Bus drivers, remind people to buckle up
In coverage of the tragic Christmas Eve bus crash on the Okanagan Connector, police remarked that many passengers were not wearing seatbelts. While buckling up has become a habit in our cars and airplanes, apparently it’s not routine in buses.
Just days before the fatal crash I climbed aboard a bus headed for Whistler. It was late arriving at Pacific Central Station in Vancouver, coming directly from Vancouver International Airport, which had been closed that morning due to heavy snow.
Once on board our driver only informed us that the bus bathroom and Wi-Fi would not be working before leaving the station. I noted I had a seatbelt and buckled up, even though the Sea to Sky Highway was in relatively good shape.
Three days later I boarded the return bus in Whistler. This driver happily informed us the bathroom and Wi-Fi were working and explained which windows and roof hatches provided emergency exits before leaving. Once again, I buckled up along with my seat mate from Singapore.
Neither driver advised passengers that seatbelts were available and recommended their use. Maybe it’s time for bus drivers to also remind people to use the seatbelts that may end up saving their lives.
Patty Pitts
Victoria
Seatbelts need to be more comfortable
The Victoria Clipper from Seattle on Tuesday morning was cancelled, and my husband and I returned home via Washington Ferries to Bainbridge Island, then the Strait Shot bus from there to Port Angeles and the Coho.
The first thing we did when we boarded the bus was to fasten our seat belts. As far as we could see, none of the people around us were wearing theirs.
The seatbelts were stiff and unyielding for an 80-year-old lady, but I persevered because the horrendous accident in the Okanagan was fresh in our minds. My husband found it easier.
Perhaps the strength of the belts is a safety factor, but making them more comfortable might encourage people to wear them.
Andrea Ashton
Victoria
Victoria has room for gentle density
Re: “You should live where you can afford to live,” commentary, Dec. 28.
The writer of the commentary was concerned about increasing population densities in the city proper. While I respect these concerns, I disagree with their thesis and would like to provide a counter view.
First, modern urban blight in North America was not caused by too many people living in dense urban areas, but from people leaving cities for suburbs. Detroit, the poster child for modern urban blight, suffered when it lost over half of its population in the latter half of the 20th century. There are still plenty of opportunities in Victoria proper to add gentle density without littering the city with unattractive sky-high condo towers.
One thing the author gets right is that there should be an effort to increase density at suburban nodes so that people can meet their social and economic needs close to home, regardless of where they reside in the region.
However, they also fear that such growth would create higher crime rates in the community, when actual statistics show that other factors such as social inequality play a far greater role in increasing crime.
Finally, many of the service-industry jobs that make urban living so lucrative employ individuals at lower wages.
So until the government mandates higher wages for urban employees (a discussion for another letter), if you want to enjoy a night at the theatre with a nice meal out afterward, you are going to need affordable accommodations nearby for the staff who operate such establishments to reside in.
B.M. Smith
Victoria
Little price variation throughout the region
Re: “You should live where you can afford to live,” commentary, Dec. 28.
The housing crisis is a complex issue and is not centred on outsiders wanting to move to Victoria. Greater Victoria has seen an unprecedented increase in the cost of living over the past decade.
The growing attention on the housing crisis in the media and in political discourse is a direct response to Victoria’s citizens being adversely effected by this increase.
From a place of privilege it’s easy to say things like “Victoria is an expensive place to live. If you can’t afford it … live somewhere you can afford,” but if that’s really how you feel, then you should be fighting for minimum wage increases as well.
Every time you buy something from a retail store, restaurant, pharmacy, etc. you are being served by individuals whose wages do not allow them to afford most rentals in Greater Victoria (never mind have a hope of owning property).
If every citizen with a wage lower than $25 an hour moved away, the city would no longer function.
In Greater Victoria there is little variation in rental prices, and easy travel only exists under the assumption that everyone owns a vehicle. The cost of owning a car and paying for gas to commute to and from work every day is certainly greater than the minute variations in rent cost due to location.
The recommended portion of a person’s income that should go toward rent is 30 per cent. I did some quick searches for rentals in Greater Victoria and the cheapest three-bedroom I could find was $2,000.
A person would need to have a salary of $115,000 per year before taxes (about $80,000 after taxes) to rent this place using 30 per cent of their income.
Again, this is not the average cost — this is the cheapest three-bedroom I could find, and it’s in Sooke.
Alex Hale
Victoria
Carmel’s a great place, but too expensive
Further to my Dec. 28 commentary on housing:
When I was younger, much younger than today, I longed to live in Carmel-by-the-Sea, in California. It was a town of artists; in fact it was frequently called an “artist’s colony,” because of its attraction to artists of all types.
Ansel Adams lived there, and his centre still exists. Clint Eastwood was mayor in the mid-1980s and Brad Pitt has just bought a home there for $40 million. In short, the city (population 3,200) is really a village. I loved it. I wanted to live there.
But I couldn’t. A small-ish 70-year-old house in the village now sells for $2.4 million US. This is representative.
Thirty years ago, an even smaller house was listed for $500,000. In short, I couldn’t live there, because, among other things, I just couldn’t afford to.
I suppose if I really wanted to live near the Central California coast, I could have lived 45 minutes inland or up the highway, but it was the ambience of Carmel I wanted, so I let it go.
If I had a job in Carmel, I would have had to commute from elsewhere.
The situation is similar in Victoria. Labour and wood and concrete costs the same in Langford as it does in Victoria. The rock and dirt is the same stuff, but more people want Victoria’s dirt than Langford’s or Duncan’s.
So, it is more expensive. It will remain so until the over-development of this beautiful city has ruined it. Then, it will be cheaper than Langford or Duncan, because nobody will want to live here.
Such is life.
M.D. Hansen
Victoria
Different priorities and a delayed ambulance
Several recent letters commented Victoria’s bike lanes were cleared while streets and sidewalks remained unattended.
As he so often does, Adrian Raeside captured the essence of Victoria with his Dec 29 rendering: “City crews have been out immediately following the quake, clearing rubble off the bike lanes.”
On a more serious note, I witnessed yesterday an ambulance on call, stuck in traffic having to wait for a light to change for traffic to move due to Victoria’s obsession with bike lanes. I guess it’s just a matter of different priorities.
Wayne Cox
Saanichton
SEND US YOUR LETTERS
• Email letters to: letters@timescolonist.com
• Mail: Letters to the editor, Times Colonist, 201-655 Tyee Rd., Victoria, B.C. V9A 6X5
• Submissions should be no more than 250 words; subject to editing for length and clarity. Provide your contact information; it will not be published. Avoid sending your letter as an email attachment.
