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.

3C h a p t e r 1 Utility accommodation policies, rules, and guidelines around the country provide minimum requirements relative to the accommodation, location, installation, relocation, and main- tenance of utility facilities within the state right-of-way. In some cases, these documents describe not just applicable laws and regulations but also include references to industry stan- dards and specifications that require utility owners to provide a higher degree of protection (1). Many state rules and guide- lines are based on utility accommodation policies and guides developed by AASHTO (2, 3). Other guidelines available include publications by AASHTO (4) and FHWA (5, 6). A 2002 survey of state DOTs, highway contractors, design consultants, and others identified utility relocations as the most frequent reason for delays in highway construction (7). Management of utility conflicts through effective communi- cation, cooperation, and coordination among stakeholders is a critical mechanism to keep transportation projects on schedule (8). Delays and inefficiencies in utility-related activ- ities have a tendency to proliferate during project letting and even construction, frequently resulting in higher bids, change orders and damage or delay claims, litigation by utility own- ers or agencies, safety concerns at the job site, frustration of the traveling public, and negative public perception about the project. Two critical factors that contribute to inefficiencies in the transportation project development process are the lack of accurate, complete information about utility facilities that might be in conflict with the project and the resolution and overall management of those conflicts. Inaccurate or incom- plete information about utility facilities in conflict with the project can result in problems such as the following: • Disruptions when utility installations are encountered unexpectedly during construction, either because there was no previous information about those installations or because their stated location on the construction plans was incorrect; • Damage to utility installations, which can disrupt utility service, damage the environment, and endanger the health and safety of construction workers and the public; and • Delays that can extend the period of project development or delivery and increase total project costs. Potential utility conflicts exist at most transportation proj- ects and may include the following: • Interference between utility facilities and transportation design features (existing or proposed); • Interference between utility facilities and transportation construction activities or phasing; • Interference between planned and existing utility facilities; • Noncompliance of utility facilities with utility accommo- dation policies; and • Noncompliance of utility facilities with safety regulations. Although transportation projects are not prerequisites for utility conflicts—since utility conflicts can also occur when utility owners propose new installations or improvements on existing corridors where there are no active transportation projects (9)—most utility conflicts that concern this research are associated with transportation projects. Detection of utility conflicts as early as possible during the project development process can help identify the optimum application of strategies to resolve those conflicts. Strategies normally available include one or more of the following options (8, 10, 11): • Remove, abandon, or relocate the utility facilities in conflict; • Change the horizontal or vertical alignment of the pro- posed transportation facility; • Implement an engineering (protect-in-place) countermea- sure that does not involve utility relocation or changes to the transportation project alignment; and • Accept an exception to policy. Introduction

4particularly troublesome in situations that involve non- reimbursable utility relocations. Utility coordination involves the production and exchange of enormous amounts of data and supporting documents, including schematics, design files, agreements, and certifica- tions. A critical component of this process is the documentation and management of utility conflict data. Different approaches for tracking utility conflicts exist, including the following: • Tracking utility agreements (which is an indirect way of tracking utility conflicts since typically a decision to relocate utility facilities precedes the preparation of utility agree- ments, and each utility agreement may include multiple conflicts); • Tracking utility conflict status or resolution process sepa- rately; and • Tracking utility conflict resolution milestones, utility agree- ments, and other documents as part of a comprehensive information system. Utility conflict tables, also known as utility conflict matrices (UCMs) or utility conflict lists, enable users to organize and track utility conflict data. In practice, these tables or matrices support a wide range of related processes, including conflict analyses, utility agreement development, and construction let- ting, as well as utility relocation scheduling, billings, and pay- ments. Practices involving the use of UCMs vary widely not just among states but also within states. There is a need to document these practices and develop optimized UCM concepts and tech- niques that can contribute to standardization and optimization of the utility coordination process. SHRP 2 Renewal Project R15B addressed this need by developing and testing a prototype UCM concept and training materials. Specific objectives identi- fied for this project include the following: • Review trends around the country and identify best prac- tices on the use of UCMs; • Develop a recommended UCM and document related processes; and • Develop training materials for implementing the UCM and related process. In practice, the traditional approach for resolving utility conflicts at many state DOTs is to relocate the affected utility facilities—often at great expense to the utility owner or the DOT or both—or to allow an exception to policy. An alterna- tive is to design and construct the transportation facility in such a way as to leave the affected utility facilities in place. However, if improperly managed, this approach can result in design changes that negatively affect the total project schedule or cost or degrade the value of the existing utility installation in a manner unacceptable to the facility owner. Unfortunately, effective communication, cooperation, and coordination are frequently lacking in the project devel- opment process to allow for the adoption of cost-effective solution strategies. Factors that contribute to this situation include the following: • Limited project resources. Transportation project managers typically operate with limited resources. In an effort to optimize the use of those resources, project managers might decide to limit utility data acquisition and coordina- tion activities as much as possible or delay those activities until late in the design phase. In many cases, project man- agers are not sufficiently familiar with the utility coordina- tion process and simply postpone dealing with utility issues until there is a crisis. • Transportation project uncertainties. Utility owners often show little interest in utility coordination until the trans- portation project is well defined, which frequently means waiting until the project has reached at least the 60% design level. From a utility owner’s perspective, it is not cost-effective to spend time and resources on a project that still has too many uncertainties, particularly if the associ- ated expenses are not reimbursable. • Availability and quality of existing utility facility data. Ade- quate information and documentation about the location and characteristics of existing utility infrastructure that might be affected by a transportation project are frequently deficient or nonexistent. Existing utility owner records are often not up to date, sufficiently accurate, or properly geo- referenced for design purposes. Uncertainty about the own- ership and operational status of an underground facility can complicate matters even further. Abandoned facilities are