RMF’s Fenway Urban Utility Project Featured in Q4 District Energy

Navigating Project Complexity in a Dense Urban Setting

How RMF and Vicinity Energy managed a system expansion through the constant bustle of Boston's Fenway neighborhood

By Steven Buckler, PE

Planning, designing and installing complex underground utility distribution systems in densely developed urban environments requires extensive preparation. Good fundamental groundwork includes initial feasibility studies to identify stakeholders and establish budgets, extensive document research and existing-utility investigations and, ultimately, the formulation of creative solutions. Vicinity Energy, a longtime leader in U.S. district energy systems and decarbonization, worked with RMF and others to recently extend its underground utility infrastructure by over 4,000 feet into the Fenway neighborhood of Boston, aiming to deliver carbon-free eSteam to one of Boston’s first carbon-neutral buildings. The area is heavily commercial and residential, and it bustles year-round with special events, activities and business. The four-year project involved a multitude of adjustments, approvals and clearances that present a case study in effective project management that combined planning, design and construction to serve a common mission purpose.

The Many Intricacies of Thoughtful Planning

The planning stage of the project involved a preliminary evaluation of multiple options for proposed utility routes. The design team utilized publicly available underground utility records and surface information to identify stakeholders and make informed decisions and recommendations early in the process. The study also identified preliminary requirements from known adjacent stakeholders. This included required offsets or replacements of other existing underground utilities, evaluations of lost time and revenue from adjacent parking meters, requirements for traffic control and police details, understanding event schedules and working hours, and identifying other ongoing or future projects in the area. All of these considerations were used to identify pros and cons, create preliminary cost estimates and make “go” versus “no-go” decisions to advance to detailed design and engineering.

Design Considerations for the Best Outcome

The option selected from the feasibility study included a connection to the existing steam system at Massachusetts Avenue; an installation next to another project under construction (Parcel 12); crossing of the Stony Brook culvert; an aerial crossing of the Muddy River; a parallel/horizontal occupancy with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority; and a new utility alignment down Lansdowne Street adjacent to event spaces, restaurants and Fenway Park. A new topographic and planimetric survey was conducted along the proposed utility alignment as well as Quality Level B utility designation and Quality Level A utility test holes at critical utility crossings. Steam distribution system design includes providing a positive slope to allow condensed steam vapor to be collected and removed from the system. It also includes designing and locating adequate expansion compensation such as guides, anchors and expansion loops or expansion joints. Pipeline routing (to get from A to B while avoiding conflicts) can be analyzed to determine if the “natural” horizontal and vertical offsets are adequate to address thermal stresses in order to minimize expansion loops and joints. Expansion loops or joints may be required. On dense urban underground sites with numerous existing underground utilities, lack of space can make it difficult to provide underground expansion loops. Expansion joints minimize the number of piping offsets, site disruption and potential conflicts, but create a significant amount of thrust force in the pipeline that must be restrained. The design on this project explored the use of standard concrete block anchors, augured piles, reinforced concrete base slabs, and reinforced concrete pipe encasements with load transfers to the larger steam vaults. With some of the preliminary design components established – initial pipe routing, proposed utility crossings, expansion and anchoring strategy – the next step was stakeholder identification and stakeholder engagement. Outreach was conducted to over 50 adjacent agencies and stakeholders. Results were mixed, ranging from lots of feedback, some feedback and no feedback. Multiple attempts were made to engage stakeholders who provided no initial feedback and to identify new stakeholders. Stakeholder comment resolution is a very iterative process. As one stakeholder requests additional clearance from the pipeline, another may receive less clearance. As a design evolved to avoid an environmental easement, a new easement might be effected. One by one, stakeholder concerns were addressed through pipeline routing adjustments, additional pipeline insulation or protection, new or relocated utilities, detailed traffic control plans, development of instrumentation and monitoring plans, restrictions on work hours, breakout bid packages, arborist evaluations, accommodations for future projects or additional site improvements such as new curbs or crosswalks. All of these activities were required while minimizing underground utility conflicts and maintaining a code-compliant steam distribution design. The Public Improvement Commission, which owns and manages Boston’s public and private rights-of way was the project clearinghouse and its interests are diverse. Commission members come from the Public Works Department, Transportation Department, the Disabilities Commission, the Water and Sewer Commission, the Parks Department and others. The design phase concluded only when the PIC determined that stakeholder comments had been addressed in a publicly televised hearing at Boston City Hall.

Construction Scheduling for Traffic and Time of Day

After the construction bid period, bid reconciliation, issuance of conformed design documents, and review and approval of material submittals, construction began in areas with the least impact to Lansdowne Street and Fenway Park – as detailed and specified in the design documents. As construction moved closer to Fenway Park, timed with the end of the baseball season, additional coordination began for other activities at Fenway Park, such as tours, concerts and sporting events like the NHL Winter Classic. Construction ended at 3 p.m. each day a Fenway event occurred, allowing time to safely cover excavations, resume normal traffic patterns and perform site inspections. Many of the planned existing utility crossings were “test-pitted” during the design period, so unforeseen alignment adjustments and delays were kept to a minimum. Areas of critical excavations near important structures were surveyed and benchmarked before excavation and re-surveyed daily as required in the instrumentation and monitoring plans. Unforeseen conditions, field modifications and minor stakeholder requests or adjustments were resolved quickly by multidiscipline design teams and, critically, by keeping key personnel in place from planning to design and through construction.