Summary#

On October 5, 2026, the Executive Committee approved this notice of motion on its consent agenda and forwarded it to Council for consideration on October 27. The committee did not approve the proposed project pause or funding changes; Council’s decision is the next step.

• Councillor McLean’s motion asks Council to pause design, procurement and construction of new on-street bike lane or cycle track projects if they would remove vehicle travel lanes or measurably reduce on-street parking, until provincial cycling-infrastructure legislation is introduced and reviewed by Council.
• It asks the City to continue specified work, including pathway missing links, school connections, sidewalks and accessibility improvements, off-street cycling facilities, and other projects that do not reduce roadway capacity or remove parking.
• It asks City staff to report by the first quarter of 2027 on affected projects and their estimated capital costs, possible funding shifts, effects of pending provincial legislation, and options for a future Council policy.
• It asks City staff to engage business improvement areas, community associations, accessibility organizations, school boards and active transportation groups about projects that could be advanced with redirected funding.

What it means for you#

• Residents, businesses and people travelling around Calgary: No project is paused by this committee decision. If Council adopts the motion, the proposed pause would apply only to new on-street bike lane or cycle track projects meeting its stated conditions. The notice does not identify which projects would be affected.
• People using pathways, sidewalks or other active-mobility routes: If Council adopts it, the City would be asked to continue advancing the listed kinds of projects. That is not a guarantee that any particular project would be built or accelerated.
• City staff: The committee has forwarded a request for Council to consider. Staff do not yet have a duty under this motion to pause projects, prepare the report or conduct the proposed engagement.

Money#

No cost estimate is provided; the notice asks City staff to estimate costs and identify possible funding shifts if Council adopts it.

• The notice proposes redirecting capital funding but does not specify an amount or identify projects whose funding would change.

What is unclear#

• Whether Council will adopt the motion; the supplied material contains only the committee decision.
• Which projects count as “new,” and what qualifies as a “measurable reduction” in parking.
• How long a pause would last if provincial legislation is not introduced, or what review by Council would involve.
• Which projects might receive redirected funding, and how the named groups would take part in engagement.

Case for#

• The notice’s stated case is that a pause could give Council time to consider provincial rules before proceeding with projects that affect travel lanes or parking.
• It argues that pathway links, school routes, sidewalks and accessibility improvements can serve a range of users while avoiding those roadway and parking impacts.
• The motion would still allow work on the listed types of active-mobility projects that do not reduce roadway capacity or remove parking.

Case against#

• If Council adopts the motion, projects that meet its conditions could be delayed while provincial legislation is introduced and reviewed. The notice gives no end date for that pause.
• The notice does not name affected projects or say how staff would decide whether a project measurably reduces parking.
• It proposes redirecting funding without identifying the amount, the projects that might lose funding, or which alternative projects would gain it.