing
│ │ all kinds of pavement.
Louisville │52 weeks. │
Lowell │52 weeks. │
Lynn │52 weeks. │Business section twice a
│ │ day; residential
│ │ section once a week.
Lackawanna │32 weeks. │
Little Falls │32 weeks. │Six for hand sweeping
│ │ all kinds of pavement.
Milwaukee │Varies. │From one to six,
│ │ depending upon
│ │ districts.
Middletown │32 weeks. │41,300 S. Y. daily;
│ │ balance twice a week.
Mechanicville│From 30 to 35. │6 times for hand sweeping
│ │ smooth.
New York City│52 for hand sweeping, │Nineteen for hand
│ machine sweeping, hand │ sweeping smooth and
│ and machine sweeping, │ rough, 27 for eight
│ and sweeping and │ months for machine
│ flushing smooth and │ sweeping smooth and
│ rough pavements. │ rough; number for hand
│ │ and machine sweeping
│ │ and sweeping and
│ │ flushing smooth and
│ │ rough depends on
│ │ weather.
New Orleans │52 weeks. │Six, excluding rainy
│ │ days.
New Bedford │42 for hand and machine │
│ sweeping smooth and │
│ rough. │
Newark │52 for hand sweeping all │2 for hand sweeping all
│ kinds. │ kinds.
Norwich │25 weeks. │Once a week.
New Rochelle │52 weeks. │Six times a week.
Niagara Falls│30 weeks. │Sweeping and flushing
│ │ smooth once.
Newburgh │34 weeks. │Twelve times for hand
│ │ sweeping smooth and
│ │ rough.
Oakland │All cleaning continuous │Six times for hand
│ with reduced force on │ sweeping smooth and
│ rainy days and │ rough, from one to four
│ irregular force on │ times per year for hand
│ macadam cleaning. No │ sweeping macadam, four
│ machine sweeping on │ times for machine
│ rainy days, which are │ sweeping smooth and
│ equal to five to ten │ rough.
│ weeks a year. │
Oswego │36 times for hand │
│ sweeping all kinds of │
│ pavements; 36 times for│
│ machine sweeping smooth│
│ pavement, and 30 times │
│ for sweeping and │
│ flushing rough │
│ pavement. │
Ogdensburg │ │Streets not paved 2
│ │ cleanings a year;
│ │ sections most traveled
│ │ cleaned with sweeper
│ │ twice during summer
│ │ season also. Patrol
│ │ system in business
│ │ section also flushed
│ │ twice a week.
Philadelphia │52 for hand sweeping and │One for hand sweeping
│ 45 for machine sweeping│ macadam, from two to
│ all kinds of pavements.│ six for machine
│ │ sweeping smooth and
│ │ rough, and sweeping and
│ │ flushing all kinds of
│ │ pavement.
Providence │52 times for hand │Six times for hand
│ sweeping smooth, 8 │ sweeping smooth; 6
│ times a month for hand │ times a year for hand
│ sweeping macadam and │ sweeping macadam, and
│ machine sweeping rough.│ once for machine
│ │ sweeping rough.
Rochester │ │Rough swept by hand 3 to
│ │ 6 times a week; macadam
│ │ swept by hand once a
│ │ week; rough machine
│ │ swept from once to
│ │ three times a week.
│ │ Smooth swept and
│ │ flushed 3 to 6 times a
│ │ week.
Rensselaer │27 weeks. │From once to twice a
│ │ week.
Reading │ │Twice a week.
Richmond │ │
St. Louis │52 weeks. │Business daily,
│ │ residential once a
│ │ week.
San Francisco│52 weeks. │Once.
Salt Lake │10 a month hand sweeping │
City │ smooth, 3 times a year │
│ hand sweeping macadam. │
Springfield │ │
Seattle │52 weeks. │Business six, semi-
│ │ business 3, residential
│ │ from one to two.
Scranton │ │
Troy │33 for machine sweeping │Two for machine sweeping
│ macadam, and 33 for │ macadam and rough; 6
│ hand and machine │ for flushing smooth.
│ sweeping smooth; 33 for│
│ sweeping and flushing │
│ rough. │
Utica │32 weeks. │From 3 to 6.
Washington │52 for hand sweeping, │Six for hand sweeping
│ machine sweeping and │ smooth and rough; ⅗ for
│ flushing and sweeping │ hand sweeping macadam,
│ all kinds of pavement. │ 3 for machine sweeping
│ │ smooth and rough, and 2
│ │ for sweeping and
│ │ flushing smooth and
│ │ rough.
─────────────┴─────────────────────────┴─────────────────────────
Table I (e)
STREET CLEANING IN AMERICAN CITIES (Continued)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
FORCE
─────────────┬──────────┬─────────┬─────────┬─────────┬───────┬─────────
City │Number of │Wage and │Number of│Wages and│Number │Cost and
│ Foremen │ Hours │Mechanics│ Hours │ of │ Hours
│ and │Daily[14]│ and │Daily[14]│ Teams │Daily[14]
│Inspectors│ │ Skilled │ │ │
│ │ │Laborers │ │ │
├──────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼───────┼─────────
│ │ │ │ │ │
─────────────┼──────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼───────┼─────────
Buffalo │ 22│ $2.50–│ 19│ $2.50–│ 100│ $4.00
│ │ 3.00│ │ 4.00│ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Beacon │ 1│ │ │ │ │
Binghamton │ 1│ 3.00│ │ │ 7│ 4.50
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Cincinnati │ 8│20.00 Wk.│ 10│3.50–5.00│ 60│ 2.19
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Cambridge │ 2│ 2.75│ │ │ 8│ City
│ │ │ │ │ │ teams.
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Chicago │ 112│2.60–2.85│ │ │ 165│ 6.00
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Camden │ 1│93.32 Mo.│ │ │ 12│
Columbus │ │ │ │ │ │
Cleveland │ │ │ │ │ │
Cortland │ 1│ 1.75│ │ │ 3│ 2.50
│ │ │ │ │single.│
Dunkirk │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Denver │ 4│75.00 Mo.│ 3│ 2.50│ 40│ 5.00
Elmira │ 1│ 2.50│ │ │ 5│ 4.00
│ │ │ │ │ double│ double
│ │ │ │ │ 1│ 3.00
│ │ │ │ │single.│ single.
Fall River │ 1│ 3.50│ │ │ 4│ 3.75
Grand Rapids │ │ │ │ │ │
Hudson │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Jamestown │ │ │ │ │ 2│ 5.50
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Kansas City │ 24│75.00 Mo.│ 3│3.00–3.50│ 30│ 5.00
Kingston │ │ │ │ │ │
Los Angeles │ 1│ 100.00–│ 2│3.00–3.50│ 89│ 5.00
│ │ 125.00│ │ │ │
│ │ Mo.│ │ │ │
Louisville │ 25│2.00–3.00│ │ │ 66│ 4.00 9
│ │ 9 hrs.│ │ │ │ hrs.
Lowell │ │ │ │ │ │ 7.50
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Lynn │ 1│ 3.20│ │ │ 2│ 5.38
Lackawanna │ 10│2.50–3.00│ 10│2.75–3.25│ 4│ 4.75
│ │ │ │ │ │
Little Falls │ 1│ 2.00│ │ │ 1│ 4.50
Milwaukee │ 27│1,000.00–│ │.45¢. hr.│ │ 5.00
│ │ 1,900.00│ │ │ │
│ │ Yr.│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Middletown │ 1│ 2.25│ │ │ 1│ 3.50
Mechanicville│ 1│ 2.25│ │ │ │ 4.00
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
New York City│ 134│1,212.00–│ │3.00–3.50│ │ 5.00
│ │ 1,380.00│ │ │ │
│ │ Yr.│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
New Orleans │ 27│75.00 Mo.│ │ │ 93│ City
│ │ 9 hrs.│ │ │ │ teams.
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
New Bedford │ 1│ 3.50│ │ │ 2│
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Newark │ 15│ 3.83│ │ │ 35│ 4.80
│ │ │ │ │ double│ double
│ │ │ │ │ 34│ 3.20
│ │ │ │ │single.│ single.
Norwich │ │ │ │ │ 2–6│ 5.00
New Rochelle │ │ │ │ │ 5.50│
Niagara Falls│ 6│ 3.00│ │ │ 30│ 5.00
Newburgh │ │ │ 1│80.00 Mo.│ 1│ 2.75
│ │ │ │ │ single│ single
│ │ │ │ │ 1│ 75¢. hr.
│ │ │ │ │ double│ double.
│ │ │ │ │ 3 hrs.│
│ │ │ │ │ day.│
Oakland │ 2│ 110.00│ │ │ 2│ 6.00
│ │ Mo.│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Oswego │ │ │ │ │ 4–6│4.00–5.60
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Ogdensburg │ 2│2.00–2.50│ 2│ 2.50│ │ 4.00
Philadelphia │ 80│2.50 9–10│ │ │ 229│5.50 9–10
│ │ hrs.│ │ │ │ hrs.
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Providence │ 5│ │ │ │ 47│ 3.00 9
│ │ │ │ │ │ hrs.
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Rochester │ 20–25│ 2.00│ │ │ 15–18│ 4.80
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Rensselaer │ 2│ │ 3│ 2.00│ 7│
Reading │ │ │ │ │ │
Richmond │ 6│ 2.62½ 9│ 3│ 2.75 9│ │
│ │ hrs.│ │ hrs.│ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
St. Louis │ 50│75.00 Mo.│ │ │ 177│ 4.00
San Francisco│ 22│ 3.50│ 3│ 3.75│ 67│ 6.50
Salt Lake │ 4│ 3.20│ 1│ 4.00│ 20│ 4.50
City │ │ │ │ │ │
Springfield │ 1│ 4.00│ │ │ 16│ 5.60
Seattle │ 20│ 90.00–│ │ 3.00│ City│
│ │ 115.00│ │ │ teams.│
│ │ Mo.│ │ │ │
Scranton │ │ │ │ │ │
Troy │ 2│ 2.00│ 3│ 3.00│ 8│ 3.46
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Utica │ 7│ │ 130│ │ 27│
Washington │ 19│720–1,300│ │ │ 70│
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
─────────────┴──────────┴─────────┴─────────┴─────────┴───────┴─────────
──────────────────────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────
FORCE │ METHODS OF CLEANING USED
─────────────┬─────────┬─────┬────────┼───────────────────────────────
City │Number of│Wage │ All │ Sweeping
│Unskilled│ and │ Others │
│Employees│Hours│Employed│
│ │Daily│ │
│ │ │ │
├─────────┼─────┼────────┼────────────────┬──────────────
│ │ │ │ Machine │ Hand
─────────────┼─────────┼─────┼────────┼────────────────┼──────────────
Buffalo │ 139│$2.00│ │Sheet asphalt, │Sheet asphalt,
│ │ │ │ rough block, │ rough block,
│ │ │ │ brick, cobble,│ brick,
│ │ │ │ asphalt, │ concrete,
│ │ │ │ block, │ bitulithic,
│ │ │ │ bituminous. │ asphaltic
│ │ │ │ │ concrete,
│ │ │ │ │ macadam,
│ │ │ │ │ cobble,
│ │ │ │ │ asphalt
│ │ │ │ │ block and
│ │ │ │ │ bituminous.
Beacon │ 3│ 1.75│ │ │
Binghamton │ 18│ 2.00│ │Brick, concrete,│Brick,
│ │ │ │ bitulithic. │ concrete,
│ │ │ │ │ bitulithic,
│ │ │ │ │ macadam.
Cincinnati │ 261│2.25–│ 6│Macadam and │Macadam and
│ │ 2.75│ │ cobble. │ cobble.
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Cambridge │ 40│ 2.50│ │Smooth pavements│Smooth
│ │ │ │ frequently. │ pavements
│ │ │ │ │ frequently.
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Chicago │ 1,800│ 2.35│ │None. │All.
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Camden │ 20│ │ │Yes. │Yes.
Columbus │ │ │ │Yes. │Yes.
Cleveland │ │ │ │ │Yes.
Cortland │ 4│ 1.75│ │ │Yes.
│ │ │ │ │
Dunkirk │ │ │ │Brick, asphalt │
│ │ │ │ and concrete. │
Denver │ 70│ 2.50│ │ │
Elmira │ 12│ 1.75│ │ │Asphalt and
│ │ │ │ │ brick.
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Fall River │ 57│ 2.40│ │Yes. │Rough block.
Grand Rapids │ │ │ │ │
Hudson │ │ │ │ │Brick and
│ │ │ │ │ macadam.
Jamestown │ 8│ 2.00│ │Brick, wood │
│ │ │ │ block, │
│ │ │ │ bitulithic │
│ │ │ │ asphalt block,│
│ │ │ │ bituminous. │
Kansas City │ 225│ 2.25│ 18│ │All.
Kingston │ │ │ │ │Yes.
Los Angeles │ 333│ 2.50│ │ │All.
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Louisville │ │ 1.75│ │Yes. │Yes.
│ │ │ │ │
Lowell │ │ 2.25│ │Smooth block. │Sheet asphalt,
│ │ │ │ │ brick, wood
│ │ │ │ │ block,
│ │ │ │ │ concrete,
│ │ │ │ │ bitulithic,
│ │ │ │ │ macadam,
│ │ │ │ │ smooth
│ │ │ │ │ block,
│ │ │ │ │ bituminous.
Lynn │ 26│ 2.50│ │ │All.
Lackawanna │ 35│ 1.85│ 3│Brick and │
│ │ │ │ macadam. │
Little Falls │ 7│ 1.75│ │ │All.
Milwaukee │ │ 2.00│ │Sheet asphalt, │Same as
│ │ │ │ brick, │ machine.
│ │ │ │ concrete, │
│ │ │ │ bitulithic, │
│ │ │ │ asphaltic │
│ │ │ │ concrete, │
│ │ │ │ macadam. │
Middletown │ 4│ 2.00│ │ │Yes.
Mechanicville│ 55│ 1.60│ 2│ │Concrete,
│ │ │ │ │ brick,
│ │ │ │ │ bituminous.
New York City│ │ 2.50│ │Sheet asphalt, │Same as
│ │ │ │ rough block, │ machine.
│ │ │ │ brick, wood │
│ │ │ │ block, smooth │
│ │ │ │ block, cobble,│
│ │ │ │ asphalt block,│
│ │ │ │ bituminous, │
│ │ │ │ iron slag. │
New Orleans │ 340│ 2.00│ │None. │Sheet asphalt,
│ │ │ │ │ wood block,
│ │ │ │ │ concrete,
│ │ │ │ │ bitulithic.
│ │ │ │ │
New Bedford │ 65│ 2.25│ │Sheet asphalt. │Sheet asphalt,
│ │ │ │ │ rough block,
│ │ │ │ │ brick, wood
│ │ │ │ │ block.
Newark │ 300│10.00│ │ │All.
│ │ Wk.│ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Norwich │ 4–6│ 1.60│ │Yes. │No.
New Rochelle │ │ │ │ │All.
Niagara Falls│ 50│ 2.00│ │Yes. │Yes.
Newburgh │ 18│ 2.00│ │ │Yes.
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Oakland │ 37│ 2.50│ [13] │Sheet asphalt, │Sheet asphalt,
│ │ │ │ brick, wood │ macadam,
│ │ │ │ block, │ smooth
│ │ │ │ asphaltic │ block,
│ │ │ │ concrete, │ bituminous.
│ │ │ │ smooth block. │
Oswego │ │1.60–│ │Sheet asphalt, │Sheet asphalt,
│ │ 2.00│ │ rough block, │ wood block,
│ │ │ │ brick, wood │ macadam,
│ │ │ │ block. │ bituminous.
Ogdensburg │ │ 1.75│ │Yes. │Yes.
Philadelphia │ 1,020–│ 1.75│ │Sheet asphalt, │Bitulithic,
│ 1,140│ 9–10│ │ rough block, │ asphaltic
│ │ hrs.│ │ brick, smooth │ concrete,
│ │ │ │ block, cobble,│ macadam,
│ │ │ │ asphaltic │ bituminous.
│ │ │ │ block, │
│ │ │ │ miscellaneous.│
Providence │ 200│ 2.00│ │Rough block. │Sheet asphalt,
│ │ 9│ │ │ brick, wood
│ │ hrs.│ │ │ block,
│ │ │ │ │ bitulithic,
│ │ │ │ │ macadam,
│ │ │ │ │ smooth
│ │ │ │ │ block,
│ │ │ │ │ bituminous.
Rochester │ 400│1.75–│ │Rough block, │Sheet asphalt,
│ │ 2.00│ │ brick, cobble.│ rough block,
│ │ │ │ │ brick, wood
│ │ │ │ │ block,
│ │ │ │ │ bitulithic,
│ │ │ │ │ macadam,
│ │ │ │ │ cobble,
│ │ │ │ │ bituminous.
Rensselaer │ │ │ │Yes. │
Reading │ │ │ │ │
Richmond │ 180│ 2.25│ 3│ │
│ │ 9│ │ │
│ │ hrs.│ │ │
St. Louis │ 675│ 1.50│ 12│ │
San Francisco│ 163│ 3.00│ 12│Yes. │Yes.
Salt Lake │ 24│ 2.25│ 70│Yes. │
City │ │ │ │ │
Springfield │ 105│ 2.40│ │Yes. │Yes.
Seattle │ │ 3.00│ │Plank roads. │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Scranton │ │ │ │Yes. │Yes.
Troy │ 2│ 2.00│ │Rough block, │
│ │ │ │ brick, │
│ │ │ │ macadam. │
Utica │ │ │ │Yes. │Yes.
Washington │ 406│1.50–│ 11│All except dirt.│All.
│ │ 2.50│ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
─────────────┴─────────┴─────┴────────┴────────────────┴──────────────
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
METHODS OF CLEANING USED
─────────────┬──────────────────────────────┬──────────────
City │ Flushing │ Squeegeeing
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
├──────────────┬───────────────┤
│ Hose │ Machine │
─────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────
Buffalo │Asphalt, rough│No. │No.
│ block, │ │
│ brick. │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Beacon │ │ │
Binghamton │ │Brick, │
│ │ concrete, │
│ │ bitulithic. │
│ │ │
Cincinnati │ │Sheet, rough │
│ │ block, brick,│
│ │ wood block, │
│ │ bitulithic, │
│ │ bituminous. │
Cambridge │ │Smooth │
│ │ pavements │
│ │ occasionally │
│ │ during │
│ │ summer. │
Chicago │None except │Sheet asphalt, │Sheet asphalt.
│ sidewalks. │ brick, wood │
│ │ block, │
│ │ concrete, │
│ │ smooth block.│
Camden │ │Yes. │
Columbus │ │Yes. │
Cleveland │ │Yes. │
Cortland │ │ │
│ │ │
Dunkirk │ │ │
│ │ │
Denver │ │ │
Elmira │ │Asphalt, rough │
│ │ block, brick │
│ │ and wood │
│ │ block. │
Fall River │ │ │
Grand Rapids │ │Yes. │
Hudson │ │ │
│ │ │
Jamestown │ │Yes. │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Kansas City │All. │All. │
Kingston │ │Yes. │
Los Angeles │All hills. │All except │
│ │ hills. │
│ │ │
Louisville │Yes. │Yes. │Yes.
│ │ │
Lowell │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Lynn │ │ │
Lackawanna │ │Brick and │
│ │ Macadam. │
Little Falls │ │ │
Milwaukee │None. │Sheet asphalt, │Sheet asphalt,
│ │ rough block, │ bitulithic,
│ │ wood block. │ asphaltic
│ │ │ concrete.
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Middletown │ │Yes. │
Mechanicville│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
New York City│Same as │Same as │Sheet asphalt,
│ sweeping. │ sweeping │ wood block,
│ │ except │ smooth
│ │ cobble. │ block,
│ │ │ asphalt
│ │ │ block.
│ │ │
│ │ │
New Orleans │Rough block, │Sheet asphalt, │None.
│ cobble. │ brick, wood │
│ │ block, │
│ │ concrete, │
│ │ bitulithic. │
New Bedford │ │Same as hand │
│ │ sweeping. │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Newark │ │Will start │
│ │ soon. │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Norwich │Yes. │No. │No.
New Rochelle │ │ │
Niagara Falls│ │Yes. │
Newburgh │Yes. │Yes. │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Oakland │ │Sheet asphalt │
│ │ occasionally.│
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Oswego │ │Sheet asphalt, │
│ │ rough block, │
│ │ brick. │
│ │ │
Ogdensburg │Yes. │Yes. │No.
Philadelphia │Concrete. │Rough block, │Sheet asphalt,
│ │ brick, smooth│ wood block.
│ │ block. │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Providence │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Rochester │Sheet asphalt,│Same as hose. │None.
│ rough block,│ │
│ brick, │ │
│ bitulithic, │ │
│ bituminous. │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Rensselaer │ │ │
Reading │ │Yes. │
Richmond │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
St. Louis │ │ │
San Francisco│ │Yes. │Yes.
Salt Lake │ │Yes. │
City │ │ │
Springfield │ │ │Yes.
Seattle │ │All except │No.
│ │ plank roads. │
│ │ │
Scranton │ │Yes. │
Troy │ │Sheet asphalt, │
│ │ bitulithic, │
│ │ smooth block.│
Utica │ │Yes. │
Washington │None. │Rough, smooth │Sheet asphalt,
│ │ and asphalt │ brick,
│ │ block, brick,│ asphaltic
│ │ cobble. │ concrete,
│ │ │ smooth and
│ │ │ asphalt
│ │ │ block.
─────────────┴──────────────┴───────────────┴──────────────
Table I (f)
STREET CLEANING IN AMERICAN CITIES (Continued)
─────────────┬─────────────┬───────────────┬─────────────
City │ Number of │ Which Are │Total Square
│ Appliances │ Giving │Yards Cleaned
│ Used │ Satisfaction │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
─────────────┼─────────────┼───────────────┼─────────────
Buffalo │37 horse │All. │
│ sweepers, │ │
│ 10 horse │ │
│ sprinklers.│ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Beacon │ │ │
Binghamton │1 horse drawn│ │
│ flusher, 4 │ │
│ horse drawn│ │
│ rotary │ │
│ brooms. │ │
Cincinnati │6 horse │ │
│ scrapers, │ │
│ 40 horse │ │
│ flushers. │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Cambridge │8 horse │ │
│ sweepers, 1│ │
│ horse │ │
│ squeegee, 4│ │
│ horse │ │
│ sprinklers,│ │
│ 2 horse │ │
│ oilers. │ │
Chicago │1 horse │All │
│ sweeper, 2 │ satisfactory.│
│ horse │ │
│ squeegees, │ │
│ 75 horse │ │
│ flushers, 3│ │
│ power │ │
│ flushers, │ │
│ 35 horse │ │
│ oilers. │ │
│ │ │
Camden │ │ │
Columbus │8 flushers, │ │
│ 16 │ │
│ sprinklers,│ │
│ 11 horse │ │
│ sweepers, │ │
│ railway │ │
│ flusher. │ │
Cleveland │Street car │ │
│ flusher in │ │
│ addition to│ │
│ other │ │
│ equipment. │ │
Cortland │2 horse │ │
│ sprinklers,│ │
│ 1 horse │ │
│ oiler. │ │
Dunkirk │Motor and │ │
│ horse │ │
│ sweepers. │ │
Denver │12 horse │ │
│ sweepers, 3│ │
│ horse │ │
│ sprinklers,│ │
│ 8 horse │ │
│ flushers, 8│ │
│ pick-up │ │
│ sweepers. │ │
Elmira │1 horse │ │Sheet asphalt
│ sprinkler, │ │ 104,649,
│ 1 horse │ │ rough block
│ flusher, 3 │ │ 28,101,
│ horse │ │ brick
│ sweepers │ │ 295,159,
│ held in │ │ wood block
│ reserve. │ │ 1,530.
Fall River │4 horse │ │
│ sweepers, 1│ │
│ horse │ │
│ sprinkler, │ │
│ 4 horse │ │
│ road │ │
│ oilers. │ │
Grand Rapids │2 horse │ │
│ flushers, │ │
│ 31 horse │ │
│ sprinklers.│ │
Hudson │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Jamestown │2 power │All except │
│ sweepers, 1│ horse │
│ horse │ flusher. │
│ flusher. │ │
Kansas City │4 machine │ │Sheet
│ sweepers, │ │ asphalt,
│ 31 horse │ │ 4,913,158,
│ flushers. │ │ rough block
│ │ │ 145,204,
│ │ │ brick
│ │ │ 859,982,
│ │ │ wood block
│ │ │ 161,545,
│ │ │ concrete
│ │ │ 1,246,367,
│ │ │ bitulithic
│ │ │ 14,639,
│ │ │ macadam
│ │ │ 1,074,579,
│ │ │ Imperial
│ │ │ 11,288.
Kingston │1 horse │ │Brick
│ flusher, 2 │ │ 730,666.
│ horse │ │
│ oilers. │ │
Los Angeles │31 horse and │ │
│ 5 power │ │
│ flushers, │ │
│ 40 to 100 │ │
│ horse │ │
│ sprinklers.│ │
Louisville │16 flushers, │ │
│ 2 │ │
│ squeegees. │ │
Lowell │2 horse │ │
│ sweepers, 6│ │
│ horse │ │
│ sprinklers,│ │
│ 2 power │ │
│ sprinklers,│ │
│ one power │ │
│ road oiler.│ │
Lynn │2 horse │ │
│ sweepers, 2│ │
│ horse │ │
│ sprinklers,│ │
│ 1 pick-up │ │
│ sweeper, 1 │ │
│ power road │ │
│ oiler. │ │
Lackawanna │1 horse │ │Brick 5.5 mi.
│ sweeper, 3 │ │ Macadam 14
│ horse │ │ mi.
│ sprinklers,│ │
│ 1 horse │ │
│ flusher, │ │
│ one horse │ │
│ oiler. │ │
Little Falls │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Milwaukee │8 horse │All │Asphalt
│ sweepers, │ satisfactory.│ 1,600,170,
│ 10 horse │ │ brick
│ squeegees, │ │ 674,008,
│ 2 power │ │ macadam
│ squeegees, │ │ 4,742,044,
│ 120 horse │ │ granite
│ sprinklers,│ │ 236,555,
│ 16 horse │ │ creosote
│ flushers, │ │ 73,953,
│ 10 horse │ │ cedar
│ oilers, 2 │ │ 27,522,
│ pick-up │ │ Mulleni mix
│ sweepers. │ │ 418,756,
│ │ │ limestone
│ │ │ 34,517,
│ │ │ sandstone
│ │ │ 168,321.
Middletown │2 horse │Flushers. │Brick 88,235.
│ sprinklers,│ │
│ one horse │ │
│ flusher, 1 │ │
│ road oiler,│ │
│ 1 pick-up │ │
│ sweeper. │ │
Mechanicville│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
New York City│148 horse │ │28,420,785
│ sweepers, │ │
│ 28 horse │ │
│ squeegees, │ │
│ 121 horse │ │
│ sprinklers,│ │
│ 4 horse │ │
│ flushers. │ │
New Orleans │18 horse │Flushers. │Flushers
│ sprinklers,│ │ cover
│ 32 horse │ │ 42,000 Sq.
│ flushers. │ │ Yds. daily
│ │ │ or all
│ │ │ paved
│ │ │ streets of
│ │ │ smooth
│ │ │ surface.
New Bedford │4 horse │All except │Sheet asphalt
│ sweepers, 1│ pick-up │ and
│ pick-up │ sweeper. │ bitulithic
│ sweeper. │ │ 141,098.22,
│ │ │ rough block
│ │ │ 98,843.03.
Newark │27 horse │ │
│ sweepers, 8│ │
│ horse │ │
│ flushers. │ │
Norwich │1 horse │Sweeper not │Brick 50,000,
│ sweeper, 4 │ satisfactory.│ bitulithic
│ horse │ │ 15,000,
│ sprinklers.│ │ bituminous
│ │ │ 35,000.
New Rochelle │1 horse │ │1,290,632
│ sprinkler, │ │
│ 2 horse │ │
│ oilers. │ │
Niagara Falls│4 horse │ │900,000
│ sweepers, 1│ │
│ horse │ │
│ sprinkler, │ │
│ 2 horse │ │
│ flushers. │ │
Newburgh │1 horse │ │
│ sweeper │ │
│ rarely │ │
│ used, 1 │ │
│ power │ │
│ flusher, 1 │ │
│ horse │ │
│ oiler. │ │
Oakland │2 rotary │Suction sweeper│Sheet asphalt
│ power │ doing │ 344,116,
│ sweepers, 2│ excellent │ brick
│ horse │ work but too │ 4,200, wood
│ flushers, 1│ expensive. │ block
│ power │ │ 12,000,
│ suction │ │ asphaltic
│ sweeper. │ │ concrete
│ │ │ 4,800,
│ │ │ macadam
│ │ │ 3,733,000,
│ │ │ smooth
│ │ │ block
│ │ │ 4,500,
│ │ │ bituminous
│ │ │ 3,600,000.
Oswego │1 horse │ │Sheet asphalt
│ flusher, 1 │ │ 53,059,
│ pick-up │ │ rough block
│ sweeper. │ │ 6,578,
│ │ │ brick
│ │ │ 111,638,
│ │ │ wood block
│ │ │ 3,555.
Ogdensburg │1 horse │ │
│ sweeper, │ │
│ one horse │ │
│ flusher, 1 │ │
│ horse │ │
│ sprinkler. │ │
Philadelphia │77 horse │All │Sheet asphalt
│ sweepers, │ satisfactory.│ 7,722,806,
│ 28 horse │ │ rough block
│ squeegees, │ │ 62,380,
│ 51 horse │ │ brick
│ sprinklers │ │ 2,615,102,
│ all year │ │ wood block
│ and 28 │ │ 218,057
│ extra in │ │ concrete,
│ summer. 7 │ │ 750,139,
│ power │ │ macadam,
│ flushers. │ │ bitulithic
│ │ │ and
│ │ │ asphaltic
│ │ │ concrete
│ │ │ 2,850,404,
│ │ │ smooth
│ │ │ block,
│ │ │ 6,534,737,
│ │ │ cobble
│ │ │ 57,752,
│ │ │ asphalt
│ │ │ block
│ │ │ 69,950,
│ │ │ bituminous
│ │ │ 984,813,
│ │ │ slag block
│ │ │ 54,242.
Providence │3 horse │ │Sheet asphalt
│ sweepers, │ │ 168,604.6,
│ one horse │ │ brick
│ sprinkler, │ │ 6,734.8,
│ 2 horse │ │ wood block
│ oilers, 1 │ │ 72,576.5,
│ power │ │ bitulithic
│ oiler. │ │ 172,901.9,
│ │ │ macadam
│ │ │ 3,243,386,
│ │ │ granite
│ │ │ block
│ │ │ 691,342.9,
│ │ │ cobble
│ │ │ 47,669.2,
│ │ │ bituminous
│ │ │ 101,764.
Rochester │9 horse │ │
│ sweepers, │ │
│ 40 horse │ │
│ sprinklers,│ │
│ 4 horse │ │
│ flushers. │ │
Rensselaer │2 horse │ │
│ sweepers, 1│ │
│ horse │ │
│ sprinkler. │ │
Reading │ │ │
Richmond │6 rotary │ │
│ machine │ │
│ sweepers, 1│ │
│ power │ │
│ rotary │ │
│ machine │ │
│ sweeper, 3 │ │
│ horse │ │
│ sprinklers,│ │
│ 3 horse │ │
│ flushers, 1│ │
│ pick-up │ │
│ sweeper. │ │
St. Louis │11 horse │ │Rough block
│ sweepers, 4│ │ 1,615,428,
│ horse │ │ brick
│ squeegee │ │ 4,390,336,
│ machines, │ │ wood block
│ 10 horse │ │ 383,590,
│ sprinklers,│ │ bitulithic
│ 4 horse │ │ 1,170,528,
│ road │ │ asphalt
│ oilers, 2 │ │ block
│ power road │ │ 1,867,340.
│ oilers. │ │
San Francisco│9 horse │ │
│ sweepers, 3│ │
│ horse │ │
│ squeegees, │ │
│ 3 horse │ │
│ sprinklers,│ │
│ 15 │ │
│ combination│ │
│ sprinklers │ │
│ and │ │
│ flushers, 1│ │
│ auto │ │
│ flusher, 3 │ │
│ 20th │ │
│ century │ │
│ sweepers. │ │
Salt Lake │15 horse │ │
City │ flushers. │ │
Springfield │6 horse │ │
│ sweepers, 2│ │
│ horse │ │
│ squeegees, │ │
│ 14 horse │ │
│ sprinklers,│ │
│ 2 power │ │
│ oilers, 1 │ │
│ horse and 1│ │
│ hand pick- │ │
│ up sweeper.│ │
Seattle │All except │ │
│ squeegee. │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Scranton │Street car │ │
│ flusher │ │
│ owned by │ │
│ company, │ │
│ city │ │
│ furnishes 2│ │
│ men to │ │
│ operate it—│ │
│ auto │ │
│ flusher. │ │
Troy │6 horse │ │Sheet asphalt
│ sweepers, 2│ │ 119,347,
│ horse │ │ rough block
│ sprinklers,│ │ 399,143,
│ 2 power │ │ brick
│ flushers. │ │ 327,969,
│ │ │ bitulithic
│ │ │ 12,389,
│ │ │ macadam
│ │ │ 53,543,
│ │ │ smooth
│ │ │ block
│ │ │ 58,641.
Utica │9 horse │ │
│ sweepers, 3│ │
│ horse │ │
│ sprinklers,│ │
│ 2 power │ │
│ sprinklers,│ │
│ 1 horse │ │
│ flusher, 2 │ │
│ power │ │
│ flushers. │ │
Washington │9 horse │ │
│ sweepers, │ │
│ 13 horse │ │
│ squeegees, │ │
│ 12 horse │ │
│ sprinklers,│ │
│ 3 horse │ │
│ flushers, 5│ │
│ horse │ │
│ oilers, 7 │ │
│ alley │ │
│ sweepers, 3│ │
│ alley │ │
│ sprinklers.│ │
─────────────┴─────────────┴───────────────┴─────────────
─────────────┬──────────────────────┬───────────┬──────────
City │Times Cleaned per Week│ Area │ Work in
│ │Cleaned by │ Gangs or
│ │White Wings│ Singly
│ │ During 8 │
│ │ Hours │
├─────────┬────────────┤ │
│ Winter │ Summer │ │
─────────────┼─────────┼────────────┼───────────┼──────────
Buffalo │ │ │8,000 Sq. │Singly.
│ │ │ Yds. │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Beacon │ │ │ │
Binghamton │ │6 │9,275 Sq. │Singly.
│ │ │ Yds. │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Cincinnati │ │ │8,661 Sq. │Singly.
│ │ │ Yds. │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Cambridge │ │ │ │Singly.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Chicago │ │ │17,000 Sq. │Singly.
│ │ │ Yds. │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Camden │ │ │ │
Columbus │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Cleveland │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Cortland │ │ │ │Singly.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Dunkirk │ │6 │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Denver │ │ │ │Singly.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Elmira │ │1–6 │ │Both.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Fall River │ │ │ │Singly.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Grand Rapids │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Hudson │ │Brick once, │ │
│ │ macadam, 4│ │
│ │ times a │ │
│ │ year. │ │
Jamestown │ │ │ │Singly.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Kansas City │ │ │10 to 15 │Gangs.
│ │ │ blocks. │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Kingston │ │ │ │Singly.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Los Angeles │ │ │ │Singly.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Louisville │ │ │No White │Gangs.
│ │ │ Wings. │
│ │ │ │
Lowell │ │ │6,000 Sq. │Singly.
│ │ │ Yds. │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Lynn │ │ │ │Singly.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Lackawanna │ │2 │ │Gang.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Little Falls │ │ │ │Singly.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Milwaukee │ │ │5,000 to │Singly.
│ │ │ 25,000 │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Middletown │ │ │ │Gangs.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Mechanicville│ │ │ │Singly.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
New York City│19 │19 │9,000 Sq. │Both.
│ │ │ Yds. │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
New Orleans │ │ │ │Gangs.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
New Bedford │ │ │ │Singly.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Newark │ │ │ │Gangs.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Norwich │ │1–2 │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
New Rochelle │ │6 │ │Singly.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Niagara Falls│ │ │8,000 Sq. │Singly.
│ │ │ Yds. │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Newburgh │ │ │ │Singly.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Oakland │Same as │Sheet │ │Singly.
│ summer.│ asphalt, │ │
│ │ 2–6, brick│ │
│ │ 3, wood │ │
│ │ block 6, │ │
│ │ asphaltic │ │
│ │ concrete │ │
│ │ 2–6, │ │
│ │ smooth │ │
│ │ block 3–6,│ │
│ │ macadam │ │
│ │ and │ │
│ │ bituminous│ │
│ │ 1 to 4 │ │
│ │ times a │ │
│ │ year. │ │
Oswego │ │Sheet │ │Gangs.
│ │ asphalt 2–│ │
│ │ 4, rough │ │
│ │ block and │ │
│ │ brick the │ │
│ │ same, wood│ │
│ │ block 6. │ │
│ │ │ │
Ogdensburg │ │ │3,000 Sq. │Singly.
│ │ │ Yds. │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Philadelphia │ │Sheet │4,000 in │Gangs on
│ │ asphalt, │ business,│ macadam,
│ │ rough │ 18,000 in│ singly
│ │ block, │ outlying.│ on
│ │ brick, │ │ others.
│ │ smooth and│ │
│ │ asphalt │ │
│ │ block 2–6,│ │
│ │ wood and │ │
│ │ slag block│ │
│ │ and cobble│ │
│ │ 3–6, │ │
│ │ concrete │ │
│ │ 1–6, │ │
│ │ macadam │ │
│ │ and │ │
│ │ bituminous│ │
│ │ 1. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Providence │ │ │3,500 to │Singly.
│ │ │ 16,000 │
│ │ │ Sq. Yds. │
│ │ │ 9 hrs. │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Rochester │ │ │ │Both.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Rensselaer │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Reading │ │ │ │
Richmond │ │ │ │In alleys.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
St. Louis │ │ │2,400–4,800│Singly.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
San Francisco│ │ │9,000 Sq. │Blockmen
│ │ │ Yds. │ singly.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Salt Lake │ │ │1½ blocks. │
City │ │ │ │
Springfield │ │ │Singly. │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Seattle │ │ │ │Singly.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Scranton │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Troy │ │Asphalt 6, │ │
│ │ rough │ │
│ │ block, │ │
│ │ brick and │ │
│ │ macadam 2,│ │
│ │ bitulithic│ │
│ │ and smooth│ │
│ │ block 6. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Utica │ │ │½ Sq. Mi. │Singly.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Washington │ │ │ │Singly and
│ │ │ │ in
│ │ │ │ pairs.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
─────────────┴─────────┴────────────┴───────────┴──────────
─────────────┬────────────┬─────────────┬─────────────────┬─────────────
City │Where and in│Equipment of │ How are │ Standard
│ What are │ White Wings │ Assignments of │ Day’s Work
│ Cleanings │ │ White Wings │for Cleaning
│ Stored by │ │ Determined? │Each Class of
│White Wings │ │ │Pavement[14]
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
─────────────┼────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────
Buffalo │Barrels or │Broom, │ │Heavy traffic
│ tubs. │ shovel, │ │ 5,000 Sq.
│ │ scraper │ │ Yds., Light
│ │ cart. │ │ traffic
│ │ │ │ 12,000 Sq.
│ │ │ │ Yds., rough
│ │ │ │ pavement
│ │ │ │ 6,000 Sq.
│ │ │ │ Yds., good
│ │ │ │ pavement
│ │ │ │ 12,000 Sq.
│ │ │ │ Yds.
Beacon │ │ │ │
Binghamton │Bags. │Cart, broom, │ │
│ │ scraper, │ │
│ │ shovel, 3 │ │
│ │ bags. │ │
│ │ │ │
Cincinnati │Cans. │Cart, long │Traffic, │Flushing,
│ │ and short │ condition and │ 35,550 Sq.
│ │ handled │ kind of street.│ Yds.
│ │ broom, │ │ gutters
│ │ scraper. │ │ after
│ │ │ │ flushing
│ │ │ │ 6,000 to
│ │ │ │ 8,000
│ │ │ │ lineal ft.,
│ │ │ │ brooming
│ │ │ │ 5,330 to
│ │ │ │ 7,100 Sq.
│ │ │ │ Yds.
Cambridge │Gutters. │Can, shovel, │As needed. │None.
│ │ cart and │ │
│ │ broom. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Chicago │Metal boxes │Broom, │ │Asphalt
│ 4 Cu. Ft. │ shovel, │ │ 21,500 Sq.
│ │ scraper │ │ Yds., Brick
│ │ cart. │ │ 13,400 Sq.
│ │ │ │ Yds.,
│ │ │ │ Granite
│ │ │ │ 13,400 Sq.
│ │ │ │ Yds.,
│ │ │ │ Macadam
│ │ │ │ 21,500 Sq.
│ │ │ │ Yds.
Camden │ │ │ │
Columbus │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Cleveland │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Cortland │Gutter. │Scraper and │By traffic. │Each man has
│ │ broom. │ │ definite
│ │ │ │ area to
│ │ │ │ clean.
Dunkirk │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Denver │Alley boxes.│Cart, shovel,│Teams travel 3 │None.
│ │ broom │ miles an hour, │
│ │ scraper. │ routes cover 22│
│ │ │ to 23 miles, │
│ │ │ allowing for │
│ │ │ filling and │
│ │ │ oiling. │
│ │ │ │
Elmira │Cans. │Broom, shovel│By traffic. │None.
│ │ and hand │ │
│ │ cart. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Fall River │Cans. │Broom and │By street │None.
│ │ cart. │ superintendent.│
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Grand Rapids │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Hudson │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Jamestown │Bags in │ │ │
│ alleys. │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Kansas City │Gutters. │Cart, broom, │By district │None.
│ │ shovel. │ superintendent.│
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Kingston │Cans. │Can carrier │ │
│ │ and push │ │
│ │ broom. │ │
│ │ │ │
Los Angeles │Gutters and │Brooms and │Area, amount in │Controlled by
│ side │ scrapers. │ nature of │ local
│ streets. │ │ traffic and │ conditions.
│ │ │ street. │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Louisville │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Lowell │Gutters. │Push and hand│ │
│ │ brooms and │ │
│ │ hand pan. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Lynn │Gutters. │Broom, cart, │By foremen. │
│ │ shovel. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Lackawanna │Gutter. │Push brooms. │ │Yes.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Little Falls │Cans at │Broom, cart │By condition of │Each man has
│ Corners. │ with dust- │ pavement and │ definite
│ │ pan. │ traffic. │ area to
│ │ │ │ clean.
Milwaukee │Receptacles.│Pan scraper │According to │
│ │ and broom. │ traffic. │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Middletown │ │Broom, │ │
│ │ shovel. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Mechanicville│Vacant lots.│Cart, broom │ │Each man has
│ │ and shovel.│ │ definite
│ │ │ │ area to
│ │ │ │ cover.
New York City│Cans. │Can carrier, │Population, │
│ │ 5 cans, │ traffic, │
│ │ scraper, │ character of │
│ │ broom, │ buildings and │
│ │ shovel. │ pavements. │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
New Orleans │Gutters. │Shovel and │By foremen. │None.
│ │ hand │ │
│ │ brooms. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
New Bedford │Gutters. │Cart and │ │None.
│ │ broom. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Newark │Gutters. │Broom, hoe │ │None.
│ │ and scoop. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Norwich │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
New Rochelle │Cans. │Can, cart, │ │None.
│ │ broom and │ │
│ │ scraper. │ │
│ │ │ │
Niagara Falls│Cans. │Scraper, │ │Each man has
│ │ cart, │ │ definite
│ │ broom. │ │ area to
│ │ │ │ clean.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Newburgh │Gutters. │Wheelbarrow, │Age of sweeper │None.
│ │ broom, │ and traffic. │
│ │ shovel. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Oakland │Cans at │Hand scoop │Area and traffic.│8,000 Sq.
│ curb. │ and broom │ │ Yds. upward
│ │ with │ │ according
│ │ scraper. │ │ to horse
│ │ │ │ traffic.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Oswego │Cans and │Scraper and │ │Each man has
│ gutters. │ broom. │ │ definite
│ │ │ │ area to
│ │ │ │ cover.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Ogdensburg │Barrels in │Cart, shovel │ │Each man has
│ alleys. │ and broom. │ │ definite
│ │ │ │ area to
│ │ │ │ clean.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Philadelphia │Cans and │Bag carrier, │Number of │Machine broom
│ bags. │ bags, │ cleanings, │ 90,000 Sq.
│ │ broom, │ traffic and │ Yds., auto
│ │ watering │ population │ flusher
│ │ pan, │ density. │ 90,000,
│ │ scraper, │ │ squeegee
│ │ plug │ │ 80,000.
│ │ wrench. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Providence │Gutters and │Pan, broom, │Fitness for │Yes.
│ cans at │ shovel, │ condition of │
│ curb. │ cart. │ area. │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Rochester │Barrel. │Cart, broom, │ │
│ │ scraper, │ │
│ │ barrel. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Rensselaer │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Reading │ │ │ │
Richmond │ │Push cart and│ │
│ │ broom. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
St. Louis │ │Push cart or │ │
│ │ roller │ │
│ │ scraper, │ │
│ │ hoe, broom,│ │
│ │ shovel. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
San Francisco│Cans at curb│Broom with │By │
│ have holes│ sweeper, │ superintendent.│
│ in top for│ pick-up │ │
│ depositing│ can, │ │
│ papers. │ cleaners │ │
│ │ with pan │ │
│ │ attached. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Salt Lake │Cans. │Push cart and│By foreman. │
City │ │ broom. │ │
Springfield │Cans. │Broom, │By foreman. │
│ │ scraper, │ │
│ │ cart, cans.│ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Seattle │Cans. │Broom, │Traffic │
│ │ scraper and│ conditions. │
│ │ two wheeled│ │
│ │ cart. │ │
Scranton │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Troy │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Utica │Cans. │Scraper, push│ │
│ │ and hand │ │
│ │ broom, can │ │
│ │ and shovel.│ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Washington │Sacks in │Bag carrier, │By foreman and │No.
│ alley. │ shovel, pan│ office │
│ │ scraper, │ planning. │
│ │ combination│ │
│ │ broom. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
─────────────┴────────────┴─────────────┴─────────────────┴─────────────
Table I (g)
STREET CLEANING IN AMERICAN CITIES (Continued)
─────────────┬──────────────────┬──────────────┬─────────────────
City │How is Efficiency │ System and │ Organization of
│ of Employees │ Method of │ Street Cleaning
│ Checked Up? │ Street │ Force
│ │ Cleaning │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
─────────────┼──────────────────┼──────────────┼─────────────────
Buffalo │Supervisor. │Residential, │
│ │ hand and │
│ │ machine │
│ │ sweeping; │
│ │ business, │
│ │ flushing and│
│ │ White Wings.│
Beacon │ │ │
Binghamton │ │Swept at │
│ │ night. │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Cincinnati │Foreman’s field │Residential, │Foremen, drivers,
│ reports. │ flushing │ helpers, broom-
│ │ followed by │ men and White
│ │ guttermen; │ Wings.
│ │ business, │
│ │ flushing │
│ │ followed by │
│ │ White Wings.│
│ │ Flushing at │
│ │ night except│
│ │ in winter. │
│ │ Streets not │
│ │ flushed are │
│ │ broomed by │
│ │ gangs. │
Cambridge │None. │Residential, │
│ │ swept twice │
│ │ year; │
│ │ business, │
│ │ once a week.│
Chicago │Supervision by │Residential, │
│ ward │ block │
│ superintendent │ system; each│
│ and section │ man has │
│ foreman. │ section to │
│ │ clean. │
│ │ Business the│
│ │ same. │
Camden │ │ │
Columbus │ │ │
Cleveland │ │ │
Cortland │Complaints of │ │
│ residents. │ │
Dunkirk │ │ │
Denver │Supervision. │Residential, │
│ │ sweepers; │
│ │ business, │
│ │ White Wings │
│ │ and │
│ │ flushers. │
Elmira │ │Residential, │
│ │ day flushing│
│ │ and gang │
│ │ picking; │
│ │ business, │
│ │ night │
│ │ flushing and│
│ │ day patrol. │
Fall River │None. │Daily patrol │
│ │ in business │
│ │ section; │
│ │ scrap │
│ │ gutters in │
│ │ residential │
│ │ twice a │
│ │ year. │
Grand Rapids │ │ │
Hudson │ │ │
Jamestown │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Kansas City │Monthly, grades by│Residence, │In gangs under
│ commissioner to │ winter, hand│ foreman and
│ civil. │ sweeping; │ district
│ │ summer, │ superintendent.
│ │ flushing. │
│ │ Business, │
│ │ service. │
│ │ flush at │
│ │ night. │
Kingston │ │ │
Los Angeles │Thorough │Patrol system.│Five foremen in 5
│ supervision. │ │ districts.
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Louisville │ │ │
Lowell │ │Residential, │Foreman, 8 men,
│ │ patrol; │ two teams in
│ │ business, │ residential.
│ │ patrol and │ Foreman, 8 men,
│ │ machine │ 2 teams,
│ │ sweeping. │ machine sweeper
│ │ │ and sprinkler.
Lynn │By foreman. │ │
Lackawanna │Foreman. │Sweeper, │One gang for each
│ │ sprinkler, │ ward.
│ │ push brooms.│
Little Falls │ │ │7 sweepers with
│ │ │ one street
│ │ │ superintendent.
Milwaukee │ │ │
Middletown │ │A section │
│ │ assigned to │
│ │ sweeper; │
│ │ flushed │
│ │ after hand │
│ │ sweeping. │
Mechanicville│None. │Hand sweeping.│One man on given
│ │ │ beat.
New York City│Officers. │Hand and │District
│ │ machine │ superintendent,
│ │ sweeping, │ section
│ │ hose and │ foreman,
│ │ machine │ assistant
│ │ flushing, │ section
│ │ squeegeeing,│ foreman,
│ │ litter │ sweepers,
│ │ picking. │ drivers.
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
New Orleans │ │Smooth │
│ │ surfaces │
│ │ flushed │
│ │ daily. Hand │
│ │ broom men │
│ │ follow │
│ │ flushers. │
│ │ Business │
│ │ section │
│ │ cleaned at │
│ │ night by │
│ │ flushers and│
│ │ hand │
│ │ cleaning. │
New Bedford │ │ │
Newark │ │Ten districts.│
│ │ Number of │
│ │ men assigned│
│ │ to each │
│ │ according to│
│ │ size of │
│ │ district. │
Norwich │None. │Sweep to │Sweeper team,
│ │ gutters, │ wagon team.
│ │ shovel into │
│ │ piles and │
│ │ then into │
│ │ wagons. │
New Rochelle │Supervision of │By hand broom.│
│ Commissioner and│ │
│ time keeper. │ │
Niagara Falls│By 2 deputy │Residential, │
│ superintendents.│ sweeping; │
│ │ business, │
│ │ flushing. │
Newburgh │ │ │
Oakland │Patrolmen visited │Small gangs on│Gangs of 6 to 8
│ once or twice │ macadam, │ men under sub-
│ daily by │ occasional │ foreman.
│ foreman; │ flushing │ Directed by
│ contract work │ after wet- │ district
│ inspected daily.│ weather. │ superintendent
│ │ Machine │ of streets on
│ │ sweeping and│ macadam. Patrol
│ │ patrol. │ and machine
│ │ │ sweeping.
Oswego │ │Pick-up │
│ │ sweeper, │
│ │ flushing and│
│ │ hand │
│ │ sweeping. │
Ogdensburg │By foremen. │Residential │
│ │ sprinkled │
│ │ and machine │
│ │ swept; │
│ │ business │
│ │ patrolled │
│ │ and flushed.│
Philadelphia │Inspectors │Blockmen │Machines followed
│ supervised by │ assigned to │ by gangs and
│ district │ sections by │ carts and
│ engineers. │ chief of │ wagons, number
│ │ bureau; │ depending on
│ │ patrol duty.│ length of haul
│ │ Inlets │ to dump, season
│ │ cleaned, │ of the year and
│ │ county roads│ traffic.
│ │ cleaned. │
Providence │Foreman’s daily │Residential, │Residential,
│ report of │ gangs; │ foreman, 17 men
│ neglect of duty.│ business, │ and 10 single
│ │ patrol. │ teams;
│ │ │ business,
│ │ │ patrol in
│ │ │ charge of
│ │ │ foreman.
Rochester │ │Residential, │
│ │ gang and │
│ │ patrol; │
│ │ business, │
│ │ patrol. │
Rensselaer │ │ │
Reading │ │ │
Richmond │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
St. Louis │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
San Francisco│Time cards, trip │ │Residential,
│ cards, │ │ gangs of
│ efficiency cards│ │ foremen, 3
│ as to │ │ laborers and 2
│ attendance, │ │ teams each.
│ sobriety and │ │ Business,
│ obedience. │ │ blockmen,
│ │ │ night-gangs of
│ │ │ 2 foremen, 9
│ │ │ laborers and 8
│ │ │ double teams.
Salt Lake │ │White Wings │
City │ │ and │
│ │ flushing. │
Springfield │Foreman calls on │Residential, │Individuals and
│ each man several│ crosswalk │ gangs.
│ times daily. │ sweepers, │
│ │ machine │
│ │ cleaning, │
│ │ gutter │
│ │ scraping. │
│ │ Business, │
│ │ squeegeeing,│
│ │ flushing, │
│ │ patrol. │
Seattle │Reports from │Residential, │Residential,
│ foremen and │ flushing, │ under sub-
│ district │ sweeping and│ foreman;
│ foremen. │ patrol; │ business, under
│ │ business, │ district
│ │ flushing and│ foreman.
│ │ patrol. │
Scranton │ │Business, hand│
│ │ and machine │
│ │ sweeping and│
│ │ flushing. │
│ │ Residential │
│ │ hand and │
│ │ machine │
│ │ sweeping. │
Troy │ │Smooth streets│
│ │ flushed, │
│ │ rough │
│ │ streets and │
│ │ brick, │
│ │ machine │
│ │ swept. │
│ │ Patrol. │
Utica │ │ │
Washington │Unit cost, │Residential, │Assistant
│ conditions, │ machine and │ superintendent,
│ observation. │ hand │ chief
│ │ cleaning, │ inspector,
│ │ squeegeeing,│ foremen,
│ │ flushing, │ working force.
│ │ oiling and │
│ │ sprinkling. │
│ │ Business, │
│ │ patrol, │
│ │ squeegeed or│
│ │ flushed. │
─────────────┴──────────────────┴──────────────┴─────────────────
─────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────────┬────────────────────
City │ Innovations │ How Are Machines │ Gallons Water Used
│ that Have │ Routed? │ per 1,000 Sq. Yds
│ Reduced Cost │ │ Cleaned
│ of Cleaning │ │
│ │ ├────────┬───────────
│ │ │Flushing│ Squeegee
│ │ │Machine │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
─────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────┼────────┼───────────
Buffalo │ │By districts. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Beacon │ │ │ │
Binghamton │Will clean │Usually in │ 500.│No horses.
│ between 11 │ batteries of │ │
│ P.M. and 7 │ three. │ │
│ A.M. when │ │ │
│ traffic is │ │ │
│ light and │ │ │
│ few autos │ │ │
│ are parked. │ │ │
Cincinnati │ │3 men to each │ 844.│Yes.
│ │ route. │ │ Private
│ │ │ │ contract.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Cambridge │No. │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Chicago │ │ │ 400.│65.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Camden │ │ │ │
Columbus │ │ │ │
Cleveland │ │ │ │
Cortland │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Dunkirk │ │ │ │
Denver │Sweep streets │According to │ │
│ before │ nature of dirt. │ │
│ flushing. │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Elmira │ │ │ │400. No.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Fall River │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Grand Rapids │ │ │ │
Hudson │ │ │ │
Jamestown │ │Two routes, north │ │
│ │ and south side │ │
│ │ of city. │ │
Kansas City │No. │Districts. │5,000,000 daily for
│ │ │ all flushing except
│ │ │ squeegeeing.
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Kingston │ │ │ │
Los Angeles │Routed all men│ │ 4,900.│Wagons.
│ or assigned │ │ │
│ to each │ │ │
│ route to │ │ │
│ increase │ │ │
│ from │ │ │
│ business │ │ │
│ center out. │ │ │
Louisville │ │ │ │
Lowell │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Lynn │No. │ │ │
Lackawanna │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Little Falls │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Milwaukee │ │ │ │
Middletown │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Mechanicville│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
New York City│Motorized a │Area and traffic │ │
│ section │ conditions. │ │
│ known as │ │ │
│ model │ │ │
│ district; │ │ │
│ systematized│ │ │
│ machine │ │ │
│ sweeping, │ │ │
│ squeegeeing │ │ │
│ and hose │ │ │
│ flushing │ │ │
│ covered │ │ │
│ parts. │ │ │
New Orleans │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
New Bedford │ │ │ │
Newark │Men held │ │ │
│ responsible │ │ │
│ for these │ │ │
│ districts. │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Norwich │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
New Rochelle │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Niagara Falls│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Newburgh │ │ │ │
Oakland │Readjusted │Swept 2,3,4 and 6 │ │
│ patrol │ times weekly. 2 │ │
│ routes; │ and 3 times │ │
│ substituted │ schedules │ │
│ hand patrol │ adjacent to 4 │ │
│ for suction │ and 6 times │ │
│ sweeper. │ schedules. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Oswego │ │By yardage. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Ogdensburg │Flushing. │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Philadelphia │Street │Batteries of 2 or │ 300.│250.
│ cleaning │ 3. │ │
│ parade │ │ │
│ annually. │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Providence │ │Divide into 6 │ │
│ │ sections. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Rochester │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Rensselaer │ │ │ │
Reading │ │ │ │
Richmond │Elgin machine │ │ │
│ sweeping in │ │ │
│ residential │ │ │
│ section. │ │ │
St. Louis │By scrubbing │ │ │
│ business │ │ │
│ districts │ │ │
│ streets │ │ │
│ nightly cost│ │ │
│ reduced 40¢.│ │ │
│ per great │ │ │
│ square. │ │ │
San Francisco│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Salt Lake │ │ │ │Wagons and
City │ │ │ │ some
│ │ │ │ horses.
Springfield │ │ │ │Some.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Seattle │Flushing is │ │ │
│ most │ │ │
│ economical. │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Scranton │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Troy │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Utica │ │By districts. │ │
Washington │ │By foremen, │ 1,500.│162.
│ │ subject to │ │
│ │ superintendent’s│ │
│ │ approval. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
─────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────────┴────────┴───────────
─────────────┬───────────┬────────────────────────────────
City │ City Own │ Street Sprinkling
│Horses and │
│ Wagons? │
│ │
│ ├───────────┬───────────┬────────
│ │ Sprinkle │ Sq. Yds. │Driver’s
│ │Streets for│ Sprinkled │ Daily
│ │Laying Dust│During Year│Wage[14]
│ │ Only? │ │
─────────────┼───────────┼───────────┼───────────┼────────
Buffalo │Yes. │Yes. │ 18,000,000│
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Beacon │ │ │ │
Binghamton │By private │ │ │
│ contract.│ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Cincinnati │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Cambridge │Yes. │Yes. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Chicago │No. │No. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Camden │ │ │ │
Columbus │ │ │ │
Cleveland │ │ │ │
Cortland │ │Yes. │ 86,133.│ 4.00.
│ │ │ │
Dunkirk │ │ │ │
Denver │No. │Yes. │ │ 2.25.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Elmira │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Fall River │ │Some. │ │ 2.65.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Grand Rapids │ │Yes. │ 236 miles.│
Hudson │ │Yes. │ 358,000│ 2.10
Jamestown │Yes. │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Kansas City │Yes, some │By contract│ │
│ hired. │ No. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Kingston │Yes. │ │ │
Los Angeles │Yes. │447 miles, │ │
│ │ 40′ │ │
│ │ width. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Louisville │Yes. │ │ │
Lowell │Yes. │Yes. │ │ 2.50.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Lynn │Yes. │Yes. │ │ 3.04.
Lackawanna │No. │Yes. │ 313,550.│
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Little Falls │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Milwaukee │ │ │ │
Middletown │Yes. │Yes. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Mechanicville│Wagons. │Yes. │ │
│ │ │ │
New York City│Yes. │Contractor.│ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
New Orleans │ │ │ │ 2.00
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
New Bedford │Yes. │Yes. │ │ 2.50.
Newark │ │No. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Norwich │Wagons. │Yes. │ │ 1.60.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
New Rochelle │Yes. │Yes. │ │ 2.25.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Niagara Falls│Wagons. │Some. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Newburgh │Yes. │ │ │
Oakland │Yes. │Macadam │ │$2.25 to
│ │ streets. │ │ $3.00
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Oswego │No. │No. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Ogdensburg │No. │Some. │ │ 1.75.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Philadelphia │No. │Yes. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Providence │Yes. │No. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Rochester │No. │Yes. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Rensselaer │No. │Yes. │ │
Reading │ │ │ │
Richmond │No. │Yes. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
St. Louis │Yes, │Yes, by │ 14,000,000│
│ flushers │ contract.│ │
│ hired. │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
San Francisco│No. │Yes. │382,344,303│
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Salt Lake │Yes. │150 miles. │ │
City │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Springfield │ │ │ │ 30¢.
│ │ │ │ hour.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Seattle │Yes. │No. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Scranton │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Troy │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Utica │No. │No. │ │
Washington │Yes. │Some │ │ 2.25.
│ │ macadam │ │ 1.75.
│ │ unpaved │ │
│ │ and │ │
│ │ streets. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
─────────────┴───────────┴───────────┴───────────┴────────
Table I (h)
STREET CLEANING IN AMERICAN CITIES (Continued)
─────────────┬────────────────────────────────────────────
City │ STREET SPRINKLING
├────────┬─────────────┬────────────┬────────
│ Daily │Total Annual │Paid out of │Paid by
│Cost per│ Cost of │ City’s │Abutting
│Team[14]│ Street │ General │Property
│ │ Sprinkling │ Fund? │Owners?
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
─────────────┼────────┼─────────────┼────────────┼────────
Buffalo │ │ $10,000.00│ │Yes.
│ │ │ │
Beacon │ │ │ │
Binghamton │ │ │ │
Cincinnati │ │ │ │
Cambridge │ │40,000.00[15]│No. │Yes.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Chicago │ │ │ │
Camden │ │ │ │
Columbus │ │ │ │
Cleveland │ │ │ │
Cortland │ │ 948.68│ │Yes.
│ │ │ │
Dunkirk │ │ │ │
Denver │ $2.50│ 80,227.95│Yes. │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Elmira │ │ │ │
Fall River │ 6.00│ 2,809.24│No. │Yes.
│ │ │ │
Grand Rapids │ │ 25,131.23│ │
Hudson │ │ 1,500.00│Yes. │
Jamestown │ │ │ │
Kansas City │ │ │ │
Kingston │ │ │ │
Los Angeles │ 4.45│ │ │No.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Louisville │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Lowell │ 6.00│ │$17,000 │Yes.
│ │ │ │
Lynn │ │ 24,061.77│ │Yes.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Lackawanna │ 4.75│ │ │Yes.
Little Falls │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Milwaukee │ │ 60,310.05│5,205.28[17]│Most.
│ │ │ │
Middletown │ │ │No. │Yes.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Mechanicville│ 5.00│ 1,200.00│Yes. │
New York City│ │ │ │
New Orleans │ │ │ │
New Bedford │ │ 3,061.59│Yes. │
Newark │ │ │ │
Norwich │ 5.00│ 1,700.00│No. │50%
New Rochelle │ │ 1,202.32│Yes. │
Niagara Falls│ 5.00│ 2,000.00│Yes. │
Newburgh │ │ │ │
Oakland │ 5.00–│ 43,651.95│Yes. │
│ 6.00│ │ │
Oswego │ │ │ │
Ogdensburg │ 4.00│ │ │Yes.
Philadelphia │ │ 24,367.14│Yes. │
Providence │ │ │ │
Rochester │ │ 42,271.73│ │Yes.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Rensselaer │ │ │ │
Reading │ │ │ │
Richmond │ │ │ │
St. Louis │ │ 250,000.00│ │Yes.
│ │ │ │
San Francisco│ │ │Yes. │No.
Salt Lake │ 4.50│ 25,000.00│Yes. │
City │ │ │ │
Springfield │ │ 13,493.68│Yes. │
│ │ │ │
Seattle │ │ │ │
Scranton │ │ │ │
Troy │ │ │ │
Utica │ │ │ │
Washington │ 3.55│ 4,633.58│Yes. │
─────────────┴────────┴─────────────┴────────────┴────────
─────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────
City │ STREET SPRINKLING
├────────────────────┬─────────────┬──────────
│ Method of │Total Gallons│ Average
│Assessment. Who Pays│ Used a Year │ Rate of
│ for Street │ for │Assessment
│ Intersections? │ Sprinkling │ per Foot
│ │ │Front for
│ │ │Sprinkling
─────────────┼────────────────────┼─────────────┼──────────
Buffalo │No charge for │ 7,500,000│ 10¢
│ intersections. │ │
Beacon │ │ │
Binghamton │ │ │
Cincinnati │ │ │
Cambridge │4¢. front foot each │ 15,000,000│ 4¢.
│ side; │ │
│ intersections │ │
│ sections not │ │
│ counted. │ │
Chicago │ │ │
Camden │ │ │
Columbus │ │ │
Cleveland │ │ │
Cortland │City pays for │ 6,470│ 5¢.
│ intersections. │ │
Dunkirk │ │ │
Denver │ │ 311,364,000│
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Elmira │ │ │
Fall River │Intersections paid │ 4,403,200│ 2¢.
│ by city. │ │
Grand Rapids │ │ 117,821,750│
Hudson │ │ │
Jamestown │ │ │
Kansas City │ │ │
Kingston │ │ │
Los Angeles │ │ 40,000 tanks│
│ │ per month,│
│ │each tank 550│
│ │ gallons.│
Louisville │City pays for │ │ 5.5¢.
│ intersections.[16]│ │
Lowell │No pay for │ │ 5¢.
│ intersections. │ │
Lynn │per foot front in │ │
│ residential; 8¢. │ │
│ in business. │ │
Lackawanna │ │ │
Little Falls │ │ │
│ │ │
Milwaukee │Assessed to property│ │ 1.6¢.[18]
│ owners. │ │
Middletown │City pays for │ │
│ intersections ½c. │ │
│ per front foot per│ │
│ week. │ │
Mechanicville│ │ 8,000,000│
New York City│ │ │
New Orleans │ │ │
New Bedford │ │ │
Newark │ │ │
Norwich │ │ │ 3¢.
New Rochelle │ │ 1,100,509│
Niagara Falls│ │ │
Newburgh │ │ │
Oakland │ │ 10,197,400│
│ │ Cu. Ft.│
Oswego │ │ │
Ogdensburg │ │ │
Philadelphia │ │ │
Providence │ │ │
Rochester │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Rensselaer │ │ │
Reading │ │ │
Richmond │ │ │
St. Louis │Special tax 4¢. per │1,727,362,500│ 4¢.
│ foot front. │ │
San Francisco│ │ │
Salt Lake │ │ │
City │ │ │
Springfield │ │ │
│ │ │
Seattle │ │ │
Scranton │ │ │
Troy │ │ │
Utica │ │ │
Washington │ │ │
─────────────┴────────────────────┴─────────────┴──────────
─────────────┬─────────────────────────────
City │ STREET SPRINKLING
├─────────────┬───────────────
│ Does This │Do Corporations
│Include Cost │ Sprinkle
│ of Water or │ Streets on
│is Water Non-│ Which the
│ assessable? │ Trolley Cars
│ │ Run?
─────────────┼─────────────┼───────────────
Buffalo │Yes. │On two streets.
│ │
Beacon │ │
Binghamton │ │
Cincinnati │ │
Cambridge │No. │No.
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
Chicago │ │
Camden │ │
Columbus │ │
Cleveland │ │
Cortland │Yes. │No.
│ │
Dunkirk │ │
Denver │City pays $25│No.
│ a year for │
│ hydrant for│
│ all │
│ purposes. │
Elmira │ │No.
Fall River │Non- │No.
│ assessable.│
Grand Rapids │ │Yes.
Hudson │ │
Jamestown │ │
Kansas City │ │
Kingston │ │
Los Angeles │ │No.
│ │
│ │
│ │
Louisville │Yes. │No.
│ │
Lowell │No cost. │No.
│ │
Lynn │ │
│ │
│ │
Lackawanna │ │
Little Falls │Non- │No.
│ assessable.│
Milwaukee │Non- │
│ assessable.│
Middletown │Non- │No.
│ assessable.│
│ │
│ │
Mechanicville│ │No.
New York City│ │
New Orleans │ │
New Bedford │ │ [19]
Newark │ │
Norwich │Yes. │No.
New Rochelle │ │Yes.
Niagara Falls│ │Yes.
Newburgh │ │
Oakland │ │Few cases.
│ │
Oswego │ │No.
Ogdensburg │ │No.
Philadelphia │ │No.
Providence │ │
Rochester │ │Pays
│ │ proportionate
│ │ cost.
Rensselaer │ │
Reading │ │
Richmond │ │
St. Louis │Non- │
│ assessable.│
San Francisco│ │At times.
Salt Lake │ │
City │ │
Springfield │Yes. │Yes, $100 a
│ │ mile.
Seattle │ │Yes.[20]
Scranton │ │
Troy │ │No.
Utica │ │
Washington │ │
─────────────┴─────────────┴───────────────
Table I (j)
STREET CLEANING IN AMERICAN CITIES (Continued)
─────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────────
City │ COST DATA
─────────────┼─────────┬────────────┬────────────┬─────────────
│ Street │ Yearly │ Total Cost │Salaries and
│Cleaning │ Contract │ of Street │ Wages
│ Done by │ Price │ Cleaning │
│ City or │ │ Year, │
│Contract │ │Exclusive of│
│ │ │Snow Removal│
─────────────┼─────────┼────────────┼────────────┼─────────────
Buffalo │City. │ │ $146,517.43│ $84,499.70
Beacon │City. │ │ │
Binghamton │City. │ │ │
Cincinnati │City. │ │ 186,847.17│
Cambridge │City. │ │ 59,300.00│ 47,500.00
Chicago │City. │ │ │
Camden │City. │ │ 26,056.80│
Columbus │City. │ │ 126,897.19│ 94,180.68
│ │ │ │
Cleveland │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Cortland │City. │ │ 31,000.00│
Dunkirk │Contract.│ 2.8¢. per│ │
│ │ Sq. Yd per│ │
│ │ season.│ │
Denver │City. │ │ 108,296.60│
│ │ │ │
Elmira │City. │ │ 11,748.20│ 10,047.18
Fall River │City. │ │ 53,867.80│
Grand Rapids │City. │ │ │
Hudson │City. │ │ 1,400.00│
Jamestown │City. │ │ 5,638.70│ 3,983.67
Kansas City │City. │ │ 200,000.00│ 170,000.00
Kingston │City. │ │ 9,500.00│ 9,300.00
Los Angeles │City. │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Louisville │City. │ │ 80,819.80│
Lowell │City. │ │ │
Lynn │City. │ │ 29,298.85│
Lackawanna │City. │ │ │
Little Falls │City. │ │ │
Milwaukee │City. │ │ 238,335.00│
│ │ │ including│
│ │ │ sprinkling.│
Middletown │City. │ │ 3,975.65│
New York City│City. │ │7,643,936.74│ 5,380,620.63
New Orleans │City. │ │ 322,000.00│
New Bedford │City. │ │ 60,478.81│
Newark │City. │ │ 268,732.54│ 237,213.15
Norwich │City. │ │ │
New Rochelle │City. │ │ 37,665.71│ 34,974.67
Niagara Falls│City. │ │ 118,000.00│
Newburgh │City. │ │ 9,000.00│
Oakland │Both. │ $44,663.44│ 74,951.32│25.969.25[25]
Oswego │City. │ │ 4,231.41│ 3,226.01
Ogdensburg │City. │ │ 4,428.66│
Philadelphia │Contract.│1,232.847.00│ │
Providence │City. │ │ │
Rochester │City. │ │ 183,783.44│
Rensselaer │City. │ │ 2,740.00│
Reading │Contract.│ Three year│ │
│ │basis $12.90│ │
│ │ per city│ │
│ │ square,│ │
│ │ length 540│ │
│ │ ft. $35,000│ │
│ │ a year.│ │
Richmond │City. │ │ Not│
│ │ │ separated│
│ │ │from garbage│
│ │ │ and ash│
│ │ │ collection.│
St. Louis │City. │ │ 527,000.00│
│ │ │ │
San Francisco│City. │ │ 350,400.00│
Salt Lake │City. │ │ │
City │ │ │ │
Springfield │City. │ │ 243,952.86│
Seattle │City. │ │ 148,456.56│
Scranton │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Troy │City. │ │ │
Utica │City. │ │ │
Washington │City. │ │ 264,869.70│
─────────────┴─────────┴────────────┴────────────┴─────────────
─────────────┬────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
City │ COST DATA
─────────────┼──────────┬───────────┬───────────┬──────────┬──────────
│ New │Repairs and│ Other │ Cost per │ Average
│Appliances│Maintenance│ Expenses │1,000 Sq. │ Cost per
│ │ of │ │ Yds. │Sq. Yd. of
│ │Appliances │ │ Street │ Hand
│ │ │ │ Cleaning │ Sweeping
│ │ │ │ Done │
─────────────┼──────────┼───────────┼───────────┼──────────┼──────────
Buffalo │$17,233.42│ $44,784.41│ │ 28¢.│ 30¢.
Beacon │ │ │ │ │
Binghamton │ │ │ │ │
Cincinnati │ │ │ │ .00035│
Cambridge │ 500.00│ 300.00│ $11,000.00│ │
Chicago │ │ │ │ │
Camden │ │ 238.09│ │ │
Columbus │ │ │ │ │ .388¢.
│ │ │ │ │
Cleveland │ │ │ │ │.42786 per
│ │ │ │ │ Gr. Sq.
Cortland │ │ │ │ │
Dunkirk │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Denver │ │ │ │ One-sixth│ 15–100 of
│ │ │ │of a mill.│ a mill.
Elmira │ 1,000.00│ 711.52│ │ 0.397│ 0.321
Fall River │ │ │ │ │
Grand Rapids │ │ │ │ │
Hudson │ │ │ │ │
Jamestown │ │ 1,655.03│ │ │ .1464¢.
Kansas City │ │ 30.000.00│ │ │
Kingston │ 100.00│ 50.00│ 50.00│ │
Los Angeles │ │ │ │ │ .069 to
│ │ │ │ │ .285 per
│ │ │ │ │ day.[23]
Louisville │ │ │ │ │
Lowell │ │ │ │ │
Lynn │ │ │ │ │
Lackawanna │ │ │ │ │
Little Falls │ │ │ │ │
Milwaukee │ │ │ │ │ 26.2¢-
│ │ │ │ │35.3¢.[23]
│ │ │ │ │
Middletown │ │ │ │ │
New York City│ │ │ │ │
New Orleans │ │ │ │ │
New Bedford │ │ │ │ │
Newark │ │ │ │ │
Norwich │ │ │ │ │
New Rochelle │ │ 2,245.79│ 445.25│ 26¢.│ .027¢.
Niagara Falls│ │ 20,000.00│ 10,000.00│ │
Newburgh │ │ │ │ │
Oakland │ │ 436.75│3881.88[25]│.00366[26]│ .201[23]
Oswego │ 517.79│ 457.61│ │ │
Ogdensburg │ │ │ │ │
Philadelphia │ │ │ │ │ 17.8¢[23]
Providence │ │ │ │ │
Rochester │ │ │ │ │
Rensselaer │ │ │ │ │
Reading │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Richmond │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
St. Louis │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
San Francisco│ 6,000.00│ │ │ │
Salt Lake │ │ │ │ │
City │ │ │ │ │
Springfield │ │ │ │ │ .00035
Seattle │ │ │ │ │
Scranton │ │ │ │ │ 17 to
│ │ │ │ │ 35¢.[23]
Troy │ │ │ │ │
Utica │ │ │ │ │
Washington │ │ │ │ │$ .156[23]
─────────────┴──────────┴───────────┴───────────┴──────────┴──────────
─────────────┬─────────────────────────────
City │ COST DATA
├─────────────┬───────────────
│Average Cost │ Average Cost
│ per Sq. Yd. │per Sq. Yd. of
│ of Machine │Squeegeeing[21]
│Flushing[21] │
│ │
│ │
─────────────┼─────────────┼───────────────
Buffalo │ │
Beacon │ │
Binghamton │ │
Cincinnati │ │
Cambridge │ │
Chicago │ │
Camden │ │
Columbus │ .617 per Gr.│
│ Sq.[22]│
Cleveland │ .15388 per│
│ Gr. Sq.[22]│
Cortland │ │
Dunkirk │ │
│ │
│ │
Denver │ 13–100 of a│
│ mill.│
Elmira │ 0.0815│
Fall River │ │
Grand Rapids │.0385[23][24]│
Hudson │ │
Jamestown │ │
Kansas City │ │
Kingston │ │
Los Angeles │ .16 to│
│ .21[23]│
│ │
Louisville │ │
Lowell │ │
Lynn │ │
Lackawanna │ │
Little Falls │ │
Milwaukee │ 25.5¢.[23]│
│ │
│ │
Middletown │ │
New York City│ │
New Orleans │ │
New Bedford │ │
Newark │ │
Norwich │ │
New Rochelle │ │
Niagara Falls│ │
Newburgh │ │
Oakland │ │
Oswego │ │
Ogdensburg │ │
Philadelphia │ 16¢.[23]│ 18¢.[23]
Providence │ │
Rochester │ │
Rensselaer │ │
Reading │ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
Richmond │ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
St. Louis │ 1.25 per Gr.│ 92¢. per Gr.
│ Sq.│ Sq.
San Francisco│ │
Salt Lake │ │
City │ │
Springfield │ │ .00017
Seattle │ │
Scranton │ 18¢.[23][22]│
│ │
Troy │ │
Utica │ │
Washington │ $.262[23]│ .150[23]
─────────────┴─────────────┴───────────────
Table I (k)
STREET CLEANING IN AMERICAN CITIES (Continued)
─────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────┬─────────────
City │ Preventive Work │ Any Unusual
│ │ Conditions
│ │ with Which
│ │ Your
│ │ Department
│ │ Has to
│ │ Contend?
├────────────────┬──────────┬───────────┤
│What Effort, If │Is Cost of│ Do Police │
│ Any, Made to │ Cleaning │and Health │
│ Secure │Considered│Departments│
│ Cooperation of │ in │and Courts │
│Public to Reduce│Selecting │Cooperate? │
│ Street Litter? │ Kind of │ │
│ │Pavement? │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
─────────────┼────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┼─────────────
Buffalo │By ordinance. │No. │Yes. │None.
Beacon │Waste cans. │No. │Yes. │No.
Binghamton │ │ │ │
Cincinnati │Through press │No. │Yes. │Land slides
│ and clean-up │ │ │ and floods.
│ campaigns. │ │ │
Cambridge │Clean-up Week. │No. │Yes. │No.
Chicago │ │ │Yes. │
Camden │Education │ │ │
│ campaign │ │ │
│ cooperating │ │ │
│ with civic │ │ │
│ organizations.│ │ │
Columbus │ │ │ │
Cleveland │ │ │ │
Cortland │ │No. │Some. │Some lanes in
│ │ │ │ rear of
│ │ │ │ stores used
│ │ │ │ for dumping
│ │ │ │ papers.
Dunkirk │ │ │ │
Denver │ │ │ │
Elmira │Waste cans used.│Not much. │Yes. │No.
Fall River │No. │No. │No. │No.
Grand Rapids │ │ │ │
Hudson │ │Yes. │Yes. │Existence of
│ │ │ │ alleys.
Jamestown │ │ │ │City very
│ │ │ │ hilly.
Kansas City │Superintendent │No. │Yes. │No.
│ arrests │ │ │
│ violators. │ │ │
Kingston │ │ │ │
Los Angeles │ │ │ │
Louisville │Yes. │ │Yes. │
Lowell │ │Yes. │Very │
│ │ │ little. │
Lynn │ │ │No. │Papers from
│ │ │ │ refuse
│ │ │ │ collectors.
Lackawanna │Clean-up │Yes. │Yes. │No.
│ campaign. │ │ │
Little Falls │None. │To some │No. │
│ │ extent. │ │
Milwaukee │Publicity and │ │Yes. │No.
│ circulars. │ │ │
Middletown │Placed cans for │Yes. │Yes. │No.
│ paper. Through│ │ │
│ press. │ │ │
Mechanicville│Police │ │Yes. │No.
│ department and│ │ │
│ waste cans. │ │ │
New York City│Anti-litter │ │Yes. │Construction
│ League │ │ │ work; push
│ Educational │ │ │ carts.
│ work. │ │ │
New Orleans │ │ │ │
New Bedford │ │ │ │
Newark │Police │No. │Yes. │No.
│ department and│ │ │
│ public │ │ │
│ schools. │ │ │
Norwich │Very little. │No. │No. │No.
New Rochelle │Yes, by │Yes. │Yes. │No.
│ ordinance. │ │ │
Niagara Falls│Placing waste │Yes. │Yes. │No.
│ cans. │ │ │
Newburgh │Through press, │ │ │
│ cans provided,│ │ │
│ hand-bills │ │ │
│ distributed in│ │ │
│ business │ │ │
│ section. │ │ │
Oakland │Distribute │Yes. │Only in │None.
│ cards, │ │ extreme │
│ enforcements │ │ cases. │
│ of ordinance │ │ │
│ prohibiting │ │ │
│ dumping of │ │ │
│ refuse in │ │ │
│ streets. │ │ │
Oswego │Use waste cans. │ │ │No city
│ │ │ │ garbage or
│ │ │ │ ash
│ │ │ │ collection;
│ │ │ │ people dump
│ │ │ │ on back
│ │ │ │ streets.
Ogdensburg │ │ │ │
Philadelphia │Pamphlets │In general│To some │Overloaded
│ distributed. │ way. │ extent. │ wagons,
│ Rubbish cards │ │ │ storekeeper
│ distributed, │ │ │ sweeping
│ lectures to │ │ │ dust into
│ school │ │ │ street.
│ children. │ │ │
│ Place waste │ │ │
│ cans. │ │ │
Providence │ │ │Yes. │
│ │ │ │
Rochester │ │ │ │
Rensselaer │ │No. │Yes. │No.
Reading │ │ │ │
Richmond │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
St. Louis │Placing metal │Yes. │ │
│ refuse boxes │ │ │
│ on sidewalk. │ │ │
San Francisco│Place dirt cans │ │Yes. │
│ and paper │ │ │
│ cans. │ │ │
Salt Lake │Enforcement of │ │Yes. │
City │ ordinances. │ │ │
Springfield │ │ │ │
Seattle │Through the │ │Yes. │Many hills.
│ press. │ │ │
Scranton │ │ │ │
Troy │ │ │ │
Utica │ │ │ │
Washington │Placing waste │No. │Yes. │
│ paper boxes, │ │ │
│ police │ │ │
│ regulation. │ │ │
─────────────┴────────────────┴──────────┴───────────┴─────────────
─────────────┬───────────────────
City │Disposal of Sweepings
│
│
│
│
│
│
├─────────┬─────────
│ Average │ Average
│ No. of │Amount of
│Cu. Yds. │Sweepings
│ of │Collected
│Sweepings│ at Each
│per 1,000│Cleaning
│Sq. Yds. │
│ of Area │
│ Cleaned │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
─────────────┼─────────┼─────────
Buffalo │ │
Beacon │ │
Binghamton │ │
Cincinnati │ .24│ Yes.
│ │
│ │
Cambridge │ │ Yes.
Chicago │ .079│ .079
Camden │ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
Columbus │ │
Cleveland │ │
Cortland │ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
Dunkirk │ │
Denver │ │
Elmira │ │
Fall River │ │
Grand Rapids │ │
Hudson │½ cu. yd.│
│ │
Jamestown │ .053│
│ │
Kansas City │ │
│ │
│ │
Kingston │ │
Los Angeles │ │
Louisville │ │
Lowell │ │
│ │
Lynn │ │
│ │
│ │
Lackawanna │ │
│ │
Little Falls │ │
│ │
Milwaukee │ │
│ │
Middletown │ │
│ │
│ │
Mechanicville│ │
│ │
│ │
New York City│ 28.6 per│ .029 cu.
│ yr.│ yds.
│ │
│ │
New Orleans │ │ Yes.
New Bedford │ │
Newark │ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
Norwich │ │
New Rochelle │ 119 cu.│
│ yds.│
Niagara Falls│ │
│ │
Newburgh │ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
Oakland │ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
Oswego │ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
Ogdensburg │ │
Philadelphia │ .17│ .23 cu.
│ │ yds.
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
Providence │ │
│ │
Rochester │ │
Rensselaer │ │
Reading │ │
Richmond │ │
│ │
St. Louis │ │
│ │
│ │
San Francisco│ │
│ │
│ │
Salt Lake │ │
City │ │
Springfield │ │
Seattle │ │
│ │
Scranton │ │
Troy │ │
Utica │ │
Washington │ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
─────────────┴─────────┴─────────
─────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────────
City │Disposal of Sweepings
│
│
│
│
│
│
├──────────────────────────────────────────
│ Method of Disposal
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
├────┬──────┬──────────┬──────────┬────────
│ On │ Used │ Sold for │ Price │ Total
│City│ for │Fertilizer│ Charged │ Yearly
│Dump│Filler│ │ │Receipts
─────────────┼────┼──────┼──────────┼──────────┼────────
Buffalo │Yes.│Yes. │ │ │
Beacon │ │ │Yes. │Contract. │ $137.00
Binghamton │ │ │ │ │
Cincinnati │Yes.│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Cambridge │ │ │ │ │
Chicago │Yes.│Yes. │ │ │
Camden │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Columbus │ │ │ │ │
Cleveland │Yes.│ │ │ │
Cortland │Yes.│Yes. │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Dunkirk │Yes.│ │ │ │
Denver │Yes.│ │ │ │
Elmira │ │Yes. │ │ │
Fall River │Yes.│ │ │ │
Grand Rapids │ │ │ │ │
Hudson │Yes.│Yes. │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Jamestown │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Kansas City │Yes.│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Kingston │ │ │ │ │
Los Angeles │ │ │Yes. │ │
Louisville │Yes.│ │ │ │
Lowell │Yes.│ │Yes. │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Lynn │Yes.│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Lackawanna │Yes.│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Little Falls │Yes.│ │Yes. │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Milwaukee │Yes.│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Middletown │Yes.│ │ │30¢. for │
│ │ │ │ 1½ yds. │
│ │ │ │ │
Mechanicville│ │Yes. │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
New York City│ │Yes. │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
New Orleans │ │ │ │ │
New Bedford │ │ │ │ │
Newark │ │Yes. │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Norwich │Yes.│Yes. │ │ │
New Rochelle │Yes.│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Niagara Falls│Yes.│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Newburgh │Yes.│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Oakland │Yes.│Yes. │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Oswego │Yes.│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Ogdensburg │ │ │ │ │
Philadelphia │Yes.│Yes. │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Providence │Yes.│Yes. │ │$2.00 per │
│ │ │ │ cord. │
Rochester │ │ │ │ │
Rensselaer │Yes.│Yes. │Yes. │No. │
Reading │ │ │ │ │
Richmond │Yes.│Yes. │Yes. │15¢. per │
│ │ │ │ load. │
St. Louis │Yes.│Yes. │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
San Francisco│Yes.│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Salt Lake │Yes.│Yes. │ │ │
City │ │ │ │ │
Springfield │Yes.│ │Yes. │No. │
Seattle │Yes.│Yes. │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Scranton │ │ │ │ │
Troy │ │ │ │ │
Utica │ │ │ │ │
Washington │Yes.│Yes. │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
─────────────┴────┴──────┴──────────┴──────────┴────────
NOTE: Seattle and Denver are the only cities which report that they
clean their sidewalks. Denver limits its work to the business district.
All cities report they do not dump sweepings in manholes. All cities
except Salt Lake City and Norwich report they sprinkle streets preceding
sweeping. Cambridge, San Francisco, and Springfield, Mass., are the only
cities which report they do not have sprinklers precede squeegee
machines.
-----
Footnote 1:
On account of favorable weather conditions and the necessity of
economising very little machine brooming is done.
Footnote 2:
One-tenth of it cleaned four times daily. Two-fifths once a day. One-
half once a week.
Footnote 3:
Flushing only.
Footnote 4:
Hand cleaning, flushing and squeegeeing.
Footnote 5:
Not including alleys.
Footnote 6:
Flushing only.
Footnote 7:
Hand and machine sweeping and flushing.
Footnote 8:
Entire year.
Footnote 9:
Sweepers patrol streets from one to ten times daily.
Footnote 10:
Also includes machine sweeping, cleaned periodically.
Footnote 11:
Also includes machine sweeping—per year.
Footnote 12:
43,341 loads in year; 85% 2 cu. yds. each and 15% 3 cu. yds. each.
Footnote 13:
Four of these on the average will be sub-foremen at $3.50, and the
other laborers at $2.50 for 8 hours. These men are also under the
supervision of four district deputies at $125 a month each. These
district deputies have many other duties.
Footnote 14:
Length of day eight hours, unless otherwise noted.
Footnote 15:
For water and oil.
Footnote 16:
.045 foot frontage for 40 foot street.
.055 foot frontage for 50 foot street.
.065 foot frontage for 60 foot street.
Footnote 17:
City also paid for water and hydrant rental $25,329.88
Footnote 18:
Based on street 30 feet wide and sprinkled twice daily for 150 days.
Footnote 19:
Railroad company furnishes electric power and use of tracks for car
sprinkler and power flusher. City pays for car.
Footnote 20:
City furnishes two men and company motormen and conductor. City owns
sprinklers.
Footnote 21:
Including 10% of cost of machinery for depreciation and repairs and
4½% interest on machinery.
Footnote 22:
Trolley car flusher.
Footnote 23:
Per 1,000 sq. yds.
Footnote 24:
Does not include depreciation and interest.
Footnote 25:
On city work only. Does not include amount paid to contractor.
Footnote 26:
Includes cleaning drains and gutters and inlets, cleaning under small
highway bridges and removing fallen trees from roadway.
Footnote 27:
One square equals 540 ft. including salaries and wages, cost of new
appliances, repairs and maintenance of appliances and all other
overhead charges.
Footnote 28:
Includes depreciation and repairs, but not general supervision.
SEWAGE DISPOSAL
EFFICIENCY OF PROCESSES USED BY AMERICAN CITIES—OPINIONS OF AUTHORITIES—
EXPERIMENTS WITH NEW METHODS.
Recognition of the necessity for the proper disposal of sewage is now
quite prevalent in most American communities, whether large or small. In
many sections the problem has become vital, and as the population
increases, it is only a matter of time when all will be compelled to
solve the problem, for its importance grows in direct proportion to the
rapid increase in inhabitants. The continued concentration of population
makes it increasingly difficult and expensive for a municipality to
secure and maintain a pure water supply and forces community activity
for protection against disease germs. It also causes the demand for the
improvement of the esthetic condition of bodies of water within or near
a city’s boundaries. Many states have already recognized the conditions
due to these nuisances and have enacted strict legislation with a view
to preventing the pollution of streams and other bodies of water, for
the protection of water supplies, surface and underground, and for the
elimination of disease germs accompanying sewage. States and even
nations have realized that sewage disposal is more than a local problem.
In every case it is an inter-community problem, in some it is inter-
state and in a few the question must be settled by national governments.
Even those communities which have not already provided a proper method
of disposal of their sewage know that it must be done sooner or later,
and many are preparing for it either by making a preliminary study, by
preparing tentative plans, by reconstructing their sewerage systems or
planning new extensions with that end in view, or by shaping their
financial programs so that the community will be prepared to assume the
financial burden when the necessity becomes imperative.
The quantity of harmful waste produced by a community is surprisingly
small in comparison with the disastrous effects it may produce. All
authorities agree that in cities provided with an abundant water supply
sewage contains less than one-tenth of one per cent. of foreign
substances. This organic matter and the products of its decomposition
the Massachusetts State Board of Health has found rarely exceed one-half
of one per cent. of the sewage. George W. Fuller, consulting sanitary
engineer, says that 99.9 per cent. of sewage is ordinarily pure water
and that even much of the remainder is harmless matter of a mineral
nature. The experience of George S. Webster, Chief Engineer of the
Bureau of Surveys and of the Philadelphia Sewage Testing Station, with
sewage works, indicates that on an average 1,000 persons produce per
annum forty-five tons of dry sludge matter, or the solid part of the
sewage after treatment; and the United States Census Bureau reports that
the volume of sewage discharged daily during the year per person is 164
gallons. Yet the small amount of decomposing matter must be properly
treated for it is that which gives sewage its offensive character and
power to cause disease.
The proper solution of the sewage disposal problem involves first, the
construction of a sewerage system that will remove the sewage from the
community completely and as rapidly as possible, and secondly, the
construction of a disposal plant at which the sewage can be treated in
such a way that when it is discharged into the body of water it will not
cause a nuisance and disease.
The Sewerage System
There are two types of sewerage systems in use, the separate and the
combined. In the former the storm water is removed in one set of pipes
and the domestic sewage in another. The combined system removes both in
the same set of pipes. In deciding which system to adopt three factors
must be first considered, the cost, the topography of the city and the
method of disposal. The general conclusions of sanitary engineers at
present regarding the relative merits of the two systems are that either
is satisfactory from a sanitary point of view when properly constructed,
that the separate system is usually best for suburban districts not
closely built up and for all communities where the sanitary sewage
requires treatment, and that often a combination of the two systems can
be used to advantage. Most engineers point to the advantage of combined
sewers in narrow streets and congested districts where only one pipe and
one house connection are required.
The belief has been expressed by John H. Gregory, consulting engineer,
that as a general proposition the cost of building a combined system is
less than that of constructing a separate system, especially where the
territory to be served is more or less closely built up and streets
paved. In suburban territory, not closely built up and where storm water
is easily and quickly diverted into natural water courses, he believes
the separate system will in general cost less, for then only sanitary
sewers need to be built first, the storm water sewers being deferred for
years or only such drains constructed as are immediately required. When
there are steep grades and relatively high velocity all authorities
agree with Gregory that it is advisable to build combined sewers, even
though the development of the territory may hardly be such as to require
the removal of the storm water.
Discussing the merits of the two systems so far as they affect the cost
of disposal Clark P. Collins, sanitary engineer, concludes that
generally speaking “it is unwise to dilute sewage with storm water and
to befoul storm water with sewage in the attempt to remove both by the
same underground channel.” Gregory has expressed the opinion that if
sewage is to be discharged into a body without treatment the combined
system will offer the simplest and cheapest solution of the problem.
Among the principal objections to the combined system when the sewage is
treated are the increase it causes in the volume of liquid which
necessarily requires a larger plant and expenditure, the changes it
causes in the character of the sewage which complicates operation of the
plant, and the frequency with which it causes the flow of sewage to
exceed the maximum of the plant, thereby making it necessary to
discharge untreated sewage into the stream. With a combined system all
kinds of trade wastes must be run through the disposal plant, whether
they are offensive or not; automatic devices, which should be avoided
whenever possible, are necessary between the combined and intercepting
sewers to limit the amount of flow; a greater amount of grit is
deposited at the disposal works unless in the separate system the first
wash of the street is intercepted. The New York State Board of Health
advocates the separate system.
In constructing, extending or reconstructing a sewerage system it is
well to bear in mind that even though a city has not at present a
disposal plant, the time will come in all probability when increased
population will compel the treatment of its sewage by some process. It
may, therefore, be more economical eventually to make present plans so
that when disposal does come the sewerage system will make possible the
most economical operation of the disposal works. Gregory’s conclusion as
recently expressed in an address is that “other things being equal,
especially as more and more attention is being given to sewage disposal,
the separate system seems to offer greater advantages.”
All engineers advocate good ventilation for sewers and gradients that
will develop self-cleansing velocities, so as to reduce gas trouble and
to deliver the sewage as fresh as possible to the disposal works. The
best practise, according to reports of the State Boards of Health, show
that these velocities should be not less than two feet per second in
separate systems and two and one-half feet in combined systems. In some
instances where it has been necessary to reduce the gradients because of
the expense of obtaining steeper ones, a velocity of one foot per second
has been found to be satisfactory; but in such instances sewers must be
well constructed and flushed. Most trade wastes require a higher
velocity to prevent deposits.
The Degree of Purification of Sewage
Before determining the proper method of disposal the first point to be
settled by a city is the degree of purification desired or needed for
both the present and the future. The decision is dependent upon three
factors: the self-purifying capacity of the stream or body of water into
which the effluent—liquid portions of the sewage run off after
treatment—is to be discharged and its utilization for water supply,
bathing, etc., the character and amount of the sewage and the possible
future growth not only of the city itself, but also of the communities
bordering on the stream. While there have been some demands for the
absolute sterilization of sewage, many sanitarians believe that any
artificial method of sewage treatment will not esthetically render the
final effluent fit for ingestion, and practically all authorities agree
that final discharge of sewage need not be in this perfect condition.
This seems to be based on logical reasoning when one considers that all
waterways are necessarily polluted to some extent. John Duncan Watson,
of Birmingham, England, contends that the complete elimination of
bacteria is prohibitive inasmuch as it is beyond the limits of the
reasonable demands on the purse. Robert Spurr Weston, member of the
American Society of Civil Engineers, at one time reminded an audience
that the proper place to protect the water consumers against disease is
at the water works and not at the sewage disposal plant. Authorities are
in general agreed that sewage should be disposed of as the stream
demands, and that local conditions should determine degree of
purification required. Standards of purity have been studied by many
societies and various suggestions have been made. All agree that the
sewage after treatment should not deteriorate the stream into which it
flows. Watson advocates under certain conditions an effluent that will
not putrefy on being kept for seven days at a uniform temperature of 80
degrees F. and that does not contain more than three parts per 100,000
of suspended solid matter.
Generally speaking the suspended matter should be removed, the
conditions near the point of discharge be inoffensive and the water be
not impaired for purposes of manufacture and pleasure. When a city is
located on the seashore or near a large lake or stream the screening out
of the heavy particles before the sewage is discharged together with
dilution will prevent active decomposition and putrefaction of the
sewage the body of water receives and the esthetic senses of the
community will not be offended. On small bodies of water and when the
water is used for drinking and manufacturing purposes or for bathing or
shellfish the conditions usually demand not only a non-putrescible
effluent but also one that is free from harmful bacteria or one that is
highly purified like that from sand filters.
There seems to be a general agreement among sanitary engineers that the
condition of the river below where the effluent joins it is a safe guide
and should be the ruling factor in determining the degree of
purification desirable. Authorities, however, are not agreed as to
whether the standard of cleanliness should be based solely on chemical
analysis or on a mixed standard taking into consideration the appearance
of the water and its physical, chemical and bacterial conditions, as has
been demonstrated by the Metropolitan Sewage Commission of New York. One
expert in answer to the question propounded by the Commission based the
standard solely on chemical analysis, but none of those whose views were
sought was willing to accept the dissolved oxygen test as an all
sufficient criterion of the condition of the water. One considered that
the oxygen should be regarded as a reliable index of the cleanliness of
the water only when dealing with the condition of gross pollution and
only when in conjunction with observations of the appearance and
physical conditions of the water. One of them would not have a standard
of cleanliness based solely upon analysis of any kind and all were
agreed that the standard of cleanliness should not rest upon the effect
of the polluted water upon health.
After having decided on the degree of purification the next step in the
solution of the problem is to select the process of treatment best
adapted with local conditions to produce the results at the lowest cost
and without nuisance. No specific rules can be laid down for the
selection of the best process for all communities. Domestic wastes offer
the least difficulty, but they are usually complicated with the presence
of trade or street wastes or both. Features difficult to overcome may
then be produced. Then also, the character of the sewage varies greatly
with the season, days and even hours. This is due to the habits of the
people, to climatic conditions and to the amount and character of trade
and industrial wastes and to the amount of water used and allowed to
infiltrate. A cannery, creamery, tannery, brewery, strawboard factory,
wool scouring shop, dyeing and cleaning works may discharge its wastes
so that during a certain period the character of the sewage be entirely
changed. Knowledge of these conditions and changes are necessary to plan
a successful disposal plant. Each community has its own problem, and
while there are certain general conditions that should be considered,
each case is more or less unique. Charles G. Hyde, consulting engineer
of the California State Board of Health, has summed up the situation in
this statement: “It is folly to suppose that because one town can
dispose of its sewage successfully in some certain fashion, another town
can adopt the same method with a certainty of securing equally
satisfactory results. Sewage differs widely in character, not only as
between towns but in a given town.”
Processes of Treatment
The processes for treating sewage may be divided into three main groups—
the preliminary or preparatory, the main or final, and disinfection.
The processes in the preliminary or preparatory group remove more or
less of the solids, especially the suspended matter, but the effluent,
or liquid that is discharged into the stream, is chemically unstable and
will decompose and putrefy. These are the simplest methods of treatment,
and, except when sewage is discharged into very large bodies of water
where it is desired only to improve the esthetic condition or where the
water is capable of rapid self-purification, at least one of these
processes is used in combination with some other form of treatment in
the next group. The preliminary processes are dilution, screening
(coarse or fine), plain sedimentation, straining or roughing filters,
chemical precipitation, slate beds, colloidal tanks, septic tank
treatment, and single contact beds.
The main or final processes are more complex. These remove a substantial
proportion of the dissolved and suspended matter. The effluent is
generally stable. When any one of these processes is used it is
customary to provide some preliminary treatment. The processes in this
group are double contact beds, trickling (also called percolating),
sprinkling filters, intermittent sand filtration and broad irrigation or
sewage farming.
In the third group is the process of disinfection, either by hypo-
chlorite of lime or liquid chlorine. Some authorities call this third
group the finishing process and preface two others, secondary settling
tanks and secondary filters. The chemical elements of this group destroy
the bacteria, especially the disease producing kind, and are used in
combination with one or more of the processes in the other two groups to
produce a highly purified effluent.
Several other processes have been developed within the last few years.
The electrolytic process is now being used in a few American cities, and
has been included in almost all of the experiments now being made by
municipalities. The activated sludge process has been adopted by two
large cities, Milwaukee, Wis., and Houston, Texas, and two small cities,
San Marcos, Texas, and Escanaba, Mich., and is being tested in at least
eighteen others, among them Baltimore, Cleveland and Brooklyn. Jersey
City, N. J., has tentatively adopted the activated sludge process.
Another process, known as the Miles Acid Sludge Process, is being
experimented with by the city of Boston.
These processes or variations of them may be used singly or in
combinations of two or more to yield different degrees of purification
that will meet varying local requirements. Which of these or what
combination of processes to use according to local requirements is the
all important question for a city to answer. Several cities either have
adopted or are planning to adopt the plan advocated by John A. Giles,
Commissioner of Public Works of Binghamton, New York, to include a
number of the different stages of treatment in the original design so
that when future installation is necessary on account of increased
population, with its increased pollution, or the need for a greater
degree of purification becomes imperative, the addition can be made on
the site already provided for and each unit will fit into the complete
structure at a minimum cost. The consensus of opinion is that a disposal
works can be designed and constructed which will produce an effluent
that will not deteriorate the water into which it is discharged, that
will create no nuisance from odor or from flies and that the cost will
be strictly proportionate to the sanitary and esthetic results achieved.
An approximate idea of the efficiency of the various well known
processes in the removal of bacteria was given by Professor George G.
Whipple, Professor of Sanitary Engineering, Harvard University, before
the New York State Conference of Mayors and Other City Officials:
┌──────────────────────────────┬──────────────────────────────┐
│ Process │Percentage of Bacteria Removed│
├──────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────┤
│Fine screens │ 10 to 15 │
│Settling tanks │ 60 to 70 │
│Septic tanks │ 60 to 70 │
│Chemical precipitation │ 80 to 90 │
│Contact filters │ 75 to 85 │
│Percolating filters │ 85 to 95 │
│Intermittent sand filters │ 95 to 99 │
│Broad irrigation │ 95 to 99 │
└──────────────────────────────┴──────────────────────────────┘
Dilution
Comparatively few cities can much longer depend upon large bodies of
water to dilute their untreated sewage. Even those cities located on the
seacoast and on the banks of large rivers and lakes have either provided
some method of treatment, usually one or more of the processes in the
preliminary group, or are planning to do so. New York City which has an
adjacent large body of water into which it discharges its sewage without
treatment of any kind, now finds it necessary to adopt a combination of
processes to eliminate the nuisance the waste is causing. In some places
where dilution is depended upon, the existing nuisances have been caused
by the outlets being extended only to the high water line of the water
course, thus preventing a proper mixture of sewage with a sufficient
volume of water adequately to dilute it. Other difficulties experienced
when untreated or raw sewage is discharged into large volumes of water
in excessive quantities are the formation of deposits of sludge, the
residue after sewage has been allowed to settle, on the banks and the
bottom; turbidity, milkiness and oiliness of the water, bad odors, the
formation of scum upon the water and the destruction of shellfish. To
overcome these difficulties some cities have resorted to dredging,
screening and sedimentation. Others have been compelled to adopt some
more complicated process.
The California State Board of Health in one of its bulletins quotes its
consulting engineer, Charles G. Hyde, as saying that experience has
demonstrated rather definitely that a nuisance will be caused if sewage
is diluted with less than about twenty volumes of water while from forty
to fifty may in some cases be necessary. Weston believes that in
ordinary cases mixtures of sewage and water should be fifty per cent.
saturated with oxygen, and when there is an excessive deposit of sludge
even seventy per cent. of saturation may be insufficient. Herring and
Gregory, in their report on the Albany, New York, system, say: “From
observations made in many rivers it has been found that a flow of well
oxygenated river water of from three to six cubic feet per second is
capable of diluting the sewage from a population of 1,000 to a degree
that will allow oxygen in the river water to oxidize the easily
putrescible organic matter in the sewage and thereby prevent the water
from becoming offensive, provided the velocity of flow is sufficient to
prevent accumulations of sewage sludge on the bottom of the stream.”
Screening
The screening process consists of running the sewage through coarse or
fine screens, either hand cleaned or mechanically operated, to remove
suspended and floating matter. There is almost an unanimity of opinion
now in favor of the use of mechanically operated fine screens. The
efficiency depends largely although not entirely, upon the size of the
mesh or openings through which the sewage passes. Coarse screens, which
are cleaned by hand, will remove from two to ten per cent. of the
suspended matter and fine screens which are mechanically operated will
in some cases remove as much as 25 per cent. Screening will not
materially change the turbidity of the liquid or the greasy appearance
nor will it remove all of the suspended matter.
Experience has shown that the screening process is valuable in
connection with sewage pumping works and inverted siphons, when sewage
is disposed of by dilution and when raw sewage is applied without any
other preliminary treatment to a final process as it prevents the
clogging of machinery and filters.
When the process is used the screenings must ordinarily be disposed of
within twenty-four hours on account of fermentation and decomposition
which sets in quickly. In some cities the deposits are buried and in
others they are burned after having been artificially dried. Robert
Spurr Weston says that it seems unwise to attempt to dispose separately
of two kinds of sludge, namely that removed before and that remaining
after subsidence. “On the other hand,” he continues, “the screening of
the effluent from a settling tank in order to reduce the operative
charges for cleaning sprinklers is an economical practise. Furthermore,
the actual amount of material screened from the effluent is small in
comparison with that removed from unsettled sewage and its subsequent
disposal is not a serious burden.”
Grit Chambers
If a sewage disposal plant is operated in connection with a combined
sewerage system grit chambers are usually necessary for the removal of
sand, gravel and dirt before the sewage passes on for further treatment.
Where a city has a separate system of sewerage grit chambers are held by
some authorities to be unnecessary unless the first wash of the street
after a storm is intercepted and the waste is treated. Gregory has
expressed the belief that the safest plan under ordinary conditions
seems to be to provide a grit chamber. It is generally agreed that the
chambers should be so constructed that the sewage will flow through
slowly enough for the grit to settle out, but fast enough to carry the
organic matter in suspension. To insure proper operation the chamber
must be cleaned out frequently. At the Cleveland Sewage Testing Station
it has been found that velocities ranging from 30 to 60 feet per minute
produce a grit of proper character. The California State Board of Health
has advocated chambers with a capacity such that a net period of storage
of at least three minutes be allowed and a velocity of not less than
five feet per minute.
Straining or Roughing
There are few cities which treat their sewage by the process of
straining and roughing. This consists of removing the suspended matter
by means of rapid straining through beds of coke or sand arranged like
the rapid sand or mechanical water filter. Coke beds, especially in cold
climates, have not been a success. The chief objection to the rapid sand
filter is the wash water which contains much organic or mineral
impurities of the sewage and which requires special treatment which
experience has shown to be difficult and expensive. Difficulty has also
been found in disposing of the sludge deposited upon the filter surface.
Of this process the bulletin of the California State Board of Health
says: “The process is an expensive one at best, both as respects
construction and operation. The effluent from such works can be made
fully equal to, if not better than the effluent of plain sedimentation
basins from a sanitary point of view.” The experience of the Cleveland
Testing Station with these filters was not favorable. The filters when
operated at rates from 30 to 60 gallons per acre per 24 hours removed
from 25 to 40 per cent. of suspended matter and their action was simply
mechanical, there being no increase in the dissolved oxygen content. The
report from the station says that the difficulties encountered in their
operation were sufficient to eliminate the process as a method in itself
or in combination with other processes.
Treatment in Tanks
The treatment of sewage in tanks, either by chemical or biological
processes, has been adopted by many cities, especially as a preliminary
treatment. These processes are known as plain sedimentation, chemical
precipitation and the septic process. Of these the treatment in the
Imhoff tank is the most popular at the present time.
Plain Sedimentation
By allowing the sewage either to flow into properly constructed tanks or
through them at a velocity low enough to allow some of the suspended
matter to separate from the liquid and to be deposited on the bottom
from which the sludge is removed, is another process that has been used
by a number of American and European cities. The first tanks were
constructed so that they could be filled with sewage and then after the
suspended matter had settled the effluent was drawn off. This was known
as the fill and draw plan. Later what is now known as the continuous
flow principle was used. The velocity of the flowing sewage is reduced
sufficiently as it enters and passes through the tank for the suspended
matter to settle. The sludge which collects at the bottom of the tank
must be removed frequently. The results are affected by the quantity and
quality of the sewage, fresh sewage being capable of greater
clarification by sedimentation than stale sewage. The range in storage
period for American sewages is from four to twelve hours and the removal
of suspended matter is from 45 to 75 per cent.
In some cities plain sedimentation has been used in connection with
dilution and in others as an aid to filtration. The chief objection to
the process is the sludge which is extremely offensive and must be
treated separately. It does not dry readily, is difficult to handle and
if allowed to accumulate causes serious nuisance. Because of these
difficulties and the fact that the sludge from the Cameron and Imhoff
tanks can be more easily disposed of the septic process has gradually
forced plain sedimentation into the background.
Colloidal tanks were designed to carry the process of clarification
further than plain sedimentation, but they have not come into general
use. Metcalf and Eddy in their “American Sewerage Practice” say of this
process: “There has been a feeling that while under some conditions a
portion of the colloidal solids could be removed by such devices, the
work accomplished was not likely to be sufficient to offset the expense
of construction and some difficulties in operation.”
The Septic Process
In the septic process the raw sewage is conveyed to tanks, and allowed
to stand until the solids have settled to the bottom and have been
partially destroyed or liquefied by bacterial action. Two types of tanks
are used in the septic process, one known as the Cameron type and the
other as the Emscher or Imhoff tank.
The best constructed Cameron tanks are not less than 8 feet in depth and
are usually large enough to hold about six hours’ maximum flow of
sewage. The desirable time of detention depends upon the character of
the sewage, both as to strength and freshness, strong and stale sewages
demanding a longer period. The tanks are usually built with baffles at
the entrance to retard the current and to deflect the suspended matter
to the bottom which is so constructed that the sludge, after bacterial
action has taken place, can be drawn off from time to time.
H. W. Clark, formerly chemist of the Massachusetts State Board of
Health, has expressed the belief that the rate of flow through a septic
tank should not be greater than that which will cause passage in twelve
hours.
Charles G. Hyde in the California Board of Health Bulletin says that as
a rule the period should not be greater than 24 hours nor less than 12
hours, except possibly with weak or stale sewages. He advocates multiple
units so that the storage periods may be controlled to give optimum
results.
The effluent which is turbid, putrescible and rich in organic matter
cannot be discharged into streams with safety without further treatment,
unless the volume of water is sufficient to complete the purification by
dilution. As the solids settle a scum which forms on top of the tank,
keeps out light and air and produces a condition favorable for the
bacterial activity caused by minute organisms known as anaerobic
bacteria. These germs thrive and functionate best in the absence of
oxygen, and their chief function in sewage treatment is the conversion
of the solid organic matter into a soluble form, somewhat less complex
in chemical composition. The sludge is rotted and when full bacterial
action has taken place is humified. In plain sedimentation the solids
are simply deposited upon the bottom of the tank and are removed
practically unchanged. In the septic tank, however, a part of the solids
after settling are broken down or digested, thus somewhat lessening the
difficulty of disposing of the sludge.
Reports vary widely as to the amount of suspended matter that can be
removed by the septic process. The Iowa State College bulletin says that
the amount of purification does not usually exceed 25 to 40 per cent.
Professor Whipple places the removal between 60 and 70 per cent., and
the State Board of Health of California says it may vary between 35 per
cent. and 85 per cent., averaging perhaps 50 to 60 per cent. H. W. Clark
places the amount at not less than 40 per cent. and adds that it will
vary according to the character of the sewage, the variations being from
30 per cent. with weak sewage to 80 per cent. with strong sewage.
All reports concur that in many cases the Cameron type of tank has
failed to produce efficient results. Among the objections raised by
authorities are the following:
The sludge is not thoroughly digested and is somewhat offensive. The
odor is obnoxious and the effluent is too stale and is treated with
difficulty by oxidation processes. Gilbert J. Fowler, Sanitary Expert of
England, says the defects which have shown themselves are a nuisance
both from the tank effluent and the sludge and an excessive quantity of
suspended solids in the tank effluent. Charles G. Hyde believes a review
of the principles and results of operation appear to justify the
conclusion that “the septic effluents are only less dangerous than crude
sewage to the extent of efficiency of removal of organic matter.”
The Imhoff Tank
In an effort to overcome the defects in the Cameron tank, the Imhoff or
Emscher tank was developed and this now seems to have the preference
among cities making new installations. The tank consists of two
compartments, one above the other. It has a smaller area than the
ordinary septic tank, but is much deeper. The sewage passes at a low
velocity through the upper chamber, which is comparatively shallow and
V-shaped, the sides being sufficiently steep to allow the solids to be
deposited at the bottom of the V which is equipped with slots. Through
these the solids pass into the second chamber below which is much deeper
than the other. The inclined partition wall must be cleaned frequently
with hose or squeegee in such a way as not to clog the slots. The
floating pieces of wood and cork must be skimmed off, but the greater
part of the suspended matter that floats will generally sink after a
time. Dr. Karl Imhoff, the inventor of the tank, advises spraying with a
hose to expedite the sinking. Care must be taken to keep the sides clean
and the sludge in the lower tank below the slot level. If neglected
suspended matters will rise to the surface behind as well as in front of
the scum boards. Dr. Imhoff advises the reversal of the flow of sewage
about every three weeks after skimming off the floating matter when one
sedimentation chamber feeds more than one sludge chamber. The rate of
flow in the upper chamber is sufficiently rapid to prevent any septic
action, yet slow enough to allow much of the suspended matter to settle.
The effluent in a comparatively fresh condition passes out of the tank
for further treatment or for discharge into water courses. It therefore
does not become stale nor does it come in contact with decomposing
sludge, thus eliminating in part the objections advanced by authorities
against the Cameron tank.
In the lower tank the sludge, after passing through the slots is slowly
digested through septic and other actions without any disturbance by the
flow of the liquid sewage, above. Before the tank can deliver good, well
digested sludge—that is, a black alkaline odorless sludge—it must be
inoculated with a proper amount of good sludge, or the raw sludge must
be permitted to “ripen.” Dr. Imhoff has found that even without
inoculation a tank will discharge good sludge from the beginning if ripe
sludge is emptied into the system from cesspools which have been in use
a long time.
In some instances cities have had considerable trouble with acid
decomposition during the ripening period. This produces a sludge of
objectionable odor and one not easily dried. It decomposes very slowly
and may rise in a mass to the surface of the sludge chamber. Various
remedies have been suggested, among them the addition of lime. “I cannot
advise such addition,” Dr. Imhoff has written. “All plants which are
known to me and in which acid decomposition has occurred have sooner or
later adjusted themselves of their own accord.”
When properly inoculated the particles of sludge rise and fall
constantly in the process of giving off the gases. The fresh sludge
particles entering the chamber through the slot are covered so that the
entire mass becomes thoroughly mixed and the untreated sludge in a short
time is inoculated with the proper organisms. The decomposed sludge is
discharged from time to time through pipes leading from the bottom of
the tank to drying beds.
Dr. Imhoff has advocated the discharge of sludge from each sludge
chamber once every two to six weeks, that the optimum of the sludge
level should be about three feet below the slot level and if it is
desired to promote the early incidence of proper decomposition the
sludge should not be allowed to remain quiet at the bottom of the sludge
chamber. He advocates constant stirring and a uniform introduction of
fresh organic matter and the discharge of the decomposed matter. The
scum layer, he says, must be agitated frequently by a jet of water or
otherwise and the sludge at the bottom of the chamber should be agitated
by a water stirring system. As a substitute, he suggests that the whole
body of sludge be pumped out and returned. To determine the elevation of
the sludge surface, he advises lowering into the sludge chamber a very
thin piece of sheet iron one foot square in area held in a horizontal
position. If the level is too high, there will be gas bubbles on the
surface of the settling chamber above the slot or there will be floating
sludge and in extreme cases foaming sludge. As compared with other tank
processes the experience of cities indicates that the Imhoff type has
many advantages. Certain inherent difficulties, however, have been
pointed out in several reports. Gilbert J. Fowler has expressed the
belief that “the comparative short time of settlement means that
variations in the character of the sewage must be quickly reflected in
the character of the tank effluence and that the filters (when they are
used for further treatment) must be called upon rapidly to accommodate
themselves to fluctuating conditions.” He believes that this is not
conducive to the development of the most efficient bacterial activity.
Storm water above moderate dilution, he says, will have to receive
separate treatment and he is of the opinion that ordinary stand-by tanks
will still be necessary for this purpose, the sludge from which will
have to be dealt with. From the results of the operation of an
experimental plant in Worcester, Massachusetts, Matthew Gault,
Superintendent of Sewers, draws these conclusions: “It appears to be
perfectly feasible to treat Worcester sewage by means of Imhoff tanks
and sprinkling filters. The results of experimental treatment of the
effluent from chemical precipitation tanks indicated that the advantages
gained by chemical precipitation as a preliminary treatment were not
commensurate with the cost. The Imhoff tank was quite as efficient in
sludge digestion as experimental septic tanks have been and much more
efficient so far as sedimentation of the sewage is concerned. It was
operated without the production of the offensive odors characteristic of
the septic tank and the sludge itself was disposed of without creating a
nuisance. The effluent from the Imhoff tank was normally as fresh in
appearance and odor as the sewage flowing into the tank.”
The experience of the New Jersey State Board of Health with Imhoff tanks
has been that if properly designed, constructed and operated, they are a
valuable means of sewage clarification. The observation of its engineers
has shown that under these conditions the tanks overcome a great deal of
trouble due to odors and greatly simplify the sludge problem. “However,
their proper operation is a considerable problem,” reads one of its
reports. “And the cost of keeping them in working order is several times
greater than for septic or sedimentation tanks.” In view of the initial
cost of this form of tank as compared with the older single story types
the New Jersey engineers believe that “in cases where the works are far
removed from a populous community, so that the odor problem is not
serious, it is doubtful whether the Imhoff tank has any material
advantage over a properly constructed, well baffled sedimentation tank
of the old type.”
The Cleveland Sewage Testing Station reports that the most consistent
results were obtained from the operation of the Imhoff tank, an average
suspended matter removal of 50 per cent. being secured. A recent city
report says: “In general it may be said that a detention period of
thirty minutes accomplished a removal of suspended matter from 40 to 45
per cent. as compared with a 50 per cent. removal effected by a
detention period of two hours and fifteen minutes.”
In a bulletin of the California Board of Health, Charles G. Hyde sums up
the importance of the septic process thus: “The septic process as
carried out either in the Cameron or Imhoff type, but especially in the
latter, has at present two distinct fields of usefulness; first, it
constitutes an effective means of preparation for any final process
which can be better conducted with a sewage from which the suspended
solids are more or less completely removed; secondly, it may be employed
when disposal by dilution is permissible if the source of unsightly
sludge and scum is removed.” Another advantage may be added, the Imhoff
tank produces a sludge that can be disposed of easily.
Chemical Precipitation
By using some coagulant such as copperas, lime, sulphate of alumina or
perchloride of iron, the subsidence in basins of between 40 and 55 per
cent. of the total organic matter and between 60 and 95 per cent. of the
total suspended matter can be obtained. The bacterial removal is between
80 and 90 per cent., depending upon the character of the sewage. The
objections to this process are great cost of chemicals and labor
required and the difficulty of disposing of a large amount of sludge.
There are a few plants of this kind in operation at the present time and
there seems to be a general agreement among authorities that the process
is now a back number. Fowler says, “It may be doubted whether dilute
sewages resulting from the lavish use of water in American cities lend
themselves generally to economical treatment by this process.” Metcalf
and Eddy in their “American Sewerage Practice” express the opinion that
the quantity of chemicals required for results would be a prohibitive
expense. The sewerage commission report of New Jersey contains the
statement that “on the standpoint of the officials in charge of the
experimental station at Lawrence, Massachusetts, chemical precipitation
is a process of the past.” The experiments of the Massachusetts State
Board of Health showed that it is quite impossible to obtain effluents
by chemical precipitation which compare in organic purity with those
obtained by intermittent sand filtration. About the only plants of any
importance in the United States are those at Worcester, Massachusetts,
and Providence, Rhode Island. According to the report of the
Superintendent of Sewers of Worcester, the experimental plant in that
city has shown that “the cost of operation of Imhoff tanks and
sprinkling filters per million gallons of sewage treated would be much
less than the cost of operation of chemical precipitation or sand
filtration as carried on in Worcester.”
Slate Beds
The equipment for this process consists of tanks with horizontal slabs
of slate separated a few inches by stone blocks. The sewage is allowed
to stand in the tank for about two hours, during which the suspended
matter is deposited on the slabs and is digested by multifarious forms
known as aerobic germs, _i. e._, germs requiring oxygen for the
continuance of their proper vital function. The deposits are thereby
reduced to harmless and inoffensive humus. Slate beds are dosed and
rested alternately so as to give them an opportunity to replenish their
supply of oxygen. Multiple units are therefore necessary. The effluent
must be treated as a tank effluent. Fowler suggests that when filters
are used to purify the effluent, “humus” tanks be provided between the
slate and the filter to retain the solids washed away from the beds and
somewhat to equalize the composition of the effluent passing into the
filter.
Dosing Chambers
After the effluent has passed from a tank after being treated by one or
more of the preliminary processes, it usually flows into a compartment
known as the dosing chamber where it is admitted to the filter for
further purification.
When enough of the liquid has accumulated in the chamber it is
automatically emptied by means of a siphon, thus permitting the
intermittent application of the sewage to the filter bed. When more than
one bed is used the siphons are arranged so that the liquid alternately
flows to different filters or parts of filters.
Contact Filters—Single and Double
The treatment of sewage in a single contact filter is classed as a
preliminary process and when treated in double contact beds or those
arranged in tandem as a final process. A contact filter is a basin
filled with broken stone, coke, slag or coarse gravel, thoroughly
underdrained. The size of stone or other material to be used depends
upon the degree of purification desired, and the manner of operating the
beds. The smaller the stone the more brilliant the effluent will be, but
all reports agree that the cost of operation will be greater and that
there will be a more rapid loss of filter capacity. Experience has
taught the superiority of the coarser material because the interstices
being so large the bed is not so liable to choke. Watson advises a fine
medium bed only when a highly purified effluent is desired, when it
would be difficult to get rid of humus from the filtrate, when a high
cost of maintenance is not prohibitive and when a temporary stoppage of
the whole plant would not be a serious matter. He believes it is not
suitable for installations of any magnitude. Beds have been built with
various depths, the range being between four and seven feet. Some have
been built shallower and have given good results. The method of applying
the sewage is important. Some tanks are overfed and others are underfed.
Francis E. Daniels, Director of Water and Sewage Inspection of the New
Jersey State Board of Health, describes a method which has been found to
be successful in plants in this state. At these plants the effluent is
applied on the top and at one corner of the contact beds. At the point
of application a small area of contact material from 6 inches to one
foot deep is removed from the top of the bed, and fine cinders are
substituted. An embankment about a foot high is constructed of the same
material around this area so that all of the tank effluent applied to
the beds strains through the cinders. Mr. Daniels says that a great deal
of the suspended matter is thus removed from the tank effluent which
reduces clogging and increases the life of the beds. It is Mr. Daniels’
experience that the value of underfed beds is diminishing. If the
effluent is very septic this method has the advantage of reducing odors,
but as Mr. Daniels has pointed out, the practise of reducing the storage
capacity of tanks is becoming prevalent.
In many plants the sewage is distributed by mechanical appliances, some
being motor driven and others cable driven. Springfield, Missouri, which
uses a motor drive, reports a saving in power, first cost, moving
weight, and maintenance, over the cable drive. Another advantage is that
the length of the filter can be increased at will. The total cost of the
distribution per million gallons according to Springfield’s experience
is $1.25 for cable drive and $1.61 for direct motor drive.
After the sewage has been distributed on the beds so that the
interstices are filled, it is allowed to stand for a time. The bed is
then drained and rested. While standing the sewage comes in contact with
a jelly-like film which forms on the surface of the stone, and important
changes occur. As with the septic tanks contact beds require a certain
period in which to ripen. The time of contact and the period of rest
vary in different plants. The rate of filtration varies according to the
construction of the beds, the range is between 600,000 and 1,200,000
gallons per acre per day. The effluent from single contact beds is not
stable but that from double contact beds is non-putrescible and low in
suspended matter, although somewhat turbid. It can be discharged without
offense into small streams. Single contact beds have seldom been used
for final treatment of sewage and fewer filters of this kind are now
being constructed even in conjunction with any preparatory treatment.
The general opinion is that this process is on the wane. Watson says,
“It may now be assumed that percolating filters are being constructed in
England in preference to contact beds wherever the conditions are
suitable.” In America they are not being adopted for large installation
but they are still considered for small disposal works. In their fifth
report the Royal Sewage Commission of England states that taking into
account the gradual loss of capacity of contact beds, a cubic yard of
material arranged in the form of a percolating filter will generally
treat satisfactorily nearly twice as much tank liquor as a cubic yard of
material in a contact bed. Comparing the efficiency of contact beds and
percolating filters it is claimed that the latter are better adapted to
variations of flow and that the effluent is usually much better aerated;
and apart from the suspended solids are of a more uniform character.
With percolating filters the likelihood of odors is greater than from
contact beds and there may be a greater nuisance from flies.
In the report of the City of Leeds, England, the results of very
valuable experiments are given. It says, “Double contact beds give good
results with crude sewage and excellent results with partially settled
sewage or with septic effluent. Single contact beds are insufficient for
dealing with crude sewage but give fair results with settled sewage or
with septic effluent. The real difficulty with contact beds is to
maintain capacity.”
The principal advantages of this process according to reports are low
operating head, and less nuisance from odor and flies, and the
disadvantages are large areas required and cost of maintenance.
Trickling, Percolating or Sprinkling Filters
Trickling or percolating filters consist of beds of coarse grained
material such as pebbles or crushed stone, one-eighth to four inches in
size, from four feet to ten feet deep and well underdrained. The
character and strength of the sewage should determine the size of the
material, the depth of the bed and the rate of operation. Some engineers
give the capacity as about 20,000 persons per acre of stone surface;
others say the rate of flow should be from one to two and one-half
million gallons per acre. In some designs an auxiliary air supply is
inducted into the filter material by tubes connected with the
underground system. The Atlanta plant is equipped with ventilator hoods
having weather vanes so that the mouth of each hood always points toward
the wind. “This form of ventilation is of no particular value and may be
detrimental in cold weather,” says Glenn D. Holmes, Chief Engineer of
the Syracuse, N. Y., Sewer Board. By means of spray jets and moving
sprinklers operated with some device for varying the pressure, such as a
butterfly valve, or by means of an intermittent dosing tank operated by
a siphon, the sewage is sprinkled or deposited on the surface of the bed
in thin films and drops; thus the sewage is freed of objectionable gases
and takes up oxygen as it passes through the air and through the filter.
Sprinkling filters do not produce the best results when crude sewage is
applied. They are most efficient when the suspended matter has been
removed by some preparatory treatment. In some cities the screening
process is first used, in others the sewage receives a preliminary
treatment in tanks. Well designed and efficiently operated filters of
this kind produce an effluent that is stable but not clear. Some plants
are equipped with secondary settling tanks through which the effluent
flows before final discharge and is freed of the humus-like particles it
contains after leaving the filter. Reports agree that the effluent is
not nearly so good in appearance and has a much higher percentage of
bacteria than that produced by good intermittent sand filters. As
compared with the double contact process the general opinion is that
sprinkling filters are superior in respect to the removal of organic
matter and cost less to operate. The chief advantages of a sprinkling
filter are the high rate of filtration and the low cost of operation.
The disadvantages are a possible nuisance, especially during hot
weather, from odor when anything but fresh tank sewage is sprayed; and
the development of insect life. Fowler says, “However economical their
construction and maintenance it cannot be said that such a process meets
all sanitary and æsthetic requirements.” The experience of Worcester,
Massachusetts, at its experimental station was that more than twenty
times as much sewage per unit of area was treated by the sprinkler
filter as could be treated by intermittent sand filtration, and more
than ten times as much per cubic yard of filter. Four times as much
sewage was treated by these experimental filters as could be treated
satisfactorily by experimental contact beds. In order to obtain equal
nitrification with contact beds at least three contacts would be
required.
Intermittent Sand Filters
As a final process of purification in sections where land and filter
material are available at small cost the intermittent sand filter is
superior to any other. This fact has been established by experience and
experiments. The filter material may be clean, coarse sand or any other
porous soil. If a natural area is available the method of construction
is very much simplified and economical. The top soil is removed and used
in embankments between the beds. If the water tables are low the beds
are not underdrained. In artificial beds the size of the sand is
important. While fine sand will give a more brilliant effluent than a
coarser material, the sewage has to be applied in small doses with long
periods of rest. The rate of purification is higher in coarse sand
filters and the effluent while containing more bacteria is non-
putrescible. About twenty-four inches of sand should cover the
underdrains of tile, placed about five feet apart, and surrounded by
small-sized gravel.
In some beds the entire bottom above the underdrain is covered with
about six inches of gravel. In others the bottom is ridged, the
underdrains being placed at the bottom of the valleys which are then
partially or wholly filled with gravel. Risers are constructed at the
head of the underdrain and an intercepting drain completes the system.
The beds vary in size and number according to the amount of sewage to be
treated. The operation of the filter is very important. The sewage must
be applied rapidly in rotation to each bed until the surface is covered
with about three inches of the liquid. The bed is then slowly drained
and allowed to rest. Overdosing and lack of aeration cause clogging. The
surface must at all times be kept clean and loose. To maintain this
condition it is sometimes necessary to break up the surface to a small
depth or periodically to remove the deposit on the surface.
In cold climates the operation of the filters in winter is difficult and
the quality of the effluent somewhat impaired. Several methods have been
adopted to prevent freezing. Some filter beds are ridged so that when
dosed the sewage flows in gutters. The ice which forms at the top of the
sewage remains suspended on the ridges, thus permitting succeeding doses
to flow underneath the ice. In other plants the surface of the filter is
scraped into small piles which form a support for the ice. It is claimed
that by this method the cost of subsequent cleaning is less than when
the beds are ridged.
The effluent in properly constructed and managed plants is clear and
odorless. The bacterial purification is as high as ninety-nine per cent.
The Massachusetts State Board of Health in one of its reports says,
“When sewage filters slowly and intermittently through five feet of
porous earth and sand, an effluent is obtained which is as free from
organic matter, from ammonia and from nitrites as many a natural spring
water.”
The only drawback noted to this process is the cost of treatment in
large quantities where land and filter material are not available.
Francis E. Daniels says that under such conditions the cost is almost
prohibitive. For many cities sufficient area cannot be obtained at any
price, and as population increases the difficulty will become greater.
The New York State Board of Health in general will approve only of the
following rates of operation for different types of filters where
suitable provision for preliminary treatment is made: Intermittent sand
filters, 100,000 gallons per acre per day; contact beds, 100,000 gallons
per acre per day per foot of depth; sprinkling filters, 300,000 gallons
per acre per day per foot of depth. These rates of operation are based
on a sewage contribution of 100 gallons per capita daily and no
variation from these rates of filtration is allowed for any other per
capita contribution of sewage. The allowable effective depths of said
filters will in general range from three to five feet; contact beds from
four to seven feet; sprinkling filters, from five to nine feet.
Broad Irrigation
Broad irrigation, or sewage farming, is the oldest process of sewage
purification, but the constant increase in population has made it
necessary for cities to adopt other methods because of the area of land
necessary for such a plant. Two processes are used, surface irrigation
and filtration, a greater area of land being required for the former.
Sometimes the two are combined into one process. For filtration and
irrigation the sewage is generally first subjected to sedimentation or
screening and then flows on carefully prepared land on which crops are
usually grown. The areas are underdrained and are equipped with
distribution systems.
Local conditions determine the method of irrigation, the ridge and
furrow system being most generally used. The efficiency of the process
depends upon the quality of the soil and proper management. Among the
factors which should enter into the selection of the site are the
quality of the soil, composition of sewage, method of disposal, kind of
crops to be planted, contours and slope of surface, nature of the sub-
soil, sub-soil waters, transportation facilities, nature of streams,
nature of adjacent property, and availability of water supply. The best
lands consist of a fine layer of alluvium overlaying a sub-soil of
gravel, chalk or other porous material. Various kinds of crops are grown
on sewage farms and the revenues therefrom help to reduce the cost of
operation. They also assist in the purification. The principal drawback
are heavy transportation cost and a prejudice against sewage-grown
produce. During the rainy season when the quantity of sewage requiring
treatment is greatest, less sewage can be used for irrigation and the
growing of crops of sewage farms. All evidence points to the fact that
broad irrigation is on a steady decline, although the efficiency of the
treatment under favorable conditions is very high.
Disinfection
When the bacterial efficiency of an effluent from either preparatory or
final treatment is low and the effluent is discharged into a body of
water from which water supplies are derived or shell fish are taken,
disinfection is often found necessary. The purpose is to destroy
objectionable bacteria and disease germs. Hypo-chlorite of lime and
liquid chlorine are the two chemicals most commonly used. The principal
advantages of the liquid chlorine over the hypo-chlorite according to
plant supervisors and operators, are less cost of operation and space
required for both apparatus and storage of materials, no loss of
strength, no lime sludge, and no mixing tanks required. The claim is
also made that it can be better controlled. Chlorine, however, is more
expensive than hypo-chlorite and the control apparatus usually costs
more. There is general agreement among engineers, that except as an
emergency measure or under the above stated conditions, disinfection is
too expensive a process on account of the amount of chemical required.
This varies with the amount, method and degree of previous treatment of
the sewage and the degree of bacterial elimination desired. Tests at the
Cleveland Testing Station indicated that from five to seven parts per
million of available chlorine will effect a bacterial removal of from
eighty-five to ninety per cent.
Activated Sludge Process
Sewage treatment by aeration in the presence of sludge is the latest
development in sewage disposal, and the process is attracting a great
deal of attention in America. Milwaukee has constructed a plant to treat
two million gallons of sewage a day. Houston, Texas, is operating a
plant to treat the sewage for 160,000 persons, and Escanaba, Michigan,
and Jersey City, N. J., have favored the process. Experiments are now
being conducted in Milwaukee, Baltimore, Washington, Cleveland, Regina,
Chicago, Lawrence, Mass., Brooklyn, New Haven, Conn., the University of
Illinois and many other places. The efficiency and economy of the
process as compared with others which have long been in use have not
been completely established. The chief points in dispute are sludge
disposal and cost, but the indications are that these questions will
soon be satisfactorily answered.
The process consists of passing raw sewage through tanks from eight to
twenty feet deep in which a certain amount of activated sludge is always
present. To mix the sewage and the activated sludge air is forced into
the bottom of the tank under low pressure of sufficient volume to keep
the liquor violently disturbed. From this aerating tank the mixture
passes to another or sedimentation tank where the sludge settles and
from which the clear effluent passes over a weir to its final
destination. In order to maintain the proper volume of activated sludge
in the aerating tank a portion of the sludge is pumped back from the
sedimentation tank. The balance of the sludge is pressed and used for
fertilizer base. The Milwaukee experiments indicate that in order to
produce a clear, non-putrescible effluent about four hours aeration is
required, twenty per cent. of activated sludge maintained in the
aerating tank, and about 1.75 cubic feet of free air supplied per gallon
of sewage treated.
The effluent is clear, odorless and practically free from suspended
matter. The sludge will begin to decompose after forty-eight hours and
must be pressed and dried within that time. Chief Engineer, T. Chalkley
Hatton, of the Milwaukee Sewerage Commission, estimates that the sludge
can be reduced to a fertilizer basis for about $8.75 per dry ton,
including overhead charges. Basing the value of the sludge produced upon
a low price per unit, he finds that Milwaukee sludge is worth $12.50 per
dry ton, which represents a clear profit of $3.75 a ton. From ten to
twelve million gallons can be treated upon one acre of ground, which is
about one-fifth the area required for sedimentation tanks and sprinkling
filters. The reasons for the adoption of this process by Milwaukee after
experimentation by competent engineers for more than a year are given by
Mr. Hatton in a recent address before New York State city officials as
follows: “It produces a better effluent than any other known process of
sewage treatment except land treatment or intermittent sand filtration;
it can be built upon a comparatively small area; it produces no
objectionable odors or flies; it produces a sludge of sufficient value
to meet the cost of its reduction to a fertilizer and therefore relieves
the city of the difficult, complicated and wasteful method of sludge
disposal common to all other processes; it is subject to complete and
satisfactory control throughout its operation; it is not materially
influenced by climatic conditions; occupying a small area, its first
cost is less than any other known process from which an equal character
of effluent can be obtained; its operating cost is not prohibitive.”
In a discussion before the Iowa Section of the American Waterworks
Association Dr. Edward Bartow commended activated sludge for its value
as a fertilizer. This has been proved, he said, by its chemical
composition, by its reaction with various solids and by its effect on
the growth of plants. Pot cultures and garden experiments have shown
that the nitrogen is in a very available form.
E. E. Sands, City Engineer of Houston, Texas, bases this statement on
results of experiments conducted for a year: “Our investigation has
demonstrated that sewage can be disposed of anywhere that there is a
vacant tract of land in the city without creating a nuisance and without
any objectionable feature.” The total estimated cost for treatment will
be about $9.14 per million gallons when the plant is run at the rate of
18,900,000 gallons per day. He estimates that the total cost for
treatment by the Imhoff tanks and the sprinkling filters would be not
less than $11 per million gallons.
After an extended investigation by their sanitary engineers, Armour &
Company have concluded that the activated sludge method will
satisfactorily purify the industrial wastes from their Packingtown
factories. Assistant Superintendent, M. D. Harding, estimates that from
data now available the cost per million gallons exclusive of
depreciation, interest and repairs, will be $3.
When considering the applicability of this process to conditions in any
city consideration should be given to the following points. The process
requires competent supervision, which Mr. Hatton claims may be a
blessing in disguise in view of the experiences of cities which, after
having built disposal plants of various kinds, have left their operation
to the kind mercies of Providence with disastrous results. This process
also requires the expenditure for constant power. The cheaper the power
the more adaptable the process is commercially; but if the unit is small
and the power cost high, the operating cost may be too great. The sludge
must be constantly treated to avoid nuisance. The process produces a
high degree of purification. If the local conditions do not demand this
the process might be too expensive in comparison with some other process
which will produce a satisfactory effluent.
Other Processes
A few cities, including Oklahoma City and Santa Monica, Cal., have
electrolysis treatment plants. The process consists in passing the
sewage between a system of electrodes. The change is brought about by
chemical reaction from newly formed chemical reagents produced by the
decomposition of inorganic compounds already in solution. It is still
regarded as an unestablished process.
Boston has within the last year been testing a new process of sewage
purification invented and patented by a Boston chemist. By the addition
of an acid, an attempt is made to precipitate the bulk of suspended
matter and to form a sludge which can be dried and degreased thereby
producing a salable and greaseless fertilizer as well as recovering
valuable grease. Experiments by E. S. Dorr gave results so full of
promise that arrangements were made for a study of the process under the
supervision of the Sanitary Research Laboratory of the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. Robert Spurr Weston gives the results of this
study in a recent issue of the _American Journal of Public Health_. His
conclusions are that “with facts at hand the process would be very
satisfactory for Boston from a sanitary standpoint, and is more
promising economically than any other known method.” He includes in his
comparison the activated sludge process. An experiment by Boston on a
larger scale has been recommended.
Trade Wastes
Industrial trade wastes, such as those coming from canneries, breweries,
woolen mills, laundries, dye and cleaning works, paper mills, iron
foundries, gas works and packing establishments and others cause
nuisances around disposal plants, and the problem of their proper
disposal is more difficult of satisfactory solution than the treatment
of domestic sewage. Some wastes can be treated with domestic sewage at
the disposal works without any difficulty, others require special
treatment before being allowed to enter the sewers and often it is
desirable to keep certain wastes out of the main sewers and dispose of
them independently. Each particular problem must be considered by itself
with due regard both to conditions at the factory, the expense burden on
the producer of the waste and to the body of water into which the
effluent is to be discharged. There are instances where cities have
reimbursed certain manufacturers for treating their wastes separately,
and others where the manufacturers have reimbursed the city for the
additional treatment required.
Sludge Disposal and Value
Authorities are generally agreed that the sludge problem is the center
of the entire sewage problem, because it causes more trouble and is the
most expensive part of the treatment. The method of handling it is just
as important as the treatment of the sewage.
Wet sludge can be pumped out on land or into shallow places or it can be
sent to sea in ships and allowed to sink. If pumped on land it must be
spread out in very thin layers. If discharged into trenches it is
ploughed into the ground after it has dried. In either case a large area
of land is necessary and odors cannot be eliminated. Only cities located
on or near the seashore can send their sludge to sea, and then the cost
of disposal is rather high.
Sludge can be dried by pressing, in centrifugal drying machines, by
mixing with some dry matter or by discharging upon drying beds. The cost
of pressing is high, depending upon the amount of lime added, the kind
of sludge pressed, and the size of the works. George S. Webster states
that the average cost in large cities is ten cents per ton of wet
sludge. It is especially applicable to chemical precipitation works as
it must first be treated with lime or coal powder. When dried in
machines the liquid contains much organic matter and is objectionable.
The simplest method is to discharge the sludge upon drying beds of
porous material and underdrained. The time for drying depends upon
sewage treatment. Imhoff tank sludge will dry in less than a week,
septic tank sludge in two weeks or more, and sludge from plain
sedimentation will require about two months in summer and almost five
months in winter. Cleveland, in order to overcome weather conditions at
its experimental plant, built a covered sludge bed, modeled after
standard greenhouse construction. The report from the Testing Station is
that during summer the period of drying is approximately the same as or
possibly a little longer than with open beds. Eliminating the three
winter months, the station report says, it is possible to operate beds
of this type so that one square foot of surface will dry 0.8 cubic feet
of sludge per year. Francis E. Daniels suggests that sludge can be
handled faster by drying a small portion at one time and removing it
from the bed before the next portion is drained off.
Dry sludge can be used for fertilizer or for filling low lands or it can
be incinerated. Its fertilizing value is disputed except when produced
by the activated sludge method. The filling in method is economical.
Authorities advise the consideration of incineration by cities which
burn their garbage.
Dr. Imhoff’s recommendations are the use of sludge for agricultural
purposes and for filling in low land. “In both cases,” he says, “the
sludge must first be dried and this is best effected upon a drying bed
after the sludge has been decomposed in an inoffensive, odorless manner,
in a separate tank through which sewage does not flow.”
Many unsuccessful efforts have been made to extract the valuable
ingredients from sewage, but to date the experience has been that they
have been more costly to recover than they are worth. Dr. McLean Wilson,
Sanitary Inspector of the West Riding of Yorkshire Rivers Board,
believes that the valuable ingredients of sewage will ultimately be
recovered and used since many capable experimenters are at work on the
problem. H. W. Clark, Chemist of the Massachusetts State Board of
Health, is of the opinion that sludge has some value and that “it seems
inevitable that as the processes of drying, pressing and fat separation
are improved and as nitrogen advances in price sewage sludge will become
of greater agricultural value than at present.” Experiments have been
made at the Philadelphia Sewage Testing Station by burning dry sludge
and wet sludge mixed with fine coal. The results were unsuccessful.
Experiments have also been made at the Cleveland station where it was
found that the sewage sludge contained about one-half as much nitrogen
and one-third as much phosphates as does the garbage tankage.
Management and Supervision
No matter how well a sewage disposal plant is designed or constructed it
will not do its work in a satisfactory manner and produce desired
results unless it is efficiently managed. Every plant should be in
charge of a man who has knowledge of sewage disposal principles, is
thoroughly familiar with his plant and who can act intelligently in an
emergency. The New Jersey State Sewerage Commission in one of its
reports notes the tendency of local authorities to permit the
deterioration of disposal plants usually through inattention. “It cannot
be too strongly urged on those charged with these, as of other public
works, that a competent man in charge is a primary necessity and that
the plant should be kept continuously in the highest state of
efficiency.” The same condition is complained of by the California State
Board of Health and other state organizations. In one of its bulletins
the California State Board says that “some of the plants are operating
very indifferently well and some very badly. The general situation shows
plainly the need of expert advice to municipalities with respect to
general methods and necessary efficiencies from some central authority.”
D. C. Faber, Industrial Engineer of the Iowa State College, goes so far
as to claim that practically all nuisances in connection with plants can
be traced directly to failure to give them attention. He says that even
where plants have been found too small increased care in many cases
could be made to offset lack of capacity.
In several states, such as New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Kansas,
Ohio and Massachusetts, the State Boards of Health have supervision over
the designing of new plants and the operation of those established. The
good results obtained as a result of this supervision are evidence that
similar powers should be granted to all state boards of health.
With a plant designed to meet local conditions, properly constructed and
efficiently managed, a city should have no difficulty in disposing of
its sewage economically, in a sanitary manner and without creating a
nuisance.
Table II (a)
SEWAGE DISPOSAL IN AMERICAN CITIES
─────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Name of City │ GENERAL DATA
├──────────┬────────────────┬─────────────┬─────────────
│Population│ General │ Annual Cost │ Gallons
│ │ Description │ of │ Treated
│ │ Plant │Operation[29]│ Annually
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
─────────────┼──────────┼────────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────
Albany, N. Y.│ 110,000│Coarse screens, │ │
│ │ Imhoff tanks │ │
│ │ and pumping │ │
│ │ station. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Atlanta, Ga. │ 200,000│Coarse screens, │ $1.93 per│
│ │ grit chambers,│ [M.G.]X.│
│ │ Imhoff tanks, │ │
│ │ sprinkling │ │
│ │ filters. │ │
Akron, Ohio │ 150,000│Screens, grit │ │
│ │ chambers, │ │
│ │ Imhoff tanks, │ │
│ │ sludge beds, │ │
│ │ sprinkling │ │
│ │ filters. │ │
Alliance, │ 22,000│Cameron tanks. │ 2,200 per│
Ohio │ │ Contact and │ [M.G.]│
│ │ intermittent │ │
│ │ sand filters. │ │
│ │ Imhoff tanks │ │
│ │ and slag │ │
│ │ contact beds │ │
│ │ now under │ │
│ │ construction. │ │
Auburn, N. Y.│ 37,000│Two plants. Grit│ 8,500│
│ │ chambers, │ │
│ │ settling │ │
│ │ tanks, dosing │ │
│ │ tanks, contact│ │
│ │ beds. │ │
Brockton, │ 63,000│Revolving │ 12,000│ 768,000,000
Mass. │ │ screens, sand │ │
│ │ beds and │ │
│ │ sprinkling │ │
│ │ filters. │ │
Bloomington, │ 12,000│Septic tank, │ │ 275,000,000
Ill. │ │ center │ │
│ │ settling │ │
│ │ basin, 3 │ │
│ │ contact beds │ │
│ │ arranged │ │
│ │ around center │ │
│ │ basin, nozzle │ │
│ │ spray upon │ │
│ │ filter beds │ │
│ │ surrounding │ │
│ │ contact beds. │ │
Bristol, │ 15,000│Sand filter │ 5,000│
Conn. │ │ beds. │ │
Columbus, │ 220,000│Grit chamber, │ │5,163,000,000
Ohio. │ │ screens, │ │
│ │ pumps, Imhoff │ │
│ │ tanks, │ │
│ │ sprinkling │ │
│ │ filters, final│ │
│ │ settling │ │
│ │ basins. │ │
│ │ │ │
Canton, Ohio.│ 70,000│Imhoff tanks, │ 20,000│ 700,000,000
│ │ contact beds, │ │
│ │ crushed slag │ │
│ │ and gravel │ │
│ │ filter with │ │
│ │ automatic │ │
│ │ syphon, sludge│ │
│ │ drying beds, │ │
│ │ sand and pea │ │
│ │ gravel │ │
│ │ filling. Half │ │
│ │ of bed covered│ │
│ │ with │ │
│ │ greenhouse │ │
│ │ construction. │ │
│ │ Final effluent│ │
│ │ into creek. │ │
Danbury, │ 23,000│Irrigation and │ 7,500│
Conn. │ │ filtration. │ │
│ │ │ │
Dallas, Texas│ 120,000│Screens, grit │ │
│ │ chambers, │ │
│ │ Imhoff tanks │ │
│ │ and sludge │ │
│ │ beds. │ │
Fond du Lac, │ 20,000│Sewage collected│ 3,200│
Wis. │ │ in receiving │ │
│ │ well and │ │
│ │ pumped into │ │
│ │ Imhoff tanks. │ │
│ │ │ │
Fresno, Cal. │ 40,000│Partial │ 1,000│1,825,000,000
│ │ purification │ │
│ │ by settling │ │
│ │ and septic │ │
│ │ process, and │ │
│ │ disposal of │ │
│ │ effluent by │ │
│ │ irrigation of │ │
│ │ alfalfa. │ │
Gloversville,│ 21,000│Primary and │ 22,000│1,022,000,000
N. Y. │ │ secondary │ │
│ │ settling │ │
│ │ tanks, screen │ │
│ │ chambers and │ │
│ │ dosing tanks, │ │
│ │ sprinkling │ │
│ │ filters, │ │
│ │ sludge drying │ │
│ │ beds and sand │ │
│ │ filters. │ │
Houston, │ 140,000│Activated sludge│ 9.25 per│6,570,000,000
Texas │ │ method, │ [M.G.]│
│ │ reinforced │ │
│ │ concrete │ │
│ │ aeration │ │
│ │ tanks, [M.G.] │ │
│ │ settling tanks│ │
│ │ and re- │ │
│ │ aeration │ │
│ │ tanks. │ │
│ │ Continuous │ │
│ │ flow, power │ │
│ │ houses and │ │
│ │ blowers. │ │
Independence,│ 12,000│Cameron tanks │ │
Kas. │ │ and filter │ │
│ │ beds. │ │
Lackawanna, │ 17,500│788,400,000 │ │
N.Y. │ │ 95%. │ │
Milwaukee, │ 450,000│Trial plant │ │
Wis. │ │ operated since│ │
│ │ 1916. Now │ │
│ │ designing │ │
│ │ activated │ │
│ │ sludge plant │ │
│ │ to treat all │ │
│ │ sewage. │ │
Mt. Vernon, │ 38,000│Settling tanks, │ 17,675│ 750,000,000
N.Y. │ │ single story │ │
│ │ septic type, │ │
│ │ constructed in│ │
│ │ five units. │ │
│ │ Sprinkling │ │
│ │ overhead │ │
│ │ Phelps nozzle,│ │
│ │ dosing tanks │ │
│ │ with automatic│ │
│ │ syphon. │ │
New Britain, │ 55,000│Sand filtration.│ 12,000│
Conn. │ │ │ │
Oswego, N.Y. │ 24,000│ │ │
Pasadena, │ 42,000│Imhoff and │ │ 730,000,000
Cal. │ │ septic tanks, │ │
│ │ sludge bed and│ │
│ │ sewage farm. │ │
Providence, │ 249,616│Settling tanks; │ 54,954│9,078,620,000
R. I. │ │ disinfection. │ │
Philadelphia,│ 1,800,000│Pennypack Creek │ │ 450,000,000
Pa. │ │ sewage treated│ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Reading, Pa. │ 110,000│ │ 21,500│2,000,000,000
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Rochester, N.│ 248,465│Detritus tanks, │ │
Y. │ │ fine screens │ │
│ │ Imhoff tanks. │ │
│ │ Plan made for │ │
│ │ effluent to │ │
│ │ run power │ │
│ │ plant. Sludge │ │
│ │ drying beds. │ │
Schenectady, │ 87,000│Imhoff tanks and│ 23,000│
N.Y. │ │ sprinkling │ │
│ │ filters. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Sumter, S. C.│ 12,000│Sewage only │ 8,000│
│ │ partly │ │
│ │ treated. A │ │
│ │ settling │ │
│ │ chamber only. │ │
│ │ No filtering │ │
│ │ bed. │ │
Tallahassee, │ 6,000│Single contact │ 2,500│
Fla. │ │ system, 3 │ │
│ │ beds, coke and│ │
│ │ sand, │ │
│ │ filtration │ │
│ │ with automatic│ │
│ │ apparatus. │ │
Woonsocket, │ 43,000│Screening basin │ │
R. I. │ │ and filters. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Worcester, │ 170,000│Chemical │ 60,000│6,094,000,000
Mass. │ │ precipitation,│ exclusive of│
│ │ sand filters. │ depreciation│
│ │ │and interest.│
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
─────────────┴──────────┴────────────────┴─────────────┴─────────────
─────────────┬───────────────────┬──────────────────────────────
Name of City │ GENERAL DATA │ SEWERAGE SYSTEM
├───────────┬───────┼───────────────┬──────────────
│ Average │ Per │ Kind of │ Preliminary
│ Number │ cent. │Sewerage System│ Treatment
│ Gallons │ of │ │
│ Treated │City’s │ │
│ Daily │ Total │ │
│ │Treated│ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
─────────────┼───────────┼───────┼───────────────┼──────────────
Albany, N. Y.│ │ │Mostly combined│Coarse screens
│ │ │ │ and grit
│ │ │ │ chamber.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Atlanta, Ga. │ 16,000,000│ 90%.│Combined. │Grate bars 1½
│ │ │ │ in. apart,
│ │ │ │ and three
│ │ │ │ grit
│ │ │ │ chambers.
Akron, Ohio │ │ │Separate and │Screens and
│ │ │ combined. │ grit
│ │ │ │ chambers.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Alliance, │ 3,000,000│ 100%.│Separate. │Grit chambers.
Ohio │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Auburn, N. Y.│ 675,000│ 22%.│Separate with │Two grit
│ │ │ some surface │ chambers.
│ │ │ water. │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Brockton, │ 2,106,000│ 100%.│Separate. │Revolving
Mass. │ │ │ │ screen.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Bloomington, │ 750,000│ 100%.│Separate. │Settling basin
Ill. │ │ │ │ with weirs.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Bristol, │ 1,500,000│ 90%.│Separate. │None.
Conn. │ │ │ │
Columbus, │ 21,300,000│All for│Separate and │One in. and
Ohio. │ │ 242│ combined. │ one-half in.
│ │ days.│ │ vertical bar
│ │ │ │ screens
│ │ │ │ mechanically
│ │ │ │ operated.
│ │ │ │ Grit
│ │ │ │ chamber.
│ │ │ │
Canton, Ohio.│ 1,900,000│ 95%.│Separate. │Coarse screens
│ │ │ │ and grit
│ │ │ │ chambers.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Danbury, │ 300,000│ │Mostly │Coarse screens
Conn. │ │ │ separate. │ and grit
│ │ │ │ chambers.
Dallas, Texas│ 10,000,000│ All.│Separate. │Coarse screens
│ │ │ │ and grit
│ │ │ │ chambers.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Fond du Lac, │ │ │Separate with │Screens and
Wis. │ │ │ cistern │ grit
│ │ │ overflow │ chambers.
│ │ │ connected │
│ │ │ with │
│ │ │ sanitary. │
Fresno, Cal. │ 5,000,000│ All.│Separate. │Chamber for
│ │ │ │ trapping
│ │ │ │ crude oil.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Gloversville,│ 2,800,000│ 90%.│Separate. │Coarse
N. Y. │ │ │ │ screens.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Houston, │ 18,000,000│ All.│Separate. │Coarse screens
Texas │ │ │ │ and grit
│ │ │ │ chambers for
│ │ │ │ two-thirds
│ │ │ │ of sewage.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Independence,│ │ │Separate. │
Kas. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Lackawanna, │ │ │Separate. │Grit chamber.
N.Y. │ │ │ │
Milwaukee, │130,000,000│ │Separate with │Coarse screens
Wis. │ │ │ first wash │ and grit
│ │ │ from street. │ chamber.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Mt. Vernon, │ 2,000,000│ 75%.│Separate with │Coarse bar
N.Y. │ │ │ much wet │ screens.
│ │ │ weather │
│ │ │ infiltration.│
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
New Britain, │ 4,000,000│ All.│Separate. │None.
Conn. │ │ │ │
Oswego, N.Y. │ │ │ │
Pasadena, │ 2,000,000│ 95%.│Separate with │None.
Cal. │ │ │ first wash │
│ │ │ from street. │
│ │ │ │
Providence, │ 24,872,000│ │Combined. │
R. I. │ │ │ │
Philadelphia,│ 1,250,000│ One-│Combined first │Coarse screens
Pa. │ │ third│ wash from │ and grit
│ │ of 1%.│ street. │ chamber.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Reading, Pa. │ 6,000,000│ 60%.│Separate. │Two grit
│ │ │ │ chambers.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Rochester, N.│ 55,000,000│ All.│Combined. │Six detritus
Y. │dry weather│ │ │ tanks and
│ flow,│ │ │ fine
│173,000,000│ │ │ screens.
│wet weather│ │ │
│ flow.│ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Schenectady, │ 72,000,000│ 70%.│Separate and │
N.Y. │ │ │ combined. │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Sumter, S. C.│ │ │Separate. │Two grit
│ │ │ │ chambers 20
│ │ │ │ x 30 ft.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Tallahassee, │ 100,000│ │ │Grit chamber.
Fla. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Woonsocket, │ 1,500,000│ │Separate. │Coarse screens
R. I. │ │ │ │ between
│ │ │ │ screening
│ │ │ │ basins and
│ │ │ │ pump well.
Worcester, │ │All dry│Separate and │Grit chambers
Mass. │ │weather│ combined. │
│ │ flow│ │
│ │ and│ │
│ │ first│ │
│ │part of│ │
│ │ storm│ │
│ │ water.│ │
─────────────┴───────────┴───────┴───────────────┴──────────────
─────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────────────
Name of City │ SEWAGE PUMPING
├──────────┬─────────────┬───────────┬──────────────
│ What │ Gallons │ Daily │ Kind and
│Percentage│ Pumped │Capacity of│ Number of
│of Sewage │ Annually │ Pumps │ Pumps
│is Pumped │ │ │
│ to Plant │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
─────────────┼──────────┼─────────────┼───────────┼──────────────
Albany, N. Y.│Large │ Three 10│Three var. │
│ part. │[M.G.]D. each│ speed 24 │
│ │ and three 15│ in. and │
│ │[M.G.]D. each│ three │
│ │ │ const. 24│
│ │ │ in. │
│ │ │ electric │
│ │ │ power. │
Atlanta, Ga. │Some. │ 50,000,000│ │Centrifugal
│ │ │ │ electric
│ │ │ │ power.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Akron, Ohio │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Alliance, │None. │ │ │
Ohio │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Auburn, N. Y.│None. │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Brockton, │All. │ │6,000,000 │Two Knowles
Mass. │ │ │ │ triple
│ │ │ │ expansion
│ │ │ │ condensing
│ │ │ │ steam power.
Bloomington, │None. │ │ │
Ill. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Bristol, │None. │ │ │
Conn. │ │ │ │
Columbus, │All once │5,163,000,000│50,000,000 │One 12 in.
Ohio. │ and 10% │ │ │ Worthington,
│ twice. │ │ │ one 20 in.
│ │ │ │ Morris, two
│ │ │ │ 18 in. and
│ │ │ │ one 12 in.
│ │ │ │ De Lavel.
│ │ │ │ Electric
│ │ │ │ power.
Canton, Ohio.│None. │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Danbury, │None. │ │ │
Conn. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Dallas, Texas│All. │ │22,500,000 │Two
│ │ │ │ centrifugal
│ │ │ │ steam power.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Fond du Lac, │All. │ 1,000,000 a│60,000,000 │Four
Wis. │ │ day.│ │ centrifugal
│ │ │ │ electric
│ │ │ │ power.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Fresno, Cal. │None. │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Gloversville,│None. │ │ │
N. Y. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Houston, │105.2% │8,611,000,000│30,000,000 │One air
Texas │ some │ │ │ ejector six
│ twice. │ │ │ single
│ │ │ │ centrifugal
│ │ │ │ pumps.
│ │ │ │ Electric
│ │ │ │ power.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Independence,│None. │ │ │
Kas. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Lackawanna, │95%. │ 788,000,000│720,000 │Centrifugal
N.Y. │ │ │ power. │ steam
Milwaukee, │33%. │ 42,000,000│60,000,000 │Three
Wis. │ │ │ │ centrifugal,
│ │ │ │ 20 million
│ │ │ │ each.
│ │ │ │ Electric
│ │ │ │ power.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Mt. Vernon, │15%. │ 110,000,000│5,000,000 │Two vertical
N.Y. │ │ │ │ centrifugal
│ │ │ │ electric
│ │ │ │ power.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
New Britain, │None. │ │ │
Conn. │ │ │ │
Oswego, N.Y. │None. │ │ │
Pasadena, │None. │ │ │
Cal. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Providence, │Yes. │ │ │
R. I. │ │ │ │
Philadelphia,│Yes. │ 450,000,000│4,000,000 │One eight in.
Pa. │ │ │ │ and one ten
│ │ │ │ in.
│ │ │ │ Worthington,
│ │ │ │ vertical. By
│ │ │ │ gas.
Reading, Pa. │All. │ │One 6 and │Two
│ │ │ the other│ centrifugal
│ │ │ 8 │ electric
│ │ │ millions.│ power.
Rochester, N.│ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Schenectady, │40%. │ 40,000,000│15,000,000 │Five direct
N.Y. │ │ │ │ connected
│ │ │ │ motor
│ │ │ │ vertical
│ │ │ │ centrifugal.
Sumter, S. C.│None. │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Tallahassee, │No. │ │ │
Fla. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Woonsocket, │100%. │ │2,200 per │Centrifugal.
R. I. │ │ │ min. │ By steam.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Worcester, │2%. │ │ │Four
Mass. │ │ │ │ centrifugal.
│ │ │ │ Electric
│ │ │ │ power.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
─────────────┴──────────┴─────────────┴───────────┴──────────────
─────────────┬──────────────────────────
Name of City │ SEWAGE PUMPING
├────────────────┬─────────
│ Annual Cost of │Number of
│Pumping Station │ Feet
│ │Sewage is
│ │ raised
│ │
│ │
├────────┬───────┤
│ Total │ Per │
│ │Million│
│ │ Gals. │
│ │Raised │
│ │a Foot │
─────────────┼────────┼───────┼─────────
Albany, N. Y.│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Atlanta, Ga. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Akron, Ohio │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Alliance, │ │ │
Ohio │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Auburn, N. Y.│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Brockton, │ $30,000│ .975│ 40.
Mass. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Bloomington, │ │ │
Ill. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Bristol, │ │ │
Conn. │ │ │
Columbus, │ $23,656│ .16│ 21.6
Ohio. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Canton, Ohio.│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Danbury, │ │ │
Conn. │ │ │
│ │ │
Dallas, Texas│ │ │ 42.
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Fond du Lac, │ │ │
Wis. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Fresno, Cal. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Gloversville,│ │ │
N. Y. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Houston, │ $23,500│ .136│ .25.
Texas │ est.│ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Independence,│ │ │
Kas. │ │ │
│ │ │
Lackawanna, │ 9,000│ │ 18.
N.Y. │ │ │
Milwaukee, │ │ │ 22.
Wis. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Mt. Vernon, │ │ │ 26 ft.
N.Y. │ │ │including
│ │ │friction.
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
New Britain, │ │ │
Conn. │ │ │
Oswego, N.Y. │ │ │
Pasadena, │ │ │
Cal. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Providence, │ │ │
R. I. │ │ │
Philadelphia,│ │ │ 41.
Pa. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Reading, Pa. │ $14,500│ │ 39.
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Rochester, N.│ │ │
Y. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Schenectady, │ $10,000│ │ 23.
N.Y. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Sumter, S. C.│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Tallahassee, │ │ │
Fla. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Woonsocket, │ │ │ 20⅓
R. I. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Worcester, │5,509.35│ │
Mass. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
─────────────┴────────┴───────┴─────────
Table II (c)
SEWAGE DISPOSAL IN AMERICAN CITIES (Continued)
─────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────
Name of City │ INDUSTRIAL WASTES
├─────────────────┬────────┬────────────────
│ Establishments │ What │ Methods of
│ Which Empty │ Kinds │Treatment Where
│ Wastes Into │ Are │ Wastes are
│ City’s Sewerage │Treated │ Purified
│ System │ Before │ Separately
│ │They are│
│ │Emptied │
│ │ Into │
│ │Sewerage│
│ │ System │
─────────────┼─────────────────┼────────┼────────────────
Albany, N. Y.│ │ │
│ │ │
Atlanta, Ga. │Steel mills, tin │From gas│Plain
│ can works, gas │ works.│ sedimentation.
│ works, coal and│ │
│ gas plants. │ │
Akron, Ohio │ │ │
Alliance, │ │ │
Ohio │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Auburn, N. Y.│None. │ │
Brockton, │Shoe factory and │ │
Mass. │ tannery. │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Bloomington, │No. │ │
Ill. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Bristol, │ │ │
Conn. │ │ │
Columbus, │Tanneries, │None. │
Ohio │ breweries, │ │
│ starch works, │ │
│ wool cleaners, │ │
│ packing plants.│ │
Canton, Ohio │Various │None. │
│ factories, │ │
│ including iron │ │
│ and steel; │ │
│ chief waste is │ │
│ rags. │ │
Danbury, │Hat factories. │None. │
Conn. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Dallas, Tex. │Packing houses, │ │
│ laundries, dye │ │
│ works. │ │
Fond du Lac, │Laundries, │None. │
Wis. │ cleaning │ │
│ establishments.│ │
Fresno, Cal. │Fruit canneries │None. │
│ and packing │ │
│ houses. │ │
Gloversville,│Leather and │All. │Settling tanks.
N. Y. │ canneries; 26% │ │
│ of total is │ │
│ trade waste. │ │
Houston, Tex.│Pressed and dried│ │
│ │ │
Independence,│ │ │
Kas. │ │ │
Lackawanna, │None. │ │
N. Y. │ │ │
Milwaukee, │Breweries, │None. │
Wis. │ tanneries, soap│ │
│ works, │ │
│ laundries, hair│ │
│ works and │ │
│ packing houses.│ │
Mt. Vernon, │ │ │
N. Y. │ │ │
│ │ │
New Britain, │Pickling liquor. │ │
Conn. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Oswego, N. Y.│ │ │
[31]Pasadena,│Laundries. │ │
Cal. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Providence, │Woolen mills, │ │
R. I. │ bleacheries, │ │
│ dye houses, │ │
│ jewelry │ │
│ factories. │ │
Philadelphia,│No. │ │
Pa. │ │ │
│ │ │
Reading, Pa. │Soap and dye │ │
│ works, │ │
│ tanneries, │ │
│ paper mills, │ │
│ breweries, │ │
│ laundries, hat │ │
│ factories, │ │
│ electroplating │ │
│ works. │ │
Rochester, N.│ │ │
Y. │ │ │
Schenectady, │Laundries, │ │Oil skimmed off
N. Y. │ locomotive and │ │
│ electrical top │ │
│ of tanks. │ │
Sumter, S. C.│None. │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Tallahassee, │Chera Cola Works,│None. │All run into
Fla. │ and garages. │ │ grit chamber
│ │ │ before
│ │ │ entering main.
Woonsocket, │ │ │
R. I. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Worcester, │Carpet mills, │None. │
Mass. │ tanneries and │ │
│ dye works. │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
─────────────┴─────────────────┴────────┴────────────────
─────────────┬──────────────────────┬────────────────────────
Name of City │ SLUDGE DISPOSAL │ FINAL TREATMENT
├─────────────┬────────┼───────────┬────────────
│How is Sludge│ Any │Is Effluent│ Is there a
│ Disposed of │Revenue │Disinfected│ Secondary
│ │ from │ │ Settling
│ │Disposal│ │ Tank
│ │ Plant │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
─────────────┼─────────────┼────────┼───────────┼────────────
Albany, N. Y.│ │ │No. │
│ │ │ │
Atlanta, Ga. │Filling and │None. │No. │No.
│ fertilizer.│ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Akron, Ohio │Burned. │ │ │Yes.
Alliance, │Dried on beds│None. │No. │No.
Ohio │ and hauled │ │ │
│ to farmers.│ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Auburn, N. Y.│ │ │No. │No.
Brockton, │Fertilizer │None. │No. │From
Mass. │ and fill. │ │ │ sprinkl’r.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Bloomington, │ │ │No. │
Ill. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Bristol, │Plowed into │ │ │
Conn. │ land │ │ │
Columbus, │Dried on beds│None. │No. │Yes.
Ohio │ and spread │ │ │
│ on city │ │ │
│ farm. │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Canton, Ohio │Fertilizer. │ │None. │No.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Danbury, │Fertilizer. │$400. │No. │No.
Conn. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Dallas, Tex. │ │ │No. │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Fond du Lac, │Filling. │ │ │No.
Wis. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Fresno, Cal. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Gloversville,│Fertilizer │$300. │No. │Yes.
N. Y. │ and fill │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Houston, Tex.│ │ │No. │Yes.
│ │ │ │
Independence,│ │ │ │
Kas. │ │ │ │
Lackawanna, │ │ │No. │No.
N. Y. │ │ │ │
Milwaukee, │Pressed, │ │No. │
Wis. │ dried and │ │ │
│ sold for │ │ │
│ fertilizer.│ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Mt. Vernon, │Fill. │None. │No. │No.
N. Y. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
New Britain, │Fill. │None. │No. │
Conn. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Oswego, N. Y.│ │ │ │
[31]Pasadena,│Fertilizer. │None. │No. │
Cal. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Providence, │Pressed and │ │ │Yes.
R. I. │ carried │ │ │
│ away on │ │ │
│ scows. │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Philadelphia,│Fertilizer. │None. │Liquid │Yes.
Pa. │ │ │ Chlorine.│
│ │ │ │
Reading, Pa. │Fertilizer. │None. │No. │Yes.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Rochester, N.│ │ │Plans made │
Y. │ │ │ for such.│
Schenectady, │Fill. │ │No. │No.
N. Y. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Sumter, S. C.│ │None. │No. │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Tallahassee, │ │ │No. │Yes.
Fla. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Woonsocket, │ │ │No. │No.
R. I. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Worcester, │Fill and │None. │No. │No.
Mass. │ fertilizer.│ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
─────────────┴─────────────┴────────┴───────────┴────────────
─────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Name of City │ FINAL TREATMENT
├───────────┬───────────┬───────────────┬──────────────
│ Per cent. │ Per cent. │What Degree of │ Is Plant
│ of │of Bacteria│Purity Required│ Operating
│ Suspended │ Removed │ │Satisfactorily
│ Matter │ │ │
│ Removed │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
─────────────┼───────────┼───────────┼───────────────┼──────────────
Albany, N. Y.│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Atlanta, Ga. │ │ │ │Yes.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Akron, Ohio │ │ │ │
Alliance, │ │ │ │No.
Ohio │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Auburn, N. Y.│ │ │Yes. │
Brockton, │61.2. │95. │As high as │Not entirely.
Mass. │ │ │ possible. │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Bloomington, │ │ │ │Yes.
Ill. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Bristol, │ │ │ │Yes.
Conn. │ │ │ │
Columbus, │25. │80–90. │Varies with │Some parts
Ohio │ │ │ stream and │ satisfactory
│ │ │ weather │ others not.
│ │ │ conditions. │
│ │ │ │
Canton, Ohio │98. │ │85. │Yes.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Danbury, │ │ │ │Yes.
Conn. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Dallas, Tex. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Fond du Lac, │ │ │ │Yes.
Wis. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Fresno, Cal. │ │30. │No standard. │Yes.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Gloversville,│ │ │ │Yes.
N. Y. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Houston, Tex.│95–98. │95–99. │85–90. │
│ │ │ │
Independence,│ │ │ │
Kas. │ │ │ │
Lackawanna, │ │ │90. │Yes.
N. Y. │ │ │ │
Milwaukee, │95. │95. │95. │
Wis. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Mt. Vernon, │70. │80. │Non- │Yes.
N. Y. │ │ │ putrescible. │
│ │ │ │
New Britain, │ │ │ │No.
Conn. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Oswego, N. Y.│ │ │ │
[31]Pasadena,│ │ │ │Imhoff
Cal. │ │ │ │ satisfactory
│ │ │ │ septic “as
│ │ │ │ well as can
│ │ │ │ be expected
│ │ │ │ of any
│ │ │ │ septic
│ │ │ │ tank.”
Providence, │ │Total │ │
R. I. │ │ bacterial│ │
│ │ 64%; B │ │
│ │ Coli │ │
│ │ 96.9. │ │
Philadelphia,│60. │100 acid │Absence of acid│Yes.
Pa. │ │ formers. │ forming │
│ │ │ bacteria. │
Reading, Pa. │71.1 │86. │State standard.│Yes.
│ exclusive│ │ │
│ of solids│ │ │
│ removed │ │ │
│ by grits.│ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Rochester, N.│ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │
Schenectady, │40. │70. │ │Fairly so.
N. Y. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Sumter, S. C.│Great │ │ │No objection
│ Portion │ │ │ as it
│ │ │ │ empties into
│ │ │ │ swampy
│ │ │ │ stream.
Tallahassee, │ │ │ │Yes.
Fla. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Woonsocket, │100. │97. │ │Yes.
R. I. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Worcester, │87. │No │Effluent from │
Mass. │ │ standard.│ sand filter │
│ │ │ excellent; │
│ │ │ chemical │
│ │ │ precipitation│
│ │ │ poor. │
─────────────┴───────────┴───────────┴───────────────┴──────────────
─────────────┬────────────────────────────────────────
Name of City │ FINAL TREATMENT
├──────────────┬────────┬────────────────
│ If Not, Why? │Distance│ Any Odor at
│ │of Plant│ Plant
│ │ from │
│ │ Center │
│ │of City │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
─────────────┼──────────────┼────────┼────────────────
Albany, N. Y.│ │Two │
│ │ miles.│
Atlanta, Ga. │ │4–7 │Not sufficient
│ │ miles.│ to cause
│ │ │ inconvenience.
│ │ │
Akron, Ohio │ │ │
Alliance, │No technical │1 mile. │Yes.
Ohio │ supervision.│ │
│ Large │ │
│ quantities │ │
│ of roof │ │
│ water during│ │
│ storms. │ │
Auburn, N. Y.│5 miles. │ │
Brockton, │Sand beds in │3 miles.│During damp
Mass. │ operation 22│ │ weather
│ years and │ │
│ have reached│ │
│ capacity. │ │
Bloomington, │ │1½ │Not over 1,000
Ill. │ │ miles.│ ft. under
│ │ │ worst
│ │ │ conditions.
Bristol, │ │2 miles.│Not much.
Conn. │ │ │
Columbus, │Insufficient │5 miles.│Yes.
Ohio │ capacity. │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Canton, Ohio │ │8 miles.│Very little.
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Danbury, │ │2½ │None from beds;
Conn. │ │ miles.│ sometimes when
│ │ │ flow exceeds
│ │ │ maximum it is
│ │ │ turned into
│ │ │ swamp, and
│ │ │ during hot
│ │ │ weather there
│ │ │ is odor.
Dallas, Tex. │ │3½ │
│ │ miles.│
│ │ │
Fond du Lac, │ │1 mile. │No.
Wis. │ │ │
│ │ │
Fresno, Cal. │ │7 miles.│Yes.
│ │ │
│ │ │
Gloversville,│ │2 miles.│Some.
N. Y. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Houston, Tex.│ │2.5 │None expected.
│ │ miles.│
Independence,│ │ │
Kas. │ │ │
Lackawanna, │ │1 mile. │No.
N. Y. │ │ │
Milwaukee, │ │Centre │No.
Wis. │ │ of │
│ │ city. │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Mt. Vernon, │ │1 mile. │A few days
N. Y. │ │ │ noticeable ¼
│ │ │ mile.
New Britain, │Voids almost │3 miles.│
Conn. │ completely │ │
│ clogged by │ │
│ pickling │ │
│ liquor. │ │
Oswego, N. Y.│ │¼ mile. │
[31]Pasadena,│5 miles. │ │
Cal. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Providence, │ │ │
R. I. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Philadelphia,│ │12 │
Pa. │ │ miles.│
│ │ │
Reading, Pa. │ │3 miles.│Some at times of
│ │ │ cleaning.
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Rochester, N.│ │ │
Y. │ │ │
Schenectady, │ │2½ │At first, but
N. Y. │ │ miles.│ not now.
│ │ │
│ │ │
Sumter, S. C.│ │1½ │Slight as it
│ │ miles.│ empties at
│ │ │ mouth of
│ │ │ outfall.
│ │ │
Tallahassee, │ │1 mile. │Only when
Fla. │ │ │ cleaning grit
│ │ │ chamber.
│ │ │
Woonsocket, │ │1 mile. │No, except
R. I. │ │ │ slight smell
│ │ │ like dish
│ │ │ water.
Worcester, │ │3 miles.│Very little.
Mass. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
─────────────┴──────────────┴────────┴────────────────
-----
Footnote 29:
Includes depreciation and interest on investment.
Footnote M.G.:
Million gallons.
Footnote 31:
City has a sewage farm of about 518 acres, and the effluent from the
septic tank is used to irrigate about 450 acres of the farm. The
cities of Pasadena, South Pasadena, and Alhambra have purchased a new
sewage farm where they plan jointly to purify their sewage.
Footnote 32:
“Same force of men can handle one acre as one-half acre, or twice as
great a flow.”
Footnote 33:
Does not include interest and depreciation.
Footnote 34:
In winter draw as little as possible; in summer draw as much as
possible; the aim being to leave the tanks as free as possible from
good sludge when cold weather comes.
Footnote 35:
Operation of Imhoff tanks costs nothing as city allows a man to use
two acres of land to compensate him for caring for tank. The septic
tank is attended to only once a year, and probably does not cost more
than $30 annually.
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:
TABLE III.—_Ash Collection by Private Collectors_
┌──────────┬────────────┬────────────┬─────────┬────────────┬────────┬────┐
│Population│Name of City│ How Much │ Does He │ │ │Does│
│ │ │ Does │ Furnish │ │How are │City│
│ │ │ Collector │ Can and │ Type of │ Ashes │Own │
│ │ │ Charge │ if so, │ Wagon Used │Disposed│ or │
│ │ │Householder?│ Does He │ │ of? │Rent│
│ │ │ │ Require │ │ │Dump│
│ │ │ │Deposit? │ │ │ │
├──────────┼────────────┼────────────┼─────────┼────────────┼────────┼────┤
│ 100,000│Duluth,[36] │15¢ per can │ No │ Box │ Dump │Own │
│ │ Minn │ │ │ │ │ │
│ 17,000│Glens │10¢ per can │Furnishes│ │ │ │
│ │ Falls,[36]│ │ can, no │ │ Dump │Own │
│ │ N. Y. │ │ deposit │ │ │ │
│ 10,447│Johnstown, │50–75¢ trip │ No │ │ │ │
│ │ N. Y │ │ │ │ │ │
│ 12,273│Little │$1 a load │ │ │ │ │
│ │ Falls, N. │ │ No │1 horse, box│ Dump │Own │
│ │ Y │ │ │ │ │ │
│ 40,093│Elmira, N. │10¢ per can │ Yes, $1 │ │ Dump │Rent│
│ │ Y. │ │ deposit │ │ │ │
│ 13,000│Cortland, N.│$1 per load,│ │ Any wagon │ │ │
│ │ Y. │ 15¢ per │ │ with tight │ │ │
│ │ │ can │ No │box approved│ Fill │Rent│
│ │ │ │ │by sanitary │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ inspector, │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │canvas cover│ │ │
│ 110,000│Albany, N. Y│10 to 13¢ │ No │ │ Dump │Free│
│ 10,474│Oneonta, N. │ │ │ │ Dump │Own │
│ │ Y. │ │ │ │ │ │
│ 165,000│New Haven, │15¢ per can │ No │ │ Fill │ │
│ │ Conn. │ │ │ │ │ │
│ 11,136│Fulton, N. │10–15–25¢ a │ No │ │ Dump │Own │
│ │ Y. │ can │ │ │ │ │
│ 8,317│Oneida, N. │75¢ to $1. │ No │ Any type │ Dump │Own │
│ │ Y. │ │ │ │ │ │
│ 23,368│Oswego, N. Y│10 to 15¢ │ │ │Dump and│Own │
│ │ │ │ No │ │ fill │and │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │rent│
│ 131,000│Grand │15¢ a week │ │ │ │ │
│ │ Rapids, │ for │ │ │ │ │
│ │ Mich. │ residence,│ │ │ Dump │ │
│ │ │ special │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ for others│ │ │ │ │
│ 10,711│Rensselaer, │10 to 13¢ │ No │ Covered │Fill and│Own │
│ │ N. Y. │ │ │ │ dump │ │
│ 58,571│Portland, │10¢ barrel │ │ │Fill and│Free│
│ │ Me. │ │ No │ Open cart │ dump │and │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │own │
└──────────┴────────────┴────────────┴─────────┴────────────┴────────┴────┘
-----
Footnote 36:
City also collects.
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.
Disposal of Ashes and Rubbish
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:
_Equation No. 1_
D × C 1
S = ————— × F × N × R × V
T
_Equation No. 2_
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 │ Lbs. per 1,000 │Average Weight per│
│ │ per Year │Population per Day│ 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│
└──────────┴──────────────────┴──────────────────┴──────────────────┘
Table IV (a)
ASH AND RUBBISH COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL BY MUNICIPAL FORCES
─────────────┬─────────────────┬───────────────
Name of City │Average Quantity │Annual Cost of
│ Collected Daily │Collection and
│ │ Disposal
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
├────────┬────────┤
│ Summer │ Winter │
─────────────┼────────┼────────┼───────────────
Binghamton, │21 yds. │44 yds. │ $11,874.96
N. Y. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Brockton, │ │ │ 16,000.00
Mass. │ │ │
│ │ │
Cambridge, │ │ │ 85,000.00
Mass. │ │ │
│ │ │
Camden, N. J.│ │ │ 32,027.58
│ │ │
│ │ │
Cincinnati, │815 cu. │935 cu. │ 124,532.16
Ohio │ yds. │ yds. │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Cleveland, │ │ │ 209,920.85
Ohio │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Columbus, │ │ │ 65,763.31
Ohio │ │ │
│ │ │
Chicago, Ill.│3,515 │7,277 │ 1,077,786.91
│ cu. │ cu. │
│ yds. │ yds. │
Dayton, Ohio │280 cu. │325 cu. │ 28,494.29
│ yds. │ yds. │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Fall River, │ │ │ 38,889.76
Mass. │ │ │
│ │ │
Holyoke, │75[39]. │150[39].│ 37,084.00
Mass. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Hartford, │590 cu. │840 cu. │ 79,957.53
Conn. │ yds. │ yds. │
│ │ │
Kingston, │ │ │ 9,000.00
N.Y. │ │ │
Lynn, Mass. │ │ │ 25,833.27
│ │ │
Lowell, Mass.│ │ │ 21,277.51[40]
│ │ │
│ │ │
Los Angeles, │ │ │ 40,000.00
Cal. │ │ │
Milwaukee, │ │ │ 216,496.00
Wis. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Newburgh, │78 cu. │168 cu. │ 8,796.63
N.Y. │ yds. │ yds. │
New Bedford, │ │ │ 47,000.00
Mass. │ │ │
New York City│12,996. │18,558. │
(Manhattan,│ │ │
Bronx, │ │ │
Brooklyn) │ │ │
│ │ │
Norfolk, Va. │ │ │ 13,929.75
│ │ │
│ │ │
Passaic, N. │82 tons.│120 │ 22,000.00
J. │ │ tons. │
Rome, N. Y. │45 cu. │50 cu. │
│ yds. │ yds. │
Syracuse, │100 │270 │ 131,000.00
N.Y. │ loads.│ loads.│
Somerville, │200 yds.│400 yds.│ 38,000.00
Mass. │ │ │
│ │ │
Schenectady, │ │ │
N. Y. │ │ │
│ │ │
Wilmington, │150. │250. │ 38,411.77
Del. │ │ │
─────────────┴────────┴────────┴───────────────
ASH COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL BY MUNICIPAL FORCES
─────────────┬────────┬────────┬───────────────
Boston, Mass.│587. │1,315. │$804,344.94[42]
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Buffalo, N. │425 │775 │
Y. │ tons. │ tons. │
│ │ │
Chattanooga, │ │ │
Tenn. │ │ │
│ │ │
Duluth, Minn.│30 cu. │35 cu. │
[44] │ yds. │ yds. │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Glens Falls, │ │ │
N. Y. [44] │ │ │
Memphis, │60.8. │70.7. │ 37,446.30
Tenn. │ │ │
Niagara │ │92 cu. │ 14,000.00
Falls, N. │ │ yds. │
Y. │ │ │
Peoria, Ill. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Rochester, N.│58 tons.│107 │ 172,037.92
Y. │ │ tons. │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Spokane, │48 cu. │190 cu. │
Wash. │ yds. │ yds. │
─────────────┴────────┴────────┴───────────────
─────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────┬───────
Name of City │ Number of Collections Weekly │Average
│ │Miles,
│ │Length
│ │of Haul
│ │
├─────────────┬─────────────┬─────────────┤
│ Business │ Residential │ Outlying │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
├──────┬──────┼──────┬──────┼──────┬──────┤
│Winter│Summer│Winter│Summer│Winter│Summer│
─────────────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼───────
Binghamton, │ 2│ 2│ 2│ 2│ 2│ 2│ 1½
N. Y. │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
Brockton, │ 3│ 3│ 3│ 1│ ½│ ½│ 1
Mass. │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
Cambridge, │ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1-¼
Mass. │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
Camden, N. J.│ 6│ 6│ 6│ 6│ │ │ ⅓
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
Cincinnati, │ ⅔│ ⅔│ 2│ 2│ 2│ 1│
Ohio │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
Cleveland, │ 0│ 0│ ⅓│ ¼│ ⅓│ ¼│
Ohio │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
Columbus, │ 6│ 6│ ⅓│ ⅓│ ⅓│ ⅓│ 2
Ohio │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
Chicago, Ill.│ [37] │ [37] │ 2│ [38] │ 1│ [38] │ 6
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
Dayton, Ohio │ 1│ 1│ ½│ ½│ ½│ ½│ 1½
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
Fall River, │ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1│
Mass. │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
Holyoke, │ 2│ 2│ ½│ ⅓│ ⅓│ ¼│ ¾
Mass. │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
Hartford, │ 6│ 6│ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1
Conn. │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
Kingston, │ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1│ ½
N.Y. │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Lynn, Mass. │ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1│ ½
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
Lowell, Mass.│ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1│ ¼
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
Los Angeles, │ 6│ 6│ ½│ ½│ 1│ 1│ 2–4
Cal. │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Milwaukee, │ ⅓│ [41] │ ⅓│ [41] │ ⅓│ [41] │ 4½
Wis. │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
Newburgh, │ 2│ 2│ 2│ 2│ 2│ 2│ 1
N.Y. │ │ │ │ │ │ │
New Bedford, │ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1│ │ │ 1
Mass. │ │ │ │ │ │ │
New York City│ 6│ 6│ 6│ 6│ 3│ 3│ ¾
(Manhattan,│ │ │ │ │ │ │
Bronx, │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Brooklyn) │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
Norfolk, Va. │ 6│ 6│ 6│ 6│ 6│ 6│ 1
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
Passaic, N. │ 6│ 6│ 2│ 2│ 1│ 1│ 2
J. │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Rome, N. Y. │ 2│ 2│ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1│ ¾
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
Syracuse, │ 3│ 2│ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1│ 2
N.Y. │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Somerville, │ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1│ 2
Mass. │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
Schenectady, │ 6│ 6│ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1
N. Y. │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
Wilmington, │ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1│
Del. │ │ │ │ │ │ │
─────────────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴───────
ASH COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL BY MUNICIPAL FORCES
─────────────┬──────┬──────┬──────┬──────┬──────┬──────┬───────
Boston, Mass.│ 3[43]│ 3[43]│ 2│ 2│ 1│ 0│ 1
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
Buffalo, N. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 1
Y. │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
Chattanooga, │ 2│ 1│ 2│ 1│ 2│ 1│
Tenn. │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
Duluth, Minn.│12[45]│12[45]│12[45]│12[45]│ │ │ 1
[44] │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
Glens Falls, │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 2
N. Y. [44] │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Memphis, │ 6│ 6│ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1│ 2
Tenn. │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Niagara │ 6│ 6│ 2│ 2│ 1│ 1│ 1
Falls, N. │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Peoria, Ill. │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
Rochester, N.│ 6│ 6│ 1│ 2│ 1│ 2│ 2
Y. │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
Spokane, │ 6│ 6│ 2│ 2│ 2│ 2│ 1½
Wash. │ │ │ │ │ │ │
─────────────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴───────
─────────────┬─────────────────────┬───────────┬─────────────
Name of City │Cost, Collection and │From Where │Size and Type
│ Disposal │ is Can │ of Can
│ │ Collected │
│ │ and Where │
│ │ Left │
├───────┬───────┬─────┤ │
│ Cubic │ Per │ Per │ │
│ Yard │Capita │ Ton │ │
│ │Served │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
─────────────┼───────┼───────┼─────┼───────────┼─────────────
Binghamton, │$0.1025│ $0.66│$1.73│Curb. │Metal,
N. Y. │ │ │ │ │ covered,
│ │ │ │ │ not less
│ │ │ │ │ than 10
│ │ │ │ │ gals. or
│ │ │ │ │ more than
│ │ │ │ │ 28 gallons.
Brockton, │ .25│ .25│ │Sidewalk. │Galvanized,
Mass. │ │ │ │ │ 2½ cubic
│ │ │ │ │ feet.
Cambridge, │ .39│ 1.00│ │Yard and │Not larger
Mass. │ │ │ │ gate. │ than flour
│ │ │ │ │ barrel.
Camden, N. J.│ .3079│ │ │Front or │All sizes.
│ │ │ │ rear of │
│ │ │ │ house. │
Cincinnati, │ .488│ .304│ │Property │Any size that
Ohio │ │ │ │ line and │ can be
│ │ │ │ gate. │ handled by
│ │ │ │ │ 2 men.
Cleveland, │ │ │ │Taken from │Any size that
Ohio │ │ │ │ back │ can be
│ │ │ │ yard, │ handled by
│ │ │ │ left at │ 2 men.
│ │ │ │ edge of │
│ │ │ │ sidewalk.│
Columbus, │ .42│ .229│ │Alley, │Not larger
Ohio │ │ │ │ street │ than man
│ │ │ │ entrance.│ can carry.
Chicago, Ill.│ .72│ .427│ │Alley and │Galvanized,
│ │ │ │ curb. │ covered, 15
│ │ │ │ │ to 30 gals.
Dayton, Ohio │ .30│ .19│ │Alley and │One that 2
│ │ │ │ curb. │ men can
│ │ │ │ │ handle
│ │ │ │ │ easily.
Fall River, │ .347│ .31│ │Curb. │About size of
Mass. │ │ │ │ │ flour
│ │ │ │ │ barrel.
Holyoke, │ │ .61│ │Yard or │No. 2 Witt or
Mass. │ │ │ │ basement.│ can or
│ │ │ │ │ barrel that
│ │ │ │ │ size.
Hartford, │ .3575│ .615│ │Yard. │No larger
Conn. │ │ │ │ │ than flour
│ │ │ │ │ barrel.
Kingston, │ │ │ │ │
N.Y. │ │ │ │ │
Lynn, Mass. │ .314│ │ │Curb. │None
│ │ │ │ │ specified.
Lowell, Mass.│.18[40]│.19[40]│ │Curb. │Not larger
│ │ │ │ │ than flour
│ │ │ │ │ barrel.
Los Angeles, │ │ │ │Curb. │Five to 30
Cal. │ │ │ │ │ gallon.
Milwaukee, │ .65│ .46│ │Yard or │One-half
Wis. │ │ │ │ basement.│ bushel
│ │ │ │ │ metal
│ │ │ │ │ basket for
│ │ │ │ │ basement or
│ │ │ │ │ metal lined
│ │ │ │ │ box for
│ │ │ │ │ yard.
Newburgh, │ │ │ │Curb. │No standard.
N.Y. │ │ │ │ │
New Bedford, │ │ │ │Curb. │No standard.
Mass. │ │ │ │ │
New York City│ .9614│ .8602│ │Within │Cans 3 cu.
(Manhattan,│ │ │ │ stoop │ ft.
Bronx, │ │ │ │ line. │ galvanized
Brooklyn) │ │ │ │ │ cylindrical
│ │ │ │ │ in form.
Norfolk, Va. │ .325│ .14│.695–│Curb. │Ordinary ash
│ │ │ 6│ │ can, bushel
│ │ │ │ │ and a half.
Passaic, N. │ .53│ .31│ .74│Curb. │All sizes.
J. │ │ │ │ │
Rome, N. Y. │ .90│ .51│ │Curb. │No standard.
│ │ │ │ │
Syracuse, │ │ .80│ │Yard. │Galvanized
N.Y. │ │ │ │ │ iron can.
Somerville, │ │ │ │Sidewalk. │Not larger
Mass. │ │ │ │ │ than flour
│ │ │ │ │ barrel.
Schenectady, │ │ │ │Back yard │Galvanized,
N. Y. │ │ │ │ and │ from 1 to 3
│ │ │ │ cellar. │ bushels.
Wilmington, │ .36│ │ │Curb. │Not exceeding
Del. │ │ │ │ │ 100 pounds.
─────────────┴───────┴───────┴─────┴───────────┴─────────────
ASH COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL BY MUNICIPAL FORCES
─────────────┬───────┬───────┬─────┬───────────┬─────────────
Boston, Mass.│ .70│ .73│ 1.73│Back yard. │Galvanized,
│ │ │ │ │ not larger
│ │ │ │ │ than flour
│ │ │ │ │ barrel.
Buffalo, N. │ .594│ .45│ 1.50│Yard. │Galvanized ⅙
Y. │ │ │ │ │ cu. yd.
│ │ │ │ │ capacity.
Chattanooga, │ │ │ │Sidewalk │Covered.
Tenn. │ │ │ │ and │
│ │ │ │ alley. │
Duluth, Minn.│ │ │ │Back yard. │Twenty
[44] │ │ │ │ │ gallons is
│ │ │ │ │ standard
│ │ │ │ │ size.
Glens Falls, │ │ │ │House. │Ordinary ash
N. Y. [44] │ │ │ │ │ can.
Memphis, │ .34│ .25│ .60│Convenient │No special
Tenn. │ │ │ │ place. │ size.
Niagara │ .92│ .321│ 2.60│Yard. │All kinds.
Falls, N. │ │ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │ │
Peoria, Ill. │ │ │ │Alley, │Fireproof
│ │ │ │ yard, │ receptacle
│ │ │ │ curb. │ of iron,
│ │ │ │ │ brick or
│ │ │ │ │ cement,
│ │ │ │ │ must be
│ │ │ │ │ covered.
Rochester, N.│ .514│ .688│ .969│Curb in │No standard.
Y. │ │ │ │ business │
│ │ │ │ section, │
│ │ │ │ rear in │
│ │ │ │ resident │
│ │ │ │ section. │
Spokane, │ .65│ │ │Basement or│Fifteen to 30
Wash. │ │ │ │ yard. │ gallon.
─────────────┴───────┴───────┴─────┴───────────┴─────────────
Table IV (b)
ASH AND RUBBISH COLLECTION BY MUNICIPAL FORCES (Continued)
─────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────
Name of City │ Average Quantity Collected per Year │Population
│ │Served per
│ │ Man
│ │ Employed
│ │
│ │
├─────────┬─────────┬──────────┬────────┬──────┤
│ Tons │ Cubic │ Loads │ Cubic │Cubic │
│ │ Yards │ │ yards │Yards │
│ │ │ │Per Man │ per │
│ │ │ │Employed│Capita│
│ │ │ │ │Served│
─────────────┼─────────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────┼──────┼──────────
Binghamton │ 5,788.8│ 9,648│ 4,824│ 570│ .64│ 882
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Brockton │ │ 57,080│ 28,540│ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Cambridge │ │ 110,000│ │ 1,506│ 1.│ 1,883
│ │ │ │ │ │summer and
│ │ │ │ │ │ 1,294
│ │ │ │ │ │ winter.
Camden │ │ 104,013│ 30,479│ 3,467│ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Cincinnati │ │ 266,057│ 61,872│ 2,441│ 6.48│ 3,766
│ │ │ │ │ │
Cleveland │ │ 356,337│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Columbus │ │ 155,812│ 36,662│ 3,116│ .78│ 4,400
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Chicago │ │1,499,667│ 300,228│ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Dayton │ │ 93,915│ 18,783│ 3,757│ .625│ 6,000
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Fall River │ │ 111,946│ 23,844│ 3,292│ .89│ 4,025 in
│ │ │ │ │ │ summer
│ │ │ │ │ │ 3,372 in
│ │ │ │ │ │ winter.
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Holyoke │ │ │ │ │ │ 1,599
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Hartford │ │ 223,547│ 49,680│ 2,850│ 1.72│ 2,239
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Kingston │ │ │ │ │ │
Lynn │ │ 80,000│ 160,000–│ 3,750–│ │
│ │ │ 180,000│ 3,333│ │
Lowell │ │ 114,059│ 30,827│ 3,168│ 1.05│ 2,999
│ │ │ │ │ │
Los Angeles │ │ 3,900│ │ │ │
Milwaukee │ │ 333,375│ 111,125│ 555│ .70│ 783
│ │ │ │ │ │
Newburgh │ │ 40,376│ │ │ │
New Bedford │ 40,275│ │ 24,561│ │ │
New York City│3,477,313│9,125,974│3,383,044½│ │1.7759│
(Manhattan,│ │ │ │ │ │
Bronx, │ │ │ │ │ │
Brooklyn) │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Norfolk │ 21,159│ 44,454│ 33,064│ 2,020│ .46│ 4,318
New Orleans │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Passaic │ 29,681│ 41,085│ 16,434│ 2,566│ .68│
│ │ │ │ │ │
Rome │ │ 15,000│ 10,000│ 1.500│ │ 2,500
Syracuse │ │ │ │ │ │
Somerville │ │ │ │ │ │
Schenectady │ │ │ │ │ │
Wilmington │ │ │ │ │ │ 5,300 in
│ │ │ │ │ │ summer
│ │ │ │ │ │ 3,785 in
│ │ │ │ │ │ winter.
─────────────┴─────────┴─────────┴──────────┴────────┴──────┴──────────
ASH COLLECTION BY MUNICIPAL FORCES (Continued)
─────────────┬─────────┬─────────┬──────────┬────────┬──────┬──────────
Boston[46] │ 324,313│ 795,862│ 238,361│ │ 1.004│ 1,553
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Buffalo │ 157,978│ 385,015│ 70,171│ │ 1.│
Chattanooga │ │ │ │ │ │
Duluth │ │ 15,000│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Glens Falls │ │ │ │ │ │
Memphis │ 62,000│ 108,675│ 62,100│ 1,752.8│ .73│ 2,403
│ │ │ │ │ │
Niagara Falls│ 5,180│ 14,800│ 4,050│ │ .33│ 3,460
Peoria │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Rochester │ 177,555│ 334,852│ 83,713│ 1,913│ 1.33│ 1,428
│ │ │ │ │ │
Spokane │ │ │ │ 7[47]│ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
─────────────┴─────────┴─────────┴──────────┴────────┴──────┴──────────
─────────────┬─────────────┬────────┬──────────┬───────────────
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
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.
Some cities collect and dispose of their garbage by contract, others
collect by contract and dispose of it themselves, or vice versa, and
still others have all the work done by the municipality. Experience has
proved that a city can operate a disposal plant just as efficiently as
they can a collection system.
Feeding to Swine
Most of the smaller cities in this country dispose of a part of or all
their garbage by feeding to swine, but so far as the State Bureau of
Municipal Information has been able to learn, only four maintain
municipal piggeries. These are Worcester, New Haven, Brockton, and
Taunton, Massachusetts. The others either collect their garbage by
contract and sell it or give it to farmers or those operating piggeries,
or maintain a municipal collection and sell to a contractor who
maintains a piggery.
Among the cities which dispose of their garbage by feeding to pigs and
derive a revenue are the following:
Denver, Colo.—Collected by a Hog Growers’ Association which disposes
of it by feeding.
Cambridge, Mass.—Sells to hog farmers at 70¢. per cd. foot and has
no difficulty in disposing of all. Cost of collection, $50,000 a
year; receipts, $16,000 a year.
Grand Rapids, Mich.—Sold to live stock company for 45¢. per ton f.
o. b. cars. Last year collection cost $28,659 and receipts were
$4,450.20.
Camden, N. J.—Incinerator burned and since then garbage has been
collected and fed to hogs.
Brockton, Mass.—Municipal piggery (description below).
Colorado Springs, Colo.—Contractor pays $1,440 a year for the
privilege of removing all table refuse from city. Feeds to hogs.
Garbage must be sterilized before feeding.
Salem, Mass.—City Poor Farm uses about 200 loads a year. Remainder
is sold to contractor, who pays $13,255 for five years. Last year
city paid $10,948.30 for collection.
Taunton, Mass.—Municipal piggery.
Somerville, Mass.—Sold to farmers for 50¢. per cord foot. Cost of
collection last year, $25,134.80; receipts, $8,865.50.
Lawrence, Mass.—Sold for $1.25 a load. Ready and increasing demand.
Two loads used daily at Poor Farm piggery. Cost of collection,
$10,000 a year. Estimated receipts, $6,000 a year.
New Haven, Conn.—Cost of collection, $18,000 a year. Fed to hogs on
farm owned by city (description below).
Fall River, Mass.—City pays contractor $7,800 a year for the removal
of garbage. He feeds it to pigs on farm owned by him.
Worcester, Mass.—Municipal piggery (description below).
Corning, N. Y.—Contractor pays city $122 a year for privilege of
collecting at 10¢. a can. Garbage taken by him to his hog farm.
The city of Brockton, Massachusetts, owns the land and buildings
necessary for feeding swine, also the horses and teams necessary for
collection. The Mayor’s office reports that the city has not been able
to make any profit on this method of disposal. In fact, for the last ten
years the average cost to the city has been about $5,000 annually.
Taunton, Massachusetts, collects garbage only in the center of the city.
The remainder is taken by private parties. The city has only two teams
and two men at work. The Secretary of the Board of Overseers says that
“in consequence of doing things in this way it is of little or no
expense and gives quite good satisfaction.”
The expense and receipts during one year for the piggery were as
follows:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│Wages of employees $1,299.90│
│ │
│Expenses, not including board of two horses belonging to 375.92│
│ department │
│ —————————│
│ $1,675.82│
│Receipts from swine 3,260.91│
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
New Haven, Connecticut, pays $18,000 a year for the collection of its
garbage, which is hauled to a farm rented by the city and fed to hogs
owned by the city. The Board of Health reports: “Outside of some
complaints from the piggeries we have got along. Our Board has
repeatedly recommended the destruction of the same, but as yet nothing
has materialized.”
A special commission made an investigation and report on the collection
and disposal of municipal waste in Worcester, Massachusetts. After
investigating all methods of disposal it reached these conclusions:
“That the disposal by feeding is the most economical method; that the
greatest intrinsic value of the garbage, the feeding value, is made use
of; that the garbage of Worcester can not only be disposed of without
cost but that the revenue from the sale of hogs has almost been
sufficient to pay for the collection.”
The Commission recommended that the present method of feeding to swine
be continued.
In its report it gives the per capita cost of collection and disposal as
$.072 for Worcester and $.095 for Brockton.
The Worcester municipal piggery is the largest and most successful. The
garbage collected by the city is fed to a herd of hogs numbering about
1700 in winter and 4000 in summer. During the winter practically all
hogs are housed.
The necessity for sterilizing garbage before it is fed to hogs is
disputed. Salem, Cambridge, Grand Rapids, Taunton and Brockton report
that garbage is not sterilized. New Haven reports that some is
sterilized. Colorado Springs and Omaha require all garbage to be
sterilized.
In his report of the sanitary survey of St. Joseph, Missouri, J. H.
White, Surgeon, United States Public Health Service, makes the following
statement with regard to the disposal of garbage in that city:
“Kansas City, Providence, Denver, Omaha, Colorado Springs and other
cities have their garbage fed to hogs, with the uniform result that the
cost of removal is reduced to some extent to the city and that the
contractor, according to his business capacity, is able to make more or
less profit from the feed so obtained. There is no danger in this system
under proper handling. Any supposed danger to the hogs can be prevented
by prompt handling of the garbage to prevent unnecessary fermentation
and by the use of the hog cholera serum to prevent disease. The proper
cleaning of the pens, if in the city, eliminates any danger to man. The
Board recommends this system and I heartily concur with them that it
offers the best available solution of the garbage problem.”
The Worcester Commission reports the figures for hogs sold to a packing
company during the last year from the Home Farm. Of the 2,276 hogs sold,
the Commission says only 11 were condemned by the United States
Government Meat Inspectors, an average of only 0.48 per cent. of one per
cent., which average is much lower than it is on hogs shipped in from
the West to the same packing house. It further says: “The feeding
method, however, has been practised with success in many cities,
especially those in New England, for many years. The great difference of
opinion is explained by the efficiency with which the sanitary
conditions at the farm are maintained.” It emphasizes the fact that
farms must be kept clean and in a sanitary manner, and that this method
of garbage disposal requires careful and intelligent supervision, as is
the case with any other method of disposal. No method of disposal will
run itself.
Following are comments received regarding this particular plan of
disposal:
Health Officer C. C. Slemons, of Grand Rapids, Michigan, says: “From
observation I am of the opinion that one of these farms (municipal
piggery), properly conducted, is a paying proposition, but I do not
think to the extent of paying for collection. From my observation I
would be rather skeptical of a city going into this business. It is a
business that needs very close supervision and unless a person is
financially interested in it I doubt very much if the experiment would
pay.”
Mayor Fred. W. Keller, South Bend, Indiana: “Some of this work was done
several years ago. However, there was some objection on the part of
taxpayers to it being hauled out of the city with municipal teams. It
should be fairly profitable, but the farm and hogs should be owned by
the city or the garbage disposed of to the concern that does own the
hogs and farm and this done by receiving competitive bids. I make this
latter suggestion in order to avoid criticism by taxpayers.”
Lawrence, Massachusetts, reports: “Those who have looked into this
question contend that the city swill can be utilized to support a
municipal piggery at considerable profit.”
In a recent report, the Iowa State College says of this method of
disposal: “The only advantage which may be stated in favor of this
method is that it probably costs less, under existing conditions about
most of our cities, than any other available method.”
In one of its annual reports, the Massachusetts State Board of Health
says: “It is objectionable and unsanitary in the extreme, as health
authorities are constantly pointing out. Prominent among the objections
to this method are the great nuisance it usually creates and the
uncertainty of its operation.” The Board says epidemics among pigs
create the uncertainty of operation. It also says that they are breeding
places for flies and rats.
The Chicago Waste Commission’s comment on this method is that it is not
applicable or desirable in a large city, except under inspection and for
restricted private collection.
The _New York Medical Journal_ reported that the garbage collected by
Grand Rapids, at cost of $26,320, is taken by a contractor who last year
paid 45 cents per ton and fed to hogs. It says that over 10,000 hogs are
sold yearly at a value of $135,000 and that 2,400 tons of fertilizer are
produced at a value of about $36,000.
Samuel A. Greeley, Sanitary Expert, says that 75 pigs are required to
dispose of a ton of garbage per day. The equipment at the farm
prescribed by him is: Tracks and cars for distributing the garbage along
concrete feeding platforms; substantial and well-kept sleeping and
warming pens; tanks for sterilizing garbage; apparatus for vaccinating
pigs against cholera; a means of disposing of unconsumed garbage by
burial or incineration and plenty of washing facilities. He further
says: “There should be some method of sorting the garbage before feeding
it to pigs so that the stale garbage may be discarded and buried or
burned. Some places disinfect it by boiling in large caldrons before
feeding. In such cases the cooked garbage is commonly used only as a
base for the feed given to pigs. The method is a most profitable one and
warrants consideration in small cities where isolated farm sites are
available.”
Dumping on Land
It is the consensus of opinion in all reports and of all experts that
this method is objectionable especially where there is a large quantity
to be disposed of. A long haul is necessitated by the location of the
dumps at a remote distance where the decomposition of any part of the
refuse will not be offensive to neighboring property owners. When the
garbage is deposited in sufficient quantity offensive odors due to
fermentation and decomposition may create a nuisance. Unless special
attention is given to the treatment of these dumps, this method will not
be found desirable. A thorough mixing of garbage with ashes and rubbish
will prevent the nuisance and the fires that are otherwise liable to
occur, creating odors and nuisance from the smoke and unconsumed gases.
A report of the Iowa State College states that dumps where ashes and
rubbish and other refuse are deposited are not only unattractive in
appearance, but are detrimental to the health of those living in the
immediate vicinity, and as a city grows, it usually becomes increasingly
difficult to find locations where these dumps can be maintained without
incurring the objections of those living in the neighborhood.
The _Scientific American_ says this method “is one that cannot be
defended either from an æsthetic or sanitary standpoint. The dumps
become an ideal breeding place for flies.”
Dumping in Large Bodies of Water
Only a few cities use this method. In most places where it has been
tried, it has been prohibited because the material is washed on the
neighboring shores.
Disposal by Sanitary Fill
This method is practised by some cities, among them Seattle, Davenport,
and New Orleans, which report its success. It is given more serious
consideration than heretofore by several large cities. The method is
different than that of burial, in that it is carried on by filling
excavations, vacant low lying ground and natural ravines.
The garbage, rubbish and ashes are dumped and then mixed with sufficient
earth to insure oxidation and thorough digestion of the decomposable
wastes. The activity of the bacteria of the soil breaks down and
mineralizes the organic matter and when there is sufficient oxygen, i.
e. air, no putrefaction or other odors result. Success depends upon the
following treatment:
(1) The garbage must not be buried so deep that bacterial activity is
reduced.
(2) The garbage must not be spread in a thick layer on the surface of
the ground.
(3) The ground must be sufficiently open and drained so that air can
penetrate to a sufficient depth.
(4) The garbage must not overload the soil, but must be sufficiently
diluted with earth, ashes and rubbish, so that putrefaction may take
place, due to the presence of an ample supply of air in the pores of the
soil.
The Chicago Waste Commission believes that this method “has been
demonstrated to be not only sanitary, free from nuisance when properly
carried out, but economical as well.” Incidentally, adds the Worcester
Commission, it adds valuable taxable property from which the city
subsequently derives an income.
At Davenport, 1.3 cubic yards of materials are required per ton of
garbage and the total cost of upkeep, including rent of land, labor,
etc., was 50 cents per ton. The garbage is received and buried by one
foreman and three men in summer and one foreman and one man in winter.
The city by this method is creating a valuable river front.
New Orleans seeds its dumping grounds as soon as a sufficient filled
area is available, and later trims and plants the land for use as small
parks and play grounds.
The Health Commissioner of Seattle, in a letter to the _Municipal
Engineering Journal_, describes the system and results as follows:
“This method of filling works very satisfactorily in this climate, but I
believe it necessary to include all waste materials, as ashes, boxes,
tin cans, etc. These all assist oxygenation and nitrification. I do not
believe pure garbage can be handled in this way.
“We also find that it is best to keep as little of the face of the fill
exposed as possible. It is always best to keep a man constantly on the
job, whose duty it is to rake down to the bottom of the fill all boxes,
rough materials, etc., thus leaving the ashes to form a covering on top.
When this is not sufficient, we cover with a layer of earth about five
inches thick.
“The success lies in the proper mixtures of waste materials, and next
the fill must be properly covered to protect from flies. Chemicals can
also be used to protect it. This covering also prevents the slight sour
odor of fresh garbage and by keeping out the sunlight, at the same time
encourages bacterial growth by increasing the warmth inside the fill.
People residing within one hundred feet of these fills make no
complaint, but the public has to be educated when you first adopt this
method. We aim to fill city property, as ravines, swampy lands or docks
on the lake or salt water front.
“Our laboratory findings show that the process is simply one of slow
incineration by nature, instead of the expensive method of burning by
incinerators, and at the same time help prove that there is nothing
detrimental to public health in these fills.
“We have eleven fills distributed over our city, thus making short
hauls, and these are taken care of by eleven laborers disposing of
approximately three hundred and fifty tons per day by this method alone,
while one incinerator with about an equal payroll will only dispose of
sixty to seventy-five tons per day, running twenty-four hours. A fill
increases the value of property, while the refuse from our incinerator
has to be hauled away at an added cost.”
After spreading, there is applied to the garbage an antiseptic spray of
crude carbolic acid, rosin and caustic soda to kill eggs and larvæ of
flies, mosquitoes and other insects that might breed.
Burial
Garbage may be buried by putting it in shallow trenches and covering
with the excavation from the trenches for the next day’s deposit, or by
plowing under. It digests and is thoroughly taken up by or oxidized by
the action of the soil. Experience has shown that for open soil 1.5
acres are required to handle each daily ton of garbage for one year, the
same soil being in shape to re-use after two years. For heavy soils and
those containing clay, about three acres are required and this can be
used again after three years.
The Worcester Commission reports that cities which have buried by
plowing have experienced more than occasional nuisance. Milwaukee and
Columbus successfully disposed of their garbage by burying in trenches,
before they constructed disposal plants. Milwaukee paid forty cents a
ton to dispose of its garbage by this method.
A summary of the opinions indicates that disposal by burying when
properly conducted and when the point of disposal is suitably located
gives no cause for objection from a sanitary standpoint. The principal
objections are the extremely long haul, the amount of land necessary and
no direct income. In small communities this method is entirely
satisfactory. It is usually not applicable to large communities.
Disposal Plants
There are two methods of disposing of garbage in plants—incineration and
reduction. There is a wide diversity of opinion among experts and city
officials as to which is the better from a sanitary and financial
standpoint. There is, however, nearly universal opinion upon the
following:
1. That the revenue from the by-products of municipally owned and
operated plants will not pay the combined cost of collection and
disposal.
2. That with only a few exceptions the revenue from the by-products of
municipally owned plants does not pay the cost of disposal.
3. That the price received by cities from contractors is, with very few
exceptions, not sufficient to pay the cost of collection.
4. That the disposal of garbage by the reduction process is uneconomical
for a city with a population of less than 100,000. Some experts increase
the size to 150,000 and one to 200,000.
5. That incineration is better than reduction for a city with a
population less than 100,000.
The reduction in the per capita production of garbage, due to less
wastage of food in the American home since the war, may make it
necessary in the future to increase the size of the city which can
profitably employ the reduction method, or should use the reduction
method.
In the report of the Chicago Waste Commission, some general rules are
laid down for the design of a disposal works, irrespective of method. It
says that the design should permit the plant to be operated as a whole,
or in part, so that each part can be operated as an independent unit.
This will permit one or more parts to receive attention and be repaired
during the season when the minimum quantity of refuse is to be disposed
of. The details of the plant should be such as to permit cleanliness at
all times and hosing and washing so as not to permit garbage dust or
dirt to accumulate, flies to breed and material to decompose. All
material, so far as possible, should be enclosed during the process of
disposal, and the odors eliminated or confined or deodorized. The
handling of material in the plants, so far as possible, should be
eliminated, where mechanical means can economically be adopted. Special
attention should be paid to ventilation and the elimination of dust
where men are required to work.
The odors or nuisances caused from disposal plants will usually arise
from one or more of the following sources: Garbage or refuse, incomplete
combustion or combustion temperatures not sufficient to eliminate odors,
congestion of carts in one locality and creation of dust. The odors
arising from raw garbage which are found in all plants are mostly local
and will not create a nuisance a short distance from the point of
handling and the housing of equipment used in hauling.
A method of determining the kind of a plant to be built and operated
which will meet with local conditions is described as follows by Rudolph
Herring, sanitary engineer.
“Locate suitable central points where incinerators can be built
convenient for reception of refuse and delivery of steam and clinker.
Estimate annual cost, including fixed charges and operation, as follows:
First, of wagons and other means of collecting from house to works all
garbage, ashes and rubbish combined; and, second, of the works for
incineration. The sum of these two estimated costs will give probable
annual cost of entire plant from origin to finish. This sum must then be
credited with the annual value of steam and clinker. The result will be
the net annual cost to the city of collecting and finally disposing of
the above parts of general refuse.
“A. Locate suitable place where reduction process can be carried on
economically and conveniently for reception of garbage and delivery of
products, with a capacity to serve, if practicable, the entire city.
Estimate annual cost, including fixed charges and operation, as follows:
First, of wagons and other means of collecting the garbage from house to
works; second, works for reduction. The sum of these two estimated costs
will be the probable annual cost to the city of the collection and
reduction of the garbage. This sum must be credited with annual value of
products of reduction, as derived from sale of oils, grease and
fertilizers. The result will be the net cost, perhaps profit, of
disposing of city garbage.
“B. Locate suitable central point where incinerator can be built, which
will be convenient for the reception of ashes and rubbish and the
delivery of steam and clinker. Estimate annual cost, including fixed
charges of operation as above of the collection and works for disposal
of ashes and rubbish, if these are to be incinerated together.
“If only rubbish is to be collected and delivered for incineration, then
there should be added the cost of collection and final disposal of ashes
by dumping. This cost should again be credited with annual value of
steam and clinker and perhaps of land-making by dumping of ashes.
“By adding results of A and B, we obtain the total net cost to a city of
collecting and finally disposing of the above parts of general refuse. A
comparison between these estimates of cost, of both collection and
incineration of garbage, ashes and rubbish as one project and of both
collection and reduction of garbage and the collection and incineration
of rubbish and dumping of ashes as the other project, will indicate the
most economical method in the city for which these cost estimates have
been made. It is necessary to analyze carefully local conditions to
determine the most economical method.”
Incineration
Two kinds of plants are used for this method of disposal—crematories and
destructors. Many destructors are in operation in America, but of the
crematories which have been built, many have been abandoned. Heat for
destruction must be obtained not only from the garbage itself, but also
from ashes and other combustible waste. It is here that the difference
between destructors and crematories enters. In the former, heat is
obtained from the refuse itself; in the latter, garbage is burned at the
expense of coal, wood or oil. It seems to be the prevailing opinion that
in order to make incineration a success the material must be burned at a
high temperature and rapid rate of combustion.
Morse claims that destructors require twenty per cent. less area of
ground, cost fifteen per cent. more for boiler and machinery; that the
construction is more durable; no addition of fuel; that the gases of
combustion are consumed, and that this method has by-products of clinker
and power and destroys all combustible refuse; and that the net cost of
operation is less per ton.
Crematories, Morse says, require more ground and more time for disposal,
but cost less. They are less durable, require addition of fuel, gases
are incompletely destroyed, cannot develop power, the residue has no
value and they can burn only garbage and rubbish. The gross cost of
operation is a trifle less, but the net cost is more.
Tests of garbage crematories in Ohio, according to the State Board of
Health, show that “the plants as operated fail usually to dispose of the
garbage at a temperature high enough to avoid the production of odors.”
This, says J. T. Fetherston, Commissioner of Street Cleaning of New York
City, is significant and conclusive.
Regarding mixed refuse destruction, Fetherston says: “Three features may
be noted: No added fuel is required, steam power is produced and quite a
residue (clinker) results. Compared with tests of garbage crematories
the average destructor temperatures in connection with the gas analyses
indicate freedom from odor due to unconsumed gas. Thus the mixed refuse
type of plant corrects the inherent defects of the garbage crematory.”
The cost of incineration plants depends upon the garbage to be handled.
The various incinerator companies usually estimate the capacity of the
plant at about one ton per 1,000 population.
Reports show that disposal by incineration in Ohio is confined to cities
of from 20,000 to 80,000 population, and that its success has been
confined to the very large and to the rather small cities of the
country. Some assert that it is applicable in the very large cities only
when the collection systems are suitable to provide for the burning of
mixed refuse. In small cities it is the custom to cremate the garbage
alone, the other classes of waste being dumped or buried.
The cost of construction, reports show, ranges from $600 to $1,000 per
ton capacity. The Worcester Special Waste Commission says that “from a
calculation based on some 30 incinerators it has been found that the
cost per ton daily capacity varies from $250 to $1,000, the average
being between $600 and $700.”
The by-products are clinker and the steam generated.
Robert W. Wylde claims that the cost of operating destructors “is in a
great measure offset and frequently quite overbalanced by the revenue”
from the sale of steam and clinker. One hundred tons of refuse burned
during 16 hours a day produces 800 engine H. P. Clinker from 100 tons
might amount to 30 tons per day and would bring $1.00 a ton in many
localities. Another expert says that one pound of refuse has been found
to produce one-half to one and three-fourths pounds of steam. The value
of refuse as a fuel is estimated by one expert to be 49 cents per ton.
The Chicago Waste Commission’s report points out, “that experience in
connection with the development of power from refuse furnaces
demonstrates that it is not easy to find an available use whereby the
power can be utilized regularly as produced and the furnace operated
continuously. In the majority of plants constructed, it has not been
possible to utilize all the power available, and in most cases the use
is limited to the operation of the plant. When power developed is used
in lighting and power stations, the demand only comes during a part of
the day. Supplementary coal-fired boilers are usually found in
connection with destructor-electric lighting stations, or else the
destructor is much larger than would be required to deal with the refuse
alone. The power produced from refuse furnaces will be best utilized by
some local industry, such as ice-making plants or electro-chemical
plants, which require continuous operation. When power is used in
connection with pumping plants, it is found good practise to operate the
refuse plant only as an auxiliary to the power plant of the pumping
station. The saving that results or credit that can be given the
destructor plant will amount to the value of the fuel equal to that
which it requires to produce the amount of steam developed and used. The
fluctuating amount of power developed in most cases can be depended upon
only for the average minimum production. In selecting a site for a
refuse disposal plant from which power is developed it is not always
profitable to utilize the power where the demand is not constant and
where the demand would be constant, suitable sites are not always
available.”
William M. Venable, sanitary engineer, believes that if a city has a
steam power plant, it will pay, but it will not pay to build one for
that purpose.
In a suburb of Montreal, the refuse destructor is constructed in
connection with a municipal electric light power station and power is
used in generating electricity for lighting purposes. The plant is
operated only during the time when lighting load is in demand, and the
material as delivered is stored during the day and burned at night. Only
a part of the power is furnished by the refuse furnaces, the remainder
being obtained from a coal-fired boiler plant.
In Savannah, Georgia, the water works boilers are kept in service, with
banked fires, to use in case of shortage of garbage.
The following are some of the reports from cities which receive a
revenue from by-products:
Minneapolis: The steam generated lights and heats hospital and workhouse
buildings, also lights 31 miles of streets. Estimated annual revenue,
heat $6,293.89; light $1,080.62; street lights ($60 per arc) $4,657.48;
total, $12,031.99.
Borough of Richmond, New York City: West New Brighton incinerator uses
clinker in manufacture of brick by mixing cement with ground clinker.
New Orleans, La.: Plans perfected to light streets and public buildings.
Claimed that from 500 tons of garbage daily 30,000,000 K. W. can be
generated a year.
Savannah, Georgia: Ninety-five per cent. of coal fuel previously used at
pumping station is now saved by destructor. To operate water works
pumping station it cost $81.90 per day. To operate the station and
destructor it costs $46.50 per day, or a difference of $12,921 per year,
this being 10 per cent. of the cost of the plant. This is expected to
provide for repairs and amortization charges. Besides, the city has all
of its refuse disposed of without cost at a central point and in a
sanitary manner with freedom from nuisance. The clinker is used for road
building and is estimated to have a value equal to the cost of hauling
it from the plant.
All reports agree that destructors are very successful from a sanitary
standpoint and have the advantage over other methods in that the
different classes of waste can be destroyed by one process and gathered
in one collection. Several also agree that the destructors when properly
constructed and operated, may be centrally located, thus reducing the
cost of haul. Another point mentioned is that there is some revenue. The
disadvantages pointed out by experts are that, if not properly designed
and operated, there will be dust and odors, all refuse must be hauled to
the plant and expert workmen must be employed.
The cost of operation varies from city to city, and in each city from
month to month, depending upon the season of the year, composition of
the garbage and climate. Most incinerator companies guarantee to operate
their furnaces at full capacity at about 50 cents per ton. Milwaukee
operates for about 57 cents per ton. The cost, including maintenance,
depreciation and fixed charges, and operating expenses, averages $1.50
to $2.50 and sometimes $3.00 per ton. The State Board of Health of Ohio
found in its investigation that incineration cost from $1.97 to $2.50 in
Canton, Ohio; $2.00 to $2.66 in Marion; $1.00 to $1.84 in Steubenville;
and $2.58 in Zanesville, during a period of several years. These figures
include interest, depreciation, maintenance and repair charges.
J. W. Turrentine, of the United States Department of Agriculture, who
made a study of garbage disposal plants, says in a Department bulletin
that the average net cost of incineration per ton as obtained in a
number of instances is $2.11 per ton, and that in one of the cities
considered there is a credit for power generated of 22 cents per ton of
garbage incinerated.
Most garbage incinerator manufacturers claim a life of 20 years for
their plants with reasonable renewals.
Morse figures that when fuel is necessary the cost of destroying refuse
and garbage in crematories is approximately 50 cents per ton. He also
says that the cost of operating destructors is from 50 cents to 70 cents
per ton for actual labor expenses, while the cost of operating the
modern high-temperature destructor will not exceed from 50 cents to 60
cents per ton. Deducting credit for power, the cost will drop, he says,
to 30 cents or less per ton. Depreciation and capital expenses are not
included in Morse’s calculations.
Greeley asserts that the cost of operation will range from about $1.00
to $1.50 per ton, “but local conditions may alter these limits.”
C. O. Bartlett, sanitary engineer, says: “So far as disposal of garbage
is concerned, in incinerators, it is coming to be generally understood
that this method is far from sanitary and is essentially wrong in that
it neglects to obtain the value for the products so collected.”
Rudolph Herring, Sanitary Expert, says: “In incineration, if sufficient
fuel is added, the combustion can be made perfect and the garbage can be
destroyed without offense and converted into inodorous gases, ashes and
clinker. Whatever sanitary objection has been made to this process has
resulted from preventable causes. Unless ashes and rubbish are combined
with garbage in sufficient quantities to produce the necessary heat, the
steam production is deficient and other fuel must be added.”
Robert H. Wylde favors incineration at a high temperature: “Here we have
a method that is at once sanitary, expeditious and economical in first
cost and maintenance.” He also says that this method is free from
nuisance, the plant may be centrally located, cost of collection
minimized owing to the relative shortness of hauls, not necessary to
maintain a separate collection, nor is there any necessity to keep
refuse in separate cans.
W. F. Goodrich, Sanitary Expert, maintains that modern destructors are
perfectly satisfactory and that there may be no fear of nuisance
wherever they are located. He maintains that it should be the aim of
officials to utilize the power produced for the best interests of the
community.
William M. Venable believes that cities of from 10,000 to 40,000
population should burn garbage and refuse, the problem to be solved
being the advisability of attempting to utilize the heat generated by
burning.
Reduction
When the reduction method is used only garbage and dead animals can be
destroyed, but when these kinds of wastes are broken down by means of
heat, valuable by-products are recovered. This may be done in two ways,
the processes being known as cooking, or digestor system, and drying. In
the first, garbage is cooked in large closed retorts by means of steam
under pressure. It is then pressed, leaving grease and a dry cake known
as tankage, which is used for fertilizer. In the drying method the
grease is extracted by some volatile solvent like naphtha. The relative
advantages of these two methods is disputed. At the present time the
majority of plants are operated by the cooking or digestor method.
Within the last year or two a new reduction process has been evolved.
The raw garbage is placed in sealed, air-tight tanks with jacketed walls
and bottom. The solvent is pumped into the reducer and steam admitted to
the jacketed walls. The heat causes the evaporation of the solvent and
the water in the garbage. When the garbage has been dried, the solvent
is pumped into the reducer and dissolves the grease. In an evaporator
the solvent is vaporized and carried to a condenser where it is again
liquefied and then conveyed to storage tanks. After the extraction of
the grease, the garbage is further dried by steam, and as tankage, is
used for fertilizer. The chief advantage claimed for this system is that
it is odorless. The cost of plant operation is much greater than that of
the digestor system, but the value of the recovered products is
considerably greater. Plants of this type are being operated in Los
Angeles, Cal., and in New Bedford, Mass. The plant now being constructed
for handling the garbage of New York City will also employ this new
process.
C. O. Bartlett, Sanitary Expert, says that the cooking method does not
permit of the recovery of any considerable portion of grease, but does
provide for the retention of most of the solids in dry form, after which
they may be ground up to serve as a base for fertilizers. He also says
that it is open to some objection on account of escaping gases from the
stack unless there are sufficient scrubbers.
Irwin S. Osborn, sanitary engineer, sums up as follows the advantages
and disadvantages of each process:
Drying Process
_Advantages._—Cost of plant is less, due to equipment and space
required; the operating costs are less, due to amount of labor and power
required.
_Disadvantage._—Carbonizing of the grease in the dryer, due to high
temperature required, so that the maximum amount of grease is not
recovered; the material is not broken down so that solvent will act as
readily on grease particles to allow maximum recovery; the mechanical
condition of by-products is not as desirable without additional
treatment; there is a greater volume of gases to be deodorized.
Cooking Process
_Advantages._—The cells of the material are more completely broken down
so that a larger amount of grease can be more readily recovered; all
material is enclosed during the process so that the gases are more
readily deodorized with less volume to be deodorized; in the modern
plants the mechanical condition of the by-products is better.
_Disadvantages._—Increased fixed cost of building and equipment;
increased operating cost; increased maintenance cost.
Osborn believes that by-products produced by either method have the same
relative market value. In plants that have been operated by both
methods, the experience has been that the additional amount of grease
recovered by the cooking method has more than offset the increased costs
and at the same time the odors were eliminated to a larger extent.
In establishing a reduction plant, Rudolph Herring says that the great
fear is creating a nuisance. He further asserts that, owing to
unpleasant odors apt to arise at the works, it is necessary to have good
ventilation and also a subsequent treatment of some of the vapors and
liquids which result from the process. These contingencies make it
advisable, he thinks, to locate the plant in a neighborhood where the
possibility of occasional unpleasant odors will not materially injure
value of adjoining property.
The Chicago Waste Commission gives this suggestion as a solution of the
odor problem: “In addition to the steam and electrical power that can be
furnished from a destructor plant to operate a reduction plant, the
exhausting of all gases carrying odors from the reduction works and
passing them through the destructor would prove one of the greatest
advantages from a sanitary and economical standpoint to be derived from
a combined method of disposal of all municipal wastes.”
Osborn says: “Economical results may be obtained by utilization of heat
in the disposal of garbage mixed with other refuse, by burning, but to
prove satisfactory the maximum sanitary results must be obtained at a
minimum cost, and when the quantity is such that it will warrant
utilization the reduction method will continue to show more economical
results, and with proper attention given to details and sanitary
features the work can be conducted without nuisance.”
Reduction is a method which can be adopted only by large cities. It
seems to be usually agreed that cities with less than 100,000 population
and producing less than 75 tons of garbage daily will find the reduction
process will not pay as a business venture. One writer says in no place
of less than 150,000 population can these kind of plants be operated
successfully. Venable places the minimum population at 100,000. He says
that as approximately 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. of kitchen garbage is
water and only 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. is composed of grease and
other substances it takes a large amount of garbage to make reduction
plants profitable.
The cost of a reduction plant will range from $1,500 to $3,000 per ton
daily capacity, according to published reports.
The gross cost of garbage destruction by the reduction method varies
from $1.50 to $2.50 per ton of raw garbage. In only a few instances does
the sale of the by-products meet or exceed expenses. In a majority of
cases, the process is carried on by private companies, the most being
subsidized by cities to amounts varying from 50 cents to $2.50 per ton.
A few companies pay the city for all garbage delivered to the plant.
The by-products of the reduction method are grease and tankage. It is
generally agreed that ordinary garbage contains from 2 per cent. to 3
per cent. by weight of grease and must yield from 200 to 400 pounds of
tankage per ton.
Columbus, Ohio, has been conducting experiments in making alcohol from
green garbage and its reports indicate that cities having reduction
plants may produce another by-product from their waste. The experiments
were carried on for some time under the direction of the assistant
superintendent in cooperation with Dr. James J. Morgan, a Chicago
chemist who has patented a process of distilling the alcohol from
chemically-treated garbage. It requires only a slight addition to the
present processes of the plant. The garbage is treated with a two per
cent. solution of sulphuric acid for cooking, then with lime and finally
with yeast for fermentation. The claim is made that the amount of grease
and tankage is not reduced by the process, and it is estimated that
every ton of garbage will yield about six gallons of alcohol. The
superintendent of the Division of Garbage and Refuse Disposal in
November, 1917, informed the New York State Bureau of Municipal
Information that the final report on the experiment “was favorable to
the process, but our city council did not see fit to authorize the
installation of the necessary equipment for the process.”
J. W. Turrentine says that on a basis of figures obtained in the
operation of a number of reduction plants, it is shown that the average
cost of reduction is $2.41 per ton, and the gross receipts $3.30 per
ton, giving a profit of 89 cents per ton raw garbage. He asserts that
when consideration of cost of collection is excluded, the rendering of
garbage is distinctly more profitable than incineration.
Cleveland and Columbus have been the cities most successful in operating
municipal reduction plants. In one year the Columbus plant received
21,628.97 tons of garbage, or 211 pounds of garbage per capita. From
this and the 183 large dead animals received, the actual production was
as follows: Grease, 1,186,985 pounds; tankage, 1,753 tons; hides, 183.
The value of these by-products were: Grease, $57,672.21; tankage,
$12,987.84; hides, $1,062.30, or a total of $66,772.35.
Each ton of garbage produced 54.87 pounds of grease and 162.1 pounds of
tankage. The grease value per ton of garbage was $2,435; the tankage, 60
cents, and the hides 5 cents, or a total of $3,085 per ton of garbage.
The actual cost of operation was $40,220.78 or $1,859 per ton. The net
profits were $26,502.57 or $1.226 per ton of garbage.
Cleveland in one year produced 2,940,000 pounds of grease and 10,016,000
pounds of tankage, the city receiving for them $151,162.48. This
reduction cost per ton of green garbage was $1.97½ and the earnings per
ton of green garbage was $3.47, making the net earnings per ton of
garbage $1.49½.
New York City is selling its garbage to a private company. It made a
contract for 1914 to 1916, inclusive, and the right to renew the
contract for two more years on the same terms and conditions. The city
receives at the rate of $62,500 for the first, $87,500 for the second,
and $112,500 for the third and each of the succeeding two years. Plans
are now being made to operate a municipal plant.
Table VII
METHODS AND COST OF DISPOSING OF GARBAGE
─────────────┬───────────────┬────────────┬─────────────┬───────┬──────
Name │ Method of │By Whom Done│ City Own │ City │ Is
│ Disposal │ │Dump? If Not,│ Own │ farm
│ │ │Annual Rental│ Farm │Rented
│ │ │ │ and │ by
│ │ │ │ Hogs? │City?
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
─────────────┼───────────────┼────────────┼─────────────┼───────┼──────
New York │Reduction. │Contract. │ │ │
City[54] │ │ Building │ │ │
│ │ municipal │ │ │
│ │ plant. │ │ │
Buffalo │Dumping and │Contract. │Some of them.│ │
│ Incineration.│ │ │ │
Rochester │Reduction. │Contract. │ │ │
│ │ City has │ │ │
│ │ decided to│ │ │
│ │ own its │ │ │
│ │ plant. │ │ │
Albany │Fed to pigs. │Contract. │ │No. │No.
Binghamton │Feeding and │Private │ │No. │No.
│ burning. │ sanitary │ │ │
│ │ companies.│ │ │
Schenectady │Reduction. │City. │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Syracuse │Reduction. │Contract, │ │ │
│ │ planning │ │ │
│ │ municipal │ │ │
│ │ operation.│ │ │
Troy │Dumping. │Contract. │$12,000 │ │
Yonkers │Incineration. │City. │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Utica │Reduction. │Contract. │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
New Rochelle │Incineration. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Watertown │Feeding to │ │ │No. │No.
│ pigs. │ │ │ │
Auburn │Dumping and │ │ │ │
│ ploughing │ │ │ │
│ under. │ │ │ │
Beacon │Dumping for │ │No. No │ │
│ fill. │ │ rental. │ │
Mechanicville│Dumping for │Contract. │No. No │ │
│ fill. │ │ rental. │ │
Dunkirk │Feeding and │ │No. │No. │No.
│ ploughing │ │ │ │
│ under. │ │ │ │
Saratoga │Dumping. │ │$50 per yr. │ │
Middletown │Dumping for │ │No. │ │
│ fill. │ │ │ │
Kingston │Dumping. │ │No. │ │
Jamestown │Ploughing │Contract. │No. │ │
│ under. │ │ │ │
Fulton │Dumping for │ │Yes. │ │
│ fill. │ │ │ │
Port Jervis │Dumping. │Contract. │No. │ │
Elmira │Incineration │Dumping only│No. $300. │ │
│ and dumping. │ by city. │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Salamanca │Dumping. │City. │ │ │
Rome │Dumping. │ │ │ │
Niagara Falls│Dumping in │ │ │ │
│ river. │ │ │ │
Cortland │Dumping. │Contract. │No. │ │
Cohoes │Dumping. │ │Owned by │ │
│ │ │ contractor.│ │
Plattsburgh │Dumping on land│ │One dump. │ │
│ and in water.│ │ │ │
Ithaca │Dumping for │City. │Some. No │ │
│ fill. │ │ rental. │ │
Olean │Feeding to │ │ │No. │No.
│ hogs. │ │ │ │
Johnstown │Dumping. │ │No. $100 per │ │
│ │ │ year. │ │
Ogdensburg │Dumping. │ │ │ │
Gloversville │Dumping. │Contract. │Yes. │ │
Hudson │Feeding to │Contract. │No. │No. │No.
│ hogs. │ │ │ │
Little Falls │Feeding to │Contract. │ │No. │No.
│ hogs. │ │ │ │
North │Ploughed under.│Contract. │No. No │ │
Tonawanda │ │ │ rental. │ │
Newburgh │Feeding and │Contract. │ │No. │No.
│ ploughing │ │ │ │
│ under. │ │ │ │
Norwich │Dumping. │ │No. $50. │ │
Mount Vernon │Feeding and │Contract. │Contractor │No. │No.
│ dumping for │ │ rents it. │ │
│ fill. │ │ │ │
Lockport │Feeding and │City. │Yes. │No. │No.
│ dumping. │ │ │ │
Hornell │Feeding and │City. │No. $50. │No. │No.
│ ploughing │ │ │ │
│ under. │ │ │ │
Rensselaer │Feeding and │City. │Yes. │No. │No.
│ dumping. │ │ │ │
Batavia │Dumping and │City. │Yes. │No. │No.
│ feeding. │ │ │ │
Tonawanda │Feeding and │Contract. │No. │No. │No.
│ dumping. │ │ │ │
Corning │Feeding to │Contract. │Contractor │No. │No.
│ hogs. │ │ owns farm. │ │
Oswego │Dumping on │ │ │ │
│ land. │ │ │ │
Canandaigua │Feeding to │Private │ │No. │No.
│ hogs. │ company. │ │ │
Borough of │Crematories, │Crematories │No. │ │
Queens │ dumping and │ and dumps │ │ │
│ reduction. │ by city. │ │ │
│ │ Reduction │ │ │
│ │ by │ │ │
│ │ contract. │ │ │
Amsterdam │Incineration. │City. │ │ │
Poughkeepsie │Dumping. │City. │No. │ │
Atlanta, Ga. │Incineration. │Contract. │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Columbus, │Reduction. │City. │ │ │
Ohio │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Cincinnati, │Reduction. │Contract. │ │ │
O. │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Milwaukee, │Incineration. │City. │ │ │
Wis. │ │ │ │ │
Detroit, │Reduction. │Contract. │ │ │
Mich. │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Washington, │Reduction. │Contract. │ │ │
D. C. │ │ │ │ │
St. Louis, │Reduction. │Contract. │ │ │
Mo. │ │ │ │ │
Lawrence, │Feeding to │ │ │Two │
Mass. │ pigs. │ │ │ loads│
│ │ │ │ daily│
│ │ │ │ sent │
│ │ │ │ to │
│ │ │ │ Poor │
│ │ │ │ Farm.│
│ │ │ │ Rest │
│ │ │ │ sold.│
New Orleans, │Dumping for │City. │Yes. │ │
La. │ fill. │ │ │ │
Hartford, │Feeding to pigs│City. │Yes. │No. │
Conn. │ and burned. │ │ │ │
Baltimore, │Reduction. │Contract. │ │ │
Md. │ │ │ │ │
Bridgeport, │Reduction. │Contract. │ │ │
Conn │ │ │ │ │
Cleveland, O.│Reduction. │City. │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Lowell, Mass.│Fed to pigs. │ │ │ │
Cambridge, │Fed to pigs. │ │ │ │
Mass. │ │ │ │ │
Louisville, │Dumping. │ │No. │ │
Ky. │ │ │ │ │
Pittsburgh, │Reduction. │Contract. │ │ │
Pa. │ │ │ │ │
Denver, Col. │Fed to hogs. │Contract. │ │No. │
Savannah, Ga.│Incineration. │City. │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Chicago, Ill.│Reduction and │City. │ │ │
│ incineration.│ │ │ │
Kansas City, │Fed to pigs. │Contract. │ │No. │
Mo. │ │ │ │ │
Boston, Mass.│Reduction. │Contract. │ │ │
Lynn, Mass. │Fed to pigs. │ │ │ │
Grand Rapids,│Fed to pigs. │ │ │No. │
Mich. │ │ │ │ │
Minneapolis, │Incineration. │City. │ │ │
Minn. │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
St. Paul, │Fed to hogs. │ │ │No. │
Minn. │ │ │ │ │
Jersey City, │Dumping for │Contract. │ │ │
N. J. │ fill. │ │ │ │
Passaic, N. │Burial. │ │ │ │
J. │ │ │ │ │
Paterson, N. │Incineration. │City. │ │ │
J. │ │ │ │ │
Trenton, N. │Incineration. │City. │ │ │
J. │ │ │ │ │
Dayton, O. │Reduction. │City. │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Providence, │Fed to pigs. │ │No. │ │
R. I. │ │ │ │ │
Charleston, │Dumping. │ │ │ │
S. C. │ │ │ │ │
Nashville, │Feeding to │ │ │ │
Tenn. │ hogs. │ │ │ │
Seattle, │Dumping for │City. │ │ │
Wash. │ fill. │ │ │ │
Spokane, │Incineration. │City. │ │ │
Wash. │ │ │ │ │
Oakland, Cal.│Dumping in │Contract. │ │ │
│ ocean and │ │ │ │
│ incineration.│ │ │ │
New Bedford, │Reduction. │Contract. │ │ │
Mass. │ │ │ │ │
Springfield, │Reduction. │Contract. │ │ │
Mass. │ │ │ │ │
Portland, │Incineration. │City. │ │ │
Ore. │ │ │ │ │
Philadelphia,│Reduction and │Contract. │ │ │
Pa. │ feeding to │ │ │ │
│ pigs. │ │ │ │
Scranton, Pa.│Incineration. │City. │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Reading, Pa. │Incineration. │City. │ │ │
Richmond, Va.│Incineration. │City. │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Los Angeles, │Reduction and │Contract. │ │ │
Cal. │ feeding to │ │ │ │
│ pigs. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
San │Reduction. │Contract. │ │ │
Francisco, │ │ │ │ │
Cal. │ │ │ │ │
Newark, N. J.│Reduction. │Contract. │ │ │
Indianapolis,│Reduction. │Contract. │ │ │
Ind. │ │ │ │ │
Toledo, O. │ │ │ │ │
Worcester, │Feeding to │City. │ │Yes. │No.
Mass. │ pigs. │ │ │ │
New Haven, │Feeding to pigs│ │ │Yes. │
Conn. │ and │ │ │ │
│ composting. │ │ │ │
Birmingham, │Dumping on │City. │ │ │
Ala. │ land. │ │ │ │
Memphis, │Incineration │City. │Yes. │ │
Tenn. │ and dumps. │ │ │ │
Omaha, Neb. │Feeding to │ │ │No. │
│ pigs. │ │ │ │
Fall River, │Feeding to │Contract. │ │No. │
Mass. │ pigs. │ │ │ │
─────────────┴───────────────┴────────────┴─────────────┴───────┴──────
─────────────┬───────────────┬───────────┬─────┬────────────
Name │ Kind of Plant │ Capacity │When │ Design
│ │ │Built│
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
─────────────┼───────────────┼───────────┼─────┼────────────
New York │Reduction. │2,000 tons.│1896 │Arnold.
City[54] │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Buffalo │Incineration. │40 tons. │1903 │Heenan-
│ │ │ │ Froude.
Rochester │Reduction. │ │1907 │Genesee
│ │ │ │ Reduction
│ │ │ │ Co.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Albany │ │ │ │
Binghamton │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Schenectady │Reduction. │30 tons. │1914 │Chamberlain.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Syracuse │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Troy │ │ │ │
Yonkers │Incineration. │9 tons. │1839 │N. Y.
│ │ │ │ Garbage
│ │ │ │ Crematory.
Utica │Reduction. │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
New Rochelle │ │ │1917 │Morse-
│ │ │ │ Boulger.
Watertown │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Auburn │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Beacon │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Mechanicville│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Dunkirk │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Saratoga │ │ │ │
Middletown │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Kingston │ │ │ │
Jamestown │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Fulton │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Port Jervis │ │ │ │
Elmira │Incineration. │Uses about │1906 │
│ │ half city│ │
│ │ garbage. │ │
Salamanca │ │ │ │
Rome │ │ │ │
Niagara Falls│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Cortland │ │ │ │
Cohoes │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Plattsburgh │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Ithaca │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Olean │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Johnstown │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Ogdensburg │ │ │ │
Gloversville │ │ │ │
Hudson │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Little Falls │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
North │ │ │ │
Tonawanda │ │ │ │
Newburgh │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Norwich │ │ │ │
Mount Vernon │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Lockport │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Hornell │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Rensselaer │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Batavia │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Tonawanda │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Corning │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Oswego │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Canandaigua │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Borough of │3 crematories. │30 │1900 │
Queens │ │ tons.[57]│ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Amsterdam │ │ │ │
Poughkeepsie │ │ │ │
Atlanta, Ga. │Incineration. │250 tons. │1913 │Destructor
│ │ │ │ Co.
Columbus, │Reduction. │200 tons. │1910 │
Ohio │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Cincinnati, │Reduction. │ │ │Heenan-
O. │ │ │ │ Froude.
│ │ │ │
Milwaukee, │Incineration. │300 tons. │1910 │
Wis. │ │ │ │
Detroit, │Reduction. │ │ │Detroit
Mich. │ │ │ │ Reduction
│ │ │ │ Co.
Washington, │Reduction. │ │1900 │Arnold.
D. C. │ │ │ │
St. Louis, │Reduction. │400 tons. │1913 │
Mo. │ │ │ │
Lawrence, │ │ │ │
Mass. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
New Orleans, │ │ │ │
La. │ │ │ │
Hartford, │ │ │ │
Conn. │ │ │ │
Baltimore, │ │ │ │
Md. │ │ │ │
Bridgeport, │Reduction. │60 tons. │1910 │
Conn │ │ │ │
Cleveland, O.│Reduction. │300 tons. │1905 │Newburgh
│ │ │ │ Reduction
│ │ │ │ Co.
Lowell, Mass.│ │ │ │
Cambridge, │ │ │ │
Mass. │ │ │ │
Louisville, │ │ │ │
Ky. │ │ │ │
Pittsburgh, │Reduction. │ │ │
Pa. │ │ │ │
Denver, Col. │ │ │ │
Savannah, Ga.│Incineration. │130 tons. │1914 │Heenan-
│ │ │ │ Froude.
Chicago, Ill.│Reduction. │900 tons. │1913 │Arnold.
│ │ │ │
Kansas City, │ │ │ │
Mo. │ │ │ │
Boston, Mass.│Reduction. │ │ │
Lynn, Mass. │ │ │ │
Grand Rapids,│ │ │ │
Mich. │ │ │ │
Minneapolis, │Incineration. │ │1905 │Decarie.
Minn. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
St. Paul, │ │ │ │
Minn. │ │ │ │
Jersey City, │ │ │ │
N. J. │ │ │ │
Passaic, N. │ │ │ │
J. │ │ │ │
Paterson, N. │Incineration. │60 tons. │1912 │Destruction
J. │ │ │ │ Co.
Trenton, N. │Incineration. │65 tons. │1901 │Davis.
J. │ │ │ │
Dayton, O. │Reduction. │125 tons. │1915 │
│ │ │ │
Providence, │ │ │ │
R. I. │ │ │ │
Charleston, │ │ │ │
S. C. │ │ │ │
Nashville, │ │ │ │
Tenn. │ │ │ │
Seattle, │ │ │ │
Wash. │ │ │ │
Spokane, │Incineration. │120 tons. │1908 │Decarie.
Wash. │ │ │ │
Oakland, Cal.│Incineration. │100 tons. │1907 │Decarie.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
New Bedford, │Reduction. │30 tons. │1905 │
Mass. │ │ │ │
Springfield, │Reduction. │75 tons. │1913 │
Mass. │ │ │ │
Portland, │Incineration. │150 tons. │1910 │F. P. Smith
Ore. │ │ │ │
Philadelphia,│Reduction. │500 tons. │ │
Pa. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Scranton, Pa.│Incineration. │80 tons. │ │Lewis &
│ │ │ │ Kitchen
│ │ │ │ Co.
Reading, Pa. │Incineration. │100 tons. │1914 │
Richmond, Va.│Incineration. │100 tons. │1910 │Morse,
│ │ │ │ Boulger &
│ │ │ │ Decarie.
Los Angeles, │Reduction. │300 tons. │1915 │
Cal. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
San │Reduction. │750 tons. │1897 │Chas.
Francisco, │ │ │ │ Thackery
Cal. │ │ │ │ patents.
Newark, N. J.│ │ │ │
Indianapolis,│ │ │ │
Ind. │ │ │ │
Toledo, O. │ │ │ │
Worcester, │ │ │ │
Mass. │ │ │ │
New Haven, │ │ │ │
Conn. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Birmingham, │ │ │ │
Ala. │ │ │ │
Memphis, │Incineration. │50 tons. │ │
Tenn. │ │ │ │
Omaha, Neb. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Fall River, │ │ │ │
Mass. │ │ │ │
─────────────┴───────────────┴───────────┴─────┴────────────
─────────────┬─────────────┬───────────┬──────────┬────────────
Name │ Any Odor? │Annual Cost│ By- │What is Done
│ │ of │ Products │ with By-
│ │ Operation │ │ Products
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
─────────────┼─────────────┼───────────┼──────────┼────────────
New York │ │ │Grease and│
City[54] │ │ │ tankage.│
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Buffalo │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Rochester │ │ │Grease and│
│ │ │ tankage.│
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Albany │ │ │ │
Binghamton │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Schenectady │Yes. │ $27,000.00│Tankage │Sold.
│ │ │ and │
│ │ │ grease. │
Syracuse │At times. │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Troy │ │ │ │
Yonkers │No. │ 3,380.50│ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Utica │Very little. │ │Grease. │Sold for
│ │ │ │ soap,
│ │ │ │ residue
│ │ │ │ used for
│ │ │ │ fuel.
New Rochelle │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Watertown │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Auburn │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Beacon │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Mechanicville│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Dunkirk │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Saratoga │ │ │ │
Middletown │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Kingston │ │ │ │
Jamestown │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Fulton │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Port Jervis │ │ │ │
Elmira │No. │ │None. │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Salamanca │ │ │ │
Rome │ │ │ │
Niagara Falls│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Cortland │ │ │ │
Cohoes │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Plattsburgh │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Ithaca │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Olean │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Johnstown │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Ogdensburg │ │ │ │
Gloversville │ │ │ │
Hudson │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Little Falls │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
North │ │ │ │
Tonawanda │ │ │ │
Newburgh │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Norwich │ │ │ │
Mount Vernon │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Lockport │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Hornell │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Rensselaer │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Batavia │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Tonawanda │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Corning │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Oswego │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Canandaigua │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Borough of │ │ .161 cu.│ │
Queens │ │ yd.[58]│ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Amsterdam │ │ │ │
Poughkeepsie │ │ │ │
Atlanta, Ga. │None from │25¢ per ton│Cinders. │Dumped.
│ operation. │ │ │
Columbus, │Slight. │ $1.86│Grease, │Sold.
Ohio │ │ │ tankage,│
│ │ │ hides. │
Cincinnati, │Not 50 feet │ $68,892.45│Electric │Operates
O. │ outside │ │ power. │ pumping
│ wall │ │ │ station.
Milwaukee, │ │ │ │
Wis. │ │ │ │
Detroit, │ │ │ │
Mich. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Washington, │40 miles from│ │Grease and│Sold.
D. C. │ city. │ │ tankage.│
St. Louis, │Occasionally │ │Grease and│Sold.
Mo. │ │ │ tankage.│
Lawrence, │ │ │ │
Mass. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
New Orleans, │ │ │ │
La. │ │ │ │
Hartford, │ │ │ │
Conn. │ │ │ │
Baltimore, │ │ │ │
Md. │ │ │ │
Bridgeport, │Occasionally.│ │ │
Conn │ │ │ │
Cleveland, O.│Very little. │$132,890.00│Grease and│Sold.
│ │ │ tankage.│
│ │ │ │
Lowell, Mass.│ │ │ │
Cambridge, │ │ │ │
Mass. │ │ │ │
Louisville, │ │ │ │
Ky. │ │ │ │
Pittsburgh, │Yes. │ │ │
Pa. │ │ │ │
Denver, Col. │ │ │ │
Savannah, Ga.│No. │ .615[56]│Steam and │Used on
│ │ │ clinker.│ roads.
Chicago, Ill.│Very little. │ │Dried │Sold.
│ │ │ garbage.│
Kansas City, │ │ │ │
Mo. │ │ │ │
Boston, Mass.│ │ │ │
Lynn, Mass. │ │ │ │
Grand Rapids,│ │ │ │
Mich. │ │ │ │
Minneapolis, │No. │ │Power. │Heats
Minn. │ │ │ │ buildings,
│ │ │ │ lights
│ │ │ │ buildings
│ │ │ │ and
│ │ │ │ streets.
St. Paul, │ │ │ │
Minn. │ │ │ │
Jersey City, │ │ │ │
N. J. │ │ │ │
Passaic, N. │ │ │ │
J. │ │ │ │
Paterson, N. │No. │ │ │None.
J. │ │ │ │
Trenton, N. │No. │ │Only │None.
J. │ │ │ ashes. │
Dayton, O. │Slight. │ │Grease and│Sold.
│ │ │ tankage.│
Providence, │ │ │ │
R. I. │ │ │ │
Charleston, │ │ │ │
S. C. │ │ │ │
Nashville, │ │ │ │
Tenn. │ │ │ │
Seattle, │ │ │ │
Wash. │ │ │ │
Spokane, │No. │ │Ashes. │Sold.
Wash. │ │ │ │
Oakland, Cal.│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
New Bedford, │No. │ │ │
Mass. │ │ │ │
Springfield, │Some. │ │ │
Mass. │ │ │ │
Portland, │No. │ │ │
Ore. │ │ │ │
Philadelphia,│Yes. │ │Grease and│
Pa. │ │ │ tankage.│
│ │ │ │
Scranton, Pa.│No. │ .28│Ashes. │Sold.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Reading, Pa. │No. │ │ │
Richmond, Va.│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Los Angeles, │No. │ │Grease and│
Cal. │ │ │ tankage.│
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
San │Much. │ │None. │
Francisco, │ │ │ │
Cal. │ │ │ │
Newark, N. J.│ │ │ │
Indianapolis,│ │ │ │
Ind. │ │ │ │
Toledo, O. │ │ │ │
Worcester, │ │ │Manure and│Sold.
Mass. │ │ │ hogs. │
New Haven, │ │ │ │
Conn. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Birmingham, │ │ │ │
Ala. │ │ │ │
Memphis, │Yes, at │ 30¢ to 40¢│ │
Tenn. │ times. │ │ │
Omaha, Neb. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Fall River, │ │ │ │
Mass. │ │ │ │
─────────────┴─────────────┴───────────┴──────────┴────────────
─────────────┬───────────┬─────────────────────────┬──────────────
Name │ Annual │Net Cost of Disposal[53] │ Net Profit
│ Revenue │ │
│ from By- │ │
│ Products │ │
│ │ │
│ ├─────────┬───────────────┤
│ │ Per Ton │ Year │
─────────────┼───────────┼─────────┼───────────────┼──────────────
New York │ │ │ │$112,500 a yr.
City[54] │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Buffalo │ │ $1.25│ │
│ │ │ │
Rochester │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Albany │ │ │ │
Binghamton │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Schenectady │ $3,000.00│ 10.23│ $34,200.00│
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Syracuse │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Troy │ │ │ │
Yonkers │ │ 1.40│ 3,880.50│
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Utica │ │ │ 4,100.00│
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
New Rochelle │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Watertown │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Auburn │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Beacon │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Mechanicville│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Dunkirk │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Saratoga │ │ │ │
Middletown │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Kingston │ │ │ │
Jamestown │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Fulton │ │ │ 600.00│
│ │ │ │
Port Jervis │ │ │ 960.00[55]│
Elmira │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Salamanca │ │ │ │
Rome │ │ │ │
Niagara Falls│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Cortland │ │ │ 200.00[56]│
Cohoes │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Plattsburgh │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Ithaca │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Olean │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Johnstown │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Ogdensburg │ │ │ │
Gloversville │ │ │ │
Hudson │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Little Falls │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
North │ │ │ │
Tonawanda │ │ │ │
Newburgh │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Norwich │ │ │ │
Mount Vernon │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Lockport │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Hornell │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Rensselaer │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Batavia │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Tonawanda │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Corning │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Oswego │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Canandaigua │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Borough of │ │ │ │
Queens │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Amsterdam │ │ │ │
Poughkeepsie │ │ │ │
Atlanta, Ga. │ None.│ [59] │ [59] │ [59]
│ │ │ │
Columbus, │ $66,772.35│ │ │$1.226 per ton
Ohio │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Cincinnati, │ $10,000.00│$1.26[60]│ │
O. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Milwaukee, │ │ │ │
Wis. │ │ │ │
Detroit, │ │ City pays nothing. │
Mich. │ │ │
│ │ │
Washington, │ │$2.31[61]│ │ $1.89 per
D. C. │ │ │ │ ton[62]
St. Louis, │ │ .87[63]│ │
Mo. │ │ │ │
Lawrence, │ │ │ │ $1.25 a load.
Mass. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
New Orleans, │ │ │ │
La. │ │ │ │
Hartford, │ │ │ │
Conn. │ │ │ │
Baltimore, │ │ │ 68,000.00[64]│
Md. │ │ │ │
Bridgeport, │ │ 50[64]│ │
Conn │ │ │ │
Cleveland, O.│$195,000.00│ │ │$1.49½ per ton
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Lowell, Mass.│ │ │ │ $5,919.77
Cambridge, │ │ │ │$15,000.00[65]
Mass. │ │ │ │
Louisville, │ │ │ │
Ky. │ │ │ │
Pittsburgh, │ │ $2.25│ $290,000.00│
Pa. │ │ │ │
Denver, Col. │ │ Free.│ │
Savannah, Ga.│ │ .36│ │
│ │ │ │
Chicago, Ill.│ │ │ $144,744.00│
│ │ │ │
Kansas City, │ │ │ │
Mo. │ │ │ │
Boston, Mass.│ │ │$925,318.56[66]│
Lynn, Mass. │ │ │ │
Grand Rapids,│ │ │ │ 45¢ per ton.
Mich. │ │ │ │
Minneapolis, │ $27,000.00│ .85│ $16,000.00│
Minn. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
St. Paul, │ │ │ │ 80¢ per ton.
Minn. │ │ │ │
Jersey City, │ │ │ │
N. J. │ │ │ │
Passaic, N. │ │ │ │
J. │ │ │ │
Paterson, N. │ │ .877[67]│ $9,527.42│ $1.18
J. │ │ │ │
Trenton, N. │ │ .48[69]│ $7,108.37[69]│
J. │ │ │ │
Dayton, O. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Providence, │ │ │ │
R. I. │ │ │ │
Charleston, │ │ │ │
S. C. │ │ │ │
Nashville, │ │ │ │
Tenn. │ │ │ │
Seattle, │ │ │ │
Wash. │ │ │ │
Spokane, │ $5.00│ .60│ │
Wash. │ │ │ │
Oakland, Cal.│ │ .60│ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
New Bedford, │ │ │ $25,500.00│
Mass. │ │ │ │
Springfield, │ │ [68] │ [68] │ [68]
Mass. │ │ │ │
Portland, │ 34[56] per│ .34[69]│ │
Ore. │ ton.│ │ │
Philadelphia,│ │ │ │
Pa. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Scranton, Pa.│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Reading, Pa. │ $1.00[70]│ │ │
Richmond, Va.│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Los Angeles, │ │ │ │ 51¢ per ton
Cal. │ │ │ │for reduction,
│ │ │ │ $1 for
│ │ │ │ feeding.
San │ │ .60[71]│ │
Francisco, │ │ │ │
Cal. │ │ │ │
Newark, N. J.│ │ │ │
Indianapolis,│ │ │ │
Ind. │ │ │ │
Toledo, O. │ │ │ │
Worcester, │ $38,838.67│ │ │
Mass. │ │ │ │
New Haven, │ │ │ │
Conn. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Birmingham, │ │ │ │
Ala. │ │ │ │
Memphis, │ │ │ │
Tenn. │ │ │ │
Omaha, Neb. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Fall River, │ │ No│ │
Mass. │ │ expense.│ │
─────────────┴───────────┴─────────┴───────────────┴──────────────
Glens Falls and Oneonta, N. Y., report that they have no systems.
-----
Footnote 53:
A Includes interest, depreciation, maintenance and repair charges.
Footnote 54:
Manhattan, Bronx and Brooklyn Boroughs only.
Footnote 55:
Collection and disposal.
Footnote 56:
No cost for superintendence, man receiving salable rubbish for his
pay.
Footnote 57:
Eight-hour capacity.
Footnote 58:
Includes maintenance and repair charges, and is for crematories only.
Footnote 59:
Plant not yet under control of city, court action pending.
Footnote 60:
Labor and supply.
Footnote 61:
Gross.
Footnote 62:
Estimated.
Footnote 63:
Contract price.
Footnote 64:
Price paid by city.
Footnote 65:
City sells for 70¢ per cord ft.
Footnote 66:
Includes collection.
Footnote 67:
Labor only.
Footnote 68:
City may buy plant at end of ten years for $50,000, at end of twenty
years it becomes property of city free of cost.
Footnote 69:
Does not include interest and depreciation.
Footnote 70:
Fuel and wages.
Footnote 71:
Price paid reduction company by scavengers.
Footnote 72:
Guaranteed.
CARE AND DISPOSAL OF MANURE
REGULATIONS IN MANY AMERICAN CITIES—PROVISIONS FOR STORING AND REMOVING
THE WASTE—CARE OF STABLES
Some cities have made very stringent regulations for the care,
collection and disposal of stable manure within their limits; others are
not so exacting and many have not as yet given any thought to the
subject, or if they have no municipal laws have been enacted. The
importance of municipal regulation is recognized by all sanitarians, and
especially since the house fly has been regarded as one of the chief
spreaders of disease. If for no other reason than to eliminate the
greatest breeding place of the fly, stable manure should be properly
cared for, and stables and other places where animals are kept in cities
should be clean.
The regulations of most cities require the individual to dispose of the
manure on the premises he owns or occupies. Only a few cities have a
municipal collection system or have the work done under contract. In
those cities where gardeners and farmers are permitted to collect the
waste voluntarily no trouble has been experienced during the winter
months when the farmer is not busy on the soil, but during the spring
and summer, when the need of cleanliness is greatest, but when the
farmer is too busy planting and harvesting, the collection is neglected.
Minneapolis is one of the cities which have suffered in this way. In
several cities one or more companies deal in manure, maintaining wagons
exclusively for collection purposes. The manure is carted either to the
railroad direct for shipment or to persons purchasing it. In most
instances these companies pay a small amount for the manure. The stable
manure in Washington is collected and disposed of in this manner.
Toronto, Canada, contracts with four different companies to remove the
manure. These make a nominal charge for the collection, the city being
under no expense. In Jersey City the waste is carted away by private
contractors and most of it is sold to farmers. Denver transfers its
stable manure to the city dump where it is hid during the summer months
and in the spring is sold to gardeners. The city sanitary inspector does
not regard this plan as satisfactory.
There seems to be an unanimity of opinion among most municipal
sanitarians that the city itself should be prepared to remove manure
when owners or occupants fail or refuse to do so. Every owner should be
allowed to sell it if he can; otherwise, it should be regarded as a
nuisance, and the city should remove it without compensating the owner,
but charging him for the service. Unquestionably as cities continue to
grow and as congestion becomes greater such a plan will be adopted by
most municipalities.
One of the best systems in operation is that in Columbus, Ohio, where
manure is collected by municipal employees from any stable within the
city limits. The Columbus ordinance provides that any person desiring to
have the manure removed must take out a permit for such service at a
yearly charge of $3 for one horse, $5 for two horses and $1 for each
additional horse. After the ordinance became a law the Department of
Public Safety began to notify the public that from and after April 1,
1912, no manure would be removed without the payment of a fee.
Between September 1 and June 1 the demand for manure is greatly in
excess of the supply and the city could sell three or four times as much
as it collects. During the remainder of the year there is practically no
demand for the waste as farmers cannot handle it.
The collection is made under the following rules: Whenever a person pays
to the city treasury the ordinance charge for manure collection the
Department of Public Service is notified on a blank form. The name,
address, permit number, and number of horses are recorded in
alphabetical order. To each of the four drivers employed in collection
is given a separate list of barns from which to collect, and each
evening he reports the places from which he made collection during the
day.
Following is a detailed statement of the cost of collection and the
receipts from the sale of manure for 1916 when prices were normal:
Total number of loads hauled 1486
Total number of tons collected 2972
_Expenses_
Teams and labor $2,689.25
Superintendent, inspection, etc. 200.21
Repairs, etc. 546.49
_Receipts_
Sale of manure $2,029.50
Receipts from citizens for collection 672.00
Cash on hand 15.00
Open account on books for year 148.00
Net cost 739.90
Cost of collection per load 2.31
Cost of collection per load less receipts .49
Cost of collection per ton less receipts .24½
The Civil Engineer of the Columbus Health Department says that a market
has been found for the entire output of the city, the prevailing price
being $2 a wagon load delivered anywhere inside the city limits, and for
shipment $15 per average car f. o. b. cars, city loading station. He
further says that about 15 per cent. of the manure produced in Columbus,
a city of 200,000 inhabitants, is collected. “It seems,” he says,
“perfectly possible to collect all manure produced in the city at a very
low cost to the municipality, for during the year 1913 only three 2-ton
wagons were used in manure collection and they proved to be sufficient
to handle the work with ease.”
In Chicago manure must be removed every seventy-two hours and collected
by licensed scavengers at the expense of the stable owner. Only during
the last two or three years was specific authority over stables granted
to the Health Department, which immediately began an inspection of all
stables. Of the first 500 inspected it was found that from a sanitary
standpoint they were in very poor condition.
An example of stringent regulations in a large city is the ordinance
adopted by New York City. It follows:
“No manure vault, pit or bin shall be allowed upon the premises used for
stabling purposes, except upon premises used for barning in unimproved
sections of the city. All manure and stable refuse shall be kept within
the stable and removed daily, or if not removed daily shall be pressed
into bales or barrels adequately screened or otherwise protected or
covered so that flies cannot have access thereto, or otherwise treated
as approved by the Department of Health. All such manure or stable
refuse so baled, barreled or treated, shall be removed from stables at
least twice weekly.
“The loading of manure for removal shall be done within the stable
without causing a nuisance.
“No person shall engage in the business of transporting manure or drive
any cart for that purpose, in the City of New York, without a permit
therefor issued by the Board of Health or otherwise than in accordance
with the terms of said permit and with the regulations of said board.
“The permit issued by the Board of Health shall be securely fastened in
a conspicuous place, on the right side near the front of the vehicle
used in the transportation of offensive materials. Vehicles used in the
transportation of offensive materials while loaded, either wholly or in
part, shall not remain on the street or place any unreasonable length of
time, and shall not, except when unavoidable, stop in front of any
premises other than those from which material is being collected.
“All vehicles and contents therein shall be thoroughly cleaned upon the
completion of a day’s use, and so stored as not to cause a nuisance.
“Manure may be transported to a dump operated under a permit issued by
the Department of Health or to firms in the unimproved sections of the
city, or to points outside the city of New York. Every vehicle used in
transporting manure shall be tight and provided with a suitable cover so
as to prevent the dropping of manure upon the streets; if the cover be
of canvas or of other similar material, it shall be of sufficient size
completely to cover the manure within the vehicle and shall be securely
fastened on all sides of the vehicle.
“No vehicle engaged in the transportation of manure shall be permitted
to load upon the sidewalk, in the alleyway, in the yard or any place
except the stable.”
For a small city the ordinance of Newburgh, New York, contains several
good suggestions. It is as follows:
“All stables, barns and other places wherein horses or cattle are kept,
shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. All accumulations of
manure shall be stored in such places and be removed with such frequency
and in such manner as to prevent offensive and noxious odors. Not more
than two loads of horse or cow manure shall be allowed to accumulate on
any premises within the city limits and no piles of manure shall be
allowed to accumulate in any position or manner whereby they shall
become breeding places of flies or whereby any leachings therefrom may
pass into any stream or water course. Any violation of this ordinance
shall subject the offending party to a penalty of not more than $50 for
each offense and for each day’s continuance or repetition of the
offense.
“No manure or stable refuse shall be deposited within any building or
the cellar thereof unless said receptacle shall be enclosed by eight-
inch brick, cement or concrete walls, all of which shall be waterproofed
on sides and have cement waterproof floors, and connected with public
sewers by suitable tile pipes properly trapped and with suitable fall to
carry off all liquid, said outlet to be covered with fine grating or
screen, top of said pit or receptacle to be covered with a tight cover
and to have a brick, cement, concrete or galvanized iron flue, at least
eight inches in diameter, and to be air-tight and to extend to the top
or cover of said receptacle or pit up to and through the roof, and at
least three feet above said roof and above the roof of any adjoining
buildings, access to said pit to be by door hung on suitable hinges and
to be kept closed and fastened except when refuse is being deposited in
or removed from the same; in no case shall said receptacle be
constructed within any building where no connection can be made with
public sewers. All receptacles for manure or stable refuse that are
constructed outside of any building shall be commenced at least twelve
inches below the lowest grade of the land adjoining same and shall be
waterproof on both sides and covered with suitable cover properly hinged
and to be kept closed except when depositing therein or removing manure
or refuse therefrom; the sides of said pit may be constructed of matched
plank and as directed by the health officer; all of the above
construction must be so done as to make same inaccessible to flies.”
Exceptional regulations have been noted in the following cities:
Aberdeen, Washington, does not allow a bin or receptacle to be built
nearer to an adjoining house than 25 feet. Manure for agricultural or
garden purposes must be thoroughly mixed and covered with soil so as not
to attract flies. Bayonne, New Jersey, will not allow any pit nearer
than 10 feet to the line of any adjoining lot, alley or public place.
Truck gardeners must secure a permit to store manure, and the waste
cannot be carted through the streets between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. without a
permit. Manure cannot be unloaded, discharged or put upon or along the
line of any railroad (except in transit), street or highway. A permit
must be secured for cars containing manure to remain on or stand on or
along any railroad, street or highway. In Cincinnati disinfectants must
be used about those portions of the floor where manure and urine
habitually fall or are maintained. Manure stacked for fertilizer on a
truck farm must be at least 50 feet from any dwelling and shall be
stored in a closed bin or screened receptacle in order to prevent access
of flies thereto.
Los Angeles requires a permit from its Health Commissioner for piling
manure for fertilization, the permit to designate the place and amount
that may be kept. Manure cannot be scattered even if covered in Mankato,
Minnesota, except for fertilization or the “protection of plants,
shrubs, houses or buildings in winter months.”
North Yakima, Washington, requires that manure used as fertilizer from
May 15 to October 15 must be mixed and covered with soil. It cannot be
used as grading.
In Oyster Bay, New York, no manure is allowed to be brought in or
unloaded or placed on any dock or landing from June 1 to September 1.
All manure brought into town must be entirely removed by June 15. All
brought in by rail must be unloaded within 250 feet of any station.
Several cities provide that all collections or accumulations of any
hennery park, stable refuse or manure in or about any hennery park,
barn, stable, yard or appurtenance thereof must be removed before the
same shall become offensive. Dumping of manure in any river, canal,
stream or pond is prohibited in Little Falls, New York. Every person
keeping a stable for horses, mules, cows or similar animals in
Poughkeepsie, New York, must report his name and the location of the
stable to the Health Officer.
There is no general uniformity of regulations as to how often manure
shall be removed. In some cities the ordinances are specific, in others
the refuse must be removed when ordered by the Board of Health, and in
many it must be carted away before it becomes offensive. Some of the
various regulations follow: Aberdeen, Washington, every 30 days from
April 1 to November 1, and oftener if the Health Officer directs;
Bayonne, New Jersey, once a week in all cases where the Board of Health
by written notice shall require; Chattanooga, Tennessee, once a week;
Cincinnati, Ohio, once a day and disposed of to the satisfaction of the
Health Department; Des Moines, Iowa, twice weekly from March 15 to
December 1 and once a week thereafter; Erie, Pennsylvania, accumulation
of only one wagon load from May 1 to October 1 in any private stable,
and two loads in any private or livery stable without permission of
Board of Health; Greenfield, Mass., where more than four horses are kept
it must be removed at least once a month and no more than five cords are
allowed on premises at any one time; Los Angeles, California, every ten
days when kept in bins and every day otherwise; Mankato, Minnesota, as
often as necessary and when ordered by the Board of Health.
Every city and town should regulate at least the care of manure and in
congested communities it is imperative that the city either provide a
municipal collection or make provisions whereby the refuse can be
removed under contract. Any community which fails to do this continues a
nuisance and fails to check the breeding of flies and the possible
spreading of disease.
MUNICIPAL CLEAN-UP CAMPAIGNS
INTENSIVE COMMUNITY EFFORTS TO TEACH URBAN RESIDENTS THE NEED OF
CLEANLINESS AND FIRE PREVENTION
Cooperative effort to give the municipality a thorough cleaning at least
once a year, and, by so doing, to teach the citizen the importance of
continuous cleanliness in and about his home, has been undertaken within
the last ten years by most American cities. These intensive community
efforts are popularly known as clean-up campaigns.
At first the clean-up campaign, lasting a day or two, was devoted to
ridding homes and yards of rubbish and waste that had accumulated during
the winter months. Later the campaigns were spread over a week or a
longer period, and now not only is an effort made to collect and cart
away the winter’s accumulation of waste, but the city also undertakes to
educate its citizens in fire prevention work, fly and mosquito
extermination, the beautifying of homes and yards, and the elimination
of every unsanitary condition. Cellars, garrets, back-yards, vacant
lots, alleys, public streets—in fact, every spot in the city, whether on
public or private property, does not escape the scrutiny of the public
officials and citizens’ committees.
The movement spread rapidly until practically every city had at least a
spring campaign. Some repeated the effort in the fall. After two or
three annual campaigns several municipalities, particularly the larger
ones, thought that instead of making a limited intensive effort to clean
house, a continuous campaign should be conducted. The advocates of this
plan claimed that any periodical effort had a tendency to make the
average citizen clean up only during the campaign, and that during the
rest of the year he lapsed into his usual indifference. Within the last
few years, therefore, some cities have abandoned the clean-up campaigns
and have made greater efforts during the entire year to rid the
community of all unsanitary conditions.
The clean-up campaign, however, has become a permanent municipal
activity in America. It has taught the citizen not only his
responsibility in and about his home, but also the need for greater
activity by governmental agencies to eliminate general unsanitary
conditions.
Initiating a Campaign
In order to initiate a clean-up campaign, an agitation for it must first
be started. The press, civic organizations and industrial life insurance
companies have been the principal agitators.
The industrial life insurance companies reach the individual citizen and
endeavor to get his cooperation in the movement for more sanitary laws
and conditions. Unlike the press they reach the foreigner and the class
of people who do not read the newspapers, or at most only the Sunday
editions.
Some idea of the possibility for individual and community good which
these agencies hold in their power may be gained when one considers that
one company alone has millions of policy holders in the United States
and Canada. The collectors making their weekly or monthly calls
distribute leaflets and circulars disseminating sound ideas in regard to
public and private health.
It is not possible to over-rate the press as a factor in the clean-up
movement. The work of the newspaper does not stop with the spreading of
information both before and during the campaign—in some instances it
takes part in the activities. The columns of the newspapers are open to
everything of a news nature that will materially assist—news stories,
special articles, editorials, daily programs, cartoons and
advertisements.
While the removal of rubbish is essentially a municipal affair, in many
instances it was not until civic organizations, such as chambers of
commerce, women’s clubs and school clubs, started an agitation for
community effort that cities realized their responsibility and
inaugurated campaigns.
The Organization
In planning the organization of the campaign, the Mayor usually appoints
a Clean-up Week Committee, consisting of one representative each from
the Department of Public Works or Street Cleaning, Health and Fire. This
committee outlines the plan and scope of the work. Usually the physical
work is performed by or under the supervision of the Bureau of Street
Cleaning, although in some cities the health officials have had charge
of the work. After a plan has been adopted to interest every man, woman
and child in the community, a proclamation by the Mayor starts the ball
rolling and the campaign is on.
As it is only through local organization that cooperative specific
community steps can be taken, an effort is first made to secure district
organization. The industrial insurance companies with their already well
organized plans on clean-up, baby welfare, health, fly and mosquito
campaigns, are important agencies for such steps in most cities. The aid
of public school principals, the clergy and others is also sought. Very
effective organization is secured also through the help of the various
welfare and civic organizations.
The official Clean-Up Week Committee usually appoints a Citizens’
Committee, representing the leaders of the financial, educational,
business and religious life of the city. The members of this committee
offer their time and services free. The Citizens’ Committee is
subdivided, sometimes into as many as twelve committees, consisting, as
in Philadelphia, of finance, press, poster and printed matter, trade
associations, community associations, charitable and benevolent
associations, schools and school children, churches, retail stores,
street cars, vacant lots and fire prevention.
The following is the plan of organization that has been used by many
small cities:
One man and one woman as directors of the general movement.
A committee on public buildings, factories and stores.
A committee on residences and outbuildings.
A committee on streets and alleys.
A committee on parking and planting.
A committee on painting and repair work.
A committee to interest school children.
A committee to supply the teams and remove the rubbish.
Captains for working crews for each day of the campaign.
The plan of Cincinnati is a representative one where the campaign is
initiated and carried on by a civic organization with the assistance of
public officials.
The President of the Chamber of Commerce of that city suggested it might
be worth while to start a clean-up movement, and, accordingly, a number
of letters were sent to prominent people informing them of the proposed
movement, and asking, if they thought the idea worthy of merit, to meet
at the Chamber of Commerce on a certain evening. Thirty-five persons,
representatives of organizations and the city government, all
enthusiastic over the idea, met as suggested. A committee, consisting of
the Superintendent of Schools, Superintendent of Salvage Corps,
Executive Secretary of the Chamber, and the Chief of Police, was
appointed to plan the organization and name officers and members of
committees. This committee submitted a report laying out a plan along
the following lines:
1. Organization by districts coextensive with public school
districts.
2. These district organizations to be uniform in character as far as
possible.
3. The work in each district to be done by the people in that
district.
4. General committees, the members to form the General Council in
charge of the campaign.
5. An Executive Committee to be composed of the chairmen of the
General Committees, and to be in immediate charge of the campaign.
6. The campaign to extend over a number of weeks and to be followed
by a general inspection of the buildings of that city.
The report of this Committee, including its selection of the
Superintendent of Schools as General Chairman and the Manager of the
Civic and Industrial Department of the Chamber of Commerce as General
Secretary, was submitted to a large meeting attended by representatives
of the civic organizations, the State Fire Marshal, the schools, the
Fire Prevention Bureau, the Salvage Corps and others. Its plan of
organization was adopted and its selection of members of the committees
approved. The Mayor promised the cooperation of all city departments.
Publicity Plans
The keystone in the arch of any successful campaign is effective
publicity. This is obtained through newspapers, bulletins, circulars,
buttons, rubber stamps, placards, posters, motion pictures, banners,
trolley cars, bill boards and private advertising.
Cincinnati reports that no other factor contributed more to the success
of its campaign than the newspapers. By giving daily reports of the
progress of the work during clean-up week the press created a rivalry
among the various wards.
In the Philadelphia campaign the total space devoted to newspaper
publicity amounted to 14,225 lines, or 88 full length columns of printed
matter, of one column a day for eleven days in each of the Philadelphia
newspapers. For the benefit of the foreign born the same information was
printed in every foreign newspaper published in that city. Cartoonists
depicted Clean-up Week as a family affair and showed it to be a real
pleasure as well as a necessity. The editorial writers in a more serious
vein urged the necessity of cooperation and pointed the way to communal
benefits to follow.
Bulletins, properly distributed, are effective in arousing civic pride
and procuring the cooperation of householders. The first should be the
official proclamation by the Mayor. The Mayor of Kirkville, Illinois,
gave this advice in his proclamation:
If your store is dingy—paint it.
If your awning is ragged and old, get a new one.
If your walk is an eyesore to those traveling over it, repair it or
have a new one.
If there are unsightly traps in front of your property, or broken
limbs, burn them.
If in your back yard there are old, tumble-down sheds, tear them
down. The ground is too valuable, and such things detract from the
beauty of the home—and the town.
Clean out all barnyards and stables at once. Don’t give the flies a
chance to breed.
Clean out the alleys back of your homes.
Take all rubbish and ashes from your back yard immediately.
By all means do your part to make Kirkville a cleaner and more
beautiful city.
Some cities have obtained good results with circular letters signed by
some public official. These are usually sent to the various
organizations, ministers and physicians, asking them to urge the
cooperation of their members, congregations or the households they
visit.
A few cities have adopted the plan of sending letters to all advertisers
and every concern known to manufacture, advertise or sell any kind of an
article used for cleaning purposes, requesting them to increase the
amount of local publicity.
New York City in one campaign used four million circulars printed in
five languages. One circular reads as follows:
“To every owner, occupant, representative of any building, apartment,
room, yard or vacant lot: You are hereby notified to prepare and place
within the stoop line for removal all rubbish and waste material, from
lots, lofts, fire escapes, cellars, yards, alleys, air shafts, rooms and
apartments. Old bedding, rugs, paper, furniture, broken-up boxes, and
barrels; glassware should be placed in barrels, boxes and bundles. It is
against the law to throw materials in the streets. Neglect to comply
with this notice will result in prosecution. The wagons will call at 8
A. M. Wednesday, May 20.”
Placards bearing the silhouette figure of William Penn majestically
swinging a broom over the city from his dizzy perch on top of the City
Hall appeared in every one of the 3200 trolley cars during a
Philadelphia campaign. These were placed in the front and rear entrances
in such a way that only the figure was visible from the outside. The
appearance of the black and white sketch minus title or descriptive
matter of any kind was perplexing to the passengers on entering the car,
and they immediately looked at the reverse side for an explanation. They
got it in the form of an announcement for the annual Clean-up Week, with
just enough information and advice to be profitable, and most effective.
This same figure was also distributed among the schools, libraries,
railroad stations and other prominent places.
In various cities buttons are distributed bearing such inscriptions as
“Clean Up and Paint Up. I Will, Will You?” and “Scoot Home and Scrub.”
Slogans are usually selected after competition for a prize by the school
children.
Among the most effective posters used are window signs to call rubbish
carts, and cards to be placed in the windows of homes. One house poster
announced “We are Assisting in the Clean-Up and Paint-Up Campaign. Are
You?” Posters have also been used in street cars, and on wagons and
motor trucks. Fire warning cards have been sent by some cities to cigar
stores, fireproof material manufacturers, and gas companies.
Rochester, New York, was one of the first cities to have fire warnings
printed on caps for milk bottles. Others have used the backs of transfer
tickets issued by street railway companies. One of the most effective
fire warnings read: “See that your good cigar or cigarette does not
cause a bad fire.” Philadelphia distributed blotters among the school
children. In Toledo the school children, dressed as little White Wings,
carried banners bearing the inscription “B-R-I-G-H-T-E-N U-P.” The bill
posting companies, in some instances, donate space for the use of large
posters. Street cars and station platforms are also utilized in an
effort to attract the attention of citizens to do their duty cleaning
their premises. The delivery forces of department stores and milk
companies are pressed into service, each wagon being supplied with
pamphlets and cards to be left with each package or bottle of milk.
Motion pictures and lantern slides showing the ravages of the fly, and
actual conditions existing from dirt are an important factor in bringing
the necessity for cleanliness before citizens and school children. By
way of stimulating effort in the school children of Kewanee, Illinois,
motion pictures were shown depicting the success of children in
beautifying their school grounds and gardens in other cities. The
members of the New York Street Cleaning Department gave illustrated
lectures during the Clean-Up Campaigns. On the screens of 205 motion
picture theaters in Philadelphia were shown nightly for four weeks
attractively arranged slides telling the audience what to do and how to
do it. The “Before” and “After” clean-up pictures proved very popular
and instructive. Because of the great popularity of motion pictures this
form of advertising is especially effective. The general secretary of
the campaign in Cincinnati had prepared a set of lantern slides from
photographs one year and these were used to illustrate addresses given
the next year.
In all large cities there is much private advertising during these
campaigns. In some, the regular advertising pages of the newspapers for
weeks have individual advertisements of department stores, calling
attention to the reduced prices of articles used for cleaning purposes.
The more enterprising managers try to outrival each other in the amount
of space covered.
Rochester, New York, one of the pioneer cities in the organization of
the clean-up movement, arranged its publicity for one of its recent
campaigns thus:
The cooperation of the daily press.
The exhibition of slides in motion picture theaters.
Sending letters to all lodges and orders asking for cooperation.
Asking the light companies to print fire warnings on the backs of
their bills, and the railway companies to do the same on their
transfers. The light companies also displayed similar information
on their electric signs.
Use of the Boy Scouts to distribute dodgers to householders.
The cooperation of the clergy in preaching proper sermon.
Cooperation of the real estate exchange in cleaning up and keeping
clean all buildings, of which the exchange has charge.
Inducing manufacturers to print suitable copy on pay envelopes.
Sending fire warnings in printed form to cigar stores.
Arrange that all caps for milk bottles during clean-up week be
printed with a fire warning.
Secure the cooperation of all concerns selling fireproof materials
such as cement, asbestos, fireproof paint and roofing, by asking
them to advertise heavily during the week.
The Commissioner of Public Works consented to allow posters to be
placed on the back of rubbish wagons, and the Commissioner of
Public Safety offered the use of the big fire engines for the same
purpose.
The Cooperating Forces
The greater the number of cooperating forces and agencies the more
successful will be the campaign. All contribute to make the city more
livable.
The greatest factor in the clean-up movement is the children. Nothing
that is done can be accomplished without their help. Of the hundreds of
cities interested in clean-up campaigns very few can be found where the
school children have not been actively identified with the work. No
stone has been left unturned to encourage the teachers to give the
children the clean-up spirit. One of the best means of reaching adults
is through their children, and the education of the children themselves
along these lines will contribute materially to their sense of proper
community conditions when they become men and women. It is acknowledged
that what is most needed in a boy nowadays is the right spirit, to
insure him a clean life in talk, habits and associates; keeping the
city’s streets clean is a certain responsibility that makes him more
careful in his own habits.
Children are pressed into service in many ways,—through clubs composed
of boys and girls, Boy Scouts, Camp Fire Girls, City Clubs, Junior
League Clubs and Junior Civic Clubs. Cleveland, Chicago, New York,
Spokane, Paterson, N. J.; Salt Lake City, Dallas, Texas; Toledo, Ohio;
Denver, Colo.; Cincinnati, Pensacola, Fla.; Bay City, Oregon; Antlers,
Okla.; Denison, Texas, are only a few of the cities where children have
been active.
There are various ways of rewarding the children for their work. Some
cities believe that money prizes appeal to children more than medals,
badges, etc., and so have created special funds for that purpose,
usually collected by some civic organization. Other cities give medals,
buttons, puzzles, school equipment—stereopticon with lantern slides,
maps, pictures, plans;—sporting equipment—baseball and football masks,
balls and bats, cameras, free tickets to moving picture theaters.
In some instances the school children have become enthusiastic to the
point of organizing magazines in the schools, devoted entirely to the
Clean-Up Campaign. The children of the Clifton School in Cincinnati
issued a magazine called _The School Circle_.
In some cities packets of flower and garden seeds are distributed among
the children, and all vacant lots, back yards and stretches of ground
not utilized are cleared of rubbish and dug up and seeded.
Under the direction of a Captain, school boys of Spokane, Washington,
were organized into corps which cleaned up the residence section, then
hauled the refuse away to the public dumps in wheelbarrows and express
wagons.
Another method used to good advantage by Salt Lake City was to get the
boys of each district bordering on dirty vacant lots to clean them up
and prepare them for baseball grounds. After this had been done the
Inspector of Public Health gave the boys baseball bats, balls and
equipment.
At the suggestion of Mayor Cochran of Antlers, Oklahoma, the Progressive
Club and the Ladies’ Civic Club combined in a program that was very
successful. The boys of the city gathered up all the rubbish and placed
it on the curbs, and the city wagons removed it. A committee appointed
by the club solicited funds to reward the boys.
As a preliminary to the general clean-up movement in Bay City, Oregon,
the Commercial Clubs, in conjunction with the Ladies’ Civic League,
offered three prizes to the boys collecting the greatest number of sacks
of rubbish by April 5.
One city in Ohio gave each child collecting one hundred tin cans a free
ticket to a motion picture theater.
Judge Albert Besson of Chelsea, Mass., found a novel use for six boys,
averaging fifteen years old, brought before him for sentence for
entering freight cars and stealing candy. He sentenced them to keep a
certain city street clear of waste for six months. The street in
question is a long one, and friends of the boys living on it made things
interesting for the culprits keeping the cigarette stubs, tin cans,
papers and milk bottles picked up. The boys were supervised by two
policemen.
The children of the sixth and seventh grades in one school in Inchester,
Pa., started a tin can crusade, which aroused every citizen in the city.
With two days of the contest still to run, the children had gathered
37,000 tin cans.
In accordance with the proclamation of the Governor, the Mayor of
Montpelier, Vermont, observed April 25 as Arbor Day and Clean-Up Day.
Outdoor exercises were held, including an address by the Mayor. The
children were not required to attend school in the afternoon provided
they spent two hours cleaning up the streets and grounds about their
homes.
Toledo school children were divided into squads and to each was given a
section of a ward. Each day a ward was cleaned and the results were
printed in the next day’s papers, thus creating rivalry among the
children.
Everywhere the Boy Scout has found his level in the Clean-Up Campaign.
It is a Scout law that he must be clean. Almost every troop of Scouts
has done its full quota in civic, local or county clean-ups. In patrol
or by troop they care for school grounds, public grounds, make
systematic campaigns against flies and mosquitoes, destroy their
breeding places; plant trees, bushes and shrubs; in general, keep the
streets free of litter and waste of all kinds. Divided into squads, they
do much for city betterment. Vacant lots, waste property, fields and
streets are rid of tin cans, milk bottles, scrap iron, weeds, and in
their places flowers, vegetables and shrubbery planted; unsightly
billboards removed. Sometimes they are paid for their work by the Civic
Leagues, as in the case of Cornwall, N. Y., and St. Paul, Minnesota.
In many cities the Scouts have done splendid work in inspection duty,
reporting all unsanitary conditions. In patrols, troops or companies
they are assigned to investigate and report to the superintendent of
streets or the organization having charge of the clean-up. The
inspection is done day by day as the clean-up progresses, and any
oversight or unsanitary condition reported at once.
Another method of interesting children is the organization of boys and
girls into what is known as City Clubs, whose duty it is to keep the
streets clean. The clubs are limited to 25 members each. The members
wear buttons and each one is provided with blanks on which to report. In
some instances these clubs work throughout the year but usually their
work is confined to the spring clean-up, in which event they attend to
the general clearing up of vacant lots, back yards, school property, and
cart it to the curbs for the city dump wagons to haul away.
In Boston, under the auspices of the Women’s Municipal League, the
Junior Municipal League, loaded with posters reading “Do you have pride
in your city? Then Clean It Up,” and armed with brooms, shovels and
rakes, proceeded to clean up. “Little Italy” was no small job. How the
children first became interested in cleaning up this district is told
about a little Italian girl who persuaded her merchant father to put
covers on his barrels because the papers blew about and littered the
back yard. This so improved the appearance that the child decided to
sweep the back porch every morning before going to school. One morning a
policeman saw her doing this and remarked on the improvement and gave
her a button; immediately all the children in the neighborhood became
industrious.
Gratifying results were obtained in Kewanee, Illinois, through the
cooperation of the Superintendent of Schools and the Junior Civic Club,
consisting of 650 members from the seven schools of the city. To each
pupil desiring to become a member was presented a button in the school
colors, bearing the words “I Will Help Kewanee.” A photograph was taken
of the child’s home, showing as clearly as possible what he desired to
improve. A letter was sent to the parents of the members of the Club,
stating that the Kewanee Civic Club offered prizes to children who would
make the most progress in cleaning up yards at home, plant flowers, make
gardens, and do any other work. For the best showing in each school
district $5 in gold was first prize, and $2.50 in gold second prize. To
all the children who made an honest effort to clean up and beautify
their yards were given diplomas of award signed by the Superintendent of
Schools and the Committee. The taking of the pictures was a most
expensive plan, but the expenses were materially reduced because the
Camera Club of the High School contributed largely of their time. A
contest in growing vegetables and making gardens was begun in the
summer, and in the fall prizes were offered for the best showing. In
order to stimulate interest in that direction, motion pictures showing
what children had done in other cities were used.
A school in one city presented a one-act play typifying the following
characters: Fly, waste, paper, fire, soot, dirt, microbe, sickness,
death, sorrow, poverty, cleanliness, swatter, refuse pail, fire
prevention, paint, scrub brush, soap, water and flowers. Lines were
fitted to each character, and in the end cleanliness and happiness
overcame sickness and dirt.
Although not always taking an active part in the cleaning up, women’s
clubs have been a great factor for good in instigating general clean-up.
There is scarcely a city in the country where the women in one way or
another have not done much propaganda work, and in many instances
offered active service and financial support.
Cincinnati is unanimous in its opinion that it owes its successful
campaigns to the Cincinnati Woman’s Club, which organization was
responsible for the first effort toward a general clean-up years ago.
The prominent women residents of Cornwall, N. Y., members of the
Improvement Society, having failed to get the Moodine Creek and adjacent
property cleaned up by the Board of Health, after an appeal, formed what
they called the Tin Can Committee, and started a campaign of
housecleaning on their own account. Flanked by a squad of Boy Scouts,
they marched to the Moodine with rakes and hoes and began to clean up
the thickets of the creek on both sides.
Special Activities
Besides the general cleaning work for the removal of rubbish and waste
many cities add special activities to their programs. These are found to
be helpful in improving both sanitary and esthetic conditions. In a few
cities drastic measures are resorted to in special cases. In
Philadelphia, for example, the names of 600 owners of unimproved
property which required cleaning were obtained and to each was sent a
written request to improve conditions. The results were gratifying. In
other places photographs of unsanitary conditions have been taken and
the pictures either published or sent to the owners or occupants of the
premises.
In Chicago an agitation was started to clean the roofs in the downtown
district, as it was claimed that most of the dirt filling the air and
streets was blown from the roofs, which had not been cleaned since they
were built.
School gardens and tree planting are popular in many cities and are made
a part of the Clean-Up Campaign program.
Through tireless energy the Director of Social Centers of the public
schools in Cincinnati succeeded in having hundreds of school gardens
planted. Many of these were planted in vacant lots which had formerly
been the abiding place of heaps of rubbish. One was upon what had been
for years an objectionable public dump adjacent to a school. Several
loads of dirt were applied in the fall and the cost defrayed from the
campaign fund. In September an exhibit of school garden products was
held and prizes offered.
Intensive vacant lot and back yard gardening campaigns were conducted in
most American cities during the spring and summer of 1917. Although
these campaigns resulted from the need to increase production, they
assisted materially in eliminating many unsanitary spots in every city.
A Cincinnati firm in former years distributed trees in great numbers
among the school children of the city and adjacent communities. Upon the
suggestion of the Clean-Up Committee it decided again to make such
distribution as a part of the Clean-Up Campaign, this time peach trees.
Cards were given to all the school children who would agree to plant and
care for the trees. Eighty-four thousand of these trees were
distributed. The trees planted will bear fruit worth many thousands of
dollars. The distribution of them formed a distinctive and unique
feature of the Cincinnati campaign.
Fire Prevention and Inspection
The fact that in Philadelphia in one year the loss by fire from
combustible materials alone was $300,000 shows how important is fire
prevention in the clean-up work. Realizing the conditions and the
effective means which clean-up campaigns offer to improve them, many
cities have laid special emphasis upon safety as well as sightliness and
cleanliness. The effort of Cincinnati illustrates the results that have
been achieved in many other communities.
INSPECTOR’S REPORT (1915).
“CLEAN-UP AND PAINT-UP” CAMPAIGN.
Under Auspices of Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce.
[Illustration]
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ _Ward_ INSPECTOR’S REPORT _Precinct_ │
│Location.................Date.....................................191│
│Occupation...........................................................│
│Owner or Agt.........................................................│
│Address..............................................................│
│ │
│Instructions—Inspect Entire Premises. │
│ Note Defects by Opposite Key Nos. │
│ 1st Insp. 2nd Insp. │
│Cellar...... │ ........ │ ........ │ 1. Rubbish (including rags │
│Hallways.... │ ........ │ ........ │ and waste paper). │
│1st Story... │ ........ │ ........ │ 2. Garbage in other than │
│2nd Story... │ ........ │ ........ │ covered metal cans or pails. │
│3rd Story... │ ........ │ ........ │ 3. Ashes in other than │
│4th Story... │ ........ │ ........ │ covered metal cans or pails. │
│5th Story... │ ........ │ ........ │ 4. Old lumber or furniture. │
│6th Story... │ ........ │ ........ │ 5. General Unclean Condition. │
│Attic....... │ ........ │ ........ │ 6. Fire Escapes Obstructed. │
│Yard........ │ ........ │ ........ │ 7. Hallways or Stairways │
│Alley....... │ ........ │ ........ │ Obstructed with goods. │
│Vacant Lot.. │ ........ │ ........ │ 8. Unsanitary Toilet. │
│Stable...... │ ........ │ ........ │ 9. Privy Vault. │
│Store....... │ ........ │ ........ │10. Open manure pile. │
│............ │ ........ │ ........ │11. Frame Fire Risks to be │
│............ │ ........ │ ........ │ Torn Down. │
│ │
│Other Defects..................... Do Not Fill Out │
│.................................. Referred to Date │
│.................................. State F. M.......................│
│.................................. Police Dept......................│
│.................................. Fire Dept........................│
│.................................. Health Dept......................│
│.................................. Bldg. Com........................│
│.....................................................................│
│Department....(Signed)........................, Inspector │
│Fire Map......Vol........Page.......Block............................│
│ │
│ │
│No. and Street.......................................................│
│ Items for Clean-Up Attention │
│Front Yard Ashes Paper │
│Side Yard Ashes Paper │
│Back Yard Ashes Paper │
│Sawdust Wood Rubbish │
│Old Barrels, Boxes, etc..............................................│
│Vacant lot to be rid of..............................................│
│Other Conditions.....................................................│
│ │
│ Items for Public Health Attention │
│ │
│Garbage..............................................................│
│Outside Vaults.......................................................│
│Stable Nuisances.....................................................│
│Drainage.............................................................│
│Other Conditions.....................................................│
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
“The success attained in the Cincinnati campaign in 1914 so impressed
the State Fire Marshal that he assigned one of his assistants to spend
his entire time in the 1915 season going about the State organizing in
the different cities clean-up campaigns based upon the Cincinnati plan,
and in which inspections by the State Fire Marshal’s department played
an important part. Since it is estimated that 80 per cent. to 90 per
cent. of all fires are caused by accumulation of waste, rubbish or trash
of some sort, a thorough renovation of all premises in the city must
decrease the risk of fire. Therefore the more thorough the Clean-Up
Campaign the more work done toward fire prevention. The $600,000
reduction in fire loss, from $1,341,348 in 1913 to $793,796 in 1914, may
be traced largely to the result of the Clean-Up movement. This means a
reduction of insurance rates in the business district of from 5 per
cent. to 8 per cent. and an annual saving of perhaps $160,000 in fire
insurance premiums.”
Sanitary Inspection
As a preliminary to the Clean-Up Campaign in Kirkville, Missouri, an
inspection was made of all grocery stores, drug stores, bakeries, and
dairies by the State Pure Food Inspectors. The work continued over many
months, and every Sunday one of the local newspapers devoted an entire
page to the report of the conditions, good and bad. Each concern was
scored on various points of sanitation on the basis of 100 per cent.
perfect, and the Sunday papers printed scores of all concerns inspected
the previous week. Thus the interest of the public was aroused to watch
the scores. In the instances where the low scores were made the effects
of public disapproval were instantly felt.
Flies and Mosquitoes
Swatting the fly and destroying breeding places play an important part
in the Clean-Up Campaign of every community, and in nearly every city
fly extermination literature is distributed during clean-up week.
Bulletins, rubber stamps, fly traps, motion pictures, lectures, lantern
slides, and everything available are used to depict the ravages of the
fly. Fly extermination leaflets are sent to business establishments, to
mothers’ clubs, and post cards to merchants whose places of business
might be noticed to be fly infected. Boy Scouts distribute the
literature and also report as to stable conditions. Letters directed to
business establishments, suggesting the use of fly swatters and traps as
advertising material, are a further movement against the house fly. In
Cincinnati a circular explaining the need of exterminating the winter
fly was distributed through school children, and a marked reduction in
the number of flies was secured. A special general committee on fly
extermination was named and became one of the most active factors in the
campaign. Classes in manual training in the public schools made fly
traps, the Public Library had prepared a complete set of lantern slides
on fly extermination, and the committee had prepared and printed and
distributed 50,000 circulars on the house fly and methods of
extermination.
Results of Campaigns
A tour through any city on the first day after Clean-Up Week will
convince the most incredulous that in promoting this movement the
municipality materially lessens the fire risk and makes a marked
improvement in sanitary conditions. Everywhere are heaps of waste
materials and discarded articles, such as old bed springs, mattresses,
sofas, glass, crockery, stoves, carpets, baby coaches, piled along the
curb.
The following are some of the results conceded worth while in most of
the cities engaged in the movement:
A continuous campaign accomplishing permanent good.
Stimulation of business. A canvass of the cities having clean-up
campaigns resulted in the showing that 71 per cent. of the
merchants were positive that their business had been increased.
Improvement of housing conditions.
Distinct educational value for the young.
Prohibition of open garbage cans in some cities.
Sanitation in the handling of food products.
Better laws and methods for the disposal of garbage and rubbish.
Reduction in fire loss; thus reduction in insurance rates.
Elimination of unsightly lots and spots.
Hundreds of school gardens.
Renovation in most of the homes in a way they had never before been
renovated.
A great reduction in the number of flies and mosquitoes.
A stimulation of civic pride and cleanliness and safety of the home.
A united effort by practically the entire population toward an end
for the public good.
The education of school children toward a better idea of living
conditions.
The razing of dangerous buildings.
Elimination of public dumps, prospective early elimination of many
more.
Hundreds of new street litter cans.
Cleaner yards and vacant lots.
Distribution of thousands of fruit and shade trees.
Collection of combustible waste by Salvation Army, relieving Street
Cleaning Department, and reducing dump evil.
Development of community spirit through united action in a movement
for public welfare.
The fact that most cities have repeated their campaigns from year to
year should convince those which have not yet inaugurated the movement
that the effort is well worth while. There are, however, a few large
cities, New York being one, in which the congestion of work which a
campaign entails creates a temporary situation which is unsatisfactory
and expensive. These municipalities, and even many of those which have
annual campaigns, are advocating more methodical care of light rubbish
throughout the year, thus avoiding such a large spring cleaning. As a
remedy several cities have lengthened the period of cleaning to several
weeks. Generally speaking, however, clean-up campaigns justify the
effort and extra expense by making safer, cleaner, healthier and more
beautiful cities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
1. Removed “6. METHODS AND COST OF COLLECTION OF GARBAGE” from p. xii
as there is no Table VI in the book.
2. Footnotes [27] (was Table I N before renumbering), [28] (was Table I
R), [32] (was Table II A), [33] (was Table II X), [34] (was Table
II C), [35] (was Table II H), and [72] (was Table VII d) are
missing their anchors.
3. Changed “department houses” to “apartment houses” on p. 146.
4. Silently corrected typographical errors.
5. Retained anachronistic and non-standard spellings as printed.
6. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Municipal Housecleaning - The Methods and Experiences of American Cities In Collecting - and Disposing of Their Municipal Wastes" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.