After the previous Plaquemines Port Harbor & Terminal District (PPHTD) meeting was canceled due to several officials being in Washington, D.C. to lobby for federal funding, the latest February 10 PPHTD meeting saw the return of the typical irritation and dissatisfaction shown by commissioners during port meetings. Though all the ordinances and resolutions that were voted on during the meeting passed unanimously, a presentation from Chris Fetters of LA-23 Development Company on the eightmile railway extension project resulted in contentious discussions.
The presentation given by Fetters was similar to the several other presentations Fetters and those working on the project have given in the past. Mainly, he noted that the railway extension is still in the first phase of development. This means he didn’t have anything to provide in terms of concrete progress— which is what commissioners have been requesting since they approved the first round of funding for this project.
As noted in previous articles on this issue, the railway extension project is necessary to ensure the development of the proposed container terminal. Both projects—though led by pri vate developers—are being partially funded by PPHTD. For the railway extension, if it is fully developed, PPHTD will spend around $8 million to pay for the “soft costs” (permitting engineering, design, planning, etc.) of the project. Currently, commissioners have only approved around $700,000 of that money—with the rest planned to be given out in phases as the project moves forward.
As such, commissioners have been eager to know what’s been achieved with that initial release of funding.
But, yet again, Fetters was not able to give commissioners what they wanted. Instead, he was only able to show how the many aspects of the project could progress as they move forward through phases of development. His presentation focused on when updates on actual “deliverables'' would begin (which, based on the presentation, appears to be set for June 20, 2022), a system being developed that would help PPHTD chose which contractors to employ for different aspects of the project, and different possible “routes” the railway extension could follow.
The reason there are several proposed “routes,” Fetters explained, is that the railway extension would encounter multiple residential communities (such as Ironton), businesses, and industrial developments (such as Venture Global’s Liquefied Natural Gas terminal). Additionally, the railway extension may “crossover” LA-23 at one point—something that many commissioners state would negatively affect the lower end of the parish greatly.
The different “routes” Fetters displayed in the presentation show the possible ways they could mitigate impacts on those communities and businesses. The, perhaps, biggest “mitigation” being pursued by Fetters and those developing the railway would be “the relocation of LA-23.” Under this proposal, the rail would never cross the highway, avoiding potential impacts to residents down the road.
“It’s a matter of managing these projects in a sequence that you have the least amount of impairment to residents north or south of it,” Fetters stated, explaining that the necessary railway mitigations will be put in place as the container terminal develops and trains start actually moving on the rail. “The use of the container terminal does not require heavy [use of the] rail in its first infancy phase. So, that afforded us the time to go ahead and pursue the relocation of LA-23 so there would not have to be a crossing.”
This statement did not satisfy district 8 commissioner Richie Blink, who remained concerned his constituents would be negatively impacted by the rail extension.
“I just want more than platitudes,” Blink stated. “I would like to see some infrastructure.”
Due to the rail extension and container terminal projects being so early in development, Fetters could not provide the concrete mitigation strategy Blink has requested.
District 7 commissioner Carlton LaFrance also offered his view of the impacts the railway could have on Plaquemines. Though his comments focused on how the railway may negatively affect Venture Global’s LNG terminal.
“When it’s going to come down to dealing with Venture Global, you're talking about an [around] $8.5 billion dollar project compared to an [around] $50 million [railway] project,” LaFrance stated. “I think you know what side we’re going to stand on.”
An interesting aspect of Fetters’s presentation that was not commented on by commissioners during the meeting was a statement that the “Engineer of Record” for the railway extension HDR— an international engineering consulting firm—was forced to drop out of the project.
“HDR had to recuse themselves from the project because the Port of New Orleans called into conflict their participation in the project,” Fetters stated. It should be noted that HDR also works with the Port of NOLA. “That put on a little bit of delay that we were not anticipating. But we believe we have reconciled that [problem], and effectively, tomorrow we will be executing (announcing) that engineer of record decision.”