EXCERPTS:
"Life has many good things. The problem is that most of these good things can be gotten only by sacrificing other good things. We all recognize this in our daily lives. It is only in politics that this simple, common sense fact is routinely ignored.
In politics, there are not simply good things but some special Good Things -- with a capital G and capital T -- which are considered always better to have more of.
Many of the things advocated by environmental extremists, for example, are things that most of us might think of as good things. But, in politics, they become Good Things whose repercussions and costs are brushed aside as unworthy considerations.
Nobody wants to breathe dirty air or drink dirty water. But, if either becomes 98 percent pure, 99 percent pure or 99.9 percent pure, there is some point beyond which the costs skyrocket and the benefits become meager or non-existent.
*****
"Higher miles per gallon for cars is a Good Thing in politics, even if it leads to cars too lightly built to protect occupants when there is a crash. More students going to college is another Good Thing, even if lowering standards to get them admitted results in lower educational quality for others.
Too much of a Good Thing is bad.
Showing posts with label Cost/Benefit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cost/Benefit. Show all posts
Friday, August 19, 2011
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Under new federal guidelines all New York City street signs will have to be made lower-case - NYPOST.com
EXCERPTS:
Posted: 12:53 AM, September 30, 2010
Federal copy editors are demanding the city change its 250,900 street signs from the all-caps style used for more than a century to ones that capitalize only the first letters.
Changing BROADWAY to Broadway will save lives, the Federal Highway Administration contends in its updated Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, citing improved readability.
At $110 per sign, it will also cost the state $27.6 million, city officials said.
Studies have shown that it is harder to read all-caps signs, and those extra milliseconds spent staring away from the road have been shown to increase the likelihood of accidents, particularly among older drivers, federal documents say.
The new regulations also require a change in font from the standard highway typeface to Clearview, which was specially developed for this purpose.
As a result, even numbered street signs will have to be replaced.
"Safety is this department's top priority," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said last year, in support of the new guidelines. "These new and updated standards will help make our nation's roads and bridges safer for drivers, construction workers and pedestrians alike."
The Highway Administration acknowledged that New York and other states "opposed the change, and suggested that the use of all upper-case letters remain an option," noting that "while the mixed-case words might be easier to read, the amount of improvement in legibility did not justify the cost."
COMMENT:
There are two questions here. The most obvious question is whether the benefits of making the changes justify the cost of making those changes. The less obvious, but ultimately more important question, is who should make the decision about whether the benefits justify the cost? Should the decision be made by the local government, who will bear the cost of changing the signs? Or should it be made by the Federal Highway Administration, who can impose this requirement without having to bear any of its costs? How much incentive does a federal agency have to take into account the costs that their regulations will impose on others?
Posted: 12:53 AM, September 30, 2010
Federal copy editors are demanding the city change its 250,900 street signs from the all-caps style used for more than a century to ones that capitalize only the first letters.
Changing BROADWAY to Broadway will save lives, the Federal Highway Administration contends in its updated Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, citing improved readability.
At $110 per sign, it will also cost the state $27.6 million, city officials said.
Studies have shown that it is harder to read all-caps signs, and those extra milliseconds spent staring away from the road have been shown to increase the likelihood of accidents, particularly among older drivers, federal documents say.
The new regulations also require a change in font from the standard highway typeface to Clearview, which was specially developed for this purpose.
As a result, even numbered street signs will have to be replaced.
"Safety is this department's top priority," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said last year, in support of the new guidelines. "These new and updated standards will help make our nation's roads and bridges safer for drivers, construction workers and pedestrians alike."
The Highway Administration acknowledged that New York and other states "opposed the change, and suggested that the use of all upper-case letters remain an option," noting that "while the mixed-case words might be easier to read, the amount of improvement in legibility did not justify the cost."
COMMENT:
There are two questions here. The most obvious question is whether the benefits of making the changes justify the cost of making those changes. The less obvious, but ultimately more important question, is who should make the decision about whether the benefits justify the cost? Should the decision be made by the local government, who will bear the cost of changing the signs? Or should it be made by the Federal Highway Administration, who can impose this requirement without having to bear any of its costs? How much incentive does a federal agency have to take into account the costs that their regulations will impose on others?
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
White House Backs Electric-Car Aid - WSJ.com
EXCERPTS:
"WASHINGTON—The Obama administration on Tuesday backed a proposal to spend up to $6 billion more on subsidies for electric vehicles, amid renewed interest on Capitol Hill in measures to cut petroleum consumption in response to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
The proposals include more spending for research and development of car-battery technology, aid to utilities and homeowners to build recharging outlets, and consumer tax credits to offset the higher costs of battery-electric vehicles.
A bill drafted by Sens. Byron Dorgan (D., N.D.), Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.) and Jeff Alan Merkley (D., Ore.) calls for the additional spending, and includes a provision that would establish up to 15 "development" communities to receive funds for infrastructure and other programs for plug-ins.
"The rest of the world is moving up quickly on this technology," David Sandalow, the Energy Department's assistant secretary for policy and international affairs, told a Senate hearing Tuesday. "The question before us is whether the United States will lead in this technology."
The proposal has drawn criticism from auto makers, which worry that it focuses on electric vehicles at the expense of other alternative technologies, and from Republicans who cite the need to cut government spending.
QUESTIONS:
Is the important question, "whether the United States will lead in this technology?" Shouldn't we also ask
1. Does the government know for sure that this is the best alternative technology?
2. How will subsidizing this alternative affect the incentive to develop other alternatives that might turn out to be better?
3. If this is the best alternative technology, should we always seek to be the leader? Should we, perhaps, think in terms of not just the benefits of leading but also the costs, and if the costs of leading exceed the benefits, choose to let someone else lead?
"WASHINGTON—The Obama administration on Tuesday backed a proposal to spend up to $6 billion more on subsidies for electric vehicles, amid renewed interest on Capitol Hill in measures to cut petroleum consumption in response to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
The proposals include more spending for research and development of car-battery technology, aid to utilities and homeowners to build recharging outlets, and consumer tax credits to offset the higher costs of battery-electric vehicles.
A bill drafted by Sens. Byron Dorgan (D., N.D.), Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.) and Jeff Alan Merkley (D., Ore.) calls for the additional spending, and includes a provision that would establish up to 15 "development" communities to receive funds for infrastructure and other programs for plug-ins.
"The rest of the world is moving up quickly on this technology," David Sandalow, the Energy Department's assistant secretary for policy and international affairs, told a Senate hearing Tuesday. "The question before us is whether the United States will lead in this technology."
The proposal has drawn criticism from auto makers, which worry that it focuses on electric vehicles at the expense of other alternative technologies, and from Republicans who cite the need to cut government spending.
QUESTIONS:
Is the important question, "whether the United States will lead in this technology?" Shouldn't we also ask
1. Does the government know for sure that this is the best alternative technology?
2. How will subsidizing this alternative affect the incentive to develop other alternatives that might turn out to be better?
3. If this is the best alternative technology, should we always seek to be the leader? Should we, perhaps, think in terms of not just the benefits of leading but also the costs, and if the costs of leading exceed the benefits, choose to let someone else lead?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)