Last week, in the aftermath of the DC area's paralyzing snowstorm, the Washington Post ran an article by Ashley Halsey III "D.C. region gets what it pays for when it comes to snow removal ." The article noted that a northern Michigan city received more than 7 feet of snow (compared to 2 feet in DC) and yet the roads were cleared with little disruption in normal activities. The annual cost of this level of service was put at $11,055 a year per lane mile. In contrast, the District of Columbia spends $5,636 annually for each mile for which it provides snowfighting service and this storm produced a government shut-down, widespread closures and extensive disruption.
Public comments to the online story were all over the lot; some considered the DC response laughable (e.g. "Giving out parking tickets is about the only thing DC does efficiently. As the nation's capital it is a joke.") while others defended the public works snowfighting crews. Many noted the inherent flaw by the author comparing a small city in a snowy rural region with a major city in an area with infrequent winter storms.
The larger lesson probably deals more with service level than budget. And that owes largely to the "wisdom of crowds" as displayed in the online comments. Had Petroskey, MI run a story on snowfighting, the comments would almost certainly have reflected its residents' insistent demand that winter not be allowed to hamstring their lives. The DC comments, on the other hand, are notably ambivalent and diverse. DC will get better snowfighting when it demands it -- budgets reflect citizens' expectations.
One could imagine a mayor of Petoskey who responded to a major snowstorm with the efficiency of the DC crews would become the next Michael Bilandic (see Wikipedia , 5th paragraph). But his job's safe in DC. The public doesn't expect good snowfighting. So the story might better be headlined "D.C. region gets what is wants when it comes to snow removal."
It could be better. It might cost more. That's democracy.
Add comment