To the editor of the Sudbury Star
I have read several articles now on the recent costs of snowplowing. The question isn't just how much service is being provided but also how cost effectively it is being done.
I am a firm believer in Statistical Process Control. The premise is that, if you want to improve a process, first you have to understand it. To understand it, you have to measure it. Gathering key data is critical.
If staff has been doing this, they should be able to provide data correlations to Council like charts of daily snowfalls compared to daily variable costs and maintenance costs compared to hours of equipment utilization. This would serve as a framework for explaining both what has happened and how they are working to make it better. Quoting total costs without this kind of information doesn't provide any insight into the underlying factors, and makes it difficult to assess how things are really going.
SPC has been used in business for quite some time. If staff are using it, the data should be readily available. If they aren't, then I have to wonder why not?
Friday, March 2, 2007
Friday, February 16, 2007
Costs May Sink Kingsway Project
To the editor of the Sudbury Star
I travel the length of the Kingsway almost every day. I don't feel a great need to widen the roadway between Laking Toyota and Brady Street for the original $3.3 million city dollars, no matter how much the senior levels of government were kicking in. I certainly don't support the project if our local price tag jumps to over $8.0 million.
I am dismayed by all the large dollar widening and enhancement projects when the condition of many of our existing road surfaces are sub-standard. As a taxpayer, I suggest we should scrap this project, as well as others of this nature, and invest every road dollar we have in resurfacing what we already have. I would rather see $3.3 million of new asphalt than $8.0 million of widened roadway.
On a related note, perhaps the City staff needs to review the process they use to estimate project costs. This Kingsway project is not an isolated case, as you point out with your reference to the four laning of the Kingsway to the by-pass and the rock tunnel. How can council make rational decisions when the cost estimates provided to them are so far out of touch with reality?
I travel the length of the Kingsway almost every day. I don't feel a great need to widen the roadway between Laking Toyota and Brady Street for the original $3.3 million city dollars, no matter how much the senior levels of government were kicking in. I certainly don't support the project if our local price tag jumps to over $8.0 million.
I am dismayed by all the large dollar widening and enhancement projects when the condition of many of our existing road surfaces are sub-standard. As a taxpayer, I suggest we should scrap this project, as well as others of this nature, and invest every road dollar we have in resurfacing what we already have. I would rather see $3.3 million of new asphalt than $8.0 million of widened roadway.
On a related note, perhaps the City staff needs to review the process they use to estimate project costs. This Kingsway project is not an isolated case, as you point out with your reference to the four laning of the Kingsway to the by-pass and the rock tunnel. How can council make rational decisions when the cost estimates provided to them are so far out of touch with reality?
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
MPP has stepped up
To the editor of the Sudbury Star
I read Rick Bartolucci's letter responding to your editorial. There was an incredible amount of self congratulation as he described all that he and the governing Liberals have done to improve health care in Sudbury.
Here is our situation. My wife suffers from fibroid tumours, which are not life threatening but have reached the stage where they are uncomfortable. She visited her surgeon in early October and was told that a hysterectomy was a "no-brainer". He told her that the surgery would probably take place in February. Before Christmas, a call to his office indicated that the date would more likely be at least in July or August.
I don't care how many supposed improvements and initiatives Mr. Bartolucci lists in his letter or whether the problem lies with Toronto, the SRH Board or anybody else. Despite his glowing self review, the system is not working up to what I (as a taxpayer and a voter) consider to be anywhere close to acceptable. As long as everybody keeps pointing the finger at someone else, nothing will ever get done.
Keep walking the halls of Queen's Park, Rick. I'll be thinking of you on election day.
I read Rick Bartolucci's letter responding to your editorial. There was an incredible amount of self congratulation as he described all that he and the governing Liberals have done to improve health care in Sudbury.
Here is our situation. My wife suffers from fibroid tumours, which are not life threatening but have reached the stage where they are uncomfortable. She visited her surgeon in early October and was told that a hysterectomy was a "no-brainer". He told her that the surgery would probably take place in February. Before Christmas, a call to his office indicated that the date would more likely be at least in July or August.
I don't care how many supposed improvements and initiatives Mr. Bartolucci lists in his letter or whether the problem lies with Toronto, the SRH Board or anybody else. Despite his glowing self review, the system is not working up to what I (as a taxpayer and a voter) consider to be anywhere close to acceptable. As long as everybody keeps pointing the finger at someone else, nothing will ever get done.
Keep walking the halls of Queen's Park, Rick. I'll be thinking of you on election day.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Health Care Funding
To the editor of the Sudbury Star
I read the article in the January 24th edition describing how Dr. Brian Day, incoming head of the CMA, called for funding hospitals based on the number of patients they treat instead of the current "global funding model". This just shows how woefully ignorant some of us are about how the system works. I thought that, just as OHIP pays doctors for the specific services they provide me, they also paid the hospitals on the same basis. In an attempt to educate myself, I wandered through the Ministry Of Health and Long Term Care website and found no clear cut description of how the current funding works.
The present system Dr. Day describes, blocks of dollars being doled out to hospitals based on some obscure Ministry criteria, looks to me like a root cause of our current problems. It does not take into account the quantity or types of services that hospitals provide, especially if the volume is changing. When money runs out, services must be reduced in some way to avoid the dreaded deficit. This appears to reduce any incentive for the hospital to actually treat more people, or the same number of people in a more timely manner, since their revenue side is fixed. The only help now is for Big Brother in Toronto to grudgingly provide more money. OUR MONEY!!!! And this appears to be a battle every time.
Payment to the hospitals by OHIP at a fixed fee schedule for specific services provided would seem to encourage them to provide the required care since their revenues would bear some relationship to their actual expenditures. The quality of service could be maintained as well, since we know that qualitative reductions in care and ancillary functions occur as the current budgets get stressed. Relative efficiencies of the various hospitals could also be compared because they would each get the same amount of money for the same procedures.
I believe that Dr. Day is onto something here and his proposal could change the whole way things are done for the better. Imagine the Province paying for the hospital care that is required instead of trying to jam our needs into the much smaller box of whatever lump sums they are willing to commit. I'll even bet that, if the government had to pay hospital rates for Long Term Care patients, they might see that funding enough long term care facilities would be more cost effective too.
Now if only all of us could get as irate about this as we did about the Mayor and the Francophone flag.....
I read the article in the January 24th edition describing how Dr. Brian Day, incoming head of the CMA, called for funding hospitals based on the number of patients they treat instead of the current "global funding model". This just shows how woefully ignorant some of us are about how the system works. I thought that, just as OHIP pays doctors for the specific services they provide me, they also paid the hospitals on the same basis. In an attempt to educate myself, I wandered through the Ministry Of Health and Long Term Care website and found no clear cut description of how the current funding works.
The present system Dr. Day describes, blocks of dollars being doled out to hospitals based on some obscure Ministry criteria, looks to me like a root cause of our current problems. It does not take into account the quantity or types of services that hospitals provide, especially if the volume is changing. When money runs out, services must be reduced in some way to avoid the dreaded deficit. This appears to reduce any incentive for the hospital to actually treat more people, or the same number of people in a more timely manner, since their revenue side is fixed. The only help now is for Big Brother in Toronto to grudgingly provide more money. OUR MONEY!!!! And this appears to be a battle every time.
Payment to the hospitals by OHIP at a fixed fee schedule for specific services provided would seem to encourage them to provide the required care since their revenues would bear some relationship to their actual expenditures. The quality of service could be maintained as well, since we know that qualitative reductions in care and ancillary functions occur as the current budgets get stressed. Relative efficiencies of the various hospitals could also be compared because they would each get the same amount of money for the same procedures.
I believe that Dr. Day is onto something here and his proposal could change the whole way things are done for the better. Imagine the Province paying for the hospital care that is required instead of trying to jam our needs into the much smaller box of whatever lump sums they are willing to commit. I'll even bet that, if the government had to pay hospital rates for Long Term Care patients, they might see that funding enough long term care facilities would be more cost effective too.
Now if only all of us could get as irate about this as we did about the Mayor and the Francophone flag.....
Saturday, December 16, 2006
No Quick Fix For Hospital
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
