If you’ve driven into downtown from the west end lately, you know how frustrating it’s become. Construction on Stony Plain Road, 156 st and now Jasper Avenue has made access to the core increasingly difficult—and the newest disruption on 107 Avenue is the latest in a series of missteps.

Back in February, I asked City Administration directly whether they were coordinating the sequencing of these major construction projects. My concern was straightforward: that we’d end up with multiple, overlapping lane closures that would severely limit access to downtown for residents, businesses, and visitors alike  - not just from the west end, but from the southwest as well.

I was told we didn’t need to worry. In fact, I was assured that 107 Avenue would be “protected and kept unrestricted,” specifically because of the already-limited capacity on Stony Plain Road.

And yet, here we are.

The 107 Avenue revitalization project has reduced some sections between 101 Street and 121 Street to a single lane in each direction during off-peak hours. Whether it’s 9 a.m. or 3:30 p.m., a lane lost is a lane lost—and the result is more congestion and more frustration.

This isn’t just an inconvenience. It’s a failure of planning and coordination. And it undermines our broader goals of revitalizing downtown.

If we want people to support downtown businesses, attend events, and feel connected to the heart of the city, they have to be able to get there—easily, efficiently, and without constant disruption.

This is what I mean when I say we need to build it better. Infrastructure isn’t just about pouring concrete. It’s about smart sequencing. It’s about making construction zones work with the city, not against it. And above all, it’s about understanding that the way we build impacts how people live, move, and interact with their city every day.

We need a City Council that puts coordination and common sense at the centre of infrastructure planning. Because building a better Edmonton means doing the basics—better.

I recently participated in a crucial Committee meeting discussing the potential installation of fare gates at our LRT entrances. While the initial conclusion might surprise some, the conversation unveiled valuable insights into transit safety, security, and efficiency that I'm eager to share with you.

Our discussion centered around three general threads:

1. How safe is our LRT system?
2. What is the public perception of LRT safety?
3. What is the actual level of fare evasion on the system?

Technical Challenges of Implementing Fare Gates

Contrary to what many might expect, fare gates at LRT entrances aren't a viable solution - at least not right now. Technical challenges exist that work against installing fare gates right now. The transit system still uses cash fares and paper transfers. Children under 12 can use the system for free, but don’t carry a card that would activate a gate. And we still have some paper products that are used for transit access. That means fare gates require attendants, and that drives the cost way up.

Ridership Data: A Critical Gap

City Administration does not have an accurate count of how many people use the LRT. One station a month gets a people count, and ridership is inferred from that. Because we don’t know how many are riding, we don’t know how many riders are not paying. So we don’t know how much revenue the City would recoup - there is no way to determine a cost-benefit analysis fare gates. Obviously we need to find a way to better count how many people are using the system.

Safety Perceptions vs. Reality

From a safety perspective, it was generally acknowledged that fare gates might improve the perception of safety, but might not actually improve safety (or even prevent much fare evasion). So much depends on the actual type of gate installed.

But it was generally agreed that more Transit Police Officers would be a benefit, as would providing more training and tools to those officers, so that they can more actively and visibly reduce disorder and improve the perception of safety. Further, it is possible to add some of those Transit Police Officers within existing budgets. 

Proposed Solutions and Next Steps

I support an increase in policing effort on the LRT system as a next step. And I look forward to a better conversation about the value of fare gates once we have a better understanding of ridership numbers. If the perception of safety improves and ridership can be measured and demonstrated to be increasing, then fare gates might not be worth the investment. And if things don’t improve, then we may have to revisit the installation of of fare gates.

Your Thoughts Matter

I'm committed to ensuring our LRT system is safe, efficient, and accessible for all. Your feedback and experiences are invaluable in this process.

Have you noticed any changes in LRT safety recently? What measures do you think would make you feel safer using the system?

Please don't hesitate to reach out with your thoughts or concerns. Together, we can work towards a public transit system that serves everyone's needs.

(Click here to read the report or visit the Urban Planning Committee meeting minutes to view related documents for agenda item 7.1.)

I continue to become increasingly concerned with how the City of Edmonton manages its big capital projects. The residents I have the privilege of representing have pretty hard questions about how their money is being spent, and so do I.

On June 11 City Council will be discussing capital budget adjustments - addressing emerging issues, cleaning up completed projects and approving the start of new ones.

But I suspect this topic won’t be where Council’s attention and focus lies. They will most likely be chasing an operational audit of the police, which is a bone so far out of our governance lane it should be barely visible.

The only thing that we should be prioritizing for an audit is our Integrated Infrastructure Services Branch- based on more news of LRT cost overruns- rather than never ending petty grievances with the police.

The adjustment causing me the most distress is a recommendation to increase funding by $242M for the South LRT extension across Anthony Henday Drive to Heritage Valley. This will bring the total project cost to $1.34B, With $423M in federal and $331M in provincial funding, Edmonton’s contribution is $585M. 

4.5 km of track, 2 Stations, 2 bridges, a maintenance facility and a few new train cars. $1.3B.  $310M / km. 

The City could build 2 bus garages and fill them with buses for that money, and give premium transit service to EVERYONE, not just the few people that live close to these two stations.

What really bothers me though, is that Council doesn’t know the costs of all the different elements that make up this number. 

I am not inclined to question the work of design professionals when it comes to the technical details. If an engineer or architect tells the city that it costs this much to build that thing, then I believe it.  

What I am not sure of is what guidance or restrictions are put in place by City Administration before those experts are engaged.  

If I ask an engineer or architect the cost to put brick siding on a wall, that expert will tell me and I can take that to the bank. But unless I ask for the costs and effectiveness of brick siding versus vinyl siding or stone siding or metal siding, all I get is the cost of the brick.

Did we ask for expertise? Or did we just ask for cost estimates?

What will the bridges look like, and are there less expensive alternatives? Are we overpaying for aesthetics?

Are there different alignments that would result in shorter bridges?

How elaborate are the stations? What is the level of finishes? Are we using versatile materials easily sourced? 

Have we traded functionality along the line to pay for more expensive materials or less efficient designs? Will the new line effectively connect and coordinate with local trails and roads?

This extension was headed for the South Edmonton Hospital, a project recently cancelled by the Province. Is there still enough demand to justify the cost? The most recent ridership projections were developed before the pandemic, before work from home, before a more decentralized Edmonton economy.  

Should we be considering a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) alternative instead, similar to what is being built in southwest Edmonton? The $585M in City funding alone would easily pay for a BRT route to south Edmonton, and probably another route too. (And spare me the reference to the 2018 Administration report that somehow says a railway is the same cost as a bus route. That report was flawed in too many ways to outline here).

The SLRT line may serve as a connector to the airport. But the Province is also talking about a rail connection between the airport and downtown. Are we talking about the same line, or two different lines? Will this extension end up being redundant? Maybe we should know that before making this funding commitment?

We need the answers to all of these questions. But the truth is that the extension was already approved, in private, and all we are really talking about on June 11 is the funding bylaw to support that decision. 

I support mass transit. I supported this extension in the beginning. This is the Rapid Transit line, not the tram to the west end. This LRT works.

But I also support sound project and financial management. Without answers to these questions, I cannot support this spending.

We need a different process that allows Council to deliberate on design options - fully informed by the expertise of our in-house and third party professionals - long before we are faced with high tenders and looming deadlines. 

I know that is diving into management and operations. But when it comes to LRT projects and major capital projects generally, Council must have that opportunity.  

Because Council has lost the trust of constituents. They don’t think we have their financial challenges in mind when we make these decisions. They want us to make sure we can take care of and operate the infrastructure we have before we build more. They want us to make sure that a particular project is absolutely necessary and isn‘t some sort of vanity project. 

These are fair questions that deserve proper answers. We need to find a way to give people the answers they want. Which means giving Council the chance to ask those questions on their behalf.

Maybe it's time for an external audit, or third party review, or to engage industry experts in a different way.

Because when it comes to these big projects, things just don’t add up.