Economic analysis of Coordinated Linear Infrastructure Projects (CLIPS)

Economic analysis of Coordinated Linear Infrastructure Projects (CLIPS)

Material Information

Economic analysis of Coordinated Linear Infrastructure Projects (CLIPS) final report
Stasiak, Richard
Winoker, Jason
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Florida -- Dept. of Transportation
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Public utilities -- Right of way -- Multiple use ( lcsh )
Regional planning -- Florida ( lcsh )


General Note:
"March 2000."
General Note:
Principal investigators: Richard Stasiak, Jason Winoker.
Statement of Responsibility:
Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida ; for Florida Department of Transportation, Office of Research.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
C01-00116 ( USFLDC DOI )
c1.116 ( USFLDC Handle )

Postcard Information



This item has the following downloads:

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nmm 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 008 s2000 flu|||| |||||| eng
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00116
0 245
Economic analysis of Coordinated Linear Infrastructure Projects (CLIPS) :
b final report /
c Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida ; for Florida Department of Transportation, Office of Research.
Tampa, Fla. :
Center for Urban Transportation Research,
"March 2000."
Principal investigators: Richard Stasiak, Jason Winoker.
Public utilities
x Right of way
Multiple use.
Regional planning
z Florida.
1 700
Stasiak, Richard.
Winoker, Jason.
2 710
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
Dept. of Transportation.
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856


. I ' :.\ !!" PnDcipallnve.stigaton: 'it: > Ridtanl Stasiak, Pb.D. '' ,, Jason Winoker, M.A. ' lllbll' fllr Urbaa Transportation Resean:b ()qivenity of South Florida College of Engineering 4ZOZ E. Fowler Avenue, ClJT 100 l'a81pa, Florida 33610-5350 (813) 974-3110, fax (813) 974-5168 > ', > > > ;


FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Environmental Management Office 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 25 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 CENTER FOR URBAN TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH College of Engineering University of South Florida 4202EastFowler Av. CUT 100 Tampa, FL 33620-5375 (813) 974-3120 Director: Principal Investigators: Project Staff: Gary L. Brosch RichardT. Stasiak, Ph. D. Jason Winoker, M.A. Martin Catala, M.P.A. Susan Horsman Luis Vega Graduate Assistant: Robert O'Donnell, M.A.


TABL E O F CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ............. .................. u .......... ........................ u ...... o . ............ ............................. . . . . n )'.,1ST OF FIGURES ''''' I ''''''''"''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''V ''''''' -oo-oooo-ooooouooooouoooooooooooooooooo n ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF COORDINATED LINEAR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECI'S (CLIP S ) ................................................ : .................................. . ........... ............. ............... 1 BACKGROUND o OooOOOOOoOOoOOOooooooooo

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. OPTION COST COMPARISON FOR AN ELECTRIC UTII..ITY ...... ........ . . .. .... .. .. ........... ... 7 T ABLE2 OPTION COST COMPARISON FOR AN E .LECTIHC U11LITY' ... ....... ......... ................. ... ... .. ... 8 TABLE 3 UTU.ITY =ELECTRIC-COST SAVINGS DOLLARS (LoW ESTIMATE) ......... .......... .... .. ...... 9 T ABLE4. UTU.ITY =ELECTRIC-COST SAVINGS DOLLARS (HIGH ESTIMATE) ............ .. .. . .. .... .... 9 T ABJ..E 5. CEA CoRRIDoR (Mn.i!s) ..... ................. .. .... .... .. .... .. ................... .... .... .. .... ....... .. .. .. 1 1 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: SAMPLEPLOTOPSWFWMD MAP DATA .... . .. .... ......... .. ................... . . ... .... ..... .... .... 3 FIGURE 2 : ILLUSTRATION OF MISREGISTRATION OF CENSUS AND USGS MAP DATA . .. ....... ..... . 4 FIGURE3: A HYPOTHETICAL "CUPS" SCENA,RIO ......... . .. ........... .... . .... ......... ........ ... .......... ... . 6 FIGURE 4: HILLsBOROUGH RIVER BASIN "CUPS" OPPORTIJNITIES ... .... ..... ..... .... .. ......... .. ... .. .. 10 n


ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF COORDINATED LINEAR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS (CLIPS) Background Infrastructure and utility projects, such as roads, teleconununications lines, railways, and pipelines are typically developed with minimal coordination. This results in tedundant corridors, additional disruption to neighborhoods, and increased fragmentation of Florida's landscape and natural ecosystems. Multi-use corridors offer the potential to minimize community and environmenta l impacts and reduce overall project development costs. For example, an ongoing effort is underway to link Florida's narural areas via a network of green ways. Inevitably, large infrastructure projects must cross these green ways. Rather than disrupting a greenway in several locations, new utility and infrasuucrure projects and future extensions of existing utilities could be co-located in multi-use corridors, known as Coordinated Linear Jnfrastructute Projects (CLIPS). However, the benefits of co-location may be outweighed by the costs of rerouting a new facility or extension. or the cost of additional right-of-way in proximity to CLIPS corridors. To further explore this issue, this project was developed to involve in-depth analysis of the economic aspects of CLIPS and compare these results to the costs of traditional linear facilities development. Approach The study, funded by the F lorida Department of Transportation (FDOT), was conducted in collaboration with the Hillsborough River Greenways Task Force (HRGTF)a broad coalition of industry, environmental, gove .nnnent, and civic leaders. It was accomp lis hed using actual local data from environmental agencies, utility companies, and the F lorida Department of Transportation (FDOT). The objective was to e

FDOT (transportation infrastructure), and utilily companies (existing and proposed utilities). It was anticipated that the data would have been made available to the research team shortly after the project start date. Since most of the geo-data and the cost data were not available in a timely or completely adequate fonn from the contacted entities, the approach to the scope was revised during a discussion with representatives of HRGTF and FOOT District VD. At this meeting, held onFcbru;uy 16,2000, the(l) lack of depth and precision in the data and t h e (2) necessity to continue development of the CLIPS concept, with simplified analyses; was mutually acknowledged. The latter recOmmendation derived partially from the receipt of news that HRGTP would receiving a PhaseD grant from FHW A for, among things, a more detailed study (with refined data). Likewise, because the study corridor could be broken down into subsets in space and time to reflect more detailed geography. etc and then reassembled into the four "legs" of a CLIP, the simplified analyses were actually broad enough to embrace the general case of the problem at a later time. A detailed timeline for the entire project is shown in Appendix A. Evaluation of cartogr-phic data and the lintited amount of useful cost data available led the project team to elintinate aU but the most basic geographic analyses from the project and concentrate, more or less, instead on cost tradeoffs. To this end, the project team constructed a cost-comparison calculator using available cost survey data and hypothetical facility geometry to determine econontic measures of cost-benefits within a spreadsheet application. The general project research work plan included three major tasks: design of econontic analyses, including data collection, econontic analyses of case examples, and report composition. The fu:st part of this report focuses mainly on Task One, the basic design of the economic analyses and data collection. Following sections of this report are dedicated to detailed explanations of Task Two, Econontic Analyses of Case Examples, as selected cooperativel y by HRGTF and the project team. Analyses Strategy_ This task involved the design of analyses methodology for traditional Linear Infrastructure Projects (LIPS) in comparison to Coormnated Linear lnfrastrucrure Projects (CLIPS). The research team designed a protocol that combined project geometry from GIS data with project cost information obtained from utilities, permitting agencies, and FDOT. The initial data request included itentized costs for: planning, design and engineering, perntittioglmitigat ion, construction, rerouting, management, maintenance, and legal expenses. However, as previously mentioned, the project team elintinated all but tile most !>asic geographic analyses from the project and concentrated instead on cost tiadeoffs due to the lintited amount of useful geographic data available. Cost Data Collection Tbe majority of activity in Task One focused on data for evaluating representative CLIPS within the Hillsborough River Basin. A letter was drafted in August of 1999 and sent to representatives of panies with a strong interest in CLIPS or in the Hillsborough River Basin in general. These local representatives generally included utilities regulatory agencies, and municipalities. A sample cover letter and a copy of the data collection survey instrument are included in Auachment !. Completed data collection forms were received during the third and fourth quarters of the 1999 calendar year, as shown in Attachment 2. A table entry followed by a "Da t a Received" notation indicates that useable data was provided by the ent ity to the project team for the study. Enrries" labeled "Utilily Information Unavailable" were unable to provide.useabl e data to the project. team for the study. 2


Responses to the subject data requests were, for ihe most part, below eXp

A brief, preliminary examination of data obtained from SWFWMD showed a wide variance between physical features (based on USGS and/or SWFWMD authored maps) and transportation/ u tili t y map coverages (from other USGS data sets, the Census, and utility "CAD" systems). As presented in Figure 2, a common problem encountered in analyses i n which data from differ e nt sources or time epochs are mixed is the issue of .:egistration. Registration is a mapping, photographic. and printing concept referring to the alignment of spatially Identical points on different map, film, or print layers. The intermingling o f natural . transportation, and socioeconomic databases requires great care and forethought. particularly wlieo the interaction of man-made features (roads, utili t y corridors) and natura l features (river basins) joinUy determine the feasibility of a CLIPS. These mapping difficulties presented a major p roblem for the study b ecause the initial research design sought to determine the answers to three geog raphic questions in the context of CLIPS: To what extent does coordination of utility and transportation corridors occur spontaneoilsly, without formal intervention1 Could the cond itions in "spontaneously occurring" CLIPS serve as a gnide to the determination of a set of incentives that would selectively promote the development of other CLIPS? Could physical geogr aphy i dentify differences in the value of various types of natural habitat that might make some CLIPS corridors more desirable than others? Unfortunately. the lack of consisten t registration between the basic land cover, transportation, and demographic features of the study area precluded the investigation of these issues. FIGURE 2: ILLUSTRATION OF MlsREGISTRA T ION OF CENSUS AND USGS MAP DATA Census R oads WMORoads Census Water Featur e c:J WMD Streams WMD Water Bod y -4


Since the map coverages were not suited to precise geographic analyses, the study team proceeded t o evaluate the economics of CLIPS through a more modest geographical depiction showing only basic geometry, and spreadsheet analyses. Cost data were combined with hypothetical measures of road, utility corridor, and river basin geography within a spreadsheet application that was used to evaluate the economics of C LIPS . INTRODUCTION TO THE OF CLIPS This portion of the Final Report addresses the development of a cost and feasibility calculation methodology and the development of a case example. It turns to the. use of a case example to establish the measurement and methodology of a process to judge the economic feasibility of CLIPS. The case example is a hypothetical corrido r a long the Hillsborough River near Interstate 75, just northea." of the USF Tampa Campus, with possible utility types included in the analyses. The report then turns to other scenarios involving the crossing of the HiUsborough River Basin, at CR-579, US-301, SR-39, and US-98. Methodology The project team used the analyses of a hypothetical crossing of a river liasin by transportation and utility corridors as a basic, interactive framework to develop a methodology for determining the feasibility of a CLIP. The conditions to establish the "threshold of feasibility' were numerous, as were the operational questions that they raised in the analyses. For example, would alignment of utilities as they pass through environmentally sensitive land be economically feasible? Moreover, if it were not feasible, under what conditions would realignment become economically feasible? The analyses had to provide a framework from which choices regarding overall corridor alignments could be made on a consistent basis, given the limitations on cost and geographic data. The project team utilized available data to calculate the per-mile costs of available utilities. The cO.ts included a breakdown of permitting, engineering, right-of-way, environmental mitigation and construction costs. The project staff established a hypothetical scenario with two adjacent projects. One project was an existing corridor that crossed environmentally sensitive land; the other was an adjacent planned project that similarl y traversed environmental l y sensitive land. TI1e question was, should the project planners considered co-locating the planned utility with the ex isting corridor cut through? Figure 3 illustrates tlle two coordinated projects. Under this hypothetical scenario, the question becomes, does the Planned Alignment (P A) cost more than the two Deviated Alignments (DA) and the Co-located Existing Alignment (CEA)? From the following simpl e equation members of the project staff were able to determine which set of conditions are necessary in order for this particular CLIP to be economically feasible. Ultimately, the equation is set up as such: (PA) < (DAtl+ (DA2)+(CEA). Using this formula, the project staff established the cost per centerline mile for each of the utilities for which information was available. Ge'neral PhysiogJ;aphy of the Subject Area As seen in Fignre 3, the planned and deviated alignments traverse a portion of the Hillsborough River's floodplain. The se nsit ive nature of these crossings had been an impetus for the analyses of this particular CLIPS study It may actually be better to consider this shallow,low-energy River as a "sand-bottomed stream" for surficial drainage, rather than a "true river" This factor becomes significant when determining construction costs. 5


The lowlands in proximity to the river channel are composed of d elicate vegetative, biological, and ecological communities. The ecosystem type of this region is consistent with those found in 'the southeastern United States, and especially those throughou t West-Central Florida. So i l series' of the study area for the most part include: Cbobee, lmoka lee, B a singer, HolopaW, Salnstila. These soils are associated with floodplains, drainage networks, and low-energy, fluvial systems. Other smaller soil units were identified. Their compositions and desc ript ions are consistent with those soil series' listed above. FIGURE 3: A HYP01 '11ETICAL CLIPS SCENAIUO -ftl f lood Pl,!ll a.a..&JI.A ( Co-loult4 Alitflmtnl (CEA) l>t 'liJ1t4 Allon ment(()JQ) J:iXEl. l>t'

sensitive land (PAl), 2) t h e segment that travels through the environmentally sensitive land (PA), and 3) the segment traveling away from environmentally sensitive land (PA2) towards the origi nally planned course. In this particu l ar example, there are savings froin ro-lochtiilg the utility to the FDOT corridor. As Table I iUustrates, the range of costs for the Planned Alignment is $2,425,920 to $8,406,000. The !'.mge of cost for co location of the utility i s from $579,020 to $1,92!,600. ln other words, the cost of co-locating the utility is less than the cost for the Planned Alignment inal

Further ques t i ons, such as the foUowing, might arise: Would there still be right-of-way purohase costs? Would the permitting process be as extensive and expensive? What i s an acceptable cost reduction to savings ratio? Without estimating the reduced costs of relocating a utility into the shared corri dor, it is impossible to calculate the potential savings. To that end, the project staff establishe d a function al range of costs for the shared corridor Consequently, analyses were performed assuming that the shared corridor would add zero cost to the co-located utility. The results of t hese analyses, as found i n Tabl e 2, revealed a reduced cost and more savings. With the cost of the shared alignment eliminated, there are substantial savings if the planned utility were co located to share the established corridor. Thus, making it even more cost effective to co-locate the utilities within the existing right of-way Jn this case. the additional savings would be betw ee n $741,520 and $2.401,600. In reality, however, no t all of the costs associated with the co located crossing can be eliminated. For example, costs associated with construction still exist for both alignments at a minimum. This particular example reflec t s an economically feasible CLIP. However, several other alternatives with varying lengths and utilities are examined in this report to estab li sh clearer measures of feasibility. HRGTF may g enerally apply t hese fmdi ngs when considering whether a CLIP is applicable. TABLE 2. O PTION COST C OMPARISON FOR AN ELEcrRIC U TILITY Value per Centerline Mile Centerli n e Comparative Cost Segment Low High Miles Low Hiqh !PLANNED ALI GNMENT Planned Allo r oach One IPA1l $842 200 002 200 1.3 $1 094.860 $3,902,86( Planned Alignment CPA) $926,900 $3002 000 0.8 $741,520 $2,401,600 Planned Aooroach #2 CPA2) $842200 $3002 200 0.7 $589.54( $2,101,54( Total $2425920 $8 406,00( (CO-LOCATED) A LIGNMENT Deviated Aoproach One (DA1) $842 200 $3,002,200 1. 0 1&842 200 $3002 ,200 Co-located Exlstl n a Alianment ICEA) $325,000 $960000 0.0 0 0 Deviated Alloroach #2 (DA2l $842,200 $3 002,200 1.0 $842 ,200 $3,002,20( Tota l $1,684.400 $6 00440( LOW HIGH COST SAVINGS OF CO LOCATION $741.520 $2.401,60( A pplied E xamination Simulations were completed using the CLIPS comparison spreadsh eet. The results are displayed in Table 3 and Table 4. For this example the e l ectric utility was used. The a pproaches to the planned route (PAl and PA2) were held constant at 1 mile, and the distance across the environmental sensit i ve area varied For each change in the planned route distance, the deviated approaches (DAI and PA2) and the co-located exis ting alignment (CEA) varied through three l engths from I mile to 2 miles with the CEA varying from 0.5 miles to 1.5 miles. Table 3 and Table 4 present the range of savings for the most cost effective routes. Negative values 8


indicate that it is more cost effective to select the planned alignment Positive values indicate that it is more cost effective to impl ement towards the co-located alignment. TABLE 3. UTILITY= ELECTRIC COST SAVINGS DOLLARS (LOW ESTIMATE) CLI P S ALIGNMENT (MILES) PLANNED ALIGNMENT (MILES) . Deviated Colocated Deviated 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 Approach Existing Approach #I AliAAIIIent #2 1.0 0.5 1.0 300950 764400 1227850 1691300 26 18200 1 0 1.0 1.0 138450 601900 1065350 1528800 2455700 ___ ..., 1.0 1.5 1.0 -24050 439400 902850 1366300 2293200 1.5 0.5 1.5 -541250 77880 385650 849100 1776000 1.5 1.0 1.5 -70 3750 -240300 223150 686600 1613500 1.5 1.5 1.5 -866250 -402800 60650 524100 1451000 2.0 0.5 2 0 -1383400 -920000 -456550 -69000 933800 2.0 1.0 2.0 -1545950 -1038500 619050 -155600 771300 2.0 1.5 2.0 -1708450 -1245000 -781 550 -318100 608800 2.0 2.0 2.0 1870950 -1407500 944050 -480600 446300 Positive V:atuc: "12345'' '"-1234-S" Cbooee C<>-locatcd "CUPS" Route Choose Planoed Rout e Planned ADORXlCb 1 and Pl3nncd Appcoocll2 Coostant a t I mile. TABLE 4. UTILITY= ELECTRIC-COST SAVINGS D OLLARS (HIGH CLIPS ALIGNMENT (MILES) PLANNED ALI GNMENT (MILES) Deviated Colocated Deviated 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 3 0 Approach Exis ting Approach # I Alignment #2 1.0 0.5 1.0 1021000 2522000 4023000 5524000 8526000 1.0 1.0 1.0 541000 2042000 6543000 5044000 8046000 1.0 1.5 1.0 61000 1562000 3063000 4564000 7566000 1.5 0 5 1.5 -1961200 80200 1020800 2521800 5523800 1.5 1.0 1.5 -246 1 200 -960260 540800 2041800 5043800 1 5 1.5 1.5 2941200 -1440200 60800 1561800 4563800 2.0 0.5 2 0 -4983400 -3482400 1 968400 -480400 2521600 2. 0 1.0 2.0 5463400 -3962400 2461400 -9604<)0. 2041600 2.0 1.5 2.0 5943400 4442400 -2941400 -1440400 1561600 2.0 2 0 2.0 6423400 4922400 -3421400 -1920400 1081600 Positive Value: "12345'' Value: "'12.34$ .. Cboose Co--located "CLIPS,. Route Cboose Planoed "Route Planned Approach I and Planned Approach 2 Cons.tant at 1 mile. 9


The planned alignment (PA) variable appears to have the largest influence on the selection process. The greater the distance that must be ttaverscd across environmentally sensitive areas. the rnore likely the co: located alignment would be the most cost effective alternative, A long PA crossing provides for more flexibility in choosing a CLIP by allowing the CLIP to be located farther away if necessary or to be longer as it bisects environmentally sensitive areas . Application to Cas e Studies Within the Hillsborough River Basin The ultimate goal of this project was to apply the data, derived statistics, and methodology to highway and utility corridors that currently traverse the Hillsborough River Basin in an effort to demonstrate the extent to which CLIPS were economically justified. In addition to the prototype case example of Interstate 75 at the Hillswrough River, the project team and the HRGTF selected four additional study cilrridors consisting ofCR579, US-301, SR-39, and US98. Figure 4 shows the location of each of tllese corridors with respect to the Hillsborough River's main channel and generalized floodplain. The approximate length of each crossing, based on direct linear measurements using GIS tools, is also shown in th e figure. FIGURE 4: HILLSl!OROUGH RIVER BASIN "CLIPS" 0PPORTUNlTlES CLIPS Length (Milie$) 1 =us Z=O.SO 3 =2.50 4=0.15 5=2.15 . : C\Jrrert River Channel -Mo;or Roods In Table 5, the length of the Co-located Existing Alignmeot(CEAJ was measured for those selected crossings listed as shown in Figure4. Based on these lengths, the project team members concluded that the length of the Planned Alignment (P A) was the factor used to determine whether or not to continue with the PA or choose the CEA. Distances less than those given indicate that the PA should be chosen. For the distances greater than or equal to those in the table, the CEA should be chosen. 10


The following assumptions were made t o clarify the model. PAl and PA2 were held constant at 0.5 miles DAl and DA2 were held constant at I mile. F or each measured crossing distance of the CBA, the crossing distance of the PA varied until the savings associated wit h each apprQached zero, or at least. a point at which a nominal cost was reached. Nore that t his is only one case. If the lengths of the planned and deviated approaches were allowed to vary along with the PA, th e ranges of marginal savings would vary widely. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that each PAJCEA combination would have to be examined individually. Environmental impacts should also be weighed t o det enni n e the most cost-cll'ective route. TABLE 5. CEA CORRIDOR (MILES) I-75 SR-39 ofCEA 1.25 ASSIImes distance ratio ofPAl/PA2:DAl/DA 2 remains co n s t a nt at 1:2 *For' distances greater than or equal to the table values, th e combined alignment, or CLIPS, is economically advantageous, with benefits that could be shared between the public and private sectors. If the distances are less than those in the t able, choose the planned alignment. Note that while not shown her e, multiuse corddors combining more than one utility may very w e ll pnoduc o additional variation in the cutoff distances of the PA due primarily to savings iri corridorland acquisition costs. Summpry a n d Conclusions This project established the basic methodology through which multi -use corridors could be examined to determine ifCUPS-Cooolinated Linear Infrastructure Projectswere economically feasible. It is genesally believed that environmentally sensitive and/or priStine landscapes should be protected and that social needs for mobility and public utilities be met as well. CLIPS appear to bean ideal solutiOD 10 the problem of reconciling these two seemingly incompatible v iewpoints. The following is a bri ef synopsis of both the strengths and weaknesses of the methndology developed in this research project. The length of the Planned Alignment (PA) or uncoordinated crossi11g of the environmentally sensitive area was of primary importance in determining whether or not a CLIP was feasible. As the length of the subject planned crossing, or alignment, increased, the associated financial cost(s) became greater due to such f actors as environmental mitigation, pennining, and legal costs Corridor geometry tended 10 be a decisive factor for coordination in a single corridor. Costs including legal expenses environmental mitigation, and right-Of-way acquisition for the approaches were difficult to determine because of tremendous variability in the historical record. Furthermore, this variability made precise record keeping and tabulation difficult for the very entities from which data was .Ought. 11


The study uncovered a re l ationshi p between the acceptab l e distance from a CLIP and the original planned alignment, the length of the co-located portion of the CLIP. the lengths of the planned and deviated approaches, and the l ength of the planned alignment crossing tha t lent itsel f to simu l ation using a s implified spreadsheet model. T he economic analyses were able to determine decision v a lues or breakpoints for various combinations of planned and coloeated alignments. This required the !mposition. of strong assumptions about average c osts, limiting the role of highly vo latil e cos t s (such as lega l fees), and leve r aging the limited cost information provided. While the model incorporated in the study was simplified, it allowed the project team to produ ce results b a sed on a series of highl y plausible "what if'" scenari.os regarding geometry and utilit y types. Further work needs to be done in the future to collect more complete data and to reconfigur e the model to i n clude these n ew costs particu larl y if the prototype is to be refmed for actual projec t selec t ion. This economic study has demonstrated that under the a p propriate condit i ons a well-planned CLIP may very well prod uce economic as well as environmental benefits to be regarded as not only feasible, but a lso desirable. 12


REFEREN CES Environmental Systems Research Insti t ute Inc ,l994, PC ARCIINFO User Guides. Redlands, California. Florida Depa rt ment o f Environmen tal Pro t ecti o n, (Letter), November 13, 1998, Letter of Intent for the Transportation and Community System Preservation (TCSP) Pilot Planning and Implementation Grant Program. Hillsboro ugh River Greenways Task Fo r ce,1997, Gui de li nes For Establishing Coord inated Linear Inf rastructure Projects (CLIPS). Tampa, Florida . Myers, R.L., J.J. Ewe!. 1990 Eco s y s t ems of Florida. University of Central Florida Press.O rl ando, F l ori d a. Page J.R. (Ed.),1998, Heavy Construction Cost Data 13,. Edition. R.S. Means Company, Inc. Kings t on, Massachusetts. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservat i on Service, 1989, Soil Surv e y of Hillsboroug h County, Fl ori da 13


ATTACHMENT 1. COVER LETTER AND DATA COLLECTION SURVEY INSTRUMENT. August 23, 1999 xxxx xxxx xxxx DearXXXX, I am writing on behalf of the Center for Urban Transportation Research, the Hillsborough River Green ways Task Force, and the Florida Department of Transportation regarding cost and engineering information fo r utilities. I am cun:ently conducting a research project to detennine when linear infrastructure like utilities and transportation facilities can be sited in a coordinated way to produce both dollar and environmental savings. In particular, I am requesting data for your utility as indicated in the attached table : Please note that! am lookin g for average values of cost s based upon your organization's recent experience, and not a precise eost estimate for a bid proposal. The costs that you report will be combined with the costs of other utilities, the Florida Department of Transportation, the public works departments of local governments, and of other enti ties t o detennine where, when, and in what amount real dollar savings arise from facility coordination. I respectfully request that you aud your organization provide a response to this lette r no later than September 17, 1999. If you cann. ot personally respond, please feel free to forward this request for infonnation to a more appropriate person in your organization. Please accept my thanks in advance and do feel free to contact me at (813)-991-4902 if there are any questions. Sincerely, Richard T. Stasiak Senior Research Associate Auachment 14


'-" Cattgory .. l't:ulning Cast Dcsi!lll Co$\ . R i c h < of Way Width .. -Rigbt of Way Acces< Rood RiglJt ot'WayOlsl -. -Legal CoSn Cost.< ConstTetk>n Cosls foe Chungos i n Dlttttlon .. Monagoment COS1 ---. Maiotcnanollars per c.,uerline Mile Dollars per Centerline M ile Co$1 per Mile ofMoin Line ... . ] -Olh

ATTACHMENT 2. UTILITY COST DATA COLLECTION RESULTS. Entity . Data Reaucst S1$tus City of Tamoa Sanitacv Sewers Dat a Received Tamoa Electric Company ('TECO Electric) Data Received GTE Telephone Operations Dat a Received Hillsborough County Water Department Data Received City of Tampa Water Department Data Received US Army Corps of U t i l i ty I nformation U navailable HORine Utility Information Unavailable FloridaDEP Utility Infonnation Una vailabie CSX Transportation Utility lnfonnation Unavailab l e Wetlands Manaacment Division HCEFC Utiliryinformation Unavailable Hillsborou!!h County Planni na and Growth Manaaement U tilitv Information Unavailable Tamoa E l ectric Company (People's Gas) Uti l ity Information Unavailable Florida Power Corvoration Utility Information Unavailab le Flor i da Gas Transmission Company Utility Information Unavailab le Tampa Bay Water Utility Information Unavailable Pasco County Public Works Ut i lityinformation Unavailable Ut ilities Department--Plant Ci!Y_ Utili!Y Information Unavai la ble 16


ATTACBMENT 3. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ... DATA USED I N CLIPS . Daca Retained bv CUTR for the Project Study Area quad24.e00 stpe t _selu95.e00 cityp ts.eOO stpet_sesoils.eOO eoasl'250.e00 sep78fl.e00 stpet_setopo2.e00 ounty250.e00 sep80fl.e00 stpet...setopo5.e00 basin.s.eOO sep8lfl e00 stpeLswlu95.eOO aisl'250.e00 sep82fl.e00 stpeLSwsoils.eOO sep84fl. e00 stpet...swtopoS.eOO rpjssu cd_permits.eOO sep85fJ.eO O surcomp.eOO erp _p ermits .eOO sep86fl.e00 swmpnt.eOO erppoly.eOO sep87fl.e00 swmpoly.eOO flacomp.eOO sep88fl.e00 tarpo nelu95.e00 flucs_code.eOO sep89fl.e00 tarpo..)lesoils.eOO hydro 1 OO.eOO sep90fl.e00 larjlO..)letopo2.eOO hydro250.eOQ sep91fl.e00 tarpo _netopo5.e00 intcomp.eOO sep92fl.e00 tarpo nwlu95.e00 luSO.eOO scp93fl.e00 tarpo_nwsoils .eOO may75fl. e00 sep94fl.eOO tarpo _nwtopo2.e0 0 )nay78fl.e00 sep95fl. e00 tarpo..)lwtopo5. c00 may79fl.e00 sep96fl.e00 tarpo_ selu95.e00 may81f!.e00 sg88.e00 tarpo_sesoils.eOO may84fl. e00 sg90.e00 tarpo setopo2.e00 may8Sfl.e00 sg92.e00 tarpo_setopoS.eOO may86fl.e00 sg94.e00 carpo_swlu95.eOO may87fl. e00 shoreline.eOO tarpo_swsoils.eOO may88fl.e00 soiLexp.eOO tarpo _swtopo2.e00 may89fl.e00 stormwater.eOO tarpo swtopo S.eOO may90fl.e00 stpet..)lelu95.e00 twnrng250.e00 may91R.e00 stpet..)leSoils.eOO wateruse.eOO may92fl.e00 stpet..)lctopo 2 e00 wellconst.eOO may93fl.e0 0 stpet_ne topo5. e00 withdraw.eOO may94tl.e00 stpet_nwlu95.e00 wmdbsites.eOO may95fl.e00 stpouwso i l s.eOO wuppnt.eOO may96tl.e00 stpet_nwtopo2.e00 wuppoly.eOO pls.eOO stpeUlwtopo5.eOO 17


APPENDIX A. EFFECTIVE PROJECT MILESTONES. -August I, 1998 Kickoff Budget activated October 1, 1998 First Report Model design complete; software data needs and so urces identified November I, 1998 Initial data collec tion complet e December 1, 1 998 Preliminary data collcc:tion complete Jan\Ulry I. 1999 Second Report Submit Draf t Technical Memorandum #I (Task I); Begin case studies -March 1,1999 Submit Draft Technical Memorandum #I (Task I) April 1, 1999 T hird Report Submit Draft Report May I. 1999 Review eomments received by CUTR June 30, 1999 Fourth Report Submit Draft Report October 1, 1999 Fifth Report Submit Draft Report February I ;2000 Consolidated Reports Data oollcetion complete; begin case studies for 1999 March I, 2000 Review conunentsrecc1ved by project team March 9, 2000 Submit TechnJcal Memorandum #I (Task I) March 9, 2000 Submit Technical Memorandum #2 (Task 2) Review commenrsreceived by project team and clJ'TR March 16, 2000 March 23, 2000 Submit Final Draft Report March 30, 2000 Sixth (Final) Report Frojeet complet e 18


APPENDIX B. COST DATA COLLECTION pRGANIZATION NAME: County a t er Departm e nt 16" Rec l aimed Water Une COST TYPE COST MEASURE SPECIFICATION COST VAlUE Planning % of Dollars per foot of Constru ction Cost 4% (4%). $2.58 Design %of Dollars per foot of Construction Cost 16% (I SOlo) $10.3 2 Rig ht of W av Wldlh N/A "N/A N/A Right of Way Aocess Roads N/A N /A N/A Right of Way Costs N/A N/A N/A legal %of Do llars per foot of 1% (1%). $0.65 Construction Cost . Pennitting % of Dollars per foot of 1% (1%). $0.65 Construction Cost atio n NIA N/A NIA Construction Dollars oer linear Foot N/A $64.50 !Additional Construction NIA N/A N/A % of Dollars per toot of Man agement Constructio n Cost 5% (5%). $3.23 Maintenance Dollars per 1 ,000 gallons per day (GPO) $0.16 per 1,000 gallons N/A Pump Stations Dollars per million gallons per day ( M PG) $100,000 per MGD N/A-. nspection IT esting % of Dollars per toot o1 4% (4%) $2.58 . Construction Cost OTAl COST PER MILE $451, 493 TOTAl CQS T PER KILOMETER $280,3n 19


. H i l lsbo r oug h Cou nty ORGANIZATION NAME: W a t e r D e p a rtment TYPE: 1 10" W a t e r M a in I COST TYPE COST MEASURE SPECIFICATION COST VALUE % of Do ll ars per foot o f f!ar m ing 4 % ( 4%) $ 1 .48 Construction Cost besign % ol Dollars per fOol of 16% (1 6%)$5 .92 Construction Cost Right of Way W idth N I A Nt A N I A Riqht of Way Access Roads N I A NIA NIA Rig h t of Way Costs NIA NIA NIA % of Dollars per foo t o f 1 % (1%) $0 37 Con s truction Cost Perm i tting % o f Do ll ars per foot of 1% (1% ) $0 .3 7 Cons t ructio n Cost NIA NIA NIA Dollars pe r unear Foot NIA $37. 00 Consuuction NIA NIA NIA % of Dollars per foot of 5% (5% ) $ 1 .85 Con s tru ction Cost Doll a r s per 1 ,000 gallons $0.16 per 1,000 ga ll ons N I A per day (GPO) ftelay, Repe ater, Pum p Sta ti ons Do ll ars pe r million gallons $100 000 per MGD NIA per day ( MPG) n spection IT e s t ing % of Do ll ars per foot of 4% (4%). $ 1 .48 Cons t ructio n Cost TOTAL COST PER MILE . $153,553 OTAL COST PER KI L OMETER $95 356 2 0


NAME: Hillsborough County !water Department TYPE: 112" Water Main COST TYPE COST MEASURE SPECIFICATION COST VALUE Planning % of Dollars per foot of 4% (4%). $1.92 Construction Cost Design % of Do llars per foot of 16% (16%). $7.68 Construction Cost Right of Way Width N/A 'N/A N/A JRight of Way Access Roads N/A N/A N/A Right of Way Costs N/A N/A N/A r-egal % of Dollars per foot of 1% (1%) $0. 48 Construction Cost % of Dollars per foot ol IPennitting 1% (1%) $0A8 Construction Cost N/A N/A N/A Dol lars cer Unear Foo t N/A $48.00 i l()fl ' Construction N/A N/A N/A I Management % of Dollars per foot of 5% (5%). $2.40 Construction Cost Dollars per 1,000 gallons $0. 1 6 per 1,000 gallons N/A per day (GPO) Relay, Repeater, Pump Stations Dollars per million gallons per day (MPG) $100 ,000 per MGD N/A Inspection /Testing % of Dollars per foot of 4% (4%). $1. 92 Const ruction Cost OTAL COST PER MILE $199,204 OTAL COS T PER KILOMETER . $123 ,705 -----------------21


pRGANizATl ,ON NAME: Hilsborough County Water Department IJTILITY TYPE: Water COST TYPE COST MEASURE SPECIFICATION COST VALUE Planning Dollars per Mile $300 Desi!Jn Dollars per Centerli ne Mile $20,000 R ig ht of Way Width Feet, Nominal Cross Section N /A Not needed, period'ICally needed, Right of Way Access Roads continuously needed after N/A construction R i aht or Way Costs Dolla r s per Cent e rline Mile N/A Legal Dollars per Centerline Mile Varies . ermitting Dollars per Centerlme Mae $610 .. tlon Dollars per Centerline M lle N/A onstructlon Dollars per Centerline Mila $264,000 Construction Doll ars per "Tum" $500 Management Dollars par Centel1ine Mila $5, 000 Dollars per Centerline M ile $704 f:lelay,Repeater. Pump Stations Cost per Mile of Main Une $4,951 nspectlon /Testin g lrO TAL COST PER MILE $296, 065 irOTAL COST PER KILOMETER $183, 856 22


ORGANIZATION NAME: !GTE UTILITY TYPE: !Teleco mmunication COS T TY P E COST MEASURE SPEC I FICATION COST VALUE Planning Dollars per Centerline Mie $500 Desi g n Dollars oer Cente rline Mile '$3,112 R i ght of Way Width Feet, Nomina l Cross 1 ft S ectio n Right of Way Aa:es s Roads Not needed, periodi ca lly needed. continuously nee d ed after construction Rig ht of Wa y Costs D ollars pe r Centerli ne M i le Lega l Dollars pe r Cen t erlin e Mile P er m itting Dollars pe r Centerli ne Mil e $150' itigatic>rl Dollars per Centerline Mie ons tructioo Dollars per Centerline $26,27 5 Con s truct i on Dolla r s per 'Tum Manageme n t Dolla r s per Cente rli n e Mil e Mainten a nce Dollar s per Centerli n e Mile Pump Stetlons Cost pel Mile ol Main Line nsf)ection /Testing lrOT AL COST PER MILE $30,037 irOTAL COST PER KILOM E TER $18 562 . 23


ORGANIZATION NAME: n-ampa Sanitary Sewer Pepartment . UTILITY TYPE: Sanitary Sewer/Storm Water COST TYPE COST MEASURE SPECIFICATION COST VAL U E Planning Dollars par Center1lne Mile Included w/Design Dollars per Centerline M ile 10%-11-5% $100K/Mile Feet, Nominal Cross Right of Way Width Avg=SO" Avg. Road Wldth=22' Section Not needed, periodi cally Right of Way Access Roads NA needed, continuous l y needed after construction . of Way Costs Dollars per Centerline Mil e NA Leaal Dollars per Centerline Mile NA Permitting Dollars per "Turn Included w/Design Mitigation Dollars per Centerline Mile Seldom Reauired poi\Struction Dollars per Centerline Mile s to 1 O" dla. -$686,400 /Mi. $1,320,000 /Mi 1a to 24" dla. Storm Vldditional Construction OoDars per -rum No Data Ava ilab le Dollars per Centerline Mile No Data Avaftable Maintenance Relay, Repeater, Pump S tatio n s Cost per Mile of Main Line Costs too much I nspection IT esUng OTAL COST PER M ILE $786,400$1 4 20',000 TOTAL cos T PER KILOMETER $488,354-$912,870 24


ORGANIZATION NAME: Tampa E l ectri c UTIUTVTYPE: Electric Util ity COST TYPE COST ME ASURE SPECIFIC ATION COST VALUE Plan nl"!l D o llars oer Centerline M ila $5,000-$10,000 Design Dollars per Centerline Mile $2(),000-$50,000 Feet Nominal C ross Righ t of W a y Wid t h Section 200 It Not.needad, perlodlcall y R ight of Way Access Roads n e e ded, con tinuousl y needed alter construction Dollars pe r Centerline M ile 24 acres, 200' v.ide $500,000$2,000,000 ega l Dollars per C enterline Mile 24 acres, 2 00' wkfa $100,000 Permitt i ng .Consu l tant costs/penni! Dollars pe r C enterl ine M ile feeslla nd acqulsillon N A cos t s etc. . Dollars pe r Centerl i n e M il e Dollars pe r Acre Depends on type o f and monitoring Required Jon Dollars per Centertine M ile $200,000 $800 000 Addition al Construction Dol lars pe r "Tum $5,000 -$30.000 Dollars pe r Centerline Mile Approximate l y $2;000 Mainte nance. Dollars per Centerli n e Mile A ooroxlomat e l v $10,000 R el a v,Repeat e r Pump Station s C o s t per Mile of Main U n e NA NA Inspection /Testing OTAL COST PER M I LE $ 842,200 $3, 00 2 ,200 O T AL COST P E R KILOMETER $523 006 $ 1 ,864 ,366 . . 25


Download Options

Choose Size
Choose file type
Cite this item close


Cras ut cursus ante, a fringilla nunc. Mauris lorem nunc, cursus sit amet enim ac, vehicula vestibulum mi. Mauris viverra nisl vel enim faucibus porta. Praesent sit amet ornare diam, non finibus nulla.


Cras efficitur magna et sapien varius, luctus ullamcorper dolor convallis. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Fusce sit amet justo ut erat laoreet congue sed a ante.


Phasellus ornare in augue eu imperdiet. Donec malesuada sapien ante, at vehicula orci tempor molestie. Proin vitae urna elit. Pellentesque vitae nisi et diam euismod malesuada aliquet non erat.


Nunc fringilla dolor ut dictum placerat. Proin ac neque rutrum, consectetur ligula id, laoreet ligula. Nulla lorem massa, consectetur vitae consequat in, lobortis at dolor. Nunc sed leo odio.