Comment EI-7004
Received or sent (printed as 3/21/2008)
I would like to express my dissatisfaction with the proposed Houston South route for the Port MacKenzie Rail Extension Project. We own a recreational property nearby and have serious concerns about the impact of having a railway so close. Please keep in mind that this area has many recreational and permanent residents. While we recreate there at our 'weekend' residence, we may one day live there full time. If we did, this would be in keeping with the high rate of growth in the Big Lake area. Continued development needs to be considered not just the present state of the area. We have seen many changes in the recent past and expect the same to continue. While we don't strive to halt 'progress' we worry about how the presence of the rails and their use might compromise the quality of our lives and the value of our property. The area is well known for its winter recreation opportunities. Snow machining is a popular activity. Trails follow former seismic lines and transit the area connecting rural and 'road based' properties. In this instance, the rails will offer a dangerous interruption of existing trails. With young riders in the family, we would prefer there not be any additional distractions, obstacles or hazards. Considering the comment 'impacts fewer developed parcels’, please consider current AND future 'developed' parcels. We are there now and 'fewer' doesn't offer much consultation. Also, the comment 'avoids designated state refuges and recreation areas' doesn't hold as much sway with us as we use much of the public land that is NOT 'designated' and thus are disproportionately impacted. Consider the true future costs of 'moderate expenditure of train energy'. With skyrocketing fuel prices, 'moderate’ could become 'significant'. Also, consider the likely real costs of soil conditions. It would probably be wise to investigate this more thoroughly before making a decision. In short, we do not support the Houston South route since it most greatly impacts us and may represent a greater cost than estimated. Look at future land use projects and population distributions instead of using a static (and likely dated) model of what is 'developed'. We moved out to the area to enjoy the peace and quiet that Anchorage sometimes doesn't offer. We didn't bargain for a railway so near by. Thanks for the opportunity to comment on this matter.
Submitted by: Kevin Frank · Anchorage, 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-7004 · back to the docket sheet