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 5 Conclusions and Recommendations Utility issues are widely recognized as one of the top reasons for delays in project development and delivery. Two critical factors that contribute 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. Research Project SHRP 2 R15B took place from March 2009 to July 2011 and resulted in three products as follows (1, 2): • Product 1 (stand-alone utility conflict matrix). This is a stand-alone product in Excel format that includes a main utility conflict table and a supporting worksheet to analyze utility conflict resolution strategies. • 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. The data model was tested by developing a series of queries and reports in 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 to automate data entry, querying, and reporting. • Product 3 (one-day UCM training course). This stand-alone product includes a lesson plan and presentation materials to assist with the training needed to disseminate and implement Products 1 and 2 at transportation agencies. 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 Application of Products for the Identification of Utility Conflicts and Solutions. 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 an introduction to the utility conflict data model and database. The pilot implementation took place in Maryland from September 2012 to March 2014. Major activities during the pilot implementation included the following: • Coordinate with MDSHA officials for 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. • Interact with district users and provide technical support as needed. 65

Conclusions Use of the UCM Approach MDSHA identified six projects to test the implementation of the UCM approach. As Figure 2.1 shows, these projects provided a wide range of project types and field conditions. Lessons learned by MDSHA officials in connection with the UCM approach included areas in which officials were highly satisfied with the UCM approach as well as areas in which they identified a need for improvement or clarification in the business process. Areas in which the UCM approach was particularly strong included the following: • The UCM is useful for the documentation of utility conflicts. Users found the UCM approach 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 utility 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 using the conflict ID and then discuss it. The UCM also helps avoiding 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. • The UCM is helpful for discussing and resolving 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 for tracking documentation that otherwise would 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 used the UCM to document the need for test holes to assess resolution strategies for utility conflicts. • The UCM raises awareness about utility impacts. The UCM was beneficial in raising awareness among all team members about all the utility locations and conflicts on the project. Project managers were much more aware of utility issues affecting projects. • The UCM helps to avoid utility relocations. In several instances, district officials were able to find opportunities for which utility relocations were unnecessary, saving the agency and/or utility owners hundreds of thousands of dollars and accelerating project delivery. • Using the UCM has resulted in tangible economic and time benefits. At one of the districts, documenting utility conflicts systematically by using the UCM approach was directly responsible for the identification of a utility conflict resolution strategy that helped the district avoid relocating a gas line, resulting in more than $500,000 in 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. 66

• UCM facilitates coordination with utilities and contributes to better working relationships. The UCM made coordination with utility owners much easier and created much goodwill among utility owners. Utility owners noted that MDSHA made a significant effort to avoid unnecessary relocations, which resulted in a 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 challenged designers to examine conventions and think outside the box. Utility coordinators mentioned that the UCM process helped them understand the method designers use to approach and resolve utility conflicts. The UCM process also helped to make designers aware of where utilities are on the project. Areas in which the UCM approach would need some improvements include the following: • Developing the UCM took longer than originally expected. One of the challenges on 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. At one of the districts, officials indicated 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. Given that it was the first time that district officials worked with the UCM, officials should require less time to develop the UCM as they become more familiar with the process. District officials indicated they would closely monitor the time and effort consultants use to maintain the UCM, which also made it critical to clarify the consultants’ scope of work to make sure MDSHA’s expectations regarding deliverables and associated costs were reasonable and consistent with MDSHA’s goals and objectives. In this regard, district officials found that the method to analyze conflicts and populate the UCM was key to increase 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 67

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 color-coded utility conflicts to indicate status. • 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 extremely well, as explained above. For future projects, district officials recommended that the 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. • 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? • Limiting UCM updates to major milestones would reduce required labor effort. If MDSHA makes the use of the UCM approach 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 pointed out that while conflict identification is important, utility owner notification is equally important. Areas that could facilitate the implementation of the UCM approach include the following: • There is a need for a data quality label in 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, it is not visible on printed design plans. • There is a need to provide more training to district staff on the use of MicroStation and provide easier access to the software. District staff pointed out that not all district personnel have easy access to MicroStation or know how to use it. Similarly, many small utility companies do not use CAD. To make the UCM process work, it would be extremely beneficial for districts to receive more training on how to use MicroStation. • Some modifications to 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 68

“Unknown” tab could be used for those facilities for which the owner has not been identified. • 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. • 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 to make it harder to use the UCM approach than a stand-alone Excel version, which is very easy to modify. Data Model and Database The research team updated the UCM data model and Access database to reflect suggestions from MDSHA district officials for 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 various components of the updated UCM data model and database include the following: • Business process model. This model describes the process to identify and manage utility conflicts. • Conceptual model. This model is a high-level representation of groups of objects or entities that are needed to manage utility conflicts. • Logical data model. This model is a representation of data characteristics and relationships at a level that is independent of any physical implementation. • Physical data model. This model is a representation of data characteristics and relationships that depends on the specific physical platform chosen for its implementation. • Data entry forms. These Microsoft Access forms enable the management of information about projects, utility owners, utility facilities, and utility conflicts. All these components are submitted as a separate, stand-alone deliverable. The utility process needs utility data input, which occurs at different times of the process. Typically, as time progresses, utility information becomes more detailed and precise. Other elements of the utility process include coordination of utility relocation activities, preparation and execution of utility agreements, preparation of utility certifications, and monitoring of utility relocations and reimbursement of utility owners. Effective utility conflict management involves 69

preparing and using UCMs systematically throughout the entire utility process. UCMs could be updated as follows (or at other critical milestones as needed): • UCM 1: During preliminary design. • UCM 2: End of preliminary design or beginning of detailed design. • UCM 3: Around 30% detailed design. • UCM 4: Around 60% detailed design. • UCM 5: Around 90% detailed design. • UCM 6: During construction. Managing utility conflicts involves managing data about those conflicts as well as all kinds of related data. Conceptually, it is possible to identify six first-level (or core) topics or data objects that pertain to utility conflicts: utility conflict, utility facility, utility agreement, document, project, and user (Figure 3.2). Each of these data objects represents a real-world object that can be characterized by using a set of relevant tables and attributes. The logical and physical data models were built around these core entities. The research team accomplished this objective by using subject areas that provide a coherent view of all the entities associated with their corresponding core entity. The data model includes eight subject areas, that is, one for each core data object in the conceptual model, as well as one subject area for spatial entities and one subject area for application support entities. The most important subject areas are utility conflict and utility facility. The utility conflict subject area consists of the main entity UTILITY CONFLICT, related lookup tables, and linkages to other subject areas (Figure 3.3). A comprehensive list of all data model entities and definitions is included in Appendix A. The UTILITY CONFLICT entity has 28 attributes to describe a utility conflict, most of which are optional attributes. Mandatory attributes are DOT PROJECT ID, UTILITY FACILITY ID, UTILITY CONFLICT ID, and UTILITY CONFLICT DESCRIPTION. In addition, a utility conflict requires at least one design plan sheet number indicating where the utility conflict was found. This attribute is stored in table PLAN DOCUMENT (within the DOCUMENT subject area). The utility facility subject area in the original SHRP 2 R15B deliverables only included the minimum number of utility inventory entities needed to manage utility conflicts. As such, those entities were placeholders for a more comprehensive treatment of utility facility-related data within the highway right-of-way. For the last two years, members of the research team have been involved in a number of other initiatives related to the development of strategies for preparing comprehensive inventories of utility facilities within the right-of-way. Two of those initiatives are a recent study completed for FDOT and an ongoing study for FHWA on the feasibility of using 3-D platforms for developing utility inventories within the right-of-way. This report provides a summary of a generalized platform for developing utility inventories that can be used both for managing utility facility information needed to manage utility conflicts and for developing long-term repositories of utility facility information. The data 70

model is generic and platform independent and can be used both for 2-D and 3-D applications because the model is based on real-world objects. The Utility Facility subject area consists of the main entity UTILITY FACILITY, related lookup tables, and linkages to other subject areas (Figure 3.4). Each record in UTILITY FACILITY represents a utility facility on the ground (or in development) and includes attributes such as utility type (e.g., communication, electric, gas), utility subtype (e.g., communication manhole, communication line), a brief description, whether it is a public or private utility, whether it is an aboveground or belowground facility, and utility owner. UTILITY FACILITY stores some basic information. Additional attributes (depending on the type of information) are stored in UTILITY FACILITY DETAIL and UTILITY FACILITY FEATURE CLASS. 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 using custom VBA code. The main goal of developing the data entry forms was to illustrate the use of the UCM approach in a stand-alone database environment to users who are not IT 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, they 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. Although the Access forms are not compatible with an enterprise-level environment, they provide a preliminary design based on which enterprise-level forms could be developed. The research team prepared several data entry forms in Access 2010. The application includes a main user interface (Figure 3.5), four main forms (to manage projects, utility companies, utility facilities, and utility conflicts), and several subforms within each of the main forms. Figures 3.6 through 3.8 show the three subforms to manage projects, while Figures 3.9 through 3.11 show one example subform of the other main forms. This version of the data entry forms does not include the subsheet to analyze utility conflict resolution alternatives. The research team conducted some limited testing of the Access data entry forms by entering data that MDSHA districts gathered when they were populating their stand-alone UCMs for the six pilot implementation projects. For the testing, the research team sequentially entered data about projects, utility owners, utility facilities, and utility conflicts. General observations on the use of the Access database approach to complete these activities are as follows: • Data entry is time-consuming but cost-effective. The research team noticed that entering data into the database required time and effort. An informal estimate was that, for new users, it took about 8 hours of effort to enter data for some 60 utility conflicts. While significant, managing utility conflicts is really about making an up-front investment with the expectation of a significant return on that investment during the life of the project. The rate of return of that investment can be huge, possibly by a factor of 100 or more. For example, in case of the MD 32 project, MDSHA project staff probably spent less than 36 hours, or approximately $3,600 (using an estimated hourly rate of 71

$100), populating the UCM. The estimated economic benefit of using a UCM approach for that project was $500,000, which would translate to a net benefit of about $139 saved for each dollar invested. • Microsoft Access has limitations for managing utility data. While Access provides a convenient database platform for managing utility conflicts, Access is really designed for stand-alone implementations. Both the query structure and the VBA code pushes the limits of what can be reasonably expected with this kind of database environment. During testing, the research team noted that sometimes it took a few seconds for forms to open or commands to execute. The research team expects these issues to increase in magnitude as the database grows in size, particularly in a multiuser environment. • Enterprise, centralized database implementation is more beneficial and cost- effective in the long term. By design, Microsoft Access uses a decentralized implementation concept consisting of unlimited copies of the same database to be used at several locations. The current application requires access to the physical database either on a local or network drive. A more user-friendly approach would be to develop an enterprise-level application that is accessible via the Internet and uses a database platform such as Oracle or SQL Server. That would also facilitate access and contributions by stakeholders outside of the DOT, including utility companies and consultants. • A conflict resolution alternative analysis subsheet should be further evaluated. MDSHA did not use the conflict resolution alternative analysis subsheet during the pilot implementation. However, comments from stakeholders indicated that this feature might be useful under certain circumstances involving high-impact utility conflict locations. • Utility conflict event tracking should be further evaluated. A major benefit of a database approach is the automated tracking of events associated with utility conflicts. An evaluation of this feature by MDSHA staff was not possible because the application was completed near the end of the pilot implementation. 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 time was before the districts started the pilot application of the UCM approach on actual projects. Following discussions with MDSHA near the end of the pilot implementation, the research team scheduled a second one-day UCM training course for additional users who did not have the opportunity to attend the first course. The first course took place in Hanover, Maryland. A total of 36 participants attended the course, representing MDSHA (29 attendees), utility owners (4 attendees), consultants (2 attendees), and FHWA (1 attendee). MDSHA participants included design, utility, and right-of- way acquisition officials, both from districts and headquarters. With some minor exceptions, the lesson plan was the same as that developed for the SHRP 2 R15B project. Although the time allocated to each of the lessons was generally appropriate, participants spent considerably longer during the hands-on exercise in Lesson 4. All groups were highly involved in their assignments, 72

particularly during the identification of utility conflict resolution strategies and the group presentation, and, therefore, the research team decided to let the groups continue with that lesson for an additional half hour. To keep the course within the allocated schedule, the duration of the data model and database demonstration was shortened. Participants were highly satisfied with the course structure and exercise dynamics. Prior to delivering the course, the research team made a few minor changes to the materials that were delivered as part of the SHRP 2 R15B research. The research team’s observation was that participants reacted positively to those changes, particularly in Lesson 4. At the same time, participants provided several suggestions for improvements, including providing color plans to help differentiate utility features (the sample plan set was in black and white) and making sure the plan sets were printed to scale (because of a printing error, the scale was slightly off when the plans were printed prior to delivering the course). Other suggestions included using a set of plans from projects that participants were familiar with (instead of using projects or plan symbology from elsewhere that participants would have difficulty recognizing) and emphasizing the utility conflict resolution process. Some participants also recommended reducing the duration of the data model and database presentation (although some other participants recommended the opposite). The second course took place in Baltimore, Maryland. The original intent was to provide UCM training to District 3 officials and their consultants, taking into consideration that most of these officials did not attend the first course. However, MDSHA considered that moving the course to agency headquarters in Baltimore would provide a greater opportunity for a larger number of officials to receive training on the use of the UCM approach. In total, 40 MDSHA officials representing several disciplines attended the course, although most participants were designers. The research team used essentially the same version of the course materials that were used in the first course. The only difference was that plans from the MD 210 project were used instead of the set of plans from GDOT. The risk of using MD 210 files was that the utility investigations (and corresponding documentation) were only preliminary. As a result, it was not possible to demonstrate a complete example of the UCM to manage utility conflicts. However, the significant advantage was that officials were already familiar with MDSHA file symbology and design standards, and in several cases, they were also familiar with the project. As a result, the hands-on exercise was extremely effective, particularly during the group presentations at the end of Lesson 4. Feedback from course participants was highly positive. Officials also provided suggestions for changes to the training materials. The research team prepared an updated set of training materials to support the one-day UCM training course. The changes made addressed comments and recommendations from participants at the two training events, as well as observations by the research team prior to, during, and after those events with respect to ways to improve the effectiveness of the presentation. The revised one-day UCM training course is divided into six lessons, as follows: 73

Morning Session • Lesson 1: Introductions and Course Overview (30 minutes) • Lesson 2: Utility Conflict Concepts (75 minutes) • Lesson 3: Utility Conflict Identification and Management (75 minutes) Afternoon Session • Lesson 4: Use of Database Approach to Manage Utility Conflicts (20 minutes) • Lesson 5: Hands-On Utility Conflict Management Exercise (120 minutes) • Lesson 6: Wrap-Up (10 minutes) The course is designed for a total of seven hours and 15 minutes of instruction, from 8:30 a.m. to 3:45 p.m. It includes 5:30 hours (330 minutes) of direct instructor contact and 1:45 hours (105 minutes) of breaks (including lunch). The course provides ample opportunities for participant interaction and enables the instructor to adjust session and lesson start times and durations depending on the audience and the level of participant engagement in the discussions. Pilot Implementation Structure In addition to lessons learned in connection with specific technical areas as described above (i.e., use of the UCM approach, data model and database, and one-day UCM training course), the pilot implementation in Maryland offered a few important lessons on the process to set up an implementation initiative to improve utility conflict management at a transportation agency. Relevant lessons learned include the following: • Administration buy-in. A critical activity at the beginning of the project was a meeting with key MDSHA officials to go over the pilot implementation plan. This meeting was important for gaining support from upper management and included high-level design, construction, and utility staff. Prior to the meeting, there was consensus about the need to improve utility conflict management practices and a high-level understanding of the potential benefits of implementing the SHRP R15B products. However, agency officials did not have a working knowledge of the research products, specific activities that the agency would need to undertake during the pilot implementation, or the role that the research team would play. Critical discussion items included communication and coordination protocols both internally at MDSHA and between MDSHA and the research team, identification of potential dates to conduct the one-day training course, and ideas about the types of projects that might be suitable for the pilot implementation. Future implementations should include at least one initial meeting with key agency officials to ensure agency buy-in and facilitate the implementation process. 74

• Statewide coordination. MDSHA set up a working group composed of district utility engineers and headquarters officials. This working group identified the six projects. The statewide utility engineer served as the main point of contact between the research team and MDSHA. However, for project-level technical support and coordination, the research team interacted with the corresponding project managers and/or utility coordinators directly. This communication and coordination protocol provided flexibility and worked well. In a couple of instances, communication was hampered by changes in the project manager position. However, this became a useful discussion topic that highlighted the importance of using UCMs to develop a historical utility conflict management record that all stakeholders could access easily as needed. For future implementations, setting up a coordination team at the agency that can operate at two different levels of responsibility (overall coordination and project-level coordination) will provide the necessary oversight and flexibility to ensure the UCM implementation process is effective. • Project identification. The six projects that MDSHA identified to test the implementation of the UCM approach provided a wide range of project types and field conditions. In general, projects in a relatively early design stage benefitted the most from the pilot implementation compared with projects in the final stages of design. The reason is that late in the design phase when the project design is essentially complete, there is little room for flexibility and project managers and designers are less inclined to consider alternative solutions to address utility conflicts. For future implementations it will be critical to select projects in early stages of design, ideally less than 30% design, although designs up to 60% complete might be considered, depending on project design constraints. • UCM training. The research team conducted the first UCM training course prior to districts beginning to use the stand-alone UCM on actual projects. MDSHA participants included design, utility, and right-of-way acquisition officials, both from districts and headquarters. A second one-day UCM training course for additional users (mainly designers) took place toward the end of the pilot implementation. In retrospect, the need for a training course at the beginning of the pilot implementation was clear to all stakeholders. Given the project objectives and available budget, scheduling more than one training course at the beginning of the pilot implementation was not a high priority and was not included in the scope of work. However, interest by MDSHA in a second training course made it evident that providing as much UCM training as possible should be a high priority for any UCM implementation. 75

Future implementations should take this into consideration. Realistically, the number of courses to schedule will likely depend on factors such as agency size, types of projects that the agency handles, and staff interest. Agency participation in this training should include not just utility coordinators but also project managers, designers, and in general, stakeholders who are involved in the management of utility issues during project development and delivery. • Technical support. Project-level communication and coordination with project managers, utility engineers, and other stakeholders took place in a variety of formats, including in-person meetings, conference calls, and e-mail exchanges. In several instances, the research team attended utility coordination meetings to observe the interaction between MDSHA officials and utility owner representatives. These events also provided an opportunity to respond to technical questions or offer advice on how to use the UCM approach. To the extent possible, the research team scheduled monthly conference calls and e-mail exchanges with project representatives to follow up on the progress of the pilot implementation and document lessons learned (although in some cases, in-person meetings would have been more effective). In addition, the research team scheduled a special trip to Maryland half way through the project to meet with representatives from each of the districts as well as headquarters. For future implementations, it will be highly advisable to set up a technical support group composed of subject matter experts to provide sound advice on effective UCM usage and strategies. Required qualifications should include expertise on topics such as project development and delivery process integration; project design procedures; and utility accommodation, coordination, and relocation procedures. Qualifications should also include a working knowledge of relevant technologies such as CAD and utility investigation techniques and standards. However, this type of support is technical in nature and should not be confused with other forms of assistance that might be required for communication, meeting facilitation, or outreach activities. Recommendations By all accounts, the UCM pilot implementation in Maryland was a success, and the UCM approach that was piloted and updated as part of the SHRP 2 R15C project should be replicated throughout the country. In the short term, FHWA, TRB, and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials are proceeding with an implementation plan for the UCM research products, which is based on the use of lead adopter incentives. These incentives consist of funds for early adopters to offset implementation costs and mitigate risks. As part of the plan, recipients are required to provide specific deliverables designed to further refine the products, and possibly champion the products to other states and agencies. 76

The research team is not aware of other specific activities being planned to accelerate the implementation of the SHRP 2 R15C research products. It is worth noting that in late 2012, members of the research team were invited to participate in preliminary brainstorming sessions with state and federal stakeholders in which a number of ideas were discussed, including developing business cases, developing UCM competency through training, hosting workshops and peer exchanges, developing a web-based UCM user interface, and developing marketing materials. The following are recommendations to facilitate the implementation of the three SHRP 2 R15C products throughout the country: • Use lessons learned from the pilot implementation in Maryland. Consider applying the lessons learned in connection with specific technical areas (i.e., use of the UCM approach, data model and database, and one-day UCM training course) as well as the lessons learned on the process to set up an implementation initiative to improve utility conflict management at a transportation agency. Chapters 2, 3, and 4 provide detailed information on the technical areas. In addition, as described above, future implementations should take into consideration issues such as administration buy-in, statewide coordination, project identification, UCM training, and technical support. • Monitor and disseminate results of the initial UCM implementation. Consider sharing the results of the UCM implementation with the transportation community at important implementation milestones. For example, it may be possible to schedule webinars or give presentations at relevant conferences and meetings to discuss partial results and identify lessons learned. • Consider additional strategies to accelerate the deployment of the UCM approach. The initial UCM implementation will cover a limited number of state DOTs. However, the need to improve utility conflict management practices is acute throughout the country. Agencies that already use the UCM approach know that managing utility conflicts systematically can yield huge returns on investment within a short period. The MDSHA pilot implementation clearly demonstrated this benefit. One way to maximize the impact would be to focus on providing training to agencies while leaving the cost for the actual implementation of the UCM approach to individual agencies. The cost of each individual one-day training course is relatively low. However, the impact of the course is huge. • Strongly encourage participation in the one-day UCM training course. The one-day UCM training course could be required training for any designer, project manager, utility coordinator, consultant, or contractor who interacts with utility owners or is in any way involved in the identification and management of utility conflicts. Agencies could implement a certification process to give the requirement to take the course more credence (and teeth). The MDSHA pilot implementation demonstrated that officials who take the one-day UCM training course develop a level of awareness about the importance 77

of managing utility conflicts systematically that would not be possible without that course. The cost of providing the course is relatively low when compared to the potential payoff, which can be quite significant. Given that a large number of stakeholders could benefit from taking the course, a funding structure might be developed so that all stakeholders involved (including transportation agencies, consultants, contractors, and utility owners) contribute financially to make the course self-sustained. • Make the one-day UCM training course materials available online. Although in- person training is ideal, particularly the interactive hands-on exercise, many of the components of the training course are relatively straightforward and could be posted online so that stakeholders can access and use them at any time. • Strongly encourage the use of the UCM for applicable projects. Agencies could make the use of the UCM mandatory for applicable projects. Considering that different agencies will probably use their own UCM version to satisfy their own needs and requirements, the focus could be on using the UCM systematically, as opposed to requiring the use of a specific template (although the UCM template that was prepared for the SHRP 2 R15C project could be used to help standardize the process). • Develop enterprise, centralized UCM database implementations. Agencies could develop user-friendly, web-based, enterprise-level applications that use a database platform such as Oracle or SQL Server to automate the data entry, reporting, and management of utility conflicts. While Access provides a convenient database platform for managing utility conflicts, Access is really designed for stand-alone implementations. Both the query structure and the VBA code pushes the limits of what can be reasonably expected with this kind of database environment. • Further evaluate the conflict resolution alternative analysis subsheet. MDSHA did not use the conflict resolution alternative analysis subsheet during the pilot implementation. However, comments from stakeholders indicated that this feature might be useful under certain circumstances involving high-impact utility conflict locations. • Further evaluate utility conflict event tracking. A major benefit of a database approach is the automated tracking of events associated with utility conflicts. An evaluation of this feature by MDSHA staff was not possible because the application was completed near the end of the pilot implementation. • Develop a tool to streamline and standardize cost estimates and protocols for the submission of estimates and billings. A frequent source of contention between state DOTs and utility owners is the preparation and review of utility agreements, cost estimates, and billings. Although current regulations provide flexibility to states with respect to what cost estimation methodologies to require and use, current practices lack standardization. As a result, it is common to have estimates for similar types of installations, but because different utility owners are involved, the estimates cannot be compared for consistency. By extension, it is difficult to compare utility relocations done through agreement with those that are included in the highway contract. Another 78

consequence of the lack of standardization is that state DOT officials must spend more resources than necessary reviewing and checking individual agreements and supporting documentation, not to mention the impact on utility owners because of the need to spend considerable resources (unnecessarily) redoing utility agreements and cost calculations. • Develop a module to estimate utility conflict risk levels. The SHRP 2 R15C pilot implementation highlighted a methodology to identify and resolve utility conflicts systematically. However, the methodology (and by extension the data model) does not currently enable users to explicitly analyze the level of risk associated with individual conflicts. The UCM approach allows users to describe conflicts and outline resolution strategies, but it is up to individual users whether to incorporate uncertainty and risk in the analysis. Such a tool would enable users to explicitly consider and document these factors. • Evaluate the need for a UCM guidebook in addition to the UCM training course. A recommendation from one of the MDSHA districts was that, in addition to the UCM training course, there should be a guideline to help stakeholders prepare and maintain the UCM. The updated training materials (see Chapter 4) include a number of changes and additions to the original training course materials that were developed as part of the SHRP 2 R15B project. The updated training materials are designed to provide more guidance to users on how to prepare and maintain UCMs. These materials also provide more information about the business process—for example, at what project development and delivery milestones it is recommended to populate or update a UCM. As the UCM approach is implemented throughout the country, it would be advisable to survey agencies to determine whether a separate UCM guidebook is necessary beyond what the UCM training course already provides. • Update utility guides and manuals to incorporate the UCM approach. Agencies throughout the country would benefit from the inclusion of the UCM approach as an integral component of their business processes. This report, as well as the UCM training materials, includes specific content that could provide the foundation for the inclusion of the UCM approach in utility guides and manuals (which describe the utility business process) as well as other guidelines and manuals that integrate utilities into the overall project development and delivery process. 79

References 1. C.A. Quiroga, E. Kraus, P. Scott, T. Swafford, P. Meis, and G. Monday. Identification of Utility Conflicts and Solutions. Final Report. Report S2-R15B-RW-1. Second Strategic Highway Research Program, Texas Transportation Institute, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., October 2012. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp2/SHRP2_S2-R15B-RW-1.pdf. Accessed March 9, 2014. 2. C.A. Quiroga, E. Kraus, P. Scott, T. Swafford, P. Meis, and G. Monday. Identification of Utility Conflicts and Solutions. Product 1 (Standalone UCM), Product 2 (Data Architecture), Product 3 (One-Day UCM Training Course). Second Strategic Highway Research Program, Texas Transportation Institute, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., June 2011. http://www.trb.org/StrategicHighwayResearchProgram2SHRP2/Pages/Training_Material s_for_Identification_of_Utility_Conflicts_and_Solutions_709.aspx. Accessed March 9, 2014. 3. Data Architecture. Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, Texas, July 2010. 4. SDSFIE – Spatial Data Standards for Facilities, Infrastructure, and Environment. Defense Installation Spatial Data Infrastructure (DISDI) Group, U.S. Department of Defense. https://www.sdsfieonline.org/UserPages/KnowledgeBase/Downloads.aspx. Accessed March 9, 2014. 5. C.A. Quiroga, E. Kraus, and J. Le. Strategic Plan to Optimize the Management of Right- of-Way Parcel and Utility Information at FDOT. Research Report BDR74 977-03. Texas A&M Transportation Institute, College Station, Texas, May 2013. 80

ACRONYMS ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ADT average daily traffic BGE Baltimore Gas & Electric CAD computer-aided design DOT Department of Transportation FDOT Florida Department of Transportation FHWA Federal Highway Administration GDOT Georgia Department of Transportation GUI graphical user interface IT information technology MDSHA Maryland State Highway Administration PI preliminary investigation PS&E plan, specifications, and estimate QLA quality level A QLB quality level B QLC quality level C QLD quality level D SHRP 2 Second Strategic Highway Research Program TTI Texas A&M Transportation Institute UCM utility conflict matrix UMS Utility Mapping Systems VBA Visual Basic for Applications WSSC Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission 81

APPENDIX A Data Dictionary Table A.1 defines the entities in the utility conflict database. Table A.1. Utility Conflict Database—List of Database Entities Entity Name Definition ACCOUNTING METHOD An ACCOUNTING METHOD is a process to account for costs incurred during the adjustment of a utility facility, such as the category cost approach or the unit cost approach. AGREEMENT DOCUMENT An AGREEMENT DOCUMENT is a document that identifies the relationships, rights, and responsibilities between two or more parties. AGREEMENT DOCUMENT TYPE An AGREEMENT DOCUMENT TYPE is a word or phrase that characterizes an AGREEMENT DOCUMENT. Examples of agreement documents in use at the Texas DOT (TxDOT) include Federal Project Authorization and Agreement, LPA Agreement, and Municipal Maintenance Agreement. ALIGNMENT REFERENCE An ALIGNMENT REFERENCE is a point or line that can be used to define a location in reference to the point or a position on the line. Examples of an ALIGNMENT REFERENCE are “Edge of Pavement,” “Baseline,” “Right- of-Way Line,” “Centerline,” “Back of Curb,” “Survey Hub,” and “Reference Point in Driveway.” ATTRIBUTE An ATTRIBUTE is a property or characteristic of a UTILITY FACILITY serving to describe a UTILITY FACILITY. CAD DOCUMENT A CAD DOCUMENT is a document in electronic format that represents entities graphically by using points, lines, or polygons generated in a CAD environment (e.g., MicroStation). CAD DOCUMENT CELL A CAD DOCUMENT CELL is the name of a CAD cell used in a CAD document. A CAD document could have zero, one, or many CAD DOCUMENT CELLs. CERTIFICATION DOCUMENT A CERTIFICATION DOCUMENT is a LEGAL DOCUMENT that provides certification that a given task is complete for a TxDOT highway improvement project. CERTIFICATION DOCUMENT TYPE A CERTIFICATION DOCUMENT TYPE is a word or phrase that characterizes a CERTIFICATION DOCUMENT. Examples of certification documents include Appraisal Report, LPA Resolution, and Negotiator Report. CITY A CITY is an incorporated municipality in the United States with definite boundaries and legal powers set forth in a charter granted by the state. Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, 2003. Retrieved December 17, 2013, from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/city. COMMENT A COMMENT is miscellaneous information that provides extra detail or description for an event. COMPANY A COMPANY is any organization typically external to a DOT that performs a role in the project development process. COMPANY OFFICE A COMPANY OFFICE is an organizational subdivision of a COMPANY. An example of a COMPANY OFFICE is a local office of a statewide operating COMPANY. COMPANY USER A COMPANY USER is an employee of a company that is registered with the database authentication system. 82

Entity Name Definition COMPOSITE ELIGIBILITY RATIO A COMPOSITE ELIGIBILITY RATIO is a percentage that describes the relative amount of multiple estimated utility adjustment costs that is eligible for reimbursement by the state. A COMPOSITE ELIGIBILITY RATIO is calculated by dividing the sum of the eligible costs of the adjustments by the sum of the costs of the adjustments. CONVEYANCE DOCUMENT A CONVEYANCE DOCUMENT is a document that describes the rights and responsibilities of all the parties in a transaction that involves the transfer of property rights. Examples of a CONVEYANCE DOCUMENT include Standard Deed, Quitclaim Deed, Donation Deed, Agreed Judgment, and Judgment of Court in Absence of Objection. CONVEYANCE TYPE A CONVEYANCE TYPE is a word or phrase that characterizes a CONVEYANCE DOCUMENT. Examples of a CONVEYANCE TYPE are Standard Deed, Quitclaim Deed, Donation Deed, Agreed Judgment, and Judgment of Court in Absence of Objection. COUNTY A COUNTY is a political division within a STATE. DESIGN LIBRARY A DESIGN LIBRARY is a set of style definitions and resources for a MicroStation file. DOTs use design libraries within MicroStation to define standards for cells, levels, level filters, line styles, multiline styles, text styles, dimensions and several others. DOTs might have different design libraries for different engineering disciplines, including roadway, geotechnical, photogrammetry, and surveying. DISTRICT A DISTRICT is an administrative division within a STATE defined by a DOT. DOCUMENT A DOCUMENT is a tangible product in printed or electronic form produced from, resulting from, or documenting a DOT Project Development Process activity. A DOCUMENT can be indexed or catalogued in terms of business process operations or activities. Examples include forms, chapters, technical memoranda, invoices, and reports (provided the entire report is represented by a single file; otherwise the report would need to be represented by using document sets). DOCUMENT DATE A DOCUMENT DATE is a specific point in time that relates to a DOCUMENT and is stored in the database for legal or audit purposes. DOCUMENT DATE TYPE A DOCUMENT DATE TYPE is a word or phrase that characterizes a DOCUMENT DATE. DOCUMENT ROLE A DOCUMENT ROLE is a role or function that an individual has with respect to a document. Examples of a DOCUMENT ROLE are “reviewer” and “preparer.” DOCUMENT SET A DOCUMENT SET is a collection of documents. Examples include PS&E plan sets, proposals, and reports (provided several documents, e.g., chapters in separate files, make up the report; if a report is in a single file, the report is considered a document, not a document set.) DOCUMENT SET ITEM A DOCUMENT SET ITEM is a document that is part of a DOCUMENT SET. Examples include each of the chapters that make up a report (if each chapter is a separate document) and each of the plan documents that make up a PS&E plan set. DOCUMENT SET TYPE A DOCUMENT SET TYPE is a word or phrase that characterizes document sets with similar attributes and characteristics. Examples include utility agreements, utility agreement assemblies, change orders, PS&E assemblies, and plan sets. 83

Entity Name Definition DOCUMENT SYSTEM USER ROLE A DOCUMENT SYSTEM USER ROLE is a mapping that represents the many-to-many relationships between a DOCUMENT, a SYSTEM USER, and a PROPERTY ROLE. DOCUMENT SYSTEM USER ROLE enables the identification of system users associated with a DOCUMENT and the PROPERTY ROLE of each SYSTEM USER. DOCUMENT SYSTEM USER ROLE can identify the parties of a legal document and their perspective roles. DOCUMENT TYPE A DOCUMENT TYPE is a word or phrase that characterizes a document with similar attributes and characteristics. Examples include plan document, imagery document, and easement document. DOT OFFICE A DOT OFFICE is an administrative unit within a DOT that has a specific responsibility in the project development process. DOT OFFICE TYPE A DOT OFFICE TYPE is a category of DOT OFFICE that defines its role in a state DOT's business processes. DOT PROJECT A DOT PROJECT is a transportation improvement project managed by a state DOT. DOT PROJECT DATE A DOT PROJECT DATE is the day, month, and year of an event or milestone associated with a DOT PROJECT. DOT PROJECT DATE TYPE A DOT PROJECT DATE TYPE is a characterization of a date or milestone of the project development process that is associated with a DOT PROJECT. Examples of a DOT PROJECT DATE TYPE are “Approved ROW Map Date,” “Letting Date,” and “DOT Estimated Construction Cost Date.” DOT PROJECT SYSTEM USER A DOT PROJECT SYSTEM USER is a mapping that represents the many- to-many relationships between a DOT PROJECT and a SYSTEM USER. DOT PROJECT SYSTEM USER enables the identification of SYSTEM USERS associated with a PROJECT and the identification of PROJECTS associated with a SYSTEM USER. DOT UNIT A DOT UNIT is an organizational subdivision of a DOT. Examples of a DOT UNIT are Construction Division, Planning Division, and local districts. DOT UNIT TYPE A DOT UNIT TYPE is an organization category for a DOT UNIT. Examples for DOT UNIT TYPE are DOT District and DOT Division. DOT USER A DOT USER is a DOT employee who is registered with the database authentication system. EASEMENT DOCUMENT An EASEMENT DOCUMENT is a document that describes the right to use the real property of another for a specific purpose, mostly in connection with right-of-way needs. The two parties in an easement are the grantor and the grantee. ELIGIBILITY RATIO An ELIGIBILITY RATIO is a percentage that describes the relative amount of an estimated utility adjustment cost that is eligible for reimbursement by the state. ELIGIBILITY RATIO PROPERTY RIGHT OCCUPANCY An ELIGIBILITY RATIO PROPERTY RIGHT OCCUPANCY is an association of an ELIGIBILITY RATIO with a PROPERTY RIGHT OCCUPANCY. The purpose of this association entity is to resolve many- to-many relationships between the two entities. ELIGIBILITY RATIO TYPE An ELIGIBILITY RATIO TYPE is a category that describes a certain kind of ELIGIBILITY RATIO. ENCUMBRANCE DOCUMENT An ENCUMBRANCE DOCUMENT is a document that defines the right or interest in a property that is held by someone who is not the legal owner of the property. 84

Entity Name Definition ENCUMBRANCE DOCUMENT TYPE An ENCUMBRANCE DOCUMENT TYPE is a word or phrase that characterizes an ENCUMBRANCE DOCUMENT. Examples of agreement documents include Control of Access Agreement Document and Height Restriction Document. ESTIMATE An ESTIMATE is an approximation of costs for a utility adjustment that a utility provides to a DOT that is part of a UTILITY AGREEMENT in the form of an attachment. ESTIMATE TYPE An ESTIMATE TYPE is a characterization of an ESTIMATE. Examples of an ESTIMATE TYPE are “Utility Adjustment Cost” and “Engineering Cost.” FEATURE CLASS ATTRIBUTE A FEATURE CLASS ATTRIBUTE is a mapping between a UTILITY FACILITY FEATURE CLASS and an ATTRIBUTE. It identifies all UTILITY FACILITY FEATURE CLASSES associated with an ATTRIBUTE, and all ATTRIBUTES associated with a UTILITY FACILITY FEATURE CLASS. As such, the table identifies all ATTRIBUTES that a UTILITY FACILITY FEATURE CLASS can have. FEATURE CLASS SHAPE A FEATURE CLASS SHAPE is the form of a FEATURE CLASS in a GIS. For example, a FEATURE CLASS can have the shape of line, point, polygon, or multipoint. The FEATURE CLASS SHAPE is used to define the default or preferred shape of a FEATURE CLASS. UTILITY FACILITY TYPE A UTILITY FACILITY TYPE is a characterization of a kind of UTILITY FACILITY. Examples include water utility, gas utility, and communication. HIGHWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASS A HIGHWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASS is the functional classification of the roadway section for a project. Examples of a HIGHWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASS are “Interstate,” “Other Urban Freeway or Expressway,” and “Rural Principal Arterial.” HIGHWAY SYSTEM A HIGHWAY SYSTEM is a roadway that can be classified as a roadway that is maintained by a governmental unit such as a state or county. HIGHWAY SYSTEM STATUS A HIGHWAY SYSTEM STATUS is the state of a roadway, which can be either “planned,” “under construction,” or “existing.” HORIZONTAL SPATIAL REFERENCE A HORIZONTAL SPATIAL REFERENCE is a coordinate system that describes the horizontal location of a feature. Examples include NAD 1983, UTM Zone 12N, NAVD 1988, and GCS WGS 1984. IMAGERY DOCUMENT An IMAGERY DOCUMENT is a document that represents entities graphically by using pixel structures. IMAGERY UNIT An IMAGERY UNIT is a measurement unit for imagery documents that provides an indication of the image resolution level (or pixel size). Examples include feet, inches, meters, miles, and kilometers. LEASE AGREEMENT DOCUMENT A LEASE AGREEMENT DOCUMENT is a document that describes the temporary right to possess and use property (real or personal), usually in exchange for payment. The two parties in a lease are the lessor and the lessee (or tenant). LINE COLOR A LINE COLOR is the appearance of a line in a GIS or CAD environment based on a red, green, and blue value. LINE STYLE A LINE STYLE is a part of the symbology of graphic elements in MicroStation that defines a line's appearance as being continuous, continuous dashes, dots and dashes, and many others. LINE WEIGHT A LINE WEIGHT is a number within the range of 0 to 30 that designates the stroke width or thickness of a line in MicroStation that is being used to draw and plot a graphic element. MAINTENANCE SECTION A MAINTENANCE SECTION is an administrative unit of a DOT for the purpose of maintaining a portion of the highway system. 85

Entity Name Definition MEETING A MEETING is a gathering of people for the purpose of discussing a typically predetermined topic. ORIENTATION An ORIENTATION is a compass reading, including north, east, south, and west. PLAN DOCUMENT A PLAN DOCUMENT is a document that contains one or more plan sheets. Plan documents normally include graphical elements that facilitate plan sheet printing for document submission purposes, such as title boxes, notes, and annotations. PLAT A PLAT is a map of a PARCEL. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS PHASE A PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS PHASE is a distinct period in time for the development of a typical highway project, including the phases of planning and programming, preliminary design, design, construction, and postconstruction. PROJECT DOCUMENT A PROJECT DOCUMENT is a mapping that represents the many-to-many relationships between a PROJECT and a DOCUMENT. PROJECT DOCUMENT enables the identification of DOCUMENTS associated with a PROJECT and the identification of PROJECTS associated with a DOCUMENT. PROJECT UTILITY ADJUSTMENT PROCEDURE A PROJECT UTILITY ADJUSTMENT PROCEDURE is an association of a PROJECT with a UTILITY ADJUSTMENT PROCEDURE. The purpose of this association entity is to resolve many-to-many relationships between the two entities. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION A PROPERTY DESCRIPTION is a document that contains the necessary information to locate and survey a piece of property. Property descriptions may include a metes and bounds description and a plat. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION TYPE A PROPERTY DESCRIPTION TYPE is a word or phrase that characterizes a PROPERTY DESCRIPTION. An example of a PROPERTY DESCRIPTION TYPE is “Metes and Bounds.” PROPERTY RIGHT A PROPERTY RIGHT is an entity that provides information about the legal rights of a utility installation that allow it to occupy the land where it is installed. PROPERTY RIGHT CLASS A PROPERTY RIGHT CLASS is a definition of rights associated with a UTILITY FEATURE that provides the utility owner the legal right to occupy land with a utility installation. It is the highest level in the hierarchy of property rights. A PROPERTY RIGHT CLASS provides information about the underlying property rights that enable a utility owner to occupy land—for example, the property rights of a utility company for a utility facility in a particular location on the state ROW. A PROPERTY RIGHT CLASS may have several types to distinguish the property right further. Examples of PROPERTY RIGHT CLASS include “statutory,” “compensable interest,” and “encroachment.” PROPERTY RIGHT SUBTYPE A PROPERTY RIGHT SUBTYPE is a subdivision of a PROPERTY RIGHT TYPE. Examples include “private easement” and “public utility easement” for the PROPERTY RIGHT TYPE “easement.” PROPERTY RIGHT TYPE A PROPERTY RIGHT TYPE is a subdivision of a PROPERTY RIGHT CLASS. A PROPERTY RIGHT TYPE may have several subtypes to distinguish the property right further. Examples include “lease agreement,” “license agreement,” and “easement” for the PROPERTY RIGHT CLASS “compensable interest.” PROPERTY ROLE A PROPERTY ROLE is a role or function that an individual or an agency has with respect to a document that involves the transfer of property rights. Examples of a PROPERTY ROLE are grantor, grantee, lessor, lessee, appraiser, negotiator, and owner. 86

Entity Name Definition RIGHT-OF-WAY PARCEL A RIGHT-OF-WAY PARCEL is a parcel that must be acquired as part of a DOT project. ROLE A ROLE is a function that a SYSTEM USER may perform for a specific project. Examples of a ROLE include “Project Manager,” “Surveyor,” “SUE Provider” and “Utility Coordinator.” ROW FORM A ROW FORM is a document in a standard format that a DOT uses for right-of-way purposes. SELECTION DOT PROJECT A SELECTION DOT PROJECT is a DOT PROJECT selected by a user while this user is managing utility conflicts (add, edit, delete or conflict event). A user can select a DOT PROJECT for adding a new conflict and a different project for editing or deleting a conflict. SELECTION STATE A SELECTION STATE is the STATE selected as current active state. There can be only one selected state at a time. SELECTION UTILITY CONFLICT A SELECTION UTILITY CONFLICT is a UTILITY CONFLICT selected by a user while this user is editing or deleting a conflict or managing utility conflict events. SELECTION UTILITY FACILITY OWNER A SELECTION UTILITY FACILITY OWNER is the utility facility owner selected by a user when this person is adding a new utility conflict. SHEET GROUP A SHEET GROUP is a document category that facilitates plan document grouping. Examples of a SHEET GROUP are typical sections, estimate and quantity sheets, plan and profile, and traffic control plans. STATE A STATE is a political division within the United States. STATE DOT A STATE DOT is a state department of transportation, which is a state government agency in the United States that focuses on providing transportation solutions for the state. SURFACE TYPE A SURFACE TYPE is a category that describes a kind of manmade or natural ground surface. Examples of a SURFACE TYPE are asphalt, concrete, or natural ground. SYSTEM SETTING A SYSTEM SETTING is a system parameter necessary for the operation of the application. SYSTEM USER A SYSTEM USER is an individual who has an account and the authority to use the database. The prototype allows two types of users: DOT USERs and COMPANY USERs. TEST HOLE UTILITY FACILITY A TEST HOLE UTILITY FACILITY is a mapping that represents the many-to-many relationships between a TEST HOLE and a UTILITY FACILITY. TEST HOLE UTILITY FACILITY enables the identification of UTILITY FACILITIES associated with a TEST HOLE and the identification of TEST HOLES associated with a UTILITY FACILITY. UA CONTRACTING PROCEDURE TYPE A UA CONTRACTING WORK PROCEDURE is a description of the work procedure used by a utility to adjust its facility that is part of a UTILITY AGREEMENT in form of an attachment. UA UTILITY ADJUSTMENT TYPE A UA UTILITY ADJUSTMENT TYPE is a method a utility uses to relocate or remove its facility. An example is a contract in which a utility uses the services of a contractor to relocate its facilities. UAP EXCEPTION A UAP EXCEPTION is an exemption to the state's utility accommodation policy. UAP EXCEPTION TYPE A UAP EXCEPTION TYPE is a category that describes a certain kind of UAP EXCEPTION. UNIT A UNIT is a magnitude of a physical quantity. For example, the units feet, inches, and yards are magnitudes of the physical quantity length. The table includes units that are commonly used to measure physical quantities of utility facilities. USER EVENT A USER EVENT is a creation or modification of a SYSTEM USER. 87

Entity Name Definition USER EVENT TYPE A USER EVENT TYPE is a category that describes a certain kind of a USER EVENT transaction. UTILITY ADJUSTMENT PROCEDURE A UTILITY ADJUSTMENT PROCEDURE is a process to accomplish the adjustment and accommodation of reimbursable and nonreimbursable utility facilities on a DOT project. UTILITY AGREEMENT A UTILITY AGREEMENT is a contract between a DOT and other agencies in connection with a utility adjustment. A UTILITY AGREEMENT usually consists of a UTILITY AGREEMENT contract form and several attachments, such as engineering estimate, design drawings, and special provisions. UTILITY AGREEMENT DATE A UTILITY AGREEMENT DATE is the day, month, and year of an event or milestone associated with a UTILITY AGREEMENT. UTILITY AGREEMENT DATE TYPE A UTILITY AGREEMENT DATE TYPE is the characterization of a date or milestone that is associated with the process of completing and approving a UTILITY AGREEMENT. Examples of a UTILITY AGREEMENT DATE TYPE are “Agreement Submittal Date,” “Agreement Returned to Utility for Corrections Date,” and “Agreement Approval or Execution Date.” UTILITY AGREEMENT REIMBURSEMENT APPROACH A UTILITY AGREEMENT REIMBURSEMENT APPROACH is one of three allowable processes selected by a utility owner for reimbursement for costs incurred during the adjustment of a utility facility. The utility's selection is recorded in an attachment that is part of a UTILITY AGREEMENT. UTILITY BILL A UTILITY BILL is a request for payment that a utility submits to a DOT. UTILITY BILL DATE A UTILITY BILL DATE is the day, month, and year of an event or milestone associated with a UTILITY BILL. UTILITY BILL DATE TYPE A UTILITY BILL DATE TYPE is a characterization of a date or milestone that is associated with the process of receiving the request for a utility payment and completing the payment process. Examples of a UTILITY BILL DATE TYPE are “Billing Received from Utility Date,” “Billing sent to HQ Date,” and “Utility Paid in Full Date.” UTILITY BILL TYPE A UTILITY BILL TYPE is a category that describes a certain kind of UTILITY BILL. UTILITY CONFLICT A UTILITY CONFLICT is an instance in which a utility facility is noncompliant with the DOT’s utility accommodation policies, is noncompliant with safety regulations, is in conflict with a proposed transportation project feature, or is in conflict with another utility facility. A UTILITY CONFLICT can be resolved by using an appropriate measure such as modifying the proposed transportation design, relocating the utility facility, abandoning the facility in place, protecting the facility in place, or granting an exception to the state’s utility accommodation polices or safety regulations. UTILITY CONFLICT ADJUSTMENT COST A UTILITY CONFLICT ADJUSTMENT COST is the amount that a utility owner estimates to expend on the removal of a utility conflict by adjusting the utility facility. UTILITY CONFLICT ADJUSTMENT COST TYPE A UTILITY CONFLICT ADJUSTMENT COST TYPE is a characterization of a UTILITY CONFLICT ADJUSTMENT COST. UTILITY CONFLICT ASSIGNMENT A UTILITY CONFLICT ASSIGNMENT is a designation of a person to a UTILITY CONFLICT for a specific purpose, such as responsibility to manage and resolve the conflict. UTILITY CONFLICT EVENT A UTILITY CONFLICT EVENT is the occurrence of a change to a UTILITY CONFLICT. UTILITY CONFLICT EVENT DOCUMENT A UTILITY CONFLICT EVENT DOCUMENT is a mapping between a UTILITY CONFLICT EVENT and a DOCUMENT. 88

Entity Name Definition UTILITY CONFLICT EVENT TYPE A UTILITY CONFLICT EVENT TYPE is a category that describes a certain kind of UTILITY CONFLICT EVENT. UTILITY CONFLICT LOCATION TYPE A UTILITY CONFLICT LOCATION TYPE is a characterization of the location of a utility conflict relative to the surface of the earth. Valid values for a UTILITY CONFLICT LOCATION TYPE are “overhead (aboveground)” and “belowground.” UTILITY CONFLICT PARCEL A UTILITY CONFLICT PARCEL is a mapping between a UTILITY CONFLICT and a RIGHT-OF-WAY PARCEL. It identifies all UTILITY CONFLICTS associated with a RIGHT-OF-WAY PARCEL, and all RIGHT-OF-WAY PARCLELS associated with a UTILITY CONFLICT. As such, the table identifies all RIGHT-OF-WAY PARCELS that are affected by a UTILITY CONFLICT. UTILITY CONFLICT RESOLUTION ALTERNATIVE A UTILITY CONFLICT RESOLUTION ALTERNATIVE is an option to resolve a utility conflict. Typically, there are multiple resolution alternatives for each utility conflict, which may or may not be feasible. UTILITY CONFLICT RESOLUTION ALTERNATIVE DECISION A UTILITY CONFLICT RESOLUTION ALTERNATIVE DECISION is an option for a determination on how to proceed with one of multiple alternatives for the resolution of a utility conflict. Examples of a UTILITY CONFLICT RESOLUTION ALTERNATIVE DECISION are “Rejected,” “Under Review,” and “Selected.” UTILITY CONFLICT RESOLUTION STATUS A UTILITY CONFLICT RESOLUTION STATUS is a definition of the status that a UTILITY CONFLICT can have in the process of resolving the conflict. For example, a UTILITY CONFLICT RESOLUTION STATUS can be “Utility conflict created,” “Utility owner informed of utility conflict,” “Utility conflict resolution strategy selected,” or “Utility conflict resolved.” UTILITY CONFLICT SUBTYPE A UTILITY CONFLICT SUBTYPE is a characterization that further describes a kind of UTILITY CONFLICT TYPE. Examples of a UTILITY CONFLICT SUBTYPE are “Finish Grade,” “Pathway,” and “Excavation.” UTILITY CONFLICT TYPE A UTILITY CONFLICT TYPE is a characterization that describes a kind of UTILITY CONFLICT. Examples of a UTILITY CONFLICT TYPE are “project feature conflict” and “utility regulation conflict.” UTILITY FACILITY A UTILITY FACILITY is a fixed structure or installation used by a utility owner for the purpose of transporting or delivering a utility. UTILITY FACILITY DETAIL A UTILITY FACILITY DETAIL is a record of information about a UTILITY FACILITY. Records in the table FEATURE CLASS ATTRIBUTE define which attributes a utility facility has, and as a result, which columns in UTILITY FACILITY DETAIL can be populated. UTILITY FACILITY FEATURE CLASS A UTILITY FACILITY FEATURE CLASS is a grouping of FEATURES of the same kind that have the same set of attributes. Examples of a FEATURE CLASS are “Communication Line,” “Water Manhole,” and “Electric Pedestal.” UTILITY FACILITY LOCATION TYPE A UTILITY FACILITY LOCATION TYPE is a characterization of the site where a UTILITY FACILITY is located. Examples of UTILITY FACILITY LOCATION TYPE include “State Right-of-Way (Permit),” “Private Easement,” and “Franchise.” UTILITY FACILITY MATERIAL A UTILITY FACILITY MATERIAL is the matter or substance that a UTILITY FACILITY is composed of. UTILITY FACILITY OFFSET A UTILITY FACILITY OFFSET is a description of the distance between a UTILITY FACILITY and a reference line such as edge of pavement or center line. UTILITY FACILITY OPERATION TYPE A UTILITY FACILITY OPERATION TYPE is a characterization of whether the utility company provides services for the public or for a private entity. 89

Entity Name Definition UTILITY INVESTIGATION QUALITY LEVEL A UTILITY INVESTIGATION QUALITY LEVEL is a characterization of the quality and reliability of utility information. Valid values of a UTILITY INVESTIGATION QUALITY LEVEL are “QLD,” “QLC,” “QLB,” and “QLA.” UTILITY INVESTIGATION TEST HOLE A UTILITY INVESTIGATION TEST HOLE is a small opening in the ground, typically made by using a vacuum excavation technique, for the purpose of determining the exact vertical and horizontal position of a buried utility facility. VERTICAL SPATIAL REFERENCE A VERTICAL SPATIAL REFERENCE is a coordinate system that describes the vertical location of a feature. Examples include NAD, 1983 UTM Zone 12N, NAVD 1988, and GCS WGS 1984. Note: LPA = limited partnership agreement; CAD = computer-aided design; DOT = department of transportation; PS&E = plan, specifications, and estimate; ROW = right-of-way; GIS = geographic information system; SUE = subsurface utility engineering; UA = utility agreement; UAP = utility accommodation policy; HQ = headquarters; QLD = quality level D; QLC= quality level C; QLB = quality level B; and QLA = quality level A. 90

APPENDIX B Feature Class Attributes Table B.1 lists the feature class attributes in the utility conflict matrix (UCM) database. Table B.1. Feature Class Attributes Included in the UCM Database Feature Class C om pa ny D es cr ip tio n O pe ra tio n Ty pe L oc at io n T yp e A ge A lig nm en t R ef er en ce In ve st ig at io n Q ua lit y L ev el H or iz on ta l S pa tia l R ef er en ce V er tic al S pa tia l R ef er en ce H or iz on ta l P os iti on al A cc ur ac y V er tic al P os iti on al A cc ur ac y M at er ia l D ep th D ia m et er Si ze D uc t M at er ia l D uc t S iz e W id th L en gt h H ei gh t B ar re l D ia m et er B ar re l H ei gh t Fo un da tio n D ep th Fo un da tio n W id th C at ho di c Pr ot ec tio n Fl ag Communication Duct Bank x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Communication Guy x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Communication Handhole x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Communication Junction Box x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Communication Line x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Communication Manhole x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Communication Pedestal x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Communication Pole x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Communication Pull Box x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Communication Push Brace x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Communication Splice Enclosure x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Communication Tracer Wire Protector x x x x x x x x x x x x x Communication Vault x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Electric Duct Bank x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Electric Grounding Grid x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Electric Guy x x x x x x x x x x x x x Electric Handhole x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Electric Junction Box x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Electric Line x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Electric Manhole x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Electric Pedestal x x x x x x x x x x x x x Electric Pole x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Electric Pull Box x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 91

Feature Class C om pa ny D es cr ip tio n O pe ra tio n Ty pe L oc at io n T yp e A ge A lig nm en t R ef er en ce In ve st ig at io n Q ua lit y L ev el H or iz on ta l S pa tia l R ef er en ce V er tic al S pa tia l R ef er en ce H or iz on ta l P os iti on al A cc ur ac y V er tic al P os iti on al A cc ur ac y M at er ia l D ep th D ia m et er Si ze D uc t M at er ia l D uc t S iz e W id th L en gt h H ei gh t B ar re l D ia m et er B ar re l H ei gh t Fo un da tio n D ep th Fo un da tio n W id th C at ho di c Pr ot ec tio n Fl ag Electric Push Brace x x x x x x x x x x x x x Electric Transformer x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Electric Vault x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Gas Compressor Station x x x x x x x x x x x x x Gas Custody Transfer Station x x x x x x x x x x x x x Gas Line x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Gas Metering Station x x x x x x x x x x x x x Gas Pressure Reducing Station x x x x x x x x x x x x x Gas Valve x x x x x x x x x x x x Gas Vent x x x x x x x x x x x x Miscellaneous Line x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Miscellaneous Point x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Nonpotable Water x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Nonpotable Water Line x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Petroleum Custody Transfer Station x x x x x x x x x x x x x Petroleum Line x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Petroleum Metering Station x x x x x x x x x x x x x Petroleum Pressure Reducing Station x x x x x x x x x x x x x Petroleum Valve x x x x x x x x x x x x Sanitary Sewer Cleanout x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 92

Feature Class C om pa ny D es cr ip tio n O pe ra tio n Ty pe L oc at io n T yp e A ge A lig nm en t R ef er en ce In ve st ig at io n Q ua lit y L ev el H or iz on ta l S pa tia l R ef er en ce V er tic al S pa tia l R ef er en ce H or iz on ta l P os iti on al A cc ur ac y V er tic al P os iti on al A cc ur ac y M at er ia l D ep th D ia m et er Si ze D uc t M at er ia l D uc t S iz e W id th L en gt h H ei gh t B ar re l D ia m et er B ar re l H ei gh t Fo un da tio n D ep th Fo un da tio n W id th C at ho di c Pr ot ec tio n Fl ag Sanitary Sewer Line x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Sanitary Sewer Manhole x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Sanitary Sewer Pump Station x x x x x x x x x x x x x Sanitary Sewer Thrust Block x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Sanitary Sewer Valve x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Steam Line x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Steam Valve x x x x x x x x x x x x x Sump Pit x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Utility Tunnel x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Utility Warning Sign x x x x x x x x x x x x x Water Hydrant x x x x x x x x x x x x Water Line x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Water Manhole x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Water Pump Station x x x x x x x x x x x x x Water Thrust Block x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Water Valve x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Wet Well x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 93