3D Utility Data – Reducing Project Delays, Managing Assets 3D Utility Data – Reducing Project Delays, Managing Assets WASHTO 2015WASHTO 2015

Impacts of Utility Conflicts Project Schedule Change Orders Cost Overruns Worker Safety Traffic Delays Economic Costs Political Challenges

3D Utility Location Data Repository Platform independent database Accept data from CAD, SUE & 3 rd parties Gatekeeper function Source for future CAD, GIS, 3 rd parties

UDOT’s 3D Utility Location Data Repository Architecture

3D Utility Location Data Repository Approach Advisory Panel – CAD, GIS, Survey, Construction, Utilities, Permits, FHWA Consultant Resources ASCE Standards – SUE, As-built Oracle Spatial Database Data mapping to Bentley SUE Data input from Bentley SUE Data input through UPLAN (ESRI GIS)

3D Utility Location Data Repository Approach Data Collection – Trenchless – Open cut – Surface – Overhead – Remote sensing and spatial positioning (LIDAR) – Metadata Courtesy of CUES, Inc.

3D Utility Location Data Repository Approach Source: Michigan DOT Guide Project (2014 data)

3D Utility Location Data Repository Approach Positional Standards

3D Utility Location Data Repository Approach Standardize data attributes, definitions, metadata

3D Utility Location Data Repository Approach Mapping to Bentley SUE

3D Utility Location Data Repository Approach 3D Design

3D Utility Location Data Repository Funding & Schedule Phase I – STIC funding – $125K – NTP Feb 4, 2015 – 6 Month Delivery Phase II – SHRP2 R01A funding – Up to $400K – Waiting for FHWA contract – 18 month Delivery

3D Utility Location Data Repository Lessons Learned Difficulty working through DTS – Consultant procurement engineering vs IT focus – Access to state database – denied for off-site development – Scheduling of DTS resources – limited resources, competition with other projects

3D Utility Location Data Repository Lessons Learned Communication Between Different Technical Groups – Engineers – Surveyors – Permits – Database Managers – GIS – SUE – CADD – Utility Companies

3D Utility Location Data Repository Lessons Learned Change Management – New standards (CAD, as-built) – 3D design – Digital project delivery – Collection of as-builts (construction & permits)

3D Utility Location Data Repository Lessons Learned Legal authority to require utilities to provide data Data security/ownership Chain of custody/changes Defining and resourcing gate- keeper

3D Utility Location Data Repository Return on Investment Construction – Digital plan delivery – Work sequencing – Collection of as-built data – Minimizing project risks – Work safety

3D Utility Location Data Repository Return on Investment Design – Reuse SUE and as-built data – Reduce new data collection costs – 3D conflict analysis & resolution – Digital project delivery

3D Utility Location Data Repository Return on Investment 3D Design Garden City, UT

3D Utility Location Data Repository Return on Investment Operations – Maintenance work – Permitting decisions – Emergencies

3D Utility Location Data Repository Return on Investment Planning – Asset management – Scoping & budgeting for Transportation projects Utility projects Municipal projects

3D Utility Location Data Repository Next Steps Complete phase I – August 2015 Start Phase II – Fall 2015 Focus on business processes for collecting as-built data Integrate on-line permitting system

3D Utility Location Data Repository Summary Use of SUE on projects has reduced risk 3D Utility data will extend risk reduction Retain initial data collection investment for future use Storage for data as opportunities occur Incorporate 3 rd party data into repository Added value for use in operations

3D Utility Location Data Repository Summary Delivering projects on time and within budget

Contact Information Richard Manser, P.E. Statewide Utilities and Railroads Engineer Utah Department of Transportation