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.
41 C h a p t e r 6 recommendations 1. Management of the 3-D utility solution should occur at the state level. It is recommended that the system described in this report be managed at a state level. State DOTs have the greatest opportunity to ensure effective implementa- tion and make the program a success. Adopting, adapt- ing, and using this 3-D model in more than one state can provide opportunities for data stored in the system to be exchanged transparently across multiple DOTs when projects span state boundaries. 2. Traditional work processes will need to be reengineered to create and maintain a new 3-D utility system. Many of the processes described in this document are not new to DOTs. However, having an organization that monitors the changes of a project area, receives data for updating the 3-D utility system, and manages access for other agencies is, in some respects, new. If the DOT becomes the agency responsible for operating and maintaining the 3-D utility system, the DOT would authorize access to the system, assign user accounts, and set up the proper roles for access to the data for the different types of users who would use this information. These steps will require more interaction with other organizations, and those interactions in all probability will require some level of reengineering. It also makes sense to consider changes to the permitting process that include requirements for the permittee to provide as-built data (x, y, z coordinates) using specific data compatible with the repository and to consider guidelines for how the data are transferred. 3. Establish DOT boundaries defining the right-of-way for all highways managed by a state DOT. It is recommended that all permit requests be compared geospatially with the public highway right-of-way. If a permit application is found to coincide with any part of the DOT right-of-way, then the permit should be registered in the 3-D utility storage system. 4. The process by which as-built drawings are produced should be reconsidered. It is recommended that transportation agencies consider changing the practice of as-built report- ing processes that are developed by marking changes on design plans. It is recommended that as-built reporting be established by active measurement and sampling processes that document actual as-built utility locations. The prac- tice of marking up design drawing exceptions (i.e., excep- tion reporting) as a means for creating as-built drawings can easily overlook changes to a design. Exception report- ing does not validate conformance to engineering design. 5. The permit application process needs effective controls and procedures to ensure that proposed utility designs and as-built drawings are delivered to the 3-D storage system. It is recom- mended that permit controls and automated data-sharing processes be instituted to ensure that utility relocation is understood during design, construction, and post- construction by the state DOTs. One-Call notices and their associated white line features should be integrated with the permit process in the 3-D storage system as a check and status reminder for document submittals. 6. Systems that handle permit issuance outside of state DOT control should be built to share data with the state DOT systems. For states in which the DOT does not have uni- versal authority over all highway ROW utility installa- tions, it is recommended that the different permitting organizations integrate their permit processes so that, at a minimum, copies of the permits issued by other enti- ties share utility changes inside of the highway right-of- way with the DOT. The recommendation is made to provide a continuing record of utility installations for future use by all transportation organizations. 7. Excavations within broad area permits need to be docu- mented. It is recommended that in states with DOTs that issue permits for broad geographic areas of allowed pavement opening, the permittee be required to record and (electronically) submit to the DOT changes at each Conclusions and Recommendations
42 excavation location. These changes should include the surface boundary polygon, the reason for the excavation, and the utilities affected. The excavation boundary should be accompanied by drawings showing both the proposed utility design and the final as-built conditions. 8. Additional research and development should be undertaken to improve the collection of as-built utility features for the 3-D storage system. Utility companies across the country all have different motivations for expending resources to improve records defining their delivery systems for both underground and aboveground installations. The work that is performed to collect this information is often based on documenting changes from the design drawings (excep- tion reporting) rather than on an actual as-built survey. Improved systems that eliminate exception reporting to create an accurate record of the actual as-built utility are recommended. More research and development work is recommended to understand the barriers to improving utility location information and to improve and create more cost-effective methods of capturing ASCE 38 quality level A, as-built information. The research should focus on both field data collection and back-office processing of as- built information, with cost as a key business driver. 9. The use of RFID markers should be considered for all new utility installations in the DOT right-of-way. It is recom- mended that all operators that install new utilities or expose existing utilities use RFID markers to preserve the location of those utilities without the need for reexcava- tion. The choice of the specific types of RFID markers should be left to the DOT and utilities, but the require- ments to install should be specified at the issuance of the permit. It is also recommended that the DOT map each RFID marker to maintain a record of its existence and provide a simple means of locating the utility system in the DOT right-of-way in the future. It is recommended that the DOT do this work and map the markers in the 3-D storage system. 10. Systems for accessing 3-D utility storage system informa- tion must be integrated into both the permitting operations and utility planning and engineering departments. The 3-D utility storage system should be accessible to the per- mitting organizations and to engineering and construc- tion organizations to support all future work in the DOT ROW. The DOT will need to define the process and parameters for data sharing. Additional software appli- cations should be developed to easily define permit boundaries and excavation areas in the case of a general- ized permit. Access to the data in the 3-D utility storage system by engineering and construction organizations will enable the use of this information in the develop- ment of new designs and the development of a detailed understanding of the utility systems for construction planning operations. The system will have little value if it is not integrated in the workflow of these organizations. Conclusions The proof-of-concept demonstration project showed that the 3-D Utility Data Model and repository can be used with avail- able technologies (e.g., Bentley, in the case of the pilot) to ini- tially load, use, update, and store 3-D utility location information on highway right-of-way projects. Other software vendor prod- ucts can be used in place of the Bentley products that were demonstratedâalthough not without some integration effort. Compatibility between software platforms can be an issue for 3-D data exchange, as several different standards are in use. The success or failure of this research effort and recom- mendations is predicated on identifying and tracking change in both the field and the back-office systems. The technology recommended in this research is available or will be available to all DOTs in a variety of vendor products and system con- figurations. A potential impact that has not been discussed at length, but remains central to successful implementation, is acceptance of change. If the DOT builds a system as discussed in this report, will it be used? Several questions and concerns will need to be addressed, including the following: ⢠Will the parties responsible for new projects have confi- dence in the data that are in the new system, use the data without question, and not inventory the entire project area to understand the utility systems? ⢠Will the implementation of the system have enough con- trols to ensure that the representation of the utility systems can be taken at face value and the planning and design can proceed? ⢠Will the change processes recommended be implemented in a form that will build compliance with and confidence in the system? Adopting the recommended technology and processes developed from this research will have inherent challenges unrelated to technologyâthey are cultural in nature. There- fore, it is also recommended that implementation of all these processes and solutions be followed with rigorous compliance processes to test the capability of the system to accurately reflect the record of actual utility networks installed in a given project boundary. The compliance processes should include feeder systems that track change, such as the permitting oper- ations and data collecting processes implemented externally by the utilities and internally by the DOT. Complex systems designed to control complex processes are never implemented with perfection. With proper monitoring and reengineering, the described system can be successfully implemented to fulfill the original objectives of SHRP 2 Project R01A.
