AASHTO GSRWT-1997 Guidance on Sharing Freeway and Highway Rights-Of-Way for Telecommunications.pdf

《AASHTO GSRWT-1997 Guidance on Sharing Freeway and Highway Rights-Of-Way for Telecommunications.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《AASHTO GSRWT-1997 Guidance on Sharing Freeway and Highway Rights-Of-Way for Telecommunications.pdf（53页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、 STD-AASHTO SRCH GS-RWT-1-ENGL 1b b39804 0038338 237 on Sharing Freeway and Highway Rights-of-way for Telecommunications AASHTO Task Force on Fiber Optics on Transportation Rights-of-way A in c r i ca n Associa t i o te ya STD-AASHTO SRCH GSRWT-1-ENGL 177b Ob37804 0038337 153 m Published by the Amer

2、ican Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 249 Washington, DC, 20001 (202) 624-5800 (tel) http:/www.aashto.org/main (202) 624-5806 (fax) O Copyright 1996 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. This document,

3、or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without written permission of the publisher. ISBN 1-56051-045-5 Printed in the United States of America STD-AASHTO SRCH GSRWT-1-ENGL 177b Ob39804 0038320 975 Contents Acknowledgments II . 1996 AASHTO Subcommittee on Advanced Transportation Systems

4、III 1996 NCHRP Advisory Panel 20.7. Task 76 Fiber Optics Facilities on Transportation Rights-of-way v i nt roduct ion . 1 Opportunity With Limits . 2 Framework . 3 Using this Guidance 3 Step I: Getting Started . 5 Designate Project Champion . 5 Organize for Action 6 Assemble Information Base 8 Step

5、2: Finding Partners . 11 identify Potential Partners and Their Needs . 11 Determine Conditions for Partnerships . 13 Enlist Participation 21 Step 3: Closing the Deal 25 Determine Compensation . 27 Negotiate Partner Responsibilities 28 Delineation of Design Parameters 31 Step 4: Following Up . 36 Mon

6、itor Existing Partnerships 36 Consider Future Partnership . 38 Conclusion 41 Appendix A 43 Appendix B 44 STD-AASHTO SRCH GSRWT-1-ENGL 177b Ob3980Y 0038323 801 = Acknowledgments 11 This guide document was prepared under NCHRP Project 20-7, Task 76. The Task Panel consists of the same persons listed e

7、lsewhere in this front material as the AASHTO Task Force on Fiber Optics on Transportation Rights-of-way. The report was prepared by Apogee Research, Inc., with Dr. Susan Jakubiak serving as Principal Investigator. STD*AASHTO SRCH GSRWT-1-ENGL 177b Ob3980q 0038322 “Li8 = 1996 AASHTO Subcommittee on

8、Advanced Transportation Systems Chairman: ALABAMA: ALASKA: ARIZONA: ARKANSAS: CALIFORNIA: COLORADO: CONNECTICUT: DELAWARE: D.C.: FLORIDA: GEORGIA. HAWAII: IDAHO: ILLINOIS: INDIANA: IOWA: KANSAS: David R. Gehr, Virginia Robert D. Anderson, Robert J. Jilla Joseph L. Perkins, Jim Beeson Timothy M. Wolf

9、e, Dick Wright Eric Phillips, Steve Teague Wayne Henley William F. Reisbeck William W. Stoeckert, Earle R. Munroe Vacant Karen G. Benefield Jack A. Brown Steve Parks Paul Hamarnoto Greg M. Laragan Joseph Ligas, Joseph McDermott Dan Shamo C. Ian MacGillivray Mike Crow KENTUCKY: LOUISIANA. MAINE: MARY

10、LAND: MASSACHUSETTS: MICHIGAN: MINNESOTA: MISSISSIPPI: MISSOURI: MONTANA: NEBRASKA: NEVADA: NEW HAMPSHIRE: NEW JERSEY: NEW MEXICO: NEW YORK: David E. Smith Chris Orillion John E. Dority Lee N. McMichael, Michael Zezeski Michael J. Costa Dr. Kunwar Rajendra Gary Workman Marlin D. Collier Thomas A. Do

11、llus William Cloud R. James Pearson, Kenneth J. Gottula Thomas J. Fronapfel Anse1 N. Sanborn Jean Servideo, Kurt Aufschneider Pete Rahn Thomas C. Werner NORTH CAROLINA: Jimmy M. Lynch NORTH DAKOTA: Al Covlin . 111 iv STD-AASHTO SRCH GSRWT-1-ENGL 199b H Ob3780Li 0038323 b8Li OHIO: OKLAHOMA: OREGON: P

12、ENNSYLVANIA: PUERTO RICO: RHODE ISLAND: SOUTH CAROLINA: SOUTH DAKOTA: TENNESSEE: TEXAS: US. DOT: UTAH: VERMONT: VIRGINIA: WASHINGTON: WEST VIRGINIA: WISCONSIN: WYOMING: James E. Brenneman, Robert D. Yankovich Roger Driskill John Grassman Vacant Maria Dumois Joseph A. Bucci, Paul R. Annarummo, Thomas

13、 A. Conboy Richard F. Jenkins, Richard E. Werts Mike Young, David Huft Don Dahlinger David T. (Tom) Newbern Dennis C. Judycki (FHWA) David Kinnecom, John Njord, Dan Julio David A. Ross David R. Gehr, Charlie D. Hall, James R. Robinson, Dr. Brian L. Smith John Conrad, David K. Peach Robert W. Kendall

14、 Philip H. DeCabooter Anthony (Bud) J. Schepp - - STD-AASHTO SRCH GSRWT-1-ENGL L77b Ob37804 0038324 510 1996 NCHRP Advisory Panel 20-7, Task 76 Fiber Optics Facilities on Transportation Righ ts-of - Way STATE South Dakota California Maryland Colorado Texas Washington Pennsylvania Missouri Virginia T

15、ennessee Iowa Florida Vermont Mississippi MEMBER Dean Schofield, Chairmm Richard Bower Robert D. Douglass R. Bruce Johnson Tom Newbern David K. Peach William Pickering Dale Ricks James R. Robinson Mike Shim Leland D. Smithson Ken Towcimak Thomas Vial1 Richard Young V STD-AASHTO SRCH GSRWT-1-ENGL L77

16、b Ob3980i 0038325 457 Introduction A cross the U.S., public and private interests are building new communications networks on an unprecedented scale. In the public sector, for example, state and local trans- portation agencies are building sophisticated communications networks to support a variety o

17、f traffic and transportation management systems. These systems typically rely on fiber- optic cable, but can also call for conventional copper cable or wireless communications systems support. The private sector is also building networks, but for quite different reasons: rapid technological advances

18、 (wireline and wireless) coupled with burgeoning demand for telecommunications has prompted private communications companies to build new networks and expand existing ones. The coincidence of these demands has spurred interest in public-private arrangements where each party taps the special resource

19、s of the other-the private partner gains access to pub- lic rights-of-way (ROW) and the public partner gains access to some form of compensation, either in-kind telecommunications facilities or service, cash, or both. Such partnerships, termed “shared resource” projects, have three distinct features

20、: Public-private partnership; Private longitudinal access to public property (primarily roadway ROW) for telecommunications facilities; and Compensation to the ROW owner over and above admin- istrative costs as identified above. Shared resource projects also can be effected as public-public partners

21、hips in which one of the partners is the ROW owner STDOAASHTO SRCH GSRWT-L-ENGL L99b = Ob39809 003832b 393 and the other is another public agency that would not other- wise be able to longitudinally access the ROW for its own communications infrastructure. Formulation of shared resource projects has

22、 been facilitated, first, by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) delegation of authority to states to determine their own utility accommo- dation policies (subject to FHWA approval) and, second, by American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) Board of Directors recent resolution that r

23、ecognized fiber optics as distinct from other utilities and sanctioned their longitudinal installation in freeway rights-of-way (see Appendix A1.l Although the opportunity to undertake such partnerships is relatively new, it is not untried. Dozens of state and local governments have already successf

24、ully negotiated shared resource ventures. Yet the process has the potential to become complicated. Therefore, this guidance, based on lessons from applied experience, is a practical overview for state trans- portation agencies on how to capitalize on this opportunity. Opportunity with limits While s

25、hared resource ventures offer an excellent opportunity for the public sector to meet their transportation communica- tions requirements cost-effectively, the opportunity is not without limits. The reason: shared resource ventures are market-driven. In practice, this has two implications: Time: Marke

26、t conditions dictate private vendor interest in developing a partnership and the timeframe available; Value: There is no inherent value for access to highway ROW or other public property; private vendor willing- ness to pay for access derives from the telecommunica- tions revenue potential for priva

27、te firms, tempered by the cost of competing ROW that might be available to those firms. Of these, timeliness is generally the more critical consideration for public agencies. If the public sector agency is slow to respond, the window of opportunity may close before a partnership is established, and

28、the public agency may have to wait until market expansion or industry restructuring generates new demand for telecommunications capacity and, its adjunct, sites for necessary infrastructure. 1 Telecommunications facilities have some distinct features compared to traditional utilities. For example, t

29、he equipment used is non- hazardous and non-pressurized with low maintenance requirements and long service life. In addition, because telecommunications are required for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) functions, public sector telecommunications are a direct input in increasing safety and t

30、raffic operations. STD-AASHTO SRCH GSRWT-1-ENGL L77b Ob37804 0038327 22T W Framework As for any major project, there are distinct stages and sources of information necessary to proceed with a shared resource venture. A review of those that have been successful reveals two important commonalties: Eac

31、h identified a leader from the start, and The agencies involved were willing to take informed risks. In many cases, for example, agencies wish to have a complete set of documentation prior to proceeding. Those that were successful did not wait for all information, but instead contin- ued forward. In

32、 addition to these important distinctions, each successful project has four major steps, as shown in the accompanying figure on the following page. 1. Getting Started: the public agency organizes for action and assembles an information base. 2. Finding Partners: the public agency identifies potentia

33、l partners and their needs, determines conditions for partnership and structure, and enlists participation via a request for proposal or some other solicitation process. 3. Closing the Deal: public and private partners negotiate responsibilities, delineate design parameters, and sign the contract. 4

34、. Following Up: the public agency monitors current part- nership(s) and looks for additional opportunities for new partnerships to continue to add value. Using This Guidance: The purpose of this guidance is to identify key elements involved in the implementation of shared resource projects. It is de

35、signed as an overview of the steps and activities that are typically involved in the process based on experiences of public agencies that have completed or initiated shared resource projects. In using this guidance, applicable to both freeways and other roadways, readers should bear in mind the foll

36、owing factors: I STDOAASHTO SRCH GSRWT-L-ENGL L99b Ob39809 0038328 Lbb Four Steps to Shared Resource Projects Step 1: Getting Started O Designate Project Champion O Organize for Action O Assemble Information Base I I Step 2: Finding Partners O Identify Potential Partners O Determine Conditions for P

37、artnerships I Step 3: Closing the Deal Determine Compensation Negotiate Partnership Responsibilities - - - Step 4: Follow-Up O Monitor Current Partnership O Consider Future Partnerships Descriptive rather than prescriptive: No single formula for implementation of shared resource projects exists. Nor

38、 is one likely, given the unique circumstances of each state and region. For this reason, this guidance is descriptive rather than prescriptive. It is intended to help public agencies inter- ested in implementing such projects become familiar with the various aspects and issues typically involved in

39、 undertaking shared resource projects, consider the merits of alternative approaches, and select the strategies best suited to their circumstances and ultimate objectives. Flexible sequencing: Although the four major steps for implementing shared resource projects described above will generally be u

40、ndertaken sequentially, the order of the subtasks often varies. For example, individual public agencies may undertake some sub-steps concurrently or develop a customized action agenda based on the available resources and the agencys objectives. Importance of legal counsel: The Telecommunications Act

41、 of 1996 may significantly influence the implementation of shared resource projects across the country. Although this guidance refers to some potential implications of the Act, it is important to recognize that the complete implications of the Act for shared resource projects are as yet unknown. Pub

42、lic agencies are advised to explore carefully potential ramifica- tions of the Act for shared resource projects, track Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rulings and clarifications2 and, from the outset, incorporate legal counsel such as the states Attorney Generals Office or private consultant

43、s. The appendix to this guidance groups relevant sections of the Act according to “urgency” with regard to shared resource projects. STD*AASHTO SRCH GSRWT-1-ENGL 177b 0b3980i.1 0038327 UT2 Step I : Getting Started Designate a Project Champion Organize for Action O Define Project Coals O Focus Agency

44、 Expertise and Designate a Project support Manager Assemble Information Base Investigate Applicable O Identify Communication O Inventory Existing Assets Authority Needs T his chapter presents the process for one of the most fundamentally important steps in developing and successfully deploying a sha

45、red resource telecommunications venture; setting the stage. Activities fall into three groups: 1 Designate project champion; 2. Organize for action; 3. Assemble information base. Once the component pieces are in place to the satisfaction of senior management, it is possible to proceed with procure-

46、ment, contracting and construction. As will be discussed in later sections, the level of detail and completion necessary for each varies, depending on the local circumstances, the urgency of the requirement, and the technical capabilities of the agency itself. Designate Project Champion One of the m

47、ost important lessons from dozens of case studies of successful (and unsuccessful) shared resource initiatives across the U.S. is that the complex and challenging context for this work requires a “project champion” - a single individual with authority and stature who spearheads the effort by: identi

48、- fying institutional and statutory hurdles, developing consensus and support for shared resource projects, and mobilizing resources within the public sector. Step 2: Finding Partners L Step 3: Closing the Deal r Step 4: Follow-Up “Typically, it takes approximately 12-1 8 months from the time a shar

49、ed resource project is conceptualized to the groundbreaking for actual construction. STD-AASHTO SRCH GSRWT-1-ENGL 177b m Ob37804 0038330 8111 m This individual is not solely responsible for reconciling con- flicts nor for defining the project goals. Instead, the champion is a facilitator who helps to mobilize and organize resources within the agency to organize for action and assemble the necessary information as described in greater detail below. To succeed, the project champion must have high-level support, ideally from the