next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
> -*-*-*-*- Hi Paul, Thanks for the follow up, which I take as thoughtful, not provocative. The emphasis of the Road Improvement Fund we've announced is maintenance of existing secondary roads, and safety on Highway 101. I know the case against expansion of the road network, and constantly widening major highways. That's not the kind of road programme we've outlined. It would take a fair number of years, even with the increased level of funding in our platform, to bring all existing secondary roads up to a generally acceptable level. We're dealing with the fact that it is the most urgently needed task . . . and the apparent fact that poor roads do not in any event increase public transit use. You probably know far more than I do about the complex relationship between the various transportation modes, as well as the interplay of provincial, federal and international rules, but a transportation policy for the province will have to take all of that into consideration. Twenty years ago, how many recognized that cuts in rail service would seemingly lead to a decline in bus passenger traffic? I recall the fight to expose what many believed was the effort by the bus companies to undermine rail service for competitive reasons, yet in NS at least, loss of one passenger service seems to have accelerated the decline of the other. As for health, I just checked and see that unfortunately it is not on our web site yet. As you might expect, health promotion, prevention and the shift towards a wellness model are all there in the document. The Health platform discusses how a new model for rural clinics and for family medical practices will facilitate that shift, using examples like Nurse Practitioners to be part of the team at the medical clinics in Dartmouth, or establishment of a clinic or practice to deliver health care in communities like New Ross (3000 year-round families, 4,000 more in the summer, no doctor or other health service within a half hour's drive). The additional nurses will be in continuing care as well as acute care. That is a major difference between our platform and the others. Media coverage tends to over-simplify. I think that when the full platform paper is posted you will see that it outlines far more than a Band-Aid approach. Finally, I'm copying our Research Director so that team of New Dems can take up the suggestion of subscribing to sust--mar. Dan O'Connor >>> Paul A Falvo <pfalvo@chebucto.ns.ca> 07/05/99 07:43PM >>> Dan, thanks very much for responding on this. However, having just reread your resonse i can't help feeling that the NDP are missing the point on transportation and the environment. Please correct me if i'm wrong, but the gist of your letter seems to be "roads and public transit are both important - we can't commit to both - so we're focussing on more roads right now." Fair enough. Except that roads and public transit - particularly rail - are not complementart strategies. They are contradictory. Time and time it has been shown that more roads bring more cars (already increasing 10-14% annually in Canada). More cars mean fewer trips by public transit. More deaths due to air pollution (~2000 annually in Ontario already). More traffic fatalities (~3000 annually in Canada already). Why is the NDP thus choosing to move us AWAY from rail and other forms of public transit? Does the NDP not have experts who understand environmetal and transportation issues, and their interrelationship? The road building policy sunds like it was drafted by a car salesperson. In the same vein, the NDP health care platform makes no mention of *prevention*. Is the NDP not aware that environmental factors are responsible for many illnesses? I voted NDP last time. But seeing now that NDP transportation strategy is for more roads and hence more cars ... and that NDP health strategy is limited to throwing money into treatment [a "band-aid solution, no pun intended!] will make it hard for me to vote NDP this time. Finally, given the history on sust-mar for some intense election debates (!) please know that i say none of these things to be provocative, but am merely calling them as i see them. I invite comment, criticism and correction of my words. And recognising my inherent conflict as moderator, i will post all replies. Respectfully yours, ~paul :) PS Dan, here are details on how to subscribe to sust-mar. We're not an exclusive group, so NDP campaign staff shouldn't feel they have to rely on others to notify them of developments on sust-mar. In fact, maybe if more NDPers were on sust-mar, we'd see better environmental policy ... :) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Sustainable Maritimes (sust-mar) is an interactive email list for news, updates, action alerts and questions about the environment and sustainability in Maritime Canada. The list is moderated and generally limited to one message a day. To subscribe just send email to <majordomo@chebucto.ns.ca> In the body of your message type only "subscribe sust-mar" (without the quotes). It's free and you can unsubscribe any time you like. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- You received this because you are subscribed to "sust-mar", the Sustainable Maritimes mailing list. To unsubscribe, send email to <majordomo@chebucto.ns.ca> with "unsubscribe sust-mar" (without quotes) as the body of your message. To post a message to sust-mar subscribers, send it to <sust-mar@chebucto.ns.ca> Posts that are off-topic or excessive length (10K) will be rejected. For help contact <sust-mar-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects