UNCC: Message Not Messenger

As has been hinted at for several days, the UNC System will take a closer look at the pro-CATS transit study released by UNCC two months ago.

As we have said for all those weeks, there remain many open questions about how the University’s Center for Transportation Policy Studies came to do the study. However, let’s set those to the side and again try to focus on the merits of the study. Or the lack thereof.

From the very outset, even without reference to how the study came to be, it was clear the study was extraordinarily weak. At most — at most — and accepting the questionable data set the study opted to use, the study merely showed CATS to be just about as horrible as all its other peers in the public transit field. Big deal.

But, of course, the data set is very questionable.

No way Seattle’s underground light rail project should be compared to Charlotte’s surface plans. No way that the study should omit newer light rail construction from its comparison while including systems running since 1986. No way projects using new, more expensive exclusive right-of-way like Dallas should be compared to CATS and what should be the cheaper re-use of existing right-of-way.

And the errors! That UNCC, the Chamber, and CATS all missed the errors in this report should have any fan of light wondering about the core competence of their champions.

Once more, the initial cost per mile of South line was not $48 million as stated on Page 17 of the report. The correct number is $20 million per mile. In addition, the initial length of South line was 11 miles and remained so until Pineville opted out of CATS’ plan in 2002. None of this is in the UNCC report. The report reads as if the length of the South line has always been 9.6 miles.

When you use the correct numbers in a comparison of Charlotte’s cost per mile cost escalation versus that of merely the other questionable systems used by the report, this is what you get:

Any way you look at it, CATS’ cost control has been abysmal, even compared to a favorable group of peers. This, in turn, leads reasonable people to question the wisdom of rushing to build $1 billion worth of new trains in the North and Northeast lines, quite likely without any federal funding for the projects.

In other words, the UNCC study is useless in helping answer precisely the question this community now faces.

That is the merit issue. Then there is the independence of the research reflected in the report. Emails released by the University on June 13th immediately cast serious doubt on the official story of how the report came to be.

For almost a month now, there have been basic questions about the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce’s role in the study still unanswered. However, with every disclosure the Chamber’s role grows larger. UNCC has tried to minimize that role by suggesting that the Chamber was merely one of many community voices how asked for a UNCC study of CATS.

What we do know is that the Chamber had in the past paid the Center for research.* (see note) That was not the case for this report according to University. Yet none other than Ron Tober himself thought that the UNCC study was being done “for the Chamber.”

This gets us to CATS close involvement in the production of the study, to the point where pre-release copies were provided to top CATS officials and Tober was asked to review at least one section for accuracy. How this squares with an “independent” study is an other question for the UNC probe to answer.

We still have not heard from the Chamber on whether the Chamber received pre-release copies of the report, saw drafts of the report, suggested changes, what those changes might have been, and if those changes were made in the final report.

Perhaps the UNC probe will answer those questions.

Finally, we must note that the Uptown paper of record has not exactly covered itself in glory in this matter.

From the instant the report was released, the Observer accepted everything the study had to say at fawning face value. Now, as the University system itself validates that there are at least open questions about the study’s origins and independence, watch for the paper to make a claim that the probe is a “distraction” from the matter at hand. An example of attacking the messenger because the message was so disagreeable.

No. Exactly wrong. The message was inconsequential at best, wholly deceptive at worst.

The messenger? Let’s wait and see.

And, as ever, we need a new transit plan.

*As it turns out, and contrary to what Edd Hauser, implied during his second interview on WFAE, the Chamber has never paid the Center for any research, ever. Hauser was attempting to explain why the Chamber involvement in the transit study was not mentioned as had been the case in previous studies the Center had done on subjects like the Charlotte Airport. He said in that case entities mentioned had paid for the study, evidently referring to the Airport authority and not the Chamber. In other words, we are back at square one.