Apart from a slight chill in the evening air and the sun setting sooner, you can tell summer's over by the traffic volumes during the rush-hour commute. Gone are those quick 20-minute jaunts from Trim Rood in Orleans to downtown. We're now back to 30 to 45 minute commutes. Yesterday it took 34 minutes, but at least it afforded me the time to gather some thoughts for today's column.

While chugging along at 30 km/hr down Highway 174, I was struck by the OC Transpo buses zooming by in the bus lane. Of particular interest were the O-Train signs plastered on the back of many articulated buses proudly proclaiming the launch of Ottawa's light-rail pilot project for September 2001. Indeed, light rail was supposed to and running yesterday, but alas the train has not left the station.

According to the OC Transpo web site "some last-minute technical and construction delays in August mean operator training and certification is not yet complete." Apparently, the service will now be operational sometime in October. We should mention that this is the second delay, originally the trains were supposed to be running in August. But hey, what are two-and-a-half months and a couple of million dollars in potential cost overruns between friends (read: Taxpayers)?

Readers may wish to recall - but then again maybe not - that Mayor Chiarelli first told us that this "pilot project" would cost us $10 million, back in 1997 on page 12 of his regional chair campaign platform. Today the project is now projected to cost some $24 to $26.5 million or so and the all aboard call hasn't even sounded yet. The $2.5 million difference is due to some unresolved PST and GST issues with the actual train cars. But it seems as though no one factored in any contingency costs, which is frankly, quite rare for a pilot project.

The O-Train (or is that the Owe-Train, or the Big-O as in Montreal's Olympic stadium boondoggle) should be priority number one for those city councillors who profess to defend the interests of taxpayers. Given that most councillors told us last November when they were looking for votes that they were on the side of taxpayers, one would expect to see calls for a full-fledged O-Train audit once the thing gets on the rails.

But then again, election platitudes and actual service in office can be two different things. My fear on this one is quite simple: if the project is delayed again it could have the potential to look like the federal gun registry where the feds have tried to hide the true value of the registry by spending money across several departments.

The other issue around light rail is one of inconvenience for Carleton University students. Some off-campus students sought accommodation in Hunt Club or down in the Mechanicsville/Tunney's Pasture area on the assumption that light rail would be up and running in September. So this whole episode has added anywhere between 20 and 40 minutes to commute times for these folks.

But alas watching the buses zoom by took my attention off the road. So I fixed my eyes dead ahead again on the road and turned on the radio and the subject of the Ottawa Rough Riders (at least I hope that's what they will be called) came up. As a matter of fact, yours truly still has a ticket stub from the last game played at Lansdowne on October 26, 1996 against Winnipeg. Ah the good old days.

Now speaking of football, the corporate services and economic development committee of city council met yesterday to discuss and approve the "lease principles" between Lansdowne Park and the Watters group (a solid professional group to be sure) that are trying to ink a deal with the CFL and bring pro football back to Ottawa. But if the Mayor or councillors try to tell you a subsidy is not involved, don't buy it for a second.

Consider some of the principles in the lease. Number 3 stated: "The football club shall be exempt form the standard ticket surcharge for the initial three year term." Hmm? Does the home show or other paid admission events (the Nokia Brier or concerts) get this type of deal? Or principle number 5: "All revenue streams arising from the football club's game operations shall accrue to the club."

And principle number 7 read: "Office accommodations at Lansdowne Park for the club's business operations will be provided to the club, subject to availability, on a cost-recovery basis." I wonder if other businesses looking to rent space in city buildings - since we seem to have some surplus city halls kicking around - are eligible for "cost only" rent.

To be fair, these are the same or similar principles that other ownership groups have struck with the city in the past. And research reveals no two leases are the same for different Lansdowne Park tenants. Moreover, the city's concessions are similar to what other cities have given CFL clubs. Nonetheless, a subsidy is still a subsidy.

At the end of the day city council will ultimately be held responsible for the O-Train and the football deal. If they work, great, if not, well some councillors and perhaps the Mayor will be dusting off their resumes. We'll get our chance to pass judgment on these and other issues locally in 2003.

But until then would it be too much to ask for someone at city hall to speak to these issues on a consistent and vocal basis?