Going after light rail wouldn’t just transform London’s transit system, but also overhaul the city’s self-expectations, one city councillor believes.

With city hall’s top bureaucrat, Art Zuidema, recommending London forget light rail and build a $500-million, bus-only rapid transit system, Coun. Jesse Helmer is adamant council reject that plan and continue pushing for the $880-million light rail-bus hybrid system they’ve previously endorsed.

It’s politically risky, Helmer acknowledges, but he believes the long-term city-building benefits are too big to ignore.

“At a certain point, it’s the job of politicians to take political risks and do things that are difficult to achieve,” Helmer said Friday. “We should not be content with getting something that is very good when we can get something that is excellent.

“That’s an attitude we need to overcome. We need to say, London needs the best we can do. At some point, we have to step up and say the people of London deserve the kind of (transit) investment we see in other communities.”

Helmer’s strong comments came hours after Zuidema published a report recommending London park its light rail dream for at least a quarter-century and instead pursue the bus-only option.

That proposal, which will be the basis for seeking cash from Ottawa and Queen’s Park, must still be approved by city politicians.

They’ll debate it next week.

For either option, city hall’s stake would be $129 million, much of that coming from development charges that are tacked onto new construction.

The rest needs to be secured from the federal and provincial governments.

At least one fellow councillor, Mo Salih, agrees with Helmer and expressed disappointment with staff’s recommendation.

“The goal was to aim for the stars. But I feel as if we’ve moonwalked backward,” Salih said. “I strongly believe there’s enough reason and merit that we should be asking for more and not less than what other municipalities are getting.”

Kitchener-Waterloo-­Cambridge, for example, is building a light rail system that costs $818 million. They received $300 million from the province and $265 million from Ottawa. But their municipal stake was $253 million, much higher than London’s.

The financial constraints — and the possibility that higher-­capacity rail cars would need to be subsidized for years until ridership is built up — contributed to staff’s recommendation, Zuidema ­indicated.

“We need to cut the cloth in line with the needs of the community,” he said in a Friday interview.

“We’re being practical. We’re being reasonable.”

That perspective was echoed by Mayor Matt Brown, who said the business case published by staff makes clear the bus-only option is best at this time.

“(It) clearly articulates that BRT (bus rapid transit) is the most responsible direction to go,” Brown said. “I see this as a very positive move forward for London.”

Politicians will debate the staff recommendation Thursday and vote whether to follow it or push ahead with another option, possibly the bus-rail hybrid. It could be a fascinating vote and Brown is not alone in accepting the ­bus-only plan.

Coun. Tanya Park, whose downtown ward would arguably be transformed more than any other part of the city by rapid transit, is comfortable with it.

“Signals from the federal and provincial government are that the dollars aren’t there for the (bus-rail) hybrid model,” Park said. “So we’ve got to work with the realities of the budgets.”

London is the biggest Canadian city without rapid transit, which essentially moves more riders, more efficiently. The issue has been which technology to pursue: light rail, bus-only or a hybrid of both.

For transit purposes, a bus-only system more than serves London’s purposes. It will operate largely on dedicated lanes and likely use sleek buses to attract “choice riders” who could otherwise drive their own vehicles.

But there are city-building elements to light rail, specifically, the permanency of the tracks helps to attract nearby development. That’s happening in K-W and it would fit with council’s stated goal to spur compact growth and curb sprawl.

But the questions looming have been: Can London afford it? And, would it require excessive municipal subsidizing to operate until ridership is built up?

As city engineer John Braam put it Friday: “We’re saying full BRT (bus rapid transit) is essentially the best (option) at this point in time.”

Once the dedicated bus-only lanes are built, they can one day be converted to rail, if necessary, in the future, city staff note, saying that shift should begin in 25 years. Helmer, however, disputes that, saying such an upgrade would be hugely disruptive.

“Fast forward 20 years from now,” he said. “Hamilton will have LRT (light rail) running by their university. Waterloo will have LRT running by their university. And London would have BRT (bus rapid transit).

“Is that the kind of competitive brand we want for our ­community?”

pmaloney@postmedia.com

twitter.com/patatLFPress

--- --- ---

BUS RAPID TRANSIT

City staff are recommending a $500-million, bus-only rapid transit system, rather than the $880-million bus-light rail hybrid system city council had envisioned. Details of that proposal, which still requires political approval: