Well, we now know how Edd Hauser came by such interesting data for his transit ‘study.’ Today’s Observer reports:

The Observer did find, however, that the UNCC study used flawed data when comparing the cost of Charlotte’s light-rail line to projects in other cities. The data was culled from a Web site run by a California transit buff, not from the federal government or local governments building the lines.

As a result, the study inaccurately showed that CATS had no cost overruns in building the South Corridor line. Soon after the study’s release, the authors edited the information to reflect overruns, but again used flawed data from the same site. The update overstated CATS’ cost overruns in comparison to other light-rail lines

Data from a web site run by a California transit buff? Really. In a report done by the director of the Center for Transportation Policy Studies? OK. In a field noted for cost overruns? Very nice.

Not addressed in the Observer’s story is the other serious problem with Hauser’s ‘study’ — cherry picking the comparative cities/systems used. Of course, given his apparent lack of familiarity with good research methods and the underlying data, perhaps that really is literally asking too much from Hauser.