Finn Kreischer

ITE Canada 2026, Part 2: The many meanings of Accessibility

This is part 2 in a 3-post series about my experience at the 2026 Institute of Transportation Engineers Canada Conference, which happened in my home city of Victoria. Each post discusses the contents of a few presentations united around a core theme.

Over the course of this conference, I heard a lot of perspectives on accessibility and gained an appreciation for just how important this issue is. I could write an entire post about the technicalities of TWSIs, floating bus stops, or accessible pedestrian signals, but I'd rather focus on soft infrastructure, and the things I learned at this conference that every practitioner could benefit from.

With that in mind, here are my key takeaways:

The Accessibility Game Show

Hosted by Peter Truch, an independent engineer and consultant, and Tommy Leung of CNIB (Canadian National Institute for the Blind), this was the first session I attended at this conference. It was a Jeopardy-style competition, with each question being related in some way to either accessible street design or how people with sight loss navigate situations on our streets. We covered a lot of technical specifications for accessible walking paths, curb ramps and slopes from various different standards. Tommy, who is blind, explained how he navigates some situations in the 'From Tommy's perspective' category.

One notable challenge is that at a crosswalk, Tommy sometimes has to stop and listen in order to assess the situation, which can make it look like he's yielding. Tommy and others also have a hard time judging where cars are going at many roundabouts, because they're trained to understand parallel traffic. There are apparently ways to mitigate this problem, but this seems like yet another strike against urban roundabouts. One of the main challenges around floating bus stops is locating the bus stop itself, and being aware of the adjacent cycle path. Another key theme was the importance of consistent and reliable standards across the province, which was a question with a one word answer: Predictability.

This workshop sparked my interest in street navigation for people with sight loss, a lens that's changed how I look at infrastructure both new and old.

Floating Bus Stop Warnings: Risks and Opportunities

Kyle Dow of TransLink gave an overview of their pilot for on-board announcements to inform people when a bus stop will require them to cross a cycle path to reach the sidewalk or exit onto a multi-use path. As mentioned earlier, one of the main challenges with floating bus stops is knowing where and when they exist. A well-designed onboard announcement could address this issue; while a poorly designed announcement may be unhelpful, annoying, and exacerbate pre-existing fears surrounding bicycle-pedestrian interactions.

The preliminary phrases were as follows: For a floating bus stop, "Next Stop, Pacific Street, cross bike lane to reach sidewalk". For a multi-use path, "Next Stop, Delbruck Avenue, exit onto shared use path. Bicycles may be present." After a workshop with their accessibility committee, they made some significant changes, transforming them from announcements into warnings. The new phrases are as follows: For a floating bus stop, "Next Stop, Pacific Street, bicycle lane present, please use caution". For a multi-use path, "Next Stop, Johnson Street, caution, bicycles may be present."

The switch from 'bike lane' to 'bicycle lane' is a thoughtful detail to help reduce any possible confusion when trying to decipher a recorded announcement. What makes less sense to me is the loss of detail in the announcements. The draft floating bus stop announcement spells out the exact layout of the space. The next announcement only mentions that a bike lane exists somewhere. One reason for this change could have been the instruction "cross bike lane to reach sidewalk" - this may be confusing for folks who want to remain on the island platform and wait for a transfer.

Concerned about the length of these announcements and oversaturation of warnings in our environment, I asked Kyle about the possibility of using tones instead. This was not a great question, but his answer was interesting. Kyle said these announcements benefit everyone; for example, "how many pedestrians do you see in the bike lane on their phones?" Of course, if pedestrians are walking blindly into the bike lane, we may have other infrastructure comprehension issues that can be ironed out over time. This by itself does not warrant an onboard announcement; people cycling have ways to ask pedestrians to move out of the bike lane. I digress.

If these announcements are truly to benefit everyone, I think we can do a lot better. For example, CNIB supported the use of the word 'caution' in consultations because it makes people tune in. Placing 'caution' at the end does little to draw people's attention during the announcement. TransLink is also well aware of current software limitations: The message is tacked onto the 'next stop' announcement, instead of playing when the doors open. If I recall correctly, this is being worked on. But to truly benefit everyone, what if there was a way to reliably draw attention and communicate the bus stop design, without using any words? Enter the bike bell sound effect, specifically, a bring-bring style bell.

It has a number of advantages:

Hear a bell? Expect people on bikes. To be leveraged successfully, the sound should play when the bus arrives at its stop, or immediately before the bus doors open, to avoid confusion with actual bells outside. There are many ways to make this sound characteristic and easily distinguishable as a recording. The effect could also play upon stop request, which TransLink decided was beneficial during their pilot project of verbal announcements. The meanings could be as follows: one bring-bring means you will be entering a floating bus stop with wayfinding features, where the sidewalk is across the cycle path. Three bring-brings means you will be entering a multi-use path. The increased number of rings signifies that the conflict area is larger, you may interact with more bicycles, and the comfort level may be lower.

This concept could be paired with voice messages, for example, [Bring-bring! "Multi-use path"], instead of relying on three rings. Of course, the strength of this concept is that it avoids all the problems associated with trying to communicate clearly using words, and instead relies on creating a simple association. Hear a bell? Expect people on bikes.

One person's Safety, another person's Barrier

"Risk intolerance clouds our judgement and our ability to build more accessible cities for all". This is what Vanessa Skelton of GHD said at the Truck vs Bike debate, regarding letting trucks cut across opposing lanes when turning, and I believe this applies to many issues. Coquitlam's Maze Gate Removal program provides a strong example of this.

Maze gates are a set of staggered, overlapping barriers typically at the entry points of pathways. Originally viewed as an important safety measure to prevent motor vehicle access and slow down cyclists, they're now widely recognised as an unnecessary barrier to people's movement. They may present an insurmountable barrier for people with strollers, bike trailers, longer bikes, and mobility devices like scooters and adaptive bikes. They also present a challenge and/or inconvenience for everyone else. The City of Coquitlam's Olivia Stephenson walked us through the details of the program and how well it has been received by the public.

When the City of Victoria installed flex posts down the centerline of bidirectional bike lanes near its first-generation floating bus stops, it did so without realizing this created its own injustice, narrowing the path in at least one location to the point where certain devices cannot be used on it. Bollards on CRD trails intended to prevent vehicle intrusion instead have a proven track record of hurting people. Avoidance of building floating bus stops in Victoria has led to subpar infrastructure designs that leave people cycling and rolling exposed to traffic where it matters most. 'Cyclists dismount' signs intended to protect pedestrians send an exclusionary message to people who cannot easily dismount.

There are so many situations where we trade one risk or inequity for another. What's worst is when an attempt to prevent a theoretical risk, such as vehicle intrusion, or a truck turning into oncoming traffic, leads to a guaranteed, daily degradation of someone's transportation experience. At some point in the future, we might realize the risk was smaller than we anticipated, and reassess our priorities, like we did with maze gates. But inclusive, holistic design can prevent these mistakes from being made in the first place.

Conclusion

As a cycling advocate, I was familiar with how cycling infrastructure enhances the mobility of people you might not expect, like people who have difficulty walking. Learning about accessibility for the blind and visually impaired has opened up a whole new angle for me. The key takeaways from Olivia's session on maze gates hit the nail on the head: When it comes to accessibility, things will only work if we talk to each other, and make considering diverse needs a regular part of our process.

Thanks for reading! That's it for part 2 of my ITE Canada 2026 recap. Stick around for part 3, Bus and Rail Transit!