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.

66A P P E N D I X B Best Practice SummariesBest Practice #1 TITLE: Advance relocation of utility work DETAILED DESCRIPTION Either the state’s contractor or the utility company (UC) involved in the relocation should relocate the conflicting util- ities before highway construction begins. This practice may not always be possible because of work sequencing issues or other factors discussed below. It is done in order to alleviate possible coordination conflicts/issues between UCs and con- tractors and to eliminate delays during the construction phase. EXAMPLE SOURCE (current users) Tennessee’s Chapter 86 Provisions requires utility relocation to be performed before construction begins or to be included in the state contract in order for the utility to be reimbursed. SOURCE REFERENCES (current users) Alabama—DOT—Robert Lee, State Utility Engineer, 334-242-6155 Arizona—DOT—Bruce Vana, Manager Utility and Railroad Engineering, 602-712-7541 Delaware—DOT—Fran Hahn, Utility Engineer, 302-760-2269 Florida—Progress Energy—Art Gilmore, 727-893-9255 Indiana—Vectren—Marty Frederick, 812-491-4765 Indiana—DOT—Matt Thomas, Utility and Railroad Manager, 317-232-5308 Michigan—DOT—Mark Dionise, Utility Coordination and Permit Section Manager, 517-373-7682 North Carolina—DOT—Robert Memory, State Utility Agent, 919-733-7932 Oregon—Northwest Natural Gas—Gary Hyatt, Manager, 503-226-4211 Pennsylvania—First Energy—Dona Ritchey, 610-921-6580 Pennsylvania—Verizon—Jesse Guarneri, 640-280-5525 Tennessee—DOT—Joe Shaw, State Utility Coordinator, 615-741-2891Tennessee—MLGW—Tom Word, Property Management Department, 901-528-4186 Wisconsin—DOT—Ernie Peterson, State Utility Engineer, 608-266-3589 ASSOCIATED RESOURCES (See Appendix C) 1. Florida Statutes—Section 337.403 16. Tennessee—Chapter 86 Provisions HISTORY Chapter 86 was implemented in 2003. Florida Statutes Section 337.403, 2007 RELATED POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Tennessee’s Chapter 86 Provisions: SECTION 2. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 54, Chapter 5, Part 8, is amended by deleting §54-5-804 in its entirety and by substituting instead the following language: (2) The utility shall either: (A) Enter into a written agreement with the commissioner to include the relocation as a part of the department’s highway construction contract; provided that such agreement may provide that the utility shall perform certain relocation work with its own union employees as required under a negotiated organized labor contract but, in such case, the utility shall be required to reimburse the department for all relocation costs if it fails to timely perform its relocation work as provided in the agreement with the commissioner; or (B) Enter into a written agreement with the commissioner to remove all utility facilities that conflict with the highway con- struction, as determined by the department, prior to the let- ting of the department’s construction contract, and otherwise perform and complete the utility relocation in accordance with approved relocation plans and schedule of calendar days; provided that such agreement may provide that, in the event that the department does not undertake the highway con- struction project within a specified time, the utility shall be reimbursed for such relocation work as it has timely per- formed in accordance with the approved plans and schedule.

67IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS 1. Legislation must be created to support policy. 2. Sufficient right-of-way (ROW) must be acquired before relocation. 3. Clearing and grubbing of ROW must be performed before relocation. 4. DOTs need a mechanism to handle clearing and grubbing of the ROW (i.e., the DOT hires a subcontractor to do the work or the utility is reimbursed for performing clearing and grubbing work). 5. No knowledge and skills requirements are necessary. POTENTIAL OBSTACLES OR BARRIERS 1. It may not always be possible to relocate beforehand (i.e., clearing and grubbing work must be complete and suffi- cient ROW must be acquired). 2. Work sequencing issues: Not all utilities can be relocated beforehand or it just does not make sense to do so (partic- ularly water and sewer). 3. State contractor may perform relocation work. This is mainly done with water and sewer. BENEFITS 1. Minimizes contractor–utilities conflicts. (Construction Phase) 2. Reduces delays. (Construction Phase) 3. Advanced relocations limit delays in projects due to budget delays as utility company tries to find the funding for relocation. (Construction Phase) POTENTIAL EVALUATION FACTORS AND CONSIDERATIONS In order to evaluate each best practice, both DOT and util- ity industry members would be asked to rate potential ben- efits of utilizing the best practice. Those involved in the survey would be both current users of the practice and nonusers. A rating of rarely, sometimes, frequently, or very frequently would be given for each potential benefit, indi- cating the frequency with which it occurs during utility relo- cation projects. Does/would the utilization of Best Practice #1: Reduce potential utility conflicts during construction? Improve the relationship between the DOT and UC? Improve the relationship between the UC and the contractor? Cause a reduction in delays during the construction phase? Best Practice #2 TITLE: Early Involvement of Utilities in Planning and Design Phase DETAILED DESCRIPTION Utilities cited this best practice the most frequently as a pro- cedure that worked very well. The definition of “early” mayvary across states, but it is obvious that utilities must be noti- fied of potential involvement in the beginning of the planning and design phase in order to avoid utility-related delays. The most common early notification was 30% planning and design. Early involvement of utilities increases coordination and design time. The sooner the UC is made aware of a poten- tial conflict, the sooner it can start planning and incorporat- ing the project into its own schedules. Also, relocation could potentially be avoided because of increased coordination and partnering time between the designers and utilities. SOURCE REFERENCES (current users) Arizona—DOT—Bruce Vana, Manager Utility and Railroad Engineering, 602-712-7541 Colorado—DOT—Dahir Egal, State Utilities Engineer, 303-757-9344 Delaware—DOT—Fran Hahn, Utility Engineer, 302-760-2269 Georgia—Utility Support System—Tom Jackson, 770-544-0205 Georgia—DOT—Jeff Baker, State Utility Engineer, 404-635-8114 Indiana—Vectren—Marty Frederick, 812-491-4765 Michigan—DOT—Mark Dionise, Utility Coordination and Permit Section Manager, 517-373-7682 North Carolina—Charlotte-Mecklenburg—Bill Deal, 704-391-5150 North Carolina—DOT—Robert Memory, State Utility Agent, 919-733-7932 Oregon—Northwest Natural Gas Company—Gary Hyatt, Manager, 503-226-4211 Oregon—DOT—Howard Bergstrom and Matthew Caswell, ROW Section and State Utilities Engineer, 503-986-3658 Pennsylvania—DOT—Gary Fawver, Chief of Utility and ROW Section South Carolina—DOT—Mark Attaway, State Utility Engineer, 803-737-1296 Tennessee—MLGW—Tom Word, Property Management Department, 901-528-4186 Tennessee—DOT—Joe Shaw, State Utility Coordinator, 615-741-2891 Washington—DOT—Tom Swafford, Utility, Railroad and Agreements Manager, 360-705-7237 Wisconsin—Alliant Energy—Gary Quade, 563-584-7395 Wisconsin—DOT—Ernie Peterson, State Utility Engineer, 608-266-3589 ASSOCIATED RESOURCES (See Appendix C) 2. Wisconsin—Trans 220 16. Tennessee—Chapter 86 Provisions HISTORY Chapter 86 Provisions, 2003 Wisconsin Trans 220, 1996

68RELATED POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Wisconsin Administrative Code, Trans 220: Within Wisconsin’s Administrative Code, Trans 220 outlines specific guidelines that are to be followed by the DOT, Util- ity Companies (UCs), and contractors involved in the utility relocation process. Each project is handled by a Utility Coor- dinator from start to finish. UCs are notified early on in the project’s development phase for potential conflicts. An Oper- ational planning meeting is held with UCs potentially involved in the project, to discuss any issues that may be related to the construction and to allow their input. Within 60 days of receipt of the initial notice of the project the UC must pro- vide copies of its facility maps to identify their location. Once the UC receives the Project plans (60% design) from the DOT, it must provide its complete work plan within 60 days for rehabilitation projects, 90 days for minor reconditioning projects, and 120 days for major reconditioning, reconstruc- tion, or new construction projects. An additional 30 days is given if the project requires the UC to coordinate with other utilities, such as joint-use, or has compensable facilities on the project. Tennessee’s Chapter 86 Provisions: The Utility must submit relocation plans in accordance with TCA 54-5-854 within 120–165 days. IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS 1. A defined specific utility coordination process 2. Management attention to process 3. Personnel who are willing to follow the process 4. A utility coordinator who is responsible for coordinating with utilities on projects 5. No special knowledge and skills requirements needed POTENTIAL OBSTACLES OR BARRIERS 1. If any of the parties involved fail to do their part, the process can falter or fail. 2. Employee turnover within both the DOT and the UCs tends to hinder the coordination process from being fully executed properly. 3. The DOT may tend to try to cut corners rather than pull a project if a schedule gets tight. An example is as follows: The project plans are not completed until late in the process. The plans are sent to utilities late and the utility is then asked to try to complete its work plans ahead of schedule. In some cases, the plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&Es) may be due within the DOT before the Trans 220 due date for the utilities’ work plans. The major cause of this would be the cutback in forces at the DOT does not match the pro- gram workload. 4. ROW acquisition process. 5. The utility does not completely trust the DOT and is not sure that DOT will really build project.6. Implementation of the process does not occur. 7. Design decision-making process can be slow. 8. Some DOTs do not want utilities to do their final plans based on preliminary highway plans; therefore they do not involve utilities until later. BENEFITS 1. Early notification allows utilities to plan ahead. (Design and Construction Phase) 2. Allows more time for the permitting process. 3. Begins the communication/coordination process between the DOT and UC. (Design and Construction Phase) 4. Potential for avoiding utility relocation because of increased coordination between designers and UC. (Design Phase) POTENTIAL EVALUATION FACTORS AND CONSIDERATIONS In order to evaluate each best practice, both DOT and utility industry members would be asked to rate potential benefits of utilizing the best practice. Those involved in the survey would be both current users of the practice and nonusers. A rating of rarely, sometimes, frequently, or very frequently would be given for each potential benefit, indicating the fre- quency with which it occurs during utility relocation projects. Does/would the utilization of Best Practice #2: Improve the quality of project design? Improve the design process’s efficiency? Improve the relationship between the DOT and UC? Reduce potential utility delays during construction? Best Practice #3 TITLE: Training of DOT Designers on Utility Relocation Process DETAILED DESCRIPTION Several DOTs and UCs claimed that many designers are not sufficiently knowledgeable of the utility relocation process and suggested that training programs be held in order to educate them. High turnover rates at DOTs have led to inexperienced people doing designs. Utility networks can be very complex. There is a feeling in the industry that if DOT designers under- stood the complexity of some utility systems, a greater effort would be made to avoid utility relocation during highway design. Advancements in technology are also being made, pro- viding new information that could be utilized in the design and relocation process. Training must be done in order to get designers and UCs to utilize this information correctly. This practice should be employed before the design phase. SOURCE EXAMPLES (current users) Verizon-PA holds training programs for the Pennsylvania DOT (PENNDOT) designers. Georgia DOT has a training program intended to teach design- ers about the benefits of using subsurface utility engineering

69(SUE). It explains how and when to request SUE services within the DOT. Florida Utilities Coordinating Committee (FUCC) developed a Utility Certification Training Program. The objective is to have all personnel who deal with utility coordination be cer- tified through this training. The purposes of the training are 1. To teach the people that are new to utility coordination the basic requirements for their job, 2. To implement new and improved concepts, 3. To develop consistency in process, 4. To ensure consistency in application, 5. To ensure accuracy of information, 6. To increase recognition and resolution of potential con- flicts (Design and Construction), and 7. To minimize potential utility conflicts and delays. SOURCE REFERENCES (current users) Colorado—DOT—Dahir Egal, State Utilities Engineer, 303-757-9344 Pennsylvania—Verizon—Jesse Guarneri, 640-280-5525 Pennsylvania—DOT—Gary Fawver, gfawver@state.pa.us Georgia DOT—Jeff Baker, State Utility Engineer, 404-635-8114 ASSOCIATED RESOURCES (See Appendix C) 3. Florida Utilities Coordinating Committee: Utility Coor- dination Certification Training Program PowerPoint Presentation 4. Georgia’s SUE Education Program: www.dot.state.ga.us/ dot/operations/utilities/documents/PDF/SUE/ AvoidingUtilityProjectImpacts_GDOT_ Portion_Only.pdf HISTORY FUCC: Program currently in development. Georgia: Training program implemented in 2005. RELATED POLICIES AND PROCEDURES None found. IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS 1. Adequate budget 2. Development of training materials 3. Leadership from the DOT/FHWA to initiate the require- ment of training programs 4. A responsible party for maintaining the records and providing training materials and instructors 5. Training organization must have required training cur- riculum knowledge. POTENTIAL OBSTACLES OR BARRIERS 1. Inadequate budget 2. Inadequate support from DOT and FHWA 3. Inadequate pool of qualified instructorsBENEFITS 1. Avoids utility relocations during design 2. Better understanding of the utility relocation process 3. Increased consideration of utilities during design 4. Potential cost savings due to more innovative designs 5. Develops consistency in following and interpret agency procedures 6. Reduces the delay in obtaining vital utility information 7. Better coordination on utility work schedules 8. Reduction in utility delay claims 9. Increase in timely relocations 10. Improves working relationships POTENTIAL EVALUATION FACTORS AND CONSIDERATIONS In order to evaluate each best practice, both DOT and utility industry members would be asked to rate potential benefits of utilizing the best practice. Those involved in the survey would be both current users of the practice and nonusers. A rating of rarely, sometimes, frequently, or very frequently would be given for each potential benefit, indicating the frequency with which it occurs during utility relocation projects. Does/would the utilization of Best Practice #3: Improve the quality of project design? Improve the design process’s efficiency? Improve the relationship between the DOT and UC? Reduce potential utility delays during construction? Best Practice #4 TITLE: Development of a Geographic Information System (GIS) Database DETAILED DESCRIPTION Computer-assisted drafting (CAD) files and electronic plans are efficient; however, utilities often do not have compatible software. Therefore, much of the work, including redlining each other’s plans, is still currently done on paper. DOTs and utilities have extensive mapping resources, general ones that are used at project inception and detailed ones that are created in the course of a project and that could be made more widely available upon completion. Compilation of these resources and making them available in a central location could be a great boon to DOTs and UCs alike, for permitting utilities and for planning for future projects. SOURCE EXAMPLES (current users) Tennessee DOT’s construction office is working on an elec- tronic workbook-field. Wisconsin DOT cell phones can access system maps on hand- held locators. Wisconsin DOT earthmoving equipment has Global Posi- tioning Systems (GPS) right on the blades. Grades are

70determined by GPS, which eliminates slope/construction staking. Survey information is entered right into survey equipment and is transported as a design layer. North Carolina DOT is looking at electronic permitting/ encroachment for utilities. SOURCE REFERENCE (current users) North Carolina—Progress Energy—Bill Springer, Supervisor Distribution Eng, 919-468-6154 North Carolina—DOT—Robert Memory, State Utility Agent, 919-733-7932 Tennessee—DOT—Joe Shaw, State Utility Coordinator, 615-741-2891 Wisconsin—DOT—Ernie Peterson, State Utility Engineer, 608-266-3589 ASSOCIATED RESOURCES None found. HISTORY Information system development is a recent activity. In many cases programs are currently under development. RELATED POLICIES AND PROCEDURES None found. IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS 1. Adequate budget 2. Training may be needed in order to teach employees how to use GIS and related equipment. POTENTIAL OBSTACLES OR BARRIERS 1. A very large number of utility entities, with a large range of sizes and capabilities, are installing utilities constantly. DOTs and UCs feel it would be nearly impossible to main- tain a generally held map of this work. Funding and Homeland Security are also issues in making a statewide utility network map. More commonly, DOTs retain infor- mation in project files, on paper or electronically. While DOTs often have as-built files, in most states only recent projects are in electronic format. 2. Utilities have not invested in equipment or training. 3. Utilities have their own lobbyists. 4. Required of some but not all? Not all may be able to do it. How do you differentiate? New installations are a small percentage of what is out there. It would be beneficial to get all utilities in the ground. 5. Funding issues BENEFITS Improved precision and access to location and characteriza- tion information of ROW utility assets POTENTIAL EVALUATION FACTORS AND CONSIDERATIONS In order to evaluate each best practice, both DOT and util- ity industry members would be asked to rate potential ben-efits of utilizing the best practice. Those involved in the sur- vey would be both current users of the practice and non- users. A rating of rarely, sometimes, frequently, or very frequently would be given for each potential benefit, indi- cating the frequency with which it occurs during utility relo- cation projects. Does/would the utilization of Best Practice #4: Improve the quality of project design? Improve the design process’s efficiency? Reduce potential utility delays during construction? Best Practice #5 TITLE: Preconstruction and Progress Meetings DETAILED DESCRIPTION Holding preconstruction and progress meetings throughout the construction phase allows for utility-related issues to be discussed and resolved in a timely manner. It also encourages partnering among the utilities and contractors. On complex projects, it is beneficial to have a utility preconstruction meet- ing to discuss only utility issues. SOURCE REFERENCES (current users) Arizona—DOT—Bruce Vana, Manager Utility and Railroad Engineering, 602-712-7541 Colorado—DOT—Dahir Egal, State Utilities Engineer, 303-757-9344 Georgia—DOT—Jeff Baker, State Utility Engineer, 404-635-8114 Florida—Progress Energy—Art Gilmore, 727-893-9255 Florida—Hillsborough County—Marcel Diaz, Utility Relocation Coordinator, 813-272-5081 Indiana—DOT—Matt Thomas, Utility and Railroad Manager, 317-232-5308 Indiana—Vectren—Marty Frederick, 812-491-4765 Michigan—DOT—Mark Dionise and Nick Lefke, Utility Coordinators, 517-373-7682 Oregon—DOT—Howard Bergstrom and Matthew Caswell, ROW Section and State Utilities Engineer, 503-986-3658 Pennsylvania—Verizon—Jesse Guarneri, 640-280-5525 Pennsylvania—UGI—Eric Swartley, Operation Manager, 717-234-5951 Pennsylvania—DOT—Gary Fawver, gfawver@state.pa.us South Carolina—DOT—Mark Attaway, State Utility Engineer, 803-737-1296 Tennessee—DOT—Joe Shaw, State Utility Coordinator, 615-741-2891 Tennessee—MLGW—Tom Word, Property Management Department, 901-528-4186 Virginia—DOT—Greg Wroniewicz and Matt Reynolds, State Utility Engineers, 804-786-2928

71Washington—DOT—Tom Swafford, Utility, Railroad and Agreements Manager, 360-705-7237 Wisconsin—DOT—Ernie Peterson and Julie DeBauche, State Utility Engineers, 608-266-3589 Wisconsin—Alliant Energy—Gary Quade, 563-584-7395 ASSOCIATED RESOURCES (See Appendix C) 5. Washington’s Utility Coordination Process: Project Utility Coordination Process HISTORY: N/A RELATED POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Several state DOTs have outlined the utility coordination process that should be followed. Included in this process is holding a preconstruction meeting. Specific utility coordina- tion procedures can be found on DOT websites. IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS 1. Partnering 2. Willingness to participate 3. Willingness to cooperate 4. Time 5. No knowledge or skills requirements needed POTENTIAL OBSTACLES OR BARRIERS Utilities may not attend scheduled meetings. BENEFITS: 1. Improves communication with utilities. 2. Improves relationship between utilities and contractors. 3. UCs and contractor can exchange scheduling information. POTENTIAL EVALUATION FACTORS AND CONSIDERATIONS In order to evaluate each best practice, both DOT and utility industry members would be asked to rate potential benefits of utilizing the best practice. Those involved in the survey would be both current users of the practice and nonusers. A rating of rarely, sometimes, frequently, or very frequently would be given for each potential benefit, indicating the frequency with which it occurs during utility relocation projects. Does/would the utilization of Best Practice #5: Improve the relationship between the contractor and UC? Reduce potential utility delays during construction? Reduce potential conflicts between the contractor and UC? Best Practice #6 TITLE: Incentive for Early Relocation DETAILED DESCRIPTION In 2003, Tennessee’s Chapter 86 allowed utility reimburse- ments to occur based on the discretion of the commissioner. The department policy established that any grade and drain project with ROW acquisition or bridge replacement is eligi-ble. Smaller projects (e.g., safety projects) with limited state and federal funds are not eligible for Chapter 86 reimburse- ment. If a project is qualified for Chapter 86, then the utility must meet three conditions in the state statute to receive reimbursement: (1) the utility must submit plans within 120–186 days as provided in state statute, (2) the utility must have a valid permit for the existing facility, and (3) the utility must relocate prior to letting or work must be included in the state contract. SOURCE REFERENCES (current users) Tennessee—MLGW—Tom Word, Property Management Department, 901-528-4186 Tennessee—DOT—Joe Shaw, State Utility Coordinator, 615-741-2891 ASSOCIATED RESOURCES (See Appendix C) 16. Tennessee—Chapter 86 Provisions HISTORY The Chapter 86 Provision was implemented in 2003. Accord- ing to the Chapter 86 Status Report, “Chapter 86 has provided an incentive to the utilities to meet the Department schedules for highway construction. Based on aggregate cost data of all projects let for contract excluding mowing and emergency let- tings, the cost of Chapter 86 has been less than 4% of construc- tion cost. The feedback from the Construction Office field personnel has indicated intrinsically that it has been a benefit, even though it has resulted in additional work with the utility relocations included in the state contract. The utilities do appear to be more cooperative. Construction can only identify three (3) projects that were documented as delayed for utility reasons.” RELATED POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Chapter No. 86 PUBLIC ACTS, 2003 IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS 1. Appropriate legislation 2. Funding POTENTIAL OBSTACLES OR BARRIERS 1. Only specific project types are eligible for reimbursement. 2. It may not be possible for UC to perform work before construction. 3. UC may be reluctant to allow state contractor to perform work. BENEFITS 1. Utility companies are more likely to provide relocation plans in a timely manner. 2. Utilities are required to obtain necessary permits. 3. Prior to Chapter 86, utilities had no incentive to meet the department schedule for construction. Under Chapter 86, in order to receive reimbursement, utilities must

72relocate prior to letting or work is included in the state contract. 4. Chapter 86 has forced joint-use utilities to cooperate in order to ensure reimbursement. POTENTIAL EVALUATION FACTORS AND CONSIDERATIONS In order to evaluate each best practice, both DOT and util- ity industry members would be asked to rate potential ben- efits of utilizing the best practice. Those involved in the survey would be both current users of the practice and non- users. A rating of rarely, sometimes, frequently, or very fre- quently would be given for each potential benefit, indicating the frequency with which it occurs during utility relocation projects. Does/would the utilization of Best Practice #6: Improve the design process’s efficiency? Improve the relationship between the DOT and UC? Improve the relationship between the UC and the contractor? Reduce potential utility conflicts during construction? Reduce potential utility-related delays? Best Practice #7 TITLE: Development of Utility and ROW Management Systems DETAILED DESCRIPTION: Several DOTs have implemented the use of utility and ROW management systems in order to manage the utility relocation process more efficiently. The complexity of the system varies between states but the over- all objective is to help DOTs manage and track all the infor- mation provided throughout the project’s phases. Critical milestones can also be identified. The management systems can be utilized throughout all phases of the project. SOURCE EXAMPLES (current users) Wisconsin: Transportation Utility Management System, a tracking, locating, and management system. It is online as of June 2007. The system facilitates efficiencies by having standard letters and forms and GIS for location of surface territories. The GIS is based on the 1-mi2 grid used by the system, and it tells the user whether a utility company is in the square mile being disrupted by a project. Pennsylvania: A utility relocation electronic document man- agement system, with electronic workflow support. Dis- trict staff can complete a form and the workflow system routes it to the appropriate headquarters staff. The system took 21⁄2 years to develop and just recently implemented Phase III, which gives external business partners access to the system. PENNDOT can send a utility (but not contrac- tors) notification of a project via the system, along with plans to download.Tennessee: Tennessee DOT (TNDOT) keeps project informa- tion, plans sent and received, contracts issued, and reim- bursable billings in a database with an Access front interface and an Oracle back end called the Utility Relocation Infor- mation System. Texas: Texas DOT (TXDOT) has developed a tool showing each activity of the ROW acquisition and utility adjust- ment process with the corresponding responsible parties separated into three categories: TxDOT ROW Division, TxDOT ROW district, and project associates. This tool can be used to plan activities and provide education to participants in the process. It offers a method and format for recording data. In order to facilitate ROW acquisition duration analyses in the future, TxDOT needs to track/ document several additional fields of information in a single location, preferably in their ROW information system. Virginia: Created the ROW and Utilities Management System to provide a comprehensive view of project and land parcel status, track key dates, automated creation and storage of forms and letters, ad hoc reporting capabilities, and an interface with other Virginia DOT systems. SOURCE REFERENCES (current users) Michigan—DOT—Mark Dionise and Nick Lefke, Utility Coordinators, 517-373-7682 Pennsylvania—DOT—Gary Fawver, gfawver@state.pa.us Tennessee—DOT—Joe Shaw, State Utility Coordinator, 615-741-2891 Wisconsin—DOT—Ernie Peterson and Julie DeBauche, State Utility Engineers, 608-266-3589 Virginia—DOT—Greg Wroniewicz and Matt Reynolds, State Utility Engineers, 804-786-2928 ASSOCIATED RESOURCES (See Appendix C) 6. Florida DOT ROW Management System Security Statutes: www2.dot.state.fl.us/proceduraldocuments/procedures/ bin/575095010.pdf 7. The Efficacy of Utility Database Management, S. C. Kranc and Ali Yalcin, www.dot.state.fl.us/researchCenter/Completed_Proj/ Summary_RD/FDOTBD544_27 rpt.pdf 8. Idaho DOT Utility/Railroad Tracking System: itd.idaho.gov/design/util_rail/policies.htm 9. Texas ROW Manuals: www.dot.state.tx.us/services/general_services/manuals.htm ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/sat/specinfo/ sat-fms.pdf 10. Virginia RUMS Contact—Les Griggs—804-786-2917 www.virginiadot.org/business/row-rums.asp

73HISTORY ROW information management systems are recent develop- ments. Many are still in the development stages. RELATED POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Business processes must be revised to include the use of the information management tools. IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS 1. DOT personnel must be willing to use system effectively. 2. System should contain as-built information. 3. System should utilize graphics to depict information. 4. System should have a formal, geographically enabled structure. 5. System should have the ability to connect to other data- bases containing related information. 6. Requirements regarding data ownership, data steward- ship, and data standards should be clearly articulated. 7. Quality of archived data must be controlled. 8. Security of the system must be identified. 9. Training may be needed to learn and understand the functions of the program (i.e., how it works, how to use it, etc.). POTENTIAL OBSTACLES OR BARRIERS 1. Inadequate budget 2. Time to train employees 3. Without proper training, people may not use the system effectively. BENEFITS 1. Provides DOTs with critical up-to-date information. 2. Personnel at all levels can view this information. 3. Management can shift resources as priorities change. 4. Improves work flow and expedits processes. 5. Allows web-based reporting capabilities. 6. Reduces staffing costs. 7. Improves scheduling commitments. 8. Centralizes information sharing. 9. Increases time savings and productivity. POTENTIAL EVALUATION FACTORS AND CONSIDERATIONS In order to evaluate each best practice, both DOT and utility industry members would be asked to rate potential benefits of utilizing the best practice. Those involved in the survey would be both current users of the practice and nonusers. A rating of rarely, sometimes, frequently, or very frequently would be given for each potential benefit, indicating the frequency with which it occurs during utility relocation projects. Does/would the utilization of Best Practice #7: Improve the design process’s efficiency? Reduce potential utility conflicts during design? Reduce potential utility conflicts during construction?Best Practice #8 TITLE: Inclusion of utility relocation work in DOT construc- tion contract DETAILED DESCRIPTION Utility relocation work should be included in the state con- tracts in order to avoid delays caused by utility companies. The state’s contractor will be responsible for performing the utility relocation work. SOURCE EXAMPLES (current users) Tennessee’s Chapter 86 Provisions requires utility relocation to be performed before construction begins or included in the state contract in order for the utility to be reimbursed. Florida DOT utilizes a number of different utility–DOT agree- ments. See 710-010-54 Utility Work Agreement (FDOT Participating in Expense) and 710-010-55 Utility Work Agreement (at UAO’s Sole Expense). Section 9.02.04 of Michigan’s Road Design Manual describes the procedure to be followed when utility work is to be per- formed by Michigan DOT’s contractor during construction. SOURCE REFERENCES (current users) Alabama—DOT—Robert Lee, State Utility Engineer, 334-242-6155 Arizona—DOT—Bruce Vana, Manager Utility and Rail- road Engineering, 602-712-7541 Florida—Hillsborough County—Marcel Diaz, Utility Relocation Coordinator, 813-272-5081 Florida—FDOT—Vince Camp, District 2, Utility Engineer (386) 758-3732 Georgia—DOT—Jeff Baker, State Utility Engineer, 404-635-8114 New York—DOT—Michael Mariotti, Acting Director Design Support, 518-485-8960 North Carolina—Charlotte-Mecklenburg—Bill Deal, 704-391-5150 North Carolina—DOT—Robert Memory, State Utility Agent, 919-733-7932 Pennsylvania—DOT—Gary Fawver, gfawver@state.pa.us Tennessee—MLGW—Tom Word, Tom Word, Property Management Department, 901-528-4186 Tennessee—DOT—Joe Shaw, State Utility Coordinator, 615-741-2891 ASSOCIATED RESOURCES (See Appendix C) 1. Florida Statutes Section 337.403 11. Michigan’s Road Design Manual, Section 9.02.04 16. Tennessee—Chapter 86 Provisions FDOT Agreements and Forms

74HISTORY Florida Statutes 337.403, 2007 Chapter 86 Provisions, 2003 RELATED POLICIES AND PROCEDURES See Appendix C, # 1, #11, and #16. IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS 1. The UC must be willing to allow the contractor to perform the work. 2. The highway contractor must know how to perform the work. 3. The states’ contractors must have the knowledge, skill level, and resources to be able to perform the utility relo- cation work by themselves. POTENTIAL OBSTACLES OR BARRIERS 1. UC will not allow highway contractor to perform work. 2. Highway contractor does not know how to perform work. 3. This requirement adds more time to the contract. BENEFITS 1. Avoids scheduling conflicts between contractor and UC. 2. Keeps the contractor in control of the facilities and the schedule. POTENTIAL EVALUATION FACTORS AND CONSIDERATIONS In order to evaluate each best practice, both DOT and utility industry members would be asked to rate potential benefits of utilizing the best practice. Those involved in the survey would be both current users of the practice and nonusers. A rating of rarely, sometimes, frequently, or very frequently would be given for each potential benefit, indicating the fre- quency with which it occurs during utility relocation projects. Does/would the utilization of Best Practice #8: Improve the relationship between the contractor and UC? Reduce potential utility delays during construction? Best Practice #9 TITLE: Subsurface Utility Engineering DETAILED DESCRIPTION Subsurface utility engineering can be used to locate existing underground utilities and identify potential conflicts. SUE determines underground utility locations through the use of surface geophysical methods and vacuum excavation. Vari- ous levels of SUE can be utilized to find the degree of preci- sion needed. Best Practice #3 discusses training programs used to teach employees when and how to utilize SUE infor- mation. SOURCE REFERENCES (current users) Arizona—DOT—Bruce Vana, Manager Utility and Rail- road Engineering, 602-712-7541Colorado—DOT—Dahir Egal, State Utilities Engineer, 303-757-9344 Delaware—DOT—Fran Hahn, Utility Engineer, 302-760-2269 Georgia DOT—Jeff Baker, State Utility Engineer, 404-635-8114 Indiana—DOT—Matt Thomas, Utility and Railroad Manager, 317-232-5308 Michigan—DOT—Mark Dionise and Nick Lefke, Utility Coordinators, 517-373-7682 New York—DOT—Michael Mariotti, Acting Director Design Support, 518-485-8960 North Carolina—DOT—Robert Memory, State Utility Agent, 919-733-7932 North Carolina—Charlotte-Mecklenburg—Bill Deal, 704-391-5150 Oregon—DOT—Howard Bergstrom and Matthew Caswell, ROW Section and State Utilities Engineer, 503-986-3658 Pennsylvania—DOT—Gary Fawver, Chief of Utility and ROW Section, gfawver@state.pa.us South Carolina—DOT—Mark Attaway, State Utility Engineer, 803-737-1296 Virginia—DOT—Greg Wroniewicz and Matt Reynolds, State Utility Engineers, 804-786-2928 Wisconsin—DOT—Ernie Peterson and Julie DeBauche, State Utility Engineers, 608-266-3589 ASSOCIATED RESOURCES (See Appendix C) 12. Federal Highway Administration’s SUE website: www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/sueindex.cfm HISTORY SUE began in the 1980s and has continued to evolve into what it is today. It began when a need for more accurate utility location information was identified. Virginia was the first DOT to utilize SUE services, and once the FHWA began to promote it in the 1990s, more states began to see its benefits. Today it is a widely used practice among DOTs. RELATED POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Georgia and Michigan have created policies to use when determining when, where, and what quality level of SUE to use. See Best Practices #11 and #12. IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS 1. There must be a sufficient budget. 2. Designers must be willing to use the SUE information provided. 3. DOTs need to determine where and when SUE should be used. 4. DOTs must understand the importance of SUE. This should begin with AASHTO emphasizing its importance. More money and training is needed to effectively utilize SUE services.

755. Training must be provided in order to teach employees how to use SUE effectively (Georgia DOT). See Best Practice #3. POTENTIAL OBSTACLES OR BARRIERS 1. Cost/Budget 2. Documentation of cost-effectiveness 3. Insufficient examination of the benefits 4. DOTs must understand the importance of SUE. This should begin with AASHTO emphasizing its importance. More money and training is needed to effectively utilize SUE services. 5. False expectations of SUE—it does not put a clear piece of glass over the earth. BENEFITS 1. Time savings 2. Accurate utility information to the roadway designer 3. Possible reduction in utility relocation costs by allowing the designer to make informed design decisions around potential utility conflicts 4. Possible reduction in unexpected conflicts with utilities that can cause construction delays, damages, service dis- ruptions, claims, and even injuries or lost lives POTENTIAL EVALUATION FACTORS AND CONSIDERATIONS In order to evaluate each best practice, both DOT and utility industry members would be asked to rate potential benefits of utilizing the best practice. Those involved in the survey would be both current users of the practice and nonusers. A rating of rarely, sometimes, frequently, or very frequently would be given for each potential benefit, indicating the fre- quency with which it occurs during utility relocation projects. Does/would the utilization of Best Practice #9: Improve the quality of project design? Improve the design process’s efficiency? Reduce potential utility delays during construction? Best Practice #10 TITLE: Utility Coordination Meeting Held During Design Phase DETAILED DESCRIPTION Several DOTs and UCs stated that a utility coordination meeting is held during the design phase of the project to determine conflicts, analyze alternative design options, and open the lines of communication between the DOT and UC. SOURCE REFERENCES (current users) California—DOT—Lorrie Wilson, Office of Org. Develop- ment and Utility Relocations, 916-653-2132 Colorado—DOT—Dahir Egal, State Utilities Engineer, 303-757-9344 Florida—Hillsborough County—Marcel Diaz, Utility Relocation Coordinator, 813-272-5081Florida—Progress Energy—Art Gilmore, Art Gilmore, 727-893-9255 Georgia—DOT—Jeff Baker, State Utility Engineer, 404-635-8114 Indiana—DOT—Matt Thomas, Utility and Railroad Manager, 317-232-5308 Michigan—DOT—Mark Dionise, Utility Coordination and Permit Section Manager, 517-373-7682 North Carolina—DOT—Robert Memory, State Utility Agent, 919-733-7932 Pennsylvania—DOT—Gary Fawver, Chief of Utility and ROW Section, gfawver@state.pa.us Oregon—DOT—Howard Bergstrom and Matthew Caswell, ROW Section and State Utilities Engineer, 503-986-3658 Tennessee—DOT—Joe Shaw, State Utility Coordinator, 615-741-2891 Tennessee—MLGW—Tom Word, Property Management Department, 901-528-4186 Washington—DOT—Tom Swafford, Utility, Railroad and Agreements Manager, 360-705-7237 Wisconsin—DOT—Ernie Peterson and Julie DeBauche, State Utility Engineers, 608-266-3589 ASSOCIATED RESOURCES (See Appendix C) 2. Wisconsin—Trans 220 provisions 5. Washington’s Utility Coordination Process: Project Utility Coordination Process HISTORY Wisconsin Trans 220, 1996 RELATED POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Several state DOTs have outlined the utility coordination process that should be followed. Included in this process is holding a utility coordination meeting during the design phase. Specific utility coordination procedures can be found on DOT websites. IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS 1. All parties must be willing to participate. 2. All parties must be willing to cooperate and compromise. 3. UCs must have the personnel available to attend these meetings. 4. No knowledge or skills requirements are needed. POTENTIAL OBSTACLES OR BARRIERS 1. The utility companies do not attend the meetings. 2. Utility coordination meetings are only held on complex projects. 3. Having adequate staff is critical. Not all regions have that staff person. Coordinators are overworked; they have huge geographic areas. BENEFITS 1. Relocation of utilities may be avoided. 2. Possible reduction in cost

763. Partnering among parties involved 4. Face-to-face communication 5. Helps create relationships between DOT designers and utility companies POTENTIAL EVALUATION FACTORS AND CONSIDERATIONS In order to evaluate each best practice, both DOT and utility industry members would be asked to rate potential benefits of utilizing the best practice. Those involved in the survey would be both current users of the practice and nonusers. A rating of rarely, sometimes, frequently, or very frequently would be given for each potential benefit, indicating the frequency with which it occurs during utility relocation projects. Does/would the utilization of Best Practice #10: Improve the quality of project design? Improve the design process’s efficiency? Improve the relationship between the DOT and UC? Reduce potential utility delays during construction? Best Practice #11 TITLE: Utility Impact Matrix DETAILED DESCRIPTION: Georgia DOT utilizes a Utility Impact Matrix on every project involving utilities. Every utility con- flict is listed and a SUE consultant provides a resolution rec- ommendation. Resolutions may include relocating the utility or adjusting the highway design. SOURCE REFERENCES (current users) Georgia DOT—Jeff Baker, State Utility Engineer, 404-635-8114 ASSOCIATED RESOURCES (See Appendix C) 13. Georgia’s Utility Impact Matrix Example: www.dot. state.ga.us/dot/operations/utilities/documents/PDF/ SUE/AvoidingUtilityProjectImpacts_GDOT_Portion_ Only.pdf HISTORY: The system has been in place since 2005. RELATED POLICIES AND PROCEDURES None found. IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS 1. SUE consultant services 2. Time 3. Sufficient funding 4. No knowledge or skills requirements needed POTENTIAL OBSTACLES OR BARRIERS Engineers must be trained in using new tools. BENEFITS 1. Analyzes the best solution to each problem2. Possible reduction in utility relocation costs by allowing the designer to make informed design decisions around potential utility conflicts 3. Eliminates possible delays POTENTIAL EVALUATION FACTORS AND CONSIDERATIONS In order to evaluate each best practice, both DOT and utility industry members would be asked to rate potential benefits of utilizing the best practice. Those involved in the survey would be both current users of the practice and nonusers. A rating of rarely, sometimes, frequently, or very frequently would be given for each potential benefit, indicating the frequency with which it occurs during utility relocation projects. Does/would the utilization of Best Practice #11: Improve the quality of project design? Improve the design process’s efficiency? Reduce potential utility delays during the design and construc- tion phases? Best Practice #12 TITLE: SUE Impact Rating Procedures DETAILED DESCRIPTION Several DOTs cited the use of SUE as a best practice but also listed not knowing where and when to use SUE as a barrier. Some states have created tools and guidelines to help deter- mine whether SUE should be utilized on a certain project, and what level of SUE should be employed. SOURCE EXAMPLES (current users) Georgia DOT utilizes a project utility rating on every project. A rating of low, medium, or high is given to each project in order to determine the complexity of the utility location infor- mation needed on the project. The level of SUE needed is determined by the rating. This rating is discretionary and can vary throughout a project depending on the complexity of the utilities. Michigan DOT’s 1804.02 document lists guidelines to consider when determining whether to use SUE on a certain project. SOURCE REFERENCES (current users) Georgia DOT—Jeff Baker, State Utility Engineer, 404-635-8114 ASSOCIATED RESOURCES (See Appendix C) 14. Georgia DOT SUE Utility Impact Rating Form: www.dot.state.ga.us/dot/operations/utilities/documents/ doc/SUE/SUE%20impact%20Rating%20Form.doc 15. Michigan DOT Road Design Manual, Section 9.03.03

77HISTORY Georgia, 2005 Michigan, 2006 RELATED POLICIES AND PROCEDURES See Appendix C, #15. IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS Design engineers must be trained in use of the tools. POTENTIAL OBSTACLES OR BARRIERS The guidelines may not be “all-encompassing.” A situation might occur that is not considered in the guidelines; therefore it is still a judgment call on the part of the designer. BENEFITS More efficient utilization of SUE, causing a reduction in cost and time. POTENTIAL EVALUATION FACTORS AND CONSIDERATIONS In order to evaluate each best practice, both DOT and utility industry members would be asked to rate potential benefits of utilizing the best practice. Those involved in the survey would be both current users of the practice and nonusers. A rating of rarely, sometimes, frequently, or very frequently would be given for each potential benefit, indicating the fre- quency with which it occurs during utility relocation projects. Does/would the utilization of Best Practice #12: Improve the quality of project design? Improve the design process’s efficiency? Reduce potential utility delays during construction? Best Practice #13 TITLE: Work Site Utility Coordination SupervisorDETAILED DESCRIPTION: Georgia DOT requires a work site util- ity coordination supervisor on every project that utilizes SUE. The state’s contractor must hire this supervisor to coordinate utilities during the construction phase. This person must alsocreate an Emergency Response Plan for every project. For example, if a main sewer line breaks, where is the nearest cut- off valve? SOURCE REFERENCES (current users) Georgia DOT—Jeff Baker, State Utility Engineer, 404-635-8114 ASSOCIATED RESOURCES None found. HISTORY Georgia, 2006 RELATED POLICIES AND PROCEDURES None found. IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS 1. Must hire competent utility coordination supervisors. 2. Work site utility coordination supervisor must understand and be knowledgeable of the utility relocation process. POTENTIAL OBSTACLES OR BARRIERS 1. Construction specification must be amended. 2. Added cost to contractor’s price 3. Availability of qualified personnel BENEFITS One point of contact for utility coordination during con- struction. POTENTIAL EVALUATION FACTORS AND CONSIDERATIONS In order to evaluate each best practice, both DOT and utility industry members would be asked to rate potential benefits of utilizing the best practice. Those involved in the survey would be both current users of the practice and nonusers. A rating of rarely, sometimes, frequently, or very frequently would be given for each potential benefit, indicating the fre- quency with which it occurs during utility relocation projects.Does/would the utilization of Best Practice #13: Improve the relationship between the contractor and UC? Reduce potential utility delays during construction?