Laserfiche WebLink
Recycling <br />I am very concerned on the direction that we are going with the recycling <br />program. <br />1) Why did staff ignore the Public Works, Transportation and Environmental <br />Commissionrecommendationto the Council for Single Sort Recycling? <br />After they reviewed and discussed the Pilot Study they recommended Single <br />Sort recycling. However, staff ignored this recommendation and brought <br />forward an R�`�' with both dual and single sort systems. <br />2) Before we take another step we need to discuss what our goal is for the <br />recycling program. Is it to provide a service at very low cost or to increase <br />the amount of material to be recycled?? I agree that cost is a concern, <br />however that cost has to be related to a service received and the amount of <br />material not going to the landfill. <br />As stated in �.W Beck's report as part of the Pilot Study "On average, the <br />quantities collected during the pilot from single stream collection routes <br />were greater than from dual stream routes." In addition on page 20, table 7, <br />a comparison of the routes before to after indicates a greater amount (pounds <br />of material collected) for single stream as compared to dual sort (control). <br />The following are the "mean" figures from that table: Dual Sort = the control <br />route <br />Single Stream route before pilot = 21.33 pounds per dwelling unit per route. <br />Single Stream route during pilot = 28.16 pounds per dwelling unit per route. <br />Dual Sort route before pilot = 24.14 pounds per dwelling unit per route. <br />Dual Sort route during pilot = 26.86 pounds per dwelling unit per route. <br />Single Stream produces a significant increase in pounds per Dwelling Unit <br />per route at 6.82 pounds or 32%. Where as Dual Sort increase per dwelling <br />un�� per route is only 2.72 pounds or 11.2%. Therefore, single stream <br />encourages more material to be recycled and the total quantities are greater <br />than dual sort. <br />