Hacker News Reader

Comment by robocat | Hacker News Reader

Cost-benefit analysis is an engineering solution to a political problem - it seems great but it doesn't solve political issues.

In NZ potential changes to the national road system are ranked by cost versus benefit. Only the most beneficial projects are commenced, and low or negative value projects are not funded. Projects must also exceed a minimum benefit vs cost ratio.

The political problem is that national infrastructure project spending and lending is seen as overwhelmingly occurring in Auckland.

Cost-benefit leads to perceived imbalance because costs are massive in Auckland but the benefits are huge too (a large population, multiplied by large congestion).

View on HN

Is that a political problem? Surely, a person who lives in rural NZ might think, "Oh, my tax dollars are being used to help those in Auckland; I'm being shafted", but if NZ is anything like the United States, urban centers are the producers of tax units and rural areas consume tax units.

It's worth pointing out that Auckland has recently added a regional fuel tax to pay for some of their roading infrastructure.

I haven't lived in NZ for a few years now, but I grew up there. I wouldn't be surprised if your analysis on urban vs. rural centers being producers vs. consumers might be slightly off as the economy is heavily dependent on agriculture etc.

New Zealand has two major problems: 1: Housing is completely out of touch with reality in Auckland (and to a lesser extent in all major centers). Auckland is one of the least affordable cities in the world to live in, and unlike San Francisco, lacks an industry that pays enough to keep up. 2: The regions are suffering from a death by 1000 cuts type scenario.

I have a working theory that the move towards bigger and better and more powerful cities has been one of our gravest errors in modern urban planning.

If you don't live in Auckland, your reckon your taxes are being spent in Auckland on expensive roading projects, and you can see that work isn't getting done on your local roading problems.

Regardless of how optimal for the nation that might be, or even if everyone is actually better off, you can easily end up with many unhappy people outside of Auckland (a political problem).

Edit: strongtowns on cost/benefit analysis (half good, half not): https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2010/12/21/best-of-blog-...

It's not a straightforward as simple consumption and production of tax units. The question is who benefits?

If Alaska consumes a lot of tax units by having an early warning system for ICBMs, then Alaska benefits in the sense that there is a government jobs program, but the simple calculus of tax units consumed vs produced doesn't factor in the benefit San Francisco and Los Angeles get from the early warning system.

Probably should add that Auckland, whilst not the capital, is the largest city by a large margin.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com