Final Scope
In a recent Federal Highway Administration review of state department of transportation (DOT) utility programs, federal regulations cited the need for states to improve in their inspection and collection of utility as-built information as part of relocation operations. It has further been noted that utility as-built information as collected through permitted accommodations varies substantially by DOT and by utility companies. The effective collection and use of this information can minimize utility-related impacts and delays resulting in savings to DOTs and utility companies alike.
The objective of this synthesis is to document current state DOT practices related to utility as- built data collection, use, and management. The synthesis will address as-built utility data for both subsurface and above ground utilities.
Information to be gathered includes (but is not limited to):
• Approaches to accessing utility company records and information (e.g., non-disclosure agreements, partnering agreements).
• Types of records collected (e.g., paper versus digital) and what is included in the records collected (e.g., type of utilities, age of utilities, accuracy of location);
• Approaches taken by DOTs in working with utility companies for sharing utility as-built information;
• Use and management of utility data repositories and 3-D utility as-built information (e.g., data storage issues, retention policies; keeping the information current);
• Technology used and accuracy standards for surveying or collecting as-built information (e.g., mapping grade versus survey grade collections);
• Uses of utility as-built information in planning, project development, construction, or maintenance operations; and
• Metrics used for quantifying the benefits realized by using utility as-built information during planning, project development, construction, and maintenance (e.g., SUE and utility conflict matrices, less delay, change orders).
Information will be gathered through a literature review, a survey of state DOTs, and follow-up interviews with selected agencies for the development of case examples. Information gaps and suggestions for research to address those gaps will be identified.
Information Sources (Partial):
• 3D Utility Location Data Repository Implementation Plan, Pennsylvania DOT. (April 2019).
• Meis, P., Sturgill R., Manser, R., Swafford, T., Roland, J. NCHRP 20-07, Task 418: An Impact and Value Analysis of Requiring Geospatial Locations for Utility Installation As-Builts. (June 2020)
• Every Day Counts, 3D Engineered Models: Schedule, Cost and Post-Construction. Program Case Study, As-Built Utility Surveys: A Tale of Two State Transportation Departments. (2016). FHWA-HIF-16-016. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation
• Taylor, T., Lasley, V., Waddle, S., Li, Y., and Sturgill, R. (2020). NCHRP Synthesis 148: Development and Use of As-Built Plans by State Departments of Transportation. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
•FHWA. (October 2018). National Utility Review: Utility Coordination Process. Final Reportrev. FHWA-HIF-18-039. FHWA, Office of Infrastructure, U.S. Department of Transportation.
•Sterling, R.L. Anspach, J., Allouche, E., Simicevic, J., Rogers, C. D. F., Weston, K., and Hayes, K. (2009). SHRP 2 R-01: Encouraging Innovation in Locating and Characterizing Utilities. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C
TRB Staff
Jo Allen Gause
Phone: 202-334-3826
Email: jagause@nas.edu
Meeting Dates
First Panel: September 15, 2021, virtual
Teleconference with Consultant: October 13, 2021, 11:00 a.m., ET
Second Panel: June 7, 2022, Washington, DC
Topic Panel
Larry Ditty, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
Christie Hill, Texas Department of Transportation
Rob Martindale, Colorado Department of Transportation
Alexa Mitchell, HDR
Aisha Moultrie, Georgia Department of Transportation
Viraj Perera, Illinois Department of Transportation
Morgan Kessler, Federal Highway Administration
Nelson Gibson, Transportation Research Board
