There is absolutely a lack of trust from utilities (and municipalities) when it comes to sharing data. Even if the GIS professionals at the utilities understand the issues and are in support of the idea, resistance comes from IT managers worried about security and administration worried about competition or sabotage and being sued because data obtained was incomplete or incorrect. The feds with their cybersecurity mandates also contribute to the issue. So, there are perceived risks, and little to no perceived upside for the utilities. If you let it out, you can’t take it back and you can’t control it. I try to fight this whenever possible, but fears and previous experiences are deeply ingrained and sometimes I think that we may have to wait another 20 years for all those people to retire. It’s probably going to take either some laws forcing the issue (with competent legislators writing them!) or probably some big corporations taking the lead, like in NY. I hear that Australia has widespread successful data sharing for underground utilities and their incident rate is a fraction of ours. Canada has also had some success.

 

 

I agree Mark. I think there have certainly been some improvements but there’s much more to be done.  What it seems to me is that there is a lack of trust from the utilities to the local and regional governments. 

 

I know there’s been a strong effort on the part of the electricity providers (speaking as UI community here) to develop relationships with our assigned account executives, even so far as attending our EPPI exercise over the summer.  Our UI account executive has coordinated with our Emergency Management/Hazard Mitigation people on developing local priorities for post-disaster Make Safe activities.  All good steps in the right direction.  Having access to their pole data has been a big help in accident reconstruction maps and for maintaining our fiber optic network.

 

The Regional Water Authority  in our area made an available some wonderful aerial imagery at an incredible cost savings for our COG (South Central Regional Council).  That kind of effort saves everyone time and money!  I’d like to see more efforts like that.  We need opportunities to meet at the same table and simple explore how we can develop trust and explore mutually beneficial business practices and in all honestly, it seems the COGs are the perfect vehicle to manage that kind of relationship.

 

 

Meg McGaffin

GIS Analyst

City of Milford CT

70 West River St

Milford, CT 06460

[log in to unmask]

203-783-3393

 

 

 

 

 

 

Came across this posting over the weekend.   Would be great to see something similar initiated here in CT.  

 

New York State Electric and Gas (NYSEG) Starts to Change the Game

http://espatiallynewyork.com/2014/10/10/new-york-state-electric-and-gas-nyseg-starts-to-change-the-game/

 

Mark Goetz Senior Transportation Planner/GIS Director 203.366.5405 x27 | cell: 203.909-0882 | f: 203.366.8437 | mgoetz@gbrct.org   Greater Bridgeport Regional Council 525 Water Street, Suite 1 | Bridgeport, CT 06604  www.gbrct.org

 

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------- This list (CTGIS-L) is an unmoderated discussion list for all CT GIS Users.

If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from this list, you can remove yourself by going to http://listserv.uconn.edu/ctgis-l.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------- This list (CTGIS-L) is an unmoderated discussion list for all CT GIS Users.

If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from this list, you can remove yourself by going to http://listserv.uconn.edu/ctgis-l.html