Four rail-route options were presented by Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts at a public forum last November.

Four rail-route options were presented by Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts at a public forum last November.

LETTERS: Looking beyond rail relocation

Editor:

Re: Be careful what they wish for, Oct. 7 letters.

Editor:

Be very careful what you wish for.

On the rare chance the railway would ever be moved to a more friendly neighbourhood, I very much doubt a stretch of expensive beach-front property would be turned into a coastal path or parking lots.

Far more likely, this vacant property would be set aside for construction of sorely needed and revenue-generating hotels and high-end housing with private beachfronts.

Then, when you have finally found an access to the beach, the only “sand” now available for the general public would be between the high and low watermarks.

G. Reid, Surrey

• • •

Re: Be careful what they wish for, Oct. 7 letters.

Coal may not be a dirty word, but it’s dirty stuff.

Historically important, it now causes increasing toxic air pollution and adds its share to global warming.

Trains are not a “great attraction for the waterfront”; they are a noisy disruption. People “stop what they’re doing” because they can’t move to or from the pier or continue conversations.

Yes, a few trains a day are colourful for the kiddies and not much of a problem, but it’s no longer a “few” trains. If kiddies have asthma, or grandpa has emphysema, coal dust is a major hazard. Our sleep is disrupted by loud horns shattering the night.

Re-routing through Sumas or some other alternative might be problematic, but perhaps White Rock/South Surrey could work to limit the increasingly numerous harmful substances trained through our seaside city.

Letter-writer Howard Rogers’ rant about “environmentalists… smoking pot” is as offensive as his trains.

Susan Lindenberger, White Rock