News   Apr 03, 2020
From the Editor: A Message to Our Readers
 9.2K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Topping Off March 2020: What's Hot on SkyriseEdmonton
 10K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
News Roundup for April 2, 2020
 3.4K     0 

LRT Safety

tkoe_ said:
I don't pretend to have all the answers, but complaining about puke, telling people to take an uber and taking pictures of people doing drugs on transit isn't all that helpful.
Click to expand...
Quite the contrary, the individual who took a picture the other day and shared it on social media brought awareness to that specific issue which then set off a series of responses by City police and City council which helped them with their responses to the issue in council chambers the other day.
tkoe_ said:
All I'm suggesting is that if we don't want people doing drugs in the open, let's get some treatment facilities. If we don't want homeless people wandering the streets, being preyed upon by criminals, let's get some housing built. And, best yet, why don't we pay for it with the money some people wanted to spend on more cops and fare gates!?!
Click to expand...
I'm not sure you have quite thought this through but I would love to hear how you would do this in fantasyland. How would you house everyone? How many houses would this require? How are you paying for that and all the infrastructure (land acquisitions, building materials, etc.)? How are you paying to then maintain the houses, provide the ancillary services that the individuals require (whether that is job preparation services, mental health supports, counselling, etc.)? Which government is doing this? By what timeline?
tkoe_ said:
I didn't say that everyone should live in Government housing, I said the Government should ensuring housing is provided to everyone. Sounds like you need to get out of Canada and see how some other countries work...
Click to expand...
I didn't say government housing (noun), I said a government housing (verb, not noun) individuals.

Again, while in spirit what you are saying is admirable, but you live in quiteeeeee the fantasy world. I wouldn't hold your breath on any government coming along any time soon ready to pony up so that every single person has housing, you'll pass out long before then.
 
  • It is perfectly acceptable for community residents to expect and demand adequate police and security enforcement in areas of high crime
  • We are not an angry mob with pitch forks trying to bring back the war on drugs for demanding the above. This comment makes me question your historical understanding of what the war on drugs was.
  • You demand government provide housing, which is a drive by comment. You haven't described how the government would provide thousands of living spaces to the homeless population. Nor have you acknowledged the ethical quandary of "providing homes to these people so we don't see them around our own homes". This implies segregation of a marginalized population - aka ghettoization. Where in the world has this EVER worked?
  • get used to terminology you don't like. I'm not going to suffocate the humor from my story time stories to appease the sensitivities of others. Crackheads gonna be crackheads.
  • These expressions of concern from all the posters above are helpful, regardless of how they make you feel. The first step to problem solving is acknowledging that a problem exists, the next steps are formulating solutions or applying existing solutions to said problem. Neither of which happen if people quiet up and pretend everything okay for fear of hurting someone's feelings.
  • I believe in one of your comments above, you demanded people apply pressure to the government to provide more housing programs, yet you are expecting people to not outline and describe their own experiences as to WHY this should happen? This doesn't make sense.
Gotta agree with CBL here, it's easy to say you want these things, and it's another to see them applied. I suggest reading the book "In the realm of hungry ghosts" by a fella named Gabor Mate. It's a great insight into many of the things you hope to see, as well as many of the challenges that come with implementation of things like safe injection sites, homeless housing, etc. These things are generally good for society, but come with a plethora of hurdles and problems in themselves that require addressing.

There's no easy answer muh dude. I have my own opinions on legislative changes, administrative changes, and decentralization of programs I'd be happy to share if you'd like over PM.
 
One issue I see about affordable housing is that the Provincial Government has not kicked in their share of cash for projects around Edmonton.

One debate issue has been the availability of a wet shelter. The Edmonton Journal also mentioned the use of Nuboxone as a drug for weaning off users.

edmontonjournal.com

Toxi-City (Part 2): Deadly drugs in Edmonton — Combating overdoses in city streets and pedways

Donning backpacks and duffel bags stuffed with Naloxone kits, water bottles, needles, pipes and chocolate bars, a volunteer trio from Boots on Ground head into Edmo…
edmontonjournal.com edmontonjournal.com
 
The need for a 24/7 wet shelter has been brought up by several people, including former Councillor McKeen in 2013, and recently again by Bent Arrow, and has yet to happen.


The lack of wrap-around health supports for those in additions plus lack of support for supportive housing by the province is a huge part of the overall problem. The scope of the issue large cities are facing on addictions and related crime is at a crisis level.

Unfortunately housing won't fix all the problems. Many that are drug-involved or criminal element are not interested in being housed. Supportive housing should absolutely be available, but if you don't want to go there, we currently don't force people to, it's a choice.

EPS tell me there are 200 or so 'criminals' that do 80% of the crime and prey on drug-involved and street-involved folks that all have navigators/social workers and need to be taken off the street somehow.
 
Last edited:
ChazYEG said:
Again, would someone care to expand on WHY we don't have gated entry and WHY can't the LRT security/Peace Officers/EPS act on this kind of thing?
Click to expand...
LRT security/Peace Officers have no authority to charge anyone or hold anyone. Only the Police are seen as an authority and Peace Officers are seen as rent a security. Edmonton, unlike Vancouver, does not a dedicated Transit Police force with a focused mission and until it does safety will not improve.

"Where we serve
Transit Police is the only dedicated police service in Canada focused on reducing crime and disorderly behavior in and around the public transportation system. Patrolling 148 km of rail, 63 stations, 2,000 buses and 245 bus routes, we serve 21 diverse communities and one First Nation.

Transit Police ensure transit community safety and security on:

  • SkyTrain & Canada Line with 79 kms of guideway and 55 stations
  • West Coast Express with 69 kms of track and eight stations
  • Coast Mountain Bus with 1800 square kms of bus service that includes 245 routes
  • SeaBus with three ferries traveling between downtown Vancouver and North Vancouver"

https://transitpolice.ca
 
Personally if you get caught selling things like Cocaine or MDMA and you have things like fentanyl on you I would have no objection to seeing you judged for murder before the fact. Whatever judicial changes are required to make that happen would have my full 100% support.

Who knows if it would have any impact on people selling stepped on drugs, but it sure as hell might make people think twice about doing it, and maybe that risk might change the economics of things.
 
Wow, it's almost like when you build an auto-centric, spread out, low density, Euclidian-zoned city where most citizens drive that the departments responsible for the maintenance of your (most likely under-funded) public transit system (repairs, security, cleanliness, etc.) feel like they can put sub-optimal effort into their work, since most people won't be affected by or care about their inaction.

Who would've thought? 🤔

Jesus, I really am getting sick of the messaging behind this... entire issue. "Vibrancy" "Live, Work, and Play!", and, my new favourite "Delightful Experience" coming from city admin make me feel more ill what what I see on ETS. It's not vibrant. it's not delightful. The inaction of the City and Province is downright terrifying and disgusting, and I feel a tinge of disappointment at calling Edmonton my home now for the first time ever.
 
Last edited:
tkoe_ said:
Totally unacceptable to let this continue, but I am still firmly of the belief that kicking people out of the LRT system if they have nowhere to go is a futile effort. It's time to start actually dealing with mental health, addictions and homelessness, rather than trying to focus on loitering, simple possession and general disorder. Those are unwinnable battles when people are allowed to continue to struggle.
Click to expand...
Those things don't have to cancel each other.
We can focus on loitering and general disorder (simple possession is a more complicated issue) AND on the other stuff.
Helping these people deal with addiction and mental health is important and should be a priority, but their problems are not going to vanish into thin air and even if we got it right from day one, it's years of work for it to help the other group of involved feel safer in the LRT (and downtown in general).
We need a way to make people feel safer riding the LRT and walking around downtown, and fast, if we want to help the business owners and the residents of the area feel like they should stick around.
As pointed out, at least for the LRT, we need fare barriers, whatever style you use (Having them like the SkyTrain ones would be nice) and a transit police that can actually protect users from assault and deter drug use inside the stations.

I'd also give a few limbs to have beat cops patrolling the streets and cameras monitoring the DT around the clock, but this is the wrong thread for this.
 
Helping the street or vulnerable population and improving safety are not mutually exclusive, however that's how it is often discussed just throwing more resources at the problem. Where is it acceptable to do drugs and addressing those that are criminals and preying on the vulnerable population or our naivety lumping everyone in the same category isn't helpful either.

In Europe, for example, certain areas like transit and most important public spaces there is zero tolerance for disorder, whether it be setting up a camp, disorder from drug use, or whatnot. You can't loiter, in a drug-induced psychoses (meth is similar behavior to someone who is schizophrenic) The difference is there are much more robust supports available, and those supports are not concentrated in their core or Downtown, often they're out of the city where people can get out of the cycle of drug use.

There is also a role for personal responsibility, even with the property supports if you don't want to get better you won't. And there's some that don't want help, they just want to create more disorder and problems (criminal element). In those cases, is it acceptable to create disorder and anti-social or dangerous behavior (to the public and themselves) in important places of business like Downtown, or in transit stations where you're trying to get more people to use the services, including women and families?

I ask the questions because I don't have the answers. it's important to understand what people's concerns are from a safety perspective and how specifically to address them. The police are clear that dealing with general disorder due to drugs/meth use isn't a priority for them, and there aren't the provincial supports available for those that might want to get clean. It's allowed to happen in LRT and Downtown because people don't want to disorder in their neighborhood, yet we want people to live and work Downtown and hang out on patios, and take transit to Downtown instead of driving, pedways, and suburban sprawl. It's a loose-loose if we can't figure this out.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top