Although the automobile equipment has not been in use long, experience has shown that it is both efficient and economical, particularly in the larger cities.
Disposal of Street Refuse
In most cities the final disposal of sweepings and waste collected from the streets is a troublesome problem, and the cost is no small item in the expenses of the street cleaning department. The majority dispose of the sweepings on city dumps. A few cities are able to dispose of a part of the sweepings from paved streets to farmers and gardeners in the near vicinity on terms that repay at least a part of the cost that would otherwise have to be incurred, but the expense of handling and transporting the material to any considerable distance and its great bulk compared with its commercial value as a fertilizer place a limit on its disposal in this way. Nevertheless, it should be possible in the smaller cities at least to interest farmers and gardeners in the use of this material to a greater extent than is now common and to dispose thus of the sweepings at a price that would reduce the cost of disposal otherwise. The use of street refuse for filling low ground or reclaiming areas of shallow water and marshes has not been so seriously considered as it should be.
In some cities the street dirt is used as a fill between sidewalks and curb or in low alleys and vacant lots which are adjacent to the streets cleaned.
In other cities where the so-called “short haul” system is used, the street dirt is collected from stations at which the street sweepers deposit it, for filling purposes within the ward. The haul seldom exceeds three-quarters of a mile. One mile has been used as a standard for short hauls within wards.
Relative Cost of Street Cleaning
Most experts agree that little can be gained by comparing unit costs in different cities as local conditions and prices paid for labor, etc., vary so widely. Another reason is the lack of uniformity in standards and records maintained in the various cities. And still another reason is the varying standards of cleanliness. Very few cities in considering the sum to be appropriated first determine the standard of cleanliness to be attained. An investigation conducted by the United States Bureau of Census indicated that the unit cost of street cleaning in cities having less than 300,000 inhabitants is less than that in cities having over 300,000.
When the many different methods of record and cost keeping are considered as well as the difficulties encountered in obtaining accurate information as to conditions and methods used in the cleaning of streets, the reasons for these differences are apparent.
The Municipal Journal in January, 1915, printed a table which shows that the average number of cleanings per year in thirty-one of the largest cities was 156, varying from 37½ to 300. The cubic yards of sweepings per year per thousand square yards of street area averaged 20.5, varying from 5.7 to 48; the latter being in Boston and nearly four times that reported from Washington. The average amount of sweepings collected at each cleaning was 191 cubic yards per million square yards cleaned, varying from 32 to 440. The cost per thousand square yards of cleaning done averaged 35½ cents, varying from 14 cents to $1.53. The cost per cubic yard of sweepings averaged $2.70, varying from 79 cents to $8.75.
| Table I (a) | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| STREET CLEANING IN AMERICAN CITIES | ||||||||||||||
| Name of City | Population | Miles of Streets Swept per Year | Area in Square Yards Subject to Cleaning | |||||||||||
| Hand Sweeping | Machine Sweeping | |||||||||||||
| By Hand | By Machine | Total | Smooth | Rough | Macadam | Total | Smooth and Rough | Smooth | Rough | Macadam | Total | Smooth and Rough | ||
| Buffalo, N. Y. | 461,335 | 9,600 | 34,000 | 749,600 | 7,964,500 | |||||||||
| Beacon, N. Y. | 10,165 | 1.5 | 26,400 | |||||||||||
| Binghamton, N. Y. | 53,000 | 2 | 25.6 | 27.6 | 114,829 | |||||||||
| Cincinnati, Ohio | 402,175 | 20,112 | 10[[1]] | 254,951 | ||||||||||
| Cambridge, Mass. | 110,000 | 15 | 108.5 | 350,000 | 1,250,000 | |||||||||
| Chicago, Ill. | 2,200,000 | 4,674,396,308 S.Y. | 12,039,859 S.Y. | 19,841,482 | 7,551,053 | 6,605,237 | ||||||||
| Camden, N. J. | 95,000 | 2,249,314 | ||||||||||||
| Columbus, Ohio | 220,000 | |||||||||||||
| Cleveland, Ohio | 561,000 | |||||||||||||
| Cortland, N. Y. | 13,000 | 6 | ||||||||||||
| Dunkirk, N. Y. | 17,870 | 26 | ||||||||||||
| Denver, Col. | 245,523 | 102,501,230 S.Y. | 215,046,848 S.Y. | |||||||||||
| Elmira, N. Y. | 40,093 | 20,672 | 41,000 | |||||||||||
| Fall River, Mass. | 124,791 | |||||||||||||
| Grand Rapids, Mich. | 131,000 | |||||||||||||
| Hudson, N. Y. | 13,000 | 21.5 | ||||||||||||
| Jamestown, N. Y. | 38,000 | 1 | 30 | |||||||||||
| Kansas City, Mo. | 319,000 | 462.65[[2]] | ||||||||||||
| Kingston, N. Y. | 27,000 | 4 | ||||||||||||
| Los Angeles, Cal. | 550,000 | 333 | 9,150,000 | |||||||||||
| Louisville, Ky. | 224,000 | 8,331 | ||||||||||||
| Lowell, Mass. | 106,294 | |||||||||||||
| Lynn, Mass. | 96,000 | 35 | ||||||||||||
| Lackawanna, N. Y. | 17,500 | 5.5 | ||||||||||||
| Little Falls, N. Y. | 13,000 | 6 | 74,000 | 5,000 | 3,000 | |||||||||
| Milwaukee, Wis. | 450,000 | 82 | 252.5 | 1,600,170 | ||||||||||
| Middletown, N. Y. | 18,000 | 4.2 | 88,235 | |||||||||||
| Mechanicville, N. Y. | 8,208 | 5. | ||||||||||||
| New York City (Manhattan, Bronx & Brooklyn) | 4,551,860 | 1,487 | 28,429,785 | 10,391,283 | ||||||||||
| New Orleans, La. | 400,000 | |||||||||||||
| New Bedford, Mass. | 111,000 | |||||||||||||
| Newark, N. J. | 370,000 | |||||||||||||
| Norwich, N. Y. | 8,500 | 6 | ||||||||||||
| New Rochelle, N. Y. | 35,500 | 58 | 4.67 Mi. | 47.1 Mi. | 6.3 Mi. | 25,000 | ||||||||
| Niagara Falls, N. Y. | 45,000 | 400 | ||||||||||||
| Newburgh, N. Y. | 27,876 | |||||||||||||
| Oakland, Cal. | 215,000 | 4,128 | 5,160 | 7,333,000 | 180,800 | 187,851 | ||||||||
| Oswego, N. Y. | 24,000 | 90 | 412,866 | 778,374 | ||||||||||
| Ogdensburg, N. Y. | 14,388 | 1–3 | 10 | |||||||||||
| Philadelphia, Pa. | 1,800,000 | 461 | 1,165 | 750,139 | 3,835,217 | |||||||||
| Providence, R. I. | 248,000 | |||||||||||||
| Rochester, N. Y. | 248,465 | 258,171 | ||||||||||||
| Rensselaer, N. Y. | 11,112 | |||||||||||||
| Reading, Pa. | 110,000 | 209,659 squares | ||||||||||||
| Richmond, Va. | 160,000 | 56,820,400 | 208,031,600 | |||||||||||
| St. Louis, Mo. | 835,000 | 405 | ||||||||||||
| San Francisco, Cal. | 500,000 | 460 | 525,105,551 | 65,228,812 | ||||||||||
| Salt Lake City, Utah | 120,000 | 30 | 54 | |||||||||||
| Springfield, Mass. | 102,971 | |||||||||||||
| Seattle, Wash. | 238,000 | 3,521,624 | 12,324,340 | |||||||||||
| Scranton, Pa. | 130,000 | |||||||||||||
| Troy, N. Y. | 76,000 | 40.89 | 727,112 | 53,542 | ||||||||||
| Utica, N. Y. | 85,000 | ½ sq. mi. daily. | ||||||||||||
| Washington, D. C. | 360,000 | 1,513,562 | 3,682,766 | 1,584,524 | ||||||||||