Several city hall leaders are slamming the brakes on a proposed light rail transit system that just a few months ago looked like a transformational part of London’s future.

What happened?

What’s changed in the six months since city council unanimously (if temporarily) endorsed a hybrid rapid transit system made up of rail and fast buses, based on facts that — according to several councillors — haven’t changed much since?

With several politicians and bureaucrats hesitant to even ask for federal and provincial funding to build light rail in London, taxpayers should be asking a few questions of their own:

Why would London not make the request?

Why not push forward the most ambitious option — the $818-million rail-bus hybrid system — and see what happens?

Why does it feel like the resistance, led by Mayor Matt Brown and deputy mayor Maureen Cassidy, comes from the same kind of old politicking that’s held London back for decades?

And, finally: Isn’t that exactly the kind of contentious situation voters expected Brown and this council to avoid?

“London isn’t capable of doing the things it needs to do to help itself,” says a veteran of Kitchener-Waterloo politics, where the light rail battle has already been fought and won.

So, again: Why not just make the request, and see what happens?

“I don’t know,” says Coun. Stephen Turner, who’s questioned whether London officials have effectively lobbied so far for light rail funding.

“That’s where the flaw in the logic is.”

Brown says London “doesn’t need” light rail, and suggests a relatively fast fix to transit issues — a $500-million bus-only transit system — is the top priority, eschewing the long-term city-building benefits many experts attribute to light rail.

Cassidy has warned council of not “pushing too hard” — that London could end up with no funding if it seeks too much from Ottawa and Queen’s Park. That’s raised eyebrows on several fronts:

Some provincial bureaucrats are bewildered by that suggestion, saying it’s unlikely.

Ontario’s transportation minister, Steven Del Duca, says he’ll “look forward to reviewing whichever proposal city council decides upon.”

London MPP Deb Matthews, Ontario’s deputy premier, says it’s “never a take-it-or-leave-it situation.”

Federal Liberal MP Peter Fragiskatos of London North Centre says “we’re not out to punish municipalities for asking for funding support.”

Contrast London council’s political hesitancy with the approach taken by their peers in Hamilton, where the province is offering to pay 100 per cent of its $1-billion light rail construction costs.

The reason? Sheer political will.

“We wanted it paid for by the province and we never wavered,” said Hamilton Coun. Sam Merulla. “Some thought of this as a pipe dream, but we held on to our beliefs.”

In November, London council voted unanimously to make the $818-million rail-bus system its preferred early option, a place-holder that allowed staff to do further research.

Now, that work is done and city manager Art Zuidema is recommending London pursue a $500-million bus-only rapid transit system, essentially dropping the light rail dream.

Pro-rail politicians, however, struggle to find any significant new facts that have altered the city’s plan between November and now.

“In the business case, the numbers haven’t changed. The conclusion did,” Turner said in a recent debate.

“That left me scratching my head.”

The mayor sees it differently.

“The business case clearly has changed,” Brown said. “It’s clear to me that for almost $400 million less, we can achieve very similar outcomes (with a bus-only system) in a much more efficient way.

“Essentially, when I look at the outcomes that can be achieved through a full BRT (bus-only) system that’s LRT (light rail) ready — the difference I see is an almost $400-million price tag.”

But those figures were in the original November report, from which Brown expressed openness to the rail-bus hybrid. Now, though, it’s clearer that London’s ridership can’t fill higher-capacity trains, Brown notes.

“When I look at the options, I think the right program for London at this time is the full BRT (bus-only) program,” he said.

Coun. Jesse Helmer, arguably London’s most passionate light rail advocate, doesn’t see it that way.

Like many experts interviewed by The Free Press, Helmer says in many categories — increasing land value and attracting compact development, particularly — rail is far superior to buses.

He’s fighting for council to hold one more public input session before finalizing its rapid transit request.

The light rail price tag is huge, no doubt — perhaps prohibitively so. It would require nearly $700 million combined from the federal and provincial governments, with London’s contribution capped at $129 million.

Ottawa and Queen’s Park may reject that.

They may instead offer only enough money to build the $500-million, bus-only system.

But shouldn’t city council at least give them the chance to say no?