The City collects garbage weekly from 600,000 households along 350 daily routes. The City has long organized garbage collection services on a ward-by-ward basis. The City assigns the laborers and motor truck drivers who collect garbage in individual wards, where they work on truck routes that do not cross ward boundaries.
However, the City’s recycling pickup is organized based on a regional routing system that does not take into account ward boundaries.
Under this option, the City would shift its garbage collection to a regional, grid-based system. By comparing the efficiency of recycling collection with garbage collection, we can estimate what efficiencies might be achieved through a regional, grid-based system of garbage collection.
According to the City’s Mobile Asset Tracking system (CMAT), the City currently has 43 recycling trucks. Assuming that these trucks are all continually operational, the City is providing recycling services to 241,000 households every other week using 43 daily routes.36 The table below compares the difference in annual pickups per daily route of garbage collection and recycling.
The table shows that recycling collection, which uses regional routing, averages significantly more pickups per route than garbage collection, which uses the ward system.
This is despite the fact that recycling trucks only have one laborer assigned, while some garbage trucks have two. However, garbage collection averages nearly 11 tons collected per daily route per day, while recycling collection averages only 4.65 tons per daily route per day.
Because garbage collection is collecting significantly more tonnage per route, workers spend less time collecting because the trucks must make more frequent trips to dump their loads.
In 2008, the average load dumped at City-owned dumpsites was 6.65 tons. Based on the average tons collected per route per day, garbage collection averages 1.65 loads per day and recycling averages 0.7 loads per day.
For simplicity, assume that garbage collection dumps two loads per day and recycling dumps one load per day, and one load in each program is dumped after the 8-hour collection shift is over through the City’s night shuttle program.
Under these assumptions, garbage collection is interrupted by one dump during the 8-hour collection shift, while recycling collection is not. Assuming an average dump takes 1.5 hours, garbage is collected an average of 6.5 hours per route per day, while recycling is collected for the full 8-hour collection shift.
The table below compares the estimated pickups per hour for garbage and recycling collection and shows that recycling collection using regional routing is more efficient in terms of pickups per hour than garbage collection based on the ward system.
If garbage collection averaged the same number of pickups per hour as recycling collection, the number of daily routes could be reduced to 264, or a 24.6% reduction.
Assuming that a 24.6% reduction in routes would yield a 24.6% reduction in staffing devoted to garbage collection, the table below details the reduction in personnel and associated personnel costs that would be realized.
The table shows that if the City were to move to a grid-based routing system for garbage collection and achieve the same efficiency that the regional routing of recycling is currently achieving, the City might reduce its 2010 personnel costs by up to $24.1 million through the elimination of up to 297 positions.
Because of contractual increases in personnel costs, the savings from implementing this option would grow in future years.
The 2011 and 2012 salaries of Laborers and Motor Truck Drivers will be higher due to collective bargaining agreements, which call for salary increases of 3.25% in 2011 and 3.5% in 2012.
Assuming that there are no increases in salaries for the other positions and that the furloughs are continued in their current form, the table below shows the increase in compensation costs over the next two years for the 297 eliminated positions.
In addition to the savings from a reduction in the number of daily routes, additional savings could be generated by reducing the number of laborers on the remaining routes to one laborer per truck.
With 264 daily routes, operating approximately 250 days a year, there are approximately 66,000 annual routes. Assuming that the average sanitation worker works 200 days per year (after holidays, vacation days, and sick and disability leave) to ensure that there would be a sufficient reserve to avoid un-staffed routes, 330 sanitation laborers would be needed to fully staff the 66,000 routes.
This would mean an additional reduction in the number of laborers by 122. At an average compensation of $75,579, their total compensation in 2010 would equal $9.2 million.
The 2011 and 2012 compensation will be higher due to the Laborers collective bargaining agreement, which calls for a salary increase of 3.25% in 2011 and 3.5% in 2012. Assuming that the furloughs remain in place, the compensation for these 122 positions will cost $9.5 million in 2011 and $9.8 million in 2012.
These savings will be slightly reduced because under the current collective bargaining agreement with the Laborers Union, sanitation laborers working on one-laborer garbage trucks are to be paid 9 percent more than their regular hourly rate.
Thus, the reduction in 122 laborers would on average result in 122 additional laborers working on a one-laborer garbage truck, resulting in a 9 percent increase in their salaries. This would cost an additional $856,000 in 2011 and $885,000 in 2012.
Additionally, under the agreement between the City and Coalition of Union Public Employees (COUPE) to impose furlough days from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2011, if the City chooses to lay off employees during this period, all laid off employees will be paid for any unpaid holidays or furlough days taken since July 1, 2009.
Thus, if the City were to lay off the 269 total sanitation laborers and 110 motor truck drivers, the affected employees would have to be paid approximately 13.5 percent of their salaries to compensate for unpaid days they have taken over the last year and a half, since the furlough agreement has been in place. This would reduce the savings in 2011 by an additional $3.8 million.
Therefore, the total estimated savings from switching to regional routing system of garbage collection and reducing the number of laborers on the remaining routes to 1 would be $29.6 million in 2011 and $34.5 million in 2012.
Of course, there would be additional savings from reducing the City’s fleet of garbage trucks such as savings in future truck purchases, maintenance costs, gas, oil, etc.
Proponents might argue that organizing garbage collection on a ward-by-ward basis is inefficient and wasteful. They would argue that organizing collection by regional grid would reduce the time it takes for workers to get from the ward yard to the routes and routes could be organized to reduce the distance from route to dumpsite.
They may also cite an IGO investigation in 2008 that found that garbage collection crews worked, on average, only 75 percent of the work day, indicating that there was not enough work for the collection crews to perform. Additionally, they might cite the fact that Streets and Sanitation decided to organize recycling collection on a regional, grid-based system in order to deliver the service more cheaply.
Opponents might argue that ward-based system provides better customer service than a more centralized grid system.
With ward-by-ward service, City residents have a more direct relationship with the City workers who coordinate garbage collection in their neighborhoods. Some might also argue that garbage collection has long been a primary responsibility of the City’s aldermen and that this has resulted in cleaner streets, timelier pickups, and satisfied residents.
Reduce the Number of Laborers on a Garbage Truck to 1 Savings: $10.3 million in 2011, $12 million in 2012.
On some of the City’s garbage trucks, the City assigns two laborers and one motor truck driver.... These employees are responsible for the weekly collection of garbage from 600,000 households along 350 daily routes.
Until the last couple of years, the City generally assigned two laborers to each garbage truck. However, due to budget cuts, the City has reduced the number of budgeted sanitation laborers from 816 in 2008 to 599 in 2010. This reduction in laborers means that a significant portion of the 350 daily routes are manned by one laborer.
Under this option, the City would further reduce the number of laborers devoted to garbage collection, so that on average one laborer is assigned to each garbage truck.
With 350 daily routes, operating approximately 250 days a year, there are approximately 87,500 annual routes. Assuming that the average sanitation worker works 200 days per year (after holidays, vacation days, and sick and disability leave) to ensure that there would be a sufficient reserve to avoid un-staffed routes, 438 sanitation laborers would be needed to fully staff the 87,500 routes.
This means that the number of laborers could be reduced by approximately 161.50 At an average compensation of $75,579 their total compensation in 2010 would equal $12.2 million. The 2011 and 2012 compensation will be higher due to the Laborers collective bargaining agreement, which calls for a salary increase of 3.25% in 2011 and 3.5% in 2012. Assuming that the furloughs remain in place, the compensation for these 161 positions will cost $12.6 million in 2011 and $13 million in 2012.
These savings will be reduced because under the current collective bargaining agreement with the Laborers Union, sanitation laborers working on one-laborer garbage trucks are to be paid 9 percent more than their regular hourly rate.
Thus, the reduction in 161 laborers would on average result in 161 additional laborers working on a one-laborer garbage truck, resulting in a 9 percent increase in their salaries. This would cost an additional $934,000 in 2011 and $967,000 in 2012.
Finally, under the agreement between the City and Coalition of Union Public Employees (COUPE) to impose furlough days from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2011, if the City chooses to lay off employees during this period, all laid off employees will be paid for any unpaid holidays or furlough days taken since July 1, 2009.
Thus, if the City were to lay off 161 laborers, the affected laborers would have to be paid approximately 13.5 percent of their salaries to compensate for unpaid days they have taken over the last year and a half, since the furlough agreement has been in place. This would reduce the savings in 2011 by an additional $1.36 million.
After subtracting the reduced savings due to the increased pay for 1-person garbage trucks and the furlough payback provision, the savings from implementing this option would be approximately $10.3 million in 2011 and $12 million in 2012.
Proponents might argue that the City no longer needs two laborers on a garbage truck because the trucks are now semi-automated, meaning garbage carts are lifted and dumped by a mechanism on the back of the trucks.
They may also cite an IGO investigation in 2008 that found that garbage collection crews worked, on average, only 75 percent of the work day, indicating that there was not enough work for the collection crews to perform.
Others might argue that few cities have three staff assigned to each garbage truck. According to 2008 data from the International City/County Management Association’s (ICMA), among the six jurisdictions with over 500,000 people which submitted data only one (San Antonio) had 3 staff per garbage vehicle, and this is likely because collection is done manually.
The other five jurisdictions (Phoenix, Miami-Dade County, Dallas, Austin, and Oklahoma City) all had 1 person per vehicle and automated or semi-automated collection.
Opponents might argue that reducing the number of laborers to one on all garbage trucks would reduce the quality of collection service in the City. They would argue that reducing the number of laborers could result in less frequent service as it takes trucks longer to perform their routes.
Additionally, others might argue that in addition to their collection responsibilities, laborers sweep alleys, pick up trash, or remove street-sweeping signs. Reducing the number of laborers would mean a reduction in these services.
Simple. Organize the wards on a grid system, rather than gerrymandered as they are now. Makes the garbage collection more efficient, while keeping it in the hands of the aldermen.
The trucks on the Far North Side are picking up less garbage than a year ago.
I know this because while they're leaving the garage on Ravenswood Ave. at the same time every morning, they're coming back for the day way before they used to. Now they return as early as 2 PM, while a year ago it was at 3 PM. All the workers cars are gone by 3 PM now, it used to take until 4 PM last year.
The only explanation for the ward by ward system appears to be the very least paragraph which to me seems pretty flimsy. How are the residents' or aldermen's relationships with the city workers stronger if they don't cross ward boundaries on any given day? They still have to pick up their garbage every week? I don't get that at all.
---I also found it interesting that the city apparently picks up about twice the tonnage of trash than it does recycling. In the superboonies where I live, the ratio is more than twice the opposite. We have two wheeled containers for each house; one for recycling, and a somewhat larger one for trash. We fill the recycling container each week, and the trash container has a few things in the bottom of it; some garbage, contaminated paper not suitable for recycling, used facial tissues, the occasional diaper when the grandchildren come visiting. The city's ratio is possibly a residuum of the blue bag program; people just aren't used to a serious recycling program yet.
And oh yes: the collection trucks have a claw on the side that picks up the container, upends it and dumps it. One man per truck, and he never has to get out.
Cut down on high absenteeism while you're at it.
I lived in Chicago until 1975 and knew that if you wanted to guarantee that the old loveseat or refrigerator that you hauled out to your alley were to be picked up it was a good idea to meet the garbage truck with maybe a cold six pack in a brown bag or possibly a $5 bill discreetly passed to the driver. Actually, you could give it to any one of the three or four 'workers' who either drove, rode on the back of, or walked along behind, the truck. Since then I've lived in the suburbs (Alsip, Justice, Worth, Lockport) and have enjoyed simple, cost effective trash collection by various private refuse companies. I have never, in more than 35 years, had to call to complain about the service I've received. This includes picking up couchs, freezers, construction waste or trees. If there's a holiday, flood, blizzard or any other form of delay they're there the day after the normal pick-up day, never later. The most amazing part is, all of this is done by one worker, and has been for the last 20 years. So, until somebody in city government grows a pair and finally decides to attack the real problem, this totally wasteful practice will continue.