|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 15, 2008 10:25:05 GMT -5
First, apolgies for even responding to this post - I don't know if this is really connected to the thread topic, but it is connected to the post above. I heard so much about the famous 9% that BB would have saved that was "lost" because of AME, and so I did some digging. The quote from IPSD's website is: "Option 5A will significantly lower the total commuting miles traveled each day from the current 38,282 miles to approximately 34,828 miles for a decrease of 9%. This will result in time and fuel savings for both the district and for families. The weighted average commute in miles for the district will be 2.7 miles from each elementary school to its high school." (emphasis mine) This quote was written prior to the 2006 referendum, so "current" means the 38,282 miles is for 2 HS, NV and WV serving the whole district. This indicates that the 9% was compared to No 3'rd HS, not a new boundary option with 3 High Schools like you are suggesting here. The SB and Laidlaw are on record saying that the transportation cost is the same for AME compared to BB with the respective boundaries as they stand today. The $500K-$1M savings each year is a result of using the 9% number applied to the ENTIRE districts transportation costs - wrong logic on many fronts. This is the logic the NSFOC has been using to argue that BB is cheaper that AME because transportation costs could have been 9% cheaper if BB were the site. That claim is extremely disingenuous. Taking a number so out-of-context and claiming savings based on that flabbergasts me. The fact that this urban myth survived so long is even more amazing. So any assertions made (by someone running on an election platform) that tweaking the boundaries would save a bunch of money are an attempt to bamboozle the community. I will challenge any such irresponsible posture if any candidate espouses it. Cheers. Laidlaw and the SB are on record for the claim that this is the most efficient ? Show me the details and explain why they are not available to anyone - Sorry if I am not exactly trusting of what is being said and that there is no spin involved....history tells me otherwise where are the mileage figures as provided above - is that on record also ? This data was requested by someone who does this sort of analysis for a living and the initial response was to provide it - that was many months ago - now no word. why ? Again sorry if I am not falling in line with the fact that we move the site to a location where a much smaller % of the populace lives and yet the transportation costs remain the same. You are right doc...the SB should show us their figures too...and I thought they did during their presentation....Now I know many have called that one as BS, and did not like it, however they have not provided their analysis refuting...which has also been asked for. So it works both ways. Provide your data refuting what the SD has already put out for the rest of us to analyze.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 15, 2008 10:36:06 GMT -5
Dr Who: all the numbers I am using - the 9% and the mileage, as well as the assertion that AME and BB costs are the same from Laidlaw are all from the public IPSD web site for quite a while. The numbers are also on the NSFOC site. AME is not more efficient, but BB isn't 9% cheaper. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 15, 2008 11:02:40 GMT -5
They need to provide the raw data, not someone's 'summary' and 'interpretation' of it.
That removes all guessing.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 15, 2008 11:29:34 GMT -5
They need to provide the raw data, not someone's 'summary' and 'interpretation' of it. That removes all guessing. So someone else can summarize and interpret it and then THAT person's summary and interpretation will make it more accurate?
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 15, 2008 11:33:56 GMT -5
They need to provide the raw data, not someone's 'summary' and 'interpretation' of it. That removes all guessing. I agree. It should be made available to those who ask for it.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 15, 2008 11:37:09 GMT -5
They need to provide the raw data, not someone's 'summary' and 'interpretation' of it. That removes all guessing. So someone else can summarize and interpret it and then THAT person's summary and interpretation will make it more accurate? In my world that is called peer-review. Because it is possible there could have been an overlooked error. But again I call on those who have made their counter claims to provide their raw data too.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 15, 2008 11:49:39 GMT -5
They need to provide the raw data, not someone's 'summary' and 'interpretation' of it. That removes all guessing. From: www.ipsd.org/Uploads/news_17229_2.pdf" How do busing expenses and travel times for Eola Road compare to Brach-Brodie?The overall average district transportation times projected for Eola Road are the same as Brach-Brodie. In addition, Laidlaw has reviewed bus service to the Eola Road location and has concluded that no additional transportation costs will be incurred. Compared with transportation for our current two high schools, having an even geographical distribution of high schools allows for efficient boundaries that will reduce the overall average travel time for students." If the cost is the same for AME and Brach-Brodie, why is any detail required? What matters to the taxpayers is cost. Laidlaw"has concluded that no additional transportation costs will be incurred". So they are on record, as is the SB that there are NO savings in transportation costs when comparing BB and AME. So, sorry to dissapoint you, Arch, there is no "guesswork" in what the transportation costs are, even though that is what you are trying to promote to suit your cause. The AME site transportation cost is neutral with respect to BB. No "summary" or "interpretation" here! No amount of mileage analysis matters if the Laidlaw commitment for equal cost holds. Or are you accusing Laidlaw of lying? That even though they have stated that no additional costs are incurred, that they deliberately deceiving the community, and will charge more? Got any thing to prove that, so we remove guesswork there too? If not, that constitutes slander - one thing to say the SB, elected officials, are lying, another thing to say Laidlaw, a corporation, is lying. And oh, while we are on the topic of providing details, would you care to explain where this renowned 9% transportation savings came from? Where is the detail there? This whole thread started because an false claim was made that a 9% savings was lost. The IPSD source for this 9% is shown below, www.ipsd.org/documents/Summary5A_REV.pdfwhich is NOT comparing BB to an alternate 3'rd high school site. So presumably there is something else? So why isn't anyone putting up data for where the alleged savings for BB over AME are coming from? Enough of the unsubstantiated innuendo already! I'm no great SB fan, but I can't stand numbers being used disingenuously even more. Cheers.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 15, 2008 11:57:18 GMT -5
They need to provide the raw data, not someone's 'summary' and 'interpretation' of it. That removes all guessing. I agree. It should be made available to those who ask for it. I agree - for FOIPA reasons, the details should be public. But, the cost structure behind the detail is what is critical, and being debated here, and this is a contractual issue between Laidlaw and the District - mileage detail has nothing to do with it. If Laidlaw agreed to a cost, thats the bottom line. They do not charge by the mile, AFAIK, but by route. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 15, 2008 12:06:17 GMT -5
Player,
DrD said there was A gas line out by the tracks, not 6, 3 by the tracks and 3 through the middle of the property.
DrD said that diesel fuel was only burnt twice at the peaker plant. BZZZT false again. WAY FALSE.
Sorry I don't believe anything they 'claim' anymore without the raw data because the 'real data' showed what they summarized at the January meeting to be absolutely false.
Mileage could come into play later on in the future as contracts are renegotiated and if the population center shifts yet further south.. Some of us think ahead like that.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 15, 2008 12:24:05 GMT -5
Player, DrD said there was A gas line out by the tracks, not 6, 3 by the tracks and 3 through the middle of the property. DrD said that diesel fuel was only burnt twice at the peaker plant. BZZZT false again. WAY FALSE. Sorry I don't believe anything they 'claim' anymore without the raw data because the 'real data' showed what they summarized at the January meeting to be absolutely false. Mileage could come into play later on in the future as contracts are renegotiated and if the population center shifts yet further south.. Some of us think ahead like that. Suit yourself, Arch. By not responding to the questions at hand, and instead using more innuendo and bringing gas pipelines into this conversation too, I think you have established that you have no answers. Let me just state that it works both ways - given the amount of misinfomation I have heard from BB proponents, the amount of faith and credibility I have in the so-called "facts" they state is also absolutely 0 - no verifiable data there either. So I check everything I hear. Any independent research I have done on many, many facets of the stuff on NSFOC's web page has revealed mostly innuendo, shoddy logic and twisting of facts to mislead the public. At least with the SB, their numbers are audited by an external auditor and they are a public body. I check SB claims just as well too. You will believe what you want to believe. More power to you. That is dogma, though - and I can't argue against dogma. If your dogmatic premise is that everything the SB states is false, how could you believe any detail they provide, as wouldn't that be false too? So then you can claim that the detail is concocted too! A true conspiracy theory. Thats the problem with dogma - rationality has no place any more. Its pointless to carry this on any further if thats your stance. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 15, 2008 12:44:14 GMT -5
Player:
"Laidlaw has reviewed bus service to the Eola Road location and has concluded that no additional transportation costs will be incurred"
That is a summary of what Laidlaw said. Also, it is a contractual price for now. That can and may change in the future. What can impact that price is DISTANCE and NUMBER OF ROUTES for transporting students. This is data the public does not have but HAS ASKED.
While it may not 'technically' be a 'lie' for the current contract, it has the VERY REAL possibility to be NOT TRUE in the future when new contracts are negotiated.
I'm sorry if you hate to read REAL EXAMPLES of LIES and HALF-TRUTHS by our DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION. People should feel uncomfortable with it.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 15, 2008 12:47:03 GMT -5
Let me just state that it works both ways - given the amount of misinfomation I have heard from BB proponents, the amount of faith and credibility I have in the so-called "facts" they state is also absolutely 0 - no verifiable data there either. So I check everything I hear. Any independent research I have done on many, many facets of the stuff on NSFOC's web page has revealed mostly innuendo, shoddy logic and twisting of facts to mislead the public. No argument there. This isn't a two-sided issue. Both polarized ends of the spectrum are wrong, IMO. The truth is somewhere in between and we'll never actually find it without the real data.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Jun 15, 2008 12:52:54 GMT -5
What if Laidlaw, with or without consultation from the SD, had enough padding in the BB bus budget to be able to promise no additional costs for AME? Does anyone honestly believe the costs are magically the same? I'd have more faith if they actually came out with an actual number, such as AME being 2.7% higher than BB, or 0.4% lower than BB. To say they are going to be able to keep the exact same budget means they either overbudgeted for BB and don't want to make the SD look bad with higher AME costs, or they are massaging the routes to fit the agenda. This happens all the time in business. If I sign up a client to a certain deal based on my expected costs and perceived profit margin, and then the client adds an unexpected request for an additional service at the last minute, I might decide not to bump up the price. Does that mean the additional service he requested costs nothing to me? Not at all. It just means I want the client to feel good and I know I probably have enough wiggle room to still make money on the deal.
For some of us, the common sense fact that BB is closer to the population center of the district than AME should mean that the transportation costs are higher for AME, and will be even more so in the future. All we are asking for is some data that shows the real comparison. Laidlaw's promise to not charge more means nothing, and it has nothing to do with them "lying," but rather the realities of business contracts.
|
|
|
Post by specialneedsmom on Jun 15, 2008 15:33:27 GMT -5
I think asmodeus is closest to the real truth of how these contracts are made. District 204 is one of their larger clients. They will bend over backwards and then some to make things work to keep this contract. Large clients beget larger clients, so making 204 happy is in their best interest.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 15, 2008 15:38:52 GMT -5
I think asmodeus is closest to the real truth of how these contracts are made. District 204 is one of their larger clients. They will bend over backwards and then some to make things work to keep this contract. Large clients beget larger clients, so making 204 happy is in their best interest. Which then makes this a non-issue. If Laidlaw (Now First Student) says they will charge the same for Eola as they would have for BB. It does not matter if there are less or extra miles. The overall cost to the District is going to be lower by virtue of 3 HS's. Because it is a fact there will be less miles than there were with just the 2 HS's.
|
|