Category: Uncategorized

This guide is intended to help road authorities establish and administer guidelines for accommodating Utilities with the Freeway Right-of-Way. There guide is applicable for Canada although it is a very good reference to compare with other similar guidelines such as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) – A Guide for Accommodating Utilities within Highway Right-of-Way and the US Federal Highway Authority (FHWA) – Highway Utility Guide.

The guide provides a clear distinction between how to handle existing and new facilities. For new facilities, it states that new utilities should not be installed longitudinally within the right-of-way unless there are exceptional circumstances. Some examples of exceptional circumstances would include where alternatives are not available or are cost prohibitive, and when running it outside the ROW would result in a loss of productive agriculture land.   In all scenarios it cannot interfere with the safety or function of the freeway.

At locations where utilities must cross the freeway it is recommended that they be done perpendicular to the freeway. Ideally this is done at the same location as a crossing road so that it can be serviced from the roadway and not the freeway. The guide provides provisions for both Aerial and Underground crossings.

In the next guidelines we will cover – “Guidelines for Underground Utility Installations Crossing Highway Rights-of-Way” – there are more detailed specs about the taking it from a operating principal to providing technical specifications.

If you want to download a FREE copy from the TAC website you can click here.

This was the first publication from the Transportation Association of Canada’s – Public Utilities Management Subcommittee (PUMS). The major components were a review of current practices across Canada and around the world, and a Survey of Ministries of Transportation and Municipalities to get a sense for how they deal with Utilities.

Although the number of respondents was limited there was some great feedback obtained. One of the key findings was the consensus on the major concerns that each respondent had. Some of the top issues identified in the study were:

• Delay of road construction due to relocations
• Quality and timeliness of as-built drawings
• Losses due to utilities being installed in newly constructed roads
• The ability of utility companies to identify the exact location of their facilities

Sound familiar?????

The study even touches on the sensitive topic of cost allocations. This is always an interesting aspect to look at and see how it is handled in different areas. Some of the specific comments in the document are:

• “We do require ‘total value’ cost estimates. In very rare cases where disputes occur we may ask for a detailed cost estimate.” (Saskatchewan Highways and Infrastructure)

• “The utility companies are not providing MTO with enough information.” (Ministry of Transportation Ontario)

• “Since relocations are typically paid for under the Act, we ask for a detailed cost estimate ahead of time so we can budget appropriately.” (City of Toronto)

One of the interesting things about this document is the ability to see how far the industry has come since it was published back in 2008. The use of Subsurface Utility Engineering, is much more common place, and the Utility Coordination Guidelines published by the committee as helping to streamline how municipalities and government agencies deal with Utilities and therefore improve the overall process.

Bottom line is that although this document is somewhat dated, there is some great information in there that could be of benefit to anyone working for a municipality of government agency that wants a look into what others are doing, or more correctly were doing back in 2008. You can use it as a measuring stick to see how you stack up.

If you want to download a FREE copy from the TAC website you can click here.