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.

CHAPTER 2 Use of the Stand-Alone UCM in Maryland Introduction The pilot implementation in Maryland involved completing the following major activities: • Coordinate with MDSHA officials on the identification of projects to conduct the pilot implementation, UCM training opportunities, and technical support logistics. • Conduct the one-day UCM training course for selected users. This activity took place prior to districts beginning to use the stand-alone UCM on actual projects. Following discussions with MDSHA, the research team scheduled a second one-day UCM training course for additional users toward the end of the pilot implementation. Chapter 4 provides additional information on lessons learned from both training events. • Interact with district users and provide technical support as needed. MDSHA identified six projects to test the implementation of the UCM approach. Figure 2.1 shows the location of the projects along with the approximate design status of each project at the beginning of the pilot implementation. Table 2.1 provides a summary on the use of the UCM approach for each of these projects as of December 2013. This chapter provides a summary of lessons learned from the pilot implementation of the UCM approach at each of these projects. The lessons learned are based on various interactions with district officials over the course of several months as well as on feedback received during meetings and field visits that the research team conducted. 7

District Project Design Stage at the Beginning of the Pilot Implementation 3 MD 210 at Kerby Hill Road and Livingston Road Interchange Project <30% 3 MD 212 (Powder Mill Road) from Montgomery Road to US 1 (Baltimore Avenue) <30% 4 MD 147 at Joppa Road Intersection Improvement Project 60%–90% 4 US 40 at MD 7 and MD 159 Intersection Improvement Project 60%–90% 5 Wayson’s Corner Park-and-Ride Lot Expansion Project 90% 7 MD 32 Road Widening from Day Road to West Friendship Road 30%–60% Figure 2.1. Projects selected by MDSHA. 8

Table 2.1. Project Status and UCM Implementation as of December 2013 District Project Project Status UCM1 Comment 3 MD 210 30% design meeting with utilities June 2013. Consultant received order to proceed in October 2013. Yes District completed first UCM version. Project is now design– build. MDSHA selected consultant. Consultant provided assessment and updated UCM in December 2013. 3 MD 212 30% design in April 2013. District negotiating with consultant. No Project is on hold. MDSHA is hiring consultant for additional design work. 4 MD 147 at Joppa 75% design in October 2013. Utility section working on UCM. No Project delayed by design changes. No construction funding yet, but expected soon. 4 US 40 at MD 7 90% design in October 2013. Yes District completed first version and revised update of UCM. District ordered and received test holes. Updated plans expected by the end of 2013. 5 Wayson’s Corner 100% design. Construction bids opened in June 2013. Notice to proceed issued in November 2013. Construction expected to start in spring 2014. Yes District provided final UCM. 7 MD 32 95% design. Advertised in December 2013. Notice to proceed is anticipated in March 2014. Yes District completed first and revised update of UCM. Received test hole reports. Utility coordination meetings held in May 2013 and October 2013. 1 UCM was prepared by the district using the standard UCM template provided by the research team (or the district developed a modified version to suit the needs of the project). District 3: MD 210 at Kerby Hill Road and Livingston Road Interchange Project The MD 210 at Kerby Hill Road/Livingston Road interchange project includes construction of a median ramp interchange on MD 210 at Kerby Hill Road/Livingston Road (Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3). The purpose and need for this project is to improve traffic operations and safety conditions along MD 210. The project was broken out of the MD 210 multimodal study and received separate environmental approval in June 2004. The project was previously advanced to the preliminary investigation (PI) (30%) stage in 2007. Because of revised traffic numbers, a 9

value engineering study was conducted in April 2011. The resulting revised scope includes construction of a median ramp interchange on MD 210 at Kerby Hill Road/Livingston Road. Figure 2.2. MD 210 at Kerby Hill Road and Livingston Road interchange project location. Along MD 210, the project extends from 2,500 feet south of the existing intersection to 600 feet north of Wilson Bridge Drive. Along Kerby Hill Road and Livingston Road, the project extends approximately 1,000 feet to the west and to the east of the intersection. The scope of the project includes construction of a full-access median ramp interchange with MD 210 at grade and Kerby Hill Road and Livingston Road over MD 210. MD 210 will be widened to accommodate the ramps in the median but will maintain three through lanes of traffic. The median ramps will be supported by retaining walls. An access road will be built along the west side of MD 210 to provide access from a housing development to Kerby Hill Road. Wilson Bridge Drive will be modified to only allow a right-in movement. The PI stage utility coordination meeting took place in June 2013. The research team attended this meeting. If fully funded, MDSHA anticipates an advertisement in the fall of 2014, with a notice to proceed in the winter of 2014. The project was changed from design–bid–build to design–build. As a result, MDSHA will not produce further design drawings. A consulting 10

firm was selected as a utility coordination and design consultant to determine utility conflicts, need for quality level B (QLB) utility investigations and quality level A (QLA) test holes, potential conflict resolution strategies, and utility relocation design. The consultant received notice to proceed in October 2013. Figure 2.3. MD 210 at Kerby Hill Road and Livingston Road. District officials prepared a first version of the UCM in preparation for the June 2013 utility coordination meeting. On the basis of available information, MDSHA identified 44 conflicts associated with three utility owners, as follows: • PEPCO Electric: 8 conflicts • Washington Gas: 16 conflicts • Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) Sanitary Sewer: 20 conflicts The consultant reviewed the design plans and the preliminary UCM and provided an updated version of the UCM in December 2103. From the most current design, the consultant identified utility facilities in the initial UCM that were no longer in conflict, identified new utility conflicts not previously identified by MDSHA, revised or provided recommended resolution 11

actions for utility conflicts, and identified utility conflicts that needed further investigation using test holes. The assessment resulted in 107 conflicts, as follows: • Level 3 Communications: 10 conflicts • PEPCO Electric: 35 conflicts (added 27 conflicts) • Verizon Wireless: 13 conflicts • Washington Gas: 14 conflicts (removed 3 conflicts, added 1 conflict) • WSSC Sanitary Sewer: 16 conflicts (removed 5 conflicts, added 1 conflict) • WSSC Water: 19 conflicts Lessons learned by district staff in connection with the UCM approach include the following: • UCM is useful for documenting utility conflicts. The district utility engineer found the UCM to be helpful in documenting utility conflicts early in the design process. The UCM makes discussing and resolving specific conflicts easier because all parties (designers, utility coordinators, utility owners, and so on) are able to visualize and understand all constraints in one document. It is also much easier to coordinate with utility owners because both sides have the same information and it is easy to point out a conflict by using the conflict identification (ID) and then discussing it. The UCM also helps to avoid situations in which utility conflicts “fall off the radar” and are ignored until they become a major problem. Finally, the UCM enables MDSHA managers above the design level to understand the complexity and costs (time and financial) related to utility impacts. • Responsibility for UCM documentation task needs to be clarified. At the beginning of the UCM development, it was unclear who would be responsible to populate the UCM. District staff decided that it would be best for utility coordinators and designers to develop the first version of the UCM jointly. • There is a need for a data quality label in Bentley MicroStation. District officials recognized that one of the challenges with utility data is that design plans do not show utility investigation quality level data, although MicroStation files include that information as a cell attribute. • There is a need for MicroStation training for district staff. District utility personnel are not sufficiently familiar with MicroStation. This makes it difficult for district staff to determine the quality of the utility investigation data provided in MicroStation files. • Prioritization of UCM use might be beneficial. District staff suggested prioritizing the use of the UCM, focusing on construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation projects first. Maintenance projects and areawide projects would not be good candidates for using the UCM, at least not until district staff in both design and utility coordination sections are more familiar with the use of the UCM. 12

• Not enough information is available yet to quantify benefits. District officials expected that an assessment of benefits (time or money savings) would be possible once the consultants were onboard and started using the UCM to analyze and manage utility conflicts. The consultants received a notice to proceed in October 2013, which was later than originally anticipated. • Development and maintenance of the UCM takes time. District officials indicated that they spent about four hours of labor (two people working two hours each) to review five plan sheets (30 scale, Arch D size) and develop the first version of the UCM, for an average of 45 minutes of labor per sheet. As a result, district officials indicated they would closely monitor the time and effort the consultant uses to maintain the UCM. This also made it critical to clarify the consultant’s scope of work to make sure MDSHA’s expectations for deliverables and associated costs were reasonable and consistent with MDSHA’s goals and objectives. It also highlights the need to develop software to automate the detection of utility conflicts and populate the UCM. • Some modifications to the UCM structure might be useful. UCM users provided a few recommendations for improving the design of the UCM, including adding a hyperlink to the corresponding drawing or sheet number, providing linkages to design–build contract information, and creating different tabs in Excel for different utility owners. A generic “Unknown” tab could be used for those facilities for which the owner has not been identified. Despite its limited hands-on experience with the UCM, the consultant indicated that the UCM approach offered the following benefits: • The UCM is concise and easy to use, particularly when using tabs to group utility conflicts by owner or type. The UCM design also makes it easy to reference existing utility conflict locations. • The UCM provides a systematic way to inventory and lay out all utility information within the project limits, making it useful for new project manager, project engineer, or consultants who need to work on the project. • It facilitates the management of further utility investigations, including test holes. • The UCM is effective for demonstrating cost impacts and savings by recognizing and tracking conflicts up front. The consultant also highlighted a few challenges and recommendations, including the following: • The UCM does not provide a direct link to spatial locations on design plans or utility data source, resulting in redundancy between the UCM record and the location of utility conflicts on the plans. It would be beneficial to add a column to identify the source of the 13

utility data (e.g., from a set of as-builts, field locates, utility designation, or geographic information system (GIS) or the actual graphic or picture of the utility in conflict. • Updating the UCM at every horizontal design change iteration is not practical. A strategy to address this issue is to make it a practice to update the UCM at prespecified milestones. It is worth noting that the updated training materials describe stages and milestones more clearly. • The UCM does not provide a trigger or a red flag to highlight missing information. • The UCM does not include a column to identify the design phase or design drawing version or date on which the UCM has been prepared. • It would be advisable to hide some of the columns to develop executive-level reports that only highlight critical information that depends on the intended recipient of the UCM. • It would be advisable to include the UCM as part of every project design review process and every communication with utility owners. • It would be advisable to include the UCM in design–build contract specifications to inform the teams bidding on the contract of the location, magnitude, and type of utilities affected. The result would be more competitive bids. District 3: MD 212 (Powder Mill Road) from Montgomery Road to US 1 (Baltimore Avenue) The project involves reconstructing MD 212 (Powder Mill Road) from Montgomery Road to US 1 (Baltimore Avenue), including reconstruction of the roadway, resurfacing, curb and gutter drainage improvements, five-foot-wide concrete sidewalks, street trees, street lighting, pedestrian crossings compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, curb cuts and crosswalks, and other aesthetic and landscaping enhancements (Figure 2.4 and Figure 2.5). The current typical road section consists of two 11-foot lanes and shoulders with varying widths. Most of the project length has a concrete curb. The total cost has an upper limit of $5.4 million (2002 dollars), which may increase after adjusting for inflation. The project is funded by MDSHA without local contributions. Prince George’s County has accepted maintenance responsibilities after completion of the project. Improvements to Powder Mill Road are related to a nearby project that focuses on a realignment and relocation of MD 212 along the existing Ammendale Road/Virginia Manor Road/Ritz Way corridor. The project is currently at about 30% design. The project is on hold until Prince George’s County and MDSHA agree on changes to the typical section. At the PI meeting, MDSHA presented a concept for a cross section, but the county expressed interest in modifying the typical section, including widening the proposed sidewalk. MDSHA is currently in the process of hiring a consultant to complete the design work. The typical section presented at the PI meeting will no longer be used. In addition, project leadership changed in June 2013, and it was not possible to obtain feedback from either the previous project manager or the new project manager in connection with the use of the UCM approach. The utility coordinator did not use the UCM for this project and, therefore, could not offer lessons learned. 14

Figure 2.4. MD 212 from Montgomery Road to US 1 project location. 15

Figure 2.5. MD 212 from Montgomery Road to US 1. District 4: MD 147 at Joppa Road Intersection Improvement Project This project involves the addition of a through–right-turn lane on southbound MD 147 and a through–right-turn lane on westbound Joppa Road (Figure 2.6 and Figure 2.7). After these improvements, the configuration for southbound MD 147 will be a single left-turn lane onto eastbound Joppa Road, two through lanes, and a through–right-turn lane. For westbound Joppa Road, there will be two left-turn lanes onto southbound MD 147, two through lanes, and a through–right-turn lane onto northbound MD 147. These additional lanes will converge back to the original road configuration a few hundred feet past the intersection. There will also be improvements to the timing of the signals at the intersection and resurfacing. Previous studies have identified deficient safety and capacity conditions, especially during the peak hours. These conditions are expected to worsen as traffic volumes increase along MD 147 and Joppa Road. Average daily traffic (ADT) on MD 147 and Joppa Road (year 2011) was 33,000 and 27,900, respectively. Projected ADT (year 2031) is 40,300 and 33,500, respectively. The area is heavily urbanized. 16

Figure 2.6. MD 147 at Joppa Road intersection improvement project location. 17

Figure 2.7. MD 147 at Joppa Road. As of December 2013, the project was between 60% and 90% design level, and the district had prepared semifinal design plans. The project experienced delays awaiting the design of retaining walls on the southwest quadrant of the intersection. The project manager was also in discussions with the county about the feasibility of a number of intersection modifications that the county had requested. As of December 2013, the Joppa project had not been funded for construction, and MDSHA had not yet scheduled a utility coordination meeting. The district conducted several test holes and placed the corresponding information on the plans. The project manager prepared a UCM by using a spreadsheet that the district had used in the past and found useful, based on information that was available at the time. The project manager did not use the UCM provided by the research team. At the time the project was considered for the UCM pilot implementation, the project plans were considered stable, and design changes to lessen utility impacts would most likely not be considered. Nevertheless, district staff provided the following feedback in connection with the use of the UCM approach: 18

• The UCM is helpful for documentation, discussion, and resolution of utility conflicts. Having designers populate the UCM first gives those designers a greater appreciation for utility issues and helps them to design more effectively earlier in the process. District staff considered the UCM useful to track documentation that would otherwise be lost because of the speed with which projects are developed and built. • The UCM is helpful for documenting the need for test holes. Designers use the UCM to document the need for test holes to assess resolution strategies for utility conflicts. • The UCM helps to avoid utility relocations. With the UCM, the project manager focused on avoiding the relocation of large poles next to the gas station. Utility relocations for other conflicts were more difficult to avoid. From the initial design, it appeared that Baltimore Gas & Electric (BGE) would have to move its poles twice in order to build the planned retaining wall. Following an analysis of utility installations and potential impacts, the district made several design changes. For example, the project manager decided not to affect utility poles north of the intersection along MD 147. District and BGE officials met to discuss impacts to their facilities south of the intersection along MD 147, which helped the district make the decision not to build a retaining wall to the full length of the existing embankment. BGE estimated that this decision saved the utility company several hundred thousand dollars. • More guidance on the UCM process would be useful. At the beginning of the project, it was unclear who would be responsible for populating the UCM. The project manager decided to prepare the first version of the UCM, which worked well, as explained above. For future projects, district officials recommended that a project manager or a designer develop the first version of the UCM and then turn it over to others at the district to maintain it. • A database approach is the preferred implementation strategy. District officials indicated that a database approach is the logical way to move forward with the UCM process. However, it would be critical to have a well-implemented, user-friendly system. The database should not make it harder to use the UCM approach than a stand-alone Excel version, which is very easy to modify. District 4: US 40 at MD 7 and MD 159 Intersection Improvement Project This project is located on US 40 at the intersection with MD 7 to the north and MD 159 to the south (Figure 2.8 and Figure 2.9). Following the PI meeting, the project was divided into two phases because of funding constraints. Phase 1 (currently under construction) entails improvements to MD 7. Phase 2 (this project) entails improvements to US 40 and MD 159 and has been designed to tie into the Phase 1 improvements. Phase 2 will involve widening US 40 to provide two additional lanes in each direction from approximately 2,500 feet to the west and 3,000 feet to the east of the intersection. At the eastern limit of work, the additional eastbound lanes will connect with the eastbound US 40 widening being constructed as part of the US 40 at 19

MD 715 interchange design–build project. The improvements will result in three through lanes, one left-turn lane, and one right-turn lane on westbound US 40 at the intersection with MD 7, as well as three through lanes, one left-turn lane, and one shared through/right lane on eastbound US 40 at the intersection with MD 159. MD 159 will be modified to tie into the eastbound US 40 widening, increase storage for left-turning movements, and accommodate bicycles. The existing 34-inch-tall concrete median barrier along US 40 will be replaced with a 42-inch-tall concrete median barrier. Figure 2.8. US 40 at MD 7 and MD 159 intersection improvement project location. 20

Figure 2.9. US 40 at MD 7 and MD 159. The project is currently at the 90% design level and involves nine utility owners with a significant amount of belowground utilities. Because of budget constraints, the project was split off from a larger project. The project is funded and has a June 2015 advertisement date. District officials expect to complete the right-of-way acquisition process during the first half of 2014 (clearance by June 2014) to facilitate utility relocations (expected duration is 14 months). In July 2013, district officials met with all utility owners involved in the project to discuss utility conflicts that had been identified up to that point. This was the first meeting with all utility owners on this project. The district also has monthly utility meetings for updates on all districtwide projects. Impacts on the existing water line are a top priority along with the existing sewer line. MDSHA staff began populating the UCM in May 2013 based on final review plans as well as test hole information from Phase 1 and the adjacent design–build project on MD 715. At that point, the district was expecting to conduct test holes within 60 to 90 days, based on which a new set of plans would be prepared and readied for distribution to utility owners. MDSHA staff prepared a revised version of the UCM for the July meeting, at which time the district identified locations where test holes were necessary. Updated plans and cross sections with the test hole 21

results were available in November 2013. District officials will schedule a utility coordination meeting after the utility owners have reviewed the updated plans. Lessons learned by district staff in connection with the UCM approach include the following: • The UCM raises awareness about utility impacts. The project manager indicated that the UCM has been beneficial in raising awareness among all team members about all of the utility locations and conflicts on the project. The project manager is now much more aware of utility issues on the project. • Developing the UCM took longer than originally expected. One of the challenges of the use of the UCM is the limited amount of time and resources district officials have to prepare the matrix. Using the UCM was time-consuming at the beginning, which highlights the need for software to automate the detection of utility conflicts and populate the UCM. In this regard, district officials found that the method to analyze conflicts and populate the UCM was key to increasing productivity. During the development of the first UCM, the project team made several observations to accelerate UCM development in the future. For example, o District officials concluded that the fastest way to identify utility conflicts was to start at the beginning station, pick a utility line, and document all conflicts for that line until the end of the project. Then continue with the next line at the project beginning station. o Utility conflict identification was much easier while viewing the project file in MicroStation versus paper drawings, because it allowed project staff to turn levels on and off, zoom in as needed, and quickly measure stations and offsets. o The project team deleted the automated drop-down menus and used different tabs for different utility types (water, sewer, communications, and so on). The idea of using a different tab for each company did not work for the group because initially they did not know which company owned which facility. The group also prepared a separate file for water lines with portions that needed to be relocated. In addition, the project team standardized utility conflict descriptions because that made it easy to sort them, and they color-coded utility conflicts to indicate status. • More guidance on the definition of utility conflicts would be useful. Project staff had several questions when they first started using the UCM, including how to define a utility conflict. District officials had a question on whether it would be advisable to group utility conflicts by segments of utility facilities affected in an effort to reduce the number of actual utility conflicts. For instance, if a gas line runs 1,000 feet through the project and is affected at multiple locations, is it advisable to identify multiple utility conflict locations or just one conflict location? 22

• Graphical representations of utility conflicts are needed in MicroStation. For example, conflict outlines or icons could be generated in MicroStation and saved on a separate level. District 5: Wayson’s Corner Park-and-Ride Lot Expansion Project The Wayson’s Corner park-and-ride lot is located between MD 4 and Southern Maryland Boulevard (MD 794), just south of the westbound exit ramp on MD 4 that connects with Southern Maryland Boulevard and Mount Zion Road (MD 408) (Figure 2.10 and Figure 2.11). The proposed expansion on the southeast end of the lot will provide 75 additional spaces and one additional entrance. The expansion is needed because the current number of parking spaces is inadequate for the forecasted demand for commuter parking. The lot currently accommodates 101 parking spaces, one bus shelter, and two entrances. Concrete sidewalks adjacent to the new parking spaces will provide pedestrian access to the existing bus shelter. The project has been studied for various parking lot arrangements and storm water management configurations. Access to the park-and-ride lot is from MD 794. Figure 2.10. Wayson’s Corner park-and-ride lot expansion project location. 23

Figure 2.11. Wayson’s Corner park-and-ride lot. The project design is complete. The notice to proceed was issued in November 2013. Utility relocation work began shortly thereafter without any problems to date. Because of the cold weather approaching and construction material parameters, the construction area engineer expects that actual construction will be delayed until the spring of 2014. During the design phase, the district identified 15 conflicts and developed strategies to resolve the conflicts. There were two utilities with facilities that potentially conflicted with the roadway project. The district modified the design to avoid these facilities. District officials noted that the design modifications might have taken place even if the UCM had not been used. However, the UCM was useful because it called attention to the intent to make the design changes, which otherwise might possibly have been overlooked. Lessons learned by district staff in connection with the UCM approach include the following: • The UCM is useful to document utilities and related challenges. District staff mentioned that the UCM could be a useful tool to demonstrate and document project challenges to the MDSHA management, provide explanation for project delays, and help develop action plans to move projects forward. 24

• Populating and maintaining UCMs takes time. The utility coordinator saw potential on the use of the UCM (particularly for other stakeholders such as designers and project managers) but indicated that populating and maintaining UCMs would take up time that they do not have given their current workload. The project manager indicated that this was a good project for trying the UCM approach because there were not many potential conflicts and the project was in the final design stage when the UCM work began, thus allowing ample time to fill out the matrix. However, the project manager was concerned about having enough time to complete the matrix on a project with several hundred potential conflicts. In their view, understanding and analyzing utility conflicts using project plans is straightforward, and there is little need for a process to document that analysis. District utility coordinators prefer using a simple table that shows dates when milestones for individual utility companies are completed (e.g., plans sent, plans returned, prior right forms completed, and so on), instead of tracking details about the utility conflict and plans to resolve it. • Limiting UCM updates to major milestones would reduce required labor effort. If MDSHA makes the use of UCM permanent, district officials suggested updating the UCM only at major project milestones. It would also be the responsibility of the design consultant to keep the UCM up to date. District staff also pointed out that while conflict identification is important, utility owner notification is equally important. • Projects with significant utility impacts might be more suitable for the UCM approach. District officials indicated it might have been more useful to use the UCM approach on a different project on MD 175. On this project, the district ran into a major problem with a communication duct bank that had to be relocated at an estimated cost of $2.5 million because it was too late to redesign hydraulic features. • Including a utility relocation schedule would make the UCM more useful. Utility relocations frequently need to take place at different times. District staff would like to see a schedule showing the order in which utility installations need to move as well as predecessor and successor conditions. To address this issue, district officials added a column labeled “Priority” but never found the time to fill it out. Alternatively, there could be a flowchart of the relocation plan on a separate sheet. The district was also interested in a field providing the relocation duration based on the estimated completion date. The project manager revised the UCM by adding a column indicating when each conflict was reviewed and by whom, instead of tracking changes at the spreadsheet or tab level using the header of the UCM. However, the district staff did not use the column. 25

District 7: MD 32 Road Widening from Day Road to West Friendship Road This project involves widening approximately one mile of MD 32 from approximately 750 feet south of Day Road to approximately 500 feet north of West Friendship Road to accommodate a 13-foot-wide continuous center turn lane and shoulders that vary from 6 to 10 feet wide in addition to 11-foot-wide through lanes (Figure 2.12 and Figure 2.13). South of Day Road and north of West Friendship Road, the widening will taper back down and tie into the existing 44- foot pavement section comprised of 12-foot through lanes and 10-foot shoulders. These improvements will provide space for vehicles leaving or entering the roadway to decelerate, accelerate, and/or queue outside of the through lanes. Additionally, the full-width shoulders will be signed and marked as bicycle lanes within the limits of the work. Within the project limits, MD 32 is approximately 44 feet wide. It is open section with drainage ditches on both sides. There are numerous private driveways and three local roads within the project limits, all of which include unsignalized intersections. Figure 2.12. MD 32 road widening project location. 26

Figure 2.13. MD 32 between Day Road and West Friendship Road. The project design was completed in November 2013. The project was advertised in December 2013, with the notice to proceed anticipated in March or April 2014. District officials started using the UCM in May 2013 and used it for meetings and discussions with utility companies. In preparation for a meeting with utility owners in May 2013, the district identified six utility owners as having facilities along the corridor: Verizon Electric, BGE–Electric, BGE– Gas, Howard County Fiber, Colonial Pipeline, and Comcast. About 114 potential conflicts were identified and documented on the UCM. Many of the potential conflicts were resolved, that is, determined not to be in conflict or avoided by making minor design changes. The May 2013 meeting focused on necessary relocations and conflicts that could not be resolved until more information (i.e., test holes, cross sections, final grades, etc.) were available. Subsequent test holes confirmed that a gas line was not in conflict with the pavement reconstruction and could remain in place. However, several poles owned by BGE with attachments by Comcast and Verizon Wireless would have to be relocated. The district prepared an updated version of the UCM to include this information in preparation for a second utility coordination meeting with utility owners in October 2013. The anticipated schedule called for BGE to install new poles, after which Comcast would move its facilities from the existing poles 27

to the new poles, and finally Verizon Wireless would relocate its facilities. According to the UCM, this process was estimated to take nine months from February 2014 to October 2014. At the October 2013 utility coordination meeting, the BGE representative indicated that BGE had four poles that could not be relocated until trees were trimmed and notches were cut in the slope where the new poles were to be placed. The highway contractor would have to perform this work. Because the notice to proceed would not take place until March or April 2014, the BGE relocation start date would need to be pushed back from February to May 2014. The Comcast and Verizon Wireless start dates would need to be modified accordingly. These changes would involve a revision in project phasing to ensure that the highway contractor has enough work to do in other locations while the utility companies relocate their facilities. The project manager and the utility coordinator worked with utilities representatives to clarify the necessary details and updated the UCM to include the new information. Lessons learned by district staff in connection with the UCM approach include the following: • The UCM facilitates communication at utility coordination meetings. Meeting participants were complimentary of the UCM, which was used during the meetings as different potential conflicts were discussed. District officials stressed to utility representatives that MDSHA wanted to avoid utility relocations as much as possible and urged them to let the district know if there were other potential conflicts that might be avoided by making minor design changes. • Using the UCM has resulted in a tangible economic benefit. The preliminary estimate for utility relocations in the funding request was $1,161,875, including a 25% contingency and 14% overhead. District officials indicated that this estimate would likely decrease by approximately $800,000 because all drainage conflicts with the gas line were avoided through realignment of the proposed drainage pipes, and it was confirmed that BGE-Gas had no conflicts with full-depth pavement reconstruction. Documenting utility conflicts systematically by using the UCM approach was directly responsible for the identification of the resolution strategy, resulting in more than $500,000 in savings. The remaining $300,000 corresponds to lower overall costs than initially estimated and less utility relocation than expected, which became evident after estimating costs but before starting the UCM. • Using the UCM has resulted in tangible delay savings. A rough estimate of time benefits provided by district officials indicated that avoiding the gas line provided a delay savings of about 4 to 6 months. • UCM facilitates coordination with utilities and contributes to better working relationships. According to district officials, the most significant benefit of using the UCM was that it helped them determine that all utility conflicts were on one side of the road and that conflicts could be avoided by changing the sequencing of the work. This made coordination activities with utility owners much easier and created much goodwill 28

by utility owners. Utility owners noted that MDSHA made a significant effort to avoid unnecessary relocations, which resulted in a much better working relationship with utility owners (and will likely have a positive impact on future projects). • The UCM process facilitates MDSHA internal teamwork. District officials found that the UCM process facilitated teamwork among district staff and brought the district closer together. It also encouraged designers to challenge conventions and think outside the box. Utility coordinators mentioned that the UCM process helped them better understand how designers approach utility conflicts and what process they have to go through to resolve them. The UCM process also helped to make designers aware of where utilities are on the project. • Identifying conflicts and populating the UCM take time. District officials spent a considerable amount of time identifying potential conflicts and populating the UCM. Officials expressed concern about finding the time to populate and manage the UCM on future projects. The time spent to develop the first version of the UCM was about one person for one and a half day, and two persons for about half a day, or about 20 staff- hours total. However, it was not entirely clear if this estimate was just the time to populate the UCM or if it also included the time to review the project for utility conflicts. The time estimate did not include the time to maintain and update the UCM following design changes. Using software to automate the identification of utility conflicts and populating the UCM would likely result in time savings for the agency. • Use of the cost alternative subsheet is time-consuming. The project manager did not find the cost alternative subsheet particularly useful and did not use it. It would have taken too much time to document various alternatives to resolve utility conflicts. However, the sheet might be useful for complex utility conflicts on larger projects. • The current UCM process can be tweaked for efficiency gains. As district officials learned to use the UCM, they identified ways to optimize its use moving forward. For example, utility conflicts could be grouped by station, as in the case of utility poles that are in conflict. At these locations, all utility owners involved would be listed together (although each would have separate conflicts). This would not change the number of conflicts but would list all conflicts at any particular station in one place. • There is a need to train district staff on the use of MicroStation and provide easier access to the software. District staff pointed out that district personnel might not have easy access to MicroStation or might not know how to use it. Similarly, many small utility companies do not use computer-aided design (CAD). To make the UCM process work, it would be extremely beneficial for districts to receive more training on how to use MicroStation. • There is a need for a UCM guidebook in addition to the UCM training course. There was consensus among district staff that, in addition to the UCM training course, there should be guidelines to help stakeholders prepare and maintain the UCM. Staff would also like to see a column or other mechanism to help them identify the order in which 29

utilities need to relocate. It is worth noting that the updated training materials (see Chapter 4) include a number of changes and additions to the original training course materials (which District 7 officials were exposed to in January 2013). The updated training materials are designed to provide more guidance to users on how to prepare and maintain the UCM. These materials also provide more information on the business process, that is, at what project development and delivery milestones it is recommended to populate or maintain the UCM. 30