Summary#

On October 20, 2026, Edmonton’s Urban Planning Committee carried Councillor M. Janz’s motion 4–0. It directs City staff to prepare an unfunded service package for Council to consider during the 2027–2030 budget deliberations—not to carry out the work now. The report’s goal is to reduce traffic shortcutting in Belgravia by addressing congestion on nearby main roads.

• The package is to cover short-term measures in the report, including changes to intersections, lanes, signals and parking at 114 Street and 76 Avenue; changes at University Avenue and 115 Street, and at University Avenue and 114 Street; pedestrian-crossing changes on 114 Street at 74 and 78 Avenues; and measures on 87 Avenue and near Belgravia School.
• City staff are directed to prepare the package for Council’s budget consideration. The motion does not approve funding or require that the measures be implemented.

What it means for you#

• Belgravia and McKernan residents: There are no immediate changes to streets, parking or traffic rules under this decision. The report also covers part of McKernan.
• Drivers and people walking, biking or rolling: The report identifies possible changes to traffic flow and pedestrian crossings, but none are approved for construction by this motion.
• Taxpayers: Council will consider the unfunded package during the 2027–2030 budget deliberations. This decision does not commit Council to fund it.

Money#

The report estimates short-term measures at $2.12 million in its summary; its budget section gives a capital estimate of $2 million, with an uncertainty range of -50% to +100%.

• The report says no funding is currently allocated for this work.
• The motion requires an unfunded package; it does not approve spending. No cost for preparing the package is stated.

What is unclear#

• The report gives two different cost estimates for the short-term measures.
• It is not yet clear which measures, if any, Council will fund or implement, or when any funded work would happen.
• The report does not set out how the measures would be tested or how their effects on shortcutting would be monitored.

Case for#

• City staff say congestion on 114 Street is the main cause of shortcutting onto 76 Avenue. Addressing traffic flow on main roads could target that cause rather than relying mainly on traffic calming inside the neighbourhood.
• Staff identify possible changes at several intersections and corridors, as well as school-area safety improvements. Preparing a package lets Council consider these measures alongside their costs before deciding whether to fund them.

Case against#

• People who took part in engagement mostly favoured reducing or eliminating shortcutting over increasing the capacity for residents to exit. They raised concern that a focus on road capacity could unintentionally draw more shortcutting through the neighbourhood.
• Residents also reported risky driving and concerns about safety for children and people walking, biking or rolling. The report proposes some safety measures, but this decision does not ensure they will be funded or implemented.