Letter writers address train noise and political leaders’ stated plans to relocate the tracks from the waterfront.

Letter writers address train noise and political leaders’ stated plans to relocate the tracks from the waterfront.

LETTERS: Tracking potential rail solutions

Editor:

Re: Train blasts driving us away, April 22 letters.

Editor:

Re: Train blasts driving us away, April 22 letters.

We agree with letter-writer Alison Prentice’s comments regarding decibel-blasting horns during the so-called quiet hours.

Our loss of sleep is becoming a health issue for us. For the first time in decades, we, too, are considering moving away from our City by the Sea.

The thousands of dollars we spent building safer crossings and enough fencing to please Donald Trump… however, the blasting continues.

Our city leadership should demand that all engine drivers should be on the same page with policy directed by BNSF Railway (Train blasts to persist, Oct. 9, 2015).

We, along with many other hillside residents, are not only tired of this blasting but just tired all day.

If we have to choose between our health and living here, the obvious sad choice is goodbye to White Rock.

Dennis Smith, White Rock

• • •

Re: Moving tracks ‘could cost billions,’ April 20.

These realignment conversations have been ongoing since at least 1995.

From a Peace Arch News article on Nov. 28, 2013 (Cities present four rail-route options):

“Realignment is estimated by the cities to cost $350-450 million. One option presented Tuesday parallels King George Boulevard and Highway 99, and would see the line tunnelled between 16 and 36 avenues. Two of the three options for east of 176 Street are envisioned as largely elevated routes.”

It seems to me that the tunnel option has the least impact on the NIMBY factor and it would seem to have less affect on ALR considerations.

I wonder if there was any consideration for the tunnel alignment from the south end of the Boundary Bay trestle to 8 Avenue at Highway 99 run practically at sea level.

A tunnel may have a higher cost than elevated routes? Forgive me, I am only guessing as I have not seen the costs for the route options published.

Certainly a tunnel option would mitigate the ALR and “not in my backyard” issues the elevated options present. Likely the least ‘political’ option as well.

Where is the tunnel option in the discussions?

Dean Butler, Surrey

• • •

Thanks for keeping all of your readership up-to-date on the ongoing discussions concerning the BNSF trains and tracks, and any hope of relocating them away from the shore, and train-noise issues.

Some folks complain about the train noise while some people never complain. It may be that the complainers have window and insulation issues that allow the noise to enter their homes more readily. If the folks complaining call in a window company, they will be able to quickly determine if there is a window issue or not. Once the window seal leaks and all of the sound-deadening gases escape, your noise level goes up several-fold.

We had a noise issue with trucks on a nearby freeway keeping us awake. We replaced the one window facing the highway, and we have slept soundly ever since.

By the way, a window issue is the homeowner’s issue to take care of, not BNSF’s.

Also, those folks who live on the hills above the beach will automatically hear more noise as the train sounds echo off the hills. Sorry, that is just the way it is.

Additionally, as a retired BNSF employee, I can tell you that you have approximately a zero chance of moving the tracks away from the shore, in spite of everything that your political leadership tells you. It is just going to cost your government too much money.

Anybody who tells you different is probably just pandering to their base for votes.

Chuck Hatler, Kansas City, Mo.