A FIVE STAGE IMPROVEMENT PROCESS
-------
-------
An environmental protection publication (SW-131) in the solid waste management series
-------
A five-stage improvement process for solid waste collection sys-
tems, developed by the Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
(OSWMP) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, has been
used extensively to evaluate residential solid waste collection systems
and make cost-saving changes. Development of the process started
with many time-and-motion studies and evaluations of residential
collection systems throughout the United States. The process was
formulated, refined, and successfully tested through OSWMP's pro-
gram of technical assistance to cities.
This report summarizes the techniques of the five-stage improve-
ment process. Some of the techniques are discussed in more detail
in other reports: User's Manual for COLMIS, A Collection Manage-
ment Information System for Solid Waste Management, Heuristic
Routing for Solid Waste Collection Vehicles, and Decision-Makers
Guide in Solid Waste Management.
The five-stage improvement process is applicable to both public
and private residential solid waste collection. It is designed to pro-
vide a methodical procedure for evaluating, designing, and imple-
menting improved collection systems. It also provides information
and guidelines on the many possible alternatives in solid waste sto-
rage and collection. By applying the process, local governments and
private haulers can achieve improved service and cost savings.
-ARSEN J. DARNAY
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste Management
in
-------
INTRODUCTION 1
STAGE 1. REVIEW EXISTING POLICIES AND METHODS
AND THEIR ALTERNATIVES 5
STAGE 2. MACRO-ROUTING: DETERMINE THE OPTIMUM
ASSIGNMENT OF DAILY COLLECTION ROUTES TO
DISCHARGE POINTS 8
STAGE 3. ROUTE BALANCING AND DISTRICTING:
DETERMINE A FAIR DAY'S WORK AND DIVIDE THE
COLLECTION AREAS INTO EQUAL WORKLOADS .... 9
STAGE 4. MICRO-ROUTING: DETERMINE THE PATH
EACH COLLECTION VEHICLE WILL FOLLOW ... .14
STAGES. IMPLEMENTING CHANGES 23
THE PROCESS IN ACTION 29
APPENDIX: COLLECTION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
SYSTEM (COLMIS) FOR RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION 34
ABSTRACT 38
REFERENCES 38
-------
for solid waste collection systems
This report briefly outlines a five-stage im-
provement process for solid waste collection
systems, developed by the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs (OSWMP). The process
is the culmination of time-and-motion studies
conducted on about 40 different systems (both
public and private), analysis of OSWMP man-
agement information system data from about
35 communities (again, both public and pri-
vate systems), and information derived from
EPA solid waste demonstration and technical
assistance projects.
The five-stage improvement process is a sys-
tematic way to evaluate existing solid waste
collection systems and design new ones. It can
help managers identify inefficient policies and
causes of excessive costs, and develop more
efficient systems to overcome these problems.
It is designed to be easy to learn and apply,
and cost effective.
The process has been used extensively and
successfully in OSWMP technical assistance
projects, with some dramatic results. For
example:
• River Rouge, Michigan, cut its residential
collection cost by 58 percent through im-
proved routing and collection methods
• Portland, Maine, increased service and fre-
quency while still saving $30,000 per year
• Akron, Ohio, designed a new system that
saved an. estimated $2.2 million per year, or:
$30 per residence per year
• Huntington Woods, Michigan, increased the
efficiency of its system and reduced costs
by 65 percent in 3 years
Complete descriptions of these and other
local systems, indicating how the five-stage
improvement process was applied, are given
in the chapter "The Process in Action."
why improve solid
waste collection?
Solid waste collection and disposal systems in
our society are in transition, for only recently
has significant interest been turned toward the
problem of solid waste. Here are some of the
factors that have brought about this new in-
terest: The visibility of solid waste manage-
ment has increased as the amount of solid
waste generated has increased and local muni-
cipalities have faced crises of high collection
costs, strained budgets, dirty inner cities,
labor problems and strikes, and the even
more difficult problem of finding new dispo-
sal sites. These problems have prompted U.S.
mayors and city councilmen in a recent survey
to vote solid waste management as the major
national problem in cities today. (It was not
considered the major problem on the West
Coast, where solid waste collection has been
better managed.)
Increasing concern for the environment has
resulted in greater attention to the effects of
poor solid waste management, particularly
-------
pollution of water and air and degradation of
land. Growing awareness of the need to con-
serve energy and materials has made resource
recovery from waste a vital issue.
The financial world has recently shown in-
terest in solid waste management, as demon-
strated by the recent emergence of agglo-
merates of private haulers with improved fi-
nancial leverage and more sophisticated ap-
proaches.
Finally, as far as solid waste collection sys-
tems are concerned, interest has been stimula-
ted by OSWMP studies that have shown that
substantial savings and improvements are pos-
sible. This new attention means that cities
and private haulers that do not work on im-
proving their systems will be left behind with
ineffective and costly collection systems. In-
deed, the current trend is toward improve-
ment in both the public and private sectors.
what are the objectives ?
Solid waste collection is the process of picking
up from many storage locations the discards
or wastes of a community and hauling them to
a processing or disposal site.
The collection system objectives should be:
Environmental protection: to protect the
health and aesthetic conditions of the
living environment by hauling the waste
away in a sanitary fashion
Convenience; to provide a desired level of
service (e.g., in terms of frequency and
point of collection)
Continuity: to provide for stability of this
vital service
Resource recovery: to reclaim and conserve
natural resources
Safety: to store and collect the waste in as
safe a manner as possible
Efficiency: to achieve all these objectives
with the highest productivity and least cost
It is against these objectives, then, that ef-
fectiveness should be measured in evaluating
the performance of collection systems.
Most solid waste collection systems concen-
trate on picking up the waste on schedule and
hauling it away, which generally satisfies only
the objectives of environmental improvement,
convenience, and continuity of service. Re-
source recovery is a developing objective of
solid waste collection, and will become more
important as it becomes more feasible and
more clearly profitable. Whereas the other
objectives are definitely local in scope, re-
source recovery is also a national problem, in
the sense that incentives and legislation on the
national and State levels must be established to
encourage it. With increased local pressures by
ecology-minded citizens, however, local gov-
ernments are contributing to this national ob-
jective.
As for the safety objective, it should be
noted that solid waste collection is the most
hazardous occupation in the United States, as
measured by injuries and lost time per man-
hour worked. New safety standards, better
storage and waste-handling practices, and
training programs for collection personnel are
improving this situation.
One objective that is often overlooked is
efficiency. Studies conducted by OSWMP
provide clear evidence that a large portion of
the nation's solid waste collection systems are
inefficiently run and that the low productivity
of these systems results in unnecessarily high
costs for collection service. This is true of
both public and private collection systems.
This report is concerned with ways to at-
tain efficiency-to increase productivity and
decrease costs—in those aspects of a collection
system which may be modified at the local
level.
what factors affect
productivity?
!By definition, increased productivity means
more services (i.e., separate pickup points) col-
lected per hour, and more tons collected per
hour. Many people think that the only way
to increase productivity is for the laborers to
-------
work harder, and that low productivity is the
laborers' fault. In general, however, this is not
so. Higher productivity can be achieved
through improved storage and collection meth-
ods such as better routing, more efficient stor-
age devices (e.g., plastic sacks instead of 55-
gallon drums), collecting one side instead of
two sides of a street at a time, reduction in
crew size, and using mechanized systems (bulk
bins). These improvements make the task
easier for the collectors. If productivity re-
mains low, the management may be at fault.
It is management's responsibility to design sys-
tems, to set fair and equitable tasks, and to be
informed about what is going on in the system
and on the routes.
There are many reasons why managers, in
both public and private systems, have failed
to pursue the objective of higher productivity
and lower costs. Some of the major reasons
are: (1) preoccupation with the daily manage-
ment concerns associated with picking up the
waste on the scheduled collection day, such
as how many laborers are present each day
and how many trucks are operable, handling
requests, and billing; (2) the degree of man-
agement effort required to evaluate, design,
and implement change and to overcome
the natural resistance to change—it is easier to
maintain the status quo when, after all, the
waste is being picked up on time; (3) lack of
systematic management techniques to guide
decision-making; (4) reliance on overstaffing
to ensure an adequate labor force to collect
the waste on time without analyzing effi-
ciency and need; (5) inability to acquire new
or efficient equipment due to budgetary or
financial constraints; this results in operational
inefficiencies, lost time, and higher mainte-
nance and repair costs, and therefore higher
costs in the long run.
The five-stage improvement process has
been designed with these constraints in mind.
It is very simple, yet it enables a more sophis-
ticated approach to management.
what are the five stages?
The five stages of the process are: (1) review
existing policies and methodologies and the
alternatives to these, including institutional
structure and objectives of the delivery sys-
tem, (2) macro-routing: determine the opti-
mum assignment of the daily collection routes
to existing or proposed processing and disposal
facilities, (3) perform route balancing and dis-
tricting to determine a fair day's work, to
evaluate crew performances and costs for dif-
ferent policies and methods, and to divide the
collection areas into equal workloads for each
crew, (4) micro-routing: determine the path
or route the collection vehicle is to follow as
it collects waste from each service in a speci-
fied area, (5) implement changes.
These stages are generally performed in the
order listed (Figure 1), with the exception that
some of the policies and methodologies of
stage one should be determined or revised af-
ter the route evaluations of stage three have
been performed. Implementation, of course,
must be considered in each stage.
OSWMP has developed several tools that
are readily usable by local sanitation systems
in the improvement process. The tools and
the particular stages at which they may be
applied are: the Collection Management In-
formation System, which is described in the
Appendix (stages 1-5); macro-routing compu-
ter model (stage 2); mathematical model for
route balancing (stage 3); and a heuristic pro-
cedure for micro-routing (stage 4).
Each of these tools is briefly discussed in
this report as it relates to the five-stage im-
provement process. Reports discussing speci-
fic tools in greater detail are available from
EPA on request (see p. 38).
-------
STAGE ONE
COMMITMENT
TO STUDY
AND
IMPROVE THE
COLLECTION SYSTEM
EVALUATE
SYSTEM POLICIES
(ORGANIZATIONAL AND
LEVEL-OF-SERV/CE
POLICIES}
EVALUATE
OPERATIONAL POLICIES
(ROUTE, LABOR, AND
MANAGEMENT POLICIES)
*
{_
[
STAGE TWO
1
| MACRO-ROUTING
'
DETERMINE
ASSIGNMENT OF
COLLECTION AREAS
TO PROCESSING AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
1
i
STAGE THREE
aOUTC BALANCING DISTRICTING
DETERMINE
A FAIR DAY'S WORK
AND EVALUATE CREW
PERFORMANCES FOR
DIFFERENT POLICIES
AND METHODS
*
|
SET BOUNDARIES
FOR ROUTES SO
THAT WORK LOADS
ARE EQUAL
STAGE FOUR
MICRO-ROUTING
DETERMINE
THE ROUTE THAT
EACH VEHICLE
WILL FOLLOW
STAGE FIVE
IMPLEMCMT
CHANGES
Figure 1. This flow chart summarizes the five-stage improvement process for solid waste
collection systems.
-------
Q.
review existing policies and methods
and their alternatives
The first stage in the five-stage improvement
process is to review the existing policies and
methods and their alternatives. Collection
system policies may be conveniently divided
into system policies and operational policies,
according to the management level at which
decisions are made.
system policies
System policies are generally decided by top
city management (mayor, manager, or coun-
cil), or directly by the citizens, or by a private
hauler. They include policies relating to gen-
eral organization and to level of service.
Organizational policies determine who is
responsible for delivering, regulating, finan-
cing, and controlling the desired service. They
include institutional arrangements (public, pri-
vate, or combinations; open competition, fran-
chising, contracting, or utility concept; com-
petition or monopoly [regulation and controls;
profit or nonprofit), financing methods (user
charges, based on point of collection, number
of containers, size of containers, frequency of
service, etc., versus special tax or general reve-
nues; the budget process; bonds; leasing), bil-
ling system and policies, subsidization of par-
ticular groups (residential versus commercial;
suburb versus inner city versus outer city),
and legal issues (solid waste ordinance, con-
tracts, licenses and fees, ownership of waste,
other regulatory and enforcement issues). _
Level-of-service policies determine the
amount of service to be delivered: who will
receive service (residential, commercial, apart-
ments), citizen option versus mandatory ser-
vice, point of collection, frequency of collec-
tion, type of storage devices (paper or plastic
sacks, cans, bulk bins, etc.), limitation on
amount of waste or number of containers that
will be collected, mechanical collection, col-
lection of yard wastes and bulk items (furni-
ture, white goods), separate collection of gar-
bage, or of newspapers for recycling, inner
city cleanup programs, service for the elderly
and handicapped, and point of collection for
corner-lot residences.
operational policies
Once system policies have been determined,
then the appropriate decisions can be made
regarding operational policies, which include
route, labor, and management policies. The
operational policies are generally made at the
operating level (e.g., by the department of
public works or the private contractor), al-
though the labor policies are frequently deter-
mined in conjunction with labor unions and
civil service commissions.
Route policies would cover: crew size,
type and size of equipment; whether drivers
will collect; "limousine" service (truck chauf-
feurs crew to and from home, lunch, etc.);
shuttle system (instead of accompanying truck
and driver to disposal site, crew continues to
collect on other routes); reservoir system (cen-
tral area is picked up by all crews as they fin-
ish their routes; no crew can go home until
central area is collected); whether collection
vehicles must be full before they can go to the
disposal site; whether times and sites for lunch
and breaks are fixed; scheduling (hours of
operation, days of operation, commercial and
other discrete accounts, seasonal variations);
vehicle routings and districts; whether one side
or both sides of the street are collected in one
-------
pass; whether vehicles are allowed to back
down short street segments or to make li-
tmus; how to route steep hills; what to do
about enclosures or other obstacles (fences,
porches, garages, steps); dealing with exces-
sive haul time (larger vehicles, greater com-
paction, or transfer stations may be indicated);
and making seasonal variations in routes based
on differing waste amounts.
Labor policies are concerned with the wage
structure; the career ladder and seniority sys-
tem; training programs; measures to prevent
accidents and protect health; problems of ab-
senteeism; and incentive systems (monetary
bonus, or task completion system-workers can
go home when assigned task is done).
Management policies include the organiza-
tional structure of management, management
information systems, cost-accounting systems,
the system for handling requests and com-
plaints, supervisory communications system
(radio contacts, supervisory vehicles and staf-
fing), and the public relations program.
are present policies
being followed?
Examples abound of instances where official
and stated policies and methods differ from
what happens in actual practice. Frequently,
key management personnel, who should know
what is happening, do not. For example, one
community stated it had twice-a-week collec-
tion, yet investigation showed that most resi-
dences were serviced three times a week and
others four or five times a week. This was be-
cause the crews were on an incentive system
whereby they could go home when their
routes were completed for the day, but the
crews believed that management would be up-
set if they completed their assigned routes in
less than 4 to 5 hours (which they could easily
do), so they would continue to collect until a
"reasonable" amount of time passed. This
practice enabled great flexibility in the daily
schedule, including very long breaks. The
management of this system had never deter-
mined a fair day's work and did not realise
what was happening.
Another community had an ordinance
which prohibited the use of plastic sacks and
55-gallon drums. Yet, a survey revealed that
50 percent of the storage containers were plas-
tic sacks and 6 percent were drums. Manage-
ment knew there was extensive use of plastic
sacks (which they were willing to overlook)
but did not realize there were any drums being
used. Management in this same community
reported that their method was to collect one
side of the street at a time; yet, in actual prac-
tice, two sides were collected at the same time.
Two communities reported a 7- to 8-hour
workday with a reasonable amount of over-
time as the fair day's task, yet a study showed
the crews taking 21A- to 4-hour breaks through-
out the day to collect this overtime.
One community reported a labour round-
trip haul time because of traffic and queues at
the incinerator and even complained to the
incinerator operator about the queues, yet
observation showed that the haul time was
actually 45 minutes to an hour, with the rest
spent congregating after emptying at the in-
cinerator.
Another community reported that drivers
were required to collect wastes and did so, yet
observation showed that even at heavy stops
they did not get out of the cab.
Several communities and private haulers re-
ported that scavenging by the collectors was
prohibited, yet observers found that much
crew time was spent in careful scavenging
operations, including the use of a salvage bar-
rel in the hopper of one rear loader, which had
to be removed each time the compactor was
used.
One community with backyard collection
said the collectors were not permitted to go
within garages, fences, or other enclosures, but
many were observed doing this.
One community reported they had three-
man crews, when all crews were frequently
observed to have four men.
-------
Two communities did not realize their col-
lectors were picking up from substantial num-
bers of noncity customers (nonsubscribers and
commercial accounts).
One community contracted a private hauler
at a fixed collection contract price plus a dis-
posal charge based on tonnage. Their citizens
seemed to be generating more waste than all
the neighboring communities, but investigation
showed that the hauler was actually charging
the contracted community for disposing of
other communities' wastes.
was promptly fired.)
(The contractor
Many communities do not have a cost-ac-
counting system and do not know how much
collection actually costs them.
As these instances indicate, many solid
waste managers have not kept themselves in-
formed about how their collection systems are
actually operating, yet such awareness is the
necessary base for proper management.
CHECKLIST OF POLICIES AND PRACTICES
I. System Policies
A. Organizational Policies
1. Institutional arrangements
2. Financing methods
3. Billing system
4. Subsidization of particular groups
5. Legal issues
B. Level-of-Service Policies
1. Who receives service
2. Citizen option versus mandatory service
3. Point of collection
4. Frequency of collection
5. Type of storage devices
6. Limit on amount of waste or number of
containers
7. Mechanized collection
8. Yard wastes
9. Bulk items
10. Separate collection of garbage or
recyclable materials
11. Inner city cleanup programs
12. Service for elderly and handicapped
13. Corner-lot residences
II. Operational Policies
A. Route Policies
1. Crew size
2. Type and size of equipment
3. Whether drivers collect
4. "Limousine" service
5. Shuttle system
6. Reservoir system
7. Whether collection vehicle must be full
before going to disposal site
8. Times and sites for lunch and breaks
9. Scheduling
10. Vehicle routings and districts
11. One-side or both-sides-of-street collection
12. Whether vehicles can back down short
street segments or make U-turns
13. Routing on steep hills
14. Dealing with enclosures and other obsta-
cles
15. Dealing with excessive haul times
16. Seasonal variation of routes
Labor Policies
1. Wage structure
2. Career ladder, seniority
3. Training
4. Safety measures and preventive health
care
5. Insurance and pension plans
6. Holidays, vacations, sick leave
7. Absenteeism
8. Incentive system
Management Policies
1. Organizational structure
2. Management information system
3. Cost-accounting system
4. Handling requests and complaints
5. Supervisory communications system
6. Public relations program
-------
macro-routings determine the optimum
assignment of daily collection routes
to discharge points
The second stage, macro-routing, is concerned
with assigning each collection route to a parti-
cular disposal site or processing facility so that
the total pattern of assignments will result in
optimal use of facilities and will minimize to-
tal costs.
In a simple case, where there are only one
or two facilities, or where all the facilities are
landfills, the solution is readily apparent. If
all discharge points are sanitary landfills, the
optimum solution would be to minimize the
round-trip haul time for each route, taking
into account queue times at each site. This
generally means hauling to the closest landfill.
However, a complex system may involve
many different facilities, such as shredders,
balers, incinerators, energy or materials recov-
ery facilities, transfer stations, compost plants,
and landfills. In such a case, a computer pro-
gram may be required to optimize use and
siting of facilities. OSWMP has developed a
model program which is currently being tested
and refined, and will be available in 1975,
For the complex case, the following factors
must be considered in relation to each other in
optimizing the system:
Fixed and operating costs of each facility.
Since certain facilities, such as incinerators,
have a very high initial cost and a relatively
low day-to-day cost (even when operated for
more than one shift per day), the cost of in-
creasing the facility throughput (tons per day)
is relatively low. The fixed charge (high initial
investment) for such facilities complicates the
optimization analysis.
Short- and long-range capacities of each
facility. The capacity and volume-reduction
capability of a facility may affect the opera-
tion of other facilities. For example, an incin-
erator or shredder may have a maximum daily
capacity of 200 tons; if it is not operating
at capacity, it may be desirable to increase the
throughput in order to extend the life of the
landfills in the system.
Cost of round-trip haul for each route, ac-
counting for queues at each facility. This is
the total off-route transport and discharge
cost incurred each time the crew goes to a
disposal facility.
Effect of facility on collection equipment.
Many disposal sites have poor access roads and
discharge areas, which result in flat tires and
stuck vehicles (causing wear on transmissions
and differential gears as well as lost time);
most processing facilities, on the other hand,
have concrete platforms to discharge from.
Once macro-routing is done, the round-trip
haul times for specific collection areas can be
estimated, and this information is needed for
the next stage, route balancing and districting.
-------
route balancing and districting^
determine a fair day's work and
divide the collection areas into
equal workloads
Route balancing is the process of determining
the optimum number of services that consti-
tutes a fair day's work and dividing the collec-
tion task among the crews so that they have
equal workloads. Route balancing can be used
to (1) estimate the number of trucks and men
required to collect waste in a new or revised
solid waste system, (2) develop or evaluate a
bid price for a collection contract, (3) evalu-
ate crew performances, as a whole or indivi-
dually, (4) determine a fair day's work or a
work standard necessary for task and wage
incentive (bonus) systems, (5) balance or
equalize the workloads among collectioncrews,
or (6) determine the optimum size for new
trucks or optimize the use of existing trucks.
Thus, route balancing is necessary if a new
collection system is being instituted, if a major
change in the present system (e.g., backyard
to curbside collection) is going to take place,
if the system is to be evaluated, or if a collec-
tion contract is up for bid.
Route balancing is accomplished by analyz-
ing each component of time in the collection
day, or how each crew spends its time (Figure
2). Adding these component times results in
an equation for the total time in the workday
(Y):
Y = a + b + n (c1 + c2+d)-c2+e + f+g(l)
where a = time from garage to route
b = total collection time on route
n = number of loads
c - time from route to disposal site
c = time from disposal site to route
d = time at disposal site
e
f
g
time from disposal site to garage
time for official breaks
slack time: lost time due to
breakdowns and other delays,
incentive time, lunch time
This equation is the basis for determining
a fair day's work and for route balancing.
The data required for this analysis are (1)
time and distance data related to the com-
ponents of the collection day, (2) the num-
ber and type of services and where they are
located, (3) the average amount of waste
generated per service, including seasonal varia-
tions, (4) basic equipment and labor cost data.
One method for gathering this data involves
using the Collection Management Information
System (COLMIS), described in the Appendix.
Values for each time variable are readily ob-
tainable for any existing system from the
COLMIS reports, or similar records. Each of
these time elements may be compared for
each route to ascertain their reasonableness.
In designing a new collection system, it is
necessary to apply equation (1) to determine
the appropriate number of services per crew
per day, which tells how many trucks and men
are required. Reasonable values for variables
a, GJ, c2, d, e, and f are readily obtainable.
For example a, the time from garage to route,
is easily derived by considering the distance
and route covered and the reasonable driving
time to traverse it. Likewise, the number of
formal breaks to be taken is a policy decision
and is typically two 15-minute breaks (in a
task incentive system, crews frequently skip
the breaks).
-------
DISPOSAL
SITE
GARAGE
+f = TIME FOR FORMAL BREAKS
+g = SLACK TIME: ALLOWANCE FOR LOST TIME DUE TO BREAKDOWNS AND OTHER DELAYS,
INCENTIVE TIME, LUNCH TIME
Figure 2. This schematic drawing of the components of a collection day depicts the ele-
ments of equation (1). It shows how the crew spends its day.
-------
Variable n (number of loads per day) is
based on the number of services per load (N):
(2)
where x1 = vehicle capacity (cu yd/load)
Xj = vehicle density capability (lb/
cu yd)
Xg = Ib/service/collection
N - number of services per load
Variable n is then determined by dividing the
number of services that can be collected in the
workday (calculated by the procedure which
follows) by N and rounding up to the next
whole number.
Variable b (total collection time on route)
is a function of the number of services that
can be collected per hour, or the on-route min-
utes per service. These values may be obtained
in four ways: (1) using COLMIS or data from
a similar system; (2) conducting time-and-
motion studies on the existing system or a
similar one; (3) using regression equations de-
veloped from data on similar systems; (4) im-
plementing experimental routes and trying
different crews. Obviously, the values for n
and b, and the time per service, vary season-
ally as the amount of waste per service varies.
It is recommended, therefore, that values for
n, b, and the time per service be calculated
for the peak, normal, and low waste generation
periods (Figure 3).
The steps necessary to determine the num-
ber of services per crew per day (a fair day's
work), the number of men and trucks required,
and the system cost are described in the fol-
lowing procedure. These steps are based on
equations (1) and (2), and determine values
for b (collection time), n (number of loads),
and the number of services per crew per day.
The time required for on-route collection and
transport for each load is compared with the
time that is left in the workday until the total
time in the collection day is accounted for.
1. Select the level of service, truck type
and size, and crew size.
2. Determine N (number of services per
load) from equation (2) using normal waste
generation rate.
3. Starting with Y, the total hours in the
workday (e.g., 8 hours) from equation (1),
subtract variables a, e, and f, and add c2.
Then subtract the round-trip haul time per
load (cl + c2 + d) and the collection time per
load (services per load (N) times the minutes
per service). Continue to subtract transport
and collection times, load by load, until all
the time in the workday is used up.
4. Multiply the resultant number of loads
(including partial loads if any) by the services
per load (N) to get the total number of services
per day for each crew.
5. The number of trucks required is deter-
mined as follows (rounding the result to the
next highest whole number):
/Total No,
Trucks _ \ services
required / Services
)
[Collection frequency^
\ per week /
\ /No. workdays\
\truck per day/ \ per week /
6. Calculate the annual cost of a crew and
truck by adding vehicle costs and labor costs:
Vehicle cost = depreciation + maintenance
+ consumables + overhead
+ license fees and insurance
Labor cost = salary of driver + salary of
collector(s) + fringe benefits
+ indirect labor + supplies
(e.g., gloves) + administra-
tive overhead
7. Evaluate the effects of peak and low
generation periods on overtime and incentive
time respectively by repeating steps 2 through
5 using peak and low generation rates.
8. Multiply the cost per crew (from step 6)
by the number of crews needed (from step 5),
and add overhead expenses including overtime
11
-------
100
90
80
70
ffi 60
f\
DC
LLJ
m
30
20
10
PEAK
1 I
1 I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I 1
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
WEEK
Figure 3. These seasonal variations in the amount of v/aste collected are typical for Northern
cities. Such variations should be taken into account in computing the daily workload.
-------
cost (from step 7) to obtain the total system
cost. Divide the total cost by the total num-
ber of services to obtain the annual cost per
customer.
9. Repeat steps 1 through 8 for any other
level of service, equipment, crew size, or other
system alternatives being considered. Com-
parison of crew productivities, system slack,
and total cost (and cost per customer) for each
system alternative helps give a clear picture of
which alternative is most acceptable.
The slack time, variable g, is built into this
procedure by rounding to whole numbers and
by using conservative estimates. For example,
if the average number of loads is 2.3 (step 3),
the number of trips is three, giving a slack
capacity of 70 percent for the last load for all
trucks. Slack also results from rounding the
number of trucks required up to the next
whole number. For example, if the number
of trucks required is 7.2 (step 5) then the
actual number of trucks required is 8. If
the number of services per truck per day is
computed to be 650, based on 7.2 trucks (step
4), then the actual number of services per day
for each of the 8 trucks is 585. This also
means more slack in the number of loads. In
this case, the actual length of the workday
should be recalculated using 8 trucks and 585
services per truck.
Once the equitable number of services per
crew (step 4) has been determined for each
area, districting and micro-routing can be per-
formed to develop the individual routes. Dis-
tricting is the process of dividing the collection
area into equal workload sections according
to the day of the week, and then dividing each
daily section into specific routes for each
truck, based on the equitable number of ser-
vices per crew determined by the route bal-
ancing procedure. Total collection and haul
time should be reasonably constant for each
route. Developing the daily routes may be
done in conjunction with micro-routing or be-
fore. When they are done together, a starting
point is selected and a path or route is devel-
oped (continuous and concentrated in an area)
until enough services to make a route is
reached. This process is continued until the
whole collection area is routed.
In districting and micro-routing, natural
boundaries should be utilized where possible
for route boundaries. These include rivers,
lakes, streams, mountains, valleys, railroads,
highways, major roads, parks, cemeteries, hos-
pitals, and other areas without services.
13
-------
micro-routing: determine the path
each collection vehicle will follow
The objective of micro-routing is to minimize
the noncollection distance (repeat distance and
streets with no services) and delay times (such
as U-turns, heavily trafficked streets, and
left turns) for each collection vehicle.
The typical collection route has evolved
over the years, with new collection areas as-
signed to the crew with the lightest workload,
resulting in fragmented and overlapping routes.
Typically, the vehicle path is selected by the
driver with no direction from management.
In one such case, OSWMP designed a com-
pact route that contrasts significantly with
the existing driver-designed route (Figure 4).
the heuristic approach
to micro-routing
OSWMP has developed a simple, noncompu-
terized "heuristic" or common sense approach
to micro-routing based on the following rules
of thumb:
1. Routes should not be fragmented or
overlapping. Each route should be compact,
consisting of street segments clustered in the
same geographical area.
2. The collection route should be started
as close to the garage or motor pool as possi-
ble.
3. Heavily traveled streets should not be
collected during rush hours.
4. Services on dead-end streets can be con-
sidered as services on the street segment that
they intersect, since they can be collected only
by passing down that street segment. To keep
left turns at a minimum, however, the dead-
end streets should be collected when they are
to the right of the truck. They must be col-
lected by walking down, backing down, or
making a U-turn.
5. When practical, steep hills should be
collected on both sides of the street while
the vehicle is moving downhill, for safety,
ease, speed of collection, reduced wear on ve-
hicle, and conservation of gas and oil.
6. Higher elevations should be at the start
of the route.
7. For collection from one side of the
street at a time, it is generally best to route
with many clockwise turns around blocks.
8. For collection from both sides of the
street at the same time, it is generally best to
route with long straight paths across the grid
before looping clockwise.
Heuristic rules 7 and 8 emphasize the devel-
opment of a series of clockwise loops in order
to minimize left turns, which generally are
more difficult and time-consuming than right
turns. Also, right turns are safer, especially for
right-hand-drive vehicles.
9. For certain block configurations within
the route, specific routing patterns should be
applied.
routing patterns
As the router gains experience, he will recog-
nize routings that are efficient for certain
block patterns (Figures 5-8). Additional pat-
terns may be developed and applied for speci-
fic situations.
data required
All the information required for routing can
be recorded on community maps. First, indi-
cate on the map(s) the number and type (resi-
dential, apartment, commercial, etc.) of ser-
vices on each side of each street segment.
Next, identify all one-way, dead-end, and heav-
ily traveled streets. Indicate which corner-lot
14
-------
Figure 4. The typical collection route (top), selected by the driver, is fragmented. Its non-
productive segments are shown in dashes. The new collection route (bottom), designed using
the OSWMP heuristic routing procedures, is compact and has no nonproductive distances.
15
-------
FINISH
1
1
4
T^-J
H
i
,
1
J
l,
»
'
'
t
|
1
i
i
1 1
ONE WAY
' 1
k ,
J
, J
t
•* ™
^
I ONEWAY ~
'
*>
*
i
t J
'
'
1
'
'
\
' 1
, 1
j
1
1
1
i
II
II
II
11
i I
i I
-
START
FINISH
(
-
•
it
i
— < —
t
'
i
ONEWAY
1
— >~
-^—
— >-
•+ —
j
t
"
O
'
ME WAY
1
•
i
i
i
•i
ONE SIDE OF
THE STREET
COLLECTION
BOTH SIDES OF
THE STREET
COLLECTION
**- DIRECTION OF ONE-WAY STREETS
Figure 5. Specific routing patterns for multiple one-way streets. Note the clockwise movement.
16
-------
FINISH 4
START
FINISH «
i
X"
f
-t---
ROUTING CONFIGURATION APPLICABLE WHEREVER
FOUR BLOCKS ARE POSITIONED AS SHOWN
THREE-BLOCK CONFIGURATION
START*.
FINISH*
START*-
FINISH4
VARIATION OF THREE-BLOCK CONFIGURATION
VARIATION OF THREE-BLOCK CONFIGURATION
Figure 6. Some specific routing patterns for threes,and four-block configurations. In all con-
figurations, blocks may vary in size and shape.
17
-------
START
FINISH
4x4 BLOCKS
NO LEFT TURNS
NO DEAD DISTANCE
1
START g
FINISH T
I
,
1
J
1
^
i r
^
,,| ]'
i i
I -
.
_
-•I
^
•
,
•
j
i
'
^
^
i i
•i ]•
^
Q
4x6 BLOCKS
ONE LEFT TURN
NO DEAD DISTANCE
6x8 BLOCKS
ONE LEFT TURN
NO DEAD DISTANCE
START FINISH
Figure 7. Combinations of the four-block pattern, with one-side-of-the-street collection. For
this pattern to be applicable, at least one side of the grid must have an even number of blocks.
Each of these routes uses the same routing pattern, with progression in a counter-clockwise
direction. For the larger grids, once the outsideis routed, the inside is routed in a clockwise
progression.
18
-------
START
FINISH
PAT TERN A
FINISH
PATTERN B
Figure 8. In specific routing patterns for both-sides-of-the-street collection, pattern A entails
no left turns, and pattern B requires nine left turns. Dash lines represent "dead distance" or
non-collection segments of the route.
19
-------
residents (if any) should be asked to place their
waste on a specific street segment. Finally,
identify, for each street segment or service
area, whether the crews are to collect one or
both sides of the street on a pass.
In working out a routing problem, it is often
helpful to simplify the grid. This is accom-
plished by combining blocks that have no ser-
vices on the common street segments which
face each other (Figure 9). The pattern and
routing procedure can then be applied to this
simplified grid.
applying the
itlc rules
The heuristic rules are guides which, used in
conjunction with specific routing patterns,
help in rapidly and systematically developing
efficient, routes.
Using the map marked with the required
data and divided into specific route areas for
each truck, identify block configurations where
patterns may be applied. Design the route by
connecting these patterns and other street seg-
ments into a continuous path, using the heur-
istic rules to minimize dead distance and delay
times (Figure 10).
If the routing is done before the daily dis-
tricts have been divided into specific route
areas, use the same approach of identifying
patterns and applying the heuristic rules to
develop a continuous route, but keep a count
of the number of services that have been in-
cluded in the route. Terminate the route when
the number of services is approximately that
determined to be reasonable for a fair day's
work.
Repeat the routing procedure, applying
the heuristic rules and patterns, until the
whole community is routed. When develop-
ing the route, keep in mind that natural bar-
riers (highways, rivers, etc.) make good boun-
dary lines.
In applying the heuristic rules and patterns,
the router should look ahead and behind sev-
eral street segments and ask these questions:
Have any street segments with services been
left behind that will require a long dead dis-
tance to return and pick up? Are there al-
ready some long dead distances that might be
reduced through slight modifications? Are
there any peculiar or unique characteristics of
the area which should be considered? Are
there any patterns that can be utilized in the
routing?
Once the initial route layout has been deter-
mined, the route should be retraced and alter-
nate routings or modifications attempted
wherever long dead distances exist. Note, how-
ever, that to evaluate all possible routing alter-
natives is a formidable task that even compu-
ter program models do not attempt.
The heuristic approach to routing is ex-
plained further in the report Heuristic Routing
for Solid Waste Collection Vehicles.2
-------
, Dept.of Public Works
4 10
KINGSTON
T° 10
LA SALLE
10 10
BORGMAN
10
TALBOTio
i i
HART 10
8
NADINEio
e
ELG IN 9
D'e
5
3
j
K
\
1 2
1 0
1 0
9
1 0
1 0
1 0
10
1 0
1 0
8
10
rs 1
8
12 ,,
LINCOLN
8
' \>o ? D
LA SALLE IN. 9
8
t; 8
I -— 8
I 9
5 J
1 ALBUI IN. _
L— — i n
3 ULJ
^""•"•"•""""^
'— T— .'- .
: j
; 8
: 5 9
/ 10 7
n
1
I
1
1
*
|
1
I
I
Figure 9. In the grid simplification technique, blocks with no services on common street seg-
ments are combined before routing.
21
-------
GARAGE
GARAGE
SAMPLE
PROBLEM
GRID
PATTERNS
IDENTIFIED
GARAGE
START <^_
FINISH
'
J
i
_
^
\
J
1
1
1
)
I
,
PATTERNS
CONNECTED
INTO CONTINUOUS
ROUTE
Figure 10. Example showing pattern method of routing. This solution has no dead distance
and two left turns.
22
-------
implementing changes
The foregoing analysis and tools are useless
unless they provide solutions which can be
implemented. People generally resist change,
even if it is beneficial. A good implementation
program must, therefore, be developed and
tactfully applied to reduce this natural resis-
tance.
Implementation must be considered
throughout the improvement process, and ap-
propriate authorities and groups fully informed
in a timely fashion. The groups involved in
the changes usually include citizens, the man-
agement team, collection crews, and city offi-
cials. Each group must be informed about
what is expected of it in the new system, and
each group should be included, where appro-
priate, in the development as well as the im-
plementation phase of improving the solid
waste collection system.
Citizens are directly affected by changes in
the point of collection, the frequency of col-
lection, the day and hour of collection, and
the type of storage device. In designing a new
system, it is usually a good idea to minimize
the number of citizens who will have to change
their day of collection. These citizens must
be notified of their new collection day and the
date the change will take place.
All citizens in the community—even those
whose collection day will not change-should
be informed that the solid waste collection
service is being altered. Residents often be-
come accustomed to collection at a specific
time of day and may set their waste out ac-
cordingly, or they relate their own time of
collection with that of their neighbors across
the street or around the corner, which may
have changed. Thus informing everyone
should minimize missed collections.
The most extensive education effort will
usually be directed toward the citizens, and
several media are available. One of the best
is a letter from the mayor or city manager
explaining the reasons for the changes and
how they may affect the citizens. Such a let-
ter emphasizes the endorsement by the city
management for the new system, and may
include a telephone number to call for further
information (Figure 11).
Another good way to notify the citizens is
through flyers (Figure 12). The letter and
flyers shown here are similar to those used in
Kansas City, Missouri, during their effective
implementation of a change in their system
that took effect in March 1971. Note that
the flyer is simple, yet it gives all pertinent in-
formation. The map helps residents concep-
tualize the collection area and acts as a check
to assure that the flyer was delivered in the
correct area. In Kansas City, the cards were
color-coded by day of the week; this helped
in answering phone inquiries from the citi-
zens, since the area being discussed could be
quickly identified.
Other methods that can effectively inform
the public include television and radio an-
nouncements, and articles and notices printed
in local newspapers. Even with an initial multi-
faceted information program, it requires time
and patience to gain complete citizen under-
standing and cooperation. Extra office person-
nel and telephone lines to receive complaints
and questions during the changeover may be
desirable. Finally, using savings as they accrue
from the new collection operations to post-
pone rate increases or decrease rates, upgrade
the cleanliness and appearance of the trucks,
replace unreliable trucks, provide uniforms for
the collectors, or improve the disposal situa-
tion certainly helps sustain good public accep-
tance.
The group which is ultimately responsible
for designing, implementing, and managing im-
proved collection systems is the solid waste
23
-------
Office of the Mayor
Julius C, Jones, Mayor
City of Anytown, USA
Heart of America
30th Floor, City Hall
Anytown, USA 64106
February 12, 1973
Councilman at Large
Joseph Hall
1st District
James Smith
. 2nd District
William Glenn
3rd District
Thomas Rose
4th District
Mark Jones
5th District
Paul Hogan
6th District
District Councilmen
Robert Phillips
1st District
Charles Connolly
2nd District
Alan Michaels
3rd District
Peter Bobbins
4th District
William White
5th District
Jamas Myers
6th District
Dear Citizen:
.On Monday, March 5, 1973, we will introduce a new City-wide refuse collection system designed to
decrease the City refuse budget while still providing the same level of service to you, the citizens, '
This savings is made possible through the thorough evaluation of our refuse collection system using.
the latest of management tools and implementing improved collection techniques.
The collection service will continue to be once-a-week curbside collection... We have, however,
revised the City ordinance to permit the use of plastic sacks, whish we encourage you to use. En-
closed is a brochure explaining the advantages to you and to the City through the use of plastic
sacks, and some helpful hints on bag usage and refuse storage.
The only change affecting the citizens directly is a change for softie in their day of collection. We
have tried to minimize the number of citizens that must change ttieir day of collection. This new
collection system means, however, that in most instances the tjrnejof-day fte-Jh'a Collectors collect
from each residence will change. The enclosed map shows the day of cottietion for each area. Please
note when your new day of collection will be starting March 5.
Please help our sanitation men provide service to you during this change-over by having your waste
put out by 7:00 a.m., the time they start to collect.
If you have any questions or suggestions, please<#H 6&4-4311.
Thank you for your cooperation in this effort.
Sincerely,
Julius C. Jones
Figure 11. Sample letter from a mayor to citizens notifying them of a change in the collec-
tion system.
24
-------
Important Notice
Beginning March 5, 1973
Your New Refuse Collection Day will be
tuesday
There will be no collection on
the following holidays:
May 28, 1973
September 3, 1973
October 8, 1973
October 22, 1973
December 25, 1973
February 18, 1974
If a holiday is observed on Monday or
Tuesday, your collection day for that
week will be WEDNESDAY.
For information call 254-7417
39th
38th
63rd St.
Public Works Department
Refuse Division
Anytown, U.S.A.
Important Notice
Beginning March 5, 1973
Your New Refuse Collection Day will be
Wednesday
There will be no collection on
fhe following holidays:
May 28, 1973
July 4, 1973
September 3, 1973
October 8, 1973
October 22, 1973
December 25, 1973
February 18, 1974
If a holiday is observed on Monday,
Tuesday, or Wednesday, your collection
day for that week will be THURSDAY.
For information call 254-7417
63rd St.
Public Works Department
Refuse Division
Anytown, U.S.A.
Figure 12. Flyers are an effective medium for informing citizens of changes in the collection
system.
25
-------
management team, from the system manager
down to the route foreman. Their participa-
tion in the new system design, particularly
route design, serves several purposes. First,
members of the solid waste management team
are generally the people who, besides the col-
lectors themselves, are most familiar with the
service areas and are thus best qualified to de-
sign the new system and routes. Second, their
participation is apt to make them feel that the
new system is their system, and thus they will
be more likely to support it. And third, man-
agement, including supervisors and foremen,
must be familiar with the new routings and
other changes for supervisory, planning, and
control purposes.
The solid waste collectors and drivers must
be informed of all proposed changes in the col-
lection system. They are the backbone of the
system and need to be positively motivated
and rewarded. They should be encouraged to
comment on the effect of the changes on their
daily operations. Their criticisms or sugges-
tions for further improvement are essential to
the final evaluation by the management staff;
the collectors and drivers are frequently in the
best position to explain route peculiarities and
to help with route designs. In addition to
being a potential source of pertinent input,
the workers' participation in reviewing the de-
cisions may be a positive influence in that it
helps them feel a part of the new system.
To orient drivers to the new routings, each
should be given a personal notebook contain-
ing a map of each daily route, which he may
review and use during collection. The super-
visor should retain a file copy of the route
notebook.
Increased efficiency, almost by definition,
means that fewer collectors will be required.
It also means that more services will be col-
lected per hour. These two factors, plus an
understanding of the local labor relations
situation, must be considered in determining
when to notify collectors of a proposed change
in their system, in presenting the change posi-
tively, and in deciding whether the collectors
will assist in rerouting. Often, however, in-
creased productivity can be achieved with a
reduced labor force and, at the same time, a
reduced workload for the remaining collectors.
Also, increases in efficiency usually mean
easier work for the employees—less walking
and less lifting, as well as shorter hours.
If possible, reductions in manpower should
be achieved not by firing employees, but by
attrition, by transferring workers to street
maintenance, parks, street cleaning, or other
departments, or by starting a separate collec-
tion program for recyclable materials.
Several mechanisms can elicit cooperation
from the collection personnel and ameliorate
employee morale during and after implemen-
tation. Unless wages are already rather high,
an increase may be considered in light of the
increase in productivity (increased services per
hour) and cost savings. Or the increased pro-
ductivity may be rewarded by a new incentive
system, e.g., the task system instead of a
straight 8-hour day. Or, as done recently in
Detroit, a plan may be started whereby the
employees share in part of the savings accrued,
in the form of cash bonuses.
Here is an example of how one community
approached a reduction in crew size. The sani-
tation department decided to go from three-
to two-man crews, and to predominantly curb-
side pickup. Implementation was carefully
planned. First, the reduction was voluntary
for each crew. Second, the whole labor force
was not addressed at once, but implementation
was done gradually, one district at a time.
Each district saw a film showing backyard
tote-barrel collection, collection from both
sides of the street with three men, and
collection from one side of the street with
two men. Accompanying this film was a
taped dialogue explaining how much easier
the city had made it for the laborers in
going from a backyard to a curbside system
(there were no more tote barrels, fewer back
injuries, less walking) and showing how three-
man crews do so much more walking, waiting,
and carrying of waste than do two-man crews.
Third, they discussed with the crews how
much additional time the crews thought it
26
-------
would take for a two-man crew to collect the
same routes the three-man crews were current-
ly collecting; invariably, the crews felt it could
be done in an 8-hour day. And fourth, for
those crews who voluntarily elected the more
efficient two-man crew size, the city would do
three things: (1) share some of the resultant
cost savings with the laborers, through in-
creased wages, (2) promise not to fire anyone,
(3) help these crews reduce their on-route
times by designing new routes for the two-man
crews. The new routes involved collecting one
side of the street at a time and minimizing dead
travel distance and left turns by applying the
heuristic routing technique. When the crew
members asked how the heuristic routing tech-
niques would help them, the superintendent
put up a three-block pattern as a simple ex-
ample and asked one of the crew members
how he would collect it. After the crew mem-
ber attempted a solution, the superintendent
showed the heuristic routing pattern, which
eliminated dead distance. The heuristic solu-
tion was typically 20 to 50 percent as long as
the route designed by the crew member.
Eighty-five percent of the crews elected the
two-man crew initially. Most of the remaining
reluctant crews soon wanted to join the "now"
crew size for better pay, especially when the
converted crews were finishing in almost the
same amount of time. The next change was
to one-man crews using right-hand side loaders.
This was facilitated because the collector on a
two-man crew must load almost twice as much
as a loader on a one-man crew to be cost com-
petitive. Also, one-man crews are typically
paid more, carry greater responsibility, and
command more respect.
City officials must be apprised of proposed
changes, for several reasons: First, most of
the organizational and service level policy
changes (which significantly affect the citi-
zenry) usually must be approved by the city
officials or council. Second, the budget for
the system, including capital outlays for new
equipment, usually must be approved by the
council. Third, city officials, persuaded of
these changes, are often important allies during
the transition. And fourth, city officials
should be able to explain the changes to citi-
zens who inquire about them.
Many city councils have voted against chan-
ges in solid waste collection for fear of citizen
resistance, and many city officials have avoided
making such proposals for fear of rejection by
the councils. In 1974, one such council op-
posed a change to combined collection of food
waste and other rubbish because they felt this
would offend the citizens. Previously, the gar-
bage had been collected separately and used
by a hog farmer, but at the time the change
was proposed, it was going to the landfill with
the other wastes. Rather than let such a pro-
posal die, its proponents could use a carefully
prepared presentation of the advantages to get
it adopted. Some of the advantages of com-
bined collection are: (1) substantially lower
cost, (2) fewer collection vehicles putting wear
on the streets, presenting traffic hazards and
delays, or making noise, (3) less fuel consump-
tion, (4) easier handling at the landfill.
Councils also tend to resist going from back-
yard to curbside collection because they expect
citizens to reject the aesthetic effect of tem-
porarily storing waste at curbside. Yet com-
munities that have been forced to change to
curbside collection because of insufficient
labor (resulting in missed collections) or insuf-
ficient funds (when citizens wanted the ser-
vice but didn't want to pay for it) were sur-
prised to find that the majority of citizens
actually preferred curbside collection. Some
of the arguments in favor of curbside collec-
tion are: (1) substantially lower cost (38 to
64 percent less than backyard collection),
(2) fewer labor problems, such as turnover
and absenteeism, (3) fewer injuries, particu-
larly backstrains, but also dog bites and falls,
(4) less fuel consumption, (5) fewer citizen
complaints about such problems as gates left
open, shrubs and flowers trampled, waste
spilled, noise, missed collections, or collec-
tion of items not meant to be taken, and (6)
less intrusion of privacy. Many communities,
such as St. Petersburg, Florida, and Fort
Worth, Texas, have been able to convert to
27
-------
curbside service by permitting those who really
want backyard service and are willing to pay
for it to opt for that level of service and the
higher fee that goes with it. In both of these
communities, only about 10 percent chose
backyard service.
Another way to overcome the aesthetics
problem and to make it easier for residents to
carry waste to the curbside is to use large plas-
tic cans (80 to 300 gallons) on wheels or in the
alleys, or else paper or plastic sacks. Another
consideration with curbside service is the aged
and handicapped, who are typically allowed to
apply for and receive backyard service, fre-
quently at no additional charge.
One community designed a new collection
system in 1974 for separate collection of news-
papers. This design included new routes, a
public relations information program, and the
modification of a collection vehicle. But when
presented to the decision-making authority
(city council) for approval, it was voted down,
primarily because of concern for public organ-
izations (e.g., boy scouts) that periodically
collect newspapers. If the council had been
approached earlier, they might have approved
the new system, or else much of the expense
of planning could have been avoided.
There are about 75 communities which have
converted to using paper or plastic sacks. In
almost every one of these communities there
seemed to be strong citizen resistance to such
a conversion, but after the change was imple-
mented followup surveys showed there was
strong support for* the sack systems. In fact,
because of apparent citizen resistance, one
community decided to quit using sacks, and
found resistance to this even greater,,so stayed
with the sack system. In only a couple of cases
was the sack system abandoned. Again, a
tactful public education program is required.
Plastic and paper sacks improve sanitation,
hold in odors, do not cause problems in incin-
erators or sanitary landfills, improve collection
efficiency, and decrease collection costs (since
they are one-way collection items). Further-
more, after the crews collect the waste there
are no cans to get windblown or stay on the
curb until the homeowner recovers them, and
they don't present any more of a problem be-
cause of animals than cans do.
28
-------
The five- stage improvement process has been
successfully applied by OSWMP in its major
technical assistance projects. This section
summarizes the results in some communities
where the improvement process has been ap-
plied to improve service and/or decrease costs.
rouge, michigan
(18,000 population)
This was the first community in which OSWMP
applied the five-stage improvement process.
The improved collection system went into ef-
fect during the summer of 1971. Even though
the original design of the new system (two
two-man crews) was modified in a compro-
mise with the labor union (to two three-man
crews), the new system provided substantial
savings in manpower and reduced injury ex-
pense. These savings resulted primarily from
replacing the city-provided 55-gallon drums
with plastic sacks and improving the scheduling
and routings.
In the new system, collection is twice a
week. Frequency of collection was erratic in
the old system; it was supposed to be twice a
week but was often more frequent and some-
times less.
With both systems, collections were made
from alleys, an extra three-man crew was
utilized for commercial collection, bulky items
were collected by a private hauler contracted
by the city, and there was a 30-minute round-
trip haul and dump time.
savings achieved
Taking into account the cost of plastic sacks,
the residential collection cost was cut from
$202,562 to $85,551, a savings of 58 percent.
The subsequent savings will be even greater as
labor, equipment, and operating costs increase
since there are now fewer men and fewer
trucks in the system. In contrast, a neigh-
boring community of similar size still used
55-gallon drums in 1973 and required nine
three-man crews.
The separate bulk-waste pickup (by the
private contractor) and the commercial col-
lection systems were not evaluated.
The city manager applied the five-stage im-
provement process and implemented three
system changes in 1970 and 1971 as sum-
marized below. He received technical assis-
tance from the Southeast Oakland County
Incinerator Authority, Michigan, and, for the
second and third changes, from OSWMP.
Year Change
1970 Two three-man crews* reduced to two two-man crews, primarily by
changing from collecting two sides of the street to one side at a time,
and by better scheduling (six men reduced to four).
1971 In August, one of the two-man crews was replaced by a one-man
crew and vehicle (four men reduced to three).
1971 In October, route balancing, districting, and heuristic routing were
implemented so that the one-man crew could collect the whole city
in a week (three men reduced to one).
*Crew size includes driver as well as collectors.
When the final system was implemented,
the city instituted a separate newspaper col-
lection program. All other variables remained
essentially the same. The Huntington Woods
system is currently one of the most productive
and least costly systems in the United States
(Table 1).
29
-------
TABLE 1
PRODUCTIVITY OF THE NEW SYSTEM, CITY OF HUNTINGTON WOODS, MICHIGAN
June 1972 to May 1973
Averages
Ranges
Number of services per day
(5 days/ week)*
Number of tons per day*
On- route collection minutes per home per day
Length of workday (hours)
Collection cost per tonf
Collection cost per home per weekt
499
12.8
.62
7.1
$ 5.77
$ .16
492-517
.47- .80
$4.75-$10
$ .13-$
.07
.19
*Due to the separate collection of newspapers and the leaf collection by street
sweeper, the average Ib/home/week and daily tonnage collected by the one-man
crew is 17 percent less than the 1971 average.
tThese cost figures include equipment operating costs (gas, oil, tires), maintenance
and repair (labor and parts), depreciation (5-year life, straight-line), and direct labor
wages and fringe benefits, including 20 percent of the spare collector's cost. They
do not include the cost of supervision, overhead, spare vehicle, or newspaper
collection program.
The system provides 2,947 residences (al-
most all single-family, detached) with once-
3-vitfek, curbside collection service. An esti-
mated 60 to 70 percent of the storage devices
being used are plastic sacks (80 percent of the
residences use at least some plastic sacks). The
round-trip haul and disposal time per load is
45 minutes. The on-route distance per day
averages 11.4 miles. The average waste amount
during June 1972 to May 1973 was 51.3
pounds per home per week (not including the
recycled newspaper).
savings achieved
When the actual 1972 cost is compared with
what it would have cost in 1972 if the previ-
ous system had remained in effect, the total
decrease in collection cost is $62,000 (Table
2). This represents a reduction of 65 percent
over the pre-1970 system. The 1972 costs can
be apportioned as follows:
Direct collection cost per home:
$.16/week, $.69/month, $8.32/year
30
-------
TABLE 2
SAVINGS IN COLLECTION COSTS, CITY OF HUNTINGTON WOODS, MICHIGAN
1972 system
Pre-1970 system
No. of
collectors
1
6
No. of
crews
1
2
1972 Collection costs
Labor*
$23,700
79,700
Equipment!
$ 9,000
15,000
Totals $
$32,700
94,700
*Includes extra labor (substitute crew) and allocated share of supervisory and adminis-
trative personnel; direct labor is $4.77/hour (wages and fringe benefits).
tlncludes operating, repair and maintenance, and depreciation expense (5-year life,
straight-line); does not include depreciation cost of spare vehicle, which is currently
used for newspaper collection.
tIncludes labor overhead but excludes building overhead; does not include disposal
costs.
Total collection cost per home:
$.25/week, $1.09/month, $13.10/year
Direct cost includes all equipment and collec-
tion labor cost, including spare labor cost.
Total cost includes all overhead except build-
ing. In addition, since the city collects news-
papers separately, it receives $20 to $25 per
ton for the newspapers and saves a disposal
charge of $7.25 per ton.
Portland, maine
(64,000 population)
In 1972, OSWMP assisted the city's public
works director in applying the five-stage im-
provement process. Using collection routing
design techniques, the new system achieved
projected cost savings while substantially in-
creasing the level of service it provided its resi-
dents.
Previously, garbage was collected once a
week by a private contractor, and nongarbage
wastes were collected every other week by
five three-man city crews. Municipal collection
was not available to about a third of the apart-
ment units. Under the new system, city
crews collect the combined wastes once a
week, and municipal service is available to
all residential units. The number of city
crews (three-man) was increased from five
to seven.
savings achieved
A projected annual savings of $30,000, in-
cluding the savings from the garbage collection
contract, will be achieved, despite the higher
level of service.
31
-------
akron, ohio
(272,000 population)
OSWMP assisted Akron's department of pub-
lic service in applying the five-stage improve-
ment process to design a new system. It was
implemented on August 6, 1973, with very
few problems and has afforded substantial
savings to the citizens. The major changes in
the system were:
Under the previous system, there was back-
yard collection of garbage only, once every
7 working days by the city crews. The re-
maining refuse was collected by a private
hauler contracted by individual homeowners.
Under the new system, there is curbside col-
lection of combined wastes once a week. Four-
fifths of the city is collected by the same city
forces that existed before the change. One-
fifth of the city is collected by a private haul-
er contracted by the city.
The old city policy of separate collection
caused duplication of effort by city and pri-
vate forces. The new system increased the
frequency of garbage collection.
savings achieved
Preliminary estimates show a total savings to
citizens of Akron of $2.2 million per year, or
$30 per residence per year.
the southeast Oakland
county incinerator authority
michigan (SOCIA),
(360,000 population,
14 communities)
The authority, with the assistance of OSWMP,
applied the five-stage improvement process to
help the member communities achieve a reduc-
tion of approximately 22 percent in direct col-
lection costs authority-wide, with a projected
11-percent additional savings potential when
all communities implement improved systems.
These savings were achieved without a change
in level of service (once-a-week, curbside,
authority-wide). They resulted from better
routings, more efficient crew sizes and equip-
ment, better scheduling, more efficient collec-
tion methods, and the competitiveness devel-
oped among crews and systems. With increas-
ing labor rates, the savings are becoming even
greater. SOCIA is discussed further in the
Appendix.
Other communities OSWMP has assisted in
improving their systems using the five-stage
improvement process include Albany, New
York; St. Petersburg, Florida; Reston, Vir-
ginia; Falls Church, Virginia; and Coventry,
Rhode Island. Communities which have used
a similar method to evaluate their collection
systems and achieved substantial savings in-
clude Inglewood, Santa Clara, Covina, and San
Fernando, California; Salt Lake County, Utah;
Fort Worth, Texas; and Kansas City, Missouri.
inglewood, California
(95,000 population)
Through carefully planned implementation
programs, good public relations work, and
sound personnel management, as well as ap-
plication of one of the best technological sys-
tems (one-man vehicle and plastic sacks),
Inglewood has developed one of the most effi-
cient and responsive collection systems in the
United States today. The city reduced its
costs substantially between 1960 and 1970,
while handling a waste load that increased by
• 54.7 percent during the same period (Table 3).
Even with 60 percent inflation between 1960
and 1970, the city still reduced its labor costs
per ton by 30.1 percent.
fort worth, texas
(393,000 population)
Recognizing the high cost of backyard collec-
tion service and the difficulty of alley collec-
tion (there were many unpaved alleys) this
32
-------
TABLE 3
COLLECTION SYSTEMS IN 1960 AND 1971, INGLEWOOD, CALIFORNIA
Jan. 1, 1960
Jan. 1, 1971
Percent Increase
or decrease
Population
Dwelling units
Annual tons of refuse
Number of trucks in fleet
Total truck loads
Annual man-hours
Man-hours per ton
66,598
25,330
24,265
29
5,855
52,167
2.19
95,000
33,031
37,531
16
4,335
36,534
.97
+42.6
+50.1
+54.7
»44.8
-26.0
-30.0
-55.7
city converted to a predominantly plastic
sack, curbside collection system and esta-
blished, in January 1970, a user charge to re-
flect the actual cost of collection. These
charges were $3.50 per month for backyard
service and $2.00 per month for curbside ser-
vice, which increased in January 1972 to
$5.00 per month and $2 50 per month respec-
tively.
savings achieved
Productivity increased from 2.0 to 4.1 tons
per man per day from 1969/70 to 1970/71,
and cost decreased from $17.25 per ton to an
estimated $14.73 per ton. This represents a
14.6 percent cost reduction despite incentive
pay of $.10 for each ctew member for each
backyard pickup.
33
-------
collection management information
system (colmis) for residential
solid waste collection
objective of COLMIS
The basis of effective management and deci-
sion-making is the availability of reliable infor-
mation on the system being managed. Lack of
information can lead to loss of control, and
good information can serve as the basis for
improvements and cost savings.
Solid waste management requires definitive
information on the operational aspects of col-
lection and the costs involved in providing
this service.
A good way to obtain the required in-
formation is through the use of a compu-
terized reporting system. One such system is
COLMIS, Collection Management Information
System, available from EPA at no charge.
Through COLMIS it is possible to collect,
store, and process large quantities of produc-
tivity and cost data and to generate reports
with different levels of detail for the various
levels of management.
While serving as a creditable record of opera-
tional and cost information, these reports are a
valuable planning tool. Information from these
reports can be used to evaluate the present
system and to design new systems. They pro-
vide the specific data needed for macro-
routing (stage 2), determining a fair day's work
for each crew for route balancing (stage 3),
estimating truck and crew requirements for
the entire system, and projecting trends in the
system (particularly costs and amounts of
waste). They can also aid in determining the
useful life for equipment and thus help in
planning a capital replacement program.
COLMIS and its utilization are explained
further in the publication A User's Manual for
COLMIS, A Collection Management Informa-
tion System for SoL'd Waste Management.3-4
Volume I of this report is a description of
COLMIS utilization and Volume II lists the
computer program and gives additional instal-
lation details.
some questions
the COLMIS reports
help answer
1. What are the actual collection costs per
home and per ton?
2. How much waste is collected per home
per week? How does this vary seasonally?
3. Which are the most productive and least
productive crews?
4. Which crew size is most economical?
5. Are the collection routes reasonably
balanced?
6. What are the high-cost items?
7. How many residences are serviced per
crew per collection hour?
8. How effectively are the equipment capa-
cities being utilized? What are their den-
sity capabilities?
9. What are equipment operating costs?
When should equipment be replaced?
10. How many services constitute a load for
different generation rates?
11. How are productivity and costs affected
by different collection frequencies, equip-
ment types, storage devices, and other
methodologies?
34
-------
cost effectiveness
of COLMIS
Effective use of this type of analysis can lead
to significant results. Fourteen of the 35 com-
munities in which the COLMIS program has
been installed are in the same regional author-
ity in Michigan, the Southeast Oakland Coun-
ty Incinerator Authority, which serves a popu-
lation of 360,000. Management information
from COLMIS and assistance from the author-
ity and EPA in routing and evaluating crew
sizes, equipment types, and collection metho-
dologies enabled these communities to main-
tain the same level of service (once-a-week,
curbside) while cutting direct annual collec-
tion costs by 16.7 percent within a 6-month
period, and 18.5 percent in the first year. In
the first year and a half, approximately 22
percent was saved, with a potential of ano-
ther 11 percent if all the communities and
routes are converted to the most efficient sys-
tems that have been identified. Part of this
savings was due to the competitive situation
created among the crews and managers because
the performance of each crew and system
was documented by COLMIS. Five of the
systems are run by private contractors, who
are becoming a part of this competitive situa-
tion between communities to improve their
efficiency, as evidenced by the fact that all
new contracts are either below or at the same
cost as the previous 3-year contracts.
The cost effectiveness of COLMIS can be
seen by comparing its cost to the savings
achieved. The total computer cost for proces-
sing the data, including keypunching, is
$5,200 per year, or an investment of 1.4 cents
per person per year; the resultant savings
amounted to 81 cents per person for the
first year—certainly a worthwhile investment.
input information
required
COLMIS requires two types of input infor-
mation: background and daily. The back-
ground information is stored in the computer
and can be changed when necessary. It in-
cludes:
District information: number of routes,
normal workday (hours), overtime factor,
lunch time, and collection frequency.
Route information: route number, wages
of drivers and collectors, average number of
persons per home, number of collection days
per week, and collection days.
Vehicle information: vehicle number, vehi-
cle type (e.g., rear, side, or front loader), vehi-
cle size (cubic yards), fuel cost per gallon, oil
cost per quart, maintenance cost per day,
depreciation cost per day, and tare weight.
The daily information is recorded each
operating day by the packer-truck driver on a
simple Daily Collection Route report form
(Figure 13). This daily information is key-
punched directly off this form for computer
input.
output
information
There are six types of COLMIS output reports:
The Editing Report shows the completeness
of data supplied and provides a gross check on
the correctness of data input.
The Route Information Report shows how
the crew spends its time on the route and the
work performed: motor pool to route (time
and miles per day), collection operation (time
and miles per day), transport operation (time
and miles per day), total time to route, collect
35
-------
ROUTE DA
VEHICLE NO.
NO. HOMES SERVED
LEAVE MOTOR POOL
START COLLECTION
LEAVE ROUTE
AT DISCHARGE POINT
ARRIVE BACK ON ROUT
LEAVE ROUTE
AT DISCHARGE PtHNT
ARRIVE BACK ON R0UT
LEAVE ROUTE
AT DISCHARGE POINT
ARRIVE BACK ON ROUT
LEAVE ROUTE
AT DISCHARGE POINT
ARRIVE BACK ON ROUT
LEAVE ROUTE
AT DISCHARGE POINT
ARRIVE AT MOTOR POO
LUNCH - START
- FINISH
BREAKDOWN - START
- FINISH
VEHICLE REPLACED
' ENTER NUMBER
1 * INCINERATOR
2 = LANDFILL
3 -TRANSFER STATION
ANY CITY, U.S.A.
DAILY COLLECTION ROUTE INFORMATION
'E DAY CREW SIZE
FUEL (GAL)
ENG. OIL(QT)
TIME
MILES
WEIGHT
DISCHARGE
POINT *
BREAKDOWN - PROBLEM
(Circle Number)
1 Brakes, wheels, tires
2 Cooling or exhaust sys
3 Electrical sys
4 Fuel sys
5 Packer
6 Power or steering sys
7 Other
REMARKS.
DATA VE-PJFIF.OBY;
Figure 13. The drivers record information on this Daily Collection Route report form. Infor-
mation is then keypunched directly off this form for computer input.
36
-------
and transport (hours), downtime (hours), lunch
time (hours), weight per day (pounds and
tons).
The Collection Information Report gives
crew productivity ratios on weight and time
basis: homes served per collection day; weight
per collection day (pounds); persons served
per collection day, generation rate per person
per day (pounds); collection time per home
(minutes); collection time per 100 pounds
(minutes); collection time as percent of total
time worked; total time worked as percent of
standard time; loads per day to incinerator,
landfill, or transfer station; weight per cubic
yard of first load (pounds).
The Collection Cost Information Report
gives average daily cost figures for the collec-
tion and transport functions in dollars: cost
from motor pool to route, cost of collection
operation, cost of transport operation, equip-
ment costs per day, manpower cost per day,
total costs per day, costs of manpower during
equipment down periods, incentive costs, over-
time costs, cost per ton, and weekly and year-
ly costs per home.
The Collection System Operation Summary
summarizes key information already given in
the route, collection, and cost reports.
The Management Analysis Report compara-
tively rates the performance of crews or organ-
izational units on ten performance indicators,
such as weight collected and homes served.
For each of these reports, different levels of
reports for different managerial levels may be
produced based on the amount of data clus-
tered into the figures in the reports. The clus-
tering is of two types; data is combined for
different time periods (weekly or monthly)
and for different sets of crews. These reports
are:
1. Weekly Report: one set showing the
day-by-day performance of each crew is used
by the immediate supervisors of the crews.
Reports for middle management give only a
summary of weekly activities for each crew.
Higher management level reports combine
crews into districts, etc. The management
analysis report is useful to all levels of man-
agement.
2. Monthly Report: summarizes on a
monthly basis the information supplied by the
weekly reports.
All of the reports, except the editing report,
give year-to-date figures for ready comparisons
with the current period.
37
-------
Shuster, Kenneth A. A Five-Stage Improvement Process for Solid
Waste Collection Systems, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1974.
This report describes a five-stage improvement process for solid
waste collection systems that can increase productivity and reduce
costs of solid waste collection. The process was developed by EPA
and has been used quite extensively and successfully to critically
evaluate and redesign local collection systems. It is based in large part
on information developed by EPA on productivity and cost which
can be used to predict the effects of various courses of action. More
detailed reports on specific stages and tools are available from EPA.
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Decision-makers
guide in solid waste management. Environmental Protection
Publication SW-127 Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1974. 157 p.
Shuster, K. A., and D. A. Schur. Heuristic routing for solid
waste collection vehicles. Environmental Protection Publication
SW-113. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974.
45 p.
User's manual for COLMIS: a collection management informa-
tion system for solid waste management, v. 1. Environmental
Protection Publication SW-57c. Washington, U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, 1974. 99 p.
User's manual for COLMIS: a collection management informa-
tion system for solid waste management, v. 2. Environmental
Protection Publication SW-58c. Washington, U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, 1974. 49 p., app.
All of the above reports are available from EPA upon request
to the Solid Waste Information Control Section, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268.
1.
2.
3.
4.
38
•>.-, US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1975- 532-417/197
------- |