Project No. 0-4617: Identifying Delays in the ROW and Utility Relocation Processes Affecting Construction and Development Methods for Expediting the Processes.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Right of Way Acquisition Process Jesse W. Smith Right of Way Manager.
Advertisements

Construction Delays & CPM Schedules
Guidebook for Risk Analysis Tools and Management Practices to Control Transportation Project Costs Keith R. Molenaar, PhD Stuart D. Anderson, PhD, PE Transportation.
Cost Estimation System Tool
Acquisition Alternatives An Overview of Texas John Zimmerman, Attorney Director, Acquisition Section Right of Way Division Texas Department of Transportation.
Appraisal, Acquisition & Relocation System (AARS) REAL ESTATE SECTION LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT.
6 TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE. Footer Text Date PERFORMANCE-BASED MAINTENANCE APPROACH DB/P3 Edward P. Pensock, Jr. P.E. Strategic Project Division Director.
Central Texas Turnpike Project. Donald C. Toner Jr., SR/WA Right of Way Administrator Texas Department of Transportation Central Texas Turnpike Project.
AIWW Deep Creek Bridge Replacement Information Update
Coordinating with Project Manager Cindy Kowalski, PMP Utility Coordinator, Parsons December 2013.
Golden Triangle Blvd. Progress Report March 27, 2007.
STATE ROAD 100 CORRIDOR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Bulldog Drive Improvements Right-of-Way and Design September 21, 2010 Presentation for SR 100 CRA.
Warm – Up Housing Question Monday, October 7, 2013 While creating your budget, what was most important to you have enough money for?
Project Management Process Project Description Team Mission/ Assignment Major Milestones Boundaries Team Identification Measures of Success Roles & Responsibilities.
Human Rights Based Spatial Planning in Cambodia. Learning from the past and identifying new win- win spatial solutions in Phnom Penh.
Understanding Right of Way Process Dawn Haecker - Training & Technical Support Supervisor INDOT Trent Newport - VP, CrossRoad Engineers.
Brookwood/Helvetia Key #16842 Post-Bid Project Review PDT Feedback meeting 10/23/13.
Platting Update Orange County BCC January 27, 2015.
INDOT’s Scheduling / Project Management System (SPMS) Vision & Objectives for Next Generation SPMS Mike Jenkins, Indiana DOT Teresa Franklin, Info Tech,
The BIM Project Execution Planning Procedure
1 Welcome to the International Right of Way Association’s Course 401 Appraisal of Partial Acquisitions 401-PT – Revision 3 – USA.
Coordinating with Project Manager Cindy Kowalski, PMP Utility Coordinator, Parsons November 19, 2013.
Highway 169 Phase 2 (Part 2) – Cross Range Expressway April 30, 2014 Public Information Meeting Taconite Community Center.
Right of Way Section Dee Jones State Right of Way Manager Richard Dunlap Operations Manager Joe Gray Region 5 Right of Way Manager
Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development Affordable Housing Cost Study May 15, 2009.
ELECTRONIC APPRAISAL Status of Pooled Fund, FHWA/Texas Project John Zimmerman, Director, Acquisition Section TxDOT Right of Way Division
Bridge Building Timelines Presented by The Richland County Engineers Office Thomas E. Beck, PE, PS 77 North Mulberry Street Mansfield, Ohio Jan.
Utilities Planning Group CIP Tracking System Jim Broome, PE Chief Engineer.
ITS Software A TxDOT Statewide Perspective Charlie Farnham ITS Configuration Manager ITS America June 6, 2007.
Presentation Agenda:  About HCRMA  Decision Support Tools System Architecture  Public GIS Map  ROW Acquisition Tools  Utility Adjustment Tools  Q&A.
1 BROOKHAVEN SCIENCE ASSOCIATES Ring Building Construction Status Michael P. Bromfield Construction Engineer NSLS II Conventional Facilities Advisory Committee.
A New Paradigm for Utility Coordination Kenny Franklin INDOT Director of Utilities and Railroads.
Roadway Lighting on TxDOT Right of Way Greg Jones, EIT Master Electrician, State of Texas TxDOT, Traffic Operations Division, Illumination Branch.
HIGHWAY/UTILITY PROGRAM OVERVIEW ROADWAY CONFERENCE APRIL 20, 2009.
Cost-of-Education Index Study Presentation to the Joint Committee on Public School Finance January 24, 2002.
N. Burleson St. – Status Update I. Typical Sections & Pavement Design II. Budget and Preliminary Cost Estimates III. Schedule S EPTEMBER 16, 2014.
More and better Improvement of official statistics through the Swedish Geodata Cooperation Jerker MOSTRÖM Senior Advisor, Regions and Environment Department,
3TB Project Review Tax Increment Financing (“TIF”) Overview January 25, 2013.
Understanding Right of Way Process Dawn Haecker, Training & Technical Support Supervisor, INDOT Trent Newport, VP, CrossRoad Engineers.
RIGHT OF WAY BEST PRACTICES FOR LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCIES.
ISM 5316 Week 3 Learning Objectives You should be able to: u Define and list issues and steps in Project Integration u List and describe the components.
1 Welcome to the International Right of Way Association’s Course 401 Appraisal of Partial Acquisitions 401-PT – Revision 2 – CAN.
IT Strategic Planning.
Outage Communication – Improving the Flow of Information Presented at the EEI Transmission, Distribution, and Metering Conference Tucson, Arizona October.
OIRM Business Process Planning Overview for Business & Operations Advisory Committee May 27 – 28, 2015.
Introducing Project Management Update December 2011.
Texas Department of Transportation Corpus Christi District Harbor Bridge Project U.S. 181 (Harbor Bridge)/SH 286 (Crosstown Expressway) Citizens Advisory.
Real Estate Investment Chapter 2 Land Use Controls © 2011 Cengage Learning.
 LeaseSync Land Management System Overview By Micro Applications Corp.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services Chapter 257 of the Acts of 2008 Congregate Housing Services Coordination Provider.
Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Planning. 2 Presentation Overview SCWA/USGS Groundwater Study Stakeholder Assessment Groundwater Management Work.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT TRACKING SCHEDULES Audrey Demeter, PE,PM Casey Unrath, EIT.
General Tab Project, Cost Schedule, and Work Limits Roadway Character
Can Collaborative Groundwater Management Work? The Sonoma County Experience Jay Jasperse Sonoma County Water Agency April 9, 2010.
Ohio Department of Transportation John R. Kasich, Governor Jerry Wray, Director Real Estate Overview Matt Kouskouris, Division.
Coordination of Right of Way on Design-Build Contracts By- Richard Bennett State Right of Way Director Virginia DOT.
Project Delivery Performance Improvement Report to the Oregon Transportation Commission Hal Gard, Technical Services, Geo-Environmental Dee Jones, Technical.
BV41840 Schedule Risk Analysis of Software Development By: Dr. Joe H. Dean Engineering Chief Risk & System Analysis LFWC And: Mr. David W. Benson, Jr.
1 May 17, Conceptual Corridor Right of Way.
PRE-PLANNING FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS. OVERVIEW ASSESSING OWNER CAPABILITIES ANALYSIS OF RESOURCES REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEWING.
Girvin Road Improvements (Atlantic Blvd. to Wonderwood Dr.) Public Information Meeting March 3, 2016.
Coordinating with Project Managers Cassie Reiter, P.E., ENV SP Utility Coordinator/Project Manager CMT Engineers and Consultants June 2016.
CHANGE ORDER/CLAIMS MANAGEMENT MODULE 9. Change Order Management.
Highlights of the 2007 NRMCA Industry Data Survey
General Tab Project, Cost Schedule, and Work Limits Roadway Character
Right-of-Way Cost Estimating Planning Tool Training Guide
General comments: These projects are locally owned and the LPA should be involved and informed throughout the project. The project agreement is between.
South Asia Land Program Issues.
General Tab Project, Cost Schedule, and Work Limits Roadway Character
Understanding the Right-of-Way Process
Presentation transcript:

Project No. 0-4617: Identifying Delays in the ROW and Utility Relocation Processes Affecting Construction and Development Methods for Expediting the Processes Dr James T. O’Connor Dr G. Edward Gibson Mr Rei-Lin (Garry) Chang Mr Stephen M. Hedemann Dr Wai-Kiong (Oswald) Chong

AGENDA Study Overview ROW Study Utility Study Conclusions Questions

AGENDA Study Overview ROW Study Utility Study Conclusions Questions

Problem Statement How long does ROW acquisition take? How long does utility relocation take? What are the drivers of duration?

Study Objectives Develop: Process model for ROW acquisition and utility relocation Duration metrics and Advisory tool for duration estimation

Data Basis ROW: Number of projects: 55 ROW parcels: 200 + Interviews: Five Districts, Texas Turnpike Authority (TTA), ROW Division Utilities: Number of projects: 67 Utility adjustments: 300 + Interviews: Six Districts, TTA, ROW Division

Process Map 100+ activities Stratified by organization Shows integration and links to PS&E Key milestones Some “aha’s” and future improvements

Process Map

Key Durations

AGENDA Study Overview ROW Study Utility Study Conclusions Questions

Critical Path Parcel (N = 41) Cumulative % for ROW Acq. > 10 Parcels ROW Release  Possession Critical Path Parcels v. Typical Parcels Typical Parcel (N = 132) Critical Path Parcel (N = 41)

Cumulative % for ROW Acq. ROW Release  Possession by Number of Parcels 10-30 Parcels (N = 88) < 10 Parcels (N = 27) > 30 Parcels (N = 108)

Cumulative % for ROW Acq. ROW Release  Possession Rural versus Urban Rural (N = 151) Urban (N = 42)

Cumulative % for ROW Acq Cumulative % for ROW Acq. ROW Release  Initial Appraisal by # of Parcels 10-30 Parcels (N = 103) > 30 Parcels (N = 85)

Key Drivers: Critical Path Parcels Summary of Delay Factors from Critical Path Parcels Potential ROW Delay Factors Percent of Total Parcels (count1 = 45) (1) Owner: Pricing, compensation and impact dispute 44.4% (2) Owner: Title curative and ownership change 28.9% (3) Third party 26.7% (4) Parcel characteristics, owner initiated, improvement delays 20.0% (5) Environmental sensitivity and expert witness delays 17.8% (6) Legal activity causing delays 15.6% Others: Utility, design change or revisions, terrain features dispute causing delays 24.5% [1] Some Critical Path Parcels had multiple delays

ROW Key Findings Projects with fewer parcels have faster acquisition times Projects with more parcels have more lag time between ROW release  First appraisal Delay Drivers: Critical path parcel drivers ROW release  First appraisal Little difference in acquisition times: Urban vs. rural parcels

AGENDA Study Overview ROW Study Utility Study Conclusions Questions

Cumulative Percentage of Project U3 values for ROW Release Cumulative % for Utility Reloc.: ROW Release  Adj. Compl. Quick vs Slow Quick (N = 20) Cumulative Percentage of Project U3 values for ROW Release Slow (N = 32)

Cumulative Percentage of Project U3 values for Status of Reimbursement Cumulative % for Utility Reloc.: ROW Release  Adj. Compl. Reimbursable or Non-Reimbursable Non-Reimbursable (N = 12) Cumulative Percentage of Project U3 values for Status of Reimbursement Reimbursable (N = 41)

Cumulative Percentage of Project U3 values for LPA or Non-LPA Funded Cumulative % for Utility Reloc.: ROW Release  Adj. Compl. LPA v. Non-LPA Funding Non-LPA Funded (N = 9) Cumulative Percentage of Project U3 values for LPA or Non-LPA Funded LPA Funded (N = 30)

Average Duration by Utility Type Type of Adjustment Sample Size (n) Mean Duration Days Years (1) High Pressure Gas 14 1674 4.58 (2) Water 26 1468 4.02 (3) Overhead Power 25 1215 3.33 (4) Underground Communications 22 1108 3.03

Average Duration by Number of Agreements Sample Size (n) Mean Duration Days Years 1 10 690 1.89 2 8 582 1.59 3 7 865 2.37 4 6 919 2.52 5 2174 5.95 >5 11 2737 7.49

Additional Key Drivers of Duration Rural vs. Urban/Metro TxDOT project type Accurate utility location information Timely communication of project to Utilities TxDOT coordination between Utilities

Utility Relocation Key Findings Utilities waiting on ROW acq., drainage design “Last minute” design changes problematic Robust utility data management system needed

Right of Way and Utility Relocation Duration Information System (RUDI) Advisory Software Tool In Development

RUDI

AGENDA Study Overview ROW Study Utility Study Conclusions Questions

Conclusions ROW Acquisition: Critical Path Parcels take approx. 950 days on avg.; 90th% approx. 1650 days Typical parcel takes approx. 300 days on avg.; 90th% is approx. 900 days Key drivers for delay: Pricing, compensation and impact disputes Title curative Third party Delay from ROW Release  First appraisal

Conclusions Utility Relocation Duration: From ROW Release: 1160 days on avg.; 90th% approx. 2400 days From Final Agreement: 220 days on avg.; 90th% approx. 540 days Key Drivers: No. of Agreements Rural vs. Urban/Metro TxDOT project type LPA funding Type of utility

Questions?