House committee advances bill letting Port of New Orleans pursue P3 for Saint Bernard corridor

House Transportation Committee members on Monday voted to report a substitute for House Bill 6 16 that lets the Port of New Orleans seek public‑private partnerships to build the Saint Bernard Transportation Corridor, a roadway proponents say is critical if a proposed Louisiana International Terminal (LIT) proceeds in St. Bernard Parish.

Proponents told the committee the substitute narrows earlier language, adds coordination with the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) and St. Bernard Parish, and limits the bill’s scope to the corridor itself. "This bill is specific to the Saint Bernard Transportation Corridor," said Chris Kane, outside counsel for the Port of New Orleans. "All powers related to it are related only to this road."

The measure drew sharp opposition from St. Bernard officials, school leaders and residents who said the corridor and the port project are inseparable and that local stakeholders were not adequately consulted. "If the port comes to St. Bernard Parish, this transportation corridor is absolutely vital," said Donnie Bourgeois, St. Bernard parish chief administrative officer, who said his administration now supports the substitute. "But we feel that some insurance has been put into place to ease the minds of the residents of St. Bernard Parish."

What the substitute does and does not do

The substitute directs creation of a corridor and authorizes a board to enter concession or P3 agreements, coordinate with DOTD and consult St. Bernard Parish on design and impacts. It also includes language permitting the board to accept federal grants or donations; proponents said that would allow federal funds to lower tolls or terms if available. Michael Thomas, chairman of the Port of New Orleans Board of Commissioners, told the committee the port is seeking a P3 because it expects private partners to help finance construction so the state and parish do not bear the up‑front cost. "This is no cost to the state of Louisiana. This is a P3 partnership," Thomas said.

Committee members asked whether the substitute removes legislative review of any future concession agreement; Kane and Thomas said the substitute contemplates a public RFP process managed by the port and that concession terms would be negotiated through that procurement rather than returned to the legislature. "The intent is to attract private equity firms and have a concession agreement negotiated through RFP," Kane said. He added that any windfall or excess toll revenue would be used to pay down tolls or shorten the concession term, not to create unanticipated port profit.

Local officials and school leaders push back

St. Bernard parish elected leaders, the superintendent and school board members told the committee they remain worried about a school — Willie Smith Elementary — located inside the project footprint. "We do not intend to sell the school," said Superintendent Doris Voci. "There was no communication with the school system prior to the port buying surrounding property." Perry Nicosia, St. Bernard parish district attorney, said the school board has filed litigation and that any proposals about relocating or replacing the school would require the school board’s approval. Residents and school board members asked for firm commitments about funding and timing for any new school construction before supporting the project. "They cannot tell us a specific dollar figure for a new school," said Millie Harris, school board vice president.

Economic development claims and tradeoffs

State economic development officials and business leaders framed the corridor and terminal as an economic opportunity. Susan Bourgeois, secretary of the Louisiana Department of Economic Development, told the committee the terminal is the first new greenfield container port being developed in the United States and cited projected job and tax figures. Michael Hecht, president and CEO of Greater New Orleans Inc., said the terminal could deliver "$27 million in new annual tax revenue within five years," and thousands of new jobs, a claim proponents used to argue the corridor is necessary to permit the terminal to operate without routing heavy truck traffic through neighborhoods and school zones. Opponents countered that projected economic benefits are speculative and questioned the scale of public financial support being contemplated.

Implementation and next steps

Proponents said the corridor would be designed in coordination with DOTD and St. Bernard and that federal permitting and procurement will shape final routes and financial terms. Kane and Thomas said DOTD could have the option to accept the roadway upon the end of the concession term but that DOTD cannot commit now to take the asset, citing federal rules. The substitute rejects immediate state appropriation demands but allows the board to accept federal or other grants if available.

Committee action

Representative Walters moved to report the substitute bill; Representative Phelps recorded the objection. The roll call produced 10 yeas and 3 nays and the committee reported House Bill 6 16 by substitute. The substitute advances the board’s authority to pursue P3 procurement and requires further permitting, design and local coordination before construction could begin.

Why it matters

Supporters say a dedicated corridor is the only practical way to keep heavy port truck traffic off local roads, protect schools and neighborhoods, and enable an international container terminal that they say would generate jobs and state and local tax revenue. Opponents say the project was advanced without sufficient local engagement, that permits and exact routes remain unresolved, and they pressed for stronger guarantees about local protections and school replacement funding before the state cedes broad P3 authority to a port board.

What remains unresolved

The substitute sets a path for procurement, but critical details — route selection from the regional planning process, final concession terms, toll and term limits, the availability of federal funding and any commitments to build or fund a replacement school — remain to be decided during permitting and the public RFP/concession process.