Comment EI-16314
Received or sent (printed as 1/25/2009)
Preferred Routes: S.3.8 No Action Alternative is my preference. I have yet to see any documented proof of economic feasibility for this project. In addition to this, every single person that I have talked to, in every community that would be affected by this rail route, have expressed this same view, I have yet to speak with one single individual, from these communities, who is in favor of this project. Questions I do not feel have been properly addressed include, but are not limited to: 1. What would draw the tourist to Delta Junction compared to the already existing rail line to Mt McKinley Park and on to South Central Alaska? I have lived in Alaska for 28 years, consider this to be the most beautiful place on earth, travel extensively around the state as a “tourist” but honestly do not see Delta Junction as a tourist attraction. The few things that might be of interest could already be observed by the existing rail line; mountains, the pipeline, agricultural areas, vast open spaces, glacier fed river. 2. Would agriculture transport be economically comparable to trucking? What about military transport? These are two of the main reasons cited for basis for this project, but I am concerned that the cost of the project and the maintenance would make the use of such facilities cost prohibitive for these uses. 3. Is the military going to be financially responsible for a portion of the railroad? If so, what happens if the military bases that this railroad supplies, closes down, as they have been slated to do in the previous base closures by our government? Will this bring the cost of maintaining this line to rest solely on the citizens of our state? 4. Has there been any documented proof that commuter trains are needed along this route? How many commuters are expected to ride this line each day? At what cost per person per ride? Would it be economically comparable to driving? During the many years that I have lived in this area, including 8 years working with the public at Salcha Store, I have seen different commuter resources along this same route come and go, forced out of business by lack of business, most times the commuter vans that serviced this route came by empty or with just a couple passengers riding. 5. In our current state of economic times, is this really the best way to spend government funds? Have you ever heard of the fiasco “The Bridge to Nowhere?” This project, I feel is “The Rail to Nowhere” and I feel equally ashamed of the wastefulness of this project. 6. Concerns about access to recreational areas, by water craft, wheeled vehicles, dog teams and snow machines need to be treated as a major concern for all. These forms of access have been a tradition before you and I walked this earth, and need to be allowed to continue unhindered. Other then my strong vote for the above option, if I had to choose an existing proposed route, the following would be my preferred route. 1. North Common Segment-No comment or concerns 2. Eielson Alternative Segment-No comment or concerns 3. Salcha Alternative Segment #1-I feel that Salcha Alternative Segment #2 would adversely affect the citizens of Salcha, through increased noise, adverse anesthetics, the lose of personal property and the adverse affects on Salcha School, Salcha Ski Trails and the Historic Salchaket Indian burial site. 4. Connector B-This route directly affects my families access to our privately owned recreational cabin on Five-Mile Clear Creek and I am seeking confirmation that this access will be available to all forms of watercraft at all times. I am also concerned that small streams are going to be blocked or dammed, resulting in a lack of adequate water flow into Five-Mile Clear Creek. 5. Central Alternative #2-Central Alternative #1 runs between our recreational cabin on Five-Mile Clear Creek and our moose hunting area. According to your maps, it actually runs right through our moose hunting area, and is affecting an existing trail system that we have cleared and maintained for over 25 years. These trails are not only used for hunting, but for extensive recreational use 6 months out of the year, by not only me and my family, but also by many other users as well. In addition to this, these trails have been traditional used for trapping during the winter months, Access to these trails and beyond are a prime concern for those of us who use this vast trail system. 6. Donnelly #2-No comment or concerns 7. South Common Segment-No comment or concerns 8. Delta #1-I feel that the Delta #2 segment would have an adverse affect on the Delta Junction area by way of increased noise, adverse anesthetics and the lose of personal property. Environmental concerns that I have for this project include: 1. Salmon and grayling migration and spawning streams, how will these issues be addressed? These issues are stated in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for this project, but I would like confirmation that these issues are going to be properly addressed before approval is given for this project to ensure that these great resources of our state are not adversely affected in any way. 2. Moose calving areas, what studies have been done to minimize the affects of the rail line on these animals during this critical point in their lives? This is a major concern for those of us who use moose meat as our primary meat source and also for those who enjoy the beauty of this great beast and do not want to see them harmed needlessly. 3. Noise pollution for trail crossings, it is my understanding that the train will have to blow its whistle for each legal rail crossing, including trail crossings. If the rail line Central Alternative #1 is chosen, I foresee the line crossing our trail system a minimum of 4 times in as little as ½ mile stretch. If even as little as 5 trains a day use this rail line, that is 20 train whistles within ½ mile each day. If you have ever stood outside all alone, in the wilds of Alaska, you would know that sounds travel a great distance, and this amount of sound would indeed be a huge amount of noise pollution that is not being taken into consideration.
Submitted by: Rochel Curtis · Salcha, Alaska
The Board publishes this comment in its environmental-comment table for this proceeding. It is quoted here as printed; nothing is inferred from it, and it states the commenter's own position in their own words, not this record's.
Permanent address docketyard.org/d/FD-34658/comment/EI-16314 · back to the docket sheet