Identification of Utility Conflicts and Solutions (2012)

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.

57 C h a p t e r 8 Conclusions Research Framework Two critical factors that contribute to inefficiencies in the transportation project development process are the lack of accurate, complete information about utility facilities that might conflict with the project and the resolution and overall management of those conflicts. Potential utility conflicts at transportation projects include the following: • Interference between utility facilities and transportation design features (existing or proposed); • Interference between utility facilities and transportation construction activities or phasing; • Interference between planned and existing utility facilities; • Noncompliance of utility facilities with utility accommo- dation policies; and • Noncompliance of utility facilities with safety regulations. The traditional approach for resolving utility conflicts at many state DOTs is to relocate the affected utility facilities— often at great expense to the DOT or the utility owner or both. Relocating a utility facility is not necessarily the only or best strategy to resolve a utility conflict. Other strategies include designing and constructing the transportation facility in such a way as to leave the affected utility facilities in place. Utility coordination involves the production and exchange of enormous amounts of data and supporting documents, including schematics, design files, agreements, and certifica- tions. A critical component of this process is how to docu- ment and manage utility conflict data. Various approaches for tracking utility conflicts exist, including tracking utility agreements (which is an indirect way of tracking utility con- flicts); tracking utility conflict status or resolution separately; and tracking utility conflict resolution milestones, utility agreements, and other documents as part of a comprehensive information system. UCMs enable users to organize, track, and manage utility conflicts. Practices involving the use of UCMs vary widely across the country. There is a need to document these prac- tices and develop optimized UCM concepts and techniques that can contribute to standardization and optimization of the utility coordination process. SHRP 2 Renewal Project R15B addressed this need in the following ways: • Reviewing trends around the country and identifying best practices on the use of UCMs; • Developing and testing a standardized UCM concept; • Developing training materials; and • Developing implementation guidelines. State Practices The research team conducted an online survey of state agen- cies around the country to assess general practices related to utility conflict management and determine potential candi- dates for follow-up interviews. Based on the results of the online survey, the research team identified a sample of state DOTs for follow-up interviews. Although the main goal was to search for established and documented innovative proce- dures for utility conflict management and UCMs, the follow- up interviews were also intended to gather positive and negative lessons learned, as well as recommendations from state DOTs. As part of the interview process, the research team requested available documentation, such as sample tables, data, and manuals. State DOTs track a wide range of utility facility data items, although there is a clear preference for data items such as class of utility facility and utility owner name and contact infor- mation. About two-thirds of the respondents track basic util- ity facility data, such as diameter, material, and depth of cover, and only slightly more than half track facility details, such as dimensions or encasement material. State DOTs con- sistently track a large number of utility conflict data items. Conclusions and Recommendations

58 relocation plans (typically around 60% to 90% design). Util- ity facilities that are eligible for reimbursement require the submission of utility agreement assemblies that include addi- tional information, such as quantities, cost estimates, better- ment data, and local agency participation. Some states prefer to begin utility relocations once the roadway design is complete and there is certainty the proj- ect will go forward as designed. Other states attempt to relo- cate all utility facilities in conflict by the time a project goes to letting. However, even when a state makes significant efforts to complete all utility relocations by letting, there are often utility facilities that need to relocate during construc- tion. To alert contract bidders of potential delays, most state DOTs include information about known utility conflicts in the letting documentation, typically in the form of utility certifications or special provisions. Some state DOTs pro- vide comprehensive lists of outstanding utility conflicts, including utility owner, utility conflict location, and conflict status. Other state DOTs only provide a brief statement to the effect that the contractor is responsible for contacting all utility owners. A review of 26 sample tables from around the country used by state DOTs to manage utility conflicts indicated that state DOTs use a wide range of styles and content to develop and maintain UCMs. Clearly one size does not fit all. The research team counted 144 data items in the 26 utility con- flict tables. The number of data items per table ranged from four to 39, with an average of 14. The research team grouped the 144 data items into the following data categories: projects, project contacts, utility facilities, utility conflicts, right-of-way, utility investigations, utility relocation, utility coordination dates, agreements, costs, billings, and docu- ment tracking data. These categories provided the founda- tion for the development of the prototype stand-alone UCM, as well as the development of the prototype UCM data model and database. Examples of recommendations from around the country include the following: • Utility conflict matrix 44 Identify utility conflicts at the individual utility facility involved; 44 Include control dates in UCMs to document progress within the project development process; 44 Develop utility conflict sheets for individual utility owners; 44 Keep UCMs simple; 44 Maintain and update the UCM regularly; 44 Use an 11 × 17-in. page size for utility conflict tables; 44 Start assembling utility conflict tables during prelimi- nary design; and 44 Include data from UCMs in PS&E assemblies. Most state DOTs track utility conflict IDs, cost estimates, and transportation project IDs. Slightly less frequent but still common data items are additional payment information and utility conflict description and location. Project centerline and station is the most popular method for referencing utility conflicts along transportation project alignments. Respondents also indicated they use a variety of other longitudinal referencing methods, such as route and mile point, control section and distance, and route markers and displacement. The most common method for referenc- ing utility conflict offsets is with respect to the project center- line. Other offset methods mentioned were right-of-way line, existing centerline, edge of pavement, and back of curb. States use a variety of data management platforms to man- age utility conflict data. Spreadsheets, word processors, and CAD are the most common methods for managing utility conflict data, followed by desktop databases, server-based databases, and web-based viewers. Less than half of the states use GIS applications to manage utility conflict data. State DOTs use a variety of methods to track and update utility conflict locations on project drawings. There is a clear preference for traditional paper-based approaches to mark up printed drawings or maps. Marking up CAD files is also common, but not as frequent as marking up paper drawings. More than 40% of respondents indicated they mark up 2-D PDF files, clearly indicating the increasing acceptance of the PDF file format for document editing and updating purposes. There are also wide differences in the way states under- take utility investigations. States frequently collect QLB and QLA data at some point during design, although the extent of the investigation varies widely depending on fac- tors such as type of project, expected utility investigation cost, and awareness or knowledge of SUE concepts. In some cases, the collection of QLB and QLA data is limited to critical points during the project development process. Some states are beginning to collect QLB data during pre- liminary design. Many states follow a traditional approach for utility con- flict management in which the state DOT sends a set of proj- ect plans to utility owners, the utility owners provide markups of their utility facilities (typically on hard copies), and state DOT (or consultant) staff transcribe the markups onto design CAD drawings. Some states start utility conflict man- agement during preliminary design and send a preliminary design drawing to utility owners. Other states wait until 60% design, once drainage design elements are in place (since drainage design frequently drives the need for utility reloca- tions). Upon review of the design drawings, the roadway designer determines which utility installations are in conflict and need to relocate and communicates this determination to utility owners. The utility owners then develop and submit

59 and could result in confusion during implementation, largely because state DOTs manage a variety of cost estimates in connection with utility relocations. This realization made it necessary to remove the cost estimate item from the UCM and, instead, develop a separate sheet to track and analyze cost estimates for all resolution alternatives that may be asso- ciated with individual utility conflicts. Several options are possible for developing cost estimate sheets. For simplicity, the research team used a model that contains relevant alter- native information for individual utility conflicts. The research team developed the prototype UCM and the UCM alternative resolution subsheet in Microsoft Excel 2007. For convenience, the Excel UCM version includes four worksheets: the main UCM, the UCM alternative resolution subsheet, column or field definitions, and drop-down lists to standardize the population of certain columns in the main UCM. Prototype Utility Conflict Data Model and Database (Prototype 2) As mentioned, in the process of managing utility conflicts, states manage large amounts of data about a wide range of top- ics, including projects, project contacts, utility facilities, utility conflicts, right-of-way, utility investigations, utility relocation, utility coordination dates, agreements, costs, and billings. Some of these topics can be grouped into higher-order catego- ries that represent real-world objects or concepts that can be characterized using a set of relevant tables, attributes, and rela- tionships. Figure 8.1 shows the conceptual framework for managing utility conflicts used during the research. To address the need of how to manage large amounts of utility conflict–related data items, the research team devel- oped a prototype data model and database. To facilitate implementation, the research team used industry-standard • Utility conflict management 44 Use document management systems to support the util- ity conflict management process; 44 Conduct plan-in-hand field trips with utility owners; 44 Use one-call services to identify utility owners and facil- ities early in the process; 44 Use and document RFID tags for damage prevention during construction; and 44 Provide 3-D design details to utility owners early in the design phase. • Other 44 Involve stakeholders in the review of utility conflicts and solutions; 44 Develop effective communications with utility owners regardless of reimbursement eligibility; and 44 Provide training to utility coordination stakeholders. Prototype Stand-Alone UCM (Prototype 1) The research team analyzed the sample documentation received from around the country, ranked and grouped data items, and developed a prototype UCM. In principle, this proto- type UCM should satisfy the requirements of the majority of the states. Key requirements in the determination of which data items to include in the prototype UCM were UCM compactness, efficiency, and completeness. Figure 3.2 shows the prototype stand-alone UCM. This UCM includes data items in two main sections: UCM header (eight data items that include information about the project and control data items) and UCM body (15 data items that include informa- tion about individual utility conflicts, such as conflict char- acteristics, data collection needs, and resolution status). An earlier version of the UCM included a data item for cost estimates. However, discussions with stakeholders at several DOTs indicated this data item was not clearly defined Figure 8.1. Conceptual model for the management of utility conflicts.

60 the research findings. The 1-day utility conflicts and solutions seminar was designed for a total of 7 hours and 15 minutes of instruction. It includes 5.5 hours of direct instructor contact and 1.75 hours of breaks (including lunch). The seminar pro- vides numerous opportunities for participant interaction and enables the instructor to adjust session and lesson start times and durations depending on the audience and the level of participant engagement in the discussions. The UCM training materials were developed using NHI standards and templates. These templates incorporate adult learning principles and have been tested and used at NHI for many years, which will facilitate implementing the training materials at the conclusion of the research (e.g., if FHWA or AASHTO wanted to convert the materials into an NHI course). An integral component of the training materials is the use of actual project data received from state DOTs to illustrate UCM concepts and procedures. The structure and content of the training materials described above reflect recommendations received by the research team at the conclusion of two pilot training sessions held in January 2011. The first, at the Arkansas SH&TD, included 20 participants from FHWA, the Arkansas SH&TD, and county agencies involved in design, right-of-way, and util- ity coordination. The second training session included 27 par- ticipants from SDDOT who work on project development, design, right-of-way, and utility coordination. Overall, the workshops were well received, and the feedback from participants was positive. Based on specific recommendations from training session participants, the research team made several changes to the materials, includ- ing changes to presentation files to add clarity, explain acro- nyms, and improve the flow of the presentation, as well as changes to maximize the effectiveness of the hands-on exercises. recommendations Given the positive feedback obtained in response to the development and testing of the stand-alone UCM (Proto- type 1), the prototype data model and corresponding data- base (Prototype 2), and the training materials, the research team recommends that the implementation of the research products proceed. To assist in this process, the research team developed a set of implementation guidelines that address topics such as audience or market for the products, assessment of impedi- ments to successful implementation, research product leaders (or champions), activities necessary for successful implemen- tation, and criteria for judging the progress and consequences of implementation. Chapter 7 provides a detailed description of each of these topics. In summary, the audience for the research products is protocols for the development of the data model (including a logical model, a physical model, and a data dictionary). The data model is in AllFusion ERwin Data Modeler format, which can be easily exported to formats such as Oracle and SQL Server. The research team tested the prototype data model using a Microsoft Access database implementation and data from sample utility conflict tables from across the country. This process included the development of queries and reports to replicate several sample UCMs, including the following: • Prototype UCM example; • Alaska DOT&PF UCM example; • Caltrans UCM example; • GDOT UCM example; and • TxDOT UCM example. Using data from a wide range of states across the country makes the prototype data model and resulting database flexi- ble and capable of accommodating most data items related to utility conflicts. Additional advantages of a database approach to manage utility conflicts include the possibility of adapting the database to address changes in DOT needs and business processes, flexibility on what database components to imple- ment, scalability, and linkages to existing state DOT data systems. Once a database system is implemented, its real power lies in its ability to enable a wide range of queries and reports. Other than the various UCMs that were replicated during the research, a short sample of reports the prototype database could enable includes the following: • A report listing all utility conflicts associated with com- pany X (for a specific project, corridor, or time frame); • A report of all water facilities in conflict (for a specific proj- ect or corridor); • A report summarizing average conflict resolution times for electric facilities statewide; • A report providing average conflict resolution times for water facilities on project Z; • A report listing all utility conflicts with resolution times of more than 100 days; • A customized UCM report listing only the utility conflicts of a specific utility owner; and • A list of unresolved utility conflicts at time of letting for inclusion in the PS&E package (sometimes called utility certification). Training Materials The research team structured a lesson plan and developed training materials to assist with the process of disseminating

61 the degree of consensus among stakeholders. Conversely, the implementation of the research findings might fail if there is no stakeholder buy-in or consensus about the potential benefits that could result from the implementa- tion. The research team’s assessment is that, when pre- sented with information such as training materials or PowerPoint presentations describing the research and its findings, state DOT officials will overwhelmingly support implementing the research products. Throughout the research, members of the team met repeatedly with stake- holders, such as utility coordinators, project managers, designers, area and district engineers, and directors. Almost without exception, the feedback received was that the state DOT would benefit greatly from implementing the research findings. • Policy challenges. The implementation of the research findings might fail if required policies do not fully support the use of a UCM approach. The research team’s assess- ment is that with the correct policies in place, it should be possible to implement standardized processes for UCMs nationwide. The research team developed a 36-month plan to start and continue the implementation of the research products. This plan includes the following steps: • Establish an implementation team as soon as possible. The implementation team should first familiarize itself with the UCM approach developed during the research. Once familiar with the research products, the implementation team should identify major progress milestones, measur- able implementation targets, and funding mechanisms. One or more states should be identified that may be willing to immediately undertake a pilot project to implement the UCM and its processes, and this implementation should be initiated. • Conduct a series of UCM training courses at several desig- nated state DOTs that have expressed interest in imple- menting the UCM. At an appropriate point, transition the training course to an organization (such as NHI) that can provide the training over the long term. • Present the UCM training course at as many state DOTs as possible. The initial presentations at designated state DOTs (see previous bullet entry) will not completely address the huge need around the country for improvement and opti- mization of utility processes. Therefore, it will be critical to maintain momentum, and perhaps the most effective way to accomplish this objective will be to promote the UCM approach by conducting UCM training courses through- out the country. • Follow two implementation paths (and corresponding plans) for the UCM and related processes, depending on the stakeholders who are involved in utility coordination throughout the development process of transportation projects. Because utility conflicts can affect transportation projects from project concept to project completion, the expected audience for the research products is potentially large. This audience includes three main groups of stakeholders: public sector (project owners), private sector (consultants and con- tractors), and utility owners. Stakeholders are expected to play different roles. Project owners are expected to take roles as user, developer, manager, and steward. By comparison, consultants, contractors, and utility owners are expected to play a user role. However, depending on their relationship with project owners, consultants and contractors could also be developers or managers. The research team conducted an analysis of impediments that might hinder the successful implementation of the research findings. For convenience, the potential impediments are grouped into four categories, as follows: • Technical challenges. This category includes technological limitations, hardware and software incompatibilities, and other technical challenges that might impede implementa- tion of the research findings. The research team’s assess- ment is that the required technology-based tools and knowledge needed to implement the research findings suc- cessfully are already in place at most, if not all, state DOTs. First, UCMs are widely used, although perhaps not in a standardized way or throughout the project development process. Second, even in the case of an enterprise-level implementation of the prototype utility conflict database, the reality is that server-based applications are now com- monplace. Judging from the successful results of imple- menting UCMs in some states (e.g., Georgia) and the positive feedback from representatives at other state DOTs (e.g., Arkansas and South Dakota), the research team’s con- clusion is that implementing UCMs around the country is technically feasible. • Economic and financial challenges. The implementation of the research findings might fail if the perceived costs asso- ciated with the implementation exceed the benefits that stakeholders would receive or if the stakeholders do not perceive economic benefits from the implementation. The research team’s assessment is that implementation of the research findings can pay for itself within a short period of time. Increasing evidence from around the country, some of which has been described elsewhere in this report or the training materials, indicates that (a) ignoring utility con- flicts during the project development process can be costly, and (b) designing a project to minimize utility conflicts can save thousands of dollars. • Stakeholder buy-in and consensus challenges. The opportu- nity to implement the research findings will increase with

62 available time for utility owners to complete their design and schedule relocations in the field before construction starts. Utility owners increasingly complain that relocation schedules imposed by state DOTs are unreasonably short. There is a need to evaluate and quantify this impact and identify strategies to help stakeholders manage the increased level of risk, both during design and construction. • Impact of getting transportation projects shovel ready (in case construction funding becomes available) on the abil- ity of state DOTs and utility owners to conduct utility coordination activities before construction. With the eco- nomic crisis in recent years, many state DOTs have seen their construction budgets slashed. With fewer dollars available, some state DOTs are pursuing a strategy of com- pleting the design of several projects hoping that, if fund- ing becomes available, at least some of those projects could go to construction quickly. A common problem with this strategy is that utility design and relocation (and even right-of-way acquisition) cannot proceed because funding for these activities is frequently tied to construction fund- ing decisions. Some state DOTs have informal coordina- tion meetings with utility owners but warn them that they are not eligible for reimbursement (including engineering and other preliminary activities) until funds are available. There is a need to quantify the magnitude of the problem, evaluate the implications of not engaging in meaningful utility coordination activities during design, and identify strategies to help stakeholders manage the increased level of risk, both during design and construction. • Streamlining and standardization of cost estimates and protocols for the submission of estimates and billings. A frequent source of contention between state DOTs and util- ity owners is the preparation and review of utility agree- ments, cost estimates, and billings. Although current regulations provide flexibility to states with respect to what cost estimation methodologies to require and use, current practices lack standardization. As a result, it is common for states to receive estimates for similar types of installations but, because different utility owners are involved, the esti- mates cannot be compared for consistency. By extension, it is difficult to compare utility relocations done through agreement with those that are included in the highway con- tract. Another consequence of the lack of standardization is that state DOT officials must spend more resources than necessary reviewing and checking individual agreements and supporting documentation, not to mention the impact on utility owners because of the need to spend considerable resources (unnecessarily) redoing utility agreements and cost calculations. There is a need to evaluate and quantify the problem, evaluate the feasibility of streamlining federal and state regulations, and develop standardized protocols for state DOTs. which level of implementation individual state DOTs decide to pursue: 44 For Prototype 1, implementation can take place directly at the administrative unit level (e.g., district level) that deals with utility conflicts on a daily basis. The research team expects little or no involvement by IT personnel because Prototype 1 is a stand-alone spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel. 44 For Prototype 2, implementation could take place at the administrative unit level that deals with utility conflicts on a daily basis (e.g., district level) or at a headquarters level, depending on whether the agency chooses a stand- alone database approach or an enterprise-level database approach. A stand-alone database approach would be appropriate if a state DOT does not have the resources to invest in an enterprise-level system or if it decides to try the prototype out locally to see whether a statewide implementation would be feasible. 44 An alternative (or complementary) implementation path for Prototype 2 would be for several states to pool funds to develop a system to automate the management of utility conflicts using as a foundation the data model developed during the research. research Needs During the research (including the online survey, follow-up interviews, work sessions, pilot training sessions, and con- ference presentations), the research team had numerous opportunities to interact with state DOT officials and other stakeholders to discuss business practices and ways in which the research products could assist with the improvement and optimization of utility conflict management processes. These interactions were also useful in identifying areas that were beyond the scope of this research but which stakehold- ers identified as sources of inefficiency that were in critical need for innovation. These are areas in which stakeholders do not normally conduct research—for example, through state DOT research programs, SHRP 2, or the National Coopera- tive Highway Research Program (NCHRP). Areas that stakeholders identified as needing attention, and for which research is warranted, include the following: • Impact of the acceleration of the project development pro- cess, particularly the design phase, on the ability of state DOTs (and utility owners) to complete utility relocations before letting. Most utility owners are reluctant to get involved in utility coordination activities until critical design elements, particularly drainage, are in place (which frequently happens around or after 60% design). With the compression of the design phase, the period between 60% and 90% (or 100%) design is getting shorter, reducing the