PB-239 196
MECHANIZED, NON-STOP RESIDENTIAL
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
William Da Vee, et al
City of Tolleson, Arizona
Prepared for:
Environmental Protection Agency
1974
DISTRIBUTED BY:
National Technical Information Service
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
-------
This report as submitted by the grantee or contractor has not been
technically reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Publication 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.
An environmental protection publication (SW-76d) 1n the solid waste
management series.
11
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The completion of the demonstration and preparation of this report
have resulted from the effort, interest and contributions of many people
whose work should be recognized and credited including Steve tingle,
Walter Liberick, Dennis Huebner, Pat Stump, and Erik Larson of the Office
of Solid Waste Management Programs. All visited the city, observed the
system in at least one phase of operation and offered useful suggestions
for improving the system and preparing this report.
Glen Myers and May Myers who manufactured the equipment and worked
so faithfully toward revision and improvement and without whose genius and
devotion the project would never have been accomplished.
Special acknowledgement goes to the Mayor and City Council, who have
patiently dealt with complaints and who have had the fortitude to see the
project through to the end, and especially to Mayor P. J. Green who has
given his special support and advice on the work.
J. R. Green, Director of Public Works, and the members of his Depart-
ment provided the necessary training, conducted surveys, and made installa-
tions of equipment on a timely basis. Esther Angulo, City Clerk, and the
members of her staff made difficult Spanish translations for our surveys
and public information in addition to the many clerical duties connected
with the project.
Finally, the people of Tolleson accepted the system and its installa-
tion along with the early problems and inconveniences. They are citizens
who are willing to experiment and deserve our sincere thanks for their
cooperation.
— William DaVee
City Manaqer
Tolleson, Arizona
-------
MECHANIZED NON-STOP RESIDENTIAL
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary i
Introduction 1
Phase I 7
Phase II 11
Phase III 17
APPENDS
A Letter to Phase I Participants 36
B Phase III Instructional Booklet ... 38
C Phase III Questionnaire 44
-------
MECHANIZED, NON-STOP RESIDENTIAL
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
SUMMARY
This report describes the development of a non-stop, one-man refuse
collection operation that 1s five times as productive as the old conventional
rear loader collection system It replaces.
Tolleson has worked to demonstrate the system using funds from a Federal
demonstration grant administered by the Office of Solid Waste Management Pro-
grams of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The work was accomplished 1n three phases. Phase I demonstrated that
the concept of non-stop collection was feasible and could be mechanized
successfully. Refuse was collected from eight households using the standard
55 gallon drum containers suspended from a stand 1n the alley behind the
homes. Improvements were made to the stands and the dumping mechanization.
Phase II developed a non-stop prototype truck, Installed an alley of
53 containers and demonstrated the use of the new truck In the alley. The
truck with Us original bumper arrangement failed to collect the solid
waste completely due to problems of surface condition, container placement
and collection speed which could not be solved without substantial Installa-
tion cost increases.
An alternative method of collection, utilizing a guide rail arrange-
ment with a roller on the container, was proposed by the inventor and in-
stalled. The guide rail system produced impressive results emptying all
containers with no litter problem.
In Phase III, the non-stop collection system was Implemented on a city-
wide basis. A total of 868 containers were installed. The new method of
collection demonstrated a perfect safety record in one of the most dangerous
industries In the United States. Implementation of the system city-wide
was accompanied by a general clean up of alleys by homeowners. The improved
appearance has remained in the alleys for over a year and can be expected
to continue.
An attitude survey of system users demonstrated strong citizen support
for mechanization. Nearly ninety-nine percent of those surveyed felt non-
stop collection is an improvement over the rear end loader method of collection.
The analysis of the economics and productivity of non-stop collection
demonstrates that it is an attractive alternative to the rear end loader. In
terms of productivity, one man was serving the entire community with service
three times per week in 88 hours per month. The rear end loader, with a crew
of three, needed 99 hours per month or 297 man hours to provide twice a week
service.
The cost per dwelling unit per month totalled $1.80 for the rear end loader
system and only $1.14 per dwelling unit per month for the non-stop truck. The
City of Tolleson is saving $.66 per dwelling unit per month through use of non-
stop collection. When multiplied by the number of dwelling units, this savings
is substantial even for a small community such as Tolleson.
v •-
-------
In summary, the non-stop collection system demonstrated 1n this
project could save communities throughout the United States thousands
of tax dollars. It employs relatively simple equipment, 1s amazingly
productive and offers a better working environment for the solid waste
collector. The system can now be purchased from Bionomics International,
Phoenix, Arizona.
v1
-------
INTRODUCTION
Refuse collection in the southwest United States has a long history.
Until the 1600's, prehistoric Indians and their descendants disposed of
refuse by throwing it in piles called trash mounds, near their homes. These
trash mounds are now excavated by archeologists and provide a great wealth of
information about these people.
Later, the area became populated by settlers and towns and cities began
to appear. This urbanization brought about the need for better methods of
refuse collection and communities responded by creating specialized "sanitation"
departments. The equipment used by these agencies consisted initially of hand
carts and horse drawn wagons. Later, with the advent of the internal combustion
engine, trucks were employed in the effort to collect1the increasing volumes of
refuse.
A major breakthrough was achieved when a vehicle was disigned which loaded
from the rear and compacted the refuse as it was loaded. This truck is called
a rear end loader and has served as the mainstay of refuse collection for a
number of years. (Illustration 1).
This report Dresents an analysis of a new type of vehicle that makes the
rear end loader method of collection comparatively expensive for several reasons.
First, the rear end loader system relies heavily on manual labor with two
and frequently three employees required. One employee serves as the vehicle's
operator and normally does not collect containers as they must be dumped into
the rear of the vehicle. Two workman do the collecting, lifting the containers,
dumping them into the hopper, and returninn l!ie containers to their original
location. When the hopper is full, a ram is activated, the refuse is cleared
from the hopper and is compacted into the body of the truck.
Three employees must be paid in this syst.em for all hours on the job
including trips to the disposal site when two of the three are not engaged
productively. They are simply ridina and waiting for the truck to return to
the collection route.
A second characteristic of the rear end loader system is that the job of
collector requires considerable physical exertion. New York City reports that
to load 8,100 pounds of refuse daily, the average collector carries 3,000 pounds
of containers to and from the truck. Although this problem has been somewhat
alleviated with the introduction of light plastic bags, the collector still
lifts the refuse itself from the ground to the hooper.
In addition to being strenuous, the job of refuse collector is dangerous.
In 1970, the frequency rate of disabling injuries for the waste collection
industry was 90.90 lost time injuries per million man hours worked. Comparing
this rate with the rate for policemen, 53.21 in 1968-70 and for logging, 19.96
in 1968-70, refuse collection stands out as a hazardous profession. Some of
this problem can certainly be attributed to the lower quality and work habits
-------
ILLUSTRATION 1
A REAR END LOADER COLLECTION VEHICLE
A conventional rear end loader manned
by a typical three man crew was used
in Tolleson prior to this demonstration.
-------
-------
of refuse collection laborers, but the continual stop and go movement, the
physical exertion of the truck, of handling varying sizes and weights of
containers, and the general work environment remain the dominant reasons for
the hiqh accident rate.
Combining high labor costs, the physical exertion required, unsafe working
conditions and, in the case of the community where this demonstration project
occurred, summer temperatures in excess of 100 degrees, it is easy to understand
why willing workers are difficult to find. Yet most of these problems are faced
every day by communities throughout the United States.
What can be done? This report represents a joint effort by the City of
Tolleson, Arizona and the Environmental Protection Agency to solve these
problems through mechanization of refuse collection.
Historical Background
Tolleson is one of a number of cities concerned with the many problems and
particularly with the rising costs and labor requirements of its refuse collect'on
service. Shortly after he was appointed City Manager in 1969, Bill Da Vee
recognized the need to imorove collection methods.
Mr. Da Vee was contacted by Mr. Marcel G. Straqier, Public Works Director
of Scottsdale, Arizona, who suggested that the City of Tolleson investigate a
new method of refuse collection conceived by Mr. Glenn Myers, a Phoenix inventor.
Mr. Meyers proposed a non stop collection system which consists of a specially
designed truck and container. Containers are mounted on poles and are turned
over and emptied by the truck without stopping at each container. Only one
employee is used to operate the truck.
In order to develop the Tolleson City Council's interest in the system,
a simple demonstration of the concept of non stop collection was held on
September 19, 1970. A bracket was installed on a utility pole in an alley, a
55 gallon drum was mounted on the bracket, and a truck was modified with a rubber
tire and sheet metal tray on its side. (Illustration 2). Various types of
refuse were nlaced in the container and emptied into the tray on the truck. The
container was successfully emptied while the truck proceeded ahead non stoo.
The truck merely bumped the container with the soft rubber wheel,to swing it
around the bracket. Refuse fell into the tray.
After viewing the demonstration, the Tolleson City Council was satisfied
that the demonstration adequately demonstrated the potential of the system and
Mr. Ha Vee was authorized to seek federal assistance to demonstrate non stop
collection. Mr. Straqier's private firm,Government Innovators, was employed by
the Tolleson Council to assist in the oroject from application through project
completion. An application was subsequently filed with the Environmental
Protection Agency and anproved for funding.
Study Area Characteristics
The population of the City of Tolleson in the 1970 census was 3,881 but now
approaches 4,000 with recent building and an annexation. According to the 1970
census, the median shcool years completed was 7.9 and the percent of the population
completing four year's of high school or more was 21.3. The unemployment rate in
-------
ILLUSTRATION 2
NON STOP COLLECTION DEMONSTRATION
To demonstrate the concept, a bracket
was installed on a utility pole in an
alley, a 55 gallon drum was mounted
on it, and a truck was modified with
a rubber tire and sheet metal tray.
-------
-------
1970 was 4.6% with the median income at $h,260 per year. Twenty-six and one
tenth percent of the population had fln inrome less than the poverty level in 197D,
The City of Tolleson is located ten miles west of downtown Phoenix. It has
a sunny, dry climate with mild winters. The average maximum temperature for the
year is 84.7°F with an average minimum of 53.3° and an average rainfall of 7.2
inches. Sunshine is expected on an average of 36 percent of the days during a
year. The climate is favorable for refuse collection during most of the year.
During the summer, however, temperatures exceed ino°F and make refuse collection
a difficult task for collection crews which must work in the open.
Thetrrain of the City of Tolleson is flat. The 12.25 miles nf streets
in the community are laid out in a grid pattern. There are 6.37 miles of
alleys. In summary, the topographical characteristics, street and alley system
and climate of Tolleson provide an ideal location for demonstration of the non
stop collection system.
Refuse Collection Services in Tolleson
Tolleson has a Council-Manager forn of government. The City Manager is
the executive head of the organization. Reportinn to the City Manager, the
Public Works Director supervises a range of activities including refuse collection.
The refuse collection program consists of three operations. The first is
the non stop mechanized collection system which services all single family
households in Tolleson. This activity involves the non stop collection vehicle,
a driver, and occasionally some part-time assistance to install and repair
containers and provide routine maintenance service on the non stop truck.
Normally, collection service requires about 20 manhours per week and collects
about half of the city's waste.
The second refuse collection activity is commercial service and consists
of pickuo of 28 commercial accounts by the rear end loader with a crew of three
men. Refuse is collected from one and two yard containers. The customers
include schools, businesses and other institutions. Because several of Tolleson's
business establishments involve agricultural and meat production, service must
be provided on a daily basis to avoid the creation of unsanitary conditions.
The 55 gallon container developed in the experiment for the non stop
system cannot contain branches, wood, pinros of furniture or other large objects.
For this reason, the city provides bulk waste service on a once every two weeto
basis. A crew and the rear end loader collection vehicle or a dump truck are
used to collect these materials. Househr.lHers place their waste on the opposite
side of the alley from the 55 gallon containers, or, if they do not have alley
collection, at the curb.
Project Objectives
The general objective of the experiment was to demonstrate a productive,
economical, mechanized system of refuse rnllection that provides for the
collection of refuse from a multitude of small generators with a minimum of
manpower. Under this general objective, the nroject proposed to demonstrate
that refuse in Tolleson could be collected without m.inual handling of copta:nc»-3,
-------
that a collection vehicle could he designed which would not have to stop at
every container, that the truck could be operated by one man who would not have
to leave the cab and, finally, that the whole system would he less expensive
to ooerate than the convention method of collection with the rear end loader.
The project was divided into three phases designed in a logical way to develop
the revolutionary system.
Phase I demonstrated the feasibility of non stop collection. Eight
especially designed containers were installed and emptied by a bunoer into a
hopper arrangement mounted on a truck. The humper and containers were studied
for improvement.
Phase II developed a non stop prototype collection vehicle, installed a
test alley of 53 containers and documented the results of the test operation.
Phase III was the city-wide implementation of the non stop collection
system utilizing the truck and containers developed in Phases I and II. The
system was studied for economics, and user acceotance.
-------
PHASE I
PROJECI MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
The objective of Phase I was to determine the feasibility of non stop
refuse collection. To accomplish this objective, a non stop collection truck
had to be acquired and a suitable container had to be constructed.
The eight original containers were purchased and assembled in accordance
with design criteria established prior to the demonstration. The container
consisted of a 55 gallon drum. In the Phoenix area, these drums can be pur-
chased and delivered for a cost of $3.00 each. Each container was furnisheH
with a metal lid which was attached to the container by a hinge. (Illustration 3),
The drum was fastened into a framework which was attached to the pivot arm.
The framework was designed to hold the container in place and transfer the
impact of the bumper, which was used to invert the container. The pivot arm
was horizontal, perpendicular to the path of the collection vehicle and attached
to a vertical support. The vertical support was imbedded in concrete and was
one foot from the container to give clearance for the truck receiving hopper.
The truck used in Phase I was a three quarter ton stake bed pick up. A
soft rubber tire was attached to the front bumper and arranged to be retracted.
A similar tire was mounted on the rear of the truck. A steel tray about 9 feet
long by one and one-half feet deep and extending three feet from the side of
the truck was installed to receive the refuse. Although the inventor's plan
for the vehicle included hydraulic rams to clear the hopper, a canvas cover
was used in Phase I by Placing it in the tray to hold the refuse. When filled,
the canvas was lifted out of the tray and the refuse was deposited in the rear
end loader.
The truck and container were designed to work as follows: The vehicle
proceeded down the alley at about six miles per hour. Containers and their
supports were all placed on one side of the alley. As the truck moved ahead,
the soft tire on the front bumper contacted the first container, pushed it
away, up and around the pivot arm to a vertical, upside down position against
a stop. Refuse spilled out into the tray. As the vehicle proceeded ahead,
the second tire bumped the container back to its original position right side
up.
In order to install containers, holes eight to twelve inches across and
three feet deep were dug five feet apart near the property line alonq the
test alley. Although near the property linp, container installations were
completely in the alley easement dedicated to the city. Tt was possible to
locate each container near the back gate of each lot in this fashion. Some
holes were dug for six inches of concrete and some were dug to allow for ten
inches. A pre-mix concrete was used because of the small quantity involved.
-------
ILLUSTRATION 3
BASIC PHASE 1 CONTAINER
Containers are held in
place by the framework and
swing around the pivot arm
near the top when hit by
the bumoer.
-------
j
-------
The crew initially had some difficulty in leveling the containers, but
with each installation became more skilled. The containers were blocked up
to a level nine inches from the ground and secured against any possible movement
until the concrete set. The metal posts were equipped with cross pieces im-
bedded in the concrete designed to prevent the post from turning under stress.
The crew required four hours to install the first two containers, and three
hours to install the remaining four.
The initial test runs were made with the containers empty. In these test
runs, the containers demonstrated a tendency to swing freelv toward each other
after the dumping cycle causinq them to bang together at the bottom. These
collisions resulted in serious denting of the containers. The rear bumper wheel
was adjusted both up and down and forward and back, which had some beneficial
effect, but failed to comnletelv solve the problem. At the sane time as the
adjustments to the rear bumper were made, the front iripact wheel was changed to
different positions. After trying all the combinations, the banging was not
completely stopped, but considerable progress was made in reducing the force
with which the containers met. Finally, a shock absorber was mounted on th>
rear impact wheel to reduce the bouncinq effect caused by the container hitting
the rear wheel and a rubber drag was designed and installed to slow down the
decent of the containers. The modifications were tested and found to eliminate
the problem of the containers hitting together after the emptying cycle.
The dumping process of non stop collection remained loud even after the
problem of banning the containers was solved. Observation of dumping through
the use of motion pictures revealed that the lids were striking the metal
portions of the collection bin. A rubber pad was installed in the front portion
of the collection bin. This pad reduced the noise considerably and has become
standard on the truck. Tests using a plastic lid were scheduled but the plastic
could not withstand the punishment of dumninci and, compared to the metal lid,
was expensive to fabricate.
The collection vehicle was operated at various speeds to determine the
optimum pace for the collection system. At. six miles per hour the containers
dumped properly. All lids closed, all refuse fell into the side bin at the
desirable ooint and no containers struck each other after the dump cycle.
At 5.6 miles per hour, two of the containers came down prematurely during
the dump cycle causing them to strike the collection bin instead of the rear
impact wheel or the rubber drag.
At speeds in excess of six miles per hour, the force of the bumper hitting
the container would cause them to bounce back from the stop device and land in
the hopper. This action caused damage to the containers.
-------
The driver was able to piaster the collection process quickly at six mile?
per hour. The speed was slow enough to allow him to be accurate in bumpinq tK
containers at the proper place. A new driver was introduced to the system and
he too, was able to operate the truck properly after a few trial runs at this
speed.
After these initial experimentations, the point was reached when actual
collection could begin. A short letter was prepared and delivered to each
residence by a city employee. (Appendix A). The letter stated that the
neighborhood had been selected to receive the new collection service, gave
directions on the proper use of the container, listed collection days (Monday,
Wednesday, Friday) and encouraged the resident to contact the city manager
concerning problems or suggestions. The city employee reviewed the letter
with each family, answered their questions and left the letter with them.
Pick-up of all eight containers was implemented on a three days per week
basis. luring several of the pick-ups, there was high wind. Small amounts of
refuse were blown from the bin but the amount was less than what would have
fallen out if a rear end loader were used. The containers averaged about two
thirds full during this testing period. The existence of excess capacity
indicated that the residents wore receiving adequate storage capacity.
The Health Department examined the containers after they were in service
for a few weeks and could find no health related problems.
Conclusion
Phase I demonstrated that the containers would work. The bumner system
proved satisfactory. Minor improvements were made to container brackets,
handling and to accommodate Humpinq. Householders used the containers properly
and demonstrated the feasibility of their use throughout the community. With
the principle of non-stop collection successfully demonstrated, the experiment
was ready to move into Phase II.
10
-------
PHASE TI
The objective of Phase II was to construct the prototype non-stop
collection vehicle and demonstrate its operation in an alley of fifty-three
containers. The performance of the vehicle and containers was to be documented
and, if the test alley collection proved to be successful, the experiment would
move into Phase III, city-wide, non-stop collection.
Phase II Implementation
Originally, a twenty cubic yard collection vehicle was to be used as the
prototype. Since it would have required several months to build, the immediate
purchase of a twelve cubic yard collection vehicle, built from the truck used
in Phase I was recommended. (Illustration Number 4). The smaller truck was
less expensive and, because of its size, faster and more maneuverable. This
proposal was approved and the inventor's vehicle was purchased for $13,200.
It was equipped with the bumoer wheel, the receiving hopper and the shock
absorber system to restrain the containers as they complete the dumping cycle-.
The receiving hopper was equipped with a mechanical arm to move refuse into
the compaction chamber.
Prom our observations in Phase I and II, we identified the following
variables that effect non-stop collection with the bumper system:
1. Mounting height of the container. Phase I demonstrated that a
height from the ground to the bottom of the container should be
approximately nine inches. This height provided for loading, kept
the container clear of the ground and worked with humoer, hopper
and stand.
2. Location of impact of the bumper. The bumper ideally should hit in
the middle third on the vertical face of the container to accomplish
proper dumping.
3. Speed of the collection vehicle. A speed of approximately six miles
per hour worked best. Higher speeds left litter; lower speeds
failed to invert containers.
A. Inertia of the loaded container. The inertia of the loaded container
combined with the other factors was important in the dumping process.
The container hit a stop when inverted and would damage the support
if it hit too hard.
5. Spacing between containers. A set distance is preferable as it
allows proper dumpina, load transfer and compaction if the driver
is operating the truck at the appropriate speed. Minimum spacing
was about four feet. Truck speed varied depending on weioht and
spacing of containers.
6. Condition of the roadway surface. The condition of the surface was
extremely important as it determined the ooint of impact and the
maximum speed of operation. Potholes slowed the truck and often
moved the bumper out of the target area.
11
-------
ILLUSTRATION NUMBER 4
THE BUMPER WHEEL ARRANGEMENT
The truck used in Phase II was a proto-type constructed on
a Chevrolet chasis. The truck operated at speeds which
caused the containers to invert. After the refuse had
dropped into the hopper, the container was bumped back into
place by a wheel at the rear of the truck.
12
-------
-------
Recognizing these variables, every attempt was made to prepare the Phav-
II alley for the new collection method. It. should be mentioned, however, thdt
the alley was not caved, the lots adjoining the alley were narrow, some container
several dwell inns, and there were dwell inn units on both sides.
Instead of paving, the alley was graded at a cost of $152.00 including
labor and equipment rental.
Fifty-three containers and container brackets were purchased at a cost
of $1,325.00 and installed at fifty-three residences on the alley. City crew*
used rented digging equipment to accomplish the installation at a rental cost.
of $55.00. Materials cost $?F.50 and labor expense was ";?31.00 for sixty-six
man hours. The total cost of grading the alley and purchasing and installinn
the containers was $1,789.51 or $33.7fi per container.
The containers were located on one sid? of the alley to accommodate the
gates and paths of the users. Residents were given the same letter used in
Phase I explaining the experiment and their role in it and each home was
visited by a city employee to answer any questions on the new collection
system.
Several trial runs were made with the twelve cubic yard collection vehic''
It was evident after these runs that the installation of the fifty-three
containers and the reconditionina of the alley surface was not accomplished
in accordance with the variables previously discussed. The alley itself
served narrow lots. Mounting height varied, containers were not spaced
evenlv and the alley surface was not even because it was graded and not paved.
In Phase I, conditions were ideal for the bumper method of collection.
The alley was paved, containers were evenly spaced instead of spaced to accommo-
date users and containers were exactly ninp inches from the alley surface.
The collection vehicle during Phase I was able to operate at a uniform speed.
free of bumps and jolts, impacted containers at the same location, and dumoeri
them successfully.
In the initial runs of nhase II, one o-jt of ten containers did not
properly conplete the dumping cycle. Either they did not fully invert and
lock in place because the bumoer did not inpact them with enouqh force or
they inverted hard and bounced back because the pumper hit them with too ir.uc'*
force. In either case, the container fell into the loading tray jamming the
arm that forced the refuse from the tray into the compaction chamber. Seve •<*
times during the testing the bracket which fastens tho horizontal arm to tb*
container was twisted.
The varying hoiqtit and location of containers and the irregular alley
surface demanded more driving skills than the vehicle operator could orcv .»•
Although he was able to imnrove in negotiating the varying mounting height
surfact textures, load weights, hydraulic system demands, and quick stops *
avoid damage, containers continued to become caught in the hopper.
13
-------
It became clear that effective use of the bumper method of collection
was dependent on well surfaced alleys, uniform container installation and balanced
loads. These factors could raise the cost of non-stop collection and make it
uneconomical.
The inventor proposed a new method which involved the installation of a
small roller on the outside bottom corner of *>ach container and a guide rail
along the side of the collection vehicle. Instead of inverting the containers
by bumpinn them with the bumoer wheel, the container would he inverted by
running the roller along the rail which would nuide it through the dumping
cycle. The idea was tried at the inventor's shop and worked. It gave the
operator a oood deal more control, was simole and reduced litter because it
operated at a slower speed.
Because of this successful shop demonstration, rollers were installed on
all test alley containers and the guide rail was mounted on the prototype
non-stop truck. (Illustration Number 5).
The guide rail system worked better than expected. The driver found that
it was easy to line the rail up with the rollers on the containers. The
system worked at varying speeds and was more tolerant to varying container
heights, surface conditions, and loads in containers. After several runs,
the driver became very proficient. The smoothness of the operation helpec-
eliminate the litter problem encountered in the bumper method. With a major
problem successfully solved, the experiment could proceed.
Residents were quick to utilize the containers which were provided.
Those that were required to walk across the alley to deposit their refuse
did so willingly.
Large cardboard boxes were difficult for the packer to handle as they
would become jammed in the opening between the tray and body. Unusually large
numbers of these caused delays and sometimes spilled out of the hopper. This
problem was solved by askina residents to cut up the large boxes before
depositing them in their containers. Thos who did not break up the corrugated
boxes used them to contain the bulk rubbish collected separately.
Since the bumper method of collection relied so heavily on proper
surfacing and container height and location, analysis of the guide rail method
was emphasized in Phase II. The vehicle's driver was trained to record the
proper collection data.
The non-stop truck required an average of 9.2 minutes to collect refuse
from the fifty-three containers in the alley. This figure represents a
collection rate of 5.3 homes ner minute or 3^8 homes per hour. The most time
required to collect the entire alley was ?0 minutes when the truck's hopner was
jammed and the least time required was six minutes.
The maximum weight picked up in one collection was 1,840 pounds on a Monday.
The average weight percontainer per collection was ?0.9 pounds or 8.9 pounds
per home per day and the per capita generation was 1.6 pounds per day.
14
-------
ILLUSTRATION 5
During Phase II, a guide rail was installed as an alternative
method of inverting containers. It slowed the non-stop
collection truck but was much more dependable and production
increased. The operating sequence is shown in this illustration.
-------
OPERATING
The illustrations at the left show a pickup cycle of the
One-Man Nonstop Collection System.
As the truck approaches the container (Figure 1), the
driver aligns the truck's rail with the spool mounted
on the lower side of the container. The spool rides up
the truck-mounted rail (Figure 2). pivoting the
container on its pivot pin near the top of the post.
The cam action of the rail is designed so that the
container is in the dumping position as the receiving
tray passes benetah it (Figure 3).
As the truck continues on. the now-empty container
clears the tray and is passed toward the rear of the
truck (Figure 4).
The truck's forward motion causes the container to
start its descent to its original position as the spool
rides the downward portion of the rail (Figure 5).
The truck having emptied and disengaged the
container, moves to the next container (Figure 6).
IS -c\.
-------
Since collection in Phase II was from only one alley, a cost analysis was
not conducted. It was felt that the analysis of City-wide collection would pro
vide much more neaninaful results as the truck, driver, and containers would
be in full use under actual and not experimental collection conditions.
Conclusions
Phase II objectives were successfully attained. The non-stop truck was
purchased and demonstrated in an alley of fifty three containers. The truck
with its original bumper arrangement failed to collect the solid waste
completely due to problems of surface condition, container placement and
collection speed which could not be solved without substantial installation cost
increases. The bumper system was fast with the truck collecting at six miles
per hours, hut its limitations reduced its productivity to less than that of
the guide rail system. An alternative method of collection, utilizing a
guide rail arrangement with rollers on the container, was proposed by the
inventor and installed. The new arrangement produced impressive results
emptying all containers with no litter problem. The truck with rail could
empty an average of 5.8 homes per minute and serve the entire alley of fifty-
three containers in an average of 9.R minutes.
With the successful demonstration of the non-stop truck in an alley of
53 containers, the experiment was ready for testing of the system on a large
scale. In January of 1972, Tolleson embarked on PHase III, City wide
imolementation.
16
-------
PHASE III
Phase I and II had shown that the non-stop refuse collection method was
feasible and might produce substantial savinus to the public. The system had
been introduced successfully in alleys with R containers using the bumper
method and then fifty three containers usinq the guide rail dumping arrangement.
The question remained as to the economics of this new concept in refuse col-
lection and its possibilities on a large scale away from highly controlled
experimental conditions.
The objective of Phase III was to install and service containers at all
residences in the city. The rate of installation of containers was projected
at approximately one hundred containers per week and a crew of six city
employees, who made all installations, were able to keeo that pace. Final
installations were made durinn the week of January 20, 1972, although adjust-
ments and additional installations to new households have been made as required
since that date.
A total of flfi3 containers were installed during this period including eighty-
six at homes wSiich required curbside service. Installation required 976 hours
of labor at a cost of $3,414.50. This represents a labor cost of S3.50 per
hour, includinn fringe benefits. Sand, rock and cement cost S279.00 and equip-
mental rental for a nost hole digger, back hoe and cement mixer totaled $712.25.
liie installation cost per container for 368 containers averaged $5.07. The
containers and brackets cost $17,360 or $20.oO each.
Curbside Installations
Refuse collections in Tolleson was nade primarily from alleys and containers
were installed as described in Phase II. However, eighty-four homes or 9.6 per-
cent of the total number of homes required curbside collection. Collection
service at the curb was provided during Phase III through the use of three
different container designs.
First, 64 containers we^e installed on temporary stands. These stands
were not set into the ground, but were installed in pairs using a metal frame
onto which a ore-cast concrete oan1 was laid to anchor the containers. Thus,
the entire set-no could be relocated if necessary. The moveable container was
used in areas where no curb and gutter existed or where alleys were soon to be
constructed. The moveable container unit cost $35 to construct.
Second, nineteen containers,which pivot 131 degrees about a vertical axis,
were installed and set permanently in concrete in areas where there was a
vertical curb. The pivot feature was designed to allow the containers to be
kept away from the street during non-collection Havs. (Illustration No. 6).
On days collections were to be made, residents were asked to swing the container
to the outside position. This movement would brinn the roller, which was
attached to the container, to the outter line where the guide rail of the col-
lection vehirle could make the nickno. The momentum of the pickup of the containe
would return it to its original inside position.
17
-------
ILLUSTRATION NO. 6
CURB SERVICE
Curbsioe collection was provided by temporary
containers, roll out containers and permanently
installed containers shown in this illustration.
On collection day, the user turns the container
out into the street. When it has been emptied,
a mechanism in the stand turns it back to its
location behind the curb.
18
-------
-------
ILLUSTRATION NUMBER 6-A
OTHER TYPES OF CONTAINERS
The guide rail system could collect from a variety
of containers at a variety of locations. This is
and artists concept of some of those.
-------
-------
Third, a roll out type of container was given to one household. The post
was permanently set in concrete, but the container wqs fitted with wheels and
rolled out-and attached to the post only on collection days. No lifting was
necessary. Thus, the container could be stored away from the front of the hon.e
and wheeled about the yard for easy collection of grass clippings, hedge trinwi ly.
and general yard cleanings. The post, which was permanently installed, could
serve other useful functions such as a street address marker, yard lights, •neTi
boxes, and name plates.
Container Identification
After all containers had been installed, they were numbered in route
sequence. These numbers enabled the driver to keep an accurate count of the
homes served, the collection time required, and to correlate this data with
the total weight collected on a daily data report form. In addition,' these
numbers Were used to identify any problems with the container or any un-
acceptable practices by the people using tlie container .
Acceptance
As installations were completed, city crews distributed an instruction
booklet and gave information on the new system to each residence. (Appendix B',.
These crews found residents eager to try the new system. Very little follow-
up was required to insure compliance. The most difficult problem was petting
the residents to place tree trimmings and other rubbish across the alley from
the containers. At first, this material often blocked the path of the collection
vehicle and the driver had to stop, disembark, and remove the obstructions. Hov.-
ever, as residents became familiar with the collection vehicle and observed
it working, they were more careful and did not leave obstructions in the path
of the truck. After the first two weeks of service to an area, the driver found
that he seldom had to leave the cab of the truck to remove rubbish or close tin
open qate.
Public acceptance of all types of curbside containers was surprisingly good.
While a few people did object to the green color of the container, they did not
seem to object to havinq the containers permanently in front of their homes.
Initially, some difficulty was experienced with parked automobiles interfering
with curbside collections. Parked cars became much less of a problem as people
began to understand how the collection vehicle worked. Again, no special effnr
were required to minimize the street parking. Residents voluntarily compile-
once they understood the needs of the collection vehicle.
Load Densities
After all containers were installed and the new vehicle began to make i-'r
collections, it failfd to achieve expected load densities. Density of 40C
pounds per cubic yard was expected based upon our experience in Phase II. • *r
were not able to attain these densities and began to experiment with w»t.«*
guides inside the packer shell to more evenly divide the refuse. None o* -~ •
19
-------
dividers were successful in correcting load deficiencies. The angle of
packer ram was then changed into the packer shell. This change solved our
density problems rtnd density increased to 450 pounds per cubic yard.
Litter
The most remarkable benefit observed in Phase III was the clean-uo of
litter in the alleys. Some of this was undoubtedly due to the fact that
animals such as dogs or cats were unable to gain entry into the containers
and were thus not able to scatter the contents. In addition, there was strong
evidence that residents had been raking up the small amount of papers and
leaves regularly. This was a major improvement over the conventional system
previously used as city crews frequently were required to clean up alleys.
Since containerization, city crews have not needed to clean alleys.
Safety
Reports show the occupation of refuse collector to be a hazardous one.
The Arizona Safety Council reports that the solid waste collection industry
had the highest injury frequency of any industrial category in 1971.
Employees must snend their workday jumping off of collections trucks,
picking up and dumping heavy containers with jagged edges, working close
to moving machinery on a demanding, tiring job. The statistics are not
surprising.
Safety is generally measured in terms of the freouency rate of disabling
injuries. The frequency rate is determined by multiplying the number of
disabling injuries times 1,000,000 and dividing the result by the total number
of hours worked.
For the refuse collection industry as a whole, the frequency rate was
90.9 accidents per million man hours worked. For the operation of Tolleson's
non stop truck, the frequency rate was zero throughout the entire period of
the experiment. Thus, in an industry which has a higher frequency rate than
police departments, logging, coal mining, and highway construction (Table! ),
the mechanization program has demonstrated a perfect zero accident record.
The experiment demonstrated a man, riding in an air-conditioned cab
away from packer blades and not required to lift and dump containers is a
safer employee. He is less tired and therefore, more attentive to his work.
He has less time off from work due to injury and is therefore a more productive
emnloyee. Mechanization not only saved production dollars, but also safety
and industrial compensation dollars.
Displaced Workmen
If mechanization is to be welcomed by employees, displaced workmen must
be given other employment. Two workmen were displaced in Tolleson by the
introduction of the non-stop truck. One was put to work doing carpentry and
cabinet making for the addition to City Hall. He al.so was used in the develop-
ment of a new park by doing leveling, irrigation ditch and sprinkler system
construction and dirt hauling. The other employee was placed in the city's
water program as a crewman.
20
-------
TA3LE 1
FREQUENCY RATE OF DISABLING INDUSTRIES
1963-1970
SFLECTF.D INDUSTRIES
FRFQUENCY RATE PER
iNpusmv MiLLjON"MAN HOURS WORKLD
Automobile Manufacturing 1.60
Chemical Acid Manufacturing 5.33
Structural Steel Fabrication 14.56
Structural Metal Work 15.34
Highway Construction 17.90
General Building Construction 19.26
Logging 19.96
Parks 5 Recreation Departments 26.89
Municipal Employee Administration 27.57
Fire Departments 32.96
Coal Mining 33.46
Police Departments 53.24
Solid Waste Collection 90.90
Source: Arizona Safety Council
21
-------
These two placements in good jobs removed apprehension of emoloyees for
their job security. They know that non-stoo collection has provided an
opportunity for improved employment and job satisfaction.
Driver Training
Since the non-stop truck is simple to operate, driver training did not
prove to be a problem. Once the motion of the container became familiar,
driving the truck was easy. The inventor worked with the operator at first
and rode with him on occasion to familiarize him with the principle of the
non-stop truck and its operating characteristics. The first driver soon
learned to adjust the collection rate to avoid littering or jamming the work-
ing mechanism. After he had gained experience and confidence, he trained a
second back up operator who has relieved him when sickness, job assignment
or vacation made it desirable.
Consumer Reaction
In order to adequately assess user attitude toward Tolleson's new,
innovative method of solid waste collection, an attitude survey was conducted
during Phase III in June, 1972.
The consultant prepared a list of statements for the survey which were
designed to test various areas of citizen reaction to mechanization and non-
stop collection. The statements were reviewed and prepared in the form of
an interview sheet. (Appendix C) The questionnaire was translated into
Spanish by our personnel so that Tolleson's Spanish speaking population could
understand and comment meaningfully on the statements presented.
The interview sample was selected by including in the survey every fifth
house on the collection route.
Fifteen statements were presented by tlie city interviewer and the
householder was asked to respond to the statement as follows: Stronoly
agree, anree, disagree, strongly disagree. The interviewer would them mark
the response on the interview sheet for th3 respondent. This system reduced
the chance for improper or hasty marking by a resident.
The responses were most favorabla to the non-stop method of collection.
The first statement was "The new method is an improvement over the old one,"
and 90.6% indicated a favorable response. Of the 98.6%, 80.0% said that they
strongly agreed with this statement and 18.6" said they agreed. In tv/o
questions, the users were asked if they wanted to return to the old system
and their reaction was negative by a larqe margin.
Statements were included which related directly to performance of the
non-stop method of collection. Of the respondents, 83.4% felt that their
refuse was beinq collected often enough, fifi.9% that their container provided
adequate capacity, and 97.9% that the city employee collecting did a good job.
To the statement that the system reduced noise of collection, 37.9?- re-
sponded that they strongly agreed and 40.03 said thay agreed. The adjustments
made early in the experiment to reduce noise were evidently successful in
solving the problem to the point that users felt it was quieter than the old
method. In terms of sanitation, 98.6% were favorable to the statement that
22
-------
the containers keep out doqs and cats. This response, we felt, was especia'.
important to our analysis as experience has shown that householder-provided
containers are susceptible to animals. Litter and garbage were, all too
often, spread around the city's streets and alleys. Likewise, 93.8?, felt
the area around the new containers was easier to keen clean, as animals were
not continually spread-ing litter around.
The response, however, did not entirely favor mechanization. For example,
35.9% felt that it costs less to collect refuse by hand than by machine. The
analysis of the economics of non-stop collection in this report show it to br
considerably less expensive than hand collection. To the statement that it is
faster to collect refuse by hand than by machine, 13.8" strongly agreed and
14.b% agrees. Again, £he results of the study show mechanization .much faste*1
than hand collection. These responses, although not majority responses,
renresent a substantial portion of the users and point out the need for continu
education of the public in these areas.
Each resident interviev/ed was given the opportunity to mention what he
disliked about the non-stop systeri. Over half stated that they had no major
dislikes. The most often expressed dislike, at 12.3% of the response was t".>t
the container wdS too small and 7.8% disliked having to place their trash ac-ry
the alley.
They were also given the chance to respond to the statement "What do
you like most?" Of the responses to this question, one third said that they
had no special like, 14.7% said they like the containers because they kept the
animals out, 11.3% felt the system was convenient and 8.77. liked the reduction
in flies around the container.
i
The Phase III attituude survey demonstrated strong citizen support for
mechanization and the use of the non-stop collection vehicle. It pointed out,
however, the need for further education of the public on economics and pro-
ductivity. The City Council aiu staff feel that this survey supports their
experimental efforts i.n providing better and less expensive solid waste col lev.•.
service.
Public Relations
The project had good coverage from the media. In August, 1971, KTAR, -.;?
affiliate of NBC, filmed a short two minute video tape which adequately exc',..'
the system. This tape was subsequently picked up by the wire services and
carried in many cities on the HBC Brinkley Report. In November 1971, our Iota'
A3C affiliate, KTVK-TV, carried a video taoe of the operation. Local nev,st^
having statewide circulation, the Arizona Republic and PhoenixL_^zet_te, have
carried several accounts of the progress of the project. In addition, a loc
weekly, the Westsider, has carried several articles on the demonstration.
News and World Report carried pictures and a very brief description in i'j
April TO, 1972 edition. Ar article has been prepared and pictures sent <:n
American Cities and Astern Cities Magazines for printing in a current T- -
23
-------
Response from the public following television coverage and articles in magazines
and newspapers has been wide spread. Inquiries have come from as far away
as Agana, Guam. The vehicle and system has been shown to representatives of
Huntinqton, West Virginia, the Arizona cities of Phoenix, Avondale, Suckeye,
Scottsdale, Chandler, Casa Grande, Huachuca City, Peoria, South Tucson, and
Kearny. Several hundred requests for information have been received from
cities all over the nation.
Experience with Manufacturer
Demonstration of the non-stop collection system required some unusual
relationships with the inventor-manufacturer. Since the system had never been
tried before in another city we could only use very general soecifications.
The inventor was to retain any oatent rights under the terms of the grant and
aqreed in return to provide all design, development, modification and other
work needed to produce a working system. The manufacturer was most willing to
make corrections and to replace and repair parts or components that failed
during trials and later use. He was always available on short notice, operated
the equipment at his expense for several months to collect the Phase II alley
data whicle improving the mechanization and makinq improvements in the stands
and the truck.
The stands and the truck have been comparatively trouble free. The
quality of the prototype equipment was excellent, especially considering that
it was manufactured as prototype equipment on a short run basis.
Status of Patents
Patent applications on several non-stop collection systems had been
filed by the inventor before work on the demonstration was started. Both of
the inverting systems - one using a soft tire bumper and the other using the
guide rail - were ideas covered by these applications. The U. S. Patent office
has reviewed the applications and accepted many of the claims. The inventor
should soon have established patent rights on the system.
24
-------
ILLUSTRATION NO. 7
The non-stop truck collecting in
Phase III used the guide rail system.
-------
-------
Economics and Product!vi t.y
The most important objective of PhaseNIII was to evaluate the economics
of non-stop refuse collection and the oroductivity of the non-stop truck.
To do this, detailed records were required and the refuse collection crews
were relied on heavily to collect the information. They did an excellent job
throughout the experiment and the results of their effort form the basis of
this discussion.
The evaluation of the economics and productivity of a collection vehicle
involves a number of factors including crew size, load capacity, rate of
collection, investment costs, ooerating and maintenance expense, haul time,
work hours, frequency of service and level of service. These elements make
up the unit cost of refuse collection oer home per month and make it oossible
to compare performance of one method of collection with another.
As a basis for. comparison, the appropriate cost, data was collected and
the monthly cost of operation was determined. This expense is the total of
the cost of labor, -administration and overhead, operatinq and maintenance, and
amortization of equipment purchase. The data for the rear end loader applies
only to residential collection and was collected nrior to Phase III. Below
is an item by item (discussion of these elements of the operating costs.
The most expensive item in the refuse collection unit cost analysis was
labor. For the conventional truck, the rear end loader, the crew consisted
of a driver and two workmen. During the haul to the disposal site, these
two workmen rode in the truck and were drawinq full wages even thouoh they
were unproductive in terms of refuse collection. For the non-stop truck,
only one employee was required to both operate the vehicle and provide for
the collection of the refuse. Thus, only one employee, the vehicle operator,
made the trip to the disposal site.
The difference in crew siTie and the resulting reduction in unproductive
man hours during haulina had a major impact on collection labor costs. Where-
as it required three men an average of 297 man hours per month to serve the
city's residences prior to the demonstration project, the non-stoo method
required only 8°> rsan hours per month. The average cost per month for the ?97
man hours for the rear end loader was $355 and for the non-stoo truck T.279.
The City of Tolles*on was able to save "5576 per month in labor costs due to
the conversion to the non-stop collection system.
Since it was .extremely difficult to identify administration and over-
head expense in an oraanization that provides a variety of oublic service.,
a rate of 30* was used to account for these costs. % usino this percentage,
we have in essence olaced the highest expense burden on the collection syrr^
using the most matnoower. We feel this percentage application was justir'ac nr
the basis that it requires more administrative SMooort and overhead costs '£:
maintain a thr«e roan crew than a one man crew.
-------
On this basis, administration and overhead expense for the rear end
loader was $256.50 per month and for the non-stop truck, *..°,?.7n oer month.
Oppratino and maintenance costs for this analysis included the cost of
nasoline, oil, lubrication and routine servicing and reuair work. Ourina
this demonstration project, there were surorisinqly few repairs to the
mechanized vehicle. The major modification made in the vehicle was the Phase
II switch from the bumper to the quide rail method of collection. This change
was not due to mechanical problems but, rather, was due to the finding that
the bumoer method required smooth alleys, evenly spaced containers and constant
collection speeds and was, therefore, impractical on a larqe scale.
The major repair problems concerned some aspects of the sweeo arm. The
first, problem with the sween arm occurred when the lockinci screws became loose
causina the shaft to si in in the bearinns. This action d.maqed the 0 ring
seal in the slip rinn due to misalignment with parts in the shaft. The ih-
wntsr bolted the retaining cap to the shaft to orevent slippaqe, th* seals
were renlaced and the valves and lines were cleaned.
On another occasion, the slip ring was damaqed by beinq locked to the
shaft by coat hangers wrannod around th*1 sween arm suonort frame. The problem
was corrected by roplacinn the si in rinn an«H hydraulic lines and adding a shield
between the slip ring and *rame.
The inventor made a number of miscellaneous repairs including the re-
placement of broken oil line fittings, adjusting pressure control switches
and cam ooerated switches, replacing fuses, addinq supports to the guide rail,
strainhteninq the side of the chute, straighteninn bent guide rail, replacing
wooden sweep arm, and addinq a deflector for better compaction.
These repairs and modifications required a total of 7?. man hours of the
inventor's time during January 1 - June 30, 1972. Some of them will be
eliminated by improved design in future models of the non-stop truck. A cost
of "5720 for labor, $100 for parts and *;?5 for miscellaneous expenditures has
been assiqned for the inventor's charges
Durina this same period, City of Tolleson personnel made $212.32 in
repairs includinq labor and parts which brought the total cost for repairs
for six months to "51,057.?? or '.176.22 ner month. The rear end loader averaged
$95. 6^ per month for reoair costs for the last six months of T>71.
Costs for oas and oil during Phase HI For the non-ston truck were ">39.A1
per mon'.h as shown in Tablc. 2 The ."nar end loader averaned $60.39 for fuel
and oil in the six month period nrior to Phase III for residential collection.
Addina the renair costs to the fuel costs, we can ^tpmine the total
operating and maintenance cost for the non-stoo truck and rear end loader.
Monthlv reoair costs averaged c-175.22, oil costs ^6.51 and nasoline costs
^32.00. Th» averane month! v operating and maintenance cost for the non-ston
truck was $21^.63 while, in the six months orior to Phase III, the rear end
loader averaged ?>156.r>7 for ooeratino and maintenance exnense.
27
-------
TA3LE 2
FUEL COSTS
NON-STOP COLLECTION TRUCK
TOLLESON, ARIZONA
JANUARY 1, 1972 - JUNE 30, 1972
OIL GASOLINE
MONTH (1972)
January
February
March
April
May
June
Total
Oil Filters a.00
Total Oil and Gasoline Per Month - $39.11
lUARTS
6
5
2
7
8
7
35
COST
$ 2.58
2.15
.85
3.01
3.44
3.01
$15.05
GALLONS
146. 7
134.0
146.4
139.0
1*0.0
155.1
861.2
COST
$ 33.62
30.71
33.55
31.86
32.09
35.55
$197.38
-------
These operating and maintenance expenses are extremely low
when compared to those experienced by other communities. Scotts-
dale, Arizona, experienced operating and maintenance expenses
approaching Si,000 per month for a rear end loader and $1,500 per
month for their recently developed "Barrel Snatcher." The sub-
stantially lower cost exnerienced by Tolleson may be due to the
fact that the non-stop truck was in operation only 88 hours per
month and the rear end loader 99 hours per month, whereas Scotts-
dale's trucks averaqed in excess of 172 hours per month.
For amortization of the purchase price of the vehicle we have
selected the straight line method of depreciation and have assumed
that the trucks will have no resale value. It is felt that the
non-stop truck and the rear end loader have a productive life of
seven years, but at the end of that period, will be of little
or no value.
The non-stop truck was not an expensive truck by refuse
collection standards. Due to the uncomplicated r.ature of its
construction, the truck was marketed as a prototype for $13,200
by the inventor. By comparison, the rear end loader was pur-
chased by the City of Tolleson for $24,000. Apolyiny the straight
line, seven year depreciation with no resale value to the two
trucks, the monthly depreciation for the non-stop truck in Phase
III was $157.14 and for the rear end loader, $285.71.
Unit Costs
By taking these average monthly costs we can determine the
cost per home per month for collection service. For the non-
stop truck, however, we must add the cost of the container
amortized over its expected lifetime.
The 55 gallon installations have a ten year estimated life.
This period may seem long but is based upon the fact that the
installations are all steel and painted with a rust resistant
paint. A recent analysis of the containers after they had been
in service for over a year revealed that they have experienced
negligible structural wear, even on the moving parts, and the
paint has withstood weather and usage.
Assuming they will either require repainting after five years
in service or will need some tyoe of repair during their ten year
life, a cost of $3.00 per container has been estimated for spray
painting or, if required, minor repair work. Adding to this the
$30.07 for purchase and installation of each container, the total
cost per container over the ten year period would be $33.07. For
ten years, the cost for the container dwelling unit per month
would be $.23.
Table No. 3 presents the summary of collection costs.
29
-------
COST ITEM
Labor
Administration ft Overhead
Operating 4 Maintenance
Depreciation
Total Collection Costs
TABLE 3
VEHICLE COLLECTION COST
PER MONTH
REAS END LOA3ER
$ £55.00
256. SO
156. C7
$1,553.28
NON-STOP TRUCK
$279.10
33.70
215.63
157.42
$735.75
30
-------
Dividing this total collection cost by the number of residences served,
the cost per home per month can now be determined. With 363 residences
served by both the non-stop truck and the rear end loader, the cost per home
per month for the rear end loader in the six months prior to Phase III was
$1.80, excluding the homeowner's cost for a container or plastic bags, and
for the non-stop truck in Phase in. $.86 plus $.28 for container amortization
for a total of $1.14. Using one man in an easy-to-operate mechanized vehicle,
the City of Tolleson has been saving $.66 per home per month in collection
costs while providing an attractive and neat container that improves sanitary
conditions in the alley.
This comparative data was developed for the non-stop and conventional
systems as they have actually operated in Tolleson. Before using the data
to develop comparison in other applications, several areas must be considered.
Vehicle Capacity
Caoacity of the haul body is an important factor in collection vehicle
evaluation. The non-stop truck has a small capacity compared to conventional
collection trucks. The non-stop truck's capacity of 10 cubic yards compared
to the conventional rear end loader with a capacity of 20 cubic yards is
disadvantageous when haul distances are significant. Larger capacity trucks
spend more time collecting and less time hauling than the non-stop truck, although
the fact that they cost more to purchase must be weighed in the anlaysis.
For purposes of the economic analysis, capacity may be expressed in
terms of residences served per loaded trip to the landfill. In this experiment,
the non-stop collecting three times per week truck averaged 263 homes per loaded
trip to the landfill. The rear end loader contained, on the average, refuse
from 450 homes per loaded trip to the landfill for twice per week collection.
Rate of Collection
The rate of collection expressed in terms of homes served per hour of
collection excluding haul time is valuable in determining refuse collection
productivity.
The non-stop truck in Phase III averaged 174 homes per hour of collection.
The rear end loader averaged 35 homes per hour. The conventional collection
crew thus collected at a rate of 28 homes per manhour on a twice oer week basis.
Each manhour provided twice a week service to 14 homes, compared to a rate of
almost 60 homes three times per week service with the non-stop truck. While
collecting, the non-stop system uses labor 4.3 times as productively as the
old conventional system.
Haul Time and Distance
The round trip distance to the Tolleson landfill averaged 9.0 miles in
Phase III. The non-stop truck proved to be faster in making this round trip,
probably because of its smaller size. Vie found that the new truck could make
the trip in an average of 3*.P. minutes compared to 41.1 minutes for the rear
end loader.
31
-------
The non-stop truck can also empty faster at the landfill. The rear end
loader ejects by means of a hydraulically powered plate. The non-stop truck
empties like a dump truck which is much faster.
As haul times increase, it is apparent that the advantages of the one
man system also increase. The labor cost, which is the most expensive item
in conventional refuse collection is increased three times during the period
of the haul for the three man crew.
Using a formula developed by the City of Scottsdale, it is possible to
express these factors in terms that allow comparisons with other systems and
enable certain cost areas such as haul cost to be isolated. The basis of
Scottsdale1s formula, is the cost per dwelling unit per month.
The formula to determine the cost per dwelling unit per month is as
follows:
(No. of Pickups/Month)(Cost of Operation/Month)[(Capacity) + (Rate)(Haul time)]
(Work hours/month)(capacity) (rate)
+ container cost = cost per dwelling unit
In more simplified form, this formula can be expressed as
Cost = (No. of Pickups) (Cost of Operation)
(Work hours)(Rate)
+ (No. of Pickups) (Cost of Operation) (Haul Time)
(Work hours)(Capacity)
+ Container cost
The total cost is the sum of collection cost, haul cost, and container cost.
UNIT COST = Collection cost + Haul cost + Container cost
The cost elements of the formula are defined below:
Number of Pick ups Per Month: The number of pick ups per month is the number
of times service is provided to the generator. In Tolleson, refuse
pick up is provided on a three timess per week basis with the non-stop
truck and twice per week basis with the rear end loader.
Cost of Operation: The cost of operation is the total of labor, administration
and overhead, operating and maintenance and amortization expenses for
each vehicle expressed as a monthly figure.
Capacity: The capacity of a vehicle is the number of homes the vehicle can
serve per loaded trip to the landfill. The capacity varies with the
amount of generation per household.
Rate of Collection: The rate of collection is the number of homes the
vehicle can.serve in one hour of collection excluding haul time.
32
-------
Haul Time: The haul time is the time required for the vehicle to make a
round trip to the landfill. This time depends on the speed of the
vehicle and the distance of its route from the landfill.
Work Hours Per Month: The work hours per month is the number the vehicle
is in operation per month.
Applying this formula to the rear end loader, the result is as follows:
Collection cost = (8.6) (1553) „, rn
(99) (85) = $1'59
Haul cost = (3.6 (1553) (.69) * 91
(99) (450) " *'*'
Container cost = No container cost has been assigned to the
rear end loader system as the generator
provides the container. The attempt here
is to identify only city cost of collection.
The total cost of refuse collection per dwelling unit per month is
$1.59 + $.21 or $1.30.
For the non-stop truck, the results are as follows:
Collection cost = (13) (736)
(88) (1747 = *-6Z
Haul cost = (13) (736) (.58) _ » ,4
(88) (263) " " *-uS
Container cost = $.28
The total cost of the non-stop system is 5.62 + $.24 + $.28 or $1.14 per
dwelling unit per month.
These results demonstrate that the non-stop method of col'iection is
saving the City of Tolleson $.66 per dwelling unit per month or $6,374.55
per year. This savings is accomplished by a system that provides a container
for each residence, requires only one employee to operate, and leads to cleaner,
neater alleys. Obviously, the greater the number of the'dwelling units served,
the greater the amount of savings that will accrue to the community.
33
-------
The effect of Increased haul time on the economics of collection can
be shown further by calculating haul cost for various lengths of haul time:
HAUL COST
NON-STOP TRUCK
Haul Time In Hours Service Cost Haul Cost Total Cost
0.5 $.62 $.21 $ .83
1.0 .62 .41 1.03
2..0 .62 .02 1.44
3.0 .62 1.23 1.85
4.0 .62 1.64 2.26
HAUL COST
REAR END LOADER
Haul Time In Hours Service Cost Haul Cost Total Cost
0.5 $1.59 .'15 $1.74
1.0 1.59 .30 1.89
2.0 1.59 .60 2.19
3.0 1.59 .90 2.49
4.0 1.59 1.20 2.79
Again, increasing the capacity of the non-stop truck would have a
dramatic impact on haul cost. If the non-stop truck could contain 450
homes per load, at four hours of haul time the haul cost would be $.97
compared to $1.20 for the rear end loader.
It is interesting to note the comparative haul cost. The non-stop
truck demonstrated a haul cost of $.24 per dwelling unit per month, $.03
per dwelling unit per month more than the rear end loader. As noted previously,
the rear end loader has three workers and the non-stop truck only one. This
labor cost during hauling gives the non-stop truck a considerable advantage
but in this case, the non-stop truck's advantage was offset by its low capacity
in terms of homes served per loaded trip to the landfil,! (450 homes per load
for the rear end loader vs. 263 for the non-stop truck).
If the non-stop truck had a capacity of 450 homes per load the haul cost
would be as follows:
The total cost per dwelling unit per month, would be reduced to $1.00,
$.80 less than the rear end loader system.
34
-------
One would expect future models of the non-stop truck to be designed
with a greater capacity than the vehicle used in this experiment. In fact,
the inventor has under construction, at this time, a 16 cubic yard non-stop
truck that could be expected to have a capacity of approximately 420 homes
per load.
Conclusion
Phase III concerned the city wide implementation of the non-stop
system. A total of 868 containers were installed by city forces. The
new method resulted in a reduction of litter in the alleys primarily
because dogs and cats could not gain entry to the containers, dump them
out, and spread their contents throughout the alley.
The non-stop system proved adaptable to curbside collection through
the use of three different curb container installations including one
which allows the homeowner to move his container by means of wheels.
The non-stop system received wide spread publicity during Phase III
including coverage on the NBC Brinkley Report and an article in U. S. News
And World Report. Several hundred letters of inquiry have been received
and answered by the Tolleson staff.
During the entire experiment, the non-stop truck had a perfect
safety record. This accident free performance was achieved in an
industry that has a safety record worse than police work and logging.
An attitude survey conducted in Phase III demonstrated strong citizen
support for mechanization. Nearly 99 percent of those surveyed felt non-
stop collection is an improvement over the rear end loader method of
collection.
The analysis of the economics and productivity of non-stop collection
demonstrates that it is an attractive alternative to the rear end loader.
In terms of productivity, one man was serving the entire community with
service three times per week in 88 hours per month. The rear end loader,
with a crew of three, needed 99 hours per month or 297 man hours to provide
twice a week service.
The cost per dwelling unit per month totalled $1.80 for the rear end
loader system and only $1.14 per dwelling unit per month for the non-stop
truck. The City of Tolleson is saving $.66 per dwelling unit per month
through use of non-stop collection. When multiplied by the number of
dwelling units, this savings is substantial even for a small community such
as Tolleson.
35
-------
APPENDIX A
LETTER TO PHASE I PARTICIPANTS
-------
CITY MANAGER
BUI R. DiVee
CITY CLERK
Either Angulo
SUPT. OF
WASTE WATER
TREATMENT
Jack L. Mulr
CHIEF OF POLICE
Wijrn* Witton
TOLLESON
9355 WEST VAN BUREN [TOLI.ESON] TOLLESON. ARIZONA 85353
Feb. 19, 1971
MAYOR
Charles Morrlnll
VICE-MAYOR
Vlnce R. Canalci
COUNCILMKN
Charles H. Berhe
Lucy T. Bohne
P J. Green
Elden Jenten
Frank O. Rlvere
Dear Citizen of Tolleson:
Your neighborhood has been selected to receive Tolleson'a
unique containerized collection service. The City has developed
the containerized system over the past year to assure you
of better service at no additional cost.
Each home in your neighborhood in i>eing provided with a 55
gallon container that is attractive, durable and easy to
keep clean. The ample capacity neons that only rnrely will
you have excess refuse. If there is on excess, you should
store it and place it in tho container for the following
collection day. Please do not pack the .containers tightly.
Place excess trash to the opposite aide of i.he alley from
your container. Do not place any refuse on top of the
container lid.
We hope that you will find your new service to be better than
any you have received in the pa at. Now we nood your help.
We encourage you to contact us if you hove any sup;p;egt;l.ons.
Please call Bill Da Vee at 93&-1161. Your home will be
served on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.
Sinc'-roly,
Dill. Da Yen
City Manager
BRD/mo
Inrni inr.tori IO1O
-------
APPENDIX B
PHASE III INSTRUCTIONAL BOOKLET
38
-------
TOLLESON
TOLLESON
39
-------
casH TO(
o Ti T ._ 1
1S5S WIST VAN HUKIN iTOLLESON |(]| I I SON AKI/ONAHSHJ
OrriCEOFTHK.aTY MANACr.ll
Phone <> IMS/I
Dear Tolleson Resident.
The City of Tolleson has been granted funds by the
Federal Government to demonstrate A new system of
refuse collection. It can mean money savings to you
directly and indirectly.
By using special containers furnished by the City,
you will no longer have to purchase garbage cans (or
your everyday household refuse. The containers furnished
by the project will not cause increases in (indent
charges or additional fees.
With this system, your city can save tax dollar's
your tax dollars - by using the unique refuse collection
truck that automatically dumps the large refuse containers
being used and the job is done faster and cleaner than
past methods.
We are most happy to be able to include all Tolleson
residents in the first attempt ever made to completely
automate refuse collection. Under the Federal grant
project, the City will be an example to the rest of the
nation.
The City of Tolleson officials sincerely appreciate
your cooperation and take this opportunity to illustrate
on the following pages ways to insure the most in user
satisfaction
Residente de 'I ollcson.
El Goviernu Federal Ic ha proporrionado a la
Ciudad de Tollesoii fnndo* para dcinonstrar un
svstem.i nucvn ilc levantar basura Cste systema le
ahorrar.i dmero a ustecl clircLtamciUu c indirectarnentc.
Hacicndii 11 so ill istos boles de basura i|ue la iiudad
Ic proportion.) y.i no sera iieccsjnn quc usted coinpre
su propio hote. F.stos bor.cs quc proportions la ciudad
no Ic COM ii.in .1 uMC'l ninqnn cosio adicional
Con cstc sysicnu su Cmd.id pi id r a ahurrar gastos
de impue.sio.s i^i« o MI Jim-ri} Usandu este systema
rste pruyecto sera ni.is rapirlo y mas limpio
Tciicinob el gusto de anunciarlcs a todos ustedes los
residentes de Tolleson que este sera la primera ve? que
cste proyecto scrj completamei.tc automatico. Bajo
este donjtivo F'cdci.il sera un ejemplo la Ciudad de
Tolleson para cl rcMo dc la nacion
I,os oficialcs dc la Ciudad dc Tolleson toman csta
iipuitiiiiidaj para uxprcsarlcs MI smtero agradecimicnto
y t.imien para demonstrates en las siguientes pajinas
los niedios para .iscpurarlcs a ustedes satisfaccion en
este srrvKM
Bill R Da Vet-
City Manager
Uill R Da Vee
Ccruae dc la Ciudad
INTRODUCES
A NEW REFUSE COLLECTION SYSTEM
-------
BUILT IN CONTAINERS
YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY'
NO TENDRA QUE COMPRAR
BOTESDE BASURA.
• Refuse cans installed and paid for by your r ty.
O Estos botes seran instalados y pagados por
su Ciudad.
• Easy to clean around and under, for a cleaner.
healthier city.
O Para una Ciudad mas hmpia y sana, estos botes
son faciles para hmptarse tanto abajo come
alrededor del bote.
• Faster, cheaper pickup.
O Se levantara la bssura mas rapido y mas bar at o.
Loose grass cuttings and hedge tiirnmmgs
should be dumped into cans loosely.
Sacate y ramas chicas de su patio se pueden tirar
en los botes sueltamente.
if :
•
•
T
All kinds of loose refuse
and garbage.
Tire toda clase de desperdicios y
basura suelta en los botes. •
Don't bundle newspaper and magazines.
Libros y papeles tambien se tiran sueltos
- no los hagan bola r
-------
DON'T USE THE
CONTAINERS FOR:
NOUSELOSBOTESPARA
LOSIGUIENTE:
• Old auto parts, such as motor blocks, etc.
O Partes de automovil (como motores viejos
• Tree trunks and branches
O Troncos de arboles o ramas
• Construction materials (old lumber, ceme
blocks, etc.)
O Matenales de construccion, como ladrillos,
o bloques de cemento y madera vieja
• Hot water heaters, refrigerators, or heavy
•ppliances
O Tanques de agua caliente, refrjgeradores,
STACK NEATLY ACROSS THE Al LEY FOR SEPARATE PICKUP
TODO ESTO SE PONE AL LADO GPUESTO DE LOS BOTES
DE BASURA PARA QUE LO RECOJA OTRA TROCA.
CAN HELP MAKE TOLLESON USTED PUEDE AYUDAR A LA CIUDAD DE TOLLESON
THE CLEANEST CITY IN THE COUNTRY SER LA MAS LIMPIA EN TODO EL PAIS
-------
Don't stamp down trash 01 jam boxes into cans.
No apriete o apachurra la basura o cajas de ca
en los botes, ni tampoco brinque en los bote?
para apachurrar la basura.
This system saves time . . . and faster pick
means tax dollar savings.
Este systema ahorra dinero, y ahorra mas tiempo
o es decir, ahorra de sus impuestos, y a la vez es
mas rapido.
NOTICE:
NOTICIA:
For pickup or dead animals, explosives, acids and
dangerous chemicals, call 936-1871 for special truck.
Para que levanten animates muertos, explosives, acidos o quimicos
peligrosos, llamen al telefono 936-1871 - Se habla Espanol.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL
9J6-1871
SE HABLA
ESPANOL
-------
THE ENTIRE COUNT.?* HAS srs EYE ON...
LA NACI9H E&A VPENfli) A ...
TOLLESON
. ••
^;.-4>^:
' ;'
-------
APPENDIX C
PHASE III QUESTIONNAIRE
-------
CITY OF TOLLESON MECHANIZED REFUSE COLLECTION QUESTIONAIRE
Interviewer Interview No.
Date
Time"
Address _ Number of people in the
Call dates and timeshousehold
Sex of respondent M F
Approx. age:
Generator type: Less than 10
House 10-20_
Apartment or townhouse 2O-35
Commercial 55-50
50-65"
A. "Hello, I'm representing the City of Tolleson.
B. As you know, the City has begun using a new refuse collection which
uses containers on stands provided for each household.
C. We want to find our your opinions about present refuse collection service.
What do you dislike most about the new mechanized system?
Anything else?
What do you like most?
Anything else?
D. I'm going to read a few statements, and I would like to know if you
strongly agree with them, agree witu them, disagree, or strongly disagree
with them. (Give sample questionaire to interviewee in appropriate
language.)
Circle Correct Answer Sbrongly Agree Dis- Strongly
agree agree Disagree
1. The new method is an improvement over the 1 23 4
old one.
2. Refuse is being collected satisfactorily 1234
by the new system.'
3. Refuse is being collected often enough. 1234
-------
City employees who collect refuse are doing
a good job.
5-
6.
7.
8.
9-
10.
11.
12.
13.
It costs less to collect refuse by hand than
by machine.
It is faster to collect refuse by hand than
by machine.
I would rather go back to the former collection
method.
The area around the new refuse containers
is easier to keep clean with the new system.
The new system reduces noise.
The new system adds prestige or status to the
city and neighborhood.
The city should go back to the old method.
My container is large enough.
New containers keep out dogs and cats.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Q,
i^
4
*
*
4
4
4
Thank you for your opinions and cooperation.
-------
QUESTIOHARIO SOBEE EL MECANISMO DE BASURA QUE SZ USA EN LA CIUDAD DE TOLLESON
Intrevistor Numero de intrevista ....
Domicilio Pecha_
'Fetchas y veses Hora
Tipo de Generador:
Numero de personas en casa_
Sexo de demandado M
10.20
20^33
35-50
50-65
A. Buenos dias (o tardes), yo soy ______________________ y represento a la
Ciudad de Tolleson.
B. Gomo Ud. sabe, la Ciudad ha empezado a usar un systema nuevo para levantar
la "basura, Por el cual, la Ciudad le proporciona el bote de banura para
cada casa.
C« Queremos saber su opinion sobre este servicio.
Que es lo que aas le disgusta de este systema?
Que otra cosa?
Que es lo que mas le gusta?
alguna otra cosa?
D. Voy a leerle unas cuantas frases y quiero saber si Ud. esta de acucrdo
con ellas o no esta.
(1) (2) (3)
Marque la respuesta indicada RigorosamGnte De Acuerdo Opuesto RLcorosonente
de acuerdo Or)v.onto.
1. El nuevo metodo es mejor que el systema viejo. 1 2 3 4-
2. Este systema de levantar la basura es *> 7 n
satisfactorio. . ^ 2 •> ^
3, Levantan la basura segido. 1 2 5 ^
47
-------
4. Los cmploados de la ciudaci quo levantari la 1 ."' 3 'l*
basura trabajan bien.
5. Cuesta raenos levant ar basura a mono quo con
mag-ulna . 1. 2 54
6. Es mas rapido levant ar la basura a mano quo con
maquina. 1 2 5 'I
?• Yo profiero el systema viejo para levantar la
basura. 3. 2 3 *'•
8. C/on el systema nuevo cs mas facil tener lirapio
el aria en donde cstan los bo tec. i 2 5 'i
9. El systema nuevo reduce el ruido. 1 2 5 '•
10. El systema nuevo le da prestigio o clacc a la
ciudnd y la vecindad. I 2 3 ''
11. La ciudad debcria volver al aystcna vicjo. 1 2 5 '••
12. Mi bote de basura esta bast ante Grar»^c- 2 3 /J
Con los botes nuevoo loc perros y c^oo no se
pueden meter.
Gracias por sus opiniones y por su cooperacion.
------- |