The construction industry faces significant risks due to the inadequate mapping of underground utilities. Incidents involving damage to these utilities are not only frequent but also have severe consequences, including injuries, fatalities, and considerable economic repercussions.
Unlike the aviation sector, which benefits from reliable data collection and accessibility, the construction sector struggles with limited, inaccurate, and outdated information on underground infrastructure.
The High Cost of Inaccuracy
In the United States alone, an estimated $10 billion is annually allocated to locate underground utilities before and during construction projects. Despite this substantial investment, the frequency and severity of utility damage incidents have not diminished.
This inefficiency and lack of accurate data contribute to schedule delays, budget overruns, and pose a significant drag on the economy—amounting to a $50 billion impact in the U.S. and up to a £6 billion drag in the U.K.
A Global Perspective on Safety
The disparity in underground utility damage incidents between countries such as the United States and Japan is stark.
While the U.S. experiences between 400,000 to 800,000 incidents annually, Japan reported only 134 in 2016. This contrast highlights the potential for implementing measures to drastically reduce the risk to construction workers and the public.
Strategies for Improvement
Several jurisdictions around the world have recognized the critical need for accurate underground infrastructure information and have taken steps to mitigate risks. These efforts include:
Establishing Reliable Statistics: Accurate reporting of all incidents involving underground utility damage is crucial for assessing the effectiveness of policies aimed at reducing these incidents.
Digitalization: Transitioning from paper-based to digital processes for capturing, sharing, and updating underground infrastructure data is essential for improving accuracy and timeliness.
Security and Privacy: Ensuring the confidentiality of sensitive location information is vital, alongside protecting competitive data.
Accessibility: Stakeholders throughout the construction project lifecycle need access to accurate underground infrastructure location information.
Liability Models: Implementing models that share the responsibility for the costs associated with underground utility damage can incentivize improvements in data accuracy.
Case Studies and Best Practices
From airports to university campuses, areas with a high density of underground utilities present unique challenges and opportunities for developing best practices in utility mapping.
Public jurisdictions and private owners alike must navigate the complexities of managing information across different utilities, each with its own data management systems.
Implementing Solutions
Solutions range from government-mandated policies to voluntary industry associations and private company initiatives. Key strategies include:
3D Mapping: Prioritizing the 3D mapping of underground infrastructure during planning and design phases to avoid utility conflicts.
Locating Unknown and Abandoned Facilities: Enhancing the current one-call system to include mechanisms for identifying previously unrecorded utilities.
Capturing and Sharing Data: Developing efficient methods for capturing data from Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE) surveys and sharing it among stakeholders.
Reducing Backlogs: Addressing delays in updating GIS systems with new or adjusted utility data to ensure timely access to accurate information.
The Path Forward
By adopting a comprehensive approach that includes digitalization, improved data accuracy, secure data sharing, and effective liability models, the construction industry can significantly reduce the risk of underground utility damage.
Such measures will not only enhance safety and reduce economic losses but also contribute to the more efficient execution of construction projects.
Implementing these strategies requires collaboration among all stakeholders, including utility companies, construction firms, policymakers, and technology providers.