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.

19 chapter four CASE EXAMPLES INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the process followed to conduct detailed phone interviews with a sample of agencies that had completed the preselection survey described in chapter three. The chapter also summarizes lessons learned from each of the phone inter- views completed. METHODOLOGY AND INTERVIEW GUIDE As discussed in chapter three, a two-tier approach was followed in which an initial preselection survey was dis- tributed to transit agencies nationwide, and then a targeted round of phone interviews was conducted with selected transit agencies. In total, ten transit agencies were selected, based on the results of the preselection survey, and invited to participate in phone interviews. Of this total, eight agen- cies responded, and detailed phone interviews took place with all eight of them; thus the survey had a response rate of 80%. Appendix B provides a copy of the phone inter- view guideline. A standard protocol for conducting the phone interviews was followed, which included contacting a designated representative at each of the agencies selected, discussing the purpose of the phone interview, scheduling the phone interview at an agreed upon date and time, con- ducting the phone interview, compiling the results, and fol- lowing up with the agency representative for clarifications as needed. The eight transit agencies case examples were as follows (Appendix C): • California: Sacramento Regional Transit District; • California: San Joaquin Regional Transit District; • North Carolina: Charlotte Area Transit System; • Ohio: Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority; • Oregon: TriMet, Portland, Oregon; • Pennsylvania: Port Authority of Allegheny County; • Utah: Utah Transit Authority; and • Washington State: Sound Transit, Seattle. Table 6 provides basic information about each of these agencies. LESSONS LEARNED California: Sacramento Regional Transit District The Sacramento Regional Transit District (RT) directly oper- ates 69 fixed bus routes, including express service, three light rail lines covering 39 miles of track, and general public demand response and taxi service in the urbanized area of Sacramento, California (35). The service area population is 1.4 million and covers 418 square miles. RT provides 27 million passenger trips per year. Approximately 50% of passenger trips are bus, 49% are light rail, and 1% is demand response. The revenue vehicle fleet includes 76 light rail vehicles, 252 buses, and 27 shuttle vans. Passenger amenities that RT operates include 50 light rail stations, 31 bus and light rail transfer centers, and 18 park-and-ride lots. RT’s fiscal year (FY) 2014 operating budget was $142 mil- lion, and the capital budget was $19 million. Fare revenues provide approximately 20% of the operating funding. Fed- eral and state government, developer fees, and a half-cent local sales tax provide for the remaining operating and capi- tal funding (35). Utility Coordination For all projects, RT tries to engage utilities as early as pos- sible, typically during the preliminary engineering phase. This involves an initial outreach to start a conversation with the utility owners about the upcoming project and its poten- tial impacts on utilities. Because the project at this stage is still undefined to some degree, this step focuses more on estab- lishing a connection with the utility owner, talking about the general project development process, and discussing items to expect during the process. Once a project enters the detailed design phase, the agency follows the so-called ABC utility process to manage utility conflicts, which is a standard for public works infrastructure development in the Sacramento

20 Area (36). This process involves monthly meetings with the public works groups of several local agencies, and the devel- opment of A-letters, B-letters, and C-letters for utility owners. The A-letter includes a brief project description, site map, and possibly exhibits, and requests system maps or as-built information from utility owners. The transit agency sends A-letters to utility owners before the 30% design meeting as the initial project notification. According to the process description, utility owners have 15 calendar days to respond to the request for information. Sometime around the completion of 75% to 90% of the detailed design, or usually 3 to 6 months after sending the A-letters, the agency sends B-letters to utility owners; these letters typically describe the project in more detail. If the util- ity has not proposed a relocation or protection for its facilities at this point, the B-letter includes a suggested remedy to resolve the utility conflict. This proposed remedy is not intended to be final, but it is a strategy to beginning the process of conflict resolution. The agency found that if there is no proposed rem- edy, some utility owners tend to wait until construction starts to begin the utility conflict resolution process. Upon delivery of the B-letter, utility owners have 30 calendar days to provide a construction schedule and 60 calendar days for planning and engineering of required relocations. If a utility owner needs more time, such as when a railroad permit or right-of-way acquisition is required, the utility must request that the transit agency allot more time within that response period. Once the bid documents for the project are ready, the agency sends out C-letters, which notify the utility owners of the project specifics and dates, and confirm how utility con- flicts are going to be resolved. Utility agreements are devel- oped between the B- and C-letters, so the C-letter is also used as a confirmation that all necessary documents are in place and all parties agree on the way to resolve conflicts. Utility Data Collection The agency is involved in different types of data collection, from general to specific and detailed data, but leaves the deci- sion for data collection mostly to the project designer. Although there is some data collection during the preliminary engineer- ing phase, there can be a significant time gap until a project enters the detailed design phase, which can limit the useful- ness of data collected during the preliminary design phase. The agency’s overall goal is to capture about 75% of utility conflicts before the construction phase. Most of the detailed data collection takes place toward the end of the detailed design to confirm specific design details. For a recent downtown project, the agency collected some QLB data using GPR. The results were somewhat mixed, partly because the designer was not sure what the subsurface utility engineering (SUE) provider would be able to deliver. Over the years, the agency has gained experience with util- ity data collection efforts and has established relationships State Agency Bu s C om m ut er B us Bu s R ap id T ra ns it H ea vy R ai l Li gh t R ai l C om m ut er R ai l H yb ri d R ai l St re et ca r Tr ol le y D em an d R es po ns e D em an d R es po ns e Ta xi V an po ol In cl in ed P la ne Se rv ic e A re a Po pu la tio n (M illi on ) Se rv ic e A re a La nd A re a (S qu ar e M ile s) A nn ua l P as se ng er T ri ps (M illi on ) O pe ra tin g Bu dg et (M illi on ) C ap ita l B ud ge t ( M illi on ) California Sacramento Regional Transit District X X X X X 1.4 418 27 $142 $19 California San Joaquin Regional Transit District X X X 0.69 1,426 4 $31 $11 North Carolina Charlotte Area Transit System X X X X 1.5 527 27 $106 $157 Ohio Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority X X X X X X 1.3 457 50 $229 $33 Oregon TriMet/Portland Streetcar1 X X X X1 X X 1.5 570 100 $489 $103 Pennsylvania Port Authority of Allegheny County X X X X 1.4 775 59 $366 $126 Utah Utah Transit Authority X X X X X X X X 2.2 751 43 $219 $157 Washington Sound Transit X X X X 3.0 1,086 31 $322 $742 1The Portland streetcar system is owned and operated by the City of Portland in partnership with TriMet. TABLE 6 SUMMARY INFORMATION ABOUT TRANSIT AGENCIES SELECTED FOR CASE EXAMPLES

21 with data collection consultants that have performed well in the past. Utility Conflict Resolution Key to conflict resolution is a good relationship with utility owners. If a utility relocation is required, it typically is easier to manage if the agency is responsible for the cost to relocate the utility. However, many utilities are relocated using cost share agreements. These agreements can be time consum- ing to negotiate, but they can be negotiated at any time, even without an active project. RT tries to negotiate these agree- ments ahead of projects to avoid project delays. If a utility requires new right-of-way, the agency might purchase right- of-way for the utility owner to speed up the overall process of right-of-way acquisition. On larger projects, the agency prefers to hire local consul- tants that already have good working relationships with local utility owners to assist with utility coordination activities. The agency has hired out-of-state consultants previously but noticed that they would, in turn, hire local consultants as sub- contractors to establish the key relationships. RT manages utility conflicts during construction by meet- ing with the affected utility owners at the construction site and by developing an agreement as soon as possible to avoid construction delays. In the past, a recurring issue was that the board that oversees the agency had to approve all agreements, which could take 4 to 6 weeks. To expedite the process, the board has begun to delegate this authority at the project level to the agency’s general manager, who can now execute reloca- tion agreements up to a certain amount. If the agency had a superior right, RT’s policy in the past was simply to ask the utilities to move, without much concern for the utilities’ perspective. This often resulted in years of conflict with utility owners and considerable project delay. With direction from funding partners, the agency’s policy regarding utility relo- cation reimbursement has changed over the last few years. The current agency policy, with some exceptions, is to reimburse all utilities if the agency’s project caused the relocation. RT’s current, more cooperative approach has been much more successful because it recognizes that utility relocation costs are significant but much less significant in relation to total project costs. To some degree, this policy has evolved out of necessity because the agency is required to meet certain dead- lines to receive certain federal matching funds. For example, a recent project involved a gas utility provider that requested reimbursement for relocation costs. Estimated relocation costs for the gas line were about $4.3 million, with a total project budget of $275 million. Under the old policy, RT might have refused to pay for relocations costs, which would have resulted in lengthy arguments and caused project delays with the poten- tial to affect the project budget. Under the current policy, RT considered the relocation cost as part of the overall project cost, avoiding utility delays and keeping the project on schedule. Challenges A major coordination issue is identifying the right person within a company’s hierarchy to serve as the point of contact for utility coordination issues. In this regard, publicly owned utilities are typically much easier to deal with than are privately owned utilities. Privately owned utilities often use land agents and/or public works coordinators as the point of contact with the transit agency’s coordinator, so decisions are often delayed and relocation details are difficult to discuss. Another chal- lenge is that right-of-way acquisition typically occurs in paral- lel with design. Therefore, it is difficult to ask a utility to move if the right-of-way acquisition has not been finalized. Buy America provisions also have caused delays. For example, the agency had a reimbursement agreement with a gas company for about $2.3 million, which was signed in 2012 and included Buy America provisions. Near the end of 2012, FTA asked the agency to review all agreements to ensure compliance with Buy America provisions. The agency provided a notification to the gas company, which put the relocation on hold until the new provisions could be clarified. The utility company completed the relocation more than a year later than originally scheduled (beginning of 2013), at a cost of $4.3 million, which was 87% higher than the original estimate. Another example involved the relocation of a valve lot, which included hundreds of different separate parts. A small number of valves were not Buy America compliant. Although the cost to manufacture a domestically produced replacement valve would be less than $100,000, RT learned that it would take at least 62 weeks to manufacture the valve and certify the valve’s safety. On a $270 million project, a delay of that magnitude would likely result in a cost increase to the project of more than ten times the value of the part. California: San Joaquin Regional Transit District The San Joaquin Regional Transit District (RTD) operates 31 fixed bus routes: three BRT routes; one intercity fixed bus routes, 12 deviated fixed bus routes, 11 interregional bus routes, and demand-response services in the urbanized area of Stockton, California (P. Rapp, San Joaquin Regional Transit District, personal communication, June 2014). RTD directly operates the Stockton Metropolitan Area fixed-route and BRT service, and third party contractors provide all other services. The agency serves an urbanized population of 687,744 and area of 1,426 square miles. It provides more than 4.5 million passenger trips per year. Approximately 98% of passenger

22 trips are bus mode, and 2% are demand response. The fleet includes 115 revenue vehicles. Passenger amenities include 1,100 bus stops, 67 shelters, 213 benches, ten park-and-ride lots (through lease agreements), and three transfer stations. RTD’s FY 2014 operating budget was $34 million, and the capital budget was $3.4 million. Fare revenues provide approximately 16% of operating funds. Federal and state gov- ernment, local tax and cash grants, and interest and invest- ment comprise the remaining operating and capital funding (P. Rapp, San Joaquin Regional Transit District, personal com- munication, June 2014). RTD does not regularly engage in utility coordination on projects. Recent exceptions were the development of a down- town transit center in 2006 and a $51 million regional trans- portation center project that is currently under development with the help of federal, state, and local funds. Upon comple- tion, the center will be a 10-acre facility for maintenance and fueling of the RTD bus fleet. RTD borrowed the plans for the center from a Southern California transit agency and then asked a consultant to redesign the transportation center, tak- ing into consideration geological and other local differences. The agency then turned the design over to a design-build contractor. The facility initially was intended to be much larger (17 acres), but the agency was unable to acquire some required property, so the whole project was scaled back to fit into a smaller 10-acre footprint. Between 2007 and 2013, there were mostly smaller proj- ects that required little or no utility coordination. Some proj- ects required utility coordination but mainly to determine service requirements (e.g., location of electrical equipment for the electric bus service, the installation of 40 BRT bus stops along three new routes, and the construction of the Hammer Triangle Station). Utility Coordination The agency interacts with all utility stakeholders the same way; that is, using phone calls, meetings, and e-mails. Meet- ings with utility owners can be in groups or one on one. For complex projects that require special expertise, RTD hires consultants or engineers to aid with utility coordination efforts. Stakeholder interaction does not vary whether or not the proj- ect involves federal aid. For the regional transportation center project, the agency involved utilities starting somewhere in the middle of the detailed design phase. Some utilities, such as electric utilities, were contacted earlier to allow for utility adjustment schedules that are lengthier and more complex. To improve overall coor- dination, the agency hired a former utility company employee as a consultant to help with utility coordination. The consul- tant is responsible for most of the agency’s utility coordina- tion activities. The consultant has considerable experience and knows which steps are critical at certain phases of the project development process. The consultant is also involved in local government, which helps with the navigation of local govern- ment regulations and requirements. The consultant also helped with data collection by pointing the agency to databases that provide information about utility installations. Utility Data Collection The agency does not routinely engage in utility data collection. However, for the Phase 1 and Phase 2 environmental clearance documents required for the regional transportation center under development, the agency hired a consultant to provide informa- tion about underground utility installations. This effort focused mostly on abandoned utilities that could involve hazardous waste because of the potential for environmental problems. Utility data collection efforts during project development are minimal. For the most part, the agency or its consultant coordinates directly with utility companies in the area and uses data provided by utility owners. Efforts include calls to the One Call service to receive information about underground lines. If there were a concern about a utility facility on design-build projects, the agency would request the design-build contractor to hire an expert to investigate further. Utility Conflict Resolution RTD staff members work directly with utility owners to iden- tify and resolve utility conflicts. The key is to keep everyone on track and focused on the issue. The agency found that the most effective way to resolve utility conflicts is by finding a win- win situation for both parties. The agency pays for most utility relocations. Some privately owned utilities, such as the electric utility, pay for their own utility relocations if the work involves new service. However, if the agency has special requests, such as specific locations for electric service equipment, the agency pays for such requests. Challenges The most significant challenge when dealing with utilities is the lack of historical records and abandoned installations that are not recorded anywhere. In the early 20th century, the city of Stockton, California, did not require the recording of utility installations, so there are many unknown utility facilities in the ground. There are few training opportunities available for staff involved with utility coordination. Because projects that involve utility issues are not common, and because RTD uses consultants to help when a need for utility coordination arises, there is not a pressing need to engage in a lot of training focused on utility issues until RTD is regularly engaged in projects involving utilities.

23 North Carolina: Charlotte Area Transit System The Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) is a department within the city of Charlotte, North Carolina, which operates 70 fixed bus routes, one light rail line on 10 miles of track, 75 active vanpools, and general public demand-response ser- vice in the urbanized area (37). The service area population is 1.5 million and covers 527 square miles. CATS provides 27 million passenger trips per year. The revenue vehicle fleet includes 20 light rail vehicles, 323 buses, and 84 demand response vehicles. CATS operates and maintains four transit centers and provides service to 50 park-and-ride lots. CATS’s FY 2013 operating budget was $106 million, and the capital budget was $157 million. A half-cent sales tax, passenger revenue, advertising revenue, and interest income comprise operating funding. Capital funding sources include federal and state grants and operating revenue (38). Utility Coordination For a current project, CATS is extending the Lynx Light Rail Blue Line along the median of State Route 29, which requires the relocation of about 5 miles of water lines and several sewer crossings. If CATS finds any city-owned utilities as part of a project, coordination is straightforward because both parties are part of the city of Charlotte. Because the project started years ago, the design team has involved and met with city- owned utilities, such as water and sewer, on a regular basis. Other utilities that CATS coordinates with are electric, communication, and natural gas providers, and each relation- ship is somewhat different. The city spends the most coordina- tion time with the electric utility because most utility conflicts are with electric installations. Starting with project discussions about 6 years ago, during the preliminary engineering phase of the Blue Line extension, the city has regularly met with the provider, with the meetings increasing in frequency to about biweekly over the last 3 to 4 years. There is a good working relationship between the city and the electric utility in part because the utility is headquartered in Charlotte and because the city has a cost-sharing agreement for relocations with the electric utility. The agreement speci- fies that, depending on the circumstances, both parties might be responsible for a portion of the total relocation cost. In some cases, the city pays 100% of the relocation costs; for example, when the city asks the provider to move the lines underground. For the current Lynx Blue Line extension project, 80% to 90% of the power poles had to be relocated on both sides of the road on a stretch of about 4 miles. Because the electric utility had adequate records of its installations and the cost-sharing agree- ment was in place, most relocations were straightforward. Utility Data Collection For the Lynx Blue Line extension project, the city hired a consultant to gather utility information and prepare plans showing existing utilities on the ground, including those that were in conflict with the project design. At the beginning of the detailed design phase, the consultant contacted all utili- ties that were active in the project area and requested a copy of their records. The consultant also led meetings to discuss issues with utility owners. For the construction phase, the city hired a consultant to serve as the construction manager. This consultant hired a subconsultant, who is available to coordi- nate issues that come up with planned relocations. About 5 or 6 years ago, during the preliminary engineer- ing phase of the Lynx Blue Line extension project, the city surveyor conducted an inventory of existing utilities, includ- ing above and below ground utilities, using records of exist- ing utilities as a starting point. Although this information was useful, its usability has decreased over time because new utili- ties have been installed on the right-of-way over the last few years and do not appear on the initial utility plans. For previous projects, the city hired consultants to coordi- nate with utility owners but found that utilities were more will- ing to relocate if the request came directly from the city. The city also found that construction contractors were not particu- larly effective in dealing with utility issues. For the most part, contractors would limit utility coordination to requesting util- ity locations from One Call services and calling the city and/or utility owner to report damaged lines so they could be repaired. As a result, the city decided to split the responsibility of resolv- ing utility issues between the contractor and the construction manager. Under this arrangement, the city is responsible for major relocations, and the contractor is responsible for minor issues that arise during construction. This also helps to avoid situations in which contractors use utility coordination issues as an excuse for construction delays. In practice, contractors make the city’s construction manager aware of major utility conflicts, and the construction manager resolves the issue. The two major contractors in the area also have utility coordinators who participate in major utility relocation projects. City staff support the construction manager with utility coordination activities. The construction manager typically handles most of the field coordination, coordination with Blue Line extension project contractors, and running biweekly coor- dination meetings with the privately owned utilities. City staff handles most of the direct correspondence with utility owners, utility plan reviews, and coordination with other permitting authorities. The involvement of city staff has also been helpful in cases in which utility relocation schedules were delayed or utilities were slow to provide requested information.

24 During construction, city contractors have damaged mul- tiple utility facilities in the field, mostly because One Call data were inaccurate, missing, or wrong. In some cases, city con- tractors have been at fault for damaging lines that were marked in the field. Some of these conflicts and accidental utility cuts have caused considerable project delay, and all of them have proven to be a public relations issue and inconvenience to the utility customers. Utility Conflict Resolution For the Lynx Blue Line extension project, the city is building electric duct banks and is leaving the installation of the elec- tric lines to the electric utility. This strategy is saving the city money because the city can build the duct banks at a lower price than the contractor for the electric utility. The city is also building communication duct banks. Initially, a communication provider submitted a duct bank design that was too simplistic, lacking detail and scale. The city had little confidence that a contractor would be able to build the duct banks without caus- ing additional conflicts with the project. Because of the lack of engineering detail, the North Carolina Department of Trans- portation (NCDOT) did not give the utility an encroachment agreement to start the installation. The city also noted that the utility received construction bids that were too high. The city redesigned the duct banks, overlaid them on the city’s construc- tion plans, and received a bid from the project contractor that was about 75% lower than the bids based on the utility’s design. Once the city showed that the city’s contractor could build the duct banks at a cost that was significantly less, the utility agreed to the city’s design because both parties saved funds in the process. However, the utility has strictly adhered to the construction standards, so some duct banks have taken longer to build than expected. The city also agreed that the utility could provide construction materials for the duct banks to the city’s contractor to control the quality of the materials. In addition to cost savings, this allowed the city to improve the coordination of the above-ground design with the under- ground utility design. The duct bank shared by multiple utility providers allows the city to coordinate the installation of com- munication lines from multiple providers in a limited space. The project included a large number of retaining walls. Almost all retaining walls were delayed because of utility problems during construction. When the contractor found a utility line, the contractor notified the city, which in turn noti- fied the utility owner, who then rerouted or lowered the line. Many utilities that were “found” this way were damaged in the process. For the most part, the impact on project sched- ules was minor, but in a few cases, such relocations actually delayed the project. Project impacts were reduced to a mini- mum by developing a phased approach for the construction of retaining walls. The quality of existing utility records varied significantly. Most large utility owners had sufficient records, whereas some of the smaller utilities did not have adequate records and did not participate in early coordination meetings. Challenges Buy America provisions have been a huge challenge on the Lynx Light Rail Blue Line project. Both communication and electric utilities had significant difficulty complying with the new regulations when procuring specialized equipment. For example, it took these utility companies a great deal of effort to prepare a list of required materials and their source. Doc- umenting that their procurement was compliant with Buy America provisions was a challenge for all utility companies on the project. An additional difficulty for the communication provider was that the utility company could not acquire some materials under Buy America provisions. Two communication control- ler cabinets were not compliant, which made it necessary to request a waiver from FTA. Because of the delays documenting compliance, the utility relocation schedule was delayed. There was also a concern that the communication provider might not receive the waiver, which would have delayed the project even longer because the communication provider was not willing, and possibly not able, to find a compliant source. FTA indicated that the waiver was a one-time exception, so this type of equip- ment is likely to cause issues and delays on future projects. For the communication provider, the city had to go through a lengthy legal review to be able to build the duct banks. The city also had to negotiate the cost sharing agreement and then negotiate an amendment to that agreement, which was difficult and time consuming. One of the reasons was that the agree- ment was more urgent to the city than to the communication provider. In practice, the city was able to develop a good under- standing of the actual costs, which decreased the utility’s argu- ment that unit costs for materials was proprietary information. Ohio: Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) operates one heavy rail line on 19 miles of track, three light rail lines on 15 miles of track, 69 fixed route bus routes, one BRT line, five trolley routes, and demand-response service in the urbanized area of Cleveland, Ohio (39). RTA contracts a portion of its demand-response service to a third party. The service area population is 1.3 million and 457 square miles. RTA’s annual ridership is more than 50 million and includes 8.5 million rail passenger trips, 39 million fixed-route bus pas- senger trips, five million BRT trips, 1.5 million trolley trips per year, and 705,000 demand response trips. The revenue vehicle fleet includes 60 heavy rail cars, 48 light rail cars, 415 buses, 23 BRT buses, 17 trolleys, and 80 demand-response vehicles. RTA provides service to five park-and-ride locations.

25 RTA’s FY 2012 operating budget was $229 million, and the capital budget was $33 million (39). Approximately 18% of operating revenues are from passenger fares. Other operat- ing funding sources are advertising and investment income, sales and use tax, and grants. Capital revenues come from fed- eral and state grants, local sources, and investment income. Utility Coordination Over the last 10 years, RTA has become more proactive with regard to utility coordination practices. The agency relies considerably on consultants for design activities, particularly for larger projects. The agency has strengthened its scope requirements for deliverables, including utilities. As a result, the agency has seen an improvement in the quality of utility research data deliverables earlier in the project. The agency uses the traditional 30%, 60%, 90%, and 100% project development process. Utilities are contacted during the 30% design stage. At this point, the agency may not know the exact location of every utility installation, but feedback from the industry provides information about most known utility installations. RTA also has the policy that if a consultant does not provide a set of preestablished deliverables by the end of a phase, the consultant is not allowed to proceed with the next phase. The consultant is also not paid until the consultant sub- mits all the deliverables for that particular phase. To assist in this process, the agency produces a checklist of deliverables by phase that is specific to each individual project. As a result, the checklist of deliverables of a complex project such as a new rail station is different from the check- list of deliverables for a park-and-ride lot. The checklist of deliverables is included in the scope of services. RTA uses the checklist as a reference to measure the consultant’s adherence to scope of services. As an illustration, Figure 3 provides a list of utility-related requirements included in the request for proposals for architect-engineer services in connection with the East 116th Station Design project. FIGURE 3 Utility-related requirements for architect-engineer services for the East 116th Station design [Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (40)]. General Responsibilities • Identification, including ownership, and verification of all underground and above ground utilities at the project site during the Conceptual Design Phase and registration of the project with OUPS. • Submittal of plans as required for approval to agencies involved with storm water runoff and soil preservation. • At the design development phase, submit to the utility owners plans of the project for their verification and concurrence with the location of their utilities existing and proposed. • Develop approved means to protect these utilities during construction. Phase I – 10% Sketch Study and Conceptual (30%) Design • Site and track survey and mapping are to be performed under the supervision of an Ohio registered surveyor. • Arrange for a subsurface utility firm to locate all underground utilities, both horizontally and vertically, as required for design. The confirmation of these locations through test pits or other means shall be the responsibility of the contractor during construction. • Identification and notification of the owners of underground and above ground utilities on the site and their protection services, if any, and the location of these utilities. • 30% conceptual drawings and sketches of the designs shall include site plans and indicate all anticipated utility relocations and installations; track, signals, and catenary work; and landscaping. Phase II – Preliminary (60%) Design Development • Develop a preliminary engineering to refine the design prior to the development of construction documents. The development shall be to the 60% complete level. • Submit site plans showing topography, track, signal, catenary, roads, utilities, storm drainage system, planted areas, buildings and other structures and pavements. Phase III – (Note: No description or requirements specified) Phase IV – 100% Construction Documents and Construction Bid Documents • Prepare construction drawings and specifications for project bidding and construction. The drawings shall include site and civil plans including existing survey base map; demolition plans; grading; paving; utilities; erosion control; retaining wall modifications; track work; landscaping; and other details. • Legal requirements regarding underground and overhead utilities: o Verify the location of underground and overhead utilities in the proposed project area and incorporate that information in a manner which fulfills the GCRTA’s obligations as a public owner under the provisions of Ohio Revised Code 153.64. o Obtain utility information from municipal and other owners of underground utilities or from OUPS or comparable service for those utilities that are members of such a service. o Verify location of all utilities within construction limits by topographic survey and subsurface utility investigation and show on construction plans.

26 The agency deals with a wide range of utility owners. The city of Cleveland operates its own utilities, mainly water and power. There is also a host of public utilities, including a regional sewer system. The cable provider is a franchise utility. There are also private vendors, including a private electric utility, a private gas utility, and private fiber-optic communication providers. During the communication boom, the city of Cleveland issued a large number of permits, result- ing in a wide proliferation of duct banks, which can be chal- lenge when the agency undertakes capital projects. There is not a significant difference in coordination prac- tices between municipality-owned utilities and franchised utilities. In general, as a project approaches roughly 60% design, all stakeholders begin to pay more attention to proj- ect details, including utilities and utility conflicts. The agency itself frequently reviews plans from other agencies, and the level of review is more thorough as the project approaches the end of design. One of the challenges with preliminary plan sets is that there may not be enough data to determine whether relocations are required. At that point, potential con- flicts may be identified and an investigation outlined. In this case, the agency includes a utility location service as part of the scope of services for the design work. The data from this data collection effort might not available until the middle of design. RTA is not part of the municipal government. The agency also does not have the same statutory authority as the Ohio Department of Transportation. As such, the agency ends up paying for most utility relocations. Cable is the only franchise agreement within the city of Cleveland that includes RTA. In addition, the city operates its own electric utility and usu- ally relocates its own installations. The agency has a standard utility agreement form that it uses for all relocations, along with attachments that describe the specific relocation work, impact, and the cost agreement. The standard form was origi- nally developed for a large project years ago. Anecdotally, the agency’s impression is that coordination and relocations tend to take a bit longer when the utilities affected have to pay for the relocations themselves. RTA’s preference is for the utility to do the relocation and for the agency to reimburse the utility. This structure facili- tates the process (particularly in the case of gas, power, and cable utilities) and is efficient because the utility can best con- trol the quality. In some cases, the agency builds part of the infrastructure, such as a duct bank, and the utility handles the rest. In other situations, such as for water, the agency handles the relocation as part of the construction project. One of the reasons is that contractors or their subcontractors also do con- struction work for the utilities and know their specifications and procedures. If the relocation is in the contract, RTA uses bid items, but then allows the utility company to inspect the work. The fre- quency of inspections tends to vary from utility to utility. For example, for city-owned utilities, city inspectors are regularly notified but sometimes are not present at the jobsite. For fran- chised utilities, there is usually an inspector in the field. If the utility handles the relocation, the utility agreement with the utility includes a cost estimate, but then the agency reim- burses the utility on actual costs. In practice, the cost estimate in the utility agreement might include an “order of magnitude” estimate, which might be refined as the design progresses to reach a level consistent with an engineer’s estimate. The cost estimate also includes a contingency. Most utility relocations are less than $100,000. In some rare cases, the relocation can be higher and receive more scrutiny, including the requirement to receive approval from the board of trustees. In practice, high-dollar relocations also include additional reviews by several departments before the request for approval goes to the board. FTA project manage- ment oversight is also part of this review because utilities and third party agreements are a standard agenda item in meet- ings with FTA officials. RTA’s approach to utility relocations is based on risk assessment and management principles, which the agency implemented after FTA conducted a series of outreach efforts nationwide in the early to mid-2000s as a strat- egy for reducing the impact of serious issues affecting the development and delivery of major transit projects. One of those issues was substantial cost overruns related to utility relocations. The agency’s perception is that implementa- tion of risk management principles has resulted in tighter schedules and project costs that more closely resemble cost estimates developed during the design phase. Disposition of comments at the end of each phase before allowing the consultant to proceed with the next phase is part of the set of strategies for addressing and mitigating risks during project development. At RTA, there is not an official title for a utility coordina- tor. Within Engineering and Project Development, 16 offi- cials are active in several roles, including project managers, project engineers, and resident engineers. Background and expertise includes civil engineering, mechanical engineer- ing, electrical engineering, and architecture. Most of these officials interact with utilities and fulfill utility coordination activities. RTA participates in the Ohio Utilities Protection Service (OUPS). RTA also attends many of the monthly meetings of a utility council in Northeast Ohio. RTA designates two to three officials to attend these meetings. Through OUPS, RTA provides training to staff members every other year, usually in the form of a refresher seminar that focuses on the need to adopt damage prevention strategies to prevent disasters. RTA also provides internal training on electric power safety for any official who needs to be on the rail right-of-way. Through the training department, RTA also conducts power substation training. Although this training is not necessarily related to

27 utility relocations, it does increase the level of awareness about and operational knowledge of utility installations. Utility Data Collection The agency uses One Call tickets primarily for damage pre- vention before construction. On occasion, the agency has used One Call when it has encountered substantial difficulties in obtaining utility location data during design. The agency also uses utility location services as part of the design phase. In practice, utility location services have contacts and rela- tionships with utility companies, and they are able to obtain additional information about existing utility installations. Depending on the type of project and the approach for managing risk for a specific project, RTA includes SUE in the scope of services for design contracts. On some contracts, the agency has also executed a change order to the design contract to conduct additional investigations (e.g., in tight corners where there is a need for a vacuum excavation to expose the utility facility and determine its actual X, Y, and Z coordinates). RTA includes utility plans (showing both existing and proposed utility locations) in construction plans. In cases in which another agency handles the utility relocation, the agency might not necessarily show those utility installations on the construction plans. However, there is usually a note to alert the contractor about the need to coordinate with those other stakeholders. At RTA, the architect-engineer, who is part of the design team, is responsible for the production of as-builts. Contrac- tors redline construction plans to reflect actual conditions on the ground, and the architect-engineer transcribes that information into the final as-builts. As-builts include utility relocations. As-builts also show utility installations that were not relocated. Utility Conflict Resolution At RTA, 30% design is usually the time when utility conflicts are first identified. The agency does not formally use a utility conflict matrix. Instead, the agency uses a spreadsheet to track comments. Some of the comments address utility conflicts. In general, the design contractor must address each comment before moving to the next phase of design. The general strategy to manage utility conflicts is to try to stay away from utility objects or features that are hard to move. Examples include fiber-optic installations and duct banks. Gravity sewers (sanitary and stormwater) can also be challenging. The easiest features to relocate are usually water and gas lines. In the case of old utilities, sometimes the most effective decision is simply to replace the facility. RTA reimburses utilities for the cost to replace the installation but not for betterments. Challenges Most projects receive federal funding, either directly from FTA or through other mechanisms that involve other agencies in the state. A current issue for the agency is the recent changes in Buy America provisions, which have been problematic for some utilities. A welcome relief was a recent clarification that Buy America provisions do not apply if the cost of the reloca- tion is less than $100,000. In a recent example, the agency was working with a gas company on a $55,000 utility relocation. The company was doing the relocation with its own forces and had already purchased materials from a foreign steel producer. The company was not willing to sign off on Buy America pro- visions in the utility agreement. After the clarification was issued, the utility company promptly signed the agreement with the agency and started the relocation work in the field. Buy America provisions are also problematic in connec- tion with a wide range of power- and signal-related compo- nents that are needed for train operations because often the providers are headquartered abroad. The result is additional lead time that needs to be incorporated into the schedule and, in some cases, additional costs. Oregon: TriMet, Portland, Oregon The Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet) operates 79 fixed-route bus routes, four light rail lines on 52 miles of track, one commuter rail line on 15 miles of track, and demand-response services in the urbanized area of Portland, Oregon (41). TriMet directly oper- ates bus and light rail services and contracts demand-response, hybrid rail, and taxi services to a third party contractor. TriMet also operates and maintains the Portland Streetcar system, which runs two lines on a 14.7-mile network (42). Unlike the light rail, the Portland Streetcar is owned by the city of Portland and managed by the Portland Office of Transportation (43). TriMet serves a population of 1.5 million and an area of 570 square miles (44). TriMet provides 100 million pas- senger trips per year. Sixty million passenger trips are bus, 39 million are light rail, 440,000 are commuter rail, and 1 million are demand-response trips. TriMet’s revenue vehicle fleet includes 603 buses, 127 light rail vehicles, three diesel multiple units and two rail diesel cars (commuter rail), and 268 demand-response vehicles. Passenger amenities the TriMet operates include 6,742 bus stops, 87 light rail stations, and five commuter rail stations (41).

28 TriMet’s FY 2014 operating budget was $489 million, and the capital budget was $103 million. Employer payroll tax and self-employment tax (12%), passenger revenues (25%), and federal formula grants (15%) contribute to TriMet’s operating funds. Other operating funding sources include state and local grants. Capital program funding sources include state, local government, and private contributions; federal grants; and bond proceeds (45). Utility Coordination TriMet has two utility engineers who work full time on the coordination of utility issues and design alternatives. In addi- tion to an understanding of and experience with light rail system requirements, TriMet utility engineers are expected to be knowledgeable about the design criteria and operat- ing restrictions of all the utilities that typically exist within the alignment of light rail tracks. TriMet utility engineers are involved from the early stages of preliminary design to the completion of construction. This continuity is a significant benefit because many fewer issues arise on projects, particu- larly those with many different groups involved and those handed off from one group to the next. Utility coordination typically starts once the locally pre- ferred alignment alternative has been identified. TriMet util- ity engineers contact their jurisdictional partner, most often the city of Portland, to request a list of all affected utilities within project limits. The city has a formal notification pro- cess that can be used at this point. The notification from the city includes some basic project information and a project description, along with a request to coordinate with TriMet. The partnership with the city is essential because, unlike the city, the transit agency has little or no legal authority to make utilities move out of the right-of-way. TriMet works as a stew- ard between the utility companies and the city of Portland to obtain all necessary construction permits and provide over- sight for all relocation efforts. TriMet’s relationship with the city becomes critical once TriMet and a utility owner have agreed on a relocation design and the utility owner applies to the city for a permit to install the new facility. Normally, the city review of a design can take a significant amount of time and might involve several depart- ments, including water, sewer, and transportation. However, in the case of TriMet, the city’s review is expedited because the city knows that TriMet has reviewed and approved the utility’s design and from past experience trusts TriMet’s engi- neering expertise. TriMet has developed an effective relationship with util- ity companies. Part of this relationship is TriMet’s willingness to avoid expensive relocations when possible, considering alternative design approaches, and helping utility owners with relocation design and construction when needed and feasible. For utilities on private property or by easement right, TriMet and the affected utility establish the scope and estimated cost of the relocation. Regardless of which party bears the financial burden, TriMet considers that notifying stakeholders early and preparing a utility relocation plan is critical to completing util- ity relocations before light rail project construction. The city’s franchise rules specify the financial responsibility for design changes once a utility has relocated. If a utility pays for a relo- cation according to the plan that TriMet agreed to but is in con- flict during construction for whatever reason, TriMet bears the financial burden of the second relocation. As the project design progresses and becomes more defined, subsequent notices are sent, adding additional information about the light rail construction project (typically design and schedule updates), at which time utility relocation schedules are refined and consequences for a utility’s failure to act are addressed. During detailed design, TriMet staff has weekly meetings with all utilities involved in a project. There are meet- ings that involve representatives from all utilities, the city, and other involved agencies, as well as one-on-one meetings with individual utility owners to focus on specific issues. Publicly owned sewer and water facilities have stand-alone coordina- tion meetings but are also represented at privately owned util- ity coordination meetings. To assist in the coordination effort, TriMet provides a complete picture of all identified existing subsurface utilities and all future surface improvements, and shares this information with all stakeholders (Figure 4). A challenge for utility companies frequently is the number and size of design files that TriMet shares with stakeholders. This makes it difficult for utility company staff to review the files and mark up utility conflicts. In addition, files usually are shared at 30% design, which means that the design is likely to change in the future and must then be reviewed a second time. TriMet has found that most utility owners simply give up on the task before even starting. A strategy that has worked for TriMet is to work with utility owners individually and to go over the design plans together with the utility owner. Once utility relocation begins in the field, TriMet works closely with the affected utility companies to relocate facilities in a manner that does not create additional conflicts with other utilities or surface features. TriMet staff has found that most utility issues are straight- forward to deal with, but a small percentage of utility issues (perhaps about 5%) require considerably more effort, as well as innovative or creative solutions. For example, a recent proj- ect involved a communication provider that agreed to relocate all its utilities except one line that carried sensitive govern- ment data. The fact that the line carried sensitive data became known only after several meetings, and the provider’s position was to oppose or delay the relocation of this line for as long as possible. By reviewing the design and verifying the depth of the line, the TriMet staff was able to develop an engineering solution that allowed the line to remain in place.

29 Utility Data Collection Oregon law requires utility owners to locate their lines during early stages of a highway project, so a designer can request utility locations even during preliminary engineering. Loca- tion information is usually accurate within 3 ft, which is suf- ficient for preliminary engineering but not necessarily for detailed design. In some cases, TriMet collects test hole data, but only on high-risk utilities that might be allowed to remain in place. For example, if crossings are sufficiently deep, they can remain in place. In this case, TriMet asks the utility owner to verify the depth of their installations, usually with help from TriMet. Most utilities have a vacuum truck perform the veri- fication, and few of them ever hire a SUE consultant. Often TriMet coordinates with the utility and sends a surveyor under contract with TriMet to the field to measure the depth of the crossing once the utility has exposed its line. Utility Conflict Resolution Once utility data become available, TriMet adds the data to a file called Existing Utilities using the same coordinate system as the project design file (Figure 4). TriMet staff continues to update the file as more data become available. This map file is used during engineering meetings to discuss potential utility conflicts and ways to resolve them, risks to schedules and costs, and implications of alternatives. It also helps the designers to highlight areas where a more detailed investiga- tion is necessary, such as in the form of test holes. In many cases, there is no need for a more detailed investigation. For example, the city water bureau has standards that prohibit water lines within 10 ft of the track, so if the existing line is less than this distance from the planned track, the design team knows that the line will have to be relocated. As information from private utilities becomes available, the design team adds that information to the map file. Many utilities need considerable help because they are unfamiliar with CAD or do not produce drawings according to TriMet’s standards. Essentially, TriMet staff convert all information to the same design standard so that at any time during the project there is a file available with information about exist- ing utility installations, and one file with information about proposed locations for utility relocations. 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 4 TriMet light rail project in downtown Portland, Oregon: Design plan with future surface improvements and utility installations.

30 For a recent project in downtown Portland, the Transit Mall, TriMet came up with some unique solutions to utility conflicts. The Transit Mall is essentially a pair of one-way streets with lanes restricted for transit vehicles only. The Transit Mall started with bus vehicles only but added light rail in 2009. Because most utilities in downtown Portland were buried with a minimum depth of cover of 3 ft, TriMet reduced the overall depth of the track slab and duct bank package from 3 ft, 8 in. to 2 ft, 1 in. This was accomplished by using a RI 59 girder rail system that has a low height and burying track conduit directly in the track slab, instead of using a duct bank. The direct bury conduits were set in a sand bedding under the track slab (Figure 5). Incorporating a shallower track section avoided a majority of the utility installations in downtown Portland. However, the shallower design required some concession from TriMet resulting from the placement of TriMet conduits (without concrete encasement) in a more vulnerable position directly under the light rail tracks. TriMet frequently needs to work on its system, performing routine maintenance or constructing line extensions, which may require demolition and removal of rail and concrete track slab. In those events, the concrete- reinforced duct bank for the track conduits provides an extra level of protection for the track system. To mitigate this risk, TriMet implemented a track access permit program: the pro- gram requires that prior to the start of construction activities, any contractor working on or near the light rail system must have completed the track access training program and apply for a work permit by submitting a work plan and job hazard analysis that identifies potential risks. An existing sewer line also posed significant challenges on the Portland Transit Mall Project. The light rail track runs directly over the existing sewer main for much of the alignment on 5th and 6th Avenues in downtown Portland. Requirements at the city of Portland’s Bureau of Environmental Services for horizontal and vertical separation between sewer and light rail were not met, and TriMet was concerned about maintenance of the sewer and manhole access, which was vertically in line with the sewer and therefore in line with the track. However, all coor- dinating parties agreed that the light rail project would become highly unpopular with citizens and downtown businesses if the city or TriMet required a prolonged relocation of the 15-ft deep sewer using an open trench in downtown Portland, in addition to other utilities installing numerous duct banks. During utility coordination meetings, the design team came up with a creative solution. Maintenance concerns were addressed by rehabilitating the sewer pipe using a cured-in- place pipe liner and trenchless technology, and the construction of large, offset manholes at every major intersection (Figure 6). Cured-in-place pipe increased the life of the existing sewer main, and the offset manholes provided necessary access for cleaning and maintenance. As a result, the sewer pipe remained under the track but the access point to the sewer is now to the side of the track. TriMet estimated that this design change saved at least a year of utility work and millions of dollars in relocation costs, while minimizing the impact to the general public and core downtown business district and developing goodwill with utility owners, who were pleased that facilities could remain in place. For the current Portland-to-Milwaukie LRT project, the agency was unable to use the girder rail system because of Buy America requirements; TriMet used a standard T-rail system along with duct banks, instead of direct bury. Along the light rail corridor, designers requested vertical duct banks for track electrification. The depth of this track system would have affected many utilities crossing the right-of-way. A FIGURE 5 Typical section of embedded track used for Portland Transit Mall light rail, near PGE vault (Courtesy: TriMet).

31 FIGURE 6 Offset manhole for Portland Transit Mall project (Courtesy: TriMet). review of the design resulted in a recommendation for a flat horizontal layout of the duct banks, instead of a vertical stack- ing. Figure 7 shows a typical track section for the Milwaukie LRT project with a section depth of 3 ft, 8 in. TriMet asked all utilities within 4 ft of the finished grade to lower their lines to a depth of at least 6 ft to the top of their con- duit. TriMet was able to avoid several utility relocations, but a majority of crossings had to be lowered or relocated, which could have been avoided with the girder rail system. In the case of fiber-optic lines, several crossing relocations had an impact on fiber-optic lines for miles because such lines cannot simply be lowered at the crossing but have to be relocated until the next splicing point, which can be far away from the crossing. Challenges Utilities often use relocation projects to improve or expand their existing facilities. That is not necessarily an issue unless the utility is not up front about the betterment of their facili- ties. The challenge is to determine what portion of a utility relocation project should be considered betterment and thus not be part of existing cost-sharing agreements. It is also a challenge to communicate to utility owners that some types of betterment are not allowable, even if the utility pays for the whole relocation. For example, one company was plan- ning to use the relocation opportunity to build a new substa- tion that would have taken years to complete and delayed the project significantly.

32 Sometimes it is difficult to relay to designers that utility relo- cations take a significant amount of time. Even with good util- ity relocation processes and business relationships in place, it can take a year or more to clear all utilities on a project. There- fore, the challenge is to determine when a project should start with utility relocations. From the utility owners’ point of view, it would be preferable to wait until design is 100% complete so that the utility owners can be certain that their facilities are out of the way and that the relocations were indeed necessary. In practice, this is not feasible because it could mean that a proj- ect would be delayed for a year or more. On the other hand, there has to be at least some level of confidence in the design before it is feasible to move the utilities. According to TriMet designers, most projects are sufficiently designed at about 70% to 80% design to start with utility relocations. If there is a good working relationship and a level of trust between the utility coordination team and the design team, relocations could start earlier, possibly using 60% or even 50% design plans, if the design team can confirm that the track alignment is locked. Another challenge is that utilities are often reluctant to make costly relocations if a project has not yet received full funding. The risk to the utility owner is that a relocation might have been unnecessary if the funding and thus the project are canceled. TriMet manages the utility owner’s risk by using intergovernmental agreements if it is a publicly owned utility, and memoranda of understanding if it is a privately owned utility. These documents tie the agency and the utility com- pany to a decision, so if the project is canceled for whatever reason, the agency will reimburse the company for the cost of the relocation. Buy America regulations were a minor issue in the past until the ruling was made that they also apply to reimbursable utility relocations. Publicly owned utilities that were included in the construction have been compliant with Buy America for a long time, although Buy America has had an impact on procurement and cost. The main challenge lies with pri- vately owned utility companies that, in order to comply with the regulations, must open their books and accept audit of their procurement, which utility owners consider private and competitive information. It is also difficult and time consum- ing to track certain types of utility equipment. For example, although it is easy to source ductile iron pipe from a U.S. manufacturer, a large transformer can consist of numerous components that might come from all over the world. In the past, FTA has granted waivers in some areas. However, FTA has indicated that these waivers will not be granted in the future, so the impact of Buy America is likely to increase for future projects. In many cases, the time spent by the agency and the utility owner in managing and complying with Buy America appear to have no relation to the regulation’s poten- tial benefit. A related issue is that coordination efforts that in the past were conducted in a cooperative spirit suddenly have become more confrontational and more challenging. The utility com- pany must accept audit of the procurement, so utility coordi- nation meetings that previously were focused on engineering solutions are attended by lawyers with a different focus. As a result, these meetings can become more difficult to conduct, convoluted, and overall lengthier, and it might take many more meetings to accomplish what previously could be accom- FIGURE 7 Typical section of Portland–Milwaukie light rail project (Courtesy: TriMet).

33 plished in one meeting. In one example, a duct bank had to be lowered by 2 ft in one location, which was a simple task estimated to cost a few thousand dollars and few days of work. Although the case was straightforward and might have been resolved with one meeting, TriMet ended up having numerous meetings over the course of many months discussing specifics related to Buy America regulations. Pennsylvania: Port Authority of Allegheny County The Port Authority of Allegheny County operates bus, light rail on 26 miles of track, inclined plane, and demand response services in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, and minor por- tions of Beaver and Westmoreland Counties. The agency con- tracts all demand response services to a third party contractor. The agency serves a population of 1.4 million and an area of 775 square miles. The agency provides 59 million passen- ger trips per year. A nonprofit society operates the Duquesne Incline. The revenue vehicle fleet includes 701 buses, 83 light rail vehicles, four incline cars, and 411 demand-response vehicles. Passenger amenities include 6,977 transit stops, 280 shelters and stations, and 53 park-and-ride lots (46). The FY 2014 operating budget was $366 million, and the capital budget was $126 million. Approximately 26% of oper- ating revenues are from passenger fares. The remaining 76% of operating revenues are from federal, state, and local oper- ating assistance, and advertising revenue. Capital funding sources include federal formula and discretionary funding, state bond dollars, and local county match (46). Utility Coordination The agency assigns a utility coordinator to major capital projects. In the past, utility coordinators were employees of the agency, but today there are fewer employees, so utility coordination is mostly outsourced to consultants. Having an experienced person with good contacts to the utility commu- nity is key to successful utility coordination. The agency does not have any standard guidelines for utilities but usually provides utility owners a draft agreement and an overview of standards for occupying or crossing the right-of-way. Utility Data Collection Data collection typically starts around 30% of detailed design, involving One Call information, as-builts, and negotiations for utility agreements. Engineering is primarily a task for con- sultants, so it is mostly up to them to request detailed utility information, such as test holes in areas where needed. Utility Conflict Resolution For the most part, utilities need to move out of the way. Occa- sionally, some utilities can remain in place, usually if they are expensive to relocate, in good condition, and the design team finds a way to move around them, which often is not possible or feasible. Most utilities that the agency interacts with occupy the right- of-way under franchise agreements with the city. Although these agreements require utilities to relocate as needed, the agency has cost-sharing agreements with most utility compa- nies, typically 50/50. Cost sharing is a win-win for the agency and utility company. Although the agency agrees to pay for half of the relocation cost, the agency has found that there are fewer issues, fewer delays, and utility companies are more willing to work with the agency. These cost-sharing agreements are negotiated separately with each utility owner and cover only in-kind replacements without betterment. In one example of cost sharing, the agency designs and builds duct banks for communication providers. Upon com- pletion, the utility installs its own lines in the duct bank. Utility structures, such as manholes and duct banks, can be included in the construction contract or bid out separately. In the agen- cy’s experience, rolling items into the construction contract tends to produce lower bids than does separately bidding out the utility work. City facilities such as sewers are relocated at 100% cost to the agency. The city does not charge for the use of the right- of-way, so when the agency has to relocate facilities, it also does not charge the city for the relocation cost. Challenges Throughout the last few projects, the Port Authority has had few issues with utility owners during construction. Accord- ing to the Port Authority, the key to avoiding utility issues during the construction phase is to get utility agreements in place before construction begins. However, it is important to consider that utility agreements can take a long time to obtain. For example, some utilities cannot relocate immediately but must wait until certain times of the year to take facilities out of service, so these relocations must be prioritized and sched- uled a long time in advance. The biggest challenge to obtaining utility agreements on time usually is getting the utility owner’s cost participations into the utility owner’s capital program. For utility owners to participate, they often must schedule the expense years in advance of the relocation.

34 Training to stay up to date on utility coordination proce- dures has been a challenge. However, the agency owns utility facilities and participates in One Call. As a result, the staff involved in the One Call program stays up to date by partici- pating in mandatory training that is offered through the One Call program, including an annual workshop. Utah: Utah Transit Authority The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) operates a fleet of more than 600 buses and demand-response vehicles (including BRT), 400 vanpools, 146 light rail vehicles, 63 commuter rail cars, 18 locomotives, and streetcar service in a service area that stretches over six counties, from Payson to Brigham City, Utah (47, 48). UTA contracts a portion of its demand-response ser- vice to a third party. UTA’s serves a population of 2.2 million and an area of 751 square miles. UTA transports 43 million passengers per year. Approximately 713,000 trips are demand response, 21 million trips are bus, 18 million trips are light rail, and 1.8 million trips are commuter rail. The FY 2012 operating budget was $219 million, and the capital budget was $308 million (47). Sources of operating funds include fare revenue (22%), state funds (53%), federal funds (23%), and other funds (3%). Sources of capital funds include state funds (26%), federal assistance (30%), and other funds (44%). Utility Coordination The typical process involves the utility coordinator at UTA engaging the project manager as soon as a project starts. Before engaging designers, the utility coordinator schedules a field visit with utility owners to determine if any major utility instal- lations could have a significant impact on the project. This exercise enables the agency to conduct a risk assessment and identify potential up-front risk mitigation strategies. After the designer is on board, meetings with utilities have taken place, and surface features have been surveyed, the agency prepares a utility conflict matrix. UTA uses this infor- mation during the design phase to determine if it is possible to design around major conflict areas. Depending on the situ- ation, UTA often prefers to complete the utility relocation in-house as a strategy to reduce risk and control the outcome. To make this process work, UTA requests lists of preferred contractors from all the utility companies in the area. With this information, UTA identifies a reduced list of contractors that are on everybody’s lists and then enters into master on- call contracts with each of those contractors. Because these selected contractors are already on the utilities’ lists of pre- ferred contractors, it is straightforward for them to work with UTA directly. In parallel, UTA executes agreements with the utilities involved to confirm the scope and outline responsi- bilities by each party. UTA typically pays 100% of all utility relocation work, regardless of project funding source. The only exception is rail corridors, for which a utility occupies the right-of-way by license. In this case, UTA asks the utility to pay for the utility relocation cost. Coordination practices during the design phase are similar regardless of utility company. UTA treats all utility companies the same way. Coordination practices during construction tend to vary. For installations such as water and stormwater, UTA contractors usually handle the relocation and construction work, and the city typically sends an inspector to the jobsite. For communication, gas, and electric installations (which are usually privately owned), a number of union agreements and regulations preclude UTA from completing certain activities. For these installations, the utility companies are much more involved in the relocation work. UTA first starts coordinating with utilities during the pre- liminary engineering phase. In practice, as soon as the project is laid out at the beginning of the design phase, UTA begins systematically coordinating with utility owners. The agency uses design-bid-build, design-build, and CM/ GC project delivery methods. For design-build and CM/GC projects, hand-off to the designer team usually takes place after the environmental clearance. Utility Data Collection When a project is laid out, the utility coordinator schedules field visits with individual utility companies. During a field visit, the utility coordinator and the utility company repre- sentative walk the project, review existing records, take notes and pictures, and review the project layout. This activity is particularly critical in the case of certain utilities that have old or obsolete records. Utility representatives frequently point out buried features on the ground that existing records have not identified. This is one of the reasons the agency uses One Call primarily for damage prevention before construction but not as a useful tool for identifying existing installations dur- ing project development. For UTA, walking the project with utility company representatives frequently is more valuable and useful as a risk management tool. UTA heavily relies on test holes to confirm the location of utilities. The agency also uses EM pipe and cable locators, mainly through the design contract. For test holes, the design consultant usually has a budget item for test holes, and the agency tells the consultant where to locate the test holes. Right before the contractor comes on board, the consultant usually conducts another (denser) series of test holes. As the test holes are backfilled, UTA places a vertical 2-in. plastic pipe right next to the utility (Figure 8). The plastic pipes stick out of the

35 ground and are capped so they can be identified easily. Remov- ing the cap enables officials to confirm the depth of the utility. Although UTA uses test holes, it normally does not certify the resulting data as QLA. The agency also does not collect QLB data. One of the reasons is the practice of conducting test holes before construction and the realization that contrac- tors frequently collect utility data on their own. As a strategy to reduce risk to the agency, UTA shows both existing and proposed utility locations on bidding documents. However, at the conclusion of the construction contract, the contractor only provides as-builts showing where the track is. In the future, UTA would like to change this practice so that contractors provide as-builts that also contain information about existing and relocated utility installations. UTA does not keep or maintain utility records after com- pleting the relocation work. If the utility requests it, UTA does a field survey and provides the results to the utility. Utility Conflict Resolution A challenge with using UCMs is that they can easily grow to the point where they become unmanageable. For example, for a recent project, the list included 900 conflicts, and extract- ing information from the spreadsheet became extremely inefficient. Another challenge is that consultants usually limit the identification of resolution priorities as 1, 2, or 3 without providing additional information, forcing the agency to review the matrix in detail anyway. The protocol for managing utility conflicts during construc- tion is that the contractor contacts the UTA utility coordinator. The utility coordinator then contacts all affected utilities to develop a conflict resolution strategy. The agency has begun to use 3D modeling, although in a limited capacity. For the Draper light rail line project, the design builder used 3D modeling to identify the location of conflicts with water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater systems. After developing the model, it was straightforward to move fiber-optic and gas lines to resolve the conflicts. This project was completed in 2013. The contractor absorbed the cost to prepare the 3D model. Challenges Buy America provisions have been problematic for the agency and some of the utilities with which the agency needs to interact. For example, the gas utility has difficulty finding parts made in the United States. In other situations, utility companies are complaining about having to pay more for U.S.-made components. UTA is adopting a wait-and-see approach. The agency has only one utility coordinator who has a wealth of experience thanks in part to his many years spent doing design work for a utility company before joining UTA. The agency does not have formal training programs in the area of utilities. In addition, there is no program in place to disseminate information about federal policies, reports, man- uals, and relevant documents. Washington State: Sound Transit, Seattle The Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) operates seven commuter bus lines, two light rail lines, one commuter rail line, and streetcar rail in the urbanized areas of King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties in Washington (47). Sound Transit contracts a portion of the commuter bus and all of the commuter rail services to third party contractors. Sound Transit serves a population of FIGURE 8 Test hole markers (Courtesy: UTA).

36 3 million and an area of 1,086 square miles. Annual ridership is 31 million passenger trips. In FY 2012, the Sound Transit revenue vehicle fleet included 225 commuter buses, 26 light rail vehicles, 56 commuter rail vehicles, and two streetcar rail vehicles. The FY 2014 operating budget was $322 million (includ- ing the departmental budget), and the capital budget was $742 million. In FY 2012, fare revenues accounted for 23% of the operating funds. Remaining operating funding sources include local (70%) and other (7%) funds (47). Utility Coordination Most projects at Sound Transit are delivered as design-bid- build projects. However, the agency recently began to use alter- native delivery methods, such as CM/GC and design-build, for a few projects. For most projects, the agency starts coordinating with utilities during the planning and preliminary engineering phases. At this stage, Sound Transit asks utilities to provide information about major utility installations along the project corridor as well as major plans that might have an impact on the project. During the final design phase, coordination with utilities is the responsibility of the design team. Walking the project with utilities in the field is not common, although it can happen when there are major or critical utility relocations. In most cases, the design team interacts with utilities on paper because utilities are quite familiar with their own systems and know what to expect out of the coordination process. Although each project is different, Sound Transit’s target is to identify the need for all major utility relocations by 30% and most minor utility relocations by 60%. By 90%, the need for all known utility relocations would be confirmed. Sound Transit applies risk assessment and risk management principles for project development. The agency prepares risk matrices for the entire project during preliminary engineering and uses that information to develop the scope of work for the final design consultant. Sound Transit normally conducts utility relocations as part of the construction contract. In some cases, the agency uses separate contracts for advance relocations ahead of the main construction contract, such as when the utility relocation might have a significant impact on the construction schedule or there are strong seasonal reasons. For example, if there is a need to relocate an electric transmission line, the best time of the year to do this is in late summer. In this case, a sepa- rate relocation agreement may be necessary to accommodate this requirement and avoid potential project delays. It also depends on the specific utility company. In some cases, util- ity companies prefer to do their own relocation or, at least, parts of it. For example, Sound Transit might take care of the conduit and other civil infrastructure, but the utility takes care of the wiring. Some cities have undergrounding ordi- nances, which provide the general framework for what kind of infrastructure needs to be put in place. Historically, Sound Transit has had master agreements with some utility companies, particularly franchised utilities that operate regionally, outlining the percentage of the relo- cation cost for which each agency would be responsible. For example, for one of the major utilities in the area, the 10-year agreement included a 55/45 split. This agreement recently expired and is being renegotiated. Utility coordination practices tend to vary depending on the type and size of utility company. For example, at some small water or sewer districts, everything has to go through the board of directors for approval. By comparison, at a large power company, it may be just a matter of identifying the proper manager with whom to interact. In some cases, Sound Transit has found coordination to be more efficient and busi- nesslike with private-sector utilities than with public-sector utilities. To facilitate coordination, Sound Transit asks each utility company to designate a central point of contact who is respon- sible for coordinating with Sound Transit and for gathering all reviews and feedback within their own organizations. On large projects, the agency is testing the use of utility action plans, which describe all major activities that are needed in connection with each utility, including data collection, pre- liminary work, development of composite utility maps, and milestones. Also included is a depiction of the utility design process and a work schedule (Figure 9). Concurrence letters typically are used to document decisions with local jurisdic- tions as the design progresses. Formal agreements are used to establish legally binding commitments and reimbursement procedures. A large number of officials at the agency are involved in utility issues, including project managers, utility engineers, right-of-way engineers, legal counsel, and others within the project team. Inspections usually are handled by a construc- tion management consultant. If utility issues arise during con- struction, the utility engineers become involved to coordinate with the affected utility company. Staff training includes both external training and on-the- job training. External training includes topics such as storm- water and drainage topics because of the large number of utilities that tie into regional drainage systems. Information about other topics, such as coordination and federal and state regulations, typically is available online, so additional train- ing on these topics is not considered necessary. For external entities, there is limited access to agency information such as manuals and guidelines (for example, the Design Crite- ria Manual and Utility Agreement Agency Policies). These

FIGURE 9 Sample schedule to address utility issues (Courtesy: Sound Transit).

38 documents are considered “controlled” documents, although they are available through a public disclosure request. Utility Data Collection Sound Transit uses One Call for damage prevention. The agency has a contractor that does utility location services for developers within the area. The risk assessment in the preliminary engineering phase helps Sound Transit determine the utility investigations that are needed during the design phase. Depending on the situ- ation, project managers use the ASCE 38-02 standard. The scope of services for design consultants specifies more pre- cisely the kind and level of utility investigations for a specific project. For example, for a recent aerial guideway project, the design manager wanted to make sure that all utilities were mapped at a sufficient level of detail within an additional 10-ft radius around the proposed column foundations. As the agency develops projects, it has learned a few les- sons concerning the identification and depiction of utility installations. For example, their initial segment of light rail, which involved street running track, ran 4 miles along a busy arterial in the city of Seattle. For this project, early decisions resulted in a less-detailed utility investigation than what was actually necessary. As a result, the quality and coverage of the utility mapping were poor. During construction, it was discovered that a few parallel utility lines were actually located a few feet from where the plans indicated, forcing the agency to conduct several unplanned relocations. On that project, the number of test holes was also limited. Moving forward, the agency’s goal is to have the proper number of test holes as a strategy for managing risk. The location and number of test holes is a function of the specific need. For example, for elevated guideways, the agency specifies test holes at the column locations. Sound Transit (through the final design consultant) creates and maintains records of existing and relocated utilities dur- ing the design and construction phases. Utilities are shown on the plans used for bidding purposes. Utility Conflict Resolution As mentioned, Sound Transit prepares a risk matrix for the entire project during preliminary engineering and uses that information to develop the scope of work for the final design consultant. The agency also uses matrices to manage utility conflicts. Every contract is different, but the amount of infor- mation managed is similar in most cases (Table 7). The matrix template spreadsheet could vary from project to project at the discretion of the official in charge. Challenges Compliance with recent Buy America provisions requiring Sound Transit to pass along these requirements to utility companies during utility relocations has been an issue for the agency and the utility companies. Buy America provisions had always been included in the construction contract, but extend- ing this requirement to utility relocations has forced the agency to conduct much more thorough reviews at the individual com- ponent and subcomponent levels, sometimes involving attor- neys, to determine whether the provisions apply. Some of the utilities that know they will be doing a large amount of utility relocations with Sound Transit have modified their internal procedures to identify individual components that will be used for Sound Transit work orders, store these compo- nents separately at their warehouses, prepare the correspond- ing documentation to certify compliance, and verify that these components are actually installed on the job. Locally funded projects are not subject to Buy America provisions. However, there are cases where there is no clarity whether the agency will request federal funding. To be on the safe side, Sound Transit usually includes Buy America provi- sions on such contracts.

39 Utility Owner Franchise or Easement Authority Allowing Utility Utility Conflict Resolution Strategy Seattle City Light Franchise City of Seattle Brooklyn Station: SCL re-route cables in order to abandon existing SCL DB during N120, and then pull cables back in new DB in N140. New services to station & future TOD. Remove existing street light conduit along the east sidewalk of Brooklyn Ave NE in N120 and re-install new street light conduits/DBs in N140. Protect existing DB and vault in the alley. Roosevelt Station: Relocate aerial 26-KV distribution lines from west to east side along 12th - prior to N120. Re-install 26-KV back to north side of NE 65th & west side of 12th Ave NE - during or post N150. New DB to feed condo/apartment in NE 67th and remove existing aerial lines along the south side of NE 66th & 67th. New services to station. North Portal: Relocate overhead 26KV from west to east side of 1st Ave NE. Northgate Station: Overhead transmission and distribution lines due to guide way and stations. New services to stations. SDOT N/A N/A Traffic signal, interconnect, street lights relocation. Puget Sound Energy Franchise City of Seattle SMC 15.32.120 to cause utilities to relocate at their own expense for a public transportation project Brooklyn Station: PSE to install 2" tie along 12th Ave NE, from NE 43rd to 45th; PSE to cut-and-cap existing 2" along Brooklyn Ave NE & NE 43rd St before N120; Reinstallation of 2" gas along Brooklyn Ave NE in N140. Roosevelt Station: PSE to install 4" tie along Roosevelt Ave NE, from NE 43rd to 45th; PSE to cut-and-cap existing 2" along NE 67th & 66th St before N120; PSE will not re-installation 2" gas across station excavation. North Portal: TBD. Northgate Station: TBD. Seattle Public Utilities Easement City of Seattle Relocate existing sanitary pipes and new services for TPSS and station excavation. Brooklyn Station: Relocate existing 10" CS to just outside station exaction along west side of Brooklyn Ave NE in N120. Roosevelt Station: Raise existing 8" sewer in N120, to be above station roof, along NE 66th one block east to Brooklyn Ave NE. Could be longer to 14th Ave NE. North Portal: TBD. Northgate Station: TBD. 360 Networks LTS N/A City of Seattle SMC 15.32.120 to cause utilities to relocate at their own expense for a public transportation project. Protect existing comm/FO conduits & vaults in Brooklyn Station. 360 Network also has sold/leased DB/vaults to other parties- DOIT (COS), Level 3, XO Comm. Source: Sound Transit. Adapted from sample North Link utility matrix. Note: N/A = not applicable. TABLE 7 SAMPLE UTILITY CONFLICT LIST AT SOUND TRANSIT