Today’s paper makes DuBois look like a Jim Black wanna-be.
Stonecold, that comment makes it clear that you know nothing about the Jim Black case or the transit controversy. I do admire your willingness to share your ignorance for all to read.
Stonecold, that comment makes it clear that you know nothing about the Jim Black case or the transit controversy. I do admire your willingness to share your ignorance for all to read.
haha:lol: :lol:
Unless of course Dubois was payed in an IHOP bathroom for the study.
I was giving the interpretation the article left, stupid. It’s called a comparison of what the story made it seem like.
I rest my case.
And I rest mine.
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
First, I want to say that I am not trying to be argumentative. I am trying to learn as we go on this. I am genuinely interested in knowing the errors in this report.
What is the original cost per mile? Original length? Does the original length quoted in the Hauser study include an extension into Pineville that was cut after the original plans were drawn? Could the original cost per mile be affected by that because of one-time costs associated with purchasing equipment, storage facilities, etc?
It appears to me that the numbers are provided in 2007 dollars. This means that they were adjusted for inflation so that all of the projects could be compared at equal dollar values. Does that fix the cost per mile error, assuming 3.5% inflation each year for 10 years?
Personally, I don’t like how he goes back and forth between giving numbers in real numbers, thousands, and millions. It allows a perception of larger differences and is the first rule in writing a research report.
He refers to impact fees as an extension of an adequate public facilities ordinance, which is incorrect. They are two separate and completely different terms and ideas.
The funding scenarios at the end, I think, are pretty realistic. Those are the options. I would assume that they would choose the 3rd option and slowly build the rail system while raising property taxes.
First, I want to say that I am not trying to be argumentative. I am trying to learn as we go on this. I am genuinely interested in knowing the errors in this report.
hopefully you know I am the same way. I find this stuff to be interesting more than anything.
[QUOTE=Charlotte2002;248658]OT, but there has been so much interesting info on this thread. I always like to read different points of view on topics that basically are my profession.
It is going to take 10-20 years before people truly realize how important the decision to go with the light rail was.
The key is being proactive, imagine if NYC never built a subway system or had a comprehensive regional commuter rail system?
One thing I would find interesting and maybe some on here could post some links is the proposed plans around some of the light rail stations. I’m currently reading a book called The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit Oriented Development. Early in the book the focus is on that much of what gets built around train stations is Transit Related Development, but not Transit Oriented Development. It would be interesting to see if Charlotte’s plans fall under TOD or TRD.[/QUOTE]
I knew we had done something to make us look bad as soon as I walked by a newsstand today and noticed “UNCC” in big bold print on the front page of the Observer (otherwise we would not have made the headlines).
It’ll be interesting to see how DuBois handles this scenario going forward. Will he continue to dig the hole, or will he climb out of it?
Erskine has a member of the UNC system administraion looking into this now.
[URL=http://www.charlotte.com/112/story/201369.html][B]Bowles orders UNCC inquiry[/B][/URL], Charlotte Observer
So who’s going to be the new Chancellor after Bowles fires DuBois?
Stonecold, I have $100 that says he won’t be fired. You game?
So who's going to be the new Chancellor after Bowles fires DuBois?
I suppose Bowles can pull a sock from his sock drawer and glue on some eyeballs.
This really seems to be getting blown way out of proportion. A few anti-sales tax whiners complain to Bowles and want an investigation, so here we go…
Sounds like they’re really only going to be investigating the integrity of the data, not the whole “who should we say initiated the study” part… which to me is the only part that sounded fishy.
[QUOTE=NinerATL2CHA;248880]This really seems to be getting blown way out of proportion. A few anti-sales tax whiners complain to Bowles and want an investigation, so here we go…
Sounds like they’re really only going to be investigating the integrity of the data, not the whole “who should we say initiated the study” part… which to me is the only part that sounded fishy.[/QUOTE]
the whole thing was shady and they got caught, lets see what else comes out of the investigation. Maybe the data is cooked. UNCC should never play the role of framing a political argument.
I just don’t get Dubois personally. It seems he goes to extremes to push his own agenda, and also goes to extremes to ignore alumni against like football and UC name change.
Once the lgiht rail is official, this guy needs to be canned.
I don’t know all the details of his career, but I do know that people aren’t flocking to the University of Wyoming in drives either.
I don’t feel confident enought to put down $ on it.
another take:
http://www.carolinajournal.com/jhdailyjournal/index.html
Not exactly a shining moment in the history of responsible public service. [B]Rash’s affiliation with UNCC should be terminated immediately.[/B] UNC President Erskine Bowles should ensure that the system’s [URL=http://charlotte.johnlocke.org/blog/?p=1644][U][COLOR=#606420]announced investigation[/COLOR][/U][/URL] of the incident include the questionable conduct and [B]fate of Dubois, who at the very least should be made to apologize for his shameful behavior[/B]. Taxpayers do not fund public universities so they can dabble in local politics – and then attempt to mislead the public about it.
Let’s be honest, the Carolina Journal is a libertarian, right wing publication.