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?