Excerpts from Zero Air Pollution Letter of May 27, 1998 to City Manager of City of Whittier
Requesting information regarding the "Whittier Study"
The following excerpted questions stemmed from confusing background information upon which a City of Whittier Agenda Report dated September 15, 1992 was based. The Agenda Report itself was directed to Thomas G. Mauk, City Manager, from Hideo G. Hamano, Director of Parks. (92.15.1)
The "mini-comparison" referred to in this Agenda Report is believed to be the source of the claim that rakes and brooms take "300% to 500%" more time than blowers. They may also have been based on the "Pasadena Study," which timed cleanup after a game at the Rose Bowl stadium. Both of these "studies" seem to contain estimates rather than facts. ZAP is seeking specifics from Pasadena, and will report on them after reviewing their information.
The records of the Whittier report contain sheets that compare only a Giant Vac, Back Pack Blower, Broom, and Hose Down. Efficient gardening practices would have included the use of a rake in combination with a broom, even on hard surfaces, if there were much leaf and debris build up.
The Agenda Report’s purpose appears to have been to encourage the city to enter into a joint venture with a blower manufacturer, which, in the long run, would encourage blower use.
|
Excerpts begin: To Thomas G. Mauk, City Manager The enclosed . . .raised more questions than it answered. Please put me in touch with whomever on your Parks Maintenance staff actually designed and oversaw the referenced "mini-comparison" or whoever might have the source material or more detailed records. Apparently, the "mini-comparison" was referred to in a California State Senate Bill Analysis of SB 1651, after the Latin American Gardener’s Association claimed studies showed a "300% - 500%" difference in work time between the use of gasoline powered leaf blowers and rakes and brooms. That ad hoc association was formed about two years ago specifically to defeat the proposed Los Angeles ban on these machines. . . . Your report Background mentions a "typical small landscape job", yet does not distinguish between hard surfaces, grass and/or bedding on the attached charts. Supporting data shows no entries under the "Efficiency — Back Pack Blower" column, which should list the square footage covered by the blower, while the "broom" statistics do specify Efficiency for 100 sq. ft. The Founders Park chart shows a 40 minute leaf blower job takes 48 man hours with a broom. Its hose down . . .of the same area took 12 man hours. Palm Park’s chart compared 2.25 blower man-hours with 282 broom man-hours. Penn Park showed 2 blower man-hours becoming 51 broom man-hours. What was the reason for such a difference between the last two parks? .. SB 1651 is not an issue anymore. However, as more and more cities contemplate leaf blower bans, concern about increased costs to cities and the perceived loss of income for residential yard-workers due to possible increased work time should be addressed. Small business gardeners, especially, need accurate information to relate to their customers when requesting reasonable fee increases necessitated by changes in the law. . . . . . ., was the "100 sq. ft." broom test on only hard surfaces or also lawns and/or bedding? (which would be part of the "typical small landscape job"). If lawns and bedding were included, why was only a broom tested, when a rake would work faster on these surfaces, as well as hard surfaces for leaves. Were you testing leaf gathering or dirt and debris clean up? Was it wet or dry? Was fueling time included? Was the work-pace the same for each method? Were the blowers used "properly"? Why did the Palm Park Giant Vac take so much more time (18 hours) than the blower (2.25 hours) (=15+ hour difference) when it would have eliminated pick-up time required by the blower, and why such a large difference with the same comparison at Penn park (vac.= 3 hours, blower =2 hours. A one-hour difference)? Was the recommendation of a "joint venture with Echo Inc." acted upon? If so, was it successful? i.e. do all persons who use gas blowers in Whittier turn them off when within 50 feet of children, as recommended by Echo’s User’s Manual? End of excerpt. |
A telephone conversation followed the receipt of this letter by Mr. Mauk, wherein he stated that "there was no study." From the extreme differences questioned in the above letter, it can be assumed that some, if not all, of the comparisons included opinion and/or estimates. This "Whittier Study" oft-quoted by blower supporters does not hold up.
