CHAPTER 4
Utility Depiction

To ensure that utility data can be effectively used throughout a projectʼs life cycle, symbols, line styles, text, and color codes should follow established standards or clearly documented conventions. They are essential for promoting clarity and reducing misinterpretation among a wide range of professionals, including engineers, contractors, surveyors, and utility owners.

4.1 Overview

The accurate depiction of utilities in design plans is a crucial issue that requires thoughtful and purposeful effort. Project teams frequently encounter challenges in identifying utility conflicts and developing designs that accommodate these utilities due to insufficient utility information and substandard depiction practices. Instances have occurred in which limited utility information provided at the beginning of a project necessitated design changes later, ultimately resulting in wasted time and increased costs due to the uncertainty surrounding utility locations. Furthermore, post-design (i.e., a bid letting and construction) utility documentation often includes only partial utility information, resulting in contractors facing significant information gaps. This scenario presents notable risks to project timelines, project budgets, and consistent provision of essential utilities to the communities that DOTs and utility companies serve. Consequently, ensuring the representation of utilities is precise is a fundamental aspect of the design process that must not be overlooked.

4.2 Current State of Depicting Existing Utility Facilities in Design Plans Obtained from Various Data Sources

Even with accurate and complete existing utility information gathered as part of the data sources noted in Chapter 3, the depiction of these identified existing utilities on base maps is inconsistent across the engineering industry, with significant variations observed between states, agencies, and consulting firms. This inconsistency can lead to challenges in depicting utility data, which is crucial for the on-time and on-budget execution of construction projects. In addition to the precise and complete identification (or reasons why it is not in an accompanying note or report) of existing utilities on a base map, it is imperative to depict various utility attributes. These attributes include type, size, configuration, material, horizontal and vertical location, depth, encasement, age, and any other relevant utility characteristics.

Differences and irregularities in depiction and symbology can add to misinterpretations or non-considerations. Data collected through utility records research, field reconnaissance, surveys, and designating and locating efforts (without a utility quality level) are depicted in design

plans as though they possess equivalent certainty. Major design decisions are often based on the utility data provided. These decisions not only affect utility conflict evaluations and the need for protection, avoidance, or relocation but also influence highway, roadway, and structural design decisions, leading to budgeting and scheduling issues. Additionally, utilities can exist in various forms, including existing, proposed, relocated, out of service, and abandoned. Unfortunately, these various forms of utility representation are often not clearly depicted within design plans. This variability in sources and forms leads to the presentation of contradictory or unavailable information, raising concerns about reliability.

When data sources present conflicting evidence of locations, reconciliation efforts should involve discussions with utility owners, utility coordinators, SUE providers, and other relevant stakeholders. These discussions should be built upon additional records research, field visits, exposures, and other investigative approaches to arrive at a level of confidence in one source of data over another. When no single source can be prioritized, multiple sources may need to be depicted with appropriate notes to indicate whether multiple lines could be the same facility; however, concerns exist regarding the depiction, with the expectation that any necessary confirmations will be provided during construction.

4.3 Inconsistencies in Utility Depictions

Several key factors contribute to inconsistencies in how existing utilities are depicted in design plans. Those factors are as follows:

• Lack of universal standards—Not all agencies or utility owners follow the same standards for documenting and sharing utility information. DOTs, transportation agencies, municipalities, and so forth typically have their own manuals and symbology standards; however, no single nationwide standard exists that all consultants and jurisdictions follow. This lack of a single nationwide standard results in variation in the depiction of utility attributes, such as line weights, styles, and labeling conventions, between projects, states, and agencies throughout the engineering industry. Each project owner having their own CAD and/or depiction standard often does not allow sufficient details or attributes to satisfy all user and/or stakeholder needs.
• Multiple data sources and formats—Utility data are often taken from a compilation of records from various utility owner records, as-built drawings, GIS databases, field surveys, and SUE investigations. Variations in symbology and attribute conventions across sources can create inconsistencies when they are consolidated into a single plan set.
• Varying SUE quality levels—Design plans may include the depiction of utilities from a mixture of SUE investigation quality levels, where utility quality level descriptors are stripped from the file, leading to inconsistent details and communication of the accuracy of the utilities shown in the file.
• Software, settings, and scale limitations—The visual representation of line styles and attributes is highly influenced by CAD platform settings, plot scales, and display configurations. As a result, line types, symbols, and attributes may be displayed or printed differently than intended.
• Interpretation and drafting practices—Engineers, technicians, drafters, and other project stakeholders may interpret utility data differently. For example, one user may prioritize clarity over strict adherence to standards, while another may reuse outdated templates or symbols. Inconsistencies are often carried forward from old projects to more recent ones.
• Safety and security—Some utility owners guard their information closely for security or liability reasons, resulting in vague or outdated utility data being shared.

• Project-specific and/or user adjustments—Utility data are shared among many design team members for various uses, and at times, line styles and/or attributes are intentionally altered to improve legibility or avoid visual clutter to best serve the userʼs task at hand.

One of the primary challenges in consolidating utility data is the absence of standardized documentation protocols across utility owners, municipalities, and engineering firms. Each entity may employ its own symbology, notations, and CAD standards, complicating efforts to merge information into a unified dataset. The issue is further compounded by aging infrastructure and a lack of data maintenance, in which many utilities were installed before digital recordkeeping became commonplace. As a result, records are often partial, outdated, or contradictory. Additionally, construction deviations are not always reflected in the final as-builts, and post-installation system upgrades or adjustments resulting from system maintenance are inconsistently documented. Compounding the issue is the common practice of third-party installations, such as telecommunications and/or fiber optics, being added either within an existing underground conduit system or attached to existing utility pole lines with limited coordination, resulting in increasingly unreliable datasets. A major challenge is well-meaning but uninformed personnel manipulating the depictions and attributes within a file to suit their perceptions of what utility data are important.

Although this guide provides utility data and attributes that should be thoroughly depicted within a contract set of plans and documents for various design team members to effectively reference and use, it does not mandate a particular method. The presence, location, attributes, and depiction should be presented in a manner that industry members, including engineers, technicians, coordinators, and project stakeholders, can effectively reference and fully understand the certainty, reliability, and completeness of the data, including any potential data limitations. Depictions are frequently enhanced through notes and/or utility reports, as outlined in ASCE 38, or use of an index or library.

Collaboration across an individual state DOT, if not regionally, where utilities cross into other states, should be considered to update all depiction guidelines and standards, thereby achieving uniformity. Line styles also need to be evaluated in light of 3-D modeling and the ability to have a more thorough and complete utility depiction. DOTs might solicit a consultant to lead a task group to improve this component of plan development rather than add additional costs to each project for consultants to build out line styles and the characteristics necessary to model utilities.

Additionally, as state DOTs move toward using 3-D models as contract documents, the vertical component of utility locations becomes more crucial. This vertical component can be difficult to obtain with certainty, except at single points through test holes. Although obtaining a somewhat reliable vertical coordinate adds costs, it can be achieved through well-conducted geophysical investigations. Qualified SUE professionals are likely those in the best position to estimate and provide vertical data efficiently and effectively.

4.4 Importance of Data Visualization in Utility Depictions

The primary goal of depiction is to make data more accessible and easier to interpret, allowing users to identify patterns, trends, and outliers quickly. Achieving this goal is particularly important in the context of complex data, where the large volume of utility information can be confusing without effective visualization techniques. The objectives of establishing guidelines and standards for utility depiction are discussed here.

Clarifying complex data—Large and complex datasets can be challenging to understand. Depiction helps break down complex information into simpler, visual formats, making it easier for users, including engineers, coordinators, technicians, and construction crew, to grasp important utility attributes.

Enhancing data interpretation—Visualization highlights patterns, trends, and correlations in data that might be missed in raw data form. This enhanced interpretation facilitates informed design decision-making and coordination between design disciplines.

Reducing time spent interpreting data—From a utility depiction perspective, data visualization significantly enhances interpretive efficiency in recognizing symbology, color coding, and spatial distribution, such as symbolized utility maps, layered CAD files, or GIS dashboards. This enhancement supports the identification of system conflicts, service zones, and infrastructure anomalies, ultimately streamlining planning and decision workflows.

Improving communication—Depiction makes it easier to share findings with other project disciplines and design team members, especially those who may not have the experience or a related technical background. This facilitation is important in utilities where cross-discipline design staff, as well as construction personnel, need to understand drawings to identify and mitigate infrastructure and utility conflicts. The depiction of utility data also assists in communicating with other utility owners. These stakeholders are often not as familiar with DOT plans, nor do they have the same software, creating a greater need for clarity in the depiction of utility data without relying on metadata within the software.

4.5 Promoting Legible, Comprehensive, Consistent, and Informative Depiction for Multidisciplinary User Needs

To ensure that utility data can be effectively used throughout a projectʼs life cycle, it is essential that the utility document (i.e., base map or plans) be comprehensive, easily understood, and consistent in how the information is presented and remains accessible and usable over time. Symbols, line styles, text, and color codes should follow established standards or clearly documented conventions, minimizing interpretation errors during design, construction, and future maintenance. Legends should be used to avoid confusion regarding abbreviations and symbols.

Clear and consistent utility line styles, along with well-defined attribute information, are essential for promoting clarity and reducing misinterpretation among a wide range of professionals, including engineers, contractors, surveyors, and utility owners. Inconsistent or overly complex symbology can lead to confusion, delays, or costly errors during design, conflict analysis, relocation schemes, and construction phases. Along with the user understanding the utility data source(s), effective communication of the utility data depends on standardized line types, color codes, labeling conventions, CAD layers, and attribute formatting understood and accessible to users with varying levels of task responsibilities and technical expertise.

Additionally, all the data users need to know the limits of the investigation, both in location and scope.

4.5.1 Consideration for Multiple Users of Utility Data and Information

Plans should be prepared with the understanding that various design teams, construction personnel, and utility staff, as well as future stakeholders who may not be familiar with the original

project, will use the data and documents. The utility depiction methodology and documents will be formatted for ease of reference (i.e., breakout of utility mapping/data “pieces”) to essential utility data to accomplish the specific userʼs tasks without losing access to the overall utility data. For example, while laying out the drainage design concept, the stormwater engineer may want to reference only potentially conflicting utility gravity pipeline systems (i.e., sanitary sewers) in their initial analyses. In addition to internal design team members, it is important to consider the use of utility data by external design team members (i.e., from different organizations) and compatibility with their software programs. Therefore, legibility at various scales, clear labeling, and comprehensive legends are key. Additionally, digital formats should be archived in widely supported, non-proprietary formats when possible.

Figure 1 displays a general overview of the utility depiction needs of team members from various disciplines during the typical project life cycle phases.

4.5.2 Utility Depiction – More Than Symbols and Line Styles

A complete representation of utilities extends far beyond basic symbols and line styles on base maps. Key utility attributes, such as age, material type, condition, flow direction, encasement, and system configuration (e.g., dead-end, looped), must be thoroughly considered during the design and construction phases. Failure to account for these attributes may result in unexpected costs and schedule delays. Integrating detailed utility data into a utility base map enables more accurate risk assessments, informed design decisions, and effective construction planning, thereby minimizing unforeseen disruptions.

Displaying these attributes directly in utility plans is essential; they can be effectively presented using tables, charts, call-out notes, or embedded data tags within electronic drawings. Such documentation supports thorough utility conflict analysis, enhances design decision-making, and provides critical context for construction personnel in the field. Without these details, teams risk overlooking constraints that may compromise safety, budget, or project timelines. Integrating comprehensive utility data into a utility base map not only improves coordination among stakeholders but also strengthens overall project resilience. Some projects may benefit from a utility report to accompany the utility plans.

4.5.3 Depiction of Utility Presence and Absence in Project Plans

A thorough depiction of utilities implies both the presence and absence of utilities, which requires a clear and unequivocal indication of the utility investigation limits. If no utilities are depicted in an entire area, it is imperative to have a note, annotation, or tabular reference that communicates that an investigation was performed and that no utilities were found. This note ensures that all stakeholders are informed of the full scope of the utility investigation and can confidently proceed with design, excavation, and installation activities without unnecessary caution or delays. Omitting this information may result in redundant field checks, misdirected efforts, or costly changes due to misassumptions about underground conditions.

4.5.4 Depiction of Utility Conflicts in Project Plans

Utility conflicts should be depicted using a combination of graphical elements, notes, and a separate Utility Conflict Matrix, as developed through the SHRP2 R15B Identifying and Managing Utility Conflicts project (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/goshrp2/Solutions/Renewal/R15B/Identifying_and_Managing_Utility_Conflicts).

Utility conflicts may include the following:

• Hard clashes between sets of infrastructure (e.g., between utility and highway features and between utility and utility features)
• Soft clashes between sets of infrastructure and required buffers (e.g., a clearance buffer around a gas line)
• Construction or phasing clashes between construction activities, temporary works, or phasing (e.g., utility coverage is insufficient to allow heavy equipment to cross)
• Compliance or regulation clashes due to regulations or codes (e.g., proximity and orientation of sanitary sewer and water service lines are controlled by regulations)

As these clashes are identified, they should be shown on project plan and profile sheets, with both the proposed highway improvements and the existing and proposed utilities. The area of conflict, where a proposed highway element (e.g., a new drainage pipe, bridge foundation, or deeper excavation) will clash horizontally or vertically with an existing utility, as seen in Figure 2, should be highlighted. This action may be done with specialized symbology (e.g., a bold circle, dashed box, or hatching). The conflict should also be labeled “Utility Conflict” or a similar note near the clash point.

4.5.5 Contents of an Existing Utility Plan

Utility plan content should include standardized line styles, symbols, layers, and attribute data for all existing utilities within the defined project limits. These depiction elements must remain consistent and identifiable or easily referenced by all project team members, predominately the users, throughout each phase of project development.

Line Styles and Annotations

Line styles should follow the CAD standards established by the stateʼs DOT. However, it is advisable to depict line styles in a way that accurately represents the size of the utility. Labels and corresponding line weights should be used to convey information effectively while minimizing clutter. Consistency is essential to differentiating between utility types and distinguishing between existing and proposed facilities. For lines depicting multiple facilities, such as conduits,

Long Description.

The drawing contains labeled utilities, roadway alignments, station references, and callouts. A vertical line marks the alignment of a 6 feet 9 inches main interceptor sewer. An oval highlights the vicinity of temporary and permanent bridge footing installation. Parallel roadway lines run horizontally across the drawing. Lane markings and center lines are within the roadway. Station labels include S 4 422, S4 423, S4 424, S4 425, N4 422, N4 423, N4 424, and N4 425 along the roadway. Light contour and background survey lines are across the plan. The sewer alignment crosses the roadway near station S4 423 and N4 423 within the highlighted oval area.

cables, and/or duct banks, this notation should be annotated as well. In addition, existing facilities should be displayed in a font clearly understood as existing facilities and not proposed facilities. Use of italics, dashes, or grayscale depiction could be effective ways to differentiate between the various utility categories.

Line Style Colors

Utilities should be represented on color plan sets by the corresponding stateʼs One Call color code associated with the facility type. These utilities commonly follow the American Public Works Association (APWA) color code system. These colors are as follows:

• Red: Electric power lines, cables, conduit, and lighting cables
• Yellow: Gas, oil, steam, petroleum, or other flammable materials
• Orange: Communication, alarm or signal lines, cables, or conduit
• Blue: Potable water lines
• Green: Sewers and drain lines
• Purple: Reclaimed water, irrigation, and slurry lines
• Pink: Temporary survey markings, unknown or unidentified facilities

The following figures outline typical conventions used to depict utilities, including representative line styles, as seen in Figure 3, and standardized symbology, as seen in Figure 4.

Note: Some DOTs have a policy against producing plan sets in color, which can be a challenge for many disciplines, especially utilities. A management-level discussion may be worthwhile to note the existence of the APWA color code system and the value it can bring to utility depiction.

Utility Attributes

Additional information regarding the utility owner, size, material, and any other pertinent details shall be reflected in the utility plans. Utility notes, and/or a utility plan table or chart, can be utilized for attributes and systems, such as age and system configuration (e.g., looped, dead-end), and should be made part of the contract utility plan set. Informational utility notes for the design team can be added to a separate note level within the plan set so that they can be turned off for printing purposes. It is recommended that these annotations be linked to the corresponding line style.

In addition to the information depicted with the line style, within the properties and flex table (i.e., a customizable, spreadsheet-like report) of each line and cell, the following physical attributes should be listed:

• Utility size, material, age, and condition
• Presence of appurtenances, encasements, and multiple cables or conduits indicated by a single line
• Depth data
• Vaults size
• Configuration and/or utility shape
• Overhead (volts, sag + temperature)
• Status (e.g., active, inactive, out of service, abandoned)
• Ownership of the line
• Quality level and source information
• Limits of the utility investigation
• Active or required status
• Clarification on any limitations and/or details of issues with the utility depictions

As applicable, these attributes should be clearly represented in the contract plans.

Long Description.

The symbols are as follows.

Thin dashed black line: Limits of investigation

Red line labeled P: Power

Red line labeled OP: Overhead power

Red line labeled SL: Street light

Red line labeled OSL: Overhead street light

Red line labeled TP: Cop traffic power

Orange dashed line with circular ends: Overhead sign bridge

Orange line labeled FOTV: Fiber television

Orange line labeled TV: Television

Orange line labeled OTV: Overhead television

Orange line labeled FOT: Fiber optic

Orange line labeled T: Telephone

Orange line labeled OT: Overhead telephone

Thin light blue solid line: Headwalls

Blue line with several short dashed segments spaced at regular intervals along its length: Storm concrete box culverts, CBC

Light blue line labeled SD: Storm drain

Thick light blue solid line: Catch basin, surveyed by perimeter

Yellow line labeled G: Gas line

Orange line labeled FMS: Freeway management system, FMS

Green line labeled S: Sanitary sewer line

Blue line labeled W: Water

Purple line labeled IR: Irrigation

Purple line with several short dashed segments spaced at regular intervals along its length: Irrigation concrete box culverts, CBC

Pink line labeled U: Unknown utility

Two black solid parallel lines: Utility edge lines

Rectangular outline formed by two dashed black lines: Approximate edge of encasement or vault

Thick dashed black line: Concrete edge or pad

Quality Levels in Plans/Lines

The quality levels for all features should be noted in the flex table for each utility; however, the SUE provider should only assign line styles reflecting this information if SUE is utilized for the project. All other lines not collected from SUE will be depicted using the standard line style.

4.5.6 Procedural Steps for Developing a Plan Depicting Existing Utilities

The development of an accurate and comprehensive utility base map, which can be effectively utilized by the intended users throughout the projectʼs life cycle, is an iterative process initiated with utility verification and/or data collection tasks and further developed throughout the projectʼs design phases, predominately during the concept and preliminary design phases.

Long Description.

The symbols in red are as follows. A triangle inside a square: Power transformer. A hollow circle: Power pole. A square with an X: Power cabinet or box. A hollow square: Power pull box. A square labeled EM: Power meter. A small circle with an inner concentric circle: Power manhole. A left brace followed by a horizontal line: Guy anchor. A circle with radiating lines and an attached arm connecting to another circle: Street light. A horizontal line with two mast arms, circular joint, circular ends, and radiating lines around each circular end: Two mast arm street light. A circle with short radiating lines: Luminaire. A small circle with short radiating lines: Ground light. A hollow square: Street light pull box. A horizontal line with a circular end connected to a vertical line with stacked line and a triangle: Traffic signal. A hollow square with an X inside: Traffic cabinet. A circle attached to a triangle pointing right: Traffic signal or ped pole. A hollow square: Traffic pull box. The symbols in yellow are as follows. Two opposing triangular shapes forming a bow-tie shape labeled GV: Gas valve. A hollow square labeled GM: Gas meter. A vertical rectangular marker with small internal markings: Buried gas line warning marker. The symbols in orange are as follows. A small hollow square: FMS pull box. A hollow square: FMS vault. A hollow square with an X inside: FMS cabinet. A narrow vertical rectangle with internal markings: Buried FMS warning marker. A rectangular box labeled CCTV with a triangular projection on one side: Traffic camera. The symbols in purple are as follows. A small circle with an inner concentric circle: Irrigation manhole. A semicircle open to the left: Storm pipe outfall. The symbols in orange are as follows. A hollow square with an X inside: TV cabinet. A hollow square: TV pedestal slash pull box. A circle with an inner concentric circle: Telephone or fiber manhole. A hollow square with an X inside: Telephone cabinet or box. A narrow vertical rectangle with internal markings: Buried telephone warning marker. A narrow vertical rectangle with dotted internal markings: Buried fiber warning sign. A hollow square: Telephone pedestal slash pull box. A hollow circle: Telephone pole. The symbols in light blue are as follows. A small circle with internal lines: Curb inlet access cover. A small rectangle placed horizontally: Catch basin. A square with a second inner square connected to the outer corners: Catch basin with apron. A circle with an inner concentric circle: Storm manhole, SDMH. A small circle with internal markings: Storm drywell, DW. A narrow rectangle placed vertically with internal markings: Buried storm warning marker. A semicircle open to the left: Storm pipe outfall. The symbol in pink is as follows. A hollow square: Unknown pedestal or pull box. The symbols in yellow are as follows. A horizontal line with a circular end at the left: OH cantilever sign. A short horizontal line with a small circle hanging below: Sign. A pair of parallel lines segmented by vertical lines: Billboard or linear sign. The symbols in green are as follows. A circle with an inner concentric circle: Sanitary manhole, SSMH. A hollow square: Sanitary vault or box. A small circle with a V inside: Sanitary vent. Two opposing triangular shapes forming a bow-tie shape labeled SS: Sanitary valve. A narrow vertical rectangle with internal markings: Buried sanitary warning marker. The symbols in blue are as follows. Two short vertical segments connected by a diagonal line, with a horizontal line below: Backflow preventer. Two connected triangles oriented left and up: Air relief valve. Two opposing triangular shapes forming a bow-tie shape labeled WV: Water valve. Two opposing triangular shapes forming a bow-tie shape with an added flag element: Water post indicator valve. A hollow square labeled WM: Water meter. A circle with two extensions on the top labeled FH: Fire hydrant. A circle with an inner concentric circle: Water manhole. SUE symbology. The symbols in black are as follows. A circle with filled upper half and the letters TP below: Utility test point slash leads. A curved S-shaped mark: End of investigation. An X mark: Quality level change. A hollow right-pointing triangle: Loss of geophysical data. A short vertical line with short curved ends facing to the left: Line stub-out. A closed semicircle and a filled right-pointing triangle: Line feed to building slash structure. A red diamond: Traffic loop detector wire or wires continue into traveled way. The symbols in black are as follows. A circled R: Utility designated with toneable rodder or fishtape to refusal. A dashed and filled rectangular outline: Approximate edge of casing or encasement, per record.

Ultimately, the methodology for depicting utility information and accumulated data is key in the project team understanding and effectively using the data. In addition, the project team needs to establish and understand utility depiction legends, utility attribute requirements, and symbology at the onset of the project (i.e., the project initiation phase).

Utility verification, utility attributes, and utility design document development include the following working design phase plans and tools. The following list represents the sequential order in which utility data are typically gathered and documented, with each subsequent activity furthering the accuracy and completeness of the existing utility base map and related documents:

• Identification of utility owners who may maintain facilities within project limits
• Research on existing records initiating the development of existing utility base plans
• Field investigation/site visit plan (updating the existing utility base map and including observations, constraints, and so forth within the Notes section recorded in the plans)
• Facilities or land and/or property interests
• Utility company verification plans
• SUE deliverable plan and report

• Final utility base map plan
• Utility attribute reference plan and table(s)
• Utility construction plans
• Construction and other contract plans with applicable utility data shown

Existing Utility Plan Considerations for Contract Documents

The following items should be considered for inclusion in contract documents:

• Contract utility base plan
• Contract utility attribute plan and flex table(s), including the noted utility risks
• Contract construction and other contract plans

4.6 Recognizing Uncertainty in Utility Data Collection and Representation

A historical and crucial problem exists regarding the depiction of utilities: Utility information is often incomplete, confusing, erroneous, and unreliable. Because designing roads and bridges requires reliable information to make crucial decisions, unreliable and uncertain utility information leads to higher risks to the public and to the delivery of a stateʼs highway program of projects. FHWA has taken many steps to assist DOTs in understanding how available resources can collect utility information and appropriately communicate it in their plans. This research project is another step in providing guidance on reliably depicting the utility information necessary to make project decisions that serve the public. However, the project teams do not comprehend or recognize the necessity of identifying existing utilities, even though depicting that information is crucial to properly serve the public. Historically, when the perception of the responsibility to collect and depict utility information can be shifted or assigned to a third party (e.g., a utility or the utility coordinator role), DOTs and design teams are prone to disregard the value of and need to obtain those data and revert to a minimal approach to depicting whatever data are obtained. As noted, because of misconceptions, certain mindsets, and unfortunate realities prevalent in the industry, DOTs and project designers often assuage their responsibility to serve the public by collecting and depicting accurate data by blaming the utility companies. This shift of responsibility occurs even as utility issues are traditionally and consistently recognized as one of the leading causes of frustration and delays in construction. Several concepts, misconceptions, and ideas that lead to the ongoing problem of uncertain depicted utility information are discussed here.

1. One Call is available and perceived as a free service that should be all that is needed.

Although the One Call business is a multi-billion-dollar service, its services have proven to be unreliable in providing accurate utility location data. While the service is valuable for construction, it was not intended for preliminary design purposes. The service is already overburdened to meet construction demands, and few examples of the collection of One Call markings being complete or reliable exist. Use of public locating for location data is often a risk- and liability-laden effort, which is due in part to the inexperience of locators in the industry, the high turnover of field staff, the high volume of locating requests, and a lack of accountability to mark utilities in a comprehensive or accurate manner when used for design purposes. This reality leads to a false sense of adequate utility investigations being performed for transportation projects, resulting in uncertainty, which then leads to taking a minimal approach and shifting responsibility.

2. Utilities should be able to provide reliable and comprehensive information with their records.

The notion that utilities should know the location and attributes of their facilities is valid but not a reality. Utilities often have poor records, and important information is often missing.

In addition, utility companies experience high employee turnover, rarely retrieve as-builts with the details of each installation, or get updates with maintenance information, and the companies are often sold or acquire new companies, mixing the personnel and infrastructure records. It is rare that the utility has a full and reliable record of their infrastructure. Without federal or state laws requiring an accurate record of their infrastructure, it is highly unlikely that utilities will have and be able to provide sufficient record information across their service areas.

3. The silo approach to design roles and responsibilities for developing projects promotes the idea that the utility coordinator can and will address any resulting design impacts on existing utilities.

One of the current challenges in the engineering industry is that designers are more commonly only trained in a specialized role, such as drainage, geometrics, modeling, CAD, traffic and lighting, traffic maintenance, and so forth. While these specialists can provide efficient design within one of those disciplines, they usually do not take responsibility for the outcome of the entire design or the overall project outcomes.

The outcome of specialists in design roles is often a fractured team, with a lack of cohesiveness and quality assurance regarding the overall project. This outcome is especially true regarding who is going to champion the depiction of utility information to ensure it is adequately communicated for all to engage. This outcome is also true of designing plans to avoid unnecessary impacts on utilities. At some state DOTs, a utility engineer champions the management and depiction of utility information; however, many states do not use these roles.

Project managers and engineers of record must lead the team in adopting a public interest mindset, knowing what can and should be known, and making decisions after they have analyzed the facts. When project decisions are made based on partial and unreliable information, the project becomes high risk. Teams must develop utility awareness across all disciplines to effectively provide engineering services. Additionally, SUE providers are often only scoped to produce field investigation results and are not scoped to provide utility engineering services. Therefore, designers assume the utility coordinator will discover and address any utility impact while they focus their attention on completing their individual disciplines. These silos allow designers to often assume that utility matters, especially depicting and updating utility information, are someone elseʼs responsibility. Without someone championing utility collection and depiction, the collected data and, ultimately, the depiction of those data are uncertain.

4. The prevailing mindset that the “ROW is our ROW” and utilities are guests that can just move their facilities needs to shift.

The ROW is acquired for the transportation project and the public use of that ROW. A long-standing finding of public interest exists that allows utilities to be accommodated in the ROW. Using ROW to install utilities makes utility services affordable for the public. Even so, utility relocations are a cost to the public, whether as a taxpayer or as a utility ratepayer. The mindset that utilities should simply relocate is a high-cost proposition, resulting in millions of dollars of unnecessary cost to the public. This matter is magnified in part ecause a reimbursable utility is a one-time project cost, while a relocation that the utility pays for and is passed along to the ratepayers is equal to a repetitive rate payment. This mindset promotes the poor depiction of utility information, with the assumption that depiction is not crucial, as the utilities will just have to relocate if they are in the project construction area. If utilities are found to be involved and will need to be moved regardless, adequately depicting their information is less needed, which results in uncertain data being collected and subsequently displayed in plans.

5. DOT permit requirements do not include sufficient drawings of proposed installations or sufficient detail of as-builts.

Often, DOT-permitting practices allow utility companies to draw simple lines on aerial maps to obtain a permit. The insufficient detail of this permit drawing usually does not account for existing roadway or other utilities. The utility will then make field adjustments at will to complete the installation. Also, it is rare practice to adequately monitor utility construction activities so that they adhere to the specific permitted location. Because of the lack of installation inspections conducted at permitted locations, obtaining and managing as-built information are often not required. The overall result is less-than-reliable or insufficient documentation of utility installations within the ROW. The implementation of ASCE 75 would support improvement in collecting and managing more reliable utility as-built documentation. Additional research is underway to consider the value and opportunity to improve permitting practices.

6. Previous project plans depict uncertain utility data assumed reliable when used for a new project.

Previous project plans are often retrieved as usable data for new projects. The depiction of these data has often been uncertain and not updated with relocations and other more reliable information. This information cannot be assumed to be reliable data simply because of its appearance in previous plans; however, it is often used in this manner. The uncertainty of utility depiction from previous plans is too great to consider that information anything other than a baseline to start from.

7. DOT line styles have not been updated to allow for a more certain depiction of known and unknown utility data in plans.

Line styles themselves have created uncertainty. The line styles used to depict utility information communicate a story. This depiction can convey extensive information and help build confidence and certainty or create uncertainty and undermine confidence. For example, when the line style is as simple as a “T,” it conveys that the buried facility is a telephone line but does not indicate the size, material, owner, or accuracy of the line, nor does it indicate whether the line is in an encasement or the size and material of the encasement if used. The line style will not show the vaults, handholds, manholes, and other buried features. It does not communicate what the line is connected to, such as a hospital or major 911 line. Some advances are being made to create a more certain depiction with line styles, annotations, and metadata. DOTs are also using advanced design software (e.g., Bentley OpenRoads Designer) that allows for 3-D depiction of utility data. However, if the data used are not validated and/or verified as accurate, the effort to depict poor information is problematic at best.

8. SUE consulting services are limited by reduced scope compared to the project limits, such as certain spots of the project, and do not include the full project limits matching the same area as the topographic survey. In addition, SUE is only used for test holes to confirm a limited area rather than using the full services and engineering judgment necessary to comprehensively and reliably collect and depict all utility information.

Uncertainty remains a higher probability when SUE services are not scoped for the entire project. While this practice is appropriate at times, the project team must be completely aware of what is certain or uncertain with regard to proper depiction. Making design decisions using uncertain information increases the number of risks to the DOT. Any uncertain depiction of utility information increases risk not only to the DOT but also to the contractor, which increases costs immediately, and the risk may not be correctly attributed to the correct source of the increased cost. This depiction of uncertainty and/or risk is compounded by the

unquantifiable uncertainty that must be accounted for in risk management when utility information is not collected and communicated adequately. The FHWA National Utility Program review reported that states that do not perform adequate utility investigations and subsequently do not communicate utilities sufficiently in plans are essentially falsifying their utility certification to the FHWA.

9. Unvalidated lines are labeled with quality levels and called SUE outside of a professionally delivered SUE investigation.

The resulting complications of unreliable and uncertain utility information continue to be a common yet unnecessary issue in project development. While this research project does not intend to restate previous research and validation of using SUE consulting services, the value of those services in collecting and depicting reliable information is of utmost importance. The ASCE 38 standards for collection and depiction were designed to reduce or eliminate uncertainty. When projects use SUE quality levels without following ASCE standards, uncertainty occurs not only within the particular project but also across the engineering industry. SUE quality levels should only be applied when a SUE provider assigns those quality levels based on the standard, which means, at minimum, an engineering license is applied to the investigation deliverables.

4.7 Types of Deliverables and Their Limitations

While some flexibilities exist in depicting existing utility information, it is commonly understood that, at a minimum, the crucial elements of existing utility depiction in a line style are utility type, material, size, owner, and SUE quality levels or source information that does not use SUE. Additional information, such as age, pressure, voltage, encasement material (if not in the line style), and shape, can be annotated. Other information, such as required notifications to users; schedules for outages; shielding; shoring; planned maintenance; notations of critical users, such as 911, the Department of Defense, hospitals, and schools; and details about the utilityʼs service and maintenance requirements, can be embedded in metadata and in an index of this information.

It is vital that a symbology chart and legend be included in the utility depictions (see examples in Section 4.5). In addition, proposed relocations should be shown on utility construction sheets. Proposed construction details and existing utilities can be shown in grayscale, while the proposed relocations can be shown in the appropriate APWA colors. These depictions can annotate whether a utility line should remain in place, be temporary, or be new. Important utility-related construction details, such as daylighting requirements, protective mats, vibratory impacts, and shoring, will be annotated in these utility construction sheets, which will protect in-place measures. These items often need to be written into special provisions and may be pay items for the contractor.