r I r' f l f c I: t;. L 266v. fiAfiCt!:Os B 4298S5.. q i,)) -' '.N5 ^*i REPORT OF Commission on Street Cleaning AND Waste Disposal THE CITY OF NEW YORK 1907 COMMISSIONERS: H. de B. PARSONS RUDOLPH HERING SAMUEL WHINERY 0 5 -i. o*:; ~:t r I "A r c.: ~~: 1' " a:"a iIj —. L::I " | a RECEIVED IN EXOHANGE X FROM University of Chicago = ~51 =| |ll1I1]llIIITl HI II[1f ilffm 1 TTII!L~liI11 flflIII Illi i fiItffII I IAl~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , - i *- a., t,o A L \qk5 REPORT OF Commission on Street Cleaning AND Waste Disposal THE CITY OF NEW YORK 1907 COMMISSIONERS: H. de B. PARSONS RUDOLPH HERING SAMUEL WHINERY. FEB 8 1919 MARTIN B. BROWN 6 PRESS Y NEV YORK UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LIBRARIES 266892 MARCH 1930 CONTENTS. PAGE, L etter of T ransm ission..................................................... I L etter of A pp )ointm ent............................................ I Organization and Outline of \ork\.................................... 4 T. B orotugh Characteristics............................................... 5 II. Departmlents for City Cleani...................................... 6 III. Classification of City Refu.se......................................... 7 IV. Q uantities of R efuse.................................................. 8 V. Street Cleani ng....................................................... 42 Sources of Street Dirt-............................................. 44 Animal Excrement........................................... 45 Refuse Swept or Thrown upon the Streets from Buildings.... 45 Refuse Thrown upon the Streets by ThoIse Using Them...... 45 Refuse Spilled from Passing Vehicles.......................... 45 Detritus from Wear of Pavement............................. 45 Soot and Dust from the Air.................................. 45 M iscellaneous Special Sources................................ 45 Forms in which Street Dirt Appears on the Streets............... 46 Composition of Street Sweepings.................................. 48 Volume and Weight of Street Sweepings........................... 49 M ethods and Cost of Street Cleaning.............................. 50 M achine Sw eeping............................................ 50 Hand Sweeping.52 H and S wee ping............................................... 52 S treet F lushing................................................ 53 F lushing M achines............................................ 56 Summary................................................... 59 C om bined \Iethods............................................. 59 Street Sprinkling............................................. 59 Conditions which Affect the Cost of Street Cleaning and Their Con-,trol...................................................... 60 Relative Cost of Cleaning Different Kinds of Pavement........ 6I Condition of R epair........................................... 63 iv IINDEX. PAGE Litter Thrown upon the Streets.............................. 65 The Pushcart N uisance........................................ 68 V olum e of Travel............................................. 70 W ages....................................................... 7 Other Conditions Affecting the Cost of Street Cleaning........ 7 Comparative Cost of Street Cleaning in Different Cities.......... 7 Proposed General Plan for Street Cleaning in New York.......... 72 Cleaning the Different Sections of the City........................ 79 Details of Street Flushing..................................... 80 Cost of Water Used........................................... 80 Proper Equipm ent............................................. 81 Additional Recommendations...................................... 8I Miscellaneous Street Littering............................ 8I Permits to Builders and Building Contractors............... 8I Street Litter from Pavement and Underground Repairs...... 82 Pavements Should Be Kept in Good Repair................... 82 Machine Sweeping........................................... 83 More Thorough Cleaning.................................... 83 Working Sweepers in Gangs.................................. 83 Storage Bins for Sweepings.................................. 83 Leaving Street Sweepings in Gutters.......................... 84 V I. Snow R em oval....................................................... 84 VII. Reduction and Incineration............................................ 94 R eduction...................................................... 94 Incineration..................................... 95 Fuel Value of Refuse.................................... 97 VIII. Final Disposition............................................ 98 Present System for Final Disposition........................... 98 Final Disposition of Street Sweepings............................ 99 D um ping at Sea................................................... 00 Present Land Fills...................................... IOI Sorting R ubbish.................................................. IOI Reduction........................................................ Io2 Dead Animals.................................................... I2 Private Disposal of Garbage...................................... I02 Incineration.......................................10.......... 3 Transportation................................................. 103 Lands'Available for Filling.................................. I04 IX. Collections...................................................... 105 X. Pier Dumps and Receiving Stations.................................. o6 IND1EX. V PAGE XI. Present Organizations and \Vork of Street Cleaning.................. I09 Territorial Control............................................. Io9 Organization............................................... IIO Labor Force of the Department................................... Io Laxity of Discipline in the Department............................ Political Influence................................................. II2 Method of Employing Men........................................ II3 System of Paying the Men........................................ 13 Light Work in Summer........................................... 114 XII. Plant and Equipment of the Department.............................. I14 Stables.......................................................... 114 Cost of Maintaining Horses...................................... 118 Scows........................................................... I24 Partial Inventory................................................ I25 X III. Co-operation.......................................... 125 XIV. Accounting and Cost Keeping......................................... 126 Appropriations and Expenditures................................. 127 XV. Resume and Recommendations...................................... 133 LIST OF APPENDICES. A. Observations on Street Cleaning in Foreign Cities...................... 149 B. Weight of Garbage, Ashes and Rubbish.................................. 84 C. Original Work.......................................................... Io9 D. Letter of the Corporation Counsel on Ordinances......................... 210 E. Relative Difficulties of Cleaning Streets.................................. 228 F. Statistics Relating to Horses and Stables................................ 230 G. Letter of the Corporation Counsel on City Ownership of Land.......... 232 H. Recapitulation of Costs, etc............................................. 234 J. Collections at Dumps in Cartloads, I906................... 236 K. Percentage of Street Sweepings in Total Collection of Ashes and Street Sweepings........................................................... 237 L. D eck Scow s............................................................. 240 LIST OF FIGURES. Figures I., II. and III. Monthly Variation of Refuse, Manhattan and The B ronx.................................................................. 15-20 Figures IV., V. and VI. Monthly Variation of Refuse, Brooklyn........... 21-24 Figures VII. and VIII. Monthly Variation of Refuse, Queens........... 25,26 Figures IX., X. and XI. Monthly Variation of Refuse, Richmond...........27-30 Figure XII. Record of Snow Removal by Contract.......................... 87 Figure XIII. Proposed Scheme for Final Disposition of Refuse.............. I43 VI INDEX. LIST 01F TABLES. PAGE I. Borough Areas and Populations.................................... 6 II. Quantities of Refuse, The City of New York........................ 9 III. Average W eights of Refuse......................................... 4 IV. Weight of Refuse Per Capita, Mlanhattan........................... 31 V. Weight of Refuse Per Capita, The Bronx........................... 33 VI. Weight of Refuse Per Capita, Brooklyn............................. 35 VII. Weight of Refuse Per Capita, Queens............................... 37 VIII. Weight of Refuse Per Capita, Richmond............................ 39 IX. Weight of Refuse Per Capita, All Boroughs........................ 41 X. Mileage of Different Kinds of Pavements............................ 43 XI, Square Yards of Different Kinds of Paveents...................... 44 XII. Weather Conditions and Cost of Snow Removal...................... 89 XIII. Snow Removal in "Cubic Yards as Recorded"....................... 89 XIV. Final Disposition of Refuse......................................... 98 XV. List of Pier Dumps................................................ I07 XVI. Variation in Last Ten Years of Street Cleaning Force.............. 9 XVII. List of Officials and Employees.............................Io XVIII. Rental of Stables. Total Rental and Rent Per Horse, 96........... II7 XIX. Cost of Keeping Horses, I9o6...................................... 20 XX. Cost of Keeping Horses, 99o6...................................... 122 XXI. Number of Employees and Horses in Stables, 1907.................. 23 XXII. Partial Inventory of Apparatus..................................... 25 XXIII. Expenditures, I906, Manhattan and The Bronx...................... 28 XXIV. Expenditures, I906, Brooklyn........................................ 131 XXV. Appropriations, I906, Queens........................................ 33 XXVI. Expenditures, I9o6, Richmond....................................... 33 REPORT OF THE Commission on Street Cleaning and Waste Disposal, THE CITY OF NEW YORK. Cotn mmissiotnersH. DE B. PARSONS, RUDOLPIH HERING, SAMUEL WHINERY. December 31, 1907. Hon. GEORGE B. MCCLELLAN, Mlayor, Tie City of New York: SIRm-We herewith submit our report on Street Cleaning and Waste Disposal. Yours respectfully, H. DE B. PARSONS, RUDOLPH HERING, S. WHINERY. Letter of Appointment. Identical letters of appointment were received by-each member of the Commission, and separate acknowledgements were sent accepting the appointments. The letters of appointment, with their enclosure, read as follows: CITY OF NEW YORK, ' OFFICE OF THE MAYOR. June II, I907. J DEAR STR-It is my intention to appoint a commission of three engineers to investigate and report to me, at the earliest possible date, on an improved and more effective system of street cleaning and waste disposal, than the one now in operation. I particularly desire to have the methods, in other large municipalities studied, with a view of applying to our own city such improvements as have been made. It is impossible, with the demands on him at present, for the -Street Cleaning Commissioner to give the necessary time and attention to this problem, and I have therefore determined to place tlie entire matter in the hands of a commission of experts.. 2 I shall greatly appreciate it if you will consent to become a member of this commission, and for your further information enclose a copy of a communication addressed by me to the Board of Estimate and Apportionment on the subject. The $Io,ooo requested for the expenses of this commission, was granted on Friday last, and is available at any time. Very truly yours, GEO. B. McCLELLAN, Mayor. (Copy.) June 5, I907. To the Board of Estimate and Apportionment: GENTLEMEN — respectfully request that your Honorable Board authorize the use of $Io,ooo of its contingent fund for the expenses of a commission of three engineers to investigate and report at an early date on an improved system of street cleaning and a better method of disposing of the City's waste. I have given careful study to the situation as it now exists, and am convinced that with the constant demands on the time of the Street Cleaning Commissioner, it is impossible for him or any other city official to devote the necessary time to studying the advances made in solving the problem in the other great cities of the world. There have been but slight superficial changes in the City's method of handling the street cleaning and waste disposal problems in a great many years, while distinct advances have been made in the mechanical handling of dirt and refuse by private concerns. As a matter of fact the one practical change since the Street Cleaning Department was a bureau of the Police Department, has been in uniforming the men and imbuing them with a better working spirit. The rapid growth of the city, resulting in constantly changing conditions, the worst tendency of which is toward congestion of population in certain localities, increased demands of commerce on the waterfront, and the use of the streets for transportation purposes, has made the adoption of some new and improved system imperative. The work of developing rapid transit and other railroad tunnels and terminals, the extensive changes now being made in the city's water supply pipes and the rapid changes in the character of buildings, necessitating the removal of old structures and the erection of modern business buildings, are all conditions of recent origin that need careful, expert consideration. The work below the surface of the streets, the magnitude of which is but little understood. has operated to greatly increase the task of the Street Cleaning Commissioner, and make even more necessary the services of engineers of character and experience for the formation of a plan which will not only deal with present needs but also allow fbr the city's future development. 3 Men of the necessary character and experience can only be secured in a consulting capacity and if your Honorable Board sees fit to authorize the expenditure it is my intention to invite the following gentlemen to take up this work: H. de B. Parsons, Esq., S. S. Whinery, Esq., and Rudolph Hering, Esq. Mr. Parsons has had a large experience in these matters, having given careful study to street cleaning conditions in the principal cities of the country. Mr. Hering is a man of international reputation in sanitary engineering work. Mr. Whinery has also had a wide experience and is at present a member of the Commission appointed to develop a scheme for the better care of the city's streets. Respectfully, (Signed) GEO. B. McCLELLAN, Mayor. / 4 REPORT OF THE Commission on Street Cleaning and Waste Disposal, THE CITY OF NEW YORK. Cot m m issio n crs — H. DE B; PARSONS, RUDOLPH HERING, SAMUEL WHINERY. IHon. GEORGE B. MCCLELLAN, M13ayor1, The City of New York: SIR-Pursuant to your instructions of June 1I, I907, we respectfully prcsent the following report on the subject of Street CLcaning and Waste Disposal for The City of New York. As soon as possible after our appointment we met, organized, and generally considered the problems. After formulating our ideas, we called upon you on June 17 and received from you verbal instructions more in detail than were conveyed in your letter of appointment. In accordance with your instructions then received we have included in our investigation the five boroughs, namely, Manhattan, The Bronx, Brooklyn, —Queens and Richmond, so that this report covers the conditions for fhe territory known as Greater New York. Since then we have held meetings, averaging about two a week. The subject matter was divided among the members of the Commission, who individually worked up the portions allotted to each, and at the meetings of the Commission reported their findings, which were considered and discussed. We have personally investigated the conditions whicl we found now existing as regards street sweeping and cleaning, and the collection of refuse, both from the streets and from buildings. We visited all the boroughs and studied the methods now in use for the removal and final disposition of the materials collected. We investigated the office records, and have collected data and statistics, the more important and accurate of which have been incorporated in or annexed to this report. We have done considerable original work in order to secure additional data for the subject of this report, such as the chemical analyses of garbage, ashes, rubbish and street sweepings, and a mechanical analysis of rubbish. The calorific value of garbage, ashes and street sweepings has also been obtained. We have also measured the amount of street sweepings collected per unit of area from different kinds of pavements, and also the amouint of sweepings left after the regular patrol sweeping. 5 We have also determined the unit weights for each of the classes of refuse. We made personal visits to other cities, particularly to Washington, Boston, Borough of Westlmount, Montreal, Cleveland, Chicago,' Toronto and Buffalo. These cities were selected because they had some special features of interest, and because of the methods and organizations which they had adopted. To this end, we have also communicated in writing with a numller of other cities in the United States, and with private parties, firms and corporations, whose business is more or less allied to the general subject of our studies. We have also communicated with the officials of foreign cities, among which may be named Berlin, Dresden, Hamburg, Vienna, Paris, Liverpool and Glasgow, from most of whom we have received replies which have been of aid to us, and some of the results so obtained we have used in making this report. Finally, we arranged with George A. Soper, Ph. D., who was going abroad on other matters, to obtain for us from European cities further information on the subject by personal invest-igation. A brief statement is given in Appendix A. All the information thus obtained from these various sources has been classified, studied and utilized to the extent which we deemed necessary for this report. The cleaning of the streets and the disposal of the refuse, in a sanitary manner and at a reasonable cost, is one of the most important of the many municipal problems which have to be met, particularly in thickly settled communities. Under our present form of government, where the municipal work is divided among departments and bureaus, there exists a complicated system which has been the outgrowth of many years. With the growth of the system there lhas been a constantly increasing want of co-operation between these departments. The practical result of this lack of co-operation has caused unnecessary expense to the City as a whole, which unfortunate result has been further magnified by the continual change of policy following each successive administration. The original work done by the Commission is recorded in Appendices B and C. I. Borough Characteristics. Greater New York, composed of five boroughs, covers a large territory of greatly varying character. Manhattan, formerly The City of New York, situated oll an island, is to-day almost completely built tip solid, with the exception of the parks and the extreme northern portion. There is, in consequence, practically no vacant land, and all the City refuse must be removed from the limits of this Borough. The Bronx comprises a territory which is in part built up and in part open country. The territory'also includes some marsh and meadow lands which offer opportunities for the disposal of waste for filling. 6 Brooklyn comprises a large territory of which a part is closely built up, but there is yet much open country. It also contains some marsh and meadow lands which will have to be filled in before they can be improved. Queens comprises an extensive territory of which only a very small part is built up; the remainder consists of open country, including large areas of meadow land, salt marshes and swamps. These latter will have to be filled in before they can be improved. Richmond comprises the territory known as Staten Island, most of which is hilly. A relatively small portion is built up, and the remainder is open country containing some low lands offering opportunities for filling. The areas and populations of the five boroughs are given in Table I. TABLE I. BOROUGH AREAS AND POPULATIONS. *Area in t Population. Boroughs. Square, - -I — Miles. I904. I905. 1906. Manhattan...................................... 22.00 2,060,041 2,112,528 2,I65,015 The Bronx....................................... 40.50 301,161 326,324 351,487 Brooklyn.................................... 77.50 1,349,129 1,394,766 1,440,403 Queerfs......................................... 130.00 o 99,359 210,949 222,539 Richmond...................................... 57.25 74,969 76,956 78,943 Greater New York.................. 327.25 3,984,659 4,I21,523 4,258,387 * From map attached to report of Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments, 1902. t Calculated from United States Census of 1900, using same rate of increase as between I890 and 1900. II. Departments for City Cleaning. The work of cleaning in the Boroughs of Manhattan, The Bronx and Brooklyn is performed by the Department of Street Cleaning, headed by a Commissioner appointed by ihe'Mayor for a term coincident with his own. The Commissioner appoints a Deputy Commissioner for each of the three boroughs. The work of the Department includes the sweeping of the streets, the collection of the street sweepings and of the garbage, ashes and rubbish, and the final disposition of all the materials collected. This final disposition also includes, with the exception of some garbage, the disposition of such of the material as is collected from the buildings by private enterprise and the material cleaned from the sewer catch basins, all of which is delivered to the Department dumps. The Department is also charged with the work of snow removal. 7 The work in the remaining Boroughs of Queens and Richmond is under the independent direction of the Borough Presidents, who are elected by the people, and who appoint Superintendents of their Bureaus of Street Cleaning. The work of these Bureaus is practically the same as that outlined above for the Borough of Manhattan, The Bronx and Brooklyn. The chief difference lies in the fact that in Queens and Richmond the whole work of cleaning, street construction, street repairs and building operations is under the immediate control of the Borough Presidents, who can therefore maintain co-operation between the Superintendents of the different, bureaus. In Manhattan, The Bronx and Brooklyn, on the other hand, the street construction, pavement repairs and building operations are under the exclusive control of the Borough Presidents, who, not being resoonsible to the Mayor, may not work in co-operation with the Commissioner of Street Cleaning and the other Commissioners appointed by the Mayor. III. Classification of City Refuse. The waste materials that are handled by the Department are garbage, ashes, rubbish, street sweepings, dead animals and snow.. In order to avoid misunderstanding with regard to these different kinds of City refuse, we shall first define what we mean by the respective terms. Refuse is a general term applied to City wastes, including garbage, ashes, rubbish, street sweepings, dead animals and snow. Garbage is animal, vegetable and food waste from kitchens, markets, slaughter houses and some manufactories. It is made up largely of water and putrescible organic matter. Ashes are the residue from the burning of fuel, together with such unconsumed fuel, cinder and clinker as are discarded with the ashes. Rubbish is discarded trash of a heterogeneous character produced in the household and from trade wastes, and which cannot be classified as garbage or ashes. It is usually free from or contains but a small percentage of water. It includes among other things discarded paper, old clothing, shoes, bedding, rags, wood, leather, furniture, boxes, barrels, empty cans, metal scrap, broken glass, bottles, crockery, etc. Street Sweepings are waste materials collected from the streets, roads and sidewalks. They often include some garbage ard ashes, and usually considerable quantities of refuse that should be classified as rubbish. Dead Animals-Under this name are included dead animals, mostly of the larger size, that are left upon the street. Snow, considered as City refuse, embraces the snow that falls naturally upon the streets or is throwd there from sidewalks, roofs and areas, together with the resulting ice and slush. 8 IV. Quantities of Refuse. The quantity of refuse collected varies with the season of the year. The seasons not only affect the quantity, but also the quality of refuse collected The garbage collections are greater during die summer than the winter, reaching a maxinmum during August and September, and a minimum in January and February. The ash collections are very much greater during the winter months, reaching a maximurn in March and a minimum in July and August. In some districts the ash collections in summer arc almost nil, on account of the houses being closed during the vacation period. The rubbish collections are more uniform than the others, being greatest in spring and autumn and least in winter. Street sweeping collections vary considerably, according to locality, and do not follow the same uniform variations as garbage, ashes or rubbish. They reach a maximum, generally speaking, shortly after the spring thaws, and are in a minimum during the winter months. The total refuse, excluding snow, collected by City and permit (private) carts in the year g9o6 from Greater New York amounterT to 3,249,445 cart loads, equivalent to 8,359,648 cubic yards, or 3,I59,I82 tons. These figures clearly show the immense amount of work which has to be done by the scavenging force of the City. Probably few realize the magnitude of this mass of refuse. One year's collections would make a mass, if piled in Bryant Park (area 22,548 square yards), 1,112 feet in height, or nearly twice as high as the tower of the Singer Building. It would fill the excavation for the Pennsylvania Railroad Terminal more than seven times. The quantities collected from each borough during the years 1904, I905 and I906 are given in Table II. In Manhattan, The Bronx and Brooklyn, where the ashes and street sweepings are collected together, the Commission estimated the division as shown in Appendix K. The summation of these two classes is the collection of ashes as recorded by the Department. The Department records are kept in numbers of cart loads delivered at the dumps. In Queens some of the carts used are not of the regular Department standard size, and such carts are recorded in the equivalent number of standard sized carts. The standard carts are in use in Manhattan, The Bronx and Brooklyn. In order to reduce the cart loads collected into cubic yards and tons, we found it necessary to adopt certain unit quantities, which were ascertained as follows: I. Manhattan-We weighed and measured a number of garbage, ash and rubbish cart loads, from which the average volume in cubic yards and the weight per cubic yard were determined. In the case of rubbish, certain figures obtained by F. W. 9 Stearns and by D. C. Johnson, in which we have every confidence, were also used in com~puting the general average. For street sweepings, ot wlinch the Department had no recordl, as the sweepings are collected with the ashecs, we weighed anvl nieasurcd 20o8 collection cans, from which thle weighit per cubic yard was determined-. 2. TFhe Bronx-The slane unit figures wvere adopted as for Manhattan. ~3. Brooklyn-The Department having 110 unit figures-, thle records of Captain Alexander R. Piper were used. Captain Piper is the operating head of tile American Railway and Tr aflic Com,,pany, which has thle contract fo-.r handling thle ash, rublbish and strect sweeping collections. For garbage, the unit figures used, for Manhattan were adopted. 4. Quecens —T1he lBureati of Street Cleaning llaving 110 unit ligures, the figures used for Manhattan were adopted. 5. Richm-ond-The Bureau of Sfreet Cleaning furnished the unit figures obtained fromn experiments. made' by J. T'. Tcetherston, Su'perintendent. The quantities are recorded in cubic yards, one and one-half cubic yards being one average load. These unit figures are given in Table Ill., and the details, from which this table was prepared, are gIVen-I in Appendix B. TABLE II. QUANTITIES OF REFUSE, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, YEARS 1904, 1905 AND i906. Garbage. 1904. 1905. igo6. Manhattan-Number of cart loads............ 207,446 230,603 230,697 The Bronx-Number of cart loads.1......... 6,802 19,374 20,633 B3rooklyn-Number of cart loads............. 90,331I 101,529 102,8223 Queens-Number of cart loads................. 13,i66 20,979 Richmord-Number of cart loads............... 12,740- 14,425 New York City................. 377,412 389,556 Ashes. 1904. 1905. 1906. Manhattan-Number of cart loads...........1i,184,072 I,241,040 1,323,#030 The Bronx-Number of cart loads............ 103,490 I1I3,637 11I4,558 B~rooklyn-Number Of cart loads............. 369,553 366,395 365,767 10 Ashes. 1904. I905. I906. Queens —Number of cart loads.............................. 41,841 55,717 Richmond-Number of cart loads............................ 22,675 24,602 New York City................................,785,588 i,883,674 Rubbish. I904. I905. 90o6. Manhattan-Number of cart loads................... 222,675 197,280 225,228 The Bronx-Number of cart loads.................... 15,368 I5,3II 16,997 Brooklyn-Number of cart loads...................... 96,731 115,804 112,711 Queens-Number of cart loads.............................. 7,189 12,959 Richmond-Number of cart loads........................... 6,500 10,444 New York City.............................. 342,084 378,339 Street Sweepings. 1904. I905. 1906. l'anhattan-Number of cart loads..................... 314,753 329,897 35I,69I The Bronx-Number of cart loads.................... 27,5I0 30,207 30,452 Brooklyn-Number of cart loads....................... 58,380 157,027 156,758 Queens-Number of cart loads.............................. 27,560 35,467 Richmond-Number of cart loads............................ 22,485 23,508 New York City................................ 567,176 597,876 Total Refuse... —.- - 1904. I905. 1906. Manhattan-Number of cart loads..................... 1,928,946 1,998,820 2,130,646 The Bronx-Number of cart loads.................... 163,170 I78,529 I82,640 Brooklyn-Number of cart loads...................... 7I4,995 740,755 738,058 Queens-Number of cart loads............................... 89,756 I25;122 Richmond-Number of cart loads............................ 64,400 72,979 New York City................................ 3,072,260 3,249,445 II Garbage. 1904. 1905. 1906. Manhattan-Volume in cubic yards.................... 383,775 426,616 426,784 The Bronx-Volume in cubic yards.................... 31,084 35,842 38,171 Brooklyn-Volume in cubic yards..................... 167,112 187,829 190,221 Queens-Volume in cubic yards...............................24,357 38,811 Richmond-Volume in cubic yards........................... 19, 110 2,638 New York (it................................. 693,754 715,625 Ashes. 1904. 1905. I906. Manhattan-Volume in cubic yards.................... 2,368,144 2,482,080 2,646,060 Tie Bronx-Volume in cubic yards.................... 206,980 227,274 229,116 Brooklyn-Volume in cubic yards.................... 739,106 732,790 731,534 Queens-Volume in cubic yards.......................... 83,682 11,434 Richmond —Volume in cubic yards...........................34,012 36,903 New York City................................ 3,559,838 3,755,047 _ ~ ~ _. _.. _ _ _.. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _.... - Rubbish. 1904. I905. I906. Manhattan-Volume in cubic yards.................... 1,627,754 1,442,117 1,646,417 The Bronx-Volume in cubic yards.................... 112,340 I 1,923 I24,248 Brooklyn-Volume in cubic yards..................... 707,104 846,527 823,917 Queens-Volume in cubic yards..........................52,552 94,730 Richmond-Volume in cubic yards........................... 9,750 15,666 New York City................................ 2,462,869 2,704,978. I.___ __, J 12 S:rcet Sw\ee;iings. 1904. 19)5. ioo6. Manhattan-Volume in cubic yards.................... 629,506 659,794 703,382 The Bronx-Volume in cubic yards.................... 55,020 60,414 6o,9o4 Brooklyn-Volume in cubic yards...................... 3 6,760 314,054 313,516 Queens-Volume ill cubic yards............................ 55,120 70,934 kichnlmond —\olume in cubic yar,'s........................... 33,728 35,262 New York City............................... 1,123.110 1,183,998 Total Refuse. 19:4. 19 5. 1936. Manhattan-Volllme in cubic yards.................... 5,009,179 5.o 10,607 5,422,643 The Bronx-Volume in cubic vards.................... 435,424 435,453 452,439 Brooklyn-Volume in cubic yarls...................... 1,930,082 2,081,200 2,059,188 Queens- Volume in cubic yards.............................. 215,71 i 315,929 Richmond-Volume in cubic yar(ds.......................... 96,600 109,469 New York City................................. 7.839,571 8,359,648 (;arlage. 1904. 1905. 1926. Manhattan- W eight in tons........................... 211,387 234,984 235,08) The Bronx-W-Neight in tons........................... I7,2I 19,723 21,025 Brooklyn-Weight in tolls......................... 92,047 103,458 104,776 Queens-Weight in tons..................................... 13,416 21,378 Richmond-Weight in tons.................................. 8,918 10,098 New York City........................... 380,499 392,357 Ashes. 1904. 1905. 1906. Manhattan-Weight in tons........................... 1,285,902 1,347,769 1,436,810 The Bronx-Weight in tons..................... 112,390 123,410 124,41I Brooklyn-Weight in tons............................. 360,684 358,602 356,989 13 Ashes. 1904. 1905. 1906. Queens —NW eight in tons................................... 45,439 60,509 Richmond-W- ' eight in tolns.................................. 20,408 22,142 New York City............................ 1,895,628 2,000,860 Rubb!ish. 1904. 1905. 1906. Manhattan-Weight in tons.......................... 116,904 103,572 117,245 The Bronx —VWeight in tons.......................... 8,o68 8,038 8,923 Brooklyn-W- eight i.n tons.............................. 54,460 65,198 63,456 Queens-WSight in tons........ 3,774 6,803 Richmond -- X eight in tons................................ 975 1,567 New York City................................. 181,557 197,994 Street Sweepings. 1904. 1905. Igo6. Manhllattan-WV~eight in tons........................... 319,789 335,175 357,318 The Bronx — Weight in tos s........................... 27,950 30,690 30,939 Brooklyn-W-eight in tons................... 121,953 120,911 120,704 Queens-Weight in tols............................... 21,194. 27,274 Richmond —Weight in tons................................... 30,355 31,736 New York City.-.............................. 538,325 567,971 Total Refuse. I904. I905. Igo6. Manhattan —Weight in tons................1.......... 1,933,982 2,021,500 2,146,453 The Bronx-Weight in tons........................... 165,529 181,86i 185,297 Brooklyn-Weight in tons............................. 629,144 648, 169 ~645,925 Queens-Weight in tons.................................... 83,823,.-115,964 Richmond-Weight jn tons............................ 6o,656 65,543 New York City..............................,. 2,996,o009 3,59, 182 -' - ~? -; '. ';. '., 4 '. In order to show the moilthly variation, Figs. I., II. and IIT. have been prepared for Manhattan and The Bronx; Figs.: Id., V. and VI. for Brooklyn; Figs. VII. and VIII. for Queens; and Figs. IX., X.' and XI. for Richmond. In Tables IV., V., VI., VII. and VIII. are stated the total collections in tons, the pounds of garbage, ashes, rubbish and street sweepings per capita per year for each of the years I904, I905 and 19o6, and the weights are also shown graphically. In Table IX. the weights of the different classes of refuse in pounds per capita per year are given in a more condensed form than in the preceding tables, together with the per capita averages for the three years. TABLE III. AVERAGE WVEIGHTS OF REFUSE, NEW YORK CITY. *Manhattan Kinds of Refuse. and *Brooklyn. Oueens. *Richmond. The Bronx. Average Weight per Cartload in PoundsGarbage................................. 2,037. t 2,037.... i,398 Ashes.................................... 2,172 1,950.... I,8oo Rubbish................................. 1,050 1,126.... 300 Street sweepings......................... 2,032 1,538.... 2,700 Average Cubic Yards per CartloadGarbage...................................85 ir.85.... 1.50 Ashes.................................... 2.00 2.oo.... i.50 Rubbish.................................. 7.3 7.31......50 Street sweepings......................... 2.00 2.00oo.... 1.50 Average Weight per Cubic Yard, PoundsGarbage................................. 1,1I0 I,Ioo.... 932 Ashes................................... i,o86 975.... 1.,200 Rubbish................................. I43 154.... 200 Street sweepings......................... I,o16 769.... i,8oo Average Weight per Cubic Yard, TonsGarbage.................................. 0.550 to.550.... 0.466 Ashes.................................... o.543 0.488.... o.6oo Rubbish.................................. 0.072 0.077.... o. I0 Street sweepings......................... o.508 0.385.....900oo * From measurements. *t No figures given; taken the same as Manhattan and The Bronx. Note-The authority for the figures for Manhattan and The Bronx is the Com mission on Street Cleaning and Waste Disposal; for Brooklyn, Captain A. R. Piper; for Richmond, J. T. Fetherston. No records of average weights for Queens; weights were taken the same as those for Manhattan and The Bronx. -:>%?... I................ I............. -rr -......................... -r -r'rr 77 - o No of Carl Loaads 0 Fs'Mb~/sh.~-;(.5r/bs =7J710,zjd favralye.;OI7r.,T~71 183,, 0 0 '0 -< OO a a I C ASINcSI-4V2 jtkilzm -V. C ~ ~ I ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ iX 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 'LOo 000o................. af: f iit74-t t 1. 7 t,+ iTr t+ -- 44-............... 4 _i++ ----- ----- -- ------- - -- - --------- is I.1 II - - ----------- 4+ I-T-111 -1 La I T -1 A -1. 44 -jl 7i+ 0 q4 4 100 000 50 0o A 4 -II i.~" o:a B 30 0 i ' X19 to. : I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ AR - i200 Ioc... 2 --------------- - - - - - - - - - i 0 000 07900 j V 3 'C VI 0 0001 ),6a00 0M, I - E ~ j I R I D,~.3 -sq) Co n-r - r: -~~-~ -~rr~ )~~r- _--C ~~~~) L (~ ~)" " r t r 1~ c soeob rl~~~~~~~~~4f +4 1444 t1 + ~~~Li E; )4 c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --- —-- 401999 12 T&oaf00 I J. lu 4+ - T T I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. I. I I T I I I T I I I.. I. I.... I I, I I T I I I I T I T I I I I I I I T I T i I I T I I I I I l T I I I I. I I I! i... I T I I I I I I I I I I T T I I I I I I! I I I I I i i i I I I I I T I 1. I I T I I I I T I I I I I I I I I I I I T I; T I T I I I I I I I I T I I I T I T I T I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I T I I T i I T a i I T I i I I T I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I f T I I I I L I 0;D l p * w ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~30 L 4-.31 LI 4 ON 3 a+ri it U a 0 IL~~ n r x I r r 70,000 ~p L L- a. -~~ - '- ) -- -— Q --- — - I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ v I ~f OF~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r I .. _ = 1 _ l | g, 1 _ _ i _.!. 1 1i. F l l _ _ _ l; I i I. T a t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ TII T t M ~ ~2III I1 m m EY>I tML t~t TL 1ltttttT I I t ail t ''Tt'log4 m ~ztt -Iillllll. |WlllllllI! lo ^f"r A61 1Wf Cd tt; '.lo -k ~. W DBfN.......... I I. I I I I.. I. I WPLL wat Ainr iv~c a a e e 4 f*- k I f io Q11 4P* Ott v"r O ~~~~~~~~ ,90Z, 4 ', a 4 2 e, 32 r/f/acp/1ys 3/9 789 _ --- Garkbo Z34,09: s'shes 1,34 J7,769 * * * fi7dbA/s /J3,l 7z S!Sreep'4s 3^/75 * i5i5 1,|436,6/0 6 / FSu/Sb, 3/7,23 * Ca/cv/afd fraom gS.Ce7nsus /9a, ias j sw/9e r-f of //crtae aslel/eer /890a ~'/900. -~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I lb * * ~ 74,B. E~Y We iqht of Refuse per Capita. Borogh aof 7The BtOXK Ca-"wm/szeot oStcf C/eM/9ge 1f4s/vs4o/,, 'Tofa/ Wt/9hf o/'ref5se co//ec/ frctfp/fctrperfr /epors. Co//~C lhoe it; t; I ^ I^^ R I V! deihd1;390 mmmmmummmm m 3/ Garbage 2/1,07 Ashes / Imm3,11| m ffubb/sh 6,068 fI 1- I Hw '1-''1'=;;FFE X G r'bace 12/,725 *. 0shgs /Z4,4t/0 It II m /:7' bb/sh,923 _Sw___ 30,9g39 m. I * * Ca/c/fed >frow ZS. CewsrIs /90o, be/^c6f 4,gOaa /9.. es/fva samr K^?/ o /-cr st as. 0 TA BLE s Weight of Refuse per Capita.Bfo fyI oF 1BHO L YN. GCotm/w/o ofn 3tff CIm/n W ^lte DfpoJos, ' 97 7iTNa/ Co//ecty/o /n TYnO5. Wi/e/fo/f ref4sre cv//11etem r cp peryer /I paonds I ~ I Garbale 92,047 Ashes 360,6&4.. R/7vbbsh S4,460 5tS,,wef_ 'r 9_ _/2/ 5___ G6rba~e /O456,9h~'bb 0,4 6.Z57 S..Sepi.fs /.,9//.......#51 1 A I I I I I I IIIA 'e /M46. I 14 4? Garbae Asles tfKsb/jsi 0Y.'Sri/n1fr /04,776 3Sb6,g69 63,456 /20,704._ y "I_ __ I I! i g I * Ca/cla/aed /rim 1/S. Ce'sus /900, s/ 5/we9 r-*fe o/,/crtrws as kef/6ee /69Q d/90..4 I I 4" I TABLE ~-T. Weiqhf oF Refuse perCoapiftC. Bororvmh of O/EEN5. COm/sw/o orfStre Ckmcz Ms//~J}Wffi/; 22 7o/f/ Weight of ref3se co//lcfporca.y/~ per year/,wiU/s' Call //ect/3 YUY~eg~h~ /i.1 S11A9 I,, Ts. 'o. ~ Ashes Ru~bb // s 6wshe9e /3,34/6 Aheireen /64 90 d/900 4.' I! I. rABLE E 3L Weight of Refuse per Capi a. Borough of R/C/MHOND Cotnmissin on Sfreef C/anoinm and WLaste PDsposa, Total Col/ect/ons /'eiyhf o/refsc c1//,c edper cap/tapr yer pound#s. To_ s_ Garbae 8 Ashes Rubibsh 6arbaqe 8,9/b 2 Ashes z0,408. 30,j3S5 L- ' I InI I89 Garbaoe /,098 A.hes 22,2/4z *II ** /i'ubb /h I,67 m Swtep/fsl 31, 736 * Ca/cu/al f rom U.S. Cesus /900 a/d /90g, Vui Some rfe/ o1 /# crease as be/ferO /1.9 I 41 TABLE IX. WEIGHT OF REFUSE PER CAPITA IN POUNDS, BY BOROUGHS, NEW' YORK CITY. 'car I904. Street Total Garbage. Ashes. Rubbish. Sweepings. Refuse. M anhattan........................... 205 1,248 II3 310 1,876 The Bronx........................... I 4 746 54 i86 1,100 Brooklyn............................ I36 535 8i I80 932 Q ueens................................................ Richmond................................................ New York City............. 173 947 97 253 1,470 Year I905. Street Total Garbage. Ashes. Rubbish. Sweepings. Refuse. Manhattan........................... 222 1,275 98 317 I,9I2 The Bronx........................... I21 757 49 I88 I,II5 Brooklyn............................. I48 518 94 I75 935 Queens.............................. 127 430 36 201 794 Richmond............................ 232 530 25 789 I,576 New York City............. I85 920 88 261 x,454 Year I906. Street Total Garbage. Ashes. Rubbish. Sweepings. Refuse. Manhattan........................... 217 1,327 Io8 330 1,982 The Bronx........................... II9 708 51 176 1,054 Brooklyn............................. I45 496 88 i68 897 Queens.............................. 192 544 6i 245 1,042 Richmond............................ 256 56I 40 804 i,66i New Ydork City............ 84 940 * 93 267 1,484 42 Averages of Years 1904, 1905 and 1906. Street Total Garbage. Ashes. Rubbish. Sweepings. Refuse. New York City....................... I8i 936 93 260 1,470 V. Street Cleaning. The street cleaning' work, as performed in the boroughs of Manhattan, The Bronx and Brooklyn, by the Department of Street Cleaning, and in Queens and Richmond by the Bureaus of Street Cleaning, is intended to cover all the paved streets and some of the macadam roads in the city. Some of the paved streets are cleaned only at considerable intervals of time, and no attempt is made to clean many of the macadam roads except occasionally. In Manhattan, The Bronx and Brooklyn the streets and roads under the jurisdiction of the Department of Parks are not cleaned by the Department of Street Cleaning. In Brooklyn many miles of macadam streets are cleaned very seldom or not at all. In Queens about o9 out of the 365 miles of streets and roads are cleaned, and in Richmond about 75 of the 200 miles receive attention. The methods adopted in each borough for cleaning the streets differ somewhat according to,the kind of pavement, location and character of the people. Generally speaking, the streets are swept by hand under a patrol system, each sweeper having a definite route to keep clean. The length of street assigned to each varies, of course, with the kind of pavement, the amount of travel and the other conditions which affect the area one man can clean. Each sweeper is furnished with a can carrier, five cans, one long-handled African bass broom with metal scraper attached to its back, one short-handled broom, one long-handled scraper (for asphalt or smooth surface pavements) and one metal dust pan. Each sweeper is required to sweep over the entire surface of the pavement from one to three times daily, to collect the litter and sweepings into piles near the gutters, and to shovel it into the cans. These, when filled, are placed at certain points on his route ready for the collection cart. Should the cans not be emptied, he continues the work, collecting the material into piles at the gutters. Machine sweeping with two-horse machines is also employed to a comparatively small extent, the work being done at night. The territory covered by the Department is divided into "sections," and a number of these sections together form a "district." The sweepers arc under the immediate direction of 'Section Foremen," who report to and receive instructions from "District Superintendents," the latter reporting to the General Superintendenlt. The district superintendents are responsible for the work done in their districts. 43 The general plan of the organization is well devised and, with proper administration, should be efficient and satisfactory. The legal relations of the Department of Street Cleaning to the Mayor and to heads of other departments, and the duties and powers of the Commissioner of the Department, as well as the statutes and ordinances relating to certain practices affecting the work of the Department were, at our request, embodied in a communication to us by the Corporation Counsel, which, together with an opinion of a former Corporation Counsel, referred to therein, is given in Appendix D. It appears that the powers conferred upon the Mayor of the City, upon the Borough Presidents and upon the Department and the Bureaus for Street Cleaning are ample to secure the cleaning of the streets and the disposal of the city wastes effectually and economically, provided that proper co-ordination and co-operation between the Street Cleaning Department and the other departments under the control of the Mayor and the Borough Presidents is maintained. The number of miles of pavement of the different kinds, and the total mileage of paved streets in each borough, as well as the total miles of each kind of pavement in the whole city, are given in Table X. Table XI. gives the same items in terms of square yards of pavement. TABLE X. *M\IILEAGE OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF PAVEMENTS. Kind of Pavement. Manhattan. The Bronx. Brooklyn. Queens. Richmond. Total. Granite................ ' 94.3I 35.56 142.12 22.15 5.41 299.55 Specification trap....... 22.74 1.28 1.24........ 25.26 Belgian trap............. 14.24.... 40.4I 9.59 0.02 64.26 Sheet asphalt......... 248.46 35.37 288.48 I6.87 I.07 590.25 Block asphalt........... 31.57 I6.50 I3.93 5.28 6.87' 74.I5 Cobble................. 0.79.... 50.27........ 5.o06 Wood block............ 7.69 0.59 2. 6 3.82 0. 9 I4.45 Macadam............... 13.65 10o.62 99.53 277.68 184.07 685.55 Brick............. 1..39 3.36 12.75 2.24 19.74 Iron slag block................ 0.26.... 0.25 0.51 Medina block............... 0.28 5.32........ 5.60 Gravel................. 17.46.... 17.46 Total............. 433.45 20I.59 647.08 365.60 200.12 1,847.84 * From Chief Engineers, Department of Highways, dated January I, I907. 44 TABLE XI. OF DIFFERENT KINDS SQUARE YARDS OF PAVEMgfTKS'. Kind of Pavement. Manhattan. The Bronx, Brooklyn. Queens. Richmond. Total. Granite...............2,107,525 713,473 2,854,112 389,840 91,282 6,156,232 Specification trap.*... 399,513 22,347 21,648............ 443,508 Belgian trap.......... 292,648...... 774,539 I68,784 390 1,236,361 Sheet asphalt..........5,004,330 712,740 5,095,100 287,962 8,133 11,118,265 Block asphalt.......... 713,189 290,565 240,285 76,632 152,414 1,473,085 Cobble................ 3,305...... 885,280............ 888,585 Wood block............ 163,258 10,390 37,879 69,403 3,471 284,401 Macadam.............. 727,352 1,182,417 1,064,646 2,843,323 2,103,259 7,920,997 Brick....................... I8,032 43,676 216,832 52,671 331,211 Iron slag block.................. 4,001 3...... 773 7,774 Medina block................ 5,88 84,50I 184,377...... 89,589 Gravel...................................... 84,377 Total............ 9,4 1I,20 2,955,052 II,I05,667 4,237,153 2,425,393 30,I34,385.~~~~~~~~~ SOURCES OF STREET DIRT. The dirt that collects upon the paved streets of a city is derived from a number -of sources, the more important of which are: I. Excrement of animals. 2. Refuse swept or thrown upon the streets from buildings. 3. Refuse thrown upon the streets by those using them. 4. Refuse spilled from passing vehicles. 5. Detritus from the wear of the pavement. 6. Soot and dust from the air. 7. Miscellaneous special sources. The relative quantity due to each of these sources has never been accurately determined. It is probable that in New York they rank in importance, upon the whole, in the order above stated. The accumulation of dirt from some of these sources is a necessary consequence of the use of the streets, while that due to others is more or less controllable or prevntable; and as the total quantity of sweepings to be handled depends upon the extent to which they are so controlled, a more detailed consideration is desirable. 45.41iimatll 'r.1crenmclnt. The quantity from this source varies with the number of horses passing over the street, or, roughly speaking, with the density of travel. It is a constant source of street dirt which cannot be avoided. Refuse Scwept or Thrownl upon fthe Streets front Buildings. The quantity from this source is variable. In the better residence districts it amounts to very little, while in the crowded East Side tenement region it may constitute as much as 75 per cent. of the whole volume of sweepings collected. It is made up of waste paper and every conceivable kind of refuse which accumulates in the houses. It often contains garbage and sometimes even human excrement. In the l)usiness districts it is made up of store sweepings and other refuse. Often packing boxes and parcels are opened upon the sidewalk, and the empty boxes, packing material and other debris left upon the sidewalk or thrown into the street. Street dirt from all these sources is largely preventable. Refuse Throzwn1, upon the Streets by Those Using Them. The quantity from this source varies greatly in different sections of She City. It consists of newspapers, paper wrappings, the remains of fruit consumed on the street and the miscellaneous things which those passing along the street find it convenient to discard. From its character it increases the bulk more than the weight of the street sweepings. The greater part of this material might be kept from the streets without any serious inconvenience to those using them. Refuse Spilled from Passing Vehicles. This consists largely of soil, ashes, manure, etc., falling from overloaded or improperly constructed vehicles. The aggregate quantity of refuse so reaching the pavements is large. Reasonable care would almost entirely suppress this source of street dirt. Detritus front the Wear of Pavement. This is a constant and unavoidable source of street dirt, but the quantity from well paved streets, even where the travel is heavy, is very small, probably never exceeding one-half of one per cent. of the whole sweepings collected. Soot and Dust from the Air. In New York this constitutes a very small percentage of street dirt, probably less than one-quarter of one per cent. by volume of the whole. It is unavoidable. Miscellaneous Special Sources. Under this head may be grouped those sources which operate only at certain seasons of the year, or are due to special causes usually independent of the ordinary use of the street. 46 (a) Travel will carry dirt from earth roads and macadam streets to adjoining paved streets, and, around the boundary of the paved districts, this is often the source of the largest quantity and the most persistent kind of street dirt. It can only be avoided by improving the character of the approaching roads and streets. (b) On streets bordered with shade trees, falling leaves will increase largely the bulk of the sweepings collected without much increasing their weight. The season of falling leaves only lasts, however, over'a short period, usually two or three weeks. (c) Debris from the construction of buildings, or from the construction and repair of pavements and underground structures, is a prolific source of street dirt, which often imposes a serious burden upon the Street Cleaning Department. It is almost wholly due to the carelessness or failure of contractors and others to properly do their work. With suitable regulations properly enforced this source of street dirt should give the Street Cleaning Department very little trouble and expense. (d) Where block pavements are laid upon earth or sand foundations and the joints between the blocks are filled with sand or gravel, friable material or mud from the foundation will constantly work up through the open joints and appear as street dirt upon the surface of the pavement. This source often contributes a considerable percentage of the weight of the sweepings, and it can only be avoided by reconstructing the old pavements in accordance with modern practice. This source of street ditt will disappear with the old and imperfectly constructed pavements. FORMS IN WHICH STREET DIRT APPEARS ON TIIE STREETS. Street dirt is found upon the street under two distinct physical forms, though both have the same origin and are of the same general composition. Much the greater part of the refuse which reaches the surface df the pavements consists originally of coarse and often damp fragments, not readily taken up or blown about by ordinary breezes. In this primary condition street dirt can hardly be said to endanger the health of the populace, nor is it the source of much discomfort or damage. Even the fresh excrement of horses and germs of disease expectorated upon the street are not usually a source of infection while in a fresh and damp condition. If, however, the accumulated refuse be allowed to remain it will in time become finely pulverized by the action of the feet of horses and the wheels of vehicles. In this secondary condition it is street mud or slime in wet weather, and street dust in dry weather. A layer of slimy mud covering the streets acts as a lubricant between the pavement and the feet of horses, rendering the most desirable pavements-those with a continuous smooth surface-dangerous for the passage of horses, and greatly diminishes the loads that can be hauled. It pollutes the feet and clothing of human beings, and it is thus carried into residences and offices where, after it becomes dry, any disease germs it contains may find lodgment in the lungs and blood of the occupants. 47 In the form of street dust it is a serious menace to health and a destructive and discomforting element of city life. Disturbed by street travel and carried about by even slight breezes, it is drawn with its disease germs into the lungs, and it permeates every crack and cranny of homes and business houses, damaging costly furnishings, clothing, and delicate goods, to say nothing of annoyance and discomfort. Notwithstanding these facts, the efforts of the street cleaning departments of nearly every city are principally directed to the removal of street dirt in its gross or primary form; or rather the methods of cleaning in common use remove only the coarser fragments, leaving the mud and dust upon the surface of the street. In order to ascertain the quantity of this neglected and dangerous material left upon the streets by the ordinary methods of street cleaning, we made a number of detailed examinations. The regular sweepings by the department preceding our examinations were done at least as well as the average of such work, and the streets appeared to be in a comparatively satisfactory condition of cleanliness. Directly after the streets had been swept 'by the ordinary methods, areas of street surface were measured oif, carefully swept by special means, and the material left by the sweepers, consisting mostly of dust, collected, measured and weighed. The results are shown in Table VIII., Appendix C. This table is of special interest, and some remarks relating to it seem appropriate. It will be observed that the smallest quantity of dust collected by the special sweeping was at the rate of nearly one-tenth of a cubic foot per I,ooo square yards of pavement. The largest quantity found was at the rate of 4.8 cubic feet per I,ooo square yards. The difference in effectiveness of hand (patrol) sweeping and machine sweeping is apparently not very great, but is in favor of the hand sweeping. There is a very marked difference between the quantity of dust left upon pavements of various kinds. Thus, if we call the average volume and weight collected from the sheet asphalt pavement ioo, the relative quantities from other kinds of pavements were: Volume. Weight. From sheet asphalt....................................................00 From block asphalt.............................2................ 130 8 *From wood block.................................................... 332 45 From granite block...................................................,08 * It should be said that the wood block pavement on which the examination was made is one of the oldest of its kind in the City, and its surface, being uneven, caught and held an unusual quantity of dust. Wood block pavement, when comparatively new, should compare favorably with asphalt block pavement in its freedom from dust-retaining qualities. 48 This comparison, while interesting, must be regarded as approximate, since the number of examinations made was not large enough to warrant general conclusions; but it is obvious that the block pavements, with their frequent joints, offer a better lodgment for dust than pavements with a continuous smooth surface. It is obvious that any method of street cleaning which does not remove with reasonable effectiveness this dangerous form of street dirt fails to accomplish the purpose for which cleaning is designed. COMIPOSITION OF STREET S\WEEPIN(;S. The composition of street sweepings varies greatly not only in different cities, but in different parts of the same city; and also with the season of the year. We had a number of analyses made of representative samples collected in Manhattan, and the results, together with such similar data as we have been able to get from other sources, is embodied in Table VI. of Appendix C. It will be noted that the sweepings usually contain from 30 per cent. to 45 per cent. in weight of water. Excluding the last three samples given in the table, which had become dried out before they were analyzed, the average per cent. of water in the remaining samples was 36.5 per cent. It is probable that the average quantity of water in the street sweepings of New York, as they are delivered at the dumping stations, may be estimated at 40 per cent. by weight. The table shows also the percentages of nitrogen, phosphorous pentoxide and potassium 'oxide found in these samples, computed upon the basis of dry material. Excluding the iirst two samples which had been exposed in dumps to the weather for several months so that some of the elements may have leached out or evaporated, the minimum, maximum and average percentages, based on moisture free material, are as follows: Average Pounds in One Ton of Minimum, Maximum, Average, Fresh Sweepings, Per Cent. Per Cent. Per Cent. Estimated to be 40 Per Cent. Moisture. Nitrogen........................... 0.27 1.04 0.71 8.52 Phosphorous pentoxide.............. 0.17 I.31 0.70 8.40 Potassium oxide.................... 0.33 0.89 o.6i 7.32 49 VOIUMIE AND WEIGHT OF STREET SWEEPINGS. According to the best information obtained by us the volume and weight of street sweepings collected and disposed of in The City of New York in the year 90o6 was as follows: Volume, Weight, Cubic Yards. Tons. Borough of.Manhattan............................................. 703,382 357,3i8 Borough of The Bronx............................................. 60,904 30,939 Borough of Brooklyn.............................................. 313,516 20,704 Borough of Queens................................................. 70,934 27,274 Borough of Richmond.............................................. 35,262 31,736 Total.................................................. I,183,998 567,971 These quantities are approximate only. As'the street sweepings and ashes are collected together in the same carts the separate volume and weight of each is not accurately known. We have arrived at the quantities of the sweepings as detailed in Appendix K. The weight of street sweepings varies within quite wide limits, due to the differences in their composition and the condition of the weather. We had careful observations made on a number of Manhattan streets, the results of which are given in Table 7, Appendix C, and column 14 gives the weight per cubic foot of the sweepings. On streets like upper Broadway and Fifth avenue, where the sweepings presumably consist largely of animal excrement and where the area under the care of one sweeper permits of at least two sweepings a day, the weather being dry or fair, the average weight per cubic foot is about 35 pounds. The computed average weight of all the sweepings recorded in Table 7, Appendix C, is 37.6 pounds per cubic foot. This weight per cubic foot has been used for Manhattan and The Bronx. From observations made by Captain Alexander R. Piper it appears that the street sweepings in Brooklyn average only about 28'2 pounds per cubic foot. This very low unit weight is doubtless due to the excessive quantity of light rubbish collected from the streets in that borough. The weight for Richmond is based upon determinations by Mr. J. T. Fetherston, Superintendent of Street Cleaning in that borough. The excessive unit weight, nearly 67 pounds per cubic foot, is due to the fact that a large part of the street sweepings from the borough are collected from macadam roads and therefore contain an unusually large ratio of mineral matter. The average weight per cubic foot for the whole city appears to be about 35I2 pounds, or about 96o pounds per cubic yard. 50 The volumes and weights of sweepings collected in 1906 per mile of paved street, per I,ooo square yards of pavement (excluding in each case macadam roads), per I,ooo of population and per I,ooo horses,* from the best available data, were, in Manhattan and Brooklyn, as follows: Manhattan. Brooklyn. Volume, Weight, Volume, Weight, Cubic Yards. Tons. Cubic Yards. Tons. Per mile of paved streets.................... i,675 852 573 220 Per I,ooo square yards of pavement............ 81 41 31 12 Per I,ooo population.......................... 325 65 218 84 Per I,ooo horses............................ 8,760 4,450 6,670 2,570 *The number of horses is obtained by assuming that the number given by the United States Census of 9o00 has increased in the same ratio as the population. This gives 80,367 in Manhattan and 46,987 in Brooklyn. METHODS AND COST OF STREET CLEANING. Three methods of street cleaning are in general use: Machine sweeping, hand sweeping and washing or flushing. Sometimes a combination of two of these methods is employed. Machine Sweeping. Sweepihg machines have revolving brooms, and are drawn by horses. The most serious objection to this method of cleaning is that it is not sufficiently effective. When operated over paved streets under the most favorable conditions, the revolving brooms remove only the coarser fragments of street dirt, leaving the finer particles, which constitute the most objectionable part of the whole. Unless the street is sprinkled in advance of the sweeper, an intolerable dust is raised by the broom; while, if the sprinkling is excessive and changes the,dust into mud, the broom simply plasters the mud more closely upon the surface, where, when it becomes dry, it is ground by the travel into dust. Furthermore, where the pavement surface is rough or uneven, much of the coarser dirt is left in the depressions. This is particularly true of block pavements with wide or deep joints, which receive the dirt and protect it from the action of the broom. This method of street cleaning is favored in many cities, because the work can be done rapidly and because of the general but erroneous impression that it is the most inexpensive way of cleaning streets. Machine sweeping involves three distinct operations: First, sprinkling in advance of the sweepers; second, sweeping; and third, the collecting of the sweepings into piles at the gutters. We have made an effort to determine the relative cost of the various methods of street,. cleaning, and the estimates which follow are believed to be sufficiently representative to allow them to be used for comparison. They are based upon the 51 assumption that the street is paved with sheet asphalt, well constructed and in good repair, and that the travel and other conditions are about the average; also, that the workis done by the municipal force and plant. Cost of Machine Sweeping. Cost of One Outfit (New)I sweeping m achine................................................ $275 oo /2 of I one-horse sprinkling wagon*.............................. 104 00 12 hand brooms, at 65 cents......................................... 7 8 6 shovels, at:75 cents............................................. 4 50 2 horses for sweeper.............................................. 6oo oo V2 horse for sprinkler*............................................. 50 00 2'2 sets of harness, at $25........................................... 62 50 $1,203 80 *One sprinkling wagon required for two sweepers. Annual ChargesInterest on this outfit, at 4 per cent.................... $48 15 Repairs and depreciation on tools, at 20 per cent....... 90 76 Depreciation on horses, at 15 per cent................ 112 50 Total annual charges....................... $251 4 O r, for 310 days, per day...................................... $o 8I Operating Expenses Per DayMaintenance of 2V/2 horses, at $I.35.................... $3 375 Rent, storage of sweeper............................... 20 Wages, I Sweeper-Driver..... 1........................ 2 I9 Wages, Y2 of Sprinkler-Driver.......................... 095 Wages, 6 Gutter Sweepers, at $2.19..................... 3 14 I5,000 gallons of water used for sprinkling, at $90 per m illion.................I 35 2I 35 Grand total cost per day............................. $22 i6 The above outfit will sweep, once, about 70,000 square yards of street in one day of eight hours, and the cost per I,ooo yards will be $o.317. The cost of loading the sweepings into carts and the cost of administration are omitted, because these items may be considered as costing about- the same, whatever method of cleaning is employed. 52 If the cost given above seems higher than the price usually paid by cities where the work is done by contract, it may be replied that the wages paid in New York City are materially higher and the cost of maintaining horses considerably greater than contractors pay in other cities. It may be safely asserted, however, that in cities where machine sweeping is directly done by the municipality, the true cost will be found in most cases to exceed the figure given above when all the items are taken into account. What is here said refers to the use of the ordinary horse-power sweeper. Efforts have been made to improve this machine. Numerous patents have been taken out for devices to accomplish this result, and many of these have been tried. The object of a large number of these inventions has been the production of a machine that will pick up its own sweepings and deposit them in a receptacle. Some of these pick-up machines have been found to work satisfactorily under favorable conditions, but not one of them as yet meets the conditions of everyday use. Some will pick up their sweepings quite successfully where the surface of the street is dry or merely dampened, but none will do so satisfactorily when the street is wet and sloppy; and since this is a condition that prevails during a considerable part of every year, such machines are obviously not suited for general use. These remarks apply to all special classes of pick-up machines, such as compressed air and vacuum sweepers. While the revolving broom machines are not likely to be much improved as street cleaning devices, it seems very probable that some other power than horses will be found in the near future more efficient and economical for operating them. Hand Sweeping. Hand sweeping is commonly known as the patrol or "white wing" method. This method of street cleaning has now been sufficiently tested, both in American and in foreign cities, to establish its merits, and supply reliable data as to its cost. With an alert and reasonably industrious force of sweepers there can be no doubt that the results are superior to machine sweeping. It is generally believed that this method of street cleaning is more expensive than machine sweeping, but such is not the fact. Under the same general conditions as those assumed in the above estimate of the cost of machine sweeping, the cost of hand sweeping may be stated thus: Cost of One OutfitI Hand cart...................................................... $I 00 5 Cans for sweepings, at $2.50..................................... I2 50 4 Hand brooms, at 65 cents....................................... 2 60 I Shovel......................................................... 75 2 Steel scrapers, at $2.............................................. 4 oo $29 85 53 Annual ChargesInterest on outfit, at 4 per cent.......................... $l 19 Repairs and depreciation, at 6o per cent................ 17 9I Total annual charges........................... $19 IO -or, for 3o clays, per day............................................. $o 062 Cost of Operation Per DayI Sweeper.................................................. 2 19 Total cost per day.................................... $2 252 One such sweeper will clean satisfactorily 8,ooo square yards of pavement per day, and the cost per i,ooo square yards will be $0,281. There is a slight difference in favor of this method in the cost of loading the sweepings into carts, less labor being required to empty the cans into the carts than to shovel up the sweepings from piles in the gutters; but this may be disregarded. The cost of manual labor forms a greater part of the whole cost of hand sweeping than of machine sweeping, and it may be urged that under poor organization and management it is more liable to be inefficient. To this it may be replied that any satisfactory and efficient system of street cleaning must be predicated upon good organization and effective management. Without these any system must result in partial failure. Where hand sweeping is properly done it undoubtedly cleans the streets more effectively than machine sweeping. This is especially true where the pavements to be cleaned are rough and uneven. The hand broom can be so manipulated as to remove the dirt from depressions, from open joints of block pavements, as well as all fragments which tenaciously adhere to the pavement. A modified method of hand sweeping, in use in a number of American and foreign cities, consists in substituting for the ordinary push broom a small machine with a revolving broom. This machine is generally similar to the large machine sweeper, except that it is designed to pick up its own sweepings and deposit them in an attached receptacle, which is emptied when necessary. This small machine is pushed over the street by the street sweeper, and does its work quite well when the street is dry. It is extensively used in Washington where it is well liked. One objection is that on heavy traveled streets there is difficulty in working it among horses and vehicles. Upon the whole, this hand sweeping machine is not in general favor in American cities. Street Flushinlg. The third method of street cleaning consists in flushing, or washing the pavements with water. While this method cannot be said to be new, it has not, until quite recently, been used in American cities on a large scale or under favorable conditions. 54 Two ways of flushing are in use; in the one the street is washed by the use of a nozzle connected by a hose to the fire hydrants or to special hydrants; in the other the water is carried in wagons quite similar to the ordinary sprinkling wagon, from the tanks of which it is forced out, usually under air pressure, through a nozzle of special design, upon the surface of the pavement. In the first, the standard fire hose and nozzle has generally been used and the full hydrant pressure applied. The stream from the nozzle is directed to the different parts of the pavement, dislodging and carrying into the gutters all the street dirt, including any fine dust or mud that may be upon the pavement. The pavement is thus thoroughly cleaned, but usually at the expense of a large volume of water, applied with unnecessarily great force. The water discharged by a ID/4-inch nozzle through not more than i00 feet of 2X2-inch hose under a hydrant pressure of forty pounds to the square inch is about 235 gallons per minute or I4,100 gallons per hour. The area washed per hour may vary from 4,000 to io,ooo square yards, dependent upon the skill and judgment of the operator and the condition of the pavement. Assuming an average of 6,ooo square yards flushed per hour, and that, on account of changing hydrant connections and other delays, the jet would be operating fourfifths of the time, the quantity of water used under the conditions stated above would be at the rate of i.88 gallons per square yard of pavement. The quantity of water thus used is large, and where there is not an abundant supply this would be a serious objection to the system. Three men per outfit are required,-one to handle the nozzle and the other two to assist in manipulating the hose, and to broom spots where the dirt adheres to the street with unusual tenacity, but more men are sometimes found in each gang. Under these conditions the cost of flushing should be about as follows: Cost of One OutfitIoo linear feet of 252-inch hose, at $I.IO............................ $IIO 00 I standard plain fire nozzle..................................... 12 50 6 broom s at 65 cents............................................. 3 90 T otal..................................................... $I26 40 Annual ChargesInterest on outfit, at 4 per cent......................... $5 o6 Repairs and depreciation, I50 per cent................... 89 6o Total annual charges........................... $194 66 - or, for 310 days, per day............................................. $o 63 55 Operating Expenses Per Day3 street sweepers, at $2.19.............................. $6 57 9o,ooo gallons of water at $90 per million.............. 8 TO I4 67 Total cost per day....................................... $5 30 Forty-eight thousand square yards should be flushed per day of eight hours, and the cost per i,ooo square yards would be $0.319. While there are not sufficient experimental data to verify such a conclusion, we believe that equally efficient and nearly as rapid service could be secured through the use of smaller hose equipped with a. special nozzle, equivalent in capacity of discharge to a nozzle one inch in diameter, throwing a fan-shaped jet (the long axis of the jet parallel to the surface of the pavement), and the restriction of the pressure at the nozzle to not more than thirty pounds per square inch. The discharge through such a nozzle and Ioo feet of 2-inch hose would not exceed 150 gallons per minute or 9,0oo gallons per hour. The cost of washing the pavements with such an apparatus may be estimated as follows: Cost of One OutfitIoo feet of 2-inch hose, at 80 cents.................................. $80 oo I one-inch nozzle, special............................................ I2 50 6 broom s, at 65 cents.............................................. 3 90 $96 40 Annual ChargesInterest on outfit, at 4 per cent......................... $3 86 Repairs and depreciation, at 150 per cent................ 44 6 Total annual charges............................ $ 48 46 - or, for 310 days, per day.............................................. $o 479 Operating Expenses Per DayTwo sweepers, at $2.19.................................. $4 38 57,600 gallons of water, at $9o per million................. 5 184 9 564 Total' cost per day.......-.................................. $I0 043 If we assume that the work done would be at the rate of 5,000 square yards per hour or 40,000 square yards per day, the cost per I,ooo square yards would be $0.251. We had hoped to make experimental trials with such an outfit, but the time and facilities at our commnand have not permitted. We strongly recommend that this form of flushing apparatus be thoroughly investigated by the Department as soon as practicable. I Flshinig Machincs. Street flushing machines or wagans have recently come into quite extensive use in a number of cities, and they have been reported as rendering excellent service. The tank consists of two air-tight compartments-one for water, with a capacity of about 6oo gallons, and one for air, the two being connected by a passage above the water line. When the water compartment is connected by hose to the fire hydrant the air is driven from it by the entering water into the air compartment, the relative capacity of the two being so designed that when the water tank is filled the air in the air chamber will be compressed to a pressure of about 35 pounds per square inch. When thus loaded the hose is disconnected from the fire hydrant and the machine is ready for use. It is driven along the street to be washed, and the water forced by the air pressure through a nozzle of special form so that the jet or sheet of water impinges on the pavement at a suitable angle, and as the wagon progresses along the street a strip of pavement is washed clean. Succeeding trips wash additional strips of pavement, until the whole surface of the street is covered and the street dirt washed into the gutters. The street is thus effectively cleaned. The data collected by us are quite divergent as to the area that may be cleaned per hour and the quantity of water used by such a machine. From the best information obtainable we conclude that, under the same street conditions as previously assumed, such a machine may be expected to clean satisfactorily about 3,500 square yards of pavement per hour, and that the water used is at the rate of two gallons of water per square yard flushed. Upon this basis, and assuming that the water used is valued at $90 per million gallons, the cost in New York may be estimated as follows: Cost of One OutfitOne flushing m achine.............................................. $I,000 00 Six hand brooms at 65 cents....................................... 3 90 Three shovels at 75 cents......................................... 2 25 Two horses at $300................................................ 6oo oo Two sets of harness at $25........................................ 50 oo T otal...................................................... $1,656 i5 57 Annual ChargesInterest on outlit, at 4 per cent........................... $66 2 Repairs and depreciation on tools, at 14 per cent........ 147 86 Depreciation on horses, at I per cent...................... 90 oo Total annual charges............................ $304 I I -or, for 310 days, per (da.............................................. $0.982 Operating Expenses Per DayOne Driver................................................. $2 I9 One-half day of one H elper.............................. I 09 Maintenance of two horses, at $1.35..................... 2 70 Four Laborers collecting dirt in gutters, at $2............ 8 oo Rent, storage of machine................................ 20 Value of water used, 56,000 gallons, at $90 per million.... 5 04 I9.220 Total cost per cay................................... $20.202 Area of street cleaned in eight hours, 28,000 square yards; cost per I,000 square yards, $0.721. In some cities the cost is somewhat reduced by using the same machine both night and day, two shifts of horses and men being employed. In favor of flushing it may be said that by no other practicable method can the streets be kept equally clean. Where the work is properly done the result leaves little to be desired. Not only the coarser fragments of street dirt, but the dust in dry weather and the mud in wet weather are effectually removed. Street sprinkling is unnecessary where street flushing is used. If it is conceded that dust and mud are the most objectionable and damaging forms of street dirt, then it must also be conceded that washing is the most effective way so far discovered of cleaning city streets. The work can be done at night, when it will least inconvenience the public, as in the case of machine sweeping. Several objections have been raised to flushing, the more important of which are the following: I. It is asserted that the street dirt is flushed into the sewers, which are liable to become obstructed with sediment and to have their normal service interrupted, and that the quantity of detritus carried to the sewer outlets would fill up the slips and channels so as to interfere with navigation. To this objection it is sometimes replied that proper street flushing carries the dirt only to the gutters, where the greater part of it subsides, to be taken up and carried away by the Street Cleaning Department. 58 Our observations show that in practice this is only partially true, and that in most cities a large percentage of the street dirt is actually carried into the sewers by street flushing. More careful work, or the use of some form of temporary or movable dams in the gutters just above the sewer inlets, woiild doubtless keep the greater part of the dirt out of the sewers, but the cost of the work would be somewhat increased. The fact, however, must not be overlooked that it is a normal function of storm water sewers to carry away with the surface water any detritus it may contain, and where for anly reason no street cleaning is done, every hard rain will wash the accumulated street dirt into the sewers. In any event the danger from this source selems to be exaggerated. In a number of cities where street washing is used on a large scale it is reported that no trouble has been experienced from this source, and in the case of some large cities where flushing is almost exclusively employed it is claimed that the sewers are actually benefited by the periodical flushing with large lquantitics of water from tile street flushing machines. In the City of Paris all the flushing water. carrying the street dirt, is put into the sewers, and no catch 1basins are built. We do not recommend, however, that the whole of the street sweepings shall be carried into the sewers and thence into the harbor and rivers, as will appear later. 2. It is objected that the quantity of water required to flush the streets is enormous, and that in the present condition of New York's supply the necessary quantity cannot be spared without endangering the supply of water for other more important purposes. This matter will be considered when we discuss our recommendations for street cleaning. 3. It is objected that the constant use of fire hydrants by the Street Cleaning Department is liable to injure them and' interfere with the efficiency of the Fire Department. If that be so, and their use a menace to the ulsefulness of the Fire Department, then special hydrants or outlets for the use of the Street Cleaning Department might and should be provided. This phase of the subject will be reverted to later. 4. One of the most frequent objections urged against street flushing is that the street pavements are liable to be seriously injured thereby. In a number of American cities it is represented that the flushing tends to dislodge and wash away the material of the pavement. There can be no doubt that the action of powerful jets of water directed at certain angles upon the surface of the pavement may be similar to that of hydraulic mining. It is undoubtedly true that in the case of block pavements, the joints of which are filled with loose or imperfectly cemented gravel or other filling, the jets of water do rapidly dislodge the material from these joints. The destructive action of a jet depends upon two elements: The pressure utnder which it is operated, and the angle at which it is directed against the surface of the pavement. The pressure commonly used for hose flushing is that at the City hydrants, and the angle at which the iet impinges on the pavement is often from 30 to 45 degrees with the surface. Both 59 these can be easily controlled-the pressure by regulatiilg:1tie opening of the hydranl valves, or by the use of pressure regulating valves, and the angle lby tile lroper anipl) — latiOn of the nozzle. 'I[he pressure at the nozzle should' not excCed 30o p1ouds per square inch, and it is probable that 20 pouids per square inch would he amplell; land the tangle at which the jet inipinges on the pavemenllt shoul inl 1 c;ae exceed 25 degrees troml the plane of the pavement.' If these conlitioll are:ol'served(I there is goodl reasoln, backed by some experience, to believe that no injury will result to any reasot;ably) well constructed block pavement, and it is certain that sheet asphalt pavements would not be inj ured therebyl. StIm IIl'y. Bringing together the figures for estimated cost of street cleaning 1y the several methods described above, we find that they compare as follows per 1,ooo square yards of pavement cleaned once: Mlachine sw eeping..................................................... $o.317 H and sweeping (patrol system )......................................... o.281 Flushing by hose (as usually done).................................... 0.319 Flushing by hose (suggested modification).............................. 0.251 Flushing by machine................................................... o.72I It may be well to repeat that these estimates of cost are only intended for conlparison under certain assumed uniform conditions in The City of New York. According to these estimates machine sweeping costs, when all items are taken into account, about I2'2 per cent. nmore than hand sweeping. lThat machine sweeping is more expensive than hand sweeping is verified by the experience in other cities where complete accounts are kept. Thuis, in Washington the contract price for machine sweeping for the year ending July I, 1907, was 2234/ cents per I,000 square yards, while the records of the Department show that the cost of hand sweeping for the same year was I8.2 cents per I,ooo square yards. Assuming that this last represents actual cost, aId that the contractor's price includes a protit, the cost of the machine sweeping would still be greater than the hand sweeping. According to our estimates there is not very much difference between the cost of machine sweeping and hose flushing as usually (lone. The estimates indicate that machine flishing is the most expensive, and the modified method of hose flushing herein recommended the least expensive. Comlbined iMethods. In some cities, both in America and abroad, combinations of two of these methods of street cleaning are employed. The sweeping machines are used at night, and hand sweeping continued through the day; or, streets of heavy travel are swept during the day and flushed at night. Street Sprinkling. Street sprinkling may be referred to here, because it is sometimes spoken of as a method of cleaning the streets. Sprinkling the paved streets does not clean them. Neither the quantity of water used nor the force with which it is applied to the street surface are sufficient to remove and carry into the gutters any considerable quantity of street dirt. The effect of street sprinkling is to mitigate the danger to health, the damage to property and the discomfort to the public resulting from inefficient street cleaning. The fine material, which orctinary cleaning fails to remove from the street, is considered less objectionable in the condition of mud than in the condition of street dust, and the object of sprinkling is to keep it in the first-inaied condition. I'deal sprinkling would maintain the dust in a merely damp condition, but, it being impracticable to so operate the sprinklers as to produce such a condition, the almost universal result is an excess of water, converting the dust into mud. While the sprinkling of imperfectly cleaned streets is often a necessity, it is a fact that if the street were properly cleaned, sprinkling would be unnecessary. Sprinkling the streets, as usually done, is objectionable. It converts the fine street dust into a slime which renders all smooth pavements dangerously slippery. Not only are teams unable to draw heavy loads over a slimy surface, but many horses are caused to fall and are often seriously injured. This slime is unsanitary, because in warm weather the moisture and heat make it a prolific breeding place for disease germs. It defiles the feet and clothing of pedestrians. In short, the effect of street sprinkling is to create a 'nuisance which is only tolerated because it is considered a lesser evil than the street dust resulting from imperfect street cleaning. In New York street sprinkling is generally done by private persons or corporations, the service being paid for by the occupants of the buildings. It may be fairly argued that if the municipality is under obligation to clean the streets at all, the obligation extends to doing the work with reasonable thoroughness and effectiveness; and if so done, individuals would not be obliged to have the streets sprinkled The entire cost to the City of such thorough cleaning of any streets as would render sprinkling unnecessary should not greatly exceed the amotint now paid for sprinkling it alone; so that not only would the total expense be reduced, but the streets would be maintained in a much cleaner condition than they can be with the usual partial cleaning supplemented by sprinkling. The Commission believes that the paved streets of the City can be, and should be, so cleaned that sprinkling will be unnecessary, and the water used for sprinkling saved for flushing. It will be understood from what is stated above that we only refer to the sprinkling of paved streets. Macadam, gravel and earth roads must be sprinkled or oiled, as there is no practicable method of cleaning them which will effectually prevent the dust. CONDITIONS WHICH AFFECT THE COST OF STREET CLEANING AND THEIR CONTROL. In the preceding estimates of cost it was assumed that the work was done under normal conditions. Such assumptions are necessary in order to make a fair comparison between cleaning methods. But all these col(litiois differ widely il various sections of the City, and many circumstances operate to vary the cost of street cleaning. An intelligent effort to reduce the cost must begin with a consideration of the causes which tend to increase the amount and expense of the work that must be done to keep the streets of tlie City satisfactorily clean. People often (1o not stop, when criticising the Street Cleaning I)epartment, to consider the enormous extent to which its work is hampered andl its expenses increased by causes over which the Department has no control. Nor have municipal authorities given proper attention to the various conditions which affect the cost of street cleaning and the ways in which it might be reduced. We believe that this is a subject of so much importance as to deserve full consideration and to require a review of the facts, so far as they are ascertainable. Unfortunately, the data necessary for a full and satisfactory discussion of the matter are wanting, and such as are obtainable are often indefinite and lacking in the elements necessary for accurate comparison. There is, however, sufficient information available to warrant some geineral conclusions. Some of the more important causes that increase the cost and diminish the efficiency of street cleaning work are the following, though they may not be stated in the true order of their importance: Relative Cost of Cleaning Differeilt Kinds of Pavement. It is obvious that a pavement with a smooth, continuous, hard surface can be kept clean with less labor and at a smaller cost than one whose surface is more or less rough or uneven, with joint spaces that catch and retain dirt. But in the absence of sufficient data from actual experience it is difficult to arrive at reliable conclusions as to the true relative cost of cleaning the several kinds of pavement in use. Such information as we have, chiefly relates to the cost of sweeping once a given area of pavement, rather than to the cost of keeping each kind in an equally clean condition, which is quite a different matter. A single machine sweeping of a sheet-asphalt pavement will leave it in a much cleaner condition than a single sweeping of a granite block pavement, and the relative prices bid by contractors for sweeping once an area of I,ooo square yards of each may not be a correct measure of the cost of keeping each in an equally clean condition. There is, however, a material difference in the cost of the sweeping, regardless of the degree of cleanliness secured. Thus, in cities where machine sweeping is done under contract, comparable bids show that contractors consider that the cost per unit of area of sweeping stone-block pavement is from Io per cent. to 30 per cent. greater than the cost of sweeping sheet-asphalt pavement. The relative cost of keeping each equally clean shows a wider difference. Thus, Mr. Richard T. Fox found in Chicago that, where one part of the same street-was paved with sheet-asphalt and another part with granite blocks, the cost per I,ooo square yards per day of keeping each equally clean 62 was, by hand cleaning, 60.5 cents for the former and 86.7 cents for the latter, al excess of cost of 43 per cent. In 1896 Colonel George E. Waring, then Commissioner of Street Cleaning in New York, undertook an investigation to determine the cost of street cleaning in the City under various conditions, and the results were published in the Report of the Department for I895-96-97 in a sub-report by Mr. C. Hershel Koyl. In lieu of definite figures deduced from the original observations, the superintendents of the eleven street cleaning districts were asked to express individual opinions as to the effect of various conditions upon the cost of cleaning. These opinions were tabulated, and the table is here reproduced in Appendix EI. In this table the cost of cleaning sheet asphalt pavement in good repair, under favorable conditions, is represented by the number Ioo, and the costs of cleaning granite block and other pavements under similar conditions are represented by numbers expressing the relative cost in the opinion of these superintendents. For granite block pavement the rating varied from 125 to 200, the average of the eleven opinions being 150. For Belgian block the rating varied fron 125 to 220, the average being I60. In other words, the consensus of opinion of these eleven experienced superintendents was that, the conditions being equal, it costs fifty per cent. more to clean granite block, and sixty per cent. more to clean Belgian block than sheet asphalt pavement. After careful consideration of all the facts available, we estimate the average relative cost of cleaning, equally well, the various kinds of pavement in use in the City under similar conditions of repair, as follows: Sheet-asphalt pavement...................................................... Ioo W ood block pavem ent, new................................................... 105 A sphalt block pavem ent...................................................... II5 Brick pavement.............................................................. 120 W ood block pavem ent, old................................................... 125 M edina bloc k pavem ent...................................................... 30 G ranite block pavem ent....................................................... 40 Belgian block pavement..................................................... I50 Cobblestone pavem ent....................................................... 300 It is not within our province to discuss the merits of the various kinds of pavement, except in so far as they affect the cost of street cleaning. This phase of the question is, however, a matter of considerable importance, as will be seen from the following considerations: In the case of two streets requiring to be cleaned daily, the one paved with sheet asphalt and the other with granite block, the entire cost of each cleaning of the asphalt pavement may be assumed at 30 cents per I,ooo square yards of surface, and the like cost of cleaning equally well the granite block pavement would be, accord 63 ing to the rating adopted above, 42 cents per 1,000 square yarls-a difference of 12 cents per I,ooo square yards. If we assume that 300 cleanings are required per year, the difference iln yearly cost per I,ooo square yards will be $36. If the roadways be 30 feet wide there are I7,6oo square yards of pavement per mile, and the additional annual cost of cleaning the granite pavement per mile will be $633.60. There is in use in Greater New York over 7,000,000 square yards of granite and trap rock block pavement, and it is probably safe to say that this should receive an average of oo00 cleanings per year. In that case the cost of cleaning it would be $I2 greater per i,oco square yar(ls per year than the cost of cleaning an equal area of sheet asphalt, and( the total annual saving in the cost, if asphalt were substituted for this block pavement, would amount to $84,000 per year. In like manner, on the assumption of oo00 cleanings per year it may be shown that the annual cost of cleaning equally well a mile of each of the pavements named, over what it would be if sheet asphalt were substituted, would be as follows: Wood block pavement, new............................................ $26 40 Asphalt block pavement (average condition)............................ 79 20 Brick pavement.................................................... I05 60 Wood block pavement, old.............................................. 132 00 M edina block pavem ent................................................ I58 40 Granite block pavement................................................ 20 2 Belgian block pavement............................................... 264 oo Cobblestone pavement................................................. 1,584 00 If these figures are even approximately correct they show that the kind of pavement in use in a city affects very materially the cost of keeping the streets clean; and they suggest that relative cost of cleaning is an element of no little importance in selecting the kind of pavement. Condition of Repair. It is obvious that it costs more to keep clean a pavement in bad repair than one in good repair. But here again we are without exact information, derived from adequate records. A newly laid sheet asphalt pavement, with a smooth, plane surface, represents the most favorable condition for economical and effective cleaning. If the same pavement becomes worn or shifted so that the surface is uneven, and especially if it is full of depressions and holes, the difficulty and cost of properly cleaning it will obviously be greatly increased. The scrapers or brooms will ride upon the high points and leave the depressions untouched and full of dirt. This is true of all other kinds of pavement. WVhen the joints between the block pavements become enlarged by wear and the joint filling removed to some depth below the general surface, these pave ments are particularly hard to clean. Every joint offers a safe refuge from the broom of a mass of street dirt, which it is difficult to dislodge. In the absence of any records of the actual cost of cleaninig pavement in different conditions of repair, we can only use opinions based upon experience. The table, Appendix E, already referred to, gives an impression of opinion from each of the eleven district superintendents of the Department of Street Cleaning. The three conditions of repair considered were good, fair and bad. Ihlie cost of cleaning pavement in "good" repair is represented by the number Ioo, and the cost of cleaning under conditions of "fair" and "bad" repair are represented by a corresponding number. The results may be condensed as follows: The lowest estimate of the cost of cleaning pavement in "fair" repair is IIO and the highest 125. The lowest,estimate of the cost of cleaning pavement in "bad" repair is 125, and the highest 150, while the average of the eleven opinions is, for "fair" condition, 120, and( for '"bad" condition, 140. In other words, the consensus of opinion among these eleven experienced superintendents is that the cost of cleaning pavement in "fair" condition is 20 per cent. and the cost of cleaning pavement in "bad" condition is 40 per cent. greater than that of cleaning the same pavements in "good" condition of repair. In our opinion this may be considered a conservative estimate. In the condition in which 'fmany of the streets in this city have recently been, the cost of keeping them in a satisfactory state of cleanliness must be quite double what it would have been if the pavements were in first class repair. If these estimates are anywhere near correct, the inability of the Department of Street Cleaning to keep the streets satisfactorily clean with the means at its command is not surprising. The average condition of the pavements in New York at this time cannot be said to be above "fair," and a great many of them are decidedly in "bad" repair. We are satisfied that the cost of keeping the streets properly cleaned during the past year was at least 20 per cent. more than would be required if they were in good repair. In I906 the cost of sweeping in the Boroughs of Manhattan, The Bronx and Brooklyn was $2,245,000. If the above estimate is correct, the streets might have been kept equally clean for five-sixths of tjlis sum, resulting in a total saving of $374,ooo. This large sum might much better have been spent in repairing the pavements, since it would then have increased their utility for transporting purposes. It is well recognized that both the economical maintenance of the pavements and the cost and safety of transportation over them require that they be kept in good repair. Therefore, any additional cost of cleaning which bad repair entails is equivalent to the wasting of public funds. 65 Litter 7'hro.wn Upon the Streets. Litter and refuse upon the streets has already been alluded to as a prolific source of street dirt. That this litter, in the quantities that it has to b1e dealt with in New York, increases the cost of cleaning the streets cannot be doubted. It is hardly possible, however, to determine with any accuracy just how much of the cost of street cleaning is chargeable to the removal of this street litter. It is necessarily a matter of judgment, and in addition to other information procurable we have obtained the views of two gentlemen whose long connection with the New York Department of Street Cleaning in important official capacities gives great weight to their opinions. One of them estimates that the litter herein referred to, together with that due to the pushcarts, increases the annual cost of street cleaning in the whole City as much as $400,000. The other, while expressing the opinion that 40 per cent. of the refuse collected as street sweeping is litter from the source nained, does not undertake to estimate the increased cost it entails, explaining that since the sweepers must cover their prescribed routes according to instructions, whether the litter is encountered or not, it may not add materially to the cost of the sweeping. We do not believe that this view of the matter is correct. In the case of machine sweeping it may be true of the sweeping itself, since the cost of hauling the machine over the street may be independent of the quantity of dirt. It has already been noted that sweeping a street does not necessarily mean cleaning it, and if instead of using as our standard the cost of sweeping we substitute the cost of satisfactory cleaning, we believe it will be found that the expense increases in some ratio as the quantity of dirt that must be removed. This is as true of hand sweeping as of machine sweeping. That the cost of collection and final disposition varies with the quantity of sweepings to be handled is also generally true. That the cost of cleaning varies with the quantity of dirt reaching the streets is evidenced by the fact that in those parts of the City where street litter is most abundant the area assigned to each hand sweeper is less than on streets comparatively free from it. Streets upon which dirt accumulates rapidly must have their whole surface swept more frequently than those where it accumulates slowly. On some, the surface must be swept from two to three times every day to keep them reasonably clean; on others sweeping once every two or three days may be sufficient, and the cost must vary accordingly. But while there may be room four difference of opinion as to the exact relation between total quantity of sweepings and cost, there can be no doubt that street litter adds largely to the cost of cleaning the streets. Some interesting facts upon this subject are furnished by the report of the Street Cleaning Department of the City of Washington for the year ending July I, 1907. The'plan is there adopted of having the sweepers go over the streets to collect the waste paper and coarse litter separately from the sweeping proper, and 66 it is found that one-fourth of the time of the sweepers is thus employed. If this ratio between the two classes of work were found to apply to New York it may be shown that the cost of collecting litter amounts to not less than $400,000. In the light of all information obtainable, we believe it is very conservative to estimate that if the street littering from the various sources could be suplressed, the cost of cleaning the streets of New York might be reduced by at least $200,000. The most prolific sources of this kind of street dirt are the reftse from houses and stores, litter thrown on the streets by those passing along them, the droppings from wagons and the debris from building operations. It is possible and practicable to largely suppress these sources of street dirt in New York. It has long been successfully done and continues to he done in nany foreign cities. Littering of the streets in these ways is a violation of the law, and it may lbe well to again call attention to the laws and ordinances relating to the matter. Section 1456 of the present Charter of the City reads as follows: "Paragraph 1456. No person or persons shall throw, cast or lay, or direct, suffer or permit any servant, agent or employee to throw, cast or lay any ashes, offal, vegetables, garbage, dross, cinders, shells, straw, shavings, paper, dirt, filth or rubbish of any kind whatever in any street in The City of New York. The wilful violation of any of the foregoing provisions of this section shall be and is hereby declared tor be a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by a fine of not less than one dollar nor more than ten dollars, or by inprisonment for a term of not less than one nor more than five days." Sections 404, 405 and 407 of the Code of Ordinances of The City of New York read as follows: "Paragraph 404. No person or persons shall throw, cast or lay, or direct, suffer or permit any servant, agent or employee to throw, cast or lay, any ashes, offal, filth or rubbish of any kind whatsoever, in any street in The City of New York, either upon the roadway or sidewalk thereof, except that in the morning before 8 o'clock, or before the first sweeping of the roadway by the Department of Street Cleaning, in the Boroughs of Manhattan, Brooklyn and The Bronx, dust from the sidewalks may be swept into the gutter, if there piled, but not otherwise, and at no other time." "The wilful violation of any of the foregoing provisions of this section shall be and is hereby declared to be a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by a fine of not less than one dollar nor more than ten dollars, or imprisonment for a term of not less than one nor more than five days (Ord. app. Aug. 6, I9O2, sec. i)." "Par. 405. No persons other than an authorized employee or agent of the Department of Street Cleaning, or the Bureau of Street Cleaning in the boroughs of Queens or Richmond, shall disturb or remove any ashes, garbage or light refuse or rubbish placed by householders or their tenants, or by occupants or their servants within the stoop or area line, or in front of houses or lots, for removal, unless requested by residents of house (Id., sec. 2)." "Par. 407. No one being the owner, driver, manager or conductor of any cart or other vehicle, or of any receptacle, shall scatter, drop or spill, or permit to be 67 scattered, dropped or spilled, any dirt, rubblish, ashes. manufacturing, trade or household waste, etc., * * * or permit the same to l)e blown off therefrom by the wind, in or upon any street, avenue or public place." The Police Force of the City is distinctly authorized by section 311 of the Charter to arrest, without warrant, any person found violating the section above quoted. "Par. 3II. Any member of the Police Force may arrest, without warrant, any person who shall, in view of such member, violate, or do, or be engaged in doing or permitting in said city, any act or thing forbidden by chapter nineteen of this act, or by any law or by any ordinance the authority to enact which is given by this act or any other statute, or who shall, in such presence, resist or be engaged in resisting the lawful enforcement of any such law or ordinance or any official order made pursuant to any statute of this state. Any person so arrested shall thereafter be treated, disposed of and punished as any other person duly arrested for a misdemeanor, unless other provision is made for the case by law." Section 337 of the Charter reiterates the power and authority of the Police Force to arrest persons found violating any of the laws or ordinances of the City. "Par. 337. The several members of the police force shall have power and authority to immediately arrest, without warrant, and to take into custody; any person who shall commit, or threaten or attempt to commit, in the presence of such member, or within his view, any breach of the peace or offense directly prohibited by act of the legislature, or by any ordinance made by lawful authority." Again, section 1264 of the Charter confers full power to arrest persons found violating any of the laws or ordinances of the City, not only upon the Police Force, but upon every Inspector or Officer of the Board of Health of the City. "Par. I264. Any member of the police force, and every inspector or officer of said department of health, as the regulations of either of said departments may respectively provide relative to its own subordinates, may arrest any person who shall, in view of such member or officer, violate, or do, or be engaged in doing or committing in said city, any act or thing forbidden by this chapter, or by any law or ordinance, the authority conferred by which is given to said department of health, or who shall, in such presence, resist or be engaged in resisting the enforcement of any of the orders of said department or the police department pursuant thereto. Any person so arrested shall thereafter be treated and disposed of as any other person duly arrested for a misdemeanor." Not only is the Police Department authorized to enforce this ordinance, but section 314 distinctly makes it the duty of policemen to enforce this as well as all other ordinances of the City. "Par. 315. It is hereby made the duty of the Police Department and force, at all times of day and night, and the members of such force are hereby thereupon empowered to # * * enforce and prevent the violation of all laws and ordinances in force in said City; and for these purposes, to arrest all persons guilty of violating any laws and ordinances for the suppression or punishment of crimes or offenses." Summarizing these laws and ordinances: It is clearly a violation of law to place, or allow to be placed upon the streets of the City the class of litter and street 68 dirt we are considering, and every person guilty of so doing commits a misdemeanor punishable by fine or,imprisonment. It is clearly the duty of any and every police officer who sees or whose attention is called to the violation of these laws and ordinances to arrest the offender immediately without warrant. There can be no room for doubt that if these laws were enforced with even a fair degree of strictness the cost of cleaning the streets would be materially reduced and their appearlance correspondingly improved. Occasionally spasmodic efforts to enforce these laws have been made for a short time. At present they are virtually a dead letter upon the statute books, so completely disregarded that probably not half of the population of the City even knows of their existence. Laws of this character are likely to be inoperative unless their enforcement is strongly demanded by the public. The provisions of the Sanitary Code against spitting were a dead letter until the people, educated to appreciate their value and importance, insisted that they should be complied with. The success attending that movement shows what is possible when united public sentiment demands that laws shall be resuscitated and enforced. The logical process of securing the enforcement of these laws would be, first, to educate the people as to their value, and to the desirability of the results that might be expected 'second, to make such necessary provisions as would enable the people to conform to them; and, third, to instruct and compel the Dolice and all officers clothed with the necessary authority to arrest all persons guilty of their violation. The co-operation of the courts would be essential to the success of the plan, for unless the imposition of the legal penalties is assured when the evidence of violation is unquestioned, arrest is useless and even unjustifiable, and the police will soon regard it so. We are convinced that the enforcement of these laws is essential to the keeping of the streets in a condition of satisfactory cleanliness; and that such enforcenent imposes no undue burden upon the public. The careless practices of building contractors, and the unclean condition of the streets resulting therefrom, have been referred to earlier in this report. Permits to occupy the street are issued by the Borough President, and the Commissioner of Street Cleaning has never exercised any control over these permits. The streets around such building operations are usually very unclean. We believe this whole matter should be dealt with more directly by the Department of Street Cleaning in the manner later suggested in this report. The Push Cart Nuisance. The extensive use of the streets by push carts adds greatly to the cost of street cleaning in parts of the City. These push carts are miniature markets for almost every 69 conceivable variety of merchandise. Many of the articles sold from them are consumed on the streets and the refuse thrown upon the pavements. It is common observation that a single such cart may be the source of street littering for blocks around. Those tending these carts habitually throw under their carts the refuse they themselves produce, and piles of such refuse a foot or more high are often left when the carts vacate their positions. The quantity of street refuse directly traceable to these push carts is large, and it must all be handled by the street cleaning department. But it is not alone the refuse thus added to tie street sweepings that makes these carts a source of additional expense to the department. On many streets they obstruct the work of the street sweepers to such an extent that the cost of the work accomplished is greatly increased. It is not within our province to discuss what is popularly called the push cart nuisance, except in so far as it effects the work of the Department of Street Cleaning, but we feel that this phase of the question is of sufficient importance to warrant consideration. There seems to be a conflict of evidence as to the number of these push carts in use in the City. The number of licenses issued to push cart peddlers in 1906 was, for the whole City, 5,313, distributed thus: Manhattan and The Bronx...................................... 4,640 Brooklyn....................................................... 657 Queens......................................................... II Richmond....................................................... 5 Total.................................................... 5,313 There has been a general impression that only a small part of those actually on the streets were licensed. But the Push Cart Commission appointed by the Mayor (see its report dated September o1, Io96), took a careful census of all push carts found on 1May IT, g906, upon the streets of Manhattan and Brooklyn, with the following results: Push carts w ith licenses.......................................... 3,573 Push carts without licenses....................................... 830 Push carts unknown............................................. 112 Total number found....................................... 4,515 A report made by the Superintendents of Districts Nos. 2 and 4 to the Commissioner of the Department of Street Cleaning on December Io, 1906, says: "At the present time there are from T2.ooo to I5,ooo push carts occupying the densely populated streets of the lower East side." 70 In the opinion of t::cse two Superintendents: "A 20 per cent. reduction could be made in both carting and sweeping forces of the Second and Fourth Districts if this nuisance were abolished." As further bearing upon both the number of these carts and the additional cost of street cleaning caused by them, the Commissioner of Street Cleaning says in his report for i906 (page 4): "The push carts are a greater nuisance than ever, and, in ll y opinion, have no legal right upon the streets. They increase the expense of cleaning; they are a menace to health, a burden on the taxpayer and a constant obstruction to street traffic. They occupy, in many instances, both sides of the streets, are jammed close together and the litter from the push cart traffic is thrown on the street pavement, to one side of or under the cart, and where they are thickest people from the houses, under cover of the push carts, bring bundles or bags of waste and ashes from thei: houses and deliberately dump them into the streets. For this reason large parts of the lower east side have to be supplied with at least 40 per cent more sweepers than would be necessary if the push carts were not on the streets, and even with this large number of sweepers it is impossible to keep the streets in proper condition. There are now about fourteen acres of the street surface occupied 1y the putsl cart peddlers of this City." Whatever may be the number of these push carts habitually upon the streets, there can be no doubt of the fact that they are a source of very considerable expense to the Street Cleaning Department..Their occupation of the streets is supposed to be controlled 1y sections I, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 of Article I., Chapter I., Part II. of the Code of City Ordinances, which are quoted in the communication of the Corporation Counsel to this Commission. (See Appendix D.) It will be observed that these ordinances are very full and clear, but it is obvious to any observer in lower New York that their requirements are almost wholly ignored by the push cart peddlers. Whatever general policy may be adopted bv the City with reference to these push cart peddlers, they should be rigorously compelled to comply with at least such requirements as affect the operations of the Street Cleaning Department. The cost of street cleaning in the districts frequented by these peddlers could, without doubt. be materially reduced in that way. 17oltume of Travel. Difference in the voltum of travel upon different streets affects the cost of cleaning in two ways. First, the quantity of sweepings collected seems to vary with the volume of travel. Secondly, the cost of davlight cleaning on streets of heavy travel is increased by the difficulty of sweeping and collecting among the passing vehicles, as it is then almost impossible for any but the most active and alert sweeper to accomplish any considerable work. 71 Referring to the table, Appendix E., it will he seen that the Superintendents expressed opinions as to the relative cost of cleaning streets of light, of medium and of heavy traffic, the average opinion being that if the cost of light traveled streets be considered as Ioo, the cost on streets of medium travel would be 14o, and on streets of heavy travel would be 180. This estimate relates, presumably, to (lay cleaning. It seems to be fairly well confirmed by a study of the detail figures given in Table I. of the report of the Department, 18)5-6-7. Selecting District No. 9 as representative of light travel, District No. 8 of medium travel, and District No. I of heavy travel, the cost of cleaning 1,ooo square yards per week is given as follows: Light travel, District No. 9.................................. $I 77 = 1 oo M edium travel, District No. 8................................ 2 22 - 125 H eavy travel, District No. I................................. 3 30 = I 86 The relation between volume of travel and cost of street cleaning is interesting, and while it has little bearing upon any problem of reducing the cost of cleaning, since the latter will always le a function of the v9lume of travel, it must be considered in connection with the constantly increasing annual appropriations necessary to enable the Street Cleaning Departnent to keep pace with the rapid increase of population and volume of travel. Wages. The rate of wages paid directly affects the cost of street cleaning. It is only fair to bear in mind. when comparing the cost of street cleaning in New York with the cost in other cities, that the New York Department pays its laborers about 30 per cent. more than the average paid in the larger cities throughout the easterly part of the United States. Other Conditions Affecting the Cost of Street Cleaning. Many other causes affect the cost of street cleaning, but these need not here be considered in detail The existence of street railway tracks has been estimated (see Appendix E) to increase the cost of cleaning from IO to I5 per cent. Tracks are, however, a necessity, and the additional cost of cleaning due to them cannot be obviated or materially reduced. The practice of sanding the rails also contributes to the quantity of street dirt. The quantity of sand so used is often excessive, and might be materially reduced by care on the part of the railway employees. The character of the population along a street has a great influence upon the cost of cleaning. This matter is, however, quite fully considered elsewhere in this report. Cotmparative Cost of Street Cleaning in Different Cities. Statements of the cost of street cleaning in other cities are of little value in forming an opinion as to the comparative economy or efficiency with which the Street Cleaning Department in any city is conducted. The conditions existing in any one 72 city may differ so widely from those in other cities, that unless statements of cost are accompanied with very full details, and the relative efficiency of the work is carefully observed and, studied, no intelligent comparison can be ma(le. In two cities where the street cleaning departments are managed with equal skill and economy, and the streets kept equally clean, the cost in the one may easily be 50 per cent. more than in the other. These remarks apply particularly to any attempted comparison between results in America and,in foreign cities. In many of the latter the littering of the streets is not only prohibited, but the law is strictly enforced, and the pavements are usually better constructed and are kept in a much better state of repairs. The rate of wages paid to employees abroad are much lower than they are here. In Paris, for instance, the sweepers are paid 97 cents to $1.16 per day of ten hours, while a considerable part of the work is done by women who receive but 85 cents to 97 cents per day. In Vienna ordinary sweepers receive less than 50 cents per day. These figures are exclusive of benefits received from pensions. In many American cities street sweepers are paid $I.50 per ten-hour day, and in some of these the streets are cleaner than in New York. In New York the street sweepers are now paid $720 per year, and the drivers $800 per year. Assuming that they work 312 days per year, the rates are $2.31 and $2.56 per eight-hour day, respectively, not including extras. We have collected a large quantity of data relating to the cost of street cleaning in American and foreign cities, and while they are interesting and possess a certain value to the student, they are more likely to he misleading than useful to the public. -These remarks apply also to methods of cleaning, though not to the same degree. A system of street cleaning that best meets the conditions and needs of one city may not be adapted to those of another. For these reasons it may be unwise to adopt for any one city, systems or methods that seem to be successful and to meet the requirements in another city-particularly if it be a foreign city-without very careful investigation by persons competent to form a correct judgment. PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FOR STREET CLEANING IN NEW\ YORK. In selecting the method of street cleaning best suited to the conditions and needs of The City of New York, the controlling considerations must be: First-It must provide for the cleaning and keeping clean of the streets of the City in a satisfactory manner. Second-It must be practical and workable, and must not be open to insuperable objections. Third-The cost must be reasonable or, at least, must not be excessive when measured by the results accomplished. We have asserted that no method of street cleaning which does not remove the finer part of the street dirt-the dust and the mud-can be considered efficacious or 73 satisfactory. We have also shown that the only practical method that will accomplish this result satisfactorily is washing with water. If these two propositiolls be sound, then it follows that street flushing must be an essential part of any general method of street cleaning that is expected to give satisfactory results, unless it appears that there are sufficient valid oljections to condemn it, or unless its cost shall )e found excessive. The experience of cities where flushing has been given a fair trial, seems to be uniformly and often very emphatically in its favor, and the conviction that it is the only method that will properly clean the streets, seems to be growing rapidly in this country as well as abroad. In the City of Cleveland, Ohio, where flushing the streets, supplemented where necessary by hand cleaning during the (lay, has been generally adopted, the testimony of the present Superintendentt of Street Cleaning is to the effect that this method of cleaning is more effective as well as more economical than any other. A member of the Commission visited Cleveland, and can testify to the exceptionably clean condition of the streets under this method of cleaning. Machine sweeping is now used in that city only on the streets paved with block or brick having loose-filled jdints, where vigorous flushing is injurious. In St. Louis, Missouri, where flushing is being tried on a large scale, the Street Commissioner, in a written communication to this Commission, expresses the opinion that while there are some objections to street flushing "the work is done more thoroughly, and is certainly a more sanitary method than machine sweeping." The Superintendent of Streets of Kansas City, Missouri, writes this Commission that this Department has in use fifteen flushing machines, and expresses the opinion that flushing is the only way to successfully cope with the dust nuisance in our large cities. The Annual Report of the Street Cleaning Department of the City of Cincinnati for the year 1906, as well as the report for the first half of the year I907, a manuscript copy of which was kindly furnished us by the Superintendent of the Department, Mr. Joseph S. Neave, speak in the highest terms, both of the effectiveness and the economy of street flushing in that City. In the City of Detroit where street flushing has been in extensive use for some time the results have been highly satisfactory. The report of Mr. Frank Aldrich, Superintendent of Street Cleaning, for the last half of the year i906, contains numerous testimonials from physicians and citizens commending in the highest terms this method of cleaning the streets. Members of our Commission visiting Buffalo, N. Y., and Toronto, Canada, found street flushing in use in these cities and were told that it is proving successful and satisfactory. 74 Ir. George A. Soper, who made investigations for us upon foreign street cleaning methods and results, reports that the tendency to resort to the use of washing and flushing is growing in European cities, particularly in those where the streets are kept in the cleanest condition. The opinion is growing both here and abroad that no other practicable method of cleaning will keep city streets in the condition of cleanliness called for by advanced hygienic science and by the present high standards of public comfort, while affording adequate protection to property from the effects of street dust and mud. It is a common observation that the streets of our cities are never so clean as immediately after a hard rain storm. Street flushing is the equivalent of this most effective natural agency for cleaning the streets. Where intelligently used, either alone or in proper combination with some method of swceping, it seems to fully meet the first requirement named above. Regarding the second requirement, the objections to flushing in The City of New York may be briefly considered. The most serious obstacle in the way of the immediate adoption of flushing as a standard method of street cleaning in this city is the present insufficient and precarious supply of water, without which street washing is out of the question. The quantity of water that would be required to properly flush the streets of the Greater City cannot be accurately determined, without making up a complete schedule of the number of miles of streets that should be flushed daily, and the number of miles that would need to be flushed at longer intervals. We have, however, formulated a general project which, in the light of the practice in other cities, we believe would make liberal provision for keeping the city satisfactorily clean. In Manhattan, this tentative project contemplates the following schedule as a basis for estimates: Io per cent. of the streets, 42 miles, would be flushed every day. 20 per cent. of the streets, 84 miles, would be flushed every other day. 20 per cent. of the streets, 84 miles, would be flushed every third day. 30 per cent. of the streets, 126 miles, would be flushed every seventh day. 20 per cent. of the streets, 84 miles, would be flushed every tenth day. Ioo per cent. 420 miles. This would require that about 140 miles of streets, or about one-third of the whole mileage, should be flushed daily. This is a more liberal schedule than has been found necessary in other large cities' where the cleaning is mainly done by flushing. In judging. of its adequacy, it should be remembered that the project contemplates that flushing will be supplemented by hand sweeping to remove the fresh dirt as it accumulates. Where this combined plan is employed in other cities, streets 75 of the heaviest travel, which are flushed every second or third day only, remain remarkably clean. Similar tentative schedules have been made for the boroughs of The Bronx and Brooklyn, and these are used to estimate, approximately, the quantity of water that would be required daily by the Department of Street Cleaning for flushing the streets in the three boroughs. The estimates are based upon tile use of the modified plan of flushing with hose and nozzle, the nozzle being designed to discharge about I50 gallons per minute, or, allowing for time lost in changing connections, etc., an average of I20 gallons per minute during the eight hours of the day's work. The daily quantity of water required under these conditions is estimated as follows: Gallons. For the Borough of M anhattan........................................ 4,250,000 For the Borough of The Bronx........................................ 9oo,ooo For the Borough of Brooklyn......................................... 3,500,000 Total..............................'.................... 8,650,0oo This quantity should be ample if the water is used with reasonable care, but in considering the matter of a supply it will be safer to assume that ten million gallons per day might be required. This is a very large quantity of water, though it is small compared with the total quantity now used in the whole city for other purposes. Thus, the consumption in Manhattan and The Bronx alone in I905 averaged 319 million gallons per day, and it is estimated that it will reach 364 million gallons per day in I9o8. The five million gallons per day, above estimated for Manhattan and The Bronx, would add less than two per cent. to the quantity otherwise used. Unfortunately, conditions in New York's water supply make the diversion of even this small percentage impossible at times. Under such conditions it would be idle to rely with certainty upon any sufficient regular supply for flushing the streets. And yet the situation is not as bad as it might seem. Water supply requirements for cities are necessarily predicated upon the minimum quantity available, while at ordinary times there is likely to be a surplus. While in New York a distressing scarcity of water might occur in a dry year, there is, during a year of average rainfall a considerable surplus of water, and when the rainfall exceeds the average, a large quantity must waste over the crest of the Croton dam. It is of course the first duty of those in charge of the Water Department to guard against a shortage of potable water for the City. But whenever it is evident beond any reasonable doubt that there is, or will be, a surplus, the Street Cleanig Department rhight and should be furnished a supply from that surplus for street flushing.We believe that if the matter is taken up in a spirit of co-operation between the two 76 Departments, there is likely to be found a large quantity of water available for street cleaning during the greater part of many years. When the projected additional supply of water shall be turned into the City's mains, there will be for a long time to come an abundant supply for street cleaning purposes. Street flushing may then be adopted as a standard part of the street cleaning system throughout the City. The Chief Engineer of the Department of Water Supply, Gas and Electricity advises us that a constant supply of say one million gallons of water per day could be spared for this purpose, except in time of unusual scarcity, and this quantity would be sufficient to inaugurate flushing and to conduct the preliminary trial work, which should precede the general adoption of a new program, even if the water supply were abundant. It has been suggested that the new auxiliary high pressure system for fire protection might afford an abundant supply of salt water pumped from the harbor for street cleaning purposes. The objection that salt water is especially injurious to asphalt pavements is without foundation. These high pressure mains were designed for fire service, and it might be dangerous to use them for street cleaning purposes. Objection has been made by the Department of Sewers to flushing the street dirt into the sewers. We have already discussed this matter briefly in describing methods of street cleaning. The plan recommended for New York contemplates that only a small part, probably less than one-tenth, of the street dirt will reach the sewers. The other nine-tenths would be collected by the sweepers and disposed of as it is now. Little more than the fine dust or mud, not removed by the sweepers, would be flushed into the sewers, and no more, at any time, than is now washed into the sewers by heavy downpours of rain. It is possible that some of the catch basins would have to be cleaned somewhat oftener. But if these catch basins were removed, as we believe many might be without detriment, the considerable volume of flushing water might be expected to carry to the sewer outlets almost the whole of the fine dirt entering with it, especially as a part of the dirt floats for some time, even in quiet water. (See result of test of rate of subsidence of street dust, Appendix C.) We conclude, therefore, that flushing in the manner recommended would not injure or interfere with the working of the sewers. Regarding the possibility of injury to the pavements by flushing, we believe it would be so remote as to scarcely merit consideration. With comparatively few exceptions, the stone block pavements of this city have their joints filled with gravel and paving-pitch, so that they are not only impermeable to water, but the joint filling is so firmly cemented together and to the stone blocks that it would not be disintegrated by the jet of water from the flushing nozzle, if applied as we have suggested. The same is true of the wood block and the brick pavements. The joints of asphalt block pavement, though originally filled with sand or gravel, are usually so nearly obliterated by the compression and spreading of the blocks that little or no injury would result. 77 The surface of the sheet asphalt pavements is not injured by the action of a flushing jet. It has been feared by some that since exposure to water tends to soften and decompose some asphalts it would be dangerous to flush these pavements. Experience has proven, however, that injury of this character results from long continued exposure to moisture, and that to simply wash the surface, allowing the water to drain away quickly, is not injurious to the pavement. The objection is sometimes made that flushing obstructs travel on the streets more than other methods of cleaning. If the work be done at night on all streets of considerable travel, as it should be, this objection will not apply. The same reply may be made to the objection that flushing makes the streets wet and sloppy while the work is in progress. It appears, therefore, that none of these objections can be validly urged against the method of flushing herein proposed. The third condition named, that the cost of the method chosen must be reasonable may now be considered. The question whether the cost of any system of street cleaning is or is not reasonable, must be judged largely by the results obtained. Unsatisfactory cleaning is costly at almost any price. While it is important that the -cost shall be kept at the lowest possible figure consistent with doing the work in a proper manner, a slight increase in cost should not deter the City from adopting such measures and methods as will keep the stitets well cleaned. The data now available are not sufficient to permit the making of estimates of cost that would be deserving of confidence, but our studies and computations seem to justify the conclusion that a combined method of sweeping and flushing need not cost much more than the sum now expended for street cleaning. The cost of the flushing, including the value of the water used, would amount, it is true, to a considerable sum, but the cost of the sweeping would be materially reduced. The work of the sweepers would be confined to taking iup promptly the animal excrement and other coarse street dirt as it falls upon the street, before it becomes ground into dust or mud. Continuous sweeping of the whole street surface would not be necessary, and each sweeper should be able to cover a larger area than now. His work would be analagous to that of the boys regularly employed upon the streets of London and other European cities.' Alertness and celerity, rather than heavy continuous labor would be required, and it is probable that a force of pbys or young men could be developed for this work upon a lower scale of wages than is paid to the sweepers. The cost of administration and of final disposal of the sweepings under the system recommended would be no greater than under the present system, and the cost of superintendence would be little if any greater. The cost of the additional equipment required by the Department, outside of the special hydrants referred to later, would be comparatively small,' &ad even if these 78 special hydrants were thought necessary their cost would not involve a very large investment. Considering. the Boroughs of Manhattan and The Bronx only, and estimating that 3,500,000 square yards of pavement would have to be flushed 300 days per year at a cost of 30 cents. per I,ooo square yards, the cost per year would be about $315,000. In 90o6 the cost of sweeping alone in these two boroughs was about $500oo,ooo. It 'is believed that under the proposed combination of hand sweeping and flushing, in which machine sweeping would be entirely dispensed with and the area covered by each hand sweeper increased, the above cost might be reduced at least Io per cent. If so, the total cost in the two boroughs, based upon present expenditures, would not be increased more than $I65,00o. This increase could be more than offset by the saving that would result from enforcing the laws against 'street littering. The conclusion, therefore, seems warranted that if this combined system of cleaning could be put into operation, the streets of the city might be kept in a thoroughly clean condition with a total expenditure not much, if any, exceeding the amount now expended. But if any additional expenditure was required, we believe it would be fully justified by the improved cleanliness of the streets. The arguments. in favor of street flushing seem conclusive, the objections to it not important or weighty, and its cost reasonable. We, tlerefore, conclude, after carefuf study, in the light of the best information obtainable both in this country and abroad, that flushing combined with hand sweeping will prove to be the best and most satisfactory method of cleaning the majority of the streets throughout The City of New York. It must be admitted, however, that the information and experience upon which the conclusion is based, is neither as complete nor as accurate as could be wished. As we have pointed out, experience in other cities may not be applicable to New York. The proposed system, therefore, should be introduced gradually and cautiously and subjected to careful trial. Some time will be required for such a careful trial and the practical application of the new method to New York streets. The question whether flushing with hose and nozzle or with flushing wagons is best adapted to meet conditions here, and the relative effectiveness and economy of these two ways of street washing should be experimentally determined. With regard to the first method, such questions as to the proper water pressure to be employed, the size and length of hose most convenient and economical, the most effective size and form of nozzle, the quantity of water required, the most effective organization of the flushing force, the proper number of men to each flushing gang, the frequency with which different classes of streets should be flushed, the amount and character of sweeping advisable between flushings, together with the exact cost data and like questions, should all be worked out by systematic experiments with reference to the 79 actual conditions, before it is attempted to change the whole system of cleaning from that now employed. The quantity of water now available would be sufficient to inaugurate street flushing and to conduct the experimental work outlined above. During the introductory or trial stage full- and accurate records should be kept, classified and digested, so that as the department proceeds it may have reliable data on which to base further work. Briefly, it should be a period of experimental investigation as well as of practical application, during which. the public as well as the municipal government would have opportunity to see and judge of the merits of the system. If, as the result of such careful and deliberate precedure, it shall be demonstrated as we believe it will be, that combined sweeping and flushing best solves the problem of street cleaning in this city, the Street Cleaning Department would be in possession of the necessary knowledge and experience to extend the work, wherever practicable, throughout the whole city as rapidly as the supply of water would permit. While at the present time there is no assurance that more than one million gallons of water daily can be depended upon for street cleaning purposes, there are likely to be years, or considerable parts of years, when a much larger quantity would be available from the surplus supply, and the Street Cleaning Department should be prepared to utilize this surplus as rapidly as the new system can be properly developed. Fortunately neither of the equipments required for flushing with hose and for hand sweeping are expensive, and an outfit of each could be kept on hand so that if the water supply should run short at any time hand sweeping could be substituted temporarily for flushing without any break in the service and with no derangement of the organization of the street forces. Since street washing cannot be used in freezing weather, such provision for changing quickly from flushing to sweeping would be necessary. CLEANING THE DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE CITY. We have considered the subject of street cleaning as a general problem, giving more particular attention to the densely populated sections in Manhattan, The Bronx and Brooklyn. In the less closely built up portion of the city, some of them suburban in character, the conditions are less uniform, and local conditions often make it advisable to vary the organization and program of the street cleaning forces. We have not attempted to consider these local conditions in detail, nor is it necessary. The adaptation of means to ends, so as to secure the most satisfactory and economical results, can best be worked out by the authorities in direct charge of such local work. In general, hand sweeping will, We believe, prove more economical and efficient than machine sweeping on all modern paved streets; among which 80 macadam. is not included. The object should be to so clean the pavements that fine dirt will be removed and sprinkling will not be necessary; and if the cost of the sprinkling be added to the amount that would ordinarily be spent for cleaning, the sum will usually be sufficient to so clean the pavement that sprinkling will be unnecessary. Where water can be had, occasional flushing will greatly simplify the work and add'to the cleanliness of the streets. The macadam streets usually can be most satisfactorily cleaned by hand scrapersand shovels, though, where the surface is comparatively true, machine scrapers will do. the work cheaply and quite well. As a rule the streets in the thinly settled districts should be kept in a cleaner condition than they now are, even if to do this requires an expenditure of money that appears disproportionate to the importance of the streets. Dirty streets are unsanitary, and disease caused by them may spread throughout the city regardless of the fact that few people live directly upon them. Details of Street Flushing. While we recommend that the relative merits and economy of flushing by machine. and by hose shall be determined by actual trial, we believe, from all the information now before us, that hose flushing will be found the better and more satisfactory, and the following suggestions assume that this will be the case, though some of them apply equally to either method. In most cities where flushing is in use the water is taken from the regular fire hydrants. There is objection to this because the constant use of these hydrants by theflushers may damage them so that they are not in good condition for emergency use by the Fire Department. It may be found advisable to provide small special hydrants for the use of the Street Cleaning Department. These should be below the surface of the sidewalk, and should be provided with a hinged cover, which, when closed down,. will leave the sidewalk unobstructed. Such hydrants are in use in Washington, D. C. They are comparatively inexpensive, and they would be put in only as the flushing area is extended. If, as we understand to be the intention, the high-pressure system hydrants are to be used entirely for fire service in lower New York, the old, lowpressure hydrants could be utilized for street cleaning purposes, thus saving the expense of special hydrants in the high-pressure district. Cost of Water Used. In order that the accounts of the two departments may be properly adjusted, the quantity of water used by the Department of Street Cleaning should be determined * as closely as practicable and credited at cost to the Water Department. Proper Equipment. The necessity of developing by experiment the character of the plant best suited to efficient alnd economical flushing has already been alluded to. The equipment should be standardized as rapidly as possible, so that it may be purchased in quantities at the lowest market price. Provision for properly storing, caring and accounting for it should be devised and enforced. Among other things the section stations should be provided with facilities for draining and drying the hose used, and tle most prac ticable way developed for handling it and for preventing its excessive wear. The greatest permissible lightness compatible with necessary strength and durability in the hose, nozzle and attachments should be studied. Where the length of hose needed does not exceed Ioo feet and the water pressure is ample, it is probable that hose smaller than two inches, as we have estimated, would be advantageous. In some foreign cities, garden hose size has been found satisfactory for street washing. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS. While we regard the general use of street flushing as the most important of our recommendations, there are other directions in which we have suggested changes and improvements that can be effected without much delay, which would, in our opinion, increase the efficiency and reduce the expenses of the Department of Street Cleaning. Some of these have been already alluded to and need only a brief further consideration. Miscellaneous Street Littering. Suitable receptacles should be provided near such street corners as necessary for the reception of waste paper and other litter. After these receptacles are provided the laws and ordinances relating to street littering of all kinds should be rigidly enforced. The enforcement of these laws would at once relieve the street sweepers of a very considerable part of the work they now have to do, and permit them to give their whole time to the more thorough cleaning of the streets. Permits. to Builders and Building Contractors. Permits to occupy the streets for building purposes affect the operations of the Department of Street Cleaning more than any other City Department, and we believe that all permits to occupy any parts of the streets (but not permits to open the pavements) should be issued by the Department of Street Cleaning only, which should frame and enforce regulations for the use and occupation of the streets. The right of builders to occupy one-third of the street should be abrogated, and the area to be occupied, as well as the time of occupation, should be determin.ed by the Commissioner of Street Cleaning and stated in the permit. The area thus stipulated should be described by metes and bounds, which should be physically marked on the street, and no encroachment outside of the bounds thus established should be permitted. A fixed license fee, based upon the area occupied and the 82 loc-tion, should be charged and collected for the account of the Department, a scale of such charges being prepared for the different sections of the City and rigidly adhered to. A date of expiration should be named in the permit, the period covered not to exceed a reasonable time for completing the building work. A renewal of the permit for an additional period might be granted at the discretion of the Commissioner, but the license fee for a renewal permit should be at double the rate of the preceding one. 4 The Commissioner should have the right to revoke any permit for failure of the holder to comply with its conditions and the regulations under which it was granted and to enforce such terms by process of law. We believe that this change in the method of granting permits to builders would he beneficial to the public as well as to the Department of Street Cleaning. The present condition of the streets hi the vicinity of building operations ought to be greatly improved thereby, since the constant presence of the inspectors and employees of the Department would facilitate wholesone control of this now much abused and neglected feature of the City streets. These new duties of the Commissioner might be administered through the Bureau of Encumbrances of the Department, which would probably need to be reorganized for the purpose. The rig4ht of other City I)epartments to enforce their own regulations, such as for the opening and repair of streets and sidewalks, for the protection of life and property, and for the enforcement of sanitary requirements, etc., need not be encroached upon by the change here advocated. Street Litter from Pavemtent and Ulderground Repairs. The jurisdiction over pavement and underground repairs must necessarily remain with City Departments other than that of Street Cleaning, but it should be insisted upon that specifications and rules requiring that the street surface shall be promptly and properly cleaned as soon as the repairs are completed be provided and enforced. In case of failure to do so that the Department of Street Cleaaning should cause the prosecution of the offenders, who are presumably as amenable to the laws and ordinances prohibiting the littering of the streets as arc other persons. Pavements Should Be Kept in Good Repair. The urgent necessity of keeping the pavements in a good condition of repair for the benefit of traffic is obvious, but the fact should not be lost sight of that pavements in bad repair can only be kept cleaned by the expenditure of largely increased time and money, and that this increased cost is a waste of money for which the Department of Street Cleaning should not be responsible. 83 Machine Sweeping. Since machine sweeping is more expensive and less efficient than hand sweeping, it should be discontinued upon the paved streets and hand sweeping substituted therefor. The machines may be employed as occasion demands for cleaning the macadam streets and roads, and they may also be made useful for promptly sweeping up light falls of snow before it has become packed by travel. More Thorough Cleaning. Our observations convince us that the streets are not as thoroughly cleaned as they might be by the present sweeping force. If the street sweepers in FNew York worked industriously and were under proper discipline a great deal more work could be accomplished and the streets would be kept in a much cleaner condition. Special efforts should be directed toward a more thorough removal of the fine dirt and dust from the pavements, and to this end a more effective scraper and a broom of finer fibre, capable of doing cleaner work, should be provided as a part of the sweeper's outfit. Working Sweepers in Gangs. Our own judgment, supported by the testimony of some of the officials of the department, is that better service and more effective cleaning would result from working the sweepers in gangs of from six to ten men (dependent upon the width of the street to be swept), under the direction of competent and energetic foremen. This would not be practicable for day work on streets of heavy travel, but in sections of the City where the travel is light, and a thorough cleaning once every day, or, in many cases, once every two or three days, would be sufficient, this plan could be successfully applied with great benefit to the service. The actual accomplishment per sweeper ought in this way to be considerably increased. Storage Bins for Sweepings. The five cans for sweepings now supplied to each sweeper are stored, as filled, upon the sidewalks where they await, often for hours, the arrival of the collecting wagons. On some beats, this number of cans is not sufficient to hold the collections. The number to each sweeper should vary with his needs. Experience abroad, and, on a small scale in this City, shows that it is entirely practicable to store the sweepings in bins underneath the sidewalk. Such bins may be of such capacity and so constructed that they can be quickly hoisted out by a light crane attached to the collecting trucks, emlptied and replaced. The bins when in place under the sidewalk would be coveredl by a hinged plate, wlich when closed would offer no obstruction to pedestrian travel. We strongly recommend that this matter shall have the careful attention of the department. Leazvitg Street Sweepings in Gutters. When the sweepers have collected the street sweepings into piles at the gutters, the material should be promptly put into the collection cans. If the piles are left for any considerable time, as is too often the case, the sweepings are scattered by the wind and by passing vehicles, so that the labor has to be repeated. The sweepings should be put immediately into the collection cans; and if the sweeper has not enough cans to hold the material, then either he be furnished with more cans, or the collection cart be ordered to make more frequent trips. VI. Snow Removal. Much has been said and written on the question of removal of snow from the streets, as it is a troublesome problem in a city like New York, where the population is dense and the travel heavy. Owing to the quantity of snowfall and the variable temperatures, the snow, sleet and ice seriously interfere with the travel and the collection and disposal of the City refuse. Furthermore, the icy and sloppy condition of 'le streets cannot be neglected as it affects the vehicular and pedestrian travel and the health of the community. The average annual snowfall is so great, and the City is so large, that it is both financially and physically impossible to remove the snow from all streets. Even if the cost were not prohibitive, there are not enough carts and men available for hire to promptly remove the whole mass. All that can be done is to remove a portion of this total mass of snow, and that portion should be limited to the most important travelled and business street;;. The problem should be treated in some common sense manner, by the adoption of a simple method without complications or ambiguities; and the area of streets to be cleared should be kept as small as possible so that the total annual cost of snow removal will not be excessive. The quantities of snow removed in past years, as shown by the records of the Department of Street Cleaning, do not represent the true yardage removed. They are probably useful for comparative figures, but are misleading as to the real quantity of the snow handled. Figure XII. shows graphically these records for MIanhattan and The Bronx, for the past eleven years. The work of removing snow is not started until it has fallen to a certain depth, usually 22. inches. The first working storm, therefore, is not necessarily the first snow storm of the season, nor is the depth of snowfall removed always equal to the total fall for the year. In Table XII. are given the weather conditions for the past eleven years, together with the average cost per cubic yard of removal by contract, for the Boroughs of Manhattan and The Bronx. These figures are from the department's records. and the unit costs prior to the winter of 1902-3 have been calculated by the department so as to get them approximately upon the same basis as for I902 to 1907. In Brooklyn, the average cost per cubic yard of snow removal by contract, on the same basis was 212 cents for the calendar year I906. The greater cost in Brooklyn over that in Manhattan is chiefly due to the unavoidable longer hauls. The cubic yards removed for the past five winters, as recorded by the department, are not the true yardage taken away by the carts. The quantities as recorded and given in Table XIII. 'were obtained by multiplying the areas, between house lines, of the street surface cleaned, by the depth of snowfall at each storm when cleaning was done and taking their sum. These records are complicated by the work done by the street railway companies, which is said to be included in the figures given in the table. it I.!; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - Reacord of 5o/iv Remol by Coetract /loihtin an' 7Twi rotx DJe/wr/fme of/ 5/rc C/alerff, C/4 of w~ Ybrk. inches 50 40 30 20 10 0 Winters of Cost per unit Cubic yd. 10,000,000 9,000,000 8,000,000 8, OO0)O 7,000,000. 6,000,000 $0.50 5,000,000 $0.40 4,000,000 $0.30 3,000,000 $0.20 2,000,000 $0.10 1,000,000 Witters of 189S 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 W inters of 1897 1898 '1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 Fig. XiI. < 89 TABLE XII. RECORD OF WEATHER CONDITIONS AND AVERAGE UNIT COST OF REMOVAL BY CONTRACT. BOROUGHS OF MANHATTAN AND THE BRONX. Total Snowfall First Last Elapsed Mean *Cost Winter of Snowfall, Re- Working Working Working Temper- Per Cubic Inches. moved. Storm. Storm. * Time. ature, F. Yard. 1896-97................. 38.6 32.0 Dec. x6 Feb. 12 59 days 30.3 $o 4323 i897-98.................. 20.5 12.8 Dec. 26 Jan. 31 37 days 35.2 3190 1898-99.................. 57.8 46.4 Nov. 28 Mar. 7 ioo days 31.8 2325 1899-00.................. 20o. 17.8 Feb. 18 Mar. 15 26 days 30.4 3375 1900-01.................. 9.2 8.3 Jan. 31 Feb. 24 25 days 25.0 2825 190I-02.................. 31.3 30.1 Dec. i8 Mar. 5 78 days 30.2 2700 I902-03.................. 26.0 26.0 Dec. 5 Feb. x6 74 days 31.8 2490 1903-04.................. 33.6 30.6 Dec. 3 Mar. 15 104 days 29.0 2425 1904-05.................. 57.8 54.3 Dec. 6 Mar. 4 89 days 28.0 2030 1905-o6.................. 22.1 21.4 Jan. 19 Mar.. I9 70 days 35.5 1500 i906-07.................. 52.4 43.7 Jan. 17 Mar. io 53 days 25.8 I650 * Based on the cubic yards removed as taken from the records of the Department of Street Cleaning. These costs were calculated to the same system of measurement for the sake of comparison. TABLE XIII. SNOW REMOVAL IN "CUBIC YARDS AS RECORDED." (See text for explanations.) Manhattan. The Bronx. Brooklyn. Season of1902-03........................ 3,481,991 247,856........ 903-04............................................ 5,436,154 307,233........ 1904-05............................................ 12,814,824 849,926........ 1905-06............................................ 4,820,1I8 277,683........ 906-07............................................ 5,406,883 694,121........ Calendar Year — I904............................................................ 2,301,819 1905............................................................ 6,992,920 1906.................................................... 1,031,150 90 The work for I906-07 in Manhattan and The Bronx was divi(ded by the I)epartment, as follows: Cubic vardls as recorded. Cleaned by contractor......................................... 10,443,228 Cleaned by street railway companies'........................... 832,205 Cleaned by denartmeiit force and hired carts...................... 4,825,57I (, 101o.,)4 The reason why these figures are called "cubic yards as recorded' and not actual cubic yards removed, is that the snow when piled and loaded in the carts is compacted into a small portion of its original volume as it fell in the storm and because some melted before it was removed. The figures may be relatively colllparable, but should not be taken as representing the actual yar;age of snow as carr'iedl ill the carts to the dumps. The shrinkage in volume of the snow from its light condition of fall into its compact condition in the carts, making allowance for mlelting and the small amount left in the street, averages albout 70 per cent. When' the snow is wet, it packs closely and the shrinkage is greater; but when there are ice lumps in the piles the shrinkage is less. An average shrinkage of 70 per cent. is as nearlv correct as we have been able to determline from the records of the Department, without actual experiments. All past efforts to do the work of clearing and removal by large nulllllbers of men and carts hired by the Department of Street Cleaning have pro-vel bitter experiences. In fact riots have occurred because of failure to pay off the men lrolnlltly, many of whom work for only short periods, have no permalent addresses alnd are ulllknown to the foremen. A contractor is better able to halndle such men and carts which must be hired for this special work than the City Department. By having a contractor do the work the Departnent can utilize its own force for the collection and removal of the garbage, ashes and rubbish. Prior to the winter of 19o2-03, the contractor was paid "per cubic yard of sniow as removed and measured in the carts." The cart capacities were estimated or roughly measured by the city inspectors, and tickets were issued to the drivers on the filling of their carts to represent their loads. These tickets were redeemed by the City. It was found impossible to prevent irregular transactions by any method of tickets or punching devised. This system was abandoned, and another method adopted in which the contract payments were based on quantities computed on areas of streets from house line to house line, multiplied by the depth of the snow fall as recorded. This method was criticised because delays favored the contractor, since the more the snow melted the less he had to remove, but it had the advantage of simplicity 91 in form and left the Department employees free from the performance of their regular work. The Department cannot remove the snow with its own force and equipment. It has attempted to do the work by men and carts hired for the purpose, and has failed to accomplish satisfactory results, except on a restricted scale. A simple system for removing the snow from the streets on the cleaning schedule can be developed in accordance with the general recommendations mentioned below. The major portion of the work should be done by contract, under clearly drawn specifications which define the work to be done, the authority of the Commissioner to issue orders, and the method of calculating the rates of compensation. The payment should be based on the quantity removed. The method of measuring the snow volume should be simple, easily checked, capable of verification at any time, and such that any errors can be traced to the person who made them. Two methods have been tried; one by measuring the volume of the cart loads, and the other by measuring the volume of the snow on the street. While these are the best methods so far suggested, neither of them is free from objections. The practical objections against the first are greater than against the second..The measurement of the loads of the carts is not simple. They are of all kinds, sizes and varieties, and the work of measuring and allotting or punching tickets requires the services of many of the best men in the Department. As the work of snow removal is continuous through the twenty-four hours of the day, the efficiency of the Department for its scavenging work is crippled just at the time when it needs all of its strength. It is not possible to check or verify the measurements after they have been made, nor to detect errors after the reports have been sent to the main office. The objection against the second method is that the volume obtained by multiplying the area cleaned by the depth of precipitation in the storm, may not give a true measure of the quantity removed. This objection can be substantially obviated in the drawing of the contract and specifications. This method has the great advantage that its data can be verified and checked at any time, and that it requires a minimum number of the Department men as inspectors. The volume occupied by a given quantity of snow when it is shovelled into piles, is smaller than when it first falls on the ground; it is still smaller when the piles are shovelled into carts and compacted. The average volume of a given weight when shovelled into carts for removal is about 30 per cent. of its volume when it first falls. The depth of recorded precipitation should be corrected for this shrinkage, in order that the volume so determined may more nearly approximate that removed in the carts, and in order that the price shall more closely agree with that for doing other kinds of removal work. 92 We recommend that the problem of snow removal be treated according to the plan broadly outlined as follows: (I) That at the first fall of snow, the street sweepers promptly clear the crosswalks and remove the snow from around the hydrants. (2) That the requirement that every householder' must throw the snow from his areaway and sidewalk into the street, and clear his gutter be enforced by the police. If for any reas/on this is not done, the Department should do the work and charge a fixed sum per foot of gutter against the land; this charge to be made and collected in the same way as fines for infringements of city regulations. (3) That it should be the duty of the sweepers to maintain the gutters in a clear condition so that in case of thaw the water can run freely to the sewers; and also to cut channels in the snow or ice on the streets so as to drain off the water from all pools. (4) That the Department divide the boroughs into snow removal districts and prepare in the fall of each year a schedule of streets from which the snow shall be removed. The principal thoroughfares should be cleared first, and then others in the order of their importance. This yearly schedule, after being made, s'hould be strictly adhered to regardless of efforts to have it changed in the interest of private persons. (5) That the employees of the Department of Street Cleaning be required to work overtime during and immediately after snow falls. (6) T'hat the Department of Street Cleaning shall have a list of streets in which the sewers are of sufficient s'ize to permit of snow being dumped into them through the manholes. This list should be prepared and kept up to date by the Department of Sewers, and the corrected lists filed with the Department of Street Cleaning. The snow Contractor shall have the privilege under proper supervision and restriction of dumping the snow into the sewers in such streets and that the schedule of prices shall be so arranged in the contract as to cover this privilege. (7) That the street sweepers shall be so organized that a part of them may be withdrawn from their regular work, organized into gangs, and put to work where the dumping of snow into sewers is permissible; while the remaining sweepers shall have their work extended in their respective districts, to keep the gutters open and clean the crosswalks. (8) That the work of snow removal should be done by contract, the snow to be first shovelled into piles, so as to quickly open up the street for traffic, and subsequently carted to the dumps. (9) That the Commissioner of Street Cleaning shall determine when the work of snow removal shall commence. (Io) That a proper contract and specifications be drawn up, clearly defining the points where the work shall begin; that the work shall be done in accordance with 93 'the instructions of the City Inspectors; that the work may be stopped at any time by the Commissioner, whose decision as regards the area cleared shall be final and binding on the Contractor. (II) That the payment to the Contractor shall be based on a quantity of snow, ascertained by multiplying the area of the street, between the house lines, by 30 per cent. of the depth of snowfall in the storm considered. The records of the local offices of the United States Weather Bureau may be used to determine the depth of snowfall, or if found desirable, the Department of Street Cleaning may establish as many stations as may be necessary to determine the snowfall. As the areas of the street surfaces are now recorded on maps on file in the Department, there ought to be no dispute as to quantities if the contract and specifications clearly define this method of measurement for payment. (12) That the Inspectors shall send to the department every twelve hours their reports of the work done during the last twelve hours, which reports shall clearly state the block or.blocks that-have been cleared by the Contractor and the block or blocks in which snow has been piled but not carted away. The payment for such day's work shall be figured only for those whole blocks from which the snow has been carted away. Should the contractor fail at a subsequent time to remove the snow piles, then he shall receive only a portion of his contract price for such blocks. (13) That if a second snowfall comes before the first has been all cleared away, the work on the areas already cleared or piled shall begin de novo, and shall be treated as an independent snowstorm. That the quantities from all blocks in which the work of clearing had not been commenced before the second fall shall be figured at 30 per cent. of the combined depth of the two snowfalls. (I4) That the Inspectors shall insist that the cleaning shall be complete and continuous, so that as few blocks as possible will be left in an incompleted condition. (15) That the Department of Docks and Ferries should grant privileges for dumping snow into the rivers at such streets as will reduce each haul to a minimum. (I6) That the specifications be drawn so that as much of the work as possible shall be done by the Contractor, in order to permit the regular force of the department to carry out their usual duties or be held in reserve for extraordinary duties. The specifications can be so drawn that the contractor will be benefited by carrying away the snow promptly and rapidly. If the work is delayed by him and the snow becomes slush, so that it can be pushed into the gutters and sewers by the department employees, the City Inspector would stop the work of the contractor, and he would thereby lose whatever profit he might have made by a more rapid removal of the snow. If his work is delayed and the snow freezes hard, or melts and then freezes, it is more difficult to break it up and shovel it into the carts. It will, furthermore, bQ to the interest of the contractor to load the carts to their fullest capacity and make as few hauls as possible, as his pay does not depend on the number of carts or their capacity, but on the snow quantities figured from precipitation. 94 We realize that during thawing weather some snow will melt and run off through the sewers, but believe that, for the sake of simplicity, it is best to assume a constant per cent. for shrinkage under all conditions. A pro rata price based on the mean daily temperature could be used in the specifications if it were found desirable, but without doubt a Contractor would be governed by such considerations in formulating his bid. It possiblybwould be to the City's advantage to have the contract cover a number of years, so that the Contractor could arrange for a permanent organization and equipment. VII. Reduction and Incineration. REDUCTION. Reduction of garbage consists of some method of "rendering," by which the oil and grease are extracted from the animal and vegetable matter, leaving a residue which when dried is called "tankage." The oil and grease are sold to both American and European markets at a price which has varied from 2 to 4% cents per pound. The crude oil is refined by the puchasers and used for commercial purposes. Its chief constituents are glycerine, stearine and red oil. The tankage, when dried and ground, is practically odorless and of a dark brown color. It is sold as a base for the manufacture of commercial fertilizers, and the principal market is in the Southern States. The purchase price is based on the "units" of ammonia, which it contains, and its freedom from grease, and is variable. The tailings, or discarded tankage, are generally burned in the plant for fuel. Reduction processes are only profitable when the garbage is collected from large cities and is rich in grease. At the Barren Island works, which receive the garbage from the Boroughs of Manhattan, The Bronx and Brooklyn, the average working analysis of the plant, as given to us by the New York Sanitary Utilization Company, is: Per Cent By Weight. W\ ater and factory losses........................................ 85 G rease (and oil)................................................ 3 Tankage....................................................... 9 Tailings....................................................... 3 IOO The first cost of a reduction plant is large, on account of the expensive machinery required; and the cost of operation and maintenance is high, because of the labor, fuel, wear and tear on the machinery and the corrosive action of the acetic and other acids produced during certain stages of the process. In general, reduction plants 95 are not self-supporting, even if the garbage is delivered free at the works. In Cleveland, Ohio, a reduction plant is operated by the municipality, and it is the only plant for which the financial details are available. It has been found tlere, roughly speaking, that the works are about self-supporting when the garbage is delivered to the plant without charge and when grease can be sold for at least 4 cents per pound. In cities where such works are successfully operated by contract, a bonus is paid for the reduction. The advantages and disadvantages of reduction can be briefly stated as follows: Advantages. I. The organic or putrescible matter of the garbage is converted into grease and tankage, which are harmless. Therefore, the garbage can be cared for in a sanitary manner. 2. It saves components which have a commercial value. 3. With a properly designed and carefully operated plant, the process of reduction need not be a nuisance, and its adoption adds a manufacturing industry to the city. Disadvantages. I. Expensive machinery and apparatus are required and costs of renewals and repairs are large. 2. The offensive odors that are apt to be given off require expense to prevent an annoyance. 3. As the works should be situated at some distance from the city, the haulage is an important factor in the cost of reduction. / 4. Requiring skilled labor, there is some danger of strikes. 5. The garbage must be separately collected. There will always be some foreign material, tin cans and the like, which requires sorting out at the works. 6. There is usually but one plant, as a number of small plants would not pay. The whole system, therefore, would be crippled by fire or by any other cause that would stop the plant. 7. The process provides for the garbage only, leaving the remaining refuse to be treated otherwise. INCINERATION. Incineration is the destruction by fire of all or of any of the several classes of refuse. It is not practicable to incinerate garbage alone unless its water is previously removed or unless a fuel is used. It requires about one pound of average coal (Io,ooo B. t. u.) to incinerate eight pounds of raw New York garbage. There is no advantage in incinerating ash collections alone, as at the present time the expense would probably exceed the gain. It may be practicable at some future 96 time to separate the coal and cinder, and such a process has been proposed but not tried on a sufficiently large scale to warrant any predictions as to success. Rubbish burns readily and produces great heat. Some difficulties have been experienced by the production of slag. Street sweepings from the better paved and centrally located streets will burn, as ordinarily collected, without the addition of other fuel, particularly as they contain a large amount of rubbish. When different classes of refuse are mixed, the aggregate is self-colmhustible, the coal and cinder in the ashes and the rubbish will supply the fuel required to dry out the garbage and street sweepings, so as to render the mixture readily combustible. The object of incineration is, first, to destroy all germ life; second, to destroy those complex and unstable organic compounds of which the putrescible portion consists, and reduce them to simpler forms; third, to reduce the bulk of tlhe mIass; and fourth, to reduce all classes of refuse to one kind, namely, ashes, for final disposition. In order to secure the best sanitary and economical advantages of incineration, it is necessary to generate as high a temperature of combustion as practicable, as then the offensive matter is not only destroyed and converted into ash, but the gases which escape through the stack are innocuous. The endeavor is to secure an average temperature in the combustion chamber of at least 1,5o0 degrees F., that is, between a minimum of 1,200 degrees F. and a maximum of 2,000 degrees F. The residue from incineration of mixed refuse amounts on the average to about 33 per cent. by weight, or 60 per cent. by volume. The volume at the destructor is large on account of the voids between the clinkers, but when placed in a dump the volume is less than this figure, as the fine ash and dust will work into and fill the voids. The advantages and disadvantages of incineration can be briefly stated as follows: Advzn ta ges. I. When properly operated, it destroys all the organic matter and offensive gases and reduces to ash all the collections of garbage, ashes, rubbish and street sweepings. 2. The collections of ashes, rubbish and street sweepings furnish the fuel. Garbage will also burn after drying. 3. Some revenue can be obtained from the heat generated through its conversion into power. 4. The system is sanitary, as fire is a sure destroyer of all germ life. 5. The hauls can be short, as a number of incinerators can be built and advantageously operated. 97 6. Civic authorities can operate these plants better than reduction works, as they are more simple and do not require the municipality to enter into a commercial business. 7. No necessity for separate collections. 8. As a number of plants can be built, the risk of interference by fire or other, causes of stoppage is reduced. Disadvu tatlgcs. I. The necessity of having expert firemen, and of exercising great care to make the incineration satisfactory. 2. When not properly designed or operated, incineration plants, if located near habitations, are likely to become objectionable from the odors and dust emitted. Fuel l'Value of Refuse. Rubbish collections in New York have been burned on a large scale and accurate data obtained. See Transactions, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. LVII., 19o6. Trials were. made in December, 1905, to determine the rate of evaporation of water per pound of rubbish burned, and tle results were an equivalent evaporation from: and at 212 degrees F. of 1.64 pounds and 2.16 pounds. Subsequently, other trials were made by different observers, which gave equivalent water evaporations of 2.281 pounds, 2.29 pounds and 2.17 pounds, respectively, per pound of rubbish. The Borough of Westmount, Canada, has a mixed refuse destructor plant, which is operated in connection with the municipal electric lighting station. The average result, extending over a period of eight months, was that 2,000 pounds of refuse were equivalent to 283 pounds of coal. An evaporative trial, made in May, 1936, gave an average equivalent evaporation of 1.36 pounds of water per pound of refuse. Mr. J. T. Fetherston, Superintendent of the Bureau of Street Cleaning, Borough of Richmond, New York, made a personal investigation of European destructor plants and published his findings in a paper read before the American Society of Civil Engineers on December i8, 1907. From this paper we quote: "Figures for eighteen destructor tests, giving the quantity of water evaporated per pound of refuse (from and at 212 degrees Fahrenheit) for periods varying from 62 hours to one year were secured. The highest rate of evaporation was 2.66 pounds of water per pound of refuse, in a I5-hour run at a destructor in a colliery district. The lowest gave 0.88 pound of water per pound of material in a test of II~2 days, with refuse containing a large proportion of nightsoil. The average evaporation in eighteen modern destructor tests amounted to 1.62 pounds of water per pound of refuse: In all the foregoing figures the water evaporated is a gross.amount, and in order to obtain the net useful steam produced for power purposes it is necessary to deduct for forced draft apparatus. It appears, from the figures quoted, that in a district where coal is abundant-and cheap* it is possible to evaporate about 2.5 pounds of water per pound of refuse, while in other districts distant from coal fields destructors are capable of producing an evaporation of about I.5 pounds per pound of refuse." *In these districts the ashes contain a larger amount of coal and cinder. 98 VIII. Final Disposition. The problem of the final disposition of refuse collected in New York is a serious and difficult one to solve, on account of the immense volume to be handled. The whole system for collection and final disposition should be so planned that the materials may be handled as little as possible, and that the greatest benefit should be derived from the final placement of the refuse. Present System for Final Disposition. At present, all the garbage collected in Manhattan, The Bronx, Brooklyn, and a small portion from Queens (Far Rockaway District) goes to the reduction works on Barren Island, owned and operated under contract by the New York Sanitary Utilization Company. The remainder from Queens and Richmond goes to inland dumps or land fills, except some which is burned in small low-temperature incinerators, of which there are five in Queens and one in Richmond. The ashes, rubbish and street sweepings go to land fills, except a small portion of the rubbish which is burned. There are two rubbish incinerators in Manhattan-one at the foot of West Forty-seventh street and one on Delancey slip-bht both have been allowed to run down and the heat generated is not utilized for revenue. In Brooklyn, the American Railway and Traffic Company, the contractors for the final disposition of part of the refuse collected in that borough, have rubbish incinerators at two of their receiving stations and obtain some revenue from the steam generated. The City also owns one small rubbish incinerator at Thirty-eighth street and Fourth avenue, South Brooklyn, from which no revenue is obtained from the heat generated. In Queens, a portion of the rubbish is used as fuel to help burn the garbage. The final disposition of the material collected in I9o6 is stated in Table XIV. TABLE XIV. FINAL DISPOSITION OF REFUSE, NEW YORK CITY, I906. Showing Disposition of Material in Cart Loads, for the Year Io96. Manhattan Material and How Disposed. and Brooklyn. Queens. Richmond. Total. The Bronx. Garbage — At sea.............................. 77,390 47,493............ 124,883 At Barren Island..................... 172,869 55,024 2,093...... 229,986 Incinerators.................................... 13,206 5,000 18,206 Inland dumps................................... 5,680 9,425 I5,I o5 Ashes, SteamSold................................ 6,701................. 6,701 99 Manhattan Material and How Disposed. and Brooklyn. Queens. Richmond. Total. The Bronx. Ashes- x Inland dumps.................................... 55,717 24,602 80,319 tAshes and RubbishSea................................. 104,407.............. 104,407 Riker's Island fill....................,o67,7I 39,059....... x,Io6,770 *Other fills........................... 386,331 1,471............ 397,808 American Railroad Traffic Company.......... 532,951............ 532,951' Private scows........................ 242,367.................. 242,367 Inland dumps........................ 185,431 51,773 9,646...... 246,850 Paper and RubbishIncinerators......................... 50,770...... 3,313...... 54,083 Inland dumps.;.............................. 10,444 10,444 Street SweepingsInland dumps........................ t...... t...... 35,467 23,508 58,975 2,293,983 737,771 125,122 72,979 3,229,855 Unaccounted for........................ 9,303 287............ 9,590 Total collections............. 2,313,286 738,058 I25,I22 72,979 3,249,445 * Fills on lands not classed as City Dumps.; Ashes include street sweepings in Manhattan, the Bronx and Brooklyn. Final Disposition of Street Sweepings. It is often asserted and as frequently denied that street sweepings have a considerable value as fertilizer for agricultural land. The elements contained in the sweepings that are of value for this purpose are nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash. The quantities of these elements found in street sweepings vary within quite wide limits, and are derived almost wholly from the animal excrement. The results of a number of analyses of street sweepings are shown in Table VI., Appendix C. It is difficult to place any fair market value on the nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash contained in street sweepings, because the market price of these elements not only vary at different times, but the form in which each is found modifies its value for fertilizing purposes. Probably only about one-half of the phosphoric acid is in a soluble form-immediately available as plaint food. A rough estimate of the values of these elements in one ton of street sweepings is at the present, as follows: (00 8.52 pounds nitrogen, at 15 cents............................... $1 278 8.40 pounds phosphoric acid, at 5 cents........................ 420 7.32 pounds potash, at 5 cents.......:.......................... 366 Total............................................... $2 o64 As the intrinsic value of these elements in one ton of the sweepings is about two dollars, and as the' quantity of sweepings annually collected in Greater New York is in the neighborhood of 550,ooo tons, its aggregate value for fertilizing purposes would be apparently $I,ooo,ooo. But from this gross value must be deducted the cost of transporting the sweepings to the lands where they are to be used, and their value compared with other fertilizers also must be considered. The great bulk of the gross material that must be handled is the difficulty in attempting to utilize these sweepings on farm lands, since nearly 98 per cent. of the mass is inert material. Furthermore, the cost of distributing the street sweepings on farms is disproportionate to their value; and, under usual conditions, sweepings are a far less economical and convenient material for the farmer than the commercial fertilizers to be had in the market. As the better grade of street sweepings have only about half the fertilizing value of stable manure, ton for ton, and as it is becoming more and more difficult to dispose of even the latter material to farmers, at a price that will cover the cost of delivery, it will be appreciated how hopeless it is to expect any successful disposition of street sweepings in this way. The use of street sweepings alone for filling lands has been condemned by many sanitary authorities, because the organic matter max undergo fermentation, with exhalation of ammonia or other gases deleterious or obnoxious to those living in the vicinity. Where street sweepings, rich in organic matter, are deiposited alone in large masses. there may be ground for serious annoyance and possible injury to health. In New York the street sweepings and the ashes are now collected together, and there does not seem to be any good reason for the discontinuance of this practice. Only about one-fifth of the mass thus collected is street sweepings, and as only a part of the street sweepings consists of organic matter, the organic matter in the mass will not exceed a small percentage of the whole. The antiseptic action of the ashes will prevent putrescence, and land properly filled with a mixed collection of ashes and street sweepings will not be unsanitary after a few years. Dutming at Sea. All the refuse collections could be dumped into the Atlantic Ocean, but unfortunately the least harmful material sinks and the foulest floats, so that much of the floatable mass will be scattered along the beaches, through the action of current and wind. This fouling of the beaches creates a nuisance that the public should not be asked to tolerate. The cost of sending the scows so far to sea that there would be no danger of fouling the beaches, and the delays and interruptions caused by storms and ice, for I01 bid the use of this plan. The (lumping of refuse at sea should not be resorted to except in cases of emergency, when the period of such sea d(umping will le of short duration. Present Lan d Fills. With the exception of Manhattan. there are refuse land tills in all of the boroughs. We found the City tills in crude and unsightly condition. The best tills were in Richmond, as some effort was being made there to grade the materials into layers. Garbage, in the quantities collected in the several boroughs, should never be put into land fills. Rubbish is also a most undesirable material for filling, even when mixed with the ash and street sweeping collections. On account of its light, heterogeneous and bulky character, it makes the fills unsightly, soft and liable to combustion. A fire, once started, in a fill containing rubbish burns into the mass and slmoulders for lack of oxygen, emitting a very disagreeable, pungent smelling smoke. These fires are difficult to extinguish. The most important of the land fills is on Riker's Island, East River. 'I lle Department of Docks and. Ferries built a crib bulkhead, inclosing a swamp on the west side of the original island, comprising 632 acres. This area has beent filled to a height varying from 12 feet to over 60 feet above mean low water. The scows loaded W ith the mixed collections of ashes, rubbish and street sweepings are towed, to the island and the material is unloaded and distributed by contract. The scows are unloaded by orangepeel dredges into dumping cars, drawn by locomotives, or upon a rubber belt conveyor about I,ooo feet long, rigged for side discharging at any point. The Department of Docks and Ferries has also completed another bulkhead at Riker's Island, inclosing I47 acres. This new inclosure, if filled so that after final settlement the surface will average five feet above the top of the bulkhead', will contain about 5,220,000 cubic yards of material. The shrinkage, after some years, of the fresh material as placed in the fill is about 33 per cent.. so that it would require, to make this 5,220,000 cubic yards, 7,720,000 cubic yards of freshly deposited material. The fresh material in the fill is more compact than it is in the scows. The shrinkage from scows to fill is about one-fifth; so that, measured on the scows, the required material would be 9,650,000 cubic yards. Records of the Bureau of Final Disposition of the Department of Street Cleaning showed that 192,732 cart loads of rubbish, ashes and street sweeping, after picking and trimming, when placed on scows, lmeasured 264,092 cubic yards. Therefore, one cart load averaged 1.37 cubic yards, based on scow measurement. At the present rate of delivery at Riker's Island,,106,769 cart loads per year, the yearly volume measured on scows is 1,516,273 cubic yards, and the new inclosure will be filled in less than six and a half years. Sorting Rubbish. In all of the boroughs the sorting over of the rubbish and the removal of those articles which are salable is permitted, the sorting being done by pickers employed by contractors, who pay for the privilege. Of the several classes of refuse, the rubbish 102 collections are likely to be the most contaminated by disease germs, as they contain discarded beds, bedding, furniture, rags and house sweepings. As some of the material picked out goes back into the City to be sorted and worked, it is a serious question whether the money received for the privilege, and the reduction in the volume of the material for final disposition, compensates the City for the danger involved. At present about 30 per cent., by weight, of the rubbish collected in Manhattan is picked out, and a smaller percentage in the other boroughs. The present method of picking, sorting and storing is crude in the extreme, and unless better provision is made and stricter regulations enforced, the practice should be discontinued as being unsanitary. Where a neat and orderly method of picking can be practiced in receiving stations, there is no objection to picking if carried out under proper supervision. Thus, the better grades of paper, rags, barrels, tin cans, scrap metals and bottles could be saved. In the stations having power from incinerating plants, the best pieces of wood and boxes can be saved' and cut into kindling wood. This work of salvage should be done by contract, so as not to complicate the labor duties of the Department. We recommend that all beds, bedding and old furniture be burned: Reduction. As the dumping of garbage at sea should not be allowed and as it is not safe to place it in land fills, nor in New York to plough it into the ground, nor to feed it to animals, the only other methods for final disposition are reduction and incineration. Because of ^the immense quantities of garbage, which must be disposed of daily without serious interruptions, and because high temperature incineration of refuse containing garbage has not yet been introduced in any of the boroughs, we hesitate to recommend at the present time incineration of garbage for all of the boroughs. We have given careful study to the process of reduction as now conducted at Barren Island, and we recommend that the garbage collections of the Boroughs of Manhattan, The Bronx and Brooklyn be disposed of by reduction, by contract under suitable specifications. Provision should be made for a more prompt delivery to the reduction plant than at present, as fresh garbage is less offensive than stale garbage. Dead Animals. The carcasses of all large dead animals should be removed and reduced by contract, and a suitable plant or plants equipped with all modern improvements should be maintained by the Contractor. A fixed fee for the removal of each carcass should be collected by the City from the owner of the animal in every case where possible. The specifications should require the prompt removal of carcasses by the Contractor, and prescribe a fixed daily penalty for failure in each case. Private Disposal of Garbage. Some large producers have their garbage disposed of by private scavengers, who remove it to places outside of the City, where it is fed to poultry, hogs and cattle. 103 There can be no objection to such private removal where suitable wagons are used, but it is questionable whether the meat from animals and the milk from the cows fed on garbage from large cities is wholesome for human food. On this latter point we have no evidence, but we recommend that the Department of Health give this subject careful attention. The City has the right to control this private garbage. We call attention to decisions of the United States Supreme Court (I99 U. S., 306, and 199 U. S., 325), wherein it was affirmed that household garbage is not private property which can be disposed of by the producers in a manner contrary to the requirements of City ordinances or the rules of a Board of Health. Incineration. We have carefully studied the subject of incineration and have visited the destructor plant at Westmount, Canada, which we consider the best example of a high temperature furnace in operation in the United States or Canada. The Borough of Richmond has now under construction a destructor plant which should be successful if properly managed. From the view point of final disposition, incineration has the advantage of reducing the several kinds of refuse to ash, thus leaving but one grade of material'to be handled, which is suitable for land filling and other purposes. In the Boroughs of Queens and Richmond, we recommend that the refuse collections be incinerated in furnaces, carefully designed and constructed, according to the best modern practices, for the continued generation of high temperatures. We recommend that the destructor plants be located at the district receiving stations, to which the collection carts will carry their loads, and that the ashes, from the destructors be taken to land fills. If careful consideration be given to the location of these plants, the heat can be utilized for power purposes and the revenue obtained will reduce the cost of destruction, but the incineration should be conducted primarily for destruction rather than for power purposes. This will make short hauls for the collection carts and the least weight of material for the hauls to the fills. In the Boroughs of Manhattan, The Bronx and Brooklyn, we recommend that the rubbish collections be burned at the receiving stations in furnaces of modern design,. and that the ashes be added to the ash and street-sweeping collections, and then all taken to land fills. The heat from these rubbish incinerators can be utilized as a byproduct, or in other words, that the incineration should primarily be for destruction and not for power generation. Transportation. The transportation of any or all of the several classes of refuse can be by carts, scows (water carriage) and trolley cars. When the cart hauls are long, relays of horses may have to be established. Wherever possible water carriage in scows., generally speaking, will be found thecheapest and most satisfactory method. The trolley roads and, perhaps, the steam 104 roads can be utilized at times to good advantage, and as favorable opportunity offers this means of transportation should be developed. The tralnsportation system must be developed to suit the plans for final disposition, and will naturally vary in detail in the different boroughs. We recommend, however, the use of mechanical means for handling the material to be transported, whenever the installations will be sufficiently permanent to reduce cost. Lands Available for Filling. There are marshes and lands in all the boroughs, and also some sunken meadows in the rivers, which can be filled and converted into property suitable for improvements. Soine of the land available for filling is owned by private parties and some by the City. lThe City property consists of lands under water and of marshes lying below high-vwater mark in the Boroughs of The Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens. The major portion of these lands are in Queens and form part of the Jamaica Bay district. For a statement of City ownereship of marsh land see the opinion of the Corporation Counsel in Appendix G. When the City can deliver suitable filling material, such as ashes and street sweepings, freed from rubbish, there is no doubt that the owners of such lands will join with the City in some mutually beneficial arrangement, as from time to time it becomes desirable to improve their lands. We have-.no evidence of the amount of land privately owned within the boroughs or of land so-owned in the vicinity of the City, which in time will require filling. The acreage, however, is large. Neithler have we evidence as to the amount of land claimed by the City, but in the Jamaica Bay District alone, there are stated to be 4,200 acres of land under water and of hummocks in the Bay, to which the City claims title. See report of Jamaica Bay Improvement Commission, submitted May 31, I907, page i8. There is certainly sufficient land in and near the City, which requires filling, to furnish places for final disposition, if the material is not heterogeneous in its composition. The question of final disposition embodies the co-operation of all the municipal authorities. The City should plan its work as a whole, and not let each department or bureau work independently. The refuse has to be disposed of, and the final disposition is just as important as the opening of new streets, the building of bridges, the creating of parks, or any other public improvement. We do not endorse the practice of filling with material containing rubbish as is being done in the present fill at Riker's Island, as the land thus created is not in a condition for convenient use. We recommend the filling of the new bulkhead at Riker's Island to a height above the top of the present bulkhead, and when finished to leave it slightly graded from the middle toward the edges. While this work is in progress some other land owned by the City should be bulkheaded or otherwise prepared for filling, and the process ioS continued. We further recommend that the present inland dumps be filled to a proper level with good material, like ashes, so as to cover the present unsightly appearances, and that the filling be applied in layers under suitable supervision. We suggest that the proper municipal authorities investigate the City's claims to the marshes and lands under water, and perfect the City's titles thereto. Some of these lands will be very valuable, and delays will only add difficulty in proving the City's ownership. IX. Collections. In Mlanhattan, The Bronx and Brooklyn, the collections are made on the primary separation system, that is, each householder keeps separate his accumulation of garbage, ashes and rubbish. This primary separation is fairly well carried out by the householders, the worst offenders appearing to be the owners of private residences who engage scavengers for the removal of their household refuse, and the tenement class, who do not appreciate the value of keeping a proper separation, and, in many cases, have not the room for so doing without trouble to themselves. This latter class, unfortunately, throws much of its refuse, into the streets. In Queens and Richmond primary separation is partly in vogue, but is not universal throughout the boroughs, depending upon the methods of making the collections and the final disposition of the material in the different districts. The collections are made free of expense to the householder, and, in general, the present plan is as follows: The carts leave the stable in the morning, and each has its route. One kind of cart is used for ash and garbage collections. Such a cart first makes usually one collection of ashes. The householders stand their ash receptacles in the areaways or at the curb, and the driver empties the receptacles into his cart, leaving the empty receptacles where he found them. When the cart is filled, it takes its load to the dumping place. The second trip of the cart makes a garbage collection and continues to collect garbage until the. garbage on the route of thie cart has all been collected and carried to the dumping place. The cart then returns for more ash collections and keeps on collecting ashes until the route is clean or the day's work is done, when it returns to the stable. During these latter trips, the ash carts take up the street sweepings as they findi tlem in the sweeper's cans or in piles at the'gutters. The rubbish carts collec (,!ilv rubbish and laper, and they are kept continuously at this work during the working hours. Whecther the collections should be made separa!t- or mixed really depends on the method it;r final disposition and on the desirability of obtaining a revenue from the marketabl!e portion of the refuse. As the system of primary separation has been adopted and. is in universal use in Manhattan, The Bronx and Brooklyn, and in partial use in Queens and Richmohd, we are of the opinion that separate collections should be continued, except for ashes and street sweepings, as at the present time io6 there does not appear to be any good reason why these latter classes should be kept separate. If. refuse is collected mixed, it is impracticable to separate afterward the constituent parts. If the classes of refuse are kept separate, they can be mixed afterward if necessary, or those classes which have value, as for example ashes for filling or concrete construction, can be sold. The system of collection by carts must be adjusted from time to time to suit variations in conditions. Many of the cart routes are too long, but this is a fault generally attributable to either the locations of the stables or unloading places. Intelligent development of the system will adjust these irregularities. During the winter months, more collection trips must be made than during the summer. We believe that the carts do not make as many trips each day as they could. This matter should receive attention. We tried to get data on this point but the result was unsatisfactory. We recommend that the authorities encourage, as far as possible, the use by the householders of uniform sized metallic cans or receptacles for their ashes and garbage. These cans could be of two standard sizes if necessary, but the largest can used should be easily handled by one man. The object is to avoid the use of old wooden boxes and temporary receptacles, frequently seen on the sidewalks, which often are filled to overflowing. The rubbish and house sweepings should be in standard receptacles, or be neatly bundled and securely tied. We recommend that all receptacles should be marked with the owner's house address, so as to be easily identified. We recommend that a fine of a fixed amount be imposed for each failure to comply with- the collection regulations of the department. We do not know of any better general type of collection carts than these in use in Manhattan. The sizes appear to be well suited for present conditions. The ash and garbage carts should be covered. There is no style of cover in use that is entirely satisfactory, but inventive genius no doubt will improve the present methods of cart covering. At present the trouble of covering and uncovering for collections, often not over 25 feet apart, results in leaving the carts uncovered until filled. The present metallic covers are heavy, and through carelessness in handling get bent and twisted, so that they do not work easily. The canvas covers get torn and soiled, and while they can be washed the men do not use them to best advantage. This trouble could be obviated by the district superintendents, whose duty it should be to keep up the standard of men and equipment. X. Pier Dumps and Receiving Stations. The word "dump" is used in a double sense. The piers, where the carts empty their loads on scows, are called dumps, as also the places where inland fills are being made. In Manhattan, all the material collected must be hauled to the piers. In The Bronx and Brooklyn, cnly a part of the material is hauled to the piers. In Queens, 107 there is only one p~ier dumpj, tise(l for sunnuer garbage at F-ar Rockaway, andl in Richmonml there are il() pier (InhimpS. c;&~neradllv onie sidle of thle pier is use(l. Oin this por)it(ion;Iam and inicline aIrc built, so that thle calls canl dumlp into thle scows at all stages of thle. tide. Undernleatli the ramp there is a storage plIace for the material pickedi ont lby the enmployees of the trimmining contractor, and these are v-ery' dirty- anid nntidy pilaces. All thle ptier dutmps are of v-ery lprimitiv-e design md1( are nlncovered1, with the exception of thle pier at liast One IH nndredl and Sev-enthi street. A list of pier dinmips is giveni in i'alle XV. TJA BLJ:I X V. LIST OIF PIER DuNIPS. Location. Distance Apart. Manhattani. E'ast RiverClinton street................. Stanton street............... last Twenty-ninith street.......... East Forty-sixtis street........... East Sixty-first street............ East Eightietti street............ E a s t One Hnndred and Seventh street... East One Hundred and Thirty-ninth street. Hudson RiverCanat street................ West Thirtieth street........... West Forty-seventls street.......... West One Hnndred and Thirty-fourth street. The Bronx. Lincoln avenue................ Brooktyn. Gold street.................. Clinton avenue................. Sixth street.................. Coney Island creek............... Richmond. None. I- 53 miles from Blattery. (- 75 I - 5) o - 83 0 7.75 0.-95 - 3.5 ' -75 IiClinton street. Stanton street. 19Twenty-ninth street. ItFo'rty-sixth street. itSixty-first street. 11Eightieth street. One Hundred and Seventh street. i..1 c it Battery. - 88 Canal street. o - 85 Thirtieth street. 4-.35 Forty-seventh street. For ashies and ruhhish. Garhage goes to East One Hundred and Thirty-ninth street. ior tpermnit carts only. Fcr garhage only. For garhage only. For garhage only. Some of the distances between these dumping piers are too great for either quick delivery or economy of service. There is no dumping pier in Manhattan between West Forty-seventh street and West'One Hundred and Thirty-fourth street, a distance Of 4.35 miles. There is only one for the whole of The Bronx, and the garbage of Io8 this borough has to be carted to Manhattan. In Brooklyn there are only three on the harbor side of the borough. More dumping piers are required in the boroughs of The Bronx and Brooklyn, since the garbage is sent by water transportation to the reduction plant. It is necessary to have pier dumps, as the material cannot be removed from some of the boroughs, at least with present facilities, in any other way than by water transportation. The tost of maintaining the thirteen pier dumps in Manhattan and The Bronx in I906 was $40,20I.30. (See Appendix H.) The collections in I906 for Manhattan and The Bronx, divided for the different piers, are given in Appendix J. There were over seventeen places in I9o6, which were not regular dumping piers, where dumps were made in Manhattan and The Bronx, and the amount of ashes and rubbish so diverted from the regular dumping piers amounted to I5 per cent. The design of these pier dumps can be improved, and they should be enclosed to prevent dust and papers being scattered by the wind. We recommend that all piers allotted for the purpose of unloading the collection carts shall be permanently given over to the use of the Department of Street Cleaning, and if the City requires one of these piers for some other purpose, that another shall be provided in the immediate or a convenient neighborhood. Having permanent piers, we recommend that the City reconstruct them to facilitate the unloading of the collection carts and entirely enclose them so as to confine the dust. In Brooklyn, the American Railway and Traffic Company, which has a contract for the final disposition of the ashes, street sweepings and rubbish, has erected thirteen receiving stations in various parts of the borough. The Department collection carts deliver their loads at these receiving stations, from which the balance of the material, after the marketable portion has been sorted out, is conveyed in iron bins on trolley cars to the places selected for its final disposition. There are rubbish incinerators at two of these stations. This receiving station system has advantages. It provides short hauls for, and a quick unloading of, the collection carts, thus saving considerable time for the horses and drivers. The receiving stations can be enclosed with structures that are attractive and in harmony with their surroundings. By so doing the stations will not be objectionable, and the unloading of the carts, the handling of the material and the loading of the trolley cars or other conveyances for its transportation to the place of final disposition will be out of public sight. We recommend the plan of having at least one receiving station in each district of each borough. They can be built as wanted, not necessarily all at once, and the sites can be so chosen as to minimize the hauls and to be favorable for the receiving and removal of the material. The pier dumps and the proposed incinerator and destructor plants can be receiving stations. The whole system is improved by re IO9 ducing the bulk of the material at the receiving stations, in order that only a portion of the original volume need be removed to the place of final disposition. XI. Present Organization and Work of Street Cleaning. The Commission has not attempted to make an examination of the Street Cleaning Department. In order to discuss intelligently the present organization, the working of the system and the results accomplished, a study of existing conditions was obviously necessary in order to discover and point out wherein methods and results were unsatisfactory, and where changes and improvements were necessary or desirable. We pursued our studies of the working of the Department for that purpose only, and the criticisms that follow should be regarded from that point of view. Territorial Control. The Department of Street Cleaning is limited in its jurisdiction to the Boroughs of Manhattan, The Bronx and Brooklyn. The Mayor has direct control of this department, the Commissioner of Street Cleaning being appointed by and wholly accountable to him. In the Boroughs of Queens and Richmond, the cleaning of tie streets is made, by the present charter, one of the duties of the Borough Presidents, who appoint the superintendents and have general control of the administration of their Bureaus of Street Cleaning. The Mayor has no jurisdiction over street cleaning work in these two boroughs. The creation of these separate and independent organizations for carrying on work of the same general character within different parts of the City, necessitates the multiplication of administrative heads and staffs, and the duplication of accounts, and for this reason must increase the aggregate cost of city scavenging. The working forces do not clean all the streets listed in Tables X. and XI. The variation in the last ten years of the street sweeping force of the Borough of Manhattan is given in Table XVI., which shows that while the streets cleaned have increased less than I per cent., the sweepers have increased 3 per cent. and the population 28 per cent. TABLE XVI. THE VARIATION IN. THE LAST TEN YEARS OF THE STREET SWEEPING FORCE, BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN. Miles of Area of Number Streets Streets of Population. Cleaned. Cleaned. Sweepers. Year1897................................... a 429.5I b 9,325,544 b I,623 c I,727,430 I907................................... d 433.45 d 9,41I,I20 e 1,677 c 2,217,503 Increase in ten years...................... 3.94 85,576 54 490,073 Per cent. increase.......................... 0.92% 0.92% 3.32% 28.37% a Mileage calculated on same ratio as'for 1907. b F'rom George E. Waring "Municipal Affairs," June, 1898, page 192. c Calculated rom United States Census figures. d From Chief Engineers, Department of Highways, dated January i, I907. e Number of Sweepers employed by the Department in Manhattan on June 21, 1907. I I Organ izatio n. The general organization of the Department of Street Cleaning is now substantially the same as it was at the end of Colonel George E. Waring's administration. It represents the result of the careful study and earnest efforts'of a iman who was a good organizer and administrator. Conditions have not greatly changed since his time, nor have any sound reasons appeared for changing the general scheme of organization wllich he developed. We are satisfied that with competent and faithful administration, the organization is entirely adequate for the thorough and economical cleaning of the streets and for the disposal of the wastes of tile City, and we do not recommend any radical changes. We are convinced, however, that in several respects tile management of the department is not as efficient and economical as it might be, and that some radical reforms are imperative, if satisfactory results are to be expected. In saying this we do not refer to any particular administration. Most of the things we feel compelled to criticise have been the result of slow growth, or of gradual relaxation of discipline, or the result of circumstances over which the department has had no adequate control. The substance of this report was completed when the present Commissioner of Street Cleaning was appointed. Labor Force of the Department. The number of employees varies from time to time. The list given in Table XVII. was.taken from the CITY RECORD of July 31, 1907, which gives the list as of June 30, I907. A foot note has been added to show the number as carried on the department's books, June 21, I907. TABLE XVII. LIST OF OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES COMPILED FRO(M THE CITY RECORD, JULY 31, 1907. Man- The Brook- Richhattan. Bronx. lyn. Queens. mond. Total. AdministrationCommissioner............................. I.. Deputy Commissioner...................... I I I.... 3 General Superintendent.................... I *.... Assistant Superintendent................... * *.... Superintendent of Final Disposition.......... *.... i Assistant Superintendent of Final Disposition. *.... I Master Mechanic.......................... *.. Chief Clerk.............................. *.. Law Clerk................................. I.... I Chief Bookkeeper.......................... I *.... I Clerk..................................... I.... I Bureau Superintendents........................ I 2 1 I-I Man- The Brook- Richhattan. Bronx. lyn. Queens. mond. Total. Clerical ForceClerks, Stenographers...................... 38 *. I l 4 54 Medical Examiners......................... 2 *...3 Veterinarians............................. 3 4.... 7 Apothecary................................ *..... Uniformed ForceDistrict Superintendents.................... 12 2 7 1.. 22 Stable Foremen........................... 10 2 7.. 2 2, Assistant Stable Foremen................... 10 2 7.... 19 Section Foremen.......................... 6i 4 34 8 8 115 Inspectors...................................... 4 4 Dump Inspectors........................... 3 * 2.. 25 Assistant Dump Inspectors................ 18 *. 5 23 M echanics................................. 102 * 36 I.. 139 Acting Assistant Stable Foremen............ 27 *.. 5.. 2 44 Acting Assistant Section Foremen........... 123 *. 83 6.. 212 Drivers................................... 757 * 537 4 50 1,388 Stablemen and Hostlers..................... 230 30 148.. 12 420 Sweepers................................. tI,876 *. t732 75 78 2,752 Laborers..................................... I. 13 36 49 Boardm en................................. 17 * 6 7 ~ 30 Scowmen.................................. 46 *...... 46 Mechanics' Helpers........................ 54 * i8 2. - 74 M arine Force.............................. 9 *. 9 Engine and Firemen........................ 4 *...... 4 Foremen...................................... 2 I 3 Assistant Foreman............................. I.. I Crematory Laborers............................ 4 I 5 Crematory Foreman................................. I * Included in Manhattan. t On June 2I, 1907, Manhattan, 1,677; The Bronx, 145, and Brooklyn, 69o. The general efficiency of any industrial or municipal organization for doing public work is dependent upon the industry, energy, skill and loyalty of the workmen employed. But these qualities in the laborers must be supplemented by sound dicipline and wise management on the part of those in general control. In Municipal Department work the natural gravitation is towards higher wages, an increase in the number of employees, and a decrease in the efficiency of the labor. - ~,. ~.... ~,,:!~,;i. 112 These tendencies have been at work for years in the Department of Street Cleaning of New York. That they have not always been successfully combated is not entirely the fault of the department management. Powerful external as well as internal influences are always at work in their favor. Whatever may have been the cause or causes, the fact is that the present laboring force is not accomplishing the work it should for the pay received, although no body of laborers in the country engaged in work requiring equal skill and physical exertion is more liberally paid. Many of them are listless, sluggish in their movements, and careless with their work. The impression given the observer, is that their only interest in the work is to put in the required number of hours on the street with the least possible exertion. There is an absence of the spirit and enthusiasm which characterizes the work of the efficient laborer in any field. These remarks do not, of course, apply to all the men. There are many exceptions, but they do apply to the force as a whole. Not a few of the men on the sweeping force are comparatively old, long since past the age when constant average physical exertion is possible. The deserving among them should be retired, not alone on their own account but because their necessarily low efficiency tends to set a standard for the whole force. In other cases, the task allotted is so light that active exertion is not necessary. We consider that the subject of pensioning or providing for the support of long service employees and those disabled in the service is one to be commended from both humanitarian and economic points of view. As any scheme of this kind should apply to all municipal employees and not to those of a single department, we do not undertake to consider it in detail in this report. We strongly recommend that this matter should receive the early and earnest attention of the Municipal Government. Laxity of Discipline in the Department. From our observations we are convinced that some of the men in charge do not secure as much or as efficient work from those under them as the latter are expected to give. This laxity on the part of some District Foremen, District Superintendents, Stable Foremen, and others has a demoralizing effect upon the whole force. To successfully combat this natural tendency toward laxity in discipline and efficiency, it is necessary that there should be constant vigilance and energetic action on the part of the heads of the Department, and in order to secure the best results it is essential that each responsible official should be held strictly to account for all the work done by those under him. We strongly recommend that the duties of each employee should be clearly defined by the Department, and that each superior should be held personally accountable for the work accomplished by his subordinates. Political Influence. Everybody seems to agree that political influence should be kept out of the Department if good results are to be obtained. 113 The recognition and application of this principle to the work of the Department of Street Cleaning cannot be too strongly urged. Until every employee of the Department can be made to realize that security in his position depends entirely upon his industry, efficiency and loyalty, and that in the absence of these qualities personal or political influence cannot shield him from the appropriate penalty, successful organization and discipline will be impossible. As frequent changes of administration tend to disorganize the force and may prevent the carrying out of well conceived policies and plans that require years for their consummation, we strongly recommend that the Commissioner be permanently appointed, subject, however, to removal 1y the Mayor without charges. The power of removal by the Mayor without charges is advisable, since he is primarily responsible for the administration of the Department. Mcthod of Employing 3ctn. The present method of securing employees, especially drivers, through the Civil Service Commission, is not satisfactory. Examinations by the Commission are not of a character to determine the fitness of applicants for special occupations. It is our opinion that such examinations should be made to suit the requirements of the Department, and that the result would he better classes of men 'for the different kinds of work to be performed. Attention is called in this connection to the report of the Department of Street Cleaning for I906, where the Commissioner says (page 5): "At present the lists of cartmen supplied by civil service do not give us the proper men. They are not given the proper examination or properly selected, and before the Department has been able to determine whether or not they are fit to drive they have, in many instances, been the cause for damage suits brought against the City, and a considerable sum of damages has been collected because of the inefficiency of the Drivers supplied through the civil service, and before the Department could by any possible means know of the inefficiency of the men so supplied for trial. I would request, therefore, if it meets your views, permission to apply to the Civil Service Commission for authority to examine the men for drivers' positions ourselves. I do this believing that the City can be saved a great deal of money arising from damages caused by the inexperienced men supplied on trial. We are thoroughly equipped for examination of and better able to determine the abilities of the men examined than can be determined by the present method of examination." The request of the Commissioner seems to us reasonable and proper, and we believe that if granted it would result in an improvement in the class of men secured. System of Paying the Mclt. The sweepers are paid weekly by Paymasters who visit the stables and section stations for that purpose during working hours. The sweepers go, usually, earlier than necessary to the stations at' the appointed time and await the coming of the Paymaster, who is often late, with the result that the men lose from one to three II4 hours of time which ought to ble devoted to their work. The loss of time bv tile men is considerable, amounting, according to our information, to an average of three hours each per pay-day. This would aggregate over io,ooo hours for tile whole force every week. It seems possible to so arrange for the payment of the men that this loss could be avoided. Light Work in S'umme1r. The quantity pf refuse to be handled in summler is much smaller than in winter, and as the force of permanent drivers is gauged by the needs of the winter work there is an unnecessary number for the summer work. In other words, the Department does not need as many drivers during the summer season as during the winter season, but as the drivers are employed by the year the whole force is continued through the summer. The result is that the drivers do not make as many loads per day on the same routes in summer as in winter, and the aggregate loss to the Department on this account must be large. If it is found impossible to transfer the drivers to other kinds of work it would seem advisable to reduce the regular force to the number required for summer work and to employ such extra drivers as may be needed during the winter. XII. Plant and Equipment of the Department. The Department of Street Cleaning is not properly equipped with plant to enable it to do its work in the best manner and at the lowest cost. Stabcls. All the-stables now in use by the Department, except one in M:anhattan, one in The Bronx, one in Brooklyn and two in Richmond, are rented from private owners. There are no City stables in Queens and the horses are kept in livery stables. The rental paid for each of these stables, together with the amount chargeable per horse, are shown in Table XVIII. The leased buildings were altered for stable purposes and are maintained in repair at the expense of the Department. They are similar in design and arrangement, and, in general, the basement and second floors are used for horses, the ground or first floor for carts, the third and fourth floors for harness. repairs, veterinary and feed storage. I r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I I /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ II6 TABLE RENTAL OF STABLES-TOTAL RENTAL Borough. Stables. Location and Owner. ~ Manhattan........ A........... B and Annex.. C............ D........... E........... F............. G............. H............ K and Annex.. Seventeenth street and Avenue C, City................ Nos. 612 to 618 West Fifty-second street, George W. Plunkitt........................................ Nos. 625 to 629 West One Hundred and Thirtieth street, George W. Plunkitt............................ Nos. 505 to o09 East One Hundred and Sixteenth street, George W. Plunkitt............................. Nos. 408 and 410 West Fifteenth street, James S. Hermann........................................... No. 527 East Eightieth street, William F. Cunningham. Nos. 42 to 46 Hamilton street, Philip Collins.......... Nos. 424 and 426 East Forty-eighth street, B. Theresa Kelly and others................................ Nos. 219 to 223 West Seventy-seventh street, Cornelia and Alice Jay................................... Nos. 99 and Ioi Sullivan street, H. B. Claflin Company. No. 615 East One Hundred and Fifty-secdnd street, Siebrand Niewenhous............................ Tiebout avenue and One Hundred and Eighty-ninth street. City...................................... The Bronx........ M............ I............. L............. Totals and averages......................... Brooklyn.......... A............ B............. C............ D........... E............ F............. G............. H............ I............. Flushing and Kent avenues, City.................... No. 403 Butler street, Robert Furey................. Nostrand avenue and Sterling place, Frank D. Creamer. North Thirteenth street and Kent avenue, Henry C. Fischer......................................... Jamaica avenue and Gillen place, Frank D. Creamer... Sixty-seventh street, near Seventeenth avenue, City.... No. i815 Pacific street, Anna Shevlin............... Nos. 1172 and II74 Fourth avenue, Agnes I. Hart.... Sixty-seventh street and Eighteenth avenue, H. Obersheimer......................................... Totals and averages.......................... Richmond......... A............. B............. Swan street, Tompkinsville, City.................... Columbia street, West New Brighton, City............ - — -- II7 XVIII. AND RENT PER HORSE, YEAR 19o6. Estimated *Average Annual Assessed Ratio of Amount Number of Rental Per Horse Per Rental Valuation Assess- Chargeable Horses, -A Paid by of Property. ment to to Horses, Kept Day, Cit) Rental. Two-thirds of During Year. Month. 365 Days Rental. Year. Per Year.......................... (197).................. $6,750 oo $45,000 00 6,000 0 28,000 00 5,000 00 21,o00 00 7,000 00 40,000 oo 4,000 00 28,000 00 7,000 00 40,000 00 4,000 00 28,000 00 9,500 00 92,000 oo 3,250 00 34,ooo 0o 4,000 00 54,000 oo................ $56,500 oo $4Io,ooo oo $6,ooo oo $45,000 oo 2,500 00 22,000 00 2,700 00 4I,000 00 4,000 00 25,000 00 1,500 o0 12,050 00 1,8o00 o 21,000 00 I00 00 4,200 00 $18,600 oo $I70,250 oo................ 6.7 $4,500 oo 4.7 4,000ooo oo 4.2 3,333 oo 5.7 4,667 oo 7.0 2,667 oo 5.7 4,667 oo 7.0 2,667 oo 9.7 6,333 oo I0.5 2,167 oo 13.5 2,667 oo 7-3 $37,667 oo I20 $37 50 113 35 40 93 35 84 77 60 6I 83 32 13 12.5 37 34 83 32 13 97 65 29 51 42 49 67 39 8i (68)...... t909 $41 44 I19 $33 6x I01 I6 51 130 13 85 0oo 26 67 (59)...... I00 IO 00 72 I6 67 $3 13 2 95 2 99 5 o6 2 68 3 II 2 68 5-44 3 54 3 35 $. 46. $3 46 $0 103 097 098 i66 088 I02 o88 179 xn6 109 $o 13 I........ 7 5 $4,000 oo 8.8 1,667 oo 15.2 1,800 00 6.z 2,667 oo 8.0 I,000 00 II.7 1,200 00..........~... $2 80 $0 091 I 38 045 i I6 2 22 ~....~ 83 I 39 038 073 027 046 42.0 67 oo 9.2 $I2,401 00 t622 (42) (28) $19 94..................$ 0 $r 66 $0 055...... * The total number of horses here given for Manhattan, The Bronx and Brooklyn equals x,855 given-by Department as average number for year 1906, but the distribution among the several stables may not be correct. It is based upon the number reported at the several stables in June, 1907, equal to 1,994, proportionately reduced to correspond to the total average number kept in I9o6. t Includes only horses kept in rented stables. I 8 The excellent condition in which we found the stables and the order and cleanliness prevailing, cannot be too highly praised. We do not desire to pass judgment on the question of "fairness of rents," as we are not experts on rental values, but it is self evident from a study of Table XVIII. that the rentals and assessments are out of proportion one to the other. Thus, in Manhattan, Stable M rents for $3,250 on an assessed value of $34,ooo, or a ratio of I to o1.5, while Stable D rents for $5,ooo on an assessed value of $2I,ooo, or a ratio of I to 4.2. A similarly unequal ratio is noticed in the figures for the stables in The Bronx an(l Brooklyn. It has been recommended by former Commissioners that the City own its stables, and we endorse this recommendation. We do not mean that the City necessarily buy the present stables, many of which are old buildings remodeled, and not as good for the purpose as new ones might be made. A City stable should have some architectural attractions that would be a credit to the City, and the City stables in Richmond and Stable L in The Bronx are good examples. We recommend that great care be given to stable locations, so as to reduce the length of drives to a minimum, and economize the time of the horses and men, as some of the hauls are now too long. Cost of Maintaining Horses. The City owns its horses, and, as a rule, they are of good quality for the purpose and in excellent condition. In Queens and Richmond additional horses are hired. The cost of maintaining the horses, as shown by the accounts of the Department, appears to be higher than it should be. The stables are used for the storage of carts and other apparatus, as well as for the stabling of horses, and the rental, therefore, should be divided. Assuming that two-thirds of the rental is chargeable to the keeping of the horses, the rental costs per horse are given in Table XVIII. T'he other items of the cost of keeping the horses for the year I906, except that of repairs to stables, which is small, are given in Table XIX. The labor cost is clearly excessive. In arriving at the totals for this item, we have assumed that only one-half of the salaries of the stable foremen is chargeable to the keeping of the horses. It will be seen that the cost of labor per horse per year amounts to $237 in Manhattan and The Bronx; $268 in Brooklyn, and $194 in Richmond, the average for all being $246. These figures amount per horse per day to 65 cents, 73~/2 cents and 53 cents, respectively, for the boroughs, with an average for all of 67/2 cents. I f~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I I, ' I 120 TABLE COST OF KEEPING Average Yearly Labor at Stables. Borough. Number of A Horses Kept. Total. Per Horse. Manhattan and The Bronx........................ *I,I74 $278,536 oo $237 oo Brooklyn........................................ *68i 182,574 oo 268 oo Richmond....................................... 70 13,560 oo 194 oo Totals and averages..................,925 $474,670 oo $246 oo * The totals of these figures agree with the Department records, but the division between boroughs may not be strictly accurate. 12I XIX. HORSES, YEAR iqo6., Yearly Feeding and Bedding, Yearly Shoeing. Vee inaryAentoMei Total. Per Horse. Total. Per Horse. Total. Per Horse. *$200,326 00 $I7, 00 $21,557 00 $i8 36 $6,6o6 00 $5 63 *1i16,202 00 17I 00 12,086 00 17 75 6,i8o 00 9 o8 10,403 00 149 00 1,538 00 21 97 576 00 8 20 $326,93I 00 $I70 00 $35,181 00 $i8 28 $I3,362 00 $6 94 I22 According to the accounts of the Department the food and bedding actually used in the year I906 in the three boroughs, Manhattan, The Bronx and Brooklyn, cost $316,527.63, and in Richmond cost $10,402.86, as shownI in Appendix F. For Manhattan, The Bronx and Brooklyn, the average number of horses fed during the year being 1,855, the cost per horse per year was about $I7I, or about 47 cents per horse per day. For Richmond, the average number of horses fed during the year being 70, the cost per horse per year was about $149, or 41 cents per horse per day. For all the boroughs the average is considerably in excess of the cost to private corporations keeping a large number of horses, but it must be borne in mind that the Department horses are larger in size than the average, and require a correspondingly larger quantity of food. Table XX. shows the total cost of maintaining the horses, divided into costs per horse per year, per month and per day. TABLE XX. TOTAL COST OF KEEPING HORSES, YEAR I906*. AVERAGE COST OF KEEPING ONE HORSE ONE YEAR OF 365 DAYS. Year of 365 Days. Manhattan Items. and Brooklyn. Richmond. The Bronx. Average number of horses kept during year............... I,I74 68I 70 Cost of stable rental, Table XVIII....................... $41 44 $I9 94 t...... Cost of labor at stables, Table XIX...................... 237 oo 268 oo $I94 oo Cost of feed and bedding, Table XIX.................... 17I oo I7I oo 149 oo Cost of shoeing, Table XIX.............................. i8 36 I7 75 21 97 Cost of veterinary attention, medicines, etc............... 5 63 9 o8 8 20 Total...................................... $473 43 $485 77.. Equal to per month..................................... $39 45 $40 48...... Equal to per day-365 days per year..................... 30 I 33...... Equal to pew day-3io days per year..................... I 53 57...... * Does not include supplies (coal for fires, repairs and sundries). i The two stables in Richmond are owned by the City. These figures require no comment. Every one who has had experience in the keeping of horses will agree that the cost is too high. We have obtained from a number of private corporations engaged in the transportation business in New York (some of them owning and working hundreds of 123 horses that are employed for longer hours and in harder work than is required by the horses of the Department) statements in detail of the cost of keeping their horses. The average cost, including rental or a liberal allowance therefor, appears to be about 90 cents per day, equal to about $330 per year. If the cost could be reduced from the figures given in Table XX. to $i.io per day per horse for Manhattan, The Bronx and Brooklyn, the saving over the present cost would be at the rate of 21 cents per day per horse, amounting to an annual saving in the expenses of the Department of $I42,185. Note-Since the above was written, we have learned that the pay of Hostlers has been raised from $720 to $760 per year, the extra pay for Sunday work remaining the same as before. A list of the employees and the number of horses at the several stables in June, 1907, is given in Table XXI. At all the stables there were employed in June, I907, 20I hostlers and 209 stablemen, besides the 81 stable foremen, assistant stable foremen and acting assistant foremen.' The number of horses kept was 2,064. Therefore, 410 men were employed as hostlers and stablemen to.care for 2,064 horses, or one man was employed for every five horses. Our information, supplemented by opinions of those who have had experience in taking care of horses, is to the effect that one man should care for from eight to ten horses. Taking the lower of the figures, the force of hostlers and stablemen at the Department stables could be cut down from 410 to something like 258. As the stablemen and hostlers receive $720 and $760, respectively, per year (not including extra pay for Sunday work, which is $2.30 per Sunday), the annual saving in the wages of 152 men at an average of $740 per year would be $II2,480. We are also of the opinion that the number of assistant and acting assistant foremen could be reduced. TABLE XXI. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AND HORSES IN STABLES, JUNE, 1907. Foremen, Assistant Horses Foremen, per Acting Hostlers. Stablemen. Horses. Hostlers Assistant and Foremen. Stablemen. ManhattanStable A....................... 5 24 34 212 3.7 Stable r....................... 3 I It 130 5.9 Stable C...................... 4 3 8 I2I 5.8 Stable D....................... 4 8 12 100 5.0 Stable E....................... 4 9 6 83 5.5 Stable F....................... 4 9 8 89 5.2 Stable G....................... 5 II I4 I34 5.4 124 Foremen,,.',. ',... Assistant Foremen, '. '. ' Acting '-Iostlers. Stablemen. Assistant Foremen. Iorses per Iorses. I[ostlers andl Stablemen. Stable H..................... Stable K....................... Stable M....................... The BronxStable I................ Stable L....................... BrooklynStable B....................... Stable C....................... Stable D....................... Stable E....................... Stable F....................... Stable G....................... Stable H...................... Stable I........................ RichmondStable A..................... Stable B....................... Totals.................... 4 4 4 8 o0 89 4.9 II 10 I04 5.0 6 7 55 4.2 4 7 o0 72 4.2 4 5 8 73 5.6 4 15 15. 4 10 o 0 4 14 12 4, 12 9 I28 4.3 109 5 5 140 5.4 I08 5.2 4 II I2 107 4- 7 4 8 8 77 4.8 4 7 5 63 5 3 2 7.. 42 6.0 2 5.. 2 5.6 81 20I 209 2,064 5.0.ScozUs. Scows are used in connection with the pier dumps for the transportation hv water of part of the refuse collected in the carts. Some are self-dumping, as the 1Barney; some self-propelling and self-dumping, as the Delahanty, and others of the simple deck scow type. The City owns forty-two deck scows, one of which is now used as a dock float at Clinton street, Brooklyn, and also three Delahanty steel self-propelling catamarans, for which the Department pays a royalty on the patents. The City hires other scows from time to time, as required, including the Barney dumpers and the Eastman dumpers. The former are old and rarely used. The Barney, Eastman and Delahanty boats are used to carry the refuse for ocean dumping. The scows used for transporting garbage collections are deck scows and are all owned by the New York Sanitary Utilization Company. 125 The forty-one City deck scows carried about 9')(,447 cart loads ill 2-,037 trips during 19o6, while the hired scows in the same year carried ablout 459,735 cart lo(ads iln,083 trips. The details of the scows, both ownledl an.ld hired, in 1906, arc given in Appenldix L. The cost of scow transportation per cart load is given in Appendix 11, and these figures are more complete than those in Appendix L. It is our opinion that the City does not own enough scows, and we recommend that the City purchase more scows, so that the number of those hired will be reduced to a minimum. The City, however, should not have so many that some would lie. idle, considering that in summer fewer scows are used than in winter, and that in winter scows are more easily hired than in summer. 'Partial Inventory. A partial list of the apparatus chiefly owned by the City is given in Table XXII. With some few exceptions, the same carts are used for both garbage and' street sweeping collections. TABLE XXIJ. PARTIAL INVENTORY OF APIPARATUS. Man- The Brook- Richhattan. Bronx. lyn. Queens. mond. Total. Garbage and ash carts.......................... 529 79 354 *99 t59 1,120 Paper carts................................... 132 I5 10i.. 6 254 W ater carts.............I................... I" 4 29.. ~43 87 Sweeping machines...................... 2 4 36.. 2 63 horses........................ 1I7 I45 732 *120 70 2,i84 Scows, deck................................... 4 Scows, self-propelling...............................3 * Consists of 21 trucks and teams and 78 horses and carts, all hired. Collection carts, 49'; five-yard wagons, 2; hired carts for country districts, 8. There are also 3; light repair carts not included in above figures. t Sprinkling rights granted to a private firm. ~ Of these the Bureau of Street Cleaning owns 2, and Bureau of Highways owns 9 and hires 32. XIII. Co-operation. It is an impossibility, in our judgment, to keep the City satisfactorily cleaned unless a full co-operation between the various City departments is established, so that they all work harmoniously with the same object in view-the improvement of the City, and its maintenance in a clean, tidy and sanitary condition. Co-operation requires readjustment in some of the detail practices on the part of each department and bureau, in order that the results of their joint effort will prevent duplication of work and promote the affairs of the municipality rather than those of the individual departments. 126 With the exception of the departments or bureaus under the Borough Presidents, all the branches of the municipal government are under the Mayor, who appoints the executive heads and has the power of removal. We have failed to find any practical co-operation on the part of others to assist the work of street cleaning and City scavenging. There are plenty of regulations and ordinances, which, if enforced, would effect a great difference in the condition and appearance of the City. There must be co-operation if satisfactory results are to be obtained. In our opinion, a united effort on the part of all will accomplish marked results, but if the division of resporlsibility is such as not to make it attainable, then changes by law should be made. Lack of co-operation between departments results in the useless expenditure of the City's money. We append, in Appendix D, an opinion of former Corporation Counsel George L. Rives, which mentions some of the assistance that the Department of Street Cleaning should receive from the other departments. XIV. Accounting and Cost Keeping. Facilities were given us to get necessary information from the books and records of the Department, and if we were not able, in some instances, to get as complete and accurate data as was desired, it was the fault of the system of accounting and recording used, rather than of the Department personnel. While we did- not make an examination of the method of bookkeeping practiced in the Department, we recommend that what is known as uniform municipal accounting, already in use in a number of other cities, should be adopted by the Department of Street Cleaning. It is obvious that unless costs and other results are reduced to the same standards and denominations, intelligent comparison between them and similar accounts in other cities is impossible. This is the main reason why accurate and useful data on street cleaning and waste disposal are now so difficult to obtain in a shape for intelligent use. The accounts and records of the Department should be kept in such completeness and detail that the quantities and costs, not only of the whole work, but of all the subdivisions, can be readily and accurately ascertained. Unless this be the case, the bureau heads will not be able to keep in sufficiently close touch with the details of the work to detect causes of waste or of undue expense. and to exercise that prompt and full control over the operations of the Department necessary to secure economical results. We also recommend that all the yearly reports of the Department be made in a standard form, so as to clearly show the year's progress in a way that it can be compared with that of former years. If these reports are to be of any value, they should be of such form and completeness that anyone can understand them and form an intelligent opinion of the efficiency and economy with which the Department business has been handled. 127 With these objects in view, we recommend that the bookkeeping of the l)epartment be remodelled in accordance with the latest andl most ilmproved system of municipal accounting, and that, if necessary, special statisticians bie employed to collate exact data relating to quantities, costs and other useful details of the Department's work. In this way all valuable information will be recorded itl a useful form, and the cost and efficiency of all the several kinds of work will be availablle for future guidance. APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES. Expenditures Per Capita Per Year, Ercluding Snozw and Ice, Departnment of Street Cleaning. BOROUGHS OF MANHATTAN AND TilE BRONX. Population. Expenditures. For year I895..................................................... 1,790,362 $I 56 For year 90o6..................................................... 2,56,502 I 654 The expenditures for Manhattan and The Bronx for I9o6 were as follows: Expcn ditures. Totals. General Administration............................................. $37,477 32 Administration......................................................... 235,124 41 Sweeping...................................................... I,566,482 35 Carting............................................................ 1,211,899 50 Snow and Ice........................................................... 7,170 6I Revenue Bond Fund, Snow and Ice..................................... 546,374 60 Final Disposition...................................................... 775,249 29 New Stock-Plant..................................................... Io,338 90 New Stock or Plant...................... I74,730 OI Wages, Supplies, Rents and Contingencies............................... 152,046 90 Total....................................................... $4,7I6,893 89 Per Month. January............................................................... $369,051 80 February............................................................... 437,463 87 5March................................................................. 795,026 98 A pril.................................................................. 542,814 6I May............................................................ 38,576 57 June................................................................... 300,208 I3 July.............................................. 326, IO0 69 August................................................................ 325,227 20 September............................................................. 3II,I4I 40 October............................................................... 388,185 99 November.................... 349,398 20 December.............................................................. 453,697 45 Total...4........................................ $4,7r6,893 89 128 TABLE XXIII. EXPENDITURES, DEPARTMENT OF STREET CLEANING, ~MANHATTAN AND THE BRONX, YEAR 1906. General AdministrationCommissioner and Deputy Commissioners........... $12,227 52 General Superintendent, Assistants, etc............. 12,799 80 C lerks............................................. 12,450 00 *i_ AdministrationSuperintendents, Stable Foremen, etc............... Foremen and Assistant Foremen.................... Dump Inspectors and Assistants.................... Clerks SweepingL aborers.......................................... Wages of Hostlers.................................. Machine and Water Cart Drivers................... Wages of Mechanics and Helpers.................... Salaries of Automobile Engineers................... Shoeing horses.................................... Forage............................................ S undries........................................... Wages, Mechanics and Helpers on automobiles....... CartingDepartment Cart Drivers........................... Special............................................ Hired carts and trucks.............................. Wages of Hostlers................................. Wages, Mechanics and' Helpers.................... Salaries of Automobile Engineers.................. Shoeing horses.......... Forage............................................ Sundries........................................... Wages, Mechanics and Helpers on automobiles....... Snow and IceLabor, February.................................. Hired Cartmen, January........................... Department Cart Drivers, February................. Sundries, February................................ Sundries, M arch.................................. $49,783 46 76,933 31 52,450 22 55.957 42 $1,414,756 38 6,359 40 I3.8I9 37 20,866 91 3,471 71 4,371 84 35,978 78 66,373 26 484 70 $654,996 88 I50, 99 63 28,842 75 88,197 72 76,728 28 3,47I 74 I7,184 86 I43,915 21 47,877 67 484 76 $37,477 32 235,124 41 1,566,482 35 1,211,899 50 $2,111 25 75 0oo 854 25 I1I39 97 2.789 52 r29 Sundries, Octer................................. 92 07 Sundries, Ov-emiber............... 8 55 Revenue Borid Fund, Snow and IceContractor, February $ 0.... 2... $I,443 29 Contractor, March............................... 433,742 06 Labor, March.....................:.....,..6 50 Department Cart Drivers, March...........3.,,,3,36 75 Final DispositionWages, steam tug employees....................... $9,965 02 Wages, Scowmen.................................. 31,80 35 Wages, Boardmen................................. 12,567 0I Unloading scows............................ 494,287 9O Filling in lots....................................,57 40 Hired scows.............................. 60,212 00 Extra towing 51,377 75 Repairs to steam tugs..7,853 24 Supplies to steam tugs.............................. 4,417 89 Wages, Mechanics and Helpers, tugs................3 13 R oyalty........................................... 3,770 oo Repairs to scows..............................19,673 17 Supplies to scows.................................. 8,055 27 Wages, Mechanics and Helpers, scows..............,672 72 Supplies to dumps................................ 4,756 87 Wages, Mechanics and Helpers to dumps.......... 7,613 37 Repairs to incinerators............................. 2,096 66 Supplies to incinerators....18,o00 7 o0 Wages, Mechanics and Helpers, incinerators....... 9,280 98 Labor at incinerators............................ I,043 04 Sundries.......................................318 Labor, disinfecting dumps......................... 4,701 37 Wages, Mechanics and Helpers, auto boat.........25 13 New Stock-Plant............................... New Stock or Plant.................................................. Wages, Supplies, Rents and Contingencies — R ents........................................... $89,199 72 Supplies to stables and section stations........... 19,776 24, Repairs to stables..................................755 66 Wages, Mechanics and Helpers, stables............. 25,321 68 7,170 6i 546,374 6o 775,249 29 10,338 96. I74,730 oi i3o Wages, Mechanics and Helpers, section stations.... 3,279 31 Contingencies.................................... I3,714 29 152,046 90 Total..................................................... $4.716,893 89 Miscellaneous Items (included in the above and distributed under proper accounts)Repairs and suipplies to carts, etc.................. $25,123 6o Repairs and supplies to harness.................... 5,711 78 Repairs and supplies to automobiles................ 8,136 77 Repairs and supplies to bicycles.................... 849 46 Motor boat expense................................ 20 00 Hired horses................................... 2,249 00 $42,090 6I The expenditures in the Borough of Brooklyn for I906 were as follows: Expenditures. Totals. * General A dm inistration.................................................... Administration...................................................... $ 14,201 71 Sweeping................................................... 678,500 02 Carting............................................................ 689,807 I.2 Final Disposition................................................... 449,838 74 New Stock-Plant.................................................. 4,618 30 N ew Stock or Plant................................................. 55, 55 04 Acquisition of Site for and Construction of Stable.................... 57,89I 03 Snow and Ice........................................................ 2,954 i8 Revenue Bond Fund-Removal Snow and Ice......................... 229,660 49 Wages, Supplies, Rents and Contingencies............................ 70,295 95 T otal..................................................... $2,452 925 58 'Included in Manhattan and The Bronx. Per Month. January.............................................................. $199,593 oo February........................................................... 237,547 97 March............................................................... 344,207 79 A pril................................................................ 205,67 63 M ay................................................................ 161,805 95 June................................................................. 222,931 52 July................................................................. I64, 09 6i A ugust.............................................................. 77,738 39 September............................................................ 178,402 87 O ctober.............................................................. 178,926 97 November........................................................... 185078 44 December........................................................... I96,2II 44 T otal................................................... $2,452.925 58 13' r'ABLE XXIV. EXPENDITURES, DEPARTMENT OF STREET CLEANING(, BROOKLYN, YEAR 1906. *General A dm inistration........................................... AdministrationSuperintendents, Stable Foremen, etc............... $30,429 oo Foremen and Assistant FIoremen.................... 41,938 30 Dump Inspectors................................... 19,969 92 Clerks............................................. 21,867 49 _ -ena an d e n $1 14.204 71 * Included in Mlanhattan and The Bronx. SweepingL aborers........................................... W ages of Hostlers................................. Machine and WVater Cart Drivers................... Wages of Mechanics and Helpers................... Salaries of Automobile Eriginemen................. Shoeing horses................................... F orage............................................ S undries........................................... Wages, Mechanics and Helpers on automobiles...... CartingDepartment Cart Drivers........................... Special............................................ W ages of Hostlers................................. Wages, Mechanics and Helpers...................... Salaries of Automobile Enginemen................. Shoeing horses.................................... Forage............................................ Sundries........................................... Wages, Mechanics and Helpers on automobiles...... Final DispositionWages of Boardmen................................ U nloading scows.................................. H ired scow s....................................... Extra towing...................................... Wages, Mechanics and Helpers, scows.............. Supplies for dumps................................. Wages,.echanics and Helpers, dumps.............. Supplies for incinerators............................ Wages, Mechanics and Helpers at incinerators...... $572,7I8 65 6,539 38 27,378 68 9,097 75 650 oo 2,417 12 25,994 60 33,683 34 20 50 $384,649 05 82,239 05 51,573 70 36,390 89 650 oo 9,668 58 103,978 44 20,636 88 20 53 678.500 02 689,807 12 $3,734 63 428,531 94 6,862 oo 4,974 oo 7 50 863 04 I,o56 75 835 20 2;672 82 132 Labor at incinerators................................. 49 '9 Sundries.........................................42 45 Labor, disinfecting dlumps........................... 209 12 New Stock- Plant.................................................... New Stock or Plant................................................. Acquisition of Site for and Construction of Stable..................... Snow and IceContractor, December.............................. $133 30 Labor, February................................... 1,689 25 Labor, March...................................... 192 oo Hired carts, February............................. 623 38 Department Cart Drivers, February................. 227 00 Sundries, January.................................. 56 25 Sundries, December.............................. 33 oo 449,838 74 4,618 30 55,155 04 157,891 03 2,954 i8 229,660 49 Revenue Bond Fund, Removal Snow and IceContractor, February............................... Contractor, M arch................................. Contractor, December.............................. Labor, M arch...................................... Hired 'arts, March................................ Department Cart Drivers, March.................... Sundries, December............................... Wages, Supplies, Rents and ContingenciesR en ts............................................. Supplies to stables and section stations.............. Repairs to stables.................................. Repairs to section stations......................... Wages, Mechanics and Helpers, stables.............. Wages, Mechanics and Helpers, section stations...... Contingencies..................................... $63,493 I1 158,204 15 312 74 3,580 50 1,983 74 2,023 75 62 50 $31,543 23 12,704 34 367 84 363 28 i6.888 40 2,862 42 5,566 44 Miscellanec Repair, Repairs Repair, Repairs 70,295 95 T otal...................................................... $2,452,925 58 )us Items (included in the above and distributed under proper accounts)s and supplies to carts........................ $18,532 24 s and supplies to harness..................... 4,698 86 s and supplies to automobiles................. 493 29 s and supplies to bicycles..................... 600 oo $24,324 39 1.33 'TABLE XXV. APIPROPRIATIONS FOR THE BOROIGH 1OF QUEENS FOR 1906 AND I907. —:_.. - -.`-..... - 9.o6. 9 7. I906. I907 - Salaries........................................ $4,500 oo $9,500 oo:", oo' a i Sweeping, Carting and Final l)isposition of Material, including (remation and Utilization............................................. 200,598 05 209,798 50 R ents.............................................................. 3,414 oo 3,600 oo Snow and Ice....................................................... 250 oo 250 00 $208,762 05 $223,148 50 Revenue Bond Fund, Removal of Snow and Ice..................... *$5,663 oo t$30,000 oo * December 21, 90o6. February 8, 1907. TABLE XXVI. EXPENDITURES OF THE BOROUGH OF RICHMOND FOR I906. W eekly payrolls........................................ $129,511 49 Inspectors' monthly payrolls............................................ 5,112 50 Country garbage and ash cart payrolls................................. 7,497 75 Paid on0 orders........................................................ 9,103 63 Paid for forage stable "A............................................. 6,296 67 Paid for forage stable "B............................................. 4, 6 19 Broken stone and screenings.......................................... 4,62 09 Cost of extra hired cart................................................ 6 25 Payroll of Boring Gang............................................... 85 54 Emergency snow removal payroll........................................ 2,75 86 3 7 I i Total....................................... $168,567 97 XV. Resume and Recommendations. The following is a brief resume of the subject matter of this report: You appointed us in June, I907, as a Commission to study the problem of Street Cleaning and Waste Disposal for The City of New York, and asked us to make recommendations whereby the conditions now existing might be improved. To this end you also asked us to examine into the methods in use in other large cities, both at home and abroad. Pursuant to our instructions, we examined the conditions existing in.all the Boroughs, studied the data available at the Department and Bureaus of Street Cleaning, and did much original work in order to obtain more exact facts than were available. I34 The City of New York, consisting of the Boroughs of hManhattan, The Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Richmond, has an area of 327.25 square miles, and a population in 90o6 of 4,258,387. It is desirable that the words used to classify the several waste materials be employed in all City publications in a uniform sense so as to prevenlt ambiguity. The following definitions have been adopted for this report: Refuse is a general term applied to city wastes, including garbage, ashes, rubbish, street sweepings, dead animals and snow. Garbage is animal, vegetable and food waste from kitchens, markets, slaughter. houses and some manufactories. It is made up largely of water and putrescible organic matter. Ashes are the residue from the burning of fuel, together with such unconsumled fuel, cinder and clinkers as are discarded with the ashes. Rubbish is discarded trash of a heterogeneous character produced in the household and from trade wastes, and which cannot be classified as garbage, ashes or street sweepings. It is usually free from or contains but a small percentage of water. It includes among other things discarded paper, old clothing, shoes, bedding, rags, wood, leather, furniture, boxes, barrels, empty cans, metal scrap, broken glass, bottles, crockery, etc. Street sweepings are waste materials collected from the streets, roads and sidewalks. They often include some garbage and ashes and usually considerable quantities of reftse that should be classified as rubbish. The weights in pounds per cubic yard of the several classes of refuse are: Manhattan and Brooklyn. Richmond. The Bronx.. Garbage................................................. 1,I00 1,100 932 A shes................................................... 1,o86 975 1,200 Rubbish................................................ 143 154 200 Street sweepings.........................................,0o 6 769 i,8oo Note-No record of average weights for Queens. Quantities of Refuse. The quantities of refuse collected in I906, in all the Boroughs, were: Tons. Cubic Yards. Garbage......................................................... 392,357 715,625 Ashes............................................................ 2,000,860 3,755,047 Rubbish........................................... 197,994 2,704,978 Street sweepings................................................ 567,971 I,I83,998 Total....................................... 3,150,182 8,359,648 135 One year's collections, if piled in Bryant Park (area 22,548 square yards), would make a mass I,I12 feet in height, or nearly twice as high as the tower of the Singer Building. Street Cleaning. The street cleaning work of the City is intended to cover all the paved streets and some of the macadam roads. Some of the paved streets and many of the macadam roads are cleaned only at considerable intervals of time, and no attempt is made to clean some of the macadam roads except occasionally. Streets under the Department of Parks are not cleaned by the Department of Street Cleaning. The number of miles and square yards of pavement of the different kinds, and the total mileage and yardage of paved streets in each Borough, as well as the total miles and yardage of pavement of each kind in the whole City, is given in Tables X. and XI., pages 43 and 44. The dirt that accumulates on the streets comes from a variety of sources, some of which are controllable and others are not. The controllable sources of street dirt are: Refuse swept or thrown upon the streets from buildings. Refuse thrown upon the streets by those using them. Refuse spilled from passing vehicles, The detritus from building operations and from repairs of streets and underground works. In any project for increasing the efficiency and decreasing the cost of street cleaning, consideration should first be given to possible and practicable means and expedients for preventing the accumulation of dirt upon the streets, thus reducing the quantity to be collected and disposed of by the street cleaning departments. There is evidence that at least 30 per cent. by volume of the dirt now collected from the streets comes from sources that are controllable by the City. City ordinances now prohibit the placing of refuse and litter of all kinds upon the streets, and make it the duty of all police officers to arrest without warrant any person found violating them. The reasonable enforcement of these ordinances would practically suppress street littering and reduce very largely the quantity of street dirt to be collected. Street dirt is found upon the street in two distinct physical forms-primarily as coarse and often damp fragments, and secondarily, as finely pulverized material, either in the form of mud in wet weather or dust in dry weather. In the form of dust it is a serious menace to health and a destructive and discomforting element of city life. The methods of street cleaning in common use remove only the coarser fragments, leaving the most of the mud or dust upon the surface of the street. I36 We made a number of detailed examinations to determine the quantity of this dust' left after a regular sweeping. The result is given in Table VII., Appendix C. Calling the average volume of dust collected fron sheet asphalt pavement IOO, we found the relative quantities collected from other kinds of pavement were: Volume. Weight. From sheet asphalt...oo I00 From sheet asphalt........................................................ 100 00 From block asphalt....................................................... 3 182 From wood. block, old.................................................... 332 I45 From granite block........................................................... x,o8i 9r2 Although the number of examinations were limited, it is obvious that the block pavements, with their frequent and partly depressed joints, offer a better lodgment for dust than continuous, smooth-surface pavement. Any method of street cleaning which does not remove this dust with reasonable effectiveness fails to accomplish the object for which cleaning is designed. Sprinkling paved streets does not clean them. It merely converts the dust into mud. If the paved streets were properly cleaned sprinkling would be unnecessary, and the cost of it, now borne by private persons, would not have to be incurred. While macadam, gravel and earth roads must be sprinkled or oiled to effectually prevent dust, we believe that the paved streets of the City can and should be so cleaned that sprinkling will be unnecessary. Some kinds of pavements can be kept clean with less labor and at a smaller cost than others. We estimate the average relative cost of cleaning, equally well, the various kinds of pavement in use in the City under similar conditions of repair as follows: Sheet asphalt pavement....................................................... IOG Wood block pavement (new)..................................... 0o5 Asphalt block pavement...................................................... II5 BriCk pavement.................................................... 120, Wood block pavement (old)................................................... 2 Wood block pavement (old)............................********************** I23 M edina block pavem ent....................................................... I30 Granite block pavem ent....................................................... I40 Belgian block pavem ent.....................0.................................. I50 Cobblestone pavement........... I..................................... 30c These figures indicate that the kind of pavement in use in a city affects materially the cost of keeping the streets clean; and they suggest that relative cost of cleaning is an element of no little importance in selecting the kind of pavement. The cost of keeping pavements properly cleaned is largely affected by their condition of repair. Considering the three conditions of good, fair and bad repair, there I.37 is reason to believe that the cost of keeping clean a pavement in fait repair -is 20 per cent., and one in bad repair 40 per cent. greater than one ill good. repair. We are satisfied that the cost of keeping the streets properly cleaned during the past year was at least 2o.per cent. more than would be required if they had been in good repair, and that the sum thus saved, amounting to about $374,000 per year, might better have been spent in repairing pavements. Of the three methods of street cleaning in common use, hand sweeping is more effective than machine sweeping, and flushing with water is more effective than either hand or machine sweeping. Estimates to determine the relative cost of cleaning under normal conditions indicate, when all items of cost are considered, that the costs compare as follows: Hand sweeping (patrol system).............................................. oo Machine sweeping......................... 3 H ose flushing (as usually done).............................................. 113 Machine flushing........................................................... 257 Flushing with hose is generally done, in this country, with standard fire hose and nozzle, the full hydrant pressure being applied. This is wasteful of water and the force of the jet is unnecessarily great. We believe that the substitution of a smaller hose, a smaller nozzle of special shape, and the restriction of'the pressure to not more than thirty pounds at the nozzle, would give equally efficient and nearly as rapid results, while cutting down the quantity of water required about 40 per cent. and decreasing the cost 21 per cent. It is recommended that experiments be made to determine the most efficient and economical hose flushing apparatus to be used. While machine flushing is no more effective than hose flushing, it is much more expensive and makes hose flushing decidedly preferable. No method of street cleaning which does not remove the finer part of the street dirt-the dust and the mud-can be considered efficacious 'or satisfactory. The only practicable method that will effectually do this is flushing with water. This conclusion is confirmed by recent opinion both in this country and abroad. Provision for flushing must therefore have a prominent place in any plan for satisfactorily cleaning paved city streets. Our conclusion, after careful study, in the light of the best information obtainable both here and abroad, is that flushing, combined with'hand sweeping, will prove to be the best and cheapest method of property cleaning the great majority of the streets of New York. None of the objections that have been raised to street flushing here or in other cities are believed to apply with any weight to the method herein proposed for New York. The most serious obstacle to its immediate introduction in this city is the present inadequate water supply. We believe that if the matter is taken up in a spirit of co-operation between the Water and Street Cleaning Departments, there 138 is likely to be found available a large quantity of water for street cleaning during the greater part of many years. One million gallons per day could be counted upon safely, except in times of special scarcity, and during a considerable part of the time a much larger quantity would probably be available. Estimates indicate that to properly flush the streets of Manhattan, The Bronx and Brooklyn would require from eight to ten million gallons daily. When the proposed additions to the city water supply ara available, there will be an ample quantity for a long period to come, and then flushing can be used throughout the whole city. One million gallons per day will be sufficient for the introduction of flushing on a scale large enough to thoroughly demonstrate its merits. The introduction should be gradual even if the supply of water were abundant. The general features of this system may be briefly outlined as follows: Hand sweeping would be employed during the day to take up promptly the horse droppings and other coarse dirt, but no systematic or continuous sweeping of the whole surface of the streets would be attempted. Each sweeper, therefore, would be able to take care of a larger area than at present, and the sweepings would be handled and disposed of as now done. Much the larger part of the sweepings would thus be collected, leaving a comparatively small quantity of the fine material to be removed by flushing. The streets would be flushed to remove this fine dirt as frequently as necessary; every day for the streets of heaviest travel; once every week or ten days for the streets of light travel; and at intermediate periods, as may be found necessary, for streets of moderate travel. Heavy traveled streets should be flushed at night; others may be flushed during day or night, as may be found advantageous. A reliable estimate of the cost of flushing cannot be made in the absence of a complete schedule of the work to be done and other data not now obtainable; but tentative computations for Manhattan and The Bronx indicate that it would be, for these boroughs, somewhere between $300,000 and $325,000 per year. The reduction of cost due to curtailing the hand sweeping, to enforcing the laws against littering and to keeping pavements in good repair would undoubtedly offset the additional cost of flushing, so that the total cost under the system recommended would not exceed, and might be much less than, the sum now expended for sweeping. Since machine sweeping is more expensive and no more efficient than hand sweeping, it should be discontinued and hand sweeping substituted. The machines may be employed as occasion demands for cleaning the macadam streets and roads, and they may also be made useful for promptly sweeping up after parades and light falls of snow before it has become packed by travel. A complete equipment for both hand sweeping and flushing should be provided, so that sweeping alone could be substituted for combined sweeping and flushing, in case of a shortage of the water supply and during freezing weather. When, for 139 any reason, flushing cannot be done, special effort should be made to remove the fine dirt as well as the coarser material. We recommend that this,combined system of hand sweeping and flushing be introduced at once and extended to the whole city as rapidly as it can be developed and as the water supply will permit. In the meantime, we believe it practicable to keep the streets in a much cleaner condition by present methods than they now are without increasing the total cost. Good supervision and discipline, interest and industry among the employees, more efficient equipment, prohibition of street littering and keeping the pavements in good repair are the requisites to bring about such a result. Suitable receptacles should be provided wherever necessary for waste paper and other litter. The laws and ordinances relating to street littering should then be rigidly enforced. This would at once relieve the street sweepers of a very considerable part of the work they have to do. It is our judgment that better and more effective cleaning would result from working the sweepers in gangs wherever practicable, and that the actual accomplishment per sweeper ought in this way to be considerably increased. For the reasons stated in the body of this report, we recommend that the Commissioner of Street Cleaning be given exclusive jurisdiction over the granting of builders' permits to occupy the streets and the control of all matters relating thereto which affect the operations of the Street Cleaning Department. The City authorities should insist that the specification requirements to promptly clean up the streets after pavement and underground repairs have been made, should be enforced, and not leave this work to be done by the Department of Street Cleaning. We recommend that the attention of the Department be given to the subject of providing storage bins beneath the sidewalk surface for the temporary storage of the sweepings. Snow Removal. The average annual snowfall is so great and the city is so large, that it is impossible to promptly remove the snow from all the streets. All that can be done is to remove a portion of the total mass of snow, and that portion should be limited to the most important traveled and business streets. All past efforts to do the work of clearing and removal by large numbers of men and carts, hired by the Department, have been most unsatisfactory. The work should be done by contract. A contractor can better handle such men and carts, and the Department would then be able to use its own force for the collection and removal of garbage, ashes and rubbish. In former years the contractor was paid per cubic yard of snow as removed and measured in the carts, and it was found impossible to prevent irregular transactions by any methods of tickets or punching'devised. The method of basing payment upon the area cleaned and the depth of snowfall is preferable, on' account of its simplicity. 140 We recommend that the Department Sweepers be organized to keep the gutters open, to clear the crosswalks, and to do other work more fully outlined in the body of this report; that the work of removal shall be done by contract; that the payment therefor shall be based on the area of street surface cleaned and the depth of snowfall; and that privileges be granted for dumping snow into the rivers at such streets as will reduce each haul to a minimum. We also suggest that the question of having the contract for snow removal extend over a period of years, so that the contractor could arrange for a permanent organization and equipment, be considered. Reduction and Incineration. Reduction processes are only profitable when the garbage is collected from large cities and is rich in grease. In cities where such works are successfully operated a bonus is paid for the reduction. When the different classes of refuse are mixed, the aggregate is self-combustible. In order to secure the best results from incineration, it is necessary to generate as high a temperature of combustion as practicable. Refuse has a value as fuel, when properly burned. Final Disposition. The final disposition of the material collected in I906 is stated in Table XIV. The dumping of refuse at sea should not be resorted to except in cases of emergency. - With the exception of Manhattan, there are refuse land fills in all of the boroughs,,and we found the Department fills in crude and unsightly condition. The present method of picking, sorting and storing is crude and unsanitary, and unless better provision is made and stricter regulations are enforced, the practice should be discontinued. When a neat, orderly and sanitary method of picking can be practiced, there is no objection to picking if carried out under proper supervision, but we recommend that all beds, bedding, old furniture, and particularly rubbish from hospitals and sick rooms, should he burned. We recommend that the garbage of Manhattan, The Bronx and Brooklyn be disposed of by reduction under contract, until further experience with high-temperature incinerators shall have determined the relative advantages and economy of the two methods, inclusive of the cost of collecting all the several classes of refuse. Also, that the carcasses of all large dead animals be removed and reduced by contract. We recommend that the Department of Health investigate the disposal of garbage by private scavengers, as it is questionable whether the meat from animals and the milk from cows fed on City garbage is wholesome for human food. In the Boroughs of Manhattan, The Bronx and Brooklyn we recommend that the rubbish be burned, and that the resulting ashes, with the ash and street sweeping collections, be used for making land-fills. I4I In the Boroughs of Queens and Richmond, we recommend that the refuse be incinerated in furnaces carefully designed and constructed for the continued generation of high temperatures. We recommend the use of mechanical means for handling the material to be transported whenever the installation will be sufficiently permanent to reduce the cost. There are marshes and low lands in all the boroughs, which can be filled and converted into property suitable for improvements. Some of these lands are owned by the City. The filling of lands with material containing rubbish, as is being done at Riker's Island and other places, is unsanitary and objectionable, and should be discontinued. Ashes and street sweepings alone should be used. We recommend the filling of the new bulkhead at Riker's Island to a limited height. While this work is in progress, some other land owned by the City should be bulkheaded or prepared for filling. We suggest that the proper authorities investigate the City's claims to marshes and lands under water, and perfect the City's titles thereto. The question of final disposition requires the co-operation of all tfie municipal authorities. The City should plan its work as a whole, and not permit each department or bureau to work independently. Figure XIII. shows graphically the proposed scheme for final disposition of refuse. Propoase 5cheme fo, 9ffa/ s7sposir/on of &Afose. /cr York Cofy. Cmffmnission o 'S/w C/a// si/^E//9/0 w~~m ~/tI110 E Borou/h dotfjastw Reff Iefon /nciMw ii//5+ki h L4#tdFi//J /~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _.1 / Garbafe Asheus J/SO#Ie/*yi I K' N 7he BromxGr&m6 6 _, 7 C1.,.-l.B-CC.A - Month. a 8 97 1897. January.............. 313 54 76 63 5 I I 2 *17 February............. 393 76 82 79 5 7 3 3 *15 March............... I,899 60 8o 73 26 20 3 I 7 April................ i,968 64 Ioo 79 25 14 3 r3 May................. 1,975 68 85 76 26 14 4.. 12 June................ 2,050 74 98 82 25 5 3.. 22 July................. 2,095 62 88 78 27 13 3.. 15 August............... 2,008 67 86 77 26 13 4. 14 September............ 2,25 72 105 87 26 13 6.. October.............. 2,828 8i 134 105 27 8 2.. 21 November............ I,942 27 123 8i 24 7 4 1 I 8 December............ 1,825 25 92 70 26 14 4.. 13 Total.............. 21,547 * Snow period. I76 TABLE II. SHOWING THE DATES OF MAXIMUM RAINFALLS WITH THE CORRESPONDING QUANTITIES OF SWEEPINGS WHICH WERE REMOVED ON THOSE DAYS AS WELL AS ON THE PRECEDING AND FOLLOWING DAYS. Number of 4~* ~ Height of Cart Loads Date. Rainfall, of Remarks. m.m. Sweepings. May 2........................ M ay 22........................ M ay 23........................ June 8........................ June I9........................ June 20........................ June 2........................ June 22........................ July 6........................ July 7........................ July 8..................... Aug. 9.................. Aug. o........................ Aug. II....................... Sept. 4........................ Sept. 5........................ Sept. 6........................ Sept. 7........................ Oct. 9........................ Oct. 20........................ Oct. 2........................ Nov. 26........................ Nov. 27........................ Nov. 28........................ Nov. 29........................ Nov. 30........................ Dec. i........................ Dec. 12........................ Dec. 13........................ Dec. 14........................ 85 36 68 3 72 85 8 74 78 8 79 87 12 76 5 74 27 79 I 76 5 77 6 72 19 8 90 8. II 25 IOI I II3 63 5 27 8 4 I 73 68 II 70 8 2 69 Less than I m.m. of rain. Night, from Sunday to Monday, where no carting was done. Less than I m.m. of rain. Night, from Sunday to Monday, where no carting was done. Night, from Sunday to Monday, where no carting was done. For above reasons no carting was done. Night, from Sunday to Monday, where no carting was done. Night, from Sunday to Monday, where no carting was done. I77 An explanation of the above may be found in the fact that following rainy days a considerable amount of the contents of the catchbasins has to be removed, whereas these catchbasins are found to be nearly empty during dry periods. Each catchbasin yields, according to its location and the character of the pavement, from 33 to 220 pounds of sediment, but an average yield could not be established. It also must be noted that after days on which rains occur the sweepings contain much more water than on dry days and therefore the quantities to be removed by carts conlsist largely of water The fact that such large quantities of sediment are found in the catchbasins in spite of the fact that a considerable part is washed out of them, finds an explanation in the fact that during rainfalls considerably larger quantities of such substances are washed from the streets than are removed on dry days by street sweepings. The following analyses of the contents of different catchbasins show that in addition to the mineral substance which one would naturally expect, there is also a considerable amount of putrescible substances retained which causes the penetrating smell so often characteristic of these cesspools: 178 TABLE ANALYSIS OF CATCH Location of Place Where Description of Street Date. Sample Was Taken. Pavement. Street Traffic. 1898. Feb. 5 Alter Yungfernsteig...... Belgian block................... Very heavy traffic...... Feb. 5 Ellenthorsbrucke........... Belgian block.................. Very heavy traffic...... Feb. 5 Schlachterstrasse......... Asphalt......................... Heavy traffic............ Feb. 5 Englische Planke......... Belgian block, with asphalt joints. Average traffic......... Feb. 5 Hohlerweg............... Cobble......................... Average traffic......... Feb. 5 Second Yacobstrasse...... Belgian block, with asphalt joints. Average traffic......... Average................................................................ 179 III. BASIN SLUDGE. Mineral Combustible Total Mineral Residue of the Substances in the Total Water, Residue, Residue, Dry Substance, Dry Residue, Nitrogen, Per Cent. Per Cent. Per Cent. Per Cent. Per Cent. Per Cent. 72.15 27.85 17.25 6x.9 38.1 0.126 67.52 32.48 24.I9 74-4 25.6 0.132 59.48 40.52 32.79 80.9 19.I 0.137 76.35 23.65 14.69 62.1 37.9 0.x65 67.49 32.5I 19.91 6i.2 38.8 o.a58 68.17 3I.83 21.69 68.2 31.8 o.190 68.5 3I.5 21.8 68.I 3I.9 o.I68 Before it is possible to estimate the quantities of refuse which are washed into the storm sewers, on the basis of the figures given above, it must be ascertained what daily average quantity of the accumulations remains on the streets. The principal streets in Hamburg are cleaned by sweeping machines, once daily, the important side streets twice per week, and the remaining streets once a week. Besides the above the streets with heavy traffic are cleaned from two to six times per week by collecting and carting away the manure. paper, etc. Information regarding the density of the traffic on certain streets is given in the following table, which shows the results of actual counting of the wagon traffic to and from the inner city. These statistics show that the traffic in the inner city is much heavier than in the outer parts, and therefore much more street refuse must accumulate in the inner city. I80 TABLE TRAFFIC STATI No. Street. Date. I. Steinthor.................................... December 2, 3, 4, 891............... 2. Ernst M erk street............................... December 7, 8, 9, 1891............... 3. Klosterthor..................................... December ii, 15, I89................ 4. Deichthor...................................... December i6, 17, i8. 19, 189........ 5. Lohsestr....................................... December 21, 22, 23, 1891............ 6. Brookthor...................................... December 28, 31, 89I................ 7. Altmanstr..................................... January 2, 6, 1892................... 8. Ferdinandsthor................................. February 2, 6, 1892.................. 9. Alster,-Glacis.................................... February 6, 12, 1892................. 10. Dammthordamm................................. February 12, i6. 1892............... I. K1. Drehbahn Prolongation....................... February 18, 24, I892................. 12. Holstenthor..................................... February 25, 28, 1892................ 13. M illernthor..................................... M arch 4, 27, 1892................... 14. Hafenthor...................................... MLarch 5,, I892.................. The gates of the inner city have, during 24 hours, been passed by. 15. Dammthorstr................................... November 26, 28, 30, I8g9............ 16. Speersort...................................... March 17, 24, 1892.................. 17. Gr. Burstah.................................... March 21, 25, 1892.................. Note-Observations made during a period of 24 hours. i8i IV. STICS, 1892. Total Number of Horse Other of Teams Tramway Vehicles Drawn Pushcarts. Equestrians. Vehicles with Loads. Cars. by Horses. in Both Directions. 903 636 467 394 63 2,0o6 754 1,620 463 332 58 2,837 3,054 566 907 938 397 4,527 1,826 507 126 646 88 - 2,459 2,369.... I,100 649' 120 3,469 1,263.... i6i 548 110 1,424 763 678 201 338 54 1,642 1,019.... 937 306 50 1,956 779.... 1,183 213 56 1,962 842 1,182 1,082 * 300 28 3, 106 580 194 204 127 131 978 1,288 622 647 4i8 528 2,557 2,303 I,782 696 1,090 70 4,781 695 1,200 215 287 29 2,110 18,438 8,987 8,389 6,586 1,782 35,814 1,044 1,367 670 480 32 2,981 933 668 287 345 36 I,888 1,766 1,838 604 970 48 4,208 I82 The frequency with which the streets are cleaned depends upon the quantities of refuse which accumulate. It is assumed that about two-fifths of the total street area is cleaned once daily, and the remainder from once to twice a week. In addition to this the manure and other refuse is collected by hand two to four times per week. For lack of time it was not possible to arrive at a more definite basis for determining the amount of refuse lying on the street throughout all hours of the day. Accidental and uncontrollable factors have caused great fluctuation in such figures, which can only be roughly estimated. According to their information and calculations the assumption will not be far wrong that before the streets are cleaned or before a heavy rain succeeding a dry period (that is, in the most unfavorable case) a maximum quantity of refuse might accumulate, corresponding to two days' accumulation, or about 200 tons of animal excrements, and about twice as much of mineral detritus. In the most unfavorable case, that is, just before the commencement of the street cleaning, the rain would be able to wash this quantity of refuse away. They took, for the purpose of analysis, average samples of street sweepings during the night, between January 29 and 30, I898, at twenty different points. Streets with heavy and light traffic and with different kinds of pavements, respectively, were so selected that a close approximation could be expected of the average street sweepings for the night in question. The results are given in detail in appended Table No. 2.* From this table it is to be seen that the total amount of nitrogen, which may be considered as the most reliable factor for indicating the putrescible substances, was on an average 0.13 per cent. of the street sweepings for the day. One pound of horse excreta, dung and urine mixed in the proportions given above contains on an average 5.7 grams of total nitrogen. One hundred tons of horse manure of this quality would contain 1,254 pounds of nitrogen. Seventy cart loads of street sweepings Qf four tons each would contain at least 0.13 per cent. nitrogen (8o0 pounds of nitrogen), that is, about two-thirds of the total quantity of horse excreta which is dropped daily on the streets, according to the above assumption. The refuse removed by manual collection, consisting almost exclusively of horse manure and collected in large subterraneous basins, has not been considered in connection with the above samples. The nitrogen contained in such refuse must, therefore, be added to the results above given. The material removed by manual collection may, according to our information, amount as high as one-fourth part of the total sweepings. Furthermore, it is not impossible that on account of the rainfalls which occurred on the two days before the samples were taken, a part of the nitrogen containing substances were washed out of the sweepings, notwithstanding the fact that the volume of rain was not large enough to cause any material run off into the sewers. * This table is not included in this abstract. 183 Taking into consideration the many sources of errors which come into the question, the total quantity of sweepings as assumed agrees quite closely with the quantity found by analyses; better, in fact, than might be expected. But where more precise determinations are required, repeated analyses should be made of samples collected at different points under different weather conditions. The samples of street sweepings which were analysed contained 56 per cent. of mineral detritus on an average. As already stated, the percentage of mineral matters is considerably larger on rainy days. In the writer's opinion, it is safe to assume that the relation of mineral substances to horse excreta is at least 2 to I. Based on the above deductions, the writer starts on the assumption that the same quantity of sweepings would be washed into the storm sewers on all days when the rainfall is equal to or in excess of 0.2 inch as would accumulate on the streets during an interval of one to two days, say on an average during one and one-half days, i. e., I50 tons of animal manure and 300 tons mineral detritus. He assumes further that on days when the rainfall is only about.12 to.I7 inch, only one-half of the quantities given above come in for consideration. The following table shows the number of these rainy days for the last five years. The results lead to the conclusion that on an average 73.5 to 150 tons of horse excreta and 73.5 to 300 mineral detritus are washed yearly from the streets of Hamburg into the sewers. A certain amount of this excreta is retained in the catch basins, but it is difficult to determine the exact amount. According to Mr. Richter, this is at the utmost onetwelfth part of the total sweepings washed into the catch basins. The assumption that the bulk of the refuse would be washed away during the first hours of a rain and that consequently the dirty water would be followed by nearly clean rain water is, in a general way, not justified, as will be seen from appended Table No. 3.* Very heavy rain storms such as did not occur during these investigations might eventually cause a more thorough cleaning of the streets in a shorter space of time. The amount of nitrogen in the sweepings which accumulated during the one to one and one-half days on which samples were taken has, by calculation, been distributed in proportion to the quantity of rainfall during the same period. A comparison of the average figures for nitrogen thus obtained, with the amount of nitrogen as actually found in the street waters, showed that the actual amount exceeded by several times the amount as obtained by calculation. The same holds true for the organic and other substances. This is partially explained by the fact that there were no heavy rain storms during the experimental period. The rain, moreover, was always distributed over longer periods of time, and according to our direct observations only a small part ran off into the sewers. The winds, being * This table is not included in this abstract. 184 often very forcible, caused the greatest part to evaporate. Besides the above, it was only possible in a few cases to obtain a sufficient number of consecutive samples to get a fair average for the total raining period. TABLE V. TOTAL RAINFALL FOR THE YEARS I893-I897. ~~~~~~~~~~* ~~Rainfall in Inches..20 and Year..13.17 Over. Number Number Number of Days. of Days. of Days. I893........................................................ I2 I2 54 1893.1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I2 12 54 1894........................................................ 24 I 56 I895........................................................ I7 i 67 896........................................................ 28 17 53.897........................................................ I3 I7 53 Total......................................... 94 68 283 Average....................................... I9 14 57 The writer, therefore, does not consider it just to base the calculation of the.quantity of sweepings reaching the sewers on the analyses of the street water, and thus to arrive at high figures as shown above. APPENDIX B. WEIGHT OF GARBAGE, MANHATTAN. Volume Weight Weight in of Garbage per Remarks. Cubic Yards. in Cart. Cubic Yard. September 3, 1907. City 'Dump-Forty-sixth Street and East RiverCollected chiefly from: Seventy-third street................ 2.16 2,850 I,318 Sixtieth street......................84 2,400 I,3o4 Sixty-sixth street.................. 1.84 i,88o 1,02 Thirty-sixth street................ 2.00 2, Io 1,055 Twenty-fifth street................ I.60 I,800 1,125................................. 2.40 2,740 I,141.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ IS5 Volume Weight Weight in of Garbage per Remarks. Cubic Yards. in Cart. Cubic Yard. September 5, 1907. City Dump-Forty-sixth Street and East RiverCollected chiefly from: Seventy-eighth street.............. Sixty-seventh and Sixty-eighth streets Sixty-ninth street................. Seventy-fifth street.............. Average, East Forty-sixth Street Dump.... September 5, 1907. City Dump-Forty-seventh Street and North RiverCollected chiefly from: Thirtieth street.................. Twenty-eighth street and Sixth avenue........................ Seventy-ninth and Eightieth streets. Seventy-eighth street.............. Ninth and Tenth avenues.......... Eighty-third street............... Seventy-fourth and Seventy-fifth streets....................... Eighty-third street................ Sixty-first street.................. Seventy-seventh street............. Seventy-fourth street.......... Eighty- sixth and Eighty- seventh streets....................... Eightieth and Eighty-seventh streets.................................. Eighty-fourth and Eighty-fifth streets Average, West Forty-seventh Street Dump.. Average, East Forty-sixth Street Dump.... Average..................... 1.76.68 2.00 2.08 19.36 I.94 1.92.6o.84 1.68 1.76 1.76 1.84 2.00 i.60 I.6o i.68 2.00 2.00 1.52 i.60 26.40 1.76 1.94 1.85 2,140 1,570 2,070 2,190 21,750 2,175 2,040 1,710 1,720 1,970 1,700 1,970 2,120 2,230 1,770 i,660 1,850 2,200 2,030 1,590 1,870 28,430 1,900 2,175 2,037 1,2IS 934 r,o35 1,052 1,200 I,I20 Mostly green garbage. I,062 x,o68 935 1,17I 965 I, I8 1,151 1,115 1,105 1,037 I,I00 1,I00 1,015 1,046,1i68 I6,158 1,o75 1,120 I,I00. 0 i 186 WEIGHT OF ASHES, MAN'HATTAN. Volume Weight Weight in of Ashes per Remarks. Cubic Yards. in Cart. Cubic Yard. September 3, 1907. City Dump-Forty-sixth Street and East RiverCollected chiefly from: Forty-ninth street................. 2.24 2,180 973.................................. 2.08 i,800 865 Thirty-ninth street................ i.60 1,780 1,112 Fortieth street.................... 2.08 3,030 1,470 Thirty-sixth street................ 2.16 2,470 1,143 Forty-seventh street.............. 2.08 1,640 788 Sixth avenue...................... 2.00 3,450 1,725 Fortieth street.................... 2.32 2,280 982 Forty-first street.................. 2. i6 1,900 880 Forty-third street................ 2.40 2,I10 879 Fifty-second street................. 2.40 I,950 8I2 Twenty-seventh street..............84 2,I20 1,151 Fifty-third street..................84 2,270 1,232 Forty-second street................ 2.32 2,640 1,I37 1.76 1,850 I,050,.................................. 1- - 1,850 1,050 September 4, 1907. City Dump-Stanton Street and East RiverCollected chiefly from: Fourth street..................... 1.84 I,8io 983 Eighth street..................... 2.00 2,00 1I,005 Third street...................... 2.6,850 856 Orchard street.................... 1.60 2,410 1,506 Allen street...................... 2. 6 2,500 1,155 First avenue...................... 2.32 1,700 732 Delancey street.................... 2.00 2,o60 1,030 Delancey street................... 2.16 2,1o 977 Sixth street...................... 2.24 I,630 728 187 Volume Weight Weight in of Ashes per Cubic Yards. in Cart. Cubic Yard. Remarks. September 5, 1907. City Dump-Forty-seventh Street and North RiverCollected chiefly from: Sixty-first street................. Seventy-first street................ Fifty-third street.................. Fifty-second street................ Sixty-first street.................. Fiftieth street..................... Sixty-eighth street................. Sixty-first and Sixty-second streets.. Sixty-second street................ I.84 A 1.68 2.00 2.o8 1.92 2.00 i.68 I.84 1.76 2,040 2,600 1,980 2,480 1,870 2,050 2,120 I,700 1,640 I,I08 1,548 990 1,191 973 1,025 1,261 924 932 September 4, 1907. City Dump-One Hundred and Thirty-fourth Street and North RiverCollected chiefly from: One Hundred and Thirtieth street.. One Hundred and Thirty-fifth street One Hundred and Thirty-fourth street One Hundred and Thirty-fifth street Manhattan street.................. One Hundred and Twenty-fourth street....................... One Hundred and Fifty-third and One Hundred and Fifty-fourth streets...................... One Hundred and Sixteenth street. Average................................. 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.84 1.84 84.00 2.00 2,460 2,350 2,290 2,110 2,770 1,230 I,175 1,145 1,055 1,441 2,190 1,140 2,320 1,206 2,410 2,350 91,280 2,172 1,310 1,277 i,o86 188 WEIGHT OF RUBBISH, MANHATTAN. Volume Weight Weight in of Rubbish per Remarks. Cubic Yards. in Cart. Cubic Yard. September 3, 1907. City Dump-Forty-sixth Street and East River- * Collected chiefly from: Forty-fourth street and Sixth avenue Forty-second street................ Forty-eighth street................ Fifty-second street................ September 5, 1907. City Dump-Forty-sixth Street and East RiverCollected chiefly from: Sixth avenue.................... Forty-ninth and Fifty-first streets.. Forty-third street................ Third avenue..................... Forty-fourth street................ September 4, 1907. City Dump-Stanton StreetCollected chiefly from: Ninth street..................... Eighth street...................... Delancey street................... Seventh and Eighth streets........ Fourth street...................... Bowery.......................... Elm street........................ Broome street.................................................... September 5, 1907. City Dump-Forty-seventh Street and North RiverCollected chiefly from: Sixty-second street................ Forty-ninth and Fiftieth streets.... Sixty-sixth and Sixty-seventh streets 6.9 900 8.7 1,030 5.7 750 5.4 720 132 Paper and boxes. 118 Paper and boxes. 132 Paper and boxes. 133 Paper and boxes. 7.I 8.1 5.4 6.9 6.9 6.0 6.9 6.9 6.9 7-4 6.o 8.i 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 8.I 930 990 I,I00 720 890 1,000 1,400 940 1,050 1,640 920 1,380 1,460 1,o8o 1,280 1,28 9I0 131 Paper and boxes. 122 Paper and boxes. 204 Paper and boxes. 104 Paper and boxes. 129 Paper and boxes. i66 Paper and boxes. 203 Paper and boxes. 136 Paper and boxes. 152 Paper and boxes. 222 Paper and boxes. 153 Paper and boxes. 170 Paper and boxes. 17I Paper and boxes. 212 Paper and boxes. 156 Paper and boxes. 185 Paper and boxes. 112 Paper and boxes. 189 Volume Weight Weight in - of Rubbish per Cubic Yards. in Cart. Cubic Yard. Remarks. City Dump-Forty-seventh Street and North RiverCollected chiefly from: Thirty - sixth and Thirty - seventh streets....................... Seventy-second and Seventy-third streets....................... Fifty-eighth and Fifty-ninth streets. Forty-second street................ Forty - seventh and Forty - eighth streets....................... September 4, 1907. City Dump-One Hundred and Thirty-fourth Street and North RiverCollected chiefly from: One Hundred and Sixteenth to One Hundred and Twenty-fourth street....................... One Hundred and Thirteenth and One Hundred and Fourteenth streets....................... One Hundred and Sixteenth street. One Hundred and Twenty-third to One Hundred and Twenty-fifth street........................ One Hundred and Nineteenth to One Hundred and Twenty-second street.................... One Hundred and Tenth to One Hundred and Thirteenth street. One Hundred and Thirty-third and One Hundred and Thirty-fourth streets....................... One Hundred and Eighteenth street One Hundred and Nineteenth and One Hundred and Twentieth streets...................... One Hundred and Twelfth and One Hundred and Thirteenth streets 8.4 8.7 6.9 7-7 6.3 1,260 1,280 1,970 1,010 920 6.9 9o1 7.5 840 7.7 1,250 7.1 1,460 6.9 870 5.7 91o 6.9 980 4.8 690 3.9 370 5.7 890 246. 37,880 7.II 1,052 7.60 1,093 6.87 983 7.66 1,072 29.24 4200 7.31 1,050 150 Paper and boxes. 147 Paper and boxes. 276 Paper and boxes. 131 Paper and boxes. 147 Paper and boxes. 132 Paper and boxes. 112 Paper and boxes. 162 Paper and boxes. 206 Paper and boxes. 126 Paper and boxes. I60 Paper and boxes. 142 Last load. 144 Last load. 95 Last load. I56 Last load. 154 Commission. 144 F. W. Stearns. 143 F. W. Stearns. 140 D. C. Johnson. '43 Average, 36 Average, 85 Average, 42 Average, 49 carts........................ carts........................ carts........................ carts........................ Average, 212 carts.....................,. I90 APPENDIX C. ORIGINAL WORK. We found it necessary to have more exact data concerning the different classes of refuse than were available, and therefore have done some original research work. Chemical analyses were made of garbage, ashes, rubbish and street sweepings. A mechanical analysis was made of rubbish. Calorific values of garbage, rubbish and street sweepings were obtained. We measured and weighed a number of cartloads of different classes of refuse from which we obtained their unit weights. The details are given in Appendix B. The amount of water squeezed out of fresh garbage by different weights was measured. The street sweepings were weighed and measured as collected by the regular sweepers from measured areas. This was done to note the effect of different kinds of pavement and of traffic. Measured areas were also reswept immediately after a sweeping by the Department. This was done to determine the amount of dust left after a regular sweeping. A number of other analyses are also given in order to have as much information as possible on the character of the material herein considered. GARBAGE. Analysis A was made by the Sanitary Bureau of the Department of Health, City of New York, on October 15, I897. Analyses B, C, D and E were made by the Lederle Laboratories at the request of the Commission. Sample B was taken from the East One Hundred and Seventh street dump, Manhattan, on October I, 1907. Sample C was taken from the Stanton street dump, Manhattan, on October 2, I907. Sample D was taken from the West Forty-seventh street dump, Manhattan, on October 23, 1907. Sample E was taken from the Far Rockaway dump, Queens, on October 8, I907. 19} TABLE I. ANALYSES OF GARBAGE. Analyses Calculated to Original Material Containing Original Per Cent. of Water. A. B. C. D. E. Per Per Per Per Per Cent. Cent. Cent. Cent. Cent. Moisture................................... 65.90 76.00 6o.oo 65.00 73-00 Volatile combustible matter..................... 1 7.80 29.74 25.85 17.36 Fixed carbon............................... 34.10.2.85 4.82 4-47 2.78 Inorganic matter, or ash........................... 3.35 5.44 4.68 6.86 100.00 I00.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Included in Above- Grease................................. 7.07 3.52 7.22 6.82 a.83 Phosphorous pentoxide.................. 0.07 0.26 0.93 0.58 0.57 Potassium oxide.......;................ 0.30 '0.3 0.33 0.35 0.49 Nitrogen............................... o.86 0.73 1.25 0.83 0.95 Calorific value of dry material in B. t. u......... 8,803 9,335 8,831 8,774 *Calorific value calculated to original material containing original per cent. of moisture, in B. t. u.............................. 1,11 4 2,945 2,236 1,409 * Temperature of air taken at 50 degrees F., of escaping gases in stack at 600 degrees F. Formula used, Actual calorific power = Calorific power of dry material X (1oo - per cent. of moisture) - Per cent. of moisture { (2I2-50) + 966 + 0.48 (600-2I2). The Hon. George Cromwell, President, Borough of Richmond, aided by Mr. J,T. Fetherston, Superintendent of the Bureau of Street Cleaning, suggested a series of analyses, which were made by Ernest J. Lederle, Ph. D., during I904, I905 and 1906. The results showed that the average moisture in the garbage, Borough of Richmond, was-71.4 per cent.; that the average moisture varied from month to month, with a maximum of 75.9 per cent. for January and a minimum of 64.7 per cent. for October. The calorific tests made on samples of the garbage as collected in Richmond showed an average calorific power per pound of dried garbage of 8,243 B. t. u. These tests were made in I905 and had a minimum value of 5,320 and a maximum of 9,447 B. t. u. The average moisture in the samples was 71.4 per cent., so that the calorific value, calculated to the original material, was for the average I,42o B. t. u. 1 152 LIQUID SQUEEZED FROM GARBAGE BY PRESSURE. We had compression tests made by the Lederle Laboratories to determine the amount of liquid that could be squeezed out of fresh garbage as delivered to the dumps. One cubic yard of garbage was placed in a cylindrical vessel three feet in diameter and four feet deep. Weights of 438, I,059, 1,694 and 2,330 pounds, corresponding respectively to &o, I50, 240 and 330 pounds per square feet, were placed on the garbage and the water drawn off at recorded intervals of time and measured. Liquid Squeezed from Garbage by Pressure. FIRST TEST-Monday's garbage, collected Tuesday: Bulk, I cubic yard. Total weight, 677 pounds. Subjected to a pressure of 60 pounds per square foot: Amount of Liquid Squeezed from Time from Start of Test. Start of Test. Hours. Minutes. Pounds. Ounces. ~.. IS..~15 ~.. 45 *-45 7 15.. 3 Same sample subjected, to a pressure of 150 pounds per square foot: 17.. 4. Same sample subjected to a pressure of 240 pounds per square foot: 6.. 7 8 30.. 19 Same sample subjected to a pressure of 330 pounds per square foot: 5 30 24 8 193 TOTAL OF FIRST TEST. Amount of Liquid Squeezed from Time from Start of Test. Start of Test. Hours. Minutes. Pounds. Ounces. 59 45 47 II SECOND TEST-Sunday's garbage, collected Monday: Bulk, I cubic yard. Total weight, 1,122 pounds. Subjected to a pressure test of I50 pounds per square foot: Amount of Liquid Squeezed from Time from Start of Test. Start of Test. Hours. Minutes. Pounds. Ounces. 15 2i 30 32 I.., 40 5.. 68 6 30 73 35 30 82 Same sample subjected to a pressure of 240 pounds per square foot: 15 I 8 30 4 I.. 6 8 3 30 14 8 6 30 20 8 24 30 54 Same sample subjected to a pressure of 330 pounds per square foot: 15 I 4.. 30 2 8 I.. 5 8 3.. 14 8 24.. 43 27 30 50 12 i94 TOTAL OF SECOND TEST. Amlount of Liquid Squeezed from Time from Start of Test. Start of Test. A - A, r- - Hours. Minutes. Pounds. Ounces. 87 30 i86 12 The second test produced so much more liquid than the first that it was thought advisable to subject garbage collected on a Monday to the initial test of 60 pounds pressure. The result is given in the third test. THIRD TEST-Sunday's garbage, collected Monday: Bulk, I cubic yard. Total weight, 1,333 pounds. Stlbjected to a pressure of 60 pounds per square foot: Amount of Liquid Squeezed from Time from Start of Test. Start of Test. Hours. Minutes. Pounds. Ounces... 15 21. 330 32 I.. 45 3.. 67 6.. 86 i7.. 103 On the accompanying diagram, Figure I, Appendix C, the results of the second and third tests are shown graphically. Curve 2 was laid off on Curve I, and' likewise Curve 3 on Curve 2, because the same sample had already been pressed by the previous weight. App ecna C., F I. Liquid 5queezed from Garboqe byPressure. Cofss/ffot o Sf/rcJ C7e^nT mF# ^Ht t/ezs/asp,/ /907 - ---, --- - - '- " Xf 50 ^ __i _ __-^6/^arbe 5,rmp/cs.. cui,. yIr. i_ _ _ _ _ _-_ _1_'-C garvs / 2 _3 rere /esj on Ike sg,- u I(vI f _ _%_ __Jsu of 240_/- J m ^_o//- w — -r -o/b. #f/,dbee/, ~pp/iud OMfar. -L/ ______4_ _ _ _~ II r-s o /. A w aRppols teZ4,/.'5 /&na Jppkr edZko 2~ ho'rJ. $d # _Fl. _. c/ yId - T T. 1 I I!!- -.- ^ -- -— ~ ef ^ /e 4 f....,jf~ ji1 - o 5 /O /- ZO Hirar I I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 197 ASHES. Analyses A, B and C were made by Messrs. Simonds & Wainwright on March 29, 1904. Sample A was taken from Clinton street dump, Manhattan. Sample B was taken from Stanton street dump, Manhattan. Sample C was taken from West Forty-seventh street dump, Manhattan. Analyses D and E were made by the Lederle Laboratories at the request of the Commission. Sample D was taken from West Forty-seventh street dump, Manhattan, on September 23, 1907. Sample E was taken from East One Hundred and Seventh street dump, Manhattan, on October I, I907. TABLE II. ANALYSES OF ASBES FROM CITY DUirPS. A. B. C. D. E. Per Per Per Per Per Cent. Cent. Cent. Cent. Cent. Moisture................................... 69 80 o0.83 0.93 1. 0o Volatile combustible matter.................. [721.71 13.39 36.12 3I.77 35.44 Fixed carbon................................ 22.17 20.87 True ash.................................. 62.19 67.43 63.73 55.I9 64.54 Total.......................... 1 o 00.00 100.00o 100.00 00oo.00 Moisture in original sample........................... 42.00oo 22.85 Analyses Calculated to Original MaterialW ater............................................................... 42.00 2.85 Volatile combustible matter............................................ 2.71 10.45 Fixed carbotn....................................................... 2.98 16.30 True ash............................................................ 32.3 50.40 Total................................................ 00.00 00oo.00 Analyses F, G and' H were made by Messrs. Simonds & Wainwright on February 10, I904. Sample F is ash from an open grate burning English cannel coal, and was taken from a private residence in Manhattan. 198 Sample G is ash from a stove burning anthracite, size "Stove No. 2," and was taken in Manhattan. Sample H is ash taken from a hot air furnace burning anthracite, egg size, and was taken from a private residence in Manhattan. Analyses J, K and L were made by the Lederle Laboratories at the request of the Commission. Sample J wasbtaken from a private residence on East Thirty-eighth street, Manhattan, on September 23, I907. Sample K was taken from an apartment house on October 30, 1907. Sample L was taken from a hotel on October 30, I907. TABLE III. ANALYSES OF HOUSEHOLD AsH. F. G. H. J. K. L. PerCent. Per Cent. Per Cent. Per Cent. Per Cent. Per Cent. Moisture..................0.....64 0.36 o.o6 1.44 o.8x 0.62 Volatile combustible matter...... f 5. 3.04 0.87. 21.83 8.83 I3.44 Fixed carbon................. J L7.37 27.71 31.96 True ash................ 77.53 90.8I 86.50 66. 6 68.44 66.55 Total.............. 1 00o.oo 00 00oo.oo 00 Ioo0.00 100.00 Moisture in original sample................ 30.00 27.51 xI.62 Analyses Calculated to Original MaterialW ater.................................................. 30.00 27.51 1I.62 Volatile combustible matter............................... io.67 2.22 0.78 Fixed carbon............................................ 2.34 20.25 28.42 True ash............................................ 46.99 50.02 59.18 Total................................... I00.00 100.00 o00.00 This Commission communicated with large consumers of coal for steam uses, and some of the replies gave the following results: Combustible Matter. Reply No. I, Manhattan.................................................. I9.70% Reply No. 2, M anhattan................................................. 23.00% keply No. 3, Brooklyn.......................... 22.00% 199 - RUBBISH. Analysis A was made by the Lederle Iaboratories at the request of the Commission, on rubbish as delivered at Delancev slip, AManhattan, October, I907. Analysis B was made by the Lederle Laboratories at the request of the Commission, on rubbish as delivered at the West Forty-seventh street dump, Manhattan, October, 1907. Analysis C was made by ex-Commissioner lMacdonough Craven on New York rubbish. Analysis D was made by H. de B. Parsons on rubbish at the Delancey slip station, Manhattan, December, I905. Analysis E was made by F. WV. Stearns, of the Department of Street Cleaning, at the Thirtieth street dump, Manhattan, October, I904. Analysis F was made by F. W. Stearns, of the Department of Street Cleaning, at the West Forty-seventh street dump, Manhattan, October, I907. TABLE IV. OF RUBBISH IN PERCENTAGE BY WEIGHT. MECHANICAL ANALYSES Percentage of Total Cor- Percentage Picked Out as bustion. Marketable. Component Parts., _ --- A ^A - A B C D E F Rags............................... 3.70 2.90 S.So 4.6o.... 2.78 Rags.3.- 70 2. 90 I 5.50 4.60.... 2.78 Rubber.................................. o.....0........ Leather....................................8o........ W ood.............................. I2.50 3.50 1.40.... 7.30 8.91 Metals............................. 6.30 3.70 3.30 o.86 1.30 4. o Glass................................... 1.20 2.90.... 1.40 0.76 Bagging........................................0.39 Carpets..............................................57 Shoes............................................... 0. 39 H ats................................................... o. o03 Rope and string............................... 0.23 Paper............................. 3900 25.90 75.00 2540 33.30 **. Newspaper............................................94 Manila......................................... 2.64 Pasteboard........................................35 M ixed............................................ 6. I6 Books...................................... o.55;Other material........................ 38.50 34.80.................... 200' Percentage of Total Com- Percentage Picked Out as bustion. Marketable. Component Parts. A B C D E F A B C D E F Total marketable.............................. 30.86 43.30 48.80 Total worthless................................ 69.14 56.70 5. 20 Total.................. 00oo. oo 00.00oo 00 o 00.00 00oo.oo 00.00 Average of two chemical analyses of dry rubbish made of material delivered at Delancey Slip Station, December, I905, by D. C. Johnson: Per Cent. N itrogen................................................................ I.00 Hydrogen.......................................................... 5.60 C arbon................................................................. 45.8 Oxygen.................................. I........................... 39.o0 Ash................................................................ 8.58 Total.................................................................... 00.00 Average percentage of water in original sample, II.50 per cent. Analysis calculated to original material containing II.50 per cent. water: Per Cent. W ater.................................................................. II.50 N itrogen................................................................8 Hydrogen.............................................................. 4.96 Carbon.................................................................. 40.54 O xygen................................................................. 34.52 Ash................................................................. 7.59 Total...................................................... I0o.o0 Determination by D. C. Johnson of the calorific value of dry rubbish delivered at Delancey Slip Station, Manhattan, December, 1905: B. t. u. Sample No. I, by Mahler Calorimeter.................................... 7,8Io Sample No. 2, by Mahler Calorimeter.................................... 7,750 Sample No. 3, by Mahler Calorimeter.................................... 7,580 Sample No. 4, from chemical analysis.................................... 7,I50,~, _ 201 Calorifiic value* calculated to original material containing II. per cent. water: B. t. u. Sample No. I, by Mahler Calorimeter.................................... 6,76 Sample No. 2, by Mahler Calorimeter.................................... 6,708 Sample No. 3, by Mahler Calorimeter.................................... 6,657 Sample No. 4, from chemical analysis.................................. 6,I77 * See note on page 191 on method of calculating calorific value of garbage containing original percentage of water. STREET SWEEPINGS. This Commission took samples from the street sweepings on various pavements, and had them analyzed by the Lederle Laboratories. Sample A was taken from West Eighty-ninth street, near West End avenue, Manhattan, on August 2I, 1907, a light traffic street, sheet asphalt pavement, in a residential district, dry day. Sample B was taken from Broadway, near-Thirty-eighth street, Manhattan, on August 29, 1907, a heavy traffic street, sheet asphalt pavement, in a business district, dry day. Sample C was taken from Warren street, near West Broadway, Manhattan, on September 13, 1907, a heavy traffic street, wood block pavement, rainy day. Sample D is a sample of the "dust" left after a regular sweeping by the patrol. It is a mixture of samples, taken from seven different streets in Manhattan, as shown in Table VIII., Appendix C. TABLE V. ANALYSES OF STREET SWEEPINGS. A B C D Per Cent. Per Cent. Per Cent. Per Cent. Per Cent. Per Cent. Per Cent. Per Cent. *M oisture........................................... 3.56 2.93 2.56 2.35 Volatile combustible matter............................ 54.03 64.72 54-.3 17.67 Fixed carbon........................................ o.15 xx.96 13.36 5.84 Ash............................................ 42.26 20.39 29.77 74.14 100.00 100.00 100 00 00.00 00 202 A B C D Included in AbovePhosphorus pentoxide............................ 0.79.95 0.70.... Potassium oxide.................................. 0.73 o.86 o.80.... Total nitrogen.................................... oo 0. 9o 0.74.... Water soluble phosphorus pentoxide................ 0.34 o.6o o. 6.... Water in original sample.......................... t.... t.... o.6o * Air dried. t Not recorded. It will be noticed from the above analyses that the sample of street sweeping on the light traffic street (Analysis A) gave a much higher percentage of ash than the samples taken from the heavy traffic (Analyses B and C). In the opinion of the Commission this is due to the less amount of horse droppings and combustible waste, such as paper, pieces of wood, etc., collected in proportion to the total weight. The sample of "dust" (Analysis D) would naturally show a high percentage of ash for the same reason, because, as was explained, this dust was the material left on the pavement after the regular sweeping which took up the horse droppings and larger pieces of litter, all of which are combustible. DETERMINATION OF THE RATE OF SUBSIDENCE OF STREET DIRT. The Commission made up an average mixture of the eight samples of street dust, as collected by their assistant, Mr. Johnson, from the streets after they had been swept by the regular patrol. See Table VIII. A volume of about one pint of the dust was thoroughly mixed and a sample (o5 grams) taken and used. This was stirred into one pint of rain water, in a deep vessel. It was allowed to stand ten minutes and then decanted; and was decanted again at the end of thirty minutes, one hour, three hours and twelve hours, the residue being, in each case, dried and weighed, with the following result: Per Cent. Subsided at the end of Io minutes........................................ 64 Subsided at the end of 30 minutes more................................... 26 Subsided at the end of I hour more....................................... 6 Subsided at the end of 3 hours more.................................... Subsided at the end of 12 hours more.................................... 2 100 At the end of the total period of sixteen hours and forty minutes, when last decanted, only a few small fragments, insignificant in weight, were still afloat. 203 The analysis of tlhis original material by tle Iederl ILabloratories shows the following composition: Per Cent. M o isture................................................................. 2.35 Volatile combustible matter 7.................................. 17.67 Fixed carbon.................................................... 584 A sh..................................................................... 74.14 I00.00 In Table VI. of this Appendix is given the available information regarding the value and composition of street sweeping anld manuire. Th e authorities and cities in which these analyses were made arec also stated in the table. The analyses made by the Lederle Laboratories on New Yorl streel sweepinls vwere made at the request of this Commission. In order to determine the wveight and volume of street sweepings collected per unit area from different sections of the City, the areas cleaned by one sweeper in these sections, and what effect traffic hadl upon the weight and area cleaned, this Commission conducted a series of tests in seven sections of the Borough of Manhattan. The results are shown in Table VII. of this Appendix. To ascertain the quantity of dirt and dust left upon the streets by the ordinary method of street cleaning, a number of detailed examinations were made by this Commission. The regular sweeping by the Department preceding our examination was done at least as well as the average of such work, and the street appeared to be in a comparatively satisfactory condition of cleanliness. Directly after the streets had been swept by the ordinary methods, an area of street surface was measured off and carefully swept by special means, and the material collected, which consisted mostly of fine particles or dust, 'measured and weighed. The results are shown in Table VIII. of this Appendix. 204 TABLE VI.COMPOSITION OF STREET SWEEPINGS AND MANURE, Kind of Pavement City. Date. Source of Material, Conditions, etc. from Which Collected. Washington............. 1898 Street sweepings from dump, composite sample, several months old............ Asphalt...... Washington............. 1898 Street sweepings from dump, mostly manure, six to eight months old........ Asphalt...... Washington...-.......... 1898 Fresh hand sweepings taken from dump, material mostly manure............... Asphalt...... Cincinnati............... 1889 Average fresh sweepings taken from Race street............................... Asphalt...... New York................... Street sweepings................................... Berlin...................... Street sweepings......................... Asphalt..... New York............... 896 From New York streets............................... New York............... 896 From New York streets.............................. New York............... 907 Street sweepings collected by Commission on Eighty-ninth street............. Asphalt...... New York............... 907 Street sweenings collected by Commission on Warren street................ Wood block... New York............... 1907 Street sweepings collected by Commission on Broadway, between Thirtyseventh and Fortieth streets........... Asphalt................................. Pure horse m anure............................................................... Stable m anure..................................................................... W ell-kept mixed stable manure........................ * Uncertain whether reported analyses are based on included moisture or not. X Reported as volatile combustible matter and fixed carbon. 205 APPENDIX C. ORGANIC M\11ATTER, AND VALUE AS FERTILIZER. Composition, Per Cent. Analysis for Fertilizer, Per Cent. Reduced to Dry (-4 As Reported. Material. Authority and 5. URemarks. u.5 U 1- uu O~- C, bo CZ b 0 Z 0 ho 0 o+1 c 45.7 16.3 38.0 30.0 0.39 o. o8 0. og 0.72 0.15 0.17 Bul. No. 55, U. S. Dept. Ag. 28.7 14.5 56.8 20.4 0.32 o.o8 o.II 0.45 0.11 0.15 BIdP. No. 55, U. S. Dept. Ag. 39.5 28.9 31.6 47.7 0.55 0.10 0.37 0.91 0.17 o.6i Bul. No. 55, U. S. Dept. Ag. 46.11 26.9 27.0 50.0 0.91 1.31 0.33 0.g1 I.3I 0.33 F. C. Wallace. 37.28 30. 72 32.0 49.0 0.25 0.35.... 0.40 o. 56.... Craven, McD., Am. Med. Assn. 39.89 22.44 37.67 37.2 0.48 0.45 0.37........... Vogel. See Bul. 55. 32.88......... 0.29 0.38 0.37 0.43 0.57 0.55 Van Slyke, N. Y. Agricultural Experi21.68............ 0.21 0.32 0.32 0.27 0.4I 0.34J ment Station. t3.56 t54.18 42.26 456.2 1.00 0.79 0.73 1.04 0.82 0.76 Lederle Laboratories. t~2.56 ~67.67 29.77:69.4 0.74 0.70 O.8o 0.76 0.72 0.82 Lederle Laboratories. t2.93:~:76.68 20.39 '79.0 0.90 0.95 O.86 0.93 0.98 0.89 Lederle Laboratories. 11.24............ 0.74 I.45 2.82 *0.83 1.63 3.18 Mass. Agr. Exp. Sta. 73.27............ 0.50 0.30 o.6o *1.87 1.12 2.24 Year Book, 1884, Agr. Dept. 0.50 0.25 0.50.... Van Slyke, N. Y. Agricultural Evperiment Station. Air dried. ~ Sixty per cent. water in original sample collected on a wet day. 206 TABLE VII.MATERIAL COLLECTED FROM REGU From Observations Made by Commission on Section Observed. Date, Ar of Street Observed. Length Width Area Kind Condition Observation. in in in Square of of Feet. Feet. Yards. Pavement. Repairs. Aug. 21, 1907 West Eighty-ninth street, from Eighth avenue to Riverside drive........ Aug. 22, 1907 West Eighty-ninth street, from Eighth avenue to Riverside drive........ Aug. 23, 1907 West Eighty-ninth street, from Eighth avenue to Riverside drive........ Aug. 21, 1907 West End avenue, from Eighty-second s t r e e t, south side, to Eightyninth street, north side Aug. 22, 1907 West End avenue, from Eighty-second s t r e e t, south side, to Eightyninth street, north side Aug. 23, 1907 West End avenue, from Eighty-second s t r e e t, south side, to Eightyninth street, north side Aug. 27, 1907 Broadway, from West Thirty-seventh street to West Fortieth street... Aug. 28, I1907 Broadway, from West Thirty-seventh street to West Fortieth street... Aug. 29, 1907 Broadway, from West Thirty-seventh street to West Fortieth street... Aug. 27, 1907 Fifth avenue, from Thirty-first street to Thirty-fourth street........ Aug. 28, 1907 Fifth avenue, from Thirty-first street to Thirty-fourth street........ Aug. 29, 1907 Fifth avenue, from Thirty-first street to Thirty-fourth street........ Sept. 4, I907 Broadway, from East Seventeenth street to East Twentieth street....... Sept. 5, 1907 Broadway, from East Seventeenth street to East Twentieth street....... Sept. 6, 1907 Broadway, from East Seventeenth street to East Twentieth street....... Sept. 4, I907 Bowery, from Rivington street to Houston street Sept. 5, 1907 Bowery, from Rivington street to Houston street Spet. 6, 1907 Bowery, from Rivington street to Houston street Sept. 12, 1907 Warren street, from Broadway to West Broadway.......... Sept. 13, 1907 Warren s t r e e t, from Broadway to West Broadway............ 3,345 3,345 3,345 2,1 15 2,1 15 2,115 813 813 813 783 783 783 762 762 762 905 905 905 900 900 30 30 30 40 11,150 11,150 11,150 Asphalt...... Asphalt...... Asphalt...... Very good. Very good. Very good. 9,400 Asphalt...... Very good. 40 9,400 Asphalt...... Very good. 40 60 60 60 40 40 40 30 30 30 a 40 a 40 a 40 30 30 9,400 5,420 5,420 5,420 3,480 3,480 3,480 2,540 2,540 2,540 4,022 4,022 4,022 3,000 3,000 114,036 Asphalt...... Asphalt...... Asphalt..... Asphalt...... Asphalt...... Asphalt..... Asphalt...... Asphalt..... Asphalt...... Asphalt...... Granite block. Granite block. Granite block. Wood block... Wood block... Very good. Good..... Good..... Good..... Good..... Good..... Good..... Good..... Good..... Good..... Fair...... Fair... Fair...... Good..... Good..... a Bowery, 80 feet wide, but one sweeper sweeps only half. c Street sprinkled. d Seven-hour day. 207 APPENDIX C. LAR SWEEPING BY DEPARTMENT. Street Cleaning and Waste Disposal, I907. Sweepings Collected Quantity per r,ooo Weather. in One Day. Square Yards. Pounds, r --— _.._. _.-_____- Weight, Number per 1,ooo On Day On Volume Weight per Cubic Volume, of Sq. Yards, of Preceding in Cubic in Foot. Cubic Weight, Horses. per i,ooo Observation. Day. Feet. Pounds. Feet. Pounds. Horses. Fair...... Fair....... 8.9 Fair...... Fair....... 17.4 Fair...... Fair....... 17.2 853 45.1 780 44.8 686 39.9 1.70 76.6 1.56 70.0 1.54 61.5 336 2o8 384 i6i Fair...... Fair....... 20. 1 504 25.4 2.14 54.3........ Fair...... Fair....... 20.3 Fair...... Fair....... 8. Showery..Fair....... 37.7 Fair...... Showery... 21.2 Fair...... Fair....... 26. Showery.. Fair....... 18.9 Fair...... Showery... 29.0 Fair...... Fair....... 23.2 Some rain.. Rainy...... 20.9 One shower Some rain.. 23.2 Fair...... One shower 26.0 Some rain.. Rainy...... 56.5 One shower Some rain.. 52.2 Fair...... One shower 49.3 Fair...... Rain....... 43.5 430 1,284 d 744 922 666 931 936 978 d 965 i,o68 2,233 2,136 1,821 C 2,027 22.6 2.I6 48.8 744 23.9 1.9I 45.7 720 34.2 6.95 237.6 6,096 35.1 3-91 137.3 6,048 35-3 4.82 I70.I 4,704 35.2 5.43 I9I.I 9,984 32.1 8.33 267.4 8,064 40.3 6.67 268.8 II,082 46.8 8.23 385.2 4,416 41.6 9.13 380.8 4,176 4I.I 10.24 420.9 4,848 39.5 14.05 5550 b 5,280 40.9 12.97 530.5 b 4,992 36.9 12.26 451.4 b 6,048 46.6 14.50 675.7 4,032 34.9 I6.43 573.4 5,472 66 63 39 23 36 19 33 24 87 9I 87 105 Io6 75 167 105 83.1 air...... Fair...... 49.3 c d 1,725 588.9 22,148 e 37.6 e 5.16 e 194.3 b Traffic on half width of street. e Obtained by dividing totals of previous columns. 208 TABLE VIII.QUANTITY OF STREET DIRT (MOSTLY DUST) REMAINING ON STREET SURFACES From1 Actual Careful Swe Street and Section Swept. *Street Section Kind Date of Last Cleaned Oppo- tArea Name. of Rain or by Hand site Travel. Swept, Pavement. Last Flushing. or by House Square Machine. Number. Feet. West 8gth street.. Asphalt......... rain, Aug. i8 Hand... 264 Light.... 300 West End avenue. Asphalt......... Rain, Aug. 18 Hand... 583 Medium.. 400 West 77th street.. Block asphalt... Rain, Aug. i8 Machine 156 Light.... 300 West 77th street.. Block asphalt... Rain, Aug. i8 Hand... 18 Light.... 300 5th avenue....... Asphalt......... Rain, Aug. 24 Hand... 425 Heavy... 400 East I6th street.. Asphalt......... Rain, Aug. 24 Machine 676 Light... 300 Bowery.......... Granite block... Rain, Sept. 5 Hand... 285 Heavy... 400 Warren street..... Wood block..... Rain, Sept. ii Hand... 60 Heavy... 300 * Regular sweeping by Department. 209 APPENDIX C. AFTER REGULAR STREET SWEEPING, CITY OF NEW YORK (MANHATTAN). cping by the Commission. Computed Quantities Quantity of Sweepings Per I,ooo Square Date of Trial. Obtained. Yards. Month and Day. Hour. Volume e Weight Volume Weight Weight in Cubic in in in Per Incies. Ounces. Cubic Feet. Pounds. Cubic Foot. Aug. 21, 907..... 3.00 p.. 5. 3 1.94 0.092 3.63 39.5 Aug. 22, 907..... 2.30 p. m. I5.8 9.69 0.206 13.65 66.2 Aug. 23, I907..... 2.30 p.. 33.0 20.13 0.573 37-75 65.9 Aug. 23, I907..... 3-5 P. m. 34.0 20.63 0.590 38.70 65.6 Aug. 29, 1907..... I0.00 a. m. 49.8 21.88 0.648 30.77 47.5 Aug. 29, I907..... II.o a. m. 47.8 19.13 0.830 35.83 43.2 Sept. 6, 1907..... 1.30 p. m. 369.8 136.00 4.802 191.25 39.8 Sept. I3, 907..... 3.45 P. m. 85.0 I6.19 1.476 30.35 20.6 Averages......... 1.152 47-74 48. 5 t Swept by Commission. 210 APPENDIX D. LETTER OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL TO THE COMMIISSION ON STREET CLEANING AND WASTE DISPOSAL. CITY OF NEW YORK-LAW DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL, NEW YORK, August 21, I907. J Hon. H. DE B. PARSONS, Comltissionler of Street Cleaning and WVaste Disposal, The City of New York, No. 22 William Street, New York City: SIR-I am in receipt of your communication of July 10, I907, stating that on June II the Mayor appointed your Commission on Street Cleaning and Waste Disposal, and that the Commission had requested you to ask me to furnish them with the following information and request that I furnish it to you in triplicate: (I) Copies of the Charter requirements or ordinances whereby the Department of Street Cleaning in any borough can seek assistance from other City Departments, such as the Police and Health, in enforcing the requirements against throwing litter into the street. There does not appear to be any provision in the Charter or ordinances specifically giving the power to the Department of Street Cleaning in any borough to seek assistance from other City Departments, such as the Police and Health, in enforcing the requirements against throwing litter into the streets, but by sections 311, 315 and 337 of the Charter, it is made the duty of any member of the Police Force to arrest, without warrant, any person who shall violate, or threaten to violate, any of the ordinances or laws in view of such member, and in section 1264 of the Charter power is given to members of the Police Force and every Inspector or officer of the Department of Health to arrest any person who shall, in view of such officer, do anything forbidden by chapter I9 of the Charter or by any law or ordinance. I enclose herewith, in triplicate, copies of said sections of the Charter. Where a violation of the provisions of law or ordinances against throwing litter in the street has occurred or is threatened, a member of the Department of Street Cleaning, as well as any citizen, may call upon a police officer and cause the arrest and punishment of the offender. Section 308 of the Charter provides that the Police Commissioner may, in certain cases, appoint Special Patrolmen. The Commissioner of Street Cleaning could, if he desired, have some of his subordinates, as Superintendents or Section Foremen, designated as such Special Patrolmen, who would have the power of arrest. Copies of such sections are herewith enclosed. (2) You ask for copies of the Charter requirements preventing the throwing of litter or other foreign matter, sweeping sidewalks, etc., into the street. In this connection, I refer you to section 1456 of the Greater New York Charter, copies of which are herewith enclosed. This section, however, by section 3 of the 211 amendatory act to the Charter of go90, is to remain in force only until the Board of Aldermen pass ordinances regulating the matters provided for in such section. (3) You also ask for the same information with regard to any ordinances which may be in force. I refer you to the Code of Ordinances of The City of New York, Part I., being General Ordinances and Ordinances of a general character, chapter 9, sections 404 and 405; copies of such sections are herewith enclosed. As having some bearing on this subject, I call your attention to section 534 of the Greater New York Charter, copies of which are herewith enclosed, providing that the Commissioner of Street Cleaning shall have cognizance and control of the sweeping and cleaning of the streets of the boroughs of Manhattan, The Bronx and Brooklyn, and of the framing of regulations controlling the use of sidewalks and gutters by abutting owners and occupants for the disposition of sweepings, refuse, garbage and like rubbish, within such boroughs. which, when so framed, and approved by the Board of Aldermen, shall be published in like manner as City Ordinances, and shall be enforced by the Police Department in the same manner and to the same extent as such ordinances. In regard to the boroughs of Queens and Richmond, I call your attention to subdivisions I and 2 of subdivision 12 of paragraph 383 of the Greater New York Charter, copies of which are herewith enclosed. (4) You next ask as to the requirements as to snow removal from sidewalks and gutters by property owners. I refer you to Part I., chapter 9, of the Code of Ordinances, sections 409, 41o and 414, copies of which are herewith enclosed. (5) You also state that the Commission would like to know what rights owners of push carts have to use the streets for vending their wares. I refer you to Part 11. of the Code of Ordinances of The City of New York affecting the Borough of Manhattan, chapter I., sections I, 2, 3,, 6, 8 and 9, copies of which are herewith enclosed, also ordinance adopted October 23, 1906, amending section 6 above referred to, copies of which are enclosed. You also ask, in connection with the last question, whether push carts must keep moving. As you will see from the enclosed citation, section i, it appears that a push cart can only stand thirty minutes. You also ask whether they can stop in the gutters, and whether they can stand close together. By section 2 of the Code of Ordinances, last above mentioned, a licensed peddler, etc., shall not permit his or her cart to stand on any street within twenty-five feet of any corner of the curb or within ten feet of any other peddler; etc. There appears to be no provision against their stopping in the gutters, but section 3 of the ordinances last above mentioned provides that no peddler, etc., shall 212 interfere with or prevent to any degree the Street Cleaning Department from sweeping or cleaning, or from gathering street sweepings, etc., from the streets or avenues. It would, therefore, seem that if a push cart were placed in the gutter, at the instance of a member of the Street Cleaning Department the owner would be obliged to move it if it prevented the proper cleaning of the street. The foregoing, I believe, covers the questions asked by you. It is rather difficult to treat this subject in a general way, and if, hereafter, you should have specific questions upon which you desire advice, I should be glad to furnish you therewith. I also inclose, in triplicate, copies of a long and very carefully prepared opinion rendered by my predecessor, Mr. G. L. Rives, to the Commissioner of Street Cleaning, under date of February 13, 1903. This opinion covers very fully the question of the powers of the Commissioner of Street Cleaning, of the streets, sidewalks and areas within his jurisdiction, his powers and rights to cause the removal'of obstructions, to frame regulations for the purpose of keeping the streets clean and compel their enforcement, and so forth. I am confident that a perusal of this opinion will materially assist you, in your present research. Respectfully yours, G. L. STERLING, Acting Corporation Counsel. CHARTER. Par. 31I. Any member of the police force may arrest without warrant any person who shall, in view of such member, violate, or do, or be engaged in doing or committing in said city, any act or thing forbidden by chapter nineteen of this act, or by any law or by any ordinance the authority to enact which is given by this act or any other statute or who shall, in such presence, resist or be engaged in resisting t;he lawful enforcement of any such law or ordinance or any official order made pursuant to any statute of this state. And any person so arrested shall thereafter be treated, disposed of and punished as any other person duly arrested for a misdemeanor unless other provision is made for the case by law. Par. 315. It is hereby made the duty of the police department and force, at all times of (lay and night, and the members of such force are hereby thereunto empowered, to especially preserve t-:e public peace, prevent crime, detect and arrest offenders, suppress riots, mobs and insurrections, disperse unlawful or dangerous assemblages, and assemblages which obstruct the free passage of public streets, sidewalks, parks and places; protect the rights of persons and property, guard the public health, preserve order at elections and all public meetings and assemblages; regulate, direct, control, restrict and direct the movenent of all teams, horses, carts, wagons, automobiles and all other vehicles in streets, bridges, squares, parks and public places, for the facilitation of traffic and the convenience of the public as well as the proper 213 protection of human life and health, and to that end the police commissioner shall make such rules and regulations for the conduct of vehicular traffic in the use of the public streets, squares and avenues as he may deem necessary; remove all nuisances in the public streets, parks and highways, arrest all street mendicants and beggars; provide proper police attendance at fires; assist, advise and protect emigrants, strangers and travelers in public streets, at steamboat and ship landings, and at railroad stations; carefully observe and inspect all places of public amusement, all places of business having excise or other licenses to carry on any business; all houses of ill-fame or prostitution, and houses where common prostitutes resort or reside; all lottery offices, policy shops, places where lottery tickets or lottery policies are sold or offered for sale; all gambling houses, cock-pits, rat-pits, and public common dancehouses, and to repress and restrain all unlawful and disorderly conduct or practices therein; enforce and prevcnt the violation of all laws and ordinances in force in said city; and for these purposes, to arrest all persons guilty of violating any law or ordinance for the suppression or punishment of crimes or offenses. Par. 337. The several members of the police force shall have power and authority to immediately arrest, without warrant, and to take into custody, any person who shall commit, or threaten, or attempt to commit, in the presence of such member, or within his view, any breach of the peace or offense directly prohibited by act of the legislature, or by any ordinance made by lawful authority. The members of the police force shall possess in The City of New York and in every part of this state, all the common law and statutory powers of constables, except for the service of civil process, and any warrant for search or arrest, issued by any magistrate of this state, may be executed, in any part thereof, by any member of the police force, and all the provisions of sections seven, eight and nine of chapter two, title two, part four of the revised statutes, in relation to the giving and taking of bail, shall apply to this chapter. Par. 1264. Any member of the police force, and every inspector or officer of said department of health, as the regulations of either of said departments may respectively provide relative to its own subordinates, may arrest any person who shall in view of such member or officer violate or do or be engaged in doing or committing in said city any act or thing forbidden by this chapter, or by any law or ordinance, the authority conferred by which is given to said department of health, or who shall, in such presence, resist or be engaged in resisting the enforcement of any of the orders of said department or of the police department pursuant thereto. And any person so arrested shall be thereafter treated and disposed of as any other person duly arrested for a misdemeanor. Par. 308. The police commissioner may, upon an emergency or apprehension of riot, tumult, mob, insurrection, pestilence or invasion, appoint as many special patrolmen without pay from among the citizens as he may deem desirable. The mayor, or, in case of his failure so to do, the governor may demand the assistance of the militia 214 of the state within the city, or of any brigade, regiment or company thereof, by order in writing served upon the commanding officer of any brigade, and such commanding officer shall obey such order. Special patrolmen, appointed in pursuance of law, may be dismissed by order of the police commissioner; and while acting as such special patrolmen shall possess the powers, perform the duties, and be subject to the orders, rules and regulations of the police department in the same manner as regular patrolmen. Every such special patrolman shall wear a badge, to be prescribed and furnished by the police commissioner. No transfer, detail or assignment to special duty of any member of the police force, except in cases authorized or required by law, shall hereafter be made or continued, except for police reasons and in the interests of police service; provided, however, that the police commissioner may, whenever the exigencies of the case require.it, make detail to special duty for a period not exceeding three days, at the expiration of which the member or members so detaile(l shall report for duty to the officer of the command from which1 the detail was made. The police commissioner, whenever expedient, may on the application of any person or persons, corporation or corporations, showinzg the ncccssity therefor, appoint and sw(ear any number of special patrolmnen to do special duty at any place in The City of New York, upon the person or persons, corporation or corporations by whom the application shall be made, paying in advance such special patrolmen for their services, and upon such special patrolmen in consideration of their appointment, signing an agreement in writing, releasing and waiving all claim whatever against tile police department and The City of New York for pay, salary or compensation for their services and for all expenses connected therewith; but the special patrolmen so appointed shall be subject to' the orders of the chief of police and shall obey the rules and regulations of the police department and conform to its general discipline and to such special regulations as may be made, and shall during the term of their holding appointment possess all the powers and discharge all the duties of the police force, applicable to regular patrolmen. The special patrolmen so appointed may be removed at any time by the police commissioner without assigning cause therefor, and nothing in this section contained shall be construed to constitute such special patrolmen members of the police force, or to entitle them to the privilege of the regular members of the force, or to receive any salary, pay, compensation or moneys whatever from the said police department of The City of New York, or to share in the police pension fund. Par. I456. No person or persons shall throw, cast or lay, or direct, suffer or permit any servant, agent or employee to throw, cast or lay any ashes, offal, vegetables, garbage, dross, cinders, shells, straw, shavings, paper, dirt, filth or rubbish of any kind whatever, in any street in The City of New York. The wilful violation of any of the foregoing provisions of this section shall be and is hereby declared to be a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by a fine of not less than one dollar nor more than ten dollars, or by imprisonment for a term of not less than one day nor 215 more than five days. It shall be a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than five dollars for the first offense, nor more than ten dollars for the second offense, and for the third offense not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than fifty dollars, or by imprisonment for not less than three or more than thirty days, or by both such fine and imprisonment, for any person being the owner or the agent, or the employee of the owner of any truck, cart, wagon or other vehicle, or of any box, barrel, bale of merchandise, or other movable property, to leave or suffer or permit to be left such truck, cart, wagon or other vehicle unharnessed upon any public street within The City of New York; or, except upon such portion of any marginal street or wharf or place as by the provisions of this act is committed to the custody and control of the Board of Docks, to leave, or suffer or permit to be kept, any such barrel, box, bale or other property, or to erect or cause to be erected, any shed, building or other obstruction, upon any such public street; except that in case of an accident to a truck, cart, wagon or other vehicle, the owner or driver of said truck, cart, wagon or other vehicle, if it be disabled by such accident, shall be allowed a reasonable time, not exceeding three hours, to remove it. Every person who. shall wilfully throw, expose or place, or who shall wilfully cause, or procure to be thrown, exposed or placed, in or upon any street in The City of New York, open for the passage of animals, any nails, pieces of metal, glass or other substance or thing which might maim, wound, lame, cut or otherwise injure any animal, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Every person who shall wilfully throw, expose or place, or who shall cause or procure to be thrown, exposed or placed in or upon any street in The City of New York, open for the passage of animals, except upon the curbs, crossings or switches of railroad tracks, any salt or saltpeter, for the purpose of dissolving any snow or ice which may have fallen or been deposited thereon, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. PART I., CODE OF ORDINANCES. CHAPTER 9-CLEANING STREETS AND SIDEWALKS. Par. 404. No person or persons shall throw, cast or lay, or direct, suffer or permit any servant, agent or employee to throw, cast or lay, any ashes, offal, vegetables, garbage, dross, cinders, shells, straw, shavings, paper, dirt, filth or rubbish of any kind whatsoever in any street in The City of New York, either upon the roadway or sidewalk thereof, except that in the morning before eight o'clock or before the first sweeping of the roadway by the Department of Street Cleaning, in the Boroughs of Manhattan, Brooklyn and The Bronx, dust from the sidewalks may be swept into the gutter, if there piled, but not otherwise and at no other time. The wilful violation of any of tie foregoing provisions of this section shall be and is hereby declared to be a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by a fine of not less than one dollar nor more than ten dollars, or by imprisonment for a term of not less than one nor more than five days. (Ord. app. Aug. 6, 1902, sec. I.) 216 Par. 405. No person other than an authorized employee or agent of the Department of Street Cleaning, or the Bureau of Street Cleaning in the Boroughs of Queens or Richmond, shall disturb or remove any ashes, garbage or light refuse or rubbish placed by householders, or their tenants, or by occupants or their servants, within the stoop or area line, or in front of houses or lots, for removal, unless requested by residents of house. (Id., sec. 2.) CHARTER. Par. 534. The Commissioner of Street Cleaning shall have cognizance and control: I. Of the sweeping and cleaning of the streets of the Boroughs of Manhattan, The Bronx and Brooklyn, and of the removal or other disposition, as often as the public health and the use of the streets may require, of ashes, street sweepings, garbage and other like refuse and rubbish, and of the removal of snow and ice from leading thoroughfares, and from such other streets within said Boroughs as may be found practicable. 2. Of the framing of regulations controlling the use of sidewalks and gutters by abutting property owners and occupants for the disposition of sweepings, refuse, garbage or like rubbish, within such Boroughs, which, when so framed and approved by the Board of Aldermen, shall be published in like manner as City ordinances, and shall be enforced by the Police Department in the same manner and to the same extent as such ordinances. Par. 383. * * The Presidents of the Boroughs of Queens and Richmond shall, each for the Borough of which he shall have been elected President, in addition to the powers above specified, have cognizance and control: I. Of the sweeping and cleaning of the streets of the Borough and of the removal or other disposition, as often as the public health and the use of the streets may require, of ashes, street sweepings, garbage and other like refuse and rubbish, and of the removal of snow and ice from leading thoroughfares and from such other streets as may be found practicable. 2. Of the framing of regulations controlling the use of sidewalks, and gutters by abutting property owners and applicants for the disposition of sweepings, refuse, garbage or like rubbish, within the borough, which, when so framed, and approved by the Board of Aldermen, shall be published in like manner as city ordinances, and shall be enforced by the police department in the same manner and to the same extent as such ordinances, together with such other powers concerning street cleaning, as are expressly conferred upon them by this act. 217 PART I., CODE OF ORDINANCES. CHAPTER 0. Par. 409. Every owner, lessee, tenant, occupant, or other person having charge of any building or lot of ground in the city, abutting upon any street, avenue or public place where the sidewalk is paved, shall, within four hours after the snow ceases to fall, or after the deposit of any dirt or other material upon said sidewalk, remove the snow and ice, dirt or other material from the sidewalk or gutter, the time between 9 p. m. and 7 a. m. not being included in the above period of four hours; provided, however, that such removal shall in all such cases be made before the removal of snow and ice from the roadway by the Commissioner of Street Cleaning, or by the Borough President of Queens or Richmond, or subject to the regulations of said Commissioner of Street Cleaning or of said Borough President of Queens or Richmond, for the removal of snow or ice, dirt or other material, except that in the Boroughs of Queens and Richmond any owner, lessee, tenant, or occupant or other person who has charge of any ground abutting upon any paved street, avenue or public place for a linear distance of fiye hundred feet or more shall be considered to have complied with this ordinance if such person shall have.begun to remove the snow and ice from the sidewalk before the expiration of the said four hours, and shall continue such removl1 and shall complete it within a reasonable time. (Id., sec. 6, Revised by Ord. app. March 23, I903.) Par. 410. In case the snow and ice on the sidewalk shall be frozen so hard that it cannot be removed without injury to the pavement, the owner, lessee, tenant, occupant or other person having charge of building or lot of ground as aforesaid, shall, within the time specified in the last preceding section, cause the sidewalk abutting on the said premises to be strewed'with ashes, sand, sawdust, or some similar suitable materiai, and shall, as soon thereafter as the weather shall permit, thoroughly clean said sidewalk. (Id. Par. 7.) Par. 4I4. Whenever any owner, lessee, tenant, occupant or other person having charge of any building or lot of ground abutting upon any street or public place where the sidewalk is paved shall fail to comply with the provision of any ordinance of the city for the removal of snow and ice, dirt, or other material,'from the sidewalk and gutter in the street, on the side of the street on which such building or lot abuts, the Commissioner of Street Cleaning or the Borough President of Queens or Richmond may cause such removal to be made, meeting such expense from any suitable street cleaning or highway fund, and thereafter the expense of such removal as to each particular lot of ground shall be ascertained and certified by the said Commissioner of Street Cleaning or by the President of Queens or Richmond to the Comptroller of the City, and the Board, of Estimate and Apportionment may authorize such additional expenditures as may be required for the said removal of such ice and snow, dirt, or other material, to be repaid to the fund from which the payments were 21 ' made, or instead, in the Boroughs of Queens or Richmond to the special fund restoring and repaving in said boroughs, if the Presidents. of such boroughs so elect, with proceeds from the issue and sale of revenue bonds which shall be sold by the Comptroller, as provided by law. The Commissioner of Street Cleaning or Borough Presidents of Queens or Richmond shall, as soon as possible, after the work is. done, certify to the Corporation Counsel the amount of the expense chargeable against each piece of property. The Corporation Counsel is hereby directed and authorized to sue for and recover the amount of this expense together with three dollars ($3) penalty for each offense, and when so recovered the amount shall be turned over to the City Chamberlain to be deposited to the credit of the general fund of The City of New York for the redemption of taxation. (Ord. app. March 23, I903, sec. 9.) PART II., CODE OF ORDINANCES. CHAPTER I., ARTICLE I. Section. I. No licensed peddler, vender, hawker or huckster shall permit any cart, wagon or vehicle, owned or controlled by him or her, to stop, remain upon or, otherwise incumber any street, avenue or highway for a longer period than thirty minutes at one time on any one block. Nor shall any such peddler, vender, hawker or huckster stand in front of any premises the owner of or the lessee of the ground floor thereof objecting thereto. At the expiration of the thirty minutes aforesaid any vender, with or without a basket, cart, wagon or vehicle must be removed to a point at least one block distant. (R. 0., 1897, sec. 525.) Par. 2. No licensed peddler, vender, hawker or huckster shall permit his or her cart, wagon or vehicle to stand on any street, avenue or highway within twentyfive feet of any corner of the curb, nor within ten feet of any other peddler, vender, hawker or huckster. (Id. sec. 526.) Par. 3. No licensed peddler, vender, hawker or huckster shall use any part of a sidewalk or crosswalk for conducting his or her business,, and shall not cast or throw any thing or article of any kind or character upon the street, nor interfere with or prevent to any degree the Street Cleaning Department from sweeping or cleaning, or from gathering street sweepings, etc, from the streets or avenues. (Id. sec. 527.) Par. 5. No licensed peddler, vender, hawker or huckster shall cry or sell his or her wares or merchandise on Sunday, nor after 9 o'clock p. m., nor cry his or her wares before 8 o'clock in the morning of any day except Saturdays, when they shall be allowed tc cry or sell their wares or merchandise until 11.30 o'clock p. m. None of the provisions of this section shall be construed as. regulating the crying or hawking of newspapers in the territory comprised within the Borough of Manhattan. Par. 6. No licensed peddler, vender, hawker or huckster shall be allowed to cry his or her wares within 250 feet of any school, court house, church or hospital 219 between the hours of 8 o'clock a. m. and 4 o'clock p. m., on school days; or stop to remain in Nassau street, between Spruce and Wall streets; or in Chambers street, between Broadway and Centre street; or in Fulton street, between Broadway and Pearl street; or in Avenue B, from Houston street to Fourteenth street; or in Avenue C, from Houston street to Fourteenth street; or in Avenue A, between Houston and Seventh streets; Park row, from New Chambers street to Ann street; Centre street, from New Chambers street to Park row; and Nassau street, from Park row to Ann street, from 8 o'clock a. m. to 6 o'clock p. m. None of the provisions of this section shall be construed as regulating the crying or hawking of newspapers in the territory comprised within tthe Borough of Manhattan. Par. 8. All licensed peddlers, venders, hawkers or hucksters who shall locate on any street or avenue under the provisions of this ordinance, with intention to remain thirty minutes or part thereof, shall use the east and north side of streets and avenues up to noon, and the west and south side after noon on any day so using them. This section shall not apply to such venders who are moving along the streets, avenues or highways, without intention to locate at any one point for thirty minutes, or who may be called on by the resident of any building for the purpose of making a purchase. Par. 9. The violation of any of the foregoing provisions of this ordinance, or any part thereof, shall be deemed a misdemeanor, and the offender shall, upon conviction, be fined or imprisoned, or both, as provided by section 85 of the New York City Consolidation Act of 1882. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 530 OF THE REVISED ORDINANCES OF 1897. Par. 530. No licensed peddler, vender, hawker or huckster shall be allowed to cry his or her wares within 250 feet of any school, court house, church, building in which religious services are held or hospital between the hours of 8 o'clock a. m. and 4 o'clock p. m. on school days; or stop or remain in Nassau 'street, between Spruce and Wall streets; or in Chambers street, between Broadway and Centre street; or in Fulton street, between Broadway and Pearl street; or in Avenue A, between Houston and Seventh streets; Park row, from New Chambers to Ann street; Centre street, from New Chambers street to Park row; and Nassau street, from Park row to Ann street, from 8 o'clock a. m. to 6 o'clock p. m. Adopted by the Board of Aldermen, October 23, 1906. Approved by the Mayor, October 30, 90o6. February 13, I903. Hon. JOHN MCGAW WOODBURY, Commissioner of Street Cleaning: SIR-I have received your letter-dated December 3, 1902, requesting my opinion and advice in regard to your power and duty as to the removal of incumbrances from the sidewalks. 220 You ask what constitutes such an incumbrance of the sidewalk as should be removed by you; also what limitations, if any, are placed on your power and duty by any provisions of an ordinance in relation to stoop lines, platforms, iron railings and the like. You refer to section 179 and others immediately following of the revised ordinances; to the ordinances relating to the Bureau of Incumbrances and to sections 50, 545 and 547 of the Charter. You also call attention to section 4 of chapter 368 of the Laws of 1894, amending section I936 of the Consolidation Act, stating that this section was re-enacted in the Charter as section 1456 but without special mention of authority as to arrest. You also refer to opinions of the Corporation Counsel dated November 12, I895, and March I6, 1898, and give as instances of kinds of incumbrances which you have in mind those occupying the sidewalk in front of F. H. Leggett & Co.'s grocery establishment at West Broadway and Varick street, and the merchandise stands which are placed on the sidewalks in Division street and also in Vesey and Barclay streets. Your letter raises questions of importance, several of which go to the foundation of your powers as Commissioner of Street Cleaning and involve a possible conflict between your powers and those of the Board of Aldermen, while others are questions of what is the proper administration of your own department rather than questions of law, and it is by no means easy to write a satisfactory reply. The general municipal control of the streets of this City has from early times vested in the legislative branch of the City Government now called the Board of Aldermen. The powers of the Board of Aldermen in reference to obstructions in the streets,are now contained in section 50 of the Charter. A restricted authority over the streets for the purpose of cleaning them was vested in the Department of Street Cleaning created by chapter 367 of the Laws of I881. Through that act and the various amendments and modifications thereof and special statutes relating to the powers and duties of the Commissioner of Street Cleaning and now codified in the present Charter your powers are derived. The powers of the Board of Aldermen are thus general while the powers of the Commissioner of Street Cleaning are special, and the general principle of construing statutes is to be applied here, that a special statute supersedes a general statute in matters clearly within the scope of the special statute. The primary object of the Department of Street Cleaning is what its name implies, to clean the streets. The statutes give it ample power for that purpose and supersede or take precedence of statutes giving powers to the Board of Aldermen, if there is any conflict between the two. The provisions of section 50 of the Charter, so far as they relate to incumbrances or obstructions on the streets, are substantially as follows: The Board of Aldermen have power: "to regulate the use of the streets and sidewalks by foot passengers, animals or vehicles * * * to prevent encroachments upon and obstructions to the streets 221 and to authorize and require their removal by the proper officers * * *. To regulate and prevent the throwing or depositing of ashes, garbage or other filth or rubbish of any kind upon the streets * * *. The Board of Aldermen shall not have power to authorize the placing or continuing of any encroachment or obstruc. tion upon any street or sidewalk except the temporary occupation thereof during the erection or repairing of a building on a lot opposite the same, nor shall they permit the erection of booths and stands within the stoop lines except for the sale of newspapers, periodicals, fruits and soda water and with the consent in such cases of the owner of the premises." You will thus observe that the general intent of the section is to prevent the placing of incumbrances upon the street and to authorize them only in a few carefully restricted cases. It is also provided in the Charter (section 383, subdivision 6) that the President of the Borough shall have cognizance and control "of the removal of incumbrances." There are also in the present Revised Ordinances certain sections (sections I79 and 218) relating to the.Bureau of Incumbrances, which was a bureau in the Department of Public Works previous to January I, I898. Some of these sections were amended by the Board of Aldermen in the year I902, and there are many provisions in them relating to many structures which would be illegal incumbrances or obstructions on the public streets if they were not duly authorized by law. Interesting questions might be raised, no doubt, as to the meaning, force and validity of these sections since the adoption of the present Charter. I do not think, however, that it is necessary to examine these questions in order to answer your communication. The structures referred to in these sections are generally of such a character that it could hardly be necessary to remove them in order to clean the streets, and hence it is a matter of no interest to you whether they are legal or illegal. Even if they are illegal it would hardly be within the scope of your duties to remove them. It is not your duty to remove a street incumbrances or obstruction as such, but only to remove such obstructions or incumbrances as can reasonably be said should be removed in order to clean the streets, and particularly such as are specifically described in the statutes prescribing your authority, as for instance, in section 545 of the Charter; "unharnessed trucks, carts * * *all boxes, barrels, bales or merchandise and other movable property, found upon a public street * * *." On the other hand, you should not remove such incumbrances as are authorized under section 50 of the Charter, nor such as cannot fairly be said to be "movable property." There are certain general considerations as to street obstructions to which I should, perhaps, call your attention. 222 I cannot do better than quote from the opinion of Judge Earl in the case of Callanan vs. Gilman, Io7 N. Y., 360.: "The primary purpose of streets is use by the public for travel and transportation and the general rule is that any obstruction of a street or encroachment thereon which interferes with such use is a public nuisance. But there are exceptions to the general rule born of necessity and justified by public convenience. An abutting owner engaged in building may temporarily encroach upon the street by the deposit of building materials. A tradesman may convey goods in the street to or from his adjoining store. A coach or omnibus may stop in the street to take up or set down passengers, and the use of a street for public travel may be temporarily interfered with in a variety of other ways without the creation of what in the law is deemed to be a nuisance. But all such interruptions and obstructions of streets must be justified by necessity. It is not sufficient, however, that the obstructions are necessary with reference to the business of him who erects and maintains them. They must also be reasonable with reference to the rights of the public who have interests in the streets which may not be sacrificed or disregarded. Whether an obstruction in the street is necessary and reasonable must generally be a question of fact to be determined upon the evidence relating thereto." In the case then before the Court the defendant was a wholesale and retail grocer, having a store on a street in The City of New York, and was in the habit of taking goods to and from his store by means of trucks. When loading or unloading, a bridge was placed across the sidewalk entirely obstructing it. Persons passing when the bridge was in place were obliged to step upon the stoop of defendant's store and go around the end of the bridge which rested thereon. The bridge was usually removed when not in use, but it was sometimes left in position for ten or fifteen minutes, and when not used it sometimes remained in position from one. to two hours, and on an average the sidewalk was thus obstructed from four to five hours on business days, between g a. m. and 5 p. m. It was held that such an extensive and continued use of the sidewalk was not reasonable and constituted a nuisance. Judge Earl wrote as follows: "It was a practical appropriation by the defendant of the sidewalk in front of his store to his private use in disregard of the public convenience. Even if in some sense such use was necessary to the convenient and profitable transaction of his business, and if the obstruction of the sidewalk was no more, and even less than it would be by any other method of doing the business, these circumstances do not justify the obstruction. If the defendant cannot transact his extensive business at that place without thus encroaching upon, obstructing and almost appropriating the sidewalk during business hours of the day, he must either remove his business to some other place or enlarge his premises so as to accommodate him." I have quoted at some length from this case because it is evidently quite similar to the one which you refer to in your letter and also illustrates very clearly the legal principles that apply to such cases. 223 I should, perhaps, state here distinctly a fact which is sometimes overlooked in the discussion of these matters. The sidewalk is as much a part of the street as the carriageway. The street is a strip of land of a defined width and any part of it, whether carriageway, gutter, sidewalk or areaway is equally a part of the public street, and thus the duty of the Commissioner of Street Cleaning is to perform his functions on all parts thereof. What is often spoken of as areaway is frequently partly street and partly private property In many cases it is impossible to state with confidence, without the aid of a surveyor, where the line between the street and private property lies. Turning now to the provisions of the Charter, relating to the powers of the Commissioner of Street Cleaning in regard to the subject under consideration, sections 534, 535, 545 and 547 are the only sections it will be necessary to examine. Sections 534 and 535 limit the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Street Cleaning to the Boroughs of Manhattan, The Bronx and Brooklyn, and provide that his jurisdiction shall not extend to macadimized streets under the control or management of the Department of Parks, nor to such wharves, streets and places as are in the custody and control of the Department of Docks and Ferries. The Commissioner of Street Cleaning has cognizance and control of the sweeping arid cleaning of other streets in the City and of the removal of "ashes, street sweepings, garbage and other like refuse and rubbish." In section 545 there is a description of the things which it is his duty to remove. Unharnessed trucks, boxes and barrels are mentioned "and other movable property found upon any public street or place." There is, therefore, a specific enumeration of the particular incumbrances which the law requires the Commissioner to remove. It is thus clear that he is not called upon to remove permanent or fixed street obstructions, even if they are illegal. He is therefore not called upon to remove stoops, area railings, posts; nor show windows, showcases and signs-at least those that are built into and made a part of the building-and I think it may be said generally that he is not called upon to remove such obstructions as are mentioned in the sections of the Revised Ordinances referred to above; nor the booths and stands within stoop lines referred to in section 50 of the Charter. It is therefore hard to see how there can be many opportunities for conflict between the Department of Street Cleaning and the Board of Aldermen, because a large proportion of the obstructions that may be claimed to-be authorized by the Board of Aldermen are not within the jurisdiction, as to removal, of the Commissioner of Street Cleaning. There are doubtless exceptions, as, for instance, light, movable showcases and stands which would come within the expression "other movable property" and might therefore be removed by the Commissioner of Street Cleaning. 224 There are probably many instances in the City where such showcases and stands within the stoop line are claimed to be authorized by ordinances of the Board of Aldermen, and if you should remove such showcases a question might arise as to the legality of your acts. It is impossible to lay down a general rule applicable to all of these cases. The statutes and the ordinances relating thereto have been different at different times and in different parts of the present City of New York. In general, I think that where such obstructions are unquestionably within the public streets you are justified in assuming that they are illegally there until the contrary is clearly shown. The modern tendency certainly is to clear the streets from all unnecessary obstructions, and your attitude should, in my opinion, be in accordance with that tendency. It may be that litigation will result and your acts may not be sustained by the Courts in all cases, but even if that does happen I think you will be justified in going as far as good sense and good judgment allow in carrying out the general principle of the law and what is for the public good, that the streets shall be kept free from illegal and vexatious obstructions. A conflict of jurisdiction might also possibly arise where building material is. placed upon the street in front of a building in process of construction or repair. It is, in fact, provided in section 50 of the Charter that the Board of Aldermen may authorize the temporary occupation of a street or sidewalk during the erection or repair of a building on a lot opposite the same. In section 383 of the Charter it is also provided that the Borough President shall have cognizance and control: "7. Of the issue of permits to builders and others to use or open streets." It is under this authority that a Borough President issues permits to builders to place building material on the streets. In section 547 of the Charter, however, it is provided that all the powers and duties conferred upon the City relating to "the removal of incumbrances; of the issue of permits to builders and others to use the streets * * * but not to open them; of the framing of regulations controlling the use of sidewalks and gutters by abutting owners and occupants for the disposition of sweepings, refuse, garbage or like rubbish, are hereby vested in The City of New York, and as matters of administration devolve upon the Commissioner of Street Cleaning of said City as to the Boroughs of Manhattan, The Bronx and Brooklyn, and upon the Presidents of Queens and Richmond as to those Boroughs, to be by them executed pursuant to the powers, provisions and limitations of this Act." It would thus seem that the Borough President and the Commissioner of Street Cleaning have concurrent jurisdiction as to the issuing of permits to builders to use the streets. 225 Conflicts of authority could be easily avoided, I should suppose, by the exercise of care and good judgment on the part of these officers. They could avoid conflicts of authority by observing this distinction: A permit duly issued under authority of the Borough President is doubtless legal and should therefore be recognized accordingly by the Commissioner of Street Cleaning as well as by others, but the Commissioner of Street Cleaning should still see that the permit is properly made use of and that it is not made an excuse for littering the streets or rendering them unclean to a greater extent than is necessary. By exercising that authority he will be able to minimize the evil of what is doubtless a necessary obstructive use of the streets. I am informed that the Commissioner of Street Cleaning has never asserted a right to issue permits in the cases under consideration, and in view of the situation just described I do not think that it is wise that he should attempt to do so, whatever his legal rights may be, but that he should confine himself to removing obstructions of this character when they are in violation of the permit or are so used or placed as to unnecessarily litter the street and render it unclean. There is another phase of this subject which often escapes notice. It is provided in section 534 of the Charter that the Commissioner of Street Cleaning shall have cognizance and control: "Of the framing of regulations controlling the use of sidewalks and gutters by abutting owners and occupants for the disposition of sweepings, refuse, garbage or light rubbish within such Boroughs, which, when so framed and approved by thle Board of Aldermen, shall be published in like manner as City ordinances and shall be enforced by the Police Department in the same manner and to the same extent as such ordinances." In section 547 also the framing of such regulations is vested in The City of New York and as matters of administration devolved upon the Commissioner of Street Cleaning as to the Boroughs of Manhattan, The Bronx and Brooklyn, and upon the Presidents of Queens and Richmond as to these Boroughs. It would seem, therefore, that;. acting under this statutory authority, you could frame resolutions as therein indicated which, upon being approved by the Board of Aldermen, would become ordinances of the City, taking precedence of, or superseding, any other ordinances that might be in conflict therewith; and that the Police would be required to enforce them. You call attention to section 4 of chapter 368 of the Laws of I894, which amended section I936 of the Consolidation Act, and made it a misdemeanor to maintain certain encumbrances and empowered and authorized certain officers of the Department oi Street Cleaning to make arrests for violations, and state that this section was reenacted in the Charter as section 1456, but without special mention of authority as to arrest. 226 It is sufficient to say upon this point that the section as it now stands contains the law upon the subject, and that the former section in which arrests were allowed having been re-enacted without the provision as to arrests, that provision is repealed by implication, and the power to arrest given by the former section does not exist under the latter one. I do not see, however, that this change interferes much with your work. To throw certain substances into the street is still forbidden, and a wilful violation of the section is still a misdemeanor punishable by fine or imprisonment. The fact that officers of your Department are no longer allowed by the section to make arrest does not prevent them from causing arrests to be made upon their comolaint. I may, however, in this connection call your attention to section 308 of the Charter, which authorizes the Police Commissioner to appoint Special Patrolmen who shall have all the duties and obligations of ordinary Police Officers and be entirely under the control of the Police Department It is possible that you may think proper to ask that certain of your subordinates, such as District Superintendents and Section Foremen, shall be thus appointed Special Patrolmen and have the power of arrest in this manner conferred upon them. My principal conclusions may be stated as follows: The encumbrances which you should remove are specified in sections 534 and 545 of the Charter They should be removed from the carriageway, from the gutter, from the sidewalk and even from the areaway, so far as the latter is within the public street. The general ordinances as to stoop lines, platforms, iron railings and the like do not limit your power or duty as to cleaning the streets. The space within the street it is your duty to clean, whether it is shut off or not from the traveled part of the street by stoops, railings or barriers. Permanent, fixed obstructions, whether legal or not, you are not authorized to remove; as to certain movable property, like showcases and stands, it is impossible to lay down a rule applicable to all cases. As a general proposition you. should assume them to be illegal until the contrary is made to clearly appear, and remove them if they prevent you from performing your duties, or render the streets unclean, or are maintained or operated in violation of the permit or ordinances which they claim as authority for their existence. I suggest that you consider whether the efficiency of your Department may not possibly be increased by the procuring of additional ordinances under section 534, subdivision 2, of the Charter, and by procuring the appointment by the Police Commissioner of certain of your subordinates as Special Patrolmen under section 808 of the Charter. I have thus reviewed the subject of your communication at considerable length, and have treated it in a general way so as to put before you as clearly as I can the 227 general principles that lie at the bottom of the subject, while endeavoring to answer the questions asked. It may be that I have not met exactly the difficulties that you expect to encounter, but if such is the case I shall be glad to be more specific and to go more into detail on any particular points as to which you may desire my advice. Respectfully yours, (Signed) G. L. RIVES, Corporation Counsel. APPEND RELATIVE DIFFICULTIES OF STREET CLEANING UNDER DIFFERENT CON Kind of Pavement. District. Asphalt. Granite. Belgian. Brick. Wood. Cobble. I.................. 10............... 100 150 6o........ 2........................................... 100 200 200........ 3........................................... oo00 130 50 oo.... 4.................................100 130 140..... oo00 400 5........................................... 1oo 135 135.. 6......................................... 200 220........ 17...................................... 17........ 8........................................... 100 135 125.......... 9.......................................... 1 125 130.I0100 125 130............ o10........................................... 100oo 125 130....... 400........................................... 00 150 170 i00.... Average.......................... o00 150 i6o o00 0oo 400 Condition of Pavement Between Tracks. Sanding. District. Good. Fair. Bad. Iittle. Much........................................ 00oo 120 140 115 125 2....................................... 100...... 110 125 3........................................ Ioo 120 140 110 125 4......................................00 0 120 110 120 5..0 1 11......................................... 105 120 6......................................... 00 110 120 105 115 7......................................... ioo 105o Io I O I20 8......................................... IOO IIO 120 IIO 120 9.~~~~~~~ ~.100 III0 110 120 115 123 9......................................... IOO IIO 120 II5 12D 10100 105 110 105 105 o10............................ 100............. 105 io 105 105 II......................................... 1OO 110 120........ Average....................... 00 110 120 10 120 * Report of Department of Street Cleaning, New York, i895-6-7. 229 TX E. DITIONS (ESTIMATES OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS), By CEO. F- WARING.* Condition of Pavement. Amount of Traffic. Kind of Rail. (;ood. Fair., Bad. Light. Mledium. Heavy. None. Flat. Grooved. Trail. Steam. 100 I25 J50 100 150 200 100 120 115 125 160. 100 115 125 100 150 200 100 105 110 120.. 100 125 140 100 140 i8o 100 110 115 130 1,50 100 110 130 100 140 200 100 105 110 115.. 100 125 145 100 130 145 100 10.5 110 110 110 100 125 150 100 150 200 100 120 105 125.... 100 115 130 100 125 150 100 105 105 150... 100 115 130 100 150 190 100 110 115 120.. 100 125 150 100 130 150 100........ 110.. 100 115 140 100 140 175 TO0 110 110 120... 100 125 150 100 I35 190 100 110 110....... 100 120 10 100 40 i8o 100 110 110 120 14 Character of Population. Blocks. Association Ele- ~~~~~~With With Adjoin',Ing Sprinkling, vated Good. Fair. B ad. With Produce Pushcart UnpJaved Ileavy. Railroad. Schools. Market. Trade. Street. 120.... 100 250 300 150 i6o 125 125.... 100 200 400 105 110 200......... 100 200 400 130 i6o 200.. 125 110 100 140 275 110........ 130.... 100 s8o 240 105 125.... 160 120.... 100 150 300 105 125.... 150-....... 100 140 275... 120.... 300~ 130 110 100 200 300 I05 105.... 125.... 100 200 300 105 120.... 200 -125.... 100 150 200 110 120.... 8....... 100 180 275 105 105.... 200 I25 110 100 200 300 110 125 175 200 230 APPENDIX F. INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM DEPARTMENT OF STREET CLEANING, THE CITY OF NEW YORK. Statistics Relating to Horses and Stables for the Year 190o6. Average Number of Horses Maintained for the Year, was 1,855. PAYROLL STATISTICS. Average Number of Employees. - Prevailing Class of Employees. Manhattan Rate of and Brooklyn. Wages Paid. The Bronx. Stable Foremen........................................ II 7 $1,300 oo Assistant Stable Foremen............................... 12 7 1,000 00 Acting Assistants to Foremen............................ 24 15 900 oo H ostlers............................................... 134 89 *720 00 Stablemen............................................. I74 115 720 00 t Sweepers and Laborers detailed to stable duty........................ * $2.30 extra for Sundays.? Included in Stablemen. FEED AND SUPPLIES. Boroughs of Manhattan, The Bronx and Brooklyn. Quantity and Value of Forage Actually Consumed During the Year 190o6. Quantity. Value. Oats, pounds...................................................... 14,224,168 $200,300 46 H ay, pounds....................................................... 9,991,330 90,413 13 Straw, pounds..................................................... i,893,633 14,330 79 Bran, pounds..................................................... 775,396 7,909 8z Oil meal, pounds.................................................. 72,876 1,207 48 Oatmeal, pounds.................................................. 12,165 365 73 Coarse salt, pounds................................................ 28,332 158 05 Rock salt, pounds.................................................. 93,935 699 68 Ground oats, pounds.............................................. 57,004 768 54 Ground corn, pounds............................................... 28,419 357 96 Ear corn, pounds.................................................. 800 16 oo $316,527 63 I - -!........................ 231 Manhattan and Brooklyn. Total. The Bronx. Three Veterinaries.................................. $4,500 oo $4,5oo oo $9,000 oo Veterinary supplies................................... 1,536 44 1,350 x6 2,886 6o D ruggist............................................................ 00 oo Average number of horses during year, 1,855. JAMES T. DEVLIN, Property Clerk. COST OF HORSESHOEING, I906. All Work Done by Contract Except in the Month of January, I906. The Cost Includes Pads. Manhattan and The Bronx............................................. $21,556 70 Borough of Brooklyn................................................. 2,085 70 $33,642 40 Manhattan and The BronxDraught horses, $I.49 per horse per month. Driving horses, $I.40 per horse per month. BrooklynDraught horses, $1.35 per horse per month. Driving horses, $I.30 per horse per month. STABLE MANURE. Number of cart loads of stable manure disposed of daily, Boroughs of Manhattan,. The Bronx and Brooklyn, 57 loads. Average weight of stable manure per load, 1,500 pounds. INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM BUREAU OF STREET CLEANING, BOROUGH OF RICHMOND.. Statistics Relating to Horses and Stables for the Year 90o6. Average Number of Horses Maintained for the Year, 70. PAYROLL STATISTICS. Average Prevailing Class of Employees. Number of Rate of Employees. Wages Paid.. Stable Foremen.................................................... 2 $1,200 00 Assistant Stable Foremen............................................ 2 900 o00 H ostlers............................................................ 12 780 oo 7~2' i' V" IF 232 FEED AND SUPPLIES. Quantity and Value of Forage Actuajly Consumed During the Year I906. Stable A. Quantity. Cost. Stable B. Quantity. Cost. H ay, pounds............................... Bedding, pounds........................... Oats, pounds.............................. Bran, pounds............................... Oil meal, pounds........................... Fine salt, pounds........................ Salt bricks, dozen........................... 243 41 263 12,877 $2,I64 40 172,699,558 415 58 32,373,440 3,556 44 166,208,900 129 oo 5,200 450 7 20 1,150 200 2 20 I50 19 2i 85 I1............. 700 $1,554 29 275 17 2,181 48 50 70 23 00 I 05 12 10 8 40 Ground corn, pounds........................ $6,296 67 Total.............................................................. $4,106 19 6,296 67 $10,402 86 Veterinary AttentioIn, Medicine, etc., by Contract. Stable A, $26 per m onth................................................ $312 Stable B, $22 per month..............................................264 oo $576 oo Horseshoeing, total cost for year, by contract........................... $I,537 44 APPENDIX G. LETTER OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL TO THE COMMISSION ON STREET CLEANING AND WASTE DISPOSAL. CITY OF NEW YORK-LAW DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL, NEW YORK, October, I907. J H. DE B. PARSONS, Esq., Commission on Street Cleaning and Waste Disposal, No. 22 William Street, New York City: SIR-I am in receipt of your communication of September 24, 1907, relative to the question as to the ownership by the City of the swamp and meadow lands which are to be found in the Borough of The Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Richmond. You state that if the City owns any of these lands you would like to know the acreage in each borough and approximately the location; that you have not been 'o 233 able to get any definite information on the above matter, except by hearsay; that much of the land referred to in the Borough of Queens is under dispute as to ownership. In reply, I would state that in my judgment The City of New York has no claim to any marsh or salt meadow lands in any of the boroughs referred to in your comr munication except in the Borough of Queens. The claim of The City of New York to lands under water in the various boroughs is based upon colonial charters to various towns prior to the formation of the United States and the creation of the State of New York, which towns have been annexed to and consolidated at various times with the old City of New York. Such claim of title, however, is limited to lands under water below high water mark of the bays and creeks in the respective boroughs in which some former towns were created. By this high water mark is meant, however, the mean or average high water mark all the year round and not such as is caused by the neap tides, equinoctial storms or wind storms from a direction which would back up the waters and cause marsh and meadows not overflowed by each tide to be overflowed for a short period of time. Marsh and salt meadow lands have been defined as being situated at or near the average high water mark of creeks, streams and bays and such as are occasionally overflowed by the neap tides or during equinoctial storms. No claim of title is or has been made by the City to such marsh or meadow lands within the various boroughs of the City except in the Borough of Queens, and in that borough only to such as formed the so-called hummocks or hassocks in the Jamaica Bay and not to any which form the shore front of such bay. In the Borough of Richmond no towns were formed by colonial charters prior to the creation of the State of New York, and the City has, therefore, no claim of tile to any lands under water, except such as it may have acquired by purchase or condemnation proceedings. In the Borough of Brooklyn, The City of New York claims title to the lands under water in Sheepshead Bay, other than those which were involved in the action brought by the City against the Manhattan Beach Hotel and Improvement Company, title to which was settled and adjusted by compromise; in Gravesend Bay; in Flatlands Bay, which forms a part of Jamaica Bay, and in the creeks and streams which exist and formerly existed in the towns annexed to the former City of Brooklyn. In the Borough of The Bronx, The City of New York claims title to the lands under water of the creeks, streams and bays within the limits of the old Town of Westchester. In the Borough of Queens, The City of New York claims title to the lands under water, the land forming the hummocks and hassocks and marsh and meadow lands 234 within the limits of Jamaica Bay and to the lands under water in the bays, creeks and streams within the limits of the towns consolidated with the old City of New York by chapter 378 of the Laws of I897, known as the Greater New York Charter. Such claim of title is, however, limited to such land and lands under water not conveyed, prior to consolidation, by the corporate officers of the various towns. Your inquiry as to the acreage is probably requested so as to obtain some information as to what lands may be available for the purpose o~ filling by using the material at the disposal of the Department of Street Cleaning. It is impossible for me to give you any idea of the amount of acreage of such lands which might be available for such purpose. Such information may possibly be obtained from the Department of Docks and Ferries, which, under the Charter, has jurisdiction over such lands under water. Respectfully yours, (Signed) G. L. STERLING, Acting Corporation Counsel. APPENDIX H. RECAPITULATION OF COSTS, ETC., BUREAU OF FINAL DISPOSITION, I906. BOROUGHS OF MANHATTAN AND THE BRONX. Cost. Boats, Items, Etc. Per Cart Cart Loads. Total. Load. Deck Scqws-Loads to FillsShifting............................. $4,416 75 Towing and unloading................... 258,186 55 Scow hire...................... $36,127 oo Department of Street Cleaning Scows: Wages.................... 31,980 35 Supplies................... 7,968 47 Repairs.................... 20,796 75 $96,872 57 Less demurrage......... 8,592 oo 88,280 57 $350,883 87 $0.23993 I,462,412.75 Department of Street Cleaning Steam Dumpersowned by City; three "Delahanty Dumpers" to SeaTowing.................................. $2,100 oo Wages................................. 9,965 02 Supplies................................. 4,417 89 Repairs.............................. 8,405 51 Royalty.................................. 2,120 oo 27,008 42. 0.47005 57,457.5o 235 Boats, Items, Etc. Cost. Per Cart Cart Loads. Total. Load. Hired Barney Dumpers-SeaTowing.................................. $4,460 oo Hire.................................... 7,105 oo Hired Eastman Dumpers-SeaRate per cart load.................................... Incinerators-For RubbishWages................................... $ 1,044 04 Supplies................................. I8,007 oi Repairs................................. 11,377 54 Dumps at PiersBoardmen................................ $12,567 0o Supplies................................. 14,976 I Repairs................................. 7,613 37 Disinfecting............................. 4,701 67 Sundries................................. 343 14 11,565 oo 0.34966 33,075.25 2,947 00 0.24136 12,210.00 40,428 59 0.79630 50,770.25 40,201 30 0.02488 I,615,925.75 Private ScowsRate per cart load.................................... 77,577 57 Dumping in Lots, etc.Free and rate per cart load............................ 1,57 40 Total, ashes, sweepings and rubbish............ $552,183 15 GarbageSundries............................... $4,848 20 Regular contract......................... 203,451 o8 208,299 28 Total, ashes, sweepings, rubbish and garbage... $760,482 53 0.32008 242,367.25 0.00847 $0.27018 0.83233 $0.3315I 185,43.50 2,043,724.50 250,259.75 2,293,984.25 *IIarbor ScowsHire................................. 14,600 00 Grand total................................. $775,082 43 Note-Dumping at sea by deck scows cost, say, 44 cents per cart load. *Scows to collect ashes from shipping. Loads are not handled by Department. 236 APPENDIX J. COLLECTIONS AT DUMPS IN CART LOADS, I9o6, ASHES, SWEEPINGS, RUBBISH AND GARBAGE. BOROUGHS OF MANHATTAN AND THE BRONX. Total Ashes Total Ashes, Ashes, I)ump. and Rubbish. Sweepings, Garbage. Sweepings, Sweepings. Rubbish. Rubbish, Garbage. 'Clinton street....... I94,531.25 6,-926.oo 201,457.25 49,39I.00 250,848.25 'Stanton street....... 165,674.-50 4,320.0o I69,994.50........ 169,994.50 *Delancey street......?........ 37,279.00 37,279.00........ 37,279.00 *East 29th street..... I66,695.75 23,307.75 190,003.50 813.75 190,817.25 *East 46th street..... 79,649.75 3, I50.50 82,800.25 32,244.25 115,044.50 *East 6ist street..... 62,954.75 I,080.00oo 73,034.75........ 73,034.75 *East 8oth street..... 80,335.75 21,320.75 IO0,656.50........ IOI,656.50 -*East IIoth street... I08,915.25 i6,851.50 I25,766.75 54,317.75 I80,084.50 *Lincoln avenue...... 41,426.75 7,140.75 48,567.50........ 48,567.50 *East 139th street.... 45,713.00 8,211.25 53,924.25 45,467.25 99,391I50 *Canal street......... 281,738.00 33,056.75 314,794.75 30,171.75 344,966.50 *West 30tlh street.... 23,709.25 10,482.50 I34,191.75 296.00 134,487.75 ~*West 47th street... 119,489.25 26,3Io.o00 45,799.25 36,918.00 182,717.25 *West i34th street... 53,373.25 19,469.50 72,842.75........ 72,842.75 West 79th street..... 47,082.00........ 47,082.00........ 47,082.00 W est 97th street..... 5,6o0.00........ 50,60I.00........ 50,60o.oo W est I4th street.....' 5,27I.00........ 5,271.00........ 5,271.00 W est I5th street..... 33,628.75........ 33,628.75........ 33,628.75 Blackwell's Island..... 5,931.oo........ 5,93.0oo........ 5,93i.oo W est 133d street..... 2,101.o........ 2,I I.00........ 2,101.00 Wall street.......... 3,445.0oo 6.oo 3,461.00........ 3,461.oo East I23d street...... 1,993.00........ 1,993.00........ 1,993.oo East 96th street...... 55.00........ 55.00oo........ 5500oo Staten Island........ 2,579.00........ 2,579.00........ 2,579.00 +East io7th street.... 372.00........ 372.o0 1,7IO.00 2,082.00 West 39th street...... 5,200.25 5,200.25........ 5,200.25 East 64th and 65th streets............. 453.oo........ 453.00........ 453-00 W est 43d street...... 1,056.00........ I,056.00........,056.o0 W est 6oth street...... 65.00........ 65.oo........ 65.oo 237 Total Ashes Total Ashes. Ashes, I)ump. and Rubbish. Sweepings, Garbage. Sweepings, Sweepings. Rubbish. Rubbish, Garbage. East 95thl street...... 2.706.o0........ 2,706.00........ 2,706.00 Miscellaneous........ 132,986.00 14,302.00 147,288.00........ 147,288.00 Total.......... 1,819,73I.50 242,224.25 2,o61,955.75 251,329.75 2,313,285.50 Manhattan........... 1,674,721.25 225,227.75 1,899,949.00 230,697.00 2, I3,646.00 The Bronx........... 145,010.25 16,996.50 162,006.75 20,632.75 I82,639.50 * Regular Department of Street Cleaning dumps. t Incinerator.: In I907 the pier at East One Hundred and Tenth street was abandoned, and that at East One Hundred and Seventh street was made a regular dump. ~ Including incinerator. APPENDIX K. PERCENTAGE OF STREET SWEEPINGS IN TOTAL COLLECT1ON OF ASIHES AND STREET SWEEPINGS. Boroughs of Manhattan and The Bronx. 397,162 carts, street sweepings From Department of Street Cleaning Records, Year 1892 = 20.7% I,92I,116 carts, ashes and street sweepings 327,995 carts, street sweepings From Department of Street Cleaning Records, Year I893 - =I9.2% 1,706,632 carts, ashes and street sweepings 329,175 carts, street sweepings From Department of Street Cleaning Records, Year I894 - = 20.8% I,579,466 carts, ashes and street sweepings Commissioner George E. Waring, Jr., in "Municipal Affairs," June, 1898 -686 cart loads of street sweepings, average per day in I897..................... 1,372 cubic yards of street sweepings per day, assuming 2 cubic yards per cart... = 26.4% 5,200 cubic yards of street sweepings and ashes................................. Captain F. M. Gibson, Ex-Deputy Commissioner (estimate)............................ = 20.0% From estimates by six District Superintendents, August, I907, obtained by the Commission for six districts out of eleven in Manhattan61 450 cart loads of street sweepings for six districts, (estimate), average per day. 75 average per day per district. 1 number of districts in Manhattan. 825 X 313 days = 258,225 carts per year in Manhattan (estimate by District Superintendents) = 15.5% 1,674,721 carts of ashes and street sweepings, from Report, I906, Department of Street Cleaning 238 * From collections of street sweepings made on October i by Department of Street Cleaning, Manhattan1,398 cart loads of street sweepings per day in October. 3I3 days. 437,574 cart loads per year at October rating. 0.825 assumed correction for October being a larger collection month. 360,999 Probable cart loads of street sweepings per year — = 21. 5% I,674,72I carts of ashes and street sweepings from Report, 1906, Department of a Street Cleaning * From collections of street sweepings made on October I, 1907, by Department of Street Cleaning in The Bronx117 cart loads of street sweepings per day in October. 3 3 days. 36,621 cart loads per year at October rating. 0.825 assumed correction for October being a larger collection month. 30,212 Probable cart loads of street sweepings per year 20.8% I45,010 cart loads of ashes and street sweepings for I9o6, from Report, Department of Street Cleaning Average of above percentages................................................. 20.6% Borough of Brooklyn. * From collections of street sweepings made on October I, 1907, by Department of Street Cleaning in Brooklyn687 cart loads of street sweepings per day in October. 313 days. 215,031 cart loads per year at October rating. 0.730 assumed correction for October being a larger collection month. I56,973 Probable cart loads of street sweepings yer year = 30.0% 522,525 cart loads of ashes and street sweepings for 1906, from Report, Department of Street Cleaning Percentages AdoptedAshes: In Manhattan and The Bronx............................................ 79.0% In Brooklyn............................................................... 70.0% Street Sweepings: In Manhattan and The Bronx.................................. 21.o% In Brooklyn............................................................... 30.0% * Made by request of this Commission. !\~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lr. iii 240 APPEN DECK. MEASUREMENTS, CARRYING CAPACITY AND REGULAR BOROUGHS OF MANHAT Ashes, Street Sweep Dimensions Between Number Bulkheads, in Feet. Class. of Scows. - Length. Width. Owned by Department of Street CleaningSmall, Scow Nos. 21 to 29............................. 9 61.5 26 Large, Scow Nos. 30, 31, 33 to 42..................... *2 73. 26 Special, Scow Nos. I to o............................. 29 20 Special, Scow Nos. 1 to 20............................. 29 T otal........................................ *4I Dimensions Between Number Bulkheads, in Feet. Class. of Scows., --- —-- Length. Width. Average. Average. HiredSm all............................................... 6. 24 Large............................................ 64. 26 Extra............................................ 72. 27 Special............................................ 78. 30 Total........................................ *In addition the Department of Street Cleaning has one scow, No. 32 (large), at Clinton 241 DIX L. Scows. CHARGES FOR TOWING AND UNLOADING AT FILLS. TAN AND THE BRONX. ings and Rubbish. Total. Per Trip. Regular Deck Area r --- `- Charge, in Square Feet. Cart Cart Towing and Trips. Loads. Loads. Ratio. Unloading. 1,600 and under.... 462 155,362 336.3 I. $65 oo 1,6o0 to I,750....... 623 248,382 398.7 I.19 70 oo 2,251 and over..... 988 595,703 603. i.8o 95 oo 2,073 999,447 482. Total. Per Trip. Regular Deck Area r --- ----- Charge, in Square Feet. Cart Cart Towing and Trips. Loads. Loads. Ratio. Unloading. 1,600 and under.... 59 20,406 345.8 I. $65 oo I,60I to I,750....... 242 87,866 363.i 1.05 70 oo 1,751 to 2,250....... 555 236,172 425.5 1.23 85 oo 2,251 and over..... 224 115,291 5I4.7 I.49 95 oo I,o8o 459,735 425.7 avenue, Brooklyn, where it is used as a floating dump. Per Day. Cost of maintenance of Department of Street Cleaning scows (wages of Scowmen, supplies and repairs), say, each.......................... $3 45 Above does not include depreciation and interest on bonds. Cost (rental) of hired scows (includes Scowmen, supplies and repairs) average, each...................................................... 5 50 5c5 ~, ~!! ~... L r >.^ d. -. I.I *.o^ -. a a I I BOUND O CT 3 0 1937 LIBRARY 1- 1