Groundbreaking - An Update on Phased Construction of the $1.6B POLB Pier B Rail Yard Program

Abstract: The Port of Long Beach (POLB) is currently the second-busiest container port in the United States and is executing the $1.6B Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Program (Program) which will enhance on-dock rail capacity at the Port’s shipping terminals, speeding the movement of cargo and strengthening the Port’s competitiveness, by adding critical rail car storage and dedicated arrival and departure tracks covering 171 Acres. In 2024, the Program broke ground on the first two of ten individual construction projects, with two more scheduled to begin construction in 2025. The remaining six are scheduled to break ground between 2026 and 2029. Besides track improvements and facility infrastructure (e.g. roadways, pump stations, compressed air), the up-front activity for the Program includes extensive utility relocations, property acquisitions, multi-jurisdictional agency permitting, and implementing required contracting language resulting from the $643M federal and state grant funding (including Buy America clauses). The schedule for these activities are highly variable and when faced with mounting schedule pressure to initiate individual projects, meet grant funding timelines, and complete the Program in 2032, the team had to adapt and innovate. A new phasing plan was developed, scope was shifted between the individual projects, and innovative delivery options were created to facilitate 3rd party utility collaboration and relocation implementation.

This paper will provide an overview of the initial phasing plan, identify that key events that required innovative approach adjustments, the updated phasing plan, and early lessons learned as the initial phases of bidding and construction got under way. In addition, we will briefly review the following:

1. Program Facility

Overview: Track layout and yard features, extensive 3rd party and POLB utility relocations, water, sewer, storm drainage, compress air, pump stations, and lighting.
2. Real Estate and Permitting Challenges: Review of initial assumptions, updates, and lessons learned.
3. 3rd Party Utility Relocation Challenges: Review the main obstacles to implementation and solutions the team deployed to manage risk and mitigate delays.
4. Cost Escalation Challenges: Review unprecedented construction industry escalation and how phasing could play a key role in managing the capital improvement budget.

How does this project / topic contribute to the advancement of the industry and profession?: Many owners and industry professionals are faced with managing a capital improvement program in the midst of a high degree of variables that could take a program sideways. POLB embraced inevitable change by devising a phasing strategy that could adapt, allowing it to manage risk more effectively over the 12 year program. This topic shares key lessons learned that could be extremely valuable to other owners and professionals as they consider taking a similar approach to their program management.

Does the project / topic implement new and innovative techniques, materials, technologies, and delivery methods?: Yes. The approach deployed innovative delivery methods to adapt to unforeseen change in two distinct ways. First, when 3rd party utilities were not able to meet relocation deadlines, the project team suggested utilization of a common trench contractor that could perform multiple relocations and removals simultaneously instead in them performing the work individually in series. Second, when permitting or real estate challenges arose, the team quickly adapted to repackaging construction scope to keep the near term project on schedule without delaying the overall program.

What was the most challenging aspect of your project / topic and how did you handle it to ensure success?: While we have embraced variability and change by design, implementation of this strategy requires a high degree of foresight in managing scope, resources, and deliverable schedules while maintaining high quality construction documents. Our team deployed an organizational structure that meets regularly to discuss these topics at a high-level and the ripple effects and implications of making project adjustments. Some of our key considerations are: schedule dependencies and overlap; review team resources; and deployment of leadership teams at the project level that differ from the program leadership.

Who is the target audience for this paper?: Engineers, planners, owners, program managers, project managers.