How about the residents affected by Metrolinx, reader asks

To the editor:

Re: ' Metrolinx right choice to run airport train,' Editorial, Aug. 5.

I am writing to in reply to the editorial. In particular I am deeply offended by the final paragraph in which it says: "...those living along the line need to cut Metrolinx some slack..."

No, we don't need to cut Metrolinx some slack.

Will Metrolinx or any branch of the government cut us some slack when our health suffers from an unknown number of years of diesel traffic; from an unknown number of daily trains; when we go through the construction phase with its inherent noise and air pollution; when we listen to an unknown number of trains daily; when our streets and communities are cut off; when our children and parents suffer; or when our property values fall and we can't move away without huge financial loss; when our houses are damaged by construction, but they don't fall within the incredibly narrow government guidelines for repairs or compensation?

Somehow I doubt that there will be thought given to any of us, an estimated 300,000, living along the train lines.

When will our government and its appointed "bodies" (or is that "buddies") get it right the first time? Why do they need to do this project twice? In this case, it's agreed that electrification of the lines is the best way to go, but rather than do that (in our rush to get ready for Pan Am Games, to increase ease of travel to the airport and rumours of casino), Metrolinx will push through diesel trains based on a technology (Tier 4) that doesn't even exist.

Shame on Metrolinx and our government for railroading the communities along the lines, but shame on The Mirror as well for saying that we have to cut them some slack.

I am all for healthy rapid transit in my community, yet why can't Toronto follow the lead of the "world class cities" that we try to emulate, New York and Chicago, both of whom banned diesel trains 100 years ago!

Jon Clark