Utility Course Case Studies CEA and Road Builders

Utility Course Case Studies CEA and Road Builders

Utility Course Case Studies CEA and Road Builders Workshop Joe Mah, M.Eng.P.Eng. Case one: Highway 63 Mariana Lake Telcom Facility The Department had advised the Telecom company to relocate its FOTS hut to facilitate the AT roadway widening construction. The FOTS hut was located immediately adjacent to

Highway 63, outside ATs ROW boundary. The cost of relocation was estimated at 1.5 million. The letter dated on March 2012 to Technical Standards Branch (TSB), Telecom company asked the Department to be responsible for the relocation cost. If not, they would proceed with legal action against the Department. The arguments they brought forward were as follows: The ROW agreement of construction of the FOTS hut was granted by the Department of Municipal Affairs on June 1992 and registered the easement in the Land Title office on July, 1994.

The FOTS hut was located outside of ATs ROW. The intent was to stay out of ATs ROW so AT would be responsible for future relocation costs. Neither the Telecom nor Alberta Transportation could locate a copy of the 20 year old roadside development permit. The company standard practice was always to comply with all regulatory requirements as stated in their letter. AT was expropriating without compensation. Question: Who is responsible for the $1.5 million relocation cost in view of the (1) facility was located outside of ATs ROW, (2) the easement was

granted by Municipal Affair and was registered in the Land Title office and why? The arguments they brought forward were as follows: The ROW agreement of construction of the FOTS hut was granted Municipal Affairs cannot speak of AT and registered by the Department of Municipal Affairson

onbehalf June 1992 the easement in the Land Title office on July, 1994. The FOTS hut was located outside of ATs ROW. The intent was to Highway Actresponsible set a 30-m encroachment limit stayThe out1966 of ATs ROW Development

so AT would be for future relocation costs. Neither the Telecom nor Alberta Transportation could locate a copy of the Applicants 20 year oldresponsible roadside development permit. The company for providing proof of

permit standard practice was always to comply with all regulatory requirements as stated in their letter. AT Already was expropriating compensation. crown land,without no need for expropriation Case TWO: County Water Supply Relocation

The existing water supply system 200mm waterline falls within a footprint of the proposed interchange and will need to be relocated When it was designed in 1994, the County had contacted Alberta Transportation to get approval for an alignment that would not be impacted by the future interchange. AT suggested a new alignment. Subsequently, AT approved the new alignment. AT issued the permit in 1994 to allow the waterline to be installed within the ATs right of way but was silent on which party would be responsible for the relocation costs if needed. The diamond interchange that had been designed is now significantly different than what was planned in 1994 and

the waterline is required to be relocated and to facility of the construction the interchange. The waterline when relocated will not be outside of AT's R/W because extensive land has been purchased for the new interchange. County has stated that AT should be responsible for relocation costs since they followed an alignment approved by AT such that the waterline would not be impacted by the future construction of the interchange. County is of the opinion that Alberta Transportation should pay for relocation costs. County has submitted to the Department for an estimate of 0.6

million dollars to relocate the waterline including all Engineering and Construction costs. Questions: Since AT approved the alignment location in 1994 within ATs ROW, which party should be responsible for the relocation costs and why? Since the water supply system will still remain within ATs ROW, future relocation may be required for road construction, who would be responsible for the future relocation costs why and how? Provided 3 criteria of AT standards for the placement of water line under ATs highways.

Case Three: Highway over Existing Pipeline The pipeline was located outside the Departments ROW. The Department widened its existing ROW to construct a truck staging area over the existing pipeline. The crossing agreement was obtained from the pipeline company in year 2010 which was only good until 2012. The existing pipeline met all design criteria, therefore, no modification was required. The project was delayed. In year 2013, the Department requested the pipeline company to extend the crossing agreement. The pipeline company had issued a new crossing agreement and advised their position had been changed as such that the existing pipeline needed to be lowered or protected by a load bearing concrete slab or replaced with a higher wall thickness.

In addition, pipeline company asked the Department $50,000 to pay them upfront for a scope study. Questions: Should pipeline company crossing agreement be used and which party would be responsible for the upgrade cost? In the future, if the pipeline upgrade work will be required, whose crossing agreement would be used and which party would be responsible for the upgrade cost and why? Should the Department pay the pipeline $50,000 upfront for scope studies provided answers for (1) no and why (2) yes and how?

Provided 3 AT standards for the placement of pipeline within ATs ROW. Case Four: Highway 63, Power company, North of Wandering River The Department advised the power to relocate their power lines further away from the Departments ROW to facilitate the twinning of Highway 63. Power lines were located outside the Departments ROW and beyond the highway development control zone but under the jurisdiction of Sustainable Resource Division (SRD). The Department offered the power company two options; Option (1) to relocate and stay out of ATs ROW and also outside the highway

development zone, Option (2) to relocate and stay within ATs ROW. Questions: Who would be responsible for the relocation costs and why? What are the pro and con for the two options and why?

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • Preliminary Results Presentation, Year to 30th June 2008

    Preliminary Results Presentation, Year to 30th June 2008

    Preliminary Results Presentation, Year to 30th June 2008 Greg Fitzgerald - Chief Executive Frank Nelson - Finance Director Market Conditions Operating Review - Housebuilding Extremely difficult market Visitor numbers reduced High cancellation rate Mortgage availability and consumer confidence key constraints...
  • Understanding Ratios Number a paper from one to

    Understanding Ratios Number a paper from one to

    Understanding Ratios Number a paper from one to 15 and find these ratios. Write the ratios. 1. Circles to squares 2. Circles to clouds 3. Clouds to circles 4. Circles to all figures 5. Clouds to all figures 6. All...
  • VSEPR PowerPoint - Tetrahedral, Trigonal Bipyramidal, etc.

    VSEPR PowerPoint - Tetrahedral, Trigonal Bipyramidal, etc.

    * VSEPR Theory Based on Electron Dot (Lewis structures) Theory predicts shapes of compounds abbreviated VSEPR VSEPR (pronounced "vesper") stands for: Valence Shell Electron Pair Repulsion VSEPR predicts shapes based on electron pairs repelling (in bonds or by themselves) Electrons...
  • Fairy Tales - Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools

    Fairy Tales - Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools

    Fairy Tales What makes up fairly tales? The Rule of Three Generally 3 characters Goldilocks and the 3 Bears The 3 Little Pigs The 3 Billy Goats Gruff Often times there are 3 wishes Often 3 tasks that a prince...
  • 8.6 Blue Marlin and White Marlin

    8.6 Blue Marlin and White Marlin

    Preliminary and incomplete reports to ICCAT suggest that the 2006 task I catch was 589 t and 645 t, respectively, for the east and west region (SAI-Figure 2). Task I catches of sailfish for 2006 are preliminary because they do...
  • Mrs. Magliozzo's 5th

    Mrs. Magliozzo's 5th

    Mrs. Magliozzo's 5th. Click thru the slides and listen to . the Book Talks! THE MEMORY OF THINGSGaePolisner. MAKING BOMBS FOR HITLERMARSHA FORCHUK SKRYPUCH. IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S A SECRETMisa Sugiura. UNBOUNDAnn E. Burg. Believe ItNick Foles. Author:
  • Super Critical Liquid Chromatography

    Super Critical Liquid Chromatography

    Super critical liquid chromatography: It is a type of column chromatography in which super critical fluid is used as a mobile Phase for the separation of mixtures. Super critical fluid: A super critical fluid is that which contains temperature and...
  • Chatterbots Go Native: Considerations for an Eco-system Fostering

    Chatterbots Go Native: Considerations for an Eco-system Fostering

    www.pandorabots.com hosts Alice Foundation Chatbots Pandorabots - began 5-13-02 - hosts over 13,000 separate accounts (3/03) - hosts over 16,000 separate Chatbots (3/03) - Number of accounts is doubling every 3 months - Services between 5,000-20,000 interactions/hour - Some bots...