You have shares in this company or what?
I think claiming authority as a result of conducting studies for government is essentially claiming to be an expert. Nevertheless, you didn't really get under my skin. You have a penchant for condescension that I don't appreciate.
Think what you want. I've done what I've done and nothing you say will change that. The fact that you brought it up points directly to it getting under your skin. You've claimed expertise about logistics, but you still miss the key points here.
Oh, if you find debate with you condescending, try getting a thicker skin.
That is true of either normal or compacting bins, therefore, it isn't a useful basis for comparison. Having a larger capacity means that for a given service frequency, the larger can is less likely to overflow and less litter will result.
That is why the frequency of visits to empty compacters won't be any different than normal trash cans. There is no way to know how full a compacter is, so a visit will be made anyway. Why skip the minority of trash receptacles on the basis of an assumption about full they may or may not be?
You are presuming some foreknowledge about how fast a compacter will fill. You don't have such knowledge.
Since they have higher capacity, they won't need to be emptied as frequently. Think about it some more. If lower volume cans are visited once per week, while high volume cans need to be emptied daily, there is an advantage to increasing the capacity of the higher volume cans so they can be emptied at a reduced frequency. Do you disagree with this? (Honestly, I don't understand what your quibble is.)
Again,
you don't know if the compacters will have to emptied less frequently. You don't know if any individual compacter will have to be emptied less frequently in any given location that they are situated. All you are operating on is that these devices compact trash. The only way to know their status is to check - which means a visit - which means the deployment of a crew on a regular trash pick-up route. They're already out there visiting the majority of the trash receptacles on a regular route.
I don't know what you mean by that last statement. Presumably, the highest volume locations would benefit from increased capacity, either by reducing the collection frequency required to something more in line with the rest of the bins, or by less resulting in less overflow due to exceeding capacity.
Regular trash bins will set the garbage pick-up schedule. This will happen because these bins will exist in higher numbers. Higher volume or not, the smaller number of compacters would still be visited as frequently because there is no other way to know their status.
I'm not sure I argued 'ardently' for it (not what I would consider an ideal way of raising revenue). Living in the city would also not mean that one paid the land-transfer tax. Also, you'll be pleased to know that I have a job--though for the right price I'd be willing to audit trash cans on weekends.
By the length of your responses, you appear to be sold on these things. Nice to hear you have job, but auditing trash is full-time. Would you like a bike or a truck?
I have no such burden. I don't particularly care what the company has to say (I'm not buying, and analyzing whether they should be bought). Their implementation of the concept may or may not be good. I liked the concept
I have no issue with the "concept" either, I just don't see it being particularly useful. All it has over a regular trash receptacle is that it crushes garbage. It still has to be checked and emptied, it is more expensive than a regular trash bin, it can break down, it must be regularly serviced and repaired, and eventually must replaced more frequently and at greater cost than a regular trash receptacle.
I have also not ignored that cans fill at different rates. I mentioned that this would motivate a mixed fleet, if anything. Yes machines require service, but I rather doubt that that would dominate operating costs (visits every day to ensure they working properly?). All I've said is that there would need to be further analysis done to see whether it makes sense. In terms of the collection cost component (to spell it out, ignoring cost of the cans, maintenance and replacement), it is pretty clear that it would lower cost due to more efficient collection. We can talk about that if you want. I don't have any interest in whether the cans are reliable or not, because that is all just speculation.
What would the costs be for deploying a "mixed fleet?" Would it actually be cheaper? Have you made any inquiries with respect to the scheduling of city crews and human resources? Since there are fewer numbers of compacters, you would still be deploying a regular schedule of workers to visit the majority of regular trash receptacles. You still would also have to factor in extra service visits to compacters - plus technicians and replacement costs, loss, repair and replacement due to accidents, break-downs, vandalism, etc. In reality, you don't get to ignore the other costs. You don't get to ignore reliability issues. Fascination is never a sound basis for the procurement of equipment.
It's hard to see how you can claim lower costs all the while suggesting more analysis be done.
That does not follow. Not even close. Sort of like arguing that there is no point in trying to optimize the delivery of food from farms to stores, since the real problem is that people don't grow their own food. Ergo, there are no opportunities to significantly reduce costs in food transportation.
Furthermore, that problem is beyond the scope of the what the can was designed to solve. Maybe we should design a motion sensitive trash can that will give people guilt trips when they deposit waste?
Of course, why would you not be following it? You are too busy removing reality from impinging on the fascinating world of solar-powered trash crusher and the analysis-free assumption that they will reduce pick-up costs significantly - whatever that is (okay, I admit being condescending here). Since I was talking about trash compacters and not food delivery, I was making a point about how trash compaction does nothing to address larger garbage issues (it follows). I was looking at the problem
on a larger scale - and not removing annoying but relevant details that got in the way of unmeasured assumptions that such devices could reduce a little cost from the pick-up schedule.
And I was only kidding about the garbage audit job. I can't offer that to you. Sorry.
