The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 17-34

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 17... ... 15 This chapter provides information on current utility coordination methodologies in use at STAs. It synthesizes the responses of the STAs and outside stakeholders and their outlook on utility coordination. Read the entire page →
From page 18... ... 16 UTILITY COORDINATION PROCEDURES Timing and Influence One topic of interest from the STA survey responses relates to the use of procedures and standardization of practices. Also of interest is when particular aspects of the utility coordination process take place and when these aspects become integrated into the project design process. Read the entire page →
From page 19... ... 17 The STA survey results, Figure 6, indicate that while 49% of respondents abide by these recommendations, over 50% do not. This could be an easy area for improvement for the respondents who typically do not begin the utility coordination process until the project is 30% designed or later. Read the entire page →
From page 20... ... 18 coordination processes. It is promising to note that "reactive" was the lowest-ranked term, although there is room for improvement because "interactive" was the predominant descriptor but "proactive" would be optimal. Read the entire page →
From page 21... ... 19 FIGURE 9 STA response on utility coordination being handled differently at local versus statewide levels. CORE ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE UTILITY COORDINATION Further delving into particular aspects of effective utility coordination, the survey asked respondents to rank their effectiveness on "Timely Utility Involvement on the Project," "Utility Coordination Communication," "Utility Relocation/Alignment Is Considered Within Design Decisions," "Minimized Utility Relocation Cost," and "Timely Utility Relocations." These practices were collected through the literature review and summarized into a succinct generalized list. Read the entire page →
From page 22... ... 20 FIGURE 11 Is there an STA measure of utility coordination effectiveness? FIGURE 12 Top effective utility coordination practices selected by STAs. Read the entire page →
From page 23... ... 21 Figure 13 differs slightly from Figure 12 in that STAs were asked to indicate all the practices they use or could use within utility coordination. These responses indicate that some STAs have several more options at their disposal. Read the entire page →
From page 24... ... 22 Setting Utility Coordination Scope The survey also sought to determine how STAs set the scope of utility coordination involvement for a project; that is, what project characteristics lead to increased utility coordination involvement. The STA respondents reported that 90% have a documented process for determining the utility coordination scope of a project. Read the entire page →
From page 25... ... 23 FIGURE 15 Consultant-led utility coordination by contract type. FIGURE 16 Satisfaction with stand-alone consultant-led utility coordination. Read the entire page →
From page 26... ... 24 FIGURE 18 STA management of consultant-led utility coordination. FIGURE 19 STA reasons for using consultant-led utility coordination. Read the entire page →
From page 27... ... 25 technical, or university level. Eighty-eight percent did not believe those opportunities existed and the remaining 13% were unsure. Read the entire page →
From page 28... ... 26 FIGURE 22 Groups offered STA utility coordination training. FIGURE 23 STA responses to consistency in federal and local legislation and regulations. Read the entire page →
From page 29... ... 27 legislation and regulations for utility coordination. Of note, the utility owners, who likely must operate across state boundaries, indicated a higher rate of inconsistency in legislation and regulations. Read the entire page →
From page 30... ... 28 FIGURE 26 Non-STA stakeholder utility coordination involvement point. FIGURE 27 Utility owner utility coordination involvement point. Read the entire page →
From page 31... ... 29 TABLE 6 COMPARISON OF TOP SELECTED ELEMENTS AVAILABLE FOR UTILITY COORDINATION Element Percent of STA Respondents Selected (n = 42) Number of Non-STA Respondents Selected (n = 29) Read the entire page →
From page 32... ... 30 The results of which effective practices non-STA respondents have witnessed on projects is found in Figure 29, while Figure 28 relays the non-STA responses when limited to selecting the top eight practices. Of note, Training Program for Design Engineers on Utility Coordination is considered important but is not commonly used. Read the entire page →
From page 33... ... 31 APPLIED RESEARCH AND RESULTS IN UTILITY COORDINATION Implementation of various utility coordination research has previously been presented; however, there was particular interest in the SHRP 2 utility coordination products. Table 7 notes the respondents' use of those products, and indicates that the STAs are making substantially more use of SHRP 2 R01B and SHRP 2 R15B than SHRP 2 R01A. Read the entire page →
From page 34... ... 32 FIGURE 31 Non-STA-indicated areas of need for utility coordination research (n = 26; limited to choosing top three) Read the entire page →

From page 17...

... 15 This chapter provides information on current utility coordination methodologies in use at STAs. It synthesizes the responses of the STAs and outside stakeholders and their outlook on utility coordination.