Yet again, Seattle’s schools are in a minor state of crisis. The school board is slated to vote today on a plan to close 5 schools in order to save $3.6 million next year.
At the same time, Governor Gregoire, along with the mayor of Seattle and the King County executive, are planning to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a deep-bore tunnel, at a cost of $4.2 billion or so—and possibly much more if you include related improvements on I-5.
I’m not going to comment on the merits. I simply don’t know enough to have an informed opinion about the school closings—though I’m sure that I’d be angry and offended if had a kid at a school targeted for closure.
But it’s worth pointing out an issue of scale. Sure, “$3.6 million” and “$4.2 billion” may sound similar. But they’re completely different. A billion isn’t just more than a million—it’s a LOT more.
In fact, the money we’re planning on spending on the Viaduct would keep those 5 schools open until…wait for it…the year 3175.
Or, looking backwards, the cost of the Viaduct could have kept those 5 schools open from the year 842 until today. (Wikipedia tells me that the year 842 was when Charles the Bald married Ermentrude, and that the Uyghurs left the Mongolian plain. The fact that these events mean nothing to me shows just how long ago 842 was.)
Obviously this is a contrived way of looking at things: it’s not an apples to apples comparison, it’s not inflation adjusted, the state constitution prohibits gas tax money from paying for schools, yada yada yada.
Still, I think that the comparison points to the absurdity of our priorities. When it comes to roads, we’re spendthrifts—we’re happy to cough up a few billion for a couple miles of pavement. But for schoolkids, we’re skinflints—we look for ways to pinch pennies, even if it means turmoil and upheaval for students and their families.
Not a pretty picture.
And for those of you who are visually inclined, here’s a chart that compares $4.2 billion with $3.6 million (I’m not making this up):
Bus photo courtesy of Flickr user boeke under a Creative Commons license.
Alex Steffen
Clark, once again you are my hero.I for one would rather pass the 3175 school budget than build a tunnel, if I had to choose.
Kristen Lohse
Thanks, Clark, for putting your astute perspective on our priorities. It’s plain embarrassing.
Fred
Finally someone is making this connection! Maybe the city is thinking that these kids will be around for only another 60 to 80 years at most, but the viaduct replacement is a 100 year project and therefore more important?? That makes sense, doesn’t it?
morgan
We lost the economic arguments in favor of a surface option. Despite the state’s modeling showing that the surface-transit hybrid would perform to our needs, practically no one outside Seattle or the environmental community believes that analysis. Pointing toward the insanity of the tunnel decision is fine, but I think this downplays the magnitude of the public-education we still need to do. We’re far from cracking the throughput-economy linkage
Kevin Ramsey
Surface option supporters focused on this kind of simple economic argument early in the viaduct debate when few were taking them seriously. But I rarely heard mention of it later in the debate. I hope we take up this theme again if/when the tunnel funding plan falters. Bar graphs speak a thousand words.But I agree with Morgan regarding the broader problem here. If we allow ourselves to be convinced that the regional economy will collapse without consistent highway throughput, no bar graph will prevent building a highway. As with the transportation modeling studies, the economic studies indicated a surface option would do just fine. But this didn’t prevent scare tactics about employers leaving the region as we’re all stuck in gridlock.