Improving the decaying and failing Port of Alaska in Anchorage so that it can withstand earthquakes and meet future demands for commerce is the type of infrastructure project that Alaska can’t afford to ignore.

It’s far more important than the size of the next Permanent Fund Dividend, though you would never know that from the volume of words spilled by politicians on each subject.

Most of Alaska relies on products shipped to the state and unloaded at the port in Anchorage, a central transportation hub with existing facilities to move goods by truck, rail and air. Had the 2018 earthquake lasted seven seconds longer, the port would have failed, a municipal official told legislators this year.

The port project is essential, but it won’t be cheap.

The Municipality of Anchorage estimates that it will require $1.8 billion in federal, state and local funds to complete the job.

In an April 12 legislative hearing, Anchorage Mayor Dave Bronson made the case for the state putting $600 million into the venture, to go along with $222 from the municipality and $281 million from the federal government. Bronson said the municipality needs to line up $1.1 billion before construction can begin.

In the House Finance Committee discussion, Palmer Rep. DeLena Johnson objected to a statement by David Ames of Jacobs Engineering that Port MacKenzie can’t handle general cargo.

She claimed it would be easy to change that.

The uninformed point of view expressed by Johnson about Port MacKenzie may be what has kept Gov. Mike Dunleavy from showing real leadership on this issue.

He floated an idea—which immediately sank under its own weight—that the state could borrow $175 million in bond money and give it to a yet-to-be-created entity that would spend some on Port MacKenzie, some on the Anchorage port and maybe some on the rail extension to connect MacKenzie to the Alaska Railroad.

That way he wouldn’t have to take sides and risk offending his Mat-Su backers, some of whom have never given up on the Port MacKenzie dream. First proposed in 1989, it has had almost no traffic since it went into operation in 1999. The last deep draft vessel appeared in 2012.

It has long held a place in the Alaska boondoggle hall of fame.

“If the Port of Alaska and Port MacKenzie had a joint management plan in place it could result in a more reliable flow of goods into Alaska, including greater food security, especially if a natural disaster were to happen,” the governor’s PR man wrote to the Anchorage Daily News.

But Port MacKenzie is not a cargo port and the Dunleavy election dream on port money doesn’t begin to solve Alaska’s port problems. Here is the MacKenzie business plan for the port, which requires lots and lots of government money.

Ames told the House Finance Committee Port MacKenzie is a “bulk port” and not set up to handle truck traffic, containers and the rest of general cargo.

He said the berth at Port Mackenzie is not a flat platform that allows for the rapid transit of trucks. He also said there are complications due to high currents and navigation that make it difficult for certain vessels to use it.

“It’s not a general cargo loading platform,” Ames said. “It doesn’t have the facilities to unload the type of cargoes that are required to meet the food requirements of the state.”

Johnson, the Palmer rep, did not want to hear it.

“I’m not going to get into long detail about this. I would probably, I’d beg to differ. Otherwise, it would take a long time to do a point-by-point analysis,” she said.

She offered no analysis at all, but claimed the port would be easy to use. That’s not true.

Your contributions help support independent analysis and political commentary by Alaska reporter and author Dermot Cole. Thank you for reading and for your support. Either click here to use PayPal or send checks to: Dermot Cole, Box 10673, Fairbanks, AK 99710-0673.