Utility Conflicts Lesson 2 - Transportation Research Board
Lesson 2 Utility Conflict Concepts and SHRP 2 R15(B) Research Findings 2-1 Seminar Overview 8:30 AM 9:00 AM Introductions and Seminar Overview 9:00 AM 10:15 AM Utility Conflict Concepts and SHRP 2 R15(B) Research Findings 10:15 AM 10:30 AM Morning Break 10:30 AM 11:45 AM Utility Conflict Identification and Management 11:45 AM 1:00 PM Lunch Break 1:00 PM 2:30 PM Hands-On Utility Conflict Management Exercise 2:30 PM 2:45 PM Afternoon break 2:45 PM 3:30 PM Use of Database Approach to Manage Utility Conflicts 2-2 3:30 PM 3:45 PM Wrap-Up Lesson 2 Overview Utility conflict concepts
SHR2 R15(B) Research findings Questions and answers 2-3 2.1 Utility Conflict Concepts 2-4 Project Development Process Planning and Programming Preliminary Design Detailed Design Letting Construction Post Constrn. Scoping, Selection, and Scheduling
Alternatives Analysis and Preliminary Plans Environmental Approval Environmental Process Right-of-Way Map, Authorization to Acquire Property, Property Acquisition, and Relocation Right-of-Way Authorization Property Management Utility Conflict Analysis, Permits, Relocation, and Reimbursement Preliminary input to planning and programming Design and PS&E Assembly 30% 60%
90% Letting Construction 2-5 Utility Coordination Process QLD: Existing records QLC: Survey of aboveground utilities QLB: Geophysical methods QLA: Exposure (test holes/vacuum excavation) 2-6 Reality Check Frequently cited reasons for project delays (DOT perspective):
Short timeframe for developing projects Project design changes Environmental process delays Inefficiencies in utility coordination Inaccurate location and marking of existing utility facilities Identifying utility conflicts late in the design phase Disagreements on recommended utility-related solutions Utility relocation costs not handled properly 2-7 Reality Check Frequently cited reasons for project delays (utility owner perspective): Limited resources (financial and personnel) Utility owners project development process protocols Coordination with other stakeholders during design Coordination with other stakeholders during
construction Changes in DOT design and schedules Unrealistic schedule by DOT for utility relocations 2-8 Consequences of Bad Utility Information Incomplete/inaccurate utility data = BAD data Negative impacts: Disruptions during construction Unplanned environmental corrective actions Damage to utility installations Delays and project overruns 2-9 Utility Conflict Scenarios Utility facility vs. transportation design
feature (existing or proposed) Utility facility vs. transportation construction activity or phasing Planned utility facility vs. existing utility facility Noncompliance with: Utility accommodation statutes, regulations, and policies Safety or accessibility regulations 2-10 2-11 2-12 Solution Strategies Remove, abandon, or relocate utilities in conflict Relocating utilities NOT NECESSARILY OR ALWAYS the best or most cost-effective solution Modify transportation facility Protect-in-place utility installation Accept an exception to policy 2-13
Transportation Design Changes Geometric alignment (horizontal/vertical): Change grade Offset centerline, widen one side of highway Move ramps, driveways Structure dimensions, other characteristics: Change embankment slope Add/modify retaining wall to reduce slope encroachment Redesign bridge footings and abutments, move pilings Redesign drainage structures 2-14 Example: Widening Both Sides vs. One side of Highway Issues to consider: Widening both sides of highway impacts everyone (no one is spared!) Widening one side can reduce utility impacts Depends on what kind of utilities are affected 2-15 Example: Embankment Due to interstate widening, embankment
had to be raised 50-60 feet Major gas and water facilities in the area Large soil settlement expected Modified project to protect-in-place utilities: Foam layer Thin concrete cap Costly utility relocation was avoided 2-16 Example: Bridge Bridge project affected multiple utilities (power, water, sewer, etc.) Modifying horizontal bridge alignment slightly Would have avoided any utility impact Would not have impacted right-of-way Would not have compromised bridge construction Discovered during construction too late! Utility relocation costs = $5,000,000 2-17 Example: Power Pole
Rapid City, South Dakota Conflict discovered at 30% detailed design Redesign avoided utility adjustment Additional costs were paid by utility 2-18 Plan View Profile View Grading cut section Field approach fill Right of Way Line
Drainage pipe 2-19 New field approach 2-20 New field approach (cross-section) Drainage 2-21 pipe Summary of Cost Savings BHP&L estimate to relocate 69-kV corner structure $60,000 Additional cost to add field approach - $3,000 Cost savings to the BHP&L consumers/ taxpayers 2-22
Example: Drainage Channel Rapid City, South Dakota Impact discovered during preliminary project scoping inspection Typical concrete lined drainage ditch would have impacted electrical cabinet and cables Recommendation: redesign sloped ditch to vertical wall Additional benefit: elimination of some right of way acquisition 2-23 Example: Drainage Channel Approximate centerline of planned drainage 2-24 ditch Recommended Redesign Electric cabinet and cables Grading
cut section Profile View Vertical wall 2-25 2-26 2-27 2-28 Summary of Cost Savings Qwest estimate to relocate 9-Way duct system $750,000 Additional cost to re-design storm sewer - $37,270 Cost savings to the consumers/ taxpayers 2-29
Example: Storm Sewer and Communication Duct System Aberdeen, South Dakota 5 blocks of communication ducts 5 vaults (5 feet x 7 feet x 12 feet) connected with 9 4-inch ducts encased in concrete In conflict with planned storm sewer 2-30 Vault and communication ducts Planned 42 storm sewer main trunk line, type B drop inlets Redesigned 42 storm sewer main trunk line, type S drop inlets 2-31 Redesign of Storm Sewer Main
Type B (main trunk under curb & gutter) Type S (main trunk under sidewalk) 42 storm sewer 2-32 Summary of Cost Savings Qwest estimate to relocate 9-way duct system $750,000 Additional cost to re-design storm sewer - $37,270 Cost savings to the consumers taxpayers 2-33 Example: Traffic Signal Footing Deadwood, South Dakota
Pole to be placed in close proximity to existing utilities Pole location surveyed on ground by DOT Utilities in vicinity identified by One Call High cost to relocate existing utilities QLA utility investigation Recommendation: Reduce pole footing diameter from 36 to 30 2-34 Vacuum excavation 2-35 Example: Traffic Signal Footing 3 conduits interfere with 36 pole footing diameter Redesign using 30 sonotube (longer, narrower footing) 2-36 Summary of Cost Savings
Cost to relocate power facilities $95,000 Cost to collect QLA data - $5,785 Cost savings to taxpayers $89,215 2-37 Key Concepts Utility conflict management: Does not start at 60% design Does not end at letting Not all projects or locations need QLB/QLA data Goal: Avoid or minimize utility impacts Strategies: Avoid unnecessary utility relocations Evaluate design alternatives Conduct utility conflict analysis 2-38 General References ASCE Standard Guidelines for the Collection and Depiction of Existing Subsurface Utility Data (CI/ASCE 38-02)
AASHTO Guide for Accommodating Utilities Within Highway Right-of-Way (2005) AASHTO Policy on the Accommodation of Utilities Within Freeway Right-of-Way (2005) AASHTO Right of Way and Utilities Guidelines and Best Practices (2004) FHWA Program Guide (2003) 2-39 2.2 SHRP 2 R15(B) Research Findings 2-40 Background and Objectives Utility conflict matrix (UCM) an important tool for managing utility conflicts Objectives: Review trends and identify best practices for the use of UCMs Develop a recommended UCM approach and document related processes Develop training materials for implementing prototype UCM 2-41
Research Team Texas Transportation Institute Cesar Quiroga (PI), Edgar Kraus Cardno TBE Paul Scott, Nick Zembillas, Vinnie LaVallette Utility Mapping Services Phil Meis, Tom Swafford Ash Engineering Janice Sands Ash, Gary Monday 2-42 Project Phases Phase I (03/09 02/10) Surveys and interviews Review of national trends Prototype UCM development Phase II (03/10 10/10) Work sessions (California, Georgia, Texas) Training material development Phase III (11/10 07/11)
Training material testing Implementation guideline development Final report 2-43 Surveys, Interviews, Trends, Prototype UCM Online survey of 50 states: 103 responses from 34 states 82 responses from utility staff, 21 design staff Headquarters and district level Follow-up interviews to obtain additional information from DOTs: 38 interviews with representatives from 23 states 2-44 State of the Practice: Utility Facility Data Tracking Utility owner name Utility facility class Utility owner phone number Utility owner contact name Utility owner address
Encasement (yes/no) Material Diameter Depth of cover Installation/relocation date 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2-45 State of the Practice: Utility Facility Data Tracking Utility facility subclass Dimensions Operational status Number of ducts Encasement material Facility found. characteristics Capacity
Customers affected Other 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2-46 State of the Practice: Utility Conflict Data Tracking Utility conflict ID Cost estimate(s) Transportation project ID Payment date(s) Payments (partial, final, total) Utility conflict location Utility conflict description Agreement execution date Est. utility relocation start date Utility agreement number
Proposed resolution action 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2-47 State of the Practice: Utility Conflict Data Tracking Resp. party for resolution action Utility relocation start date Utility property interest Estimated relocation clear. date Utility conflict length Right of way requirements Actual relocation clearance date Betterment percentage Relocation construction status Other 0%
20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2-48 State of the Practice: Utility Conflict Referencing 2-49 State of the Practice: Utility Conflict Referencing 2-50 Utility Conflict Referencing: Longitudinal Alignments Project centerline and station Route and mile point Control section and distance
Intersection and displacement Other centerline and station Rte. markers and displacement Street block Other 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2-51 Utility Conflict Referencing: Offsets with Respect to Project centerline Right of way line Existing centerline Edge of pavement Back of curb Offsets not used 0%
20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2-52 State of the Practice: Utility Conflict Tracking 2-53 Sample (Alaska) 2-54 Sample (California) 2-55 Sample (Florida) FPID:
11 Conflict Description (Possible or Actual) 12 This matrix was created by _______3___________ to assist the UAO's in identifying conflicts between the UAO's facilities and proposed roadway construction. __________________ accepts no liability for conflicts overlooked for this report. Each UAO or designee is responsible to perform a detailed and comprehensive plans review for conflict analysis. VVH VVH (Y/N) # Recommended Conflict Resolution Resolved Status 13 14 15 16 Consider using the form from the beginning of a project as a tool for monitoring areas of concern with UAO facilities. That is the reason for the Phase Number space. The form is set up to: 1. Print legal size and have the header information on each page. 2. The cells where the conflicts are listed are set to word wrap automatically. 3. The footer is set to number the pages 1 of ??. 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Project number. Project description. Disclaimer that the reviewer and their firm is not responsible for any missed conflicts. The blanks are for the name of the design firm. Phase that the plans represent. The date should be on the plans Key Sheet. The phase and plans date should keep everyone working on the same plans. That would be you, the person that wrote the conflict matrix. The date the matrix was completed. For ease of discussion the conflicts are numbered, plan sheet numbers are not used because they change from Phase to Phase which has caused confusion in the past. Owner of the underground line. The standard reference used on FDOT plans is the Centerline of Construction, it is used for all components of the proposed roadway construction. Describe the facility. What is it? Water main? Force main? Cable? Conduit? Overhead electric? Overhead cable? Manhole? Handhold? What's the size? How many? What's it made of? What is it the facility perceived to be in conflict with? It a possible conflict or actually in conflict with proposed work. Consider the trench and hole size required to place pipe and drainage structures. Don't forget aerial facilities when there are signals and large signs in the project. SUE work can be used to if a conflict is considered a possibility. This entry area is a tool to determine areas where test holes should be taken for confirmation or exclusion of a conflict. Entry area for the test hole number. Test holes should be numbered consecutively to avoid confusion.
What can be done to remove the conflict? Don't forget to consult with the Designer for alternatives to the proposed construction. Examples of entries could be "Cleared", "Pending", "No Conflict". It's suggested to keep the entries determined as "No Conflict" in the matrix so other reviewers will know a perceived conflict has been noted and determined to not be an issue. 2-56 Sample (Georgia) 2-57 Sample (Michigan) M-6 (South Beltline) from I-196 to West of Eastern Avenue South of Grand Rapids, Michigan Utility Log - Electric CS 70025 - JN 33330 Item # Utility Owner / Operator 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 Consumers Energy Transmission Consumers Energy Transmission Consumers Energy Distribution Consumers Energy Distribution Consumers Energy Transmission Consumers Energy Transmission Consumers
Energy Distribution Consumers Energy Transmission Conflict Location Segment Date Relocation Plan must be submitted Relocation Design Permit Plan Team Application submitted Review / Submitted to Design Comment / to MDOT Team Approval
MDOT Permit Number / Approval Date Relocation Scheduled Consumers Power Transmission Overhead 8th Ave 1 7/6/2000 7/27/00 rev. 41064-012500-0174 4/1/2001 West of Kenowa Ave.
1 7/6/2000 7/27/00 rev. 41064-012500-0174 4/1/2001 Aerial Lines at Jackson and Angling Road Aerial Lines at Kenowa and 64th St. 64th at Wilson and East and West of Wilson Overhead Action Items Final permit approval from MDOT. Final permit approval from MDOT.
Design in process. 1 Design in process. 2 Final permit approval from MDOT. 2 7/6/2000 41064-01257/27/00 rev. 00-0174 East and West of Ivanrest 2 7/6/2000 7/27/00 rev. along Ivanrest 2 East and West of
Byron Center overhead 3 4/1/2001 41064-012510/15/2000 00-0174 Final permit approval from MDOT. Permit to be submitted the week of August 14, 2000. 7/6/2000 7/27/00 rev. 41064-012500-0174 4/1/2001 Final permit approval from MDOT. Schedule Relocation 2-58
45 45 Description Water valve in the SE quadrant of Hwy 44 & Indiana Power Pole in the SW quadrant of Hwy 44 & Indiana Power Pole in the SW quadrant of Hwy 44 & Indiana Power Pole in the SW quadrant of Hwy 44 & Indiana Power Pole (Transmission w/ riser) in the SE quadrant of Hwy 44 & Ohio Power Pole (Transmission w/ riser) in the SE quadrant of Hwy 44 & Ohio Power Pole, Fire hydrant & water valve in the SE quadrant of Hwy 44 & Ohio Light Pole in the SW quadrant of Hwy 45 & 4th St Light Pole in the NE quadrant of Hwy 45 & 4th St Light Pole in the SW quadrant of Hwy 45 & 6th St Power Pole in the NE quadrant of Hwy 45 & 6th St Power Pole in the NE quadrant of Hwy 45 & 6th St Power Pole & Fire hydrant in the NW quadrant of Hwy 45 & 6th St Power Pole w/ riser in the NW quadrant of Hwy 45 & 6th St 2-59 Sample (Texas) PARIS DISTRICT As Of: UTILITY ADJUSTMENT REPORT
County Highway ROW CSJ Name of Utility Verizon HOPKINS SH 11 ROW CSJ: 0083-03-046 SH 19 0108-09-039 August 19, 2009 Changes since last update in RED Reimbursable? Location of Agreement Package Packet
Status? Current Action Adjustment Status Responsible TxDOT Employee Keith Hollje Amount Approved Amount Billed 90% Payment Audit Exceptions 10% Retainage Outstanding Balance
No ROW Approved U11114: Relocation is complete. NR Complete TXU Electric Yes ROW Approved U11655: Relocation & Reimbursement is complete Complete Keith Hollje $ 74,397.96 62,850.69
$ 56,565.62 $ - $ 6,285.07 $ - Atmos Energy (Trans) Yes ROW Approved U12208: Relocation & Reimbursement is complete Complete Mike Powers
$ 235,912.59 $ 184,436.76 $ 165,993.08 $ - $ 18,443.68 $ - Atmos Energy (Distribution) No ROW
Approved U12446: Relocation is complete. NR Complete Mike Powers SS Water & Sewer No ROW Approved U12450: Relocation is complete. NR Complete Mike Powers TXU Distribution No ROW Approved U12614: Relocation is complete. NR Complete
Mike Powers Sudden Link Communications No AO Approved Relocation is complete by Permit. NR Complete Tim Taylor People's Telephone No AO Approved Relocation is complete by Permit. NR Complete Tim Taylor
Shady Grove WSC No AO Approved Relocation is complete by Permit. NR Complete Tim Taylor $ 310,310.55 $ 247,287.45 $ 222,558.70 $ - $ 24,728.75
Caddo Basin Verizon AT&T Explorer HUNT US 380 ROW CSJ: Energy Transfer (Gas) 0135-06-022 GEUS U11523: Relocation is complete. Reimbursement has not been submitted. U11695: Relocation is complete. Reimbursement returned to Utility 4/29/09. No Coorespondence! $ - $ - -
- - 229,170.00 $ - - No ROW Approved U11850: Relocation is complete. NR Complete Mike Powers AT&T No
ROW Approved U12358: Relocation is complete. NR Complete Mike Powers TMPA No n/a n/a No effect (no adjustment required) n/a Mike Powers Comcast No n/a
n/a No effect (no adjustment required) n/a Mike Powers Kinder-Morgan No n/a n/a No effect (no adjustment required) n/a Mike Powers AT&T No
ROW Approved U11525: Relocation is complete. NR Complete Mike Powers Yes ROW Approved U12012: Relocation & Reimbursement is complete. Complete Mike Powers No ROW Approved U12013: Relocation is complete. NR Complete Mike Powers
- $ 51,355.21 $ 51,355.21 No ROW Approved U12077: Relocation is complete. NR Complete Mike Powers No ROW Approved U12079: Relocation is complete. NR Complete
Mike Powers Yes ROW No 35% Mike Powers $ 88,073.29 City of Greenville (Water) No AO n/a n/a Mike Powers
City of Greenville (Sewer) No AO n/a n/a Mike Powers Cap Rock Energy No AO n/a n/a Mike Powers Atmos Energy (Pipeline) Atmos Energy (Distribution)
HUNT GEUS US 380 ROW CSJ: TXU Electric(Transmission) 0135-07-037 GEUS U12076: Relocation is complete. Supplemental Agreement approved 8/06/09. U12445: Utility Package approved 5/19/09. Utility working on relocation. City has already moved utility on private easement. (no agreement required) City has already moved utility on private easement. (no agreement required) No effect (no adjustment required) $ 88,073.29 $ $ 1,447,087.94 - $ 973,408.55
$ $ - 873,232.15 $ - - - 2-60 $ 97,025.80 $ 139,428.50 Recommendations from State DOTs Utility conflict matrix:
Track utility conflicts at facility level Maintain and update UCM regularly Develop UCM reports for utility companies Keep UCMs simple Use 11x17-inch page size for UCM Start UCM during preliminary design phase Include data from UCM in PS&E assembly 2-61 Recommendations from State DOTs Utility conflict management: Use document management systems to support utility conflict management process Conduct plan-in-hand field trips with utilities Use One-Call to identify utilities early in the PDP Use RFID tags for damage prevention during construction Provide 3-D design details to utility owners early in the design phase
2-62 Recommendations from State DOTs Other: Involve stakeholders in review of utility conflicts and solutions Develop effective communications with utility owners regardless of reimbursement eligibility Provide training to utility coordination stakeholders 2-63 Prototype UCM Development Many states use tables or spreadsheets to manage utility conflicts Different categories of data tracked Wide range of styles and content
26 sample tables received 144 different data items in total Range of data items per table: 4 39 Average number of data items per table: 14 One size does not fit all Different ideas about consensus tables 2-64 Prototype UCM Development UCMs are not simple 2-D table products Prototype 1: Compact, standalone UCM Low number of data items Spreadsheet (MS Excel) UCM spreadsheet is the product Prototype 2: Utility conflict database Formal data model (ERwin) Tested in MS Access Enterprise database support (e.g., Oracle, SQL Server) UCM is one of many queries/reports possible 2-65 Prototype 1: Development Steps to select data items for standalone UCM
Analyze sample UCM data items Analyze survey results (conflict data) Analyze survey results (facility data) Consolidate/rank data items Identify data items to include in UCM Result: reduced data items from 144 to 25 2-66 Prototype 1: Utility Conflict Matrix UCM header: 8 data items UCM body: 15 data items MS Excel format Includes drop-down lists
2-67 Prototype 1: Cost Estimate Analysis Cost Estimate Analysis header: 13 data items Cost Estimate Analysis body: 12 data items MS Excel format, includes drop-down lists 2-68 Prototype 2: Development Formal data model (ERwin) Tested in MS Access Enterprise database support (Oracle, SQL Server) UCM is one of many queries/reports possible 2-69 Prototype 2: Query/Report Process Identify report requirements Populate database tables Develop and use data entry forms Develop queries
One-time effort for frequently-used queries Ad-hoc queries Generate reports On-demand 2-70 Prototype 2: UCM Report 2-71 Prototype 2: Sub Report 2-72 2-72 2-72 In Summary UCM practices vary widely across the country SHRP 2 R15(B) products: Prototype 1: Compact, standalone UCM Prototype 2: Utility conflict data model and database Training materials (Lessons 1 6) Implementation guidelines
Chapter 1 Managerial Accounting in the Information Age CMA Presentation Outline Goal of Managerial Accounting Comparison of Managerial and Financial Accounting Variable vs. Fixed Costs Other Cost Terminology Key Issues in Managerial Accounting Other Topics I. Goal of Managerial Accounting...
Zagyvai Péter vegyészmérnök 1976 egyetemi doktori 1982 kémiai tudomány kandidátusa 1987 Hallgatók Név egyetem évfolyam témavezetője Kéri Annamária BME BSc Osán János meghirdetve BME MSc Madas Balázs Gergely meghirdetve ELTE Környezettudományi Ph.D Török Szabina Beleznai Péter SzIE Környezetmérnök M.Sc Zagyvai...
Phased conversion. Pilot conversion. Discovering Computers 2014: Chapter 12. Page 529. System Development. The purpose of the support and security phaseis to provide ongoing assistance for an information system and its users after the system is implemented.
Pro: monetary policy should be made by rule. Problems with discretionary monetary policy. Does not limit incompetence and abuse of power. Political business cycle. If central bankers ally with politicians. Discretionary policy - can lead to economic fluctuations that reflect...
PIE paragraphs (google search) Citations and Works Cited Pages Analytical Essay Evaluators will want to read essays that are easy to read. What would make your essay hard to read? Ideas: 12pt times new roman; thesis Organization Development Style Mechanics...
Arial Wingdings Times New Roman Garamond Tahoma CourierPS Courier New Symbol Franklin Gothic Book PattPatel 1_PattPatel Microsoft Visio Drawing LC-3 Details and Examples Review: Instruction Set Architecture Using Operate Instructions Review: Data Movement Instructions Indirect Addressing Mode LDI (Indirect) STI...
Rod Turochy, Faculty. Rebecca Retzlaff, Faculty. Joseph Kemble, Faculty. Charlene LeBleu, Faculty. Ways Faculty Can Participate . and Influence the Master Plan Update. Full University Senate Presentation(s): Facilities Management has offered to present draft options for the various planning elements...
This ethical obligation should be made a matter of law. ... Historical studies, which assess the effectiveness of treatments on the basis of data drawn from experiences using them, are sometimes preferable to RCTs.
Ready to download the document? Go ahead and hit continue!