next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects Dan, thanks very much for responding on this. However, having just reread your response 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 focusing on more roads right now." Fair enough. Except that roads and public transit - particularly rail - are not complementary 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 environmental and transportation issues, and their interrelationship? The road building policy sounds 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. On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Dan O'Connor wrote: > Thanks to sust-mar subscribers who let NDP campaign staff know that Marcus Garnett:'s letter had been posted to this list. > > For your further information, here is the follow-up letter I sent him. It turns out he had difficulty accessing the NDP platform on the web. He has offered further useful suggestions on priorities for transportation spending, in his last e-mail today. > > He wrote, in part: > >>> "Marcus Garnet" <garnetm@region.halifax.ns.ca> 07/02/99 09:29AM >>> > I am not opposed to strategic investment in better roads, but this NDP announcement sounds too much like the old Liberals and Tories trying to bribe us with our own money, without an overall strategy for integrated, balanced and sustainable transportation for Nova Scotia. > > By now, the complete platform paper should be up on our web site [www.robertchisholm.net], but for your information, I'm including a fairly extensive excerpt below to show that the platform acknowledges the relationship among various transportation modes, and calls for a comprehensive transportation policy. > > As you may know, the NDP platform focuses on a limited number of specific spending commitments, not to the exclusion of other priorities, but to avoid the pitfall of making 243+ promises and actually telegraphing that we don't intend to do any of them. > > Your points about public transit are well taken. Public transit, the role of rail and the future of the major ports are just some of the issues that must be addressed by a comprehensive transportation policy. It can't be done properly overnight, and in the meantime, an NDP government would proceed with the specific commitments outlined. > > I hope this and the excerpt below help answer the concerns you have raised. > > Dan O'Connor > Chief of Staff > > > > Access to jobs, education and health care for communities is dependent on a safe and reliable transportation network. The deterioration of rail transport has put more pressure on roads. Rather than increasing spending on roads to respond to increased demand, both federal and provincial governments have been cutting back. The last two budgets of the MacLellan Liberals slashed over $50 million from road construction and improvement. Federal spending on roads in Nova Scotia dropped 80 per cent this year. > . > The impact of Liberal neglect of roads can be seen almost anywhere in the province, but it's most noticeable on secondary rural roads. Some communities find themselves virtually cut off from health and education services by bad roads, while poor transportation links hamper economic development. At the same time as these communities are looking desperately for improvements to their transportation lifeline, other communities are justifiably urging completion of the twinning of the 100 series highways. > > The Liberal and Tory response to these legitimate needs has been to slash spending while letting partisan politics rather than planning guide their actions. Much needed paving was done on the road going past the Highway Minister's home, but most other urgently needed paving was left undone. > > Within one year an NDP government will act to ensure good roads and safer roads, as part of a larger plan to invest in the economic lifelines to Nova Scotia communities. An NDP government will: > > * enact a Road Improvements Act based on one already introduced in the Legislature, to replace the Liberals' secretive and politically-motivated approach to setting highway priorities with an open system that establishes priorities based on legislated criteria, and keeps the priority list on the public record; > * establish a Road Improvement Fund that in its first year will have $21 million to: > invest $10 million to upgrade the secondary roads most in need of repaving or paving; > in consultation with affected communities, decide which stretch of Highway 101 is most dangerous and twin it next year; > * within the framework of a comprehensive transportation strategy, develop a ten-year plan for highway investment; > * mount a concerted campaign to pressure the Federal government into accepting its responsibility to contribute to 100 series highways. > > > > -*-*-*-*-