Summary#

Council approved receiving a City staff report on AI-enhanced pedestrian safety for information. It did not approve funding or direct staff to build the recommended improvements; the report fulfills an earlier direction to provide funding requirements.

• City staff reviewed the 50 highest-risk pedestrian locations without traffic signals, overhead flashers or rectangular rapid flashing beacons. The AI tool scores risk at more than 17,000 intersections, but staff say engineering judgment and technical review—not the score alone—guide treatment recommendations.
• Staff recommend safety improvements at 26 locations, with a preliminary total cost estimate of about $6 million.
• If funding is approved in future budget decisions, staff could add the locations to the 2027–2030 work plan. Design could begin in 2027 at the highest-risk locations, with construction expected to start in late 2027 or 2028.
• Council adopted the item on the consent agenda, 15–0. No public engagement was required, according to the report.

What it means for you#

• Pedestrians and the public: No construction or safety improvement at a particular location is approved by this decision. Any work would depend on future funding and planning.
• City staff: Staff have completed the requested report. The decision does not direct them to carry out the 26 improvements.
• Taxpayers: The report identifies a possible future investment of about $6 million, not spending approved by this decision.

Money#

The report gives a preliminary high-level estimate of about $6 million for improvements at 26 locations; this decision does not approve that funding.

• Staff say the estimate may change after engineering review, design and implementation planning.
• Funding scenarios were included in a separate Calgary Safer Mobility Plan report for Council to consider. Those scenarios are not provided in the available material.

What is unclear#

• The available material does not identify the 26 locations or give their individual treatments and cost estimates; it refers to an attachment that was not supplied.
• Whether, when and how much funding Council may approve later is not stated here.
• Staff say the AI tool and its rankings may change as new data becomes available. The report does not explain the tool’s detailed method or how future rankings would affect these recommendations.

Case for#

• City staff say the tool can identify elevated-risk locations that may not meet conventional thresholds for upgrades, allowing improvements to be considered before traffic counts or collision history justify them.
• Staff say the AI score is used to help direct attention, while engineers review and validate the recommended treatments.
• Staff say acting earlier could help prevent collisions and avoid repeated traffic counts and warrant assessments (checks against standard criteria).

Case against#

• The $6 million figure is preliminary. Staff say costs may change after detailed design and planning, and construction would be spread across several years if funded.
• The recommendations cover 26 of the 50 locations reviewed; staff excluded some locations because of ongoing projects, recent improvements, coordination needs or collision-data errors. The available material does not show which locations or how those exclusions affect the overall priorities.
• Staff note that the AI tool’s rankings may change as datasets are updated, including population data.