Between the Poles

Large ROI from subsurface utility engineering (SUE) for highway construction projects

Return on investment (ROI) studies of subsurface engineering utility engineering (SUE) surveys applied to highway construction projects conducted since the late 1990s have consistently revealed a large return-on-investment from conducting SUE surveys as part of highway construction projects.

One of the first in 1999 by Purdue University and sponsored by the US DOT Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) identified 21 categories of cost savings that could result from including a subsurface utility engineering (SUE) survey in construction projects. Only some of these could be quantified and it was estimated that the qualitative benefits exceeded those that could be quantified. It was estimated that SUE surveys resulted in a construction savings of at least 1.9 percent over the traditional approach of relying on as-builts and (above-ground) site surveys for identifying underground utilities.  Using the national expenditure in 1998 of $51 billion for highway construction (FHWA), it was calculated that requiring SUE on road construction projects could result in a national savings of at least $1 billion per year.

A subsequent reanalysis of the same Purdue data estimated that the ROI was $12.23 for every $1 spent on SUE. Furthermore the cost of conducting a SUE survey was estimated at 1.39% of total project costs. In 2007 a study for PennDOT and USDOT found an ROI of 22.21 : 1. 

The most recent ROI analysis sponsored by PennDOT differed from previous analyses by including both SUE and non-SUE projects. It calculated an ROI of 11.39 : 1. The largest contributor to the cost savings attributed to SUE was a 40.33% reduction in utility relocation costs. Utility relocations were avoided or reduced by providing engineers/designers with accurate underground information in the early stages of design. The second largest savings was 29.46% in reduced 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. The cost of conducting a SUE survey was estimated to be 1.65% of project cost.  

These ROI studies show that SUE can provide accurate utility information with important project benefits at reasonable cost.

Year	ROI	Cost of SUE (% of project cost)	Description	Sponsoring agency	Source
2012	11.39:1	1.65%	Study of 22 SUE and 8 non-SUE projects	PennDOT	Yeun J. Jung, Evaluation of subsurface utility engineering for highway projects: Benefit–cost analysis, pages 111-122 in Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology Volume 27, Issue 1 Pages 1-168 (January 2012)
2012	16:1		Study of one SUE project	Region of Lombardy
2007	22.21:1	0.6 %	Study of 10 SUE projects	PennDOT/USDOT	SUBSURFACE UTILITY ENGINEERING MANUAL PennDOT/MAUTC Partnership, Work Order No. 8 Research Agreement No. 510401 FINAL REPORT August 20, 2007 By S. K. Sinha, H. R. Thomas, M. C. Wang and Y. J. Jung
2004	3.41:1		Study of nine SUE projects	Ontario Sewer and Watermain Contractors Association	Osman, Hesham, El-Diraby, Tamer E., 2005. Subsurface Utility Engineering in Ontario: Challenges & Opportunities. A Report to the Ontario Sewer & Water main Contractors Association, October 2005.
2004	12.23:1	1.39%	Reanalysis of 71 SUE projects	ASCE based on USDOT data	Jeong, H.S., Abraham, D.M., Lew, J.J., 2004. Evaluation of an emerging market in subsurface utility engineering. ASCE, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 130 (2).
1999	4.62:1	0.5 %	Study of 71 SUE projects	USDOT	Lew, J.J., 2000. Cost Savings on Highway Projects utilizing Subsurface Utility Engineering. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 2012

A definitive study of twenty-two projects utilizing subsurface utility engineering (SUE) and eight non-SUE projects from Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) districts has revealed that $11.39 can be saved for every $1 spent on SUE. The cost of conducting a SUE survey was estimated at 1.65% of total project cost. Eleven direct and indirect costs where SUE would lead to savings were considered in the analysis; utility relocation cost, utility damage cost, emergency restoration cost, traffic delay cost , business impact cost, user service cost, environmental impact cost, information gathering and verification cost, legal and litigation cost, efficient utility design and construction, and other utility related costs and benefits.

On the expense side two kinds of costs are involved in conducting a SUE survey. One is the use of geophysical techniques such as EMI and GPR to identify the location of underground utilities and other objects. The other is potholing (using safe excavation techniques) to confirm the location of the utilities and objects identified. In this study for the projects utilizing SUE, costs were obtained directly from project accounting. For the projects that did not use SUE, costs are 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 (EMI and 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).

Previous ROI studies of SUE only used projects where SUE surveys were performed to quantify the cost savings of SUE. In this study, non-SUE projects were used to determine the cost savings of SUE because direct costs incurred by problems that would have been avoided by SUE can be considered as SUE benefits. The results of the study revealed that $11.39 can be saved for every $1 spent on SUE on road projects.

The top cost savings that were found are as follows:

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

It was concluded that SUE can provide accurate utility information with important project benefits at reasonable cost. A ratio of 1.65% was determined as the ratio of SUE cost to total project cost. The study also showed that the greater the complexity level of buried utilities, the higher the SUE benefits.

Region of Lombardy, Italy 2012

A pilot project was undertaken to map all underground infrastructure on the site of Expo Milano in preparation for the 2015 event in Milan. All underground infrastructure in the project area (230 000 square meters) including electric power, water, sewers, gas, district heating, street lighting, and telecommunication were mapped by combining historical records and IDS GeoRadar ground penetrating radar (GPR) technology. A key objective of the project was an economic analysis of the costs and benefits of applying GPR to detect the location of underground infrastructure. The analysis estimated that the return on investment is about €16 for every euro invested in improving the reliability of information about underground infrastructure. The analysis emphasized that there were other important, but non-quantifiable, benefits including better safety for both workers and the public as well as fewer traffic disruptions.

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 2007

This study conducted by Penn State and sponsored by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation PennDOT) and the U.S. DoT, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) performed a benefit-cost analysis of 10 SUE highway projects from different PennDOT districts. The case studies were investigated by conducting interviews with utility engineers, SUE consultants, and project engineers. Site visits, analyses of project data, and detailed individual studies of the 10 SUE highway projects were also performed for this research. These projects were selected randomly from a list of projects that utilized SUE quality level A and/or B. The projects investigated in this study involved road construction and bridge replacement in urban, suburban, and rural areas. PennDOT project managers and engineers, utility owners, SUE consultants, designers, and contractors were interviewed. A savings of $22.21 for every $1.00 spent on SUE was estimated based on the analysis of the 10 projects. These projects had a total project cost (including both design and construction cost) in excess of $120 million. The costs of conducting SUE (to ASCE QL A or B) on these 10 projects were less than 0.6 percent of the total project costs. The benefit was cost savings of 15% over traditional approach relying on ASCE QL C and D utility data.

Project costs ranged from $2 million to $63 million. The quality of the utility records for these projects was poor or fair. The cost of conducting SUE ranged from $20,000 to $141,000 for these projects. The ratio of SUE cost to the total project cost ranged from 0.22% to 2.8%, with an average of 1.15%. SUE resulted in cost savings ranging from $65,000 to $4.5 million. The benefit-cost ratio ranged from 3.25 to 33.93, with an average of 22.21. In other words $22.21 can be saved for every $1 spent on SUE. The costs of conducting SUE on these 10 projects were less than 0.6 percent of the total project cost. Furthermore the analysis revealed a strong relationship between benefit of SUE and utility complexity. The benefit derived from performing a SUE survey increases as the underground utility complexity increases.

Ontario Sewer and Watermain Contractors Association 2004

In 2004 in Canada, the Ontario Sewer and Watermain Contractors Association commissioned the University of Toronto to investigate the practice of using SUE on large infrastructure projects in Ontario. Osman and El-Diraby (2005) analyzed nine SUE projects in Ontario, conducting interviews and project case studies. They identified 11 cost saving items from the 21 cost savings items used by 1999 U.S. DOT Purdue Study. The results of Ontario Study showed that the average return-on-investment (ROI) for SUE Osman and El-Diraby (2005) analyzed nine SUE projects in Ontario, conducting interviews and project case studies. They identified 11 cost saving items from the 21 cost savings items used by Purdue Study. The results of Ontario Study showed that the average return-on-investment (ROI) for SUE ranged from $1.98 to $6.59 with an average of $3.41 for each $1 spent.

U.S. DOT Federal Highway Administration 1999

In a study conducted by Purdue University Department of Building Construction Management for the U.S. DOT Federal Highway Administration, a total of seventy-one projects (71) from Virginia, North Carolina, Texas, and Ohio were studied. The total construction costs of these road projects were in excess of one billion dollars and involved interstate, arterial, and collector Roads in urban, suburban, and rural settings. DOT project managers, utility owners, constructors, and designers were interviewed.

Based on Interviews and surveys of DOTs, utility owners, SUE consultants, and contractors 21 categories of cost savings were defined to quantify the savings in terms of time, cost, and risk management. The 21 categories of cost savings identified in the study were as follows: reduction in unforeseen utility conflicts and relocations; reduction in project delays due to utility relocates; reduction in claims and change orders; reduction in delays due to utility cuts; reduction in project contingency fees; lower project bids; reduction in costs caused by conflict redesign; reduction in the cost of project design; reduction in travel delays during construction to the motoring public; improvement in contractor productivity and quality; reduction in utility companies' cost to repair damaged facilities; minimization of utility customers' loss of service; minimization of damage to existing pavements; minimization of traffic disruption, increasing DOT public credibility; improvement in working relationships between DOT and utilities; increased efficiency of surveying activities by elimination of duplicate surveys; facilitation of electronic mapping accuracy; minimization of the chance of environmental damage; inducement of savings in risk management and insurance; introduction of the concept of a comprehensive SUE process; and reduction in right-of-way acquisition costs.

The reduction in risk for all of these potential benefits by conducting a SUE survey has been difficult to quantify. Benefits have been categorized as exact costs that can be quantified in a precise manner, for example the cost of potholing or the cost to eliminate utility conflicts; estimated costs that are difficult to quantify, but can be calculated by studying projects in detail, interviewing the personnel involved in the project, and applying historical cost data; qualitative costs that cannot be estimated due to a lack of data, for example, for example, avoided impacts on nearby homes and businesses.

The analysis revealed savings ranging from $0.34 to $206.67 for every dollar invested in SUE with an average of $4.62. The cost of conducting SUE surveys on these projects was less than 0.5 percent of the total construction costs. SUE surveys resulted in a construction savings of 1.9 percent over the traditional approach to underground utilities that relied on ASCE QL C and D. Using this ratio and a national expenditure in 1998 of $51 billion for highway construction (FHWA), requiring SUE on road projects could result in a minimum national savings of approximately $1 billion per year.

The qualitative savings were non-measurable, but it is clear that those savings are also significant and may be many times more valuable than the quantifiable savings. The study concluded that SUE is a viable, cost effective practice that reduced the risks associated with existing subsurface utilities resulted in significant quantifiable and qualitative benefits.

2004 American Society of Civil Engineers

A subsequent reanalysis of the data from the 1999 USDOT Purdue Study 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 as follows:

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

The analysis concluded that the average ratio of the cost of SUE to total project cost ranged from 0.02% to 10.76% with an average of 1.39%.

Conclusion

These ROI studies show that SUE can provide accurate utility information with important project benefits at a reasonable cost. While SUE surveys have been shown to reduce the risk of budget overruns and project delays for construction projects, by themselves they are not a silver bullet for reducing the number of incidents of underground utility damage. As Heathrow International Airport and Japan have shown a comprehensive program involving policies, regulations, and construction practices is required.

ROI of $11.39 for every $1 spent on subsurface utility engineering on highway construction projects

A definitive study of twenty-two projects utilizing subsurface utility engineering (SUE) and eight non-SUE projects from Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) districts has revealed that $11.39 can be saved for every $1 spent on SUE.  The cost of conducting a SUE survey was estimated at 1.65% of total project cost.

Eleven main benefit factors were considered in the analysis.

1. Utility relocation cost
2. Utility damage cost
3. Emergency restoration cost
4. Traffic delay cost
5. Business impact cost
6. User service cost
7. Environmental impact cost
8. Information gathering and verification cost
9. Legal and litigation cost
10. Efficient utility design and construction
11. Other utility related costs and benefits

On the cost side two kinds of costs are involved in conducting a SUE survey. One is the use of geophysical techniques such as EMI and GPR to identify the location of underground utilities and other objects.  The other is potholing (using safe excavation techniques) to confirm the location of the utilities and objects identified.  In this study for the projects utilizing SUE, costs are obtained from directly from project accounting. For the projects that did not use SUE, costs are estimated from interviews, historical data, and individual project studies.

For the twenty-two projects where SUE was applied, all underground utilities and other objects were located to ASCE 38-02 quality level A (potholing) or B (EMI and 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).

Previous ROI studies of SUE only used projects where SUE surveys were performed to quantify the cost savings of SUE.  In this study, non-SUE projects were used to determine the cost savings of SUE because direct costs incurred by problems that would have been avoided by SUE can be considered as SUE benefits. The results of the study revealed that $11.39 can be saved for every $1 spent on SUE on road projects. A ratio of 1.65% was determined as the ratio of SUE cost to total project cost. It was concluded that SUE can provide accurate utility information with important project benefits at reasonable cost. Project relocation cost is the most important item to the cost savings, representing 40.33% of total savings. The study also showed that the greater the complexity level of buried utilities, the higher the SUE benefits.

Source

Yeun J. Jung, Evaluation of subsurface utility engineering for highway projects: Benefit–cost analysis, pages 111-122 in Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology Volume 27, Issue 1 Pages 1-168 (January 2012)

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.

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.

Ground-breaking initiative by Colorado DOT for capturing and sharing location of underground utilities

According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) missing or inaccurate location information about underground utilities is a major source of highway construction project delays and budget overruns.  Some jurisdictions have taken advantage of their legal right to control what goes into public right-of-ways.  I have previously blogged about Calgary, Alberta and Las Vegas, Nevada as two examples in North America, which have attempted to control the accuracy of location information about underground utilities including telecom.  The chief challenges they faced have been finding a solution to address this issue cost-effectively all the while providing survey-grade accuracy and creating QA/QC processes for ensuring that this information is accurate, up-to-date and secure.  In general this requires a multi-pronged approach involving government legislation and regulation, modern technology and partnerships between different levels of government, utilities and telecoms, and the construction companies and contractors.

I had a chance to chat recently with Rob Martindale, Utility Program Manager at the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and Chairman of the GIS and Data Management Technical Committee for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and Page Tucker, CEO and founder of Prostar Geocorp. Rob told me that in Colorado the legislative framework for managing and sharing utility information about underground infrastructure has been developed and implemented.  Using a Cloud and mobile solution developed by ProStar Geocorp, CDOT has implemented ProStar’s Precision Mapping Solution ™ to be used by CDOT as well as all of the utilities, telecoms, contractors and other stakeholders in Colorado to capture, display and share the location of utility infrastructure that lies below the earth’s surface. According to Page Tucker, ProStar’s Precision Mapping Solution leverages Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) standards including Web Mapping Services (WMS) and Web Feature Services (WFS) and is also designed to support quality standards such as ASCE 38-02 in the US and CSA S250 in Canada. The ProStar Solution is natively built to be open source using GeoServer and seamlessly integrates with other modern technologies and legacy systems of record including Bentley, ESRI and GE Smallworld.  It also uses standard map services such as Google Maps, Bing, and OpenStreetMap for base mapping as well as LiDAR and drone imagery when higher levels of precision are required.  The Prostar Solution even integrates with One Call centers allowing the State One Call center to provide One Call tickets in real-time, so that it is possible to display the location of all open tickets and their status on a PC or mobile device such as a tablet or smart phone. The solution can even auto-populate digital locate forms based on the new One Call tickets.  The Prostar solution is also secure. Page Tucker told me that the ProStar Solution is SOC2 compliant and can use roles and privileges in the settings as well as geo-fencing to restrict views of operator networks, which is a key requirement for telecom operators.  Century Link is one of several key beta testers on the Colorado state implementation and many other utility owners including Zayo Communications have also expressed an interest in participating.

There are two components to the ProStar Solution. Transparent Earth® which is the Cloud platform and PointMan® which is the mobile application. PointMan runs on both Android and iOS and can use the device's internal GPS for mapping grade data collection as well as external GPS and RTK to identify the location of exposed or newly installed underground infrastructure in the field with precision levels that can range from a foot to centimeter accuracy without requiring a survey team.  The PointMan application according to Mr. Martindale is both intuitive and very easy for field crews to use.  Furthermore, construction contractors that have adopted the solution report that it does not add to their current workload and is already saving them time.

At this point the shared database does not include utility and telecom as-built data but Prostar incorporates support for bidirectional inclusion of this data with notifications to utilities when any of this data is changed so that it can be used for maintaining and improving utility as-builts.

This is a ground-breaking initiative involving legislation, regulation and new technology to address one of the chief causes of highway construction delays and cost overruns. CDOT's adoption of the ProStar Solution is now getting the attention from other State DOTs as well as several Federal agencies.  Utah DOT for example followed CDOT and has also implemented the ProStar Solution. 

Novel radar technology enables ground penetrating radar scanning at roadway speeds

Underground utility damage during construction is a major safety problem and drag on economies in many countries.  The technologies that are currently considered best practices for detecting underground utilities have been used for decades and are characterized by being slow, unreliable under certain conditions and for certain types of underground equipment, and hazardous for the operator.  Lately ground penetrating radar (GPR) has been getting significantly increased attention primarily because it can detect both metallic and non-metallic underground objects, capture continuous digital scans, and because it can capture 3D position of underground objects.   Using a novel radar technology, Earth Radar has developed GPR systems that works in a different manner to traditional equipment and which can scan at up to roadway speeds.  It has been applied commercially since 2008 to detect sub surface objects on projects that include highway intersections, road pavements, urban streets, and airports. 

Introduction

The Common Ground Alliance estimates that there are 400,000 cases of utility damage during construction annually in the U.S. In the U.S. according to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) underground utility conflicts and relocations are a major cause of project delays during road construction. A study by the Pennsylvania State University found $21 in cost saving for every dollar invested in improved location information about underground infrastructure.

Not knowing where underground infrastructure is has engendered what is estimated to be a $10 billion per year industry in the U.S. Every construction project requires locating underground utilities prior to and during construction.

The most accurate way to determine the location of underground infrastructure is to expose it by carefully digging a hole and then bring in a survey team to survey the location.  But this is time consuming, expensive, and can be hazardous.

An increasingly viable alternative is various types of remote sensing. Currently best practice for locating underground infrastructure is walking the site or right of way with electromagnetic wands (EMI) or ground penetrating radar (GPR) pushcarts. This is slow and can be extremely hazardous.  It can also have major indirect and social costs such as lane closures on busy transportation routes.

NM-GPR a novel approach to ground penetrating radar

We are beginning to see some promising advances in remote sensing technology for detecting underground utilities. Capturing ground penetrating radar scans of below ground infrastructure data at roadway speeds would be an important step toward efficiently and safely creating 3D maps of the underground.  Recently I had the opportunity to chat with Wayne Muller of Earth Radar, a company developing new forms of GPR technology based in Brisbane, Australia.  In the last few years Earth Radar has been developing and commercially using this new radar technology.  Originally reported in a talk by Wayne Muller and Bryan Reeves Application of a traffic-speed road scanning system including a new type of 3-D GPR at the NDE/NDT for Highways and Bridges: Structural Materials Technology (SMT) conference, in August 2010 in New York City, Noise-Modulated Ground Penetrating Radar (NM-GPR) is a GPR variant that uses coded signal modulation and efficient receiver hardware to enable traffic-speed data capture. It was developed in Australia by Radar Portal Systems and a first generation version was used starting in 2008 for a range of road investigations for the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads.

One variant, called Sparas, is a trailer based 3D GPR that mesures 30 points across a 2.5m width. It is normally configured to collecting measuremnts at 60mm intervals along the road at speed of up to 100 km/hour.  Referred to as noise-modulated or coded signal GPR (NM-GPR), the core technology us a simplified approach to radar hardware that combines many fast low-fidelity measurements to create a high-fidelty image of the subsurface. The technology is able to retain the good resolution of high-frequency antenans to greater depths that conventional GPR systems can, without using different antenna sizes. Under typical soil conditions it is capable of detecting objects in high detail down to 1.5 to 2 meters and in good conditions down to 3m.  Earth Radar has also developed UtiliVision software to assist in interpreting the scans and turning the data into 3D maps.  In a recent commercial project in the Gold Coast, these technologies were used to cover 7.5 km of highway lanes and numerous side streets in just over 15 hours of scanning. More than 2000 subsurface utilities were later detected and mapped using these measurements. 

The rig that Earth Radar typically uses is composed of a vehicle equipped with four pods containing radar antennas and protective skids positioned about a cm above the road surface. A photometric stereo imaging system is also used to sumulatenously capture above ground features.

This is the first GPR system using a novel radar technology of which I am aware that has been deployed commercially for a number of years on a range of real world projects from highway intersections to highways and urban streets to airports.  This represents a major breakthrough in applying GPR to safely and rapidly scan the subsurface without lane closures and the associated traffic disruptions.

Read more about locating underground infrastructure

Underground utility damage during construction is a major safety problem and drag on economies in many countries.  The technologies that are currently considered best practices for detecting underground utilities have been used for decades and are characterized by being slow, unreliable under certain conditions and for certain types of underground equipment, and hazardous for the operator.  Lately ground penetrating radar (GPR) has been getting significantly increased attention primarily because it can detect both metallic and non-metallic underground objects, capture continuous digital scans, and because it can capture 3D position of underground objects.   Using a novel radar technology, Earth Radar has developed GPR systems that works in a different manner to traditional equipment and which can scan at up to roadway speeds.  It has been applied commercially since 2008 to detect sub surface objects on projects that include highway intersections, road pavements, urban streets, and airports. 

Introduction

The Common Ground Alliance estimates that there are 400,000 cases of utility damage during construction annually in the U.S. In the U.S. according to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) underground utility conflicts and relocations are a major cause of project delays during road construction. A study by the Pennsylvania State University found $21 in cost saving for every dollar invested in improved location information about underground infrastructure.

Not knowing where underground infrastructure is has engendered what is estimated to be a $10 billion per year industry in the U.S. Every construction project requires locating underground utilities prior to and during construction.

The most accurate way to determine the location of underground infrastructure is to expose it by carefully digging a hole and then bring in a survey team to survey the location.  But this is time consuming, expensive, and can be hazardous.

An increasingly viable alternative is various types of remote sensing. Currently best practice for locating underground infrastructure is walking the site or right of way with electromagnetic wands (EMI) or ground penetrating radar (GPR) pushcarts. This is slow and can be extremely hazardous.  It can also have major indirect and social costs such as lane closures on busy transportation routes.

NM-GPR a novel approach to ground penetrating radar

We are beginning to see some promising advances in remote sensing technology for detecting underground utilities. Capturing ground penetrating radar scans of below ground infrastructure data at roadway speeds would be an important step toward efficiently and safely creating 3D maps of the underground.  Recently I had the opportunity to chat with Wayne Muller of Earth Radar, a company developing new forms of GPR technology based in Brisbane, Australia.  In the last few years Earth Radar has been developing and commercially using this new radar technology.  Originally reported in a talk by Wayne Muller and Bryan Reeves Application of a traffic-speed road scanning system including a new type of 3-D GPR at the NDE/NDT for Highways and Bridges: Structural Materials Technology (SMT) conference, in August 2010 in New York City, Noise-Modulated Ground Penetrating Radar (NM-GPR) is a GPR variant that uses coded signal modulation and efficient receiver hardware to enable traffic-speed data capture. It was developed in Australia by Radar Portal Systems and a first generation version was used starting in 2008 for a range of road investigations for the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads.

One variant, called Sparas, is a trailer based 3D GPR that mesures 30 points across a 2.5m width. It is normally configured to collecting measuremnts at 60mm intervals along the road at speed of up to 100 km/hour.  Referred to as noise-modulated or coded signal GPR (NM-GPR), the core technology us a simplified approach to radar hardware that combines many fast low-fidelity measurements to create a high-fidelty image of the subsurface. The technology is able to retain the good resolution of high-frequency antenans to greater depths that conventional GPR systems can, without using different antenna sizes. Under typical soil conditions it is capable of detecting objects in high detail down to 1.5 to 2 meters and in good conditions down to 3m.  Earth Radar has also developed UtiliVision software to assist in interpreting the scans and turning the data into 3D maps.  In a recent commercial project in the Gold Coast, these technologies were used to cover 7.5 km of highway lanes and numerous side streets in just over 15 hours of scanning. More than 2000 subsurface utilities were later detected and mapped using these measurements. 

The rig that Earth Radar typically uses is composed of a vehicle equipped with four pods containing radar antennas and protective skids positioned about a cm above the road surface. A photometric stereo imaging system is also used to sumulatenously capture above ground features.

This is the first GPR system using a novel radar technology of which I am aware that has been deployed commercially for a number of years on a range of real world projects from highway intersections to highways and urban streets to airports.  This represents a major breakthrough in applying GPR to safely and rapidly scan the subsurface without lane closures and the associated traffic disruptions.

Read more about locating underground infrastructure

Developing high precision highway maps for autonomous vehicles

Currently autonomous vehicles with some exceptions rely on on-board sensors for the detailed aspects of navigation. But many believe that high precision maps, which contain significantly more detailed information and true-ground-absolute accuracy than current road maps, will be essential for the safe operation of autonomous vehicles. These high-precision 3D maps will be specifically for the self-driving vehicle market and include detailed inventories of all stationary physical assets related to roadways such as road lanes, road edges, shoulders, dividers, traffic signals, signage, paint markings, poles, and all other critical data needed for the safe navigation of roadways and intersections by autonomous vehicles.  Referred to as high definition (HD) maps they will record the location of physical highway assets to centimeters.

These HD maps have two applications in the autonomous vehicle market.  They can be used by autonomous vehicles in actual driving to augment on-board sensors with near real-time and highly accurate data of the highway and surrounding location where the vehicle is driving.  Secondly because self-driving vehicles would need to travel billions of miles in the physical world to demonstrate a significant improvement on safety for human drivers, simulation has become an essential part of the development of autonomous vehicles.

 At the 2016 SPAR3D conference I had a chance to chat with Ron Singh, then Chief of Surveys at the Oregon Department of Transport about high definition (HD) maps of highway systems.  High definition means accurate to centimeters and Ron believed that HD highways maps would be required to reduce the risk and costs of highway construction.  But he also believed that autonomous vehicles would require this information.  Today autonomous vehicles rely completely on on-board sensors. but many believe that for safe operation they will require other information that can only come from external HD maps of highways and roads.

At the Year in Infrastructure 2017 (YII2017) conference in Singapore, Sharad Oberoi of Sanborn gave an insightful overview of the state of the art for automated feature extraction from combined aerial and mobile scans of highways and adjacent areas. Sanborn develops high precision maps for the autonomous vehicle market.  Sanborn has developed proprietary mapping technology that leverages aerial imagery, aerial lidar data, and mobile lidar data to create standardized, high-precision 3D base-maps focusing specifically on the self-driving vehicle market.

Recently in the UK Zenzic has commissioned the Ordnance Survey (OS) to explore the geospatial data requirements for HD maps when considering the lifecycle of testing and the data interoperability requirements to enable UK plc to provide an exemplar test facility ecosystem and set the foundations for operational deployments.  HD maps for autonomous vehicles are more complex than maps used for simple driver-based navigation systems. Mapping mustbe highly accurate (better than 5cmin resolution) and needs to contain a minimum set of road information, such as lane-level geometry and information relating to street furniture.This study has been conducted with the support of software simulation companies, the Met Office and the British Standards Institution(BSI), with the aim of understanding the data requirements, gaps and sources regarding geospatial data for self-driving vehicle testing.  A report Geodata report - analysis and recommendations for self-driving vehicle testing has been released.  It addresses why self-driving vehicles require real-time high precision maps. With high-definition maps which are updated in real-time, a self-driving vehicle is able to reference the position of other road users against what it already knows to be there. It also provides a back-up in situations where its sensors are unreliable such as poor weather conditions such as snow, heavy-rain or sun reflecting off a wet-road. 

Its key conclusions are that geospatial data is fundamental for autonomous vehicles. Maps can provide an important trusted baseline where the on-boardd sensor feed are unreliable.   To provide the framework required for the testing and driving of self-driving vehicles, current mapping specifications will need to be enhanced to include relevant street-level features, with better than 5cm resolution, more extensive information about street furniture, and interoperability with other sources of data.  An authenticated, authoritative single source of geospatial data accessible to autonomous vehicles is required. Standards relating to geospatial data in the context of autonomous vehicles are required. This is on the Open Geospatial Consortium radar. Real-time updates to mapping through sensor data feeds will also be essential.  Finally it makes some recommendations about the development of data formats (LAS 1.2 or LAZ, OBJ, OpenDrive, and ESRI shapefile), data hosting, governance, minimum safe requirements and standards.

3D BIM + geospatial full lifecycle metro rail project aims at eliminating data loss

This year's winner of a special recognition award at Year in Infrastructure was Maharashtra Metro Rail Corporation Ltd for its Nagpur Metro Asset Information Management System which implemented a digital twin and a tagging scheme right from design with the goal of eliminating information loss over the life-cycle of the project.  It is estimated that this will save US$ 222 million over the 25 years of operation of the metro rail system.

 

The UK Government as part of its building information modeling (BIM) initiative has said repeatedly that it expects the big payoff of a digital twin, estimated at more than 40% savings, will be during operations and maintenance, typically representing 80% of the total cost of a facility.  Companies such as BAM who do Design, Build, Finance and Maintain (DBFM) projects report significant benefits from full lifecycle BIM + geospatial.  But there is little if any quantitative evidence supporting this conjecture.  I have asked people from Finland familiar with the very early BIM developments in that country if there were studies of the benefits of BIM for operations and maintenance, but apparently the BIM focus there has been entirely on design and build.   Crossrail with a budget of £14.8 billion is the biggest engineering project in Europe.  The most interesting aspect of the Crossrail project is a 3D digital twin that has not only been used during design and construction, but is intended to be used for operations and maintenance.  Crossrail appears to be one of the first major projects that may be able to provide support for the conjecture that the biggest benefits of BIM + geospatial are for operations and maintenance. 

 

One of the first quantitative estimates of the benefits of a 3D BIM+geospatial full lifecycle project strategy I have seen was offered by this year's a winner of a special recognition award at Bentley's Year in Infrastructure in London.  Maharashtra Metro Rail Corporation Ltd's Nagpur Metro Asset Information Management System has implemented a digital twin and a tagging scheme right from design with the goal of eliminating information loss over the life-cycle of the project.

 

The Napgur Metro is a US$1.3 billion project underway in Nagpur, a city of 3.5 million in the Indian state of Maharashtra.  This is the first project in Asia to integrate a digital twin with an asset management system to eliminate information loss about assets during design and construction.   A 23 digit asset code was used to link 3D models developed using Bentley BIM tools with SAP financial management making it possible to track assets right from design through to operation and maintenance. BIM best practices followed the British PAS 1192 guidelines. Since the Nagpur system implements a full-lifecycle approach to project management, the location of each of the 500,000 assets comprising the systems is recorded making it possible to click on an asset in SAP and be shown the location of the asset in a 3D map. QR codes are used to track different versions of drawings. Final deliverables are digital models (Bentley iModels) rather than paper drawings providing a basis for digitalizing operations and maintenance.

 

The benefits of a 3D BIM+geospatial approach have been projected based on a 25 year lifetime for the project.  It is expected that this will result in US$400,000 savings during plan, design and build, a reduction in operating manpower requirements by 20%, and increased availability and reliability.  The really big payoff is an estimated savings of US$222 million over the lifetime of the project. 

 

Geolocation plays a key role in integrating GIS and engineering data and applications for optimizing asset management workflows.  One of the foundations for an integrated system of this type is Bentley's decision many years ago to geospatially-enable all of their products Bentley calls this capability geocoordination. It provides a location-aware foundation for workflows that require integrated engineering and geospatial data and applications.

State DOT saves millions by creating 3D map of underground utilities prior to design

Unknown or inaccurately located underground utilities can make or break a highway construction project's schedule.  For the largest construction project in the state of Alabama's history, the Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) used ground penetrating radar (GPR) and other technology to create an accurate 3D model of underground infrastructure prior to designing a replacement for one of the busiest interchanges in the state.  ALDOT estimates that the 3D model, which was provided to all contractors bidding on the project, saved millions of dollars and reduced the risk of budget and schedule over-runs.

The location of existing underground utility infrastructure is more often than not poorly known which creates significant risk for infrastructure and highway construction projects. Typically on highway construction projects, the right of way is chosen, the highway designed and the project readied for construction before the one-call centre is contacted and the affected utilities arrive to detect and locate their underground facilities, usually in 2D.  The utilities that have been detected are then moved to make way for building the highway.  Not infrequently the location of the identified utilities turns out to be unreliable and during construction other unidentified utilities are encountered both of which can lead to delays and to budget overruns.

I blogged previously about a gas line construction project that was a Year in Infrastructure Award finalist in 2015.  For this project a 3D model of the existing underground and above ground infrastructure was created before design and construction.  The benefit of having the 3D model was clear; during construction there were no utility strikes, there were no change orders and the project was completed in 7 weeks instead of the expected 10 weeks. 

At this year's Year in Infrastructure Awards in London an outstanding project submitted by the Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) was selected as finalist. The I-20/I-59 Corridor is the largest construction project in the State of Alabama’s history with a cost of $750 million.   The project has a very tight timeframe.  ALDOT's Design Bureau’s Visualization Group was tasked to provide a complete 3D proposed model for building information modeling (BIM). The BIM model needed to provide the information necessary for multiple uses including: visualizations, design checks, construction analysis, clash detection, right-of-way negotiations, lawsuits, and aesthetics. The model had to be very accurate because it was intended to be provided to the construction bidders to enable more accurate cost estimates and lower bids.

One of the important challenges faced by this project was utility coordination because the interchange is situated in Birmingham's business district.  Realizing that underground utilities can make or break a project's schedule, ALDOT invested a considerable effort in locating utilities and creating a 3D model of above and below-ground utilities. Potholing and scanning with ground penetrating radar augmented existing as-built records to enable ALDOT to create accurate 3D model of underground utilities.  3D is important because what appear to be clashes in 2D may not actually be.  Also it was much easier to explain to utilities in 3D that a costly move of a utility line is not necessary.   ALDOT’s Visualization Group was tasked with detecting clashes between the proposed design with the existing conditions. Every contractor bidding on the project got the full 3D model.  Because of the reduced risk associated with underground infrastructure ALDOT estimated that it saved over $10 million by using 3D modeling of underground and aboveground utilities.  To date the project is on budget and on schedule. After completion of the project ALDOT plans to retain the 3D model which can be reused for other projects in the same area.

ALDOT found other advantages of 3D modeling as well.  Public and stakeholder perspectives of the project was a major concern and using the 3D model allowed the Visualization Group to provide accurate photomatches, renderings, and animation to relay projects impacts to all stakeholders.  While the project is under construction the 3D model is also being used by inspectors in the field so that construction details are relayed accurately to the workers.

This project provides further evidence of the significant benefits of a 3D model of underground infrastructure which can be used during design and construction to reduce the risk of utility hits, reduce the cost of utility relocates, and avoid unnecessary utility relocates.

Avoiding serial road excavation work with Waze

Waze, now part of Google, is a crowd sourced handheld app used by 100 million drivers worldwide. It is supported by 500,000 volunteer map editors and 600 partners. Its connected partners program includes 40% of top cities and 60 % of state departments of transportation (DoTs). It is very interesting that Waze has developed a way for governments to report planned and actual road construction which can inform drivers in planning routes ahead of time. This offers a way to provide a single database that could be used to avoid the problem of the same stretch of road being dug up multiple times by different utilities sometimes with a few weeks of each other.

Several years ago I blogged about the online web-based system Koordination im öffentlichen Raum (Spatial, temporal and financial co-ordination of city planning, traffic change, and construction projects on public land) of the City of Bern, Switzerland.  This is a system for coordinating street works that achieves some of the same goals as the 2004 Traffic Management Act in the U.K. It is location aware and enables planners to avoid serial excavations of the same stretch of street or road by coordinating all construction from multiple agencies including Federal, Kantonal and city street and highway agencies, water/wastewater, gas, and electricity utilities, and telecommunications companies so that a section of street or road is not dug up more than once every five years.  In its first year of operation it was estimated that the coordination system saved SFR 7 million.

At GIS in the Rockies Saila Hanninen of Waze described some of the remarkable ways that Waze data and network are being used for purposes beyond what it was initially intended for.

• During and after Hurricane Sandy in Oct 2012 the White house called Waze for help to determine which gas stations were open in the areas hit by the strom.
• For the Rio de Janeiro Olympics, Waze helped to determine where to place three rapid transit lanes that resulted in a 27 % reduction in congestion.
• Waze helped Ghent redesign its city centre to reduce traffic by 40 % which also resulted in fewer accidents and increased bicycle and transit usage.
• Boston asked Waze to help with signal timing that resulted in 18% reduction in congestion just by changing timing.
• During the Pope's visit to Philadelphia, Waze was responsible for a 20% reduction in congestion.
• 63% of callers to 911 don't know their location - Waze can provide accurate locaction information.
• 40% of accidents are reported faster on waze which results in an average of 5 minutes faster response time.

Waze intends to get more proactive.  It now has a crisis response team, that can push messages to Waze users in areas affected by a disaster to collect information about road closures, the state of the roads, which gas stations are open, shelter availability, and safe routes to shelter.

Waze has a vision to eliminate traffic.  Altogether.   To do that requires not only information about the current state of congestion on roads, but also anything that could potentially affect traffic on roads in the future.  Knowing when road and major excavations near roads are planned is essential.  If the Waze partner program included everyone planning excavations on or near roads, it would have developed a database that would provide all the information required to coordinate excavations by utilities, telecoms, and governments.  Similarly to what happened in Bern, this could mean that roads would not be dug up more often than once in five years which would reduce traffic congestion and save money.