Utility Location and Highway Design (2010)

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.

In an ideal world, highway improvement projects meet their transportation goals when design can proceed with no constraints; unobstructed and unlimited right-of-way; no streams, rivers, wetlands, or contaminated or geo-technically poor soils; and constant but gradual elevation changes. However, few projects meet these criteria, and almost all proj- ects contain another design constraint: existing utilities strung overhead on visible struc- tures or hidden below ground. Historically, the most convenient strategy for the transportation designer was to ignore the utilities during design and make them relocate if they end up conflicting with the highway con- struction footprint. As such, highway projects are often designed with little or no consideration of utilities. Utilities are routinely relocated, often at great expense and often unnecessarily. The most difficult option for the designer is to accomplish the transportation improvement mission while leaving all of the existing utilities in place. Sometimes this is impossible. Somewhere between the extremes of relocating all the utilities and leaving all the utilities in place is a workable compromise that meets the highway construction scope and mission, while mini- mizing impacts to utility facilities. If this compromise can be found, there can be substantial savings in utility relocation costs and impacts, as well as overall savings to the project budget and timeline. This study explores current practices in use by transportation agencies for consideration of utilities during the project development process, including where in the process the utility impacts are assessed and relocation decisions are made; what policies, regulations, manuals, and guidelines are used; and how design decisions are influenced by utilities. The study includes both below-ground and above-ground utilities. This study does not include the many related aspects of the practice of utility coordination; those details can be found in the 2009 SHRP 2 report Integrating the Priorities of Transportation Agencies and Utility Companies. Information was gathered through a literature review, survey, and interviews. The survey was sent to the department of transportation (DOT) representative with utility responsibili- ties through the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Right-of-Way and Utilities. The DOT utility representative was asked to solicit feedback from others in their respective depart- ments if warranted. The survey was distributed to the DOTs of the 50 states, Puerto Rico, District of Columbia, and 9 Canadian provinces; 45 responses were received. Review of the literature identified the issues potentially affecting the decision to keep utilities in place or to relocate them. This study explores in detail five specific practices: (1) consideration of utilities during design, (2) philosophies regarding design versus relocation, (3) knowl- edge of designers in utility issues, (4) procedures and practices for decision making, and (5) utility mapping (both overhead and underground). It includes case histories, best practices, and additional research needs. There were few places in the literature that mentioned how and when decisions to relocate utilities rather than put forth an alternative design are made. Several state DOTs have begun to include a work category of “design analysis and conflict resolution” in their consultant con- tracts. The level of activity varies from identifying potential conflicts at the 60% design stage SUMMARY UTILITY LOCATION AND HIGHWAY DESIGN

for the selection of test holes to actually recommending changes to the highway design to accommodate select utilities. DOTs expressed the desire to get utilities involved as early as possible. The nature of that involvement is diverse, but is mostly limited to determining what is there and where it is, rather than should it be considered important or costly enough to be a design issue. Twenty percent of DOTs get their utility personnel involved in the project planning stage. In a majority of cases it is primarily an identification of the utilities that may exist within the project limits. In some cases it includes a preliminary utility cost estimate, where the costs of moving utilities out of the way of the highway project are estimated. Philosophies on what to consider differ; the preliminary utility cost estimate can be either a worst-case scenario, a best-case scenario, or a most-likely case scenario. Ten percent of DOTs start getting util- ity information in the topographic survey stage, whereas 52% wait until the early design stage of a project. The remaining 18% wait until later in design, or sometimes just before construction. Almost 90% of DOTs consider the impacts of utilities on aerial versus under- ground utilities at the same time. The Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Georgia DOTs indicated that they had developed some internal procedures and guidance in this matter. These three DOTs were interviewed and the results are documented in the body of the report. A synopsis follows. The Pennsylvania DOT (PennDOT) assigns a project manager in the early planning stage who will be responsible for that project from that point on until construction is complete. An internal specialist in utilities is included as a part of the design team at the planning stage. Before any design begins, the utility team member gathers utility owner records and makes a field visit to create a “best guess” utility map (using topo received at the 0%–5% design stage). A preliminary utility cost estimate is generated at this time and updated throughout the design process. At the 30% design stage, there is a second field visit by the project team with plans in hand. At the 30% plan stage, design is sufficiently advanced so that large-scale design elements are shown in a “proposed” location. During this visit, the utility team member gives advice about relocation costs, time issues, and other utility issues to the design team for their considera- tion. It is at this point that the decision whether or not to use a subsurface utility engineering consultant is made. The Virginia DOT (VDOT) assigns a utility coordinator to the project before the 30% stage. It is the responsibility of this coordinator to be familiar with the utility locations and issues, and bring design versus relocation issues to the attention of the designers. The utility coordinator produces quarterly updates on the expected utility relocation costs as design pro- gresses. This provides assistance in getting attention paid to utility relocation alternatives. The Georgia DOT (GDOT) performs a Utility Impact Analysis as soon as preliminary drainage, erosion control, staging, structures, and construction limits are available (30%–60% design stage). GDOT or its Subsurface Utility Engineering consultant review all potential existing utility conflicts with the proposed design and document recommended resolutions (utility relocation or adjust proposed design), determines if Quality Level A (QLA) test holes are needed, determines a utility impact with “ball-park” cost (as designed), and provides a ben- efit of resolution. Overhead and underground conflicts are both considered at the same time. These items are incorporated into a conflict matrix spreadsheet that is provided to the project manager/designer and the District Utility Office. All state accommodation policies reviewed require the utility to relocate its facilities if they conflict with the transportation facility. A few state policies request designers to attempt 2

to minimize relocations. Eighty-five percent of DOTs do not have any policies or guidance documents that affect a decision to relocate or to design around a utility conflict, other than for above-ground, clear zone safety issues. The logical assumption is that the decision to design around a utility or relocate the utility is derived from other factors. Approval for that decision is either through a normal “chain of command” process or a formal approval process of some type in 64% of the DOTs. This implies that even though there may be no formal deci- sion policy, the decision is dependent on more senior management, but must first originate with the designer. The DOTs of Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Georgia have all instituted significant changes and procedures to the ways in which they address utility and design issues and state positive results. All three states have subsurface utility engineering programs that include mapping, conflict identification, and limited utility coordination. Pennsylvania has several unique statutes or findings that affect how PennDOT considers utilities. The first is a ruling that a contractor on PennDOT jobs is allowed to perform their own test holes at PennDOT expense if the contractor has reason to believe the utility infor- mation as shown on the plans is in error. This has led PennDOT to be much more proactive in controlling those potential contractor costs by requesting QLA data in the project design stage. The second is a rather recent One-Call statute revision that requires all projects in the state to use subsurface utility engineering mapping (ASCE 38-02), or justify why not, if the project construction cost is estimated to exceed $400,000. VDOT has put into place several other procedures that assist in getting attention paid for “relocation versus design-to accommodate” decisions. One of these is a VDOT pilot pro- gram, in place since 2000, where the agency pays the utilities for the costs of their engi- neering and design regardless of prior rights. In support of this program, VDOT has hired outside consultants to assist it in designing utility relocations if the utility owners choose not to use their own designers or cannot meet the project time frames. These outside consultants are also versed in highway design and, as such, are tasked with making recommendations on design changes if it appears to make more sense than relocation. VDOT estimates that this procedure increased its ability to hit target dates by 15%, and decreased the project time- lines by 5% to 10%. On specific projects, its time savings are estimated to be in excess of one year. VDOT is able to negotiate the easements of the utility owner as long as the utility owner already has a prior right. The utility still pays for the easement, but the negotiation is at state labor cost and the timing is controlled because the state has better power of eminent domain than the utility. GDOT developed a Utility Redline Software that facilitates the transmitting of utility plan markups in electronic format for GDOT construction projects and is provided to GDOT’s utility industry at no cost. The benefits of this new software are: • Saves both GDOT and utility owner’s printing costs, • Increases construction plan quality, • Facilitates project utility coordination efforts, • Speeds up project plan development, and • Aids utility companies and GDOT in the implementation of geographic information system applications. Additionally, GDOT developed a training program, Avoiding Utility Project Impacts, which was created to provide useful tools to help designers and project managers avoid many utility-related problems, thereby reducing project delays by identifying and resolving utility conflicts early in the design process. 3

There is general consensus from the existing literature on how to make better decisions regarding “relocation versus design-to accommodate.” Accurate and comprehensive utility location data, access to utility relocation cost data, informed and trained designers, and timely and frequent communication between designers and utilities are common themes. There are several sources of DOT/utility issues best practices, although a majority of DOTs surveyed reported that they pay limited attention to them as they are constrained by state statutes, depart- mental policies and philosophies, and historical ways of conducting business. Indeed, fewer than 30% of DOTs reported using AASHTO’s Best Practices for Right-of-Way and Utility Issues. The best practices compiled by others and pertinent to this study are nonetheless listed in the report. Several state DOTs have developed a “Conflict Analysis” spreadsheet that assists decision making on design versus relocation by relating estimated costs of relocation to conflicts. This practice is the focus of an ongoing SHRP 2 research project, R-15B Identification of Utility Conflicts and Solutions. The survey disclosed reasons why designers might not consider keeping utilities in place. Sixty percent of DOTs consider their project costs as more important than the relocation costs to the utility ratepayers. Seventy-three percent of the DOTs said they do not consider cost or time factors as part of the relocation and design decision. Sixty percent of DOTs surveyed reported that their designers were not trained in utility issues, another 16% were not sure, and only 2% had training in utility relocation costs, giving little ability for cost comparisons. That makes coordination, cooperation, and early involvement of a state’s utility unit or utility spe- cialists essential to making informed decisions. Perhaps the single most important step in dealing with utility issues is the knowledge of what and where utilities are present. There are diverse ways in which the existence of a util- ity is discovered and its location mapped onto highway design plans so that relocation and design decisions can be made. As utility location data become more comprehensive and accu- rate better decisions can be made, and there is less risk that unforeseen problems with utili- ties will emerge at the construction phase. This study reiterates the findings of several other viable studies that illustrate a positive cost-benefit to the notion of getting the best possible location information through subsur- face utility engineering mapping practices. The most recent subsurface utility engineering study by Penn State University showed a 2,200% return on investment ($22 savings for every $1 spent) on ten randomly selected PennDOT projects when using professionally obtained subsurface utility engineering field mapping over utility owner records correlated to surveyed topo features. Other best practices fall into several major categories. Training of DOT, utility, and con- sultant personnel is one of them. Another is incorporating new technologies throughout the project development process. A third category involves the development of databases and spreadsheets to assist the designer in knowing where the potential conflicts are, and the costs and time associated with resolving those conflicts. A final category involves the early place- ment of someone well versed in utility issues on the design team at the earliest opportunity. The concepts of altering a highway design to accommodate existing utilities are not as well represented in the literature or in past studies as might be imagined, given the pervasiveness of utility issues and highway design. That is now recognized, and several research projects with bearing on the problem are underway or planned for the near future. The SHRP 2 pro- gram has five of these projects dealing with the broad topics of utility data storage and retrieval, utility locating and mapping technologies, and utility coordination and conflict identification. 4