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.
8 The literature review provided background for the development of the survey tools, case interview questions, and synthesis of the data for this report. This chapter presents summaries of many of the resources reviewed. The chapter also presents a collection of current practices within utility coordination procedures at STAs as identified from the literature reviewed. STAs may find these resources useful when considering improvements to their utility coordination procedures or when adopting new practices. This information also serves as background for the survey results described in chapter three and the case examples described in chapter four. BACKGROUND LITERATURE Several dated reports are still relevant and contribute valuable information about utility coordination and relocation practices. The 1993 FHWA Highway/Utility Guide provides a thorough history of utility accommodation along highways and, for its time, was the single informational source for utilities and highways sharing common right-of-way (Thorne et al. 1993). This report highlighted concepts of early involvement, location practices, and accommodation practices. AASHTOâs A Guide for Accommodating Utilities Within Highway Right-of-Way also influenced this report and associated survey tools (2005). This resource, along with AASHTOâs A Policy on the Accommodation of Utilities Within Freeway Right-of-Way (2005), guided the survey and case questions and helped develop the definition of terms in the glossary. These resources collectively presented the importance of utility accommodation in highway right-of-way and highlighted the need for utility coordination practices. STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY UTILITY COORDINATION PRACTICES The next area of literature review involved an investigation of utility coordination practices used by STAs. Sturgill et al. (2014) previously synthesized a list of utility coordination practices that was used to develop survey questions about the types of practices implemented and the perception of their effectiveness by STAs. This resource was complemented by the AASHTO Standing Committee on Highwaysâ Strategic Plan Strategy 4-4 (Right-of-Way and Utilities Guidelines and Best Practices, Standing Committee on Highways 2004) for the purpose of question development (2004). In reviewing these resources, a list of utility coordination best practices was developed. These resources also provided some insight on where in the project timeline STAs plan utility coordination practices. This, along with information summarized in Table 2 adapted from SHRP 2 Report S2-R15-RW, was used in the development of the survey questionnaire (Ellis et al. 2009). Table 2 is provided here to illustrate several of the utility coordination practices used by a subset of STAs. These resources influenced the line of questioning for survey respondents about their use of âbest practicesâ as found in multiple widely accepted guidance documents. Inquiries were also made about when their utility coordination practices take place in relation to their design process. In regard to timing, previous research, as shown in Table 2, indicates many STAs regard 30% design plans (preliminary design) as the appropriate time for involvement of utility coordination. However, after review of a typical STA project development process seen in Figure 1, waiting until preliminary design to initiate util- ity coordination efforts could be problematic depending on the level of environmental agreements already completed for the project and right-of-way requirements. If, for example, alignment alternatives are set according to environmental agree- ments but those alignments are later found to have substantial utility impacts, a project manager may be faced with difficult and costly decisions that may have been eliminated with earlier utility involvement. Current research (such as Sturgill et al. 2014) supports much earlier utility involvement in the project development process. Of note, Figure 2 illustrates that 49% of this studyâs survey respondents are abiding by current research trends and beginning utility coordination earlier than the 30% design plans. CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW
9 RECENT RESEARCH The most discussed research involving utility coordination is the SHRP 2 products. These products assist STAs with state- of-the-art methods of location, data management, and utility conflict resolution. Much of this research seeks to standardize location technology and associated data, although R15B ties in keenly with utility coordination during the management of TABLE 2 SUMMARIZED USE OF UTILITY COORDINATION PROCESSES Process Sub-Process AZ CA CO FL IN KY MI NY PA TX VA Long-Range Plan and Communication with Utility Owners Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Utility Coordinating Committee Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Utilize Joint-Use Agreements Â£ Â£ Â£ Training Program for Project Design Engineers on Utility Relocations Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Statewide Utility Mapping System Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Identify Utilities in Conflict (per- cent design stage) 30%, 60%, or 90% design stage 30 30 30 30 60 30 30 30 30 Location Information from Utili- ties (percent design stage) 30%, 60%, or 90% design stage 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Utilities Begin Relocation Design (percent design stage) 30%, 60%, or 90% design stage 60 30 60 60 60 90 60 60 60 60 Use of One Call System Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Conduct Field Survey Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Use of SUE Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Utility Coordination Meeting Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Provide Utility Owners Contact List Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Outsource Relocation Design Utility owners can use design consultants Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ DOT can act as utility ownersâ design consultant Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Preconstruction Meeting Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Utility Preconstruction Meeting Â£ Partnering Meetings Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Relocation Work Performed Before Construction, When Feasible Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Relocation Work Utility owner performs relocation Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Use of subcontractors Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Use of DOTâs contractors Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Â£ Field Conflict Resolution Process Â£ Post-Construction Meeting Â£ Process for Unexpected Utility Conflicts During Construction Â£ Â£ Â£ As-Built Requirements Provided by utility owners DesignâBuild Contracts
10 utility conflicts and risk. Several pilot programs are in place. These topics are incorporated into the survey and interviews, and as evidenced from the case example interviews, adoption of these practices into formalized utility coordination procedures can improve STA utility coordination programs. The SHRP 2 products include the following: â¢ 3D Utility Location Data Repository (R01A) https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/goSHRP2/Solutions/All/R01A/3D_Utility_Location_Data_Repository The SHRP 2 R01A product provides a three-dimensional (3D) data storage and retrieval model that can influence utility coordination by making location information readily available. According to the SHRP 2 website (emphasis added), âThe data stored will include the horizontal and vertical location of the utilities, as well as attribute data that is needed to effectively coordinate with utility owners.â FIGURE 1 A typical STA project development process. FIGURE 2 STA survey responses for timing of utility involvement.
11 â¢ Utility Investigation Technologies (R01B) https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/goSHRP2/Solutions/Renewal/R01B/Utility_Investigation_Technologies The SHRP 2 R01B product presents a collection of credible nondestructive geophysical location technologies. This infor- mationâwhen used within a SUE processâcan present engineers with the best collection of multisensor tools for detect- ing and locating utilities when varying geophysical characteristics are present. R01B focuses specifically on the use of two technologies: time-domain electromagnetic induction and multichannel ground-penetrating radar. These types of advanced technologies were queried for their use and effectiveness within the survey. â¢ Innovation in Location of Deep Utilities (R01C) (Hammerschmidt et al. 2015) Early in the SHRP 2 R01C project, the research team determined the project would be more effective if focus was placed on shallower yet more difficult to locate utility facilities, such as stacked utilities. Therefore, R01C became closely integrated with the R01B project but avoided duplication. The R01C project focused on such location technologies as long-range radio frequency identification tagging and active acoustic location by placing acoustic generators on the facility/pipe. â¢ Identifying and Managing Utility Conflicts (R15B) https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/goSHRP2/Solutions/Renewal/R15B/Identifying_and_Managing_Utility_Conflicts SHRP 2 R15B is directly related to this synthesis, where the previously mentioned product may be somewhat auxiliary to utility coordination. The early phases of this product present the Utility Conflict Matrix as a tool to identify, track, and manage utility-related conflicts during project development. This framework presented STAs with a tool to conduct utility coordination in a more strategic and systematic approach. The final report of this product, however, goes on to highlight many of the same findings that were mentioned in the survey and case example feedback herein. For example, the report notes that because STAs do not include utility relocation/coordination as being integral to the design process, utility owners become involved after much of the design is already completed, potentially causing delays and rework that could be avoided by earlier involvement. Some notable conclusions from this report include the following: â¢ Utilities owners have limited resources. â¢ Utility relocation/coordination is not the primary focus of transportation designers. â¢ Coordination of multiple utility owners is often problematic. â¢ STAs operate on short time frames to deliver projects. â¢ Delayed coordination with utility owners often results in right-of-way issues (if utility right-of-way needs are not considered). â¢ One-call locator information may not be as timely or as accurate as needed. â¢ Utility owners and transportation construction contractors may incur schedule delays because they do not synchronize operations. As a recommendation, the report presents the following initiatives: â¢ Operate as a team. â¢ View utilities in highway right-of-way as the STAâs responsibility. â¢ Understand/learn the business processes for the counterpart (utility owner/STA). â¢ Improve location and mapping methods (Ellis et al. 2009). Also note, case examples are available for R15B for the Kentucky and Michigan pilot uses of Utility Conflict Matrices: Kentucky: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/goSHRP2/Content/Documents/SHRP2_R15B_KYTC.pdf Michigan: http://SHRP2.transportation.org/documents/home/MichiganDOTR15BCaseStudyFINAL.pdf More information may be found on all of these products within their associated reports in the references section of this synthesis.
12 TRAINING, EDUCATION, AND THE WORKFORCE Constrained resources was an issue that the SHRP 2 products presented as a potential cause for utility relocation delay. STAs are all too familiar with resource constraintsâ70% of the surveyed STAs that use consultant-led utility coordination do so based on a lack of personnel or expertise. Additionally, a recent synthesis study by Taylor and Maloney presented declining staff as an STA concern in general. Eighty-six percent of their survey respondents reported they were doing more work with fewer employ- ees. On average, the responding states had 4% more lane miles in their system, with capital spending increased by over 50% when taking inflation into account, and full-time employee numbers were down 9.68% (Taylor and Maloney 2013). Another concern related to personnel in utility coordination is the small number of opportunities for training and educa- tion. All the survey respondents noted they were unaware of any formal education (university or technical programs) oppor- tunities related to utility coordination. One notable source of training is a free, 4-hour, web-based introductory course on utility coordination for highway projects that is offered by NHI and serves as a prerequisite for its 2-day instructor-led course (courses FHWA-NHI-134006 and FHWA-NHI-134006A). The topics covered include the following: â¢ Regulatory requirements for public and private utilities, â¢ Importance of communication and cooperation during coordination, â¢ Use of SUE, and â¢ Statesâ accommodation policies. More information for the course can be found at: http://www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/training/course_search.aspx?course_no=134006&sf=1. In addition, some STAs have developed their own utility coordination training (such as Indiana, Florida, Georgia, and Texas). Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) (other STAs have similar programs) has gone so far as to make the utility coordination training a prequalification for any consultants who conduct consultant-led utility coordination. INDOTâs training and certification program is a 2-day course with an exam that requires a passing score of 75%. Additionally, to take the certification training, an individual must hold a Bachelor of Science in Engineering and 2 years of highway or utilities experience, or 4 years of highway or utilities experience with at least 1 year of experience in utility coordination. This program began in 2014 and more information can be found at: http://www.in.gov/indot/3268.htm. Another source of information and potential training is the recently initiated Utility Engineering and Surveying Institute as part of ASCE. ASCE-UESI was formed by combining several utility- and surveying-related divisions with like central causes. The goal of the institute is to promote excellence in and be a central source of information related to the engineering, planning, design, con- struction, operations, and asset management for utility infrastructure and engineering surveying. More information can be found at: http://www.asce.org/utility-engineering-and-surveying/utility-engineering-and-surveying-institute/. ASCE-UESI has already begun to collaborate on developing materials and training for building knowledge in the utilities and surveying fields. In collaboration with the Louisiana Tech Universityâs Trenchless Technology Center, ASCE-UESI cre- ated the 2016 Utility Investigations School. This intensive course will provide students the knowledge and tools for competent utility investigations in accordance with accepted national standards. The course is a 1-week graduate-level course. More information can be found at: http://www.ttcspecialtyschools.com/uis/. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Several resources related to utility coordination, in addition to the ones previously mentioned, are discussed below. Notably, FHWA provides a good repository website for several sources of information (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/utilities/). This web- site presents training opportunities, online webinars, and resource materials related to highway utility coordination. Addi- tional resources for reference include the following:
13 â¢ E-construction â E-construction is a relatively recent advancement in construction management for STAs. FHWA has been a propo- nent of its expanded use as part of FHWAâs Every Day Counts initiative. While there are multiple facets to e-con- struction, one most pertinent to utility location and information is the use of 3D plans, the development of 3D as-built plans, and the electronic capture of project information for future use. By tying utility location information into the 3D as-built drawings and associating a quality level to these locates as part of SUE, a bond between utilities and construction is formed as is a feedback loop for providing future design projects with accurate and thorough utility location information. More information can be found at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/econstruction/ and https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/edc-3/econstruction.cfm. â¢ NCHRP Report 821: Effective Project Scoping Practices to Improve On-Time and On-Budget Delivery of Highway Projects (Anderson et al. 2016) â This recently published report highlights the importance of utility impact assessments and of establishing an inven- tory of project-affected utilities for delivering projects on time and on budget. The report notes that these are items to be assessed during the project scoping stages. One level of the utilities assessment is to gather information from utility owners as well as one-call services. This illustrates the need to involve the utility owners much earlier than the 30% design phase historically presented as the proper point for utility owner involvement. Again, this dovetails into the survey results presented in synthesis findings herein that 49% of the respondents involve utilities prior to that point. â¢ FHWA Report (FHWA-HRT-16-019), Feasibility of Mapping and Marking Underground Utilities by State Highway Agencies (Quiroga et al. 2016) â This recent study takes a step beyond the SHRP 2 R01 products to conduct a detailed investigation of the feasibility and practical application of STAs capturing and warehousing the location data of utilities within their right-of-way. Additionally, the study presents return on investment for the availability of information such as the knowledge of the accuracy of this information. The report presents the perceived and actual challenges to implementing such an approach and provides a framework for doing so. The report presents what some STAs are trying in order to achieve better accuracy in the location information of the utilities in their right-of-way, such as the using radio-frequency identification devices (marker balls). â¢ NCHRP Synthesis 405: Utility Location and Highway Design (Anspach 2010) â This synthesis presents the fundamental challenge associated with utility coordination and highway design. It dis- cusses STA procedures for involving, locating, and resolving conflicts about utilities based on the types and severity of the utility impacts. While the synthesis relays that little standardization exists as to how this process should occur, it does provide a succinct list of best practices employed by STAs to mitigate utility and highway conflicts. â¢ ACRP Synthesis 34: Subsurface Utility Engineering Information Management for Airports (Anspach and Murphy 2012) â This synthesis describes how the understanding of utility management and coordination is important across various modes when it comes to potential impacts that utility can have on projects and operations. It also illustrates that there are numerous methods of identifying utility facilities, but early involvement of those with utility knowledge and proper understanding of location methods and such management approaches as SUE provides the best environment for managing utility conflict situations. â¢ ASCE 38-02: âA Standard Guideline for the Collection and Depiction of Existing Subsurface Utility Dataâ (2002) â STAs use this fundamental document and compliance standard to assess the risk and quality level location proce- dures as part of using SUE. This document provides guidelines for how to collect utility information according to SUE levels and how this information should be depicted in standardized means. The quality levels are described and illustrated and their relative costs and benefits are also relayed. â¢ NCHRP Synthesis 462: Managing Longitudinal Installations on Controlled Access Highway Right-of-Way (Kraus 2014) â This synthesis investigates STA management of the specific situation of longitudinal utility installations on con- trolled access highway right-of-way. Interestingly, many conclusions of the research herein meld with the conclu- sions of NCHRP Synthesis 462. STAs often have procedures and practices to deal with these instances, but there seems to be a void for a national standard of practice. The use of utility corridors, shared trench methods, and
14 utility right-of-way accommodations are mentioned as strategies, but procedures and policies for the best use of these practices are minimal. These resources were used collectively to develop the survey questionnaires and synthesize the information into the fol- lowing chapters.