The Department of Transportation wishes to choose between two alternative accident prevention programs. It has identified three benefits to be gained from such programs: 1. Reduced property damage, both to the vehicles involved in an accident and to other property (e.g., real estate that may be damaged at the scene of an accident) 2. Reduced injuries 3. Reduced fatalities The department’s experts are willing to provide dollar estimates of property damage savings that are expected to accrue from any program, but they will estimate only the number of injuries and fatalities that may be averted. The first program is relatively moderate in its costs and will be concentrated in a large city. It involves upgrading traffic signals, improving road markers, and repaving some potholed streets. Because of the concentration and value of property in the city, savings from reduced property damage are expected to be substantial. Likewise, a moderate number of traffic-related deaths and injuries could be avoided. The second program is more ambitious. It involves straightening long sections of dangerous rural roads and installing improved guardrails. Although the property damage savings are expected to be small in relation to total cost, the reduction in traffic-related deaths and injuries should be substantial. The following table summarizes the expected costs and payoffs of the two programs: Year 1 2 3 4 Total Alternative #1 Cost ($000) 200 200 100 50 550 Reduced property damage ($000) 50 100 250 100 500 Lives saved 60 40 35 25 160 Injuries prevented 500 425 300 150 1,375 Alternative #2 Cost ($000) 700 1,800 1,100 700 4,300 Reduced property damage ($000) 150 225 475 300 1,150 Lives saved 50 75 100 125 350 Injuries prevented 800 850 900 900 3,450 Assume that a 10 percent discount rate is appropriate for evaluating government programs. The net present cost of Alternative 1 is and the net present cost of Alternative 2 is . Based on the benefit-cost ratios, which alternative is more efficient in reducing property damage?

The Department of Transportation wishes to choose between two alternative accident prevention programs. It has identified three benefits to be gained from such programs: 1. Reduced property damage, both to the vehicles involved in an accident and to other property (e.g., real estate that may be damaged at the scene of an accident) 2. Reduced injuries 3. Reduced fatalities The department’s experts are willing to provide dollar estimates of property damage savings that are expected to accrue from any program, but they will estimate only the number of injuries and fatalities that may be averted. The first program is relatively moderate in its costs and will be concentrated in a large city. It involves upgrading traffic signals, improving road markers, and repaving some potholed streets. Because of the concentration and value of property in the city, savings from reduced property damage are expected to be substantial. Likewise, a moderate number of traffic-related deaths and injuries could be avoided. The second program is more ambitious. It involves straightening long sections of dangerous rural roads and installing improved guardrails. Although the property damage savings are expected to be small in relation to total cost, the reduction in traffic-related deaths and injuries should be substantial. The following table summarizes the expected costs and payoffs of the two programs: Year 1 2 3 4 Total Alternative #1 Cost ($000) 200 200 100 50 550 Reduced property damage ($000) 50 100 250 100 500 Lives saved 60 40 35 25 160 Injuries prevented 500 425 300 150 1,375 Alternative #2 Cost ($000) 700 1,800 1,100 700 4,300 Reduced property damage ($000) 150 225 475 300 1,150 Lives saved 50 75 100 125 350 Injuries prevented 800 850 900 900 3,450 Assume that a 10 percent discount rate is appropriate for evaluating government programs. The net present cost of Alternative 1 is and the net present cost of Alternative 2 is . Based on the benefit-cost ratios, which alternative is more efficient in reducing property damage?

Managerial Accounting: The Cornerstone of Business Decision-Making

7th Edition

ISBN:9781337115773

Author:Maryanne M. Mowen, Don R. Hansen, Dan L. Heitger

Publisher:Maryanne M. Mowen, Don R. Hansen, Dan L. Heitger

Chapter13: Emerging Topics In Managerial Accounting

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 36E: Crazy Fan Guard Company provides security services to popular live sporting event venues. Crazy Fan...

See similar textbooks

Related questions

Concept explainers

Question

100%

The Department of Transportation wishes to choose between two alternative accident prevention programs. It has identified three benefits to be gained from such programs:

1.	Reduced property damage, both to the vehicles involved in an accident and to other property (e.g., real estate that may be damaged at the scene of an accident)
2.	Reduced injuries
3.	Reduced fatalities

The department’s experts are willing to provide dollar estimates of property damage savings that are expected to accrue from any program, but they will estimate only the number of injuries and fatalities that may be averted.

The first program is relatively moderate in its costs and will be concentrated in a large city. It involves upgrading traffic signals, improving road markers, and repaving some potholed streets. Because of the concentration and value of property in the city, savings from reduced property damage are expected to be substantial. Likewise, a moderate number of traffic-related deaths and injuries could be avoided.

The second program is more ambitious. It involves straightening long sections of dangerous rural roads and installing improved guardrails. Although the property damage savings are expected to be small in relation to total cost, the reduction in traffic-related deaths and injuries should be substantial.

The following table summarizes the expected costs and payoffs of the two programs:

Year	1	2	3	4	Total
Alternative #1
Cost ($000)	200	200	100	50	550
Reduced property damage ($000)	50	100	250	100	500
Lives saved	60	40	35	25	160
Injuries prevented	500	425	300	150	1,375
Alternative #2
Cost ($000)	700	1,800	1,100	700	4,300
Reduced property damage ($000)	150	225	475	300	1,150
Lives saved	50	75	100	125	350
Injuries prevented	800	850	900	900	3,450

Assume that a 10 percent discount rate is appropriate for evaluating government programs.

The net present cost of Alternative 1 is and the net present cost of Alternative 2 is .

Based on the benefit-cost ratios, which alternative is more efficient in reducing property damage?

Expert Solution

Trending now

This is a popular solution!

Step by step

Solved in 2 steps

SEE SOLUTION Check out a sample Q&A here

Knowledge Booster

Learn more about

Need a deep-dive on the concept behind this application? Look no further. Learn more about this topic, accounting and related others by exploring similar questions and additional content below.