Comment EI-18144
Received or sent (printed as 5/6/2010)
STB Finance Docket 35095. To whom it may concern: These are my comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), Alaska Railroad Corporation Construction and Operation of a Rail Line Extension to Port MacKenzie, Alaska. STB Finance Docket 35095. If there is a build option, I support “Mac East” at the south end and “Houston South” at the north end. However, there is considerable question in my mind as to the financial viability of the rail extension. I have seen the “Benefit-Cost Assessment of the Port McKenzie Rail Extension,” prepared by Steve Colt and Nick Szymoniak, Institute of Social and Economic Research, dated March 10, 2008. I believe the assumptions that form the basis of this analysis are unrealistically optimistic (e.g., “coal to Agrium”) and that before proceeding to a build alternative, further cost-benefit analysis must be performed to confirm that this proposed extension makes financial sense. The only acceptable build option, in my opinion, is the “Mac East/Houston South” alternative. The DEIS considers Section 4(f) of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and discusses the impacts that a rail extension, under each alternative, on public parks, refuges, and recreation areas. Such impacts to 4(f) resources under the Mac West, Willow, and Houston North alternatives are significant and unacceptable, and these alternatives must be ruled out. Feasible alternatives exist in Mac East for the southern portion and Houston South for the northern portion, both of which have minimal impacts to 4(f) resources. Although the Big Lake alternative has minimal impacts to 4(f) resources, it has impacts to residences and archeological resources, where Houston South does not. Hence, if the rail extension is to be built, the Mac East/Houston South route is the only acceptable alternative, and is the only one I would support. Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
Submitted by: John Strasenburgh · Talkeetna, AK
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-35095/comment/EI-18144 · back to the docket sheet