I refer to the letter headlined, 'Corporation must stop the sob story' (South China Morning Post, July 27), and Lisa Hopkinson's article headlined, 'The plight of Long Valley' (Post Magazine, August 6). If there is a sob story, it is not the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation that is crying. But over 240,000 cross-boundary travellers who have every right to be heard, may well cry in frustration, because of increasing congestion at Lowu Station and having to queue for upwards of an hour to board trains during long weekends and festival periods. Indigenous villagers have already cried in alarm over green groups' suggestion that the chosen alignment be moved closer to their homes. In the case of the 10,000 people living in villages skirting Long Valley, this would mean serious disturbance in terms of land take, visual impact, noise, heritage and fung shui issues. The importance of Long Valley is not in question. The fact that members of the Advisory Council on the Environment (ACE) were divided in their views is recognition, however, that total avoidance of Long Valley is not a practicable option. 'Reasonable' and 'practicable' are terms in the ecological guidelines applicable to avoidance and relevant to the environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the spur line. The corporation has carefully examined more than 10 routes to connect East Rail with a new boundary crossing at Lok Ma Chau. Some of these routes would have a direct impact on the villages, others would mean relocating existing public infrastructure facilities and a delay in the completion of the spur line by many years, even if land was available. With the number of boundary crossings having doubled between 1996 and last year and still increasing this year in double digits, the completion of the spur line by 2004 has become an imperative. This does not mean that we are railroading the project through regardless of the consequences. Having accepted the Government's directive to complete the spur line by 2004, the corporation is nevertheless doing its best to find the right balance between social, environmental and railway safety issues. This we have done and our detailed EIA report is an open book. In her final remarks, Lisa Hopkinson suggests that the fate of the valley hangs in the balance. To those who say that the spur line will destroy Long Valley, we ask that scientific and quantifiable information be found to support their assertion. So far this has not emerged. On the contrary, the new wetlands recommended by the corporation's ecological experts to compensate for the impact of the spur line for the first time provide a significant area of permanent and properly-managed wetland in the valley as wildlife habitat, especially for birds. The design principles applying to wetland creation were brought to the attention of the green groups before the spur line alignment was gazetted. It was this and other mitigation measures associated with the alignment which we presume drew support from some ACE members. Looking to protect this permanent status, the corporation was very pleased to see Alex Yau's suggestion for the establishment of a wetland trust (letter, Post, August 7). We support the suggestion and will do as much as we can to help bring this about. JAMES BLAKE Senior Director, Capital Projects Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation
