EPA/530/SW
MARCH
so\id^aste
-------
RESIDENTIAL COLLECTION SYSTEMS
VOLUME I
REPORT SUMMARY
This final report (SW-97o.l) describes work performed
for the Federal solid waste management programs under contract No. 68-03-0097
to ACT SYSTEMS, INC.
and is reproduced as received from the contractor
U,S, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1971
-------
Publication of this report by EPA does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of EPA, nor does mention
of commercial'products constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use by the U.S. Government.
-------
FOREWORD
In the spring of 1972, the Office of Solid Waste Management
Programs engaged ACT Systems, Incorporated to conduct an extensive
evaluation of 11 specifically defined residential collection
systems. At that time, there was a dearth of good information on
residential collection system productivity and costs and how
various system parameters affect these items. The results of this
study effort would enable the evaluation of residential collection
systems and the design of more efficient and improved systems,
nationwide.
The 11 systems were defined to determine, insofar as possible,
the significance of specific system parameters on productivity,
efficiency, and costs for residential collection. These parameters
included point of collection, frequency of collection, crew size,
equipment type, collection methodology, incentive system, and
type of storage container. The impact of the amount of waste
generated was also examined. The systems selected were designed
to obtain as much interrelated information as possible from a
relatively small study sample.
Four crews in each of the 11 systems were studied for a period
of one year. The data gathering efforts included four quarterly
time and motion studies for the curb and alley systems, four
quarterly surveys for the backyard systems and daily operational
information gathered each working day for each system. The daily
information for each system was processed by a specially designed
computerized Data Acquisition and Analysis Program (DAAP). The
data was gathered between August 1972 and January 1974.
It is hoped that the information contained in this report will
make a significant contribution to the understanding of residential
collection system operations and to the improvement of collection
system productivity. The EPA project officers on this contract
were Dennis A. Schur, Donna Krabbe, and Kenneth A. Shuster.
--Arsen J. Darnay
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste Management
-------
PREFACE
Volume I of this report contains an overall summary
of each of the systems studied and the significant
performance factors that resulted from the study. A
summary of the major conclusions that resulted from
the study efforts is provided.
Volume II of this report contains the details of
the study effort and the analysis of data, and is
being published by EPA through the National Technical
Information Service. The basic data that were used
in making the analysis are included in this volume.
Volume III of this report is not being published,
although some copies are on file in OSWMP headquarters
in Washington, D. C., and contains the broad background
information and data that was generated by the study
effort.
A brief article on this study by the project
officer, Kenneth A. Shuster, has been accepted for
publication by the Solid Wastes Management/Refuse
RemovaI JournaI.
iv
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This study effort would not have been possible without the
willing cooperation and assistance from all the agencies and
individuals that were associated with the program. In the conduct
of the studies special recognition is due to the following individ-
uals. Each of these individuals was keenly interested in the work
being done and provided every possible assistance to facilitate
the data gathering efforts.
Mr. E. Venn Bringhurst, Superintendent of Sanitation,
Salt Lake County Highway Department, Utah
Mr. Earl Elton, Director of Public Works, Covina,
CaI i forni a
Mr. William McSpadden, Director, Sanitation Department,
Phoenix, Arizona
Mr. David Opsahl, General Manager, Browning Ferris Industries
of Rockford, Rockford, Illinois
Mr. G.F. Greenwood, Technical Assistant to the Director
Of Public Works, Flint, Michigan
Mr. Francis Soike, Assistant Director, Sanitation Division,
Operations Department, Tucson, Arizona
Mr. Joseph Maher, Chief of Sanitation, Warwick, Rhode Island
Mr. Terry Danuser, Superintendent, Streets Divsion, Oak
Park, Illinois
Mr. Clarence Patterson, Superintendent, Solid Waste Division,
Metropolitan Dade County, Florida
Mr. Robert Lawrence, Refuse Supervisor, San Leandro, California
Mr. Fred Larson, Commissioner of Public Works, Racine,
Wi scons in.
-------
CONTENTS
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
Conclusions Regarding Equipment 1
Crew Size 2
Frequency of Collection 3
Storage Point Locations 3
Incentive Systems 3
Storage Containers 4
Productivity and Efficiency 4
System Costs 5
Use of the Study Information 6
Ranking of Factors which Affect Productivity and Cost 6
Eff i c i ency
SECTION I
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Definition of the 11 Collection Systems 8
Definition of a Solid Waste Collection Route 8
General Method of Evaluating Solid Waste Collection Systems 10
Brief System Descriptions
System 1, Salt Lake County, Utah 10
System 2, Covina, California 12
System 3, Phoenix, Arizona 12
System 4, Rockford, Illinois 13
System 5, Flint, Michigan 13
System 6, Tucson, Arizona 14
System 7, Warwick, Rhode Island 15
System 8, Oak Park, Illinois 15
System 9, Metropolitan Dade County, 15
F I or i da
System 10, San Leandro, California 16
System 11, Racine, Wisconsin 16
How Representative are the Systems Chosen 17
SECTION I I
ANALYSIS OF STUDY DATA
Selected I terns from the DAAP and Time Motion Reports 19
Collection System Productivity and Cost Efficiency 19
Presentation qf System Productivity and Efficiency Measures 23
Detailed Analysis of Systems Under Study 25
Performance Analysis by Type of Equipment 33
Performance Analysis by Crew Size 39
Performance Analysis by Frequency of Collection 47
Performance Analysis by Storage Point 49
Collection Methodology 50
Performance Analysis by Incentive System 52
Performance Analysis by Storage Container 58
Performance Analysis by Productivity and Efficiency 61
Cost Analysis of Systems Performance 65
vi
-------
SECTION I I I
EVALUATION AND PREDICTION PROCEDURES
Use of System Study Data 75
Analysis by Type of Equipment 75
Crew Size 76
Frequency of Collection 77
Storage Point f 78
Incentive System 78
Type of Storage Container 79
Productivity and Efficiency Measures 79
Use of Regression Analysis Productivity Equations 80
Collection Minutes per Service 82
Services per Collection Hour 83
Tons per Collection Hour 83
SECTION IV
SUMMARY
Append i ces
1 DAAP Standard Data 87
2 Summary DAAP Report 89
3 Selected Data - Yearly Averages by System 104
4 Generation Rate in Pounds per Home per Week by 105
System
5 Collection Rate in Tons per Crew per Day by 106
System
-------
TABLES
1 Definition .of Collection Systems Studied 9
2 Systems Productivity and Efficiency Measures 24
3 Productivity and Efficiency Indices 26
4 Equipment Performance Data 35
5 Crew Performance Data (Curb and Alley Systems) 40
6 Crew Productive Time (Curb and Alley Systems) 41
7 Marginal Productivity (Curb and Alley Systems) 42
8 Ranges of Crew and Crewman Productivity (Curb and Alley 44
Systems)
9 Frequency of Collection Data 48
10 Storage Point Data 51
11 Incentive System Performance Data - Comparisons by 54
Incentive Systems
12 Incentive System Performance Data - Comparisons by 55
Productivity Measures
13 Storage Container Data 59
14 Ranking of Systems by Productivity 63
15 Ranking of Systems by Collection Efficiency 64
16 System Cost Data - Comparisons by Crew Size 66
17 The Effect of Labor Costs on Collection Cost per Ton 70
18 The Effect of Labor Costs on Collection Cost per Home 71
per Week
19 The Effect of Capital Costs on Collection Related Costs 72
FIGURES
1 Side Loading Collection Vehicle 11
2 A Typical Rear Loader 11
3 Side Loading Collection Vehicle with Detachable 11
Eight Cubic Yard Container
4 Homes Served per Crew per Collection Hour 27
5 Homes Served per Crewman per Collection Hour 28
6 Weight Handled per Crew per Collection Hour 29
7 Weight Handled per Crewman per Collection Hour 30
8 Collection Cost per Home Served per Week ' 31
9 Collection Cost per Ton Collected 32
10 Average Weight per Load (First Load and Others) 36
11 Procedure for Determining Local Total Performance 68
Costs per Day
12 Procedure for Determining Local Performance Costs 69
for Comparison with System Studies Cost
vi i i
-------
RESIDENTIAL COLLECTION SYSTEMS
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
This study effort was designed to determine productivity and
efficiency measures for 11 specifically defined systems. The
systems were defined in terms of type of equipment, crew size,
frequency of collection, point of collection, collection method-
ology, and incentive system. Bags and cans were prescribed as the
storage containers for all systems. The analysis was made in terms
of these factors and is contained in Volume II of this report. In
addition, an analysis was made of the productivity, efficiency,
and collection costs of these systems. For the purposes of this
report, production is defined as the total output of the collection
effort in terms of homes served per day, and total weight collected.
Productivity is the production or output of an organizational
element related to the resources used to obtain that production.
Cost efficiency is productivity related to the costs associated
with obtaining the productivity. The following is a summary of the
conclusions that resulted from this study effort.
Conclusions Regarding Equipment
There was a strong tendency to underutiIize the equipment from
a compaction standpoint. Only one system out of eleven was routinely
achieving a reasonable minimum "full" load weight for the equipment
being used. The majority of the systems were underutiIizing the
equipment in terms of the weight achieved for "full" loads.
Only two systems out of eleven averaged only one load per day,
and both of these underutilized their equipment capacities. All
other systems averaged more than one load per day.
1
-------
In only two systems were the subsequent loads equal to or
greater than the first or "full" loads. In both of these systems,
the capacity was underutilized for the first and subsequent loads.
In all cases, the weight of the subsequent loads was significantly
less than the minimum weight expected for "full" loads. This
indicates the equipment was underutilized for subsequent loads.
This procedure results in relatively more time being spent in trans-
porting and relatively less time being spent in collecting than there
should be in a system in which the vehicle characteristics are matched
with the route and crew characteristics.
Conclusions Regarding Crew Size
The productivity per crewman in terms of homes served and tons
collected per collection hour is greatest with the one-man crews.
On the average, the productivity of one two-man crew is less than
the productivity of two one-man crews. Likewise, the productivity
of one three-man crew is less than the productivity of three one-man
crews.
The percentage of on-route productive collection time for one-
man crews is significantly greater than the percentage of productive
time for two- and three-man crews. For one-man crews, the on-route
productive time is about 97 percent. For the two- and three-man
crews, the on-route productive time is approximately 70 percent.
There js no signiffcant difference in the percentage of productive
time between the two- and three-man crews.
In going to the route and in transporting the col Iected waste,
only the driver is productive. All other crewmen, whether they ride
with the driver or not, are non-productive in these operational
phases. With these phases consuming approximately 30 percent of the
work day, then one-half and two-thirds of the man-hours of this effort
-------
are wasted for two- and three-man crews, respectively.
Conclusions Regarding Frequency of Collection
Increasing the frequency of collection from once a week to
twice a week required approximately 50 percent more crews and equip-
ment than the once-a-week systems. The average number of homes
served per week for the twice-a-week collection systems was approxi-
mately two-thirds the number for once-a-week collection systems.
Conversely, to decrease the frequency of collection from twice a
week to once a week requires approximately 33 percent fewer crews
and equipment than the twice-a-week systems.
In terms of productivity factors, the twice-a-week collection
systems served approximately 50 percent more homes per collection
hour than the once-a-week collection systems. The weight collected
per collection hour, however, was only 80 percent of the weight
collected per collection hour by the once-a-week collection systems.
Conclusions Regarding Storage Point Locations
The productivity of a backyard system in terms of homes served
per collection hour and tons collected per collection hour, is
approximately one-half the productivity of a corresponding curb and
a I Iey system.
Conclusions Regarding Incentive Systems
Col lection systems operating under the task incentive system
tend to work a smaller percentage of the normal work week than the
standard day systems.
The work effort of standard day collection systems has a tendency
to expand into overtime operations.
-------
The collection production and productivity of the task incen-
tive systems tend to be greater than the collection production and
productivity of standard day systems.
Conclusions Regarding Storage Containers
The percentage of one-way items (bags and miscellaneous items)
does have a significant effect on the system productivity. An
increase in the percentage of one-way items reduces the time required
to service a home, and conversely, increases the number of homes
served per collection hour.
The weight per home per collection also affects the system
productivity, and this effect is greater and opposite in direction
to the effect of one-way items. An increase in weight per home
increases the time required to service a home and decreases the
number of homes served per collection hour.
Conclusions Regarding Productivity and Efficiency
Curbside is more productive and cost efficient than backyard
serv i ce.
For the curb and alley systems:
Systems that have a collection frequency of twice a week tend
to serve more homes per collection hour, but collect fewer tons per
collection hour, than their once-a-week counterparts.
The larger crew sizes have a tendency to collect more tons per
coI Iection hour.
When productivity and cost efficiency are considered on*a per
crewman basis, there is a strong tendency for the smaller crew sizes
to have the greatest productivity and best cost efficiency.
For backyard systems:
The system which uses the task incentive system has a greater
-------
productivity than the system that uses the standard day system.
There is no clear pattern between the backyard systems regard-
ing collection cost efficiency.
Conclusions Regarding System Costs
Regardless of the kind of equipment that was being used, the'
initial cost of the equipment, and the number of days per week the
equipment was being used, the daily equipment costs were of the same
general magnitude for all systems, except that the equipment costs
for System 6 with the detachable container equipment and mother truck
combination were significantly greater than the equipment costs for
the other systems.
The daily personnel costs were related directly to the crew
si ze.
For every system studied, using the study standardized cost data,
the daily personnel costs were significantly more than the daily
equipment costs. The manpower to equipment ratios averaged 1.4 for
one-man crews, 3.0 for two-man crews, and 4.5 for three-man crews.
The incremental effect of an increase in equipment costs of
$1,000 was small in comparison with' an effective increase in labor
costs per crewman of $0.50 per hour.
Since daily personnel costs were significantly more than the
daily equipment costs, cost reduction programs should look first in
the area of personnel costs. Personnel costs can be lowered by
improving personnel productivity, by reducing the numbers of personnel
or both. There was a strong tendency for personnel productivity to
increase as crew size decreases.
Since incremental cost effects of an increase in equipment
cost of $1,000 were small in comparison with an increase in the
5
-------
effective labor rate of $0.50 per hour, compromising equipment per-
formance for the sake of a lower equipment cost appears to be
counter productive.
Use of the Study Information
One of the primary purposes of this study effort was to accumu-
late a base of reliable and factual performance data that could be
used by solid waste collection managers to evaluate their performance,
and also to evaluate other reasonable alternatives. Accordingly,
in reviewing the information of this report, the local manager should
ask the two following questions.
"How efficient is my system compared with the systems of the
study?",
"What will happen to my productivity and efficiency if I change
to a different system?"
The information of SECTION II and SECTION 111 provides the tools
for the manager to answer these questions. The primary emphasis of
this study effort was to concentrate on those factors that have the
greatest influence on productivity and efficiency. These are the
same factors for which general conclusions have been made and present-
ed in the preceding pages. More specific information for each of these
factors is included in Table 2 and in the discussion of the factors
fn SECTION II. All of SECTION III, beginning on Page 75, is devoted to
evaluation and prediction procedures.
Ranking of Factors which Affect Productivity and Cost-Efficiency
All of the factors considered in this study have some influence
on system productivity and cost-efficiency. All factors are interrelat-
ed to some degree. As such, it is impossible to isolate completely the
independent effects of the factors that were considered. However, an
attempt has been made to rank the effect of the various factors on
6
-------
system productivity and cost-efficiency and to provide the relative magnitude of
the effect of the factors. This ranking was done by grouping the data according
to the factors being analyzed and then combining, for productivity, homes per crew-
man and tons per crewman per on-route hour, and for cost-effectiveness, on-route
cost per home per week and on-route cost per ton. The results of this analysis
are provided in the table below. It must be emphasized that the relationships
indicated are for the results of this study and may not agree with the conditions of
a specific system. Differences in such factors as distance from street to storage,
fences and gates, traffic, parked cars, storage devices used, and crew methodology
(including routing) can significantly alter the relative magnitude of effect, and
may even alter the order ranking for a specific system. The information in the
table, however, gives managers an indication of the relative effects of system
factors for the systems studied as a starting point for specific system change con-
siderations (i.e. what change(s) should I, as a manager, consider first if I want
to improve productivity and decrease costs?).
FOR ALL SYSTEMS
ORDER RELATIVE ORDER FOR RELATIVE
FOR MAGNITUDE COST MAGNITUDE
FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY OF EFFECT EFFICIENCY OF EFFECT
Point of Col lection I 58 I 52
Crew Size (Per Crewman)* 2 38 3 9
Frequency of Collection 3 36 2 28
Incentive System 4 26 4 I
Percent One-Way Items 5 141
(Per percent)**
* To obtain the effect of a decrease of 2 crewmen, multiply the listed effect
by 2. Only 1-3 man crew sizes can be used since these were the only ones studied.
** To obtain the effect of more than one percent change, multiply the listed
effect by the percent change. Due to the limited sample and non-linearity of this
function, a maximum of ±20 percent should be used.
For each of these factors, the direction to improve productivity and costs is,
from less to better: point of collection (backyard to curbside), crew size
(larger to smaller, but depends on point of collection, amount of waste, and
distance between stops), frequency of collection (twice to once-a-week), incentive
system (standard 8-hr day to task system), and percent one-way items (less to more,
the impact is significantly greater with curbside collection than backyard).
-------
SECTION I
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Definition of the 11 Collection Systems
The collection systems selected for the study were character-
ized by differences in type of equipment, crew size, frequency of
collection, point of storage, collection methodology and incentive
system. Storage containers of bags and cans were prescribed for
all systems. The eleven systems selected were defined as indicated
in Table 1. These systems were chosen to determine the relative
significance of the variables listed, and to assure the study results
would have the broadest possible application.
Definition of a Solid Waste Collection Route
For the purpose of the collection system studies, a residential
solid waste collection route was defined as the total activities
of a collection vehicle and its crew for a period of one week.
On a daily basis, the activities begin with the departure of the
vehicle and its crew from the motor pool in the morning, and terminates
with the arrival back at the motor pool at the end of the day. The
daily activities, therefore, encompass the specific operations of
going to the area in which collections will be made, collecting the
solid waste fro'm residences, transporting the collected waste to a
disposal point, and returning to the route and disposal point, as
required, and finally returning to the motor pool. Special collec-
tions of items not normally handled by the collection vehicle such
as heavy logs, tree trunks or "white goods" are excluded in this
definition of a collection route.
8
-------
TABLE 1
DEFINITION OF COLLECTION SYSTEMS STUDIED
Co 1 1 ect i on
System
Number
1
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
Type of
Equ i pment
Si-de Loader
Side Loader
Side Loader
Rear Loader
Rear Loader
Side Loader
w/detachab 1 e
conta i ner
Rear Loader
Rear Loader
Rear Loader
Rear Loader
Rear Loader
Crew
Size
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
Frequency
of
Col lection
1 /week
1 /week
2/week
1 /week
1 /week
2/week
1 /week
1 /week
2/week
1 /week
1 /week
Point of
Storage
Curb-AI ley
Curb-AI ley
Curb-AI ley
Curb-AI ley
Curb-AI ley
Curb-AI ley
Curb-AI 1 ey
Curb-AI ley
Curb-AI ley
Backyard
Backyard
Co 1 lect ion
Methodo 1 ogy
1 Side of St.
1 Side of St.
1 Side of St.
1 Side of St.
1 Side of St.
1 Side of St.
Both Si des
Both Sides
Both Sides
Tote-ba rre 1
Tote-ba rre 1
1 ncent i ve
System
Task System
8-hr, day
Task System
Task System
8-hr, day
Task System
Task System
8-hr, day
Task System
Task System
8-hr, day
Type of
Storage
Conta i ner
Bags & Cans
Bags & Cans
Bags & Cans
Bags & Cans
Bags & Cans
Bags & Cans
Bags & Cans
Bags & Cans
Bags & Cans
Bags & Cans
Bags & Cans
VO
-------
In this report, reference to total hours worked does not include
time required at the motor pool at the beginning and at the end of
the day to check in and out, to check equipment or to conduct other
authorized matters. All reference to crew size includes the driver
and collectors.
General Method of Evaluating Solid Waste Collection Systems
For this study, the most productive collection systems which
met the requirements of Table 1 were sought. After a system was select-
r*
ed, t'he four most productive routes were studied for one year. The
results of the four routes were averaged and used for analytical
purposes .
Two independent approaches were used to evaluate the systems.
One method used information which was obtained from the collection
routes on a daily basis for one year. These data were processed by
a specially designed computer program, the data acquisition and analysis
program (DAAP). Standardized costs were used with the DAAP and are
provided in Appendix 1. A summary report for the 12 months of study
is provided in Appendix 2. The second approach was based on data
obtained from time motion studies or backyard surveys which were con-
ducted on a quarterly basis.
Brief System Descriptions
Genera I . All routes studied for each system were defined as
i nd i cated in Tab Ie 1.
System 1. Salt Lake County, Utah. The right and left han^ drive
side loading collection vehicle of Figure 1 was used. All vehicles
were 25 cubic yards in capacity. Commercial bulky construction or
bulky garden wastes were not collected. The crews averaged almost
30 hours per week working compared with a planned work week of 40 hours.
10
-------
COLLECTION VEHICLES
Figure 1
SIde Load i ng
Co I lection
Vehicle
Figure 2
A Typical
Rear Loader
F i gu re 3
SIde Load i ng
Col'lection Vehicle
with Detachable
Eight Cubic Yard
Conta i ner
II
-------
An average of 410 homes was serviced per day per crew with 'an average
weight per home per collection of 46.2 pounds. Each crew averaged
1.8 loads per day. The average weight collected per crew per day
was 9.4 tons. The storage containers consisted of 34 percent bags,
52 percent cans, and 14 percent miscellaneous items.
System 2, Covina, California. The right and left hand drive
collection vehicle of Figure 1 was used. All vehicles were 25 cubic
yards in capacity. There was no mixing of residential and commercial
waste. The crews averaged almost 34 hours per week on collection
related activities compared with a planned work week of 40 hours. An
average of 254 homes was serviced per day per crew with an average
weight per home per collection of 71.0 pounds. Each crew averaged
1.6 loads per day. The average weight collected per crew per day
was 9.0 tons. The storage containers consisted of 26 percent bags,
53 percent cans, and 21 percent miscellaneous items.
System 3, Phoenix, Arizona.. The right and left hand drive
collection vehicle of Figure 1 was used. All vehicles were 33 cubic
yards in capacity. There was some mixing of light commercial waste
with residential waste on all residential routes. The crews averaged
almost 32 hours per week working compared with a planned work week
of 40 hours. The City of Phoenix collected on a frequency of twice
•x
a week. The collection days were Monday -Thursday, Tuesday - Friday
and Wednesday - Saturday. A personnel rotating system was used so
that the planned work week for the crews was only 40 hours. Co/i-
sidering the six days of collection, each route averaged slightly
more than 38 hours per week compared with a planned period of 48 hours.
An average of 410 homes was serviced per day per crew with an average
weight per home per collection of 28.2 pounds. Each crew averaged 1.0
loads per day. The average weight collected per crew per day was 5.7
12
-------
tons. The storage containers consisted of 29 percent bags, 53
percent cans, and 18 percent miscellaneous items.
System 4, Rockford, Illinois. The residential collections in
the City of Rockford were performed by a private contractor to the
City of Rockford. The company used the rear loading collection
vehicle of Figure 2. All vehicles were 20 cubic yards in capacity.
There was no mixing of residential and commercial waste.
For this study effort, only operational data were provided.
By agreement between the OSWMP and the Corporate Office of the
contractor, financial information pertaining to the collection
activities would not be provided. No financial information was
obtained during the study effort.
The crews worked an average of almost 36 hours per week working
compared with a planned work week of 40 hours. An average of 512
homes was serviced per day per crew with an average weight per
home per collection of 49.3 pounds. Each crew averaged 2.4 loads
per day. The average weight collected per crew per day was 12.6
tons. The storage containers consisted of 56 percent bags, 28 per-
cent cans and 16 percent miscellaneous items.
System 5. Flint. Michigan. The rear loading collection vehicle
of Figure 2 was used. Vehicles were 20 and 25 cubic yards in capacity.
There was no mixing of residential and commercial waste.
There was no distinction between the driver and collector, and
they alternated between driving and collecting. The crews averaged
slightly more, than 35 hours per week on collection related activities
compared with a planned work week of 40 hours. An average of 575
homes was serviced per day per crew with an average weight per home
per collection of 50.5 pounds. Each crew averaged 1.9 loads per
day. The average weight collected per crew per day was 14.5 tons.
13
-------
The storage containers consisted of 85 percent bags, 6 percent cans
and 9 percent miscellaneous items.
System 6, Tucson, Arizona. The right and left hand drive
collection vehicle of Figure 3 was used. This vehicle used a
detachable container of eight cubic yards. The full containers
were serviced by a front loading auxiliary vehicle (mother truck)
of 32 cubic yards capacity. There was some mixing of light commer-
cial waste with the residential waste on all of the residential
routes .
The four routes studies operated in a specifically designated
geographical area and were supported by one mother truck.
For the purposes of this study, all of the waste from the
four routes was kept separate from other wastes and was weighed
separately. This was not the normal procedure in the City.
The crew consisted of two men with no distinction between the
driver and col lector. Both crewmen drove and col lected. The crews
averaged siightly more than 23 hours per week compared with a
planned work week of 32 hours on residential collections. The fre-
quency of collection in Tucson was twice a week. The collection
days were Monday-Thursday and Tuesday-Friday. Wednesday was used
for special non-residential collections or for maintenance operations.
An average of 574 homes was serviced per day per crew with an
average weight per home per collection of 24.4 pounds. Two of the
four routes had a large percentage of mobile homes on them. Each
crew averaged 4.4 loads per day. The average weight collected per
crew per day was 7.0 tons. The storage containers consisted of 19
percent bags, 61 percent cans, and 20 percent miscellaneous items.
Subsequent to the completion of the study, the sanitation administrator
reported that changes were made to add approximately 200 homes per day
14
-------
to the routes. With this change, the crews averaged approximately
28 hours per week compared with a planned 32 hours.
System 7. Warwick, Rhode Island. The rear loading vehicle of
Figure 2 was used. Vehicles were 16 and 20 cubic yards in capacity.
There was no mixing of residential and commercial waste.
The crew averaged 26 hours per week working compared with a
planned work week of 40 hours. An average of 407 homes was serviced
per day per crew with an average weight per home per collection of
62.2 pounds. One route had a high percentage of estate type resi-
dences on it with greater distances between stops than the typical
suburban areas. Each crew averaged 2.2 loads per day. The average
weight collected per crew per day was 12.7 tons. The storage con-
tainers consisted of 56 percent bags, 28 percent cans and 16 percent
miscellaneous items.
System 8. Oak Park, Illinois. The rear loading vehicle of
Figure 2 was used. Vehicles were 17, 18, 20 and 25 cubic yards in
capacity- There was no mixing of residential and commercial waste.
Approximately 98 percent of the refuse was collected from alleys
The crews averaged slightly more than 39 hours per week on collection
related activities compared with a planned work week of 40 hours.
Crews collected a-|ong the route as far as possible within the normal
eight-hour day, then continued from the stopping place on the follow-
ing day. An average of 306 homes was serviced per day per crew with
an average, weight per home per collection of 64.9 pounds. Each crew
averaged 1.6 loads per day. The average weight collected per crew
per day was 9.7 tons. The storage containers consisted of 25 percent
bags, 47 percent cans and 28 percent miscellaneous items.
System 9, Metropolitan Dade County,, Florida. The rear loading
vehicle of Figure 2 was used. Vehicles were 20 and 25 cubic yards in
15
-------
capacity. There was some mixing of light commercial waste with the
residential waste on all of the routes.
The crews averaged slightly more than 25 hours per week working
compared with a planned work week of 40 hours. Metro-Dade County
collected on a frequency of twice a week. The collection days were
Monday-Thursday and Tuesday-Friday- No collections were made on
Wednesday. The normal collection day was considered to be 10 hours.
An average of 854 homes was serviced per day per crew with an average
weight per home per collection of 33.1 pounds. Each crew averaged
2.3 loads per day. The average weight collected per crew per day
was 14.1 tons. The storage containers consisted of 46 percent bags,
41 percent cans and 13 percent miscellaneous items.
System 10, San Leandro, California. The rear loading vehicle
of Figure 2 was used. Vehicles were 20 cubic yards in capacity.
There was some mixing of light commercial waste with the residential
waste on alI of the routes.
This was a backyard system. The crew size was two men. There
was no distinction between the driver and collector, and they alter-
nated the driving. The crews averaged slightly more than 31 hours
per week working compared with a planned work week of 40 hours.
An average of 364 homes was serviced per day per crew with an average
weight per home per collection of 33.9 pounds. Each crew averaged
one load per day. The average weight collected per crew per day
was 6.2 tons. The storage containers consisted of 2 percent bags,
96 percent cans and 2 percent miscellaneous items.
System 11. Racine. Wisconsin. The rear loading vehicle of
Figure 2 was used. Vehicles were 13, 16 and 20 cubic yards in
capacity. There was some mixing of light commercial waste with the
16
-------
residential waste on all of the routes.
While this was considered a backyard system, approximately
one-third of the collections were made from the curb or alleys.
The crew size was two men. There was no distinction between the
driver and collector, and they alternated the driving. The crews
averaged almost 35 hours per week on collection related activities
compared with a planned work week of 40 hours. An average of 243
homes was serviced per day per crew with an average weight per
home per collection of 51.1 pounds. Each crew averaged 1.9 loads
per day. The average weight collected per crew per day was 6.2 tons.
The storage containers consisted of 33 percent bags, 55 percent cans,
and 12 percent miscellaneous items.
How Representative Are the Systems Chosen
There is great variability in the conduct of residential collec-
tion operations across the country. This variability takes many
forms. There may be public and private collection operations.
Within the collecting organization there may be differences in the
operating parameters such as the kind of collecting equipment that
is used, the size of the crew, the frequency of collection, the
residential collection point, the collection methodology, the incen-
tive system and the kind of storage containers that are used. There
are additional factors that have an impact on the collection opera-
tion. These may include the climate of the geographical area, the
affluence of the area, the amount and type of waste generated, the
housing densities, the types of structures (single or mu11i-fami Iy),
the distance to the -disposal site and any queuing that might exist
at the disposal site, the local ordinances or rules and regulations,
the personnel administration policies, pay scales, and fringe
17
-------
benefits. This is not an all inclusive list, but does indicate most
of the factors that can influence a residential collection operation.
In conceiving this study, the OSWMP desired to obtain reliable
information on those facets of a collection operation that appeared
to have the greatest impact on the productivity and efficiency of
various systems. In addition, it was desired to obtain quantified
measures of productivity and efficiency from the best operating
systems that could be reasonably found. Accordingly, the factors
included in Table 1 were used.
For the purposes of the study, it was desired to study the most
productive and most efficient systems that could be found and that
met the prescribed definitions. It was hoped that the systems would
also provide a reasonable geographical distribution to make the result
more generally applicable.
The systems described in the preceding section resulted from the
systems search. The system that was chosen for study was considered
to be the most productive and efficient of the systems that were
known at the time of selection.
That there may be more productive systems than the systems used
in this study does not invalidate the study results or conclusions.
It is felt that the results of this study are representative and
provide reasonable productivity and efficiency goals for comparison
purposes. These results will also provide solid waste managers with
a valid estimate of what can be expected if a change in system
operation is contemplated.
18
-------
SECTION I I
ANALYSIS OF STUDY DATA
Selected Items From the DAAF3 and Time Motion Reports
To simplify the presentation and understanding of the study
data, items of key interest have been extracted from the DAAP and
time motion reports and are provided in this section and in Appendices
3-5. More complete data are provided in Volumes II and III.
The yearly averages of selected parameters by system are provid-
ed i n Append i x 3.
The monthly generation rates in pounds per home per week by
system are provided in Appendix 4.
The col lection rates in tons per crew per day by system on a
monthly basis are provided in Appendix 5.
Collection System Productivity
and Cost Efficiency
There is considerable confusion regarding the terms production,
productivity, and efficiency. The following concepts will apply
for the purposes of this report.
Production, as it pertains to residential solid waste collection
activities, is the total output of a work effort in terms of homes
served per day and total weight collected. The concept of production
applies to every organizational element from thre individual route
up to and including the highest level (city or company). Production
in a residential collection operation can be increased by adding more
resources. A manager can Increase the number of homes served per
day and the number of tons collected by increasing the size of his
crews or by adding more crews or by a combination of these methods.
Both procedures are followed extensively in practice.
19
-------
Productivity is the production or output of an organizational
element related to the resources used to obtain that production.
Thus, if two organizational elements have the same production with
the same input of resources, the productivity will be equal for
both elements. However, if greater production is achieved with the
same input of resources, or if a constant level of output is
achieved with a smaller input of resources, the productivity will
be increased. Thus, a manager can also increase production by
increasing productivity.
For this report, the basic productivity measures will be homes
served per crewman per -co I Iection hour and tons collected per crew-
man per collection hour. That is, output is related to manpower
input. For information purposes, the less meaningful productivity
measures of homes served per crew per collection hour and tons
collected per crew per collection hour are also presented.
Another productivity concept that is included in this report
is marginal productivity. In this concept the incremental effect
of adding a crewman is determined. An additional crewman may
increase or decrease the productivities of the other crewmen. If
the additional crewman is able to produce more than the other crew-
men, and if he helps the other crewmen to produce more, then adding
the additional crewman is beneficial. If the additional crewman
produces less than the other crewmen, and as a result the entire
crew produces less on a per crewman basis, then adding the additional
crewman Is detrimental. The marginal productivities will also be
measured in terms of homes served per collection hour and tons collec-
ted per collection hour.
Most of the discussion of productivity has been limited to
20
-------
activities in terms of collection hours (time on route) in order
to separate out transport activities to permit on-route productivity
comparisons. Because of the individual circumstances surrounding
the systems in this study; there were different round trip transport
distances and times, different dump times and a different number of
loads per day. On a daily basis, these differences would have a
significant impact on productivity. By considering productivity on
a collection hour (on-route) basis, the differences are eliminated
and true productivity comparisons can be made.
While it is possible to design a single index to indicate the
level of productivity for various residential collection systems,
this approach was not considered for this report. No single item,
by itself, will permit a valid comparison of system productivities.
Instead, it is necessary to look at each factor separately in order
to compare system operations.
In place of a single index the productivity factors for the
various systems are related to the same factors for System 1. See
Table 1 for a definition of System 1. In this study; System 1 is
considered to be the basic system because it is the simplest in
concept. System 1 is also the most productive in terms of output
to input. These indices are presented later in this report. In all
cases, the index is the performance value of a compared system
divided by the performance value for System 1.
For comparative purposes, the most meaningful system performance
measure is the collection cost efficiency index. As used in this
report, this index associates the concept of productivity with
collection cost. Cost efficiency may be examined on an on-route
or totaI day basis.
21
-------
The organization that achieves a given level of productivity
at least cost has the greatest collection cost efficiency. For
example, if two crews have exactly the same performance parameters
per day in terms of homes served, weight collected, miles traveled
and time worked, their productivity would be exactly the same.
If one crew was using a new vehicle of 20 cubic yards capacity
and the other crew was using one of 25 -cubic yards capacity, then
the crew that was using the vehicle of 20 cubic yards capacity
would have the greater cost efficiency. The reason for this is
that the 25 cubic yard vehicle would cost more, and this additional
cost would be reflected as an additional incremental cost for each
parameter being considered. The system that has a collection cost
per home of $0.13 per week is more efficient than systems with a
collection cost per home per week greater than $0.13.
Before presenting the productivity and cost efficiency results
of the systems in this study, it is necessary to discuss the multi-
variable nature of solid waste collection and the compariabiIity
of systems. There are many community and system variables that
impact on productivity and cost efficiency. These variables are
so interrelated and dependent upon each other that it is.extremely
difficult to identify the full impact of any single variable. When
comparing systems, it is necessary to hold constant as many variables
as possible while considering other variables. Variables easily held
constant in comparing systems include: point of coI Iection,*frequency
of collection, crew size, incentive system and vehicle size and type.
Other variables are difficult, if not impossible, to hold constant.
They include amount of waste, type and number of storage devices,
22
-------
housing densi.ty, collection methodology, traffic, and street to
storage distance. Because the nature and effect of a variable may,
at times, be impossible to identify and define, even experienced
analysts may have difficulty in deciding which of two systems is
better. It is also possible to overlook an important variable and
make an invalid conclusion. With these cautioning remarks in mind,
the next portions of the report present an analysis of the data that
were obtained during the study. In making the analysis the objective
is to highlight the significant impact of the variable being con-
sidered. The values reported are those that resulted from this study
effort. The magnitude of the relationship may not be the same in
another system comparison; however, the relationships that are
developed should apply generally. For example, the results clearly
show that curbside is more productive and cost efficient than back-
yard service, but for any given system, other factors may make this
difference more or less than that reported from the study.
Presentation of System Productivity and Efficiency Measures
The most significant descriptive and performance parameters
that relate to productivity and cost efficiency are summarized for
each system in Table 2. This information was extracted from the
DAAP and time motion reports.
The table is divided into several sections. At the top of
the table is a description of each system. The data are grouped
by curb/alley systems and backyard systems, then by frequency of
collection and by crew size.
The second section shows percent of total crew time spent
on various activities. Data in this section are derived from the
DAAP and the time motion reports.
23
-------
TABLE 2
SYSTEMS PRODUCTIVITY AND EFFICIENCY MEASURES
SYSTEM DEFINITION
CHARACTERISTICS
System Number
Col lections/Week
Crew Size
Incentive System
Col lection Pattern
Vehicle Size (Cu Yds) 4 Type
ACTIVITY
To Route And Transport
0 Driving*
N
Riding* Walking
.Q, Col 1 ecti ng
U Waiting***
E Other**
CURB-ALLEY SYSTEMS
1
1
1
Task
side
25 SL
2
1
1
Std dy
1 side
25 SL
4'
1
2
Task
side
20 RL
5-
1
2
Std d^
1 side
25 RL
7
1
3
Task
Both
sides
20 RL
8
1
3
Std dy
Both .
s I des '
25 RL
3-
2
1
Task
side
33 SL
6-
2
2
Task
side
8-DC
9
2
3
Task
9?*ft.
20 RL
BACKYARD
10
1
2
Task
Tote
20 RL
1 1
1
2
Std d^
i^el
1 3 RL
PERCENT OF TOTAL CREW TIME SPENT ON ACTIVITY
34.8
17.9
"0.0
45.8
0.8
0.7
32.2
13.5.
0.0
51 .5
1 .8
1 .0
3I-.5
8.9
7.8
30.6
20.8
0.4
30.2
12.2
1 1 .6
19.5
26.4
0.2
24.2
5.8
1 1 .8
35.7
22.2
0.3
35.4
3.1
5.8
38.2
17.3
0.4
22.6
24.7
0.2
50.1
1 . 1
1 .'3
27.2
0.0 '
18.1
27.8
6.5
0.4
30.0 1
7.2
14.5
29.3
18.5
0.5
8.3
81 .7
20.6
79.4
* Driving Riding For l-Man Systems
**Non-product I ve Time
# Waiting includes compactjon delays TOTAL TIME UTI LI ZATION (PERCENT)
Crew Productive Time
Crew Non-Product ive Time
Total
98.5
1 .5
100
97.2
2.8
100
63.^0
37.0
100
58.3 ,
41.7
100
61 .3
38.7
100
58.7
41 .3
100
i7.6
2.4
00
16^5
30.5
100
iJ>J -0
39.0
100
ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS (DAILY AVERAGES)
Pounds/Home/Collection
Percent Bags/Number Per.Home
Pa r Col lecyion
Percent Cans/Number, Per Home
• Per Col lection
Percent. .Misc/Number Per Home
Per Col lection
On Route MIIes/Day:
Transport Miles/Day
On Route Hours/Day
Transport Hours/Day
Hours Worked/Day
Loads/Day
Services/Day
Tons/Day
Services/Crew/On Route Hour
Tons/Crew/On Route Hour
Servlces/Crewman/On Route Hour
On Route Cost/Home/Weak
Total Cost/Home/Week
On Route Cost/Home/Year
Total Cost/Home/Year
On Route -Cost/Ton
Tota 1 Cost /Ton
^ndj^ces of On Route Cost Per
46.2
34 f\ .5
.2/2.3
14/0.7
10.5
46.1
3.83
1 .71
5.87
1 .8
410
9.44
71 .0
26/1 .3
53/2". 7
21/1.
6. 1
18.8
4.56
2.01
6.71
1 .6
254
9.00
49.3
56/2.6
28/1 .3
16/0.7
10. 1
32.6
4.82
. 1 .92
7.02
2.4
512
12.62
50.5
85/4.6
6/.0-.4
9/0,5
13.1
29.9
4.67
1 .75
6.69.'
1 .9
575
14.49
62.2
56/3.6
28/| .5
167*1 .0
10.5
14.3
3.91
1 .05
5: 16
2.2
407
12.65
64.9
25/1 .5
k7/2.7
28/1 .7
4.5
34.4
4.88
2.50
7.57
1 .6
306
9.72
28.2
2-9/0.9
53/1 .6
18/0.5
13.7
22.2
4.88
1 .07
6.32
1 .0
410
5.73
24.4
19/0.5
SI/.K5
20/0.5
20.5
12.0
4.14
1 .38
5.69
4.4
574
6.96
ON-ROUTE PRODUCTIVITY
107.3
2.5
107.3
2.5
0. 13
0. 19
6.76
9.88
5.42
8.29
1 .00
1 .00
55.7
2.0
55.7
2.0
0.20
0.30
10.40
15.60
5.75
8.46
0.65
0.94
107.0
2.S
53.4
1 .3
0. 16
0.23
8.32
1 1 .96
6.54
9.53
0.81
0.83
123.5
3.1
57.7
1 .5
COST
0.15
0.22
7.80
1 1 .44
6.09
8.72
0.87
0.89
104.5
3.3
34.9
1 .
62.7
2.0
20.9
0.7
_84.?_
1.2
84.2
1 .2
38.4
1.7
66. .6
0.8
33.1
46/1.2
41/1 .
3/0.4
10.4
33.4
4.38 •
1 .55
6.26
2.3
854
14.10
200.5
3.3
66.5
1 .
33.9
2/0'. 0
96/1.. 2
2/0.0
6.9
6.0
5.06
0.98
6. 19
1 .0
364
6. J
77
1.2
35.3
0.6
51.1
33/1.4
55/2.4
12/0.5
6.6
17.6
5.47.
1 .25
6.89
1 .9
243
6.18
44 .A
I.I
22.1
0.-6
EFFICIENCY
0.30
0.39
15.60
20.28
9.71
12.82
0.43
0.56
0.36
0.55
18.72
28.60
1 1 .07
17.13
0.36
0.49
0.29
0.37.
15.08
19 '.24''
1 0-. 4-2
13.48
0.45'
0.52
0.57
0.51
19.24
26.52
15.40
21.15
0.35
0.35
0.3.A
0.48
1 7 . 6A
24.96
10.26
14.67
0.38
0.53
0.27
0.32
14,04
16.64
15.74
9.26
0.48
0.34-
0.37
•'0.4.7
19,24
24.44
14.62
, 18.41
0.35
0.37
•Indices based on corresponding costs for System I.
24
-------
The third section summarizes the productive and non-productive
crew times for each of the systems studied. In the collection
phase of operations, the waiting and other time are considered
non-productive. In going to the route and the transport phases
of the operation, only the driver is considered to be productive.
The fourth section summarizes the route characteristics for
each system to enable direct comparisons to be made among systems.
In the fifth section, productivity factors as they relate to
the performance of the crew and the performance of a crewman are
provided. The productivity factors are in terms of services per
collection hour and tons per collection hour.
The last section provides the cost efficiencies associated
with the various systems. Cost information based on the on-route
phase of operations and also on the total operations is provided.
The last two lines of this section provide indices of on-route
cost per home and on-route cost per ton.
Table 3 provides additional productivity and efficiency indices.
In each case the performance of System 1 is used as the basis for
determining the index. Since all systems are compared with System 1,
they may also be compared with each other.
The bar graphs of Figures 4 through 9 show graphically the
relationship among the systems for homes served per crew and per
crewman per collection hour, the tons collected per crew and per
crewman per collection hour, and the collection cost per home per
week and per ton collected.
Detailed Analysis of Systems Under Study
In this section, data are grouped to facilitate an analysis
of the information gathered in the study effort. An analysis will
25
-------
TABLE 3
PRODUCTIVITY AND EFFICIENCY INDICES
SYSTEM
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
W r
0> 0
7
8
9
10
11
POUNDS
PER
SERVICE
PER
DAY
46,2
71,0
28,2
49,3
50,5
24,4
62,2
64,9
33.1
33.9
51.1
TOTAL
ERVICES
PER
DAY
410
254
410
512
575
574
407
306
854
364
243
PRODUCTIVITY INDEX
SERVICES
PER CREW
MAN PER
COLL.HR,
107,3
55.7
84.2
53,4
57.7
66.6
34.9
20,9
66.5
35,3
22.1
INDEX
1.00
.52
.78
,50
,54
,62
,33
,19
,62
.33
.21
SERVICES
PER CREW
PER
COLL. HR,
107.3
55.7
84,2
107.0
123,3
138.4
104.5
62.7
200.5
72.1
44.4
INDEX
1.00
,52
.78
1.00
1.15
1.29
.97
.58
1.87
.67
,41
TONS
PER
CREW MAN
PER
COLL.HR,
2,5
2.0
1,2
1.3
1.5
.8
1.1
.7
1.1
.6
,6
INDEX
1.00
.80
,48
,52
.60
.32
.44
.28
.44
.24
.24
TONS
PER
CREW
PER
COLL.HR,
2.5
2,0
1,2
2.6
3.1
1.7
3.3
2.0
3.3
1.2
1.1
INDEX
1,00
.80
.48
1.04
1.24
.68
1.32
.80
1,32
.48
.44
COLLECTION COST
EFFICIENCY INDEX
COST
PER
SERVICE
PER
WEEK
.13
,20
.29
.16
.15
,37
,30
.36
.34
.27
,37
INDEX
1,00
.65
.45
,81
,87
,35
,43
.36
.38
.48
.35
COST
PER
TON
5.42
5,75
10.42
6.54
6.09
15.40
9.71
11.07
10.26
15.74
14.62
INDEX
1,00
,94
.52
,83
,89
,35
.56
.49
.53
,34
,37
-------
FIGURE 4
Homes Served Per Crew Per
Col Iect ion Hour
200.0
0)
£j w 150.0
o>
E
O
X
00.0
50.0
Systems
No. of Mos
-------
FIGURE 5
Homes Served Per Crewman
Per Co I Iection Hour
200.0
io ® 150.0
00
(/>
(D
E
O
I
00.0
50.0
107.3
66.5
Systems
No. of Mos
-------
VO
FIGURE 6.
Weight Handled Per Crew
Per Collection Hour
Systems
No. of Mos
-------
Ui
o
c
o
4.0
3.0
2.0
I ,0
FIGURE 7
Weight Handled Per Crewman
Per Col Iection Hour
Systems I
No. of Mos. 12
-------
FIGURE 8
Collection Cost Per Home Served Per Week
0.4
(0
- 0.3.
0.2
0. I
Systems I
No. of Mos. 12
-------
15.0
(/)
1_
S3 O
Q
2.5
10.0
® 7.5
5.0
2.5
FIGURE 9
Collection Cost Per Ton Collected
15.74
14.62
Systems
No. of Mos.
-------
be made of the individual parameters of Table 1, then an overall
analysis of system productivity, efficiency, and costs will be made.
All of the parameters under consideration are interrelated to some
degree. It is impossible to isolate completely the independent
effects of each factor being considered. General trends and signifi-
cant conclusions, however, can be made from the analysis.
Performance Analysis by Type of Equipment
Genera I . Systems 1, 2, and 3 used the side loading equipment
(Figure 1). The vehicle may be loaded and driven from either side.
The collection vehicle was designed to be operated by a one-man
crew. The packer is designed to achieve densities in the range of
500 to 550 pounds per cubic yard. The packer can be operated by
the main vehicle engine or by an auxiliary engine. The vehicle is
available in four sizes: 25, 29, 33, and 37 cubic yards.
System 6 used the side loading vehicle of Figure 3. This
vehicle used a detachable container of eight cubic yards. The full
containers were emptied by a front loading mother truck. The
collection vehicle may be loaded and driven from either side, and
was designed to be operated by a one- or two-man crew. The vehicle
is designed to achieve densities in the range of 500 to 600 pounds
per cubic yard.
All other systems used the conventional rear loading equipment
of Figure 2. The vehicle was designed to be operated with a crew
of two or more. The rear loading equipment may be either medium
duty or heavy duty from a compaction standpoint. The medium duty
equipment is designed to achieve densities in the range of 700 to
750 pounds per cubic yard. The heavy duty equipment is designed
to achieve densities in the range of 900 to 1,000 pounds per cubic
33
-------
yard. Rear loading equipment is available in many sizes, ranging
generally from 10 to 25 cubic yards.
A summary of the significant equipment performance data obtain-
ed during the study is provided by Table 4. For the purposes of
this study, the first loads were assumed to be "full" loads in terms
of the operating performance of each system. Figure 10 shows
graphically the relationship between the weight of the first loads
and the weight of the other loads.
The information of Table 4 shows the difference between the
equipment performance being achieved in actual practice and the
minimum performance that can reasonably be expected from the equip-
ment. While there were differences in the age of the equipment
being used in this study, all of the equipment was sufficiently
new to be able to achieve the minimum compaction densities establish-
ed i n the tab Ie .
D i scuss i on. Many factors influence the selection of collection
equipment. Some of these factors include the size of the crew,
the number of homes to be served, the waste generation rates, the
type of waste being collected, the time spent in collecting waste,
the distance to the disposal point and relative costs of the equip-
ment .
In considering compaction collection vehicles, the user has
the choice of front loading, side loading, or rear loading equip-
ment. The user can also select light duty, medium duty, or heavy
duty compacting equipment. Within each of these categories, a
wide range of sizes is available.
In selecting his equipment, the user should match the equipment
specifications (size, type, and compacting performance) with the
34
-------
TABLE 4
EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE DATA
STUDY RESULTS
SYSTEM
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
TYPE
EQUIPMENT
SL
SL
SL
RL
RL
DC
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
AVERAGE
SIZE
(CU YD)
25.0
25.0
33.0
20.0
24.2
8.0
20.0
23.0
20.0
20.0
15.0
AVERAGE
LOADS
PER DAY
1 .8
1 .6
1 .0
2.4
1 .9
4.4
2.2
1 .6
2.3
1 .0
1 .9
AVERAGE
WEIGHT
PER DAY
(TONS)
9.44
9.00
5.73
12.62
14.49
6.96
12.65
9.72
14. 10
6.18
6. 18
AVERAG
FIRST
LOAD
(TONS)
6.43
5.93
5.69
5.92
9.02
1 .56
6.61
5.98
6.93
6.1,4
3.86
E WEIGHT
ALL
OTHERS
(TONS)
3.95
4.90
3.41
4.92
5.85
1 .58
4.89
6.84
5.35
2.38
2.60
RATIO
ALL OTHERS
TO FIRST
LOAD
0.61
0.83
0.60
0.83
0.65
1 .00
0.74
1.14
0.77
0.39
0.67
WEIGHT PER
CUBIC YARD
FIRST LOAD
(POUNDS)
515
474
345
593
744
390
662
525
693
614
522
EXPECTED RESULTS
MINIMUM1
EXPECTED
WEIGHT PER
CUBIC YARD
(POUNDS)
500
500
500
700
900
500
700
700
700
700
700
MINIMUM
EXPECTED
WEIGHT
PER LOAD
(TONS)
6.25
6.25
8.25
7.00
10.89
2.00
7.00
8.05
7.00
7.00
5.25
RAT 1 0
FIRST LOAD
TO MINIMUM
EXPECTED
WEIGHT PER
LOAD
1 .03
0.95
0.69
0.85
0.63
0.78
0.94
0.74
0.99
0.88
0.74
NOTES: 1. Assumed densities based on expected performance by manufacturers of equipment.
Normal densities for the side loading vehicle should range from 500 to 550 pounds per cubic yard.
Normal densities for medium duty rear loading packing equipment should range from 700 to 750 pounds per
cubic yard.
Normal densities for the detachable container should range from 500 to 600 pounds per cubic yard.
Normal densities for heavy duty rear loading packing equipment should range from 900 to 1,000 pounds
per cubic yard.
2. Expected minimum load based on the minimum densities of Note 1 and average size (cubic yards) of the
system vehicles.
3. Ratio of the system first load weight which Is assumed to be a "full" loSTd, and the minimum expected
weight per load.
-------
Figure 10
Average Weight Per Load
(1st load, others)
10.00
in
c
o
7.50 -
5.00 .
2.50 •
Systems
No. of Mos. 12
of Data
-------
characteristics of his operation (crew size, weight to be collected,
collection time and distance to the disposal point) such that full
loads are collected, insofar as possible, and the number of loads
is minimized. Full loads in this context means achieving the minimum
compaction density for the class of equipment being used or consider-
ed. Collecting full loads minimizes the proportion of time being
spent in the collection phase of the operation by minimizing the
transport time and number of loads and provides maximum cost effective-
ness in the utilization of the collection equipment.
The decision to select a specific kind and size of collection
equipment should not be taken lightly by the solid waste collection
manager. The most important reasons are that equipment impacts on
labor productivity- and the equipment selected represents a consider-
able capital investment that will be used for several years. During
the period of use, there is little that can be done to change a bad
decision because in most cases the equipment is used until it is
worn out. This period is generally from five to ten years. Since
most packers tend to be competitive in cost, price should not be a
primary consideration in selecting equipment.
Two general methods can be used to determine the size of vehicle
that is required for the collection operations. The best method is
to match the equipment specifications with the expected operational
performance. In this case, the kind and size of vehicle is determined
from a rational analysis of the factors that effect the collection
activities. The significant factors would include crew size, the
annual generation rates, the time available for collecting, and
the performance standards expected from the crews. With this infor-
mation, the trade-offs between the kinds of vehicles and then sizes
37
-------
can be analyzed to provide the most cost-effective solution for the
operation.
An alternate method is deciding on a general purpose vehicle,
such as medium duty packer of 20 cubic yards, and then designing the
route around this vehicle. This is the method that is probably used
most often; however, with this method there tends to be a significant
imbalance between the capabilities of the vehicle and the character-
istics of the route and capability of the crews. This leads to the
underutiIization of vehicles that is indicated in Table 4.
The difference between the minimum compaction density and
maximum compaction density constitutes a reserve that can be used
to handle peak generation rates or to permit growth in the route
structure. This reserve is of the nature of 50 pounds per cubic
yard for the light and medium duty equipment and 100 pounds per cubic
yard for heavy duty equipment.
In only one system the weight of the subsequent loads exceeded
the weight of the first load. This condition indicates the time
at which collection ends for the first load is being dictated by
considerations other than having a full load. Even though the subse-
quent loads were heavier than the first loads, they were still
significantly less (0.85) than the minimum expected weight for a
full Ioad.
Conclusions. The following conclusions resulted from a con-
sideration of the equipment used in the study.
There is a strong tendency to underutilize the equipment from
a compaction standpoint. Only one system out of eleven routinely
achieved a reasonable minimum first load weight for "full" loads
for the equipment being used.
38
-------
Two systems out of eleven averaged only one load per dayr and both
of these underutilized their equipment capacities. All other systems
averaged more than one load per day.
In two systems the subsequent loads were equal to or greater than
the first or "full" loads. In all cases, the weight of the subsequent
loads was significantly less than the minimum weight expected for
"full" loads. This indicates the equipment was underutilized for
subsequent loads. This procedure results in relatively more time
being spent in transporting and relatively less time being spent in
collecting than there should be in a system in which the vehicle
characteristics are matched with the route and crew characteristics.
Performance Analysis by Crew Size
Genera I . In this analysis only the curb and alley systems were
considered. Both backyard systems used a crew of two men. The curb
and alley systems used crew sizes of one, two, and three men. While
there were significant differences in the operation of the nine curb
and alley systems, the analytical approach provides a general indi-
cation of what can be expected from crews of various sizes. Data
were examined from the standpoint of the whole crew and also from
the standpoint of the individual crewman.
A summary of the significant crew and crewman performance data
for curb and alley systems is provided by Table 5. This table
shows the productivity of the various systems in terms of homes
served and tons collected.
A summary of crew productive time for curb and alley systems
is provided by Table 6.
The marginal productivity of the crews and individual crewmen
for curb and alley systems is provided by Table 7. In the first
39
-------
TABLE 5
CREW PERFORMANCE DATA (CURB AND ALLEY SYSTEMS)
CREW DATA
SYSTEM CREW HOMES SERVED
NUMBER SIZE PER CREW
PER DAY
HOMES SERVED
PER CREW
PER COLLECTION
HOUR*
TONS COLLECTED
PER CREW
PER DAY
TONS COLLECTED
PER CREW
PER COLLECTION
HOUR
CREWMAN DATA
HOMES SERVED
PER CREWMAN IN
PER COLLECTION
HOUR
TONS COLLECTED
DEX PER CREWMAN
PER COLLECTION
HOUR
INDEX
SYSTEMS COLLECTING ONCE WEEKLY
1 1 410
2 1 254
-:'..4- 2 512
'.5 2 575
,7 3 407
8 3 306
107.3
55.7
107.0
123.3
104.5
62.7
9.44
9.00
12.62
14.49
12.65
9.72
2.5
2.0
2.6
3.1
3.3
2.0
107.3 1.00 2.5
55.7 0.52 2.0
53.4 0.50 1.3
57.7 0.54 1.5
34.9 0.33 1.1
20.9 0.19 0.7
1 .00
0.80
0.52
0.60
0.44
0.28
SYSTEMS COLLECTING TWICE WEEKLY
• 3 1 410
...6 2 % 574
9- 3 854
84.2
138.4
200.5
5.73
6.96
14.10
1 .2
1 .7
3.3
84.2 0.78 1.2
66.6 0.62 0.8
66.5 0.62 1.1
0.48
0.32
0.44
*Collection hour = on-route time
-------
TABLE 6
CREW PRODUCTIVE TIME (CURB AND ALLEY SYSTEMS)
System
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Crew
Size
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
ON-ROUTE ACTIVITIES
Re 1 at 1 ve
Time On
Route
65.2
67.8
77.4
68.5
69.8
72.8
75.8
64.6
70.0
Rel at 1 ve
Product! ve
Time
63.7
65.0
75.0
47.3
43.2
55.9
53.3
46.9
51 .0
Percent
Product 1 ve
Time
97.6
95.8
96.8
69.0
61 .8
76.7
70.3
72.6
72.8
Percent
Non-Product 1 ve
Time
2.4
4.2
3.2
31 .0
38.2
23.3
29.7
27.4
27.2
TOTAL ACTIVITIES
Rel at 1 ve
Total
Time
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Percent
Product I ve
Time
98.5
97.2
97.6
63.0
58.3
69.5
61 .3
58.7
61 .0
Percent
Non-Product 1 ve
Time
1 .5
2.8
2.4
37.0
41 .7
30.5
38.7
41 .3
39.0
-------
TABLE 7
MARGINAL PRODUCTIVITY (CURB AND ALLEY SYSTEMS)
*.
M
CREW
SIZE
1 man
2 man
3 man
1 man
2 man
3 man
1 man
2 man
3 man
1 man
2 man
3 man
.HOMES PER
CREW PER HOUR
82.4
122.9
122.6
81 .5
1 15.2
83.6
84.2
138.4
200.5
107.3
138.4
200.5
MARGINAL
INCREASE IN
PRODUCTIVITY
HOMES PER
CREW PER HOUR
40.5
(0.3)
33.7
(31 .6)
54.2
62.1
31 .1
62.1
TONS PER CREW
PER HOUR
AVE
1 .9
2.5
2.9
AVERAGE OF ALL S\
2.3
2.9
2.7
AVERAGE OF ALL
1 .2
1 .7
3.3
MOST PRODUCT I
2.5
3.1
3.3
MARGINAL
INCREASE IN
PRODUCTIVITY
TONS PER
CREW PER HOUR
RAGE OF ALL SYSTE
0.6
0.4
STEMS COLLECTING
0.6
(0.2)
SYSTEMS COLLECTIN
0.5
1 .6
VE PARAMETERS FROI
0.6
0.2
HOMES PER
CREWMAN PER
HOUR
"IS
82.4
59.9
40.8
3NLY ONCE A WEEK
81 .5
56.6
27.9
I TWICE A WEEK
84.2
66.6
66.5
1 ALL SYSTEMS
107.3
66.6
66.5
MARGINAL
DECREASE IN
PRODUCTIVITY
HOMES PER
CREWMAN PER
HOUR
22.5
19.1
24.9
28.7
.17.6
O.I
40.7
O.I
TONS PER
CREWMAN
PER HOUR
1 .9
1 .2
1 .0
2.3
1 .4
0.9
1 .2
0.8
1 .1
2.5
1 .5
1 .1
MARGI NAL
DECREASE IN
PRODUCTIVITY
TONS PER
CREWMAN
PER HOUR
0.7
0.2
0.9
0.5
0.4
(0.3)
1 .0
0.4
-------
section of the table, system averages by size of crew are indicated.
Each number for each crew size represents eight once-a-week and four
twice-a-week crews. In the second portion, information for those
systems that collect once weekly was averaged by size of crew.
In the third section, information for those systems that collect
twice weekly is provided. In the last section, the best single
parameter for each crew size was used, regardless of the frequency
of coI Iecti on.
Ranges of crew and crewman productivity are provided by Table 8.
D i scuss i on. Many factors influence the productivity of the
collection crews and crewmen. Some of these factors include the
point of collection, frequency of collection, routing, housing
density, traffic and parked cars, collection methodology, width of
the street, type of equipment being used, the expected work effort
in the normal work day, the waste generation rates, the type of
waste being collected, the nature of the storage container, general
climate conditions, the kind of incentive system and the motivational
aspects of the collection organization to include the relative pay
scales. No attempt was made during this study to isolate the effect
of the individual factors that influence the crew productivity.
While there is considerable knowledge on the motivational aspects
of many kinds of workers, there is very little information in the
literature concerning the solid waste collector. this study
shows that the one-man crew is significantly more productive than
his counterpart in multi-man crews. One can speculate, based
on motivational studies that have been conducted with other work-
ers, that this is related to the degree of control the one-man
crew exercises over his task. He has control over his time
43
-------
TABLE 8
RANGES OF CREW AND CREWMAN PRODUCTIVITY (CURB AND ALLEY SYSTEMS)
SYSTEM
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
CREW PRODUCTIVITY
HOMES PER COLLECTION HOUR*
RANGE
92-124
50-68
77-92
94-135
110-165
130-159
87-125
58-66
179-226
AVERAGE
107
55
84
107
123
138
104
62
200
TONS PER COLLECTION HOUR*
RANGE
1 .9-3.2
1 .7-2.3
1 .1-1 .3
2.1-3.1
2.7-3.8
1 .5-1 .9
3.0-4.0
1 .5-2.3
3.1-3.5
AVERAGE
2.5
2.0
1 .2
2.6
3.1
1 .7
3.3
2.0
3.3
CREWMAN PRODUCTIVITY
HOMES PER COLLECTION HOUR*
RANGE
92-124
50-68
77-92
47-67
45-78
62-79
29-41
19-22
58-74
AVERAGE
107
55
84
53
57
66
34
20
66
TONS PER COLLECTION HOUR
RANGE
1 .9-3.2
1 .7-2.3
1 .1-1.3
1.1-1 .6
1 .2-1 .9
0.8-1.0
1.0-1 .3
0.5-0.7
1 .0-1 .2
AVERAGE
2.5
2.0
1.2
1 .3
1 .5
0.8
1 .1
0.7
1 .1
* Collection = On-Route
-------
and physical movement. He establishes the pace at which he chooses
to work. He is not dependent upon the activities of other crew
members. He also has complete control over his technical environment
He is generally freer from close direct supervision. These control
aspects may give the one-man crews greater job satisfaction, and
hence, result in greater productivity. In addition, the one-man
crews generally receive more pay than members of larger crew sizes.
This situation also probably contributes to the greater productivity
of one-man crews.
The time motion data indicate that the one-man crews spend a
significantly greater proportion of the on-route time in productive
activities in comparison with the two- and three-man crews. The
average on-route percentage of productive time for the one-man
crews was 96.7 percent. The non-productive time was about equally
divided between waiting and other time. The two- and three-man
crews show a significant decrease in the proportion of productive
time on-route. This percentage averaged 69.2 for the two-man crews
and 71.9 for the three-man crews. The non-productive time with the
two- and three-man crews was associated primarily with waiting.
In these cases, one crew member is waiting on another crew member
or the crew members are waiting on the compaction cycle.
The study addressed only the productive and non-productive
times associated with the collection or on-route phase of the
operations. For the two- and three-man crews there was also a signi-
ficant amount of non-productive time associated with the going to
the route and transport phases of the operation. This non-productiv
effort is included under the total activities columns of Table 5.
These columns indicate that the percentage of productive time for
45
-------
the total activities of the day averaged 63.6 for the two-man crews
and 60.3 for the three-man crews. These figures include the non-
productive time associated with going to the route and transport-
ing waste. Table 2 indicates that approximately 30 percent of the
time for the curb and alley systems is spent in going to the route
and in transporting waste. The one-man crews are completely effec-
tive in these phases. With the two-man crews, one man is non-produc-
tive. Therefore, one-half of the man-hours spent in these phases
is non-productive. For the three-man crew, two men are non-produc-
tive, and two-thirds of the man-hours spent in these phases is
wasted effort.
Table 7 indicates there is a considerable range in the producti-
vity factors for each system, both in terms of the crew performance
and the crewman performance. Much of this variability is undoubtedly
associated with the crew members pacing themselves to get the work
done in a reasonable time. A review of the monthly DAAP data indi-
cates that in periods of high generation, the rate at which the
weight is collected increases. Likewise, in periods of low genera-
tion, the rate at which homes are served increases.
Cone I us i ons . The following conclusions resulted from a con-
sideration of the crew sizes that were studied.
The productivity per crewman in terms of homes served and
tons collected per collection hour is greatest with the one-man
crews. On the average, the productivity of one two-man crew is less,
than the productivity of two one-man crews. Likewise, the produc-
tivity of one three-man crew is less than the productivity of three
one-man crews.
The percentage of on route productive collection time for one-
46
-------
man crews is significantly greater than the percentage of productive
time for two- and three-man crews. For one-man crews, the on-route
productive time is approximately 70 percent. There is no signifi-
cant difference in the percentage of productive time between the
two- and three-man crews.
In going to the route and in transporting the collected waste
only the driver is productive. All other crewmen, whether they ride
with the driver or not, are non-productive in these operational
phases. With this transport phase consuming approximately 30 percent
of the work day, then one-half and two-thirds of the man-hours of
this effort are wasted for two- and three-man crews, respectively.
Performance Analysis by Frequency of Collection
Genera I . In this analysis only the curb and alley systems were
considered. Both backyard systems collected on a frequency of once
a week. Six of the curb and alley systems collected once a week and
three of the systems collected twice a week. Of the six curb and
alley systems that collected once a week, two systems uti.lized a
crew of one man, two utilized a crew of two men, and two utilized a
crew of three men. The three systems that collected twice a week
consisted of one system with each crew size. A summary of the signi-
ficant performance data by frequency of collection is provided by
Table 9.
D i scuss i on. The collection frequency adopted by a governmental
agency may be dictated by several factors. Probably the most impor-
tant factor is associated with the amount of waste compared
to storage space available. Also important are the general climates
and health conditions in the area, and the level of service desired
by the citizens and for which they are willing to pay. Collection
47
-------
TABLE 9
FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION DATA
SYSTEM
NUMBER
1
2
4
5
7
8
Averages
3
6
9
Averages
POUNDS PER
HOME PER
COLLECTION
46.2
71 .0
49.3
50.5
62.2
64.9
57.4
28.2
24.4 *
33. 1
28.6
POUNDS PER
HOME PER
WEEK
46.2
71 .0
49.3
50.5
62.2
64.9
57.4
56.3
48.8
66. 1
57. 1
HOMES SERVED
PER WEEK
2,052
1 ,268
2,561
2,876
2,034
1 ,531
2,053
1 ,231
1,147
1 ,707
1 ,361
HOMES
SERVED PER
COLLECTION
HOUR
COLLECTION ON
107.3
55.7
107.0
123.3
104.5
62.7
93.4
COLLECTION '
COST PER
HOME PER
COLLECTION
CE A WEEK
0. 13
0.20
0. 16
0. 15
0.30
0.36
0.22
COLLECTION TWICE A WEEK
84.2
138.4
200.5
141 .0
0. 15
0. 19
0. 17
0. 17
COLLECTION
COST PER
HOME PER
WEEK
0. 13
0.20
0. 16
0.15
0.30
0.36
0.22
•
0.29
0.37
0.34
0.33
TONS
COLLECTED
PER
COLLECTION
HOUR
2.5
2.0
2.6
3. 1
3.3
2.0
2.6
1 .2
1 .7
3.3
2. 1
COLLECTION
COST PER
TON
5.42
5.75
6.54
6.09
9.71
1 1 .07
7.43
10.42
15.40
10.26
12.02
-------
twice a week is a higher level of service than collection once a
week. In comparison with service once a week, collection twice a
week requires additional resources in terms of crews and equipment.
Twice-a-week collection has a greater impact on the number of
homes served per collection hour than on the tons collected per
collection hour when compared with the same productivity factors
for the once-a-week collection. This is undoubtedly related to the
lesser weight collected per home each collection day and a corres-
pondingly smaller number of containers present at each home.
Cone I us ions. The following conclusions resulted from a con-
sideration of the frequencies of collection that were studied.
Increasing the frequency of collection from once a week to twice
a week required approximately 50 percent more crews and equipment
than the once-a-week systems. The average number of homes served
per week for the twice-a-week collection systems was approximately
two-thirds the number for once-a-week collection systems. Conversely,
to decrease the frequency of collection from twice a week to once a
week requires approximately 33 percent fewer crews and equipment than
the twice-a-week systems.
In terms of productivity factors, the twice-a-week collection
systems served approximately 50 percent more homes per collection
hour than the once-a-week collection systems. The weight collected
per collection hour, however, was only 80 percent of the weight
collected per collection hour by the once-a-week collection systems.
Performance Analysis by Storage Point
Genera I. Two storage point locations were prescribed for the
study effort. These were curb and alley and backyard. No distinc-
tion was made between the curb and alley for study purposes. Of
49
-------
the systems studied, only System 8 was basically an alley system.
Systems 10 and 11 were backyard systems. All other systems were
curb and alley systems with collection being made predominantly
from the curb.
For the purposes of this analysis, only the two-man crews were
considered. A summary of the significant performance data consider-
ed by storage point is provided by Table 10.
Pi scuss ion. Backyard collection is a higher level of service
than curb and alley collection. This kind of service causes the
least impact on the physical requirements of the citizens regarding
the removal of solid waste. This level of service is also the most
expensive as additional personnel and equipment resources are requir-
ed in comparison with curb and alley systems for the same number of
homes served per week.
Cone I us i ons. The following conclusion resulted from a con-
sideration of the storage point locations that were studied.
The productivity of a backyard system, in terms of ho.mes served
per collection hour and tons collected per collection hour, is
approximately one-half the productivity of a corresponding curb and
a I Iey system.
Collection Methodology
Three collection methodologies were prescribed for the study
effort depending on crew size and point of collection. They were:
collection from one side of the street at a time for curbside
collection, one and two-man crews (Systems 1-6); collection from
both sides of the street at a time for curbside collection, three-
man crews (Systems 7-9); and use of the tote-barrel for backyard
collection (Systems 10 and 11).
50
-------
TABLE 10
STORAGE POINT DATA
SYSTEM
NUMBER
4
5
6
10
1 1
COLLECTION
FREQUENCY
1
1
2
1
1
WEIGHT PER
HOME PER
COLLECTION
(POUNDS)
CURB AND AL1
49.3
50.5
24.4
BACKYARD
33.9
51 .1
COLLECTION
TIME PER
HOME PER
COLLECTION
(MIN)
EY SYSTEMS - 2 MAN CRE
0.56
0.49
0.44
SYSTEMS - 2 MAN CREW
0.83
1 .36
SERVICES PER
CREW PER
COLLECTION
HOUR
f
107.0
123.3
138.4
72.1
44.4
WEIGHT
COLLECTED
PER CREW PER
COLLECTION
HOUR
2.6
3. 1
1 .7
1 .2
1 . 1
-------
Both backyard systems used two-man crews. In each case, both
the driver and collector drove and collected. Both sides of the
street were collected at the same time.
These methodologies were selected because they had been shown
to be very productive and efficient in previous EPA studies. For
curbside collection, it is generally impractical to collect from
both sides of the street with one- and two-man crews.
With the three-man systems, there is a practical choice between
collecting from one side and collecting from both sides of the
street at a time. Factors which influence this decision are the
width of street, traffic flow, parked cars, and housing density.
With wide streets, heavy traffic and high density housing, it is
generally safer and best to collect from one side of the street at
a time to avoid traffic and street crossing delays. However, with
narrow streets and little traffic, there is greater potential for
waiting delays on the part of the crewmen in collecting only one
side at a t i me.
Performance Analysis by Incentive System
Genera I. Two incentive systems were investigated in the study
effort. They were the task incentive system and the standard day
system.
The task incentive system was used by seven of the eleven systems
in the study-
The task Incentive system is one in which a work effort is pre-
scribed for the crew. When this work effort is completedkto the
satisfaction of the appropriate supervisor, the crew is dismissed
(unless another crew is unable to cover its route because of absentee-
3,
ism or equipment failure). With the task incentive system compensa-
tion Is not generally paid to the crew for overtime work unless the
52
-------
reason for overtime was clearly not the fault of the crew. For the
purposes of this study, overtime was not considered for the systems
which operated under the task incentive system.
The standard day system is one in which a work effort is usually
prescribed for the crew, but regardless of how early the task is
completed, the crew is required to work the full standard day. The
standard day for the four systems in this study was eight hours.
Thus, the crews were obligated to perform additional work if they
completed the collection effort in less than the standard day. In
addition, compensation at the rate of 1.5 times the regular pay
was made for all overtime worked in this study-
In the scheme of systems studies in this effort, there was one
task incentive system and one standard day system for each crew
size in the curb and alley once-a-week systems. One of the backyard
systems used the task incentive system and the other used the
standard day system. A summary of the significant incentive system
performance data for the different collection systems is provided
by Tables 11 and 12.
D i scuss ion. An exact proportion of systems that use the Task
Incentive system in comparison with the standard day system is not
available. It is generally believed that somewhat more than one-
half of the systems are operating under the task incentive system.
The application of the standard day system takes many forms
In actual practice. This ranges from a fully productive application
such as is indicated by System 5 to a deliberate expansion of the
work effort to consume the entire work day or to a diversion of
personnel to other efforts after the collection activities have
been completed.
53
-------
TABLE
INCENTIVE SYSTEM PERFORMANCE DATA - COMPARISONS BY INCENTIVE SYSTEMS
SYSTEM
NUMBER
1
2
4
5
7
8
10
1 1
Averages
INCENTIVE
SYSTEM
Task
Standard Day
Task
Standard Day
Task
Standard Day
Task
Standard Day
Task
Standard Day
PLANNED
WORK WEEK
(HOURS)
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
HOURS
WORKED
PER WEEK
CURB AND
29.62
33.74
CURB AND
35.64
35. 17
CURB AND
26.03
39.22
BACKY;
31 .32
34.75
30.65
35.72
PERCENT
OF WEEK
WORKED
ALLEY - COl
74.1
84.4
ALLEY - COl
89. 1
87.9
ALLEY - COl
65. 1
98. 1
RD - COLLEC
78.3
86.9
76.6
89.3
TOTAL
ANNUAL
OVERTIME
COST PER CREW
.LECTION ONCE WEE
107.81
.LECTION ONCE WEE
1 ,492.12
.LECTION ONCE WEE
2,804.32
:TION ONCE WEEKLY
62.85
1 , 1 16.78
DAAP
COLLECTION
TIME PER
HOME
(MIN)
-------
TABLE 12
INCENTIVE SYSTEM PERFORMANCE DATA - COMPARISONS BY PRODUCTIVITY MEASURES
SYSTEM
NUMBER
1
2
4
5
7
8
10
1 1
Averages
INCENTIVE
SYSTEM
Task
Standard Day
Task
Standard Day
Task
Standard Day
Task
Standard Day
Task
Standard Day
HOMES
SERVED
PER DAY
CURB AND ALLEY -
410
254
CURB AND ALLEY -
512
575
CURB AND ALLEY -
407
306
BACKYARD - CO
364
243
423
344
TONS
COLLECTED
PER DAY
HOMES SERVED
PER CREW
PER COLLECTION
HOUR
COLLECTION ONCE WEEKLY - 1 MAN CREW
9.44
9.00
COLLECTION ONCE WEEK
12.62
14.49
COLLECTION ONCE WEEKL
1 2.65
9.72
LLECTION ONCE WEEKLY
6. 18
6. 18
10.22
9.85
107.3
55.7
_Y - 2 MAN CREW
107.0
123.3
i - 3 MAN CREW
104.5
62.7
- 2 MAN CREW
72. 1
44.4
97.7
71 .5
TONS COLLECTED
PER CREW
PER COLLECTION
HOUR
2.5
2.0
2.6
3. 1
3.3
2.0
1 .2
1 . 1
2.4
2.0
U1
Ul
-------
It is generally acknowledged that the task incentive system
is more productive in practice than the standard day system.
Indeed, the results of this study indicate this in three direct
comparisons of systems out of four. When the results of all of
the task incentive systems are averaged and compared with the
standard day systems, this is clearly the case in this study.
The task incentive system, however, is a good system only
if the work effort which is expected to be accomplished in a normal
work day bears some reasonable relationship to what should be
accomplished in the normal work day. The data of Table 11 indicates
that the portion of the normal work week that was spent on collec-
tion activities (to route, collection, and transport) for the task
incentive systems ranged from a low of 65.1 percent to a high of
89.1 percent. The average of these systems was approximately 76.6
percent. Each individual manager will have to appraise his own
situation and decide what objective figure would be right for his
organization. In most of the task incentive systems studied in this
effort, an additional planned one-half hour per day would have
resulted in better utilization of the equipment and greater cost
effectiveness in the operation, even if a fair percentage of the
savings were returned to the crews in the form of higher wages.
In considering the productivity of the standard day systems,
there is a tendency for the task to expand to fill the day, and if
not controlled, to go into overtime. Even with System 5, which was
the one standard day system that out-performed the task incentive
system, the DAAP collection time per home (actual time) was 1.40
times the time motion productive time (actual time minus non-productive
time) per home. This was the highest ratio among the standard day
56
-------
systems. Consequent Iy> other factors must account for the high
productivity of System 5. The high percentage of bags and one-way
Items undoubtedly has a favorable influence on this performance.
The significance of the percentage of one-way Items will be discussed
in the next section.
In the case of systems using a one-man crew, it would appear
that the standard day system would be counter productive. If the
higher productivity that is indicated by the one-man systems can be
explained by current motivational concepts, then productivity must
be associated with the high degree of control the crewman has over
his work. In this context, it makes little sense to give the crew-
man this control so he can establish his work pace and, at the same
time, require him to work a full standard day. The task Incentive
system should be used with all operations involving a crew of one
man.
In general, it appears that the majority of the task incentive
systems have a higher level of collection production and productivity
than the standard day systems. This is true in an absolute sense,
but, more importantly, the task incentive systems appear to be doing
the work more efficiently. Stating this differently, the task
incentive systems tend to do more work and do it more efficiently
than the standard day systems.
Conclusions. The following conclusions resulted from a con-
sideration of the incentive system data that were studies.
Collection systems operating under the task incentive system
tend to work a smaller percentage of the normal work week than the
standard day systems.
The work effort of standard day collection systems has a
57
-------
tendency to expand into overtime operations.
The collection production and productivity of the task incen-
tive systems tend to be greater than the collection production and
productivity of standard day systems.
Performance Analysis by Type of Storage Container
Genera I . Bags and cans were prescribed as the storage con-
tainers for all of the systems that were studied. The relative
quantities of bags, cans and miscellaneous items were determined
from the time motion studies and backyard survey.
Miscellaneous items are considered to be one-way items from
a collection standpoint and are considered in the same category
as bags. Miscellaneous items include things such as cardboard
boxes of waste, bundles of paper, and bundles of small twigs and
branches. One-way items need to be handled only once on the part
of the collectors, and hence, should have a tendency to improve
the productivity of the crews. On the other hand, poorly contained
waste tends to slow the crews down.
A summary of the significant data pertaining to storage con-
tainers is provided by Table 13.
D i scuss ion . System 10 averaged only 1.2 containers per service,
This was the smallest average among the systems. In addition, 96
percent of the containers were cans. This was also the highest
percentage of cans. System 10 required all items to be placed in
cans and charged for servjce on the basis of the number of cans
served. These requirements tended to limit the number of bags and
miscellaneous items that were used in service. They also tended to
limit the number of cans that residents used as storage containers.
System 7 averaged 6.1 containers per service. This was the
58
-------
TABLE 13
STORAGE CONTAINER DATA
SYSTEM
NUMBER
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
AVERAGE
NUMBER OF
CONTAINERS
PER
COLLECTION
4.5
5.1
3.0
4.6
5.5
2.5
6 . 1
5.9
2.7
1 .2
4.3
AVERAGE NUMBER
BAGS
1.5 (34.0)
1.3 (26.0)
0.9 (29.0)
2.6 (56.0)
4.6 (85.0)
0.5 (19.0)
3.6 (56.0)
1.5 (25.0)
1.2 (46.0)
0.0 ( 2.0)
1.4 (33.0)
(AND PERCENT) OF S
CANS
CURB AND ALLEV
2.3 (52.0)
2.7 (53.0)
1.6 (53.0)
1.3 (28.0)
0.4 ( 6.0)
1 .5 (61 .0)
1.5 (28.0)
2.7 (47.0)
I.I (41 .0)
BACKYARD S
1.2 (96.0)
2.4 (55.0)
TORAGE CONTAINERS
MISC
SYSTEMS - BAGS AND
0.7 (14.0)
I.I (21 .0)
0.5 (18.0)
0.7 (16.0)
0.5 ( 9.0)
0.5 (20.0)
1.0 (16.0)
1.7 (28.0)
6.4 (13.0)
YSTEMS - TOTE-BARREL
0.0 ( 2.0)
0.5 (12.0)
PERC
ONE WAY
ITEMS
CANS
48.0
47.0
47.0
72.0
94.0
39.0
72.0
53.0
59.0
4.0
45.0
ENT
TWO WAY
ITEMS
52.0
53.0
53.0
28.0
6.0
61 .0
28.0
47.0
41 .0
96.0
55.0
HOMES SERVED
PER COLLECTION
HOUR
107.3
55.7
84.2
107.0
123.3
138.4
104.5
62.7
200.5
72.1
44.4
DAAP
COLLECTION
TIME PER
HOME (MIN)
0.56
1 .08
0.72
0.56
0.49
0.44
0.58
0.98
0.31
0.83
1 .36
-------
largest average among the systems. A little over one-half of the
containers were bags, but 72 percent of the containers were one-
way items. This was the second highest percentage of one-way items.
System 5 had the highest percent of one-way items. Ninety-four
percent of the items were one-way items, and 85 percent of the items
were bags. The ordinance under which System 5 operated tended to
generate a high percentage of bags even though these were provided
by the residents. Cans were limited to 15 gaI Ions-capacity. Bags
were limited to 30 gallons capacity- Although there was no limit
on the number of items that could be placed on the curb, these
requirements tended to limit the number of cans to a large degree.
Intuitively, it appears that the percentage of one-way items
and the weight per home per collection would have an important
influence on the productivity of collection systems, especially for
the curb and alley systems. To investigate this possibility,
selected data were subjected to regression analysis. The resulting
equation was Y= 0.489 - 0.008X1 + 0.013X
where Y = collection minutes per home
X^= percent one-way items
X= pounds per home per collection
This equation does indicate that the percent one-way items (X.)
does have a beneficial effect on crew productivity and tends to
decrease the collection minutes per home (Y). The pounds per home
per collection CX.^ nas an adverse effect on productivity and tends
to increase the time required to service a home. These conditions
are in agreement with what we would expect in the field. The actual
effect of a change in percentage of one-way items and pounds per
home per collection depends on the magnitudes of these variables.
60
-------
For a 10 percent change in the average values of X. (59.0 percent)
and X- (47.8 pounds) the equation indicates that the pounds per
home per collection has about 1.3 times the effect of percent one-
way items and is in the opposite direction.
Cone I us Ions. The following conclusions resulted from a con-
sideration of the type of storage containers.
The percentage of one-way items (bags and miscellaneous items)
does have a significant effect on the system productivity. An
s
increase in the percentage of one-way items reduces the time requir-
ed to service a home, and conversely, increases the number of homes
served per collection hour- A decrease in the percentage of one-
way items increases the time required to service a home, and con-
versely, reduces the number of homes served per collection hour-
The weight per home per collection also effects the system
productivity, and this effect is greater and opposite in direction
to the effect of one-way items. An increase in weight per home
increases the time required to service a home and decreases the
number of homes served per collection hour. Conversely, a decrease
in weight per home per collection reduces the time required to
service a home and increases the number of homes served per collec-
t i on hour.
Performance Analysis by Productivity and Efficiency
General. For the purpose of this analysis, productivity will be
considered in terms of homes served per collection hour and tons
collected per collection hour. Productivity will be considered
from the standpoint of the crew and the individual crewman. The
productivity of each system will be compared with System 1.
Efficiency for the purpose of this analysis will be considered
61
-------
in terms of the cost per service per week and the cost per ton.
The efficiency of each system will be compared with System 1.
Productivity and efficiency indices were provided in Table 3.
Systems are ranked according to their productivity in Table 14.
Systems are ranked according to their collection cost efficiency
in Table 15.
Discuss ion. Productivity and efficiency are interrelated
with the factors that have already been considered previously.
The total influence of these factors results in a collection rate
per hour in terms of homes served and tons collected. From the
information that has been presented previously, it appears that the
system that has the greatest productivity per crewman and the best
balance among all of the factors that influence system performance
will have the best cost effectiveness and, hence, the greatest cost
efficiency. Of the systems studied, System 1 clearly meets this
requirement to a greater extent than any other system and, hence,
has the best collection cost efficiency.
Cone I us ions. The following conclusions resulted from a con-
sideration of the productivity and efficiency factors.
Curbside is more productive and cost efficient than backyard
service.
For the curb and alley systems:
Systems that have a collection frequency of twice a week tend
to serve more homes per collection hour, but collect fewer tons per
•*
collection hour, than their once-a-week counterparts.
When productivity and cost efficiency are considered on a per
crewman basis, there is a strong tendency for the smaller crew sizes
to have the greatest productivity and best cost efficiency.
62
-------
TABLE 14
RANKING OF SYSTEMS BY PRODUCTIVITY
SERVICES PER CREWMAN PER HOUR
SYSTEM
1
3*
6*
9*
5
2
4
7
8
10
1 1
CREW
SIZE
1
1
2
3
2
1
2
3
3
2
2
ACTUAL
107.3
84.2
66.6
66.5
57.7
55.7
55.4
34.9
20.9
35.3
22. 1
INDEX
1 .00
0.78
0.62
0.62
0.54
0.52
0.50
0.33
0.19
0.33
0.21
TONS PER CREWMAN PER HOUR
SYSTEM
1
2
5
4
3*
7
9*
6*
8
10
1 1
CREW
SIZE
1
1
2
2
1
3
3
2
3
2
2
ACTUAL
2.5
2.0
1 .5
1 .3
1 .2
1 . 1
1 .1
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
INDEX
CURB Al
1 .00
0.80
0.60
0.52
0.48
0.44
0.44
0.32
0.28
BACKY,
0.24
0.24
SERVICES PER CREW PER HOUR
SYSTEM
ID ALLEY J
9*
6*
5
1
4
7
3*
8
2
iRD SYSTEt
10
1 1
CREW
SIZE
YSTEMS
3
2
2
1
2
3
1
3
1
S
2
2
ACTUAL
200.5
138.4
123.3
107.3
107.0
104.5
84.2
62.7
55.7
72.1
44.4
INDEX
1 .87
1 .29
1 .15
1 .00
1 .00
0.97
0.78
0.58
0.52
0.61
0.41
TONS PER CREW PER HOUR
SYSTEM
9*
7
5
4
1
2
8
6*
3*
10
1 1
CREW
SIZE
3
3
2
2
1
1
3
2
1
2
2
ACTUAL
3.3
3,-3
3. 1
2.6
2.5
2.0
2.0
1 .7
1 .2
1 .2
1 . 1
INDEX
1 .32
1 .32
1 .24
1 .04
1 .00
0.80
0.80
0.68
0.48
0.48
0.44
*CoI lection twice weekly,
-------
TABLE 15
RANKING OF SYSTEMS BY COLLECTION COST EFFICIENCY
COLLECTION COST PER SERVICE PER WEEK
SYSTEM
1
5
4
2
3*
7
9*
8
6* >
l^
1 1
CREW SIZE
1
2
2
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
COST
0.13
0.15
0. 16
0.20
0.29
0.30
0.34
0.36
0.37
0.27
0.37
INDEX
CURB AND
1 .00
0.87
0.61
0.65
0.45
0.43
0.36
0.36
0.35
BACKYA
0.48
0.35
.COLLECTION COST PER TON PER WEEK
SYSTEM
kLLEY SYSTEMS
1
2
5
4
7
9*
3*
8
6*
H) SYSTEMS
1 1
10
CREW SIZE
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
3
. 2
2
2
COST
5.42
5.75
6.09
6.54
9.71
10.26
10.42
1 1 .07
15.40
14.62
15.74
INDEX
1 .00
0.94
0.89
0.83
0.56
0.53
0.52
0.49
0.35
0.37
0.34
*Collection twice weekly.
-------
For backyard systems:
The system which uses the task incentive system has a greater
productivity than the system that uses the standard day incentive
system.
There is no clear pattern between the backyard systems regard-
ing collection cost efficiency.
Cost Analysis of Systems Performance
Genera I. The standard cost data of Appendix 1 were used for
all systems of the study effort to eliminate the effects of local
cost variations and to facilitate a cost analysis of system per-
formance. By using standard costs, any significant cost differences
among the systems would then reflect differences in the operational
performance of the systems. These differences may be related to
the kind of equipment that was used and the cost of that equipment,
the crew size, the frequency of collection, the storage point loca-
tion, collection methodology and the incentive system used for the
collection effort. In addition, the differences in cost would be
related to the location of the route relative to the motor pool and
also the location of the disposal point relative to the route.
Since the study effort concentrated on the collection (on-route)
phase of the operations, this aspect of the operation will be empha-
sized in the cost analysis. For this analysis cost data are grouped
by systems on the basis of crew size in Table 16.
Discussion. Even with standard costs, there was considerable
variation in the cost related factors of the collection system
operations; although crew si'ze, frequency of" col I ect Ion, and point
of collection explained much of this. Differences in local costs
would increase these cost variations. How then does the local
65
-------
TABLE 16
SYSTEM COST DATA - COMPARISONS BY CREW SIZE
SYSTEM
NUMBER
1
2
3a
4
5
6»
10
11
7
8
9b,c
COST TO
ROUTE
PER DAY
4.32
1.60
4.45
4.87
5.07
4.34
2.94
2.78
6.25
3.93
10.24
COST TO
COLLECT
PER DAY
51.07
51 .75
59.66
82.23
88.24,
107.14
97.23
90.25
122.52
107.14
143.33
COST TO
TRANSPORT
PER DAY
22. 77
22.80
13.10
32.86
32.98
35.70
18.88
20.63
32.80
54.88
51 .23
EQUIPMENT
COST
PER DAY
32.54
30.70
31 .60
30.66.
31 .68
43.69
28.74
23.98
28.70
30.18
38.18
MANPOWER
COST
PER DAY
TOTAL COST
PER DAY
MANPOWER
COST TO
EQUIPMENT
COST
COST
PER
TON
CURB AND ALLEY - CREW SIZE - 1 MAN
45.62
45.44
45.62
78.16
76.14
77 .22
1 .40
1.49
1 .40
8.29
8.46
13.48
CURB AND ALLEY - CREW SIZE - 2 MAN
89.30
94.60
103.48
119.96
126.28
147.17
2.91
2.99
2.37
9.54
8.72
21 .15
BACKYARD - CREW SIZE - 2 MAN
90.31
89.68
119.05
113.66
3.14
3.74
19.27
18.41
CURB AND ALLEY - CREW SIZE - 3 MAN
132.87
135.77
166.62
161 .57
165.95
204.79
4.63
4.50
4.36
12.82
17.13
14.67
COST PER
HOME PER
WEEK
0.19
0.30
0.37
0.23
0.22
0.51
0.32
0.47,
0.39
0.55
0.48
COLLECTION
COST PER
TON
5.42
5.75
10.42
6.54
6.09
15.40
15.74
14.62
9.71
1 1 .07
10.26
COLLECTION
COST PER
HOME PER
WEEK
0.13
0.20
0.29
0.16
0.15
0.37
0.27
0.37
0.30
0.36
0.34
RATIO
COLLECTION
COST TO
TOTAL COST
0.65
0.68
0.77
0.69
0.70
0.73
.
0.82
0.79
0.76
0.65
0.70
0>
a. Operates six days per week.
b. Operates four days per week.
c. Normal work day Is 10 hours,
-------
collection system manager relate his costs to the systems studied?
While it is possible to convert systems study costs to local costs
and vice versa, the most practical approach is to consider both
the systems study performance and the local performance in terms of
the I oca I costs .
The total daily costs for a local operation may be determined
by completing the form of Figure 11. The local daily costs can be
related to the three phases of collection operations, and also to
the cost per home per week, and cost per ton by the formulas provided
in F i gu re 12.
The formulas for cost per home per week and cost per ton provide
the local manager with a simple and powerful tool for analyzing
his performance in terms of the performance of the systems studied.
By using his daily costs per day, and the operational productivity
and performance factors of the system or systems under consideration,
the manager can make direct cost comparisons with his own performance
Increasing the effective labor rate by $0.50 per hour increases
labor costs approximately $1,000 per man per year. Two tables of
data have been prepared to demonstrate the effect which various local
labor rates would have on the collection cost per ton. Table 17,
and collection cost per home per week, Table 18. These tables can
be used to approximate very closely what the collection costs
per ton and per home per week would be using local labor rates and
assuming the study system performance.
Increasing the capital costs by $1,000 increases the equipment
costs by $200 per year with a five-year depreciation schedule.
Table 19 provides the incremental effect on collection cost
per home per week and per ton for an increase in equipment costs of
67
-------
FIGURE 11
PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING LOCAL
TOTAL PERFORMANCE COSTS PER DAY
Total Costs = Manpower Costs + Equipment Costs
Manpower Costs (Per Day)
Labor Costs (Wages) xxxxx
Fringe Benefits Costs xxxxx
Personnel Overhead Costs xxxxx
Total Manpower Costs
Equipment Costs (Per Day)
Depreciation xxxxx
Maintenance xxxxx
Daily Consumables (gas and oil) xxxxx
Other (Insurance, Fees, Etc.) xxxxx
Total Equipment Costs
Total Costs (Per Day)
xxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
68
-------
FIGURE 12
PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING LOCAL PERFORMANCE COSTS
FOR COMPARISON WITH SYSTEM STUDIES COST
*
Cost to Route (Per Day) =
i^^^i T~-t- i r~«-+ ia~ n •> v Average Time to Route (Per Day)
Local Total Cost (Per Day) X Average Total Time Worked (Per Day)
#
Cost to Collect (Per Day) =
Local Total Cost (Per Day) X Average Time to Collect (Per Day)
7 Average Total Time Worked (Per Day)
%
Cost to Transport (Per Day) =
Lcca, Tot. I Cost (Per Day, X
r
Cost Per Home Served (Per Week) =
Local Total Costs (Per Day) X Frequency of Collection (Per Week)
Average Homes Served (Per Day)
Cost Per Ton =
Local Total Costs (Per Day)
Tons Collected (Per Day)
Collection Cost Per Home Served (Per Week) =
Local Collection Costs (Per Day) X Frequency of Collection (Per Wk)
Average Homes Served (Per Day )
Collection Cost Per Ton =
Local Collection Costs (Per Day)
Average Tons Collected (Per Day)
* Cost by activity is determined on the basis of relative time spent
on the activity. Therefore, the average total time worked per day
serves as the basis for the activity costs, and not the total paid
time. The total paid time is reflected in the total cost per day.
69
-------
TABLE 17
THE EFFECT OF LABOR COSTS ON COLLECTION COST PER TON
I-Man Crew
System
Number
1
2
3
Labor Rates
3.50
4. 19
4.43
8.04
4.00
4.47
4.73
8.58
4.50
4.75
5.03
9.12
5.00
5.02
5.33
9.66
5.50
5.30
5.63
10.20
5.70*
5.41
5.75
10.41
6.00
.5.58
5.93
10.74
6.50
5.85
6.23
1 1 .28
7.00
6. 13
6.53
11.81
System
Number
4
5
6
10
I I
7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00
2-Man Crew
Labor Rates
I I .00 11.15*
12.00 I2.70**I3.00 14.00
4.72 5.15 5.59 6.03 6.46 6.53
4.39 4.80 5.21 5.62 6.03 6.09
10.54 11.39 12.24 13.09 13.94 14.07
11.29 12.36 13.43 14.50 15.57 15.73
10.31 11.35 12.38 13.42 14.45 14.60
6.90 7.20 7.33 7.81
6.44 6.72 6.85 7.26
14.80 15.39 15.65 16.49
16.64 17.39 17.71 18.78
15.48 16.21 16.52 17.55
System
Number
7
8
9
3-Man Crew
Labor Rates
10.50 12.00 13.50 15.00 16.50 16.60* 18.00 *I9.50 21.00
6.76 7.48 8.20 8.92 9.64 9.69
7.71 8.52 9.34 10.15 10.97 11.02
7.13 7.87 8.62 9.37 10.12 10.17
10.36 I I .08 II.80
I I .78 12.60 13.41
10.86 I I .61 12.36
* Study Standard Rate
** Standard rate for System 6
70
-------
TABLE 18
THE EFFECT OF LABOR COSTS ON
COLLECTION COST PER HOME PER WEEK
I-Man Crew
System
Number
1
2
3
System
Number
4
5
6
10
1 1
System
Number
7
8
9
Labor Rates
3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 5.70*
0.10 0.10 0. 1 1 0.12 0.12 0.13
0.16 0.17 0.1.8 0.19 0.20 0.20
0.22 0.24 0.25 0.27 0.28 0.29
2-Man Crew
Labor Rates
7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 11.15* 12
0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.16 0
0. 1 1 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.15 0
0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.34 0
0.19 0.21 0.23 0.25 0.26 0.27 0
0.26 0.29 0.31 0.34, 0.3.7 0.37 0
3-Man Crew
Labor Rates
10.50 12.00 13.50 15.00 16.50 16.60*
0.21 0.23 0.25 0.28 0.30 0.30
0.24 0.27 0.30 0.32 0.35 0.35
0.24 0.26 0.28 0.31 0.33 0.34
6.00 6.50 7.00
0.13 0.13 0.14
0.21 0.22 0.23
0.30 0.32 0.33
.00 I2.70**I3.00 14.00
.17 0.18 0.18 0.19
.16 0.17 0.17 0.18
.36 0.37 0.38 0.40
.28 . 0.30 0.30 0.32
.39 0.41 0.42 0.45
18.00 19.50 21 .00
0.32 0.34 0.37
0.37 0.40 0.43
0.36 0.38 0.41
* Study Standard Rate
** Standard Rate for System 6
71
-------
TABLE 19
THE EFFECT OF CAPITAL COSTS ON COLLECTION RELATED COSTS
An increase of $1,000 in equipment cost has the following
incremental effect on collection related costs. These costs are
based on a 5 year depreciation period and the number of work days
a year in each system.
System Collection Cost/
Number Number Workdays/Year Home/Week Collection Cost/Ton
1
2
3*
4
5
6*
7
8
9*
10
1 1
260
255
310
261
261
208
260
252
207
255
260
.001
.002
.002
.001
.001
.002 •
.001
.002
.002
.002
.003
.053
.059
.087
.041
.035
.098
.046
.051
.047
. 103
.098
*Collection twice weekly.
72
-------
$1,000 for the systems studied.
The analysis of crew size indicates that the productivity of
crewmen has a strong tendency to increase as the crew size decreases
The greatest productivity per crewman is with the one-man crews.
To reduce personnel costs, a logical avenue would be to reduce
crew size and, at the same time, increase the productivity of
crewmen. This procedure will enable the collection system to pro-
i
vide the same services with less personnel.
Cone I us i ons. The following conclusions resulted from a con-
sideration of the system costs.
Regardless of the kind of equipment that was being used, the
initial cost of the equipment, and the number of days per week the
equipment was being used, the daily equipment costs were of the same
general magnitude for all systems. The equipment costs for System
6 with the detachable container equipment and mother truck were
significantly greater than the equipment costs for the other systems.
The daily personnel costs were related directly to the crew
s i ze.
For every system studied, the daily personnel costs were
significantly more than the daily equipment costs. The manpower
to equipment ratios averaged 1.4 for one-man crews, 3.0 for two-
man crews, and 4.5 for three-man crews.
The incremental effect of an increase in equipment costs
of $1,000 was small in comparison with an effective increase in
labor costs per crewman of $0,50 per hour.
Since daily personnel costs are significantly more than the
daily equipment costs, cost reduction programs should look first
in the area of personnel costs. Personnel costs can be lowered
73
-------
by improving personnel productivity, by reducing the numbers of
personnel or both. There is a strong tendency for personnel pro-
ductivity to increase as crew size decreases.
Since incremental cost effects of an increase in equipment
cost of $1,000 are small in comparison with an increase in the
effective labor rate of $0.50 per hour, compromising equipment
or crew performance for the sake of a lower equipment cost appears
to be counter productive.
74
-------
SECTION I I I
EVALUATION AND PREDICTION PROCEDURES
Genera I
Two general methods can be used by the local manager to
evaluate his system in terms of the systems studied. The first
method is to use the study data provided in SECTION II. The
second method is to use mathematical models or equations. Both
methods will be considered in this section.
Use of System Study Data
Where the local system meets the definition of one of the
systems studied, a direct comparison of local data can be made
with the data in the tables of SECTION II. Where the local system
does not meet the definition of one of the study systems, the
method used in presenting the study data can be used in making an
analysis of the local system performance. All of the data of
SECTION II can be used as guides for a reasonable expected perfor-
mance if the local system were to change to meet the definition
of the system being considered.
Even though the local system may not match one of the study
systems, the data provided in SECTION II can still be used for
analyzing the local system performance. Considerations for using
the data are provided in the following paragraphs under the same
system factors that were considered in SECTION II.
Analysis by Type of Equipment. The minimum expected weight
per cubic yard of Table 4 provides reasonable standards that are
applicable to equipment used regardless of other system factors.
If the densities of 500, 700, and 900 pounds per cubic yard are not
being achieved routinely with "full" loads for light, medium, and
75
-------
heavy duty packing equipment, respectively, there is an obvious
mismatch between the performance capabilities of the equipment and
the other system parameters. Under this condition the manager should
determine the reasons for not achieving the proper density and take
appropriate corrective action. Some of the conditions which may
lead to light densities include the following:
Packer capacity too large for the designated route area.
Packer capability too great for the designated route area.
Planned or actual collection time too short to service
enough homes to fill the packer.
The time of leaving the route for the disposal point is being
dictated by conditions other than having a full load.
Equally important with obtaining "full" loads is a consideration
of the number of loads being collected per crew per day. This number
should be the least possible consistent with obtaining full loads.
When there is a proper match of the vehicle capabilities with the
route and crew character!stics,minimizing the number of loads per
day will maximize the collection time. This should be a primary
objective of the collection manager.
None of the systems studied used a front loader for the resi-
dential collections. Front loaders are used for this purpose to
a limited extent. Front loaders are classified as light duty from
a compaction standpoint and should obtain densities from 550 to 600
pounds per cubic yard. A.density of 550 pounds per cubic yard
would be a good general planning figure for "full" loads with front
Ioaders.
Analysis by Crew Size. The crew performance data of Tables
5, 6, 1, and 8 wiI I provide reasonable standards for evaluating the
76
-------
crew performance of the local system. The most significant items
are associated with the productivity of the individual crewman in
terms of homes served per collection hour and tons collected per
collection hour. If the local performance is reduced to the produc-
tivity of individual crewmen, then this can be compared to the study
system data. This procedure will enable the productivity of four-
man and larger crews to be compared on an equitable basis with
study systems.
The second most important factor is the percent of productive
time both during the collection phase of the operations and for
the total activities. The non-productive time should be reduced
to the lowest possible amount based on the specific conditions of
the local collection system.
By comparing the crewman productivity and the productive time
of the local system with an appropriate study system, the local
manager can determine whether or not changes to his system are
necessary. If the crewman productivity and percentage of productive
time are too low, the local manager should review the conditions
that are contributing to the lost or non-productive time. Some of
these conditions may include the following: excessive break time,
excessive waiting time, frequent travels off the collection route
and, especially, back to the motor pool. In making his review,
the local manager should also consider reducing the crew size as a
means of increasing productivity and increasing the percentage of
productive time.
Analysis by Frequency of Collection. For curb and alley systems,
the information provided by Table 9 can be used as performance guides
by the local manager for frequencies of collection of once and twice
weekly. This information is most usable as standards for managers
77
-------
who are contemplating a change in the frequency of collection.
Analysis by Storage Point. Only curb and alley and backyard
storage point locations were considered in this study. The back-
yard service Was limited to the use of the tote-barrel and the
data in Table 10 were limited to the two-man crews for the purpose
of making direct comparisons. Data were not obtained in this study
for backyard systems using a crew size larger than two men; there-
fore, no direct comparisons with study system data can be made for
larger crew sizes. More definitive performance data for three-man
curb and alley systems can be found under other system parameters.
Analysis by Incentive System. Tables 11 and 12 provide the
study system performance data structured according to incentive system,
The systems include one-, two-, and three-man crews and curb and
alley and backyard storage points. The general pattern of performance
by incentive system, as indicated by the data of Table 11, is
generally the same regardless of the crew size and regardless of
the storage point location. The same general trend would probably
apply to the larger crew sizes, as well. The ranges of hours worked
per week for each incentive system are probably representative of
most systems. Any system performance outside of these ranges should
probably be reviewed closely. The local manager should take a close
look at the amount of overtime being paid to the personnel operating
under the standard day system, and if it appears to be excessive,
review closely the productivity factors. Where overtime appears to
be excessive, the task incentive system should be strongly considered.
The incentive system productivity factors of Table 12 are
probably good targets. If the local system productivity factors
are significantly below these levels, the manager should review the
78
-------
operational performance to determine the reasons and institute
appropriate corrective action based on the local conditions.
Analysis by Type of Storage Container. The equation
Y = 0.489 - 0.008X1 + 0.013X
Where Y = collection minutes per hour
X^ = percent one-way items
X = pounds per home per collection
provides a general relationship between the percent of one-way
items and the weight per home per collection as they affect the
time required to service a home. This equation was based on the
performance of the nine curb and alley systems studied. The equa-
tion should be a reasonable predictor for systems which closely
approximate the systems studied. This equation indicates that the
local manager should try to create conditions that will tend to
increase the percentage of one-way items.
Analysis by Productivity and Efficiency Measures. The basic
information regarding productivity and efficiency measures for all
of the study systems is provided by Table 3. These are the most
important factors to be considered in comparing local systems with
the study systems. Productivity should be compared on a crewman
basis. Since all indices are based on the performance of System I,
a convenient method is provided for making comparisons among systems
Where there is a significant adverse difference between the local
system and the study system, the local manager should determine
the reasons and take appropriate correction action based on local
conditions. The factors that have a direct influence on the homes
served per collection hour and tons collected per collection hour
should be reviewed first.
79
-------
The best method for making a comparison of the local system
with a study system is by use of the collection cost per service
per week and the collection cost per ton. The local total costs
can be determined from the procedure of Figure 11. The total costs
can be converted to collection costs, and collection cost per home
served per week, and collection cost per ton by the formulas of
Figure 12. Using the local collection costs and the performance
factors of the study systems, the constructed collection cost per
home served per week and the constructed collection cost per ton
can be determined.. These constructed costs can be compared directly
with the costs based on local performance. If there is a signifi-
cant adverse difference between the constructed costs and the local
costs, the manager should determine the reasons and take appropriate
corrective action. The factors that have a direct influence on
crew productivity should be reviewed first.
Use of Regression Analysis
Productivity Equations
Selected parameters from the DAAP data were subjected to
regression analysis in order to obtain methematical equations that
related to productivity measures. Three dependent variables (Y)
were considered for analysis and included the following:
Collection minutes per service
Services per collected hour
Tons collected per collection hour_
Each of the dependent variables was considered in terms of
the following independent variables:
X = pounds per service per collection
X_ = crew size
80
-------
X, = percent one-way items
X. = collection miles per day
AlI of the equations were of the form of:
Y = aX1 + bX2 + cX3 + dX4 + e.
For each dependent variable, the data were stratified into
three groups as follows:
Curb and alley collecting once weekly
Curb and alley collecting twice weekly
Backyard collecting once weekly
The equations that resulted from these regressions define the
dependent variables in terms of the operational performance of the
systems studied. The equations, however, cannot be used to predict
a performance.outside the limits of the systems studied. For example,
the equations cannot be used to predict the performance of a four-
man curb and alley system or a three-man backyard system or a two-man
backyard system collecting twice weekly. Because there exists many
systems that closely approximate the definition of the study systems,
the regression models should have a broad general application.
In the regression equations for curb and alley systems collecting
twice weekly; and only these systems, the crew size numbers of 1, 2,
and 3 can also be used to represent type of equipment. In this case,
the number 1 represents the side loader, the number 2 represents
the detachable container system, and the number 3 represents rear
Ioad ing equ i pment.
Of the four independent variables considered, only one is
wholly outside of the control of the solid waste collection manager.
This one is the generation rate or pounds per service per collection.
The other variables can be controlled to some extent. The crew size
81
-------
is completely within the control of the manager. The percent of
one-way items may be influenced by the manager. This influence
may range from prescribing bags be used completely to the creating
of conditions whereby the use of more bags will be encouraged and
used. The collection miles per day may also be influenced by the
manager. By more efficient micro-routing and by placing some reason-
able restrictions on travel for breaks, which may be included in the
collection phase of operations, the manager can favorably influence
the collection miles per day to keep them at a minimum.
In general, the four independent variables have the following
effects on the collection operations:
An increase in generation rates adversely affects productivity
parameters and increases cost.
An increase in crew size increases production and also increases
the cost of providing service.
An increase in the percentage of one-way items increases
productivity and decreases the cost of providing services.
An increase in collection miles decreases productivity and
increases cost.
Collection Minutes Per Service. On-route collection minutes per
service is one of the parameters directly related to the productivity
of collection operations. The equations that resulted from the
regression analyses were as follows:
Curb and Alley Collecting Once Weekly
Y = 0.76 + 0.01X, - 0.07X0 - 0.05X
I 2 4
Curb and Alley Collecting Twice Weekly
Y = 0.44 + 0.01X1 - 0.24X2 + 0.01X4
Backyard Collecting Once Weekly
Y = 0.75 + 0.01X3
82
-------
All three equations can be expected to provide excellent
results in projecting the collection minutes per service.
Services Per Collection Hour. Services per collection hour
is one of the parameters directly related to the productivity of
collection operations. The equations that resulted from the regress-
ion analyses were as follows:
Curb and Alley Collecting Once Weekly
Y = 94.63 - 1.06X1 + 0.55X3 + 2.77X4
Curb and Alley Collecting Twice Weekly
Y = 57.20 - 2.55X1 + 54.14X2 + 1.14X3
Backyard Collecting Once Weekly
Y = 74.84 - 0.68X3
All three equations can be expected to provide excellent results
in projecting the number of services per collection hour.
Tons Per Collection Hour. Tons per collection hour is one of
the parameters directly related to the productivity of collection
operations. The equations that resulted from the regression analyses
were as foil ows :
Curb and Alley Collecting Once Weekly
Y = 0.16 + 0.01X1 + 0.14X2 + 0.01X3 + 0 . 1 2X4
Curb and Alley Collecting Twice Weekly
Y = 1.72 + 0.02X1 + 0.78X + 0.03X3
Backyard Collecting Once Weekly
Y = 0.52 + 0.02X1 - 0.01X3
The first equation should be used cautiously because a signifi-
cant amount of the variations in the DAAP data were not explained
by the designated variables. The other two equations should provide
83
-------
excellent results in projecting the tons collected per collection
hour.
84
-------
SECTION IV
SUMMARY
This study has produced a great wealth of valid information
concerning the productivity and cost efficiency from selected resi-
dentail solid waste collection operations and the interrelationship
of the key factors that effect the productivity of the collection
operation. Data were obtained over the period of one year for each
of the 11 specifically defined systems. A concerted effort was made
to select only highly productive systems for this study. Also, the
most productive four routes of each system were selected for study.
The study data, then, represent reasonable productivity targets for
similar systems. It is expected that this information will give
residential solid waste collection managers everywhere a valuable
tool for appraising the productivity and cost efficiency of their
operations. In addition, it is hoped that this study will stimulate
other approaches for improving collection system productivity.
Each system was defined according to operating parameters which
can be controlled by the collection system manager. These factors
included the type of equipment, crew size, frequency of collection,
point of collection, collection methodology, and the incentive
system. Bags and cans were prescribed as the storage container for
all systems. The significance of each factor, as it relates to pro-
ductivity and cost efficiency, was determined for each system and
collectively for several groups of systems. The general conclusions
that were reached from an analysis of the factors were summarized
at the beginning of this volume and also in SECTION II under the
analysis of each factor.
85
-------
All of the factors considered did have a significant Impact
on productivity and cost efficiency. How significant each factor
would be with a specific system would depend on the objectives and
conditions of that system. The individual factors were analyzed
separately in this study. There was no effort to determine the
collective effects of all factors on a given system. In applying
the results of this study to a local situation, it is suggested that
the organizational objectives be clearly established before any
detailed analysis is made. Once the goals have been defined, then
the study factors can be considered as alternatives for meeting
the desired goals. The affects of making changes in the study
factors can then be determined or predicted in a logical manner as
they apply to a specific situation.
Finally, the conclusions that were reached in this study should
be applicable in the general situation. All residential collection
system managers should be able to apply the results and conclusions
from this study to their own operations and should strive to do so.
It is also recognized that regardless of how desireable it may be
to implement certain study procedures, this becomes practical only
if it is feasible under the political constraints of the organiza-
tion. The solid waste manager, at best, can accomplish only what
is politically feasible In his organization.
86
-------
APPENDIX I
DAAP STANDARD DATA
The DAAP computer program was designed to facilitate the
analysis of the daily collection route data that were obtained
from the study effort. In order to eliminate the local cost
differences that existed among the various systems being studied,
standard costs were used. Costs for services being performed
would then be primarily a function of the operational performance
Insofar as possible, the standard costs that were used were the
average costs for all of the systems and were as follows:
Capac i ty (cu yds)
13
16
18
20
25
33
Detachable Container
Vehicle plus 1/4 cost
of mother truck
Initial Cost of Vehicles
Side Loader
$23,900
$30,000
$28,100
Rear Loader
$15,900
$16,700
$17,000
$22,700
$23,900
Deprec i at ion
The depreciation period is five years.
Maintenance Cost Per Year
Maintenance cost (first year) = .055 X initial cost of vehicle.
Consumable Costs
Fuel - $0.17 per gallon. Engine oil - $0.23 per quart.
Insurance and Fees
The yearly cost of insurance and fees is $1,200 per vehicle. The
effective cost of insurance for one detachable container route
(including mother truck) is $1,500 per year.
Salaries (dollars per hour)
Driver - $4.34. Collectors - $4.15. The effective cost of the
detachable container crew (including mother truck driver) is $4.93
and $4.73 for the driver and collector respectively.
Fringe Benefits
Fringe benefits are 18.3 percent of salary-
87
-------
Personnel Overhead
Personnel overhead is 13.1 percent of salary.
Overtime Factor
Overtime factor of 1.5 for drivers and collectors.
The daily cost of depreciation, maintenance, and insurance and
fees is a function of the number of normal work days for each of
the systems. The number of normal work days that was used in the
program for each of the systems is listed below:
System Number of 'Work Days
1 260
2 255
3 310
4 261
5 261
6 208
7 260
8 252
9 207
10 255
11 260
In determining the cost of equipment, the 1972 replacement cost
was used as the standard. Where 1972 equipment was being used in
conjunction with the system studies this cost was used. No problems
were encountered with the costs of the side loading equipment. There
was a considerable range of costs associated with the rear.loading
equipment depending on whether the equipment was designed for medium
or heavy duty packing and depending on the chassis and packer make.
Average costs were determined for medium duty packing equipment, and
these were used.
There was a wide variation in the maintenance costs reported by
the participating agencies. Looking at the reported maintenance costs
for the f i rst yearly increment of equipment use and comparing these
with the reported purchase price indicated a maintenance cost of between
five and eight percent. The yearly maintenance cos.ts were averaged
and converted to a percent. The value of five and one-half percent
was used.
The average of the reported fuel and engine oil unit costs,
salaries, fringe benefits and -personneI overhead rates was used.
Personnel overhead included aM supervisory personnel and other
support personnel that were directly related to the collection opera-
tion.
88
-------
APPENDIX 2
DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
DAAP COMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPUT
COLLECTION SYSTEM DESCRIPTION REPORT
PERIOD FOR WHICH DATA APPLIES JANUARY-DECEMBER
>*»»*»»»i
»» v » » « « » » o » »
» SYSTEM * OPERATING * TOTAL * TYPE * CREW * COLLECT * POINT » COLLECTION * INCENTIVE * UNION * TYPE OF *
* NUMBER * AGENCY •> NUMBER * OF * SIZE * PER * OF * METHODOLOGY * SYSTEM * REPR. * STORAGE CONTAINERS »
* * * OF * EQUIP * » WEEK » COLLECT * * * * » * *
* » » ROUTES * » * •> » * »»* BAGS * % CANS * * M1SC »
co
to
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
ip
11
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
PRIVATE
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
SL
SL
SL
RL
RL
.DC,
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
CURB-ALLEY ONE-SIDE TASK
CURB-ALLEY ONE-SIDE
CURB-ALLEY ONE-SIDE TASK
CURB-ALLEY ONE-SIDE TASK
CURB-ALLEY ONE-SIDE
CURB-ALLEY ONE-SIDE TASK
CURB-ALLEY BOTH SIDES TASK
CURB-ALLEY BOTH SIDES TASK
BACKYARD TOTE-BARREL TASK
NO 34.0 52.0 14.0
8 HR DAY NO
8 HR DAY YES
YES
CURB-ALLEY BOTH SIDES B HR DAY YES
NO
BACKYARD TOTE-BARREL 8 HR DAY YES
26.0 53.0 21.0
YES 29.0 53.0 18.0
YES 56.0 28.0 16.0
85.0
YES 46.0
6.0
19.0 61.0
25.0 47.0
41.0
2.0 96.0
33.0 55.0
9.0
20.0
YES 56.0 28.0 16.0
2B.O
13.0
2.0
12.0
-------
DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
OAAP COMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPUT
DETAILED VEHICLE - CREW REPORT
PERIOD FOR WHICH DATA APPLIES JANUARY-DECEMBER
NO
o
*
* ROUTE
* NUMBER
*
0
*
«$»«»«£«$
01-01
01-02
01-03
01-04
$ $$$ A A A A A.
02-01
02-02
02-03
02-04
AAAAAAAQA
03-01
03-02
03-03
03-04
04-01
04-02
04-03
04-04
A £ A A $ £ A A A
05-01
05-02
05-03
05-04
*
» SUE
* AND
* TYPE
<•
»
»
»*»»«*»»»*(
25.0-SL
25.0-SL
25.0-SL
25.0-SL
AAAAAAAAAA*
25.0-SL
25.0-SL
25.0-SL
25.0-SL
AAAAAAAA$A.(
33.0-SL
33.0-SL
33.0-SL
33.0-SL
20.0-RL
20.0-RL
20.0-RL
20.0-RL
23.6-RL
24.3-RL
24.9-RL
24.Q-RL
t>
« AGE
* ECUIP
« (YEARS)
e
*
*
)»»»«*»»»»<
1.0
1.0
l.C
1.0
^AAAAAAAA^t
l.C
1.0
1.0
1.0
kftAAAAAAAAl
1.0
1.0
l.C
1.0
kAAAAAAAAAf
'% 1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
^AAAAAAAAA]
1.0
1.0
1.0
l.C
»
»
»
»»»»«»»
*DEPREC
»ATION
><,06<.«.»i>
18.38
18.38
18.38
18.38
)tA$ A A)^ A^
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
kAftAAAAA
19.35
19.35
19.35
19.35
17.39
17.39
17.39
17.39
kl!lAAAAAA
18.31
18.31
18.31
18.31
EQUIPMENT COST PER
OPERATING DAY (DOLLARS)
AVG
CREW
SUE
* CREW HOURLY LABOR
* RATE (DOLLARS)
HOURS WORKED
PER WfcEK
* MAINTE- » CONSUM- 'INSURANCE*
" NANCE » ABLES «AND FEES »
5.06
5. 06
5.06
5.06
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.32
5.32
5.32
5.32
4.78
4.78
4.78
4.78
5.04
5.04
5.04
5.04
3.44
4.25
5.68
4.54
2.06
^.03
2.12
2.19
3.00
3.02
3.11
3.06
4.13
3.51
3.91
4.01
3.54
3.90
3.59
3.90
4.62
4.62
4.62
4.62
4.71
4.71
4.71
4.71
3.87
3.87
3.8?
3.87
4.60
4.60
4.60
4.60
4.60
4.60
4.60
4.60
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.1
* DRIVER *COLLfcCTCR* PLANNED » ACTUAL
5.70
5.70
5.70
5.70
5.70
5.70
5.70
5.70
5.70
5.70
5.70
5.70
5.70
5.70
5.70
5.70
5.70
5.70
5.70
5.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.co
0.0.0
5.45
b.45
5.45
i.45
5.45
5.45
5.45
5.45
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
48.00
48.00
48.00
48. 00
40.00
40.00
40. OC
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
40-00
28.61
31.13
29.31
29.43
33.94
34.08
32.88
34.06
37.89
38.67
37.33
38.62
38.98
33.20
37.26
33.07
34.22
35.68
3i.98
34. tt4
-------
DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
DAAP COMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPUT
DETAILED VEHICLt - CREH REPORT
PERIOD FOR WHICH DATA APPLIES JANUARY-DECEMBER
* ROUTE * SUE
* NUMBER » AND
» * TYPE
a a
* a
AGE
EQUIP
(YEARS)
EQUIPMENT COST PER
OPERATING DAY (DOLLARS)
*DEPRECI- » MAINTE- * CONSOM- INSURANCE*
*ATICN * NANCE * AbLES »AND FEES »
<.*»«.*
AVG
CREW
SUE
* CREW HOURLY LABOR *
» RATt (DuLLARS) *
HOURS WORKED
PER WEEK
* DRIVER
a
*COLLECTOR* PLANNED * ACTUAL
a » »
06-01
06-02
06-03
06-04
8.0- DC
8.0- DC
8.0- DC
8.0-DC
l.C
1.0
1.0
1.0
27.C2
27.02
27.02
27.02
7.43
7.43
7.43
7.43
2.04
2.00
2.08
2.00
7.21
7.21
7.21
7.21
2.1
P.O
2.0
2.0
6.48
6.48
6.48
b.48
6.22
6.22
6.22
6.22
32.00
32.00
32. OC
32.00
23.23
22.98
23.01
24.08
07-01
07-02
07-03
07-04
19.9-RL
20.1-RL
2C.C-RL
20.0-RL
1.0
1.0
l.C
1.0
17.46
17.46
17.46
17.46
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
l.t)2
1.75
1.99
1.72
4.62
4.62
4.62
4.62
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
5.70
5.70
5.70
5.70
5.45
5.45
5.45
5.45
40.OC
40.00
40.00
40.00
24.67
2o.22
27.61
23.62
08-01
08-02
08-03
08-04
24.5-RL
18.5-RL
24.6-RL
24.3-RL
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
18.97
13.49
18.97
18.97
5.22
3.71
5.22
5.22
3.53
2.41
3.08
2.88
4.76
4.76
4.76
4.76
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
5.70
5.70
5.70
5.70
5.45
5.45
5.45
5.45
40.00
40.00
40.OC
40.00
40.80
38.96
38.41
38.74
09-01
09-02
09-03
09-04
20.0-RL
20.0-RL
20.0-RL
20.0-RL
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
21.93
21.93
21.93
21.93
6.03
6.03
6.03
6.03
4.95
-4.98
3.20
4.54
5.80
5.80
5.80
5.80
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
5.70
5.70
5.70
5.70
5.45
5.45
5.45
5.45
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
30.33
21.99
21.ol
27.66
10-01
10-02
10-03
10-04
20.0-RL
20.0-RL
20.0-RL
20.0-RL
1.0
l.C
1.0
1.0
17.80
17.80
17.80
17.80
4.90
4.90
4.90
4.90
1.32
1.23
1.35
1.42
4.71
4.71
4.71
4.71
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.1
5.70
5.70
5.70
5.70
5.45
5.45
5.45
5.45
40.OC
40.00
40.00
40.00
32.06
30.59
31.52
31.13
11-01
11-02
11-03
11-04
13.6-RL
13.2-RL
19.4-RL
13.7-RL
1.0
1.0
1.0
l.C
12.85
12.23
17.46
12.23
3.53
3.36
4.80
3.36
1.84
2.12
1.65
2.04
4.62
4.62
4.62
4.62
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
5.70
5.70
5.70
5.70
5.45
5.45
5.45
5.45
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
34.88
34.37
34.59
35.18
-------
DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
OAAP COMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPUT
DETAILED ROUTE OPERATIONS REPORT
PERIOD FOR WHICH DATA APPLIES JANUARY-DECEMBER
ROUTE
NUMBER
*
eeeooa«e»e
01-01
01-02
01-03
01-04
SUM
AVG
YTD
9944444994
02-01
02-02
' 02-03
02-04
SUM
AVG
YTD
9999999991
03-01
03-02
03-03
03-04
SUM
AVG
YTO
MOTOR POOL *
TO ROUTE *
(PER DAY) *
£»»»*»»a*«*»»»»4«
MILES
*«»«»«
9.3
9.0
7.5
7.7
33.4
8.4
8.4
ft 99 44#
1.8
2.1
1.2
0.3
5.4
1.4
1.4
i ft ft ft 444
7.7
7.5
9.3
7.5
32.0
8.0
8.0
» »
* HOURS *
>oo»»»»»»»<
0.39
0.30
0.30
0.31
1.30
0.32
0.32
>94444449 91
0.12
0.15
0.12
0.18
0.56
0.14
0.14
^999949999
0.36
0.39
0.38
0.32
1.46
0.36
0.36
COLLECTION *
OPERATION *
(PER DAY) *
i»«0»<>««»»ti«»»0»i;
0
MILES »
>»»»O»O»i
11.7
9.0
9.0
12.3
42.1
10.5
10.5
' 4 4 9 4 4 4 4
6.8
6.8
6.4
2.4
24.5
6.1
6.1
19999999
13.9
11.8
13.7
15.7
55.0
13.7
13.7
0
HOURS *
>»»<•<. »OS<
3.77
4.06
3.67
3.84
15.34
3.83
3.83
'9999999:
4.76
4.44
4.48
4.55
18.24
4.56
4.56
|t9999999l
4.93
4.91
4.68
5.00
19.53
4.86
4.88
TRANSPORT
OPERATION
(PER DAY)
>»»««*« »«»*««»«
MILES
»»»«»»<
45.3
49.9
47.9
41.4
184.5
46.1
46.1
[999991
21.7
25.4
22.4
5.8
75.3
18.8
18.8
>99999 :
21.8
22.3
22.0
22.6
86.7
22.2
22.2
*
* HOURS
>»«»*»»»«
1.55
1.83
1.79
1.67
6.8.4
1.71
1.71
p999 99991
1.85
2.20
1.95
2.04
8.04
2.01
2.01
E9999 999l
. 1.00
1.14
1.09
1.06
4.29
1.07
1.07
* TO ROUTE,
* COLLECTION.
* TRANSPORT
* (PER DAY)
»»«»#ft»»*«»4»«»4
»
* MILES
»»**4»»«
66.3
67.9
64.4
61.4
260.0
65.0
65.0
9999 999*
32.3
34.2
30.0
8.6
105.1
26.3
26.3
'99999991
43.4
41.5
45.0
45.8
175.7
43.9
43.9
«•
* HOURS
»»«*»»»«
5.7U
6.19
5.76
5.82
23.47
5.87
5.87
99 99 9991
6.72
6.79
6.55
6.77
26.84
6.71
6.71
99999991
6.30
6.43
6.16
6.3B
25.28
6.32
6.32
* DISCHARGE »
* POINT «
'(LOADS PER DAY) *
»* «»««•»» **»»»»» fr» »$»£»*»
» a
* 1NCIN *
>»«»»»»»«4J
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9999999991
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.u
o.o
0.0
0.0
^9999999991
0-0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
LAND *
FILL *
»»»«»»»<
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.8
7.1
1.8
1.8
199 9999 i
.5
.7
.6
.7
.6
.6
.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
4.1
1.0
1.0
XFER *
STA »
>»»»»»»«
0.0
0.0
o.u
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
(999 9999
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 '
'9999999
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.c
O.G
* »
AVG t>T » AVG
COLLfcCTED * LOADS
(PER DAY) * (PER DAY)
(TUNS) *
»»«»»#»»
6.93
9.24
9.99
9.59
37.74
9.44
9.44
9999 9999
9.12
9.05
9.C5
8.78
35.99
9.00
9.00
99999499
5.48
5.76
5.71
5.98
22.93
5.73
5.73
0
»
fta0a»oaa»ooi>i>(i
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.8
7.1
1.8
1.8
99999999999999
1.5
1.7
1.6
1.7
6.5
1.6
1.6
99999999999999
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
4.1
1.0
1.0
-------
DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
OAAP COMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPUT
DETAILED ROUTE OPERATIONS REPORT
PERIOD FOR WHICH DATA APPLIES JANUARY-DECEMBtR
ROUTE
NUMBER
«
" MOTOR PCOL
• TO ROUTE
9
*
» CCLLECTION *
* OPERATION »
» (PER DAY) '
9
999999*91
04-01
04-02
04-03
04-04
SUM
AVG
YTO
$94###$ £i
05-01
05-02
05-03
05-04
SUM
AVG
YTD
0ft#££ 4$4
06-01
06-02
06-03
06-04
SUM
AVG
YTO
0 #$&##££
07-01
07-02
07-03
07-04
SUM
AVG
YTD
999*99*999
9 »
* MILES *
>9999999*99
6.4
5.3
6.6
6.7
25.1
6.3
6.3
($£$$£££$$&
4.6
4.4
3.6
4.4
17.2
4.3
4.3
)04#44O4#£^
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.3
9.4
2.4
2.4
*#A#04$4#O4
5.0
1.9
5.5
2.5
14.8
3.7
3.7
99999<
HOURS
99999*
0.32
0.24
0.31
0.27
1.14
0.29
0.29
$ $ $4 4 1
0.27
0.26
0.2*
0.30
1.07
0.27
0.27
4 # 4&4
0.15
0.15
0.17
0.20
0.67
0.17
0.17
# £ # $ $ !
0.23
0.12
0.34
0.11
o.eo
0.20
0.20
» (PER DAY) »
9999999994
9 9
» MILES *
999999999*
9.9
11.6
9.0
9.8
40.3
10.1
10.1
l#$#$#$&ft$
12.7
13.9
12.9
12.8
52.3
13.1
13.1
i##*$#$&6#
21.0
22.0
2C.7
18.4
82*0
20.5
20.5
i $ # $ 9 $ $4$ $
11.3
8.7
11.5
10.6
42.1
1C. 5
10.5
)99«9999<
9
HOURS »
»999»»99i
5.24
4.64
5.03
4.33
19.24
4.81
4.81
k $ 9 #### 4
4.37
4.75
5.03
4.55
18.70
4.6B
4.68
9 9996699
4.06
4.25
4.01
4.25
16.58
4.14
4.14
I # 0 #$&$ $
3.77
4.40
3.81
3.64
15.62
3.91
3.91
TRANSPORT
OPERATION
(PER DAY)
119999*9999
9
9
9
9
9
9999991
9
MILES * HOURS *
»999*9999999**9*<
32.9
29.7
31.4
36.4
130.3
32.6
32.6
>&# £$#£$$$
28.9
30.7
28.4
31.8
119.8
29.9
29.9
9999999999
12.0
10.9
12.6
12.3
47.9
12.0
12.0
b$$94&4$#4
12.8
14.0
17.9
12.4
57.1
14.3
14.3
2.15
1.65
2.00
1.90
7.69
1.92
1.92
$ $ 4 $ 4 4
1.67
1.63
1.7B
1.90
6.99
1.75
1.75
$#£#$ 9
1.42
1.22
1.45
1.42
5.52
1.38
1.38
£ $ 4 4 6 #
0.89
1.08
1.29
0.94
4.20
1.05
1.05
TO RUUTE, *
COLLECTION. » DISCHARGE
TRANSPORT » POINT
(PER DAY) "(LOADS
>999999999999999999999<
9 9
MILES * HOURS * INCIN
>999999999999999999999<
49.2 7.71 0.0
46.6 6.53 0.0
47.0 7.33 0.0
52.9 6.50 0.0
195.7 28.07 0.0
48.9 7.02 0.0
48.9 7.02 0.0
*O&$&#£##£#$#£#$$$£&$&|
46.4 6.31 0.0
48.9 6.65 0.0
44.9 7.05 C.O
49.0 6.75 0.0
189.2 26.76 c>0
47.3 6.69 0.0
47.3 6.69 U.O
>£#$#£#$$$$99#££99$#£$;
35.4 5.63 0.0
35.3 5.63 0.0
35.6 5.64 0.0
33.0 5.87 0.0
139.3 22.77 0.0
34.8 5.69 0.0
34.8 5.69 0.0
>9$O$O$$#$##9#A4$#$$$9
29.0 4.89 0.0
24.7 5.60 0.0
34.9 5.44 0.0
25.5 4.68 0.0
114.0 20.62 0.0
28.5 5.16 0.0
28.5 5.16 0.0
PER DAY)
»99999999<
* LAND *
» FILL *
1999999994
.5
.4
.4
.4
.6
.4
.4
i#$$£##£9999999999<
13.21
11.74
12.60
12.87
50.41
12.60
12.60
!$$$£9£$£&£l
13.67
14.94
14.74
14.62
57.97
14.49
14.49
>$44$44464$
6.71
6.63
7.10
7.21
27.86
6.96
6.96
lOAftAAAAftAtt
11.61
13.17
12.20
13.64
50.62
12.65
12.65
AVG
LOADS
9
, 9
9
(PER DAY)*
>99999999«
2.5
2.3
2.4
2.3
9.4
2.4
2.4
i#ftO$ft$&&i
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.9
7.7
1.9
1.9
>$$$$$$$&<
4.2
4.3
4.5
4.5
17.6
4.4
4.4
ittftAAAAAtt!
'WVVWWV'
2.0
2.3
2.1
2.5
8.9
2.2
2.2
9
4
9
99
; O A
1 4 &
-------
DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
DAAP COMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPUT
DETAILED ROUTE OPERATIONS REPORT
PERIOD FOR WHICH DATA APPLIES JANUARY-DECEMBER
ROUTE
NUMBER
»ao6»»«o
08-01
06-02
08-03
08-04
SUM
AVG
YTD
AAAftAAAA
09-01
09-02
09-03
09-04
SUM
AVG
YTD
10-01
10-02
10-03
10-04
SUM
AVG
YTD
AAAAAAAA
11-01
11-02
11-03
11-04
SUM
AVG
YTD
*
* MOTOR POOL
» TO ROUTE
* (PER DAY)
aee««ea$»i»»$»6»»
«
* MILES
*«*»»»*«<
1.1
0.8
1.7
0.8
4.5
1.1
1.1
ft A A A A A A A i
10.0
7.4
6.2
16.8
40.4
10.1
10.1
ft&AAAAAft
1.1
1.2
3.3
0.4
6.0
1.5
1.5
AAAAAAAA'
2.5
1.8
2.3
2.7
9.4
2.4
2.4
0
» HOURS
»**»»»*»»<
0.17
0.10
0.27
0.17
0.71
0.18
0-18
ftfiAfi&Aftfift'
'9WWVW1
0.54
0.22
0.14
0.42
1.32
0.33
0.33
kftAAAAAAA
0.12
0.19
0.24
0.06
0.61
0.15
6.15
i AAAA Aft ft fti
0.19
0.16
0.13
0.20
0.68
0.17
0.17
COLLECTION *
OPERATION *
(PER DAY) *
«»«»»»»»««0e»»«*<
MILES
>»#«««»<
2.7
7.9
4.0
3.2
17.8
4.5
4.5
i A A A A A A i
8.2
8.9
12.1
12.3
41.4
10.4
10.4
t ft ft A ft A A '
6.6
4.9
7.3
6.6
27.4
6.9
6.9
i A A A Aftfti
5.5
7.6
6.8
6.3
26.2
6.6
6.6
* *
* HOURS »
>o«««»«o»«<
5.09
4.92
4.88
4.65
19.54
4.88
4.88
5.23
3.62
3.93
4.74
17.52
4.38
4.38
'AAAAAAAAA'
5.21
5.01
4.91
5.10
20.23
5.06
5.06
fAAAdftftAAA1
5.30
5.33
5.67
5.58
21.88
5.47
5.47
TRANSPORT
OPERATION
(PER DAY)
»»«»«»»*««»*«>*<
MILES
>&»o«i»<
39.1
31.6
31.8
35.3
137.8
34.4
34.4
31.1
35.9
30.4
36.1
133.4
33.4
33.4
t Aft ft A A'
7.4
5.0
6.5
5.3
24.1
6.0
6.0
i AA Aft ft i
20.4
17.0
15.1
17.9
70.4
17.6
17.6
s
* HOURS
>6«»4»»»l
2.68
2.53
2.22
2.57
10.01
2.50
2.50
'AAAAAAA'
1.76
1.60
1.27
1.59
6.21
1.55
1.55
i A A A A ft A A i
1.01
0.87
1.05
0.99
3.93
0.98
0.98
: A A A A A ft Ai
1.42
1.33
1.08
1.18
5.01
1.25
1-25
* TO ROUTE. » »
* COLLECTION, * DISCHARGE »
* TRANSPORT * POINT »
* (PER OAY) »(LOADS PER DAY) *
t»»»»a»0*»»e«»»*e»*e«»»« »»*$«»»*«*»»»»»»
»
* MILES
»»««»»«»<
42.8
40.3
37.6
39.4
160.1
40.0
40.0
49.3
52.2
48.6
65.2
215.2
53.8
53.8
i A A A A A A ft i
15.1
11.1
17.0
14.3
57.5
14.4
14.4
:ftAAAAAAI
28.4
26.4
24.2
27.0
106.0
26.5
26.5
» *
* HOURS »
>»»»»*««#»<
7.94
7.55
7.3d
7.39
30.26
7.57
7.57
AAAAAAAAA'
7.52
5.43
5.34
6.75
25.05
6.26
6.26
iftAAAAAAAA'
.34
.08
.20
.15
2 .77
.19
.19
AAAAAAftAftl
6.91
6.61
6.87
6.96
27.56
6.89
6.89
INCIN
>«»«»«<
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
'ft ftftftA i
0.6
0.0
0.0
1.7
2.3
0.6
0.6
i A A A A A i
b.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
A A A Aft 4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
* LAND *
* FILL *
>»»*»*<.»»<
1.7.
1.7
1.3
1.5
6.2
1.6
1.6
^AAAAftftAA'
1.4
2.5
2.5
C.6
7.1
1.8
1.8
• AAAAAAAfti
.0
.0
.0
.0
.1
.0
.0
ft* A A A A A A '
2.0
2.0
1.6
2.0
7.6
1.9
1.9
XfER *
STA »
>»0«a#»i>
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
U.I
0.0
0.0
. A ft A A A 0 4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.ft ft A A A A 4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
A A A A A A C
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AVG KT * AVG *
COLLECTED * LOADS »
(PER DAY) « (PER DAV>»
(TONS) * *
«*»»»*»»
10.67
9.27
8.S4
10. Cl
38.89
9.72
9.72
AAAAAAAA
12.58
14.70
16.22
12.92
56.42
14.10
14.10
AAAA&AAA
6.07
6.14
6.34
6.17
24.72
6.18
6.18
AAAA$AAA
6.20
6.53
6.18
5.83
24.74
6.18
6.16
» 9
» «
»#»»»»*»6#»»»»
1.7
1.7
1.3
1.6
6.3
1.6
1.6
2.0
2.5
2.5
2.3
9.4
2.3
2.3
AftftAAftAAAAAAftft
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
4.1
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.6
2.0
7.6
1.9
1.9
-------
DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
DAAP COMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPUT
COLLECTION ROUTE COST REPORT
PERIOD FOR WHICH DATA APPLIES JANUARY-DECEMBER
ROUTE
NUMBER
O$«O0«#««I
01-01
01-02
01-03
01-04
SUM
AVG
YTD
444444444
02-01
02-02
02-03
02-04
SUM
AVG
YTD
444444444
03-01
03-02
03-03
03-04
SUM
AVG
YTD
COST TC.
ROUTE
PER DAY
>»»»*»«»»»<
5.23
3.75
4.11
4.21
17.30
4.32
4.32
^4444444441
1.31
1.63
1.40
2.05
6.38
1.60
1.60
^4444444441
4.44
4.64
4.82
3.90
17.81
4.45
4.45
COST TO
COLLECT
PER DAY
»»e«j>»a«»
50.97
51.10
50.58
51.60
204.26
51. C7
51.07
>44444444
54.15
49.55
51.89
51.41
207.00
51.75
51.75
144444444
60.45
58.92
58.76
60.54
238.66
59.66
59.66
* * * »
* COST TO * EQUIP * MANPOWER* TOTAL
*TRANSPORT* COST * COST * COST
» PER DAY * PER DAY * PER DAY * PER DAY
* * »
» » » »
20.92
23.08
24.67
22.41
91.07
22.77
22.77
4444444
20.98
24.57
22.54
23.10
91.19
22*80
22.80
4444444
12.28
13.63
13.70
12.79
52.41
13.10
13.10
31.50
32.31
33.74
32.60
130.15
32.54
32.54
4444444444
30.66
30.63
30.73
30.79
122.81
30.70
30.70
£,££.£,££££££
31.55
31.56
31.66
31.61
126.38
31.60
31.60
45.62
45.62
45.62
45.62
182.49
45.62
45.62
4444444444
45.79
45.11
45.10
45.76
181.75
45.44
45.44
4444444444
45.62
45.62
45.62
45.62
162.49
45.62
45.62
77.13
77.93
79.36
78.22
312.64
78.16
78.16
44444444
76.45
75.74
75.83
76.55
304.57
76.14
76.14
44444444;
77.17
77.19
77.28
77.23
308.87
77.22
77.22
* TOTAL *
* BREAKDOWN *
* COST *
» (MANPOWER)*
37.45
62.02
200.39
130.66
430.53
111.25
44.86
32.77
47.28
236.15
30.17
26.69
136.54
100.49
299.90
OTAL
NCENTIVE
OST
«*«»»*»«»»
3236.28
2700.51
3146.46
3125.08
12208.33
4444 4444 44
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4444444444
2948.96
2755.92
3155.21
2757.35
11617.43
TOTAL
OVERTIME
COST
»»*»»»«»»
0.00
o.co
0.00
o.co
0.00
$9$0999£9
41.23
8. 04
31.95
26.58
107.81
444444444
0.00
o.co
0.00
o.co
0.00
*
» COST
* PER
* TON
o
»»»#«»»»»»«
8.64
8.43
7.94
8. 16
33.18
8.29
8.29
44444444441
8.39
8. 37
8,38
B.72
33.86
8. 46
8.46
4444444444)
14.08
13.41
13.53
12.92
53.94
13.48
13>48
» *
* COST PER *
* HUME *
» SERVICED *
4444444^** o»«»o
9.88
10.40
9.88
8.84
39.00
9.75
9.88
i444
15.60
15.08
U.12
15.08
61.88
15.47
15. 60
.444
18.72
19.76
11.68
21.84
78.00
19.50
19.24
-------
DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
DAAP COMPUTER PROGKAH OUTPUT
COLLECTION ROUTE COST REPORT
PERIOD FOR WHICH DATA APPLIES JANUARY-DECEMBER
to
o>
0
ROUTE *
NUMBER *
*
0
*
00«00ft0000
04-01
04-02
04-03
04-04
SUM
AVG
YTO
0900000900
05-01
05-02
05-03
05-04
SUM
AVG
YTD
$$#$$444$$
06-01
06-02
06-03
06-04
SUM
AVG
YTD
10000009090
07-01
07-02
07-03
07-04
SUM
AVG
YTD
0
COST TO »
ROUTE »
PER DAY *
0
*
0000000000
5.01
4.45
4.99
5.03
19.49
4.87
4.87
0000000000
5.27
4.94
4.41
5.64
20.26
5.07
5.07
9000000000
3.95
3.93
4.53
4.93
17.34
4.34
4.34
9909999900
7.61
3.58
10.01
3.81
25.01
6.25
6.25
» 0
COST TO * COST TO *
COLLECT TRANSPORT*
PER DAY » PER DAY *
0 »
ft 0
000«00000ft0000000000
81.83
84.88
82.27
79.95
328.93
82.23
82.23
$#$$$$$$44
85.82
89.37
92.13
85.64
352.96
88.24
88.24
0000000000
107.03
110.53
104.41
106.57
428.55
107.14
107.14
444$$$$$$$
124.57
126.89
113.28
125.34
490.08
122.52
122.52
33.53
30.19
32.67
35.05
131.43
32.86
32.86
0000000000
32.87
30.64
32.52
35.89
131.92
32.98
32.98
0009999999
37.55
31.76
37.72
35.75
142.78
35.70
35.70
AAA&ftftAA&A
WVW9VVW
29.39
31.03
38.45
32.32
131.19
32.80
32.80
0
EQUIP *
COST *
PER DAY *
0
0
000000000ft
30.91
30.28
30.68
30.78
122.64
30.66
30.66
9099999999
31.49
31.85
31.54
31.85
126.74
31.68
31.68
$999000000
43.70
43.66
43.74
43.66
174.77
43.69
43.69
ftAA&AAAAAA
WWWWPw
28.69
28.63
28.87
28.60
114.79
28.70
28.70
0
MANPOWER*
COST »
PER DAY *
0
0000000000
89.47
89.25
89.25
89.25
357.21
89.30
69.30
0000000090
92.46
93.11
97.52
95.31
378.40
94.60
94.60
$$$£$444$$
104.84
102.56
102.92
103.59
413.91
103.48
103.48
9000000000
132.87
132.87
132.87
132.67
531.49
132.87
132.87
ft
TOTAL »
COST *
PER DAY "
0
0
000000000 «0|
120.37
119.53
119.93
120.03
479.85
119.96
119.96
00000000000)
123.95
124. 9b
129.06
127.17
505.14
126.28
126.28
0999 $$$£$44*!
148.54
146.22
146.66
147.25
588.68
147.17
147.17
000000000001
161.56
161.50
161.74
161.47
646.27
161.57
161.57
0
TOTAL *
BREAKDOWN *
COST *
(MANPOWER)"
0
»00000000000
88.57
144.66
123.71
153.28
510.43
100000000000
316.20
174.81
128.49
180.75
602.26
302.43
205.19
169.24
251.97
928.83
'09000000000
39.21
63.94
65.11
90.63
258.88
0
TOTAL * TOTAL
INCENTIVE * OVERTIM
COST * COST
0
.0
00000000000000000000
1885.78
3674.53
2323.38
3839.63
11723.33
000000000001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5714.23
5662.68
5246.53
5083.75
21707.39
090000900004
12756.37
9936.68
10459.37
13726.05
46880.46
0.00
O.CO
0.00
O.CO
0.00
$###994$
293.10
375.01
465.01
358.94
1492.06
00000000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.CO
000000 00!
O.CO
0.00
0.00
O.CO
0.00
0
* COST
* PER
* TON
0
t>
10.18
9.52
9.33
38.15
9.54
9.54
9.07
6.36
8.75
8.70
34.88
d.72
8.72
22.12
21.40
20.64
20.43
84.60
21.15
21.15
13.92
12.26
13.26
11.84
51.28
12.82
12.82
0 0
» CUST PER *
» HUME *
» SfcRVKED »
00000000000 0
* WEEK* YEAR*
0.23 11.96
0.23 11.96
0.23 11.96
0.23 11.96
0.92 47.84
0.23 11.96
0.23 11.96
0.22
0.19
0.23
0.22
0.86
0.21
0.22
0.54
0.53
0.53
0.45
2.05
0.51
0.51
11.44
9.68
11.96
11.44
44.72
11.18
11.44
28.08
27.56
21.56
23.40
106.60
26.65
26.52
0.41 21.32
0.38 19.76
0.39 20.28
0.40 20.80
1.58 82.16
0.39 20.54
0.39 20.28
-------
DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
DAAP COMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPUT
COLLECTION ROUTE COST REPORT
PERIOD FOR WHICH DATA APPLIES JANUARY-DECEMBER
ROUTE
NUMBER
»»»»»»«»*»«
08-01
06-02
08-03
08-04
SUM
AVG
YTO
a&«»»oo«oo(
09-01
09-02
09-03
09-04
SUM
AVG
YTD
4444444444)
10-01
10-02
10-03
10-04
SUN
AVG
YTD
44444444441
11-01
11-02
11-03
11-04
SUH
AVG
YTO
COST TO
ROUTE
PER DAY
»»»»»»»»»
3.66
2.14
6.10
3. 81
15.70
3.93
3.93
ft$9$O&$$ft
14.66
8.14
5.31
12.86
40.96
10.24
10.24
444444444
2.20
3.77
4.59
1.19
11.76
2.94
2.94
1444444444
3.14
2.63
2.20
3.17
11.13
2.78
2.78
» »
COST TO * COST TO »
COLLECT 'TRANSPORT*
PER DAY * PER DAY "
* 0
* »
e»»»»o0a»»»»»»»e»»o«
108.98
104.54
109.46
105.58
428.57
107.14
107.14
»»»«»»6»»»*«»»*»<>*<«
1168.54
747.34
113.76
774.69
2804.32
k999999999O<
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.co
idddftOdAAA Ai
O.CO
o.co
0.00
0.00
0.00
'$O4$&$$ft$4i
12.76
O.CO
22.33
27.76
62.85
COST
PER
TON
>O»»i>i»»»i>«
15.94
17.31
18.50
16.76
68.52
17.13
17.13
#£ $44 9444
16.28
13.95
12.60
15.86
58.70
14.67
14.67
19.55
19.26
18.64
19.62
77.07
19.27
19.27
'444444444
18.12
17.17
19.11
19.24
73.63
18.41
18.41
* »
* COST PER *
* HOME »
* SERVICED »
«*»«»»»»*»» »
» WEEK' YEAR*
»*«»»»******»»
0.48
0.69
0.50
0.53
2.20
0.55
0.55
4 4 444 4 4
0.48
0.47
0.42
0.55
1.92
0.48
0.48
4444444
0.32
0.32
0.33
0.32
1.29
0.3?
0.32
4444444
0.42
0.47
0.49
Q.<«8
1.86
0.46
0.47
24.96
35.88
26.00
27.56
114.40
28.60
28.60
44 444
24.96
24.44
21.84
28.60
99. B4
24.96
24.96
44444
16.64
16.64
17.16
16.64
67.08
16.77
16.64
44444
21.84
24.44
25.48
24.96
96.72
24.18
24.44
-------
DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
DAAP COMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPUT
COLLECTION CREh PRODUCTIVITY REPORT
PERIOD FOR WHICH DATA APPLIES JANUARY-DECEMBER
ROUTE
NUMBER
»«*»»9ft«
01-01
01-02
01-03
01-04
SUM
AVG
YTD
AAAAAAAA
02-01
02-02
02r03
vo 02-04
00
SUM
AVG
YTD
A AAA A A# A
03-01
03-02
03-03
03-04
SUM
AVG
YTD
» "
» HOMES »
* SERVED *
»»«»***»
* PER *
* DAY *
" »
»""«"»»«*<
392.
375.
415.
459.
1641.
410.
410.
249.
259.
244.
261.
1014.
254.
254.
&AA$$A£$A
424.
402.
448.
366.
1641.
410.
410.
}»e»»»oi
PER *
WEEK »
*
>£»»»**<
1962.
1874.
2077.
2294.
8207.
2052.
2052.
k A A A A A A
1247.
1295.
1222.
1307.
5072.
1268.
1268.
^ AA A AAA
1272.
1207.
1344.
1099.
4922.
1231.
1231.
*
AVERAGE WEIGHT »
COLLECTED PER HOME"
>»»»»»*$»«
PER "
COLLECT-*
lON(LBS)*
>»*»«»«»»«<
45.5
49.3
48.1
41.6
184.7
46.2
46.2
lAAAAAAAAA
73.1
69.9
74.0
67.1
284.1
71.0
71.0
lAAAAAAAAA
25.9
28.6
25.5
32.6
112.6
28.2
28.2
>*»»*»»»£«
PER *
hEEK *
1 LBS) »
»«»aot-oe«o>
45.5
49.3
48.1
41.8
184.7
46.2
46.2
73.1
69.9
74.0
67.1
284.1
71.0
71.0
t$$AA££AAA
51.7
57.2
51.0
65.3
225.2
56.3
56.3
*
COLLECT »
TIME PER »
HOME PER *
COLLECTION*
(MINUTES) *
»
> (,<•<•»">"*»»»»<
0.58
0.65
0.53
0.50
2.26
0.56
0.56
N$A£££AA£$AA:
1.15
1.03
1.10
1.04
4.32
1.08
1.08
t$AAAAA$£AAAj
0.70
0.73
0.63
0.82
2.88
0.72
0.72
COLLECT
TIME
PER
100 LBS
(MINS)
>a«>o»»$»
1.27
1.32
1.10
1.20
4.89
1.22
1.22
1 A A A A A A A
1.57
1.47
1.49
1.56
6. OB
1.52
1.52
t A AA AA A A
2.70
2.56
2.46
2.51
10.23
2.56
2.56
* CREW PRODUCTIVITY
*********** a********
» HOMES * WEIGHT
* SERVED * HANDLED
* PER
* PER
"COLLECT ION*COLLECT ION*HUUR
* HOUR *HOUR(TONS)*
104.1
92.3
113.1
119.5
429.1
107.3
107.3
52.4
58.3
54.5
57.5
222.7
55.7
55.7
85.9
82.0
95.6
73.2
336.7
84.2
84.2
2.4
2.3
9.9
2.5
2.5
1.9
2.0
2.0
1.9
7.9
2.0
2.0
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
4.7
1.2
1.2
* COLLECTOR PRCDUCTIVITY * *
i9»«ft»»*»»«»£***0»»0»»»«*»*$o»« 0
"HOMES SERVEL *WEIGHT *1NDEX *
"PER COLLECTOR "HANDLED PER * OF *
"PER COLLECTION*COLLECTOR PER'PROOUCT-"
*HUUR "COLLECTION "1V1TY *
" *HDUR(TONS) * »
$»»*«$«£*»a»«9«*9»«$£40****««*a**o"««0"
104.1
92.3
113.1
119.5
429.1
107.3
107.3
£AA$£AAAAAAAAAA
52.4
58.3
54.5
57.5
222.7
55.7
55.7
$4£&4>$&$$&d&&&$
85.9
82.0
95.6
73.2
336.7
84.2
84.2
2.4
2.3
2.7
2.5
9.9
2.5
2.5
AAAAA££AA£$£
1.9
2.0
2.0
1.9
7.9
2.0
2.Q
&#$$££&$&£$$
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
4.7
1.2
1.2
161.30
150.68
170.27
173.64
655.90
163.97
163.97
#$Ag$£AA$A£ g
134.31
135.00
134.98
127.03
531.33
132.83
132.83
AA.£$AAAAA$$£
125.65
122.34
134.79
121.50
504.29
126.07
126.07
-------
DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
DAAP COMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPUT
COLLECTION CREW PRODUCTIVITY REPORT
PERIOD FOR WHICH DATA APPLIES JANUARY-DECEMBER
»oeo<-«»»a»«»6ee»»«
* * * * » CREW PRODUCTIVITY * COLLECTOR PRODUCTIVITY »
ROUTE * HOMES * AVERAGE WEIGHT * COLLECT * COLLECT ****************************************************
» SERVED * COLLECTED PER HOME* TIME PER * TIME * HOMES * HEIGHT 'HOMES SERVED »WEIGHT »1NDEX
NUMBER *********************************** HOME PER * PER * SERVED * HANDLED *PER COLLECTOR ^HANDLED PER » OF
* PER * PER * PER * PER * COLLECTION* 100 LBS.* PER * PER *PER CoLLECTION*COLLECTOR PER'PRODUCT-
* DAY * WEEK » COLLECT-* WEEK * (MINUTES) * (M1NS) *COLLECTION*COLLECTION*HOUR ^COLLECTION »IV1TY
* » * 10NILBS)* (LBS) * * * HOUR *HOUR(TQNS)» »HOUR(TONS) »
05-01
05-02
05-03
05-04
SUM
AVG
YTD
06-01
06-02
06-03
06-04
SUM
AVG
YTO
07-01
07-02
07-03
07-04
SUM
AVG
YTO
510.
510.
514.
515.
2049.
512.
512.
1 $£ £ $ £ ^
549.
633.
559.
561.
2302.
575.
575.
$# $# $<
544.
549.
549.
653.
2295.
574.
574.
£4 $$ $*
391.
424.
408.
403.
1627.
407.
407.
2549.
2548.
2572.
2575.
10244.
2561.
2561.
^^^^fc^fc^^
2744.
3163.
2796.
2805.
11508.
2877.
2877.
k##&$ 4#$ #
1088.
1098.
1098.
1306.
4589.
1147.
1147.
t $4 $$$$##
1956.
2120.
2042.
2017.
8136.
2034.
2034.
51.6
46.1
49.0
5C.O
196.8
49.2
49.2
$ 0 $ $ £ £ fc '
49.8
47.2
52.7
52.1
201.9
50.5
50.5
$#$$$##:
24.7
24.9
25.9
22.1
97.5
24.4
24.4
9$9£ £99 i
59.4
62.1
59.7
67.6
248.8
62.2
62.2
49.8
47.2
52.7
52.1
201.9
50.5
50.5
49.4
49.8
51.6
44.1
195.1
48.6
48.8
59.4
62.1
59.7
67.6
248.8
62.2
62.2
0.46
0.45
0.54
0.49
1.95
0.49
0.49
0.45
0.47
0.44
0.39
1.74
0.44
0.44
O.b8
0.62
0.56
0.54
0.96
0.95
.02
.93
30
58
0.58
3.87
0.97
0.97
1.81
1.87
1.70
1.77
7.14
1.79
1.79
0.98
1.00
0.94
0.80
3.71
0.93
0.93
125.6
133.1
111.1
123.4
493.2
123.3
123.3
134.0
129.0
136.7
153.8
553.5
138.4
136.4
103.6
96.4
107.2
111.0
418.
104
104.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
3.0
10.5
2.6
2.6
3.1
3.1
2.9
3.2
12.4
3.1
3.1
1.7
1.6
1.8
1.7
6.7
1.7
1.7
3.1
3.0
3.2
3.8
13.0
3.3
3.3
96.8
109.9
102.2
118.9
427.8
107.0
107.0
121.8
126.4
98.7
113.2
462.1
115.5
115.5
125.7
126.4
133.0
147.7
532.8
133.2
133.2
51.8
48.2
53.6
55.5
209.1
!>2.3
52.3
2.5
2.5
2.5
3.0
10.5
2.6
2.6
3.0
3.0
2.6
3.0
11.6
2.9
2.9
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.6
6.5
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.9
6.5
1.6
1.6
159.04
167.55
160.22
178.66
665.49
166.37
166.37
188.10
194.16
176.74
188.32
747.32
186.83
166.83
179.69
175.87
183.27
194.22
733.05
183.26
183.26
174.32
167.19
178.39
189.19
709.OB
177.27
177.27
-------
DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS PROGKAH
DAAP COMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPUT
COLLECTION CREW PRODUCTIVITY REPORT
PERIOD FOR WHICH DATA APPLIES JANUARY-DECEMBER
o
o
» *
ROUTE HOMES * AVERAGE WEIGHT »
SERVED * COLLECTED PER HOME*
NUMBER *** »*************»*»**»*»**»*»*»**
PER * PER * PER * PER *
DAY » WEEK * COLLECT-* WEEK »
* * * ICN(LBS)* UBS) »
»0»»»»*»»»ft»**«»O»»»»**»»»*»»»»»4*O*»»*»»»«»<
08-01
08-02
08-03
08-04
SUM
AVG
YTD
4 444 $44 44
09-01
09-02
09-03
09-04
SUM
AVG
YTD
444444444
10-01
10-02
10-03
10-04
SUM
AVG
YTD
fiflftAttft&Aft
WW9WW
11-01
11-02
11-03
11-04
SUM
AVG
YTD
349.
229.
331.
316.
1225.
306.
306.
^4444444
847.
862.
962.
744.
3415.
854.
654.
44444444
368.
365.
357.
367.
1458.
364.
364.
44444444
266.
234*
240.
231.
970.
243.
243.
1746.
1147.
1653.
1580.
6125.
1531.
1531.
£4444444
1694.
1724.
1925.
1487.
683C.
1707.
1707.
44444444
1838.
1827.
1786.
1837.
7288.
1822.
1822.
AAftAfkA&A
VvWWW
1330.
1168.
1198.
1155.
4852.
1213.
1213.
61.1
BO. 9
54.1
63.4
259.4
64.9
64.9
4444444441
29.7
34.1
33.7
34.7
132.3
33.1
33.1
44444444 41
33.0
33.6
35.5
33.6
135.7
33.9
33.9
4444444^4'
46.6
55.9
51.6
50.5
2C4.5
51.1
51.1
61.1
80.9
54.1
63.4
259.4
64.9
64.9
444444444
59.4
68.2
67.4
69.5
264.5
66.1
66.1
444444444)
33.0
33.6
35.5
33. b
135.7
33.9
33.9
4444444441
46.6
55.9
51.6
50.5
204.5
51.1
51.1
COLLECT COLLE
TIME PER TIME
HOME PER PER
COLLECTION 100 L
(MINUTES) (M1NS
»**a*»ft£**0«4*0»»«
0.87
1.29
0.89
0.68
3.93
0.98
0.98
1444444444
0.37
0.25
0.25
0.38
1.25
0.31
0.31
144444444 4
0.85
0.82
0.62
0.83
3.33
0.83
0.63
>444444444
1.19
1.37
1.42
1.45
5.43
1.36
1.36
1.43
1.59
1.64
1.39
6.05
1.51
1.51
44444444
1,25
0.74
0.73
1.10
3.81
0.95
0.95
44444444
2.57
2.45
2.32
2.48
9.82
2.46
2.46
44444444
2.56
2.45
2.75
2.87
10.64
2.66
. 2.66
* CREW PRODUCTIVITY * COLLbCTOR PRODUCTIVITY * *
COLLECT »*»»*»»*»*****»**»»#»*»****«•*»»»»»*****»»*****»**»»* *
* HOMES * HEIGHT 'HOMES SERVED »WE1GHT *1NOEX *
* SERVED * HANDLED *PER COLLECTOR 'HANDLED PER * Of *
* PER * PER *PER COLLECTION'COLLECTOR PER*PRGOoCT-*
*COLLECTION*COLLECTION*HOUR COLLECTION *1V1TY *
* HOUR *HOUR(TONSI* *HOURITDNS) * *
68.7
46.6
67.7
67.9
250.9
62.7
62.7
162.0
238.4
244.9
156.7
802.0
20C.5
£00.5
70.6
73.0
72.8
72.0
288.3
72.1
72.1
50.2
43.8
42.3
41.4
177.7
44.4
44.4
2.1
1.9
1.8
2.2
8.0
2.0
2.0
2.4
4.1
4.1
2.7
13.3
3.3
3.3
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.2
4.9
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.0
4.5
1.1
1.1
34.4
23.3
33.9
34.0
125.6
31.4
31.4
81.0
118.9
121.0
78.0
398.9
99.7
99.7
69.5
72.4
72.5
67.3'
281.7
70.4
70.4
50.0
43.3
42.1
40.9
176.3
44.1
44.1
1.1
0.1
0.9
1.1
4.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
2.0
2.0
1.4
6.6
1.7
1.7.
I.I
1.2
1.3
1.1
4.8
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.0
4.5
1.1
1.1
132.41
135.43
125.86
134.48
528.16
132.04
132.04
199.92
281.33
290.68
203.73
975.66
243.92
243.91
110.24
111.46
115.51
114.27
451.48
112.87
112.87
102.27
107.32
100.70
98.20
408.48
102.12
102.12
-------
DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
CAAP COMPUTER PROGRAH OUTPUT
COLLECTION SYSTEM EFFICIENCY REPORT
•ROUTE
ft
•NUMBER
*
«
»»»*»«»»•
01-01
01-02
01-03
01-04
SUM
AVG
YTD
AAftAftfiftft
02-01
02-02
02-03
02-04
SUM
AVG
YTD
i £ 9## $$4 $
03-01
03-02
03-03
03-04
SUM
AVG
YTD
RATIO
WORK
TIME
TO
STD.
TIME
»««»*»«
0.72
0.76
0.73
0.74
2.96
0.74
0.74
t £ ^ £ £ $1
0.85
0.85
0.82
0.85
3.37
0.84
1.00
^ $ A&O A:
0.79
0.81
0.78
0.80
3.18
0.79
0.79
RATIO
COLLECTION
TIME
TO
TIME
WORKED
««ft»»»ci»e»a»
0.66
0.65
0.63
0.65
2.59
0.65
0.65
ft££tt£££fr££ £X
0.70
0.65
0.66
0.67
2.70
0.68
0.68
c4$4#4$#4$6$<
0.78
0.76
0.75
0.78
3.07
0.77
0.77
RATIO
ECUIP
COST
TO
MANPOWER*
COST »
»*»*»»»»»«
0.69
0.71
0.74
0.71
2.85
0.71
0.71
$#£##&###$
0.67
0.68
0.68
0.67
2.70
0.68
0.66
#44$04$949
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
2.77
0.69
0.69
PERIOD FOR WHICH DATA APPLIES JANUARY-DECEMBER
>*
* »
RATIO COLLECTION RELATED COSTS* HEIGHT
MANPOWER* *
COST TO ***»**»»*»»****»***»*»***»
TOTAL 'COLLECTION 'COLLECTION *
COST *COST PER *COST PER TDN»
• HOME SERVED»COLLECTED •
0.59
0.59
0.57
0.58
2.34
0.58
0.58
0.60
0.60
0.59
0.60
2.39
0.60
0.60
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
2.36
0.59
0.59
0.13
0.14
0.12
0.11
0.50
0.13
0.13
0.22
0.19
0.21
0.20
0.82
0.20
0.20
0.14
0.15
0.13
0.17
0.59
0.15
0.15
5.71
5.53
5.06
5.38
21.69
5.42
5.42
5.94
5.47
5.73
5.86
23.01
5.75
5.75
WEIGHT
HANDLED
PER
f f\\ 1 CfTflD
lULLtv. 1 OR
PER DAY
(TONS)
eae»a»«eo
6.93
9.24
9.99
9.59
37.74
9.44
9.44
ttftA#A$4ft&
9.12
9.05
9.05
8.78
35.99
9.00
9.00
AVERAGE
WEIGHT PER LO
(TONS)
ft£&$&$tiiAWWAA***"A'
FIRST
LOAD
oft «oaa«o
6.08
6.65
6.73
6.26
25.72
6.43
6.43
AA9fr$£Aft
6.29
5.90
5.65
5.67
23.72
5.93
5.93
» ALL
» OTHE
»a««ftoo
3.38
3.66
4.49
4.25
15.78
3.95
3.95
g A £ A A A A
5.21
4.60
5.12
4.68
19.61
4.90
4.90
» *
" WEIGHT » INDEX OF
)• PER CU.« ROUTE
« YARD • EFFICIENCY
>* FIRST »
* LOAD *
486.6
531.9
538.4
500.9
2057.8
514.5
514.5
503.0
472.4
467.7
453.0
1896.1
474.0
474.0
316.44
-------
DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
DAAP COMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPUT
COLLECTION SYSTEM EFFICIENCY REPORT
PERIOD FOR WHICH DATA APPLIES JANUARY-DECEMBER
»
»ROUTE
£
'NUMBER
a
<
»
o»»»»o»»<
04-01
04-02
04-03
04-04
SUM
AVG
YTD
444444 444!
05-01
05-02
05-03
05-04
S SUM
AVG
YTD
4444444441
06-01
06-02
06-03
06-04
SUM
AVG
YTD
444444*444;
07-01
07-02
07-03
07-04
SUM
AVG
YTO
* * *
RATIO * RATIO » RATIO *
KORK *COLLECT1C»** ECUIP *
TIME * TIME * COST *
TO * TO * TO *
STD. * TIME * HANPObER*
TIME » WORKED » COST *
»»«i>0»«i>«»»»»6»6«<»«»O»»»ft»«0
0.97
0.83
0.93
0.83
3.56
0.89
0.89
i44&4444i
0.86
0.89
0.90
0.87
3.52
0.88
1.00
>4444 44 4 :
0.73
0.72
0.72
0.75
2.92
0.73
0.73
c4t4'44>444;
0.62
0.71
0.69
0.59
2.60
0.65
0.65
0.67
0.70
0.68
0.65
2.70
0.68
0.68
1444444444!
0.64
0.67
0.70
0.65
2.66
0.66
0.66
14444444441
0.70
0.74
0.70
0.71
2.84
0.71
o.4444444444
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.86
0.22
0.22
* a o a
RATIO *CDLLECTION RELATED COSTS* HEIGHT AVERAGE * HEIGHT *
MANPOWER* » HANDLED HEIGHT PER LOAD* PER CU.*
COST TO ************************** PEK (TONSl » YARD *
TOTAL *COLLtCTION COLLECTION * COLLECTOR »*»*»»********»** FIRST *
COST "COST PER *COST PER TON* PER DAY FIRST * ALL * LOAD *
*HOME SERVED*COLLfcCTED * (TONS) LOAD » OTHERS*! POUNDS) *
»»««»t««**»»»e»o»«»ea»»««»»»0»»»««*«*0****e00*»o»0#»£» »»$*»»»»»»»«#»»«»*
0.74
0.75
0.74
0.74
2.98
0.74
0.74
#0********
0.75
0.75
0.76
0.75
3.00
0.75
0.75
4444444444
0.71
0.70
0.70
0.70
2.81
0.70
0.70
4444444444
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.82
3.29
0.82
0.62
0.16
0.17
0.16
0.16
0.64
0.16
0.16
44444444444
0.16
0.14
0.16
0.15
0.62
0.15
0.15
44444444444
0.20
0.20
0.19
0.16
0.75
0.19
0.19
0.32
0.30
0.28
0.31
1.21
0.30
0.30
6.20
7.23
6.53
6.21
26.17
6.54
6.54
444444444444]
6.28
5.98
6.25
5.86
24.37
6.09
6.09
4444444444441
15.94
16.18
14.70
14.79
61.60
15.40
15.40
4444444444441
10.73
9.64
9.28
9.19
38.64
9.71
9.71
13.14
11.74
12.60
12.87
50.34
12.59
12.59
^•44 4 444 444 4 1
13.26
14.42
13.10
13.41
54.18
13.55
13.55
144444 44444:
6.30
6.70
6.91
6.92
26.83
6.71
6.71
'44444444441
5.80
6.58
6.10
6.82
25.31
6.33
6.33
5.99
5.71
5.77
6.22
23.69
5.92
5.92
444444441
8.13
8.96
9.67
9.27
36.06
9.02
9.02
{£££gg£g.£j
1.57
1.57
1.56
1.56
0.26
1.56
1.56
:44444444i
6.97
6.44
6.66
6.38
26.45
6.61
6.61
4.96
4.73
4.84
5.14
19.66
4.92
4.92
< 44444444
5.80
6.00
5.68
5.91
23.38
5.65
5.05
t44444444<
1.58
1.59
1.57
1.59
6.33
1.58
1.58
I44444444I
4.66
5.11
4.84
4.94
19.54
4.89
4.89
599.0
572.1
577.2
622.4
2370.7
592.7
592.7
1444444444
687.6
738.5
776.7
774.3
2977.1
744.3
744.3
1444444440
392.9
392.7
389.5
389.3
1564.5
391.1
391.1
'444444444M
700.5
642.1
666.5
636.5
2647.6
661.9
661.9
INDEX OF *
ROUTE »
EFFICIENCY *
194.35
197.39
194.76
223.50
609.99
202.50
202.50
219.19
217.26
191.84
219.69
840.17
212.04
212.04
167.88
159.11
175.52
182.25
684.76
171.19
171.19
139.94
131.76
157.48
150.93
580.11
145.03
145.03
-------
*
'ROUTE
*
'NUMBER
»»»»»»*»<
08-01
08-02
08-03
08-04
SUM
AVG
YTD
44444:444i
09-01
09-02
09-03
09-04
SUM
AVG
YTD
444l4444l4l
10-01
10-02
10-03
10-04
SUM
AVG
YTD
44444444]
11-01
11-02
11-03
11-04
SUM
AVG
YTD
RATIO * RATIO *
WORK 'COLLECTION*
TIME * TIME »
TO * TO »
STD. » TIME *
TIME » WORKED «
>aa«6»«aa««»8»0o«e«
1.02
0.97
0.96
0.97
3.92
0.98
1.00
4 4 44 $4 $i
0.76
0.55
0.54
0.69
2.54
0.63
0.63
'4 444 44 4:
0.80
0.76
0.79
0.78
3.13
0.78
0.78
l 44 ft 4 4$
7.05
6.57
7.32
6.77
27.71
6.93
6.93
$ota0o<
6.01
6.12
6.29
6.14
24.55
6.14
6.14
0444444
3.76
3.62
4.44
3.61
15.43
3.86
3.86
6.18
5.41
9.27
6.49
27.36
6.84
6.tt4
5.50
5.30
5.75
4.83
21.38
5.35
5.35
l$4$#£«!
3.27
1.69
3.09
1.46
9.52
2.38
2.38
*44 $$$.£1
2.42
2.93
2.76
2.30
10.41
2. tO
2.60
16.07
15.88
14.75
16.27
62.97
15.74
15.74
5.98
6.09
6.32
5.77
24.15
6.04
6.04
j 6.01
6.12
6.29
6.14
24.55
6.14
6.14
3.27
1.69
3.09
1.46
9.52
2.38
2.38
600.5
611.7
629.3
614.0
2455.5
613.9
613.9
113.05
114.36
123.50
113.78
464.70
116.17
116.17
13.89
13.43
15.75
15.42
58.49
14.62
14.62
6.17
6.45
6.15
5.76
24.53
b.13
6.13
3.76
3.62
4.44
3.61
15.43
3.86
3.86
2.42
2.93
2.76
2.30
10.41
2. tO
2.60
554.2
549.9
458.4
525.7
2088.2
522.0
522.0
118.81
122.37
103.46
109.22
453.87
113.47
113.47
-------
Appendix 3
SELECTED DATA
YEARLY AVERAGES BY SYSTEM
l_
»
en
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
>»
(0
Q
•^
in
c
O
H
9.44
9.00
5.73
12.62
14.49
6.96
12.65
9.72
14.10
6. 18
6. 18
>^
(O
Q
V.
in
^
(0
Q
•*x.
I/)
0)
—
5;
— .
—
0
°'
10.5
6. 1
13.7
10. 1
13. 1
20.5
10.5
4.5
10.4
6.9
6.6
*
0
E
O
X
x^
in
E
0)
— .
>*
10
s
™—
48
47
47
72
94
39
72
53
59
4
45
*
0)
E
O
X
x^
in
E
0)
—
>*
10
^
1
CM
52
53
53
28
6
61
28
47
41
96
55
>»
(0
Q
in
i_
X
_
.
o
0
3.83
4.56
4.88
4.82
4.67
4.14
3.91
4.88
4.38
5.06
5.47
>,
10
D
^s^
in
t_
X
in
c
(0
H
1 .71
2.01
1 .07
1 .92
1 .75
1 .38
1 .05
2.50
1 .55
.98
1 .25
^
(0
Q
"^
in
•o
(0
O
-1
1 .8
1 .6
1 .0
2.4
1 .9
4.4
2.2
1 .6
2.3
1 .0
1 .9
_
«_
o
o
0)
E
O
X
*v^
in
JD
-1
46.2
71 .0
28.2
49.3
50.5
24.4
62.2
64.9
33. 1
33.9
51 . 1
—
_
o
o
0)
E
O
X
^x
c
_
s.
.56
1 .08
.72
.56
.49
.44
.58'
.98
.31
.83
1 .36
i_
X
_
»
o
o
-X,
in
0
E
O
X
107.3
55.7
84.2
107.0
123.3
138.4
104.5
62.7
200.5
72. 1
44.4
j£
^x.
0)
E
O
X
v^
•H
in
O
O
—
•_
O
0
. 13
.20
.29
. 16
. 15
.37
.30
.36
1 i
.34
.27
.37
3£
'S
****.
Q)
E
O
X
%^
-J—
in
o
0
. 19
.30
.38
.23
.22
.51
.39
.55
.48
.32
.47
c
O
1—
^•^
+-
in
O
O
8.29
8.46
17.13
9.53
8.72
21.15
12.82
17. 13
14.67
19.26
18.41
*From Time Motion Studies
-------
Appendix 4
GENERATION RATE IN POUNDS PER HOME PER WEEK BY SYSTEM
SYSTEM
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
MONTH
JAN
36.3
63.2
50.6
38.8 '
46.5
43.5
50. 1
57.9
65.0
32.9
42.2
FEB
37.0
73.0
54.9
36. 1
44.4
49.4
46.4
48.8
60.6
34.3
37.4
MAR
43.2
74.7
63.2
45. 1
52.9
46.4
56.7
59.6
63.8
34.0
44.9
APR
46.5
77.2
65.4
54.0
55.4
50.5
63.6
68.8
63.2
34.2
52.9
MAY
55.7
80.9
62.7
61 .9
48. 1
70.4
76.0
65.2
34.9
63.7
JUN
52.3
78.0
57.4
•JSI .3
60.6
48.7
64 . 0
76.9
68'. 0
33.3
65.3
JUL
52.3
80.2
61 .4
47. 1 ,
55.4
70.6
68.4
76.9
33.7
55.9
AUG
55.2
66. 1
56.0
48.5
48.2
62.2
71 .0
66.4
34.4
54.6
SEP
47.6
69.4
51 .9
52.2
49.3
59.8
67.8
66.8
34. 1
55.8
OCT
44. 1
66.9
50. 1
53.3
55.8
46.4
59.6
68.3
64.7
33.2
53.8
NOV
44.9
68.0
49.9
50.3
52.6
46.0
85.8
.63.0
63.8
35.1
51 .3
DEC
38.8
63.8
50.2
37.9
46.6
53.6
56.3
50.5
68.6
33.4
40.3
-------
Appendix 5
COLLECTION RATE IN TONS PER CREW PER DAY BY SYSTEM
SYSTEM
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
MONTHS
JAN
7.35
7.87
4.99
9.72
13.15
6. 18
10.40
8.70
13.86
5.96
5. 1 1
FEB
7.49
8.98
5.33
9.09
12.47
7.06
9.59
7.34
12.92
6. 19
4.58
MAR
8.99
9.25
6.34
1 1 .42
16. 15
6.62
1 1 .64
8.94
13.59
6.08
5.50
APR
9.43
9.41
6.72
13.92
15.55
7.25
13.22
10.48
13.48
6.17
6.44
MAY
1 1 .33
10.07
6.43
16.25
6.83
14.55
1 1 .32
13.90
6.28
7.83
JUN
10.76
9.51
5.91
15.99
17.41
6.90
13.08
1 1 .44
14.49
6.02
7.71
JUL
10.73
10.32
6.41
12.69
7.91
12.81
10.33
16.46
6.09
6.81
AUG
1 1 .30
9.93
5.75
15.27
6,96
12.49
10.57
14.15
6.47-
6.63
SEPT
9.78
8.50
5.33
13.50
7.09
12.19
10. 17
14.24
6.35
6.81
OCT
8.93
8.38
5.15
13.60
15.03
6.53
12.08
10.26
l'3.82
6.21
6.21
NOV
9.25
8.40
5.09
13.02
15.27
6.55
17.75
9.53
13.61
6.33
6. 17
DEC
7.88
8.06
5. 1 1
9.55
13.23
7.71
1 1 .63
7.48
14.62
6.01
4.84
AVERAGE
TONS PER
DAY PER
YEAR
TOTALS
9.44
9.00
5.73
12.62
14.49
6.96
12.65
9.72
14.10
6. 18
6.18
o
CTi
m
70
z
in
z
T)
73
Z
H
n
in
f
ft 00
1 "
------- |