Polls based on telephone interviews and/or questionnaires are notorious for just scratching the surface of an issue. Unless they are followed up with face to face interviews and/or focus groups, the results should be treated with skepticism.
To determine the robustness of the poll one needs to know, amongst other things, the statistical construct that was used to determine the size of the sample, the tolerable error rate, the confidence level, the random number generator (s), the allowance for substitutions, and bias control.
The Texas Poll gives some methodology data, i.e. the size of the population sampled, follow-up interviews, etc., but it does not include any information regarding the aforementioned sampling construct parameters. Moreover, it does not indicate how the follow-up interviews were conducted. Face to face follow-up interviews and/or focus groups are important because the interviewer(s) is able to read the body language of the respondents, which can contain some very important clues regarding the veracity of the responses.
The results of a statistical sample should never be projected to the population as a whole. If 23 per cent of a sample population said that they favor A as opposed to C, the researches must say that they are 90 per cent confident, as an example, that 23 per cent of the population, within plus or minus X percent, favor A. As soon as a researcher says that 23 per cent of the population favors a stated outcome, based on sampling, I know that he is wrong.
Another key point with respect to sampling is the knowledge of the people being polled. A population of civil engineers employed by the nation's railways or consulting firms with a large stake in railway consulting is likely to have a more informed opinion about the status of the nation's railway bridges than the general population. Assuming the population of Texas, taken as a whole, as an example, is knowledgeable about transportation is risky.
At the end of the day, at least for a commercial enterprise, the only poll that counts is the market. I know lots of people who say that they support more passenger trains. But do they ride them? Nope! Would they ride them? Maybe! But I would not count on it.
oltmanndThe poll stated that the subsidy was about $1B, mostly for capital investment. I wonder if the subsidy had been further detailed at a per ticket operating subsidy only, would that have resulted in more negative outcomes?
Don,
There is another perspective on subsidy and Joe Boardman is using it. A lot of subsidy dollars are being spent improving stations along the long distance routes. They are being upgraded to meet the requirement of ADA. These kinds of expenditures are very visible to people who live close to Amtrak. And I think a lot of people take pride in their Amtrak station even if they don't ride Amtrak.
I wonder if the expenditures to upgrade stations have something to do with the acceptance of Amtrak subsidy in conservative states. I have read reports that Florida, Alavama, Mississippi and Louisiana, all of which are fairly conservative states, would very much like to have Sunset Limited service restored.
A couple of thoughts/observations after glancing throught the PA poll results:
1. This was one of the better polls I've seen. The questions appeared to be less skewed than most think-tank sponsored polls.
2. I particularly liked the Amtrak favorable/unfavorable question posed twice, once after the annual subsidy was described. I wonder, though, if the characterization of the subsidy would make a difference on the poll result. The poll stated that the subsidy was about $1B, mostly for capital investment. I wonder if the subsidy had been further detailed at a per ticket operating subsidy only, would that have resulted in more negative outcomes?
3. I was completely unimpressed by questions asking for people's opinions about safety vs crew size- something that is actually measurable. People's opinion may be that 1+1=3, but that doesn't make it so.
4. I felt validated by the level of support for day trains.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
The DFM group has already done 4 polls in about a year, all with similar results (see link at top).
In another area, Texas, an older 2010 poll/survey done was by UT-Austin on TxDOT's behalf for the I-35 corridor. The results show the public is more more favorable to building HSR than new roads and 78% were in favor of expanding generic (non-Amtrak) passenger rail service between cities. It was not nearly as interesting or insightful as the DFM polls.
But here is the interesting thing. When TxDOT summarized the results on their I-35 corridor planning website, the poll in its entirety is not available (it has been expunged from any internet search), nor are any of the results listed in the specific Advisory Plan document on Page 16. Further, the very specific results from citizens in the survey have been interpreted to be...
"Respondents are open to a wide range of ideas for addressing traffic in these trouble spots"
So very specific survey results that show favor for in this case HSR and generic intercity passenger rail are rephrased to mean the above by the state DOT as " My 35 lets you decide how we get there". Really?
-
I know from having presented in front of a MPO audience (FHWA sponsored Metropolitan Planning Organization) that the ATA (American Trucking Association) typically has a representative on the board and at the meeting and have personally been given the evil eye from the guy, though he could not find a word wrong with my point on financial recovery.
At some level the ATA knows such and is just out trying to lobby for a handout like everybody else, but the mindset is really beginning to run into obstacles now that the interstate needs a complete rebuilding in many major projects not nearly funded with user revenue. I suppose the groups might be looking for a defensive arguement to deflect criticis so the hammer won't fall on them. Interestingly we have not seem any proposal to raise the weight limits of trucks for some nominal fee in the latest round of highway funding bills through pension smoothing.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
schlimm The point was that amazingly the poll results were not manipulated and the results are 180 degrees opposite the ideology of both the think tanks and the "red" states.
henry6Poll results are manipulated from the start...who they ask, where, why, when. What questions they ask and how they are asked and how they are worded, what choices are given or not given, how vague or how specific the question, what are the inferences of the words and questions. How questions are sequence. All designed to get the results they want. Then the answers are sorted, weighed, skewed and spun.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Definitely the poll results are surprising (to me, at least). But not surprising that the more right wing think tanks would ignore some of the findings concerning passenger rail and highways. For ideologues, ideology trumps public opinion. For most folk, economic self and community interest trumps ideology.
Mr. Schlimm, I think you will find it interesting that the poll specifically asked for the areas served by nightime trains if the respondents would be more likely to use Amtrak if daytime service were provided and some questions about higher speed service if there was a viable proposal nearby. If you go to the first link and download the PDF's there is a lot of interesting information and correlation to a lot of issues. Mind you, this information is coming from districts that were specifically chosen to be generally conservative (~25% support for the Administration) but away from metro areas.
What do you want the numbers to say?
We will prove it!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Interesting information. Keep in mind that most political think tanks, left or right, are really just the "intellectual" decoration for partisan lobbying. They are not science research laboratories, although they may well use pretty rigorous, state-of-the-art polling. They are beholden to funding sources, and if those sources include the highway and truck lobbies, they will conveniently cherry pick the data fields to support that agenda.
All four listed are Conservative think tanks. But only the first two are generally against anything but highways, and are the loudest, the other two are not, and tend to be more pragmatic. The American Conservative seems to be the most sensible to this writer. Why is there a division in thought given the poll numbers from conservative areas that show the voting public does not think this way?
The thesis being explored is that (paid) support for heavier trucks and perhaps support for the continuation of subsidy to such must necessarily lead one to pick only statistics, and use them incorrectly, such that the very low level of user revenue from limited access highways relative to cost is ignored. Once a group views the world this way, a group reaches conclusions about the NRPC position in the national transportation marketplace that call for it to be self supporting from user revenue while highways clearly are not.
When one views polls that check for generic support of Amtrak there are often questions that might be misinterpreted to either side. However, the public approval is high enough not to discount the results, but leaves a question as to what is really the position of the public.
Recently a union group (SMART) has been running professional polls by DFM in Red states in which a series of interesting check questions are asked, namely what do you think of the Administration, budget deficits, Congress, then Amtrak, then given information about funding of Amtrak the question is asked again, two-person freight crews, coal fired electricity, the state DOT, EPA, NRA, and increases to large truck weight limits (80k to 97k).
The results, in those Red state districts, is that keeping or expanding Amtrak funding is supported by 60-85% depending on the state and increasing truck weight limits is only supported by 20% (both roughly rounded). They also ask about additional frequencies and daytime trains in areas served overnight.
This is interesting as this is exactly opposite of what some of the most prevalent think-tanks (Reason and Heritage) are constantly trying to get the opposite side to believe or perhaps they are aware of this and are appealing to conservatives to change their mind. Free Congress seems a bit more pragmatic and Weyrich's positive influence is still seen over at The American Conservative.
The emphasis of the first two groups would seem to be due to the funding source, as it seems they are aligned with commercial trucks. This author has long argued that the real issue is that all highway gas tax funding is a large financial leveraging tool to charge taxes on the use of local roads supported by property taxes that then go to highways with no consumer feedback loop to regulate use. Intercity road users in general and trucks in particular benift from the resulting below cost pricing. A few additional poll questions asked after an informative statement per the above might bring back some really interesting data as they did with the before and after questions on budgeting.
Does or why does a think-tank or political viewpoint that supports the continuation of subsidies for trucks exclude support for Amtrak, despite the exact opposite polling information from the residents in red states?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.