Our view: Port project questions What's going on here? And who's in charge?

The Port of Anchorage is the most important gateway in Alaska. Ships that dock here bring the vast majority of everything we buy, sell, eat, wear, drive, ride, read and otherwise use or consume. We take it for granted. But it's vital to our lives and livelihoods. That's why what's happening there, as described in today's front-page story by Lisa Demer, should get our attention. The port's expansion is beset with problems, and it's not clear who's in charge or what the solutions are.

• Total cost of the project has swelled from an estimated $360 million to $1 billion. So far, $279 million in public money -- federal, state and city -- has been spent or committed. It's not clear who will pay for the rest, more than $700 million.

• The finishing date has gone from 2011 to 2021.

• Much of the recent construction work on the project has been to undo what's been done to fix it. Warped, bent and buckled steel sheets have had to be pulled up and replaced. One-third of the designed project has been done, but much of it has to be redone.

• Some engineers question whether the planned project to create 135 acres of new land in Cook Inlet makes sense. The city's own Geotechnical Advisory Committee, made up of engineers, wants an outside, independent review of the project.

• The city has consistently gone to the state for money to help keep the project going. State Sen. Kevin Meyer, an Anchorage Republican, said that's become a tough sell in the Legislature because the timeline keeps slipping and the requests keep coming. Meyer talked about bonding, but that could be a hard sell to voters, for the same reasons.

• The city handed oversight of the project to the federal Maritime Administration, which in turn hired contractors to do the work. But no one seems to be taking responsibility for what's gone wrong. That's no surprise, due to fear of claims and lawsuits that may be coming.

• The big shippers -- Horizon and TOTE -- don't have much faith in the project. A retired Horizon executive called it a "mess" and fears more problems will be discovered. Neither shipper is confident that promised permanent berths will be built.

No question this is a tough, complicated endeavor. To coordinate construction of a massive new dock while maintaining a full schedule of shipping is hard enough. Throw a few more curves -- shutdowns to accommodate endangered beluga whales and the silting up of a berth due to current-altering construction -- and it's reasonable to expect higher costs and later completion.

But silt and belugas didn't buckle steel and don't account for the difference between $360 million and $1 billion. Some engineers questioned the merits of the design from the beginning. The port maintains that despite difficulties, the project is on track -- but doubters abound, from Sen. Mark Begich to Assembly members to state lawmakers.

As the saying goes, this ain't no way to run a railroad.

We've all heard the phrase "too big to fail." In the port's case, the phrase might be "too important to fail." Alaska can afford the failure of a seafood plant or a grain-export project. We've had those public-project failures. We don't like them but we can take them in stride.

But the port must work well -- and not with a blank check. This project seems to have dumped millions right into the Inlet. One way or another, that's the public's money and that dumping needs to stop.

Two things should happen before we pour hundreds of millions more into this project:

• Get an outside, independent review of the engineering and an audit of budget and spending. The advisory committee is right about this. There's too much doubt about what's gone on to go forward without more assurance.

• Make clear not just who is in charge but who is responsible and to what extent. Exactly what is the role of port director Bill Sheffield? The city? The feds? Right now we seem to have a lot of unhappy players but no one taking the lead to make sure the project is done right.

At least the players seem to agree the work demands better oversight. That's a start.

BOTTOM LINE: Port project needs a cold, hard, independent assessment -- and then some savvy management.

Fisherman's Choice Charters