Appendix B – Practitioner Survey Feedback

The surveys were provided to practitioners within the Qualtrics platform and which allows for moving forward and backward within the survey and shows survey progress. Additionally, a PDF file of the entire survey was provided for a review prior to completing the survey. Additional instructions for completion of the survey were provided. As mentioned, two surveys were developed and distributed. The first survey was distributed to state DOTs and consultants, with the other distributed to utility owner organizations and contractors. To date, responses to the utility owner survey have been negligible, however there are anticipated results forthcoming from members of the Common Ground Alliance. Regardless, it is likely that the state DOT and consultant survey offers a higher likelihood of offering effective practices, and this survey collected 53 total responses of varying levels of completeness. This survey saw 29 substantially completed survey responses, which included 16 state DOT responses. The following summarizes this feedback.

Summary of the State DOT and Consultant Survey

The following summary corresponds to the flow of the state DOT and consultant survey questionnaire. Each question includes the number of responses and the results of those responses. First, respondents were asked, “Does your agency have or follow guidelines or policies regarding the depiction of utilities in transportation plan sets?” As seen in Figure 17, a total of 30 responses were received, of which 83% responded “Yes,” while 17% responded “No.”

Next, respondents were asked, “Does your agency have CAD/design standards for the depiction of utilities in transportation plan sets?” As seen in Figure 18, a total of 30 responses were received, of which 90% responded “Yes” while 10% responded with “No.”

The respondents who responded “No” within Figure 18 were then asked, “Is your agency in the process of developing or planning to develop CAD/design standards for the depiction of utilities in transportation plan sets?” A total of 3 responses were received, with 2 indicated they were not developing standards and the remaining respondent noting that they were in process of this development.

For respondents of Figure 18 who noted they did have standard, they were asked, “Do you allow flexibility in your CAD standards regarding utility depiction?” As seen in Figure 19 a total of 26 responses were received, of which 31% indicated “Yes,” while 69% indicated “No.”

The respondents of Figure 19 who noted flexibility in the standard was allowed, were asked “When and why do you allow this flexibility?” These responses are listed in Table 1.

Table 1: When and why do you allow this flexibility?

Next, respondents were asked, “When SUE deliverables are received, are there required CAD standards for presenting the data within those deliverables?” As seen in Figure 20, a total of 25 responses were received, of which 32% indicated “No,” 64% indicated “Yes,” and 4% indicated “We don’t use SUE.”

Respondents were also asked, “Do you have 3D CAD standards in place (or under consideration) for utility data?” Figure 21 shows the results from a total of 26 responses, with 35% indicating “Yes” while 65% indicated “No.”

Next, respondents were asked, “What format is utility information typically depicted within contract documents?” Of 26 responses received, 88% indicated “2D,” 4% indicated “3D,” and 8% indicated “Other.” One response indicated as “other” stated that they used “2D with depths as needed.” The results are seen in Figure 22.

Respondents were then asked, “When/if presenting utility data in 2D, how is the utility data presented?” A total of 26 responses were received, of which 31% indicated “Plan,” 8% indicated

“Plan and Cross-section,” 15% indicated “Plan and Profile,” 42% indicated “Plan, Profile and Cross-section,” and 4% indicated “We do not present utility data in 2D, Plan, Profile, Isometric.” These results are presented in Figure 23.

Respondents were also asked, “When/if presenting utility information in 3D, how is the utility data presented?” A total of 26 responses were received, of which 54% indicated “We do not present utility data in 3D,” 11% indicated “linear features,” 7% indicated “linear features and surface features,” 4% indicated “3D shape features,” 4% indicated “linear features, surface features and 3D shape features,” 8% indicated “other,” 4% indicated “We do not present utility data in 3D and 3D shape features,” 4% indicated “We do not present utility data in 3D, Linear features and Surface features,” and 4% indicated “We do not present utility data in 3D, Other.” These responses are seen in Figure 24.

Those respondents who indicated they represent utilities in 3D were asked, “When/if presenting utility information in 3D, how is the utility data presented?” A total of 3 responses were received, as listed in Table 2.

Table 2: When/if presenting utility information in 3D, how is the utility data presented?

Respondents were also asked, “Do you provide the 3D model to the contractor as part as the contract documents?” A total of 9 responses were received, of which 33% indicated “Yes, as part

of the contract documents,” 22% indicated “For informational purposes only,” and 45% indicated “No.” These results are presented in Figure 25.

Next, respondents were asked, “Does your depiction of utilities vary depending on whether their relocation/installation is included as work to be performed by the highway construction contractor, and if so, please elaborate.” A total of 23 responses were received as listed in Table 3.

Table 3: Does your depiction of utilities vary depending on whether their relocation/installation is included as work to be performed by the highway construction contractor, and if so, please elaborate:

Respondents were next asked, “In what format do you communicate the utility data collected (e.g., on a separate set of plans, within the design itself, in a GIS system, etc.)?” A total of 24 responses were received as listed in Table 4.

Table 4: In what format do you communicate the utility data collected (e.g., on a separate set of plans, within the design itself, in a GIS system, etc.)?

Respondents were also asked, “Do you present accuracy (or potential accuracy) of the utility data on the construction plans?” Twenty-six responses were received, and as seen in Figure 26, 62% indicated “Yes” while 38% indicated “No.”

Next respondents were asked, “How do you present the accuracy of utility data in construction plans (i.e. labeled with SUE quality level, noted from as-built information or utility records, or some combination thereof)?” There were 16 responses received as presented in Table 5 below.

Table 5: How do you present the accuracy of utility data in construction plans (i.e. labeled with SUE quality level, noted from as-built information or utility records, or some combination thereof)?

Respondents were also asked, “Do you differentiate between varying sources of utility data (e.g., from surveyors, private locators, one call markings, etc.) with different line colors, styles, or otherwise?” As presented in Figure 27, total of 26 responses were received, of which 81% indicated “No” while 19% indicated “Yes.”

As a follow up to the responses in Figure 27, respondents were asked, “If yes, how so?” The 4 responses received are listed in Table 6 below.

Table 6: If yes, how so?

Next, respondents were asked, “Does your state have standard line styles for depicting utilities when utility information is collected through any of the following means or formats?” A total of 24 responses were received as listed in Table 7. Nine respondents indicated that they did not have standard line styles for depicting utilities.

Table 7: Does your state have standard line styles for depicting utilities when utility information is collected through any of the following means or formats?

Respondents were asked, “When you have collected utility information with various uncertainty or accuracy, do you have standards to depict that variation?” A total of 26 responses were received, of which 31% indicated “Yes,” and 69% indicated “No,” as shown in Figure 28 below.

As a follow up to the previous question in Figure 28, respondents were asked for elaboration. The 7 responses collected are listed in Table 8 below.

Table 8: Please elaborate

Next, respondents were asked, “Do you require designers to depict specific utility information at various stages of design (e.g., horizontal locations early in design and add elevations at later stages, etc.)?” Twenty-six responses were received, with 50% indicating “Yes” and 50% indicating “No,” as shown in Figure 29.

As a follow up to the question in Figure 29, respondents were asked for elaboration. The 11 responses received are listed in Table 9.

Table 9: Please elaborate

Next, respondents were asked, “What annotations for utility attributes do you require to be depicted?” Twenty-four responses were received as listed in Table 10 below.

Table 10: What annotations for utility attributes do you require to be depicted?

Those who selected “other” in the responses seen in Table 10 were asked to input an explanation of that response. Two responses were received and are listed in Table 11 below.

Table 11: Other

Respondents were also asked, “Regarding telecommunications, do you distinguish among the depiction of traditional copper lines, coax and fiber optic or broadband lines?” A total of 26 responses were received, of which 46% indicated “No,” while 54% indicated “Yes,” as seen in Figure 30.

As a follow up to previous question, respondents were asked to describe their distinction approach. A total of 9 responses were received as listed in Table 12 below.

Table 12: Please describe your distinction approach.

Respondents were asked, “Do you use the APWA color code to depict the utilities?” A total of 26 responses were received, of which 35% indicated “No” while 65% indicated “Yes,” with the responses shown in Figure 31.

As a follow up to the previous question, respondents were asked, “Please describe the use of the APWA color code, is it uniform across CAD files, working files, and final plans, is color allowed within final plan sets, and are the colors according to the Pantone Matching System (PMS) codes?” A total of 14 responses were received which are listed in Table 13 below.

Table 13: Please describe the use of the APWA color code, is it uniform across CAD files, working files, and final plans, is color allowed within final plan sets, and are the colors according to the Pantone Matching System (PMS) codes?

Respondents were asked, “How are utility sizes typically depicted in your plans?” Twenty-six responses were received, of which 81% indicated “Only the centerline is depicted, with the size of the utility noted,” 15% indicated “Other,” while 4% indicated “Represented by line width or shape, i.e. the width of the utility is depicted.” These results are shown in Figure 32 below.

As follow up to the respondents of Figure 32 selecting “Other,” four responses provided additional information listed in Table 14 below.

Table 14: Other

Respondents were asked, “How are vaults, manholes, thrust blocks, anchor blocks, collars and other underground utility features depicted in your plans?” A total of 26 responses were received, of which 7% indicated “According to the size and shape and to scale,” 31% indicated as “Linear features (lines)/points with noted sizes/dimensions,” 31% indicated as “Linear features (lines)points,” and 31% indicated “Other.” The results are shown in Figure 33 below.

As a follow up to the previous question, those who indicated “Other” were asked to explain further. A total of 8 responses were received as listed in Table 15 below.

Table 15: Other

Next, respondents were asked, “How are overhead clearances, sag heights, etc. depicted on your plans?” A total of 26 responses are presented in Figure 34, with 61% indicating “These are not typically depicted or communicated,” 8% selecting “Heights are noted according to recorded date, temperatures, etc.,”, 4% selecting “Heights are depicted on the plans according to recorded date, temperatures, etc.” and 27% selecting “Other.” The majority of the “Other” responses indicated approach was completed as required by the project needs.

Respondents were next asked “How are surface and above ground utility infrastructure depicted on your plans?” A total of 26 responses were received, with 54% indicating depiction by “Linear features (lines)/points”, 42% by “Linear features (lines)/points with noted sizes/dimensions” and 4% noted “These items are not typically depicted.” These results are shown in Figure 35.

Respondents were next asked, “How are surface and above ground utility appurtenances (e.g. guy wires, anchors, etc.) depicted on your plans?” Figure 36 presents the breakdown of the 26 responses received, with 58% indicating depiction by “Linear features (lines)/points”, 11% by “Linear features (lines)/points with noted sizes/dimensions”, 4% indicated “Other”, 23% indicated “These items are not typically depicted” and 4% indicated depiction by “According to sizes and shapes and to scale.”

Next respondents were asked, “How are layers used to depict utilities within your plans (e.g. all utilities in one layer, each utility type in their own layer, etc.)?” A total of 25 responses were received with the 5 respondents indicating all the utilities are depicted in one layer, a majority indicated each utility was in their own layer, and the remainder indicating they were not sure.

Respondents were also asked how they depicted abandoned utilities, with the majority of the 24 responses indicating the utilities were simply labeled as abandoned.

In response to, “Do you provide guidance on depicting utility land rights and/or interests?,” a total of 26 responses indicated the results seen in Figure 37.

Next, respondents were asked, “Are utility conflicts or clashes (utility vs utility, utility vs highway project, utility vs buffer, etc.) highlighted or indicated on your plans or within notes?” A total of 21 responses were received, as shown in Figure 38. The majority of those indicating the clashes noted they were called out by notations or placed in a table.

Respondents were next asked, “Do you use ASCE 38 (02 or 22) to provide guidance regarding what your project deliverables should look like?” A total of 25 responses were received as presented in Figure 39.

The respondents from Figure 39 who responded “Yes,” were asked, “Does this guidance include the depiction examples in the appendix of the ASCE 38 (02 or 22) appendices?” The 10 responses received are presented in Figure 40. Those not including the examples, noted that guidance for depiction was provided in various sources of standards.

Respondents were next asked, “How does your state depict proposed utilities or where relocating utilities are to be relocated?” The 26 responses received are shown in Figure 41.

Respondents were also asked how they depict unknown utilities and how they balance depiction with over-cluttering plans. The responses to these questions varied but indicated a wide range of approaches and a lack of standard approach.

Respondents more consistency in using firm/agency survey crews to collect one call markings and/or above ground utility features. The 23 responses to this question are presented in Figure 42.

Respondents were next asked, if they expand beyond the use of One Call information with non-SUE locators and SUE services. The results of 23 responses are presented in Figure 43 and 44.

Based on having these various sources of data, respondents were asked who analyzed the data to bring it into consensus. The respondents largely noted that this task was left up to the survey crews, while others noted it was completed by the SUE provider or by team effort. Again, an indication of needing a standard approach.

Next, respondents were asked when utility data was provided to design teams and how changes in utility data were communicated to design teams. These responses indicated a wide range of responses and indicated a need for consistency. An example of this variation is seen in the 23 responses provided in response to, “How is utility data presented to the design team?” These responses are presented in Figure 45.

There was improved consistency in the 23 responses to, “Within your firm/agency, how is utility data used within the development of a transportation project?” This is presented in Figure 46.

The variation of responses returned when discussing utility as-builts. While the majority of the respondents indicated that they adopted or planned to adopt the ASCE 75-22 (“Utility As-built Standard”), the use of as-builts, collection and storage of as-builts, and use of utility repositories varied widely. There was also variation in the 21 responses to when utilities were notified of conflicts, as seen in Figure 47.

Findings and Knowledge Gaps from the Practitioner Survey Feedback

The feedback from the practitioner surveys was focused on the responses provided by the state DOTs and consultants. While there are additional survey questions completely displayed herein, the bulk of the feedback is summarized above. The findings represent feedback focused on the objective of understanding how state DOTs depict utilities in highway plans. While ASCE 38 and 75 standards provide general guidelines and serve a role in delivering these objectives, there are notable details lacking where state DOTs could provide further information. However, stemming from the feedback summarized herein, it seems several state guidelines also have limitations in this area or there is at least significant variation across states. A few state DOTs noted more advanced practices, such as noting shape details, using APWA color coding, labeling utilities according to SUE quality levels, and additional best practices. These are examples of practices that will be highlighted in the final guidance of this project.

As summarized from the results herein, it appears there are deficiencies in depicting utility sizes, shapes, and appurtenances, deficiencies in depicting utilities in 3D, and unstandardized notation of the quality levels or source of data regarding utility locations. It also appears that there are lesser deficiencies in depicting the depth or elevation of a utility. These findings further indicate a need for this research and guidance to build consistency. The findings also highlight states where practices can be collected to assist in the development of the guidelines. The state DOTs that provided notable feedback of importance to the guidelines include Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Texas.