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.

42 C h a p t e r 5 Introduction After completing the development of the prototype stand- alone UCM (Chapter 3) and the UCM data model and data- base (Chapter 4), the research team scheduled work sessions with state DOTs in California, Georgia, and Texas to discuss partial research results and gather recommendations for train- ing materials and implementation of the research results. The selection of these state DOTs was based on feedback from the online surveys and interviews, which indicated a widespread use of UCMs in these states, as well as a willingness to provide materials for use in the development of training materials. In the case of GDOT, it was also of interest to learn more about their experience with the development and implementation of their UCM training program. During this phase, the research team also gave presentations at the AASHTO Right-of-Way and Utilities Subcommittee meeting in San Diego, California (April 2010), and the South- eastern Association of State Highway and Transportation Offi- cials annual meeting in Little Rock, Arkansas (August 2010). These presentations provided additional opportunities for stakeholders to provide feedback with respect to partial research findings and recommendations for training material testing sites. The California meeting took place at Caltrans’ headquar- ters in Sacramento and included representatives from head- quarters and several districts. Additional district representatives joined the meeting remotely via videoconference. Attendance also included consultants and utility owner representatives, some of whom joined the meeting remotely from Caltrans district offices. The Georgia meeting took place at GDOT headquarters in Atlanta and included representatives from the GDOT utili- ties office, along with representatives from the design group, representatives of major utility owners, and consultants. The Texas meeting took place at the TxDOT Austin district office and included representatives from headquarters and several districts, some of whom attended via conference call. No utility representatives were present. Feedback and UCM Changes Overall, feedback from the work sessions in California, Georgia, and Texas did not result in major changes to the stand-alone UCM or the data model and associated Access database. For the most part, participants at the three work sessions noted that the two prototypes developed during the research captured their business processes properly. While no major changes to the UCM concept emerged from the work sessions, feed- back from work session participants was critical for the devel- opment of the training materials (Chapter 6). Minor modifications to the UCM that resulted from the work sessions included the following: • Converting the “recommended action or resolution” column to a text field. This change provides flexibility in the way users describe recommended resolution strategies (as opposed to using standardized entries from a look-up table of generic utility conflict resolution strategies). A review of sample UCMs (Appendix B) revealed that some state DOTs prefer a list of utility conflict resolution types, while other DOTs pre- fer a comment field to describe the resolution strategy. Select- ing strategies from a look-up table has the advantage that users can update UCMs faster and that selections are stan- dardized. The disadvantage is that this method does not eas- ily support combinations of resolution strategies or allow a more detailed description of the resolution strategy chosen. In cases that require multiple resolution strategies, state DOTs tend to record only the most prevalent resolution strat- egy type. Using a comment field enables DOTs to enter descriptive information about the resolution strategy chosen. • Relabeling the “utility conflict/work description” column as “utility conflict description.” This change clarifies the purpose of the column, which is to provide information Work Sessions in California, Georgia, and Texas

43 DOT officials warned that a potential pitfall for implement- ing such a system would be the availability of adequate resources at the DOT to implement and maintain the sys- tem. Participants highlighted the need to provide a turnkey solution that emphasizes user-friendly interfaces and forms (since most users would likely have limited database knowl- edge or expertise). Feedback from utility owner representatives indicated that utility owners tend to see the UCM and many of the activities around it as an internal process within the state DOT. While utility owners value effective communication and coordina- tion, the process to develop or maintain a UCM is not critical to them. This finding means, for instance, that utility owners would need to know how to populate specific UCM cells in response to a request from the state DOT, but not how to cre- ate or maintain utility conflict records (since this is the state DOT’s responsibility). Training opportunities on the use of UCMs and related processes would also differ between the two groups. Training for utility owners would focus on spe- cific aspects of the UCM and items such as documentation and deadlines, whereas training for state DOT officials would need to be much more comprehensive. Utility owners also indicated a preference for the use of project stations and offsets to locate utility conflicts, unless conflicts involve localized installations such as transmission towers, in which case a mechanism to report absolute coordi- nates (e.g., latitude and longitude obtained using global posi- tioning system [GPS] receivers) would be more appropriate. Utility owners also indicated the need for a UCM field to explain why a utility relocation is necessary. about the utility conflict, not the work needed to resolve the conflict (which is described elsewhere in the UCM). • Providing more flexibility for handling cost estimates. Dur- ing the work sessions, the research team noted that the cost estimate column was unclear to some DOT officials. It also became evident that DOT officials were interested not just in the cost to utility owners but also the cost to the DOT. Comparing both cost estimates would enable the state DOT to make the best decision possible. As described in Chapter 4, this realization made it necessary to remove the cost estimate data item from the UCM and, instead, develop a separate sheet to track and analyze cost estimates for all resolution alternatives that may be associated with individual utility conflicts. • Adding fields in the database to track the location of utility conflicts using absolute coordinates (e.g., latitude and lon- gitude or state plane coordinates). The stand-alone UCM shows start and end stations and offsets because this method is the most prevalent among state DOTs. The data model and database include both stations and offsets as well as absolute coordinates. State DOT officials emphasized the need to account for a variety of reporting options in the research recommenda- tions. As mentioned, UCM style and content vary widely across the country. Any computerized application that auto- mates the management of utility conflicts needs to consider that different state DOTs have different needs. From a data- base perspective, the UCM would be one of several reports the system would need to support. At the same time, state