[well-argued case deleted]
The more enlightened among the world's economists (sorry for using bad
language here) use the term "externalities" for the social benefits which don't
appear in the published balance sheet.
These externalities can be either tangible (e.g. reduction in road maintenance
costs) or intangible (e.g. reduction in noise from freeways.)
>Unless the general public can be convinced of these 'savings', then
>government funding for freight railways in Australia will eventually
>disappear. And maybe, so will the railways themselves.
>
Almost all the externalities associated with public transport are benefits (ie
monetary savings elsewhere or less tangible things.) There are almost no
external costs (one example might be the juvenile crime associated with
Bus interchanges and railway stations - but this would occur as a cost in
any infrastructural project.)
What we have to do is convince Governments to include these benefits in
their yearly balance sheets for public transport:
Cost of public transport infrastructure ==
Cost of public transport maintenance ==
Total costs ==
Income from public transport fares ==
Estimated savings due to not building extra freeways ==
Estimated savings due to lower road maintenance ==
Estimated savings on public health due to lower pollution levels ==
Estimated value of intangible benefits ==
Total benefits ==
Total public profit from public transport == <big black number>
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------
// Watch out for the NOSPAM bit in replying to me
// michael Ph +61 6 258 8185
//=============================== Fax +61 6 258 1945
// Michael Lightfoot
// SysIX Unix Systems Consulting
// P.O. Box 155
// CHARNWOOD, ACT 2615 AUSTRALIA For ftp-related mail:
// Michael.Lightfoot@canb.auug.org.au ftpmaster@tip.net.au
// http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~michal