Am i the only one who thinks the price is a little ridiculous? My family can't afford $683k. Even if that were the price for 2 or 3 years it'd be a little steep. and What happens if families cannot afford this? Are we just supposed to let trash pile up in our front yards??? sounds unsanitary.

Sharon Cox | 2016-03-14 18:58:52

We have single stream recycling in Holliston already. Years ago I used to separate the paper from the glass/metal, but then I saw the recycling truck just dump it all into the same compartment in the truck. I have been doing single stream recycling here for YEARS. I can't wait until we get town issued bins, with lids attached, that will be returned to their upright position at the side of the road instead of tossed willy nilly. The mechanical arm (that is already installed on the trucks but not used) will place each bin back where it came from.

Vince Packard | 2016-03-07 06:05:49

Also shocked that there is so much controversy over this. We have the single stream system at our house in Maine and it works flawlessly. Bins are neatly placed curbside, easy to roll, and hold all of the recyclables. Here, we have to drag two cracked green bins AND a large garbage can to hold recyclables--an inconvenient mess especially in bad weather. This proposal would be a HUGE improvement. Time to embrace change, Holliston.

Beth Brooks | 2016-03-06 17:17:45

I'm surprised there is so much concern over this... Before we moved to Holliston we lived in Newton, which has this system, and we loved it. It felt like stepping back in time and convenience coming here. The binds are larger, yes but they are not really all that much heavier than a traditional size can. The wheels and large handle make them easier to move, not harder. If you are concerned about the weight, just dont throw out so many bags of trash, its your trash that makes 90% of the wight of a full can. I understand the concerns of the older retired folks moving a heavy bin. If you live in my neighborhood Id happily walk over on trash day to help you out. As to the recycling - single stream is wonderful. Once you try it you will never want to go back to sorting. Not having to sort is a huge time saver and encourages a LOT more people to recycle. The more we recycle the less it costs all of us, as the contractors charge the town a lot more for every ton of trash than they do recycling. Overall this system is a win-win for everyone except the people whose jobs will be displaced by the automated trucks.

Jeremy Harkin | 2016-03-06 10:28:24

I, too, have concerns about the size and bulkiness of these containers, both for use and storage. If we do adopt this system, I would hope that seniors, and any others who request it, would be able to opt for smaller size containers. Also, I don't see how these sitting outside on collection day are anymore appealing than the recycle bins and trash cans we have now. And as others have said, they will likely be sitting outside all the time since they need so much storage space. Also, what happens to all of the old trash containers and recycle bins? Do they end up in a landfill somewhere?

Ginny Keniry | 2016-03-05 17:22:32

If nothing else, Holliston needs a "single-stream" recycle system, with glass, paper and plastic all in one bin - not many towns left that still separate the recyclable materials.

Lee DeSorgher | 2016-03-05 07:23:47

I don't like the idea of one big container either. Right now we put the two small containers under a shelf in our pantry making it easy to recycle. If I have to go outside into the backyard every time I'm more likely to just throw it in the trash.

John Coffey | 2016-03-05 07:04:03

The concerns for the elderly about being able to move these barrels is true but republic will offer smaller containers for them to make it easier for them. Also the comment of barrels and bins being thrown around there are many things that accour when the bins and barrels are empty that cause them to scatter like the wind and cars driving to close to the curbs causing them to move. With the automated system the carts will be picked up and placed back where they was. They have more weight to them than your standard barrel and bins so unless there is Gail force winds they will be exactly where you left them. The question about uniformed barrels size, the town has a uniformed barrel size now. In the current contract the barrels size is 35gallons and with the current family size it is impossible for a family of 4 to be limited to just 35gallons of trash. 48% of the town now violates the 35gallon barrel size. So by going with a 45 or 64 gallon barrel it is more reasonable. And if you have extra you will be allowed to use the town stickers on anything outside the allowed barrel. So what I'm saying is by going to the NEW system it will make trash day look more clean in the town unlike now where many factors cause it to look like a mess.

Bill kwiatkowski | 2016-03-05 05:41:20

Reading Kevin's notes, I see NO reason to even consider changing to a new system. What I do believe we should TELL our contractor to stop throwing the containers around after they empty them. Do we really think they would neatly place the new containers by the side of the road?? Space for new larger containers will be an issue for most residents and these containers will end up in front of our houses during the week. BAD IDEA....good summary of the facts Kevin.

David ONeil | 2016-03-04 14:00:56

The Automated Collection System proposed will also alleviate the chaos and clutter of trash cans and recycle bins scattered across sidewalks, lawns and street after being emptied. I am baffled that such an effort is made to toss the bins and cans. Washington street looks like a disaster area on days of collection. Drive through a town with this system you will observe the bins neatly placed on the curb both before and after emptying.

Gary Zegel | 2016-03-04 10:21:27

Based on the article, I don't see the advantages of the new system as proposed. Going down the list, uniform size is an advantage for the contractor, not the town; overflow bags (stickers) are already available; recycling is single-stream now (everything goes in one bin, right?) and scalable (if I need more room, I put out a second bin). Yes, it might cut down on windblown barrels (though don't many people just use bags?), but these carts are heavy and bulky (even empty you need the wheels) and difficult to store. My bet, based on observing other communities, is that many people will just leave them sitting outside, which hardly improves the town's aesthetics. And the cost of occasionally buying a new trash barrel is hardly big enough to qualify as an "investment". Finally, don't see how this is going to increase participation - people who "get" the benefits of recycling do so now, and those who don't get it probably won't under the new system either. Plus, going to an every-other-week cycle is just confusing; miss one set-out, and you could have a month's worth of recycling on hand by the time the next scheduled pick-up rolls around. My bet would be that a substantial amount of missed recycling set-outs wind up in the following week's trash. So much for increased diversion! All this for ~$40K per year more than we're paying now - so I have to assume there's more to this proposal than the article reflects if we're giving it serious consideration. What am I missing?

Frank Chamberlain | 2016-03-04 08:22:09

Single Stream sounds like a good idea because it is easy for customers but personally I don't see how hard it is to separate paper from commingles before putting it curbside. In the big picture, Single Stream Recycling produces less quality post recycled products because of cross contamination-thus flooding the market with poor quality product that manufacturers cannot use. Would it be possible to have a toter for trash as well as a toter for paper and one for glass/plastics?

Heather DeLuca | 2016-03-04 06:44:22

I believe the proposal above would have a 95 gallon wheeled covered can for recyclables, which are almost always lighter than trash. There also appears to be options for 65/45 gallon trash cans (with a third option of 35 gallons, though it seems less than optimal). From what I see, it appears that we can eliminate the blowing trash cans, the bits and bobs that are leftover in the bottom of the recycling bins, and the missing lids. Sounds like a good plan to me.

Vince Packard | 2016-03-04 06:42:46

Great info to digest. Is there discussions about what might be the additional costs of Rail Trail trash? In addition, does Parks & Rec have needs not being met that can be quoted/negotiated? The community grows in the usage of these outdoor spaces and the "carry in/carry out" doesn't always have the result we desire. Perhaps the town would have an appetite for helping the community stay clean?

Ed Daniels | 2016-03-04 06:14:52

I agree wholeheartedly with every word that Mr. Legee has said. At 78, I too could never fill a large container, and also, having severe arthritis, would have great difficulty handling these containers. In addition, not having either a garage or a carport, they would have to sit right in front of my house all the time. Not very aesthetic (an eyesore, in fact!), but also an obstruction at the top of my driveway or in front of my door. If we are forced to use containers of this type, at least they should consider giving seniors a much smaller size.

Verna Hobson | 2016-03-04 06:05:33

I would also be concerned about the dimensions. We would want to store them both in the garage - we can currently 'just fit' a traditional barrel in one corner and the recycle bins in another.

Debbie Colburn | 2016-03-04 05:47:17

I think that more thought needs to taken on this program. Being a senior now living alone I could not fill one of the containers in a year. I'm over 80 and would have problems handling the big containers. This would also be a problem. There needs to be smaller containers provided for others like myself. Warren

warren Legee | 2016-03-04 04:05:07