It cannot be assumed that blowers are faster.  “Males often link the sound of a loud motor to greater power, and according to one study, both sexes found a noisy vacuum to be more efficient than a quieter one, even though the less noisy machine was far superior.” (01.6.2)
 
Blowers, with their loud sounds and vibrations, moving leaves and debris rapidly, might only appear do some jobs faster than manual labor. 
 
ARB reports state that additional work time might be 5%-15% more, if at all. 
 
A Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and L.A. City Task Force timed experiment in which an experienced professional gardener using a gasoline leaf blower took two minutes to gather a patio of leaves into a designated circle.  Using rake and broom, an inexperienced grandmother, who volunteered, took two minutes and 30 seconds.  Total gathering time for three tests each, showed the same 30 second, or, a 20%, difference.  (See details).

Raw footage taped for The Learning Channel production "Inventions We Love to Hate" aired October 17, 2001, shows a 25% difference in worktime for gathering the same amount of leaves from grass. Had gardener and volunteer worked at the same speed, as previously agreed, it is estimated the difference would have been 15%. Removal of leaves was not included in this analysis. (See details).

We suggest that blower time is recorded first in tests of this kind, so those using rakes and brooms can adjust their work speed to that of the blower operator, for a more accurate comparison.
 
These examples may not represent all “real world” experiences, but they do show that what differences may exist are closer than has been claimed by blower supporters, especially since there are several other reports of homeowners working with rakes and brooms completing tasks as fast as do workers using blowers. 

• Cost of Purchase
  
• Cost of Maintenance
  
• Cost of Fuel, including that spilled in refueling
  
• Cost of Safety Equipment
  
• Cost of Replenishing the Soil with water, fertilizer, mulch and other additives
  
• Cost of Health Problems caused by Emissions
  
• Cost of Health Problems caused by Fugitive Dust
  
• Cost of Hearing Loss.
  
• Cost of loss of work and income due to above noted health problems.
  
• Time for machine maintenance
  
• Time for Fuel Purchase
  
• Time for Refueling
  
• Time for gathering up and putting on safety gear
  
• Time for mounting and Starting the machine
  

Another comparison did not add picking up and removing leaves and debris to the blower work time, but they did indicate that additional work when speaking about rakes and brooms.  Unless you add this additional time to both methods being discussed, no accurate comparison can be made.

In many spontaneous one-on-one discussions at their workplaces, we have found no gardener who has actually made timed comparisons between blower use and rake and broom on individual residential properties.  We have found several who first state that rakes and brooms will “double” their work time, or more.  The following conversation was recorded immediately after it took place: 
When asked how much more time it took to clean this one particular property with a rake compared to a blower, the gardener’s automatic response was, “It used to take me 10-15 minutes.  Now it takes me an hour”.  After my surprise at such a large difference and stating that, on two different occasions I timed my own gardener, then did the same work at the same speed a week later, and found no difference, his facts changed.  He now said, “Oh, well, it takes an hour for a big property, not for this one.  This one takes me 20 minutes now.” 

Economic concerns of employers and other community residents were seldom brought up in the press during the Los Angeles and California blower controversy, except for quotes stating “They won’t pay more.”  But, these concerns should be taken into consideration.  Anyone could incur health care costs and the loss of income for time taken off work for health problems due to blower-induced air pollution.  And, all taxpayers incur the cost of the healthcare for those who cannot afford it. 
 
It is estimated that more than 12 million Americans use their homes for earning income, either part time or full time.  That is one of every 11 workers. (00.1.2).  Where their concentration or ability to carry on business by phone is disrupted by leafblowers, their incomes, or even their jobs, may be jeopardized.  Tension and lack of concentration due to noise pollution and sleep deprivation, over which they have no control, may interfere with work at home or lead to problems in the workplace.
 
Residents in areas where blowers are used also bear related economic impacts.  They wash their cars and the exterior of their houses, fences and walls more often.  They buy air conditioners and pay extra electricity for their use in order to keep windows closed due to noise and dust drift.  And/or, they must clean the interior of their houses, furniture and drapes more often.  Besides the additional costs of these activities, additional time is required on their part to do these chores.
 
All taxpayers pay the burden of law enforcement where there is no voluntary compliance with a blower ban ordinance.  Employers who allow workers they hire directly or through landscape companies to use blowers are responsible for taking the time of city operators at the “hot line,” those who must do computer entries or paperwork, and of enforcement officers.  Employers have a right and a responsibility to keep an eye on that work they pay for, to get what they pay for, or to find other workers. 
 
Homeowner employers may suffer fines for violations by their workers.  If you want blowers to stop and you cannot negotiate a modification of salary or job description, hire workers who have a policy of not using blowers.  They won’t defy the law when your back is turned. The provision which allows a fine on their employers when the ban is violated was requested by gardeners. 

One homeowner was particularly angry at receiving a letter warning that a violation had recently occurred on his property, because he had purchased an electric blower a year earlier for the gardener who violated the law by using a gas blower. Unfortunately and unfairly, he was angry with the neighbor who reported the violation, rather than with his gardener.
 
Many employers hire more than one business to help with yard and property maintenance throughout the year.  They may have one worker or company for regular clean up (“Mow, blow and go”).  Another company is hired for periodic garden “tune-ups” once or twice a year (light pruning of trees; removal and/or division of plants, replanting, mulching, check irrigation and sprinklers, weed, deadhead flowers and herbs).  And yet another company is hired for  “specialty maintenance,” such as a certified arborist or tree surgeon, or a company that trims trees.
 
A more realistic expectation of the level of cleanliness, on the part of both employer and worker, could cut down work time.  Many homeowners who hire basic maintenance help don’t care whether every last leaf is removed before the worker leaves, since more will be on the ground within minutes.  They should so inform their workers, whose sense of pride in a job well done, and fear of being fired for not leaving the property perfectly clean, may cause that worker to feel a need for blowers, especially if that property is difficult to rake and sweep.
 
Employers might cut down work time by asking the worker what hinders or slows down the work.  For instance, patio chairs could be stacked or put on the tabletop and covered, instead of placed on the deck or ground around a table.  Trees could be trimmed just as major leaf-fall begins.  Edging could be done less often.  In some cases, a slight change in landscape plantings or design might make a difference.
 
An increase in pay may actually be warranted.  Compare the difference in work time between blowers and rake and broom on a specific property, with the worker moving at the same pace.  Or, time the worker, then return the same debris to its original location and sweep and rake it back up yourself.  Even five or ten minutes more time per week per customer can add up to a significant loss of time or income for the worker. But for individual customers, it could mean a monthly increase that is still reasonable, and nowhere near the oft quoted “double my rates.”