CMStPnP It was humorous at times I would say. My other comment is I live in Texas and most folks I talk to are for expanded Passenger Rail. I have no idea where this "Texans are against passenger rail" or "Texans are ignorant about Passenger Rail" mood is comming from. I think someone got a happy meal one french fry short.
It was humorous at times I would say. My other comment is I live in Texas and most folks I talk to are for expanded Passenger Rail. I have no idea where this "Texans are against passenger rail" or "Texans are ignorant about Passenger Rail" mood is comming from. I think someone got a happy meal one french fry short.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Well I enjoy the conversation here and it is generally a lot more tame than standing between a highway contractor and his money, or worse yet getting a consultant to go back and correct a systematic mistake at the end. I apologize for using bolds as I only understood all Caps to be shouting...
Sam1 daveklepper ...shows me that LD trains should stick around. Don't worry Dave! Ignoring for the moment the searing logic for my case to discontinue the long distance trains and use the resources for corridor trains, it is not going to happen. If I am alive 10 years from now - I just turned 75, I expect to see the long distance train network pretty much as it is today.
daveklepper ...shows me that LD trains should stick around.
...shows me that LD trains should stick around.
Don't worry Dave!
Ignoring for the moment the searing logic for my case to discontinue the long distance trains and use the resources for corridor trains, it is not going to happen. If I am alive 10 years from now - I just turned 75, I expect to see the long distance train network pretty much as it is today.
Sam1How would you know about the qualifications of the consulting companies that I referred to? How would you know whether they are as good as or not as good as university researchers?
I do not wish to continue debating the validity of the sample. Focus group have a related but different purpose and methodology. Suffice it to say consulting firms are staffed by folks with a variety of training. Most are MBAs, some have masters in a variety of fields. Those who have the expertise to conduct polls were trained in university programs. Hopefully they received that training from centers like that at UT Austin or the even better centers I mentioned.
schlimm Sam1None of the polls that you references, if I remember correctly, used statistical sampling. Moreover, even if they did, all of them relied on telephone interviews, the results are suspect. The consultants that we used (McKinsey & Company, Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Planmetrics, Anon Hewitt) would not rely just on the results of telephone interviews. I would politely suggest you re-examine the last page of this PP. http://www.texasrailadvocates.org/pg_utstudy.asp You will see that, contrary to your recollection, "statistical sampling" was of course used. University polling groups such as those at Univ. of Chicago or Univ. of Michigan, to name two, are as good or better than polling done by (or for) consulting companies. The use of telephone and now internet-based surveys is widely used with decent validity as long as basic principles are adhered to: randomization, avoidance of response bias, making sure sample is representative, and avoidance of self-selected samples.
Sam1None of the polls that you references, if I remember correctly, used statistical sampling. Moreover, even if they did, all of them relied on telephone interviews, the results are suspect. The consultants that we used (McKinsey & Company, Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Planmetrics, Anon Hewitt) would not rely just on the results of telephone interviews.
I would politely suggest you re-examine the last page of this PP. http://www.texasrailadvocates.org/pg_utstudy.asp You will see that, contrary to your recollection, "statistical sampling" was of course used. University polling groups such as those at Univ. of Chicago or Univ. of Michigan, to name two, are as good or better than polling done by (or for) consulting companies.
The use of telephone and now internet-based surveys is widely used with decent validity as long as basic principles are adhered to: randomization, avoidance of response bias, making sure sample is representative, and avoidance of self-selected samples.
I stand partially corrected. The DFM polls used a valid statistical sampling technique. The Texas Poll, which is the one that I focused on, took a random sample of 2000 Texas residents. The researches have not disclosed the level of confidence they used and how they selected the size of the sample.
TRA) - Austin - A wide-ranging study conducted by a research group at the University of Texas shows that an overwhelming majority of Texans surveyed. This is the introduction to the Texas study. If this is not restricting the results to those surveyed, I don't know why the researchers would have included it in the introductory paragraph of their presentation. Unless it was written by someone else, and they missed it.
The size of a sample is determined by the confidence level, tolerable or expected error rate, etc. It is also impacted by any required replacements. It appears that the UT researches chose 2,000 arbitrarily. And used the results of the 34 per who responded to draw their conclusions. As they say in the introduction to their presentation, they are presenting the results of those surveyed, which is different than saying that they are confident that the population of Texas says such and such.
How would you know about the qualifications of the consulting companies that I referred to? How would you know whether they are as good as or not as good as university researchers?
All the studies contain a weakness in my view. The researchers did not conduct face to face follow-ups nor did they engage any focus groups. That is a serious shortcoming.
The biggest shortcoming lies in the fact that irrespective of what people say, at the end of the day very few of them travel intercity train or use public transit. And although some say that they would in the future, how many actually do is problematic. Equally interesting, a significant majority of the Texas respondents said that they would be willing to spend additional tax dollars on better transport options. Did the researchers tell them how much it would mean out of their pockets? Doing so frequently generates a different response.
I suspect that many of the respondents said that they favor the current level of train service or would like to see it increased because it has very little impact on their pocketbook. This is true for Amtrak as a whole. Although it required a cash subsidy of $1,620,533,000 in FY13, it only amounted to $7.28 for every person over 18 or $17.46 for every 2011 federal income filer with a tax obligation .
From my point of view the Texas poll is low value. I regret engaging in this discussion.
V.Payne Go back and look at the DFM pollsof red state districts from thevery first post to pick those apart.
Go back and look at the DFM pollsof red state districts from thevery first post to pick those apart.
None of the polls that you references, if I remember correctly, used statistical sampling. Moreover, even if they did, all of them relied on telephone interviews, the results are suspect. The consultants that we used (McKinsey & Company, Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Planmetrics, Anon Hewitt) would not rely just on the results of telephone interviews.
When the electric utility business in Texas was de-regulated, we used professional polling organizations to help us understand what people want from their electric energy company. The pollsters use statistical sampling to draw a sample. They used questionnaires and/or telephone interviews, followed-up by one on one interviews and focus groups.
Every other year we conducted an employee opinion survey (poll). It was conducted by a professional polling organization out of New York. We wanted the poll to be independent and bias free or as free of bias as possible. Every employee was given an opportunity to complete a questionnaire or respond to a telephone interview. These were followed-up for a statistical sample of employees by personal, in-depth interviews and focus groups.
Telephone interviews produce what some pollsters refer to as a cloudy lens. It is a bit like what one see or used to see when looking through the view finder of a 35 mm camera. The view will be in focus only by happenstance. Pollsters call the process of bringing the results of telephone interviews into sharp focus grinding the lens. It is the follow-up interviews and focus groups that grind the lens.
Not following up telephone interviews by personal interviews and focus groups may be OK for some groups. But it is not OK for a business organization that must get it right. Proctor & Gamble, IBM, Microsoft, etc. don't rely exclusively on telephone polls for market research. They have much more extensive processes to determine the market potential for the products and services.
Overmod Sam1I simply don't understand people who feel compelled to denigrate other people because they disagree with their point of view. You can make your point without putting people down. Sam1 ... I have read some although not all of your musing, primarily because they are not presented well. There is a contradiction here, and to me a troubling one. I suggest (again) that ad hominem arguments be avoided, even when sensitive people think them to be justifiable. If for no other reason that it detracts from a sensible discussion of the topic and the facts.
Sam1I simply don't understand people who feel compelled to denigrate other people because they disagree with their point of view. You can make your point without putting people down.
Sam1 ... I have read some although not all of your musing, primarily because they are not presented well.
There is a contradiction here, and to me a troubling one. I suggest (again) that ad hominem arguments be avoided, even when sensitive people think them to be justifiable. If for no other reason that it detracts from a sensible discussion of the topic and the facts.
The definition of musings is: thoughtfully abstracted. Not the best word to express my sentiments, but clearly not a put down. And frankly I don't even understand your point.
oltmanndWe won't have ANY choices going foward because debt service and entitlements are going to eat all the tax revenue plus some. There will be ZERO discretionary spending.
You state that as though it were an absolute fact. Many economists would disagree with the assumptions implicit in that conclusion. Variables include a more robust economy and raising taxes to their historic rates, both of which would increase revenue. Spending less on defense also seems possible. All of these are choices which we as a nation should be addressing, but lost in the morass of "political wisdom" are not.
V.Payne So this is the pattern. "As per Table 14.1 approximately 84 per cent of the medical costs were paid by Medicare, private insurance, self insured, Medicare, etc. Medicaid paid approximately 16 per cent of the costs. Medicare is a government insurance program paid for by the beneficiaries over their working lives. This is a far different cry than the implication that all or most of the aforementioned costs fell on the public purse."... All of the insurance funding sources being mentioned are non-user revenue as the FHWA defines such, as one pays not a cent more to the general tax purse if they drive more than average, which does increase the risk factor. Yet at the same time the demand is that passenger rail derive all of the revenue from tickets which do vary by the mile and as such is true user revenue. "Often ignored by those who emphasize the cost of driving and flying are the benefits. Apparently most Americans have decided that they far outweigh the costs. And studies have shown that they do many times over. To just focus on the cost without including the benefit side of the equation presents only one side of an issue. " Then here is the pivot, see the benefits outweigh the costs, but don't suggest that for the Long Distance trains as those types of benefits (access to small towns, relative safety, utility of time enroute) are not equal to these benefits. Go back and look at the DFM pollsof red state districts from thevery first post to pick those apart.
So this is the pattern.
"As per Table 14.1 approximately 84 per cent of the medical costs were paid by Medicare, private insurance, self insured, Medicare, etc. Medicaid paid approximately 16 per cent of the costs. Medicare is a government insurance program paid for by the beneficiaries over their working lives. This is a far different cry than the implication that all or most of the aforementioned costs fell on the public purse."...
All of the insurance funding sources being mentioned are non-user revenue as the FHWA defines such, as one pays not a cent more to the general tax purse if they drive more than average, which does increase the risk factor. Yet at the same time the demand is that passenger rail derive all of the revenue from tickets which do vary by the mile and as such is true user revenue.
"Often ignored by those who emphasize the cost of driving and flying are the benefits. Apparently most Americans have decided that they far outweigh the costs. And studies have shown that they do many times over. To just focus on the cost without including the benefit side of the equation presents only one side of an issue. "
Then here is the pivot, see the benefits outweigh the costs, but don't suggest that for the Long Distance trains as those types of benefits (access to small towns, relative safety, utility of time enroute) are not equal to these benefits.
Telling someone to go back and read your previous post, or one of your references, implies that they did not do so or they lack the ability to comprehend what you wrote or drew reference to. That's a put down. I have read some although not all of your musing, primarily because they are not presented well.
You paste charts into your posts. In some instance the data is so old as to be irrelevant. The biggest problem, however, is that you give people a fire hose to drink out, which has a tendency to turn people off.
Using bold letters in an email or forum is a form of shouting. I can read what you want me or others to read without have you shout it.
Automobiles are here to stay. Americans want them. They are willing to bear the risks and costs because they rightly believe the benefits far out weigh them.
The key argument should focus on where passenger rail makes sense. Focusing on extraneous issues does noting to further the cause.
If you want to believe that one train a day between points generates a benefit that is justified by the cost, that is your choice. I disagree.
I read the poll results. The polls are flawed because they are not based on valid statistical samples. All one can say, based on the methodologies, is that the respondents said this and that about whatever they were being asked. That's different from saying something about the population as a whole.
If the long distance trains generate a benefit, other than for the few communities where they may be the only alternative commercial transport, how come Corpus Christi, Brownsville, McAllen, Abilene, Midland, Odessa, Amarillo, Lubbock, just to name a few Texas cities, don't have these vitally important trains?
One can make the case that trains in relatively short, high density corridors, where the cost to expand the highways and airways is prohibitive, generate a benefit sufficient to cover their costs.
daveklepper I agree that Amtrak should be more efficient, should reduce operating subsidy, and certainly dining cars are one area where there should be both fiscal and quality improvement at the same time. The fact that ridership still increases despite the terrible blows to on-time performance resulting from freight congestion shows me that LD trains should stick around. The Lake Shore route is one the best to begin the sure-to-be-successful extended multiple corridor approach, and I doubt speeds higher than 110mph max are required to make it work.
I agree that Amtrak should be more efficient, should reduce operating subsidy, and certainly dining cars are one area where there should be both fiscal and quality improvement at the same time. The fact that ridership still increases despite the terrible blows to on-time performance resulting from freight congestion shows me that LD trains should stick around. The Lake Shore route is one the best to begin the sure-to-be-successful extended multiple corridor approach, and I doubt speeds higher than 110mph max are required to make it work.
daveklepper Don't ask why should the USA be like other countries that regard passenger rail as a social necessity rather then a commercial enterprise. It is today the USA being the USA. 95% of both the capitol and operating funds for passenger rail are for commuter and transit. So corridor and long distance is just like commuter and transit, operated as a social necessity and not as a commercial enterprise. Sorry folks, that happens to be the way it is.
Don't ask why should the USA be like other countries that regard passenger rail as a social necessity rather then a commercial enterprise. It is today the USA being the USA. 95% of both the capitol and operating funds for passenger rail are for commuter and transit. So corridor and long distance is just like commuter and transit, operated as a social necessity and not as a commercial enterprise. Sorry folks, that happens to be the way it is.
In the US we indeed do treat intercity passenger rail as a social necessity, otherwise we would not be funding it at all. But the funds to support Amtrak are competing with many other social necessities. But these other things are government waste, you say, and the money should "come to us." There are many advocates for the other government programs, some who look at what we want as "waste" if not a much lower social priority.
If you are conceding that passenger trains can never succeed as a commercial enterprise, it does not mean that Amtrak does not need to compete. It indeed needs to compete with other programs supported by the government.
As advocates, that passenger trains should be a priority is obvious to us, but the central part of advocacy is persuasion. Too many of us are quick to brand persons who don't see it our way as uninformed, in the pay of special interests, or "in love with their automobile." As advocates we need to persuade, and scolding is not effective persuasion.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
oltmannd schlimmHad you read the entire post, or the previous one, you would see I am talking about choices, not justifying money spent on Amtrak because we spend $X on widgets. I mentioned the $1 bil. in tax credits given annually to oil producers and the annual Amtrak subsidy which is about 1/3 of that. Taxpayer voters should inform their reps. which of those two seem the wiser, more utilitarian. Eliminate that oil depletion credit and use that money saved for Amtrak and debt reduction. That is only one example. There are many more discretionary expenditures and tax credits and tax loopholes that should be examined, one by one. That's not the point. We won't have ANY choices going foward because debt service and entitlements are going to eat all the tax revenue plus some. There will be ZERO discretionary spending. That's why it's so critically important to spend wisely with the dribs and drabs that are handed out now. ...and it's not been happening. At the surface, it looks like we threw $11B down a rathole. (although some of it will bear some fruit, eventually)
schlimmHad you read the entire post, or the previous one, you would see I am talking about choices, not justifying money spent on Amtrak because we spend $X on widgets. I mentioned the $1 bil. in tax credits given annually to oil producers and the annual Amtrak subsidy which is about 1/3 of that. Taxpayer voters should inform their reps. which of those two seem the wiser, more utilitarian. Eliminate that oil depletion credit and use that money saved for Amtrak and debt reduction. That is only one example. There are many more discretionary expenditures and tax credits and tax loopholes that should be examined, one by one.
That's not the point. We won't have ANY choices going foward because debt service and entitlements are going to eat all the tax revenue plus some. There will be ZERO discretionary spending.
That's why it's so critically important to spend wisely with the dribs and drabs that are handed out now.
...and it's not been happening.
At the surface, it looks like we threw $11B down a rathole. (although some of it will bear some fruit, eventually)
Your correct. Cutting the long distance trains or ceasing to spread money around with little prospect of a real success will not solve the debt problem. But every little bit helps.
Its not just saving money on Amtrak or wasteful expenditures under the guise of high speed rail. It is heaps of other programs as well, PBS, NPR, subsidized crop insurance, etc. Add them all up, and it becomes serious money.
Corporations don't pay taxes. They usually flow through to the people who buy their goods and services. If the corporation lacks the pricing power to pass them onto their customers, they may be worn by the shareholders and/or workers. If a tax allowance or credit is eliminated, the cost of doing business increases. The consequences will flow through to the customers, although the shareholders and workers may also be impacted.
The accelerated depreciation and write-off provisions accorded big oil should be eliminated. They are no longer necessary. However, how they flow back is not as straightforward as it may seem.
If big oil loses a tax deduction or tax credit, it will try to reflect it in the price of its products. Given the relative inelastic price/demand curve for oil, especially gasoline, the price increases probably would stick. Most people would have less money to spend on other items, i.e. clothing, restaurants, travel vendors, etc.The incomes of these businesses would go down, which would result in lower tax payments.
The oil companies claim that the elimination of their tax preferences would cause them to cut back on exploration and reduce their workforce. If the workforce is reduced and the workers cannot find like kind jobs or any job, their tax payments to the national and state treasuries would be reduced or eliminated.
Those in favor of eliminating the tax preferences for big oil claim that it would result in an increase in tax revenues. That's probably true, but for the reasons stated above it is not likely to be a one for one exchange. If the price of oil went up significantly, and the oil companies terminated a large number of employees, tax revenues might not change at all or change marginally.
I favor spending government taxpayer money for infrastructure improvements where there is a reasonable probability of a payoff. But I don't favor doing so where there is little if any potential payoff. Trains in relatively short, high density corridors, as per Amtrak's current financial statements, have the potential, with some changes in revenue and cost variables, of recovering all of their costs. The long distance trains, which serve so few people as to not even move the intercity transport needle, based on 40 years of experience, have no potential of recovering the investment that has been made in them.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd schlimmfrequently trot out the federal debt [as above] as reason to not spend a penny on Amtrak. I do that, too. The point isn't what we should or shouldn't do so much as the reality that the growth of entitlement programs and debt service is going to dry up all discretionary spending in the very near future if there is any serious attempt to deal with the national debt. So, if you want to be an advocate for this or that, you have to keep that in mind. It's much more than "we spend $$ on XYZ, so we should be able to spend $ on ABC."
schlimmfrequently trot out the federal debt [as above] as reason to not spend a penny on Amtrak.
I do that, too.
The point isn't what we should or shouldn't do so much as the reality that the growth of entitlement programs and debt service is going to dry up all discretionary spending in the very near future if there is any serious attempt to deal with the national debt.
So, if you want to be an advocate for this or that, you have to keep that in mind. It's much more than "we spend $$ on XYZ, so we should be able to spend $ on ABC."
Sam1 schlimm Sam1The United States is a different culture. So what! The argument that we should be like the other countries, with which we may not have a lot in common, and some of which may be hostile to our national interests, is akin to saying my family needs to spend itself into bankruptcy because the family two doors down is doing it. Eliminate merely the oil depletion allowance (approximately $1 bil. annually) and you would cover ~3 years of Amtrak's government paid for subsidy, even if LD trains are retained). You say our culture is so different from the rest of the world? Perhaps living in TX, you might well think so, but there are plenty of other areas in the US that would like to have the options for transportation afforded to citizens in other modern nations. People in some states have been and are willing to continue to pay for those corridor services. My comment had more to do with the form of ownership of a commercial enterprise - Amtrak - than whether we should have transport options. We should. But they should be driven by the market place, i.e. what people demonstrate a willingness to pay for in an arms length transaction.
schlimm Sam1The United States is a different culture. So what! The argument that we should be like the other countries, with which we may not have a lot in common, and some of which may be hostile to our national interests, is akin to saying my family needs to spend itself into bankruptcy because the family two doors down is doing it. Eliminate merely the oil depletion allowance (approximately $1 bil. annually) and you would cover ~3 years of Amtrak's government paid for subsidy, even if LD trains are retained). You say our culture is so different from the rest of the world? Perhaps living in TX, you might well think so, but there are plenty of other areas in the US that would like to have the options for transportation afforded to citizens in other modern nations. People in some states have been and are willing to continue to pay for those corridor services.
Sam1The United States is a different culture. So what! The argument that we should be like the other countries, with which we may not have a lot in common, and some of which may be hostile to our national interests, is akin to saying my family needs to spend itself into bankruptcy because the family two doors down is doing it.
Eliminate merely the oil depletion allowance (approximately $1 bil. annually) and you would cover ~3 years of Amtrak's government paid for subsidy, even if LD trains are retained). You say our culture is so different from the rest of the world? Perhaps living in TX, you might well think so, but there are plenty of other areas in the US that would like to have the options for transportation afforded to citizens in other modern nations. People in some states have been and are willing to continue to pay for those corridor services.
My comment had more to do with the form of ownership of a commercial enterprise - Amtrak - than whether we should have transport options. We should. But they should be driven by the market place, i.e. what people demonstrate a willingness to pay for in an arms length transaction.
In FY13 the State Supported and Other Short Distance Trains lost $180.8 million before depreciation and interest. The loss was partially offset by state capital payments of $37.3 million.
Through June FY14 the State Supported and Other Short Distance Trains had lost approximately $62 million, offset by state capital payments of approximately $51 million. The difference could be due to timing. Also, I am not sure that all of the short distance trains are state supported.
At the end of the day, however, it does not matter whose pocket the money comes out of. The State Supported and Other Short Distance Trains don't cover their operating costs. Whether the federal government takes my money or Texas takes it, I don't have it.
Most people recognize that all modes of transport involve some risk and consequences. People traveling can be injured or killed. Property can be damaged or destroyed. There is a cost associated with the consequences.This is nothing new.
As demonstrated by their behavior Americans have accepted the risks and consequences of motor vehicles and airplanes. Mercifully, the fatal injury accident rates have been falling dramatically. For example, between 1980 and 2011, as per Table 2-18, National Transportation Statistics, the number of motor vehicle fatalities has fallen from 51,091 to 32,069, and the rate has fallen from 6.92 to 2.54 per 100 million miles. Over the same period Vehicle Miles Traveled increased from 1.5 trillion miles to 2.9 trillion miles. Likewise, over the same period, as per Table 2.2 of the same source, highway related injuries fell from 3.2 million to 2.2 million.
Traffic experts have been highlighting the cost of motor vehicle accidents for decades. One of the desired results has been safer vehicles, roadways, etc., which in turn have helped bring about the reduction in highway fatalities and injuries as per the preceding paragraph.
When adjusted for constant dollars, as well as qualitative improvements in health care, vehicles, etc., the cost to the nation of highway accidents probably was no greater in 2011 than in 1980.
Often ignored by those who emphasize the cost of driving and flying are the benefits. Apparently most Americans have decided that they far outweigh the costs. And studies have shown that they do many times over. To just focus on the cost without including the benefit side of the equation presents only one side of an issue.
People probably are not going to get out of their cars in large numbers to sit on a train or transit vehicle. Not as long as they have a reasonable choice! That is the way it is. Scare tactics have not change their behavior. It is not likely to do so in the near future.
daveklepper IN 90% OF THE WORLD'S CASES, PASSENGER RAIL IS NOT A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS.
IN 90% OF THE WORLD'S CASES, PASSENGER RAIL IS NOT A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS.
Yep! The United States is a different culture. So what! The argument that we should be like the other countries, with which we may not have a lot in common, and some of which may be hostile to our national interests, is akin to saying my family needs to spend itself into bankruptcy because the family two doors down is doing it.
I have evolved to the point where I favor privatizing Amtrak. It is a commercial enterprise, albeit government sponsored, that competes with private airlines, bus companies, etc.
Private, competitive enterprises do a better job of using scarce resources to achieve their ends. If the executives and managers don't get off their backsides, they lose their jobs. If government employees don;t get off their backsides, what happens to them? In most instances nothing. Or they hire more staff to figure out what needs to be done. And when they don't get off their backsides, what happens to them? Nothing!
If Amtrak was the proper response to the passenger rail problem in the United States, should the government also have bailed out Pan American Airlines, People Air Express, Trailways, United States Lines, etc.? Other than for political reasons, why did the federal government have an obligation to bail out passenger rail?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.