CASE 7-1 Some Rough Cost-Benefit Numbers for a \"Bridge to Nowhere\" A widely pu

Question

CASE 7-1 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

The census department counts population in two ways. They use statistical sampling and they count census forms of people to whom they send them. In other words, they attempt to count each head in the United States. Doing a head count or a physical enumeration does not guarantee that everyone will be counted. In the 1990 census, more than 8 million people remained undercounted. The census is supposed to count people of every race, creed, and ethnicity, yet some, including aliens or people who just refuse to acknowledge the surveys, are never counted in the census. While this is advantageous for use in determining congressional seats, it does not help in adequately allocating federal resources. The physical enumeration is advantageous for use in small cities and towns where it is easier to count and recount the population. The sampling method, on the other hand, is useful for identifying and counting undercounted population. With statistical sampling, only a fifth of the total population is actually counted. For one, the cost of counting this way is significantly reduced. One advantage of using statistical sampling is that it might count people who are traditionally undercounted including blacks, Hispanics, and children. It generally gives data that can be extrapolated to calculate with some accuracy the total numbers in the population. Additionally, the data is easier to check for errors than a physical enumeration, not to mention cheaper. The Census Bureau believes the ideal situation is to employ both methods and as in geography, the decision is a matter of scale. Small areas benefit more from physical enumeration while in larger areas with larger populations sampling would be more appropriate.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse C
• Subjects

---

---

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