The article really doesn't go into detail what's new here. Looks like it's trying to be graffiti-proof, perhaps other ways to be easy to maintain. Lots of things like this aren't always obvious. If you said it's $10-20k for a trash can (well, they did), that sounds silly, but there should be a reason these are being considered.
Here's a list of the requirements of these trashcans, mostly taken from here (https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/san-francisco-trash-c...):
- Durable: they can't be easily damaged due to physical force, rain, UV exposure, or even fire (if someone throws out a lit cigarette). These cans are expected to last 15-20 years
- They also shouldn't be easy to tip over
- They must be difficult for people and animals to get into
- They must be easy for public works to empty. The inner can can't be too heavy or not robust enough to contain the trash (32 gallons)
- The opening can't be too big to prevent people dumping large items into it
- These cans will also indicate when they're full via optical sensor (https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/27/san-franciscos-trash-...)
- They should look somewhat appealing (they're designed in Oakland).
- They must meet certain size restrictions due to the various widths of sidewalks in SF
- It must also have a recycling container on top that meets most of the above requirements of "people can't reach inside here"
In terms of "why are they so expensive": these cans are one-off prototypes. When they're mass produced, they will only be a bit more than the existing green cans ($1,218 vs $2,000) but with the goal of being much more durable and robust. Additionally, they're much less expensive than the "Bigbelly" cans that the city supervisors wanted to use. Fun fact: the city doesn't actually own those cans and they cost $3,000 per year to lease (!!!).
From what I can tell most cities don't have a custom design: they just use whatever commercially available thing is available. SF is hoping this design will be better than those, and that they will be able to sell the design to other cities. I'd love to see how other cities address this issue though... I know that Amsterdam has a fancy underground trash system!
Rubenstein from Public Works explained that in 2018, the department could not find a trash can that fulfilled an exacting list of features: a rolling inside can for easy emptying, a sensor to alert workers when a can is full, durability to withstand street life, and be tamper-proof.
And “obviously,” she added, “they needed to be aesthetic.”
It also hints at fraud, but I’m not sure that plays a big role in the eventual costs of these trash cans. As you mention, those “Bigbelly” cans aren’t cheaper ($3,900 a piece, according to that link, so about what these will end up costing)
Are the trash cans used in NYC, Chicago, Berlin, London or wherever good enough?
This is stupid. The people of San Fran should be reimbursed the million dollars this cost. By who, I don't know.