December 1, 2023

Dear Mayor Dyas, Members of Kelowna City Council, and relevant staff:

I was one of the participants in the walk through of bike lanes discussed in the report summarized in the email below. The report lacks context and relevant feedback to such a degree that it must accurately be described as dishonest.

The Canadian Federation of the Blind (CFB) has objected to the “floating island” bus stops since their installation in Victoria. In fact, we filed a Human Rights complaint against the city of Victoria because the design seriously compromised the safety of pedestrians, especially blind pedestrians.

The Human Rights Tribunal agreed that the design was inherently discriminatory, but included “remedy” language we found wholly unacceptable, since the “remedy” did nothing to alleviate the main problem. Blind pedestrians cannot hear cyclists. We were being asked to walk on a lane with vehicular traffic with no means of independently determining whether it was safe to do so. We were assured that cyclists would “look out for us.” That is the same assurance cyclists have been given when cycling on public streets. “Don’t worry; drivers will look out for you.” The many collisions between automobiles and bicycles over the past years have amply demonstrated that a moment of inattention can have life threatening results. Finally cities have recognized the wisdom of separating bicycle traffic from automobile traffic. Astounding that planners have failed to carry the concept to its logical conclusion but have instead introduced new conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians!

When TransLink began “studying” this issue, members of the CFB feared the process was intended to validate “floating island” bus stops by adding the veneer of “public consultation.” Nevertheless, we made our position clear to TransLink. I eagerly participated in the November exercise in Kelowna in the hope that reason would prevail and Kelowna staff could be made to understand the issue and become advocates for our right to live and move safely in our city.

The exercise legitimately had one, and only one, answer to determine. Can pedestrians hear bicycles moving through shared space? The decision making flow chart should look something like this.

Can pedestrians hear moving bicycles? If yes, continue to tactile design and signage questions. If no, design fails.

That’s it!

I made that point on the phone when discussing my participation. I made that point in the group conversation on the bus as we headed for the two locations being studied. I made the point repeatedly to Chad, the city staff member assigned to gather my feedback during the exercise. “If I can’t hear the bikes, it’s an unsafe and discriminatory design.” None of the other tactile markings or fancy signage matters at all.

I read the summary of the report in the body of the email sent to me by Suzanne Therrien. I also read the entire PDF report. The inability to hear the bikes was mentioned in passing – casually nestled in a lot of musings about tactile pathways, lighting, and Braille.

How dishonest! How disrespectful! Anyone not knowing the issue would assume, after reading that report, that all is basically well except for a little design tinkering here and there. That simply is not true.

The path along Clement could be made workable if a sidewalk wide strip of the pathway nearest the street were designated “pedestrian only” and the bus shelter placed so that bicycles rode behind it. That would largely eliminate cycle pedestrian conflict.

The only way to solve the problem along Ethel Street is to have the buses pull into the bike lanes so that passengers can board and disembark on the sidewalk as passengers have done for as long as there have been city buses in Kelowna. No proposed “solution” requiring pedestrians to walk across a bike lane to get to or from a bus is in any way acceptable! City staff was told that very clearly and more than once, yet their report did not even mention the comment.

I’ve been a blind independent traveler for decades. I stride out with several feet of white cane in front of me. My cane is a useful aid for gathering information; it’s also a public declaration. Despite my experience and the visibility of the tool I use, I will avoid “suicide bike lanes.” That means I’ll have markedly reduced options for getting around Kelowna. But consider the eighty-year-old man who’s waiting for cataract surgery. He doesn’t think of himself as a blind person; for most purposes he isn’t blind. But glare makes it tough for him to notice detail, detail like a speeding bicycle. Nobody is thinking of that eighty-year-old man when city staff prattles on about tactile pathways. Yet he’s the one who might take just one second too long to notice the bicycle speeding toward him. He’s also the one with brittle bones.

As the Mayor and members of Kelowna City Council, you necessarily rely on staff to provide you with complete and accurate information. This report, like the street design on Ethel Street, is a complete fail.

CFB was correct to worry that all the “community consultation” was meant to put “lipstick on the pig” of inherently flawed design. This process was so flawed and deliberately misleading that the “lipstick” wasn’t even put on the correct end of the “pig.”

Please remove pedestrian bicycle conflicts on Kelowna streets. They’re unnecessary, dangerous, and inherently discriminatory. Your job is made much more difficult when staff provides you with misleading information. I hope this helps correct the record.

Sincerely,
Mary Ellen Gabias