BNSF in White Rock

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by ronthecivil

If they did move it, the railway does retain a huge swath of very prime, waterfront property. How about a long line of waterfront condos!

How wide do you think the ROW is?

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

Public money is used to upgrade private railway infrastructure all the time

not to the extant this would require. We aren't country building anymore. plus this is an American railway.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

How wide do you think the ROW is?

Approx. 35m. across White Rock. Pretty wide.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

not to the extant this would require. We aren't country building anymore. plus this is an American railway.

You wouldn't be gifting it to them. You maintain ownership of the completely separate ROW and put HSR on it, leasing out track rights to run HSR. BNSF leases the track and sells the waterfront property for expensive waterfront housing.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

You wouldn't be gifting it to them. You maintain ownership of the completely separate ROW and put HSR on it, leasing out track rights to run HSR. BNSF leases the track and sells the waterfront property for expensive waterfront housing.

Just to be clear, there is no waterfront housing potential for the BNSF land in White Rock.

After leaving the border, the ROW passes through Peace arch Park then through a reserve. If the tracks were removed, the land in the reserve would probably be gifted back to the first nations there.

Then it passes infront of East Beach, which is public beach access and parking. I don't think the businesses there would want access lost due to it being buildings.

Then there is a steep cliff between East and West beach you can't build infront of (which is also beach access). Then it's West Beach which would be even more against losing public amenity space for luxury condos.

The people want the tracks gone to improve beach access (all this talk about safety is just a runaround to free up land for more park). There is no way the people and businesses would be good with trading their waterfront park and parking for homes they don't own. Not only is it losing public amenities that make the businesses there barely survive as it is, it would instantly drop the values of the properties behind the new properties by a million dollars each.

Then from there it's all cliff side. There would be barely any room for homes, let alone a road for access to those homes. And the cliff isn't 100% stable, so good luck getting any multi million dollar boat access only home a permit.

Crescent Beach is the only place you can build homes on the ROW. You can build homes across from the ones on Bayview Street.

There are about 35 homes on Bayview. Each one has an average BC assessed land value of under $800,000. So even if you could sell 35 properties for an average of $1 million...

That's a whopping $35 million dollars. Maybe if they are a bit bigger than average or you sub divide it more, and the market improves, maybe you are looking at a payday of $50 million. Woohoo!

I don't think that's worth the billions it would cost to move the rail line.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Just to be clear, there is no waterfront housing potential for the BNSF land in White Rock.

After leaving the border, the ROW passes through Peace arch Park then through a reserve. If the tracks were removed, the land in the reserve would probably be gifted back to the first nations there.

Then it passes infront of East Beach, which is public beach access and parking. I don't think the businesses there would want access lost due to it being buildings.

Then there is a steep cliff between East and West beach you can't build infront of (which is also beach access). Then it's West Beach which would be even more against losing public amenity space for luxury condos.

The people want the tracks gone to improve beach access (all this talk about safety is just a runaround to free up land for more park). There is no way the people and businesses would be good with trading their waterfront park and parking for homes they don't own. Not only is it losing public amenities that make the businesses there barely survive as it is, it would instantly drop the values of the properties behind the new properties by a million dollars each.

Then from there it's all cliff side. There would be barely any room for homes, let alone a road for access to those homes. And the cliff isn't 100% stable, so good luck getting any multi million dollar boat access only home a permit.

Crescent Beach is the only place you can build homes on the ROW. You can build homes across from the ones on Bayview Street.

There are about 35 homes on Bayview. Each one has an average BC assessed land value of under $800,000. So even if you could sell 35 properties for an average of $1 million...

That's a whopping $35 million dollars. Maybe if they are a bit bigger than average or you sub divide it more, and the market improves, maybe you are looking at a payday of $50 million. Woohoo!

I don't think that's worth the billions it would cost to move the rail line.

Ditto..

One more thing.... the relocation chatter has all but dried up in the news. It got some great headlines when Diane Watts vowed to do something about it but when she discovered there is no appetite in Ottawa to spend that kind of money, she disappeared basically. It will remain quiet until the next incident, injury, death or derailment and then it will crank up for its next 60 seconds of fame before hibernating again.

[Trainguy]

27 February 2020

Debris Clearing Practices Along South Surrey Rail Line Concern Naturist Club Crescent Beach British Columbia -

BNSF's practices for removing debris following landslides along its waterfront line through South Surrey and White Rock are raising concerns for residents as well as the Semiahmoo First Nation (SFN).

Following word that debris removal is encroaching on the foreshore, Chief Harley Chappell said this week he wants to connect with BNSF to learn more about how the company deals with such debris and the reasoning that results at times, in mud, trees, boulders, and even garbage on the beach.

"Obviously, it brings some concern to us when we see and hear of things like this happening," Chappell said Tuesday.

The issue was brought to Chappell's attention by Don Pitcairn, a South Surrey resident and president of Surrey's United Naturists, a group "dedicated to the preservation of Crescent Rock Beach's 60 year history as a clothing optional shore in South Surrey and White Rock," according to crescentrockbeach.ca.

Pitcairn reached out to Peace Arch News (PAN) after coming across a "debris field" on the waterfront during a walk 19 Feb 2020 seemingly remnants of clearing that was done following slide activity that occurred during a storm at the end of January.

Pitcairn said this week that his concern around the debris "dumping" goes beyond the impact it has on naturists' recreation.

"I'm more concerned about the fact it's illegal dumping into a marine habitat," he said.

"No one else is allowed to dump. Trust me, I'd get arrested real quick, and that should happen. I just don't see why the railway is allowed to do this."

BNSF officials contend that the company is acting "in accordance with our practice."

"BNSF places debris along railroad right-of-way in these emergency situations, in accordance to BNSF's engineering process," spokesman Gus Melonas said.

"Appropriate transportation agencies are aware."

The slides that occurred on the weekend of 31 Jan 2019 resulted in suspensions of both freight and passenger train service.

The first slide came from a 150 foot slope near the 24 Avenue curve, and covered a stretch of track 30 feet long and five feet deep, Melonas said at the time.

A rail crane was brought in to remove debris.

A second slide on the same afternoon, approximately 30 feet long and four feet deep, occurred approximately .5 kilometres south of the first.

Melonas said clearing steps taken in non-emergency situations "depends on the project."

Pitcairn said he reported his latest find to Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), as well as to Crime Stoppers, provincial, and federal transportation ministries, and others.

He said he's taken the same steps in the past, to no avail.

"While this illegal dumping is always reported, there appears to be no consequences to the railway, and no court action is taken against them."

Transportation Canada spokesman Simon Rivet said Wednesday that DFO is responsible for oversight of the beach area and accumulation of debris from railway operations that may affect waterways.

Inspectors with the federal body "investigate all incidents, accidents, and complaints to ensure compliance with the Railway Safety Act and other applicable rail safety rules," he added.

Transport Canada (TC) has not fielded any complaints or inquiries regarding the issue, Rivet added.

DFO spokesperson Leri Davies said the provincial agency has had "minimal complaints over the last couple of years" about it, but said it's possible that such reports, of deleterious substances, may be going directly to Environment and Climate Change Canada.

Following similar complaints in 2018, DFO officials told PAN that the agency was "looking into the matter further to address concerns regarding the impacts these works may be having on the potential sand lance and surf smelt breeding habitat in the area."

Under the Fisheries Act, projects near water must "avoid causing serious harm to fish unless authorized by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada."

As well, that "all debris and/or deleterious substances" generated by such works "should be appropriately disposed of in accordance with all applicable legislation, guidelines, and best management practices."

Environment and Climate Change Strategy spokesman David Karn said he would "look into this matter," however, a response was not available by PAN's Wednesday deadline.

Pitcairn said he understands BNSF's mandate to keep trains moving along the line, and doesn't oppose that.

However, he is hopeful that Chappell's interest in the debris issue will spark change.

"I'm hoping he'll maybe be the person that can actually stop them from doing this," Pitcairn said.

"He has the position and authority to actually, hopefully, make some change on this. I'm not trying to cause BNSF grief and money and this and that. I just want them to clean up their act and not be burying the beaches down in South Surrey/White Rock. I don't think that's too much to ask."

Chappell said he believes there are "multiple layers" that need to have input to the issue, and that SFN has "a vested interest" and a right to be involved in those conversations.

He added that the practice of placing debris in such a way that it impacts the foreshore is "contradictory" to ongoing efforts to enhance and protect sensitive areas.

"It's a discussion that needs to be had, and unfortunately, as of Tuesday afternoon, I haven't had that discussion," he said.

"I just think, as these occurrences happen more readily these days, what is the plan? If there has been a plan in the past dealing with debris on the tracks, what is the plan moving forward? I think that'll probably be part of the discussion."

Melonas was not available to comment Wednesday regarding whether BNSF has responded to SFN's request.

Tracy Holmes.