Practices for Utility Coordination in Transit Projects (2015)

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.

5 chapter two LITERATURE REVIEW INTRODUCTION This chapter summarizes lessons learned from a literature review on the topic of utility coordination and management of utility issues during transit project development and delivery. The literature review includes a summary of transit agencies in the United States, followed by a summary of references that discuss utility practices at transit agencies. It also includes a review of relevant highway-related reports, guidelines, and research. TRANSIT SYSTEMS IN THE UNITED STATES According to the APTA Fact Book, approximately 8,000 pub- lic transportation systems operated by 7,100 agencies are in service in the United States (1). Providers range in size and service from large, urban, multimodal systems to single- vehicle, demand-response systems. In 2011, passengers took 10.3 billion trips on public transit. Buses carried 51% of all passengers, rail vehicles carried 45% of all passengers, and demand-response and other modes accounted for the remaining 4%. Of the 7,100 public transportation agen- cies in the United States, 825 systems operate in urbanized areas, and 1,440 systems operate in rural areas. The remain- ing 4,835 sys tems correspond to demand-response systems that may be urban or rural. Table 1 provides a summary of public transportation sys- tems in the United States. In 2011, there were 7,865 road- way mode systems in the United States. The most numerous systems were demand-response service systems (6,600), fol- lowed by bus-based systems (1,078). The remaining 187 road- way systems included BRT, commuter bus, Público (in Puerto Rico), vanpool, and trolleybus. Roadway mode systems pro- vided 5.6 billion unlinked passenger trips per year, of which bus systems accounted for the highest number of annual pas- senger trips (5.2 billion), followed by demand-response sys- tems (191 million). In 2011, there were 96 rail mode systems in the United States, including 27 commuter rail systems, 27 light rail sys- tems, and 15 heavy rail systems. Rail mode systems provided 4.6 billion unlinked passenger trips per year, of which heavy rail systems accounted for the highest number of annual pas- senger trips (3.6 billion), followed by commuter rail systems (466 million). In 2011, U.S. transit agencies spent $38 billion on opera- tions and $17 billion on capital expenditures (1). As Table 2 shows, capital expenditures included approximately $10 bil- lion on facilities (i.e., guideway, stations, administration build- ings, and maintenance facilities); $4.8 billion on rolling stock; and $2.2 billion on fare revenue collection equipment, com- munication and information systems, and other. Nationwide, funding for capital expenditures was provided by federal (43%), local (19%), and state (13%) sources, and was directly generated (25%). Federal funds increased from $4.5 billion to $7.2 billion from 2000 to 2011 but decreased from 47% of all capital revenue to 43%. At the same time, directly gen- erated and local funds increased from 42% of all capital funds in 2000 to 43% in 2011, and state assistance increased from 11% in 2000 to 13% in 2011. From the information gathered, it is not straightforward to identify how many capital transit projects or what amount or percentage of capital expenditures are directly associated with utility relocations. Nor is it straightforward to identify the total cost of utility relocations nationwide because of the wide range in funding sources throughout the country. As described in more detail in chapter four, the distribution of federal, state, local, and directly generated funds varies widely among transit agencies. Nonetheless, a preliminary analysis indicates that most utility relocations probably are associated with rail and streetcar proj- ects and, to a much lesser extent, bus projects. As a reference, a 1996 study included an evaluation of capital costs for light rail projects (2) in Baltimore, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, Portland, Sacramento, St. Louis, San Diego, and San Jose. For the study, the analysts assumed 8% to 10% of the project capital cost to be associated with utilities, betterments, and mitigation measures. UTILITY ACCOMMODATION, RELOCATION, AND COORDINATION Federal Guidelines for Transit Projects The FTA developed the Project and Construction Manage- ment Guidelines (3) to assist with the development of transit capital projects in areas related to project scope, function, schedule, cost, and quality. FTA originally published the guide lines in 1990 and updated them in 1996, 2003, and 2011. FTA intends the guidelines for use by transit agencies (also known as grantees) and their consultants, as well as FTA staff and project management oversight contractors. FTA provides grant oversight, but delegates grant administration and project

6 management responsibilities to grantees. FTA regional offices fulfill the responsibility for oversight of most capital grants. The guidelines assume the following transit capital project development phases: • Systems planning, • Alternatives analysis, • Preliminary engineering, • Final design, • Construction and equipment/materials procurement, • Testing and start-up, and • Revenue service. Figure 2 provides a graphic representation of the pro- cess, which corresponds to the traditional design-bid-build Roadway-Based National Totals Statistical Category Bus Bus Rapid Transit Commuter Bus Demand Response Público 1 Transit Vanpool Trolleybus Total Number of systems 1,078 5 92 6,600 1 84 5 7,865 Lane-miles on exclusive or controlled right-of-way2 2,183 13 630 N/A N/A N/A 128 2,954 Vehicle miles (million) 2,339 2 72 1,612 40 195 12 4,272 Unlinked passenger trips (million)3 5,191 6 37 191 39 34 98 5,596 Rail and Ferryboat National Totals Statistical Category Commuter Rail Heavy Rail Hybrid Rail Light Rail Streetcar Other Rail Modes4 Ferryboat Total Number of systems 27 15 4 27 7 16 38 134 Directional route miles 8,536 1,617 207 1,398 136 30 N/A 11,924 5 Vehicle miles (million) 345 655 2 89 5 5 4 1,105 Unlinked passenger trips (million) 466 3,647 6 436 43 44 80 4,722 Source: 2013 Public Transportation Fact Book (1). Note: N/A = not applicable. 1Público is a privately operated shuttle service of vans or small buses in Puerto Rico. 2The number of lane-miles on roads and streets in mixed service is not available. 3An unlinked passenger trip represents each time a person boards a vehicle, whether starting the transit trip or transferring from another transit vehicle. 4Includes aerial tramway, automated guideway transit, cable car, inclined plane, and monorail. 5Without including ferryboat miles. TABLE 1 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS STATISTICS, REPORT YEAR 2011 Type Heavy Rail Light Rail/ Streetcar Commuter/ Hybrid Rail Bus and Trolleybus Demand Response Other Total Guideway 1,928 2,232 979 246 0 3 5,388 Passenger stations 1,816 430 418 452 5 115 3,236 Administrative buildings 18 6 8 176 40 2 250 Maintenance facilities 129 131 122 677 39 11 1,109 Facilities subtotal 3,891 2,798 1,528 1,550 84 131 9,983 Rolling stock 442 270 741 2,548 506 236 4,744 Service vehicles 17 20 10 31 3 1 82 Rolling stock subtotal 459 290 751 2,579 509 237 4,826 Fare revenue collection equipment 21 21 11 105 1 6 166 Communication and information systems 671 140 170 292 65 14 1,351 Other 432 13 50 186 35 17 732 All other subtotal 1,124 174 231 583 101 36 2,249 Total 5,474 (32%) 3,263 (19%) 2,510 (15%) 4,712 (28%) 694 (4%) 404 (2%) 17,057 (100%) Source: 2013 Public Transportation Fact Book (1). Note: Expenditures, including totals, are rounded to the nearest million. TABLE 2 U.S. TRANSIT CAPITAL EXPENDITURES IN 2011 ($US MILLIONS)

7 project delivery method. Alternate project delivery meth- ods mentioned in the FTA guidelines include design-build, design-build-operate-maintain, concession, and construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC) delivery methods. For major capital projects (MCPs), FTA requires transit agencies to prepare a project management plan (PMP), which is an overarching document that usually starts no later than the completion of the alternatives analysis phase and continues through the close-out of the capital project grant. Although not required, FTA recommends agencies to prepare a PMP for non-MCPs, such as rail modernization, bus facilities, vehicles, and intelligent transportation system projects. In 2012, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) introduced some changes to the project devel- opment and delivery phases (4). More specifically, MAP-21 Systems Planning Alternative Analysis Select Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA), MPO Action, Develop Criteria PMP FTA Decision on Entry into PE Update PMP Preliminary Engineering Complete NEPA Process Refinement of Financial Plan Update PMP Final Design Commitment of Non-Federal Funding Construction Plans, Right-of-Way Acquisition, Before-After Data Collection Plan, FTA Evaluation for FGGA Begin Negotiations Construction Full Funding Grant Agreement Pr oj ec t M an ag em en t O ve rs ig ht NEPA ROD FTA Decision on Entry into Final Design Systems Planning Alternative Analysis Preliminary Engineering Final Design Construction Major development stage Decision point FIGURE 2 Transit Capital Project Development process [adapted from Campion et al. (3)].

8 grouped alternative analysis and preliminary engineering into a single project development phase and renamed “final design” as “engineering.” FTA is in the process of implementing these changes throughout the country. As of this writing, the agency has not yet updated the guidelines to reflect the changes in fed- eral legislation. The guidelines include an example PMP outline, which includes two sections that explicitly consider utilities: right- of-way program management (which focuses on the acquisi- tion and relocation of property interests, including utilities) and construction program management (which includes a subsection on utility coordination). The right-of-way program management section accounts for interfaces with design and construction. The guidelines recommend that agencies consider utili- ties during the preliminary engineering phase, with the goal of identifying major utilities that could affect the project. Part of this phase is also to identify “requirements risks” (i.e., risks from early planning to alternatives analysis, such as those that deal with the identification of funding sources). The risk checklist in the guidelines includes an item for exist- ing and new utility installations. For MCPs, FTA requires agencies to prepare a risk assessment before proceeding with the final design. The purpose of the risk assessment is to determine if the preliminary engineering process has fully mitigated the project requirement risks and to identify design, market, and construction risks. The analysis would also include determining whether the project delivery method and cost estimate reflect an effective allocation of risks among the parties. Expected utility-related deliverables during the prelimi- nary engineering phase include the following: • Design-bid-build projects: Preliminary utility plans and identification of required utility agreements. • Design-build projects and public–private partnerships: All utility requirements identified, utility agreements in place, and ideally, utility relocations completed. As a side note, it is not clear how, by the end of the prelimi- nary engineering phase, a typical transit agency would be able to complete utility relocations if certain critical design-level activities have not been completed. Regardless of project delivery method, the guidelines emphasize that utility conflicts be identified during the prelimi- nary design phase. The guidelines also stress the importance of executing master agreements with utility owners during the preliminary engineering phase to outline each party’s respon- sibilities during design and construction. More specifically, the master agreements address the following: • Scope of work and obligations and rights of both parties; • Responsibility for design, construction, and relocations; • Responsibility for inspection; • Responsibility for job site safety and security; • Procedures for billing and payments; • Dispute resolution procedures; • Preparation and terms of detailed agreements; • Salvage materials and credits; • Responsibility for the acquisition of substitute easements; • Substitutions and betterments; • Acceptance of improvements criteria (short of agreeing on “betterments”); • Conflict resolution procedures; • Improvement and replacement standards; and • Parameters for scheduling work. Compared with the amount of documentation related to preliminary design, the guidelines are relatively brief with respect to design and construction recommendations and requirements. During the final design phase, the guidelines include requirements for the submission of utility-related deliverables at the 30%, 60%, and 90% design levels, gen- erally in the form of drawings in electronic format and/or specifications. Agencies could also develop specific agree- ments with utilities during the design phase and ensure that contractors coordinate utility relocation and project service requirements with their own schedule during construction, with a focus on aggressive monitoring of all interfaces to avoid project delays. The guidelines also recommend protecting existing utility installations during construction. Appendix C in the guidelines provides additional informa- tion on the process to develop utility agreements with utility owners in compliance with 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 645 (5). In an effort to increase the effectiveness of transit capital expenditures around the nation, FTA published a series of les- sons learned based on feedback received from FTA Project Management Oversight Program contractors, transit agen- cies, and FTA regional managers (6). FTA grouped the lessons learned into four categories: • Cost (five lessons learned); • Management (41 lessons learned); • Schedule (five lessons learned); and • Scope (14 lessons learned). Utility issues were mentioned only tangentially in some of the lessons learned. Buy America Provisions In 2010, TCRP published Legal Research Digest 31 to pro- vide guidance on the application of Buy America require- ments (7). The digest focused on special requirements that apply to manufactured products and rolling stock. It did not specifically tackle or even mention utility relocations. However, it did provide a comprehensive account of Buy America provisions going back to 1875, and thus is an excel-

9 lent reference document that could be disseminated widely to help stakeholders understand the history and evolution of Buy America provisions. Because the digest was published in 2010, it does not include changes to Buy America provi- sions that MAP-21 introduced in 2012 (4). Important events highlighted in the digest include, but are not limited to, the following: • 1875 (legislation related to preferential treatment of American material in contracts for public improvements). It applied only to materials purchased by the Depart- ment of War. • 1933 (legislation popularly referred to as the “Buy American” Act). This legislation was enacted in part in response to the unemployment crisis of the Great Depression. It applies to purchases by federal agencies but not to grants made by federal agencies. Purchases by state and local governments with federal funds are not subject to the Buy American Act. The act requires all goods for public use to be produced in the United States. It also requires the cost of domestic components to exceed 50% of the cost of all components. • 1964 (Urban Mass Transportation Act). This act autho- rized federal aid to cover as much as 80% of the cost of transit equipment. In 1965, the Housing and Urban Development Act repealed provisions to mirror the Buy American Act provisions in the 1964 Urban Mass Trans- portation Act. • 1978 [Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA)]. This act included a Buy America provision applicable to the Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA) program. The provision established a preferential treat- ment for products made in the United States but applied only to UMTA grantees exceeding $500,000. • 1982 (Surface Transportation Act). This act strength- ened Buy America provisions by precluding the use of UMTA-managed funds used in transit projects unless steel, cement, and manufactured products used in tran- sit projects were produced in the United States. • 1987 [Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act (STURAA)]. This act made additional changes to Buy America requirements for buses and other rolling stock. • 1991 [Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)]. This act amended Buy America requirements by adding iron to the products covered. • 2005 [Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transpor- tation Equity Act—A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA- LU)]. This act included several Buy America provisions, including requiring a detailed justification as to why a waiver based on a public interest determination serves the public interest. • 2009 [American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)]. This act required that public building or public work projects use American iron, steel, and man- ufactured goods, with certain exemptions. After MAP-21 was enacted, FHWA and FTA began to inform state and local transportation agencies that Buy Amer- ica requirements applied to utility relocation agreements. To that point, Buy America requirements had applied to con- struction contracts but not to utility relocation agreements because the resulting payments to utilities were the equiva- lent of compensation payments to affected property owners (8). With the change in policy, agencies and utility owners began to experience difficulties complying with Buy Amer- ica provisions. A problem commonly cited by utilities is that the purchasing environment at a typical utility is highly dynamic. Because utilities rely on a wide range of suppliers, and the supply chain in the international market fluctuates depending on factors such as price variations for individual components, identifying which components are manufac- tured in the United States at any given point in time can be challenging. A related difficulty is that many utility materials are complex component-based assemblies, each one having its own supply chain. Recognizing the impact resulting from the implementa- tion of the broadened application of Buy America provi- sions, FHWA issued a memorandum in July 2013 providing a transition period through December 31, 2013, for nonfeder- ally funded utility relocations as part of highway construc- tion projects (9). FTA did not issue a similar memorandum for transit projects. FTA’s position was that Buy America requirements have always applied to the entire scope of an FTA-funded project, including utility work (10). Project Delivery Methods In 2005, TCRP published TCRP Web-Only Document 31 to document strategies, tools, and techniques to better estimate, contain, and manage capital costs (11). The report highlighted several case studies in which utility relocations were a cause for delay and cost escalations, indicating that projects with a high degree of complexity, including those with substantial utility relocations or unforeseen site conditions, were most prone to cost escalations. In 2009, TCRP published Report 131, which contains a guidebook for the evaluation of transit project deliv- ery methods (12). The research examined a variety of issues that affect the delivery of transit projects, including project-level issues, agency-level issues, public policy and regulatory issues, and life cycle issues. One of the issues examined was agreements between the transit agency and third parties, such as political entities, utilities, and rail- roads. In particular, the report recognized that right-of- way, utilities, and environmental approvals represent major challenges. In 2012, TCRP published Legal Research Digest 39 to sum- marize lessons learned from seven case studies in connection

10 with competition requirements of design-build, construction manager at risk, and public–private partnership contracts (13). The review focused on overall project delivery performance and costs, and mentioned utility relocations only tangentially. However, it is interesting to note the following in connection with specific projects: • Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Extension to San Francisco International Airport. The design-builder was responsible for the cost of relocating utilities, obtaining all necessary approvals and permits, and coordinating with all stakeholders. • Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) Green Line Project. Preconstruction services include utility identification and conflict management. Construction services include utility relocations. • Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project. To manage risk lev- els, the project owners determined that right-of-way acquisition and utility relocations would be handled under a comprehensive agreement on a cost reimburs- able basis, instead of being part of the design-build contract. As part of the comprehensive agreement, the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) would have financial responsibility and control for right- of-way and utility relocations, but the private developer would serve as MWAA’s representative in performing the work. • AirTrain JFK System. The design-builder was respon- sible for relocating utilities. • Portland Southern Corridor–Portland Mall Segment. The design-builder was responsible for relocating util- ities. The contractor encountered challenges primarily because of unanticipated utility relocations and differ- ing subsurface conditions. • River Line (Southern New Jersey Light Rail Transit System). The design-builder was responsible for relo- cating utilities. Delays, cost overruns, and disputes were the result of several factors, including identifying, protecting, or relocating utilities throughout the project. RELEVANT HIGHWAY-RELATED REPORTS, GUIDELINES, AND RESEARCH Utility Coordination Practices Utility accommodation policies, rules, and guidelines around the country provide minimum requirements relative to the accommodation, location, installation, relocation, and main- tenance of utility facilities within the roadway right-of-way. In some cases, these documents describe applicable laws and regulations and include references to industry standards and specifications that require utility owners to provide a higher degree of protection (14). Many state rules and guidelines are based on utility accommodation policies and guides developed by AASHTO (15–17). Other guidelines available include pub- lications by FHWA (18). In 1974, the American Public Works Association (APWA) and ASCE published guidelines for the accommodation of utility facilities within the right-of-way of urban streets and highways (19). The study included the participation of municipalities and utility owners across the country, as well as state departments of transportation (DOTs) and FHWA. The report noted that one way to address the problem of overcrowding of the underground space in central city areas was through cooperation, coordination, compromise, and compulsion (i.e., four Cs). Cooperation and willingness to work together and compromise in an effort to improve coordination was the first requirement for addressing util- ity issues. Another vital requirement was the establishment of cooperative relationships between government agencies and utility owners, as well as partnerships between regu- lating agencies and all other units of government involved in or affected by utility activities. The last component was governmental compulsion through laws and regulations to protect the public interest. Strategies to improve coordina- tion practices included the following: • Notify all utility owners about projects that affect uses of the right-of-way and conduct planning conferences to discuss such projects. • Give utility owners adequate lead time to adjust their facilities. • Establish utility coordinating committees to serve as the focal point for all utility facilities in the public right- of-way. When possible, coordinating committees are to be structured on a regional basis. • Establish One Call damage prevention programs to reduce damage to existing utilities during construction. These programs rely on a protocol that requires exca- vators to notify a call center, which forwards the noti- fication to utility owners with a request to mark the approximate location of their underground facilities using markings on the ground. • Encourage or require joint trenching and consider the use of ducting systems to decrease the demand for under- ground space. In 1984, NCHRP Synthesis 115 documented the results of a review of practices to reduce conflicts between high- way projects and utility installations (20). A motivation for the study was the recognition of the wide disparity in utility adjustment costs in relation to transportation project costs around the country and the need to reduce utility- related claims. The report concluded with a strong rec- ommendation for the implementation of formal liaison committees as a mechanism for improving coordination between state DOTs and utility owners, noting that formal committees were more likely to be successful than infor- mal committees. In 1993, FHWA published the Highway/Utility Guide in an effort to provide guidance for state DOTs, local juris-

11 dictions, and utility owners on highway and utility issues (21). The guide included the following recommendations for high way agencies to improve coordination between high- way agencies and utility owners: • Share the highway improvement program with all rel- evant stakeholders; • Include all construction and maintenance work in the highway improvement program; • Hold meetings (at least annually) with utility owners to discuss upcoming project development and construction activities; • Notify utility owners of projects before the design phase; • Route plans of highway projects to utility owners for comment during the design phase; • Determine the impact of all projects on other facilities in or adjoining the right-of-way; • Convene meetings with utility owners before each major phase of a transportation project, including planning, design, and construction; • Identify and resolve conflicts before construction; • Share construction schedules with utility owners; • Provide one point of contact at the agency to work with utility owners on a project from inception to completion; • Publish maps each year showing municipality, county, state highway agency, and utility projects; and • Publish detailed descriptions of projects, including proj- ect schedules, managers, and contact information. The guide also included the following recommendations for utility owners: • Develop a utility master plan in conjunction with other public planning efforts; • Provide capital improvement programs to highway agencies; • Provide updated utility system plans every 2 to 5 years to highway agencies; • Meet with local or state agencies to discuss projects, determine impacts, and explore alternatives to avoid potential conflicts; • Provide one point of contact to work on utility conflict resolutions; and • Seek to minimize the impact of utility facilities on high- ways with high traffic volumes, few alternative routes, or limited right-of-way. In 2001, NCHRP Project 20-24(12) reported on the results of a survey of state DOTs, highway contractors, design consultants, and other user groups concerning the most frequent causes of delays in highway projects (22). Across all categories of respondents, the top five causes of delay mentioned were delays in utility relocations, differ- ing site conditions (utility conflicts), environmental planning delays, permitting issues, and insufficient work effort by contractor. Responses varied among different stakehold- ers, highlighting differences in perspective. For example, state DOTs and contractors listed weather as one of the top causes of delay, but designers listed delays in environ- mental planning as one of the top causes of project delays. Overall, delays in utility relocations and differing site conditions (utility conflicts) were ranked first or second by all groups. In 2004, the AASHTO Subcommittee on Right-of-Way and Utilities in cooperation with FHWA published a set of recommended strategies and effective practices to optimize right-of-way and utility processes (23). Utility-related rec- ommendations, which included lessons learned from the 2000 European international scan on right-of-way and utili- ties (24), covered use of technology, coordination with utility owners, and corridor use optimization. Of particular inter- est are recommended practices in the area of coordination, including the following: • Provide utility owners with long-range highway con- struction schedules. • Host meetings with utility owners to discuss future high- way projects and recognize the importance of long-range highway/utility coordination. • Use long range-planning meetings as a forum to dis- cuss other relevant issues. What begins as a series of informal planning meetings could eventually evolve into a local, regional, or statewide utility coordination committee. • Organize periodic (monthly, quarterly, annual) meetings with utility owners within a municipality, county, or plan- ning region. • Solicit information on utility owners’ capital construc- tion programs, particularly where the planned expan- sion or reconstruction of utility facilities might overlap a planned highway project. Look for opportunities to coordinate overlapping projects to minimize costs and public impact. • Provide earlier preliminary notice to utility owners to facilitate adjustment planning. • Involve utility owners in the design of transportation proj- ects for which major utility relocations are anticipated. Examples of strategies include the following: – Conduct on-site or plan-in-hand meetings with utility owners to determine utility conflicts and appropriate resolutions. – Conduct monthly coordination meetings on major projects with all stakeholders. – Invite utility owners to preconstruction meetings and encourage or require utility owners, contractors, and project staff to hold regular meetings as needed during construction. – Meet individually with all utility owner representatives.

12 – Involve utility owners in the determination of right- of-way needs to ensure there is adequate room for util- ity facilities. – Participate in local One Call notification programs to the maximum extent practicable per state law. In September 2008, a scan team composed of represen- tatives of several state DOTs, FHWA, private industry, and academia visited Australia and Canada to learn about inno- vative practices for right-of-way and utility processes that might be applicable for implementation in the United States (25). This scanning study complemented a 2000 scanning study of European countries, which covered Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom (24). The scan team identified approximately 20 potential implemen- tation ideas, including a few that addressed utility-related topics, including the following: • Promote incentive-based reimbursement for utility adjustments; • Establish a standard protocol and lease template for utility attachments to roadway structures; • Implement multilevel memoranda of understanding structures among transportation and utility interests; • Promote the use of effective practices in utility coordi- nation during construction; and • Develop methodology for preliminary utility adjustment cost estimates. Identification and Resolution of Utility Conflicts As mentioned, two critical factors that contribute to ineffi- ciencies in the management of utility issues are (1) the lack of accurate, complete information about utility facilities that might be in conflict with the project and (2) deficiencies in the identification and implementation of effective strategies for resolving those conflicts. These inefficiencies can result in problems, such as disruptions when utility installations are encountered unexpectedly during construction; damage to utility installations that leads to disruptions in utility service, environmental damage, and health and safety risks; delays and cost overruns; negative public perception; and unplanned environmental corrective actions. The potential for utility conflicts exists at most transporta- tion projects; such conflicts include the following: • Interference between utility facilities and transportation design features (existing or proposed); • Interference between utility facilities and transportation construction activities or phasing; • Interference between planned utility facilities and exist- ing utility facilities; • Noncompliance of utility facilities with utility accom- modation policies; and • Noncompliance of utility facilities with safety regulations. Detection of utility conflicts as early as possible during the project development process can help to identify the opti- mum application of strategies for resolving those conflicts. Strategies normally available include one or more of the fol- lowing options (23, 26, 27): • Remove, abandon, or relocate utility facilities in conflict; • Change the horizontal and/or vertical alignment of the proposed transportation facility; • Implement an engineering (protect-in-place) counter- measure that does not involve utility relocation or changes to the transportation project alignment; and • Accept an exception to policy. The traditional approach for resolving utility conflicts at many highway agencies is to relocate the affected utility facilities—often at great expense to the utility owner and/or the agency—or to allow an exception to policy. An alternative is to design and construct the transportation facility in such a way as to leave the affected utility facilities in place. However, if improperly managed, this approach could (1) result in design changes that have a negative impact on total project schedule and/or cost or (2) degrade the value of the existing utility instal- lation in a manner unacceptable to the facility owner. In 2012, the Second Strategic Highway Research Pro- gram (SHRP 2) published the results of Research Project R15B, which dealt with the use of utility conflict matrix (UCM) approaches for identifying and managing utility con- flicts (28). A UCM is a table or series of tables in a spreadsheet or database format that enables users to organize, track, and manage utility conflicts. This project, which took place from March 2009 to July 2011, resulted in three products: • Product 1 (standalone UCM). This is a standalone prod- uct in spreadsheet format that includes a main utility con- flict table and a supporting worksheet to analyze utility conflict resolution strategies. • Product 2 (utility conflict data model and database). This standalone product is a scalable UCM representation that facilitates managing utility conflicts in a database environment. The data model included a logical model, a physical model, and a data dictionary. The data model was tested in a desktop database environment to replicate sample utility conflict tables from across the country. • Product 3 (one-day UCM training course). This stand- alone product includes a lesson plan and presentation materials to assist with the dissemination of UCM man- agement strategies. In December 2011, the SHRP 2 Oversight Committee authorized a follow-on project, SHRP 2 R15C, which involved a pilot implementation of the R15B products at the Maryland State Highway Administration (29). The pilot implementation took place from September 2012 to March 2014. The Maryland State Highway Administration identified six sample proj- ects, which provided a wide range of project types and field

13 conditions. Project deliverables included updated versions of the R15B products and a report that summarized lessons learned from each of the six projects as well as recommenda- tions for future implementations. Utility Data Collection and Management Collecting accurate utility data from utility owners can be challenging. Typically, highway agencies send project draw- ings to utility owners with a request to mark up those drawings with relevant utility information. In some cases, utility owners request electronic copies of those drawings in computer-aided design (CAD) format. Sometimes, utility owners provide elec- tronic as-builts. However, available as-builts are rarely scaled or georeferenced and come in a variety of formats, making it necessary to convert the files to a usable format and adjust their scale and alignment to match the project files. Questions about the completeness and quality of exist- ing utility as-builts prompted the emergence of the national standard guideline ASCE/Construction Institute (ASCE/CI) 38-02 (30). This standard guideline outlines typical activities in connection with the collection and depiction of utility data and describes a quality level attribute for individual utility features identified, as follows: • Quality level D (QLD): Collection of data from existing records or oral recollections, such as records provided by utility owners, existing permit records, and preliminary field observations. • Quality level C (QLC): Surveying and plotting of visible utility appurtenances (e.g., manhole covers, valve boxes, hydrants). It also includes making inferences about under- ground linear utility facilities that connect those appur- tenances (e.g., if two sanitary sewer manhole covers are visible and an inference is made about the alignment of the sewer that connects the two manholes). • Quality level B (QLB): Use of surface geophysical meth- ods [e.g., electromagnetic (EM) pipe and cable locators and ground-penetrating radar (GPR)] to determine the approximate horizontal position of subsurface utilities. • Quality level A (QLA): Determination of accurate hori- zontal and vertical utility locations by exposing under- ground utility facilities at certain locations through test holes using minimally intrusive excavation equipment. For utility data to be certified at one of these quality levels, the data must meet the requirements identified in the ASCE/CI 38-02 standard and be approved by a registered professional. Collecting data from existing records or oral recollections and surveying and plotting visible utility appurtenances is a routine practice at highway agencies. However, certifying the data as QLD or QLC is much less common. In any case, it is common for a utility investigation at this level to miss many existing underground installations, which is one of the reasons conducting QLB and QLA investigations is critical in those situations. In the case of QLB data, practices vary substantially across the country, even within the same state. Some highway agen- cies collect QLB data routinely, whereas other highway agen- cies collect QLB data sporadically, on a case-by-case basis, or not at all. In the case of QLA data, exposing underground utility facilities by using test holes is not common. However, when it happens, it is usually on a case-by-case basis at the discretion of the project manager. Some highway agencies use test holes to expose and survey underground utility facilities at critical loca- tions but do not certify the resulting utility facility data as QLA. When applied correctly, empirical evidence indicates that utility investigations involving QLB and QLA can find 80% to 90% of all underground utility installations that were suspected to exist in the area (31). The Virginia Department of Transpor- tation noticed that QLB investigations identified 10% to 50% more utility installations than did investigations at the QLD or QLC level (32). Despite these numbers, highway agencies still do not recognize the benefits of accurate and comprehen- sive utility mapping to project design and delivery. A clear indication of this need is the result of a recent research effort in Texas, which discovered that more than half of all agency officials contacted were not able to quantify an approximate return on investment on QLB and QLA investigations (33). One Call Systems One Call systems started in the 1970s as a mechanism for preventing damage to underground utility installations by pro- viding excavators with ground information about utility facili- ties that might be located within the immediate vicinity of a proposed excavation site. Although systems vary from state to state, laws and regulations typically define member utility types, purpose and application of system activities, and certain exemptions. One Call notification centers maintain records of under- ground utility facilities provided by the member utility owners. Although utility owners are encouraged or required to provide up-to-date map information to the notification centers, in prac- tice there is considerable variability in the coverage and qual- ity of the information they provide to the notification centers. Some utility owners provide electronic copies of their facili- ties, whereas other utility owners provide only buffer area files. The centers use whatever information is provided to them to identify potentially affected utility installations by overlaying the proposed excavation location provided by callers. Depending on the level of urgency, One Call notification centers often have different categories of job tickets: for example, routine, priority, or emergency. Although most tickets are associated with imminent excavation activities, survey or design tickets are also possible. Approximately 15 states allow

14 survey or designer tickets. In practice, most One Call sys- tems do not allow designers or state highway agencies to call for information. Because of the prioritization of service tickets, utility owners tend to respond slowly to low-priority survey tickets that originate from highway agencies. In addition, there is no responsibility for markings to be correct in the case of designer tickets, as there is for construction tickets. Despite these shortcomings, many highway agencies use the One Call system as a means to get utility information on their plans because it is a “free” service to the agencies (paid by ratepayers rather than taxpayers). Although the data provided by the One Call systems is typically not accu- rate or complete enough to make design decisions during project development, it does provide valuable infor mation about utility installations at earlier stages of the project development process. However, highway agencies that rely exclusively on One Call information during project design often experience significant utility issues as projects progress (34).