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.

5C h a p t e r 2 Introduction This chapter summarizes the work completed to assess the state of the practice around the country on the use of UCMs. The characterization of the state of the practice involved the use of an online survey, follow-up interviews with stakeholders, and online searches. Survey and Follow-Up Interviews The research team conducted an online survey of state agencies around the country to assess general practices related to utility conflict management and determine poten- tial candidates for follow-up interviews. Appendix A lists the survey questions. The research team sent e-mail invita- tions to participate in the survey to representatives of all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The research team assembled the list of e-mail recipients by using information available through the AASHTO sub- committees on design and right-of-way and utilities. The e-mail included a request for recipients to forward the invi- tation to district-level utility engineers and coordinators, as well as relevant design personnel who could be involved in utility conflict management activities. To maximize expo- sure to the research and the survey, the research team also gave presentations at the AASHTO Right-of-Way and Util- ities Subcommittee meeting, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (April 2009); the AASHTO Subcommittee on Design meet- ing, Indianapolis, Indiana (July 2009); and the Florida Utilities Coordinating Committee (FUCC) meeting, Marco Island, Florida (August 2009). The research team sent 196 invitation e-mails. This total includes the original list compiled from the AASHTO web- site and additional contacts that survey respondents sug- gested. The research team received 103 responses from 34 state DOTs. Based on the results of the online survey, the research team identified a sample of state DOTs for follow-up interviews. Although the main goal was to search for established and documented innovative procedures for utility conflict management and UCMs, the follow-up interviews were also intended to gather positive and negative lessons learned, as well as recommendations from state DOTs. As part of the interview process, the research team requested avail- able documentation, such as sample tables, data, manu- als, and system screenshots. The research team contacted 64 individuals at both headquarter and district levels in 30 states. This outreach resulted in 38 interviews represent- ing 23 states. This chapter provides an overall summary of findings and recommendations. Appendix B includes a detailed descrip- tion of the practices in and lessons learned from each of these states. Survey results General Observations As mentioned, 103 officials from 34 state DOTs completed the survey. The number of responses per state varied from one response (from 15 state DOTs) to four or more responses (from nine state DOTs), and included a mix of division- and district-level responses. At several state DOTs, particularly those that provided only one response, follow-up interviews confirmed that a strategy for completing the survey was to dis- seminate the form among districts and consolidate the responses before completing the survey form online. Of the 103 responses, 21 were from design staff, and the remaining 82 responses were from utility staff. Utility conflict management is typically a district activity, as indicated by the frequency of respondents who marked the “always” option for local or district involvement (Figure 2.1). Division personnel are somewhat less active in utility conflict management. State DOTs also use consultants to assist with the conflict management process, but as Figure 2.1 shows, consultants are not always involved. State Practices

6• Cost overrun or underrun; • Cost responsibility; • Estimated versus actual costs; • Federal participation; • Installation inspection diary; • Method of installation; • Need for supplemental agreement; • New scope of work; • Preliminary engineering costs; • Reimbursable percentage; • Reimbursement eligibility; and • Relocation process milestones. Utility Conflict Location Referencing Respondents were asked to provide information about the longitudinal alignment and offsets they use to reference utility conflict locations. As Table 2.1 shows, project center- line and station is the most popular longitudinal alignment for referencing utility conflicts, regardless of offset used (94% of respondents). However, respondents also indi- cated they use a variety of other longitudinal alignments, including route and mile point (40%), control section and distance (33%), intersection and displacement (32%), route markers and displacement (23%), and street blocks (21%). Similarly, the most common method for referenc- ing utility conflict offsets is with respect to the project cen- terline (83%). Other offset methods mentioned were right-of-way line (50%), existing centerline (45%), edge of pavement (27%), and back of curb (22%). Only 6% of respondents reported not using offsets. Utility Facility Data Tracking State DOTs track a wide range of utility facility data items. However, as Figure 2.2 shows, state DOTs have a clear prefer- ence for tracking data items such as class of utility facility and utility owner name and contact information. There is a notice- able drop after the top five data items. About two-thirds of respondents track basic utility facility data, such as diameter, material, and depth of cover, and only slightly more than half of the respondents track facility details, such as dimensions or encasement material. Less than half of the respondents track data items such as utility facility foundation characteristics and facility capacity. Only about one-fifth of the respondents track information about affected customers. Respondents also mentioned other data items, such as seasonal preferences, vegetation permits, and joint trenching. Utility Conflict Data Tracking State DOTs consistently track a large number of utility con- flict data items. Most state DOTs track utility conflict identi- fiers (IDs), cost estimates, and transportation project IDs (Figure 2.3). Slightly less frequent but still common data items are additional payment information and utility conflict description and location. The least frequently tracked data item mentioned was utility relocation construction status, but even this data item was tracked by more than 50% of respondents. Data items mentioned in the “other” category included the following: • Certified plans or as-builts; • Company or contract forces; Figure 2.1. Involvement in utility conflict management.

70% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Other Customers affected Capacity Facility foundation characteristics Encasement material Number of ducts Operational status Dimensions Utility facility subclass Installation/relocation date Depth of cover Diameter Material Encasement (yes/no) Utility owner address Utility owner contact name Utility owner phone number Utility facility class Utility owner name Figure 2.2. Percentage of respondents tracking utility facility data items. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Other Utility relocation construction status (% complete) Betterment percentage Actual utility relocation clearance date Right of way requirements Utility conflict length Utility property interest Estimated utility relocation clearance date Proposed resolution action Responsible party for proposed resolution action Actual utility relocation start date Utility agreement number Estimated utility relocation start date Utility agreement execution date Utility conflict description Utility conflict location Payment date(s) Partial, final, and/or total payment(s) Transportation project ID Cost estimate(s) Utility conflict ID Figure 2.3. Percentage of respondents tracking utility conflict data items.

8by desktop databases, server-based databases, and web-based viewers. Less than half of the states use geographic informa- tion system (GIS) applications to manage utility conflict data, and about one-third of states use a customized data manage- ment platform. In practice, states use more than one type of data platform to manage utility conflict data. As Figure 2.5 shows, 80% of states use at least three of the data management tools and 65% states use at least five of the data management tools shown in Figure 2.4. Utility Conflict Location Tracking and Updating State DOTs use a variety of methods to track and update utility conflict locations on project drawings. However, as Figure 2.6 shows, there is a clear preference for traditional paper-based approaches to mark up printed drawings or maps. Marking up CAD files is also common, but not as frequent as marking up paper drawings. Interestingly, more than 40% of respondents indicated they mark up 2-D portable document format (PDF) files, clearly indicating the increasing acceptance of PDF files for document edit- ing and updating purposes. In general, state DOTs only rarely use other markup methods, such as GeoPDF, 3-D GeoPDF, or web-based viewers. Utility Relocation and Conflict Management Process Respondents were asked about the timing of certain utility- related milestones, more specifically when utility conflict man- agement starts, when utility relocation is completed in the field, and when state DOTs receive as-builts from utility owners Table 2.1 also shows different longitudinal alignment and offset combinations. For the survey, the research team pro- vided eight longitudinal alignment options and six offset options in a matrix arrangement. Respondents selected 46 of the 48 possible combinations. As Table 2.1 shows, the most common methods for referencing utility conflict locations were project centerline and station (longitudinal alignment) and project centerline (offset). The next three most com- monly used methods were project centerline and station (lon- gitudinal alignment) combined with different offset methods: right-of-way line, existing centerline, and edge of pavement. Interestingly, project centerline and station (longitudinal alignment) and back of curb (offset) were mentioned in ninth place behind other longitudinal reference methods, such as route and mile point, control section and distance, inter- section and displacement, and other centerline and station (in combination with project centerline for offset). Follow-up interviews confirmed that the choice of refer- encing method depends mostly on project type, project sta- tus, and type of available data. For example, if a utility conflict is identified during preliminary design and the schematic is based on an existing centerline, the utility coordinator would use the existing centerline as a reference. If a new project centerline becomes available during the detailed design phase, the utility coordinator would update the utility conflict reference to reflect the change displayed on the plans. Data Management Platforms States use a variety of data management platforms to manage utility conflict data. As Figure 2.4 shows, spreadsheets, word processors, and computer-aided design (CAD) are the most common methods for managing utility conflict data, followed Table 2.1. Percentage of Respondents Using Utility Conflict Referencing Methods Offset Longitudinal Alignment Project Centerline Right-of- Way Line Existing Centerline Edge of Pavement Back of Curb Offsets Not Used Overall Project centerline and station 81% 47% 37% 25% 19% 1% 94% Route and mile point 24% 12% 17% 8% 3% 4% 40% Control section and distance 20% 13% 15% 6% 4% 4% 33% Intersection and displacement 20% 12% 13% 9% 9% 4% 32% Other centerline and station 22% 12% 14% 11% 9% 2% 29% Route markers and displacement 15% 4% 7% 2% 1% 5% 23% Street block 12% 5% 8% 5% 3% 6% 21% Other 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 2% 5% Overall 83% 50% 45% 27% 22% 6% —

9example, almost 70% of respondents indicated they fre- quently or always start utility conflict management during preliminary design or earlier. By 60% design, roughly 85% of respondents indicated they frequently or always start utility conflict management. The lag between starting utility conflict management and completing utility relocations in the field is significant. For example, by the time a project reaches 100% design, only 40% of respondents indicated that utility relocations frequently or after the completion of the utility relocation in the field. Pos- sible answers for each project development milestone were always, frequently, rarely, and never. For example, a respon- dent might answer the question “By what phase has utility coordination started on a project?” with rarely for advance planning, frequently for preliminary design, and always for the detailed design phase. As Figure 2.7a shows, utility conflict management fre- quently starts early in the project development process. For 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Other or customized system GIS Server-based database Web-based viewer Desktop database Word processor CAD Spreadsheet Figure 2.4. Percentage of states using data management platforms. Pe rc en ta ge o f S ta te s Us in g O ne o r M or e D at a M an ag em en t P la tfo rm s Number of Data Management Platforms Figure 2.5. Use of data management platforms by states.

10 Interview results General Observations During the interviews with state DOT officials, similarities of practices for managing utility conflicts in transportation proj- ects became evident. Many states follow a traditional approach for utility conflict management in which the state DOT sends a set of project plans to utility owners, the utility owners pro- vide markups of their utility facilities (typically on hard cop- ies), and state DOT (or consultant) staff transcribe the markups onto design CAD drawings. Upon review of the design draw- ings, the roadway designer determines which utility installa- tions are in conflict and need to relocate and communicates this determination to utility owners. The utility owners then develop and submit relocation plans (typically around 60% to 90% design). Utility facilities that are eligible for reimburse- ment require the submission of utility agreement assemblies that include additional information, such as quantities, cost estimates, betterment data, and local agency participation. Although several state DOTs use this general procedure to manage utility conflicts, there are significant differences with respect to timing and plan updates. For example, some states start utility conflict management during preliminary design and send a preliminary design drawing to utility owners. Other states wait until 60% design, once drainage design elements are in place (since drainage design frequently drives the need for utility relocations). There are also wide differences in the way states undertake utility investigations. States frequently collect quality level B (QLB) and quality level A (QLA) data at some point during design, although the extent of the investigation varies widely depending on factors such as type of project, always finish in the field. Interestingly, by the time a project goes to letting, some 70% of utility relocations frequently or always finish in the field, indicating a great deal of utility relo- cation activity between the end of design and letting. The difference between “frequently or always” and “always” is significant. For example, by 60% design, some 85% of respondents indicated they frequently or always start utility coordination. However, only about 60% of respondents indi- cated they always start utility coordination. The difference is also dramatic in the case of utility relocation completion. For example, by the time a project goes to construction, only about 20% of respondents indicated that utility relocation has always finished in the field. One of the goals of optimizing the utility conflict management process should be to shift the always curves to the left—that is, earlier in the project devel- opment process. In general, state DOTs have a great deal of difficulty obtaining as-builts from utility owners at the conclusion of the utility relocation in the field. The reported frequency of receiving as-builts by the time a project goes to construc- tion was less than 10% for always and only 40% for fre- quently or always. Some of the curves in Figure 2.7 decrease slightly after the 30% to 60% design phase, suggesting that some respondents may have interpreted the questions differently from what was originally intended: instead of answering the question “by when has the process typically started?” some respondents may have answered the question “when do you start the process?” Follow-up interviews with some of the respondents clarified their intent, which enabled the research team to partially adjust the graphs. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Other Mark up features online using web-based viewer Mark up 3-D PDF file Mark up GeoPDF file Mark up or update feature in GIS file Mark up 2-D PDF file Mark up CAD file Mark up printed drawing or map Figure 2.6. Use of different methods for utility conflict tracking and updating.

11 Figure 2.7. Timing of utility-related activities in the project development process. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Pe rc en ta ge o f T ot al R es po ns es Utility coordination start (always or frequently) Utility coordination start (always) Ad v. pla nn ing Pre l. d es ign 0– 30 % de sig n 30 –6 0% de sig n 60 –9 0% de sig n 90 –1 00 % de sig n Le ttin g Co nst ruc tion (a) Start of utility coordination. (b) Completion of utility relocation. Ad v. pla nn ing Pre l. d es ign 0– 30 % de sig n 30 –6 0% de sig n 60 –9 0% de sig n 90 –1 00 % de sig n Le ttin g Co nst ruc tion 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Pe rc en ta ge o f T ot al R es po ns es Relocation completions (always or frequently) Relocation completions (always) (c) Receipt of as-builts after utility relocation. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Pe rc en ta ge o f T ot al R es po ns es Receipt of as-builts (always or frequently) Receipt of as-builts (always) Ad v. pla nn ing Pre l. d es ign 0– 30 % de sig n 30 –6 0% de sig n 60 –9 0% de sig n 90 –1 00 % de sig n Le ttin g Co nst ruc tion

12 expected utility investigation cost, and awareness or knowl- edge of subsurface utility engineering (SUE) concepts. In some cases, the collection of QLB and QLA data is limited to critical points during the project development process. Some states are beginning to collect QLB data during preliminary design. Some states prefer to begin utility relocations once the roadway design is complete and there is certainty the project will go forward as designed. Other states attempt to relocate all utility facilities in conflict by the time a project goes to let- ting. However, even when a state makes significant efforts to complete all utility relocations by letting, utility facilities often need to relocate during construction. To alert contract bid- ders of potential delays, most state DOTs include information about known utility conflicts in the letting documentation, typically in the form of utility certifications or special provi- sions. However, the level and detail of information provided to bidders varies widely among state DOTs. Some state DOTs provide comprehensive lists of outstanding utility conflicts, including utility owner, utility conflict location, and conflict status. Other state DOTs only provide a brief statement to the effect that the contractor is responsible for contacting all util- ity owners to avoid conflicts or delays in the field. Many state DOTs use tables or spreadsheets that contain utility owner and utility facility information to track utility conflicts during the project development process. State DOTs use a variety of names for these tables, including utility con- flict matrix, utility conflict list, utility conflict table, utility coordination table, and utility list. Practices related to the use of these tables or matrices vary widely among (and within) states, depending on factors such as the following: • Administrative directive to use utility conflict tables or UCMs; • Structure and style; • File format; • Content; • Linkages to other tables and existing systems; • Flexibility and adaptability; • Updates during the project development process; • Support for processes such as meetings with stakeholders, utility certifications, and reports; • Standardization; and • Training. Findings and Recommendations from States A review of 26 sample tables from around the country yielded the following observations: • Wide range of styles and content. The research team counted 144 data items related to utility conflicts in the 26 utility conflict tables. However, the number of data items included in individual tables was not nearly as high. The number of data items per table ranged from four to 39; the average was 14. • One size does not fit all. Some data items were repeated across many utility conflict tables. Some of the most com- monly used data items identified in the survey (Figure 2.3) included utility conflict IDs, cost estimates, transportation project IDs, payment information, and utility conflict description and location. However, not a single data item was included in all 26 tables. Roughly, 55% of data items appeared in only one table. The degree of customization was high, even among sample tables collected from the same state, clearly indicating that state DOTs have very dif- ferent ideas with respect to what type of data to include in the utility conflict tables. • Different ideas about consensus tables. The research team examined two sample tables that were the result of col- lective brainstorming: one from the California Depart- ment of Transportation (Caltrans), and one provided by an FUCC UCM subcommittee. The sample table from Caltrans, which had 24 data items, is being considered by the Caltrans utility engineering group for standard- ization and implementation after their review of sample tables from around the state. This table was originally developed in Caltrans’ District 12. The FUCC table had 13 data items and was the result of considerable discus- sion within the FUCC UCM subcommittee. After review- ing several sample tables from around the state, the FUCC subcommittee decided that the number of data items in the consensus table had to be relatively low to maximize the chances for acceptance and implementa- tion of the matrix by different stakeholders. • Different groups of data tracked. The research team grouped the 144 data items into the following categories: 44 Data about projects; 44 Data about project contacts; 44 Data about utility facilities; 44 Data about utility conflicts; 44 Data about the right-of-way; 44 Data about utility investigations; 44 Data about utility relocation; 44 Data about utility coordination dates; 44 Data about agreements; 44 Data about costs; 44 Data about billings; and 44 Document-tracking data. These data categories provided the foundation for the data model prototype described in Chapter 4. • Alternative potential paths for UCM implementation. The analysis above, which is supported by several pieces of information provided by respondents during the interviews, points to two alternative paths for UCM prototype imple- mentation (readers should note that these two prototype

13 procedures to store these data elements electronically would add value to the database implementation. • Keep in mind potential environmental implications related to utility relocations. In general, the environmental review process needs to be completed before a project enters the detailed design phase. Although utility conflicts can be identified during preliminary design, it is more common to identify utility conflicts and conduct the utility conflict analysis during the design phase. If a utility facility needs to be relocated outside the project limits, the environmental review might need to be reopened, which can result in addi- tional delays. A better understanding of the environmental process by all stakeholders can result in a more effective utility coordination process. It is worth noting that, as part of a recent research initiative in Texas, members of the research team developed and documented strategies to integrate the utility and environmental processes and opti- mize design and preliminary design activities to support the utility process more effectively (13). • Use utility engineering groups at state DOTs and utility coor- dinating councils. A prerequisite for the implementation of standardized utility conflict tables is acceptance by stake- holders. In California, a utility engineering group was assigned the task of identifying an updated UCM model for statewide use. One of the objectives of this group was to help improve and standardize utility procedures. As a member of FUCC, the Florida DOT is participating in an initiative to develop a consensus-based UCM template. The goal is to develop and implement a template that all utility stakehold- ers in the state can use. Feedback provided to the research team indicates the subcommittee’s interest in a simple tem- plate design with relatively few data fields to maximize the chances that users will actually use the template. • Develop utility conflict sheets for individual utility owners. While master UCMs are useful, customized (or filtered) ver- sions are critical to help document and track all the utility conflicts that involve just one utility owner. These filtered tables are also useful during discussions and negotiations with utility owners. A database implementation could help automate this process. • Maintain and update the UCM regularly. Updating UCMs can be time consuming, but the time spent on this activity is worth the effort. It is important (and critical for consul- tants) to require the submission of updates of utility conflict tables as often as possible or at regular intervals (e.g., monthly). If that is not feasible, a state DOT should at least specify utility conflict table updates in preparation for criti- cal milestones, such as 30%, 60%, and 90% design meetings. • Keep UCMs simple. Some states implemented UCMs years ago, but discontinued the practice because the benefit appeared to be too small to justify the cost given the number of person-hours needed to produce and maintain the tables. concepts do not necessarily exclude each other, and, in fact, could complement each other): 44 Compact, stand-alone UCM. This implementation would involve the selection of a relatively low number of data items to develop a compact, stand-alone UCM that would be deployed using a suitable data platform, such as Micro- soft Excel or Word. This prototype is intended to address the needs of many state DOTs and stakeholders who would prefer a stand-alone tool they can easily use, mod- ify, and extend as needed without involving information technology (IT) investments. Chapter 3 explores this option in more detail. 44 Prototype utility conflict relational database. This imple- mentation would involve the development of a data model that includes at least 12 tables (to account for the 12 data categories mentioned above), which, together, would provide the foundation for a utility conflict rela- tional database. In this case, the UCM would be an infor- mation product resulting from a database query, form, or report that provides utility conflict information as needed. This prototype is intended to address the needs of state DOTs that already have, or are planning, IT implementations to manage utility conflict data in a sys- tematic, coherent manner. Chapter 4 explores this option in more detail. During the interviews, state DOT officials from around the country offered several recommendations for the manage- ment of utility conflicts, including the following: • Identify utility conflicts at the individual utility facility involved. Several approaches exist for identifying individual utility conflicts. Examples include location (i.e., a location identi- fies a utility conflict, which means all the utility facilities involved in the conflict share the same utility conflict ID); utility owner (i.e., a single file or record identifies all the utility conflicts associated with the same owner); and util- ity facility (i.e., each facility involved in the conflict has its own conflict ID). In general, the method that provides the highest level of flexibility is to identify utility conflict at the individual utility facility involved. Several state DOTs con- firmed using that level of disaggregation. As part of a previ- ous research initiative in Texas, members of the research team also found this method useful (12). • Include control dates in UCMs to document progress within the project development process. UCMs are dynamic docu- ments, and their content changes continuously during the project development process. Several states date their UCMs and maintain a record of all the updates to docu- ment what happens throughout the process. In most cases, states keep a paper record of the updates. Developing data- base implementations with control dates and event-based

14 the raised roadbed. NDOT has also started to use 3-D design files for demonstrations at public meetings, and it distributes 3-D design files to utility owners in 3-D PDF. • Involve stakeholders in the review of utility conflicts and solu- tions. It is critical to involve both roadway designers and util- ity owners in the review of utility conflicts and identification of possible solutions. Utility conflict management requires tracking all critical milestone dates (e.g., design conferences, as well as 30%, 60%, and 90% meetings), communicating with all the parties both before and after the meetings, and documenting the process and resolutions. Involving stake- holders and documenting the process is also critical during the construction phase. • Conduct a plan-in-hand field trip with utility owners. A strat- egy for identifying and confirming utility conflicts is to schedule a plan-in-hand field trip with utility owners. The Virginia DOT (VDOT) provides design plans and a list of utility conflicts to utility owners in advance. The field trip provides an opportunity to verify and complement infor- mation gathered previously, as well as to increase the chances of identifying all possible conflicts. The field trip also enables the identification of utility facilities that might be difficult to move or might take a long time to relocate, such as electric transmission lines and gas pipelines. • Use and document radio frequency ID (RFID) tags for dam- age prevention during construction. VDOT has started to use RFID marker balls for the relocation of utility facilities on several congested projects in the Northern Virginia District. After installing the RFID marker balls, the RFID tags provide a mechanism to warn highway contractors when they are in the immediate vicinity of relocated utility installations. VDOT documents RFID tag locations by annotating construction drawings (in PDF). • Work with one-call providers to identify utility owners and facilities. Several states indicated they have access to one- call data or have reached agreements (e.g., enabled through legislation) that enable one-call providers to generate design tickets. For example, in California, a web-based interface allows Caltrans to download a list of potential utility facilities within project limits. According to a recent study, at least 12 states allow the use of one-call design tick- ets (11). Other industrialized countries encourage the use of locate tickets during the project development process, as the 2008 international scan of right-of-way and utilities found in the case of Australia (14). • Develop effective communications with utility owners regard- less of reimbursement eligibility. Several states have found that reimbursement has not necessarily improved adher- ence to project schedules. The willingness of utility owners to cooperate concerning facility location information, relocation design, and scheduling is critical to project suc- cess. Despite the increased use of e-mails and electronic In addition, at many state DOTs utility conflict tracking is mostly a function of the right-of-way section, with little or no involvement by the design section. The perceived benefit of using UCMs can be even lower if the information is not used at the end of the design phase—for example, to prepare a utility certification for inclusion in the plans, specifica- tions, and estimate (PS&E) package. It is therefore critical to identify what information needs to be included in the UCM. • Use 11 × 17-in. sheets for utility conflict tables. Many state DOTs have found that utility conflict tables should be on a manageable paper size, such as landscape 11 × 17-in. sheets. Larger sizes can create problems for stakeholders who do not have access to large format printers (e.g., small utility owners). Smaller sizes (8.5 × 11-in. sheets), are frequently inconvenient because they are too small to show all the information needed. • Start assembling utility conflict tables during preliminary design. An effective strategy to avoid utility relocations is to obtain good information about existing utility facilities as early as possible, such as during the preliminary design phase. Avoiding utility relocations is in the best interest of utility owners, which means that providing quality utility information to state DOTs as early as possible is impor- tant. Developing utility conflict tables and looking for ways to avoid conflicts early is also a good practice. • Include data from the UCM in the PS&E assembly. Several state DOTs have found it useful to provide comprehensive lists of outstanding utility conflicts in the PS&E assembly, including utility owner, utility conflict location, and con- flict status. Mechanisms to provide that information include certifications, special provisions, attachments to documents, and tables and notes on construction drawings. • Use document management systems to support the utility conflict management process. A number of states have imple- mented or are planning to implement (mostly enterprise- level) document management systems to manage the production and storage of electronic documents used in con- nection with the utility coordination process. Given the expense and level of effort normally needed to implement document management systems, using them to support the utility coordination process tends to be feasible only if the agency is already implementing the system as part of an agen- cywide deployment plan. • Provide 3-D design details to utility owners. Providing 3-D information to utility owners (as opposed to, or in addition to, plan and profile sheets) can help identify and manage potential utility conflict locations more effectively. The Nevada DOT (NDOT) has started to provide 3-D design files to utility owners that show special details of the roadway design to highlight utility conflicts in more detail. An exam- ple of a typical application is a detail that shows an embank- ment with a depiction of the utility conflict that results from

15 44 Reading and interpretation of roadway design and util- ity plans; and 44 Cost estimation procedures. Examples of training programs include those in Georgia and Michigan (related to UCMs and utility conflict analy- sis) and Ohio (related to reading and interpreting roadway construction plans). Additional recommendations provided by state DOT officials include the following: • Include utility relocations in the highway contract. If and when feasible, this strategy can give utility owners more time to plan for the relocation and ensure that utility relocations only take place if a project actually moves to the construc- tion phase. The state DOT can also reduce or avoid contrac- tor delay claims more effectively because the contractor is responsible for the relocations. • Obtain buy-in from the administration to develop IT-based systems. Enterprise systems can provide substantial benefits to an organization. Planning, funding, and implementing an enterprise system require support from the administration. • Ensure system modifications can be implemented quickly. No matter how well designed an IT system is, chances are it will need improvements and upgrades. It is critical to ensure the infrastructure and funding is in place to support the opera- tion, maintenance, and general upkeep of the system. Some- times state DOTs do not see utility-related systems as central to the mission of the agency. It is therefore up to utility coor- dinators and managers to convince DOT management that investing in the operation and maintenance of utility-related systems is not merely desirable but necessary. documents, face-to-face meetings with utility owners are necessary to communicate and discuss utility issues. A strategy many state DOTs have found useful is to par- ticipate in, or encourage the implementation of, utility coordination council meetings that meet regularly (e.g., monthly or quarterly) to address issues of common interest. These meetings provide a forum for the discus- sion of topics such as upcoming projects and the need for coordination. This practice also provides an oppor- tunity for stakeholders to learn about each other’s busi- ness practices. • Provide training to utility coordination stakeholders. A common complaint from transportation officials is that utility owners do not know enough about the transporta- tion project development process and have difficulty reading and understanding DOT roadway design plans. Utility owners have a similar complaint about transpor- tation officials with respect to the utility planning process and utility design plans and other documentation. Devel- oping training materials would improve stakeholder understanding of the utility coordination process, improve familiarity with current laws and regulations, and foster a cooperative utility management approach. Specific training needs in relation to utility conflict management include the following: 44 For utility owners, transportation project development process, milestones, and constraints; 44 For transportation officials, utility project development process, milestones, and constraints; 44 Utility coordination process, practices, and strategies; 44 UCM population, maintenance, and use; 44 Utility conflict analysis;