Eber Michael HW1
The A&G paper sets up a framework of econometric models to suggest a rough approximation of the monetary value one might give to an individual life based upon data gathered concerning the effect of a speed limit increase on U.S. rural interstate highways. A&G compare how the economic worth of reduced travel time compares with the increased fatalities associated with higher speed limits. The heart of their analysis looks at data collected from the U.S. federal government and the states themselves detailing statistics from states that adopted 65 mph speed limits as well as from those that retained the 55 mph limit. A&G acknowledge other data sources and conceptualizations which may result in a different calculation of the value of a life. For example, countries other than the U.S. whose political systems may have different utilities towards the risks associated with transportation have their own highway data.
Other sources to support or refute the A&G findings: -National Transportation Statistics 2003 Table 2-1: Transportation Fatalities by Mode: A&G do suggest that the value of a life may not be a simple clean-cut relationship between wage rate and highway fatalities. However, one could use this table on fatalities for all modes of transportation to suggest for instance, that the increase in highway fatalities might also be expressed as a fraction of the total deaths in a year caused by any mode of transport. Or, one might look at the predominance of highway deaths compared to fatalities through other modes of transport to suggest that the value of a life lost on the
road might be less than A&G's suggestions; in other words, so many people use personal motor vehicles as a means of transport and seem not to be scared off by highway fatality numbers that this may indicate the value of a life lost on the highway has little significance when compared to the value of a life lost through other means of transport or by murder, etc. One could look at the deaths caused by aviation in this table, which have consistently been less than 1000 over the past 15 years (compared to 30-40+ times this number for highway fatalities,) to make an argument that, based upon the media coverage given to fatalities caused by airplanes, the value of a life very much depends on the context of its death. There are a number of factors to consider here, such as relative use of each mode of transport, but I feel the point is still valid. -Highway Taxes and Fees: One might use the table on the taxation of gasoline by state, for instance, to look at how a states willingness to tax motorists ties in with its readiness to adopt higher speed limits. Based on this, it might be possible to make the claim that, in states with higher taxation, the value of an individual's time on the road is greater than in states with lower taxation. One must acknowledge that, just as changes in speed limits are a product of political factors and not simply the desire of the median or mean individual, taxation also cannot be attributed solely to the interests of the people who must pay these fees. -Foreign Statistics on Highway Mortality Rates: Looking at the number of deaths on the roads in France, for instance, one can see by comparing the relative populations of the U.S. and France that highway mortality rates are roughly the same. L'Observateur (http:// www.observateurocde.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/576/Ins%E9curit%E9_routi %E8re.html) documents that a European conference of ministers of transportation found
that for the year 2001, France had the second highest amount of deaths on national roads 7,720. When we consider France's population is roughly 60 million compared to the roughly 300 million in the U.S., it appears the two are countries right on par when looking at mortality rates. However, for roughly the same amount of relative deaths, France has much higher gasoline prices: http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/world_gasoline_prices.html . It could be argued, then, that the value of time spent on the roads in France is much higher than in the United States which would lead to a higher monetary figure for the value of a life. While one does not have data to compare relative willingness to accept more fatalities for higher speed limits (like with the A&G paper,) this seems to emphasize that the value of a life depends greatly on its context and that even when looking at the mean "value" of a life, there are a lot of factors and considerations that can greatly alter this approximation.
The TEA21 legislation describes a project to reconstruct portions of Route 46 in New Jersey. It provides $12,675,000, $8,625,000, and $3,075,000 for potions of the road at Van Houton Avenue, the Riverview Drive interchange, and the Union Boulevard interchange respectively. (I'm not sure whether there was some hidden further detailing of this project on the T21 site; this was the project near my home town with the most detail I could find.) The New Jersey Department of Transportation also documents construction of Route 46: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/rte46corridor/ .
. The heart of the construction involves replacing bridges and adding acceleration and decceleration lanes from roughly North Caldwell to Passaic. The NJDOT cites that they are investing $195.4 million into Route 46 (much higher than money T21 quotes for Route 46, indicating the large majority of the project is outside of T21 funding) and that the main purpose of the project is "to improve safety."
Since safety is the NJDOT's stated goal in reconstructing the highway, we can look at the A&G findings to help give some numeric worth to the project. If we use A&G's figure of $1.54 million to "equal" the "value" of saving one life, we can see that it would take about 126 lives saved to counter the cost of $195.4 million invested. While this seems a bit impractical, we can acknowledge, first of all, that these lives are in...