13 Managing Construction Impacts in Seattle’s Streets: An Analysis of SDOT’s Adoption of dotMaps

1. Introduction

Seattle, a rapidly growing city in the Pacific Northwest, has seen a significant construction boom over the past decades. In 2019, a Seattle Times article reported a staggering 59 cranes across the city’s skyline, making Seattle the city with the highest number of tower cranes for three years in a row [12]. This surge in construction, while beneficial for the city’s economy and tax revenues, has inevitably led to increased impacts on traffic and public mobility.

The most notable disruptions were sidewalk and street closures adjacent to large high-rise construction sites, which caused traffic woes and long detours. Besides the traffic impacts, residents also experienced restricted parking zones around construction sites, heightened noise and dust. Moreover, fueled in part by the growing construction, utility work in the street further added to the already congested downtown construction footprint. Meanwhile, city leaders and Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) officials saw opportunities for improvement. For example, Puget Sound Energy, Seattle Public Utilities, and other utility companies would often find themselves digging a trench and repaving it, only for it to be excavated again a few months later by another company when there is potential to consolidate and share trenches for multiple projects to minimize construction impact and save cost.

As a response to these challenges, the Project and Construction Coordination Office (PCCO) was created in 2015 [13]. A small team at the time, the unit’s vision was to bring key players together and co-create a logical construction sequence that minimizes impact and achieves cost savings. As the previous SDOT Director, Scott Kubly, narrated, “Construction is disruptive, so the better we can coordinate it, the less disruptive it is” [3].

To realize the PCCO’s goals and to better serve other stakeholders, SDOT adopted a new technology called dotMaps in August 2017 [6]. According to Google Cloud, a critical partner of SADA Systems, the company that built this software, dotMaps is a “map-based coordination solution for public agencies that enables users to gain visual insight into citywide projects” [11]. This map-based coordination solution was designed to enhance the management of construction impacts in the city’s right-of-way by providing visual cues to SDOT staff regarding ongoing projects and enhancing communications between stakeholders.

Prior to the adoption of dotMaps, SDOT faced considerable challenges in effectively managing the myriad construction projects scattered across the city’s streets, sidewalks, and alleys. The introduction of dotMaps provided a visual insight into citywide projects and led to a revolution in how these projects were coordinated. In this case study, by interviewing key SDOT personnel who have experience with the adoption of dotMaps, the author attempts to shed light on the tangible changes brought about by this technology in SDOT’s effort to manage urban construction zones, examining the shift in workflow and the key benefits brought by the tool.

Terms/Definitions:

1. 1. dotMaps: A map-based coordination solution for public agencies that enables users to gain visual insight into citywide projects [11].
   2. SADA Systems: The company that built dotMaps.
   3. Right of Way: While various professional organizations and public agencies outline and advocate for their own definitions, the City of Bellevue’s webpage provides a suitable definition for the purpose of this case study: “refers to streets and other public property reserved for public use, including walkways, sidewalks, bikeways and horse trails. This includes the air rights, subsurface rights, and easements related to them” [10].
   4. SDOT Street Use Division: This SDOT division manages all private construction activities in the right of way.
   5. Minimum Acceptable Mobility Standards: This is a concept used in SDOT’s PCCO office. Construction impacts must be limited to ensure a minimum acceptable mobility standard to not pose significant mobility challenges. The second interviewee, Ben, gave an example of a dual sidewalk closure that pushes pedestrians into the street or a lengthy detour. This scenario would not meet the minimum acceptable mobility standard.
   6. Project and Construction Coordination Office (PCCO): A work group within the SDOT Street Use division that is responsible for managing and coordinating construction projects to minimize their impact on public mobility and pavement infrastructure [2]. This team is the primary user and administrator of dotMaps within SDOT.
   7. High-development areas (Hubs): As defined by SDOT, “areas of dense construction are defined as ‘Construction Hubs’ and are actively managed to ensure mobility and access to and through work zones” [2]. PCCO has an active role in these areas. As of June 2024, five Hubs are designated by SDOT [2]:

1. 1. 1. Queen Anne, Belltown, and SLU
      2. Capitol Hill, First Hill, Yesler Terrace
      3. Downtown, CID, Waterfront, and Pioneer Square
      4. Downtown, Denny Triangle
      5. University District

Research Questions & Focus:

While a more comprehensive evaluation of DotMaps’ implications for SDOT’s PCCO office is much desired, due to the time and resource limitations of conducting a “mini case study” to satisfy the coursework requirements, two research questions were chosen to explore in detail.

1. How has Dotmaps transformed SDOT’s effort in managing construction impacts?
2. What are some of the key benefits provided by DotMaps?

Structure of the Case Study

The second section is devoted to a preliminary literature review on DotMaps, specifically its adoption in relation to the various levels and regionalities of Departments of Transportation (DOTs) within the United States. Subsequently, in section 3, the methodology used in this case study is discussed. The interview process and data analysis approach are explained in detail. In section 4, key findings and analysis from the interview, with respect to the research questions outlined in section 1, are discussed and presented. Finally, the conclusions and limitations of this study are addressed in section 5, and future research recommendations are suggested.

2. Literature Review

The existing literature and articles primarily focus on the potential of achieving cost savings through the use of dotMaps. For example, Keck et al. [5] focused on the success of dotMaps implementation at the Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT), the first city to adopt the technology. The article highlighted the technology’s role in achieving cost savings of over $73 million since its adoption in 2012 because of coordinating in planning, designing, permitting, and construction with city agencies and private utilities [5]. Another Forbes article reported a cost savings of $800,000 during the first two months of dotMaps implementation [6]. Google Cloud, a partner of SADA Systems, also conducted a case study on SDOT’s cost savings and reported a $7 million savings in its first year of adoption [2].

Existing literature has yet to explore the analysis and quantification of traffic impacts as a result of dotMaps adoption. This case study aims to serve as one of the cornerstones for future research in this area by highlighting how SDOT’s workflow regarding the management of construction impacts has shifted with this new tool.

3. Methodology

3.1 Data Collection: Interviews

The author chose to conduct interviews in part to fulfill the class requirements of this case study, but interviews as a form of data collection are also appropriate when we are interested in learning about past events and phenomena that cannot be replicated [9]. In addition, since data and literature regarding the adoption of dotMaps were scarce, as noted in section 2, interview was a convenient data collection method due to the author’s professional connections within SDOT.

3.2 Interviewee Selection

Two SDOT personnel who are familiar with DotMaps were interviewed on the adoption of dotMaps. For the purpose of protecting the participants’ privacy in this study, the author will use the pseudonyms Adam and Ben for the first and second interviewee, respectively.

The two interviewees were selected for their extensive experience and knowledge of working with dotMaps. One of the interviewees, Ben, has first-hand experience regarding the adoption of dotMaps and how it has transformed the SDOT’s PCCO unit.

3.3 Interview Questions and Structure

The first interview with Adam was unstructured and lasted one hour. The unstructured format was chosen in part due to its suitability with the exploratory nature and goal of gaining contextual knowledge regarding the topic[9]. At the time, the author did not have the relevant background information regarding the functionalities of dotMaps to ask targeted questions that may contribute to answering the research questions. This interview was conducted to prepare for the second, more formal interview. During this interview, Adam was asked to showcase the basic functionalities of dotMaps and the current, typical workflow of coordinating construction impacts.

The second interview, with Ben, used a semi-structured format. This format was chosen to offer flexibility and space for novel ideas and discussions on the topic [9]. Eleven questions were prepared and sent to the interviewee for review in advance. Due to time constraints and the flow of the conversation, only six questions were addressed in the interview. The six questions are listed below in Table 1.

Table 1. Interview Questions

4. Analysis & Key Findings

4.1 Pre-DotMaps Era

Before dotMaps, SDOT managed construction impacts through an online spreadsheet-based system powered by Google. The spreadsheet was populated by SDOT coordinators and major developers in the adjacent area through field meetings. As a major developer initiates a project in Seattle, one of the PCCO coordinators would contact the other major sites in the area to initiate the conversation around right-of-way impacts. Once the conversation has been started, the coordinator will schedule periodic meetings with the contractors and input right-of-way impact information into the spreadsheet. The spreadsheet was then used to create a simplified Gantt chart that outlines the right-of-way impacts for the subsequent weeks.

As Ben explained, this method was fraught with challenges, including inaccuracies and the potential for data manipulation as it was contractor-generated. Ben gave the example of an incident where one contractor deleted another’s entries for a road closure to substitute it with their own. Communication around the spreadsheet and Gantt chart was also incredibly difficult as they often lacked critical information SDOT needed to manage effectively. For stakeholders other than the coordinator, such as SDOT inspectors and permit reviewers, it was difficult to understand due to the lack of details and structure. In addition, if the viewer of the Gantt chart wasn’t familiar with the region, it was difficult to envision how one travel lane closure on one site affects the concrete pour operations of another down the street.

4.2 Post-DotMaps Era

In August 2017, SDOT adopted dotMaps, as the second city after Chicago [1]. This marked a significant transformation in how SDOT manages construction impacts within the city. With ongoing inputs from SDOT personnel, SADA Systems customized dotMaps based on SDOT’s needs for a centralized, visual, and interactive platform to track and coordinate construction activities.

With dotMaps, the previously cumbersome process of manually updating spreadsheets and Gantt charts was replaced by a more streamlined and intuitive system. SDOT coordinators can now input and access real-time data about construction projects through a user-friendly map interface powered by Google Maps. This map would display detailed information about each project, including permit numbers, scope of work, contact information, and specific dates and locations of right-of-way impacts. This was a significant shift from text-based to visual data representation.

4.3 Key Benefits

DotMaps also has allowed for a more systematic approach to managing construction activities. The tool provides a clear and comprehensive overview of all ongoing projects, making it easier to identify potential conflicts and coordinate efforts among various stakeholders. For example, if a major utility project is scheduled to begin, dotMaps helps ensure that other nearby construction activities are planned in a way that minimizes overall disruption. This level of coordination was previously difficult to achieve with the spreadsheet system.

Finally, DotMaps significantly improved communication between stakeholders, including contractors, inspectors, and the public. As explained by Ben during the interview, dotMaps is “more than just a scheduling function, it’s a communication tool.” The tool serves as a centralized communication platform where construction events are mapped with detailed information. This visualization of data helps stakeholders understand the impact of construction activities and plan accordingly. For instance, SDOT Street Use inspectors can now quickly reference the map to verify the approved right-of-way footprint and ensure compliance with permit conditions. Overall, the system facilitates better coordination among contractors, reducing conflicts and overlaps in construction schedules.

5. Conclusions and Future Work

In conclusion, SDOT’s adoption of dotMaps has had a positive impact on the management of construction impacts in Seattle. The tool has streamlined workflows, enhanced communication, and improved data accuracy, contributing to more effective coordination of construction activities.

The findings of this case study offer some insights for other public agencies, such as King County Metro, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and Sound Transit, which share similar struggles in terms of mitigating construction impacts on their respective transportation services. By highlighting how the PCCO’s office transformed its workflow with dotMaps, this study hopes to provide a roadmap for implementing GIS-based solutions in urban construction impact management.

As noted previously, this case study is limited in terms of its scope and methodologies due to resource and time constraints. A comparative analysis of another city’s adoption of DotMaps, in conjunction with SDOT, may be helpful in identifying similar patterns or highlighting disparities. As GIS-based software continues to mature and serve the needs of public agencies, more research into its benefits and limitations will be required to reach its full potential.

References