Letters, May 13

On transit funding

Re: Province must resume role in transit funding (Editorial, May 12)

The editorial provides an excellent, fact-based rationale for the restoration of the Manitoba-Winnipeg agreement on 50/50 cost sharing of transit operating costs.

Instead of trying to ease traffic congestion by enabling the City of Winnipeg to go deeper in debt through adding more lanes it cannot afford to maintain, the province could move toward several important goals, at a much lower cost. These include improving affordability and availability, increasing transportation equity, and better care for the environment through more efficient use of fossil fuels (and, eventually, an electrified fleet).

Temporary gas price relief and taking the tax off junk food won’t lead all of society to thrive in the long term. Making transit more reliable will help those who cannot afford a car, and will attract those who would rather enjoy a book while leaving the driving to Transit instead of the frustration of sitting in long, unmoving lines of single-occupant vehicles spewing exhaust into the air we all breathe.

Here’s hoping Premier Wab Kinew’s advisers are likewise inspired by the editorial.

Steve West

Winnipeg

Increased funding or a change to the formula between the province and the City of Winnipeg won’t solve buses not showing up, overcrowded buses that pass by or unreliable schedules.

The city will subsidize Winnipeg Transit to the tune of $128.6 million in 2026. That’s $128.6 million more than it will recover in revenue or an estimated $2.60 subsidy per passenger ride. While subsidies for public transportation are common, they pay for systems that actually work, unlike Winnipeg’s. Recently Winnipeg Transit unveiled a new bus routing system which by all accounts is a failure.

Rather than increase bus ridership, it has resulted in a significant drop. A broken system cannot be fixed with money alone.

Winnipeg Transit’s only reaction to the flawed bus route system was to hire a new full-time transit planner to attempt to fix the problems. So, one might ask, what were the qualifications of the planners who designed the flawed system in the first place?

In terms of capital spending, taxpayers have spent millions of dollars in building just one leg of Rapid Transitway System (downtown to the University of Manitoba): $138 million for Stage 1 of the transitway and $587.3 million for Stage 2, for a total of $725.3 million. Using a 30-year projection and an optimistic ridership increase of one to two per cent per year, the capital cost subsidy is $5 to $6 per passenger trip, suggesting that taxpayers have already stepped up to the plate when it comes to funding Winnipeg Transit.

Taxpayers have not complained when asked to spend more on Winnipeg Transit to improve the service but they certainly have been disappointed that all of those dollars have been spent in vain. Spending more money is not the answer to fixing a broken system.

Design a system that works for the user and you’ll get more users, more revenue, fewer cars on the streets, a generally happier ridership and maybe even save some money.

Wally Barton

Winnipeg

Where responsibility lies

Re: “Decision a real shame” (Letters, May 9)

I take very strong exception to D. Duane Johnston’s letter regarding schools needing to take responsibility for recognizing Mother’s Day. Half of his letter lists the importance of mothers, and no one would dispute that. But he misses the point entirely. The importance of mothers is not the issue. The issue is where the responsibility of honouring mothers (and fathers) lies.

He claims that if the school doesn’t support children in recognizing Mother’s Day, the “opportunity (for children to honour their mothers) has been taken away from them.” The implication is that he is relying on the school to do his parenting for him. Since mothers are very important, why isn’t the home the place where the best opportunity to honour them exists?

Further on he says, “The other thing to me is more disturbing is that this brain trust is in charge of educating our children.” This turns his stomach.

As a former teacher for 37 years, I am insulted by his insinuation that teachers do not fulfil their educational responsibility. Besides a profusion of academics, we teach respect, manners, patience, inclusiveness, tolerance and appreciation daily. We inspire learning, motivate and support those who struggle, encourage and direct personal growth, cultivate self-confidence and celebrate success. Yes, this “brain trust” is very much in charge of educating your children. But so are you!

Twice he writes, “What a shame!” But throughout his letter, he clearly reveals himself as one of the growing number of people who expect schools to do their parenting for them. What a shame!

Greg Kostyra

Winnipeg

Measles risk

Re: Manitoba is leading in some very bad ways (Editorial, May 12)

So we now have more cases of measles than all the other provinces combined. Measles is not an innocuous childhood disease, and we used to be able to call it eradicated. It is extremely contagious, and can cause severe illness or death for some who contact it.

We require over 95 per cent vaccination rate to achieve herd immunity, and we are woefully below that level now. We used to require proof of vaccination to enter public school, but somehow that was discontinued, and without much fanfare.

Those who believe misinformation have been allowed to put others at risk by refusing to vaccinate their children, while still sending them to public school. Vaccination is not just for the person themselves, but for the protection of society at large. Some people have compromised immune systems, either by virtue of illness, some drug treatments for cancers or autoimmune diseases, or by simply being too young to be vaccinated yet.

These people have significant risk if they get measles, and yet those who think only of themselves are allowed to put them at risk, because of a false concern about the vaccine. Our health-care system is overburdened enough without allowing vaccine preventable disease to spread so freely.

When is our government going to address that the ideologies of the minority are causing potential of real harm to the rest of society and reinstate the requirement for MMR, a vaccine used safely for decades, to enter public school?

Robyn Olson

Winnipeg

History of bad manners

Re: “Our disappointing government” (Letters, May 12)

Garrett Loeppky’s letter recalling his 1971 experience when attending a legislative question period brought back my own memories of that same time period, or rather a couple or so years later, pushing towards the mid ’70s.

I was not long out of high school then and just starting university, and I was rather appalled at the negativity and lack of true substance in the legislative debates being reported in the papers and on TV. Complaints, complaints, complaints back and forth, and no true debate and no polite discussion.

But there was one member who, when he questioned or criticized, also offered possible reasonable solutions. He was the lone member of the then (and still now) third party in the house, Liberal Lloyd Axworthy representing Fort Rouge.

At that time I sent what was my first letter to the Free Press, deploring the PC and NDP members actions in the house and commending Mr. Axworthy on his decorum and positive constructive criticisms. And, to my surprise (and then youthful pride) it was published!

Ironically, his riding encompassed or at least abutted the Manitoba Legislative Building itself, and when election result maps of the province were published showing the swath of NDP ridings north of the “diagonal line” and all the PC ridings south of it, his riding appeared to create a demilitarized zone around the legislature. I must say that seemed very appropriate to me.

It is sad though that decorum and the level of civil debate in the legislature has not improved at all in the 50-plus years since then, and if anything has sunk lower. Mr. Loeppky said he has sent a number of letters and emails to the governments of the day about this and suggests he might yet send another. I encourage him to do so, and I would be happy to add my name as a co-signer to any future missives he may send.

Bob Martin

Winnipeg