Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: Hurricane Katrina

How much should cities plan for the storm of the century?

After every storm of the century, we ask why we didn’t prepare sufficiently.

For Katrina it was better levee protection. And now, for Sandy, I just heard that the PATH–underground trains between NJ and NYC–had 4 foot flood gates (some news articles say 6 foot) from 1992 that just did not work. As a result, 10 million gallons of water flooded the system and created damage that will require at least $300 million to remedy.

On September 12, I posted the following:

Along its 520 mile long coastline, New York’s waters have eased upward at an inch a decade, a rate that some say is accelerating. If so, by 2050, another 2 feet might be added. Although not below sea level, New York is vulnerable. A direct hurricane hit could mean subways flooded for weeks, basements inundated, electricity out, undrinkable water, commuter transport lines incapacitated.

6 weeks later, on October 28, super storm Sandy hit. And yes, subways flooded for weeks, basements were inundated, electricity was out, water was undrinkable and commuter transport lines were incapacitated. Now, still cleaning up from her massive damage, NY and NJ are asking those September 12 questions. Should they prepare for the next Sandy? Should the PATH at a cost of $181 million have higher floodgates? Below is a picture of an inflatable bladder. At $400,000 or so apiece, these bladders could be mobilized when a storm approached.

Our Bottom Line: The timeless issue is opportunity cost. With cost defined as sacrifice, the cost of disaster preparation is whatever we cancel because we cannot afford to do both. To what extent do we divert money and resources that we need now to preparation for an event that might not occur?

How much should we spend for protection against the next super storm?

Sources and Resources: This blog from WNYC specifies commuting hardships created by Sandy and here is the article about and source of my picture of inflatable subway bladders. Responding, here is the Congressional debate about mitigation for future storms.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

After Hurricane Sandy, there were gasoline shortages.

Yesterday, a friend of mine waited on a gas line for 3 hours to fill his tank. The price was close to normal but the line was not.

Hearing about gas lines, I remembered when Boston’s water supply was temporarily undrinkable several years ago and politicians warned vendors not to increase the price of bottled water. Calling it “price gouging,” they said that when an emergency strikes, the last thing people want is to pay more.

But, I wonder…

Imagine 2 bottled water sellers. Making a small profit per bottle, one seller maintains her normal price. At $1.00, sales soar, her shelves are soon empty and they remain empty. Meanwhile the second vendor doubles her price and her profits. With the incentive to discover new water suppliers, she restocks.

Low price or more water? Which do you prefer?

But there is more to the story. What if the second vendor had to pay a fine for an excessive price increase because Boston had a price gouging law? A 2006 FTC report cites examples of gas stations in states with price gouging laws that have closed rather than risk a lawsuit for price hikes during an emergency.

And that returns us to my friend in the gas line. In NJ, a gasoline station was fined $50,000 for price gouging after Hurricane Irene. I wonder whether New Jersey’s price gouging law is affecting the length of gas lines. Maybe instead, we should just let the incentives on the supply side do their job.

And the new name for price gouging should be “increasing supply.”

Sources and Resources: This ungated WSJ article provides an insightful discussion of price gouging and the 2006 FTC report.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

16272_8.26_000005651286XSmall

Testifying in 1978, one public official said that economists, citing cost and benefit, recommended using a lower level of levee protection against hurricanes in Louisiana than he thought was necessary. (p. 90 of the Congressional Report on Hurricane Katrina)

Similarly, a WSJ headline tells us that “Japan Ignored Warning of Nuclear Vulnerability,” and the article then explains that, “doing so was likely deemed too costly and cumbersome.”

Should we be concerned that economists’ considerations of cost and benefit are being criticized?

The Economic Lesson

It is crucial to remember that someone who uses cost/benefit analysis to make a decision does not have a crystal ball. We cannot use current consequences to evaluate a past decision. Also, please keep in mind that economically, cost refers to a sacrificed alternative. It does not have to refer to dollars.

So, what to do after reading this article about the need for a high-tech disaster warning system? Will you consider cost and benefit?

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment