Techniques for Effective Highway Construction Projects in Congested Urban Areas (2011)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

15 BACKGROUND Urban corridors are not only congested with vehicles and people but also filled with utilities, each one a potential con- flict for the planned work. For many years, the natural pattern has been to install utilities in streets and highways. Utilities can take many forms, whether aerial or underground. Some are privately owned and others owned by municipalities, such as a local water company. A variety of telecommunications providers have facilities in public ROWs. Power and gas lines are often public utilities regulated by a public utilities com- mission and found in the highway ROWs. In addition, local irrigation districts, sewer districts, and others may have facil- ities in urban corridors under construction. Although not a utility per se, storm drains are a major underground element on most urban projects. Almost all projects require the relocation or adjustment of existing utilities. When conflicts exist, either the utility owner or the agency’s contractor must make necessary changes. The extent of relocation depends on the corridor and the nature of the work. Those familiar with urban corridor construction may recall projects where the actual corridor improvements (e.g., new pavement, drainage, traffic signals, and bridge con- struction) appeared almost incidental to the amount of prelim- inary utility work. Ultimately, the presence of utilities on these projects represents a potentially high-cost/high-risk factor dur- ing construction. UTILITY IMPACTS This project sought to better understand the frequency of utility conflicts, impacts on the actual construction work, and the best strategies agencies use to prevent negative outcomes on urban projects. Figure 9 reflects on how the agencies responded to the question of how often utilities impact urban corridor projects. Thirty-nine percent reported that utilities were “Always” a problem in urban corridors and another 30% said “Very Often.” The total of “Often,” “Very Often,” and “Always” was 91%. Clearly, utility impacts are seen as a significant problem. How these impacts influenced urban projects was the next logical query of the surveyed agencies. Table 7 shows the response. Top influences were “Schedule,” “Financial,” and “Contract Administration.” Because 100% of responders identified “Schedule” as the top impact from utilities in the urban corridors, the results from chapter three—Program Characteristics—become more interesting. The top reasons for offering incentives and disincentives as reported in that chapter were the owners’ desire to influence the schedule and complete projects on time. Given the schedule impacts of utilities on urban projects and the desire for on-time comple- tion, the concern over this element is understandable. Strategies used by the transportation agencies to mitigate the impacts of utilities on complex urban projects were examined for trends and effectiveness. Tables 8 and 9 show how the states responded to Questions 25 and 26, and Tables 10 and 11 provide comments (“Other”) to these questions. • Question 25—What strategies has your agency used to mitigate the impacts of utilities on the urban corridor construction projects administered by your agency? • Question 26—Which of the following have your agency found to be most effective in dealing with the impacts of utilities in congested urban corridors? Answers to Question 25 reflected that early and ongoing coordination are the most common strategies used. The message from the agencies is that coordination starts long before a project is let or even in the advertisement phase. A distant third action was paying some relocation expenses even if not required by law. Although anecdotal in nature, this third strategy is gaining ground in terms of how widely it is being used to expedite, remove conflicts, and generate good will with utility owners. In reviewing the information found in Table 8, even though early and ongoing coordination with utility owners is most common, they also indicated that not all of these efforts work well; 96% reported that they did early coordination, but only 83% said it was effective. In the case of ongoing coordination, 83% said they do it, but only 57% said it was effective. The agencies were also asked to identify in narrative fashion specific strategies they found useful in dealing with utilities and their impact on urban construction. Again, the most common was ongoing coordination during construction. Nevada responded that it has quarterly coordination meetings in the northern part of the state and monthly meetings in the Las Vegas area. In Pennsylvania, meetings are held bi-monthly in the regions and annually at the state level. The Pennsylvania CHAPTER FOUR UTILITIES

16 FIGURE 9 How often do utilities impact reconstruction efforts on urban corridors (see Question 23)? What is the nature of the impacts utilities have on the construction efforts in urban corridors? Influences or Impacts % of State Response Schedule 100 Financial 70 Contract administration activities on the part of the agency 70 Stakeholder relations 43 Quality of the work 30 Number of bidders on a project 4 Other 4 Owing to multiple choices percentages do not equal 100%. TABLE 7 IMPACTS UTILITIES HAVE ON CONSTRUCTION EFFORTS IN URBAN CORRIDORS What strategies has your agency used to mitigate the impacts of utilities on the urban corridor construction projects administered by your agency? Strategies % of State Response Early coordination with impacted utility companies 96 Ongoing project-specific coordination meetings with utility companies even before construction is started 83 Payment of some relocation expenses even if not required by law 39 Other (see Table 10) 31 Payment of all relocation expenses even if not required by law 13 Modifying state law to require more effective coordination between your agency and the utility companies 13 Litigation 9 Owing to multiple choices percentages do not equal 100%. TABLE 8 STRATEGIES USED TO MITIGATE IMPACTS ON UTILITIES

17 DOT also makes an effort to notify utility companies about their upcoming annual program so that owners know what to expect. Oregon uses specific staff members who focus on utility issues to ensure timely coordination. The results from this portion of the survey show that agen- cies identified utilities as a major area of concern and impact on urban construction projects. Indeed, it is one of the constants of urban construction that utility impacts must be planned for and dealt with. Of most concern to the agencies is how utility conflicts and relocations might impact their schedule or what financial issues might emerge. They are proactive in efforts to prevent even more schedule or cost issues than already occur, with early and ongoing coordination being the keys to mitigat- ing utility impacts. None of the agencies believed that the influ- ence or issues relating to utilities could be totally eliminated. Which of the following has your agency found to be most effective in dealing with the impacts of utilities in congested urban corridors? Strategy % of State Response Early coordination with impacted utility companies 83 Ongoing coordination meetings with utility companies even before a specific project is started 57 Other (see Table 11) 30 Payment of some relocation expenses even if not required by law 17 Modifying state law to require more effective coordination between your agency and the utility company 13 Payment of all relocation expenses even if not required by law 4 Litigation 0 Owing to multiple choices percentages do not equal 100%. TABLE 9 ACTIONS FOUND TO BE EFFECTIVE IN DEALING WITH THE IMPACTS OF UTILITIES Contracted project-specific utility location staff to represent a local public utility owner during construction. Oregon With prior approval utility has been incorporated into the construction contract; when the work was completed, the utility has reimbursed the state for the cost. Pennsylvania Subsurface engineering (potholes) to identify conflicts. Nevada Payment for utility relocation is precluded by constitution in Washington State. Washington Communication with the utilities is proactive. The utilities are notified annually of upcoming construction projects in their area. Utilities are invited to state quarterly meetings and regionally bimonthly meetings to discuss upcoming highway projects. To coordinate work schedules for specific projects the utilities are invited to scoping and design field views, and then during construction they are invited to the bi-weekly construction meetings. Pennsylvania TABLE 10 COMMENTS FOR QUESTION 25 We have not found an effective method. Colorado Including utility costs in contractor bid price for lump sum DB projects to incentivize minimization of utility relocations. Utah On DB—WSDOT has transferred our legal rights to the contractors. Washington None of the above. Illinois Include relocation as part of the contract so the prime contractor is responsible. Tennessee Separate construction contract for early relocation of utilities. Arizona Separate and advance utility relocation contracts. San Francisco TABLE 11 COMMENTS FOR QUESTION 26