[QUOTE=metro;248496]Thats a pretty inaccurate statement. Are some federal dollars not spent on Interstate systems (I-77, 85)? Also CATS operates in Fort Mill and Rock Hill.
If anything, Charlotte should have to pay a tax to surrounding outlying municipalities, becasue the growth problems, traffiic, and crime spreading outward based off political and business decisions made in Charlotte. It works both ways.[/QUOTE]
clt cannot believe he read that last statement.
[QUOTE=cltniners;248670]clt cannot believe he read that last statement.[/QUOTE]
clt, metro says his tongue was in cheek
Totally unrelated. But when speaking of clean cities, why do we not use more inmate to clean roads, scrape up roadkill, mow lawns? They are in the clink for a reason, get some use out of them.
[QUOTE]Dubois replied: “Why not just have Edd announce it has an initiative of the Institute `in the public interest.’ We have an obligation to serve as a forum for the debate of important public issues, yada, yada, yada.”[/QUOTE]
:wow: Unbelievable… I have to say, I am honestly shocked. Never thought Dubois would worry with this kind of mess. However, anyone who read his opionion piece on light rail support HAD to know that Dubois and UNC Charlotte were FOR light rail. I mean, it runs through their backyard for heaven’s sake.
You guys read the comments attached to that story? Brutal.
You guys read the comments attached to that story? Brutal.
Yeah, the uphill battle of PR we have in this town got a little steeper. Good thing we spent money on branding our “image”.
Congratulations Dubois.
[QUOTE]Why don’t we credit UNC with this study? UNCC does so many good things, then all the credit all goes to UNC. So why should this be different?[/QUOTE]
Classic!
Our mission should be for the good of the people in Charlotte, the surrounding communities, and the state, not the Chamber. Whether you’re for light rail or not, I agree this doesn’t look good at all.
Dubois and company keep saying, “look at the data, not the means or where it’s from” and that’s fine… but, it’s hard to believe the integrity of the data is there if the framers of the study were (allegedly) engaged in some talks about who should be the ones to have publicly initiated the study. If true, that sounds like public deception. And, it ruins the integrity of the entire study.
I’m really disappointed. Integrity is the hallmark of a public institution. I hope these allegations are unfounded. Or, that there is some good reason for them (?).
Dubois may want to consider releasing a public statement and either 1. publicly apologe for not being completely unbiased, 2. explain once again why the institution is biased but the results are not flawed/tainted (light rail would benefit the university… it’s never been a secret that the university supports it), or 3. deny the allegations if they are untrue.
We already had the Jim Black mess. We don’t need this right now.
Dubois needs to do something to show the community the University of Charlotte is for the people… football would be a good start. Good P.R.
[QUOTE=NinerATL2CHA;248678]We already had the Jim Black mess. We don’t need this right now.
Dubois needs to do something to show the community the University of Charlotte is for the people… football would be a good start. Good P.R.[/QUOTE]
QFT. This may be Dubois’ way of indirectly attempting to kill the football movement. Pro/anti rail doesn’t matter in that equation, UNC Charlotte needs community support in order for football to succeed.
QFT. This may be Dubois' way of indirectly attempting to kill the football movement. Pro/anti rail doesn't matter in that equation, UNC Charlotte needs community support in order for football to succeed.
I can’t imagine Dubois would go to that extent to kill a football movement. It’s possible, but I figure he would just say “no” like Woodward did, and that would be the end of it.
I am torn here. If we don’t support the chancellor (who initiated the football study), then we could lose the bigger battle of football over this whole mess. He has been our best chance yet at getting the sport. A new chancellor would make us start all over again. Plus
And, if our spending starts to become scrutinized ($ going to biased studies … IF they were biased), then this could affect funding for the entire university. And, that’s even worse… Lawmakers may not feel it’s in their best political interest to give money or sponsor something for a questionable institution.
I hope it doesn’t go that far. Seems like it wouldn’t… but, you know how people and the media blow everything out of proportion (except Charlotte athletics 
these days…
So, since all of you have an axe to grind in favor of football, we should throw out all of your sources and arguments? We shouldn’t conduct any publicly funded studies of economic impact? Let’s get some perspective here. As someone pointed out, the Chancellor sees light rail to campus as part of our long-range plans. He SHOULD lobby on behalf of getting it. Granted, he should not be setting up smokescreens and that’s the problem here. I still don’t know why they didn’t just say, "Light rail is a potential investment of billions of dollars in the region. The future of the university and University City will be dramatically affected by such an investment. As such, we believe additional studies are merited prior to making such a decision. Since many of the studies to date are from politically motivated interest groups, The Center for Transportation Studies will be completing a study on light rail that examines the following factors…
Hindsight is always 20/10, of course.
QFT. This may be Dubois' way of indirectly attempting to kill the football movement. Pro/anti rail doesn't matter in that equation, UNC Charlotte needs community support in order for football to succeed.
I don’t think the community should support Dubois’ approach.
Name change? I don’t want it, so I’ll make up something about how the current name helps us.
Football? Don’t want it, so I’ll keep making up stuff until it goes away.
Light Rail? I’ll do whatever it takes.
The community is not at fault. What really needs to happen is Dubois has to start acting like a school rep and stop acting like a manipulator.
Granted, [B]he should not be setting up smokescreens[/B] and that's the problem here. I still don't know why they didn't just say, "Light rail is a potential investment of billions of dollars in the region. The future of the university and University City will be dramatically affected by such an investment. As such, we believe additional studies are merited prior to making such a decision. Since many of the studies to date are from politically motivated interest groups, The Center for Transportation Studies will be completing a study on light rail that examines the following factors......Hindsight is always 20/10, of course.
I agree that’s the main issue and I believe that iS what everyone is concerned about. The problem is also association though. If the leadership did truly speak about deceiving the public about who initiated the study, then does the data suffer from the same lack of integrity? The data probably does not, but suspicion is contagious after something like that occurs. And, right now, for us, image is incredibly important.
I also agree that they should have just said, “This study proves the university’s position that University City and the rest of the community as a whole will benefit from light rail.” That would have been much better.
I’m hoping that Dubois was just trying to write an email to decide how to best make the study represent what it actually is… completely unbiased. That’s hard to do (make sure the public knows the data is unbiased) when you have publicly stated you support light rail. I will assume that was the case until it’s proved otherwise.
Two things, the emails today weren’t so much about the study, but the phone poll that the chamber wanted, which just goes deeper into how much UNC Charlotte was asked to help and how many more secrets this University kept. This now makes me worry, how much more we’ll find out. I thought the news had broke about the study and that was it, todays news is something totally new. What will we find out on Friday? Nex Monday? Now that pandoras box has been opened on this, it could get ugly.
Second, the taxpayers paid for this. The chamber is a private institution that did not pay a dime for the study or the poll.
The chamber, CATS, the city’s image is fine, . . . . UNC Charlotte has a little mud on its face.
When you play with fire, sooner or later you are going to get burned.
I think the university should release the database and allow folks to replicate the study. Most likely, the data have not been cooked. However, the variables chosen and comparative transit systems were likely chosen for a particular reason. The same is true of the Locke stuff. If any of you are of the impression that the most of the “research” conducted at the university is free of bias, you are incredibly naive. Plenty of “researchers” play with the data (some might say “torture” the data) to make it behave the way they hypothesized. It’s really quite a guild type system!
I say this is a perfect chance to clear our name and dump the UNCC title. Hey it worked for First Union when we took the Wachovia name!
I am not sold anything criminal has taken place. I just think Dubois looks like a sneaky rat, but thats about it. Especially his comments about how to spin to the public where the study “initiated.”
UNCC conducting a study for light rail, is like NNN doing a study for football.
for UNCC/Debois to deny any bias is laughable.
I think the university should release the database and allow folks to replicate the study. Most likely, the data have not been cooked. However, the variables chosen and comparative transit systems were likely chosen for a particular reason. The same is true of the Locke stuff. If any of you are of the impression that the most of the "research" conducted at the university is free of bias, you are incredibly naive. Plenty of "researchers" play with the data (some might say "torture" the data) to make it behave the way they hypothesized. It's really quite a guild type system!What he/she said. It's all in the design.
I don't think the community should support Dubois' approach.Name change? I don’t want it, so I’ll make up something about how the current name helps us.
Football? Don’t want it, so I’ll keep making up stuff until it goes away.
Light Rail? I’ll do whatever it takes.The community is not at fault. What really needs to happen is Dubois has to start acting like a school rep and stop acting like a manipulator.
Now that is some honesty about football that I haven’t heard on this board before. I used to experience it. Jury still out, but looking brighter for the pigskin
So, what are everyone’s problems with the information presented in the study?
What “facts” do you believe are incorrect?
What methods would you have/have not used?
What information do you feel was misrepresented?
What do you think should have been included but wasn’t?
So, what are everyone's problems with the information presented in the study?What “facts” do you believe are incorrect?
What methods would you have/have not used?
What information do you feel was misrepresented?
What do you think should have been included but wasn’t?
A bad study doesn’t put Dubois face on the front of the Charlotte Observer and probably doesn’t make the observer at all. I think the problem is the cover-ups and Dubois interaction with the Chamber and then the lying about why the study was done by many parties.
My problem comes with the fact that it honestly seems like Dubois spends more time worrying about the trainset than filling faculty positions at this school. We can fund free studies (free for the chamber) for a vote in November, but its July 17th, 2007 and we still have that ugly entrance sign.
Don’t get me wrong, if I were Dubois I would be interested in anything this grand of scale coming to my university, I don’t like light rail but I am willing to accept it, and think that if we are going to waste the money, it might as well benefit our school.
Misrepresented, the original cost per mile, and the orginal length are wrong in hauser’s report. The term Outlier comes to mind with Seattles light rail, since it is underground and ours isn’t.
FTA had this study: http://www.fta.dot.gov/printer_friendly/regional_offices_6916.html
It has 9 projects, none older than 11 years old, unlike hausers which uses a line that started 20 years ago. The FTA uses two projects that Hauser omitted, I don’t know why he omitted them, but Charlotte is 48 Mill per mile, the two he omitted were 29 mill and 22 mill a mile.
For anyone who wants to see Hausers study: http://www.transpol.uncc.edu/projects.htm