the number of people per day that the system can move and the speed and
comfort with which this happens, but there may also be other benefits. Cycling
and walking produce health benefits in terms of fitness and stress release.
Some types of transport such as rail and tram can add colour and life to a city.
Some types of transport can have tourist benefits, for example riding a cable
car or taking a ferry ride along a picturesque waterway.
Each means will also produce costs. Direct financial cost is the most obvious.
There is also indirect financial cost in that some means of transport, for
example motor vehicles, are a high pollutant bringing increased health costs
and loss or productivity. Health costs also have a personal measure in terms of
loss of well being for the persons concerned. Motor vehicles often also cause
a general lowering of the amenity of an area.
In these cases, where the generic outcome can be achieved in a number of
ways, the policy maker has to evaluate each option. They have to identify and
measure both benefits and costs. Following this, they add up benefits, add up
costs, then subtract total costs from total benefits. The resulting figure
represents the net benefit of the option, which conveniently constitutes a single
measure of its worth. When the net benefit of each option has been
determined, rational policy maker will then settle for the option which yields
the highest net benefit.
Level 3: Overall Outcome
Level 3 involves considering an overall outcome composed of a number of
generic outcomes. This involves the macro socio-economic function of
government. Voters demand the full package. Certainly they want a good
transport system. But they also want good health care, good education, fair
and efficient industrial laws, a high rate of employment and so on.
In this case the government has to balance off improvements in one system
against lessened capability in another. Economists sometimes refer to this as
the choice between guns and butter (or bread and battleships), symbolising the
stark choice between spending on peace and spending on war.
103
103
The origin of the phrase is not clear. Two famour early usages came from
Nazi Germany. In a speech on January 17, 1936, Minister of Propaganda
stated: "We can do without butter, but, despite all our love of
peace, not without arms. One cannot shoot with butter, but with guns”. Sometime
in the summer of the same year, Hermann Goering
echoed this sentiment, but
with a lessened love of peace, when proclaiming: "Guns will make us powerful;
butter will only make us fat”.
 |
 |
 |