On May 7, 2026, City Administration brought forward a report to the Infrastructure and Planning Committee on the future of Calgary’s Free Fare Zone.

The report looked at impacts to ridership, downtown businesses, revenue, and rider experience, including perceptions of safety. It concluded that ending the Free Fare Zone and introducing either a partial fare ($2.00) or full fare ($4.00) could move Calgary toward a more “closed” system, one that provides partners in safety with additional tools to improve the trip experience. It also suggested a potential revenue gain of $2.5M to $5M. For many Calgarians, this may have felt sudden. But this conversation did not begin on May 7.

From my vantage point, this discussion traces back to November 2025, when Council was notified that the longstanding sponsorship agreement with TD Bank would end. That immediately raised a set of practical questions for a new Council:

What does this mean for transit service?
What does it mean for the system’s financial sustainability?

Those questions carried into budget deliberations. During that process, Councillor Pantazopoulos and I worked together to secure an additional $9 million for transit safety and security, an investment that Council approved and has been rolling out over this year. That context matters. Before we ever debated ending the Free Fare Zone, Council had already made a conscious decision to invest in safety within an open system.

The Free Fare Zone began in the late 1970s as a free bus corridor and became part of the CTrain system in 1981. Over more than four decades, it has shaped how people move through downtown. It is not just a policy. It is part of the design of our downtown. As a city grows, it has a responsibility to revisit long-standing policies, including the ones that feel foundational. That’s not a sign that something is broken. It’s a sign that we’re taking our growth seriously. The Free Fare Zone is one of those legacy ideas. It was built in a different Calgary, one with different travel patterns, different pressures, and a different vision for downtown. So, to me, it is entirely appropriate that Council asks: Does this still work? Is it still serving the outcomes we care about? We shouldn’t shy away from those questions. Because if we want to build a city that is more connected, more mobile, and more resilient, we need to be willing to examine even our most established systems and assumptions. At the same time, revisiting something does not automatically mean removing it.

Good governance is not about change for the sake of change. It’s about understanding what works, what doesn’t, and what is worth keeping as part of our long-term strategy. And sometimes, these conversations reaffirm the value of things we already have.

This debate has also resurfaced something personal for me. I’m a Calgary kid who found a sense of freedom and belonging on transit. I rode the bus to school, and the meeting place to hang out or head out was the 78th Avenue NW terminal, “The Loop.” I caught the last bus home more times than I can count. Transit wasn’t just transportation. It was independence. It was how I experienced the city. I’ve since lived in and visited other cities, and I’ve always come back with the same thought: Calgary can, and should, build a transit system that feels as reliable and respected as what you see in places like Toronto or Vancouver.

One of my goals in this role as Councillor is to make transit a more credible, practical choice for more people, more often. Because if we are serious about growth, we need a system that can carry more riders, with a better experience. Calgary operates an open transit system. The Free Fare Zone is embedded in that system and in our public space. Our stations were not designed to tightly control access, and even with future projects like the Green Line, I can confirm that model is not fundamentally changing. So, the question I think we actually have to answer is: If our system is open by design, what problem are we trying to solve by partially closing one section of it? Ending the Free Fare Zone doesn’t create a fully closed system. It introduces friction in one portion of an otherwise open network. That forces a larger choice: do we try to incrementally close a system that wasn’t built for it, or do we focus on making that open system safer, more reliable, and more attractive? If the goal is a safer, more respected transit system, we need to be clear about where we will see the greatest impact. We are already making meaningful investments in safety. We know the challenges on transit are not confined to the Free Fare Zone.

So, for me, the question isn’t just about fares. It’s about whether removing a long-standing feature of our downtown meaningfully advances the outcomes we’re trying to achieve, or whether our efforts are better focused on improving the system as a whole. A transit system that more people choose to use because it’s safe, reliable, and works for them. This item now moves to Council for a final decision. Between now and then, I will continue to listen, review the evidence, and reflect on what I’ve heard from Ward 9 and across Calgary. For those of you who have reached out and engaged with me on socials, emails, phone calls, and all other platforms, thank you. Because this decision is about how we move through our city and who that system is built to serve. This decision is more than just about the free fare zone. It is about deciding what kind of city we want to live in for the years to come.