Socio-Economical Comparisons

Change is inevitable....except from vending machines.

This page has as its focus the situation in Sweden in the late 1990-ies, but most of what is said here could be generally applied. The Parliament of Sweden has established the general goal for the traffic policy: " The general goal for Swedish traffic policy should be to offer the citizens and the business community in all parts of the country satisfactory, safe and environmentally sound traffical possibilities to the lowest possible cost to the community." The general goal thus emphasizes that a comparison with all alternatives should be conducted by means of a socio-economical cost analyzis.

adical changes in a society can generally be evaluated by taking note of the changes in usefulness and sacrifices for various parties concerned as a consequence of those changes. The Internal Revenue Service of Sweden proscribes such socio-economical analyzis of consequenses whenever alterations of an expensive nature takes place. Several Government department (such as the Departments of Roads and of >B>Railroads), socio-economical analyzis methods are being used in order to give priority to the best investments.

The Parliament also has decided that descriptions of environmental consequences should be done if there is danger of resulting big environmental damages. Such environmental consequences descriptions could be viewed as socio-economical analyzis, with an added touch of environmental awareness. Generally speaking, it is vitally important to be able to evaluate and compare large changes in the environment and in the social system. Without such comparisons there will be no comprehensive and generally accepted way on which to base decisions for measurements taken.

Values for usefulness and sacrifices can be given provided there is a market for them. Markets are available for resources (land, material, labor, energy). But also if there is no market, one can often, indirectly, decide human values, by analyzing human behavior in situations where similar usefulness or sacrifices are present. A new investment in for instance, roads, tramways or beam-supported traffic can with this method be compared to one or more alternativ (such as not making the investment at all). The comparison could be done using real numbers:

Profit/Loss = Usefulness (the revenues) - The Sacrifices (the costs) = Traffical usefulness - (Cost of Resources + Environmental cost + Social cost). One could also, with the same calculations, arrive at a "measure of profitability" for the investments, Usefulness/Sacrifices. If the usefullness is bigger than the sacrifices, this "measure of profitability" will be larger than 1. If the sacrifices are bigger than the usefulness this measure will be less than 1.

How such an analyzis can be structured is shown in the table below. Socio-economical estimates do not exist.

We can only use rough estimates of the level of usefullness and sacrifices by using plus and minus signs. Where no change for better or worse is expected we have indicated this with 0 (zero).

A structure for socio-economical comparisons. Reference Alternatives: Road Traffic. Alternatives for Comparisons: Beam-carried traffic. Time Perspective: 40 years. Geographical Perspective: Sweden.

Income- or expense item	Within 10 years; 1995-2005	Within 20 years; 2005-2015	Within 30 years; 2015-2025	Within 40 years; 2025-2035
Traffical Usefulness
Total Dorr-to-Door Time
Walking time to nearest stop	-	0	+	++
Waiting time for next vehicle	-	+	++	++
Time to Change Transportation	0	0	+	+
Time to Park own Vehicle	+	++	++	++
Service and maintenance time	+	++	++	++
Travel time	0	++	+++	++++
Comfort	-	+	++	+++
Traffic safety	+	++	++	+++
Personal safety	0	+	++	++
Cost of Resources
Real estate etc to traffic use	+	++	+++	++++
Parking space	+	++	+++	++++
Material to the traffic network	0	0	+	+
Vehicle material to personal transports	+	++	+++	++++
Vehicle material to transporting freight	0	++	+++	+++
Labor resources	+	++	+++	++++
Energy resources	+	++	++	+++
Environmental costs
Hothouse effects	+	+	++	+++
Destruction of the Ozone layer	+	+	++	+++
Noise	+	++	++	++
Pollution	+	+	++	++
Erosion of structures etc.	+	+	++	++
Garbage production	0	0	+	+
Spread of Chemicals (roadsalt, rust, oil, etc.)	+	+	++	++
Global PCB- och dioxin spread (from melting down car wrecks)	0	+	++	++
Damages to lakes and rivers (quicksilver in fish etc.)	0	+	++	+++
Damages to subsoil water	0	+	++	+++
Forest damages (ozone, acidification etc.)	+	+	++	+++
Agricultural damages (lead, carbohydrates)	+	+	++	+++
Over-fertilization of coastal waters (Nitrogen oxides from motor vehicles)	0	+	++	+++
Oil damages to the high seas	+	+	++	+++
Social costs
Traffic accidents	+	++	+++	++++
Diseases	+	++	++	++
Crowding of pedestrians	0	+	++	+++
Spread of Urban areas	0	0	++	++++
Barrier effects	+	+	++	++
Poor availability for people without cars	0	0	++	+++
Segregation between homeowners and apartment dwellers	0	0	+	++
Segregation between suburban dwellers and citydwellers	0	0	+	++
Regional unbalance	0	0	+	++
Consequenses from an oilwar	0	0	+	++
For the coming years	Within 10 years; 1995-2005	Within 20 years; 2005-2015	Within 30 years; 2015-2025	Within 40 years; 2025-2035
Summation:	17+	43+	79+	105+