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.

50 C h a p t e r 7 Introduction This chapter contains implementation guidelines that describe strategies and an implementation plan to promote application of the research products. The implementation guidelines address the following topics: • Research products; • Audience or market for the products; • Assessment of impediments to successful implementation; • Research product leaders (or champions); • Activities necessary for successful implementation; and • Criteria for judging the progress and consequences of implementation. research products The products resulting from this research include the following: • Prototype stand-alone UCM (i.e., Prototype 1). This stand- alone product in Microsoft Excel includes a main utility conflict table and a supporting worksheet to analyze utility conflict resolution strategies. • Prototype utility conflict data model and database (i.e., Proto- type 2). This stand-alone product is a scalable UCM repre- sentation that facilitates managing utility conflicts in a database environment. To facilitate implementation, the research team used industry-standard protocols for the development of the data model (including a logical model, a physical model, and a data dictionary). The data model is in AllFusion ERwin Data Modeler format, which can be eas- ily exported to formats such as Oracle and SQL Server. The data model was tested using sample utility conflict tables from across the country. • Training materials. This stand-alone product includes a lesson plan and presentation materials to assist with the dissemination of research findings. The 1-day UCM train- ing course is divided into six lessons, designed for a total of 7 hours and 15 minutes of instruction. The seminar pro- vides numerous opportunities for participant interaction and allows the instructor to adjust session and lesson start times and durations depending on the audience and the level of participant engagement in the discussions. The training materials use NHI standards and templates. • Implementation guidelines. This product contains strate- gies and an implementation plan to promote application of the research products. The implementation guidelines address topics such as audience or market for the prod- ucts, assessment of impediments to successful imple- mentation, research product leaders (or champions), activities necessary for successful implementation, and criteria for judging the progress and consequences of implementation. audience or Market for the products The audience for the research products is the stakeholders who are involved in utility coordination throughout the development process of transportation projects. Because util- ity conflicts can affect transportation projects from project concept to project completion, the expected audience for the research products is potentially large. This audience includes three main groups of stakeholders, as follows: • Public sector (project owners). Agencies that may be inter- ested in the research products include FHWA, AASHTO, state DOTs, and local public agencies (cities and counties). Within these agencies, groups of interest would include groups responsible for transportation planning, environ- mental clearance, preliminary design, right-of-way acqui- sition, utility activities, design (including PS&E), and construction. Project owners are expected to play a number Implementation Guidelines

51 menting a UCM protocol consistently and thoroughly is more important than which individual data elements to include in a UCM. • A state DOT might use computer systems that contain dif- ferent data elements from those included in the prototype UCM. An example of this situation is a state DOT that has a project management system in place that uses different table names from those used in the prototype. This issue is not critical because many of the tables in the prototype utility conflict database, particularly those tables that pro- vide connections to other business processes, are actually placeholders that could be easily replaced with actual table names that the state DOT already uses. • A state DOT does not use SUE to collect utility data. This issue is not critical for implementing a UCM approach. Although collecting quality utility data using SUE protocols is highly advisable when warranted, none of the data ele- ments in the UCM are mandatory. As a result, a state DOT could decide to leave those fields blank. Readers should note that not collecting quality utility data increases the level of risk for a project owner, but this increased level of risk does not invalidate the use of a UCM approach for managing conflicts. In fact, the agency could use a UCM approach over time to help document the impact of not collecting quality utility data. • A state DOT does not have the ability in place to evaluate the feasibility of individual utility conflict resolution strat- egies, including costs. This is an important issue, but, as with the lack of quality utility data, a state DOT could actu- ally use a UCM approach over time to help document the impact resulting from not having the ability to examine alternative conflict resolution strategies reliably. Overall, the research team’s assessment is that the required technology-based tools and knowledge needed to implement the research findings successfully are already in place at most, if not all, state DOTs. First, UCMs are widely used, although perhaps not in a standardized way or throughout the project development process. Second, even in the case of an enterprise- level implementation of the prototype utility conflict database, the reality is that server-based applications are now common- place. Judging from the successful results of implementing UCMs in some states (e.g., Georgia) and the positive feedback from representatives at other state DOTs (e.g., Arkansas and South Dakota), the research team’s conclusion is that imple- menting UCMs around the country is technically feasible. Economic and Financial Challenges The implementation of the research findings might fail if the perceived costs associated with the implementation exceed the benefits that stakeholders would receive or if the of roles with respect to the research products, including user, developer, manager, and steward. • Private sector (consultants and contractors). Groups that may be interested in the research products include design consul- tants, utility consultants, subsurface utility engineering (SUE) consultants, highway contractors, and utility contrac- tors involved in utility coordination activities between con- flict elimination stakeholders. Consultants and contractors are expected to play a user role, although, depending on their relationship with project owners, they could also be developers or managers. • Utility owners. Groups that may be interested in the research products include owners and operators of privately, pub- licly, or cooperatively owned utility facilities or systems. Examples of facilities or systems include those used for pro- ducing, transmitting, or distributing communications, cable television, power, electricity, light, heat, gas, oil, crude products, drinkable water, steam, and wastewater. Strictly speaking, owners or operators of facilities or systems such as storm water drainage not connected with highway drain- age, fire control, police signal systems, or street lighting sys- tems could also be interested in the products of the research. Utility owners are expected to play a user role. Impediments to Successful Implementation The research team conducted an analysis of impediments that might hinder the successful implementation of the research findings. For convenience, the potential impediments are grouped into four categories: technical challenges, economic and financial challenges, stakeholder buy-in and consensus challenges, and policy challenges. Subsequent sections outline potential champions and strategies to address the impediments described in this section. Technical Challenges The research team examined technological limitations, hard- ware and software incompatibilities, and other technical challenges that might impede implementation of the research findings. Examples of potential technical challenges include the following: • Different districts within a state DOT might already use UCMs that contain different data elements from those included in the prototype UCM. This issue is not critical because, although the prototype table contains 25 data ele- ments, the data model and prototype database include more than 140 data elements from which a suitable set could be selected and integrated into a UCM that addresses the need of that state DOT. It is worth noting that imple-

52 tive level). Communications and negotiations with utility owners might be warranted to identify strategies and solu- tions that work for both parties. Overall, the research team’s assessment is that implementa- tion of the research findings can pay for itself within a short period of time. Increasing evidence from around the country, some of which has been described elsewhere in this report or the training materials, indicates that ignoring utility conflicts during the project development process can be costly, and designing a project to minimize utility conflicts can save thousands of dollars. As an illustration, consider the follow- ing real-world examples: • Bridge designers realized during construction that slightly modifying the horizontal alignment of the bridge would have avoided utility impacts without affecting the right-of- way or the construction phase. The numerous affected utility facilities were relocated at a cost of $5 million, which could have been avoided. • In a rural area, a conflict with an existing 69-kV corner pole was detected at 30% design. Relocating the pole would have cost around $60,000. Timely coordination and redesign of the transportation facility around the pole made it unnecessary to relocate the pole. The total cost, which included building an approach to the pole for maintenance purposes, was $3,000 (for which the utility owner paid). • For an interstate highway project, widening the highway required raising the embankment by 50 to 60 feet. The state DOT expected significant soil settlement, which would have affected existing major gas and water facilities in the area. The state DOT was able to avoid costly utility reloca- tions by using a foam layer and a concrete cap to protect the existing utility installations in-place. Stakeholder Buy-In and Consensus Challenges The opportunity to implement the research findings will increase with the degree of consensus among stakeholders. Conversely, the implementation of the research findings might fail if there is no stakeholder buy-in or consensus about the potential benefits that could result from the implementa- tion. Examples of potential challenges include the following: • Some stakeholders, such as utility coordinators, might see benefit in implementing the research products, but other stakeholders, such as designers, might be skeptical. • Critical champions at FHWA, AASHTO, or SHRP 2 might decide that implementing the research products is not critical or strategically important. stakeholders do not perceive economic benefits from the implementation. Examples of economic and financial chal- lenges include the following: • A state DOT does not have the financial resources to imple- ment the research findings. This is an important issue, par- ticularly at a time when most state DOTs are facing severe budgetary constraints. Various strategies are possible to address this issue, some of which are outlined in subsequent sections. Readers should note that the three main products of the research (Prototype 1, Prototype 2, and training materials) require different financial commitment levels for their implementation. Prototype 1 is perhaps the most afford- able product (in its most basic form, it would simply imply requiring the use of a standardized UCM), followed by dis- semination of the training materials. The cost to imple- ment Prototype 2 would be relatively low if a state DOT decides to implement the stand-alone database produced during the research. The cost would be higher for an enter- prise-level implementation (although the benefits would also be considerably higher). • Project managers or districts within a state DOT might not perceive tangible economic benefits from implementing a UCM approach. This is an important issue, for which an obvious counterstrategy is to document and disseminate lessons learned from study cases in which UCM approaches are used. Realistically, however, documenting and disseminating lessons learned is not sufficient. Not managing utility con- flicts effectively increases the level of risk for a project owner, which in turn can have significant negative eco- nomic repercussions. However, the compartmentalized structure at most state DOTs (with handoffs at critical mile- stones, such as beginning of design, letting, and construc- tion) hinders accountability and internalization of risks. Strategies to address this issue in the context of this research include using UCMs with control dates (to ensure the UCM is a living document) and beginning their use early in the project development process. • Project managers might decide not to use (or to stop using) a UCM approach because of the perception that total proj- ect costs for the agency will increase if the frequency of design-around-the-conflict situations increases, effectively reducing the need for required utility relocations for which utility owners must pay. This important issue is clearly related to which agency internalizes which costs. Ultimately, society pays for all public works within the right-of-way, either in the form of taxes or utility rates. Notwithstanding the need to evaluate each utility conflict on its own, evalu- ating total project costs and their implications should be addressed at the appropriate agency level (including execu-

53 area of the project development process that has long been characterized as needing attention. In the case of utility owners, the research team’s assessment is that these stakeholders are neutral with respect to the potential benefits that a UCM approach can provide. They do not necessarily see the short-term benefit of using a table (or a formalized process around that table) to manage utility conflicts, but they would not object to its use. Feedback from utility owner representatives indicates that utility owners tend to see UCMs as an internal process to state DOTs with which they need to interact only on request. As a minimum, utility owners would expect UCMs not to add burden or red tape to their interaction with state DOTs. If the new process provides benefits, its chances of accep- tance will increase. Based on previous work, the research team is aware that utility owners, like most other organiza- tions, tend to embrace technologies and processes that have a positive impact on their bottom line—that is, translate into savings in money or time. The information presented in this report strongly suggests that utility owners would not lose and, on the contrary, could realize significant economic ben- efits from an implementation of the research findings. Policy Challenges The implementation of the research findings might fail if required policies fail or do not fully support the use of a UCM approach. Examples of policy challenges include the following: • Although a state DOT might see the value of implementing a UCM approach, it does not formalize or document its use in manuals such as utility, project development process, and design manuals. Describing the use of the UCM approach in agency procedural documents is an effective way to ensure its implementation. • Despite written documents that describe or require a UCM approach, state DOT officials do not actively monitor its use or continue its development. The value of a UCM approach is directly proportional to the agency’s willingness to use it in daily practice, as well as maintain it and continue its development over time. • A state DOT might not use the UCM approach consis- tently throughout the project development process. For example, a project manager might use a UCM to identify and manage utility conflicts during the design phase, but the PS&E assembly does not include a utility certification listing all pending utility relocations. In a similar situation, the utility certification might provide a simple list of pend- ing utility relocations, but not include additional critical information (which the agency has already compiled in a UCM) that prospective bidders would need to prepare proposals that properly reflect the level of risk with which they are willing to work. The research team’s assessment is that, when presented with information such as training materials or PowerPoint presen- tations describing the research and its findings, state DOT offi- cials will overwhelmingly support implementing the research products. Throughout the research, members of the research team met repeatedly with stakeholders, such as utility coordi- nators, project managers, designers, area and district engineers, and directors. Almost without exception, the feedback received was that the state DOT would benefit greatly from implement- ing the research findings. Degree of acceptance (i.e., stakeholder buy-in) varied with the research product. Most stakeholders saw considerable potential in implementing the prototype stand-alone UCM (Prototype 1), particularly its potential uses with other ele- ments, such as timely communication between designers and utility coordinators, timely coordination with utility owners, and adequate collection of utility data. The prototype UCM and the training materials addressed this need by placing the UCM approach within an integrated framework that encour- ages communication and coordination and uses enough data elements to facilitate follow-up and monitoring during the project development process. In contrast, stakeholders who did not understand databases or computer systems were somewhat skeptical of the proto- type utility conflict data model and database (Prototype 2). Those who were more knowledgeable about systems appreci- ated the benefit that an automated approach for managing utility conflicts could provide their agency. These stakeholders also understood the potential for generating a wide range of queries and reports, as well as the ability to document and manage utility conflicts effectively in conjunction with other computerized systems their agency already had in place. Acceptance of the training materials was overwhelmingly positive. In general, utility coordinators and other officials who deal with utility issues on a daily basis noted that the training materials validated concerns they had for years about the need for more effective coordination and management of utility conflicts. They also saw in the UCM approach a formal- ized process to help them manage utility conflicts more effec- tively and to provide better feedback to the design process. Some project managers and designers were skeptical at first (probably influenced by the traditional assumption in high- way design that utility facilities in conflict should move), but after attending the pilot training session, they understood the benefit of adopting a UCM approach to help them address utility conflicts more effectively. The research team’s assessment is that private-sector stake- holders (i.e., consultants and contractors) will strongly sup- port implementing the research findings because the UCM approach will help them provide a better service to their cli- ents (i.e., state DOTs). These stakeholders also see the UCM approach as an opportunity to help bring innovation to an

54 • Identify measurable implementation targets and funding mechanisms for the implementation of the UCM and related processes at one or more state DOTs. • Monitor the progress of the UCM implementation. Possi- ble activities to monitor progress would be frequent meet- ings and updates at critical milestones. More specifically, the following steps should take place to start and continue the implementation of the research products: • Establish an implementation team as soon as possible. Research product champions should be engaged as members of the team and should include one or more representatives of agencies such as FHWA, AASHTO, state DOTs, the private sector, and utility-related committees. Communication channels with other stakeholders should be established and maintained during all phases of the implementation process. The implementation team should first familiarize itself with the UCM approach developed during the research. At a minimum, this activity should include discussions with the research team and participation in a training session similar to the Arkansas and South Dakota pilot presen- tations. This training session should take place within 2 months of starting the implementation. Once familiar with the research products, and within 3 months of starting the implementation, the implementa- tion team should identify the following: 44 Major progress milestones. 44 Measurable implementation targets. 44 One or more states willing to undertake immediately a pilot project to implement the UCM and its processes. Steps to begin this implementation should be taken. These early implementation projects will be effective vehicles to use during the training courses (see below) when encour- aging other states to implement the research products. 44 Funding mechanisms for the implementation of the UCM and related processes at state DOTs. The present research came about in response to a pressing need throughout the country for the optimization of the management of utility conflicts. State DOTs recognize this need (as indicated by the positive feedback received during the pilot training sessions in Arkansas and South Dakota), but some states might be slow to embrace this new process on their own. Likely reasons for this reluctance include the state of the economy and an unwillingness by some stakeholders to change traditional practices. Therefore, it will be essential for the implementation team to actively promote the use of the research findings. Promotion will require funding. Finally, members of the implementation team should discuss actions they can take within their own agencies to obtain help in promoting the UCM and its processes. This may include promotion with upper management, help with Overall, the research team’s assessment is that with the cor- rect policies in place, it should be possible to implement stan- dardized processes for UCMs nationwide. The following sections outline champions and activities, many of them pol- icy related, to promote application of the research products. research product Leaders (Champions) Stakeholders who will take a leadership role in the implemen- tation of the research results will be those who expect the greatest benefits. The research team believes champions at the federal and state levels and in the private sector will be needed for successful implementation of the research products. FHWA, for example, has broad responsibility to ensure that the country’s roads and highways are safe and technologically up to date. The UCM approach developed as part of the pres- ent research could be an effective tool to assist with FHWA strategies in the area of utilities, such as those promoted by the Every Day Counts initiative. One of the initiative’s purposes is to highlight existing flexibilities in federal laws, regulations, and policies to expedite and improve the accommodation or relocation of utility facilities through effective and innovative use of agreements, reimbursements and incentives, and con- struction provisions. State DOTs that are already using UCMs to great advantage, or soon will be, could take a leadership role by sharing success stories and technical information with peers at national con- ferences and meetings or by networking with their counter- parts in other states. AASHTO technical committees could also play a role in encouraging state DOTs to implement the research products. Private-sector stakeholders are expected to acquire the research products for the benefit of their clients, particularly in the case of roadway and utility design consultants, contrac- tors, utility coordinators, and SUE providers. Organizations such as the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Ameri- can Public Works Association, consultant and contractor associations, and utility coordinating councils could also encourage their members and constituents to implement the research products. activities Necessary for Successful Implementation At a high level, the following steps should ensure the success- ful implementation of the research products: • Engage the research product champions early, identify major progress milestones, and maintain good communi- cation channels with the various stakeholders during all phases of the implementation process.

55 This activity is continuous, but for implementation monitoring purposes, it is assumed to occur within 24 months after starting the implementation. 44 For Prototype 2, implementation could take place at the administrative unit level that deals with utility conflicts on a daily basis (e.g., district level) or at a headquarters level, depending on whether the agency chooses a stand- alone database approach or an enterprise-level database approach. A stand-alone database approach would be appropriate if a state DOT does not have the resources to invest in an enterprise-level system or if it decides to first test the prototype locally to see if a statewide implementa- tion would be feasible. Either way, it would be necessary to develop some basic user interfaces, queries, and reports because the prototype developed during the research focused primarily on the data model and sample queries to replicate tables provided by a sample of states from across the country. To ensure success with this implementation, the state DOT should assemble an agencywide task force com- posed of members such as utility coordinators, designers, and IT personnel to plan and monitor the implementa- tion process as well as identify needs (e.g., in connection with specific system requirements, as well as training and outreach activities). The state DOT should also introduce modifications to its utility, project development process, and design manuals to incorporate the UCM process. This activity is continuous, but for implementation monitoring purposes, it is assumed to occur within 36 months after starting the implementation. 44 An alternative (or complementary) implementation path for Prototype 2 would be for several states to pool funds to develop a system to automate the management of utility conflicts using as a foundation the data model developed during the research. The research team believes this implementation path is technically feasible because the series of queries and reports developed for Prototype 2 to replicate the tables provided by a sample of states used the same data model and the same database. A single data model would not merely facilitate the development of a single system; it would also facilitate the development of queries and reports that satisfy the varying needs of a wide range of states. To facilitate this implementation path, the research team used industry-standard protocols for the develop- ment of the data model (including a logical model, a phys- ical model, and a data dictionary). The data model is in AllFusion ERwin Data Modeler format, which can be eas- ily exported to other formats, including a variety of physi- cal model implementations such as Oracle or SQL Server. This activity is continuous, but for implementation monitoring purposes, it is assumed to occur within 36 months after starting the implementation. funding, outreach to clients, and presentations at confer- ences and meetings. This activity is continuous, but should take place primarily within the first 12 months after starting the implementation. • Conduct a series of UCM training courses at several inter- ested state DOTs. This activity should be completed within 6 months after starting the implementation. The UCM training materials were developed using NHI standards and templates. These templates incorporate adult learning principles and have been tested and used at NHI for many years, which will facilitate implementing the training materials at the conclusion of the research (e.g., if FHWA or AASHTO wanted to convert the materials into an NHI course). The transition of the UCM training course to a long-term training mechanism could occur at any time, but for implementation monitoring purposes, it is assumed to take place between 6 and 18 months after starting the implementation. • In conjunction with work being done by the implemen- tation team, the UCM training course should be pre- sented at as many state DOTs as possible. One of the critical observations made as part of the current research is that there is a huge need across the United States for improvement and optimization of utility conflict pro- cesses. Providing the initial presentations at state DOTs (see previous bullet entry) will only be a preliminary step in addressing this huge need. Maintaining momen- tum will be critical, and perhaps the most effective way to accomplish this objective will be to promote the UCM approach by conducting UCM training courses through- out the country. This activity should be completed within 18 months after starting the implementation. • In addition to the training component described above, the research team expects two implementation paths (and corresponding plans) for the UCM and related processes, depending on the level of implementation individual state DOTs decide to pursue. 44 For Prototype 1, implementation can take place directly at the administrative unit level (e.g., district level) that deals with utility conflicts on a daily basis. The research team expects little or no involvement by information technology (IT) personnel because Prototype 1 is a stand- alone spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel format. To ensure success with this implementation, the state DOT should assemble an agencywide task force composed of personnel such as utility coordinators and designers to plan and monitor the implementation pro- cess as well as identify needs (e.g., in connection with training and outreach activities). The state DOT should also introduce modifications to its utility, project devel- opment process, and design manuals to incorporate the UCM process.

56 • Degree of acceptance by state DOTs of the UCM process; • Number of states that have developed utility management systems that include UCM concepts; • Demand for and degree of acceptance of the training materials; • Number of states that have conducted UCM training courses; • Number of state DOT officials, by function category (e.g., utility coordination, preliminary design, design), who have attended a UCM training course; • Reduction in the number of, and dollar amount associated with, unnecessary utility relocations; • Reduction in the number of, and dollar amount associated with, utility-related change orders or claims; and • Number of states that use UCMs to produce utility certifi- cations within their PS&E assemblies. • Progress of the UCM implementation should be moni- tored by activities such as frequent meetings of the imple- mentation team and updates at critical milestones. This activity is continuous. Figure 7.1 shows a preliminary schedule of the activities described above. Criteria for Judging Implementation progress and Consequences of Implementation The research team identified the following criteria or perfor- mance measure elements for evaluating the effectiveness of the implementation of the research products: Figure 7.1. Expected implementation schedule.