![[logo] US EPA](../gif/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Collection Costs
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
Collection costs are related to the program’s set out requirements (i.e., how material is to be sorted—for example, separate containers for glass, paper, and cans), frequency of collection, and level of community participation. By adjusting the variables that affect collection costs, communities can lower these costs.
In general, the per ton or per household costs of collecting recyclables:
- Increase with the number of separately segregated commodities. Single-stream is the least costly to collect, followed by two-stream, etc.
- Increase with the frequency of collection. Collecting half as frequently (e.g., every other week instead of weekly) can reduce collection costs by approximately 25 percent, assuming traditional two-stream set outs.
- Decrease as more materials are collected by the program. If few households participate in the program and the program does not collect many commodities, the per household cost soars, as it is costly to drive a recycling truck past household after household that has not set out recyclables.
Table 1 below provides an example of the average curbside collection costs to a typical community for different set out requirements (single-stream versus. two-stream), two frequencies of collection (every week versus every other week), and at two levels of participation in the curbside program (40 percent diversion rate versus 25 percent diversion rate). The higher diversion rate is consistent with a program that accepts many materials, such as all types of paper, corrugated cardboard, all types of containers (i.e., #1 through #9 plastics), and some additional materials such as aseptic containers or textiles. The lower diversion rate is consistent with either a wide range of acceptable materials but a lower participation, or a narrower range of acceptable materials. As the table illustrates, both crew productivity and collection costs are significantly affected by the set out method, frequency of recycling collection, and the level of participation in the program.
| Variable | Two-Sort Set Out | Single-Stream Set Out | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Once a Week— High Diversion |
Every Other Week— High Diversion |
Once a Week— High Diversion |
Once a Week— Lower Diversion |
Every Other Week— High Diversion |
|
| Minutes/shift Tons/load |
480 4.5 |
480 6.0 |
480 6.0 |
480 6.0 |
480 6.0 |
| Solid waste/household (tons/year): Disposed Recycled Percent diverted |
|
0.60 0.40 40% |
0.60 0.40 40% |
0.80 0.20 20% |
0.60 0.40 40% |
| Pounds/household/collection day | 15.38 |
30.77 | 15.38 | 7.69 | 30.77 |
| Collection time/household (loading and travel between, in seconds) |
29.64 |
37.64 | 28.64 | 28.64 | 28.64 |
| Households/load Loads/shift Households/shift Days per cycle Households/crew |
585 |
292 1.5 430 10 4,304 |
780 1 780 5 3,900 |
817 |
390 2 691 10 6,914 |
| Cost per crew Depreciated container $ Total cost |
$192,658 $3,340 $195,998 |
$192,658 $4,304 $196,963 |
$192,658 $19,500 $212,158 |
$192,658 $20,428 $213,086 |
$192,658 $34,571 $227,229 |
| Cost/household/year Cost/ton |
$58.67 $141 |
$45.76 $103 |
$54.40 $139 |
$52.15 $278 |
$32.86 $89.38 |
Effect of Set Out Method on Collection Cost
Consider the impact of set out method on collection productivity outlined in Table 1:
- Single-stream collection is assumed to be implemented using a fully-automated system loading 90 gallon carts large enough to hold two weeks' worth of recyclables, so the collection time per household is the same whether collection is done weekly or every other week. Collection time plus travel time between stops is estimated to be 28.64 seconds for the single-stream set out method.
- The two-sort set out method is generally implemented through manual collection of a bin for containers and a stack for newspapers, or a second bin for mixed papers. Generally, these recycling containers cannot accommodate two weeks' worth of recyclables; therefore, collection every other week commonly requires a third container to empty, which increases the time required to service the household (37.64 seconds) compared to the time required with weekly collection (29.64 seconds).
- Because of the greater time required to service each household with a two-sort system, each collection crew stops at fewer households per shift with a two-sort method than with the single-stream set out. For weekly collection, the number of households serviced during each crew shift is 668 under the two-sort method and 780 using single-stream collection, as shown in the table.
- Consequently, the collection cost per household is $58.67 for weekly collection using the two-sort method, compared to $54.40 for weekly single-stream collection. The per household cost difference between the two-sort method and the single-stream method is less than might be expected due to the lower cost of containers for two-sort as compared to single-stream. With a weekly collection frequency, the single-stream collection method is 7 percent less costly than the two-sort system.
- For every-other-week collection, single-stream is computed to cost $32.86 per household, compared to $45.76 per household for the two-sort method. With every other week collection, the percentage difference in cost between the single-stream and two-sort collection methods is greater. Single-stream is 28 percent less costly than two-sort in this scenario because the single-stream method’s collection time for every other week is the same as that for weekly collection, while the two-sort time for every other week is greater than its time for weekly collection.
Effect of Frequency of Collection on Collection Cost
A second variable that affects collection costs is the frequency of collection. Consider the effects of frequency of collection on collection cost as shown in Table 1:
- Holding the diversion rate constant at 40 percent, the two-sort method costs about 22 percent less per household for every-other-week collection than for weekly collection ($45.76 for every other week, compared to $58.67 for weekly collection).
- Again holding the diversion rate constant at 40 percent, the single-stream method costs only $32.86 per household for every-other-week collection, compared to $54.40 for weekly collection a 40 percent reduction in collection costs.
Effect of Diversion Rate on Collection Cost
Finally, Table 1 highlights the impact of the level of participation in the program, or diversion rate, on the costs of collecting recyclables at the curb:
- With the single-stream set out method, a lower diversion rate (20 percent) results in costs per household of $52.15, just a few dollars less than the cost per household at the higher diversion rate ($54.40). There is little difference in the collection cost per household when diversion goes down if the same percentage of households set out recyclables in the two situations. The time required to empty the container containing fewer materials and drive to the next stop is constant, not dependent on the amount of materials in the cart.
- While the cost per household does not change dramatically as the diversion rate decreases, the cost per ton increases greatly in the scenario with the lower diversion rate. As shown in Table 1, the collection cost per ton is $278 for 20 percent diversion with weekly collection, compared to $139 per ton for a 40 percent diversion rate with the same weekly collection frequency.
- The lowest per ton and per household costs occur when recyclables are collected every other week and the diversion rate is high. The cost in this scenario, as displayed in Table 1, is $89.38 per ton.
