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.

6The literature review identified those issues potentially affect- ing a design accommodation versus utility relocation. Some issues may be duplicated in part with other related ones and many issues were duplicated in more than one docu- ment. In these cases, the most recent and comprehensive documents are cited as the primary source in this study, although the reference list in the Bibliography is more comprehensive. Many issues with utilities are related to the coordination process. These issues were recently documented in the SHRP 2 project (R-15) Integrating the Priorities of Transportation Agencies and Utility Companies (5). These issues are highly interrelated to the decision on whether to relocate a utility or consider a design change to accommodate it in place. Dupli- cation of information has been kept to a minimum. Decisions regarding “relocation versus design-to accom- modate” can be based on cost, time, policy and statutes, project awareness, knowledge and training, available space, project design elements, accurate utility location knowledge, type of utility, past cooperation, personal preference of the project manager and designer, and singular project-specific details. These issues are interrelated and, as such, it is often difficult to anticipate the cause and effect of potential solutions to util- ity issues. The R-15 study identified the following design issues per- taining to relocation decisions for utilities (excerpted): • Coordination Process Variations and Involvement Insuf- ficiencies. As the DOT design development process is focused on solving a transportation need and the coor- dination process is flexible (weakly structured), trans- portation design typically proceeds with little or no input from the utilities. Transportation designers have an incentive to design projects quickly, and constraints such as utilities can take additional time. The general understanding is that utilities can and will be relocated if there is a conflict. Designing to avoid utility conflicts remains the exception rather than the rule. There is sub- stantial variability in the timing and format of a DOT’s first contact with utilities, although contact around 30% design appears to be average. In many cases, there is no meeting between the utility engineer and the DOT design engineer. The quality and timing of the required communication is apparently variable, largely depend- ing on the initiative of the individual designer and/or utility coordinator. • Base Information on New Locations for Utilities. One challenge to DOT–utility coordination is the base knowl- edge needed by the parties and the lack of availability of that information. Utilities are just one item in the ground that DOTs need to deal with and preferably design around. Locations for utilities to be moved may be iden- tified; however, other unknown objects, ground condi- tions, and geotechnical conditions in the new location can preclude them. The lack of good base data magni- fies other problems. • Limited Technical Knowledge. Utilities occupying a pub- lic ROW have increased in number and type. The techni- cal complexity of utility systems has also increased; however, DOT design engineers and DOT construc- tion contractors have little or no formal training in the technical aspect of utility systems. There is a general shortage of experienced designers, and the shortage of engineers in the United States continues to increase. Additionally, utility relocation engineers employed by utility companies have little formal training in trans- portation system design and construction. • Variability in Transportation Funding. Owing to inade- quate funding for a given transportation project, DOTs and utilities have encountered situations where a project is shelved after utilities provide plans. This stop/start project funding situation creates coordination issues when the time between utility relocation plan submittal, review, and approval and the authorization for the utility to go to work to relocate utilities may be several years. Understandably, utility owners do not want to be caught having invested time, effort, and financial resources in planning for or executing relocations that turn out to be unnecessary. DOTs are coordinating earlier than ever with utilities, sharing plans 5 to 10 years in advance in some cases, but project funding can be more uncertain at this early stage. To address this issue, some DOTs have made substantial efforts to increase the predictability of their transportation program, so that UCs and munici- palities can plan projects that are included in the Trans- portation Improvement Program, the 4- to 6-year pro- gram of budgeted projects. Funding situations can still change and projects can be re-prioritized. Interviews revealed that sometimes “the utility owner (still) does not trust DOT, and is not sure that DOT will really build the project.” This can cause delays as the UC CHAPTER TWO UTILITY ISSUES IN HIGHWAY DESIGN

7waits until a later point in the process to initiate its por- tion of the work. • Inability of DOT to Purchase ROW in Advance for Util- ity Relocations. Many DOTs cannot purchase the ROW in advance for utility relocations. Not knowing whether the ROW is available can influence design decisions. • Difficulty Getting “Design Ticket” Locates from One- Call Centers and Locators. DOTs and utilities are affected by the limited level of service that One-Call centers and locators can provide, particularly during the design phase. Reliance of utility owners on their One- Call systems has not worked well for design purposes because the system was designed for safety during con- struction. Indeed, in a majority of states, state legisla- tion or practices preclude permitting or mandating what utility owners do to prevent utility ratepayers from hav- ing to supplement the design costs that may be covered by other stakeholders. • Inaccurate or Incomplete Field Markings, Risks with Multiple Locators, and Process Inefficiencies. In states that allow utility owners to mark for design, utilities have generally protected themselves from liability by seeking statutory language that absolves them of respon- sibility for the accuracy or completeness of the marks. This statutory protection reduces the incentive of utili- ties to produce accurate or timely location information. DOTs rarely recover redesign or contractor delay claims from utilities for wrong design markings. This issue is compounded because designers have little or no informa- tion about the accuracy and completeness of the marks placed by the One-Call systems and place their faith in it when there is no other source of information. • Availability of Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE) and State-Specific Cost-Benefit Information. A number of states are conducting research and implementing pro- grams to promote SUE. SUE is an engineering process for accurately identifying the quality of subsurface util- ity information needed for highway plans and for acquir- ing and managing that level of information during the development of a highway project. In states where SUE is not standard or a SUE program does not exist, it may still be used in exceptional circumstances. However, even with significant documented savings from a variety of independent sources and research organizations, some states still resist the practice of SUE. • Quality and Effectiveness of SUE Services. Many DOT engineers consider SUE mapping services to be expen- sive and therefore do not include it in the budget. SUE providers have proliferated and this has led to concerns in some cases, including: (1) SUE providers not using ade- quate imaging equipment, (2) procurement of the wrong amount of imaging to cut costs or meet other goals and limits, (3) inadequate level of skill or experience inter- preting visual output, and (4) poor scopes of work. • Overly Small Mapping Limits in Early Characterization. In an attempt to minimize initial project cost, mapping limits are frequently set unrealistically small. As this is discovered during the project development process, extra costs and time are incurred. Previous designs can be irrel- evant or inefficient if more space is available, but if addressed early the extra costs of extending the topo and utility survey limits can be minimized. Another document that has significant applicability to this study is the FHWA’s 2002 Avoiding Utility Relocations (2). Its major premise is that “unplanned and unnecessary utility relocations must be avoided.” It identified the following six applicable utility issues with their related problems: 1. Property interest—Because a majority of utilities within the ROW are under permit or franchise agreements, the state or municipality has the power to force relocation with the cost of that relocation borne by the utility. In such cases, the agency, although cognizant of the relo- cation impacts and costs, is not as concerned with avoid- ance strategies as they would be if they were reim- bursing the utility. Just obtaining required easements on private property is a time-consuming and costly issue for the utility. 2. Quality of records—Unless utilities are designated through the One-Call design system (only available in about 12 states) or through a SUE firm. Records that are frequently inaccurate, incomplete, and many times unavailable are the source for location informa- tion. This makes it difficult to make accurate decisions. 3. Readability of plans sent to utilities—Many times utili- ties are asked by the DOT to place their utility informa- tion on a set of highway plan sheets. These plan sheets may be difficult for the utility owners to interpret, owing to a lack of trained personnel in highway plan reading, inadequate or confusing topographic references, plan scale, clutter, or detail contrast. 4. Reliance on institutional memory—There is a signifi- cant generational change in both the utility companies and the DOTs as agencies become “right-sized, down- sized, or capsized.” There are few mid-level people who would be the heirs to valuable planning and design practices. 5. Technology to locate utilities—There is no one piece of equipment capable of detecting all types of utilities in a given location. Even many SUE firms do not employ all the possible tools owing to DOT budget concerns, lack of trained personnel, and logistical issues. Tech- nology is advancing, but so is the cost of equipment and the training required to use and interpret it. There is a broad range of assumptions by highway designers on technology capabilities. 6. Abandoned facilities—Abandoned facilities usually have no available records. However, they may still contain product and, as such, can create expensive and dangerous construction conditions. Abandoned facili- ties, existing in close proximity to active ones are easily mistaken for the active ones, and vice-versa. Abandoned facilities are best identified in the design stage so that

ample time to investigate ownership and contents is available. However, without a comprehensive surface geophysical investigation, abandoned facilities are not usually found until construction has begun. Other issues pulled from DOT and consultant interviews and other source documents that were not specifically included in the previous documents are: • Historical sequencing of solutions to problems—A solu- tion to one problem may create new problems, which are then fixed, and so on. A series of “patches” to the prob- lem are devised, rather than an entire new operating sys- tem. The end result is policies and procedures from which a patch to the problem may no longer work (W.D. Pickering, So-Deep, Inc., personal communication). • DOTs are unwilling to allow any changes in their exist- ing utility relocation policies that might open up a change to legislation for fear that the utility lobbyists will be able to parlay that concession into a larger one that will be unsatisfactory to the DOT (W.D. Pickering, So-Deep, Inc., personal communication). • Overlapping permit agencies—When state highways run through municipalities, the DOT sometimes cedes control of utility installation permits and records to the municipality, and such permits and records may not be in a standardized format (S.M. Wolfe, Cobb, Fendley & Associates, personal communication). • No comprehensive “Alternate Design” catalogue with associated costs—Although the FHWA did publish a generic Avoiding Utility Relocations manual (2), it is used in less than 50% of the states according to the sur- vey and it contains no cost information for comparison purposes (Question 27). • It is well understood that utility issues will arise on some projects. A prevailing attitude is that there is little that can be done to prevent them and there are procedures in place to address them when they happen (K.S. Nichols, CH2M Hill, personal communication). • Existing procedures are satisfactory for a majority of projects—Because a majority of projects handle utility issues well enough with existing procedures and policies, and it is difficult to know beforehand which projects may 8 have significant utility issues, it becomes difficult to jus- tify to management a solution that is inherently systemic in nature and may not show value for all projects. For instance, a recent Pennsylvania DOT (PennDOT)/Penn State University Study found that “All of the projects showed a strong relationship between SUE benefit-cost ratio and buried utility complexity level at the project site. The analysis clearly showed that there is no relationship between SUE benefit-cost ratio and project cost and also no relationship between buried utility complexity level and project cost” (6). • DOTs have a tendency to believe research findings or practices to be invalid for their state if they originate from organizations outside of their jurisdiction. This may partially explain why published “best practices” are seemingly not put into practice quickly or in some cases at all, and may explain why issues still remain even after their extensive and long-term iden- tification of them (J.J. Lew, Purdue University, per- sonal communication). • Competing technical specifications—States have differ- ent manuals and specifications for different divisions or departments. At issue is the lack of a common sys- tem to arrange the task and activities that the manuals describe. This issue is compounded by the lack of a common labeling system among manuals. There are differing chains of command for these activities, and the “who’s in charge of what, and when” is sometimes vague or in conflict (R. Kerchner, Gannett Fleming, Inc., personal communication). • Ease of finger pointing—Because utilities are a joint issue between the DOTs and the individual utilities, it is always easy to blame the other entity for the problems (7). • Consistency of procedures and philosophies across departments—The survey included responses from dif- ferent departments within the DOT. For every question there was a difference in responses among the DOTs, ranging from 4% disagreement of the answers to as high as 45% (Question 5). Certainly, there is a diversity of attitudes, opinions, training, or priorities with each DOT depending on job function, resulting in a wide variety of information or practices. This argues for a lack of train- ing issue, or perhaps a larger organizational issue.