To the editor of the Sudbury Star
I read Vicki Kaminski's comments in this article with great interest. Despite the move by orthopedic surgeons to deplore the current hospital situation and urge a more vocal effort by hospital administration, her approach appears to basically be "don't rock the boat".
Ms. Kaminski talks about not jeopardizing the good relationship that exists between the hospital and the provincial health care authorities. As far as I can see, this relationship has done nothing to alleviate the current crisis which has been ongoing for almost three years. My wife is waiting for surgery that is not on the list of those governed by the Wait Time List and has been told it will likely take almost a year to get a surgery date. When that date finally rolls around, there is no guarantee that it won't be cancelled at the last minute.
I agree that more interim long term care beds are not the answer. How about more PERMANENT beds? Now, not in 2011. Our population is aging and we are in need of both increased long term care and additional hospital care.
She also says "We need to get back to basics on it and say what is it that we need to make it better." Agreed. So, after years of being in crisis I would expect that, given the large salary she gets paid to look after our hospital needs, she must have an educated opinion on this. So far, I haven't seen it voiced. The needs should be spelled out and then the call should be taken up by hospital authorities, municipal politicians and the citizens of Sudbury at large and trumpeted from the rooftops so that Toronto can hear.
Canadians have decided over the years that health care is a right. Delivery of that care is entrusted to the province. Let's provide the Ministry with some guidance since, if Kaminski's assertion that this problem is province wide is correct, they haven't seemed to be able to address it after all this time.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Mayor and Flag
To the editor of the Sudbury Star
Let me say from the start that I did not vote for John Rodrigues and I never supported the flying of the Franco-Ontarien flag at city hall. My opposition to the flag was not based on any lack of respect for the Francophone population in Sudbury, but merely because it was my belief that it only forms one part of the rich ethnic patchwork that compose our city.
That said, a large portion of the citizens of Sudbury did vote for John. If deciding what flag flies is within the mandate of his office, then he has the right to make that executive decision. He could refer the issue to council and have them take up valuable time debating it while the city continues to be divided arguing the merits of the move, or he could actually have the courage to make a decision and stand by it. Unlike his predecessors, he has chosen the latter step.
With all the problems facing Sudbury right now that need council's attention, the flag is a minor matter in my opinion. I don't see a clear-cut consensus on the direction to go and, rather than get bent out of shape because the elected leader chose something I didn't favour, I am going to applaud his taking swift action and put this behind me. At the end of his term, the flag will be a very small item in deciding his success as a mayor while the decisive style he has shown here will be very important. That is provided, of course, that his decisions are successful in dealing with the more serious problems we are facing.
I look forward with great interest to less talk and more action from our municipal government over the next four years.
Let me say from the start that I did not vote for John Rodrigues and I never supported the flying of the Franco-Ontarien flag at city hall. My opposition to the flag was not based on any lack of respect for the Francophone population in Sudbury, but merely because it was my belief that it only forms one part of the rich ethnic patchwork that compose our city.
That said, a large portion of the citizens of Sudbury did vote for John. If deciding what flag flies is within the mandate of his office, then he has the right to make that executive decision. He could refer the issue to council and have them take up valuable time debating it while the city continues to be divided arguing the merits of the move, or he could actually have the courage to make a decision and stand by it. Unlike his predecessors, he has chosen the latter step.
With all the problems facing Sudbury right now that need council's attention, the flag is a minor matter in my opinion. I don't see a clear-cut consensus on the direction to go and, rather than get bent out of shape because the elected leader chose something I didn't favour, I am going to applaud his taking swift action and put this behind me. At the end of his term, the flag will be a very small item in deciding his success as a mayor while the decisive style he has shown here will be very important. That is provided, of course, that his decisions are successful in dealing with the more serious problems we are facing.
I look forward with great interest to less talk and more action from our municipal government over the next four years.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Sudbury Roads
To the editor of the Sudbury Star
I have spent much of this summer traveling. Each time I return, I pass over the section of City Road 55 from the SE Bypass to Falconbridge Road looking for progress in the construction. After all, we watched the improvement of the Falconbridge Road / Kingsway intersection last year and saw rock cuts widened earlier this season. All I find is no change in what is one of the worst stretches of road I have encountered in 22,000 miles of driving around North America.
Now I see that the cost of the project has escalated, supposedly due to the cost of asphalt. OK, I can accept that but why, when faced with a severe budget overrun, does staff recommend a further $4.5 million in "extras". If they were that important, should they not have been in the original proposal?
Now I have received a notice that construction will be starting on a section of Falconbridge Road that will include curbs and extra lanes. All this improvement and yet a good number of city streets, some major thoroughfares, remain atrocious to navigate. I am embarassed to take visitors on a drive through "My Sudbury".
As a taxpayer, I have a suggestion for council and staff. No matter how nice all these new lanes, bike lanes and curbs may seem, let's not do them right now. Instead, let's devote the entire roads budget to simply resurfacing the roads we have. That will go a lot further towards improving the Sudbury driving experience than a few small sections with an extra turning lane or some curbs. How many kilometers of existing road could have been fixed for the multi-million dollars being spent on four-laning a couple of miles of 55? And, to avoid what we have seen in the past, lets do any water main, sewer and gas line work BEFORE resurfacing.
I'm looking for a little bit of common sense at Tom Davies Square. As a taxpayer, I am asking for value for my money.
I have spent much of this summer traveling. Each time I return, I pass over the section of City Road 55 from the SE Bypass to Falconbridge Road looking for progress in the construction. After all, we watched the improvement of the Falconbridge Road / Kingsway intersection last year and saw rock cuts widened earlier this season. All I find is no change in what is one of the worst stretches of road I have encountered in 22,000 miles of driving around North America.
Now I see that the cost of the project has escalated, supposedly due to the cost of asphalt. OK, I can accept that but why, when faced with a severe budget overrun, does staff recommend a further $4.5 million in "extras". If they were that important, should they not have been in the original proposal?
Now I have received a notice that construction will be starting on a section of Falconbridge Road that will include curbs and extra lanes. All this improvement and yet a good number of city streets, some major thoroughfares, remain atrocious to navigate. I am embarassed to take visitors on a drive through "My Sudbury".
As a taxpayer, I have a suggestion for council and staff. No matter how nice all these new lanes, bike lanes and curbs may seem, let's not do them right now. Instead, let's devote the entire roads budget to simply resurfacing the roads we have. That will go a lot further towards improving the Sudbury driving experience than a few small sections with an extra turning lane or some curbs. How many kilometers of existing road could have been fixed for the multi-million dollars being spent on four-laning a couple of miles of 55? And, to avoid what we have seen in the past, lets do any water main, sewer and gas line work BEFORE resurfacing.
I'm looking for a little bit of common sense at Tom Davies Square. As a taxpayer, I am asking for value for my money.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Highway 69
To the editor of the Sudbury Star
I have been up and down Highway 69 to Parry Sound and beyond for the third time in a week. I have driven this road more times than I can possibly keep track of over the last 35 years.
As I travel along, I have time to think about the problems of the two lane link to the south. The biggest drawback is the limitation these two lanes place on resolving speed differentials among drivers. The average speed which most cars travel is well above the speed limit but is not, in my opinion, excessive. However, there are cars traveling various speeds from below the 90 KPH limit to the fast movers.
Then you have the trucks and RV's which are unable to move at the same pace as the average traffic. Combine the faster vehicles with one slow-moving truck or car, add steady oncoming traffic, and you have lineups of cars, none of which are able to travel their preferred speed.
The passing lanes alleviate this somewhat, but they are limited and only allow so many to pass before ending. Also, strangely, some of the slower cars seem to speed up in the passing lanes.
With the lineups and limited ability to pass, some drivers get frustrated. While they should be cool and wait a bit, they resort to tailgating, passing in unsafe situations and other hazardous behaviour. Based on my life experience, I don't think any amount of education will change this and the enforcement budget is barely enough to put a token police presence on the road.
The solution is to four-lane Highway 69. No big news there. The current plan is to provide a complete limited access highway that will take 12 years and more than $1 billion to complete. As a taxpayer and a traveler, I ask why?
I would be happy to see the existing right of way widened to create a four lane road similar to Regional Road 80 from Sudbury to Val Caron. This would allow faster traffic to get by expeditiously, reducing the high risk behaviours, and would not cut off side roads and local businesses.
And all of this could be done in a fraction of the time and at a much lower cost than the current plan. Also, by not relocating right away, all the environmental studies and negative impacts would be avoided.
Why spend our tax dollars on something that is way more than what we really need?
I have been up and down Highway 69 to Parry Sound and beyond for the third time in a week. I have driven this road more times than I can possibly keep track of over the last 35 years.
As I travel along, I have time to think about the problems of the two lane link to the south. The biggest drawback is the limitation these two lanes place on resolving speed differentials among drivers. The average speed which most cars travel is well above the speed limit but is not, in my opinion, excessive. However, there are cars traveling various speeds from below the 90 KPH limit to the fast movers.
Then you have the trucks and RV's which are unable to move at the same pace as the average traffic. Combine the faster vehicles with one slow-moving truck or car, add steady oncoming traffic, and you have lineups of cars, none of which are able to travel their preferred speed.
The passing lanes alleviate this somewhat, but they are limited and only allow so many to pass before ending. Also, strangely, some of the slower cars seem to speed up in the passing lanes.
With the lineups and limited ability to pass, some drivers get frustrated. While they should be cool and wait a bit, they resort to tailgating, passing in unsafe situations and other hazardous behaviour. Based on my life experience, I don't think any amount of education will change this and the enforcement budget is barely enough to put a token police presence on the road.
The solution is to four-lane Highway 69. No big news there. The current plan is to provide a complete limited access highway that will take 12 years and more than $1 billion to complete. As a taxpayer and a traveler, I ask why?
I would be happy to see the existing right of way widened to create a four lane road similar to Regional Road 80 from Sudbury to Val Caron. This would allow faster traffic to get by expeditiously, reducing the high risk behaviours, and would not cut off side roads and local businesses.
And all of this could be done in a fraction of the time and at a much lower cost than the current plan. Also, by not relocating right away, all the environmental studies and negative impacts would be avoided.
Why spend our tax dollars on something that is way more than what we really need?
Friday, January 27, 2006
Alcohol Growing Factor in Sled Mishaps
To the editor of the Sudbury Star
I read your article on the study of snowmobile incidents by the Canadian Institute for Health Information with great interest. It amazes me that this is being presented as new and surprising information since the results of studies done by local trauma Doctors Brian Rowe and Gary Bota in the early 90's provided similar statistics. Ms. Keresteci would not have been shocked at the alcohol involved rate if she had read this and other published studies going back over 20 years.
In response to a series of fatalities in Sudbury in 1992, OPP Sgt. Lynn Beach called a meeting of stakeholders including clubs, dealers, doctors, insurance people and police to see what could be done to improve things. Local Mayors got involved and Terry Kett of Walden became Chair of the Mayors and Citizens Task Force on Snowmobiling.
Armed with Drs. Rowe and Bota's study (and with their support), the task force determined that alcohol was the primary contributor to fatalities (approximately 70%) and a major factor in personal injury incidents. It was also determined that police did not have adequate manpower or equipment to maintain an effective enforcement presence on the trails. Based on a proposal by Norm Hein of the Sudbury Trail Plan, the Snowmobile Trail Officer Patrol was born. This consisted of a volunteer force of experienced sledders trained and given the authority to enforce the Motorized Snow Vehicle Act as well as area snowmobile by-laws, and assist police with alcohol interdiction on the trails.
A further study by the good doctors found that, in the three years before trail patrols, Sudbury experienced 15 fatalities of which 13 were alcohol involved. In the next three years, with an enforcement presence, there were four fatalities of which two were alcohol involved. The conclusion was that increased enforcement presence on the trails, made possible largely because of the S.T.O.P. volunteers and police working together and focusing on the root behaviours causing mishaps, was effective in reducing fatalities. A second study indicated the same effect on injury incidents. In 1995, the program was approved for expansion across the province.
So where is this landmark program today? There are significantly less S.T.O.P. officers in Ontario now than there were in 2000. Sudbury still has a presence on the trails due largely to the dedication of Norm Hein. I see Dr. Bourdon states that alcohol is a factor in 28% of Sudbury incidents compared to 49% nationwide and I suggest that S.T.O.P. and police activity here is a contributor to the lower levels. Elsewhere, expansion seems to have ground to a halt and recruitment is not up to replacing those who leave the program. Attempts to sell the concept to other provinces found resistance from police services who did not accept the idea of empowering highly trained volunteers. And the deaths and injuries continue.
Now there is another study stating that which is already known as if it is a new revelation. Meanwhile, a program which proved to be one very effective step in improving the situation languishes, largely due to a lack of real commitment and a failure to understand the original strategy by both snowmobile and police organizations.
When will we ever learn?
I read your article on the study of snowmobile incidents by the Canadian Institute for Health Information with great interest. It amazes me that this is being presented as new and surprising information since the results of studies done by local trauma Doctors Brian Rowe and Gary Bota in the early 90's provided similar statistics. Ms. Keresteci would not have been shocked at the alcohol involved rate if she had read this and other published studies going back over 20 years.
In response to a series of fatalities in Sudbury in 1992, OPP Sgt. Lynn Beach called a meeting of stakeholders including clubs, dealers, doctors, insurance people and police to see what could be done to improve things. Local Mayors got involved and Terry Kett of Walden became Chair of the Mayors and Citizens Task Force on Snowmobiling.
Armed with Drs. Rowe and Bota's study (and with their support), the task force determined that alcohol was the primary contributor to fatalities (approximately 70%) and a major factor in personal injury incidents. It was also determined that police did not have adequate manpower or equipment to maintain an effective enforcement presence on the trails. Based on a proposal by Norm Hein of the Sudbury Trail Plan, the Snowmobile Trail Officer Patrol was born. This consisted of a volunteer force of experienced sledders trained and given the authority to enforce the Motorized Snow Vehicle Act as well as area snowmobile by-laws, and assist police with alcohol interdiction on the trails.
A further study by the good doctors found that, in the three years before trail patrols, Sudbury experienced 15 fatalities of which 13 were alcohol involved. In the next three years, with an enforcement presence, there were four fatalities of which two were alcohol involved. The conclusion was that increased enforcement presence on the trails, made possible largely because of the S.T.O.P. volunteers and police working together and focusing on the root behaviours causing mishaps, was effective in reducing fatalities. A second study indicated the same effect on injury incidents. In 1995, the program was approved for expansion across the province.
So where is this landmark program today? There are significantly less S.T.O.P. officers in Ontario now than there were in 2000. Sudbury still has a presence on the trails due largely to the dedication of Norm Hein. I see Dr. Bourdon states that alcohol is a factor in 28% of Sudbury incidents compared to 49% nationwide and I suggest that S.T.O.P. and police activity here is a contributor to the lower levels. Elsewhere, expansion seems to have ground to a halt and recruitment is not up to replacing those who leave the program. Attempts to sell the concept to other provinces found resistance from police services who did not accept the idea of empowering highly trained volunteers. And the deaths and injuries continue.
Now there is another study stating that which is already known as if it is a new revelation. Meanwhile, a program which proved to be one very effective step in improving the situation languishes, largely due to a lack of real commitment and a failure to understand the original strategy by both snowmobile and police organizations.
When will we ever learn?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
