Today we take another look at our old friend, that monument to central planning that proves that bad ideas can survive in spite of evidence refuting their viability, the O-train.

The O-train is just over one-year old and while car-hating councillors are singing its praises, most discerning and intelligent folk intrinsically know that the old Public Enemy song - an '80s hard-core rap group - is the best guide for judging the O-train: "Don't believe the hype!"

Reports of ridership in the low-range of expectations and continuing
problems with the wheels on the light rail cars are accurate. Then
there's the fact that no one, not Mayor Chiarelli, not transit boss Gord Diamond, nor anyone on council has produced a modal shift study showing how many people have permanently left their cars at home to ride the O-train.

If I'm not mistaken, this was the whole point of the light rail trial in
the first place. And to date, not a single councillor has refuted my claim (backed by academic studies) that 80% of light rail riders in North America came from buses ... not cars.

Yes we've pointed all this out before but a recent report from the
General Accounting Office (GAO) in the United States and media reports out of Toronto this week should cast further doubt on Ottawa's cuckoo choo-choo boondoggle which must now be over $30 million ... a far cry from the $10 million estimate from Mr. Chiarelli when he ran for Regional Chair back in 1997.

The GAO is similar to our federal Auditor General in that it provides
oversight and quasi-comptrollership recommendations to government. In testimony before a House of Representatives Committee studying Highways and Transit Infrastructure, John H. Anderson Jr., the GAO's Managing Director for Physical Infrastructure Issues made the following remarks on June 20th.

"Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a promising approach to providing improved transit service at a lower capital cost. BRT is designed to provide major improvements in the speed and reliability of bus service through barrier separated busways, buses on high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, or improved service on arterial streets."

Mr. Anderson goes on to state: "Our 2001 report on BRT compared existing BRT service in the United States with existing Light-Rail (LR) systems and found that BRTservice generally had lower capital costs."

Hmmm? Is this what our friends at city hall have been telling us? Nope!

The GAO report examined 20 bus systems and 18 light rail systems and the numbers are shocking. "The capital costs of BRT in the cities we reviewed averaged $13.5 million per mile for busways, $9.0 million per mile for buses on HOV lanes, and $680,000 per mile for buses on city streets, when adjusted to 2000 dollars. For light rail lines, capital costs averaged $34.8 million per mile, when adjusted to 2000 dollars."

Conclusion, light rail is almost three times as expensive in capital
costs alone as compared to buses.

But what about operating costs and ridership? The GAO testimony is clear on this point as well. "In general, we found that BRT compared
favorably to light rail systems in terms of operating speed and
ridership capacity." And for cities with large bus fleets and light
rail systems, buses win out.

In fairness, the GAO's work does acknowledge the negative social stigma still attached to buses and bus ridership. But light-rail's oft
mentioned advantages as being faster, quieter and less polluting than
buses more assertions of opinion and preference as opposed to
categorical statements of fact.

Light rail is more expensive because these systems "contain elements not required in the BRT systems, such as train signal, communications, and electrical power systems with overhead wires to deliver power to trains. Light rail also requires additional materials needed for the guideway - rail, ties and track ballast. In addition, if a light rail maintenance facility does not exist, one must be built and equipped. Finally, light rail vehicles, while having higher carrying capacity than most buses, also cost more - about $2.5 million each. In contrast, according to transit industry consultants, a typical 40-foot transit bus costs about $238,000, and a higher capacity bus costs about $420,000."

As for the pollution component, the GAO notes that "buses that
incorporate newer technologies for low emissions or that run on more than one fuel can cost more than $1 million."

But here's the real kicker. "Bus Rapid Transit provides a more flexible approach than light rail because buses can be rerouted more easily to accommodate changing travel patterns to eliminate transfers, operate on busways, HOV lanes and city arterial streets; and new routes can be implemented in stages."

Ironically, Toronto is now looking at our bus system as a model to solve its gridlock and urban sprawl woes. Even Helen Gault, OC Transpo's point person on the O-train was quoted in the Toronto Star this past Thursday stating: "I would never take the stance that BRT is better than rail. It's different horses for different courses. But the kind of passenger numbers it can accommodate would serve to make the bus a very viable option to a rail-based system in many circumstances." Okay, let's just leave this one for all taxpayers to ponder.

Gordon Chong, Chair of GO Transit in the GTA is convinced: "Bus rapid transit simply gives you the biggest bang for the buck." Yes it does. Yet our municipal leaders continue to pour good money after bad into the O-train debacle.

Returning the Mr. Anderson's GAO testimony he concluded: "In addressing their transportation problems, communities will ultimately formulate proposals on the basis of a number of factors, including cost; ridership; environmental impacts; and a community's needs, public attitudes and perceived ability to obtain federal funding. We believe that because of its potential merits and cost advantages, Bus Rapid Transit should be given serious consideration as options are explored and evaluated."

It's time for councillors to say enough is enough and tell the mayor
that the O-train mega-project has to be pulled off the rails. Let's
cut our losses, now! If action isn't taken, this should definitely be
an election issue next year.