Summary#

Calgary City Council approved, as amended, Councillor Kelly’s notice of motion on September 22, 2026. It directs City staff to install Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs)—which give pedestrians a few seconds to start crossing before vehicles get a green light—at every appropriate signalized pedestrian crossing within two years. The stated goal is to improve pedestrian safety; the motion does not guarantee a particular safety outcome.

• Staff must prioritize locations based on safety risk and pedestrian need, including high-collision intersections, school zones, transit-adjacent intersections, high-pedestrian-volume areas, and places where accessibility needs have been identified.
• By Q4 of Year 1, staff must report progress, completed intersections by ward, planned locations and timelines, available safety data, possible related safety measures, costs, and effects on traffic flow and transit schedules.
• The final motion covers LPIs. An earlier staff version also mentioned Accessible Pedestrian Signals, but they are not in the motion Council adopted.

What it means for you#

• Pedestrians: At selected crossings, the signal timing must give you a head start before vehicles get a green light. The motion does not say which crossings qualify as “appropriate.”
• Drivers and transit riders: Signal timing may change at upgraded intersections. Staff must report any effects on traffic flow and transit schedules, but the motion does not set limits on those effects.
• People with accessibility needs: Staff must consider identified accessibility needs when prioritizing locations. The motion does not require a specific treatment for those needs.
• City staff: They must carry out the installations within two years and provide the required progress report to Council through the Infrastructure and Planning Committee.

Money#

City staff described the costs as minimal or manageable within existing budgets, but the supplied material gives no cost estimate.

• Council added a requirement for staff to report actual and projected costs.
• The motion does not approve a specific budget or state how much staff time the work will require.

What is unclear#

• The motion does not define “appropriate” crossings or explain how staff will decide which ones qualify.
• It does not state when the two-year implementation period begins.
• The timing of “Q4 of Year 1” is not further defined in the supplied material.
• The amount of work, total cost, and effects on traffic flow and transit schedules are not yet known.

Case for#

• City staff say intersections are high-risk locations for pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, and that LPIs can be installed by reprogramming traffic lights without major infrastructure work.
• The motion’s background says Calgary already has LPIs at 53 intersections, with results indicating better pedestrian visibility and compliance.
• The Alberta Motor Association supports a citywide rollout. It cites a Canadian study that found LPIs associated with fewer conflicts between pedestrians and turning vehicles.

Case against#

• The motion requires installation at every crossing staff consider appropriate, but does not define that standard. This leaves an important part of the rollout to staff judgment.
• Costs and effects on traffic and transit are to be reported after the decision, rather than set out in advance. The actual scale of those effects is therefore unknown.
• Councillor McLean voted against the final motion. Councillors Ward and Johnston voted against the amendment requiring cost and traffic-impact reporting; the supplied material does not state their reasons.