Essay: How Dig Once Rules Coordinate Broadband Deployment Along Federal-Aid Highways
“Dig once” is often described as a policy goal—avoid repeated excavation by coordinating utility work with roadwork. In practice, it works as a process: federal rules set constraints and timing gates for state transportation agencies, and those constraints create routine channels for oversight, discretion, accountability, and sometimes delay. The core mechanism is procedural. Instead of ordering outcomes (“build broadband”), the framework tends to push agencies to (1) assign responsibility, (2) standardize how planned utility work is surfaced to others, and (3) make coordination legible enough that it can be reviewed later. Where the mechanism works, broadband placement becomes a byproduct of ordinary corridor management rather than a special project negotiated from scratch each time.
GAO’s report on states’ reported progress implementing requirements to facilitate broadband deployment along federal-aid highways is useful here because it treats “progress” as the presence (or absence) of repeatable steps—designated coordinators, notice methods, and integration into existing transportation workflows. Any summary of the report has limits: it relies on what states report, and it may not capture informal coordination that happens outside official systems.
1) Designation: creating a stable “home” for coordination
Cross-infrastructure work often fails in a predictable way: many offices have partial authority, and no office has end-to-end responsibility. Dig-once style rules try to narrow that gap by requiring states (often via state DOTs) to designate a broadband coordinator or similar point of contact for federal-aid highway corridors.
Mechanically, designation does two things:
- It reduces routing uncertainty. External parties—broadband providers, utilities, local governments—gain a known interface for questions, handoffs, and escalation.
- It creates a reviewable accountability hook. When coordination breaks down, oversight can examine whether requests were received, triaged, forwarded, and documented, and whether the coordinator had enough internal access to influence schedules and permits.
The recurring challenges tend to be structural rather than ideological:
- Authority mismatch: a coordinator may exist, but key levers (permit timelines, utility accommodation rules, project scheduling) sit elsewhere.
- Continuity risk: when the role is an added duty rather than a staffed function, turnover and inconsistent practice become more likely.
- Boundary confusion: broadband responsibilities may be split between a DOT, a statewide broadband office, and local permitting entities, turning “coordination” into a chain of internal handoffs.
2) Visibility: logging utility work so coordination happens early enough to matter
Coordination is mostly an information-timing problem: actors need to know what others are planning early enough that changes are still cheap. Dig once mechanisms address this through a structured utility-work notice system for activity along federal-aid highway corridors.
A work-notice log (portal, database, or structured submission process) changes behavior through timing and standardization:
- Earlier disclosure increases feasible options. If a DOT learns about prospective fiber placement during planning or early design, conduit can be integrated into drawings and schedules; if it appears late, it becomes a change order, a separate permit, or a missed opportunity.
- Standard fields make work comparable. Location, scope, time window, construction method, and contacts—captured consistently—enable batching, conflict checks, and repeatable review rather than one-off negotiation.
Common points of friction show up across states and sectors:
- Interoperability and data quality: GIS standards, definitions of “planned work,” and validation methods vary; poor data reduces the log’s usefulness.
- Coverage gaps: not all relevant entities file notices (especially small providers, subcontractors, or local utilities working under standing agreements), leaving activity outside the shared picture.
- Confidentiality and competitive constraints: some providers may limit early disclosure, which can reduce forecasting accuracy even when a notice system exists.
A notice system is therefore not just a tool; it is a constraint system. Its practical effect depends on when notice is required, how it connects to permit eligibility, and whether the process is simple enough that compliance becomes routine.
3) Integration: inserting broadband checks into transportation decision gates
The most transferable element of dig once is the insertion of coordination checks into existing transportation gates: planning, environmental review, design approvals, utility coordination meetings, permitting, and construction sequencing.
Integration is where small procedural choices create large differences:
- Project scoping: flag corridors where conduit placement is plausible during a roadway project, so the question is asked while designs are still flexible.
- Design development: reserve physical space, decide conduit sizing and access points, and set separation requirements relative to other utilities.
- Agreements and permits: use standard templates where feasible, reducing transaction costs and making review posture more consistent across projects.
- Construction staging and inspection: coordinate excavation windows, traffic control, and inspection responsibilities to avoid double mobilization.
This is also where delay can be produced or avoided. When broadband coordination is bolted on late, it competes with an already-committed construction schedule and can feel like an external interruption. When it is embedded early, it behaves more like a default utility accommodation check with less schedule impact.
What GAO-style progress reporting tends to reveal
When GAO assesses “reported progress,” the story often becomes variance: federal requirements define a coordination mechanism, while implementation depends on each state’s baseline systems and capacity. That is a predictable property of federal-state administration.
Typical reasons “the same requirement” looks different across states include:
- Different starting conditions: some states already operate robust utility coordination platforms; others rely on email-based processes and local knowledge.
- Mixed control along a corridor: even when the highway is federally aided, local entities may influence permits, access points, and adjacent infrastructure, complicating a single workflow.
- Physical and environmental constraints: limited corridor space, bridges, protected areas, or safety rules can convert coordination into engineering exceptions.
- Documentation load: more notice, coordination, and recordkeeping can mean more artifacts—useful for oversight and later dispute resolution, but costly in staff time.
This site does not treat “dig once” as a slogan; it treats it as an institutional design choice that shifts coordination from informal relationships into repeatable procedures that can be audited.
Transferability to other infrastructure domains
The dig once coordination model tends to recur wherever (a) access to a corridor is scarce, (b) disruption is expensive, and (c) multiple systems share space. The same procedural pattern maps onto:
- Water and sewer renewal aligned with street reconstruction (capital plan alignment, shared trenching windows, standardized restoration requirements).
- Electric distribution upgrades coordinated with road projects (undergrounding decisions, joint trench policies, shared permitting lanes).
- EV charging corridors where “make-ready” utility work, siting, and local permits need alignment with roadway projects and safety standards.
- Resilience retrofits (culverts, stormwater, heat mitigation) where integrating additional work during reconstruction avoids repeated disruption.
What transfers is the mechanism: designate responsibility, build early visibility through structured notices, insert checks into existing gates, and reduce case-by-case negotiation with standard agreements. Outcomes still vary because local constraints—space, safety, staffing, procurement, data systems—remain binding.
Counter-skeptic view
If you think this is overblown… it may help to treat dig once as a paperwork-and-timing system rather than a construction system. A coordinator title and a notice portal do not install conduit by themselves. The value is narrower: they make early coordination more likely, and they produce artifacts (records, timelines, decision points) that can be reviewed when projects slip or opportunities are missed. Even then, state-reported progress can differ from on-the-ground practice, so conclusions about effectiveness remain uncertain without corroborating operational data.
In their shoes
In their shoes, readers who are anti-media but pro-freedom can evaluate dig once as governance mechanics rather than as messaging. A notice system and a coordinator role are constraints on discretion: they narrow who handles requests, what information is collected, and when decisions are made. The same structure can also expand administrative touchpoints—more gates and more review steps—so implementation quality often depends on whether the added coordination is placed early in the project lifecycle and whether staffing and authority match the job.