Prague Metro Plans Extension To Airport + New Line

I'm saying that a statistical analysis that is not broken down by
group of passengers tells you nothing useful about any one group.
Since this started with a discussion of a line going to an airport,
an analysis that consisted of just _airport_ travelers is going to
be much more useful, Nobel or no Nobel.

Only if they're going to be the only users of the service. I was
arguing near the beginning of this thread that the lack of other
users was a problem for the proposed Prague service, whereas a
similarly expensive line in Edinburgh could cover its costs by also
serving large business parks, a university, other transport hubs
and residents of much denser residential zones. Not many of these
local users are going to be using hardshell wheeled suitcases or
carrying skis, and many more will be disabled or want to take their
bicycles than is the norm for air travellers.

(I guess I'm not really disagreeing - the analysis still needs to
be as specific as possible).

============== j-c ====== @ ====== purr . demon . co . uk ==============
Jack Campin: 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland | tel 0131 660 4760
http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/ for CD-ROMs and free | fax 0870 0554 975
stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, & Mac logic fonts | mob 07800 739 557

"Peter Schleifer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:21:08 -0700, "Jack May"
wrote:


"Peter Schleifer" wrote in message
. ..

No, I'm saying that a statistical analysis that is not broken down by
group of passengers tells you nothing useful about any one group.
Since this started with a discussion of a line going to an airport, an
analysis that consisted of just _airport_ travelers is going to be
much more useful, Nobel or no Nobel.

If the small groups do not produce statistically significant results,
nothing is accomplished by dividing into small groups. Now the question is
has anybody done a study of a line going to the airport.

I have done no search on that topic. I do know that lines like BART going
to the San Francisco airport have been essentially a failure. I don't think
any other line has moved a lot of people to SFO. Putting a line to an
airport is extremely expensive unless it is just a bus dropping off people
like a big car.

In article , "Jack May"
wrote:

Well then, obviously he needs to start is own no-frills airline company!

Think of the additional seats that could be crammed onto each plane since
obviously first class is worthless. In fact, think of all the advantages
of eliminating seats completely and going with standing-room only
positions like some of the amusement park rides.

You obviously don't realize that people often work on an airplane which is
extremely difficult in coach.


You said that ONLY price and speed entered into the decision of what mode
to use. It seems to me that the amount of work space allowed is part of
comfort.

--
-Glennl
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.

Jack May wrote:
"Martin Edwards" wrote in message
. uk...
Bolwerk wrote:
Peter Schleifer wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:40:30 -0700, "Jack May"
wrote:
This the kind of stunt Jack pulls all the time. teh pos hname for it is
sophistry.

So a Nobel Prize and presenting what the prize was for is just a stunt? The
rest is unreadable.

I guess there is nothing acceptable to you except the constant stream of
lies from your fellow train fetish losers.


The Nobel Prize was won by Dan McFadden at UC Berkeley in 2000 as I have
posted many times
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkele.../mcfadden.html


Sorry about the typos. My typing is usually good, but right now I am
coping with the rigours of the private sector, so I am a bit run down.
I am only making GBP 11,000 but, hey,I get free entertainment as a perk.
My boss is as big a loony as any headteacher I ever met. Well, maybe
not quite: there were a few who could give him a run for his money. I
only hope they don't tax me for it.

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”

"Jack May" wrote in message
...

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Jack May" wrote in message
...

"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...
Peter Schleifer wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:40:30 -0700, "Jack May"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
In article ,
(David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:


and will likely change considerably in a country where
the cost ratio between taxi/bus is an order of magnitude
higher to that in the USA, which IME is the case.

The goal is to predict how many people will use transit, a car, taxi,
walking, a bike. Obviously transit is used more heavily in low income
third world countries than in the US. A prediction equation is used, not
a fixed ratio for all places.

The equation says people use the transportation mode which is lowest cost
to them for the trip they will be taking.

The cost = out of pocket costs + half hourly pay rate while in a vehicle +
full hourly pay rate for walking to /waiting for the vehicle.

Is it?

I'll bet that the average person does not think like
this when deciding which mode to use to go to
the airport for their family holiday.

The reason why, is because most people have to
book *whole* days off from work and simply cannot
convert the odd hour or two back into money. The
exec sitting at work until the last possible moment
before jumping in a taxi to the airport will have a
monetary value. But the holidaymaker sitting at home
for an extra hour, before using a faster route to the
airport, has no monetary value at all. The holiday
maker is going to be much more interested in certainty
of arrival time and trains (usually) score well here.

tim

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:11:38 -0700, "Jack May"
wrote:


"Peter Schleifer" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:21:08 -0700, "Jack May"
wrote:


"Peter Schleifer" wrote in message
...

No, I'm saying that a statistical analysis that is not broken down by
group of passengers tells you nothing useful about any one group.
Since this started with a discussion of a line going to an airport, an
analysis that consisted of just _airport_ travelers is going to be
much more useful, Nobel or no Nobel.

If the small groups do not produce statistically significant results,
nothing is accomplished by dividing into small groups. Now the question is
has anybody done a study of a line going to the airport.

I have done no search on that topic. I do know that lines like BART going
to the San Francisco airport have been essentially a failure.

How do you know this?

I don't think
any other line has moved a lot of people to SFO.

What other lines are there?

Putting a line to an
airport is extremely expensive unless it is just a bus dropping off people
like a big car.

Anything involving airports seems to be expensive these days.

The Airtrains to JFK and EWR seem to be considered successful, at
least they are carrying more people than expected. Continental
promotes the Newark Airtrain on their web site (they also code-share
with Amtrak).

The one time I took BART to SFO it did seem well-patronized (but I
don't claim that one anecdote = data). The convoluted process I had
to go through to get from BART to my terminal made me feel that I had
finally found an airport with a worse layout than JFK.

--
Peter Schleifer
"Save me from the people who would save me from myself"

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 00:15:22 -0700,
) wrote:

In article , "Jack May"
wrote:

Well then, obviously he needs to start is own no-frills airline company!

Think of the additional seats that could be crammed onto each plane since
obviously first class is worthless. In fact, think of all the advantages
of eliminating seats completely and going with standing-room only
positions like some of the amusement park rides.

You obviously don't realize that people often work on an airplane which is
extremely difficult in coach.


You said that ONLY price and speed entered into the decision of what mode
to use. It seems to me that the amount of work space allowed is part of
comfort.

You seem to be expecting logic and consistency from a person who has
demonstrated neither in the past.

--
Peter Schleifer
"Save me from the people who would save me from myself"

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Jack May" wrote in message
...

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Jack May" wrote in message
...

"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...
Peter Schleifer wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:40:30 -0700, "Jack May"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
In article ,
(David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:


and will likely change considerably in a country where
the cost ratio between taxi/bus is an order of magnitude
higher to that in the USA, which IME is the case.

The goal is to predict how many people will use transit, a car, taxi,
walking, a bike. Obviously transit is used more heavily in low income
third world countries than in the US. A prediction equation is used,
not a fixed ratio for all places.

The equation says people use the transportation mode which is lowest cost
to them for the trip they will be taking.

The cost = out of pocket costs + half hourly pay rate while in a vehicle
+ full hourly pay rate for walking to /waiting for the vehicle.

Is it?

I'll bet that the average person does not think like
this when deciding which mode to use to go to
the airport for their family holiday.

The results are if they think like the equation as determined by statistical
analysis. I assume for almost everybody, it is not a conscious though
process but rather a gut feeling of which mode of travel is best for them to
use.


The reason why, is because most people have to
book *whole* days off from work and simply cannot
convert the odd hour or two back into money. The
exec sitting at work until the last possible moment
before jumping in a taxi to the airport will have a
monetary value. But the holidaymaker sitting at home
for an extra hour, before using a faster route to the
airport, has no monetary value at all. The holiday
maker is going to be much more interested in certainty
of arrival time and trains (usually) score well here.

The problem with most trains is the time lost getting to the train and the
time waiting for the train to get there. That is in the equation.

Time wasted getting to the train, waiting for the train, and the slow speed
of trains caused by all the stops is why people refuse to use trains. That
is why trains are inherently a broken transportation system with no real way
to fix most train systems.

"Peter Schleifer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:11:38 -0700, "Jack May"
wrote:


"Peter Schleifer" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:21:08 -0700, "Jack May"
wrote:


"Peter Schleifer" wrote in message
m...
I have done no search on that topic. I do know that lines like BART
going
to the San Francisco airport have been essentially a failure.

How do you know this?

From reports in the newspapers, comments by officials, and discussion on
newsgroups. BART to SFO is roughly $2B for essentially no significant
benefit.



I don't think
any other line has moved a lot of people to SFO.

What other lines are there?

I think there used to be Caltrain with bus connection to the airport. I
would never take transit to the airport and leave my car unprotected to be
vandalized in a transit parking lot.


The Airtrains to JFK and EWR seem to be considered successful, at
least they are carrying more people than expected. Continental
promotes the Newark Airtrain on their web site (they also code-share
with Amtrak).

Carrying more people than predicted is not a criterion of success. The
criterion is it doing better than other approaches especially if those other
are cheaper.

I would expect transit to the NYC airports would be more successful than any
other airports in the US.

wrote in message
...
In article , "Jack May"
wrote:

Well then, obviously he needs to start is own no-frills airline
company!

Think of the additional seats that could be crammed onto each plane
since
obviously first class is worthless. In fact, think of all the
advantages
of eliminating seats completely and going with standing-room only
positions like some of the amusement park rides.

You obviously don't realize that people often work on an airplane which
is
extremely difficult in coach.


You said that ONLY price and speed entered into the decision of what mode
to use. It seems to me that the amount of work space allowed is part of
comfort.

I am just going by the research done by the Nobel Prize winner.