Does Alaska need a $700 million port? : comments | adn.com

Does Alaska need a $700 million port? : comments

Posted by admin

Posted: March 23, 2008 - 1:24 am

Return to Does Alaska need a $700 million port?

51 December 13, 2009 - 5:55pm | lili

Welcome to our store,www.my-nikeshoes.com. If you visit or shop at my nike air max store, you should accept these conditions. Please read them carefully. In addition, you will find Discount Air Max Shoes. nike air max 360 shoes and womens air max are the best seller. Hope you find your love Nike Air Max.

50 May 30, 2009 - 6:31pm | nof

منتديات ا

منتديات ا

منتدى ا
مملكة نوف ا

نوف ا

عشق نوف ا

منتدى نوف ا

منتديات نوف

يوتيوب ا

مكياج ا

ريجيم ا

صور فنانات ا

فضايح ا

اكلات خليجية ا

اناشيد

مشاري العفاسي ا

مكياج 2010 ا

خلطات لتكثيف الشعر ا

عرب كار ا

روايات ا

قصص رومنسية ا

توبيكات مسن

النصر ا

الدوري السعودي ا

ميسي ا

سكربتات المسنجر ا

صور ماسنجر ا

توبيكات حزينة ا

توبيكات دينية

صور مضحكة ا

مايكل جاكسون ا

صور مراهقات ا

كاريكاتير مضحك ا

صور رومنسية ا

صور رومانسية ا

صور لاعبين

برامج ا

برنامج حماية ا

محول الصوتيات والفيديو ا

برنامج يسرع الجهاز ا

متصفح Opera 10.0 Build 1413 Alpha ا

Norton Products 2009

ا

برنامج CCleaner

تصميم ا

دروس فوتوشوب ا

تواقيع اسلامية ا

فرش فوتوشوب ا

روتانا ا

تخفيف الوزن ا

دردشة ا

شات

49 April 9, 2008 - 8:35am | bigdabber

Anchorage, Alaska

Alaska needs the port. If there is a port built in Mat-Su than there will not be a need for a bridge. Mat-Su will eventually take over where Anchorage stalled. Anchorage is land poor and without room to grow. Mat-Su has growth ability and room. Mat-Su has Alaska's future in mind. ... Daniel A. Berry

48 April 4, 2008 - 12:27pm | steve1

Port of Anchorage

What if this what if that happens well well some thing will all ways happen. The port could help this area grow bring more jobs. And what if the sky falls oh my just try to make it safe thats all. Things happen ok just try to plan for them and just make the port better and bigger thats all. Make better jobs

47 April 3, 2008 - 7:12pm | lamblj

WHY DOES ANCHORAGE NEED A BIGGER PORT

ALASKA NEEDS GROWTH. MANY FOREIGN COUNTRIES HAVE THIER EYES ON US. IF WE DO NOT POPULATE AND EXPLOIT THE RESOURCES HERE
IN A RESPONSIBLE MANNER, OTHER WILL AND MAYBE NOT SO RESPONSIBLY.

46 April 3, 2008 - 11:44am | gdhanson

Port Expansion REALITY

A LARGE portion of the freight entering the port gets transported to the Mat~Su Valley and into Fairbanks and the interior by truck & train. By improving the Mat~Su port to accept this freight instead of it going through Anchorage would take a considerable load off and lower maintenance of the Glenn highway, save miles of railroad transport and lower rates to the Mat~Su, Fairbanks & the interior. The excess room left at the Anchorage port would negate the need for expansion. I believe the Mat~Su port doesn't require the need for extensive dredging to keep it accessible either, saving the TAXPAYERS even more. Pretty soon the new? oil discovery by Chevron (kept quiet) in the Prudhoe area will put a huge demand on the railroad and the haul road to get pipe & supplies to the site. DUH!

45 April 3, 2008 - 10:01am | Vitez

I'm sure we need the port....

But I don't trust the individuals involved in promoting it. "Fool me once....."

April 4, 2008 - 8:45am | arcadia

Replace the Chevy with a Rolls

Vitez, I think you're right. We do need the Port and it provides some freight cost savings to Anchorage and the region. The current management wants to replace a somewhat rusty $100 million Chevy that is paid for (but needs to be fixed up a bit) with a brand new, high maintenance $700 million Rolls Royce. The economic development argument is pretty lame - this Port handles cargo and occasionally supports the military. What does that have to do with economic development? Very little. The Port's mission is to help hold down the freight cost for goods.

44 April 3, 2008 - 9:05am | akprincess72

We need port upgrades

Do you all understand that almost everything that comes here comes on a ship into one of our ports? While the price tag is high, our port does need work, this project will increase our capability to receive items. So, what you call 'pork' will actually bring more pork, other food & supplies to your table.

43 April 3, 2008 - 4:33am | iditacom2

Rest of USA states are jealous and tired Alaskans getting all the pork. This dock is just another example. $700 million to Anchorage and let the rest of the state eat cake. Why, those people who live in rural Alaska choose to live there and need no help. Why all the money needs to go into Anchorage.

42 March 25, 2008 - 8:22pm | bamullet

Gravel and sand

I would like to know who is selling the sand and gravel for this project. Sounds like a great investment, easy money. Thanks Alaska!

March 25, 2008 - 8:25pm | eclaytonlewis

Sand & gravel fill

Military is giving it to the port instead of hauling it somewhere else and dumping it.

41 March 25, 2008 - 7:42pm | zetcon

Taxpayers, Get out your Checkbooks!

To be introduced at tonight's assembly meeting!

F. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS FOR INTRODUCTION

10. Resolution No. AR 2008-61, a resolution of the Anchorage Assembly appropriating $75,000,000 from proceeds of the sale of Subordinate Lien Port Revenue Notes (Commercial Paper) to Port of Anchorage Capital Improvement Program Fund (571) and revising the approved 2008 Port of Anchorage Capital Improvement Budget for expenditure of local matching funds for the Port Intermodal Expansion Project. P.H. 4-15-08.

Text of the resolution AR 2008-61 is here:

http://www.muni.org/iceimages/clerk1/AR2008061_PORT_IntermodalExpansion.PDF

It appears this Resolution authorizes up to $215,000,000 in bonding. Wow!!! See lines 13-19 of the Assembly Memorandum 205-2008. The City will coming to the taxpayers to help pay off these bonds when the Port revenue cannot. Perhaps "eclaytonlewis," will volunteer to pick up the tab.

March 25, 2008 - 8:24pm | eclaytonlewis

Would rather pay taxes on something that may create jobs instead of social programs that create welfare status, or pony up for another stupid park that goes unused for months at a time.

March 26, 2008 - 9:18pm | kenaijeff

the bill sheffield railroad depot "may" have created jobs, except that bill had john shively in mind, not the public, so now only cruisers get the depot, there are no jobs for alaskans, and bill is laughing all the way through this port project. why don;t you take a hard look at this beast and realize it stinks, and begich is making a HUGE mistake as he guns for ted....

40 March 25, 2008 - 6:51am | eclaytonlewis

For those of you against the new port, you must be retired with a stable income, no sense of future development or growth and have no children or businesses that rely on the overall infrastructure, nor have you sat in on, or followed the development plans since the new Port was imagined.

If we bring in container vessels straight from the PAC Rim, we could have a triple savings of freight transportation costs. We could develop a true FTZ Zone, look it up if you don't what that is. In addition, even if we trucked the freight out of Alaska or Air freighted the goods, or even transloaded the goods to the maritime barging system into Prince Rupert and hooked up with the Canadian National railways, we could beat the delivery time from the overloaded ports along the West Coast into the lower 48 by over 3 days.

This project is for the growth and development of the State of Alaska, as well as Canada and the lower 48. It is for the future. So for some of you that are about to expire, I can see how you would not see the benifit. However, I see it as a boon for business, a cost savings in overall products that we consume, fresher goods, and a true infrastructure that put Alaska on the Map so to speak.

I am all for the Port of Anchorage as I am not sticking my head in the Turnagain Sands and blowing bubbles in hopes that some mystery Industry is going to appear on the horizon. We need this and I am glad that somebody in the City has the brains and insight to see this.

March 25, 2008 - 9:31am | tim2

Eclay,

I think that the expansion of the port is necessary but the level of expansion is mis-guided. It seems Alaska falls under the spell of the "big" project as it is all or nothing proposal. A phase project with the infill for the additional property is probably the way to go and adding the infrastructure as the volume demands.

The concept of having container ship directly from Asia to Anchorage has no bases in financial or shipping sense. Alaska has not the population now or in the future to support direct shipments except in rare occasions from Asia. Shippers take product from Asia to where its needed and Alaska needs directly from Asia are very limited. The items shipped by the existing system is a very mix bag of cargo and it is not something a ship from Asia is going to be hauling. The idea of transshipments to Prince Rupert sounds good but it also doesn't deal with reality. Any shipment of goods from Asia to the rest of Canada or the USA could just go directly to Prince Rupert. Why stop in Alaska to drop off a 75 containers of items and transship the rest to Prince Rupert?

You mention over loaded ports of the West Coast as a need for transshipment through Anchorage to Prince Rupert rail system, that is also a not correct. Presently the Port of Coos bay has been hard at work to attract shippers to there port which as direct rail access to the nation rail system. The Port of Coos bay has many acres of land that is ready to develop without out the expense of making it. You know that Coos Bay does not have a ice or snow issues in operations of their port which of course makes for a cheaper operation ie lower tariffs. The only mark against the Port of Coos Bay is that it is 100 miles by good road to I-5 which to the shippers is longer than they are wanting to deal with at this moment. Compare that with where Anchorage sits and you can see that Port development for transshipment of any product to the rest of the USA is not going to happen. Coos Bay is just one of the smaller ports trying to position themselves to get in on the increase container shipments from Asia.

As mentioned by others there are other "Ports" in Alaska that can handle large ships and have milder weather and conditions. Anchorage is the main port because the majority of the items shipped to Alaska stay within a 100 miles of Anchorage. If it wasn't for the 1964 earthquake which knocked out Seward and Valdez, Anchorage may have never have ended up as the Port of Alaska. Once shippers started using Anchorage for the rebuilding of Alaska after the quake they realized that was a costing saving over transshipment of items on to the Ak railroad from Seward. Even with the terrible ice and shifting sands of the inlet it was worth it to the shippers to move.

You mention the Foreign Trade Zone or FTZ that is a concept that has never worked for Alaska. Not because people haven't tried. Other ports in Alaska have tried to make it work but there wasn't really any product that fit into the FTZ that made it worthwhile. The oil industry was the prime candidate for the FTZ but they just never would take advantage of it even when it could have saved them money. The FTZ concept has worked in many places but its importance has changed over the years as the various treaties like CAFT and NAFT have kicked in. It really used to work for the computer industry and still does in some ways but so many American companies are having them made in China/Asia that the need for the FTZ is almost gone.

Don't confuse people that are concern about a 700 million dollar project with sticking their head in the sand. Many want to see the growth of the State but most have been around long enough to know of all the mistakes that have been made in the name of Alaskan progress, the list is long. Sheffield is not in my opinion one of the people that is realistic about what is needed. He is from the old school of "you will build it they will come" and the bigger the better. A close look at this project is in the best interest of the people of Anchorage who will end up paying through their property taxes and the people of the rest of the state who will be seeing less money available to do project in other parts of the state.

March 25, 2008 - 11:22am | eclaytonlewis

We used to have a container vessel that popped from PAC Rim to BC then up to Anchorage before going back. The only reason they pulled out was because of the fact that could not keep up with the service levels on the West Coast without that extra ship.

When was the last time you tried to clear US Customs on the West Coast and ran into an inspection, that had to be transferred to a container station, de vanned, inpsected, re vanned, re transported and re loaded with all documentation completed, and what the billing was for that service? All of those services could be done right on site down at the port without dragging the goods all over the place, IF the space and facilities were there. That IF takes expansion and development.

All of the other ports in Alaska are taking on load specific goods and the speciality of that type of transport. Ask yourself, IF, and I mean IF, the gas line goes in.......................wouldn't it be nice to get the pipe direct from the manufactures from the PAC Rim, instead of funneling it from the West Coast and trucking it up? How about having the space and secutiry to build more modulars on the dock? All of this equates to more jobs, which this State and City is sore need of.

March 25, 2008 - 12:25pm | tim2

Eclay,

I don't have a problem with expansion of the port I just don't think that the level of expansion is necessary. You recall I said that the creating the land probably was a good idea even though it will be the most expensive land in the country. I don't think that the building are necessary until the needs exists. If the customs issues are problem then a building should be built to deal with it but don't tell the public that some huge amount of shipping from Asia is ever to require a huge expensive building to deal with customs issues. There is no way shipments from Asia to the lower 48 States will ever be routed into Anchorage to speed up clearing customs. The only freight that will need to clear customs is going to be freight send to Alaska from Asia that stays in Alaska. The Port Expansion plan needs to based on the volume of traffic that supports the State of Alaska and its citizens not based on very dubious amount of international trade. Building modulars near the Port to transfer to the slope is a way to create work but how much do you spend to create a place to do this work? Is the Port of Anchorage a better spot to do this work than say what the Mat-Su has planned.

As far as shipping the pipe for the someday gas pipeline I can't think of any reason that pipe would be shipped through Anchorage. All the pipe for the trans-Alaska pipeline was shipped directly from Japan to Seward and Valdez. Most of the pipe would need to get to the slope and points east so Valdez has the nearest Port and Seward and Whittier could put the pipe on the train to move to Fairbanks pretty much like the pipeline in the 70's. Moving pipe requires construction type cranes to unload and with the high tides in Anchorage that would be a pain not counting on less sailing time to Valdez and Whittier. You need to remember that Valdez has a floating dock that allows unloading regardless of the tide.

In the event of a gas line project the Port of Anchorage would probably be doing pretty much what it does now except with a high volume. The larger pieces except for some modulars I think will all come through Ports closer to the slope.

Regardless of how the gas line plays out the Port of Anchorage should plan for the future but don't bankrupt the Port, City or State in doing so.

March 25, 2008 - 8:29am | arcadia

eclayaton, will you pay for

eclayaton, will you pay for all this until the ever mythical someone comes. and, who is this WE you refer to, as in we will bring containers from the Pac Rim? There is no we unless maybe you own a commerical carrier. it is commercial carriers who would carry containers and they have to make a profit or they won't come. rates for

Port services would have to go through the roof to pay off the 10s of millions of dollars in debt that will be run up from construction, plus huge maintenance costs. It sounds like port cash reserves will be drained as well. Lets see, too much debt, no cash reserves ... sounds like a recipe for bankruptcy or pleas for a bailout. how about just doing logical improvements that pay for themselves as has historically allowed the port to be successful and prosperous.

spare us the economic generalizations and name one new carrier that would use this massively overbuilt project or an existing carrier that would significantly increase its activity, even in the face of higher rates. then, your point might be worthy of consideration.

remember also, that the Port is not the only way goods arrive in Alaska. other ports (seward, whittier, pt mac maybe) the railroad, the alaska highway, barges, air ... there are lots of options. unless the port is the cheapest and most convenient, cargo will come another way. right now it's a busy, healthy port because it is the cheapest and most convenient delivery point for many users. that could change quickly with higher rates.

March 25, 2008 - 11:30am | eclaytonlewis

If you don't work in the industry you have no clue. That Port is old and outdated and falling apart at the seams. Why patch it, when it can be a viable port, in addition to the other ports of the state. If we keep it the way that it is, we can count on a smaller development and less jobs that support the infrastructure.

Horizon Line, Totem Ocean Express, American President Lines, Maersk lines, independant trampers, speciality loads ect. ect.

39 March 25, 2008 - 2:43am | sammi6one

New port of Alaska

Just remember, Alaskans, Gov. Sheffield is doing this project for You, to make Alaska better. He has so stated.
But why in the world does Alaska need twice the capacity of containers?
Also, everyone living near the source for the fill dirt/gravel will suffer 24 hours daily from noise and dust. Try to stop this boondoggle now, before it is too late. Thanks for listening. Sam.

March 25, 2008 - 6:58am | eclaytonlewis

The fill for the port is being brought to the port through a new back road, straight from the military base as they have a hill to get rid of in order to expand the runway. It is a win win thing, the fill is going to where it is needed without dragging it through the city and at a minimal cost. The military doesn't have to pay to have it hauled away and dumped somewhere else miles away. The road will also give a direct access to the port for military deployment so you don't have to sit behind a convoy of rigs driving through the city. You will hardley even know that it is going on.

Again, before condoning the project, actually do some studying on it. You will find that it is a very well laid out plan that already has benifits for the State and the Security of our Country.

38 March 24, 2008 - 8:24pm | zetcon

Fuzzy Math, Where is the Money??

The Port's website indicates that 23.6% of the funding will come from revenue bonds and Port profits (http://www.portofanchorage.org/ov_funding.html?49,9). On a $700M project, that equates to $165M. Assuming 20 year revenue bonds, it would imply that the Port would have to generate a profit of about $16M per year to pay the interest and principle. That will be an interesting trick given that the GROSS annual revenue of the Port currently around $14M (see http://www.muni.org/iceimages/OMB/04_Port08_APr.pdf). It is also interesting to note that the the Port's 11 year summary shows that expenses will exceed revenue for years 2010 to 2014. There must be an "Abra Cadabra" step in the financing of this project that I have missed.

37 March 24, 2008 - 2:01pm | AKFoster

I have a feeling the people who are continually against new infrastructure, are the same people who have chain link fences in their yards with piles of trash surrounding their houses. I have an idea, we'll demand that the new port includes a chain link fence surrounding it along with some piles of scrap metal here and there, so that it fits in with the rest of anchorage. This will surely garner more public support.

36 March 24, 2008 - 1:06pm | arcadia

Question to truthseeker

how do you figure that this design costs 50% less ... are you saying some other design costs $1.4 billion? these numbers get kind of ridiculous.

if there is not enough money to pay for all this debt, it seems pretty obvious that Anchorage taxpayers will have to pay, unless you can think of some other taxpayers that would help out -not too likely!

come on elected representatives, as truthseeker says, this is an easy issue to look into. Why put all the investigative burden on the ADN?

March 24, 2008 - 3:53pm | truthseeker

I didn't figure it arcadia........

That's what lisa demer's article said. 50% less. These projects are big but they are meant to last for 50 to 75 years so you better build it right the first time. As far as the bonds, these are revenue bonds and the companies have to agree to stand behind paying for them or they are not sold. It is a substantial commitment by the companies. By the time you count in the new ships they have bought or will buy, along with the new container cranes, they will have more than $700 million private money in the project.

I got this information by just making a couple of phone calls. Don't know why lisa demer couldn't have done the same.

35 March 24, 2008 - 9:57am | black33

Let's see.

1. A project full of earmarks, past present and future.
2. A specific design- patented by one firm- preselected in advance of bidding for engineering services. That means no open and transparent selection process.
3. Largest public project in Anchorage- and probably in the state.

4. Silence from our governor- who is normally a critic of such backroom dealing.

What gives?

March 24, 2008 - 12:40pm | truthseeker

hard to understand this post........

As far as I know I have seen plenty written about funding requests for this project e.g. this daily news article. Don't think anything is hidden there. You don't have to be embarrased and hide a request for the state's most important port like you might some other less justified earmarks.

A design that costs 50% less than other designs sounds pretty competitive to me.

Yes the project is big. It is the biggest port in the state.

As for the entries below, I have never heard use of local tax funds proposed. In fact, it is my understanding that the port actually pays a dividend to the city every year, even thought it is a non profit municipal entity. Can enyone verify this?

Yes, there is corruption in the state, mostly around the oil companies and their compromised minions. But to find bogeymen under every bed (and in every project, no matter how justified) doesn't do any good. In fact, it could be argued that this "cry wolf" tactic will actually water down our resolve to root out the real corruption.

March 24, 2008 - 5:03pm | black33

It's not hard to understand at all

A politically well-connected company gets a huge contract essentially without any meaningful competitive bidding: on a $700 million project their fee ultimately could be $50-70 million- or more.

Let's say that some oil company was bidding out some construction- and their specs made it clear that only Veco (even if it had been an honestly run company) could bid because they held the patent on what was specified- and even though other companies could do equally good work using different materials and/or products.

I bet you and all the anti Big Oil people would howl. Well, this is no different, other than it involves a port construction project being built with public funds.

Finally, given your concern about how DEC made politically motivated decisions during previous administrations, I'm surprised you would ignore the fact the federal agencies that protect fish and habitat- including the EPA- do not support the project as proposed.

Doesn't sound like "crying wolf" to me. Sounds more like a double standard- bad if done by Big Oil, good if done by Big Port and your friend Big Bill.

March 25, 2008 - 6:06am | truthseeker

Some good thoughts there blackie.............

however, even though you may be correct that other companies could have built just as good a project with different materials and designs, it would have cost twice as much. That sounds like a competitive choice to me after weighing the alternatives.

As for fish and wildlife and EPA, I have read many of their responses to various public works projects and they always object, usually fishing for some mitigation project. How will fish be harmed? It is a mud flat with nothing living on it. My guess is that the fish will just swim right by, just like they do at the North Star open sheet pile dock no more than a few hundred yards down the inlet from the city dock.

My experience in state government and politically motivated decisions was based on regulating oil companies and preventing oil spills. I haven't heard and references to politically motivated decisions on this project.

34 March 24, 2008 - 5:45am | akeagleye

port of anchorage

beware! i see disaster looming for anchorage taxpayers. don't let it happen. stop the mega project befoe it's too late.

33 March 23, 2008 - 10:12pm | Vitez

Swan song of the old Alaska political order

The last days of the Kommisars....the last fleecing of the taxpayer, the last monumental boondoggle. These guys aren't crooks, they're crazy.

32 March 23, 2008 - 10:12pm | dasboatless

Make Alaska a better place. Quit giving the status seeking/wanna be's a place to roost and leave Alaska to the real Alaskans. Screw all the immigrants from latin america/SE Asia, and wspecially California. Leave Alaska for Alaskans and their cultural descendants. Adopt the Texan "leave us alone" code and maintain the rights of Alaskans without requiring socialist invitations from freeloaders...

31 March 23, 2008 - 7:41pm | kenaijeff

should have been impeached when he was governor. and he sold alaskans down the river with the TAPS tariff. so now we should trust him with $700 million? no way. this guy is a crook, and he's hooked to stevens and young. begich should stay a mile away from this stench....

March 23, 2008 - 8:04pm | voice_of_reason

Begich appointed Sheffield! I don't think he's gonna stay a mile away from his stench when they are best buds, peas in a pod, and oh yeah, did I mention...BEGICH APPOINTED HIM!

30 March 23, 2008 - 7:26pm | christaburg

Pork of Anchorage

can a port director be impeached?

29 March 23, 2008 - 7:16pm | jbirdak

Dissagreement has been part of mankind forever. Agreeing to dissagree is what makes America great. As for finding a grave site to bury those that do not agree with you is just pure evil and hatred. Why don't you go live in China where things like that occur? You don't belong in Alaska. How did you say it, "take a walk into obscurty"? What ever "obscurty" is.

March 23, 2008 - 7:37pm | aklarro

While you Diss...jbirdak

Constructive disagreement has great value....to agree to disagree is rhetorical unless constructive..it is also repetitive semantics.

"pure evil and hatred"... Remember this, those who think evil and hatred have it on their minds.

"I don't belong in Alaska". That is true...I belong among the living not the dead.

"Obscurity" something your comments became the moment you posted.

28 March 23, 2008 - 7:01pm | nsfhi

Everthing Just Anchorage or the Valley

Most things come from Seattle to Nome, Anchorage just slows things down, sends us used beat up equipment.

March 23, 2008 - 9:45pm | valleymom

nsfhi, would you please...

explain what you mean? Are you saying that more things are shipped to Nome from Seattle than to Anchorage?

March 23, 2008 - 10:24pm | Vitez

what he means is...

Anchorage and the valley are not part of Alaska. They live off Alaska, not as a part of it. Everything that passes thru Anchorage gets dinged on its way to Alaska. The city folk take their cut, then they bitch about what a burden the Bush is. Bush stores get perishables after they sit on Anchorage shelves for too long. Old milk is $10 a gallon in Nome. What he means about Seattle is that much of the cargo is barged up directly from Seattle or Tacoma to Western Alaska ports. It's just as quick and avoids the hassle of passing thru Anchorage. Cars and boats don't get banged up, containers don't get pilfered.

27 March 23, 2008 - 7:04pm | Syrin

thinking big...I wish

This state was built on people thinking big, he says. It was! However, that's when common sense, was common.
People in this state are not thinking big or thinking for the future-they are NOT thinking...

26 March 23, 2008 - 6:48pm | commackku

the biggest port ever attempted? Good for the economy? yes. The hugest port on a slab of clay? Whats the port going to do, hold the clay in place? An international port? Excellent place for a harbor? What are the geologist saying?

March 24, 2008 - 11:53am | kimn

The geologists say that

The geologists say that there is no science done so far that indicates this design will hold up. Although smaller versions of this design has worked ok in other areas of Alaska, this is taller than any sheetpile wharf ever built and Cook Inlet is not like these other areas. It is in a relatively unknown environment with little historical data on current patterns, sedimentation, scour, icing patterns, etc. which all could potentially undermine the stability of this structure. Forget about the port being Anchorage's lifeline in an earthquake!

March 23, 2008 - 7:39pm | aklarro

The Geologists say drive pile.

25 March 23, 2008 - 4:49pm | gdhanson

Do what's BEST for the PEOPLE

Leave the Anchorage port as is. It is large enough to serve Anchorage. Concentrate on the Mat-Su port to serve the Valley and the interior. This would create more good paying jobs in the Valley while taking off the demand for the BRIDGE and ease traffic and maintenance on the highway and the railroad.
The military sent a cew up about 100 years ago to find the best route into the interior and it was from the Valley, not Anchorage.
The Valley needs to quit worrying about competing with Anchorage and do it's job caring for its people.

24 March 23, 2008 - 1:15pm | aklarro

Does Alaska need a new 700 million port?

What a dumb question. Get real ADN.

It could be a Billion dollar Port. It's all about making peoples lives better. That is what money for Ports and cars and houses and roads are all about.

As for the Biologists. They get their fat government checks whether the Port gets built or not.

Time these sychophant over-reactive fish huggers take a walk into obscurty along with the Julie Jessals of the world (it might create more population lol) and the Bob Shavelsons of the world (the Port is just a a smokescreen lol)both who deem their narrow-minded views important.

Take a hike and get a life.

March 23, 2008 - 1:35pm | DoggyDoorman

Thanks aklorro for offering to pay for much more than we need

The real question is how much is necessary for the forseeable future, and who is going to pay when it doesn't pay for itself. A $150 or $200 M port expansion would probably make "peoples lives better" through your lifetime.

There are many more than just a couple of fish huggers who are concerned about impacts to Cook Inlet fish populations, especially those in Ship Creek.

By the way, how are you getting Uncle Ted or Uncle Don or Alaskan taxpayers to help you pay for your car or house? We all have to make choices about what we really need, and what we can pay for.

March 23, 2008 - 7:53pm | aklarro

Try rethinking your thoughts. Unless you are funding the 700 million from your own pocket, relax...your contribution shouldn't run over $50.00.

If 700 million is the number then 700 million it is.

Impacts, impacts, impacts...discussions, discussions, and discussions. When will the dead rise up and live.

"By the way, how are you getting Uncle Ted or Uncle Don or Alaskan taxpayers to hekop (me) pay for (my) car or house? Why that is none of your business, but since you asked they're paid for.

Spending 700 million is the amount when invested that will return over its life 5 trillion back to the Alaska economy. Now that's "impact" we should all be proud of!

So what do you do for a living besides speculate?

To leave a comment use the form below

show comments

Comments

NEW STORY COMMENTS: Learn about our upgrade | Create an avatar in the new system »

By submitting your comment, you are agreeing to adn.com's user agreement.

hide comments

Advertisement

Advertisement