ust below Anchorage’s Government Hill neighborhood, near the mouth of Knik Arm, sits one of Alaska’s most critical lifelines: the Don Young Port of Alaska. Every week, ships glide into this industrial artery, carrying goods that fuel daily life statewide. From groceries and gasoline to construction materials and jet fuel, vast volumes of Alaska’s inbound cargo pass across its docks.
Without the port, shelves would empty, fuel tanks would run dry, and disaster response plans would falter. As the port’s essential role has grown, so, too, has corrosion worn away at its decades-old infrastructure, which has become outdated and inefficient. This collision of port criticality with aging and obsolescence prompted the Port of Alaska Modernization Project (PAMP).
After more than a decade of planning and preparation, PAMP is in its second phase, with major work underway and more on the horizon. Funding for the $2.2 billion effort gained further support with a unanimous vote by the Anchorage Assembly in April to authorize essential funding measures and approve a transformative construction contract. Now the modernization effort is poised to usher the port into a new era defined by operational efficiency, seismic resilience, and sustainable infrastructure for generations to come.
Less than 5 percent of Alaska inbound freight arrives by air, and a little less than 5 percent of Alaska inbound freight arrives by highway; the remainder, more than 90 percent of Alaska’s inbound freight, is marine freight, coming by ship or barge. About half of all Alaska inbound freight crosses Anchorage docks and passes through Port of Alaska, and about half of all Port of Alaska inbound freight is delivered to final statewide destinations outside of Anchorage.
“Suffice to say, the port is a pretty important piece of infrastructure for supply-chain operations within the state, and we take that very seriously,” says Port Director Steve Ribuffo. “It’s the big motivator behind what it is we’re doing here, so we can have relevance going into the future and have a facility that’s designed to always be there when the state needs it.”
Nearly 60 percent of port cargo received is liquid bulk, or petroleum products. Carriers of liquid bulk include Marathon Petroleum, Petro Star, Crowley, and the fuel consortium at the airport managed by Menzies Aviation.
Matson and TOTE Maritime Alaska, combined, account for about 40 percent of port cargo received annually. Matson and TOTE haul containerized cargo from Tacoma, Washington, twice weekly, familiar sights to locals used to the large ships stacked with Lego-like cubed containers. TOTE, with its roll-on/roll-off model, can accommodate all types of wheeled cargo, too, such as vehicles and trailers.
Other port activity typically includes five annual shipments of dry bulk cargo—primarily cement—associated with Anchorage Sand & Gravel. This accounts for most cement shipped to Alaska for construction projects. The port also receives cruise ships and military transports.
“The superpower we have here is the infrastructure for all of that cargo,” Ribuffo says. “If you are a port in the Lower 48, you can specialize and be a container port or a dry bulk port, and there is enough volume to keep you in business and enough road and rail connections that one place doesn’t have to do everything. We don’t have that luxury. We have such a small population that there’s not enough volume to support three or four ports that look like us. So we’ve created this capability to handle just about everything.”
The port’s two other notable functions are military support and disaster relief.
As a designated strategic seaport, Port of Alaska provides military support for the US Army Alaska deployment and redeployment requirements. About 20 percent of commodities crossing the dock are in support of the military, in the form of either commissary goods or fuels used at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson.
As for disaster response, the port was just three years old when the 1964 earthquake hit and was “very fortunate to survive it,” Ribuffo says. “Before that, everything went to Seward. The brand-new dock in Anchorage survived. We grew from that disaster response relief role that was totally unexpected—and not the reason why the place was built in the first place—to what we are today.”
Nowadays, Ribuffo says, there is “not a single disaster response and recovery plan written by either the feds or state that doesn’t assume this port is operational when the need comes to bring relief supplies in.” No other port in the state has the capacity and strategic connectivity to meet predicted needs in the event of a large emergency.
Jim Jager, the port’s deputy director for programs, policy, and security, says it’s difficult to quantify impacts if the port were ever inoperable. “There’s not a simple answer,” he says. “A significant failure at Port of Alaska would probably cost the state $38 million per week to get the cargo in by alternative means.”
Although the port is in Anchorage, the facility matters to the entire state, Ribuffo says.
“You can safely say we’re the port of Fairbanks and the port of Palmer and the port of Wasilla and Kenai and on and on, because there’s not a store in those communities that wouldn’t have empty store shelves but for us,” he says. For that reason, the erstwhile Port of Anchorage was renamed in 2017 to reflect its statewide role—then re-renamed in 2024 in honor of the late congressman who played such a significant role in Alaska’s transportation infrastructure.
“Our users pay terminal fees, and we set rates to lease property and use the docks,” Ribuffo says. “We’re a government department that runs like a business. We set the rates for what it costs to lease property and use the docks.”
The port pays the city an annual dividend and contributes via intergovernmental charges for shared services like legal and IT. The port also pays the city a fee in lieu of taxes.
With a lean staff of just twenty-three people—including thirteen on the maintenance crew—the port manages everything from ship scheduling to infrastructure upkeep. Added to its suite of responsibilities, for the time being, is management of PAMP.
“We’re a government department that gets to run like a business with a caveat that we’re a government department—so all the rules of fair and open competition, all that you have to go through to get a contract, a lease—there are less freedoms than a private sector organization would have because we are part of the municipality,” Ribuffo says. “Our mindset is we have to generate revenue because we have to cover our expenses because there are no tax dollars coming our way.”
“Corrosion and the pervasiveness of it here was the motivation [for PAMP],” Ribuffo says. “We’re past the point where you could remove and replace all the corroded wharf pile. You just can’t economically replace them all and replace the dock. Then you destroy the structural integrity of what you have. The only real solution is to demolish and replace the whole thing.”
PAMP, launched in 2014, aims to build an entirely new, resilient port that can withstand seismic activity and serve the state’s needs for at least the next seventy years. Total costs are projected to be about $2 billion, Ribuffo says.
“That’s a number Alaskans don’t hear very often, and when they do hear it, it gets them kind of excited,” he says. “We’ve gone to great pains of how we intend to finance this thing.”
The financial mix so far includes federal and state grants, with an eye on whether the port could secure military funding given its intense support for operations and its US Commercial Strategic Seaport designation, Ribuffo says.
The last place the port has looked for funding: banks and debt financing. The Anchorage Assembly’s unanimous April vote authorized the issuance of up to $1.1 billion in revenue bonds to fund the ongoing modernization of the port, which would be repaid through a port tariff surcharge. Port user fees and tariffs are already visible to consumers in everyday purchases and could increase through the PAMP effort, Ribuffo says.
“It was the first new terminal facility built down here in over forty years,” Ribuffo says.
Also as part of PAMP, the team moved into a new administration building last year. The previous building, located on a dock, was demolished so that the dock can be demolished in summer 2026 to make room for a new cargo terminal.
The contract the Anchorage Assembly approved unanimously in April engages Manson/Michels Joint Venture to dismantle the existing Terminal 1 wharf and build a replacement with a new pipe-pile-supported concrete deck, 870 feet long by 120 feet wide, with mooring and berthing features and crane rails to support new ship-to-shore cranes. The project, capped at approximately $807.5 million, is slated for completion by December 2029, with the contractor covering any cost overruns beyond the contract amount.
For its part, Matson is eager to bring its ships to the modernized dock. The company states, “We are looking forward to the start of construction of cargo Terminal 1 next spring, the arrival of the three ship-to-shore gantry cranes when the dock is ready, and using the new dock to support Alaska’s economy.”
But the focus during the 2025 construction season is the North Extension Stabilization project, providing the literal groundwork for full dock replacement. It provides for demolition and engineering work to expand the working water area and stabilize the shoreline to allow for safer vessel navigation during construction. The approach illustrates an ongoing and underlying complexity of PAMP: redesigning and rebuilding a busy maze of infrastructure that must also remain in service throughout the effort.
“If we didn’t do the North Extension Stabilization, there would be construction to the south and a rock wall on the north end, and then you’ve created a bathtub and would have to bring the ships in between that with very little space to maneuver in,” Ribuffo says. “That’s a real challenge now [in summer]; in the wintertime, with the wind and the ice, that’s dangerous. We did a fair amount of modeling to ‘What if we did or what if we didn’t,’ and the recommendation was [to] remove land to the north and create more open-water space to safely navigate what area container companies could use while we build the new one.”
The port has also taken on responsibility for the design and construction of a new electrical substation required to provide power to the new cargo dock. “New cranes are anticipated to arrive in about three and a half years, so the goal is to have cargo dock construction and power station installation complete by that time,” Ribuffo says.
Over the next decade, PAMP will continue rebuilding marine terminals, upgrading electrical infrastructure, and acquiring new equipment such as cranes. Each step aims to position the Port of Alaska for long-term success in its three primary missions: commercial freight, military support, and emergency response.
Matson anticipates putting the new infrastructure to good use. The company states, “The new cargo dock design will provide an increased working area that will allow for a more efficient operation while enhancing safety. Matson will be able to purchase and operate three larger cranes which will allow for larger vessels to call the port and support future growth in the Alaska economy.”
What does a complete and successful PAMP look like to Ribuffo?
“I see a modern facility, resilient, built to the industry standards, capable of supporting whatever the economy does here for the next seventy years,” he says. “We will be part of the solution and not the problem that has to get solved first.”