January 7, 2009

David Navecky

STB Finance Docket No. 34658

Surface Transportation Board

395 E. Street S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20423-0001

Dear Mr. Navecky:

Please consider the following comments to help the board decide the best
route for the Alaska Railroad Corporation's Northern Rail Extension
Project from North Pole, AK to Delta Junction, AK. These comments refer
to the Eielson Alternative Segments only.

My family and I are stakeholders in this process as our homes and farms
lie along the path of Eielson Alternative Segments 1 & 2. Naturally, we
oppose this proposed route because of the negative impacts construction
and operation of a railroad would have to us and our rural lifestyle. A
partial list of these negative impacts include property devaluation,
loss of income from farming, restricted access to recreation (fishing,
hunting, trapping, skiing, snowmachining, dog sledding,etc), creation of
safety hazards, increased noise, vibration, loss of visual aesthetics,
loss of wildlife habitat, loss of flyway habitat (my farm is a familiar
stopping place for migrating waterfowl in the Spring and Fall) , and the
list could go on. In short, this route would destroy our rural
lifestyle. We constructed our retirement home on our farm in 2003. We
had no idea then that the ARRC would plan a rail line in our back yard.

On a positive note, we are not opposed to the railroad and hope this
project will be the continuation of a rail line into Canada and the
continental United States. The ARRC's **[preferred]{.underline}** route
is *Eielson Alternative Segment 3*. We also prefer this route for the
following reasons:

1.  The Eielson Alternative Segment 3 would operate in an established
    transportation and utility corridor. This corridor includes the 4
    lane Richardson Highway, Golden Valley Electric Association's high
    voltage transmission line, the ARR spur to Eielson Air Force Base,
    the old Richardson Hwy, and the always active, miles long runway at
    Eielson AFB.

2.  Prevents the establishment of a second corridor on the south and
    west sides of Pile Driver Slough (Eielson Alternative Segments 1
    & 2)

3.  There would be less impact on private property and no impact to
    farming.

4.  No greater environmental impact as the existing transportation and
    utility corridor already impacts this route.

5.  Concentrates noise, vibration and safety issues in the established
    transportation and utility corridor.

6.  Most of the south and west banks of Pile Driver Slough would remain
    in its natural state.

7.  Stays on military land until it is connected to the Salcha Segments.

8.  A quick view of the routes on the map reveals that this segment is
    not only the preferred route but the most logical being straighter
    and shorter.

9.  Any recreational impacts to this segment are outlined in ARR's
    required mitigation.

10. All of the negatives affecting our homes and property noted above
    would go away.

In conclusion, my family, neighbors and I hope that the STB will approve
the ARRC's preferred route, **[Eielson Alternative Segment
3]{.underline}**. The Alaska Farm Bureau and the Eielson Farm Community
oppose any loss of agricultural land as the result of the construction
of a rail line. We have been waiting since 2005 for a decision regarding
the routing of the railroad. We hope that a decision can be made sooner
than later. I hope you decide in our favor so that we can plan farming
activities without the cloud of impending loss. Thank you for this
opportunity to correspond with you. I would be happy to answer any
questions about us or our farming activities.

Sincerely,

Stuart M. Davies

Robyn D. Davies

PO Box 55266

North Pole, AK 99705

907-490-6485