Did Edmonton City Council approve $100 million for bike lane expansion?
· Discussed by 17 people · 1 claim
Declined
The $100 million approval is common ground throughout this source, so checking the council vote would only restate an undisputed budget fact.
Where it came from
Taken from Yegscoop post on council's 2026-08-26 bike lane decision, read end to end. Every factual claim in it was extracted and merged, so this question is listed whatever became of it.
Facebook post · captured · 621 comments
The names below are pseudonyms, one to a commenter within this source; the number is the comment's place in the captured thread.
The claim under it
Edmonton City Council approved $100 million for bike lane expansion.
Discussed by 17 people
the City’s 100M for the active transportation network
Amber Grebe B. · comment 26
divide the 100 million between them.
Bright Bluejay K. · comment 49
spending 100 miiion dollars on bike lanes
Willow Muskrat G. · comment 125
SPEND 100 million on BIKE LAES
Snowy Squirrel J. · comment 126
100. Million WOW!!!
Sturdy Squirrel B. · comment 180
Spend the 100 million on fixing some of the road damage out there.
Sunny Grouse G. · comment 228
100 million for a population of just over 1 million
Bright Marmot S. · comment 265
NO ..$100 MILLION IS NOT AFFORDABLE!!!!
Nimble Hare E. · comment 270
put a $100M towards without contesting our streets more?
Dusty Bluejay G. · comment 325
100 million to be spent.
Wintry Raven B. · comment 330
Spending 100M for the 500 people using the bike lanes
Bright Woodpecker B. · comment 363
$100,000,000 could be far better spent than wasting it on bike lanes.
Nimble Coyote M. · comment 408
$100 million on bike lanes
Rustic Bluejay S. · comment 409
Council approved $100M for rapid bike lane expansion.
Councillor Jennifer Rice · comment 449
100 million dollars surely could have been spent on improving rail lines and roads
Riverside Pelican A. · comment 458
100 million for lanes that obstruct traffic
Foggy Crow C. · comment 551
flushing away $100 Million
Bright Grebe R. · comment 582
