More Bad Reports - Street Sweeping. Part 4

We began our analysis of the City’s report on street sweeping by looking at the fact that the City’ hypothesis (water quality is impacted by urban runoff) and their theory (blocked streets result in less trash pickup) had little if any basis in fact. Then we looked at the City’s study itself, and in Part 3 we discussed some of the flaws. Today we’ll look at some of the issues the City forgot to study, and then conclude.

OTHER FACTORS NOT CONSIDERED

The report does not address a number of factors that are commonly encountered when discussing street sweeping programs.

Time – Some cities (e.g., Brea) use a 2-hour window, not a 4-hour window. Why is Lake Forest using 4-hour? If 4 is better than 2, is 6 even better?

Season – Some cities (e.g., Evanston, Columbus, Everett, New Rochelle) only sweep during certain times of the year. Why does Lake Forest propose year round sweeping?

Ticketing – Some cities (e.g., Santa Clarita, San Jacinto, Highland) don’t use tickets yet report good compliance. Why is Lake Forest starting with a punitive program? Why wasn’t there been a study of the impact of education only?

Costs – The City of Riverside street sweeping enforcement costs $2.65 million in 2012-13 but collected only $1 million. Since implementation it has generally cost $2 million more to operate each year. Why are there no financial analyses in the City’s report?

Exemptions – Many cities (e.g., Anaheim) allow exemptions. Why isn’t this being considered in the City report?

Aesthetics – It may well be that the only true justification for street sweeping is aesthetics. Keeping a neighborhood clean is an important issue – it helps create a positive psychology and probably keeps property values at a premium price. It may also help insulate a neighborhood from crime, as the literature from the “defensible space” studies suggests. By focusing so heavily on water quality the City failed to explore this area to the extent that it might have been explored. The City of San Diego, for example, in 2010 produced a report “The Human Aspect of Street Sweeping: Understanding Public Perceptions…” and found 40% of their citizens considered it an “essential service”

Alternative Methods – Keeping our oceans clean is a serious problem. Street sweeping makes little difference when ocean pollutants are measured. But there are several things that can be done to reduce ocean pollutants, and none of these are in the staff report. Here’s a partial list of some programs that have proven to be effective – (a) aggressive programs to get “bad” cars off the streets so that the pollutants (e.g., oil, metals) don’t get on the street in the first place, (b) aggressive recycling and hazardous waste collection to remove the pollutants before they reach the street, (c) more effective runoff mitigation systems such as bioretention systems and screens in the sewer system with more frequent monitoring and cleaning, (d) reduced use of fertilizers and pesticides

In this regard, less development that removes the porous landfill that acts to filter pollutants before they reach the ocean is a major preventive step. Moreover, less development acts to lower the water table which makes localized flooding less likely. In Lake Forest, OTOH, we have embarked on an aggressive development project that is removing almost all the free space which has dramatic impacts on the water table and the level of pollution. In addition, urban runoff from constriction sites is a major contributor to ocean pollution, and less development means less construction.

SUMMARY

Once again the City produces a report with major flaws. The Council was given this report and asked to initiate street sweeping restrictions along with ticketed enforcement. Yet there is sufficient evidence to indicate that street sweeping efforts will not improve water quality. Moreover, the City’s methodological assumptions are incorrect – i.e., the main determinant of effectively picking up trash and debris is street blockage. And even worse, there is some suggestion that even if the City’s assumption were correct, previous interventions of this nature have not had the desired result.

Finally, the City staff recommends going from no restrictions to restrictions with punitive consequences (ticketing) without determining the impact of restrictions alone, without looking at their own data for the past several years where the restrictions have been in place, and without determining the financial impact and the cost benefits of ticketing.

This is another bad report by a City that seems to produce bad reports on a regular basis.

BTW - the report was "initiated" by Kelly Fleming (Public Works Manager), "submitted" by Tom Wheeler (Director of Public Works) and "approved" by Bob Dunek, City Manager. Note that Wheeler and Dunek were also associated with the pathetic Traffic Commission report we discussed in the first of our series on bad reports.