Transit safety report referred for revision

Summary#

The Community Development Committee carried a recommendation to send the Transit Public Safety Visible Security Pilot final report back to City staff for revision. The recommendation is for Council to make that referral; Council’s decision is still the next step. The stated aim is to give Council more complete and accurate information for deciding how to prioritize transit safety spending.

• If Council adopts the recommendation, City staff must return to the committee no later than Q1 2027 with a revised report.
• The revised report must more accurately reflect the data, provide results on racialized identity, and give a full accounting of the $9 million, including actual spending and the cost of guards compared with peace officers.
• Staff must also recommend how Council should prioritize transit safety and security spending for people most affected by safety concerns, given limited resources.
• The committee’s motion carried 9 to 0. It does not itself approve new spending or change transit security staffing.

What it means for you#

• Transit riders: No immediate change to transit security follows from this committee recommendation. The pilot added visible security at 10 CTrain stations: contracted guards from January 26 to June 22, 2026, then 34 Transit peace officers. City staff say peace officers have since returned to the district deployment model.
• Calgarians: If Council adopts the recommendation, staff must prepare the requested information for the committee by Q1 2027. The motion does not decide what security approach Council should fund or use.
• Council: The committee is recommending referral, not simply receiving the report for the Corporate Record. Council’s decision is still pending.

Money#

The committee’s recommendation does not approve new spending; the pilot had $9 million in one-time funding approved by Council in December 2025.

• The report does not give a full accounting of actual spending or compare guard and peace officer costs; the committee’s recommendation asks staff to provide that information.
• City staff say the report requests no additional funding or service changes. No cost estimate is given for preparing the revised report.

What is unclear#

• Whether Council will adopt the committee’s recommendation.
• How the $9 million was spent and how guard costs compare with peace officer costs.
• What results by racialized identity will show.
• What safety spending or deployment approach staff will recommend, and what it would cost.

Case for#

• The committee’s referral would give Council a fuller financial account and results on racialized identity before it considers future spending priorities.
• City staff report that safety perceptions stayed at 75 per cent during the pilot, while the share of riders feeling “very safe” rose from 27 to 34 per cent. They also note there was no pre-pilot baseline, so the results cannot show change from before the pilot.
• The report says 25 per cent of riders felt disorder affected them “a great deal”; the requested advice would address how to prioritize limited resources for people most affected.

Case against#

• City staff say riders valued visible peace officer presence and that the findings will inform 2027–2030 deployment plans. A possible trade-off is that referral delays Council’s consideration of the current report while staff prepare a revised one.
• The report says the district model does not provide dedicated staffing at selected stations, and maintaining that approach would require more funding and staff. The referral does not decide whether to provide those resources or keep a station-specific presence.