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.
16 C h a p t e r 3 Introduction This chapter documents the results of an analysis to produce a prototype stand-alone UCM based on the results of the survey, follow-up interviews, and a review of data items from the sam- ple documents provided by the states. The purpose of this effort was to develop a UCM that is compact (while at the same time useful to state DOTs) and facilitates tracking utility con- flict data and associated information. As such, it was critical to identify what elements of information to include in the UCM. Sample Utility Conflict Data analysis The characterization of the sample documentation provided by the states took into consideration the following dimen- sions or factors: ⢠Sample data item frequency. This dimension refers to the number of times a specific data item (of the 144 reported) appeared in the sample documents provided by the states. In this context, a data item is any separate piece of information found in a document (e.g., conflict ID, project number, or estimated adjustment date). The corresponding statistic of interest was a rank providing an indication of how popular a data item was. Table 3.1 lists the data items found in at least four of the 26 sample UCMs. For example, utility owner or contact information or both appeared in 20 of the 26 (87%) sample documents. ⢠Frequency of use of individual data items in combination with other data items. This dimension refers to the combined use of several data items to form a coherent UCM. Although Table 3.1 indicates the frequency of individual data items across the states, it does not measure what combinations of data items states typically use. One way of measuring this use is to evaluate the rela- tionship between the frequency of use of individual data items and the number of documents in which those data items appear. Table 3.2 illustrates this relationship. As the table shows, 78 of 144 (54%) data items appeared in just one sample document. Similarly, 99 of 144 (69%) data items appeared in only one or two documents, suggesting that most data items were of interest to only a few states or districts. In general, Table 3.2 shows a lack of uniformity among UCMs used by the states and highlights the need to develop a compact UCM that contains data elements used by most states. A second way of measuring the combined use of data items by state DOTs is to evaluate the number of data items typically included in a UCM. As Figure 3.1 shows, of the 26 UCMs, two tracked 0 to 5 data items, nine tracked 6 to 10 data items, and one tracked 36 to 40 data items. The simplest UCM tracked four data items, and the most detailed UCM tracked 39 data items. The aver- age number of data items tracked was 14. Further, roughly 50% of sample documents tracked 12 or fewer data items, and 85% of sample documents tracked 22 or fewer data items. These trends suggest that 10 to 25 data items should be included in a prototype UCM. The following section explores this idea in more detail. Merge of Sample Document Data and Survey results Not surprisingly, there were similarities and differences between the online survey responses (discussed in Chap - ter 2) and the results of the sample document analysis in the previous section. Although the survey included an option to provide âotherâ answers, it provided a predeter- mined list of data item options that did not necessarily match the data items included in the sample documents that state DOTs subsequently provided to the research team. Another reason for discrepancies between survey results and the sample data is that, in reality, state DOTs Development of Prototype Stand-Alone UCM
17 these data sources. Table 3.3 shows the result of the com- posite ranking. prototype Stand-alone UCM After reviewing the results of the sample documentation analysis, the results of the survey analysis, and the com- bined data item ranking, the research team developed a track a large number of utility facility and utility conflict data items, but only a few of those data items are typically included in UCMs. For completeness, the research team developed a com- posite list of data items by ranking data items according to their use in the sample documents (Table 3.1), ranking data items according to the frequency reported in the survey (Figures 2.2 and 2.3), and by combining the rankings from Table 3.1. Most Common Data Items Found in 26 Sample Documents Use Data Item Total % Rank Utility owner and/or contact information 20 87% 1 Project number 15 65% 2 Highway or route 10 43% 3 Comments, remarks, action items, or notes 10 43% 3 Utility type 9 39% 5 Utility conflict/work description 9 39% 5 Utility conflict start station 8 35% 7 Scheduled or estimated adjustment completion or resolution date 8 35% 7 Project description 8 35% 7 Conflict ID 8 35% 7 Utility conflict start offset 7 30% 11 Utility description 6 26% 12 State DOT notifies utility date 6 26% 12 Agreement submittal date 6 26% 12 Right-of-way project number 5 22% 13 Recommended action or resolution type 5 22% 13 Project limits 5 22% 13 Project design manager name/contact information 5 22% 13 Other utility location reference 5 22% 13 Job number or other DOT number 5 22% 13 Estimated total cost to state 5 22% 13 Drawing or sheet number 5 22% 13 District number or name 5 22% 13 County name 5 22% 13 Agreement status 5 22% 13 Utility size and/or material 4 17% 14 UCM date 4 17% 14 Reimbursable (Y/N) 4 17% 14 Letting date 4 17% 14 End station 4 17% 14 Actual begin adjustment or construction date 4 17% 14
18 conflicts. Different options are possible for developing the cost estimate sheet that essentially follow a one-to-many rela- tionship between it and the main UCM. For example, the cost estimate sheet could be a single tabulation that contains all cost estimates for all utility conflicts in a project. Another option would be to create separate sheets, each one contain- ing relevant alternative information for individual utility conflicts. The first model is appropriate for developing consolidated conflict resolution reports; the second model is more appropriate for detailed utility conflict analysis (which prototype UCM that, in principle, should satisfy the requirements of most state DOTs. Key requirements in the determination of which data items to include in the proto- type UCM were compactness, efficiency, and completeness (which meant selecting some data items even if they were not at the top of the ranking in Table 3.3). As shown in Figure 3.2, the prototype UCM includes data items in two main sections: ⢠UCM header (eight data items): This section includes infor- mation about the project and control data items. ⢠UCM body (15 data items): This section includes informa- tion about individual utility conflicts (one record per con- flict), such as conflict characteristics, data collection needs, and resolution status. An earlier version of the UCM included a data item for cost estimates. However, discussions with stakeholders at several DOTs indicated that this data item was not clearly defined and could result in confusion during implementation, largely because state DOTs manage a variety of cost estimates in con- nection with utility relocations. Examples include engineer- ing and cost estimates provided by utility owners, internal DOT cost estimates, betterment calculations, and reimburse- ment eligibility calculations. In addition, DOTs commonly compare costs associated with several utility resolution strategies. This realization made it necessary to remove the cost esti- mate data item from the UCM and, instead, develop a sepa- rate sheet to track and analyze cost estimates for all resolution alternatives that may be associated with individual utility Table 3.2. Count of Data Items (n 5 144) by Frequency of Use in Sample Documentation Count of Data Items Number of Sample Documents in Which Data Items Appear 78 1 21 2 14 3 6 4 11 5 3 6 1 7 4 8 2 9 2 10 1 15 1 20 Figure 3.1. Number of data items used in 26 UCMs.
19 might involve different teams or stakeholders). For simplicity, the research team decided to develop a cost estimate tabula- tion following the second model. As shown in Figure 3.3, the prototype UCM subsheet includes data items in two main sections: ⢠UCM subsheet header (23 data items): This section includes information about the specific utility conflict, including information from the main table and control data items. ⢠UCM subsheet body (12 data items): This section includes information about each resolution alternative, including description, advantages, disadvantages, cost estimates, feasi- bility, and decision. The research team developed the prototype UCM and the UCM alternative resolution subsheet for cost estimate analy- sis in Microsoft Excel 2007. As described in Chapter 4, the research team also developed the prototype UCM and the alternative resolution subsheet as Microsoft Access 2007 reports (i.e., as a reporting tool within a database representa- tion of the utility conflict process). For convenience, the Excel UCM version includes four worksheets: the main UCM, the UCM alternative resolution subsheet, column or field defini- tions, and drop-down lists to standardize the population of certain columns in the main UCM. Table 3.4 shows the defi- nitions of all the data items used in the main UCM. Table 3.5 shows the definitions of all the data items used in the UCM alternative resolution subsheet. Table 3.6 shows the items included in the following drop-down lists: utility type, utility investigation quality level, responsible party, resolution sta- tus, feasibility, and decision. Using the prototype Stand-alone UCM Used most simply, the prototype stand-alone UCM could pro- vide a basic, convenient mechanism to list all utility conflicts associated with a project. However, for maximum benefit, the UCM could be used in conjunction with the alternative con- flict resolution subsheet to identify, document, and track opti- mum utility conflict resolution strategies. The training materials in Chapter 6 include a lesson with a hands-on exercise (Lesson 4) that describes an example process for documenting utility conflicts and identifying and comparing conflict resolution strategies using the UCM (Figure 3.2) and the utility conflict resolu- tion subsheet (Figure 3.3). The basic process is summarized as follows: ⢠Identify and list all potential conflicts in a project. This activity is continuous throughout the utility conflict man- agement process. Use a separate line for each utility facility that may be in conflict at the same location. For example, for a conflict location that involves a water line and a gas line, create one record for the water line and a second record for the gas line. Assign a unique utility conflict ID to each record. Table 3.3. Composite Ranking of Data Items from Sample Documents and Survey Responses Data Item Combined % Rank Utility owner and/or contact information 88% 1 Project number 74% 2 Utility type 66% 3 Conflict ID 64% 4 Utility conflict or work description 58% 5 Start station 57% 6 Estimated total cost to state 56% 7 Job number or other DOT number 55% 8 Start offset 55% 8 Scheduled or estimated adjustment completion or resolution date 53% 10 Utility description 52% 11 Utility conflict end station 49% 12 Payment date(s) 46% 13 Partial, final, and/or total payment(s) 46% 13 Recommended action or resolution type 46% 13 Utility agreement execution date 46% 13 Actual utility relocation start date 44% 17 Responsible party for proposed resolution action 42% 18 Size and/or material 41% 19 Utility agreement number 41% 19 Utility property interest 40% 21 Depth of cover 34% 22 Encasement (Y/N) 33% 23 Utility conflict or resolution status 33% 23 Utility facility subclass 30% 25 Operational status 29% 26 Number of ducts 29% 26 Encasement material 27% 28 Highway or route 19% 29 Comments, remarks, action items, or notes 19% 29 (text continues on page 23)
20 Figure 3.2. Prototype UCM. Project Owner: Project No. : Project Description: Highway or Route: Note: Refer to subsheet for utility conflict cost analysis. Utility Owner and/or Contact Name Conflict ID Drawing or Sheet No. Utility Type Size and/or Material Utility Conflict Description Start Station Start Offset Utility Conflict Matrix Developed/Revised By: Date: Reviewed By: Date: End Station End Offset Utility Investigation Level Needed Test Hole Recommended Action orResolution Estimated Resolution Date Resolution Status
21 Project Owner: Cost Estimate Analysis Developed/Revised By: Project No.: Date: Project Description: Reviewed By: Highway or Route: Date: Utility Conflict: Utility Owner: Utility Type: Size and/or Material: Project Phase: Alternative Number Alternative Advantage Alternative Disadvantage Responsible Party Engineering Cost (Utility) Direct Cost (Utility) Engineering Cost (DOT) Direct Cost (DOT) Total Cost Feasibility Decision Alternative Description Figure 3.3. Prototype UCM cost estimate analysis for utility conflict resolution alternatives. Table 3.4. UCM Column or Field Definitions Column or Field Description Project owner The owner of the transportation project, typically the DOT. Project number A number given by the project owner to identify the project. Project description A description of the project. Highway or route The highway or route where the project is located. UCM developed/revised by name The name of the person who developed or revised the UCM. UCM developed/revised by date The date when the UCM was developed or revised. Reviewed by name The name of the person who reviewed the UCM. Reviewed by date The date when the UCM was reviewed. Utility owner and/or contact name The name of the utility owner or a contact at the utility owner who has responsibility for the utility facility in conflict. Conflict ID A unique identifier for the utility conflict within the project. Drawing or sheet number A reference to the engineering drawing or sheet number. Utility type The type of utility facility (e.g., water, sanitary sewer, electricity, or communications). Size and/or material The size and/or material used in the utility facility (e.g., 8-in. PVC). (continued on next page)
22 Table 3.4. UCM Column or Field Definitions (continued) Column or Field Description Utility conflict description A short description of the utility conflict and/or a description of the work needed to resolve the conflict. Start station The station of the beginning of the utility conflict (e.g., 241+22.35). Start offset The offset and side of the beginning of the utility conflict (e.g., 57.24 [L]). End station The station of the end of the utility conflict (e.g., 241+25.35). End offset The offset and side of the end of the utility conflict (e.g., 68.78 [L]). Utility investigation level needed The level of utility investigation needed to determine a resolution strategy for the utility conflict. Valid values are QLD, QLC, QLB, QLA, and undetermined. Test hole Test-hole number (normally associated with QLA). Recommended action or resolution A text description of the recommended action to resolve the utility conflict. Estimated resolution date The estimate date to complete the adjustment or resolve the utility conflict. Resolution status The status of the resolution of the utility conflict as of the date the UCM was produced. Table 3.5. UCM Cost Estimate Analysis Column or Field Definitions Column or Field Description Project owner The owner of the transportation project, typically the DOT. Project number A number given by the project owner to identify the project. Project description A description of the project. Highway or route The highway or route where the project is located. Cost estimate analysis developed/revised by name The name of the person who developed or revised the cost estimate analysis. Cost estimate analysis developed/revised by date The date when the cost estimate analysis was developed or revised. Reviewed by name The name of the person who reviewed the cost estimate analysis. Reviewed by date The date when the cost estimate analysis was reviewed. Conflict ID A unique identifier for the utility conflict within the project. Utility owner The name of the utility owner or a contact at the utility owner who has responsibility for the utility facility in conflict. Drawing or sheet number A reference to the engineering drawing or sheet number. Utility type The type of utility facility (e.g., water, sanitary sewer, electricity, or communications). Size and/or material The size and/or material used in the utility facility (e.g., 8-in. PVC). Project phase The phase of the project development process at which this analysis is performed. Alternative number A number for a utility conflict resolution strategy that is unique for the utility conflict. Alternative description A description of the utility conflict resolution alternative. Alternative advantage A description of the advantages of pursuing this utility conflict resolution alternative. Alternative disadvantage A description of the disadvantages of pursuing this utility conflict resolution alternative. Responsible party The party responsible for resolving the utility conflict (e.g., the utility owner, DOT, both utility owner and DOT, and not available). Engineering cost (utility) The estimated engineering cost to the utility if this utility conflict resolution alternative is selected. Direct cost (utility) The estimated direct cost to the utility if this utility conflict resolution alternative is selected. Engineering cost (DOT) The estimated engineering cost to the DOT if this utility conflict resolution alternative is selected. Direct cost (DOT) The estimated direct cost to the DOT if this utility conflict resolution alternative is selected. Total cost The sum of all estimated costs if this utility conflict resolution alternative is selected. Feasibility An indicator of whether the alternative is feasible. Decision An indicator of whether the alternative is under review, has been selected, or has been rejected.
23 ⢠Complete the UCM up to the column that identifies the type of utility investigation needed. ⢠For each conflict, determine the type of utility investiga- tion needed. ⢠Collect utility data at the appropriate quality level (QLD, QLC, QLB, or QLA). ⢠For QLA data, add the test-hole number associated with the utility conflict(s) in question. ⢠Analyze potential conflict resolution strategies for each utility conflict record. If the available information is not sufficient to make a determination, it may be necessary to collect additional data. In this case, use the recommended Table 3.6. UCM Drop-Down Lists Drop-Down List List Options Utility type Communications Electric Gas Oil Reclaimed water Sanitary sewer Steam Storm sewer Water Unknown Utility investigation quality level QLA QLB QLC QLD Undetermined Responsible party Utility DOT Utility and DOT NA Resolution status Utility conflict created Utility owner informed of utility conflict Utility conflict resolution strategy selected Utility conflict resolved Feasibility Yes No Decision Under review Selected Rejected Note: NA = not applicable. action or resolution column to document the need for additional data collection. ⢠Use the conflict resolution subsheet to analyze and docu- ment the advantages, disadvantages, costs, feasibility, and decision of each alternative resolution considered. ⢠For the selected conflict resolution strategy, complete the rec- ommended action or resolution, estimated resolution date, and resolution status cells in the UCM. This activity is iterative. ⢠Populate the control fields (name and date) at the top of the UCM. ⢠Create a historical record of UCM changes by saving the UCM under a different file name each time the informa- tion in the table changes. (continued from page 19)
