The recycling rate for Cambridge City is currently around 40% (this fluctuates month-by-month) and the target to reach for 2007/08 is 42%. You can see the growing recycling rate in the City in the graph below.
You can clearly see where the Black Box kerbside collections were introduced in 2001 and where alternate week collections began in 2005. We’ll update this graph at the end of the year (April 2008) – hopefully we’ll have hit our target.
This graph clearly shows that the rate of increase in recycling has not changed (dRR/dt is constant since 2001) since the bin collection service was slashed in 2005. Why are we suffering for a policy which has done nothing to grow the rate of recycling yet makes Cambridge’s streets so unpleasant to walk down?
Still, at least it’s a rare admission of failure by CCC
Paul Harvey
Hinton Avenue
Changes in service and in communication have been necessary in order to sustain the rate of increase in recycling. A 1% increase requires several thousand extra tonnes of material to be recycled. A lot of work goes into achieving increases in recycling, unfortunately it does not just happen naturally.
I accept that the comment with the graph could sound misleading, as there is not a visible spike in 2005/06. However it is unlikely that this rate of increase in the recycling rate would have been sustained without some changes to service.
Vicky
OK. So, prior to the slashing of the service in 2005, someone modeled future levels of recycling under the then current system and said we need a new effort. What were the forecasts for recycling at the start of 2005 to justify the unpleasant situation we have now.
You said that 40,000 new blue bins would be issued in October. What impact is this expected to have on re-cycling and will it change the shape of the curve? The bins probably cost £25 each (£50 if a taxpayer needs to replace it) In addition, some 90,000 blue and black baskets need to be disposed of. At what cost?
You say the new blue bins will save £50,000 pa. The cost of issuing new bins will be about 40,000*25 = £1,000,000. Payback time is therefore 20 years. if one did a proper NPV calculation it would be worse. Of course, my £25 per bin figure might be wrong so I look forward to being corrected.
Basically, you have provided no evidence that slashing services has contributed to an increase in recycling as the trend was set between 2001 and 2004. We are suffering the stench for no reason
You may like to know that the WHO (World Health Organisation) recommend that bins in temperate climates such as ours are emptied every week. They think your (CCC) policy is a health hazard.
Paul Harvey
Vicky
Since 2001 there has been a growth in public recycling centers such as the ones at Sainsburys and Mcdonalds. How much of the increase in recycling can be attributed to these and how much is due to CCC efforts at the domestic collection level. It might be that much of the increase in recent years (since 2005) is down to these collection points and that we have suffered from reduced collections for little gain.
It might also show that private sector efforts are more cost effective than than services provided by a state monopoly.
Paul Harvey
Hinton Avenue
Cambridge
Will you please forward me the % recycling rates at the household level from 1999 to 2007.
Thanks
Paul Harvey
Hinton Avenue
Cambridge
Vicky,
you say: “you can clearly see where alternate week collections began in 2005.”
There is no ‘kink’ in the graph as one might expect: it is linear from 2001 onwards. Where do you draw your conclusions from?
Further, why does the graph stop at 2006? Is it because it is flat from there on and proves that fortnightly collections have had no impact on recycling rates?
You are paid out of taxpayers money to provide clinically objective information. It is for politicians to spin.
Paul Harvey
Hinton Avenue
Cambridge
I think I have covered some of this in a previous reply.
The graph stops at 2006 simply because I forgot to go back and edit something that I originally posted a number of months ago. Also I have just discovered that it is not that simple to do! So might take a while longer.
You have paraphrased my comment slightly which I think does change the emphasis.
Vicky
The forecast increase for recycling for 2010/2011 (the first full period with £694,000 worth of new bins) is 45%, a 3% rise on current rates. Basically, £231,000 per % gain. But what does a per cent point mean in real terms. What does it mean in kilos of glass, plastic or copies of Cambridge Matters Magazine? I think we should be told.
But when will CCC stop mindlessly throwing our money at the problem. When will they say “enough is enough”? When will they starting fining people? Well, if they respect the survey findings of November 2004 never, because 64% of people were against that suggestion. Given that they based the changes then on 46% wanting alternate weekly collections with 38% against (AWC in council speak) they cannot now impose fines on those who don’t recycle. Or they can just ignore that part of the survey.
Paul Harvey
Hinton Avenue
Cambridge
CORRECTION ON SURVEY
The per cent of people against enforcement of recycling was 54. Those in favour was 29 per cent based on the survey findings of 2004.
However, in 2007 CCC started planning enforcement (fining people) and clearly will ignore the survey findings as and when they like. This comes from:
Waste Management Service Plan 2006/07 Roger Coey
a) Utilise appropriate new powers contained in the Clean
Neighbourhood and Environment Act 2005 related to waste
31 March
2007
Fixed Penalty Notice Policy is going to Strategy
Scrutiny Committee in the November cycle.
The education part of enforcement under this
act is taking place.
Roger Coey
Will anyone from CCC reply to this posting?
Paul harvey
Hinton Avenue
Cambridge
Vicky,
You wrote:
“We’ll update this graph at the end of the year (April 2008) – hopefully we’ll have hit our target.”
That was two years ago.
So why don’t you update the graph. Could it be because you have missed the target and shown that slashing bin collections has failed.
Why don’t you publish this in the magazine?
Paul Harvey
Hinton Avenue
Cambridge
Thanks for the links. The facts are these. The change to blue bins will cost £694,000 to supply 32,500 bins. That’s £21.35 each. The costs I am still trying to get clarification on are the operational costs of the change, but I am sure Vicky will clarify them soon. (I am not sure if the net revenue is £57,000 or a loss of £57,000)
Why these figures were not published in Cambridge Matters I don’t know: perhaps there were no pictures of smiling happy people to go with them.
in addition to the costs above, the value of some 90,000 blue and black baskets have to be written off. What is their value? At a guess I would say £1.75 each or £157,500. Whilst there is a costing for the 2009 change to collections, there is no costing in the documents supplied by CCC for the 2005 change for the baskets.
Paul Harvey
Hinton Avenue
Cambridge
CORRECTION
Some 20,000 blue and black baskets will remain in use as not all can have the new blue bins. So the real loss is:
£157,000 – (20,000*1.75) = £122,000
Paul Harvey
Hinton Avenue
Cambridge
The questions brought up by this post plus costings for the new scheme can be found in the committee report at http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/public/councillors/agenda/2009/0113env/07.pdf
Issues to do with alternate week collections can be addressed by referring to http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/public/councillors/agenda/2005/0125env/00.pdf