CONCEPTS COVERED

⮚ Primary and Secondary collection

EL
⮚ Waste collection system for individual generators
⮚ Waste collection criteria

PT
⮚ Management information system for waste collection and transportation

N
⮚ Waste collection, transportation and disposal for different waste streams
Primary & Secondary collection

Primary collection: Removal of segregated/unsegregated solid waste from source of its generation and transferring it to
a storage depot/transfer station/disposal site/waste processing center.
Depend on:
 Size of the city
 Waste management system
Separate collection system for separate waste streams or fractions

EL
Secondary collection: Removal of waste from community bins/waste storage depots and transporting it to

PT
a transfer station/waste processing center/disposal site.
Secondary storage:

N
 Provision for segregated waste storage (separate covered bins)
 Frequency of collection: Daily or before capacity is expended

Tertiary collection system: When distance between secondary storage and disposal
sites/waste processing and treatment facilities is more than 15 km then transfer stations are
provided for consolidating waste.
Primary & Secondary collection
Primary collection:
 Waste collected by non-motorized or motorized
vehicles
 Motorized vehicles can directly transfer waste
to transfer station/disposal site/waste
processing center instead of secondary storage.
 Non-motorized vehicles are suitable for transfer

EL
to waste storage depots(secondary storage)

PT
Secondary collection:
 Larger capacity vehicles

N
 From secondary storage/tertiary
collection point to the waste
processing/disposal.
 Vehicle design (transfer quantity of
waste, travel distance, road widths,
road conditions, maintenance facilities)
Waste collection system from individual generators
Communal Storage and Collection
• Generator travels certain distance to dispose waste
• The street cleaning service is responsible for collection and
prevention of littering
• Willingness of the generator to walk a certain distance
• Masonry enclosures, concrete bins are inefficient (manual removal,
large vehicle waiting time)

EL
Kerbside Collection
• The generator sets the waste container outside and retrieves it later Kerbside Collection

PT
• Standard containers for automatic lifting operation

N
Block Collection
• The generator delivers the wastes to the vehicle at the time of
collection and have to walk to the collection point Door-to-door
• Collection needs to be frequent Collection in
Door-to-door Collection India
• Waste is collected from each generator/premise
Waste collection criteria
 Synchronized primary and secondary waste
collection and transportation system
 Operation logistics should be planned (otherwise
overflow and waste littering)
 Compatibility between storage bins, associated
equipment with transport vehicles
 Segregated waste transport either in same vehicle
Each step involves manpower, equipment, time, cost
 Travel to and from the collection area
 Collection
Transfer/Lifting of waste(transfer of the
wastes from storage to collection vehicles
Travel(between successive collection points)
 Delivery (Transfer of the contents of the vehicle

EL
or in different vehicles to the processing or the disposal site)
 Vehicles used for transport should be covered to

PT
avoid spillage on road
 Similarly, leachate should not leak en-route

N
To ensure proper composting and recycling:
 Street sweeping waste include toxic substance(heavy metals) and should not be mixed
with residential waste streams
 Silt from drains include pathogens and should be handled separately as well.
Waste collection criteria
 Waste collection and transportation contribute significantly to the cost of MSWM services
 System design is as per waste generators, waste quantities and waste composition
 Optimizing the collection and transfer operations
Choice of frequency
Choice of collection vehicle
Choice of vehicle design
Choice of route
 Equitable distribution of workload

EL
 Vehicle utilization (2 shifts possible) to reduce fleet size and increase vehicle productivity
 Transportation and collection of waste at night (In congested areas)

PT
 Solutions as per local context

N
Advantages Disadvantages
Community bin Less cost intensive than D-to-D collection Illegal waste disposal
collection
24-hour availability Resistance from neighbors (“not in my
Convenient for households backyard”)
Door-to-door Segregated collection of waste Nuisance from animals and vermin
collection
Prevention of littering Fixed collection times
Reduction of community bin Increased costs
Management Information System for waste collection and transportation
 Day-to-day performance monitoring
 Daily report generation
Allotment of sanitary workers to tasks (scheduling including substitution)
Daily reporting of workers, supervisors and drivers
Vehicle inventory and status
Quantity of waste transported, treated and disposed

EL
This helps in planning future operations, making payments to contract workers, monitoring operations
by SHG, NGOs and private contractors.

PT
 To make these systems operate efficiently lot of data is required including spatial information

N
 GIS software is utilized to maintain and manage these data and even plan vehicular routes and to track
waste transportation vehicles
Geographic information system (GIS)
Global Positioning System (GPS)
Radio frequency identification (RFID)
General packet radio services (GPRS
Waste Collection, Transportation and Disposal for different waste streams (Source: CPHEEO(2016))

PRIMARY COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SITE

SECONDARY COLLECTION AND TRANSPORTATION TRANSFER STATION AND PROCESSING SITE
TRANSPORTATION

Windrow
Door to Door Directly to transfer composting or
collection station or vermicompost
processing facility ●Sorting Residue from
ing
(compactor, hook ●Compaction processing
Hand cart or plant.
tricycle (6 or 8 Waste loader, dumper, Bio gas
placer, skip leader, biodegradable Inert waste
bins) collection Transfer waste
bins mini truck to be
Primary station (if the

EL
(biodegradab mounted) disposed at
segregated Directly distance is
through small le and non landfill.
waste more than 15 Non-biodegradable Recyclable
covered biodegradabl To secondary
collection kms) waste market

PT
mechanized e waste] collection vehicle
at doorstep (compactor, hook
vehicles having
partition for loader, dumper, ●Material RDF
collection of placer, skip leader, recovery

N
mini truck ●Compaction Waste to
organic and
mounted) energy
inorganic
waste.

Landfill
Large Primary Collection Material
C& D waste Rejects
bin recovery

Large Composting Rejects

Yard/garden waste Primary Collection Landfill
(Local use bin
Waste Collection, Transportation and Disposal for different waste streams
Green Secondary Rejects
Biodegradable Waste Processing Site Landfill (Source: CPHEEO(2016))
Primary collection Bin Collection Vehicle
of waste from
streets Non - Biodegradable White
Skip Loader
Waste Bin
Landfill
Secondary
Collection Vehicle

Black
Drainage Cleaning Skip Loader
Bins

EL
Landfill
Skip Loader

PT
Green Dumper Placer, Rejects
Biodegradable Waste Composting
Bin Compactor, Hook Loader

Waste from Non - Biodegradable White Dumper Placer, Processing Plant Rejects

N
Landfill
Vegetable Market Waste Bin Compactor, Hook Loader (RDF/WTE)

Black Dumper Placer, Skip Loader,

Others
Bin Refuse Collector Tractor

Green Rejects
Biodegradable Waste Secondary Collection Composting
Bin
Bulk Generators Landfill
Non - Biodegradable White Processing Plant
Secondary Collection Rejects
Waste Bin (MRF/RDF/WTE)
REFERENCES

1. CPHEEO(2016), Municipal Solid Waste Management Manual, Ministry of Urban Development,

EL
Government of India (Part 1, 2 and 3)

PT
2. Niti Aayog(2021), WASTE-WISE CITIES Best practices in municipal solid waste management
3. Solid waste Management, UNEP(2005)

N
 CONCLUSIONS

 Primary, secondary and tertiary collection is the most cost intensive part of MSWM.
 Collection systems have to be designed and optimized as per the different waste streams

EL
and disposal and treatment strategies adopted by the ULB.

PT
 All the stages of the collection system has to be compatible with each other and
synchronized to reduce cost and inconvenience of the common people.

N
N
PT
EL
KEY POINTS

⮚ Primary and Secondary collection

EL
⮚ Waste collection system for individual generators
⮚ Waste collection criteria

PT
⮚ Management information system for waste transportation

N
⮚ Waste collection, transportation and disposal for different waste streams
 EL
PT
Urban Services Planning

N
Dr. DEBAPRATIM PANDIT
ARCHITECTURE AND REGIONAL PLANNING, IIT KHARAGPUR
Module 04: Waste collection planning for urban areas
Lecture 22 : Primary and Secondary waste collection Part 2
CONCEPTS COVERED

⮚ Primary collection: Vehicles and equipment

EL
⮚ Secondary collection: Vehicles and equipment
⮚ Transfer stations

PT
⮚ Types of transfer station

N
⮚ Case study: Transfer station
⮚ Suggested collection, transportation, processing and disposal plan for MSW for ULBs
Primary collection: Vehicles and equipment
Door-door collection of segregated waste:
 Containerized handcart/pushcart
 Tricycles with or without hydraulic tipping containers
 Light commercial vehicles with or without hydraulic tipping containers
 Mini trucks with international standard garbage collection bins
Kerb side collection: Compactor vehicles, Tipping vehicles

EL
Selection of vehicle:
As per waste composition and quantity and frequency of collection, climate,

PT
topography, street width, building density and repair and maintenance facilities.

N
Containerized handcart:
Capacity: 4 to 6 containers of 40 to 60l capacity.
Container color as per waste type
Suitable for narrow lanes (Source: CPHEEO(2016))
Universal design standard garbage handling bins.
Also used for collection of street sweepings
Bins or containers should be be easily unloaded into secondary storage or transport vehicles
Primary collection: Vehicles and equipment
Tricycles:
Capacity: 6 to 8 containers of 40 to 60 l capacity
Faster than handcards and allows carrying of larger quantity
and a longer distance
Hydraulic tipping containers are also attached
Containers: Mild steel epoxy painted and 350l (140 kg per trip).

EL
LCVs (Mini Trucks) with Hydraulic Tipping Containers:

PT
Lane width should be at least 5m
Capacity: 600–900 kg per trip

N
Size upto: 3 m3 capacity (Source: CPHEEO(2016))
(Source: Niti
Load height: 1,500 mm from the ground level. Aayog(2021))
Container: Mild steel body with drainage tube and plug to
prevent leak.
The tipper is attached to the chassis.
Four openings(two on each side) to facilitate transfer of waste.
Central removable partition (segregated waste)
Primary collection: Vehicles and equipment
Mini Trucks with International Standard Bins:
Bins allow loading height of 1,200mm
Capacity: 8 bins of minimum 240 l
4 green containers for wet waste and 4 blue containers for dry waste.
Equipment:
Clause 15: Duties and responsibilities of local authorities:

EL
“ensure that the operator of a facility provides personal protection equipment including
uniform, fluorescent jacket, hand gloves, raincoats, appropriate foot wear and masks to all

PT
workers handling solid waste and the same are used by the workforce”

N
Bin-less area or city
 Synchronized transfer between primary collection and secondary collection
 No requirement for secondary storage bins or depots
 Segregation level has to be considered
 Secondary collection vehicles are parked at fixed locations
 Logistics and planning in making adequate vehicles available
e.g., Kochi and Nashik Municipal Corporations
Secondary collection: Vehicles and equipment
Tractor-trailer
 Trailers capacity: 6 m3
 Transported when full by an agricultural tractor (speed 15 km/hr)
 Theoretical trailer requirement: 2 per tractor, one stationary (at the transfer point)
 1 trailer exchange 6 times/day supports 40 collectors serving 45,000 people in an area of
1 km2 (Higher density more trailers are required) Open lorries
 Lower density then more transfer points same number of collectors

EL
PT
Skip Truck (Dumper Placer)
 Transport skips (dumper bins) of different sizes
 Skip sizes: 2.5m3 , 3m3 , 4.5m3, 7m3

N
 5/6 trips in 8 hour shift (Trip one way distance: 15 km)
 Used for C&D waste transportation
 Empty skip placed at storage depot and full skip lifted
and transported
 Lifting mechanism: Handle waste density of 1,000 kg/m3
 Twin dumper placers are also used Twin dumper placer
(Source: CPHEEO(2016))
Secondary collection: Vehicles and equipment
Refuse Collector without Compactor Hook loader or hook lifter (Source: CPHEEO(2016))

 Capacity: 6 to 15 m3 capacity For larger containers

 Loading of waste: Lifting of bins via hydraulic system
 Currently being replaced by compactor trucks

Rear Loading Compactor Trucks

 From storage depot to larger transfer stations/treatment

EL
centers/disposal sites Compactor
 Loading hopper: Ability to unload tipper vehicles and hand carts truck

PT
 Compaction capability:800 and 900kg/m3 .
 Small compactor: 5–6m3 for 4.5–5.5 tonnes of waste per trip

N
 Medium compactor: 8–10m3 for 7–7.5 tonnes of waste per trip
 Large compactor: 12–16m3 for 10–12 tonnes of waste per trip

Light Commercial Vehicle with Tipping Floor

Donot allow direct transfer of waste to secondary collection vehicles
Simple hydraulic tipping trailers to avoid manual unload
Split-level sites can be considered
Transfer stations
Transfer stations are required:
Cost of direct haul to disposal/treatment site by secondary collection vehicles > Cost of haul by secondary
collection vehicles to transfer station + Additional haul using large bulk-haul transfer vehicles to
disposal/treatment site + Cost of infrastructure and transfer facility + Modified infrastructure at
processing/disposal site

Short Haul transfer (Involves more number of vehicles and drivers)

EL
Long Haul transfer (Involves less number of vehicles and drivers)
Fuel use and capital cost varies as per vehicle size

PT
Cost of haul: Running cost of vehicle + Cost of manpower + Capital cost of vehicle
Rule of thumb: Large cities where disposal/processing sites >15 km(30 minutes) away from the collection area

N
Transfer station also known as tertiary storage depot
Material recovery facility(Sorting of recyclables for further processing or to market)

Large containers (15 to 25 m3) are used in transfer stations

Types of transfer stations (Source: CPHEEO(2016))

Direct Unloading
Two-level arrangement: Ramp is provided
 Collection vehicles drives up the ramp and using tipping gear discharge waste to waiting
vehicle(larger) (Direct transfer system)
 Suitable for small scale < 300 TPD (Or vehicle requirement will increase)
 Most collection vehicles start arriving within a limited time window of 1-2 hours
 Infrastructure cost is low since only civil works and stationary equipment are required

EL
Unloading-to-Storage:
Two/Three-level arrangement

PT
(Source: UNEP(2005))
 Collection vehicles discharge into a storage area.
 Storage area and unloading area may be at same

N
level or different level.
 Storage size adequate for peak load for 1 day.
 From storage to a hopper or a conveyor
 Waste pushed by a bulldozer or,
picked by a crane
 Some basic waste
sorting can be done here (Source: CPHEEO(2016))
 Case study Municipal
Corporation
Three-level arrangement of Faridabad

(Source: CPHEEO(2016))
Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation
3 transfer stations, Storage area(1 hour) on upper deck 30 Tons per hour

EL
Heavy-duty high compaction compactor(35 TPH)
Hopper, Trailer-type hook loader

PT
(Source: UNEP(2005))
Container size: 20 m3 , Weighbridge capacity:40 T
Design :200 tons compacted waste per day, Area: 1.55 acres

N
(Source: CPHEEO(2016))
Suggested collection, transportation, processing and disposal plan for MSW for ULBs
Populati Generation Primary collection (D2D) – Secondary collection Processing, Recovering Disposal at (Source: CPHEEO(2016))
on (Tonnes/ equipment's and vehicles (street waste) and recycling common/
Day) regional landfill
Upto 2 – 2.5 TPD D2D – handcarts & tricycles 3-4 m3 containers – 4/ km2 Decentralised – Inert only –
50,000 per 10,000 Wet and Dry bins of 10-15 lt or 1 per 5,000 population composting or biogas – transported to
population capacity Tractor having container for biodegradable and common or
2 community bins of 60/ 120/ lifting device recyclable waste regional landfill
240 lt or 1.1m3 capacity Town level processing (in facility
Bulk generators – 120/ 240 lt absence of decentralised

EL
capacity facility)
Contract with pvt. firm, RWA 1 tractor per 10,000
and NGO population

PT
50,000 10 – 30 80% HHs – tractor or covered 100% street sweeping 50% decentralised Inert only from
to TPD @ 250 LCV for D2D collection – 1 collected in hand carts – 3-4 processing – if suitable processing

N
1,00,000 gm/ vehicle per 1,500 HHs, shops m3 containers – placed at 4/ space is available facility
capita/ day etc. km2 or 1 per 5,000 Domestic and trade Street sweeping
20% HHs – tricycles or population waste – at centralised and silt from the
handcarts for narrow lanes (1 Lifted by tractors or twin facility with resource drains – may be
per 200 units) – D2D bin dumper placers recovery – if space is not landfilled
Direct transfer from tricycle to available
tractor or LCV to processing
facility

D2D – Door to Door | LCV – Light Commercial Vehicle | TPD – Tonnes per Day | HHs - Households
Suggested collection, transportation, processing and disposal plan for MSW for ULBs
Populati Generation Primary collection (D2D) – Secondary collection Processing, Recovering Disposal at (Source: CPHEEO(2016))
on (Tonnes/ equipment's and vehicles (street waste) and recycling common/
Day) regional landfill
1,00,000 25 – 150 75% D2D collection – LCV Street sweeping and silt – 100% D2D collection – Inert street
to TPD covered collected in containerised processed at sweeping, silt
5,00,000 25% D2D – tricycles and handcarts and taken to decentralised sites (if from drains and
handcrafts secondary storage – 1.1 to 4 available) or at one residual waste
5 – 10 150 – 400
Direct transport if distance is m3 containers facility from processing
lakhs TPD
under 5km; or using Placed at 4/ km2 or 1 per Composting, biogas, or plans to be

EL
compactors (if longer) 5,000 – lifted by twin bin RDF facilities may be landfilled
Compactors – to be deployed dumper placers or refuge created

PT
based on volume or weight of collector or compactor
waste machines
Dumper placers and
Above 400 TPD Additional to the elements in In addition to

N
compactors to be deployed
10 lakhs and above the above two categories; composting, bio gas or
– based on volume and
Large containers of more than RDF, Waste-to-energy
weight of waste
10 tonne capacity with hook power plants may be
loaders may be deployed for installed, as power plants
bulk transfer of waste will not be viable if waste
is less than 500TPD

D2D – Door to Door | LCV – Light Commercial Vehicle | TPD – Tonnes per Day | HHs - Households
REFERENCES

1. CPHEEO(2016), Municipal Solid Waste Management Manual, Ministry of Urban Development,

EL
Government of India (Part 1, 2 and 3)

PT
2. Niti Aayog(2021), WASTE-WISE CITIES Best practices in municipal solid waste management
3. Solid waste Management, UNEP(2005)

N
 CONCLUSIONS

 MSW collection and transportation needs to be synchronized among the different stages
of waste collection and transportation.

EL
 Vehicles are selected as per waste composition and quantity, frequency of collection,
topography, street width, building density and repair and maintenance facilities.

PT
N
N
PT
EL
KEY POINTS

⮚ Primary collection: Vehicles and equipment

EL
⮚ Secondary collection: Vehicles and equipment
⮚ Bin-less area or city

PT
⮚ Transfer stations

N
⮚ Types of transfer station
⮚ Case study: Transfer station
⮚ Suggested collection, transportation, processing and disposal plan for MSW for ULBs
 EL
PT
Urban Services Planning

N
Dr. DEBAPRATIM PANDIT
ARCHITECTURE AND REGIONAL PLANNING, IIT KHARAGPUR
Module 04: Waste collection planning for urban areas
Lecture 23 : Primary and Secondary waste collection Part 3
CONCEPTS COVERED

⮚ Door to door collection system design

EL
⮚ D-to-D collection system design criteria
⮚ Cost and time calculation

PT
⮚ Labor productivity vs vehicle productivity

N
⮚ Case study: Waste Collection proposal for Alipurduar Planning Area (Class Planning exercise)
⮚ Case study
Door to door collection system design
As per SWM Rules 2016: Duties and responsibilities of local authorities and village Panchayats of census towns and
urban agglomerations
“arrange for door to door collection of segregated solid waste from all households including slums and informal
settlements, commercial, institutional and other non residential premises. From multi-storage buildings, large
commercial complexes, malls, housing complexes, etc., this may be collected from the entry gate or any other
designated location”

EL
Informal waste collectors

PT
Self help groups
Community involvement

N
Private sector participation

Collection operation and logistics

Design of a collection system involves manpower, equipment, time, cost
Appropriate choices as per context
D-to-D collection system design criteria
Area characteristics
Terrain
Road network (Route choice)
Population density
Building density
Location of secondary storage/transfer stations

EL
These facilities may require additional area for equipment storage, parking space for collection
vehicles, places required for assembling and controlling of collectors.

PT
Locations of these storage depots: Minimize travel time between depot and working area
Waste characteristics

N
Waste quantity
Waste bulk density
Waste composition and segregation strategy
Waste collection frequency (Climate and existing fleet)
Heat and humidity results in faster decomposition
Daily collection of organic waste to protect public health and safety, and the environment
D-to-D collection system design criteria
Distribution pattern of collection services
 Urban poor and slum areas receive minimal solid waste collection services
 Lack of urban planning, road network and dense traffic makes it difficult to reach these areas
 Illegal settlements and do not pay any municipal taxes
 Service cost and Willingness to play
Low Income Group Middle Income Group High Income Group

EL
• Sporadic and inefficient • Improved service and increased collection • Collection rate greater than 90 percent
• Service is limited to high from residential areas • Compactor trucks and highly mechanized

PT
visibility areas • Larger vehicle fleet and more mechanization vehicles are common

N
Appropriate technology choice
 Standard collection vehicle design(& frequency design) considering cost-efficient operation
and maintenance
 Vehicles for low-density areas may not be efficient for high-density areas
 Economic lifetime of collection vehicles
 Incorrect balance between labor and equipment
 Containers of a standard size
 Cost and time calculation
Travel to and from the collection area to secondary storage)
Vehicle capacity(has to return when filled, appropriate vehicle size choice)
Collection
Transfer/Lifting of waste (transfer of the wastes from waste containers to collection vehicles)
(Design of vehicles, segregation of waste)
Travel (between successive collection points, building density determines number of stops)
Delivery (Transfer of the contents of the vehicle to the secondary storage/processing unit/disposal site)

EL
(Equipment and method of transfer)
(Source:

PT
Example: Productivity
UNEP(2005))

Average Speed Travel Time Total time/ Quantity Weight Dwellings

N
Alternative (km/hr) (min) Load (kg/day) (kg/worker/day) (no/worker/day)

Hand Cart 3 40 5 hr, 12 min 875 437 219

Motorized tricycle 20 6 4 hr, 38 min 1050 525 262

Vehicle capacity is 700 kg (350 dwellings) In this case:

Time/ load. 2 crew at 40 dwellings/worker/hr is 4 hr, 22 min. The minimum population density for the use of
Distance is 2 km, time to unload is 10 min. handcarts:7,000 people /sq. km.
Labor productivity vs vehicle productivity
⮚ These are two key matrices in choosing an appropriate waste collection system design
⮚ Productivity is linked with cost(labor cost, cost of vehicle, cost of supporting equipment and infrastructure)
⮚ Aesthetic, health and environment concerns
Productivity In this case:
Quantity Community bin(container): Highest
No. of No. of Dwellings Quantity (Kg)
Method Frequency / Point productivity
Crew Worker/ Vehicle/ Worker/ Vehicle/
(Kg) Block collection(Freq. 2 days):
Day Day Day Day
Moderate productivity

EL
Door-to-door once/ day 2 6 160 960 300 2,000
Door-to-door every 4 days 7 6 140 840 1,000 6,000 D-to-D collection (Motor vehicle
and large crew): Least productive

PT
Door-to-door once/ week 14 6 120 720 1,700 10,000
Kerbside once/ day 2 4 300 1,200 600 2,400 D-to-D(Freq. 2 days): Will
Kerbside every 4 days 7 4 250 1,000 1,800 7,000 improve productivity

N
Kerbside once/ week 14 4 200 800 2,800 11,000
Block every 2 days 4 per hh 2 850 1,700 3,500 7,000 (Source: UNEP(2005))
Communal enclosures once/ day 3,000 5 700 3,500 1,400 7,000
Communal conc. bins once/ day 300 5 600 3,000 1,200 6,000
Communal 200-L drums once/ day 50 2 2,500 5,000 5,000 10,000
(a) Based on waste generation of 2 kg/dwelling (330 g/person/day for a family of six)
Case study: Waste Collection proposal for Alipurduar Planning Area (Class Planning exercise)
Primary collection and Transportation

Waste collected from different zones has to be first collected at the transfer stations directly
Transfer points are required because the distance between waste collection and final waste disposal is more than 15 km
for both Alipurduar and Jaigaon Planning area as per MSWM.

EL
The waste from the transfer station is then transported to the final disposal location (landfill cum composting site)

PT
Light motorized vehicle with 2 cu.m capacity is proposed to be used for D-to D collection for the entire planning
area as there are several narrow roads which cannot covered by bigger vehicles and the density of many

N
settlements are low

The Alipurduar Planning area was divided into 8 collection zones with each having one transfer
station with capacities varying from 20 cu.m to 35 cu.m
Case study: Waste Collection proposal for Alipurduar Planning Area (Class Planning exercise)
Collection zones No. of Household waste Non Household Total Capacity of No. of
Transfer storage waste storage the Transfer LCVs
station Capacity(kg) capacity(kg) station (cu.m)
1,8,9,10,11 (ward. nos.) 1 14517 2782 35 17
19,3,Bholar Dabri CT 1 9707 1204 22 11
2,6,7,20 1 10779 2066 26 13

EL
5,13,14,16,17 1 10165 1948 24 12
12,15,18 1 9679 1855 23 12

PT
Birpara CT 1 7996 1533 19 10
Chechakata +Paschim Jitpur 1 11939 2288 28 14

N
Alipurduar Railway Junction 1 13565 2600 32 16

The waste is collected from the transfer station by the secondary collection vehicles.
Storage volume is determined by considering waste density of 500 kg/cu.m.
Case study: North Dum Dum and New Barrackpore
 Private sanitation workers for door-to-door collection of waste.
 Monthly fee collected .
 Collection – Organic waste daily and Recyclable waste weekly .
 95% collection efficiency.
 The fee share of municipality is used for maintenance.
 Entire contract is self sustaining

EL
Case study: Chennai(till 2007) (Source: World Bank(2008))

PT
 The private contractor covers three
zones of the city.

N
 ONYX caters to a population of 20
million and covers an area of 87 sq. km.
 The contractor employs 2,000 people
 130 autorickshaws for door-to-door
collection from narrow lanes
REFERENCES

1. CPHEEO(2016), Municipal Solid Waste Management Manual, Ministry of Urban Development,

EL
Government of India (Part 1, 2 and 3)

PT
2. Niti Aayog(2021), WASTE-WISE CITIES Best practices in municipal solid waste management
3. Improving Municipal Solid Waste Management in India; A Sourcebook for Policy Makers and

N
Practitioners, World Bank(2008)
4. Solid waste Management, UNEP(2005)
 CONCLUSIONS

 Door to door collection system involves the choice of an appropriate collection vehicle,
frequency of collection and the right operational plan as per the local context and waste

EL
characteristics.
 Both vehicle & labor productivity and cost of labor & vehicles are considered in this

PT
selection process.

N
N
PT
EL
KEY POINTS

⮚ Door to door collection system design

EL
⮚ D-to-D collection system design criteria
⮚ Cost and time calculation

PT
⮚ Labor productivity vs vehicle productivity

N
⮚ Case study: Waste Collection proposal for Alipurduar Planning Area (Class Planning exercise)
⮚ Case study
 EL
PT
Urban Services Planning

N
Dr. DEBAPRATIM PANDIT
ARCHITECTURE AND REGIONAL PLANNING, IIT KHARAGPUR
Module 05: Waste collection planning for urban areas
Lecture 24 : Routing and scheduling for solid waste vehicles Part 1
CONCEPTS COVERED

⮚ Routing and scheduling for solid waste vehicles

EL
⮚ Road network description
⮚ Graph models

PT
⮚ Example

N
⮚ Shortest path Problem
⮚ Dijkstra’s Algorithm
⮚ Example: Route choice for solid waste vehicle
 Routing and scheduling for solid waste vehicles
Primary collection: From solid waste from generator to a storage depot/transfer station/disposal site/waste processing center.
Secondary collection: From community bins/storage depots to a transfer station/waste processing center/disposal site.
Tertiary collection system: From transfer station to disposal sites/waste processing and treatment facilities.

Collection and transfer of waste is the most costliest part of MSWM and thus requires detail planning and optimization.

EL
Each vehicle has a fixed capacity.

PT
A vehicle has to travel between two points along a road network such that travel time and/or cost is
minimized (e.g., Between transfer station and landfill site, between collection points)

N
A vehicle has to travel to many collection points along a road network such that the
overall route travel time and/or cost is minimized (e.g., collection from community bins)

Not all sites are accessible at all times of the day.

Not all roads are accessible (e.g., road width restrictions, one-way, road maintenance)
Road Network Description
The network comprises of a system of links and nodes.

Links: Segment between two intersections or two adjacent nodes in a network.

Physical and functional characteristics of a link can be assumed to be homogeneous (same average speed/travel time)

Nodes: A node can either be described as a point of interest or a event or a zone centroid or the intersection point of
two segments within a network (e.g., collection points can be nodes, landfill site can be a node, road intersections can

EL
be a node)

PT
The road network is abstracted as a coded network to facilitate processing.
Link characteristics:

N
Location coordinates, Connecting nodes, Link travel time and distance, level of service, capacity,
facilities and geometry are coded
Node characteristics:
Location coordinates, Connecting links, Time restriction, Size/capacity

Different entry or exit times in a LINK(road segment) and a NODE(intersection/point of interest)

Road Network Description
1 2
(Source: Papacostas & Prevedouros, 2009)

(5) (5) (2) (3)

(8) (4) (4)
3
6 (7) 7 (6) 8 (4)

(4)
(6) (5) (5) (7) (5)

EL
(4)

(3) (5) (4)

4

PT
9 (5) 10 11 (4)
(5)

(3)
(7) (7) (8) (5)

N
(5) (5)
(8)

(6) (2)

12 (5) 13 (4) 14

(2) (2)
Coded network using the GIS
5
 (NPTEL:Trip Assignment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rygip8aF0pw)
Graph Models
The coded network, is represented through graph models.
𝐺 ≡ (𝑁, 𝐿)
A graph is an ordered pair of sets, represented by: G = (N,L)
𝑁 ≡ { 1,2,3,4 }
Where, N(nodes or vertices) and links or arcs, i.e., 𝐿 ⊆ 𝑁𝑋𝑁, a set
𝐿 ≡ { (1,2), (1,3),
of pairs of nodes belonging to N
(2,3), (2,4), (3,4)}
Graphs are oriented, i.e. the links have directions and the nodes are ordered pairs
Network flow models

EL
A path, k, is a sequence of consecutive links connecting an
initial node (origin) and a final node (destination)

PT
Different paths can be extracted out of the graph.

Link-path incidence matrix
N
A binary matrix called the link-path incidence matrix, 𝜟,
can represent the relationship between links and paths.
Each path k is associated with a path cost.
The total path cost for a network depends on the
link-path incidence matrix and the costs
associated with the links.
Example
The following graph(link node diagram) represents the road network and points of interest for an urban area. The
time taken to travel along these links(same in both direction) is given in the diagram. The diagram also shows the
location of two community bins (A & B), location of the vehicle depot and the landfill site. Determine the shortest
route for a vehicle collecting and transporting waste from these two bins to the landfill site and returning to the
depot. The vehicle has infinite capacity.

EL
PT
N
Example
Sequence of travel: Depot(D)----- Bin (A) ----- Bin (B) ----- Landfill site(L) ------ Depot
D----- B ----- A ----- L------ D

Depot to Bin A
X
Paths:
(D,X,A) Cost: 6

EL
(D,Y,A) Cost: 4 Z
(D,Y, L,A) Cost: 3

PT
(D,Y, X,A) Cost: 5
(D,X,Y,A) Cost: 7
-----------

N
Depot to Bin B
Bin B to Bin A
Bin B to Land fill
Y
Bin A to Land fill
Depot to Land fill
Shortest path problem
Dijkstra’s Algorithm Solves single-pair, single source and destination shortest path problems for positive edge weight graphs

Floyd-Warshall Algorithm Dynamic programming algorithm to determine shortest path in a negative or positive edge
weighted graph. Shortest path is determined for all pairs.

Bellman Ford Algorithm Solves single-pair shortest path in a weighed graph where some edge weights are negative.
Can also detect negative cycles (where edges sum to a negative value).

EL
Dijkstra’s Algorithm

PT
Step 1 : Consider any vertex, i, as start vertex in the given network. Set i to zero, and distances to all
other vertices from i as ∞(infinity).

N
Step 2: Visit the unvisited vertex with the smallest known distance from the start vertex.
Step 3: For the current vertex, examine its unvisited neighbours and calculate the distance of each
neighbour from the start vertex. If the calculated distance of a vertex is less than the known
distance, update the shortest distance. Update the previous vertex for each of the updated
distances.
Step 4:Return to step 2 until the list of unvisited neighbours is empty.
 (NPTEL: Route choice:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI2FeRS4yn4)
Dijkstra’s Algorithm
Shortest path between
Depot to Bin A X 3
B 1
D A

D= X= Y= 3 3 4 Z
Smallest distance

EL
A
Y= X= A= L= 1

PT
Smallest distance 3
D 1 4
L= Z= A= 1

N
L
Y
1
VISITED VERTEX = UNVISITED VERTEX =
Example: Route choice for solid waste vehicle
X 3
Shortest path between B 1
Depot to Bin A = D, Y, L, A= 3
Depot to Bin B = D,Y,X,B = 5 3 3 4 Z
Bin B to Bin A = B,Z,A = 5
A
Bin B to Land fill = B,Z,L =5 1

EL
Bin A to Land fill = A,L = 1 3
D 1 4
Depot to Land fill = L,Y,D = 2

PT
1
L

N
Y
1
Sequence of travel: Depot----- Bin A ----- Bin B ----- Landfill site ------ Depot
3 + 5 + 5 + 2 = 15

Depot ----- Bin B -----Bin A ----- Landfill site------ Depot

5 + 5 + 1 + 2 = 13
REFERENCES

1. Ortúzar, J.D. and Willumsen, L.G. (2011). Modelling Transport. 4th Edition, Wiley, Hoboken.

EL
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781119993308

PT
2. Papacostas, C. S. & Prevedouros, P. D.(2009). Transportation engineering and planning. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

N
3. Pandit D. (2021), Book: Urban Landuse and Transportation Planning, Pages(1-1003), Published by:
nptel.ac.in,swayam.gov.in (NPTEL course support book).
Link: https://nptel.ac.in/courses/124/105/124105016/
 CONCLUSIONS

 Routing and scheduling of solid waste vehicles involves optimal route choices.
 Determining the shortest path between any two points is the first step in determining the

EL
shortest/optimal route for a solid waste collection vehicle.

PT
N
N
PT
EL
 KEY POINTS

⮚ Routing and scheduling for solid waste vehicles

EL
⮚ Road network description
⮚ Graph models

PT
⮚ Network flow models

N
⮚ Shortest path Problem
⮚ Dijkstra’s Algorithm
⮚ Example: Route choice for solid waste vehicle
 EL
PT
Urban Services Planning

N
Dr. DEBAPRATIM PANDIT
ARCHITECTURE AND REGIONAL PLANNING, IIT KHARAGPUR
Module 05: Waste collection planning for urban areas
Lecture 25 : Routing and scheduling for solid waste vehicles Part 2
CONCEPTS COVERED

⮚ Case study: Solid waste transportation model for Asansol

EL
⮚ Distribution problem
⮚ Vehicle routing problem

PT
⮚ Optimization techniques

N
⮚ Solving TSP and VRP in ArcGIS
⮚ Network Analyst: Travelling salesman problem
⮚ Network Analyst: Vehicle routing problem
Case study: Solid waste transportation model for Asansol (2006)
Cost of collection, transportation and disposal of solid waste = INR 500 -1500 per ton
Collection: 85% of total expenditure
Asansol Municipality Corporation(AMC) Solid waste generation rate: 0.250 kg/capita/day
Industrial town in West Bengal Total quantity of solid waste: 180 MT/day (Domestic: 120)
Area: 127.24 km2 Community bins: 1350
50 wards Total annual expenditure for SWM: Rs 2.5 crore

EL
95,293 households Supervisors: 20 and Staff 487
Average household size: 5 Non-domestic waste (60 MT/day: Industrial, C&D and Hospital

PT
waste) managed by respective generators
Existing transportation practice(2006): 200 hand carts, 23 trucks and 2 tractors for disposal

N
Proposed community bin based solid waste collection system
Bin types & location, Vehicle type, Optimal routing
Spatial database: Road network, Bin locations
Landfill site:1 , Garage:1
(Source: Ghose M.K. et.al. 2006)
Case study: Solid waste transportation model for Asansol
Volume Population Total No. of Period of Frequency of
Bin Type Sources of waste generation
(m3) served bins filling clearance
Market places, street vendors and C-type bins
A 7 >300 55 1 day Every Day

Multi-storied buildings, commercial complexes,

B 0.75 300 570 2 days Every Second Day
community and other private societies
C 0.05 200 Slum and other congested areas 780 2 days Every Second Day
Container utilization factor = 50%. Extra capacity for unforeseen factors. (Source: Ghose M.K. et.al. 2006)

EL
Bin location: Population density, Road width, Space availability and

PT
Distance from a house

N
Case study: Solid waste transportation model for Asansol
Road classification:
Major roads (width: 5–7 m),
Minor roads (width: 2.5– 5 m)
Other roads (width: less than 2.5 m).
Vehicles (collection bin and road width)
Type A: Skipper type (major roads)
Length: 4.5 m. Crew:2

EL
One A type bin at a time

PT
Type B: Lifter type with a
front loading mechanism

N
B-type bins (50 bins/trip)
Major and minor roads
Crew:2 Capacity: 20 m3
Type C: Auto-rickshaw type
C-type bins (28 bins/trip)
Congested areas
Crew:2, Capacity: 7.5 m3
Case study: Solid waste transportation model for Asansol Vehicle Travel Distance No. of A-type
No. time (h) travelled (km) bins cleared
Optimal routing model considerations: 1 7 (7.20) 116 (116.26) 8

Crew daily working hours: 8 2 7 (6.91) 95 (94.45) 9

Speed limit: Same for all similar vehicles 3 7 (6.58) 97 (97.40) 8

4 7 (7.16) 78 (77.45) 11
Type A vehicle:
5 7 (7.09) 76 (75.45) 11
Garage to location of first type-A bin(A1)
6 6 (6.04) 81 (81.25) 8
Bin A1 to landfill

EL
Unloading Total = 6 41 543 -
Repeat till nth bin
Returns to A1 location (Source: Ghose M.K. et.al. 2006)

PT
Bin A1 to A2 (nearest(as per input) or as per
optimal plan)

N
An to Garage
 Clusters of bins (with clearing order) are
allocated to each vehicle (working hours,
travel time, loading/unloading time)
 Optimal path is generated for each vehicle.
Case study: Solid waste transportation model for Asansol (Source: Ghose M.K. et.al. 2006)
Day of Vehicle Travel time Distance travelled No. of B-type bins
Type B vehicle: Clearance No. (h) (km) cleared
Garage to location of first type-B bin(B1) in cluster 1 1 9 (8.76) 98 (98.13) 200
Bin B1 to B50 in cluster 1 (as per optimal path for Day 1 2 9 (9.17) 94 (93.48) 200
each cluster) 3 7 (7.31) 74 (73.65) 170
Bin B50 to landfill 1 8 (8.41) 91 (91.40) 200
Unloading Day 2 2 7 (7.37) 77 (77.20) 170
Landfill to B51 in cluster 2 location 3 8 (7.90) 95 (95.27) 200
Repeat till cluster n (Based on working hours)

EL
1 8 (7.61) 76 (75.80) 170
Day 3 2 9 (8.77) 97 (97.34) 200
 Other vehicles for other remaining cluster

PT
3 9 (8.75) 98 (97.45) 200
 Joint optimization so that all bin locations and Total 3 74 800 -
all available vehicles can be taken together.

N
Day of Vehicle Travel Distance No. of C-type
Clearance No. time (h) travelled (km) bins cleared
1 7 (7.21) 41 (41.13) 140
Type C vehicle:
2 8 (7.91) 59 (58.45) 140
C-type bin clusters are formed for each A-type bin
3 7 (7.40) 54 (54.37) 140
First visiting order of A-type bins Day 1
4 7 (6.89) 39 (39.11) 140
Next, optimal path for each C-type cluster
5 6 (6.31) 36 (35.98) 112
Number of vehicles (working hours)
6 6 (5.87) 32 (31.63) 108
Case study: Solid waste transportation model for Asansol
 Software used: Arc/Info GIS software
 Route planning: NETWORK module
 Arc impedance is considered (Speed of vehicle and road type)
 Delays due to traffic-jams and signals, one-way roads, etc. is not considered
 Time for loading and unloading at landfill and bins is taken as the node/stop-impedance
 Shortest path is computed following the traveling salesman problem
 NETWORK commands PATH and TOUR are used for finding minimum paths.

EL
PT
Distribution problem
Determining the route for distribution of goods from the originating depot (or store) to the consumers.

N
Or, Route for collection of solid waste

This problem can be modeled using Graph theory.

Travelling Salesman Problem (TSP)
Vehicle Routing Problem (VRP)
Distribution problem
Travelling Salesman Problem (TSP)
 A single route problem, which determines the shortest possible route that visits each TSP
demand point exactly once and returns to the originating depot.
 Order of reaching these points are given
 No vehicle capacity limitation. a single route
 Finds minimum travelling distance and cost for visiting fixed locations.
 Connects any two nodes with shortest path.

EL
Vehicle Routing Problem (VRP)

PT
 A optimal set of routes for a fleet of vehicles to serve a set route 3
of demand points from a originating depot
VRP

N
 Equivalent to multiple TSP where all salesman have the route 2
same starting location
 When the fleet size in a VRP equals one, it becomes a TSP
 Vehicle capacity limitation route 1

 When the capacity constraints of a route are taken into : depot

consideration, a TSP evolves into a VRP : customer
Vehicle Routing Problem
A variety of constraints can be considered resulting in a variety of sub-problems.
Capacitated VRP (CVRP)
All collection points have to be served and the total waste quantity collected in each route < capacity of the vehicle.

Multiple depot VRP (MDVRP)

Waste collection points have to be served from several depots.

EL
Split delivery VRP (SDVRP)
A waste collection point can be served by multiple vehicles if the demand exceeds the capacity of a

PT
single vehicle

N
Stochastic VRP
One or more components are random with an assigned stochasticity. (waste quantity, Travel time)

VRP with time windows (VRPTW)

Waste collection points have to be served within chosen time windows.
Optimization techniques
 With the increase in the number of demand points the TSP or VRP becomes exponentially difficult to compute using
exact techniques (Branch & Bound) requiring the use of heuristic techniques.
 Heuristics do not search the entire solution space and employ problem specific strategies for faster search.

Classical heuristics
 Clarke and Wright “Savings” algorithm
 Two Phase algorithms

EL
In first phase, demand points are clustered based on some distance criterion.
In the second phase a TSP is used for optimizing the route within each cluster.

PT
Local search method
Local search moves about the solution space from one neighbourhood to another in search of

N
the optimum solution.

Metaheuristics
Metaheuristics overcome the problem of heuristics methods getting stuck in local optima by
exploring further degrading solutions, which helps it come out of a local optimum.
Simulated annealing, Tabu Search, Adaptive Memory Search, Ant Colony
optimization, Genetic algorithm
Solving TSP and VRP in ArcGIS

EL
PT
N
Setting up the
Creating vehicle
Adding network properties for the Running the
routing analysis
layer vehicle routing process
layer
problem analysis
Solving TSP and VRP in ArcGIS

EL
PT
N
Solving TSP and VRP in ArcGIS

Link and node

EL
diagram

PT
N
Network Analyst: Travelling Salesman Problem Network analysis classes
Orders (0): Load Locations
Depots (0)
Routes (0)
Attributes for the route (Time
window, Cost per Unit Time, vehicle
capacities etc.)
Delivery location

EL
Run the solver

PT
Order Locations
DepotLocation

N
Restricted Link
 Network Analyst: Travelling Salesman Problem

EL
PT
Order Locations
Depot Location
Delivery Location

N
Route

Route assignment and

schedule generation
Network Analyst: Vehicle Routing Problem
(NPTEL: Lat Mile Logistics 2:
https://www.youtube.com/wa
tch?v=ny7PMAYmG-g)

EL
Order Locations

PT
Depot Location
Delivery Location
Route 1

N
Route 2
REFERENCES

1. M.K. Ghose, A.K. Dikshit, S.K. Sharma, A GIS based transportation model for solid waste disposal – A

EL
case study on Asansol municipality, Waste Management, Volume 26, Issue 11, 2006.

PT
2. Pandit D. (2021), Book: Urban Landuse and Transportation Planning, Pages(1-1003), Published by:
nptel.ac.in,swayam.gov.in (NPTEL course support book).

N
Link: https://nptel.ac.in/courses/124/105/124105016/
 CONCLUSIONS

 Route assignment and schedule generation for solid waste transportation vehicles require
detail analysis since the potential for cost saving is significant.

EL
 Appropriate model formulation for VRP is key to getting good solutions.

PT
N
N
PT
EL
KEY POINTS

⮚ Case study: Solid waste transportation model for Asansol

EL
⮚ Distribution problem
⮚ Vehicle routing problem

PT
⮚ Optimization techniques

N
⮚ Solving TSP and VRP in ArcGIS
⮚ Network Analyst: Travelling salesman problem
⮚ Network Analyst: Vehicle routing problem