Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
15 chapter three CASE EXAMPLE SELECTION SURVEY RESULTS INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the process followed to conduct a pre- selection survey to identify potential agencies with whom to conduct the phone interviews. The preselection survey also provided an opportunity to extract information about gen- eral trends that could be generalized to other transit agencies around the country. METHODOLOGY AND SURVEY INSTRUMENT To achieve the TCRP goal of 80% to 100% return rate, a two- tier approach was followed, in which an initial preselection survey was distributed to transit agencies nationwide, and based on the results of the initial survey, a targeted round of phone interviews was conducted with selected transit agen- cies. The agencies identified for the phone interviews pro- vided the basis for measuring the return rate. As described in chapter four in more detail, ten transit agencies were selected based on the results of the preselection survey and invited to participate in phone interviews, yielding case examples. Of this total, eight agencies responded, and phone interviews were scheduled with each one of them; thus, there was a response rate of 80%. Appendix A shows the instrument used for the pre- selection survey. The questionnaire included nine questions designed to identify potential agencies with whom to con- duct the detailed phone interviews for case examples. How- ever, the questions also provided an opportunity to extract information about trends that could be generalized to other transit agencies around the country. The preselection survey covered the following five topics: ⢠Phases of transit project development, including how different stakeholders interact with the agency, at what point transit agencies engage utilities, and differences in coordination practices between city-owned utilities, franchised utilities (i.e., privately owned utilities oper- ating under a franchise agreement with a local public agency,) and other entities; ⢠Data collection processes, including responsible party for collecting data, protocols and procedures, effective practices, and challenges; ⢠Identification and resolution of utility conflicts; ⢠Utility ownership and operation (public or private) and interagency coordination, including differences between city-owned utilities, franchised utilities, and other enti- ties; and ⢠Staff professional capacity, with a focus on available training programs for agency staff. The survey did not cover prequalifications for consultants (which was out- side the scope of the synthesis). The preselection survey implementation relied on a web- site application that TRB frequently uses to conduct online surveys. APTA agreed to disseminate the preselection survey hyperlink to its member agencies. In total, APTA sent the invi- tation e-mail to 301 transit agencies in the United States and Canada, one e-mail per agency, and then a reminder e-mail a week later. APTA sent the e-mails to the main contact at the transit agency, typically the director or general manager. The invitation e-mail included a request to forward the e-mail to officials who worked on capital improvement programs, design, and construction, and in general, officials who dealt with issues such as utility coordination and utility conflict analysis and management during project development and delivery. APTA did not agree to disclose its list of member agencies (therefore it was not possible to confirm with certainty what agencies were sent the invitation e-mail) but did indicate that APTA member agencies provide more than 90% of all tran- sit trips in the United States. APTA also indicated that the 40 largest agencies (by ridership) in the United States and the ten largest transit agencies in Canada are APTA members. From the literature review in chapter two, it is reasonable to assume that the preselection survey was sent to most if not all of the 96 transit agencies that operate rail mode systems, as well as many bus-based systems in the United States, there- fore covering the population of interest to this synthesis. LESSONS LEARNED Phases of Transit Project Development and Delivery, Operations, and/or Maintenance Seventeen representatives of transit agencies in 12 states com- pleted the preselection survey. Table 3 shows the participation of preselection survey respondents in various transit-related activities. Survey participants were engaged primarily in transit project development activities, rather than transit operations or maintenance activities. Most of the participants were directly involved in utility coordination and relocation
16 activities. However, respondents were also involved in other project development phases. Respondents typically worked at offices with names such as engineering and construction, capital projects, or capital programs. Overall Impact of Major Utility-Related Issues at the Agency Participants were asked to rate the level of impact of indi- vidual utility-related issues at their agencies on a numerical scale from 1 to 5 (with 5 being the greatest negative impact). Table 4 summarizes the results. In the table, each entry under each of the numbered columns indicates the number of responses associated with that particular impact level. For example, nine respondents indicated that not identifying util- ity conflicts during design had an impact level of 5 at their agency (i.e., the negative impact level was the highest). Like- wise, only one respondent indicated that not identifying util- ity conflicts during design had an impact level of 2. The results in Table 4 indicate that utility issues have a higher impact during design and construction than during ear- lier project development phases. Changes to utility relocation plans resulting from late project design changes were also identified as having a significant impact. These observations appear to confirm the validity of strategies that encourage the identification and management of utility conflicts earlier in the process. Agencies indicated that impact because of the difficulty getting utility owners to participate in discussions is more significant during design and construction than earlier in the process. Agencies also indicated that conducting utility coor- dination activities with franchised utilities and other utility operators is slightly more problematic than with municipality- owned utilities. Agencies indicated that inadequate utility relocation cost estimates were a problem, in particular owing to the lack of identification of utility conflicts and not updating cost estimates regularly during project development. Overall, agencies did not consider that issues related to hiring, retaining, and training personnel with experience on utility coordination matters were particularly critical. In par- ticular, staff turnover was not reported as a significant issue. Data Collection Techniques Participants were asked to provide an indication of the fre- quency of use of specific utility data collection techniques at their agencies. Table 5 summarizes the results. Agencies indicated that they routinely use One Call system marks on the ground. During the phone interviews, selected agencies confirmed that they use the One Call system pri- marily as a damage prevention tool before excavation. Using One Call design tickets as a data collection tool during project development is performed by some agencies but is not a com- monly accepted practice. Agencies indicated that they frequently use EM pipe and cable locators but only rarely GPR locators. During the phone interviews, agencies indicated that the use of EM pipe and cable locators takes place both in connection with One Call damage prevention tickets and by utility location service sub- contractors during the preliminary design and design phases. For the most part, utility data collection during project devel- opment involves a review of existing records, survey of vis- ible appurtenances, and test holes. Agencies indicated that they rarely conduct QLB or QLA utility investigations. They also rarely use electromagnetic induction or GPR arrays. Use of Three-Dimensional Technologies Participants were asked to provide examples of projects or ini- tiatives that have involved the use of three-dimensional (3D) TABLE 3 PARTICIPATION IN TRANSIT PROJECT ACTIVITIES Phase Count Planning, feasibility studies, and programming 15 Preliminary/conceptual design 17 Environmental process 14 Right-of-way acquisition 15 Utility coordination and relocation 15 Design 17 Letting/invitation for bid 11 Construction 17 Bus or paratransit operations or maintenance 8 Light rail or streetcar operations or maintenance 4 Metro rail operations or maintenance 3 Commuter rail operations or maintenance 1 Communications and other intelligent transportation system (ITS) operations or maintenance 4 Other 3 Source: Preselection survey results.
17 TABLE 4 IMPACTS DUE TO UTILITY-RELATED ISSUES Issue No. of Responses for Each Impact Level 5 4 3 2 1 Not identifying utility conflicts during: Planning, feasibility studies, and programming 2 2 7 5 1 Preliminary/conceptual design 2 6 8 1 0 Environmental process 1 8 5 3 0 Design 9 6 1 1 0 Letting and construction 13 1 1 2 0 Inadequate utility relocation cost estimates due to: Failure to identify and characterize utility conflicts 5 5 5 1 1 Not updating utility relocation estimates at regular intervals during the project development process 2 8 4 2 1 Inadequate identification of utility cost reimbursement eligibility 2 4 7 2 2 Changes to utility relocation plans due to late project design changes 5 4 3 5 0 Difficulty hiring and retaining staff with adequate utility coordination experience 2 2 3 5 4 Difficulty providing training opportunities in utility issues 0 3 5 6 3 Utility staff turnover 0 2 4 5 6 Difficulty getting utility owners to participate in discussions during: Planning, feasibility studies, and programming 1 2 6 8 0 Preliminary/conceptual design 2 1 8 6 0 Environmental process 1 2 6 6 2 Design 4 3 4 6 0 Letting and construction 4 4 2 4 3 Difficulty conducting utility coordination activities with: Municipality-owned utilities 2 4 3 3 5 Franchised utilities 2 4 7 4 0 Other utility operators 2 2 10 2 1 Difficulty identifying and resolving utility issues for: Design-bid-build projects 3 2 6 4 2 Design-build projects 3 2 5 4 2 Lump sum projects 2 3 6 2 2 Other project delivery methods 2 1 8 2 2 Source: Preselection survey results. Note: 5 = most impact; 1 = least impact. Shaded cell = greatest number of responses. TABLE 5 FREQUENCY OF USE OF UTILITY DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES Technique and Practice Frequency of Use Always Frequently Rarely Never One Call system marks on the ground 14 3 0 0 EM pipe and cable locators 1 12 1 2 GPR locators 0 4 11 1 EMI arrays 0 2 7 7 GPR arrays 0 1 7 7 Existing records 14 2 1 0 Survey of visible utility appurtenances 15 2 0 0 Test holes 4 8 5 0 Use of geophysical techniques and certified deliverables at QLB (according to ASCE 38-02) 1 2 6 3 Exposing existing underground facilities and certified deliverables at QLA (according to ASCE 38-02) 0 4 7 2 Source: Preselection survey results. Shaded cell = greatest number of responses.
18 technologies, such as digital terrain models, surface models, 3D models, light detection and ranging (lidar) point clouds, building information modeling, or 3D animations, to support the transit project development and delivery process. For the most part, participants indicated that their agencies did not use 3D technologies. In some isolated instances, respondents pro- vided examples in which their agencies had begun to use 3D technologies, mainly for public outreach during the prelimi- nary design phase. In one case, the agency reported the use of 3D models to identify conflicts with water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater systems. In another case, an agency reported using lidar to survey their track and right-of-way. Innovative Strategies to Improve or Streamline Utility Coordination Activities Participants were asked to provide examples of strategies or innovative approaches that their agencies have implemented or plan to implement to improve or streamline utility coordi- nation activities. Examples of strategies mentioned include the following: ⢠Continued coordination and communication with util- ity companies. ⢠Start coordination with utilities early during the pre- liminary design phase. ⢠Meet with utilities and other stakeholders at regional utility coordination meetings. ⢠Host weekly utility coordination meetings in advance of contractor construction meetings for projects for which extensive utility relocations have the potential to cause additional impacts. ⢠Attend citywide project coordination meetings to help with coordination of city projects. ⢠Emphasize attention to detail, perseverance, and a focus on developing relationships. ⢠Hire experienced staff who can keep projects on track. In one case an agency hired an official who had many years of experience working for an electric utility. His knowledge of the industry and his professional relation- ships with utility providers and city officials were critical. ⢠Prepare composite utility drawings and share data and CAD files with stakeholders. ⢠Set and monitor utility and project schedules. ⢠Develop work orders for each utility company separately. ⢠Use tracking spreadsheets to monitor individual utility conflicts. ⢠Use cooperation agreements for partial reimbursement of utility relocations. ⢠Hire in-house designers to help utility companies keep up with aggressive project schedules. Designers are paid by the project and could work either at the transit agency or at the utility company office. ⢠Implement utility action plans for each individual utility company. Concurrence letters formalize decisions with local jurisdictions. ⢠Anticipate that utilities may have long lead times for design and scheduling of work. Training and Professional Development Participants were asked to provide examples of training and professional development activities at their agencies on util- ity topics. For the most part, respondents indicated a com- plete lack of formal training opportunities. In some instances, respondents indicated that training is provided on the job or through mentoring from senior staff to junior staff. In other situations, officials might be encouraged to attend workshops or damage-prevention conferences. Availability of Relevant Policies, Manuals, Specifications, and Other Documents Participants were asked to provide names and hyperlinks (if possible) of relevant policies, manuals, specifications, and other documents that describe utility accommodation and coor- dination practices and requirements at their agencies. In most cases, respondents ignored the question or indicated that such documents did not exist or were not available. In a couple of instances, respondents indicated that policy and specification documents might be provided upon submission of a public disclosure request. In general, these responses appear to point to a need for the development and/or dissemination of documents that explain policies and requirements, as well as provide additional infor- mation, such as through manuals and specifications.
