CHAPTER 2
“The Vision”: The Ultimate Utility Depiction Deliverable

Having a complete picture of the existing and proposed utilities is essential to achieving any level of success. It requires an adequate and accurate depiction of all utility data during the project design stage to make informed decisions on solutions for the transportation project, while accounting for how best to serve the public.

2.1 Overview

The growing investment in transportation infrastructure, along with the frequent delays and cost overruns due to unanticipated utility conflicts, has highlighted the need for appropriate levels of coordination between highway projects and utilities. Properly coordinating utilities is essential not only to ensure the successful delivery of individual projects but also to support the broader state DOT program. When projects are completed on time and within budget, the overall program can be planned and managed more reliably, and relationships with stakeholders, particularly utility partners, are strengthened, enabling more effective collaboration on future infrastructure improvements.

With billions of dollars being allocated to both utility and highway improvements, it is crucial for project teams to recognize that a responsible approach to project delivery must include a thorough and accurate understanding of existing utilities. Historically, highway project designs have often proceeded without a complete picture of these facilities, relying on limited data and the assumption that coordinating with utility owners to address conflicts would occur later in the process or be done by others on the team. This approach may have been sufficient in the past when electric and telecommunications facilities were predominantly overhead; however, the emphasis on placing these facilities underground has prompted the need for change. This reactive approach, whether driven by tight schedules, incomplete information, or insufficient consideration of utility impacts, has frequently resulted in unnecessary relocations, utility-related schedule delays, and frustration and challenges for all project stakeholders, including the public the project was meant to serve. The ultimate result is millions of dollars in wasted resources and unnecessary inconvenience to both travelers and utility ratepayers.

Traditional project development approaches and schedules have often made it challenging to gather comprehensive and accurate utility data early in the process. Consequently, designs frequently proceed without crucial utility information being fully collected and accurately depicted in project plans, leading to costly and impactful decisions that undermine the ability to deliver transportation projects efficiently and punctually. Unfortunately, developing designs without adequate utility data being clearly included and depicted in the design plans is a persistent issue in the engineering industry. Project teams need to understand that reliable and properly depicted utility data are essential for evaluating design alternatives, identifying and mitigating

utility conflicts, integrating utility work with the overall construction staging, determining ROW needs, and minimizing environmental impacts. Without such data, informed decision-making is compromised. Utility conflict management efforts are also improved when utility information is collected and accurately depicted. However, without noting the accuracy level, along with complete attribute information and precise locations of existing utilities, it becomes extremely difficult to make decisions guided by a mindset of designing to avoid or minimize utility impacts. In such cases, project decisions are inevitably based on assumptions or missing information, undermining the integrity of the design process.

When designers encounter uncertain or incomplete information, they often assume no conflicts exist or default to requiring the utility to relocate. Without a thorough utility conflict analysis, project risk is not only shifted to construction but also increased. When effort is invested in developing a comprehensive and accurate utility base plan, inclusive of all utility attributes available and clearly understood by all users, conflicts between the proposed design and existing utilities can be identified, creating opportunities to refine the design to avoid those conflicts and potentially eliminate the need for costly and time-consuming utility relocations. Therefore, DOTs need to understand that they can reduce project risks by adopting policies, standards, and procedures that leverage all available utility information, as well as recognize that achieving success in project delivery requires a comprehensive understanding of both existing and proposed utilities. This level of understanding can only be attained through the accurate and thorough depiction of utility data during the project design stage. Such information enables informed and strategic decision-making that not only addresses the needs of the transportation project but also ensures the best outcomes for serving the public effectively.

2.2 “The Vision”: Striving Toward the Ultimate Utility Depiction Deliverable

“The Vision” refers to a comprehensive and consistently updated utility data depiction deliverable presented in a clear and concise format for any end user. Ideally, this information is collected and depicted in project plans early in the process, ensuring that utilities are recognized as a critical infrastructure element and incorporated into project decisions. The depiction is iterative as new data are received, such as test holes, and includes the proposed utility relocations. The ultimate goal is to enable project stakeholders, especially designers and utility coordinators, to access and view this information in multiple ways with the simplicity of a single click.

To achieve this vision, the utility data must be reliable, reconciled, and prioritized. Beyond documenting the precise horizontal and vertical location of existing utilities, the data must capture key attributes, such as ownership, type, size, material, age, condition, configuration (i.e., shape), and the actual size of utility structures (e.g., manholes and vaults). Additional details, such as the presence of encasements, appurtenances, multiple cables or conduits, and any special considerations or constraints, such as seasonal outage restrictions or service connections to facilities with heightened operational constraints (e.g., hospitals, schools, and 911 call centers), must also be recorded. With this comprehensive information, an index or library of the attributes of all the utilities involved in the project can be developed.

Having an index or library of utility attributes provides valuable insights for the entire project team. For instance, if a fiber optic provider requires 6 monthsʼ notice before any service disruption, this information becomes crucial for the design team when planning a relocation as part of sequential construction activities, such as cut or fill operations. Similarly, knowing that a gas line serving a nearby hospital has strict service interruption requirements could allow the drainage designer to consider alternative drainage solutions to avoid conflict with that gas line. The index should also include data on service lines, which are frequently overlooked but often cause

significant construction delays when not identified in advance. As the project moves into the construction phase, accurate depiction of utility facilities becomes even more critical, not only to ensure the safety of field crews but also to keep construction activities on schedule by avoiding unanticipated conflicts.

In addition to a comprehensive index or notes containing utility attribute information, the accurate depiction of utility lines in project plans is essential for obtaining a complete picture of the data, such as dual mains or encased conduits. With both a detailed index and a fully depicted utility layer, design teams can thoroughly assess design impacts and make informed decisions. Project managers, who are typically responsible for delivering projects on time and within budget, can leverage this complete depiction of utility information to better manage risks and guide project decisions. Asset managers can also utilize the collected and depicted utility data to enhance their management of ROW, addressing gaps in awareness regarding permitted infrastructure within the ROW. Moreover, the detailed depiction of existing utilities can help utility partners reconcile and improve their own records.

A further benefit of striving toward this vision is its impact on collaboration. When project teams demonstrate a strong commitment to accurately identifying, depicting, and accounting for utilities, utility owners are more likely to engage actively in the verification process and throughout the projectʼs life cycle. An accurate and comprehensive depiction of utilities not only provides clarity but also demonstrates respect and value for the assets of all stakeholders. When effort is invested in projects to show this level of respect, it encourages utility partners to reciprocate it by respecting and actively supporting the process. Conversely, when it is not, it communicates to utility partners that their infrastructure is of lesser importance, which may result in reduced cooperation and responsiveness.

The type and extent of utility information needed and the appropriate approach to collecting it varies depending on numerous project-specific factors. Ideally, a SUE investigation conducted in accordance with ASCE 38 and supported by ASCE 75 provides detailed documentation of data accuracy and reliability while identifying and reconciling any inconsistencies. Data may be gathered from utility records, surveys of markings from One Call locate requests, private utility locating services, or previously performed investigations.

Endeavoring to collect and accurately depict comprehensive utility data in project plans, early enough for them to be shared across key stakeholders and factored into project decisions, can drive meaningful improvements for both individual projects and the transportation industry as a whole. Achieving this vision and realizing its benefits, however, will require various technical, organizational, and practical challenges to be addressed, as described in the following section, along with patience, dedication, and consistent application of best practices over time.

2.3 Challenges in Meeting “The Vision”

2.3.1 Organizational and Collaboration Challenges

Many state DOTs operate within a functional group or discipline-based organization with limited collaboration and integration between divisions, which can create the assumption that the utilities section and/or group is solely responsible for addressing utility concerns. As a result, designers may face little accountability when their decisions introduce unnecessary risks or complications to the project that affect utilities, as long as the design complies with regulations, design standards, and administrative requirements.

The skill set required for effective utility coordination and design is both vast and complex, yet success in achieving effective utility coordination and design is heavily dependent on collaboration

among the designers from various engineering disciplines. When designers disconnect from the impacts their decisions have on utilities or overlook how the utility requirements influence the project, the consequences affect the entire project. Designers often fail to recognize the schedule, budget, and public implications of requiring utility relocations. In many cases, the design schedule, which is often tight, is inappropriately treated as the primary driver in decision-making without due consideration of utility impacts. Design teams may also operate under the misconception that the ROW belongs exclusively to the state, and, therefore, utilities must simply “get out of the way.” While the ROW is acquired for transportation purposes, it is ultimately a public asset, and accommodating utilities within it serves the publicʼs interest. For this reason, it is crucial that utilities are treated as an integral part of project development rather than an ancillary issue to be addressed reactively. Designers who collaborate with utility coordinators and/or engineers to identify, analyze, and minimize utility impacts contribute to higher project success rates.

2.3.2 End User Challenges

Utility depiction includes the investigation, documentation, evaluation, and communication of the utility data necessary to meet the scope of the project and the needs of end users. Therefore, utility depiction begins with an understanding of the scope and goals of the project and the subsequent identification of the data needs of the project and end user, as they shape how the utility investigation is conducted and how the resulting data are documented, evaluated, and communicated. Challenges often arise because multiple end users use the generated products, each with distinct needs to successfully advance their project tasks. These end users, also referred to as stakeholders, may include the following:

• State DOT utility engineers and coordinators
• State DOT survey, ROW/property, traffic, and maintenance personnel
• State DOT construction inspectors
• Native American/Tribal councils
• Bureau of Indian Affairs
• State DOT-hired design, planning, survey, and construction inspection/management consultants
• SUE providers
• Utility company records and engineering personnel
• Utility company locators and contract locators
• Private industry private utility locators
• Utility company consultants for relocation design
• Municipal engineers or their consultants and GIS departments
• Railroad companies/owners
• FAA, Corps of Engineers, military, industrial, and other utility owners
• FHWA
• State One Call centers

Meeting the needs of a diverse group of stakeholders within a single deliverable is inherently challenging. As a result, investigations are often driven by the specific requirements and needs of one primary end user, with deliverables tailored to their specific purpose. This approach has led to inconsistencies in ownership, comprehensiveness, reliability, accuracy, format, and information about attributes, creating additional challenges for DOTs.

Stakeholders rely on these data to perform their respective tasks, and different stakeholders typically have different data needs. Issues arise when the required data come in different formats and levels of completeness. As a result, users cannot determine the comprehensiveness, reliability, and accuracy of the data provided, as well as attribute needs and availability.

2.3.3 Product Need Challenges

Challenges with product needs commonly emerge when a project transitions from one major phase to another. For utility depiction, the key phases include design, construction, and asset management, the data serving different purposes in each phase. During the design phase, the quality and comprehensiveness of utility depiction are crucial to effective stakeholder engagement, technical coordination among the various design disciplines, conflict analysis and management, utility relocation scheme development, and, ultimately, if unavoidable, utility relocation designs. As the project transitions to the construction phase, the emphasis shifts to site safety, in addition to the construction schedule, cost control, and coordination between multiple contractors and/or utility crews. Challenges often arise when utility information from the design phase is incomplete, inconsistent, or unclear, creating risks that could potentially affect project delivery.

ROW asset management is the final phase. Utility-related challenges at this stage typically involve system maintenance, coordination with permitting—the process by which facilities file for a permit to occupy ROW space—for highway occupancy, highway and/or roadway opening permits, emergency access, and protecting the utilities required for future state DOT projects. These challenges often arise because the primary focus is on DOT-owned assets within the ROW, such as pavements, curbs, sidewalks, signalized intersections, drainage inlets, manholes, and underground pipes integrated into these systems. Utilities within the existing ROW, however, are not considered DOT assets and therefore may not receive the attention needed for effective asset management. Proper depiction of utilities is a starting point for DOTs to identify and manage all of the infrastructure placed in the ROW.

2.3.4 Accuracy and Reliability Challenges

Another challenge that utility coordinators and engineers face is coordinating utilities based on location data that come from various sources with different levels of accuracy, scale, and completeness. Oftentimes, data collected from as-design records (not as-built) and location data obtained through SUE investigations are depicted within highway design plans as if they are equally accurate, leading to significant design decisions based on this utility information. Relying on this mixed-quality utility information to do so can compromise outcomes, not only affecting conflict evaluations and determinations of protection, avoidance, or relocation needs but also influencing highway and/or roadway and structure design decisions. Additionally, a utility can exist in multiple forms, such as existing, proposed, relocated, out of service, and abandoned. However, these distinctions are not always clearly depicted in highway design plans. These various sources and forms can result in contradictory information, raising concerns about the reliability of the data.

2.3.5 Technology Evolution and Standards/Guidelines Implementation Challenges

Several standards have been developed to address some of the previously mentioned challenges, including ASCE/UESI/CI 38-22 and ASCE/UESI/CI 75-22. These standards aim to improve utility data depiction by defining quality levels. As previously described, quality levels represent varying degrees of risk or reliability associated with the utility information provided, or how much data are needed to support effective project design and construction.

Despite the benefits, the effective implementation of these standards has been met with obstacles. Opportunities to leverage modern technologies and implement industry-recommended standards and guidelines are often missed, limiting the potential value they could deliver to both projects and stakeholders.