United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
(5306W)
EPA530-R-99-038
November 1999
www.epa.gov
Getting More for Less
Improving Collection Efficiency
^3yi) Printed on paper that contains at least 30 percent postconsumer fiber.
-------
Information used in preparing this document has not been verified, ond no guarantee, expressed or implied, is mode as lo the accuracy or completeness of the information.
-------
**'•
Contents
3 Foreword
5 Why Collection Efficiency?
5 Why Improve Collection System Cost-Effectiveness?
6 IfYou Are Trying to Cut Costs
6 Which Cost-Cutting Strategy Will Work for You?
10 Changing Collection Frequency
10 Reducing RSW Collection Frequency
11 What About Flies?
12 Switching Services
12 Is Once-Per-Week RSW Collection Enough?
13 Changing Collection Frequency For Recyclables
13 Benefits of Collection Frequency Change
15 Getting Over the Hurdles
16 Prove It to Me
16 Ready to Make the Change?
19 Improving Routing
19 Principles of Route Design
22 Options for Routing
23 Benefits of Improved Routing
25 Improved Routing: Where Else Is It
26 Automating
RSW Collection
26 Options for Automating Your Collection Fleet
27 Fully Automated Collection
28 Impacts on Worker Safety
30 Impacts on Productivity
30 Other
30 Overcoming the Hurdles
31 Where Is Automation Working?
31 Ready to Make the Change?
35 Implementing Dual Collection
35 Dual Collection Options—Whafs Available?
37 Impact of Dual Collection: Evaluating the Potential
37 Will Dual Collection Work Everywhere?
39 Is Your System a Good Candidate?
39 Kicking the Tires
40 Putting It All Together: Designing for Success
40 Goals
40 Design Framework
40 Planning for Change
42 Resources
-------
Acknowledgements
Project Sponsors
Solid Waste Association of North America
National Association of Counties
National League of Cities
Peer Advisory Committee Members
Elizabeth Treadway, City of Greensboro, NC
Paul Patterson, City of Memphis, TN
Jack Friedline, City of Mesa, AZ
David Wagaman, Montgomery County, MD
Louie Jordan, City of Norfolk, VA
Funding Sources
American Plastics Council
Heil Environmental Industries Limited
National Soft Drink Association
Procter & Gamble
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Case Study Hosts
Wayman Pearson, City of Charlotte, NC
Mick Mercer, City of Loveland, CO
Jack Friedline, City of Mesa, AZ
Lou Guilmette, City of Rochester, NY
-------
Foreword
Foreword
The Collection Efficiency Study was undertaken to provide a more detailed understanding of cost-saving
methods for collecting residential solid waste (RSW) and recyclables. The study included the following
major tasks:
• Conducting meetings and discussions with project sponsors, funding sources, and Peer Advisory
Committee members (i.e., representatives from local governments who provide RSW or recyclables col-
lection services) to determine those approaches to improved collection efficiency that would have the
most potential interest and utility to solid waste managers and elected officials.
• Selecting case study sites to illustrate each targeted collection efficiency strategy.
• Researching collection system improvements in the case study locations and producing four case study
reports.
• Performing telephone surveys of other local governments and service providers who implemented the
targeted strategies for improving RSW or recyclables collection efficiencies.
• Producing a workbook for solid waste managers and elected officials that synthesizes key lessons
learned from the case study research and the telephone surveys.
« Conducting a series of workshops.
Getting More for Less: Improving Collection Efficiency reproduces information presented to participants at a
series of national workshops on collection efficiency. The workshops were conducted by the Solid Waste
Association of North America (SWANA) as part of the collection efficiency study. This workbook summa-
rizes and synthesizes the results of the study. This report is not intended to be a comprehensive review of
all options for increasing collection efficiency, nor does it discuss other programs or mechanisms that could
improve the efficiency of the entire solid waste management system. Tools such as full cost accounting;
pay-as-you-throw fee structures (through which generators are charged based on the amount of waste they
produce); and comprehensive evaluations of alternatives for a fully integrated waste management system
are beyond the scope of this report.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making this document available in order to increase
the dissemination of these data within the solid waste management community and to elected officials.
This wider distribution will help promote a better understanding of cost-savings methods for collecting
RSW and recyclables.
The information in this document has not been verified, and no guarantee, expressed or implied, is
made as to the accuracy or completeness of the information. Inclusion in this document does not express
or imply endorsement by EPA.
-------
Why Collection
Efficiency?
C
imply put, collection efficiency
means getting more for less—
picking up more solid waste or
recyclables using fewer trucks
or fewer people or less time.
Sound impossible?
Dozens of local governments and
haulers across the continent have
demonstrated that residential solid waste
(RSW) collection cost-cutting strategies
work. Some of these strategies require a
major shift in paradigm—new equip-
ment, new approaches to staffing, new
set-out behaviors from residents. Other
strategies are based on using existing
resources more imaginatively. All of the
collection efficiency strategies described
in this workbook can have dramatic
impacts on the cost-effectiveness and
quality of service delivery.
Why Improve Collection
System Cost-Effectiveness?
Industry wisdom has presumed that
collection is the most expensive part of a
solid waste management system.
A recent study undertaken by the
Solid Waste Association of North
America (SWANA) substantiates this
belief. A close look at municipal solid
waste (MSW) management system costs
for six local governmental units (LGUs)
revealed remarkable consistency in at
least one area. Collection of solid waste
and recyclables typically represented the
single largest percentage of MSW man-
agement budgets—from 39 percent to
62 percent of total system costs.
As shown in Figure 1, on average, the
study found that collection represented
MSW Management System Costs
General&
Administrative
Collection
Facilities
Transfer
Source: Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management: Six Case Studies of System, Cost
and Energy Use: Summary Report, SWAHA, 1995, 50 pp, GR-G 2700.
-------
Why Collection Efficiency?
50 percent of MSW management
system costs. Clearly, improve-
ments in collection efficiency can
have a big impact on total costs.
Want more detail? Figure 2
(included at the end of this chap-
ter) shows a summary of function-
al costs for the MSW management
systems studied, including a sum-
mary of the key characteristics of
each system.
If You Are Trying To Cut
Costs
If you need to reduce costs, it
makes sense to:
Target a larger component of
your budget—"get more bang
for your buck."
Target the element of the sys-
tem over which you have the
most control.
The Bottom Line
Savings Across The Country
Rochester, New York, replaced its manual RSW collection system with semi-automated
collection.
• Reduced crew size per vehicle.
• Increased average crew productivity by 14 percent.
• Saved $900,000 in the first year.
• Expects to save almost S9 million over a 10-year period.
Mesa, Arizona, reduced RSW collection frequency and replaced the traditional second day of
RSW collection with a curbside pickup of recyclables.
• Added a separate collection for recyclables with no additional vehicles and only three new
crew positions.
• Reduced overtime demands.
• Expects to save nearly $700,000 per year in direct costs (a savings of approximately
$1.50 per household served per year).
Charlotte, North Carolina, improved routing systems, changed collection frequency, elimi-
nated backyard collection, and switched to fully automated RSW collection.
• Eliminated 43 routes.
• Reduced staffing levels by more than 30 percent.
• Expects to save $40 million over a 10-year period.
Look at labor-drains. Labor is
typically the largest component
of RSW and recyclables collec-
tion budgets.
Which Cost-Cutting
Strategy Will Work
For You?
The list of strategies to poten-
tially help control or cut solid
waste or recyclables collection costs
is limited only by the imagination
of solid waste managers, equip-
ment and vehicle manufacturers,
and technology vendors and the
desires/needs of their customers.
This workbook focuses on four
specific cost-cutting strategies:
Changing collection frequency.
Improving routing.
Using automated collection
equipment.
Implementing a dual collection
system (i.e., collecting RSW and
recyclables in separate compart-
ments on one vehicle).
-------
Why Collection Efficiency?.
Cost-Cutting Strategy
You Might Benefit If...
Changing Collection Frequency
You are collecting RSW twice per week now.
You need or want to add a new collection service (and could replace an RSW
collection with a new service).
You want to implement a pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) fee structure.
You have low set-out rates or weights.
Your vehicle payload is not being maximized.
You operate with crews of two or more people.
Improving Routing
You have not examined route design or balance recently.
Crews are working uneven workdays.
You are changing service levels, vehicle type, crew size, or frequency of collection.
Your service area is growing (e.g., new development or annexation).
Your service population is shrinking (e.g., competition or egress).
You have Graphical Information System or mapping software.
Increasing Degree of
Automated Collection
• You are using manual or semi-automated collection vehicles now.
• You want to implement a PAYT fee structure.
• Lifting-related injuries have plagued your system.
• You operate with crews of two or more people.
• You have a cooperative relationship with employees.
• You have high staff attrition rates or absenteeism.
• You have unobstructed curb access.
• You have the ability to replace your RSW collection fleet and purchase new containers.
Implementing a Dual
Collection System
You want or need to add collection services (e.g., separate recyclables or
yard trimmings pickup).
You have low participation rates.
Distances between stops are great.
Recyclables processing and RSW disposal facilities are located within geographic proximity.
You have the ability to replace your RSW collection fleet.
-------
Why Collection Efficiency?
Figure 2
Source: SWAHA, 1996.
Where Did The Money Go?
Summary Of Solid Waste Management System Costs For Six U.S. Cities*
Facilities
21%
Iitmsfer/Haul
Collection
47%
Minneapolis, Minnesota
• Half of city's households served by private crews; the other half served
by public crews.
116,500 total households served.
Weekly collection.
80 percent of households receive alley collection.
Semi-automated collection for RSW.
Recyclables collected weekly.
Yard trimmings collected (April to November).
RSW delivered to waste-to-energy (WTE) facility (county).
G&A
landfill 9%
Transfer/Haul
Collection
57%
Palm Beach County, Florida
• Combination of municipal collection and franchise collection
(unincorporated area).
• In unincorporated area:
—Twice-per-week curbside collection of RSW.
—Weekly collection of recyclables, yard trimmings, and bulky waste.
• RSW delivered to WTE facility or transfer station.
• County Solid Waste Authority uses a private processor, owns a
materials recovery facility (MRF), and owns and operates a yard
trimmings processing facility.
Landfill
32%
Scottsdale, Arizona
• 41,750 single-family households served.
• RSW collected weekly with fully automated vehicles.
• Customers set out RSW in 80-gallon wheeled carts.
• Recyclables collected through dropoff only.
• Brush and bulky waste collected once every 4 weeks.
• At time of analysis, city delivered RSW to a landfill that did not meet
Subtitle D requirements.
* At the lime of the analysis.
-------
Why Collection Efficiency?
Figure 2
Summary Of Solid Waste Management System Costs For Six U.S. Cities (Continued)
Collection
Seattle, Washington
• RSW and recyclables collection provided by contract haulers.
• RSW collected using:
—Sideloaders with one-person crews.
—Rearloaders with two-person crews.
• Variable rate pricing system in place.
• Recyclables collected by:
—Source separation approach (residents set out in three bins) weekly.
—Commingling in 90-gallon wheeled carts (monthly).
• Yard trimmings collected through curbside pickup and dropoff; back-
yard composting and onsite management promoted.
Collection
62%
Sevierville, Tennessee
• Combination of curbside collection (incorporated areas) and residential
self-haul to convenience centers (unincorporated areas).
• 1,950 households receive curbside RSW collection service with weekly pickup.
• Recyclables collected through dropoff centers at convenience stations
(collected by private hauler/processor).
• RSW delivered to MSW composting facility.
Collection
54%
Transfer/Haul —
10%
Springfield, Massachusetts
• 44,500 households served with mandatory RSW collection.
• Once-per-week RSW collection.
• RSW pickup with manual rearloaders and three-person crews.
• Recyclables collected every other week.
• Mandatory ordinance requires residents to separate recyclables.
• RSW delivered to WTE facility.
-------
Changing
Collection Frequency
any solid waste managers and
, >' elected officials fear that
reducing RSW or recyclables
' i? ;
, '' - collection frequency will be
• ( , unpopular with residents or
cause them to stop recycling.
This chapter addresses:
Options for changing collection
frequency.
Benefits of reducing collection
frequency.
Strategies to overcome barriers to
changing frequency.
Examples of local governments or
haulers that have successfully
changed collection frequency.
Factors to consider when evaluating
collection frequency changes.
When considering improvements to
RSW and recyclables collection pro-
grams, the search for cost-cutting
approaches may lead to changing col-
lection frequency. The most common
frequency shifts include:
Replacing twice-per-week RSW col-
lection with weekly service.
Reducing recyclables collection
schedules from weekly to every
other week or twice per month.
Reducing RSW Collection
Frequency
Tradition, public health concerns,
and, in some cases, state or local legisla-
tion have resulted in two RSW collec-
tions per week in some parts of the
nation. This trend is particularly preva-
lent in the South, where the hot, humid
climate has created fears about pest and
odor problems from less frequent RSW
collection.
Studies have demonstrated, however,
that the second collection day is tradi-
tionally under-utilized, both in terms of
set-out rates (which typically drop off
sharply on the second collection day
each week) and weights collected per
stop. These factors drive up the cost per
ton of collecting RSW on the second
day each week. In addition, if residents
have the opportunity to separate recy-
clables and yard trimmings for diver-
sion, and/or are offered a PAYT fee
structure, the need for a second RSW
collection day is decreased even further.
When RSW collection frequency is
decreased, average weekly set-out rates
tend to rise. Most communities contacted
for this study indicated that RSW set-out
rates are estimated to be 95 to 100 per-
cent when collection services are offered
-------
Changing Collection Frequency.
11
once per week. Vacancy rates and
seasonal occupancy factors affect
this estimate. PAYT fee systems can
also affect set-out rates.
How are weights collected per
stop affected when programs
switch from twice-per-week to
weekly collection? The answer
varies depending on the availabili-
ty of diversion programs and the
fee system in place. New or
expanded collection programs for
recyclables or yard trimmings may
lower total pounds of RSW collect-
ed per household per week; how-
ever, average set-out weights
typically increase when a second
RSW collection day is eliminated.
The typical increase in set-out
rates and corresponding increases
in weight collected per stop mean
that route sizes might have to
decrease; crews will be picking up
more material per stop, loading
their vehicles faster, and driving
off-route to unload more often.
The balance of weight collected
per day, however, improves and
hours worked per day are typically
better balanced as well.
What About Flies?
The Tucson, Arizona, pilot pro-
gram showed no increase in flies
as a result of the switch to once-
per-week collection. The highest
occurrence of flies associated with
RSW set-outs typically occurs in
Field Observations
Location
Waco, Texas
Memphis, Tennessee
[scambia County, Florida
Austin, Texas
Ocala, Florida
Tucson, Arizona
(pilot study)
First Collection
Day Of The Week
95 percent set-out rate.
85 percent set-out rate.
(56 percent of the total RSW
collected per week is picked
up on first collection day.)
90 percent set-out rate.
(60 percent of the total RSW
collected per week is picked
up on first collection day.)
Close to 100 percent set-out rate.
24 pounds RSW
per household per day.
(60 percent of average
pounds per household per
week of RSW collected.)
Containers were 51 percent full
on average.
Second Collection
Day Of The Week
60 percent set-out rate.
65 percent set-out rate.
(44 percent of the total RSW
collected per week is picked
up on second collection day.)
65 percent set-out rate.
(40 percent of the total RSW
collected per week is picked
up on second collection day.)
60 to 65 percent set-out rate.
16 pounds RSW
per household per day.
(40 percent of average
pounds per household per
week of RSW collected.)
Containers were 30 percent
full on average.
Surveys of RSW
behaviors. Both
ly curbside colk
What Do Residents Say?
customers in Waco, Texas, and Ocala, Florida, revealed the following self-reported
of these cities offer drop-off recyclables collection only. Ocala residents receive week-
ction of yard trimmings. In Waco, separate yard trimmings collection is not offered.
Waco, Texas
Ocala, Florida
First collection day per week:
respondents reported setting
out two to three bags of RSW.
First collection day per week:
respondents reported
containers were 85 percent full.
Second collection day per week:
respondents reported
setting out one bag of RSW.
Second collection day per week:
respondents reported
containers were 78 percent full.
-------
12
Changing Collection Frequency
Incidence of Flies in RSW Cans
March April ' Two-Month
Average
Source: BioCyde, July 1996 (based on study completed for lucson by The Garbage Project, University of Arizona).
March, April, and October (i.e.,
optimum climate conditions for fly
breeding). Comparative data about
the percentage of RSW cans with
flies were available for March and
April 1995 (during the once-per-
week pilot) and March and April
1996 (after service returned to
twice-per-week collection).
Switching Services
Local governments contacted as
part of this study often reduced
RSW frequency in tandem with the
addition or expansion of a new ser-
vice such as curbside collection of
recyclables, or separate collection
of yard trimmings, for example.
This practice often allowed new
services to be added, or expansions
for new services to be accelerated
while minimizing fleet and staffing
increases. It also offset potential
negative public response to loss of
a traditional RSW collection day.
In some places, adding a new ser-
vice was mandatory. In Arizona, a
law passed in the 1950s as a public
health measure to control potential
transmission of disease through flies,
rodents, and other pests requires
that twice-per-week collection be
offered. The cities of Mesa, Tucson,
and Phoenix have each applied for
variances from the state that will
enable these local governmental
units to offer a second collection of
recyclables or yard trimmings in
place of the second RSW pickup.
Is Once-Per-Week RSW
Collection Enough?
Surveys, focus groups, and field
observation reveal the following:
Focus groups conducted in
Norfolk, Virginia, identified con-
cerns about pests, odors, and the
need for additional collection dur-
ing summer months before the
city converted to a "1-1-1" collec-
tion system (once-per-week pick-
up of RSW, recyclables, and yard
trimmings). Residents who were
already receiving once-per-week
RSW collection reported general
satisfaction with the frequency of
collection.
Eighty-five percent of residents
in Tucson, Arizona, surveyed
by phone during a pilot pro-
gram of weekly RSW collection,
indicated that weekly service
was adequate for their needs.
Ninety-two percent of residents
in Piano, Texas, responding to
a mail survey after the pilot
program of weekly RSW collec-
tion began, reported that once-
per-week service was sufficient.
When Jacksonville, Florida,
switched to once-per-week RSW
collection, residents were given
the option to receive twice-per-
week collection for an addition-
al $5 per household per month
(on average). Fewer than 1,000
of the city's 216,000 households
(i.e., less than 0.5 percent of eli-
gible homes) signed up for the
increased service levels.
In a mail survey of 1,500 resi-
dential customers in Ocala,
Florida, 50 percent of respon-
dents who currently receive
twice-per-week service thought
that weekly RSW collection
would be satisfactory if addi-
tional recyclables or yard trim-
-------
Changing Collection Frequency.
13
mings collection opportunities
were available.
Phone surveys conducted with
residents in Waco, Texas, prior
to the initiation of a pilot weekly
RSW collection program indicat-
ed that more than 55 percent of
households with twice-per-week
service could manage with
weekly pickup if recyclables and
yard trimmings diversion pro-
grams were more convenient.
Changing Collection
Frequency For Recyclables
The jury is out on recyclables
collection frequency. Some com-
munities contacted as part of this
study reported significant reduc-
tions in operational costs and only
marginal impacts on participation
and diversion when collection fre-
quency for recyclables was changed
from weekly to biweekly or semi-
monthly. Other jurisdictions
reported customer dissatisfaction,
increases in contamination, and
drops in diversion that cast a shad-
ow over potential cost savings.
Benefits Of Collection
Frequency Change:
Makes each stop count more:
maximizes weights collected
per stop.
Minimizes nonproductive time:
increase average set-out rates.
Experience In The Old Dominion
Two regional public service authorities in Virginia that provide recyclables collection services to their member jurisdictions have made the switch to
biweekly collection of recyclables.
Central Virginia Waste Management Authority (CVWMA)
Southeastern Public Service Authority of Virginia (SPSA)
A study conducted by CVWMA and its contractor revealed that most
households participating in the curbside recyclables collection program
were setting out recyclables twice per month on average.
CVWMA initiated a contract in April 1994 for the biweekly collection of
recyclables.
At the same time, residential mixed paper was added as a target mater-
ial in the collection program.
CVWMA issues a calendar each year to remind residents which week is
their recycling week.
The results:
— 17 percent increase in average number of set-outs per route per
collection day.
— 49 percent increase in average pounds collected per set-out
(includes addition of mixed waste paper).
SPSA switched from weekly recyclables collection to biweekly to allow for
the more rapid expansion of recyclables pickup to member jurisdictions.
Concurrently, SPSA changed workday schedules from 8 hours per day, 5
days per week to 10 hours per day and a 4-day workweek.
Total number of households served increased from approximately
150,000 to nearly 250,000.
Average set-out rates per collection day increased approximately 1 to 2
percent.
Pounds collected per stop increased almost 19 percent (from approxi-
mately 16 pounds per stop to nearly 19 pounds per stop).
Pounds of recyclables collected per scheduled work hour increased by 66
percent.
Initial confusion associated with the change to biweekly service passed
quickly, according to David Home, one of SPSA's curbside recycling
managers.
-------
14
Changing Collection Frequency
Reducing Recyclables Collection Frequency—Is It Worth It?
Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada
Sacramento, California
Hollywood, Florida
"There were substantial decreases in cost by going to every-other-week collection and no major drop in
recyclables tonnages," according to representatives from this municipality. Set-out rates increased by 55
percent, and the number of recyclables collection routes dropped by 21 percent.
Starting in January 1994, the city decreased recyclables collection frequency from weekly to every-other-
week service. According to Reina Schwartz, the number of routes was decreased by 23 percent. Gary Van
Dorst, the city's acting director of technical services, reported savings of $500,000 per year in the
recycling program budget (Resource Recycling, April 1995). Reported impacts on recyclables recovered
vary. Some city reports indicate a 12 to 13 percent drop in overall recyclables recovered through the
curbside program. Average pounds collected per household per month may have dropped as much as 40
percent, but the number of homes being served by the program has increased.
"Based on observations and calls, we felt it was not a productive way to do recycling"-Lorie Mertens, the
city's public works education coordinator, after a pilot program tested biweekly recyclables collection.
(Source: BioCyde, July 1996)
Reverse Psychology
While most local governments considering a change in recyclables collection frequency are thinking about reductions in the number of collections
offered per month, at least one local government is considering the reverse.
The Tucson Experience
A year-long pilot, started in September 1994, tested the effects of increasing recyclables collection frequency from biweekly to weekly pickup on
participation, set-outs, and diversion.
Participation
Set-Out Rate
Diversion
participation in the pilot areas rose by nearly 44 percent, from 57 percent to 82 percent.
Increased from 44 percent biweekly to 53 percent (weekly pickup); this surprising result may be related to the
fact that RSW collections were decreased from twice-per-week to once-per-week during the same pilot program.
Diversion from the pilot routes rose nearly 56 percent; composition studies conducted by The Garbage Project
(University of Arizona) confirmed a corresponding decrease in recyclables found in RSW set-outs.
The pilot concluded that moving from biweekly to weekly collection could improve diversion while
maintaining cost-effectiveness.
Source: BioCycle, July 1996.
-------
Changing Collection Frequency.
15
Reduces fuel consumption and
other environmental impacts.
Reduces vehicle and labor
needs: eliminate routes.
Provides new services: switch
existing collections for new
services.
Based on the research conduct-
ed for this study, it is difficult
to isolate the impact of collection
frequency changes on costs and
productivity. Most of the local gov-
ernments or haulers contacted had
implemented changes in RSW col-
lection frequency in conjunction
with other system changes such as
adding recyclables or yard trim-
mings collections, implementing
semi-automated or fully automated
collection, reducing crew size,
adding materials to recycling
programs, changing RSW set-out
locations, or changing workday
schedules.
A study released in March 1995
about RSW collection costs in
Montgomery County, Maryland (a
suburb of Washington, DC),
addressed the cost impact of col-
lection frequency in the two main
service areas of the county. In one
part of the county, residents
receive weekly RSW pickup. In
another segment of the county,
RSW is collected twice each week.
Note that different haulers ser-
vice the two areas, which could
contribute to the level of com-
plaints received.
1
Customer Satisfaction
Montgomery County, Maryland
Measure
Total Annual Cost Per
Ton of RSW Collected
Annual Complaints Per
1,000 Households Served
Twice-Per-Week
Service Territory
S92
118
Once-Per-Week
Service Territory
S55
150
Source: EcoData, Inc., March 1995.
As shown in the above table,
the cost per ton to provide twice -
per-week collection is estimated to
be approximately 70 percent high-
er than the cost to collect RSW
once-per-week. Customer satisfac-
tion—as measured by the number
of complaint calls received—
increased by more than 27 percent
in the once-per-week service area.
This study indicates that while
the costs per ton are likely to drop
with once-per-week service, cus-
tomer complaints might increase.
More time might be needed to dis-
tinguish legitimate complaints from
instances where customers did not
set out their containers on time.
Getting Over The Hurdles
When addressing collection fre-
quency changes for RSW or recy-
clables, solid waste system planners
face some common barriers. Here
are strategies for overcoming them.
To reduce potential odor and
health hazards associated with
reduced collection frequency,
provide containers with lids;
require residents to bag waste
before containerizing; and edu-
cate residents about ways to
minimize odor and vector risks.
To avoid increases in illegal
dumping, anticipate short-term
increases; develop an education
and enforcement strategy; and
provide consistent collection
service.
To reduce the physical burden
associated with heavier set-outs,
provide wheeled carts and
"carry out" service for physical-
ly challenged residents. PAYT
fee structures also could
encourage residents to recycle
more and dispose of less waste.
-------
16
Changing Collection Frequency
! To prepare for holidays on
residents' collection days, develop
a holiday collection plan that
could include steps such as pro-
viding next day collection, offer-
ing workers the chance to work
holidays (with holiday pay rates),
and suspending collection of recy-
clables/yard trimmings on holi-
days in order to divert crews for
RSW collection. Be sure to pro-
mote holiday collection schedules
adequately and the availability of
self-haul options if appropriate.
'"• To avoid raising residents'
expectations for a rate cut, pro-
mote changes as a cost contain-
ment strategy and offer other
desired services to replace the
second RSW collection day.
f To reduce worker injuries
associated with heavier set-outs,
increase automation to reduce lift-
ing related injuries and knee and
wrist strains (e.g., from heavy
recyclables set-outs); provide sep-
arate collection for yard trim-
mings (which will help reduce
RSW set-out weights); provide
increased safety and health train-
ing; and develop safety incentives.
To keep residents satisfied, if
necessary, offer extra collection
services at premium rates (make
sure operational impacts have
been anticipated and addressed).
Prove It To Me
For more information about
switching collection frequency, talk
to service providers who have made
the switch. Some sample communi-
ties are listed on pages 17 and 18.
Ready To Make The
Change?
Even when change makes sense,
it is often difficult. Solid waste sys-
tem changes are particularly chal-
lenging. By addressing the
following questions early in your
planning process, you will identify
areas where additional research,
education, or consensus-building
are needed.
Customer Service
1. Have you adequately informed
the public of collection frequen-
cy changes?
2. Do you track complaints and
service request data now?
3. Have you anticipated how chang-
ing collection frequency will
affect number of calls received?
4. Have you added phone lines or
staff to handle short-term
increased volume of calls?
5. Have all staff who might get
questions or calls been notified
of the change?
Social and Political Issues
1. How long has twice-per-week
collection been offered?
2. Will residents see a change in
rates?
3. Will new services be added?
4. Are residents likely to have
difficulty handling larger set-
outs of RSW?
5. Are there concerns about
increased illegal dumping,
litter, vectors, or odor that have
to be addressed?
6. Have you involved citizens,
businesses, government offi-
cials, and other stakeholders in
the decision-making process?
7. Do you have data from a pilot
program or similar community
to support your decision?
8. Will the change in collection
frequency be more acceptable if
alternative twice-per-week col-
lection services are offered? If
so, how will you charge for that
premium service? What will the
operational impacts be?
9. Will your current or future fee
structure affect how customers
perceive the change in collection
frequency? (A PAYT fee system,
for example, might make RSW
collection frequency change
more acceptable because there is
a more direct relationship
between fees paid and amount
of service received.)
Labor
1. How will changing collection fre-
quency affect your staffing needs?
2. If you will need fewer workers,
can you time the switch to
match current attrition levels?
3. If workers are displaced, can
-------
Changing Collection Frequency.
17
they perform other functions
within the department or the
organization?
4. Have workers been informed of
planned changes and involved
in decision-making?
5. How will changing collection
frequency affect overtime
demands (especially during
peak waste generation periods
or following holidays)?
6. Can the existing labor pool han-
dle increased weights per set-out?
7. Have you implemented safety
training, such as proper lifting
classes, to help workers handle
heavier set-outs?
8. Have you reviewed labor agree-
ments and/or work rules for
barriers to changing collection
frequency?
Routes
1. Have you estimated the impact of
frequency changes on set-out rates
and pounds collected per stop?
2. Have you developed area routes
that optimize vehicle utilization?
3. Have you considered the
impact of changing collection
frequency on number of trips
required to unload per day? Are
processing or disposal facilities
able to adjust to the new collec-
tion schedule?
4. Have you considered Monday
holiday collection needs when
developing routes?
Containers
1. If containers for RSW or recy-
clables have previously been
provided, are they still large
enough for the increased vol-
ume and weight of set-outs?
2. Are alternative containers accept-
able? Have customers been
informed of set-out options?
3. Are local hardware stores aware
of impending increased demand
and are they prepared to respond
(possibly with "sales" to soften
the impact on homeowners)?
Making The Change
Austin, Texas
• Switched RSW collection frequency from twice to once per week.
• Switched from manual rearload to semi-automated rearload
vehicles.
• Implemented weekly collection of recyclables.
Central Virginia Waste Management Authority, Virginia
• Reduced recyclables collection frequency from weekly to every
other week.
• Added residential mixed paper to list of target recyclables in
curbside program.
Edmond, Oklahoma
• Reduced RSW collection from twice to once per week.
• Replaced manual rearload collection vehicles with fully auto-
mated sideload vehicles.
Greensboro, North Carolina
• Reduced RSW collection frequency from twice to once per week.
• Switched from rearload vehicles to fully automated sideloaders
for RSW collection.
• Added weekly collections for recyclables and yard trimmings.
Houston, Texas
• Conducted series of pilot studies to test reduction in collection
frequency for RSW, addition of recyclables and yard trimmings
diversion programs, and alternative collection vehicles.
Currently moving to new collection system:
— Once-per-week RSW collection with fully automated
sideloaders.
— Biweekly collection of recyclables.
— Weekly collection of yard trimmings in manual rearloaders.
Indianapolis, Indiana
• Reduced RSW collection frequency from twice to once per week.
• Switched from manual rearloaders to fully automated sideloaders.
• Increased yard trimmings collection frequency from once per
month to once per week.
-------
18
Changing Collection Frequency
Continued
Jacksonville, Florida
• Reduced RSW collection frequency from twice to once per week.
• Maintained weekly curbside pickup of recyclables.
• Added weekly yard trimmings collection.
Jeckyll Island State Park, Georgia
• Reduced RSW collection frequency from twice to once per week.
• Replaced manual rearload collection with automated sideloaders.
• Added weekly yard trimmings collection.
Little Rock, Arkansas
• Reduced RSW collection frequency from twice to once per week.
• Switched from manual rearloaders for RSW collection to auto-
mated sideloaders.
• Implemented weekly collection of recyclables (automated side
loaders) and yard trimmings (manual rearloaders).
Los Angeles, California
• Reduced RSW collection frequency from twice to once per week.
• Replaced manual frontload collection approach with fully auto-
mated sideloaders.
• Implemented automated collection of recyclables and yard trim-
mings once per week.
Memphis, Tennessee
• Reduced RSW collection frequency from twice to once per week.
• Retained semi-automated rearload collection fleet.
• Implemented weekly curbside recyclables collection.
Mesa, Arizona
• Reduced RSW collection frequency from twice to once per week.
• Retained fully automated sideload collection fleet.
• Phasing out alley collection.
• Implemented fully automated weekly curbside collection of recyclables.
Phoenix, Arizona
• Reduced RSW collection frequency from twice to once per week.
• Converted from rearloaders for RSW pickup to fully automated
sideloaders.
• Implemented weekly curbside collection of recyclables with fully
automated vehicles.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
• Reduced curbside recyclables collection from weekly to every other week.
Piano, Texas
• Reduced RSW collection frequency from twice to once per week.
• Moved from manual sideload vehicles to semi-automated side-
loaders (phase 1) to fully automated sideloaders (current system).
• Implemented weekly curbside pickup for recyclables and yard trimmings.
Sacramento, California
• Reduced recyclables collection frequency from weekly to every
other week service.
• Added households to the program concurrently.
Southeastern Public Service Authority of Virginia
• Reduced recyclables collection frequency from weekly to every other week.
• Added households to the program concurrently.
• Changed workday schedule from 8 hours per day to 10 hours per day.
• Currently switching from curb-sort to commingled collection
(two-stream sort).
Tempe, Arizona
• Reduced RSW collection frequency from twice to once per week.
• Retained fully automated collection fleet.
• Added weekly curbside collection for recyclables (fully automated
vehicles used).
Victorville, California
• Reduced RSW collection frequency from twice to once per week.
• Switched from manual sideloaders to automated sideloaders.
• Implemented automated collection program for weekly pickup of
recyclables.
-------
mproving Routing
*™ n jurisdictions where routing
studies have not been conducted
recently, collection managers
often assume their drivers know
the best way to pick up RSW.
Indeed, driver intuition has been one of
the guiding tenets of RSW routing for
years. Who better to determine route
configuration than the folks on the
street doing the job?
As collection systems become
increasingly complex, productivity
issues hit the spotlight, and concerns
about costs arise, and route design and
management are no longer a matter of
instinct alone. Improvements in data
collection and analysis, increased
awareness of the importance of produc-
tivity standards, and the availability of
computer-assisted routing tools are
some of the keys to effective routing.
This chapter addresses:
Principles of routing.
Options for routing.
Impacts of improved routing
techniques.
Listing of local governments and
haulers who have improved route
productivity and workload balance.
Principles Of Design
Routing is typically accomplished in
two phases:
Macro routing: The total geographic
area to be served is divided into total
area to be served by all crews and
vehicles in one collection day and area
to be served by each individual crew
and vehicle in one collection day
Micro routing: The specific path that
each individual crew vehicle will fol-
low to service each route is specified.
The size of each route will depend
on a wide variety of factors, including
geographic features of the territory
demographic considerations, vehicle
design and loading features, set-out
requirements, staffing patterns, types of
service being provided, frequency of
collection, and institutional considera-
tions, as shown below.
Heuristic Routing Principles
According to Webster's 1 Oth
Collegiate Dictionary, "heuristic" refers
to problem-solving techniques that rely
on the evaluation of feedback to
improve performance. Sounds a lot like
"trial and error," doesn't it?
-------
20
Improving
In the mid-1970s, EPA produced
heuristic routing guidelines to help
route managers design the most
efficient collection paths. These
guidelines are still applicable today.
Once a route manager has designed
a theoretical route path with these
guidelines in mind, the "trial and
error" begins, and experienced dri-
vers and collectors should test the
routes for practicality under actual
field conditions.
The Guidelines*
1. Routes should not be fragment-
ed or overlapping. Each route
should be compact, consisting
of street segments clustered in
the same geographical area.
2. Total collection plus handling
times should be reasonably con-
stant for each route in the com-
munity (equalized workloads).
3. The collection route should be
started as close to the garage or
yard as possible, taking into
account heavily traveled and
one-way streets (see next two
rules).
4. Waste on heavily traveled
streets should not be collected
during rush hours.
5. In neighborhoods with many
one-way streets, it is best to
work through it using a series
of overlapping loops.
A Balancing Act
Crew Considerations
• Crew size
• Scheduled work hours per day
Vehicle Types
• Degree of automation
» Loading location
• Cubic yard capacity
> Compaction rates
Institutional Rates
• Competition
• Mandatory versus voluntary
Physical Characteristics
• Total area to be served (sq. mi.)
• Location oT facilities
• Major geographical/terrain features
(rivers, railroad, etc.)
• Distance between stops/housing density
• Distance from garage/unloading site
Route
Structure/
Service
Demographics
• Weights per stop
• Participation/set-out rates
• Number of households with
special assistance needs
Services To Be Provided
• RSW
• Recyclables
• Yard trimmings
• Bulky waste
• Other
Collection Frequency
and Schedule
Set-Out Requirements
• Location of set-outs
• Limits
• Container requirements
'Sources: Heuristic Routing for Solid Waste Collection Vehicles, U.S. EPA, 1974 and "Planning a High Performance Collection System," Waste Age, February 1993.
-------
Improving Routing
21
6. Services on dead-end streets
can be considered as services
on the street segment that they
intersect—because they can be
collected only by passing down
that street segment. To keep
left turns at a minimum, col-
lect waste on dead-end streets
when those streets are on the
right side of the truck.
Depending on the length of the
street and turning restrictions,
waste on dead-ends can be col-
lected by walking down, back-
ing down, or making a U-turn.
7. Waste on a steep hill should be
collected, when practical, on
both sides of the street while
the vehicle is moving downhill.
This practice facilitates safety,
ease, and speed of collection. It
also lessens wear on the vehi-
cle and conserves oil and gas.
8. Higher elevations should be at
the start of the route.
9. For collection from one side of
the street at a time, it is gener-
ally best to route with many
clockwise turns around blocks.
(This rule and the following
one emphasize the develop-
ment of a series of clockwise
loops in order to minimize left
turns, which generally are
more difficult and time-con-
suming than right turns. Right
turns are safer, especially for
risht-hand-drive vehicles.)
Manual Routing
Nothing Fancy, But Nobody Said It Was Easy
Step
Define collection service areas that are
well-balanced. As a starting point, consider
total customers to be served, multiplied by
collections per week, divided by collection
days.
Divide the collection service areas into
individual routes (work per truck and crew
per day).
Design path routes, using EPA
heuristic routing guidelines.
Drive routes to test for practicality.
What You Need To Know
• Number of customers to be served in
each region.
• Number of collections per week.
• Number of collection days per week.
• Natural boundaries (e.g., major roadways,
topographical features, or railways).
• House or customer count data on a
block-by-block basis.
• Vacancy and occupancy data.
• Number of available collection vehicles.
• Average set-out rates (and differences by
region, if known).
• Average weights per set-out (and differ-
ences by region, if known).
• Time required per stop (including travel
time between stops).
• Nonproductive time (e.g., to route, to dispos-
al/processing locations, to vehicle yard).
• Maximum customers who can reasonably
be served by each type of vehicle and
crew combination (take into account dif-
ferences in materials being collected, set-
out container types, vehicle capacity,
compaction ratios, vehicle age and relia-
bility, and crew size).
• Location of one-way streets and dead-ends.
• Location of other topographic or traffic-relat-
ed features that affect heuristic route design.
• If routing is practical under real-life
conditions.
-------
22
Improving
10. For collection from both sides of
the street at the same time, it is
generally best to route with the
long, straight paths across the
route before looping clockwise.
Options For Routing
The most common approach to
routing continues to be the manual
method—which involves maps,
pencils or colored markers, and
patience. Though less prevalent,
computer-assisted routing also is
on the rise. This approach requires
computer map databases and cus-
tomer databases (plus the equip-
ment and the staff capable of
running the programs).
Norman, Oklahoma, System Comparison
Parameter
Number of routes
per day
Average number
of hours worked
per day
Average number of
households per
route per day
Number of vehicles
required
Crew size
Former System
13forRSW
5 for yard trimmings
5.5 for RSW
5 - 9 for yard trimmings
(seasonal variation)
420
(both for RSW and yard
trimmings)
1 8 active
7 spare
3 for RSW
3 for yard trimmings
Improved Routing
10 for RSW
5 for yard trimmings
7
(both for RSW and
yard trimmings)
500
(both for RSW and yard
trimmings)
1 5 active
5 spare
3 for RSW
2 for yard trimmings
with 1 temporary helper
added per route during
peak generation periods
Impact
23 percent decrease
in routes
27 percent increase in
hours worked per crew
per day
1 9 percent increase in
households served per
route per day
20 percent reduction
in fleet size
No change for RSW routes
73 percent increase in
households served per
crew hour for yard
trimmings routes
Computer-Assisted Routing: It's
Just A Matter Of Time
The arduous task of manually
re-routing can be eased somewhat
with computer technology. Several
vendors offer systems for optimiz-
ing routes through computer-
generated routing algorithms.
What's required?
Geographic Information System
(GIS) street maps: Known as
"center-line" maps, these maps
are digitized representations of
every street in a jurisdiction with
line segments that reflect every
block face. The map database
might also indicate address
ranges per block, paving surface,
road weight limitations, or turn-
ing restrictions. Many larger
local governments have invested
in developing their own GIS sys-
tems (which could include tax
mapping, election district maps,
zoning and land use maps, maps
of streets and water/sewer lines,
etc.). Center-line map databases
also are available from commer-
cial vendors for almost every
county in the United States.
Firms such as E-TAK,
Navigation Technologies, and
Geographic Data Technologies
produce these digitized map
databases at costs that range
from approximately $650 to
$2,500 per county.
Customer database: Sometimes
available through tax assessors
-------
Improving Routing
23
offices or a utility billing sys-
tem, these databases could pro-
vide complete customer lists
with physical street addresses.
The computer-assisted routing
works by geocoding each customer
and searching the map database
for the appropriate block.
The same information required
for manual routing (as listed in the
box on page 19) also is needed for
computer-assisted routing.
Depending on the vendor, out-
puts of the computer-assisted rout-
ing include maps, direction lists,
and customer lists.
Hempstead, New York, System Comparison
Parameter
Number of routes
per day
Average number
of households
per route per day
Former System
62 for RSW
18 for recyclables
675 for RSW
1,200 for recyclables
Improved Routing
52 for RSW
16 for recyclables
800 for RSW
1,300 for recyclables
Impact
16 percent decrease
in RSW routes
11 percent decrease
in recyclables routes
19 percent increase in
households per RSW route
8 percent increase in
households per recyclables
route
Benefits Of Improved
Routing
Efficient route management can
decrease costs by reducing labor
and vehicle needs, balancing
workloads, decreasing overtime
demands, and allowing for adjust-
ment of workloads during periods
of seasonal waste stream variation.
Here are some results from local
governments that have tried tradi-
tional and computer-assisted rout-
ing improvements.
Manual Routing: Norman,
Oklahoma
Late in 1992, a committee of
labor and management representa-
tives in the city of Norman,
Oklahoma, initiated the task of
evaluating its RSW collection sys-
tem productivity. The rate of oper-
ating cost increases was projected
to create a deficit for the sanitation
department, and rate increases
could only be authorized by public
referendum. This scenario created
an incentive for labor and manage-
ment to work together to develop
cost-cutting strategies.
Ideas from the labor and man-
agement committee were put to
the following tests:
Does it cut costs?
Are service levels maintained?
Are employee wages and bene-
fits maintained?
Can it be implemented
practically?
Does it increase productivity?
Improvements in route balance
and crew productivity were the
key to solving the city's fiscal cri-
sis. By re-structuring routes and
establishing minimum workdays of
7 hours per crew per day (out of a
scheduled 8 hour day), the city
increased productivity, reduced the
number of crews and vehicles
needed, and saved money. The city
estimated savings from the re-rout-
ing to be approximately $452,000
per year.
Computer-Assisted Routing:
Hempstead, New York
Located on Long Island,
approximately 25 miles east of
Manhattan, the town of
Hempstead has a population of
-------
24
Improving
Improving Routing
Western Disposal • Implemented computer-assisted routing to balance workload and
Boulder, Colorado allow more customers to be served per vehicle per day.
Charlotte, • Improved routing with computer-assisted route design.
North Carolina • Implemented fully automated collection.
• Reduced collection frequency.
• Experimented with changes in workday schedules.
Gloucester Township, • Balanced workload for recyclables collection.
New Jersey • Improved number of households served per route per day.
Hempstead, New York • Maintained collection frequency and crew size.
• Reduced number of RSW and recyclables routes through
computer-assisted route design.
• Plans to adjust routes for seasonal variations in yard trimmings
quantities.
Metro Dade, Florida • Improved routing for RSW through use of computer-assisted
(Miami) routing software.
• Estimates average crew handles 10 to 15 percent more households
per day under the new system.
Norman, Oklahoma • Improved routing through manual routing effort and
establishment of route productivity goals.
Oyster Bay, New York • Implemented computer-assisted routing program (one of the first
cities to try automated route selection).
• Tried "grand tour" route concept.
• Increased number of households served per truck per day by 12
to 13 percent for RSW.
• Estimates annual savings of SI million through route
improvements.
800,000. The implementation
period took approximately 2 years,
but Hempstead now uses GIS-
based technology to route RSW,
recyclables, and yard trimmings
collection vehicles.
Hempstead relied on state and
county supplied street center-line
databases as the basis for its rout-
ing application. Turn limitations,
and other traffic impediments, had
to be entered into the database
before computer-assisted route
design was feasible. This effort
took time, and maintaining the
database is an ongoing process.
Hempstead's Commissioner of
Sanitation, however, finds the
investment is paying off. The town
has used the route optimization
program several times per year
since its installation to help
address the addition of phone
books and magazines to the recy-
clables collection program and to
allow for adjustments in routing
because of the seasonal variability
of yard trimmings quantities.
As a result of routing improve-
ments, the town has eliminated 10
RSW collection routes, at an esti-
mated annual savings of $200,000
per route.
Computer-Assisted Routing:
Charlotte, North Carolina
The city of Charlotte, North
Carolina, has been on the leading
edge of cost-cutting measures for
-------
Improving Routing
25
RSW collection for the past several
years. The city has switched from
twice-per-week RSW collection
(with one collection per week
picked up in the backyard) to a
fully automated collection system
with weekly curbside service for
RSW Yard trimmings and recy-
clables are collected in separate
pickups on a weekly basis. In
addition, the city recently priva-
tized 25 percent of its service area
to compare the performance and
cost of the private haulers services
to the public crews.
Computer-assisted routing is
another way that Charlotte has
stayed current with trends in the
industry. Using the RouteSmart™
package, Charlotte has been able
to respond to changing collection
schedules, service areas, and route
sizes with relative ease. Installing
the computer-assisted routing
application required an investment
equivalent to a full year of one
analysts time. In addition, the soft-
ware itself cost the city approxi-
mately $37,000. All together,
start-up costs were estimated to be
approximately $75,000.
In the first year of its use, the
RouteSmart™ system saved the city
approximately $26,500 in labor
costs associated with the routing
exercise alone. In addition, the city
expects to save through increases in
route productivity through
improved route management.
Improved Routing: Where
Else Is It Working?
Routing is an important factor
in any solid waste management
system that is undergoing change,
but the list of local governments or
haulers (on page 24) illustrates
several jurisdictions where
improved routing is receiving pri-
ority attention.
-------
Automatic RSW Collection
n the past, residents put their
entire waste stream, including
recyclables, in their backyards or
at the curb for collection.
Today, the demands for increased
cost-effectiveness and diversion pro-
grams that require separation of resi-
dential recyclables or yard trimmings
have caused a revolution in the solid
waste industry's approach to collection.
Though manual collection of RSW
has been the mainstay for decades and
is still the norm, there is growing inter-
est in automation as a way to:
Decrease labor requirements.
Reduce the number of vehicles
required to serve a collection territory.
Reduce injury potential associated
with fatigue and lifting.
Reduce litter and unsightly set-outs.
Many local governments and waste
haulers are turning to automation as a
way to reduce the labor costs of recy-
clables and yard trimmings pickup.
This chapter addresses:
Options for automated collection of
RSW
Impacts of automated collection.
Potential barriers to the implementa-
tion of automated collection.
List of local governments and
haulers who have implemented
semi- and fully automated collection
programs for RSW, yard trimmings,
or recyclables.
Factors to consider when evaluating
automation of the collection fleet.
For four
Fleet
There are two main approaches to
reducing the demands of manual RSW
collection—semi-automated collection
vehicles and fully automated collection
vehicles. Both systems rely on mechani-
cal or hydraulic lifting systems to
reduce the labor costs associated with
collection services.
Semi-automation offers a bridge
between manual collection systems and
fully automated collection approaches.
System characteristics include:
Specialized collection containers:
Typically, customers are required to
use special containers compatible with
mechanical lifting equipment. Often,
-------
Automating RSW Collection
27
semi-automated containers are
sized in the 60- or 90-gallon
range. In many communities
with PAYT programs, 30-gallon
semi-automated containers are
common, and some communi-
ties offer even smaller "mini"
cans for households that gener-
ate less waste. Containers are
designed with wheels and lids to
make storing and handling set-
outs easier for customers and
collectors.
Special equipment or equip-
ment modifications: Semi-auto-
mated "flippers" (hydraulic
lifting devices) can often be
mounted on existing front-load,
rear-load, or side-load collection
vehicles. These retrofits may be
less efficient than factory-built
semi-automated vehicles. Lift
times should be monitored, as
well as power demands, for any
potential retrofit. Semi-auto-
mated vehicles direct from a
vehicle body manufacturer also
can be designed for rear- or
side-loading.
How does semi-automated
collection work?
Customers wheel carts to the
curb, typically facing them out-
ward to facilitate crew usage.
Crews wheel carts to the collec-
tion vehicle.
Crews line carts up with the
lifting device.
Crews activate the lifting device,
mechanically tipping contents
of the carts into the hopper of
the RSW collection vehicle.
Fully Automated Collection
In fully automated collection
systems, containers are lifted,
emptied, and returned to the col-
lection point mechanically. Unless
there are problems—overflow
materials, improperly prepared
materials, obstructed set-outs, or
the need for roll-out assistance—
the driver need not leave the cab
of the collection vehicle. Crane-
like arms—in some cases lone
Semi-Automated Collection
What Are The Drawbacks?
• In some cases, collectors have found that semi-automated collection takes longer than col-
lecting RSW in bags because:
— Carts must be returned to the curb.
— Hydraulic systems for the lifters sometimes do not have sufficient power to lift heavier
set-outs.
— Mechanical lifter timing is sometimes not adjusted sufficiently to operate quicker than
a human "lifter."
• Labor needs may not decrease because crews must dismount and move containers at each stop.
On The Plus Side
• Semi-automated collection systems allow solid waste planners to utilize existing equipment
(through retrofits) to test automated collection concepts.
• Semi-automated collection offers an automated collection option for geographic areas that
have constraints such as tight streets, on-street parking, and one-way streets with customers
on the left side of the street that would limit the use of a fully automated system.
• Dual-side collection options allow collectors to service carts from both sides of the collection
hopper in some semi-automated vehicle designs.
• Manual collections can still be performed (for out-of-cart set-outs or overflow materials).
• Worker safety is enhanced:
— Operator fatigue is minimized.
— Manual lifting is minimized.
— Workers' compensation costs sometimes decrease.
— Job longevity might be increased; less turnover.
-------
28
Automating RSW Collection
Fully Automated Collection
What Are The Drawbacks?
• Fully automated collection equipment is typically more expensive than manual or semi-
automated vehicles (but fleet size is typically reduced because of increased productivity).
• Maintenance costs are often reported to be higher with fully automated equipment because
of increased hydraulic system complexity (but fleet size is typically reduced, so fewer vehi-
cles are usually being maintained).
• Fully automated systems rely on customers placing containers in accessible locations (or
maximum efficiency is hindered).
• Out-of-cart set-outs are less easily handled with fully automated vehicles (hopper loading
heights make manual collection impractical and maximum efficiency is limited if operators
must exit the cab).
• On-street parking, low hanging wires, and narrow, one-way, or dead-end streets can pre-
sent challenges for fully automated collection vehicles.
• One-way streets with left-side collections present challenges—operator time to roll-out
carts for right-side pickup decreases maximum productivity.
On The Plus Side
• Labor demands can be reduced significantly—most often, fully automated vehicles are
operated by one-person crews.
• Greater diversity is possible in hiring drivers (physical lifting capabilities are not a requirement).
• Worker comfort is increased—drivers rarely need to leave the cab (reduces exposure to
weather).
• Worker safety is enhanced:
— Operator fatigue is minimized.
— Manual lifting is eliminated.
— Potential injury risk associated with larger crews (especially collectors riding on exteri-
or steps) is minimized.
— Workers' compensation costs often decrease.
— Job longevity is increased; less turnover.
• Vehicle operator job classifications are often higher than manual collection crew positions;
sometimes wages are higher for automated vehicle operators as well (considered a plus by
workers).
enough to reach between parked
cars to reach set-outs—or claw-
like grippers are hydraulically con-
trolled from the cab.
Fully automated collection con-
tainers commonly range from 30-
gallon capacity to over 400-gallon
(designed to service multiple
dwelling units).
Automated collection arms or
grippers can be adjusted to service
a variety of container sizes,
depending on the manufacturer
and design. Some systems can be
adjusted from the cab, allowing
operators to collect large contain-
ers (e.g., 300-plus gallons) at one
stop and 90-gallon containers at
the next without dismounting or
making manual adjustments to the
gripping mechanisms.
Impacts On Worker Safety
What drives local governments
and haulers to consider automat-
ing collection of RSW? Often, the
answer is worker injury rates and
the cost of Workers' Compensation
claims. While lifting injuries are
the most common type of work-
related injury expected to be mini-
mized by increased automation,
puncture wounds and lacerations
might be avoided as well.
In Rochester, New York, an
ergonomic study was conducted to
document physical stresses experi-
enced by collection crews in the
city's manual RSW collection system.
-------
Automating RSW Collection
29
At the time of the ergonomic study,
backyard collection service was
being offered. The average collector
was walking 13 miles and lifting 6
tons of RSW per day After imple-
menting a semi-automated collection
system and eliminating backyard
collections, the average miles walked
per day by collectors dropped by
nearly 50 percent, to approximately
6.6 miles per day. Manual lifting of
heavy set-outs was virtually eliminat-
ed. As a result, approximately 4.5
percent fewer days were lost due to
injury per employee in the year fol-
lowing the citywide implementation
of the semi-automated RSW collec-
tion system. Workers' compensation
costs were reduced by 52 percent
over the same period.
In addition, one year after the
semi-automated RSW collection
program was piloted, workers were
asked to rate the semi-automated
collection strategy. One hundred
percent of the workers agreed that:
Safety conditions were
improved.
Wheeled carts decreased fear
of injury.
Working conditions were
improved.
The semi-automated collection
system should be expanded.
They would prefer a semi-auto-
mated route over a manual
route if they had the choice.
Thornton, Colorado, reported
that work-related injuries cost
$200,000 between 1988 and
1991. After implementing a fully
automated collection program for
RSW, the injury costs for the first
year of operation dropped to zero.
Workers' compensation insurance
premiums dropped more than 60
percent from 1991 to 1993.
Impacts On Productivity
Local governments and haulers
contacted as part of this study often
implemented automation in con-
junction with other system
changes—a decrease in collection
frequency, an increase in diversion
l[
Automation At Work
Local Government
Austin, Texas
Rochester, New York
Boca Raton, Florida
Escambia County, Florida
Indianapolis,
Indiana
Little Rock, Arkansas
Pensacola, Florida
Glendale, California
Long Beach, California
System Type
Before
Manual
Manual
Manual
Manual
Manual
Manual
Manual
Manual
Manual
After
Semi-Automated
Semi-Automated
Semi-Automated
Fully Automated
Fully Automated
Fully Automated
Fully Automated
Fully Automated
Fully Automated
Crew Size
Before
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
After
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Percentage Increase in Households
Served per Scheduled Crew Hour
15
100
86 (projected in feasibility study)
235
260
250
300
309
300
-------
30
Automating RSW Collection
programs, a change in scheduled
workday, or a change in set-out
locations, for example. Reported
increases in households served per
scheduled crew hour are shown on
the previous page for a sampling of
systems that changed from manual
to automated collection approaches.
Other Benefits
In addition to reducing the risk
of work-related injuries and
increasing productivity with fewer
labor demands, the use of stan-
dardized wheeled carts offers sever-
al benefits:
Using carts with lids helps to
keep water, ice, and snow from
set-outs, which helps to control
the weight of set-outs and
decreases tipping fee costs for
weight of added water. Both
Rochester, New York, and
Minneapolis, Minnesota,
reported reductions in annual
RSW tonnages that the cities
attributed directly to reduction
in moisture content of set-outs.
Using carts can improve neigh-
borhood aesthetics —uniform
containers often eliminate
unsightly set-outs. (Community
standards can vary, however,
and some people might com-
plain that carts look bad on the
street. These complaints are
more likely in areas where back-
yard or alley collection is being
replaced by curbside pickup.)
Blowing litter can be reduced
because containers with lids are
more resistant to being tipped
over or torn apart by dogs, rac-
coons, crows, etc.
Containers with lids can help
control odor and vector con-
cerns associated with keeping
RSW for longer periods of time.
In Evanston, Illinois, for exam-
ple, the city council's concerns
about the health impacts of
reducing collection frequency
to once per week were alleviat-
ed by the concept of wheeled
carts with secure lids.
. • If local governments and haulers
reduce collection frequency and
enforce RSW set-out limits (i.e.,
only RSW contained in the
appropriate container will be
collected), incentives can be cre-
ated for participating in diver-
sion programs.
Providing wheeled carts in a vari-
ety of sizes can make implementa-
tion of PAYT fee structures easier.
Overcoming The Hurdles
Automation can raise concerns
about reduced staffing needs and
overflow waste. Here are some strate-
gies for addressing these concerns.
When Automation Reduces
Staffing Needs
"What will we do with the dis-
placed workers?" It's a question
that often accompanies an evalua-
tion of automated collection
approaches. Some local govern-
ments have had success with:
Timing the switch to automated
collection to match attrition rates.
Retraining workers for other
positions.
Interdepartmental transfers.
Early retirement incentives.
What About Overflow Waste?
When system planners evaluate
fully automated collection, overflow
waste is an important considera-
tion. Most families find that 90 gal-
lons of RSW capacity per week is
more than sufficient—especially if
recyclables and yard trimmings
diversion programs are available.
But there might be exceptions—
after holidays, parties, or spring
cleaning, for example—and some
customers will place set-outs next
to (or on top of) their containers
because it is easier than lifting the
lid and placing RSW inside the
cart.
Some of the local governments
and haulers contacted as part of
this study tracked "overflow" per-
centages (the average number of
out-of-cart set-outs as a percentage
of total possible set-outs). Among
the communities that tracked the
data, overflow rates ranged from
about 6 percent to 16 percent:
-------
Automating RSW Collection
31
Tucson, Arizona: 6 percent
Memphis, Tennessee: 7 percent
Piano, Texas: 11 percent
Norfolk, Virginia: 16 percent
It should be emphasized that
carts were not always full when
out-of-cart set-outs were present.
During field observation in
Memphis, Tennessee, spot checks
revealed that containers often had
sufficient room to hold materials
that had been left on top of or
near carts. Customer misinforma-
tion or unwillingness to comply
with set-out requirements might
be the culprit, not excessive vol-
ume demands.
The potential productivity of
fully automated systems might be
seriously compromised if elected
officials or staff are not willing to
enforce containerized set-out
requirements. Before new set-out
policies were instituted in
Chesapeake, Virginia, for example,
manual collection equipment com-
pleted a second pass of each house-
hold each collection day to collect
overflow set-outs. This system
increases fleet and labor demands
and undermines the intent of the
fully automated collection approach.
Communities with PAYT fee
structures should find overflow set-
outs less problematic. In PAYT pro-
grams, the fee structure typically
provides a financial disincentive for
setting out excess PvSW. When resi-
Trading Headaches?
It makes sense that equipment designed to hydraulically lift heavy set-outs could cut
down on labor costs and improve productivity. But what about the cost of purchasing and
maintaining such equipment? Are you just trading headaches?
The by to this question rests with selecting the appropriate vehicles and equipment, pro-
viding adequate operator training, and designing an appropriate maintenance program.
Pasadena, California's, solid waste planning administrator offered the following advice for
local governments considering the purchase of an automated collection system:
• Buy top-of-the-line equipment; it will pay off in longer use and fewer repairs.
• Consider reducing capital costs by converting your existing fleet to automated vehicles.
• Specify vehicle performance and hold suppliers to those specifications.
• Invest in training: send representatives to the factory and provide appropriate on-the-
job training.
• Design a maintenance program that addresses the needs of the specialized vehicles and
equipment.
• Keep learning and adapt your program as you go.
Source: MSW Management, November/December 1993.
dents do have extra disposal needs,
many PAYT systems use "extra bag"
tags or stickers or some similar
mechanism to recover some or all
of the costs associated with han-
dling the excess material.
Where Is Automation
Working?
The list of PvSW collection ser-
vice providers on pages 33 to 34
have implemented semi- or fully
automated collection systems.
Ready To Make The
Change?
Because resistance to change is
commonplace, it is important to
think strategically when evaluating
significant system modifications.
Answering the following questions
early in your planning process will
-------
32
Automating RSW Collection
help you to identify needs for
additional research, education, and
consensus building.
Customer Service
1. Have you adequately informed
the public of collection
changes?
2. Do you track complaint/service
request data now?
3. Have you anticipated how the
switch to automation will affect
the number of calls received?
4. Have you added phone lines or
staff to handle short-term
increased volume of calls?
5. Have all staff who might get
questions or calls been notified
of the change?
Social and Political Issues
1. Have you involved citizens in
the decision-making process?
2. Do you have data from a pilot
program or similar community
to support your decision?
3. How will customers respond to
automated collection vehicles
and containers?
4. Are residents likely to have dif-
ficulty handling the carts?
5. Will the change be more accept-
able if customers have the
option to use more than one
container or set-out overflow
waste in alternative containers?
If so, how will you charge for
that premium service? What will
the operational impacts be?
6. Will the system be compatible
with waste reduction and diver-
sion goals?
Labor
1. How will automation affect
your staffing needs?
2. Can you time the switch to
automated service to match
current attrition levels?
3. Can displaced workers provide
other functions within the
department or organization?
4. Have workers been informed of
planned changes?
5. Have workers been involved in
decision-making?
6. Have you trained vehicle opera-
tors and maintenance personnel?
7. Have you reviewed labor agree-
ments and/or work rules for
barriers to changing crew size?
8. Have you considered reclassifi-
cation of positions for operating
automated equipment (and
potential impacts on wages)?
Routes
1. Have you estimated the impact
of collection containers on set-
out rates and pounds collected
per stop?
2. Have you developed area routes
that optimize vehicle utilization?
3. Have you considered the
impact of automation on the
number of trips required to
unload per day?
Containers
1. If containers for RSW or recy-
clables have been provided, are
containers sized appropriately?
2. Do customers have the option
to utilize smaller containers or
receive second containers? Will
rates be adjusted (e.g., PAYT fee
system)?
3. Are alternate containers accept-
able? Have customers been
informed of set-out options?
4. Have container distribution,
maintenance, repair, and
replacement needs been evalu-
ated? Will these services be
provided by your staff or
contracted?
5. Have you selected carts that are
compatible with collection
vehicles and lifter mechanisms?
6. Have you considered potential
program changes (increases in
diversion opportunities, imple-
mentation of PAYT fee systems,
for example) on container size
and type?
7. Have you developed a contain-
er tracking system?
-------
Automating RSW Collection
33
Implementing Automation Systems
Semi-Automation
Austin, Texas*
• Implemented semi-automated RSW collection.
• Reduced RSW collection frequency.
• Reduced crew size (three-person crews to two-person crews).
• Added yard trimmings collection.
Rochester, New York
• Switched from manual rearload collection of RSW to semi-
automated sideload collection.
• Decreased crew size (two-person crews to one-person crews).
• Implemented yard trimmings and recyclables collection programs.
Full Automation
Beaumont, Texas
• Switched from semi-automated RSW collection to fully automated
sideload collection.
• Reduced collection frequency.
• Reduced crew size (two-person crews to one-person crews).
• Added yard trimmings and recyclables (biweekly) collection.
Edmond, Oklahoma*
• Switched from manual to fully automated RSW collection.
• Decreased collection frequency.
• Decreased crew size (2-person crews to 1-person crews).
Escambia County, Florida
• Switched from manual to fully automated RSW collection for most
households.
• Collect approximately 6,000 households with semi-automated
sideloaders-which primarily serve dead-end streets and small pri-
vate roads.
• Reduced crew size (three-person crews to one-person crews).
• Implemented separate yard trimmings collection.
Glendale, California*
• Switched from manual rearload to fully automated sideload RSW collection.
• Added yard trimmings collection services.
Gottstown, New Hampshire
• Switched from manual to fully automated RSW collection.
Greensboro, North Carolina
• Switched from manual rearload to fully automated sideloaders for
RSW collection.
• Decreased collection frequency.
• Decreased crew size (two-person crews to one-person crews).
• Added recyclables and yard trimmings collections.
Greenville, Mississippi
• Switched from manual to fully automated sideload collection for RSW.
• Reduced crew size (two-person crews to one-person crews).
Houston, Texas
• Replacing combination of manual rear- and sideload collection
vehicles with fully automated RSW collection vehicles.
• Reducing RSW collection frequency.
• Reducing crew size (two-person crews to one-person crews).
• Implementing separate yard trimmings collection.
Indianapolis, Indiana
• Switched from manual rearload vehicles to fully automated
sideload vehicles for RSW collection.
• Reduced collection frequency.
• Reduced crew size (three-person crews to one-person crews).
• Increased frequency of yard trimmings collection.
Jeckyll Island State Park, Georgia
• Replaced manual RSW collection with fully automated collection.
• Decreased collection frequency.
• Decreased crew size (three-person crews to one-person crews).
• Added yard waste collection.
• Switched from manual rearloaders to fully automated sideloaders.
* This community has a PAYT rale structure.
-------
34
Automating RSW Collection
Implementing Automation Systems (Continued)
Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina
• Switched to automated sideloaders.
• Decreased crew size (three-person crews to one-person crews).
Lake Charles, Louisiana
• Switched from manual rearload collection to fully automated
sideload collection of RSW.
• Decreased crew size (two-person crews to one-person crews).
• Added yard trimmings and recyclables collection.
Little Rock, Arkansas
• Switched from manual rearload collection to fully automated
sideload collection for RSW.
• Decreased collection frequency.
• Decreased crew size (three-person crews to one-person crews).
• Implemented yard trimmings and recyclables collection.
Long Beach, California
• Replaced manual rearload fleet for RSW collection with fully
automated sideloaders.
• Reduced crew size (two-person crews to one-person crews).
Los Angeles, California
• Switched from manual frontloaders for RSW collection to fully
automated sideloaders.
• Decreased collection frequency.
• Implemented separate yard trimmings and recyclables collections.
Pasadena, California*
• Replaced backyard collection with curbside pickup.
• Switched from manual frontloaders to fully automated sideloaders
for RSW collection.
• Reduced crew size (four-person crews to one-person crews).
• Added yard trimmings collection.
Pensacola, Florida
• Switched from manual rearload RSW collection to fully automated
sideload collection.
• Decreased crew size (three-person crews to one-person crews).
Piano, Texas
• Replaced combination of alley (98 percent) and curbside
(2 percent) service with curbside collection for RSW.
• Switched from manual sideload collection vehicles to
semi-automated fleet (interim phase).
• In process of implementing fully automated sideload collection
citywide.
• In the old system, combination of one- and two-person crews were
used; one-person crews now used to staff fully automated vehicles.
• Decreased RSW collection frequency.
• Implemented recyclables collection.
Richland, Washington*
• Switched from combination of manual side- and rearload vehicles
to fully automated sideload collection for RSW.
• Replaced combination of one- and two-person crews with
one-person crews.
Toppenish, Washington
• Switched from manual rearload collection of RSW to fully
automated sideload pickup.
• Decreased crew size (two-person crews to one-person crews).
Victorville, California
• Switched from manual sideloaders for RSW collection to fully
automated sideloaders.
• Reduced RSW collection frequency.
• Implemented collection of recyclables (with automated equipment).
* This community has a PAY! rale structure.
-------
mplementing Duci
Collection
• o meet rising concerns about
costs and productivity and mini-
mize the number of vehicles
passing customers each day,
dual collection vehicles—which
allow for the collection of separated
waste streams with a single vehicle in a
single pass—are gaining in
popularity.
This chapter addresses:
Dual collection options.
Impacts of dual collection.
Applicability of dual collection.
Listings of collection service
providers who are using dual
collection.
Dual
To get a better idea of the variety of
ways in which haulers and local govern-
ments are implementing dual collection,
consider the following three experiences.
By The Bog In
Prior to the implementation of dual
collection, Loveland had manual collec-
tion of RSW with two-person crews. No
separate collections for recyclables or
yard trimmings were offered, and resi-
dents were charged a monthly flat rate
for solid waste management services.
Loveland decided to change this col-
lection system for a variety of reasons,
including rising Workers' Compensation
costs, a desire to provide curbside col-
lection for recyclables, a desire to
reduce risk of injury by decreasing set-
out weights, and complaints from some
citizens about the inequity of the flat-fee
pricing structure.
Under its new dual collection system,
Loveland uses vehicles produced by May
Manufacturing. Chassis are fitted with
manual rearloader bodies for RSW col-
lection, and over-the-top loading com-
partmentalized bodies are used for
-------
36
Implementing Dual Collection
recyclables—a two-stream curb-sort
approach (paper and containers).
OCC is collected in both paper and
container compartments, as well as
in the space between the packer
and recyclables bodies.
Loveland combined flat and
PAYT fees (bag and tag system for
RSW set-outs) and offered separate
optional curbside collection of
yard trimmings using semi-auto-
mated collection vehicles. The city
also promoted its yard trimmings
dropoff programs.
As a result of its new system, two-
person crews continue to provide
manual rearload collection, but set-
out weights are decreased because of
yard trimmings and recyclables sepa-
ration. Forty percent of residential
waste is diverted (through recy-
clables collection and yard trimmings
separation). Loveland has witnessed
a 6 percent increase in operational
costs compared to its old system
with no separation of recyclables or
yard trimmings.
The city has saved an estimated
$200,000 per year in direct opera-
tional cost savings over predicted
costs of operating two fleets to col-
lect RSW and recyclables.
Loveland also has a 92 percent
customer satisfaction rating.
Waste Management:
Making "One Pass" In
Oakland, California*
In parts of Oakland, Waste
Management provides RSW, yard
trimmings, and recyclables collec-
tion services; in other service areas
of the city, only RSW and yard
trimmings collections are handled
by Waste Management vehicles and
crews. The "One Pass" approach
gives the private hauler flexibility
to collect two or three streams at
one time. How does it work?
Waste Management uses Kann
vehicles of front-load design with
special "work buckets." Work
buckets are divided into two or
three compartments. Vehicles are
designed to collect:
« 3.5 tons of recyclables or 4 tons
of yard trimmings per load.
« 5 tons of RSW per load.
RSW and yard trimmings are
collected using wheeled carts (i.e.,
30-, 60-, and 90-gallon contain-
ers). Semi-automated tippers
dump carts into the work bucket.
The vehicle body is split horizon-
tally in two sections:
• A top compartment is designed
to accept yard trimmings or
recyclables.
* The top compartment is further
split into two chambers that
can hold separated paper and
commingled container streams.
* A bottom compartment is
designed for RSW
* Compaction is used in all
compartments.
In areas of Oakland where
Waste Management provides all
three collection services, recy-
clables and yard trimmings are
collected on alternate weeks. One
driver serves approximately 400 to
500 households per day. RSW,
recyclables, and yard trimmings
are all discharged at the same loca-
tion—a transfer station with sepa-
rate unloading areas for each
collected material stream.
Vehicle maneuverability was an
issue in some of Oakland's hilly
areas where streets are too narrow
for the dual collection equipment.
As a result, noncompartmentalized
rearloaders are used to collect set-
outs in areas where a dual collec-
tion truck is inappropriate.
The switch to dual collection
vehicles has been a success. Mike
Ropers, Waste Managements
maintenance manager, reports
minimal mechanical problems
with the new vehicles.
Patented Success: Visalia,
California
In a unique public-private part-
nership, the city of Visalia and
Ruckstell Equipment Sales teamed
up to offer a dual collection system
that relies on fully automated col-
lection equipment. System features
include a patented split cart with
110 gallons of total capacity divid-
ed into two equal compartments
(55 gallons each) for RSW and
recycables. Fully automated side-
load Heil collection vehicles are
modified with split hoppers and
split bodies (dual compaction).
Forty percent of the packer body is
-------
Implementing Dual Collection
37
devoted to recyclables. The com-
mingled recyclables are collected in
the top chamber, and RSW is col-
lected in the bottom chamber (60
percent of vehicle capacity).
Since implementing the dual col-
lection system, Visalia has not expe-
rienced a significant increase in time
required to serve households. Route
sizes have also remained constant
(i.e., approximately 900 households
per route per day). Visalia imple-
mented a separate fully automated
yard trimmings collection service
concurrently with the dual collec-
tion program. The estimated incre-
mental increase in direct costs to
add recyclables and yard trimmings
is 2 percent. Visalia reports a 26
percent diversion of recyclables
(excluding yard trimmings) in areas
of the city where the dual collection
program has been phased in.
Impact Of Dual Collection:
Evaluating The Potential
The Palm Beach County,
Florida, Solid Waste Authority
undertook a pilot program with
assistance from the American
Plastics Council to test the cost-
effectiveness of dual collection
compared to the "traditional"
approach of using two separate
fleets to collect RSW and recy-
clables, using data collected from
one community in Palm Beach
County (Lake Worth, Florida).
Results of the pilot program are
presented in the table on page 38.
Using the regression models that
were developed as part of the pro-
ject and field data from the pilot
program, the estimated time
required to service a set-out using
the dual collection vehicle was cal-
culated to be 44 seconds per stop.
The total time required to collect
RSW and recyclables with a two-
fleet approach was estimated to be
64.6 seconds per stop. Based on the
combined effect of the factors listed
below, dual collection was estimated
to result in a 13 percent cost savings
in the Lake Worth pilot:
Low weights per RSW set-out
in the pilot area (approximately
30 pounds per set-out).
' • An average time on route of just
4.9 hours for the dual collec-
tion vehicle compared to a total
of 9.2 hours for the RSW and
recyclables collection vehicles
(approximately 4.6 hours each).
'.' The decrease in total time
required per stop to collect
RSW and recyclables with the
dual collection vehicle.
ill Dual Collection Work
Everywhere?
Dual collection has several
limitations:
Sizing dual collection compart-
ments and determining the
appropriate level of compaction
is a challenge. Compartments
need to be sized so that the
recyclables compartments and
RSW compartments fill up at
approximately the same rate. In
addition, while some communi-
ties use compaction of recy-
clables to improve compartment
utilization, the impacts on mate-
rial quality need to be consid-
ered. In Washington, DC
(where dual collection was pilot
tested), the City's Public Works
Department reported difficulty
in finding the compaction level
that would maximize route pro-
ductivity but still maintain
material quality.
Many dual collection vehicles
have longer wheelbases requir-
ing a larger turning radius than
many typical RSW or recy-
clables vehicles. They might not
be usable on some routes with
narrow roadways and dead-end
streets. (Visalia's dual collection
system is a notable exception.
These vehicles can access and
service any area that a regular
automated truck can access.)
Once dual collection vehicles
are designed, retrofits are possi-
ble but difficult; therefore up-
front program planning is
essential. The addition of corru-
gated containers to Loveland,
Colorado's recycling program,
for example, presented opera-
tional challenges, because the
original compartment sizing
was designed for newspaper
only in the fiber stream.
Remember, the current genera-
tion of dual collection programs is
-------
38
Implementing Dual Collection
Comparison Of Truck Productivity (Based On Households Served)
Lake Worth, Florida, Pilot Study
RSW Only
Recyclables Only
Dual Collection
Total scheduled work day
I hours
I hours
1 hours
Net availability
6 hours, 40 minutes
fs hours, 40 minutes
ft hours, 40 minutes
Balance affiliable after 1st load
2 hours, 41 minutes
53 minutes
27 minutes
) minutes
33 minutes
1 minutes
TOTAL - Time on route
I hours, 20 minutes
4 burs, 57 minutes
i hours, 53 minutes
TOTAL - Time off route
3 hours, 40 minutes
3 hours, 3 minutes
3 hours, 7 minutes
Source: American Plastic Council Model Cities Project, as reported in "Co-collection: Is It a Viable Technique?"
J. Burgiel (R. W. Beck, Inc.) and J. Greer (Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach), Resource Recycling, June 1993.
-------
Implementing Dual Collection
39
still relatively new. Despite interest
on the part of many public and
private RSW collection systems,
fewer than 100 dual collection sys-
tems were in operation in 1995.
Vehicle vendors and solid waste
system planners continue to exper-
iment with alternatives to dual col-
lection. May Manufacturings
President, Jim May, agrees that
while dual collection vehicles have
tremendous potential, they might
not be appropriate everywhere.
Is Your System A Good
Candidate?
Dual collection is more applica-
ble if your community has*:
Low RSW generation.
Low housing density.
High driver and crew wages.
High offroute time.
High mileage to unload.
High participation in recy-
clables collection.
Processing and disposal loca-
tions are close (i.e., within 10
miles, typically).
Kicking The Tires
If you are thinking of imple-
menting a dual collection system,
you might want to talk to the
experts—communities or haulers
that are providing (or have tested)
dual collection approaches.
Who?
Dual Collection In Practice
What Type of Dual Collection?
Beaver's Disposal, California
Split 110-gallon carts.
Split hopper and chamber.
Fully automated collection vehicles.
Chillicothe, Missouri
• Manual rearload for RSW.
• Over-the-top sideloading compartments for recyclables.
• Implemented variable rate pricing system and separate
yard trimmings collection program as well.
Durham, North Carolina
• Semi-automated sideloader for RSW.
• Curb-sort over-the-top sideloading compartments for
recyclables.
Note: Significant maintenance problems have crippled dual collection productivity.
Hughes Trash Removal,
Maryland
• Tested dual collection on a very rural route.
• Manual rearloading style for RSW.
• Sideloading compartments for recyclables.
Loveland, Colorado
« Manual rearloader for RSW.
• Over-the-top sideloading compartments for recyclables.
• Implemented variable rates and separate yard trimmings
collection program.
Oxnard, California
• 110-gallon split carts.
• Fully automated collection.
• Split hopper and chamber.
Pena Disposal, California
• 110-gallon split carts.
• Split hopper and chamber.
• Fully automated collection.
Visalia, California
• 110-gallon split carts.
• Split hopper and chamber.
• Fully automated collection.
*Source: American Plastics Council, Washington, DC, 1995.
-------
Putting It All Together:
Designing For Success
!%!&' ~.%i hanging a collection system
•?' .''Hfc requires setting clear goals,
:: ;|lfp! designing an appropriate pro-
:::. Jfpf; gram, and planning for
;; ''..!!';'| addressing unanticipated chal-
lenges. Here are some tips for making
the change:*
Goals
1. Provide levels of service that will
meet health, regulatory, and com-
munity requirements.
2. Provide those services for the lowest
possible cost.
3. Ensure that the collection system
will be compatible with
processing and disposal systems.
4. Design for flexibility to meet chang-
ing demands.
5. Design a system that encourages the
achievement of public policy objectives
(e.g., recycling and diversion goals).
Design Framework
1. Who are the customers and how
should they be served? Do service
requirements vary geographically or
demographically within the service
territory?
2. How many types of collection ser-
vices should be offered?
3. How frequently should each type of
collection service be provided?
4. What set-out requirements should
be established?
5. What types of vehicles and equip-
ment will be needed?
6. Who should be the service provider?
7. What impacts will the collection
system design have on staffing needs
and labor relations?
8. What are the institutional, adminis-
trative, educational, and customer
service support implications of the
collection system design?
9. Are the resources of both public
and private sectors being used
appropriately?
Planning For Change
1. Involve stakeholders in the process:
the community at large, the media,
elected officials, planning and
administrative staff, and front-line
workers and supervisors.
Source: "Planning a High Performance Collection System," Waste Kge, 1993.
-------
Putting It All Together.
41
2. Expect resistance.
3. Develop comprehensive and con-
sistent public awareness cam-
paigns (make sure to address all
stakeholders).
4. Consider both the benefits and
drawbacks of conducting pilot
programs and phasing in
change over time.
5. Be prepared to respond to
changes in public policy, cus-
tomer attitudes, and technology.
6. Develop a systems orienta-
tion—avoid "jumping out of
the frying pan and into the fire"
by carefully considering how
collection systems integrate
with each other and other ele-
ments of the MSW manage-
ment system (e.g., transferring,
processing, and disposal).
-------
42
Resources
Resources
Numerous communities across the
country have used the strategies
described in this workbook to improve
the efficiency of their collection pro-
grams. For more information about
implementing a particular strategy,
contact the following communities:
Changing Collection Frequency
City of Greensboro, NC
RO. Box 3136
Greensboro, NC 27402
Contact: Elizabeth Treadway
Phone: 336 373-2867
City of Indianapolis, IN
200 East Washington Street
City/Cty Building, Suite 2460
Indianapolis, IN 46204-3357
Contact: Charles Bardonner
Phone: 317 327-7866
City of Jacksonville, EL
1031 Superior Street
Jacksonville, EL 32254
Contact: Fred Forbes
Phone: 904 387-8922
City of Little Rock, AR
701 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Contact: Chandra Russell
Phone: 501 371-4475
City of Memphis, TN
125 North Main Street
Room 628
Memphis, TN 38103
Contact: Eddie Yaun
Phone: 901 576-6851
City of Mesa, AZ
Solid Waste and Facilities
Box 1466 or 300 East Sixth Street
Mesa, AZ 85211-1466
Contact: Jack Friedline
Phone: 602 644-4567
Improving Routing
City of Charlotte, NC
SWS /Admm-7th Floor
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Contact: Wayman Pearson
Phone: 704 336-2176
Miami-Dade County, FL
8675 NW 53rd Street, Suite 201
Miami, FL 33166
Contact: Deborah Higer
Phone: 305 594-1567
Town of Hempstead, NY
1600 MerrickRoad
Mernck, NY 11566
Contact: Richard T Ronan, PE
Phone: 516 378-4210, Ext. 306
City of Norman, OK
RO. Box 370
Norman, OK 73070
Contact: Tommy McCarrell
Phone: 405 329-1023
Automating RSW Collection
City of Chesapeake, VA
912HollowellLane
Chesapeake, VA 23320
Contact: Mike Spears
Phone: 759 382-6136
City of Greensboro, NC
RO. Box 3136
Greensboro, NC 27402
Contact: Elizabeth Treadway
Phone: 336 373-2867
City of Indianapolis, IN
200 East Washington Street
City/Cty Building, Suite 2460
Indianapolis, IN 46204-3357
Contact: Charles Bardonner
Phone: 317 327-7866
City of Little Rock, AR
701 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Contact: Chandra Russell
Phone: 501 371-4475
City of Rochester, NY
210 Colfax Street
Rochester, NY 14006
Contact: Lou Guilmette
Phone: 716428-6512
Dual Collection
City of Loveland, CO
200 North Wilson
Loveland, CO 80537
Contact: Mick Mercer
Phone: 970 962-2530
City of Visalia
Solid Waste Fleet Services
366 North Ben Maddox Way
Visalia, CA 93292
Contact: Tom Baffa
Phone: 209 738-3569
-------
A That MSW
the and Costs of
Having trouble determining the impact of collection system changes?
Help is just a few keystrokes away!
SWANA developed a free, user-friendly computerized collection worksheet that will route requirements for
any given system. The Windows-based includes help and users step-by-step through data
gathering and all necessary calculations. The MSW managers to the cost and labor savings
of any system (e.g., increasing levels of automation, vehicle size, collec-
tion frequency, or redesigning curbside collection routes). The worksheet is on two 3-1/2 inch
computer disks with instructions for the and running the worksheet program.
To order the free software, or for more information, contact SWANA, Technical Services, P.O. Box 7219, Silver
, 20907-7219. Phone: 301 Fax: 301
Mailing Address:
Name:
Title:
Organization:
Street Address:
City: State: Zip:
-------
SWANA, Technical Services
SWANA
P.O. Box7219
Silver Spring, MD 20907-7219
------- |