HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 6221
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6221)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 12/12/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Update for Fiber-to-the-Premises and Wireless Initiatives
Title: Informational Update Regarding Fiber-to-the-Premises and Wireless
Initiatives
From: City Manager
Lead Department: IT Department
Staff Recommendation
This report is informational only and no Council action is required.
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to update the Council on various fiber and wireless activities
started under the Council’s 2013 “Technology and the Connected City” initiative; changes in the
telecommunication industry, and potential future discussions for Fiber-to-the-Premises
(“FTTP”) and wireless projects, including staff plans for a Study Session with Council in early
2017.
Background
On September 28, 2015, staff presented to the Council a Fiber-to-the-Premises Master Plan
(“FTTP Master Plan”) and a Wireless Network Plan (Staff Report #6104). These plans were
prepared by the City’s consultant, CTC Technology & Energy (“CTC”). The Council approved a
multipart Motion which directed staff to pursue several actions related to a ubiquitous fiber
network in Palo Alto and expansion of the wireless network.
On November 30, 2015, Council approved a staff recommendation to work concurrently on a
response to the Council Motion on municipal fiber and wireless; continue negotiations with
Google Fiber and AT&T; approve a temporary contract position for a Fiber and Wireless
Telecommunications Project Manager, and approve contract amendments with CTC (Staff
Report #6301).
On August 16, 2016, staff presented to the Policy and Services Committee a status update on
the Council Motions including work related to potential Google Fiber and AT&T GigaPower
deployments and co-build opportunities (Staff Report #7174).
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Staff has also presented information and requested feedback from the Utilities Advisory
Commission and Citizen’s Advisory Committee about the various fiber and wireless initiatives,
in addition to other industry developments including Google Fiber’s “pause”.
Discussion
Since the FTTP Master Plan and Wireless Network Plan were completed and reviewed by the
Council in September of 2015, staff has worked to complete the various tasks in the Council’s
September 28, 2015 and November 30, 2015 Motions. The majority of the tasks have been
completed (Exhibit A – Council Motion Status) and others are in progress or being evaluated by
staff in light of new developments in the industry and based on information gathered by staff.
In the last year the competitive landscape in the telecommunications industry has continued to
change in significant ways throughout the country, including Palo Alto. The following is a
summary of the most significant changes:
Google Fiber
In mid-July 2016, Google Fiber (“Google”) advised staff that it was “pausing” its plans to build a
fiber network in Silicon Valley and other cities where construction had not yet started. At that
time, staff was informed by Google that it could be several months before Google decided
whether to move forward with a build-out as they explored more innovative ways of
deployment - including a hybrid of fiber and wireless technologies - that overcome some of the
challenges they are facing in their current builds in other areas of the country.
Staff has worked with Google for more than two years to develop a variety of agreements1 to
facilitate their network build in Palo Alto, in addition to the exploration of a potential “co-build”
approach. The co-build is a unique concept whereby Google and the City would share the cost
to install City conduit in underground utility areas and “messenger”2 on utility poles to support
the installation of City fiber optic cables at a future date as Google builds its own network.
Implementation of this concept would have given the City the ability to expand its existing fiber
network by preparing infrastructure such as utility poles and conduit for future fiber expansion
as needed. Google informed staff that co-build discussions were also being postponed.
On October 25, 2016, Google Fiber announced that the Alphabet division that operates Google
Fiber is "pausing" fiber operations in 10 cities where it hadn't yet fully committed to building,
including the San Jose area (Palo Alto, Santa Clara, San Jose, Mountain View and Sunnyvale).
The head of Google Fiber, Craig Barratt, also announced that he will step down from his post
and remain only as an adviser. Google Fiber already offers gigabit Internet and cable TV service
in eight metro areas and is still committed to building in another four where construction has
1For instance, a Master License Agreement for utility pole attachments; a Master Encroachment Agreement for use
of the public rights-of-way; both of which were to include a Cost Recovery provision to compensate the City for the
use of resources to process pole applications, issuance of permits and complete inspections.
2 Messenger is a piece of heavy metal cabling attached to a pole line to support aerial cable (e.g. coaxial, copper or
fiber optic cable).
City of Palo Alto Page 3
already begun. Google also recently purchased a San Francisco-based wireless ISP called
Webpass, which offers high-speed fixed wireless Internet in six metro areas, including parts of
the Bay Area. Webpass uses technology that beams high-speed Internet into apartment
buildings using a fiber-connected antenna. This approach and other wireless technologies may
provide a quicker, less disruptive and more cost effective way to expand access to faster web
speeds.
AT&T
AT&T has begun to submit permit applications to upgrade its existing network for its GigaPower
service. AT&T has since rebranded AT&T GigaPower under the name AT&T Fiber. This upgrade
involves installing new cabinets next to existing U-verse cabinets in order to provide gigabit-
speed broadband services to Palo Alto community members. AT&T’s tentative plans are to
install approximately twenty-seven (27) cabinets to cover one half of Palo Alto: two (2) in 2016
and up to twenty-five (25) in 2017. AT&T would select neighborhoods with high potential for
adoption and will use consumer demand levels to determine further deployments in the city.
Approximately 54 cabinets would serve most of the city. Staff also initiated co-build discussions
with AT&T, but there has been no progress at this time other than a commitment by AT&T
leadership to explore creative and innovative ideas.
Comcast
Comcast has informed staff that it plans its DOCSIS 3.13 deployment throughout Palo Alto and
other cities in the Bay Area in the second quarter of 2017 to offer multi-gigabit service to its
residential customers. This deployment will make it possible for Comcast XFINITY and Comcast
Business Internet customers to receive gigabit speeds over the communications lines that most
customers already have in their homes and offices. For business services, bandwidth will be
scalable from 1 Mbps to 10 Gbps, and as high as 100 Gbps if specific criteria are met. Comcast
also currently offers a 2 Gbps broadband service called Gigabit Pro when certain conditions are
met. Additionally, Comcast has deployed more than 500 Wi-Fi hotspots in the Palo Alto area.
Other Telecommunication Service Providers
Several wireless carriers and builders of shared infrastructure for the wireless industry are
seeking to deploy new communication facilities such as distributed antenna systems (“DAS”)
and small cell technologies in Palo Alto. In the past few years, AT&T Mobility and Crown Castle
have deployed approximately ninety-five (95) DAS and small cell sites in several areas of the city
to improve the coverage and capacity of the carriers’ mobile networks. These facilities are
typically located on City-owned utility poles and streetlight poles in the public rights-of-way.
More deployments are planned by Verizon Wireless and other carriers, in addition to the
builders of shared wireless infrastructure for the wireless industry.
3 Data over Cable Service Interface Specification (“DOCSIS”) is an international telecommunications standard that
permits the addition of high-bandwidth data transfer to an existing cable TV (CATV) system. It is employed by
many cable television operators to provide Internet access over their existing hybrid fiber-coaxial (HFC)
infrastructure. DOCSIS 1.0 was released in 1997. The most recent version of DOCSIS (3.1) was released in 2014.
The DOCSIS 3.1 specification supports Internet speeds of 10 Gigabits per second (Gbps) for downloads
downstream and 1Gbps upstream - the level of speeds typically only available with a fiber optic connection.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Analysis of Request for Information Responses for FTTP Public-Private Partnership
The FTTP Master Plan recommended exploring a public-private partnership to evaluate the
potential for a telecommunication firm to participate with the City in building and operating a
network as a way to share the costs and potentially mitigate the financial obligations for both
parties. The Master Plan identified a number of ways this could be accomplished.
In the Council’s September 28, 2015 Motion staff was directed to issue a Request for
Information (RFI) for a public-private partnership for deployment of citywide FTTP. In May
2016, the RFI was issued. Eight (8) firms responded and the responses were reviewed by staff
and CTC. A summary report was prepared by CTC reviewing and evaluating each of the
responses (Exhibit B – RFI Response Memo). After review, none of these responses completely
align with the objectives of the RFI for a public-private partnership (two were deemed to be
incomplete based on the RFI response instructions). Nevertheless, CTC recommended
conducting discussions with three (3) of the respondents for information collection purposes.
Staff met with the three firms and at this time staff is tabling additional discussions.
The following is a summary of the discussions with the three vendors:
1. Comcast outlined their latest service offerings, including the deployment of DOCSIS 3.1 in
the second quarter of 2017. Deployment of DOCSIS 3.1 will allow Comcast to provide
gigabit-speed Internet to Palo Alto citizens over their existing hybrid fiber-coaxial cable
network in advance of a potential Google Fiber network build. Comcast’s coverage map for
Palo Alto estimates that over ninety percent of the City is passed by their network.
Comcast’s purpose for responding to the RFI was based on opening a dialogue with the City
to demonstrate that they are already a good partner for the City in terms of delivering
competitive advanced voice, video and data services. Comcast prefers to own and maintain
their own network, so they have no interest in exploring a public-private partnership for
citywide FTTP as described in the RFI.
2. Axia proposes a private risk and private investment model. Under this model, Axia envisions
that they would design, build, own, operate, and manage the FTTP network. The City would
assist with marketing and providing event spaces, and would facilitate permitting. Axia has
deployed and operated FTTP networks of all scales internationally. Axia has deployed FTTP
networks in Alberta, Canada, France and Singapore. In the United States, Axia is responsible
for operating and maintaining the Axia MassBroadband123 Network in Western
Massachusetts (1,338 miles of fiber backhaul infrastructure and electronics connecting
more than 120 communities).
There are elements of Axia’s response that align with the City’s expectations for a public-
private partnership, however, the City would not own the network or have much control
over its deployment. This does not align with the City’s objective of owning the
infrastructure.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
In June of 2016, Axia issued a press release regarding their Fiber-to-the-Premise Internet
Expansion Initiative into the United States. The following is a link to the press release:
http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/axia-announces-fiber-to-the-premise-internet-
expansion-initiative-into-usa-2135566.htm
3. N1 Networks/UTOPIA (“N1 Networks”) proposed that the City build a ubiquitous FTTP
network that would be financed, owned, operated and maintained by the City. N1
Networks would then provide multiple services on the network through an “open access”
model for providers facilitated through existing peering agreements with independent
service providers. Customer service, network engineering, equipment installation, design
services, marketing (in conjunction with the City), and sales services could be provided by
N1 Networks under a fee-based consulting agreement. N1 Networks indicated they are not
interested in a co-build scenario; their focus would be on the services related to the
network after the City builds it throughout Palo Alto. N1 Networks recommended model
requires the City to issue a bond to finance the network, which represents a substantial
financial commitment by the City. Under their model, N1 Networks proposes a revenue
sharing agreement with the City to recover capital costs. The City would also be responsible
for customer billing and customer debt collection, as well as collecting the transport fees
from the Internet Service Providers provisioning services over the open access network.
Each of the individual RFI responses can be viewed at the following link:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/news/rfi_responses.asp
Wi-Fi Deployments for Unserved City Facilities and High Traffic Retail Areas
Multiple interviews conducted during the assessment for the Wireless Network Plan indicated
there have been no specific requests from the business community or the general public for Wi-
Fi services in high traffic retail areas. A significant number of Palo Alto businesses already offer
free Wi-Fi service to patrons. Additionally, companies such as AT&T and Comcast have installed
and operate Wi-Fi access points for their customers in many areas of the City and are planning
upgrades to these services in 2017.
It should be noted, too, that other cities’ implementations of municipal Wi-Fi services generally
did not develop the anticipated level of acceptance. Part of the problem with those
deployments was related to the speed and reliability of earlier Wi-Fi technology compared to
commercial wireless options. In the same timeframe that those cities implemented municipal
Wi-Fi, the commercial wireless carriers successfully deployed 3G and 4G data access
technologies that have developed a high degree of consumer acceptance based on cost,
performance, and the convenience of essentially universal service. In contrast, many municipal
Wi-Fi deployments served only a limited area—and performance in many cases fell short of
user expectations.
The expansion of Wi-Fi techonology at unserved City facilities and public areas was evaluated
City of Palo Alto Page 6
with the Community Services Department (CSD). Most City facilties already have Wi-Fi access
(“OverAir Wi-Fi Hotspot”). The outcome of the evaluation reflected concern from CSD staff
regarding the deployment of Wi-Fi at Riconada Pool and City Parks due to safety concerns. The
potential for distracted parents in the areas of the City where parents are expected to supervise
their children is the primary concern. In addition to potential safety concerns, parks and other
open spaces provide an important respite from technology, a place to “unplug” and focus on
spending time with family and friends and to connect with the outdoors and nature.
The areas of the City where CSD recommends Wi-Fi deployment are at common areas in
Cubberley, Lucie Stern, the Golf Course Pro Shop and Cafe, and Lytton Plaza. A high-level cost
estimate for the recommended sites is $181,965 for installation and $16,865 for monthly
recurring charges.
Dig Once
The Council’s September 28, 2015 Motion directed staff to develop a “dig once” ordinance.
At the time, the City anticipated that Google and potentially other telecommunications
providers may soon submit applications to the City for widespread underground and overhead
construction. Accordingly, encouraging or requiring simultaneous underground construction
and co-location of broadband infrastructure in the public rights-of-way (“PROW”) had the
potential to create benefits for both the City and private sector communications providers. A
dig once policy might reduce the long-term cost of building communications facilities by
capitalizing on significant economies of scale through:
Coordination of fiber and conduit construction with utility construction and other
disruptive activities in the PROW;
Construction of spare conduit capacity where multiple service providers or entities
may require infrastructure.
More broadly, dig once policies, depending on how they are structured, have the potential to
achieve a number of goals, including:
• Protecting newly and recently paved roads and sidewalks
• Enhancing the uniformity of construction
• Ensuring efficient, non-duplicative placement of infrastructure in the PROW
• Reducing overall costs of all underground work in the PROW, both utility - and
telecommunications - related, for public and private parties
• Facilitating private communications network deployment by reducing
construction costs
• Leveraging construction by third-party entities for the deployment of a public
communications network, or deployment of conduit that can be made available
to other entities
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Since Council provided its direction in late 2015, however, circumstances in the third party
telecommunications marketplace nationwide and here in Palo Alto have changed dramatically.
Most notably with respect to dig once, telecommunications providers are not proposing the
same City-wide, large scale excavations or builds that the City was anticipating back in 2015.
Instead, with Google Fiber’s reorganization and retreat from a comprehensive infrastructure
build, the City is finding that telecommunications providers are more inclined to explore
incremental expansions or, where scope of a project is larger, above ground builds.
With these significant market changes and Council’s initial 2015 directive in mind, staff’s work
on this item remains ongoing; however, staff’s research and emphasis has changed somewhat
to address this new reality. In particular, staff has been working in the following areas:
Comprehensive Assessment of State, Local Dig Once Policies.
The City has engaged its City’s consultant, CTC, to survey and evaluate “dig once”
approaches adopted or proposed by other jurisdictions across the country, especially in
California. CTC’s report, including recommendations for a new ordinance or revision of
the current municipal code, is provided in Exhibit C – Dig Once Approach.
CTC interviewed representatives of cities and other government entities that have
adopted dig once or joint trenching policies to gather information about their outcomes
and best practices. CTC then reviewed the treatment of costs in dig once scenarios. In
many cases, the incremental costs of construction are borne by the jurisdiction. Many
policies also provide exceptions or forego the excess conduit construction if the cost-
benefit analysis is not reasonable.
Staff is currently evaluating CTC’s proposed approach to determine if it meets the City’s
needs in practice. Staff is specifically concerned with how the CTC recommendations
might alter or supplement the City’s existing coordination processes. For instance, City
departments already coordinate construction of large City sponsored projects, which
distinguishes Palo Alto from other cities that may adopt a more formalized framework
both for City initiated and third party projects.
Review of City’s Existing Dig Once and Coordination Approach
In addition to working with CTC to evaluate the work other jurisdictions have done with
dig once, the City has initiated a review of its existing Municipal Code provisions
governing Third Party Coordination in the public rights-of-way (“PROW”) (Section
12.10.060) and Joint Trench Coordination in Underground Districts (Section 12.16.030),
including specifically an assessment of how cross-departmental teams (Utilities, Public
Works, Development Center and Planning) currently work together on both City-
initiated and third party infrastructure projects to determine if there are opportunities
for streamlining and improvement.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Recognize Collaborative Opportunities on Project-by-Project Basis
Although projects involving Citywide excavation do not appear to be on the City’s
immediate horizon, staff nevertheless plans to evaluate any upcoming, larger scale third
party projects for opportunities to cooperate and identify opportunities to strategically
expand or opportunistically enhance the City’s fiber network now, or in the future,
whether such third party project is an overhead or underground endeavor.
Research, Monitor Practical, Legal Strategies to Cooperate on Above Ground
Construction
Staff continues to research and monitor “one touch make-ready” ordinances and
policies adopted by other jurisdictions. According to Next Century Cities, “[a]kin to dig
once, one touch make-ready leverages labor-intensive work on infrastructure to reduce
the cost and speed of deployment of new networks. Before a pole may be used for a
new attachment, ‘make-ready’ work is usually needed — the existing attachments on
the pole have to be rearranged so that it is ready for a new attacher. Often times, there
are multiple attachments on the pole already (e.g., telecommunications, cables), and,
currently each is moved sequentially — which can create delays and multiple
disruptions in a neighborhood. In the case of one touch make-ready, companies that
own poles agree on one or more common contractors that could move existing
attachments on a pole (‘make ready’ work), allowing a single crew to move all
attachments on a pole on a single visit, rather than sending in a unique crew to move
each attachment sequentially. Sending in separate crews is time-consuming and
disruptive to local communities and municipal governments. One-touch make-ready
polices would ease this burden.”
Even as the City continues to actively monitor progress in this area, it is important to
signal a note of context and caution: Cities enacting ordinances involving elements of a
“one touch make-ready approach” have been the subject of or are currently being
threatened with litigation from incumbent telecommunications providers. Any work the
City pursues in this area will need to be evaluated against this challenging practical and
legal backdrop.
Staff intends to provide updates along with more formal recommendations in the above listed
areas at the upcoming Council study session to solicit Council feedback regarding the same.
Potential Topics for Council Study Session
As a result of Google Fiber’s pause and other market developments, a Council study session will
be scheduled in early 2017 to seek further direction from Council to explore alternative
City of Palo Alto Page 9
approaches to ultra-high speed Internet connectivity for the community. At the study session,
staff intends to provide information to the Council regarding the following items:
Citywide Fiber-to-the-Premises
The Master Plan analysis indicates that, assuming the network achieves the 72 percent “take
rate”4 required to positively cash flow the enterprise, the City will require an estimated overall
capital investment of approximately $77.6 million to build and operate the network (this cost
and the anticipated startup costs associated with initial network deployment are subject to
change based on real-world variables.)
Certain challenges inherent to FTTP deployment are especially pronounced in the Palo Alto. The
City’s primary challenge in its pursuit of an FTTP buildout is that its costs will be high compared
to other metropolitan areas for labor and materials. The cost of outside plant (OSP)5 and drop
cables6 will be greater than in other metropolitan areas because Bay Area costs tend to be
higher. Additionally, many of the easements where the City must build are privately owned,
which will require every drop cable to be placed in conduit.
The high construction and labor costs result in a higher necessary take rate for the City’s FTTP
enterprise to obtain and maintain positive cash flow. Based on the financial projections (and
the underlying assumptions), a 72 percent take rate is required to financially sustain the
network. This is not only much higher than overbuilders have been able to achieve in other
communities, but also higher than the required take rates for other potential municipal fiber
enterprises. As a comparison, other recent analyses performed by CTC for municipalities have
shown a required take rate in the mid-40 percent range in order to maintain positive cash flow.
In light of the high cost to build and the extremely high required take rate, it may seem that
there is little incentive for any provider (public or private) to pursue an FTTP deployment in Palo
Alto. Nonetheless, the public and private sectors each have unique advantages and
disadvantages that may impact their ability to undertake a standalone overbuild. A private
entity and a public entity could complement one another by developing a partnership that can
take advantage of each entity’s strengths, and may significantly reduce cost and risk. These
advantages and disadvantages were described extensively in the Master Plan.
The timing of the RFI issuance for a public-private partnership for deployment of citywide FTTP
in May 2016 was not opportunistic because Palo Alto was identified as one of the potential
Google Fiber cities. As a result of Google Fiber’s interest, the City received formal feedback
from one vendor that this discouraged them from responding to the RFI.
4 Take rate is the percentage of subscribers who purchase services from an enterprise—and is an important driver
in the success of an FTTP retail model. If the required take rate is not met, the enterprise will not be able to sustain
itself and its operational costs will have to be offset through an alternative source.
5 OSP is physical assets like overhead and underground fiber, accompanying ducts and splice cases, and other
network components.
6 Drop cables connect the fiber optic backbone to the customer premises.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Another critical component of building a citywide FTTP network is the funding requirement.
The FTTP Master Plan provided a cost estimate of $77.6 million to build a ubiquitous network in
Palo Alto including a customer take rate of 72 percent to financially sustain the network. Staff
would need to identify various funding models to construct and run a municipally-owned
citywide network. The funding models would also explore subsidizing options if 72 percent take
rate was not achievable.
Fiber-to-the-Node (FTTN)
With the assistance of CTC, staff developed a high-level analysis of the cost to build a Fiber-to-
the-Node (“FTTN”) network.7 This analysis was not part of CTC’s original scope of work for the
FTTP Master Plan.
A FTTN network would require construction of approximately 62 miles of fiber plant, compared
to 230 miles for a citywide FTTP network deployment. The FTTN network would provide an
access point to connect neighborhood-area backhaul communications links, lower the barriers
for potential FTTP providers, and expand the functionality and the choices of technology that
can be implemented for Utilities and Public Safety, including Smart Grid and wireless networks.
The following is a high-level breakdown of the FTTN cost components and total estimated
network costs:
Cost Component Total Estimated Cost
Outside Plant (OSP) Engineering $1,110,000
Quality Control/Quality Assurance 290,000
General OSP Construction Cost 7,110,000
Special Crossings 150,000
Backbone & Distribution Plant Splicing 310,000
Backbone Hub, Termination & Testing 2,410,000
Drop Connections (Tap to WAP) 45,000
*Total Estimated Cost
*This estimate does not include any of the network
electronics, wireless or otherwise)
$11,425,000
The above noted cost estimate may provide a basis for developing a Request for Proposal
(“RFP”) to build a Fiber-to-the-Node network. The RFP may include an option for the City to
build the “last mile” at a later date, or as a means of creating an incentive for a private sector
partner to build and operate the last mile. This network could potentially deliver next-
generation voice, video and data services, in addition to other emerging applications delivered
over high-capacity fiber and wireless networks.
7 Fiber-to-the-Node (FTTN) is one of several options for providing cable telecommunications services to multiple
destinations. Fiber-to-the-Node facilitates providing broadband connections and other data services through a
common network box, which is often called a node. Fiber-to-the-Node may also be called Fiber-to-the-
Neighborhood.
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Upgrade of Existing Fiber Optic Backbone
The dark fiber optic backbone network was originally conceived by the City in the mid-1990s
and is maintained and operated by Utilities. In 2000, the City began to license “dark fiber” for
commercial purposes. In the Fiscal Year 2017 Capital Improvement Program, $1.3 million was
budgeted for the Fiber Optic System Rebuild project. This project will rebuild portions of the
“dark” fiber optics network including installation of new aerial ducts or substructures (conduits
and boxes), and additional fiber backbone cable to increase capacity for sections of the City’s
fiber network that are at or near capacity. The rebuild project will improve the City’s ability to
maintain a competitive market for advanced telecommunications services and extend the
network to other commercial and industrial areas.
Staff will determine whether the rebuild project could be expanded into residential areas and
possibly integrate with the Fiber-to-the-Node approach. The primary purpose of the FTTN
approach is to create building blocks to push fiber closer to residential neighborhoods. This
approach could create a potential “jumping off point” to bring fiber to individual homes – also
known as building the “last mile.” In addition to creating a platform for FTTP, this infrastructure
may have ancillary benefits in terms of creating additional opportunities for licensing dark fiber.
If fiber was expanded to residential neighborhoods, it would be available to the wireless
carriers who need to build small cell sites in not just commercial areas, but also in residential
areas to improve coverage and capacity for their networks. This is known as “network
densification.” These small cell sites, located primarily on utility and streetlight poles in the
public rights-of-way, will need to be connected to fiber to “backhaul” traffic to a central point in
the network. The carriers can build this fiber themselves, but if City fiber is available it could be
licensed to the carriers at a more expedient and cost-effective manner.
According to RCR Wireless News, fiber is expected to be a significant focus on planned 5G
network deployments. Similar to 4G and 3G before it, 5G is the “next generation” of wireless
connectivity built specifically to keep up with the proliferation of devices that need a mobile
Internet connection, connecting not just a smartphone and computer, but home appliances,
door locks, security cameras, cars, wearables, and many other inert devices beginning to
connect to the web. This is also known as the “Internet of Things” (“IoT”). In effect, these dark
fiber licensing opportunities for the wireless carriers and builders of shared wireless
infrastructure may facilitate a new opportunity to increase revenues under the existing
business model. Additionally, this fiber expansion could also create a communications platform
for Smart City applications, especially for communication with utility meters, street lights,
parking, traffic and City news.
Timeline
The majority of the work on the September 28, 2015 and November 30, 2015 Council Motions
is expected to be completed by the end of Calendar Year 2016. The status update for each of
City of Palo Alto Page 12
the Council Motions can be found in Exhibit A. To further support the above information, a
Study Session with Council is under consideration for early 2017.
Policy Implications
The fiber and wireless activities are consistent with the Telecommunications Policy adopted by
the Council in 1997, to facilitate advanced telecommunications services in Palo Alto in an
environmentally sound manner (Reference CMR: 369:97- Proposed Telecommunications Policy
Statements).
Environmental Review
This informational update concerning City initiatives related to FTTP and wireless networks is
not a Project requiring California Environmental Quality Act review.
Attachments:
Exhibit A - Council Motion Status (DOCX)
Exhibit B - RFI Response Memo (DOCX)
Exhibit C - Dig Once Approach (DOCX)
Staff Work Plan Update: City Council Motion from September 28, 2015 (CMR ID #6104) and
status of November 30, 2015 (CMR ID #6301) staff recommendations:
Task Target
Date Status
1
Council requests an update to the consultant’s
report including:
a In the FTTP Master Plan:
12/31/2015
Completed. Reviewed
assumptions for outside plant
costs and capital additions in FTTP
Master Plan with CAC and CTC on
1/21/16 and 2/18/16. CAC now in
agreement with CTC’s FTTP
network cost estimates and there
are no discrepancies to report.
Detailed assumptions, and their impacts,
used to forecast the FTTP capital additions
are to be reviewed by Citizen Advisors if
there is a disagreement between the
consultant’s report and the CAC’s
recommendation, the Staff Report to
Council will highlight the discrepancy.
Once this is accomplished, a revised
forecast is to be provided to the Council as
an Action Item;
b In the Wireless Network Report:
i. A 20-year forecast should be provided
consistent with the FTTP report; 12/31/2015 Completed
ii. The description of Scenario 1 lacked
both a price forecast and fiber backhaul
details for the proposed municipal
properties to be served. These details
should be included in an update prior to an
RFP. Evaluate expanding wireless access in
retail areas, with an option for expanding
Wi-Fi coverage at City facilities and public
areas as part of the RFP (Scenario 1);
9/30/2016
Completed.
The cost estimates for the
extension of existing City Wi-Fi to
unserved City facilities & public
areas/parks are shown in Exhibit
A.
The evaluation of expanding Wi-Fi
access in retail areas showed that
Wi-Fi coverage in retail areas is
adequately provided by the retail
institutions. Expanding Wi-Fi
coverage in these areas is not
recommended by City Staff.
2
Issue RFP to add dedicated wireless
communications to increase communication
for Public Safety and Utilities departments
(Scenarios 3 and 4);
12/30/2016
In progress.
The draft RFP(s) and cost
estimates are near completion for
the following:
1. Citywide Mobile Data Network
for Public Safety
2. Point-to-Multipoint Network
for Secure City Enterprise
Access (Public Safety &
Utilities)
3 Direct Staff to bring a dig-once Ordinance;
Fall/Winter
2016
In Progress.
The CTC report evaluates existing
dig once models from other
municipalities and provides
recommendations for the City to
consider. Staff is evaluating CTC’s
proposed approach and reviewing
existing Municipal Code
provisions governing Third Party
and Joint Trench Coordination.
4
Direct Staff to discuss co-build with AT&T and
Google how the City can lay its own conduit to
the premise during the buildouts;
a AT&T 12/30/2016
In Progress.
The City met with AT&T
representatives to discuss a co-
build opportunity as AT&T
deploys their AT&T Fiber Internet
service in Palo Alto. Follow up
discussions continue to occur; the
most recent meeting was on
11/16/16.
b Google TBD
On-Hold.
At Google’s request, the
discussion regarding deployment
of FTTP for the 5 proposed Bay
Area cities the discussions to
identify the feasibility of various
joint build opportunities and the
potential deployment of Google
Fiber in Palo Alto are on hold
while they examine new,
innovative methods for fiber
deployment.
5
Move forward with RFI exploring both Muni-
owned model with contractors for build and
ongoing operations, and Public—private
model with City owned fiber and private
partner (such as Sonic) operating and owning
electronics, considering both Google in the
market and not;
9/30/2016
Completed.
The 8 RFIs received have been
reviewed and CTC provided an
evaluation report of the RFIs in
Exhibit B. 3 of the respondent
firms were interviewed, none of
the respondent’s proposals
completely align with city goals.
6
Approve a temporary contract position for a
Fiber and Wireless Telecommunications
Project Manager, dedicated to Fiber-to-the-
Premises and wireless initiatives, in the
amount of $228,000 annually, $684,000 for a
period up to three (3) years;
TBD
On-Hold.
The decision was made to put this
position on hold due to the
Google Fiber “pause”. Staff will
evaluate whether a contract
position or professional services
agreement is needed dependent
on City Council’s decision
regarding staff recommendations.
7
Approve and authorize the City Manager or his
designee to execute amendments to two
contracts with Columbia Telecommunications
Corporation dba CTC Technology & Energy
(“CTC”) as follows:
a
Increasing the not-to-exceed amount for
Contract No. C15152568 (Wireless
Network Plan) by $94,490 from $131,650
to $226,140 (includes a 10% contingency
for the provision of related additional, but
unforeseen consulting services) and extend
the contract to June 30, 2016 to develop a
Request for Proposal for dedicated wireless
communications for Public Safety and
Utilities, in addition to evaluating the
expansion of wireless access in retail areas
12/31/2015
Completed.
Amendment finalized on 1/6/16.
b
Increasing the not-to-exceed amount for
Contract No. C15152569 (FTTP Master
Plan) by $58,850 from $144,944 to
$203,794 (includes a 10% contingency for
the provision of related additional, but
unforeseen consulting services) and extend
the contract to June 30, 2016 to provide
technical analysis of the Request for
Information (RFI) responses and any
consulting services needed to help develop
a “Dig Once” Ordinance for consideration
by the Council
12/31/2015
Completed.
Amendment finalized on 1/6/16.
1
Date: October 24, 2016
To: Todd Henderson, Project Manager
City of Palo Alto
Jim Fleming, Subject Matter Expert
City of Palo Alto
From: Tom Asp, Principal Analyst
Sabrina Gosnell, Senior Analyst & Technical Writer
Re: RFI Response Evaluation
The City of Palo Alto received eight (8) responses to its Request for Information (RFI) for a
Partnership for Deployment of Citywide Fiber-to-the-Premises (FTTP):
Axia Connect, Ltd.
Comcast of California IX, Inc.
Construction CAD Solutions, Inc.
Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc.
Macquarie Infrastructure Developments, LLC
N1 Networks/UTOPIA
Race Telecommunications, Inc.
Ventura Next
The responses from Race Telecommunications, Inc. and Ventura Next did not include the RFI’s
Appendix A – Responsibility Matrix, which required respondents to outline their proposed
model’s division of operational and financial responsibilities. Appendix A was one of the RFI’s
base requirements because it was designed to gather valuable information about a respondent’s
proposed business model. After discussions with staff, the Race and Ventura responses were
excluded from detailed review, leaving six total responses for further consideration.
After internal review and additional strategy sessions with staff, CTC and City representatives
met with three potential partner “finalists” for further discussion about their RFI responses. This
memo summarizes our process for review, and our conclusions and possible next steps after
meeting with finalists.
The RFI Review Process
CTC conducted a thorough initial review of each response based on the City’s vision of an FTTP
deployment capable of enhancing the broadband connectivity of the City’s residents, businesses,
and community anchor institutions (CAIs). All responses were expected to align with the
overarching goal to improve the range and quality of available broadband and data transport
CTC Memo to City of Palo Alto | October 2016
2
services, and to complement City of Palo Alto Utilities’ (CPAU) existing dark fiber enterprise by
expanding service beyond commercial customers to encompass the full range of users in Palo
Alto.
The RFI’s Appendix A – Responsibility Matrix was designed to outline the division of operational
and financial responsibilities for a wide range of tasks and financial commitments related to
network construction, maintenance, operations, sales, marketing, taxes, replenishments, and so
on. It aims to draw out what each respondent is truly offering the City, which is not always
apparent from the response narrative.
Table 1 shows a simplified comparison of the six compliant responses to the RFI to demonstrate
how we concluded which respondents the City should engage further. This is not a
comprehensive evaluation matrix—rather, it is an at-a-glance view to supplement this narrative.
Table 1: Simple Review Matrix
Base business
model
Primary
Operational
Responsibilities
Primary
Financial
Responsibilities
City
Financial
Risk
CTC
Recommended
Further
Discussion
Axia Private investment,
public facilitation
Respondent Respondent Moderate Y
Comcast Incumbent upgrade Respondent Respondent Low Y
CCS Engineering and
consulting services
City City High N
Fujitsu Private execution,
public funding1
City City High N
Macquarie Private execution,
public funding
City City High N
N1/UTOPIA Engineering and
consulting with
operational support
from UTOPIA
City City High Y
The Projected High Cost to Build FTTP in Palo Alto Makes Private
Investment Attractive
The City of Palo Alto Fiber-to-the-Premises Master Plan that CTC prepared for the City in 2015
projected that certain challenges inherent to FTTP deployment, such as the cost of construction
and operating costs when compared to other markets, are especially pronounced in the City. Our
analysis concluded that a municipal model—in which the City constructs, owns, and operates the
fiber on its own—would require a 72 percent take rate to achieve positive cash flow. And even
1 For any “private execution, public funding” model, the private partner would seek financing on behalf of the
partnership, but the City would likely be required to secure the repayment of the loan(s) if cash inflows such as
subscriber revenue did not generate enough income to cover the principal and interest payments.
CTC Memo to City of Palo Alto | October 2016
3
with such a high take rate, the model projected that an overall capital investment of more than
$77 million would be necessary to build the network.
In that model, we anticipated that the cost of outside plant (OSP)2 and drop cables3 would be
greater than in other metropolitan areas because Bay Area costs tend to be higher, many of the
easements where the City must build are privately owned, and every drop cable must be placed
in conduit. Labor for operations will also be costlier than in other metropolitan areas because
salaries in the Bay Area tend to be higher on average. Further, if the deployment uses existing or
new City staff, municipal employee salaries are calculated at an extremely high 65 percent. As a
comparison, we have typically calculated this rate at approximately 35 percent in other studies
we have conducted.
The high cost to build and extremely high required take rate were some of the driving forces
behind developing this RFI to engage the private sector to find a meaningful balance between
public and private risk and reward. Although the City wants to retain control over the
infrastructure, spending nearly $70 million on fiber deployment does not seem feasible. The RFI
sought to find partnerships to help mitigate this price tag, and balance public and private sector
strengths and weaknesses.
The Respondents Had Mixed Input on How Additional Gigabit
Providers Would Impact Their Proposed Model
The City’s RFI indicated that AT&T and Comcast currently offer service in the area and may
upgrade their systems to enable 1 Gbps and beyond service offerings. It also stated that Google
Fiber has announced plans to deploy in Palo Alto. The RFI asked respondents to indicate how the
presence of other Gigabit providers may impact their proposed partnership model.
The presence of other Gigabit providers did not appear to be a “deal breaker” for any of the
respondents. The respondents presented a range of input on this topic:
Axia suggested that it welcomes all competitors in the marketplace, and that it would still
follow its proposed business model, even if other providers began offering Gigabit service.
The CCS response indicated it will not directly offer services, thus the presence of
additional competition does not impact its business model. The only impact other
providers may have on the CCS model’s success is potentially driving up make-ready costs.
Comcast’s response stated that it welcomes competition “when it occurs on an equitable
and fair regulatory playing field.” It went on to say, “benefits and incentives offered to
2 OSP includes physical assets like overhead and underground fiber, accompanying ducts and splice cases, and other
network components.
3 Drop cables connect the fiber optic backbone to the customer premises.
CTC Memo to City of Palo Alto | October 2016
4
one competitor should be offered to all competitors.” The response indicates that
Comcast already faces significant competition and will not be deterred by additional
competitors.
Fujitsu indicated that it does not believe incumbent providers will upgrade their existing
plant in the near-term, nor does it expect that Google Fiber is truly interested in a market
the size of Palo Alto. Fujitsu would expect a Google Fiber deployment to use the City’s
open access FTTP network to deliver its services.
The Macquarie response indicated that Google Fiber’s presence should create some
urgency for the City to move forward with a partnership right away, especially if it elects
to pursue the partnership model that Macquarie proposed.
The N1/UTOPIA response acknowledged that a Google overbuild could significantly
impact take rates, but indicated that N1/UTOPIA still believed a partnership could be
viable.
There Were Fewer Responses and Less Willingness to Take On
Financial Risk than Anticipated
Because of the high cost to deploy FTTP in Palo Alto, the RFI sought potential partners that would
be willing to directly invest in FTTP deployment and take on some risk of their own, though the
City also aimed to find a partner that would allow some degree of City control. No partners
emerged during the process that truly fit these criteria, and the RFI process did not produce a
clear “frontrunner” whose proposal aligned with the City’s goals.
In comparison to RFI responses we have seen in other communities in recent months, the City’s
RFI process did not yield as many responses as we hoped to see, and there was less willingness
to take financial risk than we have seen in other markets. Given Palo Alto’s reputation as a hub
for technological innovation, and based on what we have seen in the industry, we anticipated
more responses from partners willing to invest and share risk with the City.
Although every respondent indicated that Google Fiber’s presence in the market would not deter
respondents from pursuing a partnership with the City, we suspect that responses were likely
tempered by Google Fiber’s stated plans to deploy in Palo Alto. Further, it is likely that some
potential partners did not respond at all considering the pending Google Fiber deployment.
None of the RFI Responses Perfectly Aligned with the City’s Goals
All the respondents had suggestions for how to help the City meet its goals, and there were
several creative business models. Four of the six respondents would rely on the City to make a
large infrastructure investment, either directly through bonding or through a guaranteed
payment or other backstop mechanism. Depending on the flow of funds between the entities,
CTC Memo to City of Palo Alto | October 2016
5
and the breakdown of responsibilities, this could entail enormous financial and political risk for
the City.
Axia and Comcast would not require a financial commitment from the City, though their
approaches are not at all similar.
Axia proposes a private risk and private investment model. The Axia model envisions that the
private partner would own and operate the FTTP network, and the City would assist with
marketing and providing event spaces, and would ease permitting for Axia.
Comcast, which is an incumbent service provider in the City, proposes to upgrade its system. The
Comcast proposal is not a true “partnership,” as the City envisions partnering. Comcast suggests
that it is already serving the area well, and will continue to do so as it upgrades its infrastructure.
The remaining four models are all slightly different from one another, but all require significant
investment from the City (and, thus, would entail more risk than the Axia and Comcast
approaches). The mechanism through which the City would be expected to invest varies from
one model to the next, but any investment the City makes should be directly tied to the level of
control it has over the network.
The Construction CAD Solutions (CCS) response indicates that CCS will offer engineering and
other services for the City to deploy a municipal FTTP network. Fujitsu would also rely on the City
to develop and deploy FTTP; as the private partner, Fujitsu would perform feasibility analysis and
engineering, and would engage equipment and OSP vendors to assist the City. Access to vendor
relationships could be useful if the City sought to directly deploy the network, but this
relationship would require the City to engage multiple partners to meet all its needs.
The Macquarie proposal appears to meet the City’s goals in that the company would assist the
City in deploying a ubiquitous FTTP network. However, the flow of funds in the proposed model
would require the City to guarantee the private funding Macquarie proposes to offer, and the
City would not directly own the network. Essentially the City would take on all the financial risk
with little reward. The benefit of the Macquarie approach is that it removes operational
responsibility from the City. Some communities may be willing and able to pay a premium to not
have to worry about the details of deploying, operating, and offering service over a network;
however, we do not believe this is the best scenario for the City.
Finally, the N1/UTOPIA response is a combination response that offers engineering and
consulting services through N1 for the City to develop and deploy a municipal fiber network. The
response envisions that the City will partner with the UTOPIA organization for operations, which
is a consortium of cities that have deployed fiber networks. This approach does not significantly
mitigate the City’s financial risk, as the expectation is that the City will be financially responsible
CTC Memo to City of Palo Alto | October 2016
6
for all aspects of the deployment. Working with UTOPIA, or at least tapping into the institutional
knowledge, may have some benefits for the City.
The City Met with Three Respondents
The RFI’s primary objective was to enable the City to establish a long-term relationship with a
partner, in addition to establishing an equitable balance of risks and rewards, which are essential
ingredients to developing a positive partnership. Although none of the proposals exactly met the
City’s objectives, we believed it was prudent for the City to hold additional discussions with three
respondents.
The Axia response seemed closest to the City’s expectations, and appeared to entail minimal risk
for the City. Given this, we suggested further discussions to seek additional details about Axia’s
proposed business model, and to see if the company believed there is a comfortable fit for the
City. A public–private partnership is intended to be a decades-long relationship, and being
comfortable with a partner on paper is only one part of the overall process toward establishing
that dynamic.
Comcast’s proposal did not meet the City’s goals as they were outlined in the RFI, and its response
did not indicate an interest in the type of partnership the City envisions. However, given
Comcast’s established presence in the community, it seemed prudent for the City to engage the
company directly to learn more about Comcast’s proposal and its plans.
The N1/UTOPIA response did not meet the City’s goals, and the proposed business model would
not enable the type of partnership the RFI sought. The N1/UTOPIA model requires the City to
build, finance, and fund the FTTP network, while N1/UTOPIA would operate the network on a
day-to-day basis. UTOPIA likely possesses insight from its experience operating an open access
fiber optic network in the state of Utah. We believe the City may be able to learn from senior
staff at N1/UTOPIA and potentially work together in some capacity.
The Private Sector Appears to Be Responding to Potential
Competition
In the City’s meeting with Comcast, the cable provider indicated that it expects to upgrade its
system in Palo Alto to DOCSIS 3.1 by the second quarter of 2017.4 While this was not a written
agreement, Comcast sent a large team of senior staff and verbally committed to this upgrade.
This upgrade is in addition to AT&T’s announcement last year that it would bring its GigaPower
4 Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (“DOCSIS”) is an international telecommunications standard that
permits the addition of high-bandwidth data transfer to an existing cable TV (CATV) system. It is employed by many
cable television operators to provide Internet access over their existing hybrid fiber-coaxial cable (HFC)
infrastructure. DOCSIS 1.0 was released in 1997. The most recent version of DOCSIS (3.1) was released in 2014. The
DOCSIS 3.1 specification supports Internet speeds of 10 Gigabits per second (Gbps) for downloads downstream and
1Gbps upstream - the level of speeds typically only available with a fiber optic connection.
CTC Memo to City of Palo Alto | October 2016
7
product (now rebranded as “AT&T Fiber”) to Palo Alto, which can provide up to 1 Gigabit per
second (Gbps) service.
The Master Plan that CTC prepared in 2015 indicated that Google Fiber’s imminent presence in
the City may affect the Palo Alto broadband market, and that incumbent providers may react in
several ways. In our experience, even the possibility of competition—particularly when the new
competitor is Google Fiber—incentivizes incumbent providers to make efforts to modify their
existing market presence.
While Google Fiber has not yet deployed in the City, and may not enter the market in the same
way it originally planned, the local market seems to be changing in response to the possibility of
competition. Both AT&T and Comcast have seemingly begun taking steps to enhance and
upgrade their existing technology in Palo Alto, and will ultimately improve their service offerings.
Incumbent Upgrades Are Not the Same as FTTP and Price Is a
Factor
Unlike many other markets, there appears to be movement in the private sector toward filling
gaps in the City in the short term, Moreover, it is important to note that while incumbent
upgrades may achieve better broadband connectivity for the community than what is available
today, this is not the same as an FTTP deployment. The cutting-edge fiber-based service that the
City hopes to achieve is not possible over the legacy networks in Palo Alto, even after upgrades.
Nonetheless, incumbent upgrades may provide a stopgap that helps meet some of the
community’s needs while the City determines its path forward.
The Comcast representatives acknowledged that their intended upgrade is not the same as FTTP,
but they stressed that evolving DOCSIS technology will enable more robust connectivity than
what is available today in Palo Alto. While Comcast can offer some 2 Gbps services today, this
requires a costly special build and comes with high monthly service fees.
The City May Want to Consider Alternative Business Models
Most of the responses suggest that the City would have to take significant financial risk for the
partnership to work—either by investing directly, or through payment guarantees to the private
partner. CTC cannot provide legal guidance; the City should engage its legal counsel as it
considers its options, particularly any action that may create a financial or legal commitment for
the City or CPAU.
If, after consultation with its legal and finance staff, the City determines that it must seek bond
financing or otherwise make a large investment, it will likely want to start its strategic process
“from scratch.” If the City indicates an ability and willingness to directly invest public funds, in
addition to some or all of the fiber optic fund reserve toward an FTTP deployment, we anticipate
that the nature and number of responses to a procurement process would change considerably.
CTC Memo to City of Palo Alto | October 2016
8
This would also change the City’s approach to a partnership, and it would be valuable for the City
to develop a new plan and path forward if it decided to make a significant investment in building
a citywide network.
The City may want to encourage a private provider such as Axia to deploy a fiber network in Palo
Alto to help meet the community’s needs. In the proposed Axia model, the City would not take
on substantial risk—but it would also not own the network or have much control over its
deployment. Another challenge with this approach is that service prices over the long term are
likely to be high; although a fiber overbuild will typically cause prices to be lower in the short
term, deploying an additional network does not solve the market structure in the long term. That
is, there are multiple networks to maintain and each provider must price services in alignment
with its network and retail operational realities.
If the City wants to retain ownership of the network, it will likely have to make a substantial
investment to deploy fiber of its own. Alternatively, it could take a “slow and steady” approach
and deploy in targeted areas to help make a business case for fiber. This approach may allow the
City to focus on serving areas where return on investment may be highest, which could help
establish a revenue stream and support future deployment of additional fiber.
Dig Once Approach
Prepared for the City of Palo Alto, California
May 2016
Dig Once Approach | DRAFT | May, 2016
ii
Contents
1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 1
2 The Case for Dig Once Policies ................................................................................................ 2
3 Dig Once Conduit Installation ................................................................................................. 4
3.1 Conduit Installation in Standard Trench or in Offset Joint Trench .................................. 4
4 Dig Once Policies Across the Country ..................................................................................... 7
5 Recommendations for Enacting a Dig-Once Policy............................................................... 12
5.1 Prioritize Projects for Building ........................................................................................ 12
5.2 Estimate Incremental Costs ........................................................................................... 14
5.3 Develop a Standard Specification .................................................................................. 15
5.4 Develop a Procedure to Track and Manage Infrastructure ........................................... 16
Figures
Figure 1: Typical Configuration for Conduit in Dig Once Opportunity ........................................... 5
Figure 2: Vertical Profile for Typical Vault Installation ................................................................... 6
Tables
Table 1: Sample Dig Once Summaries .......................................................................................... 10
Dig Once Approach | DRAFT | May, 2016
1
1 Executive Summary
The City of Palo Alto’s City Council has requested that staff develop a Dig Once Ordinance. The
Dig Once Ordinance would modify the City’s Municipal Code that governs utility excavation. The
City aims to accomplish a number of potential goals through this ordinance, including:
Protecting newly and recently paved roads and sidewalks
Enhancing the uniformity of construction
Ensuring efficient, non-duplicative placement of infrastructure in the public right-of-way
(PROW)
Reducing overall costs of all underground work in the PROW, both utility- and
telecommunications-related, for public and private parties
Facilitating private communications network deployment by reducing construction costs
Leveraging construction by third-party entities for the deployment of a public
communications network, or deployment of conduit that can be made available to other
entities
The City hired CTC to support the development of this ordinance. We surveyed approaches
adopted or proposed by other jurisdictions across the country, including in California. We also
interviewed representatives of cities and other government entities that have adopted dig once
or joint trenching policies to gather information about their outcomes and best practices. We
then reviewed the treatment of costs in dig once scenarios. In many cases, the incremental costs
of construction are borne by the jurisdiction. Many policies also provide exceptions or forego the
excess conduit construction if the cost-benefit analysis is not reasonable.
Based on our survey and our experience with best practices, we identified three general
approaches to dig once policies. Some cities require an excavator applying for a permit in the
PROW to notify utilities and other relevant entities about the project and invite their
participation. Localities with a “shadow conduit” installation policy require the excavator to
install excess conduit for future use; depending on the policy, the excavator or the jurisdiction
may then lease that excess capacity. Other localities, like Palo Alto, undertake a longer-term
process, coordinating multi-year plans with excavators.
We recommend that the City take the following steps toward refining its ordinance:
Prioritize projects suitable for additional construction based on a scoring mechanism
Develop a refined estimate of the incremental costs during the design stage
Develop a standard engineering specification for dig-once conduit
Develop a procedure to systematically track and manage the construction and to create
a repository of existing infrastructure
Dig Once Approach | DRAFT | May, 2016
2
2 The Case for Dig Once Policies
The construction of fiber optic communications cables is a costly, complex, and time-consuming
process. The high cost of construction creates a barrier to entry for potential broadband
communications providers.
While aerial construction methods requiring attachments to utility poles is generally less
expensive that underground construction, aerial installation has significant drawbacks—
including a limit to the quantity of cables and attachments that can be placed on existing utility
poles in more crowded areas, and greater exposure to outside conditions.
Underground construction using protective conduit generally provides scalable, flexible, and
durable long-term communications infrastructure, but is also typically more expensive than aerial
construction. Further, from the City’s perspective, cutting roads and sidewalks substantially
reduces the lifetime and performance of those surfaces. And each excavation diminishes the
space available for future infrastructure.
Accordingly, encouraging or requiring simultaneous underground construction and co-location
of broadband infrastructure in the PROW creates benefits for both the City and private sector
communications providers.
Dig once policies reduce the long-term cost of building communications facilities by capitalizing
on significant economies of scale through:
1. Coordination of fiber and conduit construction with utility construction and other
disruptive activities in the PROW.
2. Construction of spare conduit capacity where multiple service providers or entities may
require infrastructure.
These economies exist primarily because fiber optic cables and conduit are relatively
inexpensive, often contributing to less than one-quarter of the total cost of new construction.
While material costs typically fall well below $40,000 per mile (even for large cables
containing hundreds of fiber strands), labor, permitting, and engineering costs commonly drive
the total price toward $200,000 per mile if conducted as a standalone project.
To put the cost savings in perspective, consider two examples. If fiber construction is coordinated
with a major road or utility project that is already disrupting the PROW in a rural area, the cost of
constructing the fiber, communications conduit, and other materials can be as low as $10,000
per mile. However, if fiber construction is completed as part of a separate standalone project,
the cost of constructing fiber and communications conduit typically range from $95,000 to
$200,000 per mile, and even higher in complex urban environments.
Dig Once Approach | DRAFT | May, 2016
3
Another motivation for coordinating construction is to take the opportunity to build multiple
conduit in a closely packed bank. Banks of conduit constructed simultaneously allow a single
excavation to place several conduit in the physical space usually used by one or two. Conversely,
multiple conduit installed at different times must be physically spaced, often by several feet, to
prevent damage to one while installing the next. Once the PROW becomes crowded, the choices
of construction methods are reduced, leaving only less desirable methods and more-costly
locations for construction of additional infrastructure.
The key benefits achieved through coordinated construction efforts include reduced:
Labor and material costs, through reduced crew mobilization expenses and larger bulk
material purchases
Trenching or boring costs when coordination enables lower-cost methods (e.g., trenching
as opposed to boring) or allows multiple entities to share a common trench or bore for
their independent purposes
Traffic control and safety personnel costs, particularly when constructing along roadways
that require lane closures
Engineering and survey costs associated with locating existing utilities and specifying the
placement of new facilities
Engineering and survey costs associated with environmental impact studies and approvals
Lease fees for access to private easements, such as those owned by electric utilities
Railroad crossing permit fees and engineering
Restoration to the PROW or roadway, particularly in conjunction with roadway
improvements
Bridge crossing permit fees and engineering
Dig Once Approach | DRAFT | May, 2016
4
3 Dig Once Conduit Installation
There are several possibilities for a standardized approach to conduit installation. We describe
below two potential dig once approaches that consider the placement of City communications
conduit in coordination with trenching performed by an excavator. The two approaches are
designed for two different scenarios: one in which the added dig once infrastructure can share
the same trench with no modifications, and one in which the additional conduit cannot share the
standard trench (e.g., due to potential interference between the dig once conduit and the
primary construction), thus requiring the two conduit to be offset in a wider trench.
We also describe a scenario that might be more accurately termed a “Restore Once” or “Pave
Once” opportunity, but which may still provide some of the economies of the single-trench dig
once.
All of these scenarios assume that the City has identified a given corridor as a suitable one for
conduit installation, and that it has justified the incremental cost and effort for installation—
potentially based on a standard set of criteria such as those in Section 5.1.
3.1 Conduit Installation in Standard Trench or in Offset Joint Trench
Ideally, the dig once conduit is placed over the excavator utilities. This reduces or eliminates the
need for additional trenching and would incur the lowest incremental cost. There should be space
for third-party vaults for use by non-City users, adjacent to the main vaults. Third-party service
providers will have access to the conduit at their vaults; all other vaults and conduit will only be
accessible by the City or by contractors managing the conduit for the City. With the permission
of the utility owner, it may be possible to place the City conduit directly over the utility conduit
(see “Model A” in Figure 1 below). This is a potential approach when the utility is a
communications utility. Reducing the clearance between the utility and the City conduit will
reduce or eliminate any incremental excavation to accommodate the City conduit.
In some scenarios, the conduit may need to be offset horizontally from the utility Infrastructure.
This may be the case where the infrastructure is a water pipe that should be offset for ease of
maintenance, for example. Offsetting the dig once conduit may also reduce the risk of it being
damaged by a broken water pipe or by repair to that pipe. “Model B” in Figure 1 depicts a dig
once scenario in an offset trench.
Figure 2 is a vertical profile for a typical vault installation.
Dig Once Approach | DRAFT | May, 2016
5
Figure 1: Typical Configuration for Conduit in Dig Once Opportunity
Dig Once Approach | DRAFT | May, 2016
6
Figure 2: Vertical Profile for Typical Vault Installation
Dig-Once Joint Trench
Typical vault Elevation City and County of San Francisco, California
SIZE FSCM NO DWG NO REV
11"x17"8
SCALE Not to scale SHEET 1 OF 4
INSTALLATION AND CONSTRUCTION NOTES:
1. An electrical ground rod shall be installed in all vaults. Ground rods shall
be comprised of 13-mil copper-clad steel, 5/8-inch diameter, minimum 10-
foot length, and tested to have an electrical resistance to ground of 25 ohms
or less.
2. Vaults shall be of a composite, straight-walled construction, UL-listed to
ANSI 77-2010. Vaults and lids shall be Tier 22 load-rated. Vaults shall have
external dimension of approximately 30”x 48”x 36” (WxLxD). Vault lids shall
be etched with the words, “City of San Francisco Fiber Optics”
3. Conduit shall enter vaults from the sidewall through openings created per
manufacturer instructions to retain the associated load rating. Conduits shall
protrude beyond the interior wall of the vault by a minimum of 1-inch, and
no more than 3-inches.
4. Vaults shall be installed flush with grade on a 6-inch bed of #57 crushed
stone or gravel. An additional 1-inch to 2-inches of stone shall be placed
inside the base of the vault.
5. A minimum of 12-inches of select, compacted backfill must surround the
vault on all sides. Backfill must not contain large rocks or chunks, and there
should be no voids between the vault sidewalls and the native surrounding
soil.
Typical Vault Installation
GRADE
2-inch HDPE
conduits
Tamped /
undisturbed
soil Min 4"
Min 12"Compacted select
backfill
6" bed of #57
crushed stone
Add 1" to 2" of
additional crushed
stone / gravel inside
vault base
10 AWG
insulated
tracer wire
5/8-inch diameter
ground rod,
minimum 10 feet
long, 25 ohm test
Ground
rod clamp
1" to 3"
Dig Once Approach | DRAFT | May, 2016
7
4 Dig Once Policies Across the Country
A number of cities and counties across the country have developed and implemented dig once
policies. The primary motivation for municipalities has been to preserve the ROW and improve
the telecommunications competition in the market.
The following are a range of policies we have seen. Table 1 summarizes the different examples.
a. The City of Boston, Massachusetts was one of the first cities in the country to implement
a dig once policy (adopted in 1988). In the first few years of adoption all excavators in the
PROW were required to install four 1.5” banks of conduit during construction. The cost to
lease the conduit was a one-time fee of the present value of the average shared cost of
construction of $67.61 per foot of conduit used and an annual fee of $5 per foot.
Due to the lack of standardization, the quality of the conduit varied greatly across the
system. There were few users of the system; the costs associated with leasing were high,
and depreciation was not accounted for. Potential users of the conduit often chose to
build on parallel streets. Thus, the extent to which this policy became successful
depended on factors such as cost and demand for interconnectivity. The city is now in the
process of conducting a survey to assess the quality of the existing conduit.
Over the past year, the policy was modified to require excavators to install 4” shadow
conduit for the city and other future users—which will be required to lease space in the
conduit from the shadow builder before being allowed to dig again in that corridor. The
lease price is a lump sum of the present value of $200,000 for the right of entry (or
equivalent) in addition to an annual fee of $5 per foot. The city also has a five-year
moratorium once construction in a particular PROW takes place (i.e., a new excavator in
that location would have to conduct restoration from curb to curb).
b. The City of Berkeley, California does not have a dig once ordinance but it has policies
within its municipal code that aim to reduce the impact of construction in the PROW for
telecommunication systems. The city does this by mandating that any excess capacity in
existing or future duct, conduit, manhole, or handhole be made available by the excavator
for use by third parties. Also, a prospective excavator would have to coordinate major
construction efforts in the PROW with other utility companies through city-sponsored
utility coordination meetings. In new developments, a provider would contact the
developer to determine whether any surplus conduit exists and whether any joint
trenching or boring projects are feasible.
In a new installation that would require excavation, the provider shall install within
existing infrastructure whenever sufficient excess capacity was available on reasonable
Dig Once Approach | DRAFT | May, 2016
8
financial terms. Also, the city does not allow a company to excavate if the street has been
reconstructed in the preceding five-year period.
c. The City of Bellevue, Washington does not have a dig once requirement. However, the
city conditions development projects on the excavator providing the city with conduit
through the length of the frontage and also possible street lighting and/or signal
upgrades. Every transportation project that constructs on the sidewalk is required to
install conduit.
d. The Central Coast Broadband Consortium (CCBC) is a group of local governments that
aims to promote broadband availability, access, and adoption in Monterey, Santa Cruz,
and San Benito counties in California. The CCBC has developed a model shadow conduit
policy for the local governments which allows for the installation of additional conduit in
the PROW when a construction permit is requested by a telecommunications or utility
service provider. The model policy would allow for the jurisdiction to open a 60-day
window to notify all other known telecommunications and utility providers in order to
coordinate with the placement of conduit in the PROW. The permit applicant would be
the lead company and the other providers would piggyback on the installation. Under
California law, the lead company has the ability to charge fees for the installation of
communication conduit in the PROW. One of the goals of the CCBC through this policy
was to increase competition by reducing the cost of entry for future service providers.
e. The City of Gonzales, California has developed a dig once policy for public works projects,
including construction and maintenance of transportation and utility infrastructure.
Excavators in the PROW are required to install communications conduit. An exception is
allowed if the City determines there is insufficient cost benefit. The City developed
common standards related to the conduit including:
Use of PVC Schedule 40 material (color orange).
Laid to a depth of not less than 18 inches below grade in concrete sidewalk areas, and
not less than 30 inches below finished grade in all other areas when feasible, or the
maximum feasible depth otherwise.
A minimum 2-inch diameter
The costs associated with the installation of the conduit are covered by the public works
budget and the city owns the conduit.
f. The City of Santa Cruz, California recently implemented a dig once policy with the primary
aim to foster telecommunications market competition and to create a provision for the
Dig Once Approach | DRAFT | May, 2016
9
installation or upgrade of telecommunications cable or conduit for city use. Staff notifies
all excavators in the city of the opportunity to join the open trench and helps coordinate
efforts for multiple parties to join the dig. City staff works with contractors to identify the
most cost-effective approach consistent with city requirements to obtain upgrades in the
PROW.
So far, one excavation, a city water project, has fallen under the jurisdiction of this
ordinance. The bids the city received for the extra communications duct (requested as an
optional line item in the bids) were high and did not justify the cost. The City is examining
how to improve the outcome for future excavation projects, such as a planned citywide
fiber optic project. The city also enacted a moratorium on standalone construction in the
excavation area, in order to protect the PROW after the excavation.
g. The City of San Francisco, California has developed a dig once ordinance that modifies the
city’s Public Works Code provisions governing utility excavation—specifically, the Code’s
requirements for coordination.1 The Department of Public Works (DPW) can only approve
an application for an excavation permit if the applicant’s plans include the installation of
communications facilities (e.g., conduit) that meet the Department of Technology (DT)
specifications, unless DT has opted out of the excavation project.
Excavators (both internal and external) are required to place conduit for the use of DT as
well as conduit available for leasing. DT is responsible for the excavator’s incremental
costs. The city requires proposing the installation of four 1” conduit with manholes at
regular intervals. The shadow conduit is required to be placed in joint trench above the
excavator’s conduit.
The beginning phase of this ordinance was started in Fall 2014 and the Order was adopted
in 2015. The City is now in process of prioritizing projects (based on a cost-benefit
analysis) through a scoring mechanism as the costs are higher with joint build
construction. These high costs are typical of urban settings. The City is using its Accela
right-of-way asset management system (formerly Envista), a map-based application, to
document and analyze excavator plans, in some cases years ahead of construction, to
identify, analyze, and coordinate projects.
h. San Benito County, California has incorporated a dig once policy as part of its multi-use
streets policy by requiring county roadway construction projects involving more than
surface pavement treatment to include underground utility conduit. Improved
telecommunications infrastructure is part of the county’s current general plan. The
1 “Article 2.4: Excavation in the Public Right-of-Way,” Public Works Code, available at: http://tinyurl.com/kqqqop5
Dig Once Approach | DRAFT | May, 2016
10
county is also a partner in a municipal fiber network and aims to use this policy to expand
the network.
i. In Arlington County, Virginia, a large electric grid project designed by Dominion Virginia
Power, an investor-owned utility, required construction of underground conduit along
many miles of congested urban PROW. As part of the utility permitting and coordination,
the county entered into an agreement with the utility to construct fiber optics for the
county’s use in parallel conduit and manholes. he county pursued the project
independently of any dig once ordinance. The county received cost estimates for each
segment in the design phase and decided to proceed based on the estimates. As part of
the agreement, the county provided the specifications for the conduit and the fiber. The
specifications included:
Two 4-inch conduit with tracer wire installed at a minimum of 24 inches from the
top of the power line trench.
Splice boxes (24"x 36" x 36") located approximately 600 feet apart
Installation of one set of three 1.25-inch innerduct in each 4-inch conduit.
Installation of one 144-fiber cable in one innerduct of each 4-inch conduit, leaving a
50 foot coil in each.
The acceptance of the installation was done only after the county had inspected and
tested the conduit and fiber, and payment was made thereafter.
Table 1: Sample Dig Once Summaries
Locality/Network Summary Costs
(a) City of Boston,
MA
Shadow conduit installation
Conduit system not standardized
Expensive for potential users of conduit
One time cost:
present value of
construction +
$5/foot/year
(b) City of
Berkeley, CA
Excess capacity required to be made available for
leasing
Determined by
lessor of excess
capacity
(c) CCBC
Consortium of local governments developed a
model ordinance
Shadow conduit installation
Not determined,
possibly shared
construction
Dig Once Approach | DRAFT | May, 2016
11
Locality/Network Summary Costs
60-day notification window when permit
application is received
costs or charges
by lead company
(d) City of
Bellevue, WA
Additional conduit during some capital
improvement and development projects
Transportation projects required to install
conduit
Funded from city
budget
(e) City of
Gonzales, CA
Shadow conduit installation
Standards developed for conduit
Decision to install conduit only if the cost-benefit
analysis is favorable
Public Works
budget
(f) City of Santa
Cruz, CA
Joint build based on costs
Optional bids for extra ducts
City opted not to build conduit because of high
incremental conduit cost in the first project
attempted under the policy
Joint build costs
and/or county
budget
(g) City of San
Francisco, CA
Shadow conduit installation and conduit
available for leasing
Project prioritization based on scoring
mechanism
Incremental
costs paid by
city, priced at
$20.07 per foot
(shared trench)
and $29.14 per
foot (offset
trench)
(h) San Benito
County, CA
Conduit to be constructed as part of county road
projects
Coordination with county fiber build
County capital
program funds
(i) Arlington
County, VA
Obtained conduit and fiber as part of an
agreement for an electric grid upgrade project in
the PROW by investor-owned electric utility
County developed specifications and inspected
installation
County funds,
$392,082 for
21,700 feet
Dig Once Approach | DRAFT | May, 2016
12
5 Recommendations for Enacting a Dig-Once Policy
We recommend that the City modify its Municipal Code by adding “Dig Once Ordinance” related
policies that would require any excavation plans to include City conduit or fiber, unless the City
chooses to opt out of the excavation project. Such an ordinance would require the installation of
City-owned communications infrastructure in excavation projects where the City determines that
it is both financially feasible and consistent with the City’s long-term goals to develop the City’s
communication infrastructure.
While enacting a dig once policy we recommend that the City develop a procedure, a standard
specification as well as prioritize projects and estimate the incremental costs for construction of
additional infrastructure. We explain each recommendation below:
5.1 Prioritize Projects for Building
The cost of installing conduit is drastically reduced when a trench is already dug. However, the
cost is still significant, and the City will need to prioritize projects that achieve the most value for
the money spent, and maximize the likelihood of the conduit being used. Because of the cost of
conduit installation, even in a dig once opportunity, it is necessary to prioritize construction to
ensure that 1) City priorities are identified when dig once opportunities emerge, and 2) resources
are not wasted in building conduit that is unlikely to be used.
We observed that the following factors typically affect the use of conduit, based on our
experience in other cities and dig once settings:
Percentage of the utility poles with space for additional utilities and reasonable cost of
attachment;
Excavation projects that extend only a short distance, such as for a few blocks;
Excavation projects isolated from other projects and existing fiber and conduit
infrastructure;
Excavation projects in low- and medium-density residential areas, not in proximity to City
locations or large developments; and
Excavation projects that affect the top layer of the street and do not break into the
concrete layer.
We also note that the cost of conduit construction is approximately 50 percent higher in dig once
opportunities where the excavator is not digging a trench, or where the trench cannot be shared
or needs to be widened for placement of the dig once conduit.
Dig Once Approach | DRAFT | May, 2016
13
To ensure that dig once projects are both financially feasible and consistent with the City’s long-
term goals, we propose prioritization based on the following factors:
1. Ability to place conduit over long, continuous corridors across the City
2. Proximity of the project to City facilities requiring service
3. Lack of existing City communications infrastructure in the vicinity
4. Potential interest in conduit from partners or customers (e.g., City departments, service
providers, or developers)
5. Lack of cost-effective alternatives due to physical constraints in the vicinity (e.g., targets
of opportunity such as bridges or freeway underpasses)
6. Lack of capacity on utility poles along the route
7. Risk to dig once communications infrastructure (e.g., water, gas, and sewer need to be
placed deep underground and dig once infrastructure placed far above that infrastructure
to reduce likelihood of damage to the dig once conduit during an emergency utility repair;
this is less true of electrical and communications excavation that is in closer proximity to
the dig once conduit, making the dig once conduit easier to avoid)
8. Delays to critical infrastructure (i.e., the incremental days for dig once coordination must
not create a public safety risk)
9. Project cost (i.e., prioritizing projects with lower-than-average costs)
10. Synergies with opportunistic major projects, such as highway mass transit, or bridge
replacement
11. Major right-of-way crossings, such as railroad, water, highway, interstate etc. Often times
these are difficult for private carriers to facilitate or justify
12. Conduit placement for building laterals into key sites, data centers, or facilities deemed
potential targets for redevelopment
As opportunities emerge, or as existing opportunities are reviewed, we recommend they be
evaluated based on the above prioritization. We recommend scoring and ranking each potential
project on the above criteria.
As part of another client engagement, we reviewed at a high level the proposed excavation
projects in the City of San Francisco; we scored each on a one-to-10 scale for the criteria similar
to the above, then ranked them.
Dig Once Approach | DRAFT | May, 2016
14
Our analysis separated projects based on type (Transit, Electrical, Gas, Water, Sewer, Traffic,
Communications, and Combined) and plotted the projects along with city facilities, community
anchor facilities, existing city fiber and conduit, and other points of interest.
Based on our high-level analysis, the highest-scoring projects in San Francisco—and the ones we
recommended prioritizing—typically:
Provided long conduit routes;
Covered major corridors of value to city and non-city conduit users;
Passed near city facilities; and
Were the lowest cost per foot—in part because many involved breaking through the
concrete layer of the roadway, reducing the incremental cost for placing conduit.
In short, these projects provided the collective advantage of lower incremental cost and highest
potential value.
5.2 Estimate Incremental Costs
As part of its permit submittal process, the City has to ensure that the permit fees covers its costs
associated with design of the additional infrastructure.
For cost estimation purposes, the incremental cost is the cost of additional materials (conduit,
vaults, location tape, building materials) and labor (incremental engineering, incremental design,
placement and assembly of incremental conduit, placement of incremental vaults,
interconnection, testing, and documentation).
The cost does not have to include roadway or sidewalk restoration or paving (which we assume
to be part of the original project) beyond that which is specifically required for the placement of
vaults for City communications conduit within paved or concrete surfaces outside of the original
project boundaries.
Where trenches are joint, the cost does not include trenching or backfilling. Where the dig once
trench is separate from the original trench, the incremental cost includes trenching and backfill,
but does not include repaving or restoring the road surface (again, assumed to be part of the
original project).
Average costs may be derived based on an ensemble of contractor pricing schedules. As the City
gains experience by participating in projects, it will develop a more accurate sense of cost.
Dig Once Approach | DRAFT | May, 2016
15
5.3 Develop a Standard Specification
The challenge in developing a standard specification for a dig once project is to incorporate the
requirements of known and unknown users, and to provide sufficient capacity and capability
without excessive costs.
The following factors may be considered in developing a conduit specification:
1. Capacity—sufficient conduit needs to be installed, and that conduit needs to have
sufficient internal diameter, to accommodate future users’ cables and to be segmented
to enable conduit to be shared or cables added at a future date
2. Segmentation—users need to have the appropriate level of separation from each other
for commercial, security, or operational reasons
3. Access—vaults and handholes need to be placed to provide access to conduit and the
ability to pull fiber. Vaults need to be spaced to minimize the cost of extending conduit to
buildings and other facilities that may be served by fiber
4. Costs—materials beyond those that are likely to be needed will add cost, as will the
incremental labor to construct them. Beyond a certain point, trenches need to be
widened or deepened to accommodate conduit
5. Robustness—the materials, construction standards, and placement need to reasonably
protect the users’ fiber, and not unduly complicate maintenance and repairs
6. Architecture—sweeps, bend radius, and vault sizes need to be appropriate for all
potential sizes of fiber
We recommend further discussions with private carriers to better develop a specification. It may
be appropriate to have a different specification for different projects. Based on our knowledge
of similar efforts in other cities, and our analysis, we believe the following standardized approach
is suitable for major corridors and can be modified as discussion proceed with excavators in the
rights-of-way:
Four 2-inch conduit, minimum SDR 11 HDPE, each of a separate color or unique striping
to simplify identification of conduits within vaults and between vaults, in the event
conduit must be accessed or repaired at intermediate points
Composite vaults measuring 30” x 48” x 36” (W x L x D), placed in the sidewalk or available
green space within the City right-of-way, as close to the curb or gutter as possible
Vaults spaced at intervals of 600 feet or less, typically at the intersection of City blocks
Dig Once Approach | DRAFT | May, 2016
16
Sweeping conduit bends with a minimum radius of 36 inches to allow cable to be pulled
without exceeding pull-tension thresholds when placing high-count fiber cables (e.g., 864-
count)
Conduit placed in the same trench directly above the excavator’s infrastructure or, where
this is not possible, placed with minimum horizontal offset to minimize cost
It is important to note that the above approach is designed to create consistency and
predictability in costs and deployment and, of necessity, is a compromise among the potential
users. If an excavation project has a long time horizon and sufficient budget, it is possible to
customize the dig once build, potentially adding conduit or adding vaults at particular locations.
This approach is a compromise among different types of conduit users. Some users might prefer
larger conduit for consistency with earlier builds. Others might seek a larger count of smaller
conduit, to provide more flexibility.
Two-inch conduit has become a standard size for a wide range of construction projects, and can
support the widest range of use cases. A single 2-inch conduit can accommodate a range of multi-
cable configurations while retaining recommended fill ratios, allowing a single user to serve its
backbone and “lateral”/access cable requirements with a single, dedicated conduit.
Compared to placing fewer, larger conduits segmented with innerduct, this approach provides
greater opportunity for individual conduit to be intercepted and routed for future vault
installation by a particular user. Additionally, 2-inch conduit is substantially cheaper to install and
physically more flexible than larger varieties, offering more options to route around existing
utilities and other obstructions.
5.4 Develop a Procedure to Track and Manage Infrastructure
The City needs to develop a systematic way to track the planned, ongoing, and completed
construction in a timely way (potentially using the City’s asset management system) and
prioritizing and selecting projects for City participation. The City also needs a way to quickly notify
potentially interested parties and to coordinate participation with excavators. The impact on the
excavator can be minimized through the use of a well-thought-out process that minimizes delays.
First, the excavator would have to submit dig once plans and cost estimates to the City; the plans
would need to include conduit per the dig once specifications. The City would review the plans
and cost estimates for consistency with the dig once requirements. If the plans were compliant
and the cost estimates reasonable according to local costs and industry standards, the project
could proceed; otherwise, the applicant would need to resubmit compliant plans. If the City and
the applicant were to reach an agreement, the City could issue an approval; if not, the City could
decline to participate in the project.
Dig Once Approach | DRAFT | May, 2016
17
After the excavator installed the conduit, the City should inspect the conduit for quality and
compliance with the dig once requirements. If the conduit were compliant, the excavator would
submit as-built information. If the conduit were not compliant, the excavator and the City would
negotiate a remedy, and the excavator would perform the negotiated remedy. The City would
then re-inspect the conduit; if the conduit were compliant, the excavator would submit the as-
built information and request reimbursement.
The excavator’s as-built information should include scale plans of the completed project,
including:
1. Vertical and horizontal position of conduit and vaults;
2. GPS coordinates for manholes;
3. Edge-of-curb offset measurement every 50 feet; and
4. Colors, diameters, and materials of conduit.