Public transportation agency projects may require the acquisition of privately owned real estate, which can include unimproved land, homes, farms, and businesses.1 The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Real Estate Services (HEPR) works as the lead agency for the administration of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (URA). Acting as a partner to State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) around the country, FHWA helps ensure that the acquisition of real estate for highway projects is handled as efficiently as possible.2 To carry out this mission and help transportation agencies navigate the right-of-way (ROW) acquisition process, HEPR regularly produces resource materials that guide agencies toward best practices. In this guide, HEPR primarily focuses on ROW costs and how to better manage them through the use of new technologies and sharing best practices.
ROW costs are those necessary to research and acquire real property and provide relocation assistance for a project. One of the major challenges transportation agencies face when carrying out capital projects is cost overrun. Some of these overruns can occur as a result of inaccurate ROW cost estimation. During the early stages of project development, transportation agencies may only have preliminary information about the plan or design of the project. Potential updates, refinements, and changes to that plan or design can have significant impacts on ROW costs and may vary in terms of quality and reliability. One tool that transportation agencies use to improve the accuracy of ROW cost estimates is geospatial information systems (GIS). Since the early 2000s, GIS has evolved from an emerging technology to an essential tool for analysis in the field of transportation.3 Today, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) promotes the use of GIS to inform a wide variety of decisions and activities, including: analyzing freight flows to quantify economic impacts, expediting project delivery in environmental planning, and increasingly, ROW cost estimation and property management.
To understand the challenges and limitations State DOTs face for the potential application of GIS in the ROW process and how GIS can serve as a tool to improve the cost-estimation process, FHWA developed this resource for use by State DOTs and others who develop ROW cost estimates. FHWA reviewed existing research assessing the current state of the practice for ROW and GIS applications, ROW processes, and other tools used for ROW cost estimates. With this information, the project team (FHWA, the John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center), and stakeholders) developed this guide, which summarizes input from ROW stakeholders across multiple States. The guide is intended as a reference for State DOTs seeking to improve the accuracy of ROW cost estimation and minimize changes and cost overruns over the course of a project. Accordingly, the guide provides information and examples but does not represent FHWA requirements.
The project team reviewed and assessed Federal ROW program documents and existing applications using three types of data sources. First, the project team conducted a document review of available information, primarily focused on the recent report produced by FHWA and Cambridge Systematics, "Right-of-Way Cost Estimation Processes–State of the Practice." The report focuses on different tools and methods used for ROW cost estimating throughout transportation project delivery, including the earliest stages. The report also documents the potential, benefits, and challenges of a standard electronic ROW cost-estimation calculator. Second, the project team interviewed ROW specialists across four State DOTs. The project team identified State DOTs with varying degrees of experience in using GIS in their ROW cost-estimation processes. The team then asked each stakeholder interviewee a series of similar questions pertaining to their roles and experiences using geospatial data during the planning process. Third, FHWA hosted a peer exchange among ROW and related specialists from four other State DOTs. The goal of the peer exchange was to: share State DOT perspectives and best practices on ROW cost estimation and the use of GIS, discuss potential projects or other work to advance the use of GIS for ROW cost estimating, and provide feedback on this guide, under development at the time. With these data sources, this guide summarizes findings from background research, provides a high-level resource for using GIS at a State DOT for ROW cost estimation, and documents the leveraging of GIS to improve ROW cost estimation.
Cost estimates for ROW depend on the accuracy and reliability of information related to the location of the geospatial boundaries of a project. Estimates are sensitive to changes in the location of the ROW line as even small variations have the potential to alter estimates by up to millions of dollars.4 Estimates are also ultimately heavily influenced by unique characteristics, complex considerations, or unusual circumstances in properties and parcels impacted by different alignments that may not be apparent in preliminary ROW cost estimate phases. Using GIS to identify boundaries and related nuances, and to display impacts to the property, will help transportation agencies reduce cost overruns.
According to National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 625: Procedures Guide or Right-of-Way Cost Estimation and Cost Management (2009),5 ROW cost estimation and cost-estimate management processes generally lack structure and definition as compared to other areas of cost estimation. The report included a finding that a lack of integration and communication exists between those responsible for ROW cost estimating and those responsible for the overall project cost estimate.
One of the most recent and in-depth resources on the topic of ROW cost estimation is the FHWA-funded report "Right-of-Way Cost Estimation Processes—State of the Practice" (2019). The goal of the report was to identify, share, and improve best practices among State DOTs for estimating ROW costs by first documenting the state of the practice in ROW cost estimation among State DOTs and identifying potential options, requirements for, and barriers to an improved electronic cost-estimation calculator.6 To do this, the authors conducted an extensive literature review of primarily government publications on ROW cost-estimation tools, methods, and procedures. A national online survey of State DOT stakeholders and interviews of nine State DOT stakeholders, capturing direct input from the staff working on ROW, supplemented the literature review.
According to the study, ROW cost-estimation methodologies and procedures vary widely across State DOTs. While some State DOTs utilize electronic data and tools, the study found none that use standalone electronic ROW cost-estimation calculators or software. Some State DOTs utilize ROW management systems (RWMS), either off-the-shelf systems such as BEM Systems, Inc.'s PAECETrak, or State-developed custom systems, to support ROW cost estimation. An RWMS may include cost-estimation modules, though in many cases it primarily serves as a data repository supporting future ROW cost estimation. Other State DOTs developed spreadsheets and database systems to ensure they consider all applicable costs. These systems may include default values to ensure consistency, such as including a set percentage for inflation or other cost elements.
The study also found that electronic cost-estimation tools are efficient. State DOTs have found these tools beneficial as they provide a platform for bringing together and analyzing various historical data supporting ROW cost estimates. The tools improve knowledge retention within State DOTs, which is sometimes lost due to staff turnover and retirement. The tools help create a historical record that assists users in developing qualitative or professional judgment-based calculations by ensuring access to accurate and up-to-date historical records. The tools also help track factors that cause uncertainty in the ROW cost-estimation process. However, the study also identified a number of barriers to deploying electronic or more advanced tools.
For example, the study found that it is unlikely that State DOTs would accept or want a fully automated electronic ROW cost-estimation tool that does not allow for professional judgment. The primary barrier is the State DOTs' historical experience that professional judgment is often critical in determining certain values and components of ROW cost estimates, such as damages, that result from a partial acquisition of a parcel, or estimate of the change in future highest and best use of property after a partial acquisition. Professional judgment and experience are viewed as key factors in making such determinations. Additionally, the same judgment and experience are also necessary in determining other components of ROW cost estimates with higher levels of uncertainty, such as the likelihood of additional plan changes and updates, the associated potential change in the final number of parcels required, changes in zoning laws over time, ongoing or recent development and redevelopment in the project area and the state of the real estate market.
State DOT and regional differences are another hurdle to development of a nationwide electronic ROW cost estimating tool. State DOTs would, in most cases, need to customize such a tool to their specific legal requirements and ROW program framework and methodologies. Additionally, many State DOTs would need procedural and institutional enhancements to fully integrate and benefit from a new tool.
Elements affecting ROW cost estimation are identified in this study through four stages of project development:
Data needs and inputs for each stage are similar with the exception of the conceptual ROW cost estimates developed in the planning stage in which estimates are more general and not many details are known. The level of detail available for cost estimates may increase as project plans are developed and refined further. Some general data inputs for consideration include parcels affected, improvements, relocations, damages, and contingencies.
To understand the role of GIS in ROW cost-estimation methods across State DOTs, the project team interviewed four State DOTs with varying degrees of experience using GIS for ROW activities. The results of these interviews demonstrated an apparent lack of standardization and communication in GIS use in the ROW field within and across State DOTs and other agencies. While GIS plays an instrumental role in ROW activities for some transportation agencies, in many cases, transportation agencies apply GIS and geospatial tools in a very limited capacity, if at all.
Using GIS for ROW cost estimation in State transportation projects involves many different stakeholders. According to one interviewee, some State DOTs have specific GIS users and GIS teams dedicated to conducting surveys and mapping at the potential project location. In this case they are directly collecting and analyzing information that is necessary to support ROW acquisition. In other cases, agencies have staff working on projects involving ROW–such as ROW engineers or specialists, transportation surveyors, and planners–and usually rely on other GIS users within their organization to either verify or briefly analyze areas affected by a project to determine likely impacts and confirm details about a project. State DOTs might also rely on GIS specialists or teams outside of their organization. Generally, these specialists maintain the relevant GIS data that State DOTs need for ROW acquisition work for projects located within their jurisdiction.
State DOT interviews also highlighted the variability in GIS staffing and time requirements for projects. The number of staff primarily working on GIS tasks for ROW-related projects can vary: one State DOT interviewee mentioned there is usually one GIS person per project. In another case the interviewee noted that the agency has no staff members that primarily work with GIS for ROW projects. Their staff may tangentially use GIS during the estimating process. Similarly, the amount of time it can take to apply GIS to measure property characteristics can vary. One interviewee noted an average analysis time of 15 minutes per parcel, while another could not provide an estimated average time spent for this type of analysis due to its case-dependent nature.
The types of software each agency uses may also vary. Some of the software used for ROW cost estimation as identified by State DOTs interviewed include: LandVision, computer-aided design (CAD), Excel, ArcGIS, ArcGIS Online, and Google Earth. In some cases, the software used depends on who maintains the data. For example, engineering departments are more likely to utilize CAD software over ArcGIS due to the nature of their work portfolio, other uses of the software, and expertise. According to one interviewee, the State DOT uses software for accessing data provided by the local jurisdictions that collected the data. In most cases, the State DOT can access these tools remotely as they are also made available to the public. In less frequent cases, a staff member must physically visit the local jurisdiction or county to access the software and data needed for obtaining relevant property details necessary to develop a cost estimate.
Interviewees from State DOTs that actively use GIS for ROW cost estimating also cited some ongoing challenges. One interviewee noted the map creation process has been inconsistent throughout the State DOT with different districts following different processes. This State DOT recently initiated a statewide process for all districts to achieve more consistent results. Other challenges include data accuracy and reliability, and costs associated with having survey crews verify the data. In some cases, States are required to expend funding to ensure data are accurate, acceptable, and appropriate before they can use the data for the project.
Ultimately, GIS data do not in themselves provide the final ROW cost. As one State DOT interviewee noted, GIS data are not used for determining the value of the land being acquired. Geospatial tools are only used to identify characteristics of a property, such as the area and type of land, buildings, and historical changes to the property. Local agencies involved with planning transportation projects, including local governments, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and regional transportation planning agencies will likely remain important partners for property valuation since they track land values to support their planning and zoning determinations, which in turn can strongly influence land value.
To gain additional perspectives from State DOTs on current practices and future best uses of GIS in the ROW cost-estimation process, HEPR funded a GIS and ROW Cost Estimation Peer Exchange bringing together 28 participants from four State DOTs and USDOT.
The peer exchange had three main goals:
After State DOT presentations on current practices, the peer exchange engaged participants through productive roundtable discussions. These discussions highlighted the importance of early and ongoing communication and collaboration to help improve ROW cost estimation through engaging the correct groups and sharing best practices, challenges, resources, and tools. These discussions helped identify areas for collaboration among State DOTs : two participating State DOTs decided to collaborate after realizing they were using the same software program and were both independently trying to develop the same cost-estimation module. They identified avenues and reached out to other State DOTs using the same software program to see if they were interested in joining the effort.
During these discussions, participants also provided several recommendations to improve the overall ROW cost-estimation process, including specific information to include and potential data sources to use. Findings from the peer exchange were used to update this guide. Key findings from the peer exchange, which are further described in the next section, include:
The project team identified several elements for consideration in preliminary ROW cost-estimate development based on the background information obtained through the focused literature review, State DOT interviews, and peer exchange. In general, any ROW cost-estimation tool or solution needs to be flexible, user-friendly, and easily adaptable to current processes; State DOTs experience a variety of different challenges and staff may be reluctant to learn new processes or change current practices.
One overarching finding based is that communicating with the correct groups and engaging and collaborating with individuals with expertise in different areas is critical for developing accurate preliminary ROW cost estimates. Feedback received indicated that State DOT planning teams generally develop preliminary ROW cost estimates without engaging ROW teams, and typically only include land values in their ROW cost estimates. ROW teams can provide expertise and insight into property and/or parcel-specific elements that need to be considered in addition to the more obvious components of ROW costs, such as land values, and can provide the experience to assist with identifying elements in a proposed plan that tend to lead to complexities and increased ROW costs. Collaborating with ROW teams at this preliminary cost-estimation stage can therefore lead to more accurate preliminary cost estimates and reduce the likelihood that unidentified ROW acquisition complexities may cause discrepancies in more detailed estimates that are later developed.
Parcel Ranking System
One solution for planners to better understand how and when to collaborate with ROW groups is to develop a parcel ranking system. Such a system can serve as a decision tree analysis tool that identifies complex, high-risk, or high-cost alignments based on specific parcel attributes. The system would notify planners when to engage ROW staff when developing preliminary ROW cost estimates, as well as assist in selecting or prioritizing preferred alternatives or eliminating difficult or expensive alternatives. Peer exchange attendees noted that parcels containing any of the following attributes or components should receive high-complexity, high-risk, and/or high-cost flags in a ranking system for consideration including:
Communication and collaboration is also paramount both internally across State DOT departments as well as across other State agencies. All groups need to share best practices and challenges, and develop efficient solutions. State DOTs should communicate with other departments or agencies on how to incorporate GIS or other tools to improve ROW cost estimates. Within a State DOT, this could include collaboration with asset management, planning, maintenance, environmental, and/or legal groups. State DOTs should also consider engaging other departments or agencies that acquire property such as utilities and transit agencies. State DOTs with similar software needs should communicate with each other to help identify opportunities for collaboration and pooling resources, and to brainstorm what would be useful and needed in any new modules. State DOTs should also look for ways to engage private companies to identify ways they can assist in cost estimation.
Considerations and Data Sources for Developing Preliminary ROW Cost Estimates
Following is a list of minimum factors to include or consider in developing preliminary ROW cost estimates developed from the literature review and peer exchange. Estimates should be developed based on the best-available information, including collaboration with appropriate groups to obtain accurate information. Some elements many not be considered depending on the State and its laws, procedures, or available information. The minimum consideration factors include:
Advanced considerations are additional components to be included if and when information and data become available. Advanced considerations include: inflation, such as changes in market value of real property throughout the project calculated based on the anticipated date difference between estimation and commencement of ROW acquisition; settlements; demolition or mitigation; labor, such as legal, appraisals, or negotiations; property management; and utilities.
Some potential datasets an agency may use as sources for this information include: sales data; property history; property transfers; zoning or planning maps; floodplain maps; policy maps detailing demographics; septic system or other permitting maps; underground storage tank maps; and other information available through local GIS systems. A variety of other potential data sources are available to assist in locating information to develop preliminary ROW cost estimates, including: Commercial Real Estate Service (CRS); Multiple Listing Service (MLS); CoStar; Q Public; Department of Revenue; County Assessor records; historical data; surveyed parcel data; remote sensing data such as Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), photogrammetry, aerial data, and satellite imagery, especially for improvements and damages; municipalities, MPOs, Transportation Improvement Plans (TIPs), State plans, etc., especially for zoning and future use information; and public meeting records. Some sources are publicly available while others require subscriptions or user fees. Some sources allow for immediate information access while others may require a waiting period to obtain access or have information provided to the user. Data and information sharing is encouraged not only to improve ROW cost estimates but also to provide consistency throughout the State. Data sharing can facilitate all State and local government agencies using the same sets of data to base decisions on. Some State DOTs or groups within them are not aware of what data are available; being aware of what data are available and easily accessible is important.
In addition to using available datasets and sources, State DOTs should take advantage of their own historical records. State DOTs should track historical parcel data for the past three to five years as well as the comparisons between developed cost estimates and actual end costs to identify and analyze trends to improve contingency estimations. Developing data governance processes or guidance will help improve process efficiency, consistency, and knowledge retention. It will also reduce redundancies. Creating a database or universal location to house relevant data from which different programs or departments can automatically pull data would be useful.
Utilizing GIS in ROW Cost Estimation
GIS can be useful in the ROW cost-estimation process. GIS serves as a tool to consolidate parcel information for analyses, and then overlay various datasets in one screen for easy and more accurate data comparison and analysis. Using GIS as an analysis tool easily allows the user to identify which parcels intersect in an alignment and consider the expected impacts of various alignments. These analyses can assist with both developing preliminary ROW cost estimates as well as serve as a decision tree tool to help identify the best alignment alternative based on lowest cost, lowest risk, least impacts, etc. GIS can also serve as a platform for a historical record of prior information about a parcel.
State Examples of ROW Cost Calculating Tools
Several State DOTs have created worksheets or other tools to assist in developing ROW cost estimates at various stages of the project development process. ROW cost calculator tools provide transparency and justification so others outside of ROW groups can understand how a cost estimate value was developed and what was considered and included in the estimate. This process makes the estimate defensible and data driven. Calculators can also serve as a historical record, storing information about prior purchases and transactions or tracking information needed for a preliminary cost estimate. There may be concerns about data quality and availability, but a ROW cost calculator tool provides a record and justification for estimate development. Some State DOTs may have concerns about documenting and disclosing detailed cost estimates for various reasons, including misinterpreting the information or using the estimate documentation in court. If using a cost calculator, a best practice is to include data checks to flag areas that may require further investigation to ensure the estimate was appropriate and complete. These checks are useful for ensuring the inclusion of corresponding cost elements when certain variables are present. For example, if a cost estimate includes high levels of improvement, the estimate should also include relocations. Appendix A includes examples of calculators currently or previously used by various State DOTs, and those available online.
A coordinated effort to improve ROW cost estimation could reduce the chance of significant project overruns. Creating a standardized approach to ROW cost estimation with more detailed and accurate data has the potential to improve the accuracy of the overall project cost estimate and reduce variance between project estimates and final costs. Such an approach also improves project integrity by openly demonstrating more of the steps taken in the ROW cost estimation process.
As demonstrated in this guide, GIS software can serve as a useful tool to assist in electronic ROW cost estimation by applying accurate geospatial calculations in a project area. GIS can also be used to perform analyses using the most current and best-available parcel information to help improve initial ROW cost estimates and minimize project overruns. Using GIS software as a ROW cost-estimation tool creates the ability to incorporate a wide variety of data sources and data types. In turn, this allows for more detailed and accurate analyses involved in estimating ROW project costs to help improve ROW cost estimates. However, use of GIS software as a tool is highly dependent on a number of factors, including the availability and accuracy of data and the State DOT staffing availability and expertise with GIS software. In short, lack of expertise or GIS data may present barriers to some agencies.
The ultimate goal for this effort is to show how GIS can serve as a useful analysis tool for transportation agencies as part of a decision tree for selecting preferred alignments and in developing more accurate ROW cost estimates. Additional efforts to build on this guide may help further achieve this goal. The following sections of the guide are recommendations for next steps as identified by the project team.
Develop a Robust Demonstration
It would be beneficial to develop a demonstration of an introductory, step by step process on using GIS based ROW cost estimation for State DOTs that uses a Web-based map application platform or ArcGIS online to provide broader applicability and wider access. Further elaboration on improving the maps for compatibility with specific State transportation agency mapping tools or ROW cost calculators, the comparison of different scenarios or alignments, and the exploration of further types of analyses may be beneficial resources for State DOTs. The demonstration should provide a high-level discussion on how to use GIS as a tool to help develop ROW cost estimates by visually demonstrating and documenting impacts. In this way, the demonstration should provide a proof of concept to illustrate how GIS can be used in a decision tree for alternative alignment analyses, demonstrating where to find information and how to analyze it through the use of calculators, ranking systems, or other tools.
Collect Input from More Stakeholders
This guide incorporates input solely from a small sample of State DOTs. If feasible, it may be worthwhile to collect input from other stakeholder groups in States such as State DOT district offices, county GIS groups, and regional offices that collect and maintain the data used by State DOTs during the ROW cost estimation. Better understanding how these groups interact can inform a more detailed or targeted GIS demonstration.
Develop and Share a Base Calculator
Developing a basic template ROW calculator could serve as a general starting point for State DOTs interested in developing or customizing a calculator for themselves. The calculator can serve as a rudimentary tool for organizing, documenting and supporting information needed to develop a ROW cost estimate. Such a tool could also be used to calculate ROW costs.
Share Examples of ROW Project Analyses
It may also be helpful to highlight examples of the various State DOT ROW cost-estimation processes, lessons learned and cost estimation outcomes. The guide can include more detailed project steps using recent or current project ROW acquisition data. This approach can help demonstrate how internal and external stakeholders work together to obtain tangible results. It can also highlight the unique challenges an agency might face during this process.
| State DOT | Notes | Document |
|---|---|---|
| California DOT (Caltrans) | Located in page 5 of the Document and available online.7 | |
| Florida DOT (FDOT) | Located on page 10 with instructions and available online.8 | |
| Missouri DOT (MoDOT) | Located on page 2 and available online.9 | DOC |
U.S. Department of Transportation
John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center
55 Broadway
Cambridge, MA 02142-1093
617-494-2000
www.volpe.dot.gov
US Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
1 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/real_estate/index.cfm
2 ibid
3 https://www.transportation.gov/gis
4 See page 5. FHWA report "Major Project Program Cost Estimating Guidance" (2007) https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/majorprojects/cost_estimating/major_project_cost_guidance.pdf
5 See page 2. NCHRP Report 625 "Procedures Guide or Right-of-Way Cost Estimation and Cost Management" (2009) http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/162271.aspx
6 See page 1. Cambridge Systematics Report "Right-of-Way Cost Estimation Processes – State of the Practice" (2019)
7 http://santafempo.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/CA+Cost+Estimate+Template.pdf
8 https://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Portals/44/docs/regulatory/Items%20of%20Interest/RRE/April2015Docs/16-AttB_AppB_3(ROWCostEstimateSpreadsheet).pdf
