Some Rough Cost-Benefit Numbers for a \"Bridge to Nowhere\" A widely publicized

Question

Some Rough Cost-Benefit Numbers for a "Bridge to Nowhere" A widely publicized federal earmark in the 2006 transportation appropriation bill was $223 million for a bridge intended to provide access to Ketchikan, Alaska's airport on lightly populated Gravina Island. The project had the misfortune to become labeled the "Bridge to Nowhere" when the earmark came to light in the 2008 presidential campaign. It is possible to do some rough cost-benefit analysis on the project. Gravina Island has a population of around 50, so most of the bridge traffic would likely be those using the airport. The island was not inaccessible without the bridge. A ferry serves the island, with ferries leaving every half hour. The primary impact from the bridge would be to reduce travel time on the trips. It has been estimated that the drive to the airport from Ketchikan would take 13 minutes, compared to 27 minutes by ferry. Therefore, the time saving is around 15 minutes per passenger. Ketchikan is a port for cruise ships, which dock on the mainland, so some of the bridge traffic would be ship passengers either joining or leaving the cruise ships. Airline enplanements/deplanements (total passengers coming and going through the

Explanation / Answer

Given in the case study the assumptions of cost benefit analysis of the usage of the bridge , value of the travelers time and number of visitors. Even with the generous assumption the cost of the bridge is way more than the monetary benefits that it provides.

However there is a need to think of the other alternate assumptions, which would be sociocultural, ethical ,political and less economical while making a decision . Those assumptions are :

1) Public convenience: The waiting period for the ferry will cause inconvenience for the passesngers. The ferry carries the passengers in packets rather continous. There can be case that due to high demand the waiting period may increase. some days there may not be passenegers at all. This assymetry can be reduced by bride.

2) Safety of people : Travelling on bridge is safer for the people than ferry. The life of a person can not be replacable. In economic terms if each person earns $1,25,000 average per annum , and if it was considered to work for 30 years. Each life cost 30x1,25,000 = 37,50,000 . No one can replace a life. right to life is guaranteed by constitution.

3)Ethical : When most of the nation is having a hassle free connectivity, it would be unfair for the islanders to use ferry as means of transport.

4) If the bridge was constructed, there is a chance that the number of people who go to cruise may increase, it will open up much more opportunites for the islanders.

5) Economic Growth: There is a chance that the population may increase once connectivity is established to the island.

6) infrastructure development : bridge construction will create more employment for the workers. It will increase consumption levels there by the economy grows.

Dear student , please add some more alternate assumption which you feel cahnge the analysis. in the broad frame work given.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse S
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.