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.

70 Review of State Practices Introduction This appendix includes a summary of practices and sample documentation from states the research team contacted to gather information about utility conflict management, with a focus on utility conflict matrices (UCMs) and related pro- cesses. The review included the following state department of transportation (DOT) agencies: • Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (Alaska DOT&PF); • California Department of Transportation (Caltrans); • Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT); • Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT); • Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT); • Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT); • Louisiana Department of Transportation and Develop- ment (Louisiana DOTD); • Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT); • Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT); • Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT); • Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT); • North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT); • Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT); • South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT); • Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT); • Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT); • Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans); • Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT); • Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT); and • Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT). Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities By statute, the cost of most utility relocations in Alaska is con- sidered a cost of the highway project. However, according to Alaska DOT&PF officials, full payment for utility relocations has not necessarily improved adherence to project schedules. Alaska DOT&PF still largely relies on the willingness of utility owners to cooperate concerning facility location informa- tion, the relocation design effort, and the scheduling of utility relocation activities. Alaska DOT&PF uses data collected on spreadsheets and plan sets to track utility conflicts. By informal agreement, at no cost to the DOT, utility owners provide approximate hori- zontal locations of facilities as needed to support state proj- ects. At about 30% design, the DOT identifies conflicts, and utility owners verify the utility information. After receiving this information, designers may look for opportunities to avoid or mitigate locations in conflict. If more accurate utility facility location data are needed, utility owners conduct test holes, the cost of which is paid by the state. At about 75% design, utility relocation needs are determined, and utility owners are requested to relocate. At this time, Alaska DOT&PF may also purchase additional right-of-way if needed for util- ity relocations. Utility relocation agreements are developed and finalized at about the same time as the highway design effort is completed. In practice, most utility relocation work is completed con- currently with the highway contract, largely because utility relocation funding is available only after highway contract funding is available, and the Alaska construction season is short. However, this practice reduces opportunities for advance utility relocation and adds complexities to project delivery. To address this issue, both highway contracts and utility agree- ments include provisions to require the parties to coordinate construction schedules. Alaska DOT&PF typically does not require as-builts from utility owners for facilities installed or relocated in state right-of-way beyond what is required for utility permits. Alaska DOT&PF does not have a statewide utility engineer to oversee utility management tools and practices. State offi- cials also indicated their utility manual needs to be updated. In the central Alaska region, where the majority of the utility work in Alaska is done, the utility conflict management pro- cess is somewhat standardized. Alaska has two other regions A P P e n D I x B

71 with significantly smaller programs that have procedures more tailored to local needs. Figure B.1 shows a sample utility conflict report from Alaska DOT&PF. Such reports, which are an important tool for utility conflict management, provide detailed informa- tion about the location of utility conflicts and the corre- sponding proposed resolution strategies. For each type of utility facility on a project, the utility conflict report describes existing facilities and conflicts with proposed roadway improve- ments and provides a utility conflict listing. The report also includes plan and profile sheets for all utility facilities within a project. Alaska DOT&PF officials mentioned that it would be ben- eficial to provide training for their personnel related to utility facilities, particularly training about the design and construc- tion of utility structures, especially power and communica- tion systems. California Department of Transportation Caltrans uses a mainframe system to track utility conflicts and payments called right-of-way and utilities management system (RUMS). RUMS has a download (i.e., read-only) link from the project development database that provides data such as expenditure authorization (EA) numbers and project information (route, county, post miles, and a short project description). A six-digit EA number is unique for each trans- portation project and is not tied to control sections. The last digit of an EA number represents the phase and expenditure allocation of the activity. For example, during the project ini- tiation document (PID) phase, the EA ends with a K. Simi- larly, an EA ending with a 9 represents the right-of-way capital fund. Although RUMS includes a large number of data elements related to utility conflicts, it does not include a data element for proposed utility conflict resolution actions. A comment field enables utility coordinators to enter the conflict resolu- tion method. Practices for adding utility conflict resolution notes vary by district. District utility coordinators are responsible for creating and maintaining RUMS records that pertain to individual proj- ects. The utility coordinator is the project point of contact for utility owners and Caltrans engineers. For each potential con- flict or request for positive location (i.e., a request to conduct test holes to confirm the location of an underground utility facility), the utility coordinator creates a utility file and assigns a utility file number in RUMS. For example, if a conflict involves a gas line, a water line, and an underground electric facility, the utility coordinator creates three utility files, each with its own utility file number. A basic utility file number (e.g., 2222) is unique to a project EA. Attached to this number are digits that represent specific utility facilities—for example, 2222.1 for the gas line, 2222.2 for the water line, and 2222.3 for Figure B.1. Alaska DOT&PF sample utility conflict report excerpt.

72 the electric line. If the project engineer determines that the electric facility is in conflict, the relocation of the electric facil- ity would be handled under 2222.3.1. In practice, file number- ing practices vary across the state. RUMS lacks reporting capabilities. In most cases, a utility relocation official at Caltrans headquarters has to download the data set and use office applications to generate reports. For the right-of-way certification, the utility clearing memo- randa state which utility facilities need to relocate, who will perform the relocation, and who is financially responsible. The right-of-way certification is part of the plans, specifica- tions, and estimate (PS&E) package. Caltrans expects to replace RUMS soon, although fund- ing issues have affected this initiative. In the meantime, Caltrans has developed a prototype Microsoft Access data- base as a model to guide the effort to replace RUMS (Fig- ures B.2 and B.3). Caltrans has long used utility conflict tables, although table formats and names are not standardized across districts. In most districts, utility conflict tables may vary from project to project. A notable exception is District 12 (Orange County), where an engineer developed and essentially standardized the table for the district (Figure B.4). Typical file formats for util- ity conflict tables include Microsoft Excel and Word and Bentley MicroStation. Utility conflict tables are stand-alone products. Caltrans uses data from the utility conflict tables to help populate RUMS. Recently, some Caltrans districts started including data from the UCM in the design plans. On conventional highway projects, Caltrans may just list valves and man- holes to avoid making the design process too difficult for designers. Similarly, Caltrans shows utility installations on cross sections for special situations—for example, if there is a need for a protect-in-place measure or high-risk utility installations. Typically, districts use UCMs for large, com- plicated projects, such as freeway interchanges; use of UCMs is less frequent for smaller projects. District 12 uses UCMs for all projects. Figure B.2. Beta RUMS project screen.

73 The structure and content of UCMs vary depending on the project and the intended UCM recipient. For example, some UCMs include property parcel information, which could include information about joint-use agreements (e.g., Caltrans might convey an easement within the right-of-way if an existing utility facility is relocated outside an area where they had a prior property right), director’s deeds, or utility owner land rights. Some districts do not share cost information with utility owners. The cost estimate in the UCM is primarily for the project manager, which is important if the utility relocation is reimbursable. Utility sections usually track cost estimates and updates separately. Districts 1 and 2 (North Region) have a field in their UCM to track the cost to the utility owner, which is important if the relocation cost is substantial. In the mid-2000s, Caltrans started a utility engineering group in an effort to improve and standardize utility procedures. The group is composed of engineers who are responsible for identi- fying utility conflicts and reviewing relocation plans. One of the initiatives of the group has been to develop a standardized util- ity conflict table. So far, they have reviewed several models from around the state, but seem to prefer the table from District 12 (Figure B.4). Caltrans expects to select a table (or to develop one, probably based on the District 12 model), although reach- ing consensus among all districts has been challenging. District utility sections usually learn about projects around PID time, when a cost estimate, including a utility cost esti- mate (which the utility coordinator completes), must be pro- duced. The utility relocation estimate is normally based on a worst-case scenario. For example, if a sewer line is located within project limits, the assumption is that the sewer line will be relocated. The decision to relocate and the corre- sponding cost estimate are refined as the project advances through design. Figure B.3. Beta RUMS utility files screen.

74 sutatS tcilfnoC seitilitU-104221 AE-01-I 0002 ,03 yaM noisiver tsal fo etad yb deraperp saw tnemucod siht htpeD/tcilfnoC ytilitUtcilfnoCelohnaM/elohtoPytilitUrenwOelohtoPytilitUtcilfnoC deriuqeRytraP .pseR.coleR .litU stnemmoC daehrevOelohnaMelohtoPnoitpircseD kroWnoitacoLnoitacoLnoitpircseD.oN.oN teehS.oN rehtOetacoleRevomeRNY A - nodnabA -U oC ytilitU noitelpmoC )steehs-U nO( )tf( -BR erofeB.coleR -C rotcartnoC etaD DR - gniruD.coleR -P ecalp ni tcetorP -CN tcilfnoc oN 55.4Xhtiw tcilfnoc fo tR m 75 dna tR m 04fo tR m 26UD 04LLEBCAP12-U1 P N04.41861 .oN & 661 .oN sllaW gniniateR55+561 atS 504-I55+561 atS 504-IenohpeleT N- htiw tcilfnoc fo tR m 75 dna tR m 04fo tL m 84UD 04LLEBCAP22-U2 P 861 .oN & 661 .oN sllaW gniniateR55+561 atS 504-I55+561 atS 504-IenohpeleT N- htiw tcilfnoc fo tR m 34fo tR m 53UD mm 52ECS33-U3 P CO lotsirB ni detacoL 661 .oN llaW gniniateR10+561 atS 504-I10+561 atS 504-I N- htiw tcilfnoc fo tR m 34fo tL m 64UD mm 52ECS43-U4 P CO lotsirB ni detacoL 661 .oN llaW gniniateR10+561 atS 504-I10+561 atS 504-I N 07.6Xhtiw tcilfnoc fo tR m 44fo tR m 05retaW PSW mm 009DWM53-U5 P 661 .oN llaW gniniateR59+461 atS 504-I69+461 atS 504-ICNE Lm 083 ni N 05.6Xhtiw tcilfnoc fo tR m 44fo tL m 05retaW PSW mm 009DWM63-U6 P 661 .oN llaW gniniateR59+461 atS 504-I69+461 atS 504-ICNE Lm 083 ni N 00.6Xhtiw tcilfnoc 504-I fo tR m 35fo tR m 35PCR mm 006snartlaC73-U7 P egdirB lennahC ihleD24+361 atS ot 92+361 atS morf24+361 atS 504-I N 00.9Xhtiw tcilfnoc 504-I fo tR m 35fo tR m 35PCR mm 006snartlaC83-U8 P egdirB lennahC ihleD24+361 atS ot 92+361 atS morf92+361 atS 504-I N03.01Xhtiw tcilfnoc fo tR m 53fo tR m 23ni retaW PCA mm 003DWCM93-U9 P eniL 1RB & gninediW 504-I52+361 atS 504-I52+361 atS 504-IgnisaC LTS mm005 ,Lm911 N57.8Xhtiw tcilfnoc fo tL m 33fo tL m 23retaW PCA mm 003DWCM013-U01 P eniL 1RB & gninediW 504-I52+361 atS 504-I52+361 atS 504-IgnisaC LTS mm005 ,Lm911 N04.81Xhtiw tcilfnoc fo tR m 53fo tR m 18elohnaMCODSC11 HM3-U11 P eniL 1RB & gninediW 504-I29+261 atS 504-I29+261 atS 504-I N- htiw tcilfnoc fo tL m 23fo tL m 63reweS PCV mm 083CODSC213-U21 P eniL 1RB & gninediW 504-I09+261 atS 504-I19+261 atS 504-I XX Y55.4XlennahC tropriA htiw tcilfnoCfo tR m 85fo tR m 76L m49 ni retaW PCC mm006DWCM314-U31 BR derewoL eb ot enilretaW mm 006 44+161 atS 504-I44+161 atS 504-IgnisaC ltS aiD mm009 tnemesacnE dnetxE N - htiw tcilfnoc fo tL m 23fo tL m 83L m49 ni retaW PCC mm006DWCM414-U41 P gninediW 504-I24+161 atS 504-I04+161 atS 504-IgnisaC ltS aiD mm009 X Y-Xhtiw tcilfnoC504-I fo tR m 27fo tR m 07retaW PCA mm 003DWCM514-U51 DR enwO etavirP dna W/R TC tnemhcaorhcnE r 862 .oN llaW gniniateR dna eniL AOA92+061 atS ot 02+751 atS morf92+061 atS 504-I yawdaoR rednu desacnE X Y-Xhtiw tcilfnoC504-I fo tR m 27fo tR m 07retaW PCA mm 003DWCM614-U61 DR enwO etavirP dna W/R TC tnemhcaorhcnE r 862 .oN llaW gniniateR dna eniL AOA92+061 atS ot 02+751 atS morf70+951 atS 504-I yawdaoR rednu desacnE N 53.4Xhtiw tcilfnoc 504-I fo tR m 27fo tR m 07retaW PCA mm 003DWCM715-U71 P 862 .oN llaW gniniateR dna eniL AOA92+061 atS ot 02+751 atS morf78+651 atS 504-I N 02.61Xhtiw tcilfnoc fo tR m 82fo tR m 06elohnaMCODSC81 HM5-U81 P gninediW 504-I56+651 atS 504-I56+651 atS 504-I N 04.81Xhtiw tcilfnoc fo tR m 52fo tL m 64reweS PCV mm 083CODSC915-U91 P gninediW 504-I56+651 atS 504-I56+651 atS 504-I N htiw tcilfnoc fo tR m 41reweS PCV mm 038CODSC025-U02 P eniL 2B fo noitcurtsnoc 69+42 atS 2B N htiw tcilfnoc fo tL m 6reweS PCV mm 038CODSC125-U12 P eniL 2B fo noitcurtsnoc 45+52 atS 2B fo tR m8elohnaMCODSC22 HM8-U22 XYX BR derewoL eb ot HM 87+201 atS tS niaM 885.9 =velE HM poT weN fo tR m83054 .oN elohnaMECS32 HM8-U32 XYX BR derewoL eb ot HM 78+201 atS tS niaM3054 HM ECS m 385.9 =velE HM poT weN fo tR m82054 .oN elohnaMECS42 HM8-U42 XYX BR derewoL eb ot HM 71+401 atS tS niaM2054 HM ECS m 827.9 =velE HM poT weN noitcA?tcapmInoitagitsevnI Figure B.4. Caltrans District 12 sample utility conflict status list.

75 During the PID phase, the utility coordinator conducts a preliminary utility facility search. After this phase, districts complete a utility facility verification within project limits. For this activity, the utility coordinator uses an online application developed by the California one-call service Underground Service Alert (USA). The web-based interface enables Caltrans officials to enter the project limits, and the system generates a list of utility owners that might be operating within that area. There are two USA implementations: North USA (which enables officials to draw a box on the map) and South USA (which lets users identify areas of interest by clicking on indi- vidual cells in the displayed grid). USA does not display utility facility locations on the graphical interface. After retrieving the list from USA, Caltrans sends a letter to each utility owner and requests a utility facility map within the project limits. After receiving the map, Caltrans adds the information to the project plans, which enables the project or utility engineer to identify potential conflicts. In some situa- tions, Caltrans might decide to use a test hole contractor to identify a positive location. After identifying conflicts, the project engineer (or utility engineer) sends the conflict infor- mation to the district utility section to add records to RUMS and contact utility owners. Both utility conflict tables and RUMS records are updated continuously, particularly in the case of cost estimates. Based on actual utility relocation cost estimates from utility owners, the utility coordinator enters the updates before issuing the right-of-way certification. After this milestone, the utility coor- dinator is still responsible for entering additional updates in RUMS based on actual utility relocation costs. RUMS does not keep track of previously entered values as new values override old values, making paper copies critical for record keeping. As part of the agreement for the positive location of under- ground utilities (Pos-Loc) program, the state conducts test holes and pays 100% of the expenses. Before the Pos-Loc pro- gram, utility owners conducted test holes, which resulted in disruption and disagreement over the number of holes actu- ally needed. With the new Pos-Loc process, each Caltrans dis- trict retains a dedicated contractor on an annual basis. The district contractor performs positive location within 5 days of issuance of a task order. There are no cost disputes with the utility owner since Caltrans pays for these activities. Caltrans can also modify task orders easily. The Pos-Loc program has reduced the average cost of a test hole from about $1,000 to $2,000 to about $300 to $500, which has translated into the ability to conduct more test holes. Additional Observations and Recommendations from Caltrans • Foster communication with utility owners. Caltrans officials highlighted the need for both state DOT and utility officials to understand each other’s processes. This lack of aware- ness is frequently a source of inefficiency. If transportation officials understand the effort it takes to relocate a utility facility and if a utility official understands how long it takes to change a PS&E package, the overall process will likely improve. • Keep in mind any environmental implications related to utility relocations outside the project footprint. Typically, the envi- ronmental process needs to be completed before a project enters the detailed design phase (which is when most utility conflicts are identified). If a utility facility needs to be relo- cated and the proposed location is outside the project limits, the environmental review needs to be reopened, which can result in additional delays. A better understanding of the environmental process by all stakeholders involved should result in a more effective utility coordination process. Delaware Department of Transportation DelDOT outsources more than 50% of its utility coordina- tion work to consultants, primarily on major projects. Sub- surface utility engineering (SUE) or design consultants identify utility conflicts on major projects and document them in conflict matrices. Using UCMs is not mandatory, although consultants typically use them. Quality level B (QLB) utility investigations are typically completed during the survey phase. QLA work is carried out at critical locations—for example, at every point where a util- ity facility crosses a drainage structure. In-house work on small projects that do not involve QLB or QLA data collection typically consists of notes about conflicts on the plans. After identifying conflicts, project managers discuss the conflicts with utility owners. It is the responsibility of the util- ity owners to resolve conflicts in a manner acceptable to the department. Owners are also encouraged to make sugges- tions to avoid the conflicts. After semifinal plans are devel- oped, utility owners are required to provide commitment letters to DelDOT indicating what relocation work they plan to do and when they plan to do it. DelDOT combines these statements into one project statement that includes contact names and phone numbers; this single project statement is added as a provision to the highway contract. In practice, DelDOT attempts to relocate utility facilities before construction begins. In the past, utility owners were reluctant to move before the construction phase because of the risk of not being reimbursed if the highway project was canceled. However, enabling legislation now allows DelDOT to reimburse utility owners for advance relocations, includ- ing items such as traffic control, surveys, and select material for backfill. DelDOT encourages highway contractors to relocate utility facilities whenever possible in order to avoid

76 utility-related claims. As part of this process, DelDOT pro- vides potential contractors with a list of subcontractors that normally do utility relocation work. Additional Observations and Recommendations from DelDOT • Emphasize early, effective communication in the utility coor- dination process. DelDOT highlighted the importance of involving utility owners at an early stage—that is, at least before the detailed design phase—and communicating and coordinating with them frequently. • Include utility relocations in the highway contract if feasible. This strategy gives utility owners more time to plan for the relocation and ensures that the design is complete, utility facilities do not need to be relocated unnecessarily, and funding for the relocation is available. Further, the state DOT can avoid contractor delay claims since the contrac- tor is responsible for utility relocations. Florida Department of Transportation FDOT uses conflict matrix spreadsheets and documentation in all of its districts, although several local versions of the spreadsheets are in use. As a member of the Florida Utilities Coordinating Committee (FUCC), FDOT participates in an initiative to develop a consensus-based UCM template. The goal is to develop and implement a template that all utility stakeholders in the state use. Figure B.5 shows a version of the UCM that the FUCC UCM subcommittee shared with the research team. Feedback from the subcommittee indicated a strong preference for a simple template design with relatively few data fields to reduce the time needed to manage the table and improve the chances that users use it. FDOT sends roadway design plans to utility owners about 3 weeks before the 30%, 60%, and 90% design meetings. The utility coordinator (frequently a consultant) coordinates between the engineer and utility owners at different stages throughout the project. Drainage structures and cross-section information are usually included in the 60% plans; lighting and signalization are typically included in the 90% plans. Utility conflicts are usually addressed around or after 60% design, once design plans include drainage structures and cross sections. On all major projects, FDOT uses forms that list utility conflicts, including name, location, and offset. Depending on the size of the project, one or more UCMs might be used. Copies of the UCM(s) are provided to all util- ity owners involved in the project. FDOT’s goal is to have all conflicts resolved at or before the design plans are 100% complete and certified. FDOT also uses a table to track major process events (Figure B.6). Utility relocation work includes developing a utility work schedule that describes the work to be completed and the cor- responding time frames. Utility work schedules are part of the signed agreement between FDOT and the utility owner. Additional Observations and Recommendations from FDOT • Use UCMs to help avoid utility relocations and to keep projects on schedule. Identifying utility conflicts early in the project development process (sometimes as early as 30% design) results in early conflict resolutions and can help the project meet design and construction time frames and deadlines. • Maintain and update UCMs regularly. Updating UCMs requires effort but it is time well spent. FDOT officials highlighted that time spent at the design table addressing utility conflicts can actually save days of construction or downtime in the field. • Investigate acceleration of utility coordination on nontradi- tional and smaller roadway projects. FDOT heads a com- mittee that is investigating how utility coordination in design–build and smaller projects with few or no utility conflicts could be accelerated compared with utility coor- dination in traditional roadway construction. Georgia Department of Transportation Utility Conflict Data Management GDOT uses various systems to manage utility conflicts and utility coordination, including the following: • Transportation Project (TPro). TPro is an integrated proj- ect planning system that includes several modules, includ- ing a utility module that contains information about reimbursable and nonreimbursable utility relocations. Data items stored in this module include utility owner, district contact name, type of utility facility, and reimbursement status (e.g., reimbursable, reimbursable and authorized, or nonreimbursable) (Figure B.7). • Transportation reporting, analysis, and querying system (TRAQS). GDOT uses TRAQS to query data stored in TPro and other databases (Figure B.8). • Construction management information system. GDOT uses this system to track information on utility owner bill- ing and payments. • Microsoft Access database. This database is used to import TPro data for reports that TPro and TRAQS cannot pro- vide. In the past, GDOT also used a separate Access data- base to track information related to reimbursable utility relocation invoices. This database has been replaced by an automated system for electronic payments.

77 FPID: 1 Description: Phase #: 4 Plans Date: 5 Reviewer: Date: 7 Conflict # Utility Agency/ Owner (UAO) Station/Offset (From C/L) Facility Description (Material, Type, Number, Size) Conflict Description (Possible or Actual) VVH (Y/N) VVH # Recommended Conflict Resolution Resolved Status 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Examples of entries could be "Cleared", "Pending", "No Conflict". It's suggested to keep the entries determined as "No Conflict" in the matrix so other reviewers will know a perceived conflict has been noted and determined to not be an issue. Project number. Project description. That would be you, the person that wrote the conflict matrix. The date the matrix was completed. For ease of discussion the conflicts are numbered, plan sheet numbers are not used because they change from Phase to Phase which has caused confusion in the past. The date should be on the plans Key Sheet. The phase and plans date should keep everyone working on the same plans. Consider using the form from the beginning of a project as a tool for monitoring areas of concern with UAO facilities. That is the reason for the Phase Number space. The form is set up to: 1. Print legal size and have the header information on each page. 2. The cells where the conflicts are listed are set to word wrap automatically. 3. The footer is set to number the pages 1 of ??. What is it the facility perceived to be in conflict with? It a possible conflict or actually in conflict with proposed work. Consider the trench and hole size required to place pipe and drainage structures. Don't forget aerial facilities when there are signals and large signs in the project. SUE work can be used to if a conflict is considered a possibility. This entry area is a tool to determine areas where test holes should be taken for confirmation or exclusion of a conflict. Entry area for the test hole number. Test holes should be numbered consecutively to avoid confusion. What can be done to remove the conflict? Don't forget to consult with the Designer for alternatives to the proposed construction. Owner of the underground line. The standard reference used on FDOT plans is the Centerline of Construction, it is used for all components of the proposed roadway construction. Describe the facility. What is it? Water main? Force main? Cable? Conduit? Overhead electric? Overhead cable? Manhole? Handhold? What's the size? How many? What's it made of? 2 This matrix was created by _______3___________ to assist the UAO's in identifying conflicts between the UAO's facilities and proposed roadway construction. __________________ accepts no liability for conflicts overlooked for this report. Each UAO or designee is responsible to perform a detailed and comprehensive plans review for conflict analysis. 6 Disclaimer that the reviewer and their firm is not responsible for any missed conflicts. The blanks are for the name of the design firm. Phase that the plans represent. Figure B.5. FUCC UCM.

78 All these systems include data elements needed for the effi- cient management of utility conflicts, and GDOT uses them during the utility conflict management process. However, retrieving data from several disconnected databases can be cumbersome and results in data consistency issues. To address this situation, GDOT has begun to integrate several systems into a single database application and is implementing Microsoft SharePoint to facilitate document exchange among stakehold- ers. The department is considering using this implementation so that consultants can enter utility-related data using online forms into a GDOT database. In the mid-2000s, GDOT implemented an expanded util- ity coordination procedure that relied heavily on the collec- tion of QLB and QLA data at critical points during the project development process, as well as a UCM and corresponding • Transportation Explorer (TREX). TREX is an online map viewer that GDOT developed in 2001 and updated in 2005 (Figure B.9; http://app5-trex-web.dot.ga.gov/trex_external/ index.htm). TREX serves as an information clearinghouse that provides access to maps, reports, plans, video logs, photos, and other data on several GDOT systems, such as TPro, the bridge inventory maintenance and management systems, the FleetAnywhere Traffic Interruptions Report, roadway characteristics, and geographic information system (GIS) data. • Google Earth Street View and Microsoft Bing Bird’s Eye maps. These applications are used to conduct a prelimi- nary review of a project’s utility installations. • Georgia utilities permitting system. This web-based system enables utility owners to apply for permits online. Figure B.6. FDOT project information and update sheet.

79 Figure B.7. GDOT TPro maintain project utility/railroad screen. Figure B.8. Listing of SUE items in TRAQS.

80 utility impact analysis, to identify and resolve utility con- flicts. Figure B.10 provides a view of the updated utility coordination process. Figure B.11 shows the UCM template used by GDOT. This template is color-coded based on the utility marking color standard of the American Public Works Association. As Figure B.10 shows, the updated procedure includes major steps from conceptual design to 100% plans complete. At the completion of each major step, the resulting outcome is typically submitted to a designated office, such as the dis- trict utilities office or the state utilities office, for review, approval, and routing to the next phase. GDOT uses a risk management matrix with this new procedure to determine the need for, and the required level of, utility investigations. In most cases that require QLB data, the department collects the QLB data projectwide. QLB data are supplemented by QLA data at locations where the designer needs more accu- rate data and/or utility facility depths. As shown in Figure B.10, the process begins with the iden- tification of existing utility facilities during the conceptual design phase. In this phase, QLD data are obtained, typically by reviewing existing records, requesting utility owners to mark up existing utility facilities on project drawings (typically on hard copy), and transcribing markups into computer-aided Figure B.9. GDOT TREX map. Note: PFPR = Preliminary field plan review. Figure B.10. GDOT utility coordination process.

81 C o n f l i c t # HTtcilfnoC deifitnedIytilitU*.oN .gwDtesffO dna noitatS -sA"( tsoC htiw tcapmI ytilitU )"dengised dednemmoceR noituloseR noituloseR fo tifeneB** SRENWO YTILITUSNOITAIVERBBA lairetaMdaehrevO thgiL saG atnaltA - LGAetercnoC sotsebsA - CAcirtcelE daehrevO - EO rewoP aigroeG - PGcitpO rebiF - OFeriW yuG daehrevO - WGO )htuoSlleB ylremrof( T&TA - TTAnoitceS dnE deretiM - SEM daehrevO - TO snoitacinummoC 3 leveL - 3LepiP etercnoC ecrofnieR - PCRlortnoC ciffarT daehrevO - CTO VT elbaC daehrevO - VTO krowteN rebiF aidemorteM - NFM rehtO cilbuP ytnuoC notluF - WPCF atnaltA fo ytiC - AoCenilesaB - LB renwO nwonknU - KNUtfeL - L thgiR - R eloH tseT - HT lortnoC ciffarT - CT VT elbaC - VT epyT nwonknU - KNU retaW - W cirtcelE - E reweS yratinaS - SS . ytilitu hcae rof yrtne etarapes a edivorp esaelp ,tcilfnoc fo tniop eno ta seitilitu elpitlum era ereht erehw secalp roF .3 .tcejorp siht rof etairporppa sa snoitaiverbba edivorp esaelP .ylno selpmaxe era detsil snoitaiverbbA ehT .4 ."2 teehS elpmaS" ,2 bat eeS .dedeen sa sbat dda esaelP .6 eitilitU aigroeG eht no dnuof eb nac edoc roloc ehT .woleb nwohs sa ytilitu eht rof edoc roloc eht htiw llec eht llif esaelP * ni "SEICILOP/SWAL" bat eht ni moc.cpuag.www ta etisbew retneC noitcetorP s .stnemevorpmi ytefas dna ,stsoc ,emit gnidulcni derrucni stifeneb lla edulcni esaelP** maetS- MTS snoitacinummoceleT - T YEK YTILITU dnuorgrednU p siht rof etairporppa sa renwO ytilitU hcae rof snoitaiverbba edivorp esaelP .ylno selpmaxe era detsil srenwO ytilitU ehT .5 .tcejor :SNOITCURTSNI eht rof noitamrofni redaeh eht ni llif esaelP .1 NEERG .KCALB ot kcab roloc eht egnahc neht ,smeti .ytilitu hcae rof yrtne etarapes a edivorp esaelp ,senil daehrevo noitanibmoc gnivlovni stcilfnoc roF .2 saG - G retaW elbatoP-noN - WN muelorteP - P reweS yratinaS - MFS Figure B.11. Georgia DOT UCM template.

82 design (CAD) files. This information, which GDOT com- bines with a visual site inspection, is sufficient to use during this phase of a project. After the conceptual design phase, designers begin devel- oping 10% to 30% design plans. QLB data are typically col- lected in this phase after survey control points and preliminary project limits are established. As soon as preliminary drain- age, erosion control, staging, structures, and construction limits are ready, typically when the plans are 30% to 60% design complete, an initial utility impact analysis is per- formed to identify the effects of the proposed design on exist- ing utility facilities. During the 60% to 70% design phase, GDOT conducts a preliminary field plan review. At this time, the designer uses the utility impact analysis to try to avoid horizontal utility conflicts and identify areas where there is a need for QLA test holes. This effort typically requires coordination between the designer, the state utilities office, the district utilities office, the SUE provider, and utility owners. After collecting QLA data, the designer attempts to resolve or avoid vertical utility conflicts and produces a set of enhanced drawings (at about 70% design) that the district utilities office sends to utility owners so that they can start planning the relocation of affected facilities. Defining the need for test holes could also take place during constructability reviews. However, usually the right-of-way is already set at that point, and following the process to acquire additional right-of-way becomes more difficult. Conducting constructability reviews before defining the right-of-way would be beneficial, since additional right-of-way might be required—for example, for a utility conflict countermeasure such as a retention wall. At about 70% to 90% design, a second utility impact analy- sis is conducted to resolve new or remaining utility conflicts. At 90% to 100% design, a final field plan review is conducted, and the designer finalizes the design. GDOT also works to resolve any new or remaining conflicts. GDOT developed a training course on avoiding utility project impacts to help GDOT staff use UCMs effectively and to provide guidance on how to perform utility impact analy- ses. The training course, which is now mandatory for all GDOT designers, teaches how to weigh the cost of relocating a major utility facility against a change in the roadway design. A major motivation for developing the training course was that GDOT designers largely did not use the SUE process to introduce changes to the roadway design. GDOT has also developed a new program that encourages junior design engineers to meet with railroad and utility representatives. The program raises awareness about utility and railroad issues on transportation projects. The program has been well received by GDOT staff and railroad and utility owner representatives. The utility conflict training course is divided into two ses- sions. The morning session focuses on general utility coordi- nation concepts and describes how to use UCMs for utility conflict analysis. The afternoon session includes hands-on exercises on how to identify conflicts and conduct a basic util- ity conflict analysis using a sample project. The course also includes an American Society of Civil Engineers video that describes the SUE process. The audience for the training course is mostly GDOT personnel, although there are a few slots for external design consultants and utility representa- tives. GDOT also advertises the training through the Ameri- can Council of Civil Engineering Companies. GDOT originally envisioned the UCM process as an iterative process between right-of-way and design, because frequently there is only one submission from right-of-way to design, and updates from design to right-of-way as a result of design changes or other conflict resolutions do not occur. In the next version of the UCM implementation, GDOT plans to introduce a tool to track changes that designers make in response to a UCM rec- ommendation, with the goal of estimating the cost savings that result from the use of the UCM approach. GDOT also plans to implement a system to enable project contractors to report when utility conflicts are discovered during construction. GDOT hopes to use this tool to com- pare projects that include SUE data collection with projects that do not. The goal of this effort is to determine the cost- effectiveness of the SUE process and to develop a perfor- mance evaluation criterion for SUE providers. Although GDOT has found that resolving utility conflicts during design is more cost-effective than during construc- tion, in practice most utility relocations occur during con- struction. This practice ensures that funding for reimbursable utility facilities is available, but it can create significant proj- ect delays. Exceptions to this practice are complex, expensive utility relocations, which GDOT typically completes before the letting date. To alleviate project delays, the Georgia legislature recently passed a law that authorizes GDOT to reimburse otherwise nonreimbursable utility facilities if the relocation is included in the highway contract. The law applies to cases in which the inclusion of the utility relocation in the highway con- tract is in the public interest, and the reimbursement is an incentive to the utility owners to cooperate with GDOT. Currently, the law applies to most GDOT projects, and the program has been popular with both GDOT and the utility owners. Additional Observations and Recommendations from GDOT • Consider utility impacts in the environmental process. Utility facilities can have a significant impact on the environmental

83 process. For example, GDOT officials mentioned a project in which a utility owner would have had no access to its installations from within the right-of-way; correcting this problem would have required the construction of a new access road through wetlands. • Consider an early authorization for utility work in the project development process. GDOT is experimenting with early authorizations for utility work. In practice, a challenge for implementing this strategy is that environmental and right-of-way clearances must be secured before utility relo- cations can proceed. • Consider showing utility facilities on design cross sections and profiles. GDOT cross sections and profiles typically do not show utility installations. Showing utility facilities on cross sections and profiles may be advisable if there is a potential utility conflict, with the caveat that this informa- tion is only useful if it is reliable (since, in practice, the challenge is how to provide a measure of accuracy for util- ity facility depictions that are interpolated). • Require the use of a UCM approach for design–build projects. Public–private partnerships, including design–build proj- ects, are becoming more common. For these projects, it is critical to include UCM data tracking in contract specifica- tions or in state DOT policy. Kansas Department of Transportation KDOT uses a utility coordination process that includes utility meetings at 30%, 60%, and 90% design, as well as other spe- cific milestones during the design phase. Utility facilities and conflicts are described using location and offset and are shown on required utility permits and agreements. The util- ity agreements describe which utility facilities are in conflict and need to relocate. If a utility conflict involves a complex, expensive utility relocation plan, it may be necessary to change the highway design to accommodate the existing utility instal- lation. KDOT uses value engineering during the preliminary design phase. During construction, value engineering is not an option unless there is an omission in the design plan. KDOT’s goal is to resolve all utility conflicts during the design stage to avoid delays during construction. Using the KDOT utility agreement tracking database, util- ity coordinators and engineers can assemble a utility status report, which is also included in the PS&E package. Adding the utility status report to the letting documentation helps contractors bidding on the project to understand the com- plexity of the utility relocations and develop realistic bids. KDOT uses the utility status report for all projects in the let- ting phase. Conflicts in the utility status report are identified by location (i.e., a conflict ID is not shown). Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development The utility coordination process at the Louisiana DOTD includes utility investigation activities that involve field trips and exchange of information with utility owners during the preliminary design phase. Once a project advances to the detailed design phase, DOTD conducts utility coordination meetings and performs detailed utility investigations. Louisiana DOTD uses an SQL Server–based system called the utility relocation tracking system (URTS) to track the progress of utility agreements and payment information of reimbursable utility agreements. The system can also gener- ate standard correspondence forms and some data reports, such as a report of a utility owner’s utility agreements for a particular project. The system is web-based and available on the DOTD intranet. It has four main modules: a headquarters utilities module, a district utilities module, a report manager, and a system manager. Figures B.12 and B.13 show two views of the headquarters utilities module. Some functions, such as all payment processing options, are only available at the dis- trict level. Louisiana DOTD stores approved drawings in the system (scanned utility relocation design drawings approved by the DOTD design engineer) for both reimbursable and nonreim- bursable utility relocations. The system also includes scanned copies of utility agreements. Utility coordinators enter project ID and contact informa- tion into URTS for all utility owners that operate facilities within the project limits. Louisiana DOTD tracks all utility owners associated with a project, not just those for which there are utility conflicts, because the status of a facility (in conflict or not in conflict) can change as a project progresses. Once a utility owner has been added to the system, URTS can automatically create standard letters, such as a request for authorization and funding, a request to close out funding, and a utility release. The system tracks cost estimates for each project and utility owner; tracks payments; and creates reports and forms, including the authorization to begin work for reimbursable utility facilities. URTS can generate lists of utility owners involved in a proj- ect along with data items related to costs and payments (Fig- ure B.12). URTS cannot generate UCMs because it tracks data about utility owners and agreements, not utility conflicts. Louisiana DOTD used UCMs in the past but discontinued the practice. The reasons for this change are unclear, but it appears that maintaining UCMs was perceived as taking too many person-hours with relatively little benefit in return. It is also not clear how much information is exchanged between utility district personnel and designers. Further, DOTD does not have a utility certification or similar document for inclusion

84 in the PS&E documentation, which is a strong motivator at other state DOTs to use UCMs during the project develop- ment process. Louisiana DOTD tracks utility conflict locations by route and log miles, which are equivalent to the route and mile point system used in other states. When offsets are used, they are typically measured from the project centerline. As mentioned, bidding documentation for contractors does not typically include a listing of known utility conflicts. Instead, Louisiana DOTD typically includes language in the contract documents to alert bidders about utility installations that have been previously identified and included in the plan sheets. It is the responsibility of the contractor to confirm that the proposed design does not conflict with any utility facilities. Contracts also include language that no additional compensation is allowed for delays or damage sustained as a result of utility facility interference or relocations, and that extensions of contract time may be considered only if the contractor experiences significant delays due to utility relocations. URTS is useful but misses some important features, such as how to deal with overpayments to utility owners. Occasion- ally, the Louisiana DOTD audit section determines that util- ity owners owe the state money after the final payment. Once the utility owner pays the amount owed, there is no mecha- nism to enter the amount into URTS. According to Louisiana DOTD, the utility coordinator’s experience is essential to managing utility conflicts effectively, especially utility conflicts that require utility agreements. A history of relationships with utility owners enables a utility coordinator to develop strategies that foster good communi- cation and an environment of mutual trust, which is critical during the preparation of utility agreements. A utility coor- dinator’s experience is also critical for the identification of existing utility facilities that may require additional attention and follow-up during the project development process. Figure B.12. Louisiana DOTD URTS headquarters utility module: Summary.

85 Louisiana DOTD districts are members of local utility coordination councils, which meet monthly or quarterly. At these meetings, DOTD provides a list of upcoming projects, including important dates such as time periods for right-of- way acquisition, plan completion dates from utility owners, and letting dates. This practice helps utility owners to plan for upcoming relocations and provides an opportunity for utility representatives to become familiar with the DOTD utility liai- son and the DOTD utility coordination process. Utility coor- dination council meetings are also a valuable tool for developing effective working relationships between Louisiana DOTD and utility owners, which, according to DOTD officials, is the most important element for effective utility coordination practices. Additional Observations and Recommendations from Louisiana DOTD • Obtain buy-in from administration to develop information technology (IT)–based systems. Enterprise systems such as URTS can provide substantial benefits to an organization. Louisiana DOTD has been largely satisfied with URTS, which has provided significant efficiency improvements. However, planning, funding, and implementing an enterprise system can be a challenging process without support from administration. The implementation of URTS was only feasible because of the support by DOTD officials in leadership positions who championed and encouraged the development and implementation of the system. • Ensure that IT system modifications can be implemented quickly. No matter how well designed an IT system is, it is likely that over time the system will need improvements and upgrades. Although URTS is missing some important features, implementing the requests for system modifica- tions has been a slow process. • Use information-sharing meetings as an effective tool for utility conflict management. Despite the increased use of Figure B.13. Louisiana DOTD URTS headquarters utility module: Agreement details.

86 e-mails and electronic documents, meeting face-to-face with utility owners is still a worthwhile way to communi- cate and discuss utility issues. Utility coordination council meetings help utility owners to plan for upcoming reloca- tions and provide an opportunity for utility representa- tives to become familiar with the DOTD liaison and the DOTD utility coordination process. • Foster good communication between DOT right-of-way and design sections. According to Louisiana DOTD officials, transportation project designers are often not aware of cost and time issues related to utility facilities, and educating designers about utility issues can be lengthy and time con- suming. Good communications and working relationships across division and section lines can help to make design- ers more aware of utility issues. • Involve utility owners in the preliminary design phase. Involving utility owners in preliminary design has a great potential for cost savings. It does not take much effort and time on the DOT side to provide preliminary plans to the utility representative, and it does not take much time on the utility side to review these plans. • Use training to increase awareness of relevant codes and regu- lations. Many utility coordination meetings would be more effective if training were available for both DOT personnel and utility owners that focused on some of the regulations and requirements that both parties need to follow. DOT per- sonnel would benefit from a better understanding of the utility code, and utility owners would benefit from a better awareness of state and federal regulations pertaining to util- ity facilities. Michigan Department of Transportation Like the Louisiana DOTD, MDOT uses URTS, a web-based intranet application. The system focuses on utility owners with facilities on highway projects; it does not track utility facilities or conflicts. The Michigan URTS contains a database of utility owners and facilitates the production of official MDOT letters (including mailing labels) during project design. It also helps track important dates, such as when noti- fications are sent or agreements are received. URTS can import basic project data from the Michigan architectural project database, which tracks project limits and description. URTS also interfaces with the MDOT construc- tion permits system database. The main benefits of URTS are acceleration of communication with utility owners using the automated letter-generation feature and the utility represen- tative directory, the ability to link utility owners with control sections of the roadway system, and the ability to track utility owner responses. MDOT uses Bentley ProjectWise to store data files associ- ated with utility conflicts. In ProjectWise, each utility conflict has a folder that contains relevant files in a variety of formats, including MicroStation, Word, Excel, and PDF. MDOT plans to integrate URTS with ProjectWise. MDOT has seven administrative regions, each one with three to four transportation service centers. In addition to URTS and ProjectWise, some regions use utility coordination lists, conflict analysis tables, or utility reports to develop notices to bidders, which are included in the PS&E documen- tation and list both cleared and unresolved utility conflicts at the time of letting. Figure B.14 is a sample of a utility coordi- nation list, and Figures B.15 through B.18 are examples of util- ity conflict analysis tables. Utility conflict analysis tables are useful throughout the roadway design process, although the format of these tables is not standardized across districts. Conflict analysis tables are typically included in the scope of work of design consultant contracts. However, because of the lack of a consistent standard, the conflict analysis tables that consultants deliver vary significantly in terms of structure, data items, and update intervals. Multiple formats and layouts also make it more difficult for stakeholders to work with these tables. For projects that do not use design consultants, MDOT designers sometimes prepare conflict analysis tables. MDOT tries to avoid utility relocations by obtaining reli- able information about existing utility facilities as early as possible—for example, during the preliminary design phase. MDOT attempts to locate high-use, large-diameter, and haz- ardous utility installations as early as possible in the project development process because those facilities can cause con- siderable problems and delays during construction. Even if a major utility facility is not in conflict, construction near major utility facilities can become a major problem if con- structability is not evaluated properly during design. MDOT officials highlighted the difficulty of engaging util- ity owners early in the project development process. Utility owners have to deal with reduced work forces and budget constraints that make it challenging to meet DOT project schedules and needs. Not surprisingly, some utility owners wait until the last minute to start coordination and relocation activities, which can affect the project contractor’s schedule. This issue can be critical, especially for roadway contracts that include incentive–disincentive clauses. Some utility owners decide to defer dealing with utility conflicts until the roadway construction phase, hoping the project contractor will find a way to work around the conflicts. Although utility owners can be liable if the information they provide is faulty, it has been MDOT’s experience that utility owners do not always provide reliable information. Resulting issues include unreliable depths of cover and inaccu- racy of horizontal and vertical utility facility locations plotted from utility owners’ as-built records.

87 Control Section Job Number Route Location Description Mailed Base Plans base plans due back by Mailed G.I. Plans Date of Utility meeting Date of Coordination Clause Letting Date Construction Date 30011 79838 M-49 M-49, City of Reading, Hillsdale County 1.04 MILES OF HMA PAVEMENT RECONSTRUCTION, STORM SEWER REPLACEMENT, WATERMAIN REPLACEMENT, CURB & GUTTER, SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT, AND STREETSCAPING. 1/4/2007 2/5/2007 2/10/2007 1-09-08, 6-29-08 7/11/2008 10/1/2008 30012 79893 M-49 M-49, Litchfield and Allen Townships, Hillsdale County 6.49 miles. Roadway resurfacing on M-49 from US-12 to B01 of 30012 and reconstruction of M-49 from B01 of 30012 to M- 99. (See plans) 1/4/2007 2/7/2007 12/20/2007 5/11/07, 1/16/2008 1/17/2008 4/1/08 30041 75210 M-99 0.9 miles on M-99 , Steamburg Road to Bacon Road in the City of Hillsdale, Hillsdale Township, Hillsdale County. (Also, 0.13 miles on South Street) Total HMA Reconstruction, HMA Cold Milling & Resurfacing, Storm Sewer, and Water Main. 6/18/2008 7/9/2008 6/4/2008 6/30/05 30071 100288 US-127 US-127, FROM THE STATE OF OHIO TO JUST NORTH OF M-34, CITY OF HUDSON, WRIGHT, PITTSFORD, MEDINA, AND HUDSON TOWNSHIPS, HILLSDALE AND LENAWEE COUNTIES. 10.24 MILES OF COLD MILLING AND MULTIPLE COURSE HMA RESURFACING, DRAINAGE AND GUARDRAIL IMPROVEMENTS. 1/2/2009 2/2/2009 summer 2009 38101 88258 I-94 Dettman Road over I-94 and Hawkins Road over I-94, Blackman and Leoni Townships, Jackson County. There will also be some work along Blake Road and Young Road Bridge Replacement and Approach Roadway 1/25/2008 2/25/2008 8/4/2008 8/21/2008 10/8/2008 4/1/09 38101 105448 I-94 Elm Road Bridge over I-94 Emergency Beam Replacement 1/14/2009 1/31/2009 4/18/2009 2/27/2009 8/1/09 38103 105875 I-94 Sargent Rd. to the Washtenaw County Line reconstruction of the roadway and all ramps, including Race Road interchange, Mt. Hope Road interchange and Clear Lake Road interchange.major bridge work at the Whipple Road bridge over I-94, Race Road bridge over I-94, and the EB & WB Weigh Stations on I-94 3/16/2009 4/16/2009 late 2009 38111 79899 us-127 US-127 from Ayers Road to Floyd Road, Summit and Napoleon Townships, Jackson County. 1.77 miles of reconstruction, cold milling, HMA resurfacing for center left turn lane. 8/3/2005 8/24/2005 9/22/2006 8/6/2006 6/19/2008 4/1/09 38131 103403 us-127 Carpool lot in NE quad of US-127 and Berry Road HMA resurfacing and approach work 3/16/2009 4/16/2009 Fall 2009 or Spring 2010 Figure B.14. MDOT sample utility coordination list.

88 CITY OF WYOMING - LIGHTING Street Light Pole Sta 261+40 LT Too close behind proposed guardrail Move at least 2' North 9.5' Street Light Pole Sta 263+75 LT Too close behind proposed guardrail and in conflict with operation of guardrail terminal. Move 35' west & 4' North OR Move 85' East & 12.0' (west) OR 8.0' (east) Street Light Pole Sta 267+25 RT Proposed SW quadrant radius improvement Move 25' West 2.7' Possibly able to attach to Signal pole Street Light Pole Sta 268+70 LT Too close behind proposed BOC Move at least 1' North 4.6' X ALSO RELOCATE NEEDED FOR TEMP WIDENING Street Light Pole Sta 271+23 LT Too close behind proposed BOC Move at least 1' North 4.2' X This pole was not picked up in survey ALSO RELOCATE NEEDED FOR TEMP WIDENING Street Light Pole Sta 273+47 LT Too close behind proposed BOC Move at least 1.5' north 6.8' X ALSO RELOCATE NEEDED FOR TEMP WIDENING Street Light Pole Sta 275+77 LT RELOCATE FOR TEMP WIDENING X Street Light Pole Sta 278+34 LT RELOCATE FOR TEMP WIDENING X Street Light Pole - Division Ave Int. Sta 280+71 RT In new radius- SW Quadrant of Division Street Light Pole - Division Ave Int. Sta 281+26 LT In proposed sidewalk- NE Quadrant of Division Verify a proposed location with Division Avenue Signal plans Verify a proposed location with Division Avenue Signal plans Location Obstruction MINIMUM distance of Proposed Front Edge of Pole Behind EXISTING Back of Curb Approx Distance to Relocate * * * * * * MUST be Coordinated DURING Construction * * * * * * Notes PROPOSED LOCATION Conflict Figure B.15. MDOT conflict analysis table: Example A.

89 Item # Utility Owner / Operator Conflict Location Segment Date Relocation Plan must be submitted Relocation Plan submitted to Design Team Design Team Review / Comment / Approval Permit Application Submitted to MDOT MDOT Permit Number / Approval Date Relocation Scheduled Action Items 1 Consumers Energy Transmission Consumers Power Transmission Overhead – 8th Ave 1 7/6/2000 7/27/00 rev. 41064-0125-00-0174 4/1/2001 Final permit approval from MDOT. 2 Consumers Energy Transmission West of Kenowa Ave. 1 7/6/2000 7/27/00 rev. 41064-0125- 00-0174 4/1/2001 Final permit approval from MDOT. 3 Consumers Energy Distribution Aerial Lines at Jackson and Angling Road 1 Design in process. 4 Consumers Energy Distribution Aerial Lines at Kenowa and 64th St. 2 Design in process. 5 Consumers Energy Transmission 64th at Wilson and East and West of Wilson– Overhead 2 7/6/2000 7/27/00 rev. 41064-0125-00-0174 4/1/2001 Final permit approval from MDOT. 6 Consumers Energy Transmission East and West of Ivanrest 2 7/6/2000 7/27/00 rev. 41064-0125- 00-0174 10/15/2000 Final permit approval from MDOT. 7 Consumers Energy Distribution along Ivanrest 2 Permit to be submitted the week of August 14, 2000. 8 Consumers Energy Transmission East and West of Byron Center - overhead 3 7/6/2000 7/27/00 rev. 41064-0125-00-0174 4/1/2001 Final permit approval from MDOT. Schedule Relocation 9 Consumers Energy Transmission At Burlingame - overhead 3 6/5/2000 41064-0124- 00-173 10/15/2000 Final permit approval from MDOT. M-6 (South Beltline) from I-196 to West of Eastern Avenue South of Grand Rapids, Michigan Utility Log - Electric CS 70025 - JN 33330 Figure B.16. MDOT conflict analysis table: Example B.

90 Permit Staking & Permit Date Returned Approved Returned Approved Returned Approved # of Parcels Parcels NOT Est. Submitted Auth. Issued Coord. Notice Issued On-Site meeting Application Number Utility Location Description Y/N Amount Sent Date Y/N Date Y/N Date Y/N Involved Cleared Date/Amount Date/Amount Cl. (y/n) Bidder (y/n) Date Held Date Comments 41064-0157-00-0212 Ameritech Clyde Park Directional Bore 1239' of one copper cable and interduct. 07-12-00 07-18-00 Y 07-19-00 approved, revision on 07-25-00 Y - with minor comments 15 MDOT only acquired tree rights. should be o.k. within ClydePark ROW Y 08-21-00 10-18-00 by DLZ 41064-0154-00-0208 Ameritech (60th Ave) Burlingame Place copper cable on Burlingame to existing Term. by directional bore. 07-03-00, Revised and Recirculated 07-17-00 07-07-00 Y 07-21-00 Y 08-10-00 Y- with comments, Ameritech should coordinate details with Design 10 none Y Y 08-15-00 N/A 41064-0125-00-0174 Consumers Various spots along the work area Retire and Remove Steel Towers and install new. Y $ 2,532,100 06-05-00, Recirculated 07-27-00 06-07-00 Y 08-09-00 Y 07-06-00 \ 08-10-00 Request more detailed plans \ Y- with comments CE should coordinate details with Design 70 none 03-17-00 $2,532,100 05- 11-01 Revised to $2,941,100 08-20-01 Submitted to NL increase of $409,000 for total of $2,941,100 04-07-00 $2,532,100 #CE00-15 05- 29-01 Received bill for work in amount of $323,174.84 08-17-01 Second Billing $323,174.84 ok'd 08-24-01 $409k increase ok'd Y Partial 09-06-00 07-26-00 detailed plans submitted by Consumers Electric. 9/19/00 Status - CE Coord w/Norfolk So. RR re:temp Road Xing. 11-15-00 Payment request on materials recomm ok'd 05-02-01 meeting re: CE tower adj of foundations at US-131, Clyde Park, & Norfolk Southrn RR. 41064-0124-00-0173 Consumers (64th Ave) Burlingame Remove & relocate overhd Consumers facilities on Burlingame between 60th & 64th. Y $14,441 + $2100 06-05-00 05-30-00 Y 08-10-00 Y- with comments CE should coordinate details with Design 13 none 06-27-00 $14,441 06-12- 01 add'l $2,100 07-14-00 $14,441 #CE00-23 08- 21-01 Send authorization for increase of $2,100 09-11- 01 Increase approved Y 08-17-00 05-04-01 - Final billing ok'd, work completed 06-07-01 CE has to relocate the existing pole 20' west to avoid ditch per design change. Add'l cost of $2100. 41064-0129-00-0178 Consumers S. Division Remove primary underground facilities in way of M- 6 in Grand Mobile Estates at 6500 S. Division. N $ 7,508 06-05-00, Revised and Recirculated 07-21-00 05-30-00 Y 07-27-00 Y 07-06-00\ 07-25-00 N – Mobile Home Park Issue \ Y- approved 8 none 08-03-00 $7,508 N/A Y 08-22-00 Reimbursement request cancelled. Utilities to seek reimbursement from Sun Mobile Properties (Grand Mobile Estates & Cuttlerville Mobile Estates). Reimbursable? M-6 Westerly Half Status of Utility Relocation Permit Applications Follow-UpCirculated for Review Date: May 2, 2002 Addressed w/MDOT Lansing UtilitiesMDOT Real EstateMDOT DesignMDOT ConstructionKCRC Figure B.17. MDOT conflict analysis table: Example C.

91 Figure B.18. Michigan DOT conflict analysis table: Example D.

92 it would be necessary to relocate utility facilities earlier, not just after the 90% design meeting. Projects can still change drastically at 90% design (e.g., major changes can occur if a project is shortened by a mile). In addition, at 90% design there is still uncertainty whether the project will go to letting. For these reasons, MDOT utility coordinators frequently do not feel comfortable requesting utility relocations before the 90% design stage. MDOT officials also highlighted the need for proper com- munication and coordination between right-of-way and util- ity staff and the design section—for example, a utility engineer may like to propose a change to the roadway design or help project managers and designers understand that utility owners need time to complete relocations in the field. Additional Observations and Recommendations from MDOT • Develop a statewide, standardized, consistent format for the conflict analysis table. Because of the lack of a consistent standard, consultants submit utility conflict tables in mul- tiple formats and layouts. MDOT recommends that other states that do not have a standard for conflict analysis tables determine ahead of time what information is critical to include in the utility conflict table. • Specify a standard update interval for utility conflict tables. It is important to update utility conflict tables at least monthly. Because it takes time and effort to maintain these tables, an alternative would be to provide updates at criti- cal milestones such as 30%, 60%, and 90% design. How- ever, MDOT’s experience is that often too much time passes between these meetings, making it necessary to pro- vide updates at shorter intervals. • Ensure consistency in all DOT manuals that describe utility coordination activities. DOT manuals are typically the prod- uct of multiple organizational units and individuals con- tributing content. It is critical to coordinate this effort to avoid conflicting information. • Include utility relocations in the highway contract, if feasible. MDOT’s experience including utility relocations in the highway contract has been positive, particularly in the case of municipal utilities, such as water and sewer. • Keep all communications with one utility owner in one place. MDOT uses a communication suite that enables users to store all e-mails and notes about phone calls in one com- munication folder. This is useful if there are questions about a particular utility conflict. • Develop training on utility conflict management. A training course on utility conflict management should explain the project development process, go through a project from preliminary design to construction, and describe what utility coordination activities need to be completed at what MDOT has found that collecting QLB data does not guar- antee the identification of all underground utility facilities. This recognition, together with the perception of high cost associated with the collection of QLB and QLA data, has caused some design engineers to be reluctant to conduct SUE studies. Utility owners sometimes offer to conduct SUE stud- ies, but MDOT’s view is that it is difficult to coordinate SUE activities by multiple utility owners. According to depart- ment officials, a limited, targeted, and therefore less costly form of data collection appears to be more beneficial. Since 2008, MDOT has used MISS DIG (the Michigan one-call system) design tickets to mark utility facility loca- tions during the design phase. Design tickets have been par- ticularly useful for accelerated projects, for which the traditional approach of sending letters to utility owners to request infor- mation would result in additional project delays. Design tick- ets are also useful for traditional projects for which utility owners supply conflicting information or provide little or no information. Unfortunately, not all utility owners contribute data to MISS DIG, which decreases the reliability of the data provided by the system. MDOT emphasizes the importance of a good working rela- tionship with utility owners. The department has found it to be advantageous to be flexible in the utility accommodation process and to look at issues from the utility owner’s point of view. For example, if changes are made to the project design, it is important to notify utility owners about the change. Pro- viding consistency in the way the department moves a project from planning to construction is also beneficial for improving working relationships with utility owners. MDOT officials highlighted the need to conduct effective utility coordination meetings. When utility owners are not responsive, respond late, or do not attend utility coordination meetings, the result is often hastily or improperly addressed utility issues. However, utility coordination meetings are sometimes ineffective because of the difficulty utility owners encounter in understanding design plans. Training for MDOT and utility personnel would help to improve the efficiency of utility coordination and conflict resolution practices. A critical utility coordination meeting takes place once the roadway drainage design is substantially complete, typically at about 60% design. This meeting is critical because pro- ceeding with utility relocation design depends on up-to-date plan and profile information. Utility coordinators monitor design progress to schedule the coordination meeting. If the roadway drainage design is not complete by 60% design, util- ity coordinators remind the design team that further delay will reduce the available time to verify vertical conflict points between proposed storm sewers and major existing utility lines before the end of design. Although it would help roadway contractors to have all utility conflicts resolved when construction starts, in practice

93 Missouri Department of Transportation MoDOT uses a Microsoft Access database called utility agree- ment tracking database (UATD) to track costs for reimburs- able utility relocations. UATD tracks several utility agreement data items, including the original relocation estimate and all payments made to utility owners (Figure B.24). MoDOT has used utility conflict lists for at least 15 years. Before the use of utility conflict lists, MoDOT staff used notes and a journal to manage utility conflicts. Over time, utility con- flict lists have proven to be more effective than this alternative. Having a spreadsheet with utility facility information is highly advisable to remind DOT designers of outstanding utility issues. The list should include all project utility facili- ties, not just known conflicts, and should be updated as infor- mation becomes available. The spreadsheet does not contain information about the resolution method, only whether the conflict has been resolved. Utility conflict lists can also assist in avoiding utility relocations by making it easier to track all utility facilities, especially when working on multiple projects. MoDOT updates utility conflict lists whenever new data become available, which is typically weekly or monthly depending on the project. MoDOT keeps utility owner contacts on a separate list because contacts might change during the project and there might be multiple contacts for each conflict. Updating the utility owner spreadsheet is the responsibility of the design department utilities liaison engineer. MoDOT uses several utility conflict list formats. The advantage of this practice is that each list is specific to the needs of individual district users. Rural and urban districts have different demands and requirements, and each district typically knows what works best for them. The disadvantage is that utility owners have to deal with different layouts and lists, and even MoDOT utility coordinators sometimes need time to familiarize themselves with new list layouts. MoDOT is aware of this issue and is now considering the use of a com- mon standard for utility conflict lists (which could still allow more than one format, e.g., one format for rural districts and a second for urban districts). Some MoDOT districts use a utility project summary to track utility owners for each project (Figure B.25). This docu- ment is a simple spreadsheet that lists information related to all utility facilities on a project. The list is similar but not identical to other utility lists used in the state. MoDOT also uses a second, more generic list of utility facilities that the Missouri one-call service generates. MoDOT uses these lists and spreadsheets to generate a special provision that provides information to contract bidders about utility conflicts that have not been resolved before letting. This special provision is included in each PS&E package. time in the process. The course should also emphasize the importance of quality utility information in the prelimi- nary design phase, which might help to avoid the need for utility relocations. Minnesota Department of Transportation MnDOT updated its utilities manual in 2006. The manual includes a 15-step process for utility conflict analysis and coordination during project delivery that encourages utility owners to participate early and often. Local agencies must also use this 15-step process on projects that take place on a state right-of-way. To get buy-in by all stakeholders and increase the understanding of this new process, MnDOT pro- vided training to its employees, consultants, local agencies, and utility owners. Once the process was implemented, fol- low-up reviews were conducted to evaluate compliance and process effectiveness. All MnDOT, local agency, and consultant projects now use the 15-step process. Since MnDOT implemented this new process, there has been a substantial decrease in the number of utility owner delay claims. Two of the eight MnDOT dis- tricts (Metro District and District 7) have dedicated utility staff responsible for the coordination process. In the other six districts, the design project manager and the construction project engineer perform these duties. On design–build projects, MnDOT requires the use of con- flict analysis and early utility coordination as part of the SUE process. MnDOT requires early coordination utility workshops at the conclusion of Phase 1 of the SUE process, which involves designating and mapping of utility facilities. During the utility workshops, participants identify possible conflicts and utility constraints. This information is included in the request for proposals for design–build contracts. MnDOT invites utility owners to meet with the short-listed design–build firms to go over the information provided in the request for proposals. During construction, the design–build firm is required to maintain a weekly utility tracking report (Figure B.19), prepare utility design sheets for necessary relocations (Figure B.20), and obtain approval for utility permits before commencing the utility work. MnDOT has observed a reduction in the number of unanticipated utility facilities found within the project and significantly reduced project delays. MnDOT uses a web-based system called utility and munici- pal agreements reporting and tracking (UMART) to facilitate utility coordination. This software provides general project information, tracks completion dates of required tasks, pro- vides access to templates for utility documents, and sends alerts to appropriate staff when steps are not completed on time. Reports can be accessed by clicking on a link and select- ing appropriate parameters (Figures B.21, B.22, and B.23).

94 Utility Owner Inspection EXHIBIT G(1) EXHIBIT G(2) UTILITY COMPANY A U M R E B M U N # T C I L F N O C WO Sent to Utility Owner Executed By Mn/DOT E Z I S Y T I L I T U E P A H S & N O I T A C O L N O I T A T S d e t r a t S d e h s i n i F d e s o p o r P T O D / n M l a v o r p p A e t a D t i m r e P l a v o r p p A . o N t i m r e P - ) 1 ( F t i b i h x E r e n w O y t i l i t U - ) 2 ( F t i b i h x E r o t c a r t n o C Yes/No d e s o p o r P . d e h c S t r a t S l a u t c A h s i n i F l a u t c A e t e l p m o C % r e n w O y t i l i t U n o i t c u r t s n o C l a v o r p p A r o t c a r t n o C n o i t c u r t s n o C l a v o r p p A COMMENTS e t e p m o C s t l i u B - s A ) N / Y ( UTILITY TRACKING REPORT DESIGN APPROVAL UTILITY CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULEWORK ORDER & STATUS UTILITY DESIGN SHEET CONFLICT RESOLUTION UTILITY PERMIT Figure B.19. MnDOT utility tracking report.

95 Figure B.20. MnDOT design–build project utility design sheet.

96 Figure B.22. Parameter selection for UMART report. Figure B.21. Types of UMART utility reports.

97 MoDOT often includes small water district utility owners and small city utility owners in the highway contract. Utility owners with large facilities typically do not want to be included in the highway contract. MoDOT has recently developed a utility owner–DOT training course focusing on cooperative utility conflict man- agement as part of the Partnering for Innovative Efficiencies initiative. The course was developed jointly by utility and DOT representatives and has been well received by all utility stakeholders. The course has helped with some recurring issues during utility coordination meetings—for example, it has helped utility owners to read and understand MoDOT design plans. During the planning phase, MoDOT typically provides a list of upcoming projects to utility owners. After the statewide transportation improvement program is developed, MoDOT conducts an annual meeting with utility owners and provides a list of projects to utility owners to help them budget for potential upcoming relocations. In the early stages of a proj- ect, MoDOT staff also uses Google Earth and other online maps to identify aboveground utility installations on a project. When feasible and as allowed by regulations, MoDOT tries to include utility relocations in the highway contract. This practice is beneficial because it shifts the coordination and timing burden from MoDOT to the highway contractor. Figure B.23. UMART parameter selection for utility agreement encumbrance balance report.

98 to utility owners can help to identify and manage potential utility conflict locations more effectively. A typical example is a utility conflict caused by embankments for raised roadbeds. NDOT has also started using 3-D design files for demonstra- tions at public meetings. Changing the roadway design in response to utility con- flicts is not common at NDOT. Realistically, designers can accommodate shifts in the roadway alignment up to the 30% to 60% design phase. Since NDOT contacts major utility owners at about 30% design, the window of opportunity for a design change is small. Occasionally, design changes occur because the cost to NDOT to relocate a utility facility is much higher than purchasing additional right-of-way for the align- ment shift. NDOT sometimes receives water facility data in GIS for- mat from the Las Vegas Valley Water District. This district collects global positioning system (GPS) data on water facili- ties during construction, including horizontal location and elevation, and stores the information in a GIS. The system provides a quick, elegant method of mapping utility installa- tions on a project. When feasible, NDOT includes the relocation of utility facilities such as water and sewer in the roadway contract, which shifts the utility coordination burden to the roadway contractor. This practice has been more popular with smaller nevada Department of Transportation NDOT regularly contacts utility owners at the beginning of the detailed design phase, although, realistically, utility coor- dination for major utility facilities starts at about 30% design and at 60% design for other utility facilities (once drainage design is complete). If funding is available and if the project is complex, NDOT collects QLB data as much as possible, preferably projectwide, to obtain and confirm utility facility information. Once utility facility information has been com- pared with the roadway design, NDOT designers may request QLA data in limited areas where information on the exact location of the utility facility would be beneficial. Most utility conflicts at NDOT are related to bridge and drainage structures. In many areas, NDOT builds grade sepa- rations that require large fill sections that would cover exist- ing utility facilities. However, these facilities were not designed to withstand the increased load and must be relocated or replaced. NDOT does not use a UCM. Utility owners in Nevada typically have their own tables, but they use them primarily for resource assignments and management. NDOT has started to provide 3-D PDF design files to utility owners that show special details of the roadway design to pres- ent utility conflicts in more detail. Providing 3-D information Figure B.24. MoDOT utility agreement tracking database.

99 2006-2010 PROJECTS AT A GLANCE Project Information Railroads Agr Eas Dr/Levee Agr Eas Utilities Plan Agr Eas County: Butler Grading, paving, drainage and bridge design box culverts at Beehole Creek na na na na na na Ozark Border x A na Route: 60 and Kearbey Creek from Carter County to Rte. 67. Part 4 lane relocation SW Bell x P na Job No: J0P0573 with expressway right of way. (9.8 miles) Alltel x A na Dates Comments Sqd - Jeff R/W 8/7/02 R/W clear with exceptions. PM - Bill Utilities 9/25/02 J0P0573C incorporated into this job. Util - Marc Letting 11/15/02 Bond Project Fiscal Year 2002 or 2003 Award 12/6/02 McAninch Corporation. County: Butler Grading, drainage, paving and bridge at Rte. 60 and Rte. 67 interchange. na na na na na na na na na na Route: 60 Separation of interchange project from the grading, paving, and bridge Job No: J0P0573D projects. (0.1 mile) Dates Comments Sqd - Jeff R/W na R/W was acquired as part of J0P0573. PM - Bill Utilities 6/8/04 Utilities relocated in J0P0573. Util - Marc Letting 8/20/04 Power set up for lighting? Award 9/10/04 Robertson Contractors, Inc. County: Butler Mill and resurface with 1 3/4" asphalt at curb and gutter locations from na na na na na na na na na na Route: 67 (Bus) Rte.60 interchange south to Rte. M interchange. Amendment 3 smooth Job No: J0D0600I roads initiative project. (7.58 miles) Dates Comments Sqd - David R/W na PM - Eric Utilities na Only need Utility JSP. Util - Marc Letting 7/22/2005 Award 8/12/2005 Pace Construction Company County: Butler 1 3/4" asphalt (superpave) all of Rte. 60 in Poplar Bluff, Rte. 67 Route: 60 (Bus) intersection to Rte. 60 interchange. (8.10 miles) Job No: J0P0915 Dates Comments Sqd - Spl R/W PM - Andy Utilities Util - Letting 11/18/05 Award County: Butler Construct additional lanes (NB) and bridges to provide divided pavement Un Pacific Route: 67 from Rte. O (near Wayne County line) south for 4 miles to the current Job No: J0P0918 4-lane divided section of Rte. 67 north of Poplar Bluff. This project made Dates Comments Sqd - David R/W possible as a result of a local tax initiative. Major project made possible PM - Bill Utilities 11/18/05 by Amendment 3. (4.00 miles) Util - Marc Letting 1/27/06 Award Figure B.25. Missouri DOT utility project summary sample.

100 critical parcels and PUEs and highlights them in STARS. The monthly primary report lists the right-of-way parcels needed for utility relocation that have been purchased to date. It also provides an estimate of how long utility owners are taking to relocate their facilities. NCDOT right-of-way agents also use a Microsoft Access database to manage utility owner information. A challenge in the past has been to keep the database current. NCDOT’s util- ity section also has an internal, limited desktop database to track utility owners, additional dates of the utility manage- ment process, compensable interests, and invoices. Other utility information is located on a network drive. The sys- tem is unable to archive utility facility plans electronically. NCDOT currently archives all documents as hard copies, which makes it difficult to find and retrieve utility construc- tion documentation. NCDOT has started to use blanket agreements with utilities for reimbursable utility relocations, primarily pipeline and cable crossings. Blanket agreements reduce administrative burden by combining multiple utility conflicts into one agree- ment using an electronic permitting system, which reduces the number of agreements that must be developed and moni- tored. The system enables utility owners to submit plans online, which are then stored and archived electronically. NCDOT’s goal is to complete utility relocations before letting. NCDOT includes utility conflict information on design plans about 4 to 5 months before the letting date. The information is also included in a project special provi- sion to alert project bidders. However, utility owners fre- quently do not meet the relocation dates they provide and that NCDOT includes in the contract special provision. To get reliable utility relocation estimates, NCDOT finds it critical to get feedback from the utility owner’s design and construction engineers. Additional delays might occur because of missing environ- mental permits. Many of these delays can be avoided if envi- ronmental resource agencies are engaged early in the project development process and kept current on project changes. However, NCDOT sometimes does not receive these permits, such as permits related to the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA), until 2 months before letting. This delay reduces the time available to complete utility relocations before con- struction starts. In the case of CAMA, common problems are utility facility upgrades or betterments, especially if the utility facilities in conflict are old installations. From CAMA’s point of view, this can be seen as a type of development that is pro- hibited under CAMA rules. On average, approximately 10% of projects under con- struction are currently delayed by utility facilities. In general, NCDOT grants a contract extension to the roadway contractor. Occasionally, if the contractor has idle equipment, NCDOT receives delay claims from the roadway contractor. utility owners. NDOT is currently evaluating the program to include other types of utility facilities. NDOT does not provide a separate bidding document that certifies the status of utility facilities and right-of-way, but rather includes incomplete utility work in the plan sheets. Typically, plans include labels such as “moved by others” or “concurrent work” to alert the roadway contractor. Highway contractors use a one-call system (USA-DIG) during construction. However, only a portion of utility own- ers in Nevada are on the one-call system, and contractors sometimes find utility facilities that were missed by both NDOT’s utility conflict management and the one-call system. Whenever possible, contractors shift activities to a different section of the project until the utility conflict has been resolved. However, it is not uncommon for NDOT to receive requests for compensation from contractors when projects have been delayed significantly by utility conflicts. north Carolina Department of Transportation NCDOT uses a server-based system called scheduling, track- ing, and reporting system (STARS) to manage transportation projects from concept to construction. STARS tracks ele- ments or milestones, which are tied to areas of responsibility. Using dates tied to each milestone, it is possible to determine the time it takes to complete portions of a project or the com- plete project. STARS uses tables to track project information, but it does not include a table for utility conflicts. NCDOT can purchase permanent utility easements (PUEs) for utility installations with prior property rights. PUEs are typically 15 feet wide and are used to establish utility corri- dors outside the state right-of-way. The vast majority of PUEs accommodate distribution lines. Once a project designer establishes right-of-way needs for transportation purposes, NCDOT can establish a utility corridor, typically at 80% design. Utility corridors can overlap with NCDOT’s right-of-way, so that a portion of the utility corridor is on a PUE, and another portion is within the public right-of-way. NCDOT uses PUEs primarily for longitudinal installations. For nonreimbursable utility relocations, NCDOT can some- times purchase a PUE for a utility owner and then receive reim- bursement from the utility owner. This method can significantly speed up the relocation process because NCDOT can con- demn property much faster than utility owners (e.g., by using a quick-take claim). Under statutory law, these claims allow NCDOT to take immediate possession of property under cer- tain conditions upon filing a complaint, making a declaration of taking, and posting a deposit compensation (1). NCDOT uses a new STARS add-on called monthly pri- mary report to track right-of-way parcels needed to relocate utility facilities and PUEs. An NCDOT utility agent identifies

101 and construction engineers viewed utility owner involvement as a secondary process in project delivery. ODOT now rec- ognizes the need to improve the awareness of ODOT per- sonnel that utility relocation is one of the most critical components of efficient project delivery. Utility coordina- tion is now an early involvement criterion in the ODOT project development process. An example of the focus on improving coordination with utility owners is a 2-day training class that ODOT developed to teach utility owner personnel how to read ODOT con- struction plans. ODOT designed this course to enhance the cost-effectiveness of the utility relocation process and elimi- nate delays. ODOT is also implementing meetings between ODOT’s senior leadership and utility owners’ senior leadership to discuss the importance of utility coordination in a more global fashion and raise the awareness that early and fre- quent utility coordination is necessary. As part of the pro- cess, ODOT and a major electric utility owner are developing a three-level memorandum of understanding. The first level focuses on general cooperation principles; the second level focuses on issues that are important to both parties, primarily during the design phase, such as budgeting and conflict resolution; and the third level focuses on project- specific issues. South Dakota Department of Transportation One of the functions of the SDDOT utility coordinator is to meet with project stakeholders, including SDDOT central office and area personnel, highway grading contractors, and statewide utility owners at an annual workshop. A review of the information collected at these workshops led to the devel- opment and implementation of a new advanced utility coor- dinating process to improve communication and coordination between utility owners and SDDOT personnel in charge of project development and design. Features and goals of the new process include the following: • Identify potential utility conflicts by meeting with utility owners early during the planning and programming phase—that is, years before projects are anticipated to go to letting; • Include utility owners in the design process in order to resolve identified utility conflicts and eliminate unneces- sary utility relocations; • Provide at least 1 year before project letting for utility relo- cations; and • Hold prebid meetings with contractors and utility owners to provide contractors with as much information as possible about utility involvement. Ohio Department of Transportation Each ODOT district has a utility coordinator who is respon- sible for all interactions with utility owners during the design phase of a project. A new practice also requires utility coordi- nators to be involved if there are utility conflicts during con- struction. It is up to the utility coordinators to monitor and perform coordination functions. No uniform process has been established for handling utility conflicts for the 12 ODOT districts. During ODOT’s annual meeting for utility coordinators, meeting participants discuss common topics and determine the need for utility coordinators to perform new functions that appear to be beneficial. However, utility coordinators handle things in different ways. Early in project development, the utility coordinator par- ticipates in a field review of the project and provides thoughts on potential utility impacts and recommendations for the collection of utility data, which become part of the design scope if recommendations are accepted. The field review information is also used to prepare Stage 1 (preliminary design) plans and right-of-way concepts. If major utility facilities can be avoided, ODOT makes all efforts to do so. ODOT sends Stage 1 plans showing the project right-of-way to all utility owners for their review and input. At this stage in the process, ODOT develops a SUE concept if it believes detailed utility data will be needed in the design phase. This determination is often based on whether the district or central office is paying for utility data collection services. Districts are typically less inclined to spend funds on this activity. With the information obtained in Stage 1, ODOT develops Stage 2 plans. ODOT sends these plans to affected utility owners, who are then required to provide the utility coordi- nator with their relocation plans and schedules. If the utility relocation work cannot be completed before construction begins, the information is included in a “4A” note to inform bidding contractors about how utility relocation will be han- dled on the project and how the relocation schedule will be coordinated with the construction schedule. If there is a utility conflict during construction, the ODOT project engineer is now required to contact and involve the utility coordinator in the resolution of the problem. ODOT has found this practice useful to reduce utility delays. As part of the process, the utility coordinator must also document issues. For example, in the case of delays and additional costs to the project, ODOT uses the documentation to obtain reimbursement from the responsible utility owner. ODOT considers this coordination between the project construction engineer and the utility coordinator during construction of the project to be one of its best practices. In recent years, ODOT has focused on improving coordi- nation with utility owners. For many decades, ODOT design

102 certification process that involves the submission of data by the regional or division offices to headquarters staff. TDOT personnel use a utilities relocation information sys- tem that can track project areas and utility owner responses and involvement on roadway projects. Because utility owners frequently do not have personnel qualified to inspect their contractors in the field, utility relo- cation work sometimes does not adhere to plans. Once TDOT has identified the need for a utility facility to be relocated, the affected utility owner is asked to contact a TDOT regional utility engineer to arrange for a preliminary review and, if necessary, a field visit. This review provides a basis for discussing the highway project and the scope of the relocation work. Utility owners are responsible for the design of the facili- ties that need to be relocated, and TDOT is responsible for reviewing and approving the utility owner’s proposal. In addition to utility relocation matters, the review and approval cover topics such as measures to ensure traffic safety, the structural integrity of the roadway or highway structure, ease of highway maintenance, appearance of the highway, and the integrity of the utility facility. Texas Department of Transportation TxDOT has used tables and lists to manage utility conflicts for many years. Examples of lists used by districts include those shown in Figures B.28 through B.35. TxDOT considers the use of utility conflict lists to be worth the effort, consider- ing that delay claims by a contractor resulting from an over- looked utility conflict can be costly to the department. Utility conflict lists at TxDOT have many different names, such as utility conflict lists, utility impact lists, utility coordination lists, utility adjustment reports, right-of-way and utilities sta- tus reports, and utility conflict matrices. Officials recognize that using different utility conflict lists in a district, or even in one office, makes the utility coordination process more dif- ficult; TxDOT is increasingly aware of the need to standardize utility conflict lists. TxDOT uses utility conflict lists to prepare PS&E package certifications. Those documents certify that the project is clear of all utility installations and ready for construction, except for the utility installations listed on the utility certifi- cation. In many cases, TxDOT also lists the number of days from the time of letting to actual start of roadway construc- tion, typically 60 to 180 days. This strategy gives contractors time to clear and stake the right-of-way, provides utility own- ers time to address unresolved utility conflicts, and helps to prevent delay claims. Utility certifications are typically prepared by the district staff using previously developed utility conflict lists, often A significant challenge when SDDOT was implementing the new process was helping utility owners understand the transportation project development process and helping project designers understand utility owners’ concerns. An important function of the SDDOT utility coordinator has been to serve as a liaison between both parties. Early in the design process, utility coordinators perform a preliminary survey by using South Dakota one-call tickets, field inspections, and interviews (in person or by phone or e-mail) with involved utility owners. The goal of this investigation is to learn which utility owners need to be involved, what existing utility facilities are within the project limits, and whether the upcoming project will require SUE services. With the data col- lected, SDDOT performs a conflict analysis and lists any utility conflicts in the project scope along with design options or direc- tions for the design engineer to eliminate the conflicts. Later in the design phase, the utility coordinator conducts a group meeting to ensure that all involved utility owners are identified, plans accurately depict all existing utility facilities, and each individual utility conflict is addressed. This conflict review identifies the best cost-effective solution, including options to change the project design or relocate the existing utility facility. The utility coordinator then prepares a meet- ing summary with the results of the conflict analysis. SDDOT also uses spreadsheets to track utility conflict information (Figure B.26). In preparation for letting, SDDOT includes information about known utility facilities and their conflict status in the PS&E documentation (Figure B.27). SDDOT’s experience is that a forceful, inconsiderate approach on the part of the DOT is detrimental and creates a nonproductive, noncooperative environment. SDDOT has also found it useful to look at utility issues from the utility owner’s point of view to understand the challenges a utility owner has to deal with when interacting with the depart- ment. By keeping open lines of communication, SDDOT has also noticed that utility owners are more forthcoming in dis- cussing their own projects with the department in order to avoid conflicts with future highway projects. SDDOT would eventually like to place individual utility coordinators in each of the four SDDOT regions in order to assist designers and utility owners more effectively, give each project more thorough oversight, and help with the resolu- tion of utility conflicts found during construction that were missed earlier in the project development process. Tennessee Department of Transportation Each utility agreement for reimbursable utility relocations at TDOT includes a form that documents the utility reloca- tion activity on that particular project; this form becomes part of the PS&E package. All projects participate in a utility

103 Figure B.26. SDDOT sample utility conflict list.

104 Figure B.27. SDDOT sample utility conflict certification.

105 90% Utility Conflict List FM 2218 and FM 1640 Widening CSJ: 2093-01-009, etc. 9/1/09 OWNER & CONTACT UTILITY DESCRIPTION CONFLICT STA AND OFFSET CONFLICT DESCRIPTION ADJUST. DATE REMARKS AT&T Texas Contact: Carl Holzwarth 5252 Hollister, RM 600 Houston, TX 77040 713-XXX-XXXX xxxxxx@att.com SBC Buried Cable STA 21+09, 45' LT Prop. Storm Sewer SBC/AT&T will adjust or place new cable (B1) SBC Buried Cable STA 21+88, 37' RT Prop. Storm Sewer and Pavement SBC/AT&T will adjust or place new cable (B2) SBC Buried Cable STA 27+50 TO STA 30+00, 48' RT Prop. Storm Sewer SBC/AT&T will adjust or place new cable (B3) SBC Buried Cable STA 44+40 TO STA 45+15 Prop. Storm Sewer and Pavement SBC/AT&T will adjust or place new cable (B4) Telephone Pedestal STA 45+12, 49' LT Prop. Pavement SBC Buried Cable FM 1640 STA 22+33, 80' RT Prop. Storm Sewer No Conflict, approximately 12" of clearance (B19) SBC Buried Cable FM 1640 STA 25+81, 55' RT Prop. Storm Sewer No Conflict, approximately 12" of clearance (B20) SBC Buried Cable FM 1640 STA 25+81, 65' LT Prop. Storm Sewer No Conflict, approximately 12" of clearance (B21) SBC Buried Cable FM 1640 STA 25+89, 62' RT Prop. Storm Sewer No Conflict, approximately 12" of clearance (B22) 9-4" MCD STA 12+50 TO 15+50, 49' LT Prop. Storm Sewer Look at design alternative (C1) 9-4" MCD STA 15+92, 40' LT Prop. Storm Sewer Field verify (C2) 9-4" MCD STA 20+40, 115' RT Prop. Storm Sewer Field verify (C3) 9-4" MCD STA 22+33, 80' RT Prop. Storm Sewer Field verify and look at design alternative (C4) 9-4" MCD STA 25+81, 55' RT Prop. Storm Sewer Field verify and look at design alternative (C5) 9-4" MCD STA 28+05, 62' RT Prop. Storm Sewer 9-4" MCD STA 33+15, 65' RT Prop. Storm Sewer Field verify (C7) ALL MANHOLES Prop. Pavement CenterPoint Energy Electric Contact: Cynthia Martinez 1111 Louisiana, 802 C Houston, TX 77002 713-XXX-XXXX xxxxxx@centerpointenergy.com Power Poles Parallel to LT/RT ROW along Project Prop. Sidewalk Power Pole STA 21+09, 47' LT Prop. Storm Sewer and Sidewalk Power Poles Parallel to Airport Prop. Pavement Power Poles Ave N and Homestead Prop. Pavement Power Poles Reading Prop. Pavement Power Poles Town Center Blvd. Prop. Pavement Power Poles Intersection at FM 2218/FM 1640 Prop. Storm Sewer and Pavement The location of all facilities are called out in an approximate way only. The contractor shall determine the exact location before commencing work. The location of all facilities are called out in an approximate way only. The contractor shall determine the exact location before commencing work. Figure B.28. TxDOT utility conflict list: Example A.

106 TxDOT- Houston District IH 10: from Gelhorn to Mercury Dr. US 90: from IH 10 to 0.29 miles west of Mercury Dr. CSJ: 0508-01-166 CSJ: 0028-02-081 UTILITY CONFLICT LIST - CENTER POINT ENERGY ELECTRICAL Item Number Owner Utility Utility Size/ Material Location Crossing Conflict Sheet Number Conflict Status Estimated Conflict Resolution Date Agreement Assembly Agreement Status Agreement Submittal Date Comments 1 Centerpoint Energy Electrical Conduit 18" Conduit Duct Sta 115+36.31 ( US 90) Underground Proposed Pavement , Ditch Utility Sketch - Centerpoint Electric Sheet 1 of 1 Ongoing 3/1/2006 JUA A CPEE completed design 2 Centerpoint Energy Transmission Tower N/A Sta 115+57 ( US 90) Underground Proposed Pavement Utility Sketch - Centerpoint Transmission Sheet 1 of 1 Ongoing TBD JUA B CPEE completed design 3 Centerpoint Energy Transmission Lines N/A Sta 114+56 ( US 90) Overhead Minimum Clearance requirement Utility Sketch - Centerpoint Transmission Sheet 1 of 1 Ongoing TBD JUA A CPEE completed design 4 Centerpoint Energy Distribution Line N/A IH 10 at Oates Rd Overhead Minimum Clearance requirement N/A Closed 1/12/2006 JUA B CPEE completed design 5 Centerpoint Energy Distribution Line N/A US 90 WBFR Sta 102+00 Overhead Minimum Clearance requirement N/A Ongoing TBD JUA B CPEE completed design 6 Centerpoint Energy Distribution Line N/A US 90 Sta 129+00 Overhead Minimum Clearance requirement, Proposed Bridge at Oates Rd Utility Sketch - Centerpoint Distribution Sheet 1 of 1 Ongoing TBD JUA B CPEE completed design Figure B.29. TxDOT utility conflict list: Example B.

107 RIGHT OF WAY UTILITY RELOCATION SUMMARY REPORT DATE: April 6, 2009 Project: BU 287P County: Tarrant Area Engineer: Joe Fossett From: On Rosedale St. Fr IH35 Proj. Design Manager: Ram Gupta (817) 370-6637 To: Riverside in Ft worth Utility Coordinator: Joseph Bennett (817) 370-6883 Description: Widen 4ln to 6ln Utility Consultant: CSJ No: 0172-01-042 ROWCSJ 0172-01-046 Letting Date: LET August 2008 Utility Company and Description (NOPC) Notice of Proposed Construction Lev el B SUE Receiv ed ** sent to Design 30% plans& SUE made av ailable to Utilities 60% plans to Utilities (Strom Drain & cross section Included) Lev el A 60 day 90% plans to utility Co.’s (Adequate Plans) Permit or Agreement Receiv ed Date R.O.W. Clear for Adjustment Begin Adjustment Date End Adjustment Date Paid In Full AT&T N/A 07-23-04 N/A 03-01-07 05-15-07 P9/22/08 03-31-04 09-30-08 04-09 NA Oncor ELECTRIC DELIVERY( U 12217) N/A 07-23-04 N/A 03-01-07 05-15-07 P2/25/08 03-31-04 04-11-08 05-09 NA CHARTER COMMUNICATION N/A 07-23-04 N/A 03-01-07 05-15-07 P04/09 03-31-04 03-27-09 04-03-09 NA City of Ft. Worth (Water, Sewer) (U 12373) N/A 07-23-04 N/A 03-01-07 05-15-07 P11-15-07 03-31-04 02-25-08 05-09 NA LEVEL3 COMMUNICATION N/A 07-23-04 N/A 03-01-07 05-15-07 A05-09 03-31-04 05-09 08-09 $500, 000 KOCH N/A 07-23-04 N/A 03-01-07 05-15-07 A05-09 03-31-04 06-09 08-09 $400, 000 Atmos gas (U 12218) N/A 07-23-04 N/A 03-01-07 05-15-07 P11-15-07 03-13-04 01-07-08 04-03-08 NA Oncor Transmission N/A 07-23-04 N/A 03-01-07 05-15-07 P10-07 03-13-04 11-01-07 12-27-07 NA (A) Agreement, (JA) Joint use acknowledgement, (EX) Executed date (*) There will be more to come; (**) Utility location sent to design: (NA) The utility is clear and ready for TxDOT construction. COMMENTS: This project let in June 08 and has been held up waiting on RR agreement. There are two utility companies on the RR that will hav e to be adjusted after the RR agreement is signed. 11-18-08 spoke to Micheal Hyzak of Division bridge design, Division let the project in august. The construction contract was awarded to Texas Sterling. A pre-con meeting date hasn’t been set yet. There is two utilities on the bridge, level3 and kochpipeline. Figure B.30. TxDOT sample right-of-way relocation summary.

108 Figure B.31. TxDOT sample right-of-way and utilities status report. GRAYSON COUNTY R.O.W & UTILITY UPDATE REPORT LETTING SCHEDULE SURVEYOR & ESTIMATED DATE FOR PROJECT TO BE SURVEYED DESIGNER / OFFICE OF PROJECT DUE DATE OF INFORMATION NEEDED FROM DESIGNER: OUTSTANDING R.O.W. PARCELS CALENDAR MONTH & YEAR HIGHWAY / I-SECTION CSJ / PROJECT NO. DESCRIPTION OF WORKFY INITIAL DATE OF CONTACT FROM DISTRICT R.O.W. ESTIMATED ACQUISITION DATE TO BE COMPLETED PLAN & PROFILE SHEETS W/ UTILITIES PROPOSED CROSS-SECTIONS OWNER, ADDRESS, & PHONE NUMBER FY 2000 Aug-00 US 82 0045-19-026 NEW LOCATION ALREADY COMPLETED CLAY & 1-Jun-00 1-Jun-00 2/2E Larry Hoodgendorn 204 Laurel Ridge Sherman,TX 75090 Tel. (903)813-1434) 2/2/2000 RTE # 1,2,3 UNDERWOOD BOB 5/5E Harold N. Shannon 5927 Over Downs Circle Dallas,TX 75230-4039 5/27/1999 ROE 6/1/00 10 Charlotte Durbin & Felicia Eichner 11038 Westmore Circle Dallas,TX 75230-3552 3/1/2000 ROE 6/1/00 12E Same as Parcel 10 3/1/2000 ROE 6/1/00 13 Nolene Morphew 415 S. Hazelwood St. Sherman,TX 75090-6210 5/13/1999 RTE 14 Glen E. Moore 207 N. Tolbert Ave. Sherman, TX 75092 5/13/1999 RTE 15 Shafer Plaza III, LP 4514 Cole Suite 1201 Dallas,TX 75205-000 5/27/1999 ROE 6/1/00 18/18E Gary Andrews & Patsy Andrews 27726 Snow Rd Bakersfield, CA 93312-9591 2/7/2000 ROE 6/1/00 25 L.O Cherry Heirs c/o Mrs. George Perry, Jr. Route 2 Box 5B Henrietta,TX 76365 6/25/1999 (Curative)ROE 6/1/00 27/27E Walter W. Jansen 565 Watson Rd. Bells,TX75414-9724 8/20/1999 ROE 6/1/00 32/32TE Mr. James Laster & Mrs. Teresa Hill 1269 Watson Rd. Bells,TX 75414 9/18/1999 RTE 33/33E L.V. Owens & Shirley 11355 Watson Rd. Bells,TX 75414 9/10/1999 RTE FY 2001 Sep-00 SH 5 @ FLASHING BEACON N/A TRAFFIC 1-Jun-00 1-Jun-00 NO NEW R.O.W. REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT FM 902 OPERATIONS Oct-00 Nov-00 SH 91 @ HES: SIGNALS N/A TRAFFIC 1-Jun-00 1-Jun-00 NO NEW R.O.W. REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT WOODLAKE OPERATIONS FM 691 @ HES: SIGNALS N/A TRAFFIC 1-Jun-00 1-Jun-00 NO NEW R.O.W. REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT THERESA OPERATIONS FM 120 (#2) WIDEN ALREADY COMPLETED MIKE B. 1-Apr-00 1-Apr-00 NO NEW R.O.W. REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT ANSLEY LANE ROADWAY UNDERWOOD YOUNG ST. REHAB ALREADY COMPLETED MIKE P. 1-Jun-00 1-Jun-00 NO NEW R.O.W. REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT CITY OF HOWE ROADWAY UNDERWOOD Dec-00 VARIOUS SEAL COAT N/A T.P. & D. NO NEW R.O.W. REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT Jan-01 US 69 @ TRAFFIC SIGNALS N/A TRAFFIC 1-Jun-00 1-Jun-00 NO NEW R.O.W. REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT SPUR 503 OPERATIONS US 82 FR @ TRAFFIC SIGNALS N/A TRAFFIC 1-Jun-00 1-Jun-00 FM 1417 OPERATIONS Feb-01 NOTE: RTE (Property in Condemnation), ROE (Right of Entry), 9 other properties expected to be closed by 12/1/00, and 16 other properties have already been closed PARCEL NUMBER UTILITIES LOCATED WITHIN THE PROJECT AND POSSIBLE CONFLICTS DATE OF SIGNED UTILITY AGREEMENT RETURNED TO SHERMAN AREA OFFICE OR DISTRICT R.O.W. DATE OF INITIAL LETTER TO THE UTILITIES FROM PARIS DISTRICT R.O.W. OFFICE DATE OF LETTER OR PHONE CALL FROM THE SHERMAN AREA OFFICE ADJUSTMENT NEEDS BY OR NO ACCOMMODATION FOR UTILITY COMPANIES HANDOUT DATE OF R.O.W. MAP, PLAN & PROFILE SHEETS, AND X-SECTIONS UTILITY COMPANIES DATE ESTIMATED UTILITY ADJUSTMENTS TO BE COMPLETED UTILITY STATUS AND/OR DATE COMPLETEDINVOLVED TYPE STATION LOCATION BEGIN END VERIZON / GTE PHONE ALL COUNTY ROADS ALL COUNTY ROADS UG UNKNOWN 4/1/2000 LINES NEED TO BE RELOCATED & NO ACCOMODATIONS 6/1/2000 NOT NEEDED 12/1/2000 NO WORK YET 2/5/2000 PINK HILL WATER WATER/SEWER ALL COUNTY ROADS ALL COUNTY ROADS UG UNKNOWN 4/1/2000 ALL LOCATIONS NEED TO BE RELOCATED 3/24/2000 6/1/2000 8/1/2000 9/6/2000 TXU PIPELINE(TUFCO) GAS STA 1415+00 STA 1537+75 STA 1450+00 STA 1547+00 UG UNKNOWN 4/1/2000 BOTH LOCATIONS NEED TO BE RELOCATED 4/5/2000 NOT SIGNED 12/1/2000 NO WORK YET 2/5/2000 KOCH PIPELINE GAS APPROX. STA 1596+00 APPROX. STA 1598+00 UG UNKNOWN 4/1/2000 NO RELOCATION NEEDED BUT DITCH BLOCKS MUST BE PUT IN 4/1/2000 NOT SIGNED 12/1/2000 NO WORK YET 2/5/2000 GRAYSON/COLLIN ELECTRIC ALL COUNTY ROADS ALL COUNTY ROADS OH UNKNOWN 4/1/2000 ALL LOCATIONS NEED TO BE RELOCATED 6/1/2000 NOT SIGNED 12/1/2000 NO WORK YET 2/5/2000 AT&T FIBER OPTIC APPROX. STA 1340+00 APPROX. STA 1345+00 UG UNKNOWN 4/1/2000 NO RELOCATION NEEDED 6/15/2000 - - - ARCO GAS APPROX. STA 1524+55 APPROX. STA 1529+80 UG UNKNOWN 8/1/2000 NO RELOCATION NEEDED 8/1/2000 - - -

109 PARIS DISTRICT As Of: August 19, 2009 UTILITY ADJUSTMENT REPORT County Highway ROW CSJ Name of Utility Reimbursable? Location of Agreement Package Packet Status? Current Action Adjustment Status Responsible TxDOT Employee Amount Approved Amount Billed 90% Payment Audit Exceptions 10% Retainage Outstanding Balance Verizon No ROW Approved U11114: Relocation is complete. NR Complete Keith Hollje TXU Electric Yes ROW Approved U11655: Relocation & Reimbursement is complete Complete Keith Hollje 74,397.96$ 62,850.69$ 56,565.62$ -$ 6,285.07$ -$ Atmos Energy (Trans) Yes ROW Approved U12208: Relocation & Reimbursement is complete Complete Mike Powers 235,912.59$ 184,436.76$ 165,993.08$ -$ 18,443.68$ -$ Atmos Energy (Distribution) No ROW Approved U12446: Relocation is complete. NR Complete Mike Powers SS Water & Sewer No ROW Approved U12450: Relocation is complete. NR Complete Mike Powers TXU Distribution No ROW Approved U12614: Relocation is complete. NR Complete Mike Powers Sudden Link Communications No AO Approved Relocation is complete by Permit. NR Complete Tim Taylor People's Telephone No AO Approved Relocation is complete by Permit. NR Complete Tim Taylor Shady Grove WSC No AO Approved Relocation is complete by Permit. NR Complete Tim Taylor 310,310.55$ 247,287.45$ 222,558.70$ -$ 24,728.75$ -$ Caddo Basin Yes ROW Approved U11423: Relocation & Reimbursement is complete. Complete Mike Powers 853,746.47$ 783,618.01$ 705,256.21$ -$ 78,361.80$ -$ Verizon No ROW Approved U11450: Relocation is complete. NR Complete Mike Powers One OK Pipeline Yes ROW Approved U11523: Relocation is complete. Reimbursement has not been submitted. Complete Keith Hollje 229,170.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 229,170.00$ Cap Rock Energy Yes ROW Approved U11524: Relocation & Reimbursement is complete. Complete Mike Powers 741,668.69$ 741,668.69$ 667,388.42$ (27,771.80)$ 46,508.47$ -$ AT&T No ROW Approved U11526: Relocation is complete. NR Complete Mike Powers Explorer Yes ROW Approved U11534: Relocation & Reimbursement is complete. Complete Keith Hollje 191,805.22$ 201,206.44$ 181,085.80$ -$ 20,120.64$ -$ Energy Transfer (Gas) Yes ROW Approved U11695: Relocation is complete. Reimbursement returned to Utility 4/29/09. No Coorespondence! Complete Mike Powers 370,006.39$ 420,136.25$ -$ -$ -$ 370,006.39$ GEUS No ROW Approved U11850: Relocation is complete. NR Complete Mike Powers AT&T No ROW Approved U12358: Relocation is complete. NR Complete Mike Powers TMPA No n/a n/a No effect (no adjustment required) n/a Mike Powers Comcast No n/a n/a No effect (no adjustment required) n/a Mike Powers Kinder-Morgan No n/a n/a No effect (no adjustment required) n/a Mike Powers 2,386,396.77$ 2,146,629.39$ 1,553,730.43$ (27,771.80)$ 144,990.91$ 599,176.39$ AT&T No ROW Approved U11525: Relocation is complete. NR Complete Mike Powers Atmos Energy (Pipeline) Yes ROW Approved U12012: Relocation & Reimbursement is complete. Complete Mike Powers 193,912.59$ 73,187.29$ 65,868.56$ -$ 7,318.73$ -$ Atmos Energy (Distribution) No ROW Approved U12013: Relocation is complete. NR Complete Mike Powers Caddo Basin Yes ROW Approved U12026: Relocation & Reimbursement is complete. Complete Mike Powers 651,005.00$ 383,518.60$ 345,166.74$ -$ 38,351.86$ -$ TMPA Yes ROW Approved U12076: Relocation is complete. Supplemental Agreement approved 8/06/09. Complete Mike Powers 514,097.06$ 516,702.66$ 462,196.85$ -$ 51,355.21$ 51,355.21$ GEUS No ROW Approved U12077: Relocation is complete. NR Complete Mike Powers TXU Electric(Transmission) No ROW Approved U12079: Relocation is complete. NR Complete Mike Powers GEUS Yes ROW No U12445: Utility Package approved 5/19/09. Utility working on relocation. 35% Mike Powers 88,073.29$ -$ -$ 88,073.29$ City of Greenville (Water) No AO n/a City has already moved utility on private easement. (no agreement required) n/a Mike Powers City of Greenville (Sewer) No AO n/a City has already moved utility on private easement. (no agreement required) n/a Mike Powers Cap Rock Energy No AO n/a No effect (no adjustment required) n/a Mike Powers 1,447,087.94$ 973,408.55$ 873,232.15$ -$ 97,025.80$ 139,428.50$ PROJECT TOTALS OF ALL UTILITY COST: 4,143,795.26$ 3,367,325.39$ 2,649,521.28$ (27,771.80)$ 266,745.46$ 738,604.89$ NOTE: US 82 in Lamar County from Reno to Blossom: The utilities have not been completely determined and is not available for Status update! Changes since last update in RED HOPKINS SH 11 ROW CSJ: 0083-03-046 SH 19 0108-09-039 HUNT US 380 ROW CSJ: 0135-06-022 HUNT US 380 ROW CSJ: 0135-07-037 Figure B.32. TxDOT sample utility relocation report.

110 County: Highway: ROW CSJ: Construction Control CSJ: Phase I CSJ: Limits: From: To: Phase II CSJ: Limits: From: To: Phase III CSJ: Limits: From: To: Agreement Package Billing Sent to Utility Received from Utility Sent Back to Utility for Corrections Resubmitted by Utility w/ Corrections Sent to ROW Division Approved by ROW Division Received from Utility Sent Back to Utility for Corrections Resubmitted by Utility w/ Corrections Sent to ROW Division 90% Payment Issued to Utility 10% Retainage Issued to Utility Phase I Phase II Phase III Date of 2nd Notice (If Needed) ROW Map & Notice of Construction Sent to Utility Utility Name ROW Map Markups Received from Utility Estimated Relocation Cost Remarks Begin Adjustment Adjustment Completed Utility Adjustment Closed Out Notice to Proceed Sent to Utility Figure B.33. TxDOT sample utility coordination report.

111 Figure B.34. TxDOT sample utility status chart.

112 CSJ HWY DIV OST # Tot. Adj's. Adj. Comp. Adj. Outst. Let Date 0675-08-052 45 $9,770,863 18 1 17 Aug-07 U# Utility Anticip. Agreement Date Agreement Date Est. Fld. Comp. Date Actual Fld. Comp. Date AP Estimate Agreement Estimate Prior to FY 07 Payments FY 07 Payments FY 07 Anticip. Payments FY 08 Payments Made FY 08 Anticip. Payments FY 09 Payment Made FY 09 Anticip. payments FY 10 Anticip. Payments FY 10 Payment Made FY 11 Anticip. Payments FY 11 Payment Made FY 12 Anticip. Payments FY 12 Payment Made FY 13 Anticip. Payments FY 13 Payment Made Total Paid to Date Est or AP Balance (if any) Total Remainder to be Paid Type of Payment U11494 Chaparall 7/25/2007 9/26/2007 $200,000 $269,137 $0 $0 $0 $206,731 $0 $22,970 $0 $229,701 $39,436 $0 FP-AP U11495 Copano Feb-08 6/18/2008 10/1/2008 $200,000 $220,189 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $254,443 $28,271 $282,714 $0 $0 FP-AP U11495 S1 $62,525 U11496 Valero 2008 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 VOID U11499 CPE Gas 2008 FY10 $2,200,000 $312,198 $0 $0 $0 $0 $312,198 $0 $312,198 $312,198 U11501 AT&T Trans. 6/30/2009 Terry Hopper 8/17/2009 Sep-09 $1,200,000 $26,470 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26,470 $0 $26,470 $26,470 U11502 AT&T Apr-08 Aug-09 $900,000 $2,721,907 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,721,907 $0 $2,721,907 $2,721,907 rev. agmt. U11503 Wave 6/30/2009 2009 $200,000 $141,378 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $201,874 $0 $200,000 $141,378 U11503s1 Supplemented on 11/23/09 Nov-09 $60,496 U11504 Consolid 07/25/07 FY10 $422,521 $0 $0 $0 $9,040 $0 $422,521 $9,040 $413,481 $413,481 PP U11505 Phono 09/24/07 2/1/2008 $66,227 $66,227 $0 $0 $0 $0 $66,227 $0 $0 $66,227 $66,227 U11510 Level 3 6/30/2009 Nov-09 Aug-10 $1,000,000 $2,289,645 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,289,645 $0 $2,289,645 $2,289,645 awaiting adjustment and inv. U11528 Suddnlnk 2008 03/07/08 2009 $1,000,000 $76,152 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $79,152 $0 $76,152 $76,152 U11819 Entergy 6/30/2009 Sep-09 Mar-10 $1,500,000 $60,538 $0 $0 $0 $60,538 $0 $60,538 No Inv Yet U11868 Consolid Jun-07 FY 2010 $2,528,841 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $127,632 $0 $136,263 $136,263 PP U11868 S1 Consolid Jun-09 -$2,264,946 U11500 Entergy 09/2008 Oct-08 $900,000 $650,372 $0 $0 $19,331 $650,372 $0 $669,703 $669,703 U11500 S1 Entergy Jun-09 $19,331 U12645 ATT U11506 Conroe - Waterline 13-Sep-07 PS&E = $3,100,288 + $109,608 $0 $0 $3,209,896 $0 $3,209,896 $0 U11507 Conroe Sewerline 12-Sep-07 PS&E = $3,271,715 + $62,327 $0 $0 $3,369,950 $0 $3,369,950 $0 U11497 H&W $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 U11498 Brinker $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Totals $9,366,227 $7,662,981 $0 $0 $0 $215,771 $66,227 $277,413 $6,599,177 $6,764,677 $521,455 $13,531,328 $6,913,962 NO CONFLICT NO CONFLICT Comments: RCSJ 0675-08-089, 0.717 MI NORTH OF NORTH LOOP 336 TO 0.118 MI NORTH OF SOUTH LOOP 336. WIDEN TO 8 MAIN LANES W/ 2-3 LANE FRONTAGE ROADS, RAMPS, GRADE SEPARATIONS & PROVISION FOR FUTURE HOV AND TMS DO NOT USE Note - Reduction Supplement. Moving The total Entergy adjustment cost will be ~$589,249, to be done Adjustment not required Figure B.35. TxDOT sample utility conflict status list.

113 Sometimes districts keep two versions of the same list. One version includes all data items used for daily utility conflict management activities. The second version, which is for- warded to the district engineer, only includes the most impor- tant data items. Some TxDOT districts do not use a utility conflict list, but track the status of permits for utility facilities that need to relocate. The document used to track the status of permits, called a right-of-way utility summary, tracks the dates of important milestones for each utility owner involved in the utility coordination process. Some districts participate in utility coordination councils that meet quarterly to discuss utility and policy issues. While these discussions can be useful for communicating with util- ity owners, some districts find that keeping utility owners interested in these meetings can be difficult. Experienced util- ity coordinators have witnessed how utility coordination councils start out with enthusiastic participation by members but lose members over time as a result of decreasing interest or staff turnover. Although the official process calls for sending design plans to utility owners in preparation for 30%, 60%, and 90% design meetings, TxDOT sometimes does not send the 30% design drawings to utility owners because utility owners tend not to get involved at that point. Most utility conflict manage- ment activities take place between 60% and 90% design. At project meetings, TxDOT provides design plans to utility owners and lets them determine how to resolve the utility conflicts. In practice, based on anecdotal information pro- vided in the past, utility owners prefer TxDOT to take the lead in determining “who goes where.” In recent years, there has been considerable pressure from the public, the legislature, and the administration to accel- erate the project development process. Unintended conse- quences for utility coordination include making utility owners design and relocate faster than they would have in the past. On small projects with only a few utility conflicts, changes to the project schedule might be easier to handle, but on major projects, it is imperative to stick to a project schedule. Project decelerations can be equally disruptive. Although TxDOT has a 3-year letting schedule, districts frequently have projects that do not go to letting as planned and are delayed, creating tensions with utility owners who may have already spent considerable resources planning and preparing for the relocation of their facilities (and might not be reimbursed if construction funds for the project are not allocated). During utility relocations, some districts make an effort to certify the utility installation drawings that utility owners include in permit requests or utility agreements. These dis- tricts use an internal form the utility inspector uses to note if the utility facility was inspected as planned or if any deviations relying on ad hoc procedures and providing only a rough estimate of the actual status of utility conflicts on a project. Since most of the utility coordination is completed at the dis- trict level, division-level staff normally see the utility certifi- cation, not the more extensive utility conflict list. Some districts report that most problems during construc- tion are related to utility conflicts. To address this issue, many districts attempt to produce utility conflict lists as early as possible to give utility coordinators and designers more time and flexibility to deal with utility conflicts. Frequently, if a utility in conflict is not identified during the preliminary design phase, it becomes more difficult to avoid a utility relo- cation. Preliminary design-level utility conflict lists are often called potential utility conflict lists because often utilities are not confirmed and established as conflicts until a project’s detailed design is around 60% complete. Districts frequently use two tables: a utility conflict list and a utility contact list. Districts use two separate tables because there might be many contacts associated with one conflict, such as a coordination contact, design contact, construction contact, and payment–reimbursement contact. Districts have used electronic utility conflict lists for years. Over time, they have modified the type of information tracked to balance useful information with the time needed to maintain the list. Some districts reported the utility conflicts lists they use have worked well and have not changed for years. In some districts, the utility coordination function is divided between reimbursable (for which it is necessary to prepare and execute utility agreements) and nonreimburs- able (for which a utility permit is frequently sufficient) utility relocations. The first utility conflict list is frequently devel- oped during planning; at this point it is simply a list of utility facilities or a list of potential utility conflicts. The preliminary design group updates this list and includes information from utility owners and data from utility permits. Once the design phase starts, the project designer develops a more detailed utility conflict list that also tracks utility facilities not in con- flict or only potentially in conflict. This practice is useful in case a design modification changes potential utility conflicts to actual utility conflicts or if utility conflicts appear during construction, which might require change orders. Determining if a utility facility is in conflict often demands not just horizontal but also vertical positions. Vertical infor- mation is normally difficult to obtain. Although permits might include information such as depth of cover, this infor- mation is usually not sufficiently detailed or accurate. In these cases, districts collect QLB or QLA data. Updating utility conflict lists is typically the designer’s responsibility, but the right-of-way section helps when pos- sible. Typically, the right-of-way section has better informa- tion about utility owner names and contacts. As a minimum, utility conflict lists are revised at 30%, 60%, and 90% design.

114 For small- to medium-size projects, some districts use the task feature in their e-mail client application to track utility conflicts. District officials log relevant information or data received and any contact made throughout the process. The result is a chronological summary of the utility coordination efforts with each utility owner. For large projects or for proj- ects on a tight schedule, some districts use scheduling soft- ware to track utility coordination activities, which simplifies scheduling and tracking of deadlines for the completion of utility agreements. TxDOT does not have a centralized system for managing utility conflict data. Some districts have developed systems, typically in a Microsoft Access format, to track utility con- flicts (Figures B.36 and B.37). Although helpful, those sys- tems tend to be ad hoc, with informal database structures, table structures, and user interfaces. Districts stated a great need to have a centralized utility conflict tracking system sup- ported by a server-based utility database. TxDOT tracks reimbursable utility agreement payments using the right-of-way information system (ROWIS), which TxDOT implemented in 1997 to manage the right-of-way acquisition process. ROWIS was not designed to handle util- ity relocations. TxDOT tracks utility agreements by creating from the previously submitted plan have occurred. If there are significant changes, the utility inspector may request a new set of plans. Otherwise, the utility coordinator modifies or annotates the original plans, which then become the as- built plans. Some districts request utility facility plans signed and sealed by a professional engineer. However, small projects and small utility owners typically do not have staff profes- sional engineers. TxDOT’s perception is that utility owners are frequently not sufficiently familiar with the utility coordination process (since utility conflict management is not their core business). Strategies mentioned for addressing this issue include getting to know and engaging utility representatives and stressing the importance of critical dates, such as the letting date and the date by which the utility relocation must be complete. TxDOT has started to use web-based applications such as Google Earth and Microsoft Bing maps to review locations for potential utility conflicts. Some districts have also started to plot GPS coordinate data of utility installations on GIS platforms. Utility coordinators can make preliminary assess- ments of whether a utility is in conflict and confirm the assess- ment through a field visit. However, not all TxDOT officials currently have access to the Internet. Figure B.36. Utility relocation projects screen from the TxDOT district utility conflict database.

115 For high-profile projects, TxDOT has started to match utility conflicts to critical right-of-way acquisition parcels in an effort to prioritize right-of-way acquisitions based on the urgency of resolving utility conflicts. Additional Observations and Recommendations from TxDOT • Foster communication between DOT project designer and utility engineers. In general, a holistic engineering approach in which the DOT project designer communicates well with utility engineers is mutually beneficial. For example, the DOT could designate a DOT utility champion as a contact for utility owners. The utility champion should be knowl- edgeable about utility needs and processes and should be able to communicate these needs to DOT designers. • Consider DOT–utility cost sharing for SUE. Cost sharing or cost participation for SUE activities by utility owners could be beneficial to both parties, but it would require new leg- islation in Texas and many other states. • Provide training for DOT and utility personnel about utility coordination topics. To address the lack of familiarity of parcel records in ROWIS that represent utility agreements. Figure B.38 shows a ROWIS screen. The system runs on a Microsoft SQL Server database platform. The system inter- face includes screens to display or query data on topics such as projects, parcels, tasks, owners, control section job num- bers, minute orders, and public agencies. ROWIS uses some data from TxDOT’s design and con- struction information system (DCIS), such as control sec- tion job numbers, federal project number, project limits, and authorized funds. However, ROWIS is not integrated with DCIS, which means that DCIS data must be manually entered into ROWIS. Data synchronization issues arise when there are data updates in DCIS that are not reflected in ROWIS. Because the capability within ROWIS to support the utility process is limited, TxDOT uses a utility agreement database, which is a stand-alone Access database, to track reimbursable agreement billings and payments. TxDOT considers this database to be a temporary solution to track billings and pay- ments. Because the two systems are not linked, all relevant project information in the utility agreement database needs to be entered manually into ROWIS. Figure B.37. Utility relocation billing screen from the TxDOT district utility conflict database.

116 development process, the project supervisor provides utility owners operating within and near the project area design plans to identify and document any utility conflicts. During the scoping process or development of conceptual plans, VTrans conducts a field review of the project area to identify all utility facilities operating within or near the proj- ect limits and to determine if any additional facilities are not shown on plans. VTrans then starts a project file and sends any changes resulting from the field visit to the project man- ager. Results from the field study also help VTrans to make a preliminary determination as to which utility owners might be operating utility facilities within the project area, what aerial utility facilities are in joint occupancy, and a prelimi- nary determination of reimbursement eligibility. If VTrans anticipates significant utility conflicts, it might send utility owners a “preliminary notice to utilities,” which informs util- ity owners of the proposed project. VTrans then confirms areas of responsibility to prevent duplication of work and misunderstandings during subsequent steps in the project development process. utility personnel with state DOT processes (and the lack of familiarity of state DOT personnel with utility owner pro- cesses), it would be advisable to develop and deliver a vari- ety of training modules to address specific areas. Examples include preparation of documents pertinent to different types of utility relocations, case studies of utility reloca- tions, the process to develop cost estimates, an introduc- tion to highway design plans, and an introduction to utility facility design plans. Vermont Agency of Transportation VTrans assigns a project supervisor from the utilities and per- mits unit to every transportation project to coordinate utility relocations and provide a utility clearance document before letting. The project supervisor works with utility owners, the VTrans right-of-way section, and the VTrans roadway design section to address utility conflicts and maintain indi- vidual utility project correspondence files. During the project Figure B.38. ROWIS screen.

117 The special provisions summarize the contractor’s obliga- tions necessary to accommodate utility relocations. Occasionally, a utility owner or municipality requests VTrans to include utility relocation work in the highway con- tract. In these cases, VTrans develops a design that includes the utility relocation work. If the utility relocation is non- reimbursable, VTrans prepares an agreement with the utility for reimbursement to the state. In general, utility owners have a desire to work with the VTrans schedules in a cooperative manner since they need highway work permits for maintenance and expansion of their facilities. The utilities and permits unit maintains a database for highway work permits. When a utility conflict has a negative impact on the project schedule (e.g., if a utility relocation is taking too long or if a utility owner does not provide utility relocation plans in a timely manner), the project supervisor and project manager determine a course of action that generally involves written communications and meetings with utility owners to resolve problems. During the recent implementation of the American Recov- ery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), utility owners in Vermont lobbied the state legislature to require reimbursement of all utility relocations on all ARRA projects in order to accelerate project delivery. VTrans considered several sources to deter- mine if comprehensive utility owner reimbursements would accelerate project delivery, but concluded that reimburse- ments most likely would not improve project delivery times. The initiative did not pass. VTrans continues to operate using the same reimbursement procedures for all transportation projects, including ARRA projects. Virginia Department of Transportation VDOT uses a system called right-of-way and utility man- agement system (RUMS) to manage right-of-way acquisi- tion and utility relocation data. RUMS tracks utility relocation costs, easements, bills, and payments organized by utility owner (Figure B.39). For each utility owner on a project, RUMS tracks general information (e.g., type, plan and estimate infor- mation, authorizations, and payments), field inspection data, right-of-way parcels affected by the relocation, utility construction data, and related contacts (Figure B.40). RUMS is also linked to project scheduling software and an internal schedule of activities. VDOT has used RUMS since approximately 2000 and has updated it several times over the years. At this point, RUMS can print a report of utility owners involved in a project (Figure B.41), but not utility conflicts. During the development of preliminary plans, VTrans sends plans to utility owners and/or municipal depart- ments and requests a relocation routing, including con- struction time duration once VTrans gives notification to relocate. When VTrans receives proposed relocation rout- ing, the project manager, the design unit, and the right-of- way section determine jointly whether the routing is reasonable and whether there is a need to purchase addi- tional right-of-way to accommodate the relocation. If VTrans purchases additional right-of-way for the project, the project manager and right-of-way agent hold property owner visits with a representative from the utility owner, which might result in revisions to relocation routes. After property owner visits, VTrans updates preliminary plans as necessary to reflect the agreed-on relocation routing, and the project manager submits the updated plans to the right-of-way section to initiate the right-of-way acquisi- tion process. If VTrans proposes to purchase right-of-way to satisfy proposed utility relocation routes, VTrans repre- sentatives must attend a Superior Court necessity hearing to defend the purchase. At the end of the design phase, VTrans prepares what is known as a utility clearance to document the completion of coordination activities with utility owners and municipali- ties. VTrans also prepares a set of special provisions to include in the highway contract to inform the contractor of various conditions the contractor might have to work with during the construction phase. Vermont has also attempted to avoid liability for utility delays by including a no damage for delay clause in the VTrans standard construction specifications. Although these tools are effective in reducing contractor claims, they have had little effect on reducing utility-related delays. In fact, utility-related problems are becoming a lead- ing cause of delays during construction. VTrans uses scheduling software for all programmed proj- ects. The project manager maintains the schedule with input from various agency sections and units. Utility-related activi- ties in the schedule include the following: • Existing utilities. This activity involves the documentation and verification of the existing utility facilities within the project area. • Utility relocation routing. This activity requires the utility owner to design a relocation route that does not conflict with the construction limits on the design plans. • Utility agreements. This activity involves the develop- ment of the agreement between the agency and utility owner covering the work to accommodate the utility relocation. • Utility clearance and special provisions. The utility clear- ance confirms the verification of the utility agreement execution and that any highway work permits are in order.

118 UT-9 and has not revised the form for several years. UT-9 is a stand-alone form that is not linked to any system. VDOT uses UT-9 data to populate records in RUMS. VDOT involves utility owners as early as possible in the project development process, and considers early involvement of utility owners the key to successful utility conflict management. Early involvement activities include field reviews and scoping meetings to identify conflicts and discuss potential resolutions before design plans are developed. Once VDOT receives plan markups from utility owners, the design section includes the information in the CAD drawings. If the utility facility needs to move, VDOT requests relocation plans from the utility owner, which are also included in the CAD drawings. Using the relocation plans, a survey team goes to the field and stakes out the locations where the utility facilities need to move. This practice is VDOT uses a standardized form (Form UT-9) for man- aging utility conflicts on all projects that lists utility facilities and conflicts and includes cost responsibility (Figure B.42). One project might have multiple forms because a separate form is used for each utility owner in the project. VDOT updates the forms as the project development process con- tinues (e.g., to indicate when a utility facility is no longer in conflict). The tracking mechanism for changes is the date on the form. VDOT maintains copies of each version for documentation purposes. The UT-9 form includes a comment field for entering recommendations, such as moving a highway feature instead of relocating a utility facility. However, in most cases, discussions about alterna- tive conflict resolutions take place through normal project discussions. Other than attaching forms to plans (which VDOT does on a routine basis), VDOT has not seen the need to change Form Figure B.39. VDOT sample RUMS project screen.

119 value engineering study. In general, the contractor must pay for any secondary utility relocation that might result from the study. When design plans are about 30% to 50% complete, usu- ally about 2 to 12 months before letting, some offices sched- ule a plan-in-hand field trip and invite utility owners to participate. In preparation for the meeting, VDOT provides plans and a list of utility conflicts to utility owners. During the field trip, VDOT officials verify and edit information as needed, making sure that all information previously pro- vided to the designers has been included on the plans, and take one last look to make sure all known conflicts have been considered. VDOT gives particular emphasis to utility facilities that are difficult to move or might take a long time to relocate, such as electric transmission lines and gas pipelines. The UT-9 form is usually completed before the plan-in- hand field trip. Frequently, before VDOT officials complete the UT-9 form, they have already had discussions with designers and utility stakeholders and have outlined alterna- tive solutions. The UT-9 form is then a mechanism to formal- ize those discussions and the corresponding conclusions. sometimes time consuming, but it has been useful to avoid additional conflicts. In conjunction with FHWA, VDOT reimburses 100% of engineering expenses in connection with utility relocations, including the preparation of relocation plans and cost esti- mates (within a certain deadline), regardless of reimburse- ment eligibility of the actual relocation. About 90% of all VDOT projects are eligible for federal reimbursement. For the remaining 10% (i.e., state projects), VDOT has recog- nized the benefits of using the program and now reimburses engineering expenses using state funds. The 100% reimburse- ment program has been in place for several years and has resulted in an accelerated utility relocation process, partly because VDOT imposes a deadline for program eligibility. VDOT commonly uses the value engineering process dur- ing preliminary design. During the design, discussions about value tend to be more informal. Sometimes during construc- tion, a contractor might request a value engineering study. The incentive for the contractor is that any net monetary savings are split between VDOT and the contractor. Utility owners are involved in this process depending on consider- ations such as proximity to the locations affected by the Figure B.40. VDOT sample RUMS utility data screen.

120 congested projects in the Northern Virginia District, as well as collecting GPS data on projects in the Hampton Roads District. On many projects, VDOT acquires a 10-foot corridor near (inside) the right-of-way line specifically for utility facilities. The corridor provides ducts for electric, communications, gas, water, sewer, and other utility facilities. If utility owners do not want to relocate in this corridor and use the ducts provided, they must move outside the right-of-way at their own expense. In an effort to give utility owners more time to relocate before construction, VDOT has changed its policy for the completion of utility relocations. The deadline for utility VDOT uses the UT-9 form to prepare a special provision for inclusion in the PS&E assembly that summarizes pend- ing utility relocations and an estimated time for comple- tion of the relocation. It is also VDOT’s practice to include names of utility owners on design drawings under the assumption that the contractor is responsible for contact- ing utility owners (although VDOT is aware of cases in which the highway contractor has not contacted utility owners because the contractor’s perception is that utility owners only provide limited information of little use to the contractor). VDOT has also started using radio frequency identification marker balls for damage prevention purposes in connection with relocated utility facilities on several Figure B.41. VDOT sample RUMS utility status report.

121 U26 Form UT-9 Rev. 04/00 Sheet 1 of 5 Project: 0011-080-108-R201 PPMS No.: 17698 Determination of Cost Utility Owner: Appalachian Power Date of Utility Field Inspection: 07/26/2006 Responsibility Made By: Utility Owner Rep.: Mr. Martin A. McGee Brad Bowles VDOT Rep.: B. Bowles / S. Ray Date: July 27, 2006 Project Prorate: State 36.0% Utility 64.0% (Percentage to be determined to the nearest tenth.) SHOW ALL FACILITIES WITHIN THE PROJECT LIMITS AND PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY LINES (INCLUDING CONNECTIONS). Plan Sheet No. Route or Street Type and/or Size Facility **See Legend StationsFrom - To L or R Distance from Center Line Relation to Existing Hwy. R/W *** Cost Resp UT or ST *Auth. Docum. Units Used to Determine Cost Resp. Remarks Type Size/Pole No. ON OFF 3 11 P 250-1601 13+00 R 39 X ST 7 1 P 250-1602 14+53 R 39 X ST 7 1 P 16+70 R 40 X ST 7 1 P 250-202 16+84 L 40 X UT 1 4 11 P 250-203 18+42 L 41 X UT 1 P 250-205 19+88 L 27 X UT 1 P 250-206 21+01 L 27 X UT 1 P 22+56 L 27 X UT 1 P 24+19 L 32 X UT 1 P 250-2072 24+65 L 91 X ST 7 1 P 250-2073 25+22 L 72 X ST 7 1 * From the list below, select the appropriate authority or documentation which makes the state responsible for the cost of the utility and indicate same in the “Authority or Documentation” column by referring to the corresponding number: 1. 33.1-44 used on urban projects for utilities owned by a municipality, public utility district or public utility authority 5. 33.1-69.2 used on secondary projects for utilities owned by county, city, town, authority or district. 2. 33.1-55 (a) used on Interstate in cities or towns for utilities located in city streets. 6. 33.1-269 used on certain bond projects. 7. 33.1-96 used for utilities located on private property. 3. 33.1-55 (b) used on Arterial projects for utilities owned by a county, city, town or public utility authority located in existing streets. 8. Prior rights. 9. Prior agreements (provide date ) 4. 33.1-56 used on Interstate and Primary projects in counties for all utilities owned by a county or political subdivision of the state or county and for water or sanitary sewer owned by a city or town located extending into any county. 10. (other) ** P=Pole, T=Buried Tel. Cable, TC=Tel. Conduit, PD=Pedestal, G=Gas, W=Water, S=Sewer, SFM=Sewer Force Main, MH=Manhole, TV=Buried Cable TV, UE=Underground Electric ***Use Linear Meters (linear feet) in the proper column for entry of underground utilities and an X or ✓ for other units not requiring a length of measurement. Figure B.42. VDOT sample form UT-9 utility inventory.

122 delivery of the project. WSDOT advertises projects using one of the following utility relocation risk levels: • Risk Level 1. Utility relocations are complete. • Risk Level 2. Utility relocations are ongoing but will be completed by bid opening. • Risk Level 3. Utility work will be concurrent with construc- tion or depends on a construction element in order to be completed. Wyoming Department of Transportation Recently, WYDOT developed a new project process, includ- ing a process flow chart scheduler, for use with Oracle’s Pri- mavera. The WYDOT utility section at headquarters updates the Primavera schedule portion. Specific coordination prior to construction is performed separately using Excel spread- sheets (Figure B.44). WYDOT uses separate spreadsheets for right-of-way and utility owner notification and for grading, overlay, prelimi- nary, service acquisition, and maintenance projects. Work- books are linked so that projects on preliminary and grading lists are grayed out when right-of-way and utility plans are issued, indicating that new plans have been issued that iden- tify the individual responsible for notification and the track- ing number for that project. Once utility conflict data are transferred to the district offices, the utility section at head- quarters continues tracking conflicts and relocation status. The utility section often works directly with utility owners on behalf of the districts. Headquarters makes the final reim- bursement payment after the relocation is complete and a completion report has been received from the district. The new process does not include much detail on how to interact with utility owners early and often in the project development process. WYDOT notifies utility owners about 3 years before the start of the project. Required notifications are identified in a reconnaissance report, which is a result of an earlier reconnaissance field meeting that WYDOT con- ducts to determine how to approach the project. At this time, officials include utility facilities in the discussion if the facili- ties are apparent in the field or if a local member of the proj- ect team is aware of a significant utility issue. If there is an apparent utility issue, WYDOT notifies the utility owner that there is a planned project in the area. Approximately 1 year before construction or at the begin- ning of the design phase, WYDOT sends right-of-way and utility plans to utility owners, including WYDOT’s determi- nation of the location of existing utility facilities. At that point, utility owners have the opportunity to review and mark up the plans if they find discrepancies, and they are relocations used to be prior to request for bids, but now the deadline is prior to award of contract. Washington State Department of Transportation WSDOT comprises six regions that at present follow different formats for managing utility information. WSDOT recently updated its utility manual to include a chapter on the effects of utility relocations on project delivery, and it is in the pro- cess of developing a statewide process to manage utility con- flicts consistently within regional utility offices. The intent of this approach is to streamline and clarify procedures, increase transparency, and improve institutional barriers such as com- munication between WSDOT offices. Some WSDOT regional offices use spreadsheets called project utilities summary sheets to track utility conflict information. Figure B.43 is an example of a project utilities summary sheet used in the Northwest Region. Project design engineers manage utility conflicts with the help of regional util- ity office staff. During the project development process, utility staff extract utility owner information from the utility permit database and provide this information to the design team. Staff also work with the state one-call system for design tickets and, as needed, request utility owners to mark the location of exist- ing utility facilities on the ground or conduct test holes. At the beginning of the design phase, WSDOT typically contacts utility owners known to be in the project area, and then schedules meetings with utility owners on a regular basis starting at about 30% design. Designers try to identify con- flicts before 60% design. Utility office staff help designers to mitigate utility conflict impacts, send project schedule and utility relocation notice letters to utility owners, and monitor utility relocation progress. WSDOT has found it a challenge to modify roadway design using utility conflict information. The time allotted for designing and building projects is short, which leaves little time for a design change caused by a utility conflict. This restrictive time frame limits the effectiveness of the ongoing coordination and communication required for successful utility relocation efforts. For large projects, such as the Alas- kan Way Viaduct and the SR 520 Floating Bridge, WSDOT engaged the help of consultants to manage utility conflicts. These consultants have utility coordination groups that are responsible for managing utility issues on these projects. WSDOT documents pending utility relocations in the PS&E package by establishing risk levels based on the charac- teristics and timing of individual relocations. WSDOT evalu- ates and classifies each project based on the estimated level of risk that pending utility relocations pose to the successful

123 Project Utilities Summary Sheet - xxxxx/xxxxx Design Team Utilities Project Engineer: John Curry & phone # Utility Requested Received Coord. mtg Requested Received Start Complete Skagit County PUD #1 8/23/2007 8/24/2007 N/A CNGC 7/25/2007 8/2/2007 N/A Verizon 7/25/2007 12/13/2007 N/A City of Bellingham 7/25/2007 8/6/2007 N/A PSE 7/25/2007 1/9/2008 N/A Comcast 4/24/2008 11/18/2008 N/A City of Burlington 12/8/2006 1/8/2007 N/A CNGC 12/8/2006 12/21/2006 N/A Rcvd 6/17/08 19011 Verizon 12/8/2006 12/6/2006 N/A Samish Water District Skagit Cty PUD#1 12/8/2006 1/29/2007 N/A PSE 12/8/2006 5/16/2007 N/A PSE 7/24/2008 Earlier 9/16/2008 Check back after 12/17/08 Black Rock Cable Co. 7/24/2008 9/16/2008 Broadstripe 7/24/2008 7/24/2008 9/16/2008 Comcast 7/24/2008 N/A7/24/2008 N/A N/A City of Bellingham 7/24/2008 7/24/2008 N/A N/A 360 Networks 7/24/2008 N/A 7/24/2008 N/A N/A Qwest 7/24/2008 9/16/2008 4 SR 542 Warnick Bluff Site 01/12/09 MP 20.5 to MP 45.2 Scenic Class Ax, B, BX, C PSE - Overhead; No relocation necessary. Barbara Hathaway PSE 9/17/2007 10/22/2007 4/1/20096/19/2009 2/26/2009 8/1/2009 9/15/2009 Verizon 9/17/2007 9/20/2007 4/1/20096/19/2009 2/26/2009 8/1/2009 9/15/2009 6 SR 542 CED East Church Mt. Rd 10/19/09 MP 20.5 to MP 45.2 Scenic Class Ax, B, BX, C No utilities present Barbara Hathaway 2 SR 11/I-5 Park and Ride XL 2619 05/18/09 MP 0.00 No relocs. will be required. Scenic Class B 5 MP 2.79 Scenic Class C SR 542 Gallup Creek Bridge Replacement XL 2829 01/19/10 3 SR 542 at Britton Road Intersection Carl Vogt 360-757- 5839 Design Engineer 1 Requested Utility Reloc. CN Sched. Ltrs of Adv. Auth. UT Agrmts Open Franchise/ Permits Ltrs of Understa nding MP Range I-5 Dakota Creek I-5 Fisher Creek vic. Stormwater XL 2891 Carl Vogt 360-757- 5839 Project Ad Date As Builts Utilities Affected Reloc Plans 03/23/09 MP 219.15 to MP 274.15 Scenic Class B, BX, C Matt Gunn Paul J. John C. PE - 01401 CN - 01402MP 33.42 to MP 33.48 Scenic Class BX Glacier Water Dist. (Instl. during const.) 6/13/2007 7/2/2007 4/1/2009 6/1/2010 Barbara Hathaway 360-757- 5838 Reloc. Meeting 2/26/2009 12/1/2010 Figure B.43. WSDOT sample project utilities summary sheet.

124 Figure B.44. WYDOT sample utility project list.

125 feasibility of a project. For example, one project involved the relocation of utility facilities that infringed on wetlands at a cost of about $1 million, which brought the project to a stop until WYDOT developed a new design and a different align- ment to avoid the wetlands. Eventually, the utility facilities had to be relocated a second time at significant cost. On a different project, WYDOT purchased the land for a rest area project and then notified utility owners. At that point, WYDOT learned about a major gas transmission line within 100 feet of the new rest area. The cost to relocate the gas line or upgrade it to a Class 3 facility would have been about $8 mil- lion. WYDOT abandoned the project and returned the land to the previous landowner. Reference 1. North Carolina Statutes Chapter 136, Section 104. www.ncleg.net/ gascripts/statutes/statutelookup.pl?statute=136-104. Accessed April 11, 2011. advised to contact the resident engineer for a field review to discuss conflicts and potential solutions. However, it is the responsibility of the utility owners to determine actual con- flicts and to develop solutions. At about 60% design, WYDOT sends utility owners a grad- ing plan that includes plan and profiles. WYDOT headquar- ters assists with the coordination between project engineer and utility owners, but it no longer identifies utility conflicts due to legal issues. Under certain conditions, small utility owners (i.e., utility owners with fewer than 15,000 custom- ers) may be reimbursed by WYDOT for 50% of their reloca- tion costs. Problems with utility facilities on roadway projects have prompted WYDOT to involve utility owners earlier in the project development process. Early involvement of utility owners can provide significant cost savings to the DOT and the utility owner. Knowledge about utility facilities located within or close to the project limits can help in evaluating the