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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
V.Payne 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.