1 / 30

Dr James T. O’Connor Dr G. Edward Gibson Mr Rei-Lin (Garry) Chang Mr Stephen M. Hedemann Dr Wai-Kiong (Oswald) Chong

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.

asis
Download Presentation

Dr James T. O’Connor Dr G. Edward Gibson Mr Rei-Lin (Garry) Chang Mr Stephen M. Hedemann Dr Wai-Kiong (Oswald) Chong

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Project No. 0-4617:Identifying Delays in the ROW and Utility Relocation Processes AffectingConstruction 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. Cumulative % for ROW Acq. > 10 ParcelsROW Release  PossessionCritical Path Parcels v. Typical Parcels Typical Parcel(N = 132) Critical Path Parcel(N = 41)

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

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

  14. Cumulative % for ROW Acq.ROW Release  Initial Appraisalby # 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 [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 % 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 % 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 % 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 Durationby Utility Type

  22. Average Durationby Number of Agreements

  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 RelocationKey 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. 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

  29. 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

  30. Questions?

More Related