I refer to the letter from James Blake of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corp, headlined, 'No more room for expansion at crowded and boxed-in station' (South China Morning Post, October 5) and the letter from William Shiu, for the Secretary for Transport (Post, September 7), dismissing the possibility of expanding the Lowu border crossing facilities. The KCRC and the Transport Bureau have a clear vested interest in the construction of the second border crossing and the Lok Ma Chau spur line. As a result, their opinions can hardly be seen as impartial. In his letter, Mr Blake stated: ' . . . the physical limitations at Lowu and not train capacity control the number of passengers using the crossing at any one time.' And 'We could run more trains to Lowu were it not for the overcrowding problem there.' Ever since the spur line was proposed, Hong Kong Bird Watching Society has argued this point. At long last, the KCRC has admitted this fact. He states further: 'If space for expansion was available, the Government and the KCRC would have chosen this option.' Mr Blake is a KCRC director, not a government official making immigration policy. The fact remains however, that the KCRC wants to spend several billion dollars of taxpayers' money to construct a railway line to solve an Immigration Department problem. Unfortunately (and even according to its own environmental impact assessment - EIA - if the data is studied carefully), the KCRC's proposed solution will cause permanent and negative impact to the ecology, landscape and agricultural heritage of Long Valley, and has drawn criticism from a broad spectrum of the community. The KCRC has claimed to have struck the best balance between people, railway needs and wildlife. In truth, the KCRC cannot speak for the Government on what is ecologically acceptable. The EIA Ordinance and procedures, and the Director of Environmental Protection do that. The record 225 letters of objection (Disney had just five), concerns expressed by the Advisory Council on the Environment EIA Subcommittee, and the refusal of the Advisory Council on the Environment to endorse the spur line EIA all strongly suggest the KCRC's balance is open to question. More than 20 years ago, the Hong Kong Government found a creative solution to save Mai Po and turn it into an internationally acclaimed reserve and education centre. With the limited space and growing population pressures on Hong Kong, a solution is needed and one which requires careful and creative planning. It has been claimed that the presence of the Ng Tung River to the west is a constraint on further expansion of the Lowu customs house. Since when has water been an impediment to construction in Hong Kong? Even the Romans knew how to make concrete set underwater. If the Immigration Department and KCRC have run out of creative ideas, why not put a customs house expansion project out to public tender? It seems highly unlikely that Hong Kong's enterprising architects and engineers could not come up with a viable and ecologically acceptable solution. And I bet it wouldn't cost the several billions the KCRC's spur line requires. MIKE KILBURN Chairman Conservation Committee Hong Kong Bird Watching Society
