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.)