Identification of Utility Conflicts and Solutions (2012)

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.

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2012 www.TRB.org The Second S T R A T E G I C H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M REPORT S2-R15B-RW-1 Identification of Utility Conflicts and Solutions Cesar Quiroga and edgar Kraus Texas A&M Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University System Paul sCott Cardno TBE tom swafford and PhiliP meis Utility Mapping Services gary monday Ash Engineering

Subscriber Categories Data and Information Technology Highways Maintenance and Preservation Planning and Forecasting

SHRP 2 Reports Available by subscription and through the TRB online bookstore: www.TRB.org/bookstore Contact the TRB Business Office: 202-334-3213 More information about SHRP 2: www.TRB.org/SHRP2 SHRP 2 Report S2-R15B-RW-1 ISBN: 978-0-309-12928-2 © 2012 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Copyright Information Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copy- right to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. The second Strategic Highway Research Program grants permission to repro- duce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, or FHWA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing material in this docu- ment for educational and not-for-profit purposes will give appropriate acknowl- edgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from SHRP 2. Note: SHRP 2 report numbers convey the program, focus area, project number, and publication format. Report numbers ending in “w” are published as web documents only. Notice The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the second Strategic Highway Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical committee and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the second Strategic Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. The Second Strategic Highway Research Program America’s highway system is critical to meeting the mobility and economic needs of local communities, regions, and the nation. Developments in research and technology—such as advanced materials, communications technology, new data collection technologies, and human factors science—offer a new opportunity to improve the safety and reliability of this important national resource. Breakthrough resolution of sig - nificant transportation problems, however, requires concen- trated resources over a short time frame. Reflecting this need, the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) has an intense, large-scale focus, integrates multiple fields of research and technology, and is fundamentally different from the broad, mission-oriented, discipline-based research pro - grams that have been the mainstay of the highway research industry for half a century. The need for SHRP 2 was identified in TRB Special Report 260: Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life, published in 2001 and based on a study sponsored by Congress through the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). SHRP 2, modeled after the first Strategic Highway Research Program, is a focused, time- constrained, management-driven program designed to com- plement existing highway research programs. SHRP 2 focuses on applied research in four areas: Safety, to prevent or reduce the severity of highway crashes by understanding driver behav- ior; Renewal, to address the aging infrastructure through rapid design and construction methods that cause minimal disrup- tions and produce lasting facilities; Reliability, to reduce con- gestion through incident reduction, management, response, and mitigation; and Capacity, to integrate mobility, economic, environmental, and community needs in the planning and designing of new transportation capacity. SHRP 2 was authorized in August 2005 as part of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The program is managed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) on behalf of the National Research Council (NRC). SHRP 2 is conducted under a memorandum of understanding among the American Associa- tion of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the National Academy of Sciences, parent organization of TRB and NRC. The program provides for competitive, merit-based selection of research contractors; independent research project oversight; and dissemination of research results.

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

SHRP 2 Staff Ann M. Brach, Director Stephen J. Andrle, Deputy Director Neil J. Pedersen, Deputy Director, Implementation and Communications Kizzy Anderson, Senior Program Assistant, Implementation James Bryant, Senior Program Officer, Renewal Kenneth Campbell, Chief Program Officer, Safety JoAnn Coleman, Senior Program Assistant, Capacity and Reliability Eduardo Cusicanqui, Finance Officer Walter Diewald, Senior Program Officer, Safety Jerry DiMaggio, Implementation Coordinator Charles Fay, Senior Program Officer, Safety Carol Ford, Senior Program Assistant, Renewal and Safety Elizabeth Forney, Assistant Editor Jo Allen Gause, Senior Program Officer, Capacity Abdelmename Hedhli, Visiting Professional James Hedlund, Special Consultant, Safety Coordination Alyssa Hernandez, Reports Coordinator Ralph Hessian, Special Consultant, Capacity and Reliability Andy Horosko, Special Consultant, Safety Field Data Collection William Hyman, Senior Program Officer, Reliability Michael Marazzi, Senior Editorial Assistant Linda Mason, Communications Officer Matthew Miller, Program Officer, Capacity and Reliability Michael Miller, Senior Program Assistant, Capacity and Reliability David Plazak, Senior Program Officer, Capacity Monica Starnes, Senior Program Officer, Renewal Charles Taylor, Special Consultant, Renewal Onno Tool, Visiting Professional Dean Trackman, Managing Editor Pat Williams, Administrative Assistant Connie Woldu, Administrative Coordinator Patrick Zelinski, Communications Specialist

aCKNOWLEDGMENtS This work was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration in cooperation with the American Associa- tion of State Highway and Transportation Officials. It was conducted in the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2), which is administered by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. The project was managed by Charles Taylor, Special Consultant for SHRP 2 Renewal. The research reported herein was performed by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI), Texas A&M University System, in collaboration with Cardno TBE, Utility Mapping Services (UMS), and Ash Engineering. TTI was the prime contractor for this study, with the Texas A&M Research Foundation serving as fiscal admin- istrator. Cesar Quiroga, PhD, PE, research engineer at TTI, was the principal investigator. The other authors of this report are Edgar Kraus, PE, associate research engineer at TTI; Paul Scott, PE, national utilities liaison at Cardno TBE; Tom Swafford, utility coordination operations manager at UMS; Philip Meis, PE, principal engineer and vice president at UMS; and Gary Monday, vice president at Ash Engineering. Many individuals and agencies played a critical role throughout the research, and the research team is thank- ful for their contribution. Jeff Baker and Jun Birnkammer with the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) provided sample materials and helpful recommendations for the development of the training materi- als. Suzette Shellooe with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) provided valuable insights and useful sample project documentation. Nick Zembillas of Cardno TBE provided valuable feedback, as well as suggestions and edits to improve the quality of the manuscript. The research team is thankful for the feedback provided by state DOT officials throughout the country who spent time answering the online survey and meeting with members of the research team. Caltrans, GDOT, and the Texas Department of Transporta- tion (TxDOT) hosted work sessions, which also involved consultants and utility owner representatives. The research team is thankful for the feedback, ideas, and suggestions provided by these agencies during the work sessions. The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department and the South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT), particularly through the leadership of Perry Johnston and Dave Hausmann, respec- tively, hosted pilot sessions for the utility conflict matrix (UCM) training course and provided critical feedback to improve the quality of the training materials. This report includes materials provided by the following agencies with their permission: Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Caltrans, Florida DOT, GDOT, Louisiana Department of Transporta- tion and Development, Michigan DOT, Minnesota DOT, Missouri DOT, SDDOT, TxDOT, Virginia DOT, Washington State DOT, and Wyoming DOT. The contents in this publication reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the agencies that provided the materials.

This report provides comprehensive, optimized concepts and procedures for identifying and resolving utility conflicts that public agency and utility professionals can use to improve the highway project development process. The tools developed include utility conflict matrices (UCMs) that enable users to organize, track, and manage the conflicts that frequently arise when utility lines are under highways. Two critical factors that contribute to inefficiencies in the highway project development process are the lack of accurate, complete information about utility facilities that might be in conflict with the project and the resolution and overall management of those conflicts. When utility relocation is involved, construction generally takes longer and costs more. Identifying and resolving potential utility conflicts early in the design process can minimize these delays and costs. Procedures involving the use of UCMs vary widely across the country. This project began with the documentation of these procedures and then developed optimized UCM concepts and techniques. The major research activities were the review of current practice; the devel- opment and testing of an optimized UCM concept; the development of a 1-day training course to instruct end users on how to use the optimized concept and tools; and conducting the training for two state DOTs to fine-tune the course. In addition, strategies and guidelines were developed that include specific steps to start and continue implementation. The opti- mized UCM techniques include a prototype stand-alone UCM in Microsoft Excel that has a main utility conflict table and a supporting worksheet to analyze utility conflict resolution strategies. Project products also include a prototype utility conflict data model and database. This stand-alone product is a scalable UCM that enables the management of conflicts in a database environment. The users of the research products are the stakeholders who are involved in utility coordina- tion throughout the process of highway transportation projects. The three main groups of stake- holders are public-sector agencies, private-sector consultants, and utility owners. Public-sector agencies include state DOTs, local public agencies (cities and counties), the Federal Highway Administration, and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Within these agencies, stakeholders include those responsible for transportation planning, environmental clearance, preliminary design, right-of-way acquisition, utility activi- ties, design, and construction. Private-sector consultants include design consultants, utility consultants, and subsurface utility engineering consultants. Utility owners include owners and operators of privately, publicly, or cooperatively owned utility facilities or systems. F O R EWO R D Charles Taylor, SHRP 2 Special Consultant, Renewal

C O N T E N T S 1 Executive Summary 3 CHaPtER 1 Introduction 5 CHaPtER 2 State Practices 5 Introduction 5 Survey and Follow-Up Interviews 5 Survey Results 10 Interview Results 16 CHaPtER 3 Development of Prototype Stand-Alone UCM 16 Introduction 16 Sample Utility Conflict Data Analysis 16 Merge of Sample Document Data and Survey Results 17 Prototype Stand-Alone UCM 19 Using the Prototype Stand-Alone UCM 24 CHaPtER 4 Prototype UCM Database Design and Testing 24 Introduction 24 Data Architecture Definitions 24 Business Process Model 25 Conceptual Model 26 Logical Data Model 27 Physical Data Model 29 Prototype Database Testing 38 Advantages of a Database Approach 42 CHaPtER 5 Work Sessions in California, Georgia, and Texas 42 Introduction 42 Feedback and UCM Changes 44 CHaPtER 6 Training Materials 44 Introduction 44 Lesson Plan 44 Companion Training Materials 44 Pilot Training Sessions 50 CHaPtER 7 Implementation Guidelines 50 Introduction 50 Research Products 50 Audience or Market for the Products 51 Impediments to Successful Implementation 54 Research Product Leaders (Champions) 54 Activities Necessary for Successful Implementation 56 Criteria for Judging Implementation Progress and Consequences of Implementation

57 Chapter 8 Conclusions and Recommendations 57 Conclusions 60 Recommendations 62 Research Needs 63 References 64 Appendix A. Survey Questions 70 Appendix B. Review of State Practices 126 Appendix C. Logical Data Model Subject Areas 136 Appendix D. Prototype Database Queries