Remember the bridge to nowhere? Back in 2006 Republicans turned a proposed Alaskan bridge into a symbol of everything that’s wrong with Washington, an unacceptable waste of taxpayer money.
The bridge in question would have connected the town of Ketchikan, population 8000, with Gravina Island. Sure, only 50 people live on that island, but it’s also the location of Ketchikan’s airport, a vital connection to the outside world in an isolated area. The bridge would have cost $398 million.
Which brings us to President Trump’s pet project: a giant wall on the Mexican border. It will cost $21.6 billion, according to an internal Department of Homeland Security report. That’s the most conservative estimate we’ve seen, but we’ll go with it.
For some reason Mexico doesn’t seem keen to pay for the wall (???), so the administration hopes to cut funding to the Coast Guard to make up some of the difference. Which is brilliant, because no one in Mexico owns a boat.
But here’s what I’m sure you’re wondering: how does the cost of the Bridge to Nowhere compare to the Wall Mexico Won’t Pay For? Let’s take a look:
Wow, that bridge is looking like a bargain! The Wall Mexico Won’t Pay For will cost just over 54 Bridges To Nowhere. Let’s continue this extremely scientific analysis by comparing the two projects.
| Bridge To Nowhere | Wall Mexico Won’t Pay For |
|---|---|
| $398 million | $21.6 billion |
| Less than 2 miles long | Over 1,250 miles long |
| In sparsely populated area | Mostly in totally unpopulated areas |
| Not vulnerable to 35 foot ladders | About that… |
| Could have connected Ketchikan to its airport | Cuts off isolated stretches of desert from other isolated stretches of desert |
| Momentarily became a symbol of government waste | If built will become the ultimate symbol of government waste for generations |
