Welcome!!!
The Growing Sound
Barrier Wall Problem…
A Case Study
Ocala
Feb 7, 2013
Florida Utilities Coordinating Committee
1
Discussion Objectives…
• Why utilities in public rights-of-way, anyway?
• Understand the need to work together to solve the
problem;
• Review a Case Study (i.e. illustrate the nature of the
problem through eyes of an ongoing “live” project);
• What can FDOT do to help?
to help us get there…
2
Panel Members…
US-41 Expansion Project
Jordan Cook – FPL
Deb Corbin – CenturyLink
FUCC Sound Barrier Wall Task Team
Joel Chatham, Art Gilmore – Progress Energy Florida;
Chad Swails – Gulf Power; Bryan Lantz – Verizon
Robert Lowen – AT&T; Henry Bowlin – CenturyLink
Adam Padgett – TECO; Kris Hayes – Lakeland Electric
David Kuhlman – FPL
and…You All !!!
3
Why utilities in public rights-of-way, anyway?
23 CFR 645.209(a)
“Utilities provide an essential public service to the
general public. Traditionally, as a matter of sound
economic public policy and law, utilities have used
public road right-of-way for transmitting and
distributing their services.”
Program Guide Utility Relocation and Accommodation
on Federal-Aid Highway Projects (Sixth Edition, Jan 2003)
Utility Accommodation (Chapter 2): “It is recognized to
be in the public interest for utility facilities to jointly
use the right-of-way of public roads and streets when
such use does not interfere with primary highway
purposes. The opportunity for such joint use avoids
the additional cost of acquiring separate right-of-way
4
for the exclusive accommodation of utilities.”
What if all those utilities were in easements
adjacent to R/W (instead of within the R/W)?
•Those utility relocations would be reimbursable
(not just occasionally, as they are now)
•Gov’t Agencies might have to replace all those
easements before commencing their road projects
•Much more time required for road projects
•Higher utility bills, higher road project costs
•In general, just not very efficient
5
In Florida…
F.S. 337.401 authorizes FDOT and local gov’t agencies
to prescribe and enforce reasonable rules and
regulations with respect to placement and
maintenance of utility facilities within public rightsof-way (and publicly owned rail corridors).
F.S. 337.403 requires utilities in return for that privilege
to relocate at their own expense when unreasonably
interfering with certain road (or rail corridor)
improvements and operations.
6
So, what does all that mean…
We need to work together, to the very best of
our collective abilities, toward common
sense “holistic” solutions that represent
good public policy for the citizens of
Florida, the same utility rate paying and
tax paying citizens we all serve.
7
Sound Barrier Walls - a Growing Problem…
a chronology of recent events:
• FUCC member requests Sound Wall issue to be
addressed at FUCC meeting
• May 2, 2012 – FUCC Workshop “Understanding Sound
Barrier Walls”
• Examples of Good, and not so Good, Installations
• FDOT’s Decision Making Process
• Construction and Design Alternatives
• Identify Potential Improvement Opportunities
• Suggestion to write “Bold and Innovative Ideas”
letter to FDOT Secretary Prasad
• August 27, 2012 – FUCC submits that letter
• Sept 21, 2012 – FDOT responds to FUCC letter
8
Sound Barrier Walls…
chronology (cont):
• Nov 6, 2012 – FUCC leadership meets with FDOT
Senior Management in Tallahassee
• FDOT commits to working with FUCC to resolve
utility issues
• FDOT requests FUCC’s top ten utility issues
• Nov 8, 2012 – Tom Bane answers FUCC questions
regarding FDOT response to FUCC letter
• Nov 8, 2012 – FUCC identifies and unanimously
approves Sound Barrier Walls to be named “Number
One” issue, and establishes Sound Wall Task Team the
following day
9
Sound Barrier Walls – A Case Study…
• Illustrate pain felt on both sides
• No intent to point fingers
• No intent to mischaracterize
• What can be done, other than business as usual,
to help mitigate the problem
US – 41 (SR 90) FPID 415621-2-52-01
•add lanes and reconstruct (approx 3.4 miles)
•from two lanes to 6 lane, divided
July 12, 2011 – First utility design meeting (pre-design conference)
attended by FPL - 30% plans, no wall shown, noise impact study
not yet complete. FPL explains that Sound Wall on south side
would require “significant” FPL relocation work.
April 2012 – FPL receives 60% plans which show potential sound
wall on roadway plan sheets (but no details. height, footer, etc)
10
Case Study (cont)…
May 8, 2012 – FPL informed at phase 2 utility design meeting that
wall was no longer potential, but would be installed. FPL again
indicated this would require significant relocation work.
May 8, 2012 – as result of May FUCC presentation, FPL requests
alternative construction info from vendor (vendor refuses to help
without being paid)
Initial discussions devoted to relocating/adjusting pole line to
accommodate 16 ft. wall on gravity wall, (20 ft on backside due to
grade difference) 4 ft. from R/W edge, in front of pole line– FPL
expresses concern that 50’ – 55’ poles will be required, which if
behind the wall, would be inaccessible after wall’s completion
(Suggestions also made that perhaps these power lines should be
buried, or removed from the r/w altogether.)
11
12
13
14
15
Case Study (cont)…
June 15, 2012 – FPL requests that cost of relocating 1 mile of pole
line be used to possibly justify removing the wall from project.
June 18, 2012 – “Draft” Noise Study Executive Summary (dated
June 13, 2012) returned identifying two sections where “noise
abatement was determined to be potentially feasible and cost
reasonable.” The summary affirmed that a “detailed public
involvement program had been carried out to ensure that the
viewpoints of the impacted public regarding the barriers had been
considered…” The summary “recommended” a particular sound
wall (with detailed description) to be built.
June 26, 2012 – FPL requests FDOT to consider FPL’s estimated cost
to relocate in the “cost reasonableness” determination.
June 27, 2012 - FDOT responds that the cost reasonableness
guidelines are determined by the Central Office.
June 28, 2012 – FPL asks if aside from the guideline utility costs
may not be included, is there any other opportunity for FDOT to
decide against building the wall in conflict with the pole line.
16
Case Study (cont)…
June 28, 2012 – FDOT responds that since wall meets all criteria set
by Central Office, FDOT must continue forward with current
design of wall, followed by a separate assertion the guidelines are
actually set by FHWA.
June 29, 2012 – Accepting that FDOT will not remove wall from
project, FPL requests the design to allow for pole line to remain
on the “road” side of the wall, so it can remain accessible.
August 1, 2012 – Utilities notified of August 31 UWS “drop dead”
date. FPL unable to comply since conflict not yet resolved.
October 26, 2012 – FDOT tells FPL that placement of FPL poles on
roadside of wall not feasible, and suggests FPL’s pole line be
moved to opposite side of the road.
January 9, 2013 – FPL conflict still unresolved, FDOT announces
the project going Design Build with August 2013 Bid Opening
Date.
17
Case Study (cont)…
January 10, 2013 – FPL requests that RFP include the requirement
that project be designed so FPL’s pole line can remain on same
side of road, on the road side of the wall, with wall designed to
reasonably minimize need for adjustment and de-energize.
Feb 7, 2013 – So here we are…
Questions? Comments?
18
In Conclusion…
23 CFR 772.9(a) provides that “The highway agency shall
determine and analyze expected traffic noise impacts and
alternative noise abatement measures to mitigate these impacts,
giving weight to the benefits and cost of abatement, and to the
overall social, economic and environmental effects.”
F.S. 335.17 requires all projects by the department to be developed
in conformity with federal standards for noise abatement as
contained in 23 CFR 772.
Question…
19
What can FDOT do to help mitigate the
burden that sound walls are creating for
utility installations within public R/W?
- Within current statutory/rule environment?
- Through (Florida) statutory/rule change?
- Through the FHWA?
Answers will help our FUCC Sound Wall Task Team
decide how best to proceed…
20