Maley Drive could be Sudbury's white elephant. It was conceived decades ago when the assumptions at the time made it look sensible. Today it does not. Sudbury is not growing. Its population has stagnated and could decline. This project will not help the traffic in the valley. It runs east to west while the valley needs a road that runs north to south. There are many road projects that would be much more cost effective. There are also important community needs that could use infrastructure spending such as drainage projects and improving water treatment and sewage treatment.
The argument seems to hinge on mistaken notions about what I have written above as well as the idea that we cannot turn this project down or we will not get any money. The reality is that if we propose a viable project money will come from other levels of government. People seem to forget that once the Federal and Provincial Government have sent their share the city is on the hook for $27 million. Thus far we have about $11 million of that accounted for. This means we have to find 16 million more or almost three times what the city council managed to cut from taxes this year. Do we think we can cut 16 million more to pay our share? Who pays for cost overruns? The people of Greater Sudbury. Who pays the ongoing maintenance? The people of Greater Sudbury. Who doesn't pay for these things? The mining companies and the two senior levels of government.
Finally there are indications that we cannot support our present road infrastructure. We can't keep up with the pothole filling, the frequent road repairs, we can't even keep up with line painting after the winter season. We have reached a point where we have to learn to live with the road infrastructures we have. We need to manage traffic better and we need to massively expand transit in this city.
Building a bad project will hurt this city for decades going forward. Maley Drive is such a project and it will likely go down as Sudbury's white elephant.
John Gaul - 8 years ago
Maley Drive could be Sudbury's white elephant. It was conceived decades ago when the assumptions at the time made it look sensible. Today it does not. Sudbury is not growing. Its population has stagnated and could decline. This project will not help the traffic in the valley. It runs east to west while the valley needs a road that runs north to south. There are many road projects that would be much more cost effective. There are also important community needs that could use infrastructure spending such as drainage projects and improving water treatment and sewage treatment.
The argument seems to hinge on mistaken notions about what I have written above as well as the idea that we cannot turn this project down or we will not get any money. The reality is that if we propose a viable project money will come from other levels of government. People seem to forget that once the Federal and Provincial Government have sent their share the city is on the hook for $27 million. Thus far we have about $11 million of that accounted for. This means we have to find 16 million more or almost three times what the city council managed to cut from taxes this year. Do we think we can cut 16 million more to pay our share? Who pays for cost overruns? The people of Greater Sudbury. Who pays the ongoing maintenance? The people of Greater Sudbury. Who doesn't pay for these things? The mining companies and the two senior levels of government.
Finally there are indications that we cannot support our present road infrastructure. We can't keep up with the pothole filling, the frequent road repairs, we can't even keep up with line painting after the winter season. We have reached a point where we have to learn to live with the road infrastructures we have. We need to manage traffic better and we need to massively expand transit in this city.
Building a bad project will hurt this city for decades going forward. Maley Drive is such a project and it will likely go down as Sudbury's white elephant.
Edward - 8 years ago
How much will this project actually influence traffic? Can't we spend 80 million on a project that will benefit Sudbury in the long term? Maybe something waste management related since that issue is obviously needing attention? Blowing taxpayer cash on a strip of asphalt is so 1970s! We can do better Sudbury.
Bob - 8 years ago
I believe that anyone who would vote yes has not seen the presentation by Tom Price on how little this project will help with diverting truck traffic..
Gerald - 8 years ago
The extension should be built and Vale and Glencore should pay the biggest share of the construction. Their ore trucks tear up the roads and we pay to repair the damage.
John - 8 years ago
my only concern is who will pay for it? Not just the infrastructure, but the annual upkeep, snow removal etc. I think that this is for the exclusion of trucks on our roads, particularly mining trucks. Industry, therefore, should pay a significant portion of this. Do the pay by load fees or tolls or usage permits? I don't know. I do know that they should pay but this has NEVER been addressed in the funding plan.
nicole - 8 years ago
Of course it makes economical sense. The transports are using our main roads, tearing them up. The city can't keep up with the repairs. Stop spending money on studies every year. Just do it !
Stephen Cudmore - 8 years ago
This absolutely makes sense!! The main roads in town are already overused, under-maintained
and in gross disrepair. Big trucks that would use this extension continue to chew up Regent, Paris, Barrydown, Notre Dame, Falconbridge and Lasalle etc. on a daily basis.
Get this done!! Then we can start working on repairing our main roads.
Maley Drive could be Sudbury's white elephant. It was conceived decades ago when the assumptions at the time made it look sensible. Today it does not. Sudbury is not growing. Its population has stagnated and could decline. This project will not help the traffic in the valley. It runs east to west while the valley needs a road that runs north to south. There are many road projects that would be much more cost effective. There are also important community needs that could use infrastructure spending such as drainage projects and improving water treatment and sewage treatment.
The argument seems to hinge on mistaken notions about what I have written above as well as the idea that we cannot turn this project down or we will not get any money. The reality is that if we propose a viable project money will come from other levels of government. People seem to forget that once the Federal and Provincial Government have sent their share the city is on the hook for $27 million. Thus far we have about $11 million of that accounted for. This means we have to find 16 million more or almost three times what the city council managed to cut from taxes this year. Do we think we can cut 16 million more to pay our share? Who pays for cost overruns? The people of Greater Sudbury. Who pays the ongoing maintenance? The people of Greater Sudbury. Who doesn't pay for these things? The mining companies and the two senior levels of government.
Finally there are indications that we cannot support our present road infrastructure. We can't keep up with the pothole filling, the frequent road repairs, we can't even keep up with line painting after the winter season. We have reached a point where we have to learn to live with the road infrastructures we have. We need to manage traffic better and we need to massively expand transit in this city.
Building a bad project will hurt this city for decades going forward. Maley Drive is such a project and it will likely go down as Sudbury's white elephant.
Maley Drive could be Sudbury's white elephant. It was conceived decades ago when the assumptions at the time made it look sensible. Today it does not. Sudbury is not growing. Its population has stagnated and could decline. This project will not help the traffic in the valley. It runs east to west while the valley needs a road that runs north to south. There are many road projects that would be much more cost effective. There are also important community needs that could use infrastructure spending such as drainage projects and improving water treatment and sewage treatment.
The argument seems to hinge on mistaken notions about what I have written above as well as the idea that we cannot turn this project down or we will not get any money. The reality is that if we propose a viable project money will come from other levels of government. People seem to forget that once the Federal and Provincial Government have sent their share the city is on the hook for $27 million. Thus far we have about $11 million of that accounted for. This means we have to find 16 million more or almost three times what the city council managed to cut from taxes this year. Do we think we can cut 16 million more to pay our share? Who pays for cost overruns? The people of Greater Sudbury. Who pays the ongoing maintenance? The people of Greater Sudbury. Who doesn't pay for these things? The mining companies and the two senior levels of government.
Finally there are indications that we cannot support our present road infrastructure. We can't keep up with the pothole filling, the frequent road repairs, we can't even keep up with line painting after the winter season. We have reached a point where we have to learn to live with the road infrastructures we have. We need to manage traffic better and we need to massively expand transit in this city.
Building a bad project will hurt this city for decades going forward. Maley Drive is such a project and it will likely go down as Sudbury's white elephant.
How much will this project actually influence traffic? Can't we spend 80 million on a project that will benefit Sudbury in the long term? Maybe something waste management related since that issue is obviously needing attention? Blowing taxpayer cash on a strip of asphalt is so 1970s! We can do better Sudbury.
I believe that anyone who would vote yes has not seen the presentation by Tom Price on how little this project will help with diverting truck traffic..
The extension should be built and Vale and Glencore should pay the biggest share of the construction. Their ore trucks tear up the roads and we pay to repair the damage.
my only concern is who will pay for it? Not just the infrastructure, but the annual upkeep, snow removal etc. I think that this is for the exclusion of trucks on our roads, particularly mining trucks. Industry, therefore, should pay a significant portion of this. Do the pay by load fees or tolls or usage permits? I don't know. I do know that they should pay but this has NEVER been addressed in the funding plan.
Of course it makes economical sense. The transports are using our main roads, tearing them up. The city can't keep up with the repairs. Stop spending money on studies every year. Just do it !
This absolutely makes sense!! The main roads in town are already overused, under-maintained
and in gross disrepair. Big trucks that would use this extension continue to chew up Regent, Paris, Barrydown, Notre Dame, Falconbridge and Lasalle etc. on a daily basis.
Get this done!! Then we can start working on repairing our main roads.
I don't believe that his makes economic sense.