South San Francisco City Council
September 24, 2025

1003 West Cutting Blvd., Suite 110
Pt. Richmond, CA 94804
NCE Project No. 872.17.55
Final Report
Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
City of South San Francisco
City of South San
Francisco
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
April 2025
Final Report
Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
City of South San Francisco
April 2025
Prepared for:

City of South San Francisco
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Prepared by:

Debaroti Ghosh, PhD
Project Engineer/Project Manager
Margot Yapp, PE
Principal-in-Charge
NCE
1003 West Cutting Blvd., Suite 110
Pt. Richmond, CA 94804
(510) 215-3620
NCE Project No. 872.17.55
Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
Executive Summary City of South San Francisco
Final Report April 2025
ES-1
Executive Summary
Pavements are often cut for installation of new underground facilities or maintenance and repair of the existing ones. The effects of cuts on roads and street pavements have been investigated for over 30 years by public agencies in order to quantify their performance impacts and estimate their corresponding financial impacts.

However, to fully understand the impact of any utility cuts on roadway performance for a particular agency, sitespecific studies and analyses must be performed.

To understand the impact of utility cuts on pavements in the City of South San Francisco (City), NCE reviewed relevant studies and investigated both the structural and functional deterioration of pavements due to utility cuts. NCE used that information to develop an appropriate fee schedule to recover costs associated with such damage and compare that fee schedule with typical fees charged by similar California agencies.

Both field evaluations and a historical evaluation were used to examine pavement deterioration. The field evaluation included analysis of functional and structural damage caused by cuts at 24 existing sites with varying functional classes (arterial/collector or residential) and Pavement Condition Indices (PCIs). Deflection testing was conducted using a falling weight deflectometer to assess loss of structural capacity due to cuts, and a PCI survey was conducted to assess functional damage. For the historical evaluation, NCE compared street sections with and without cuts using the City’s StreetSaver® database. This included analysis of functional damage caused by cuts based on inspection data and rehabilitation history from the StreetSaver database.

NCE found:
• Ninety-six percent of the test sites showed either structural or functional damage due to cuts, or both. Fifty-eight percent of the test sites showed both functional and structural damage due to cuts. • Overall, pavements with cuts deteriorate more than pavements without cuts. An average condition reduction of 21 PCI points was observed for arterials/collectors with cuts, and an average condition reduction of 14 PCI points was observed for residentials with cuts. • As the size of the cut increases, the PCI decreases, irrespective of the PCI before the cut occurs. On average, the remaining service life of the pavement decreases by 12% if the cut area is larger than 10% of the section area.

These findings were used to develop the fee schedule for the City shown in the following table.

Functional Class PCI Group
Fee ($/SF of Cut with
2-ft Zone of Influence)
Fee ($/SF of Management
Section Area)
Small Cut Large Cut
Arterials/Collectors PCI ≥ 70 $0.50 $2.50
PCI < 70 $0.50 $2.00
Residentials PCI ≥ 70 $0.50 $3.50
PCI < 70 $0.50 $1.50
Small cut =Cut Area <10% of Section Area/Block Area
Large cut =Cut Area ≥10% of Section Area/Block Area
Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
Executive Summary City of South San Francisco
Final Report April 2025
ES-2
The information required to implement this fee schedule includes the functional class, the PCI of the section at the time of the cut, and the trench dimensions. NCE recommends that the fee schedule be indexed to inflation and adjusted annually to reflect increases in repair costs.

Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
Table of Contents City of South San Francisco
Final Report April 2025
i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................4

1.1 Damage Mechanisms................................................................................................................ 5

1.2 Literature Review...................................................................................................................... 5 2 Technical Approach .................................................................................................................7

2.1 Methodology............................................................................................................................. 7

2.2 Functional and Structural Evaluation........................................................................................ 8

2.3 Historical Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 9 3 Field Evaluation ..................................................................................................................... 10

3.1 Functional Deterioration......................................................................................................... 10

3.2 Structural Deterioration.......................................................................................................... 14

3.3 Fee Development (Field Evaluation)....................................................................................... 20 4 Historical Evaluation.............................................................................................................. 22

4.1 PCI Difference by PCI Group and Cut Size............................................................................... 22

4.2 Percent Reduction in PCI ........................................................................................................ 23

4.3 Percent Reduction in Pavement Life....................................................................................... 24

4.4 Fee Development (Historical Evaluation) ............................................................................... 25 5 Fee Implementation .............................................................................................................. 27

5.1 Statistical Analysis................................................................................................................... 27

5.2 Fee Comparison by Evaluation Type....................................................................................... 28

5.3 Fee Implementation................................................................................................................ 29

5.4 Basic Steps for Fee Calculation ............................................................................................... 31

5.5 Exemptions/Exceptions .......................................................................................................... 31

5.6 Fee Comparison with Other Agencies .................................................................................... 32 6 Conclusion............................................................................................................................. 33 7 References............................................................................................................................. 34 List of Figures
Figure 1. Utility Cut Damage Mechanisms ....................................................................................................5 Figure 2. Study Methodology ........................................................................................................................8 Figure 3. Example Test Site (Del Paso Drive).................................................................................................9 Figure 4. Comparison of PCIs of Pavement Sections With and Without Utility Cuts..................................11 Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
Table of Contents City of South San Francisco
Final Report April 2025
ii
Figure 5. Propagating Cracks (Yellow-Highlighted) near Patch on Hot Springs Road .................................12 Figure 6. Pavement Deterioration Curves for Streets in the City................................................................13 Figure 7. Reduction in Service Life (%) vs. PCI for Sections Without Utility Cuts........................................13 Figure 8. FWD Testing Locations .................................................................................................................15 Figure 9. Deflection Trends Organized by PCI of Sections Without Utility Cuts (a) Arterials/Collectors; (b) Residentials..............................................................................................................................16 Figure 10. Difference in Deflection..............................................................................................................17 Figure 11. Deflection and Required Overlay Thickness for Miller Avenue and Dianne Court ....................18 Figure 12. Differences in Overlay Thickness................................................................................................19 Figure 13. Average PCIs by Functional Class, PCI Group, and Cut Size........................................................23 Figure 14. Pavement Family Deterioration Curves for Streets in the City ..................................................24 Figure 15. Percent Reduction in Pavement Service Life..............................................................................25 Figure 16. Examples of Fee Implementation for Typical Residentials with PCI ≥ 70...................................31 List of Tables
Table 1. Pavement Condition Categories......................................................................................................7 Table 2. Functional Damage from Field Evaluation.....................................................................................11 Table 3. Percent Reduction in Service Life and Equivalent Damage Cost...................................................14 Table 4. Additional Overlay Thickness and Corresponding Equivalent Cost...............................................20 Table 5. Fee Development Based on Field Evaluation ................................................................................21 Table 6. Percent Reduction in PCI by Functional Class and Cut Size ...........................................................23 Table 7. Impact of PCI Reduction on Pavement Condition Category..........................................................24 Table 8. Percent Reduction in Pavement Life by Functional Class, Pavement PCI, and Cut-Size................25 Table 9. Tiered Fee Schedule using Historical Evaluation ...........................................................................26 Table 10. Statistical Analysis of Field Evaluation.........................................................................................27 Table 11. Statistical Analysis of Historical Evaluation for Sections with Small and Large Cuts...................28 Table 12. Statistical Analysis of Field and Historical Evaluation..................................................................28 Table 13. Fee ($/Square Foot) Comparison Based on Evaluation ...............................................................28 Table 14. Final Tiered Fee Schedule ............................................................................................................29 Table 15. Final Tiered Fee Schedule for Full Recovery ................................................................................30 Table 16. Utility Cut Fee Comparisons ........................................................................................................32 Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
Table of Contents City of South San Francisco
Final Report April 2025
iii
List of Appendices
Appendix A
Summary of Utility Cut Studies and Policies
Appendix B
Pavement Restoration Standard Details
Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
Introduction City of South San Francisco
Final Report April 2025
4 1 Introduction
Utility providers often need to cut existing pavements to access and service their underground equipment.

Ideally, all underground utility maintenance would be performed prior to pavement rehabilitation or reconstruction so that new pavement structures would not be cut. However, despite the best coordination, utility cuts cannot always be avoided, and unanticipated work is often required to maintain essential public services.

Over the last 30 years, local agencies have sought answers to the following questions:
• How do utility cuts affect pavement performance?
• If pavement performance is reduced, what is the corresponding financial impact? To answer these questions, public agencies, utility providers, and other entities have sponsored engineering investigations and studies (Todres and Baker 1996). Studies of utility cut impacts often use deflection testing, condition surveys, and statistical analyses to quantify performance impacts. The performance impacts are typically expressed as a loss in structural capacity and/or a decrease in pavement condition, and to manage them, many studies have recommended restoring areas surrounding the cut, increasing overlay thickness, or imposing a restoration fee on any entities responsible for cuts.

These studies and recommendations have led to an increase in public policies that 1) compensate local agencies for the loss of pavement life through utility cut fees, and 2) establish rigorous utility cut restoration standards and moratoria, or “no-cut”, periods in order to achieve more acceptable performance of repair work following underground utility access and maintenance.

The impact of utility cuts varies depending on a variety of factors, such as:
• Existing pavement condition, structure, and age.
• Location, orientation, and extent of the utility cut. • Environmental factors.
• Traffic loads.
• Restoration practices and standards.

Quantifying utility cut impacts also depends on local maintenance treatments and costs, and can vary significantly among sites and agencies. In addition, many existing studies are performed in-house or by consulting companies and are therefore unpublished or difficult to access. Therefore, to understand the impact of utility cuts on roadway performance for a particular agency, a site-specific study and analysis must be performed.

The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of pavement sections with and without cuts in the City of South San Francisco, quantify any damage caused by utility cuts, and develop a fee schedule for the City to recover any costs associated with such damage.

Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
Introduction City of South San Francisco
Final Report April 2025
5 1.1 Damage Mechanisms
Underground utility work can damage pavements in 3 general ways (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Utility Cut Damage Mechanisms
First, cutting a pavement creates an entry point for water that can damage the underlying pavement layers.

Second, removing pavement layers creates a plane of weakness where the pavement structure may not be adequately supported laterally, particularly during underground utility maintenance, but also after restoration.

Third, repairing the pavement can introduce roughness if the patch/restoring cut does not closely match the adjacent pavement structure. Rough pavements can cause vehicles to bounce, which increases loads on the pavement and leads to more rapid deterioration (Tarakji 1995, Wilde et al. 2002).

These mechanisms reduce the condition and structural capacity of a pavement, which reduces the life of the pavement within and adjacent to the utility cut (Stevens et al. 2010). Multiple utility cuts on the same street or within a small area can magnify this impact (San Francisco Department of Public Works 1998, Tarakji 1995).

1.2 Literature Review
Researchers have used falling weight deflectometer (FWD) testing, condition surveys, and statistical analyses to quantify the impact of utility cuts on pavement performance. Results have shown that utility cuts can reduce pavement life by 55%, resulting in millions of dollars in costs to local agencies for premature street repairs and remediation (Dunn et al. 2024, Ghosh et al. 2024). Studies have also shown that underground utility work often affects not only the excavated area, but the adjacent pavement (Dunn et al. 2024). Typically, pavement 4 – 5 feet from the edges of the trench is affected, though this varies among agencies and locations (Appendix A).

To help restore the structural capacity and performance loss due to cutting the pavement, many agencies have set restoration standards. Restoration standards in California typically include a T-cut (saw-cut) along with a restoration treatment that may be as extensive as replacing the full lane for the entire affected block (Appendix A).

To recover the cost of pavement damage associated with performing underground utility work, many agencies impose utility cut fees. In California, these fees are typically based on factors including functional classification, Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
Introduction City of South San Francisco
Final Report April 2025
6 pavement age, Pavement Condition Index (PCI), and/or utility cut depth and orientation (longitudinal or transverse) (Appendix A)
Appendix A summarizes the literature that details the impact of utility cuts on pavement performance among California agencies, the importance of adequate utility cut restoration, and the policies established to address pavement degradation caused by utility cuts.

Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
Technical Approach City of South San Francisco
Final Report April 2025
7 2 Technical Approach

2.1 Methodology
Utility cuts generally have a negative impact on both the structure (strength) and function (service life) of pavements, with the extent of the impact depending on several factors. Conducting an impact analysis by functional class is crucial, as the effect of a cut varies with pavement thickness. Residential pavements are typically thinner than those on arterial or collector roads, leading to different impacts. Additionally, new pavements are more susceptible to damage from cuts compared to older pavements or those with pre-existing distresses. Therefore, evaluating pavements based on their Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is essential. The size of the cut also significantly influences the impact—the effect of a small cut is less severe than that of a full-block trench cut. As a result, the functional class, PCI group, and size of the cut should all be considered in the impact analysis.

For this study, City streets both with and without utility cuts were evaluated for structural and functional deterioration, and fees were developed to compensate for both types.

Structural deterioration is primarily evaluated by measuring deflection using the method in the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) Highway Design Manual (Caltrans 2018), and then calculating the overlay thickness that would be needed to reach an acceptable structural capacity under a specified traffic load (usually expressed as Traffic Index [TI]). Higher deflections represent lower structural capacity and vice versa.

Lower structural capacity necessitates thicker overlays (Caltrans 2018). Therefore, if a cut has weakened a particular pavement section, its deflection will be high, and it will require a thicker overlay than would a similar, but uncut, section.

Functional deterioration is evaluated in terms of PCI, a scale that ranges from 0 to 100. A pavement in excellent condition has a PCI ≥ 85, while a failed pavement has a PCI < 25 (Table 1). The PCI is calculated from pavement distress data collected through visual inspection. Pavement distresses are usually categorized as structural and environmental distress types, and the degree of pavement deterioration is affected by the types of distresses, their severity, and their quantity. Note that loss of structural capacity can lead to functional deterioration in terms of structural distress such as fatigue cracking or rutting.

Table 1. Pavement Condition Categories
Condition Category PCI Range
I - Excellent 85 – 100
I - Very Good/Good 70 – 84
II/III - Fair 50 – 69
IV - Poor 25 – 49
V – Very Poor/Failed 0 – 24
Pavement function can be evaluated through current field inspections and/or using the inspection history recorded within a pavement management system (PMS). Historical evaluations are likely to yield more precise results than current field inspections alone owing to the greater number of data points available for analysis.

Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
Technical Approach City of South San Francisco
Final Report April 2025
8 Figure 2 shows the methods used in this study. NCE identified both functional and structural deterioration to quantify in situ damage. NCE also analyzed historical functional deterioration using data extracted from the City’s database inspection history from the last 20 years.

Figure 2. Study Methodology

2.2 Functional and Structural Evaluation
Functional and structural field data were collected at 24 test sites throughout the City. Each test site included a section with a utility cut (cut section) and an adjacent section without a utility cut (no-cut section) (Figure 3). The cut and no-cut sections were typically each 100 feet long and at least 1 lane wide. NCE selected adjacent sections to maximize the likelihood that each pair had the same pavement structure and experienced the same loads and environmental conditions.
• To evaluate structural deterioration, NCE:
o Conducted deflection testing to assess pavement capacity and coring to gather pavement thickness for each section at each site.
o Calculated and compared necessary overlay thicknesses associated with respective TIs for the cut and no-cut sections within each pair by functional class and different condition categories.
• To evaluate functional deterioration, NCE:
o Surveyed pavement distresses at each site.
o Used StreetSaver® to calculate the PCIs for cut and no-cut sections.

Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
Technical Approach City of South San Francisco
Final Report April 2025
9 o Compared PCIs of cut and no-cut sections within each pair by functional class and PCI group. o Calculated and compared percent reduction in pavement service life by functional class and PCI group from pavement deterioration curves.

Figure 3. Example Test Site (Del Paso Drive)

2.3 Historical Evaluation
To perform a rigorous analysis for evaluating the impact of the cut, a PMS database that contains sufficient historical data to allow comparison of cut and no-cut pavement sections is required. The City has a robust PMS (StreetSaver®) containing pavement distress data dating back to 1999 with thousands of data points. • To evaluate historical deterioration, NCE:
o Exported the pavement distress inspection history.
o Sorted by distress type (cut and no-cut).
o Compared the PCIs of the cut and no-cut sections by functional class, PCI group, and cut size.
o Calculated and compared the percent reduction in pavement service life by functional class, PCI group, and cut size from pavement deterioration curves.

No-Cut Section Cut Section
Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
Field Evaluation Results City of South San Francisco
Final Report April 2025
10 3 Field Evaluation

3.1 Functional Deterioration
The PCI is calculated from pavement distress data collected through visual inspection, and is affected by the types of distresses present, their severity, and their quantity. A section with a utility cut is likely to have a lower PCI than a section without a utility cut.

The following subsections present the process and results of the functional deterioration portion of this study, including collecting distress data, calculating and comparing the PCI values for the sections with and without utility cuts, and calculating and comparing the corresponding reductions in service life. These data were then used to calculate the corresponding cost of functional damage to pavements of the existing sites in the City caused by utility cuts.

3.1.1 Field Data Collection
NCE performed separate distress surveys for the sections at each site. Distress surveys were performed in accordance with ASTM D6433 (ASTM 2020) and included identification of each distress type, its severity, and its extent. The PCIs for all sections were then calculated per ASTM D6433.

3.1.2 PCI Results
Table 2 lists the PCIs for all sections at all test sites. At 87.5% of the test sites, the PCI of the cut section was lower than the PCI of the no-cut section, suggesting functional deterioration due to utility cuts. This trend is illustrated in Figure 4, which shows the PCIs of cut sections compared to the PCIs of no-cut sections, with a diagonal line illustrating a 1-to-1 relationship. Data points that fall below the line represent locations with functional damage (data points in red). At 2 sites, the PCIs of the cut sections were higher than the PCIs of the no-cut sections. At 1 site, the PCIs of the cut and no-cut sections were the same (data points in blue). These 3 sites have no-cut sections with PCIs < 25, indicating very poor/failed condition. The cut sections at these 3 sites are performing better than the no-cut sections because cut areas have had repairs of some existing distresses, and restorations are performing well.

On average, the PCI of the no-cut sections was 58, while the PCI cut sections was 49. This average decrease of 9 PCI points is primarily due to the cut itself, but additional longitudinal and transverse cracking near the cut also impacts PCI. Figure 5 shows propagating longitudinal and transverse cracking near a patch on Hot Springs Road.

Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
Field Evaluation Results City of South San Francisco
Final Report April 2025
11 Table 2. Functional Damage from Field Evaluation
Figure 4. Comparison of PCIs of Pavement Sections With and Without Utility Cuts Site # Site ID Functional
Class PCINoCut PCICut
Functional
Damage
1 OB
Arterials/
Collectors
100 96 Yes
2 DW 95 81 Yes
3 MA 93 80 Yes
4 ND 91 83 Yes
5 GA 88 76 Yes
6 OA 75 59 Yes
7 SD 72 70 Yes
8 AB 63 45 Yes
9 SA 59 27 Yes
10 LA 52 39 Yes
11 GD 9 9 No
12 HW 7 4 Yes
13 KW 6 11 No
14 CC-1
Residentials
93 76 Yes
15 OA-1 75 59 Yes
16 4L 74 72 Yes
17 DC 70 56 Yes
18 DD 59 49 Yes
19 HA 56 45 Yes
20 TC 47 40 Yes
21 VT 42 36 Yes
22 DA-P1&P2 28 23 Yes
23 CR 26 21 Yes
24 CC 17 25 No
Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
Field Evaluation Results City of South San Francisco
Final Report April 2025
12 Figure 5. Propagating Cracks (Yellow-Highlighted) near Patch on Hot Springs Road

3.1.3 Reduction in Service Life
A reduction in PCI corresponds to a reduction in the remaining service life of a pavement. A pavement’s RSL is the number of years until it falls into failed condition (i.e., a pavement’s remaining service life reaches 0 when the PCI drops below 25). Based on the asphalt concrete (AC) family deterioration curves in StreetSaver® shown in Figure 6, arterials/collectors have a total service life of approximately 30 years, while residentials have a total service life of approximately 35 years.

For each test site, the percent reduction in service life due to utility cuts was estimated using the StreetSaver® family deterioration curves. For instance, Orange Ave between Commercial Ave and 1st Ln, an arterial with no utility cuts, had a PCI of 75, which corresponds to a pavement age of 11 years based on the deterioration curve.

In other words, the pavement condition corresponds to the typical condition of a pavement that was constructed 11 years ago. In contrast, the paired cut section had a PCI of 59, which corresponds to a pavement age of 18.5 years. This means that the total service life of the pavement was reduced by approximately 7.5 years (25%) by the cut. This difference in total service life was calculated for all 24 test sites, and the resulting percent reductions in total service life of the cut sections were plotted relative to the PCIs of the no-cut sections (Figure 7). The percent reduction in service life ranged from -6% to 36% and was 14% on average. Three sites with nocut PCIs below 25 showed a negative or zero percent reduction in life, indicating that the cut sections are performing better than the no-cut sections.

Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
Field Evaluation Results City of South San Francisco
Final Report April 2025
13 * RSL: Remaining service life in years.

Figure 6. Pavement Deterioration Curves for Streets in the City Figure 7. Reduction in Service Life (%) vs. PCI for Sections Without Utility Cuts Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
Field Evaluation Results City of South San Francisco
Final Report April 2025
14 3.1.4 Damage Cost
To calculate the costs of the reduction in service life due to utility cuts, the estimated percent reduction in service life was multiplied by typical pavement reconstruction cost for the City (obtained from the City’s decision tree in the PMS database which was updated in February 2024):
• Arterials/Collectors: $109.25 per square yard or $12.14 per square foot • Residentials: $87.48 per square yard or $9.72 per square foot For example, Orange Avenue (site OA), had a 25% reduction in service life due to a utility cut. For a major pavement section (arterials/collectors), the typical cost of pavement reconstruction is $12.14 per square foot.

Therefore, the cost corresponding to the reduction in service life due to the cut is $3.03 per square foot (0.25 × $12.14/square foot) for site OA. Table 3 summarizes the percent reduction in service life due to cuts and the corresponding equivalent cost for all test sites (rounded up to nearest 50 cents).

Table 3. Percent Reduction in Service Life and Equivalent Damage Cost Functional
Classification Site ID PCINoCut
% Reduction In
Pavement Life
Cost,
$/Square Foot
Arterials/Collectors
OB 100 1% $0.50
DW 95 24% $3.00
MA 93 24% $3.00
ND 91 15% $2.00
GA 88 24% $3.00
OA 75 25% $3.50
SD 72 4% $0.50
AB 63 24% $3.00
SA 59 36% $4.50
LA 52 15% $2.00
GD 9 0% $-
HW 7 2% $0.50
KW 6 -3% $-
Residentials
CC-1 93 31% $3.50
OA-1 75 27% $3.00
4L 74 4% $0.50
DC 70 23% $2.50
DD 59 15% $1.50
HA 56 15% $1.50
TC 47 8% $1.00
VT 42 7% $1.00
DA-P1&P2 28 5% $0.50
CR 26 4% $0.50
CC 17 -6% $-

3.2 Structural Deterioration
The relative loss of structural capacity caused by utility cuts can be evaluated by comparing the deflection measurements and required overlay thicknesses of similar test sections (i.e., the same pavement structure, Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
Field Evaluation Results City of South San Francisco
Final Report April 2025
15 traffic demands, environmental conditions) with and without cuts. Pavements with higher deflection measurements have weaker structures. Weaker pavement structures require thicker overlays, and their rehabilitation is more costly.

The following subsections present the processes and results of collecting, analyzing, and comparing deflection measurements and required overlay thicknesses. These data were then used to calculate the corresponding cost of structural damage to pavements caused by utility cuts.

3.2.1 Field Data Collection
NCE performed FWD testing at each site in accordance with the California Test Method 356 (Caltrans 2013).

During testing, the FWD delivered a nominal 9,000-pound impulse load to the pavement surface and measured the resulting pavement deflection using a geophone directly under the load. A minimum of 21 deflection measurements were taken at each of 3 measurement locations for each site (Figure 8):
• Within the no-cut section, at least 10 feet from the cut. • Two feet from the edge cut, outside of the cut restoration area (within the zone of influence). Since the City’s restoration standard requires a T-cut patch, the locations of the exact edges of the cuts were unknown. NCE therefore tested 2 feet outside of the edges of the patches to see if structural damage occurred outside the restoration area.
• Within the cut.

Additionally, coring was performed in the no-cut section, and the original asphalt concrete thickness was measured.

Figure 8. FWD Testing Locations

3.2.2 Deflection Results
Comparing the deflection data across the 3 measurement locations quantifies the relative loss of structural capacity resulting from utility cuts. Figure 9 shows the average deflections for each test site organized by the PCI of the site’s no-cut section. Sections that exhibited damage due to cuts are represented by red lines. Green lines denote the opposite i.e. deflection of no-cut sections was actually higher than the cut section or zone of influence. This is an indication that the cut repairs/restoration were performing well at the time of testing. Note that the deflections at the “Zone of Influence” could be higher than on cuts because of the slumping effect as explained under Section 1.2.

Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
Field Evaluation Results City of South San Francisco
Final Report April 2025
16 (a)
(b)
Figure 9. Deflection Trends Organized by PCI of Sections Without Utility Cuts (a) Arterials/Collectors; (b) Residentials
Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
Field Evaluation Results City of South San Francisco
Final Report April 2025
17 Based on the deflection data, 66.7% of test sites showed structural damage in the cut or zone of influence (red lines in Figure 9 and red bars in Figure 10) while the remaining 33.3% showed a structural improvement in the cut and zone of influence relative to the section with no utility cut (green lines in Figure 9 and blue bars in Figure 10).

Figure 10. Difference in Deflection

3.2.3 Required Overlay Thickness
Asphalt overlays are used to correct functional and structural deficiencies. Existing pavement conditions and estimates of future traffic dictate the thicknesses of these overlays. Functional deficiency arises from any conditions that adversely affect the highway user. These include poor surface friction and texture, hydroplaning and splash from wheel path rutting, and excessive weathering, raveling, and block cracking. Structural deficiency arises from any conditions that adversely affect the load-carrying capability of the pavement structure. These include inadequate thickness, loss of base or subgrade support, and moisture damage.

This section focuses on the structural deficiency of the site pavements due to the cuts. The required overlay thickness was calculated for each of the 3 measurement locations at each test site per the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Caltrans 2018). Design inputs were as follows:
• Traffic Index (TI) – specific to each test site and based on the input that provided by the City. o A TI of 8 was used for arterials/collectors and a TI of 6 was used for residentials. • Existing asphalt concrete thickness
o No-cut section – measured core thickness.
o Zone of influence – measured core thickness of the no-cut sections. o Cut sections – City’s restoration standard (minimum 4 inches along T-cut). • Deflection data – obtained through FWD testing.

Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
Field Evaluation Results City of South San Francisco
Final Report April 2025
18 Two examples of sections exhibiting damage due to utility cuts are provided. Note that if a cut damages a pavement structure, then the cut section and/or zone of influence will require a thicker overlay than the no-cut section.

Figure 11 shows the results for Miller Avenue and Dianne Court. For Miller Avenue, the zone of influence showed the most structural damage, but for Dianne Court, the cut section showed the most damage. Therefore, these areas required thicker overlays than the no-cut sections, where a thinner or no overlay was required.

Figure 11. Deflection and Required Overlay Thickness for Miller Avenue and Dianne Court Figure 12 summarizes the differences in overlay thickness between the no-cut sections and the thickest overlay in either cut sections or the zones of influence for all test sites. The data are organized by the PCIs of the no-cut sections. The x-axis shows the functional class associated with PCIs of the no-cut sections, ranging from high to low.
• Red bars indicate test sections that require a thicker overlay at the cut or the zone of influence than in the section without a cut, to compensate for a loss in structural capacity. • Blue bars indicate test sections that do not require a thicker overlay at the cut or the zone of influence than in the section without a cut. This indicates that the restored cut is performing better than the no-cut section.
• PCI values shown without bars indicate that, for that test site, no overlay was required at any of the 3 measurement locations.

The deflections of the cut and no-cut sections provide an initial comparative measure of structural deficiency (Figure 10). However, the thickness of overlay required depends on the thickness of the existing pavement to support ongoing/future traffic (TI). The average overlay thickness found via coring was 9.7 inches for arterials/collectors and 6.5 inches for residentials, indicating a reasonably sound structural foundation for the design TI. Moreover, the City has a robust restoration standard that includes a minimum of 4 inches of asphalt concrete replacement along T-cuts, extending at least 18 inches from both sides of the cut.

Consequently, even though 66.7% of the sites exhibited structural damage based on deflection, the substantial in-situ pavement thickness and the 4-inch restoration layer in the cut area meant that only a few sites required a thicker overlay to address structural deficiencies. Of the 24 sites assessed, only 16.7% (4 sites) will require an additional overlay of approximately 2.5 inches within the cut section or its zone of influence to restore structural capacity.

Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
Field Evaluation Results City of South San Francisco
Final Report April 2025
19 Figure 12. Differences in Overlay Thickness

3.2.4 Damage Cost
Table 4 lists the thicknesses of additional overlays required for all test sites. For each site, this represents the difference between the required overlay thickness for the no-cut section and the thickest overlay required at the cut section or the zone of influence. The additional required overlay thickness is zero if no overlay was required at any of the measurement locations or if both the cut section and zone of influence were performing better than the no-cut section. The cost of the additional required overlay, also provided in Table 4, was calculated using the following typical costs based on recent rehabilitation projects performed in the City and neighborhood agencies:
• Hot Mix Asphalt: $150.00 per ton
• Cold Plane Milling: $1.00 per square foot
• Other Costs (e.g., concrete repairs, upgrades for Americans with Disabilities Act compliance):
o Arterials/Collectors – 30% construction cost, 15% admin/construction management/design cost, and 10% contingency
o Residentials – 25% construction cost, 10% admin/construction management/design cost, and 10% contingency
Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
Field Evaluation Results City of South San Francisco
Final Report April 2025
20 Table 4. Additional Overlay Thickness and Corresponding Equivalent Cost Functional
Class Site ID PCInocut
Structural
Damage
Based On
Deflection
Overlay at
No-Cut
Sections,
Inches
Overlay
at or
Near Cut,
Inches
Additional
Overlay Needed
at or Near Cut
Compared to
Section Without
Cut
Cost Of
Overlay
($/Square
Foot)
Arterials/
Collectors
OB 100 Yes 0.0 0.0 - $-
DW 95 Yes 0.0 0.0 - $-
MA 93 Yes 1.0 3.5 Thicker $6.00
ND 91 Yes 4.5 4.0 Thinner $-
GA 88 Yes 0.0 0.0 - $-
OA 75 Yes 0.0 0.0 - $-
SD 72 No 0.5 0.0 Thinner $-
AB 63 Yes 0.0 0.0 - $-
SA 59 No 0.5 0.0 Thinner $-
LA 52 No 0.0 0.0 - $-
GD 9 Yes 0.0 0.0 - $-
HW 7 No 3.0 0.0 Thinner $-
KW 6 No 3.0 1.5 Thinner $-
Residentials
CC-1 93 Yes 0.2 3.0 Thicker $6.00
OA-1 75 No 0.0 0.0 - $-
4L 74 Yes 0.0 0.0 - $-
DC 70 Yes 0.0 1.0 Thicker $3.00
DD 59 No 0.0 0.0 - $-
HA 56 No 0.9 0.0 Thinner $-
TC 47 Yes 0.0 0.0 - $-
VT 42 Yes 0.0 0.0 - $-
DA-P1&P2 28 Yes 0.1 0.4 Thicker $2.00
CR 26 Yes 0.0 0.0 - $-
CC 17 Yes 0.0 0.0 - $-
“-” means no overlay is needed at these sites at the time of testing which can change with pavement service life. The existing pavement structure is adequate to handle the current/future traffic under current deflection.

3.3 Fee Development (Field Evaluation)
Table 5 below presents the damage cost due to both functional and structural deteriorations from field evaluation. The rightmost column in the table shows the higher damage cost to compensate for both damages.

Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
Field Evaluation Results City of South San Francisco
Final Report April 2025
21 Table 5. Fee Development Based on Field Evaluation

FUNCTIONAL
CLASS SITE NO. PCI_NOCUT

FUNCTIONAL
DAMAGE

COST OF PAVEMENT

LIFE REDUCTION,
$/SF

STRUCTURAL
DAMAGE

COST OF

OVERLAY,
$/SY
MAX
DAMAGE
COST,
$/SF

ARTERIALS/

COLLECTORS
OB 100 YES $ 0.12 YES $ - $ 0.12
DW 95 YES $ 2.91 YES $ - $ 2.91
MA 93 YES $ 2.91 YES $ 5.55 $ 5.55
ND 91 YES $ 1.82 YES $ - $ 1.82
GA 88 YES $ 2.91 YES $ - $ 2.91
OA 75 YES $ 3.16 YES $ - $ 3.16
SD 72 YES $ 0.49 NO $ - $ 0.49
AB 63 YES $ 2.91 YES $ - $ 2.91
SA 59 YES $ 4.37 NO $ - $ 4.37
LA 52 YES $ 1.82 NO $ - $ 1.82
GD 9 NO $ - YES $ - $ -
HW 7 YES $ 0.24 NO $ - $ 0.24
KW 6 NO $ - NO $ - $ -

RESIDENTIALS
CC-1 93 YES $ 3.01 YES $ 6.55 $ 6.55
OA-1 75 YES $ 2.63 NO $ - $ 2.63
4L 74 YES $ 0.39 YES $ - $ 0.39
DC 70 YES $ 2.24 YES $ 3.62 $ 3.62
DD 59 YES $ 1.46 NO $ - $ 1.46
HA 56 YES $ 1.46 NO $ - $ 1.46
TC 47 YES $ 0.78 YES $ - $ 0.78
VT 42 YES $ 0.68 YES $ - $ 0.68
DA-P1&P2 28 YES $ 0.49 YES $ 1.83 $ 1.83
CR 26 YES $ 0.39 YES $ - $ 0.39
CC 17 NO $ - YES $ - $ -
Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
Historical Evaluation Results City of South San Francisco Final Report April 2025
22 4 Historical Evaluation
The City maintains a StreetSaver® PMS, which contains inspection data dating to 1999. The StreetSaver® database contains a list of all the City’s street, which are divided into management sections. For each management section, 1 or more sample units were surveyed for pavement condition based on a 10% sampling rate (10% of the sections were sampled). The PCI for each sample unit was then calculated according to MTC modified protocols. Since the condition of the sample units is representative of the overall condition of the management section, the average PCI for all sample units within a management section was treated as the PCI for that management section. This robust database provided approximately 15,500 sample units with and without cuts that could be used for the analysis of the City’s management sections.

Overall, the PCIs of cut sections were 18 PCI points lower than the PCIs of no-cut sections on average.

4.1 PCI Difference by PCI Group and Cut Size
Next, pavement sections were categorized by their condition (PCI ≥ 70, and PCI < 70) and cut size (small and large) within functional classes (arterials/collectors and residentials) for further evaluation.

The PCI groups were defined to capture the most significant differences in the PCI due to utility cuts. A statistically significant difference in PCI between cut and no-cut sections was observed when test sites were separated based on the PCI of the no-cut section using a cut-off of 70. The statistical analysis is described in more detail in Section 5.1.

Cuts ranging in size between 0.1% and 81.5% of the sample unit area were analyzed to evaluate the effect of cut size on PCI. Cuts were categorized into 2 groups based on area. Cut areas < 10% of the management section area are defined as small cuts and cut areas ≥ 10% of the management section area are large cuts. The selection of this threshold is discussed in the next section.

The PCIs of pavement sections with no cuts, small cuts, and large cuts were compared within each PCI group and functional class. Figure 13 show the PCIs of arterials/collectors and residentials. These figures indicate:
• Pavements with high PCI and large cuts showed greater deterioration than pavements with low PCI and small cuts or no cuts.
• PCI decreased as cut size increased.

Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
Historical Evaluation Results City of South San Francisco Final Report April 2025
23 Figure 13. Average PCIs by Functional Class, PCI Group, and Cut Size

4.2 Percent Reduction in PCI
Table 6 below presents the percent reduction in PCI within each PCI group and by cut size.

Table 6. Percent Reduction in PCI by Functional Class and Cut Size Functional Class
Percent Reduction in PCI by
Cut Size*
Small Cut Large Cut
Arterials/Collectors 17% 41%
Residential 6% 36%
Average 12% 38%
*Represents the decrease in PCI of the section relative to a section with no cut.

Small Cut =Cut Area <10% of Section Area/Block Area
Large Cut =Cut Area ≥10% of Section Area/Block Area
Table 6 indicates the following:
• Cut areas < 10% of the section area resulted in an average PCI reduction of approximately 12%. • Cut areas ≥ 10% of the section area resulted in an average PCI reduction of approximately 38%.

Table 7 shows an example of how cut areas affect pavements of differing conditions. As described in Section 2.1, pavements are assigned 1 of 5 condition categories based on their PCI. A large pavement cut could drop a pavement in “Excellent” condition to the “Fair” category or a pavement in “Fair” condition to the “Poor” category. In other words, large cuts result in an average of 38% reduction in PCI which means that the pavement drops an entire condition category. These changes in pavement condition result in different maintenance treatments and higher unit costs. A pavement that would have needed a slurry seal if there had been no cuts may need a more expensive thin overlay treatment after it has been cut.

Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
Historical Evaluation Results City of South San Francisco Final Report April 2025
24 Table 7. Impact of PCI Reduction on Pavement Condition Category Condition Category PCI Range Examples
No-Cut Section PCI Cut Section PCI after 38% Reduction
I - Excellent 85-100 93 58 Fair (50 – 69)
I - Good 70 – 84 77 48 Poor (25 – 49)
II/III - Fair 50 – 69 60 38 Poor (25 – 49)
IV - Poor 25 – 49 37 23 Failed (0 – 24)
V - Failed 0 – 24 12 8 Failed (0 – 24)
This analysis indicates critical impact on pavement performance, and more expensive restoration measures may be necessary as a result of large cuts.

4.3 Percent Reduction in Pavement Life
A reduction in PCI also affects the service life of the pavement. Residential pavement sections have a total service life of approximately 35 years, while arterials/collectors have a total service life of approximately 30 years. A pavement’s remaining service life reaches 0 when a pavement falls into failed condition (PCI of 24 or less).

The percent reduction in pavement service life due to utility cuts was estimated using the StreetSaver® family deterioration curves for asphalt concrete pavement sections (Figure 14). For example, assume an arterial/collector with no cut has a PCI of 81. A PCI of 81 for arterials/collectors corresponds to an equivalent service life of 7 years (solid black arrows in Figure 14). Based on the analysis in the previous section, a large cut would reduce the PCI to 74, which corresponds to an equivalent service life of 11.5 years (dashed black arrows in Figure 14). Consequently, the cut in this example reduces the pavement service life by 4.5 years, or 15% of its 30-year service life.

Figure 14. Pavement Family Deterioration Curves for Streets in the City Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
Historical Evaluation Results City of South San Francisco Final Report April 2025
25 The above calculation was performed for both arterials/collectors and residentials in all PCI groups and for all cut sizes to estimate the percent reduction in pavement service life (Figure 15).

Figure 15. Percent Reduction in Pavement Service Life
These figures indicate the following:
• Pavements with lower PCI were less impacted by cuts than were pavements with higher PCI. • Larger cuts resulted in greater reductions in pavement service life than did smaller cuts. Average pavement life was reduced by approximately 15% for arterials/collectors and 13% for residentials if the cut area was ≥ 10% and the PCI ≥ 70.

Also, multiple small cuts on one street section that when combined add up to more than 10% of the section area would be more detrimental than small cuts on streets that total less than 10% of the section area.

Table 8 summarizes the percent reduction in pavement life based on functional class, PCI, and cut size following the analysis in the previous sections.

Table 8. Percent Reduction in Pavement Life by Functional Class, Pavement PCI, and Cut-Size Functional Class PCI Group
Percent Reduction in Pavement Service Life*
Small Cut Large Cut
Arterials/
Collectors
PCI ≥ 70 5% 15%
PCI < 70 3% 10%
Residentials PCI ≥ 70 4% 13%
PCI < 70 3% 9%
*Represents the decrease in Pavement Service Life of the section relative to a section with no cut.

Small Cut =Cut Area <10% of Section Area/Block Area
Large Cut =Cut Area ≥10% of Section Area/Block Area

4.4 Fee Development (Historical Evaluation)
To quantify the cost impacts of the reduction in service life due to cuts, the estimated percent reduction in pavement life was multiplied by typical pavement reconstruction costs for the City, based on the City’s decision tree which was last updated in February 2024:

Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
Historical Evaluation Results City of South San Francisco Final Report April 2025
26 • Arterials/Collectors: $109.25 per square yard or $12.14 per square foot • Residentials: $87.50 per square yard or $9.72 per square foot These unit costs were multiplied by the percent reductions in service life associated with cuts (Table 8) and rounded to the nearest 50 cents based on functional class, PCI, and cut size. The results are shown in Table 9.

Table 9. Tiered Fee Schedule using Historical Evaluation Functional Class PCI
Group
Fees ($/Square Foot)
Small Cut Large Cut
Arterials/Collectors PCI ≥ 70 $0.50 $2.00
PCI < 70 $0.50 $1.50
Residentials PCI ≥ 70 $0.50 $1.50
PCI < 70 $.050 $1.00
Small Cut =Cut Area <10% of Section Area/Block Area
Large Cut =Cut Area ≥10% of Section Area/Block Area
Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
Fee Implementation City of South San Francisco
Final Report April 2025
27 5 Fee Implementation

5.1 Statistical Analysis
A statistical analysis was conducted on both field and historical evaluations to determine whether the differences in the PCIs of pavements with and without utility cuts were significant. Specifically, NCE used t-tests to compare the PCIs and deflections of cut and no-cut sections within each PCI group and functional class. A statistically significant difference between cut and no-cut sections indicates that PCI is likely to be impacted by utility cuts.
• A P-value < 0.05 (at a 95% confidence level) indicates that the PCIs or deflections of the sections with cuts were significantly lower than the PCIs or deflections of sections without cuts. This means that there is a high probability that utility cuts are correlated with pavement deterioration. • A P-value ≥ 0.05 indicates that the differences in the PCIs or deflections of the sections with cuts and without cuts were not statistically significant.

Various PCI cut-off points were analyzed to identify which group shows a significant difference in all categories.

The statistical analysis for the field evaluation is presented in Table 10. The statistical analysis for the historical evaluation is presented in Table 11. The green cells highlighted in Tables 10 and 11 show scenarios in which cuts have had a significant impact on either pavement structure or function.

Table 10. Statistical Analysis of Field Evaluation
Criteria
P-value Significant
PCI Deflection Min. of PCI and Deflection Difference
All 0.000 0.076 0.000 Yes
Arterials/ Collectors 0.001 0.335 0.001 Yes
Residentials 0.002 0.060 0.002 Yes
Arterials/
Collectors
PCI≥50 0.000 0.028 0.000 Yes
PCI<50 0.401 0.144 0.144 No
PCI ≥ 70 0.001 0.014 0.001 Yes
PCI < 70 0.064 0.123 0.064 No
Residentials
PCI≥50 0.002 0.243 0.002 Yes
PCI<50 0.170 0.019 0.019 Yes
PCI ≥ 70 0.019 0.146 0.019 Yes
PCI < 70 0.036 0.161 0.036 Yes
Table 11The analysis shows that PCI differs between cut and no-cut sections in most cases. Cuts typically do not have a statistically significant impact on structural deterioration (deflection) when sections are grouped by functional class or PCI category (Table 10). The statistical analysis of historical evaluation showed that cuts are responsible for pavement damage except for residential streets with PCI below 50 (Table 11).

Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
Fee Implementation City of South San Francisco
Final Report April 2025
28 Table 11. Statistical Analysis of Historical Evaluation for Sections with Small and Large Cuts Criteria P-Value Significant Difference
Small Large Small Large
All 1.2E-57 8.3E-137 Yes Yes
Arterials/Collectors 9.6E-45 3.7E-76 Yes Yes
Residentials 1.5E-17 2.3E-62 Yes Yes
Arterials/
Collectors
PCI ≥ 50 2.0E-28 1.2E-53 Yes Yes
PCI < 50 4.2E-02 5.3E-06 Yes Yes
PCI ≥ 70 3.5E-18 1.5E-21 Yes Yes
PCI < 70 2.2E-05 1.6E-16 Yes Yes
Residentials
PCI ≥ 50 4.2E-10 1.6E-47 Yes Yes
PCI < 50 4.1E-01 3.0E-04 No Yes
PCI ≥ 70 3.3E-09 4.3E-16 Yes Yes
PCI < 70 2.6E-03 5.1E-10 Yes Yes
Small Cut =Cut Area <10% of Section Area/Block Area
Large Cut =Cut Area ≥10% of Section Area/Block Area
Based on both field and historical evaluations (Table 12), all combinations show a statistically significant difference either in PCI or deflection for cut and no-cut sections within PCI groups, except for arterial/collectors with PCIs below 50 or 70. A cutoff point of PCI 70 was selected because the average network PCI of the City is above 70 and it also marks the border between “Good” and “Fair” condition categories.

Table 12. Statistical Analysis of Field and Historical Evaluation Functional Class PCI Group
Statistical Significance
Field Evaluation Historical Evaluation
Small Cut Large Cut
Arterials/Collectors PCI ≥ 70 Yes Yes Yes
PCI < 70 No Yes Yes
Residentials PCI ≥ 70 Yes Yes Yes
PCI < 70 Yes Yes Yes
Small Cut =Cut Area <10% of Section Area/Block Area
Large Cut =Cut Area ≥10% of Section Area/Block Area

5.2 Fee Comparison by Evaluation Type
Since both structural and functional deterioration are caused by utility cuts, both evaluations are crucial in developing a fee to compensate for those damages. The fees calculated based on the field and historical evaluations are compared in Table 13.

Table 13. Fee ($/Square Foot) Comparison Based on Evaluation Field Evaluation Historical Evaluation
Condition
Group
Arterials/
Collectors Residentials Arterials/Collectors Residentials Small Cut Large Cut Small Cut Large Cut
PCI ≥ 70 $2.50 $3.50 $0.50 $2.00 $0.50 $1.50
PCI < 70 $2.00 $1.50 $0.50 $1.50 $0.50 $1.00
Small Cut =Cut Area <10% of Section Area/Block Area
Large Cut =Cut Area ≥10% of Section Area/Block Area
Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
Fee Implementation City of South San Francisco
Final Report April 2025
29 To compensate for damage to the pavement from utility cuts identified via both field and historical evaluations, the maximum fee in each of the above categories is recommended. This would yield the fees listed in Table 14.

Please note that, since large cuts were selected for field evaluation, the higher unit cost from field and historical evaluation was selected for the large cuts to compensate for highest amount of damage due to cuts.

Table 14. Final Tiered Fee Schedule
Functional Class PCI Group Fee ($/Square Foot)
Small Cut Large Cut
Arterials/Collectors PCI ≥ 70 $0.50 $2.50
PCI < 70 $0.50 $2.00
Residentials PCI ≥ 70 $0.50 $3.50
PCI < 70 $0.50 $1.50
Small cut =Cut Area <10% of Section Area/Block Area
Large cut =Cut Area ≥10% of Section Area/Block Area

5.3 Fee Implementation
Table 14 may be used to calculate the full recovery costs for damage caused by utility cuts. Note that “section area” is defined as the City’s individual management section area from StreetSaver®. The typical management section area obtained from the StreetSaver® database for residentials (700 feet × 30 feet) or arterials/collectors (1,225 feet × 40 feet) can be used as representative average section areas. However, actual management section areas or block areas can be used with a similar implementation strategy if desired.

5.3.1 Large Pavement Cuts
This analysis indicated that cuts larger than 10% of the section area have a critical impact on pavement performance and result in pavement condition dropping by an entire condition category and an average 38% reduction in pavement service life. Therefore, a large cut could trigger the need for aggressive restoration such as an overlay of the entire section. In other words, if the utility cut area is large enough (either singly or in combination) to require an overlay, then the responsible party(ies) should pay the full amount of the overlay cost to compensate for the maximum damage to the pavements. A compromise may be reached between the City and the responsible party(ies) depending on the type or extent of work to pave only the affected lanes for wide pavement sections.

The following fee equation was developed for large cuts:

𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭 𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹 𝑭𝑭 , $ = 𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼 𝑪𝑪 𝑪𝑪 (𝑭𝑭 𝑭𝑭 𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏) ∗ 𝑻𝑻 𝑻𝑻 𝑴𝑴 𝑴𝑴 𝑺𝑺 𝑨𝑨 𝑶𝑶 Eqn 1

5.3.2 Small Pavement Cuts
Small cuts cause significant damage to pavement (Table 11). In addition, multiple small cuts that add up to more than 10% of the section area can cause as much damage as a large cut of 10% or greater. To compensate for the damage caused by multiple small cuts, the fees in Table 14 for small cuts cannot be applied directly. Instead, the fee for smaller utility cut areas should be based on the ratio of the cut size to the threshold cut size that results in an overlay (i.e., 10% of management section area).

For example, the fee for a 10% cut would be the cost of overlaying the entire management section (i.e., Equation 1), while the fee for a 4% cut would be 4%/10% or 40% of the total overlay cost.

Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
Fee Implementation City of South San Francisco
Final Report April 2025
30 If Area of Cut ≥ 10% of the total management section area:

𝑻𝑻 𝑻𝑻 𝑶𝑶 𝑪𝑪 𝑪𝑪 , $ = 𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼 𝑪𝑪 𝑪𝑪 ∗ 𝑻𝑻 𝑻𝑻 𝑴𝑴 𝑴𝑴 𝑺𝑺 𝑨𝑨 Eqn 2 If Area of Cut < 10% of the total management section area (using 4% as an example if cut area is 4% of the total management section area):

𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭 𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹 𝑭𝑭 , $ = %
𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏% ∗ 𝑻𝑻 𝑻𝑻 𝑶𝑶 𝑪𝑪 𝑪𝑪 Eqn 3
Incorporating Unit Cost:

𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭 𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹 𝑭𝑭 , $ = %
𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏% ∗ (𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼 𝑪𝑪 𝑪𝑪 𝒇𝒇 𝑺𝑺 𝑪𝑪 (𝑭𝑭 𝑭𝑭 𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏) ∗ 𝑴𝑴 𝑴𝑴 𝑺𝑺 𝑨𝑨 ) Eqn 4 Simplifying 4% in general term:

𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭 𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹 𝑭𝑭 , $ = ( 𝑪𝑪 𝑨𝑨
𝑴𝑴 𝑴𝑴 𝑨𝑨 )
𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏% ∗ (𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼 𝑪𝑪 𝑪𝑪 𝒇𝒇 𝑺𝑺 𝑪𝑪 (𝑭𝑭 𝑭𝑭 𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏) ∗ 𝑴𝑴 𝑴𝑴 𝑺𝑺 𝑨𝑨 ) Eqn 5
Simplifying, by eliminating the management section area:

𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭 𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹 𝑭𝑭 , $ = �
𝑪𝑪 𝑨𝑨
𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏% � ∗ 𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼 𝑪𝑪 𝑪𝑪 𝒇𝒇 𝑺𝑺 𝑪𝑪 (𝑭𝑭 𝑭𝑭 𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏) Eqn 6 An additional 2 feet in each direction is included in the fee calculation to incorporate a 2-foot zone of influence (ZOI) surrounding the cut area because slumping usually occurs around utility cuts. Thus, the following equation can be used to calculate fees for small cuts:

𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭 𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹 𝑭𝑭 , $ = 𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼 𝑪𝑪 𝑪𝑪 𝒇𝒇 𝑺𝑺 𝑪𝑪 (𝑭𝑭 𝑭𝑭 𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 𝟏𝟏 ) ∗ (𝑪𝑪 𝑳𝑳 𝑳𝑳+𝟐𝟐′+𝟐𝟐′)∗ (𝑪𝑪 𝑾𝑾 𝑾𝑾 +𝟐𝟐′+𝟐𝟐′) 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏% =
𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼 𝑪𝑪 𝑪𝑪 𝒇𝒇 𝑺𝑺 𝑪𝑪 (𝑭𝑭 𝑭𝑭 𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 𝟏𝟏 ) ∗ (𝑪𝑪 𝑳𝑳 𝑳𝑳 + ′ ) ∗ (𝑪𝑪 𝑾𝑾 𝑾𝑾 + ′)/𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏% Eqn 7 Table 15. Final Tiered Fee Schedule for Full Recovery
Functional Class PCI Group
Fee ($/SF of Cut Area with
2-ft Zone of Influence)
Fee ($/SF of Management
Section Area)
Small Cut Large Cut
Arterials/Collectors PCI ≥ 70 $0.50 $2.50
PCI < 70 $0.50 $2.00
Residentials PCI ≥ 70 $0.50 $3.50
PCI < 70 $0.50 $1.50
Small cut =Cut Area <10% of Section Area/Block Area
Large cut =Cut Area ≥10% of Section Area/Block Area

5.3.3 Examples of Fee Implementation
Figure 16 presents 2 examples of cuts of different sizes on residentials. Many large, full-block longitudinal trench cuts were observed in the City. Based on the StreetSaver® database, the typical length and width of a residential management section in the City is 700 feet × 30 feet, or 21,000 square feet. Thus, a full block longitudinal trench cut (3 feet wide) would be equal to or greater than 10% of the management section area, and thus $3.50/square foot (Table 15) would be charged for the full recovery of the entire management section area when the residential section has a PCI above 70 (Figure 16, Example 1).

Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
Fee Implementation City of South San Francisco
Final Report April 2025
31 A small cut (e.g., 30 feet × 6 feet, or 180 square feet) to residentials with PCI ≥ 70 would be only 1% of the management section area and the fee charged would be $0.50/square foot (Table 15) for the cut area plus the area of the zone of influence (Figure 16, Example 2).

Figure 16. Examples of Fee Implementation for Typical Residentials with PCI ≥ 70

5.4 Basic Steps for Fee Calculation
Below are the simplified steps to calculate the fee:

1. Find out what the unit cost will be for the section:
a. Find out if the section being cut is classified as an arterial/collector or residential. b. Find out the PCI of the section.
c. Find out length and width of the cut
d. Estimate whether the cut will be over or under 10% of the area of the section or block. e. Use Table 15 to find the correct unit cost.

2. Use Equations 1 or 7 based on answers to numbers 1c and 1d.

5.5 Exemptions/Exceptions
The City’s restoration standards include paving beyond T-cuts using 2 inch mill and overlay for the entire lane width or block length depending on the length of the cut (Appendix B). There may be some exceptions the City can allow.

Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
Fee Implementation City of South San Francisco
Final Report April 2025
32 The cut fee will not be charged or will be lowered if:
• The utility work is coordinated before paving work is performed. • The extent of the utility work requires paving the entire width for the entire block. • The PCI of the street is less than 25.

5.6 Fee Comparison with Other Agencies
Utility cut fees are prevalent as a way for local agencies to recoup the cost of pavement damage associated with underground utility work. Table 16 summarizes utility cut fees for agencies throughout California. These fees are based on functional classification, pavement age, PCI, and/or utility cut depth and orientation (longitudinal or transverse). The fees, in dollars per square foot, are multiplied by the utility cut area to obtain a dollar value that represents the damage done to the pavement.

Table 16. Utility Cut Fee Comparisons
Agency Criteria Fee, $/SF Study by
Anaheim PCI 3.60-11.60 NCE 2022
Davis Functional Class and PCI 1.04-1.51 NCE 2022
Pacifica Functional Class, Age of the Pavement, Size of the Cut 1.00-4.00 NCE 2021
Ukiah Functional Class, Age of the Pavement, Size of
the Cut 0.50-4.00 NCE 2021
Santa Barbara County Functional Class, PCI, Size of the Cut 0.25-4.00 NCE 2023 (Under Review)
Monterey Park Functional Class, PCI, Size of the Cut 0.25-2.00 NCE 2023 (Under Review)
South San Francisco Functional Class, PCI, Size of the Cut 0.50-3.50 NCE 2024 (Draft)
San Francisco (City & County) Age of the Pavement 1.00-3.50 Marcus 1998 Los Angeles Functional Class 8.24-19.44 Shahin et al. 2017 Sacramento County, Elk
Grove, Santa Cruz
Trench Depth, Functional Class, PCI, Type of
Cut 1.80-11.82 Shahin et al. 1996
Santa Ana Functional Class, Age of the Pavement 10.00-36.00 Shahin et al. 1999 Table 16 shows that the proposed fee range for the City of South San Francisco aligns very closely with the fees imposed by several of the listed cities and counties. When comparing fees among different agencies, it is important to consider that the overall pavement condition varies among different agencies, and the performance of pavements with cuts is critical to the existing conditions. Consequently, the fee range varies among different agencies.

Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
Conclusion City of South San Francisco
Final Report April 2025
33 6 Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to investigate both the structural and functional deterioration of pavements due to utility cuts, quantify the damage, and develop a fee to recover the costs associated with such damage.

Two approaches were utilized in this study to develop a fee schedule based on both functional and structural deterioration of the pavement. The field evaluation included an analysis of functional and structural deterioration at 24 sites in the City. The historical evaluation included an analysis of approximately 16,000 datapoints from the StreetSaver database.

The following conclusions were determined:
• Overall, pavements with cuts deteriorate more than pavements without cuts. Average reductions of 21 points and 14 points were observed for arterials/collectors and residentials, respectively, due to cuts. • As the size of the cut increases, the PCI decreases; on average, the PCI drops by 38% if the cut area is greater than 10% of the section area.
• Cuts do more damage to pavements with PCI ≥ 70 than to pavements with a PCI < 70. This results in an average percent reduction in service life of approximately 4% for pavements with PCI ≥ 70 due to small cuts and 14% due to large cuts wh. If PCI < 70, the remaining service life is approximately 3% due to small cuts and 9% due to large cuts.

Finally, a fee schedule was developed using both field and historical evaluations to recover the full costs of repair for the damage caused by the cuts. The information required to implement this fee includes the functional class, PCI groups, area of the management section, and size of the cut, as shown below.

Functional Class PCI Group
Fee ($/SF of Cut
with 2-ft Zone of
Influence)
Fee ($/SF of
Management
Section Area)
Small Cut Large Cut
Arterials/Collectors PCI ≥ 70 $0.50 $2.50
PCI < 70 $0.50 $2.00
Residentials PCI ≥ 70 $0.50 $3.50
PCI < 70 $0.50 $1.50
Small cut =Cut Area <10% of Section Area/Block Area
Large cut =Cut Area ≥10% of Section Area/Block Area
Impact of Utility Cuts on Pavement
References City of South San Francisco
Final Report April 2025
34 7 References
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2018. Highway Design Manual.

Dunn, S.M., D. Ghosh, and M. Marshall. 2024. “Impact Assessment and Damage Fee Development for Pavement Utility Cuts Using Functional and Structural Field Data.” Transportation Research Record p.03611981241240752. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981241240752.

Ghosh, D., S.M. Dunn, and L. Petersen. 2024. “Utility Cut Impact Assessment and Fee Development Using Pavement Management System.” Transportation Research Record p.03611981241287194. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981241287194.

San Francisco Department of Public Works. 1998. The Impact of Excavation on San Francisco Streets.

Department of Public Works, City and County of San Francisco and Blue-Ribbon Panel on Pavement Damage.

Shahin, M.Y. 1999. Report Analyzing Proposed Trench Cut Fee Ordinance. Department of Public Works, Santa Ana.

Shahin and Associates. 2017. Street Damage Restoration Fee Study. City of Los Angeles, Department of General Services, Bureau of Street Services.

Stevens, L., M.T. Suleiman, B.R. Schafer, H. Ceylan, and K.A. Videkovich. 2010. Investigation of Improved Utility Cut Repair Techniques to Reduce Settlement in Repaired Areas, Phase II. Iowa Department of Transportation and Transportation Research Board.

Tarakji, G. 1995. The Effects of Utility Cuts on the Service Life of Pavements in San Francisco. Volume I.

Department of Public Works, San Francisco State University.

Todres, H.A. and P.E. Baker. 1996. “Utilities Conduct Research in Pavement Restoration.” APWA Reporter 63(10): 4–5.

Wilde, W.J., C.A. Grant, and P.K. Nelson. 2002. Manual for Controlling and Reducing the Frequency of Pavement Utility Cuts. Office of Program Administration. Federal Highway Administration.

Appendix A
Summary of Utility Cut Studies and Policies

MEMORANDUM
Date: November, 2024
To: City of South San Francisco
From: Debaroti Ghosh and Margot Yapp
Subject: Summary of Utility Cut Studies and Policies
Job Number: 872.17.55

INTRODUCTION
Utility companies often need to cut existing pavements to access and service their underground equipment. Ideally, all underground utility maintenance would be performed prior to pavement rehabilitation or reconstruction so that cuts are never made in new pavement structures. However, despite the best coordination, utility cuts cannot always be avoided because unanticipated work is often required to maintain essential public services.

Over the last 30 years, local agencies have been interested in understanding and quantifying the impact of utility cuts on pavement performance as well as the corresponding financial impacts. To obtain this information, public agencies, as well as utility companies, have sponsored engineering investigations and studies (Todres and Baker 1996). Many such studies are performed in-house or by consulting companies and are therefore unpublished or difficult to access. These studies often use deflection testing, condition surveys, and statistical analyses to quantify reduced pavement performance as a loss in structural capacity and a decrease in pavement condition. To manage the identified impacts, many studies have recommended restoring additional area surrounding the cut, increasing the overlay thickness, or imposing a restoration fee on utility companies.

These studies and recommendations have led to an increase in public policies that 1) compensate local agencies for the loss of pavement life caused by utility cuts through a utility cut fee, and 2) achieve more acceptable performance of repair work following underground utility access and maintenance through rigorous utility cut restoration standards and moratoria, or “no cut”, periods.

This technical memorandum discusses the impact of utility cuts on pavement performance, details the importance of adequate utility cut restoration, and summarizes the policies in place by various California agencies to address pavement degradation caused by utility cuts.

November 21, 2024

IMPACT OF UTILITY CUTS
The impact of utility cuts on pavement performance can vary significantly based on siteand agency-specific information. Such variables can include the existing pavement condition, structure, and age; location, orientation, and extent of the utility cut; environmental factors; traffic loads; and restoration practices and standards.

Quantification of utility cut impacts further depend on local maintenance treatments and costs. Therefore, to really understand the impact of utility cuts on roadway performance for a particular agency, a site-specific study and analysis must be performed.

That said, underground utility work can damage pavements in three general ways as illustrated in Figure 1. First, the act of cutting a pavement structure creates an easyaccess point for water to enter the pavement structure and damage the underlying pavement layers. Second, the removal of the pavement layers creates a plane of weakness where the pavement structure may not be adequately supported laterally – particularly during underground utility maintenance, but also after restoration. Third, the quality of the repair may not match the adjacent pavement structure, thus introducing roughness into the pavement. Rough pavements can cause vehicles to bounce, which creates greater loads on the pavement and leads to more rapid deterioration (Tarakji 1995; Wilde et al. 2002).

Figure 1. Utility Cut Damage Mechanisms
These deterioration mechanisms reduce the condition and structural capacity of a pavement, which reduces the life of the pavement within and adjacent to the utility cut (Stevens et al. 2010). Multiple utility cuts on the same street or within a small area can magnify this impact (Department of Public Works 1998, Tarakji 1995).

Reduction in Pavement Life
In the mid-1990s, San Francisco completed a study on the effect of utility cuts on the life of pavement (Tarakji 1995) and confirmed that additional damage was caused. Other November 21, 2024

cities, including Austin, Cincinnati, Salt Lake City, Philadelphia, and Phoenix, conducted similar foundational studies and found that utility cuts not only reduced the expected life of the streets but consequently cost local agencies millions of dollars in premature street repair and remediation expenses (Arudi et al. 2000; Bodocsi et al. 1995; ERES 1990; NCE 2003; Peters 2002; Wilde et al. 1996).

For example, Bodocsi et al. (1995) reported that new asphalt pavements, which are typically designed to last between 15 and 20 years, once cut can lose as much as 8 years of pavement life. Other studies performed in Austin, Anaheim, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Phoenix estimated between 15 and 20 percent reductions in pavement life due to utility cuts (AMEC 2002; CHEC 1997; IMS 1994; Shahin and Associates 2017; Wilde et al. 1996). For a typical pavement design life of 20 years, this represents a loss of 3-4 years of pavement life.

Additional factors such as cold climates and multiple excavations can increase the impact of utility cuts. For example, utility cuts in areas subject to freeze-thaw conditions were estimated to reduce pavement life by 20 percent (AMEC 2002; Stevens et al. 2010).

Streets with multiple excavations for utility work were estimated to reduce a pavement’s life by 30 to 55 percent (Shahin and Associates 2017; Tarakji 1995; Tiewater 1997).

Statistical data reported by the Department of Public Works in San Francisco (1998) showed that the pavement condition rating decreases as the number of utility cuts increases. For example, the pavement condition index (PCI) for a newer pavement was reduced from 85 to 64 as the number of utility cuts increased to 10 or more.

Zone of Influence
As previously mentioned, a utility cut can result in a loss of lateral support to the existing pavement structure surrounding the perimeter of the trench. This can cause the trench sidewalls to bulge into the trench and weaken the material under the existing pavement.

This weakened area is termed the zone of influence, is illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Zone of Influence
November 21, 2024

Various studies have used deflection testing to investigate the loss of pavement strength near utility cuts, estimate the zone of influence, and provide recommendations on restoration (Bodosci et al 1995; Shahin 1999; CHEC 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000; NCE 2000, 2003). Such studies showed a substantial loss of strength in the zone of influence around the utility cut area (Stevens et al. 2010). For example, studies performed in Union City and Los Angeles showed that the deflection values within the zone of influence were 41- 74 percent higher than in uninfluenced pavement (CHEC 1998; Shahin and Associates 2017).

These studies also indicated that the zone of influence varies by agency and location but is most often 4 to 5 feet from the edge of the trench. Table 1 summarizes research estimating the zone of influence.

Table 1. Summary of Zone of Influence Research
Agency Investigator Publication
Year
Zone of Influence
from Trench Edge
(feet)
Alameda Co, CA CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2000 5.5 Calgary, Canada Karim et al. 2014 3.3
Cincinnati, OH Bodosci et al. 1995 3
Iowa
Department of
Transportation
Stevens et al. 2010 4
Los Angeles, CA Shahin and Associates 2017 2.5 to 10
(average of 5.2)
San Mateo Co,
CA CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1999 5
Seattle, WA Nichols Consulting Engineers 2000 At least 2 Springville, UT Guthrie et al. 2015 4
Union City CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1998 4 to 7
An extensive field and laboratory study by Iowa State University researchers concluded that the loss of lateral support in the zone of influence is a critical factor in the restoration of utility trenches (Jensen et al. 2005).

November 21, 2024

IMPORTANCE OF UTILITY CUT RESTORATION
As discussed previously, utility cuts can affect pavement performance in and adjacent to the cut area. The excavation equipment and process can also damage the pavement adjacent to the cut (Stevens et al. 2010). Simply backfilling the excavated area will not restore and match the strength and performance of the original material. Therefore, for long-term pavement performance within and adjacent to utility cuts, adequate repair and restoration is necessary.

It is difficult to restore cut pavement to a condition and performance level matching the surrounding pavement. When the repaired pavement condition varies from the existing pavement condition, the result can be a rough surface. Even if the pavement surface is smooth and consistent at the time of the repair, the materials may settle and deteriorate differentially over time. This leads to surface roughness, which then leads to more rapid deterioration (Noel and Tevlin 2012; PEI 1996; Stevens et al. 2010; Wilde et al. 1996).

Utility cut restoration involves performing a treatment, in addition to adequate filling and compaction of the excavated area, to restore the pavement life and maintain the pavement’s structural capacity and performance. Restoration often includes a T-Cut as well as another treatment, such as an overlay or surface seal, that extends beyond the length of the T-Cut arm. This restoration combination is illustrated in Figure 3.

T-Cuts involve cutting back a portion of the pavement surface beyond the edge of the trench to better protect the zone of influence and bridge the plane of weakness. Such repairs have been found advantageous in the restoration of utility cut trenches by alleviating the effects of the lateral support loss due to the excavation (Peters 2002; Stevens et al. 2010). Research has shown that the thickness of the restoration, the quality of materials used, and the placement and compaction methods of fill materials are key factors in ensuring strong pavement performance in future years (Jensen et al. 2005; Stevens et al. 2010 Todres and Baker 1996).

November 21, 2024

Figure 3. Example Restoration Plan.

Restoration Standards in California
Table 2 summarizes the restoration standards held by several city and county agencies throughout California. The specific restoration requirements vary depending on the length of the utility cut, existing PCI, functional classification, and age of the pavement.

Although the use of the T-Cut is widespread among these standards, the additional surface restoration requirements range from no additional treatment beyond the T-Cut to full lane replacements for the entire affected block. For example, the cities of Oakland and San Francisco require a full block restoration depending on the length of the utility cut. Other agencies require only 6 to 24 inches of restoration beyond the edge of the TCut. The most common restoration treatment in California is a mill and overlay to a minimum specified depth.

The final required restored pavement thickness also varies among agencies. These final thickness standards are included in Table 2 as the final asphalt thickness over the trench and provide insight into how standards vary throughout California. The typical requirement is for the new restored pavement to conform to the existing pavement thickness over the trench, but additional thickness is sometimes required.

November 21, 2024

Table 2. Summary of Restoration Standards in California Agencies Agency T-Cut
Required
T-Cut Arm
Width
(in.)
Surface Restoration
Requirement Beyond
T-Cut
Restoration
Treatment
Final Asphalt
Thickness Over
Trench (in.)
Alameda Co Yes 12 None NA Existing thickness
Anaheim Yes 12
For local streets with cut
length >651 ft, restore
all affected lanes for the
entire block
PCI ≥ 60: Slurry
Seal from gutter to
gutter
PCI<60: 2-in. Mill
and Overlay from
gutter to trench
limit
Existing thickness +

1.25 or
Match existing
thickness if ≥ 16 in.

Contra Costa
Co Yes 12 None NA Existing thickness + 1.25
Davis Yes 10
Restoration shall extend
10’ before first patch and
10’ beyond last patch and
be the full width of the
affected lanes
Slurry Seal Existing thickness
(min of 4)
Fremont
If Trench
Width
>24 in.
12 None NA
Existing thickness
(min of 6)
If no T-Cut, 12-15
Fresno Co Yes 6
Minimum of 12 in.
beyond the edge of the
T-Cut

1.25-in. Mill and
Overlay Existing thickness
Long Beach Yes 12 None NA Existing thickness
(min of 4)
Los Angeles Yes 12
If pavement age<8 Yrs,
restore 24 in. beyond the
edge of the T-Cut

1.5-in. Mill and
Overlay
(or half the existing
asphalt thickness,
whichever is less)
Existing thickness
(min of 6)
Los Angeles
Co Yes 12 None NA Existing thickness
(min of 4)
November 21, 2024

Table 2 Cont. Summary of Restoration Standards for California Agencies Agency T-Cut
Required
T-Cut Arm
Width
(in.)
Surface Restoration
Requirement Beyond
T-Cut
Restoration
Treatment
Final Asphalt
Thickness Over
Trench (in.)
Oakland Yes 12
If cut length >0.25*block
length, restore all
affected lanes for the
entire block
PCI >65: Slurry
Seal
PCI ≤ 65: Mill and
Overlay
Existing thickness
(min of 6)
Sacramento Yes 6 None NA Existing thickness
(min of 4)
Sacramento
Co Yes 8
If pavement age<5 Yrs,
restore a minimum of 12
in. beyond the edge of
the T-Cut

1.5-in. Mill and
Overlay
Existing thickness
(min of 6 on major
streets)
(min of 4 on minor
streets)
San
Francisco Yes 12
Minimum of 12 in.
beyond the edge of the
T-Cut
or
If cut length >0.25*block
length, restore all
affected lanes for the
entire block
2-in. Mill and
Overlay
Existing thickness
(min of 2)
San Diego
Co Yes
6-12
(Based on
Trench
Width)
6 in. beyond the edge of
the T-Cut

1.5-in. Mill and
Overlay
Existing thickness +1
(min of 4)
San Jose Yes 12 None NA Existing thickness +3
Santa Clara Yes 6 None NA Existing thickness (8-
10)
November 21, 2024

UTILITY CUT POLICIES
A detailed 2002 report prepared for the Federal Highway Administration provided methods that agencies can use to reduce and minimize the damage to streets due to the ever-increasing installation and maintenance activities of utility companies (Wilde et al. 2002). Specifically, the report presents three types of policies local agencies can use to improve the quality of utility cut repairs and promote coordination of facilities. These strategies are 1) incentive-based policies, 2) fee-based policies, and 3) regulation-based policies.

Incentive-based policies provide financial or other incentives for using trenchless technology where technically suitable, performing higher-quality pavement cut repairs, making smaller or less-damaging cuts, and coordinating with other utility companies to share trenches or underground resources.

Examples of fee-based policies include requiring a deposit prior to beginning work to protect against poor repairs, assessing financial penalties for non-compliance with restoration standards or for failed repairs within a specified period, implementing a timebased lane rental fee to encourage utility companies to restore traffic access as quickly as possible, and collecting flat-rate or area-based fees to compensate for increased degradation associated with cutting and excavating pavement.

Regulation-based policies do not require fees or provide incentives, but place requirements on the contractor regarding quality of work, and/or restrictions on when and where trenching can be done. Examples include establishing moratorium periods that restrict utility cuts in newly resurfaced pavements for a specified time, requiring pavement restorations to encompass an area larger than the trench area, enhancing inspections, and enforcing restoration specifications.

Utility Cut Fees in California
Fee-based policies have been growing in popularity throughout California as way for local agencies to recoup the cost of pavement damage associated with poor performing underground utility work. Table 3 summarizes several utility-cut fee schedules for various agencies throughout California. These fees are based on factors including functional classification, pavement age, PCI, and/or utility cut depth and orientation (longitudinal or transverse). The fees, in dollars per area, are multiplied by the utility cut area to obtain a dollar value that represents the damage done to the pavement. In contrast to having a utility cut fee by area, the city of Santa Barbara has utility cut fee by linear foot. This fee is multiplied by the length of linear feet cut rather than the affected area to obtain a dollar value.

November 21, 2024

Table 3. Summary of Utility Cut Fees for California Agencies Agency Year Criteria Fee ($/SF)
Anaheim* 1994 Age < 1 Year 16.48
Elk Grove 2020
Trench Depth < 4 ft
Major Streets or All Streets
within 5 years of construction
or structural overlay
PCI 100 and 70 3.90 (long.)

7.80 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26 2.20 (long.)

4.40 (trans.)
PCI 25 and 0 -
All Other
PCI 100 and 70 2.41 (long.)

4.82 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26 1.18 (long.)

2.36 (trans.)
PCI 25 and 0 -
Trench Depth
> 4 ft
Major Streets or All Streets
within 5 years of construction
or structural overlay
PCI 100 and 70

5.91 (long.)

11.82 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26 3.34 (long.)

6.68 (trans)
PCI 25 and 0 -
All Other
PCI 100 and 70 3.66 (long.)

7.32 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26 1.80 (long.)

3.60 (trans.)
PCI 25 and 0 -
Los
Angeles 2018
Select Streets 19.44
Local Streets 8.24
Modesto 2020 All Streets
PCI 70-100 2.5
PCI 26-69 1.25
PCI 0-25 -
Patterson 2020 All Streets
PCI 70-100 7.3
PCI 50-69 5.25
PCI 0-49 -
*Standard is currently under revision. Fee update anticipated in 2021.

November 21, 2024

Table 3 Cont. Summary of Utility Cut Fees for California Agencies Agency Year Criteria Fee ($/SF)
Sacramento* 1997
Longitudinal Cut
Age <5 3.50
Age 5 to 10 3.00
Age 10 to 15 2.00
Age Over 15 1.00
Transverse Cut
Age <5 7.00
Age 5 to 10 6.00
Age 10 to 15 4.00
Age Over 15 2.00
Sacramento
Co 1999
Trench Depth < 4 ft
Major Streets or All Streets
within 5 years of construction
or structural overlay
PCI 100 and 70 3.90 (long.)

7.80 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26 2.20 (long.)

4.4 (trans.)
PCI 25 and 0 -
All Other
PCI 100 and 70 2.41 (long.)

4.82 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26 1.18 (long.)

2.36 (trans.)
PCI 25 and 0 -
Trench Depth
> 4 ft
Major Streets or All Streets
within 5 years of construction
or structural overlay.

PCI 100 and 70

5.91 (long.)

11.82 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26 3.34 (long.)

6.68 (trans)
PCI 25 and 0 -
All Other
PCI 100 and 70 3.66 (long.)

7.32 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26 1.80 (long.)

3.60 (trans.)
PCI 25 and 0 -
City and
County of
San
Francisco
1998 All streets
Age 0-5 3.50
Age 6-10 3.00
Age 11-15 2.00
Age 16-20 1.00
*Standard is currently under revision. Fee update anticipated in 2021.

November 21, 2024

Table 3 Cont. Summary of Utility Cut Fees for California Agencies Agency Year Criteria Fee ($/SF)
Santa Ana 1999
Arterials Streets
Age of street since last repaving
Age 0-5 Years 13.68
Age 6-10 Years 12.11
Age 11-15 Years 11.39
Age 16-20 Years 9.11
Local Streets
Age of street since last repaving
Age 0-5 Years 9.27
Age 6-10 Years 8.24
Age 11-15 Years 7.74
Age 16-20 Years 6.98
Age 21-25 Years 6.21
Santa
Barbara Co Flat fee $0.75 per LF
Santa Cruz 2003
Trench Depth < 4 ft
Major Streets or All Streets
within 5 years of Construction
or Structural overlay
PCI 100 and 70 3.9 (long.)

7.8 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26 2.2 (long.)

4.4 (trans.)
PCI 25 and 0 -
All Other Streets
PCI 100 and 70 2.41 (long.)

4.82 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26 1.18 (long.)

2.36 (trans.)
PCI 25 and 0 -
Trench Depth
> 4 ft
Major Streets or All Streets
within 5 years of construction
or structural overlay.

PCI 100 and 70

5.91 (long.)

11.82 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26 3.34 (long.)

6.68 (trans)
PCI 25 and 0 -
All Other Streets
PCI 100 and 70 3.66 (long.)

7.32 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26

1.80 (long.)

3.60 (trans.)
PCI 25 and 0 -
Union City 1998 Flat fee 17.3
Some agencies allow fee exemptions if the utility work is performed on older pavement or if the work is performed before an upcoming rehabilitation. For example, the City and County of San Francisco waive the fee for utility work performed on pavements with PCIs less than 53 or a pavement age of at least 20 years. The City of Los Angeles does not require utility cut fees on pavements with rehabilitation scheduled within the next year.

November 21, 2024

Moratorium Standards in California
Regulation-based policies, particularly moratoria, have been passed by cities and counties to protect public infrastructure and preserve the life of streets (Wilde et al. 2002).

Moratoria impose a time period after treatment during which utility or other companies may not perform trenching activities. Table 4 summarizes several California agencies with slurry and rehabilitation moratorium standards. If for some reason utility work during a moratorium period is deemed necessary, agencies often impose higher restoration standards and limits than those required after the moratorium period has expired.

For example, Los Angeles County only requires a surface restoration of 24 inches beyond the edge of the T-Cut for non-moratorium streets but requires that the whole block be repaved for moratorium streets. Such strict moratorium restoration standards encourage utility companies to perform underground utility maintenance prior to pavement rehabilitation or reconstruction and discourages utility work in new pavement structures.

November 21, 2024

Table 4. Summary of Moratorium Standards for California Agencies Agency
Slurry
Moratorium
(years)
Rehabilitation
Moratorium
(years)
Restoration Details if Moratorium Work
Approved
Anaheim 1 3
Extensive pavement restoration according to
the utility cut standard
Limits shall be determined by the City Engineer
Commerce 2 5
Pavement restoration shall be a length of not
less than 50 ft either side of the trench edge
lines, either perpendicular or parallel to the
curb line
Encinitas 3 5
Resurface at least the length of excavation
from curb to curb or from curb line to the
raised median
Longitudinal trenches – Extend T-Cut, grind and
overlay over the entire affected lane or lanes
(from curb to curb or from curb to median
curb)
Transverse trenches - Extend T-Cut, grind and
overlay to 10 feet beyond each side of the
trench and over the entire affected lane
Los Angeles None 1 Repave the whole block
Los Angeles Co 2 2 Resurface the entire lane width
Oakland 5 5
Pavement restoration shall match or exceed
the most recent resurfacing pavement section
depth and material or as directed by the
Engineer
Sacramento Co 3 3
Slurry seal half of the roadway at locations
affected by the excavation for a minimum total
length of 1,000 feet
San Diego 3 5
Resurface the entire lane width from street
intersection to intersection and from curb to
curb
San Diego Co 3 3
Resurface the entire width of the affected road
and the method of resurfacing shall be the
same as adjacent pavement
San Francisco 5 5 Resurface all affected lanes for entire width of affected property frontages
November 21, 2024

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Interest in studying and quantifying the impact of utility cuts on road and street performance has increased over the last 30 years. Consequently, public agencies, as well as utility companies, have sponsored engineering investigations and studies to quantify the impact of utility cuts on pavement performance and estimate the corresponding financial impacts.

Research has shown that utility cuts can reduce pavement life by 15 to 55 percent, which consequently costs local agencies millions of dollars in premature street repair and remediation expenses. Studies have also shown that underground utility work affects not only the excavated area, but often weakens the adjacent pavement. The affected pavement varies based on agency and location but is typically 4 to 5 feet from the edge of the trench.

To help restore some of the lost structural capacity and performance due to cutting the pavement, many agencies have set restoration standards. Restoration standards in California typically include a T-Cut along with a restoration treatment that may be as extensive as replacing the full lane for the entire affected block.

To recover the cost of pavement damage associated with performing underground utility work, many agencies impose utility cut fees. In California, these fees are typically based on factors including functional classification, pavement age, PCI, and/or utility cut depth and orientation (longitudinal or transverse).

As evidenced by the variety of studies, standards, policies, and fees, the impact of utility cuts on roadway performance can vary significantly based on site-and agency-specific information. Therefore, to really understand and quantify the impact of utility cuts on roadway performance for a particular agency, a site-specific study and analysis must be performed. In addition, utility cut fees should be updated regularly to reflect accurate and current damage costs.

November 21, 2024

REFERENCES
AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. 2002. Evaluation of Pavement Cut Impacts. League of Arizona Cities and Towns, and Association of Public-Private Utility Service Providers.

Arudi, R., Pickering, B., and Flading, J. 2000. Planning and Implementing a Management System for Street Pavements with Utility Cuts. Cincinnati Infrastructure Institute, University of Cincinnati.

Bodocsi, A., Pant, P.D., Aktan, A.E., and Arudi, R.S. 1995. Impact of Utility Cuts on Performance of Street Pavements. The Cincinnati Infrastructure Institute, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Cincinnati.

CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1997. Utility Cut Damage Assessment for the City of Sacramento. City of Sacramento Department of Public Works.

CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1998. Trench Cut Fee Evaluation Study for the City of Union City. City of Union City, Department of Public Works CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1999. Trench Cut Evaluation Study for San Mateo County. San Mateo County.

CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2000. Alameda County Trench Cut Study Final Report.

Alameda County.

Department of Public Works. 1998. The Impact of Excavation on San Francisco Streets.

Department of Public Works, City and County of San Francisco and Blue-Ribbon Panel on Pavement Damage.

ERES International, Inc. 1990. The Effect of Utility Cut Patching on Pavement Performance in Phoenix, AZ.

Guthrie, W.S, Jackson, K.D., and Montgomery, S.R., and Eggett, D.L. 2015. Quantifying the Effect of Utility Cuts on the Remaining Service Life of Flexible Pavements in Northern Utah. City of Springville and Brigham Young University.

Infrastructure Management Systems (IMS), Inc. 1994. Estimated Pavement Cut Surcharge for the City of Anaheim California, Arterial Highway and Local Streets.

Jensen, K. A., Schaefer, V. R., Suleiman, M. T., White, D. J. 2005. Characterization of Utility Cut Pavement Settlement and Repair Techniques. Proceedings of the 2005 MidContinent Transportation Research Symposium, Ames, Iowa.

Karim, M., Rizvi, R., Henderson, V., Uzarowski, L., and Chyc-Cies, J. 2014. Effect ofUtility Cuts on Serviceability of Pavement Assets – A Case Study from the City of Calgary. City of Calgary and Golder Associates.

Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd. 2000. Impact of Utility Cuts on Performance of Seattle Streets. City of Seattle.

November 21, 2024

Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd. 2003. Utility Trench Cut Study Final Report. City of Philadelphia Department of Streets.

Noel, E. and Tevlin, A. 2012. Street Preservation Ordinance and Damage Fee. City of San Diego Office of the Independent Budget Analyst.

Pavement Engineering Inc, (PEI). 1996. Utility Cut Impact Study for City of Oxnard.

Peters, T. 2002. City Combats Damage to City Streets Caused by Utility Cuts. Public Works Journal Corporation 133 (4).

Shahin, M.Y. 1999. Report Analyzing Proposed Trench Cut Fee Ordinance. Department of Public Works, Santa Ana.

Shahin and Associates. 2017. Street Damage Restoration Fee Study. City of Los Angeles, Department of General Services, Bureau of Street Services.

Stevens, L., Suleiman, M.T., Schafer, B.R., Ceylan, H., and Videkovich, K.A. 2010.

Investigation of Improved Utility Cut Repair Techniques to Reduce Settlement in Repaired Areas, Phase II. Iowa Department of Transportation and Transportation Research Board.

Tarakji, G. 1995. The Effects of Utility Cuts on the Service Life of Pavements in San Francisco. Volume I, Department of Public Works, San Francisco State University.

Tiewater, P. 1997. “How to Reduce Utility Trenching Costs.” Better Roads. April 1997, pp 18–20.

Todres, H.A. and Baker, P.E., 1996. Utilities Conduct Research in Pavement Restoration.

APWA Reporter, 63(10).

Wilde, W.J., R. O. Rasmussen, and R. Harrison. 1996. City of Austin Guide for a Comparative Cost Assessment of Utility Work Alternatives. Austin, TX.

Wilde, W.J., Grant, C.A., and Nelson, P.K. 2002. Manual for Controlling and Reducing the Frequency of Pavement Utility Cuts. FHWA Report No. FHWA-RD-02-%%% November 21, 2024

Table R.1 References
Agency Reference Date
Accessed
Alameda Co
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57573edf37013b15f0435124/t/5b2 434326d2a734942eb80b7/1529099326535/Design+Guidelines+SD2018Jun06.pdf3/10/2021 Anaheim https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/22954/132 3/10/2021 Contra Costa
Co
https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/29792/CU01- PDF?bidId= 3/10/2021
Davis https://www.cityofdavis.org/home/showpublisheddocument?id=8217 3/10/2021 Fremont https://www.fremont.gov/DocumentCenter/View/307/sd28_LongitudinalTrenchTransverseTrench?bidId= 3/10/2021 Fresno Co
(Page 293)
http://www.fresnofloodcontrol.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/StdSpecifications-April-1-2011-approved-amended-1-1-12.pdf 3/10/2021 Long Beach
http://longbeach.gov/globalassets/pw/medialibrary/documents/resources/engineering/standard-plans/100-generalroadwork/section-127---trench-requirements-in-street-right-of-way--as-of11-13-17- 3/10/2021
Los Angeles https://eng2.lacity.org/techdocs/stdplans/s-400/S-477-2_B4778_%20_.pdf 3/10/2021 Los Angeles
Co
(Page 129)
https://pw.lacounty.gov/des/design_manuals/StandardPlan.pdf 3/10/2021 Oakland http://www2.oaklandnet.com/government/o/PWA/o/EC/s/DGP/index.htm 3/10/2021 (See City of Oakland Guidelines and Standards: Street Excavation Rules) Sacramento
(Page 42)
https://www.cityofsacramento.org/~/media/Corporate/Files/DOU/SpecsDrawings/Addendum%202_Final_042412.pdf 3/10/2021 Sacramento
Co
(Page 17)
https://saccountyspecs.saccounty.net/Documents/PDF%20Documents%20 2008/Drawings/Drawings.pdf 3/10/2021
San Francisco
(Page 27) https://sfpublicworks.org/sites/default/files/PW-Order-187005-Signed.pdf 3/10/2021 San Diego Co
(Page 38)
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/sdcfa/documents/pre vention/design-standards.pdf 3/10/2021
San Jose
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showdocument?id=37037
3/10/2021
(Cross Section data from personal correspondence with Lorina Popescu, City of San Jose)
Santa Clara
(Page 31) https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=70118 3/10/2021 November 21, 2024

Table R.2 References
Agency Reference Date
Accessed
Oakland https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Master-Fee-ScheduleCombined-FY-19-20-MFS_Final.pdf 3/11/2021 San Diego https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/cip/pdf/2015-05- 01_memo.pdf 3/11/2021
Anaheim
Infrastructure Management Systems (IMS), Inc. 1994. Estimated Pavement Cut Surcharge for the City of Anaheim California, Arterial Highway and Local Streets.
-
Elk Grove https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/ElkGrove/html/ElkGrove12/ElkGrove 1209.html 3/11/2021
Los Angeles https://eng2.lacity.org/StdFeeList/StdFeeList.pdf 3/11/2021 Modesto https://www.modestogov.com/DocumentCenter/View/4817/Development -Fee-Schedule---Engineering_Encroachment 3/11/2021
Patterson https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruzCounty/html/SantaCruzCo unty09/SantaCruzCounty0980.html 3/11/2021
Sacramento
Co
http://qcode.us/codes/sacramentocounty/view.php?topic=12-12_09- 12_09_030&frames=on 3/11/2021
City and
County of San
Francisco
https://www.sfpublicworks.org/sites/default/files/Excavation_Code.pdf 3/11/2021 Santa Ana https://www.cacities.org/uploadedfiles/leagueinternet/19/192268aa-511f4046-99c7-b14dae47cc11.pdf 3/11/2021 Santa Barbara https://countyofsb.org/pwd/asset.c/224 3/11/2021 Santa Cruz
http://sccounty01.co.santacruz.ca.us/BDS/Govstream2/Bdsvdata/non_legacy_2.0/agendas/2003/200 30401-211/PDF/035.pdf
3/11/2021
Union City CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1998. Trench Cut Fee Evaluation Study for the City of Union City. City of Union City, Department of Public Works - November 21, 2024

Table R.3 References
Agency Reference Date
Accessed
Anaheim https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/22954/132 3/11/2021 Commerce Personal correspondence with Daniel Hernandez, City of Commerce 3/11/2021 Encinitas https://www.biasandiego.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Attachment2-Resolution-Exhibit-A_clean.pdf 3/11/2021 Los Angeles https://eng2.lacity.org/techdocs/permits/7_3.pdf 3/11/2021 Los Angeles
Co
https://pw.lacounty.gov/general/faq/index.cfm?Action=getAnswers&FaqI D=JCMtOzVTUCAgCg%3D%3D&Theme=default&ShowTemplate=#:~:text=T he%20County%20has%20a%20two,date%20of%20the%20resurfacing%20p roject.
3/11/2021
Oakland https://library.municode.com/ca/oakland/codes/code_of_ordinances?nod eId=TIT12STSIPUPL_CH12.12EX 3/11/2021
Sacramento
Co https://sacdot.saccounty.net/Pages/Trenchingandroadcutmoratorium.aspx 3/11/2021 San Diego https://www.biasandiego.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Attachment1-San-Diego-County-and-City-Trenching-Moratorium-Information.pdf 3/11/2021 San Diego Co https://www.biasandiego.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Attachment1-San-Diego-County-and-City-Trenching-Moratorium-Information.pdf 3/11/2021 San Francisco https://www.sfpublicworks.org/sites/default/files/Moratorium%20Streets. pdf 3/11/2021

Appendix B
Pavement Restoration Standard Details