INTRODUCTION
Never in the history of our country has the work of the public official demanded so much of him as now. The expansion and increasing complexity of municipal activities, the desire of women for more knowledge about their new responsibilities, the need for better living conditions brought about by greater congestion, the necessity for conserving every ounce of man and woman power, the demand for greater efficiency and rock-bottom economy in every line—all these conditions are making themselves felt with the public official.
The time when public office was held by the grace of God and the majority of votes has become almost a thing of the past. The official’s worth now is not measured by his good-fellowship and vote-getting capacity, but rather by his ability to produce results—not at the polls on Election Day, but in the City Hall every day.
Because municipal government is closer to the people and affects them in more ways than the government of any other political subdivision, and also because our citizens are now taking a keener interest than ever before in community work, it is to-day almost useless for a public official to attempt to escape responsibility or to excuse his shortcomings. He must be efficient and constantly apply his efficiency.
I believe that most of our urban citizens appreciate the importance of keeping our cities clean and healthful by the proper removal and disposal of the mass of wastes that accumulates daily. I know that every public official appreciates the need for this service, and most of them by bitter experiences realize the complexity of these problems.
To equip himself to do his difficult duty as he should, the public official must be able to acquaint himself thoroughly with the best methods, experiences and opinions of others. “Municipal Housecleaning” goes into all of the matters pertaining to the collection, care and removal of municipal wastes. It should be of the greatest value in assisting public officials—mayors, engineers, sanitarians and members of health, street cleaning, public works and sewer departments—to select the systems best adapted to local conditions and to operate them efficiently. We officials in New York State have found this information to be of inestimable value in solving our problems.
But no municipal effort can succeed without the cooperation of the citizen. He can help most by informing himself on these problems so that he can intelligently participate in the cooperative community effort to keep clean, and if need be, to offer constructive criticism. If the citizen—and particularly the woman, for it is her intelligent cooperation that will make for more effective service—will read this book, it will be easier for us to obtain in America what the authors have so aptly referred to as “better places in which to live, work and play.”
Cornelius F. Burns,
President New York State Conference
of Mayors and other City Officials.
STREET CLEANING
SYSTEMS AND APPARATUS USED IN AMERICAN CITIES—METHODS OF REDUCING LITTER—COST DATA.
In establishing or rearranging its street cleaning system, every city must consider the problem from three angles: (1) Cheapest method of cleaning pavement; (2) Method of reducing litter; (3) Paving policy with a view to saving cost of cleaning.
The proper solution of each one of these problems will materially reduce the cost.
In outlining a program for a street cleaning department the following elements must be known and carefully considered:
(1) Kind of and state of repair of pavement. (2) Traffic to which they are subjected. (3) Facilities for disposing of street sweepings. (4) Climatic peculiarities. (5) Degree of cleanliness it is desired or expected to maintain. (6) Miscellaneous local circumstances.
Mr. S. Whinery, Consulting Engineer, says that in most cities the data afforded by local past experience and results, furnish the best basis for future projects and programs. Unfortunately few cities have records of these. The head of the department usually relies upon his own memory or that of his predecessor. While the methods followed and results obtained in other cities may and should be studied, it must be borne in mind that it is not safe to base conclusions upon such data without a full knowledge and careful consideration of all facts and conditions affecting them. This is particularly true of reported cost data, for in addition to differing physical conditions, it is unfortunately true that the present methods of accounting in many street cleaning departments make it next to impossible to ascertain the actual or relative unit cost of the various details of the work, and intelligently to compare results in one city with those in another. The experience of the New York State Bureau of Municipal Information in seeking data from the fifty largest American and all New York State cities provides ample proof of this condition. Fifty were able to give some data, but of these only a few had any accurate and detailed cost statistics.
The relative amount of dirt from the different sources of dust depends on the character of construction and condition of street surface, amount and character of traffic, character of neighborhood and people in the neighborhood, and street railway tracks.
Street dirt is divided into two general classes: (a) Natural, and therefore unavoidable, and (b) that due to carelessness and therefore avoidable. In the first class are dust from the air, and dirt coming from the wear of pavements, vehicles, tires and horses’ shoes; excrement of animals, dirt and sand which work up through the joints of pavements, laid on earth or sand foundations and having sand or gravel joints; dirt brought in from adjacent unpaved or macadam streets, and leaves from shade trees. In the second class are soot, refuse swept from sidewalks, thrown from buildings and discarded by pedestrians, dirt dropped from overloaded vehicles and débris from construction operations.
The real duty of the street cleaning department is the removal of the first class, but in doing so it is compelled also to sweep up and cart away the material in the second class. In order to reduce its operations as much as possible, it must, therefore, in cooperation with the police and health authorities do everything it can to prevent the accumulation of the avoidable material by enforcing ordinances and through the cooperation of the public in general.