<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Research in Progress (RIP)</title>
    <link>https://rip.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://rip.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=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" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>Integrated Utility Relocation Scheduling: A National Framework for Reducing Project Delays</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2712171</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Utility relocations are a critical component of highway project delivery, yet they continue to be a leading cause of construction delays and cost overruns. Previous studies have examined how utility conflicts affect highway construction and emphasized the need to better integrate utility relocation activities into project scheduling. Even when utilities are identified early and coordination is established, many projects still experience schedule risks because relocation timelines are not fully aligned with construction sequencing. The research recommended moving beyond conflict identification to develop structured scheduling practices that define activities, durations, and dependencies using common project-management tools and formats compatible with department of transportation (DOT) scheduling systems.

Research is therefore needed to document current practices, identify gaps and successful approaches, and develop a national framework and guide for integrated utility relocation scheduling. This framework will define the essential elements of detailed, data-informed relocation schedules; provide methods to align them with project construction timelines; and incorporate utility owners’ operational needs and constraints. The resulting guide would enable agencies and utilities to improve schedule predictability, reduce delays, and achieve more reliable, coordinated project delivery nationwide.

The objective of this research is to develop a framework and guide for integrating detailed utility relocation schedules into highway project delivery. The framework will define standardized practices for developing, coordinating, and maintaining structured, data-informed relocation schedules that align with overall project timelines and activities.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2026 12:44:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2712171</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Public Utilities Within SDDOT’s Highway Right of Way</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2704041</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Utilities located within or near the highway right of way (ROW), whether existing or planned, pose significant challenges for the South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT). These challenges include managing and documenting final utility placement and minimizing conflicts with future construction. A lack of planning and coordination often results in insufficient space for additional utilities and complicates future infrastructure projects.
Permitting practices across SDDOT vary significantly, particularly for non-traditional or private utility installations such as drain tile, methane lines, and private water systems. This inconsistency is exacerbated by outdated South Dakota Administrative Rules, which do not reflect modern installation methods, materials, or industry standards. For example, current rules still require steel casing under roadways, even though modern alternative materials like  polyethylene meet structural requirements and are commonly used in other states. While SDDOT does allow alternative materials if they meet Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) criteria, this requirement can be burdensome for smaller utility providers who may lack the resources to hire engineers for custom casing designs. The lack of standardized, pre-approved casing options further complicates permitting process and installation practices. Additionally, the rules provide little to no guidance on modern installation practices such as horizontal direction boring, which has largely replaced trenching in many contexts due to its lower surface disruption and environmental impact. These regulatory gaps contribute to permitting delays, inconsistent enforcement, and increased costs for both the Department and utility owners.
After utility permits are issued and work is completed, the submission of as-built documentation is often inconsistent and lacks standardization. This makes it difficult to accurately verify the depth and location of installed utilities. Submissions can vary widely – from  detailed Computer Aided Design (CAD) files to hand-drawn sketches--resulting in  uncertainty and inefficiencies during future planning, maintenance, and construction activities.
Utility coordination in developed areas remains a significant challenge due to the absence of a unified, enforceable framework. In many cases, coordination among utility providers is nearly nonexistent, resulting in inefficient use of limited ROW space. This lack of coordination has led to overlapping installations, redundant infrastructure—such as multiple dark fiber lines—and increased risk during construction or maintenance activities. Compounding the issue is the absence of a clear process for managing abandoned utilities or maintaining an accurate inventory of existing infrastructure. Without reliable data, future planning becomes more complex and costly.
Federal regulations, including 23 CFR Part 645 Subpart C, require state DOTs to designate broadband utility coordinators and establish a process for registering and notifying broadband providers about planned projects. These rules are intended to reduce redundant installations and promote early coordination. However, SDDOT has faced limited engagement from broadband providers, making compliance difficult and undermining efforts to streamline utility planning.
The growing presence of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) infrastructure—such as fiber-optic lines, sensors, and communication equipment—adds another layer of complexity. ITS systems require secure, uninterrupted access and are particularly vulnerable to damage or interference from uncoordinated utility work. Protecting ITS infrastructure is critical to maintaining traffic safety and operational efficiency.
Although South Dakota Administrative Rules reference utility corridors, there is no consistent enforcement mechanism or incentive structure to encourage shared use or coordinated planning. This approach increases the likelihood of project delays, cost overruns, and safety hazards during construction.
To address these challenges, a comprehensive evaluation of current utility coordination practices is needed, including a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis. This would identify gaps, assess risks, and provide practical, policy-driven improvements aligned with both state and federal expectations.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2704041</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Synthesis of Information Related to Highway Practices. Topic 57-07. Utility Coordination Staffing, Organizational Structures, Training Programs, and Certifications
</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2630480</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Utility coordination is a process carried out by state departments of transportation (DOTs) during all project phases from concept through construction. This includes various tasks such as collecting utility information, coordinating with utility owners and project stakeholders, synthesizing utility information, identifying potential utility conflicts, and managing utility-related risks. With the degree of variability in state DOT organizational structures, utility coordination staffing varies across different DOTs. Additionally, some DOTs outsource utility coordination services to alleviate the workload on internal coordinators or for procuring specialized expertise for tasks such as utility investigations.

State DOT staff conducting utility coordination require information regarding state DOT–specific policies, procedures, and tools employed in utility coordination. These coordinators need an understanding of roles and responsibilities, utility engineering, the project delivery process, and utility accommodation and reimbursement practices. With ongoing changes and challenges in state DOT workforces, to ensure the readiness of staff and external service providers, many state DOTs have used training materials and certification requirements to support knowledge acquisition and retention. Some state DOTs have developed training materials for utility coordination practices that are intended for both internal staff and external professionals working with their DOTs. Also, external training courses or certification programs offer further opportunities for qualification and knowledge acquisition.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this synthesis is to document state DOT practices for utility coordination regarding staffing allocation, organizational structure, training programs, certification requirements, and to capture outsourcing practices related to utility coordination.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2025 18:25:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2630480</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Synthesis of Information Related to Highway Practices. Topic 57-08. Siting Electric Transmission Lines in State Department of Transportation Right-of-Way
</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2630486</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Growing electricity demand and reliability needs are driving efforts to expand electric transmission infrastructure. This requires installation of new transmission lines to deliver electricity where capacity is needed. Using transportation corridors for transmission co-location may reduce transmission deployment delays, and the need for private acquisition of land rights by using state Right-of-Way (ROW) permits and licenses. Because of this state departments of transportation (DOTs) have been encouraged to consider accommodating energy transmission lines within highway ROWs through utility accommodation policies or non-highway alternative use agreements.

OBJECTIVE:The objective of this synthesis is to document emerging practices and policies for siting and co-locating electric transmission lines in the state DOT-owned ROW]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2025 17:21:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2630486</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Guide for Meeting Current and Future Airport Utility Needs</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2588330</link>
      <description><![CDATA[BACKGROUND

Utility services, such as water, natural gas, and electricity, have limited supply, while the demand is rising because of competing demands (e.g., data centers, transportation electrification), emerging technologies (e.g., electric vertical take-off and landing), airport growth, higher passenger volumes, and the need for continuity of operations. Local utility providers are challenged by competing demands, and their priorities do not always support airport needs. Many airports are affected by these constraints, unsure how to plan for increased utility demand versus available capacity or whom to engage in these critical conversations. 

Research is needed to help airport practitioners address these underlying challenges and deliver utility services that meet current and future airport needs.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this research is to develop a guide to help airport practitioners, of all sizes, effectively plan, manage relationships, and leverage opportunities with utility providers (see Special Note A).

At a minimum, the guide shall include the following components:

Case Studies and Lessons Learned: Diverse real-world examples across airport sizes and regions; risk/gap analysis focused on airport-serving utilities, including competing demands (e.g., data centers) (see Special Note B).
Value and Importance of Utility Data Capture: High-level overview of critical data needs across all utility categories (e.g., energy, water, communications), recommended metrics, current industry benchmarks, and the transformative role of Internet of Things, sub-metering, and digital-twin technologies in establishing baselines and enhancing performance.
Stakeholder Mapping: Comprehensive identification and visualization of internal airport stakeholders (e.g., operations, planning, finance) and external stakeholders (e.g., investor-owned utilities, municipal utilities, cooperatives, regulators, energy wholesalers) along with their interests, influence, and typical interaction points.
Governance Structures for Airport-Serving Utilities: Review of common governance and contractual models (e.g., leases, utility easements, airport-owned/operated utilities, airport utility improvements), including advantages, disadvantages, and best-practice recommendations.
Strategic Planning for Airport Utilities: Step-by-step framework for integrating utility planning into master planning and capital improvement programs, including forecasting methodologies, resilience planning, and scenario planning.
Funding Mechanisms: Summary of available federal, state, regional, and local funding sources and successful airport examples of and recommendations for funding planning studies and infrastructure implementation.
Communication Toolkit (see Special Note C):
Ready-to-use talking points for engaging utility service providers on demand forecasting, capacity constraints, asset portfolio, service quality, rate structures, and usage audits 
Guidance on preparing and submitting successful grant and incentive applications 
A visually appealing slide deck (MS PowerPoint or other similar template) for stakeholders and executive communications
A one- or two-page summary of key takeaways, contact resources, and checklist items for immediate use by practitioners
 Recommendations and Opportunities: Prioritized actions by airport size and forward-looking options.
RESEARCH PLAN

The ACRP is seeking the insights of proposers on how best to achieve the research objective. Proposers are expected to describe research plans that can realistically be accomplished within the constraints of available funds and subaward time. Proposals must present the proposers' current thinking in sufficient detail to demonstrate their understanding of the issues and the soundness of their approach to meeting the research objective. The work proposed must be divided into tasks and proposers must describe the work proposed in detail.

The research plan shall comprise the appropriate interim deliverables for ACRP review and approval, including

Key findings from ACRP reports, the Federal Aviation Administration, Airport Council International - North America, American Association of Airport Executives, and academic and industry sources (see Special Note D);
A case study plan; 
An interim report that provides a description and analysis of each research task completed to date; 
An annotated outline of the guide; and
Potential problem statement(s) based on research gaps.
Note: For each problem statement approved by the panel, the research team will use the ACRP problem statement process (https://trb.org/ACRP/problemstatements.aspx) to submit the problem statement on behalf of the project panel. The development and submission of problem statements should occur as soon as possible, taking into account the ACRP problem statement annual submission deadline of early April.

Note: The interim report should be of sufficient detail and clarity to allow the panel to confirm successful accomplishment of the technical aspects of the research plan performed to date.

The research plan shall include the following checkpoints with the ACRP panel:

A kick-off web meeting to be held within 1 month of the Notice to Proceed
A web meeting to review the literature review report
A web meeting to review the draft case study report
Final deliverables shall include: 

The guide;
A communication toolkit;
A glossary of terms;
A technical memo titled “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” (see Item IV under the Important section);
The Key Findings form (see Item V under the Important section); and
A conduct of research report documenting the entire research effort, results, and analysis (see Item VI under the Important section).
Note: Following receipt of the draft final deliverables, there should be 3 months for ACRP review and comments and for the research team’s preparation of the final deliverables. For budgeting purposes, proposers should assume that ACRP will provide access to web-enabled teleconference services. ACRP will pay panel members’ travel costs for the face-to-face interim meeting. Proposers should assume that the meeting will be held in Washington, DC.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2025 10:19:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2588330</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Revenue Opportunities from MDOT Fiber
Infrastructure
and Other Utility Types</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2562269</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Various state highway agencies permit telecommunications to be located longitudinally along freeway rights-of-way (ROW). 
Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) is interested in a study of alternative sources of transportation revenues that could be phased in over time to replace
revenue lost as motor and diesel fuel decline become obsolete. MDOT focus would be on non-vehicle related revenue streams,
such as, leasing rights-of-way for Fiber Communications and/or other utility types, possibly private transportation facilities,
and/or public-private partnerships.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2025 15:08:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2562269</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Managing the Prior Rights and Prescriptive Rights of Utilities

</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558399</link>
      <description><![CDATA[State departments of transportation (DOTs) manage and remediate prior rights and prescriptive rights when construction necessitates property ownership transfer from utilities. NCHRP Research Report 1054: Acquiring Utility Property Interests and Reimbursing Utility Relocation Costs: A Guide provided practitioners approaches to acquire utility-owned property and reimburse utility owners for eligible relocation costs. The research scope did not address management of prior rights and prescriptive rights claims, however. State DOTs still confront issues with determinations of prior rights and prescriptive rights claims that can differ greatly from one parcel or jurisdiction to another.

A comprehensive framework to identify and manage all types of compensable and noncompensable property interests in connection with utility relocations would assist state DOTs with inconsistencies in current processes and procedures. Research is needed to review pertinent laws, regulations, and practices; document case examples that identify best practices; and identify implementation opportunities.   

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research is to develop a guide for managing prior rights and prescriptive rights for utility relocations. The guide will contain successful applications from the state level and will incorporate varying methods and statutory requirements.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2025 10:03:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558399</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Integrating Property Interests Information with Existing Utility Infrastructure Data


</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558401</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Utility facilities and the property interests that govern their placement are often not fully aligned or documented. Many utilities have been installed outside of designated easements, and municipal utilities frequently lack clearly defined boundaries. During relocations, older facilities are sometimes abandoned in place without proper records. As a result, state department of transportation (DOT) rights-of-way (ROW) contain numerous utilities with uncertain legal status.

Across the country, documentation of older easements is often vague, incomplete, or unrecorded, and state DOTs may struggle to obtain missing information without cooperation from utility providers. Data-sharing challenges—driven by proprietary concerns, security restrictions, workforce limitations, and changes in ownership—further complicate efforts to verify utility locations and associated property rights.

Research is needed to create a secure, collaborative system for state DOTs and utility providers to link, store, and manage utility infrastructure and property interest data.

The objective of this research is to develop a compendium to help state DOTs collaborate with utility providers to integrate property interest information with existing utility infrastructure data. At a minimum, the compendium shall include a data governance framework, a technical architecture for linking existing utility facility data to its associated property interest, a spatial data framework holding the linked information, and implementation guidance.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2025 09:56:59 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558401</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Benefits and Barriers of Utility Infrastructure in Transportation Rights-of-Way


</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558403</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The use of transportation rights-of-way (ROW) for the co-location of utility infrastructure has become increasingly common as the demand grows for expanded energy, telecommunications, water, broadband, and other essential services. As both urban and rural regions experience rising infrastructure demands, transportation corridors offer a practical location for utility installations due to existing land use and established access. Because the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has long recognized the public interest in accommodating utilities within highway ROW, no uniform national framework guiding how these installations are planned, permitted, and managed across jurisdictions remains. Additionally, regulatory requirements and processes vary widely at the state and local levels, often creating inefficiencies and coordination challenges between transportation agencies and utility providers.

From a technical operations perspective, co-location introduces considerations related to the structural integrity of roadway assets, access for maintenance, and preservation of safety during construction and ongoing operations. Conversely, transportation maintenance activities can pose risks to utility systems, particularly where coordination is limited or asset data are incomplete. While co-location may reduce the need for new corridor development, associated costs can have economic and environmental implications, which require compliance with federal and state regulations. Research is needed to address evolving business practices for utility infrastructure in transportation ROW with regard to regulatory requirements, ensuring public safety, promoting sustainable infrastructure development, and clarifying the associated costs and benefits.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research project is to develop a compendium to identify and evaluate the benefits and barriers associated with utility infrastructure in transportation ROW. The compendium shall include, at minimum, an implementation guide and application tools for ROW management.

]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2025 09:48:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558403</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Reconciling One-Call Results and Subsurface Utility Engineering Data with Actual Utility Location


</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558410</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Highway contractors are legally obligated to contact the One-Call system prior to initiating construction, regardless of accuracy or completeness of utility information in the contract bid package. This requirement is mandated by damage prevention laws and regulations to ensure safety and prevent damage to underground utilities. Standard practices will have the utility markings within industry-accepted tolerances typically 18 to 24 inches horizontally off centerline of utility marks and should match the information given to the state departments of transportation (DOTs) and highway contractor(s) involved. However, utility markings that exceed accepted tolerances can create risks for the state DOT or highway contractor.

Understanding the location and impacts of utility owners’ infrastructure continues to be key to successful completion of highway construction projects, and this requires thorough and accurate information about existing or relocated utility facilities in every contract bid package. Many state DOTs incorporate utility investigations using ASCE 38-22, Standard Guideline for Investigating and Documenting Existing Utilities, apply utility conflict management practices to identify and resolve utility conflicts, and advocate the importance of preparing utility as-builts after relocation. In January 2000, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) commissioned a study entitled, Cost Savings on Highway Projects Utilizing Subsurface Utility Engineering, which has been instrumental in promoting the use of subsurface utility engineering (SUE) as a practice to reduce project costs and risks.

Research is needed to analyze the return on investment (ROI) and risk mitigation for SUE practices and the differences between reconciling One-Call data results, SUE, and information on the actual utility location collected by state DOTs throughout the project delivery process as it relates to existing and relocated utility facilities.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research project is to develop a compendium that supports state DOTs, utility owners, and contractors to manage design and construction issues related to reconciling One-Call data results, SUE data, and the actual location of existing utilities. The compendium shall include, at minimum, value analysis of One-Call and SUE data (including ROI), implementation guidance, and tools to support the use, comparison, and communication of utility information.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2025 20:55:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2558410</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Efficient Utility Relocation Planning</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2543851</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Like in any state, transportation construction projects delivered by the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) often conflict with existing utilities, and these conflicts need to be resolved. Identifying these conflicts is a complex process because location data for existing utility facilities may not be always readily available with the required accuracy when it is needed in early design phase. Utility conflicts often lead to the need for their relocations on transportation projects. In addition, the project detailed design (including ROW) is not known upfront, which makes the conflict identification a complex and time-consuming process. Such conflicts are typically not recognized early enough during the design to avoid them. Most conflicts are resolved by relocating the utilities, which might result in additional issues, particularly during construction, if not managed properly. While identifying utility conflicts in a timely manner is a challenging task, the utility relocations are often reported to be a significant cause of delays in transportation project delivery.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2025 09:07:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2543851</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Improve Utility Investigations through AI Data Fusion and Reliable Quality Assessments</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2437689</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Identifying and documenting existing utility facilities within the proposed right-of-way (ROW) is crucial for successful project delivery. There is a need to leverage data collection technology’s strengths and minimize weaknesses for a more robust and reliable determination of utility locations and develop and test metrics to assess the utility investigation quality levels in ways that make sense to project design teams. Improvements will lead to a better stakeholder understanding to communicate the quality levels commonly used by the SUE industry (D, C, B, and A), the basis for assessing utility investigation deliverable quality, and would be able to tie quality levels to quantifiable performance metrics such as positional accuracy, error, and completeness, which are common in engineering and surveying when collecting field data for a project.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2024 10:31:18 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2437689</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RES2025-03: Determining Ways to Mediate Inaccurate Utility Estimates for Planning, Design, and Bid Prices at Letting</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2437328</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Over the past decade and a half, the State of Tennessee has witnessed a remarkable surge in its population, unprecedented in its history. This rapid growth has not only resulted in a significant increase in traffic volume but also in the accelerated degradation of state routes and the burgeoning development along these crucial corridors. In response to these challenges and to accommodate the burgeoning demands of its growing population, the state legislature passed the Transportation Modernization Act. This landmark legislation has earmarked billions of dollars for the enhancement of Tennessee's roadways and infrastructure, aiming to elevate the infrastructure across various types and levels of service on Tennessee roadways to meet current and future needs. 
 The State of Tennessee has witnessed significant growth over the past decade, which has led to
increased traffic, accelerated wear on state routes, and a surge in utility infrastructure within state
highway rights of way. The TDOT faces challenges in coordinating the relocation of these utilities
due to inaccurate preliminary cost estimates, leading to project delays, cost overruns, and disputes
with utility companies. This proposal introduces an innovative solution: the development of an
Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based tool designed to provide accurate utility relocation cost
estimations. This tool aims to streamline budgeting processes, reduce discrepancies between
estimated and actual costs, and minimize project delays and disputes.
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Sep 2024 15:51:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2437328</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Assessing Ohio's Approach to Clearing Utilities on Highway Projects Process Improvements
</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2431341</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) has incurred over $30 million dollars in construction related delays in addition to extended traveling time to the public and potential delays to other projects. One leading cause of construction delays is the untimely relocation of utility infrastructure as well as other utility conflicts, including unmarked or mismarked utility locations. The current utility relocation process relies on leveraging communication and good working relationships between ODOT and Utility company staff, with no practical enforcement tools within the law. Research is needed to determine the most cost effective, practical, and safest way to initiate and execute utility coordination. The goal of this project is to identify processes, procedure, and/or statutory changes that could decrease the risks of utility related construction delay occurrences. 

The objectives of this research include the following: (1) Review and identify common causes/factors that have led to utility related construction delays, which may be extrinsic or intrinsic to ODOT, the Utility company, or force majeure. (2) Develop an analysis/spreadsheet/report that identifies projects that have historically been affected by a utility related construction delay broken down by District, utility (type/name), duration (if known), cost (if known). (3) Conduct a review of ODOT's current process to determine successes and opportunities for improvement. (4) Review Utility relocation practices from other DOTs to identify best practices. (5) Provide recommendations on policies and procedures, laws, etc. 
                     ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Sep 2024 14:27:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2431341</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Field Verification Processes for Utility Installation and Relocation: A Guide

</title>
      <link>https://rip.trb.org/View/2381757</link>
      <description><![CDATA[BACKGROUND - State departments of transportation (DOTs) regularly negotiate contractual agreements with utility owners during project development and delivery, which includes issuing permits that enable utility owners to occupy public rights-of-way (ROW). At times, these agreements may remain in place after a project is completed. State DOTs and local agencies review and approve each proposed utility installation to ensure the latest amended installation or any relocation complies with a state DOT’s utility accommodation policies and rules, relevant specifications/provisions, and industry standards or specifications. Additionally, field verification processes are integral components for monitoring and certifying that proposed utility installations or relocations have been constructed and/or installed according to the utility construction documents and plans. Field verifications are a potential utility-related risk that could also be attributed to communication oversights between utility owners and transportation agencies (e.g., notification of construction start time and providing sufficient lead time for a state DOT’s inspectors). Other barriers identified include limited resources and tools to conduct inspections (e.g., guidelines, workforce readiness, and formal inspection training/certification). Research is needed to develop essential field oversight processes during utility installation and relocation.

OBJECTIVE - The objective of this research is to develop a guide for state DOTs to assist with field verification processes for utility installation and relocation. Accomplishment of the project objective will require at least the following tasks.
TASKS - PHASE I – Planning and Data Collection: Task 1. Conduct a literature review of relevant research related to field verification processes for utility installation and relocation. The review shall include published and unpublished research conducted through the NCHRP; the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); and other national, international, state, and pooled-fund sponsored research. Task 2. Propose an approach (site visits, surveys, targeted interviews, focus groups, and other appropriate methods and/or tools) to collect information from state DOTs, practitioners, and relevant stakeholders according to field verification processes for utility installation and relocation. At a minimum, the proposed approach shall identify, evaluate, and summarize information needed to characterize the current state of the practice as well as future needs, including: (1) Financial (e.g., federal-aid and state funds, franchise fees, and leases), technical (e.g., duct banks, utility corridors, easements, and dedicated or shared spaces), and organizational (e.g., funding for inspections, dedicated staff, agency resources) requirements. (2) State DOTs’ current field verification processes, methods, and tools (e.g., inspection criteria, quality control [QC], quality assurance [QA], performance and prescriptive specifications, post-event inspection).
(3) Correlation between the field inspector’s involvement and utility-related project delays as they relate to the return on investment (ROI) (e.g., facility locating costs for future projects, as-built drawings, DOT requirements and specifications, and notification and communication procedures). (4) Use of readily available information-based technologies and details (e.g., 2- and 3-dimensional as-built drawings, radio-frequency identification [RFID] markers, and global positioning system [GPS] coordinates). (5) Best practices for communication and coordination with other local, state, tribal, rail, transit, and federal agencies, including confirmation of project completion. (6) Potential impediments (e.g., security, legal restrictions, job site safety, and environmental constraints) that could impact field verification processes for utility installation and relocation and potential implementation strategies for resolving impediments during project development and delivery. (7) Data exchange standards and requirements to ensure compatibility and continuous flow of data from inception to asset management (e.g., creation or development of digital as-built drawings and as-acquired drawings). (8) Innovative utility installation and relocation strategies, guidelines, and field verification tools. This should include technology support for field verifications (e.g., the functionality of software/hardware, the ability to provide a simple interface via mobile applications, the capability to connect with construction administration systems, and the capacity to function without internet or Wi-Fi connection). Task 3. Execute the data collection approach according to the approved Task 2 report. Synthesize the results of Tasks 1 and 2 and identify knowledge gaps in field verification processes that involve utility installation and relocation. These knowledge gaps should be addressed in this research or in the recommended future research, as the budget permits. Task 4. Propose the research plan, to be executed in Phase II, to achieve the research objective. At a minimum, the research plan shall include: (1) Developing a guide for utility field verification processes and management methods; (2) Developing resources for comprehensive field verification criteria, QC, and QA; (3) Developing implementation strategies for incentives/disincentives for contract compliance; (4) Identifying job training and proficiency requirements for performing field verifications, and implementation challenges for field verification processes; (5) Identifying methods to minimize recurring risk factors for field verification data management for future projects, including archival storage for utility project data (e.g., GIS, repositories, depositories) and coordination between state DOTs, government agencies (e.g., local, county, state), and utility providers; (6) Developing implementation strategies and procedures; (7) Developing prioritized recommendations for future research; (8) Developing presentation material and resources; (9) Developing examples to demonstrate the use of the guide. At a minimum, the selection of examples should demonstrate the effectiveness of: (a) Communicating information among the transportation industry and relevant stakeholders (e.g., state DOTs, construction contractors, utility inspectors, surveying professionals, utility owners, and third-party utility inspectors and contractors); (b) Determining archival and maintenance solutions for utility project data management. Task 5. Propose a preliminary outline and table of contents for the guide based on the findings from Phase I, which should incorporate key findings supported with examples. Task 6.  Prepare Interim Report No. 1, which documents Tasks 1 through 5 and provides an updated work plan for the remainder of the research. The updated plan must describe the work proposed for Phases II and III.

PHASE II – Execution and Guide Development: Task 7.  Execute the research plan according to the approved Interim Report No.1. Task 8. Develop the guide according to the approved Interim Report No. 1, supported with examples. Task 9. Prepare Interim Report No. 2, which documents Tasks 7 and 8 and provides an updated work plan for the remainder of the project. The updated plan must describe the work proposed for Phase III.

PHASE III – Final Products: Task 10. Revise the guide after consideration of the panel’s review comments. Task 11. Submit the final deliverables, including (1) a final research report documenting the entire research effort and findings; (2) the guide; (3) prioritized recommendations for future research; (4) presentation material and resources; and (5) a technical memorandum on implementation.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 May 2024 16:24:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://rip.trb.org/View/2381757</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>