Here's one of those curiosities of the internet. Today the anonymous writer of the defunct Portland blog Urban Planning Overlord (motto: "Soviet-style human warehousing is Portland's only hope") posted a piece on that blog about it being the first anniversary of its demise. The robots at Google caught it, and the robots at Technorati say the post was highly critical our own blog. But by the time we clicked over there, it was gone.
Well, uhh... [looks around nervously] ... to the extent I can glean anything from the snippets, dude does have a point. It is a bit - okay, a lot - more strident around here than it was when I first started hanging out. Maybe that's just a side-effect of gaining a higher profile, maybe not. [shrug] Or maybe it's just because we don't have Bush/Cheney to kick around any more.
I think it's a worthwhile forum still, but it's not so pleasant sometimes. I miss Nice Week.
How would you define "the Portland State planning Mafia"? I'll be enrolling in PSU's Urban & Regional Planning graduate program in the Fall. Do I automatically get to become a member of "the planning Mafia"? Or do we have to be on different sides of an issue first?
Here's the post:
back from the occasional wretched PC excess
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Just Say No. Always.
It's been exactly one year since the last post on this worthy blog.
And our old "friend" continues his tirades.
Note the complete crank-fest in the comments section. Perhaps he's expelled all contrary voices from his blog - I found a reference to noted Republican crazy (NOT!) Jack Roberts getting the boot a while back.
And note the slam upon a new target, a State Representative who dares to disagree with the blog proprietor. And a vicious ad hominem attack to boot.
But back to substance - roads get wear and tear, and a car that is driven 10,000 miles a year on those roads has more impact than a car that is driven 1,000 miles a year on those same roads. And an SUV weighing 10,000 lbs. has more impact when driven on those roads than a Mini-Cooper weighing 4,000 lbs.
The current gasoline tax is a rough calculator for apportioning the costs of keeping roads and building new ones on an equitable basis. And it's getting rougher - should a Prius driver pay only half what a Mini-Cooper driver pays for road upkeep because his car uses only half the gas, but weighs more?
So taxing cars based upon actual miles driven on our roads makes sense. As for figuring out exactly how to do it in a non-intrusive way - that's a subject for more work, once the concept is accepted.
posted by Urban Planning Overlord at 11:35 AM 0 comments
Joey,
Look out for the mafia UPO is a member of.
Urban Planning Overlord is the very typical misinformed and dishonest central planning advocate in the Portland region and at PSU. They never miss an opportunity to misinform.
And he calls it "But back to substance"?
Ha.
Roads don't get wear and tear from cars, period. A car that is driven 10,000 miles a year on those roads has the same impact as a car that is driven 1,000 miles. None.
The same as an SUV weighing 10,000 lbs. and the same as a Mini-Cooper weighing 4,000 lbs. None.
Large freight rucks and other heavy vehicles along with studds wear out roads. Not cars.
"Roads don't get wear and tear from cars, period."
Got Data?
See, Ben, this is exactly what I was talking about. The point you make is pretty absurd - a car surely does less damage, but there's no reason to think it does zero damage - but there's room to argue that. However, you also have this "mafia" BS and guilt by association with - *gasp* - academic experts! So you make a ridiculous assertion and also pre-emptively smear anyone who might use a little science to show how ridiculous your assertion is. Great for winning online arguments, not so good for finding rational solutions to real problems. A genuine Bush administration tactic, I bet your momma is real proud.
PS: A weight/miles tax makes sense to me. There is no way a 25 lb. bike with a 150 pound rider causes the same road wear as a 3,000 lb car or a 40,000 lb. truck covering the same miles.. So let's make everyone pay their share based upon the physics. We should register the bikes too and have them pay their fair share based upon weight and mileage. Then we could also get them to all have lights for night time riding.
How can we find a way to tax the rain and the temperature changes here in Portland? Given that most of the damage is due to water seeping into cracks, freezing, and then expanding, thereby breaking up the pavement which is exacerbated by vehicles, or by studs and chains employed as a defense against the environment... How can we find a way to tax the environment?
I understand what you are saying. But an individual pothole exists in one location. The damage increases as additional vehicles travel over it. Any individual vehicle may be traveling one block, one mile, or 100 miles in its journey. The damage is the same. Weight may be a factor, I'll concur, but overall travel distance is not since the pot hole is stationary.
So the same crowd that says Portland spends like a drunken sailor wants to spend money on a program to determine wear-and-tear from bicycles on public roads? Um...
And why again does distance driven not matter? You think there is just a single pothole that everyone drives over?
Oh, and his post is back up and has a little extra update with some love for bojack's snark and ben's cluelessness.
Careful bojack, don't pick fights on blogs where you can't delete comments! ;)
Native: So the odds of you hitting one or more pot holes are no greater if you drive 1,000 miles a week as opposed to 100? I'm not strong in statistics but somehow it seems to me that I'm going to run over more pot holes driving to Hermiston than to the Pearl District. On the bicycle, by the way, I generally try to avoid the potholes
I agree, db, a weight/mile tax makes sense as a way to raise money to maintain roads. (Or more precisely, miles*weight/wheel. Or if you want to get ridiculous, miles*weight/wheel_contact_area.)
Which is not to say that such a tax wouldn't have issues. Do you charge people for miles driven outside the taxing area? If not, how do you figure out how many miles were driven within the area? (Personally I would prefer any solution that does not involve a tracking system in each vehicle...)
Assessing a weight-mile tax on bikes is also problematic. There's no infrastructure in place to track bicyclists, and creating one would be such a huge and varied PITA that it probably would never produce a net positive revenue.
AD: I agree. There should be a minimum registration for the bikes because the impact differential is off the charts. But I'd like to see bike registration for a whole lot of reasons, theft etc, but mostly for safety so we dont get so many incredibly brilliant people and artists driving their bikes in the dark in black clothing. I had a case in Vancouver where I became pretty well convinced that people crossing the street or riding at night were convinced that a car with lights could
see them two tho three times further than that was true. It is one of those things that is not intuitive That means that the bike rider has an extremely false sense of security, like driving another car, where you have opposing lights. That's why I'm for cycle registration. Why not?. All vehicles on the road at night should have lights.
I think mandatory bike registration would be impractically difficult. (Quite aside from being personally objectionable.) People riding irresponsibly on bikes tend to kill themselves, not other people, so unlike motor vehicles there's little incentive to try to regulate.
Plus, once you regulate non-motorized vehicles, where do you stop? Razor scooters? Skateboards? Rollerblades? Boots? High heels? There isn't another really bright line to be drawn.
Charamba, Douro 2008
Horse Heaven Hills, Cabernet 2010
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills Pinot Grigio 2011
Avignonesi, Montepulciano 2004
Lorelle, Willamette Valley Pinot Noir 2011
Villa Antinori, Toscana 2007
Mercedes Eguren, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Lorelle, Columbia Valley Cabernet 2011
Purple Moon, Merlot 2011
Purple Moon, Chardonnnay 2011
Abacela, Vintner's Blend No. 12
Opula Red Blend 2010
Liberte, Pinot Noir 2010
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Indian Wells Red Blend 2010
Woodbridge, Chardonnay 2011
King Estate, Pinot Noir 2011
Famille Perrin, Cotes du Rhone Villages 2010
Columbia Crest, Les Chevaux Red 2010
14 Hands, Hot to Trot White Blend
Familia Bianchi, Malbec 2009
Terrapin Cellars, Pinot Gris 2011
Columbia Crest, Walter Clore Private Reserve 2009
Campo Viejo, Rioja, Termpranillo 2010
Ravenswood, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Quinta das Amoras, Vinho Tinto 2010
Waterbrook, Reserve Merlot 2009
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills, Pinot Grigio 2011
Tarantas, Rose
Chateau Lajarre, Bordeaux 2009
La Vielle Ferme, Rose 2011
Benvolio, Pinot Grigio 2011
Nobilo Icon, Pinot Noir 2009
Lello, Douro Tinto 2009
Quinson Fils, Cotes de Provence Rose 2011
Anindor, Pinot Gris 2010
Buenas Ondas, Syrah Rose 2010
Les Fiefs d'Anglars, Malbec 2009
14 Hands, Pinot Gris 2011
Conundrum 2012
Condes de Albarei, Albariño 2011
Columbia Crest, Walter Clore Private Reserve 2007
Penelope Sanchez, Garnacha Syrah 2010
Canoe Ridge, Merlot 2007
Atalaya do Mar, Godello 2010
Vega Montan, Mencia
Benvolio, Pinot Grigio
Nobilo Icon, Pinot Noir, Marlborough 2009
Portuga, Rose 2011
Revelation, Chardonnay, Pays d'Oc 2010
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Rutherford 2005
Monte Alto, Tinto Reserva 2005
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Cabernet, Indian Wells 2009
Espiral, Vinho Rose
Vin-Koru, Pinot Gris 2011
14 Hands, Hot to Trot Red 2009
Rodney Strong, Cabernet, Sonoma 2009
Abacela, Vintner's Blend #11
Portuga, White 2010
La Bourgeoisie, Red 2009
Januik, Red 2009
Three Rivers, River's Red 2008
Kirkland, Alexander Valley Merlot 2008
Muga, Rioja Rose 2010
Quinta das Amoras, Vinho Tinto 2009
Mauro Molino, Barbera d'Alba 2009
Garda Chiaretto Rose
Columbia Crest, Two Vines Vineyard 10 White
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Pinot Gris, Columbia Valley 2009
L'Hortus, Rose de Saignee 2010
Maculan, Pino & Toi 2008
McKinley Springs, Bombing Range Red 2008
Trader Joe's Pinot Gris 2009
Montes Alpha, Cabernet 2007
Gran Sasso, Sangiovese, Terre di Chieti 2009
Garda, Classico Chiaretto Rose
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Rutherford 1999
Picos del Montgo, Tempranillo 2008
Chateau de Montmirail, Vacqueyras 2008
La Granja 360, Syrah 2009
Montgras, Carmenere Reserva 2009
Lange, Pinot Gris 2009
Columbia Crest, Horse Heaven Hills Cabernet 2008
Kirkland, Pinot Grigio 2010
Trader Joe's Coastal Syrah 2009
Columbia Crest, Horse Heaven Hills Merlot 2008
Trader Joe's Coastal Chardonnay 2009
Vieux Papes Red
Domaine de l'Aujardiere, Chardonnay 2009
Santa Rita, Cabernet, Medalla Real 2007
Penfold's, Koonunga Hill Shiraz Cabernet 2008
Guild, Red, Lot #02 2008
Dievole, Dievolino Sangiovese 2008
Laforet, Burgogne Chardonnay 2009
Columbia Winery, Merlot 2007
Bonterra, Cabernet 2008
Elk Cove, Pinot Gris 2009
Maquis Lien 2006
Scott Paul, Pinot Noir, Le Paulee 2007
The Occasional Book
Neil Young - Waging Heavy Peace
Mark Bego - Aretha Franklin, the Queen of Soul (2012 ed.)
Jenny Lawson - Let's Pretend This Never Happened
J.D. Salinger - Franny and Zooey
Charles Dickens - A Christmas Carol
Timothy Egan - The Big Burn
Deborah Eisenberg - Transactions in a Foreign Currency
Kurt Vonnegut Jr. - Slaughterhouse Five
Kathryn Lance - Pandora's Genes
Cheryl Strayed - Wild
Fyodor Dostoyevsky - The Brothers Karamazov
Jack London - The House of Pride, and Other Tales of Hawaii
Jack Walker - The Extraordinary Rendition of Vincent Dellamaria
Colum McCann - Let the Great World Spin
Niccolò Machiavelli - The Prince
Harper Lee - To Kill a Mockingbird
Emma McLaughlin & Nicola Kraus - The Nanny Diaries
Brian Selznick - The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Sharon Creech - Walk Two Moons
Keith Richards - Life
F. Sionil Jose - Dusk
Natalie Babbitt - Tuck Everlasting
Justin Halpern - S#*t My Dad Says
Mark Herrmann - The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law
Barry Glassner - The Gospel of Food
Phil Stanford - The Peyton-Allan Files
Jesse Katz - The Opposite Field
Evelyn Waugh - Brideshead Revisited
J.K. Rowling - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
David Sedaris - Holidays on Ice
Donald Miller - A Million Miles in a Thousand Years
Mitch Albom - Have a Little Faith
C.S. Lewis - The Magician's Nephew
F. Scott Fitzgerald - The Great Gatsby
William Shakespeare - A Midsummer Night's Dream
Ivan Doig - Bucking the Sun
Penda Diakité - I Lost My Tooth in Africa
Grace Lin - The Year of the Rat
Oscar Hijuelos - Mr. Ives' Christmas
Madeline L'Engle - A Wrinkle in Time
Steven Hart - The Last Three Miles
David Sedaris - Me Talk Pretty One Day
Karen Armstrong - The Spiral Staircase
Charles Larson - The Portland Murders
Adrian Wojnarowski - The Miracle of St. Anthony
William H. Colby - Long Goodbye
Steven D. Stark - Meet the Beatles
Phil Stanford - Portland Confidential
Rick Moody - Garden State
Jonathan Schwartz - All in Good Time
David Sedaris - Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim
Anthony Holden - Big Deal
Robert J. Spitzer - The Spirit of Leadership
James McManus - Positively Fifth Street
Jeff Noon - Vurt
Road Work
Miles run year to date: 21
At this date last year: 52
Total run in 2012: 129
In 2011: 113
In 2010: 125
In 2009: 67
In 2008: 28
In 2007: 113
In 2006: 100
In 2005: 149
In 2004: 204
In 2003: 269
Comments (27)
will this be your next 'outing'?
Posted by dan | April 30, 2009 4:17 PM
could you call this a "drive by blogging?"
Posted by mp97303 | April 30, 2009 4:18 PM
will this be your next 'outing'?
I believe it's somebody from the Portland State planning Mafia; since they're pretty much interchangeable, I haven't been curious to go beyond that.
Posted by Jack Bog | April 30, 2009 4:20 PM
It puts you on their blogroll. They mustn't hate you too much.
Posted by Anon | April 30, 2009 4:32 PM
That particular hater likes to spar more than some of the others do. Always behind a curtain of anonymity, of course.
Posted by Jack Bog | April 30, 2009 4:35 PM
Well, uhh... [looks around nervously] ... to the extent I can glean anything from the snippets, dude does have a point. It is a bit - okay, a lot - more strident around here than it was when I first started hanging out. Maybe that's just a side-effect of gaining a higher profile, maybe not. [shrug] Or maybe it's just because we don't have Bush/Cheney to kick around any more.
I think it's a worthwhile forum still, but it's not so pleasant sometimes. I miss Nice Week.
Posted by Alan DeWitt | May 1, 2009 9:09 AM
Page not found
Sorry, the page you were looking for in the blog Urban Planning Overlord does not exist.
If you click on the "urban planning overlord" link it takes you to yesterday's post...
Posted by Mike | May 1, 2009 9:33 AM
Jack,
How would you define "the Portland State planning Mafia"? I'll be enrolling in PSU's Urban & Regional Planning graduate program in the Fall. Do I automatically get to become a member of "the planning Mafia"? Or do we have to be on different sides of an issue first?
Posted by Joey | May 1, 2009 9:34 AM
Here's the post:
back from the occasional wretched PC excess
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Just Say No. Always.
It's been exactly one year since the last post on this worthy blog.
And our old "friend" continues his tirades.
Note the complete crank-fest in the comments section. Perhaps he's expelled all contrary voices from his blog - I found a reference to noted Republican crazy (NOT!) Jack Roberts getting the boot a while back.
And note the slam upon a new target, a State Representative who dares to disagree with the blog proprietor. And a vicious ad hominem attack to boot.
But back to substance - roads get wear and tear, and a car that is driven 10,000 miles a year on those roads has more impact than a car that is driven 1,000 miles a year on those same roads. And an SUV weighing 10,000 lbs. has more impact when driven on those roads than a Mini-Cooper weighing 4,000 lbs.
The current gasoline tax is a rough calculator for apportioning the costs of keeping roads and building new ones on an equitable basis. And it's getting rougher - should a Prius driver pay only half what a Mini-Cooper driver pays for road upkeep because his car uses only half the gas, but weighs more?
So taxing cars based upon actual miles driven on our roads makes sense. As for figuring out exactly how to do it in a non-intrusive way - that's a subject for more work, once the concept is accepted.
posted by Urban Planning Overlord at 11:35 AM 0 comments
Posted by Tombo. | May 1, 2009 10:04 AM
Joey,
Look out for the mafia UPO is a member of.
Urban Planning Overlord is the very typical misinformed and dishonest central planning advocate in the Portland region and at PSU. They never miss an opportunity to misinform.
And he calls it "But back to substance"?
Ha.
Roads don't get wear and tear from cars, period. A car that is driven 10,000 miles a year on those roads has the same impact as a car that is driven 1,000 miles. None.
The same as an SUV weighing 10,000 lbs. and the same as a Mini-Cooper weighing 4,000 lbs. None.
Large freight rucks and other heavy vehicles along with studds wear out roads. Not cars.
Posted by Ben | May 1, 2009 10:31 AM
"Roads don't get wear and tear from cars, period."
Got Data?
See, Ben, this is exactly what I was talking about. The point you make is pretty absurd - a car surely does less damage, but there's no reason to think it does zero damage - but there's room to argue that. However, you also have this "mafia" BS and guilt by association with - *gasp* - academic experts! So you make a ridiculous assertion and also pre-emptively smear anyone who might use a little science to show how ridiculous your assertion is. Great for winning online arguments, not so good for finding rational solutions to real problems. A genuine Bush administration tactic, I bet your momma is real proud.
Sigh. Not sure why I even bother...
Posted by Alan DeWitt | May 1, 2009 12:32 PM
Can someone explain to me what this conversation is all about. I thought the mafia lived in Jersey?
Posted by db | May 1, 2009 12:44 PM
PS: A weight/miles tax makes sense to me. There is no way a 25 lb. bike with a 150 pound rider causes the same road wear as a 3,000 lb car or a 40,000 lb. truck covering the same miles.. So let's make everyone pay their share based upon the physics. We should register the bikes too and have them pay their fair share based upon weight and mileage. Then we could also get them to all have lights for night time riding.
Posted by db | May 1, 2009 1:17 PM
How can we find a way to tax the rain and the temperature changes here in Portland? Given that most of the damage is due to water seeping into cracks, freezing, and then expanding, thereby breaking up the pavement which is exacerbated by vehicles, or by studs and chains employed as a defense against the environment... How can we find a way to tax the environment?
Posted by PDX Native | May 1, 2009 1:41 PM
Native: Show me the perfect tax? It's always a trade off. Weight and mileage is as good as it gets from my way of thinking.
Posted by db | May 1, 2009 1:50 PM
Well, the post is back and with an update that bites back against bojack's snark and ben's cluelessness.
Posted by Gener | May 1, 2009 1:57 PM
db,
I understand what you are saying. But an individual pothole exists in one location. The damage increases as additional vehicles travel over it. Any individual vehicle may be traveling one block, one mile, or 100 miles in its journey. The damage is the same. Weight may be a factor, I'll concur, but overall travel distance is not since the pot hole is stationary.
Posted by PDX Native | May 1, 2009 1:57 PM
So the same crowd that says Portland spends like a drunken sailor wants to spend money on a program to determine wear-and-tear from bicycles on public roads? Um...
And why again does distance driven not matter? You think there is just a single pothole that everyone drives over?
Oh, and his post is back up and has a little extra update with some love for bojack's snark and ben's cluelessness.
Careful bojack, don't pick fights on blogs where you can't delete comments! ;)
Posted by Gener | May 1, 2009 2:02 PM
Native: So the odds of you hitting one or more pot holes are no greater if you drive 1,000 miles a week as opposed to 100? I'm not strong in statistics but somehow it seems to me that I'm going to run over more pot holes driving to Hermiston than to the Pearl District. On the bicycle, by the way, I generally try to avoid the potholes
Posted by db | May 1, 2009 2:06 PM
db,
As a driver of of an automobile, so do I.
Posted by PDX Native | May 1, 2009 2:15 PM
Twice as often, I guess. Sorry.
Posted by PDX Native | May 1, 2009 2:16 PM
Well it's twice as hard with four wheels.
Posted by db | May 1, 2009 2:24 PM
Touche!
Posted by PDX Native | May 1, 2009 2:26 PM
Weren't a few members of that PSU planning mafia very publicly against demolishing the Memorial Col.? Horrible people, indeed.
Posted by Edel | May 1, 2009 2:39 PM
I agree, db, a weight/mile tax makes sense as a way to raise money to maintain roads. (Or more precisely, miles*weight/wheel. Or if you want to get ridiculous, miles*weight/wheel_contact_area.)
Which is not to say that such a tax wouldn't have issues. Do you charge people for miles driven outside the taxing area? If not, how do you figure out how many miles were driven within the area? (Personally I would prefer any solution that does not involve a tracking system in each vehicle...)
Assessing a weight-mile tax on bikes is also problematic. There's no infrastructure in place to track bicyclists, and creating one would be such a huge and varied PITA that it probably would never produce a net positive revenue.
Posted by Alan DeWitt | May 1, 2009 3:31 PM
AD: I agree. There should be a minimum registration for the bikes because the impact differential is off the charts. But I'd like to see bike registration for a whole lot of reasons, theft etc, but mostly for safety so we dont get so many incredibly brilliant people and artists driving their bikes in the dark in black clothing. I had a case in Vancouver where I became pretty well convinced that people crossing the street or riding at night were convinced that a car with lights could
see them two tho three times further than that was true. It is one of those things that is not intuitive That means that the bike rider has an extremely false sense of security, like driving another car, where you have opposing lights. That's why I'm for cycle registration. Why not?. All vehicles on the road at night should have lights.
Posted by db | May 1, 2009 4:41 PM
db-
I think mandatory bike registration would be impractically difficult. (Quite aside from being personally objectionable.) People riding irresponsibly on bikes tend to kill themselves, not other people, so unlike motor vehicles there's little incentive to try to regulate.
Plus, once you regulate non-motorized vehicles, where do you stop? Razor scooters? Skateboards? Rollerblades? Boots? High heels? There isn't another really bright line to be drawn.
Posted by Alan DeWitt | May 1, 2009 10:00 PM