Between the Poles

Colorado leads in mandating subsurface utility engineering (SUE) surveys for public civil engineering projects

A major gap in the construction process is the unavailability of reliable information about the location of underground utilities during the design stage of civil engineering construction projects such as highways and pipelines. All states and provinces in North America have one call legislation designed to reduce underground utility damage during actual excavation, but the legislation does not provide for making underground records available to inform the design phase of construction projects. Colorado is the first state/provincial jurisdiction in North America and one of the first in the world to mandate a subsurface utility engineering survey (SUE) at the pre-construction stage. At the Canadian Underground Forum in April, Rob Martindale, Utilities Program Manager at the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and a Professional Land Surveyor, described the process by which SUE surveys became law in Colorado.

Several jurisdictions around the world have undertaken initiatives to integrate underground infrastructure location data and make it available to all stakeholders. Among the leaders in this effort are the National Underground Asset Registry (NUAR) project in the UK, Singapore's Digital Underground initiative, and the State of Colorado. While the UK and Singapore are in the initial stages of implementation, Colorado has already enacted and implemented legislation and regulations which are transforming underground infrastructure location data for public civil engineering projects across the state.

Mapping underground infrastructure is benefiting from accelerating innovations in technology in detecting, locating, capturing and sharing subsurface utility location data. Experience has shown that enabling these technical advances to permeate and transform business practices in the entire construction industry requires government intervention. The key stakeholders in civil engineering construction are government transportation agencies, utility regulatory agencies, utility and telecom network owners and operators, civil engineering consultants and construction contractors.

Rob Martindale is responsible for improving CDOT's subsurface utility mapping program and utility data management systems. He has been involved from the beginning in the legislative and regulatory processes that are transforming underground infrastructure data in Colorado and is able to provide an insider's perspective on how this process unfolded in Colorado.

As anyone who is involved in civil construction knows, the historical problem with locating underground infrastructure is that utility company records (aka network documentation) are inaccurate, old or outdated, lost, or simply just never existed to begin with. The records that do exist are often inconsistent and the quality of the data is unknown. Records are kept in different data models and formats, typically as CAD drawings, GIS files, paper copies, and PDFs. Some drawings are schematics rather than records of actual utility location. Virtually all of the data is 2D so depth is unknown. Another complicating problem is that in general each utility uses a different base map making it difficult to integrate data from different utilities on a single map. These issues make compiling a reliable map of underground infrastructure in preparation for a civil construction project a challenge. The result is that underground utilities are ignored until excavation begins. As a consequence according to the Federal Highway Administratiion (FHWA) underground utilities are the biggest cause of delays in highway construction projects.

Recognizing the risks associated with underground utilities, CDOT could see that one way to reduce risk was by enabling more reliable and efficient subsurface utility mapping. Since the state is the legal custodian of the public right of way, it had the power to enforce regulations for utility and telecoms with network facilities in the right of way. To CDOT having more reliable location data and more comprehensive attribute data about each utility such as size of pipes and cables and types of material would make for more efficient and productive coordination with utility owners. To achieve this CDOT's vision was a single platform where all underground location and attribute data would be accessible to all stakeholders working in Colorado on current and future civil construction projects.

New legislation revising Colorado's one call statute

In 2015 the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) conducted an assessment of the Colorado one call system that resulted in a report that identified the lack of an enforcement mechanism as a major impediment to effective prevention of damage to underground infrastructure in the Colorado one call legislation. The PHMSA review had implications in a number of areas including future Federal funding. Then in April 2017, there was a gas explosion in Firestone, Colorado that resulted in fatalities and attracted a high degree of public attention. Recognition that that the incident could have been prevented further prioritized the issue for the Colorado legislature. The result was growing pressure from many construction stakeholders including the Colorado Contractors Association, the American Council of Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and CDOT which ultimately attracted the attention of politicians. The initiative was taken up and made a top bipartisan priority by two representatives in the Colorado legislature, Senator Ray Scott, Republican, and Senator Kerry Donovan, Democrat. In 2018 they co-sponsored a bill to revise Colorado's one call statute. The revised statute was signed by the Governor on May 25^th and became law in August, 2018.

The legislation included several important provisions. First and foremost the new law required subsurface utility engineering (SUE) surveys on most public civil engineering projects. It requires the project owner, CDOT or another agency, to notify the Colorado one call center for all projects that require a SUE survey. Furthermore after being notified by the one call center utility owners are required to provide their best available records of their infrastructure in the project area within a 10 business days. The project owner is then required to conduct a SUE survey at their own expense and provide the results showing the location of all underground infrastructure and assigned the ASCE 38 quality level to CDOT. Importantly, the SUE document must be stamped (signed) by a PLS or PE to ensure accountability. Standard SUE practice is to achieve at least ASCE Quality Level B for all underground utilities. In the case of conflicts with a new gravity-fed systems it is expected that test holes will be dug to locate and identify conflicts with existing utilities. Furthermore Colorado became an ASCE 38 state. The law requires ASCE 38 to be used on SUE surveys. Currently that means 38-02, but when the requirement will be ASCE 38-21 when that version is released.

For excavation the Colorado 811 notification process was also modified. It allows the utilities two days to visit the site and mark utilities on the ground before excavation begins.  In addition the new law mandated that all newly installed utilities must be electronically locatable.

Another important provision of the new law was the creation of a one call enforcement mechanism. This was in response to the PHMSA assessment of of Colorado's original one call legislation. The new legislation created an Underground Damage Prevention Safety Commission with the power to levy penalties on utilities that were non-compliant with Colorado's one call requirements. For example, if a utility company fails to provide its best available records within 10 business days, the commission is empowered to levy a fine of up to $75,000.

Integrating SUE into the construction lifecyle

Beginning in August 2018, CDOT adopted a five stage utility project delivery process that includes SUE activities and utility coordination processes.

In the planning stage a design scoping review (DSR) determines whether the project requires a SUE survey. There are four criteria for a project to require a SUE survey; it must be a public project, it must be primarily a horizontal project, not a vertical project such as a building, excavation must exceed two feet in depth and the site must encompass a contiguous 1000 square feet, and the project must be designed by a professional engineer. Based on these criteria more than 95% of CDOT projects meet the requirement for a mandatory SUE survey. In addition at this stage Colorado one call (CO 811) must be notified and utility owners are required to provide their best available records within 10 days. Also in the planning stage a SUE vendor i selected.

In the 0 - 30 % design stage an initial SUE review is conducted to identify all underground infrastructure to ASCE Quality Level D, C, or B. At this stage the SUE survey involves records research, geophysical investigation, professional engineering judgment, knowledge of construction practices and utility design principles all of which are used to determine the quality level to be assigned to each segment of existing utility information.

During the 30 - 90% design stage the goal is to complete the necessary remote detection and test holing to achieve QL B or A for all underground assets at the site. A technical innovation that CDOT has adopted is a mobile and cloud-based hybrid GIS/surveying system for recording underground utility location and other data. The data collected by the SUE vendor is entered into this system which allows the SUE data to be shared among all stakeholders and to be available throughout the entire construction lifecycle.

As an example a project might start with a design in Microstation. The initial SUE data is used to identify potential conflicts each of which is flagged with QL D, C, or B to show the assessed reliability of the location data. Using existing utility data compiled by the initial SUE survey makes it possible to to avoid potential utility conflicts at a very early stage.  This helps avoid costly or time consuming utility relocations. It also makes it possible to identify critical infrastructure and conflicts that may require test holing.  During the 30 - 90% design stage the SUE vendor attempts using remote sensing technology and test holing to achieve QL B or A all underground assets at the site. At this advanced design stage detailed conflicts in 3D can be identified to enable remedial action to be undertaken.  SUE data can be pushed back to the CAD environment for redesign or for utility relocations. SUE data is also made available on CDOT's mobile app for contractors to use in the field to resolve discrepancies in utility surface markings from locating activities resulting from one call notification. The handheld app also makes it possible for contractors to record new test holing that they have conducted and to document utilities exposed during excavation activities.

Colorado has become a model for jurisdictions who have recognized the human and economic cost of inaccurate, out of date and missing data about the location of underground infrastructure. Advances in technology are enabling a revolution in how we detect, capture and share reliable information about the location of underground infrastructure, but, as Colorado is demonstrating, transforming business practices in the construction industry as a whole requires legislation and regulation.

This post is based on Rob Martindale's talk at the Canadian Underground Forum. You can listen to Rob's talk on the GeoIgnite CUF Youtube channel. 

Major benefits of accurate location information about underground infrastructure prior to design

Blue bars - Construction spending ($millions). Red line - Reported unique damages. Yellow line - Estimated damages. Dotted lines - error bars. Source CGA 2020 DIRT Report

The stated objectives of many initiatives focussed on locating underground utilities is damage prevention. However, for those cases where reliable multi-year statistics have been compiled, the data reveals that this objective is not being realized - the annual amount of damage, when prorated to a measure of annual construction activity, in many jurisdictions has plateaued or may even be increasing.

But there are other important benefits that are being realized from these underground utility initiatives, chief among them are improved construction efficiency, greater probability of on-time and on-budget project completions, fewer and shorter utility service outages and less traffic disruption and delays for the motoring public.

An area where detailed assessments of the costs and benefits of improved information about the location of underground infrastructure have been conducted is subsurface utility engineering surveys(SUE).  SUE surveys are generally conducted prior to engineering design and in some jurisdictions such as Colorado, are now mandatory on public civil engineering projects.

For a definitive study of twenty-two projects utilizing SUE and eight non-SUE projects from Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) districts, eleven direct and indirect cost/benefit areas were investigated in the analysis; utility relocation, utility damage, emergency restoration, traffic delay, business impact, user service outages, environmental impact, information gathering and verification, legal and litigation, efficient utility design and construction, and other utility related costs and benefits.

On the expense side a SUE survey requires two types of expenditures; the use of geophysical techniques such as electromagnetic(EM), ground penetrating radar(GPR) and other techniques to detect the location of underground infrastructure and potholing to confirm the location of the utilities and objects detected. For this study for the projects utilizing SUE, costs detection and potholing were obtained directly from project accounting. For the projects that did not use SUE, costs were estimated from interviews, historical data, and individual project studies.

For the twenty-two projects where a SUE survey was conducted, all underground utilities and other objects were located to ASCE 38-02 Quality Level A (potholing) or B (EM or GPR). For the eight projects utilized traditional methods, the location of underground networks was estimated to ASCE quality levels C (site visit) and D (as-builts).

The study revealed that for road and highway projects $11.39 can be saved for every $1 spent on SUE. The top benefits realized as a result of conducting SUE surveys were found to be primarily improved construction efficiency and greater probability of on-time and on-budget project completions.

1. 40.33% reduction in project relocation cost by providing accurate underground information in the early stages of design
2. 29.46% reduction in construction and design costs - SUE enables designers to design efficiently and accurately with reliable information, so that design time can be saved and unnecessary construction work can be avoided or reduced.
3. 9.59% reduction in redesign costs
4. 9.08% reduction in delay costs due to relocation
5. 6.81% reduction in delay costs caused by emergencies
6. 1.41% reduction in delay costs caused by unexpected utilities
7. 1.41% reduction in information gathering and verification cost
8. 1.04% reduction in restoration cost

A ratio of 1.65% was determined as the ratio of SUE cost to total project cost. It was concluded that SUE can provide important project benefits at reasonable cost.

A reanalysis of the data collected for a 1999 USDOT Study by Purdue University found that the estimated benefit of conducting a SUE survey was a cost savings of $12.23 for every $1 spent on SUE. The largest contributors to the cost savings derived from SUE were found to be;

1. 37.1% reduced number of utility relocations
2. 19.3% reduced claims and change orders
3. 11.6% reduced accidents and injuries
4. 9.6% reduced project delays
5. 3.5% reduced right-of-way acquisition costs
6. 3.3% savings in risk management and insurance
7. 15.5% other

In Subsurface Utility Engineering for Municipalities, by James H Anspach and C. Paul Scott, the primary quantifiable benefits identified for SUE surveys are fewer and more limited utility relocations and reduced delay claims and change orders. In addition there are many benefits identified during pre-construction and construction and other benefits that accrue to network operators and the public. Important preconstruction benefits include reduced design costs through improved efficiency including avoidance of conflicts and more accurate utility relocation designs where utility conflicts are unavoidable. Construction benefits include better bids and lower bid prices,  reduced project delays resulting from utility relocations, reduced construction delays from unexpected utility conflicts, earlier project completion time, and savings in risk management and insurance. The biggest benefits for utility owners and operators are reduced revenue loss from outages and reduced costs to repair damaged facilities.  The most important benefits to the public are fewer and shorter utility service outages,  less traffic disruption and delays and for business owners reduced loss of custom.

Advances in capturing and sharing location information about underground infrastructure in Europe

I was invited to participate in a meeting of the European Underground Infrastructure Community this morning.  I heard about very important advances in capturing, capturing and sharing location information (maps) about underground infrastructure that are relevant to any jurisdiction attempting to reduce underground damage and improve construction efficiency.

France

In 2012 a presidential decree mandated that the location of underground infrastructure had to be accurate to 40 cm or better (Quality Level A) for all critical infrastructure in urban areas by 2019.  In France critical infrastructure refers to infrastructure that is dangerous for excavators.  It excludes telecom and most water distribution networks. At this point the target date has slipped a bit, but it is estimated that about 80% of the location of urban underground infrastructure is known to QL A.

It is important to note that this applies not only to new infrastructure but existing infrastructure as well.  One of the contributors to the improvement in the quality of existing infrastructure data is a shared responsibility model.  As a contractor I am expected to request information through the DICT system about the location of underground infrastructure in the areas of a proposed excavation.  If the information supplied by the network owners operating in that area is poorer than QL A, I can invoice the network operator for the work I have to do to achieve QL A.  This system motivates network owners to work toward improving the quality of their data to reduce the cost of paying invoices. Furthermore, the cost for a contractor to do this work is probably significantly higher than if the network operator undertakes the work themselves.

Netherlands and Flanders

Studies from the 1940s through today have shown that incorrect or incomplete knowledge about the location of underground utilities is the leading reason for project delay claims.  A study of ten  Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDoT) projects that involved a subsurface utility engineering (SUE) survey prior to engineering design found significant business benefits with an ROI of $22.21 saved for every dollar invested in SUE. Most one call centers are designed to provide underground utility information just prior (in North America about three days in advance, in the Netherlands up to 20 days in advance) to shovels going in the ground.  What this means is that planning and engineering design are conducted blind about the location underground utilities. The result is increased risk of utility damage, unnecessary but expensive utility relocations and construction delays.  In the Netherlands the KLIC system now can respond to three types of information requests, safe digging requests (80% of all requests), emergencies (5%), and planning requests (15%).  In Flanders similarly about 16-17 % of information request to the KLIP system are study requests.  This means that areas of high risk from underground infrastructure or where areas where utilities relocates would be expensive can be avoided during the design process.  Nobody would begin engineering design for a civil engineering project without a (above-ground) survey by a registered professional land surveyor.  Having accurate, reliable information about underground utilities is just as important.  In addition to the Netherlands and Flanders other jurisdictions are recognizing this as well.  In Colorado a SUE survey prior to civil engineering work in the public right of way is now mandatory.

In both Flanders and the Netherlands data is shared using an open standard harmonized data model (IMKL) that allows all data for a proposed excavation to be downloaded as a ZIP file and visualized on a single layered map using a free and open basic, commercial, and in-house developed viewers, supporting both offline and online viewing,

Germany

Red - inquiries handled conventionally. Green - inquiries handled by BIL system

In Germany there has been rapid growth in the number of request for information about the location of underground pipelines.  BIL is the Germany-wide information system for pipeline inquiries. Since February 2016 BIL has provided a cost-free digging request portal to a the national information system for pipeline inquiries. The foundation for BIL was laid in 2015 by 17 German pipeline companies from the chemical, high-pressure gas and mineral oil sectors. To date the BIL system has been able to automate 80% of these requests, with the result that  turnaround times are faster and require less staff.

It is interesting that 30.36 % of requests to the BIL system were for planning purposes (pre-construction) and the remainder for excavations.  This varies considerably for different sectors from about 20 % for civil for different sectors. While civil engineering and pipeline construction predominantly inquired about excavation, significantly more planning inquiries were made in the area of ​​energy generation and special measures (railway infrastructure, hydraulic structures, tunnels, industrial areas)

Spain

Two regions in Spain, Catalonia and Navarre, have developed non-governmental industry consortia for sharing information about the location of underground infrastructure,  These consortia are industry-supported, primarily by large utility and telecom operators such as Telefonica, ENEL, and Iberdrola.  Excavators pay a fee to retrieve this information which is provided as vector data, in AutoCAD, Microstation or shape file formats.

Thanks to Holger Kessler for the opportunity to participate.

Survey delineates subsurface utility engineering (SUE) adoption in Canada

The Centre for Advancement of Trenchless Technologies(CATT) has just released the report of a survey designed to better understand the current state of subsurface utility engineering (SUE) practices, barriers, and acceptance across Canada.  The most important conclusion of the survey is that most organizations rely on as-built records (which are frequently inaccurate) and surface site inspections (which can only infer the location of most underground utilities) for underground utility location information.  Furthermore, this information is used primarily during the construction phase of a project, not during planning and design, when accurate underground utility information has its greatest value. It was found that many organizations still do not update or request reliable as-builts during construction projects. The survey found that for most organizations SUE is conducted on a project-by-project basis, instead of being a standard process as part of construction projects. 

The target audience for the survey included infrastructure owners, consultants, contractors and technology providers – the main stakeholders in the SUE industry.  84 % of respondents were from Ontario with the remainder from other provinces.  46 % of respondents were infrastructure owners, and 43% engineering consultants.  70% of the infrastructure owner respondents represents large municipalities. More than half of the respondents had five or more years of experience with SUE on construction projects.  The remainder reported one year or less of experience with SUE.

Analysis

The survey revealed that Quality Level D (as-builts and other records) and Quality Level C (surface site inspections) comprise the most frequently used information about the location of underground utilities.  Only 15 % of respondents regularly used more reliable Quality Level B (remote detection) data during the planning phase of construction projects and less than a third used remote sensed data during the design phase.  For those using remote sensing technologies, 79% reported using electromagnetic methods, 16 % ground penetrating radar, and 15 % magnetic methods.

Two thirds of infrastructure owner respondents reported that their organization requires combining as-builts into their records or GIS system and about the same proportion reported updating their records database during construction.  But 59% said that they do not periodically review, verify and update utility records.  Very few of these, only 4%, said they are planning to implement a SUE program.

Almost all of the respondents (87%) were aware of SUE and many (70 %) had some SUE experience.  59% of the respondents were aware that SUE reports and drawings need to be stamped by a professional engineer (P.Eng.) or Professional Geoscientist ( P.Geo.).

Respondents were asked about their familiarity with standards relating to underground utility information including CSA S250 Mapping of Underground Utility Infrastructure, TAC Guidelines for the Coordination of Utility Relocations, ASCE 38-02 Standard Guidelines for the Collection and Depiction of Existing Subsurface Utility Data, CSA Z247-15 Damage Prevention, or ISO 15489-1:2001 Information and documentation — Records management.  Less than half of survey respondents reported awareness of some of these standards.  The best known standards were CSA S250, ASCE 38-02 and TAC Guidelines.  Very few respondents were aware of ISO 15489-1:2001.

White paper on reducing damage to underground utilities during construction

It is estimated that unreliable location information about underground infrastructure represents a $50 billion drag on the U.S. economy. Comparing the United States and Japan reveals a startling difference in the annual incidents of underground utility damage during construction - over 400,000 incidents in the U.S. and less than 150 in Japan. Clearly something can be done to reduce underground utility damage. Important advances in technology now make it possible to capture ground penetrating radar scans at highway speeds; simultaneously capture of above and below-ground scans using LiDAR and GPR to create a complete pre-design survey; generate centimetre accurate as-builts from a video taken with an Android smartphone; map underground pipelines for upto two km using inertial locating; detect underground objects 30 feet deep with acoustic sensing; and integrate existing 2D and site investigation results in a 3D model visualized in augmented reality. On-line systems for sharing information about the location of underground infrastructure have been implemented to manage underground utilities in the public right of way. 

Many jurisdictions in the Americas, Europe, and Asia Pacific have implemented policies and organizational structures for capturing and sharing information about the location of underground infrastructure.  Statistics reveal that a comprehensive approach involving policies, technologies and construction practices is required to be successful for continuing improvement in reducing utility damage during construction. Based on a review of international initiatives for managing location information about underground infrastructure, a set of 25 recommended elements have been compiled that should be considered by anyone intending to to reduce the risk of underground utility damage during construction.

A white paper prepared by Geoff Zeiss and Dr. Sakura Shinoaki and published by the Geospatial Information and Technology Association entitled Reducing Damage to Underground Utility Infrastructure during Excavation assesses costs, benefits, technical advances, and case studies to develop 25 recommendations for reducing damage to underground infrastructure. The white paper can be downloaded for free here and a summary is available here.

Augmented reality enables simplified design workflows

Engineering design is typically done on a desktop computer, using CAD or BIM software. Models are viewed in 3D or 2D on a monitor. Increasingly they can be viewed in mixed reality.  At a SPAR3D conference three companies in the construction sector, Gensler (a collaborative design firm), McCarthy (a commercial construction firm), and Martin Brothers Construction (a heavy civil construction firm), demonstrated how they were using mixed reality on real-world projects.  For example, Martin Brothers demonstrated building a bathroom pod with Hololens. The bathroom pod was designed using a standard design application such as Revit or Sketchup, then projected onto the reality of a shop floor were it was constructed using the full-scale virtual reality projection of the design into the shop. The next step is bidirectional between the mixed reality environment and the authoring design tool. This makes it possible for changes made in the mixed reality environment to be visible in Revit or Sketchup where they can be incorporated into the design. It is also possible to reverse this process where design changes made in Revit or Sketchup are simultaneously visible in the mixed reality environment.

Stéphane Côté of Bentley has taken this one step further and suggested that the design and visualization process should really be a continuum involving design, markup, and visualization.  To enable this to happen Stéphane's team developed a simple set of drawing tools along with features that enhance drafting accuracy, such as angle, length and element snapping.  But most innovative was the ability to snap to real world objects in augmented reality.  This is illustrated in a video by designing an extension to a table.  To do this the designer simply snaps to the table in augmented reality and then designs the extension seeing exactly what it looks like including accurate measurements such as lengths and angles.

As a real world example, when an engineer needs to design a bypass system between two existing pipes, normally he/she would have to take measurements of the pipes or scan them using a laser scanner. These measurements would then be imported into a CAD application where they would be used as the basis for the design.  It might even be necessary to iterate this process once or twice to ensure the accuracy of the design.  With an augmented reality design tool such as that created by Stéphane's team the design could be done on-site, avoiding the initial measurement step and being able to see immediately if the design fits accurately between the existing pipes.

Elements for improving underground utility mapping to reduce risk of damage during construction

Without accurate maps of underground infrastructure, every construction project has the potential to become a disaster site. Unlike the aviation industry where reliable data is collected and is accessible to investigators to prevent disasters from happening in the future, there is limited access to data about the location of underground infrastructure and what data is accessible is inaccurate, out-of-date and incomplete with the result that serious incidents during construction with injuries and fatalities occur again and again.  It is estimated that in the United States $10 billion is devoted to locating underground infrastructure prior to and during construction, but the available statistics indicate that this is not reducing the number or severity of incidents of underground utility damage.  Furthermore inaccurate and missing information about underground infrastructure increases the risk of schedule and budget overruns.  It has been estimated that this represents a $50 billion drag on the U.S. economy and upto a £6 billion drag on the U.K. economy.

Nearly every month the news carries reports of explosions caused by damage to underground utilities during construction excavation. In the last few months of this year there have been explosions in Murrieta, California (July) where a utility worker was killed and 15 others injured, downtown San Francisco (February), Durham, North Carolina (May), and I could go on. These incidents are more frequent than many people realize. 

This is not an impossible problem. A number of cities, regions and countries around the world have recognized the importance of accurate information about the location of underground infrastructure and implemented processes to reduce the risk of these events. For example, comparing the United States and Japan reveals a startling difference in the number of incidents of underground utility damage during construction. The number of incidents in the U.S. is between 400,000 and 800,000 per year (roughly one or two every minute). For all of Japan the number of incidents in 2016 was 134. Clearly something can be done to reduce the risk for construction workers and the public.

Over the years I have personally compiled information on 25 jurisdictions including airports in the Americas, Europe, and Asia Pacific that have implemented various policies and organizational structures for sharing information about the location of underground infrastructure. These range from government mandated and implemented, government mandated and privately implemented, voluntary industry associations, and private companies. In this article I provide a synthesis of measures most of which have been implemented, are being implemented, or have undergone pilot implementations. These can be grouped in several broad categories.

• Reliable statistics on underground utility damage

• Policies, procedures, and technologies for raising the level of accuracy, timeliness and completeness of information about the location of underground infrastructure.

• Digitalizing the capture, sharing and updating of location information about underground infrastructure.

• Ensuring security and privacy of location information about underground networks including protection for competitive information. 

• Providing access to stakeholders to underground infrastructure location information throughout the construction project life-cycle from planning and design through construction to operations and maintenance.

• Liability model for sharing responsibility for costs of underground utility damage.

Airports, university campuses, and industrial campuses are characterized by a greater density of underground utilities and by more types of underground equipment( communications cables, aeronautical ground lighting cables, gas mains, low voltage electric power cables, high voltage electric power cables, storm water mains, sanitary waste water mains, potable water mains, grey water mains, fuel mains, fire fighting water mains, and a variety of underground structures.) Underground infrastructure in airports, university and industrial campuses typically has a single owner though not always.

Public jurisdictions such as national, regional, state or provincial and municipal governments are responsible for the public right of way.  Typically underground infrastructure in the public right of way involves multiple private owners; telecom network operators, electric power utilities, gas network operators, water and wastewater operators,and others such as heating and fuel transmission pipeline operators. Dealing with multiple private owners who attempt to maintain information about their network facilities typically in a GIS considerably complicates the process of acquiring and maintaining accurate location information about underground cables and pipes.

1. Reliable statistics are essential to determine the social impact of underground utility damage and to assess the effectiveness of policies, procedures and technologies designed to reduce the number and severity of incidents of underground utility damage. Every incident of damage to underground infrastructure should be reported including injuries, fatalities and direct cost. Indirect cost is a nice to have, but very difficult to estimate. Cause is difficult to determine because it depends on who is reporting the incident - network operator, the excavator, or by an independent organization.  A network operator's perspective may be that the contractor did not exercise care during excavation, whereas the contractor's perspective may be that the location of the cable or pipe as identified as a result of a one-call request was inaccurate.  Responsibility for submitting this information has to be assigned to the   One option for doing this efficiently is to classify incidents by seriousness and assign different levels of reporting based on this classification. For pipelines PHMSA assigns levels of seriousness based on cost, consequence, injuries and fatalities.  Significant incidents include any of the following: (1) Fatality or injury requiring in-patient hospitalization, (2) $50,000 or more in total costs,(3) release of significant volumes of gas or hazardous liquid. Serious incidents include a fatality or injury requiring in-patient hospitalization.  In civil aviation each serious incident is investigated by the NTSB, an impartial group of experts who determine technical cause but do not assign blame. The available evidence from the U.S. civil aviation industry, pipeline industry, and many national statistical agencies suggest incident reporting should be mandated to ensure statistically reliable data.  This entails significant penalties for not reporting incidents. Ex. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Heathrow International Airport, Japan Construction Industry Association

2. 3D mapping of underground infrastructure prior to planning and design. Making the location of underground infrastructure available to engineers so that designers have access to not only accurate above-ground survey but also accurate below-ground location information enables engineers to avoid underground infrastructure during design. 3D maps of underground utilities also contributes to reducing unnecessary and costly utility relocation. Below-ground location information should be at least ASCE quality level B.  The entire area should be should be assessed by an SUE engineer in collaboration with utilities and telecoms with equipment in the area. The assessment may include scanning with modern remote-detection tools (EMI, GPR and inertial locating ) to raise the quality of location of all underground facilities to QL B and to identify abandoned or unknown infrastructure.  The cost of raising the quality level of facilities in the design area to B could be assigned to the relevant network operator, engineering firm or shared. For unknown and abandoned equipment an attempt should be made to find the original owner. Ex. Colorado 811

3. Locating unknown and abandoned facilities.  The current one-call system is targeted toward utilities locating their own facilities, typically based on their as-builts.  But there is no formal mechanism for locating facilities that have been abandoned or are not shown on network operator as-builts.  Requiring a full SUE survey in addition to a traditional surface survey at part of planning and design at the beginning of a construction project helps avoid surprises during construction. Ex. Colorado 811
   

4. Capturing and sharing the location of infrastructure detected as a result of a SUE survey at the beginning of a project or as the result of an information request to one-call/811.  Currently utilities are required to paint the ground and in some jurisdictions to provide a paper sketch indicating the location of underground utilities.   This information needs to be captured digitally and shared.  The objective is over time to build up a high quality (QL A and B) database of the location of underground infrastructure that can be shared.  Ex. Colorado Department of Transportation

5. Capturing and sharing the location of infrastructure exposed during construction. In the United States it is estimated that $10 billion is spent annually to locate underground infrastructure prior to and during construction.  Much of this information is not shared and the next time excavation occurs in the same area, the underground infrastructure must be located again.  If this information is captured and shared, over time a high quality (QL A and B) database of the location of underground infrastructure will be formed that will avoid locating the same infrastructure over and over again.  Alternatives for recording the location of exposed infrastructure include total station, RTK, and LiDAR, which tend to be expensive but high quality (QL A). Other alternatives are consumer photography with control points or structures with accurately known locations.  It is essential that this does not increase excavation costs for the contractor.  Contractor margins are tight and having to keep a survey crew on hand during excavation would significantly increase costs. There have been experiments by the City of Chicago, Bentley and Costain aimed at efficiently capturing location information about utilities exposed during construction.

6. An efficient process to update the information recorded in network operators' databases. Information captured as part of a SUE survey, as a result of an information request to one-call/811, or detected during excavation may differ from the records contained in network operators' databases.  For continuous improvement of the quality of the information about the location of network facilities requires an efficient way to compare and update this information.

7. Reducing or eliminating the update backlog.  Utilities regularly maintain underground infrastructure, move it as part of a construction project, or abandon it.  This information has to be reported back to the network operator to update the information in the utility GIS.  There are two dimensions to updates; the accuracy of the location information provided from the field and the update backlog, the time it takes for updates to be entered in the utility GIS.  As with the as-built backlog this backlog can stretch into months.  The objective should be better than a day. This issue can also be resolved by regulation or by a suitable liability model. Ex. Ofgem in the U.K. requires backlogs to not exceed 42 calendar days.

8. Improving the accuracy of location information for new underground infrastructure.  If all new facilities are located to survey quality, over time location accuracy will continue to improve  as older facilities are retired. Alternatives for recording the location of newly installed infrastructure include total station, RTK, LiDAR, and photogrammetry with control points or structures with accurately known locations.  Whatever the technology the result should be ASCE quality level A.  Special provision must be made for capturing the location of facilities installed using horizontal (trenchless) drilling, for example, inertial mapping of pipe networks.  Since reliable as-builts are generally a network operator responsibility - policies are required to ensure that as-builts for newly installed equipment are accurate. There are several ways to do this; legislation which enables a government or regulator to conduct QA/QC checks on submitted as-builts or a shared liability model that assigns some responsibility for subsurface utility damage to network operators whose as-builts are inaccurate or out-of-date. A  liability model would assign liability of any underground damage during subsequent excavation to the network operator if the as-built location information is incorrect. Ex. City of Calgary, Singapore

9. Reducing or eliminating the as-built backlog.  If the time it takes for as-built information to enter the utility GIS or other database from the time new infrastructure is installed is measured in months or longer, the utility GIS is not sufficently reliable for locating underground infrastructure for construction purposes.  The objective should be better than a day. This can be resolved by regulation or by a suitable liability model.  Ex. Ofgem in the U.K. requires as-built backlogs to be less than 42 calendar days.

10. Assigning a quality level based on a generally accepted quality standard to every piece of underground infrastructure. This is critical for determining the type of excavation equipment that it is appropriate to use. It can also provide the basis for a shared liability model.  Ex. ASCE 38-02 in the U.S., CSA S250 in Canada, PAS 128 in the U.K., France DICT

11. Digitalizing the capture and sharing of information about the underground.  In North America, most one-call legislation only requires marking the ground prior to the initiation of construction.  In Ontario a written record is required in addition to marking the ground. At the federal level in Canada there is legislation initiated in the Senate and that offers the alternative of the exchange of only a written record of the location of utilities mapped prior to excavation - no visit to the site to mark the ground is required. This would open the door to exchanging a digital record of the location of utilities found prior to excavation which would be much more efficient because it could obviate the need to visit the site of the proposed excavation.  However, it would also a higher quality standard for the location of underground infrastructure than is currently the practice.  Ex. ROADIC (Japan), KLIP in Flanders, KLIC in the Netherlands

12. Digitalizing the flow of information about underground infrastructure requires a generally recognized standard for sharing information about the subsurface. The Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) is developing an underground information exchange standard, with the appropriate acronym MUDDI, that is intended to provide an open standards-based way to share information about the below ground. There are a number of data models for different types of underground infrastructure and geotechnics. MUDDI builds on and augments existing standards to create a unified model supporting multiple use cases. The MUDDI model is intended to support routine street excavations, emergency response, utility maintenance programs, large scale construction projects, disaster planning and response, and smart cities programs. For street excavations the requirement is location of all entities with high horizontal, medium vertical accuracy (2.5D) of underground infrastructure; for large construction projects, detailed 3D geometry of underground infrastructure and detailed 3D geotechnics; for emergency response, interdependencies between different networks; for utility maintenance, network topology and facility location and condition; and for smart cities the ability to monitor and relate streams of data from sensors. This has not yet been adopted by a jurisdiction, but agencies in the U.K. (Ordnance Surevy), Singapore (Singapore Land Authority), and New York (Fund for the City of New York) are actively supporting the development of the standard.

13. Efficient information flow.  Requiring vans with locating crews from several network operators to visit the site of a proposed excavation just prior to construction to scan the ground for their facilities using EMI and GPR and mark the ground is inefficient. An on-line system that allows an engineer or contractor to go online and define a polygon enclosing the proposed excavation and then within less than a day providing access to maps of underground infrastructure in the area can save network operators time and money.  However, the effectiveness of this solution is highly dependent on the quality of the location information maintained by network operators.  In North America the current one-call system requires that underground facilities be mapped to ASCE QL B before starting construction.  An online system providing digital maps composed of utility operators' as-builts would lower the accuracy of the location information provided to contractors and in the absence of other measures would likely increase underground utility damage. Ex, KLIP in Flanders, KLIC in the Netherlands.

14. Rules for the appropriate type of excavation equipment.  Rules are required that restrict the type of excavation equipment based on the quality level of underground utilities identified by network operators.  For example if facilities have been assigned ASCE quality level C or D, only hydraulic, vacuum or hand excavation may be used.  Ex. Heathrow airport

15. Security, privacy and protecting competitive information. To enable this information to be useful in reducing the risk of underground infrastructure damage during construction it has to be shared in a secure way which respects privacy.  In particular it must protect competitive information. There are a number of organizational ways of doing this; government can mandate, implement and run the system, government can mandate but leave it to the private sector to implement and run, an industry consortium with or without government mandate can implement and run the system, regulations could require sharing this information but leave it to the private sector to implement and run, or a private company could take overall responsibility.  Around the world there are examples where each of these alternatives can be found.  The information should be available to engineers during the planning and design phases of construction projects, to contractors for use during excavation, and to organizations responsible for operating and maintaining highways and other civil structures.  Other potential use cases for this data include disaster planning and emergency response.  Ex. KLIP in Flanders and KLIC in the Netherlands, North East Underground Infrastructure Hub (NEUIH) in Newcastle, England

16. Liability model for sharing responsibility for costs of underground utility damage.  The advantage of a rule-based shared liability model that assigns varying levels of responsibility to both contractors and network operators is that it provides motivation to network operators to improve the quality of their location information about their underground infrastructure existing and new.  An example of a shared model is the following: if a network operator identifies the location of a piece of underground equipment as Quality Level A according to the ASCE 38-2 standard and an excavator hits it, the excavator would be liable for costs if the facility was where the network operator said it was, or the network operator would be liable if it wasn't.  For an excavator intending to dig in an area where there is underground infrastructure assigned to level C or D, the cost to bring all infrastructure to quality level B would lie with the network operator (as it does now with North American one-call systems). If the network operator declines to do this, the liability for any underground damage would lie with the network operator. Ex. France DICT

These measures not only can reduce the risk of underground utility damage and the associated risk to the public during construction and thereby lower insurance costs, but can also significantly reduce the cost of infrastructure construction, for example, by avoiding major utilities and reducing the unnecessary and costly moving of utilities on civil engineering projects.

Experience has shown that over time these elements can result in increasingly accurate digital representations showing the location of underground infrastructure that is available to stakeholders in construction projects including planners, engineers, contractors and facilities managers, for utility maintenance, and potentially for other use cases such as utility outage management, disaster planning, emergency response and smart city programs.

Mapping underground utilities required for public civil engineering projects in Colorado

Colorado's statutes for the prevention of damage to underground utilities were assessed by the federal pipeline authority PHMSA in 2014 and found to be below standard in two areas. As a result the Colorado General Assembly has revised its excavation safety statutes (Article 1.5 of Title 9) to be compliant with current best practices. The latest legislation is progressive. Most importantly, it explicitly mandates subsurface utility engineering (SUE) practice during engineering design on public construction projects to determine the location of all underground utilities in the proposed excavation area to ASCE 38-02 quality level B by a licensed professional engineer. (ASCE quality level B requires the application of subsurface remote sensing detection technologies such as electromagnetic detection and/or ground penetrating radar.) Furthermore, the legislation creates an enforcement agency for reviewing violations of Article 1.5 with the power to impose civil penalties.

Background

According to the FHWA underground utilities are a major cause of highway construction schedule and budget overruns. In the traditional approach to highway construction, the design engineer ignored utilities during design. Just prior to the commencement of construction the state one-call centre would be contacted and the utilities and telecoms with underground facilities in the area of the proposed excavation would visit the site and mark the ground with paint or flags.  Utilities that conflicted with the design would then be relocated. As a result utilities are routinely relocated, often at great expense and often unnecessarily. An alternative approach is to design the highway knowing in advance the location of below-ground utilities. I have blogged about two recent highway construction projects, Birmingham AL and Cedar Falls IA that took this approach with substantive benefits. The challenge is that accurate data about the location of underground utilities is generally lacking.  It is well-known that there is a consensus among DoTs that accurate and comprehensive utility location data helps make better decisions and reduces the risk of unforeseen problems with utilities emerging during the construction phase.

In addition to construction delays, damage to underground utilities during construction makes every construction project a potential disaster site.  In order to promote improved safety PHMSA has developed a uniform tool that it uses for assessing state one-call systems. In 2014 PHMSA found that the Colorado one-call system had serious deficiencies. The first was that some organizations in the state were exempt from calling the one-call centre prior to excavation. Even more seriously it found that the legislation did not assign an agency to enforce the legislation.

In 2017 there was an explosion at a home in Firestone, Colorado that resulted in two deaths and a serious injury. The subsequent NTSB report concluded that as a result of local authorities allowing the development of land adjacent to oil and gas production fields without complete documentation from the operator on the location and status of its gathering system pipelines, a 1" pipeline that was still carrying natural gas was the cause of the explosion.

In 2018 the Colorado legislature revised its one-call legislation. The latest legislation is progressive, chiefly for four reasons.

1. It explicitly mandates subsurface utility engineering (SUE) during engineering design for public civil engineering projects to determine the 2D location of underground utilities to ASCE 38 quality level B by a licensed professional engineer. (ASCE quality level B requires the application of remote sensing detection technologies such as electromagnetic detection and ground penetrating radar.)
2. Prior to the commencement of construction in addition to painting or flagging a proposed excavation site, infrastructure owner/operators are required to provide a digital sketch, a hand-drawn sketch, or a photograph.
3. It may put some degree of onus on owner/operators to provide accurate information about the location of their underground facilities.
4. It creates an enforcement agency for reviewing violations of Article 1.5 with the power to impose civil penalties.

Subsurface utility engineering-required projects

In many states there is no provision as part of one-call legislation for owner/operators to provide information about underground utilities to engineers to assist with the design of civil engineering projects. This often results in the wasteful relocation of utilities. In Colorado it is now mandatory on public civil engineering projects to create a 2D map of underground utilities as part of design. Subsurface utility engineering-required projects are public projects that primarily involve horizontal construction, an excavation footprint exceeding 1,000 square feet and two feet in depth and that require the design services of a licensed professional engineer. During the design phase of these projects a licensed professional engineer is required to attempt to determine the location of all underground utilities within the proposed excavation area to ASCE 38-02 quality standard B or better. To assist this process utility owner/operators are required to either provide their available records of the approximate 2D location of their underground facilities or mark the ground in the excavation area .

Digital or paper "sketches" now required

In most states one-call legislation only requires painting or otherwise marking the ground to show the location of underground utilities. In Colorado now in addition to marking the ground owner/operators are required to provide documentation listing the owner/operator's name, the size and type of each marked underground facility, and a digital sketch, a hand-drawn sketch, or a photograph that includes a readily identifiable landmark. This is a first step toward being able to simply provide an accurate digital map of underground facilities in the proposed excavation area (as is done in the Netherlands and Flanders).

Owner/operator's responsibility for accuracy

North America, United Kingdom, Australia and other jurisdictions are characterized by a liability model that puts the onus on excavators to avoid hitting underground utilities. This provides little motivation for owners/operators to improve the quality of their information about the location of underground facilities. In Colorado Article 1.5 appears to alter this general liability model. It states that if the documentation or markings are determined to be inaccurate, the excavator shall immediately notify the owner/operator through Colorado 811 to request an immediate reverification of the location of underground facility by the owner/operator. The owner/operator is required to respond as quickly as practicable during which time the excavator can continue excavation activity with appropriate caution. Furthermore, Article 1.5 states that if the documentation or markings provided still fail to identify the location of the underground facilities, the excavator is required to notify Colorado 811, but can then proceed with excavation. Article 1.5 states that in this case the excavator is not liable for damage to the owner/operator's facilities except upon proof of the excavator's lack of reasonable care. However, accuracy is not quantified. Later in Article 1.5 where liabilities are discussed, the language relating to accuracy seems less strong. It states that excavators are liable if they fail to notify Colorado 811 of their intention to excavate or fail to exercise reasonable care in excavating. Owner/operators are liable if an underground facility is damaged as a result of the owner/operator's failure to participate in Colorado 811 or by their failure to use "reasonable care" in the marking of the damaged underground facility.

Enforcement

The most important area that PHMSA found deficient in the earlier Colorado damage prevention legislation was that it did not provide for enforcement. The most recent legislation provides for the creation of an Underground Damage Prevention Safety Commission in the Department of Labor and Employment that is independent of Colorado 811. The commission operates independently of Colorado One-call and is composed of six representative representing owner/operators, four representing engineers, contractors and excavators, four representing government agencies and one representing farmers and ranchers. It has two primary responsibilities, Firstly, to advise Colorado state agencies, the general assembly, and local governments on polices and best practices. Its other responsibility is enforcement. It is responsible for reviewing alleged violations of Article 1.5 and can order appropriate remedial action or penalties. Alleged violations are reviewed by a committee convened by the Safety Commission which must include the same number of members representing excavators and owners/operators plus one from another group. A recommendation of remedial action that includes a fine requires a unanimous vote of the review committee. Alternatively a voluntary alternative dispute resolution program is available through Colorado 811 to all owners/operators, excavators, and others regarding disputes arising from damage to underground facilities.

The legislation requires the reporting of damage to underground utilities by members (owner/operators). For each incident the location, duration of service interruption and whether Colorado 811 had been notified prior to excavation must be reported to Colorado 811. However, this is much less information than what is requested by the Common Ground Alliance's voluntary reporting of underground utility damage or PHMSA's mandatory reporting of pipeline incidents. Specifically it does not include fatalities, injuries or costs.

Summary

Taken together these modifications to Colorado's one-call legislation are progressive, especially by requiring mapping of underground utilities during engineering design for public civil engineering projects such as highway construction. Its implications for liabilities is less clear.  Shared liabilities would provide an important motivation for utility and telecom owners/operators to improve the quality of their information about the location of underground facilities.  That a digital or paper sketche or imagery is now required in addition to marking the ground would appear to be step in the direction of a completely digital 811 system such as KLIC in the Netherlands or KLIP in Flanders.

First substation built using full life-cycle BIM construction goes live one month early

Hubei Electric Engineering Corporation (HEEC) was this year's winner of the Bentley Year in Infrastructure Communications and Utilities award.  One of the key objectives of the ground-breaking CNY 120 million (US$16.8 million) Miluo Western 220kV substation project was to reuse the design BIM model and data during construction and to provide a virtual reality BIM model to the owner on completion of the project to improve operations and maintenance procedures. As a result of the application of digital technology including reality modeling using UAVs, full life-cycle building information modeling (BIM), integrated BIM and geospatial, construction monitoring, and construction simulation, construction was completed 30 days ahead of schedule saving CNY 6.3 million (US$ 895,000).

Hubei Electric Engineering Corporation (HEEC) began applying 3D design to projects beginning in 2013. In 2017 the State Grid Corp began to promote 3D design and held a competition to select the best design companies to carry out 3D demonstration projects. HEEC came in first in this competition and was awarded the Miluo Western 220kV substation project. In addition 3D design standards for China's electric power industry had been developed and HEEC was a leading contributor to six of these standards. On this project HEEC strictly implemented these standards during design.

The Miluo Western 220kV substation supplies power to 160,000 customers in a 16 km² area. The total investment in the 10 month project was CNY 120 million ($16.8 million).

Digital technology including reality modeling using UAVs, building information modeling (BIM), integrated BIM+geospatial, construction monitoring, and construction simulation, enabled collaboration between site preparation, mechanical design, electrical design, protection, and communications design teams.  The challenges that HEEC targeted on this project were several.

First of all, the site was constricted because of existing houses and a key objective was to minimize impact on the existing buildings. By scanning the area and using geospatial reality modeling techniques, the area occupied by the substation was reduced by 22% saving CNY 2.5 million and avoiding the demolition of six houses.

Secondly, the project was the first to apply the 3D standards mandated for the entire Chinese utility industry. The Miluo Western 220kV substation is among the first batch of 3D demonstration projects based on 3D standards.  This is the first of the 3D demonstration projects to go into operation, in June 2019.

Third, because the site chosen for the substation was constricted, cables and equipment were closed together than in other substations. HEEC reengineered the design process and developed a series of system processes to ensure the quality of 3D design by collaborative design between mechanical, electrical, protection, communication, and site preparation teams. During design, clash detection between these different elements avoided 30 instances of rework during construction saving CNY 800,000.

Fourthly, from the beginning the objective was to find a way to reuse the design BIM model during construction. Typically a separate BIM model is developed by construction contractors to be used during construction. HEEC investigated ways that 3D pdfs, mobile handhelds, cloud storage, and other technologies could be used to enable the 3D design BIM to be used to schedule construction.

Fifth, HEEC used reality capture techniques including UAVs to monitor construction progress on a daily basis. Due to uncertain factors factors in the construction process, there will necessarily be deviations between planned and actual construction. By monitoring these on a daily basis ensured that these do not hold up the project. At YII2019 HEEC showed an amazing video with actual and planned construction side by side where each frame represented a day.

Finally, an important goal was to use digital technology to improve operations and maintenance procedures. At the end of the project HEEC was able to hand over to the State Grid a virtual reality BIM+geospatial model designed to improve operations and maintenance procedures.

In summary digital technology including reality capture, construction simulation, and full-lifecycle BIM resulted in tangible benefits; avoiding the demolition of 6 houses and reducing the area required for the substation by 22% for a saving of CNY 2.5 million; significant savings in materials saving CNY 210,000; avoided rework saving CNY 800,000; reducing design time by 65 days; and completing construction 30 days ahead of schedule generating economic benefits of CNY 1.5 million. Taken together the total investment was reduced by CNY 6.3 million (US$ 895,000). In addition by providing a virtual reality model to the owner on completion of the project it is expected that substantive savings will be achieved during operations and maintenance.

Mapping underground utilities prior to design helps highway construction project complete on schedule and below budget

The winner of the Bentley Year in Infrastructure 2019 Roads and Highways award is a remarkable project by Foth Infrastructure and Environment LLC for a $38.9 million highway revitalization project in Cedar Falls, Iowa. This project was unique for several reasons. First of all, before design, a 3D model of all underground infrastructure in the right-of-way was created. This was an important factor enabling the project to complete on-time and 3% under budget. Secondly, Foth projected that innovative design including roundabouts would save the community $32 million over 25 years by reducing the number of accidents, decreasing travel time, lowering fuel usage and emissions, increasing property values, and leading to greater economic growth.

University Avenue was an Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) six-lane, divided highway which the City of Cedar Falls took ownership of in 2014. Built over 60 years ago, the corridor carries 20,000 vehicles per day and was suffering from deteriorated pavement, a crash rate 20% above the state average, a lack of pedestrian and bicycle accommodations, a pedestrian death, and inefficient traffic operations.

Innovative, advanced traffic designs were developed; multi-lane roundabouts, a dogbone interchange, and complete streets – which allowed for a reduction of lanes that still decreased congestion and increased overall traffic flow. Technical innovations included use of drone and mobile scanning utilized for reality modelling, a building information (BIM) for creating 3D modles and fostering collaboration, and 3D visualization and traffic modelling for communicating alternative designs to stakeholders and public.

The project is one of the few of which I am aware in which a 3D model of underground utilities was developed before the start of the design phase. This enabled the detection of 200 utility conflicts during the design phase avoiding utility conflicts during construction and was the primary reason that the project completed on schedule and 3% under bid saving the City $700,000.

The project is also unique in that the design and build contractor estimated the benefits of the proposed innovative design using roundabouts over the 25 year lifetime.  It was projected that the community would recognize $32 million of benefits from fewer accidents, faster travel times, less gas consumption and associated emissions, growing property values, and increasing economic growth.

From a public safety perspective, Foth estimated an 89% reduction in personal injury accidents. As owner of the highway, the City is projected to realize $27 million in benefits from economic growth, corridor improvements, avoided traffic signal maintenance, and reduced lighting costs. Reality modeling including mapping underground utilities prior to design,  innovative highway design, and digital design technology based on BIM saved $521 thousand in project costs by eliminating utility conflicts and the resulting change orders, enhanced public engagement, and design acceleration.

Remarkably, despite facing aggressive schedules, vast information coordination, complex utility coordination, intense public involvement, and a very tight design schedule involving public participation, Foth was able to deliver the project on time and below budget.