An ice rink on Parliament Hill strikes me as a cool idea. It’s happening from December 07 to 31st as part of the #Canada150 celebrations. I’ll be in Ottawa for the holidays and look forward to checking it out. Out of curiosity, I decided to estimate how the costs would grow if we extend its time on the Hill.
Canada150 ice rink
Given the significant effort it takes to create the rink, why not keep it longer?
My first reaction was to wonder why Ottawa wouldn’t keep the ice rink until Winterlude. It’s a festival of outdoors winter activities: seems like a good fit? An extension to the end of Winterlude (Feb.2 to Feb.19) would mean 75 days of use instead of 25: tripling the useable time.
Apparently I’m not alone in wondering about this. Politicians, journalists, and plenty of Canadians have been voicing opinions about the project. At least, that’s what my Facebook and Twitter feeds tell me.
In the Toronto Star a couple days ago (here), Conservative MP Gerard Deltell suggested keeping it open all winter. Yesterday, Minister Joly said it will be extended to the end of February (tweet announcement, Toronto Star article).
This post sets out to estimate how the costs change as we extend the ice rink’s time on Parliament Hill.
What’s the right balance between cost and use?
Canadian Heritage gave the Toronto Star this break down of the $5.6 million total cost:
$2.375 million for design & construction
$1.3 million for marketing and a youth hockey tournament (travel & hotels)
$1.9 million1 for labour and operations (daily use)
How would the total cost change if we extend the rink later into the winter?
Some costs are fixed. We spend the same to design, construct, and move the rink at the end whether we keep it open on Parliament Hill for a weekend or the entire winter. Clearly, using it only for a weekend is absurd. That works out to nearly $2 million per day of use!
I also consider the youth hockey tournament a fixed cost. If we extend the rink’s time on the Hill for the public, this cost stays the same.
So there is $3.7 million in fixed costs.
Other costs scale with time. If we keep the rink longer, we incur greater costs.
I assume the $1.9 million across 25 days represents the operational costs that would increase if the rink is kept at the Hill longer.2 This means the ice rink roughly costs $77k for every day it is kept open. Frankly, that seems high, but those are the best numbers we’ve been given so far by the government.
Based on this, I estimate the total cost of the rink would increase from $5.6 million for 25 days of use to $9.5 million if it were extended through Winterlude. If it were extended to the end of March, as suggested by Gerard Delutt, the amount of days would quadruple but the total cost would double ($12.5 million).
Total cost estimate: (click to enlarge)
Total cost = fixed costs + (number of days) * (additional costs/day)
Total cost of the Parliament Hill ice rink (my estimate)
Another way to look at how much value we get for the cost is to look at the total cost divided by the total number of days the rink will be open. It makes sense to keep it open for a while since it takes millions to build it.
Daily cost = Total cost / total number of days open
The Toronto Star described the daily cost of the ice rink to be $215k. But that value depends on how long the rink is kept on the Hill. (They also use 26 days instead of 25.)
Daily cost estimate: (click to enlarge)
Cost per day of the Parliament Hill ice rink (my estimate)
(Note the first week of values are so high they are cut off. Clearly not a good option.)
What is an efficient length of time to keep it, since we’ve decided to build it?
To me, Winterlude is the winner.
If we keep the rink longer than that, the total cost increases, but the daily cost remains very similar. This strikes me as a reasonable balance to get good use from the rink.
What do you think is the right balance?
Disclaimer/note: These calculations are rough estimates. I aim to transparently interpret the numbers provided by Canadian Heritage to the Toronto Star. I’m interested to see how the real costs turn out.
End notes:
1 The Toronto Star’s article says the rink was originally scheduled for 26 days of use. I use 25 days because the official rink website says the rink is open December 07 to December 31 for the public. It doesn’t make a significant impact on the analysis. (see screenshot below)
2 There seems to be a lot of staff involved in this rink. Far beyond a typical ice rink. There are definitely unanswered questions about why this rink is so expensive. But that’s not what this post is about…
Canada150 rink screenshot showing original open dates
Yesterday, the government announced it will support science and operations at PEARL, Canada’s high Arctic atmospheric research facility, until fall 2019. That is great news.
Canadians and scientists spoke out. Politicians responded. Science advocacy works.
What’s next? Is this ‘mission accomplished’?
No. Not at all. This is only a first step.
The announced support is “bridge funding,” meaning that it is temporary and short-term. It solves an immediate problem: PEARL was preparing to shut down due to a rapidly approaching end-of-funding horizon in a few months. Many long-term datasets and projects studying how the atmosphere works and how it is changing were at risk. This new funding ensures those measurements will continue. For a while.
What’s on the other end of the bridge?
At the moment, nothing. We’re poised for another funding crisis in 2019. Just like 2017. And 2012. And 2002*. Will I find myself leading another march for science, asking the government to fund PEARL again in a couple years? (I discussed this in a recent Story Collider event: script here.)
This temporary funding for PEARL is necessary because the Trudeau government decided not to continue or replace the existing formal funding mechanism, the Canadian Climate and Atmospheric Research (CCAR) program. CCAR supported several major research projects, one of which was PEARL. CCAR was evaluated by NSERC a year ago (online report & infographic), which recommended continued funding because it provided unique and much-needed support for Canadian scientists. It even noted PEARL wouldn’t exist without CCAR – it “saved PEARL” in 2013. But no money was allocated to continue CCAR in the spring budget, creating a crisis in Canadian climate science funding. Other affected projects are still without a clear path forward.
“Climate change research and the Arctic are far too important and they deserve more than one-off efforts. They deserve a comprehensive, thoughtful, approach.”
She is absolutely right. But what we have at the moment is another one-off effort. What we need next is the comprehensive, thoughtful approach.
CCAR wasn’t perfect. It only had one scale of project funding and was designed to accept proposals only once every five years. The funds had limitations, e.g. PEARL couldn’t pay for electricity using CCAR grant money. And clearly the CCAR structure wasn’t immune from political winds. It existed briefly, to pick up the pieces after an earlier, larger funding program was left to crumble by the Harper government, only to be ended by the Trudeau government. This hardly seems to have been a stable, long-term platform for supporting climate science.
Canada can do better.
We could create a foundation to administer climate and atmospheric research funding. It could be set up at arms-length from the government with an eye on the long-term nature of the issues. It should offer support for research at multiple scales, and have regular calls for new proposals. This was done before, in the early 2000s. It was called the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS), and was ended in 2011 by the Harper government. This precipitated PEARL’s 2012 funding crisis.
CFCAS was a good model that could be used as inspiration for this government’s own solution. Its annual reports are still available online, and outline the enormous impact it had in ensuring that Canada was a leader in atmospheric and climate science – exactly the outcome yesterday’s press release identifies as the big picture goal.
Emergency last-minute funding squeezed out of somewhere is not the way Canada should support important science. We need stable, long-term funding for climate and atmospheric research, guided by a vision for Canadian science and environmental stewardship.
Our next step, as scientists, citizens, and science advocates, should be to push Canada to create a plan to secure Canadian climate and atmospheric science expertise and leadership for the long-term.
* The PEARL Ridge Lab was originally constructed in 1992 by Environment Canada to monitor stratospheric ozone depletion under the name Arctic Stratospheric Observatory, or AStrO. Due to cuts to research funding, AStrO closed in 2002. See, for example, EC’s old webpage on AStrO. It took a few years for Canadian academics to re-open the facility as PEARL. It was significantly expanded under the leadership of Prof. Jim Drummond.
Dan Weaver at the 80 degree north sign between Eureka, NU and the PEARL Ridge Lab.
A month ago I was a story teller at a Science Literacy Week event in Toronto called Story Collider. My story was about the excitement of travelling to the high Arctic for fieldwork the first time, only to find out during the first week that the government was cutting its funding. This prompted me down a path of science advocacy. This script aims to share some of my feelings on the experiences.
Story Collider was different from the other public speaking I’ve done. There was no one else on stage. There was nothing else on stage – no slides, no notes. Just me and a mic. The simplicity of this arrangement helped create a personal connection with the audience.
(Nice blog entry by science writer Mirjam Guesgen summarizing the event here.)
In this post I’ve added a few photos to illustrate what was in my head at the time. At some point, the audio recording of the event will be released and I’ll add a link.
Here we go…
Dan Weaver telling his story of fieldwork and science advocacy at Story Collider in Toronto (photo credit: Ally Chadwick, @JustMyFreckles)
Flying across the Canadian Arctic is an exhilarating experience.
It’s a full day’s journey. Canada’s Arctic is huge. The landscapes are stunning; there are mountains and fjords, waterways and sea ice (for the moment anyway).
View from the plane to Eureka
I do the trip when it’s the end of Polar Night, when light is returning after months of continuous darkness. In a small charter plane, the ride is loud and bumpy. There is no bathroom. With lots of scientific equipment along for the ride and everyone wearing massive parkas, space is limited. Every pound of weight is planned and verified. Weather can be difficult.
Inside the plane to Eureka (photo credit: Dan Weaver)
I remember the time the landing gear wheels got stuck – likely due to ice – and the landing in Resolute Bay (along the northwestern passages) was… abrupt. Another time, there were high winds. I remember trying to enjoy the landscape growing ever-closer out the window as the plane approached a runway at a steep angle – only levelling out at the last minute. It was a relief to land.
The effort is worth it. When I finally arrive in the middle of Ellesmere Island’s polar desert, it takes a half hour drive, down a desolate Arctic dirt road, to reach the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory, or PEARL.
Remote Arctic road to the PEARL Ridge Lab (photo credit: Dan Weaver)
It’s further north than the northern lights, Inuit, and all Canadian settlements except the Alert military base. I have done the journey many times to do fieldwork.
Where is PEARL (Dan Weaver/Google Maps)
I’m an atmospheric physicist.
When everything is working well, I love going for hikes around the lab. Our parkas and snow pants mostly protect us from temperatures as low as -50ºC, but after a while your eyelashes end up freezing together. (The important thing is not to pull the ice off – melt it gently with your hands.)
Dan after a nighttime hike near Eureka (photo credit: Dan Weaver/Paul Loewen)
If you can keep your eyelashes from freezing, it’s also awesome to see the wildlife. Arctic bunnies and foxes. (A few more photos here.) But sometimes, cables get chewed by curious Arctic wolves. So that’s a challenge, too.
Arctic Hare near PEARL (photo credit: Dan Weaver)
Whether you’re a grad student or tenured professor, you’ll find yourself shovelling snow when the truck gets stuck in a snowdrift. I’ve shovelled snow next to the best in my field.
Shovelling snow between Eureka and the PEARL Ridge Lab (photo credit: Dan Weaver)
Without PEARL, scientists would have a big question mark across a significant part of the Arctic.
PEARL Ridge Lab (photo credit: Dan Weaver)
When I first joined the team, I was proud to be part of big, planet-wide endeavours aimed at understanding our changing world.
Installing instruments on the roof of the PEARL Ridge Lab at the start of the campaign (photo credit: Dan Weaver)
My first week at PEARL, in February 2012, was a whirlwind of activity. The cold was extreme, but I was thrilled. Maybe even moreso because of it. (I mean, I grew up in Ottawa, so I was ready for the Arctic, right??)
The Polar Vortex was overhead. The sawtooth mountain range carved out a jagged horizon to the east. A Canadian satellite mission flew overhead regularly; working in combination with PEARL instruments to observe the changing atmosphere. When I first arrived, the sun didn’t rise until 11 a.m. With each day, it rose a little bit earlier. After a month of being there, the sun set late into the evening.
Distant sawtooth mountains, viewed from the roof of the PEARL Ridge Lab (photo credit: Dan Weaver)
When summer arrives, the sun doesn’t set at all.
sunset from the PEARL Ridge Lab (photo credit: Dan Weaver)
….. But there was darkness on the horizon ….
A photo I’d taken of the lab and surrounding landscape during one of my very first days on the campaign made the front page of a major newspaper. I was excited but also heartbroken. The story was not about the tremendous science we were doing, but that it was all coming to an unexpected and sudden end. The government had decided to end funding for atmospheric and climate research. We would finish the campaign, and then the lab would be left in hibernation.
Le Devoir’s coverage of the 2012 PEARL funding crisis
A few weeks later, the last day of the campaign arrived. I made the most of it and enjoyed the view from the PEARL roof. I didn’t know if I’d ever return.
View from the PEARL Ridge Lab of Slidre Fiord (photo credit: Dan Weaver)
When I got back to Toronto, I realized PEARL’s closure was one story within a much larger one. Canada seemed to be dismantling its research capacity, with environmental work taking the biggest hit. The Experimental Lakes Area was closing, the census was cancelled, science libraries were being shut. Scientists in the federal government were fired by the thousands and those remaining were muzzled.
My perspective on the situation expanded beyond the PEARL facility, beyond the Arctic, and beyond science. Into politics. I started a #SavePEARL campaign.
Hmmm, I didn’t expect to get involved in politics when I decided to do a physics Ph.D… it’s not what I signed up for, but it was what was needed.
I wanted Canadians to understand what was being lost, and why it was important. I wanted there to be a public outcry to Save PEARL, and to save Canadian science.
Fast-forward a few years
I find myself marching down the streets of downtown Toronto, with a lab coat on and bullhorn in my hand. Hundreds of people march behind me.
I’m feeling exhilarated again. This time, not for doing science, but for rallying people to support it politically. Today, it still amazes me this was necessary at all.
I joined Canada’s leading group of science activists, who’d formed a new organization called Evidence for Democracy to advocate for science. There were marches and protests across Canada, calling on the government to fund science. It was a scene that would be repeated again on a global scale with the March for Science, which I also helped lead with a lab coat on and a bullhorn in my hand. This time, there are thousands of people behind me.
Dan kicks off the Toronto March for Science (photo credit: Paul Martin)
I learned that when Canadians speak loudly enough, politicians listen.
PEARL was eventually saved by new funding. There was a big gap in valuable long-term datasets that could never be recovered – the damage was done, but at least the work could begin again.
Walking to the PEARL Ridge Lab (photo credit: Dan Weaver)
I returned to PEARL each winter for fieldwork, and operated instruments remotely during the rest of the year. I upgraded instrumentation, tested new measurement techniques, and have been using PEARL measurements to validate new satellite data. Busy filling in those question marks with data.
Dan adjusting beamsplitter door of the PEARL 125HR spectrometer (photo credit: Dan Weaver / Paul Loewen)
When the 2015 federal election arrived, I was pleased to see the winning party had lots of promises on science. I thought this time would be different. My years of campaigning for science were finally paying off.
Maybe Canadian research would be on firmer footing now.
Today, I’ve got what I need: cool photos, amazing memories, and a soon-to-be-finished Ph.D. But I know Canada still needs PEARL, if we’re to understand the Arctic and our atmosphere. Our international partners still need PEARL, so we can together fill in those many question marks about how our world is changing.
Dan meets Trudeau in Iqaluit and discusses need for long-term science funding. I tried!
I expected the new government would expand funding for atmospheric and climate science, but it didn’t. The only program supporting this type of work was ended. There have been no promises of funding in the future. I asked Trudeau himself when we, quite by chance, were both in Iqaluit several months ago. He said he’d talk to the Minister of Science. Nothing came of it.
How many times will I have to put on a labcoat, and instead of walking into a lab, walk into the street to march for science?
Science only happens when we decide to support it.
Will you?
** Update: temporary short-term ‘bridge’ funding has been announced that ensure PEARL won’t close immediately. (CBC North story.). But it isn’t a long-term solution. It simply kicks the can down the road. (My thoughts here.) This script is as relevant as ever. Will I march for science again in 2019 to call on the government to fund PEARL? I hope it won’t be necessary.
