|
Freeway Litter Control and Replacement Landscaping Program: Proposed Study
John Ristow, Program and Highway Administration Deputy Director, reported that in December 2004, TAC asked VTA to undertake a study to try to answer some of the questions being raised by public officials in regards to freeway litter problems as well as replacement landscaping. Mr. Ristow noted his attendance at a Public Works Officials luncheon held on January 13, 2004, in the City of Morgan Hill and indicated that Caltrans management staff of the Southbay Maintenance District, made a presentation regarding the issue.
John Sighamony, Transportation Planner II, directed attention to Attachment A, Santa Clara County Roadside Beautification Program Draft Initial Study Scope, Section I – Study Scope, A. Potential Program Areas, #1. Litter and #2. Landscape Maintenance. Member Kass recommended that “Sweeping of Shoulder Areas” be added as a third item to the category.
Mr. Sighamony directed attention to Section I – Study Scope, Item B. Geographic Coverage, #1. Freeways. Member Curtis queried if the definition of freeways cover the highways, such as Highway 9 and others. Mr. Ristow noted that it does not, but is something to consider. Member Curtis recommended that the names of freeways be included.
Mr. Sighamony directed attention to Section II – Existing Conditions, Item A. Sources of the Litter Problem, and noted that research would have to be done to determine where the problem lies.
Mr. Sighamony directed attention to Section II – Existing Conditions, Item B. Develop roadside inventory, and noted information could be gotten from Caltrans on existing mainline and off & on-ramps.
Mr. Sighamony directed attention to Section II – Existing Conditions, Item C. Inventory resources currently being expended, #1. Current Standards (Current Level of Maintenance from Caltrans) and #2. Caltrans’ annual expenditures & person hours. Member Kass referred to the Public Works Officials luncheon and noted that one of the most compelling pieces of information that Caltrans provided was the decrease in their staff from 2001-02 to current, a big drop-off from the 1970’s.
Member Rose noted not only was a discussion held regarding Caltrans’ annual expenditures and person hours and the need to be more specific locally, but a discussion was also held about the issue of what is being spent in other regions and comparisons. When posed with the question, the response was “you cannot compare this with other regions; we just compare you with Los Angeles.”
Member Tripousis referred to Orange County and to San Diego County and noted they are completely self-contained. They serve their population versus nine Bay Area counties with a diverse population.
Member Kass referred to the current standards or level of maintenance and noted the need to probe a little bit with Caltrans, because Caltrans tends to look at people per acre of landscaped area or persons per mile of freeway. What is never asked is, what is the maintenance schedule, how often is sweeping done, how often is weeding, landscaping, and litter control done?
Member Rose expressed concern regarding the level of service on freeways.
Member Yoshino directed attention to the following items wherein VTA is collecting data: Section II – Existing Conditions, Item C. Inventory resources currently being expended, #1. Current Standards (Current Level of Maintenance from Caltrans), #2. Caltrans’ annual expenditures & person hours, and #3. County & City expenditures & person hours. He noted his assumption that the intent is to benchmark against other jurisdictions or locations. There needs to be beautification programs comparable in other locations that this program can use as a guide to develop our program. He recommended that the areas be expanded.
Member Collen queried about the status of the District 4 Caltrans representative to be appointed to the TAC. Mr. Ristow noted that the Board of Directors approved the TAC bylaws at their December 9, 2004 Meeting. He noted that a letter was sent to Caltrans asking Caltrans to appoint a representative to TAC.
Mr. Sighamony directed attention to Section II – Existing Conditions, Item C, #3. County & City expenditures & person hours and #4. Resources (financial and labor) provided by other sources (e.g.: Adopt-a-Freeway program, enforced Community Service, etc.).
Mr. Sighamony directed attention to Section III – Analysis, Item A. Determine and define desired standard, Item B. Determine resources needed to achieve standard, and Item C. Estimate average “unit cost” of providing service. Member Kass noted that a key part is to determine the level of service wanted on the facilities.
Member Collen noted that after the effort to develop the desired level of services there will be an implementation plan.
Member Curtis noted that in looking at the existing conditions, one of the elements to consider as an existing condition is the partnering that currently goes on between Caltrans and some of the cities. He noted the partnering between Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol.
Member Curtis requested that the proposed outline of the scope of work for the study, which is entitled “Attachment A – Santa Clara County Roadside Beautification Program Draft Initial Study Scope,” be included in the Minutes of the January 13, 2005 meeting.
Mr. Sighamony directed attention to Section IV – Implementation, Item A. Review and discuss potential institutional arrangements, #1. Pay Caltrans directly?, #2. VTA contracts for service countywide?, #3. Another agency contracts for entire county?, #4. Each City and the County contract separately?, and #5. Other? What else should this program include? Member Yoshino noted the one area missing as part of Implementation is where is the money coming from to do the program. Mr. Ristow noted that staff could add “Investigate Potential Funding Sources.” Member Kass recommended adding a Section IV. B., entitled “Funding Sources”.
Member Kass noted the one thing not listed on the proposed outline is “how do we compare, not with just other districts, but in other states.”
Mr. Ristow noted that VTA would be paying for the study.
Member Collen referred to landscape maintenance in terms of the study scope, expressways for example, and noted that maintenance is more safety based. He noted the importance of getting information on whether a tree has died and becomes in danger of falling on the roadway.
Member Tripousis noted tiers of landscaping would have to be looked at and thinks one would start out at weed abatement and work their way up. He noted if trying to get at that aesthetic piece initially, then some levels would have to be established.
Member Yoshino queried if there is any merit to think of partnering with Caltrans in having them come to the table with some data and costs. Mr. Ristow indicated in order for VTA to do the study, Caltrans would be a major contributor of information and noted that a Caltrans representative would be in attendance at TAC Meetings soon, maybe as early as next month.
Member Kass referred to the study and recommended having a subcommittee of TAC, which includes a Caltrans representative. He noted the importance of having Caltrans involvement.
Mr. Ristow indicated that VTA anticipates having the study completed within six months, noting the maximum amount of funds to be spent would be $50,000. He noted that VTA would also hire a small planning consultant.
Member Rose noted that the emphasis needs to be less on the detail and more on Caltrans’ involvement and support.
Member Yoshino noted that the subcommittee of TAC should also include a member of the County of Santa Clara.
On order of Chairperson Kott, there being no objection, the Freeway Litter Control and Replacement Landscaping Program: Proposed Study was discussed.
| 
Rider's Links 
