1. Project No : 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

2. AGENDA
Study Overview
ROW Study
Utility Study
Conclusions
Questions

3. AGENDA
Study Overview
ROW Study
Utility Study
Conclusions
Questions

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

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

6. 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

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

8. Process Map

9. Key Durations

10. AGENDA
Study Overview
ROW Study
Utility Study
Conclusions
Questions

11. 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)

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

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

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

15. 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

16. 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

17. AGENDA
Study Overview
ROW Study
Utility Study
Conclusions
Questions

18. 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)

19. 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)

20. 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)

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

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

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

26. RUDI

27. AGENDA
Study Overview
ROW Study
Utility Study
Conclusions
Questions

28. Conclusions ROW Acquisition:
Critical Path Parcels take approx. 950 days on avg.; 90th% approx 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

29. Conclusions Utility Relocation Duration:
From ROW Release: 1160 days on avg.; 90th% approx 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

30. Questions?