[ikesau]

My model of municipal maintenance is that a city's road maintenance workers have a long list of known potholes to fix which is triaged with some formula and dealt with day-by-day.

Spraypainting the pothole distorts the triage process and makes a pothole jump the queue, putting it ahead of more severe or older issues than it otherwise would have been.

It might not be zero sum, if it causes the agency to act with more haste to avoid embarrassment, but it seems like it could be close? Plus it probably takes more resources to clean up the spraypaint afterwards.

Most road maintenance crews probably aren't sitting around with abundant materials and machinery neglecting their duties, so I guess I just have some questions about what the real cost of this tactic is. What's giving.

[dandellion]

If we're making stuff up with no basis, I'll go with it distorts the process by bringing attention to and prioritising the potholes that bother people enough to make the effort of painting them. But really I think most municipalities are not as good at planning as you give them credit for.

[rfrey]

Although if a big pothole remains for several years amid many complaints, it's reasonable to think there's no such list. Or there is a list, but it's so long that it might as well not exist.

[gniv]

> Most road maintenance crews probably aren't sitting around

Assuming that's true, the most likely explanation is that they are working on Big Projects. Pothole maintenance is (probably) behind these projects, even though it can be done without affecting their timeline.

[slumberlust]

In many parts of then world you can't repair these (properly) until the weather gets warmer. Leads to a big initial backlog in the spring.

[cucumber3732842]

"Projects" (whatever that means to your municipality) are almost always contracted out. The maintenance crews maintain. Sometimes they do a little pre/post work for the big projects but mostly they maintain stuff. It's not like they're being pulled off a bridge replacement to fill a pothole.

[functionmouse]

> My model of municipal maintenance is that a city's road maintenance workers have a long list of known potholes to fix which is triaged with some formula and dealt with day-by-day.

What makes you think that?

[fwipsy]

I'm sure it depends on the city. I reported several large potholes in my city via an online form, and was disappointed to see them unrepaired for several months. Then one day I came and found that they'd repaved the whole street for 50m.

[pixl97]

Yep, this kind of stuff can be extremely complicated because there are a lot of layers.

Potholes have different causes. For example if there is a slow water leak that's compromised the road sub base that needs to get fixed first or you're just throwing money in a hole.

[ikesau]

I see road workers repairing potholes, and otherwise notice that potholes get repaired over time.

Presumably there is an intelligent process that leads to this. What alternative is there?

[mmooss]

I agree about the distortion, and it omits what is typically the greatest distortion: Wealth and power. I've been on bumpy, deteriorating roads in poor neighborhoods that suddenly turned into smooth, paved roads in wealthy neighborhoods.

Also, the person of a certain class, ethnicity and age who spraypaints is called an 'artivist'. For someone else it would be called graffiti and they might be arrested for vandalism.

[adampunk]

Citizens should have a say in how municipalities order work. If they're not given that say through less-disruptive means, then they can choose to harmlessly tag places where maintenance is failing.

Why are we excusing civic inaction because it might cause an unexpected schedule change for road crews? Why am I supposed to be so full of concern for the ease of their schedule that I'm ok with broken streets?

In short, c'mon, man.

[kjs3]

This is just a dressed up way of saying "I don't care how the road crews work or who else they might be helping, I want them working on the problem I care about". You don't know if the crews are working on bigger problems (or bigger potholes), or they're working in a neighborhood you don't drive through and thus don't care about...if they aren't patching up your annoyance right now, then screw 'em, they suck at their job.

I've gone to our municipal planning meetings for these types of things, and there is always at least one person there with this sense of entitlement. They want to talk about "excusing civic inaction" or similar just like you, but when shown "this is what the crews are working on", the retort is "yeah, but that's not the pothole on my street" (with the usually unsaid "...so why should I give a phuk about those people").

These people usually show up at other meetings to complain about having to pay taxes to pay for those repairs. But that's another little joy of local politics...

[adampunk]

Just so we’re clear, “screw them” in this case means spray painting holes in the road. Just so we’re agreed that that is what is objectionable here.

I find it very hard to fault that person coming to the meeting wanting their street fixed early. What real sin are they committing except noticing that there’s a piece of infrastructure that they depend on that’s messed up? The city does not get a pass just because it claims to be busy elsewhere.

If I believed that the city schedule was optimal in every way, I could be convinced that nothing should change as a result of that person‘s complaints, but I don’t believe that. And even if I did, that person is providing a valuable service in the case that the city made a mistake somewhere. They do not know that the schedule is optimal (if it even is). They know their street is messed up.

[kjs3]

Just so we’re agreed that that is what is objectionable here.

I never said a single word about painting the pothole; I think it's a clever hack. I should have tried that when we were negotiating with the city about scheduling our much needed street repaving. But since you clearly assume whatever your opinion is is sacrosanct, I suppose it's not surprising you would assume I agree you are unquestioningly correct.

The city does not get a pass just because it claims to be busy elsewhere.

Yes, it does, particularly if it is. At least for the adults in the room. Resources are finite. They have to be allocated. They have to be paid for. No, that's never "optimal" for everyone, especially for people for whom 'optimal == 'what I want, done immediately, even at the expense of other citizens'.

[adampunk]

>At least for the adults in the room.

I think the idea that the city is already allocating resources optimally is pretty historically contingent, to put things mildly. Even in cases where it is, it's making *choices* about what to allocate and where and citizens are allowed to think those choices are wrong. In fact, well functioning cities use that information to better understand where those choices are wrong.

If you want to be mad at someone who is annoying at city meetings because they can't see your picture that's fine, but don't conflate that with adulthood. It's certainly not the only bigger picture to have.

[kjs3]

After the second time someone obviously doesn't even think about what I wrote and continues to blather on with the same irrelvancy they're committed to hammering on, there's not much point to continue. Have fun with your FYIGM world view, you're clearly committed.

[ikesau]

I appreciate the pushback, but I wasn't actually saying people shouldn't do this. If a neighbourhood is being neglected because of some incentive structure they're powerless to affect, then yeah, take some action.

I'm just compulsive in pointing out trade-offs, and this blog post (understandably) doesn't have an interview with the civil servant on the other side presenting their perspective, so I wanted to raise the question here in case someone knew how it worked.

[peddling-brink]

I don’t imagine all government work has been perfectly prioritized on a well calibrated sliding scale.