Service Request #3: Why Is There So Much Litter in San Francisco?

This episode of Service Request delves into the complex world of public trash cans in San Francisco, triggered by host Roman Mars's observation of a lack of them during a visit. The investigation, led by Delaney Hall, explores who decides where trash cans are placed, how they are maintained, and if their design impacts litter. Rachel Gordon, Director of Policy and Communications at San Francisco Public Works, explains that her department is responsible for installing and maintaining the city's approximately 3,000 trash cans. Placement is strategic, focusing on high-traffic areas like transit stops, commercial corridors, schools, and hospitals. Fewer cans are found in purely residential areas, though requests for dog-walking routes are accommodated. Public Works also responds to requests from the public via 311 and the Board of Supervisors. Interestingly, if a trash can has been removed from a location before, even after multiple placements and removals, Public Works may decide not to reinstate it, indicating underlying issues or conflicts. A significant pilot program initiated in 2017 in the Mission District aimed to assess the impact of increased trash can availability on litter. Despite placing cans at every corner and mid-block, the results were counterintuitive: more trash cans did not necessarily lead to less litter. This challenged the common assumption, often attributed to Walt Disney's Disneyland strategy, that closely spaced and visible trash cans reduce street litter. The pilot observed people discarding trash even when bins were nearby. Gordon theorizes that this behavior stems partly from the city's robust street cleaning services, which act as a "maid service" for litter. People may feel less personal responsibility if they know the trash will eventually be picked up by city workers or non-profits. This points to a behavioral aspect rather than solely a lack of convenience. The concept of "cultures of trash" emerges, with Japan cited as an example of a country with very few public trash cans yet remarkably clean streets. This is attributed to a cultural understanding of carrying one's trash home, a practice reinforced after a 1995 sarin gas attack in the Tokyo subway led to the removal of public bins as a security measure. Back in San Francisco, other factors contributing to litter were identified. The city's higher-than-average unhoused population sometimes leads to trash cans being rummaged through for recyclables, scattering debris. Illegal dumping, accounting for an estimated 18,000 tons of trash annually (including large items like mattresses and construction debris), is a major problem. Public Works investigators actively try to trace illegal dumpers. Furthermore, complaints have been raised about Recology, the contracted company responsible for emptying trash cans, with some claiming insufficient collection frequency leading to overflowing bins. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle where existing litter encourages more littering. Recognizing that simply adding more cans wasn't effective, Public Works shifted focus to redesigning the trash cans themselves. The existing "Renaissance" models, in use since 1993, were aging and vulnerable. The goal was to create a design that was more difficult to rummage through, easier to clean if vandalized, and sturdier. A design contest was launched, resulting in three custom prototypes: the "salt and pepper" with a tiered design, the "slim silhouette" with stainless steel bars to deter graffiti, and the "soft square" with a foot pedal. Three off-the-shelf models were also included in a 2.5-month pilot across 52 locations. The public was invited to provide feedback via QR codes on the bins. Thousands weighed in, a testament to San Francisco residents' engagement with civic matters. However, the process also faced criticism regarding the cost of prototypes ($20,000 each) and the lengthy timeline. Gordon defended the prototype cost as an investment in design and development for bins expected to last a generation, noting that mass manufacturing bids came in at a reasonable price of around $1,375 per can, comparable to or less than off-the-shelf options. The entire process, from the initial 2017 pilot to the eventual rollout, spanned nearly a decade, with COVID-19 significantly contributing to delays. Ultimately, the "slim silhouette" model was chosen, favored by maintenance staff and the public. Tweaks were made to the opening size, exterior ribs for easier cleaning, and the locking mechanism. The episode touches on the political charged nature of trash and cleanliness in San Francisco, a liberal city often targeted by critics. Gordon argues that San Francisco is not overwhelmingly trashed and that trash levels are comparable to many other cities. She emphasizes that trash collection is a fundamental service, and perceived failures in this area can lead to broader judgments about city governance. The city employs extensive cleaning operations, including manual sweepers, flusher trucks, and dedicated "block sweepers," and engages in public education starting from second grade. Ultimately, the investigation concludes that while a better-designed trash can is a valuable tool, it's not a panacea for litter. The underlying behavioral issues, including dodging collection fees, lack of alternative disposal options for some, and widespread illegal dumping, remain significant challenges. The new trash cans are set to roll out, representing a long and complex journey in addressing the city's litter problem, highlighting the intricate interplay of design, public policy, and human behavior.