PB-239 917
RESIDENTIAL COLLECTION SYSTEMS
VOLUME II, DETAILED STUDY AND ANALYSIS
ACT SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED
PREPARED FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1974
DISTRIBUTED BY:
Kffil
National Technical Information Service
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA
SHEET
1. Report No.
EPA/530/SW-97C.2
PB 239 917
4. Title and Subtitle
Residential Collection Systems, Vol. II--Detailed
Study and Analysis
5. Report Date
1974
6.
7. Authorfs)
ACT Systems, Inc.
8. Performing Organization Rept.
No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
ACT Systems, Inc.
Suite 200
807 W. Morse Blvd.
Winter Park, Florida 32789
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract/Ciaa> No.
EPA-68-03-0097
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
Washington, D. C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period
Covered
Final
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstracts
Eleven specifically defined residential solid waste collection systems
were evaluated to determine, insofar as possible, the significance of specific
system parameters on productivity, efficiency, and costs. These parameters
included point of collection, frequency of collection, crew size, equipment
type, collection methodology, incentive system, type of storage container,
and amount of waste generated. Four crews in each of the 11 systems were
studied for a period of one year, using time and motion studies, backyard
surveys, and a computerized Data Acquisition and Analysis Program (DAAP)
for daily information. The data was collected between August 1972 and
January 1974. (Shuster, EPA.)
17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17a. Descriptors
*Residential solid waste collection, *Residential collection, *Storage,
Collection, Collection system analysis, *Crew performance evaluation,
*Productivity, *Efficiency, *Waste generation
17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
Data Acquisition and Analysis Program (DAAP), Eleven-system evaluation,
Waste disposal.
17c. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
Release to Public
19. Security Class (This
Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
20. Security Class (This
Page
UNCLASSIFIED
|21.
No. of Pages
PORM NTis-38 (REV. 10-73) ENDORSED BY ANSI AND UNESCO.
THIS FORM MAY BE REPRODUCED
USCOMM-OC 8269-P74
-------
FOREWORD
In the spTing of 1972, the Office of Solid Waste Management
Programs engaged ACT Systems, Incorporated to conduct an extensive
evaluation of 11 specifically defined residential collection
systems. At that time, there was a dearth of good information on
residential collection system productivity and costs and how
various system parameters affect these items. The results of this
study effort would enable the evaluation of residential collection
systems and the design of more efficient and improved systems,
nationwide.
The 11 systems were defined to determine, insofar as possible,
the significance of specific system parameters on productivity,
efficiency, and costs for residential collection. These parameters
included point of collection, frequency of collection, crew size,
equipment type., collection methodology, incentive system, and
type of storage container. The impact 'of the amount of waste
generated was also examined. The systems selected were designed
to obtain as much interrelated information as possible from a
relatively small study sample.
Four crews in each of the 11 systems were studied for a period
of one year. The data gathering efforts included four quarterly
time and motion studies for the curb and alley systems, four
quarterly surveys for the backyard systems and daily operational
information gathered each working day for each system. The daily
information for each system was processed by a specially designed
computerized Data Acquisition and Analysis Program (DAAP). The
data was gathered between August 1972 and January 1974.
It is hoped that the information contained in this report will
make a significant contribution to the understanding of residential
collection system operations and to the improvement of collection
system productivity. The EPA project officers on .this contract
were Dennis A. Schur, Donna Krabbe, and Kenneth A. Shuster.
--Arsen J. Darnay
Deputy Assistant Administrator*
for Solid Waste Management
111
Preee%
-------
PREFACE
The purpose of this volume is to provide a detailed
analysis of the data that was obtained from the work
associated with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contract 68-03-0097. It is expected that this information
will be used by the solid waste analysts who need to know
the methodology used in arriving at the results and
conclusions. The essential information which is necessary
to make this volume self-contained is also provided.
Volume I contains concise summaries of the systems
studied, and the significant results and conclusions
that have been distilled from the contents of this volume.
Single copies of Volume I are available as supplies permit
from OSWMP Educational Materials Control Section, 5555 Ridge
Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45264.
Volume Ml contains the detailed information and data
that was obtained during the study effort, and is not being
published, although some copies are on file in OSWMP
headquarters in Washington, D. C.
A brief article on this study by the project officer,
Kenneth A. Shuster, has been accepted for publication by the
Solid Wastes Management/Refuse Removal Journal.
i v
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This study effort would not have been possible without the
willing cooperation and assistance from all the agencies and
individuals that were associated with the program. In the conduct
of the studies special recognition is due to the following Individ-
uals. Each of these Individuals was keenly interested in the work
being done and provided every possible assistance to facilitate
the data gathering efforts.
Mr. E. Vern Bringhurst, Superintendent of Sanitation,
Salt Lake County Highway Department, Utah
Mr. Earl Elton, Director of Public Works, Covlna,
CaIi fornia
Mr. William McSpadden, Director, Sanitation Department,
Phoenix, Arizona
Mr. David Opsahl, General Manager, Browning Ferris Industries
of Rockford, Rockford, Illinois
Mr. G.F. Greenwood, Technical Assistant to the Director
Of Public Works, Flint, Michigan
Mr. Francis Soike, Assistant Director, Sanitation Division,
Operations Department, Tucson, Arizona
Mr. Joseph Maher, Chief of Sanitation, Warwick, Rhode Island
Mr. Terry Danuser, Superintendent, Streets Divsion, Oak
Park, Illinois
Mr. Clarence Patterson, Superintendent, Solid Waste Division,
Metropolitan Dade County, Florida
Mr. Robert Lawrence, Refuse Supervisor, San Leandro, California
Mr. Fred Larson, Commissioner of Public Works, Racine,
W i scons i n .
-------
CONTENTS
SECTION l
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Definition of the II Collection Systems 2
Method of Selecting the Solid Waste Collection Systems 2
Definition of a Solid Waste Collection Route 4
General Method of Evaluating Solid Waste Collection 4
Systems
Pictorial Requirements 5
Brief System Descriptions 6
System 1, Salt Lake City, Utah 6
System 2, Covina, California 7
System 3, Phoenix, Arizona 7
System 4, Rockford, Illinois 8
System 5, Flint, Michigan 9
System 6, Tucson, Arizona 10
System 7, Warwick, Rhode Island 11
System 8, Oak Park, Illinois 12
System 9, Metropolitan Dade County, Florida 13
System 10, San Leandro, California 14
System 11, Racine Wisconsin 14
How Representative Are the Systems Chosen 15
SECT ION I I
PRESENTATION OF STUDY DATA l9
Data Acqu i s i t i on 19
DAAP Standard Data 23
Presentation of Selected Items from the DAAP and 27
Time Motion Reports
SECTION I I I
ANALYSIS OF DATA 55
Collection System Productivity and Cost Efficiency 56
Presentation of System Productivity and Efficiency 61
Measures
Detailed Analysis of Systems Under Study 64
Performance Analysis by Type of Equipment 72
Performance Analysis by Crew Size 81
Performance Analysis by Frequency of Collection 91
vi
-------
Performance Analysis
Performance Analysis
Performance Analysis
Performance Analysis
Performance Analysis
by Storage Point
by Collection Methodology
by Incentive System
by Type of Storage Container
by Productivity and Efficiency
Cost Analysis by Systems Performance
96
98
99
106
1 13
1 19
SECTION IV
PRODUCTIVITY AND EFFICIENCY MEASURES
FROM REGRESSION ANALYSIS
35
Collection Minutes per Service
Services per Col Lection Hour
Tons per Collection Hour
Total Cost per Service per Week
Total Cost per Ton
138
140
140
142
145
Append i ces
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Descr i pt
Summary
Summary
Deri vat i
Regress i
Per Serv
Regress i
Per Serv
Regress i
Col lecti
Regress i
Hour)
Regress i
Servi ce
Regress i
on of DAAP Report Data 148
DAAP Report 154
Time Motion and Backyard Survey Reports 169
on of Cost Formulas 218
on Computer Printouts (Collection Minutes 221
ice)
on Computer Printouts (Collection Minutes 225
ice)
on Computer Printouts (Services Per 231
on Hour)
on Computer Printouts (Tons Per Collection 237
on Computer Printouts (Total Cost Per 243
Per Week)
on Computer Printouts (Total Cost Per Ton) 249
VI I
-------
TABLES
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Def i nition of
Selected Data
Selected Data
Selected Data
Selected Data
Selected Data
Selected Data
Selected Data
Selected Data
Selected Data
Florida
Selected
Selected
Selected
Selected Collection Systems
- System 1, Salt Lake County, Utah
- System 2, Covina, California
- System 3, Phoenix, Arizona
- System 4, Rockford, Illinois
- System 5, Flint, Michigan
- System 6, Tucson, Arizona
- System 7, Warwick, Rhode Island
- System 8, Oak Park, Illinois
- System 9, Metropolitan Dade County,
Data -
Data -
Data -
Rate
Rate
System
System
Yearly
in
i n
10, San Leandro, California
1 1 , Rac ine, Wisconsin
. Averages by System
Generation Rate in Pounds Per Home Per Week By System
Collection Rate in Tons Per Crew Per Day By System
Summary of Productivity and Cost Efficiency Measures
Systems Productivity and Efficiency Measures
Productivity and Efficiency Indices
Equipment Performance Data
Crew Performance Data (Curb and Alley Systems)
Crew Productive Time (Curb and Alley Systems)
Marginal Productivity (Curb and Alley Systems)
Ranges of Crew and Crewman Productivity
(Curb and Alley Systems
Frequency of Collection Data
Storage Point Data
Incentive System Performance
Incentive Systems
Incentive System Performance
Productivity Measures
Storage Container Data
Collection Minutes Per Home - Regression Analyses
by Productivity
by Collection Cost Efficiency
Comparisons by Crew Sizes
Comparisons by Frequency
System Averaged Cost Relationships
The Effect of Labor Costs on Collection Cost Per
Labor Costs on Collection Cost Per
Data - Comparisons by
Data - Comparisons by
Ranking of Systems
Ranking of Systems
System Cost Data -
System Cost Data -
The Effect of
Home Per Week
The Effect of
Costs
Ton
Capital Costs on Collection Related
3
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
62
63
65,
75
83
84
85
86
93
97
101
102
108
I I I
1 16
1 17
122
123
125
129
130
132
1 15
vi I i
-------
FIGURES
1 Daily Collection Route Information Form
2 Curb Collection Control Sheet
3 Collector Activity Record
4 Storage Location Survey Form
5 Waste Rates - System 1
6 Waste Rates - System 2
7 Waste Rates - System 3
8 Waste Rates - System 4
9 Waste Rates - System 5
10 Waste Rates - System 6
11 Waste Rates - System 7
12 Waste Rates - System 8
13 Waste Rates - System 9
14 Waste Rates - System 10
15 Waste Rates - System 11
16 Average Homes Served Per Week
17 Average Weight Per Home Per Week
18 Average Weight Collected Per Day
19 Homes Served Per Crew Per Collection Hour
20 Homes Served Per Crewman Per Collection Hour
21 Weight Handled Per Crew Per Collection Hour
22 Weight Handled Per Crewman Per Collection Hour
23 Collection Cost Per Home Served Per Week
24 Collection Cost Per Ton Collected
25 Side Loading Collection Vehicle
26 Side Loading Collection Vehicle with Detachable
Eight Cubic Yard Container
27 A Typical Rear Loader
28 Average Weight Per Load (1st load, others)
29 Procedure for Determining Local Total Performance
Costs Per Day
30 Procedure for Determining Local Performance Costs
for Comparisons with System Studies Cost
20
21
22
24
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
66
67
68
69
70
71
74
74
74
77
127
128
ix
-------
SECTION I
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Genera I
In the spring of 1972 the Office of Solid Waste Management
Programs (OSWMP) engaged ACT Systems, Incorporated to conduct
an extensive evaluation of II specifically defined residential
collection systems. At that time there was a dearth of good
information on residential collection system productivity and
costs and how various system parameters effect these items.
The results of this study effort would enable OSWMP to evaluate
residential collection systems and to design more efficient and
improved systems. It was expected that this effort would provide
information and tools to improve the evaluation and design techni-
ques for residential collection systems throughout the United
States .
The II systems were defined to determine, insofar as possible,
the significance of specific system parameters on productivity,
efficiency and costs for residential collection. Within these
II systems other factors, such as waste generation rates and
percent of one-way storage items, were also examined to determine
their significance. Data on each of the II systems was then
gathered for a period of one year. The data gathering efforts
included four quarterly time and motion studies for the curb
and alley systems, four quarterly surveys for the backyard sys-
tems and daily operational information gathered each working
day for each system. The daily information for each system was
processed by a specially designed computerized Data Acquisition
and Analysis Program (DAAP).
I
-------
Definition of the II Collection Systems
The collection systems selected for the study were character-
ized by differences in type of equipment, crew size, frequency
of collection, point of storage, collection methodology and incen-
tive system. Storage containers of bags and cans were prescribed
for all systems. The eleven systems are defined by specific com-
binations of the above variables and are indicated in Table 1.
These systems were chosen to determine the relative significance
of the variables listed and to assure the study results would have
the broadest possible application.
Method of Selecting the Solid Waste Collection Systems
Beginning in July 1972 a concerted telephone and letter effor!-
was made to locate candidate systems that met the requirements of
the systems as defined in Table 1. After a defined system was
located a personal visit was made to obtain a first-hand evalua-
tion of the suitability of the system for study. A list of the
agencies contacted is contained in Annex A of Volume III.
At least three suitable candidates were sought for each
defined system. It was also desired that each candidate system
have at least 10 routes. Standard information was obtained during
the personal visits to the candidate systems. This information
was provided to the Project Officer for his use in making the
actual system selection.
For an organization to be considered as a candidate system
the responsible official had to agree to keep the selected routes
as stable as possible during the year of the study effort. The
responsible official also had to agree to allow publication of
the information determined from the study effort as it applied
-------
TABLE I
DEFINITION OF SELECTED COLLECTION SYSTEMS
Co 1 1 ect i on
System
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
Type of
Equ i pment
Side Loader
S i de Loader
Side Loader
Rear Loader
Rear Loader
Rear Loader
Rear Loader
Rear Loader
Rear Loader
Rear Loader
Rear Loader
Crew
Size
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
Frequency
of
Co 1 1 ect i on
1 /week
1 /week
2/week
1 /week
1 /week
2/week
1 /week
1 /week
2/week
1 /week
1 /week
Point of
Storage
Curb-A 1 ley
Curb-A 1 ley
Curb-A 1 ley
Curb-A 1 1 ey
Curb-A 1 ley
Curb-A 1 1 ey
Curb-A 1 1 ey
Curb-A 1 ley
Curb-A 1 ley
Backyard
Backyard
Col lect 5 on
Methodol ogy
1 Side of St
1 Side of St
1 Side of St
1 Side of St
1 Side of St
1 Side of St
Both Sides
Both Sides
Both Sides
Tote-barre 1
Tote-barre 1
1 ncent i ve
System
Task System
8 hr day
Task System
Task System
8 hr day
Task System
Task System
8 hr day
Task System
Task System
8 hr day
Type of
Storage
Conta i ner
Bags & Cans
Bags & Cans
Bags & Cans
Bags & Cans
Bags & Cans
Bags & Cans
Bags & Cans
Bags & Cans
Bags & Cans
Bags & Cans
Bags & Cans
-------
to his system.
After a system had been designated the four routes that were
serviced by the most efficient or "best" crews were selected for
the detailed study. Best crews were selected to provide standards
of performance by which other similar systems could be evaluated.
Definition of A Solid Waste Collection Route
For the purpose of the collection system studies a residential
solid waste collection route was defined as the total activities
of a collection vehicle and its crew for a period of one week.
On a daily basis the activities begin with the departure of the
vehicles and its crew from the motor pool in the morning and ter-
minates with the arrival back at the motor pool at the end of
the day. The route activities, therefore, encompass the specific
operations of going to the area in which collections will be made,
collecting the solid waste from residences, transporting the col-
lected waste to a disposal point, and returning to the route and
disposal point as required and finally returning to the motor
pool. Special collections of items not normally handled by the
collection vehicle such as heavy logs, tree trunks or "white goods"
are excluded in this definition of a collection route. When col-
lection activities are considered on a day of the week basis,
this effort is simply a daily increment of the collection route.
Any reference in this report, therefore, to total hours worked
does not include time required at the motor pool at the beginning
and at the end of the day to check in and out, to check and clean
equipment or to conduct other authorized matters. All references
to crew sizes include the drivers and collectors.
General Method of Evaluating Solid Waste Collection Systems
The actual evaluation of the systems was done by using two
4
-------
independent approaches. One approach was based on information
obtained from the collection routes on a daily basis and processed
by the computerized DAAP. The other approach was based on data
obtained from the time motion studies or backyard surveys which were
conducted on a quarterly basis. A summary DAAP report for the 12
months of study and information extracted from the time motion
reports and backyard surveys are contained in this volume. The
systems analysis was based on these data. The monthly DAAP reports
and additional time motion data are provided in Volume III.
The DAAP information gathering activities and time motion
studies or backyard surveys were implemented during the first
visit to the system after its selection. The initial effort required
two weeks, during which study requirements were coordinated, the
DAAP background information was obtained, extensive descriptive
data were obtained for each system and the initial time and motion
study or backyard survey was conducted. A complete descriptive
report of each system was provided separately to the Project
Officer. Pertinent information was extracted from these descrip-
tive reports to make this final report complete, and is contained
in each of the three volumes of the report.
Pictorial Requirements
In conjunction with the time and motion studies and quarterly
visits to the locations of the II systems motion pictures were
taken to show the collection methodology and general condition of
the routes. Two rolls of 8 mm movie film were exposed on each
route during each visit. This was used to provide the Project
Officer with an edited film of approximately 15-18 minutes duration
on each of the I I systems studied.
5
-------
Brief System Descriptions
Genera I. The system descriptions provided in this volume
have been extracted from the system descriptions of Annex B of
Volume III. The information provided in this section was limited
to that which was essential for an understanding of the data
presented.
System I, Salt Lake County, Utah. The Salt Lake County Sanita-
tion Division used both 25 cubic yard side loading collection
vehicles and 20 cubic yard rear loading collection vehicles for
the residential collections. Commercial waste was not collected
by the Sanitation Division. All commercial waste was collected
by private operators. The Sanitation Division did not collect
bulky construction or bulky garden wastes.
The average age of the collection vehicles, at the time of
the study, was three years. The expected life .of the vehicles
was five years. The newer side loading vehicles were powered
with diesel engines. All other vehicles were powered with gaso-
I i ne eng i nes.
The rear loading vehicles were used primarily in the rural
and mountainous areas while the side loading vehicles were used
in the more densely populated areas. Only the four best routes
using the side loading equipment were used in this study.
Each of the four routes studied met all of the requirements
for System I, as defined. The crews worked on a task incentive
system and averaged almost 30 hours per week working compared
with a planned work week of 40 hours. An average of 410 homes
was serviced per day per crew with the average weight per home
per collection being 46.2 pounds. Each crew averaged 1.8 loads
per day. The average weight collected per crew per day was 9.4
6
-------
tons. The storage containers consisted of 34 percent bags
52 percent cans and 14 percent miscellaneous items.
System 2, Covina, California. The Covina Street and Refuse
Division used both 25 cubic yard side loading collection vehicles
and 30 cubic yard front loading collection vehicles. The side
loading vehicles were used for the residential collections and the
front loading vehicles were used for the commercial collections.
One of the side loading routes also collected from commercial
accounts, but this route was not part of this study.
The average age of the side loading vehicles, at the time
of the study, was three years. The expected life of the vehicles
was five years. All refuse collection vehicles were leased from
the Covina Equipment Division. The daily rate for the side load-
ing vehicles was $75.00. This cost included all maintenance,
depreciation and consumables.
Each of the four routes studied met all of the requirements
for System 2, as defined. The crews worked on a standard eight-
hour day incentive system and averaged almost 34 hours per week
working on collection related activities compared with a planned
work week of 40 hours. An average of 254 homes was serviced per
day per crew with the average weight per home per collection being
71.0 pounds. Each crew averaged 1.6 loads per day. The average
weight collected per crew per day was 9.0 tons. The storage con-
tainers consisted of 26 percent bags, 53 percent cans and
21 percent miscellaneous items.
System 3, Phoenix, Arizona. The Phoenix Sanitation Division
used both 33 cubic yard side loading collection vehicles and 20
cubic yard rear loading collection vehicles for its residential
collection routes. There was some mixing of light commercial
7
-------
waste with residential waste on all residential routes. Large
commercial accounts were serv'iced by City front loading vehicles
and by private collectors.
The average age of the side loading vehicles, at the time
of the study, was less than one year. The expected life of the
vehicles was five years. The Sanitation Division pays the Main-
tenance Division a fee of $0.50 per mile for the side loading
vehicles for insurance, consumables, license fees and maintenance.
Each of the four routes studied met all of the requirements
for System 3, as defined. The crews worked on a task incentive
system and averaged almost 32 hours per week working compared
with a planned work week of 40 hours. The City of Phoenix collected
on a frequency of twice a week. The collection days were Monday-
Thursday, Tuesday-Friday and Wednesday-Saturday. A personnel
rotating system was used so that the planned work week for the
crews was only 40 hours. Considering the six days of collection,
each route averaged slightly more than 38 hours per week compared
with a planned period of 48 hours. An average of 410 homes was
serviced per day per crew with the average weight per home per
collection being 28.2 pounds. Each crew averaged 1.0 loads per
day. The average weight collected per crew per day was 5.7 tons.
The storage containers consisted of 29 percent bags, 53 per-
cent cans and 18 percent miscellaneous items.
System 4, Rockford, I I Iinois. The residential collections
in the City of Rockford were performed by a private company
of Rockford under contract to the City of Rockford. The company
used 20 cubic yard rear loading collection vehicles. There was
no mixing of residential and commercial waste.
The average age of the collection vehicles, at the time of the
study, was one year. The expected life of the vehicles was seven
8
-------
years. All of the vehicles were powered with gasoline engines. All
maintenance was performed in maintenance facilities of the company.
For this study effort, only operational data were provided.
By agreement between the OSWMP and the Corporate Office of the
operating company financial information pertaining to the collection
activities would not be provided. No financial information was
obtained during the study effort.
Each of the four routes studied met all of the requirements
for System 4, as defined. The crews worked on a task incentive
system and averaged almost 36 hours per week working compared with
a planned work week of 40 hours. An average of 512 homes was servic-
ed per day per crew, with the average weight per home per collection
being 49.3 pounds. Each crew averaged 2.4 loads per day. The average
weight collected per crew per day was 12.6 tons. The storage con-
tainers consisted of 56 percent bags, 28 percent cans and 16 percent
mi see I Ianeous items.
System 5, Flint. Michigan. The Flint Waste Collection and
Disposal Division used both 25 cubic yard and 20 cubic yard rear
loading collection vehicles for its residential collection routes.
There was no mixing of residential and commercial waste.
The average age of the collection vehicles, at the time of the
study, was three years. The expected life of the vehicles was five
years. Most of the vehicles were powered with diesel engines. All
maintenance was performed at the municipal garage.
Each of the four routes studied met all the requirements for
System 5, as defined. There was no distinction between the driver
and collector, and they alternated between driving and collecting.
The crews worked on a standard eight-hour day incentive system and
averaged slightly more than 35 hours per week on collection related
-------
activities, compared with a planned work week of 40 hours. An average
of 575 homes was serviced per day per crew with the average weight
per home per collection being 50.5 pounds. Each crew averaged 1.9
loads per day. The average weight collected per crew per day was
14.5 tons. The storage containers consisted of 85 percent bags,
6 percent cans, and 9 percent miscellaneous items.
System 6. Tucson, Arizona. The Tucson Sanitation Division used
side loading collection vehicles with detachable eight cubic yard
containers and the container-train system for its residential collec-
tions. Each of these systems was supported by front loading mother
trucks of 32 cubic yards capacity. At the time of the study, the
City was in the process of converting its train system to the detach-
able container system. There was some mixing of light commercial
waste with the residential waste on all of the residential routes.
The average age of the detachable container units, at the time
of the study, was one year. The average age of the mother trucks
was two and one-half years. The expected life of the detachable
container trucks was seven years, and the expected life of the mother
trucks was five years. All vehicles were powered with gasoline
eng i nes.
The four routes studied consisted of one complete detachable
container task force in the City of Tucson. These four routes
operated in a specifically designated geographical area, and were
supported by a mother truck. The system met all of the requirements
for System 6 except the type of vehicle. The specified vehicle for
System 6 was a rear loader. No satisfactory System 6 could be found
during the survey of systems. The Tucson system was, therefore,
used as a substitute system.
For the purposes of this study, all of the waste from the four
routes was kept separate from other wastes and was weighed separately.
10
-------
This was not the normal procedure in the City.
The crew consisted of two men with no distinction between the
driver and collector. Both crewmen drove and collected. The crews
worked on a task incentive system and averaged slightly more than
23 hours per week compared with a planned work week of 32 hours
on residential collections. The frequency of collection in Tucson
was twice a week. The collection days were Monday-Thursday and
Tuesday-Friday. Wednesday was used for special non-residential
collections or for maintenance operations.
An average of 574 homes was serviced per day per crew with the
average weight per home per collection being 24.4 pounds. Two of
the four routes had a large percentage of mobile homes on them.
Each crew averaged 4.4 loads per day. The average weight collected
per crew per day was 7.0 tons. The storage containers consisted of
19 percent bags, 61 percent cans, and 20 percent miscellaneous Items.
Subsequent to the completion of the study, the sanitation
administrator reported that changes were made to add approximately
200 homes per day to the routes. With this change, the crews
averaged approximately 28 hours per week, compared with a planned 32
hours.
System 7. Warwick. Rhode Island. The Warwick Sanitation Division
used both 20 cubic yard and 16 cubic yard rear loading collection
vehicles for its residential collection routes. There was no mixing
of residential and commercial waste. All commercial waste was
collected by private operators.
The average age of the collection vehicles, at the time of the
study, was one year. The expected life of the vehicles was five
years. All of the rear loaders were powered with diesel engines.
All maintenance was performed by the Automotive Division.
1 1
-------
Each of the four routes studied met all the requirements
for System 7, as defined. The crew worked on a task incentive
system and averaged 26 hours per week working compared with a
planned work week of 40 hours. An average of 407 homes was ser-
viced per day per crew with the average weight per home per col-
lection being 62.2 pounds. One route had a high percentage of
estate type residences on it with greater distances between stops
than the typical suburban areas. Each crew averaged 2.2 loads
per day. The average weight collected per crew per day was 12.7
tons. The storage containers consisted of 56 percent bags
28 percent cans and 16 percent miscellaneous items.
System 8, Oak Park, Illinois. The Oak Park Solid Waste
Collection Section used rear loading collection vehicles with
capacities of 25, 20, 18 and 17 cubic yards. There was no mixing
of residential and commercial waste. All commercial waste was
collected by private operators.
The average age of the collection vehicles, at the time of
the study, was four years. The expected life of the vehicles
was six to seven years. All of the collection vehicles were powered
with gasoline engines. All maintenance was performed by the Main-
tenance Division.
Each of the four routes studied met all the requirements
for System 8, as defined. Approximately 98 percent of the refuse
was collected from alleys. The crews worked on a standard eight-
hour day incentive system and averaged slightly more than 39 hours
per week on collection related activities compared with a planned
work week of 40 hours. Crews collected along the route as far
as possible within the normal eight-hour day then continued from
the stopping place on the following day. An average of 306 homes
12
-------
was serviced per day per crew with the average weight per home
per collection being 64.9 pounds. Each crew averaged 1.6 loads
per day. The average weight collected per crew per day was 9.7
tons. The storage containers consisted of 25 percent bags,
47 percent cans and 28 percent miscellaneous items.
System 9, Metropolitan Dade County, Florida. The Metro-Dade
County Waste Division used both 25 cubic yard and 20 cubic yard
rear loading collection vehicles for its residential collection
routes. There was some mixing of light commercial waste with
the residential waste on all of the routes.
The average age of the collection vehicles, at the time of
the study, was four years. The expected life of the vehicles
was seven years. Most of the vehicles were powered with gasoline
engines; however, all of the newer vehicles were powered by diesel
engines. All maintenance was performed in the County maintenance
shops.
Each of the four routes studied met all the requirements
for System 9, as defined. The crews worked on a task incentive
system and averaged slightly more than 25 hours per week working
compared with a planned work week of 40 hours. Metro-Dade County
collects on a frequency of twice a week. The collection days were
Monday-Thursday and Tuesday-Friday. No collections were made
on Wednesday. The normal collection day was considered to be
10 hours. An average of 854 homes was serviced per day per crew
with the average weight per home per collection being 33.1 pounds.
Each crew averaged 2.3 loads per day. The average weight collected
per crew per day was 14.1 tons. The storage containers con-
sisted of 46 percent bags, 41 percent cans and 13 percent mlscel-
Ianeous i terns.
13
-------
System 10, San Leandro, California. The City of San Leandro
used 20 cubic yard rear loading collection vehicles for its resi-
dential collection routes. There was some mixing of light commer-
cial waste with the residential waste on all of the routes. •
The average age of the collection vehicles, at the time of
the study, was two years. The expected life of the vehicles was
seven years. Approximately one-half of the vehicles were powered
with gasoline engines. The other half of the vehicles were powered
by diesel engines. All maintenance was performed by the City
Maintenance Division.
Each of the four routes studied met all the requirements
for System 10, as defined. This was a backyard system1. The crew
size was two men. There was no distinction between the driver
and collector, and they alternated the driving. The crews worked
on a task incentive system and averaged slightly more than 31
hours per week working compared with a planned work week of 40
hours. An average of 364 homes was serviced per day per crew
with the average weight per home per collection being 33.9 pounds.
Each crew averaged one load per day. The average weight collected
per crew per day was 6.2 tons. The storage containers con-
sisted of 2 percent bags, 96 percent cans and 2 percent miscel-
laneous items.
System II, Racine. Wisconsin. The Racine Solid Waste Collec-
tion Division used rear loading collection vehicles with capacities
of 20, 16 and 13 cubic yards for its residential collection routes.
There was some mixing of light commercial waste with the residentia
waste on all of the routes.
The average age of the collection vehicles, at the time of
the study, was eight years. The expected life of the vehicles
14
-------
was 10 years. The newer 20 cubic yard vehicles were powered with
diesel engines. The other vehicles were powered with gasoline
engines. All maintenance was performed by the Equipment Maintenance
Division.
Each of the four routes studied met all the requirements
for System II. While this was considered a backyard system, approxi-
mately one-third of the collections were made from the curb or
alleys. The crew size was two men. There was no distinction
between the driver and collector, and they alternated the driving.
The crews worked on a standard eight-hour incentive system and
averaged almost 35 hours per week on collection related activities
compared with a planned work week of 40 hours. An average of
243 homes was serviced per day per crew with the average weight
per home per collection being 51.1 pounds. Each crew averaged
1.9 loads per day. The average weight collected per crew per
day was 6.2 tons. The storage containers consisted of 33
percent bags, 55 percent cans and 12 percent miscellaneous items.
How Representative Are The Systems Chosen
There is great variability in the conduct of residential
collection operations across the country. This variability takes
many forms. There may be public and private collection operations.
Within each of these sectors there may be union or non-union
organizations. Within the collecting organization there may be
differences in the operating parameters such as the kind of collec-
tion equipment that is used, the size of the crew, the frequency
of collection, the residential storage point, the collection method-
ology, the incentive system and the kind of storage containers
that are used. There are additional factors that have an impact
on the collection operation. These may include the climate of
15
-------
the geographical area, the affluence of the area, the amount and
type of waste generated, the housing densities, the types of struc-
tures (single or mu11i-famiIy ), the distance to the disposal site
and any queuing that might exist at the disposal site, the local
ordinances or rules and regulations and the personnel administra-
tion policies and pay scales. This is not an all inclusive list
but does indicate most of the factors that can influence a resi-
dential collection operation.
In conceiving this study the OSWMP desired to obtain reliable
information on those facets of a collection operation that appeared
to have the greatest impact on the productivity and efficiency
of various systems. In addition, it was desired to obtain quanti-
fied measures of productivity and efficiency from the best operat-
ing systems that could be reasonably found. The maximum amount
of information was desired from what was considered to be a reason-
able sample size. Accordingly, the system definitions of Table 1
evolved.
The definitions of Table 1 provide varied combinations
of type of equipment, crew size, collection frequency, point of
storage, col led ion methodology and incentive system. Bags and
cans were prescribed as the storage container for all systems.
At the time the systems were defined it was not known whether
all of the systems existed in practice. However, it was believed
that there was a good probability that the systems could be found;
and if they could be found, the matrix of factors would permit
an evaluation of the significance of those factors.
A concerted effort was made to locate the systems, as defined..
To obtain the initial information regarding candidate systems
the following agencies were contacted: the solid waste manageme.n/tt
16
-------
representative of all EPA regions, the solid waste management
agencies of the 48 states, the American Public Works Association,
the National Solid Waste Management Association and the major
collection vehicle manufacturers. In addition, phone calls were
made directly to cities and counties to obtain desired information
concerning their residential collection systems. The agencies
that responded to this effort are listed in Annex A of Volume III.
All recommended systems were contacted by telephone. In addition,
a separate telephone survey was conducted to locate suitable sys-
tems. Information was received from 299 organizations and 69
organizations were actually visited to make a first-hand evaluation
of the system.
For the purposes of the study it was desired to study the
most productive and most efficient systems that could be found
and that met the prescribed definitions. It was hoped that the
"best" systems would also provide a reasonable geographical dis-
tribution to make the results more generally applicable.
The results of the systems search provided a reasonable number
of candidate systems except for Systems 2, 6 and II. The system
that was finally chosen for study was considered to be the most
productive and efficient of the systems that were known at the
t i me of seIect ion.
Only one candidate for System 2 was discovered and that was
in Covina, California. This system was selected for study.
No suitable candidates for the defined System 6 were discovered
during the systems search; therefore, a substitute system was
used that met all the requirements except for the type of equip-
ment. The system finally selected was in the City of Tucson,
Arizona. This city used side loading collection vehicles with
detachable eight cubic yard containers. All other system
17
-------
parameters met those prescribed for System 6.
Only one suitable candidate was discovered for System II,
and that was in Racine, Wisconsin. This system was selected for
study.
At the time the specific systems were selected for study
the best system was chosen. No further consideration was given
to other systems that net the defined parameters after a speci-
fic system was selected. There may be other systems in the
country that are more productive or more efficient than the sys-
tems that were finally selected for study. They were unknown
at the time of the system selection and are unknown at this time.
The possibility that there is somewhere a system which is mar-
ginally more productive than the systems used in the study does
not invalidate the study results or conclusions in any way. The
results of the study, as presented in this final report, provide
reasonable productivity and efficiency goals for comparison pur-
poses. These results will also provide solid waste managers with
a valid estimate of what can be expected if a change in system
operation is contemplated.
I 8
-------
SECTION I I
PRESENTATION OF STUDY DATA
Data Acqu i s i t i on
As already mentioned, two kinds of data were obtained during
the study effort. The daily collection route information was
obtained from each route of each system for each day of operation
during the study period. Data were recorded on the form of
Figure 1. This information was processed on a monthly basis.
by the DAAP computer program. In addition, all of the data for
each route and for each system were processed to provide a summary
report for the entire year of the system studies. A description
of the DAAP reports is provided in Appendix I. The monthly reports
are provided in Annex C of Volume III. The yearly summary report
is provided as Appendix 2. The yearly DAAP summary report pro-
vides the basis for the analysis made in this report.
The time motion or backyard survey data were obtained on
a quarterly basis. Once each quarter each curb or alley system
was visited and a time motion team spent one entire day with each
route that was being studied. Data were recorded on the forms
of Figures 2 and 3. These data were processed by a specially
designed computer program to generate time motion reports. The
fourth quarter and summary time motion reports for each system
are provided by Appendix 3. Detailed information pertaining
to the conduct of the time motion studies is provided by Annex D
of VoIume III.
During the quarterly visits to the backyard systems a back-
yard survey was made. Again, one entire day was spent with each
19
-------
ROUTE..
FIGURE 1
DAILY COLLECTION ROUTE INFORMATION
DATE DAY : CREW SIZE.
VEHICLE NO,
SIZE(CU,YD,).
_FUEL(GAL).
ENG.OIL(QT).
NO, HOMFS SFRVFD
LEAVE MOTOR POOL
START COLLECTION
LEAVE ROUTE
AT DISCHARGE POINT
ARRIVE BACK ON ROUTE
LEAVE ROUTE
AT DISCHARGE POINT
ARRIVE BACK ON ROUTE
LEAVE ROUTE
AT DISCHARGE POINT
ARRIVE BACK ON ROUTE
LEAVE ROUTE
AT DISCHARGE POINT
ARRIVE BACK ON ROUTE
LEAVE ROUTE
AT DISCHARGE POINT
ARRIVE AT MOTOR POOL
TIME
i$i>S:?:¥i:i?^3S
Si-i'SS'i'i'i'i'ftiSJS:
MILES
lill^SSS-iS
WEIGHT
v>X;X;XvX;X£XvX;X;
DISCHARGE
POINT *
*
illi;;;;!:^^
siSjij
:::?:;:i:;:?:;:;:|i:£
f
f
SS:;:;;;:;^^
LUNCH - START
- FINISH
BREAKDOWN - START
- FINISH
BREAKDOWN " PROBLEM
(C.\ rr 1 R Number)
1 Brakes , wheel s,ti res
2 Coo 1 i ng or exhausv sys
3 Electr ica 1 sys
4 Fuel sys
5 Packer
6 Power or s.t.ee r i nj sys
7 Other ' •'•
ENTER NUMBER
1=INCINERATOR
2=LANDFILL
3=TRANSFER STATION
REMARKS:
DATA VERIFIED BY:.
20
-------
• FIGURE 2
CURB COLLECTION CONTROL SHEET
ryn nnnuCTCo i TOT
BEGIN DDOMETERl DAI
SERVICES'!
p
21
3l
4i
5 1
6 I
7 1
8'
9!
10 1
11 i
12'-
13
14 '
15 .
16
17
IB
19 !
20 '
21 .
22-
23 '
24 '•
25
26
27 •
28'
29 .
30
31
32
33 ,
34
31
3fi
31
38
39
TOTAL
AVERAGES
DWELLING)
UNITS!
AL DISTAN
Fl
C S-ITEMS|B
R =
r.r\ NO.I
M
NR =
PATH
R-K-nist
R WTS ' T
======
T"tll Timoe
Drlv!na= .
W«l + lng = ___
Col lect.=
Other=
21
-------
FIGURE 3
COLLECTOR ACTIVITY RECORDl
COLLECTOR |.
BATE I
TOTAL ELAPSED TIHEl.
OTHER TIMEl
NO. I.
DATA BY I
ROtKE DISTANCE I.
SERVICES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7!
B
9
10!
11
12:
13
14
15 ,
16
171
IB :
19
20;
21'.
22'
23 i
24 i
25'
26 '
27 •
28;
29 i
30
TOTALS.
AVERAGES
SIDE 0
STREET
.
.
F|
c
<)"
T
3_ .
"Sb
.
M
1 D ••
- —
TIMES,
RIDING
WALKING1
WAITING'
COMPACTION
1 1
COMMENTS !
. .
Other Tim*
22
-------
route of the system. This backyard survey consisted of measuring
the perpendicular distance from the curb to the storage point
and the number of containers by type for each service surveyed.
These data were recorded on the form of Figure 4. The data
were processed manually to provide a comparison between the DAAP
data and data derived by applying the survey results to a
regression equation that was provided by OSWMP. Detailed infor-
mation pertaining to the conduct of the backyard survey is pro-
vided by Annex D of Volume III. Summary backyard survey reports
are provided by Appendix 3.
DAAP Standard Data
The DAAP computer program was designed to facilitate the
analysis of the daily collection route data that were obtained
from the study effort. In order to eliminate the local cost
differences that existed among the various systems being studied,
standard costs were used. Costs for services being performed would
then be primarily a function of the operation performance.
Insofar as possible, the standard costs that were used were the
average costs for all of the systems and were as follows:
Initial Cost of Vehicles
Capacity (cu yds) Side Loader Rear Loader
I 3 • $15,900
'6 $16,700
'8 $17,000
20 $22,700
25 $23,900 $23,900
33 $30,000
Detachable Container $28,100
Vehicle plus 1/4 cost of
Mother truck.
23
-------
FIGURE 4
STORAGE LOCATION SURVEY FORM
SERVICES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DWELLING
UNITS
DISTANCE
ITEMS
24
COMMENTS
-------
Deprec iation
The depreciation period is five years.
Maintenance Cost Per Year
Maintenance cost (first year) - .055 X initial cost of vehicle.
Consumable Costs
Fuel $0.17 per gallon. Engine oil $0.23 per quart.
Insurance and Fees
The yearly cost of insurance and fees is $1,200 per vehicle. The
effective cost of insurance for one detachable container route
(including mother truck) is $1,500 per year.
Salaries (dollars per hour)
Driver $4.34. Collectors $4.15. The effective cost of the detach-
able container crew (including mother truck driver) is $4.93 and $4.73
for the driver and collector respectively.
Fr i nge Benef its
Fringe benefits are 18.3 percent of salary.
Personnel Overhead
Personnel overhead is 13.1 percent of salary.
Overtime Factor
Overtime factor of 1.5 for drivers and collectors.
The daily cost of depreciation, maintenance and insurance
and fees is a function of the number of normal work days for each
of the systems. The number of normal work days that was used in
the program for each of the systems is listed below:
System Number of Work Days
I 260
2 255
3 310
4 261
25
-------
System Number of Work Days
5 261
6 208
7 260
8 252
9 207
10 255
I I 260
In determining the cost of equipment the 1972 replacement
cost was used as the standard. Where 1972 equipment was being
used in conjunction with the system studies this cost was used.
No problems were encountered with the costs of the side loading
equipment. There was a considerable range of costs associated
with the rear loading equipment depending on whether the equip-
ment was designed for medium or heavy duty packing and depending
on the chassis and packer make. Average costs were determined
for medium duty packing equipment, and these were used.
There was a wide variation in the maintenance costs reported
by the participating agencies. Looking at the reported maintenance
costs for the first yearly increment of equipment use and comparing
these with the reported purchase price indicated a maintenance
cost of between five and eight percent. The yearly maintenance
costs were averaged and converted to a percent. The value of five
and one-half percent was used.
The average of the reported fuel and engine oil unit costs,
salaries, fringe benefits and personnel overhead rates was used.
Personnel overhead included all supervisory personnel and other
support personnel that were directly related to the collection
operat i on.
26
-------
Presentation of Selected Items from
the DAAP and Time Motion Reports
To simplify the presentation and understanding of the study
data, items of key interest and importance have been extracted from
the DAAP and time motion reports. These items are provided in tables
and graphs in this section. In each case, system averages are pro-
vided for the period.
In Tables 2 through 12, selected performance data are provided
by system on a monthly basis. These data include tons collected per
day, homes served per day, collection miles per day, number of one-way
3
items per home, number of two-way items per home, collection hours per
day, transport hours per day, loads per day, pounds per home per
collection, minute-s per home per collection, homes served per collec-
tion hour, collection cost per home per week, total cost per home per
week and the cost per ton. Table 13 provides the yearly averages for
the same items by system.
The seasonal solid waste generation rates for each system, in
terms of pounds per home per week, are presented in Table 14. The
seasonal tons collected per crew per day for each system are presented
in Tab Ie 15.
Graphs of the information of Tables 14 and 15 are shown in
Figures 5 through 15. Each graph contains two sets of data using
two different scales. One scale is in tons per crew per day. The
other scale is in pounds per home per week.
Figures 16 through 18 show the average number of homes served
per week, the average weight per home per week, and the average total
weight collected per day by system in bar graphs.
27
-------
TABLE 2
SELECTED DATA
SYSTEM NUMBER I, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH
I man crew
25 cubic yard side loaders
One collection per week at curb/alley,
collect one side of the street
Task incentive
.c
•1-
c
0
s
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
Ava .
>
ID
a
•^
in
c
O
1-
7.35
7.49
8.99
9.43
1 .33
0.76
0.73
1 .30
9.78
8.93
9.25
7.88
9.44
>-
ID
0
>•.
(A
»
ID
O
^
in
0)
—
—
S.
•
_
—
O
O
12.0
9.7
10.0
9.4
10.8
10.6
9.3
8.9
10.5
10.9
1 1 .5
12.3
10.5
^
U)
E
0)
+•
—
>•
ID
3
1
~~
46
46
47
47
47
54
54
54
46
46
46
46
48
»
l/>
E
0)
+•
—
>-
ID
5
1
CM
54
54
53
53
53
46
46
46
54
54
54
54
52
>-
ID
O
>».
in
i_
x
__
_
O
O
3.94
3.29
3.41
3.55
4.44
3.83
3.34
3.81
4.04
3.99
4.03
4.24
3.83
>>
ID
O
»^
in
i_
x
ID
a
•»»»
V)
•o
ID
O
_l
1 .6
1 .5
1 .7
1 .8
2.0
1 .9
1 .9
2.0
1 .9
1 .8
1 .7
1 .5
1 .8
—
—
0
0
*-»
0)
E
O
X
-^
(A
.a
_i
36.3
37.0
43.2
46.5
55.7
52.3
52.3
55.2
47.6
44. 1
44.9
38.8
46.2
—
—
0
0
>^
»
•1-
«n
O
o
10.66
10.51
8.73
8.32
6.94
7.28
7.27
6.85
8.03
8.79
8.48
9.96
8.29
o
D
* From Time Motion Studies
-------
TABLE 3
SELECTED DATA
SYSTEM NUMBER 2, COVINA, CALIFORNIA
I man crew
25 cubic yard side loaders
One collection per week at curb/alley,
one side of the street
8 hour day
-C
+-
C
O
s.
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
0
>-
to
0
\
in
c
0
1-
7.87
8.98
9.25
9.41
10.07
9.51
10.32
9.93
8.50
8.38
8.40
8.06
A.o.j 9-°0
>~
ro
Q
^
ui
0)
E
O
I
249
246
248
244
249
244
259
320
245
251
247
253
-254
>-
ro
Q
^x
irt
0)
._
S
__
_
O
0
6.5
6.8
5.9
5.5
6.2
5.3
6. 1
5.2
5.8
6.3
7.6
6.0
6.1
*
o>
E
O
I
\
to
E
0)
+-
>•
ro
3
•—
41
41
46
46
46
48
48
48
53
53
53
41
47
*
0)
E
0
I
•v.
(/)
E
0)
•f-
>
ro
2
1
CN
59
59
54
54
54
52
52
52
47
47
47
59
53
>
(0
0
^,
in
i_
I
_
__
0
O
4.21
4.06
4.05
4.75
4.89
4.81
4.78
4.69
4.74
4.74
4.31
4.70
4.56
>~
(0
Q
•^
in
i_
i
in
c:
to
i_
h-
1 .75
1 .82
1 .88
2. 18
2.04
2. 18
2. 15
2.26
1 .90
2.05
1 .95
2.09
2.01
>-
(0
Q
•v.
I/)
•o
ID
O
_l
1 .5
1 .5
1 .5
1 .7
1 .8
1 .8
1 .8
1 .7
1 .6
1 .6
1 .5
1 .6
1 .6
_
—
o
CJ
•^
0)
E
0
I
-^
i/l
_a
_i
63.2
73.0
74.7
77.2
80.9
78.0
80.2
66. 1
69.4
66.9
68.0
63.8
71 .0
...
—
o
0
\
0)
E
0
I
•""N.
C
•—
2:
1 .01
.99
.98
1.17
1.18
1.18
1.12
.93
1.16
1.13
1 .05
1.12
1 .08
!_
I
\
—
—
O
o
\
1/1
-------
IMbLt 4
SELECTED DATA
SYSTEM NUMBER 3, PHOENIX, ARIZONA
I man crew
33 cubic yard side loaders
Two collections per week at curb/alley,
one side of the street
Task i ncent i ve
-
.c
+•
c
O
2
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
1 S
0
N
t ;
' -3 •
-
>•
ro
o
~>.
i/>
c
O
1—
4.99
5.33
6.34
6.72
6.43
5.91
6.41
5.75
5.33
5. 15
5.09
5.1 1
>.
ID
O
•>»
in
0
E
O
X
395
390
404
414
415
417
422
415
4f5
414
410
4-10
i. 7ij i;C
>-
(0
Q
\
(/)
0)
^_
.—
S.
•
—
—
o
0
1 0.7
12.1
13.7
13.7
13.4
1 5.4
1 5.8
14.5
15.0
12.6
13.6
14.5
'-'•7 \
*
0)
E
0
X
\
I/I
E
0)
-H
>-
ID
S
1
*—
55
55
43
43
43
42
42
42
46
46
46
55
6.-T
*
(U
E
0
X
\
in
E
0)
+-
>~
to
S
1
(N
45
45
57
57
57
58
58
58
54
54
54
45
— i
>»
ID
Q
\
in
i_
x
—
—
o
0
4.35
4.51
4.73
5.32
5.36
5.25
5.45
5.02
4.64
4.78
4.46
4.58
>-
m
o
^.
M
i_
X
in
c
(D
l_
1—
1.15
1 .06
1 .04
.92
1 .09
1 .09
1 .09
1 . 10
1 .08
1 .07
1 .04
1.13
-'.63 j i . C ~ !
>-
ID
Q
^
I/I
-o
(O
O
_J
1 .0
1 .0
1 .0
1 .0
1 .0
1 .0
1 .0
1 .0
1 .0
1 .0
1 .0
1 . 1
. .0
—
—
0
o
\
E
O
X
91.2
86.7
85.5
78.0
77.4
79.4
78. 1
82.9
90.2
86.8
92.2
891. 4
B4.2
J£
2
—
0)
E
0
X
^s.
+-
in
O
o
—
—
0
0
0.28
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
O.ZC
JC
3
\
a>
E
O
X
^
+•
l/>
o
o
1 5.56
14.87
1 2.22
1 1 .47
12.05
12.94
12.05
13.36
14.53
15.00
15.35
i 5. 1 0
13. A&
c
O
1—
--^
•H
m
0
CJ
0.39
0.40
0.38
0.37
0.37
0.36
0.36
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
C.37 f
rom Ti-Pis Motion Sturfie-s
-------
TABLE 5
SELECTED DATA
SYSTEM NUMBER 4, ROCKFORD, ILLINOIS
2 man crew
20 cubic yard rear loader
One col lection per week, curb and al ley,
one side of the street
Task i ncent i ve
.c
+-
c
O
2
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
f- /T.
>*
(O
in
c.
0
I—
9.72
9.09
1 1 .42
13.92
16.25
15.99
13.50
13.60
13.02
9.55
12.62
>-
ID
O
in
0)
E
0
X
501
504
507
516
525
522
517
510
518
504
512
>>
ID
^
in
«
™"~
O
o
in
0)
O
x
114.6
135.2
135.6
102.2
96. 1
101 .6
106.3
94. 1
98.9
109.6
107.0
3
-------
IMOLt O
SELECTED DATA
SYSTEM NUMBER 5, FLINT, MICHIGAN
2 man crew
25 cubic yard rear loader
One collection per week, curb and alley,
one side of the street
8 hour day
.J_
c
O
s
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
i. •',"•
to
Q
Ul
c
o
h-
13.15
1 2.47
16.15
15.55
17.41
12.69
15.27
15.03
15.27
13,23
14.49
(O
Q
(/I
0)
E
O
X
566
560
609
564
576
539
676
539
579
568
5J 5
>••
ro
Q
Ul
o
X
»-
T^
U)
O
O
—
o
o
. 1 6
. 1 6
. 1 6
. 16
. 1 5
. 15
. 13
. 16
. 15
.17
.15
^
-------
TABLE 7
SELECTED DATA
SYSTEM NUMBER 6, TUCSON, ARIZONA
2 man crew
8 cubic yard detachable containers
Two collections per week, curb and alley,
one side of the street
Task i ncent i ve
•t-
c
O
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
(• //] .
ID
Q
in
c
O
1-
6.25
7.06
6o62
7.25
6.83
6.90
7.91
6.96
7.09
6.53
6.55
7.71
6.96
X
>-
ID
Q
*^-
l/)
0>
E
O
T.
57 1
575
574
576
574
569
573
578
578
565
572
579
574
>.
ID
Q
in
o>
._
^-
_
^_
O
o
1 9.5
20.6
20.8
20.9
19.5
21 .3
22.8
20. 1
21 .0
19.5
19.8
20.2
20.5
CD
E
O
•X.
E
Q)
•1—
CO
^
1
*~
39
39
39
40
40
40
40
40
40
37
37
37
39
*
0)
E
0
^1
i/l
E
0)
ii
ID
3
1
CM
61
61
61
60
60
60
60
60
60
63
63
63
61
ID
0
I/I
VI
l_
1
—
—
O
O
3.99
4.23
3.92
4.26
3.99
4.27
4.23
4. 17
4.44
4.29
3.62
4.43
4. 14
CO
Q
i/)
1.
VI
c
ID
l-
1—
1 .35
1 .26
1 .27
1 .31
1 .23
1 .34
1 .40
1 .71
1 .57
1 .59
1 .37
1 .24
1 .38
ID
Q
in
CO
O
4. 1
4.4
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.7
4.7
4.3
4.4
4.2
4.2
4.8
4.4
o
0
0)
E
^
JD
21 .7
24.7
23.2
25.2
24. 1
24.4
27.7
•24. 1
24.6
23.2
23.0
26.8
24.4
0
o
(D
E
o
^.
"^
"
.43
.44
.41
.45
.42
.45
.44
.44
.46
.46
.38
.46
.44
^
i.
^~
o
o
i/)
0)
£
T~
1 43.0
135.7
146.7
135.2
144.0
134.0
135.5
140.0
130.4
1 32.5
159.3
131 . 1
138.4
3
0)
E
O
^
+-
in
O
0
_
f —
O
O
. 1 9
.20
. 19
. 19
. 19
. 19
. 19
. 18
. 19
. 18
. 18
.20
. 19
3
0)
E
O
^.
•"•»
+-
in
o
O
.51
.52
.52
.50
.50
.52
.50
.52
.51
.51
.50
.51
.51
c
O
1-
*••»
t)
O
o
23.67
21 .42
22.63
20. 12
21 .32
21 .50
18.38
22.38
20.99
22.53
22. 17
19.13
21.15
*From Time Motion Studies
-------
TABLE 8
SELECTED DATA
SYSTEM NUMBER 7, WARWICK, RHODE ISLAND
3 man crew
20 cubic yard rear loaders
One collection per week, curb and alley,
both sides of street
Task i ncent i ve
SL
-1-
c
O
•»•
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
£''<}..
>
ID
O
^x
-
ID
o
^
in
•
ID
Q
^
I/I
0)
—
•—
•s.
^
M
o
o
10.6
10.4
10.3
10. 1
10.5
10.5
10.4
10.3
10.6
10.6
1 1 . 1
10.7
10.5
' . *
(D
E
0
I
\
U>
E
0)
•»-
—
>»
10
2
1
• —
82
82
63
63
63
69
69
69
76
76
76
82
72
• *
0)
E
O
I
1 —
in
E
0)
+•
—
>-
ID
S
1
CM
18
18
37
37
37
31
31
31
24
24
24
18
28
>•
ID
Q
*v.
in
i_
1
—
—
O
0
3.49
3.32
3.50
3.92
4.12
4. 1 1
4. 17
4.00
3.87
4.02
4.50
3.82
3.91
>-
ID
Q
^
in
Jt-
in
c
ID
!_
t-
.82
.84
.89
1 .03
1 . 10
1 . 10
1 . 1 1
1 .02
.95
1 .04
1 .57
1.12
1 .05
>-
ID
O
\
in
TJ
ID
o
_l
2. 1
1 .9
2. 1
2.3
2.3
2.2
2. 1
2.1
2. 1
2.2
3.0
2.2
2.2
— .
—
0
0
\
0}
E
O
32
^
10
jQ
_l
50. 1
46.4
56.7
63.6
70.4
64.0
70.6
62.2
59.8
59.6
85.8
56.3
62.4
—
—
0
o
»^
0)
E
O
I
^»
c
.—
S
.50
.48
.51
.57
.60
.60
.69
.60
.57
.59
.65
.56
.58
i_
i
\
—
—
0
0
'"v
in
0)
E
O
I
1 19. 1
125. 1
117.6
106.4
101 .0
99.6
87.6
100.8
106.9
102.3
92.5
108.4
104.5
J£
3
\
0)
E
0
I
\
+-
«
0
0
—
«—
o
o
.30
.30
.30
.30
.30
.30
.34
.31
.31
.30
.28
.29
.30
JC
3
^
0)
E
O
n:
^
-f-
U1
O
O
.38
.38
.39
.38
.38
.39
.44
.40
.39
.39
.38
.39
.39
P
o
i-
-~v
-t-
in
O
0
15 .65
16.94
14.05
12.30
11.17
12.40
12.73
13.02
13.30
13.39
9. 1 1
14.06
12.82
* From Time Motion Studies
-------
TABLE 9
SELECTED DATA
SYSTEM NUMBER 8, OAK PARK, ILLINOIS
3 man crew
25 cubic yard rear loaders
One collection per week, alley only,
both sides
8 hour day
r-
C
O
5.
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
f- vq .
Q
U}
c
0
h-
8.70
7.34
8.94
10.46
1 1 .32
1 1 .44
10.33
10.57
10.17
10.26
9.53
7.48
9.72
(U
v^
in
0)
E
O
I
307
307
305
310
303
305
31 1
305
305
307
307
304
306
(0
a
in
>-*
(0 0)
•3. E
l O
— I
59
50
50
50
50
50
50
52
52
52
59
59
53
-v.
E
-*
(0 0)
-3. E
I O
CM I
41
50
50
50
50
50
50
48
48
48
41
41
47
ro
a
U)
IE
—
0
o
4.75
4 .64
4.77
4.78
4.95
5.19
5.16
5.03
4.85
4.90
4.67
4.89
4.88
(Q
Q
•^
in
I
in
c
ID
t-
2.56
2.52
2.58
2.42
2.58
2.54
2.40
2.51
2.59
2.52
2.48
2.27
2.50
T3
(D
O
1 .6
1 .4
1 .5
1 .6
1 .7
1 .7
1 .6
1 .7
1 .6
1 .6
1 .5
1 .5
1 .6
o
o
0
E
O
X
1 —
in
57.9
48.8
59.6
68.8
76.0
76.9
68.4
71 .0
67.8
68.3
63.0
50.5
64.9
o
o
<0
E
O
I
""*»
c
.95
.93
.96
.95
1 .01
1 .04
1 .02
1 .01
.97
.99
.93
.99
.98
=
™~
o
o
-•-
{ft
-------
TABLE 10
SELECTED DATA
SYSTEM NUMBER 9, METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
3 man crew
20 cubic yard rear loaders
Task incentive
Two collections per week, curb and alley
and both sides of the street
LA!
cn
i
'
4
<-.
.c
+-
c
O
S
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
'
>-
<0
Q
\
Ul
C
O
\-
13.86
12.92
13.59
13.48
>^
10
0
^s.
10
CU
E
O
I
853
853
853
854
13.90 854
14.49
16.46
14.15
14.24
. '. 't
3.82
13.61
14.62
..-. !J-'°
853
855
853
853
K
855
854
852
854
•
>-
(0
Q
^
Ifl
0
.
S
—
_—
O
O
10.0
9.6
10. 1
10.2
10.0
10. 1
9.8
1 1 .5
1 1 .7
10.7
10.4
10.3
1 0.4
— — _- i.
*
0)
E
0
X
^v
m
E
0>
-(-
>•
ID
S
1
•—
56
61
61
61
60
60
60
58
58
• f
58
56
56
r?
Q)
E
0
X
1 —
V)
E
(O
3
1
CM
44
39
39
39
40
40
40
42
42
42
44
44
41
>
ro
Q
^.
in
!_
X
—
—
O
0
4.30
3.88
4.20
4.21
4.29
4.82
4.85
4.52
4.51
4.28
4.06
4.60
4.38
>-
ID
a
^>.
in
i_
X
(/)
c
(O
l_
I—
1 .52
1 .49
1 .50
1 .58
1 .44
1 .60
1 .79
1 .62
1 .54
1 .49
1 .45
1 .60
1 .55
t
>-
IO
O
-•».
in
•o
10
O
_i
2.3
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.5
2.3
«•">- - Wf ,J: i, — 1 . „,
__
—
0
CJ
—
0)
E
0
X
•^.
in
.a
_i
32.5
30.3
31 .9
31 .6
32.6
34.0
38.5
33.2
33.4
32.3
31 .9
34.3
33. 1
__
—
o
o
*v.
CD
E
O
X
^
c
.—
S
.31
.28
.30
.30
.31
.34
.34
.32
.32
.30
.29
.33
.31
i_
X
~>»
—
—
o
o
\
U)
CD
E
0
X
204.9
226.9
210.7
209.9
207.0
180.4
179. 1
96.2
93.8
204.3
220.2
90.6
00.5
• —
0)
E
O
X
-^
•4-
in
0
0
—
—
O -*
0 S
. 17
. 16
. 1 7
. 17
. 17
. 17
. 17
. 17
. 17
. 17
. 17
. 17
. 1 7
JC •
2
-v.
-------
TABLE 11
SELECTED DATA
SYSTEM NUMBER 10, SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA
2 man crew
20 cubic yard rear loaders
Tas k i ncent i ve
One col lection per week
Backyard service, both sides of the street
JC
-t-
^
O
2
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
A -/a.
>.
(0
a
^
i/i
^
o
i-
5.96
6. 19
6.08
6. 17
6.28
6.02
6.09
6.47
6.35
6.21
6.33
6.01
6. 18
>-
(0
a
^
in
(D
£
O
:n
362
361
358
361
361
361
361
377
374
375
361
360
364
>-
(0
o
\
in
0)
t ,_
S
_
O
o
7. 1
7. 1
6.9
8.4
7. 1
6.9
7.3
6.3
5.7
6.0
7.0
6.6
6.9
*
0)
E
O
X
~^
-
ID
3
1
6
2
2
2
3
3
3
6
6
6
6
6
4
*
0)
E
O
X
^
U)
E
0)
+-
>•
ra
3
1
CM
94
98
98
98
97
97
97
94
94
94
94
94
" 96
>-
(O
O
^
tn
i_
X
— —
O
o
5.05
5.14
4.89
4 .94
4.94
5.02
5.00
5.16
5.08
5.12
5.22
5.10
5.06
>
ID
o
^
(ft
1_
n:
i/i
c
(D
l_
t—
.95
.95
1 .07
1 .08
1 .07
1 .04
1 .04
.88
.94
.99
.91
.88
.98
>-
(D
0
•«N.
I/)
T3
ID
O
_l
1 .0
1 .0
1 .0
1 .0
1 .0
1 .0
1 .0
1 .0
1 .0
1 .0
1 .0
1 .0
1 .0
—
—
o
o
\
0)
E
O
X
•^
in
.a
_j
32.9
34.3
34.0
34.2
34.9
33.3
33.7
34.4
34. 1
33.2
35. 1
53.4
33.9
^~
—
o
o
^
(D
E
O
X
^^
c
s:
.84
.85
.82
.82
.82
.83
.83
.82
.82
.82
.87
.85
.83
L_
X
*^
^~
^~
o
o
\
in
-------
TABLE 12
SELECTED DATA
SYSTEM NUMBER II, RACINE, WISCONSIN
2 man crew
16 and 20 cubic yard rear loaders
One collection per week
Backyard service using tote barrel
8 hour day
W
a>
1
MMMHMMM
.C
+-
c
O
s
J
F
M
*
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D.
•- i~. .
>•
(0
a
>^
in
c
O
1-
5.11
4.58
5.50
6.44
7.83
7.71
6.8!
6.63
6.81
6.21
6. 17
4.84
6. 18
' "
>-
10
a
•v.
-
ID
a
• —
in
0)
._
S
—
O
0
6.9
6.3
5.7
6.2
6. 1
6.9
7.0
8.0
6.4
5.5
6.5
6,6
6.6
*
0)
E
O
X
^
in
E
Q)
•4-
>-
(Q
3
•—
41
41
41
51
51
51
48
48
48
40
40
40
45
*
-
CO
S
(VJ
59
59
59
49
49
49
52
52
52
60
60
60
55
>-
(O
o
\
in
i_
X
—
—
o
o
5.47
5.43
5.52
5.31
5.43
5.48
5.61
5.56
5.42
5.43
5.50
5.45
5.47
>-
10
O
^
01
1_
X
in
c
10
i_
t-
1.19
1.19
1 . 1 1
1 .37
1 .27
1 .33
1 .26
1 .22
1 .30
1 .34
1 .20
1 .31
1 .25
>-
CD
a
'x.
ID
T3
(O
O
_l
1 .9
1 .8
1 .8
1 .8
2.0
2.0
1 .9
1 .9
1 .9
1 .9
2.0
1 .9
1 .9
—
_
o
0
-v.
a>
E
O
X
*x.
in
JD
_i
42.2
37.4
44.9
52.9
63.7
65.3
55.9
54.6
55.8
53.8
51 .3
40.3
51 . 1
_
_
o
o
>^
0)
E
O
X
~>.
c
._
s:
1 .35
1 .34
1 .36
1 .31
1 .33
1 .39
1 .38
1 .37
1 .33
1 .41
1 .38
1 .36
1 .36
i_
X
^
__
—
o
0
-v.
in
-------
TABLE 13
SELECTED DATA
YEARLY AVERAGES BY SYSTEM
1-
0
E
3
Z
E
0)
(/)
to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
1
1 •*"
>*
ID
Q
(/>
C
0
1-
9.44
9.00
5.73
12.62
14.49
6.96
12.65
9.72
14. 10
6. 18
6. 18
1U
O
""x
w
ID
Q
in
0)
*~~
^
—
O
o
1 0.5
6. 1
13.7
10. 1
13.1
20.5
10.5
4.5
10.4
6.9
6.6
0)
E
0
^
U>
E
0)
-f-
ID
*
^™
48
47
47
72
94
39
72
53
59
4
45
0)
E
0
X
I/)
E
0)
1
T^
(0
CM
52
53
53
28
6
61
28
47
41
96
55
^
ID
Q
""*-
~~
0
u
3.83
4.56
4.88
4.82
4.67
4.14
3.91
4.88
4.38
5.06
5.47
ID
Q
^
in
-P
i/i
c
(O
l_
1—
1 .71
2.01
1 .07
1 .92
1 .75
1 .38
1 .05
2.50
1 .55
.98
1 .25
ID
Q
in
ID
O
1 .8
1 .6
1 .0
2.4
1 .9
4.4
2.2
1 .6
2.3
1 .0
1 .9
o
o
fl>
e
o
X
(ft
46.2
7 1 .0
28.2
49.3
50.5
24.4
62.2
64.9
33. 1
33.9
51.1
—
o
o
0)
E
o
X
c
.56
1 .08
.72
.56
.49
.44
.58
.98
.31
.83
1 .36
X
—
0
o
Ifl
Q}
E
O
~r
107.3
55.7
84.2
107.0
123.3
138.4
104.5
62.7
200.5
72. 1
44.4
•&.
0}
o
^
^
-------
TABLE 14
GENERATION RATE IN POUNDS PER HOME PER WEEK BY SYSTEM
SYSTEM
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I!
JAN
36.3
63.2
50.6
38.8
46.5
43.5
50. 1
57 .9
65.0
32.9
4S>2
MONTH
FEB
37.0
73.0
54.9
36. 1
44.4
49.4
46.4
48.8
60.6
34.3
''. ' . •'»
i — , f
MAR
43.2
74.7
63.2
45. 1
52.9
46.4
56.7
59.6
63.8
34 .0
•U.9
APR
46.5
77.2
65.4
54.0
55.4
50.5
63.6
68.8
63.2
34.2
52.9
MAY
55.7
80.9
62.7
61 .9
48. 1
70.4
76.0
65.2
34 .9
63.7
JUN
52.3
78.0
57.4
61 .3
60.6
48.7
64.0
76.9
68.0
33.3
65.3
JUL
52.3
80.2
61 .4
47. 1
55.4
70.6
68.4
76.9
33.7
55.9
AUG
55.2
66. 1
56.0
48.5
48.2
62.2
71 .0
66.4
34.4
54.6
SEP
47.6
69.4
51 .9
52.2
49.3
59.8
67.8
66.8
34. 1
55.8
OCT
44. 1
66.9
50. 1
53.3
55.8
46.4
59.6
68.3
64.7
33.2
53.6
NOV
44 ..9
68.0
49.9
50.3
52.6
46.0
85.8
.63.0
63.8
35. 1
5! .3
DEC
38.8
63'.8
50.2
37.9
46.6
53.6
56.3
50.5
68.6
33.4
40.*
r
-------
TABLE 15
COLLECTION RATE IN TONS PER CREW PER DAY BY SYSTEM
SYSTEM
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
MONTHS
JAN
7.35
7.87
4 .99
9.72
13.15
6. 18
10.40
8.70
13.86
5.96
5.11
FEB
7.49
8.98
5.33
9.09
12.47
7.06
9.59
7.34
12.92
6. 1 9
4.58
MAR
8.99
9.25
6.34
1 1 .42
16.15
6.62
1 1 .64
8.94
13.59
6.08
5.50
APR
9.43
9.4 1
6.72
13.92
1 5.55
7.25
13.22
1 0.48
13.48
6.17
6.44
MAY
1 1 .33
1 0.07
6.43
16.25
6.83
14.55
1 1 .32
13.90
6.28
7.83
JUN
10.76
9.51
5.91
15.99
17.41
6.90
13.08
1 1 .44
14.49
6.02
7.71
JUL
10.73
10.32
6.41
1 2.69
7.91
12.81
10.33
16.46
6.09
6.81
AUG
1 1 .30
9.93
5.75
15.27
6.96
12.49
10.57
14.15
6.47
6.63
SEPT
9.78
8.50
5.33
1 3.50
7.09
12.19
10.17
1 4 .24
6.35
6.81
OCT
8.93
8.38
5.15
13.60
15.03
6.53
12.08
10.26
1 3.82
6.21
6.21
NOV
9.25
8.40
5.09
13.02
15.27
6.55
17.75
9.53
13.61
6.33
6. 17
DEC
7.88
8.06
5.11
9.55
1 3.23
7 .71
1 1 .63
7 .48
14.62
6.01
4.84
AVERAGE
TONS PER
DAY PER
YEAR
TOTALS
9.44
9.00
5.73
1 2.62
14 .49
6.96
12.65
9.72
14.10
6.18
6.18
-------
FIGURE 5
WASTE RATES - SYSTEM 1
01
W
a.
LU
cc
o
UJ
0-
Q
LU
I-
O
•P- UJ
s
LT>
O
h-
LU
C3
CC
LU
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct New Dec
1 3 -
m
o
m
O
c
z
o
en
o
m
60 m
m
o
50
TI
m
73
o
2
m
40
30
-------
FIGURE 6
WASTE RATES - SYSTEM 2
m
cr
LU
CL
LU
OC
O
cr
LU
CL
O
LU
o
o
CO
O
t-
LU
O
cr
LU
Jan Feb Mar Apr r/ay June July Aug SeptOct Nov Dec
Pounds
1 1
80
m
o
cr
2:
o
CO
O
m
m
o
m
i
o
m
m
73
m
m
40
-------
FIGURE 7
WASTE RATES - SYSTEM 3
a:
uj •
Q.
UJ
cr
o
cr
ui
0.
0
UJ
h-
o
UJ
o
o
co
z
o
LU
o
f.
a:
LU
• Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Pounds
70
60
50
40
m
m
Hp
O
z
o
00
CD
m
m
D
tl
m
X
O
m
-------
FIGURE 8
WASTE RATES - SYSTEM 4
cr
UJ
0.
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
m
73
>
CD
80
o
or
LJ
Q_
. J
_J
O
O
CO
z
o
LU
CD
<
o:
LU
1 7
16
1 5
14
13
12
1 1
10 —
o
CO
Tons
8
70
60
m
m
o
Tl
m
O
S
m
Tl
m
50
m
m
M
_._U-
- 40
30
-------
FIGURE 9
WASTE RATES - SYSTEM 5
g
cr
LU
Q-
a:
o
cc
LU
Q.
Q
UU
h-
O
LU
O
o
CO
z
o
h-
o
<
a:
Jan P«b Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Get Nov Dee
Tons
18
17
m
T)
O
O
00
CD
m
80 ni
rn
o
70
60
-- ! 50
~T— 1—7
"f i
1'jLiiiJ:
^4:
rr -v,
'
~D
m
O
3
m
-o
m
m
m
.;:"
-------
FIGURE 10
WASTE RATES - SYSTEM 6
o:
LU
Q_
o:
o
cr
LU
Q_
O
LU
I—
O
LU
O
O
to
z
O
cr
LU
Jan Feb Mar .Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
70
m
CD
m
"O
o
<=
o
01
m
m
H
m
o
m
pr|
13
m
-------
FIGURE 11
WASTE RATES - SYSTEM 7
I
LU
CL
I
O
Q
LU
H
O
o
o
co
O
I-
lil
o:
LU
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
18
1 7
1 6
14
1 3
-4-
90
80
70
m
m
•z.
0
CO
CD
m
m
o
m
o
m
m
60
1 50
-------
FIGURE 12
WASTE RATES - SYSTEM 8
-------
FIGURE 13
WASTE RATES - SYSTEM 9
5"
<:
Q
CL
LU
D_
LU
cr
o
cr
UJ
0.
o
o
CO
z:
o
LD
O
<
o:
UJ
17
Pdb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep-f Oct Mov Dec
Pounds
m
Xi
>
o
O
Z
O
CO
O
m
90
>
H
m
o
m
80
-------
FIGURE U
WASTE RATES - SYSTEM 10
cr
LU
CL
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
m
Tl
O
cr
o
o:
LU
D_
O
LU
0
m
m
o
o
o
CO
O
I—
UJ
O
UJ
m
X
O
s
m
m
m
m
10
-------
FIGURE 15
WASTE RATES - SYSTEM I I
Q
cr
5
UJ
cr
o
LU
CL
Ul
O
o
CO
z:
o
<
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Pounds
m
O
m
o
CO
m
70 1
m
o
60
m
ni
O
^
m
"D
m
70
m
m
—-J 40
-------
3000
2500
2000
T3
CD
® 1500
Ul
UJ
-------
FIGURE 17
Average Weight Per Home Per Week
80,0
66. I
5ys1ems
No. of Mus.
-------
FIGURE 18
Average Weight Collected Per Day
20.00
15.00
14.1
VJl
0.00
5.00
Systems •
No. of Mos. 12
-------
SECTION I I I
ANALYSIS OF STUDY DATA
Collection System Productivity
and Cost Efficiency
In general, there is considerable confusion regarding the
terms production, productivity and efficiency. The following con-
cepts will apply for the purposes of this report.
Production, as it pertains to residential solid waste collec-
tion activities, is the total output of a work effort in terms of
homes served per day and total weight collected. The concept
of production applies to every organizational element from the
individual route up to and including the highest level (city or
company). Production in a residential collection operation can be
increased by adding more resources. A manager can increase the
number of homes served per day and the number of tons collected
by increasing the size of his crews or by adding more crews or by
a combination of these methods. Both procedures are followed
extensively in practice.
Productivity is the production or output of an organ i zat ions-l
element related to the resources used to obtain that production.
Thus, if two organizational elements have the same production with
the same input of resources the productivity will be equal for
both elements. However, if greater production is achieved with t-ic
same input of resources or if a constant level of output is
achieved with a smaller input of resources, the productivity will
be increased. Thus, a manager can also increase production by
increasing p.roductM v i ty .
For this report the basic productivity measures will be l%
56
-------
served per crewman per collection hour and tons collected per crew-
man per collection hour. That is, output is related to manpower
input. For information purposes, the less meaningful productivity
measures of homes served per crew per collection hour and tons
collected per crew per collection hour are also presented. In this
case, if three crews collected 100 homes per hour the production
of the three crews would be the same. If these three crews con-
sisted of one man, two men and three men respectively, the true
productivity of the crews would be significantly different. The
one man crew would have the highest productivity because the input
in terms of people was the least. The productivity of the three
man crew would be the smallest because the input of people was
greatest .
Another productivity concept that is included in this report
is marginal productivity. In this concept the incremental effect
of adding a crewman is determined. This incremental effect can
then be compared to the crew performance with and without the addi-
tional crew member. The marginal productivities will also be mea-
sured in terms of homes served per collection hour and tons collected
per collection hour. For example, an additional crewman may
increase or decrease the productivities of the other crewmen.
If the additional crewman is able to produce more than the other
crewmen and if he helps the other crewmen to produce more, then
adding the additional crewman is beneficial. If the additional
crewman produces less than the other crewmen and as a result the
entire crew produces less on a per crewnan basis, then adding the
additional crewman is detrimental.
The discussion of productiviTV has been limited to activities
in terms of collection hours. Co!,sction hours are used to provide
57
-------
a uniform and easily recognized unit for comparison purposes.
Because of the individual circunstances surrounding the systems
in this study, th.
-------
from one side of the street at a time; and uses the task incentive
system. Later in this report these indices are presented. In all
cases the index is the performance value of a compared system
divided by the performance value for System I.
For comparative purposes the most meaningful system perfor-
mance measure is the collection cost efficiency index. This Index,
as used in this report, associates the concept of productivity
with collection cost. Again, cost efficiency may be examined on
an on-route or total day basis.
The organization that achieves a given level of productivity
at least costs has the greatest collection cost efficiency. For
example, if two crews have exactly the same performance parameters
per day in terms of homes served, weight collected, miles traveled
and time worked, their productivity would be exactly the same.
If one crew was using a new vehicle of 20 cubic yards capacity
and the other crew was using one of 25 cubic yards capacity, then
the crew that was using the vehicle of 20 cubic yards capacity
would have the greater cost efficiency. The reason for this is
that the 25 cubic yard vehicle would cost more, and this addi-
tional cost would be reflected as an additional incremental cost
for each parameter being considered. Therefore, the concept of
collection cost efficiency takes into account the various costs
that are associated with the collection operation. The organization
that has the greatest productivity at the least cost would have
the best collection cost efficiency. By analogy, the system that
has a collection cost per home of $0.13 per week is more efficient
than systems with a collection cost per home per week greater
than $0.13.
Before presenting the productivity and cost efficiency results
59
-------
of the systems under study, it is necessary to discuss the multi-
variable nature of solid waste collection and the compariabiIity
of systems. There are many community and system variables that
impact on productivity and cost efficiency. These variables are
so interrelated and dependent upon each other that it is extremely
difficult to identify the full impact of any single variable.
Thus, when comparing systems, it is necessary to take into account
as many of these variables as possible while holding constant
as many variables as possible. Variables easily held constant
in comparing systems include: point of collection, frequency
of collection, crew size, incentive system and vehicle size and
type. Other variables are difficult, if not impossible, to hold
constant. They include amount of waste, type and number of storage
devices, housing density, collection methodology, traffic, and
street to storage distance. Because the nature and effect of
a variable may, at times, be impossible to identify aTid define,
even experienced analysts may have difficulty in deciding which
of two systems is better. It is also possible to overlook
an important variable and make an invalid conclusion. With these
cautioning remarks in mind, the next portions of the report pre-
sent an analysis of the data that were obtained during the study*
In making the analysis the objective is to highlight the signi-
ficant impact of the variable being considered. The values
reported are those that resulted from this study effort. They
may not represent the situation in any other system; however,
the relationships that are developed should apply generally.'
For example, the results clearly show that curbside is more pro-
ductive and cost efficient than backyard service, but for any
given system, other factors may make this difference more or less
60
-------
than that reported from the study.
Table 16 summarizes the productivity and cost efficiency
measures discussed for the systems under study.
Presentation of System Productivity and Efficiency Measures
The performance of each system in the study is summarized in
Table 17. This table consists of selected items of information
related to productivity and cost efficiency. This information
was extracted from the DAAP and time motion reports.
The table is divided into several sections. At the top of
the table is a description of each system. The data are grouped
by curb/alley systems and backyard systems, then by frequency
of collection and by crew size.
The second section shows percent of total crew time spent on
various activities. Data in this section are derived from the
DAAP and the time motion reports. The percent of time spent in
going to the route and in transporting waste is derived from the
DAAP report. The remaining time is collection time. The break-
down of the col'ection time for the curb/alley systems is based on
data from the time motion reports.
The third section summarizes the productive and non-productive
crew times for each of the systems studied. In the collection
phase of operations the waiting and other time are considered
non-productive. In going to the route and the transport phases
of the operation only the driver is considered to be productive.
The fourth section summarizes the route characteristics for
each system to enable direct comparisons to be made among systems.
In the fifth section, productivity factors as they relate to
the performance of the crew and the performance of a crewman are
provided. The productivity factors are in terms of services per
61
-------
TABLE 16
SUMMARY OF PRODUCTIVITY AND COST EFFICIENCY MEASURES
PRODUCTIVITY MEASURES*
COST EFFICIENCY MEASURES*
On-Route
homes/crewman/collection hour**
tons/crewman/collection hour**
homes/crew/collection hour
tons/crew/collection hour
collection cost/home/week
collection cost/home/year**
collection cost/ton**
Total Day
homes/crewman/day**
tons/crewman/day**
homes/crew/day
tons/crew/day
total cost/home/week
total cost/home/year**
total cost/ton**
* Each of these figures also has an associated marginal productivity
and cost efficiency measure (e.g., marginal homes/crewman/col Iectlon
hour).
** For system comparisons, these are the most useful measures.
62
-------
Table 17
SYSTEMS PRODUCTIVITY AND EFFICIENCY t'EASURES
SYSTEM DEFIMTION
CHARACTERISTICS
System Number
Col lections/Week
Crew Size
Incentive System
Col lection Pattern
Vehicle Size (Cu Yds) £ Type
ACTIVITY
To Route And Transport
0 Driving*
N ...
Riding* - Walking
Q Col lect i ng
U Waiting**'
E Other**
CU3=-4LLEY SYSTEMS
1
1
1
Task
s i ae
25 SL
2
1
1
Std dy
s i da
25 SL
«
«*
1
4.
Task
I side
20 RL
•;
1
t.
Std d>
Si 10
25 RL
7
1
1
Task
Both
sides
20 RL
PERCENT OF TOTAL CREW
34.8
17.9
0.0
«s.e
0.8
0.7
32.2
13.5
O.J
51 .5
1 .8
1 .0
* Drivinq = hiding For l-Mjn Systems
"•Non-productive Time
t Waiting includes compaction delays
Crew Productive Time
Crew Non-Product 1 ve Time
Total
96. 5
1 .5
100
97.2
2.8
100
31 .5
8.9
7.8
30.6
20.8
0.4
JO. 2
12.2
1 1 .6
19.5
26.4
0.2
24.2
5.8
1 1 .8
35.7
22.2
0.3
a
1
3
Std dy
9oth
sTdes
25 RL
3
n
i.
l
Task
side
33 SL
6
2
2
Task
I si da
8-DC
9
2
3
Task
Kfflli
20 RL
BACKYARD
SYSTEMS
10
1
2
Task
inrrnl
20 RL
II
1
2
Std di
terr-ai
1 3 RL
TIME SPENT ON ACTIVITY
35.4
3.1 1
5.8
38.2
17.3
0.4
22.6
24.7
0.2
50.1
1 .1
1.3
27.2
0.0
18.1
27.8
6.5
10.4
30.0
7.2
14.5
29.3
18.5
0.5
18.3
81 .7
_—--
20.6
79.4
TOTAL TIKE UTILIZATION (PERCENT)
63.0
37.0
100
58.3
41 .7
100
61.3 |
38.7
100
58.7
41 .3
100
97.6
2.4
100
69.5
30.5
100
61 .0
39.0
100
_ —
___-
ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS (DAILY AVERAGES)
Pounds/Home/Col lection
Percent Bags/Number Per Home
Per Collection
Percent Cans/Number . far Home
Per Col lection
Percent Mlsc/Number For Home
Per Col lection
On Route Ml les/Day
Transport Miles/Day
On Route Hours/Day
Transport Hours/Day
Hours Worked/Day
Loads/Day
Services/Day
Tons/Day
46.2
34/1 .5
>2/2.3
14/0.7
10.5
46.1
3.83
1 .71
5.87
1 .8
4 10
9.44
71 .0
26/1 .3
53/2.7
21/1 .
6.1
18.8
4.56
2.01
6.7|
1 .6
254
9.00
<9.3
56/2.6
28/1 .3
6/0.7
10. 1
32.6
4.82
1 .92
7.02
2.4
512
2.62
50.5
85/4.6
6/0.4
9/0.5
13.1
29.9
4.67
1 .75
e.69
1 .9
575
14.49
62.2
56/3.6
23/1 .5
16/1.0
10.5
14.3
3.91
1.05
5.16
2.2
407
12.65
64.9
25/1.5
J7/2.7
Z8/I.7
4.5
34.4
4.88
2.50
7.5?
1 .6
306
9.72
28.2
29/0. S
53/1.6
18/0.5
13.7
22.2
4.88
1 .07
6.32
.0
410
5.73
24.4
19/0.5
51/1.5
23/0.5
20.5
12.0
4.14
1.38
5.69
4.4
574
6.96
33.1
46/1.2
41/1.
13/0.4
10.4
33.4
4.38
1.55
6.26
2.3
854
14.10
33.9
2/0.0
96/1.2
2/0.0
6.9
6.0
5.06
0.98
6.19
1.0
364
6. li
51.1
33/1.4
.5/2.4
12/0.5
6.6
17.6
5.47
1.25
"6. 89
1.9
243
6.18
ON-ROUTE PRODUCTIVITY
Services/Crew/On Route Hour
Tons/Crew/On Route Hour
Serv Ices/Crewman/On Route Hour
Tons/Crewman/On Route Hour
^
On Route Cost/Ho-e/Wceh
Total Cost/Home/Week
On Route Cost/Home/Year
Total Cost/Home/Year
On Route Cost/Ton
Total Cost/Ton
indices of On Route Cost =er
Indices of On Route Cost/Ton*
107.3
2.5
107.3
2.5
C. 13
0. 19
6.76
9.88
5.42
8.29
1 .00
1 .00
65.7
2.0
55.7
2.0
0.20
0.30
0.40
5.60
5.75
8.46
0.65
0.94
107 .0
2.6
53.4
1.3
0.16
0.23
8.32
'1 .96
6.54
9.53
0.81
0.83
123.3
3.1
57.7
1.5
COST
0.15
C.22
7.80
1 .44
6.09
8.72
0.87
0.89
104.5
5.3
34.9
1 .1
62.7
2.0
20.9
0.7
fla ?
1.2
84.2
1.2
MB A
L.7
66.6
0.8
7nn s
'3.3
66.5
I.I
77 1
172.
33.3
0.6
AA A
I :\
22 &
.0*6
EFFICIENCY
0.30
0.39
5.60
20.28
9.71
12.82
0.43
0.56
0.36
0.55
18.72
28.60
1 .07
17.13
0.36
0.49
0.29
0.37
5.03
9.24
10.4-2
13.48
0.45
0.52
0.?7
0.51
19.24
26.52
5.40
21 .15
0.35
0.35
Q ^4
0.48
17.68
24.96
10.26
14.67
0.38
0.53
0.27
0.32
14.04
16.64
15.74
19.26
0.48
0.34-
0.3'
0.49
19.2'
24.44
I4.fi:
. 18.41
oi*
0.37]
•Indices based on corresponding costs for System I.
63
-------
on-route hour and tons per on-route hour.
The last section provides the cost efficiencies associated
with the various systems. Cost information based on the on-route
phase of operations and also on the total operations is provided.
The last two lines of this section provide indices of on-route
cost per home and on-route cost per ton.
Table 18 provides additional productivity and efficiency
indices. In each c^se the performance of System 1 is used as the
basis for determining the index. Since all systems are compared
with System 1, they may also be compared with each other.
The bar graphs of Figures 19 through 24 show graphically
the relationship among the systems for homes served per crew and
per crewman per collection hour, the tons collected per crew and
per crewman per collection hour, and the collection cost per home
per week and per torn collected.
Detailed Analysis of Systems Under Study
In this section, data are grouped to facilitate an analysis
of the I nformation ..gathered in the study effort. First, an analy-
sis is made of the individual parameters that were used to define
the systems in Table 1. Then, an overall analysis of system
productivity, efficiency, and costs is made. These analyses are
based on both DAAP ,and time motion study results. The method of
analysis depends on the parameter being considered and -the infor-
mation that is available. Comparisons are made directly from the
data or by using statistical or other procedures, including the
results of regression analysis, where .appropriate. Insofar as
possible, DAAP and time motion data are presented and compared
together jjnder the .same topical heading. All of the parameters
under consideration are interrelated to some degree; hence, it
64
-------
Table 18
PRODUCTIVITY AND EFFICIENCY INDICES
SYSTEM
NUMBER
1
2
3
i*
5
o> _
ui 0
7
8
9
10
11
POUNDS
PER
SERVICE
PER
DAY
46.2
71,0
23.2
49.3
50.5
24.1
62.2
61,9
33,1
33.9
51,1
TOTAL
SERVICES
PER
DAY
410
254
410
512
575
574
407
306
854
364
243
PRODUCTIVITY INDEX .
SERVICES
PER
CREW MAN
PER
COLL,
HOUR
107.3
55.7
84,2
53.4
57,7
66,6
34,9
20,9
66,5
35,3
22,1
INDEX
1,00
.52
.78
,50
,54
,fi2
,33
,19
,62
,33
,21
»
SERVICES
PER
CREW
PER
COLL,
HOUR
107.3
55.7
84.2
107,0
123,3
138,4
104,5
62,7
200.5
72.1
44.4
INDEX
i.no
.52
,78
1.00
1.15
1,29
,97
.58
1,87
.67
.41
TONS
PER
CREW MAN
PER
COLL,
HOUR
2,5
2.0
1.2
1.3
1.5
,8
1,1
,7
1,1
.6
,6
INDEX
1.00
.30
.'13
.52
,60
,32
,44
,28
,44
,24
.24
TONS
PER
CREW
PER
COLL.
HOUR
2.5
2,0
1,2
2,6
3,1
1.7
3,3
2.0
3.3
1.2
1,1
INDEX
1.00
,80
.48
1,04
1,24
,68
1,32
.80
1,32
.48
,44
COLLECTION COST
EFFICIENCY INDEX
COST
PER
SERVICE
PER
WEEK
,13
.20
.29
,16
.15
.37
.30
,36
,34
,27
.37
INDEX
1,00
,65
,45
,31
.87
,35
.43
,36
.33
,48
,35
COST
PER
TON
5.42
5,75
10.42
6,54
6.09
15.40
9.71
11,07
10,26
15,74
14.62
INDEX
1.00
.94
.52
.83
.89
.35
.56
.49
.53
.34
.37
-------
200.0
o\
o\
TJ
0>
in
-------
FIGURE 20
Homes Served Per Crewman
Per Collection Hour
200.0
&
~J
T3
0)
u>
0)
E
O
I
150.0
00.0
50.0
107.3
66.5
Systems I
No., oif Mos. I 2
-------
FIGURE 21
Weight Handled Per Crew
Per Collection Hour
Systftms
I'-Jr;, of Mos
12
-------
4.0
(/>
ON ^
vo o
3.0
2.0
I .0
FIGURE 22
Weight Handled Per Crewman
Per Collection Hour
2.5
Systems I
No. of Mos. 12
-------
Co
FIGURE 23
ection Cost Per Home Served Per Week
If!
L
(a
~J —
D _;
o
Q
0. I
SyotQms I
tof Mos. 12
-------
15.0
12.5
10.0
in
° 7.5
o
o
5.0
2.5
FIGURE 24
Collection Cost Per Ton Collected
15.74
14.62
Systems I
No. of Mos. 12
-------
is impossible to isolate the independent effect of each factor
being considered. General trends and significant conclusions,
however, can be made from an analysis of each item.
In making the following analyses occasional reference will
made to simple averages of averages. This procedure is used on I\
to indicate trends and general information. This approach is
taken because the numbers of items being considered and the yak
of the items being considered are of the same general magnitude.
It is recognized that in the strictest mathematical terms, this
procedure will not provide rigorous results and weighted averages-
should be used; however, the procedures used will not invalidate
the analyses or the conclusions reached in the analyses.
Performance Analysis by Type of Equipment
Genera I . Systems 1, 2, and 3 used side loading collection
equipment. The vehicle may be loaded and driven from either sia.
A picture of this equipment is provided in Figure 25. This side
loading collection vehicle was designed to be operated by a one-
man crew. It is a light compaction vehicle and is designed to
achieve densities in the range of 500 to 550 pounds per cubic ve-
The packer can be operated by the main vehicle engine or by an
auxiliary engine. The vehicle is available in four sizes: 25, 29
33, and 37 cubic yards.
System 6 used side loading collection equipment with a det;- v
eight cubic yard container. The vehicle may be loaded and driven
from either side. A picture of this equipment is provided by
Figure 26. The detachable container system was designed to be
by a one-man or two-man crew. It is a light compaction vehicle
and is designed to achieve densities in the range of 500 to 60r
pounds per cubic yard. The equipment uses a detachable contfl
72
-------
of eight cubic yards. When full, this container is replaced with
an empty one. The full containers are emptied by an auxiliary
front loading vehicle, the mother truck.
All other systems used the conventional rear loading equipment.
A picture of a typical rear loading packer is provided by Figure 27.
The rear loading equipment was designed for operation with a crew
size of two or more. The rear loading equipment may be either
medium duty or heavy duty from a compaction standpoint. The medium
duty equipment is designed to achieve densities in the range of
700 to 750 pounds per cubic yard. The heavy duty equipment is
designed to achieve densities in the range of 900 to 1,000 pounds
per cubic yard. Rear loading equipment is available in many sizes,
ranging generally from 10 to 25 cubic yards.
A summary of the significant equipment performance data
obtained during the study is provided by Table 19. For the pur-
poses of this study, the first loads were assumed to be "full"
loads in terms of the operating performance of each system.
The information of Table 19 is structured to show the differ-
ence between the equipment performance being achieved in actual
practice in comparison with the minimum performance that can
reasonably be expected from the equipment. While there were differ-
ences in the age of the equipment being used in this study, all
of the equipment was sufficiently new to be able to achieve the
minimum compaction densities established in the table. The last
column of the table provides the ratio of the performance being
achieved by each system to the minimum performance that can be
expected from the equipment.
Facts. The following facts are readily apparent from the
information of the table.
73
-------
F i gu re 25
Side Loading
Col lection
Veh i cle
F i gure 26
Side Loading Collection
Vehicle with Detachable
eight cubic yard con-
ta i ner
F i g u re 2 1
Typical ftea r
-------
TABLE 19
EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE DATA
STjUY RESULTS
SYSFtM
NUMbER
1
2
3
4
5
0
7
a
9
10
1 1
TYPE
EQUIPMENT
•,L
5L
'.L
KL
RL
DC
PL
PL
KL
RL
RL
AVERAGE
size
(CU YD)
25.0
25.0
33.0
ro.o
24.2
S.O
^0.0
23.0
20.0
20.0
15.0
AVERAGE
LOADS
PER DAY
1 .H
1 .C
\ .0
2.4
1 .9
4.4
2.2
1 .6
2.3
1 .0
1 .9
AVERAGE
WEI OUT
PEP OAY
(T0:i">>
9. '14
9.00
5.73
12.62
14.49
6.96
12.65
9.72
14.10
6.18
6.18
AVE<»A-|
FIRST
LOAD
(TONS)
6. 43
5.93
5.69
5.92
9.02
1 .56
6.61
5.98
6.93
6.1.4
3.86
: HEIGHT
ALL
OTHEPS
(TOtlS)
3.95
4.90
3.41
4.92
5.85
1 .58
4.89
6.84
5.35
2.38
2.60
RATIO
AL. OTHERS
TO FIRST
!_r.AD
0.61
0.83
0.60
0.83
0.65
1 .00
0.74
1.14
0.77
0.39
0.67
«r i -.'(- PER
c^ei- Y«RU
Fl 1ST LJAD
. -'.u'lES)
?l 'j
474
i-'.5
595
744
i'.-O
c^~
•}.•";
Ml
614
527
EXPECTED PESULTS
MINIMJM1
EXPECTED
WEIGHT PER
CUQIC YARD
(PouriD11 )
^00
500
500
700
"00
500
700
700
700
700
700
M 1 Nir"J"
Exrs^Tfcu
WEIGHT
PtR LOAD
(TONS )
1-. '•
0.- 5
P . <• 'J
i .or
10.89
_'.o:
7 .00
8.0L;
7.0"
/.CO
r. . / ',
RATIC3
FIRST LOAD
TO MINIMUM
EXPCCTE3
WEIGHT ^ER
LCAl'
1.0.
0.95
0.69
0.05
0.83
0. /"
0 . '-'4
0.74
0.99
o.ae
0.74
NOTES: I. Assumed densities based on expected performance by manufacturers o* equiprent.
Normal densities for the side loading vehicle should range from 500 to 550 pounds per cubic yard.
Normal densities for medium duty rear loading packing equipment should range from 700 to 750 pounds per
Normal densities for the detachable container should range from 500 to 600 pounds per cubic yard.
Normal densities for heavy duty raar loading packing equipment should range from 900 to 1,000 pounds
per cubic yard.
2. Expected minimum load based on the minimum densities of Note 1 and average size (cubic yards) of the
system vehicles.
3. Ratio of the system first load weight which Is assumed to be a "full" load, and the minimum expected
weight per load.
-------
Only two systems (Systems 3 and 10) averaged only one loa«.
per day with the equipment that was being used. Most systems
averaged more tha:n one load per day.
There was a wide range of tons collected per day. The le-f-
was System 3 with 5.79 tons per day. The most was System 5 w i •- :
14.49 tons per day.
For the equipments being used, there was a wide range in t!1 »
densities being achieved with "full" loads and a corresponding
wide range in the weights of the first loads for the equipments
being used. This wide range of weights for the full loads was
also reflected i IT a wide range in the ratios of the weights
achieved for full loads to the minimum expected weight for a ft1!
load (last column of the table). Only one system (System 1)
met the minimum performance standards for the kind of equipment
being used. Only three additional systems equaled or bettered
90 percent of the minimum standard. System 3 achieved only 69
percent of the minimum standard. System 3, using the 33 cubic
yard side loading veh i c I e ,actua I I y collected less waste in its c~t
load than the first loads of Systems 1 and 2, which were using
same vehicle in the 25 cubic yard size. With the rear loading
equipment, System 8, with an average vehicle size of 23 cubic yards,
collected less waste in the first load than Systems 7, 8, and '
which were using vehicles of 20 cubic yards.
In comparison with the weight collected on the first load,
there was a wide range of weights collected in the subsequent
loads. The first load to subsequent load ratio rangffd from 0.. )
for System 10 to 1.14 for System 8. Only System 8 averaged mor •
weight in the subsequent loads than it did on the first load.
The weight of all detachable containers was essential.ly the
76
-------
FI gure 28
Average Weight Per Load
(1st load, others)
-------
Figure 28 shows graphically the relationship between the first :O-^1
and all subsequent loads by system.
Pi scussion. Many factors influence the selection of collectfrn
equipment. Some of these factors include the size of the crew,
the number of homes to be served, the waste generation rates,
the type of waste being collected, the time spent in collecting
waste, the distance to the disposal point and relative costs of •»'!••,
equ i pment.
In considering compaction collection vehicles the user has
the choice of front loading, side loading, or rear loading equ f pm&.'t
The user can also select light duty, medium duty, or heavy duty
compacting equipment. In general, the light duty equipment will
achieve densities from 500 to 600 pounds per cubic yard. Medium
duty equipment will achieve densities from 700 to 750 pounds per
cubic yard and heavy duty equipment will achieve densities from
900 to 1,000 pounds per cubic yard. Within each of these catego-'es
a wide range of sizes is available.
In selecting his equipment the user should match the equ i prner,*
specifications (size, type, and compacting performance) with the
characteristics of his operation (crew size, weight to be co I I ec^e~ .-
collection time and distance to the disposal point) such that
full loads are collected, insofar as possible. Full loads in
this context means achieving the minimum compaction density for
the class of equipment being used or considered. Collecting futf
loads maximizes the proportion of time being spent in the coller^'an
phase of the operation by minimizing the transport time and nur,;:&r
of loads and provides maximum cost effectiveness in the ut I I f za+'cr.
of the collection equipment. For an efficient operation the leas'*
possible time should be spent in traveling to the route and i •
78
-------
traveling to and from the disposal point.
The decision to select a specific kind and size of collection
equipment should not be taken lightly by the solid waste collection
manager. The most important reason is that the equipment selected
represents a considerable capital investment that will be used for
several years. During the period of use there is little that can
be done to change a bad decision because in most cases the equip-
ment is used until it is worn out. This period is generally five
years but may be ten years or longer. Since most packers tend to
be competitive in cost, price should not be a primary consideration
in selecting equipment.
Several methods can be used to determine the size of vehicle
that is required for the collection operations. The best method
is to match the equipment specifications with the expected opera-
tional performance. In this case the kind and size of vehicle
is determined from a rational analysis of the factors that effect
the collection activities. The significant factors would include
crew size, the annual generation rates, the time available for
collecting, and the performance standards expected from the crews.
With this information the trade-offs between the kinds of vehicles
and then sizes can be analyzed to provide the most cost-effective
solution for the operation.
An alternate method is deciding on a general purpose vehicle,
such as medium duty packer of 20 cubic yards, and then build the
route activities around this vehicle. This is the method that is
f
probably used most often; however, with this method there tends
to be a significant imbalance between the capabilities of the vehi-
cle and the characteristics of the route and capability of the
crews. This leads to the underutiI ization of vehicles that is
79
-------
i nd icated i n Table 19.
A third methpd is to use a mathematical model. Two regrt
models are provided in Annex E of Volume III. Enclosure 3 prov'
a model for loads per day as a function of vehicle size, poundr-
per service per collection and services per day. Enclosure 4 p
vides a model for services per load as a function of vehicle slz^
pounds per cubic yard, and pounds per service per collection.
With these equations the solid waste manager can plan for the
proper equipment for his operation. In using these models, how^<
it is important to realize that these equations were based on tr
performance of the study systems. This performance may not be
applicable to the planned operation.
The difference between the minimum compaction density and
maximum compaction density constitutes a reserve that can be use-
to handle peak generation rates or to permit growth in the route
structure. This reserve is of the nature of 50 pounds per cubK-
yard for the light and medium duty equipment and 100 pounds per
cubic yard for heavy duty equipment.
In only one system the weight of the subsequent loads exce-.r
the weight of the first load. This condition indicates the time
at which collection ends for the first load is being dictated
by considerations other than having a full load. Even though
the subsequent loads were heavier than the first loads, they we.
still sign i f icant-l y less (0.85) than the minimum expected weig'i
for a fuI I Ioad .
The significance of equipment costs will be considered I at'1"1
in this section under the heading of Cost Analysis.
Cone I us i ons. The following conclusions resulted from a co-
sideration of the equipment used in the study.
80
-------
There is a strong tendency to underutiI ize the equipment
from a compaction standpoint. Only one system out of eleven
( 9 percent) was routinely achieving a reasonable minimum
weight for "full" loads for the equipment being used. The majority
of the systems (91 percent) were underutiIizIng the equipment
in terms of the weight achieved for "full" loads.
Only two systems out of eleven (18 percent) averaged only
one load per day, and both of these underutilized their equipment
capacities. All other systems (82 percent) averaged more than
one load per day.
In only two systems (18 percent) were the subsequent loads
equal to or greater than the first or "full" loads. In all cases
the weight of the subsequent loads was significantly less than
the minimum weight expected for "full" loads. This indicates
the equipment was underutilized for subsequent loads. This proce-
dure results in relatively more time being spent In transporting
and relatively less time being spent in collecting than there
should be in a system in which the vehicle characteristics are
matched with the route and crew characteristics.
Performance Analysis by Crew Size
General• I" this analysis only the curb and alley systems
are considered. Both backyard systems used a crew of two men.
The curb and alley systems used crew sizes of one, two, and three
men. While there were significant differences in the operation
of the nine curb and alley systems, the analytical approach provides
a general indication of what can be expected from crews of various
sizes. Data are examined from the standpoint of the whole crew
and also from the standpoint of the :ndividual crewman.
81
-------
A summary of the significant crew performance data for curb
and alley systems is provided by Table 20. This table was
structured to show the productivity of the various systems in
terms of homes served and tons collected. Information is provide-:*
both for the crew and for the individual crewman.
A summary of crew productive time for curb and alley systems
is provided by Table 21. Information for this table was extracted
from the DAAP and the time motion reports.
The marginal productivity of the crews and individual crewitien
for curb and alley systems is provided by Table 22. In this
table, four sets of data are shown. In the first section of the
table, system averages by size of crew are indicated. Each number
for each crew size represents eight once-a-week and four twice-
a-week crews. In the second portion of the table, information
for those systems that collect once weekly was averaged by size
of crew. In the third section of the table, information for ffiose
systems that collect twice weekly is provided. In the last secfton
of the table, the best single parameter for each crew size was
used regardless of the frequency of collection.
Ranges of crew and crewman productivity are provided by
Table 23.
Facts. From Table 20, the following facts are readily
apparent.
There is a wide range in the number of homes served per
crew per day. The least is 254 for System 2, and th'e most is
854 for System 9. There is also a wide range in the tons co I !
per day. The least is 5.73 tons for System 3,. arid the most is
14.49 tons for System 5.
82
-------
Table 20
CREW PERFORMANCE DATA (CURB AND ALLEY SYSTEMS)
SYSTEM
NUMBER
1
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
CREW
SIZE
1
1
1
2
2
2
J
3
3
CRCW DATA
HOMES SERVED
PER CREW
PER DAY
410
254
4 10
512
575
574
407
306
854
HOMES SERVED
PER CREW
PER COLLECTION
HOUR*
107.3
55.7
84.2
107.0
123.3
138.4
104.5
62.7
200.5
TONS COLLECTED
PER CREW
PER DAY
9.44
9.00
5.73
12.62
14 .49
6.96
12.65
9.72
14.10
TOMS COLLECTED
PER CREW
PER COLLECTION
HOUR
2.5
2.0
1 .2
2.6
3.1
1 .7
3.3
2.0
3.3
CREW'MAN DATA
HOMES SERVED
PER CREWMAN
PER COLLECTION
HOUR
107.3
55.7
84.2
53.4
57.7
66.6
34.9
20.9
66.5
INDEX
1 .00
0.52
0.78 '
0.50
0.54
0.62
0.33
0.19
0.62
TONS COLLECTED
PER CREWMAN
PER COLLECTION
HOUR
2.5
2.0
1 .2
1 .3
1 .5
0.3
1 . 1
0.7
1 . 1
INDEX
1 .00
0.80
0.46
0.52
0.60 .
0.32
0.44
0.28
0.44
CO
'Collection
= on-route time
-------
Table 27
CREW PRODUCTIVE TIME (CURB AND ALLEY SYSTEMS)
Sys 1em
Number
I
2
3.
4
5
6
7
a
9
Crow
0 i .* e
1
1
1
2
2
2
5
5
3
OH-ROUTE ACTIVITIES
"o 1 at 1 ve
T i me On
Route
65.2
67.8
77.4
03.5
69.8
72.8
75.8
64.6
70.0
Re 1 at 1 ve
Product i ve
T ime
63.7
65.0
75.0
47.3
43.2
55.9
51.3
46.9
51.0
Percent
Product i ve
T itne
97.6
95.8
96.8
69.0
61 .8
76.7
70.3
72.6
72.6
Percent
Non-Product 1 ve
Time
2.4
4.2
3.2
31 .0
38.2
23.3
29.7
27.4
27.2
TOTAL ACTIVITIES
Rel at 1 ve
Total
T 1 me
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Percent
Product 1 ve
Time
90.5
97.2
97.6
63.0
58.3
69.5
61 .3
58.7
61 .0
Percent
Non-Product f ve
1 \ me
1 .5
2.8
' .1
'. r .0
41.7
JO. 5
38.7
41 .3
.39. 0
03
-------
Table 22
MARGINAL PRODUCTIVITY (CURB AND ALLEY SYSTEMS)
CREW
SIZE
1 man
2 man
3 man
1 man
2 man
3 man
1 man
2 man
3 man
1 man
2 man
3 man
HOMES PER
CREW PER HOUR
32. 4
122.9
122.6
81.5
1 15.2
83.6
84.2
138.4
200.5
107.3
138.4
200. 5
MARGINAL
INCREASE IN
PRODUCTIVITY
HOMES PER
CREW PER HOUR
40.5
CO. 3)
33.7
(31 .6)
54.2
62.1
31.1
62.1
TONS PER CREW
PER HOUR
AVI
1.9
2.5
2.9
AVERAGE OF ALL SH
2.3
2.9
2.7
AVERAGE OF ALL
1.2
1 .7
3.3
MOST PRODUCT I
2.5
3.1
3,3
MARGINAL
INCREASE IN
PRODUCTIVITY
TONS PER
CREW PER HOUR
RAGE OF ALL SYSTE
0.6
0.4
STEMS COLLECTING
0.6
(0.2)
SYSTEMS COLLECTI N
0.5
1 .6
VE PARAMETERS FRO.
0.6
0.2
HOMES PER
CREWMAN PER
HOUR
IS
82.4
59.9
40.8
3NLY ONCE A WEEK
81 .5
56.6
27.9
i TWICE A WEEK
84.2
66.6
66.5
1 ALL SYSTEMS
107. ,3
66.6
66.5
MARGINAL
DECREASE IN
PRODUCTIVITY
HOMES PER
CREWMAN PER
HOUR
22.5
19.1
24.9
28.7
17.6
O.I
40.7
O.I
TONS PER
CREWMAN
PER HOUR
1 .9
1 .2
1 .0
2.3
1 .4
0.9
1 .2
0.8
1 .1
2.5
1.5
1 .1
MARGINAL
DECREASE IN
PRODUCTIVITY
TONS PER
CREWMAN
PER HOUP
0.7
0.2
0.9
0.5
0.4
(0.3)
'
—
1.0
0.4
-------
Table 23
RANGES OF CREW AND CREWMAN PRODUCTIVITY (CURB AND ALLEY SYSTEMS)
System
Numbor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
CREW PRODUCT IV ITY
Homes Per Col
Range
92. 1 -124.3
50.8-68.2
77.4-92.2
91. 1 -I J5.6
1 O.!>-lt>5.9
1 30.4-139.3
87.6-125. 1
53.7-66.4
179.1-226.9
act ion Hour}
Average
107.3
55.7
84.2
107.0
123.3
138.4
104.5
62.7
200.5
Tons Per 60 II act ion Houct
Range
I .9-3.2
1 .7-2.3
1 .1-1 .3
2.1-3.1
2.7-3.8
1 .5-1 .9
3.0-4.0
1 .5-2.3
3.1-3.5
Average
2.5
2.0
1.2
2.6
3.1
1.7
3.3
2.0
3.3
CREWMAN PRODUCTIVITY
Homes Pec Cpl|e<:tl9n Hour*
Range
92. 1-124.3
50.8-68.2
77.4-92.2
47 . 1-67 .8
45.9-78.4
62. 1-79.7
29.2-4 1 .6
19.4-22.2
58.2-74.2
Average
107.3
55.7
84.2
53.4
57.7
66.6
34.9
20.9
66.5
Tons Per CoMoctlpn Hour*
Range
1 .9-3.2
1 .7-2.3
1 .1-1 .3
1 . l-l .6
1 .2-1 .9
0.8-1 .0
1.0-1.3
0.5-0.7
1.0-1.2
Average
2.5
2.0
1 .2
1 .3
1 .5
0.8
1 . 1
0.7
1 . 1
CO
11 Collection = On-Route
-------
Likewise, when the data are considered on the crew productivity
basis of homes served per collection hour and tons collected
per collection hour, there is still considerable variation.
The greatest crew productivity in terms of homes served per crew
per collection hour is System 9 with a value of 200.5. The least
productive crew is System 2 with 55.7 homes served per collection
hour. The highest crew productivity on a tons per collection
hour basis is 3.3. Two systems achieved this rate. They were
Sy.stems 7 and 9. System 5 also averaged over three tons per
hour. The least productive crew was System 3 with only 1.2 tons
per hour.
When the crew performance is considered on a crewman basis,
there is a general downward trend in productivity as the size
of the crew increases. System I is the most productive system
by both measures and averaged 107.3 homes per crewman per collec-
tion hour and 2.5 tons per crewman per collection hour. The
least productive system by both measures was System 8 with 20.9
homes homes per crewman and 0.7 tons per crewman per collection
hour.
•from "Table 21, the following facts are readily apparent.
The one-man crews show the greatest percentage of productive
time on-route and for the total activities. For the one-man
systems this averages 97.8 percent productive time for the
total activities of the day.
The two- and three-man crews show a significant decrease
in the percentage of productive time both on the route and
for the total activities of the day. There is also little
distinction between the two-man and three-man crews. The
percentage of productive time for the two- and three-man crews
87
-------
on route was 69.2 and 71.9, respectively. For the total
activities of the day the percentage of productive time for
the two- and three-man crews was 63.6 and 60.3, respectively.
From Table 22, the following facts are readily apparent.
Regardless of the group of data considered the marginal
productivity increase obtained by adding crew members is always
less than the productivity of the one-man crew. That is, the
productivity of the two-man crews is less than the productivity
of two one-man crews. The same applies to the three-man crews.
In some cases the marginal increase in productivity in going
from two-man to three-man crews is negative.
When the marginal decrease in productivity is considered
on a per crewman basis, the general trend is a marked decrease
in productivity as the crew size increases from one to three.
From Table 23, the following facts are readily apparent.
For each system there was a wide range of productivity
factors over the period of one year in both homes served per
collection hour and tons collected per collection hour. This
variation pertained to both the crew and crewman activities.
Pi scussion. Many factors influence the productivity of
the collection crews and crewmen. Some of these factors include
the point of collection, frequency of collection, routing, hou:,
densi'ty, traffic and parked cars, collection methodology, width
of the street, type of equipment being used, the expected work
effort in the normal work day, the wasre generation rates, the
type of waste being collected, the nature of the storage conts'r
general climate conditions, the kind of incentive system and
the motivational aspects of the collection organization to in<
the relative oay scales. No attempt was made during this s+i
88
-------
to isolate the effect of the individual factors that influence
the crew productivity. While there is considerable knowledge
on the motivational aspects of many kinds of workers, there is
very little information in the literature concerning the solid
waste coI lector.
It is apparent that the one-man crew is significantly more
productive than his counterpart in multi-man crews. One can
speculate, based on motivational studies that have been conducted
with other workers, that this is related to the degree of control
the one-man crew exercises over his task. He has control over
his time and physical movement. He establishes the pace at which
he choses to work. He is not dependent upon the activities of
other crew members. He also has complete control over his techni-
cal environment. He is generally freer from close direct super-
vision. These control aspects may give the one-man crews greater
job satisfaction and, hence, result in greater productivity.
In addition, the one-man crews generally receive more pay than
members of larger crew sizes. This situation also probably contri-
butes to the greater productivity of one-man crews.
The time motion data indicate that the one-man crews spend
a significantly greater proportion of the on-route time in produc-
tive activities in comparison with the two- and three-man crews.
The average on-route percentage of productive time for the one-
man crews was 96.7 percent. The non-productive time was about
equally divided between waiting and other time. The two- and
three-man crews show a significant decrease in the proportion
of productive time on-route. This percentage averaged 69.2 for
the two-man crews and 71.9 for the three-man crews. The non-
productive time with the two- and three-man crews was associated
89
-------
primarily with waiting. In these cases, one crew menvber is waith-i
on another crew member or the crew members are waiting on th'e
compaction cycle.
The study addressed only the productive and non-Fproduct i ve
times assoc i ated - w i th the collection or on-route phas'e of the
operations. For the two- and three-man crews, there was also
a significant amount of non-productive time associated with the
going to the route and transport phases of the operation. This
non-productive effort is included under the total 'activities
columns of Table.21. These columns indicate that the percentage
of non-productive time for the total activities of the day
averaged 36.4 for the two-man crews, and 39.7 for the three-man
crews. These figures include the non-productive time associate<
with going to the route and transporting waste. Table 17 indlcn'ro<>
that approximately 30 percent of "the time for the curb and alley
systems is spent in going to the route and in transporting waste.
The one-man crews are completely effective in these phases.
With the two-man crews, one man is non-productive. Therefore,
one-half of the man-hours spent in these phases is non-productiyu.
For the three-man crew, two men are non-productive and two-thirds
of the man-hours spent in these phases is wasted effort.
Table 23 indicates there is a considerable range in the
productivity factors for each system, both in terms of the crev/
performance and t'he crewman performance. Much of this vari afa I ' i •»•;
is undoubtedly associated with the crew members pacing themsel v f,'j
to get the work done in a reasonable time. A review ef the me">»ii!v
DAAP data indicates that in periods of high generation the rdte
at which the weight is collected increases. Likewise, in perio <•
90
-------
low generation the rate at which homes are served increases. The
crews, through experience, probably adjust their working pace based
on the route conditions as they perceive them early in the collection
phase of the operation for any given day.
Conclus i ons . The following conclusions resulted from a
consideration of the crew sizes that were studied.
The productivity per crewman in terms of homes served and
tons collected per collection hour is greatest with the one-man
crews. On the average, the productivity of one two-man crew is
less than the productivity of two one-man crews. The same is true
9
of three-man crews.
The percentage of on route productive collection time for
one-man crews is significantly greater than the percentage of
productive time for two- and three-man crews. For one-man crews
the productive time is about 97 percent. For the two- and three-
man crews the productive time is approximately 70 percent. There
is no significant difference in the percentage of productive
time between the two- and three-man crews.
In going to the route and in transporting the collected waste
only the driver is productive. All other crewmen, whether they
ride with the driver or not, are non-productive in these opera-
tional phases. With these phases consuming approximately 30
percent of the work day, then one-half and two-thirds of the man-
hours of this effort are wasted for two- and three-man crews,
respect i veIy .
Performance Analysis by Frequency of Collection
Genera I . In this analysis only the curb and alley systems
are considered. Both backyard systems collected on a frequency
of once a week. Six of the curb and alley systems collected
once a week and three of the systems collected twice a week.
91
-------
Of the six curb and alley systems that collected once a week
two systems utilized a crew of one man, two utilized a crew of
two men and two utilized a crew of three men. The three systemc
that collected twice a week consisted of one system with each
crew size. A summary of the significant performance data by
frequency of collection is provided by Table 24.
Facts. From Table 24, the following facts are readily
apparent.
There is considerable variation in the generation rates
in pounds per home per collection among the once a week collec-
tion systems (the highest is 1.5 times the lowest) and also amori'
the twice a week collection systems (the highest is 1.4 times
the lowest). Whilie there is considerable variation in the gene-,
tion rates, the average of the two groups of systems is essentia
the same at approximately 57.3 pounds per home per week. With
systems that collact twice a week one-half of this weight is
collected on each collection day on the average.
The average number of homes served per week by the once
a week collection systems was 2,053. The average number of ho.rc
served per week by< the twice a week collection systems was 1,361
Therefore, the average number of homes served by the twice a
week collection systems was approximately two-thirds the number
of homes served by/ the once a week col lection systems.
The product i v/i ty of the two groups of systems, as determiT •
by the homes servexJ per crew per collection hour, was greater
with those systems, that collected twice a week. The average
of all systems thait collected once a week was approximately 93
homes per collection hour. The average of all systems that
collected twice a week was approximately 14i homes per coI I a •*
92
-------
Table 24
FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION DATA
BY-;' . ~f.
IIU".L"
1
fj
:
'j
7
Aver j ,<• ,
•.
6
9
Aver jnuo
POUNDS PEP
HOME PLR
COLLL'CTIOH
lu.l
71 .0
•JO.i
'jC.U
i 2 . .'
'.!."•
; . 4
'ti . 2
.. •; . 4
.55. 1
28.6
POUNDS PEP
COME PER
WEEK
'.6.?
71 .0
41. J
L>0.5
r.r.2
C1 .'i
'j~i .4
56. ^
•:3.d
60. 1
57. 1
HOMES SERVED
PE'( HECK
2,052
1 .263
? ,*r>\
2,37t-
2,OJ<
1 . 'j 3 1
2,C'.'J
I.2JI
1 . K7
1 .707
1 ,361
U0" = S
SEPVEO PER
CCLLEC'IO'I
HOUR
COLLECTION OK
107 .3
55.7
lO'.O
123.3
1 0-'. .5
(.2.7
93.-:
COLLECTION
COST PER
HOME PER
COLLECTION
CE A WEEK
0.13
0.20
0. 16
0. 15
0.30
0. 36
0.2?
COLLECTION TWICE A WEEK
e-j .2
\ 33 . f.
200.5
l-si .0
0. 15
0. 19
0. 17
0. 17
COLLECTION
COST PER
HOME PER
WEEK
0. 13
0.20
0.16
0.15
0.30
0.36
0.22
0.79
0.37
0.34
0.33
TONS
COLLECTED
PER
COLLECTION
HOUR
2.5
2.0
2.6
3. 1
3.3
?.o
2.6
1 .2
1 .7
3.3
2. 1
COLLECTION
COST PER
TON
5.4?
5. 75
6 . 'j 4
6.00
9.71
1 1 .f!7
7.13
10.42
15.40
10.26
1 2.02
-------
hour. This ratio is also approximately two-thirds.
The productivity of the two groups of systems, as determinou
by the tons collected per collection hour, was greater with thosa
systems that collected once a week. The average of all systems
that collected once a week was approximately 2.6 tons per collect".,.1)
hour. The average of all systems that collected twice a week
was approximately 2.1 tons per collection hour. In this case
the weight collected per collection hour for the twice-a-week
systems was approximately 80 percent of the value for "the once-
a-week systems.
There is an inverse relationship between collection costs
and productivity. Where the homes served per collection hour
is larger, the cost per home is less. Where the tons collected
per collection hour is greater, the cost per ton is le'ss.
<
D i scuss i on . The collection frequency adopted by a govern'-* •«'
"* • *«
mental agency may be dictated by several factors. Probably the
most important factors are those associated with the general
climates and health conditions in the area. Also Important is
the level of service desired by the citizens and for which they
are willing to pay. Collection twice a week is a higher level
of service than collection once a week.
In comparison with service once a week, collection twice
a week requires additional resources in terms of crews and equip-1
ment. It appears from the study data that the number of homes
served per week by the twice-a-week systems was approximately
two-thirds of the once-a-week systems. In this context the twSfif)-1
a-week systems would require approximately 50 percent more
and equipment than the once-a-week systems to serve the same
number of homes. That is, to go from once-a-week to twice-a
94
-------
week collection would require 50 percent more crews than are
used in the once-a-week system. Conversely, to go from twice-
a-week to once-a-week collection would require 33 percent fewer
crews than are used on the twice-a-week system.
Twice-a-week collection has a greater impact on the number
of homes served per collection hour than on the tons collected
per collection hour when compared with the same productivity
factors for the once-a-week collection. The twice-a-week system
collected, on the average, approximately 50 percent more homes
per collection hour than the once-a-week systems. This is
3
undoubtedly related to the lesser weight collected each collection
day and a correspondingly smaller number of containers present
at each home. While the twice-a-week systems serve approximately
50 percent more homes per collection hour, the weight collected
per collection hour was only 80 percent of the weight collected
per hour by the once-a-week systems.
Cone I us ions. The following conclusions resulted from a
consideration of the frequencies of collection that were studied.
Increasing the frequency of collection from once a week
to twice a week required approximately 50 percent more crews
and equipment than the once-a-week systems. The average number
of homes served per week for the twice-a-week collection systems
was approximately two-thirds the number for once-a-week collection
systems. Conversely, to decrease the frequency of collection
from twice a week to once a week requires approximately 33 percent
fewer crews and equipment than the twice-a-week systems.
In terms of productivity factors the twice-a-week collection
systems served approximately 50 percent more homes per collection
hour than the once-a-week collection systems. The weight collected
95
-------
per collection hour, however, was only 80 percent of the weight
collected per collection hour by the once-a-week collection sys
Performance Analysis by Storage Point
Genera I. Two storage point locations were prescribed for
the study effort. These were curb and alley and backyard. No
distinction was made between the.curb and alley for study purpos
Of the systems studied only System 8 was basically an alley sysr,-
Systems 10 and II were backyard systems. All other systems wer"
curb and alley systems with collection being made predominantly
from the curb.
For the purposes of this analysis only the two-man crews
will be considered. A summary of the significant performance
data considered by storage point is provided by Table 25.
Facts. From Table 25, the following facts are readily
apparent.
The average weight collected per home per day by the curb
and alley systems was approximately 41.4 pounds. For the backy; '
systems the average was approximately 42.50 pounds. Essential I- .
the average weight per home was the same with both groups of
systems.
The homes served per crew per collection hour by the curb
and alley systems averaged approximately 123. The homes servsc!
per crew per col lection hour for the backyard systems averaged
approximately 58. Therefore, the curb and alley systems coller:'<-.
from approximately twice as many homes per collection hour comcv o.
with the backyard systems.
The tons collected per col lection hour by the curb and a ' ' "sy
systems averaged approximately 2.5. The tons collected per ct. i-
lection hour by the backyard systems averaged approximately ?
96
-------
Table 25
STORAGE POINT DATA
SYSTEM
JiUMOER
4
-3
6
10
1 1
COLLECT ION
FREQUENCY
1
1
-»
1
1
WEIGHT PER
HOME PER
COLLECTION
(POUNDS)
CURB AND ALL
49.3
50.5
?4.4
BACKYARD
33.9
51 .1
COLLECTION
TIME PER
HOME PER
COLLECTION
( M 1 N )
EY SYSTEMS - MAN CRE
0.56
0.49
0.44
SYSTEMS - MAN CREW
0.83
1 .36
SERVICES PER
CREW PER
COLLECTION
HOUR
1
I 07.0
I23.3
I 30.4
72. I
44 .4
WEIGHT
COLLECTED
PER CREW PER
COLLECT ION
HOUR
2.6
3. I
I .7
I .2
I . I
ID
-J
-------
Therefore, the curb and alley systems collected approximately
twice as many tons per hour as the backyard systems.
D i scuss i on. Backyard collection is a higher level of service
than curb and alley collection. This kind of service causes
the least impact on the physical requirements of the citizens
regarding the removal of solid waste. This level of service
is also the most expensive as additional personnel and equipment
resources are required in comparison with curb and alley systems
for the same number of homes served per week.
It appears that the productivity of a backyard collection
system is approximately one-half of a corresponding curb and
alley system, based on the results of this study effort. The
reason is that the time to service a home with backyard collec1-
tion is on the order of twice the time required for curb and
a I Iey serv i ce.
Cone Iu s i ons. The following conclusion resulted from a con-
sideration of the storage point locations that were studied.
The productivity of a backyard system, in terms of homes
served per collection hour and tons collected per collection
hour, is approximately one-half the productivity of a correspond-
ing curb and alley system.
Performance Analysis by Collect!on Met hodo logy
Three collection methodologies were prescribed for the stud1/
effort depending on crew size and point of collection. They
were: collection from one side of the street at a time for curb-
side collection, one- and two-man crews (Systems 1-6); collection
from both sides of the street at a time for curbside col lection,
three-man crews (Systems 7-9); and use of the tote-barrel for
backyard collection (Systems 10 and II).
98
-------
Both backyard systems used two-man crews. In each case,
both the driver and collector drove and collected. Both sides
of the street were collected at the same time.
These methodologies were selected because they had been
shown to be very productive and efficient in previous EPA studies.
For curbside collection it is generally impractical to collect
from both sides of the street with one- and two-man crews. In
some special cases it may be practical to collect from both sides
with a two-man crew. Such a case would be collecting from both
sides of an alley with a two-man crew using a side loading packer.
In this case both crew members could collect simultaneously.
This exception was not the case in this study.
With the three-man systems there is a practical choice between
collecting from one side and collecting from both sides of the
street at a time. Factors which influence this decision are
the width of street, traffic flow, parked cars, and housing density.
With wide streets, heavy traffic and high density housing it
is generally safer and best to collect from one side of the street
at a time to avoid traffic and street crossing delays. However,
with narrow streets and little traffic, there is greater potential
for waiting delays on the part of the crewmen in collecting only
one side at a t ime.
Performance Analysis by Incentive System
Genera I . Two incentive systems were investigated in the
study effort. They were the task incentive system and the stan-
dard day system.
The task incentive system was used by seven of the eleven
systems in the study. These systems were Systems I, 3, 4, 6,
7, 9 and 10. Four of the systams used the standard day system.
99
-------
These systems were Systems 2, 5, 8 and II.
The task incentive system is one in which a work effort
is prescribed for the crew. When this work effort is completed
to the satisfaction of the appropriate supervisor the crew is
dismissed. With the task incentive system compensation is not
generally paid to the crew for overtime work unless the reason
for overtime was clearly not the fault of the crew. For the
purposes of this study overtime was not considered for the systen
which operated under the task incentive system.
The standard day system is one in which a work effort is
prescribed for the crew, but regardless of how early -the task
is completed the crew is required to work the full standard day.
The standard day for the four systems in this study was eight
hours. Thus, the crews were obligated to perform additional
work if they completed the collection effort in less than the
standard day. In addition, compensation at the rate of 1.5 t i mf <•
the regular pay was made for all overtime worked in this study.
In the scheme of systems studied in this effort there was
one task incentive system and one standard day system for each
crew size in the curb and alley once-a-week systems. One of
the backyard systems used the task incentive system and the other
used the standard day system. A summary of the significant- i nc
tive system performance data for the different collection system-
is provided by Tables 26 and 27.
Facts. From Table 26, the following facts are readily
apparent.
AlI comparable task and standard day systems were on a 40
hour planned week. The average percentage of the planned work
week that ^as worked was generally less for the task incenti>-
100
-------
Table 26
INCENTIVE SYSTEM PERFORMANCE DATA - COMPARISONS BY INCENTIVE SYSTEMS
SYSTE-l
NUfljU'
'
4
5
/
j
10
1 1
Averages
IMCLiiTIVC
SYSTEM
Task
5t .iPOd r 1 Jdy
Tl-.r
SI .i"1 ird (,.iy
las*
Stand.-ird p,iy
Task
Standard Day
Task
Standard Day
PLANNED
WORK WEEK
(HOURS)
40
10
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
HOURS
WORKED
PER WEEK
CURB AND
29.62
33. Tt
CURB AND
35.64
3D. 17
CURB AND
/G.03
39. J2
BACKYA
31 .32
34.75
30.65
35.72
PEPCCNT
OF WEE'
WORKED
ALLEY - COI
74 . 1
3-1 .4
ALLEY - COL
E9. 1
B"1 . i
ALLEY - COI
63. 1
98. 1
RD - COLLE(
78.3
ae.o
76.6
89.3
TOTAL
ANNUAL
OVERTIME
COST PER CREW
.LECTION ONCE WEE
.
107.81
.LECTION ONCE WEE
1 ,492. 12
.LECTION ONCE WEE
2.804.32
ITION ONCE WEEKLY
62.85
1 . 1 16.78
DAAP
COLLECTION
TIME PER
HOME
(III N)
(LY - 1 MAN CRf
0.56
1 .08
(LY - 2 MAN CRI
0.56
0.49
KLY - 3 MAN CRI
0.58
0.98
- 2 MAN CREW
0.83
1 .36
0.63
0.98
TIME MOTION
PRODUCTIVE
TIME PER HOME
( M 1 N )
;w
0.58
0.83
:w
0.43
0.35
IW
0.53
0.72
0.51
0.63
DAAP TIME
PER HOMC TO
TIME MOTION
PRODUCTIVE
1 IME PCR !iO'1|
0.97
1 .30
1 .30
1 .40
1 .09
1 .36
1.12
1 .35
-------
Table 27
INCENTIVE SYSTEM PERFORMANCE DATA - COMPARISONS BY PRODUCTIVITY MEASURES
SYCTfM
1
J
4
5
:
'•
'. 1
•J
-
i 10
1 1
Averages
•
INCENTIVE
SYSTEM
i
Task
Standard Day
i
t
; " Task
1 'irandard Day
i
Ta^k
i Standard Day
t
'
- Task
: Standard Day
f Task
Standard Day
HOMES
SCPVED
PER DAY
j CURB AND ALLEY -
410
254
i
CURB AND ALLEY -
5IZ
i
< i, 7 1
CURB AND ALLEY -
407
300
BACKYARD - CC
364 '
243"
• 423
:. 344
TONS
COLLECTED
PER DAY
HOMES SERVED
PER CREW
PER COLLECTION
HOUR
, COLLECTION ONCE WEEKLY - 1 MAN CREW
9.44
9. CO
.COLLECTION ONCE WEEK
12.62
14 . < n
COLLECTION ONCE WEEKL
12.65
9.72
LLECTION ONCE WEEKLY
6.16
6.16.
i 10.22'
9.85
107.3
55.7
LY - 2 MAN CREW
107.0
123.3
f - 3 MAN CREW
1 04 .5
62.7
- 2 MAN CREW
72.1
44 .4
97.7
71 .5
TONS COLLECTED
PER CREW
PER COLLECTION
HOUR
2.5
2.0
2.6
3. 1
3.3
2.0
•
1 .2
1 . 1
• 2.4
2.0.
o
to
-------
systems than for the standard day systems. The average percentage
of the planned week that was worked by the task incentive systems
was approximately 77 percent. For the standard day systems this
percentage was approximately 89 percent.
All systems operating under the standard day system received
some overtime pay. The overtime pay indicated by the DAAP print-
outs was a conservative figure because overtime for the prepara-
tion time associated with the daily activities was not included.
Depending on the system this preparation time may account for
up to one hour of paid time per day.
The average time required to service a home with the task
incentive systems averaged approximately 0.63 minutes. This
was significantly lower than the approximate average time of
0.98 minutes required by the standard day systems.
In comparing the time required to service a home from the
DAAP reports with the productive time from the time motion
studies, the task incentive systems show a closer correlation
than the standard day systems. That is, the task systems have
less non-productive time (waiting and other time) than the standard
day systems. The average ratio for the task incentive systems
was approximately 1.12. For the standard day systems this average
was approximately 1.35.
From Table 27, the following facts are readily apparent.
In three out of the four groupings of data the task incentive
systems equaled or significantly bettered the performance data
of the standard day systems. In all production and productivity
categories the averages for the task incentive systems are better
than the averages for the standard day systems.
In only one case (curb and ai ley - col lection once weekly -
103
-------
two-man crew) did the standard day performance exceed th.e perfor-
mance of the task incentive system.
Pi scuss i on. Only the task incentive and standard' day systerr.j
were considered in this study. An exact proportion of systems
that use the task incentive system in comparison with the standard
day system is not available. It is generally believed that some-
what more than one-half of the systems are operating under the
task incentive system.
The application of the standard day system takes many forms
in actual practice. This ranges from a fully productive appli-
cation such as is indicated by System 5 to a deliberate expansion
of the work effort to consume the entire work day or to a diversion
of personnel to other efforts after the collection activities
have been completed.
It is generally acknowledged that the task incentive system
is more productive in practice than the standard day system.
Indeed, the results of this study indicate this in three direct
comparisons of systems out of four. When the results of all
of the task incentive systems are averaged and compared with
the standard day systems, this is clearly the case in this study.
The task incentive system, however, is a good system only
if the work effort which is expected to be accomplished in a
normal work day bears some reasonable relationship to what should
be accomplished in the normal work day. The data of Table 26
indicates that the portion of the normal work week that was spent
on collection activities for the task incentive systems ranged
from a low of 65.1 percent to a high of 89.1 percent. The averags
of these systems was approximately 76.6 percent. Each individual
manager will have to appraise his own situation and decide what
104
-------
objective figure would be right for his organization. In most
of the task incentive systems studied in this effort an additional
planned one-half hour per day would have resulted in better utili-
zation of the equipment and greater cost effectiveness in the
operation even if a fair percentage of the savings were returned
to the crews in the form of higher wages.
In considering the productivity of the standard day incentive
systems there is a tendency for the task to expand to fill the
day, and if not controlled, to go into overtime. Even with
System 5, which was the one standard day system that out-performed
the task incentive system, the DAAP collection time per home
was 1.40 times the time motion productive time per home. This
was the highest ratio among the standard day systems. Consequently,
other factors must account for the high productivity of System
5. The high percentage of bags and one-way items undoubtedly
has a favorable influence on this performance. The significance
of the percentage of one-way items will be discussed in the next
sect ion.
In the case of systems using a one-man crew it would appear
that the standard day system would be counter productive. If
the higher productivity that is indicated by the one-man systems
can be explained by current motivational concepts, then productivity
must be associated with the high degree of control the crewman
has over his work. In this context, it makes little sense to
give the crewman this control so he can establish his work pace
and, at the same time, require him to work a full standard day.
The task incentive system should be used with all operations
involving a crew of one man.
In general, it appears that the majority of the task incentive
105
-------
systems have a higher level of collection production and produc--''
than the standard day systems. This is true in an absolute sen-' ,
but, more importantly, the task incentive systems appear to be
doing the work more efficiently. Stating this differently, 1 he
task incentive systems tend to do more work and do it more eff'-
ciently than the standard day systems.
Cone I us ions. The following conclusions resulted from a
consideration of the incentive system data that were studied.
Collection systems operating under the task incentive systom
tend to work a smaller percentage of the normal work week than
the standard day systems.
The work effort of standard day collection systems has a
tendency to expand into overtime operations.
The collection production and productivity of the task incen-
tive systems tend to be greater than the collection production
and productivity of standard day systems.
Performance Analysis by Type of Storage Container
Genera I . Bags and cans were prescribed as the storage con-
tainers for all of the systems that were studied. The relative
quantities of bags, cans and miscellaneous items were determined
from the time motion studies and backyard survey. The average
of the values obtained from the four quarterly visits to each
system was used in the DAAP summary reports.
Miscellaneous items are considered to be one-way items frc-n,
a collection standpoint and are considered in the same category
as bags. Miscellaneous items include things such as cardboard
boxes of waste, bundles of paper, and bundles of small twigs ano
branches. One-way items need to be handled only once on the p^ '
of the collectors and, hence, should have a tendency to impro"
I 06
-------
the productivity of the crews. On the other hand, poorly contained
waste tends to slow the crews down. For purposes of analysis
only the curb and alley systems will be considered.
A summary of the significant data pertaining to storage con-
tainers is provided by Table 28.
Facts. From Table 28, the following facts are readily
appa rent.
There was a considerable variation in the average number of
containers that were serviced for each collection. The smallest
average was 1.2 for System 10. The greatest average was 6.1
with System 7. The average for all systems was 4.1 containers.
There was also a wide range in the percentages of each kind
of container that was used among the systems. The proportion of
bags ranged from a low of 2 percent for System 10 to a high of
85 percent for System 5. The proportion of cans ranged from a
low of 6 percent for System 5 to a high of 96 percent for
System 10. The proportion of miscellaneous items ranged from
a low of 2 percent for System 10 to a high of 28 percent for
System 8.
There was a corresponding wide range in the percentages of
one-way and Two-way items.
No direct relationship between storage containers and pro-
ductivity is readily apparent from the data of Table 26.
Pi scuss ion . System 10 averaged only 1.2 containers per
service. This was the smallest average among the systems. In
addition, 96 percent of the containers were cans. This was also
the highest percentage of cans. System 10 requires all items
to be placed in cans and charges for service on the basis of the
number of cans served. These requirements tend to limit the
107
-------
Table 28
STORAGE CONTAINER DATA
SYSTEM
NlT'bL'R
1
->
'i
.]
'.>
n
i
I
)
10
1 1
AVFPAGE
riUVL'CR OF
CT.'UnEPS
PI 1'
COLL! C "I0!l
•> . 1
,. ••
. '.
',
' 1
. ;
.* . i
\ .:
•J.3
AVERAGE NU"BER
BAGS
i.f- (3.'. .0)
I.J (26.0)
O.o CO.O)
: . i. t '., o o i
•:.t (S'j.Oi
0.5 (in.5)
J.6 fit. .0)
1 .;• C!>.C>
1.2 ( H- . 0 )
0.0 ( C.O)
1.4 (33.0)
(AND PERCENT) OF S
C/'fJt
CURB AND ALLEY
i.; cjr.o)
2.7 ( 5 -. . 0 )
I.f ( 5 '• . C )
i . 7. (/a .0)
C . e. ( -j . o )
1 . 'j (51.0)
1 . " ( '. P . r> )
_' . 7 { .: : . o i
I.I (41 .0)
BACKYARD S
1 .2 (90.0)
2.4 (55.0)
TORAGE CONTAINERS
(1ISC
SYSTEMS - BAGS AND
0.7 (14.0)
I.I (21.0)
o.: (i8.o)
0.7 ( 1 C.O)
c.: ( o.o)
O.S (20.0)
1.0 (16.0)
1.7 (28.0)
0.4 ( 1 i.O)
YSTEMS - TOTE -BARREL
0.0 (2.0)
0.5 (12.0)
PCRC
ONE WAY
unis
CANS
48.0
47.0
47.0
72.0
94 .0
39.0
7'5.0
53.0
59.0
4.0
45.0
:CNT
TWO WAY
ITEMS
52.0
53.0
53 .0
2° .0
(;.0
(,\ .0
P3.0
47.0
41 .0
96.0
55.0
HOMES SERVED
PER COLLECTION
HOUR
107 .3
05.7
84 .?
107.0
123.3
138.4
104 .5
62.7
700.5
72.1
44 .4
DAAP
COLLECTION
TIHT fLH
HOMT {.' i . )
0.5f>
i .on
0.72
0 .'<(>
0.49
0.44
0 . 'j«
0 . 9^!
O.il
0.83
1 .Jf.
o
Ol
-------
number of bags and miscellaneous items that are used in service.
They also tend to limit the number of cans that residents use as
storage containers.
System 7 averaged 6.1 containers per service. This was the
largest average among the systems. A little over one-half of the
containers were bags, but 72 percent of the containers were one-
way items. This was the second highest percentage of one-way items.
System 5 had the highest percent of one-way items. Ninety-
four percent of the items were one-way items, and 85 percent of
the items were bags. The ordinance under which System 5 operates
tends to generate a high percentage of bags even though these
are provided by the residents. Cans are limited to 15 gallons
capacity. Bags are limited to 30 gallons capacity. Although
there is no limit on the number of items that can be placed on
the curb, these requirements tend to limit the number of cans
to a I arge degree .
Intuitively, it appears that the percentage of one-way items
would have an important influence on the productivity of collec-
tion systems, especially for the curb and alley systems. To
investigate this possibility the percent of one-way items was
combined with other variables to determine the significance of
the factors by regression analysis. Other variables included
pounds per home per collection, homes per collection mile,
number of storage containers per home, and crew size. Several
regressions were made to determine an appropriate equation that
could be used for predictive purposes and that would show the
relative significance of the one-way items on productivity. In
these analyses only the curb and alley systems were used (Systems
I through 9). The data included equal numbers of one-, two-, and
109
-------
three-man crews and collection frequencies of once and twice
weekly were distributed evenly among the crew sizes. All of the
equations were of the form of
Y = aXj + bX2 + cX3 + dX4 + e.
The following equations were used. The significant results
are provided in Table 29.
Equation I. Collection minutes per home as a function of
percent one-way items and pounds per home per collection.
Where Y = collection minutes per home
X| = percent one-way items
X2 = pounds per home per collection
Equation 2. Collection minutes per home as a function of
percent one-way items, pounds per hone per collection, and homos
per col Iect ion mile.
Where Y = collection minutes per home
X. = percent one-way items
X_ = pounds per home per col lection
X, = homes per collection mile
Equation 3. Collection minutes per home as a function of
percent one-way items, pounds per home per collection, and number
of items per hone.
Where Y = collection minutes per home
X( = percent one-way items
X^ = pounds per home per col lection
X, = number of items per home
Equation 4. Collection minutes per home as a function of
percent one-way items, pounds per home per collection, number
of items per home, and crew size.
I 10
-------
TABLE 29
COLLECTION MINUTES PER HOME - REGRESSION ANALYSES
Equation
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Data
Poi nts
9
9
9
9
q
9
9
9
Average Values
Y
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
X,
59.0
59.0
59.0
59.0
X2
47.3
47.8
47 .8
47.8
X3
46.89
4 .43
4 .43
X4
2.0
Standard Deviation
n 75
0.25
0.25
0.25
1 7 A
\ 7.4
1 7.4
1 7.4
1 fi ft
16.6
16.6
16.6
17.71
1 .4
1 .4
0.87
Coefficients of Variables
Xl
-0.008
-0.008
-0.008
NS
x2
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.012
X3
NS*
NS
NS
X4
NS
Simple Correlation With Y
o ^n
0.30
0.30
0.30
Oft n
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.09
0.49
0.49
0.28
Constant
Te rm
0.489
0.489
0.489
0.550
R2
72.8
72 .8
72 .8
77 .5
*NS = not significant
-------
Where Y = collection minutes per home
X, = pjercent one-way items
X~ = pounds per home per collection
X, = number of items per home
X. = crew size
The correlation data in Table 29 Indicate that the pounds
per hone per collection (Xj) has the greatest influence on the
collection minutes per home (Y) for each equation. Looking at
the coefficients of the variables in the first three equations,
only the percent one-way items and pounds per home per collection
are significant. In the fourth equation only the pounds per home
per collection is significant.
In considering the relationship that exists among the collec-
tion ninutes per home, percent one-way items, and pounds per home
per collection the following equation results.
Y = 0.489 - 0.008X! + O.OI3X,,
This equation does indicate that the percent one-way items (X.)
does have a beneficial effect on crew productivity and tends to
decrease the collection minutes per home (Y). The pounds per
home per collection (X~) has an adverse effect on productivity
and tends to increase the time required to service a home.
These conditions are in agreement with what we would expect in
the field. The actual effect of a change in percentage of one-
way items and pounds per home per collection depends on the mag-
nitudes of these variables. For a 10 percent change in the
average values of X. and X2, as indicated in Table 29, the
equation indicates that the pounds per home per collection has
about 1.3 times the effect of percent one-way items and is in
the opposite direction.
I 12
-------
The information in Table 29 for Equation 4 indicates that
only the weight per home per collection is significant. The
resulting equation is
Y = 0.550 + 0.012X2.
Where Y = collection minutes per home
X- = pounds per home per collection
The regression computer printouts for these equations are
provided by Appendix 4.
Cone I us i on s. The following conclusions resulted from a
consideration of the type of storage containers.
The percentage of one-way items (bags and miscellaneous
items) does have a significant effect on the system productivity.
An increase in the percentage of one-way items reduces the time
required to service a home, and conversely, Increases the number
of homes served per collection hour. A decrease in the percentage
of one-way items increases the time required to service a home,
and conversely, reduces the number of homes served per collection
hou r .
The weight per home per collection also effects the system
productivity, and this effect is greater and opposite in direction
to the effect of one-way items. An increase in weight per home
increases the time required to service a home and decreases the
number of homes served per collection hour. Conversely, a decrease
in weight per home per collection reduces the time required to
service a home and increases the number of homes served per collec-
tion hou r.
Performance Analysis by Productivity and Efficiency
Genera I. For the purpose of this analysis productivity will
be considered in terms of homes served per collection hour and tons
113
-------
collected per collection hour. Productivity will be considered
from the standpoint of the crew and the individual crew.man. TK,
productivity of each system will be compared with System I.
Efficiency for the purpose of this analysis will be considered
in terms of the cost per service per week and the cost* per ton.
The efficiency of each system will be compared with System I.
Table 18 is provided again for a consideration of producti-
vity and ef'frciency.
Systems are ranked according to their productivity in Table 30.
Systems are ranked according to their collection cost efficiency
in Tab Ie 31.
Facts. From Tables 18 and 30, the following facts are
read i Iy apparent.
When productivity is considered on a per crewman basis for
the curb and alley systems, there is a strong tendency for the
smaller crew sizes to be more productive than the larger crew
sizes.
There is a wide variation of crew productivity factors in
both services per crew per collection hour and tons per crew per
collection hour among all the systems.
Considering the curb and alley systems, the systems that have
a collection frequency of twice a week have a tendency to serve
a larger numb.er o'f homes per collection hour than their once a week
counterparts. The larger crew sizes have a tendency to collect
more tons per collection hour than the smaller crew sizes.
When productivity is considered for the backyard systems,
the greater pj-oducf i v i ty is with the system which uses the task
incentive system (System 10).
Curb ami all'ey systems tend to be more productive than
I 14
-------
Table 18
PRODUCTIVITY ANP TFFICIE'ICY INDICES
SYSTEM
NIJIIBC"
POUNDS
PER
SERVICE
PCR
DAY
1 46.2
i
2
j
'1
VJl
5
71.0
23.2
49.3
50.5
5 24,4
7 \ 62,2
8 : 64.9
9 33.1
10
11
33,9
51,1
TOTAL
SERVICES
PER
DDAY
410
254
410
512
575
574
407
306
854
364
243
PRODUCTIVITY INDEX
ERVICES
PER
REW MAN
PER
COLL.
HOUR
107.3
55.7
84.2
53.4
57.7
66.6
34.9
20,9
66.5
35,3
22,1
INDEX
1.00
.52
.73
.50
.54
,62
,33
,19
.62
,33
,21
ERVICES
PER
CREW
PER
COLL.
HOUR
107.3
55.7
84.2
107,0
123,3
138.4
104,5
62.7
200,5
72.1
44.4
INDEX
i.no
.52
.78
1.00
1.15
1.29
,97
,58
1,87
.67
.41
TONS
PER
REW MAN
PER
COLL.
HOUR
2.5
2.0
1.2
1.3
1.5
,8
1.1
,7
1,1
,6
,6
INDEX
1.00
.30
.'1.3
.52
,60
,32
,44
,28
.44
,24
,24
TONS
PER
CREW
PER
COLL.
HOUR
2.5
2.0
1.2
2.6
3.1
1,7
3.3
2,0
3.3
1.2
1,1
INDEX
l.Ofl
.-in
.'13
1.04
1.24
.68
1.32
,80
1,32
.48
,44
COLLECTION COST
EFFICIENCY INDEX
COST
PER
SERVICE
PER
WEEK
.13
.20
.29
.Ifi
.15
.37
.30
,35
,34
.27
.37
INDEX
1.00
.65
.*
.31
.37
.35
.41
.36
.33
.48
.35
COST
PER
TON
5.42
5.75
10.42
6.5'!
6.09
15.40
9.71
11.07
10.26
15.74
14,62
INDEX
1.00
.94
.52
.83
.39
.35
.56
.49
.53
.34
.37
-------
Table 30
RANKING OF SYSTEMS"BY PRODUCTIVITY
1
SLP/ICCS PEP CREW'AM PER HOUR
SYSIL'M
j
i
!
• 1
: J"
\ '
i i •
j
j
,
'•
i •'
3
t
'. l°
1 1
CRf :•!
SI7P
• I
, 1
• •
J
• •
1 1
1
1
, '
3
i
. 2
•-
ACTUAL
4
. 107. j
•U.2
• D- fj
(..(,. 'j
' ''7.7
; .•'.'. 7
; ',3.4
i 34.9
. .-'C.O
35.3
• 22.1
INDEX
;
jl .00
!0.7d
•0.02
0.6T
0.54
0.5?
•0.50
0.33
0. 10
0.33
O.2I
i TCflS "FR CREWMAN PER 'iOUR
SYSTEM
1
1
- '
n
! 3"
! 7
9*
6"
; a
' 10
1 1
CREW
tl.'t
1
1
p
:
. i
5
, 3
: 2
3
2
. 2
jACTUAL
'. ?-Fj
J.O
' i .:•
. 1.2
i . i
. i . i
; 0.8
• 0.7
I
1 0/6
- 0.6
f.'JDEX
CURB' A
1 .00
0.80
C.60
. -1 •
'0.48
0.44
0.44
0.32
."0.28
. BACKYA
0.24
'0.24
SERVICES PER CREW PER HOUR
. SYSTEM
JD ALLEY
9*
6'
5
1
4
: 7
3*
8
2
RD SYSTEM
10
1 1
,CREW
SIZE
SYSTEMS
3
2
2
1
?
3
1
3
1
S
2
2
ACTUAL
200.5
. 1 38.4
.123.3
107.3
107 .0
.104.5
. 84.2
i
. 62.7
55.7
. 72. 1
: 44 .4
'INDEX
1 .87
. 1 .29
.1.15
1 .00
; i .00
0.97
0.78
0.50
O.D2
0.61
0.41
TONS PER CREW PER HOUR
' SYSTEM
9"
7
'j
4
1
2
8
6"
3*
*
10
1 1
CREW
SIZE
3
3
2
.••
1
1
3
2
1
2
2
ACTUAL
3.3
i.3
3. 1
.
?.o
, ,
.-.0
2.0
1 .7
1 .2
1 .2
1 . 1
INDEX
1 .32
1 .32
1 .24
1 .04
1 .00
0.80
0.80
'O.C8
-0.48
0.48
0.44
•Col,lection twice weekly.
-------
Table 31
RANKING OF SYSTEMS BY COLLECTION COST EFFICIENCY
COLLECTION COST PER SEP/ICE PER WEEK
SYSTE':
1
ri
f,
.
5'
/
0'
8
6'
10
1 1
CREW SIZE
1
Z
?
1
,
-
3
3
-i
;
n
COCT
O.I 3
0.15
O.K.
0.70
0 . J '.'
" . ,">
3. '.4
0. 5b
n. -",1
0.27
0.37
IMJ:^
CURB AND /
1 .00
0.°.7
0.3!
O.uD
0.---5
0 . 4 i
0 . jo
0.36
c . •. ,
BACKYA
0 . '• s-
0. 35
COLLECTION COST PER TON PER
SYSTEM
LLEY SYSTEMS
I
2
5
4
7
9'
3'
8
6'
ID SYSTEMS
I I
10
CREW SIZE
1
1
2
•>
3
3
1
3
Z
2
2
COST
5.42
5.75
6.09
6.54
9.71
I0.2f>
10.42
1 1 .07
1 5 . f. 0
14 .62
15.74
WEEK
INDEX
1 .00
0.94.
O.H9
0 . 1! .'.
0 . r' f)
0 . 'j ',
Q.'<>
0.4 '
0. V;
O.J7
0. 34
•Collection twice weekly.
-------
backyard systems.
From Table 31., the following facts are readily apparent.
For both the collection cost per week and the collection
cost per ton there? is a stronq tendency among the curb and alley
systems for the smaller crew sizes to have the greatest collection
cost efficiency.
There is no clear pattern among the backyard systems regarding
collection cost efficiency.
Curb and alley systems tend to be more cost-efficient than
backyard s-ystems.
Pi scuss ion. Productivity and efficiency are interrelated
with the factors that have already been considered previously.
The total influence of these factors results in a collection
rate per hour in terms of homes served and tons collected.
Productivity has been considered from the standpoint of both
the crew and the crewman. From the information that has been
presented previously it appears that the system that has the
greatest productivity per crewman and the best balance among
all of the factors that influence system performance will have
the best cost effectiveness and, hence, the greatest cost effi-
ciency. Of the systems studied, System I clearly meets this
requirement to a greater extent than any other system and, hence,
has the be'st collection cost efficiency.
Cone I us i ons. The following conclusions resulted from a
consideration of the productivity and efficiency factors.
Curbside is more productive and cost efficient than backyard
serv i ce.
For the curb- and alley systems:
' Systems that have a collection frequency of twice a week
118
-------
tend to serve more homes per collection hour, but collect fewer
tons per collection hour, than their once-a-week counterparts.
The larger crew sizes have a tendency to collect more tons
per coI Iect ion hour.
When productivity and cost efficiency are considered on
a per crewman basis, there is a strong tendency for the smaller
crew sizes to have the greatest productivity and best cost
efficiency.
For backyard systems:
The system which uses the task incentive system has a greater
productivity than the system that uses the standard day incentive
system .
There is no clear pattern between the backyard systems
regarding collection cost efficiency.
Cost Analysis of Systems Performance
Genera I . Standard cost data were used for all systems
of the study effort to eliminate the effects of local cost varia-
tions and to facilitate a cost analysis of system performance.
The standard costs were developed by using the average of avail-
able cost information from the II systems studied. By using
standard costs any significant cost differences among the systems
would then reflect differences in the operational performance
of the systems. These differences may be related to the kind
of equipment that was used and the cost of that equipment, the
crew size, the frequency of collection, the storage point loca-
tion, collection methodology and the incentive system used
for the collection effort. In addition, the differences
in cost would be related to the location of the route relative
to the motor pool and also the location of the disposal point
I 19
-------
relative to the route. Since the study effort concentrated
on the collection (on-route) phase of the operations, this
aspect of the operation will be emphasized in the cost analysis.
The standard costs that were used in the study were as
foI lows:
Initial Cost of Vehicles
Capacity (Cu. Yds.) Side Loader Rear Loader
13 $15,900
16 $16,700
18 $17,000
20 $22,700
25 $23,900 $23,900
33 $30,000
Detachable Container $28,100
Veh i cle plus 1/4 cost
of mother truck
Deprec i at i on
The depreciation period is five years.
Maintenance Cost Per Year
Maintenance cost (-first year) = .055 X initial cost of vehicle.
Consumable Costs
Fuel $0.17 per gallon. Engine oil $0.23 per quart..
Insurance and Fees
The yearly cost of insurance and fees is $.1,200 per vehicle. Thre
effective cost of insurance for one detachable container route-
(including mother truck) is $1,500 per year.
Salaries (Dollars per Hour)
Driver $4.34 Collectors $4.15 The effective cost of the
detachable- container crew (including mother truck driver) is $"4.53
and $4.73 for the driver and collector respectively.
120
-------
Fr i nge Benef i ts
Fringe benefits are 18.3 percent of salary.
Personnel Overhead
Personnel overhead is 13.1 percent of salary.
Overtime Factor
Overtime factor of 1.5 for drivers and collectors.
For this analysis cost data are grouped by systems on the
basis of crew size and also on the basis of collection frequency.
Cost data on the basis of crew size are summarized in Table 32.
Data summarized on the basis of frequency of collection are pro-
v i ded i n Tab Ie 33.
Facts . From Tables 32 and 33, the following facts are
read i Iy apparent.
There is considerable variation in the costs of the three
phases of operation among all the systems. However, there is
a general pattern among these costs. The cost of going to the
route is a small percentage of the total cost to operate per day.
In addition, the cost of going to the route is generally less
than $10.00 and in most cases is less than $5.00 regardless of
the c rew size.
The cost to collect and the cost to transport vary consider-
ably; however, there is a general pattern that reflects the
influence of crew size.
The equipment costs for all systems are of the same order
regardless of the kind of equipment being used, the initial
cost of the equipment and the number of days per week it is
used; although, the detachable container equipment and mother
truck combination of System 6 is significantly greater in cost
than the equipment of the other systems.
121
-------
Table 32
SYSTEM COST DATA - COMPARISONS BY CREW SIZE
, SYSTEM
NUMBER
1
2
3°
4
5
66
10
11
7
8
' ^^
COST TO
ROUTE
PER OAY
4.32
1 .60
4.45
4.87
5.07
4.34
2.94
2.76
6.25
3.93
10.24
COST TO
COLLECT
PEP Uttf
51.07
51 .75
59.66
82.23
88.24
f07. 14
97.23
90.25
122.52
107.14
143.33
COST TO
TRANSPORT
PER DAY
22.77
22.80
13.10
32.8-6
32.98
35.70
18.88
20.63
32.80
54.88
51.23
EQUIPMENT
COST
PER DAY
32.54
30.70
31 .60
30.66
31 .68
43.69
28.74
23.98
28.70
30.18
38.18
MANPOWER
' " COST
PER DAY
i
45.62
45.44
45.62
69.30
94.60
103.46
90.31
89.68
132.87
135.77
166.62
TOTAL COST
PER DAY
:REW SIIZE -
78.16
76. 14
77.22
:REW SIZE -
1 19.96
126.28
147. 17
119.05
t 13.66
:REW SIZE -
161.57
165,95
204.79
MANPOWER
COST TO
EQUIPMENT
COST
1 MAN
1 .40
1 .49
1 .40
2 MAN
2.91
2.99
2.37
3.14
3.74
3 MAN
4.63
4.50
4.36
COST
PER
tON
8.29
8.46
13.48
9.54
B. 72
21.15
19.27
18.41
12.62
17.13
14.67,
COST PER
HOME PER
WCEK
0. 19
0.30
0.37
0.23
0.22
0.51
0.32
0.47
0.39
0.55
- 0.48
COLLECTION
COST PER
TOM
5.42
5.75
10.42
6.54
6.09
15.40
15.74
14.62
.
9.7)
1 1 .07
10.26
COLLECTION
COST PER
HOME PER
MEEK
0.13
0.20
0.29
0. 16
0. 15
0.37
0.27
0.37
0.30
0.36
Q.34
RATIO
COLLECTION
COST TO
TOTAL COST
0.65
0 .60
0.77
O.G9
0.70
0.73
0.82
0.79
0.76
0.65
0.70
Ixl
KJ
a. Operates six.days per week.
b. €p«r»tes four days par week.
csy Is 10 hours.
-------
Table 33
SYSTEM COST DATA - COMPARISONS BY COLLECTION FREQUENCY
SYSTEM
NUMBER
1
2
4
5
7
3
•
3a
ob
9u.C
10
1 1
COST TO
ROUTE
PER DAY
4.32
1 .60
4 .07
'j .07
6.25
3.03
4 .45
4.34
10.24
2.94
2.78
COST TO
COLLECT
PER DAY
51 .07
51 .75
82.23
38.24
122.52
107 . 14
>9.66
107. 14
143:33
97.23
90.25
COST TO
TRANSPORT
PER DAY
22.77
22.80
32.86
32.98
32.80
54.88
13.10
35.70
51 .23
18.86
20.63
EQUIPMENT
COST
PER DAY
MANPOWER
COST
PER DAY
TOTAL COST
PER DAY
CURB AND ALLEY SYSTEMS - COL
32.54
30.70
30.66
31 .68
28.70
30. 18
CURB A
51 .60
43.69
38.18
BA
28.74
23.98
45.62
45.44
89.30
94.60
132.87
1 35.77
<0 ALLEY i
45.62
103.48
166.62
:KYARD SY;
90.31
89.68
78.16
76.14
1 19.96
126.28
161 .57
165.95
YSTEMS - COL
77 .22
147. 17
204.79
TEMS - COLLE
1 19.05
1 13.66
MANPOWER
COST TO
EQUIPMENT
COST
LECTION ONC
1 .40
1 .49
2.91
2.99
4.63
4.50
.ECTION TW]
1 .40
2.37
4.36
:TION ONCE
3. 14
3.74
COST
PER
TON
E A Wf
8.29
8.46
9.54
8.72
12.82
17.13
CE A k
13.48
21 .15
14 .67
A WEE*
19.27
18.41
COST PER
HOME PER
WEEK
EK
0.19
0.30
0.23
0.72
0.39
0.55
EEK
0.37
0.51
0.48
0.32
0.47
COLLECTION
COST PER
TON
5.42
5.75
6.54
6.09
9.71
1 1 .07
•
10.42
1 5.40
10.26
15.74
14.62
COLLECTION
COST PER
HOME PER
WCEK
0.13
0.20
0.16
0.15
0.30
0. 16
0.29
0.37
0.34
0.27
0.37
RATIO
COLLECTION
COST TO
TOTAL COST
0.65
0.68
0.69
0.70
0.76
0.65
0.77
0.73
0.70
0.8?
0.79
hO
a. Operates six days per week.
b. Operates four days per week.
c. Normal work day Is 10 hours.
-------
Considering only those systems that collect five days a'
week, the average daily equipment cost was $29.64. The greatest
cost per day was $32.54, and the least cost was $23.9B.
Considering all systems, the average daily equipment cost
was $31.87. The greatest cost was $43.69, and the least cost
was $23.98.
The manpower cost per day is directly related to the crew
size.
For every system studied the daily cost of equipment was
significantly less than the daily manpower cost. This was true
regardless of the initial cost of the vehicle and the number
of days per week it was used. For the one-man systems the ratio
of manpower costs to equipment costs averaged 1.43 and ranged
from a low of 1.40 to a high of 1.49. For the two-man systems
the ratio of the manpower costs to equipment costs averaged
3.03 and ranged from a low of 2.37 to a high of 3.74. For the
three-man systems the ratio of the manpower costs to equipment
costs averaged 4.50 and ranged from a low of 4.36 to a high of
4.63. These relationships indicate that from a cost standpoint
the route operations are labor intensive operations, particularly
as the crew size increases.
The total cost per ton, total cost per home per week,
collection cost per ton and collection cost per week varied con-
siderably among the systems. There was, however, a general cor-
relation of costs by crew size, by frequency of collection and
by storage location. Selected data have been extracted from
Table 32, averaged, and presented in Table 34.
The ratio of daily collection costs to daily total costs
was essentially of the same order for all systems. This ratio
averaged 0.72 with a low of 0.65 and a high of 0.82.
124
-------
Table 34
SYSTEM AVERAGED COST RELATIONSHIPS
SYSP "
NU'Uj. !'
1 a n 0 J
3
'! -in: 'j
6
7 oncl 3
9
r
10 and 1 1
CfLW
:.UL
i
i
->
/
i
3
2
COLLECTION
FT'CCUflCY
1
?
1
>
1
1
1
COST
PCP
rou
0. 37
1 T. . •: «,
O.I <
.n . i -j
1 « . « 7
l«.67
18.84
PA'l'.E
8 . J 9 - »! . 4 fi
| 7 / Q
•3. 7?-o .•;.•.
?l . 15
1 2 . 8 ." - 1 7 . 1 5
1 •> .67
18.41-19.27
COST PER
I'TIC PEP
hfEK
:URB AND AL
O.?.j
n.yi
CURB AND Al
Q.^l
O.'-l
CURB AND Al
0.^7
0.4?}
BACKYAR1
0.40
PANGE
.LEY SYSTEMS
o. n-o. so
0.37
.LEY SYSTEMS
0. '2-0.23
C.il
.LEY SYSTEMS
0.. '.9-0.55
0 . t. p.
) SYSTEMS
0. 32-0.47
COLLECTION
COST PER
TON
5.58
10.42
6.31
1 5.40
10.39
1 0.20
15.18
RANGE
5.42-5.75 '
10.42
6.09-6.54
15.40
9.71 -II .07
10.26
14.62-15.74
COLLECTION
COST PER
HOME PER
WLCK
0.16
0.29
0.16
0.37
0.33
0.34
0.32
RANGE
0. 1 3-0. 2C
0.29
0 . 1 'j - 0 . 1 i «
0 . '. 7
0.30-0.36
0. 34
0.27-0.37
-------
Pi scuss ion. Even with standard costs, there was considerable
variation in the cost related factors of the collection system
operations, although crew size, frequency of collection, and point
of coI Iectton expI ained much of this. Differences in local costs
would increase these cost variations. How then does the local
collection system manager relate his costs to the systems study?
While it is possible to convert systems study costs to local costs
and vice versa, the most practical approach is to consider both
the systems study performance and the local performance in terms
of the I oca I costs .
The total daily costs for a local operation may be determined
by completing the form of Figure 29. The local daily costs can bo
related to the three phases of collection operations, and also to
the cost per home per week, and cost per ton by the formulas
provided in Figure 30.
The formulas for cost per home per week and cost per ton pro-
vide the local manager with a simple and powerful tool for analyzing
his performance in terms of the performance of the systems studied.
By using his daily costs per day, and the operational productivity
and performance factors of the system or systems under consideration,
the manager can make direct cost comparisons with his own performance.
To demonstrate the effect which various local labor rates would
have on the collection cost per ton and collection cost per home per
week, two tables of data have been prepared. Table 35 provides
information on the collection cost per ton for various labor rates
for each system. Table 36 provides information on the collection
cost per home per week for various labor rates for each system.
These tables can be used to approximate very cl'osely what the
collection costs .per ton and per home per week would be using
126
-------
FIGURE 29
PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING LOCAL
TOTAL PERFORMANCE COSTS PER DAY
Total Costs = Manpower Costs + Equipment Costs
Manpower Costs (Per Day)
Labor Costs (Wages) xxxxx
Fringe Benefits Costs xxxxx
Personnel Overhead Costs xxxxx
Total Manpower Costs xxxxx
Equipment Costs (Per Day)
Depreciation xxxxx
Maintenance xxxxx
Daily Consumables (gas and oil) xxxxx
Other (Insurance, Fees, Etc.) xxxxx
Total Equipment Costs xxxxx
Total Costs (Per Day) xxxxx
127
-------
FIGURE 30
PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING LOCAL PERFORMANCE COSTS
FOR COMPARISON WITH SYSTEM STUDIES COST
*
Cost to Route (Per Day) =
,. ,„ « * w Average Time to Routs'(Per Day.I-..
Local Total Cost (Per Day) X Average total Time Worked (Per bay)
*
Cost to Collect (Per Day) =
_ . v Average Time to Collect (Per Day?
Local Total Cost (Per Day) X Average Total Time Worked (Per Day?
- *
Cost to Transport (Per Day) =
Average Time to Transport (Per Day)
Local Total Cost (Per Day) X Averajje Total Time Worked (Per bay)
Cost Per Home Served (Per Week) =
Local Total Costs (Per Day) X Frequency of Collection (Per WeeJQ
Average Homes Served (Per Day)
Cost Per Ton =
Local Total Costs (Per Day)
Tons Collected (Per Day)
Collection Cost Per Home Served (Per Week) =
Local Collection Costs- (Per Day) X Frequency of Gol lection (Per.Wk)
Average Homes Served (Per Day)
Collection Cost Per Ton =
Local Collection Costs (Per Day)
Average Tons Collected (Per Day}
* Cost by activity Is determined on the basis of relative time sp6nt
on the activity. Therefore, the average total time worked per day
serves as the basis for the activity costs, and not the total p^d
time. The total paid time Is reflected In the total cost per <3&-y.
128
-------
TARLL 35
IHL EFI'LCr MI LiM3^i COSTS ON COLLECT 1014 COST PLR TOM
I -flan Crew
System
Number
3.50
I 4.19
2 4.43
3 8.04
Labor
4
4
4
8
.00
.47
.73
.58
4
4
5
9
.50
.75
.03
. 12
5
5
5
9
.00
.02
.33
.66
5
5
5
10
Pates
.50
.30
.63
.20
5
5
5
10
.70*
^^^•^^^^^^
.41
.75
.41
6
5
5
10
.00
.58
.93
.74
6
5
6
1 1
.50
.85
.23
.28
7.00
6.13
6.53
1 1 .81
System
Number
4
5
6
10
I I
2-Man Crew
Labor Rates
7.QQ 8.00 9.00 10.00 M • 00 ".'5*
4.72 5.15 5.59 6.03 6.46 6.53
4.39 4.80 5.21 5.62 6.03 6.09
10.54 11.39 12.24 13.09 13.94 14.07
11.29 12.36 13.43 14.50 15.57 15.73
10.31 11.35 12.38 13.42 14.45 14.60
'2.00 I2.70**I5.00 14.00
7.20 7.33 7.81
6.72 6.85 7.26
6.90
6.44
14.80 15.39 15.65 16.49
16.64 17.39 17.71 18.78
15.48 16.21 16.52 17.55
System
! i u n b e r
7
8
9
10.50 12.00 13.50
G.76 7.48 8.20
7.71 8.5? «J.™
7.13 7.C/ -'1.6?
* SruJy f.tandard R a I •
* ', tori'1 jr d roll If-1 ' v.'
3-Man Crew
Labor Rates
5.00 I 6.50 16.60*
8.92 9.64 9.69
10.15 10.97 I I .02
M. 37 I 0. I ? 10.17
1J9
18.00 I 9.50 21 .00
10.36 I I .08 II .80
I | .78 12.60 13.41
lO.flfr M.6I 12.56
-------
IALJ.-L 3b
IP f.n u,i or LMJor? COLT1: r.fi
Ll rCTION COST PER HOME PER iJ
I-Man Crew
System
Number
1
2
3
System
Number
4
5
6
10
1 1
System
i . j m b e r
7
j
9
Labor Rates
3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 5.70*
0.10 0.10 0. 1 1 0.12 0.12 0.13
0.16 0.17 0.18 C. 1 9 0.20 0.20
0.22 0.24 0.25 0.27 0.28 0.29
2-Man Crew
Labor Rates
7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 11.15* 12
0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.16 0
0. 1 1 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.15 0
0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.34 0
0.19 0.21 0.23 0.25 0.26 0.27 0
0.26 0.29 0/31 0.34 0.37 0.37 0
3-Man Crew
Labor Rates
10.50 12.00 13.^0 15.00 16.50 16.60*
0.21 0.23 0.25 0.28 0.30 0.30
0.24 0.27 0.7,0 (}.!>'.> O.S5 0.35
0.24 0.26 0.28 0.31 0.33 0.34
6.00 6.50 7.00
0.13 0.13 0.14
0.21 0.22 0.23
0.30 0.32 0.33
.00 I2.70**I3.00 14.00
.17 0.18 0.18 C. i9
.16 0.17 0.17 0 . !8
.36 0.37 0.38 0.40
.28 0.30 0.30 0.->2
.39 0.41 0.42 O.i5
18.00 -I 9.50 21 .00
0.32 0.34 0.37
0.37 0.40 0.4^
0.36 0.38 0.4!
* Study Standard !J.-i I e
* Ctr-n-^rd n.T»e lor ' /• tern (,
1.0
-------
local labor rates and assuming the study system performance.
The formulas for deriving the information in the tables is
provided as Appendix 4.
To determine the effect of an increase in the capital costs
of equipment in the collection activities, an additional table
has been prepared. Table 37 provides the incremental effect on
collection cost per home per week and per ton of an increase in
equipment costs of $1,000 for the systems studied.
A comparison of the information provided in Tables 35, 36,
and 37 indicates that the cost per ton and per home served per
week are rather insensitive to an additional cost of $1,000 in
equipment costs, but highly sensitive to an increase in labor
rates of $0.50 per hour. This is to be expected because with
a depreciation period of five years for the equipment, the annual
increment of additional cost would be only $200. This $200 would
then be spread over the homes served per week and the tons collected
per day. An increase in the pay rate of $0.50 per crewman per hour
has the effect of adding approximately $1,000 per year per crewman
in labor costs.
Since all systems studied were labor intensive in terms of
relative equipment and manpower costs, it is clear that personnel
costs should be the first item to consider in a cost reduction
program. From a practical standpoint, personnel costs can be
reduced in one of two ways, or a combination of both. The first
is to improve the productivity of crews. The second is to reduce
the number of crews or the size of the crews.
The analysis of crew size indicates that the productivity
of crewmen has a strong tendency to increase as the crew size
decreases. The greatest productivity per crewman is with the
131
-------
lA'JLL 37
TNI- t'FFLCT UF CAPITAL COSTS ON COLLECTION RELATED COSTS
An increase of $1,000 in equipment cost has the following
incremental effect;on collection related costs. These^costs are
based on a 5 year Depreciation period and the number of work days
a year in each system.
System Collection Cost/
Number Nunbe.r Workdays/Year . ,Horae-/Week Collection Cost/T-on
1
2
3*
4
5
6*
7
8
9*
10
1 1
260
255
310
261
261
208
260
252
207
255
260
.001
.002
.002
.001
.001
.002
.001
.002
.002
.002
.003
'.053
.059
'.087
.041
'.035
'.098
.046
.051
.047
. 103
.098
'Collection "twice w-eekl'y-.
132
-------
one-man crews. To reduce personnel costs, a logical avenue would
be to reduce crew size and, at the same time, increase the pro-
ductivity of crewmen. This procedure will enable the collection
system to provide the same services with less personnel.
Since equipment costs were less than personnel costs for
each system stud-ied and the incremental effects of capital costs
are small in comparison with personnel costs, the most productive
equipment that meets the collection system requirements should be
used. Compromising equipment or crew performance for the sake of
a lower equipment cost appears to be counter productive.
Cone I us i ons. The following conclusions resulted from a
consideration of the system costs.
Regardless of the kind of equipment that was being used, the
initial cost of the equipment, and the number of days per week
the equipment was being used, the daily equipment costs were of
the same general magnitude for all systems. The equipment costs
for System 6 with the detachable container equipment and mother
truck combination were significantly greater than the equipment
costs for the other systems.
The daily personnel costs were related directly to the crew
s i ze.
For every system studied, the daily personnel costs were
significantly more than the daily equipment costs. The manpower
to equipment cost ratios averaged 1.4 for one-man crews, 3.0 for
two-man crews, and 4.5 for" three-man crews.
The incremental effect of an increase in equipment costs of
$1,000 was small in comparison with an effective incre'ase in labor
costs per crewman of $0.50 per hour.
133
-------
Since daily personnel costs are significantly more tha-n the
daily equipment costs, cost reduction programs should look first
in the area of personnel costs. Personnel costs can be lowered
by improving personnel productivity, by reducing the numbers of
personnel or both. There is a strong tendency for personnel
productivity to increase as crew size decreases.
Since incremental cost effects of an increase in equipment
cost of $1,000 are small in comparison with an increase in the
effective labor rate of $0.50 per hour, compromising equipment or
crew performance for the sake of a lower equipment cost appears to
be counter productive.
134
-------
SECTION IV
PRODUCTIVITY AND EFFICIENCY MEASURES
FROM REGRESSION ANALYSIS
Genera I
Many of the parameters from the DAAP data were subjected
to regression analysis to determine the significant relationships
that existed among the collection system variables. These regreS'
sion computer printouts are provided by Annex E of Volume III.
In this section only those relationships that are associated
with productivity and efficiency measures are considered.
All of the equations are in the form of
Y = aX. + bX_ + cX, + dX. + e. This form of the equation was
found to provide the best representation of system performance.
Five dependent variables (Y) were considered for analysis and
included the following:
Collection minutes per service
Services per collection hour
Tons collected per collection hour
Total cost per service per week
Total cost per ton
Each of the dependent variables was considered in terms of
the following independent variables:
X = pounds per service per collection
X? = crew s i ze
X, = percent one-way items
X = collection miles per day
35
-------
For each dependent variable the data were stratified into
three groups as follows:
Curb and alley collecting once weekly
Curb and alley collecting twice weekly
Backyard collecting once weekly
The equations that resulted from these regressions define
the dependent variables in terms of the operational performance
of the systems studied. Since the data represent the fqur "best"
routes of the "best" systems that could be found, the equations
should be reliable predictors of expected performance based on
local conditions. The equations, however, cannot be used to pre-
dict a performance outside the limits of the systems studied.
For example, the equations cannot be used to predict the perfor-
mance of a four man curb and alley system or a three man backyard
system or a two man backyard system collecting twice weekly.
Because there exists many systems that closely approximate the
definition of the study systems, the regression models should have
a broad general application.
The results of the regressions will be considered in the
following sections. For each set of regressions the following
information is presented: the number of data points used in the
regression, the average values for the dependent and independent
variables, the regression coefficients for the independent vari-
ables and the correlation of the independent variables with the
dependent variables.
In all the regression equations derived for curb and alley
systems collecting twice weekly, and only these systems, the crew
size numbers of I, 2 and 3 can also be used to represent type of
equipment. In this case the number I represents the side loader.,
I 36
-------
the number 2 represents the detachable container system, and the
number 3 represents rear loading equipment.
Of the four independent variables considered only one is
wholly outside the control of the solid waste collection manager.
r
This one is the generation rate or pounds per service per collec-
tion. The other variables can be controlled to some extent. The
crew size is completely within the control of the manager. The
percent of one-way items may be influenced by the manager. ThJs
influence may range from prescribing bags be used completely
to the creating of conditions whereby the use of more bags will
be encouraged and used. The collection miles per day may also
be influenced by the manager. By more efficient micro-routing
and by placing some reasonable restrictions on travel for breaks
which may be included in the collection phase of operations, the
manager can favorably influence the collection miles per day to
keep them at a minimum.
In general, the four independent variables have the following
effects on the collection operations:
An increase in generation rates adversely affects productivity
and efficiency parameters
An increase in crew size increases production and also
increases the cost of providing services
An increase in the percentage of one-way items increases pro-
ductivity and decreases the cost of providing services
An increase in collection miles decreases productivity and
increases cost.
In the following paragraphs tables of data are provided for
each of the dependent variables. In each table of data the cor-
relation numbers provide an indication of the significance of the
I 37
-------
independent variables with respect to the dependent variable.
The higher the correlation number the greater the significance
of the var iabIe.
From the manager's standpoint particular emphasis should be
placed on those items that have the greatest influence on the
collection operation and over which he exercises some control.
Collection Minutes Per Service
Collection minutes per service is one of the parameters
directly related to the productivity of collection operations.
The equations that resulted from the regression analyses are as
foI Iows:
Curb and Alley Collecting Once Weekly
Y = 0.76 + O.OIX! - 0.07X2 - 0.05X4
Curb and Alley Collecting Twice Weekly
Y = 0.44 + O.OIXj - 0.24X2 + O.OIX4
Backyard Collecting Once Weekly
Y = 0.75 + 0.0!X3
The results of the regression analyses are summarized in
Table 38. The computer printouts for the regression runs are
provided by Appendix 5.
2
Based on the values of R , the three equations can be
expected to provide excellent results in projecting the collection
minutes per service. In the worst case, curb and alley collecting
once weekly, 81.0 percent of the variations in input data were
explained on the basis of the designated independent variables.
In the other two cases, better than 96 percent of variations were
explained by the chosen input variations.
138
-------
TABLE 38
COLLECTION MINUTES PER SERVICE
System
Curb alley
1 /week
Curb alley
2/week
Bac kyard
1 /week
Curb alley
1 /week
Curb alley
2/week
Backyard
1 /week
Data
Po i nts
281
156
102
281
156
102
Average Values
Y
0.73
0.49
1 .09
Xl
58.20
28.36
42.37
X7
2.01
2.02
2.02
X3
62.40
48.33
24 . 10
X4
8.92
14.89
6.73
Standard Deviation
0.25
0. 17
0.27
1 3.92
4.70
1 0.89
0.85
0.82
0.03
1 5.89
8.25
20.60
3.09
4.44
1 .04
Coefficients of Var
X.
0.01
0.01
X2
-0.07
-0.24
Simple Corre
0.70
0.22
0.79
0. 1 1
0.95
0.25
X3
0.01
i ab 1 es
X4
-0.05
0.01
ation With Y
0.61
0.42
0.99
0.75
0.15
0.14
Constant
Term
0.76
0.44
0.78
R2
81 .0
96.9
98. 1
LrJ
\0
-------
Services Per Collection Hour
Services per collection hour is one of the parameters directly
related to the productivity of collection operations. The equations
that resulted from the regression analyses are as follows:
Curb and Alley Collecting Once Weekly
Y = 94.63 - I.06X! + 0.55X3 + 2.77X4
Curb and Alley Collecting Twice Weekly
Y = 57.20 - 2.55X! + 54.I4X2 + I.UXj
Backyard Collecting Once Weekly
Y = 74.84 - 0.68X3
The results of the regression analyses are summarized in
Table 39. The computer printouts for the regression runs are
provided by Appendix 6.
2
Based on the values of R , the three equations can be expected
to provide excellent results in projecting the number of services
per collection hour. In the worst case, curb and alley collecting
once weekly, 75.5 percent of the variations in input data were
explained on the basis of the designated independent variables.
In the other two cases, better than 96 percent of the variations
were explained by the chosen input variables.
Tons Per Collection Hour
Tons per collection hour is one of the parameters directly
related to the productivity of collection operations. The equations
that resulted from the regression analyses are as follows:
Curb and Alley Collecting Once Weekly
Y = -0.16 + O.OIX, + O.I4X2 + O.OIX3 + O.I2X4
Curb and Alley Collecting Twice Weekly
Y = -1.72 + O.C2X! + 0.78X2 + 0.03X3
40
-------
TABLE 39
SERVICES PER COLLECTION HOUR
System
Curb alley
1 /week
Curb alley
2/week
Bac kyard
1 /week
Curb alley
1 /week
Curb alley
2/week
Backyard
1 /week
Data
Po i nts
281
1 56
102
281
156
102
Average Va 1 ues
Y
91.81
1 37.07
58.47
Xl
58.20
28.36
42.37
X7
2.01
2.02
2.02
X3
62.40
48.33
24. 10
X4
8.92
14.89
6.73
Standard Deviation
28.68
46.99
14.11
13.92
4.70
10.89
0.85
0.82
0.03
1 5.89
8.25
20.60
3.09
4.44
1 .04
Coefficients of Variables
X,
-1 .06
-2.55
X2
54 . 1 4
S i mp 1 e Cor re
0.70
0.38
0.78
0.04
0.97
0.25
X3
0.55
1.14
-0.68
X4
2 .77
ation With Y
0.61
0.61
0.99
0 .70
0.36
0.14
Constant
Term
94.63
57 .20
74 .84
R2
75.5
96 .6
98.2
-------
Backyard Collecting Once Weekly
Y = 0.52 + 0.02X! - O.OIX3
The results of the regression analyses are summarized in
Table 40. The computer printouts for the regression runs are
provided by Appendix 7.
2
Based on the values of R , the first equation should be used
2
cautiously. The R value of 62.2 indicates there is a signifi-
cant amount of the variations not explained by the designated
variables. In the other two equations, better than 92 percent
of the input data variations were explained by the chosen vari-
ables. These equations should provide excellent results in pro-
jecting the tons collected per collection hour.
Total Cost Per Service Per Week
Total cost per service per week is one of the parameters
directly related to the efficiency of collection operations.
The equations that resulted from the regression analyses are
as foilows:
Curb and Alley Collecting Once Weekly
Y = 0.23 + 0.I2X2 - O.OIX4
Curb and Alley Collecting Twice Weekly
Y = 0.66 + 0.09X2 - O.OIX3
Backyard Collecting Once Weekly
Y = -0.04 + 0.I7X2
The results of the regression analyses are summarized in
Table 41. The computer printouts for the regression runs are
provided by Appendix 8.
2 '
Based on the values of R , the three equations can be expected
to provide excellent results in projecting the cost per home per
week. The R in each case is better than 95 percent which means
142
-------
TABLE 40
TONS PER COLLECTION HOUR
System
Curb alley
1 /week
Curb alley
2/week
Bac kyard
1 /week
Cu rb alley
1 /week
Cu rb alley
2/week
Backyard
1 /week
Data
Po i nts
281
156
102
281
156
102
Average Va 1 ues
Y
2.53
2.01
1.18
X,
58.20
28.36
42.37
X2
2.01
2.02
2.02
X3
62.40
48.33
24 . 10
X4
8.92
14.89
6.73
Standard Deviation
0.58
0.89
0. 17
1 3.92
4.70
1 0.89
0.85
0.82
0.03
15 .89
8.25
20.60
3.09
4.44
1 .04
Coefficients of Variables
X.
0.01
0.02
0.02
X2
0.14
0.78
Simple Corre
0.05
0.67
0.33
0.28
0.94
0.14
X?
0.01
0.03
-0.01
X4
0.12
ation With Y
0.65
0.80
0.31
0.62
0.55
0.09
Constant
Term
-0.16
-1 .72
0.52
R2
62.2
98.3
92.6
-------
TABLE 41
TOTAL COST PER SERVICE PER WEEK
System
Curb alley
I /week
Curb alley
2/week
Bac kya r d
I /week
Curb alley
I /week
Curb alley
2/wee k
Bac kya rd
1 /week
Data
Poi nts
281
156
102
281
156
102
Average Va
Y
0.33
0.46
0.40
Xl
58.20
28.36
42.37
X7
2.01
2.02
2.02
ues
X3
62.40
48.33
24. 10
X4
8.92
14.89
6.73
Standard Dev ation
0.13
0.06
0.07
13.92
4.70
10.89
0.85
0.82
0.03
15.89
8.25
20.60
3.09
4 .44
1 .04
Coef f
X.
c i ents
X7
0.12
0.09
0. 17
Simple Cor re
0.46
0.09
0.79
0.77
0.72
0.16
of Van
X3
-0.01
at i on
0.16
0.13
0.99
i ab 1 es
X4
-0.01
With Y
0.64
0.39
0.13
Constant
Term
0.23
0.66
-0.04
R2
95. 1
97. 1
98.7
-------
that most of the variations in cost have been explained by the
chosen parameters.
In using these equations it must be remembered that the
equations are based on the cost data used in the study; there-
fore, the equations must be used with caution. Local perfor-
mance factors can be used to predict the costs in terms of the
study. These costs must then be converted to local costs using
the procedures described in Section III.
Total Cost Per Ton
Total cost per ton is one of the parameters directly related
to the efficiency of collection operations. The equations that
resulted from the regression analyses are as follows:
Curb and Alley Collecting Once Weekly
Y = 18.74 - O.I2X! + 4.02X2 - 0.07X3 - 0.44X4
Curb and Alley Collecting Twice Weekly
Y = 45.03 - 0.56X! + 3.59X2 - 0.36X3 - O.I7X4
Backyard Collecting Once Weekly
Y = 10.92 - 0.37X, + IO.I3X2 + O.I5X3
The results of the regression analyses are summarized in
Table 42. The computer printouts for the regression runs are
provided by Appendix 9.
2
Based on the values of R , the three equations can be expected
to provide excellent results in projecting the cost per ton. The
2
R in each case is 90 percent or better which means that most of
the variations in cost have been explained by the chosen parameters.
In using these equations it must be remembered that the equa-
tions are based on the cost data used in the study; therefore,
the equations must be used with caution. Local performance factors
can be used to predict the costs in terms of the study. These
145
-------
TABLE 42
TOTAL COST PER TON
System
"Curb alley
1 /week
Curb alley
2/week
Backyard
1 /wee k
Curb a 1 1 ey
1 /week
Curb alley
2/week
Backyard
1 /week
Data
Poi nts
281
156
102
281
156
102
Average Values
Y
1 1 .45
16.72
19.15
X.
58.20
28.36
42.37
X?
2.01
2.02
2.02
X3
62.40
48.33
24. 10
X4
8.92
4.89
6.73
Standard Deviation
3.87
3.85
2.63
1 3.92
4 .70
10.89
0.85
0.82
0.03
15.89
8.25
20.60
3.09
4 .44
1 .04
Coefficients of Variables
Xl
-0.12
-0.56
-0.37
X2
4 .02
3.59
10.13
S inp 1 e Corre
0.14
0.79
0.64
0.76
0.07
0.07
X3
-0.07
-0 .36
0.15
X4
-0.44
-0.17
at i on With Y
0.03
0.66
0.05
0.46
0.71
0.03
Constant
Term
1 8.74
45.03
10.92
R2
90.0
95. 1
93.9
-------
costs must then be converted to local costs using the procedures
described in Section III.
147
-------
00
APPENDIX I
(I) DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
UAAP CUMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPUT
(2) COLLECTION SYSTEM DESCRIPTION REPORT
3) PERIOD FLR WHICH DATA APPLIES 01/02/74 THRU 01/31/74
(4 ) (5) • (6) (7)
SYSTEM OPtRATING • TOTAL TYPE
NUHbEM AGtNCY • NUPBcR OF
• UF ELUIP
• ROCUS
oeeeoo»«o««»oo»«»»»o«»»»»»o»e»c»»eeo
(8) • (9)
CREH • COLLECT
SIZt o PER
• MEEK
(10)
POINT
OF
COLLECT
(It) « (12) • (13)
COLLECTION • INCENTIVE • UNION
METHODOLOGY • SYSTEM • REPR.
o o
(14)
TYPE OF
STORAGE CONTAINERS
0 «
BAGS • * CANS o * H1SC
( I) lint hojding Identifies the Data Acquisition and Analysis Program.
{ 2) Identifies the kind of information in this report.
( 3) I ho period for which the information of the report applies.
( -1) indicates the system number under study. Systems are numbered in the sequence designated in the contract scope of
work .
( 5) Indicates whether the system bomq studied operates under a public or private organization.
( 6) ln.l.cdt-js the total number of routes beinq monitored for each system. Four routes were monitored for each system.
( 7) Indicates the general typo of equipment being used by the system. RL indicates rear loader, SL indicates side lo.idar
(jll side loaders In the study -ore the Shu-Pak). and EVO indicates the LoDaL mobile transfer system.
( 3) Inijic-ites the size of the nor-ial crew, including the driver.
( 9) Indicdiuo The number of normal collections received by a resident per week.
(10) Indicates whether collections are made from the curb and/or alley or from the backyard.
(II) indicates whether the collections are made from one side or both sides of the street or by using a totebarrel for b.ick-
y ird systems .
(12) Indicates whether the incentive system is the task system or the standard 8-hour day. In the task system the crew ,s
finished -hen the designated work has been completed. In the 8-hour day system the crew Is required to work the full
day.
(13) Indicates whether or not the crews are represented by a un|on.
(14) Indicates the percentage of storage containers by type that was encountered during the last time motion study or back-
yard survey.
-------
(I )
(2)
DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
OAAP COMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPUT
DETAILED VEHICLE - CREW REPORT
eo»eeooo«e*»ee***«**
(3)
-is..
\O
(4)
ROUTE
NUMBER
(5)
SIZE
AND
TYPI
PERIOD FLR NHICH DATA APPLIES 01/02/74 THRU 01/31/14
fcQUPMENT COST PtR
OPERATING DAY (DOLLARS)
(8)
AVG
CREW
SI/E
(9)
CREU HOURLY LABOR
RATE (DOLLARS)
DRIVER 'COLLECTOR
HOURS WORKED
PER MEEK
(6) •
AbE «
EClMP °
(YEARS)
•DEPREC1- « HAINTfc- « CONSUH- *INSURANCt*
•ATION • NANCE • ABLtS «ANI) FEES »
e • • • •
»OO*0«»**»O*••••»••••*•••••
( I) This heading identifies tho Data Acquisition and Analysis Program.
( 2) Identifies the kind of information in the report.
( 5) Tho period for which the information of the report applies.
< 4) Idontif.os the system and route by moans of a four digit number. The first two digits Indicate the system number
ond tho second two digits indicate the route number of the system.
( 5) lnd.c.itos tho average size of tho vehicle used on the route and its general type The average size takes Into
considcrotion substitute vehicles of different sizes. The abbreviations for vehicle type that were used ,n the
Collection System Description Report are also used in this report.
( 6) Ind.cates the age of the equipment being used. For the purposes of this study all equipment was considered to be
in iti first year of operation.
( 7) indicates the equipment related costs per day. Four equipment costs are provided. These areJeprecI at I on ma I n-
ton.mco. consumables, and insurance and fees. Standard procedures are used for determining each of these costs.
For depreciation the useful I.fe is considered to be five years. The yearly depreciation is divided by the number
ol normal working days per year to obtain the daily depreciation increment.
Ihe annual maintenance cost for the FIRST YEAR ,s considered to be 5.5 percent of the total equIpment cost. This
value is divided by the number of normal working days per year to obtain the dally maintenance increment.
The consumables cost is based on the actual consumption of fuel and engine oil. Standard costs are used per gallon
of fuel and per quart of engine oil.
The Insurance and fees are assumed to be 11200 per year per vehicle. This value is divided by the number of normal
working days per year to determine the daily increment.
( 8) Indicates the average crew size used during the period and takes into consideration the addition or deletion of crew
members as the need arises. The crew size includes the driver.
( 9) Indicates the EFFECTIVE hourly labor rate for the driver and collector. This labor rate Includes fringe benefits
and personnel overhead.
(10) Indicates the number of "hours per week that are planned and actually workeJ. The planned number Is based on the
normal work week and the number of days of data being submitted per week. The number of hours actual Iy worked per
week inc?ude"?he Sally work eMorts from the time th! crew leaves the motor pool in the morning until the return
to the motor pool at the'end of the day.
-------
VJ1
O
(I )
(2)
UATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
UAAP COMPUTER PROGRAM UUTPLT
uETAILfcD ROUTE OPERATIONS REPORT
(3) PERIOD FUR MHICH DATA APPLIES Ul/02/74 THRU 01/31/7*
eoaooaaee
(4)
RUUTE
NUMbER
•e«*o»*o*«»»»**<
(5)
MOTOR POOL
TO ROUTE
(PER DAY)
0
MILE* • nOURS
•»oe*»*o***oo«oc
(6)
COLLECTION
OPtRATlCN
(PER OAY1
•••O0**»*******
«
MILES • nOuRi
VO •O«9VVVVav»vvv
(7)
TRANSPORT
IjPtRATIOn
(PfcR DAY)
••oooeo*oo»****
a
hILES • HOURS
(9)
DISCHARGE
POINT
(LOADS PER DAY)
• LAND •
1NCIN • FILL o
»•••••
XFER
STA
(10)
AVG NT
CCLLECTEO
(PtR DAY)
(TLNSI
(II)
AVG
LOADS
(PER DAY)
tAAAAaaaaaaa
TO ROUTE. <8)
COLLECTION.
TRANSPORT
(PER DAY)
t»eoo»oei
o
MILES • HOURS
ooa»ooooo•ooi
( I) rrtis huadinrj Identifies the Data Acquisition and Analysis Program.
( 21 Identifies tho kind of Information in tho report.
( J) Tho period for which the Information of the report applies.
( 4) Mont, I,os tho system and route by means of a four d , n > t number. The first two digits Indicate the system numbor,
anrt »ho socond two digits indicate the route number of the system.
( 5), (6) A <7). Crew activities jro viewed in three phases.
The
,
.
< 8) Represents the average total t.me spent per day in performing the three phases of the crew activities. Oovrn time
and lunch time are excluded from this total time.
( 9) Indicates the number of loads per day which are transported to the disposal sites listed.
(10) Indicates the average weight collected per day In tons.
(II) Indicates the average number of loads collected per day.
Met,. For each of the columns of (5) through (II) a sun, average, and accumulative average (YTO = Year to Date, the
accumulative average) is provided.
-------
VJl
(I) DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS PROCRAN
LAAP COMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPUT
(2) COLLECTION RCUTE COST REPORT
(3) PERIOD FOR WHICH DATA APPLIES Ul/02/7* THRU 01/31/7*
o (4)
o RUUTE
• NUMBER
e
(5)
CCST TO
ROUTE
PER DAY
(6)
COST TC
COLLECT
PER C.AY
(7) • (8)
COST TC • EQUIP
TRANSPORT* COST
PER DAY o PEk UAY
e
(9) « (10)
MANPOWER0 TOTAL
COST • COST
PER DAY « PER DAY
(II) » 02)
TOTAL • TOTAL
BREAKDOWN •> INCENTIVE
COST • COST
(MANPOWER)*
(13)
TLTAL
OVERTIME
CUST
(14)
COST
PER
TON
» (15) •
• COST PER •
« HUME •
o SERVICED •
( I) This heading identifies the Data Acquisition and Analysis Program.
( 2) identifies the kind of Information in the report.
( 3) Tho period for which the information of the report applies.
< 4, ,„.„„,.., the system and route by means of a four digit number. The first two digits Indicate the system number.
.mil rho second two dlqlts .ndicate the route number of the system.
< 5, ,nrt,c,tes the sum of the equipment and personne, costs per da,, to travel from the motor poo, to the first eoll.ctlon.
Those costs are based on the time required to perform this operat.on.
« 6, ,„„,.,t.s the sum o, the equ.pment and personne, costs per day to co.pI.t,.the t.t., coM.ct.on phase o, the effort.
rn-v,o rosts -iro based on tho time required to complete the collection effort.
( 7, .ndlrot., the sum of the equipment and personne. costs per day to compIete the transport phase of the effort. These
cost', jre based on the time required to complete the transport effort.
, 3) indites the total cost of operat.ng the equipment per day and inc.udes the costs of depreciation, maintenance.
d.iily consumables, and insurance and fees.
( 9) indicates the total personne, costs per day. The personne, costs wl
fr i mjo benefits and personnel overhead.
,,0, indicates the tota, d.lly equipment and personne, costs per day. Th,s tota, cost ,s also the sum of the costs to
to tho route, to collect and to transport.
(I I )
.....
the lost production associated with breakdowns.
(,2) .ndicates the tota, money pa.d to the crew dur.ng the per.od which ,s pa.d when the crew I. not work.ng a full stan-
dard day.
(,3) ,nd,cates the tota, -oney paid to the crew dur.ng the period which .. pa.d when the crew works .onger than the stan-
dard day.
,14) ind.cates the tota, equipment and personne, costs requ.red to e.ll.et and transport one ton of ..lid waste to the
disposal point.
(|5, ind.cates the tota, equipment and personne, costs requ.red to serv.ce one f..lly unit per week and per year.
Note- For each of the co.uo.ns of (5) through (15) a sun,, average, and accumu,atIve average (YTO - Year to Date, the accumu-
TaTTve average) Is provided wfiere this Is meaningful.
-------
(I)
uATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
OAAP COMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPUT
COLLECTION CREh PRODUCTIVITY REPORT
(3) PERIOD FUR WHICH DATA APPLIES 01/02/74 THRU 01/31/7*
• CREW PROuUCTIVITt(9>« COLLECTOR PRODUCTIVITY (|0)° (II)
NUMBER
• PER • PfeR
• UAY • WEEK
PER » PER
COLLtCT-" MEIK
IChlLBSI* (LttSI
COLLECTION
(MINUTES)
100 LBS.
(M1NS)
PER
• WEIGHT oHGNES SfcRVED "WEIGHT "INDEX
• HANDLED 'PER COLLECTOR •HANDLED PER • OF
• PfcR "PER COLLECT10N»COLLECTOR PER*PRODUCT-
.*_. .t?^v>i^ti A t t* I T V
CLLLECT10N»COLLECTION«HOUR
HOuR •riOUR(TONS)*
•COLLECTION
•HOURITONSI
•IV!TY
e
VJI
M
( I) This flooding identifies the Data Acquisition and Analysis Program.
( 2) Identifies the kind of information in the report.
( 3) The poriod for which the Information of the report applies.
< 4) Monti.,c* the system and route by means of a four digit number. The first two digits indicate the system number and
the second two digits Indicate tho route number of the system.
( 5) mii.catos the average number of homes served on a daily and weekly basis. This takes into consideration more than
•mo ocnuduled collection per week.
( 6) Inrtloitos the average we.oht collected per home on a daily and weekly basis. Th,s takes into consideration more than
ono scheduled collection per week.
( 7) Indicates the average tine in minutes which is required to serve one home during each collection day.
( 8) lnd,c.,»os the average time in minutes which IS required to collect 100 pounds of solid waste from the route during
ejch uo I lection day .
( 9) Providos a measure of crew productivity in terms of the number of homes served per collection hour and the number of
tons collected per collection hour.
(10) Provides a measure of collector productivity in terms of the number of homes served per collector per coI IectI on hour
and the number of tons collected per collector per collection hour. For the Purposes of th I S I tern "c; ""^a-*
tem is considered to have one collector, each two-man system Is considered to have one collector, and oacn three
system Is considered to have two collectors.
(II) Provides a rough measure of the relative productivity of each route and each system.
Note: For each of the columns of (5) through (II) a sum, averege, and accumulative average (YTD = Year to Date, the
accumulative average) is provided.
-------
VJl
(I) DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
DAAP COMPUTER PROGRAH uUTPLT
(2) COLLECTION SYSTEM EFFICIENCY kEPORT
(3) PERILD FLR WHICH DATA APPLIES 01/02/7* THRU dl/lin*
RATIO
(6)
RATIO
COLLECTION
TINE
TO
TIME
bORKEO
(7)
RATIO
ECU IP
CCJST
TU
HANPChER'
COST
(8
RATI
MANP
COST
TUTA
> COST
9
(9) • (10)
•COLLECTION RELATED COSTS* HEIGHT
• HANDLED
COST TO .o.*•••••••••••••••••••••« PER
•COLLECTION "COLLECTION » COLl
•COST PER .COST PER TCN» PER DAY
• rlOME SERVED'COLLECTED • (TUNSI
(II)
AVERAGE
• (12)
• HEIGHT
bEIGHT PER LOAD* PER CU.
(TONS)
e YARD
(13)
INDEX OF
ROUTE
EFFICIENCY
FIRST • ALL « LOAD
LOAD « OTHERS»(POUNDS>»
(4)
ROUTE
iORK
NUHBER TIKE
TO
STO.
TIME
000*0000000001
( I) Ttii', heading Identifies the Data Acquisition and Analysis Program.
( 2) Identifies the kind of information In the report.
( i) Fho period for which tho information of the report applies.
f 4) Mont,lies the system and route by means of a four digit number. The first two digits Indicate the system number.
and the second two digits indicate the route number of the system.
( 5) Indicates the proportion of tho standard work day that is spent in going to the route, collecting and transporting
w.ioto, tho time spont on breakdowns ond the excess lunch time.
( 6) im.c.tes the proportion of time spent ,n collecting waste in comparison with the total time spent ,n going to the
routo. collecting and transporting waste, the time spent on breakdowns, and the excess lunch time.
( 7) Indicates the relationship of the daily equipment cost In comparison to the dally manpower cost.
( B) Indic-ites the proportion of the daily total cost that Is associated with manpower costs.
( 9) indicates the cost per home served and the cost per ton collected based orHjr, on the total cost of the collection
phase of operations.
(10) Indicates the total tons of waste handled per collector per day.
(II) Indicates the average weight per load In tons for the first load of the day and for all subsequent loads per day.
(12) Indicates the degree of compaction being obtained on the first load with the equipment being used and the solid waste
being collected. It Is assumed that the first load In all cases Is a full load.
(13) Provides a rough measure of the relative efficiency of each route and each system.
-------
APPENDIX 2
DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
OAAP COMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPUT
COLLECTION SYSTEM DESCRIPTION REPORT
PERIOD FOR WHICH DATA APPLIES JANUARY-DECEMBER
»»o**«o* • • • •
» SYSTEM • OPERATING • TOTAL • TYPE • CREh • COLLECT » POINT • COLLECTION • INCENTIVE • UNION • TYPE OF •
* NUMBER » AGENCY • NUMBER • OF • SIZE • PER • OF • METHODOLOGY • SYSTEM • REPR. • STORAGE CONTAINERS •
» o « OF • E8UIP « • MEEK • COLLECT • • • . • • o •
o » • ROUTES o*e » • o o • » BAGS • » CANS • * M1SC •
••••••••••••••I
•••••••••••o
01
02
03
04
05
VJl
*> 06
07
OB
09
10
11
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
PUbLIC
PRIVATE
PUbLIC
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
4 SL
4 SL
4 SL
4 RL
4 RL
4 .DC 7
4 RL
4 RL
4 RL
4 RL
4 RL
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
CURB-ALLEY ONE-SIDt TASK
NO
34.0 52.0
CURB-ALLEY ONE-SIDE
CURB-ALLEY ONE-SIDE
8 HR DAY NO
CURB-ALLEY ONE-SIDE TASK
CURB-ALLEY ONE-SIDE TASK
CURB-ALLEY ONE-SIDE TASK
CURB-ALLEY BOTH SIUES TASK
CURB-ALLEY BOTH SIDES TASK
BACKYARD TOTE-BARREL TASK
YES
YES
8 HR DAY YES
YtS
YES
CURB-ALLEY BOTH SIOEi 8 HR DAY YES
YES
NU
26.0
56.0
85.0
56.U
2.0
53.0
29.0 53.0
28.0
6.0
19.0 61.0
28.0
25.0 17.0
46.0 41.0
96.0
10.0
21. o
1B.O
16.0
9.0
20.0
16.0
2b.O
13.0
2.0
BACKYARD TOTE-B.AR.REL 8 HR D|Y YES 33.0 5.5.0 12.0,
-------
DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
UAAP COMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPtT
OtTAILED VEHICLE - CREW RtPGRT
PERIOD FOR WHICH DATA APPLIES JANUARY-DECEMBER
e e
0 ROUTE « SUE <
° NUMBER « ANJ
e e IVPE
e e
e e
e e
01-01
01-02
01-C3
01-04
25
25
25
25
>aeaeeeaeae.eeeeoeaaaaaeaaaa.aaeaeeeee...aeaa..eaae...a.e.aeoa.a«o»o«o.«aoe.aao.. ...... o.aao.oo.a.ea.
> a a a a o
* AGE » EQOIPHENT COST PER « AVG " CREn HOURLY LABOR » HOURS WURKEU «
ECUIP » OPERATING OAY (DOLLARS) » CREW o RATE (DOLLARS) • PER WkEK »
(YEARS) •ocooeoeeooeeoooooooeeeoooooeoeoooooeoeoe SIZE eeoee.eoaeeeeoeoeoooeoeeoeoeeeeoeaeeoaeea
•DEPRECl- » MAINTE- « CONSUM- "INSURANCE" o DRIWER oCOLLfcCTCR* PLANNED » ALToAL *
•ATION » NANCE • AuLbS »ANi> FEES a o e e a e
aaaeeoeo. a
.U-iL l.C
.U-iL 1.0
.u-iL l.C
.U-iL 1.0
Id.JB
16.38
16.33
la. 38
5
i
5
b
VWWVWO9VVVVWVWWVVVV0VVWVWVVVVVVVVVVW9V9VVVVV9VOO00VVaVV0VVP00O090OVOpQ09POPQ9
.06 3.44 aaaaeaaeaaeeaeaaaeaeaeaoaaoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaoaoa
1.0 5.70 O.CO 46. CC 17.69
l.C 5.70 O.CO 46.00 3o.t>7
1.0 5.70 O.OC 4tt.OC 3/.J3
l.C 5.70 U.OO 4a.oO 3o.o?
iaaoe.ee. .o...o.aaaeaeeoeeeeeeocee..oooeaoaaaeeaeee
2.0 5.7R b.
-------
DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
bAAP COMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPUT
DITAUEU VEMlCLt - tREM REPORT
ROUTE
NUMBER
SUE
AND
TYPE
0
AGE •
EbUlP •
(YEARS) »
•
*
e
PEHl&D FUR VHllH DATA APPLIED JANUARY-uElEHBtR
tQUIPMENT LOST PER • AVt
OPERATING OAV (DOLLARS) * CREW
oooco»«»oo«eoeooo.»o»o»»»oo»»»»oo«»»»»»»« iliE
•OEPRECi- • HfclNTE- • CONJUH- 'INSURANCE*
ATICN * NANCE « AbLES *ANO FEES •
• o
CREfe HOURLY LABOR •
RATk (DuLLARS) *
HOURS WORKED
PER UiEK
DRIVER
'COLLECTOR* PLANNED • AlTuAL
e • •
06-01
06-02
06-03
06-04
8.0-DC
b.O-DC
b.O-DC
b.O-UC
l.C
l.C
1.0
l.C
27oo»oo o o*o<
32.CC
32.00
32.OC
32 .uO
21. .<»a
26
10-01
10-02
10-03
10-04
20.U-RL
20.0-Kb
20.0-RL
20.0-RL
l.C
l.C
1.0
1.0
17.80
17.80
17.80
17.80
4.90
4.90
4.90
4.90
1.32
1.23
1.35
1.42
4.71
4.71
4.71
4.71
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.1
5.70
5.70
5.70
S.70
5.45
5.45
5.45
5.45
40. OC
40. UO
40.00
40 .UO
32.06
30.59
31.52
31.13
11-01
11-02
H-°!
-0*
13.6-RL
13.2-RL
19.4-RL
13.7-RL
1.0
1.0
1.0
l.C
12.85
12.23
17.46
12.23
3.53
3.36
4.80
3.36
1.84
2.12
1.65
2.04
4.62
4.62
4.62
4.62
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
5.70
5.70
5.70
5.70
5.45
5.45
5.45
5.49
40.00
40. UO
40.00
40. OC
34.58
34.37
34.59
35.18
-------
DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
C.AAP COMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPUT
LETAILED RUUTE OPERATIuNS REPORT
PERILO FOR WHICH DATA APPLIES jAMJARY-bELEMBER
aaaaeaaa
KOUTE
fJoMoER
•aeeaaaaaaaaeaaaaai
a a
a MOTGK PCOL °
» TO PQUTE »
• (PER DAY) •
aeaeeaaaaaaaaa
CCLLECMON
OPERATION
(PtR DAY)
eaaeeeeee»eeeeeeeaaoeaeeeeaeoeooa»aeaaeo»aaaaaoaoaeaoaaaaeea»aaeoa aoaaaaaaaaa
•> « TO RUUTE. a a »
• TRANSPORT « COLLECTION. • DISCHARGE o AVC k T AVG •
» OPERATIC:* • TRANSPORT • POINT • COLLECTED LOADS »
» (PER DAY) * (PtR DAY) "(LOADS PER DAY) • (PER DAY) (PtR DAY 1 e
aaaaoaoaoeaaaaeaaaaaaaaaaeaaaaoaaaaaeaaaaaaaaaaaeaaaaaeaeaaoaeaaeaaaaaaoaaaaaaoaaaaaaa
a
eaea aaaa
01-01
C1-U2
01-U3
Cl-04
SUM
A VO
YTU
aaooooaaa
1*-U?
_ 0<-J3
n C^-i.4
1
**
SUM
AVO
YTO
a
• MILES
o a
• nOuPS •
a
MILES •
HOURS
a a
0 MILES °
a
HOURS °
MILES
a a a
« HOURS » 1NCIN <•
LAND « XFEK
FILL o STA
o (TONS)
a
a
a
»
a
aaaaaeaoaaeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaeaaaaaeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaoaaaaaaeaoataaaaaeaaaoaaaaaaeaaaaaaaooaaaaaaaaaaeoaaaaaaoaae
9.3
9 .0
7.5
7.7
33 .4
B.4
8.4
00000900
1 .8
} . 1
1 .2
0 .3
5.4
1.4
1 .4
aeooaaaaaaoaoaoog
03-01 7.7
C3-C2
C3-03
C3-C4
SUM
AVG
YTJ
7.5
9.3
7.5
32.0
8.0
8.0
C.39
0.31
0.3o
C.31
1 .30
0.3*
0.3*
lOOQOOO+OO
0.12
0-15
0.10
0.56
0.14
0.14
11.7
9.0
9.0
12.3
42.1
1U.5
lu.5
i a o a a a a a
0. d
6. a
C.4
2«.5
0.1
6.1
0.36 13.9
C.39
O.lt)
0.32
1.46
C.3o
0.36
1 1.6
13.7
15.7
55.0
13.7
13.7
3.77
4.06
3.67
?.84
15.34
3.83
3.63
> a a a a a t
4.76
4.44
4.4o
4.55
18.24
4.56
4.56
) O O O O 0 (
4.93
4.91
4.6o
5.00
19.53
4.8B
4.88
45.3
49. S
47.9
41 .<.
184.5
46. 1
1 .55
1.83
1.7*
1 .67
6.84
1.71
66.3
67.9
64.4
61 .4
260.0
65.3
5.7o O.U
6.1* U.u
5.76 0.0
5.82 0.0
23.47 0.0
5.87 U.U
1.8 U.U
1.7 U.U
1.7 0.0
1.8 0.0
1.1 U.O
l.R 0.0
46.1 1.71 65. j 5.87 0.0 1.8 O.U
21.7 1.85 32.3 6.72 0.0 .5 U.U
25.-.
2^.4
5.B
75.3
16.6
18. b
kOOOOOOOVO
21.0
22.3
2
-------
ooooooooo
0
« ROUTE
NUMBER
ooooooooo
04-01
04-U2
C4-U3
04-04
SUM
AVt,
YTU
aaaaaaaa
DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
ClAAP COMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPUT
DETAILED ROUTE OPERATIONS REPORT
PERIOD FOR WHICH DATA APPLIES JANUARY-DECEMBER
MOTOR PCUL
TO ROUTE
IPER DAY)
e
« CCLLECTIGN
» OPERATION
o (PER DAY)
» TRANSPORT
» OPERATION
« (PER OAYI
• TO RuUTE.
« COLLECTION,
• TRANSPORT
« (PER DAY1
» UlSCHARGb
a POINT
•(LOADS PER DAY)
o LAND « XFER
» AVO kT
• COLLfcCTED
» (PfcR DAY)
(TONS)
AVC
LOADS
(PER DAY)
MILES • HOURS « HUES • HOURS • HUES • HOuRS • HUES • HOURS • 1NCIN » FILL a STA a
oa*ooeoooooooaoooooooooo0oeoao*eaoooaoeoooooaoeoooooooooaoooooooooooooaoooaoooooooooaaeooaooooaooaoociaooooooc>
6 .4
5.3
6 .6
6.7
45.1
6.3
6.3
0.32
C.24
0.31
0.2(
1.14
0.29
0.29
9.9
1 1.6
9.0
9. a
4C.3
1U.1
10. 1
5.24
4.64
5.03
4.3J
19.24
4. 81
4.81
32.9
29.7
31.4
36.4
130.3
32.6
34.6
2.15
1 .6i
2.00
1.90
7.6S
4V.2
46.6
47.0
52.9
7.71
6.53
7.33
6.50
19b.7 28.07
4o.9 7.04
46.9 7.04
O.U
U.O
U.O
U.O
0.0
o.O
0.0
1 .5
1.4
1.4
1.4
5.6
1.4
1.4
1.0
0.9
1 .1
0.9
3. a
1.0
l.U
13.21
1 1.74
14 .60
12.87
50.41
14.60
14. tO
2.4
2.3
9.4
2.4
2.4
aoooooooooooooooooooaeooaaoo*ooooooooooooooooooc
C!»-01
Cb-02
SUM
tru
4 .8
4 .4
4.4
11 .2
4.3
4.3
C.27
0.26
0.2*>
C.3C
1.07
0.27
0.27
14.7
1 J.9
14.9
14. H
54.3
13.1
13.1
4.37
4.75
5.CJ
4.5:.
18.70
4. be
4.6b
2B.9
30.7
2B.4
31. b
119.0
29.9
29.9
1 .67
1 .63
I .70
1 .90
6.9V
1 .7s
1 .7b
4o.4
48 .9
44.9
49.0
18*. 2
47.3
47.3
6.31
6.6b
7.C5
6.7!>
46.76
6.69
6.69
aoeoo6ooeooaaoaoaaeaaaoooe<
2.0
1.9
1 -9
7.7
1.9
1 .9
>aoooe*oaa«»oooeooaaaaoaoaaaaaoaoaeoo»oaaea»oaoaaaaao»ooo»oooo
0.0
O.u
b.O
0.0
(j.O
0.0
u.O
2.0
?.o
1.9
1.9
7.3
1.9
1.9
U.U
O.U
U.U
U.U
0.0
O.U
0.0
13. t7
14. S4
14.74
14. t2
57. S7
14.49
14.H9
(16-01
06-02
Co-i,1
Cfe-i,4
sun
AVC
VTO
2.4
2.4
2.3
2 .3
9.4
2.4
2.4
0.15
0.15
C.17
0.20
0.67
0.17
0.17
21.0
24.0
?C.7
10.4
84.0
20.5
2C.5
4.06
4.25
4.01
4.25
16.50
4.14
4.14
12.0
10.9
12.6
12.3
47.9
12.0
12.0
1.44
1.24
1.4!.
1.4<
5.52
1.3d
1 .3d
35.4
3S.3
35.6
33.0
5.63
5.64
5.87
139.3 22.77
34.8 5.69
34.8 5.69
U.U
C.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
C.O
0.0
C.O
C .0
0.0
C.O
C.O
4.3
4.3
4.5
4 .6
17.7
4.4
4.4
6.71
6.83
7. 10
7.4l
27. B6
6.96
6.96
4.?
4 .1
4.5
4.5
17.6
4.4
4.4
07-01
07-02
07-03
07-04
'.OH
5.0
1.9
5.5
2.5
14.8
3.7
3 ~
0.23
0.12
0.34
0.11
0.80
0.70
I. .20
11.3
0.7
11.5
10.6
42.1
ic.r.
10..-
3.77
4.40
3.81
3.64
15.62
3.91
3.91
12. B
14.0
17.9
12.4
57.1
14.3
lfc • 3
0.89
1.06
1.29
0.94
4.20
1.05
l.Ci
29.0
24.7
34.9
2S. 5
114.0
20.5
28.5
4.89
5.60
5.44
4. 68
20.62
5.16
5.16
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
u.o
2.0
2.3
2.1
2.5
8.9
2.2
2.?
0.0
O.U
O.U
O.U
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.61
13.17
12.20
13.fc*
50.62
12.65
12.65
2.0
2.3
2.1
2.5
8.9
2.2
2.'
-------
DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
OAAP COMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPUT
DETAILED ROUTE OPERATIONS REPORT
PERIOD FCR WHICH DATA APPLIES JANUARY-DECEMBER
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaoeaaaaaaaaaaaasaaaeaaaaaeaeaaaaaaeaeaaaaasaaeesaaasaaaaaaaaaaaaaeoaaaaeaaoaoaaaaaaaaaaeaooaa
RuUTE
NUMoER
MOTOR POOL
TG RGUTE
(PtR DAY)
• CCLLECTIQN
» CPERATlCft
• (PtR DAY)
° TRANSPORT
» OPERATION
a (PfcR DAY)
TO RUUTE.
COLLECTION.
TRANSPORT
(PdR DAY)
o DISCHARGE
' POINT
'(LOADS PER DAY)
MILES a HOURS « MILES « HOURS • HUES " HOURS • MILES
aaaaaoaaaoaoaaaaoaaaeeaeoaaaeeaeaaaeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaoaaeaaec
HOURS o 1NCIN
« AVC *T
» COLLECTED
• (PER DAY)
(TONS)
a LAND o XtEK a
» FILL * STA a
AVb »
LOADS ?
(PtR OAYta
Oo - U1
Ca-v;2
CJ-C4
iUM
AVC.
YU
1.1
0.8
1 .7
0.8
4.5
1 .1
1 .1
0.17
0.10
0 .27
0.17
0.71
c. ia
0-ld
2.7
7.9
4.0
J.2
17.8
4.5
4.5
5. OS
4 .9*
4 .80
4.6b
9.5*
4.30
4 .«o
39.1
31.6
31 .0
35.3
137.8
34. •.
34.4
2.68
2.53
2.2^
2.57
10.01
2.50
2.50
42.6
40.3
37. b
3*. 4
160.1
4u.O
40.0
7.94
7.55
7. 3d
7.39
30.26
7.57
7.57
0.0
O.U
O.U
0.0
C.O
O.U
O.U
1.7
1.7
1 .3
1.5
6.2
1.6
1 .6
C.Q
0.0
u.O
U. U
U.I
O.C
O.U
10.t7
S.27
8.-.4
1U.C1
38.89
9.72
9.72
1 .7
1.7
1.3
1 .6
6.1
1.6
1.6
aaaaoaoaaaoeaoaaaaaoaaeaaaaaaaaaaaaaeaaaoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaeaeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
VJl
VO
Cv-Jl
"'/-C2
OS- 01
0 "F - u 4
SUM
A Vu
YTt
1U-01
lu-02
1U-U3
10-C4
JUH
AVb
YTu
10.0
7.4
6.2
16 .B
40.4
10.1
11.1
1 .1
1.2
3.3
0.4
6.0
1.5
1.5
0.54
0.2.9
30.4
36.1
133.4
33.4
33.4
7.4
5.0
6.5
5.3
24.1
6.0
6.0
1 .76
1 . hO
1 .21
1 .54
6.21
1 .5i
1 .Sb
1.01
0.87
1 .Ob
0.9V
3.93
0.9U
0.96
4V. 3
52.2
4a.b
6b.^
215.2
53 .d
SJ.b
Ib. 1
11.1
17.0
14.3
57.5
1-.4
14.4
7.5*
5.43
5.34
6.7s
25. C5
6.26
6.2o
6.34
6.Cb
6.2J
6.1i
24.77
6.19
6.1V
O.o
U.O
0.0
1.7
0.6
O.b
1.4
2.5
7.5
C.6
7.1
1.8
1.8
O.o
U.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
U.O
0.0
Ii.b8
14.70
10.<2
12.42
56.42
14.10
14.10
eaaeaaaaaa«aaeaeaaaaaoaoaaooa«aae<
L.U
G.O
U.O
0.0
0.0
o.O
0.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.1
.0
.0
O.U
0.0
O.o
O.U
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.U7
6.14
6.34
6.17
24.72
6.18
6.18
2.0
2.5
9.4
2.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
4.1
1.0
1.0
11-01
11-02
11-03
11-04
SUM
AVC
YTO
2.5
1 .8
2.3
2.7
9.4
2.4
2.4
0.19
O.lb
0.13
C.2U
0.66
0.17
C.17
5.5
7.6
6.8
t.3
S.30
5.33
5.67
5.So
26.2 21.88
6.6 5.47
6.6 5.47
20.4
17.0
15.1
17.9
70.4
17.6
17.6
1.42
1 .33
1 .06
1.16
5.01
1.25
1-25
28.4
26.4
24.2
27.0
lOb.O
26.5
26.5
6.91
6.C1
6.87
6.9t>
27. So
6.89
6.89
O.U
C.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
1.6
2.0
7.6
1.9
1.9
0.0
O.U
0.0
U.O
0.0
0.0
O.C
6.20
6.b3
6.18
i.b3
24.74
6.18
6.18
2.0
1.6
2.0
7.6
1 .9
1.9
leeaaoeaaaaaeaaaaeaaaaaaaaeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaeaaeaaaeaaaaeae
-------
DATA ACQUISITIUN AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
fcAAP COMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPUT
COLLECTION ROUTE COST REPORT
PERIOD FOR WHICH DATA APPLIES JANUARY-DECEMBER
RuUTE
NUHbFR
CCST TC
ROUTE
PER OAY
PWVVVV9V0I
CCST TO
CQLLfcCT
PER OAY
7 V O 9 90 a a aa <
COST TC
TRANSPORT
PEk DAY
fcOUlP
COST
HER DAY
HANPQWE
COST
PEK DAY
TOTAL
BREAKDOWN
COST
(MANPOWER)
TUTAL
INCENTIVE
COST
TOTAL
OVERTIME
CUST
COST
PER
TON
eaoaaaaaaaaaaeaaaaaaaoaaaaaaaeaoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
TOTAL TOTAL TUTAL TOTAL COST « COST PEK
COST BREAKDOWN INCENTIVE OVERTIME PER o HUML
« SERVICFO «
oaeaoeaa a ae a
o WtFK° YtAK*
aaecoaoaoaooaaooeaaooaooeaaooaoaaaaaoeoaaaaaaaeeoaoaaaaaaooeaoaoaaoooaaoocooooo
01-01
01-U2
Cl-l.3
01-04
SUM
AVG
YTU
5.2.1
1.7b
4.11
4.21
17.30
4.34
4.32
50.97
bl.lu
50.58
51 .6C
51 .C7
bl.07
<3.0fc
24.67
22.41
91.07
i2.77
42.77
Jl.50
32.31
J3-7".
32.60
130.15
182.49
<.5.62
77.13
77.93
79.36
78.22
312.6*.
78.16
78.16
37.. u8
Io. 12
1!>.0D
M.faS
1!>.47
Ib.bO
»aaaoaa»aaa»aea>««a*eaeaaaaa««aaaaaoeaaa»aaooeaaaaaaa«eaaaaaaaeoaaaeaaaaeaa»aaaaaaaeaeaaaaea
12. 2b
13.63
13.70
12.74
31 .55
31 .5b
Jl .6b
31.61
77.17
77.19
77.26
77.23
3C.17
26.69
136.54
100.49
U.OO
G.CO
0.00
O.CO
2755.92
3155.21
2757.35
3.90
17. bl
4.45
4.45
5B.7b
6C.54
238.66
59.66
59.66
52.41
13. 1C
13.10
126.38
31.60
31.60
45.62
45.62
Io2.49
45.62
45.62
308 .87
77. ?2
77.22
499.90
11617.43
O.CO
53.94
13.46
13. 41
1.50
0.37
7B.t)0
19.bO
19.24
aoaaeaaaeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa*e»aaaaa«a«»»aaeaeaaeaaaaac
-------
DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
UAAP COMPUTER PROGRAM UUTPuT
CCLLECT10N ROUTE COST REPORT
PERIOD FGR WHICH DATA APPLIES JANUARY-DECEMBER
a e e » °
« RUUIE COST TU COST TC • COST TU fcCUlP HANPUBER* TOTAL TOTAL » TOTAL
» NUMBER ROUTE COLLECT "TRANSPORT COST COST •» COST BREAKDOWN » INCENTIVE
» PER uAY PER OAY 0 PER DAY PER DAY PER DAY » PER UAY COST • COST
a a (MANPOWER)*
a e • *
aaooiaeaaooeaaaaaaa aaaaaaeaaaaaoaaoeaaaaaaaeaaaa
04-01
C-.-J2
:<. -1.4
SUM
h VO
YTu
C'j-o2
n* -ji
CTi 03-04
jUM
AVO
5.01
4.4}
5.05
19.49
4 ,B7
4.b7
eaaaaaaaoaae
5. y i
. £ 1
4 >9<«
4 .4 I
5.6-
40.26
5.07
5.07
C6-01 3.95
"6-02
C6-03
06-04
iUH
AVb
YTD
3.93
4.94
17. 3«
4.34
01 .83
84 .8fa
b2.27
79.95
328 .94
b2 . 2 3
b2.23
33.53
JC.lv
32.67
25.03
131 .43
it . 9o
32.86
30.91
jO .2o
j0.6b
40. 7o
122.64
40.66
j0.6o
aaaaoDOoaaaooeoBevvvvvevwovv
0 5 . 9 4 \J ,fn 31.49
b9 .37
92 . 1 3
o5.64
352.96
88 .24
88.24
107. C4
1 1C. 53
106.57
448.55
107.14
107.14
JC.64
jsifls
131.92
3; .96
32 ,9o
37.55
21. 7t
37. 74
35. 7b
142.78
35. 7C
35.70
4l .85
3 1 .54
31 .8:,
1^6.74
4l .68
Jl .60
QOOfrOOOOQOO
43.70
43.66
43.74
43.66
174.77
43.69
43.69
TOTAL COST
OVERTIME PER
CCST TON
0
0 B
• CUST PEK °
0 HUME *
o SERVICED "
000000000 DO 0
o HEFK° YtAK»
aeeeDeaaeoaBaaaaaao»eeae*aaaooaoaaeeae»aBaaaaa«aeaaa*a*aea»aaa«aa*aaaeaaaaajeje
69.47
69.25
69. 25
o9.2b
357.21
09.30
120.37
119.53
119. 95
U0.03
479.85
119.96
88.57
144. 06
124.71
153.28
510.43
o9.30 119.96
9?. 46 123.95
93.11
V7 . *> t
95.31
378.40
94. fru
V4.tU
124.9o
1aaaaaeaaaaaaaaaaaa»aaaaaaaeaa0a»aaa
104.84
102.56
102.94
U'.59
41?. 91
103.4o
1U3.40
148.54
146.2*;
146.66
147. 2b
588 .68
147.17
147.17
302.43
<:Qb. 19
16S. 44
251.97
928.83
5714.23
5b6*!.b8
5*i4b. 53
5083.75
21707.39
O.CO
ii.CO
0.00
0.00
O.CO
9.07
b. 46
8. /5
8.70
34.o8
o . 1?
8.72
0.21 1 1.9t
C .<:1 1 1 . sft
U .4 1 11.96
u.<:i 11. V6
0.>.? 47.04
0. 4 1 11. 9-6
U.23 11.96
eaaaaaooaoaa
U.«;2 11.44
0.19 9.08
U.* 1 1 1 .96
C.42 11.H4
0.06 44.7?
C.4l 11. 1 '
0.42 1 1 .44
eaaooaoeoeoooaaaeaooeo
22.12
21.40
20 .64
20.43
84.60
21.15
?1.15
0.34 ?0.01
0. t>3 ?7 .SA
U.53 27.3<>
0.45 ?4.40
2.05 lOo.oO
U.bl 26.65
U.bl 2c.s2
80oa0000000000000000»»»o«»»»o0o00»0eBB»000BBB0eBe0eeB0»0ea00000e0ee000«0000eB0000000»»00oo0000aa00000000eo00000a0a000oo00»»«o»*»
C7-01
07-02
07-03
C7-C4
SUP
AVG
YTD
7.61
3.58
10.01
3.31
25.01
6.25
6.25
124.57
126.89
113.28
125.34
490.06
122.52
122.52
29.39
31.03
38.45
131.19
32. 8C
32.80
28.69
28.63
28.87
28.60
114.79
i8.70
28.70
132.87
132.87
132.87
132.87
531.49
132.87
132.87
161.56
161 .50
Ibl .74
161.47
646.27
161.57
Ibl. 57
39.21
63.94
6b. 1 1
90.63
258.88
12756.37
9936.68
10459.37
13726.05
46b80.46
O.CO
O.CO
0.00
O.CO
O.CO
13.92
12.2.6
13.26
U.fa4
51.28
12.82
12.82
0.41 21.32
0.48 19.76
0.39 20.28
0.40 20. oO
I.b8 84.16
0.49 20.54
0.39 20.28
soco0o»oea«««e»»ao»o0o»0ee«»»»aa»o»»oeaa
aaooaee*eooa»a«ea»aa»eaa*aeaeeaeeeeeeeaa»ae»aea»ao*eaooae»oe»««»o»oe»**aa«a»o«eeo»o«»ooo
-------
DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
DAAP COMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPUT
COLLECTION ROUTE COST REPORT
PERIOD FOR MhlCH DATA APPLIES JANUARY-DECEMBER
•ROUTE (
NuMoER f
1
a aao eaaeaoai
ro-oi
Oo-03
SUM
fcVu
YTD
Of-01
OV-02
^ 0-»-04
iUM
AVL
YTj
000*0 oooooo*
U'-Ul
}UM
AVU
YTU
aaaa»aaaaaaa
11-01
11-02
11-03
11-C4
iUM
YTO
.OST TU
IGOTt
>ER UAY
>aae«aaao
3.66
2.14
6. 10
3.91
15.70
3.93
3.93
14.60
8. 14
5.31
12. 86
10.24
2.20
3.77
4.5-.
1.19
11 .70
2.94
2.94
aaoaaaaaa
3.14
2.63
2.20
3.17
11.13
2.78
2.76
COST TO
COLLECT
PFR UAY
aaaaaeeaa
108.96
109.46
105. 5b
428.57
107.14
107.14
142.27
136.55-
150.54
143.95
573.31
143.33
143. ?3
S7.51
100.43
368 .93
97.23
97.23
oaaaaaaea
86.06
87.70
97.33
89. 9C
361. Cl
9C.25
90.25
COST TU
TRANSPORT
PEK DAY
aaaaaoaaaoa
57.43
t)3.83
49.84
58.44
219.54
54. 8b
47.87
6C.4C
48.51
48.11
204. 9C
51.23
51.23
O04OO04OOO*
18.94
16.99
19.52
75. 5C
18.38
18.88
aaaeaaeaaaa
23. 1C
21.80
18.53
19.00
82.51
2C.63
EQUIP
COST
PEK DAY
>aeaaoaaaa
32.48
32.03
31.63
120.71
30. Ib
30.1o
38.71
38 .74
36.96
38 .3u
152.71
38. ID
38 .1 o
28.73
c8 .64
..•8 .7b
28 .8 j
114.9o
48.74
28.74
oaaaaaaa aa
22.83
22.33
28..S3
V5.94
23.98
23.98
a
MANPOWER*
COST a
PER OAY •
a
aaoaaaaoaa
l37.5b
136.14
133.37
136.01
543.0*
135.77
Ij5.77
Io6.09
106.35
Ib7.40
666 .46
1&6.64
166 .bt
09.92
t)9.5b
V2.31
3ol .24
90.31
90.31
aaaaaaaaaa
69.48
69.81
39.52
09.91
358.71
b9.6d
89.66
TOTAL
COST
PER UAY
oaaaaaeea
170.06
1*0.51
165.40
107.83
66^.80
165.95
165.95
204.80
2u5.0<*
819.17
204.79
204.7V
118.65
118.23
118.10
111 .14
476.19
119.C5
119.05
•aaaaaaaa
112.31
112.13
118.05
112.16
454.65
113.6o
113.66
a
TOTAL «
BREAKDOWN »
COST «
(MANPOWER!.0
a
aaaaooaaaaaoaa
292.61
393.57
450.07
1469.20
89.76
121.96
145.93
203.55
561.21
33.33
9.79
19.42
lb.72
81.27
aaeaaaoaaaaaao
100.67
84.78
64.76
93.56
343.78
TOTAL
INCENTIVE
COST
ooeaaaoaaao
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
OOOOOO OOOOO
8339.4?
15583.10
15S99.46
10670.74
5C798.71
OO***OOOOOO
4632.72
5472. bO
4069.00
5*65.66
40240.21
aaoaeoaaoea
U.CO
0.00
0.00
0.00
U.CO
TOTAL
OVERTIME
COST
aaeiaaoaeaaac
11*8.54
747.34 .
113.76
774.69
?b04.32
00*0000000 o<
o.oo
0.00
0.00
o.co
0. CO
OOOOOOO9OO Ol
o.co
o.co
o.co
O.uO
o.co
aaeaaaaaaa e«
12.76
c.co
22.33
27.76
62. 65
COST
PEK
TON
taaoaaa aa
15.94
17.31
Id. 50
10.76
68.52
17.13
17.13
i*OOOOOOO
16.28
5b. 70
I4.t>7
Is. 67
OOOOOOOP
19.55
19.26
Ib .64
19.6?
77.07
IV. 27
19.27
»aaoaaaaa
18.12
17.17
19.11
73.63
10.41
16.41
a a
• COST PEK o
« HOME »
• SERVICFU •
a.o aaoaaeaaa a
oaaoaaaoaaaaaao
U.48 P4.V6
U.69 ^5.a8
U.50 ?o.uO
U.53 ?7 .^h
4.20 114.40
0.55 2a.60
O.b5 Pb.ofl
00*000*00*000
0.48 24.46
0.47 ?4.44
U.42 21.04
^.5*) 7b.L>0
0.-.8 24.^6
0.41 2^ .fb
0.32 Io.o4
0.32 16.64
0.33 1 /. J»>
0 .32 Io.o4
'1.49 67. jo.
U.3? 16. 17
0.32 16.64
aoaaeaaaaa aoa
0.42 ?l.b4
0.47 24.44
0.49 25.48
0.48 24.^6
1.86 96.72
0.46 ?4.1'»
-------
DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
OAAP COMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPUT
COLLECTION CRE* PRODUCTIVITY REPORT
PERIOD FCR WHICH DATA APPLIES JANUARY-DECEMBER
30oo0oooooooo00oooooeaoo0ooeeoooo0ooo0oooeoooooo0ooooooo3oooooeooosooooooa
« • • ooo CRfcW PRODUCTIVITY » COLLECTOR PRCDUCTlVlTY «
» ROUTE " HUMES • AVERAGE HEIGHT « COLLECT » COLLECT 00000000000 ooooooooaoooo ooooo oo oeooa »ao 0000000000000
» • SERVEU o tCLLECTEU PER HOhE« TIME PER • TIME
» NUHbfH oooooooooooeoeoooeeoooooooooooooooo MCME PtR ° PEK
o o PER o pER a PER c pfk
* o (JAY e WfcEK o CCLLfcCl-" fcEtK o IHINuTtS) «
o o c o |ON«LBS»» (LbSI • o
ooaoooooooooooooooaooeoooooeoooooooeaoeaooeooooooooooao
o HOMES
• SERVED
o COLLECTION* 10U LBS.» PER
o WEIGHT
o HANOLtD
» PfcR
"HOMES SERVEL- »hEIGHT *INOEX »
»PER COLLECTOR »HANDLEO PEK • OF »
«PER CuLLECTIOM»COLLtCTOR PER«PRDOuCT -»
(MINS)
'COLLECTIONoCQLLECTIUN'HUUR
o MOOR OHOUoao«o3oe0oooaoaooeoooooooe»aoeo»oea0oooooee»oooeoO(i
a*
02-Ul
C«:-L2
0/-C3
0..--U4
JUM
AVI,
tin
OJ-C1
0'3-u2
Oj-03
OJ-04
SUM
AV(,
YTO
249.
259.
244.
2ol .
1C14.
254.
254.
424.
402.
446.
366.
1641.
410.
410.
1247.
12S5.
1222.
1307.
5072.
126b .
I26o.
1272.
1*07.
134<<.
1099.
4922.
1231.
1231.
73.1
£9.9
7<,.0
67. 1
264.1
71.0
71.0
25.9
2d.6
23.5
32.6
112.6
26.2
28.2
73.1
6*.S
7*. .1
67.1
264.1
71.0
71.0
51.7
57.2
51.0
65.3
225. t
56.3
56.3
1.15
1.G3
1 .10
l.*4
4.32
1 .08
1.08
oo oooooooooo
0.70
0.73
U.o3
O.o2
2.08
0.72
0.72
1.57
1 .47
1 .4?
1 .So
6.0t)
1.52
1.52
9OQQOOO0Q
2.70
2. So
2.4b
2.51
10.23
2.56
2.56
52.4
5o.3
54.5
57. >
222.7
55.7
55.7
OO OOOOOOOOOOQ4
85.9
82.0
93.0
73.2
336.7
84.2
84.2
1.9
2.0
2.0
1.9
7.9
2.0
2.0
vooooooooooo
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.2
4.7
1.2
1.2
52.4
56.3
54.5
57.5
222.7
55.7
55.7
OOO9OOOOOQOOOO
85.9
H2.0
-.5.6
73.2
336.7
64.2
B4.2
1.9
2.0
2.U
1.9
1.1
2.U
2.0
OOO00OQOOOOOOQOO
i .1
1.2
1 .2
1 .2
4.7
1 .2
1 .1
134.31
135. Ou
l34.9b
1^7. OJ
531.33
13?. 83
13?. 83
frdOOOOOO
125.65
142. 14
134.79
121 .50
504.29
1*6.07
126.07
oooooeoeooooeooooeooeot
-------
DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
OAAP COMPUTER PROGRAM UUTPLT
COLLECTION CKEn PRUOJCT1VITV REPORT
PEkICO FOR MhKH DATA APPLIES
aaaaoaeaeoe»eaeeeeeeeeoeoeeoaaea«a«»eeeee»eeDeaaeeeeoaaaeeeeeaaea»<
a CREW PRODUCTIVITY
HUMES
SERVED
aaaaaaaaaaaae
PER • PER
JAY • WEEK
a a
a
AVERAGE WEIGHT • CQLLtCl
COLLECTED PER HOME* TIME PER
•toaaeaao aaaaaaaaaaa HOME PER
PER ° PER • COLLECTION
COLLECT-" kEhK • IMlNuTcS)
IDNlLBM" (LbSI •
COLLECT
TIME
HEK
100 LBS
(M1NS)
ROUTE
NuHoPR
eeooo»ea06eeeeeoae«eeeoeeeee»aee»eeoeeoeeeaeoaaeaooaeee
HOMES
SERVED
PER
« HEIGHT
HANJLED
o PER
COLLECT ION6COLLECTION»HUUR
HOLR »HOURt9
0.4S
.19
. 19
.20
.01
..56
. li
.15
0000
0.96
0.95
1 . C £
0.93
3.87
0.97
0.97
97.3
109.9
10<.2
lie.9
42U.3
1C7.1
107.1
125. 6
133.1
111.1
123.4
493.2
123.3
123.3
2.5
2.5
2.5
3.0
10.5
2.b
3.1
3.1
i.9
3.2
12.4
3.1
3.1
96.8
109.9
102.2
118.9
427.6
107.0
107.0
1V1.8
128. «.
S8.7
<*t>2.1
115.5
115.5
•COLLECTIUN
OHOURtTUNbI
2.5
2.5
2.3
3.0
10.5
2.6
2.6
•1V1TV
a
159.0*.
167.55
160.2.:
178.66
166.37
166.37
»aaeaaoooaaoaaaaaaaaaeaoo
J.U
3.U
2.6
3.0
11.6
2.9
2.9
IbS.lO
IV*. .16
176. 7«,
1B6.83
lob.fij
1068.
5
-------
DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
UAAP COMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPUT
COLLECTION CREft PRUOUCTIVITY REPORT
PERIOD FG°. WHICH DATA APPLIES JANUARY-DECEMBER
eaaeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaecaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa»a«3aaaaaaaaeaaaaaaaacaaeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaoaaaoaaaeoacao«oeaaaaaaaoaaaaaeaooaa
0 e *....___• ° CRt* PRODUCTIVITY » COLLECTOR PRODUCTIVITY
* K U U I C
8 HLMtS » AVEPAGE WEIGHT a COLLECT
• * StR»EU » COLLfcCTEU PER HOME* TIME PER
8 NUMBER •a«ee»eoe»eeoaaeeeeoa»eaaeeaeeeepee HOME PER
8 o PEH » PER 8 PER • PER o COLLECTION
« o DAY o WEEK a COLLtCT-e BEtK a (MINOTtS)
8 e o a 1CMLBSI* (LbS) 8
o a
COLLECT a»aaaaaaaaaaaaaoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaooaeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a
TIME o HOMES « WEIGHT »HOMtS SERVED ow EIGHT »INUEX »
PER * SERVED • HANDLED »PER CuLLECTOR "HANDLED PEK • OF a
100 LBS.* PEk * PER »P6R C CLLELT 10fk«C OLLEC TOk PEK»PRLjOoC T-°
(H1NS) *COLLECTIONoCOLLtCTIUN«HOUR 'COLLECTION »IV1TY a
o HOUR «MOUR(TONS)* oHOUR(TCNS) a a
aaoaoaaaaaaoaaaoaoaaaaaaeaaaaaaaaaoaaaaaaaaaaeaeaaaaaaaaaaaeaaaaaaeaaaoeaaaeaaaaaaaaoaaoaaaeaeaeeaeaeaaaoaaaoaaaaaoaaaaaaaaaao
61 .1
To-02
Co-o3
"0-C4
jUM
&VC-
YT'J
C*-U1
C'»-02
n'<-03
09-J4
SUM
AVO
YTO
2<;9 .
331 .
116.
1225.
H6.
lib.
847.
862.
<>t2.
7«.4.
3415.
Rb<> .
Bi4.
1147.
Ib53.
1580.
6125.
Ib31 .
1*31.
169'..
1724.
1 925 .
KB /.
bt>3L.
1707.
17C7.
80
5
0.7<.
0.73
1.10
3.81
162. 0
156.7
B02-0
4.1
13.3
3.3
Bl.C
1 18.9
Ul .0
398. «>
99.7
99.7
\.t
2.0
2.0
1.4
b.b
1.7
1.7
199.
975. *>b
2<.T.<>^
24^.91
»aaaajaaaoaoaBaoaaaeaaaaeaaaaa»aaaoaaaaaaaaa*eaeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaea»aaaoe»aeaaaaaaaeaaaaa«aaaaaaaeaaaaaaaaeaaaa6aai
lu-01
10-02
10-C3
Io-o4
SUN
AVb
YTu
368.
365.
3i7 .
367.
1458.
364.
364.
1838.
Ib27.
1786.
1037.
72B8.
1822.
1822.
33.0
33. b
33.5
33. b
135.7
33.9
33.9
33. L
33.0
33.5
33. b
135.7
33.9
33.9
O.b5
G.o2
O.o2
O.o3
3.33
O.b3
2.57 70.6
2.45 73.0
2.32 7<.b
2 . 4o 7i ,\)
9.82 288.3
2.4o 72.1
2.4b 72.1
aaapaaaaaaaaaoaaaaeaa»aeeaa»aaaaaaaeeaaaaeaaaaaoa«a«a»aaeaaaaaaae
11-01
11-02
11-03
11-04
SUN
AVG
YTO
266.
234.
240.
231.
970.
243.
243.
1330.
1168.
119S.
1155.
4U52.
1213.
1213.
46.6
55.9
51 .6
50.5
2C4.5
51.1
51.1
4b.b
55.9
51. b
50. b
204.5
51.1
Si.l
1.19
1.37
1.42
1.45
5.43
1.36
1.3b
2.56
2.45
2.7a
2.87
10.64
2.66
2.66
50.2
43.6
42.3
41.4
177.7
44. <•
4
-------
DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
CAAP COMPUTER PRQGKAH OUIPLT
COLLECTION SYSTEM EFFICIENCY REPORT
PEklbO FOR WHICH DATA APPLIED JANUARY-DECEMBER
eeee0e»0o0000a0aaaaeaeeeeo0oa0oo0e«eae»oe00e0090oe9se0eoaaaeeeee0eao000e0e0o0eaeaa00o0eo0ae0o00000o0o0aa0ooa0oo»»aoao0a0oo00
a a a
"ROUTE « RATIC * RATIO
o o bCMK
*NUMBER" TIME
a a 10
• • STU.
" « TIME
O*
•CLLLECTICh
» TIME
o TO
o TIME
« hGRKED
RATIO
EkUIP
CUST
Tij
HANPQhER" CUST
CuSF •
aaaeoaaooooaaooaac
a
INDtX Of »
RUUTE •
EFFICIENCY »
•COLLfcCIICiN »cDLLfcCTIUN o COLLECTOR"00'*00**0'" ..... ° FIRST «
•IGST PtR "COST PfcR TLN* PER DAY * FJBST » ALL » LOAD •
•nOMF SERUED»COLLECTEO • (TONS) « LUAU • OThERS * I POUNuS ) » *
aaaeeaeaaaaaaaaaaaaoaoaaaaoaoaaaaaaaaae
a e
RATIO oCCLLbCTlUN RELATED CUSTSo HEIGHT
MANPO>ER° ° HANDLED
CUS1 TO ooaeoaaaaaoaoaeoaaaaaoaeaa PER
TUTAL
« a
e AVtRAGb - « WEIGHT
e MfclbHT PER LCAD» PER CU.
a (TONS) « YARD
01-01
01 -'.2
C1-C3
01-04
SUM
avG
YID
C2-C1
0^-C2
SUM
ft VG
»l 0
Oj-Ul
'Tj-02
C J-v.3
SUM
AVC
YID
C.7o
0.74
2.96
0.74
0.74
C.85
p.Bb
0-92
C.S5
1.T 1
0.84
1 .30
C.79
P. 81
C.7B
C .81
3.1b
0.79
0.79
O.bb
O.bS
O.t.5
O.bS
0^70
O.bS
U -6fl
U .67
2.70
O.bS
0.68
0.78
0.76
0.75
U-78
3.07
0.77
0.77
0.69
C.71
0.74
0.71
2.85
0-.71
0.71
0.67
0.66
0.6o
C.6/
2.7U
0.6D '
0 .60
0.69
0.69
C.69
0.69
2.77
0.69
C.69
0.5S
0.13
0.57
0.5b
2.34
C.5o
0.5o
0.60
0.6u
0.5V
0 .60
C. 1 i
0.11
o.so
0.13
0.1 J
0.21
5.53
i.Ut
5.38
21.69
5.42
5. ".2
b.93
9.S9
37.74
6.08
b.b5
6.73
3. JH
3.66
531.9
53d. 4
2057.8
514.5
»0aaeeea0«eaaaaaao0aa0»0aaaoeaeaoaoa0eaaoaeaaaaae0aa00oea0oaaaaaaaaa0aaa
25.72
b.43
6.43
15.78 .
3.95 '
3.S5
3?1. 10
321 .10
!>.94
5.47
5.73
9.12
9.U5
9.US
0.78
b.a»»o0a00aaaa0000eaaaaa»aaaa000aaaaaao000aa00a0aeaaaa0aa0aaa>
-------
DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
OAAP COMPUTER PROGRAM UUTPOT
COLLECTION SYSTEM EFFICIENCY REPORT
PERIOD FOR WHICH DATA APPLIES JANUARY-DECEMBER
aaaaaaaaooooaaaaaaooaaoooeaoaeaoeaaaoeooeaeaaaaoooeeoooaeaoaaaaaaaoaaaafc
o a a
•RObTfc e KATlC • RATIO
• » HQRK •CClLECTICN
'NUMBER" TIME
a a TO
0 • STu.
• • TIME
TIME
TO
T1MF
hORKEO
RATIO
ElUlP
COST
TO
KANPOnER" CCST
COST •
a a o oo
RATIO °CQLLbCTION RELATED COSTS" kElGHT • AVERAGE • kElGHT o motX OF
HANCOhERo a HANDLED • HEIGHT PER LCAD» PER CU.« ROUTE
COST TO eooooaoooooeoeoeaeoaoooese pf_K * «TONS» • YARD • EFFICIENCY
TOTAL "COLLtCTION »COLLECTIUN • CDLLfcCTOR»»»»«"*»»»«*»"»»«« FIRST «
•LOST PtR "COST PER TbN» PER DAY » FIRST « ALL " LOAD »
oaacaaaaaoaeaaaooaoaeaaooooaoaaaoaaaoaaaaaaoaea
•HOhF StRVEU«COLLtCTEO
(TUNS)
LOAD
• UTHERS •( POUNDS )«
0-.-U1 0.97
C<»-02 0.83
G4-U1 0.93
0-«-04 0.83
SUM
AvG
YTO
3.5b
C.89
0.89
0.67
0.70
O.o8
0.65
2.70
0.68
O.o8
C.35
0.34
0.34
0. 3<<
1.37
C.3s
0. 3*.
0.7'j
0.7^
0.7".
O.lb
0.17
0. Ib
0. lo
0.6«.
O.lb
C.lb
6.20
7.23
t>. 53
6. <1
26.17
o.5«.
6.b.92
b.9?
6.13
o. V8
V.b7
9.«!7
1b.U6
9.02
•» . J2
4.S6
5.14
1^.66
«.S2
<>.S2
b .bO
t .00
i.t>8
S.9I
23.38
b.o5
S.oS
599.0
i>72.1
577.2
622. <.
2370.7
592.7
592.7
687.6
73o.5
776.7
7 7*.. 3
2977.1
7aaaoaoaoaa
13V.94
131.76
157.48
150.93
58U.11
145.03
oaoooaaaoa,
-------
DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
OAAP COMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPUT
COLLECTION SYSTEM EFFICIENCY REPORT
. PEklCiD FOR WHICH DATA APPLIES JANUARY-UECEMBfcR
a*aaaeaaaaaaaeaaaaaaaaaaaaoaoaaaaeaeaa«aaaa<
e o
"ROUTE » RATIC
e • HORK
•NUHBERo TIME
e etc
• « STC.
0 • llhE
aaaaaaaeaaeaaee
RATIO • RATIO
COLLECTION* EwUlP
TIME • COST
TC « TC
TIKE « PANPOkEK
•CRKtD o COST
• o
RATIO °COLLtCTION RELATED COSTS* HEIGHT
MANPO»ER» e HANDLED
COST TO aaaaeaeaeeaeeaaeeaeeooeoea
a o
« AVERAGE • kElGHT iNDbX OF
« WtlOHT PER LOADo PER CU. RUUTE
• (TONS I • YARD EFFICIENCY
TuTAL 'COLLECTION 'COLLECTION a COLLECTOR*"*"*aaoaoaeeaaa FlhSl
COST "tost PER *COST PER UN* PER DAY « FIRST o ALL • LOAD
•HOME SER«EG*COLLECTED * JTONSJ « LOAO o LThEHS* I POUKUS )«•
aaaaaaaaaaaoaaaaaaaoaeaeaa«aaaaaaoeaaaaeoaaaaaaaoaeaaaaaaa»aaaaaaoa»aaaaae
Oa-01
Ob-i;2
Oe-0'3
SUM
AVG
Y10
cs-ci
Ol-v,2
[^
0 SUM
AVG
YIO
» aoaaeoe ai
10-01
10-02
1U-C3
10-04
SUM
AVG
YIO
1 .0 o o o o o o
C.7t
C.55
0.54
C .6S
0.63
0.63
> o a a o aa
C.80
C.76
0.79
0.7e
3.13
0.78
0.78
0.62
0.63
0.60
O.c2
0.62
PPPOPOOOOOOPpO
0.69
0.66
0.73
0.69
2.76
0.69
0.69
oopodoofiaoaooo
0.81
0.62
0.78
0.82
3.23
0.81
o.ai
0.24
C.ld
0.24
0.23
C.8V
0.2*
o aa a o e
C.23
C.23
C-22
C.2j
0.92
0.23
0.23
0.32
0.32
0.3.'
0.31
1.27
0.32
0.3*
0.81
0.8b
0.61
0.81
3.27
0.8*
00000*000000
O.B1
0.81
0.81
3.25
0.81
0.81
0.7o
0.76
0.76
0.76
3.03
0.76
0.76
0.31
0.4c
0.33
0.36
0.36
aeaaaaaaaeea
0.17
0. 16
0.16
C. 19
O.bo
0.17
0.17
0.27
0.27
C.26
0.27
1.07
0.27
0.27
11.27
lu.55
11.07
1 1.07
eoaaaaaaaaa
11.31
11 .14
41.02
10.^6
10.26
16.07
15.69
16.27
62.97
15.74
15.74
5.34
4.64
4.47
5.02
19.47
4 ,b7
4.H7
aaeaaaa aae
6.29
7.33
6.02
6.43
2U.U6
7.02
/.02
5.98
6.09
6.32
5.77
24.15
6.C4
6.04
6.27
s!97
6.19
23.90
5.98
aaaeaaaaaae
7. OS
7.32
6.77
27.71
6. VI
6.9T
aaaoaaaaaac
6.01
6.12
6.49
6.14
6.14
6.14
6.16
5.41
0.49
27.36
O.o4
6.o4
>aaeaaaaa<
5.50
5.30
3. /S
i. B3
21. j8
3.J5
ipeaaaaaac
3.27
I.e9
3. US
1.46
9.52
2.36
2.38
511.7
591.9
t86.4
50d.9
2096. y
5?4.7
524.7
iaaaaaooooo<
7C4. 3
657.3
731 .8
67/.7
2771 .0
69<; .8
692 .8
laaaaeaaaaac
600.5
611 .7
614 .0
2455.5
613.9
613.9
121.50
114.46
127.37
493.39
123.35
123.35
>oeaaaeaai
^Ot> .03
19 j. u'9
141 .53
6R1 .17
170.29
170.^9
loeaaeaaai
il J.05
114.36
113.76
464.70
116.17
116.17
aacaaaaa
Baaaaaaoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaeaooaaoaaai
11-01 0.87
11-02 0.86
11-03 0.86
11-04 0.86
bUH
AVG
VIO
3.48
0.87
0.96
0.76
0.78
0.82
0.79
3.IS
0.79
0.79
C.2o
0.25
0.32
C.25
1.07
C.27
0.27
0.80
0.8u
0.76
O.BO
3.16
0.79
0.7S
0.3<
0.36
0.41
0.39
1.49
0.37
0.37
13.89
13.43
15.75
15.42
58.49
14.62
14.62
6.17
6.45
6.15
5.76
24.53
6. 13
3.76
3.62
4.44
3.61
15.43
5.66
3.66
2.42
2.93
4.76
4 .JO
10.41
2.bO
«.60
554.2
549.9
458.4
525.7
2088.42
522.0
522.0
lie. 81
122.37
103.46
.42
453.67
113.47
113.47
-------
APPENDIX 3
SUMMARY TIME MOTION AND BACKYARD SURVEY REPORTS
SALT LAKE COUNTY
SYSTEM NUMBER 1 ROUTEtl/1-4) 4TH QUARTER 5/22-25/73
TIKE I MOTION DATA REDUCTION
>ooooa»o»eaooooo
VD
a
*
3
*
O
NUMBER
OF
NUM3E R
OF
e
NUMBER
OF ITEMS
BY TYPE
SMALL •
» MISCEL-
NUMBER
OF
DCTIIOkl —
RE 1 URN
ABLE
NUMBER
OF NON
DC T 1 ID Iw —
K t 1 UK Pi
ABLE
ROUTE
ft I C T A Uf C
U 1 J 1 M n\. L
TOTAL eooeeooaoo
o QUARTER ROUTE SERVICES DWELLINGS CANS • CANS • BAGS • LANEOUS ITEMS ITEMS ITEMS (MILES)
1 1-1 184. 166. 489. 32. 262. 1C5. 521. 387. 908.
1
1
, 1
^
i
i
I
3
3
3
3
4
4
^
4
1-2
1-3
1-4
SUM
AVERAGE
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
SUM
AVERAGE
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
SUM
AVERAGE
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
SUM
AVERAGE
198.
169.
223.
774.
193.
174.
195.
233.
223.
625.
206.
156.
158.
161.
150.
625.
156.
165.
160.
187.
149.
661.
165.
212.
174.
226.
798.
199.
179.
196.
236.
223.
834.
208.
160.
160.
164.
150.
634.
158.
165.
164.
190.
149.
668.
167.
458.
429.
469.
1845.
461.
473.
429.
444.
415.
1761.
440.
325.
316.
365.
272.
1278.
319.
459.
359.
436.
269.
1523.
381.
26.
28.
23.
109.
27.
21 .
12.
19.
23.
75.
19.
6.
9.
15.
12.
42.
10.
31.
13.
18.
14.
76.
19.
232.
213.
359.
1086.
271.
244.
248.
336.
243.
1071.
263.
148.
220.
209.
292.
869.
217.
373.
355.
297.
290.
1315.
329.
165.
119.
162.
551.
138.
95.
118.
151.
126.
490.
122.
51.
90.
127.
161 .
429.
107.
144.
145.
181 .
111.
581.
145.
484.
457.
492.
1954.
488.
494.
441.
463.
438.
1836.
459.
331.
325.
375.
284.
1315.
329.
490.
372.
454.
283.
1599.
400.
397.
332.
521.
1637.
409.
339.
366.
487.
369.
1561 .
390.
199.
310.
333.
453.
1295.
324.
517.
500.
478.
401.
1896.
474.
881.
789.
1013.
3591.
898.
833.
807.
950.
B07.
3397.
649.
530.
635.
708.
737.
2610.
652.
1007.
872.
932.
684.
3495.
874.
4.60
5.15
3.40
4.35
17.50
4.37
4 ..6b
4.90
8.35
«. .80
^2.70
5.67
3.8U
3.60
3.00
2.60
13.00
3.25
3.55
3.15
3.45
3.20
13.35
3.34
CUMULATIVE SUM
2885.
2934.
6407.
302. 4341,
2051
6704.
6389. 13093.
66.55
CUMULATIVE AVERAGE
180.
183.
400.
19.
271.
128.
419.
399.
818.
4.16
-------
SALT LAKE COUNTY
SYSTEM NUMBER 1 ROUTEil/1-4) *TH QUARTER 5/22-25/73
TIME I MOTION DATA REDUCTION
ooooooooooooooooo-ooooooo o-o oooooooooooooooo o-o ooooooooeoooooeooooooooooooooooooooooooeoooo o-o oooooooooooooeoooooooooooo
-J
o
000
900 DRIVERS
»oo TIME
700 (H
a o oooooooooooi
* QUARTER « ROUTE o DRIVING » WAITING
aooooooaooociooeooooooooooooooooooooooeoooooooooo
COLLECTORS T11E
I MINUTES)
1-1
1-2
1-3
SU1
AVERAGE
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
SUM
AVtRACb
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
SUM
AVERAGE
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
SUM
AVERAGE
CUMULATIVE SUM
CUMULATIVE AVERAGE
36.09
38.22
29.20
30.51
134.01
33.50
30.85
35.27
47.68
30.8]
144.61
36.15
23.71
26.60
25.BO
19.06
95.36
23.64
26.48
26.99
28.94
22.27
104.68
26.17
476.66
29.92
(MINUTES) •
T n T * I A
TING o COLLECT • CTHER •> TIME e
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.86 136.95
101 .80
72.68
71.58
346.92
86.73
87.28
97.4«,
85.68
55.52
325.92
81 .48
57.34
69.57
64.32
54.06
245.29
61.32
109.16
97.23
63.16
56.09
345.64
86.41
1263.77
78.99
140.02
101.88
102.09
480.93
120.23
118.13
132.71
1 33.36
66.33
470.53
1 17.63
81 .04
96.37
90.12
73.12
340.65
85.16
135.64
124.22
112.10
76.36
450.32
112.58
1742.43
108.90
o —
a n a
RIDING • HALKINC, • kAITINO •>
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
36.09
36.22
29.20
30.51
134.01
33.50
30.85
35.27
47.68
30.81
144.61
36.15
23.71
26.80
25.60
19.06
95.36
23.84
26.48
26.99
28.94
22.27
104.68
26.17
478.66
29.92
0.1 1
0.00
0.00
O.OU
0.11
0.03
O.OU
O.OU
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.OU
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.01
0.00
o.co
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
o.oc
0.00
0.00
o.co
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
COMPACT o OTHER •
ooooooooooooooooo
1 .03
0. 12
0.00
1 .08
2.23
0.56
1.18
1 . 15
1 .32
1.74
5.40
1.35
0.89
2.17
0.23
0.36
3.65
0.91
5.03
1.27
1.69
2.59
10.78
2.70
22.06
1.38
4.20
2.53
i . n
1.49
9.92
2.46
1 .34
0.<>b
2.12
0.00
3.92
0.98
0.00
O.J2
0.18
O.uO
0.50
0.12
0.98
1.85
0.84
0.00
3.67
0.92
18.02
1.13
-------
SALT LAKE COUNTY
SYSTEM NUMBER 1 ROUIE I 1/1-4) 4TH QUARTER 5/22-25/73
TI«e C MOTION DATA REDUCTION
00 0 O 00 OO«0 0 <
o o
0 0
e o
o o
• TOTAL HANDLING » RATIO OF
• TINE o HANDLING TIME
(MINUTES) « TO TOTAL TIME
TOTAL » RATIO OF
PRODUCTIVE • PRODUCTIVE
TIME o TIME TO
TOTAL TIME
ooo a oo ooo oooo o
TOTAL ITEMS •
HANDLED BY •>
COLLECTORS •
« QUARTER • ROUTE » (MINUTES) « TO TOTAL TIME « (MINUTES)
aoooooooaaoooaeoooooaaoaaaaaaaaoaaaaaoaoeaaoooaoaoaoaoooaooooaooaoaoaaaooaoaaaoaooaaa'aoaoeoaaaoo
1 1-1 95.53 131.72 9U8.
1 1-2 99.15 137.37 B81.
1 1-3 7U.97 100.17 7b9.
1 1-4 69.01 99.52 1013.
SUM 334.66 468.78 3591.
AVERAGE 83.67 117.19 898.
1- 1
1-2
1-3
1-4
SUM
AVERAGE
84.75
95.83
82.24
53.78
316.60
79.15
115.60
131.10
129.91
84.59
461 .?!
115.30
831.
607.
950.
8U7.
33*7.
849.
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
SUM
AVERAGE
56.45
67.U8
63.91
53.70
241.14
60.29
80.16
93.88
89.70
72.76
336.50
84.13
530.
635.
7U8.
737.
2610.
652.
4
4
4
4
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
SUM
AVERAGE
103.15
94.10
80.42
53.50
331.18
82.79
129.63
121 .09
109.37
75.77
435.86
106 .97
1007.
872.
932.
684.
3495.
874.
CUMULATIVE SUM 1223.58
CUMULATIVE AVERAGE 76.47
1702.35
106.40
13093.
818.
-------
SALT LAKE CUUUTY SYSFEN NUMBER 1 ROU1E ( 1 /1 -<, ) QUARTERS !-«. 5/25/73
kOUTt CUMULATIVE*
•ALL TIMES ARE IN HINDUS'
1 )
el
J)
't )
5)
6)
7)
U)
9)
14)
15)
TIME EFFICIENCY Ot CRtW -HUE
JN 1DUU
UTILIZATION Ot- DRIVERS I I ME
UTILIZATION Of- COLLECTORS
I 1ME
AVERAGE NUMbEK UF I TEMS
BY TYPE / SERVICE
RLTJRNAliLb / NON-RE I URN AUL E
ITEMS / SLRV1CE
AVERAGE NUMOER UF DWELLINGS /
COLLECTING =
A)
B)
Cl
D)
E)
F )
A)
bl
C I
U)
c )
1- )
A I
b)
C)
D)
A 1
b)
Dki VIUG
WALKING
WAI 1 ING
CCMPAC T 101
OTHtR
COLLEC T ION
RIDINu
WALKING
WAI T I r.G
COMPACT ION
OTHER
COLLECT IUN
CANS
SMALL CANi
BAGS
Ml SI .
RE TORN
NO RET
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
1
:
=
=
=
=
=
:
=
±
=
SERVICE =
AVERAGE DISTANCE BETWEEN SERVICES IFT.)
1-1
96.69%
29
0.66
0.08
1 .44
0.71
2.22
2.15
a
a
a
a
a
o
e
a
a
:
-
0
>
a
c
a
o
a
.
a
,
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
1-3
96.10%
30.09%
j.00%
'J.00%
0.001
64.91%
0 .00%
3o.09%
O.OL'%
0 .00%
U.79%
1.11%
6d . 02%
2.^3
u . 1 1
1 .>.!
0.7;
•. . JJ
«!. 1 7
1 .U2
123. 7d
0.98
U .69
0.00%
0.57
0. 39
U.56
2.19
0. 10
1 .38
0.76
2.29
2.13
aaaaaaaaaa
a
a
o
9
a
a
a
a
b
a
j
9
0
a
,
s
o
a
e
a
a
,
a
o
Ct
,
a
a
a
a
a
c
V/.dOt
JU.2U>.
U.OU%
0.'JC%
u.uut
69 .BOt
u .out
O.Dut
D .00%
C .44%
6 7 .6 /%
1.91
0 .10
1 .39
3 . 75
if .01
i , 3<,
1 .00
105 .5 J
0 ,9d
0 .69
U .Jut
0 .45
0.31
0.44
1.91
0.10
1 .56
0.75
2 .30
2.33
-------
SALT LAKE COUNTY
SYSTEM NUMBER 1 ROUTE ( II 1-4 > 4TH QUARTER 5/22-25/73
•ALL TIMES ARE IN MINUTES0
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
BY CiUARTER CUMU-
1ST 2ND 3RD 41M LATIVE
eaaaaaaaeaaaaaaaeaeeaaaaaaaaaaaoaaaaeaaaaaeaa
oooo
1)
2>
J)
TIME fcFFICItNCY OF CREW WHILE COLLECTING
UN ROUTb
UTILIZATION OF DRIVERS TIME A.) DRIVING
B) WALKING
C 1 WAIT ING
0) COMPACTION
El OTHER
Fl COLLECTION
U1ILIZAIIQN OF COLLECTORS A) RIDING
I IME B) WALK ING
Cl WAITING
Dl COMPACTION
E) OTHER
S
a
=
=
=
s
±
s
s
s
s
B
F) COLLECTION*
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
1<»)
15)
AVERAGE NUMBER OF ITEMS A) CANS
BY TYPE / SERVICE B) SMALL CANS
C) BAGS
0) MISC.
RETURNABLE / NON-RETURNABLE A) RETURN
I TEMS / SERVICE Bl NO RET
AVERAGE NUMBER OF DUELLINGS / SERVICE
AVERAGE DISTANCE BETWEEN SERVICES (FT.)
RATIO OF PRODUCTIVE TINE TO TOTAL TINE
RATIO OF HANDLING TINE TO PRODUCTIVE TIME
DUPLICATION OF HANDLING
A) TOTAL CREW TIME / DWELLING
B HANDLING TIME / DUELLING
C PRODUCTIVE TIME / DUELLING
D CANS / DUELLING
E SMALL CANS / DUELLING
F BAGS / DUELLING
G MISCELLANEOUS / DUELLING
H RETURNABLE: / DUELLING
1 NON-RETURNABLES / DUELLING
S
S
£
S
B
B
S
=
C
C
B
r
s.
=
a
s
B
B
B
s
97.47*
27.86*
0.00*
O.GOX
O.GO*
72.14*
0.00%
27.86*
0.02*
0.00*
0.46*
2.06*
69.59*
2.38
0.14
1.40
0.71
2.52
2.11
1.03
115.79
0.97
0.71
0.00*
0.60
0.42
0.59
2.31
0.14
1.36
0.69
2.45
2.05
e
e
a
a
0
o
«
a
»
o
o
»
e
o
o
e
o
o
a
o
o
e
0
a
e
0
e
o
e
a
•
a
o
a
98.02*
30.73*
0.00*
0.00*
0.00*
69.27*
0.00*
30.73*
0.00*
0.00*
1.15*
0.63*
67.29*
2.13
0.09
1.30
0-59
2.23
1.89
1.01
143.71
0.98
0.69
0.00*
0.56
0.38
0.55
2.11
0.09
1.28
0.59
2.20
1.87
0
a
a
a
D
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
e
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
e
a
a
a
a
98.78*
27.99*
0.00*
0.00*
0.00*
72.01*
0.00*
27.99*
0.00*
0.00*
1 .07*
0.15*
70.79*
2 .04
0.07
1.39
0.69
2.10
2.07
1 .01
108.26
0.99
0.72
0.00%
0.54
0.38
0.53
2.02
0.07
1.37
0.68
2.07
2.04
a
a
a
a
0
o
a,
a'
o
a
a
a
e
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
e
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
e
a
a
a
96.79*
23.25*
0.00%
0.00*
O.OOX
76.75*
0.00*
23.25*
o.om
0.00*
2.39*
0.82*
73.54*
2.30
0.11
1 .99
0.88
2.42
2.87
1 .01
105.52
0.97
0.76
0.00*
0.67
0.50
0.65
2.28
0.11
1.97
0.87
2.39
2.84
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
o
a
0
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
e
a
a
a
97.70*
27.47*
0.00*
0.00*
0.00*
72.53*
0.00*
27.47*
0.01 *
0.00*
1.27*
1 .U3*
70.22*
2.22
0.10
1 .50
0.7]
-------
CUVIHA. CALIF. iYSTtM DUMBER a RUUIE 2/1-4 4Tri UUARTER 0/28/73-8/31/73
TIME t MOTION JA1A REDUCTION
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
2-1
2-2
2-3
SUM
AVERAOE
2-1
2-2
2-4
SUM
AVERAOE
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
SUM
AVERAC.E
2-1
2-2"
2-3
o
a
o
o
o t.UilCER
* L'F
o
SUM
AVERAOE
115.
132,
t>3J.
134.
103.
167.
181 .
107.
630.
159.
122.
127.
128.
66.
443.
111.
ioa.
143.
112.
142.
505.
126.
D
O
O
O
UF •
LLlliGS o
1 19.
140.
564.
192.
167.
108.
113.
660.
165.
123.
130.
132.
71.
456.
114.
111.
145.
112.
145%
513.
128.
ruMOCR
uF I
UMS
Fl V 1 V P L
>oocooa<
o
CtNS »
275.
',00.
347.
323.
1333.
333.
446.
405.
465.
290.
1606.
401.
305.
3J8.
331.
172.
1116.
279.
314.
377.
264.
410.
1365.
341.
fcoeeooa
SI'.ftLL »
CA.'JS o
00.
31 .
17.
19.
147.
37.
26.
13.
20.
12.
71.
18.
31.
8.
18.
4.
61.
15.
30.
19.
11.
24.
84.
21.
o
o
o
o
;»ooooooQO3ooaooe
o
DAGS o
93.
169.
179.
146.
587.
147.
196.
196.
258.
85.
735.
184.
123.
193.
1.20
12.64
3.16
1.9U
3.45
2.00
2.35
9.70
2.42
2)2^.
2193.
5420.
363. 2812.
2314.
5695.
5217
10912
48.54
fc .->-\- b
33".
'i'i,
•vt.
-------
COVINA, CALIF. SYSTEM NUMBER 2 ROUTE 2/1-4 4TH UUARTER 8/28/73-8/31/73
TINE C MOTION DATA REDUCTION
d O 3 O 0 O OOOOOO $0000OOOO0MOOOOPOOCww*'wWwwWHVWwwvww»»»*MM»Fw**«* » w
a a °
a a DRIVERS °
a a TIME °
o o (MIIJUIES) ee
a es.o9oaeeaaa»aeeesaeeoeaaecoeoeeeasa«aao
TUTAL »
C3LLLCTQRS TIME
(MINUTES)
>aaooaaaae»aaaeaaaaeoeacaaaaaa
a a o
aa aaaoaeac
a
a
a
a
taoaaaa
.-a-aaSaa^Sa'a'a.aaaa.a'^a^
i i:i Jl-S :-!°o Si" !!:;: !5o3:X S:S S:°o! X:!! i:!i I:?!
1 20 \l'l\ SlEo Olio 75.4, ICO. 65 25.il 0.00 0.00 0.73 3.88
1 2-4 37~40 O.GO 0.00 95.23 132.68 37.40 O.OU O.OU 1.2U <:.82
SUM 113.44 0.00 U.JO 354.61 468.05 Hi. 44 O.Ou O.OU 8.32 11. bO
AViRAGE 2U.36 0.00 U.OO 68.65 117.01 2d.36 0.00 O.OU 2.08 ^.V5
2 «:-!
> -\
SUM
AVtlAGt
j
i
3 2-1
3 2-2
3 2-3
3 2-4
SUM
AVERAGE.
4 2-1
4 2-2
4 2-3
4 2-4
SUM
AVERAGE
CUMULATIVE SUM
CUMULATIVE AVERAGE
33.31
26.7?
31.45
23.88
115.36
28.84
21.32
21.82
15.70
8.92
67.77
16.94
18.58
22.49
16.09
24.90
82.06
20.52
37U.63
23.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
u.oo
u.oo
u.co
0.00
u.oo
0.00
0.00
u.oo
0.00
0.00
o.co
6.33
6.33
1.58
6.33
0.40""
0.00
u.co
O.GO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
u.oo
0.00
0.30
0.00
o.co
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.GO
o.co
o.co
0.00
O.UO
141 .56
118.25
110. ei
76.54
447.15
111.79
97.67
64.66
71.74
48.03
302.10
75.53
104.92
114.22
73.63
125.06
417.82
104.45
1521.69
95.11
174.87
144.96
142.25
100. 4<»
562.51
140.63
118.99
106.49
87.44
56.95
369.87
92.47
123.50
136.71
89.72
149.96
499.88
124.97
1900.32
118.77
33.31
26.72
31.45
23.03
115.36
28.04
21.32
21 .02
15.70
8.92
67.77
16.94
18.58
22.49
16.09
24.90
82.06
20.52
378.63
23.66
0.16
0.00
0.25
O.OU
0.43
0.11
0.00
o.ou
o.ou
0.00
o.ou
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.43
• 0.03
0.24
0.03
O.OU
0.3t>
0.6^
0.16
0.00
0.00
o.ou
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.62
0.04-
5.44
1.6 j
3.09
5.01
15.19
3.80
2.00
1.04
3.99
1.26
B.29
2.07
1.64
3.14
4. CO
4.71
13.70
3.43
45.49
2.84-
U.bS
1.71
4. 75
1 .78
8.90
2.^2
0.13
U.51
1.28
3.29
0.82
0.40
0.61
0.20
1.99
3.20
0.80
27.18
1.70
-------
CUVIN4. CALIF. iVSTEH NUMBER 2 ROUTE 2/1-4 4TH WAITER 8/2B/73-b/31/73
TIME t HUUON DATA REDUCTION
o uUARTER
ROUTE
e e »
e o o TOTAL » RATIO UF o »
* TOTAL HANDLING o RATIO OF • PRODUCTIVE'* PRODUCTIVE • TOTAL ITEHS •
« T1HC • HANDLING TIME * TIME • TIME TO • HANDLED BV •
« IHINUTESJ • TO TOTAL TIME * 1H1KUTESJ • TOTAL TINE o CULLECTIJRS •
2-1
2-2
2-3
2.<,
SUM
AVERA6E
81.92
90.1.7
70.D2
91.18
83.62
106.30
117.02
96.03
128.53
111.98
128.
634.
670.
619.
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
SUM
AVERAGE
13!>.0
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
SUM
AVERAGE
94.30
83.50
67.24
45.49
290.S3
72.63
115.63
105.32
82.94
S4.41
3&B.29
b9.57
584.
658.
61)2.
3SO.
2274.
568.
4
4
4
4
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
SUM
AVERAGE
102.67
110.47
69.42
118.36
400.92
100.413
121.25
132.96
85.51
143.26
482.98
120.75
630.
865.
652.
942.
3089.
772.
CUMULATIVE SUM
CUMULATIVE AVERAGE
1447.96
90.bO
1827.02
114.19
10931.
683.
-------
COVINA, CALIF. SYiTEM NUMBER 2 ROUTE 2/1-4 OUARTERS 1-4 11/21/72-8/31/73
ROUTE CUI'JLATIVES
aaaasoooaoooaeaaaoaoaaaaoaaaoeoeoa
"ALL TIMES ARE IN MINUTES*
2-1
1)
2)
3)
4 )
5)
6)
7)
b)
9)
14)
15)
TIME LFF1C1ENCY UF CRfcH WHILE COLLECTING
O.M AGUft
UFILIIATIUN OF URIVERS TIME .'. )
[} )
U
U)
L)
M
UHLIZATIL-N OF COLLtCTOHS A)
TIME D)
C)
U)
E )
F )
AVERAGE NUMBER UF ITEMS A)
BY TYPE / SERVICE B)
C 1
D)
RETURNABLE / NON-RETURNABLE A)
ITEMS / SLRVICE 0)
C1I VlfiG
t AIDING
I. M T I I.G
S
C
=
=
I b".r ACTIONS
lill9
3.95
0.78
O.b2%
0.72
0.53
0.69
2.43
0.11
1.55
0.87
2.b4
2.43
>a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
o
a
a
o
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
o
e
oaaaaao
95. 34*
21.31%
o.ou%
1 .4^%
u.co%
77 .2d%
0.00%
21 .61%
0.00%
0.09%
C.79%
1.74%
73. 7*%
2.6/
0.1J
1.27
1 .21
2.01
2.4U
1 «.0 /
110.99
0.95
0.77
0.13%
0.9,!
0.68
0.68
2.51
0.12
1.19
l.U
2.63
2.33
-------
CUVIHA. CALIF. iYSTLH IJJHilER 2 ROUTE 2/1-4 4TH QUARTER B/28/73-8/31/73
-J
oo
•ALL FlHEi ARE IN HINUUS"
SYSTEM PERFORHANCE
oaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaoaeaaaoaaaaaaaoaaoaaaeaaaaa
BY QUARTER CUI'.U-
1ST 2MO 3RD 4TH LAT1VE
1)
t)
3)
4)
51
6)
7)
0)
9)
14)
15)
TIMJ LTFICIkNCY OF CREW WHILE COLLECTING =
Q:i ACIJU
UTILIZATION OF DRIVERS TIME A)
0)
C )
U)
if)
ri
UTILIZATION OF COLLECTORS A)
TlHc 8 >
C)
0)
E)
F)
AUCrfAOC NjMbl* OF ITEMS A1
Of 1YPE / StRVICE U>
C)
0)
RETURNABLE / NON-RETURNABLE A)
ITCMS / SERVICE U)
oami.G =
1/ALKIfiG =
V... ITIJ.C =
UillcR =
CULLECTION=
RSOPJG
WALKING
WAITING =
COMPACTION?
DTHcR
COLLECTION-
CANS
SHALL CAHS=
OAGS =
H1SC.
RETJRN =
NO RET =
AVERAGE NUMBER UF DWELLINGS / SERVICE
ODOOOOOOO
O
95.70* «
24.244
C.GO*
O.GO*
75.76%
0.00*
O.UO*
0.00*
i .70*
2 .52*
71.47*
2.48
0.27
1.09
0.76
2.60
2.01
1.05
AVERAGE DISTANCE BETWEEN SERVICES (FT.) = 124.51
RATIO OF PRODJCTIVE TIHt TO TOTAL TlHt
RATIO OF HAf.DLIHG TIME TO PRODUCTIVE TIME =
DUPLICATION OF HANDLING
A) TOTAL CREU TINE / DWELLING
0) HANDLING TIME / DWELLING
C) PRODUCTIVE TlHc / DWELLING
0) Cftf.S / OhELLlNG
C) SHALL CANS / DUELLING
F) BAGS / DUELLING
G) 1ISCELLAI.FIJUS / DWELLING
H) RETUKNADLEi / DWELLING
I) NDI4-RE lUitNADLES / DWELLING
a
e
s
s
s
s
s
e
s
0.96
0.75
0.00*
0.83
0.59
0.79
2.36
0.26
1.04
0.72
2.48
1.91
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
o
a
a
o
a
a
a
a
o
a
aaeaaaa
95.61*
20.51%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00".
79.49*
0.00*
20.51*
O.OB*
0.11*
2.70%
1.5B*
75.02*
2.52
0.11
1.15
1.05
2.63
2.20
1.03
103.20
0.96
0.70
1 .U9
2.64
2.49
1.03
146.36
0.97
0.01
0.04%
0.81
0.64
0.79
2.45
0.13
1.34
1 .06
2.56
2.42
oa
e
e
a
a
a
0
a
a
a
e
a
a
a
a
a
a
0
o
a
a
a
a
e
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
o
a
a
0
a
aaaaoea
96.62*
16. ?1*
O.Ou*
1 . 2 'j *
O.Oo*
62.54*
0.00*
16.42%
0.00*
0.00*
2.7<«*
O.b4*
80.20*
2.70
0.17
1 .74
!»*»
2.07
3.2J
1 .02
99. U4
0.97
0.83
0.32*
0.97
0.78
0.94
2.66
0.16
1.71
1.46
2.83
3.18
aa
a
a
a
o
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
e
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
aa o a aa w
96.14%
19.06*
U.CO*
0.335
u.to*
79. 815
o.oo-.
IV. 92*
0.02*
0.03*
2.39*
1.43*
76.20*
2.55
0. 17
l.;2
1.09
2.60
2.46
1.03
116.87
0.96
0.79
0.17*
0.87
0.66
0.83
2.47
0.17
1.28
1.C6
2.fcO
2.3>B
-------
PHOENIX* ABU, StStEH VbNBtR 3 RJUTEI3/1-4) 4TH QUMTEQ 9/l9/73-9/«l/7B
TIME t M3T10* DAIA REDUCTION
vO
3J4KTE? RDJTE
••»*»»**o***ooo«»»***
1 3-1
1 3-2
i 3-3
* 3-4
SJM
4 3-1
2 3-2
4 3-3
4 3-4
iJM
* 3-1
» 5-2
3 3-)
3 3*4
AVERAbE
* 3-1
* 3-2
4 3-3
SJ1
AVERAbE
ULATIVE SUM
ULfcTlVi AVERA6I
NUMBER
OF
SERVICES
••••eoto****)
94.
172.
131.
12J.
517.
129.
130.
ISO.
134.
155.
567.
144.
52.
13&!
75.
437.
102.
78.
193.
147.
155.
573.
1*3.
2064.
129.
SJMBER
3F
>***o»o***»
133.
173.
132.
55s!
132!
580.'
62.
144.
74!
414.
133.
t»3.
193.
U7.
155.
578.
144.
2130.
133.
TTT^^^^^^»^»»w»ww»www»PPP»PPP8)iJljl)pi
NJM3E<
OF ITEMS 1UM9E4
iv TYPE JF
• 4OOl)09VOAl)tB)St8)O008)tOB>'*'h<*i-a''*>"-*>'*- - " " --
• SMALL • *
:»MS • ;AMS • BAGS •
• •••••••••*AA****A^&*.AA. — „
154.
284.
170.
2J2.
910.
202.
131.
192.
270!
7VO.
197.
114.
242.
2U1.
Ib4.
741.
tao.
112.
276.
185.
299.
872.
218.
3193.
200*
0.
7.
10.
14.
31.
B.
3.
3.
10.
13.
49.
7.
2.
5.
4.
7.
IB.
4.
1.
9.
11.
9.
30.
B.
IBB.
7»
wwwv pv
140.
199.
14b.
549.
137.
108.
76.
121.
93.
99.'
50.
nv!
5b.
326.
81.
51.
142.
147.
163.
533.
12b.
1776.
Ill*
r wwwwwvvv
MliCEL-
>***O«*V0|
34.
101.
1JS.
99.
341*
85.
b7.
41.
49.
56.
213.
53.
41.
43.
b7.
70.
231.
SO.
34.
52 1*
279^
70.
1034.
b5.
ITEMS
•••••»••«
15!..
14!).
41b.
841.
134.
195.
437.
Bltfi
41S.
lib.
447.
407.
171.
741.
19k.
243.
19b.
338.
930.
3391.
29b.
>••••••••
NUMBER
IF DON
ABLE
ITEMS
••••••••
24l!
309.
246.
8*2.
243.
172.
117.
1)0.
149.
6J8.
1*2.
71.
142.
166.
UB.
527.
142.
65.
23?.
199.
2b6.
782.
195*
4809.
176.
••••••••<
»•••••••••••
93UIF
I/ISTANCE
TOTAL ••••••»•»»••
ITEMS • (MILES) •
••••«o»*<
250.
532.
'«62.'
1733.
433.
306.
312.
317.
432.
1427.
957.
1*7.
389.
391.
299.
12b8.
317.
198.
515.
395.
57V.
16B2.
420.
6110.
162* -
2.94
4.47
3.94
isibj
9.43
2.37
3)45
13. 3«
3.33
3.7*
2.96
3.2»
1.97
9.03
2.2*
0.63
1.B6
2.41
1.0k
9.93
1.41
41. 9U
" 2.62
-------
PHOENIX, «m» SVSTEH NUNBEA 3 ROUIEI3/1-4) 4tM QUARTER 9/ie/7a-«'il/79
MHE C
a«fl REDUCTION
3JARTE1
>•<
1
1
.
1
SJ1
3-2
*-J
i-s.
SJM
oo
o
SON
1-1
1-2
3-3
3-4
J-l
1-2
3-3
SJN
AtffifUSC
SUM
COULtCT3RJ TlHt
• OklVERS •
• TIHE •
' MINUTES) •••••»•*•••••••••••••«••»«»••••••••••••*•••*••»*••»•••»•
»«.eo..a*«»o»»»o»o»»»o*oo*.••••»..»»»•. TOTAL • • • • •
ROUTE • DKIVIUG • UAIIlrtG • C3LLELT • 3IHE1 • THE • *13H|5 • -AHlSC, • •AITINC, • COMPACI •
••••••»••«••"»*•••••••••••••••••»••*.•»oe***o».••»•••»••••••••••«•••••!
3-1
J-2
3-3 >u.3'j u.uu J.JD bfc.lfc 9». ht> . vi. 51 n.ln n.nn *.u j.85
«!*.37
0.»9
28.40
e<».51
30.01
2B.2?
111.19
87.80
16.IS
22.32
30.67
10.69
79.64
i9i«6
14.69
30.39
32.96
29.15
107.39
26.85
406.10
£5.91
0.00
O.bO
0.00
0.33
0.03
U.JO
0.00
0.1)3
0.00
0.00
(1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
B.CO
0.03
0.09
0.00
c.oo
e*ao
3.30
3.30
3. JO
J.OO
3. JO
3.30
3.00
0.00
3.00
3.33
3.00
3*00
3.00
3.33
9.00
d.oo
0*00
3.00
0*00
3.30
0.00
3.33
3.03
3*00
0.03
0400
3S.9-«
67.72
66.16
51.99
221.71
55. 43
62.12
49.11
57.75
>«..OJ
223.01
S5.7*
21.7it
51.13
60.97
S3. 93
187.69
*6»9i
31.50
76.57
58.53
67. sa
234.13
sa.s«
666*59
54.1k
57.73
1D1.76
96.66 •
73.2ii
329.39
12. 3i
93.52
73.62
87.7S
S2.3J
334. 2J
B3<5»
J7.9*
73.43
91.5'4
64.62
267.53
66.8*
46.39
106.96
91.48
96.74
341.57
8V.39
1272.69
79.54
21.99
3-..J4
33.53
21.25
137.63
26. >2
29. '«3
24.51
33.31
28.27
111.19
H.»t
16.15
22.32
33.67
10.69
79.8%
l».9k
U.39
a».39
32.96
29.19
107.39
26.95
40t.lO
25.81
3.30
0.30
9.30
3.30
3.30
9.30
9.?7
1.52
3.U
1.13
3.34
9.7*
0.00
0.00
0.90
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.39
0.12
0.00
0.21
0.05
0.00
0.30
3.'sj
0.75
0
-------
PHOENU, AMU* SYSTEH UMBER 3 ROUTEJ3/l-4»
OUARTE* 9/18/7J-V/2.1/73
IME t MJTIQV DATA REDUCTION
00
• »
• 0
• •
• •
• 3JA4TER •
•••6 «*»•»«.«•
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
CUMULATIVE
CUMULATIVE
•
e
e
o
ROUTE e
• OtOAB)B)t£tfl
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
SUM
AVtRAGfc
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
SUM
AVkRAGt
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
SJM
AVERAGE
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
SJH
AVERAGE
SU*
AVERA&E
TOTAL HANOL
Tilt
MINJIfcS)
'^••00O$0 009
34.97
6< .68
63.62
49.68
21 J» 96
54.74
61. iB
49.11
56.75
53.37
220.il
5S.13
23.27
47.33
55.63
48.43
171.66
42.91
30.ee
73.97
57.95
66.25
229.05
57.26
032. IB
52.01
•
•
• RATIO OF
• HAVDLINb TIME o
• T3 IDIAL THE •
•
• RtTIO 3*
• PIJDJCTIVE
306.
312.
377.
432.
• TOT»L
' PKOUUITIVE • P1JDJCTIVE • ftjTAL ITEMS •
TIMc « USE Ta • HftNOLtO fit •
H1SJTESI • T3IAL TUS • COLLECTORS •
••••• »«*<>••• ••»•»•••••••• ••••»»o»** »••••»
56.87 ?50.
96.96 532.
?M!
70. »*
318.7
69.60
73.62
66. 76
81.64
931.70
42.92
36.69
71.17
H6.43
60.25
254,54
63.63
4S.B4
104.55
90.90
95.40
336.70
14.IB
1241.72
77.fcl
3S7.
Jb7.
299.
1268*
317.
198.
515.
395.
574.
16»2»
420.
6110.
382.
-------
PHJEN1X,
SVSTi9
3. *t>
3.00*
O.i.6
3.35
3.i5
l.<:2
3.31
3.65
0.37
1.23
1*31
97.31*
11.27*
0.00*
3.03*
O.Ob*
63. 73*
3.3J*
31 .27*
3.52*
D «tV*
1.57*
1.13*
b5 .5^*
1.51
3.0^
0.6»
3.42
1.54
1.11
l.Ou
#9. 3a
3.97
3.67
3.33*
0.50
0. 3>
3.52
1.50
0.3*
3. 69
0.42
1.53
1.11
97.1,9*
33.78*
J.UO*
O.JO*
g.30*
&b. 22*
J.30*
33.79*
3.33*
U.03*
!.«.<»*
1 . J4*
4a .67*
1.38
0.06
1.31
J.il
1 .iiS
1.59
1.00
12b.b2
3.47
J.30*
0.67
9>ii3
3.b6
1.38
3.36
1.03
u.&l
"" 1 . %5
t.59
97.26*
29.23*
0*.30*
0.30*
3.3u*
71.SJ*
3.33*
29. 2J*
3.36*
1 . 4(t 5
l.3b*
l.*35
0.39
3.91
1 '.9it
1.5b
1 .3U
101.10
0.97
3.71
3.33*
3.63
0.43
O.M
1.96
3.39
0.92
3.6S
1.94
1.57
-------
PMBENI«» AttlC. STSlEl DUMBER 3 RJUIEi3/l-4l
OJARTiR »/lB/73»9/21S73
•ALL TlHEl ARE IN
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
sr
2.V)
3Ri)
4TM
CUMJ-
LATIVE
CD
11
BAGS / DWELLING
G) MISCELLANEOUS / DWELLING
H) RETURNABLE* / DUELLING
tl ION-RE TURNABLES / DWELLING
•
I
|
9i.7B»
32.69*
0.00*
J.OO*
3.30*
67.31*
0.00*
32.69*
3.34*
J.JO*
4.50*
J.72*
6!i.04*
l.*7
J.06
1.G6
3.66
1.63
1.73
1.06
1*8.69
3.97
3.66
0.00*
3.59
0.38
3.57
1.45
0.06
•J.9B
3.61
1.51
1*60
: "•»*
« 93.27*
• 0.00*
• 3.03*
• 3-. Out
• 06.73*
• 0.00*
• 33. ?7*
• 3.03*
• 3.33*
• 0.2^*
• 0.52*
• 65. 9 d*
• 1 3*
• 0.0!>
• 3.73
• 0.3W
• U07
• 1.3*
• 121.44
• 3.99
• 3.56
• 0.00*
• 0.58
• 0.3a
• 3.57
• 1.36
• 0.35
• 0.69
• 0.37
• 1.41
* l.OS
: '5-"» :
° 29.84* •
• 0.30* •
• J.OO* *
• 3.30* •
• 70.16* •
• 0.30* •
• 29. B4* •
• 1.14« •
• 3.3H* •
• i.33» •
• 1.74* •
• S«..lb* •
* 1.77 •
• J.34 •
• 3.90 •
• U.49 •
• 1.B2 •
• 1.29 •
• 1.32 •
° 115.17 •
• 3.15 •
». 3.67 •
• a. oo* «
• 9.65 •
• 0.41 •
• 3.61 •
• 1.74 •
• O.U4 •
• O.T9 »
• 3.49 •
• 1.79 •
99.97* •
31.44* •
O!DO* •
0.3J* •
3.30* •
69. So* •
0.30* •
Jl .44* •
•).3d* •
3.30* •
3.17* •
67.36* •
IS? •
t • y c w
3.35 •
3. SB •
0.49 •
1.57 •
1.36 •
1.31 •
54.17 •
3.99 •
0.68 »
0.30* •
0.»9 •
3.43 •
0.58 •
1 .51 •
3.3S •
0.97 •
3*48 •
l.St> •
97.47*
31.91*
0.03*
0.00*
3.J3*
66.09*
0.00*
31.91*
o.«;7»
U.j2*
1.39*
1 .03*
65.39*
0.05
0.66
0.53
1.63
1.3*
1.03
103.86
3.99
0.67
0.03*
0.60
3. 39
0.5B
1.53
0.05
0.83
3.49
1.55
1*92
-------
ROCKFORD. ILLINOIS SYSTEM NUMBER 4 ROUTEI4/1-4I 4TM QUARTER 9/11/73-9/14/73
TINE t NOTION OAT* REDUCTION
QUARTER
ROUTE
03
.fc.
If
It
4
4
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
SUM
AVERAGE
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
SUN
AVEHAGE
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
SUN
AVERAGE
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
SUH
AVERAGE
NUMBER
OF
SERVICES
P ••••••••••'
220.
215.
192.
243.
870.
217.
357.
289.
302.
276.
1224.
306.
209.
207.
228.
205.
849.
212.
178.
180.
201.
81.
640.
160.
NUMBER
OF
DWELLINGS
'••9OtAOO9t 4
234.
255.
216.
282.
989.
247.
395.
328.
304.
285.
1312.
328.
210.
218.
230.
207.
865.
216.
195.
192.
201.
81.
669.
167.
NUMBER
OF ITEMS NUMBER
BY TYPE OF
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••A* RETURN-
•
CANS •
O04AO9994
269.
256.
204.
273.
1022.
255.
SOS.
375.
272.
254.
1406.
351.
315.
259.
262.
197.
1033.
256.
215.
234.
' 204.
74.
727.
162.
SMALL •
CANS •
• • ••• ••
20.
25.
9.
48.
102.
25.
27.
57.
35.
54.
173.
43.
31.
56.
42.
68.
197.
49.
23.
44.
22.
28.
117.
29.
•
BAGS •
)••• • ••<
599.
607.
458.
665.
2329.
582.
922.
883.
628.
754.
3187.
797.
532.
645.
576.
472.
2225.
556.
473.
529.
475.
164.
1641.
410.
MISCEL-
LANEOUS
6tfe9tO£0t
157.
93.
95.
162.
507.
127.
203.
220.
234.
161.
818.
2U4.
191.
107.
246.
179.
723.
181.
110.
169.
176.
61.
516.
129.
ABLE
ITEMS
309.
^81 .
213.
321.
1124.
281.
532.
432.
307.
308.
1579.
395.
346.
315.
303.
265.
1229.
307.
238.
278.
226.
102.
844.
211.
NUMBER
9F NON
RETURN-
ABLE
ITEMS
'9999O9£fr
756.
700.
553.
827.
2836.
709.
1125.
1103.
862.
915.
4005.
1001.
723.
752.
822.
651.
2948.
737.
583.
696.
651.
225.
2157.
539.
R3UTE
DISTANCE
TOTAL »•»•••••*•••
ITEMS •
)60664£Oti
1064.
981.
766.
1148.
3960.
990.
1657.
1535.
1169.
1223.
5584.
1396.
1969.
1067.
1125.
916.
4177.
1044.
621.
976.
677.
327.
3001.
750.
INUESI •
'•••••••••O
9.30
7.63
5.83
8.00
30. 70
7.67
12.03
6.60
6.90
4.94
30. 5*
7.63
4.93
4.73
3.4U
4.33
17.33
4.32
5.70
3.93
3.83
1.40
14. 8 C;
3.70
CUH'JLAHVE SUM
lUMJLATIVE AVERAGE
3563. 3835. 4186. 589. 9382. 2564. 4776. 11946. 16722. 93.34
224, 240. 262. 37. 586. 160. 298. 747. 1045. 5.83
-------
RQCKFORO, ILLINOIS SYSTEM NUMBER 4 RDUIEI4/1-4I 4TH QUARTER 9/11/73-9/14/73
TINE t N3T10M DATA REDUCTION
QUARTER
i»*
i
\
1
1
R3UTE
>•«•«
4-1
4-2
4-3
it-it
SDH
AVERAGE
• e o
• DRIVERS • COLLECTORS TiNE «
• TINE • (HIa««>fto
e»o«»»*«»«*ao*««*«*o«a*oooo»**oa****a»* TOTAL • • • • •
• DRIVING » WAITING • COLLECT » OTHER • TINE • RIDING » WALKING • WAITING • COMPACT • UTrtEft o
00
01
2 4-1
2 4-2
2 4-3
2 ' 4-4
SUM
AVERAGE
3 4-1
3 4-2
3 4-3
3 4-4
SUM
AVERAGE
4-2
4-3
4-*
SUN
AVERAGE
CUMULATIVE SUM
CUMULATIVE AVERAGE
51.09
49.04
34.91
39.47
174.52
43.63
59.19
40.52
33.96
26.57
160.24
40.06
32.90
27.45
22.45
20.91
103.70
25.93
29.04
22.64
21.16
7.29
80.14
20.03
518.60
32.41
98.92
81.86
75.23
54.12
310.16
77.54
128.09
7
10.96
15.04
10.80
&6.71
13.6>5
0.85
-------
ROCKFOROt ILLINOIS SYSTEM NUMBER 4 RDUTEI4/1-4I 41H QUARTER 9/11/73-9/14/73
TINE I NOTION DATA REDUCTION
QUARTER • ROUTE
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
SUM
AVERAGE
• TOTAL HANDLING • RATIO OF •
• TIME * HANDLING TINE •
• (MINUTES) • T3 TOTAL TIME •
>•••••••
115.62
95.03
70.28
71.83
352.77
86.19
TOTAL • RATIO OF • •
PRODUCTIVE • PRODUCTIVE • TOTAL MEMS •
TIME • TINE TO • HANDLED 8V •
(MINUTES) • TOTAL TIKE • COLLECTORS •
159.51
138.17
101.95
107.BO
507.43
126.86
1076.
99?.
777.
1160.
4005.
1001.
•a
CM
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
SUM
AVERAGE
117.62
90.65
65.25
59.06
332.59
83.15
169.95
122.04
94.51
80.BO
467.30
116.83
16«2.
1558.
1174.
1223.
5637.
1409.
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
SUM
AVERAGE
83.27
66.20
73.71
48.45
271.63
67.91
113.35
89.72
92.36
67.66
363.09
90.77
1069.
1088.
1126.
916.
4199.
1050.
4
4
4-1
4-2
«-3
4-4
SUH
AVERAGE
73.08
75.52
60.13
22.37
231.09
57.77
99.79
95.49
79.94
30.00
305.23
76.31
823.
977.
877.
327.
3004.
751.
ClHULATItfE SUH 1188.06
CUMULATIVE AVERAGE • 74.25
164J.06
102.60
1*845.
1053.
-------
ROCKFORDt ILL1NUIS SVSTEH NUHBER 4 ROUTEC4/1-4) QUARTERS 1-4 12/13/72-9/14/73
•ALL TIHES ARE IN MINUTES*
4-1
ROUTE :UNULATIVES
4-2
4-3
4-4
oo
1)
2)
31
4)
5)
b)
71
at
9)
14)
IS)
TIME EFFICIENCY OF CREW WHILE
ON ROUTE
UTILIZATION OF DRIVERS TIME
UTILIZATION OF COLLECTORS
TINE
AVERAGE NUHBER OF ITEMS
BY TYPE / SERVICE
RETURNABLE / NON-RETURNABLE
ITEMS / SERVICE
AVERAGE NUHBER OF DWELLINGS /
COLLECTING - 89.45*
A) DRIVING
B) WALKING
C) WAITING
D) COMPACTION
E) OTHER
ft COLLECTION
A) RIDING
B) WALKING
C) WAITING
D) C31PACT10*
E) OTHER
F) COLLECTION
A) CANS
B) SHALL CANS
C) BAGS
0) MISL.
A) RETURN
B) NO RET
SERVICE
AVERAGE DISTANCE BETWEEN SERVICES (FT.)
RATIO OF PRODUCTIVE THE TO TOTAL TIME
RATIO OF HANDLING TIME TO PRODUCTIVE TIHE
DUPLICATION OF HANDLING
A) TOTAL CREW TINE / DWELLING
B) HANDLING TIHE / DWELLING
C) PRODUCTIVE TINE / DWELLING
D) CANS / DWELLING
E) SMALL CANS / DWELLING
F) BAGS / DWELLING
G) MISCELLANEOUS / DWELLING
H) RETURNABLES / DUELLING
I) NON-RETURNABLE5 / DWELLING
28.66*
0.00*
64. B9*
0.00%
o.as*
5.56*
20.
-------
ROCKFORDt ILLINOIS SYSTEM NUMBER 4 ROUTE(4/1-41 4TH QUARTER 9/11/73-9414/73
•ALL TINES ARE IN MINUTES*
1ST
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
BY QUARTER
2ND 3RD
4TH
CUMU-
LATIVE
JO
11
21
31
4>
5)
61
71
81
9)
41
5>
TIME EFFICIENCY OF CREW WHILE COLLECTING -
ON ROUTE
UTILIZATION OF DRIVERS TINE
UTILIZATION OF COLLECTORS
TIME
AVERAGE NUMBER OF ITEMS
BY TYPE / SERVICE
RETURNABLE / NON-RETURNABLE
IUHS / SERVICE
AVERAGE NUMBER CF DWELLINGS /
Al
81
Cl
Dl
El
FI
A)
Bl
Cl
Dl
El
FI
Al
81
CI
Dl
Al
Bl
DRIVING
WALKING
WAITING
COMPACTION
OTHER
COLLECTION
RIDING
WALKING
WAITING
COMPACTION
OTHER
COLLECTION
CANS
SMALL CANS
BAGS
MISC.
RETURN
NO RET
•
•
»
*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
m
n,
•
•
,
•
SERVICE
AVERAGE DISTANCE BETWEEN SERVICES (FT.I •
RATIO OF PRODUCTIVE TIME TO TOTAL TIME
RATIO OF HANDLING TIME TO PRODUCTIVE TINE •
DUPLICATION OF HANDLING
Al TOTAL CREW TIME / DUELLING
Bl HANDLING TINE / DWELLING
Cl PRODUCTIVE TIME / DWELLING
Dl CANS / DWELLING
El SMALL CANS / DUELLING
Fi BAGS / DUELLING
&< MISCELLANEOUS / DWELLINC
HI RETURNABLE* / DWELLING
I1 NON-r -TURK* !LES ' DWELLING
m
,
•
m
m
B
•
•
•
•
92
32
0
56
0
0
10
21
6
0
6
0
64
1
0
2
0
1
3
1
•
•
•
•
•
51* •
•
04* •
00* •
95* •
00* •
.90* •
•
11* •
.40* •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
.
163
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
1
2
•
•
•
•
•
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
79* •
06* •
85* •
58* •
31* •
17 o
12 •
68 •
58 •
29 •
26 •
14 •
.90 •
93 •
70 •
14* •
55 •
36 •
SI •
03 •
10 •
35 •
51 •
14 •
87 •
87.02* •
•
29.73* •
o.oot •
56.86* •
0.00* •
0.16* o
13.25* •
16.43* •
8.66* •
1.55* •
10.57* •
0.86* •
61.94* •
1.15 •
0.14 •
2.60 •
0.67 •
1.29 •
3.27 •
1.07 •
122.90 •
O.B7 •
0.71 •
0.95* •
0.41 •
0.25 •
0.36 *
1.07 •
0.13 •
2.43 *
0.62 •
1.20 •
3.05 »
87.05* •
•
24.83* •
0.00* •
55.64* •
0.00* •
0.31* •
19.15* •
13.82* •
8.11* •
1.30* •
10.63* •
1.02* •
65.12* •
1.22 •
0.23 •
2.62 •
0.85 •
1.45 •
3.47 •
1.02 •
105.60 •
0.87 •
0.75 •
0.53* •
0.48 •
0.31 •
0.42 •
1.19 •
0.23 •
2.57 •
0.84 •
1.42 •
3.41 •
93.98* •
24.53* •
0.00* •
62.24* •
0.00* •
0.23* •
13.00* •
18.13* •
4.70* •
0.44* •
5.08* •
3.51* •
71. IS* •
1.14 •
o.ia •
2.56 •
0.31 •
1.32 •
3.37 •
l.Oi •
116.81 •
0.94 •
0.76 •
0.10* •
0.49 •
0.3& •
0.46 •
1.09 •
0.17 *
2.44 •
O.i7 •
1.26 »
3.22 »
89.91*
2*. 37*
0.00*
57.57*
0.00*
0.44*
13.62*
17.63*
7.27*
0.85*
8.49*
0.75*
65.02*
1.17
0.16
2.62
3.72
1.33
3.33
1.07
128.51
0.90
0.72
0.74*
0.48
0.31
0.43
1.09
0.15
2.4$
0.67
1.25
3.11
-------
FLINT, MICHIGAN
SYSTEM NUMBER 5 ROUTE 15/1-*) 4TH QUARTER 7/10-13/73
TINE t MOTION DATA REDUCTION
00
VO
QUARTER
IOOOOOOOC
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
ROUTE
>a*oee<
5-1
5-2
5-3
SUM
AVERAGE
5-1
5-2
5-3
5UH
AVERAGE
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
SUM
AVERAGE
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
SUM
AVERAGE
CUMULATIVE SUM
CUMULATIVE AVERAGE
NUMBER
OF
SERVICES
ooo*o«oeoooo*
235.
208.
251.
305.
999.
250.
193.
238.
230.
164.
825.
206.
198.
235.
168.
265.
866.
216.
147.
159.
16S.
83.
554.
138.
NUMBER
OF
OUULINGS
••••••«••••
235.
208.
253.
306.
1002.
250.
193.
243.
233.
164.
833.
208.
199.
241.
169.
265.
874.
218.
147.
170.
166.
83.
566.
141.
•••»••••
CANS •
••eooo**
0.
3.
0.
0.
3.
1.
0.
o.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
1.
2.
1.
NUM
OF I
BY T
•»»««•*
SMALL «
CANS •
• • **e ••
85.
116.
138.
116.
455.
114.
53.
60.
71.
58.
242.
60.
49.
77.
84.
85.
295.
74.
45.
50.
89.
23.
207.
52.
BER
TEMS
YPE
oo«eo*«»
•
BAGS «
O90OOAO9
1086.
826.
975.
1446.
4333.
1083.
591.
887.
858.
575.
2911.
728.
831.
967.
779.
1234.
3811.
953.
415.
1284.
1199.
823.
3721.
930.
»eee»*o*
1ISCEL-
LANEOUS
» • • oft o o c •
66.
86.
97.
151.
400.
100.
56.
SO.
52 .
59.
217.
54.
86.
80.
123.
162.
451.
113.
72.
89.
171.
85.
417.
104.
NUMBER
OF
RETURN-
ABLE
ITEMS
85.
119.
138.
116.
458.
114.
53.
60.
71.
58.
<42.
60.
49.
77.
84.
85.
295.
74.
46.
50.
89.
24.
209.
52.
NUMBER
OF NON
RETURN-
ABLE
ITEMS
1152.
912.
1072.
1597.
4733.
1183.
647.
937.
910.
634.
3128.
782.
917.
1047.
902.
1400.
4266.
1066.
487.
1373.
1370.
908.
4138.
1034.
TOTAL »
ITEMS •
)••• O • • • •
1237.
1031 .
1210.
1713.
5191.
1298.
7CO.
997.
981 .
692.
3370.
842.
966.
1124.
986.
1485.
4561 .
1140.
533.
1423.
1459.
932.
4347.
1087.
ROUTE
DISTANCE
(MILES)
7.00
3.36
10.70
10.72
31.78
7.94
6.20
10. 20
6.60
5.00
28.00
7.00
5.60
7.20
4.60
8.50
25.90
6.47
4.90
3.70
3.80
3.40
15.80
3.95
203.
3275.
205.
5.
0.
1199. 14776.
75. 923.-
1485.
93.
1204.
»
75.
16265. 17469.
1017.
1092.
101.48
6.34
-------
FLINT, MICHIGAN
SYSTEM NUMBER 5 ROUTE 15/1-4) 4TH QUARTER 7/10-13/73
TINE I MOTION DATA REDUCTION
oooooo»»»oo»»»»o»»cco*o«»ojoe»oc»»»»»o»»c»»»o»eoo»o»ooo»o»e»«oooo»oeo*ooe»ooo»eoo»ec»»oo»»»«««o»oo»»e»«»«»«oo»»oeoo
OOARUR
,ooeo»»oc
1
1
1
1
DRIVERS
COLLECTORS TIME
ROUTE
>O»OOOOOOO*I
b-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
SUM
AVtRACE
b-1
5-2
5-J
b-4
SUM
AVERAGE
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-*
SUM
AVERAGE
4 5-
4 5-3
4 5-4
SUN
AVERAGE
...SKUI.ATIVE SUN
29.17
23.02
41.46
4d.43
142.09
35.52
26.04
3b.54
33.22
21.76
116.55
29.14
24.20
31.38
24.89
35.00
lib. 46
28.87
19.72
19.67
23.48
16.13
79.00
19.75
453.11
28.32
52.98
52.19
71.35
58.29
234. B2
58.70
29.26
5U.03
50.39
23.08
152.77
38.19
37.18
56.42
58.95
52.78
205.33
51.33
36.18
61.10
94.66
47.81
239.75
59.94
832.67
SZ7U41
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.27
0.27
0.07
0.42
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.42
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.82
0.74
• ooea
HER «
OO^OQ
1.25
0.19
0.72
0.93
3.09
0.77
0.19
0.00
0.33
0.00
0.52
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.61
0.23
TOTAL •
TIME •
OJOOOOOOOI
88. AC
76.27
109.74
112.20
386.61
96.65
55.39
83.87
82.96
45.10
267.32
66.83
61.37
87.84
83.64
87.73
320.78
80.19
55.93
86.85
117.16
63.93
323.87
80.97
1298.57
81.16
•
RIDING •
tooooooooi
24.96
23.07
36.42
47.19
131.64
32.91
21 .97
34.10
29.33
19.01
104.42
26.11
22.18
26.54
21.10
34.79
106.61
26.65
17.32
16.08
19.62
14.34
67.36
16.84
410.04
25.63
WALKING
t • •• o o o • i
3.63
0.31
2.25
5.58
11.78
2.94
1.17
0.10
0.84
1 .68
3.79
0.95
0.45
0.56
1.05
0.88
2.94
0.73
0.29
0.78
1.85
0.20
3.12
0.76
21.63
1.35
• e •
• WAITING o COMPACT « OTHER •
•••••••••••••••ooo*•••••••••«
0.03 11. C3 0.00
0.62 11.65 0.00
1.69 1C.29 0.71
0.00 6.11 0.52
2.34 39.28 1.23
0.59 9.82 0.31
0.32
0.15
0.79
0.12
1.39
0.35
0.00
0.30
0.12
0.00
0.42
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.56
0.97
1.53
0.38
5.69
0.36
5.90
12.06
11.20
1.91
31.10
7.76
9.40
12.98
12.22
3.34
37.95
9.49
5.34
10.11
11.88
8.17
35.51
8.88
143.84
8.99
0.00
0.00
0.21
0.00
0.21
0.05
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.03
0*00
o.uo
0.19
0.32
0.51
0.13
2.06
0.13
-------
FLINT, MICHIGAN
SYSTEM NUMBER 5 ROUTEI5/1-4) 4TH QUARTER 7/10-13/73
TIME t MOTION DATA REDUCTION
o
•
9
O
QUARTER •
ooooooooooooe
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
CUMULATIVE
CUMULATIVE
e
o
e
3
ROUTE »
ooooooooei
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
SUM
AVERAGE
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
SUM
AVERAGE
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
SUM
AVERAGE
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
SUM
AVERAGE
SUN
AVERAGE
0
0
TOTAL HANDLING • RATIO OF
TIME • HANDLING TIME
(MINUTES) • TO TOTAL TINE
>ooooooooo»oaoaaaaooo*o*aaaoaoa<
48.74
40.42
58.37
52.80
200.33
50.08
26.02
37.43
40.59
22.37
126.40
31.60
29.34
45.34
49.35
48.70
172.74
43.18
32.98
59.87
83.06
39.94
215.64
S3 .96
715.32
44.71
0
* TOTAL
* PRODUCTIVE
« TIME
• (MINUTES)
laaaoooooaao*
77.34
63.60
97.04
105.57
343.75
85.94
49.1 /
71 .63
70.76
43. Ob
234.62
58.65
51.97
74.44
71.50
84.38
282.29
70.57
50.58
76.73
104.53
54.48
286.32
71.58
1146.99
71.69
• e
* RATIO OF «•
• PRODUCTIVE • TOTAL ITEMS
o TIME TO • HANDLED BY
« TOTAL TIME « COLLECTORS
•aaoaoooaaaaaaooooooaoooaop
1237.
1031 .
1210.
1713.
5191 .
1298.
7C3.
997.
981 .
692.
3373.
843.
966.
1128.
989.
1493.
4576.
1144.
533.
1423.
1459.
932.
4347.
1087.
17487.
1093.
0
e
•
o
a
»»
-------
FLINT, MICHIGAN
SYSTEH NUMBER 5 ROUTEtl/1-4) QUARTERS 1-4 7/13/73
•ALL T1HES ARE IN MINUTES"
5-1
ROUTE CUHULATIVES
5-2
5-3
3) UTILIZATION CF COLLECTORS
TlHfc
4) AVEKAUE NUMBER OF ITEMS
BY TYPE / SERVICE
1) TIME EFFICIENCY OF CREW WHILE COLLECTING
ON ROUTt
2) UTILIZATION OF DRIVERS TIME A) DRIVING
Bl WALKING
C) WAITING
D) COMPACTION'
E) OTHER
F) COLLECTION:
A) RIDING '
B) WALKING
C) WAITING
D) COMPACTION'
E) OTHER
F) COLLECTION'
A) CANS '
Bl SHALL CANS'
C> BAGS
0) MISC. i
5) RETURNABLE / NON-RETURNABLE A) RETURN
ITFHS / SERVICE B) NU RET
61 AVERAGE NUMBER OF DWELLINGS / SERVICE
7) AVERAGE DISTANCE BETWEEN SERVICES (FT.)
6) RATIO OF PRODUCTIVE TIME TO TOTAL TIME
9) RATIO OF HANDLING TIME TO PRODUCTIVE TIME '
14) DUPLICATION OF HANDLING •
15) A) TOTAL LREW TIME / DWELLING
B) HANDLING TIME / DWELLING
C) PRODUCTIVE TIME / DWELLING
0) CANS / DWELLING
E) SMALL CANS / DWELLING
F) BAGS / DWELLING •
G) MISCELLANEOUS / DWELLING •
H) RETURNABLES I DWELLING
I) NDN-RETURNABLES / DWELLING •
87.74*
37.93*
0.00*
59.54*
0.00*
0.55*
1 .96*
33.11*
2.12*
0.13*
12.14*
0.00*
52.50*
0.00
0.30
3.78
0.36
0.30
4.14
1.00
161.67
0.88
L-.60
0.09*
0.34
0.18
0.30
0.00
0.30
3.78
0.36
0.30
4.14
85.60*
33.26*
C.OC*
tt.66*
0.00*
C.Ob*
0.00*
3C.4C*
0.53*
0.32*
14.04*
0.03*
54.67*
0.00
0.36
4.72
0.36
C.36
5.08
1.03
149.62
0.66
C.64
C.09*
0.39
C.21
0.33
C.OC
C.35
4.60
0.35
C.35
4.95
87.33*
30.67*
o.co*
68.63*
0.00*
0.26*
0.44*
27. C4*
1.52*
0.61*
11.58*
0.28*
58.77*
0.00
0.47
4.68
0.54
U.47
5.23
1.01
165.28
0.87
0.67
0.06*
0.46
0.28
0.42
O.CO
0.47
4.64
0.54
0.47
5.18
93.05*
39.25*
o.oc*
58.67*
O.OC*
0.30*
1.58*
37.33*
2 .70*
0.35*
6.33*
0.27*
53.02*
O.OU
0.3b
4.99
0.56
0.35
5.56
1.00
178.28
0.93
0.57
0.17*
0.36
0.20
0.35
0.00
0.34
4.99
0.56
0.35
5.55
-------
FLINT, MICHIGAN
SYSTEM NUMBER 5 ROUTEC5/1-4) 4TH QUARTER 7/10-13/73
•ALL TIMES ARE IN MINUTES*
1ST
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
>aaaaeaeaaa<
BY QUARTER
2ND 3RD
4TH
taaeeeaaa
CUMU-
LATIVE
vO
Ixl
1)
21
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
14)
15)
TIMt EFFICIENCY OF CREH WHILE COLLECTING °
ON ROUTE
UTILIZATION OF DRIVERS TINE
UTILIZATION OF COLLECTORS
T 1ME
AVERAGE NUMBER OF ITEMS
BY TYPE / SERVICE
RETURNABLE / NON-RETURNABLE
ITEMS / SERVICE
AVERAGE NUMBER OF DWELLINGS /
A) DRIVING =
B) WALKING
C) WAITING «
D) COMPACTION*
E) OTHER
F) COLLECTION-
A) RIDING
B) WALKING «
C) WAITING »
D) COMPACTION*
E) OTHER
F) COLLECTION*
A) CANS
B) SMALL CANS"
C ) BAGS «
D) MISC. *
A) RETURN
B) NO RET «
SERVICE
AVERAGE DISTANCE BETWEEN SERVICES (FT.) •
RATIO OF PRODUCTIVE TIME TO TOTAL TINE •
RATIO OF HANDLING TIME TO PRODUCTIVE TIME •
DUPLICATION OF HANDLING
A) TOTAL CREH TIME / DWELLING
B) HANDLING TIME / DWELLING
C» PRODUCTIVE TIME / DWELLING
Dl CANS / DUELLING
E) SMALL CANS / DUELLING
F) BAGS / DUELLING
G) MISCELLANEOUS / DWELLING
H) RETURNABLES / DWELLING
I) NON-RETURNABLES / DWELLING
B
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
88. 9U
36.33*
0.00*
60.04*
0.00*
0.79*
2.85*
34.05*
3.05*
0.61*
10.16*
0.32*
51 .82*
0.00
0.46
4.34
0.40
0.46
4.74
1.00
167.46
0.89
0.5B
0.00*
0.39
0.20
0.34
0.00
0.45
4.32
0.40
0.46
4.72
e
«
a
0
a
o
e
0
e
o
o
»
0
a
o
a
e
a
a
a
o
•
a
•
•
a
0
o
•
«
a
a
•
a
87.77*
43.15*
O.OC*
56.56*
O.OC*
0.19*
0.10*
39.06*
1.42*
0.52*
11.63*
0.08*
47.29*
0.00
0.29
3.53
0.26
C.29
3.79
1.01
177.48
0.88
0.54
0.09*
0.32
0.15
0.28
0.00
0.29
3.49
0.26
0.29
3.76
a
»
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
o
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
•
e
a
*
•
•
a
•
a
•
•
88.00*
-
35.95*
0.00*
63.92*
0.00*
0.00*
0.13*
33.24*
0.92*
0.13*
11.83*
0.04*
53.05*
0.00
0.34
4.40
0.52
0.34
4.93
1.01
156.47
0.88
0.61
0.33*
0.37
0.20
0.32
0.00
0.34
4.36
0.52
0.34
4.88
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
•
e
•
•
•
a
•
«
88.41*
24.78*
0.00*
75.22*
0.00*
0.00*
0.00*
20.60*
0.96*
0.47*
10.96*
0.16*
66.65*
0 .00
0.37
6.71
0.75
0.38
7.47
1.02
147.39
0.88
0.75
0.00*
0.57
0.38
0.51
0.00
0.37
6.57
0.74
0.37
7.31
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
9
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
•
a
a
a
a
•
a
•
a
•
o
o
a
a
a
e
88.33*
34.82*
0.00*
63.99*
0.00*
0.28*
0.91*
31.58*
1 .67*
0.44*
11 .08*
0. 16*
55.09*
0 . CO
0.37
4.!>S
0.46
0.37
5.01
1 .01
163.61
0.86
0.62
0.10*
0 .40
0.22
0.35
0.00
0.37
4.51
0.45
0.37
4.97
-------
TUCSON. ARIZ. SYSTEM NUMBER 6 ROUTE (6/1-4) 4TH QUARTER 10/1/73-10/5/73
TIME C NOTION DATA REDUCTION
QUARTER
ROUTE
vO
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
SUM
AVERAGE
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
SUM
AVERAGE
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
SUM
AVERAGE
4 6-1
'> 6-2
4 fc-3
4 6-4
SUN
AVERAGE
NUMBER
OF ITEMS
BY TYPE
NUMBER NUMBER •••••o»»»*»»**o»»»»»»»«»»«»»»»«
OF Of ft SMALL • •
SbRVICES DUELLINGS CANS • CANS • BAGS •
151. 152. 245.
133. 134. 151.
167. 173. 243.
15*. 156. 182.
606. 615. 821.
151. 154. 205.
118. 118. 217.
120. 120. 145.
112. 113. 179.
133. 133. 155.
483. 484. 696.
121. 121. 174.
164. 164. 352.
146. 146. 118.
147. 147. 227.
104. 104. 111.
561. 561. 808.
140. 140. 202.
79. 80. 149.
154. 154. 183.
146. 146. 2JO.
74. 74. 104.
453. 454. 666.
113. 113. 166.
27.
10.
18.
10.
65.
16.
9.
12.
15.
4.
40.
10.
29.
10.
20.
8.
67.
17.
11.
15.
21.
3.
50.
13.
83.
61.
75.
47.
266.
66.
73.
52.
64.
46.
235.
59.
70.
143.
41.
79.
333.
83.
50.
88.
45.
36.
21 9.
55.
• »•••
>CEL-
EOUS
• OB)B) Ol
110.
60.
68.
74.
312.
78.
107.
57.
54.
32.
250.
63.
116.
54.
79.
23.
272.
68.
41.
67.
72.
19.
199.
SO.
NUMBER
OF
RETURN-
ABLE
ITE.1S
'•^•OttOOB)
272.
161.
261.
192.
BB6.
221.
226.
157.
19i.
159.
736.
184.
373.
127.
247.
119.
866.
216.
156.
19B.
251.
109.
714.
178.
NUMBER
Of NON
RETURN-
ABLE
ITEMS
B)90tt9O fr A
193.
121.
143.
121.
578.
144.
IBO.
109.
118.
78.
485.
121.
163.
194.
1*0.
102.
599.
IbO.
91.
146.
117.
i5.
409.
102.
TOTAL
ITEMS
t V 99 W '
465.
282.
404.
313.
1464.
366.
406.
266.
312.
237.
1221.
305.
556.
321.
367.
221.
1465.
366.
247.
344.
368.
164.
1123.
281.
V3UIE
DISTANCE
••••••••••»•
• 11ILES) •
'OfrttttftttA^B)
6.70
5.50
7.40
6.20
25. BJ
6.4*
4.6U
4.10
3.93
3.83
16.30
4.0V
6.00
6.13
5.76
5.63
23.46
5.86
4.13
6.20
6.73
1.8J
18.83
4.73
CURATIVE SUX
2103.
131.
2114.
132.
2991.
167.
222.
14.
1053.
66.
1033.
bS.
3202
203
2071.
129.
5Z73.
330.
34.36
5.21
-------
TUCSON. ARII. SYSTEM NUMBER 6 ROUTE (6/l-4i 4*H GUftRTcK 10/1/73-10/5/73
TINE C MOTION DATA REDUCTION
vo
VJl
QUARTER
»
1
1
1
1
ROUTE
«v»*
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
SUM
AVERAGE
2 6-1
2 6-2
2 6-3
2 6-4
SUM
AVERAGE
3 6-1
3 6-2
3 6-3
3 6-4
SUN
AVERAGE
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-*
SUN
AVERAGE
CUMULATIVE SUN
CUMULATIVE AVERAGE
DRIVERS
TIME
(MINUTES)
» COLLECTORS TIME •
" (MINUTkSl «
• »*oco«o»»»«» 09* •»•• * »•••«>»••• •••»••• o***or »»*3o*c«o»»»o
••o»»»**»»«*o*»»*o*o*»*ooo*»*e*o*«ooo»c TOTAL *
« DRIVING * WAITING • COLLECT * OTHER e TIME « RIDING
19.53
15.56
17.91
17.91
70.91
17.73
2*. 27
19.56
21.16
18.70
83.69
20.92
13.43
22.55
2S.38
B.95
70.32
17.58
323.92
20.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.67
0.00
0.00
5.67
1.42
5.67
0.35
0.00
9.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 .
44.17
25. BB
36.71
27.39
134.15
33.54
3B.09
20.77
27.63
18.97
195.46
26.36
39.98
25.30
35.27
17.84
118.39
29.60
22.50
25.03
32.30
17.33
97.16
24.29
455.16
28.45
136.74
97.96
130.03
103.44
468.17
117.04
115.34
72.68
91.13
73.77
352.92
68.23
128.43
67.49
112.85
74.07
402.89
100.72
71.51
106.03
115.37
52.57
345.44
86.36
1569.42
98.09
36.08
34.18
47.38
40.56
159.90
39.98
34.i»2
27.09
31.75
32.40
125.66
31.42
41.53
33.85
50.66
23.99
150.22
37.55
26.53
46.50
50.51
17.94
141.48
35.37
577.26
36.08
• « o
WALKING * MASTING » COMPACT e OTHER •
»oc*»*o*oo»o»**o«oo»
34.i»2
27.09
31.75
32.40
125.66
31.42
9.37
0.95
0.04
0.7!>
2.1*
9.53
0.00
0.00
0.70
0.16
0.86
O.Z2
0.67
0.46
0.09
0.24
1.46
0.31
J.10
0.00
G.M
j.ao
3.>1
J.13
0.85
0.74
0.21
9.96
l.Bb
0.47
0.21
0.00
0.1 fc
0.33
0.71
0.18
•>.60
0.47
3.18
2. 55
3.76
2.65
12.15
3.04
14.59
19.13
16.64
11.38
61.75
15.44
80.33
5.02
o.ia
0.05
0.22
0.00
0.45
0.11
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.04,
7.43,
0.46
0.2B
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.28
0.07
0.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.99
O.O6
-------
TUCSON, ARIZ. SYSTEM NUMBER 6 ROUTE (6/1-41 4IH QUARTER 10/1/75-10/5/73
TINE C NOTION DAT! REDUCTION
\0
0
•
«
o
e
0 4
•
•
•
•
QUARTER •
)A£0A000009£t
1
1
1
I
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
C:«"!!i.riTriVE
r •;«,?. »ZVE
•
»
•
•
ROUTE •
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
SUN
AVERAGE
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
SUN
AVERAGE
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
SUN
AVERAGE
6-1
6-2
6-9
6-4
SUM
AVERAGE
SUM
flUESfiSS
TOTAL HANDLING
TIME
(MINUTES)
92.96
60.43
79.79
61.06
294.24
73.56
79.77
44.17
58.15
40.21
222.30
55.58
62.45
50.30
57.80
47.36
237.93
59.46
30.18
40.19
48.05
22.91
141.33
35.33
895.81
55.99
• • TOTAL • RATIO OF
• RATIO OF • PRODUCTIVE • PRODUCTIVE
• HANDLING TINE * TIME • TINE TO
• TO TOTAL TINE » (MINUTES) • TOTAL TINE
• TOTAL ITENS
• HANOLkO BY
• COLLECTORS
131.08
95.88
126.93
103.16
457. OS
114.26
114.57
72.22
89.93
73.36
350.09
87.52
124.63
84.88
108.67
71.42
390.01
97.50
56.92
86.69
96.72
41.IB
283.52
70.88
1480.67
415.
283.
411.
325.
1494.
373.
415.
281.
320.
240.
1256.
314.
S7B.
327.
375.
221.
1501.
375.
250.
355.
371.
165.
£141,
23?.
D392.
337.
-------
TUCSON. ARIZ. SYSTEM NUNBEB 6 ROUTE(b/l-4) QUARTERS 1-4 l/15>73-10/5/73
ROUTE :tlNULAT!VES
•ALL TIMES ARE IN MINUTES*
6-1 ' 6-2 6-3 6-4
•••• ••••»*••••• •••••••••••• •••o***
1)
2)
31
4)
5)
6)
71
6)
91
14)
IS)
TIME EFFICIENCY OF CREW WHILE
ON ROUTE
UTILIZATION OF DRIVERS TIME
UTILIZATION OF COLLECTORS
TIME
AVERAGE NUMBER OF ITEMS
BY TYPE / SERVICE
RETURNABLE / NON-RETURNABLE
ITEMS / SERVICE
AVERAGE NUMBER OF DWELLINGS /
COLLECTING • 94.54k
A) DRIVING
B) WALKING
C) WAITING
3) COMPACTION
E) OTHER
F) COLLECTION
A) RIDING
B) WALKING
C) WAITING
D) COMPACTION
E) OTHER
F) COLLECTION
A) CANS
Bl SMALL CANS
C) BAGS
D) MISC.
A) RETURN
B) NO RET
SERVICE
AVERAGE DISTANCE BETWEEN SERVICES (FT.)
RATIO OF PRODUCTIVE TINE TO TOTAL TIME
RATIO OF HANDLING TIME TO PRODUCTIVE TIME
DUPLICATION OF HANDLING
A) TOTAL CREU TIME / DUELLING
B) HANDLING TIME / DMELLlNG
C) PRODUCTIVE TIME / DUELLING
D) CANS / DUELLING
E) SMALL CANS / DUELLING
F) BAGS / DUELLING
C) MISCELLANEOUS / DUELLING
H) RETURNABLES / DWELLING
I) NON-RETURNABLES / DUELLING
35.95*
0.00k
0.00*
9.00k
bd.OSt
0.00*
31.09*
0.33*
4.29k
1.03k
0.13k
63.12*
1.88
0.15
0.54
0.73
2.01
1.26
1.00
219.83
0.95
0.67
2.b3k
0.88
0.56
0.83
1.87
0.1S
0.5*
0.73
2.00
1.26
93.29k
43.86*
0.00k
3.10k
0.00k
53.03k
0.00k
38.69k
0.62k
6.29k
0.42k
0.00k
53.58k
1.08
0.08
0.62
0.43
1.16
1.03
1.03
208.72
0.93
0.57
2.72k
0.66
0.35
0.61
1.08
0.08
0.62
0.43
1.16
1.03
94.45k
61.25k
0.00k
0.00*
3.30«
58.75k
U.OOk
40.10k
O.llk
5.30*
0.15k
0.09*
54.25k
1.54
3.13
0.39
0.48
1.67
0.87
1.31
215.76
0.94
0.57
1.79k
0.78
0.42
0.73
1.52
0.13
0.39
0.47
1.65
O.B6
ss.isk
46.15k
0.00k
O.OCk
0.30k
53.esk
O.OUk
37.81k
o.aak
4.67k
0.17k
3.00k
56 .46k
i.ia
0.35
0.45
0.32
1.24
0.7 to
I. 00
196.73.
0.9*
O.S9
l.7ik
0.65
0.37
0.62
1.18
o.os
0.4S
0.32
1.24
0.76
-------
TUCSON* ARIZ.• SYSTEM NUHBER 6 ROUTE 16/1-4) 4TH QUARTER 10/1/73-10/5/73
•ALL TINES ARE IN MINUTES*
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
•••••••••••••••••*•••••••••••••••••••••••••••
BY QUARTER CUMU-
1ST ?ND 3RD 4TH LATIVE
oo
11
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
14)
IS)
TINE EFFICIENCY OF CREW WHILE
ON ROUTE
UTILIZATION OF DRIVEKS TIME
UTILIZATION OF COLLECTORS
TIME
AVERAGE NUMBER OF ITEMS
BY TYPE / SERVICE
RETURNABLE / NON-RETURNABLE
ITEMS / SERVICE
AVERAGE NUMBER OF DWELLINGS /
COLLECTING -
A)
B)
C)
D)
E)
F)
A)
B)
C)
D)
E)
Fl
A)
B>
C)
D)
A)
B)
DRIVING
WALKING
WAITING
COMPACTION
OTHER
COLLECTION
RIDING
WALKING
WAITING
COMPACTION
OTHER
COLLECTION
CANS
SHALL CANS
BAGS
MISC.
RETURN
NO RET
m
•
•
•
•
•
•
a
m
•
•
•
•
•
V
•
K
•
SERVICE •
AVERAGE DISTANCE BETWEEN SERVICES (FT.) -
RATIO OF PRODUCTIVE TINE TO TOTAL TIME •
RATIO OF HANDLING TIME TO PRODUCTIVE TIME •
DUPLICATION OF HANDLING
A) TOTAL CREW TIME / DWELLING
•)> HANDLING TIME / DWELLING
C) PRODUCTIVE TIMS / DWELLING
D) CANS / DWELLING
F> S-'LL-SANS / C«t'.LlNG
F) SftUS / DWELLING
G) XIJtCELLANcCUS / SWELLING
Hi R?7«i?NAE( rS / CriELLfNii
it it-,':. j^TC^Hft.': f f a lip. LI*"
-
•
•
ar
•
•
f
m
•
'-
97.
42.
0.
0.
0.
57.
0.
34.
0.
1.
1.
0.
62.
1.
0.
0.
3.
1.
0.
1.
221
0.
0.
2.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
1.
3.
62* •
47* •
00* •
00* •
00* •
53* •
00* •
15* •
62* •
19* •
14* •
04* •
85* •
35 •
11 *
<>4 •
51 •
46 •
95 •
01 •
.50 •
98 •
64 •
05* •
76 •
48 •
74 •
33 *
11 •
43 •
51 •
44 •
91 •
99.20* <
4
40.20* «
0.00* <
0.00* «
0.00* »
59.80* «
0.00* <
35.61* <
0.60* «
0.24* '
0.41* <
0.14* <
62.99* «
1.4* <
0.08 «
0.49 «
0.52 •
1.52 «
1.00 «
1.00 <
177.82 <
0.99 •
0.63 <
2.87* •
0.73 i
0.46 «
0.72 «
1.44 «
0.08 «
0.49 •
0.52 <
1,52 <
1.90 «
» 96.80* •
» 41.41* •
» 0.00* •
» 0.00* •
> 0.00* •
• 58.59* •
• 0.00* •
» 37.28* •
» 0.46* •
• 3.02* •
• 0.11* •
• 0.07* •
> 59.06* »
• 1.44 *
' 3.12 •
» 0.59 •
* 0.48 *
• 1.54 •
» 1.07 •
» 1.00 •
> 220.80 •
» 0.97 •
> 0.61 »
> 2.46* »
> 0.72 •
> 0.42 •
» 0.70 »
> 1.44 *
• 0.12 •
» 0.59 •
> 0.48 »
> 1.54 v
> l.O *
82.06*
40.61*
0.00*
3.28*
0.00*
56.11*
0.00*
40.96*
0.20*
17. sa*
0.95*
0.00*
40.91*
1.47
0.11
0.4ft
0.44
1.58
0.90
I. 00
2la.64
D.82
0.50
1.60*
0.76
0.31
0.62
1.47
0.11
C.48
0»44<
1.57
Z->9&
• 94
• 41
• 0
• U
• 0
• SB
• 0
• 36
• 0
• 5
• 0
• 0
• 57
• 1
• 0
• b
• 0
• i
• 0
• i
.34*
.28*
.00*
.72*
.00*
.00*
.00*
.78*
.48*
.12*
.47*
.06*
.08*
.4?
.11
.50
.49
.52
.98
.01
• 210.70
• 0
• 0
• 2
• 0
• 0
* 0
• 1
• a
• 0
• 0
• 1
• 0
.94
.61
.26*
.74
.42
.79
.41
.It
.SO
49
.51
,.99
-------
WARMlLK, KHuOfc ISLAND
SYiTEM NUMBER 7 RUUTEC 7/ 1-4) 4TH QUARTER B/14/7J
TIME t MOTION UATA RfcDuCIIJN
jc.oaaaaaoaaaae»aoaaaa*«aaaaaeaaaoeaoaaa«aaaaaaaaaaaaoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaeaaaaaoaaeaaeaaaaaeaaaaaeaaaaeeeeaaaaaaaeaaaaaa
•> v e c a a a
1 a
II
a a
u a
• U.KTtR a „„
i 7-
i 7-
1 7-
1 7-
iUn
AvF«4oE
^ 7-
7-
^ 7-
«: 7-
jUM
A *n\&viE
m
i
2
3
c>
1
?
•>
'.
a
a
a
* fiUriC t R
Or
ur
* SfcRvltEi
°jH^UO
*26.
111.
i57.
/4fa .
l«u.
14',.
1 0 ^ •
I C» U •
i'.o.
u3i.
i5"» .
f J U M D E K
Uki.Li.lNG
Io7.
.? 48 .
It2.
1!>7.
7b4 .
Io8.
145.
2u5 .
1 <>0.
148.
ft jh .
159.
a
a
NUMilEK
Of
ITEMS
a CV TtPt
oaaaaaaeaaaeaaaaaa^aaaaa
i a CA,\S a
273.
3u j.
T J4 .
?c7 .
1 1 37.
2o4.
1^7.
?y 1 .
2*7.
2*5.
9 tO.
2^5.
J n *» L L
CAl.S
17.
^4 .
16.
1 1.
08 .
,7.
9.
lf>.
10.
6.
:, 1 .
10.
.1 1 t ^ L 1
•• "niJipCL —
a PfiGi a LAiSEuUi
1151. 2J5.
,
Ib3<; .
S2o.
4<;2b.
UC6.
320 .
j7o.
t.2 3 .
Jl*.
1^4o.
Jll .
2^3.
1 <7 .
Io7.
7/2.
193.
158.
U7.
!*> .
113.
4 / i .
lib .
a a
* NUMBER o
• LF a
ao DCTIIDU A
* * R C I UKN — m
a
MiHOEK »
01- NLN »
R t T URN- a
T / ^ « 1
RJUIF
Of t y - b f c
I J T Ml\l. r
» ITtMi a IILHS « ITfclS o (MILtS) »
291. I7a5. ^U76. 5.(.o
j2b .
jio .
d it).
U17.
JJ<:-
19b.
3C7.
iT / .
<:! 1 .
1U21.
£ 5s .
11 J8.
1659 .
1013.
5595 .
1399.
476.
5 o3 .
29 j .
4 J2 .
17u9 .
4^7 .
14b6 .
touv .
12il .
tt u^ .
1700.
(,72.
U U.
t>u5 .
t43.
1. 1 J j .
b(>2 .
6 . ? J
1U. lu
4.1 j
26 .<• j
6.6.
4.00
4 . 9u
b.'yj
4.i j
19.hu
<« .93
vO
vO
3
3
3
J
*•
8 .
1 j7.
118.
5jO.
1 J2.
144.
154.
150.
1 j3.
561.
145.
1*3.
ll>5 .
271.
177.
776.
194.
159.
193.
201.
IbO.
718.
179.
13.
15.
5.
4.
J7.
9.
15.
17.
10.
21 .
63.
16.
i6j .
J3o.
l8u.
jBb.
1J65.
3*i.
^34.
392.
484.
487.
179V.
-------
VAPUIIK. RHODE 15LAI.O iYSTfcH NUMdEK 7 RuUTE 17/1-4 I 4Iri OOARTER B/14/7J
TIME C. HUTlOf* OATA Rn DUCT I UN
•eaaaaa
o
»6303Oaaeeaeaoo
>aaaaaaaaaaaac
o
>aaaeaaaao«ooaeeoa
Dhl vERi
Tint
(HIi.UlES)
IbUIE
a« aaaaeoaoa
/-I
V-t
aoaadeaaaaao^a«da&«ac>acia«ioaaoacooaaoaa TLTAL
DKH1H& » WAllll.G « CULLEtT « C51HIR * T IHfc
vaaaooooaaaacaaoaowaao.aaoaaoaaaocoouai
a . IOLLLCIORS TIHt
a (MINUTfcS)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaeoaaeaaaeaeeaeeaaaaaaaaaeoaaaoaaao
aoaaaaaa
a o a
a RIDING o fcALKItJG • WAITING • CUHPACT a
aaaaoooaaaaaaaaooaaoaaaoaaaaao
2 7 . o '•
lo.bJ
10*.i4
6/.18
2-j. /<•
10^.10
G .00
u. ^0
G .uO
u .uO
C.Ob
1 .42
1.0 3
0.61
2 7 « . 5 1
272.69
173.7*
10c8.CJ
257.01
4>«. 79
JJ .bO
27.03
i59.s9
39.90
<.! .c /
6.20
11 .95
1 .33
4.9*
5.:9
0.62
11 .90
2.99
<.3.2U
1 1 .23
22.86
10.21
07.59
16.90
aaaaaaaa
1 .04
U. 17
\j. j 7
j.^'4
O.cl
f-*
/-•.
NJ
O
O
Sjl
MVtRMGt
lx.15
7j.s9
3o.u7
U • ki J
G.oO
O.Gj
1S3.1J
•it .et
0.5,:
O.Ou
0.5^ 5^3.94
0.1J Ij0.9d
31 .Ll
3o. J=>
11 /.C3
6.So
14. GJ
6.61
33. tu
8.40
4.14
3. 1 /
2.47
1 .1'fa
11.65
2.91
6.23
13.51
7.6J
S.bO
33.22
8.31
»b
, 17
, / 7
0.44
Sow
7-1
'l-e.
1-3
7-4
17.13
2i .d6
12.91
10.06
So. -3
48. VB
0.00
G.oO
U.uO
G.oO
u. jO
0.00
1.7o
1.8 /
0.41
O.Ou
3.9d
0.99
1^0.75
142.97
1 ^9.44
1 13.4o
5^6.65
1 31.60
2o .02
17.51
34 .d7
Id. 77
99. ">7
24. *9
3.23
8.30
5.61
4. 53
21.73
5.4J
C .iU
0.69
2.3o
5.55
1.39
14.05
12.C4
6.35
41 .34
10.33
U.42
1. 10
0.17
J.36
O.c4
7-1
7-2
7-3
7-4
SUM
AVtRftGt
1«.26
19.19
22.96
70.54
50.66
65.04
58.51
224.71
57.43
1.50
0.00
o.uo
0.00
1.50
0.48
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.OU
0.00
O.OJ
166.66
171.75
131.27
211.87
681 .56
170.39
30. b9
20.30
2o.51
30.11
119. bl
29.95
4.45
12.6o
6.61
12.14
35.86
8.97
0.10
1.00
O.OU
0.7J
1.63
0.46
22.93
9.89
11.38
4.75
49.00
12.25
0.00
1.10
0.58
2.93
0.73
• » !' Ml WE 5UH
• •«•!••= A.'fiA&E
1^,95.67
93.48
4.50
0.^8
6.95 4258.09
0.'*3 266.13
754.76
47.17
216.30
13.52
34.65
2.17
291.63
13.23
17.16
1.07
-------
HARnlLK, hHuOt 1SLAUD iYiTfcH NUMBER 7 ROUTE I7/1-4) 4TH QUARTER 8/14/73
TIME I MOTION UAIA REDUCTION
j«o»aeaaeea»aeaeaeeeeaa»oeauoo8eo3eao!.eoaaaaeaaoaa»aeaoa
» a *
j o a a
a a * FOTAu HANOLlNG • RATJQ CF
u «. a TlML • HANuLINO TINE
* uUrtllf* * ..l
j2o .06
ei.o?
VP .3 1
1/4.91
477.3,
7-.V.
7j7.
M
O
T
T
3
3
7-1
7-2
7-3
7-'.
SUM
AVtR«Ct
8^.74
102 .o7
67. i4
80.75
J5t . b9
86.67
115.7d
liB.5<.
U8.C1
lu«.OI>
476.3'*
1 19.U
7'j8.
604.
7L1.
692.
7-1
7-2
7-3
7-4
SUM
ftVcRAGt
107.ul
121.^0
Bd.bb
157.^6
472.13
lid.03
142.35
160.86
118.78
205.81
627.81
BUS.
753.
830.
873.
3341.
835.
CUMULATIVE SUM
CUMULATIVE AVERAGE
2943.b9
183.97
2x4.67
23525.
1470.
-------
WARWICK, KHuDc ISLAiiD
iYSTtM NUHBEK 7 RUUTE17/ 1-4) 4TH QUARTER 8/14/73
ROUTE tUHJLflllvEi
aoaaeaaoooaaaaaeeaeo»oaoa»eaeoaaea
•ALL UHEi ARfc IN M1NOTES*
7-1 7-2 7-3 7-4
eoaeaaaaaaaaa»eoa»aeaaoeaooaa»aeaa
a .a *
1) TiHt tFFKILNLY OF CRtW WHILE COLLECTING
t) JIILUATIUN OF i>RJVcRb TlHE A) OklVluG
i; ) WALKING
C) WAITING
u) CL^PACTIflN
fcl LllMcR
j) 'JIUUAilbN fU COLLcCIOKS
TIMt
-,) Ai/FnAoF Nu"BFK LJF ITFnS
•jy IYHE / SI.RVKE
i ) >• L TjR.>AuL t / t.ON-RETUKNuBLE
1 1 C h S / S t R V 1 1 F
L) IVFnAuL NjMuEx. L.F n«Fi_LlNl,S
F I
A)
b)
C )
U)
E )
F)
A)
b)
C)
U)
A)
8 )
C oLLFC T lOH
PI ) 1 N v.
Vi»Lt 1 NG
W«III,,G
COMPACTIPf.
01H=«
CuLLEtTK'f.
CANi
ShALL CANi
BAGi
MI s; .
RtTjM,
NU K£ I
B
S
S
S
-
=
S
S
=
=
=
S
=
S
=
z
/ StRVlCE *
80
0
75
u
1*
J
I,
V
U
66
1
u
!,
1
1
b
1
/) HvFrfAUF DISTANCE LElWtf.i iExVlCkS (fT.) = 14hLLLlr<&
i(,
=
=
=
C kPbDoCIIVE TJMc / uWtLLING =
U C ViS / PuFLL ! No
E bHALL CANS / DhELLINO
F bAOS / DwELLINo
G -mCtLLA,'«EuUS / UWtLLING
H kEfUHNMflLEi / UMELLIhG
I) fiON-KETUKNABLES / JWtLLH
it
B
=
S
S
=
S
•J
0
b
1
U
1
1
0
t.
1
1
b
.61*
.77*
. uO*
.45%
.*2*
. a3<
.o9>.
.76*
.52%
.06*
. J3
. v»9
,09
• £ /
.-,3
."y 3
. ut
. /3
.tf1}
. 74
. 30*
.13
. /5
.00
.«:6
.u9
.44
.iO
.35
.62
0
a
a
a
a
0
a
a
a
V
a
a
a
a
o
a
a
•
a
a
«]
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
V2.57*
16. 9o*
0.00*
UG.?d*
P. 00-*
C.4t>*
0.00's.
13.2j:.
6.91%
1 .2J*
5 .7 j*
0.50*
72. 4j*
1.3-
P. 1 j
2.7 /
O.S1
1 .44
3.5S
1.11
6
J.*>1
0.71
13.15%
1. 10
0. 11
l.LO
1 .81
U.07
*• . 14
0.66
1.68
4.bO
e
e
e
a
a
0
e
a
a
*
a
a
a
0
e
a
o
e
a
e
a
a
a
»
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
e
V4.21*
25 .!
1 .On
Io5 .24
0.9-.
0.75
6.6t*
1 .07
0.76
1 .01
1.3d
O.OJ
3.63
1 .04
1 .46
4.67
-------
WARWICK, KHUDE ISLAND
SYSUH NUMBER, 7 ROUTE ( 7/ 1-4) 4TH QUARTER 8/14/73
N)
O
•ALL FINES ARt IN
SYSTEM i-EKFURMANCt
oaocaasaaaoeoaaaaaaaaaaeoeaaaaaaooaoacoeoaaeo
6Y O.UARTEK CUm-
1ST 2f.D jRu 4TH LATIVE
L'ij KDoTt
UllLllAIIuN OF uRiVtRS llhE
.»)
ct- i3LLtCTruj
•.) axfkAot ,\'o"oCK uF I [£MS
BY IYHF / StRvUF
b) KLTuRhAuLL / KTN-KEIUHNA3LE
I IFMS / StRVILE
o) AVEKACE f.'uHSEK UF OnELLINOS / SERVICE =
7) AVEKAOE DISTANCE UETWLEN SEHVICES II-T.) =
to) RATIO OF PRODoCTIVE TIHfc TO TUTAL T1ML
9) RATIO OF HANDLING TIHfc 10 PRODUCTIVE TIME s
14> DUPLICATION OF HANDLING
(
A
B
L
U
t
f
A
U
C
u
L
F
lULLECTINo '
On 1 V 1 r.C =
VtfaLftlNG =
Wrt 1 1 It.G =
91 .95%
COLLECTION: u.oO%
x r.Mfio
V.AL.
a
*
a
a
a
a
a
91
c.8
71
0
0
t2
b
2
b
(,
02
1
0
]
C
1
2
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaeaaaoaaaaaaaa
a a a
.10% « 90.46* » V2.ll* o 91.93*
a 0 e
.lj% ° 24. .33% ° 24.87* ° 24.t3%
.0^i% » O.u0% *> 0.30% » O.OC%
.67* a 74.17% o /4.64X o 75.19%
.OC*. » 0.00% * 0.00* * 0.00*
.^0*.« l.bl* ° 0.0'j* » O.j5%
. Do-':
. Jt%
.^ 1*
./!*!%
.•"•.*
.34%
.ib%
.5^
.0(9
.9o
.74
.61
.69
a
,
A
0
V
o
0
3
0
0
0
o
o
u.uO*
It) . *9%
L, , i 3;.
1.05%
7 . u 5 %
l> .04%
67 . i5 *
1.47
0.07
i.b?
0.76
1 .b4
3. J4
o
a
o
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
0
17
5
0
7
0
t>9
1
U
3
1
1
(,
.4-,*
.5u%
.2o5
.27*
.19*
.4 j%
.2/%
. Ju
. 1 1
.2!)
.1 /
.'.1
.41
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
0
a
a
o
a
0.23%
17.73%
b .08%
L .b 1 %
6.1)5%
L .4C%
69. 1 J%
1 .41
L .09
J.b9
1 .00
l.bC
4 .b7
1.01 » l.Oo " l.oO » I.Ob o 1.U3
104.87 a 16J.66 » 163.30 o 16<:.67 » 173.63
0.92 • 0.91 • 0.90 « 0.9«: a 0.92
0.78 o 0.60 » 0.74 e 0.7b o 0.75
= li.0«%
7.99* « 7.29*
3.60* « 7.36*
15) A) TOTAL LREH TIMt / OWtLLINO
B) HANDLING TIME / DWELLING
C) PRODUCTIVE TIMfc / OHklLlhG
0) CANS / DUELLING
E > SMALL CANS / DUELLING
F) bAGs / DUELLING
G) MISCELLANEOUS / DWELLING
HI RFTURNABLES / DWELLING
I) NON-RETURNABLES / OHLLLING
= 1.36
0.98
1.25
1 . bl
0.09
b.tC
1.J2
1.60
7.<»2
0.92
0.51
G.75
1.5<.
0.06
1.9b
0.7<»
1.60
2.68
a
a
o
a
a
a
a
a
»
0.99
G.67
0.90
1.46
0.07
i.58
0.76
1.53
3.33
1.17
0.81
1.08
1.24
0.11
3.09
1.11
1.34
4.21
o
o
e
e
o
o
0
o
e
1.15
0.79
1 .06
1.37
0.09
J.49
0.98
1.46
4.45
-------
UAh P*nK, ILLINOIS SYS1EH uUHBER 8 kOUT £ ( b/1-4) 4IH OOAKTtR 8/07/73-8/10/73
HHE t MLTJON UATA RtouciiuN
4 OuAhT
itaaa ea
1
1
i
1
LR
oaoe ..... aoaoaooao* ...... «,.
o
"OKIE
ooooMO«cooeoo»*ooooooo
8-1
iUM
AvEnAbE
S-l
8-?
8-3
iUM
AVEkAoE
4
4
4
8-1
3-2
B-3
SUh
AVERAGE
CUMULATIVE SUN
CUMULATIVE AVERACL
0 NuMbEk a
0 iJF ITEMS o
• OY TYPt o
NUMBtR NuMLEK oaooooaeoeoaaeoooopooeooaoooaoeoo
t..uftl, Uf e • SHALL » o MliCkL- »
StRVltEl uhtLLlKCS a (.ANS • CA^S • BACi a LAMEuUj »
woooeooo«3»ecoao»oeo»eioooe8e»oooeo8aaaeoe».3eaoeae
6*3. 63. 46«,. 3B7.
506. 28. 414. <>29.
6bO. 35. j93. 6o9.
679 . J4 . 4(J^. 541 .
OiO. t4t>4. loO. l/5o. 2J-t.
2i5. Mfc. 1,0. 43^. 511.
2b5.
fa J.
/77.
578.
5/6.
17b.
61.
529.
132.
293.
i97.
192.
7V8
1-.9.
176.
K.Q.
61 .
5*9.
132.
2*4.
202.
192.
5J3.
6)7.
3136.
207.
3176.
100.
1468.
367.
668 .
592.
579.
4 JO.
2269.
567.
7975.
15.
12.
10.
10.
9.
4.
26.
3u4
212.
JOb.
99.
•.3
TVS.
171.
99.
18J.
65. 44b.
38. 184.
32. 192.
43. 18^.
178. 1109.
44. *77.
483. 4573.
272
812.
2J3.
3d9.
363.
546.
2b7.
15b5.
39 1.
5218.
NUMBER
OF
kE TURN-
ABLE
UtMi
aoaaaaao
68 J .
b34.
695.
7 U' .
2b2- .
o5e>.
«:,.
J>9 j.
b8t .
13-.
18 li.
<.5«..
JB1.
55o.
04b.
189.
157i.
393.
733.
63U.
611.
-73.
2447.
612.
NUHbEk
M NOft
RLTURS
AbLE
1 1 E KS
aae a » a a
bSl .
048.
I0d2.
1021 .
Jb J2.
9bU.
663 .
41d.
542.
1-2.
1771 .
4«.3.
43U.
5u6 .
411.
197.
1544.
366.
835.
552.
836 .
449.
2674.
668'.
t.
.
TUTAL
1 T t Mi
9OO9COOa
153-.
13U2.
1777.
17jJ.
0426.
16L.6.
1 174.
IDUb.
1 126.
27b.
358b.
696.
fcl 1 .
1062.
b57.
366.
31 16.
779.
156S.
1162.
1449.
922.
5121.
1280.
ROUTE
ooooooaooaa
tMJLc SI •
oooaaoooaaoaa
2.20
1 .96
3 . 1 o
i . TU
4.5b
?./vJ
3.1.0
3 • J u
o .to
9.10
2.2/
1 . iO
1.54
1.3U
C.56
4.7u
1.17
2.50
2.10
i.Tj
1 .20
8 .50
2.12
845B.
529.
9791.
612.
Io249.
31. 86
-------
UAH HARK, ILLINOIS SYSTEM hUHBfcR 8 ROUTE I d/1-4) 4TH QUARTER 8/07/73-8/1U/73
IIHE t MOTION DATA REDUCTION
o e
e e
" e
' a
-1 2uAKTtR RUUIE • OklVIIU-
^ ** ~ 1 lo.jl
1 H — ^
1 "-•» 2o.,5
1 o-4 2o.o7
SUM 9o.^
*VtR«Ct 2t.U6
* e-1 lo.oO
* »-•* 3J.63
SUM 8j.'7,
MVcRu(.t 2u.95
3
n
J ""J 1 J .35
J d-J lb.89
•* »-<• o.80
SUM 60.66
AVtRAGt Js. 16
" 6-1 23.64
* »-2 29.64
* 8-3 33. SO
* 6-*» 12.52
SUM 99. j!
AVtRACfc 24.63
CUMULATIVE SUM 339.98
CUMULATIVE AVERAGE 21.25
»aaoaa«3aaa
oooooaaaae
SklvEKS
TIME
(MINUTE!))
aaaaacaaaaaaoaeaaaaa
aoa^oeoaao
134.V7
15V. 49
1 J7.06
34. C4
36^.78
9u.70
117.07
49.72
6fl.il
110.49
137.38
104.74
479.05
119.76
1752.61
109.54.
• ooeocoo oo
15.75
C. JO
4S . o5
3V. VO
1. 79
0.00
0.->3
42.63
10.66
2i.ll
17.74
23.33
U.uO
68.18
17. US
54.39
14.46
1.76
4.71
75. J2
18. 43
235.98
14.75
eaoeeaa
• OTHtR
»»aoooooee
a
a
a
* TIMt a
oaoaoaoa:
> aaeaa
COLLECTORS TIME
(MJNUTES)
• ' • o a
Rlftltof. o h.AikiM«. A ^ A i T • .., _ t _.,_
0
o
^ ^ . ~ -.-„..,_ "««.i««iiw - HHIIJIYO w IUNKALI •> [jTllf-K a
°"'''» V " • e...a.aa..»..a'«,«a»aJ:».!
1.89 381. 7j U.37 J5.51* i.ta 4 fca
2.1- 416'.99 j'.vi 39'.*j .j',7 c'j' U-3S
<..!/ 401.96 4.19 46.5, 5.07 1 fl lS j'bO
9.7^tci.£ii . - ._ -».w. IU.ID J.31.
0.59
1 .67
0.35
O.Oo
2.61
0.65
1.3t
1 .18
0.74
O.Ou
3.23
0.81
0.61
0.99
1.50
0.00
3.10
0.77
18.76
1.17
3 V 7 . 0 j
2 c6 . 2 V
2S7.70
3 J6.6B
965. 02
246.26
2*0. 4 6
3,2. 4i
163.71
64.77
811.36
2U2.8S
379.02
343.50
348.75
244.25
1315.53
328.88
4700.04
293.75
<'•"
<>. 19
1.13
1.13
6.64
1.66
0.53
0.00
O.jl
0.00
0.83
0.21
5.38
0.00
2.10
U.OO
7.48
1.87
23.64
1.49
*»-'»
42.13
62 .!^
66.5'y
14. 61
Io5.57
46.39
,7.03
40.67
t. 7.e>3
10.43
105.30
26.43
39.48
39.49
44.83
23.86
147.63
36.92
604.24
37. 7S
l46.-n
2.04
<. .4u
b. 73
0.36
14 .06
0.<.5
C.uO
0.00
0.12
0.56
0.14
3.16
0.92
0.34
0.90
5.40
1.35
36.50
2.28
"i"
9.37
3. JO
11.20
0.79
24. 74
6. 19
2.31
2.50
1.71
9.10
2.02
11.10
4.53
9.79
10.95
36.37
9.09
94.87
5.93
i!**
l.jb
2.09
1 . /6
U.uO
1 .bb
0.73
u.i>7
1.00
O.uO
i.iQ
0.37
1.25
1.78
3.20
2.62
9.06
2.27
22.67
1.42
-------
GAK fAkK, ILLINOIS SYSTEh HUMBtR 8 ROUTt (8/1-*,) 4IH QUARTER 6/07/73-8/10/73
TIME I NOTION UATA REDUCTION
* o o e o o <
1
1
1
1
KOUTt
oocoeeoooo
8-1
8-2
8-3
8-t
SUH
AVlRAf.L
TOTAL rIAMJLlhG « RATIO OP «
TlPt ° MANuLINO TME •
(MIMUUS1 « TL TOTAL TIME »
aoovoooooeoooooooi
jT7.il
333.0*
TUTAL
PkOoUCTlVt •
TlHt «
(MINUTES) «
136c>.*5
341 . /4
373.27
3/9.2J
4U5.3J
303.21
1541.01
365.25
0 RATIO UF
PRUOUCTIVE
TIME TU
TCTAL TIME
TUTAL ITEHS »
HANULLO BY ••
CLLLELTLRS '»
o e*a ooi>ooDo0«»o
19ml.
20^1 .
189S.
1871.
O
CT>
P-l
8-2
8-4
SUM
AVtRA&t
^Oo.o)
60.V5
74/.oU
18b.<>2
2S3.01
316 .90
S2.69
939.9J
234.97
1 1 76
12j-
8-1
8-2
8-3
8-4
SUM
AVbKAGt
190.14
<7b .90
152. «.5
72.48
693.77
173.44
217.70
319 .b/
160.21
(J2.93
8uC .41
2J0.10
814.
1190.
4
4
4
4
8-1
8-2
8-3
8-4
SUM
AVfcRACt
J16.64
29b. IB
288.47
205>.b4
1109.53
277.38
363.50
336.27
335.42
229.50
1264.69
316.17
13^5.
CUMULATIVE SUM 3917.93
CUMULATIVE AVERAGE 244.87
i.OO
284.13
20221.
1264.
-------
bAK PAhK, ILLINOIS iYSTEM NUMoEk 8 RiJUTE (8/1-4) 11/14/72-07/10/7*
KOuTt CUMULATIVE!
eaaoaaaeoaoaaaaac^aaaaaaaeeeeaaoaa
•ALL HMEi ARb IN MINUTtS*
1)
TIMt LFFILIENCY a^ CRfcW WHILE CuLLECTINt, =
UIILUAIIJN flF uRlVERj IIME A) DM VUG
C) WAI TING
u) CLMCACT IPN=
t I C McR B
F) CL.LLEL T 10N=
UllLliAMuN OF COLLbCTOki A) RniNu
r'Mt o) WALRlhG =
C) kAIIINC. =
ooooooe
96.79%
1 1 .bPt
0.00%
u. /U
IV .£3%
1 1 .*6l
U) CljMCAtTlON* ^.14*
4)
51
b)
/ )
4)
9)
151
El GTHLP
a
ft COLLECTION:
AvEKAoF NufbEf. \jf ITErtS A) CfcNi =
BY lYr-E / ScRvICE bl ShALL CA'Ji*
Cl RAf.i
0) MISL .
RtToRrtAbLL / UDN-REIUkMttBLE A I RtTuRfc
IIF1S / StPVUF b) Nu kET
AvFKAoF UuMbE* UF OnELLlNOS / URVUE
AVFr.Ai,F OISTA,\CL faUWLFN SEkVlCtS (FT.)
R«Tlf OF HRuPuCTUF TIHt 10 TuTAL TIKE
RAT1P (IF HANDLING TIMt TU PkODUCTIVt TIME
DUPLICATION OF HANOLlivG
6 T01AL CRtW TIMt / jWtLLING
B HANDLING TIME / JWELLING
C PRUOUCIIVE TIME / uWfLLlNG
o CAMS / DUELLING
E iMALL CANS / DhELLlNO
F bAbS / DMELLINb
G Ml iCELLANFoUS / UWtLLlNG
H RFTUHNABLEo / DWELLING
I NOM-RETURNABLES / DWELLING
=
s
.
s
s
B
B
S
B
±
S
S
£
S
e
B
0
t
-------
UAK H*KK, ILLINOIS SYSTEM NUMBtA 8 HOUTEC b/!-«,) 4TH OuARTtR 8/07/73-8/10/73
STSIEM fERFURHAhCE
•ALL (IMES ARfc U MlNjTtS*
1) MKt LFHlItNLY M LRtW WHILE CLLtE^TINi, «
ON kOuTt
t> UllLUAIlUN [> DRIVERS llhE
J) JIlLUAIIUN OF LOLLECIOnS
T IMt
4) AvEkAOt NUKoEn uF ITEMS
M BY TYHE / StRVILE
Q
oo
b) RtTuRNAbLl / NON-KE IlUhABLE
HENS / StRtf ILE
6) AVFkAoE NuMoEH UF DWELLINGS /
A) DRIVING '
B) W&LivUG =
LI VA I) IhG *
j ) COMPACT ION =
El OlHcR >
F) COLLECTIONS
A) RlDlNu =
B) WALiUUC =
C) WfclllNG =
u) CLMCAcncf.*
t ) DTHc R s
M CLLLCCT|Cf,«
A) CANS -
b) SMALL CANS*
C) BAGl =
U I HIS*. .
A) RtTuRN
B) Hli KET
SERVILE -
7) AVFKAOE DISTANCE bETWbEN SEKVICES (FT.)
b) RATIO Of PRUDUCTIVE TIHt TO TOTAL TIMb
*> RATIO OF HANDLING TIME 10 PRODUCTIVE TIME -
14) DUPLICATION 01- HANDLING
li) A) TOTAL CREW TlHt / DWELLING
B) HANDLING TIME / DWELLING
C) PRUDUCMvE TIME / DbtLLIitG
0) CANS / DWELLING
E) SHALL CANS / DUELLING
F) BAGS / DUELLING
G) M1SCELLANEUUS / DWELLING
H) RETURNABLE* / DWELLING
I) NON-RE TURNABLES / DWELLING
s
S
e
BY JUARIEK IU>L-
151 ' 2-*0 JRO 41H LAT1VE
eeeaaaaoseeeeeeaaaaeaeeeeaaaeeeoeeoeeeoeaeoeo
• a a e
97.U3* • "»5.4^* e 9H.6bi e >»6.14* a 9fe.7;V
8 a a a
12.12:. o
o.jCi a
8u.J6% a
w.UOX a
1 «l3X •
0.^8* •
u.b6X •
lu.40* o
1.U4X a
1.62* o
U. j]< a
80. J7* «
£. ** 3 9
0.16 *•
1 .73 a
2.02 •
£ . 59 •
i.75 9
1.01 »
49.4V •>
0.97 o
0.89 a
16.46* o
1.56 •
1 .34 o
1.51 o
2.42 «
0.16 «
1.72 «
2.01 •
2.57 o
3.73 o
17.0",* a
O.Ou* «
73. To* »
O.Ou* a
0.5.3* •
6.6;* o
0.67* o
18.84* »
1.43* a
2.51* a
0.64* a
75. 9j* -
C.Ob *
1.26 *
1 . Qt »
2 . 34 »
2.2(1 o
l.OJ a
60.21 a
0.9b a
0.30 a
12.13* •
1.23 o
0.94 o
1.18 o
2.22 a
0.05 a
1.22 o
1 .00 o
2.27 »
2.22 o
14.48* a
u .UQ!4 a
6/. JSX «
U . JOX a
J . d UX °
lb.t«X a
0.10X a
u .u 7* a
1.00* «
u . <8X a
85.50* a
^ . 78 "
u. «:0 a
1 .38 a
«!.Y7 c
1.00 a
46.91 a
0.99 a
0.67 a
9.56* a
1.53
1.31
1.51
2.78
G.20
1.38
i.53
2.97
2.92
15 . If X »
O.OuX a
O.OOX •
0.47* a
11.47* a
0.5 /* a
0.41* a
2.76* a
0 .6V* a
0 • ^ ^ °
1.36 a
1 .91 a
3.00 a
3.27 a
1.01 «
54.14 a
0 .90 a
0.80 a
3.53* »
.59 o
.34 o
.53 •
.7*. *
.21 o
.34 •
.89 o
2.95 •
3.23 •
14 . <«b \
u . 0 C *
7*i ,t6*
U.OLX
0 • U L *
1C. 05*
i/.bl*
1 A * 4
i s. . O C» *
O7 ft •
• 1 O ••
•. . OiX
0 . 4 b X
"3. JtX
< .54
0.15
1 .46
l.tt
-;
-------
HfcTRO DAOfc
SYSTEM NUMBER 9 ROUTEI9/1-4) 4TH QUARTER 4/9-13/73
I1NE I '1JT1D. JATA RtOUCTION
a a a
a a a
a a c
O 4
o a
!> C
* (.'JAM III « "LUTE
1 9-1
1 9-2
1 9-3
1 9-4
bllH
AVI. AOC
i 9-1
t 9-2
<: 9-3
^ 9-4
iH'.
N> AVlkAoE
O
VO
i 9-1
i 9-2
3 9-3
3 9-4
jUM
AVEKAoE
27 .
439 .
.
j7 7 .
1 5 < 3 .
.aaac>o e»a
HliCI L- •
LAf.rii'Ji •
105.
1 -
-.37.
41 j.
J3t .
j 3 j .
14VJ.
372.
V.'..
1* ' .
,•/ i .
i ' .
17 ,.
4 • j .
'. '• 1 .
530 .
J07 .
J01.
If 7.
4>2.
566.
'•55 .
155.
2 '-5.
1461 .
363.
7083.
493.
OF Nrn
Pt T'J"'i
tai L
11 r •• ',
0.3.
5 U •> .
'• / ' .
'» 'j t .
2 'J i. i .
517.
(, ! 5 .
?•! .
-
'l j
,1,..
'j 1 (• .
6.J 1.
C56.
57 '.
4(8.
25*0.
647.
7i9.
7 5.
J )2.
376.
^222 .
555.
11406.
713.
-
-o
, T'M"_
" i Tf "S
9
r
7 / .
7 ') .
Jr J , .
1,03.
11'.!.
1 .! . ' .
1 ^ '• .
r i .
< • > .
i ? . j .
12.'-.
i 3 ••' • .
f"j J .
/79.
4; 77.
1U69.
1305.
11 73.
587.
621.
3683.
921.
142G9.
1206.
!>.. ,1 !
U i •> i : -j ' : -
rt * J .. ' O J ?
(Ill '
It,. •,.
1 ' . ' >
1 . .
i ft . 1
9.5.-
1 . ' -
1 ! . •> ,
i . '
'. j . ' -
1 . -•/
1 1 . •" 0
1 • °j
1 1 .5u
9 . U j
47.' .
1 . /b
'. 3J
9.23
6. 70
6.10
30. 3u
7.57
r
191 .20
1.95
-------
HLTkO DADE SYSTEM NUHBcR 9 ROUTEI9/1-4) 4TH QUARTER 4/9-13/73
TIME I IIUMOH UftTA REOjCTIU'l
i a
a or. iv":
Tl":
' • i '. > 1 1 :, i
' - ' ' C.'J •' '-sS'-^'-'-eos-ac-r-,
" •' «UP Ml i I ] ,-. » ii • i p {, 3 CV- r '. r
5~- J - u *i * ^^, t w -JCOC,. S
1 - 1 ' ' . ' '
- - '. • . ' . ' '< 1 1
' •'- ' . • 3 -••: . . 'j
i >-. , n . 70 • . . . 6 . j j
' " ' !••,.•«. .<'M. ./"} J ; .'. 3
"^'L^.^L "Ji.59 00.06 4.J/
/• - , . . , - i
. 7 ?i . _«>
h v . K ,\ j, u ,'
ftVLIMOL 42.33 8^.85 4.(,i
4 '.'-1 4o.63 I^t..l3 - 0.00
'• J-2 3'j.92 ' 61. bO 12.34
4 ->-J 23.01 34.43 0.30
4 9-4 25.51 53. 9S 2.97
:>'•"> 133.07 i:9^.43 lb.3l
f.VLRAOk 3J.27 7j.ll 3.63
CU'IULATP.'E iU'i 7'.4.70 1576.20 86. 61
ULrtUL & r; \.C fiV^K&OE to. 54 98.51 5.43
0 CfiM-
L ( ;
J J
J.' J
0 . ' i
0.20
J
0 3
j ' j
C . r. )
?.'. 1
0.03
2. 03
O.OJ
O.Ou
O.CO
2.03
0.51
" O.CO
O.C'j
O.'.O
0.42
1.62
0.40
9.46
0.59
c.
O
U
» T . ' f. i "
•> r i' L o
: i . a
:• ' • .
r n ' *
. . . • /
i P • - »• *
233.24
5 " /
' 1 I
" '• J
' ' ' i
j r / . '• j
-:i5.i J
3 Ij 1 . 1 9
"i."
Z (J "• . 7 o
10<;5 .iib
256.47
373.21
221. 31
1 tO.49
166.05
8«6.05
4033.86
332.12
0
L2LL1 CTH'lS TlHt o
t "I'.'JTESI o
o
R | I- | • 0 »
: c.bS
t ). /3
! J 2
' '3
t, , . /2
' 1 . ' '
r 'i
7 • '.I
t ' J . '« 7
6:1 .67
:• -i . 1 1
7*. 1,3
'.U.U4
rj a . t7
«"'
( . .
1 4 . o ;
•'. : I
•t 0 >
1 .'.'j 1
n. j j
t, •. . 'J .
id. 01
'j 1 . 3 /
7 . •) J
1 7.3'.
99.14
«:4.7b
61.79
7.00
15.39
10.57
102.76
25.69
26.55
° WAI T I'll. •
1 1 . - i
•• . ? J
1 . '• '.
'..01
. . It
5.2«
0 .
1 . ' j
\ >' :
•, ,'j'j
13. /o
J.4b
6.76
1 .01
1.33
7. 7 . <*>
1 0 . 0 J
» _ .
10.09
19. Ti
b.'il
<* . '• '
'. .0-1
j2 . OP
8.2i
4.9o
2. 16
9.23
31 .06
7.96
t
\J4.49
" 1 .36
3.28
32.20
8.05
169.48
10.59
UTHFR o
'..17
^. i ~>
J.'- 7
1. i .
j • J f
J.bO
J. -2
/. 1 "»
o. .0
J. !'•
'v.99
l.iO
0.00
0.43
0.90
4. «:*
1 .05
4.95
1.17
0.27
5.00
11.39
2.85
46.99
2.94
-------
MfcTRD DAOc
5YSFEH NUMBER 9 ROUTE < 9/1-4) 4TH QUARTER 4/9-13/73
i!".E t MOTION OATA REDJCTIJ'4
OO O O ? * deCOCOOeOOOOOOOOCC
>30o009ocoood.»»o.53»oo?co;.:a?oc93; c,'oco=-,^oc,- i a s. -s
i
o
0
o
• v.Ut R I L 1
1
1
1
1
o
o
0
ft
* knuTt
"-1
<••-!
0-3
a-{,
3
0
* TOTAL HA'tOLlFiG
° T ! MV
o II'I'I-JTLS)
,?...J2
1 7 1 . 'y 3
lt> .bl
14] .!>5
o
0
o
0
o
RATIO
HANUL
PF
iNC,
TU rOIAL
o
* TUTAL
0 PSOUC f
TI1E o Tj"E
TIHE « (MIIIJT
331 .3
241.2
r- J .L
197.?
I VE
KM ID UF
FR'JJuCT
TI1E TO
fcSI TOTAL T
J
7
i
1
IVE
HIE
a
o
» TUTfti i fi;
• Hft'li)! 1 •* "V
° CULL:'. I^TS
!'.'.
1C • -
n i
r
«
5
U
4
ftVLRACt
163. 16
t .36
39.
N>
r-3
9-'.
Su'l
AVLRA&E
232.70
170. i2
107.,9
i.JO.79
157.70
332.52
767. i j
! 7*. .6 7
1 •*'. .01
970.3J
2-.2.5S
i;
9-1
9-2
0-3
SU'l
AVL-RAGE
233.90
HO.86
116.70
116.23
630.74
157.68
3'. 1 .77
2i!.22
HI .79
972.Oj
243.21
i ', i .' .
. 7.
:• '„ 5.
• •573.
i 1'.'. .
9-1
9-2
9-3
9-4
SUM
AVCRAGE
238.79
151.12
70.07
94.S7
554.95
138.74
3'. 5. 71
215.86
117.77
149.89
829.24
207.31
l'-U2.
1172.
'• 1 !.
173.
3353.
9C>4.
CUMULATIVE SUM
CUMULATIVE AVERAGE
3032.06
189.50
4539.06
283.69
20391.
1287.
-------
METRO DADE
SYSIEH NUMBER 9 ROUTE(9/1-4) *TH QUARTER W9-13/73
•ALL TIMES ARE IN MINUTES*
9-i
ROUTE CUMULATIVES
9-2
9-3
9-4
>o«o
K>
CO
1) TIME EFFICIENCY OF CREW WHILE COLLECTING >
ON ROUTE
2) UTILIZATION OF DRIVERS TIME A) DRIVING
B) WALKING
C) WAITING
D) COMPACTION
E) OTHER
F) COLLECTION
3) UTILIZATION OF COLLECTORS A) RIDING
TIME B WALKING
C WAITING
0 COMPACTION
E OTHER
F COLLECTION
4) AVERAGE NUMBER OF ITEMS A CANS
BY TYPE / SERVICE B SMALL CANS
C) BAGS
D) HISC.
5) RETURNABLE / NON-RETURNABLE Al RETURN
ITEMS / SERVICE B) NO RET
6) AVERAGE NUMBER OF DWELLINGS / SERVICE
7) AVERAGE DISTANCE BETWEEN SERVICES IFT.)
B) RATIO OF PRODUCTIVE TIME TO TOTAL TIME
91 RATIO OF HANDLING TINE TO PRODUCTIVE TIME
14) DUPLICATION OF HANDLING
IS) A) TOTAL CREW TIME / DWELLING
B) HANDLING TINE / DWELLING
C) PRODUCTIVE TIME / DWELLING
0) CANS / DWELLING
E) SMALL CANS / DWELLING
F) BAGS / DWELLING
G) MISCELLANEOUS / DUELLING
H) RETURNABLES / DWELLING
1) NON-RETURNABLES / DUELLING
91.75k
25.80*
0.00*
73. MX
0.00k
0.79k
0.00k
15.95k
11.20k
2.05k
5.1<>k
l.Obk
64. 60*
1.24
0.05
1.20
0.40
1.29
1.60
I .05
124.11
0.92
0.70
7.33k
0.85
0.55
0.78
1.19
0.05
1.15
0.39
1.24
1.53
96.22k
31.40k
O.QOk
55.93k
0.00k
0.27k
12.40k
27.70k
2.91k
0.77k
2.38k
0.63k
65.61k
1.16
0.07
1.34
0.50
1.23
I .84
1.01
151.80
0.96
0.68
1.98k
0.63
0.41
0.61
1.15
0.07
1.34
0.50
1.22
1.83
96.88k
39.04k
0.00k
60.51k
0.00k
O.llk
0.33k
26.56k
10.29k
0.71k
1 .76k
0.65X
60.03k
0.84
O.US
1 .26
0.26
0 .88
1.52
1 .22
138.79
0.97
0.62
6.29k
0.45
0.27
U.44
0.69
0.04
1.03
0.21
0.73
1.25
92.58k
32.70k
0 .00k
65.33k
0.00«
O.llk
1 .87k
27.0JX
7.43k
2.87k
3.37k
1.18k
58.12k
0.87
0.07
1 -OB
0.23
0.94
1.31
1 .02
135.27
0.93
0.63
16.76k
0.59
0.35
0.55
0.86
0.07
1 .06
0.23
» 0.93
• 1.29
-------
HtTRO DADE
SYSTEM NUMBER 9 ROUTE ( 9/1-4 ) <»TH QUARTER 4/9-13/73
5YSTFM PF1FQV14NCE
CALL IIHfcb ftRt IN MINUTES'
1 ) I I"L 'Ft ICltNCY 0^ CRtM dMU
fl.i KOUTfc
2) UIlLUATICJN Of URIVE.RS TIME
•1 I I LUAI I UN Or COL LLC TORS
I IML
i V! i .'v.L i1!1"!.! i< ui" 1 ILMS
3 i1 M=>E / SLRVILC-
P.I
f LI L / i.ON-itcrjmttJiE
o)
7]
L )
V)
15)
iit,:,s / MnultE
ft'.fs.iOE riu'3CK Of Dl.ELLl'^S / S^PVICE
'.vto.AGC DISTANCE bCIULC1. LfRVICtS (FT.)
I'ATIO 0^ IPL'CUCTIVE Tl'lt TD TUTflL T1 III
TAT1D OF HAr.DLl''& TIIIC TO PP.OUUCTlVE TIME
cu?LIC^^IO•^ Of H;
UTES'
CULL'
o r. -• i
r I I (
C )
U)
L 1
r )
t- 1
b l
C 1
Dl
E 1
1- )
>• 1
! 1
^ 1
(j 1
A 1
01
1 ' !
(.'
(i:
C_'.
i i ••
r i
v 1
C. "
Oi '
CL1.
r •
i ' '
r ' G
.. | ,
PL i
to
V I ' ',
1 r '
l\< r. =
u r IDI. =
=
LK1 10.1 =
' "0 =
1 '(f
1 1 • f.
. »LT IiTi-
: •< =
LL CAIIi =
j -
L • =
L'1 4
(• L r s
3,
J
60
(>
L
?1
'
^
3
1
f *)
I
j
1
(J
1
1
.5T
»es9
«• *\ \
. »/ j •
. "j ' .
. '. C >.
/ V
.<.54
.131
'.• 1 \
.LT*
. ; J >.
. .' l i
' /? "
C1
.07
. 19
- <2
. 16
.hi
9
3
V
•J
3
•;
a
w
o
C.
J
V
J
^
u
"
a
,
3
CY u'JARTE
zao
3
3?
f, .
1-2 .
0.
0.
3 .
/&.
0.
1 .
3.
0.
i 1
..
0 .
1 .
0.
1.
1 .
.' ' *
f ol
" i. ":
C. JN.
67*.
9,i-.
OJ,
;6».
?'js.
/I '.
r( u s
. , s
1U
°.i
1 U
23
17
5i
o
a
3
3
3
9
0
O
O
J
L
O
3
->
a
9
3
3.:
!>3-
0
•J
!,.
;3.
9.
1 .
J.
•J.
t> 1
J.
1 .
•>•
I .
1 .
R
330
33 390
9
-:
L "*
LO
i 1
63
03
66
j, 0
il
M
t* 1
3
u
3
3
J
9
9
9
C.
o
V
CM
S3 ^
ir» 3
^ > e
j 3 **
03 o
•jB •
4TH
1999993
'O.lfl'.
0 . "• U :
t- 0 . ! i' -.
o.o j1:
o . : < N.
3.4G-.
17- ^'.-.
11 . '• ., -.
1 .'. '*.
3 .C ,".
1 . ? ) ».
p f4*
1 .0 J
0 .°3
1 .? i
0.30
1 .Oo
1 .6'.
39
0
9
O
0
9
e
9
-•
,
O
0
o
o
o
o
•>
o
0
u
CIP'U-
LATI VE
C!a
0
0
3
^
0
1
^
;_,
/ V
V C
1
U
1
0
1
1
. m -.
. f \:
.' ""<'.
... ' .
. .< '' '.
. 1-1 -.
./•>•.
.f ; .
.•_,]»
. -7 •
i i •
. i i •
. '/ >
.1 '>
. *•!
.10
.i>9
= I.'j4 « 1.06 o 1.09 •> 1.07 3 1.07
* lil.63 • 143. t.Z * 133.71 3 107.00 o U^.l'.
= 0.93 « 0.95 J 0.95 » 0.94 3 0.94
= 0.70 • 0.65 « 0.65 <• 0.67 o 0.67
= 10.35* « 6.99% o 6.97* o 4.7515 » 6.75-t
-• > TQT«L c"•['.' Tl.St / DKiLLlHC
0) Hd-rLl'JG TIMt / C'-'tLLiriG
C) r PUPUC 1 I'.'E Tlr:E / DWELLlfii
r. i r./.'is / CICLLMIO
E ) i"Ai.L LffiS / OliELLlfii.
r ) BAoS / r* ELLKiG
GJ MISCELI >"i CUU5 / O'.'ELLIHG
H) r.ETUPN/OLCS / DiiELLING
I) I!CN-KCTL'UNA9L!:S / DHcLLlKS
0.76
0-50
0. 71
1.G5
0.07
1.15
0.61
1.12
1.56
9
9
3
3
3
0
9
6
9
0
C
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
.64
.?9
.60
.04
.07
.12
.31
.11
.43
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
.57
.35
.04
.90
.C4
.14
.30
.94
.'.5
» 0
0
D
0
0
1
0
1
1
.61
.38
.57
.96
.04
.19
.34
.00
.53
e
o
a
9
0
O
o
e
o
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
.63
.40
.59
.98
.05
.16
.34
.03
.49
-------
Route
Number
10-1
10-2
j
.*
k
10-3
10-4
TOTAL
^_
O W
»- 0
XI >
E i-
3 (D
z in
343
355
358
349
1405
M- w
O O)
Q) —
X) —
E
(O
1_ C
0 l-
XI 3
E -I-
3 0)
z o:
449
410
450
440
1749
(D
(D
C
H- L_
0 3
•i-
1_
-------
Cumulative Data
Productive time per data point (YP) in the following table was
calculated using all data gathered during the four quarterly
storage location surveys.
CumuI at i ve YP*
Route Homes Surveyed
San Leandro
Equat i on
General Backyard
Equat i on
10-1
10-2
10-3
10-4
System
343
355
358
345
1405
7.43
6.76
6.86
7.04
7.01
7.25
6.21
6. 1 1
6.92
6.61
*Productive time per data point (all data points consist of 5
serv i ces)
Productive Time Per Man Per Service
Route
10-1
10-2
10-3
10-4
System
San Leandro
Equati on
.74
.68
.67
.70
.70
General Backyard
EquatIon
.73
.62
.61
.69
.66
YTD collection time per home per collection from the
March, 1973 DAAS printout is 0.8 minutes.
Projected Efficiency*
Equation Used
San Leandro
General Backyard
Eff iciency
87.5*
82.5$
*Storage location calculations (YP) vs. DAAP collection minutes.
215
-------
Route
Number
11-1
11-2
11-3
)
•
1
11-4
TTAL
^_
O
0)
i- o
.a >
E i-
3 CD
Z CO
327
319
352
274
1272
H- (/)
0 D
C
i- —
E CD
3 3
Z Q
334
317
353
274
1278
Number of
I tems
(A
c
ID
0
752
609
685
548
2594
— Ul
ID C
E ID
to o
120
114
103
77
414
U>
en
ID
CD
299
586
661
261
1807
o
in
=
224
156
161
138
679
Ul
CD
O JO
ID
1- C
Q) l_
JD 3
E +-
z tr
872
723
789
627
3011
CD
JD
(0
C
H— L.
O 3
4-
1- CD
CD l_
.0 1
E C
3 0
Z Z
523
742
822
399
2486
(0 E
O +-
1
1395
1465
1611
1023
5494
Frequency of Homes with Number
of tems 1 nd i cated
1
25
30
20
31
106
2
69
55
46
55
225
3
72
49
77
71
265
4
60
47
72
47
226
5
27
43
32
23
125
6
24
24
25
18
91
7
18
18
9
7
52
8
7
23
8
5
43
9
7
8
9
3
27
10
5
4
6
2
17
1 1
2
2
4
4
12
12
5
1
6
13
1
2
3
14
1
2
3
15
0
3
CD
in
£
IT
O
-1
— (D
-t-
2 :T Q)
— 3
Ul
3 ui
Q)
2 +-
— CD
X 3
Ul
Q)
-I
CD
^ O
-f
3
n
c
CL
CD
Q.
O
cr
•s.
c
i—
>
-H
<
m
o
>
-i
:>
-------
CumuIdtIvo Unto
1'ioductlvo tlmo per data point (Yp) was calculated using ,j | |
(Jjto gathered during the four quarterly Storage Location Survoy:...
Cumulative Yp*
Koute Homes Surveyed Yp
(General Dockyard
EquatIon)
M-l 377 9.07
"-2 319 9.23
H-3 352 8.79
H-4 274 8.41
System 1272 8.88
"Productive time per data point (all data points consist of
5 services)
Productive Time Per Man Per Service
Route General Backyard
Equat Ion
M-l .9,
11-2 >92
"-3 .88
"-4 .84
System .89
YTD collection time per home per collection from the June, 1973
DAAS printout Is 1.4 minutes.
Projected Efficiency*
General Backyard Equation 63.6$
"Storage location calculations (Yp) vs. DAAP collection minutes.
217
-------
APPENDIX 4
DERIVATION OF COST FORMULAS
To compare local performance costs with the standard systems
costs a set of formulas has been developed to use in translating
systems studies costs to local costs. By using known costs of the
local system and injecting these costs into a given formula, an
agency can predict with some degree of accuracy its cost for
achieving the systems study results.
Total costs used in the standard systems costs are broken
down into two major categories: manpower costs and equipment
costs. All other costs are derived from these two major costs.
Manpower costs (per day) include labor costs, fringe benefits
and personnel overhead. Equipment costs (per day) include depre-
ciation, maintenance, daily consumables and other costs such as
insurance and fees.
Depicting this mathematically, we have TC = MC + EC, where
TC = total costs, MC = manpower cost and EC = equipment cost.
Correlating local costs with this, we have TC = MC + EC , using
subscript I to designate all local costs.
To convert systems study performance costs per home per week
TC.
to local costs per home per week use CPHj = CPH j?r-. When seeking
local performance cost per tons use CPT, = CPT TCI.
TC~
Where TC = MC + EC, it follows that TCC = MCC + ECC. This
formula is the basis for converting systems study performance
collection costs to local collection costs. TCC = total collection
cost, MCC = manpower collection costs and ECC = equipment col lectio,
costs. Again, subscript I will be used to designate local data.
TfP TfT1
If MCC = MC ^ and ECC = EC i^-, then by substitution
218
-------
TCC TCC
TCC = MC T_ + EC yp— • Knowing there is a constant factor of
collection time over total time (K = CO ' ! e?+ ! °" . + ' me ), involved
tota I t i me
MCC MC. ECC. EC.
in MCC and ECC, it can the be seen that r^- = -^-L and
«« -..
L.L/L tL
TCC MC TCC EC
From these formulas TCC! = MC , — - + EC ^- -. This
formula is used for varying labor costs and/or equipment costs.
If local collection times and total costs are known, then
CT
local collection costs can be found by TCC. = TC jj^-, where
CT, = local collection time and TT = local total time spent on
the route.
To find local collection cost per home per day from systems
TCC
study performance costs the formula CCPH = ' is used, where
CCPH, = local collection cost per home and H = systems study
number of homes. The collection cost per ton formula is similar
TCC
to the one above in that CCPT, = T , where CCPT = local collec-
tion cost per ton, and T = the systems study weight collected in
tons.
The following formula for converting systems study performance
transport cost to local transport cost follows the same format as
the collection cost formula. Remembering that TC = MC + EC, then
XC = MXC + EXC, where XC = transport cost, MXC = manpower transport
cost, and EXC = equipment transport cost. To find local transport
XT
cost use XC, = TC! j^—, where XT, = the local systems total trans-
port time, and TT = total time spent on the route. Since local
transport cost is now known, this cost can be factored into man-
power transport cost and equipment transport cost by the formulas
XC XC.
MXC, = MC, y^l, and EXC, = EC, ^1.
To find how cost per home served is affected by local transport
XC
costs use XCPH, = -jq—, where XCPH, = local transport cost per home
219
-------
served and H = systems study number of homes. The same holds
XC
true for cost per tons in that XCPT, = _if where XCPT, = loca
transport cost per ton and T = amount of weight collected In
tons from the systems study.
220
-------
APPENDIX 5
EQUATION I
SYSTEMS 1-9
COLL HINS PER HUME AS A FINCTION If * ONE-KAY ITEMS AND LbS PER HUME PEri COLL
AVERAGES
VARI 1)=
59.00, VARI 2)=
47.76, VARI
STANDARD DEVIATIONS
VARI 1)= 17.35. VARI
2) =
SIMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
VARSI 1, 1). l.OOC, VARSI 1. 2)
VARSI 2, 2) = l.OOU, VARSI 2, J)
16.56, VARI 3)= 0.25
G.«79, VARSI 1. 31= -0.301
0.683
STEP NUMBER
1
ENTER VAKlABtE
STANDARD LEGATION UF
STC. LEV. AS PEkCcM LF RtSPCNSE CEAN =
PERCENT VARIATION EXPLAINcC R-Svi =
CLRkECTcD R-SC AS A PtRUM«
GOODNESS OF FIT Ok UVERALL F.FI 1. '
CONSTANT TEKMc
w.196
3C.b05
39.063
6.12d
VAR
2
0.01033614
SID DtV
LOEFI-
C.UCH17610
T vALUc
STEP NUMBER 2 INTER vAklABLE t
STANDARD LEVIATION L>F RESIDUALS: 0.151
STC. CEV. AS PERCENT UF RtSKftSE MEAN' 23.751
PERCENT VARIATION ExPLAlNtC R-SU= 72.o32
CORKECTEO R-SQ AS A PtRCENT^ 63.777
GOODNESS OF FIT Ok LVERALL F.FI 2. t>)«= d.043
CONSTANT TERM. C.4bBeOo96
VAR
1
2
C3S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
CCCFt
-0.0076*757
0.01*58307
ACTUAL
O.Sb
I.Ob
C.7i
0.56
0.49
0.4<.
O.Sd
C.96
0.31
ESTIMATE
0.7C
1.02
C.46
O.SS
C.4C
0.5C
0.72
0.90
0.4i
STO DEV
CObFF
C.UCJ2C294
C.CC3352b4
KESIOUAL
-0.14
0.06
0.24
0.01
0.09
-0.06
-0.14
0.06
-0.14
T VALUc
3.7532*823
NORMAL
DEVIATE
-0.93
0.39
1.58
O.OJ
0.59
-0.37
-0.91
0.55
-0.94
-------
EQUATION 2
SYSTEMS 1-9 - COLLECTION CHUTES PER HDHl AS A FUNCTION OF * ONE-MAY ITEMS.
POUNDS PER HOME PER COLLECTION, ANC HUMES PER COLLECTION MILE
AVERAGES
VARI 11=
59.00, VAR( 2)=
STANDARD DEVIATIONS
VARI 1)> 17.35, VAM 2)«
SIMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
VARil 1, ll» l.UOb. VARSI 1.
VAR:,! 2, 21= 1.000. VARSI 2,
VAPil 3, 3>- l.OOC, VAPSI 3,
2I«
31 =
47.7to, VARI
16.56, VARI 3)'
0.279, VARSI I, 3)'
0.166, VARSI 2. 4>-
-0.067
VARI 4) =
17.71. VARI 41 =
0.181. VARSI 1,
0.683
<,)
0.25
-0.301
STEP MJHBcR 1 ENTER VARIABLE i
STANDARD UEVIATION UF PfcSIOuALS* 0.196
5TJ. JEV. AS PEkCtflT OF RfcJPCftSfc «EAN = 30.BOS
PERCENT VAR1A1IUN EXPLAINcO R-SU = 46.O6U
CLRkELTtn R-St AS A PLRCENT- 39.063
Gu^jNbSi L.F FIT Ok OVERALL f,F( 1, 7)= O.12b
CL'ISTANT TERM= 0.
VAR
2
COtFf
•J.0103381'.
STO DEV
COtFF
T VALUt
STEP NUHBtR 2 tNTER VARIABLE
S(ANOARI) uEVIATII.'N UF RESIDUALS^
STO. UFV. AS ^fKCfcNl UF RtSPCf.St MEA»J=
PERCENT vAPiAiiuN EXPLAINED R-SO=
CCPkECTfcD R-SL AS A PtRCfNT=
COOONtSi OF FIT UK uVtRALL f,K 2. 6)=
1
0.151
2j.751
CONSTANT TEHM=
VAR COEFF
I -0.00/6V757
6J.777
b.0«3
0.<.B8o0096
STO DEV
COtFF
T VAuUE
STEf NUMBtR 3 tNTER VARIABLE 3
STANDARu DEVIATION UF RES1DLALS= 0.160
SID. UEV. AS PEnCtNT OF RESPONSE MEAN- 2!>.17<.
PtRCENT VARIATION EXPLAlNtO R-SC- 74.565
CUHKEtUO R-SO AS A PERCENT* 59.303
GOODNESS OF FIT OR OVERALL F.FI 3, 5)= <..886
CONSTANT TERM> 0.54932185
VAR
1
2
3
COEFF
-0.
0.01483828
-0.00190910
STO OEV
COEFF
O.OC342908
0.00356033
O.OC327171
T VALUE
-2.16121694
3.58*77941
-0.58j5l7t»9
-------
EQUATION 3
SYSTEMS 1-9 CQLLECTIOf. MINUTES PER HOME AS A FUKCTlOfc l!F PERCENT CNE-kAY ITEMS.
PER hOME PEk CCLLfcCTICr., Af.D KU-.BIR UF 1TE.«S
11= 59. jO, VAlU 2)= «.7.7c., VARI J)= i.«.3, VAK( 4 ) = O.b<»
SF* OARU DEVIATIONS
V«*< 11= 17.35, VA*{ 2) = U.Sfc, VARI J) = l.Jb, VARI 4)= 0.25
:ilt-Lr (.TrRtLMIiiN lOfcFF ICItf.Fi
'•-'-•I 1. 11= l.OOC, VARil 1, ^)= C...7V. VAHSI 1, 3)= u.518, VARSI 1. 41= -0.301
'.'..^j(
V .- I. ,i I- r S i j 0£V I vitUL
^ (-'lfcM
™ t o.OU IJdlfc .'.00^17blu
\j>
M.I .MU.il-. h ^ tNJfc.: VARIABLI 1
. i!»r,lM^ ^i;I^riLN L'F ktSIuUALi= c.151
i,.. .^ < . Ai I'EtCtM UF hfcSPliNih 'EA^= 2-.. 751
,,-..vt 1. 1 LO K-'j. .'.'^ A Pckltl.I- t-i.777
.-^.^..i ji ,,F FIT .'K l^VtKALL F.FI £, >j ) - c . •'. J
V- -• CotFF SIU UtV T ,ALUc
CJfcFF
i -j.007l,97!>7 •i.L'-naoi'/-. -2.-.3j£3l<.7
i.75329d23
illH !JUMF>tn i ENTEH VAKUbLt i
SIU.JHRO OEV1ATIJN UF KfcSIUUALS- L.lbS
Slj. JEV. AS PfcKCENT UF RESPCNit HEAN= 2!>.^b<.
iiiCE.'jT VAKIAIIJN EXPLAINED R-S:= 7t.q«.3
l.,AKECThi) R-Su AS A PERCENT- St . 7 09
(uJJNEii CF FIT GR UVEkALL F,F( 3. SI- «..<., j
CONSTANT TERM= o.'.92e7j23
VAR CQcFF STJ D£V f VALUE
C3EFF
1 -0.00ei29<«2 C.OJ<.&2273 -1
2 3.01128464 O.UO*7db8d 1.1530^713
3 0.01dfal578 0. 1315031; 7 C.143US141
-------
EQUATION 4
SYSTEMS 1-9 CLjLLECTioti MINUTES PER HOME AS A FUNCTION OF PERCENT ONE-*AY ITEMS.
HOUNDS PfcR HUME PtA COLLECTION. I.UMBEK OF IUMS, AND CREW SUE
59.JD, vi.K( 2) =
4V.7t>. VARI 3) =
•«. = -
i *
1 -
t. :
1 1
. »• j • i A(.
. CCJtFI
. J j J.
j. J'. 1
.uOC.
.'JC'.'.
.000.
. C L
• L' r n
'ICIcMS
VARSI I , 2)=
VAPSI i, 3)=
VARSI J. (.) =
VARSI «.. 5) =
lf,t[* VA*
L^PSPlA"Jc Mlrt
L ... 1
>. V»KJ( i, 31=
. VARSI 2. <•) =
». VAR',( 3. '.-> =
V.-ltll,.1 tXI-L-H.LU
. Ft.
II!
i-> . f I-
LVLhiLL
1. :
,) OtV
HUM.rh
JFV. t
:i_, , F FIT f R
. I; 1 Urf 1 =
(.UcFf
-3.00769757
J.ul25;307
S 1
tNUK l/AMA'-L'
1 VALUE
i. -.755-,3<,J
j
( .
151
751
C .«•!:!
SIU OEV
C.1EFF
T VALUE
-i.«.032jl'.7
0. 0033325
EME^ VARIABLE <•
I .
SI'.P tlUMbtK j
SIANDriRO uEVlAFICN uF RES1UUALS=
su. utv. AS ^EKCENI OF KESPGNSC HEAN= 2b.
?f)>
r.129. (/ARSI 2. 51 =
0.489
0.68 J
-------
APPENDIX 6
M
VJ1
CURB-ALLEY ONCE A WEEK COLLECTION - CULL MlNS PER SERVICE AS A FUNCTION OF LBS
PER SERVICE PER COLL. CRE* SIZE. * ONE--AY ITtMS, AND CULL MILES PER DAY
AVERAGES
VARI 1)=
VARI 5) =
58.20, VARI 21 =
0.73
STANDARD DEVIATIONS
VARI 1)= 13.92. VARI 2)=
VARI = 0.70 =
VARSI 3. 31 = 1.000, VARSI 3. 4) =
VARSI 4. <,) = 1.000. VARSI 4. 5)-
2.01, VARI 31=
0.8b, VARI 31=
0.116, VARSI 1. 31=
U.42t, VARil ?. 4) =
O.to44, VARSI 3, &) =
-0.750
62.40. VARI 4) = 8.92.
15.89. VARI M= 3.09.
-0..t44
GOODNESS UF FIT OK OVERALL F.FI
CONSTANT TERN=
2,27al" 43t>.<101
0.(
VAR
1
4
COEFF
0.00846657
-0.04448957
STD DEV
COEFF
0.000564*0
0.00254470
I VALUE
14.98764469
-17.4B322230
STEP NUMBER 3 ENTER VARIABLE
STANDARD DEVIATION OF RESIDUALS*
STO. DEV. AS PERCENT OF RESPONSE MEAN=
PERCENT VARIATION EXPLAINED R-SQ=
CORRECTED R-SQ AS A PERCENT*
0.107
14.747
81.092
8C.687
GOODNESS OF FIT OK OVERALL F.FI
CONSTANT TERH=
3,277)3 396.003
0.75733297
VAR
1
COtFF
0.00831397
STD DEV
COEFF
0.00050197
T VALUE
-------
-0.06649599
-0.04593663
0.00756453
0.00236019
-6.79049804
-20.32429902
STEP NUHBEP 4 ENTER VARIABLE
SIM.OAP.U OEV1AT10N UF RESIDUALS-
SID. uEV. AS PERCtNT Of RtSPDNSE HEAN =
PtRCENT VARIATION EXPLAINED R-SO=
CORRELTtD R-SQ AS A PtfiCtfiT=
CUOUNESi OF FIT OR OVERALL F,F( 4.27b)«=
CUNiTAHT TERM« 0.77002181
3
0.107
14.716
81.23B
BO. 966
V6R
1
2
3
4
COeFF
0.00d79921
-O.USb978b4
-0.00101700
-0.04^29852
STO DEV
COLFF
O.OOU501U4
O.U099<>9b2
O.UOU69423
1 VALUE
17.!. &401006
-i».7209o336
M
-------
IS)
AVERAGES
VARl 11=
VARl 5)=
28.36, VARl 21 =
0.49
STANDARD DEVIATIONS
VftR( 1)> 4.70, VARl 2> =
VARl 5)= 0.17
SIMPLE CORRELATION COtFFICIENTS
VARSI 1, 11= 1.000, VARSI 1. *»=
VARSI It 5>= -0.*22
VARSI 2, =
0.773, VARSI 1.
-0.29^. VARil 2.
-o.<*ie
14.89.
CTCD MilHRER 3 ENTER VARIABLE <•
s ANDARS"KVUTIM OF RESIDUALS- 0.031
STO. DEV. AS PERCENT OF RESPONSE HEAN- 6.«6
PtRCENT VARIATION EXPLAINED R-SQ- H'^ll
roRRECTfcD R-SO AS A PERCENT" 96.761
CU°RRNE» OF FIT OR OVERALL F.F,
CONSTANT TERH=
VAR
1
COEFF
0.01061738
STO OEV
COEFF
0.00075300
T VALUE
14.. 10002682
-0.643.
-0.95^
-------
-0.22803870
0.00092124
0.00343913
0.00073976
-66.30701731
1.44532964
STEP NUMBER 4 INTER VARIABLE 3
STANDARD DEVIATION OF RtSIDUALS= 0.031
iTD. OEV. AS PERCbNT Of RfcSPOhSE KEAN = 6.331
PERCENT VARIATION EXPLAINED R-SU = 96.937
CORRECTED R-SU AS A PERCENT^ 96.655
CUOONtSS OF FIT OR OVERALL F.F( <., 151) =1194 .52 1
CONSTANT TERN= 0.<.<.29258tt
VAR
1
2
3
CDfcFF
0.00946934
-0.23035427
0.00^57804
0.00365573
STD OfcV
COtFF
0.0008fa7l3
Ci.u055.i9B9
O.U0151SV9
I
10.67<>1!>172
-43.10291038
;:. J6051142
CO
-------
VO
BACKYARD ONCE A WEEK COLLECTION - COLL M1NS PER «R«« « A FUhCTIOH OF LBS
PER SERVICE PER COLL. CREW SIZE, * ON£-HftY ITEMS, AN9 COLL MILES PER DAY
AVERAGES
VARl 11=
VAR( 5)=
42.37. VARl 2>'
1.09
STANDARD DEVIATIONS
VARl 11- 10.89, VARl 2)'
VARl 5J- 0.27
SIMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
VARSl 1. 11"
VARSl 1, !>> =
VARSl 2, 21=
VARSl 3. 31°
VARSl *, *) =
1.000, VARSl 1.
0.789
l.OOU. VARSl 2.
1.000, VARSl 3.
1.000, VARSl *.
21
51 =
2.02. VARl
0.03, VARl 31=
-0.151, VARSl I, 3)=
-0.<:*3. VARSl 2. <•> =
-0.1*9, VARSl 3. 5J=
-0.141
. 10, VAR«
20.60. VARl t,l=
0.781, VARSl 1, *) =
0.059. VARSl ?. 5J=
0.991
6.73,
1.0*.
-0.072,
STEP NUHBER 1 ENTER VARIABLE
STANDARD DEVIATION DF RESIOUALS-
STO. UEV. AS PEkCtNT UF RtSPONSE hEAN=
PERCENT VARIATION EXPLAlNtO R-SQ-
CORRECTED R-SU AS A PtRCEi«T =
3
0.037
3.37U
98.112
98.U9J
COOUNtSS OF FIT Ok OVERALL
CUMSTANI TERM=
1,1001=5195.563
VAR COtFF STO OtV T
COtFF
3 0.01278567 0.00017738 72,
STEP NUMBER 2 ENTER VARIABLE I
STANDARD DEVIATION OF RESIDUALS- 0.036
STO. OEV. AS PEKCENI OF RESPONSE MEAN* 3.330
PERCENT VARIATION EXPLAINED R-$U = 94.175
CORRECTED R-Sg AS A P£RtENT= 98.133
GOODNESS OF FIT OR OVERALL F.FI 2, 991*2662.688
CONSTANT TERM- 0.7*963952
VAR COtFF STO DEV T
COEFF
1 0.00098306 0.00053062 1
3 0.01237985 O.OOOZBOiS **
VALUt
.080270*9
VALUE
.85268069
.13056097
STEP NUMBER 3 ENTER VARIABLE 2
STANDARD DEVIATION OF RESIDUALS- 0.036
STD. OEV. AS PERCENT OF RESPONSE MEAN- 3.3*2
PtRCENT VARIATION EXPLAINED R-SQ« 98.180
CORRECTED R-SO AS A PERCENT- 98.12*
COODNfcSS OF FIT OR OVERALL F.H 3, 98)=1761.B38
CONSTANT TERM- 0.8t>33*7«,2
VAR
1
COtFF
0.00100025
STO DEV
COEFF
0.00053371
T VALUE
1.87*12005
-------
-0.05640569
0.01235048
0.11186330
0.00028755
-0.50423761
42.95050940
STEP NUMBER 4 ENTER VARIABLE
STANDARD DEVIATION UF REJIDUALS=
STO. OEV. AS PEkCENT UF RESPONSE HEAN =
PtRCENT VARIATION EXPLAINED R-SO=
CORRECTED R-S(| AS A PfcRCENT=
CUOUNESS OF FIT OR OVERALL F.FI 4, 97)
CONSTANT TERM- 0.855S7200
0.037
3.357
98.182
96. LOB
.979
VAR
1
2
3
COtFf
U.UOU98559
-0.057257b2
0.01^366^8
0.00l3b513
STD DEV
LOfcFF
O.o0u53736
0.00029175
0.(/035b602
T VALUE
-0.50-J52354
i. 3879771,6
U.
-------
APPENDIX 7
'-- «:.'? ..... "•
STANDARD DEVIATIONS
!!: »:«.«««-
.....«.,.,
»., ...... „
.,.„.„„,.,
„.„....,„.
VAR5( l, 5)!
2,
STEP NUMBER l
STANDARU DEVIATION bF RESIDUAL!"
• «-
8.92,
3.09.
I" -0.394,
2:S,'
?ss?a?
••
VAR
1
COEFf
:«FI 1.279)=
175.9<.615337
STO DEV
COfcFF
0.08792857
|I«.«"M,,.T,W OF usioS": """•"
L«£H»"SiS'5,Ki'ea.
CURRECTEO R-SU AS A PtRCENT=
COODNcSS OF FIT OR HVFDAII c r, 70.673
CUNSTANT TEKH' °VER*LL F.FI 2.27a»c 338.381
108.99221751
VAR
T MALUfc
1
3
lucrr
-1.22080319
0.86326676
STO OEV
COtFF
0.06650063
0.06000969
T VALUt
-17.62176163
STEP NUMBER 3
STANDARD DEVIATION OF „
STO. OEV. AS PERCENT OF
PERCENT VARIATION E
CORRECTED R-SQ AS A
GOODNESS OF FIT OR
CONSTANT TERMa
COEFf
-1.06087,74
!i'541
75'516
F( , ,„ '
F.F( 3,2771- 28^.787
94.62994430
STD
D
T VAlUF
••me
-------
3
4
0.5*828198
2.76905211
0.07022626
0.38245525
7.6073b3ai
7.
STEP NUHBER <• ENTER VARIABLE 2
STANDARD DEVIATION Of Rfc510UflLS= 14.293
STD. UEV. AS PERCENT OF RESPONSE HEAH= 15.568
PERCENT VARIATION EXPLAINED R-5&= 75.520
CORRECTED R-SU AS A PERCENT* 75.165
GUODNcSS OF FIT OR OVERALL F.FJ 4,2761- *:li.B60
CONSTANT TEftH= 94.4B850183
VAR
1
2
3
COfcFF
-1.06186335
0.2686378'.
0.53bOt>786l
Nl
-------
10
OJ
CURB-ALLEY TWICE A MEEK COLLECTION- SERVICES PER COLL MRS AS A FUNCTION OF LBS
PER SERVICE PER COLL. CREM SIZE. * ONE-toAY ITEHS. AND COLL MILES PER DAY
AVERAGES
VftRl 1)=
VARI 5)=
26.36, VARC 21 =
139.07
STANDARD DEVIATIONS
VARI 1)« <».70. VAftl 21 =
VARI 51= 46.99
SIMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
VARSI 1,
VARSI 1.
VARS'I 2,
VARSI 3,
31
1.000, VARSI 1
0.375
1.000, VARSI
1.000. VARSI
21 =
31 =
VARSI 4, <*]*
1.000. VARSI 4,
2.02, VARI
0.82, VARI 3)-
0.457. VARSI 1, 3)°
0.580, VARSI 2. >-
-0.361
48.33, VARI 4)= 14.69
VAR« 41
0.773. VARSI 1. 4)* -0.643.
-0.292. VARSI ?. !>! = 0.967
0.612
STEP NUMBER I ENTFR VARIABLE 2
STANDARD DEVIATION OF RESIDUALS? 1*.100
STO. DEV. AS PERCENT OF RESPONSE MEAN' U.701
PERCENT VARIATIUN EXPLAINED R-Sy= 9J.41J
CORRECTED R-Sb AS A PERCENT^ 9J.J7U
CUOUNkSS OF FIT Ok OVERALL F ,F I 1, 154 I «=218 J .vT,
CONSTANT TJRH* 27.69260737
VAR
2
COfcFF
55.19388112
STD DEV
COtFF
1. 1910<,669
T WALUfc
4b.733014<:3
STEP NUMBER 2 ENTER VARIABLE <•
STANDARD DEVIATION OF RESIDUALS-; 11.500
STD. DEV. AS PERCENT OF RESPONSE MEAN* 0.269
PERCENT VARIATIUN EXPLAlNtD R-SU- 9".. 089
CURRECTbO R-SU AS A PERCENT* 9<..D11
CUOONbSS UF FIT OK OVERALL F.FI 2. 153) =1217 .b2«.
CONSTANT TERN* «,4.1 22bl 156
VAR
2
4
COEFF
53.75877734
-0.90879463
STD DEV
COEFF
1.17378807
0.21733462
T VALUE
45.79938994
STEP NUMBER 3 ENTER VARIABLE 1
STANDARD DEVIATION OF R£SIDUALS= 8.872
STD. DEW. AS PERCENT OF RESPONSE MEAN* 6.379
PERCENT VARIATION EXPLAINED R-SO« 96.505
CORRECTED R-SQ AS A PERCENT- 96.436
COODNESS UF FIT OR OVERALL F.FI 3,152)=1399.016
CONSTANT TERM= 117.862271)58
VAR
1
COEFF
-2.18565931
STD OEV
COtFF
0.41321045
I VALOE
-10.25118297
-------
2
4
57.43045612
-2.19582043
0.97377805
0.20945910
58.97694660
-10.48328952
STEP NUMBER 4 ENTER VARIABLE 3
STANDARD DEVIATION OF RES1DUAL5= 8.698
STD. OEM. AS PEKCbNT OF RESPONSE MEAN* 6.254
PERCENT VARIATION EXPLAINED R-SU= 96.663
CORRECTED R-Sfl AS A PERCENT* 96.575
GOODNESS OF FIT Oft OVERALL F,F« 4.151)"1093.506
CONSTANT TERM- 57.20122994
VAR
1
2
3
4
COEFF
-2.55205410
54.13U26117
1.1419^608
-0.68481770
STD DEV
COEFF
0.24993054
1.55793436
C.42704373
0.60122136
T VALUE
-10.21105345
34.75002697
-------
\J1
BACKYARD ONCE A WEEK COLLECTION - SERVICES PER COLL MRS « A FUNCTION OF LBS
PER SERVICE PER COLL. CRE* SUE. * ONE-MAY 1TEHS, AND COLL HlLES PER DAt
AVERAGES
VARI l)a
VARI 5) =
42.37. VARI 2>>
58.47
STANDARD DEVIATIONS
VARI 1)» 10.89, VARI 2)'
VARI 5)- 14.11
SIMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
VARSI 1. 1)
VARSI 1. 5)=
VARS( 2. 21 =
VARSl 3. 3)"
VARSI 4, 41 =
1.000, VARbl It
-0.783
1.000. VARSI 2.
1.000. VARSI 3. 4»
1.000, VARSI
5>»
VAR( 31=
0.03, VAR( 3)=
-0.151, VARSI 1. Jl =
-0.243, VARS« 2, 4l=
-U-l'»9, VARSI 3, S> =
0.137
24.10. VARI 41° 6.73,
20.60. VAR( 4)= 1.04,
0.781, VARSI 1. 41= -0.07^,
&.059. VARSI 2. 51= 0.254
-0.991
STEP NUMBER 1 ENTER VARIABLE 3
STANDARD DEVIATION OF RES10UfttS= 1.B57
STD. DEV. AS PEkCENT OF RESPONSE HEAN= 3.177
PERCENT VAR1ATIUN EXPtAlNtO R-SU« 98.285
CORRECTED R-SO AS A PERCENT* 9S.i6a
CUOONESS UF FIT OR OVERALL F,FI 1,100»=5731 .«i97
CONSTANT TERH= 7
-------
b.42008921
-0.66388961
5.69308361
0.01463442
1.12769979
-45.36494221
STEP NUMBER 4 ENTER VARIABLE 4
STANDARD DEVIATION OF RESIOUALS= 1.857
STD. OEV. AS PERCENT UF RESPONSE MEAN* 3.176
PERCENT VARIATION EXPLAINED R-SQ= 98.338
CORRECTED R-SQ AS A PERCENT* 98.269
GUOONESS OF FIT OR OVERALL F,F( 4, 97>°1434.604
CUNSTAHT IERH= 63.61349291
VAR
i
2
3
COEFF
-0.02971170
b. 50877587
-0.66556539
-0.14415907
STD DEV
COtFF
0.02727974
5.70471814
0.01481097
0.16052646
I'C c IIIIIAI
T VALUE
-l.C891'«897
1.14094609
-44.9373i764
-0.79o5<.814
NORMAL
Tfc
t
I
1
0
-------
APPENDIX 8
CUR3 ALLEY 1/t.EEK - TONS/COLL HR AS A FUNCTION OF LBS/SERV ICE/COLL, CREH SIZE.
* ONE-MAY ITEMS AND COLL HILES/DAY
VAKI IIs
VAFU 51 =
50.20, VARI 2)«
2.53
_ .. DEVIATIONS
VARI 1)* 13.92. VARI 2)*
V&RI Sl» 0.58
JlMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
VARbl 1 1)« 1.000, VARSI 1.
VftRSI 1 5)> 0.053
VARSI 2 21= l.'JDO, VARSI 2,
VtRil 3 3)= 1.000. VARSI 3,
VARSI •* *»• 1.000. VARSI *.
21 =
31 =
*)-
51 =
2.01. VARC 3>=
0.85. VAR( 3) =
C.116. VARSI 1. 3» =
0.*2*. VARSI 2, *) =
C.b**. VARSI 3. 51*
0.62*
3
C.
17 .
STEP NJMBER 1 ENTER VARIABLE
STANDARD DEVIATION OF RtSlDuALS=
Sli>. LtV. Ai PERCENT OF RESPONSE MEAN*
PtalEHT VARIATIUN EXPLAINED R-Su-
CUKKECTtJ R-SL AS A PERCENT*
I.UOJNESS JF FIT OR OVERALL F.FI 1,2791= 212.I**
CONSTANT TERM* 1.02275158
VAH
3
COtFF
STO OEV
COEFF
0.001t>6075
T VALUE
1*. 5651552*
STEP NJ1BER 2 ENTER VARIABLE *
STANDARD DEVIATION OF RESIDUALS* O.*15
SlU. UE«. Al PERCENT OF RESPONSE MEAN* 16.37*
OLhCENT V&RIAIIJ-4 EXPLAINED R-SJ- 51.-78
CDRKECTEJ R-SU AS A PERCENT= *9.719
GU05NESS aF FIT JR OVERALL F.FI 2.278)* 139.*37
CUNSTANT TbRM= 0.95099683
VAit
3
*
CUtFF
0.01605381
0.06*92906
STD OEV
COtFF
0.00203931
0.010*6622
T VALUE
7.87217*19
6.191B**13
STEP NUMBER 3 ENTER VARIABLE 1
STANOARD DEVIATION OF RESIDUALS* Om*ll
STD. OEV. AS PERCENT OF RESPONSE MEAN* 1*.712
PERCENT VARIATION EXPLAINED R-SQ« 59.8*2
CORRECTED R-SO AS A PERCENT- "*t2I
GOODNESS OF FIT OR OVERALL F.FI 3,2771* 137.593
CONSTANT TERM= -0.06888965
VAR
1
COEFF
0.01*28983
STD OEV
COEFF
.0.0017*126
T VALUE
8.20660058
62.dO. VARI *) = 8.92.
15.89, VARI *) = 3.09.
-0.228. VARSI 1. <•>•= -0.39*.
-0.112. VARSI 2. 5) = 0.278
0.657
-------
0.01550920
0.092073J6
0.00183355
0.00998557
STEP NJ13ER <• ENTER VARIABLE
STANDARD DEVIATION OF RESIDUALS*
STO. DEV. Ai PERCENT OF RESPONSE MEAN-
PER:ENT VARIATION EXPLAINED R-SO =
CLKkECTfcu R-SU AS A PERCENT*
(.QJDNESi OF FIT OR DVERALL F.Ft 665'>2
B
<•
3
10.25127689
CO
-------
M
l/J
vO
CUkb ALLEY 2/NEEK - TONS/COLL MR AS A FUNCTION OF L3S/SERV1CE/C3LL, CREM SIZE.
•'. ONE-HAY ITEMS AND C3LL MILES/DAY
AVERAGES
VARI 1):
VftRI 51=
28.36. VARI 2}-
2.01
STANOARU DEVIATIONS
1)=
-------
ro
^.
o
2. 0.77772fc!,9 U.GlJ911ji 55.
3 0.j3U77<.b& G.CD1947C1 15. 3361^056
iEP 'IJCfclk '. cMtf1 V4KI43L- <.
7A1, •)&•<« LE i/!.'.T I _•: ,e pes:Ou/-LS= ..:!••
i.. jl V . A', >• -.Cf.V l.r Ri'St-L-iSr ."fci1, = ',.'!><•
-Cr'll '/--UIIj1. L4>i~ilicu r-'j.= 9L..-.i<
• < E i r i :< P - ^ .. - j t P t u . s 'i r = * e . - . »>
•-'.ili ,F ri" LK jVfr/.'.L f.Fl -., 151 ) = ?.' 6. . ,' j'i
C .EeF
- . t > \ n ! / f, ,..'..«/•' ' . -j :, r. ,. 7 r, , 9
. . 1 1 1 1 •• . i 'j ..:.'<,'<. 7 , / .' -. . • •. . = / • ; i
.1 . .' 5 / j j 7 3 u.li')bD^U-" •.."'.'•-I
- j . . 1 .. • / 1 1 1, j . o J i J r> '. • -i.j] .7- /
-------
BACKYARD 1/t.EEK - TONS/COLL HR AS A FUNCTION OF LBS /SERVICE/COLL . CREH SIZE.
v. Q\E-WAY ITEMS ANJ COLL MILES/JAY
iVERftCES
V/.KI 1) =
,/f.RI 5) =
VARI 2 1 =
1.16
STANDARD (DEVIATIONS
1): 10.119, VAKl 21 =
i ) = 0.17
.: ;.-RftELMI.1N COEFFICIENTS
t.Ot, VARI
L.03. VARI 3)=
H j (
K !> 1
US!
'• 1
1^1
1C
1 . 1
1 , '>
f i i
3. i
* i "«
;«jhii L
= 1 . ^L^. VAkLl
0.330
= l.uC'J. VARSI
= l.j,r)3. Vbkbl
= 1.33J. VARSI
? 1 tf.
1.
2.
J.
<>.
Tbk
if} -
3) =
(. ) :
!> ) =
VA>(
-
-{.
- 1
:
lADLt
.151.
.^3,
.!•.•<,
.0*1
1
VARSI 1. 3)=
VARj I 2. <•) =
VftRjl 3. SI-
MJ.
Aj
. I
(...I'v!-:. Il'J K-S'. as A »l( Ml i.(* UVikALL F.FI
«.tAN-
l,10u)= K
O.'-tbe
VtR
1
SILP
SI j.'
pts.e
Stu uEV
j.CJl-3552
T VALJE
i .u<«l
bhk 2 bNTcR VARIAbLi
i.tVUTI.)N uF RtSIUUALS =
. A j c fc •< C fc '41 31
Vf.K|6 I lu . bXPLft INEO
ECTtJ -*-S- AS A PiHCENT. 9«..bl7
r.tSS jF FIT UR JVtkALL F.Fl 2. 991= 625.«.'J3
IANI TbRM= 0.5189059^.
VAK
1
3
CjlFF
0.02219948
-J.C1163715
STD DfcV
tOEFF
O.OOJbb2<.<.
J.C0035C22
T VALUE
33.51233847
-33.2279J539
STEP NJSbfcR ' 3 ENTER VARIABLE <•
SIAN3A40 DEVIATION OF RESIBUALS= >.:)= 6.73.
20.60. VA%( <>)= 1.94.
C.781. VARSI 1. «.)
C/.C59. VARS (2.5)
- 0 . JCb
-0.072.
0.133
-------
-O.OH67395
-0.03336335
0.00335507
-32.87792586
-0.6979
-------
APPENDIX 9
NJ
CURB-ALLEY ONCE ft «EEK COLLECTION - COST PER SERVICE «« "« AS * J"""! DJ Of
LBS PfcR SERVICE PER COLL, CREH SIZE, * Uflt-l>AV ITtHS. AND COLL KUES PER DAI
AVERAGES
VARI 1J =
VARI 5)=
53.20. VAIil 21 =
0.33
STANDARD DEVIATIONS
VARI 1)= 13.92. VARI 2)=
VAR( i)= 0.13
SIMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
VARSt 1 , 1)= 1.000, VARSI 1,
VARil 1, i)= U.^63
VARSI 2. <>= l.OOU, VAPSI ?, 3>=
VARSI 3, 31 = 1.000, V/.Ril 3, <•> =
VARSI <». '•I* 1.300, Vf.RSI <•. 5)^
21
2.01, VAR'. 3' =
O.Bb, VARI 3)
O.llb. VARSI 1. 3)=
62. '
VA1!
0. <,?'•. VA°M ?.
U.fc'»'i, Vft'.bl 3.
«•) =
5!-
IS.89. VARI *> =
-0.228, VARSI 1. <•) =
-0.112, VASil 2. b»=
8.92.
3.00,
SIFP NUMBER »
STANDARD DEVIATION Of RE S IDl^i. S =•
510. OEV. AS PFKCLNT OF PbSCOf.CE HEAH =
PtRLENT VARIATIuH EXPLAIULO R-iu=
CORRECTEn R-SU AS A P£RCEllT
ur rn CR UVCRALL
2
U.OT1
5 !J. '• 1»
5B.33J
1,279)= ;)"^.93!>
O.IO?b(./i6
VAR
2
LOI r-F
0.11/2CB<>0
STO DtV
(.3LTF
O.L'056t>Ohl
T vALOh
SIEP NUMBER 2 ENTER VARIABLF
STANDARD DEVIATION UF RtS10UALS=-
SfO. OEV. Ab PFKCcNT OF RESPONSE «EAfl =
PtRCEN' VARIATION EXPLAINkO R-Sfl=
CuRRECTEO R-SO AS A PfcRLEHT* t^'.n
CuOUNtSS UF FIT OR OVERALL F.FI 2.278)=113o.^3^
CUNSTAHI TERH= 0.323&9137
0.0^.2
li.bO^
P9.10J
VAR
2
CDEFF
0.10303979
-0.02259807
STO OEV
COtPf
0.0029235.«.
O.OOOBUB47
T VALUE
-27.95151055
STEP NUMBER 3 ENTER VARIABLE 1
STANDARD DEVIATION OF RES1DUALS= 0.035
STD. OEV. AS PERCENT OF RESPONSE MEAN= 10.660
PERCENT VARIATION EXPLAlNfcD R-SU= 92.233
CORRECTED R-SO AS A PERCENT= 9«d.l«i9
GOODNESS UF FIT Ok OVERALL F,F< 3,277 l = 109b.<.93
CONSTANT TERM" 0.1996868*
VAR
I
COEFF
0.00173905
STD OEV
COEFF
O.C001o4S9
T VALUE
10.56^88300
-O.J9-*.
II./6S
-------
0.10097655
-0.01S57GL5
0.00248033
O.G0071.1C9
VARIA3LE
tO.71095110
-2b.26
0.17275106
-O.I
F<
-------
M
CURB-ALLEY THICt A MEEK COLLECTION- COST PER SERVICb PER HEEK AS A FUNCTION OF
LbS PER SERVICE PER COLL. CREn SIZE. * OMt-hAY ITtMS, AfiO CDLL MILES PFR UAY
AVERAGES
V/.R ( 1) =
VARl 5) =
28.36, VARl
STANDARD DEVIATIONS
VARl 11= <».70i
VARl :>) = 0.06
VARl
T.02, VARl 3!=
0.8/, VARi
SIMPLE CORRELATION COfcFUClEHTS
VtRil 1
VfiRil 1
VAR SI 2
t.
11 = l.OCO, VARil I. 2J =
51= -0.09U
21= l.C'Oo, VARil 2. 3> =
3)= l.UPO, VARSI 3. «•) =
«.)= 1.000, VCRJI '•t bt-
VARSI 1. 3)=
VAP.il 2. <.) =
-O.V15, VfcllM 3. 51 =
0 . ,' n h
'.8.31. VA'« 'tl' l'».C9.
6.25, VftRI
0.173, VARSI It <•>=
-U.202. VARSI 2. b)=
-0.12J
STTP UUMBcR 1 FNTFR VARIABLE
STANDARD uEVlATlPN OF RES1PUALS-
SID. uev. Ai p^HCtrn UF ptsPi'n'.t M.EAfi =
PiRLFNT VARIAIIUri FxPLAlllkD R-5J- r*t-
CLRKH.TIO R-SU AS A PrRCtnT- 51.
S OF FIT n'« UViPALL F,FI 1,15'.!= lf>ti.
v;,f:
cntrf
STO DEV
LQtFF
T VALUt
SIfP NUHBtR 2 ENTER VARIABLE 3
STANDARD DEVIATION OF RES1!)UALS= b.010
SFD. OCX. AS PEHCLfIT UF RtSI'OllSE MEAN= i
PfcRltNT VARlATIuli r
-------
M
-b
CTi
3 -0.00697205 0.00039348 -17.71881700
t, -0.00222794 0.00062195 -3.5B218B22
STEP NUMBER '• fNTER VARIABLE 1
STAMDARO DEVIATION UF RfcSIOU/»LS = 0.010
STO. DEV. AS PERCENT OF RESPCliSE KSfcM* ?.015
PtRLENT VARIATION EXPLAINED R-SO= 9/.J96
CORRECTED R-SU AS A PtRCE.'iT= 9V . 1 22
canofiESi OF FIT CR OVERALL F,F{ <.,i5i 1=1300.460
CONSTANT 1ERM= O.tn!/2'.:i
COtFF STD OEV T VALUE
crtrF
1 0.000?24J3 0«l)00?7r-66 0.653775^1
2 u.0870<»322 0.001710;'.
3 -0.007ia?19 O.UOj'«7)ul
t, -0.00^41360 C
-------
BACKYARD OMCE A MEEK COLLECTION - COST PER SERVICE PER hEEK AS A FUNCTION OF
LoS PLR SfcRVICE PER CLLL, CRE* SUE, H UHh-HAY ITEMS. AND COLL MILES PER
AVERAGES
VAP.l 1) =
VAR I •> ) =
42.37, VAKI ?l=
O.O
STANDARD DEVIATIONS
VARI 1)= 10.60, VARI 2)=
VAR( 5)= 0.07
SIMPLt COKRELATirfl CPEFFKItNTS
VftRSI I, 11= l.CTO, V/P5I 1, 21 =
WARS I 1. 1. )• C.791
WAR: i 2, «!>- I.L."U, VARSI 2, 3i =
VARSI 3, 3)' l.CPU, VARil 3, <.) =
V.'.Rjt '., <•)- 1.000. VARI I <•. 51-
2.02, VftRI 3)--
0.03. VARI 31=
-0.101, VARSl 1. 31
-O.'r'ti, VAP.SI 2. <•!
-0.127
b I -
VARI «,»= 6.7jr
20.60. VA«U ^1= l.O-i.
0.701, VA°SI 1. <»>= -0.07,-.
o.iiro, VAP:.( 2. !>)= -ii.it'>
0. -9 J
STFP HHKBbR 1 k-HTFR VARIABLE 3
STANDARD DEVIATION OF PFSIDUAL5= O.OIU
SrO. UEV. AS PERCCMT UF RESI-OMSL HEAH= ^.'-frJ
PhRCCNT VARIAIIUN FXPLAINLO R-SJ= 96.075
C.PRFCTfcD R-SU AS A PtPLtllT^ 9n.00i
f.'nHN,5S UF PIT PR UVIPALL I.FI 1
rjIAM TFRM
Vf.R
3
COEFF
O.^JOJ^5575
SID DCV
tntFF
1 VALL't
STEP NUNBLR 2 ENTFR VARIADLC /
StANDARU UEVIATION UF RESIDUALS^ U.008
SIO. UEV. AS PERCfMT OF RESPONSE hEMI= JL.}29
PhRLEflT VARIATl;;fl IXPLAlflkD R-S»1= 9o.6'.h
CuRRfcLTED R-SJ AS A PlRLtl«7= 9
CUOuflCSS UF FIT C« UVfRALL F,F( 2, 991 "3610. S
fUNSTA'IT TCi*'1= -0.0<.075t!31
VAR
2
3
STEP NUMBER
COtFF
0.17*76236
0.00352<.77
STD DEV
COtFF
0.02588590
O.C0004206
ENTER VARIABLE
T WALUfc
6.75l2i>706
83.81300516
0.008
STANDARD DEVIATION OF RESIDUALS*
STD. DEV. AS PERCENT OF RESPONSE MEAN=
PERCENT VARIATION EXPLAINED R-SO= 98.708
CORRECTED R-SQ AS A PERCENT^ 98.668
GOODNESS OF FIT OR OVERALL F.F( 3, 98 )°2<>9!>.080
CONSTANT TERH= -0.04213635
VAR
1
COEFF
0.00025933
STO DEV
COEFF
0.1)001*160
T VALUE
-------
2 0.17129177 0.025'»861^ 6.77097885
3 0.003M635 C.0000o551 5.4.1
STFP NUMBER <• ENTFR VARIABLE «
STANDARD uEVIATSfl.'i OF RES lOuALS = i..OOO
510. CEV. Ai PEi.CEfIT Of PErPC.'.SE K«ftfl= r.079
PERCENT VARlATiCj.'l EXPLAIUfcD R-10= 90.71V
CORRECTED R-5U AS A PfRfCI.T= 5'j.tflj
GUnuMtSS LF FIT Gil UVLRALL fifl *». 97' =11<5;!;';'
fnETF STD OF.V T VALUt
cn;rF
u.7"/j'»
.-.": "77?
o.o"j'.-.OcA u.t-ur^,.-'
>ia o.u.Lr' .'.»• i ).','.-.!
CD
-------
APPENDIX 10
CURB-ALLEY ONCE A HEEK COLLECTIOri - CUST PER TON AS A FUNCTION OF LBS PER
SERVICE PER COLL. CREH SUE, ft ONE-MAY ITEMS, «MD COLL MILFS, PCS 0*1
AVERAGES
VAR( 11=
VftR( 5) =
58.20, VARf
II. «tO
STANDARD DEVIATIONS
VARJ 1)= 13.92, VAHI 21-
VAR( 5)= 3.87
SIMPLE CORRELATION COEFFIC I tflTS
VARSI 1. 11= l.UOU, V/»Ril 1,
V/.RSI 1. 51= -0.137
2)
2.01, VARI 3)=
O.G5, VA1(
0.116. V/^^-Sl 1. 3)
ISJ
\O
VARSI 2. 21= 1.000, VAn.1» 2,
VARSI 3. 31= l.COO, VARSC 3,
VARSI <*, 41= l.COU, VARK '. ,
STEP NUHDbR 1 EHTER
STANDARD DEVIATION UF RES10UAiS=
STO. UEV. AS PERCENT UF RbSPOIlSb
PI.RCENT VARIATION TXPLAINtO R-SJ =
CuRREtTEO R-SU AS A PfRlFl.T-
GljOLifll-SS UF FIT OR OV1P.ALL F,f(
V/.R CnbFF STD
2 3.42477931 0.
3)= 0.<-?4, VA".SI 2. -«1= -3.112
«,)= o.fc'«'t. v:n>i 7, ci= -o.o::
VARIABLE /.
MEAN- ?2.1«9
57.10 i
Ct>.9'.'>
Of V 1 VALUb
17771115 19.2716U640
62.40. Vftll <»J =
15.89. VAKI <>)= 3.09,
-0.220. VAP.SI 1. 41 = -0.39',,
'•r'ii 2. 5)= O.TJU
STEP NUHBtR 2 ENTER VARIABLE
STANDARD DEVIATION OF ReS10UALS=
STD. OEV. AS PERCENT OF RESPONSE P.EAH- 17.U93
PERCENT VARIATION EXPLAIHtO R-SO=
CORRECTED R-S.J AS A PtRCENT=
GuOUflfcSS UF FIT DR UViRALL F.FI 2,2731= 3&1.007
CONSTANT TERM= <
VAR
2
3
COEFF
-0.10<,57238
STO DEV
COtFF
0.15821336
O.OOB50872
T VALUb
26.85<>
-------
2
3
4.70080010
-0.13626351
0.11831360
39.731*9655
-20.99242048
STEP NUMBER 4 " ENHR VftHIftCl.!: «.
STAUOARO UEVIATiCM OF RESIDUALS^ \.}?.l
SIO. DEW. AS PEI.CtUT OF PESPDMJE KE(VH= 10.720
PfcRCEflT VAR1AT10M CXPLAINEO R-SQ= 90.G96
CORRECTED R-SQ AS A P£RCCKT= O'i .152
OUOONE5S UF FIT DR LVtRALL F.F( ^.,276»
CONSTANT TERM= 18
VAR
1
2
3
t.
CCEFF
-0.17307001
4.0?16^393
-O.U6t)16';j2
STO- OEV
CQtFF
I vALUd
0.00797rM
Ui
O
-------
CURB-ALLEY TWICE A MEEK COLLECTION- COST PER TOM AS A FUNCTION OF LBS PER
SERVICE PER COLL, CREH SIZE, * ONE-*** ITtHS, ANO COLL MILES PER DAH
AVERAGES
VAR( 11 =
VARl 51=
28.36. VARl 21=
16.72
STANDARD DEVIATIONS
VARl
VARl 51=
i».70. VARl 21'
3.85
SIMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
VARil 1, 11= 1.000, VARSI 1. 2> =
VARSI 1. 51= -0.706
VARSI 2. 21 = 1.000. VARSI 2. 3) =
VARSI 3, 31= 1.000, VARbl 3, 4)=
VARbl 4. 4)= 1.000, VARSI 4. b) =
2.02, VftRI 3)=
0.8*. VARl 3>
0.457. VARSI 1. 3) =
G.580, VflSl ?. 4)=
-O.'Jlb, VARil 3, 5) =
C.709
STEP NUMBER 1 EHTFR VARIABLE
STANDARD DEVIATION UF RbSIDUALS=
STO. UEV. AS PEKCENT UF RESPONSE MEAM =
PtRCEIlT VARIATION EXPLAINED R-Su-
CORRECTED R-SO AS A PERCCHT=
GOOUflcSb OF FIT OK OVLRALL F.FI 1,1541 =
CUNLTAMI TERI1 > ^5.
6i.83'.
M VAR CPLFF STD OtV I
Ui COEFF
— 1 -0.64656518 0«l!'» 1.728* 7 ~U>-
STEP NUMBtR 2 ENTER VARIABLE 2
STANDARD DEVIATION UF RESIDUALS' 1.453
STD. UEV. AS PERCENT UF RESPONSE MEAN* b.oB7
PERCENT VARIATION EXPLAIflkO R-SO= Bb.969
CURRECTtD R-SU AS A PERCENT^ Bb.786
GOOONtSS UF FIT OR UVtRALL F.FI 2.153)= 46B.722
CONSTANT TERM- 35.7172750i
VAR COEFF STD DEV T
COfcFF
1 -0.85291693 0-0279<,703 -3U
2 2.57415745 0.159459*9 16
STEP NUMBER 3 ENTER VARIABLE 3
STANDARD DEVIATION OF RESIDUALS' 0.882
STO. OEV. AS PERCENT OF RESPONSE MEAN- i>.275
PERCENT VARIATION EXPLAINED R-S3= 9«,.B63
CORRECTED R-50 AS A PERCENT' 94.758
GOODNESS OF FIT OH OVERALL F.FI 3.1521= 935.051
CONSTANT TERHe 38.24966175
VAR COEFF STO DEV T
COEFF
1 -0.58228192 0.02380304 -24
VALUE
.67509676
VALUE
!l4303871
VALUE
.46250407
48.33. VARt 4S = 14.09.
8.25, VARl 4)= 4.44,
0.773, VARSI 1. 4)= -0.643,
VAP.SI 2, bl= 0.0,7<.
-0.
-O.cDa
-------
3.26157036
-0.23988515
0.10570494
O.OI479427
-16.21<.73
-------
VJ1
BACKYARD ONCE A WEEK COLLECTION -"COST PER TON AS A FUNCTION OF LBS PER
SERVICE PER COLL. CUE* SIZE. ft DKE-HAY ITEMS, AMD.COLL I1ILES PER DAK
AVERAGES
VAR( 1)=
VARI S) =
42.37, VARI
l'J.15
STANDARD DEVIATIONS . '
VARI 11= 10.89. VARI 2)='
VARI 5)= 2.63
SIMPLE COKRELATION COEFFICIENTS
VARSI i,' 11= i.ooo, VARSI -i.
VARil 1, 5)= • -0-.639
VARSI 2. 21= V.OOO, VARSI 2.
VARj( 3..JI- 1.000,, VARSI 3,
VARSI 4, 4)= 1.000, VARST 4,
2.02, VARI 3)=
0.03, VARI 3)=-
.10, VAkl 41 = 6.73,
20.60. VARI <»)= l.C'>,
3>=
4) =
-0..151, VARSI 1, 31 =
«•> =
5) =
-O..J43, VftRSI 2
-O.J'»9, VAli! 3
-0.1.25
STEP NUMBER 1 ENTER VAKIABLE . 1
STA'NOARO DEVIATION DF RESIDUALS* . 2.035
SID-. OEV. AS PERCENT OF RtSPOMSt MFAN =
PERCENT VARIAIIUM-EXPLAINED R-SU--
CbRREITED R-SCi AS A PtRCFnT* 4U.17V
CUOUHfcSb dF FIT OR JVERALL F,FI 1,100)= 6M.O"1')
CU!IST'iN-T
1
STO DtV T VALUk
COfcFF
-0.15<<24667 O.OIdr<9200 -I
3
0.731
STEP NUMBcR 2 ENTER VARIABLE
STANDARD DEVIATION OF RESIDUALS'
STD. UFV. AS PERCENT UF 'RESPONSE MFAN=
PtRlEliT VARIATION EXPLAINED R-Sil= 92.429
CORKECTfcO R-SO AS A PERCENT* 92.276
COOuNtSS OF FIT OR OVERALL F,F( 2, 99)- 6(N.<:7V
CONSTANT TERH= • 31.33476633
VAR
1
3
COfcFF
-0.37124920
0.14693015
STD DEV
COcFF
0.0106932*.
0.00565334
T VALUt
-3',. 718133/1
2b.98997190
STEP NUHBER 3 ENTER VARIABLE
STANDARD DEVIATION DF RESIDUALS*
STD. OEV. Ai PERCENT OF RESPONSE MEAtl=
PERCENT VARIATION EXPLAINED R-SQ=
CORRECTED R-SU AS A PERC.ENT-
2
0.655
3.421
93.984
93.800
GOODNESS OF FIT OR OVERALL F.FI 3, 98)* 510.563
CONSTANT TERM* 10.91538628
VAR
1
COEFF
-0.37433505
STO OEV
COEFF
0.009599&2
T VALUE
-36.9947rt968
0.781, VARSI 1. <»>=
-0.059, VARil 2« !>)=
-O.ODO
-0.07/J,
0.&73
-------
10.12919181
0.15120436
2.01202057
C.00517202
5.03*33909
STEP NUMBER 4 ENTER VARIABLE
STANDARD LEVIATION OF RtS10UALS=
STD. DEV. AS PEkChNT UF RESPONSE MEAJJ*
PERCENT VARIATIUfl EXPLAINED R-SC= '
CuRRECTED R-SQ AS A PfcRC£KT=
CUOONhSS OF FIT CR OVERALL F,FI 4, 97)=
CONSTANT TERM* io.5ist635o
<.
0.654
3.M'.
9<*.070
VAR
i
2
3
CCtFF
-0.37&I2922
.1U.08J00917
0.15^07700
0.07^06931
STD OEV
CObFF
0.00060?
T VALUE
1.1111 /
uolllS
ro
VJl
------- |