Dear Ms. Lavoie,

I’m writing about the pilot schedule posted yesterday at the Granville Public Library. According to the notice, from October 7 to November 30, all weekday closing times will move from 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., and study rooms after 5:00 p.m. will require a $6 per hour reservation fee, payable through the online portal only. I understand the need to manage staffing costs during a trial period, and I recognise that the library is attempting to gauge whether evening demand justifies current operating hours. However, I am concerned that the combined effect of an earlier closure and a digital-payment-only fee may inadvertently deepen what researchers call the digital equity gap—the uneven ability of residents to participate in services that have moved exclusively online—among precisely the learners who depend on the library most after work and school.

To explain my specific situation: I am a project coordinator commuting from Surrey to downtown Vancouver, and three evenings a week I meet my younger sister Nisha at Granville to prepare for her CELPIP test. We typically arrive by 6:10 p.m. after her shift ends. Under the new schedule we would need to pack up by 6:45 p.m.—barely thirty minutes of effective study time once we settle and log in to practice materials. I also tracked entry counts at the side door for the four Tuesdays preceding this letter: on each occasion, more than thirty patrons swiped in between 6:00 and 8:00 p.m., a figure that the front desk confirmed is consistent with their own gate tallies. Paying $6 per hour on top of transit fares and a $280 test registration fee may appear modest in isolation, but for many learners it functions as the threshold between staying and leaving. If Nisha and I relocate to a café, we spend more in beverages than the room fee—and the ambient noise makes listening practice impossible. Is the library’s goal genuinely served by that outcome?

Beyond our own case, I volunteer on Saturdays for the Homework Club and have observed that peak demand for quiet individual study falls squarely in the 6:00–9:00 p.m. window during midterm and language-test cycles. Several international students have told me directly that they lack both stable home internet and a distraction-free desk. An online-only payment system at 5:45 p.m. excludes anyone whose phone battery is low, whose data plan has run out, or whose bank card has been declined—even when study rooms stand empty beside them. These are not edge cases; they represent a structural barrier for the residents the library is mandated to serve.

I am not questioning the need to experiment with operating models; I am asking that the pilot be designed to measure the right outcomes. Could the branch preserve two late evenings per week—Tuesdays and Thursdays until 9:30 p.m.—so that learners who finish work after 6:00 p.m. retain meaningful access? Alternatively, waiving the evening room fee for any patron who presents documentation of an upcoming language exam or academic assessment would address the cost barrier without eliminating the pilot’s revenue data. A 15-minute grace period at closing would prevent the abrupt departures that currently leave students mid-exercise in the lobby. I am willing to volunteer on one late evening per week to assist with room checkouts if staffing remains the central constraint.

Thank you for considering adjustments that preserve the library’s role as an equitable public learning space—particularly for the evening learners whose participation the pilot’s current design may otherwise inadvertently discourage. A reply by October 4 would allow Nisha and me to plan her study schedule before the pilot begins.

Sincerely,
Arjun Mehta
Library Member #482917