Utility Course Case Studies CEA and Road Builders Workshop Joe Mah, M.Eng.P.Eng.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
We need a moratorium Give us the time to find a solution We have an incompatible land-use puzzle to solve The southwestern portion of Buffalo County is.
Advertisements

Project Certification & Encroachments The SR 305 Experience Project Certification & Encroachments The SR 305 Experience.
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Robert A. Tardif, P.E., Administrator Subsurface Systems Bureau New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services.
Agreement between the Village of Owego and Inflection Energy.
Building Act 2011 Building Amendment Act 2012 WA Spatial Industry concerns – Part 2 Colin Stewart – SSSI WA Conference May 2013.
City of North Liberty North Liberty Area Development Corporation University of Iowa Community Credit Union Economic Development Partnership Project October.
Railway Grade Separations Issues. Railway Grade Separations 1.Introduction Qualifications/experience to undertake bridge planning for railway grade separations:
WESTERN LOUDOUN SCHOOLS: ALTERNATE SITES May 26, 2009 Schoene/Engle McDonough Assemblage.
Edmonton’s Anthony Henday Drive Unique Challenges Saskatchewan P3 Summit 2014 Regina, Saskatchewan September 9, 2014.
Floyd County Board of Commissioners Special Town Hall Meeting Topic: Update on status of Georgetown WWTP.
City Council Meeting Lisa A. Kuss City Administrator May 8, 2012.
Ohio’s Solid Waste and C&DD Program Annual Meeting May 9, 2013 Ohio’s Composting Program Barry Chapman and Jen Hagar.
Maintenance Dredging of the Venetian Canal Venetian Canal Maintenance Dredging of the Venetian Canal Venetian Canal July 31, 2007 Discussion Item Orange.
Nitrogen Aggregation Loading
California’s New Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Policy Richard Sanchez, REHS, MPH President California Conference of Directors of Environmental Health.
FDOT R/W Guidelines Use of License Agreements
CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION Preconstruction Operations Dr. Alaattin Kanoğlu Spring, 2013 Professional Practice Management I.B.U. Architecture Undergraduate.
MAJOR REVISIONS TO THE POLICY FOR ACCOMMODATING UTILITIES ON HIGHWAY RIGHTS Presented By: Mark Attaway March 29, 2011.
Tysons 1 Operational Analysis of Dulles Toll Road Ramps to Tysons Board Transportation Committee Meeting September 17, 2013 Seyed Nabavi Fairfax County.
Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master subtitle style The Alignment of Melbourne's Laneways ‘MCC Alignments’ DM # The Institution.
Longmeadow Parkway Fox River Bridge Corridor
Work Plan Development Steve Robinson Highway Utility Engineer, INDOT June 11, 2015.
LPA – Utility Coordination Natalie Parks StructurePoint November 20, 2013.
Platting Update Orange County BCC January 27, 2015.
CALTRANS WIRELESS LICENSING PROGRAM Bimla G. Rhinehart Division of Right of Way and Land Surveys.
Potential Underground Wiring Meeting with Residents Wednesday, September 15, 2010 lionsbay.ca Lower Lions Bay Water Line Replacement The Village of Lions.
Interlocal Agreement – Transportation Impact Fees City Council Workshop July 9, 2013.
US 1 COLLEGE PARK – SEGMENT 1 FROM COLLEGE AVE/REGENTS DRIVE TO MD 193 (UNIVERSITY BLVD) Presentation to College Park City Council August 5,
Reduction and Deferral of Impact Fees Board of County Commissioners Discussion Item March 29, 2011.
Gaviota Beach Road – Transportation Division County Project Summer Crossing – Pre 1997 Located west of Highway 101 Access to Gaviota Beach and Hollister.
PWC Quarterly Transportation Report DATA Roundtable June 17, 2015 Rick Canizales – Chief Department of Transportation.
Street Maintenance. The Town of Bayfield maintains centerline miles of road.
Broadview Second Access. Parlette Annexation What has changed? Parlette has asked for reconsideration –Recitals in agreement are not operative provisions.
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Superstructure and Bridge Replacements in Region 9 Design-Build Project (PIN , D900020) Broome, Delaware,
1 Tower Road Project Update. 2 The Project Team requests the Alachua County Commission: Authorize staff to: Proceed with re-evaluating four (4) key issues.
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Superstructure and Bridge Replacements in Regions 2 & 9 Design-Build Project (PIN , D900022) Herkimer,
Shoreline & Waterway Management Section Regulations Governing Beach Protection and the Use of Beaches December 27, 1983 Beach – is that area which extends.
1 Village of Waskesiu Agreement –in-principle May 21, 2006.
Former DuPont Barksdale Works Project Update May 19, 2004 DuPont Corporate Remediation Group Great Lakes Visitors Center.
Highway Utility Engineer, INDOT
Mark Ruane ERCOT Vice President of Credit and Enterprise Risk Management Dodd-Frank Act Exemption Update Technical Advisory Committee May 5, 2011 Bill.
CEMEX Open Discussion March 10, Outline Background Background Issue Issue Proposed Actions Proposed Actions.
Spokane Certified Site Program WEDA Conference 2012.
LPA – Utility Coordination Natalie Parks, P.E. American Structurepoint, Inc. December 19, 2013.
ABANDOMENT OF EASEMENTS PRESENTED AT IRWA INTERNATIOAL CONFERENCE 2009.
Planning Construction Chapter 15. Private Sector  Most buildings and other structures are built for ordinary people. These people make up the private.
BIM Bridge Inspection and Maintenance Technical Standards Branch Class B Bridge Inspection Course Bridge Maintenance and Inspection Responsibilities Technical.
Planning Commission Public Hearing: SUB Proposed 6-lot Subdivision at Bland Circle December 2, 2015.
1. Land Conservation Act (LCA) * Public Agency Webinar Public Acquisition Notification Procedure – A Step by Step Guide * LCA, also known as the Williamson.
Interlocal Agreement – Transportation Impact Fees City Council Meeting July 16, 2013.
Residential Plats Orange County Board of County Commissioners August 19, 2014.
Transportation Projects City Council Workshop May 14, 2013.
Former DuPont Barksdale Works Project Update July 14, 2004 DuPont Corporate Remediation Group Great Lakes Visitors Center.
Sjolander Road A Harris County Low Impact Development Roadway Project John Blount, P.E., LEED AP Director, Architecture & Engineering Division Harris County.
Office of Real Estate 2045 Morse Road E2 Columbus Ohio /9/2016.
WEST VIRGINIA INDUSTRIAL ACCESS ROAD PROGRAM West Virginia Economic Development Council January 27, 2016.
Waterdown Road Corridor Class Environmental Assessment (Phase 3 & 4) Community Services Committee May 9, 2012.
The purpose of the US 53 project is to address the termination of the 1960 easement agreement that affects the current highway location in order to continue.
Canadian Environmental Legislative David Hunter B.A., LL.B., LL.M. Bennett Jones LLP Presentation to: Fachbereich 1 Architektur, Bauingenieurwesen, Geomatik.
Iron Range Tourism Bureau April 25, 2013 Hwy 53 Update.
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Water System Improvement Program Bay Division Pipeline Project July 14, 2009.
2009 Sales Tax Extension Project Status Update. 2 Background Sales Tax was extended via August 26, 2008 referendum. Sales Tax was extended for an additional.
FIRE PROTECTION CONTRACTS Workshop on Senate Bill 239 (Hertzberg) July 21, 2016 Nevada LAFCo – Presented by P. Scott Browne, Counsel.
Enterprise Zones – Status & Local Incentives Discussion City of Woodburn March 8, 2010.
Fort Worth Alliance Airport Runway Extension/
Curricular Practical Training
Subdivision Applications
Comments on the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Amendment Bill Adv Gary Birch 23 July 2013.
Building a secure Home Affairs
Property Acquisition Process
Presentation transcript:

Utility Course Case Studies CEA and Road Builders Workshop Joe Mah, M.Eng.P.Eng.

Case one: Highway 63 Mariana Lake Telcom Facility The Department had advised the Telecom company to relocate its “FOTS” hut to facilitate the AT roadway widening construction. The “FOTS” hut was located immediately adjacent to Highway 63, outside AT’s ROW boundary. The cost of relocation was estimated at 1.5 million. The letter dated on March 2012 to Technical Standards Branch (TSB), Telecom company asked the Department to be responsible for the relocation cost. If not, they would proceed with legal action against the Department.

The arguments they brought forward were as follows : The ROW agreement of construction of the “FOTS “ hut was granted by the Department of Municipal Affairs on June 1992 and registered the easement in the Land Title office on July, The “FOTS” hut was located outside of AT’s ROW. The intent was to stay out of AT’s ROW so AT would be responsible for future relocation costs. Neither the Telecom nor Alberta Transportation could locate a copy of the 20 year old roadside development permit. The company standard practice was always to comply with all regulatory requirements as stated in their letter. AT was expropriating without compensation.

Question: Who is responsible for the $1.5 million relocation cost in view of the (1) facility was located outside of AT’s ROW, (2) the easement was granted by Municipal Affair and was registered in the Land Title office and why?

The arguments they brought forward were as follows : The ROW agreement of construction of the “FOTS “ hut was granted by the Department of Municipal Affairs on June 1992 and registered the easement in the Land Title office on July, The “FOTS” hut was located outside of AT’s ROW. The intent was to stay out of AT’s ROW so AT would be responsible for future relocation costs. Neither the Telecom nor Alberta Transportation could locate a copy of the 20 year old roadside development permit. The company standard practice was always to comply with all regulatory requirements as stated in their letter. AT was expropriating without compensation. Municipal Affairs cannot speak on behalf of AT The 1966 Highway Development Act set a 30-m encroachment limit Applicant’s responsible for providing proof of permit Already crown land, no need for expropriation

Case TWO: County Water Supply Relocation The existing water supply system 200mm waterline falls within a footprint of the proposed interchange and will need to be relocated When it was designed in 1994, the County had contacted Alberta Transportation to get “approval” for an alignment that would not be impacted by the future interchange. AT suggested a new alignment. Subsequently, AT approved the new alignment. AT issued the permit in 1994 to allow the waterline to be installed within the AT’s right of way but was silent on which party would be responsible for the relocation costs if needed.

The diamond interchange that had been designed is now significantly different than what was planned in 1994 and the waterline is required to be relocated and to facility of the construction the interchange. The waterline when relocated will not be outside of AT's R/W because extensive land has been purchased for the new interchange.

County has stated that AT should be responsible for relocation costs since they followed an alignment approved by AT such that the waterline would not be impacted by the future construction of the interchange. County is of the opinion that Alberta Transportation should pay for relocation costs. County has submitted to the Department for an estimate of 0.6 million dollars to relocate the waterline including all Engineering and Construction costs.

Questions: Since AT approved the alignment location in 1994 within AT’s ROW, which party should be responsible for the relocation costs and why? Since the water supply system will still remain within AT’s ROW, future relocation may be required for road construction, who would be responsible for the future relocation costs why and how? Provided 3 criteria of AT standards for the placement of water line under AT’s highways.

Case Three: Highway over Existing Pipeline The pipeline was located outside the Department’s ROW. The Department widened its existing ROW to construct a truck staging area over the existing pipeline. The crossing agreement was obtained from the pipeline company in year 2010 which was only good until The existing pipeline met all design criteria, therefore, no modification was required. The project was delayed. In year 2013, the Department requested the pipeline company to extend the crossing agreement. The pipeline company had issued a new crossing agreement and advised their position had been changed as such that the existing pipeline needed to be lowered or protected by a load bearing concrete slab or replaced with a higher wall thickness.

In addition, pipeline company asked the Department $50,000 to pay them upfront for a scope study.

Questions: Should pipeline company crossing agreement be used and which party would be responsible for the upgrade cost? In the future, if the pipeline upgrade work will be required, whose crossing agreement would be used and which party would be responsible for the upgrade cost and why? Should the Department pay the pipeline $50,000 upfront for scope studies provided answers for (1) no and why (2) yes and how? Provided 3 AT standards for the placement of pipeline within AT’s ROW.

Case Four: Highway 63, Power company, North of Wandering River The Department advised the power to relocate their power lines further away from the Department’s ROW to facilitate the twinning of Highway 63. Power lines were located outside the Department’s ROW and beyond the highway development control zone but under the jurisdiction of Sustainable Resource Division (SRD). The Department offered the power company two options; Option (1) to relocate and stay out of AT’s ROW and also outside the highway development zone, Option (2) to relocate and stay within AT’s ROW.

Questions: Who would be responsible for the relocation costs and why? What are the pro and con for the two options and why?.