Prepublication issue for EPA libraries
and State Solid Waste Management Agencies
PRODUCTIVITY GAINS
FROM DIVERSIFYING THE SANITATION TRUCK FLEET
IN NEW YORK CITY
report (SW-l59c) describes work performed
for the Office of Solid Waste under grant no. S804694-01-0
and is reproduced OB received from the grantee.
The findings should be attributed to the grantee
and not to 1ihe Office of Solid Waste.
The reader is advised to utilise the information
and data herein witft caution and judgement.
Copies will be available from the
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
Springfield, Virginia 22161
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1978
-------
This report as submitted by the grantee or contractor has 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 by the U.S. Government.
An environmental protection publication (SW-159c) in the solid waste
management series.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Subject page
I. DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY 1
II. VEHICLE DESCRIPTIONS 6
III. PROJECT TEST SPECIFICATIONS 8
IV. DESIGN OF VEHICLE COMPONENTS IMPACTING
CREW PERFORMANCE 11
V. COMPARATIVE COST PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS 21
VI. EQUIPMENT MANNING LEVELS 29
VII. PROCEDURAL ANALYSIS: DISPOSAL AND RE-
FUELLING 37
VIII. NON-EQUIPMENT RELATED PRODUCTIVITY FACTORS .... 39
IX. RECOMMENDATIONS 41
X. PROJECTED COST BENEFITS 46
ATTACHMENT A: FOOTNOTES
49
ill
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Subject
Page
I. SYSTEM I, SYSTEM II, SYSTEM III
AND LOADAMATIC 7A
II. OTHER TYPES OF SIDE LOADING EQUIPMENT 20A
III. CHART I - CREWMAN PRODUCTIVITY AT
DIFFERENT MANNING LEVELS 36A
IV. CHART II - TONS PER MAN. HOUR AT
DIFFERENT MANNING LEVELS 45A
iv
-------
I. DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
One truck with the same size crew is currently being used for refuse
collection in most areas of the City despite wide variations in the opera-
ting environments encountered in different parts of the five boroughs. The
Fund for the City of New York, in cooperation with the New York Department
of Sanitation, the Sanitation Officers Union and the Uniformed Sanitation-
men's Association, designed and conducted a test of alternative model refuse
collection vehicles to assess the feasibility and potential benefits of di-
versifying the collection truck fleet. The test was carried out under
grants from the federal Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste Man-
agement Division, and from the Fund for the City of New York.
STUDY DESIGN
The study was based on the hypothesis that collection costs could be
decreased, and collection performance increased, through the use of
different equipment for different collection environments. Accord-
ingly, the study was to:
Identify the collection demand characteristics of different areas
that could affect equipment and crew performance, e.g. '
- number, type, and weight of refuse receptacles per stop
- distance between stops
- tons of refuse per route
- pedestrian and vehicular flow
- parking density
- round-trip truck disposal time
Identify specific components of collection vehicles that could af-
fect collection performance in different areas, e.g.
- hopper dimensions (location, payload capacity and compac-
tor efficiency)
- cab construction and location
- vehicle weight, dimensions and turning radius
- self-dumping or removable body
- repair and maintenance costs and gasoline efficiency
1.
-------
Develop cost-per-ton and output performance ratings for each type
of vehicle tested in each area, and determine optimum crew size.
Three systems, using four types of equipment, were tested, including
the vehicle which now makes up the majority of New York City's refuse
collection fleet:
System I side loading, 8 cubic yard truck with a detachable con-
tainer, 2.4 ton payload capacity and a two-sided driving and work-
ing cab. One or two men needed to operate.
Load-A-Matic not in itself a system, the LAM is used in conjunc-
tion with System I. It hoists System I's container into its own
34 cubic yard body. It has a rated payload capacity of 8 tons and
is operated by one man.
System II similar to System I except it has a 12 cubic yard self-
dumping body; its rated payload capacity is 3.6 to 4.0 tons; it can
be operated by one or two men.
System III ~ the rear-loading 20 cubic yard truck which is now
used throughout most of New York (either the Heil Mark IV 25H which
was tested or earlier versions of this model), it is self-dumping,
has a standard left-hand sided cab, and its rated payload capacity
is'7.74 tons. Three men are presently used to operate the vehicle.
The collection systems were tested in two very different collection
work environments generally representative of substantial parts of
the City: Manhattan East/District 6, which is a high-rise residential
and commercial area with heavy pedestrian and vehicular flow and high
parking density; and Queens North/District 63, which is a single-family
residential area with little or no pedestrian and vehicular flow and
little on-street parking.
The following types of data were collected for each system and collec-
tion environment:
Crew refuse collection process data, e.g.
- crew loading time per stop
- pounds of refuse loaded per crewman/minute
- number of stops loaded by one, two or three men
2.
-------
Equipment refuse collection process data, e.g.
- hopper loading time by type of refuse receptacle
- on-route rate of vehicle movement
- time required to get in and out of the cab
- actual payload capacity of vehicles
Workload environmental data, e.g.
- number, type and weight of refuse receptacles per stop
- pedestrian and vehicular flow and density
- refuse disposal site trip time
- historical route workload data
Truck-shift time utilization data, e.g.
- time expended on work preparation and relief activities
- daily on-route time
- refuelling process time
Output and cost data, e.g.
- tons per truck-shift
- equipment capital, operating and maintenance costs
- sanitationman and supervision man/day costs
Refuse disposal and refuelling methods
These data and structured field observations were carried out by Sec-
tion Foremen and Fund personnel assigned to each of the collection
systems for each day of the test. (The manufacturer of Systems I and
II independently monitored the field experiment on selected days
throughout the test.) The data collection tasks performed involved
counting and stop-watch timing of refuse collection activities with
results posted to Fund designed collection instruments.
STUDY FINDINGS
This study's primary purpose was the identification of differently
designed truck components and their possible contribution to produc-
3.
-------
tivity in different collection areas. The issues of equipment man-
ning levels, effectiveness of field supervision, utilization of
truck-shift work time, decentralization of operating authority and
disposal and refuelling procedures were also explored. The results
of the study findings are detailed in the body of the report.
The findings bear out the hypothesis that equipment appropriate to
particular collection environments can contribute to optimizing the
safety, ease, time and cost of the collection effort, and that equip-
ment and manning level diversity in the collection function provides
an opportunity to improve productivity and secure savings which can
be used to reduce the Agency's budget or improve services.
The following vehicle components were identified as being of major
potential benefit:
A side-loading, midship positioned hopper on vehicles deployed in
Queens North and similar areas where there are few curb or street
obstacles and a substantial portion of the refuse is contained in
light weight one-way refuse receptacles. Other areas of deployment
could be Queens West, Queens South, and Richmond.
A rear-loading hopper on vehicles in Manhattan East and similar
areas where access to a side-loading hopper is restricted and a
substantial portion of the one-way receptacles are extremely heavy
due to compacted refuse. Manhattan West is an additional possible
area.
A step-in/step-out cab from which the vehicle can be controlled
from the left or right side for safe, quick and easy getting in
and out, for use on all vehicles in all areas of New York City.
A KKton payload capacity vehicle to be deployed in long-haul dis-
posal areas such as Queens North to reduce disposal trip frequency
and provide adequate vehicle capacity to hold the entire amount of
refuse generated by a route.
In addition, the test results indicate there are significant benefits
in the deployment of two-man crews with appropriate equipment in areas
similar to Queens North. Refuse collection costs in the three Queens
zones and Staten Island, representing 20 of the City's 58 districts,
could be reduced by $16.1 million through the manning of the appropri-
ate vehicles with two-man crews. However, the study also suggests
that none of the potential benefits of improving the fit between col-
lection demand characteristics on one hand and resources (vehicle de-
sign and manning levels) on the other hand will be realized without
tightened controls by field management over the utilization of crew
4.
-------
time. Under-utilization of truck-shift work time reduced the paid
work period by 14.9% to 18.3% in the two test areas. Retrieval of
this time in the 30 districts which are roughly similar to Districts
6 and 63 would have reduced collection costs by $13.833 million based
on fiscal year 1976 costs.
Diversification of the City's virtually homogeneous collection fleet
is one element in a process which could produce a potential annual
saving of $25 to $30 million in the Sanitation Department's opera-
tions. Establishing the appropriate mix of vehicle, manning level,
collection route, and work standards for each area of the City ac-
cording to its collection demand characteristics should be a Sanita-
tion Department priority, and would provide a means for making these
potential savings real.
If the City decides to move ahead with a fleet diversification pro-
gram it should be possible to secure federal funding and some founda-
tion support to assist its efforts. The focus of the program should
be on operating a series of prototypes so that the Department can de-
termine the benefits of a wide range of vehicles and different manning
levels functioning under actual field conditions for significant
periods of time. The major analytic and experimental components of
a fleet diversification program are described below:
The classification of the 254 sanitation sections according to
their collection demand characteristics.
Selection of a series of vehicles whose design components match the
ma^or collection demand characteristics of each section grouping.
Acquisition of the selected vehicles through a combination of ven-
dor consignment, lease, lease with an option to buy, and direct
purchase.
Establishing a series of operating prototypes in which new and ex-
isting vehicles with appropriate manning levels could be evaluated
under normal field conditions for each type of area. Collection
routes and work standards would be adjusted for each prototype de-
pending upon the collection demand characteristics of the area, ve-
hicle, and manning level.
Evaluation of the field results of the prototypes and maintenance
data collected for the Department's new system will provide the in-
formation required to select the most appropriate vehicles for each
group of sanitation sections.
5.
-------
II. VEHICLE DESCRIPTIONS
Four different types of vehicles were tested in Queens and Man-
hattan :
SYSTEM I
A side-loading refuse collection vehicle with an 8-cubic yard de-
tachable container weighing (dry) 12,670 pounds, supported by a
126-inch wheelbase. Overall length is 276 inches. The vehicle
uses regular gasoline and can be driven from either the left or
right side of a step-in/step-out cab behind which is positioned a
side loading refuse hopper. Compaction is performed by a horizon-
tally moving bulkhead that can be activated by controls located
in the cab, and on the left and right side of the hopper.
The hopper loading height is 43 inches above the ground. Its di-
mensions are 36"(L) x 47"(W) x 28"(D). There is a full length
riding step on both sides of the hopper. Its rated payload capa-
city is 2.4 tons.
Equipment manning level: 2 men. Tested: Queens, Manhattan. Manu-
facturer: LoDal.
Load-A-Matic (E-Z Pak type vehicle)
The Load-A-Matic is not in itself a system. It supports System I
by hoisting I's container, dumping it into its own body and re-
placing the container in the transfer site. The LAM is an 18,160
pound front-end loader with a 34 cubic yard body and a payload of
approximately 8 tons. It is equipped with a triangular shaped
coupling part capable of hoisting up to a 10,000 pound payload at
a dump angle of 60 degrees. Overhead hoisting clearance is 175
inches and outside length, with volume extender bustle, is 272.75
inches.
Equipment manning level: 1 man. Tested: Queens, Manhattan. Manu-
facturer: LoDal.
SYSTEM II
Same as System I, except it has a self-dumping 12 cubic yard body
with a weight (dry) of 13,400 pounds and an overall length of 293
inches. Its rated payload capacity is 3.6 to 4.0 tons.
6.
-------
Equipment manning level: 2 men. Tested: Manhattan only, since
Queens is a long-haul disposal area.* Manufacturer: LoDal.
SYSTEM III
This Heil (Mark IV 25H) is a rear-loading vehicle with a 20 cu-
bic yard body and a tare weight of 24,600 pounds, on a 202 inch
wheelbase. Its overall length is 336 inches. The truck uses re-
gular gasoline and is driven from a standard cab. Compaction is
performed by a blade activated by controls located on the left and
right side of the hopper. These controls are equipped with a "dead-
man switch" which requires continuous application of pressure to
compact. This model constitutes approximately 25% of N.Y.C.'s De-
partment of Sanitation collection fleet. Earlier versions of the
Mark IV make up most of the remaining 75%. Rated payload 7.74 tons.
Equipment manning level: 3 men. Tested: Queens; Manhattan. Manu-
facturer: Heil.
*Here defined as areas whose disposal site is fairly far, such as Queens
North (12 mile, 82.6 minute roundtrip), as opposed to Manhattan East
(1.5 mile, 31.7 minute roundtrip).
7.
-------
SYSTEM I & II
System I
Transferable Container
System II
Fixed Container
TRANSFER VEHICLE
Operates in
conjunction with
System I
SYSTEM III
O
Current System
-7a-
-------
III. PROJECT TEST SPECIFICATIONS
TEST SITES
Under the joint supervision of the Department of Sanitation, the
Sanitation Officers Association, the Uniformed Sanitationmen's
Association and the Fund for the City of New York, two areas were
selected as representative of the range of collection operating
conditions in New York City. The testing began on January 11, 1977
and continued for six weeks, until February 18, 1977. The test was
divided into two three-week periods.
District 63/Queens North;
This is a predominantly residential area with a preponderance of
single-family homes. The streets are wide; there is little vehi-
cular flow; on-street automobile parking is scarce as most cars
are stored in garages or driveways. Pedestrian traffic is dis-
persed.
The area receives collection service twice weekly. The average
interval between collection stops is 104 feet; the stops have an
average of 2.3 refuse receptacles whose total weight is approxi-
mately 30.9 pounds (higher in the Fall and Spring), and 36% of
them are one-way receptacles. Each individual receptacle weighs
an average of 13 pounds and is loaded into the collection truck
with little sidewalk or street obstruction.
District 6/Manhattan East;
This is a mixed-use area of main avenues and side-streets with com-
mercial establishments as well as multiple dwellings of six to more
than 25 stories. The high-rise housing units generate highly com-
pacted refuse in plastic or paper bags. Vehicular flow is heavy;
there is considerable on-street single and double parking by pri-
vate and commercial vehicles. Pedestrian traffic is also substan-
tial.
At the time of the test the area was receiving collection service
five times a week. Refuse collection stops occur approximately
every 168 feet and have an average of 6.6 receptacles per stop, or
nearly three times as many as District 63/Queens. The total weight
of the receptacles average 166.1 pounds, a figure which remains
fairly consistent year-round. The lower limit of the average is
142 pounds, the upper limit 210, or 4.5 to almost 7 times heavier
than a Queens North stop. The average percentage of one-way recep-
tacles is 62%, many weighing in excess of 50 pounds. See Table 1,
Profile of Test Area, page 9.
8.
-------
TABLE 1
PROFILE OF TEST AREAS
CHARACTERISTICS
QUEENS 63
MANHATTAN 6
Use of Area
Type of Housing
Auto Parking/Flow
Collection Frequency
Collection Stop Den-
sity
Average Refuse Recep-
tacles Per Stop
Percent 1-Way Recep-
tacles
Average Weight Per
Stop
Disposal Time and
Distance
Residential
Mostly Single Fam-
ily homes
Light
2 times weekly
104 feet between
stops
2.3
36%
30.9 Ibs.
82.6 min./12 miles
Residential, Com-
mercial
Multiple Dwellings,
High Rise
Heavy
5 times weekly
168 feet between
stops
6.6
62%
166.1 Ibs.
31.7 min./1.5 miles
RECRUITMENT, TRAINING AND ASSIGNMENTS OF TEST PERSONNEL
The selection process of vehicle crews and Section Foremen was de-
termined and conducted by their respective unions. Rotation of
vehicle and crew assignments was performed every few days, except
for the operators of the Load-A-Matic who were not rotated.
Section Foremen were trained by the Fund for the City of New York
in the collection of route process data, disposal and refuelling
procedure data and output performance data. Specific tasks in-
cluded counting (e.g. stops, refuse receptacles, miles on route,
gallons of gas, etc.); and stop-watch timing (e.g. elapsed time
to clear refuse from a collection stop, cab egress time, travel
9.
-------
time between stops, lunch-break time, etc.)- The Jesuits were
posted to data collection instruments designed by the Fund. One
Section Foreman was assigned to each vehicle for each day of the
test period.
The manufacturers of the vehicles provided training for the equip-
ment; operators were instructed in their District garages, followed
by a full day of field practice.
10.
-------
IV. DESIGN OF VEHICLE COMPONENTS WHICH IMPACT ON CREW PERFORMANCE
The components of refuse collection trucks assumed to be most re-
levant to collection productivity are:
1. Hoppers (See Table 2, page 13.)
2. Cab
3. On-Route Movement (encompassing vehicle dimensions,
tare weight, riding step and turning radius; see
Table 4, page 16)
4. Payload Capacity
Although Systems I, II and the Load-A-Matic collected and dis-
posed of refuse at a slightly greater unit cost than System III, the de-
sign features of certain components of Systems I, II and the Load-A-Matic
offered significant advantages over System III. The results of the tests
follow.
HOPPERS
The relevant features of a hopper are its location and dimensions.
(See Table 3, page 14.)
In District 63/Queens North, the mid-ship positioned side-loading
hopper of System I offered the vehicle's crew more time and ease of
loading with one-way refuse receptacles (non-returnable containers),
but not with bulk refuse (stoves, water-heaters, etc.).
System I's 4.4 seconds needed to load a one-way receptacle
was .9 of a second faster than the 5.3 seconds of System III.
- Unobstructed access allowed the crew to throw the lightweight
(13 Ib.) one-way receptacles into System I's hopper.
- Enclosing walls of System Ill's hopper required crew to walk
from curb to hopper.
System I's 22 seconds to load a bulk item was 11.1 seconds
slower than the 10.9 seconds of System III.
- System I's hopper was either too shallow or its entrance too
narrow - 36 inches versus 80 inches on System III - to accept
a bulk item in its entirety. Repeated conpaction cycles were
required before a large object could be accommodated.
11.
-------
- The horizontally moving bulkhead of the mid-ship positioned
hopper impacted bulk items at their midpoint, causing the
phenomenon of "bridging".
- Greater crew set-up time was needed to hoist a bulk item to
a height of 43 inches and place it in System I's hopper from
15 inches away from the hopper.
In District 6/Manhattan East, the collection operating conditions
nullified the design advantages of System I's mid-ship positioned
hopper and resulted in longer loading times, on average, for all
receptacle types.
->
System Ill's 6.6 seconds to load a one-way receptacle was 2.1
seconds faster than the 8.7 seconds of Systems I and II.
- District 63 had one-way refuse receptacles that were light
enough to be thrown into the midship hopper with its unob-
structed perpendicular access; District 6 had one-way refuse
receptacles weighing two to four times as much, preventing
such receptacles from being tossed into the hopper.
- The rear-positioned hopper of System III did not encounter
obstacles in the area behind the truck so that unobstructed
space was available to swing items into the hopper.
»
- Swing space at the side of the collection vehicle was se-
verely constrained in District 6 due to high-density street
parking which often put the mid-ship hopper flush against
parked cars.
Systems I and II achieved an average loading time per bulk
item of 40.6 seconds, 29.9 seconds slower than the 10.7 seconds
of System III.
- Lack of swing space, smaller hopper dimensions, the bridging
phenomenon and greater crew set-up time contributed to the
slower bulk loading time of Systems I and II.
12.
-------
TABLE 2
DESIGN PROFILES OF SYSTEM I/II AND SYSTEM III
LOADING HOPPERS*
HOPPER DESIGN ELEMENTS
SYSTEM I/II2
SYSTEM III3
Position
Dimensions
Length
Width
Depth
Hopper Access
Loading Height
Midship Behind Ve-
hicle Cab
1 Cubic Yard*
36 inches
47 inches
28 inches
Loading Entrance
36 inches
Unobstructed
Perpendicular Access
to Hopper Loading
Entrance
43 inches
Rear of Vehicle
1 Cubic Yard5
49 inches
80 inches
18 inches
Loading Entrance
80 inches
Side Panels of
Hopper Sack Pre-
vent Perpendicular
Access to Hopper
38 inches
1System I/II refer to the LoDal 8 cubic yard and 12 cubic yard vehi-
cles tested in Queens and Manhattan. Both have identical loading
hopper specifications. System III refers to the Heil Mark IV 25H
collection vehicle.
2»3Design profile data on hopper for System I/II obtained from manufac-
turer's specifications and System III from Bureau of Motor Equipment,
Department of Sanitation.
4/5i cubic yard measures volume of water hopper can contain at rest.
13.
-------
TABLE 3
EQUIPMENT FEATURE DESIGNED TO IMPROVE COLLECTION PRODUCTIVITY: LOADING HOPPER
EQUIPMENT
FEATURE
MIDSHIP
POSITIONED
HOPPER
REAR
POSITIONED
HOPPER
QUEENS
DISTRICT #631
AVERAGE LOADING TIME
(seconds)
1-WAY
REFUSE
RECEPTACLE
4.4 sees.
5.3 sees.
2-WAY
REFUSE
RECEPTACLE
9.1 sees.
9.1 sees.
BULK
REFUSE
22.0 sees.
10.9 sees.
MANHATTAN
DISTRICT #62
AVERAGE LOADING TIME
(seconds)
1-WAY
REFUSE
RECEPTACLE
8.7 sees.
6.6 sees.
2-WAY
REFUSE
RECEPTACLE
11.0 sees.
11.0 sees.
BULK
REFUSE
40.6 sees.
10.7 sees.
sample for midship positioned hopper; 23% sample for rear positioned hopper.
238% sample for midship positioned hopper; 35% sample for rear positioned hopper.
-------
CABS
Cab design can affect the time and ease of the driver's getting in
and out, can facilitate or impede his participation in the loading
function, and can affect worker safety.
In District 6/Manhattan East the number of refuse items per stop
an average of 6.6 receptacles together weighing 142 to 210 pounds
generated high cab egress frequency for the second and third man of
the 2 and 3 men crews of Systems I, II and III at 82.5% and 41% of
all stops, respectively.
The elapsed time for the driver to leave the standard cab of
System III and arrive at the refuse was 6.9 seconds.
The elapsed time for the driver to leave the step-in/step-out
cab of Systems I and II and arrive at the refuse was 3.7 seconds,
i.e. 3.2 seconds faster than the same trip from System III.
- A smaller effort is required to leave the step-in/step-out
cab than to leave the standard cab, thus preserving the col-
lector's effort for the loading task.
- The man leaving the step-in/step-out cab avoids stepping out
into the often heavy passing traffic streams of District 6/
Manhattan East. The driver can leave from either side of a
two-sided working cab.
ON-BOUTE MOVEMENT
While not actually a design component, the rate of on-route movement
is determined by a number of components of collection trucks. Speci-
fically, the vehicle's dimensions, engine, tare weight, and presence
of a riding step all impact on its ability to progress from stop-to-
stop. (See Table 4, page 16.)
Specification statistics regarding vehicle wheelbase, overall
length and width, turning radius and tare weight show that System
I and System II are smaller and lighter than System III.
Systems I and II are equipped with a riding step designed to trans-
port the crewmen between stops at the vehicle's pace, not at the
walking pace of the crew.
System II in District 6/Manhattan East was equipped with a front-
wheel steering mechanism capable of tracking on a smaller radius
than System I.
15.
-------
TABLE 4
VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS
ON-ROUTE MOVEMENT
2-MAN LO DAL
8 CUBIC YARDER
Wheelbase ' 126"
(inches)
Turning Radius 36'
(over bumper)
Overall Length 276"
(inches)
Overall Width 94"
(inches)
Tare Weight 12,670 Ibs.
(pounds)
Engine V8 318
cu. inches
Torque 245 Ib. - FT
at 1800 RPM
2-MAN LO DAL
12 CUBIC YARDER
126"
361
293"
94"
13,400 Ibs.
V8 318
cu. inches
245 Ib. - FT
at 1800 RPM
3-MAN HEIL
1976 MARK IV
,202"
39'
336"
102"
24,600 Ibs.
V8 478
cu. inches
not
available
16.
-------
TABLE 5
ON-ROUTE MOVEMENT OF VEHICLES
QUEENS 63
VEHICLE
System I
System III
Performance
Difference
RATE OF ON-ROUTE MOVEMENT
(feet per second)1
3.60 feet per second
4.91 feet per second
System III 36.4% faster rate
ioirect time measurement conducted on 1/17 and 1/25 of
test period. On 1/21, 24, 26 and 27 direct measurement
of time spent loading while on the route. Subtracted
this from total time spent on the route yielded time
spent travelling between stops on these days.
TABLE 6
ON-ROUTE MOVEMENT OF VEHICLES
MANHATTAN 6
VEHICLE
System I
System II
System III
Performance
Difference
RATE OF ON-ROUTE MOVEMENT
(feet per second)1
4.54 feet per second
5.02 feet per second
5.78 feet per second
System III 15% to 27% faster rate
^Direct time measurement conducted on 2/3, 7, 9 and 10 of
test period.
17.
-------
A comparative analysis was conducted in both test areas to deter-
mine if the smaller, lighter vehicles of Systems I.and II obtained
a faster on-route travel rate than System III. The results show
that:
In District 63/Queens North, System I had slower travel rates
than System III. (see Table 5, page 17)
System I vehicles achieved a travel rate of 3.60 route feet
per second while travelling from one stop to the next.
*
System III achieved a travel rate value of 4.91 feet, or
36.4% faster average on-route speed.
In District 6/Manhattan East, according to the speed measure of
feet-per-second, System III negotiated its route at the fastest
rate. (see Table 6, page 17)
Systems I and II achieved a value of 4.54 and 5.02 feet per
second, respectively.
System III achieved a value of 5.78 feet per second.
Contrary to expected rates of route travel, all Systems obtained
a faster rate under the more highly congested and obstructed
route conditions of Manhattan East than Queens North.
PAYLOAD CAPACITY
This is an important aspect of vehicle design as it affects fleet
replacement costs, disposal frequency, the volume of maintenance
workload and full utilization of crew-time. Determination of the
payload capacity value is a function of the weight of the refuse
generated in an area, service frequency, crew output performance
standards, cost of disposal frequency, and fleet acquisition plans.
These factors make it a more complex design component to evaluate
than hoppers, cabs, or truck dimensions since it must be analyzed
in conjunction with all of these issues.
The payload capacity of a refuse collection vehicle should be equi-
valent to or somewhat larger than the workload generated by a collec-
tion route, subject to the limitations on vehicle size imposed by
an area's street grid. Idle crew time ought not to result from
payload shortfall; marginally excessive vehicle payload is less
costly than under-utilized crew time.
18.
-------
A fleet composed of vehicles with a payload too small to service
one entire route will result in excessive capital expenditures
to acquire a sufficient number of vehicles to service a District's
daily routes.
Since a refuse collection vehicle is a mobile container requiring
its contents to be emptied when full, the larger the container,
the more refuse it can hold. Additional capacity can reduce dis-
posal trip frequency and cost.
A smaller fleet (of larger payload trucks) can reduce the number
of maintenance jobs: two vehicles have twice as many systems, as-
semblies and parts that can potentially malfunction.
An imbalance between vehicle payload and route workload, which can
result from either an incorrectly specified payload rating and/or
under-utilization of payload capacity, can cause unnecessarily large
purchases of trucks, excessive and costly disposal frequency and a
higher than necessary maintenance workload.
In the Command Zones of Queens North, Queens South, Queens West and
Richmond such an imbalance exists. As a result, many routes are
served by two collection trucks instead of one, a procedure which
is used to maximize crew collection time in long-haul disposal
areas. In District 63 a second, empty collection truck is conveyed
to the route so that the crew can continue collection, avoiding the
82.6 minute round-trip to the marine transfer station. The refuse
contained in these second trucks is disposed of during the 4-12 or
12-8 shifts.
An analysis of route workload levels and truck loads for Fiscal
Year 1975-76 revealed the following:
In Command Zones Queens North, South, West and Richmond, the mean
payload per truck load (not truck shift) was 4.51 tons in 1975-76.
In District 63/Queens North the average during the field test was
3.71 tons per truck load.
These represent 3.23 to 4.03 tons, or 42% to 52% under-utili-
zation of the Heil Mark IVs rated payload of 7.74 tons.
In Command Zones Queens North, South, West and Richmond the mean
workload per route ranged from 8.08 tons to 10.42 tons.
This route workload range exceeds the rated payload capacity
of the Heil Mark IV by 14% to 35%.
19.
-------
To service routes that generate a daily average workload of 8.08
to 10.42 tons would require the frequent deployment of 1.84 to
2.07 trucks per daily route. (As trucks are indivisible 2 trucks
would frequently be deployed.)
This analysis strongly suggests that long-haul disposal areas re-
quire a vehicle with a payload value equivalent to the total daily
route workload. Even if fully utilized, which it is not, the Heil
Mark IV is inadequate to hold the refuse generated by percent routes
in Queens North, South, West or Richmond.
To determine the correct vehicle payload value for these areas an
analysis of the weekly average route workloads for the Fiscal Year
1975-76 was performed (52 weekly averages for 20 districts):
The probability that an average route in any given week in Queens
North, South, West or Richmond would generate a workload of less
than 7.74 tons is .044.
One Heil Mark IV, with a payload rating of 7.74 tons, would be
able to service the total workload of the average route only
4.4 percent of the time.
To complete the collection of refuse from an average route in
any given week would require the relaying of a second truck
95.6 percent of the time.
The probability that an average route in these same Command Zones
would generate a workload of 8.6 to 10.0 tons is .66.
The probability that an average route in any given week in these
same Command Zones would generate a workload greater than 10.0
tons is .144.
This analysis demonstrates that one Heil Mark IV would be incapable
of collecting the total workload of the average weekly route 95.6
percent of the time.
The cost-effective payload value of a refuse collection vehicle to
be deployed in the above zones would seem to be approximately 10
tons; 44% of the routes generate workloads in the range of 9.1 to
10 tons per day.
20.
-------
OTHER TYPES OF- SIDE LOADING VEHICLES
/
f~
J
D\
^S
<^^^^
-20a-
-------
V. COMPARATIVE COST PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
There is much disagreement as to how to achieve true cost measure-
ments in refuse collection. The standard most often relied on is cost-
per-ton. The measurement used in the study carried out by the Fund for
the City of New York similarly uses cost-per-ton, in addition to the cal-
culation of cost per equivalent refuse collection stop. This latter cal-
culation corrected for route imbalances that occurred during the field
test by equalizing the primary determinant of workload: the number and
type of refuse receptacles at the collection stop.
*
The one-time developmental costs, the recurring operating and
maintenance costs, and the opportunity costs associated with transfer
sites for System I are not included in this cost analysis for the fol-
lowing reasons: first, because no cost estimates relevant to New York
City residential neighborhoods could be derived; and second, it was dif-
ficult to assess the political costs involved in siting mini-dump points
in residentially dense New York City.
In addition, the cost analysis of System I proceeded from the as-
sumption that minimization of total and unit cost is partially a func-
tion of the number of additional containers needed at a transfer site.
(Additional containers are needed to insure the operational independence
of the route vehicleSystem Ifrom the Load-A-Matic if disposal delays,
such as those which occur at the City's marine transfer stations, are to
be avoided.) This cost analysis therefore assumes only one additional
container per transfer site, regardless of the number of System I vehi-
cles served by a site. To achieve this minimization of the contribution
to total and unit costs would require major operational changes such as
staggered dispatching of vehicles and a stretch-out of the work day be-
yond its current 7 to 3 time period. In addition, the rate of travel and
loading of each vehicle would have to be confined to a certain domain,
otherwise two or more vehicles would arrive at the transfer site with
only one empty container. Noting these exceptions, an analysis of the
cost and performance test data revealed the following: (see Table 7,
pages 23 & 24)
In District 63/Queens North, the Heil Mark IV was cost competi-
tive with System I and the Load-A-Matic (see Tables 8 and 9,
pages 25 & 26).1
Total cost to perform collection, disposal and refuelling ac-
tivities during the test period was $11,045.23 for both System
I vehicles:
- Cost per ton $97.06.
- Cost per equivalent stop $1.493.2»3
Total cost to perform collection, disposal and refuelling ac-
tivities during the test period was $8,146.13 for System III:
21.
-------
- Cost per ton was $95.00 or 2.2% less costly than both System
I vehicles and the Load-A-Matic.
- Cost per equivalent stop was $1.497 or .27 hundreths of a
percentage point more costly than both System I vehicles and
the Load-A-Matic.2,3
System I and the Load-A-Matic achieved these unit costs by col-
lecting, on average, 4.061 tons from 264.116 equivalent stops
per truck-shift.
System III (Heil'Mark IV) achieved a lower cost per ton by col-
lecting, on average, 6.125 tons per truck-shift.4
In District 6/Manhattan East, the Heil Mark IV was, as in District
63, cost competitive with System I, II and the Load-A-Matic (see
Tables 10 and 11, pages 27 & 28).5
Total cost to perform collection and disposal activities (Dis-
trict 6 refuelling procedure did not consume the equipment and
manpower resources as it did in District 63) during the test
period was $5,136.32 for System I arid the Load-A-Matic:
- Cost per ton $44.51.
- Cost per equivalent stop $3.512.
Total cost to perform collection and disposal activities during
the test period was $4,885.54 for System II:
- Cost per ton $44.58.
- Cost per equivalent stop $3.686.
Total cost to perform collection and disposal activities during
the test period was $6,796.49 for System III:
- Cost per ton was $42.08:
5.5% less costly than System I.
5.6% less costly than System II.
- Cost per equivalent stop was $3.608:
2.66% more costly than System I.
2.73% less costly than System II.
System I and II achieved these unit costs by collecting, on
average, 8.243 tons and 7.829 tons from 94.876 and 94.681
equivalent stops per truck-shift.
System III achieved a lower cost per ton and cost per equi-
valent stop by collecting, on average, 11.537 tons from 134.556
equivalent stops per truck-shift.
22.
-------
TABLE 7
LABOR AND EQUIPMENT COST VALUES USED
IN THE FIELD TEST COST PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
LABOR COST VALUES
Cost Per Sanitationman Man-Day
Cost Per Supervision Man-Day
Post Coverage Factor Per Man-Day
$91.55
$107.97
.50
EQUIPMENT COST VALUES
SYSTEM I
Cost of Unit
Depreciation Per Truck-Shift
(5 years at 290 operating days
per year)
Vehicle Service and Mainten-
ance Cost Per Truck-Shift
Fuel Cost Per Gallon
(Regular Gas)
Container Cost Per Vehicle
Per Truck-Shift
$31,000.00
$21.38
$15.20
$0.3910
$0.19 to $0.38
SYSTEM II
Cost of Unit
Depreciation Per Truck-Shift
(5 years at 290 operating days
per year)
Vehicle Service and Mainten-
ance Cost Per Truck-Shift
Fuel Cost Per Gallon
(Regular Gas)
$35,000.00
$24.14
$15.20
$0.3910
23.
-------
Table 7 (cont.)
LOAD-A-MATIC
Cost of Unit
Depreciation Per Truck-Shift
(5/7 years at 290 operating
days per year)
s
Vehicle Service and Mainten-
ance Cost Per Truck-Shift
Fuel Cost Per Gallon
(Diesel Fuel)
SYSTEM III
Cost of Unit
Depreciation Per Truck-Shift
(5 years at 290 operating days
per year)
Vehicle Service and Mainten-
ance Cost Per Truck-Shift
Fuel Cost Per Gallon
(Regular Gas)
$58,512.00
$28.82 to $40.35
$30.00
$0.4140
$29,040.00 to $34,040.00
$20.03 to $23.48
$19.40
$0.3910
Provided by Department of Sanitation.
2Provided by Bureau of Motor Equipment, Department of Sanitation for
System III and LoDal, Inc. for Systems I, II and the Load-A-Matic.
24.
-------
TABLE 8
FIELD TEST COST ANALYSIS QUEENS NORTH/DISTRICT 63
to
01
1
1
.
.
LABOR COSTS |
Sanitationman Man-Days
(collection, disposal, refuel-
ling and post coverage factor)
Sanitationman Costs
Supervision Man-Days
(actual ration of 1 section
foreman to 3-5 routes per day
and post coverage factor)
Supervision Costs
TOTAL LABOR COSTS
EQUIPMENT COSTS |
Truck-Shifts
(collection, disposal, refuel-
ling)
Depreciation Costs
Container Costs
Service and Maintenance Costs
Fuel Costs
TOTAL EQUIPMENT COSTS
GRAND TOTAL COST
SYSTEM I
91.16
man-days
$8,345.71
8.4 to 13.98
man -days
$906.95 to $1,509.42
$9,252.66 to $9,855.13
SYSTEM I
32.77
truck-shifts
$723.39 to $758.67
$5.32 to $8.96
$543.39
$199.777
(regular and Diesel)
$1,471.87 to $1,510.797
$10,724.53 to $11,365.93
SYSTEM III
71.04
man-days
$6,503.72
4.2 to 6.99
man-days
$453.48 to $754.51
$6,957.20 to $7,258.43
SYSTEM III
19.36
truck-shifts
$387.78 to $454.57
no container
$375.58
$241.560
$1,004.92 to $1,071.71
$7,962.12 to $8,330.14
-------
TABLE 9
FIELD TEST UNIT COST ANALYSES COMPARISONS
QUEENS NORTH/DISTRICT 63
SYSTEM I
SYSTEM III
GRAND TOTAL COSTS
$11,045.23
$8,146.13
- Total Tons Collected
- Cost Per Ton
- Unit Cost Difference
113.8 tons
$97.06
85.75 tons
$95.00
2.2% less costly
- Total Equivalent Stops
- Cost Per Equivalent Stop
- Unit Cost Difference
7,397.227
$1.493
5,441.937
$1.497
0.27% more costly
26.
-------
TABLE 10
FIELD TEST COST ANALYSIS MANHATTAN EAST/DISTRICT 6
I LABOR COSTS I
Sc .itationman Man-Days
(collection, disposal, post
coverage factor)
Sanitationman Costs
Supervision Man-Days
(actual field ratio 1 section
foreman to 8-9 routes and
post coverage factor)
Supervision Costs
'TOTAL LABOR COSTS
SYSTEM I
44.53
man-days
$4,076.81
3.27 to 3.68
man-days
$353.06 to $396.79
$4.429.87 to $4,473.60
SYSTEM II
42.44
man-days
$3,884.94
3.44 to 3.87
man-days
$370.98 to $417.84
$4,255.92 to $4,302.78
SYSTEM III
63.93
man-days
$5,851.20
2.33 to 2.63
man-days
$251.03 to $283.42
$6.102.23 to $6,134.62
IEQUIPMENT COSTS |
Truck-Shifts
Depreciation Costs
Container Costs
Service and Maintenance Costs
Fuel Costs
TOTAL EQUIPMENT COSTS
SYSTEM I
15.69
truck-shifts
$347.94 to $367.39
$4.76 to $5.37
$263.41
$58.44
$674.55 to $694.61
SYSTEM II
14.29
truck-shifts
SYSTEM III
14.63
truck-shifts
$292.90 to $343:35
no container
$283.69
$76.25
$652.84 to $703.29
GRAND TOTAL COST
$5,104.42 to $5,168.21
$4,862.11 to $4,908.97
$6,755.07 to $6,837.91
-------
TABLE 11
FIELD TEST UNIT COST ANALYSES COMPARISONS
MANHATTAN EAST/DISTRICT 6
SYSTEM I
SYSTEM II
SYSTEM III
GRAND TOTAL COSTS
$5,136.32
$4,885.54
$6,796.49
10
CO
- Total Tons Collected
- Cost Per Ton
- Unit Cost Difference
115.4 tons
$44.51
109.6 tons
$44.58
161.5 tons
$42.08
5.5% less costly than System I
5.6% less costly than System II
- Total Equivalent Stops
- Cost Per Equivalent Stop
- Unit Cost Difference
1,462.35
$3.512
1,325.54
$3.686
1,883.78
$3.608
2.66% more costly than System I
2.73% less costly than System II
-------
VI. EQUIPMENT MANNING LEVELS
The study conducted by the Fund for the City of New York to evalu-
ate alternative refuse collection vehicles also provided an opportunity
to analyze the efficiency of different size operating crews. Our findings
with regard to manning levels closely parallel the findings of others:*
in general, smaller crews are more productive than larger ones within cer-
tain collection environments.
Systems I, II were manned by four 2-man crews and III by two
3-man crews. The study sought to determine if the rate at which each
crewman loaded refuse per stop and the portion of available crew manpower
used to perform this activity differed according to crew size.
The average refuse collection stop in District 63/Queens North
has the following loading performance related characteristics:
2.3 refuse receptacles weighing 30.9 pounds.**
- 36% being one-way receptacles weighing, on average 13 pounds.
- 61% being two-way receptacles.
3% being bulk refuse.
Unobstructed curbside or gutter with refuse placed at a simi-
lar spot in front of each home, providing continuity of refuse
pick-up and close proximity of truck to refuse.
In District 63/Queens North, the performance difference, as mea-
sured by mean crew loading time per stop, was zero seconds. (See
Table 12, page 30.)6
2-man crews loaded a refuse stop, on average, in 19 seconds.
3-man crew loaded a refuse stop, on average, in 19 seconds.
*E.g., The Institute for Solid Wastes of the American Public Works As-
sociation in its 4th Ed. of Solid Waste Collection Practice found that
while collection trucks are getting larger, crew sizes are getting
smaller; and a recent comprehensive evaluation, funded by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency, of eleven municipal solid waste
collection systems noted that "...the one-man crew is (statistically)
more productive than his counterpart in multi-man crews." (Residential
Collection Systems, Vol. I, Report Summary 1974, ACT Systems, Inc.,
pp. 39-47.)
**2.25 refuse receptacles and 29.5 pounds per stop for System I and 2.47
refuse receptacles and 33.12 pounds per stop for System III during
field test.
29.
-------
TABLE 12
MEAN CREW LOADING TIME PER STOP2
QUEENS DISTRICT #63
System I 19 seconds
2 -Man Crew
System III 19 seconds
3-Man Crew
PERFORMANCE3 0 seconds
DIFFERENCE
MANHATTAN
System I/II1
2 -Man Crew
System III
3-Man Crew
PERFORMANCE4
DIFFERENCE
DISTRICT #6
72 seconds
69 seconds
-3 seconds
^Mean crew loading time developed from data collected on both System I
and System II as possess identical hopper design.
2Direct, stop watch measurement of crew time to load collection stops.
In Queens, 23% of all stops made by System III constituted sample; 21%
of all stops made by System I constituted sample. In Manhattan 35%
sample used for System III; 38% sample for System I/II. Used regres-
sion program to compute averages.
3System Ill's route had on average two-tenths more items per stop than I.
4System Ill's route had 1.9 more items per stop, on average, than I/II.
In District 63/Queens North, the productivity of each member of
the 2-man crews exceeded that of each crewman on the 3-man crew.
(See Table 13, page 31.)7
The median pounds of refuse loaded per crewman, per minute of
on-route time, by each member of the 2-man crew exceeded his
counterpart on the 3-man crew by 23.1%.
30.
-------
TABLE 13
CREWMAN PRODUCTIVITY AT DIFFERENT EQUIPMENT MANNING LEVELS
QUEENS NORTH/DISTRICT 63
CREWMAN
PRODUCTIVITY
MEASURES
Median
Pounds Per Man
Per Minute
On-Route Time
Median
Pounds Per Man
Per Hour
On-Route Time
CREWMAN PRODUCTIVITY
TWO-
MAN CREW
(N=20)
17.17
1,030.20
THREE-
MAN CREW
(N=10)
13.95
837 . 00
INCREASE IN
CREWMAN PRODUCTIVITY
2-MAN CREW
PERCENT
23.1%
23.1%
POUNDS
3.22
193.20
During the performance of refuse collection the 2-man crew made
the following division of labor decisions: (see Table 14,
page 32)
75% of the stops, on average, were loaded by one-man, opera-
ting a collection truck with a cab specifically designed for
quick egress and ingress by the second man performing the
driving function.
The remaining refuse collection stops were loaded by the full
two-man crew.
During the performance of refuse collection the 3-man crew made
the following division of labor decisions:
.. ZERO percent of the stops were loaded by 3 men.
ZERO percent of the stops were loaded by 1 man.
100% of the stops were loaded by 2 men.
31.
-------
TABLE 14
CREW DIVISION OF LABOR
NORTH/DISTRICT 63
EQUIPMENT
SYSTEM
System I
System III
CREW
SIZE
2
3
REFUSE
STOP IN
DISTRICT #63
WEIGHT
30
pounds
33
pounds
ITEMS
2.25
2.45
LOADING FUNCTION1
PERCENT OF
STOPS LOADED
BY 1 MAN
62% to 89%
0%
PERCENT OF
STOPS LOADED
BY 2 MEN
11% to 38%
100%
PERCENT OF
STOPS LOADED
BY 3 MEN
no 3rd man
available
0%
with 3rd man
available
DRIVING
FUNCTION
SHARED
Yes
EXCLU-
SIVE
Yes
to
^Sample size for System I was 15% of all stops during test period; sample size for System III was 15% of all
stops during test period.
-------
The workload characteristics of a stop in District #63 was such
that the 3rd man on the 3-man crew never loaded, performing the
driving function exclusively. (See Table 14, page 32.)
The 2-man crew, lacking a third man, shared the driving func-
tion with no increase in average loading time per stop.
The average refuse collection stop in District #6/Manhattan East
has the following loading performance related characteristics:
6.6 refuse receptacles weighing 166.1 pounds.
- 61% being one-way receptacles.
- 37% being two-way receptacles.
- 2% being bulk refuse.
Considerable obstacles between refuse location and vehicle in
the form of single and double parked cars.
- Cars parked bumper to bumper in many instances.
Refuse receptacles are not infrequently located flush against
building facade, not on curb edge as in District 63.
In District 6/Manhattan East, the performance difference as mea-
sured by mean crew loading time per stop was 3 seconds. (See
Table 12, page 30.)8
3-man crew loaded a refuse stop, on average in 69 seconds.
2-man crew loaded a refuse stop, on average in 72 seconds.
The 4.2% faster mean loading time achieved by the 3-man crew in
District #6 was achieved with 50% more available crew-time per
stop.9
In District 6/Manhattan East, the productivity of each member of
the 2-man crews exceeded that of each crewman on the 3-man crew.
(See Table 15, page 34.)10
The median pounds of refuse loaded per crewman, per minute of
on-route time, by each member of the two 2-man crews exceeded
their counterparts on the 3-man crew by 16% to 31%.
33.
-------
TABLE 15
CREWMAN PRODUCTIVITY AT DIFFERENT EQUIPMENT MANNING LEVELS
MANHATTAN EAST/DISTRICT 6
CREWMAN
PRODUCTIVITY
MEASURES
Median
Pounds Per Man
Per Minute
On-Route Time
Median
Pounds Per Man
Per Hour
On-Route Time
CREWMAN PRODUCTIVITY
TWO-
MAN CREW
LODAL 8
(N=14)
38.73
2,323.80
TWO-
MAN CREW
LODAL 12
(N=14)
34.31
2,058.60
THREE-
MAN CREW
HEIL MARK IV
(N=14)
29.52
1,771.20
INCREASE IN
CREWMAN PRODUCTIVITY
2-MAN
PER
LODAL 8
31.20%
31.20%
CENT
LODAL 12
16.23%
16.23%
CREW
POUNDS
LODAL 8
9.21
Ibs.
552.60
Ibs.
LODAL 12
4.79
Ibs.
287.40
Ibs.
U)
-------
In District 6/Manhattan East, the crews' division of labor ap-
peared to reflect the greater workload presented by the refuse
collection stop. (See Table 16, page 36.)
A sample measurement of stops revealed that, on average, 82.5%
of these stops were loaded by both men on the 2-man crews.
More significantly, 41% of all refuse collection stops made by
the 3-man crew were loaded by the full crew.
In comparison to the high frequency of one-man loaded stops in
Queens North with the 2-man crew, only 17.5% of stops were
loaded by one man on the two-man crews in Manhattan East.
It appears that each member of a two-man crew loads at a faster
rate than the same on three-man crews regardless of the collection opera-
ting conditions as demonstrated during the field test period
Queens North
Two-man crew 17.17 pounds per minute of on-route time.
Three-man crew 13.95 pounds per minute of on-route time.
Manhattan East
Two-man crew 34.57 pounds per minute of on-route time.
Three-man crew 29.67 pounds per minute of on-route time.
35.
-------
TABLE 16
CREW DIVISION OF LABOR
MANHATTAN EAST/DISTRICT 6
EQUIPMENT
SYSTEM
System I/II
System III
CREW
SIZE
2
3
^^^^K
REFUSE
STOP IN
DISTRICT #6
WEIGHT
146
pounds
205
pounds
ITEMS
5.97
7.88
LOADING FUNCTION1
PERCENT OF
STOPS LOADED
BY 1 MAN
17.5%
0%
PERCENT OF
STOPS LOADED
BY 2 MEN
82.5%
100%
PERCENT OF
STOPS LOADED
BY 3 MEN
no 3rd man
available
41%
DRIVING
FUNCTION
SHARED
Yes
Yes
EXCLU-
SIVE
U)
^Sample size for System I/II 11% of all stops made during test; sample size for System III 12% of all stops made
during test.
-------
CHART I
Median
Pounds
Per Hour
Per Man
On - Route
3000
2000
1000-
CREWMAN PRODUCTIVITY
AT DIFFERENT EQUIPMENT MANNING LEVELS
Hell 25H
Lodal 8
Lodal 12
Hell 25H
Lodal 8
-36a-
-------
VII. PROCEDURAL ANALYSIS-. DISPOSAL AND REFUELLING
The full potential of the benefits to be derived from improved
collection equipment can only be realized with improved operational pro-
cedures. Specifically, refuse disposal and refuelling operations were
evaluated in conjunction with the equipment alternatives.
REFUSE DISPOSAL
The procedure currently used to dispose of collected refuse in Dis-
trict 63/Queens North results in an excessively high cost to trans-
port refuse to a disposal location. The present practice is to
dump the refuse well before the vehicle has reached its payload
capacity. This represents an economically inefficient use of a
capital resource.
23 disposal trips were made by the Heil Mark IV during the test
period, at a total average cost of $810.08.
The average payload per trip during the test period was 3.71 tons,
representing an equipment utilization level per truck-shift of
47.9% of full capacity.
Average weight of the first truck load of a truck-shift was
5.16 tons, or 66.6% of capacity.
Average weight of the second load was 1.48 tons, or 19.1% of
capacity.
Under-utilization of equipment capacity resulted in an average
disposal trip cost of $35.22, and an average disposal cost per
ton of $9.45.
Reduction in total disposal cost can be achieved by eliminating the
procedure of hauling of refuse to a disposal site before the full
equipment capacity has been reached.
REFUELLING PROCEDURE (District 63/Queens North)
An operational analysis of the refuelling procedure in this District
was undertaken because the refuelling depot and collection truck
dispatch point are at two separate locations. At the completion of
the 7-3 shift, the 4-12 garage shift at dispatch point 63A takes
the trucks to the refuelling depot (District 63 garage). The round-
trip is approximately 3 miles and takes 29.7 minutes.
37.
-------
The total cost to refuel the Mark IV during the test period was
$279.31, or $12.14 per refuelling trip.
The cost of transporting the vehicles to the refuelling depot and
back to the dispatch pointexclusive of the cost of the fuel
for the 8,343 collection runs made in District 63 during Fiscal
Year 1975-76 was estimated at $101,317.40.
This expenditure could have been used by the Department of Sani-
tation to purchase 259,123.79 gallons of regular fuel, at .391*
per gallon, or enough fuel for 13,032 collection runs (the number
made in approximately 1.5 years) in District 63.
38.
-------
VIII. NON-EQUIPMENT RELATED PRODUCTIVITY FACTORS
The Uniformed Sanitationmen's Association's contract allows 85
minutes per truck-shift for the non-work activities of check-in, work-
breaks, lunch and wash-up. Analysis of the test period data for System
III revealed the following:
In District 63/Queens North, actual time used for work relief acti-
vities was 137.5 minutes, exceeding the allowed time by 51.5 min-
utes per truck-shift or 61.6%.H
Actual work-break time exceeded allowed time by 6.5 minutes
or 21.7%.
Actual lunch time exceeded allowed time by 30 minutes or 100%.
Actual wash-up time exceeded allowed time by 15 minutes or
100%.
In District 63/Queens North, current under-utilization of truck-
shift time reduced the available work period by 14.9%, from 344
minutes to 292.5 minutes per truck-shift, resulting in:
15.7% or 1.13 fewer tons collected per truck-shift during the
test period.
18.6% more truck-shifts deployed during the test period.
18.6% increase in the cost of collecting refuse on the test
routes.
In District 6/Manhattan East, actual time used for work relief acti-
vities was 143.5 minutes, exceeding the allowed time by 58.5 min-
utes per truck-shift or 68.8%.12
Actual check-in time exceeded allowed time by 9 minutes or
90.0%.
Actual work-break time exceeded allowed time by 17 minutes or
56.7%.
Actual lunch time exceeded allowed time by 24.5 minutes or
81.7%.
Actual wash-up time exceeded allowed time by 18 minutes or
120.0%.
39.
-------
In District 6/Manhattan East, current under-utilization of truck-
shift time reduced the available work period by 18.3%, from 320.0
minutes to 261.5 minutes per truck-shift, resulting in:
19.0% or 2.71 fewer tons collected per truck-shift during the
test period.
23.5% more truck-shifts deployed during the test period.
' 23.5% increase in the cost of collecting refuse on the test
routes.
Reduction in the available truck-shift work period by 14.9% in
District #63 and by 18.3% in District #6 and actual time used for non-
work activities exceeding the allowed time by 61.8% and 68.8% respec-
tively, results in excessive truck-shift deployment and collection ex-
penditure levels. Projected performance and cost improvements with re-
trieval of the currently lost truck-shift work-time in command zones
presenting similar collection operating conditions would be large:
Projected reduction in total truck-shifts deployed, in command
zones Queens North, Queens South, Queens West, Richmond, Manhat-
tan East and Manhattan West, to collect Fiscal Year 1976 refuse
workload could have been 28,070 truck-shifts.
Projected cost reduction in the collection of refuse in these
command zones for Fiscal Year 1975-76 could have been $13.883
million. (Cost per truck-shift as obtained during the field
test includes labor and equipment costs.)
40.
-------
IX. RECOMMENDATIONS
VEHICLE DESIGN COMPONENTS (See Map 1, page 42.)
The virtually homogenous refuse collection fleet of New York City's
Department of Sanitation should be diversified to achieve a better
fit between collection environment and apparatus. This could be
done by:
Using side-loading mid-ship positioned hoppers in areas where re-
fuse collection stops are similar to those in the Queens North
test area:
Areas with a significant number of one-way refuse receptacles.
Where the one-way receptacles are light weight.
Where curbside and street is relatively unobstructed.
Using rear loading hoppers in areas where refuse stops are simi-
lar to those in the Manhattan East area:
Areas with a significant number of compacted one-way recepta-
cles.
Where the weight of one-way receptacles are such that they
have to be placed rather than tossed into the hopper.
Where curbside and street are obstructed by such obstacles as
single and double parked vehicles.
Where vehicular flow is heavy.
Making step-in/step-out cabs standard on all City collection ve-
hicles to reduce egress time and to prevent driver from possibly
exiting cab into the flow of traffic.
PAYLCAD CAPACITY
Purchase vehicles with a payload rating of 10 tons to be deployed
in long-haul disposal areas such as Queens North.
Ensure full utilization of payload capacity of all collection
vehicles through special training of field managementDistrict
Supervisors, Section Foremen and Assistant Foremen.
41.
-------
KAP 1
DEPLOYMENT AREAS FOR NEW TYPES OF COLLECTION VEHICLES
VERRAZANO BRIDGE
2 Man Crew/Side Loading Hopper/Step-in Step-Out Cab/10 Ton Payload
3 Man Crew/Rear Loading Hopper/Step-in Step-Out Cab/vCurrent Payload
(plus)
42.
-------
Institute a 6.6 ton actual capacity value that should be used
to trigger a disposal trip for the Heil Mark IV 25H truck.
Institute a 10 ton capacity value that should be used to trig-
ger a disposal trip for vehicles with such capacity.
Develop a specification quality control program to insure that
vehicles purchased by the City meet values (within pre-determined
tolerances over life of vehicle) indicated on specification docu-
mentation, primarily as it pertains to payload rating.
REFUELLING PROCEDURE
Install a refuelling capability at garage 63A ("Ponderosa"), or,
alternatively, share the fuel pumps used by the Department of
Highways located next door.
EQUIPMENT MANNING LEVELS
Consideration should be given to the deployment of 2-man collec-
tion crews on the vehicles currently in use, as well as on larger
payload vehicles with vehicle components as discussed, in Command
Zones Queens North, South, West and Richmond. The daily work
output target should be equivalent to the 9.12 tons per truck-
shift achieved by the three-man crews in Fiscal Year 1976; with
per man-day performance level increased from 3.04 tons to 4.56
tons. (See Table 17, page 44 for comparison or recommended man-
hour output target and actual man-hour outputs achieved in other
municipalities.)
Consideration should be given to the deployment of 3-man crews in
Command Zones Manhattan East and West, to operate 20 cubic yard
collection vehicles with step-in/step-out cabs and attain an in-
crease in daily work output. The Fiscal Year 1975-76 standard of
11.35 tons per truck-shift and 3.78 tons per man-day indicate un-
derperformance by 3-man crews. It should be possible for a 3-man
crew to handle 16.32 tons per truck-shift and 5.44 tons per man-
day. (See Table 18, page 44 for comparison of recommended man-hour
output target and actual man-hour outputs achieved in other munici-
palities.)
NON-EQUIPMENT RELATED PRODUCTIVITY FACTORS
Truck-shift work periods be restored to the level paid for by the
City and called for in Union contracts.
-------
TABLE 17
TWO-MAN CREWS
RECOMMENDED MAN-HOUR PERFORMANCE
VS.
ACTUAL MAN-HOUR PERFORMANCE ACHIEVED
IN OTHER MUNICIPALITIES
MUNICIPALITY TONS PER MAN-DAY
New York City
- Current 3.04
- Recommended 4.56
Flint, Michigan 7.25
Rockford, Illinois 6.31
Tuscon, Arizona 3.48
TONS PER MAN-HOUR
.62
.80
1.55
1.31
.84
TABLE 18
THREE-MAN CREWS
RECOMMENDED MAN-HOUR PERFORMANCE
vs.
ACTUAL MAN-HOUR PERFORMANCE ACHIEVED
IN OTHER MUNICIPALITIES
MUNICIPALITY TONS PER MAN-DAY
New York City
- Current 3.78
- Recommended 5.44
Warwick, Rhode Island 4.22
Dade County, Florida 4.70
TONS PER MAN-HOUR
.87
1.02
1.08
1.07
InTR
44.
-------
344 minutes or a 18% increase in work time per truck-shift in
Queens and Richmond.
320 minutes or a 22% increase in work time per truck-shift in
Manhattan East and West.
Operational accountability for achieving truck-shift output tar-
gets and work periods should be assigned to Zone Commanders.
Design and implementation of improved routing to achieve output
targets, collection equipment diversification programming and
automated performance control system be a joint venture of Head-
quarters staff and Zone Commanders.
Along with operational accountability for target achievement, com-
mand authority be lodged with the Zone Commanders for control over
resources to achieve same and to take corrective action against
Districts not performing at target.
ASSIGNMENT OF COLLECTION VEHICLES
Explore possibility of the permanent assignment of a collection
vehicle to a crewman.
45.
-------
CHART II
TONS
2-T-
TONS PER MAN HOUR - TWO MAN CREWS
1.55
Flint
Mich.
Rockford
111.
Tucson
Ariz.
N. Y. C.
Projected
TONS
2
0-L
TONS PER MAN HOURS - THREE MAN CREWS
Warwick
R.I.
Dade
County
Fla.
N. Y. C.
Current
1.02
N. Y. C.
Projected
-------
X. PROJECTED COST BENEFITS
COMPARATIVE CAPITAL INVESTMENT REQUIRED TO PURCHASE 10 TON PAYLOAD CA-
PACITY TRUCKS AND NEW FLEET OF HEIL MARK IV TRUCKS
At an approximate cost of $34,040 per vehicle, the 784 Heil Mark
IV collection trucks that might be required by the 20 sanitation
Districts of Command Zones Queens North, South, West and Richmond
would have a replacement cost of $26.689 million.
At an approximate cost of $48,000 per vehicle, the 458 10-ton col-
lection trucks that might be required by the same 20 sanitation
Districts would have a replacement cost of $21.984 million.
The projected reduction in replacement costs achieved through the
acquisition of 10-ton collection vehicles would be $4.705 million.
Deployment of a refuse collection vehicle with a rated payload
capacity of 10 tons, despite an estimated cost of $48,000 per
vehicle, would have resulted in the projected reduction in the
number and cost of disposal trips in these Command Zones in Fis-
cal Year 1975-76 of as much as:
Total estimated trips would have been 106,798, down 54% over
the 232,744 trip level.
Total estimated disposal cost would have been $4.1 million,
down $4.1 million or 50%.
SAVINGS FROM INSTALLATION OF INCREASED CAPACITY VALUE DISPOSAL TRIGGER
If disposal during the test period in Queens North had been trig-
gered at 6.6 tons and not before, the costs would have been:
$456.87 to complete 13 disposal trips and haul 85.75 tons of re-
fuse.
This represents a 43.6% estimated reduction in total disposal
frequency and cost with virtually no implementation or recur-
ring procedural expenditures.
Payback period for this operational change would have been
almost immediate.
The cost of disposing of a ton of refuse would have declined by
43.6%, or from $9.45 to $5.33a figure which is less than Sys-
tem I's disposal cost of $5.62 per ton.
46.
-------
If disposal had been triggered at 6.6 tons for Fiscal Year 1975-76
in Queens North, South, West and Richmond, similar savings would
have resulted. Instead of the mean payload per disposal trip being
4.51 tons at a cost of $8.197 million:
Total estimated trips would have been 161,813, down 30.5%.
Total estimated disposal cost would have been $5.699 million,
down $2.498 million or 30.5%.
MANNING LEVEL (See Map 2, page 48.)
Based on the performance analysis of 2- and 3-man crews conducted
during the field test and Fiscal Year 1975-76 truck-shift deployment
levels for Queens North, South, West and Richmond, the following
cost projections were developed:13
Refuse collection costs at current equipment manning level for
Fiscal Year 1975-76 was $53.3 million to collect 1,067,906 tons
of refuse with 117,118 truck-shifts.
Actual average performance level with current crew size was
9.12 tons per truck-shift and 3.04 tons per man-day.
Refuse collection costs with reduced equipment manning to two-man
crews (operating the current System III vehicle) for Fiscal Year
1975-76 would have been $37.2 million to collect same amount of
refuse with same number of truck-shiftsa projected cost reduction
of $16.1 million.
Performance level would have been 9.12 tons per truck-shift
and 4.56 tons per man-day.
Manhattan East and West deployed 50,969 truck-shifts during Fiscal
Year 1976 at an estimated cost of $21.97 million.13
By retrieving documented lost work time an additional 2.61 to
2.73 tons, or, 23.4% more refuse can be collected per truck-shift.
By increasing crew loading rate by 20.38%, an additional 2.27 to
2.37 tons can be collected per truck-shift.
According to these realizable gains, only 35,434 truck-shifts
would have had to be deployed instead of 50,969 with a savings
projected at $6.69 million.
47.
-------
MAP 2
$22.8 MILLION REDUCTION IN COLLECTION LABOR COST
-Estiinated For FY 1976-
2 Man Crews/4.56 Ton Per Man-Day/$16.1 Million Labor Saving/FY176(eat.)
3 Man Crew/5.44 Tons Per Man-Day/$6.7 Million Labor Saving/ FY'76(est.)
48.
-------
ATTACHMENT A
FOOTNOTES
-------
ATTACHMENT A
FOOTNOTES
Footnote #1:
Footnote #2:
Cost-per-ton, as computed by manufacturer of System I
corroborates FCNY finding that the System is more costly
«Xno!y*tem III: Unit C°St °f System J is 569.76, versus
$66 24 for System III (5.04% less per ton). Differences
in dollar value result from different cost accounting
procedures, but both sets of data indicate the same unit
cost relationship: System III is less expensive.
Field tests cannot control for all contingencies in the
collection environment, but an output measure was de-
signed to equalize the difference in workloads (number
of refuse receptacles per stop) found on different
routes in the same test area. The rationale behind the
workload equalization procedure was that while indivi-
Svi oTth W°r^°adS differ subtly, each is representa-
tive of the collection conditions which prevail in a gi-
ven area. Subsequently, when a unit cost for each System
was derived, a cost comparison could be made, based on
actual field performance against equivalent workloads
Equalization measures were applied to Queens and Manhat-
tan collection stop output data.
Footnote #3:
Footnote #4:
The manufacturer's cost per stop findings differ from
those of the Fund because the manufacturer did not adjust
for unequal workloads and the Fund did. in this instance
the two sets of findings do not vary significantly be-
cause the actual workloads were relatively similar (one-
tenth fewer receptacles on System I's route"than System
III): unit cost per stop for System I, as computed by
manufacturer, was 1% less than for System III, Fund's
unit cost was 0.27 of a percentage point less. When ac-
tual workloads show greater variations, as they did in
District 6, unit costs will be skewed to the lighter
route if the equalization procedure is not applied.
Important variations exist between the values obtained
by the Fund and those claimed by the manufacturer for
total tons collected by System III for the test period-
85.75 (FCNY) versus 81.63 (manufacturer); average tons'
50
-------
per truck-shift: 6.13 (FCNY) versus 5.84 (manufacturer)
The discrepancies can be accounted for by the sometimes
arbitrary methodology used by the manufacturer. While
some of their "corrections" and "adjustments" seem valid,
others do not. For example, for 8 of the 9 second load
payloads on System III, they decreased the weight, some-
thing they did not do for System I although both were
weighed in the same manner. There seems to be the assump-
tion that if the average weight of a refuse item is grea-
ter on the second load than the first, the second load
weight is incorrect. No test was conducted to determine
if the difference in average weight was random or statis-
tically significant. Yet given that both loads were
weighed in the same manner, it would have been equally
reasonable to assume that the first load averages were
too small.
Footnote #5:
Cost per ton as computed by manufacturer of Systems I and
II corroborates FCNY finding that they are more costly
per ton than System III, 10% and 7% respectively.
Footnote #6:
No comparison of this value is possible since the manu-
facturer did not separately measure loading time or tra-
vel time between stops. Measurement was of combined col-
lection rate; time to load plus time to travel between
stops. However, the manufacturer's average collection
rate~32.1 seconds for System III and 35.7 seconds for
System Iindicates that the 50% greater manning level
of the former did not result in a commensurate increase
in performance. FCNY's value of 19 seconds for both sys-
tems suggests a similar conclusion. Both sets of find-
ings validate the potential feasibility of 3-man crews in
only certain areas of the city. Further, they strongly
suggest that a mid-ship positioned hopper can be a bene-
ficial vehicle design feature.
Footnote #7:
Median pounds of refuse loaded per crewman per minute of
on-route time as measured by manufacturer yielded a com-
parable figure of 23.6%.
Footnote #8:
Comparative data not available, as per footnote #3. As
measured by the manufacturer, the average collection rate
for System II was 111.4 seconds and for System III 106.8
seconds. The percentage difference between these values
and the percentage difference between FCNY's values for
the loading rates of these Systems are almost equivalent:
51
-------
4.1% and 4.2%. Both sets of data raise the issue of the
benefits of going from a 2-man to a 3-man crew, in addi-
tion, the average collection rate, as measured by the
manufacturer, for System I was 87.8 seconds, or 17.7%
faster than System Ill's 106.8 second.
Footnote #9:
Both sets of data for Districts 63 and 6 indicate that
the return on a 50% greater labor investment, whether
measured as collection rate or loading rate, does not
produce a corresponding increase in performance.
Footnote #10:
Comparative crewman productivity as measured by the manu-
facturer corroborates FCNY's findings that productivity
is greater for the smaller crews of Systems I and u.
Both sets of data identify System I's crewmen as loading
faster than those on System II and III. Specific values
of how much faster differ--16.3% (manufacturer) versus
31% (FCNY). Similarly, System II's crewmen loaded faster
than System III, again with different specific values
2.1% (manufacturer) versus 16% (FCNY).
Footnote #11:
Crew time utilization data collected by the manufacturer
of System I and the Load-A-Matic yielded a comparable me-
dian figure: 147.0 minutes for non-work activities per
System III truck-shift.
Footnote #12:
Crew time utilization data collected by the manufacturer
of System I, II and the Load-A-Matic yielded a comparable
median figure: 158.5 minutes for non-work activities per
System III truck-shift.
Footnote #13:
Cost components of projections are sanmen and section
foremen man-days and a post coverage factor of .5 per
man-day.
Sanman man-day cost computed at:
$309.80 base pay for five day week for three-year man
+ 147.93 for fringes at 47.75% rate
$457.73 per week
x .50 post coverage factor
$228.87
+ 457.73
$686.60 4- 5 = $137.32 to put one sanman in the field
for one day.
52
-------
Supervision man-day cost is $161.955':
approximate annual salary $19,000 '
£365.38 base pay for five day week
> 174.47 for fringes at 47.75% rate
$539.85 per week
x .50 post coverage factor
$269.93
+ 539.85
$809.78 4- 5 = $161.955 to put one supervisor in the field
for one day to cover 3 to 5 routes
in Queens North; 8 to 9 routes in
Manhattan East.
53
------- |