The importance of fair comparisons and accurate numbers

There are all sorts of reasons for someone to take issue with Ottawa's current transit plan. You can pose questions about the cost. You can question the need for a tunnel at all. You can ponder the cost-benefit ratio of light-rail transit compared to bus rapid transit. All of these, in fact, have been questioned in the current election. But in doing so, you have to be fair in your comparisons and accurate in looking at the numbers behind the plan before reaching your conclusions. Otherwise, you're deceiving yourself, and if you're running for mayor, you're deceiving the people you hope will vote for you.

The most recent example of inaccurate comparisons has come in the aftermath of the cancellation of NJ Transit's Trans Hudson Mass Transit Tunnel (also known as the ARC tunnel) project. As costs for the tunnel climbed at untenable rates, New Jersey governor Chris Christie decided (very controversially) that "[t]he only prudent move is to end this project" to at least contain the costs. And, of course, this made Ottawans nervous about our transit tunnel--for good reason, because tunnel projects to have a habit of exceeding their estimates. By a lot. And it's come up on the election trail, too, as Clive Doucet used the ARC tunnel example to support his argument for surface-rail through the city. From CTV Ottawa:

While the numbers in Ottawa are smaller, one mayoral candidate predicts a similar story. Clive Doucet is for light rail but against the downtown tunnel.

"Typically tunnels run, on average, 60 per cent over," says Doucet. "So, say it's budgeted $2.1 billion … you're looking at $3 billion."

Fair enough, cautioning about costs for transit plans is prudent for someone running for public office. I'm not sure where the 60 per cent cost-overrun figure comes from, but it's entirely conceivable that Ottawa's tunnel could generate a number in that range, especially considering the issues that have arisen with the University of Ottawa's excavation work for a new building on campus.

But it's important to be clear about such cautions. Doucet is projecting a 60 per cent overrun for the CAD2.1B price tag, but that's not the cost associated with a tunnel; that's the whole transit plan, including surface rail for the vast majority of the span. The actual tunnel portion is currently estimated at CAD735M, so even a 60 per cent cost overrun would bring that cost up to CAD1.176B, pushing the total project up to CAD2.541B overall. Which is definitely more than the city and citizens would prefer to pay, but certainly isn't enough to push the city into bankruptcy.

And comparing Ottawa's tunnel with the ARC tunnel project is a precarious comparison, at best. Ottawa's tunnel is to be a 3.2 km distance, under downtown Ottawa. The Trans Hudson project was a 5.6 km tunnel under the Hudson River. The New York Times called the ARC tunnel "the largest transit project in the nation"; Ottawa's project is a rather humble starting point, in comparison. The class-D (+/- 25 per cent) cost estimate of Ottawa's tunnel is CAD735M, and the total project is $2.1B; the total initial cost estimate for the ARC tunnel was USD8.7B, which had climbed and was expected to end up between USD11-14B when all was said and done. Fairly big difference in scope between the projects.

For the last few weeks, Andy Haydon has been making claims about the inferiority of LRT compared to BRT, and cautioning that proceeding with the current plan could bankrupt Ottawa. Almost post-for-post, David Reevely has blasted holes through Haydon's claims, offering counter-points to Haydon's "cherry-picked" facts and expanding the number of comparison cities to offer a more representative sample.

You expect mayoral candidates to enter a race running through plans with a very fine-toothed comb, simply as due diligence. And it's entirely possible that both Doucet and Haydon have sound arguments to support their alternative transit plans. But they're both hurting their arguments by presenting weak supporting "facts" or estimates for them.

Recap of the mayoral debate on the environment

The first ever Ottawa mayoral debate on the environment took place at Saint Paul University on Sunday night, and there was no shortage of... excitement for those in attendance.

Fireworks started right off the bat, when candidate Jane Scharf questioned the fairness of the questions participants were to be asked, and withdrew from the debate. This opened up a spot for candidate Andy Haydon (who hadn't responded in time to be an official member of the debate), but he declined the opportunity--but still joined into the debate, informally and periodically. Candidate Joseph Furtenbacher was also in attendance, but because he hadn't responded in time to become an official candidate (he said he wasn't invited, possibly because he joined the race late) [Ed. note: Mr. Furtenbacher contacted be to explain that he wasn't invited to the debate because invitations were sent out prior to his registration as an official mayoral candidate], he wasn't invited to participate, and simply sat in the seat vacated by Scharf--without participating.

And all that excitement was before the debate had even officially started.

Over the course of the debate, a large number of environmental issues came up, from protecting aquifers and sensitive ecological areas to water management to 'smart growth' and urban planning. Although no question was directly asked about public transit, it did come up periodically, and there was a significant discussion about cycling in Ottawa.

As for public transit, candidates spoke up about their plans. Incumbent Larry O'Brien spoke about his support for the current plan, as did Jim Watson; Mike Maguire and Clive Doucet each briefly mentioned their alternative transit plans; Andy Haydon very briefly mentioned his support for expanding Ottawa's BRT system, and called Ottawa's transit system Canada's best (citing ridership per capita to support his claim); and Robin Lawrance one again expressed his concerns for public safety with regard to the plan to build a tunnel. The only other speaker given an opportunity were César Bello--who didn't discuss transit plans, but did say he'd ensure no more transit strikes--and Charlie Taylor, who didn't speak much to public transit in general (but has in the past expressed grudging support for the city's current transit plan).

As I write this post, hours after the debate, I'm still not sure what to think about what I just witnessed. There were some good points made, but they were rare gems hidden in the personal attacks and ideological statements and slogans that dominated the debate. And, as was pointed out by Taylor, the whole thing was dominated with 'greenwashing', and many of the candidates were definitely speaking to the audience in front of them.

Still, the debate can be seen as nothing but a positive thing for this city. There were a couple hundred people in attendance (it was standing-room only by the time it started), and most of the audience were very interested in what was said. In terms of getting the environment on the radar for the mayoral race, as well, the event was a huge success.

Good news for those of you who missed the debate, but want to watch it: It will be on Rogers 22 in Ottawa this Tuesday, Sept. 28, at 8:30 p.m. Tune in, if you can; you won't be sorry.

Haydon drops the gloves

Before spending Millions of your dollars on a needless venture I would like to provide Mr. Watson with the opportunity of defending his position on this very important, and expensive venture.

I am willing to make myself available, any time, any place of Mr. Watson's choosing.

That's what mayoral candidate Andy Haydon challenged Jim Watson with in a blog post lat last week. Haydon, as has been much publicized, is very much in favour of bus rapid transit (BRT), and very much against light-rail transit (LRT), while Watson, after initially expressing skepticism about Ottawa's LRT plan, has recently come out in favour of it. Not sure if Watson will take Haydon up on his challenge, but tomorrow's environmental debate of mayoral candidates (which TransitOttawa.ca is co-sponsoring, and takes place at 6:30 at St. Paul's University's Laframboise Dining Hall at 233 Mann) offers them a perfect opportunity.

Watson, O'Brien, and Haydon have different ideas for OC Transpo transit commission

At his transit platform presentation on Wednesday, mayoral candidate Jim Watson announced his support for establishing a transit commission, becoming the third candidate to make such a promise heading into the October 25 election.

Watson's website said he would be looking to:

Seek Council approval to create a transit commission that would be made up of a majority of councillorʼs and a minority of citizens with experience in the fields of transit, management, finance etc, including users of transit.

The commission as proposed by Watson would, as stated above, include mostly city councillors, but also members of the public at large. This is a slightly different format than that posed by other candidates who've promised commissions, including Larry O'Brien and Andy Haydon.

While O'Brien hasn't specified the structure of his proposed commission, his pledges to "detach the day-to-day management of OC Transpo from the day-to-day politics of City Hall" and "put the management of this asset in the hands of professionals" leads one to conclude that neither councillors nor members of the public would help form his commission, instead putting it in the hands of transportation experts.

Candidate Andy Haydon has taken a third approach, choosing to identify a group of six or eight councillors along with the mayor to form the transit commission. His commission would have total authority over OC Transpo including "route designation, purchasing and fare structures", according to Haydon's website.

Although it doesn't recommend a specific structure, the 2007 Mayor's Task Force on Transportation Moving Ottawa report did recommend "separating OC Transpo from the City bureaucracy and setting up an arm's-length operating entity with an appointed board fully accountable to City Council." And, in fact, they recommended it be done within 12 months of the June 2007 submission of their report. The three proposed formats for this election appear to meet those criteria, but differ in their

A historical look at OC Transpo ridership: Redux

Earlier in September, I posted a basic informational graph on OC Transpo ridership, since its first days in 1972. Just the simple facts: How ridership has dipped and risen over the last four decades.

Seizing on that information, frequent commenter on the site took the data a step further, comparing it to Ottawa's population--and graciously sending me the outcome. A note about the data: These graphs are from 1976, the earliest date census metropolitan area (CMA) was available, and they also only use population information for the Ontario portion of Ottawa (so Hull/Gatineau is not included in the population, although there may be riders from Hull/Gatineau affecting the OC Transpo ridership numbers).

First up is a comparative graph, showing the erratic and unpredictable trend in OC Transpo ridership (the blue line) compared to the relatively steady--and in fact steepening--population trend (the red line). The final significant dip in ridership is partially, if not entirely, due to the 2008-09 winter transit strike, but one fact is evident: The modal share devoted to public transit took a huge hit through most of the 1990s, and was slowly recovering--until the strike.

The trend of declining modal share is demonstrated, in some way, by the graphic below. Although this isn't quite modal share--it's the number of trips taken on OC Transpo per capita. Which shows what was described above: The 1990s were devastating for public transit use in Ottawa, and despite some improvements in the first have of the 2000s, public transit use per capita has drastically fallen off since its peaks in the first half of the 1980s.

Thanks once again to WJM for the great work on these infographics. News reports have been positive in terms of ridership so far in 2010, but we won't know until the entire year's numbers are out whether the strike was a blip on the radar, or part of a greater decline.

UPDATE: Some astute comments on this post. Whether it be by some coincidence or not, OC Transpo ridership per capita's precipitous decline began in earnest around 1983, the same year the Transitway began operation. While it seems counter-intuitive, commenter David summed up reasonable conclusions to draw on the graph as such:

What these graphs show beyond any doubt is that the Transitway has NOT led to an increase in ridership in Ottawa, much as certain BRT devotees (e.g. Andy Haydon) like to think otherwise.

While the fact that ridership, when overall population is taken into effect, went down with the beginning of the Transitway is an undeniable conclusion, it certainly doesn't mean that the Transitway has made public transit less attractive to commuters and riders (although construction of the Transitway, and the delays and confusion that goes therewith, might have done so). It does, however, mean that the Transitway hasn't made public transit any more attractive to commuters potential riders, as evidence by the fact that they haven't flooded OC Transpo--and in fact the opposite, as commuters have in fact fled from it.