Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Garbage pick-up gets a makeover in Vancouver

July 16th, 2010 · 21 Comments

When Vancouver city manager Penny Ballem started talking about reorganizing the city last year to make it more efficient, I heard a lot from people inside city hall saying saying everyone knew there were things that needed to be fixed, but no one had ever had the jam to actually take action. Too hard to get people to give up their old ways.

But it looks as though some of that reorg is actually happening, as I note in my story this morning. The city’s formerly separate garbage crews (city and parks) are being combined into one over the next couple of months. Next up, getting some co-ordination between 17 different IT systems and seven help desks. Plus more. Who would have thunk it?

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Booge

    Seems like it will make things more streamlined. Kudos for the re-think. One small step for Garbage , one giant leap for mankind.

  • Jaymac

    Now, if they’d consider privatizing the pickup system, they (or we should I say) would likely save more money.
    My brother lives in Dublin. He has a choice of 3 pick-up vendors – 2 private, 1 municipal. All use the same wheely-bucket system (different colours for each vendor) and the same landfill site. Competition creates efficiencies and cost savings. Alas, it might cut political support.

  • Shane

    If all of the initiatives work (I hope it does), it should be used as a case study for all organizations.

  • Brenton

    Looking forward to reading AGT and CityCaucus’ spin on this.

  • George

    @Jaymac
    Windsor Ontario council this week decided to privatize garbage collection.

  • Don Buchanan

    Jaymac,
    The one question I have with your Dublin model is does it actually duplicate service, and increase the use of fossil fuels, ghg and noise emissions, etc.?

    I live downtown and rather than have one City-owned garbage truck move through the alleys collecting from all the garbage from everyone, each building contracts with their own company and we have multiple trucks retracing the same routes.

    Even if the privatization was done to only one company, eliminating the duplication of routes we have now downtown, the way taxpayers would save $$ would be if the private operator paid their workers less. Sure we’d save $$ but then we’d have a whole lot more people of low income, unable to afford to live anywhere close to their jobs. Unless they were in some kind of social housing … paid for by taxpayers. Hmm

  • Bill

    Don, I think you are on to something but let’s not stop at garbage collection. The city should take over and unionize all low paying jobs in the city – then everyone would be able to live close to their jobs.

  • spartikus

    Even if the privatization was done to only one company

    Which would be a monopoly – the free market worst-case scenario. None of the benefits of competition, and none of the oversight of public control.

    Bill, I think you’re on to something. Mega Corporation should take everything over and reduce all Vancouverites pay to the minimum wage.

    Think of the savings that will be passed on to taxpayer and consumer alike!

  • Bill

    spartikus, you know perfectly well that letting a contract under competitive bids does not create a monopoly. And I think you have effectively insulted every city worker by suggesting their jobs could be done in the private sector by a minimum wage worker.

  • Chris Keam

    I think the Spartinator was being sarcastic.

  • Chris Keam

    “Competition creates efficiencies and cost savings.”

    So does standardization and economies of scale.

  • spartikus

    Being curious, and given it wasn’t clearly explained on it’s website, I wrote to Dublinwaste.ie

    This is the response I rec’d:

    Thank you for contacting DublinWaste.ie

    The waste situation isn’t that straightforward. For a start, there are four different local authorities in the Dublin Region and the situation in each can be different.

    Householders have the choice of municipal or private service.

    In one local authority area, the main private collector had a bigger share
    than the municipal service and now the local authority has pulled out of waste collection for economic reasons. In the other local authorities, the municipal collection collects the majority of the waste and in some cases, private collectors do not offer a service as it may be uneconomical to compete.

    In all cases, public and private collection must adhere to the relevant bye-laws and conditions on the waste collection permit that they must have in order to collect waste.

    If there is anything else I can help you with, please do not hesitate to contact me.

    One-time neoliberal darling Ireland is currently in deep economic trouble but, of course, it doesn’t get the headlines that “socialist” Greece does.

  • Bill

    Like democracy, the free market system is imperfect but far superior to the alternatives. It creates wealth, socialism can only redistribute it.

  • spartikus

    It creates wealth, socialism can only redistribute it.

    When the hunter threw the spear that killed the mammoth…he created wealth for his people and he didn’t need Adam Smith to guide their hand.

    But I guess it all comes down to what you think is important…whether you believe the purpose of a municipality’s waste management system is to create wealth…or manage, er, the municipality’s waste.

    I found the answer from Dublin quite interesting, if only because it indicated both the public and the private sector had withdrawn from certain areas.

    Also of note, as Norm Farrell reminds us today (on a different subject), is that quite often around these parts those that advocate “free markets” aren’t actually advocating “competitive markets”. When you award a 5 or 10 year contract to a private company to manage your waste, you’ve pretty much eliminated the competition from the system.

  • Bill

    The hunter shared the kill with his people – that is not inconsistent with the free market as wealth creators have an obligation to share with those who are less able. Under the socialist model, the tribe would tell the hunter how they were going to divide the spoils. With any luck, there would be enough left over so the hunter didn’t starve taking the whole tribe down with him.

    The competition takes place before the contract is awarded which means the municipality is getting the most economical solution. The private sector will often enter into long term supply contracts for goods and services much more complex than garbage collection.

  • Chris Keam

    “Under the socialist model, the tribe would tell the hunter how they were going to divide the spoils. ”

    OK, for starters, it was typically a group effort to bring down any animal larger than a very small ungulate, so no one individual could take the credit or spoils. Secondly, the results were generally shared according to long-standing traditions. The ‘hunter’ didn’t get to pick and choose who ate. And thirdly, it was the women who gathered that provided most of the food.

    Hunting and gathering societies more closely resemble a communal way of life than any other modern day equivalent, including little in the way of private property, relative equality between sexes in terms of governance, and status/ranking accorded via seniority (elders).

    So, forget the Hollywood historical inaccuracies, human civilization for the most part existed within socialist parameters until agriculture brought surplus (and property rights) into the equation.

  • Bill

    So what you are saying is that socialism only works in a subsistence “civilization”. I would agree that socialism has a pretty good track record of reducing the surplus and eliminating property rights.

  • Chris Keam

    No Bill, what I’m saying is you have an unclear understanding of pre-history.

  • spartikus

    what I’m saying is you have an unclear understanding of pre-history…

    …and both the free market system and socialism, for that matter.

  • Bill

    It’s not that complicated – the free market system creates wealth, socialism can only redistribute.

  • Chris Keam

    Really? Call me crazy but I thought the world was slightly more complex. Boy, a lot of people must feel ripped off after spending 4+ years in biz school when all they have to do is reduce complex economic systems to a simple dichotomy with no real basis in the real world.