Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Profiles of Tested Collection Method Areas <br /> <br />Scenario A: Single-stream in demographically similar area <br /> <br />Residents in this area had the lowest participation <br />rate in the./'before" period at 81.4%. There was <br />an increaseof4.8% in people who participated in <br />the recycling program in the "during" period. It <br />wasfourthlargest increase in the test areas, and <br />at 86.2% was the lowest overall participation <br />rate. However, the difference between the <br />participation rate of 86.2% and the set out rate of <br />calculations 84.1 % is the smallest difference of any area. <br />Recyclers in this area put their material out <br />almost every collection day. This area had the <br />second highest in<;rease in set outs (13. 7%) and the second highest set out rate over all. <br /> <br />Single-Stream <br /> <br />Collection Schedule <br /> <br />Si-Weekly <br /> <br />Recycling Containers <br /> <br />64-gallon cart <br /> <br />Number of Households <br /> <br />335 <br /> <br />Participation Rate <br /> <br />86.2% <br /> <br />1 <br />Avg. Lbs Collected per HH per Route <br /> <br />28.16 <br /> <br />Most Important Component2 <br /> <br />Price 1.80 <br /> <br />Resident Satisfaction <br /> <br />90% <br /> <br />Willing to Pay More <br /> <br /> <br />Derived from Appendix H Table 3 net <br /> <br /> <br />per <br /> <br />20n a scale of 1 - 4 with 1 <br /> <br />In this testing area residents were provided a <br />single 64-gallon cart for the commingled <br />collection of all their recyclable material. This <br />collection method measured the impacts of a <br />simplified sorting system for the residents along <br />with a different collection container. Residents <br />remained onthe every other week collection <br />schedule. <br /> <br />\\1~el1~sked in thePfr-survey what would <br />motivate them to recycle more the number one <br />fTsponse was bigger bins listed by 45.2% of the <br />r9spondents. <br /> <br />The single-streaniteStareas had anuilusual occurrence not found in any of the other areas - people who <br />stopped putting out material for colle<;tion. In this area 1.8% of the participants became non-participants in <br />the "during" period. O!lel1omeownerwho called the City said he would not use the single-stream collection <br />method because he could "hear the glass breaking" when the carts were emptied into the truck. He was <br />concerned that the glass would get mixed in with the other material and would not be recovered. <br /> <br />There was a marked increase in the percentage of paper in the recycling sample. Paper made up 57% of the <br />sample by weight in the "before" composition sorts. In the "during" period, paper made up 80% of the <br />sample. There was a corresponding increase in the percentage of newspaper from 35.7% to 45.3% and in the <br />percentage of corrugated cardboard (OCC) in the samples from 7.8% to 18.1 %. <br /> <br />Despite an increase in overall tons collected the amount of containers (bottles and cans) decreased. The <br />percentages from the composition sorts were multiplied by the truck weights for each collection day. In the <br />"before" period there was an average of2,9371bs of containers collected each collection day. In the <br />"during" period there was an average of 1,210 Ibs of containers collected each collection day. <br /> <br />25 <br />