UTILITY CONFLICT MANAGEMENT:A TALE OF TWO CITIESAnna Pulido, San Antonio DistrictBill McCoy, Fort Worth DistrictCesar Quiroga, TTI

October 17, 2018

UCM IMPLEMENTATION UPDATECesar Quiroga, Ph.D., P.E.Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI)

Interagency Contract to Support Utility Conflict Mgmt Implementation Two Main Phases:

– Phase 1: One-day Utility Conflict Management (UCM) training course at Metro Districts

• Completed in the summer of 2016

– Phase 2:

• UCM training at all Districts

• UCM implementation at Metro District projects

– Kickoff Meeting: November 14, 2016

– Monitoring and technical support through August 2019

One-Day UCM Training Course (ROW100)

One-Day UCM Training Course (ROW100)Fiscal Year Participants TxDOT Participants Non-TxDOT Participants

FY 2016Total 224 136 88

Average 45 27 18Percentage 61% 39%

FY 2017Total 836 505 331

Average 35 21 14Percentage 60% 40%

FY 2018Total 411 267 144

Average 34 22 12Percentage 65% 35%

OverallTotal 1471 908 563

Average 36 22 14Percentage 62% 38%

One-Day UCM Training Course (ROW100) – Participants by Title

One-Day UCM Training Course (ROW100) – Participants by TitleADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT DEPUTY DIRECTOR MAINTENANCE DIV FEDERAL PLAN REVIEWER SPECIAL PROJECTS COORDADV PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

DIRECTOR DEPUTY DISTRICT ENGINEER GENERAL ENGINEERING TECH PLANNER SUMMER ENGINEERING TECH

AREA ENGINEER DESIGN PROJECT COORDINATOR GENERAL TRANSP SPEC PROJECT CONTROLLER SURVEY SPECIALIST

ASSISTANT AREA ENGINEER DESIGN TECHNICIAN GENERAL TRANSP TECH PROJECT DEVELOPMENT MANAGER SURVEY TECHNICIAN

ASSISTANT MAINT SECTION SUPVR DESIGN TRAINEE HVAC SPECIALIST PROJECT MANAGEMENT SPEC SURVEYOR

AUDITOR DIR OF TRANS PLANNG & DEV JOURNEYMAN ELECTICIANPROJECT PORTFOLIO MGMT SEC

DIRECTOR TRAFFIC SYSTEMS SPECIALIST

BRIDGE INSPECTION PROGRAM SPEC DIRECTOR OF CONSTRUCTION LAND SURVEYOR PSE PROCESSING SEC DIRECTORTRANSPORT MAINTENANCE CREW

CHIEF

BUSINESS ANALYST DIRECTOR OF MAINTENANCE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SPEC TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER

CEI CONTRACTOR DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS LOCAL R/W PROJ DELIVERY UTILITY SPEC TRANSPORTATION ENGR SUPVR

CONST RECORDS AUDITORDIRECTOR OF TRANS PLAN &

DEVELOPMENT MAINTENANCE SECTION ASSISTANTR/W PROJ DELIVERY UTILITY

SPEC*LEAD WORKER TRANSPORTATION SPECIALIST

CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION OPS MAINTENANCE SECTION SUPVR R/W PROJECT DELIVERY MGR TXDOT ATTORNEY

CONSTRUCTION RECORDKEEPER DISTRICT MAINTENANCE ADMIN MAINTENANCE SUPPORT TECH REPROGRAPHIC SERVICES TECH UTILITY

CONSULTANT ENGINEERING ASSISTANT MATERIAL/PROCESS INSPECT RES AND TECH PORTFOLIO SEC MGR UTILITY COORDINATOR

CONTRACT SPECIALIST ENGINEERING INTERN OFFICE TECHNICIAN RIGHT OF WAY AGENT UTILITY COORDINATOR SUPVR

CONTRACTOR ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTOUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPL

AGENT RIGHT OF WAY SUPERVISORUTILITY PORTFOLIO SECTION

DIRECTOR

DEPUTY DIR RIGHT OF WAY DIVISION FAA CONTRACTOR PERMIT COORDINATOR ROW PROJ DELIVERY DIRECTOR WAREHOUSE COORDINATOR

One-Day UCM Training Course (ROW100) – Hands-On Exercise District highway project:

– 60-90% design complete

– 2-3 miles long

– Documentation used:

• Plan views

• Profiles

• Cross sections

• Drainage plans and profiles

• Existing utility layouts

• Utility test hole sheets

• UCM utility conflict list template

• UCM utility conflict resolution analysis template

Lessons Learned

Positive comments from participants taking the class

– Increased awareness of project delivery process

• Emphasis on early utility coordination and identification of conflicts

– More project managers and designers should take the class

Many practices regarding utility data documentation and conflict management

– Almost 20 sample projects reviewed and used for the afternoon exercise

– Utility investigation timing, scope, quality, and completeness

– Mapping and documentation on project files

– Information conveyed to contractors (both highway and utility)

UCM process is a good model moving forward

– Standardization is critical

Alternative Analysis and Preliminary Plans

Environmental Process

Utility Investigation, Utility Conflict Management, Utility Coordination, Utility Design, and Utility Relocation Management

Property Acquisition and Relocation Assistance

Design and PS&E Assembly

Letting

Construction

Planning Preliminary Design Detailed Design Letting Construction Post Construction

Property Management

Planning linkages

Definition, Selection, Financing, Sched.

Environmental Commitments

Right-of-Way Map Development

Agreements, Scope Update

Construction authorization

Environmental reevaluation

Environmental approval

Right-of-way authorization

Project Management

30%design

60%design

90%design

15-20%design

0%design

2 3 4 5 6 71

Early utility coordination

Utility Investigation

Lessons Learned

Positive comments from participants taking the class

– Increased awareness of project delivery process

• Emphasis on early utility coordination and identification of conflicts

– More project managers and designers should take the class

Many practices regarding utility data documentation and conflict management

– Almost 20 sample projects reviewed and used for the afternoon exercise

– Utility investigation timing, scope, quality, and completeness

– Mapping and documentation on project files

– Information conveyed to contractors (both highway and utility)

UCM process is a good model moving forward

– Standardization is critical

UCM Implementation Monitoring – Selected ProjectsDistrict Project DescriptionAustin FM 971, SH 95 to SH 130 in Travis County Widening lanes, shoulders, nine

bridge culvertsDallas SH 352 from Kearney St to US 80 in

Dallas CountyWidening lanes

Fort Worth

Old: FM 156 in North Tarrant County (3.78 mi)New: US 377 in Hood and Johnson Counties (2.50 mi)

Four-lane urban minor arterial, curb and gutterFour-lane divided highway with bridge over railroad

Houston SH 36 in Fort Bend County (8.06 mi) Hurricane Evacuation Route - widen to 4 lane divided highway

San Antonio

US 281 north of Stone Oak in Bexar County (4.15 mi)

Six-lane expressway with frontage roads

FORT WORTH DISTRICT EXPERIENCEBill McCoyFort Worth District, TxDOT

US 377 Cresson Relief Route Critical need:

– FWWR crossing at grade and switching yard

– High truck traffic volumes

– 20,500 vehicles per day

– Traffic safety/fatal crashes

– Politically charged

New corridor with 4-lane divided highway and bridge over RR tracks

– Hood County: 1.7 miles

– Johnson County: 0.8 miles

– Estimated cost: $61 million

US 377 Cresson Relief Route

US 377 Cresson Relief Route Environmental Clearance FONSI: 09/2017, no issues

Right of way acquisition:

– Some legal descriptions had to be revised several times

– Small number of parcels (11) but some large acreage

– 90% of parcels in Eminent Domain

– Most property owners don’t want project

– Proposed possession by 01/2019

Utilities:

– 13 utility companies and 33 utility conflicts

– 18 utility relocations

– Savings seen from 9 utility conflicts

– Property/utility owner installed pipe in ground

Construction Complete12/2021

Construction Begins01/2019

Proposed Utility Complete 07/2019

Let08/2018

90% plans04/2018

Project Time Line

US 377 Cresson Relief Route Management Plan:

– Staged and phased construction activities

• Staging exhibit added to bid package

– Expected positive outcome

• Fair bidding by all contractors

• Allow utilities time to relocate without affecting construction activities

• Lower risks of potential change order for delay claims

US 377 Cresson Relief Route

Avoid, Minimize, Accommodate (AMA) Approach

Analyze: Created a Utility Conflict Matrix with alternatives

Avoid, Minimize, Accommodate (AMA) ApproachMinimize: 10” and 14” High Pressure Transmission Pipelines

Several pipes were located in the work zone needed to build the bridge

Pipes were not in direct conflict but weight of machinery would cause an issue

Use timber crane mats to distribute the weight over the pipes which eliminated the need to relocate

Saved substantial time and cost verses lowering pipelines

Avoid, Minimize, Accommodate (AMA) ApproachAvoid: 16” High Pressure Transmission Pipeline (PL1)

AT 30% plans it was determined there was not adequate clearance between a pipeline and bridge bent

Design change to avoid the relocation could save project time and costs

Pipe would be located under 40ft of fill

– Not accessible in the future

• Not acceptable to the pipeline owner

Alternative was rejected

If accepted:

– Additional 24 months to schedule

– Cost: $40,000 (design around engineering fees)

Avoid, Minimize, Accommodate (AMA) ApproachAccommodate: 16” high pressure transmission pipeline (PL1-2)

At 90% plans

Rerouted the line to a private easement which increased footage of line

Combined two separate relocations into one relocation.

Able to choose from alternative routings

Accepted:

– Reduced schedule by 38 months

– Saved $1,558,833 in relocation costs

Avoid, Minimize, Accommodate (AMA) ApproachMinimize: Underground telecom

3000 feet of telecom to be relocated, cost: $108,250

Underground copper

Alternative solution:

– Install two repeaters

No need to relocate the line

Saved $95,750

Reduced schedule by 10 months

Avoid, Minimize, Accommodate (AMA) ApproachMinimize: 8” natural gas gathering line

Pipeline located within a 20-foot cut and conflicted with road excavation

Researched records shows pipeline inactive for over 5 years

– Lease agreement relinquishes rights to lease if not active for more than 5 years

– Relocated a PIG launcher to another section of active pipe

– Abandoned line in place

– Saved $90,000

– Reduced schedule by 14 days

Avoid, Minimize, Accommodate (AMA) ApproachMinimize: Overhead electric line (OE2-3)

Electric line located in cut area of project

Line located on property going to Eminent Domain

Main feed to a ranch property

Alternative was to back feed service to an existing line located in private easement

Line is located in Phase I of construction

Accepted:

– Saved $54,500

– Reduced schedule by 1 month

Benefits

Conflict Cost Time (Months)1 $95,750 25 $10,000 07 $54,500 09 $15,400 010 $27,200 0

13A $21,000 2413B $1,558,833 3834 $28,550 140 $90,000 0

Cost and Time Savings for US 377

Total Cost Savings $1,901,233 Average Time Savings (Months) 7.2

Lessons Learned Early involvement during schematic and design phase can have a positive effect on project costs and schedule

Interact more often with rural utility owners to provide guidance on TxDOT regulations (UAR)

Label UCM with size of utility

Value is measured by more than initial monetary costs

Resolution Alternative Process

– Organizes the entire project

– Standardizes techniques of utility coordination processes

– Manages utility conflict data effectively

– Provides opportunities for value engineering

– Real time tracking of all conflicts, alternatives and history (tells the story )

• Cost

• Time

• Alternatives

SAN ANTONIO DISTRICT EXPERIENCEAnna Pulido, P.E.San Antonio District, TxDOT

US 281 Segment 2- 0.8 miles North of Stone Oak to County Line

Scope: Two general purpose lanes and one HOV lane in each direction along with necessary transition and auxiliary lanes

Let Date: July 2018 (moved up from December 2018)

Estimated Construction Start Date: January 2019

ROW/Utilities:

54 parcels acquired (within a year timeframe)

Ongoing utility coordination with SAWS water & sewer, CPS gas, CPS overhead electric, AT&T, Spectrum, GVTC, and Level 3/CenturyLink

Joint bid utilities include SAWS water, SAWS sewer and CPS gas

Estimated Non-joint Bid Utility Clearance Date: December 2019

Estimated Construction Completion Date: Fall/Winter 2022

Let Date: July 2018

NOTE: Highlighted areas are not drawn to scale.

281

10 10

410

35

35

16041604

A

5 milesSan

Antonio

46

1863

Segment 1Segment 2

Construction Cost: $179M

US 281 Segment 2- 0.8 miles North of Stone Oak to County Line

Project Timeline

US 281 Segment 2- 0.8 miles North of Stone Oak to County Line

Environmental Challenges:

– Pending Environmental Clearance

– Overhead electric work was included in TxDOT Biological Opinion

ROW Acquisition Challenges:

– Property Owners not wanting to vacate

Vegetation Clearing: 100% Complete

– Close coordination with our ROW team

Overhead electric power pole relocation:

– Approximately 400 poles will be relocated

– Construction started on 2/28/18

– Estimated Completion (including existing pole removal): 12/2019

– Telecoms attached to poles: Level 3/Centurylink, Spectrum, AT&T, and GVTC

US 281 Segment 2- 0.8 miles North of Stone Oak to County Line

Avoid, Minimize, Accommodate (AMA) Approach

Avoid:

– Lowered the profile of highway (SBFR) 5 feet to avoid transmission line adjustment

• Cost Savings: ~$3M (Utility Cost)

• Time Savings: ~2 years of design and construction time (would not have met letting date)

Avoid, Minimize, Accommodate (AMA) Approach

Avoid/Minimize:

– Shifted frontage road about 5 feet closer to the main lanes

• Avoided ~1 mile of transmission 24” water line from being adjusted; only manholes to be adjusted within sidewalk

• Cost Savings: ~$1.6M (Utility Cost)

• Time Savings: ~3 months of construction time (joint bid) and ~1 month in reduced design timeline

Avoid, Minimize, Accommodate (AMA) Approach

Accommodate:

– Assigned utility relocation corridors

– Vegetation Clearing for Overhead Utilities

• Utility Cost Savings: $1.8M

• Allowed TxDOT control of schedule

US 281 Segment 2- 0.8 miles North of Stone Oak to County Line

US 281 Segment 2- 0.8 miles North of Stone Oak to County Line

US 281 Segment 2- 0.8 miles North of Stone Oak to County Line

Districtwide Implemented Changes

Utility Coordination and SUE was occurring too late in the project cycle (30% or 60% PS&E)

Utilities relied on TxDOT contractor to clear ROW

Utility Owners would not begin their design until all conflicts were identified to avoid redesign

Issue

Major utility relocation could take several years to be completed

Some Utility Owners would not begin their design until ROW was acquired due to fear of canceling project

TxDOT designers and project manager will do their best to avoid, minimize, and accommodate utilities

Include Utility Coordination and SUE in Schematic Contracts

TxDOT will reimburse utility if projects are “shelved” or cancelled

1) Design includes underground features (drainage, walls, etc.) within the 30% PS&E plans to identify conflict early2) TxDOT will reimburse utility for major design changes through Master Utility Agreement

TxDOT will clear ROW far in advance of construction project using ROW division contract or bidding

March 14, 2018

Implemented Change

Benefits

– Utility Cost Savings within the last 2 years:

• ~$4.6M on US281 Phase 2

• ~$2.4M on other projects districtwide

– Building Relationships: Priceless!

– Time Savings (design and construction):

• ~2.5 years on US281 Phase 2

• ~1.5 years on other projects districtwide

Redesigning around Utilities pays off!

Benefits

11/9/2018 42

Contact Information

ANNA PULIDOUTILITY MANAGER, SAN ANTONIO DISTRICT, TXDOTP: (210) 615-5989 E: Anna.Pulido@txdot.gov

BILL MCCOYR/W PROJECT DELIVERY MANAGER, FORTH WORTH DISTRICTALTERNATIVE PROJECT DELIVERYP: (817) 370-6950 E: Bill.McCoy@txdot.gov

CESAR QUIROGASENIOR RESEARCH ENGINEER, TTIP: (210) 321-1229 E: c-quiroga@tti.tamu.edu