News   Apr 03, 2020
 7.6K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 8.5K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 2.8K     0 

LRT Safety

There was paid security at each Valley Line station when it opened. It helped prevent vandalism at the very least. Now they're gone, as I said before no new transit security was added when the line opened, just what had already previously been approved for the system overall previously.
 
I'm going to agree with the general sentiment here that police should be deployed at transit stations as a preventative measure. However, I do have some concerns. This isn't going to solve the problem of crime and disorder in general, it's just going to displace it. My guess is, if we did this and nothing else, we would see transit be relieved, but places like public parks will see an increase in this type of activity. I guess my key issue here is this addresses the symptom and not the issue itself, and may lead to other issues in other places.

As a side note: I got off at Central Station the other day and there were about 4 or 5 police officers and a peace officer on the platform. I wasn't exactly sure what they were doing, initially I thought they may have been arresting somebody, but I didn't see a suspect, or any sort of commotion happening. It didn't seem like they were looking for anyone either, they were just standing there. I concluded they were there patrolling, but I don't know for sure.
 
Armed guards are not going to do a whole bunch to move the needle.

Fare gates, EPS patrols, zero tolerance paired with a 'take ETS' promotional campaign to inject more normalized use, more eyes on the street and more overall use at all times of the day.
Yes, fare gates would go a long way to reduce problems. I suspect 99% of the troublemakers are not currently paying fares, but often that is the least of the problems they cause.
 
I'm going to agree with the general sentiment here that police should be deployed at transit stations as a preventative measure. However, I do have some concerns. This isn't going to solve the problem of crime and disorder in general, it's just going to displace it. My guess is, if we did this and nothing else, we would see transit be relieved, but places like public parks will see an increase in this type of activity. I guess my key issue here is this addresses the symptom and not the issue itself, and may lead to other issues in other places.

As a side note: I got off at Central Station the other day and there were about 4 or 5 police officers and a peace officer on the platform. I wasn't exactly sure what they were doing, initially I thought they may have been arresting somebody, but I didn't see a suspect, or any sort of commotion happening. It didn't seem like they were looking for anyone either, they were just standing there. I concluded they were there patrolling, but I don't know for sure.
Displacement is worth it. LRT stations are more vulnerable than parks due to enclosed spaces, accessibility/access, less visibility in non peak times, risk of falling onto tracks/being pushed into.

Also, easier to avoid sketchy people in a park vs when you HAVE to catch the train. Platforms only so big to avoid problem people.

And tens of thousands of people are using the train. Super high density of risk/vulnerable people vs a few dozen that wonder down an alley or through a park in the quarters.

We want long term solutions for sure. But this is ROI and risk assessment. We have to get the LRT at minimum (buses are harder), to a point where almost no random assaults happen ever. They’re too frequent these days.
 
As a side note: I got off at Central Station the other day and there were about 4 or 5 police officers and a peace officer on the platform. I wasn't exactly sure what they were doing, initially I thought they may have been arresting somebody, but I didn't see a suspect, or any sort of commotion happening. It didn't seem like they were looking for anyone either, they were just standing there. I concluded they were there patrolling, but I don't know for sure.
I have noticed this as well. I don't use the LRT super often but the few times I've seen peace officers on platforms, they are often in groups of 4 or more. Surely we could achieve better coverage by having them patrol in pairs instead?

What's the best thing we can do to try and get some action here? I am frustrated hearing about this continuously (as I'm sure we all are) and have energy to send emails or something to city council/EPS/ETS whoever..

Edit: Wrote an email to my ward councillor, and also sent a message on the ETS feedback page. If anyone knows other points of contact (or voids we can yell into 🫠) please let me know!
 
Last edited:
a bit of tangent but another thing this country could use is a two year mandatory service to your country. Not necessarily military but humanitary service where you help out during natural disasters for example, help build communities, etc. In the meantime, you gain structure and maybe also exposure and training to certain trades or other jobs. And maybe allow people to get an exemption from this if they are registered in post secondary or have full time employment. But for all the other lost souls/young men, something like this would probably keep them out of trouble and also give them valuable skills. I doubt they would come out of this being worse people.
 
^Also tangent - Denmark just announced mandatory military service for women for example. But just on that, we are fortunate to live in a geographically isolated, resource rich country where we take a lot of things like our own national security for granted. Compared to other countries we look a bit cheap imo, we would never pay for a program like that.
 
a bit of tangent but another thing this country could use is a two year mandatory service to your country. Not necessarily military but humanitary service where you help out during natural disasters for example, help build communities, etc. In the meantime, you gain structure and maybe also exposure and training to certain trades or other jobs. And maybe allow people to get an exemption from this if they are registered in post secondary or have full time employment. But for all the other lost souls/young men, something like this would probably keep them out of trouble and also give them valuable skills. I doubt they would come out of this being worse people.

I don't mind this idea, I have imagined a somewhat similar potential solution for the homelessness crisis:

I always wondered why there wasn't some sort of system where, if you were homeless (or just struggling to get by) you could have the option to work for municipalities (or maybe even other levels of government) in roles like park and street cleanup, building maintenance and cleaning, etc. You would be provided with room (something very modest but a private room) and board, in addition you would get a modest salary.

This has a few major advantages:

1. Gets people off the street and gets them into a working position
2. You get clean parks, streets and public buildings, etc
3. Helps people in a rough spot get back on their feet easier

This would be expensive, but I feel like that cost would be made up for in reducing negative externalities.
 
Last edited:
a bit of tangent but another thing this country could use is a two year mandatory service to your country. Not necessarily military but humanitary service where you help out during natural disasters for example, help build communities, etc. In the meantime, you gain structure and maybe also exposure and training to certain trades or other jobs. And maybe allow people to get an exemption from this if they are registered in post secondary or have full time employment.
I could not disagree more. While I believe governments should have some degree of "control" over its citizens, mandatory service is not something I can get behind, AT ALL. The government telling people that they'll have to undergo mandatory service if they don't have a full-time job, and that is a very broad definition... would you consider someone who does app deliveries, or Uber, or self-employed people trying to get their businesses off the ground to have full time jobs? What jobs are acceptable under that definition? Is it income related?

And how do you decide the rules for this? Does it apply to immigrants? Does it have power to reach within the Reservations? (and if it does, should it?) Why two years?

And what kind of penalty are we talking about in case of someone evading from it? Withholding civil rights (voting, passports, eligibility for public office or employment) like some countries do? (Israel, Brazil and Finland, for example)? Is it right to condition someone's full exercise of their rights to mandatory service of any kind?

I understand the intention behind it, and I believe people proposing this mean well, but this is something I can never get behind, at all. It gives governments too much power over aspects of people's lives where it should never interfere at all.
 
I could not disagree more. While I believe governments should have some degree of "control" over its citizens, mandatory service is not something I can get behind, AT ALL. The government telling people that they'll have to undergo mandatory service if they don't have a full-time job, and that is a very broad definition... would you consider someone who does app deliveries, or Uber, or self-employed people trying to get their businesses off the ground to have full time jobs? What jobs are acceptable under that definition? Is it income related?

And how do you decide the rules for this? Does it apply to immigrants? Does it have power to reach within the Reservations? (and if it does, should it?) Why two years?

And what kind of penalty are we talking about in case of someone evading from it? Withholding civil rights (voting, passports, eligibility for public office or employment) like some countries do? (Israel, Brazil and Finland, for example)? Is it right to condition someone's full exercise of their rights to mandatory service of any kind?

I understand the intention behind it, and I believe people proposing this mean well, but this is something I can never get behind, at all. It gives governments too much power over aspects of people's lives where it should never interfere at all.
All fair questions. But yeah the intention would just be to provide structure to people who are lacking it. Freedom is fantastic but unfortunately not everyone can handle full freedom. I think some people would do better with some guidance in their lives. But yeah, all those sorts of questions would need to be addressed for sure
 
I don't mind this idea, I have imagined a somewhat similar potential solution for the homelessness crisis:

I always wondered why there wasn't some sort of system where, if you were homeless (or just struggling to get by) you could have the option to work for municipalities (or maybe even other levels of government) in roles like park and street cleanup, building maintenance and cleaning, etc. You would be provided with room (something very modest but a private room) and board, in addition you would get a modest salary.

This has a few major advantages:

1. Gets people off the street and gets them into a working position
2. You get clean parks, streets and public buildings, etc
3. Helps people in a rough spot get back on their feet easier

This would be expensive, but I feel like that cost would be made up for in reducing negative externalities.
Lots of programs actually do this.

Most homelessness these days is not due to lack of jobs/money/opportunities, but complex mental, drug, and social issues individuals are facing.

It’s one thing to lose your job in a recession and not have work and to lose your housing. It’s a whole other thing to help someone with schizophrenia who grew up in foster care after being sexually abused as a child by birth parents, who were also substance users, and who now is also a drug user…very hard to help those people hold down any sort of job and to file healing/restoration to society/community.
 
I don't mind this idea, I have imagined a somewhat similar potential solution for the homelessness crisis:

I always wondered why there wasn't some sort of system where, if you were homeless (or just struggling to get by) you could have the option to work for municipalities (or maybe even other levels of government) in roles like park and street cleanup, building maintenance and cleaning, etc. You would be provided with room (something very modest but a private room) and board, in addition you would get a modest salary.

This has a few major advantages:

1. Gets people off the street and gets them into a working position
2. You get clean parks, streets and public buildings, etc
3. Helps people in a rough spot get back on their feet easier

This would be expensive, but I feel like that cost would be made up for in reducing negative externalities.
You mean something like this that we already have in Edmonton? Only that they are non profit and not government.


I frequently see the lot of them picking up litter, monitoring public washrooms etc around downtown.
 
Lots of programs actually do this.

Most homelessness these days is not due to lack of jobs/money/opportunities, but complex mental, drug, and social issues individuals are facing.

It’s one thing to lose your job in a recession and not have work and to lose your housing. It’s a whole other thing to help someone with schizophrenia who grew up in foster care after being sexually abused as a child by birth parents, who were also substance users, and who now is also a drug user…very hard to help those people hold down any sort of job and to file healing/restoration to society/community.
Yes, the issue is not so much unaffordable housing, but adequate social and other support for people who have little or no income.
 
Yes, the issue is not so much unaffordable housing, but adequate social and other support for people who have little or no income.
Yes, absolutely inadequate social programs and support are a major, and likely the biggest contributor. However, the rising cost of housing (yes even in relatively affordable Edmonton) is still a major factor pushing people onto the streets.
 

Back
Top