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.
5It is customary for states to extend the use of highway rights- of-way (ROWs) to utility companies to save public resources and serve the public interest. As both highway and utility needs for additional space increase, competition for that available space results. Departments of transportation (DOTs) manage that competition through internal, state, and federal regula- tions, policies, and procedures. Many states believe that they give utilities adequate con- sideration in their highway designs. Even so, utilities remain a leading cause of delays to highway projects. Such projects are often designed with little or no consideration of utilities. As a result, utilities are routinely relocated, frequently at great expense and often unnecessarily. With the ever-increasing cost and time required to relocate utilities, another option is to leave utilities in place and design the roadway to avoid utility conflicts. This approach can result in roadway design changes that significantly increase the cost and lengthen the schedule for completion of the project. To avoid these problems and reach a balance of all needs it is desirable to have early coor- dination between utilities and designers, best information on utility location, and a sound decision-making process. This study explores current practices in use by transporta- tion agencies for consideration of utilities during the project development process, including where in the process the util- ity impacts are assessed and relocation decisions are made; what policies, regulations, manuals, and guidelines are used; and how design decisions are influenced by utilities. The study includes both below-ground and above-ground utilities. Information gathered for this study included: ⢠How and when the decision is made to either relocate utilities or design around them. ⢠Practices for gathering underground and above-ground utility information. ⢠How designers evaluate and incorporate utility infor- mation into the project development process. ⢠Barriers to the use of utility information in the project development process. Information was acquired through a literature review, sur- vey, and interviews. The survey (see Appendix B) was dis- tributed in 2009 to the DOTs of the 50 states, Puerto Rico, District of Columbia, and 9 Canadian provinces. The Canadian survey results are presented separately from the U.S. results, although the results are quite similar, with the exception that the Canadians consider the costs of the ratepayer with more weight than their U.S. counterparts. The literature review established background information on the range of practices that are now being pursued with respect to utility mapping and design consideration. Resources used included the Transportation Research Information Ser- vice (TRIS), Internet and web searches, and resources of pro- fessional associations. Particular attention was paid to the following references suggested in the project scope: ⢠Standard Guideline for the Collection and Depiction of Existing Subsurface Utility Data (2003) (1). ⢠Avoiding Utility Relocations (2002) (2). ⢠A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 5th ed. (2004) (3). ⢠FHWA Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects (cur- rent edition). ⢠SHRP 2 R-01 and R-15 studies. ⢠Domestic scans (FHWA) and international scan. ⢠AASHTO âRight of Way and Utilities Guidelines and Best Practicesâ (4). More than 2,000 documents were reviewed for applica- bility. After a content review this list was narrowed to 77 (see Bibliography). Although there are a significant num- ber of documents, there is little unique information on this issue contained within these 77 documents; most is a re- packaging of information from previous documents. The best and most up-to-date information came from interviews conducted with three DOTs and architecture/engineering design consultants. Representatives from the DOTs included state-wide and district utility units, and design, construction, and planning personnel. Future chapters discuss utility issues in highway design (chapter two), the range of practices (chapter three), three case studies (chapter four), best practices (chapter five), research in progress (chapter six), and research needs (chapter seven). Chapter eight provides the conclusions. There are five appen- dices, two on-line only. CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
