Identification of Utility Conflicts and Solutions: Pilot Implementation of the SHRP 2 R15B Products at the Maryland State Highway Administration (2014)

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.

SHRP 2 Renewal Project R15C Identification of Utility Conflicts and Solutions: Pilot Implementation of the SHRP 2 R15B Products at the Maryland State Highway Administration

SHRP 2 Renewal Project R15C Identification of Utility Conflicts and Solutions: Pilot Implementation of the SHRP 2 R15B Products at the Maryland State Highway Administration Cesar Quiroga, Edgar Kraus, and Jerry Le Texas A&M Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System College Station Paul Scott and James Anspach Cardno Tom Swafford and Philip Meis Utility Mapping Services, Inc. TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD Washington, D.C. 2015 www.TRB.org

© 2015 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration in cooperation with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. It was conducted in the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2), which is administered by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. This project was managed first by Charles Taylor and then by Matthew Miller, Program Officers for SHRP 2 Renewal. The pilot implementation reported here was performed by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI), Texas A&M University System, in collaboration with Cardno and Utility Mapping Systems (UMS). TTI was the prime contractor for this study, with Texas A&M Sponsored Research Services serving as fiscal administrator. Cesar Quiroga, Senior Research Engineer at TTI, was the principal investigator. The other authors of this report are Edgar Kraus Associate Research Engineer at TTI; Jerry Le, Software Applications Developer at TTI; Paul Scott, National Utilities Liaison at Cardno; James Anspach, Director, Utility Market and Practice Development at Cardno; Tom Swafford, Utility Coordination Operations Manager at UMS; and Philip Meis, Principal Engineer and Vice President at UMS. The assistance provided by the Maryland State Highway Administration is gratefully acknowledged, in particular Nelson Smith, Statewide Utility Engineer, Office of Construction, and Teri Soos, Assistant Division Chief, Community Design Division. Many other individuals both at headquarters and at the district level were involved in the pilot implementation. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. The second Strategic Highway Research Program grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, or FHWA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing material in this document for educational and not-for-profit purposes will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from SHRP 2. NOTICE The project that is the subject of this document was a part of the second Strategic Highway Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the second Strategic Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.

DISCLAIMER The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this document are those of the researchers who performed the research. They are not necessarily those of the second Strategic Highway Research Program, the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the authors. This material has not been edited by the Transportation Research Board. SPECIAL NOTE: This document IS NOT an official publication of the second Strategic Highway Research Program, the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the National Academies.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. C. D. (Dan) Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C.D. (Dan) Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

Contents 1 Executive Summary 4 CHAPTER 1 Background 6 CHAPTER 2 Use of the Stand-Alone UCM in Maryland 6 Introduction 8 District 3: MD 210 at Kerby Hill Road and Livingston Road Interchange Project 13 District 3: MD 212 (Powder Mill Road) from Montgomery Road to US 1 (Baltimore Avenue) 15 District 4: MD 147 at Joppa Road Intersection Improvement Project 18 District 4: US 40 at MD 7 and MD 159 Intersection Improvement Project 22 District 5: Wayson’s Corner Park-and-Ride Lot Expansion Project 25 District 7: MD 32 Road Widening from Day Road to West Friendship Road 30 CHAPTER 3 Utility Conflict Data Model and Database 30 Introduction 30 Business Process Model 35 Conceptual Model 36 Logical Data Model 44 Physical Data Model 44 Implementation Using Microsoft Access 54 CHAPTER 4 One-Day UCM Training Course 54 Introduction 54 January 2013 Course 55 September 2013 Course 56 Updated UCM Training Materials 64 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 65 Conclusions 75 Recommendations 79 References 80 Acronyms 81 APPENDIX A Data Dictionary 90 APPENDIX B Feature Class Attributes

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Research Project SHRP 2 R15B took place from March 2009 to July 2011 and resulted in three products: Product 1 (stand-alone utility conflict matrix [UCM]), Product 2 (utility conflict data model and database), and Product 3 (one-day UCM training course). In December 2011, the SHRP 2 Oversight Committee authorized a follow-on project to pilot the implementation of the SHRP 2 R15B tools. The follow-on project was SHRP 2 R15C, Pilot Testing of the Utility Conflict Matrix. Its objective was to work with a state department of transportation on the implementation of the stand-alone UCM and the one-day UCM training course as well as on an introduction to the utility conflict data model and database. The pilot implementation took place at the Maryland State Highway Administration (MDSHA) from September 2012 to March 2014. CONCLUSIONS Use of the UCM Approach MDSHA identified six projects to test the implementation of the UCM approach. Lessons learned in connection with the UCM approach included the following: • The UCM is useful for documenting and resolving utility conflicts. • The UCM creates a proactive, efficient preconstruction engineering resolution process. • The UCM helps to avoid utility relocations. • Using the UCM has resulted in tangible economic and time benefits. • The UCM enhances coordination and working relationships with utility owners. • The UCM process facilitates MDSHA internal teamwork. At the same time, MDSHA officials identified areas in which the UCM approach would need some improvements. A critical issue was that UCM development took longer than originally expected, highlighting the need to provide more guidance on how to identify, characterize, and manage utility conflicts efficiently, with a focus on limiting UCM updates to major milestones as a strategy to reduce required labor effort. Data Model and Database The research team updated the UCM data model and Access database to reflect suggestions from MDSHA district officials on the usability of the UCM approach as well as lessons learned by members of the research team as part of other research initiatives, in particular related to the development of generalized inventories of utility facilities within the highway right-of-way. Part of this effort involved developing data entry forms in Access to manage information about projects, utility owners, utility facilities, and utility conflicts. The research team used the physical data model to generate a script to build a version of the UCM database in Access 2010 format. The research team then designed queries and forms for data entry by using custom Visual Basic for Applications code. The main goal of developing the data entry forms was to illustrate 1

the use of the UCM approach in a stand-alone database environment to users who are not information technology professionals. The data entry forms are sufficiently polished and user friendly so that they can be used for actual data entry in a stand-alone environment. From this perspective, the forms provide a unique opportunity for users to become familiar with some of the typical protocols that would take place when managing utility conflicts in a database environment. However, the forms are not envisioned for an enterprise-level environment. One-Day UCM Training Course The research team delivered the one-day UCM training course twice as part of the pilot implementation in Maryland. The first training session occurred prior to pilot application by districts on actual projects. A decision was made with MDSHA near the end of the pilot implementation to provide a second training session for users unable to attend the first course. The first course took place in Hanover, Maryland, and included 36 participants representing MDSHA (29 attendees), utility owners (four attendees), consultants (two attendees), and the Federal Highway Administration (one attendee). MDSHA participants included a mix of design, utility, and right-of-way acquisition officials, both from districts and headquarters. The second course took place in Baltimore, Maryland. In total, 40 MDSHA officials representing several disciplines attended this course, although most participants were designers. Originally intending to provide training for District 3 officials and their consultants who were unable to attend the first course, MDSHA subsequently decided to move the course to agency headquarters in Baltimore to provide greater opportunity for more officials to receive UCM training. The research team updated the training materials to address comments from course participants as well as observations by the research team with respect to ways to improve the effectiveness of the presentation. The materials also reflect feedback from MDSHA staff about ways to provide more guidance on how to identify, resolve, and manage utility conflicts. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations to implement the project findings include the following: • Use lessons learned from the pilot implementation in Maryland. • Monitor and disseminate results of the initial UCM implementation. • Consider additional strategies to accelerate the deployment of the UCM approach. • Strongly encourage participation in the one-day UCM training course. • Make the one-day UCM training course materials available online. • Strongly encourage the use of the UCM for applicable projects. • Develop enterprise, centralized UCM database implementations. • Further evaluate the conflict resolution alternative analysis subsheet. • Further evaluate utility conflict event tracking. • Develop tool to streamline and standardize cost estimates and protocols for the submission of estimates and billings. 2

• Develop module to estimate utility conflict risk levels. • Monitor the need for a UCM guidebook in addition to the UCM training course. • Update utility guides and manuals to incorporate the UCM approach. 3

CHAPTER 1 Background Utility issues are widely recognized as one of the top reasons for delays in project development and delivery. Two critical factors contributing to inefficiencies in the management of utility issues are (a) the lack of accurate, complete information about utility facilities that might be in conflict with the project and (b) the resolution and overall management of those conflicts. These inefficiencies can result in problems, such as the following: • Disruptions when utility installations are encountered unexpectedly during construction, either because there was no previous information about those installations or because their stated location on the construction plans was incorrect. • Damage to utility installations leading to disruptions in utility service, environmental damage, and risks to the health and safety of construction workers and the public. • Delays that can extend the period of project development and/or delivery and increase total project costs through higher bids, change orders and/or damage or delay claims, redesign, and litigation by utility owners or agencies. These delays also result in frustration for the traveling public and negative public perception about the project. • Unplanned environmental corrective actions. • Unnecessary utility relocations and project delivery inefficiencies that occur because adequate information about existing utility facilities was not available to enable stakeholders to apply alternative utility conflict resolution strategies, such as modifying the transportation project design or protecting the utility facilities in place. Both departments of transportation (DOTs) and utility owners complain about the lack of sufficient communication, scheduling, and coordination in the planning, right-of-way acquisition, design, and construction phases of road construction projects, which in turn inhibit the timely relocation of utility facilities. Designing to limit the impact of utility relocations is the exception rather than the rule. Identifying and resolving potential utility conflicts early in the project development process can minimize the total cost and decrease the time to completion of transportation projects. One of the projects funded by the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) was Research Project R15B, Identification of Utility Conflicts and Solutions. This project, which took place from March 2009 to July 2011, resulted in three products as follows (1, 2): • Product 1 (stand-alone UCM). This is a stand-alone product in Microsoft Excel format, which includes a main utility conflict table and a supporting worksheet to analyze utility conflict resolution strategies. 4

• Product 2 (utility conflict data model and database). This stand-alone product is a scalable UCM representation that facilitates managing utility conflicts in a database environment. To facilitate implementation, the research team used industry-standard protocols for the development of the data model (including a logical model, a physical model, and a data dictionary). The data model is in AllFusion ERwin Data Modeler format, which can be easily exported to formats such as Oracle and Microsoft SQL Server. The data model was tested by developing a series of queries and reports in Microsoft Access to replicate sample utility conflict tables from across the country. The focus of this part of the research was development of the data model, but not a graphical user interface (GUI) to automate data entry, querying, and reporting. GUI development was considered an implementation-level activity. • Product 3 (one-day UCM training course). This stand-alone product includes a lesson plan and presentation materials to assist with the dissemination of research findings. The one-day UCM training course is divided into six lessons, designed for a total of seven hours and 15 minutes of instruction, from 8:30 a.m. to 3:45 p.m. In December 2011, the SHRP 2 Oversight Committee authorized a follow-on project to pilot the implementation of the SHRP 2 R15B tools. The follow-on project was SHRP 2 R15C, Pilot Testing of the Utility Conflict Matrix. Its objective was to work with a state DOT on the implementation of the stand-alone UCM and the one-day UCM training course, as well as on an introduction to the utility conflict data model and database. The pilot implementation took place from September 2012 to March 2014. The research team identified six state DOTs that, based on information gathered during the initial SHRP 2 R15B research, were perceived to have the most potential for a pilot implementation of the research projects: Alabama, Maryland, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, and South Carolina. The research team identified three additional state DOTs that did not participate in the original research but appeared to be promising based on previous interactions with members of the research team: Connecticut, Utah, and West Virginia. Four of the nine state DOTs contacted responded indicating interest: Alabama, Maryland, New Hampshire, and Utah. Further discussions with the Transportation Research Board (TRB) on the feasibility of each of the proposed locations led to the decision to select Maryland. This report summarizes the application of the UCM tools as part of the pilot implementation at MDSHA, including lessons learned, and updates to the three research products. This report is organized as follows: • Chapter 1 is this introductory chapter. • Chapter 2 summarizes lessons learned from the use of the stand-alone UCM. • Chapter 3 describes updates to the UCM data model and database in response to lessons learned by MDSHA officials on the use of the UCM approach. 5

• Chapter 4 describes lessons learned from the one-day UCM training course as well as updates to the training materials to reflect these lessons learned. • Chapter 5 includes conclusions and recommendations. 6