Lesson 3
Utility Conflict Identification and
Management
3-1
Course Overview
8:30 AM – 9:00 AM Introductions and Course Overview
9:00 AM – 10:15 AM Utility Conflict Concepts
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 – 1:20 PM
1:20 PM – 2:20 PM
Database Approach to Manage Utility Conflicts
Hands-On Utility Conflict Exercise Part I
2:20 PM – 2:35 PM
Afternoon break
2:35 PM – 3:35 PM
3:35 PM – 3:45 PM
Hands-On Utility Conflict Exercise Part II
Wrap-Up
3-2
Lesson 3 Overview
3.1 Utility conflict management and use of UCM
3.2 Discussion, questions, and answers
3-3
3.1
Utility Conflict Management and
Use of UCM
3-4
Georgia DOT Utility Process
3-5
Georgia DOT Utility Process
3-6
Project Development Process
Planning
Preliminary Design
Definition, Selection,
Financing, Sched.
Detailed Design
Post
Construction
Construction
authorization
Agreements,
Scope Update
Planning
linkages
Letting Construction
Alternative Analysis and
Preliminary Plans
Environmental
approval
Environmental Process
Environmental
Commitments
Environmental
reevaluation
Design and PS&E
Assembly
Right-of-Way Map
Development
Property Acquisition and
Relocation Assistance
Right-of-way
authorization
Preliminary Utility Conflict
Analysis
Property Management
Utility Conflict Analysis, Permits,
Relocation, and Reimbursement
Letting
0%
design
15-20% 30%
60%
90%
design design design design
Project Management
Construction
3-7
Utility Process
Planning
Preliminary Design
Definition, Selection,
Financing, Sched.
Detailed Design
Post
Construction
Construction
authorization
Agreements,
Scope Update
Planning
linkages
Letting Construction
Alternative Analysis and
Preliminary Plans
Environmental
approval
Environmental Process
Environmental
Commitments
Environmental
reevaluation
Design and PS&E
Assembly
Right-of-Way Map
Development
Property Acquisition and
Relocation Assistance
Right-of-way
authorization
Preliminary Utility Conflict
Analysis
Property Management
Utility Conflict Analysis, Permits,
Relocation, and Reimbursement
Letting
0%
design
15-20% 30%
60%
90%
design design design design
Project Management
Construction
3-8
Utility Process Activities
•
•
•
•
Utility investigations
Utility conflict analysis and resolution
Utility coordination
Utility construction management
3-9
Utility Investigations
• Characterization of subsurface and above ground
utility installations
• Quality levels of utility information
–
–
–
–
QLD
QLC
QLB
QLA
• ASCE Standard Guideline for the Collection and
Depiction of Existing Subsurface Utility Data
(ASCE/CI 38-02)
3-10
Quality Level D (QLD)
• Data collection from existing records or oral
recollections
– Utility owner records (marked up drawings, cable
records, service records, as-builts), GIS databases,
oral histories, one call markings, field notes
– Information sources (utility owners, county clerk’s
office, visual site inspections, one-call notification
centers, public service commissions, land owners, and
database searches)
– Deliverables: Composite drawing (QLD)
3-11
Quality Level C (QLC)
• Surveying and plotting visible utility appurtenances
and making inferences about underground linear
utility facilities that connect those appurtenances
– Survey using project datum and specifications (e.g.,
valve covers, junction boxes, and manhole covers)
– Correlate utility records to surveyed features
– Resolve discrepancies
– Deliverables: Composite drawings (QLC and QLD)
3-12
Quality Level B (QLB)
• Surface geophysical methods to determine the
approximate horizontal position of subsurface
utilities
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Mark indications of utilities on the ground surface
Accuracy depends on geophysical method, soil conditions
Survey markings using project datum and specifications
No vertical positions reported
Correlate utility records to surveyed features
Resolve discrepancies
Deliverables: Composite drawings (QLB, QLC, QLD)
3-13
QLB Example:
Ground Penetrating Radar
Ground surface
Buried valve cover
Bottom of
pavement
Utilities
Bottom of
subbase
3-14
3-15
Quality Level A (QLA)
• Accurate horizontal and vertical utility locations
through exposure of underground utility facilities at
certain locations
– Test hole excavation (minimally intrusive)
– Data gathered during construction (in some cases)
– Survey exposed facilities using project datum (horizontal
and vertical) and specifications
– Resolve discrepancies
– Deliverables: Composite drawings (QLA, QLB, QLC, QLD),
test hole reports
3-16
3-17
3-18
3-19
3-20
3-21
Main Utility Process Activities
•
•
•
•
Utility investigations
Utility conflict analysis and resolution
Utility coordination
Utility construction management
3-22
Utility Conflict Analysis and
Resolution
• Processes:
– Utility conflict analysis at critical milestones
– Evaluation of alternatives (utility and project)
– Meetings, discussions with stakeholders
• Tools:
–
–
–
–
Utility layouts (plan sheets, cross sections, details)
Utility conflict matrix
Project schedules
Project and utility specifications
3-23
Utility Conflict Analysis and
Resolution
• Outcomes:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Alternatives for utility conflict resolution
Utility construction phasing
Constructability recommendations
Traffic control plan
Project management reports during design
Project management reports during construction
Plans, schedules, and estimates
Certifications/special provisions in PS&E assembly
3-24
Main Utility Process Activities
•
•
•
•
Utility investigations
Utility conflict analysis and resolution
Utility coordination
Utility construction management
3-25
Utility Coordination
• Coordination and liaison with utility owners,
consultants, designers, other stakeholders
• Scope of work could include:
–
–
–
–
–
–
Coordination of utility relocations
Notifications, meetings, and work plans
Permits and rights of entry
Utility agreement assemblies
Funding and escrow agreements
Processing of as-built information
3-26
Main Utility Process Activities
•
•
•
•
Utility investigations
Utility conflict analysis and resolution
Utility coordination
Utility construction management
3-27
Utility Construction Management
• Coordination of utility
construction
– Pre and post letting
• Inspection and verification
• Compliance with policies
(e.g., utility accommodation
policy, traffic control, SW3P, OSHA, etc.)
• Payment request reviews
• Gathering or preparing as-built plans
3-28
Utility Process: Stage 1
3-29
Utility Process: Stage 2
3-30
Utility Process: Stage 3
3-31
Utility Process: Stage 4
3-32
Utility Process: Stage 5
3-33
Utility Process: Stage 6
3-34
UCM Update
Planning
Preliminary Design
Definition, Selection,
Financing, Sched.
Detailed Design
Post
Construction
Construction
authorization
Agreements,
Scope Update
Planning
linkages
Letting Construction
Alternative Analysis and
Preliminary Plans
Environmental
approval
Environmental Process
Environmental
Commitments
Environmental
reevaluation
Design and PS&E
Assembly
Right-of-Way Map
Development
Property Acquisition and
Relocation Assistance
UCM
1
UCM UCM UCM UCM
Right-of-way
2 authorization
3
4
5Property Management
Preliminary Utility Conflict
Analysis
Utility Conflict Analysis, Permits,
Relocation, and Reimbursement
Letting
0%
design
15-20% 30%
60%
90%
design design design design
Project Management
UCM
6
Construction
3-35
UCM Update: UCM 1
Planning
Preliminary Design
Definition, Selection,
Financing, Sched.
Conflict
ID
Drawing or
Sheet No.
Letting Construction
Utility Type
Post
Construction
Construction
authorization
Agreements,
Utility Conflict Matrix
Scope Update
Project Owner: TxDOT
ProjectPlanning
No. : 999-80-4455
Project Description: IH 10 from Gelhorn to Mercury Drive
linkages
Highway or Route: IH 10
Utility Owner and/or
Contact Name
Detailed Design
Utility Conflict Matrix Developed/Revised By: John Doe
Date: 1/1/2012
Reviewed By:
Date:
Alternative Analysis and
Environmental
Preliminary
Plans
approval
Note: Use Cost Estimate Analysis subsheet
for analysis of alternatives
Size and/or
Utility Conflict
Description
Environmental
Process
Material
Evidence of underground
utility conduit.
Unknown
1
Electric
Centerpoint Energy
2
Electric
100', steel
Unknown
3
Electric
Steel
Transmission tower may be in
conflict with highway.
Transmission lines may fail
minimum clearance
requirments.
Right-of-Way Map
Development
UCM
1
Start
Station
Start
End
End
Environmental
Offset
Station
Offset
Commitments
Utility
Environmental Recommended Action or
Investigation
Test Hole
reevaluation
Resolution
Level Needed
Collect more data to
QLC
confirm conflict and
identify owner.
Resolution Status
Utility conflict
created
Design and PS&E
Assembly
115+50
30
115+50
30 QLD
Identify utility owner.
Utility conflict
created
114+00
Identify utility owner.
Utility conflict
created
0
114+00
0 QLC
Property
Acquisition
and
Relocation Assistance
Right-of-way
authorization
Preliminary Utility Conflict
Analysis
Estimated
Resolution
Date
Property Management
Utility Conflict Analysis, Permits,
Relocation, and Reimbursement
Letting
0%
design
15-20% 30%
60%
90%
design design design design
Project Management
Construction
3-36
UCM Update: UCM 2
MatrixDesign
Preliminary DesignUtility Conflict
Detailed
Planning
Project Owner: Sample DOT
Project No. : 445-56-4789
Definition,
Selection,
Project Description:
Widening of
IH-10 from Loop 410 to Loop 1604
Highway or Route:
IH-10
Financing,
Sched.
Letting Construction
Post
Construction
Utility Conflict Matrix Developed/Revised By: John Doe
Date: 1/1/2013
Construction
Agreements,
Reviewed By: John Doe
authorization
Utility
Resolution
Note:
refer Conflict
toUpdate
subsheet for
utility conflictAlternatives
cost analysis.
Date: 1/14/2013
Scope
Cost Estimate Analysis
End
Utility
Estimated
Start
End Start
Recommended Action or
Offse Investigation Test Hole
Resolution
Environmental
Station Station Offset
Resolution
Estimate
Analysis Developed/Revised
By John Doe
t Cost
Level
Needed
Date
linkages
approval
Project
No. : 445-56-4789
Date 1/14/2013
City Electric
Services
Underground utility conduit in
Tina
Miller
Collect more data to
Project
Description: Widening
to Loop 1604 18"
1 of IH-10 from
PS-4Loop 410
Electric
potential conflict with
110+00
40 140+00
40
QLB Environmental Reviewed By
Environmental
tmiller@ces.com
confirm conflict
Highway or Route: IH-10
Date
highway
Environmental Process
reevaluation
555-999-8888
Commitments
Utility Owner and/or Conflict
Planning
Contact
Name Sample ID
Project Owner:
DOT
Utility Conflict:
Centerpoint
Energy
James Utility
Smith Owner:
jsmith@cpe.com
Utility Type:
555-999-9999
Size and/or Material:
Drawing or
Sheet No.
Size and/or
Utility TypeAlternative
Material
Analysis
and
Utility Conflict
Description
Preliminary Plans
Send UCM and cost
estimate analysis to utility
owner. Meet with utility
owner to discuss potential
resolution strategy.
2
Centerpoint Energy
2
PS-8
Electric
Electric
100', steel
Transmission tower might be
in conflict with highway
Design30and
115+50
115+50PS&E
30
Assembly
QLC
100', steel
Project Phase: 30% Design
Right-of-Way Map
Centerpoint Energy
Transmission lines fail
Alternative
Alternative
Development
James
Smith Alternative Description Alternative Advantage
Responsible Party
3
PS-7
Electric
Steel
Number
Disadvantage minimum clearance
jsmith@cpe.com
requirements
No design change
High cost to utility for
555-999-9999 Relocate transmission
1
required, no additional relocation and project
Utility
tower.
cost to DOT.
delay.
Cost to redesign,
potential impact on rightChange highway design to Utility can remain in
2
of-way acquistion and
DOT
Preliminary Utility
Conflict
accommodate tower.
place.
environmental
Analysis
document
Potential safety hazard,
Utility can remain in
Protect tower in-place.
3
problematic access for Utility
place.
maintenance.
High risk of damage to
Exception to policy.
4
No cost to utility or DOT. utility and problematic N/A
maintenance access.
UCM
1
0%
design
Property Acquisition and
Engineering CostRelocation Assistance
Engineering Cost
Cost (Utility)
114+00
0Direct
114+00
0
QLC (DOT)
(Utility)
UCM
Right-of-way
2 authorization
Send UCM and cost
estimate analysis to utility
Direct Cost (DOT)
Total Cost
owner. Meet with utility
owner to discuss potential
resolution strategy.
Property Management
Resolution Status
Utility owner
informed of
utility conflict
Utility owner
informed of
utility conflict
Utility owner
Feasibility
Decision
informed
of
utility conflict
Unknown Under Review
Unknown Under Review
Utility Conflict Analysis, Permits,
Relocation, and Reimbursement
Unknown Under Review
Letting
Unknown Under Review
15-20% 30%
60%
90%
design design design design
Project Management
Construction
3-37
UCM Update: UCM 3
Utility Conflict Matrix
Post
Preliminary Design
Detailed Design
Letting Construction
Construction
Utility Conflict ResolutionUtility
Alternatives
Conflict Matrix Developed/Revised By: John Doe
Planning
Project Owner: Sample DOT
Project No. : 445-56-4789
Definition,
Selection,
Project Description:
Widening of
IH-10 from Loop 410 to Loop 1604
Highway or Route:
IH-10
Financing,
Sched.
Project Owner: Sample DOT
Cost Estimate Analysis
Agreements,
Note:
refer toUpdate
subsheet for utility conflict cost analysis.
Scope
Date: 1/1/2013
Construction
Reviewed
By: John Doe
authorization
Date: 3/1/2013
Cost Estimate Analysis Developed/Revised By John Doe
End
Utility
Project No. : 445-56-4789
Date 1/14/2013 Estimated
Utility Owner and/or Conflict Drawing or
Size and/or
Start
End Start
Recommended Action or
Alternative
Analysis
and
Utility
Type
Utility
Conflict
Description
Offse
Investigation
Test
Hole
Planning
Project
Description:
fromNo.
Loop 410 to Loop 1604
Reviewed
By John Doe Resolution Resolution Status
Environmental
Contact
Name Widening
ID of IH-10
Sheet
Material
Station
Station Offset
Resolution
t
Level Needed
Date
Preliminary
Plans
linkages
approval
Highway or Route: IH-10
Date 3/1/2013
City Electric Services
Underground utility conduit in
Utility owner
Tina Miller
Collect more data to
1
PS-4
Electric
18"
potential conflict with
110+00
40 140+00
40
QLA Environmental
informed of
Utility
Conflict:
2
tmiller@ces.com
confirm conflict
Environmental
highway
utility conflict
Environmental Process
555-999-8888
reevaluation
Utility Owner: Centerpoint Energy
Commitments
Centerpoint Energy
Utility Type: Electric
Utility owner
James Smith
Transmission tower might be
Review conflict resolution
2
PS-8
Electric
100', steel
115+50
30 115+50
30
QLC
informed of
Size and/or Material: 100', steel
jsmith@cpe.com
in conflict with highway
strategies
Design and PS&E
utility conflict
Project
Phase:
30%
Design
555-999-9999
Assembly
Centerpoint Energy
Adjust facility as
Utility conflict
Alternative
Alternative Transmission lines fail
Engineering Cost
Engineering Cost
James
Smith Alternative Description Alternative Advantage
Responsible
Party
Direct
Cost (Utility)
Direct
Cost during
(DOT)
Total Cost
Feasibility
Decision
3
PS-7
Electric
Steel
minimum
clearance
114+00
0
114+00
0
QLC
discussed
resolution
Number
Disadvantage
(Utility)
(DOT)
jsmith@cpe.com
requirements
coordination
meeting
strategy
selected
Right-of-Way
Map
Property Acquisition and
No design change
High cost
to utility for
555-999-9999 Relocate transmission
1
required, no additional relocation and
project
Utility
$
25,000.00
$
200,000.00
$
$
$
225,000.00
Unknown
Under
Review
Development
Relocation Assistance
tower.
cost to DOT.
delay.
Cost to redesign,
potential impact on rightRight-of-way
Change highway design to Utility can remain in
Property
Management
2
of-way acquistion and
DOT
$
$
$
10,000.00
$
30,000.00 $
40,000.00 Unknown Under Review
authorization
accommodate tower.
place.
environmental
document
Potential safety hazard,
Utility can remain in
Preliminary Utility Conflict $
Utility
Conflict20,000.00
Analysis, Permits, $
Protect tower in-place.
3
problematic access for Utility
5,000.00 $
$
25,000.00 Unknown Under Review
place.
Relocation, and Reimbursement
maintenance. Analysis
High risk of damage to
Exception to policy.
4
No cost to utility or DOT. utility and problematic N/A
$
$
$
$
$
No
Rejected
maintenance access.
UCM
1
UCM UCM
2
3
Letting
0%
design
15-20% 30%
60%
90%
design design design design
Project Management
Construction
3-38
UCM Update: UCM 4
Utility Conflict Matrix
Post
Preliminary Design
Detailed Design
Letting Construction
Construction
Conflict Matrix Developed/Revised By: John Doe
Utility Conflict ResolutionUtility
Alternatives
Planning
Project Owner: Sample DOT
Project No. : 445-56-4789
Project Description:
Widening of
IH-10 from Loop 410 to Loop 1604
Definition,
Selection,
Highway or Route: IH-10
Financing, Sched.
Project Owner: Sample DOT
Date: 1/1/2013
Construction
Reviewed
By: John Doe
Date: 4/1/2013
authorization
Cost Estimate Analysis Developed/Revised By John Doe
End
Utility
Estimated
Project and/or
No. : 445-56-4789
DateAction
1/14/2013
Utility Owner
Conflict Drawing or
Size and/or
Start
End Start
Recommended
or
Utility TypeAlternative Analysis
Utility Conflict
Description
Offse Investigation Test Hole
Resolution Resolution Status
and
Planning
Contact
Name Widening
ID of IH-10
Sheet
Material
Station
Station Offset
Resolution
Project
Description:
fromNo.
Loop 410 to Loop 1604
Reviewed
By John Doe
Environmental
t
Level Needed
Date
Preliminary Plans
linkages
approval
Highway
Route:
IH-10
Date 4/1/2013
City
ElectricorServices
Adjust facility as
Utility conflict
Tina Miller
Underground utility conduit in
1
PS-4
Electric
18"
110+00
40 140+00
40
QLA
10
discussed during
6/1/2013
resolution
tmiller@ces.com
conflict with highway
Environmental
Utility Conflict: 2
Environmental
coordination meeting
strategy selected
555-999-8888
Environmental Process
reevaluation
Utility Owner: Centerpoint Energy
Commitments
Centerpoint Energy
Utility conflict
Utility Type: Electric
James Smith
Transmission tower might be
Change design to
2
PS-8
Electric
100', steel
115+50
30 115+50
30
QLC
resolution
Size
and/or
Material:
100',
steel
jsmith@cpe.com
in conflict with highway
accommodate utility
strategy selected
Design and PS&E
555-999-9999
Project Phase: 30% Design
Assembly
Centerpoint Energy
Transmission lines fail
Adjust facility as
Utility conflict
James
Smith
Alternative
Alternative
Engineering Cost
Engineering Cost
Alternative Description
3
PS-7
Electric
Steel
minimum
clearanceParty
114+00
0Direct
114+00
0
QLC
discussed
6/1/2013Feasibility
resolution
Alternative
Advantage
Responsible
Cost (Utility)
Direct
Cost during
(DOT)
Total Cost
Decision
jsmith@cpe.com
Number
Disadvantage
(Utility)
(DOT)
requirements
coordination
meeting
strategy
selected
Right-of-Way
Map
Property Acquisition and
No design change
High cost
to utility for
555-999-9999
Relocate transmission
1
required, no additional relocation and
project
Utility
$
25,000.00
$
200,000.00
$
$
$
225,000.00
Yes
Rejected
Development
Relocation Assistance
tower.
cost to DOT.
delay.
Cost to redesign,
potential impact on rightRight-of-way
Change highway design to Utility can remain in
Property
Management
2
of-way acquistion and
DOT
$
10,000.00 $
30,000.00 $
$
$
40,000.00
Yes
Selected
authorization
accommodate tower.
place.
environmental
document
Potential safety hazard,
Utility can remain in
Preliminary Utility Conflict $
Utility
Conflict
Analysis,
Permits,
Protect tower in-place.
3
problematic access for Utility
$
$
25,000.00 $
$
25,000.00
No
Rejected
place.
Relocation, and Reimbursement
maintenance. Analysis
High risk of damage to
Exception to policy.
4
No cost to utility or DOT. utility and problematic N/A
$
$
$
$
$
No
Rejected
maintenance access.
Cost Estimate Analysis
Agreements,
Note: refer to subsheet for utility conflict cost analysis.
Scope Update
UCM
1
UCM UCM UCM
2
3
4
Letting
0%
design
15-20% 30%
60%
90%
design design design design
Project Management
Construction
3-39
UCM Update: UCM 5
Utility Conflict Matrix
Planning
Preliminary Design
Project Owner: Sample DOT
Project No. : 445-56-4789
Definition,
Selection,
Project Description:
Widening of
IH-10 from Loop 410 to Loop 1604
Highway or Route:
IH-10
Financing,
Sched.
Utility Owner and/or Conflict
PlanningID
Contact Name
linkages
City Electric Services
Tina Miller
tmiller@ces.com
555-999-8888
Centerpoint Energy
James Smith
jsmith@cpe.com
555-999-9999
Centerpoint Energy
James Smith
jsmith@cpe.com
555-999-9999
1
Drawing or
Sheet No.
PS-4
Detailed Design
Utility Conflict Matrix Developed/Revised By: John Doe
Date: 1/1/2013
Construction
Agreements,
Reviewed
By: John Doe
authorization
Note:
refer toUpdate
subsheet for utility conflict cost analysis.
Date: 7/1/2013
Scope
Size and/or
Utility TypeAlternative
Material
Analysis
and
Utility Conflict
Description
Preliminary Plans
Electric
3
PS-8
PS-7
End
Start
End Start
Offse
Environmental
Station
Station Offset
t
approval
100', steel
Electric
Transmission lines fail
Steel
minimum clearance
requirements
Right-of-Way
Map
Development
UCM
1
Estimated
Resolution
Date
Resolution Status
6/1/2013
Utility conflict
resolved
None
-
Utility conflict
resolved
None
6/1/2013
Utility conflict
resolved
QLA
10
None
Environmental
reevaluation
QLC
QLC
Commitments
Transmission tower in conflict
115+50
30 115+50
30
with highway
Design and PS&E
Electric
Post
Construction
Utility
Recommended Action or
Investigation Test Hole
Resolution
Level Needed
Underground utility conduit in
110+00
40 140+00
40
conflict with highway
Environmental
18"
Environmental Process
2
Letting Construction
Assembly
114+00
0 114+00
0
Property Acquisition and
Relocation Assistance
UCM UCM UCM UCM
Right-of-way
2 authorization
3
4
5Property Management
Preliminary Utility Conflict
Analysis
Utility Conflict Analysis, Permits,
Relocation, and Reimbursement
Letting
0%
design
15-20% 30%
60%
90%
design design design design
Project Management
Construction
3-40
UCM Update: UCM 6
Planning
Preliminary Design
Definition, Selection,
Financing, Sched.
Detailed Design
Post
Construction
Construction
authorization
Agreements,
Scope Update
Planning
linkages
Letting Construction
Alternative Analysis and
Preliminary Plans
Environmental
approval
Environmental Process
Environmental
Commitments
Environmental
reevaluation
Design and PS&E
Assembly
Right-of-Way Map
Development
Property Acquisition and
Relocation Assistance
UCM
1
UCM UCM UCM UCM
Right-of-way
2 authorization
3
4
5Property Management
Preliminary Utility Conflict
Analysis
Utility Conflict Analysis, Permits,
Relocation, and Reimbursement
Letting
0%
design
15-20% 30%
60%
90%
design design design design
Project Management
UCM
6
Construction
3-41
Cost Estimate Analysis
• Detailed analysis of utility conflict resolution
alternatives
– Cost (both utility and DOT)
– Feasibility
• Analysis varies from simple to detailed
– Several alternatives for each utility conflict
– Up to four cost estimates for each alternative
• Useful for documentation purposes
3-42
Cost Estimate Analysis
Conflict ID:
1
Utility Owner:
AT&T
Utility Type:
Telephone
Size and/or Material: Fiber Optic
Project Phase:
Alternative
Number
60% Design
Alternative
Description
Alternative
Advantage
Alternative Respons. Engineering Direct Cost Engineering Direct Total Cost Feasibility Decision
Disadvantage
Party
Cost
(Utility)
Cost
Cost
(Utility)
(DOT)
(DOT)
1
Relocation before No design
Cost to utility for Utility
construction.
change required, relocation.
no additional
cost to DOT.
$25,000
$200,000
$0
$0
$225,000
Yes
Rejected
2
Protect in-place.
$10,000
$30,000
$0
$0
$40,000
No
Rejected
3
Change highway Utility can remain High cost and
design.
in place.
project delay.
DOT
$0
$0
$25,000
$0
$25,000
Yes
Selected
4
Exception to
policy.
N/A
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
No
Rejected
Utility can remain Access to utility Utility
in place.
for maintenance
problematic.
No cost to utility
or DOT.
High risk of
damage to
utility and
maintenance
problems.
3-43
UCM Responsibilities
Data
Impact
Populate Coordinate
Collection Assessment
UCM
with
Utilities
Utility Conflict
Management
Responsibility
UCM 1 PM, UC,
Cons
PM, Cons
PM
UC
PM
UCM 2 UC, Sur,
Cons
PM, Cons
PM, UC,
Cons
UC
PM
UCM 3 Sur, Cons
PM, Cons
PM, Cons UC
PM
UCM 4 Sur, Cons
PM, Cons
PM, Cons UC
PM
UCM 5 n/a
PM, Cons
PM, UC
PM
UC
PM = Project Manager/Designer
UC = Utility Coordinator
Sur = Surveyor
Cons = Consultant
3-44
Utility Conflict Matrix Uses
• Management report during project development
• Utility information for highway project bidders
included in letting documents
– Certification of known utility facilities within project limits
– Special provision for utility relocations
• Management report during construction
• Cost savings report after construction
3-45
UCM Sample Applications
• Georgia DOT
• California DOT
3-46
Sample Application No. 1
• Roswell Road Project, Georgia
– NW of Atlanta, Cobb County
– Widening of SR 120/Roswell Road from SR 120 ALT
to Bridgegate Drive
– Project length: 1.8 miles
– 13 utility owners
– 135,000 linear feet of underground utilities
3-47
Project Plan View
Conflict?
18” Drainage
30” Water
3-48
How deep is the water pipe?
30” Water
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
3-49
How deep is the water pipe?
30” Water
3-50
Utility ID Sheet Utility
Owner
No. Type
AWS
C16
Size/
Material
Utility Conflict
Description
Start
Sta.
End
Sta.
Start End Inv. Test Recommended Action Est. Res. Resolution
Offset Offset Need Hole
or Resolution
Date
Status
Roswell Road Plan View
1 Water
30” ductile Proposed 18”
iron pipe
drainage pipe would
cross water main
36+50 36+50 47’ LT
QLA
17 Review possibility of
adjusting drainage pipe
up to avoid conflict
n/a
Utility conflict
created
C16
3-51
Roswell Road Plan View
C16
45’ pole
3-52
Existing 45’ pole
Proposed 55’ pole
3-53
Utility ID Sheet Utility
Owner
No. Type
Size/
Material
Utility Conflict
Description
Start
Sta.
End
Sta.
Start End Inv. Test Recommended Action Est. Res. Resolution
Offset Offset Need Hole
or Resolution
Date
Status
Roswell Road Plan View
AWS
C16
1 Water
30” ductile Proposed 18”
iron pipe
drainage pipe would
cross water main
CPS
C32
1 Electric 45” pole
Existing pole in
proposed roadway
36+50 36+50 47’ LT
QLA
17 Review possibility of
adjusting drainage pipe
up to avoid conflict
n/a
Utility conflict
created
34+55
QLC
Pole to be relocated
n/a
Utility conflict
created
40’ RT
C16
C32
3-54
Utility ID Sheet Utility
Owner
No.
Type
Size/
Material
Utility Conflict
Description
Start
Sta.
End
Sta.
Start End Inv. Test Recommended Action Est. Res. Resolution
Offset Offset Need Hole
or Resolution
Date
Status
Roswell Road Plan View
AWS
C16
1 Water
30” ductile Proposed 18”
iron pipe
drainage pipe would
cross water main
CPS
C32
1 Electric 45” pole
Existing pole in
proposed roadway
36+50 36+50 47’ LT
QLA
17 Review possibility of
adjusting drainage pipe
up to avoid conflict
n/a
Utility conflict
created
34+55
QLC
Pole to be relocated
n/a
Utility conflict
created
40’ RT
C16
C32
5’ Sidewalk
12” Water
3-55
?
?
?
12” Water
?
?
How deep is the water pipe?
3-56
Utility ID Sheet Utility
Owner
No.
Type
Size/
Material
Utility Conflict
Description
AWS
C16
1 Water
30” ductile Proposed 18”
iron pipe
drainage pipe would
cross water main
CPS
C32
1 Electric 45” pole
Existing pole in
proposed roadway
AWS
C43
1 Water
12” water
pipe
Start
Sta.
End
Sta.
Start End Inv. Test Recommended Action Est. Res. Resolution
Offset Offset Need Hole
or Resolution
Date
Status
36+50 36+50 47’ LT
QLA
17 Review possibility of
adjusting drainage pipe
up to avoid conflict
n/a
Utility conflict
created
34+55
40’ RT
QLC
Pole to be relocated
n/a
Utility conflict
created
Proposed sidewalk in 37+00
conflict with 12”
water main
53’ LT
QLA
n/a
Utility conflict
created
C16
21 Highway/sidewalk redesign to avoid utility
impact
C43
C32
3-57
Utility Conflict Matrix
Utility ID Sheet Utility
Owner
No.
Type
Size/
Material
Utility Conflict
Description
AWS
C16
1 Water
30” ductile Proposed 18”
iron pipe
drainage pipe would
cross water main
CPS
C32
1 Electric 45” pole
Existing pole in
proposed roadway
AWS
C43
1 Water
CPS
C54
CPS
Start
Sta.
End
Sta.
Start End Inv. Test Recommended Action Est. Res. Resolution
Offset Offset Need Hole
or Resolution
Date
Status
36+50 36+50 47’ LT
QLA
17 Review possibility of
adjusting drainage pipe
up to avoid conflict
n/a
Utility conflict
created
34+55
40’ RT
QLC
Pole to be relocated
n/a
Utility conflict
created
Proposed sidewalk in 37+00
conflict with 12”
water main
53’ LT
QLA
n/a
Utility conflict
created
1 Electric 45’ pole
Existing pole in
proposed curb line
38+30
57’ RT
QLC
Pole to be relocated
n/a
Utility conflict
created
C55
1 Electric 45’ pole
Existing pole in area
of grade cut
38+50
63’ RT
QLC
Pole may need to be
supported or replaced
with taller pole
n/a
Utility conflict
created
CPS
C61
1 Electric 45’ pole
Existing pole in
proposed curb line
40+00
52’ RT
QLC
Pole to be relocated
n/a
Utility conflict
created
ATT
C28
1 Commu 45’ pole
nication
Existing pole in
conflict with
proposed drainage
40+15
65’ LT
QLC
Pole to be relocated
n/a
Utility conflict
created
12” water
pipe
21 Highway/sidewalk redesign to avoid utility
impact
3-58
Sample Application No. 2
• California DOT project
– US 91
– Riverside, east of Los Angeles, Riverside County
3-59
Project Plan View
52
Power pole inside
right of way
3-60
Utility ID Sheet Utility
Owner
No. Type
CP
52
Size/
Material
U-10 Electric Pole
Utility Conflict
Description
Pole is in conflict with
retaining wall.
Start
Sta.
End
Sta.
280
+50
Start End Inv. Test Recommended Action Est. Res. Resolution
Offset Offset Need Hole
or Resolution
Date
Status
80’ LT
QLC
Review possibility of
n/a
modifying retaining wall
281 to avoid conflict
Utility conflict
created
52
3-61
53E
Power pole inside
right of way
3-62
Utility ID Sheet Utility
Owner
No. Type
Size/
Material
Utility Conflict
Description
Start
Sta.
End
Sta.
Start End Inv. Test Recommended Action Est. Res. Resolution
Offset Offset Need Hole
or Resolution
Date
Status
CP
52
U-10 Electric Pole
Pole is in conflict with
retaining wall.
280
+50
80’ LT
QLC
Review possibility of
n/a
modifying retaining wall
281 to avoid conflict
Utility conflict
created
CP
53E
U-10 Electric Pole
Pole is within the
proposed right of way
282+
50
80’ LT
QLC
Protect in place
Utility conflict
created
52
n/a
53E
3-63
89
Overhead electric line
Right of way line
3-64
Utility ID Sheet Utility
Owner
No. Type
Size/
Material
Utility Conflict
Description
Start
Sta.
End
Sta.
Start End Inv. Test Recommended Action Est. Res. Resolution
Offset Offset Need Hole
or Resolution
Date
Status
CP
52
U-10 Electric Pole
Pole is in conflict with
retaining wall.
280
+50
80’ LT
QLC
Review possibility of
n/a
modifying retaining wall
281 to avoid conflict
Utility conflict
created
CP
53E
U-10 Electric Pole
Pole is within the
proposed right of way
282+
50
80’ LT
QLC
Protect in place
n/a
Utility conflict
created
CP
89
U-15 Electric Pole
Power line is within
the proposed right of
way
Relocate utility line
n/a
Utility conflict
created
348 349
+00 +00
75’ LT 85’ LT QLC
89
3-65
63E
Underground vault
3-66
Utility ID Sheet Utility
Owner
No. Type
Size/
Material
Utility Conflict
Description
Start
Sta.
End
Sta.
Start End Inv. Test Recommended Action Est. Res. Resolution
Offset Offset Need Hole
or Resolution
Date
Status
CP
52
U-10 Electric Pole
Pole is in conflict with
retaining wall.
280
+50
80’ LT
QLC
Review possibility of
n/a
modifying retaining wall
281 to avoid conflict
Utility conflict
created
CP
53E
U-10 Electric Pole
Pole is within the
proposed right of way
282+
50
80’ LT
QLC
Protect in place
n/a
Utility conflict
created
CP
89
U-15 Electric Pole
Power line is within
the proposed right of
way
Relocate utility line
n/a
Utility conflict
created
EPP
63E
U-11 Unkno
wn
Vault is within the
19+50
proposed right of way
n/a
Utility conflict
created
Vault
348 349
+00 +00
75’ LT 85’ LT QLC
0
QLA
14 Protect in place
63E
3-67
In Summary …
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Gather available info
Identify potential utility conflicts
Prepare utility conflict matrix
Evaluate alternatives (both utility and project)
Conduct utility conflict analysis
Coordinate with stakeholders
Iterative process (pending design progression)
Goal: minimize unnecessary utility relocations
3-68
3.2
Discussion, questions, and
answers
3-69