Alderman/City Council At Large candidate Julia Malakie floated an idea at the candidates forum in the Highlands Sunday that I hadn’t heard before: Newton, Malakie said, might want to consider going to every other week trash pickup as a way to save taxpayers’ money.
Good idea? Bad idea? Share your views in the comments section.
Please no!!
Aside from the inconvenience (think the smell of trash cans in the dog days of summer), i’d be surprised if there were much savings there. It doesn’t seem like picking up twice the amount of trash every two weeks,would cost the city much less.
I’d love to see the numbers on that.
Not a fan of that idea!!!!!!! As a family of four, we can’t have our kitchen trash picked up every other week. We don’t have a garage, so the animals would smell the trash. Our recycle bin is filled every week. We are a city. I can’t imagine the waste if trash isn’t picked up weekly. Our family might be unique. . . . I cook dinner every night, so we don’t eat out. Our kitchen trash fills up with plastic liners from cereal boxes, wrappers from fresh fish, wrappers from chicken and other things that smell – bad. We recycle as much as possible (yogurt containers, strawberry containers, etc).
When we went to unlimited trash to a bin a week I was surprised that we don’t have unlimited pick up once a year. I know several people in other parts of the country that have limited trash pick up, but once a year they are allowed to put out anything. . . . and what happens is that others drive through the neighborhoods and pick up things for free (large ride on toys, older strollers, etc). It is a large free cycle opportunity. We don’t have that in our current system.
Would love to hear how other families could manage with a trash pick up once every 14 days.
As empty nesters, we’re able to manage the amount of trash for a twice a month pickup, but have had difficulty with the critters getting into tightly closed barrels in a closed garage when we skip a week. When we had 3 kids at home, I can’t imagine how we would have been able to manage a twice a month pick-up.
Because of the dead end street, our trash fellow has to do the barrels by hand. If it becomes every other week, he now has twice the amount of trash to empty. Not sure how this would save time. Yes, they would only have to start the initial effort every two weeks and while I would welcome less traffic once every two weeks, the time savings seems very, very minimal. Even with the robot hand, it would take longer having to lift probably more barrels, now filled with two weeks of “stuff”. Additionally, the “rules” say that the lid of the container must close but I still see the occasional overflow as I drive along. I would imagine that we’d see more of the lids open with trash piled higher and more spillage into the street, thus taking longer to collect and clean up.
Terrible idea! A candidate touting herself as pro-environment offers up a concept that would undoubtedly increase litter all across Newton’s streets and green spaces? Not neighborhood-friendly. Not family-friendly. Not well thought-out. Not the kind of thinking Newton needs on the BoA/CC.
Everyone,
Take it easy. She’s throwing out ideas, which is more than I can say for most of the other candidates. Give her some credit for thinking outside the box.
Julia,
Keep bringing on those ideas.
Tom,
I like this, but I was just giving my opinion. This one I didn’t like.
Thanks, Tom. My feelings exactly.
Tom, perhaps an idea that needed a bit more time and thought. It is very family unfriendly. Empty nesters might like it better. But I’d need to hire garbage pickup to pick up the slack. Anyone with more than two kids would I’d think. Especially on the recycling. I’d view this as just pushing off another cost onto the taxpayers. I don’t want to be Needham on garbage.
Bad idea. Just gave me the reason not to vote for her.
Let’s get all the bad ideas on the table. How about removing bulbs from every other street light? Maybe plowing every other snow storm?
It’s not a bad idea, though not as practical right now for technological reasons.
One of the innovations of Big Belly Solar isn’t just that the cans have a compactor, but that they are supposed to call for pickup when they’re full. You can argue whether this is truly how it works out, but conceptually you can put sensors in every trash can and then only pick up when someone’s can is full. Software can be put in place that optimizes pickup and saves as much money as possible.
It’s kind of like comparing mail delivery (which has regular routes that touch every house every day) to UPS or FedEx, which only go where they’re needed. As of now, the every week pickup is necessary for enough folks that it would be a major inconvenience to change it.
If one were brainstorming, it can be said no idea is a bad one. One wants the creative juices flowing.
But this is a campaign, where ones’s ideas are going to be scrutinized, so they really need to be well thought through.
This one wasn’t.
Now, if recycling were truly to have become most of what we called trash, and perhaps only 20 % was now not recycled, this might be an idea worth at least exploring.
Housekeeping note: I’ve just removed a comment becasue the poster did not use a valid email address as required by our commenting rules. It was a good comment and I hope that person will post it again using a working email address.
Most people have cited the regular trash as a problem which I concur with.
However, it may well be feasible to collect recycling every other week and leave regular trash collection weekly.
Its difficult to say without seeing the numbers.
Simon, I see where you’re going, but would want to see data to make sure that’s not encouraging people to throw their recycling in the trash to make sure it’s removed in a timely manner.
As a family of four I have a full recycle bin too. All four of us read the Boston Globe in print daily. Lots of papers for elementary school kids. I need both collected weekly during the school year.
@Newton Mom,
You could have 2 recycling bins.
I am still new to V14 ~ & didn’t know there would be this level of trash talk….
(I think someone had to say it…)
I thought Julia’s comment had merit. It is certainly worth looking into, especially if we divert the organics from the trash. The City of Cambridge completed a 1 year voluntary pilot program for curbside collection of food scraps from residents. It was so successful it is now City wide.
Cambridge’s program began in April 2014, with about 650 residences participating with City trash pickup including multi-family buildings with up to 12 units. During the first year, 170,000 pounds of organics were collected, averaging 6.6 pounds per participating household per week, reducing trash by nearly 35%.
file:///C:/Users/Alison/Downloads/2015%20Cambridge%20Curbside%20Organics%20Executive%20Summary%20(1).pdf
The City of Newton spends about $ 6million a year on trash and recycling, so a 30-35% reduction in trash is not small potatoes. (Not to mention diverting organics will keep much of stink out of the trash).
Also remember households can have additional recycling carts at no extra charge. You can call Customer Service at 617-796-1000 to request an additional 64-gallon cart.
Actually Mike there have been communities exploring reduced lighting. Here is just one example; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2614608/One-three-councils-switch-street-lights-save-money-energy-Half-make-roads-darker-dimming-bulbs.html
The City of Newton has already replaced all our streetlights with LED bulbs which will already save a significant amount of money and reduce energy costs.
Sorry to be so late jumping in — I’ve been out all day, and coincidentally, as I got in my car after my NewTV taping, Eagan and Braude on WGBH were in the middle of a discussion of trash/recycling that I want to listen to the whole of online.
Greg, thanks for starting the thread, since I am on hiatus. 😉 Happy to have stimulated some discussion. Here’s my thinking:
There’s enough cost in trash, as Alison pointed out, that you will recall the city floated the idea of pay-per-throw a couple of years ago to save (the city) money, which I did not support, because it seems to me like an end run around Prop 2-1/2. But I’d like to find a way to do trash less expensively, as opposed to just shifting the cost onto residents, as pay-per-throw does.
It seems to me collecting trash every seven days is arbitrary — we do it because there are seven days in a week, and even seven days is long enough for garbage to get smelly, as pointed out above. But I went to a great talk at the Library a few years ago on solid waste, where one of the panelists talked about Harvard University’s program that separated garbage (the organic smelly stuff) from trash — which may have been the genesis for the Cambridge program. Elaine Gentile remembered how long ago, we had garbage men, who she said walked through back yards emptying the garbage bins. (I don’t remember seeing that done, but I do remember the cast iron lidded receptacle sunk in the ground near our back door in the early ’60s.)
If we coupled alternate week trash collection with more frequent garbage collection, that would eliminate the oder/rodent problem. I would not necessarily expect a savings in the tipping fee to the incinerator, if everyone generated the same amount of trash, but there would be less labor and fuel expended driving around only half the city every week, instead of the whole city. And to avoid penalizing large families, people who needed them could be given larger first containers than our current maximum size. (Friends of mine in Boulder have a set of larger bins for everything, including trash, larger than our 64 gallons.) But watching two weeks of trash accumulate instead of one might make people look closer at what can go into recycling, and even to consider how to avoid acquiring less packaging in the first place where possible, for example, if you have a choice, purchase the less over-packaged product. And even a household didn’t reduce volume, Waste Management would only be stopping once instead of twice.
I didn’t mean to panic everyone! Just trying to find ways to actually save money, that will not financially impact residents. Looking forward to hearing other candidates’ ideas.
We could probably all stand to find ways to reduce our weekly waste volume generation, given the numbers in general for suburban America relative to the rest of the world, but I don’t know how that gets achieved on a scale that matters.
I’ve been thinking about this since this afternoon. Julia and Allison may have stole some of my thunder, but here are some changes I might ad. I don’t know about this like many others on the blog, but here are some recommendations.
1. make it optional
2. as an incentive figure out what it costs per house per week and take half the cost saavings and make it a tax writoff. ie if it costs the city 50/month per house and they didn’t use for 2 weeks then they household save 25.00/month which 12.50/month goes to the city and 12.50/month or 150 yearly is a tax write off for the household.
3. I’m not sure if a private company takes care of our waste (i knew a couple years ago, but I stopped paying attention for awile)….if it’s a private company renegotiate our city contract when it’s up to allow this (obviously).
This is a smart, forward-looking idea. Our neighbors to the north (well, Toronto, actually) does trash and recycling collection every other week (on alternating weeks). Recent census reports that their population has survived this behavioral change. Residents are incentivized to recycle more, by being provided a large recycling bin, and a smaller trash bin. And finally, rather than place an economic burden on businesses and consumers, the good people of Toronto have figured out how to accept and recycle a number of soft plastics, rather than ban them.
Bill,
I believe Toronto has curbside collection for plastic bags, even so only about 15% are actually recycled. They also have a pretty comprehensive recycling rate; residents living in single-family homes have a diversion rate of 66% (that percentage of the waste stream is not going into a landfill or incinerator). That’s a lot better than Newton’s rate which has completely stagnated since we moved to automated, single stream recycling.
I called the city last week looking for a second recycling bin to address my overflow problem. The answer was that the City has discontinued offering the second recycling bin. My family of four (and two large dogs) has full bins each week.
Alison: Thanks. As you probably know, a lot of this policy is not so much driven by available technology and best practices, as much as it is about perceived residential receptivity. I think that a lot of people in this City would enthusiastically embrace this sort of change.
It would be nice to see the City attempt to pilot some different initiatives, using various incentives and concepts to achieve higher recycling/lower trash rates. Set some target figures. Peg aldermanic benefits to their ward’s performance. 😉 Seriously, I don’t get the sense that we are doing our best on this front, and the plastic bag ban, imho (despite its good intentions) signals surrender rather than re-doubling the effort for sustainable progress.
@Doug,
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I called the DPW operations manager and he told me this is temporary due to a shortage of green bins. However, this is not an acceptable answer.
I am docketing an item , along with Ald. Deb Crossley, the Chair of Public Facilities for a complete audit/review of the current DPW solid waste and recycling operations. We need to do better and we can do better.
@Bill You absolutely right. We need to set targets and improve recycling rates. I like the idea of incentives. Though I disagree with you on the idea that a ban on certain materials is a “surrender”. On the contrary, there are items/products that should not be used anymore because they are either too difficult or impractical to recycle, and/or pose toxicity problems in the environment, and/or have viable alternatives or substitutes. This includes thin, plastic bags and polystyrene. Right now, the City cannot take either of these items curbside. Clean polystyrene can be brought to Rumford Ave. The irony is that it costs the City much more money to recycle it than to just throw it away (all our trash is incinerated which creates a ton of toxic ash that has to be landfilled for every 4 tons burned).
There are some products whose continued use cannot be justified anymore because they pose too many problems in the environment and/or to public health. We have done it before. We stopped putting lead in gasoline and saw lead in children’s blood plummet by 90 percent. We stopped using the once widely used pesticide DDT and saw a remarkable comeback of our birds of prey, including the Bald Eagle.
Before everyone gets too excited about instant savings, you must first know that the contract with Waste Management is negotiated for a 5 year period, and we are in the middle of a 2nd contract with WM (as told to me by Waste Management). As an FYI, in August I was getting resident requests for wheel repairs on the toters. Contacting the acting Director of Public Works, I was informed that it was an internal city problem in that our inventory system temporarily “broke down” due to some DPW turnover, and these issues have since been corrected. Typically a broken wheel will be replaced by a roving Waste Management repair team as requested by the route drivers. Sensing that I needed to know more, it was arranged that I would accompany Waste Management on one of our daily routes.
The Newton Manager for Waste Management spent over 4 hours taking me around with the trucks and explaining the intricate details of the Newton waste/trash plan. The experience was enlightening as his 2 years plus in the city makes him an expert on our system. The manager stressed that they have a great relationship with the city, and pointed out that though they do the repairs and replacement; the inventory of the parts and toters are the responsibility of the city purchasing managers.
The contract is greatly valued by Waste Management and they assign their best drivers to our city, with all of them experts in resolving customer issues, repair issues, and seeking innovative ways of saving time and money. They actually have virtually no driver turnover on their Newton routes.
The Newton Manager has all of the stats on numbers of vehicles, amounts picked up, and their ability to consolidate routes, etc. So whatever is worked on in the Facilities Committee, this is something that would have to be planned and worked out for future contracts.
From a consumer perspective you can educate and eliminate all of the products you would like, but in the end of the day its a challenge for many families to pack all of their trash/recyclables into 2 toters on a weekly basis. Changing to 2 green barrels won’t reduce the need for pick-up, just a different drop off destination.
Viewing Newton contracts on the ground level has worked for me in many aspects of city operations and is an enjoyable part of Alderman life.
What exactly is the city spending our exorbitant tax bills on that it can’t continue weekly pickup? Certainly not road maintenance nor patrolling the river path.
Hi If trash and recycling pick up were to be every other week a concern may be an increase in the amount of litter on our streets and properties. Overflowing barrels would inherently cause more litter and discourage the proper disposal of trash and recyclables.
The amount of trash that is put out by Newtons citizenry on an annual basis is pretty much a constant. Whether it’s picked up weekly or every other week ( or once a month ) it won’t make much of a difference. The only way to perhaps speed up the collection process ( and perhaps reduce driver time in the truck ), and consequently reduce the cost, would be to encourage folks to not put out containers with less than half full loads ( or without filling them ) , on a weekly basis . This would thus reduce the number of driver stops and speed up the entire process.
Alison: You’re right, poor wording on my part. What I meant to say was that the ban might have been perceived as the best option had other less prohibitive efforts been also given a chance to succeed. I do recall this “irony” as part of the equation, back when. However, the focus then was not specifically on the impact of plastic bags. Either way, I would really like to see some pilot efforts put forward. Is the City doing capturing environmental/economic metrics to help determine the impact of this ban?
James: Thanks for your post. It might be worth checking with the DPW regarding how much waste/ recycling was collected prior to and after we went to the automated pick-up. I’m under the impression that the amount and ratios had shifted, as well as what types of material were now considered acceptable in terms of roadside pick-up. Per contracts, there will always be a next round, which gives the City ample time consider and pilot next-round alternatives. Behavior has to change all around to get on a more sustainable, environmental and efficient footing.
@Bill, I agree that capturing metrics, analyzing data and re-evaluating programs is important. The City is not capturing metrics on the plastic bag ban, that info would have come from the retailers themselves. My plan was always to follow up with them after 6-12 months and I can ask the EDC if they can assist.
@Blueprintbill, there is evidence to suggest that the amount of trash produced is directly related to the cost of disposal. The downside to having trash & recycling as part of the general city services, is that there is little incentive to reduce the amount of trash you produce. (And why “PAYT programs are so effective in driving up recycling rates, but I won’t go there).
@James, any savings that I mentioned had to do diverting organics from the waste stream, not with re-negotiating the solid waste contract. Though those 5 years will go by fast. The person that for years did all negotiating of the contracts with Waste Management is no longer in that role. The City’s recycling manager was let go some 6 months ago. The Customer Service Manager for DPW has been assigned at least some of the duties, but I don’t see any City staff assigned to replace those important positions. I think I review is still warranted.
To be clear, I am not advocating for cutting back on weekly trash collection, I just think a discussion of how we can better manage our trash and improve our recycling rates is important.
Alison: Needham didn’t do a ban, correct? Maybe the Newton/Needham Chamber of Commerce could assist? Maybe you could just pull data from similar businesses (grocery stores, drug stores, etc.) in each muni and compare/contrast the results?
@Bill, Excellent thought. I will check that out. Thanks.
@Alison Leary – how about something simple like mandating that households are at minimum required to recycle? There is a household in my neighborhood which hasn’t put out a recycling bin in years yet every week out go two blue bins. Other cities (Lexington for example) require that if you want your trash taken away that you at least have to also place your recycling bin curbside. And Cambridge’s system has already been discussed above. New York state has extremely strict policies on trash to the point where everything needs to be in clear bags and they’ll refuse to take away your trash if there is recycling included. That’s a bit extreme for me but Newton could surely look around at what other cities and towns are doing or considering to see how the recycling rate could be increased. And how about putting a few more recycling bins in parks or picnic areas rather than just oil drums in which everything gets tossed?