City politicians appear somewhat open to exploring alternative routes for London's bus rapid transit system.
On Monday, the Civic Works Committee unanimously recommended that city staff bring forward alternative Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) routes and seek additional input from the community.
Among the options up for consideration include scrapping the tunnel under Richmond St., having a line on Wharncliffe Rd. and splitting the King St. line between both King St. and Queens Ave.
At the start of the meeting, city engineer Kelly Scherr outlined some of the risks and benefits of the changes. A King/Queens couplet would cost more to build and maintain but would eliminate loading concerns at Budweiser Gardens and the Covent Garden Market. While moving the northern corridor to Wharncliffe Rd. would cost less to build and maintain, it would generate less revenue and would not be able to accommodate light rail in the future. Several heritage homes in the area would also have to be demolished to make room for BRT infrastructure.
Scherr said the owners of those heritage homes have yet to be consulted about the possible alternative route.
"This has not been a preferred option for us and not an option that staff has been recommending. So, because it has not been something we were intending to advance we haven't done any consultation on it," said Scherr. "If there is a direction to look into that route in a more specific way then that is a conversation we would need to have."
According to Scherr, the number of people and jobs along the Clarence St./Richmond tunnel route is projected to grow by 3,958 by 2034. On Wharncliffe that number is only expected to go up by 218.
Those numbers quickly caught the attention of Mayor Matt Brown, who stressed council needs to make "evidence based" decisions.
"We saw one piece of evidence today that would suggest that Richmond is by far the preferred option from both a transportation perspective and also a city building perspective," said Brown. "Those are the kinds of numbers that we are going to have to take a hard look at over the course of the next month."
The current $560-million BRT plan would see high-frequency buses run on L and 7-shaped corridors bisecting London. It has recently drawn criticism from downtown business owners concerned over the effect construction would have on their livelihoods. They formed a group called DownShift, a play off the BRT project name Shift.
Meanwhile, those who support BRT as is formed their own group called Shift Happens. They have criticized the other side as being non-progressive. They also claim they are dispelling misinformation about the project.
Councillor Phil Squire, chair of the Rapid Transit Implementation Working Group, believes examining alternate routes is the only way to avoid divisive public engagement.
"I'm a supporter of rapid transit," Squire told committee members. "I want to make sure we have the right option on the table for the right London."
Brown made it clear taking the time to re-examine the routes would not jeopardize funding from the provincial and federal governments. The project is dependant on more than $430-million in funding from Ottawa and Queen's Park.
It will likely take another month for city staff to hammer out the details of the alternative routes.
"It will depend a bit on the direction we receive from council next week," said Scherr. "If we are looking at potentially one east-west route through the downtown and potentially an alternative route out of the downtown, maybe Richmond vs Wharncliffe, we're ready to come back by the end of April. If they are looking at a more comprehensive review then we would have to understand what that request would be, that would certainly take more time."
Council will vote next Tuesday on whether the city will examine alternative BRT routes.