Oakland’s Pothole Vigilantes address gaping problem, one road crater at a time
sfchronicle.com
sfchronicle.com
The road conditions in Oakland have been this way for decades. And whenever you talk about a problem like this in Oakland, it calls forth the general condition of Oakland, which very much is a moral problem (both due to the alleged corruption that keeps it from changing as well as the fact that you can barely enter the city without being confronted by extreme poverty and people with severe mental health problems who are just left behind). The holes in the road have at least one thing in common with the overall state of the city: neglect.
What if someone gets in a car wreck because of a pothole? Is the city liable?
No, really: https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/4/29/18621740/this-wgn-anc...
What they ought to do is pay a bounty per job, and bond the "vigilantes" against injury/damage.
So, where does the repair budget go? Excuses that it's too low are just that, excuses, since people apparently would do it for free.
Why don't we have giant computer-controlled machines that go down roads, suck them in and grind them up and spit out new roads behind themselves -- as the defacto paving scenario?
I know they do this sometimes. But why not all the time? Instead of pothole fixing, just fix the entire road. Cheap road machines, drive the price down. And put down lane markings and reflectors as part of the process. And do every thing only at night.
I'd imagine best practices are currently designed with a large per-issue overhead in mind. Getting men & material to a given location is expensive, so fixes need to last. If you have a robot that doesn't mind finding & resurfacing the same damn pothole every time it rains, would that compete?
There's the assumption that per-crack overhead is too large to justify frequent visits again.
Unfortunately where I live the workers are incredibly lazy or incredibly mismanaged. They just dump it and leave it heaping up above the road surface. That degree of shoddiness is a mark of societal dysfunction...
I'll bet if you asked those guys, they'd rather use a backhoe or a bobcat instead of a shovel. Their bodies will last a lot longer too - I have many older friends who just destroyed their bodies doing crap like that when they were younger.
That means we’re getting the government services of several decades ago. This is an issue for a lot of other California cities beside Oakland — and the 2020 split roll ballot initiative will give Californians a chance to better fund our government.
Further our new transit department, OakDOT, is doing creative work with a limited budget. They’re taking the MVP approach to rolling out better infrastructure, while also being one of the first DOTs to prioritize equity in terms of who gets access to limited transit funds first.
They say they can't hire people, even with those budgets and with residents wanting to help / collaborate.
Not defending the bad state of the road. But if they do the best they can with the available budget and get as much of it allocated as they can... should they be ashamed? And ashamed of what - state funding? government? money allocation?
Or maybe they're actually bad at their jobs. But from this article is hard to tell.
We should tear out 50% of our asphalt and replace it with dense housing - there’s a shocking number of giant, underutilized roads that are large enough to accommodate entire buildings. That’s how you increase density and actually fund your infrastructure.
Maintenance was deferred here for way too long, and now it's going to take a long time and a lot of money to get caught up.
I've heard this before (in Los Angeles), but what I don't quite get about this explanation is: how did they have enough money to build the roads in the first place, back in the days when Oakland had a smaller population and tax base? Also, does it actually cost more money to maintain the roads then to build them in the first place (really not sure, maybe it does)?
I believe he was going through a US city and slept under a tree with his bike parked nearby, and he was woken and told it was too dangerous to do that. I thought it was Oakland, (but I might have misremembered and it was some other dangerous urban area).
I could imagine your story playing out anywhere - someone saying "it's too dangerous to do that here", doesn't actually mean much about the actual danger.
My observation is that, in the eyes of progressives, working class folks and politicians, the city government and services are first a source of jobs, and services are secondary.
And then there's this...
"A United Nations expert on housing explicitly singled out San Francisco and Oakland as the only two U.S. cities that are part of a 'global scandal'". "[The U.N. Special rapporteur] cites SF and Oakland along with worst slums in the world", calling the "'cruel and inhuman' treatment of the homeless 'a human rights violation'". She went on to say “There’s a cruelty here that I don’t think I’ve seen”. "In several respects, she said, the situation in California's cities [she was speaking from Oakland] is worse than other parts of the world"
"In Mexico City, I visited a low-income settlement that had been moved by the city onto empty land near a railway line,” [the U.N. Special rapporteur] said. "They had no running water. They stole electricity." The camp was noisy and dangerous. She noted that the camp in Mexico is virtually identical to those she visited in Oakland"
"Every person I spoke to today [in Oakland] has told me, 'we are human beings,'" said [the U.N. Special rapporteur] about her conversations with camp residents. "But if you need to assert to a UN representative that you are a human, well, something is seriously wrong."
I wouldn't call it "a nice place".
There are a lot of homeless people here for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons is that the 'progressives' you call out aren't making homelessness illegal. They aren't making laws against pan handling, and sleeping on sidewalks. They're not trying to bus these people away to other cities.
Oakland and other cities are doing their best to own the homeless problem and provide support to these people where they are. They've built 'tuff-shed' communities, set up sites with showers and services, recently opened a space dedicated to people living in RVs...
Are they perfect? Do they solve the problem? No. But the city of Oakland is trying to solve a problem that should not be reasonably expected to be solved by a city. This problem is bigger than Oakland - and I think the city should get credit for making the investments they do to try and help.
If every other city was doing the same thing, homelessness would probably not be the big problem it is.