Practices for Utility Coordination in Transit Projects (2015)

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.

3 chapter one INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT Transit projects frequently involve planning, designing, and building transportation facilities, such as rail or streetcar projects, that affect other modes of transportation and various kinds of utility facilities (both above and below ground) that exist along the project corridors. As part of the transportation infrastructure improvements, utilities may be forced to relo­ cate horizontally, vertically, or both. As Figure 1 shows, utili­ ties that are located in dense, urban corridors are particularly affected and difficult to manage, significantly increasing the complexity of the project because of the confined space and number of utility facilities competing for accommodation. Two critical factors that contribute to inefficiencies in the management of utility issues are (1) the lack of accurate, com­ plete information about utility facilities that might be in con­ flict with the project and (2) deficiencies in the identification and implementation of effective strategies to resolve those conflicts. These inefficiencies can result in problems, such as the following: • Disruptions when utility installations are encountered unexpectedly during construction, either because there was no previous information about the installations or because their stated location on the construction plans was incorrect. • Damage to utility installations leading to disruptions in utility service, environmental damage, and risks to the health and safety of construction workers and the public. • Delays that can extend the period of project develop­ ment and/or delivery and increase total project costs through higher bids, change orders and/or damage or delay claims, redesign, and litigation by utility own­ ers or agencies. These delays also result in frustration by the traveling public and negative public perception about the project. • Unplanned environmental corrective actions. • Unnecessary utility relocations and project delivery inefficiencies that occur because adequate informa­ tion about existing utility facilities was not available to enable stakeholders to apply alternative utility conflict resolution strategies, such as modifying the transpor­ tation project design or protecting the utility facilities in place. OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY Relatively little has been documented on the topic of utility issues or the use of successful practices to facilitate utility coordination in transit projects. By comparison, numerous ini­ tiatives have been undertaken to address utility issues in high­ way projects. To address the knowledge gap on utility issues in transit projects, Synthesis J­07, Topic SG­13, Practices for Utility Coordination in Transit Projects reports on utility coor­ dination practices at transit agencies around the United States. The synthesis report includes a literature review; results of a preselection survey of and follow­on phone interviews with selected transit agencies; docu mentation of lessons learned; and identification of successful experiences and effective prac­ tices, challenges, and gaps in information. The report also suggests potential research ideas. The synthesis focused on utility coordination issues dur­ ing typical phases of project development and delivery that transit agencies undertake and that involve planning, design­ ing, and constructing civil infrastructure facilities. Typical examples of these types of projects include light rail, heavy rail, streetcar, and bus rapid transit (BRT) routes. To keep the focus manageable, the synthesis did not address coordination with utility owners for other initiatives, such as requesting utility service for buildings or other installations, or in rela­ tion to the conversion to or use of natural gas or electricity to power bus fleets. Topics the synthesis covered included, but were not limited to, project development and delivery phases, impact of utility issues on project delivery, utility data col­ lection techniques and practices, identification and resolu­ tion of utility conflicts, strategies to improve or streamline utility coordination activities, and training and professional development. REPORT ORGANIZATION This report describes the procedures and findings of the proj­ ect and is organized as follows: • Chapter one is the introductory chapter. • Chapter two provides a literature review on the topic of utility coordination and management of utility issues during transit project development and delivery.

4 • Chapter three provides an overview of the case example selection survey results. • Chapter four provides a summary of eight case examples and lessons learned. In total, eight of ten transit agen­ cies responded to the invitation to participate (an 80% response rate). • Chapter five provides conclusions and suggestions for future research. • Appendix A shows the preselection survey instrument. • Appendix B shows the interview guide for the case examples. • Appendix C provides a listing of the agencies. Courtesy of TriMet. The plan view shows a section of a light rail project in downtown Portland, Oregon, depicting the rail alignment and existing and proposed underground installations. Some of the facilities shown are as follows: Existing installations: Green (SA label): Existing sanitary sewer. A dashed line indicates the sewer will be abandoned or removed. Green (ST label): Existing storm sewer. A dashed line indicates the sewer will be abandoned or removed. Cyan: Existing water main or lateral. Orange: Other existing utility differentiated by letter: E = electric, G = gas, FO = fiber optic. Light grey: Other existing facilities. Proposed installations: Magenta: TriMet duct banks and vaults, generally under the track slab or in the guideway. Black (bold, SA label): Proposed sanitary sewer. Black (bold, ST label): Proposed storm sewer. Blue: Proposed water main or lateral. Purple (hash): Joint utility trench for electric and communication utilities. FIGURE 1 TriMet light rail project in downtown Portland, Oregon: Design plan with future surface improvements and utility installations.