Editor:
Re: “Build highway one segment at a time” by Brian K. Sadler, Letters, July 27.
Respectfully, Mr. Sadler, as a resident of the Sunshine Coast for 27 years now, it is with some astonishment that I read your letter suggesting that a new “highway improvement” should follow the hydro right of way, and to add insult to injury, using existing local roads as temporary connectors back to the existing highway.
Personally, I did not purchase property north of the highway in a very rural setting with the anticipation of the highway encroaching on my acreage. I am also going to assume that those residents who either live next to the hydro right of way or own property on those rural connector roads did not purchase their homes expecting to have the highway traffic drive by (even if only temporarily). I can only imagine the number of pets (dogs, cats, etc.), horses and – god forbid – children who will be injured or perhaps killed by traffic connecting from one highway back to another. NIMBY.
I and most other Coast residents did not purchase property and raise our families here because we wanted to be part of the city with multiple highways and high-speed traffic. Sure, we complain about the speed and volume of traffic on our highway now, especially during summer tourist season, but it is an irritant I for one am willing to accept, if the alternative includes another highway and using rural roads as traffic corridors.
We enjoy a slower pace and lifestyle here on the Sunshine Coast and that includes traffic speed. Perhaps a simpler alternative solution would be to put in a couple more safe passing lanes (i.e., Rat Portage Hill) for those who feel the uncontrollable urge to speed to the next stop light.
For those residents who are already living next to the highway and wish to have it relocated elsewhere, my response is this. You purchased next to an existing highway – it was your choice, live with it or move.
Ian Martin, Roberts Creek
