Integrating the Priorities of Transportation Agencies and Utility Companies (2009)

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.

T R A N S P O R T A T I O N R E S E A R C H B O A R D WASHINGTON, D.C. 2009 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-R15-RW Integrating the Priorities of Transportation Agencies and Utility Companies Final Report from Renewal Project R15 RALPH ELLIS Professor at the University of Florida and R15 Co-Principal Investigator MARIE VENNER Principal, Venner Consulting, Inc. and R15 Co-Principal Investigator CHRIS PAULSEN Senior Associate, ICF International JIM ANSPACH Principal, So-Deep GINGER ADAMS Principal-in-Charge, Advantage Facilitation Services KATHLEEN VANDENBERGH Graduate Candidate at the University of Florida

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 na- tion. Developments in research and technology—such as ad- vanced materials, communications technology, new data collection technologies, and human factors science—offer a new opportunity to improve the safety and reliability of this im- portant national resource. Breakthrough resolution of significant transportation problems, however, requires concentrated re- sources 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 tech- nology, and is fundamentally different from the broad, mission- oriented, discipline-based research programs 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 comple- ment existing highway research programs. SHRP 2 focuses on applied research in four focus 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 conges- tion through incident reduction, management, response, and mitigation; and Capacity, to integrate mobility, economic, envi- ronmental, and community needs in the planning and designing of new transportation capacity. SHRP 2 was authorized in August 2005 as part of the Safe, Ac- countable, 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 Na- tional 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 re- search contractors; independent research project oversight; and dissemination of research results. SHRP 2 Report S2-R15-RW ISBN: 9780309128834 Library of Congress Control Number: 2009929568 ©2009 Transportation Research Board Copyright Permission Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining writ- ten permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously pub- lished or copyrighted material used herein. The second Strategic Highway Research Program grants permission to reproduce mate- rial 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 document for educational and not-for-profit purposes will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced ma- terial. For other uses of the material, request permission from SHRP 2. Note: SHRP 2 report numbers convey the program, focus area, project number, and pub- lication 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. Such approval reflects the Governing Board’s judgment that the program concerned is of national importance and appropriate with respect to both the purposes and resources of the National Research Council. The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with due consideration for the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. The opinions and conclusions expressed implied are those of the research agency that performed the research, and, while they have been accepted appropriate by the technical committee, they are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, or the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical committee according to procedures established and monitored by the Transportation Research Board Executive Committee and the Governing Board of the National Research Council. Note: The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, the Federal Highway Administration. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the individual states participating in 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 this report. SHRP 2 reports are available by subscription and through the TRB online Bookstore at www.TRB.org/bookstore Contact the TRB Business Office by telephone at 202-334-3213. More information about SHRP 2 is available at: www.TRB.org/SHRP2

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished schol- ars 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 the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and techni- cal 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 Acad- emy 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 Acad- emy, 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 scien- tific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both the Academies and the Insti- tute 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

AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration in cooperation with the American Asso- ciation of State Highway and Transportation Officials. It was conducted in the second Strategic Highway Research Program, which is administered by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. The report was prepared for the Renewal Technical Coordinating Committee of SHRP 2. The project was managed by Monica A. Starnes. The report was prepared by ICF International, Fairfax, VA and The University of Florida, Gainesville, FL with support from Advantage Facilitation, Ft. Collins, CO and Jim Anspach, So-Deep, Manassas Park, VA. SHRP 2 STAFF Neil F. Hawks, Director Ann M. Brach, Deputy Director Kizzy Anderson, Senior Program Assistant, Safety Stephen Andrle, Chief Program Officer, Capacity James Bryant, Senior Program Officer, Renewal Kenneth Campbell, Chief Program Officer, Safety JoAnn Coleman, Senior Program Assistant, Reliability Walter Diewald, Senior Program Officer, Safety Jerry DiMaggio, Implementation Coordinator Charles Fay, Senior Program Officer, Safety Ralph Hessian, Visiting Professional William Hyman, Senior Program Officer, Reliability Linda Mason, Communications Officer Michael Miller, Senior Program Assistant David Plazak, Senior Program Officer, Capacity and Reliability Robert Raab, Senior Program Officer, Renewal Monica Starnes, Senior Program Officer, Renewal Noreen Fenwick, Senior Program Assistant, Renewal Chrystyne Talley, Financial Associate Charles Taylor, Special Consultant, Renewal Hans van Saan, Visiting Professional Pat Williams, Administrative Assistant Connie Woldu, Administrative Coordinator Patrick Zelinski, Communications Specialist

F O R E W O R D Monica A. Starnes, Ph.D., SHRP 2 Senior Program Officer This report documents current practices, opportunities for improvement, and anticipated barriers for integrating utility and transportation agency priorities in highway renewal proj- ects. Thirteen best practices that span the whole project life cycle are also documented in a tool box format. Finally, the report provides a plan for future research in this field. Issues related to utilities are among the major causes of construction delays in highway construction projects. Because of the frequency with which utilities occupy existing high- way rights-of-way, highway renewal projects are prone to setbacks related to mismanaged relocation of existing utilities. Lack of accurate information on the location of underground or overhead utility assets, inadequate estimation of the time and budget needed to conduct utility relocation activities, and insufficient coordination and cooperation between trans- portation agencies and utility companies are among key factors that contribute to construc- tion delays. The demand for accelerated project delivery while minimizing the impact to the traveling public further highlights the need for adequate coordination and cooperation between highway agencies and utilities for many highway renewal projects. Under SHRP 2 Project R15, a research team led by Marie Venner of ICF International and Ralph Ellis of the University of Florida investigated how to improve coordination between utility companies and transportation agencies to reduce the negative impacts to both and to the public. The research was divided into two distinctive, although not explicit, phases. The first phase of the project focused on data gathering to identify existing institutional issues and processes that contribute to delays in planning, designing, and constructing highway renewal projects, as well as identifying proven innovative practices, policies, and procedures to mitigate these delays. As part of the data gathering activities the research team conducted a series of surveys and interviews, in addition to a detailed survey of printed and electronic literature. The second phase of the project focused on data analysis and development of recom- mendations. Analysis of the literature, surveys, and interviews yielded a list of the most common coordination problems between transportation agencies and utility companies and examples of best practices from the interviews. In order to enhance the analysis activ- ities, the research team also established an internal advisory panel of nine DOT members and eight utility company members. The team’s findings and developed strategies for improving coordination between public agencies and utility companies were shared with this internal advisory panel in order to refine the recommended best practices and strate- gies. Based on the results, the research team developed a tool box of best practices and a set of recommendations for future research projects that could relieve the institutional barriers for effective utility relocation activities.

C O N T E N T S 1 Executive Summary 2 Coordination—Recognizing Each Other’s Needs 2 Issues 3 Conclusions and Recommendations 5 CHAPTER 1 Overview 6 Construction Project Acceleration Milestones 6 Background 7 Project Objectives 8 References 9 CHAPTER 2 Research Approach 9 Literature Review 10 Survey of DOTs and Utilities 11 Best Practices Research 12 Analysis and Evaluation 13 CHAPTER 3 Findings and Applications 13 ROW Accommodation Policies 14 DOT–Utility Coordination Processes 16 Critical Issues 20 Preliminary Strategies for Improving DOT–UC Coordination 30 References 31 CHAPTER 4 Analysis of Practices and Development of Evaluation Approach 31 Analysis of Recommended Practices 39 Toolbox of Practices 39 Evaluation of Practices 43 Recommended Procedures for Typical Utility Relocation 48 Roles and Responsibilities 51 Next Steps and Recommended Research 52 References 53 CHAPTER 5 Recommendations for Future Research in the SHRP 2 Renewal Program 53 Information Management Systems to Support Utility Relocation and Right-of-Way Management 54 Model Curriculum in Utility Relocation Engineering for Transportation Designers 55 Onsite Utility Construction Coordinator 56 Utility Conflict Identification and Solutions 56 Subsurface Utility Engineering Qualifications 57 Model Certification Program for Utility Relocation Coordinators

59 Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 66 Appendix B: Best Practice Summaries 78 Appendix C: Supporting Reference Documents for Best Practices