{ "segments": [ { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 1230.585, "end": 1239.305, "text": "Good morning and welcome to June 10th, 2026 Community Development Committee meeting. Uh clerk's role, please.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 1239.605, "end": 1242.505, "text": "Thank you, Chair. On the roll, Councillor Tyres, Councillor Ewell,", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 1242.865, "end": 1243.065, "text": "Here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 1243.165, "end": 1243.765, "text": "Councillor Kelly,", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 1245.005, "end": 1245.345, "text": "Present.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 1245.565, "end": 1261.165, "text": "Councillor Atkinson, Councillor Clark, Councillor Johnston, Councillor YNS, Councillor Penzopoulos, Councillor Schmidt, Councillor Chabot, Councillor Ward, Councillor Jameson, Councillor McClain, Mayor Farkas, Chair Dollywell.", "segments_merged": 12 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 1261.805, "end": 1262.285, "text": "I'm here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 1262.385, "end": 1262.845, "text": "Thank you, Chair.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 1263.065, "end": 1265.925, "text": "Over to you, Councillor Atkinson, for land acknowledgement, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 1267.125, "end": 1347.885, "text": "Oki, Umbawastich, Danitara, Tanshe. Indigenous peoples have had their own names for this area that have been in use long before settlers named this place Calgary. In the Blackfoot language, it is called Mokinstis. In the Iythka Nakota Wiscabe nation, they refer to this place as Winchispa Oyade. And the people of the Tsutina nation call this Gustis. The Metis call the Calgary area Otas. Kn Kwani, Otas Kwani. I'll get it. We appreciate and acknowledge that we are gathered on this ancestral and traditional territory of the Blackfoot nations of the Siksika, Bigani, and Gaini First Nations, the Ithcas, Nakota, Wikestabe First Nations, comprised of the Chinniki, Bearspaw, and Good Stoney First Nations, and the Tsutina First Nation. The city of Calgary is also homeland to the historic Northwest Metis and to the Ote Pimsawak Metis government, Metis Nation Battle River Territory, Nose Hill Metis District 5, and Elbo Metis District 6. We acknowledge and give gratitude to the many First Nations, Metis and Inuit, who live here and call Calgary home, and we will continue to steward this land in the ways they have for thousands of years before us.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 1348.945, "end": 1476.885, "text": "Thank you so much, Councillor Atkinson. When I was looking for a volunteer for land acknowledgement, he said something that was really great. He said anytime, every time. So thank you. Um I think Councillor uh Clark is here in person, and Councillor Johnston is uh remote. Um Before I go to confirmation of agenda, just opening remarks, uh colleagues and those in in the public, those who are at home, something big is coming to this country. And uh that is Soccer World Cup for men. Uh it's starting tomorrow, but Canada plays its first game. On Friday against Bosnia-Herzegovina, that is June 12th. And this is great. This is the first time we are hosting the World Cup. So I encourage everybody to cheer on Canada, take part in this historic moment, and also attend some of the watch parties. CMSA in collaboration with City of Calgary and our other partners, they're hosting uh three watch parties uh at Oaklair Plaza. One on June 12th at 1 p.m. when Canada takes on Bosnia-Herzegovina. June 18th, Canada plays Qatar and Vancouver. And then June 24th, again at Oau Claire Plaza at 1 p.m. when Canada is playing Switzerland. And the big one, July 19th, 1 p.m. on Stephen Avenue, when Canada might play whoever we are in the finals of the Soccer World Cup. It's gonna happen. I also want to give shout out to clubs in my ward in Northeast Calgary, Northeast United FC. They're also holding hosting watch parties, Spartans, Skyview FC, Grassroots Soccer Club, and Skyview uh Soccer Club. So these are local clubs that are hosting watch parties. Me and Councillor Tyres were in Edmonton last Monday watching uh Canada and Herzegovina. No, sorry, uh Uzbekistan. It was an amazing game. We won 2 0 and things looked really good. Let's not jinx it. Go, Canada go. Thank you. Anybody else wanna add?", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_04", "start": 1479.005, "end": 1524.085, "text": "Oh, you named all of your soccer clubs. I don't know if I can name all of mine, but there's definitely Blizzards, FC, you know, that are um supporting some uh watch parties coming up too. I guess we've we've got the West Clubs too, and I feel really bad that I don't remember all of them right now. But yeah, it was really great um going to the game with you, uh Councillor Dollywall. You know, we um we got to witness some some history in the making. It was really special. We also brought our families, our teenage sons, and and our families, and it was a really good opportunity to just be a proud uh Canadian, sending our boys off uh to go and uh fight the good fight on the field. So it's wonderful. Thanks a lot, Councillor Dollywall.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 1524.445, "end": 1572.705, "text": "Thank you so much. It was amazing. And you know what? Uh there's only two teams that are m uh using Canada as a base camp. One is Canada. Can someone guess who the other is? Panama. And the reason teams are not coming here is not because of our weather, because we don't have facilities. And that's why Foothills Fieldhouse is so important. Please, provincial government, federal government, if you're listening, give us the money. We're ready to build it. Thank you. With that, can I get a mover on agenda? Councillor Cali. Um clerks, just a question. There is a in camera. Uh is it automatically last item, or can we make a change to make it last item? I know some counselors have expressed. Uh desired to attend that and if we can move it to the last as a last item.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 1572.705, "end": 1574.925, "text": "It currently is the last item on the agenda.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 1574.925, "end": 1584.705, "text": "Great, thank you. Um so Councillor uh Cali moved it. Any opposition? Do we go to e scribe or we can just do a voice vote?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 1584.825, "end": 1586.765, "text": "We have it prepared and described.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 1587.205, "end": 1593.445, "text": "Let's jump to e scribe if it's vague today. It is.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 1604.405, "end": 1608.185, "text": "Councillor Clark, your vote, please. Thank you. Councillor Johnston, your vote, please.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 1609.065, "end": 1609.245, "text": "Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 1609.645, "end": 1612.825, "text": "And Councillor Tyres, your vote please. Yes. Chair, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 1613.425, "end": 1621.465, "text": "Thank you. Can we display the votes, please? That's passed unanimously. Seven nothing. Can I get Councillor Atkinson to move the minutes?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 1623.305, "end": 1623.685, "text": "Moved.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 1624.285, "end": 1626.365, "text": "Great. Can we go to E Scribe or voice?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 1627.685, "end": 1629.385, "text": "Um we have it prepared in easy.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 1629.385, "end": 1631.025, "text": "Let's go to let's jump E scribe.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 1637.845, "end": 1642.805, "text": "Councillor Johnson, your vote, please. Oh, thank you. Chair, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 1643.105, "end": 1696.625, "text": "Thank you. Can we display it, please? 7 0. Great. Thank you. And nothing on consent. So we can move to our uh first items. 7.2. Before we go there, once again, if there's any public speakers out there, uh let's be respectful of uh Of our administration and counselors, vice versa. Counselors, let's be respectful of those public speakers. Let's stay focused on the items. Let's get it done by noon. I don't want to jinx it, but we can do it. Seriously, if Canada can win the Soccer World Cup, this is easier. Thank you. Um, so we will go with 7.2 transit bylaw. And I believe the speakers are here Greg Pastorick, Marcia Gonder, and Ashley Bradburn. You guys are good to go.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_03", "start": 1727.005, "end": 1907.965, "text": "Good morning, members of Community Development Committee. My name is Gregory Pastrick, and I'm the team lead for policy and bylaw development in the Community Strategies Business Unit. With me today are Ashley Wedderburn, Acting Director of Community Strategies, and Marcy Gonder, Chief of Public Vehicle Standards. Next slide, please. We are here today to recommend that the Transit bylaw 4M81 be amended to explicitly expand the existing prohibition of visible weapons on transit vehicles to include all transit property. The report also provides information about municipal weapon regulation in cities across Canada and confirms that Calgary's approach is consistent with common practice. Next slide, please. The visible weapons provision of the transit bylaw was introduced in October of 2024 as part of a package of changes that introduced a variety of new offenses, including the harassment of transit system users, non destination use of transit, and altering transit passes. That batch of changes also allowed bicycles on the C train at all times. Separately, the Public Behavior Bylaws Visible Weapons Provision came into force on June 24th, 2025. And in September of 2025, Council directed administration to undertake additional research and report back with information about rules in other Canadian cities. This report fulfills that direction, and administration is not recommending any changes to the public behavior by law. Next slide, please. What administration is recommending is an amendment to the visible weapons provision of the Calgary Transit bylaw. Since the end of 2024, it has been an offense under the transit bylaw to visibly display a weapon on a transit vehicle. Weapons enforcement at stations has relied on the public behavior bylaw. Having these offenses in different bylaws has introduced avoidable operational complexity. What we're recommending today is an amendment to the transit bylaw that will simplify enforcement by prohibiting visible weapons on transit vehicles and on transit property, all in one provision of one bylaw. Next slide, please. You may have noticed that the recommended bylaw amendments change in what parts of the transit system the city bans the visible display of weapons as opposed to the possession of a weapon. Visible display of a weapon is a behavior that the city can regulate as part of the authority granted to it by the government of Alberta through the Municipal Government Act, including section 7B of the MGA, which allows the municipality to pass bylaws to regulate people, activities, and things in public places. If a province does not have an authority under the Canadian Constitution, it cannot delegate that authority to the city, and we therefore cannot legislate in that area. This is the case, for example, with criminal law, which is the exclusive domain of the federal government. This approach to regulating weapons while avoiding possession bans is consistent across Canadian cities and is reflected in the jurisdictional scan provided in attachment three. Next slide, please. Once again, here's the administration recommendation to amend the Calga Transit bylaw for M81 by expanding the visible weapons prohibition to include both transit property and transit vehicles. We thank you for your time and are available for questions.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 1910.245, "end": 1931.265, "text": "Thank you so much for your presentation. Before we go to questions, uh, is there anyone in the Uh in the public who would like to speak to this item, which is transit bylaw. Going once. I don't hear anyone. I don't see anyone. With that, we'll close the public part of this item. Over to Councillor Cali.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 1931.805, "end": 1950.785, "text": "Uh thank you, Chair. Nice simple change for I think very good reasons. Uh but I wanted to ask you, you'd mentioned there in the presentation about uh making changes to one bylaw to simplify things. Just curious why we're making the change to the transit bylaw versus the public behavior bylaw, which would have a uh presumably larger scope.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_03", "start": 1955.085, "end": 1981.025, "text": "Thank you for the question. The change to the uh transit bylaw is um Being recommended because the uh operational complexity uh is found predominantly in the transit safety enforcement um area that on platforms um referencing the two uh bylaws was um proving a stumbling block uh that we can clean up um by putting by making the change in the transit bylaw.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 1981.945, "end": 1992.365, "text": "Do we have any what I'm hearing through that then is that we don't have similar issues at other city properties like recreation centers or anything along those lines. Is that is that what I should be hearing?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_03", "start": 1994.985, "end": 2009.065, "text": "We haven't identified anything where there's um been that sort of issue at other city facilities um related to uh other type of public spaces. Um I'll just look over my shoulder and see if um Chief Bakitus has anything they want to add to that.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 2010.065, "end": 2039.205, "text": "Hi. Good morning. Yeah, so we would still consider the amendment that we made to the public behavior bylaw to be new. We've evaluated the tickets that we've issued with our peace officers, which is somewhat limited. But Calgary Police Service has issued well over 50 tickets. We've engaged them with conversations to see how it's working for them, and they feel like it's working well. So no challenges right now from an enforcement perspective in administering that bylaw.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 2040.305, "end": 2057.525, "text": "That's great. And just to maybe ask you the question directly, you do believe in order to be able to get where we want to, it is easiest to uh or best to amend the transit bylaw, uh not the public behavior by law vis a vis, we would have that same uh at all city properties.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_05", "start": 2057.685, "end": 2077.605, "text": "Yeah, I I would just consider what's before you to be a bit of a housekeeping amendment. The the wording in the bylaw was transit vehicle, so that excluded uh transit stations. So the transit peace officers were unable to enforce the bylaw that they commonly enforce in those areas. So this is really just to uh improve uh enforcement efficiency.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 2077.945, "end": 2099.065, "text": "Yeah, I agree. It's definitely a housekeeping one. I did, like I said, fully supportive. Uh just wanted to clarify there that that though that you We're bringing the transit bylaw in alignment with the public behavior bylaw then? Is that basically what we're seeing here? I'm just trying to I'm trying to figure out uh I uh uh to the point in the presentation that we don't want two bylaws saying two different things.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_17", "start": 2099.305, "end": 2125.785, "text": "I'll I'll just step in. The transit property is private property, not public property. So that was the gap that we're closing. So the public behavior bylaw and Colleen Sinclair from laws here, but uh that's we couldn't apply the public behavior bylaw to the transit platform because it's private property. So that's what we're that's why it's in the transit bylaw because it's related to the transit infrastructure to make sure that we're safe all along the transit journey.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 2126.005, "end": 2132.005, "text": "Maybe get some clarification from law there that city other city owned facilities, are those public or private spaces?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_19", "start": 2132.005, "end": 2165.425, "text": "Yeah, Colleen Sinclair, manager of municipal law and enforcement. Um the issue actually was that the fair paid zone, in particular, of the C train platform likely doesn't fall within the definition of public space in our public behavior bylaw because there is a barrier. The public isn't welcome to wander through the platform. It's a fair paid area, you have to have paid. So the concern was that when someone leaves the purely public portion of a C train station enters the fair paid zone, if they walked into a vacuum in terms of the bylaws, public behavior may not apply, and transit definitely didn't apply. So this is to plug that gap.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 2165.705, "end": 2168.385, "text": "That makes a ton of sense to me. Thank you very much. Those are my questions, Chair.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 2169.185, "end": 2172.445, "text": "Thanks. Sorry, Councillor Cali. Over to Councillor Tyres.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_04", "start": 2172.825, "end": 2189.305, "text": "Um yeah, just wondering um from admin if you have data on you about if attacks with or without a weapon are more common on the trains and buses or are they more common on transit property, like train stations, bus loops, et cetera?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_02", "start": 2191.945, "end": 2204.585, "text": "Thank you, Councillor Tyers. I that because it's a criminal um offense, I don't have that data, but I can um collect some of the data that we have um with regards to the weapons that our officers find and get it back to you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_04", "start": 2204.585, "end": 2206.525, "text": "Okay, yeah, thanks. That would be appreciated.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_02", "start": 2206.525, "end": 2207.065, "text": "Absolutely.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_04", "start": 2207.065, "end": 2235.845, "text": "Um, and obviously this so this bylaw came up because a lot of things were happening that previous council wanted to address. Is there a particular weapon that's prevalent in like these assaults? Is is there something very specific that we're trying to address, or is it just in general, just um Trying to avoid having uh weapons being uh presented on transit.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_02", "start": 2236.405, "end": 2251.525, "text": "Thank you, Councillor. Um we there's it's no specific weapon. It it is just to address individuals who are using items that are perceived as weapons or could be utilized as a weapon for us to be able to um mitigate that.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_04", "start": 2251.785, "end": 2289.285, "text": "Yeah. It it's um difficult to dif I I guess define uh what a weapon would be then, because like, you know, for instance in Kralv Maga, like you're supposed to find any weapon that you find within a certain distance of yourself to keep yourself alive. But um okay, so when this is going to be applied, uh Yeah, I guess how are your how are the bylaw officers supposed to know like what they're looking for? So it's traditional weapons, but how do they um how do they determine that like something could become a weapon?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_02", "start": 2289.725, "end": 2315.125, "text": "And so it's discretionary to your point, Councillor. So if an individual, one of our officers comes across an individual who is brandishing something that could be perceived as a weapon, I have seen things such as uh hairdryers used as a weapon. It could be pipes, it could be um weapons that have been made by those individuals. Um it's something that is perceived as being used as a weapon against somebody else.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_04", "start": 2315.285, "end": 2344.805, "text": "Okay, okay, understood. Um and are there any mechanisms, I guess, that your team are able to monitor such such a thing? Like uh, I know that you have limited resources, you have limited bylaw officers. This is putting yet another thing on their plate to monitor it. Do you have any um uh I I suppose strategies or plans to be able to accurately, I guess, um enforce this in the way that you're protecting the public?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_02", "start": 2346.385, "end": 2371.305, "text": "Thank you, Councillor. Our officers are already seeing these, and so this just gives them the ability to do so on transit platforms. And so when they see a weapon and it's it's a visible weapon and it's a traditional weapon, they can enforce it. Right now they're sitting in an area where they're on the platforms in a paid fare zone where they can't address it. And so, yes, they will have the ability, this will give them the ability to do so.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_04", "start": 2371.325, "end": 2374.885, "text": "Okay, excellent. Thank you so much. That's all my questions. Thank you very much.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 2376.205, "end": 2378.125, "text": "Thank you, Councillor Tyres. Over to Councillor Yule.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_15", "start": 2378.805, "end": 2394.145, "text": "Yeah, just a quick question. Um we're we're talking about um platforms that are private, but what about the free fare zone? How how will this be applied on those platforms that are kind of public private?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_02", "start": 2396.465, "end": 2409.285, "text": "Yeah, and so it's part of the transit system, and so that's where we can utilize that on transit property, and as well as if it uh goes a little bit off of that transit property, then we can use the public behavior bylaw.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_15", "start": 2409.425, "end": 2415.325, "text": "Okay. So okay. So the will that that be clearly defined for for those platforms?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_02", "start": 2416.045, "end": 2435.725, "text": "It's a very good question, sir. I think it'll be up to the discretion of the officer. Obviously, when you're on the transit system and you've got the stations, places where they're sitting in the vestibules where people are waiting, I think that would be ki considered on the transit system, but it'd be up to the discretion of the officer to be able to articulate in the ticket that is written.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 2435.805, "end": 2436.645, "text": "Okay, thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_02", "start": 2436.785, "end": 2437.325, "text": "Thank you, sir.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 2442.805, "end": 2445.825, "text": "Distracted. Over to Councillor Atkinson. Thank you, Councillor Yule.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 2446.205, "end": 2479.645, "text": "Great. Um with the bylaw as it's written and the um using it uh on on our on our trains um or our vehicles. Uh how often is it used stacking with other sort of bylaw offenses like the non destination travel, like you mentioned the sort of other elements that you have at your disposal versus how often would um has this one been used as uh solely to deal with it's a very serious problem. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_02", "start": 2479.965, "end": 2488.465, "text": "So the stats that I have now are sorry, Councillor, just to make sure that I'm I'm understanding your question. Are you asking me how much the stats that we have now that we've utilized it?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 2488.585, "end": 2511.125, "text": "Yeah, with when you're using it on vehicles, like if it's been, you know, we have uh you didn't pay a fare, your non-destination travel, um, these other ones, is it often done as a suite of of bylaw infractions, or is this one has this one been being used as a sort of singular to sort of tackle this this problem independently?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_02", "start": 2511.565, "end": 2549.645, "text": "I I think it depends on what's transpiring for the officer in any given s situation. I can tell you that we have written um uh six violation tickets for a firearm on transit. Um carry visible weapon on transit property, we have 18 violation tickets, and carrying visible protection spray, we've got our Uh as known as Bear Spray, we have uh 24 violation tickets. Under the public behavior bylaw, we have 22 violation tickets for visible knife in public and open display of weapons, weapons or noxious substances is one violation ticket. With regards to your question, if they are writing multiple violation tickets, I would have to get back to you.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 2549.825, "end": 2575.225, "text": "Okay. Um and then I guess like we want to make sure um people can go to their baseball game still on traffic and bring the baseball bat that they need to to have. And if they're carrying a screwdriver because they're that they're in the trades, how do we sort of and I I I know what we can trust, but I just just to get this sort of out in the open. Um", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_02", "start": 2575.305, "end": 2590.985, "text": "Absolutely. I I to your point, Councillor, we wouldn't be giving someone a violation ticket simply for carrying a bat or having a screwdriver. It is that intent to harm and use that as a weapon, which would give our peace officers the ability to address that behavior.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_19", "start": 2592.685, "end": 2603.145, "text": "Sorry, if I can just uh clarify as well, the bylaw itself, as it curtly reads, talks about without lawful purpose. And so a person wearing their baseball uniform, whatever, would be able to clearly make out that lawful purpose.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 2603.485, "end": 2648.505, "text": "Right. And the only one that sort of like I've been thinking about that is maybe like a complication is like s some women are especially like or vulnerable folks are are maybe Holding their keys in uh in their fists uh or whatever when they maybe exit uh the train and onto the platform and just trying to get home safely. And I'm just just uh once again, like uh in some ways there is an intent there, right? But it is sort of like through a self defense mechanism and sort of making sure that they're getting home safely, just making sure that this does not uh get in the way of people feeling like they can get home safe on transit.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_02", "start": 2649.265, "end": 2662.765, "text": "Absolutely, thank you, Councillor. I I completely understand that. And again, it's it's an officer discretionary piece. I think they would look at that and realize that that's what that individual is doing and and would assist them in in getting where they need to be safely.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 2662.845, "end": 2664.045, "text": "Yeah, great. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_02", "start": 2664.145, "end": 2664.925, "text": "Thank you, Councillor.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 2666.625, "end": 2674.685, "text": "Thank you so much, Councillor Atkinson. I don't see anyone else in the queue, so can I get a mover? Councillor Atkinson to move it. Floor is yours.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 2676.745, "end": 2751.185, "text": "Yeah, this really does seem more like uh just a bylaw cleanup, just sort of making sure that we have um this this gap filled. Um I would be interested to sort of see maybe how uh these pieces like non destination travel, um the the weapons bylaw, um how they are being used and if it, you know, um we also have to think about our our Our vulnerable folks who maybe are homeless folks who maybe are even carrying weapons as a way to protect themselves as well. And I do think we can trust our officers to be making sure that folks who are sort of holding something that could be perceived as a weapon are doing so uh with an intent outward or an intent for self protection. And I think that that this goes that way. But I I would be yeah, interested in sort of making sure that we're not um overloading folks who uh with sort of our the heavy hand of justice um and and i i don't think that from what i've read and sort of heard today i don't think that's the case but would just be interested in getting some further details on that so with that moved", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 2752.585, "end": 2754.185, "text": "Thank you. And I'm assuming you're closed.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 2756.965, "end": 2757.445, "text": "closed", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 2758.085, "end": 2760.625, "text": "Thank you. Let's transit over to East Cribe.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 2771.405, "end": 2772.685, "text": "Councillor Johnson, your vote please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 2775.785, "end": 2776.225, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 2776.825, "end": 2823.585, "text": "Thank you. Chair, all the votes are in. Thank you. Can we display the votes? Motion is carried seven nothing. Thank you so much. Thank you for your presentation. Next we have 7.3 truck route and transportation of dangerous curds pilot updates. CD 2026 0289. And this will be. Stephen Kay. Go ahead, sir.", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 2824.865, "end": 3079.985, "text": "Good morning, members of the committee. Thank you for having me today. My name is Stephen Kay from Traffic Services and Mobility. I serve as the chair of the Cities of Calgary's Truck Route Committee. Before I begin the presentation, I'd like to outline a clerical correction that is required in the report. In the report, under previous council direction, the final sentence indicates that the truck route bylaw was last amended on 2020, March 16th, and the transportation of dangerous goods bylaw was approved on 2024, February 23rd, and last amended on 2025, April 11th. Those dates need to be corrected, and that last sentence should read the truck route bylaw was last amended on 2020, March 16th. The transportation of dangerous goods bylaw was approved on 2004, February 23rd, and last amended on 2005, April 11th. Thank you. Once again, thank you for having me today. We're here today to discuss truckroute and transportation of dangerous goods bylaw updates. The purpose of this presentation is to provide recommendations to update the truckroute bylaw and the transportation of dangerous goods bylaw. Next slide, please. The truck route bylaw was last amended on March 16, 2020. The Transportation of Dangerous Goods bylaw was approved on February 23, 2004, and last amended on April 11, 2005. Next slide, please. The recommendation is that the Standing Policy Committee on Community Development recommend that Council give three readings to proposed bylaw 18M 2025 in attachment two to amend the truck route bylaw 60 M90 and give three readings to proposed bylaw 17M 2025 in attachment three to repeal and replace the Transportation of Dangerous Goods bylaw 13M 2004. Next slide, please. These updates support safe, reliable, and efficient movement of goods across Calgary by focusing truck traffic on major corridors and minimizing impacts on local community roads. This helps businesses operate effectively while ensuring Calgarians continue to receive the products and services they rely on. The recommendations include harmonizing the mass-based truck definition to the definition in provincial commercial vehicle safety requirements. These changes were brought forward from the police to help with enforcement activities and have been discussed at truck route committee meetings that the city hosts with industry. Support has been provided from the Alberta Motor Transportation Motor Transport Association, as well as changes to the truck routes and dangerous goods routes needed as a result of the growth of Calgary and roadway improvements that have been built, such as the completion of the ring road. The transportation of dangerous goods bylaw requires provincial ministerial approval prior to coming into force. Consultation with Alberta Transportation and Economic Corridors has indicated that they will recommend ministerial approval for the proposed bylaw in attachment three once council has given it three three readings. My colleagues in law also wanted me to highlight that the two bylaws have 2025 bylaw numbers rather than 2026 because we assigned numbers to them last year prior to sending the transportation of dangerous goods bylaw to the province for approval, and those are the numbers we're still using for the sake of consistency in communicating with the province. Next slide, please. Goods movement is an important component of Calgary's economy. As a hub for transportation and logistics that supports the two major rail lines, the airport and roadways to move goods into, out of, and through the city, it contributes over $10 billion to the Calgary region. Calgary follows regulations and policies to support and regulate the movement of goods. Regulations are mandated by the federal and provincial governments, as well as the traffic bylaw, truck route bylaw, and the transportation of dangerous goods bylaw. The bylaws allow the city to designate where the movement of goods is to take place through the roadway network. A safe, efficient, and connective roadway network to move goods is critical to the success of Calgary's role as a logistics hub. The city endeavors to provide a network of roadways that provide carriers with an easily followed and efficient network of roadways that are supportive of business. Next slide, please. And once again the recommendations are that the Standing Policy Committee on Community Development recommend that Council give three readings to proposed bylaw 18M 2025 in attachment two to amend the truck route bylaw 60 M90 and give three readings to proposed bylaw 17M 2025 in attachment three to repeal and replace the transportation of dangerous goods bylaw. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 15 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 3081.325, "end": 3098.885, "text": "Thank you for your presentation. We'll open it to any public speakers. Hearing none, seeing none, we'll uh close the public speaking portion over to my colleagues for any questions of administration. Over to Councillor Atkinson.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 3100.805, "end": 3143.485, "text": "um yeah i noted the sort of long time between updates uh on on this and i guess i'm i'm just thinking sort of is is that a because it requires sort of these provincial um approvals that we sort of have been bundling it up and sort of uh or or it takes the the time it takes um and and then i guess like the follow-on for that is just like has this prepared us for the future like and made sure that we're um yeah if we're not going to be doing this on with any sort of regular cadence for whatever the reason that we're sort of set up for for sort of the ways in which Calgary is growing and and needs to grow.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 3144.325, "end": 3172.325, "text": "Thank you for the question, Councillor Adkinson. Um you are correct. Uh it has been uh a little while since the last update to the routes. Um we were waiting for the opening of the rain road. That happened a couple of years ago, and then as you mentioned, uh the transportation of dangerous goods route bylaw uh required coordination with the province, and that took uh uh some time for us to coordinate with them. And these updates are intended to prepare for uh the growth of the city's transportation network as it expands and changes as well.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 3172.765, "end": 3204.065, "text": "So are there are is there any concern or are you sort of doing that sort of think ahead um About ways like if if we will need to be expanding this network beyond sort of the proposals today in the in the coming years and whether we need to start that process with the province uh sooner than later on any sort of routes, just thinking about some of the industrial work that we've got uh maybe planned and and pieces like that. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 3204.825, "end": 3231.725, "text": "Yeah, uh thank you for the question, Councillor Adkinson. Again, yeah. We uh do keep an eye on sort of how the city is expanding and growth, and uh there will be need to be updates to the truck route bylaw and transportation of good dangerous goods bylaw in the future, but we've based the current recommendations on the the uh existing growth, the growth that has happened since the last updates, as well as what we know today in terms of how the network is planned to change and in expanding.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 3231.925, "end": 3268.045, "text": "Great. Now I'll go to the flip side, I guess, is I noticed that I think they're all additions to the truck route. I didn't sort of notice any that were removals from from the network. Is that something that we uh sort of evaluate and whether there are roads that maybe were brought on at a certain point in time where it made sense to have a truck route here, but as the city has grown and changed, especially in sort of our inner city established neighborhoods, that we take a look at that uh and and remove truck routes that no longer need to be in service.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 3268.685, "end": 3313.725, "text": "Thank you again, Council Anderson. The general rule is once a roadway is a truck route, we try to maintain its status as a truck route. However, as you mentioned, there are roads that maybe don't make sense as a truck route anymore. One example with this update is the removal of Fish Creek Boulevard as well as James McKevitt Road west of McLeod Trail as a truck route. That road was a truck route in anticipation of the opening of the Southwest Ring Road as that important connection in that area. Fish Creek Boulevard and James McKebot Road west of McLeod Trail do not service industrial or major commercial areas. So the updates include removal of Fish Creek Boulevard. uh from uh a designated truck route as part of this.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 3314.445, "end": 3322.345, "text": "Great. My bad for not I yeah, sorry I didn't see it when I was scouring through. So no, that's great. Thank you for the the answers. I'm good.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 3322.805, "end": 3366.705, "text": "Thank you, Councillor. I don't see anyone else in the queue, so I'm just gonna finish it off, Jump. You know, in in in Maine at page three or five it says the movement of heavy vehicles to roadways that have been planned, designed, and constructed to accommodate them. That's why we have a truck route. Um in my ward, we got 36th Street, we got airport trail, both single lanes. Uh so hard for even vehicles to uh to normal vehicles. Uh and then country hills was in a bad shape. And often we see trucks there, trailers, uh, even though they're not designated truck routes. So, what is the purpose of having this bylaw if you're not going to be able to enforce it properly?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 3367.925, "end": 3374.885, "text": "Um I think the section of thirty sixth street you're referring to, the two lane section, is directly west of the airport.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 3374.885, "end": 3375.045, "text": "Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 3375.045, "end": 3414.125, "text": "And I believe that East of the airport, yes, I apologize. Yes. I believe that is in an unrestricted truck area. So it's not specifically called out on the routes, but it is in the unrestricted uh truck areas. Um the part of the challenge is some of these roads uh have uh been in place for a number of years are and are waiting for upgrades uh as well through development, uh 36th Street, and you mentioned country uh pardon me, uh airport trail, and I believe that's the section between 60th Street and Sony Trail. Um my understanding is that uh section of road is waiting on some uh developer funded improvements and capital uh funding as well.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 3414.605, "end": 3449.745, "text": "That's my frustration because it said there is a risk of premature wear or damage if trucks used roads that are not planned, designated, and constructed. Obviously, they are not. We got CN multimodal yard over there and truck traffic. I just struggle when I see trucks there because these roadways are not designed, not constructed for trucks. That's why I was asking how can we then enforce a bylaw? Because PyLaw clearly says all these roads they're in there that that's where the trucks can go. So I don't know. I'm just struggling a little bit.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 3450.485, "end": 3461.305, "text": "Fair enough. Part of it is in anticipation of those roads getting upgraded to a more urbanized standard so they can handle the volume as well as the weights of those trucks as well.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 3461.305, "end": 3486.165, "text": "We're gonna have a pretty economic gateway. Uh how much are you collaborating with the infrastructure services when they're putting 10 year capital plan together to identify some of these uh roadways streets so they could be properly? We can't wait for the development and we can constrain the economic and movement of goods that they are identified on that 10 year plan so they could be properly funded to support our economy.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 3486.545, "end": 3502.225, "text": "Yeah. We collaborate with many other groups within the city, infrastructure services as well as planning. There's a member of planning who uh joins me on the truck route committee to help understand what the long range planning is for the city and what the needs are going to be for goods movement as well.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 3502.425, "end": 3515.765, "text": "Great, thank you. And I'll be having those discussions with infrastructure services too. My last question is attachment to uh schedule A, we have added 80th Avenue from Saddletown Circle to Metis as a truck route. Is that correct?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 3522.685, "end": 3524.125, "text": "I apologize. I just need to.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 3524.125, "end": 3532.265, "text": "That's okay, that's okay. Just some clarification because putting a truck in Saddletown Circle, wow, that's gonna be something interesting.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 3532.705, "end": 3541.645, "text": "Yeah, and in the center of Saddletown Circle, there is the commercial area, so the businesses in that area do need to uh have uh service from trucks for deliveries and everything like that.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 3541.645, "end": 3586.345, "text": "Again, mobility talk to it a little bit. Uh have they been consulted on it? Because Seldon Circle is is is not properly, in my opinion, again, it can it's very busy. It has LRT there, it has major bus uh uh uh bus terminal there, uh there's school, there's lots of traffic, and putting these trucks under little concern, putting these trailers in there, it's gonna create more safety concerns, and we have a safety uh safer mobility plan coming up, and this is just gonna exaggerate the problem. I mean, I I just I just struggle with this. If you can convince me that no, that's that this is the right thing to do.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 3586.845, "end": 3612.065, "text": "A part of the need for Saddletown Circle as a truck route is uh, as I mentioned, to service the uh commercial areas in the center of uh that development as well. Um it is a very busy area, as you mentioned, with the LRT station as well as a commercial area. Um and uh if we were to remove that as a truck route, it wouldn't remove the trucks from the road because the trucks still need to service the commercial area as well.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 3612.605, "end": 3626.645, "text": "I think you answered my question that they still be using it. So that means we need to work with bylaw to make sure uh that uh yeah. Okay, great. Um that's it for me. Thank you for answering all the questions. Uh actually uh we have Council Cali now in the QBI.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 3626.645, "end": 3627.545, "text": "Yeah, apologies. Sorry, I", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 3627.545, "end": 3628.045, "text": "No, no.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 3628.045, "end": 3651.385, "text": "thought I'd jump in there. Uh two questions that uh They're gonna nag at me if I don't if I don't ask them, but they don't they don't impact the bylaw. Uh clerks, could you uh bring up attachment seven, please? Uh the first question I had here was just simply um there's no legend in any of these maps. So can you tell us what the color difference between the roads is?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 3652.325, "end": 3687.605, "text": "Thank you, Councillor Kelly. I apologize for the oversight on the legend. Generally, oh sorry, I will bring this up. So in the truck route map, we have dangerous goods as red lines and green lines are designated truck routes. And uh the purple uh lines shown, those are unrestricted truck areas.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 3688.685, "end": 3690.105, "text": "And then the yellow was it game?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 3690.305, "end": 3700.045, "text": "Uh yellow is uh the central business district where there are um dangerous goods restrictions uh based on time of day. Um so uh yes, uh", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 3700.045, "end": 3700.425, "text": "Got it.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 3700.545, "end": 3707.785, "text": "Councillor Kelly, uh if I may make an observation, uh you you caught some things that uh I missed on those legends, so I apologize.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 3707.785, "end": 3725.985, "text": "Well, that's all good. And then clerks, could you actually zoom in just on the southern half of this map? I note there's four by my count, uh, sort of. Floating green lines that don't connect to the network. I'm just sort of curious, what's the deal?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 3726.205, "end": 3727.065, "text": "Um", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 3727.225, "end": 3732.405, "text": "Can I drive up and down there with my with my truck route, but I can't actually go anywhere?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 3732.685, "end": 3754.065, "text": "You can actually, and that's actually uh another error that you have uh caught, uh Councillor Kelly. Um those are supposed to be continuous lines, those uh disconnected lines are bow bottom trail, and that is a designated truck route. Uh it's not supposed to be broken like that. So in some of our mapping items, uh that happens occasionally and we have to catch it. So thank you for", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 3756.785, "end": 3765.045, "text": "Yeah, it's right. If we could get a green line in the north, but that's a different thing, Councillor Dollywall. Uh thank you. Those are my questions.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 3767.085, "end": 3770.005, "text": "Thank you, Councillor Kelly. Over to Councillor Atkinson.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 3770.605, "end": 3808.385, "text": "Yeah, sorry, just to follow up, because Cancer Dollarwell's piece like just to understand, if if a truck needs to go somewhere in the city, they can They follow the truck routes as best as possible to get as close as possible, but then they leave the truck route to get to their destination. Say like the uh the saddletown circle, like uh if you're delivering to that area, uh you don't need a truck route to to do that. The truck route means that it's through traffic. Is that's that's my understanding of the distinction.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 3808.625, "end": 3810.845, "text": "that. Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 3810.845, "end": 3900.285, "text": "Yeah. So I guess like in that way, I think actually kind of back to sort of the idea of Of removals. I think that in the next phase of this work, we should be going back to look at certain routes, especially in established neighborhoods, and whether they're still serving the purpose of directing flows in and around. It would not prevent, say, I know that uh Memorial Drive is a truck route, but also just three blocks north of there, Kensington Road is a is a truck route. Um do those both have to be turned on? Kensington Road, we've actually done a lot of uh pedestrian safety mitigation work, landing in uh curb ball bouts, these kinds of things. Uh I I would suggest that I think we need to go back and sort of take a look at whether the these areas really do need to be cutting through sort of residential neighborhoods. Are they in line with our um you know our our pedestrian safety strategies and these kinds of things? And and instead trying to get those out of our neighborhoods, knowing that. If the truck needs to go to Kensington, it can still use Kensington Road to get there. That's but I wanted to make sure that that's the my correct understanding is yeah, that piece, that difference.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 3900.485, "end": 3904.505, "text": "Yes, that that's correct. And uh that is a very good suggestion uh for future updates. Thank you, Councillor.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 3904.505, "end": 3942.805, "text": "Great, yeah. Um and then the other thing I just wonder about is how this information gets to drivers. Um I don't know if there's I I don't think there's a way on like direction apps to sort of say truck routes only, but maybe I'm not a truck driver, so maybe they actually have either a different GPS mapping system. But it's like if you search on Google Maps or Apple Maps, I don't believe there's a way to sort of say follow truck routes as much as possible. Just wondering if there are ways in which we're getting that information out there, especially with modern uh sort of routing that people are using just on their phones and and whatnot.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 3942.965, "end": 3996.565, "text": "Yeah, that's that's an important point as well, Councillor Arkansas. Um we have heard from or or pardon me through the police who also sit on the truck route committee that um trucks uh truckers uh operators of trucks do just enter something into uh a navigation app like Google Maps and it takes them on the most direct route possible, but it doesn't uh provide uh designate or pardon me uh truck route information. Um the city does maintain truck route information uh on our website and we rely on operators as well as industry to be aware of that. And we do have a PDF version of the truck route map that will be updated with these uh bylaw updates. And uh we have been working on uh trying to find solutions that uh have uh a better uh or I guess a more interactive online component that is easier for uh truckers to navigate rather than downloading a large PDF and looking at it as if it were a paper map.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 3996.565, "end": 4059.505, "text": "Yeah, that's a lot of like manual uh work and these folks are just trying to get you know get around and uh especially when what they're using in their day-to-day life is just yeah, their their map on their phone to then have them have to sort of go to uh sort of a manual PDF sort of style. Um I think it that would be also uh an interesting part of future work would be to uh see the ways in which we can make this more technologically available, whether there are um Apps that we could be providing that actually like map to these routes and then do sort of the localized limited run for trucks, whether there's services we could tie into and then you know pass that information out. Maybe there is some hidden feature within Google Maps or whatever, and once we did this overlay, it would it would do it. But I really think that meeting sort of modern expectations around uh mapping and and routing would would do us well to make sure that trucks are staying in the places that we want them.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 4060.105, "end": 4062.405, "text": "That's an excellent suggestion. Thank you, Councillor Atkinson.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 4062.405, "end": 4063.625, "text": "Thank you. I'm good.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 4064.505, "end": 4086.765, "text": "Thanks, Councillor Atkinson. Just one last question triggered. That was gonna be my question. I forgot to ask. AMTA, what role do they play in this? Because their association that has 16,000 members. Is there an opportunity for city to collaborate with them so drivers have the most updated truck route on their map, like on their app or something like that?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 4086.965, "end": 4106.225, "text": "Um the AMTA Alberta Motor Transport Association is invited to truck route committee meetings and they join us and they provide information and they are a conduit to disseminate information to their membership as well. So there is opportunities for further collaboration. We're always welcome to collaborate with uh whomever is interested in truck routes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 4106.365, "end": 4112.305, "text": "Okay, perfect. Thank you. Thank you for uh your presentation. I'm gonna go over to Council Yule to move this item.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_15", "start": 4112.825, "end": 4218.825, "text": "Yeah, happy to move this. Um being the resident Councillor that's From the supply chain area, like I the I view this bylaw as just bylaw maintenance coming into form with uh the provincial rules and and uh one of the big things about truckers is they need clear um rules and expectations and and this is what's what's doing that. Um you've got good operators and you've got bad operators. Um and this this is more for those good operators that plan their routes through our city. And I would be I would be uh hesitant to to to you know try and chop you know routes away uh in that we're trying to make sure that um truckers have uh really strong uh alternatives to get through our city um because they're they're just trying to keep our economy going and uh and so the more routes the better. Um and and and if you have good operators, they will find the the proper routes to go through our city and also move in a timely fashion. Like time is money in the supply chain uh world, and we have a very complicated city. Um we did touch on some some of the unrestrained um industrial areas. Um I think this is a good thing to have in the back of your mind when we're talking putting residential into our industrial areas because we do need to make sure that um truckers can move and they need to move, and it and it is quite congested sometimes in in some of these industrial areas. So remember this map when we're talking, you know, putting residential in our industrial areas. Um so yeah, happy to move, happy to um uh support this. So thank you. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 4219.685, "end": 4224.705, "text": "Thank you, Councillor Yule. Before I ask you to close over to Councillor Cali for debate.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 4225.085, "end": 4261.625, "text": "Yeah, I just wanted to uh uh acknowledge that uh earlier on when I was identifying those sort of like individual blips, uh which I I I want to think of as truck portages, but I I digress. I just like that idea. Lovely, have to unload the truck. Uh no, I uh I want to recognize the fact that that the maps are not what we're approving here today. We're approving the bylaw. The bylaw is all correct. The maps are just here for our for our information. So I just wanted to I wanted to recognize the fact that uh uh despite the fact that there's some errors on the map, I'm that causes me no concern uh in terms of supporting this here today. Thank you, Chair.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 4262.565, "end": 4266.125, "text": "Thank you, Councillor Cali. Over to Councillor Tyres for debate.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_04", "start": 4266.785, "end": 4440.085, "text": "Okay, I'm gonna ask you guys to indulge me. You actually just mentioned what I was just gonna talk about. Building communities in an industrial area. So, long time ago, the city decided to build a community of Royal Oak right next to a gravel pit. And since then, my residents have experienced a lot of issues at one particular intersection. You're gonna hear uh about this intersection a lot for me. 112th Ave and Country Hills Boulevard. And actually, I had a town hall last night, and that was like one of the major issues. People are getting very upset, very emotional about this. Why? Um, because there's trucks that are speeding through there, very dangerous speeds. There are daycares nearby, there are kids that are crossing the street because they have to go to daycare, crossing for their lives, you know, uh gravel is flying all over the place, people's vehicles are getting damaged. And in discussions actually with administration and their team, we're we're constantly trying to find solutions to this. I actually kind of like what um Councillor Atkinson brought up about a mapping system that makes it very clear about which routes um are available at what times. The thing is, um, and I think our chair brought this up too like, what are we doing to enforce it? There are a lot of uh Truck uh trucks that are just doing whatever they please and there's no enforcement. For instance, in this particular intersection, they're only supposed to be using certain areas at certain times, that's not happening. And they're supposed to be covering, you know, the trucks so that the gravel doesn't fly, that's also not happening. Um, and as far as uh what Councillor Kelly was saying about the maps, like we are proving the maps as well, they are included in the bylaw. And when I look at this map, I see that 112th AV and country hills are still reflected in the truck route where they should be taking other routes to make sure that they're not putting these citizens in danger and that we can maybe move forward with some decisions on this. So at this time, I cannot support the truck route bylaw. Maybe I'll ask for a division of the vote so I can make that clear to my residents that this is something I'm taking very seriously. And when we when it does go forward to council, we can discuss more about some potential um amendments that may include enforcement, um maybe observing the new fee schedule and maps and things like that. Those are the things I'm going to pursue at that moment. But on behalf of Ward 1 residents and that particular intersection, um I won't be supporting uh one because of that. Thank you so much.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 4440.765, "end": 4445.485, "text": "Thank you for your debate. Over to Councillor Yule for close.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_15", "start": 4447.145, "end": 4541.305, "text": "Yeah, I think I think this is a very good uh debate to have um and and probably should have at a a at a greater level with all council in that um We as council are are going to be responsible for upgrading some of these roads. An example in my area would be the Stony Industrial Area Structure Plan. It was approved in 2005. One of the biggest things that that residents were concerned about was Country Hills Boulevard was not ready for that type of industrial traffic. And, you know, 20 years later, it's still not ready. And we're we're halfway through that build out of Stony Industrial Area. It'll be on us to make sure that we work on big projects like the widening of Country Hills Boulevard. That's a project that's just waiting for funding. So those are some big projects that cost a lot of money that if we want proper routes through our city, we gotta invest in. Glad to to support this uh this amendment and uh I'm closed.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 4544.005, "end": 4560.485, "text": "Thank you, Councillor Yule. Let's uh go to E Scribe and we're gonna call one and two separately. So, colleagues, one will be Uh proposed bylaw for the truck route and then the second one will be for the transportation of dangerous goods.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 4568.745, "end": 4569.685, "text": "Yes for Landon.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 4577.005, "end": 4577.885, "text": "Chair, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 4578.865, "end": 4590.685, "text": "Let's display the votes, please. That is carried six one with council tires in opposition. Um let's go to uh part two of this uh recommendation.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 4596.465, "end": 4599.025, "text": "Sorry, Chair, we're just gonna correct the numbering of the rank there.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 4599.325, "end": 4601.425, "text": "Okay, great. Oh yeah, it should be two.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 4608.005, "end": 4609.385, "text": "Thank you. That vote is ready to", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 4609.745, "end": 4611.005, "text": "Let's go to east grab, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 4614.285, "end": 4616.765, "text": "That's yes again for Councillor Johnston.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 4617.625, "end": 4618.305, "text": "Thank you, Councillor.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 4618.305, "end": 4618.465, "text": "go.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 4618.465, "end": 4635.225, "text": "Chair, all the votes are let's display the votes, please. That is carried seven, nothing. Thank you, colleagues. Uh and thank you for your presentation, uh, Mr. Cake. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_14", "start": 4635.585, "end": 4636.665, "text": "Thank you. Members of council.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 4636.885, "end": 4664.585, "text": "Uh next we have Safer Mobility Plan Annual Report 2026 CD 2026-0471. Uh clerk uh clerks, before I go to uh speakers, we have uh some folks here from Calgary Services. And if there is a need, I just want to clarify if there's a need from any colleague to ask them question, is it possible, or we have to put a motion forward?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 4665.065, "end": 4688.185, "text": "Um if they're here to support the presentation from administration, then they can certainly uh speak uh as part of the introduction. Um of course there's a public opportunity to ask questions of the public at standing policy committee, so they could ask answer questions uh uh as members of the public as well at that station.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 4688.185, "end": 4695.725, "text": "Question if you allow me procedurally, can I ask them if they are here to speak or or or they're just here to watch?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 4695.785, "end": 4697.265, "text": "I think you could clarify that as chair.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 4698.205, "end": 4730.545, "text": "Uh officers, are you here to speak to a particular item or just invited by administration in case in case there's any questions? Thank you. So, mobility team. Okay, so this is relevant to this item, guys. Uh colleagues, so if there's any questions, I think uh uh CPS is uh in attendance. Clarify it. Okay, great. Thank you. Now we go to item 7.4, Safer Mobility Plan Annual Report 2026. This will be Mr. Surendar Mesha.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_12", "start": 4745.525, "end": 5413.065, "text": "Good morning, members of the committee. My name is Surendra Mishra, traffic engineer from mobility. I'm joined today by Troy McLeod, Director of Mobility, Anthony L. Araz, Manager of Mobility Operations, Joanna Domrad, Leader of Mobility Safety, our colleagues and safety partners, Andy Woodward, Staff Sergeant, Calgary Police Service, and Michael Brigle, Deputy Chief Emergency Management and Community Services. We are here to discuss the Safer Mobility Plan Annual Report 2026. The purpose of this presentation is to provide an annual overview of 2025 collision statistics, highlights of recent actions completed in support of traffic safety in Calgary, along with focus areas for 2026 and beyond. Next slide, please. On 2025, May 27, Community Development Committee received the Safer Mobility Plan Annual Briefing 2025, and administration was to report back to CDC. On the Safer Mobility Plan Annual Briefing 2026 by Q2 2026. Next slide, please. Today, our recommendation is that the Community Development Committee recommends to Council to direct administration to report back to the Community Development Committee on the Safer Mobility Plan Annual Briefing 2027 by Q2 2027. And direct administration to expand high impact safety interventions across the network as part of the 2027-2030 budget cycle. Next slide, please. This is an infographic of 2025 collisions in Calgary. In 2025, Calgary witnessed 643 major injuries and lost 38 lives in traffic collisions. That included 15 pedestrians, two cyclists, and six motorcyclists. Compared to 2024, All sectors saw the increase in major injury and fatal collisions, except the motorcyclist injuries, which was down by 17%. These injuries and fatalities are not just the numbers. These are real people fathers, mothers, husband, wife, brothers, and sisters. Every number represents a Calgaryan, and families and communities are affected by these tragedies that have far reaching consequences on our society. Next slide, please. Calgary has consistently witnessed the highest rates for major injury and fatalities per 100,000 population compared to Edmonton and Toronto. This may be related to several factors, such as urban build form, level of investment in traffic safety improvement projects, existing policies, as well as education and enforcement activities. It is interesting to note that both major cities in Alberta. Calgary and Edmonton experienced similar increases in major injury and fatality rates between 24 and 25. A trend not seen in Toronto. Pedestrian major injuries and fatality rates in 2025 were largely unchanged both in Calgary and Edmonton compared to 2024. Next slide, please. 2025 fatality by collision types indicated that pedestrian involved fatal collisions accounted for 40% of total. The highest in all categories, followed by 32% road departure collisions such as off-road, struck object, and head-on, and about 10% of left-on and right angle types of collisions. Next slide, please. This is a comparison of collisions based on functional road classification. It is encouraging to see that since the implementation of neighborhood speed limit to 40 km per hour, we have not witnessed any fatalities on our local roads. About half of total fatal collisions have occurred on arterial roadways, with another one-third of total collisions on high speed freeways. Unfortunately, Calgary has witnessed an increase in fatalities on freeways within the city of Calgary in recent years. Next slide, please. So, why are we in this situation? Although the city of Calgary has invested heavily in pedestrian safety improvements and speed limit reduction in recent years. And has witnessed significant collision reduction at the locations with such improvements. Recent increase in serious injuries and fatalities at higher speed arterials and freeways are outpacing the gains made through targeted safety improvements. Multiple external and local factors are contributing to the increased risk, many beyond municipal control. Some of the factors behind this increase in high severity collisions include policies such as. Provincial restrictions on automated traffic enforcement, removal of graduated licensing, and lack of vehicle impound laws resulting in inadequate deterrence. Aggressive driving has always been a concern. Calgary witnessed 43,000 new registered licensed drivers in 2025, primarily driven by strong net migration and distraction through smartphone use and in vehicle technologies is an ongoing concern as well. Next slide, please. So, what can we do to address this situation? There are ways to reverse this collision trend with preventative, proactive, and responsive approaches. The preventative approach where we can include the lessons learned and best practices early in the planning process and policy development. Proactive approach such as safety improvements at neighborhoods, schools and playground zones, where we may not see the high number of collisions but receive a high number of complaints about speeding and near misses. And responsive approach, an evidence-based approach, where we focus the safety improvements at high collision locations such as high speed arterials and signalized intersections. Some of the best practices include speed humps and speed cushions, various types of crosswalk improvements such as rectangular rapid flashing beacons, marked and sign crosswalks, in street school crosswalk signs, curve extensions. Protected left turns, leading pedestrian intervals, roundabouts, and of course education and enforcement. Next slide, please. Current status of funding. We currently have 5 million in capital funding, 1.5 million in accessibility improvements, and one time investment of 1 million from the Fiscal Stability Reserve. In addition to that, we received 7.55 million for 2026 Vision Zero improvements. And here is the background of the planned expenses for 7.55 million funding in 2026. Next slide, please. These are some of the highlights and actions for 2026. City of Calgary continues to collaborate with Calgary Police Service on the Cephro Mobility Plan, an important step towards a coordinated approach to improve the safety of our road network. Emergency management and community services traffic safety team has become a key partner, delivering important work with Calgary communities. To reduce speeding and improve safety around schools. AI enhanced pedestrian safety platform to identify intersections for safety improvements is under development. We continue to focus on crosswalk improvements. We are conducting a review of collector roadways to identify opportunities for speed reduction. After successful pilot with temporary speed humps in 2025, permanent speed humps and speed cushions are being deployed at 17 locations in 2026. We are implementing roadside improvements such as median cable barriers to reduce the risk of high severity collisions. Next slide, please. Here are some of the future plans. We know that majority of fatalities occur within 300 to 500 meters of entering a community. This is why we are focusing on the gateway treatments as a countermeasure to reduce the risk of these incidents in the neighborhoods. We are expanding the leading pedestrian intervals at signalized intersections. LPI allows pedestrians to get early start when crossing the traffic signals, crossing at traffic signals so they are more visible to drivers. We plan to continue with Vision Zero improvements with a stronger focus on education, engaging our communities to drive real culture change, corridor safety improvements, high risk arterial crosswalks, and missing links will be given high priority. To expand these proven approaches citywide, A sustained funding through the 2027 to 2030 budget cycle is required. Next slide, please. Once again, we would like to recommend that the CDC recommends to council to direct administration to report back to the Community Development Committee on the CEFRO Mobility Plan Annual Briefing 2027 by Q2 2027 and direct administration to expand high impact safety interventions across the network as part of the 2027 to 2030 budget cycle. This concludes my presentation. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 132 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 5414.405, "end": 5432.945, "text": "Thank you for your presentation. Before we go to questions of administration, anyone here in the public to speak to this item? Here or on the on on the phone. Hearing none, seen none, we will end the public speaking portion. Over to Councillor Tyres.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_04", "start": 5434.985, "end": 5519.685, "text": "Thanks, Chair. Thank you so much for your presentation. It is very important to put these different um measures into action. A lot of things which cost a lot of money, and you know, things like speed humps and like changing the roads and like making sure that um drivers are educated. I want to talk about the opposite side of it where the pedestrians and their responsibility. I have teenagers. They have their phones and they're basically you know it it's attached to their hand. They've also got their airpods in, so they can't hear anything. They're not paying attention. They're always looking at their phones. Is there something the city can do, I guess, in this in this plan that involves? Pedestrian education, pedestrian safety, because like it's all I guess the the perspective of this whole plan is driver safety. But I'm just interested, like, have we have we thought about um the people who are actually crossing the road because they haven't made eye contact with the driver to make sure that they're actually gonna stop and slow down or they just like go straight into there. And you know, I'm not blaming um, you know, uh pedestrians by any stretch of the imagination for what happens. I'm just saying there's a little bit of responsibility from both sides. So I was wondering if you could speak to that. Thank you so much.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 5520.725, "end": 5571.325, "text": "Thank you for your question, Councillor Tyres. So my name is Joanna Damrad. So we do have a lot of educational programs that target just that. We continue to develop different programs for school-aged kids, particularly. There's a very strong focus where we share information about the safe behaviors as kids begin to use our roadways and develop that toolset from very early on. have those safe behaviors embedded in in their daily life. So that is a strong focus of ours and we are expanding those educational programs.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_04", "start": 5571.405, "end": 5574.225, "text": "Okay, and can I just grab the names of those programs?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 5574.725, "end": 5635.965, "text": "So we do have the Active and Safe Roots to School program. That's one example. In this situation, facilitators go into school and learn more about how the school uses or the kids use the area. And then there's you know various implemented improvements that we do as part of that that include education. We also have The Community Speed Watch program, for example, where a community goes out with CPS and our staff, and you know, we kind of have those conversations outside about what the expectations are in certain areas. We go out there with radar guns and measure the speeds of vehicles approaching. A lot of the times that brings us on the same page as to what's actually happening in a community and then what we can do in terms of our own behavior, but also like from an improvements perspective in those areas.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_04", "start": 5636.065, "end": 5691.145, "text": "Okay. Yeah, no, that sounds really great. Love that you guys are working with children, making sure that they're educated. I remember when I was a kid, it's like you always you put your hand out like this and you make eye contact with the driver and just make sure they're crossing safely. Um what about adults? Like I I know you did mention like there's some community initiatives, and that's great to hear too, that you guys are out there with the radar guns and like working with CPS and like being on the same page. But just adults in general, um, is there any any kind of communications or anything that we can uh expect that's um Kind of uh I don't know. I I I guess just bringing to the forefront that like everybody is responsible for what is happening out on the roads um and that we need to be extremely vigilant and things like that. And you know, we're talking about distracted drivers, like distracted people as well. Is there is there anything like that that you guys are working on?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 5691.585, "end": 5729.845, "text": "So we do have regular public awareness campaigns, and usually with these we follow the Alberta traffic calendar. Traffic safety calendar. So for example, you know, for the distracted driving month, we have a campaign that goes out through our various means with that messaging to, you know, to drivers as well as people, other people using the roadways. You know, back to school is another one where where that's like a main public awareness campaign during the year that we run every year to, you know, just make sure that people are aware of each other as that there's more kids out on the roads.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_04", "start": 5730.065, "end": 5733.925, "text": "Yeah, excellent. No, I appreciate that. Thank you so much for answering my questions.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 5733.925, "end": 5734.345, "text": "Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_04", "start": 5734.345, "end": 5734.825, "text": "Thanks, Chair.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 5738.105, "end": 5744.585, "text": "Thank you, Councillor Tyres. I will go over to Councillor Johnston.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 5746.425, "end": 5773.465, "text": "Yeah, hi there. Um, do we know the demographics of uh the I guess increase in accidents? Um like are there young drivers, older drivers? Like, is there anything specifically we can um rein in our advocacy for, or is it just across the board these accidents are being caused or involve um just everybody and anybody?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 5777.165, "end": 5844.205, "text": "So we do uh we do know that you know it's it's a wide range of people that are involved in incidents. Some of the issues that we are seeing to some extent is younger drivers. Um, you know, it is a complex issue and technically there's just a lot of different influencing factors in every collision. Every collision is very different from other ones. But some of the trends are that we are seeing young drivers uh involved in some of the severe collisions. Um, you know, whether or not that is something that's connected to the To the sorry, drawing a blank on the to the GEL, I guess. Graduating driver licensing. You know, there are some there's some research starting to come out provincially with some of those impacts. But those are some of the things that we're seeing. Obviously, in these situations where pedestrians are involved, you know, our aging population is more vulnerable in an in an event. So that's something else that we do see regularly.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 5846.805, "end": 5860.245, "text": "Right, so you so uh we have more senior drivers out there, but at the same time more youth drivers out there as well or young drivers out there?", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 5861.525, "end": 5872.705, "text": "Sorry, just to clarify, I was alluding to like senior pedestrians, right? Uh just because due to the forces involved in a collision. Just to clarify that, sorry, could you repeat your question?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 5873.485, "end": 5886.465, "text": "Yes, right. So are okay, let's the the victims of this are do is there a certain demographic of the victims that um shine a little bit more than other victims, like", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 5890.505, "end": 5914.645, "text": "So, yes, so those are uh the ones that I've mentioned that are the one that I'm familiar with. Um other than that, you know, it could be really people of any age. I think predominantly we do see that majority of the drivers involved in the severe collisions, it tends to um follow, you know, like most drivers are middle-aged, so we see most drivers among these collisions being middle-aged.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 5916.285, "end": 5932.685, "text": "Right, and I'm I'm just curious like the increase is um I'm just wondering if a demographic on either side, either the person getting hit by a driver or the driver itself. Like I'm just wondering if there's any data points that stick out above anything else.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 5934.325, "end": 5957.745, "text": "So that is still something that we're looking at. Um, you know, as we get more data um We we continue to review it and just trying to see those patterns. But because you know, in terms of the most severe collisions, the numbers of them are still quite low in order to draw like some significant robust conclusions.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 5958.525, "end": 5972.405, "text": "What data is collected on a collision? Because there's 27,000 collisions in Calgary a year. What data is collected uh on on a collision? Because I mean I've been in a collision before. I mean", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_01", "start": 5972.445, "end": 5972.785, "text": "Yep.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 5972.865, "end": 6007.165, "text": "I don't really remember any data being collected outside of um somebody bumped into me or whatever. Like I'm just curious like what data is being collected and if there's a way to make the data easier to collect, um, even from a council standpoint, right? Because I mean, we ha we have to figure out how to rein this in, and if if more data is better for advocacy or to reduce these collisions. Is there a way um well let's just start with what data is collected right now?", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 6008.545, "end": 6047.125, "text": "So we uh you know the typically the standard across the province is to follow the provincial um data collection, uh collision report form. And in that form, um some standard data fields include uh the level of severity, um, the location of the incident. You know, some of the contributing factors, such as the type of collision it was. So, for example, uh whether it was a right angle collision or a rear end, um, the different parties involved, as well as you know, levels of lighting, um, what type of traffic control was present, those are some examples.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 6048.505, "end": 6052.825, "text": "Okay, so and we've been collecting that data for how long?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 6053.565, "end": 6072.265, "text": "So this data hasn't changed, and you know, um I would say at least, you know, there may have been some smaller changes, but overall um since 2016. it has been consistently the same type of data um form that has been used.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 6072.885, "end": 6087.425, "text": "Right, which obviously isn't working for us as collisions are going up, fatalities are going up. So I'm I'm asking what data could we collect that would better help us reduce these collisions?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 6089.345, "end": 6158.025, "text": "So i it's kind of a double-edged sword because um already we are asking so so first of all the data that's being collected is mainly for um you know insurance purposes and such. So We're not really the primary purpose of the data being collected. And secondly, the more data you ask, you know, it is a lot of incidents across the city. You know, we're sometimes seeing hundreds of thousands, uh, I mean tens of thousands of incidents. So the quality of data sometimes suffers. So, you know, data is as good, only as good as the actual care that goes into filling it out. And you know, a lot of the times the people filling it out may not be, you know, fully aware or like what is required. Sometimes it's a little complicated. So one of the things that we do find is that some of the, you know, there are a lot of errors in the data. Um, so if we are asking for more data, I would be also careful to uh make sure that we're just getting good quality of data, which sometimes suffers the more we ask for.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 6160.765, "end": 6231.685, "text": "Is okay, is there anything That I mean twenty seven thousand, usually bad data is uh I don't know what the term is, but dad bad data can be um kind of washed into that level of data, I guess. And so I'm again I'm just asking like i i is there something we can collect to better help us as uh governors ensure that we are doing everything we can because right now whatever we're doing isn't working, obviously. Um So it I guess you don't have to answer me now, but if there is something that comes up on your end that we could add to policy, you know, even temporarily, just to get a screenshot of, you know, maybe maybe there is a a piece of demographic, maybe there are um and I know we we track collisions, you know, across the city, so we know hot spots of where things happen in that. Like that's that's good data. Um, but I'm just if anything else ever comes up, I think it'd be good for us to know um to again. better attack the problem.", "segments_merged": 11 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 6233.525, "end": 6292.905, "text": "So I would like to add that, you know, we we are working with um Is the folks at uh University of Alberta with AHS that have been providing some of the hospitalization and um hospital admission data. Uh again, that data set is different in that it a lot of the times it does not have um certain, like for example, location information. Uh but we were talking with them about opportunities to potentially include some questions to uh the people at the time of admissions as a special kind of a you know time based um. you know, exercise uh you know, a study. So um that's something that we are talking about. Uh but it just might be easier to do it at the time of admission to a hospital that will be capturing the most severe group instead of just getting that at the collision level because um a lot of the incidents at the collision level are you know lower severity.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 6294.005, "end": 6300.865, "text": "That's that's great. That's exactly what I was hoping to hear. Do we have any of that data now or is that just still in the works?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 6301.205, "end": 6328.045, "text": "So we have been getting some data from them. I think the last data set we received in 2025 that included 2024 data and that included just the different modes that were admitted to the hospital. That was really interesting to see that quite a bit of our collision data goes unreported when it comes to cyclists and active modes. So that was a finding that we found from that.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 6328.805, "end": 6335.545, "text": "Right. Could you provide myself and maybe other counselors with that raw data that you have collected?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 6335.625, "end": 6337.105, "text": "Sure. We can do that.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 6337.105, "end": 6337.285, "text": "Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 6337.285, "end": 6337.845, "text": "I'll follow up.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 6337.865, "end": 6348.345, "text": "Okay. And then the other question was is you mentioned there's forty three thousand new licenses uh in Alberta. Um compared to previous years, like where does that compare?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 6349.465, "end": 6355.445, "text": "I believe that number was down from 6% increase in the previous year.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 6357.405, "end": 6361.005, "text": "Okay, but let's say over the past five years, like where does that", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 6363.285, "end": 6372.145, "text": "If I recall correctly, it was about 10%. So no, sorry, that doesn't really make that much sense. But I'll uh I'll I'd have to look that up.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 6373.445, "end": 6386.905, "text": "Okay. Um, I'm just curious if uh like collisions and um fatalities are on pace with population growth, um, or if it's outpacing population growth. Do we know that?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 6387.285, "end": 6396.545, "text": "Yes, it is outpacing population growth. So some of the increase does account for the capital population growth, but it doesn't explain the entire increase.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 6397.165, "end": 6403.425, "text": "With within a margin and of error or with like like way outpacing population growth?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 6404.085, "end": 6417.525, "text": "I think it's mainly explained by population growth. However, it's just it's still the highest years we've seen, even if you correct for population growth.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 6418.345, "end": 6467.865, "text": "Okay. Um do we know if majority of the collisions happened during the first or um I'm just thinking snowstorms, like um I'm I'm sure a lot of them happen because people don't have their winter tires on and stuff like that. And I'm just curious like if that sort of um level of uh granularity or data is being tracked to again, like I'm I'm just trying to pinpoint where these issues are coming from. Because again, if it's let's let's say it is due to winter storms or you know, people without snow tires, well then we can mandate snow tires at kind of like BC does or something like that, like or advocate with the province to do something like that. So um yeah, I just think the more data the better. Um And if uh if you have any available data, I'd love to have it. So", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 6472.105, "end": 6474.185, "text": "Are you down there, Councillor Johnston?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 6475.525, "end": 6476.005, "text": "closed.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 6476.625, "end": 6479.845, "text": "Thank you. Over to Councillor Clark.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_09", "start": 6480.525, "end": 6551.585, "text": "Yes, thank you, Chair. Um Ms. Domerad, nice to see you again. Uh you were so kind as to join us in Southview, one of Ward 9's communities, on a community walk to discuss pedestrian safety and how we can work to better uh align some of that process there. So uh I would like to ask um What what I'm finding, I'm going to take a page out of Councillor Tyres book here and speak to the experiences with community. Many of these folks know where the problems lie in their neighborhoods, the problem intersections, the problem roads, where they're seeing consistent issues. We can bring that to administration. We have a number of procedures in place here that you've highlighted in your presentation with TAC as an example. And we're finding like the work, it just sort of doesn't get across the finish line. We don't land with the outcomes of safer streets. Where do we go from there? How do we get these things actually to getting some of these speed humps, getting the crosswalks in places where folks know they need them?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 6552.865, "end": 6603.325, "text": "Yes, it was great to uh meet you at the event, and we are still following up with uh various action from that. Yes. Uh so you know it's obviously there's a different variety of roads out there, and we just need to make sure that uh the you know solutions appropriate for the context. I think that that's the toughest part. Um not everything will have a make a difference in certain locations. So um we will be yeah, following up. There's a robust process that we have where you know any citizen can uh request um. various measures through our three-on-one system. We received a lot of three received regularly received a lot of three-on-ones that require us to do reviews. We try to um do that as soon as we can um but uh obviously sometimes it takes some time.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_09", "start": 6603.885, "end": 6628.285, "text": "Yeah, I I appreciate that. I would I just think, you know, we're seeing an unprecedented amount of pedestrians die on our roads to paint two white lines as a basic fundamental piece. I just, what kind of research is required uh to confirm whether or not that's an appropriate next step? I mean, and why is I'm just if you could please dive into that just a bit more. Sorry to press on you about this, but it is a concern.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 6628.805, "end": 6686.145, "text": "From a citywide perspective, we have a certain threshold for certain treatments, and the reason is so that we can deploy these measures equitably across the city at locations that need it the most. So, in terms of you know, like the application to various locations, uh sometimes the solution that we uh go with is not, for example, something that's you know a crosswalk, but it will be like curb extensions or some other measures that are more likely to mitigate the speeds that we're seeing as well as you know providing a uh some of additional benefits to the community. As we mentioned, there was a there is a new program that we have which is the speed hump and speed cushion program. So we're rolling out those measures more than communities as well. There's a new process so we can point um you know citizens to that if that's something that they would want to pursue.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_09", "start": 6686.265, "end": 6744.625, "text": "Yeah, I just I think it's important to note that again, you know, since being elected, uh traffic and mobility safety is has been a priority concern for residents. I probably have about 20 different instances across Ward 9 that are in review uh pending further analysis as to whether or not anything should should be done or what should be done to support those spaces. Um and I've yet to hear back a confirmation on any of them. So So I suppose to that end, I I guess I bring it up because we've heard from another a number of reports today, you know, we're we're sort of updating bylaw, keeping them in line with with other levels of government and and what they are saying that um uh and so with TAC as an example, like how old is this? Uh how often is that updated? And how do we uh how do we make sure that we remain aligned with the most current ins uh you know issues and concerns?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 6745.425, "end": 6812.225, "text": "So so I would you know the most recent uh TAC manual I don't know correct me if I'm wrong. I think it's like a night it's maybe five years old at this point. So it is the best practice that's used across Canada. We continue to um Try to do things better. So, you know, a lot of the times we go over and beyond with geometric improvements, whether it's you know, right now the AI platform that you'll be hearing about next is something else that we're hoping to utilize in order to bridge those gaps and um and better understand the different influencing factors. As always, um, you know, we take the best industry practice, and there's a lot of emerging practices in the field that um are starting to happen, and we're trying to, you know, stay at that leading edge and have those conversations with other jurisdictions that are implementing various things that maybe you know aren't um. Done everywhere yet. And you know, like try try to do the best that we can with what we have and uh change the practices that we have to better serve Calgarians.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_09", "start": 6812.385, "end": 6862.165, "text": "Yeah, thank you. I so appreciate that because I think, like I say, what I consistently am running into is these get lost in the research, and the implementation seems very, very slow considering the outcomes that we're seeing on our roads. And I'll also just take this opportunity to say that in the inner city, in our older neighborhoods, we're seeing new forms of mobility. You know, we've got scooters, we have more pedestrians, more cyclists, we have an older population. The way in which we use these roads uh has changed. And I think we're also, because we have not adapted our roads to support the forms of mobility that we're seeing today, I think that lends itself to some of these outcomes, these really sad, negative outcomes. So I hope that we can work together to figure out what comes next. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_04", "start": 6864.265, "end": 6866.965, "text": "Thank you, Councillor Clark. Um Councillor Ewell.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_15", "start": 6868.865, "end": 6895.525, "text": "I just wanted to maybe follow up on some of uh Councillor Johnston's line of questioning about data. Um you are basically relying on Other groups sets of data for like we don't really have a traffic safety person that goes out to every every incident that's able to collect data. It's it's what what types of organizations are feeding into your data set?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 6896.505, "end": 6899.125, "text": "Uh sorry, could you clarify what types of organizations?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_15", "start": 6899.425, "end": 6907.245, "text": "Well, I mean, like so so how do you get your data, like how do you know there was an accident at at a such and such of you know intersection?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 6907.405, "end": 6950.485, "text": "So uh the collision data is our main data set that we use. Um, it is a provincial data set. That is collected by Calgary Police Service and other police forces. We also use heavily use traffic counts data, so that is done by the city of Calgary. We use speed data, so that's also through speed studies. We do use or utilize third third party cell phone data kind of a platform where we're using that where we don't have the speed data using tube counts. We're always looking to expand our data sources, but that's kind of the core.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_15", "start": 6951.125, "end": 6964.305, "text": "But the main set um is kind of provincially regulated. So if we would want more data, we would we would need to you know ask the province to to make an another you know field of of data that we're looking for?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 6964.325, "end": 6964.925, "text": "That's right.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_15", "start": 6967.685, "end": 6993.085, "text": "I guess the other question I had uh it relates to the GDL licensing. So in in 2023, uh the province got rid of the advanced road test. Are we seeing any sort of data that's showing that was good or a bad idea? Like, like, are we seeing that we probably needed that second uh road test for for some new drivers?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 6994.125, "end": 7004.765, "text": "S so um that is something that's being currently investigated. Um and there's some preliminary information that I came across and I can share that with you.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_15", "start": 7004.885, "end": 7042.065, "text": "That'd be great. Yeah, that would be because if if maybe we need to advocate for that second road test to come back, that that's something that we should advocate for. The last thing I wanted to check on was um kind of environmental factors. Um I know like in my area there are some intersections, some pedestrian crossings that you you are blinded by the sun in the morning and it has caused some fatalities as a result. Um how are is is that data taken into consideration at at uh pedestrian crossings at um intersections?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 7042.885, "end": 7114.225, "text": "Yeah, so um sunglare is something that Is an issue across the network in a lot of situations where we have the roadways that are east and west. It has something that you know has always existed as an issue. We have made a number of improvements over the years that are trying to target that. Like for example, one of them was where we have overhead flashers. Crosswalks, the overhead flashers by themselves would uh sometimes be blinded. So the side mounted flashers were added as our standard treatment to all the overhead flashers to just go over and beyond what's what the standard is and uh try to provide additional. Flashing features that can then be visible to drivers during singular conditions. We do find that the RFBs do work quite well with that as well, with the different flashing pattern. And again, yes, in situations, you know, LPIs, a lot of the times there was one situation where we had a severe sungular issue with left turn than pedestrians where the installation of an LPI made a big difference as well. So we're expanding that, that's likely to improve that situation as well.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_15", "start": 7114.425, "end": 7115.865, "text": "Okay, that's all my questions. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_04", "start": 7118.305, "end": 7122.205, "text": "Okay, thank you, Councillor Ewell. Councillor Atkinson, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 7123.665, "end": 7190.705, "text": "Great. Thank you. And apologies. I'm going to be jumping all over the place. The demographic information that Councillor Johnson was touching on. I think this is really important because we've heard both in sort of the reports. And in the presentation, things like new drivers, GDL removal. I guess I I have a hard time sort of reconciling, like we're making those judgment calls and sort of calling that out, but we don't actually have the numbers or data to sort of back that up. So like too much of this is be feeling very anecdotal to me. And I guess like, how do we how do we come to the conclusion? How are how are we writing in like new drivers graduated licensing as policy decisions that are affecting these things when we don't actually have the stats to back that up?", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 7192.685, "end": 7234.565, "text": "Uh one of the issues that we face in in traffic safety is that um a lot of the times there's a delay with uh the different you know, in order to see a behavior takes a while uh or a change in in Um, you know, in a l for example, in a policy, right? So, you know, something like with automated enforcement, right? It's it there has been a change, but it's going to be a while before that really uh makes a difference. And that's why it's hard to talk about certain things in a timely manner about what's actually influencing this because some of the data is not yet available. Um more time is required in order to confirm some of those trends and patterns. Um I'm not sure if that answers your question. But", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 7234.565, "end": 7372.585, "text": "I guess to a certain degree, but it's like this also like like people dying on our roads is not something new, right? People being injured on our roads is not something new. This is not something that is just turned on since. So while for sure we're seeing an uptick um in the overall trends and while and maybe that is playing uh part of the vector, the baseline that we're s trying to tackle i i is not something that's come on since new drivers and GDL. And so I I really do think like stronger data around um The conditions that led to the accident. And I know we don't have a lot of fatalities to draw that from, but we have a ton of serious injury collisions to draw that information from. And we should be understanding distracted driving and when that was leading to it. And I know you won't always know that. You're not always going to be able to try to dive in. But if we're gonna start making choices and changes and where we're going to apply our effectiveness, we need to be able to understand the conditions of like how long has that person been behind the wheel. How how maybe there maybe that are we getting to a point where there are certain folks maybe we're not uh evaluating folks' sort of roadworthiness uh over time and and conditions of their ability to drive of change. We need to have understandings about that. Um and I just I guess I am having a hard time with like we're pointing to certain things and we make those choices, and especially when it comes to things like our education and awareness campaigns, we're sort of pointing to things like oh, distracted pedestrians, while that is anecdotal, maybe, that is not necessarily data driven. So, so There's a lot in this report that is pointing to certain things and decisions being made that are not necessarily backed with data that I can see. But maybe I'm uh maybe I'm there's there's stuff in the background that is not a part of this picture. Any any comments on that?", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 7373.245, "end": 7438.705, "text": "so I guess one comment that I have is that you know, we're asked to answer a question about why is this happening, so that's kind of one thing. But the other thing is that we we do have, you know, the thing, the tools in our toolbox, which is essentially like the engineering countermeasures that uh that we use, uh, we are heavily data driven. You look, we look at our network, we identify locations that um need intervention the most or have the highest risk based on past data. Uh, we try to Make sure that we're addressing the things of the highest risk. And we know that our safety improvements and various things we have implemented do make a difference. So essentially, you know, when it comes to conversation behind why it's happening, I I don't think we're so clear as to what the recent increases, why they're happening. We can say, you know, not for certain that it might be an influencing factor, as we've mentioned in the report. But down to the bottom of things, when it comes to making changes in order to try to reduce those numbers, we're doing everything that we can.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 7439.265, "end": 7592.425, "text": "But we're I think we're also Mixing up different sets of data here. There's the data of certain problem spots, certain areas where we're seeing issues because of the construction, uh, the road design, the design decisions that we put into place, the speed, these kinds of factors that we have control over. And then there's changes in terms of behavior, which is where education, awareness, these kinds of campaigns would be focused because they don't have anything to do with the way and and so we need to actually break those two worlds apart, and we actually have to understand the causes. The people side of things, if we're actually going to fund education. To be honest, all the reports I read outside of the city of Calgary show that education and awareness campaigns basically do nothing when it comes to there are a couple of ones that have been successful, and they're successful maybe for a period of time where you've got the like, please don't kill my dad on the construction site sign. That seems to work for a little bit, and then we go blind to it. And it's a real problem. But the data out there on the people side is. Is it it's not not super strong. And if we don't even know necessarily what we're targeting, and we're just grasping at sort of these anecdotal pieces of oh, pedestrians are are maybe the problem because I saw a pedestrian looking at their phone crossing the road, or or we're gonna say that um oh it's it's uh new drivers because we've got a lot new of new drivers on the roads, or GDL because that's changed, but we don't actually have the true data on collisions to back that up. I see that as very problematic because we're actually we're we're creating a narrative out there that is letting the true conditions of these accidents to slip away from us. I don't I don't want to I wanna I want to chase the real. Okay, let's go into um let's go into awareness campaigns. I've looked through some of them. I I recognize that they've had good reach and there seems to be sort of like a positive sort of viewing of them. But are we doing anything to sort of measure whether there is like is there any way that you're sort of tracking that this awareness campaign is actually leading to changed outcomes on the other side?", "segments_merged": 12 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 7593.905, "end": 7623.745, "text": "Yes, so uh tying that to change outcomes is something that we will be doing, but you know, exactly you know, we can only look at it from a retrospective perspective. Uh so uh that's something that we do plan to do. Uh But in the meantime, we did receive some recent information about the effectiveness of the campaign in terms of like the number of people it's reached. Um and we do have some more information if you're interested. We could share that um about the effectiveness of the campaigns that we had.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 7624.385, "end": 7692.005, "text": "Yeah, I guess I'm just wondering is it reaching the right people? Like uh I can read a news story and know that like Calgary is not a safe place for me to be as a pedestrian. Uh I don't know, you know, like going into schools and stuff and letting teaching that is. Fine, I suppose, but ultimately what we need to be doing is changing the behaviors of the people who are causing the accidents. And I'm not sure that we're lining those two things up. On that note, we have these red light cameras, we have speed cameras, we have gear that we're actually able to track improper. Use of our road networks, and while I recognize we can't hand out speeding tickets anymore, have we ever looked at actually targeted campaigns where we're actually sending out you ran a red light? Did you know that we had this many people die on our roads, this many people injured on our roads to the people that are actually breaking so that we actually have an enforcement education through enforcement style program?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 7693.185, "end": 7705.985, "text": "So uh I I do have awareness of a new campaign that uh CPS has been having that's been very effective. Uh, but I'll let Andy Andy Woodmore Staff Sergeant maybe come up and expand on that?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_07", "start": 7725.165, "end": 7755.825, "text": "Oh yeah, okay. So good morning. Um we start we were just starting to do the uh visual online. So when motorists are out on the road and they see um an infraction and they've got it on dash cam and they're prepared to go to court and give a statement, we will take that and we will take that information and we'll turn that into either a court appearance or a a violation ticket. But that is very much in its infancy at the moment.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 7756.585, "end": 7798.005, "text": "Okay. Are are we doing anything though with sort of like speed cameras or or our red light systems that no longer we can send out sort of the penalties, the financial penalties, but something where we are actually using that to educate the folks that are infringing on our roadway rules, the the like high, high costs that these kinds of infringements are actually taking on a societal toll? Are we doing anything like where we use uh someone running a red light where we have a red light camera and feeding that into something you can still we could still send something in the mail to actually make sure that we're reaching the people that are having those?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_07", "start": 7798.025, "end": 7812.125, "text": "So my understanding with that is that we can't do that because we're breaching all data protection in relation to the vehicles. The vehicles when we speak to people have got to be an enforcement and not a warning. We're not we haven't done that for some time.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 7812.885, "end": 7813.125, "text": "Right.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_07", "start": 7813.305, "end": 7825.665, "text": "But it was discussed because the green light cameras, the speed on greens, that we we could collect the data of the amount of cars that are going through at speed, but we're not allowed to follow up with the information", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 7825.665, "end": 7826.585, "text": "The individuals,", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_07", "start": 7826.585, "end": 7826.825, "text": "yet.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 7827.205, "end": 7982.845, "text": "even in an information capacity. Okay. Um let's go into maybe some of the actual changes that we're sort of seeing on the road. Um I think actually Councillor Clark hit on something that is super, super important. We need to stop studying things so much. There is a high cost to studying an intersection, understanding the number of people that are crossing as pedestrians and whatever, and there is uh you know, a comparative cost on maybe just Painting two white lines that make it a little bit better for a pedestrian. I think that we need to sort of reset our threshold for when a traffic study is warranted in an area versus when we can just come in and do the work because of what we're hearing and seeing in the neighborhood. And I like while we don't necessarily want to have negative impacts to a certain degree on the mobility within, there also just needs to be a certain level where is it warranted? I think like a warrant, there's the warrant side of like, does this warrant the change, but also what's the cost on the other side to change something into just uh painted lines? It seems like we could probably do that for cheaper than actually running the study. And is there anywhere where painted lines are not a benefit? Maybe changing to a stop sign in all four directions does change the traffic pattern. But also, are there ways in which we can sometimes shortcut that because we can actually just sort of make those determinations quicker than running traffic studies, putting things into a queue, and giving people this sort of like unnecessary sense that they are sort of having to continue to play the game to advocate for something that we know we need to tackle, that Calgarians have asked us to tackle. Are there ways in which we can speed those processes along and remove some of the red tape, as it were, the data? Sure, we want data. When data is appropriate to help us make informed decisions. But ultimately, if data is just getting in the way of us delivering good service and good safety for, then I would argue that that data is becoming an impediment and is adding to the overall number of injuries and deaths we're seeing on our roads.", "segments_merged": 12 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 7985.105, "end": 8022.925, "text": "So for sure, it is a is about it is a balance, you know, from a data perspective, it can be very helpful. We do know that certain things we want to get to a point where eventually they're implemented citywide. And we are doing that with some of our measures where, you know, instead of uh going one location at a time, we will either change our practice or just deploy citywide. One example was the in street uh pedestrian signs that were deployed at every school uh several years ago. Uh we're currently in the process of evaluating that measure, but uh again, that's something that we we hope to do more and more.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 8023.825, "end": 8156.445, "text": "Okay, yeah, I think we need to speed. I think speed is of the essence, and sort of like we might actually have to step away from the Transportation Association traffic signal warrant system a little bit to actually just meet this moment, right? This is an emergency. Emergency doesn't make us sort of follow rigid rules. We need to act and we need to innovate. And I guess on the innovation side, I um I'm a little concerned, to be honest, that sort of like the pieces that uh we're talking about in terms of uh innovation is like um a couple more RRFBs, um an AI system that we'll talk about that in a minute. Um This speed cushions, like like where how many raised crosswalks have we installed over the last year? How are we changing our road design standards in new communities that we're turning on? How are we making sure that we don't have to come in there 10 years later to fix the problematic pedestrian realm because we just didn't do that in the first place? Like I'm not, I guess I'm I'm not seeing the changes. There's the investment and the changes that are being made because of that investment. But where are the changes and the innovation? Uh, you know, the one the one thing that I noted reading through here was like we've got the leading pedestrian interval program where we're starting to sort of roll that out, but we're now maybe going to a leading pedestrian through to help with like throughput of traffic. Not great. Like, like it's not the right priority when. Almost 50% of the injuries and deaths we're having on our roads is pedestrians, right? Um and then when I look at the data, yeah, these things, it's like we're not solving for those things. So I don't know, are you are there certain areas in which we're doing innovation that are not maybe within this report, things that we're exploring that are really focused on tackling these pieces? Because I'm quite worried that like just turning on things to a slightly higher level than what we've been doing in the past is not going to meet this bending curve upwards.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_12", "start": 8159.205, "end": 8209.925, "text": "Councillor, thank you for the question. One of the areas we are working, exactly what you said, is the curve extensions program. Through the various schools related studies as part of the Active and Safe Roots to School, we've heard over and over again that. Crosswalks are too long for the pedestrians to cross and roadways are very wide, so we need to get those curve extensions. So that's the reason we started with temporary curve extensions and now consistently making them permanent. However, as a proactive approach, when we do the development reviews, we have requested to include those curve extensions where we think, based on our past experience, that they will be beneficial. We have started seeing those changes in the development stage now.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 8211.965, "end": 8245.645, "text": "Just to build on that, we are we're working on a raised crosswalk pilot. So we did install a couple last year and we want to expand the use of them. So we will be introducing a pilot to implement more of those. And then also wanted to share that essentially, you know, we we are dealing with retrofit and we are looking for you know our partners who are working on the streets manual to make sure that you know everything in the future uh can be done better as than it has in the past.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 8245.705, "end": 8332.225, "text": "Yeah. For new builds, yeah. Let's go into the school side of things. That's that's a big part of this report is a focus sort of on school areas, which I think is important. But it I'm also having a hard time because actually when I look at the data, the number of sort of like injury where we're seeing that is actually maybe not as much around school sites. Sort of so I guess I'm I'm the difference maybe between um there's the perception, and we obviously we don't want any children to be injured going to school, coming home from school. Very important to be doing. Um but I worry a little bit that this is about tackling perceptions of safety and and for sure our most vulnerable folks, you know, our kids who we we want to be able to get to school safely, but But that's not when where the places we're seeing the collisions taking place, like it's not necessarily playground zones. It's not where the speed is being reduced. And so, yes, we should be putting in more speed humps and curb extensions around schools, but there's also is that going to help us actually tackle the deaths and injuries we're seeing on our roads versus giving the perceptions which make it so that I can trust a little bit more that I can let my kid walk to school, which is important for sure. but also not necessarily actually tackling the issue at hand.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 8334.025, "end": 8376.245, "text": "So I think we're doing both, right? So there is a role that we play in terms of making things more safe in the neighborhood where the you know the Calgary's perception of a conflict and the perception of that is highly is higher. However, obviously we are doing a lot and we're increasing the amount of things that we do at the locations where we are seeing the most severe outcomes. We are conducting corridor studies at along the corridors that we have identified as higher risk, and we will be improving, making improvements at them as we move forward. So that is, you know, we're doing this and that.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 8377.285, "end": 8378.985, "text": "At the same time, yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 8378.985, "end": 8404.545, "text": "At the same time. Just they're very different things because again, you know, most of our complaints aren't on, you know, the the higher speed arterials because the numbers of of of pedestrians or people utilizing them is lower. And you know, a lot of the times it's a perception issue as well, where it's actually, you know, the intersections and the signals that are exist there that are the biggest issue. Um that really is rooted from the fact that, you know, it's people just not following the rules that we expect them to follow yet.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 8404.605, "end": 8548.805, "text": "Right. Well, and that's where the data is supposed to come in, right? And so I guess like that's a hard thing that I'm having with all this is that we have this warrist system, right, for and to sort of make the changes, um, but it that often has to come after people are injured and all these kinds of sort of pieces to sort of line up, right? Um so how we actually start correcting this and then to sort of see that we are having in theory a data-led um decision making around this and where we're actually making the applications, but the numbers are going up and the and then the focus of the changes is more on in areas where we're actually we're not sort of seeing, so I'm just having a hard time. Like we need to be doing both, absolutely. Um But if we're if we're changing the perceptions but not actually having real impacts on the outcomes, there's a mismatch there, right? And I I see it in things like the left-hand turn, right? A lot of the funds that were applied in this last tranche of funding from 2026 were applied to left hand turn improvements. And you dig into the data, and that's actually not where we're seeing as much of the impacts of collisions. It's a part of it, it's a piece of it overall. Um, but it's also not focused on. I think we need to really focus this around pedestrians. Like Yes, car on car. Collisions are terrible, absolutely. But when you've got pedestrians making up almost half of the overall collision fatalities, and where we see the vast heavy amounts of injuries, we need to be making sure that we're applying our funds and the changes we're making on our roadways specifically to pedestrian improvements. And I don't know like whether we have that mix right yet based on sort of the list of improvements that we saw there. I don't know if you've you've got thoughts around that, but I I'm I'm seeing that as sort of a we're we're we've got the data, we know where the the pieces are, we're making improvements to the roadway network and the flow and vehicle sort of side of things, and not focusing on the pedestrian realm.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 8549.685, "end": 8569.405, "text": "So I'd just like to add that in the in the list there are quite a few improvements that are improvements to pedestrian crosswalks. So in certain situations, if you see a new signal, that a lot of the new signals are being built to facilitate pedestrian crossings and safety. So maybe that just the clarity of that didn't translate.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 8569.685, "end": 8609.265, "text": "To the okay. Um gateways into neighborhoods, great in older or newer neighborhoods where you've got usually a couple of ways in and a couple ways out that are sort of the transitions between speed and the neighborhood, not as great in neighborhoods like mine that are gridded networks that are coming in off of 14th Street or coming off of our high roadway or high speed roadways that come in and around. What is the approach that you are taking in established inner city neighborhoods and how is that different? Because that is a huge proportion of where we are seeing the impacts and injuries in our neighborhoods.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 8610.985, "end": 8646.505, "text": "So our community temporary corridor safety improvements is a, you know, it's not really a program, but we have been growing to the way they are deployed. And meanwhile, they can be applied to newer neighborhoods. They can also work well in older neighborhoods, like for example, Kensington Road, where we have seen, I believe, uh collision reductions up to 40%. 40 to 50 percent as a result of those changes that were made. So again, we want to grow those programs, make sure that we're doing that in more places across the city where it's needed most.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 8646.665, "end": 8689.245, "text": "Right. But it and that but that's doable in in Newer neighborhoods where you have gateways into a neighborhood and then you're going into curvilinear sort of neighborhoods and streets and you're coming off of Country Hills Boulevard into Arbor Lake or what have you. But it's a lot more difficult when every single street off of 14th Street turns into Capitol Hill. Or it's right, uh it's more difficult when every single street off of Center Street is turning off into Crescent Heights. So what are we doing to specifically focus on older established neighborhoods that have high speed roads running through them? And we know that the data shows that they're so what is the different approach? Because we need a different approach, right?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 8689.805, "end": 8746.025, "text": "So, as as I mentioned, a lot of the times for the way we've done it is just like focusing on the entire length of roadway because some of times within um, you know. Areas that see more pedestrian use, you actually there, you know, it's not like it it drops through the main segment of it, right? Like it the need is the same everywhere. Uh, however, you know, a lot of the times we do have opportunities at transitions from higher speed roadways. So, like for example, you know, whether it's people coming off a crow child, uh, I think there's behavioral things that come up where uh people tend to be in a certain mindset, and the first time we can slow them down and get them to a more appropriate speed, uh their frame of mind changes. So, again, I think that some of those gateway treatment principles are probably applicable also to those communities, but we would need to consistently do it at all entrances.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 8747.485, "end": 8897.085, "text": "Okay. Um I guess the last sort of thing I'll sort of pick on is I'm kind of to be honest, kind of like I'm not a fan of this recommendation in that like where are the policy change recommendations? We are in a moment right now where the curve is going in the wrong direction. It was a bad baseline to begin with. We should be at zero, uh, but the curve is going up. And I guess I think I had I had maybe, and I don't know, maybe this is not the place or or or what have you for this, but I just was expecting or would expect that with what the trends that we're seeing, that there would be policy recommendations coming from you as a part of this report where we as council make changes to how roadways are being used to start tackling this. Um I'm I'm not sure if that's something that you're working on. Um, if there maybe you don't actually need that because you're able to pursue those changes. On your own, but you know, we made the change to 40 kilometers an hour. Speed noted very heavily through the report as a as a high factor, and we've seen that actually the reduction to 40 kilometers an hour has helped with the number of injuries and and fatalities there. But we also know that like air jury, it's 30 kilometers an hour, because they went fully to 30 kilometers an hour right off the go. Uh and so while there was potentially public backlash at the point at which we brought in 40 kilometers an hour, uh how do we continue to Make those pieces and and why are we not making the brave recommendations from you, administration, whether we decide to take them on politically, that is the choice of us to sort of make that call. But I where's the professional opinion and the sort of policy change recommendations that should be coming forward to really heavily tackle this? Money is one piece, and I'm happy to sort of support in those pieces in the ways that I can. But policy plays also a huge part in this, and I don't see any recommendations to sort of pursue new policies coming forward with this. Any policies in the works, any things, any thoughts around why those pieces are not before us today?", "segments_merged": 11 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 8898.865, "end": 8927.845, "text": "Uh so I think we are, you know, we do a lot of work when it comes to uh the way existing um, you know, processes work and then uh attempt to learn Where we can do more and create the guidelines around them. So there are a few things that we have been working on. There's other ones that we will be focusing on in the future. And if if if it didn't come through, we'll try to focus on that in future updates.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 8928.265, "end": 8930.145, "text": "Okay. I'll leave it there for now. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 8931.985, "end": 8948.785, "text": "Thank you, Councillor Atkinson. I believe over to Councillor. Oh. I think. Councillor Kelly, you're in the queue? Yeah, I think Councillor Johnson was looking for a round two, but uh you want to go.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 8949.205, "end": 8955.865, "text": "I don't I don't mind letting him go first. That's okay. Because a lot of what his questioning before is uh very relevant to how I'm feeling. So", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 8955.865, "end": 8956.045, "text": "He's up", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 8956.045, "end": 8956.565, "text": "for it, I'm happy.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 8956.565, "end": 8959.085, "text": "to over to Councillor Johnson for round two.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 8959.805, "end": 9203.885, "text": "Uh thank you, Councillor Kelly. And uh at first when uh Councillor Atkinson was saying um well first off we need more data, but then saying we need less studies Uh it didn't make sense to me at first, but now thinking back to a bunch of uh Ward 14 uh traffic issues, it always came back to well, we have to do a traffic study, or a traffic study was done, or we're doing one right now, and then in the end nothing gets done, and then more accidents happen. And I'm starting to pull my hair out trying to figure out why a simple putting up a a bigger stop sign because. Um, you know, in the wintertime it's hard to see, um, or as simple as uh putting up uh yeah, road bomb somewhere kind of thing. Like I I think he hit the nail on the head here is that we need to deregulate safety implementation because we're not starting with nothing. We've been starting with a hundred years of safety data, right? So I I I'm I'm actually hundred percent on board with uh Councillor Atkinson here that. You guys haven't brought us anything. Like you you brought us some problems. We already know what the problems were. And a lot of the solutions actually reside in the department itself. And I guess I mean he's already asked all these questions, but it's frustrating. It's frustrating that people in our neighborhoods are dying or constituents are getting hit. And, you know, only as counselors can we advocate, and we're not allowed to. Um, directly tell administration, please go put up a frickin' 30k sign on this road, right? Whereas I don't know, let's say other neighborhoods have 30k signs in specific areas, but then in our neighborhoods they're not there. Or um I mean we have on one of our roads here, they are doing U turns at a specific new set of traffic lights, and um The question I had was, well, why couldn't we put a no U-turn at this set of lights? Oh, well, that's not regulatory. But then I drive to Seton and there's a no U turn. And then the question was, or no, the answer was, well, if people see a no U turn here, they'll think they can do U turns everywhere else. Well, that's not the problem for us. The problem is that they're do doing U turns at a specific traffic light to get around um a certain traffic uh Um build up on Chaparral Valley Drive or whatever and Sony Trail. And again, our answer we get from administration is just no, no, no, no. But then it's like, well, that simple fix could potentially save somebody getting hit. And now I hold my breath every single time I hear a traffic accident or a pedestrian that well, is it somewhere where we had made a suggestion or the neighborhood made a suggestion? And then administered, well, we have to do this, we have to do this. Whereas it's simple as just putting it out there. And so I think I'm at the point where. No, we should not be sending this on to council. We should be sending this back to admin and come to us with some solutions or a way that you're going to deregulate safety implementation so that it gets out there sooner, right? If it's funding, well, this is a priority of this council to ensure that our roads are safe. And if you guys don't know that yet, then you better start watching some of our council meetings because it is. So yeah, I'm a little frustrated with this because it's a Issue right across the city. So I think you guys can do better. And I really hope you do. So um I'll just use this as my debate. So uh thank you, Councillor Atkinson, for your questioning.", "segments_merged": 45 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 9204.985, "end": 9211.885, "text": "Thank you, Councillor Johnston. Uh And over to I don't see Council Cali, but over to you.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 9212.985, "end": 9335.885, "text": "Yeah, I'll uh I want to recognize where Councillor Johnson was going right there, right? Like right now we're in uh questions of clarification to administration. Um but I'll admit like I'm struggling with what the right questions are to ask because if you'll allow me for a moment, uh Pedestrian safety is far and away the number one thing that we get calls and emails about in our office. Like it's not even close. And when I look at the council priorities that we put forward for the next four-year budget, number one, reliable and sustainable infrastructure. Obviously, our transportation network, our mobility network is uh one of the most important uh um pieces of that infrastructure. Number two, safe city. That's exactly what we're talking about here with the uh Safer Mobility Plan. And three, be three is the functional transportation network. Again, what we're talking about here. So our top three priorities are all rolled up into this particular uh item that we're we're talking about here today. Um Part of the reason why I let my colleagues sort of go first and I kind of waited to enter the queue is because I was hoping that like questions would emerge for me. Uh I went into the back even just a pace because I was like that. I share, I think you've heard from the majority of my colleagues a sense of frustration that we're sort of stuck in a morass here of wanting to do something but not knowing what the thing to do is. Um are you hearing that same frustration today? And further, is that sense of frustration, does it exist within within your your your um business unit as well? Like I'm trying to get a bit of a sense in terms of uh if we're all sort of feeling the same the same thing here.", "segments_merged": 11 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 9339.265, "end": 9430.785, "text": "I think we are. We've been, you know, looking at various locations over the years and uh we know that you know there's certain spots where we're seeing issues. And you know, we've had uh for example, you know, the typical process is for us to do an in-service road safety review. We identify what issues exist based on the collision data, which you know at higher uh locations, high collision locations, we have actually a lot of data. So we have a lot of uh information about what is the highest risk things that are happening that we want to address. Uh, however, you know, it's not just these locations. There's a lot of what we'd consider one offs everywhere, where the risk is slightly lower, these high collision locations, but it's fairly uniform for an entire arterial corridor, for example. So just the scale of what would need to be done in order to get those speeds lower is like in the built form. Right, like we've built that road in a way that we've built it. Um and I know that you know having conversations with the folks at the uh Street Manual, you know, 50 kilometers arterials are are the way of the future. We're going to just have those. But in the meantime, we do have a lot of things on our network that was built to a standard of the day many years ago that you know doesn't really incorporate those best principles that that we know of today.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 9432.405, "end": 9564.985, "text": "And I I I I'm hearing what you're saying there, and I think that for us, what sort of where that frustration kind of uh kind of comes to, if I can speak on behalf of my colleagues for a moment, is that we want to get to the solution, whether it's a design solution or uh uh potentially an enforcement solution. Um but when we Don't know why the thing is happening. It becomes really hard to figure out what what the right solution is. And uh um, clerks, if you wouldn't mind going to slide uh what's this four? Um I think for me, where it kind of comes back to is that it's back to the data, and I kind of want to echo back to Councillor Johnston's questions uh the first time around and and uh even uh Councillor tyres at the very at the very big very beginning here. Um We have 27,609 accidents. That's a lot, that should be a lot of data. Where where's the data? Like I was almost looking for a hyperlink here to like take us to an open uh an open data portal where we can see it. And on that note, actually, maybe I should just like really quickly shout out to Sarah Palmer from LiveWire Calgary, who mapped some of the data that that she was able to find. And I actually found that map to be. More helpful than sort of like half the presentation because when you look at it on a map and and you you can start to see, at least in Ward 4, for example, like, oh, we've got problems on like three or four streets. What do those streets have in common? Okay, like I can start to picture what are the in interventions that are actually needed. And when I go to um uh attachment three and I look and I look at like the charts that are in there, the data's not popping out to me in the same way. Those charts are a lot more um, the tables are a lot more sort of like academic, whereas um when I'm looking at this. Um how do uh do we have the data, in your opinion, that we need in order to be able to make r recommendations for interventions?", "segments_merged": 11 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 9567.245, "end": 9644.785, "text": "Uh so from the data perspective, uh I think what you're alluding to is uh you know we are constrained with the provincial data agreements and the way that we share our data, the data that we have access to, uh, because it is not our data. So I think that is part of the issue maybe that you're you're we're seeing here. Uh another issue is that when you look at the different types of severities, the trends are actually quite different. So, like for example, if we're talking about overall numbers of data, which is primarily driven by the property damage-only collisions, you will see certain trends. But with Vision Zero, what we're trying to do is counteract the most severe collision types. So, you know, several years back with the new safer mobility plan iteration, uh, we've changed our approach to look at major injury and fatal collisions combined just to make sure that we're looking at where the risk of dose is the highest, because that's what we're trying to focus on. But in the meantime, what's also emerging is that there's a different situation for fatalities in general too, where maybe they don't follow the same trends as major injuries. So it's all slightly different and the level of severity you look at will show you a different picture as well.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 9646.025, "end": 9682.605, "text": "Maybe I'll just uh uh dig in on that data question just a little bit there because something that's not sort of jumping out at me from the report is just uh around where like where are these uh incidents occurring? Are they are they on uh open streets, are they at intersections, are they like that part I didn't see. I got I got in here in terms of what type of road it is. Uh and then anytime we talk about an intervent intervention, we we list an intersection, but I can't tell if that's just meant to be like location data or if that's actually, no, the problem is at that particular intersection.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 9684.005, "end": 9688.585, "text": "So I think if I understand correctly,", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 9688.585, "end": 9707.205, "text": "I'll c I'll clarify just I mean like uh where where are the the the incidents occurring? Are they like on the on the overall? Is it primarily at intersections? Is it primarily at uh crosswalks in the middle of a roadway? Uh is it primarily on open road? Where where are we seeing the the incidents?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 9707.205, "end": 9727.345, "text": "so primarily uh if you look at, you know, obviously it's it's complicated, so it's kind of everywhere a little bit, but when you looked at the biggest trends, uh they tend to be on arterial roadways, they tend to be at intersections in those locations, although sometimes you know they do happen with uh uh mid block locations, most of them are at intersections.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 9727.825, "end": 9732.585, "text": "And when you say those uh those incidents, are you talking about all or are you talking about the pedestrian involved?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 9732.625, "end": 9734.525, "text": "I I'm I'm thinking about pedestrians.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 9734.725, "end": 9761.925, "text": "Thank you. That that that's actually for me, that's kind of the for I think it if we can solve the pedestrian one, we start to actually also address the uh um the the vehicle on vehicle as well. But the pedestrian is at least if the two people are in cars, they have a chance. But if you're involving a uh an individual uh against a vehicle, I that's that's obviously a much higher likelihood of a fatality. Um the data", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 9761.925, "end": 9776.285, "text": "Councillor Kelly, I didn't sorry, I didn't mean to disturb uh I didn't mean to interfere. Uh can we take get a consent to finish this agenda item before we take break? Okay, great. Is that uh good for you, uh clerks?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 9777.685, "end": 9778.285, "text": "Yes, that's fine.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 9778.585, "end": 9779.965, "text": "Okay, thing. Go ahead.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 9782.085, "end": 9798.485, "text": "That's all good. You still had like seven minutes to ask that question. It's all good. Uh on the data sharing side of things, I just uh uh who are the data sharing agreements with that you don't have access to right now and how do we go about getting uh uh appropriate data sharing agreements in place?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 9799.285, "end": 9810.625, "text": "So it's with the government of Alberta, and uh I'm not familiar with all the details. It is our data group that deals with this. So uh we I we could follow up if you wanted more details.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 9810.905, "end": 9916.825, "text": "It sounds to me like you need the data. Uh, so I would strongly encourage you to follow up with the group to get it to get it. And if you need any assistance from council, I think we'd be more than happy to provide that assistance. Um if I may, uh sorry, I'm just gonna try to get to the right spot here for my question. Uh attachment to clerks, uh pages uh seven and eight. Um I want to just talk about your focus area targets here. Um the two charts on pages seven and eight uh are showing an upward trajectory, but you are targeting a pretty significant decline. As in, we're not looking to uh we're not looking to continue a trend, we're looking to completely reverse a trend. Um To completely reverse a trend, like I I think Councillor Atkinson was sort of uh bringing this up earlier in terms of like that'll require some major policy decisions or some major uh uh requests for investments. I see from the uh from the recommendation that you're looking for permission to consider uh uh can uh in the four year budget uh an acceleration uh in terms of here. If we do that, knowing the uh The prioritization matrix that's being applied to our budget, uh, to our our budget prioritization, do you do you foresee this trend, this, this target being achievable?", "segments_merged": 13 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 9921.465, "end": 9946.065, "text": "So the targets were set as part of the safe room mobility plan uh of 25% collision reduction uh for overall and for vulnerable road users. Uh Again, it's we're not trending in the right direction. That's really essentially what we do know. And how we get there, you know, we do have to have those conversations.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 9947.285, "end": 9977.585, "text": "Well, and I think that that's actually exactly what I'm trying to get at is that like it do we have a plan to get there? I guess is maybe the starting point. And then the second part of that is if we do have a plan to get there, Do we know if the interventions that you are proposing in order to get to that 25% reduction are they going to be above the line, so to speak, in the budget uh prioritization exercise that administration's currently undertaking?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_25", "start": 9978.485, "end": 10039.125, "text": "So again, there's no guarantees because it it's such a complicated, like traffic safety is so complicated, right? With so many different factors contributed to it. Whether and many of those things as we as we try to put through are outside of our control. So it it is a complicated thing. Where we do have influence, we are doing the things that are making the most impact. We're making changes at high collision locations where we know that without those changes, those collisions will keep occurring. We're you know improving pedestrian safety as much as possible and targeting the highest locations that we know have the highest risk. We're doing everything that we can within. the original like the existing budgets and such. Uh we do have a consultant, um Raheem, that he can speak to what other jurisdictions are potentially doing maybe that can uh provide more information of that if you'd like.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 10039.205, "end": 10071.685, "text": "Yeah, I'm actually really glad you bring that up because that was going to be my next line of questioning exactly. Is I think that we've probably exhausted for the most part the like what's going on in Alberta and the trend. In the report, you did an excellent job in terms of comparing us, as we can see from these here to Toronto and Vancouver as well. And we can see the the trends that they're having there. So I'm I'm kind of curious, in terms of instead of focusing on what we're doing wrong, could we for a few minutes actually focus on what others are doing right and what we can steal from them in our jurisdiction?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 10073.185, "end": 10440.065, "text": "Sure, thank you. I'm Raheem Dilgi, I'm a consultant supporting Safe Mobility team. Yeah, I'm happy to to share um in my experience um what some of the other cities, comparable cities, uh large cities across Canada are doing. And first I I wanna say though that The conversation that I'm hearing here today is quite similar to a lot of cities. Cities are putting in a lot of interventions but not quite seeing the results that are, of course, hoped or expected. There's a lot of very specific contextual factors. I think Ms. Domerad referred to the fact that Calgary is a very, you know, large urban, a lot of high-speed roads, which makes it more challenging and what it makes it increases the need for a little bit more of a maybe a creative approach. An approach that will have a lot more implications for the public that may be controversial. But you know, that maybe is an area that we need to go further in order to achieve the objectives that have been set and that we want to. So let me let me talk briefly first about Edmonton because I obviously are provincial neighbor, immediate neighbor to the north. So they've had a safe mobility plan, they call it the Safe Mobility Strategy, for a number of years. And what they what their initial approach was that made uh quite uh an impact was to identify three or four really positive changes and implement them at as many locations as they could. Um I can get into what those are if if we have time, but but but that was generally the uh the approach. They saw some significant reductions. Um but then The numbers start creeping up. And then you need to then uh so they've slowly moved towards, and I know the city city of Calgary has as well, a more systemic approach, which Ms. Domerad referred to, that you know, there's few things, little happening everywhere. You don't know where some of the collisions are going to manifest themselves, right, due to the same issue. And a lot of the behavioral related issues don't necessarily manifest themselves at one, you know, a signalized location or unsignalized or tier local, it could be anywhere. So there's some uh systemic changes that that city of Edmonton, for example, has moved to. Speed is a factor in all of in all collisions, and so that's one area where the city of Edmonton started, and and Calgary has also you know put in that um uh reduced speed limit in a number of uh the the the lower class roads where um Edmonton is starting, and I'm gonna say Toronto has done a lot more is moving some of the similar principles to the higher class roads. So, and and I was just in Toronto yesterday. It's really, really apparent how many or the proportion of arterial roads that have 40 kilometer an hour speed limits. It's actually quite staggering. Um and it's increasing. And Toronto is seeing the benefits. So uh although you know you need to look at the context, yes, Toronto is is quite you know a dense city, obviously, huge population. There may be more opportunities here on some higher class roads. And and um And of course, just changing the speed limits not necessarily going to make that difference. So what uh Mr. Omar had mentioned, the city of Calgary is piloted are some raised platforms. That's something you see a lot of in Toronto. Raised crosswalks, raised intersections, things that actually physically force you to reduce your speed and not just the speed limit sign. And then it actually seems a little bit more reasonable to people to be able to go that speed. Having parked vehicles, so uh a lot of the time they've taken out a vehicle lane and replaced it with like a bike lane slash parking or and parking lane, whatever they could fit. And that also, even the on street parking or the bike lanes have that feature of reducing speeds. So in reducing speed, I think I said increasing, reducing speeds on arterial roads, I think is maybe one area where we may, you know, uh I think pilots have started, but that uh that can continue. Uh another thing that Toronto has done um uh very well a and and I know the city has in many instances uh c Calgary has in many instances as well, is trying to put in Um, like changing their design standards and trying to change it absolutely everywhere. So obviously a huge network in Toronto. But you you drive down the road or walk down there, and you can see, for example, the tight turn turning radius at just about every intersection, along with all the accessibility features. They've really blanketed the network with a number of these good uh good practices that uh hopefully will improve pedestrian safety as well by reducing right turn speeds because that's where a lot of the collisions happen. Um so I I don't know, I don't want to take up too much time, but maybe that that's a few examples of um uh where um uh Toronto and Edmonton have gone. Edmonton's numbers have have have gone up as was alluded to in the presentation. Um one thing that they um have reported, and in fact, their Soy Safe Mobility Plan or strategy just went to their urban development committee, I think it was uh yesterday, and they've approved uh doubling of their of their funding to be able to reverse the numbers the same way we're talking about reversing the numbers here. Uh one of the things that they reported is uh since the um automated traffic enforcement kind of started rolling back in I think late 2024, they've seen huge spikes in red light violations. So it's it's it's uh it's just more evidence in addition to what we already had that automated traffic enforcement works, especially speed enforcement and red light uh violation enforcement. So that's something hopefully you know that that you know uh Alberta you know will benefit as a whole, including City of Calgary, is is if if if uh you know some of those uh regulations uh kind of uh come come back and and and and uh and have the benefits. So maybe I'll I'll I'll leave it at that unless there's questions.", "segments_merged": 10 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 10441.865, "end": 10544.525, "text": "Yeah, and I I would say that like please don't apologize. That this is this conversation here is the exact opposite of wasting our time. Like this is, I think, what you were getting a sense from earlier that we want to actually hear is we want to hear what are the ideas, what are the things that we're gonna do, and why are we why are why are those the things that we should be doing. Um, clerks, if you wouldn't mind just going back to the presentation just with slide 14. Um we probably should have pulled this up earlier, but just uh I think this is the first of your supplemental slides. Um, committee, we can see pretty clearly here that um Vancouver and Toronto are are um uh doing something. That's working and Calgary and Edmonton are very much on the same sort of trajectory here when we take a look at these. Um I may chair, leave it here, but I I've already had many conversations and working on a notice of motion to uh uh uh accelerate local or pardon me um uh uh leading pedestrian intervals because I think that that is absolutely one of the tools that we if we can create some separation between uh vehicles and uh and people is one of them. But uh I am happy to have a conversation with uh with the uh with the mobility team here because um I think that uh the other one that stood out for me there was the raised crosswalks, is another one of those things because if distraction is the biggest thing that we're that we're facing, we need to put appropriate things in place that will cause people to break their distraction. And uh both of those items uh uh do that. So um I'll maybe leave it there, Chair, and uh thank you for your time.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 10545.925, "end": 10548.165, "text": "Thank you, Council Cali. Over to Councillor Clark.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_09", "start": 10548.325, "end": 10672.805, "text": "Yeah, thank you. A robust conversation about something very important. So I really appreciate it. I'm going to speak in plain language, I think, about it. I I find the insights from Toronto very interesting because one of the things you've highlighted here are these raised crosswalks. And there's a lot of emphasis on our major roads in the city, and I do appreciate that. But uh again, for what I'm hearing in my neighborhoods, these are residential concerns, these are mid block, these are at residential intersections. And You've just confirmed for us that we've got opportunities to implement simple measures to deliver potential results. And what we are running into here at the city of Calgary is an inability to get through the perceived study requirements to get some of this done. And I'll just uh to go back to my original uh conversation that I had when I brought this forward. Uh we did go on a tour at Southview and had conversations with folks there. And some of those issues were brought forward to city administration over a year ago. So they'd already done this. I was like just a new Councillor. They're representing old concerns to us on 26th Avenue, in which we almost got hit as a group walking across the intersection because somebody was speeding on a no lined road. So I just, in plain language, uh we are not implementing fast enough. Really basic measures to ensure resident safety in their own neighborhoods. And so that's where we're at. I'm happy to lend my support and my help as to how we get there. If we need to review the way in which we approach this work, glad to roll up my sleeves and lend a hand. But uh like I say, it's this I I don't have much to say about the report. I appreciate it coming forward. Not a lot in terms of what how do we deliver outcomes, which is unfortunate. But uh I think this conversation's been productive in that regard. And that's all. I'll I'll consider that debate. Thank you. Thank you, Council Clark. Over to Council Johnson.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 10673.925, "end": 10714.105, "text": "Yeah, a quick question about uh consultant, and I think uh Councillor Clark kind of nailed it here, but I mean, d does our own city employees require a consultant? Look just shortstop, why do we require a consultant? Like I I no offense to the consultant, but a lot of what he said was took me two seconds to Google search that. And then why are we not implementing what he is saying to do? Why are we piloting something that's already been done in other jurisdictions? So, question is why do we need a consultant and how much are we paying the consultant?", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 10726.165, "end": 10730.425, "text": "Councillor Johnston, be patient. Uh Director McLeod is making his way here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_06", "start": 10731.345, "end": 10831.725, "text": "Troy McLeod, Director of Mobility. So Councillor Johnson, one of the things we want to do is make sure we're taking every possible opportunity to improve safety in our city and using expertise from industry so that we can apply it in our city. We are making rapid response implementation as part of the additional funding that council did give us with respect to the additional $7.5 million in association with our safer mobility plan. The support from the Calgary Police Service as well. We have a joint policy that we work with Calgary Police. We've stood up an office of traffic safety within mobility within the traffic section. And so we're making every opportunity to improve safety across the city with countermeasures. But the other element, and I think we haven't talked about it enough, is around the propensity of people distracted and the culture that's being supported through the automated traffic enforcement reduction. In the city of Edmonton, they have data where they have about 130% increase in red light violations with the declination of the automated traffic enforcement. So there are a number of factors. It's not just engineering, it's compliance. And what we need in our city is greater compliance and uh support uh when it comes to that. And the Calgary Police Service has done a wonderful job. We also have an office uh dedicated through the bylaw uh group that does uh safety enforcement uh at schools as well as some other noise enforcement. Uh but these are activities that are making a difference. Uh but we're seeing both cities. I'll just finish I'll just finish off real quick. Both cities are seeing about a 20% increase in serious.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 10831.725, "end": 10835.825, "text": "So please let me ask my question and I would appreciate the answer it.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_06", "start": 10835.825, "end": 10836.145, "text": "Sure.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 10836.145, "end": 10837.605, "text": "Why do we need a consultant?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_06", "start": 10838.685, "end": 10863.585, "text": "We we wanted to ensure that we were uh providing the best information we could for council as part of this update. Uh we have provided this information in the past and we wanted to get expertise from the industry because of the increase we're seeing. It's significant in our city, uh both in Edmonton and Calgary, and so we wanted to make sure we adopted the expertise that we could. As far as the cost of the consultant, I would have to uh get a reference back to. I don't have that in front of me.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 10864.525, "end": 10871.085, "text": "So why wouldn't we just hire the consultant and fire some of the people in mobility? If that's what we need.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 10871.085, "end": 10904.105, "text": "Councillor Johnston, I'm gonna stop you there, please. How many times I've said like these kind of comments, they are not appreciated on the council floor. Um, we shouldn't be doing this. They are here serving the residents of Calgary. They're giving their best professional recommendation to us. And if as a council or committee we don't like it, we can reject it or we can accept it. But we cannot be having this discussion right on the council floor. And uh and and yes, please, I I with all due respect, I ask you to please um take your words back.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 10905.085, "end": 10942.505, "text": "No. Sorry. This is our job to be governors and I'm asking the questions that constituents are asking me to ask them. So no, I'm not taking my words back. This is their job to answer our questions. And to be honest, this is their job and they're failing at it. And so I'm sorry, Chair, but I'll no, um I'm sorry. I'm not asking anything that's inappropriate. I'm literally asking them why, right? Why are we here? Why are we spending all this money on employees and we are hitting roadblocks every single day with who we have right now? So no, I'm not taking my words back.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 10942.545, "end": 10964.845, "text": "That's fine. But I would I would recommend you not to make these comments, please. We are like you said, we are a board of directors. Our job is to govern and our only employee is the CAO of this organization. And if you have concerns regarding anything related to HR, I think David Duckworth is the right person for you to talk to. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 10964.965, "end": 10989.945, "text": "Um yeah, I'm well aware of that. Thank you, Chair. Um, okay, so Mr. McLeod, why are we hiring a consultant that's giving us giving us answers? And why aren't we implementing these answers? Why are we setting up a pilot project that has already existed in other jurisdictions? Why aren't we just doing what other jurisdictions have already implemented? Why do we need a pilot for Calgary?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_06", "start": 10990.525, "end": 11004.965, "text": "There are a number of countermeasures that are being implemented that uh other cities are doing and we are doing. What we wanted to do is to ensure that we were uh making use of that expertise to uh complete our safer mobility plan update and that is why we chose to do that.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 11006.485, "end": 11048.365, "text": "Okay, well, all I'll leave with is that the results from your department aren't showing, right? We have higher collisions, higher fatalities, um, higher injuries. So s whatever you guys are doing right now isn't working, right? And so again, it shouldn't have to be council direction to deregulate. Safety studies, right? You guys should already see that, be like, okay, well, this works. We're gonna implement this right away as an emergency, like the rest of council has said. So, um, yeah, very, very disappointed um in this department, uh, considering the results we're dealing with with this report you've given us. So um I expect better and I hope to see better. So thank you.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_00", "start": 11049.005, "end": 11049.405, "text": "Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 11052.745, "end": 11090.425, "text": "Thanks, Councillor Johnston. I just wanna I just wanna Very clear for all members of the council. Procedure bylaw, section 114 is very clear. Questions during debate. While administration should provide the best professional judgment on issues, members may not engage in debate with or ask argumentative questions of administration. Let's please this is our own procedure bylaw. And if you want to violate this, then we are not doing good governance. Um I'm sorry, administration.", "segments_merged": 10 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_06", "start": 11090.985, "end": 11091.565, "text": "Thank you, Chair.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 11092.325, "end": 11093.625, "text": "Um I don't", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 11093.625, "end": 11096.865, "text": "Point of privilege, then, Chair. What exactly was argumentative?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 11097.645, "end": 11115.225, "text": "I'm not gonna go into debate here. Uh I'm I'm just reading the procedure by law just for all the members. I didn't I didn't point out you, Council Johnson, just moving forward, that procedural bylaw is very clear about the expectations of the debate or questioning and answering of administration. That's it.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 11116.165, "end": 11140.585, "text": "Okay, well, you're clearly referencing after I spoke, so I would assume you were talking about me. So with all due respect. I just don't it uh to help me going forward, please explain to me what was argumentative or I was debating with um administration. So I was referencing the report they brought us and I was making clear indication that what the report brings is very disturbing and we can do better than that. So", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 11142.245, "end": 11179.705, "text": "Great, thanks. I don't see any uh other questions in in the queue. Um I got a couple. Uh this is this is just so there's two ways you can bring policy. We either council can direct you to change the policy, or you can make a recommendation to change a policy uh as a professional. But this is just an update that is required. That is a council direction you provide to us every year about all the programs that were approved by this council for funding and stuff, right?", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_06", "start": 11179.945, "end": 11181.045, "text": "That's correct, yes chair.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 11181.325, "end": 11189.405, "text": "Thank you. What is your current funding uh for capital to do all these improvements, all this work?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_06", "start": 11190.625, "end": 11205.565, "text": "Currently we received additional funding of 7.5. Our base funding is 5 million. We had one time of just over a million. So between 10 and 15 million for capital for directly related to safety enhancements on the network.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 11205.985, "end": 11216.225, "text": "Great. What is uh what is the what is cap do you know by by what is the capital uh funding for city of Toronto for their mobility department for safety?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_06", "start": 11216.225, "end": 11229.325, "text": "I don't have the city of Toronto. City of Edmonton, I believe they are just approved yesterday close to a hundred and I believe it's 150 million over four years, their 27 to 30 plan. So", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 11229.645, "end": 11231.445, "text": "It's 110 over four years.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_06", "start": 11232.685, "end": 11235.965, "text": "okay, I'm uh also heard just that Toronto's a hundred million a year.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 11237.925, "end": 11239.405, "text": "And ours is fifteen.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_06", "start": 11240.825, "end": 11250.445, "text": "Directly related to safety. There's other improvements that are done on the network that have safety benefits, but these are targeted directly for safety enhancements and countermeasures.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 11250.445, "end": 11270.485, "text": "Okay, great. And if there is some sort of um uh not emotional rising, but some sort of uh referring back to make policy changes and all that. You think you guys have enough time to bring those recommendations back for this council to consider in the next budget cycle, four year budget cycle?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_06", "start": 11270.565, "end": 11278.785, "text": "That's what we're anticipating is to bring forward an additional investment strategy related to uh safer mobility plan. It would be included in our four year plan, yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 11279.425, "end": 11281.605, "text": "Okay, so it's already in the works.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_06", "start": 11281.885, "end": 11283.265, "text": "We are working on that, yes, sir.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 11283.265, "end": 11350.865, "text": "Okay, great. Um my last question is basically um I was looking at 2025 update. It said the city of Edmonton is spending 50 million a year, Toronto 80 million a year. Um just my last question is uh You guys are working with the cards that were dealt to you, the city that was built. I just want to talk about new communities. How much cooperation, collaboration is happening with PDS, planning and development services when they're building new communities that we are not going back and spending all this money to Some a road that was built projecting population of X thousand people and it never materialized. Example, Cornerstone Boulevard in my ward, you can probably land a land a airplane there. So it just I just wanna uh seriously, uh colleagues, go have a look at it. I just want to understand what kind of collaboration, because we are talking about changing policy, but that's one policy I'm always confused about that how much collaboration is happening, what is given to you? Are you getting putting input into that?", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_06", "start": 11351.585, "end": 11389.925, "text": "Uh Chair, I think the one document that I would point to is the streets manual and the work that's being done to provide new standards for future communities. We have great collaboration with planning and the work that's done on ensuring new communities are built. But there are some remnant uh designs, as you had mentioned, that uh would benefit from uh countermeasures with uh uh some redesign. And so future communities, I think we are working towards the 30 and 40 kilometer per hour design speeds, depending on what class road uh we're referring to. And then when it comes to the streets manual, that's a document that will help guide with new development.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 11390.505, "end": 11425.805, "text": "Okay, great. There's two aspects in my opinion. One is engineering design controls, one is education. Yesterday I got off the train, I crossed the road, I was waiting for a ride, and two vehicles didn't even stop at the at the stop sign. We can put as many engineering controls we want to. It's the behavior, behavior and behavior and mannerism. Can we invest more into education through school system, through community associations, through other organizations to educate people more rather than just putting all this many money and expecting people will uh comply to those things?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_06", "start": 11426.045, "end": 11464.505, "text": "100%. That is part of the strategies that education and enforcement improvements. Distraction is a key leading indicator when it comes to contributing to these increasing collisions. And so those types of education and enforcement are really helpful. Calgary Police has done a great job of doing some of that enforcement where they have officers that pull drivers over that are distracted. But you can look yourself and you can see if you're walking that there are a number of people that use their phone, hold their phone while it's driving. These are not helpful when it comes to making our roadways safer. And so it is that culture that we need to change in our city.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 11465.125, "end": 11484.985, "text": "Yeah, my my last question is Vision Zero. We have a target of 425 by major injury and fertility collision target 425 by 2028. How achievable that is given the funding you have today? And if you're bringing a package at budget, are you going to be confident that you will be able to achieve that?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_06", "start": 11486.165, "end": 11516.105, "text": "I think we set the target as far as what we can achieve through the funding. We're seeing an increase in funding. Council more than doubled our safety budget in the last update. This council did. And so we do appreciate that. That gives us a number of other measures that we can apply, but it isn't just one thing. It's a number of things that will help improve safety in our city. Those targets are set because that's where we want to we want to get to zero. And if we don't set a target, we think it's a reasonable target. We would like to achieve it, but at this point we haven't been able to.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 11516.385, "end": 11535.865, "text": "Great, thank you. Can I ask you one last question though? Last I was part of last council and we saw it firsthand. We tried to restore lots of funding. What effect did you have through a safe program that was implemented by council previous to that through zero based budgeting?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_06", "start": 11537.825, "end": 11585.525, "text": "So there are probably two elements to that. But uh one uh we have seen success where we've been able to apply the funding and uh do countermeasures in education. We've had uh some success, but it isn't getting to the place where we want to be. Seeing this increase is disheartening for all of us. Um but it isn't helping with some of the other legislative changes that have been imposed on us. Uh the reduction of automated traffic enforcement has caused issues in our city, increase in non-compliance, increase in travel speeds, and so those things aren't uh helping the cause. Um we do appreciate the funding that we get and the support we get across a number of agencies in our organization. We do appreciate what council is doing. Uh so we're thankful. On the zero based review, um, I really don't have uh uh information on that that I can provide today, uh, but it's a good question. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 11585.645, "end": 11643.465, "text": "Yeah, no, that's fine. Because yeah, uh 28 million losing out on that revenue, uh automated uh traffic enforcement, and we had to fund, this council had to fund. That's equivalent to 1.1% property tax increase, and changes in the GDA licensing system, they're all creating problems. It's not just what we can do, it's a holistic thing that we need to do and work with province. And unfortunately, we haven't had good success. So thank you for your presentation. Thank you for all the great work. Uh, I think you guys are doing amazing given what the cards that were dealt to you, and and and let's, if this council is serious about fixing this, and we want to see maybe. Port with stop at every intersection, red light. Let's give them the resources that they want. And they will show definitely this team I'm very confident will show the results. Thank you. Uh with that I'm done. And uh who's moving this? Okay, Councillor Atkinson to move.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 11647.245, "end": 11954.625, "text": "Great, uh colleagues. I'm actually putting forward an alternate recommendation here, just sort of based on the conversation that we've been having. Uh, and it is that uh the community development committee recommend that council refer this report back to administration to report back to the community development committee in Q4 2026 to provide a better roadmap, future improvements, and policy suggestions that are focused on delivering the results of Vision Zero in an expedient manner. As we've heard, I think this comes down to investment. This comes down to trade-offs and sort of making decisions. And ultimately some of those decisions will also be political. It will fall to us to sort of make sure that we're providing the backing to administration to make sure that we are tackling this from every angle that we can. Some of it is living with the provincial government and is not within our realm of control. But that just makes it all the more important that we tackle the pieces that are within our control. To the best that we possibly can. And so this referral is hopefully putting that piece forward. I think we could we've had a lot of discussions around today today around how do we go more into delivery rather than sort of sitting in studies. I would hopefully see see some of that piece. Recognizing the unique conditions of the built form that is Calgary, where we have wider streets and we have a different road network than some of the other cities that are out there, and how do we sort of meet this moment? Distracted driving, huge problem. Compliance and enforcement are a big piece of that. Another piece that could be a that that helps with distracted driving is a giant piece of concrete. If people wreck their cars on a piece of concrete that is in the roadway because they are distracted and not paying attention, better that than us losing more individuals or having more injuries on our roads. That cannot be the trade-off. And if if we need to do built realm improvements to make sure that we are changing these numbers and bending this curve in the right direction, I think that those trade-offs need to take place. Speed of delivery really matters here. The trade-offs, I think we need to be looking at really sort of ramping up programs like the leading pedestrian interval, no right-hand turn on red, ways to deliver innovative things like rumble strips on transition points. Like you sort of, if you if you're ever traveling out to uh to Banff and you go, you're going on the highway and suddenly you hit the rumble strips, you see that that's really what slows everyone down. So what if we were just actually adding rumble strips on every transition point into communities that really told people, wake up, you're you're coming into a neighborhood. Uh we need to find those things that really work for for Calgary, uh, and I think this team can do it. Um I think that the improvements that they've they've done with the money they've been given, the list there is great. I like seeing all those improvements across the board. I do think we also need to make sure that we're tackling the unique areas of Calgary differently. I didn't really like seeing the TBD on downtown. I'm seeing a lot of improvements in sort of those outer areas and sort of the entryways to neighborhoods, but not necessarily recognizing sort of established neighborhoods and the changes that need to be made there. We need to be tackling this from every single angle that we possibly can. And so this hopefully gives them some time to do that. Um it it lands in Q4 around budget time. Obviously, the asks, as you heard from uh Mr. McLeod, those will be coming in for the budget sort of in tandem, but it is really about making sure that the vision of hitting vision zero is there, that we are actually we have the tools, we have the strategy that prioritizes our mobility network around pedestrians to make sure that our most vulnerable road users stop getting injured and dying on our streets. That has to be the top priority, and we can no longer sort of prioritize sort of the throughput on roads and these kinds of things at the expense of those who are suffering the greatest cost. Uh so this hopefully puts us down that path, and uh I would ask for your support in sort of doing the work also uh over the next couple of months to speak with administration, make sure that we're getting some of these pieces recognized. In that final report.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 11954.625, "end": 11967.265, "text": "Thank you. Before I go to Councillor Yule, Councillor Clark, I I'm gonna invite mobility because I think your questions are gonna be for mobility. If you guys want to come over, uh Councillor Yule is first.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_15", "start": 11969.125, "end": 11987.965, "text": "Yeah, I was just gonna ask administration uh their interpretation of this. Um I mean, Director McLeod, you you had you had mentioned this work is kind of already in going on. Uh does this direction help? Does it hinder um your opinion on it?", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_06", "start": 11989.085, "end": 12024.585, "text": "Uh thank you, Councillor Ewell, uh, through the chair. This definitely is uh helpful as far as the dialogue we've had today. We certainly are hearing the concerns in the areas that focus. Uh we are already uh doing this work as part of the next four-year budget and planning, so it certainly aligns from that perspective. Uh so it's not unwelcome by any means. It's just that that work is uh happening and uh thank you for uh mentioning and bringing it forward. There's there's no um concerns from our perspective to to bring that information forward in Q4 if council wanna or committee and council want to have that discussion, but that is work that our team is doing, so thanks.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_15", "start": 12024.645, "end": 12201.385, "text": "Okay, thank you. Yeah, I I mean I I was very I mean I I was very happy with this report. Um I like I I think a lot of our our our council colleagues have been um bringing up issues with our warrant scale. Like how do we how do we warrant and and I guess like they this department is only limited by the the funding that they have. They can't hit everything uh on our list of of needs and so that's why we have that warrant scale. Um I think there are things in this report that they are doing. I mean uh our our next item uh on the agenda is to talk about the AI pedestrian safety to help with that warrant scale. Um I think if I can encourage my colleagues have your monthly meetings with Troy and work on the individual items in your in your area because as much as we want to you know leapfrog process in in studies and and pilot projects, uh I I know firsthand like um we just put in a bunch of the um the the school zone speed bumps and half of your community loves it, half of your community hates it. Uh and so if like if we just go straight straight to action, um I think um I've been talking with with Councillor tyres, she's she's had some some issues as well where you know half your community love a mobility change and half of them hate it. So skipping that pilot stage, those those studies that that are kind of important to kind of gauge community buy-in on some of this stuff is is is a risk, I guess. Um but I I think um I want to thank administration for this report. It was it was it was confirming some of the assumptions we had. Um I we need that data to say it's not just hearsay, you know, more pedestrians are getting hit on the street, and that's what this data came to us and said. Um so I'm happy to support this amendment with the with the uh admin um already doing this work and and this just gives further refinement of that. Um but I just yeah, just want to say that this is a great report to just kind of confirm the assumptions we already had. They have great recommendations and the highlights and the actions that they're doing now and their future plans on slides 11 and 12. Um, this just kind of um It is our responsibility as council to fund the action. I know this department wants to hit every intersection, and it's it's up to us to gauge that that level of service when we come to our four year budget. So I'll I'll be supporting Councillor Ekinson's amendment here so that we can yeah, get further uh further data as we go into those conversations. But we really got to take the action to do it, I guess is the is is what it comes down to.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 12203.225, "end": 12205.125, "text": "Thank you, Councillor Yule. Over to Councillor Clark.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_09", "start": 12205.165, "end": 12311.125, "text": "Yeah, thank you, Chair. I mean inevitably every decision we make will come down to money and how much money we put towards it. And I've already had the conversation with um with mobility around some of the costs. If you think I think and maybe again, like I represent Calgaryans, the average individual not participating in this day-to-day work. So uh like to paint two lines on a road and slap up a pedestrian sign, like I've been uh told uh loosely that it's about twenty five hundred dollars. So I mean a million dollars, ten million more, what do we need? Like, and I appreciate that's not every answer, and I certainly agree with Councillor Yule's point, but I think what needs to be said today as we move forward with this conversation is that there is a disconnect between uh what individuals are experiencing in community and what our studies are showing. And I think, you know, it's if people call to complain and pursue through 311 as as we tell them to do, and we go and study that at 9 a.m. on a Tuesday when it's actually the traffic heading home at 5 30 on, you know. I mean, it's just it How do you really truly capture the outcomes? And I I I don't want to undervalue uh what residents know because they know their neighborhoods, they know these streets better than we do. And I think that that has to hold some weight. Um so yes, more money for sure. I'm glad to glad to support that point, but um There's many things that could be achieved now that aren't being achieved as as I can see. And so interested to explore that further. I think uh Councillor Atkinson's uh position here is great, glad to support. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 12312.185, "end": 12315.925, "text": "Thank you, Councillor Clark. Over to Councillor Kelly.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 12316.445, "end": 12336.505, "text": "Yeah, just uh a couple of questions here through the chair to clerks, just procedurally, because I think this is the first time that we've actually had someone bring forward an alternative uh uh an alternative motion. Just wanted to get some clarification if uh if a motion like this fails, what happens? Do do we have the ability to bring back the original version or or this is it?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 12337.125, "end": 12341.025, "text": "Yes, somebody could move uh the original recommendations if this were to fail.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 12341.145, "end": 12383.065, "text": "Okay, cool. That was just a procedure. I'm I'm willing to support this. Uh I just wanted to ask that question because this is the first time this has happened for us. Second question, just to administration, I just wanted to ask the question about the Q4, uh, specifically as it relates to the four year budget. Seems to me like you've already been doing a fair bit of this uh work already, especially with the consultants on staff. I'm wondering if I should bring forward an amendment to to change that to Q3. I just want to make sure that we're uh we're giving you enough time uh um through the governance process in order to be able to do the work that you need to do and to be able to get a report back to us in advance of budget.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_06", "start": 12385.245, "end": 12399.925, "text": "Thank you, Chair. Uh Councillor Kelly, I think Q4 is appropriate. That is our time to uh finalize budget in November. Um but we could come sooner if needed if that was your desire. Um so we could come in late Q3 if that was something you wished.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 12400.225, "end": 12434.505, "text": "What I think I'm getting at here, Chair, is just uh the idea of I'd I'd like us to receive this report before we get into the the budget debate in in November and recognizing that Q4 is October to December. Obviously, December would be too late for this process. I would argue that uh November would be too late as well. October might be okay, but like I'm I'm sort of looking, you know, if I if we're to get technical here, like September feels like the right time, but I want to know if uh if if uh I want to make sure that whatever we do here provides you enough time in order to be able to get it to us in in uh that right window.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 12436.265, "end": 12467.045, "text": "Yeah, I mean uh if you want to bring a friendly and it's okay with Councillor Atkinson, my question would be uh irrespective when the report is coming, are you gonna be working with administration based on the report there will be funding asked, or are we willing to bring an amendment if we bring it in Q4? There will be more of amendment route at the budget rather than us baking it into uh so if it's okay with you, Councillor Atkinson, I heard from administration they're comfortable. Uh I have no issues. Like it's it's it's", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 12467.045, "end": 12475.765, "text": "Yeah, just a procedural sort of question more than anything else. Like I I'd I'm even happy if we wanted to say in here uh the September CDC meeting.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 12475.765, "end": 12479.505, "text": "as long as budget and take you guys can make it. I don't think anything.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_06", "start": 12479.505, "end": 12481.945, "text": "We can commit to September uh Chair.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 12482.905, "end": 12489.885, "text": "So then I might look to Council Atkinson, would you be okay if we if we change this to say September uh twenty twenty six?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 12490.545, "end": 12493.305, "text": "Um sorry, uh clerk's got uh something to add here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 12493.305, "end": 12502.465, "text": "Yeah, the motion's moved and it's on the floor, so it will require an amendment, but we can we can uh strike up an amendment to replace the words Q4 2026 with September.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 12502.565, "end": 12520.525, "text": "I still would like I I'm happy to make the amendment, but I I want it to be friendly here. Uh Councillor Axison appears to be okay with that. So um Chair, I'm happy to make an amendment to change. Uh sorry we pulled down the exact wording, but I'll look to clerks for it. I believe it can be as simple as changing Q4 to September.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 12522.065, "end": 12524.625, "text": "Yeah, okay, so we have an amendment. Okay, great.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 12525.265, "end": 12527.545, "text": "Oh, that's uh Q3. We're working on it.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 12533.585, "end": 12533.805, "text": "And", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 12533.725, "end": 12535.805, "text": "And I recognize the fact that we're doing this on the floor.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 12536.005, "end": 12541.565, "text": "the report will be coming back to CDC GM Black. So we need to add that in there.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 12542.505, "end": 12544.045, "text": "So I thought that was in the original.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 12544.125, "end": 12545.545, "text": "It's in the original. Okay, great.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 12549.845, "end": 12558.105, "text": "Uh I think and uh could we actually maybe just ask clerks if we were to make this amendment, what would the full wording of the main be if approved?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 12560.105, "end": 12589.885, "text": "The wording would be that with respect to report CD 2026 0471, the following be approved, that Community Development Committee recommend that council refer report CD 2026 0471 back to administration to report back to Community Development Committee in September 2026 to provide a better roadmap, future improvements, and policy suggestions that are focused on delivering the results of Vision Zero in an expedient manner.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 12590.225, "end": 12614.465, "text": "Kate, thank you. Yep, I'm happy to make that uh motion, colleagues, as described here. I think it just uh let's just nail it down specifically when it'll be to provide some assurance to uh mobility, but also to make sure that we and all of our council colleagues have a uh uh have the robust discussion with all the suggestions and whatnot prior to us starting to uh uh fully debate the budget.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 12614.485, "end": 12615.425, "text": "Thank you. You open", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 12615.785, "end": 12616.425, "text": "That's my open", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 12616.425, "end": 12621.165, "text": "any debate? Seeing none, you close. Closed. Let's go to eastcribe.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 12624.945, "end": 12626.865, "text": "Councillor Johnston is yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 12628.385, "end": 12629.505, "text": "Thank you, Councillor Johnston.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 12634.265, "end": 12635.245, "text": "Councillor Clark, your vote, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 12635.245, "end": 12635.525, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 12636.085, "end": 12637.085, "text": "Thank you, Chair. All the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 12637.945, "end": 12648.245, "text": "Let's display the votes, please. That's carried seven nothing. Uh now we go back to Councillor Atkinson's amended uh Amendment.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_21", "start": 12648.625, "end": 12649.065, "text": "Closed.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 12650.465, "end": 12651.905, "text": "Can we go to E Scribe?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 12656.305, "end": 12662.165, "text": "Just take us a moment to bring that up. Uh can we just mark that as a", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 12662.165, "end": 12664.385, "text": "Let's just have a read to make sure", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 12666.185, "end": 12668.065, "text": "and highlight the change text?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 12669.365, "end": 12671.445, "text": "we're good to go. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 12689.405, "end": 12706.385, "text": "That's ready. Oh, sorry, September 2026. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you, Chair. We'll just fix that and then it'll be ready to go. Over to you scribe now? Yes, please.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 12712.085, "end": 12713.645, "text": "Uh Councillor Johnston is yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 12714.925, "end": 12722.545, "text": "Thank you, Councillor Johnston. Councillor Clark, your voice? Thank you. Chair, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 12722.885, "end": 12750.165, "text": "Thank you. Let's display the votes. That is carried seven nothing. Clerks, I think we are done with this item. Correct. Thank you. We got uh 7.5 after break artificial intelligence and enhanced pedestrian safety. Uh committee, um throw it out. 30 minute break. Sure, who's gonna? Who's gonna put the motion forward?", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 12750.525, "end": 12759.485, "text": "just wanted to make sure that sorry, question of uh uh Point of order there. Just want to make sure that we're giving appropriate break to clerks.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 12763.805, "end": 12767.045, "text": "We're happy to proceed as committee direct.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 12767.865, "end": 12769.245, "text": "Half hours fine after me. Thanks.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 12769.245, "end": 12774.985, "text": "30 minutes. Moved by Council Yule. Uh do we go to East Cribe or voice vote?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 12775.625, "end": 12776.445, "text": "Maybe a voice vote.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 12776.665, "end": 12777.005, "text": "Sorry?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 12777.185, "end": 12778.245, "text": "Maybe a voice vote on this.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 12778.305, "end": 12783.345, "text": "Sure. Anybody in opposition? Seeing hearing now? Sorry?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 12784.585, "end": 12785.885, "text": "Councillor Johnston is a no.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 12786.325, "end": 12792.165, "text": "Okay, so Council Johnston is no. Anyone else? What are the results?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 12795.225, "end": 12799.065, "text": "That would be six six in favor and Councillor Johnston.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 12799.065, "end": 12818.785, "text": "Thank you. That motion is carried 6 to 1. We'll be back at 53. 113 to be precise, right? Okay, great. Thank you. Good work, committee. We'll Sorry. Yeah. Okay. We'll be back.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 14672.285, "end": 14678.685, "text": "Afternoon session of CDC, uh, June 10th, 2026. Uh clerks, can we do the role, please?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 14679.025, "end": 14685.485, "text": "Absolutely. Thank you, Chair. On the roll, Councillor Tyres, Councillor Yule, Councillor Kelly,", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 14686.365, "end": 14686.725, "text": "Present.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 14687.465, "end": 14712.485, "text": "Councillor Atkinson, Councillor Clark, Councillor Johnston, Councillor Johnston on the roll, Councillor Wyness, Councillor Pentezopoulos, Councillor Schmidt, Councillor Chabot, Councillor Ward, Councillor Jameson, Councillor McLean, Mayor Farkas. And Chair Dollywall. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 14 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 14712.485, "end": 14714.065, "text": "Uh we will go to C. Council Johnson.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 14714.065, "end": 14715.225, "text": "Councillor Johnston's here as well.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 14715.845, "end": 14718.325, "text": "Thank you, Councillor Johnson. We'll note you on the present on the roll.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 14718.325, "end": 14733.805, "text": "Thanks, Council Johnson. Let's jump to 7.5 Artificial Intelligence Enhanced Pedestrian Safety, C D 2026-20470. We got Erin Trinski. Sorry, I I butchered your name. So, but go ahead.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_23", "start": 14746.505, "end": 15078.665, "text": "Can you hear me? Joining me today are Troy McLeod, Director of Mobility, and Carlos Pinto, Leader of Advanced Analytics. We are here today to provide a Q2 2026 update on the AI enhanced pedestrian safety platform as part of the Safer Mobility Plan update. Next slide, please. In September 2025, Council directed administration to return in Q2 2026 with an update on the AI platform as part of the Safer Mobility Plan update. And to return in Q3 2026 with information on funding requirements. Today's presentation responds to the Q2 2026 direction. Next slide, please. Our recommendation with this update is that the Community Development Committee recommend that council accept this report for the corporate record. Next slide, please. I'll now walk through a few highlights. The AI platform has been developed to support a proactive, data driven approach to pedestrian safety. It evaluates more than 17,000 intersections across Calgary using data from the transportation network to identify locations that may present elevated risk. This allows administration to better focus staff effort and resources where they will have the greatest impact. The platform also includes an interactive dashboard that ranks locations based on risk and allows users to filter results. For example, identifying high-risk locations without existing traffic signals. Next slide, please. This slide shows a screenshot of the interactive dashboard. The dashboard allows users to filter multiple parameters and narrow down candidate locations for further technical review and potential upgrades. It is important to note that this is a screening and prioritization tool, not a replacement for engineering assessment. Next slide, please. The AI platform is still under development and continues to be refined. It currently incorporates several data sets, including historical collisions, speed limits, population density, roadway geometry, proximity to schools and transit stops, weather and traffic control types. The AI platform is demonstrating strong overall performance so far. Access to the dashboard is currently restricted to project team members. Due to some the nature of some data sets, such as collision data, the intent is to maintain this as an internal staff resource once development is complete. Next slide, please. This slide provides an example of how administration is using the AI platform. Using the filtering parameters, we identified the top 20 locations that currently have no traffic signal, no overhead flasher, and no RRFB. These locations are shown on the map. Each location was then reviewed individually and assessed using traditional warrant processes. This demonstrates how the AI platform supplements rather than replaces established engineering practices. Next slide, please. From a cost perspective, to date the AI platform has been developed using existing internal resources with no direct costs. Routine maintenance activities, such as updating data sets, are expected to be no cost. If significant changes are required in the future, there may be associated costs. Based on a preliminary review of the top 20 ranked locations, the estimated cost to implement identified pedestrian safety treatments is approximately $2.5 million. This represents an early indication of the scale of investment that may be required. Not all locations require new pedestrian treatments, as some have had recent improvements. Some identified treatments include traffic signals, RRFBs, signed and marked crosswalks, roundabouts, and curb extensions. Many of these locations have either no history of 311 requests or outdated traffic count data, which helps explain why they have not been previously identified through conventional approaches. Next slide, please. Looking ahead, administration will continue to refine the AI platform and further investigate the addition of mid block data and bike lane data to further strengthen network wide screening capabilities. We are also advancing the analysis of the top 50 highest risk locations, including preliminary technical review and cost estimates. Administration will return to council in Q3 2026 with these findings, along with funding requirements. Next slide. In closing, once again, our recommendation is that the Community Development Committee recommend that council accept this report for the corporate record. Thank you.", "segments_merged": 42 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 15081.245, "end": 15100.425, "text": "Thank you for your presentation. Before we go to uh question of admin, any public speakers here or uh online or on the phone? Hearing none, seeing none. Uh there are no public speakers. We will go to council for questions of administration. Uh Council Cali.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 15101.085, "end": 15123.965, "text": "Thanks wanted to confirm in terms of the pilot project. Did your engineers assess any of these uh these intersections before we ran it sort of the the top 20 the through the AI pilot? I'm just sort of curious if uh if they did and and and what sort of we may have learned from the differences and", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_23", "start": 15124.765, "end": 15175.985, "text": "Yes, I won't speak about like all 20 locations, but one of the ones identified we already knew was warranted for an RFB and had plans for. Some of the other locations have things like existing four-way stops. So from a four-way stop, we're not going to remove the four-way stop to put like an overhead flasher RFB. The only appropriate upgrade in that situation is to go to like a traffic signal. So some of those were kind of the in-between ground where it's warranting for a four-way stop. It doesn't meet the warrant for a traffic signal. But then the platform is flagging it as a risk intersection. So then we have discussions on if we should maybe add curb extensions or do other measures. Or maybe we just proactively implement a traffic signal, even though it's not meeting the TAC warrant. If that answers your question. So a lot of these had some sort of warrant on file, but not all of them.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 15176.245, "end": 15191.785, "text": "Well, I'm sort of curious at like maybe this is an education sort of question for me. Does the system actually make a recommendation for an intervention, or does it simply say, hey, this is an intersection you should be doing something at?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_23", "start": 15191.785, "end": 15205.785, "text": "So what it does is it ranks all 17,000 intersections relative to each other and it gives it a risk score, but it doesn't say like this should be changed to a traffic signal. It'll say risk score is 99, with 100 being the highest.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 15205.885, "end": 15222.465, "text": "Got it. That's great. My second question was just going to be around like if it did make a recommendation in terms of potential intervention, what the human element of that would be. But if it's just a uh a scoring mechanism uh that it's running for us. Okay, sounds great. Thank you for the update today. I appreciate it.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 15224.165, "end": 15224.925, "text": "Uh thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 15230.205, "end": 15285.645, "text": "Yeah, that that difference between sort of the recommended pieces and then sort of the TAC warrant piece. Or the the traffic counts are are different. So I guess I I'm thinking about like this if we want this tool to be a useful thing, are we will we ever have the correct level of data that we're we're not just running it as a pilot and sort like what would it take, I guess, for us to have the correct level of data fed into the system? Uh and is that achievable, you know, given resource constraints, et cetera?", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_23", "start": 15286.665, "end": 15324.345, "text": "That's a good question. Right now, what I'm seeing as a really big challenge is the population density data is using 2021 census data. Sure. So when we use this next year, it'll be a lot more reliable. But there's always going to be room for improvement and new data sets we can look to use. I can let our data groups speak a little bit more to this because they're the ones who developed the model, but it is showing strong overall performance so far. So we're confident enough to start looking at locations. Because we have so many intersections in the city, it's a really good guide to show our engineers that this one needs to be assessed. But I'll let you elaborate.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_21", "start": 15325.825, "end": 15393.545, "text": "Thank you, Consular. That's a good question. We do have most of the data. It is available to us via some agreements with the police, the provincial police. Actually, you guys can see it if you look at the collisions dashboard that is already available for the corporation. We look at the data and we separated only pedestrians. That's what we isolated for this case. We could make it a little more accurate by adding more data into it, like for example, pedestrian volume. We don't have a way of measuring pedestrian volume right now in all the intersections of the city. We could measure pedestrian volume on some major intersections, but that will make the model bias and we wouldn't include it. The answer is we have the data. We could make it better, and that's what we're working on to make it better. We are in 88% now of F1 score, which is an excellent score. And it's meant to be as a support, like an advisor to the people on the ground to make the decisions.", "segments_merged": 14 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 15395.125, "end": 15436.185, "text": "Does the I think it was in the report that there is like major major activity centers like schools, say train stations, these kinds of high pedestrian connectivity places that that are fed in as a as a layer. Like we're not going to that level of traffic detail. Is that correct?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_21", "start": 15436.225, "end": 15489.905, "text": "That's a very good question. We are not elevating something because it's close to a school. We are using the information all across the 17,000 plus intersections. The data that we include in here, as Councillor Kelly mentioned before, is all hard data. Nothing anecdotal in this case, it's all evidence based decisions. And if the AI detected that school proximity within a gonna say 50 meters radius, it is affecting positively the score, it will also analyze if not having it clause will reduce the score. So we're not elevate uh we're not including data that is only for one intersection. So if you are not close to a school, it will be included in the calculation, as well as if you are close to the school. The whole data is included as a whole.", "segments_merged": 14 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 15490.945, "end": 15499.205, "text": "Okay, so we're not necessarily sort of bringing in those, yeah, those softer pieces of of schools or like high pedestrian.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_21", "start": 15499.325, "end": 15533.065, "text": "We are staying away from any assumptions. The system doesn't make assumptions regarding, okay, if we think because it's close to school, it's gonna give us a higher score. But we do include school proximity in the data. We included school proximity, we included population density, we included day and time of the collisions, a whole bunch of different variables that we consider could be part of the prediction. Some of the variables ended up not having any weight", "segments_merged": 10 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 15533.685, "end": 15534.185, "text": "Oh, I see.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_21", "start": 15534.185, "end": 15535.585, "text": "on the final decision.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 15535.585, "end": 15579.125, "text": "Okay, so you're including that data of where the schools are. Yeah, because I thought that was in there, but so it's just not being weighted in the overall calculation for the outcomes of the the Okay. Um the The 20 that were selected, those that didn't sort of meet the warrant standard, is it is it making us question things about the warrant standards at all, and sort of like maybe whether there we need to sort of right size things, or are we only are we sort of keep holding the warrant standard steady and and sort of using this to sort of validate, invalidate the recommendations from the AI?", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_23", "start": 15580.325, "end": 15600.745, "text": "I think it's a bit of both. Like some of them, for example, haven't had a traffic count since twenty ten. So if all of a sudden this model is telling us that the risk score is ninety-eight, maybe we can assume that in the last sixteen years. It would have met the warrant, and then we don't waste the time requesting a new count. We'll just go ahead with implementation, if that answers your question.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 15600.745, "end": 15659.045, "text": "Yeah. Yeah. So you're it's it's on both sides. Um and there were the other piece that I was interested in, which maybe this gets into the anecdotal piece, but um this overlay of 311, Councillor Clark and sort of our last item uh brought up sort of like, you know, a constant sort of place that we tell people if you've got. An issue is to contact 311, and I know that does go into sort of the decisions that the humans are making around this, but it would be interesting, I think, in the next rounds of uh iterating on the AI, what does it do, right? And sort of spinning it up. Obviously, you don't you'd want to sort of run the clean results with your very sort of metric based data. Um, but then to also sort of see how the 311 data sort of, if it changes the recommendations that the AI would put out.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_23", "start": 15659.425, "end": 15683.025, "text": "So that actually was explored, but since we don't have 311 data for all 17,000 plus intersections in the city, by including that, it would add bias to the model. So one highlight of having this like if you noticed on the slide with the map, you can really tell which areas maybe aren't complaining as much because this is the first we're kind of looking at them.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 15683.205, "end": 15696.505, "text": "Right. So okay. So the yeah, so you when you're sorry, when with the map piece you're saying that the areas that are being recommended there are maybe areas that weren't", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_23", "start": 15697.865, "end": 15714.465, "text": "It could have been areas that were missed, because if we get a bunch of 3-1-1s for one location, we'll definitely look at it. But if we're not aware of the issue, this is another really great way to flag it just with all the data. Like if we know there's the population density, the other factors, roadway geometry, speed limit.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 15715.465, "end": 15749.045, "text": "I guess why would we weigh it as humans but not allow the AI to help us with that distinction? Like I I understand the idea of the bias around 17,000. We don't necessarily have data for all of them in terms of 311, but but I guess no 311 complaints is also in some ways a form of data to a certain degree, or it's at least a form of data that we're using as humans to decide if we're gonna explore something. So yeah.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_21", "start": 15749.505, "end": 15795.725, "text": "That is a very good suggestion, Councillor. We are not against improving it. Actually, we will love to improve it. That's what we're working on. This is the second interaction, and we went through uh 17 cycles already on this inter uh to now. Uh as Eddie mentioned before, we are already on the third one, and uh I know there will be more after this one. In this third one, we're including the mid block. Analysis because not all the pedestrian intersections happen on, not all pedestrians happen on intersections, some of them, 6%, actually happen on mid block, mid block. We are trying to understand the score for those mid block intersections. And after this one, we might include other data sets, data sets that we can get our hands on, like 311 data, if that is the case.", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 15796.745, "end": 15885.445, "text": "And and I I guess then, because like ultimately what we're trying to do is we're trying to feed in data to then hopefully at some point it starts giving us results that we're like, yeah, that maps. Yeah, that maps, yeah, that maps. Uh what is like, what does that success look like? Is it that it then maps to what we would be What our our engineers would be when they're using their their TAC calculations and right, like that sort of thing, that the two then go hand in hand. Because I I also think that that if that's the end result, I guess I I I worry a little bit that that the part of the reason to bring in something like this, a different tool, we have the TAC. Method, right? Like that is there. This is to hopefully expose some of the deficits maybe in those TAC calculations and really sort of to bring things to the forefront. And I worry a little bit that if we go are going down a path to sort of pursue alignment, that then at some point we've just created something that that backs our end result but doesn't show us the dark spots of where we actually need to be looking, which is ultimately the goal of bringing in a new tool. So how do we balance those two worlds where when we we get to a point where we trust the system to actually be sort of making these recommendations and know that we've given it the right amount of direction, but not enough that it just becomes a redundant tool.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_23", "start": 15886.465, "end": 15917.865, "text": "Yeah, I think the big goal right now is we want something that's proactive and will allow us to like identify treatments sooner and address these high risk locations. It's still very early on in our use of the system. So There's some trials to make sure we trust the results that are coming out, but ideally it'll make our decision time lag a lot less because we're not always waiting for new traffic counts or things that can take a long time. So it will be a bit of a balance, but we're hoping it can be a lot more proactive.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 15918.525, "end": 15921.405, "text": "Okay, thank you very much. Thanks for the report.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 15926.505, "end": 15937.125, "text": "Thank you, Councillor Atkinson. I don't see anyone else in the queue. Um who's gonna move this? Council Clark to move.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_09", "start": 15939.625, "end": 15964.465, "text": "Wonderful extension of a conversation that we had prior to lunch, but I think certainly an action step. And very grateful for the work that you've put in here. And and I just want to, coming back from lunch, acknowledge as administrators to come forward and present to us, you know, it's a a risk or a vulnerability. And so I just want to acknowledge your your efforts today and thank you for your time and your contributions to you and your team.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_23", "start": 15964.625, "end": 15965.185, "text": "Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_09", "start": 15965.285, "end": 15967.845, "text": "Yeah, closed. Or sorry, yeah, that's my open.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 15967.845, "end": 15971.345, "text": "Any debate? Seeing hearing none. Close.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_09", "start": 15971.345, "end": 15971.745, "text": "Closed.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 15972.045, "end": 15973.005, "text": "Let's go to Eastcribe.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 15983.905, "end": 15988.225, "text": "Councillor Clark, your vote, please. Thank you. And Councillor, or sorry, Chair Dollywall, your vote, please.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 15989.785, "end": 15990.125, "text": "Sorry?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 15990.545, "end": 15991.125, "text": "Your vote, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 15991.125, "end": 15991.645, "text": "Oh, yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 15992.005, "end": 15993.305, "text": "Thank you. Chair, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 15993.905, "end": 16001.845, "text": "Thank you. Let's display the votes. That's carried 8 0. With that, we are done with item 7.5, right, clerks?", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 16004.205, "end": 16008.365, "text": "We are on to item 9.2.1.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 16008.825, "end": 16021.805, "text": "Thanks for your presentation, mobility team. Great work. Thank you. Uh let's go to 9.2.1. Um is there a portion that can go public or are we straight going in camera?", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_01", "start": 16022.745, "end": 16024.825, "text": "I think we start in camera. Starting camera.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 16026.405, "end": 16040.805, "text": "We start in camera. Can I get someone Uh Councillor Atkinson to move uh us going into camera and E scribe or we have a prepared for E-scribe, yeah. Let's go to E scribe, guys.", "segments_merged": 6 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 16041.325, "end": 16042.705, "text": "Sorry, can I debate this?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 16042.945, "end": 16044.325, "text": "Sorry? Yes, go ahead.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 16045.205, "end": 16081.205, "text": "Yeah, so I know why we're going on camera for this. And I mean, we're not making any council decision. I mean, we're just receiving a report. Um, and basically, administration has the um the wheel. They're they're driving this car that we're going to go talk about. And so nothing we say or do in camera is gonna change what is going to happen regardless. Unless we make it a council decision. So I'm just curious why this has to be on camera. Why can't this specifically be open to the public as, like I said, nothing we gonna we're gonna do is gonna change.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 16082.245, "end": 16084.365, "text": "I'll get uh GM Black to answer.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 16084.785, "end": 16109.985, "text": "Councillor Johnston, that's an excellent question and an excellent point. In fact, we wanted to be able to answer questions that might require a closed discussion. If everyone understands what is confidential information, that the documents remain closed for the time being and are ready to go to a public debate, we could certainly do that.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 16112.045, "end": 16165.405, "text": "So conf confidential, I mean, the names. Um I mean if it's open debate as it's gonna be open and implemented by administration, we should be able to freely ask questions about it, right? I'm I'm sorry, I'm just curious what what we could ask in. confidence we couldn't ask out here. And I guess we have to go in camera to ask that. But I don't know. This is uh affects a a a fifth, no no, a tenth of the city's population um directly, potentially. So I just I don't know. I'd prefer to have this out. So I'm gonna vote no to go on camera and I would just argue with uh the rest of the council like nothing we're gonna say in camera can't be said out here. So", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 16169.485, "end": 16175.925, "text": "Any other debate? Hearing none, seeing none. Uh can you close Councillor Atkinson?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_03", "start": 16176.085, "end": 16176.465, "text": "Closed.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 16176.605, "end": 16177.765, "text": "Let's go to E scribe, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 16193.145, "end": 16200.245, "text": "Councillor Atkinson, your vote, please? Yes. Thank you. And Councillor Clark, your vote, please. Yes. Thank you. Chair, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 16200.485, "end": 16211.605, "text": "Let's display the votes, please. That is carried seven to one with Councillor Johnston again. Said we will go in camera and we'll uh we'll have a discussion and", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_00", "start": 19209.385, "end": 19216.005, "text": "The Community Development Committee meeting will resume in open session shortly. Please make your way back to Council Chamber.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 19387.525, "end": 19388.985, "text": "Let's do the role clerks.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 19389.605, "end": 19394.125, "text": "Thank you, Chair. On the roll. Councillor Tyres. Thank you. Councillor Yule. Councillor Kelly.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 19394.645, "end": 19394.945, "text": "Present.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 19395.105, "end": 19412.805, "text": "Councillor Atkinson, Councillor Clark, Councillor Johnson, Councillor Wyness, Councillor Pantasopoulos, Councillor Schmidt, Councillor Chabot, Councillor Ward, Councillor Jameson, Councillor McLean, Mayor Farkas, Chair Dollywall.", "segments_merged": 12 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 19413.225, "end": 19413.465, "text": "Here.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 19413.685, "end": 19413.965, "text": "Thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 19414.645, "end": 19417.845, "text": "Let's rise and report over to Councillor Clark to rise and report.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_09", "start": 19418.545, "end": 19419.805, "text": "Uh rising and reporting.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 19419.965, "end": 19423.645, "text": "Thank you. Uh, do we do e scribe or just uh voice vote? Right.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 19423.865, "end": 19424.765, "text": "Um I do", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 19425.205, "end": 19432.185, "text": "Yeah. Any opposition? Seeing none, it's carried. Uh let's go to 7.5, Councillor Atkinson to move.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_15", "start": 19432.665, "end": 19433.005, "text": "Moved", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 19435.005, "end": 19440.585, "text": "Great. Um Councillor Schmidt has an amendment.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 19441.105, "end": 19454.205, "text": "Uh yes, this was and I apologize for the last minute nature of this, but it's fairly straightforward. Um it will be listed here um in a moment.", "segments_merged": 5 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 19458.405, "end": 19462.485, "text": "Just take us a moment to bring that up, Councillor Schmidt. Oh, that doesn't look like right.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 19466.265, "end": 19475.885, "text": "So what this is essentially doing is given I think the beneficial discussions we had around the green shield. Oh", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_22", "start": 19477.325, "end": 19478.005, "text": "This isn't that.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 19478.565, "end": 19479.025, "text": "yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 19480.505, "end": 19481.805, "text": "you said the word", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 19482.105, "end": 19482.925, "text": "Which word?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 19483.665, "end": 19484.505, "text": "you said the GS word.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 19487.505, "end": 19488.365, "text": "Oh yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 19489.185, "end": 19489.665, "text": "There it goes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 19492.185, "end": 19583.465, "text": "Around the discussions that we've had around fair entry that have been helpful. This is just asserting a council's support for the work that they're doing and asking them to continue doing that work and bringing in more opportunities for Calgarians that can't access, whether that be a city service or tickets for a civic partnership uh program or any not for profit offerings, or even if there's other parts of the community who want to um Come in on the program that they are established that we've established that we support this and ask them to continue doing the work that they're doing. So I'm happy to take any questions, but perhaps in my open, I'll just confirm with anyone who's able to answer the question that this does not add any. Budgetary requirements beyond minimal administrative time, and if there was anything that came up as an opportunity for an additional partnership, that if it did require more resources, that this would certainly have to be explored through the existing budget allotment, or it would come to council as a budget ask.", "segments_merged": 12 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 19585.485, "end": 19594.545, "text": "Uh Councillor Schmidt, I can confirm that what you describe here is work that we could accommodate within our existing work plan.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 19596.025, "end": 19624.325, "text": "And that the the second portion of the bulleted ABCD, that this is also just establishing that our existing policies and procedures uh are compliant with anything to do with procurement supply management legal, and that if if there's any issues that arise with this, that it would similarly either come to council or that we would explore changing any of those things should they need updating as well.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 19626.525, "end": 19634.325, "text": "And again, I can confirm that we are deeply committed to working within legislation and policy and would continue to do so.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 19634.845, "end": 19641.585, "text": "Okay, thank you. Um I'll leave it there and then happy to address any other concerns through my close.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 19642.405, "end": 19647.085, "text": "Thank you, Councillor Schmidt. You're open with that. Over to Councillor John uh Johnston, yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 19649.265, "end": 19671.485, "text": "I guess I can ask the question this way. Before the that's not an enclosed question, I guess, but before the fair entry program was in one spot, it used to be in all departments and you brought it into one spot. When it was in multiple departments, were there other services that existed before that were cut when it was brought in?", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 19674.185, "end": 19682.005, "text": "No, Councillor Johnston, this was a bringing together of the existing programs at that time and a cutting red tape that went with it.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 19682.525, "end": 19691.265, "text": "I mean, just off maybe the top of your head here, what would potentially be other items that could be offered to low income?", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_18", "start": 19695.805, "end": 19706.885, "text": "Councillor Johnston. Just uh seeing this uh I I can assure you that I haven't uh thought about that and I'm scanning to make eye contact. Oh, it looks like", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 19706.885, "end": 19720.825, "text": "I I'm just thinking like uh affordable rain barrels, um subsidized low maintenance lawns. Um like I'm just curious, like if anybody has an idea, just off the top of your head.", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_17", "start": 19722.225, "end": 19760.265, "text": "I can start by answering the question, and if Lisa wants to jump in, I think part of what we look for is talking with our nonprofit partners and others in different sectors who are working with low-income Calgarians. We're always open to look at what ideas there would be. So this model would just reinforce that we would hear from community, from community organizations, from residents that we're interacting with in the low income space to see what either city programs or other for profit or nonprofit programs could be useful to them. Yeah.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 19762.245, "end": 19792.885, "text": "And I'll just add on the city side, pretty much anything that has user fees could be examined to determine if there should be a subsidized rate accompanying it. There's been a variety of different models tried over the years where sometimes a business unit might pilot a confidential subsidy program. It's not broadcasted broadly, but it gives the business unit a way to kind of test the waters and see if it's viable or not, or if they want to pursue.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 19794.525, "end": 19805.665, "text": "Right. Like I was thinking off the top of my head, like business licenses are a set price, whether you're a billion dollar company or a", "segments_merged": 4 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 19806.025, "end": 19806.725, "text": "Small company.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 19806.725, "end": 19838.785, "text": "small company, right? Um just thinking of discounts for the small businesses out there, but um even permit fees. for replacing whatever it for a small business it's a big hit compared to a large business but I see that's on there but um I'm just wondering if administration can make the argument how this isn't income support which would be a provincial jurisdictional", "segments_merged": 8 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 19840.205, "end": 19844.725, "text": "Yeah, so income support conclusively is the province.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 19844.965, "end": 19845.805, "text": "or federal", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 19846.085, "end": 19847.105, "text": "Or federal.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 19847.105, "end": 19853.605, "text": "or federal but why why would wouldn't this wouldn't this be downloading onto us", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 19854.025, "end": 19905.085, "text": "So income. To be kind of purist is paying people. So the province and the feds do pay people an income when they have inability to earn income themselves. The city, in no circumstance, does that. We don't pay anyone. We have affordability measures on existing fees that are out there, where ultimately it's within council's purview to determine if they're setting user fees for something. And an acknowledgement that a one size fits all doesn't necessarily fit for all Calgaryan. And ultimately, it's a decision on behalf of council to accept less revenue from those individuals as opposed to paying them income.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 19906.185, "end": 19906.925, "text": "Right.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_24", "start": 19907.885, "end": 19922.365, "text": "Yep. Because that's important to us as well. We don't the province has their role, feds have their role. We have a local role with City of Calgary and the services for Calgarians.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_11", "start": 19922.685, "end": 19979.565, "text": "Right. Okay. Um, I do see a need of offering discounts for low-income Calgarians. Um, but I think as administration just said, that the less revenue is gonna come from the rest of the taxpayers, and I think we have to find that balance. Um and I mean just the explosion of fair entry applicants, like I think we almost need to put a pause on. Expanding it until we can rein in on the program itself. Otherwise, like I said, there's there's a tipping point. I mean, the just the sure number of people who are on fair entry is an epidemic, in my opinion. Um and so we got to get to the root cause of that and figure out um how to better provide these services for everybody. Um so I like the amendment, but I just I don't think this is the right time to be doing this. So thank you.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 19982.525, "end": 19984.905, "text": "Thank you, Councillor Johnson. Over to Councillor Atkinson.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 19987.605, "end": 20171.385, "text": "I actually really appreciated that piece there, Councillor Johnson, about um looking at things like business Fees. I think actually we probably have this idea if you're running a business that you're not necessarily low income. And I don't think that that's necessarily always the case. And I think I would encourage our folks in the uh in the world of business permitting to to to look at that. I I'm gonna speak in in favor of this. Um the fair entry program is is excellent. Uh learned today is even more excellent than I thought. Um and it is one of these things that the city of Calgary is doing extremely right, um and really sort of trying to make sure that this uh One of the advantages of living in Calgary has been its livability from an affordability perspective and making sure that that is available to all is is one of the best things about this city. And we've been trying to work on things like housing affordability, right? The affordability of living in the city and the Fair Entry program extends this out of the livability to a whole bunch of folks. And there are many folks, I think, out there in the space of civic partners and other not-for-profit organizations that I think could join us in this cause that in terms of making Calgary a great and livable city. I noted when I was grabbing some folk fest tickets the other day that they proudly announced that you can get a discount for your folk fest uh tickets with a fair entry as a part of it. I I really I I hope we can do a better job of encouraging those who have their discounts to more proudly sort of display it. And I think actually it would be good for us. I know right now we have a good listing of sort of some of the civic partners and causes that you can access that are outside the city, but we just sort of point people off to their websites, but don't always sort of you don't always know what it is, the discount that you're getting at the zoo or something like that, or it's harder to find. It would be great to be making that easier for folks who are on the fair entry program to make sure that they uh that there isn't that sort of administrative burden of take that of hunting around to sort of figure out how this fair entry program is making your life better. So happy to support this. I think uh continuing to look for ways we can make the fair entry program even better uh is great. Uh, but I do just yeah, want to give a huge kudos because uh I won't debate again to the Fair Entry program. It's amazing. Uh it's a model uh that is being replicated all across the country. Uh and All you other cities tuning in, get on it. Calgary's beating you to the punch and uh we're gonna keep doing it even better because of this amendment. So closed or not closed.", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 20171.925, "end": 20184.205, "text": "Thank you, Councillor Atkinson. We will close soon. Nobody else in the queue, Councillor Clerk? Good. Councillor, any other debate? Councillor Councillor Cali.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 20184.285, "end": 20232.605, "text": "I'm just gonna jump in real quick because like the Fair Entry program is far and away my favorite program that the City of Calgary administration has ever brought forward. It made things easier. Makes things easier for for Calgarians who really uh deserve and need for things to be easier, uh, and a cut red tape on our side as well. Uh it is uh uh a program that deserves to be to continue and to be strengthened, and uh I appreciate Councillor Schmidt for bringing forward this uh uh affirmation of the fact that uh um it can it can grow and uh uh and uh happy to encourage administration to uh to continue growing it in the uh in the vein that it uh has been designed.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 20234.765, "end": 20237.045, "text": "Thank you, Councillor Cali. Over to Councillor Schmidt to close.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_08", "start": 20237.665, "end": 20335.925, "text": "Uh appreciate all the comments and ref uh reiterate what everyone's been saying about fair entry. Uh to me, the best thing that fair entry represents is for many people in our city. Accessing things that we take for granted is a struggle. And by making some of those things uh available to people of low income, such as taking your kid to the science center or or the telescoritage park or being able to get a bus pass, those are things that make a child's life feel normal, that helps them feel part of the community, that helps the families feel part of the community. And when we talk about the well being of our citizens or even things around public safety, um It is that sense of normalcy and fitting in to what the rest of everybody else around you is able to do, where a child doesn't need to wonder why their friends go to Telespark and they can't. So this is the type of thing that gives them that opportunity with low barriers and without. sort of having to be singled out for that when they go and experience these things and all it will do is make our city a better place to live for everybody. So uh I think this is can be seen as an affirmation of that work and our endorsement for the team to keep going with what they're doing. So thank you.", "segments_merged": 9 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 20338.625, "end": 20341.725, "text": "Thank you, Councillor Schmidt. Over to Eastcribe to vote.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 20354.445, "end": 20355.505, "text": "Councillor Clark, your vote, please?", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_09", "start": 20356.205, "end": 20356.965, "text": "Yes, thank you.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 20357.345, "end": 20366.105, "text": "Thank you. And Councillor Oh, thank you. Councillor Tyres, your vote, please.", "segments_merged": 3 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_04", "start": 20367.745, "end": 20368.105, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 20369.045, "end": 20370.345, "text": "Thank you. Chair, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 20370.605, "end": 20382.525, "text": "Let's display the votes, please. That is carried seven to one with Councillor Johnston against. Over to Councillor Atkinson for motion as amended.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_13", "start": 20384.085, "end": 20407.765, "text": "I forgot that I get to say. Fair entry is awesome. Keep doing it. Thank you to everyone in administration who works on this. I know this really does cut across all the different business units, and uh and so having everyone keep this in their mind and making sure that we are delivering a city for all. Uh really appreciate the work everyone does on that every single day. Closed.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 20408.505, "end": 20421.065, "text": "Thank you, Councillor Atkins. And before we go to vote, I just want to thank our team there for explaining us fair entry in camera in detail. Thank you so much. That's why these kind of amendments are possible. Let's go to E scribe.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 20432.165, "end": 20433.205, "text": "Councillor Clark, your vote, please.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 20433.205, "end": 20433.585, "text": "Yes.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 20433.645, "end": 20436.665, "text": "Thank you. Chair, all the votes are in.", "segments_merged": 2 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 20439.265, "end": 20475.365, "text": "Let's display the votes, please. That's carried seven to one with Councillor Johnston against. I don't think we have anything else. We have finished the agenda for today. Thank you so much. Thank you to all the colleagues. I was hoping for 12, but that's fine. It's uh It's still before three, right? Uh thank you. Great work. We achieved a lot today. Thank you. And uh once again, Team Canada plays on Friday at 1 p.m. There's a wall there's a watch party at Oaklair. Try to attend it. Thank you guys. Have fun.", "segments_merged": 7 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_10", "start": 20476.045, "end": 20476.445, "text": "Chair.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_16", "start": 20477.765, "end": 20487.605, "text": "I got you. I just uh wanted to note there is a briefing uh in there for everyone on the uh sport for life policy. Uh and I am happy to make it a motion to adjourn.", "segments_merged": 1 }, { "speaker": "SPEAKER_26", "start": 20487.965, "end": 20499.765, "text": "Councillor Cali to motion to adjourn. Anyone opposed? No seeing none, hearing none. We are adjourned. Thank you guys.", "segments_merged": 3 } ], "full_text": "Good morning and welcome to June 10th, 2026 Community Development Committee meeting. Uh clerk's role, please. Thank you, Chair. On the roll, Councillor Tyres, Councillor Ewell, Here. Councillor Kelly, Present. Councillor Atkinson, Councillor Clark, Councillor Johnston, Councillor YNS, Councillor Penzopoulos, Councillor Schmidt, Councillor Chabot, Councillor Ward, Councillor Jameson, Councillor McClain, Mayor Farkas, Chair Dollywell. I'm here. Thank you, Chair. Over to you, Councillor Atkinson, for land acknowledgement, please. Oki, Umbawastich, Danitara, Tanshe. Indigenous peoples have had their own names for this area that have been in use long before settlers named this place Calgary. In the Blackfoot language, it is called Mokinstis. In the Iythka Nakota Wiscabe nation, they refer to this place as Winchispa Oyade. And the people of the Tsutina nation call this Gustis. The Metis call the Calgary area Otas. Kn Kwani, Otas Kwani. I'll get it. We appreciate and acknowledge that we are gathered on this ancestral and traditional territory of the Blackfoot nations of the Siksika, Bigani, and Gaini First Nations, the Ithcas, Nakota, Wikestabe First Nations, comprised of the Chinniki, Bearspaw, and Good Stoney First Nations, and the Tsutina First Nation. The city of Calgary is also homeland to the historic Northwest Metis and to the Ote Pimsawak Metis government, Metis Nation Battle River Territory, Nose Hill Metis District 5, and Elbo Metis District 6. We acknowledge and give gratitude to the many First Nations, Metis and Inuit, who live here and call Calgary home, and we will continue to steward this land in the ways they have for thousands of years before us. Thank you so much, Councillor Atkinson. When I was looking for a volunteer for land acknowledgement, he said something that was really great. He said anytime, every time. So thank you. Um I think Councillor uh Clark is here in person, and Councillor Johnston is uh remote. Um Before I go to confirmation of agenda, just opening remarks, uh colleagues and those in in the public, those who are at home, something big is coming to this country. And uh that is Soccer World Cup for men. Uh it's starting tomorrow, but Canada plays its first game. On Friday against Bosnia-Herzegovina, that is June 12th. And this is great. This is the first time we are hosting the World Cup. So I encourage everybody to cheer on Canada, take part in this historic moment, and also attend some of the watch parties. CMSA in collaboration with City of Calgary and our other partners, they're hosting uh three watch parties uh at Oaklair Plaza. One on June 12th at 1 p.m. when Canada takes on Bosnia-Herzegovina. June 18th, Canada plays Qatar and Vancouver. And then June 24th, again at Oau Claire Plaza at 1 p.m. when Canada is playing Switzerland. And the big one, July 19th, 1 p.m. on Stephen Avenue, when Canada might play whoever we are in the finals of the Soccer World Cup. It's gonna happen. I also want to give shout out to clubs in my ward in Northeast Calgary, Northeast United FC. They're also holding hosting watch parties, Spartans, Skyview FC, Grassroots Soccer Club, and Skyview uh Soccer Club. So these are local clubs that are hosting watch parties. Me and Councillor Tyres were in Edmonton last Monday watching uh Canada and Herzegovina. No, sorry, uh Uzbekistan. It was an amazing game. We won 2 0 and things looked really good. Let's not jinx it. Go, Canada go. Thank you. Anybody else wanna add? Oh, you named all of your soccer clubs. I don't know if I can name all of mine, but there's definitely Blizzards, FC, you know, that are um supporting some uh watch parties coming up too. I guess we've we've got the West Clubs too, and I feel really bad that I don't remember all of them right now. But yeah, it was really great um going to the game with you, uh Councillor Dollywall. You know, we um we got to witness some some history in the making. It was really special. We also brought our families, our teenage sons, and and our families, and it was a really good opportunity to just be a proud uh Canadian, sending our boys off uh to go and uh fight the good fight on the field. So it's wonderful. Thanks a lot, Councillor Dollywall. Thank you so much. It was amazing. And you know what? Uh there's only two teams that are m uh using Canada as a base camp. One is Canada. Can someone guess who the other is? Panama. And the reason teams are not coming here is not because of our weather, because we don't have facilities. And that's why Foothills Fieldhouse is so important. Please, provincial government, federal government, if you're listening, give us the money. We're ready to build it. Thank you. With that, can I get a mover on agenda? Councillor Cali. Um clerks, just a question. There is a in camera. Uh is it automatically last item, or can we make a change to make it last item? I know some counselors have expressed. Uh desired to attend that and if we can move it to the last as a last item. It currently is the last item on the agenda. Great, thank you. Um so Councillor uh Cali moved it. Any opposition? Do we go to e scribe or we can just do a voice vote? We have it prepared and described. Let's jump to e scribe if it's vague today. It is. Councillor Clark, your vote, please. Thank you. Councillor Johnston, your vote, please. Yeah. And Councillor Tyres, your vote please. Yes. Chair, all the votes are in. Thank you. Can we display the votes, please? That's passed unanimously. Seven nothing. Can I get Councillor Atkinson to move the minutes? Moved. Great. Can we go to E Scribe or voice? Um we have it prepared in easy. Let's go to let's jump E scribe. Councillor Johnson, your vote, please. Oh, thank you. Chair, all the votes are in. Thank you. Can we display it, please? 7 0. Great. Thank you. And nothing on consent. So we can move to our uh first items. 7.2. Before we go there, once again, if there's any public speakers out there, uh let's be respectful of uh Of our administration and counselors, vice versa. Counselors, let's be respectful of those public speakers. Let's stay focused on the items. Let's get it done by noon. I don't want to jinx it, but we can do it. Seriously, if Canada can win the Soccer World Cup, this is easier. Thank you. Um, so we will go with 7.2 transit bylaw. And I believe the speakers are here Greg Pastorick, Marcia Gonder, and Ashley Bradburn. You guys are good to go. Good morning, members of Community Development Committee. My name is Gregory Pastrick, and I'm the team lead for policy and bylaw development in the Community Strategies Business Unit. With me today are Ashley Wedderburn, Acting Director of Community Strategies, and Marcy Gonder, Chief of Public Vehicle Standards. Next slide, please. We are here today to recommend that the Transit bylaw 4M81 be amended to explicitly expand the existing prohibition of visible weapons on transit vehicles to include all transit property. The report also provides information about municipal weapon regulation in cities across Canada and confirms that Calgary's approach is consistent with common practice. Next slide, please. The visible weapons provision of the transit bylaw was introduced in October of 2024 as part of a package of changes that introduced a variety of new offenses, including the harassment of transit system users, non destination use of transit, and altering transit passes. That batch of changes also allowed bicycles on the C train at all times. Separately, the Public Behavior Bylaws Visible Weapons Provision came into force on June 24th, 2025. And in September of 2025, Council directed administration to undertake additional research and report back with information about rules in other Canadian cities. This report fulfills that direction, and administration is not recommending any changes to the public behavior by law. Next slide, please. What administration is recommending is an amendment to the visible weapons provision of the Calgary Transit bylaw. Since the end of 2024, it has been an offense under the transit bylaw to visibly display a weapon on a transit vehicle. Weapons enforcement at stations has relied on the public behavior bylaw. Having these offenses in different bylaws has introduced avoidable operational complexity. What we're recommending today is an amendment to the transit bylaw that will simplify enforcement by prohibiting visible weapons on transit vehicles and on transit property, all in one provision of one bylaw. Next slide, please. You may have noticed that the recommended bylaw amendments change in what parts of the transit system the city bans the visible display of weapons as opposed to the possession of a weapon. Visible display of a weapon is a behavior that the city can regulate as part of the authority granted to it by the government of Alberta through the Municipal Government Act, including section 7B of the MGA, which allows the municipality to pass bylaws to regulate people, activities, and things in public places. If a province does not have an authority under the Canadian Constitution, it cannot delegate that authority to the city, and we therefore cannot legislate in that area. This is the case, for example, with criminal law, which is the exclusive domain of the federal government. This approach to regulating weapons while avoiding possession bans is consistent across Canadian cities and is reflected in the jurisdictional scan provided in attachment three. Next slide, please. Once again, here's the administration recommendation to amend the Calga Transit bylaw for M81 by expanding the visible weapons prohibition to include both transit property and transit vehicles. We thank you for your time and are available for questions. Thank you so much for your presentation. Before we go to questions, uh, is there anyone in the Uh in the public who would like to speak to this item, which is transit bylaw. Going once. I don't hear anyone. I don't see anyone. With that, we'll close the public part of this item. Over to Councillor Cali. Uh thank you, Chair. Nice simple change for I think very good reasons. Uh but I wanted to ask you, you'd mentioned there in the presentation about uh making changes to one bylaw to simplify things. Just curious why we're making the change to the transit bylaw versus the public behavior bylaw, which would have a uh presumably larger scope. Thank you for the question. The change to the uh transit bylaw is um Being recommended because the uh operational complexity uh is found predominantly in the transit safety enforcement um area that on platforms um referencing the two uh bylaws was um proving a stumbling block uh that we can clean up um by putting by making the change in the transit bylaw. Do we have any what I'm hearing through that then is that we don't have similar issues at other city properties like recreation centers or anything along those lines. Is that is that what I should be hearing? We haven't identified anything where there's um been that sort of issue at other city facilities um related to uh other type of public spaces. Um I'll just look over my shoulder and see if um Chief Bakitus has anything they want to add to that. Hi. Good morning. Yeah, so we would still consider the amendment that we made to the public behavior bylaw to be new. We've evaluated the tickets that we've issued with our peace officers, which is somewhat limited. But Calgary Police Service has issued well over 50 tickets. We've engaged them with conversations to see how it's working for them, and they feel like it's working well. So no challenges right now from an enforcement perspective in administering that bylaw. That's great. And just to maybe ask you the question directly, you do believe in order to be able to get where we want to, it is easiest to uh or best to amend the transit bylaw, uh not the public behavior by law vis a vis, we would have that same uh at all city properties. Yeah, I I would just consider what's before you to be a bit of a housekeeping amendment. The the wording in the bylaw was transit vehicle, so that excluded uh transit stations. So the transit peace officers were unable to enforce the bylaw that they commonly enforce in those areas. So this is really just to uh improve uh enforcement efficiency. Yeah, I agree. It's definitely a housekeeping one. I did, like I said, fully supportive. Uh just wanted to clarify there that that though that you We're bringing the transit bylaw in alignment with the public behavior bylaw then? Is that basically what we're seeing here? I'm just trying to I'm trying to figure out uh I uh uh to the point in the presentation that we don't want two bylaws saying two different things. I'll I'll just step in. The transit property is private property, not public property. So that was the gap that we're closing. So the public behavior bylaw and Colleen Sinclair from laws here, but uh that's we couldn't apply the public behavior bylaw to the transit platform because it's private property. So that's what we're that's why it's in the transit bylaw because it's related to the transit infrastructure to make sure that we're safe all along the transit journey. Maybe get some clarification from law there that city other city owned facilities, are those public or private spaces? Yeah, Colleen Sinclair, manager of municipal law and enforcement. Um the issue actually was that the fair paid zone, in particular, of the C train platform likely doesn't fall within the definition of public space in our public behavior bylaw because there is a barrier. The public isn't welcome to wander through the platform. It's a fair paid area, you have to have paid. So the concern was that when someone leaves the purely public portion of a C train station enters the fair paid zone, if they walked into a vacuum in terms of the bylaws, public behavior may not apply, and transit definitely didn't apply. So this is to plug that gap. That makes a ton of sense to me. Thank you very much. Those are my questions, Chair. Thanks. Sorry, Councillor Cali. Over to Councillor Tyres. Um yeah, just wondering um from admin if you have data on you about if attacks with or without a weapon are more common on the trains and buses or are they more common on transit property, like train stations, bus loops, et cetera? Thank you, Councillor Tyers. I that because it's a criminal um offense, I don't have that data, but I can um collect some of the data that we have um with regards to the weapons that our officers find and get it back to you. Okay, yeah, thanks. That would be appreciated. Absolutely. Um, and obviously this so this bylaw came up because a lot of things were happening that previous council wanted to address. Is there a particular weapon that's prevalent in like these assaults? Is is there something very specific that we're trying to address, or is it just in general, just um Trying to avoid having uh weapons being uh presented on transit. Thank you, Councillor. Um we there's it's no specific weapon. It it is just to address individuals who are using items that are perceived as weapons or could be utilized as a weapon for us to be able to um mitigate that. Yeah. It it's um difficult to dif I I guess define uh what a weapon would be then, because like, you know, for instance in Kralv Maga, like you're supposed to find any weapon that you find within a certain distance of yourself to keep yourself alive. But um okay, so when this is going to be applied, uh Yeah, I guess how are your how are the bylaw officers supposed to know like what they're looking for? So it's traditional weapons, but how do they um how do they determine that like something could become a weapon? And so it's discretionary to your point, Councillor. So if an individual, one of our officers comes across an individual who is brandishing something that could be perceived as a weapon, I have seen things such as uh hairdryers used as a weapon. It could be pipes, it could be um weapons that have been made by those individuals. Um it's something that is perceived as being used as a weapon against somebody else. Okay, okay, understood. Um and are there any mechanisms, I guess, that your team are able to monitor such such a thing? Like uh, I know that you have limited resources, you have limited bylaw officers. This is putting yet another thing on their plate to monitor it. Do you have any um uh I I suppose strategies or plans to be able to accurately, I guess, um enforce this in the way that you're protecting the public? Thank you, Councillor. Our officers are already seeing these, and so this just gives them the ability to do so on transit platforms. And so when they see a weapon and it's it's a visible weapon and it's a traditional weapon, they can enforce it. Right now they're sitting in an area where they're on the platforms in a paid fare zone where they can't address it. And so, yes, they will have the ability, this will give them the ability to do so. Okay, excellent. Thank you so much. That's all my questions. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor Tyres. Over to Councillor Yule. Yeah, just a quick question. Um we're we're talking about um platforms that are private, but what about the free fare zone? How how will this be applied on those platforms that are kind of public private? Yeah, and so it's part of the transit system, and so that's where we can utilize that on transit property, and as well as if it uh goes a little bit off of that transit property, then we can use the public behavior bylaw. Okay. So okay. So the will that that be clearly defined for for those platforms? It's a very good question, sir. I think it'll be up to the discretion of the officer. Obviously, when you're on the transit system and you've got the stations, places where they're sitting in the vestibules where people are waiting, I think that would be ki considered on the transit system, but it'd be up to the discretion of the officer to be able to articulate in the ticket that is written. Okay, thank you. Thank you, sir. Distracted. Over to Councillor Atkinson. Thank you, Councillor Yule. Great. Um with the bylaw as it's written and the um using it uh on on our on our trains um or our vehicles. Uh how often is it used stacking with other sort of bylaw offenses like the non destination travel, like you mentioned the sort of other elements that you have at your disposal versus how often would um has this one been used as uh solely to deal with it's a very serious problem. Yeah. So the stats that I have now are sorry, Councillor, just to make sure that I'm I'm understanding your question. Are you asking me how much the stats that we have now that we've utilized it? Yeah, with when you're using it on vehicles, like if it's been, you know, we have uh you didn't pay a fare, your non-destination travel, um, these other ones, is it often done as a suite of of bylaw infractions, or is this one has this one been being used as a sort of singular to sort of tackle this this problem independently? I I think it depends on what's transpiring for the officer in any given s situation. I can tell you that we have written um uh six violation tickets for a firearm on transit. Um carry visible weapon on transit property, we have 18 violation tickets, and carrying visible protection spray, we've got our Uh as known as Bear Spray, we have uh 24 violation tickets. Under the public behavior bylaw, we have 22 violation tickets for visible knife in public and open display of weapons, weapons or noxious substances is one violation ticket. With regards to your question, if they are writing multiple violation tickets, I would have to get back to you. Okay. Um and then I guess like we want to make sure um people can go to their baseball game still on traffic and bring the baseball bat that they need to to have. And if they're carrying a screwdriver because they're that they're in the trades, how do we sort of and I I I know what we can trust, but I just just to get this sort of out in the open. Um Absolutely. I I to your point, Councillor, we wouldn't be giving someone a violation ticket simply for carrying a bat or having a screwdriver. It is that intent to harm and use that as a weapon, which would give our peace officers the ability to address that behavior. Sorry, if I can just uh clarify as well, the bylaw itself, as it curtly reads, talks about without lawful purpose. And so a person wearing their baseball uniform, whatever, would be able to clearly make out that lawful purpose. Right. And the only one that sort of like I've been thinking about that is maybe like a complication is like s some women are especially like or vulnerable folks are are maybe Holding their keys in uh in their fists uh or whatever when they maybe exit uh the train and onto the platform and just trying to get home safely. And I'm just just uh once again, like uh in some ways there is an intent there, right? But it is sort of like through a self defense mechanism and sort of making sure that they're getting home safely, just making sure that this does not uh get in the way of people feeling like they can get home safe on transit. Absolutely, thank you, Councillor. I I completely understand that. And again, it's it's an officer discretionary piece. I think they would look at that and realize that that's what that individual is doing and and would assist them in in getting where they need to be safely. Yeah, great. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you so much, Councillor Atkinson. I don't see anyone else in the queue, so can I get a mover? Councillor Atkinson to move it. Floor is yours. Yeah, this really does seem more like uh just a bylaw cleanup, just sort of making sure that we have um this this gap filled. Um I would be interested to sort of see maybe how uh these pieces like non destination travel, um the the weapons bylaw, um how they are being used and if it, you know, um we also have to think about our our Our vulnerable folks who maybe are homeless folks who maybe are even carrying weapons as a way to protect themselves as well. And I do think we can trust our officers to be making sure that folks who are sort of holding something that could be perceived as a weapon are doing so uh with an intent outward or an intent for self protection. And I think that that this goes that way. But I I would be yeah, interested in sort of making sure that we're not um overloading folks who uh with sort of our the heavy hand of justice um and and i i don't think that from what i've read and sort of heard today i don't think that's the case but would just be interested in getting some further details on that so with that moved Thank you. And I'm assuming you're closed. closed Thank you. Let's transit over to East Cribe. Councillor Johnson, your vote please. Yes. Thank you. Chair, all the votes are in. Thank you. Can we display the votes? Motion is carried seven nothing. Thank you so much. Thank you for your presentation. Next we have 7.3 truck route and transportation of dangerous curds pilot updates. CD 2026 0289. And this will be. Stephen Kay. Go ahead, sir. Good morning, members of the committee. Thank you for having me today. My name is Stephen Kay from Traffic Services and Mobility. I serve as the chair of the Cities of Calgary's Truck Route Committee. Before I begin the presentation, I'd like to outline a clerical correction that is required in the report. In the report, under previous council direction, the final sentence indicates that the truck route bylaw was last amended on 2020, March 16th, and the transportation of dangerous goods bylaw was approved on 2024, February 23rd, and last amended on 2025, April 11th. Those dates need to be corrected, and that last sentence should read the truck route bylaw was last amended on 2020, March 16th. The transportation of dangerous goods bylaw was approved on 2004, February 23rd, and last amended on 2005, April 11th. Thank you. Once again, thank you for having me today. We're here today to discuss truckroute and transportation of dangerous goods bylaw updates. The purpose of this presentation is to provide recommendations to update the truckroute bylaw and the transportation of dangerous goods bylaw. Next slide, please. The truck route bylaw was last amended on March 16, 2020. The Transportation of Dangerous Goods bylaw was approved on February 23, 2004, and last amended on April 11, 2005. Next slide, please. The recommendation is that the Standing Policy Committee on Community Development recommend that Council give three readings to proposed bylaw 18M 2025 in attachment two to amend the truck route bylaw 60 M90 and give three readings to proposed bylaw 17M 2025 in attachment three to repeal and replace the Transportation of Dangerous Goods bylaw 13M 2004. Next slide, please. These updates support safe, reliable, and efficient movement of goods across Calgary by focusing truck traffic on major corridors and minimizing impacts on local community roads. This helps businesses operate effectively while ensuring Calgarians continue to receive the products and services they rely on. The recommendations include harmonizing the mass-based truck definition to the definition in provincial commercial vehicle safety requirements. These changes were brought forward from the police to help with enforcement activities and have been discussed at truck route committee meetings that the city hosts with industry. Support has been provided from the Alberta Motor Transportation Motor Transport Association, as well as changes to the truck routes and dangerous goods routes needed as a result of the growth of Calgary and roadway improvements that have been built, such as the completion of the ring road. The transportation of dangerous goods bylaw requires provincial ministerial approval prior to coming into force. Consultation with Alberta Transportation and Economic Corridors has indicated that they will recommend ministerial approval for the proposed bylaw in attachment three once council has given it three three readings. My colleagues in law also wanted me to highlight that the two bylaws have 2025 bylaw numbers rather than 2026 because we assigned numbers to them last year prior to sending the transportation of dangerous goods bylaw to the province for approval, and those are the numbers we're still using for the sake of consistency in communicating with the province. Next slide, please. Goods movement is an important component of Calgary's economy. As a hub for transportation and logistics that supports the two major rail lines, the airport and roadways to move goods into, out of, and through the city, it contributes over $10 billion to the Calgary region. Calgary follows regulations and policies to support and regulate the movement of goods. Regulations are mandated by the federal and provincial governments, as well as the traffic bylaw, truck route bylaw, and the transportation of dangerous goods bylaw. The bylaws allow the city to designate where the movement of goods is to take place through the roadway network. A safe, efficient, and connective roadway network to move goods is critical to the success of Calgary's role as a logistics hub. The city endeavors to provide a network of roadways that provide carriers with an easily followed and efficient network of roadways that are supportive of business. Next slide, please. And once again the recommendations are that the Standing Policy Committee on Community Development recommend that Council give three readings to proposed bylaw 18M 2025 in attachment two to amend the truck route bylaw 60 M90 and give three readings to proposed bylaw 17M 2025 in attachment three to repeal and replace the transportation of dangerous goods bylaw. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. We'll open it to any public speakers. Hearing none, seeing none, we'll uh close the public speaking portion over to my colleagues for any questions of administration. Over to Councillor Atkinson. um yeah i noted the sort of long time between updates uh on on this and i guess i'm i'm just thinking sort of is is that a because it requires sort of these provincial um approvals that we sort of have been bundling it up and sort of uh or or it takes the the time it takes um and and then i guess like the follow-on for that is just like has this prepared us for the future like and made sure that we're um yeah if we're not going to be doing this on with any sort of regular cadence for whatever the reason that we're sort of set up for for sort of the ways in which Calgary is growing and and needs to grow. Thank you for the question, Councillor Adkinson. Um you are correct. Uh it has been uh a little while since the last update to the routes. Um we were waiting for the opening of the rain road. That happened a couple of years ago, and then as you mentioned, uh the transportation of dangerous goods route bylaw uh required coordination with the province, and that took uh uh some time for us to coordinate with them. And these updates are intended to prepare for uh the growth of the city's transportation network as it expands and changes as well. So are there are is there any concern or are you sort of doing that sort of think ahead um About ways like if if we will need to be expanding this network beyond sort of the proposals today in the in the coming years and whether we need to start that process with the province uh sooner than later on any sort of routes, just thinking about some of the industrial work that we've got uh maybe planned and and pieces like that. Yeah. Yeah, uh thank you for the question, Councillor Adkinson. Again, yeah. We uh do keep an eye on sort of how the city is expanding and growth, and uh there will be need to be updates to the truck route bylaw and transportation of good dangerous goods bylaw in the future, but we've based the current recommendations on the the uh existing growth, the growth that has happened since the last updates, as well as what we know today in terms of how the network is planned to change and in expanding. Great. Now I'll go to the flip side, I guess, is I noticed that I think they're all additions to the truck route. I didn't sort of notice any that were removals from from the network. Is that something that we uh sort of evaluate and whether there are roads that maybe were brought on at a certain point in time where it made sense to have a truck route here, but as the city has grown and changed, especially in sort of our inner city established neighborhoods, that we take a look at that uh and and remove truck routes that no longer need to be in service. Thank you again, Council Anderson. The general rule is once a roadway is a truck route, we try to maintain its status as a truck route. However, as you mentioned, there are roads that maybe don't make sense as a truck route anymore. One example with this update is the removal of Fish Creek Boulevard as well as James McKevitt Road west of McLeod Trail as a truck route. That road was a truck route in anticipation of the opening of the Southwest Ring Road as that important connection in that area. Fish Creek Boulevard and James McKebot Road west of McLeod Trail do not service industrial or major commercial areas. So the updates include removal of Fish Creek Boulevard. uh from uh a designated truck route as part of this. Great. My bad for not I yeah, sorry I didn't see it when I was scouring through. So no, that's great. Thank you for the the answers. I'm good. Thank you, Councillor. I don't see anyone else in the queue, so I'm just gonna finish it off, Jump. You know, in in in Maine at page three or five it says the movement of heavy vehicles to roadways that have been planned, designed, and constructed to accommodate them. That's why we have a truck route. Um in my ward, we got 36th Street, we got airport trail, both single lanes. Uh so hard for even vehicles to uh to normal vehicles. Uh and then country hills was in a bad shape. And often we see trucks there, trailers, uh, even though they're not designated truck routes. So, what is the purpose of having this bylaw if you're not going to be able to enforce it properly? Um I think the section of thirty sixth street you're referring to, the two lane section, is directly west of the airport. Yeah. And I believe that East of the airport, yes, I apologize. Yes. I believe that is in an unrestricted truck area. So it's not specifically called out on the routes, but it is in the unrestricted uh truck areas. Um the part of the challenge is some of these roads uh have uh been in place for a number of years are and are waiting for upgrades uh as well through development, uh 36th Street, and you mentioned country uh pardon me, uh airport trail, and I believe that's the section between 60th Street and Sony Trail. Um my understanding is that uh section of road is waiting on some uh developer funded improvements and capital uh funding as well. That's my frustration because it said there is a risk of premature wear or damage if trucks used roads that are not planned, designated, and constructed. Obviously, they are not. We got CN multimodal yard over there and truck traffic. I just struggle when I see trucks there because these roadways are not designed, not constructed for trucks. That's why I was asking how can we then enforce a bylaw? Because PyLaw clearly says all these roads they're in there that that's where the trucks can go. So I don't know. I'm just struggling a little bit. Fair enough. Part of it is in anticipation of those roads getting upgraded to a more urbanized standard so they can handle the volume as well as the weights of those trucks as well. We're gonna have a pretty economic gateway. Uh how much are you collaborating with the infrastructure services when they're putting 10 year capital plan together to identify some of these uh roadways streets so they could be properly? We can't wait for the development and we can constrain the economic and movement of goods that they are identified on that 10 year plan so they could be properly funded to support our economy. Yeah. We collaborate with many other groups within the city, infrastructure services as well as planning. There's a member of planning who uh joins me on the truck route committee to help understand what the long range planning is for the city and what the needs are going to be for goods movement as well. Great, thank you. And I'll be having those discussions with infrastructure services too. My last question is attachment to uh schedule A, we have added 80th Avenue from Saddletown Circle to Metis as a truck route. Is that correct? I apologize. I just need to. That's okay, that's okay. Just some clarification because putting a truck in Saddletown Circle, wow, that's gonna be something interesting. Yeah, and in the center of Saddletown Circle, there is the commercial area, so the businesses in that area do need to uh have uh service from trucks for deliveries and everything like that. Again, mobility talk to it a little bit. Uh have they been consulted on it? Because Seldon Circle is is is not properly, in my opinion, again, it can it's very busy. It has LRT there, it has major bus uh uh uh bus terminal there, uh there's school, there's lots of traffic, and putting these trucks under little concern, putting these trailers in there, it's gonna create more safety concerns, and we have a safety uh safer mobility plan coming up, and this is just gonna exaggerate the problem. I mean, I I just I just struggle with this. If you can convince me that no, that's that this is the right thing to do. A part of the need for Saddletown Circle as a truck route is uh, as I mentioned, to service the uh commercial areas in the center of uh that development as well. Um it is a very busy area, as you mentioned, with the LRT station as well as a commercial area. Um and uh if we were to remove that as a truck route, it wouldn't remove the trucks from the road because the trucks still need to service the commercial area as well. I think you answered my question that they still be using it. So that means we need to work with bylaw to make sure uh that uh yeah. Okay, great. Um that's it for me. Thank you for answering all the questions. Uh actually uh we have Council Cali now in the QBI. Yeah, apologies. Sorry, I No, no. thought I'd jump in there. Uh two questions that uh They're gonna nag at me if I don't if I don't ask them, but they don't they don't impact the bylaw. Uh clerks, could you uh bring up attachment seven, please? Uh the first question I had here was just simply um there's no legend in any of these maps. So can you tell us what the color difference between the roads is? Thank you, Councillor Kelly. I apologize for the oversight on the legend. Generally, oh sorry, I will bring this up. So in the truck route map, we have dangerous goods as red lines and green lines are designated truck routes. And uh the purple uh lines shown, those are unrestricted truck areas. And then the yellow was it game? Uh yellow is uh the central business district where there are um dangerous goods restrictions uh based on time of day. Um so uh yes, uh Got it. Councillor Kelly, uh if I may make an observation, uh you you caught some things that uh I missed on those legends, so I apologize. Well, that's all good. And then clerks, could you actually zoom in just on the southern half of this map? I note there's four by my count, uh, sort of. Floating green lines that don't connect to the network. I'm just sort of curious, what's the deal? Um Can I drive up and down there with my with my truck route, but I can't actually go anywhere? You can actually, and that's actually uh another error that you have uh caught, uh Councillor Kelly. Um those are supposed to be continuous lines, those uh disconnected lines are bow bottom trail, and that is a designated truck route. Uh it's not supposed to be broken like that. So in some of our mapping items, uh that happens occasionally and we have to catch it. So thank you for Yeah, it's right. If we could get a green line in the north, but that's a different thing, Councillor Dollywall. Uh thank you. Those are my questions. Thank you, Councillor Kelly. Over to Councillor Atkinson. Yeah, sorry, just to follow up, because Cancer Dollarwell's piece like just to understand, if if a truck needs to go somewhere in the city, they can They follow the truck routes as best as possible to get as close as possible, but then they leave the truck route to get to their destination. Say like the uh the saddletown circle, like uh if you're delivering to that area, uh you don't need a truck route to to do that. The truck route means that it's through traffic. Is that's that's my understanding of the distinction. that. Yes. Yeah. So I guess like in that way, I think actually kind of back to sort of the idea of Of removals. I think that in the next phase of this work, we should be going back to look at certain routes, especially in established neighborhoods, and whether they're still serving the purpose of directing flows in and around. It would not prevent, say, I know that uh Memorial Drive is a truck route, but also just three blocks north of there, Kensington Road is a is a truck route. Um do those both have to be turned on? Kensington Road, we've actually done a lot of uh pedestrian safety mitigation work, landing in uh curb ball bouts, these kinds of things. Uh I I would suggest that I think we need to go back and sort of take a look at whether the these areas really do need to be cutting through sort of residential neighborhoods. Are they in line with our um you know our our pedestrian safety strategies and these kinds of things? And and instead trying to get those out of our neighborhoods, knowing that. If the truck needs to go to Kensington, it can still use Kensington Road to get there. That's but I wanted to make sure that that's the my correct understanding is yeah, that piece, that difference. Yes, that that's correct. And uh that is a very good suggestion uh for future updates. Thank you, Councillor. Great, yeah. Um and then the other thing I just wonder about is how this information gets to drivers. Um I don't know if there's I I don't think there's a way on like direction apps to sort of say truck routes only, but maybe I'm not a truck driver, so maybe they actually have either a different GPS mapping system. But it's like if you search on Google Maps or Apple Maps, I don't believe there's a way to sort of say follow truck routes as much as possible. Just wondering if there are ways in which we're getting that information out there, especially with modern uh sort of routing that people are using just on their phones and and whatnot. Yeah, that's that's an important point as well, Councillor Arkansas. Um we have heard from or or pardon me through the police who also sit on the truck route committee that um trucks uh truckers uh operators of trucks do just enter something into uh a navigation app like Google Maps and it takes them on the most direct route possible, but it doesn't uh provide uh designate or pardon me uh truck route information. Um the city does maintain truck route information uh on our website and we rely on operators as well as industry to be aware of that. And we do have a PDF version of the truck route map that will be updated with these uh bylaw updates. And uh we have been working on uh trying to find solutions that uh have uh a better uh or I guess a more interactive online component that is easier for uh truckers to navigate rather than downloading a large PDF and looking at it as if it were a paper map. Yeah, that's a lot of like manual uh work and these folks are just trying to get you know get around and uh especially when what they're using in their day-to-day life is just yeah, their their map on their phone to then have them have to sort of go to uh sort of a manual PDF sort of style. Um I think it that would be also uh an interesting part of future work would be to uh see the ways in which we can make this more technologically available, whether there are um Apps that we could be providing that actually like map to these routes and then do sort of the localized limited run for trucks, whether there's services we could tie into and then you know pass that information out. Maybe there is some hidden feature within Google Maps or whatever, and once we did this overlay, it would it would do it. But I really think that meeting sort of modern expectations around uh mapping and and routing would would do us well to make sure that trucks are staying in the places that we want them. That's an excellent suggestion. Thank you, Councillor Atkinson. Thank you. I'm good. Thanks, Councillor Atkinson. Just one last question triggered. That was gonna be my question. I forgot to ask. AMTA, what role do they play in this? Because their association that has 16,000 members. Is there an opportunity for city to collaborate with them so drivers have the most updated truck route on their map, like on their app or something like that? Um the AMTA Alberta Motor Transport Association is invited to truck route committee meetings and they join us and they provide information and they are a conduit to disseminate information to their membership as well. So there is opportunities for further collaboration. We're always welcome to collaborate with uh whomever is interested in truck routes. Okay, perfect. Thank you. Thank you for uh your presentation. I'm gonna go over to Council Yule to move this item. Yeah, happy to move this. Um being the resident Councillor that's From the supply chain area, like I the I view this bylaw as just bylaw maintenance coming into form with uh the provincial rules and and uh one of the big things about truckers is they need clear um rules and expectations and and this is what's what's doing that. Um you've got good operators and you've got bad operators. Um and this this is more for those good operators that plan their routes through our city. And I would be I would be uh hesitant to to to you know try and chop you know routes away uh in that we're trying to make sure that um truckers have uh really strong uh alternatives to get through our city um because they're they're just trying to keep our economy going and uh and so the more routes the better. Um and and and if you have good operators, they will find the the proper routes to go through our city and also move in a timely fashion. Like time is money in the supply chain uh world, and we have a very complicated city. Um we did touch on some some of the unrestrained um industrial areas. Um I think this is a good thing to have in the back of your mind when we're talking putting residential into our industrial areas because we do need to make sure that um truckers can move and they need to move, and it and it is quite congested sometimes in in some of these industrial areas. So remember this map when we're talking, you know, putting residential in our industrial areas. Um so yeah, happy to move, happy to um uh support this. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Yule. Before I ask you to close over to Councillor Cali for debate. Yeah, I just wanted to uh uh acknowledge that uh earlier on when I was identifying those sort of like individual blips, uh which I I I want to think of as truck portages, but I I digress. I just like that idea. Lovely, have to unload the truck. Uh no, I uh I want to recognize the fact that that the maps are not what we're approving here today. We're approving the bylaw. The bylaw is all correct. The maps are just here for our for our information. So I just wanted to I wanted to recognize the fact that uh uh despite the fact that there's some errors on the map, I'm that causes me no concern uh in terms of supporting this here today. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Cali. Over to Councillor Tyres for debate. Okay, I'm gonna ask you guys to indulge me. You actually just mentioned what I was just gonna talk about. Building communities in an industrial area. So, long time ago, the city decided to build a community of Royal Oak right next to a gravel pit. And since then, my residents have experienced a lot of issues at one particular intersection. You're gonna hear uh about this intersection a lot for me. 112th Ave and Country Hills Boulevard. And actually, I had a town hall last night, and that was like one of the major issues. People are getting very upset, very emotional about this. Why? Um, because there's trucks that are speeding through there, very dangerous speeds. There are daycares nearby, there are kids that are crossing the street because they have to go to daycare, crossing for their lives, you know, uh gravel is flying all over the place, people's vehicles are getting damaged. And in discussions actually with administration and their team, we're we're constantly trying to find solutions to this. I actually kind of like what um Councillor Atkinson brought up about a mapping system that makes it very clear about which routes um are available at what times. The thing is, um, and I think our chair brought this up too like, what are we doing to enforce it? There are a lot of uh Truck uh trucks that are just doing whatever they please and there's no enforcement. For instance, in this particular intersection, they're only supposed to be using certain areas at certain times, that's not happening. And they're supposed to be covering, you know, the trucks so that the gravel doesn't fly, that's also not happening. Um, and as far as uh what Councillor Kelly was saying about the maps, like we are proving the maps as well, they are included in the bylaw. And when I look at this map, I see that 112th AV and country hills are still reflected in the truck route where they should be taking other routes to make sure that they're not putting these citizens in danger and that we can maybe move forward with some decisions on this. So at this time, I cannot support the truck route bylaw. Maybe I'll ask for a division of the vote so I can make that clear to my residents that this is something I'm taking very seriously. And when we when it does go forward to council, we can discuss more about some potential um amendments that may include enforcement, um maybe observing the new fee schedule and maps and things like that. Those are the things I'm going to pursue at that moment. But on behalf of Ward 1 residents and that particular intersection, um I won't be supporting uh one because of that. Thank you so much. Thank you for your debate. Over to Councillor Yule for close. Yeah, I think I think this is a very good uh debate to have um and and probably should have at a a at a greater level with all council in that um We as council are are going to be responsible for upgrading some of these roads. An example in my area would be the Stony Industrial Area Structure Plan. It was approved in 2005. One of the biggest things that that residents were concerned about was Country Hills Boulevard was not ready for that type of industrial traffic. And, you know, 20 years later, it's still not ready. And we're we're halfway through that build out of Stony Industrial Area. It'll be on us to make sure that we work on big projects like the widening of Country Hills Boulevard. That's a project that's just waiting for funding. So those are some big projects that cost a lot of money that if we want proper routes through our city, we gotta invest in. Glad to to support this uh this amendment and uh I'm closed. Thank you, Councillor Yule. Let's uh go to E Scribe and we're gonna call one and two separately. So, colleagues, one will be Uh proposed bylaw for the truck route and then the second one will be for the transportation of dangerous goods. Yes for Landon. Chair, all the votes are in. Let's display the votes, please. That is carried six one with council tires in opposition. Um let's go to uh part two of this uh recommendation. Sorry, Chair, we're just gonna correct the numbering of the rank there. Okay, great. Oh yeah, it should be two. Thank you. That vote is ready to Let's go to east grab, please. That's yes again for Councillor Johnston. Thank you, Councillor. go. Chair, all the votes are let's display the votes, please. That is carried seven, nothing. Thank you, colleagues. Uh and thank you for your presentation, uh, Mr. Cake. Thank you. Thank you. Members of council. Uh next we have Safer Mobility Plan Annual Report 2026 CD 2026-0471. Uh clerk uh clerks, before I go to uh speakers, we have uh some folks here from Calgary Services. And if there is a need, I just want to clarify if there's a need from any colleague to ask them question, is it possible, or we have to put a motion forward? Um if they're here to support the presentation from administration, then they can certainly uh speak uh as part of the introduction. Um of course there's a public opportunity to ask questions of the public at standing policy committee, so they could ask answer questions uh uh as members of the public as well at that station. Question if you allow me procedurally, can I ask them if they are here to speak or or or they're just here to watch? I think you could clarify that as chair. Uh officers, are you here to speak to a particular item or just invited by administration in case in case there's any questions? Thank you. So, mobility team. Okay, so this is relevant to this item, guys. Uh colleagues, so if there's any questions, I think uh uh CPS is uh in attendance. Clarify it. Okay, great. Thank you. Now we go to item 7.4, Safer Mobility Plan Annual Report 2026. This will be Mr. Surendar Mesha. Good morning, members of the committee. My name is Surendra Mishra, traffic engineer from mobility. I'm joined today by Troy McLeod, Director of Mobility, Anthony L. Araz, Manager of Mobility Operations, Joanna Domrad, Leader of Mobility Safety, our colleagues and safety partners, Andy Woodward, Staff Sergeant, Calgary Police Service, and Michael Brigle, Deputy Chief Emergency Management and Community Services. We are here to discuss the Safer Mobility Plan Annual Report 2026. The purpose of this presentation is to provide an annual overview of 2025 collision statistics, highlights of recent actions completed in support of traffic safety in Calgary, along with focus areas for 2026 and beyond. Next slide, please. On 2025, May 27, Community Development Committee received the Safer Mobility Plan Annual Briefing 2025, and administration was to report back to CDC. On the Safer Mobility Plan Annual Briefing 2026 by Q2 2026. Next slide, please. Today, our recommendation is that the Community Development Committee recommends to Council to direct administration to report back to the Community Development Committee on the Safer Mobility Plan Annual Briefing 2027 by Q2 2027. And direct administration to expand high impact safety interventions across the network as part of the 2027-2030 budget cycle. Next slide, please. This is an infographic of 2025 collisions in Calgary. In 2025, Calgary witnessed 643 major injuries and lost 38 lives in traffic collisions. That included 15 pedestrians, two cyclists, and six motorcyclists. Compared to 2024, All sectors saw the increase in major injury and fatal collisions, except the motorcyclist injuries, which was down by 17%. These injuries and fatalities are not just the numbers. These are real people fathers, mothers, husband, wife, brothers, and sisters. Every number represents a Calgaryan, and families and communities are affected by these tragedies that have far reaching consequences on our society. Next slide, please. Calgary has consistently witnessed the highest rates for major injury and fatalities per 100,000 population compared to Edmonton and Toronto. This may be related to several factors, such as urban build form, level of investment in traffic safety improvement projects, existing policies, as well as education and enforcement activities. It is interesting to note that both major cities in Alberta. Calgary and Edmonton experienced similar increases in major injury and fatality rates between 24 and 25. A trend not seen in Toronto. Pedestrian major injuries and fatality rates in 2025 were largely unchanged both in Calgary and Edmonton compared to 2024. Next slide, please. 2025 fatality by collision types indicated that pedestrian involved fatal collisions accounted for 40% of total. The highest in all categories, followed by 32% road departure collisions such as off-road, struck object, and head-on, and about 10% of left-on and right angle types of collisions. Next slide, please. This is a comparison of collisions based on functional road classification. It is encouraging to see that since the implementation of neighborhood speed limit to 40 km per hour, we have not witnessed any fatalities on our local roads. About half of total fatal collisions have occurred on arterial roadways, with another one-third of total collisions on high speed freeways. Unfortunately, Calgary has witnessed an increase in fatalities on freeways within the city of Calgary in recent years. Next slide, please. So, why are we in this situation? Although the city of Calgary has invested heavily in pedestrian safety improvements and speed limit reduction in recent years. And has witnessed significant collision reduction at the locations with such improvements. Recent increase in serious injuries and fatalities at higher speed arterials and freeways are outpacing the gains made through targeted safety improvements. Multiple external and local factors are contributing to the increased risk, many beyond municipal control. Some of the factors behind this increase in high severity collisions include policies such as. Provincial restrictions on automated traffic enforcement, removal of graduated licensing, and lack of vehicle impound laws resulting in inadequate deterrence. Aggressive driving has always been a concern. Calgary witnessed 43,000 new registered licensed drivers in 2025, primarily driven by strong net migration and distraction through smartphone use and in vehicle technologies is an ongoing concern as well. Next slide, please. So, what can we do to address this situation? There are ways to reverse this collision trend with preventative, proactive, and responsive approaches. The preventative approach where we can include the lessons learned and best practices early in the planning process and policy development. Proactive approach such as safety improvements at neighborhoods, schools and playground zones, where we may not see the high number of collisions but receive a high number of complaints about speeding and near misses. And responsive approach, an evidence-based approach, where we focus the safety improvements at high collision locations such as high speed arterials and signalized intersections. Some of the best practices include speed humps and speed cushions, various types of crosswalk improvements such as rectangular rapid flashing beacons, marked and sign crosswalks, in street school crosswalk signs, curve extensions. Protected left turns, leading pedestrian intervals, roundabouts, and of course education and enforcement. Next slide, please. Current status of funding. We currently have 5 million in capital funding, 1.5 million in accessibility improvements, and one time investment of 1 million from the Fiscal Stability Reserve. In addition to that, we received 7.55 million for 2026 Vision Zero improvements. And here is the background of the planned expenses for 7.55 million funding in 2026. Next slide, please. These are some of the highlights and actions for 2026. City of Calgary continues to collaborate with Calgary Police Service on the Cephro Mobility Plan, an important step towards a coordinated approach to improve the safety of our road network. Emergency management and community services traffic safety team has become a key partner, delivering important work with Calgary communities. To reduce speeding and improve safety around schools. AI enhanced pedestrian safety platform to identify intersections for safety improvements is under development. We continue to focus on crosswalk improvements. We are conducting a review of collector roadways to identify opportunities for speed reduction. After successful pilot with temporary speed humps in 2025, permanent speed humps and speed cushions are being deployed at 17 locations in 2026. We are implementing roadside improvements such as median cable barriers to reduce the risk of high severity collisions. Next slide, please. Here are some of the future plans. We know that majority of fatalities occur within 300 to 500 meters of entering a community. This is why we are focusing on the gateway treatments as a countermeasure to reduce the risk of these incidents in the neighborhoods. We are expanding the leading pedestrian intervals at signalized intersections. LPI allows pedestrians to get early start when crossing the traffic signals, crossing at traffic signals so they are more visible to drivers. We plan to continue with Vision Zero improvements with a stronger focus on education, engaging our communities to drive real culture change, corridor safety improvements, high risk arterial crosswalks, and missing links will be given high priority. To expand these proven approaches citywide, A sustained funding through the 2027 to 2030 budget cycle is required. Next slide, please. Once again, we would like to recommend that the CDC recommends to council to direct administration to report back to the Community Development Committee on the CEFRO Mobility Plan Annual Briefing 2027 by Q2 2027 and direct administration to expand high impact safety interventions across the network as part of the 2027 to 2030 budget cycle. This concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Before we go to questions of administration, anyone here in the public to speak to this item? Here or on the on on the phone. Hearing none, seen none, we will end the public speaking portion. Over to Councillor Tyres. Thanks, Chair. Thank you so much for your presentation. It is very important to put these different um measures into action. A lot of things which cost a lot of money, and you know, things like speed humps and like changing the roads and like making sure that um drivers are educated. I want to talk about the opposite side of it where the pedestrians and their responsibility. I have teenagers. They have their phones and they're basically you know it it's attached to their hand. They've also got their airpods in, so they can't hear anything. They're not paying attention. They're always looking at their phones. Is there something the city can do, I guess, in this in this plan that involves? Pedestrian education, pedestrian safety, because like it's all I guess the the perspective of this whole plan is driver safety. But I'm just interested, like, have we have we thought about um the people who are actually crossing the road because they haven't made eye contact with the driver to make sure that they're actually gonna stop and slow down or they just like go straight into there. And you know, I'm not blaming um, you know, uh pedestrians by any stretch of the imagination for what happens. I'm just saying there's a little bit of responsibility from both sides. So I was wondering if you could speak to that. Thank you so much. Thank you for your question, Councillor Tyres. So my name is Joanna Damrad. So we do have a lot of educational programs that target just that. We continue to develop different programs for school-aged kids, particularly. There's a very strong focus where we share information about the safe behaviors as kids begin to use our roadways and develop that toolset from very early on. have those safe behaviors embedded in in their daily life. So that is a strong focus of ours and we are expanding those educational programs. Okay, and can I just grab the names of those programs? So we do have the Active and Safe Roots to School program. That's one example. In this situation, facilitators go into school and learn more about how the school uses or the kids use the area. And then there's you know various implemented improvements that we do as part of that that include education. We also have The Community Speed Watch program, for example, where a community goes out with CPS and our staff, and you know, we kind of have those conversations outside about what the expectations are in certain areas. We go out there with radar guns and measure the speeds of vehicles approaching. A lot of the times that brings us on the same page as to what's actually happening in a community and then what we can do in terms of our own behavior, but also like from an improvements perspective in those areas. Okay. Yeah, no, that sounds really great. Love that you guys are working with children, making sure that they're educated. I remember when I was a kid, it's like you always you put your hand out like this and you make eye contact with the driver and just make sure they're crossing safely. Um what about adults? Like I I know you did mention like there's some community initiatives, and that's great to hear too, that you guys are out there with the radar guns and like working with CPS and like being on the same page. But just adults in general, um, is there any any kind of communications or anything that we can uh expect that's um Kind of uh I don't know. I I I guess just bringing to the forefront that like everybody is responsible for what is happening out on the roads um and that we need to be extremely vigilant and things like that. And you know, we're talking about distracted drivers, like distracted people as well. Is there is there anything like that that you guys are working on? So we do have regular public awareness campaigns, and usually with these we follow the Alberta traffic calendar. Traffic safety calendar. So for example, you know, for the distracted driving month, we have a campaign that goes out through our various means with that messaging to, you know, to drivers as well as people, other people using the roadways. You know, back to school is another one where where that's like a main public awareness campaign during the year that we run every year to, you know, just make sure that people are aware of each other as that there's more kids out on the roads. Yeah, excellent. No, I appreciate that. Thank you so much for answering my questions. Thank you. Thanks, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Tyres. I will go over to Councillor Johnston. Yeah, hi there. Um, do we know the demographics of uh the I guess increase in accidents? Um like are there young drivers, older drivers? Like, is there anything specifically we can um rein in our advocacy for, or is it just across the board these accidents are being caused or involve um just everybody and anybody? So we do uh we do know that you know it's it's a wide range of people that are involved in incidents. Some of the issues that we are seeing to some extent is younger drivers. Um, you know, it is a complex issue and technically there's just a lot of different influencing factors in every collision. Every collision is very different from other ones. But some of the trends are that we are seeing young drivers uh involved in some of the severe collisions. Um, you know, whether or not that is something that's connected to the To the sorry, drawing a blank on the to the GEL, I guess. Graduating driver licensing. You know, there are some there's some research starting to come out provincially with some of those impacts. But those are some of the things that we're seeing. Obviously, in these situations where pedestrians are involved, you know, our aging population is more vulnerable in an in an event. So that's something else that we do see regularly. Right, so you so uh we have more senior drivers out there, but at the same time more youth drivers out there as well or young drivers out there? Sorry, just to clarify, I was alluding to like senior pedestrians, right? Uh just because due to the forces involved in a collision. Just to clarify that, sorry, could you repeat your question? Yes, right. So are okay, let's the the victims of this are do is there a certain demographic of the victims that um shine a little bit more than other victims, like So, yes, so those are uh the ones that I've mentioned that are the one that I'm familiar with. Um other than that, you know, it could be really people of any age. I think predominantly we do see that majority of the drivers involved in the severe collisions, it tends to um follow, you know, like most drivers are middle-aged, so we see most drivers among these collisions being middle-aged. Right, and I'm I'm just curious like the increase is um I'm just wondering if a demographic on either side, either the person getting hit by a driver or the driver itself. Like I'm just wondering if there's any data points that stick out above anything else. So that is still something that we're looking at. Um, you know, as we get more data um We we continue to review it and just trying to see those patterns. But because you know, in terms of the most severe collisions, the numbers of them are still quite low in order to draw like some significant robust conclusions. What data is collected on a collision? Because there's 27,000 collisions in Calgary a year. What data is collected uh on on a collision? Because I mean I've been in a collision before. I mean Yep. I don't really remember any data being collected outside of um somebody bumped into me or whatever. Like I'm just curious like what data is being collected and if there's a way to make the data easier to collect, um, even from a council standpoint, right? Because I mean, we ha we have to figure out how to rein this in, and if if more data is better for advocacy or to reduce these collisions. Is there a way um well let's just start with what data is collected right now? So we uh you know the typically the standard across the province is to follow the provincial um data collection, uh collision report form. And in that form, um some standard data fields include uh the level of severity, um, the location of the incident. You know, some of the contributing factors, such as the type of collision it was. So, for example, uh whether it was a right angle collision or a rear end, um, the different parties involved, as well as you know, levels of lighting, um, what type of traffic control was present, those are some examples. Okay, so and we've been collecting that data for how long? So this data hasn't changed, and you know, um I would say at least, you know, there may have been some smaller changes, but overall um since 2016. it has been consistently the same type of data um form that has been used. Right, which obviously isn't working for us as collisions are going up, fatalities are going up. So I'm I'm asking what data could we collect that would better help us reduce these collisions? So i it's kind of a double-edged sword because um already we are asking so so first of all the data that's being collected is mainly for um you know insurance purposes and such. So We're not really the primary purpose of the data being collected. And secondly, the more data you ask, you know, it is a lot of incidents across the city. You know, we're sometimes seeing hundreds of thousands, uh, I mean tens of thousands of incidents. So the quality of data sometimes suffers. So, you know, data is as good, only as good as the actual care that goes into filling it out. And you know, a lot of the times the people filling it out may not be, you know, fully aware or like what is required. Sometimes it's a little complicated. So one of the things that we do find is that some of the, you know, there are a lot of errors in the data. Um, so if we are asking for more data, I would be also careful to uh make sure that we're just getting good quality of data, which sometimes suffers the more we ask for. Is okay, is there anything That I mean twenty seven thousand, usually bad data is uh I don't know what the term is, but dad bad data can be um kind of washed into that level of data, I guess. And so I'm again I'm just asking like i i is there something we can collect to better help us as uh governors ensure that we are doing everything we can because right now whatever we're doing isn't working, obviously. Um So it I guess you don't have to answer me now, but if there is something that comes up on your end that we could add to policy, you know, even temporarily, just to get a screenshot of, you know, maybe maybe there is a a piece of demographic, maybe there are um and I know we we track collisions, you know, across the city, so we know hot spots of where things happen in that. Like that's that's good data. Um, but I'm just if anything else ever comes up, I think it'd be good for us to know um to again. better attack the problem. So I would like to add that, you know, we we are working with um Is the folks at uh University of Alberta with AHS that have been providing some of the hospitalization and um hospital admission data. Uh again, that data set is different in that it a lot of the times it does not have um certain, like for example, location information. Uh but we were talking with them about opportunities to potentially include some questions to uh the people at the time of admissions as a special kind of a you know time based um. you know, exercise uh you know, a study. So um that's something that we are talking about. Uh but it just might be easier to do it at the time of admission to a hospital that will be capturing the most severe group instead of just getting that at the collision level because um a lot of the incidents at the collision level are you know lower severity. That's that's great. That's exactly what I was hoping to hear. Do we have any of that data now or is that just still in the works? So we have been getting some data from them. I think the last data set we received in 2025 that included 2024 data and that included just the different modes that were admitted to the hospital. That was really interesting to see that quite a bit of our collision data goes unreported when it comes to cyclists and active modes. So that was a finding that we found from that. Right. Could you provide myself and maybe other counselors with that raw data that you have collected? Sure. We can do that. Yeah. I'll follow up. Okay. And then the other question was is you mentioned there's forty three thousand new licenses uh in Alberta. Um compared to previous years, like where does that compare? I believe that number was down from 6% increase in the previous year. Okay, but let's say over the past five years, like where does that If I recall correctly, it was about 10%. So no, sorry, that doesn't really make that much sense. But I'll uh I'll I'd have to look that up. Okay. Um, I'm just curious if uh like collisions and um fatalities are on pace with population growth, um, or if it's outpacing population growth. Do we know that? Yes, it is outpacing population growth. So some of the increase does account for the capital population growth, but it doesn't explain the entire increase. With within a margin and of error or with like like way outpacing population growth? I think it's mainly explained by population growth. However, it's just it's still the highest years we've seen, even if you correct for population growth. Okay. Um do we know if majority of the collisions happened during the first or um I'm just thinking snowstorms, like um I'm I'm sure a lot of them happen because people don't have their winter tires on and stuff like that. And I'm just curious like if that sort of um level of uh granularity or data is being tracked to again, like I'm I'm just trying to pinpoint where these issues are coming from. Because again, if it's let's let's say it is due to winter storms or you know, people without snow tires, well then we can mandate snow tires at kind of like BC does or something like that, like or advocate with the province to do something like that. So um yeah, I just think the more data the better. Um And if uh if you have any available data, I'd love to have it. So Are you down there, Councillor Johnston? closed. Thank you. Over to Councillor Clark. Yes, thank you, Chair. Um Ms. Domerad, nice to see you again. Uh you were so kind as to join us in Southview, one of Ward 9's communities, on a community walk to discuss pedestrian safety and how we can work to better uh align some of that process there. So uh I would like to ask um What what I'm finding, I'm going to take a page out of Councillor Tyres book here and speak to the experiences with community. Many of these folks know where the problems lie in their neighborhoods, the problem intersections, the problem roads, where they're seeing consistent issues. We can bring that to administration. We have a number of procedures in place here that you've highlighted in your presentation with TAC as an example. And we're finding like the work, it just sort of doesn't get across the finish line. We don't land with the outcomes of safer streets. Where do we go from there? How do we get these things actually to getting some of these speed humps, getting the crosswalks in places where folks know they need them? Yes, it was great to uh meet you at the event, and we are still following up with uh various action from that. Yes. Uh so you know it's obviously there's a different variety of roads out there, and we just need to make sure that uh the you know solutions appropriate for the context. I think that that's the toughest part. Um not everything will have a make a difference in certain locations. So um we will be yeah, following up. There's a robust process that we have where you know any citizen can uh request um. various measures through our three-on-one system. We received a lot of three received regularly received a lot of three-on-ones that require us to do reviews. We try to um do that as soon as we can um but uh obviously sometimes it takes some time. Yeah, I I appreciate that. I would I just think, you know, we're seeing an unprecedented amount of pedestrians die on our roads to paint two white lines as a basic fundamental piece. I just, what kind of research is required uh to confirm whether or not that's an appropriate next step? I mean, and why is I'm just if you could please dive into that just a bit more. Sorry to press on you about this, but it is a concern. From a citywide perspective, we have a certain threshold for certain treatments, and the reason is so that we can deploy these measures equitably across the city at locations that need it the most. So, in terms of you know, like the application to various locations, uh sometimes the solution that we uh go with is not, for example, something that's you know a crosswalk, but it will be like curb extensions or some other measures that are more likely to mitigate the speeds that we're seeing as well as you know providing a uh some of additional benefits to the community. As we mentioned, there was a there is a new program that we have which is the speed hump and speed cushion program. So we're rolling out those measures more than communities as well. There's a new process so we can point um you know citizens to that if that's something that they would want to pursue. Yeah, I just I think it's important to note that again, you know, since being elected, uh traffic and mobility safety is has been a priority concern for residents. I probably have about 20 different instances across Ward 9 that are in review uh pending further analysis as to whether or not anything should should be done or what should be done to support those spaces. Um and I've yet to hear back a confirmation on any of them. So So I suppose to that end, I I guess I bring it up because we've heard from another a number of reports today, you know, we're we're sort of updating bylaw, keeping them in line with with other levels of government and and what they are saying that um uh and so with TAC as an example, like how old is this? Uh how often is that updated? And how do we uh how do we make sure that we remain aligned with the most current ins uh you know issues and concerns? So so I would you know the most recent uh TAC manual I don't know correct me if I'm wrong. I think it's like a night it's maybe five years old at this point. So it is the best practice that's used across Canada. We continue to um Try to do things better. So, you know, a lot of the times we go over and beyond with geometric improvements, whether it's you know, right now the AI platform that you'll be hearing about next is something else that we're hoping to utilize in order to bridge those gaps and um and better understand the different influencing factors. As always, um, you know, we take the best industry practice, and there's a lot of emerging practices in the field that um are starting to happen, and we're trying to, you know, stay at that leading edge and have those conversations with other jurisdictions that are implementing various things that maybe you know aren't um. Done everywhere yet. And you know, like try try to do the best that we can with what we have and uh change the practices that we have to better serve Calgarians. Yeah, thank you. I so appreciate that because I think, like I say, what I consistently am running into is these get lost in the research, and the implementation seems very, very slow considering the outcomes that we're seeing on our roads. And I'll also just take this opportunity to say that in the inner city, in our older neighborhoods, we're seeing new forms of mobility. You know, we've got scooters, we have more pedestrians, more cyclists, we have an older population. The way in which we use these roads uh has changed. And I think we're also, because we have not adapted our roads to support the forms of mobility that we're seeing today, I think that lends itself to some of these outcomes, these really sad, negative outcomes. So I hope that we can work together to figure out what comes next. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Clark. Um Councillor Ewell. I just wanted to maybe follow up on some of uh Councillor Johnston's line of questioning about data. Um you are basically relying on Other groups sets of data for like we don't really have a traffic safety person that goes out to every every incident that's able to collect data. It's it's what what types of organizations are feeding into your data set? Uh sorry, could you clarify what types of organizations? Well, I mean, like so so how do you get your data, like how do you know there was an accident at at a such and such of you know intersection? So uh the collision data is our main data set that we use. Um, it is a provincial data set. That is collected by Calgary Police Service and other police forces. We also use heavily use traffic counts data, so that is done by the city of Calgary. We use speed data, so that's also through speed studies. We do use or utilize third third party cell phone data kind of a platform where we're using that where we don't have the speed data using tube counts. We're always looking to expand our data sources, but that's kind of the core. But the main set um is kind of provincially regulated. So if we would want more data, we would we would need to you know ask the province to to make an another you know field of of data that we're looking for? That's right. I guess the other question I had uh it relates to the GDL licensing. So in in 2023, uh the province got rid of the advanced road test. Are we seeing any sort of data that's showing that was good or a bad idea? Like, like, are we seeing that we probably needed that second uh road test for for some new drivers? S so um that is something that's being currently investigated. Um and there's some preliminary information that I came across and I can share that with you. That'd be great. Yeah, that would be because if if maybe we need to advocate for that second road test to come back, that that's something that we should advocate for. The last thing I wanted to check on was um kind of environmental factors. Um I know like in my area there are some intersections, some pedestrian crossings that you you are blinded by the sun in the morning and it has caused some fatalities as a result. Um how are is is that data taken into consideration at at uh pedestrian crossings at um intersections? Yeah, so um sunglare is something that Is an issue across the network in a lot of situations where we have the roadways that are east and west. It has something that you know has always existed as an issue. We have made a number of improvements over the years that are trying to target that. Like for example, one of them was where we have overhead flashers. Crosswalks, the overhead flashers by themselves would uh sometimes be blinded. So the side mounted flashers were added as our standard treatment to all the overhead flashers to just go over and beyond what's what the standard is and uh try to provide additional. Flashing features that can then be visible to drivers during singular conditions. We do find that the RFBs do work quite well with that as well, with the different flashing pattern. And again, yes, in situations, you know, LPIs, a lot of the times there was one situation where we had a severe sungular issue with left turn than pedestrians where the installation of an LPI made a big difference as well. So we're expanding that, that's likely to improve that situation as well. Okay, that's all my questions. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Councillor Ewell. Councillor Atkinson, please. Great. Thank you. And apologies. I'm going to be jumping all over the place. The demographic information that Councillor Johnson was touching on. I think this is really important because we've heard both in sort of the reports. And in the presentation, things like new drivers, GDL removal. I guess I I have a hard time sort of reconciling, like we're making those judgment calls and sort of calling that out, but we don't actually have the numbers or data to sort of back that up. So like too much of this is be feeling very anecdotal to me. And I guess like, how do we how do we come to the conclusion? How are how are we writing in like new drivers graduated licensing as policy decisions that are affecting these things when we don't actually have the stats to back that up? Uh one of the issues that we face in in traffic safety is that um a lot of the times there's a delay with uh the different you know, in order to see a behavior takes a while uh or a change in in Um, you know, in a l for example, in a policy, right? So, you know, something like with automated enforcement, right? It's it there has been a change, but it's going to be a while before that really uh makes a difference. And that's why it's hard to talk about certain things in a timely manner about what's actually influencing this because some of the data is not yet available. Um more time is required in order to confirm some of those trends and patterns. Um I'm not sure if that answers your question. But I guess to a certain degree, but it's like this also like like people dying on our roads is not something new, right? People being injured on our roads is not something new. This is not something that is just turned on since. So while for sure we're seeing an uptick um in the overall trends and while and maybe that is playing uh part of the vector, the baseline that we're s trying to tackle i i is not something that's come on since new drivers and GDL. And so I I really do think like stronger data around um The conditions that led to the accident. And I know we don't have a lot of fatalities to draw that from, but we have a ton of serious injury collisions to draw that information from. And we should be understanding distracted driving and when that was leading to it. And I know you won't always know that. You're not always going to be able to try to dive in. But if we're gonna start making choices and changes and where we're going to apply our effectiveness, we need to be able to understand the conditions of like how long has that person been behind the wheel. How how maybe there maybe that are we getting to a point where there are certain folks maybe we're not uh evaluating folks' sort of roadworthiness uh over time and and conditions of their ability to drive of change. We need to have understandings about that. Um and I just I guess I am having a hard time with like we're pointing to certain things and we make those choices, and especially when it comes to things like our education and awareness campaigns, we're sort of pointing to things like oh, distracted pedestrians, while that is anecdotal, maybe, that is not necessarily data driven. So, so There's a lot in this report that is pointing to certain things and decisions being made that are not necessarily backed with data that I can see. But maybe I'm uh maybe I'm there's there's stuff in the background that is not a part of this picture. Any any comments on that? so I guess one comment that I have is that you know, we're asked to answer a question about why is this happening, so that's kind of one thing. But the other thing is that we we do have, you know, the thing, the tools in our toolbox, which is essentially like the engineering countermeasures that uh that we use, uh, we are heavily data driven. You look, we look at our network, we identify locations that um need intervention the most or have the highest risk based on past data. Uh, we try to Make sure that we're addressing the things of the highest risk. And we know that our safety improvements and various things we have implemented do make a difference. So essentially, you know, when it comes to conversation behind why it's happening, I I don't think we're so clear as to what the recent increases, why they're happening. We can say, you know, not for certain that it might be an influencing factor, as we've mentioned in the report. But down to the bottom of things, when it comes to making changes in order to try to reduce those numbers, we're doing everything that we can. But we're I think we're also Mixing up different sets of data here. There's the data of certain problem spots, certain areas where we're seeing issues because of the construction, uh, the road design, the design decisions that we put into place, the speed, these kinds of factors that we have control over. And then there's changes in terms of behavior, which is where education, awareness, these kinds of campaigns would be focused because they don't have anything to do with the way and and so we need to actually break those two worlds apart, and we actually have to understand the causes. The people side of things, if we're actually going to fund education. To be honest, all the reports I read outside of the city of Calgary show that education and awareness campaigns basically do nothing when it comes to there are a couple of ones that have been successful, and they're successful maybe for a period of time where you've got the like, please don't kill my dad on the construction site sign. That seems to work for a little bit, and then we go blind to it. And it's a real problem. But the data out there on the people side is. Is it it's not not super strong. And if we don't even know necessarily what we're targeting, and we're just grasping at sort of these anecdotal pieces of oh, pedestrians are are maybe the problem because I saw a pedestrian looking at their phone crossing the road, or or we're gonna say that um oh it's it's uh new drivers because we've got a lot new of new drivers on the roads, or GDL because that's changed, but we don't actually have the true data on collisions to back that up. I see that as very problematic because we're actually we're we're creating a narrative out there that is letting the true conditions of these accidents to slip away from us. I don't I don't want to I wanna I want to chase the real. Okay, let's go into um let's go into awareness campaigns. I've looked through some of them. I I recognize that they've had good reach and there seems to be sort of like a positive sort of viewing of them. But are we doing anything to sort of measure whether there is like is there any way that you're sort of tracking that this awareness campaign is actually leading to changed outcomes on the other side? Yes, so uh tying that to change outcomes is something that we will be doing, but you know, exactly you know, we can only look at it from a retrospective perspective. Uh so uh that's something that we do plan to do. Uh But in the meantime, we did receive some recent information about the effectiveness of the campaign in terms of like the number of people it's reached. Um and we do have some more information if you're interested. We could share that um about the effectiveness of the campaigns that we had. Yeah, I guess I'm just wondering is it reaching the right people? Like uh I can read a news story and know that like Calgary is not a safe place for me to be as a pedestrian. Uh I don't know, you know, like going into schools and stuff and letting teaching that is. Fine, I suppose, but ultimately what we need to be doing is changing the behaviors of the people who are causing the accidents. And I'm not sure that we're lining those two things up. On that note, we have these red light cameras, we have speed cameras, we have gear that we're actually able to track improper. Use of our road networks, and while I recognize we can't hand out speeding tickets anymore, have we ever looked at actually targeted campaigns where we're actually sending out you ran a red light? Did you know that we had this many people die on our roads, this many people injured on our roads to the people that are actually breaking so that we actually have an enforcement education through enforcement style program? So uh I I do have awareness of a new campaign that uh CPS has been having that's been very effective. Uh, but I'll let Andy Andy Woodmore Staff Sergeant maybe come up and expand on that? Oh yeah, okay. So good morning. Um we start we were just starting to do the uh visual online. So when motorists are out on the road and they see um an infraction and they've got it on dash cam and they're prepared to go to court and give a statement, we will take that and we will take that information and we'll turn that into either a court appearance or a a violation ticket. But that is very much in its infancy at the moment. Okay. Are are we doing anything though with sort of like speed cameras or or our red light systems that no longer we can send out sort of the penalties, the financial penalties, but something where we are actually using that to educate the folks that are infringing on our roadway rules, the the like high, high costs that these kinds of infringements are actually taking on a societal toll? Are we doing anything like where we use uh someone running a red light where we have a red light camera and feeding that into something you can still we could still send something in the mail to actually make sure that we're reaching the people that are having those? So my understanding with that is that we can't do that because we're breaching all data protection in relation to the vehicles. The vehicles when we speak to people have got to be an enforcement and not a warning. We're not we haven't done that for some time. Right. But it was discussed because the green light cameras, the speed on greens, that we we could collect the data of the amount of cars that are going through at speed, but we're not allowed to follow up with the information The individuals, yet. even in an information capacity. Okay. Um let's go into maybe some of the actual changes that we're sort of seeing on the road. Um I think actually Councillor Clark hit on something that is super, super important. We need to stop studying things so much. There is a high cost to studying an intersection, understanding the number of people that are crossing as pedestrians and whatever, and there is uh you know, a comparative cost on maybe just Painting two white lines that make it a little bit better for a pedestrian. I think that we need to sort of reset our threshold for when a traffic study is warranted in an area versus when we can just come in and do the work because of what we're hearing and seeing in the neighborhood. And I like while we don't necessarily want to have negative impacts to a certain degree on the mobility within, there also just needs to be a certain level where is it warranted? I think like a warrant, there's the warrant side of like, does this warrant the change, but also what's the cost on the other side to change something into just uh painted lines? It seems like we could probably do that for cheaper than actually running the study. And is there anywhere where painted lines are not a benefit? Maybe changing to a stop sign in all four directions does change the traffic pattern. But also, are there ways in which we can sometimes shortcut that because we can actually just sort of make those determinations quicker than running traffic studies, putting things into a queue, and giving people this sort of like unnecessary sense that they are sort of having to continue to play the game to advocate for something that we know we need to tackle, that Calgarians have asked us to tackle. Are there ways in which we can speed those processes along and remove some of the red tape, as it were, the data? Sure, we want data. When data is appropriate to help us make informed decisions. But ultimately, if data is just getting in the way of us delivering good service and good safety for, then I would argue that that data is becoming an impediment and is adding to the overall number of injuries and deaths we're seeing on our roads. So for sure, it is a is about it is a balance, you know, from a data perspective, it can be very helpful. We do know that certain things we want to get to a point where eventually they're implemented citywide. And we are doing that with some of our measures where, you know, instead of uh going one location at a time, we will either change our practice or just deploy citywide. One example was the in street uh pedestrian signs that were deployed at every school uh several years ago. Uh we're currently in the process of evaluating that measure, but uh again, that's something that we we hope to do more and more. Okay, yeah, I think we need to speed. I think speed is of the essence, and sort of like we might actually have to step away from the Transportation Association traffic signal warrant system a little bit to actually just meet this moment, right? This is an emergency. Emergency doesn't make us sort of follow rigid rules. We need to act and we need to innovate. And I guess on the innovation side, I um I'm a little concerned, to be honest, that sort of like the pieces that uh we're talking about in terms of uh innovation is like um a couple more RRFBs, um an AI system that we'll talk about that in a minute. Um This speed cushions, like like where how many raised crosswalks have we installed over the last year? How are we changing our road design standards in new communities that we're turning on? How are we making sure that we don't have to come in there 10 years later to fix the problematic pedestrian realm because we just didn't do that in the first place? Like I'm not, I guess I'm I'm not seeing the changes. There's the investment and the changes that are being made because of that investment. But where are the changes and the innovation? Uh, you know, the one the one thing that I noted reading through here was like we've got the leading pedestrian interval program where we're starting to sort of roll that out, but we're now maybe going to a leading pedestrian through to help with like throughput of traffic. Not great. Like, like it's not the right priority when. Almost 50% of the injuries and deaths we're having on our roads is pedestrians, right? Um and then when I look at the data, yeah, these things, it's like we're not solving for those things. So I don't know, are you are there certain areas in which we're doing innovation that are not maybe within this report, things that we're exploring that are really focused on tackling these pieces? Because I'm quite worried that like just turning on things to a slightly higher level than what we've been doing in the past is not going to meet this bending curve upwards. Councillor, thank you for the question. One of the areas we are working, exactly what you said, is the curve extensions program. Through the various schools related studies as part of the Active and Safe Roots to School, we've heard over and over again that. Crosswalks are too long for the pedestrians to cross and roadways are very wide, so we need to get those curve extensions. So that's the reason we started with temporary curve extensions and now consistently making them permanent. However, as a proactive approach, when we do the development reviews, we have requested to include those curve extensions where we think, based on our past experience, that they will be beneficial. We have started seeing those changes in the development stage now. Just to build on that, we are we're working on a raised crosswalk pilot. So we did install a couple last year and we want to expand the use of them. So we will be introducing a pilot to implement more of those. And then also wanted to share that essentially, you know, we we are dealing with retrofit and we are looking for you know our partners who are working on the streets manual to make sure that you know everything in the future uh can be done better as than it has in the past. Yeah. For new builds, yeah. Let's go into the school side of things. That's that's a big part of this report is a focus sort of on school areas, which I think is important. But it I'm also having a hard time because actually when I look at the data, the number of sort of like injury where we're seeing that is actually maybe not as much around school sites. Sort of so I guess I'm I'm the difference maybe between um there's the perception, and we obviously we don't want any children to be injured going to school, coming home from school. Very important to be doing. Um but I worry a little bit that this is about tackling perceptions of safety and and for sure our most vulnerable folks, you know, our kids who we we want to be able to get to school safely, but But that's not when where the places we're seeing the collisions taking place, like it's not necessarily playground zones. It's not where the speed is being reduced. And so, yes, we should be putting in more speed humps and curb extensions around schools, but there's also is that going to help us actually tackle the deaths and injuries we're seeing on our roads versus giving the perceptions which make it so that I can trust a little bit more that I can let my kid walk to school, which is important for sure. but also not necessarily actually tackling the issue at hand. So I think we're doing both, right? So there is a role that we play in terms of making things more safe in the neighborhood where the you know the Calgary's perception of a conflict and the perception of that is highly is higher. However, obviously we are doing a lot and we're increasing the amount of things that we do at the locations where we are seeing the most severe outcomes. We are conducting corridor studies at along the corridors that we have identified as higher risk, and we will be improving, making improvements at them as we move forward. So that is, you know, we're doing this and that. At the same time, yeah. At the same time. Just they're very different things because again, you know, most of our complaints aren't on, you know, the the higher speed arterials because the numbers of of of pedestrians or people utilizing them is lower. And you know, a lot of the times it's a perception issue as well, where it's actually, you know, the intersections and the signals that are exist there that are the biggest issue. Um that really is rooted from the fact that, you know, it's people just not following the rules that we expect them to follow yet. Right. Well, and that's where the data is supposed to come in, right? And so I guess like that's a hard thing that I'm having with all this is that we have this warrist system, right, for and to sort of make the changes, um, but it that often has to come after people are injured and all these kinds of sort of pieces to sort of line up, right? Um so how we actually start correcting this and then to sort of see that we are having in theory a data-led um decision making around this and where we're actually making the applications, but the numbers are going up and the and then the focus of the changes is more on in areas where we're actually we're not sort of seeing, so I'm just having a hard time. Like we need to be doing both, absolutely. Um But if we're if we're changing the perceptions but not actually having real impacts on the outcomes, there's a mismatch there, right? And I I see it in things like the left-hand turn, right? A lot of the funds that were applied in this last tranche of funding from 2026 were applied to left hand turn improvements. And you dig into the data, and that's actually not where we're seeing as much of the impacts of collisions. It's a part of it, it's a piece of it overall. Um, but it's also not focused on. I think we need to really focus this around pedestrians. Like Yes, car on car. Collisions are terrible, absolutely. But when you've got pedestrians making up almost half of the overall collision fatalities, and where we see the vast heavy amounts of injuries, we need to be making sure that we're applying our funds and the changes we're making on our roadways specifically to pedestrian improvements. And I don't know like whether we have that mix right yet based on sort of the list of improvements that we saw there. I don't know if you've you've got thoughts around that, but I I'm I'm seeing that as sort of a we're we're we've got the data, we know where the the pieces are, we're making improvements to the roadway network and the flow and vehicle sort of side of things, and not focusing on the pedestrian realm. So I'd just like to add that in the in the list there are quite a few improvements that are improvements to pedestrian crosswalks. So in certain situations, if you see a new signal, that a lot of the new signals are being built to facilitate pedestrian crossings and safety. So maybe that just the clarity of that didn't translate. To the okay. Um gateways into neighborhoods, great in older or newer neighborhoods where you've got usually a couple of ways in and a couple ways out that are sort of the transitions between speed and the neighborhood, not as great in neighborhoods like mine that are gridded networks that are coming in off of 14th Street or coming off of our high roadway or high speed roadways that come in and around. What is the approach that you are taking in established inner city neighborhoods and how is that different? Because that is a huge proportion of where we are seeing the impacts and injuries in our neighborhoods. So our community temporary corridor safety improvements is a, you know, it's not really a program, but we have been growing to the way they are deployed. And meanwhile, they can be applied to newer neighborhoods. They can also work well in older neighborhoods, like for example, Kensington Road, where we have seen, I believe, uh collision reductions up to 40%. 40 to 50 percent as a result of those changes that were made. So again, we want to grow those programs, make sure that we're doing that in more places across the city where it's needed most. Right. But it and that but that's doable in in Newer neighborhoods where you have gateways into a neighborhood and then you're going into curvilinear sort of neighborhoods and streets and you're coming off of Country Hills Boulevard into Arbor Lake or what have you. But it's a lot more difficult when every single street off of 14th Street turns into Capitol Hill. Or it's right, uh it's more difficult when every single street off of Center Street is turning off into Crescent Heights. So what are we doing to specifically focus on older established neighborhoods that have high speed roads running through them? And we know that the data shows that they're so what is the different approach? Because we need a different approach, right? So, as as I mentioned, a lot of the times for the way we've done it is just like focusing on the entire length of roadway because some of times within um, you know. Areas that see more pedestrian use, you actually there, you know, it's not like it it drops through the main segment of it, right? Like it the need is the same everywhere. Uh, however, you know, a lot of the times we do have opportunities at transitions from higher speed roadways. So, like for example, you know, whether it's people coming off a crow child, uh, I think there's behavioral things that come up where uh people tend to be in a certain mindset, and the first time we can slow them down and get them to a more appropriate speed, uh their frame of mind changes. So, again, I think that some of those gateway treatment principles are probably applicable also to those communities, but we would need to consistently do it at all entrances. Okay. Um I guess the last sort of thing I'll sort of pick on is I'm kind of to be honest, kind of like I'm not a fan of this recommendation in that like where are the policy change recommendations? We are in a moment right now where the curve is going in the wrong direction. It was a bad baseline to begin with. We should be at zero, uh, but the curve is going up. And I guess I think I had I had maybe, and I don't know, maybe this is not the place or or or what have you for this, but I just was expecting or would expect that with what the trends that we're seeing, that there would be policy recommendations coming from you as a part of this report where we as council make changes to how roadways are being used to start tackling this. Um I'm I'm not sure if that's something that you're working on. Um, if there maybe you don't actually need that because you're able to pursue those changes. On your own, but you know, we made the change to 40 kilometers an hour. Speed noted very heavily through the report as a as a high factor, and we've seen that actually the reduction to 40 kilometers an hour has helped with the number of injuries and and fatalities there. But we also know that like air jury, it's 30 kilometers an hour, because they went fully to 30 kilometers an hour right off the go. Uh and so while there was potentially public backlash at the point at which we brought in 40 kilometers an hour, uh how do we continue to Make those pieces and and why are we not making the brave recommendations from you, administration, whether we decide to take them on politically, that is the choice of us to sort of make that call. But I where's the professional opinion and the sort of policy change recommendations that should be coming forward to really heavily tackle this? Money is one piece, and I'm happy to sort of support in those pieces in the ways that I can. But policy plays also a huge part in this, and I don't see any recommendations to sort of pursue new policies coming forward with this. Any policies in the works, any things, any thoughts around why those pieces are not before us today? Uh so I think we are, you know, we do a lot of work when it comes to uh the way existing um, you know, processes work and then uh attempt to learn Where we can do more and create the guidelines around them. So there are a few things that we have been working on. There's other ones that we will be focusing on in the future. And if if if it didn't come through, we'll try to focus on that in future updates. Okay. I'll leave it there for now. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Atkinson. I believe over to Councillor. Oh. I think. Councillor Kelly, you're in the queue? Yeah, I think Councillor Johnson was looking for a round two, but uh you want to go. I don't I don't mind letting him go first. That's okay. Because a lot of what his questioning before is uh very relevant to how I'm feeling. So He's up for it, I'm happy. to over to Councillor Johnson for round two. Uh thank you, Councillor Kelly. And uh at first when uh Councillor Atkinson was saying um well first off we need more data, but then saying we need less studies Uh it didn't make sense to me at first, but now thinking back to a bunch of uh Ward 14 uh traffic issues, it always came back to well, we have to do a traffic study, or a traffic study was done, or we're doing one right now, and then in the end nothing gets done, and then more accidents happen. And I'm starting to pull my hair out trying to figure out why a simple putting up a a bigger stop sign because. Um, you know, in the wintertime it's hard to see, um, or as simple as uh putting up uh yeah, road bomb somewhere kind of thing. Like I I think he hit the nail on the head here is that we need to deregulate safety implementation because we're not starting with nothing. We've been starting with a hundred years of safety data, right? So I I I'm I'm actually hundred percent on board with uh Councillor Atkinson here that. You guys haven't brought us anything. Like you you brought us some problems. We already know what the problems were. And a lot of the solutions actually reside in the department itself. And I guess I mean he's already asked all these questions, but it's frustrating. It's frustrating that people in our neighborhoods are dying or constituents are getting hit. And, you know, only as counselors can we advocate, and we're not allowed to. Um, directly tell administration, please go put up a frickin' 30k sign on this road, right? Whereas I don't know, let's say other neighborhoods have 30k signs in specific areas, but then in our neighborhoods they're not there. Or um I mean we have on one of our roads here, they are doing U turns at a specific new set of traffic lights, and um The question I had was, well, why couldn't we put a no U-turn at this set of lights? Oh, well, that's not regulatory. But then I drive to Seton and there's a no U turn. And then the question was, or no, the answer was, well, if people see a no U turn here, they'll think they can do U turns everywhere else. Well, that's not the problem for us. The problem is that they're do doing U turns at a specific traffic light to get around um a certain traffic uh Um build up on Chaparral Valley Drive or whatever and Sony Trail. And again, our answer we get from administration is just no, no, no, no. But then it's like, well, that simple fix could potentially save somebody getting hit. And now I hold my breath every single time I hear a traffic accident or a pedestrian that well, is it somewhere where we had made a suggestion or the neighborhood made a suggestion? And then administered, well, we have to do this, we have to do this. Whereas it's simple as just putting it out there. And so I think I'm at the point where. No, we should not be sending this on to council. We should be sending this back to admin and come to us with some solutions or a way that you're going to deregulate safety implementation so that it gets out there sooner, right? If it's funding, well, this is a priority of this council to ensure that our roads are safe. And if you guys don't know that yet, then you better start watching some of our council meetings because it is. So yeah, I'm a little frustrated with this because it's a Issue right across the city. So I think you guys can do better. And I really hope you do. So um I'll just use this as my debate. So uh thank you, Councillor Atkinson, for your questioning. Thank you, Councillor Johnston. Uh And over to I don't see Council Cali, but over to you. Yeah, I'll uh I want to recognize where Councillor Johnson was going right there, right? Like right now we're in uh questions of clarification to administration. Um but I'll admit like I'm struggling with what the right questions are to ask because if you'll allow me for a moment, uh Pedestrian safety is far and away the number one thing that we get calls and emails about in our office. Like it's not even close. And when I look at the council priorities that we put forward for the next four-year budget, number one, reliable and sustainable infrastructure. Obviously, our transportation network, our mobility network is uh one of the most important uh um pieces of that infrastructure. Number two, safe city. That's exactly what we're talking about here with the uh Safer Mobility Plan. And three, be three is the functional transportation network. Again, what we're talking about here. So our top three priorities are all rolled up into this particular uh item that we're we're talking about here today. Um Part of the reason why I let my colleagues sort of go first and I kind of waited to enter the queue is because I was hoping that like questions would emerge for me. Uh I went into the back even just a pace because I was like that. I share, I think you've heard from the majority of my colleagues a sense of frustration that we're sort of stuck in a morass here of wanting to do something but not knowing what the thing to do is. Um are you hearing that same frustration today? And further, is that sense of frustration, does it exist within within your your your um business unit as well? Like I'm trying to get a bit of a sense in terms of uh if we're all sort of feeling the same the same thing here. I think we are. We've been, you know, looking at various locations over the years and uh we know that you know there's certain spots where we're seeing issues. And you know, we've had uh for example, you know, the typical process is for us to do an in-service road safety review. We identify what issues exist based on the collision data, which you know at higher uh locations, high collision locations, we have actually a lot of data. So we have a lot of uh information about what is the highest risk things that are happening that we want to address. Uh, however, you know, it's not just these locations. There's a lot of what we'd consider one offs everywhere, where the risk is slightly lower, these high collision locations, but it's fairly uniform for an entire arterial corridor, for example. So just the scale of what would need to be done in order to get those speeds lower is like in the built form. Right, like we've built that road in a way that we've built it. Um and I know that you know having conversations with the folks at the uh Street Manual, you know, 50 kilometers arterials are are the way of the future. We're going to just have those. But in the meantime, we do have a lot of things on our network that was built to a standard of the day many years ago that you know doesn't really incorporate those best principles that that we know of today. And I I I I'm hearing what you're saying there, and I think that for us, what sort of where that frustration kind of uh kind of comes to, if I can speak on behalf of my colleagues for a moment, is that we want to get to the solution, whether it's a design solution or uh uh potentially an enforcement solution. Um but when we Don't know why the thing is happening. It becomes really hard to figure out what what the right solution is. And uh um, clerks, if you wouldn't mind going to slide uh what's this four? Um I think for me, where it kind of comes back to is that it's back to the data, and I kind of want to echo back to Councillor Johnston's questions uh the first time around and and uh even uh Councillor tyres at the very at the very big very beginning here. Um We have 27,609 accidents. That's a lot, that should be a lot of data. Where where's the data? Like I was almost looking for a hyperlink here to like take us to an open uh an open data portal where we can see it. And on that note, actually, maybe I should just like really quickly shout out to Sarah Palmer from LiveWire Calgary, who mapped some of the data that that she was able to find. And I actually found that map to be. More helpful than sort of like half the presentation because when you look at it on a map and and you you can start to see, at least in Ward 4, for example, like, oh, we've got problems on like three or four streets. What do those streets have in common? Okay, like I can start to picture what are the in interventions that are actually needed. And when I go to um uh attachment three and I look and I look at like the charts that are in there, the data's not popping out to me in the same way. Those charts are a lot more um, the tables are a lot more sort of like academic, whereas um when I'm looking at this. Um how do uh do we have the data, in your opinion, that we need in order to be able to make r recommendations for interventions? Uh so from the data perspective, uh I think what you're alluding to is uh you know we are constrained with the provincial data agreements and the way that we share our data, the data that we have access to, uh, because it is not our data. So I think that is part of the issue maybe that you're you're we're seeing here. Uh another issue is that when you look at the different types of severities, the trends are actually quite different. So, like for example, if we're talking about overall numbers of data, which is primarily driven by the property damage-only collisions, you will see certain trends. But with Vision Zero, what we're trying to do is counteract the most severe collision types. So, you know, several years back with the new safer mobility plan iteration, uh, we've changed our approach to look at major injury and fatal collisions combined just to make sure that we're looking at where the risk of dose is the highest, because that's what we're trying to focus on. But in the meantime, what's also emerging is that there's a different situation for fatalities in general too, where maybe they don't follow the same trends as major injuries. So it's all slightly different and the level of severity you look at will show you a different picture as well. Maybe I'll just uh uh dig in on that data question just a little bit there because something that's not sort of jumping out at me from the report is just uh around where like where are these uh incidents occurring? Are they are they on uh open streets, are they at intersections, are they like that part I didn't see. I got I got in here in terms of what type of road it is. Uh and then anytime we talk about an intervent intervention, we we list an intersection, but I can't tell if that's just meant to be like location data or if that's actually, no, the problem is at that particular intersection. So I think if I understand correctly, I'll c I'll clarify just I mean like uh where where are the the the incidents occurring? Are they like on the on the overall? Is it primarily at intersections? Is it primarily at uh crosswalks in the middle of a roadway? Uh is it primarily on open road? Where where are we seeing the the incidents? so primarily uh if you look at, you know, obviously it's it's complicated, so it's kind of everywhere a little bit, but when you looked at the biggest trends, uh they tend to be on arterial roadways, they tend to be at intersections in those locations, although sometimes you know they do happen with uh uh mid block locations, most of them are at intersections. And when you say those uh those incidents, are you talking about all or are you talking about the pedestrian involved? I I'm I'm thinking about pedestrians. Thank you. That that that's actually for me, that's kind of the for I think it if we can solve the pedestrian one, we start to actually also address the uh um the the vehicle on vehicle as well. But the pedestrian is at least if the two people are in cars, they have a chance. But if you're involving a uh an individual uh against a vehicle, I that's that's obviously a much higher likelihood of a fatality. Um the data Councillor Kelly, I didn't sorry, I didn't mean to disturb uh I didn't mean to interfere. Uh can we take get a consent to finish this agenda item before we take break? Okay, great. Is that uh good for you, uh clerks? Yes, that's fine. Okay, thing. Go ahead. That's all good. You still had like seven minutes to ask that question. It's all good. Uh on the data sharing side of things, I just uh uh who are the data sharing agreements with that you don't have access to right now and how do we go about getting uh uh appropriate data sharing agreements in place? So it's with the government of Alberta, and uh I'm not familiar with all the details. It is our data group that deals with this. So uh we I we could follow up if you wanted more details. It sounds to me like you need the data. Uh, so I would strongly encourage you to follow up with the group to get it to get it. And if you need any assistance from council, I think we'd be more than happy to provide that assistance. Um if I may, uh sorry, I'm just gonna try to get to the right spot here for my question. Uh attachment to clerks, uh pages uh seven and eight. Um I want to just talk about your focus area targets here. Um the two charts on pages seven and eight uh are showing an upward trajectory, but you are targeting a pretty significant decline. As in, we're not looking to uh we're not looking to continue a trend, we're looking to completely reverse a trend. Um To completely reverse a trend, like I I think Councillor Atkinson was sort of uh bringing this up earlier in terms of like that'll require some major policy decisions or some major uh uh requests for investments. I see from the uh from the recommendation that you're looking for permission to consider uh uh can uh in the four year budget uh an acceleration uh in terms of here. If we do that, knowing the uh The prioritization matrix that's being applied to our budget, uh, to our our budget prioritization, do you do you foresee this trend, this, this target being achievable? So the targets were set as part of the safe room mobility plan uh of 25% collision reduction uh for overall and for vulnerable road users. Uh Again, it's we're not trending in the right direction. That's really essentially what we do know. And how we get there, you know, we do have to have those conversations. Well, and I think that that's actually exactly what I'm trying to get at is that like it do we have a plan to get there? I guess is maybe the starting point. And then the second part of that is if we do have a plan to get there, Do we know if the interventions that you are proposing in order to get to that 25% reduction are they going to be above the line, so to speak, in the budget uh prioritization exercise that administration's currently undertaking? So again, there's no guarantees because it it's such a complicated, like traffic safety is so complicated, right? With so many different factors contributed to it. Whether and many of those things as we as we try to put through are outside of our control. So it it is a complicated thing. Where we do have influence, we are doing the things that are making the most impact. We're making changes at high collision locations where we know that without those changes, those collisions will keep occurring. We're you know improving pedestrian safety as much as possible and targeting the highest locations that we know have the highest risk. We're doing everything that we can within. the original like the existing budgets and such. Uh we do have a consultant, um Raheem, that he can speak to what other jurisdictions are potentially doing maybe that can uh provide more information of that if you'd like. Yeah, I'm actually really glad you bring that up because that was going to be my next line of questioning exactly. Is I think that we've probably exhausted for the most part the like what's going on in Alberta and the trend. In the report, you did an excellent job in terms of comparing us, as we can see from these here to Toronto and Vancouver as well. And we can see the the trends that they're having there. So I'm I'm kind of curious, in terms of instead of focusing on what we're doing wrong, could we for a few minutes actually focus on what others are doing right and what we can steal from them in our jurisdiction? Sure, thank you. I'm Raheem Dilgi, I'm a consultant supporting Safe Mobility team. Yeah, I'm happy to to share um in my experience um what some of the other cities, comparable cities, uh large cities across Canada are doing. And first I I wanna say though that The conversation that I'm hearing here today is quite similar to a lot of cities. Cities are putting in a lot of interventions but not quite seeing the results that are, of course, hoped or expected. There's a lot of very specific contextual factors. I think Ms. Domerad referred to the fact that Calgary is a very, you know, large urban, a lot of high-speed roads, which makes it more challenging and what it makes it increases the need for a little bit more of a maybe a creative approach. An approach that will have a lot more implications for the public that may be controversial. But you know, that maybe is an area that we need to go further in order to achieve the objectives that have been set and that we want to. So let me let me talk briefly first about Edmonton because I obviously are provincial neighbor, immediate neighbor to the north. So they've had a safe mobility plan, they call it the Safe Mobility Strategy, for a number of years. And what they what their initial approach was that made uh quite uh an impact was to identify three or four really positive changes and implement them at as many locations as they could. Um I can get into what those are if if we have time, but but but that was generally the uh the approach. They saw some significant reductions. Um but then The numbers start creeping up. And then you need to then uh so they've slowly moved towards, and I know the city city of Calgary has as well, a more systemic approach, which Ms. Domerad referred to, that you know, there's few things, little happening everywhere. You don't know where some of the collisions are going to manifest themselves, right, due to the same issue. And a lot of the behavioral related issues don't necessarily manifest themselves at one, you know, a signalized location or unsignalized or tier local, it could be anywhere. So there's some uh systemic changes that that city of Edmonton, for example, has moved to. Speed is a factor in all of in all collisions, and so that's one area where the city of Edmonton started, and and Calgary has also you know put in that um uh reduced speed limit in a number of uh the the the lower class roads where um Edmonton is starting, and I'm gonna say Toronto has done a lot more is moving some of the similar principles to the higher class roads. So, and and I was just in Toronto yesterday. It's really, really apparent how many or the proportion of arterial roads that have 40 kilometer an hour speed limits. It's actually quite staggering. Um and it's increasing. And Toronto is seeing the benefits. So uh although you know you need to look at the context, yes, Toronto is is quite you know a dense city, obviously, huge population. There may be more opportunities here on some higher class roads. And and um And of course, just changing the speed limits not necessarily going to make that difference. So what uh Mr. Omar had mentioned, the city of Calgary is piloted are some raised platforms. That's something you see a lot of in Toronto. Raised crosswalks, raised intersections, things that actually physically force you to reduce your speed and not just the speed limit sign. And then it actually seems a little bit more reasonable to people to be able to go that speed. Having parked vehicles, so uh a lot of the time they've taken out a vehicle lane and replaced it with like a bike lane slash parking or and parking lane, whatever they could fit. And that also, even the on street parking or the bike lanes have that feature of reducing speeds. So in reducing speed, I think I said increasing, reducing speeds on arterial roads, I think is maybe one area where we may, you know, uh I think pilots have started, but that uh that can continue. Uh another thing that Toronto has done um uh very well a and and I know the city has in many instances uh c Calgary has in many instances as well, is trying to put in Um, like changing their design standards and trying to change it absolutely everywhere. So obviously a huge network in Toronto. But you you drive down the road or walk down there, and you can see, for example, the tight turn turning radius at just about every intersection, along with all the accessibility features. They've really blanketed the network with a number of these good uh good practices that uh hopefully will improve pedestrian safety as well by reducing right turn speeds because that's where a lot of the collisions happen. Um so I I don't know, I don't want to take up too much time, but maybe that that's a few examples of um uh where um uh Toronto and Edmonton have gone. Edmonton's numbers have have have gone up as was alluded to in the presentation. Um one thing that they um have reported, and in fact, their Soy Safe Mobility Plan or strategy just went to their urban development committee, I think it was uh yesterday, and they've approved uh doubling of their of their funding to be able to reverse the numbers the same way we're talking about reversing the numbers here. Uh one of the things that they reported is uh since the um automated traffic enforcement kind of started rolling back in I think late 2024, they've seen huge spikes in red light violations. So it's it's it's uh it's just more evidence in addition to what we already had that automated traffic enforcement works, especially speed enforcement and red light uh violation enforcement. So that's something hopefully you know that that you know uh Alberta you know will benefit as a whole, including City of Calgary, is is if if if uh you know some of those uh regulations uh kind of uh come come back and and and and uh and have the benefits. So maybe I'll I'll I'll leave it at that unless there's questions. Yeah, and I I would say that like please don't apologize. That this is this conversation here is the exact opposite of wasting our time. Like this is, I think, what you were getting a sense from earlier that we want to actually hear is we want to hear what are the ideas, what are the things that we're gonna do, and why are we why are why are those the things that we should be doing. Um, clerks, if you wouldn't mind just going back to the presentation just with slide 14. Um we probably should have pulled this up earlier, but just uh I think this is the first of your supplemental slides. Um, committee, we can see pretty clearly here that um Vancouver and Toronto are are um uh doing something. That's working and Calgary and Edmonton are very much on the same sort of trajectory here when we take a look at these. Um I may chair, leave it here, but I I've already had many conversations and working on a notice of motion to uh uh uh accelerate local or pardon me um uh uh leading pedestrian intervals because I think that that is absolutely one of the tools that we if we can create some separation between uh vehicles and uh and people is one of them. But uh I am happy to have a conversation with uh with the uh with the mobility team here because um I think that uh the other one that stood out for me there was the raised crosswalks, is another one of those things because if distraction is the biggest thing that we're that we're facing, we need to put appropriate things in place that will cause people to break their distraction. And uh both of those items uh uh do that. So um I'll maybe leave it there, Chair, and uh thank you for your time. Thank you, Council Cali. Over to Councillor Clark. Yeah, thank you. A robust conversation about something very important. So I really appreciate it. I'm going to speak in plain language, I think, about it. I I find the insights from Toronto very interesting because one of the things you've highlighted here are these raised crosswalks. And there's a lot of emphasis on our major roads in the city, and I do appreciate that. But uh again, for what I'm hearing in my neighborhoods, these are residential concerns, these are mid block, these are at residential intersections. And You've just confirmed for us that we've got opportunities to implement simple measures to deliver potential results. And what we are running into here at the city of Calgary is an inability to get through the perceived study requirements to get some of this done. And I'll just uh to go back to my original uh conversation that I had when I brought this forward. Uh we did go on a tour at Southview and had conversations with folks there. And some of those issues were brought forward to city administration over a year ago. So they'd already done this. I was like just a new Councillor. They're representing old concerns to us on 26th Avenue, in which we almost got hit as a group walking across the intersection because somebody was speeding on a no lined road. So I just, in plain language, uh we are not implementing fast enough. Really basic measures to ensure resident safety in their own neighborhoods. And so that's where we're at. I'm happy to lend my support and my help as to how we get there. If we need to review the way in which we approach this work, glad to roll up my sleeves and lend a hand. But uh like I say, it's this I I don't have much to say about the report. I appreciate it coming forward. Not a lot in terms of what how do we deliver outcomes, which is unfortunate. But uh I think this conversation's been productive in that regard. And that's all. I'll I'll consider that debate. Thank you. Thank you, Council Clark. Over to Council Johnson. Yeah, a quick question about uh consultant, and I think uh Councillor Clark kind of nailed it here, but I mean, d does our own city employees require a consultant? Look just shortstop, why do we require a consultant? Like I I no offense to the consultant, but a lot of what he said was took me two seconds to Google search that. And then why are we not implementing what he is saying to do? Why are we piloting something that's already been done in other jurisdictions? So, question is why do we need a consultant and how much are we paying the consultant? Councillor Johnston, be patient. Uh Director McLeod is making his way here. Troy McLeod, Director of Mobility. So Councillor Johnson, one of the things we want to do is make sure we're taking every possible opportunity to improve safety in our city and using expertise from industry so that we can apply it in our city. We are making rapid response implementation as part of the additional funding that council did give us with respect to the additional $7.5 million in association with our safer mobility plan. The support from the Calgary Police Service as well. We have a joint policy that we work with Calgary Police. We've stood up an office of traffic safety within mobility within the traffic section. And so we're making every opportunity to improve safety across the city with countermeasures. But the other element, and I think we haven't talked about it enough, is around the propensity of people distracted and the culture that's being supported through the automated traffic enforcement reduction. In the city of Edmonton, they have data where they have about 130% increase in red light violations with the declination of the automated traffic enforcement. So there are a number of factors. It's not just engineering, it's compliance. And what we need in our city is greater compliance and uh support uh when it comes to that. And the Calgary Police Service has done a wonderful job. We also have an office uh dedicated through the bylaw uh group that does uh safety enforcement uh at schools as well as some other noise enforcement. Uh but these are activities that are making a difference. Uh but we're seeing both cities. I'll just finish I'll just finish off real quick. Both cities are seeing about a 20% increase in serious. So please let me ask my question and I would appreciate the answer it. Sure. Why do we need a consultant? We we wanted to ensure that we were uh providing the best information we could for council as part of this update. Uh we have provided this information in the past and we wanted to get expertise from the industry because of the increase we're seeing. It's significant in our city, uh both in Edmonton and Calgary, and so we wanted to make sure we adopted the expertise that we could. As far as the cost of the consultant, I would have to uh get a reference back to. I don't have that in front of me. So why wouldn't we just hire the consultant and fire some of the people in mobility? If that's what we need. Councillor Johnston, I'm gonna stop you there, please. How many times I've said like these kind of comments, they are not appreciated on the council floor. Um, we shouldn't be doing this. They are here serving the residents of Calgary. They're giving their best professional recommendation to us. And if as a council or committee we don't like it, we can reject it or we can accept it. But we cannot be having this discussion right on the council floor. And uh and and yes, please, I I with all due respect, I ask you to please um take your words back. No. Sorry. This is our job to be governors and I'm asking the questions that constituents are asking me to ask them. So no, I'm not taking my words back. This is their job to answer our questions. And to be honest, this is their job and they're failing at it. And so I'm sorry, Chair, but I'll no, um I'm sorry. I'm not asking anything that's inappropriate. I'm literally asking them why, right? Why are we here? Why are we spending all this money on employees and we are hitting roadblocks every single day with who we have right now? So no, I'm not taking my words back. That's fine. But I would I would recommend you not to make these comments, please. We are like you said, we are a board of directors. Our job is to govern and our only employee is the CAO of this organization. And if you have concerns regarding anything related to HR, I think David Duckworth is the right person for you to talk to. Thank you. Um yeah, I'm well aware of that. Thank you, Chair. Um, okay, so Mr. McLeod, why are we hiring a consultant that's giving us giving us answers? And why aren't we implementing these answers? Why are we setting up a pilot project that has already existed in other jurisdictions? Why aren't we just doing what other jurisdictions have already implemented? Why do we need a pilot for Calgary? There are a number of countermeasures that are being implemented that uh other cities are doing and we are doing. What we wanted to do is to ensure that we were uh making use of that expertise to uh complete our safer mobility plan update and that is why we chose to do that. Okay, well, all I'll leave with is that the results from your department aren't showing, right? We have higher collisions, higher fatalities, um, higher injuries. So s whatever you guys are doing right now isn't working, right? And so again, it shouldn't have to be council direction to deregulate. Safety studies, right? You guys should already see that, be like, okay, well, this works. We're gonna implement this right away as an emergency, like the rest of council has said. So, um, yeah, very, very disappointed um in this department, uh, considering the results we're dealing with with this report you've given us. So um I expect better and I hope to see better. So thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Johnston. I just wanna I just wanna Very clear for all members of the council. Procedure bylaw, section 114 is very clear. Questions during debate. While administration should provide the best professional judgment on issues, members may not engage in debate with or ask argumentative questions of administration. Let's please this is our own procedure bylaw. And if you want to violate this, then we are not doing good governance. Um I'm sorry, administration. Thank you, Chair. Um I don't Point of privilege, then, Chair. What exactly was argumentative? I'm not gonna go into debate here. Uh I'm I'm just reading the procedure by law just for all the members. I didn't I didn't point out you, Council Johnson, just moving forward, that procedural bylaw is very clear about the expectations of the debate or questioning and answering of administration. That's it. Okay, well, you're clearly referencing after I spoke, so I would assume you were talking about me. So with all due respect. I just don't it uh to help me going forward, please explain to me what was argumentative or I was debating with um administration. So I was referencing the report they brought us and I was making clear indication that what the report brings is very disturbing and we can do better than that. So Great, thanks. I don't see any uh other questions in in the queue. Um I got a couple. Uh this is this is just so there's two ways you can bring policy. We either council can direct you to change the policy, or you can make a recommendation to change a policy uh as a professional. But this is just an update that is required. That is a council direction you provide to us every year about all the programs that were approved by this council for funding and stuff, right? That's correct, yes chair. Thank you. What is your current funding uh for capital to do all these improvements, all this work? Currently we received additional funding of 7.5. Our base funding is 5 million. We had one time of just over a million. So between 10 and 15 million for capital for directly related to safety enhancements on the network. Great. What is uh what is the what is cap do you know by by what is the capital uh funding for city of Toronto for their mobility department for safety? I don't have the city of Toronto. City of Edmonton, I believe they are just approved yesterday close to a hundred and I believe it's 150 million over four years, their 27 to 30 plan. So It's 110 over four years. okay, I'm uh also heard just that Toronto's a hundred million a year. And ours is fifteen. Directly related to safety. There's other improvements that are done on the network that have safety benefits, but these are targeted directly for safety enhancements and countermeasures. Okay, great. And if there is some sort of um uh not emotional rising, but some sort of uh referring back to make policy changes and all that. You think you guys have enough time to bring those recommendations back for this council to consider in the next budget cycle, four year budget cycle? That's what we're anticipating is to bring forward an additional investment strategy related to uh safer mobility plan. It would be included in our four year plan, yes. Okay, so it's already in the works. We are working on that, yes, sir. Okay, great. Um my last question is basically um I was looking at 2025 update. It said the city of Edmonton is spending 50 million a year, Toronto 80 million a year. Um just my last question is uh You guys are working with the cards that were dealt to you, the city that was built. I just want to talk about new communities. How much cooperation, collaboration is happening with PDS, planning and development services when they're building new communities that we are not going back and spending all this money to Some a road that was built projecting population of X thousand people and it never materialized. Example, Cornerstone Boulevard in my ward, you can probably land a land a airplane there. So it just I just wanna uh seriously, uh colleagues, go have a look at it. I just want to understand what kind of collaboration, because we are talking about changing policy, but that's one policy I'm always confused about that how much collaboration is happening, what is given to you? Are you getting putting input into that? Uh Chair, I think the one document that I would point to is the streets manual and the work that's being done to provide new standards for future communities. We have great collaboration with planning and the work that's done on ensuring new communities are built. But there are some remnant uh designs, as you had mentioned, that uh would benefit from uh countermeasures with uh uh some redesign. And so future communities, I think we are working towards the 30 and 40 kilometer per hour design speeds, depending on what class road uh we're referring to. And then when it comes to the streets manual, that's a document that will help guide with new development. Okay, great. There's two aspects in my opinion. One is engineering design controls, one is education. Yesterday I got off the train, I crossed the road, I was waiting for a ride, and two vehicles didn't even stop at the at the stop sign. We can put as many engineering controls we want to. It's the behavior, behavior and behavior and mannerism. Can we invest more into education through school system, through community associations, through other organizations to educate people more rather than just putting all this many money and expecting people will uh comply to those things? 100%. That is part of the strategies that education and enforcement improvements. Distraction is a key leading indicator when it comes to contributing to these increasing collisions. And so those types of education and enforcement are really helpful. Calgary Police has done a great job of doing some of that enforcement where they have officers that pull drivers over that are distracted. But you can look yourself and you can see if you're walking that there are a number of people that use their phone, hold their phone while it's driving. These are not helpful when it comes to making our roadways safer. And so it is that culture that we need to change in our city. Yeah, my my last question is Vision Zero. We have a target of 425 by major injury and fertility collision target 425 by 2028. How achievable that is given the funding you have today? And if you're bringing a package at budget, are you going to be confident that you will be able to achieve that? I think we set the target as far as what we can achieve through the funding. We're seeing an increase in funding. Council more than doubled our safety budget in the last update. This council did. And so we do appreciate that. That gives us a number of other measures that we can apply, but it isn't just one thing. It's a number of things that will help improve safety in our city. Those targets are set because that's where we want to we want to get to zero. And if we don't set a target, we think it's a reasonable target. We would like to achieve it, but at this point we haven't been able to. Great, thank you. Can I ask you one last question though? Last I was part of last council and we saw it firsthand. We tried to restore lots of funding. What effect did you have through a safe program that was implemented by council previous to that through zero based budgeting? So there are probably two elements to that. But uh one uh we have seen success where we've been able to apply the funding and uh do countermeasures in education. We've had uh some success, but it isn't getting to the place where we want to be. Seeing this increase is disheartening for all of us. Um but it isn't helping with some of the other legislative changes that have been imposed on us. Uh the reduction of automated traffic enforcement has caused issues in our city, increase in non-compliance, increase in travel speeds, and so those things aren't uh helping the cause. Um we do appreciate the funding that we get and the support we get across a number of agencies in our organization. We do appreciate what council is doing. Uh so we're thankful. On the zero based review, um, I really don't have uh uh information on that that I can provide today, uh, but it's a good question. Thank you. Yeah, no, that's fine. Because yeah, uh 28 million losing out on that revenue, uh automated uh traffic enforcement, and we had to fund, this council had to fund. That's equivalent to 1.1% property tax increase, and changes in the GDA licensing system, they're all creating problems. It's not just what we can do, it's a holistic thing that we need to do and work with province. And unfortunately, we haven't had good success. So thank you for your presentation. Thank you for all the great work. Uh, I think you guys are doing amazing given what the cards that were dealt to you, and and and let's, if this council is serious about fixing this, and we want to see maybe. Port with stop at every intersection, red light. Let's give them the resources that they want. And they will show definitely this team I'm very confident will show the results. Thank you. Uh with that I'm done. And uh who's moving this? Okay, Councillor Atkinson to move. Great, uh colleagues. I'm actually putting forward an alternate recommendation here, just sort of based on the conversation that we've been having. Uh, and it is that uh the community development committee recommend that council refer this report back to administration to report back to the community development committee in Q4 2026 to provide a better roadmap, future improvements, and policy suggestions that are focused on delivering the results of Vision Zero in an expedient manner. As we've heard, I think this comes down to investment. This comes down to trade-offs and sort of making decisions. And ultimately some of those decisions will also be political. It will fall to us to sort of make sure that we're providing the backing to administration to make sure that we are tackling this from every angle that we can. Some of it is living with the provincial government and is not within our realm of control. But that just makes it all the more important that we tackle the pieces that are within our control. To the best that we possibly can. And so this referral is hopefully putting that piece forward. I think we could we've had a lot of discussions around today today around how do we go more into delivery rather than sort of sitting in studies. I would hopefully see see some of that piece. Recognizing the unique conditions of the built form that is Calgary, where we have wider streets and we have a different road network than some of the other cities that are out there, and how do we sort of meet this moment? Distracted driving, huge problem. Compliance and enforcement are a big piece of that. Another piece that could be a that that helps with distracted driving is a giant piece of concrete. If people wreck their cars on a piece of concrete that is in the roadway because they are distracted and not paying attention, better that than us losing more individuals or having more injuries on our roads. That cannot be the trade-off. And if if we need to do built realm improvements to make sure that we are changing these numbers and bending this curve in the right direction, I think that those trade-offs need to take place. Speed of delivery really matters here. The trade-offs, I think we need to be looking at really sort of ramping up programs like the leading pedestrian interval, no right-hand turn on red, ways to deliver innovative things like rumble strips on transition points. Like you sort of, if you if you're ever traveling out to uh to Banff and you go, you're going on the highway and suddenly you hit the rumble strips, you see that that's really what slows everyone down. So what if we were just actually adding rumble strips on every transition point into communities that really told people, wake up, you're you're coming into a neighborhood. Uh we need to find those things that really work for for Calgary, uh, and I think this team can do it. Um I think that the improvements that they've they've done with the money they've been given, the list there is great. I like seeing all those improvements across the board. I do think we also need to make sure that we're tackling the unique areas of Calgary differently. I didn't really like seeing the TBD on downtown. I'm seeing a lot of improvements in sort of those outer areas and sort of the entryways to neighborhoods, but not necessarily recognizing sort of established neighborhoods and the changes that need to be made there. We need to be tackling this from every single angle that we possibly can. And so this hopefully gives them some time to do that. Um it it lands in Q4 around budget time. Obviously, the asks, as you heard from uh Mr. McLeod, those will be coming in for the budget sort of in tandem, but it is really about making sure that the vision of hitting vision zero is there, that we are actually we have the tools, we have the strategy that prioritizes our mobility network around pedestrians to make sure that our most vulnerable road users stop getting injured and dying on our streets. That has to be the top priority, and we can no longer sort of prioritize sort of the throughput on roads and these kinds of things at the expense of those who are suffering the greatest cost. Uh so this hopefully puts us down that path, and uh I would ask for your support in sort of doing the work also uh over the next couple of months to speak with administration, make sure that we're getting some of these pieces recognized. In that final report. Thank you. Before I go to Councillor Yule, Councillor Clark, I I'm gonna invite mobility because I think your questions are gonna be for mobility. If you guys want to come over, uh Councillor Yule is first. Yeah, I was just gonna ask administration uh their interpretation of this. Um I mean, Director McLeod, you you had you had mentioned this work is kind of already in going on. Uh does this direction help? Does it hinder um your opinion on it? Uh thank you, Councillor Ewell, uh, through the chair. This definitely is uh helpful as far as the dialogue we've had today. We certainly are hearing the concerns in the areas that focus. Uh we are already uh doing this work as part of the next four-year budget and planning, so it certainly aligns from that perspective. Uh so it's not unwelcome by any means. It's just that that work is uh happening and uh thank you for uh mentioning and bringing it forward. There's there's no um concerns from our perspective to to bring that information forward in Q4 if council wanna or committee and council want to have that discussion, but that is work that our team is doing, so thanks. Okay, thank you. Yeah, I I mean I I was very I mean I I was very happy with this report. Um I like I I think a lot of our our our council colleagues have been um bringing up issues with our warrant scale. Like how do we how do we warrant and and I guess like they this department is only limited by the the funding that they have. They can't hit everything uh on our list of of needs and so that's why we have that warrant scale. Um I think there are things in this report that they are doing. I mean uh our our next item uh on the agenda is to talk about the AI pedestrian safety to help with that warrant scale. Um I think if I can encourage my colleagues have your monthly meetings with Troy and work on the individual items in your in your area because as much as we want to you know leapfrog process in in studies and and pilot projects, uh I I know firsthand like um we just put in a bunch of the um the the school zone speed bumps and half of your community loves it, half of your community hates it. Uh and so if like if we just go straight straight to action, um I think um I've been talking with with Councillor tyres, she's she's had some some issues as well where you know half your community love a mobility change and half of them hate it. So skipping that pilot stage, those those studies that that are kind of important to kind of gauge community buy-in on some of this stuff is is is a risk, I guess. Um but I I think um I want to thank administration for this report. It was it was it was confirming some of the assumptions we had. Um I we need that data to say it's not just hearsay, you know, more pedestrians are getting hit on the street, and that's what this data came to us and said. Um so I'm happy to support this amendment with the with the uh admin um already doing this work and and this just gives further refinement of that. Um but I just yeah, just want to say that this is a great report to just kind of confirm the assumptions we already had. They have great recommendations and the highlights and the actions that they're doing now and their future plans on slides 11 and 12. Um, this just kind of um It is our responsibility as council to fund the action. I know this department wants to hit every intersection, and it's it's up to us to gauge that that level of service when we come to our four year budget. So I'll I'll be supporting Councillor Ekinson's amendment here so that we can yeah, get further uh further data as we go into those conversations. But we really got to take the action to do it, I guess is the is is what it comes down to. Thank you, Councillor Yule. Over to Councillor Clark. Yeah, thank you, Chair. I mean inevitably every decision we make will come down to money and how much money we put towards it. And I've already had the conversation with um with mobility around some of the costs. If you think I think and maybe again, like I represent Calgaryans, the average individual not participating in this day-to-day work. So uh like to paint two lines on a road and slap up a pedestrian sign, like I've been uh told uh loosely that it's about twenty five hundred dollars. So I mean a million dollars, ten million more, what do we need? Like, and I appreciate that's not every answer, and I certainly agree with Councillor Yule's point, but I think what needs to be said today as we move forward with this conversation is that there is a disconnect between uh what individuals are experiencing in community and what our studies are showing. And I think, you know, it's if people call to complain and pursue through 311 as as we tell them to do, and we go and study that at 9 a.m. on a Tuesday when it's actually the traffic heading home at 5 30 on, you know. I mean, it's just it How do you really truly capture the outcomes? And I I I don't want to undervalue uh what residents know because they know their neighborhoods, they know these streets better than we do. And I think that that has to hold some weight. Um so yes, more money for sure. I'm glad to glad to support that point, but um There's many things that could be achieved now that aren't being achieved as as I can see. And so interested to explore that further. I think uh Councillor Atkinson's uh position here is great, glad to support. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Clark. Over to Councillor Kelly. Yeah, just uh a couple of questions here through the chair to clerks, just procedurally, because I think this is the first time that we've actually had someone bring forward an alternative uh uh an alternative motion. Just wanted to get some clarification if uh if a motion like this fails, what happens? Do do we have the ability to bring back the original version or or this is it? Yes, somebody could move uh the original recommendations if this were to fail. Okay, cool. That was just a procedure. I'm I'm willing to support this. Uh I just wanted to ask that question because this is the first time this has happened for us. Second question, just to administration, I just wanted to ask the question about the Q4, uh, specifically as it relates to the four year budget. Seems to me like you've already been doing a fair bit of this uh work already, especially with the consultants on staff. I'm wondering if I should bring forward an amendment to to change that to Q3. I just want to make sure that we're uh we're giving you enough time uh um through the governance process in order to be able to do the work that you need to do and to be able to get a report back to us in advance of budget. Thank you, Chair. Uh Councillor Kelly, I think Q4 is appropriate. That is our time to uh finalize budget in November. Um but we could come sooner if needed if that was your desire. Um so we could come in late Q3 if that was something you wished. What I think I'm getting at here, Chair, is just uh the idea of I'd I'd like us to receive this report before we get into the the budget debate in in November and recognizing that Q4 is October to December. Obviously, December would be too late for this process. I would argue that uh November would be too late as well. October might be okay, but like I'm I'm sort of looking, you know, if I if we're to get technical here, like September feels like the right time, but I want to know if uh if if uh I want to make sure that whatever we do here provides you enough time in order to be able to get it to us in in uh that right window. Yeah, I mean uh if you want to bring a friendly and it's okay with Councillor Atkinson, my question would be uh irrespective when the report is coming, are you gonna be working with administration based on the report there will be funding asked, or are we willing to bring an amendment if we bring it in Q4? There will be more of amendment route at the budget rather than us baking it into uh so if it's okay with you, Councillor Atkinson, I heard from administration they're comfortable. Uh I have no issues. Like it's it's it's Yeah, just a procedural sort of question more than anything else. Like I I'd I'm even happy if we wanted to say in here uh the September CDC meeting. as long as budget and take you guys can make it. I don't think anything. We can commit to September uh Chair. So then I might look to Council Atkinson, would you be okay if we if we change this to say September uh twenty twenty six? Um sorry, uh clerk's got uh something to add here. Yeah, the motion's moved and it's on the floor, so it will require an amendment, but we can we can uh strike up an amendment to replace the words Q4 2026 with September. I still would like I I'm happy to make the amendment, but I I want it to be friendly here. Uh Councillor Axison appears to be okay with that. So um Chair, I'm happy to make an amendment to change. Uh sorry we pulled down the exact wording, but I'll look to clerks for it. I believe it can be as simple as changing Q4 to September. Yeah, okay, so we have an amendment. Okay, great. Oh, that's uh Q3. We're working on it. And And I recognize the fact that we're doing this on the floor. the report will be coming back to CDC GM Black. So we need to add that in there. So I thought that was in the original. It's in the original. Okay, great. Uh I think and uh could we actually maybe just ask clerks if we were to make this amendment, what would the full wording of the main be if approved? The wording would be that with respect to report CD 2026 0471, the following be approved, that Community Development Committee recommend that council refer report CD 2026 0471 back to administration to report back to Community Development Committee in September 2026 to provide a better roadmap, future improvements, and policy suggestions that are focused on delivering the results of Vision Zero in an expedient manner. Kate, thank you. Yep, I'm happy to make that uh motion, colleagues, as described here. I think it just uh let's just nail it down specifically when it'll be to provide some assurance to uh mobility, but also to make sure that we and all of our council colleagues have a uh uh have the robust discussion with all the suggestions and whatnot prior to us starting to uh uh fully debate the budget. Thank you. You open That's my open any debate? Seeing none, you close. Closed. Let's go to eastcribe. Councillor Johnston is yes. Thank you, Councillor Johnston. Councillor Clark, your vote, please. Yes. Thank you, Chair. All the votes are in. Let's display the votes, please. That's carried seven nothing. Uh now we go back to Councillor Atkinson's amended uh Amendment. Closed. Can we go to E Scribe? Just take us a moment to bring that up. Uh can we just mark that as a Let's just have a read to make sure and highlight the change text? we're good to go. Yeah. That's ready. Oh, sorry, September 2026. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you, Chair. We'll just fix that and then it'll be ready to go. Over to you scribe now? Yes, please. Uh Councillor Johnston is yes. Thank you, Councillor Johnston. Councillor Clark, your voice? Thank you. Chair, all the votes are in. Thank you. Let's display the votes. That is carried seven nothing. Clerks, I think we are done with this item. Correct. Thank you. We got uh 7.5 after break artificial intelligence and enhanced pedestrian safety. Uh committee, um throw it out. 30 minute break. Sure, who's gonna? Who's gonna put the motion forward? just wanted to make sure that sorry, question of uh uh Point of order there. Just want to make sure that we're giving appropriate break to clerks. We're happy to proceed as committee direct. Half hours fine after me. Thanks. 30 minutes. Moved by Council Yule. Uh do we go to East Cribe or voice vote? Maybe a voice vote. Sorry? Maybe a voice vote on this. Sure. Anybody in opposition? Seeing hearing now? Sorry? Councillor Johnston is a no. Okay, so Council Johnston is no. Anyone else? What are the results? That would be six six in favor and Councillor Johnston. Thank you. That motion is carried 6 to 1. We'll be back at 53. 113 to be precise, right? Okay, great. Thank you. Good work, committee. We'll Sorry. Yeah. Okay. We'll be back. Afternoon session of CDC, uh, June 10th, 2026. Uh clerks, can we do the role, please? Absolutely. Thank you, Chair. On the roll, Councillor Tyres, Councillor Yule, Councillor Kelly, Present. Councillor Atkinson, Councillor Clark, Councillor Johnston, Councillor Johnston on the roll, Councillor Wyness, Councillor Pentezopoulos, Councillor Schmidt, Councillor Chabot, Councillor Ward, Councillor Jameson, Councillor McLean, Mayor Farkas. And Chair Dollywall. Thank you. Uh we will go to C. Council Johnson. Councillor Johnston's here as well. Thank you, Councillor Johnson. We'll note you on the present on the roll. Thanks, Council Johnson. Let's jump to 7.5 Artificial Intelligence Enhanced Pedestrian Safety, C D 2026-20470. We got Erin Trinski. Sorry, I I butchered your name. So, but go ahead. Can you hear me? Joining me today are Troy McLeod, Director of Mobility, and Carlos Pinto, Leader of Advanced Analytics. We are here today to provide a Q2 2026 update on the AI enhanced pedestrian safety platform as part of the Safer Mobility Plan update. Next slide, please. In September 2025, Council directed administration to return in Q2 2026 with an update on the AI platform as part of the Safer Mobility Plan update. And to return in Q3 2026 with information on funding requirements. Today's presentation responds to the Q2 2026 direction. Next slide, please. Our recommendation with this update is that the Community Development Committee recommend that council accept this report for the corporate record. Next slide, please. I'll now walk through a few highlights. The AI platform has been developed to support a proactive, data driven approach to pedestrian safety. It evaluates more than 17,000 intersections across Calgary using data from the transportation network to identify locations that may present elevated risk. This allows administration to better focus staff effort and resources where they will have the greatest impact. The platform also includes an interactive dashboard that ranks locations based on risk and allows users to filter results. For example, identifying high-risk locations without existing traffic signals. Next slide, please. This slide shows a screenshot of the interactive dashboard. The dashboard allows users to filter multiple parameters and narrow down candidate locations for further technical review and potential upgrades. It is important to note that this is a screening and prioritization tool, not a replacement for engineering assessment. Next slide, please. The AI platform is still under development and continues to be refined. It currently incorporates several data sets, including historical collisions, speed limits, population density, roadway geometry, proximity to schools and transit stops, weather and traffic control types. The AI platform is demonstrating strong overall performance so far. Access to the dashboard is currently restricted to project team members. Due to some the nature of some data sets, such as collision data, the intent is to maintain this as an internal staff resource once development is complete. Next slide, please. This slide provides an example of how administration is using the AI platform. Using the filtering parameters, we identified the top 20 locations that currently have no traffic signal, no overhead flasher, and no RRFB. These locations are shown on the map. Each location was then reviewed individually and assessed using traditional warrant processes. This demonstrates how the AI platform supplements rather than replaces established engineering practices. Next slide, please. From a cost perspective, to date the AI platform has been developed using existing internal resources with no direct costs. Routine maintenance activities, such as updating data sets, are expected to be no cost. If significant changes are required in the future, there may be associated costs. Based on a preliminary review of the top 20 ranked locations, the estimated cost to implement identified pedestrian safety treatments is approximately $2.5 million. This represents an early indication of the scale of investment that may be required. Not all locations require new pedestrian treatments, as some have had recent improvements. Some identified treatments include traffic signals, RRFBs, signed and marked crosswalks, roundabouts, and curb extensions. Many of these locations have either no history of 311 requests or outdated traffic count data, which helps explain why they have not been previously identified through conventional approaches. Next slide, please. Looking ahead, administration will continue to refine the AI platform and further investigate the addition of mid block data and bike lane data to further strengthen network wide screening capabilities. We are also advancing the analysis of the top 50 highest risk locations, including preliminary technical review and cost estimates. Administration will return to council in Q3 2026 with these findings, along with funding requirements. Next slide. In closing, once again, our recommendation is that the Community Development Committee recommend that council accept this report for the corporate record. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Before we go to uh question of admin, any public speakers here or uh online or on the phone? Hearing none, seeing none. Uh there are no public speakers. We will go to council for questions of administration. Uh Council Cali. Thanks wanted to confirm in terms of the pilot project. Did your engineers assess any of these uh these intersections before we ran it sort of the the top 20 the through the AI pilot? I'm just sort of curious if uh if they did and and and what sort of we may have learned from the differences and Yes, I won't speak about like all 20 locations, but one of the ones identified we already knew was warranted for an RFB and had plans for. Some of the other locations have things like existing four-way stops. So from a four-way stop, we're not going to remove the four-way stop to put like an overhead flasher RFB. The only appropriate upgrade in that situation is to go to like a traffic signal. So some of those were kind of the in-between ground where it's warranting for a four-way stop. It doesn't meet the warrant for a traffic signal. But then the platform is flagging it as a risk intersection. So then we have discussions on if we should maybe add curb extensions or do other measures. Or maybe we just proactively implement a traffic signal, even though it's not meeting the TAC warrant. If that answers your question. So a lot of these had some sort of warrant on file, but not all of them. Well, I'm sort of curious at like maybe this is an education sort of question for me. Does the system actually make a recommendation for an intervention, or does it simply say, hey, this is an intersection you should be doing something at? So what it does is it ranks all 17,000 intersections relative to each other and it gives it a risk score, but it doesn't say like this should be changed to a traffic signal. It'll say risk score is 99, with 100 being the highest. Got it. That's great. My second question was just going to be around like if it did make a recommendation in terms of potential intervention, what the human element of that would be. But if it's just a uh a scoring mechanism uh that it's running for us. Okay, sounds great. Thank you for the update today. I appreciate it. Uh thank you. Yeah, that that difference between sort of the recommended pieces and then sort of the TAC warrant piece. Or the the traffic counts are are different. So I guess I I'm thinking about like this if we want this tool to be a useful thing, are we will we ever have the correct level of data that we're we're not just running it as a pilot and sort like what would it take, I guess, for us to have the correct level of data fed into the system? Uh and is that achievable, you know, given resource constraints, et cetera? That's a good question. Right now, what I'm seeing as a really big challenge is the population density data is using 2021 census data. Sure. So when we use this next year, it'll be a lot more reliable. But there's always going to be room for improvement and new data sets we can look to use. I can let our data groups speak a little bit more to this because they're the ones who developed the model, but it is showing strong overall performance so far. So we're confident enough to start looking at locations. Because we have so many intersections in the city, it's a really good guide to show our engineers that this one needs to be assessed. But I'll let you elaborate. Thank you, Consular. That's a good question. We do have most of the data. It is available to us via some agreements with the police, the provincial police. Actually, you guys can see it if you look at the collisions dashboard that is already available for the corporation. We look at the data and we separated only pedestrians. That's what we isolated for this case. We could make it a little more accurate by adding more data into it, like for example, pedestrian volume. We don't have a way of measuring pedestrian volume right now in all the intersections of the city. We could measure pedestrian volume on some major intersections, but that will make the model bias and we wouldn't include it. The answer is we have the data. We could make it better, and that's what we're working on to make it better. We are in 88% now of F1 score, which is an excellent score. And it's meant to be as a support, like an advisor to the people on the ground to make the decisions. Does the I think it was in the report that there is like major major activity centers like schools, say train stations, these kinds of high pedestrian connectivity places that that are fed in as a as a layer. Like we're not going to that level of traffic detail. Is that correct? That's a very good question. We are not elevating something because it's close to a school. We are using the information all across the 17,000 plus intersections. The data that we include in here, as Councillor Kelly mentioned before, is all hard data. Nothing anecdotal in this case, it's all evidence based decisions. And if the AI detected that school proximity within a gonna say 50 meters radius, it is affecting positively the score, it will also analyze if not having it clause will reduce the score. So we're not elevate uh we're not including data that is only for one intersection. So if you are not close to a school, it will be included in the calculation, as well as if you are close to the school. The whole data is included as a whole. Okay, so we're not necessarily sort of bringing in those, yeah, those softer pieces of of schools or like high pedestrian. We are staying away from any assumptions. The system doesn't make assumptions regarding, okay, if we think because it's close to school, it's gonna give us a higher score. But we do include school proximity in the data. We included school proximity, we included population density, we included day and time of the collisions, a whole bunch of different variables that we consider could be part of the prediction. Some of the variables ended up not having any weight Oh, I see. on the final decision. Okay, so you're including that data of where the schools are. Yeah, because I thought that was in there, but so it's just not being weighted in the overall calculation for the outcomes of the the Okay. Um the The 20 that were selected, those that didn't sort of meet the warrant standard, is it is it making us question things about the warrant standards at all, and sort of like maybe whether there we need to sort of right size things, or are we only are we sort of keep holding the warrant standard steady and and sort of using this to sort of validate, invalidate the recommendations from the AI? I think it's a bit of both. Like some of them, for example, haven't had a traffic count since twenty ten. So if all of a sudden this model is telling us that the risk score is ninety-eight, maybe we can assume that in the last sixteen years. It would have met the warrant, and then we don't waste the time requesting a new count. We'll just go ahead with implementation, if that answers your question. Yeah. Yeah. So you're it's it's on both sides. Um and there were the other piece that I was interested in, which maybe this gets into the anecdotal piece, but um this overlay of 311, Councillor Clark and sort of our last item uh brought up sort of like, you know, a constant sort of place that we tell people if you've got. An issue is to contact 311, and I know that does go into sort of the decisions that the humans are making around this, but it would be interesting, I think, in the next rounds of uh iterating on the AI, what does it do, right? And sort of spinning it up. Obviously, you don't you'd want to sort of run the clean results with your very sort of metric based data. Um, but then to also sort of see how the 311 data sort of, if it changes the recommendations that the AI would put out. So that actually was explored, but since we don't have 311 data for all 17,000 plus intersections in the city, by including that, it would add bias to the model. So one highlight of having this like if you noticed on the slide with the map, you can really tell which areas maybe aren't complaining as much because this is the first we're kind of looking at them. Right. So okay. So the yeah, so you when you're sorry, when with the map piece you're saying that the areas that are being recommended there are maybe areas that weren't It could have been areas that were missed, because if we get a bunch of 3-1-1s for one location, we'll definitely look at it. But if we're not aware of the issue, this is another really great way to flag it just with all the data. Like if we know there's the population density, the other factors, roadway geometry, speed limit. I guess why would we weigh it as humans but not allow the AI to help us with that distinction? Like I I understand the idea of the bias around 17,000. We don't necessarily have data for all of them in terms of 311, but but I guess no 311 complaints is also in some ways a form of data to a certain degree, or it's at least a form of data that we're using as humans to decide if we're gonna explore something. So yeah. That is a very good suggestion, Councillor. We are not against improving it. Actually, we will love to improve it. That's what we're working on. This is the second interaction, and we went through uh 17 cycles already on this inter uh to now. Uh as Eddie mentioned before, we are already on the third one, and uh I know there will be more after this one. In this third one, we're including the mid block. Analysis because not all the pedestrian intersections happen on, not all pedestrians happen on intersections, some of them, 6%, actually happen on mid block, mid block. We are trying to understand the score for those mid block intersections. And after this one, we might include other data sets, data sets that we can get our hands on, like 311 data, if that is the case. And and I I guess then, because like ultimately what we're trying to do is we're trying to feed in data to then hopefully at some point it starts giving us results that we're like, yeah, that maps. Yeah, that maps, yeah, that maps. Uh what is like, what does that success look like? Is it that it then maps to what we would be What our our engineers would be when they're using their their TAC calculations and right, like that sort of thing, that the two then go hand in hand. Because I I also think that that if that's the end result, I guess I I I worry a little bit that that the part of the reason to bring in something like this, a different tool, we have the TAC. Method, right? Like that is there. This is to hopefully expose some of the deficits maybe in those TAC calculations and really sort of to bring things to the forefront. And I worry a little bit that if we go are going down a path to sort of pursue alignment, that then at some point we've just created something that that backs our end result but doesn't show us the dark spots of where we actually need to be looking, which is ultimately the goal of bringing in a new tool. So how do we balance those two worlds where when we we get to a point where we trust the system to actually be sort of making these recommendations and know that we've given it the right amount of direction, but not enough that it just becomes a redundant tool. Yeah, I think the big goal right now is we want something that's proactive and will allow us to like identify treatments sooner and address these high risk locations. It's still very early on in our use of the system. So There's some trials to make sure we trust the results that are coming out, but ideally it'll make our decision time lag a lot less because we're not always waiting for new traffic counts or things that can take a long time. So it will be a bit of a balance, but we're hoping it can be a lot more proactive. Okay, thank you very much. Thanks for the report. Thank you, Councillor Atkinson. I don't see anyone else in the queue. Um who's gonna move this? Council Clark to move. Wonderful extension of a conversation that we had prior to lunch, but I think certainly an action step. And very grateful for the work that you've put in here. And and I just want to, coming back from lunch, acknowledge as administrators to come forward and present to us, you know, it's a a risk or a vulnerability. And so I just want to acknowledge your your efforts today and thank you for your time and your contributions to you and your team. Thank you. Yeah, closed. Or sorry, yeah, that's my open. Any debate? Seeing hearing none. Close. Closed. Let's go to Eastcribe. Councillor Clark, your vote, please. Thank you. And Councillor, or sorry, Chair Dollywall, your vote, please. Sorry? Your vote, please. Oh, yes. Thank you. Chair, all the votes are in. Thank you. Let's display the votes. That's carried 8 0. With that, we are done with item 7.5, right, clerks? We are on to item 9.2.1. Thanks for your presentation, mobility team. Great work. Thank you. Uh let's go to 9.2.1. Um is there a portion that can go public or are we straight going in camera? I think we start in camera. Starting camera. We start in camera. Can I get someone Uh Councillor Atkinson to move uh us going into camera and E scribe or we have a prepared for E-scribe, yeah. Let's go to E scribe, guys. Sorry, can I debate this? Sorry? Yes, go ahead. Yeah, so I know why we're going on camera for this. And I mean, we're not making any council decision. I mean, we're just receiving a report. Um, and basically, administration has the um the wheel. They're they're driving this car that we're going to go talk about. And so nothing we say or do in camera is gonna change what is going to happen regardless. Unless we make it a council decision. So I'm just curious why this has to be on camera. Why can't this specifically be open to the public as, like I said, nothing we gonna we're gonna do is gonna change. I'll get uh GM Black to answer. Councillor Johnston, that's an excellent question and an excellent point. In fact, we wanted to be able to answer questions that might require a closed discussion. If everyone understands what is confidential information, that the documents remain closed for the time being and are ready to go to a public debate, we could certainly do that. So conf confidential, I mean, the names. Um I mean if it's open debate as it's gonna be open and implemented by administration, we should be able to freely ask questions about it, right? I'm I'm sorry, I'm just curious what what we could ask in. confidence we couldn't ask out here. And I guess we have to go in camera to ask that. But I don't know. This is uh affects a a a fifth, no no, a tenth of the city's population um directly, potentially. So I just I don't know. I'd prefer to have this out. So I'm gonna vote no to go on camera and I would just argue with uh the rest of the council like nothing we're gonna say in camera can't be said out here. So Any other debate? Hearing none, seeing none. Uh can you close Councillor Atkinson? Closed. Let's go to E scribe, please. Councillor Atkinson, your vote, please? Yes. Thank you. And Councillor Clark, your vote, please. Yes. Thank you. Chair, all the votes are in. Let's display the votes, please. That is carried seven to one with Councillor Johnston again. Said we will go in camera and we'll uh we'll have a discussion and The Community Development Committee meeting will resume in open session shortly. Please make your way back to Council Chamber. Let's do the role clerks. Thank you, Chair. On the roll. Councillor Tyres. Thank you. Councillor Yule. Councillor Kelly. Present. Councillor Atkinson, Councillor Clark, Councillor Johnson, Councillor Wyness, Councillor Pantasopoulos, Councillor Schmidt, Councillor Chabot, Councillor Ward, Councillor Jameson, Councillor McLean, Mayor Farkas, Chair Dollywall. Here. Thank you. Let's rise and report over to Councillor Clark to rise and report. Uh rising and reporting. Thank you. Uh, do we do e scribe or just uh voice vote? Right. Um I do Yeah. Any opposition? Seeing none, it's carried. Uh let's go to 7.5, Councillor Atkinson to move. Moved Great. Um Councillor Schmidt has an amendment. Uh yes, this was and I apologize for the last minute nature of this, but it's fairly straightforward. Um it will be listed here um in a moment. Just take us a moment to bring that up, Councillor Schmidt. Oh, that doesn't look like right. So what this is essentially doing is given I think the beneficial discussions we had around the green shield. Oh This isn't that. yes. you said the word Which word? you said the GS word. Oh yes. There it goes. Around the discussions that we've had around fair entry that have been helpful. This is just asserting a council's support for the work that they're doing and asking them to continue doing that work and bringing in more opportunities for Calgarians that can't access, whether that be a city service or tickets for a civic partnership uh program or any not for profit offerings, or even if there's other parts of the community who want to um Come in on the program that they are established that we've established that we support this and ask them to continue doing the work that they're doing. So I'm happy to take any questions, but perhaps in my open, I'll just confirm with anyone who's able to answer the question that this does not add any. Budgetary requirements beyond minimal administrative time, and if there was anything that came up as an opportunity for an additional partnership, that if it did require more resources, that this would certainly have to be explored through the existing budget allotment, or it would come to council as a budget ask. Uh Councillor Schmidt, I can confirm that what you describe here is work that we could accommodate within our existing work plan. And that the the second portion of the bulleted ABCD, that this is also just establishing that our existing policies and procedures uh are compliant with anything to do with procurement supply management legal, and that if if there's any issues that arise with this, that it would similarly either come to council or that we would explore changing any of those things should they need updating as well. And again, I can confirm that we are deeply committed to working within legislation and policy and would continue to do so. Okay, thank you. Um I'll leave it there and then happy to address any other concerns through my close. Thank you, Councillor Schmidt. You're open with that. Over to Councillor John uh Johnston, yeah. I guess I can ask the question this way. Before the that's not an enclosed question, I guess, but before the fair entry program was in one spot, it used to be in all departments and you brought it into one spot. When it was in multiple departments, were there other services that existed before that were cut when it was brought in? No, Councillor Johnston, this was a bringing together of the existing programs at that time and a cutting red tape that went with it. I mean, just off maybe the top of your head here, what would potentially be other items that could be offered to low income? Councillor Johnston. Just uh seeing this uh I I can assure you that I haven't uh thought about that and I'm scanning to make eye contact. Oh, it looks like I I'm just thinking like uh affordable rain barrels, um subsidized low maintenance lawns. Um like I'm just curious, like if anybody has an idea, just off the top of your head. I can start by answering the question, and if Lisa wants to jump in, I think part of what we look for is talking with our nonprofit partners and others in different sectors who are working with low-income Calgarians. We're always open to look at what ideas there would be. So this model would just reinforce that we would hear from community, from community organizations, from residents that we're interacting with in the low income space to see what either city programs or other for profit or nonprofit programs could be useful to them. Yeah. And I'll just add on the city side, pretty much anything that has user fees could be examined to determine if there should be a subsidized rate accompanying it. There's been a variety of different models tried over the years where sometimes a business unit might pilot a confidential subsidy program. It's not broadcasted broadly, but it gives the business unit a way to kind of test the waters and see if it's viable or not, or if they want to pursue. Right. Like I was thinking off the top of my head, like business licenses are a set price, whether you're a billion dollar company or a Small company. small company, right? Um just thinking of discounts for the small businesses out there, but um even permit fees. for replacing whatever it for a small business it's a big hit compared to a large business but I see that's on there but um I'm just wondering if administration can make the argument how this isn't income support which would be a provincial jurisdictional Yeah, so income support conclusively is the province. or federal Or federal. or federal but why why would wouldn't this wouldn't this be downloading onto us So income. To be kind of purist is paying people. So the province and the feds do pay people an income when they have inability to earn income themselves. The city, in no circumstance, does that. We don't pay anyone. We have affordability measures on existing fees that are out there, where ultimately it's within council's purview to determine if they're setting user fees for something. And an acknowledgement that a one size fits all doesn't necessarily fit for all Calgaryan. And ultimately, it's a decision on behalf of council to accept less revenue from those individuals as opposed to paying them income. Right. Yep. Because that's important to us as well. We don't the province has their role, feds have their role. We have a local role with City of Calgary and the services for Calgarians. Right. Okay. Um, I do see a need of offering discounts for low-income Calgarians. Um, but I think as administration just said, that the less revenue is gonna come from the rest of the taxpayers, and I think we have to find that balance. Um and I mean just the explosion of fair entry applicants, like I think we almost need to put a pause on. Expanding it until we can rein in on the program itself. Otherwise, like I said, there's there's a tipping point. I mean, the just the sure number of people who are on fair entry is an epidemic, in my opinion. Um and so we got to get to the root cause of that and figure out um how to better provide these services for everybody. Um so I like the amendment, but I just I don't think this is the right time to be doing this. So thank you. Thank you, Councillor Johnson. Over to Councillor Atkinson. I actually really appreciated that piece there, Councillor Johnson, about um looking at things like business Fees. I think actually we probably have this idea if you're running a business that you're not necessarily low income. And I don't think that that's necessarily always the case. And I think I would encourage our folks in the uh in the world of business permitting to to to look at that. I I'm gonna speak in in favor of this. Um the fair entry program is is excellent. Uh learned today is even more excellent than I thought. Um and it is one of these things that the city of Calgary is doing extremely right, um and really sort of trying to make sure that this uh One of the advantages of living in Calgary has been its livability from an affordability perspective and making sure that that is available to all is is one of the best things about this city. And we've been trying to work on things like housing affordability, right? The affordability of living in the city and the Fair Entry program extends this out of the livability to a whole bunch of folks. And there are many folks, I think, out there in the space of civic partners and other not-for-profit organizations that I think could join us in this cause that in terms of making Calgary a great and livable city. I noted when I was grabbing some folk fest tickets the other day that they proudly announced that you can get a discount for your folk fest uh tickets with a fair entry as a part of it. I I really I I hope we can do a better job of encouraging those who have their discounts to more proudly sort of display it. And I think actually it would be good for us. I know right now we have a good listing of sort of some of the civic partners and causes that you can access that are outside the city, but we just sort of point people off to their websites, but don't always sort of you don't always know what it is, the discount that you're getting at the zoo or something like that, or it's harder to find. It would be great to be making that easier for folks who are on the fair entry program to make sure that they uh that there isn't that sort of administrative burden of take that of hunting around to sort of figure out how this fair entry program is making your life better. So happy to support this. I think uh continuing to look for ways we can make the fair entry program even better uh is great. Uh, but I do just yeah, want to give a huge kudos because uh I won't debate again to the Fair Entry program. It's amazing. Uh it's a model uh that is being replicated all across the country. Uh and All you other cities tuning in, get on it. Calgary's beating you to the punch and uh we're gonna keep doing it even better because of this amendment. So closed or not closed. Thank you, Councillor Atkinson. We will close soon. Nobody else in the queue, Councillor Clerk? Good. Councillor, any other debate? Councillor Councillor Cali. I'm just gonna jump in real quick because like the Fair Entry program is far and away my favorite program that the City of Calgary administration has ever brought forward. It made things easier. Makes things easier for for Calgarians who really uh deserve and need for things to be easier, uh, and a cut red tape on our side as well. Uh it is uh uh a program that deserves to be to continue and to be strengthened, and uh I appreciate Councillor Schmidt for bringing forward this uh uh affirmation of the fact that uh um it can it can grow and uh uh and uh happy to encourage administration to uh to continue growing it in the uh in the vein that it uh has been designed. Thank you, Councillor Cali. Over to Councillor Schmidt to close. Uh appreciate all the comments and ref uh reiterate what everyone's been saying about fair entry. Uh to me, the best thing that fair entry represents is for many people in our city. Accessing things that we take for granted is a struggle. And by making some of those things uh available to people of low income, such as taking your kid to the science center or or the telescoritage park or being able to get a bus pass, those are things that make a child's life feel normal, that helps them feel part of the community, that helps the families feel part of the community. And when we talk about the well being of our citizens or even things around public safety, um It is that sense of normalcy and fitting in to what the rest of everybody else around you is able to do, where a child doesn't need to wonder why their friends go to Telespark and they can't. So this is the type of thing that gives them that opportunity with low barriers and without. sort of having to be singled out for that when they go and experience these things and all it will do is make our city a better place to live for everybody. So uh I think this is can be seen as an affirmation of that work and our endorsement for the team to keep going with what they're doing. So thank you. Thank you, Councillor Schmidt. Over to Eastcribe to vote. Councillor Clark, your vote, please? Yes, thank you. Thank you. And Councillor Oh, thank you. Councillor Tyres, your vote, please. Yes. Thank you. Chair, all the votes are in. Let's display the votes, please. That is carried seven to one with Councillor Johnston against. Over to Councillor Atkinson for motion as amended. I forgot that I get to say. Fair entry is awesome. Keep doing it. Thank you to everyone in administration who works on this. I know this really does cut across all the different business units, and uh and so having everyone keep this in their mind and making sure that we are delivering a city for all. Uh really appreciate the work everyone does on that every single day. Closed. Thank you, Councillor Atkins. And before we go to vote, I just want to thank our team there for explaining us fair entry in camera in detail. Thank you so much. That's why these kind of amendments are possible. Let's go to E scribe. Councillor Clark, your vote, please. Yes. Thank you. Chair, all the votes are in. Let's display the votes, please. That's carried seven to one with Councillor Johnston against. I don't think we have anything else. We have finished the agenda for today. Thank you so much. Thank you to all the colleagues. I was hoping for 12, but that's fine. It's uh It's still before three, right? Uh thank you. Great work. We achieved a lot today. Thank you. And uh once again, Team Canada plays on Friday at 1 p.m. There's a wall there's a watch party at Oaklair. Try to attend it. Thank you guys. Have fun. Chair. I got you. I just uh wanted to note there is a briefing uh in there for everyone on the uh sport for life policy. Uh and I am happy to make it a motion to adjourn. Councillor Cali to motion to adjourn. Anyone opposed? No seeing none, hearing none. We are adjourned. Thank you guys.", "num_speakers": 26, "consolidated": true, "metadata": { "source_file": "df1485bc-7610-4825-9fe0-ee7f92bbe92b.json", "original_segment_count": 1503, "consolidated_segment_count": 528, "max_gap_seconds": 150.0, "reduction_percentage": 64.87 }, "file": "/tmp/tmp3iwaccgh/00640449-f344-47cc-a453-88a7616f8cd6.mkv" }