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.

40 chapter five CONCLUSIONS Transit projects frequently affect other modes of transporta- tion and various kinds of utility facilities above and below ground along the project corridors. A literature review was conducted to characterize utility coordination and manage- ment of utility issues during transit project development and delivery. The literature review included references that discuss utility practices at transit agencies and, for completeness, refer- ences that discuss relevant highway-related reports, guidelines, and research. In 2011, U.S. transit agencies spent $17 billion on capital expenditures: $10 billion on facilities (i.e., guideway, stations, administration buildings, and maintenance facilities) and $7 billion on rolling stock and other expenditures. The highest percentage of capital expenditures was on heavy rail (32%), followed by bus and trolleybus (28%), light rail and streetcar (19%), and commuter rail (15%). At the national level, funding for capital expenditures included federal (43%), local (19%), directly generated (25%), and state (13%) sources. For individual transit agencies, the distribution of federal, state, local, and directly generated funds can vary substantially from these national trends. Most utility relocations at transit agencies probably are associated with rail and streetcar projects and, to a much lesser extent, bus projects. FTA requires detailed monthly reports from grantees. However, it is not clear to what extent this information is compiled or archived in databases that can be easily accessed to gather information about utility reloca- tion costs and trends. In addition, it is not clear whether FTA would keep statistics on local projects or utility relocations that use local funds. Statistics showing capital expenditures that are spent on utility relocations are not easily available. Having access to these statistics would facilitate a number of applications, including project planning and scoping, proj- ect cost monitoring, and risk management. In some isolated instances, references in the literature provide information about capital cost percentages or contingency levels that might be associated with utility relocations. For example, for a 1996 study that included an evaluation of capital costs for eight light rail projects, analysts considered 8% to 10% of the project capital cost to be associated with utilities, betterments, and mitigation measures. However, it is not clear whether these percentages were based on a review of actual project cost data or engineering judgment. Some of FTA’s guidelines include information related to utilities. For example, the Project and Construction Manage- ment Guidelines assist with the development of transit capital projects in areas related to project scope, function, schedule, cost, and quality. Regardless of project delivery method, the guidelines highlight the importance of identifying utility conflicts during the preliminary design phase. The guidelines also emphasize the importance of executing master agree- ments with utility owners in this phase to outline each party’s responsibilities during design and construction. However, compared with the amount of documentation related to prelimi- nary design, the guidelines are relatively brief with respect to utility-related design and construction recommendations and requirements. FTA also published a series of lessons learned based on feedback received from FTA Project Management Oversight Program contractors, transit agencies, and FTA regional managers. However, utility issues were mentioned only incidentally in some of the lessons learned. Although the available literature on utility-related research and applications for transit projects is sparse, the body of knowledge for highway applications is much wider. This syn- thesis included a partial review of relevant references, includ- ing the following: • 1974 guidelines for the accommodation of utility facilities within the right-of-way of urban streets and highways; • 1984 NCHRP Synthesis 115 documenting the results of a review of practices to reduce conflicts between high- way projects and utility installations; • 1993 Highway/Utility Guide to state DOTs, local juris- dictions, and utility owners on highway and utility issues; • 2004 recommended strategies and most effective prac- tices to optimize right-of-way and utility processes; • 2000 scanning study of several European countries on innovative practices for right-of-way and utility processes; • 2008 scanning study in Australia and Canada on innova- tive practices for right-of-way and utility processes; and • 2012 Second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) R15B project, which dealt with the use of util- ity conflict matrix (UCM) approaches to identify and manage utility conflicts. A survey of transit agencies was conducted to better under- stand utility coordination practices. A two-tier approach was followed in which a preselection survey was distributed to transit agencies nationwide, and based on the results of this preselection survey, 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

41 survey and invited to participate in phone interviews, yield- ing case examples. Of this total, eight agencies responded (80% response rate), and phone interviews were scheduled with each one of them. Lessons learned from the preselection survey and case examples include the following: • Utility conflicts result in significant impacts to transit projects, particularly during design and construction. Participants provided information on the relative level of impact of 24 utility-related issues that are common dur- ing project development and delivery. Two issues stood out as having a significant impact: identifying utility con- flicts during design and identifying utility conflicts dur- ing construction. As participants highlighted, these issues have ramifications throughout the process, such as dif- ficulty in preparing and maintaining utility cost estimates and coordinating with other stakeholders effectively. • Transit agencies strive to involve utility owners early in the project development process. Several agencies noted that they contact utility owners in the early stages of project development, primarily during the preliminary design phase. This is consistent with FTA recommenda- tions. Among transit agencies, there is some confusion in terminology as to what constitutes preliminary design (e.g., some officials indicated that a project at 30% design was in the preliminary design phase). Nonetheless, it was clear that agencies attempt to start utility coordination activities as early as possible, which is critical to giving a utility owner sufficient time to include utility cost esti- mates in the utility owner’s capital program so that there will be approved funding if a utility relocation is neces- sary. Although utility coordination starts early, and data collection timing can be critical, agencies frequently do not start utility data collection activities in the field until later in the process, when the project is in the detailed design phase. • Successful utility coordination requires experience, part- nerships, diligence, and accurate and complete utility data. Agencies highlighted key requirements for success- ful utility coordination practices, including the following: – Having staff members who are experienced on all aspects of utility coordination, utility data collection, and utility conflict management, and who are focused and diligent. – Having project team members who have experience identifying win-win scenarios in which both utility owner and project owner benefit. – Having continuity in the utility coordination process from planning to construction by minimizing the num- ber of responsibility hand-offs throughout the process. Projects in which utility coordination is assigned to the same individual or group throughout the process tend to have fewer issues, such as gaps in communi- cation with utility owners and designers. Outsourcing utility coordination works in many cases, but lack of continuity can be a problem if the coordination con- tract is not properly managed. – Having a composite utility map or drawing that shows utility locations on top of design files that can be shared among stakeholders. Sharing available util- ity data on design sheets can be an effective tool for utility coordination. Including utility locations (exist- ing and proposed) on letting documents is also critical in assisting bidders in the preparation of cost-effective proposals that reduce the level of risk for both con- tractor and transit agency. – Developing relationships with utility companies on the basis of transparency and knowledge of each other’s business processes and constraints. Effective coordination is based on valued relationships that take a long time to develop. These relationships are essen- tial to keeping the project on schedule, particularly in situations that require flexibility from all stakeholders, such as when it would be strategic to have a utility owner relocate its facilities, even though the project has not been fully funded. Flexibility from stake- holders is also critical for accelerating project deliv- ery, such as when right-of-way is acquired in parallel with design, and it becomes a challenge how to mini- mize utility impacts on all stakeholders. Early coor- dination among stakeholders is also critical, such as when it is necessary to acquire additional right-of- way to accommodate relocated utilities, because of all the potential implications for the project sched- ule and budget, including changing project limits, modifying environmental analysis constraints, and required funding. • The amount of utility coordination effort varies substan- tially depending on the type of utility owner. For fran- chised utilities, transit agencies typically do not have the same power as cities to ask utilities to relocate at their expense. If possible, agencies try to work through the cities to accomplish the relocation objective. In these cases, agencies frequently have to pay for the utility relocations. For municipality-owned utilities, it is usu- ally a matter of negotiating the terms of the specific agreement with the municipalities. Sometimes utility owners are interested in betterments, which makes it necessary to discuss those requests on a case-by-case basis. Betterments are not eligible for federal funding, so agencies pay for betterments only if they come to an agreement with an individual utility company. • Existing records research, survey of visible utility appur- tenances, utility location services, and test holes are stan- dard utility data collection techniques. Transit agencies routinely use traditional utility data collection techniques that have been around for decades. Transit agencies also rely on the One Call process to gather information about the location of utility facilities. However, feedback from respondents indicates that One Call is used primarily for damage prevention before construction, although some agencies reported the use of One Call design tickets.

42 The overall use of One Call for transit projects depends largely on how state law regulates its use (for example, whether it allows the use of design tickets). • Transit agencies rarely collect quality level B (QLB) or quality level A (QLA) utility data in accordance with ASCE 38-02. Using utility location services to obtain information about underground utilities is common at transit agencies. However, these services normally do not follow the ASCE 38-02 standard for the collection and depiction of underground utility facilities, which is designed to increase the quality of utility data deliv- erables and reduce uncertainty and risk for the proj- ect owner. Transit agencies are not sufficiently familiar with ASCE 38-02 and rarely collect QLB or QLA data. Agencies that are familiar with this process frequently do not use it or limit its use to specific locations because of the cost involved. From some of the references in the literature review, it appears that one of the reasons transit agencies encounter problems such as delays and unplanned utility relocations is inadequate utility data quality, both in terms of positional accuracy and charac- terization of the existing utility infrastructure. Although agencies use test holes routinely, in some cases it appears that test holes are the main tool used to detect and char- acterize underground utilities, instead of being used as an integrated tool that complements the use of geophysical methods, as recommended in the ASCE 38-02 standard. • Using three-dimensional (3D) technologies for project development and delivery is still uncommon. Some agen- cies are beginning to use 3D technologies during project development, primarily for public outreach during the environmental review phase. The use of 3D technologies for design applications is extremely rare. In one reported instance, an agency used 3D modeling to identify util- ity conflicts. Use of 3D technology is driven primarily by consultants who are familiar with the technology, not by project owners. • Utility conflict matrices are useful for managing util- ity conflicts, but their use is inconsistent. Transit agen- cies reported on the use of utility conflict matrices, but their use varied dramatically among respondents. One of the agencies does not use them and instead relies on design drawings that include overlays of utility installa- tions. Other agencies use utility conflict matrices widely, tracking hundreds of conflicts on a project using mostly spreadsheets. Most agencies that use utility conflict matri- ces consider this tool to be an effective tracking mecha- nism. They are particularly useful if they include a risk assessment component for the utility conflicts being tracked. • Some utility conflicts require unique engineering solu- tions. Some transit agencies provided examples of how they approached the resolution of particularly challeng- ing utility conflict situations. Although design standards provide a general framework, sometimes unique situa- tions require unique engineering solutions. In some cases, the engineering solution includes accepting an exception to a policy or standard, which means accepting a certain amount of risk. It was unclear from the information pro- vided whether agencies systematically conduct a formal risk assessment in these situations. In any case, imple- menting win-win engineering solutions for both transit agency and utility owner requires significant design and construction experience and a willingness by both parties to work collaboratively. • Transit agencies apply risk assessment and risk man- agement principles, but there is little information on specific risk assessment techniques for handling utility issues. Feedback from participants indicates that using risk assessment techniques is a standard practice at tran- sit agencies. Agencies follow a variety of approaches to assess risk in connection with utility issues. Benefits of implementing risk management principles that agencies cited include tighter schedules and project costs that more closely resemble cost estimates developed during the design phase. FTA emphasizes evaluating “require- ments risks” (i.e., risks from early planning to alterna- tives analysis). In addition, there is little information on specific techniques or examples about how to apply risk assessment techniques to manage utility issues. Devel- oping and disseminating this information would be an important addition to the set of tools available to transit agencies. There is a wide range in cost-sharing agree- ments for utility relocations. Transit agencies frequently develop projects on corridors that cities, counties, and other jurisdictions own or operate. Utility owners have a wide range of property rights and agreements that enable the placement of utility installations on those corridors. In this environment, transit agencies have implemented a few strategies for facilitating utility coordination and utility relocations. Examples include executing master agreements with utility owners outlining each party’s responsibilities and cost-sharing provisions, executing more detailed agreements for individual projects or work orders (which might include the master agreement by reference), and identifying which facilities or com- ponents to relocate in advance and by whom. Cost shar- ing is quite common. Depending on the situation, the split between transit agency and utility company could be 50/50 or 70/30, but it could also be that the agency pays 100% of the utility relocation costs. In some cases, the transit agency is not legally responsible for the entire utility relocation cost but agrees to pay in order to avoid project delays. Having to pay for a substantial percent- age of the cost to relocate utility installations is one of the reasons a common strategy to resolve a utility con- flict is to avoid the conflict and relocate a utility facility only if absolutely necessary. This means agencies tend to prioritize which types of utilities to relocate, such as, by avoiding infrastructure such as fiber-optic lines or duct banks as much as possible. Trying to avoid having to relocate gravity sewers is also common. Water and

43 gas lines are relatively easy to handle and frequently are the first relocations on which agencies decide. • Compliance with Buy America provisions is a signifi- cant issue affecting transit agencies and utility companies. After Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) was enacted, FHWA and FTA began to inform state and local transportation agencies that Buy America requirements applied to utility relocation agreements. Historically, Buy America requirements applied to construction contracts but not to utility reloca- tion agreements because the resulting payments to utili- ties were the equivalent of compensation payments to affected property owners. Some utility relocation costs are easy to deal with (e.g., miles of steel pipe), whereas other costs (e.g., steel used for complex communication cabinets) are much more difficult. A common problem is the expectation to meet Buy America provisions, even in cases where the utility owner pays for the utility reloca- tion work. Another problem commonly cited by utilities in relation to the change in policy is that the purchasing environment at a typical utility is highly dynamic. Espe- cially for complex component-based assemblies, utili- ties rely on a wide range of suppliers, and the supply chain in the international market fluctuates depending on factors such as price variations for individual com- ponents. Identifying which components are manufac- tured in the United States at any given point in time can be challenging. • There is a need for guidance documents at transit agen- cies to help utility stakeholders during the project devel- opment and delivery process. There is a general lack of documentation at transit agencies outlining utility accom- modation and relocation practices or manuals providing guidance to utility companies, consultants, and contrac- tors. In some cases, the reason is infrequent involvement of utilities in capital projects or capital projects that have started requiring utility relocations only in recent years. In other cases, there is frequent interaction with utility owners, but there are not enough resources (or the need has not become acute) to develop useful guidelines. In some instances, manuals are considered controlled docu- ments, are not available on the agency’s website, or are available only through public information requests. Based on the information gathered for this synthesis, the following research topics are suggested. • Effective utility investigation protocols for transit proj- ects: Transit agencies rely primarily on utility data col- lection techniques that have been around for decades. Agencies are not sufficiently familiar with the ASCE 38-02 standard, and it is used infrequently. Research could (1) ascertain the reasons for the infrequent use of ASCE 38-02; (2) develop a risk assessment tool to help agencies determine what kind of utility investiga- tion tools to use under a wide range of circumstances at different points during project development and deliv- ery; and (3) develop a utility investigation manual and training materials. • Improved methodology to identify and manage utility conflicts: The synthesis found that the use of utility con- flict matrices varies among transit agencies. Research could (1) determine the reason and motivation behind the infrequent use of utility conflict matrices at some transit agencies; (2) document the benefit that transit agencies could derive from using utility conflict matri- ces systematically; (3) adapt the utility conflict matrix approach that was developed as part of project SHRP 2 R15B; and (4) develop and integrate a quantitative risk assessment tool for utility conflicts. • Templates and model master utility agreements: Although FTA provides general guidelines on how to develop mas- ter agreements with utilities, there is a need to assemble a document of most effective practices on how to develop and implement agreements with utility owners. Research could (1) compile a large sample of master utility agree- ments; (2) review the effectiveness of their use; and (3) develop templates and model master utility agree- ments that agencies could use in the future for new or existing agreements that are up for renewal. • Framework and architecture for database of utility coor- dination and relocation costs in relation to total project costs: Statistics showing capital expenditures that are spent on utility relocations are not easily available. It is also not clear whether current statistics include data on local projects or utility relocations that use local funds. Having access to these statistics would facilitate a number of applications, including project planning and scoping, project cost monitoring, and risk manage- ment. Research could (1) determine to what extent FTA compiles and stores information about utility reloca- tion costs; (2) determine whether any existing databases include information about utility relocations that use local funds; (3) develop a framework and data architec- ture for managing utility relocation costs; (4) develop a methodology to update utility relocation cost estimates at different points during design and construction; and (5) develop training materials for transit agencies, util- ity owners, and consultants. • Effective practices for compliance with Buy America provisions: Recent Buy America provisions have been difficult for transit agencies and utility companies to implement. Although the regulatory process will evolve in response to requests or complaints from agencies around the country, agencies and utility companies are intro- ducing substantial changes to their business practices. To assist transit agencies, utility owners, and federal regulators in this process, research could (1) document project-level impacts, program-level impacts, and eco- nomic benefits and costs associated with the imple- mentation of Buy America provisions; (2) document case studies outlining effective practices; and (3) out- line potential changes, if any, to the existing regula- tory framework.

44 • Guidelines for utility relocation practices in transit proj- ects: Transit agencies, utility owners, and other stakehold- ers do not have access to documentation that describes utility accommodation and relocation practices and pro- cedures during transit projects. Research could (1) assem- ble and review current regulations and information that might be available from diverse sources, and (2) develop guidelines to help transit agencies, utility owners, and other stakeholders navigate regulations and requirements for transit projects. • Utility coordination effective practices for different delivery methods: Utility coordination practices can vary significantly depending on the delivery method selected for a project, such as design-bid-build, design- build, or construction management general contracting. Most documentation available in the literature assumes a design-design-build delivery method. Research could (1) identify case studies, (2) document differences and effectiveness of various utility coordination procedures and practices, and (3) develop utility coordination effective practices and templates to tailor the needs of different project delivery methods, including funding mechanisms and cost controls. • Feasibility of a strategic transit research program: SHRP 2 was conceived and executed as a targeted, results-oriented research program to address high- profile, strategic highway issues in the areas of safety, renewal, reliability, and capacity. Fundamental to this program was the identification of a strategic road map for each of these areas, which outlined critical research areas and integration points, developed research need statements, identified funding requirements, and pro- duced a multiyear timeline for conducting the research. Research could (1) review past and current transit research efforts, and (2) determine the feasibility of a strategic transit research program that takes lessons learned from SHRP 2 and applies them to the identifi- cation and resolution of critical transit issues.