Strata smoking fines tossed
Seeking a wildfire 'hero'
BC firm's materials in space
Trudeau in Saskatoon 
Doctors protest tax change
Caribou herds growing 
Jury finds railway at fault 
Mistrial in migrant shooting
Military helicopters collide 
Tourism operators struggle 
Nude Beverages sells line
Wealth gap widening
Leafs even series
Cristall gets pro look
Warriors even series in OT
Swift breaks Spotify record
Cudi Coachella set cut short
Bon Jovi 'hasn't been a saint'
The city says it is looking at ways to improve traffic flow?
Check out the new bike path at Sutherland and Pandosy.
What the city did was remove a left-turn lane from Pandosy onto Sutherland to create space for a bike path. What that did was allow a vehicle wanting to turn left to now block the only lane of traffic flowing towards the Mission and Upper Mission. That one lane has to handle about 10,000 cars per day.
It makes no sense to remove the turn lane when the path very few bikes, see photo – oh wait, he’s on the street!
When I asked someone at City Hall, he said they couldn’t afford to buy the land to widen the sidewalk, but they had no problem at all making the decision to get rid of the left-turn lane.
Clearly, traffic congestion is not a concern for the city.
They should have told the landlords that the city would widen the sidewalk, but that the landlord still owns the property. In lieu of the widening, the city could reduce property taxes for the inconvenience. The landlord gets a reduction of his expenses by way of less grass to cut and lower taxes. It's what’s called a win-win.
When I proposed this idea, it was met with silence, then he jumped back onto his pre-programmed responses about bike paths being more important than traffic flow.
The city needs to hire more creative people.
Bill Ferguson, Kelowna
