The next point which has to be considered, and which is the second in order of the list of duties I have given at the commencement of this chapter, is “the cleansing of earth closets, privies, ash-pits, and cesspools.”
This is generally effected in conjunction with the collection of the house refuse and the work is carried out at night. Under the Goux-tub system the ashes of the house refuse are largely used as a deodorant or absorbent as a lining for the tub,[163]but in the pail systems this mixture is not effected until the tubs and refuse arrive together at the depôt.
For descriptions of the manner in which the pail system for the collection of excreta is carried out in Birmingham, I must refer my readers to an article written by myself in a number ofThe Sanitary Engineerof New York published on the 1st Sept. 1881, in which I have entered fully into the method there adopted and its advantages and disadvantages, but which are too long to recapitulate in this chapter.
The next duty which has to be considered is that of “the proper cleansing of streets.”
There is no doubt that for the sake of the appearance as well as the health of any town its streets cannot be too well cleansed. Muddy and wet streets cause dampness in the subsoil of neighbouring dwellings, and dust is not only injurious to tradesmen’s goods but also to the lungs of those who have to breathe an atmosphere loaded with silicate and organic impurities.[164]
Street cleansing is effected either by hand-sweeping and hand-scraping, or by machinery. As to which is the most economical much depends upon the value of labour, and also upon the condition of the roads to be dealt with, but in point of time and as a general rule the value of a horse rotary brush-sweeping machine is undoubted, the only time at which such a machine fails to do effective work is on the occasions when the mud to be removed (owing to a peculiar condition of the atmosphere), has attained a semisolidity, and is of a stiff and sticky consistency, when it either adheres to and clogs the brushes of the machine, or is flattened by them on to the road instead of being removed.[165]
The brushes of a machine last about 180 hours constantwork, and then the old stocks can be easily refilled with bass at no great cost. The comparative work which can be done by a sweeping machine is about 11 to 1 of that effected by manual labour, so that the economy involved by the former method is evident.
The strength and durability of the brooms used for the work of sweeping the streets is of some importance, as affecting the ultimate cost of the work, and some care and skill is required in their selection. Bass brooms are better than birch brooms for this purpose, and the bass of which the brooms are made should be sufficiently stout and of regular thickness; it should be tough and elastic, not old, dry, and brittle, each knot should be of uniform size and be firmly set, and the number of knots in each broom head is also a matter of choice. A convenient and fair test of the soundness of a broom is to soak it for a few days in water before issuing it to the sweeper, and then note the time it will last. The handles of the brooms should be made of alder wood.
On the question of the extra work involved in street cleansing by its bad construction or by the materials of which it is constructed, climate must be considered, as well as the amount of traffic it has to bear, and also its gradient and the habits of the people residing in it.[166]
The Superintendent of the Scavenging Department at Liverpool has made some observations and obtained some valuable information on these points, which he has detailed in a report he presented to the Health Committee of that borough in the year 1877, an abstract of which is as follows:
Gross Cost for Each Time of Cleansing 10,000 Yards Superficial ofDifferent Descriptions of Roadway in the Borough of Liverpool.
He adds that the full benefit of the impervious pavements as regards the cost of scavenging has not yet been felt, for almost all the lines of streets so paved are intersected at short distances by streets of ordinary jointed granite setts or macadam, whence a quantity of mud and refuse is dragged by the traffic on to the asphalted jointed roadways, which are consequently debited with the cost of removal of some effete material not intrinsically belonging to them.
Mr. Till, the Borough Surveyor of Birmingham, from investigations he has made on this subject, says that for granite pavement 2 cart loads of mud have to be removed from every 1000 square yards of surface, one third of a load for wood pavement[167]and 4 loads three times a day (a total of 12 loads) for macadamised roadways.
The ultimate disposal of the material removed from the surfaces of roadways especially when they are macadamised is a difficult matter, as, being chiefly composed of silicate, it is valueless as a manure.
In small towns, except during abnormally muddy weather, it may be mixed with the house refuse and sold to farmers, or the road scrapings themselves may be used as an excellent sand, if thoroughly washed, to mix with lime or cement to form mortar for public works; excessive accumulations of mud, however, must be got rid of in the most economical and speedy manner possible, and this is effected either by filling up old disused quarries with it, or depositing it upon waste lands, or forming embankments for new roads, but in no case should it be used, as I have before stated, upon building sites; it is difficult and expensive to destroy it or partially convert it into other matters by fire, so that if these methods which I have enumerated are impracticable, the only other method left for the disposal of the sweepings or scrapings from the streets is totake them out to sea in hopper barges and sink them in deep water.
The last question that arises on the subject of scavenging before we consider the disposal of snow, is whether the onus of cleansing private courts and alleys which are not repairable by the urban authority should be borne by them or not.
The great difficulty attached to this duty arises from the fact that these private courts and alleys are generally very badly paved, if paved at all, full of pits, where pools of stagnant mud and water collect, and even in the best cases, the interstices between the pebbles, or other paving, are filled with filth arising in great measure from the dirty habits of the people, and this filth it is found exceedingly difficult to dislodge. The remedy for this is to compel the owners of the abutting properties to have the courts and alleys properly paved with asphalte, or other equally impervious material, after which it would be easy for the urban authority to cause them to be swept at least once a day, and flushed with water in the hot weather once a week, but in order to compel the owners to execute this very desirable work it would be necessary to put the complicated machinery of section 150 of the Public Health Act 1875 in force, and the expense to the landlords would be in many cases very disproportionate to the value of their property.
Out of the ninety towns to which reference has before been made, the authorities of only nineteen of them cleanse the private courts and alleys in their jurisdiction, although for the sake of sanitation it is very desirable that such work should be so undertaken by them.
In most towns it is necessary to cleanse its principal streets at least once a day, and this appears to be the practice of nearly all the ninety towns I have referred to; only seven of them, however, appear to have this operation repeated more frequently; in several towns, the horse droppings, &c., are removed at once, under what is called the “orderly” system,and this is especially necessary in streets that are paved with such materials as wood paving, asphalte, or granite setts. The suburban streets of a town need only be cleansed once or twice a week, except in special cases of extremes of mud or snow, and I will now proceed to discuss the questions involved by a heavy fall of the latter.
Experiments have shown that a cubic yard of fresh fallen snow may weigh as much as 814 pounds or as little as 71 pounds. Assuming that a cubic foot will weigh 16·38 pounds, I estimate that for a fall of 3 inches of snow upon a street 36 feet in width, 20 tons, representing a bulk of about 100 cubic yards, would have to be removed for every 100 yards of length of street if it was thought necessary to clear it away.
Assuming that there are 30 miles of street in a town from which the snow must be removed; 21,144 loads must be carted somewhere, at a cost of at least 1,500l., assuming that each cart could make ten trips a day, and even then it would take 352 carts a whole week to effect it.
It may be contended that I have taken an extreme case, and that, of course, the snow does not lie for very long upon the ground in the condition in which it fell, and that hourly it is reducing in bulk and weight by being ground up by the traffic, and finding its way in the form of water into the sewers. This may be so, but at the same time it must not be forgotten that the bulk is also being constantly increased by that which is shovelled off the house tops[168]and brought out from private premises adjoining the streets.
Upon this point Mr. Hayward, the Engineer to the Commissioners of Sewers of the City of London,says[169]:—
“Snow readily compresses under the traffic, and when removed in carts and shot down elsewhere it may be assumedthat on an average four cubic yards of snow measured as it has fallen is equal to one cubic yard when placed on the apparatus.” This computation, however, does not make any allowance for the snow thrown from off the roofs, &c., and it of course greatly consolidates whilst travelling in the cart.
Fortunately for a town surveyor in this country, exceptionally heavy falls of snow are not very frequent, but when they do happen great pressure is put upon his department to cope with it, and one of the greatest difficulties he has to contend against is the disposal of the snow after it has been placed in the cart.
If there is a river close by, it can be taken there and tipped, but this is objectionable if it is a navigable river where dredging has to be done, as it is surprising what a quantity of road scrapings and other matters are always removed with the snow, and these materials naturally sink to the bottom, and add considerably to the cost of dredging.
If there are public parks the snow may be heaped in them, provided no damage is done to the grass or paths, but the snow thus heaped takes a considerable time to melt, the first effect of a thaw being to consolidate it: a better plan is to deposit it upon waste spots, if these are not too far from the streets which have to be cleared.
Tipping the snow down the manholes into the sewers has been tried in London and other cities, but has failed through the snow consolidating, and although lighted gas jets have been turned on to the snow, it has still melted too slowly to be of any practical utility.
Speaking of Clarke’s apparatus for melting snow, Mr. Haywood, in the same report from which I have already quoted, says:
“It is seldom that a fall of snow occurs sufficiently large to cause serious interruption to the traffic; heavy snowstorms in fact occur only once in six or seven years; for some years therefore these apparatuses if fixed might not be required.They would either have to be taken out, stored and refixed yearly or maintained in their places and kept in order there, in either case at an annual expense.”
In perusing Mr. Hayward’s report it also appears that the cost of this apparatus fixed is about 120l., and the cost of melting the snow 9d.per cubic yard.
In order to grapple with this question of the removal of snow, I am of opinion that it is useless to attempt to cart it away while falling, but try to make clear crossings for the foot passengers and to keep the traffic open. If there should be a high wind at the time, and the snow drifts in consequence, cut through the drifts so as to allow the vehicular traffic to continue. Directly the snow ceases to fall put on all available hands to clear the channel gutters and street gratings, in preparation for a sudden thaw, when, if these precautions were not taken, serious flooding and great damage to property might ensue; for the same reason cart away all the snow you can at the bottom of gradients and in the valleys, and also from very narrow streets and passages, &c. In the wider streets use the snow plough, or with gangs of men (in the snow season there is generally plenty of labour obtainable), shovel the snow into a long narrow heap on each side of the street, taking care to leave the channel gutters and gratings quite clear, and a sufficient space between the heaps for at least two lines of traffic. Passages must also be cut at frequent intervals through the heaps, in order to allow foot passengers to cross the street, and also to let the water reach the channel gutters as soon as the snow begins to melt.[170]
The next point to be considered in this chapter is that of “The proper watering of streets for the whole or any part of their district.”
One of the earliest methods for watering streets, but one which has, I think, almost entirely died out, on account principally of the large quantity of water used in the process, was that of allowing the water to run down the channel gutters, ponding it back by means of canvas or leather aprons placed across the gutter, and then spreading the water on to the surface of the street by throwing it with wooden shovels. This method, which at first sight may appear clumsy, is an exceedingly good one upon sanitary grounds. It not only lays the dust, but it washes the surface of the street, and it most effectually scours out the gutters and at the same time flushes the sewers, which at the season that watering is necessary is also of great importance to any town. By this process a delightful freshness is given to the air, and the appearance of the cool and limpid water rushing along on each side of the street acts favourably upon the inhabitants. The great objections to this system are(1) the enormous quantity of water that is used in the process, and (2) the difficulty of doing the work after the traffic of the day has commenced.
Somewhat of a modification of this process is what is known as “Brown’s System of Street Watering,” which may be described as follows:—A lead pipe is laid in the footpath at the back of the kerb on each side of the street to be watered, small gratings or shields being fixed in the pipe at intervals of twelve inches, and the remaining space filled with asphalte; small holes are then bored in the pipe through the openings in the shields. The pipe is connected with the water main in the street, and is provided with the necessary stopcocks, &c. On the water being turned on, fine jets are thrown in different directions upon the surface of the street. The width of roadway that can be watered by this process depends upon the pressure of the water, but it may be fairly assumed that in most towns streets of fifty feet width could be effectually watered in a few minutes by a pipe on each side of the street.
This process has not gained much favour hitherto, principally on account of the large first cost involved, which would amount to upwards of 800l.per mile of street, but the expense afterwards should not much exceed the wages of one man at about 3s.6d.per day to manipulate the necessary work, and the interest on the outlay and depreciation of the pipes, &c.
The other objections to this systemare:—
(1.) The liability of the pipes and perforations to get out of order, especially when allowed to lie idle for so many months in each year.
(2.) The unpleasantness to pedestrians which must be caused whilst the watering is proceeding.
(3.) The inconvenience to the traffic during the process.
(4.) The effect upon the water by high winds, when in all probability it would be blown back across the foot pavement.
(5.) In very broad streets it would be inoperative.
In Paris and other continental cities, and also in several towns in this country, the watering is effected by hose and reels, or by portable iron tubes.
Mr. Parry, C.E., the Borough Surveyor of Reading, has given the following particulars of the system of hand watering adopted in that borough, in which he gives the cost, and describes the utility of that method as compared with the use of water carts:
A water cart (he states) will water twice a day a superficial area of 23,849 yards, and for a length watered one width that means 5,962 lineal yards, or for a double width 2,981 yards, the cost per day of laying on being as follows:—Horse, cart, and man, 8s.cost of maintenance of cart, harness, shoeing, &c., 1s.5d., making 9s.5d.per day.
With respect to the hand machines he states that he has one of Headley’s drum machines, and three of special make, somewhat similar to those used in Paris. They are equal in point of work; and one machine will water 23,740 square yards twice a day, which, it will be observed, is very close to the amount of work performed by a cart.
“Headley’s machine cost us (he continues), five years ago when new, 31l.7s.3d., and the repairs and maintenance since that date have been 22l., or an average of 4l.8s.per annum, and is just now almost past repair. The other description of hand machine cost each when new 20l., and the repairs and maintenance have amounted to an average of 3l.18s.each year. They were in use some time before Headley’s was obtained, and they will be of use for a long time yet. The cost of labour per day by the hand machines is for two men at 2s.10d.each—5s.8d.—as it requires two men to work the machine properly, one to distribute the water, and the other to move the machine and to attach and detach the apparatus to and from the hydrants; add to this 7d.per day for maintenance and repairs, will make 6s.3d.per day. The quantity of water delivered by the water carts is 0·51 gallons per square yard, and by the hand machine 1·30 gallons.”
It will thus be seen that in the case of the cart 24,324 gallons of water are used per diem, and 61,724 gallons by the hand machines, the surface watered being very nearly the same in both cases. Assuming that the water has a commercial value of 6d.per 1000 gallons, and adding this to the cost per diem in each case, the total cost stands thus:
the advantage in point of cost being in favour of the carts; but the hand machine may water better, especially in broad streets, although in narrow streets or where there is much traffic, this method would be impracticable.
In Paris both hose and carts are used for watering the thoroughfares, the former for the boulevards, the avenues, and a certain number of first-class streets.
The most commonly known method in this country for watering the streets and roads of our towns is that of carrying the water in wheeled barrels, carts, or vans, and distributing it therefrom through a perforated pipe upon the surface of the road as the vehicle is drawn along by a horse attached to the shafts.[171]
The old barrel upon wheels gave place to a cart, and now we have “Bayley’s Patent Hydrostatic Van,” which is too well known to almost all town surveyors to need much description. It holds about 450 gallons of water and takes about 9 minutes to fill (this time of course varying with the size of main and pressure of water), and ten minutes to spread the water upon the surface of the road.
With regard to the work that one of these vans will accomplish in comparison to that effected by an ordinary cart,the following table, compiled from experiments on the question, will be useful:
This shows a mean gain of 26 per cent. in favour of the van, and the following tables, made by an inspector in 1873, showing the actual occupation of the ordinary carts and Bayley’s vans during a day’s work, are extremely interesting, as showing that while the van is engaged in spreading the water the time of the cart is wasted in travelling to and from the stand posts, and when it is borne in mind also that the van spreads water more widely than the cart, there can be no doubt that a saving of at least 30 per cent. can be effected by the substitution of these vans for the old-fashioned cart.
In the year 1856, Mr. Scott, C.E., the Chief Surveyor of the parish of St. Pancras, kept an account of the daily round of an ordinary water cart, when he found that through an average working day of 10¹⁄₄ hours, exclusive of the breakfast and dinner hours, the cart took one hour and twenty minutes filling, fifty minutes only in distributing the water on the roads, and eight hours and seven minutes in travelling to spread the water and back to the stand posts. It was obvious that these were placed too far apart, and by the subsequent introduction of additional standposts Mr. Scott found, in the year 1867, that the filling occupied two hours, the distribution one hour and thirty minutes, and the travelling to and fro six hours and thirty minutes; so that it may be assumed, with an ordinary two-wheeled water cart, that two-thirds of the day is spent in travelling, one fifth in filling, and about one-seventh in the actual spreading. But a watch should be kept upon the man who is engaged in this work, otherwise he will idle away his time and the streets remain unwatered. A good check upon this is Mr. Bayley’s Tell-Tale, which registers automatically on a dial at the side of the van the number of rounds a man goes each day.
Watering the streets with sea water should be adopted whenever it is feasible, as it not only gives a delightful freshness to the air and dispels iodine, but it also causes the surface of the street to maintain its humidity for a longer period than when fresh water is used, as it impregnates the soil with hygrometric matter. This has been often attempted artificially, by adding common salt to the water used for watering, but it is rather too expensive for the benefit derived.[172]
Watering the roads with a largely diluted disinfectantsuch as “Sanitas” in the liquid form, is frequently of great benefit, and where it can be afforded, it should be occasionally done, especially in the narrower streets and more crowded districts of a city or town, or when an epidemic has broken out.
With reference to the very important question as to the cost of scavenging, street-cleansing and watering. It is, of course, not possible to lay down any hard and fast lines, as it must necessarily vary considerably according to circumstances; much depends upon whether the district is an urban one, consisting of houses closely packed together, or whether it is suburban, with scattered villas and mansions standing in their own grounds; the question, also, of the distance of the depôts to which the material has to be carted, considerably affects the result of any estimate, as also does the cost of horse hire, the rate of wages, and whether the district is of a hilly or flat nature, and, as I have before shown, the manner in which the streets are formed and paved, the habits of the people, the requirements as to cleansing streets and watering, and last, but not least, the manner of the eventual disposal of the rubbish after removal; all these points must bear with great weight upon any question of cost, and make the results widely different.
On referring to the returns to which I have more than once alluded, it is found that the cost of removing the house refuse and cleansing and sweeping the streets combined, varies considerably in different localities. In one case the sum amounts only to the rate of one half-penny per annum per head of the population of the town, whereas in another case the amount is at the rate of three shillings and sixpence per head. On calculating the average cost per head of population per annum of the ninety towns from which I received replies on this point, I find that it amounts to about tenpence half-penny, after giving credit for any sum of money realised by the sale of the refuse to farmers and others; so that if this work is costing theratepayers of a town or city anything under a shilling per head of the whole population every year, they have no cause to grumble.
Before closing this chapter I will make a few observations upon the subject of contracts for work of this description.
There is no doubt that the “dust and slopping” contractor is fast going out of fashion,[173]as it has been found that the work is far more carefully and systematically carried out without the intervention of a contractor; for if we turn to the articles of agreement or contract usually drawn up between a sanitary authority and a contractor for scavenging, we find that they must be very binding in their phraseology, and enter fully into the details of the work; they should state very clearly the number of times in every week that the contractor shall cause all the ashpits in the districts enumerated to be emptied and cleansed, the manner in which this work shall be performed, and how the materials thus removed shall be disposed of and the place of their ultimate destination. The conditions should further specify what amount of manual, team labour, and carts, are necessary for the work, and also what plant the contractor must keep in the way of ladders, baskets, shovels, and brooms, &c. The conditions should also contain a carefully prepared list of the streets to be swept, and the manner and number of times this work must be executed, and arrange for the disposal of the materials thus removed.
In many such contracts it is found necessary to insert clauses binding the contractor, under all sorts of penalties, to be always at the disposal of and under the commands of the inspector of nuisances, or such other officer or officers as the sanitary authority may appoint. The contractor’s men alsoare forbidden to accept gratuities, and are directed on no account to remove either trade or garden refuse, and they are also enjoined to be “careful to consult the convenience of the householders in their visits, and to thoroughly clean up all dirt and litter that they may cause in the discharge of their duties. If they fail in any or either of these injunctions and commands, or for any other dereliction of duty, the inspector of nuisances, or such other officer as the sanitary authority shall appoint, may summarily dismiss them, without any reference being made on the subject to their employer the contractor, and in fact the conditions have necessarily to be made so stringent and binding as to be either totally inoperative or open to grave abuses, or, on the other hand, the work can be carelessly and improperly executed by the contractor.
The consequence of such binding clauses is that the officers, if they do their strict duty, will probably be engaged in constant disputes and litigation with the contractor as to the due and proper observance of the terms of his contract, and thus their time is much occupied instead of in other more important matters, which is naturally detrimental to the interests of the ratepayers.
I am strongly of opinion that the work of the collection of house refuse and cleansing the streets should be carried out by the local authority with their own officers and staff, and that executing this work by contract is a mistake and a false economy. It is, perhaps, true that it may be done in the latter manner at less actual cost to the ratepayers, but all public work should be done in the best manner possible, irrespective of cost, thoroughly, but without extravagance, and the result of such work, especially where it affects the cleanliness and the appearance of a town, soon fully repays any moderate extra cost that may thus have been incurred, irrespective of the enormous benefit that is conferred upon any community by the reduction of disease and the death-rate by a proper attention to such necessary sanitary work.
[157]Arural authoritycannot apparently make any byelaw with regard to the prevention of such nuisances.[158]A byelaw under this section “must be limited to imposing upon the occupier the duty of cleansing or removal at such intervals as the sanitary authority may think fit. The mode of cleansing or removal and the precautions to be observed in connection with the process are not matters within the range of such byelaws.”Vide‘Memorandum to the Model Byelaws issued by the Local Government Board for the use of Sanitary Authorities, No. 1, Cleansing of Footways and Pavements, &c.,’ 1877.[159]In Glenn’s ‘Law of Public Health and Local Government,’ 8th edition, in a footnote to section 44, p. 39, several instances are given ofwhat is not refuse, such as ashes from furnaces, &c., and it is stated that “the intention of the Act was that only the rubbish arising from the domestic use of houses should be removed.”[160]The Bromley Local Board issue a card on which is printed, amongst other information with reference to the contract for the removal of house refuse, the following suggestions:—“It is hoped that householders will as far as possible facilitate the systematic removal of refuse by providing suitable dust-bins, and directing their servants that ordinary house refuse only shall be deposited in such receptacles. The following are some of the items of refuse which the contractors are bound to remove, viz.:—cinder ashes, potatoe peelings, cabbage leaves, and kitchen refuse generally. But the contractors are not required to remove the refuse of any trade, manufacture, or business, or of any building materials or any garden cuttings or sweepings.”[161]In New York about 800,000 tons of refuse are disposed of annually in this manner.[162]For a description of the manner in which this is effected at Manchester, see my book on scavenging, to which I havebeforereferred.[163]The ashes are mixed with chaff, chopped straw, refuse hay, grass cuttings, dry street sweepings, wool and hair, shoddy, &c., and a small percentage of sulphate of iron or lime.[164]Professor Tyndall, in his beautiful experiments, has proved that dusty air is alive with the germs of the bacteria of putrefaction, whilst the pure fresh air which he gathered on a mountain peak in the Alps is innocent of such germs, and is absolutely powerless to produce any organisms.[165]Dry dust will absorb about ten times its bulk of water, thus swelling considerably and producing the greasy mud so often seen after rain.[166]In Boston, U.S.A., the macadamised roads are not swept at all, as it is considered that by sweeping off the sand and detritus their durability is much lessened, but their gutters are cleansed as required, and rubbish picked up. (Vide‘Minutes of Proceedings Institution of Civil Engineers,’ vol. lxiii. p. 368.)[167]In Regent Street, London, in November 1881, I saw four loads of mud removed from about 1000 square yards of surface, it being then almost new wood pavement.[168]See note under “Other Obstructions and Nuisances,” p. 155, 8th edition, Glen’s ‘Law of Public Health and Local Government.’[169]Vide‘Report to the Streets Committee of the Honourable the Commissioners of Sewers of the City of London on Melting Snow by Clarke’s Apparatus,’ by William Haywood, Engineer and Surveyor to the Commission, 1881, p. 9.[170]With regard to the removal of snow from the footpaths, it is highly desirable that this should be effected by the occupiers of the premises adjacent to the street, as otherwise it adds immensely to the work of the local authority. The following interesting remarks by the superintendent of the scavenging department of Liverpool will be no doubt read with great interest:“The only way to compass the removal of snow from the footwalks of the principal thoroughfares within a comparatively short time, is by sprinkling them with salt, such as is commonly used for agricultural purposes. It is certain that, unaided by the salt, a sufficient number of men cannot be procured for the emergency of clearing snow from the footways of the most important thoroughfares. It has been stated by medical authorities that the application of salt to snow is detrimental to the health of people who have to walk through the ‘slush’ produced by the mixture, and that the excessive cooling of the air surrounding the places where the application has been made is injurious to delicate persons. It therefore seems that the application of salt to snow should not be undertaken during the day time, but should be commenced not before 11 p.m., nor continued after 6 a.m., and that only such an area of footwalks should be so treated on any one night as the available staff of men can clear by an early hour the following morning.“To sweep snow from the footwalks whilst the fall of snow continues, and especially during business hours, appears to be wasteful and futile, and to apply salt during the same periods may be held to be injurious to health.“That the snow of an ordinary fall can be removed from the footwalks by an application of salt an hour or so before they are scraped is an ascertained fact, except at least when a moderately severe frost has preceded, accompanied, or followed the snow-fall, or when the snow has drifted into extensive accumulations. Were it not for the danger to health by excessive cooling of the air, and for the expense attending the operation, all the impervious pavements could be cleared of snow (unless the fall was a heavy one) in a comparatively short time by a liberal application of salt and the employment of the horse sweeping machines as soon as the snow had become sufficiently softened to admit of their use.”[171]In the metropolis of London alone, the watering of the streets and roads employs, in addition to a staff of inspectors and foremen, about 1500 men, and an equal number of horses and carts; and in order to lay the dust effectually, about 30,000 tons of water must be spread upon the streets every dry day, the cost of this gigantic work being nearly 200,000l.per annum upon an average of 120 days when watering becomes necessary.[172]In Rouen, where chloride of calcium is obtained from the manufactories of pyroligneous acid in the neighbourhood, it is mixed with the water for use on the roads, and it is stated that on a mile of road, 16 feet in width, 5630 gallons of water were necessary daily, but that the same result was attained with 1480 gallons of chloride solution, marking 30° Baumé, and costing about ¹⁄₂d.per gallon, the humectation remaining good for five or six days with the solution of chloride. With water only in 1093 yards, in four rounds daily, 3520 gallons were used, the cost being 48s.; with chloride of calcium the cost was 32s.per day.[173]Amongst the questions which I addressed to the surveyors of the principal towns of England in 1879 was the following:—“Is the house refuse collected by the sanitary authority or by a contractor?” and out of the ninety towns from which I received replies, only thirty were found to employ contractors for this purpose, and of these the authorities of two of them proposed to dispense with the services of the contractor, and to administrate the work with their own staff, as they found the existing state of things was thoroughly unsatisfactory.
[157]Arural authoritycannot apparently make any byelaw with regard to the prevention of such nuisances.
[158]A byelaw under this section “must be limited to imposing upon the occupier the duty of cleansing or removal at such intervals as the sanitary authority may think fit. The mode of cleansing or removal and the precautions to be observed in connection with the process are not matters within the range of such byelaws.”Vide‘Memorandum to the Model Byelaws issued by the Local Government Board for the use of Sanitary Authorities, No. 1, Cleansing of Footways and Pavements, &c.,’ 1877.
[159]In Glenn’s ‘Law of Public Health and Local Government,’ 8th edition, in a footnote to section 44, p. 39, several instances are given ofwhat is not refuse, such as ashes from furnaces, &c., and it is stated that “the intention of the Act was that only the rubbish arising from the domestic use of houses should be removed.”
[160]The Bromley Local Board issue a card on which is printed, amongst other information with reference to the contract for the removal of house refuse, the following suggestions:—“It is hoped that householders will as far as possible facilitate the systematic removal of refuse by providing suitable dust-bins, and directing their servants that ordinary house refuse only shall be deposited in such receptacles. The following are some of the items of refuse which the contractors are bound to remove, viz.:—cinder ashes, potatoe peelings, cabbage leaves, and kitchen refuse generally. But the contractors are not required to remove the refuse of any trade, manufacture, or business, or of any building materials or any garden cuttings or sweepings.”
[161]In New York about 800,000 tons of refuse are disposed of annually in this manner.
[162]For a description of the manner in which this is effected at Manchester, see my book on scavenging, to which I havebeforereferred.
[163]The ashes are mixed with chaff, chopped straw, refuse hay, grass cuttings, dry street sweepings, wool and hair, shoddy, &c., and a small percentage of sulphate of iron or lime.
[164]Professor Tyndall, in his beautiful experiments, has proved that dusty air is alive with the germs of the bacteria of putrefaction, whilst the pure fresh air which he gathered on a mountain peak in the Alps is innocent of such germs, and is absolutely powerless to produce any organisms.
[165]Dry dust will absorb about ten times its bulk of water, thus swelling considerably and producing the greasy mud so often seen after rain.
[166]In Boston, U.S.A., the macadamised roads are not swept at all, as it is considered that by sweeping off the sand and detritus their durability is much lessened, but their gutters are cleansed as required, and rubbish picked up. (Vide‘Minutes of Proceedings Institution of Civil Engineers,’ vol. lxiii. p. 368.)
[167]In Regent Street, London, in November 1881, I saw four loads of mud removed from about 1000 square yards of surface, it being then almost new wood pavement.
[168]See note under “Other Obstructions and Nuisances,” p. 155, 8th edition, Glen’s ‘Law of Public Health and Local Government.’
[169]Vide‘Report to the Streets Committee of the Honourable the Commissioners of Sewers of the City of London on Melting Snow by Clarke’s Apparatus,’ by William Haywood, Engineer and Surveyor to the Commission, 1881, p. 9.
[170]With regard to the removal of snow from the footpaths, it is highly desirable that this should be effected by the occupiers of the premises adjacent to the street, as otherwise it adds immensely to the work of the local authority. The following interesting remarks by the superintendent of the scavenging department of Liverpool will be no doubt read with great interest:
“The only way to compass the removal of snow from the footwalks of the principal thoroughfares within a comparatively short time, is by sprinkling them with salt, such as is commonly used for agricultural purposes. It is certain that, unaided by the salt, a sufficient number of men cannot be procured for the emergency of clearing snow from the footways of the most important thoroughfares. It has been stated by medical authorities that the application of salt to snow is detrimental to the health of people who have to walk through the ‘slush’ produced by the mixture, and that the excessive cooling of the air surrounding the places where the application has been made is injurious to delicate persons. It therefore seems that the application of salt to snow should not be undertaken during the day time, but should be commenced not before 11 p.m., nor continued after 6 a.m., and that only such an area of footwalks should be so treated on any one night as the available staff of men can clear by an early hour the following morning.
“To sweep snow from the footwalks whilst the fall of snow continues, and especially during business hours, appears to be wasteful and futile, and to apply salt during the same periods may be held to be injurious to health.
“That the snow of an ordinary fall can be removed from the footwalks by an application of salt an hour or so before they are scraped is an ascertained fact, except at least when a moderately severe frost has preceded, accompanied, or followed the snow-fall, or when the snow has drifted into extensive accumulations. Were it not for the danger to health by excessive cooling of the air, and for the expense attending the operation, all the impervious pavements could be cleared of snow (unless the fall was a heavy one) in a comparatively short time by a liberal application of salt and the employment of the horse sweeping machines as soon as the snow had become sufficiently softened to admit of their use.”
[171]In the metropolis of London alone, the watering of the streets and roads employs, in addition to a staff of inspectors and foremen, about 1500 men, and an equal number of horses and carts; and in order to lay the dust effectually, about 30,000 tons of water must be spread upon the streets every dry day, the cost of this gigantic work being nearly 200,000l.per annum upon an average of 120 days when watering becomes necessary.
[172]In Rouen, where chloride of calcium is obtained from the manufactories of pyroligneous acid in the neighbourhood, it is mixed with the water for use on the roads, and it is stated that on a mile of road, 16 feet in width, 5630 gallons of water were necessary daily, but that the same result was attained with 1480 gallons of chloride solution, marking 30° Baumé, and costing about ¹⁄₂d.per gallon, the humectation remaining good for five or six days with the solution of chloride. With water only in 1093 yards, in four rounds daily, 3520 gallons were used, the cost being 48s.; with chloride of calcium the cost was 32s.per day.
[173]Amongst the questions which I addressed to the surveyors of the principal towns of England in 1879 was the following:—“Is the house refuse collected by the sanitary authority or by a contractor?” and out of the ninety towns from which I received replies, only thirty were found to employ contractors for this purpose, and of these the authorities of two of them proposed to dispense with the services of the contractor, and to administrate the work with their own staff, as they found the existing state of things was thoroughly unsatisfactory.
The Public Health Act 1875 contains a considerable number of clauses dealing with the subject of the sewers of a town, but two of the shortest sections in the whole Act, and yet those that involve a considerable amount of work in the town surveyor’s department, are the following:
“Every local authority shall keep in repair[174]all sewers belonging to them, and shall cause to be made such sewers as may be necessary for effectually draining their district for the purposes of this Act”[175](38 & 39 Vic. c. 55, s. 15).
“Every local authority shall cause the sewers belonging to them to be constructed, covered, ventilated,[176]and kept so as not to be a nuisance or injurious to health, and to be properly cleansed and emptied”[177](38 & 39 Vic. c. 55, s. 19).
As to what sewers do “belong” to the local authority, the following section of the Public Health Act 1875 states:
“All existing and future sewers within the district of a local authority, together with all buildings, works, materials, and things belonging thereto,
“Except
“(1.) Sewers made by any person for his own profit, or by any company for the profit of the shareholders; and
“(2.) Sewers made and used for the purpose of draining, preserving, or improving land under any local or private Act of Parliament, or for the purpose of irrigating land; and
“(3.) Sewers under the authority of any commissioners of sewers appointed by the Crown,
shall vest in and be under the control of such local authority.
“Provided that sewers within the district of a local authority which have been, or which may hereafter be constructed by or transferred to some other local authority, or by or to a sewage board or other authority empowered under any Act of Parliament to construct sewers, shall (subject to any agreement to the contrary) vest in and be under the control of the authority who constructed the same, or to whom the same have been transferred” (38 & 39 Vic. c. 55, s. 13).
And as to the definition of the word “sewer,” the same Act states:
“‘Sewer’ includes sewers and drains of every description, except drains to which the word ‘drain’[178]interpreted as aforesaid applies, and except drains vested in or under the control of any authority having the management of roads and not being a local authority under this Act.”
The result of this acquisition by the local authority of the sewers in their district is, that in most of the old cities and towns a legacy of very defective and imperfect sewers has been inherited, and considerable expense in their repair and maintenance has thus been entailed.
A great number of books have been written on the subject of sewerage, and much valuable information has been published from time to time, so that it almost seems superfluous to say much upon the subject; however, a few remarks which are particularly applicable to the work of a town surveyor may be of some service.
The wordseweragemay be taken as meaning a system of sewers carryingsewagewhich is the fluid and feculent refuse from dwellings and their yards, &c. Sewage is generally found mixed with rain water from the surface of the streets and roofs of houses, together with the liquid waste products from manufactories,[179]and sometimes, although very improperly, with subsoil water.
A good system of sewerage should embrace the whole of the followingrequirements:—
(1.) Each sewer should be laid at such a depth as will readily drain the basements of the adjoining buildings.
(2.) Its area and gradient must be so regulated as to make it self-cleansing, and at the same time carry off effectively the maximum quantity of liquid for which it is intended.[180]
(3.) Each sewer should (unless quite impracticable) be laid in straight lines and with even gradients between man- or lamp-holes, and these gradients must not be excessive, ordamage may be caused to the sewer. A velocity of about 6 feet per second is sufficient.
(4.) Sewers must be laid at proper levels in respect of their intersection with each other, bearing in mind that they are all generally converging to one point.
(5.) Manholes should be of simple construction; circular brickwork upon concrete is a convenient description. They may be made to serve the additional purposes of ventilating shafts, flushing chambers, junction shafts, storm overflows, and side entrances.
(6.) Tributary sewers or drains should not join the main sewers at right angles unless the bottom of the manhole is so constructed as to give the required curve in the direction of the flow of the sewage, and they should join at a height (if of unequal section) equal to the difference of their sectional diameters, the aim of all junctions being to cause as little disturbance as possible in the proper flow of the liquids along their respective channels.
(7.) Sewers should not be constructed of too large a sectional area, but none should be less than 6 inches internal diameter, as house-drains in this country are never less than 4 inches diameter, and the main sewer should of course be larger than its tributaries. It is also rather difficult to ventilate a smaller sewer than 6 inches, and very little is saved by putting in a smaller sewer than that.
Stoneware pipes of greater diameter than 18 inches should never be used. Where larger sewers are constructed they should be either concrete pipes,[181]or brickwork or concrete should be employed.
The position of the sewer should, if possible, be behind the houses for the followingreasons:—
(1.) The waterclosets, sinks, &c., being nearly always atthe back, a drain under the house (which is always objectionable) is avoided.
(2.) Economy is secured to the owner of the property, as a shorter length of drain is required than if the sewer was in the front.
(3.) A better fall is usually obtained.
(4.) Where there is a separate or partially separate system of sewerage, a double sewer in the street is avoided.
The only objection to this method being that of the chance of the sewer becoming choked or broken when entry has to be made into private property to repair it, but this ought never to happen after once the sewer has been properly constructed. Of course, where houses are closely packed together it would not be possible to carry the sewer at the back, but where it can be done I agree thoroughly with Mr. Rawlinson, C.B., C.E., &c., who, speaking of this method, says, “I know nothing but good of it.”
Where the sewer is proposed to be taken through any private lands it is necessary to act in accordance with the following clause of the Public Health Act 1875, and serve the necessary notices, a specimen form of which also follows:
“Any local authority may carry any sewer through, across, or under any turnpike road, or any street or place laid out as or intended for a street, or under any cellar or vault which may be under the pavement or carriageway of any street, and, after giving reasonable notice in writing to the owner or occupier (if on the report of the surveyor it appears necessary), into, through, or under any lands[182]whatsoever within their district. They may also (subject to the provisions of this Act relating to sewage works without the district of the local authority) exercise all or any of the powers given by this section withouttheir district for the purposes of outfall or distribution of sewage” (38 & 39 Vic. c. 55, s. 16).
The form of notice necessary to be served before entry upon any lands for the purpose of carrying out any sewerage works may be on the followingpattern:—