Ottawa Light Rail Now Estimated at $6.6 Billion

The Ottawa Citizen reported yesterday that the cost of the new light rail train system in the Nation's Capitol will reach a staggering cost of $6.6 billion dollars. The original estimate of $5 billion has been eclipsed in part thanks to a decision to include a tunnel through downtown, and part due to a 50% increase in the estimated cost of one particular line. The city is counting on $3.2 billion dollars of Federal and Provincial money for this project, and plan to incur a billion dollar debt. The project is slated to take two decades to complete.

While the $6.6 billion dollar estimate is troubling, it will only get worse. According to an exhaustive report from Bent Flyvbjerg at the Department of Development and Planning at Aalborg University in Denmark, the average LRT project in North America incurs a cost overrun of 35.8%. Note that this figure refers to the cost from the moment that the project breaks ground. In other words, the city should expect the project to run closer to $9 billion dollars. That is, unless it is one of the 25% of projects with a cost overrun of 60% or more.

Where The Wild Things Are: Appropriate for Children?

“Tell [children] anything you want, as long as it’s true.”

-Maurice Sendak



Where The Wild Things Are was one of the most anticipated children's movies of the last few years--or was it? The film adaptation of the 1963 classic picture book by Maurice Sendak features a stellar cast, and was directed by one of the most accomplished young directors in Hollywood. The film topped the box office on it's opening weekend, bringing in $32.5 million dollars. While the impressive box office numbers demonstrate that it was obviously a highly anticipated film, they also demonstrate that it was not a particularly anticipated children's movie. On opening weekend, parents with children accounted for only 27% of tickets sold. This likely puts the number of children viewers at somewhere between 10-15%. Given that the film was based on a beloved picture book, these numbers seem curious.

There are many potential reasons why the viewership numbers amongst children was so low. The most obvious reason is that it is not a convention children's movie. The film was directed by Spike Jonze, who is know primarily for his masterful collaborations with experimental screenwriter Charlie Kaufman. No one who has seen Being John Malkovich, or Adaptation would have expected anything conventional from him. Jonze himself noted that the movie was meant primarily to be a film about childhood, rather than a conventional children's movie. Combine this with the fact that the popularity of the book likely peaked decades ago, and you have some very plausible reasons why the film was so popular among adults relative to children.

While the first explanation likely explains some of the discrepancy, there is another major reason why many parents shied away from the film. Despite the fact that the book is recommended for children between the ages of 4-8, the MPAA decided to slap the film with a PG rating. They cited adult language, and adult situations to justify the rating. I do not recall any inappropriate language, though one blogger pointed out that the word 'hell' was used twice, and the word 'damn' was used at least once. I have no idea what the MPAA thinks constitutes an adult situation in the film. Perhaps the implication that the child's mother is divorced, or the fact that he talks back to his mother? There may have been some other detail I missed, but these minor details should not be enough to punish the film with a PG rating. The same type of problem emerged in the publishing of the book. The publishers insisted that Sendak replace the word 'hot' with 'warm' when describing the child's dinner. In the end, sanity prevailed, and Sendak's original wording was maintained. Sendak even had a hard time getting librarians to stock the book, since many deemed it inappropriate for children

In addition to the MPAA issue, the movie also suffered from the musings of the author of the book. Maurice Sendak, who worked closely with Spike Jones and David Eggers on the screenplay, has been outspoken on the issue of whether the film would be appropriate for children. In a Newsweek interview, Sendak was asked what he would tell parents who were concerned that the movie would be too frightening for their children. His response was that he would tell them to go to hell. Needless to say, the media jumped all over that quote. To be fair, it was a rude response. Given that he's been plagued by well intentioned sensors for his whole career, it is hard to blame him for his curtness.

Though the MPAA and Maurice Sendak both likely damaged the prospects of the film, the film fell prey to a much more troubling problem. As Sendak was trying to get across in the Newsweek interview, many parents coddle their children far too much. He pointed out that he "saw the most horrendous movies that were unfit for child's eyes. So what? I managed to survive." He added that "grown-ups are afraid for children. It's not children who are afraid." This seems to be the crux of the problem. Many parents have viewed horrible things in their lifetimes, and they want to prevent the same from happening to their children. The trouble is that shielding children entirely from the realities of life leaves them unprepared for when life gets difficult. This attitude may well be partially responsible for the high self reported rates of depression amongst young people.

Contrary to several anti-intellectual reviewers, Where The Wild Things Are is not "movie made by, and for, members of a generation who feel it's unfair to have to grow up." The film is at once a reflection on the joys and sorrows of childhood, and an appropriate modern fairy tale. It is ironic that most people alive today grew up in generations where children's stories consisted of dark cautionary tales, such as Little Red Riding Hood and Rumpelstiltskin. They seemed to turn out alright. Rather than painting an unnecessarily bleak picture of life, the film had several important messages. One such theme is the danger of hierarchies. The Utopian world that Max tries to create inevitably crumbles. He can't keep the sadness out. In an interview with PBS, Sendak said that children "have to know it's possible things are bad, but they are surrounded by people who love them and will protect them." If that's not a child appropriate theme, I don't know what is.

A Nobel Idea

The announcement that President Barack Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize came as a shock to everyone--or nearly everyone. The only person who seems to have had any inkling that he was a contender was a world renowned sports handicapper who claimed he was a "reasonable long shot at 14-1." The decision was controversial, to say the least. Most pundits seem to feel that the award was premature, pointing out that he has been in office for less than a year. In fact, the nominations for the prize closed 12 days after he was sworn in as President. Even the President didn't seem to feel he deserved the prize. In his own words, "I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who have been honored by this prize."

The cynical view is that Obama was awarded the prize simply for not being George W. Bush. There is certainly reason to believe this, especially given that Al Gore has also recently won the prize. A more likely view--the view propounded by defenders of the decision--is that the award was meant as collateral. In short, the award was given to the President to remind him of his promises, and to encourage him to see them through. This seems to me to be the correct reasoning. After all, his campaign was largely fought on issues such as ending the Iraq War, and closing Guantanamo Bay. Neither has been accomplished. In fact, rather than bringing troops home, the President is sending more troops to Afghanistan. While I am not judging any of these decisions, it does seem to me that liberal internationalists have reasons to be anxious. Hence the Nobel.

While the goal of reducing international conflict is noble, the Nobel Peace Prize was not meant to be bequeathed for good intentions. Neither was it meant to be awarded as a token of encouragement. The award was intended for those who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." While the literal words of Alfred Nobel seem to suggest that the prize would be reserved for political contributions, some of the recent prize winners have shown that fraternity between nations can be promoted in very indirect ways. The best example of this was the 2006 prize, which was awarded to economist Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank. Mr.Yunus founded the bank in 1983 in Bangladesh. He founded the bank on the principles that "that attacking poverty is essential to peace, and that private enterprise is essential to attacking poverty." The bank makes tiny loans, as low as $20, to people who would otherwise have difficultly obtaining loans. Most of it's customers have been destitute women. To date, the bank has lent out nearly $6 billion dollars. While the issue of poverty in Bangladesh has not yet been solved, the Grameen Bank has made a significant contribution.

While the Grameen Bank is a major innovation, there are some limitations. The Bank relies on major contributions from a variety of foundations and major contributors. Though these sources of funding are extremely important, the bank is missing out on a potentially massive source of funding: the average citizen. Recognizing this limitation, Matt Flannery and Jessica Jackley founded kiva.org, a website that allows for individuals to make interest free loans to third world entrepreneurs. Kiva has received endorsements from such diverse sources as Zambian Economist Dambisa Moyo, Oprah Winfrey, and Bill Clinton. Clinton also wrote about kiva.org in his recent book Giving. To date, over $95 million dollars have been lent out by more than a half a million people. The repayment rate is an impressive 98.42%.

Many people are skeptical of making donations to alleviate third world poverty. The third world seems to be a sinkhole where money either disappears, or is stolen. This type of skepticism is likely what lead New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof to follow up on a loan that he made to a baker in Afghanistan. Kristof was able to track down the man, and had the opportunity to sample the bread that his loan helped to bake. The loan consisted of $425 from seven different families and individuals from across America. By spending less than 10 minutes on the website, and donating as little as $25, these seven donors were able to help lift an aged baker out of poverty. If that doesn't count as encouraging fraternity between nations, I don't know does. It is for this reason that I believe Matt Flannery and Jessica Jackley deserve to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

On a personal note, I have been lending through kiva.org ever since I heard about the site 2 years ago. Every single loan I have made has been repaid promptly, and in full. I encourage everyone to go to kiva.org to make a loan. As little as $25 can help to lift a struggling entrepreneur out of poverty. It will also make you feel good knowing that you've helped to make a difference.

Government Tourism Advertising Campaigns and New Media

There are few better examples of zero sum games than can be found in the field of government tourism advertising. When multiple jurisdictions spend money to promote tourism, they do not increase the total number of tourists. That is pure common sense. People only have so much vacation time. This is not to say that there is no justification whatsoever to have a modest tourism department to give potential tourists basic information that may be helpful. Beyond that, it just gets silly. No matter how many ads the province of Saskatchewan places on the Toronto subway, or how often I see a commercial that begs me to come to Newfoundland, I will not be any more likely to visit either (though I may have done so anyways.) The wasted effort wouldn't bother me so much if these forms of advertising weren't so expensive. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador spends $12 million dollars annually to attract tourists. That's $24 dollars for every man, woman, and child in the province. Even if it was possible to measure the effect this money has, I doubt it would justify the cost.

Though I object to large scale tourism advertising, I have to say that I have been impressed by the efforts of one jurisdiction to use new media to promote tourism. The State of Pennsylvania has a beautiful, interactive website that focuses on displaying the natural beauty of rural Pennsylvania. It has everything from detailed road trip suggestions, to an online booking service for bed and breakfasts, cabins, and campgrounds. What's more is that the road trip suggestions actually seem really cool. The last time I was in Erie I was literally counting the minutes until my connection came. Now I actually want to go to back so I can stop at Russ' Dinor (sic)! The website probably won't bring in thousands of tourists, but it also doesn't cost $12 million per year.

As impressive as the website is in general, there was one thing that really stood out: a low budget show about a man with two first names. This weekend I was sitting around with a few friends when two of them made a joke about the man with two names. My blank stare must have convinced them to put it on. That, or the fact that they were laughing hysterically at the apparent inside joke. Peter Arthur Stories (PA Stories, get it?) is among the best G rated comedies I've ever seen. The show is much like the popular Flight of the Concords, though the episodes last less than 10 minutes each, and there are only 4 episodes thus far. Though I won't divulge plot details, it involves a young man who decides to take a road trip through the Pennsylvania countryside. Hilarity ensues. The show uses amateur Pennsylvania actors, and operates on a fairly low budget. The Peter Arthur campaign came with a bill of $1.3 million dollars. While that is a large sum, the bulk of the costs came from conventional media advertising, including a 30 second spot during American Idol, and a giveaway of 12 all inclusive Pennsylvania vacations. Given that a 30 second spot during American Idol runs around $750 thousand dollars, that doesn't leave much for the show and vacation packages. Had they relied solely on viral marketing, the price tag would have been substantially lower.

As in the case of the high budget advertising discussed earlier, this probably won't do much to increase tourism--but it might. Given the dearth of references to it on the internet, it doesn't seem that many people have seen the show yet. However, if it gains even a modest viewership, it would be safe to assume that some people would be interested in visiting some of the sights where memorable moments occur. Frankly, I never would have gone to rural Pennsylvania until I saw this. Now that it's an inside joke with my friends, there is no question that I will be heading to some of the random destinations in the show (and dragging at least one enthusiast with me). Rather than throwing money at major tourism programs, governments should learn to harness the power of new media. With a small, creative staff, and a modest budget, there is no reason why governments can't equal the modest success of large scale tourism campaigns for a fraction of the price. And while they're at it, maybe they can give us a few more laughs.

Greening The Government Fleet?

The Toronto Star ran an article last Friday in which they criticized the Canadian government for failing to comply with the Alternative Fuels Act of 1995. The bill requires that the 75% of the government vehicle fleet must operate on alternative fuels when it is "cost-effective and operationally feasible." Though they point out that these conditions have not existed since the legislation was passed, they are particularly critical of the current Conservative government for not having invested more in compliance. Between 2008-2009, the government purchased 1898 alternative fuel vehicles, which accounts for 41% their fleet acquisitions for the period. The most popular alternative fuel used is E10, a gasoline-ethanol blend, which accounts for 8% of fuel consumed by government vehicles.

The authors offer a strong criticism of E10 fuel. Though it has been supported by many environmentalists, it can cost up to $2/liter (over $7.50/gallon), and the fuel economy is noticeably worse. Add to this the fact that vehicles burning E10 are no better in emissions tests, and there is absolutely no justification for the government to purchase these vehicles.

Though the article was critical of flex fuel vehicles, it was much more sympathetic to gas/electric hybrids. While hybrids are extremely popular with eco-conscious drivers, the benefits are far less than advertised. In fact, Wired Magazine pointed out that Consumer Report estimated the fuel efficiency of the Honda Civic Hybrid at 26 MPG. Not only is the 14 miles per gallon less than reported by the US Department of Energy, but it is exactly the same fuel efficiency rating as the regular Honda Civic. On top of this, the premium for the hybrid model is more than $10,000. If the government fleet met the 75% quota by purchasing hybrids, the total price premium would be $238 million dollars. Before advocating such policies, environmentalists should weigh the costs and benefits. Purchasing hybrids is far from a cost-effective method of potentially reducing emissions.

Electric Vehicles, Tax Credits, and Subsidies

Over the summer I wrote a paper in which I examined the efficacy of subsidies and tax credits to electric vehicles. I must admit that I am actually quite bullish on the prospects of EVs. Tesla Motors has made tremendous strides towards making EVs economical, though battery manufacturers still have a long way to go before EVs can get the distance per charge that will be required for them to render the internal combustion engine obsolete.

Despite my optimism surrounding the technology, I am extremely skeptical of government subsidies. One only needs to think back to the hydrogen vehicle craze of the early part of the decade to see how bad governments are at picking winning technologies. After $1.2 billion dollars of subsidies, hydrogen vehicles have fallen by the wayside. Even if electric batteries are the fuel of the future, direct subsidies will not necessarily help their development. Subsidizing one battery company would impede the ability of other companies to compete. There is no reason to think that the Federal government will just happen to choose the right model.

To put this in perspective, think back to when the internal combustion engine was first invented. Of the thousands of entrepreneurs in the market, hindsight tells us that Henry Ford had the best business model. Now, imagine that another company had received federal grants to commercialize their own automobile. Would automotive technology be where it is today? There is no way of telling. For all we know, none of us would know the name Henry Ford, and all of his innovations would have fallen by the wayside. It is only by allowing competition in the marketplace of ideas that we discover the best technologies. If electric vehicles are to become the dominant technology, as I believe they will, it will be made so by entrepreneurs, not bureaucrats.

Who Cares About Portland?

One thing that readers are bound to notice is that I have an unusually keen interest in the city of Portland. Aside from being the micro brewery capital of the world, Portland is also regarded as the public transit Mecca of America. No North American city has experimented as extensively as Portland with various forms of transit. Portland has an extensive fleet of buses, light rail trains, and streetcars. In addition to this, Portland has also constructed an aerial tram, which descends on a system of cables from the main campus of the Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) main campus, to the south waterfront campus. This provides an excellent example of the mentality shared by modern urban planners.

The initial cost estimate for the 1 km tram was $15.5 million dollars. This estimate turned out to be unrealistic, and the cost ballooned to $57 million dollars. The operating cost estimate of $915,000 per year was also far off the mark, as the actual cost is $1.7 million dollars. Any impartial auditor would call this a massive failure. This is especially true when considering that there was already a 3.1 km bus route between the two campuses. Given that the capital cost of a bus is less than 1/100th of the cost of the tram, one would expect urban planners to conclude that the tram was an abysmal failure. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

William Fulton, primary author of the California Planning and Development report curiously labelled the tram a success. Despite the costs, he claims that the tram is responsible for keeping the largest employer, OHSU, in town. Fulton believes that "sometimes you just have to build stuff and see what happens." This is the kind of reckless urban planning that has lead to a decay of most American cities. The idea that money is never an obstacle has lead to a situation where no matter how much money municipalities receive, they are in a state of perpetual budget crisis. Portland, more than any other American city, exhibits this ethos. This is why Portland is important. Despite their reckless transportation policies, Portland has become the model that cities across North America (including Toronto) are attempting to emulate. Your city planners care about Portland, and so should you.