Meeting Summary

SCOH Council on Project Delivery

Chair, Carol Murray, NH DOT

Friday, September 16, 2005, 4:00 PM-5:25 PM

Reports from Member Committees

  • Note: Activity Reports for the Member Committees may be found in the meeting materials for the Standing Committee on Highways. Major items and comments are noted below.
  • Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures, Mal Kerley, VA
  • Currently working on a rewrite of the LRFD Design Manual.
  • Also currently working to replace the manual for the condition evaluation of bridges with the LRFR Manual.
  • Subcommittee has established a new technical committee dealing with tunnels, chaired by Harry Capers of NJ.
  • Working on a strategic plan for bridge research, which will cover needs over the next 5-10 years.
  • Subcommittee on Construction, Len Sanderson, NC
  • Primary task is currently the update of the Guide Specifications for Highway Construction, with assistance from an NCHRP 20-7 project.
  • Also working to complete the 5th update of the Primer on Contracting in 21stCentury, an online document that provides overview of innovative contracting techniques.
  • Awaiting the US DOT OIG’s report on their audit of the wayState DOTs handle errors and omissions. When released, the subcommittee will review this report and develop a proposed AASHTO response for consideration.
  • A survey on the use of law enforcement in work zones is forthcoming, as well as a document cataloging innovative approaches to improving the quality of work zone plans.
  • Subcommittee on Design, Al Biehler, PA
  • The subcommittee is continuing its work to advance flexibility in highway design, and focused this year at its meeting on CSS and land use/transportation interactions.
  • This meeting was also held in conjunction with TRB’s 3rd International Symposium on Geometric Design, which included participants from around the world providing information on innovative ideas from their respective countries.
  • Subcommittee on Materials, Gary Hoffman, PA
  • The 25thedition of the AASHTO Material Manual has been published, and for the first time it can be online through a multi-user subscription process.
  • The National Highway Institute’s 6 week materials management course is highly recommended.
  • Subcommittee on Right-of-Way and Utilities, Len Hill, ID
  • The subcommittee has proposed a domestic scan on integrating project delivery, with a primary focus on finding better ways to integrate project delivery to accelerate project schedules, including timely and cost effecting right-of-way acquisition and utility coordination and relocation.
  • Back in 2000, the subcommittee participated in international and domestic scans. From these scans, 13 experimental projects were identified, of which two were in the utilities area: one is related to the feasibility of having DOTs pay for utility relocation costs, and the other involves recognizing pipelines as a form of transportation.
  • Also working on a joint training initiative with FHWA.
  • Task Force on Context Sensitive Solutions, Neil Pedersen, MD
  • Neil provided a report at the SCOH meeting earlier in the day.
  • The task force is planning for a conference in Maryland in September 2006, which is a follow-up to the Thinking Beyond the Pavement conference in 1998. The primary goals of the conference will be to determine what lessons have been learned in the last 6 years since CSS was first introduced to eh State DOTs; to update the principles that were adopted at the ’98 meeting; and to determine where the states want to go with CSS.
  • One of the main issues within the DOTs is how to get the point across that CSS is not an add-on to a project, but is actually a way of doing business.
  • FHWA is developing a traditional training program on CSS, while the task force will complement this training by developing peer-to-peer programs to allow the states to learn from each other in small group settings.

Major Discussion Items:

Environmental Issues

  • There are many discussion items in which would be helpful to have representation from the Standing Committee on the Environment at the Council Meeting. In addition, outside the Council meeting, the SCOH subcommittees should be working more closely with SCOE and the Standing Committee on Planning (SCOP).
  • One such issue is the Green Highways initiative
  • EPA Region 3 (Mid-Atlantic) is working with the DOTs to develop “Green Highways.”
  • A central element in the beginning was a certification program, but this was not viewed positively by the DOTs.
  • EPA has since backed off on the certification element, and Neil Pedersen stated that he feels it is a very worthwhile initiative, with grant money that could be made available for special new programs in the area of environmental stewardship.
  • In 2004, the Subcommittee on Design met jointly with SCOE, and many felt that it was a positive meeting, but also there was concern that there were not enough small-group discussions on particular issues that are still trouble spots for the DOTs.
  • For example, in CT, there is a critical need for new facilities, and there are people dying ont the roads every day, but there seems to be policy at the resource agencies against building anything new, as opposed to building environmentally responsible projects.
  • Also, there are problems with finding out at the 11th hour that projects are going to be stopped when issues are not resolved to the resource agencies satisfaction.
  • There seems to be a high-level problem with the basic incompatibility of the agendas of the agencies (environmental versus DOTs), as well as issues at the political level.

ACTION ITEMS

  • The Council on Project Delivery needs to engage SCOE and SCOP in brainstorming the problems that keep projects from advancing quickly, or even advancing at all. There is an idea to conduct a day-long meeting with committee chairs (and selected technical experts from these committees) to hash out there issues.
  • After this meeting takes place and a focus or game plan is developed, the next stop would be to involve outside agencies such as EPA to determine how the agencies can work together.

Utilities Coordination

  • (Handout from Len Hill)
  • Various strategies for advancing utilities relocation were discussed, including the following:
  • Paying for relocation, though not necessarily the silver bullet, does work in some cases.
  • In Massachusetts, at the 10% design stage, hours are added to consultant contracts to meetwith utilities, locate them, and work to start the relocation process.
  • On an Amtrak job, Massachusettsused one of Amtrak’s subcontractors who was more familiar to them.
  • Some DOTs are paying at least partial funds to utilities to do the relocation work themselves.
  • Maryland has been successful in getting the utilities to move if they use consultants that are already on the utility’s pre-approved list.
  • North Carolina and Maryland have both started to discuss the possibility of using incentives to get utilities to move by a certain date.
  • Maryland is also breaking out utilities as a separate phase (contract) before construction begins.
  • Massachusetts has used the idea of peer pressure by basing bonus money on whether ALL of the utilities relocate on time. If even one is late, none of the utilities gets the extra money.
  • Another strategy is to offer the utilities proposals that mimic what they would normally do, thus making it easier to comply with the requests.
  • However, some issues, like union issues, can’t easily be overcome.

ACTION ITEMS

  • One strategy is to get the AASHTO-AGC-ARTBA Joint Committee involved, since utility relocation is a problem for public and private sector transportation
  • Another idea is to have a national workshop with tracks on utility coordination and environmental issues, showcasing seemingly impossible problems that were overcome, illustrating how various tactics worked in each area.
  • The Subcommittee on ROW and Utilities will conduct again the survey on innovative practices in utility relocation to try to get better data from the DOTs.

1