By REP. KEVIN MCCABE
Alaska stands at a crossroads in its economic development. Vast untapped resources could propel our state into a new era of prosperity, but without the infrastructure to move them to market, they remain stranded. Central to unlocking this potential are the Point MacKenzie Rail Spur and Port MacKenzie.
The rail spur, a 32-mile extension connecting Port MacKenzie to the Alaska Railroad mainline near Houston, creates the shortest rail route from the Interior to tidewater. Port MacKenzie itself is a deep-draft facility across Knik Arm from Anchorage, with 9,000 acres of industrial land ready for exports and logistics. It is as ice-free as the Port of Anchorage, has never needed dredging, and can handle Panamax-size ships. The dock already has the safety features in place, making it an excellent solution for bulk exports.
This is not a pie-in-the-sky idea. Most of the infrastructure is already built, with nearly $184 million invested. What remains is leadership to finish the job. We cannot call ourselves a resource state while refusing to complete the transportation projects that move our resources to market. The return on investment is undeniable, and the benefits far outweigh any lingering concerns.
Completing the spur would mean thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions in new revenue. Up to 3,000 jobs in mining, timber, energy, and construction could be created, and the project could generate $300 million annually in royalties, fees, and taxes. A 2007 study projected $4.4 billion in long-term benefits. These are not speculative numbers; they reflect the enormous value of turning stranded assets into revenue-producing exports in a state that develops resources better, safer, and with more environmental concern than anywhere else in the world.
The resources are already there. Copper and zinc from the Ambler Mining District, where companies plan to export 1.7 million tons annually, could move through Port MacKenzie. The same is true for graphite, antimony, rare earths, and other minerals critical to modern technology. Timber and coal exports would gain new life with this route, reducing shipping costs by up to 70 percent compared to trucking or air. The biomass and LNG needed for globally required Sustainable Aviation Fuel are available through Port Mack and could be produced right there. In a global market where efficiency determines competitiveness, that margin is decisive.
This infrastructure would make Alaska’s resources competitive in global markets, especially with our Indo-Pacific Allies. It would directly support projects such as the $43 billion Alaska LNG development, which depends on efficient material transport. For a state struggling with declining oil revenues and population stagnation, diversification through Port Mack is not optional; it is imperative.
The advantages are not just economic but strategic. Alaska’s Interior holds critical minerals the nation needs for technology, renewable energy, and defense. Today those assets are trapped, forcing dependence on foreign suppliers, including China, for materials like rare earths and antimony. Completing the rail spur aligns with President Trump’s 2025 Executive Order expanding rail infrastructure for oil, gas, timber, coal, and minerals. It advances energy independence, strengthens national security, and supports Arctic defense by creating an efficient logistics route between Interior bases and tidewater.
Critics point to Port MacKenzie’s limited past use, but without rail access the port cannot attract the volume needed for viability. This is a chicken-and-egg problem. Completing the spur breaks the cycle, opening the door to high-volume and bulk exports and finally putting this asset to work for Alaskans.
The construction progress underscores how close we are. Seventy-five percent of the spur is complete, including 25 miles of embankment, bridges, 110 culverts, and a one-mile loop. What remains is track and signaling. This is not a shovel-ready project; it is beyond shovel-ready and overdue.
Concerns about navigation in Cook Inlet and winter operations are real but not insurmountable. They are the same issues faced by the Port of Anchorage. More powerful tugboats and skilled pilots have already solved these challenges, and operators themselves confirm the risks are well within their capabilities. What is not acceptable is continuing to let our mineral wealth sit idle while past investments gather dust.
Diversification for Alaska is not optional; it’s imperative. We need infrastructure that creates jobs, broadens our revenue base, and strengthens our position in global supply chains. The Point MacKenzie Rail Spur and Port MacKenzie do exactly that. They offer Alaska the chance to move from potential to production, from stagnation to growth.
The next governor must make this project a priority. That means securing federal grants, state bonds, and private investment to finish the job. It means streamlining regulations to move construction forward. And it means standing up to critics who are content to watch opportunity slip away for political reasons. Alaska cannot afford another decade of delay.
In the end, this is not about politics or one port or rail line. It is about whether Alaska will live up to its identity as a resource state. The jobs, the revenue, the strategic advantages, and the diversification are all within reach. What we need now is the leadership to bring them across the finish line.
The Point MacKenzie Rail Spur and Port MacKenzie are the linchpins of Alaska’s future. They will define whether our resources remain stranded in the Interior or flow to world markets. They will determine whether our state prospers or continues to tread water. The choice before the next governor is simple: finish what Alaska has already started, or let our resources, and our children’s future, remain stranded. The right choice is clear.
Rep. Kevin McCabe serves in the Alaska Legislature on behalf of District 30.
Kevin McCabe: Ranked-choice voting cheats voters, but Alaskans are fighting back
Kevin McCabe: The intentional delay of a Senate bill leaves revenue reform in legislative limbo
Kevin McCabe: Putting Alaska’s students first in 2026
Kevin McCabe: Why Alaska needs an Agriculture Department — and why the Legislature overstepped
Almost any new port/s in Alaska will mean prosperity for all Alaskans.
PORTS EQUAL MONEY FOR ALASKA!!
A PORT ON THE NORTH SLOPE WOULD SUPERCHARGE THE ALASKAN ECONOMY.
DRILL BABY DRILL
NOME WILL DO WELL WITH ITS PORT.
TRUE STATEMENT, “The Point MacKenzie Rail Spur and Port MacKenzie are the linchpins of Alaska’s future.”
If the Point MacKenzie projects are “the linchpins of Alaska’s future” we are in serious trouble. MacKenzie offers no more than the Port of Anchorage other than more expense and bureaucracy.
“Completing the spur would mean thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions in new revenue. Up to 3,000 jobs in mining, timber, energy, and construction could be created, and the project could generate $300 million annually in royalties, fees, and taxes.”
Wow! I’d like to see a peer-reviewed study supporting these wildly grandiose claims.
But who would be your peer dear John?
There is nothing grandiose about the effect of basic infrastructure, however, Alaska has been hobbled by endless studies and carpetbagging environmentalists. Let’s build the future instead of living of the past.
“…….But who would be your peer dear John?……..”
ISER, to start.
AND BUILD THE BRIDGE. Might’ve had it already if it wasn’t for that governor that quit on us. I can’t remember her name.
And Anchorage’s fear of losing their tax base for a short period of time doesn’t help that matter. Dr. Sheila Selkregg comes to mind.
Thanks for nothing you two ladies.
Walker killed the bridge. And raided the PFD. Let’s get the history correct, at least.
Let’s hear from Alaska Railroad officials about container traffic from Pt. MacKenzie to Fairbanks, please. If there is a market, that’s it. Alaska Hydrotrain already has a loading/unloading facility at Whittier, and that serves the entire rail belt. Another terminal doesn’t get us anywhere. The Whittier terminal is needed for Anchorage, anyway, the largest market by far, and the sorting site for the rest of the rail belt, with an existing, extensive rail yard and all support assets needed.
That’s the only guaranteed traffic that I know of. Usabelli coal? It would require a loading facility, would screw Seward’s loading facility over, and coal exports have fallen off, anyway. No other bulk exports currently exist.
You’re trying to steal somebody else’s thunder, and they will resist.
Reggie you fail to consider that the Whittier rail situation as well as Seward could be cut off in 30 seconds due to tsunami and or earthquake or a war. I would re think our shipping security. The point Mac port would lighten millions of tons of freight including fuel and thousands of tons of ordnance going threw downtown Anchorage and down town Wasilla as well as lighten truck traffic on the clogged Glenn and 40 miles up the parks highways. This is a no brainer to me. The more port options we have the better.
Sure, the more, the merrier…………….until you try to find investors. And when you fail to find investors (who demand a return), you go for government funds………..which leads to more public investment failure, like our repeated agriculture project attempts or a half century (or more) political investment campaign like the gas line or Knik Arm Crossing.
The Seward coal loading facility has been dismantled. That should tell us something about MacKenzie prospects for coal.
Why does the State have to build this project? If there is so much profit in opening up these mining districts why don’t the mining companies build the necessary infrastructure? My guess is that the returns from that huge investment to the investors don’t pencil out! Another example of socializing the risk and privatizing the profit.
Why do you think the mining sector isn’t paying its own way. I find your thinking bizarre. They pay taxes on services including shipping costs on equipment and ore, they pay lease space at the ports, their employees pay taxes. The mining companies pay fuel taxes. If it wasn’t for mining we would lose thousands of jobs. Everyone who uses the ports including Fred Myers and Carr’s pay port fees. Large fees at that.
“…….Why do you think the mining sector isn’t paying its own way………”
1) Too much initial investment in legal fighting before a final judicial decision that dirt can’t be turned for environmental reasons
2) Alaskan costs can’t compete with those of Third World mining areas
3) Alaskans want the money, but refuse to accept mining for it
4) Alaskans absolutely refuse to accept a new road of any kind going in any direction to any destination that anybody except a few can use. Any mine must process ore on site, then fly or boat the product out, or use our existing roads (which also gets pushback)
The Point MacKenzie Rail Spur and Port MacKenzie were bad ideas when first floated and remain so today. The author of this piece brazenly writes “Port MacKenzie is as ice-free as the Port of Anchorage, has never needed dredging, and can handle Panamax-size ships.” Well those three assertions are patently false. As ice free as the Port of Anchorage translates to as much ice as the Port of Anchorage. To state that it has never needed dredging translates to Port Mackenzie has never had a ship of size in port. And can handle Panamax-size ships translates to an enormous amount of new infrastructure. Port MacKenzie is located on the Knik Arm virtually across from the Port of Anchorage. That means all the problems of ice, dredging, huge tides and strong currents are present at Port Mackenzie. Port Mackenzie was a dumb idea when it was first floated and remains dumb today. The best port location for Anchorage was chosen by the Army during WW2 at Whittier.
It’s worth noting that Anchorage’s city government recently increased costs at the Port of Anchorage (I’m not going to call it the Port of Alaska), which amounts to the Anchorage Assembly levying a de facto tax on everyone in the entire state. Regardless of political affiliation, the Muni’s city government and legislative delegation have always been hostile to Mat Su port development.
“…….the Muni’s city government and legislative delegation have always been hostile to Mat Su port development………”
They also killed the Cook Inlet Ferry project, which Mat-Su both invested in and got the Navy to invest in.
The Cook Inlet ferry project died of its own weight. It was a dumb idea from the outset.
It wasn’t a dumb idea when you get a free ferry from the Navy. The ports at Kenai, Pt. MacKenzie, Tyonek, and Williamsport were on board. Cook Inlet is the only Gulf of Alaska region without a ferry. It was the perfect opportunity to give it a whirl to see if there was a market. Anchorage killed it. Mat-Su should have run it without an Anchorage port.
Reggie you are 100% right.
Our biggest issue as far as a state and country is politics. We’re very politically unstable. One side is pro business and prosperity allowing resource utilization to occur. The other side wants the state and country to be stagnant with no resource utilization, cancel and lock down. Every 4 years we could have these giant swings, who wants to invest in this environment?
Nice speech Kevin, but it conveniently omits a lot. I agree that Port Mack should be finished and put into operation, but will take the rest of the PFD for several years to pay for. What about Seward? Whittier? The biggest problem with the Port of Anchorage is simply the assembly and taxation. Port Mack will hurt the other three and cost those communities jobs and income.
The problem with Port Mackenzie is the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. The Port has a checkered history that started during its construction. The contractors who built the Port were paid on the Borough’s Little Davis Bacon wage scale, but the Borough tried to cheat the dirt trucks that hauled in the fill out of this wage scale and lost a lawsuit over this issue. The first major user, Dale Rich purchased much of the sheet piling that was used to build the Port in a quid pro quo deal for using the Port as soon it was completed. The Borough tried to cheat him by not reimbursing him and the Boro lost a lawsuit over the deal. The developer of the Chijuk Timber Sale, the largest timber sale ever sold by the Borough, was prevented by the Borough from harvesting any timber for ten years when the Borough lied to a Superior Court judge. Timber from that sale would have all gone across the Port dock. Then there was the ferry debacle. The Mat-Su Borough is not equipped to run an Alaska port. The first step in breathing life into this albatross should be the creation of a port district, perhaps combined with the Port of Anchorage. We need to remember that only vessels constructed to handle slush ice can come into upper Cook Inlet during the winter months. Port Mack has the potential to be a great port for bulk commodities and will have its day but getting from here to there is going to take a lot of work.