POST 78 – History of Colorado Senate Bill 18-167

CONCLUSION

The Serendipitous History of Colorado’s Senate Bill 18-167

Part 4 by James H. Anspach

One of the key players in any legislative effort is the Office of the Governor and its priorities. Governor Hickenlooper, a geologist and businessman, was concerned over explosions due to damaged natural gas lines during construction. A recent incident called the Firestone Explosion killed several innocent bystanders, and so utility construction safety was on his mind. He had several meetings to see what could be done, and GENERALLY was in support of Sen. Scott’s initiative. As the noise of utility initiatives continued to grow, Jim Anspach was able to gather Gov. Hickenlooper’s ear regarding ASCE 38, issues with Sen. Scott’s solution, and in general received support from the Governor.

While all of these different stakeholders were being courted, Sen. Ray Scott continued on with his campaign to get his revised legislation to a vote. Eventually, the bill passed both chambers and was signed into act by Gov Hickenlooper on May 25, 2018, and became enforceable on August 8, 2018.

IN GENERAL TERMS, THE COLORADO LEGISLATION SAYS THAT ANY PUBLIC PROJECT OF SIZE THAT INCLUDES EXCAVATION OR BORING, MUST TRY TO ACHIEVE QLB ON ANY AND ALL UTILITIES WITHIN THE PROJECT LIMITS, UNLESS AN ENGINEER DECIDES IT IS UNNECESSARY.

The Colorado Attorney General’s office subsequently ruled that SUE plans and reports must be signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer (PE). CDOT took the position that any project, including utility accommodation projects in their rights-of way that required permits, fell under this legislation.

Many people contributed to the success of this effort, and it really was not part of any master plan on anyone’s part. It really was knowing and getting all the right people to the table at the same relative time period with a solution that worked for everyone. It could, and should, work in every state to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of issues surrounding existing buried utilities.

THANK YOU, JIM ANSPACH, FOR PREPARING THIS PRESENTATION AND FOR ALLOWING ME TO POST IT.

More information about Colorado’s Senate Bill 18-167 and a copy of the bill itself can be found at https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb18-167.

A PowerPoint presentation by Andrew Sylvest (Utility Engineering Operations Manager, SAM Family of Companies) contains more information about the workings and implementation of Colorado’s Senate Bill 18-167 and can be found at Q7_2_SB-18-167-Presentation (steamboatsprings.net).

HISTORY OF SUBSURFACE UTILITY ENGINEERING

POST 79 – MUTCD

The USDOT’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is an important part of Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE). 

Many of SUE’s designating and locating activities involve work on or near streets and highways. Motorists often do not expect these intrusions and therefore should be informed well in advance of what is going on. Nationally mandated information for doing this is contained in Part 6 of the MUTCD, which addresses temporary traffic control (TTC). TTC involves the use of signs, markings, and other devices used to regulate, warn, or guide users of roadway facilities.

 The MUTCD is published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and contains national standards for all traffic control devices, including highway signs, markings, and other devices. It is updated periodically to accommodate the nation’s changing transportation needs and to address new safety technologies, traffic control tools, and traffic management techniques.

 On December 19, 2023, a Final Rule adopted the 11th Edition of the MUTCD and was published in the Federal Register with an effective date of January 18, 2024. States were required to adopt the 11th Edition of the National MUTCD as their legal State standard for traffic control devices within two years from the effective date. The Federal Register notice, which provides detailed discussion of the final dispositions of major changes from the 2009 edition, can be viewed at https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2023-27178.

FHWA does not print paper copies of the MUTCD. It is available, however, as a free PDF document at 11th Edition of the MUTCD.

More next week about applicability of the MUTCD to SUE.

HISTORY OF SUBSURFACE UTILITY ENGINEERING

POST 80 – SANDY WILSON

Sandy Wilson just completed her 28th consecutive year working for the T2 Utility Engineers where she is a Project Manager for the Illinois Office. I can only think of a few people that have been with their present companies doing SUE work for that length of time. The history of SUE in Illinois and Sandy’s history coincide and continues to this day. I find that pretty amazing. I asked Sandy to tell us a little bit about it and the following is what she had to say:

“I started my career with Tampa Bay Engineering back in 1996 in Bloomington, Illinois. During this time, our company had started to grow outside the state of Florida, and we had changed our name to TBE Group, Inc. The Illinois office at the time was providing OSP (Telephony Signal Source Provider Contract) Outside Plant System Design Services for GTE North for new fiber optic installations throughout Illinois and Wisconsin. When GTE North was purchased by Verizon in 1998/1999, all contracts with GTE soon ended. Verizon decided to keep all design services in house. I was given the opportunity by TBE to remain with the company to begin learning about Subsurface Utility Engineering.

My work started on various SUE assignments out of our Indianapolis office for a short period of time. TBE was awarded a SUE contract with the Illinois Department of Transportation for IDOT District 1, and we soon opened our new Illinois branch office performing SUE services in the Northwest Suburbs of Chicago in 2001. I was not the original manager when we opened our office in Bloomington, Illinois. I was the administrative technical support assistant to the OSP Engineers who taught me how to interpret telephone and fiber optic as-built records that were drawn by hand before CADD software became available.

After my time in Indiana learning the SUE process and procedures, my job description had changed to Assistant Utility Coordinator and then I was promoted to Assistant Project Manager. Over the years, I trained with several managers who currently work for T2 and along with other managers prior who no longer work for us, that helped me be successful in my current position. Over the years, we had developed relationships with clients by educating their project team on the benefits of SUE Services.

Today, we continue to perform SUE Services for the Illinois Department of Transportation Districts 1 and 8 and other various clients throughout Illinois. We do take the time to listen and tailor each project based on the client’s needs to give them a quality SUE deliverable and complete their projects efficiently and with reduced risks.”

Thank you, Sandy. You are pretty amazing. 

Is there anyone else in the SUE community with a similar history? If so, please send me an email at cpscott532@aol.com and let me know.  Thanks!

#SuburfaceUtilityEngineering

HISTORY OF SUBSURFACE UTILITY ENGINEERING

POST 81 – MOVING ON 

I hope you enjoyed last week’s LinkedIn Post featuring Sandy Wilson. She and others like her have contributed significantly to the growth of SUE.

As many of you know, managing a SUE office has many responsibilities, including (a) identifying and introducing SUE to potential users, (b) meeting with existing clients to assure they are getting what they think they are getting, (c) managing, hiring, and training staff, (d) assuring the SUE work is being done in accordance with ASCE 38-22, and (e) much, much more. I believe we would all agree, a job well done enhances the SUE profession, and vice versa. Overall, looking at the astronomical growth of SUE around the world, there must be a lot of very good work going on.

Pausing for a few minutes to think about the history of Subsurface Utility Engineering, I feel like the major effort in the later part of the 20th Century involved introducing SUE to potential users. Moving into the 21st Century, the focus seems to have moved toward establishing standards, testing new equipment (see T2 early MCGPR picture), performing research, and introducing SUE to other potential clients, not only in the United States, but also in other countries.

Continuing with this thinking, the history of SUE will continue for the remainder of the year and maybe beyond by looking at some of the following:

SUE Research —

> University of Toronto SUE Study

> Penn State’s Subsurface Utility Engineering Manual

> TRB’s SHRP2Program

> UK’s Mapping the Underworld

> TRB’s SHRP2

SUE in Other Countries —

> UK,

> Australia,

> China,

> France

(We have already looked at SUE activities in Canada and Ecuador)

New Equipment –

> Multi-Channel Ground Penetrating Radar (MCGPR)

> Other New Equipment

New Organizations –

> Utility Engineering & Surveying Institute (UESI)

> SUE Association

Videos –

> FHWA’s CCC, Making the Effort Works,

FAA’s Subsurface Utility Engineering Information Management for Airports

Documents –

> APWA SUE Handbook

> ASCE’s SUE, Engineering for Municipalities

> Others

Conferences –

> TRB

> NHUC

> AASHTO CRUO

> UESI Pipeline

> SUE Association

> Others

Standards –

> ASCE 38-22, Standard Guideline for Investigating and Documenting Existing Utilities

> ASCE 75-22, Standard Guideline for Recording and Exchanging Utility Infrastructure Data

 Pioneer Profiles – To Be Determined

WHAT HAVE I MISSED?  PLEASE LET ME KNOW!

HISTORY OF SUBSURFACE UTILITY ENGINEERING

Post-82 – University Value Studies

By the end of the 20th Century there were LOTS of case studies showing the value of Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE) on individual highway projects around the country. So, it was nice early in the 2000s to get three large-scale studies by civil engineering departments at major universities that looked at a variety of factors where the proper use of SUE played a role in cost and time savings.

Purdue University

In a 2000 study, researchers from the Purdue University Department of Building Construction Management evaluated the quantifiable cost savings of SUE on 71 highway projects in three states and came up with a total savings of $4.62 for every $1.00 spent on SUE. The major savings came primarily from the elimination of unnecessary utility relocations and secondarily from a reduction in delay claims.

University of Toronto

In a 2005 study, researchers at the University of Toronto conducted a study commissioned by the Ontario Sewer & Watermain Contractors Association and investigated the mapping of SUE on nine large infrastructure piping projects in urban areas of Ontario. These projects generally had values greater than $500,000 each, were located in urban areas, and had a large number of buried utilities. The average return-on-investment for SUE, for these particular projects, was approximately $3.41 for each $1 spent. The greatest savings came primarily from reduced delay claims and secondarily from the avoidance of utility relocations.

Pennsylvania State University

In a 2007 study, the Pennsylvania Transportation Institute of the Pennsylvania State University (PSU) conducted an in-depth benefit-cost analysis of 10 SUE projects located in Penn DOT Districts. The study calculated that an average of $22.21 was saved for every $1.00 spent on SUE. When the overall costs of the projects were taken into consideration, the money spent on SUE was minor when compared to the cost savings of avoiding unexpected utility conflicts and unnecessary utility relocations. The Penn State research projected that, in comparison with projects not utilizing SUE, the total cost savings of SUE projects might range from 10% to 15% on a typical project, and that ASCE-38 quality levels A and B should be used on projects based upon the complexity of the buried utilities at the construction site to minimize risks and obtain maximum benefits.

Conclusions

In the 1990s it was hard for me to understand why highway designers would choose to design a project and excavators would choose to dig without knowing in advance what utilities or other objects might be lurking under the ground. It is even harder to understand today with so much more known about the value of SUE than there was then. Even so, many apparently still prefer to save a few dollars and hope they don’t hit anything and have to pay a lot more later.

HISTORY OF SUBSURFACE UTILITY ENGINEERING

Post-83 – SUE for Municipalities

Subsurface Utility Engineering for Municipalities is an ASCE publication that all SUE practitioners should have and read.

 Jim Anspach has provided some interesting background information in this document that pertains to ASCE 38-22 (Standard Guideline for Investigating and Documenting Existing Utilities) but is not contained in that document. Also included only in this document, as shown in the subtitle, are Prequalification Criteria and a Scope of Work Guide.

 For those of you that like history, it may interest you to know that this is actually the third edition of the document.  The first edition was a manual written by Jim Thorne (co-author of the Highway/Utility Guide) in 1997 for the American Public Works Association (APWA). In about 2005, Al Field who was Chair of the APWA’s prestigious UPROW Committee (Utilities and Public Right-of-Way) asked Jim Anspach and Paul Scott to update Jim Thorne’s manual, which they did and it was distributed widely to APWA members. Again, in about 2015, Al asked Jim and Paul to update it again. They did, and it was subsequently published by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and is available from ASCE today.

 I hope you have a copy of Subsurface Utility Engineering for Municipalities. It’s full of lots of good information about SUE.

 ——————–

SUE ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE
SEPTEMBER 17-19, 2024.

Hope You Can Attend

HISTORY OF SUBSURFACE UTILITY ENGINEERING

Post-84 – Value of SUE on Individual Projects

Several weeks ago, we looked at SUE studies performed by Purdue University, University of Toronto, and Pennsylvania State University. These studies projected savings of $3.62, $3.41, and $22.21, respectively, for every $1.00 spent for SUE. These savings came primarily from the elimination of unnecessary utility relocations and reductions in delay claims.

Last week we looked at “Subsurface Utility Engineering for Municipalities,” which is a document that contains the results of cost studies on highway, transit, airport, and other individual projects. Below are five examples.

1. On a major highway project in the early 1990s, the Virginia DOT’s design consultant used SUE data and determined that conflicts with utilities would occur at 75 sites. As a result, design changes were made and 61 of the potential conflicts were eliminated. By making these changes, $731,425 worth of utility adjustments were avoided, whereas the cost of digging the test holes was only $93,553, resulting in a savings of $637,872.

2. The North Carolina DOT evaluated four of its early SUE projects and found that the DOT saved $420,000.00 and paid SUE firms only $77,550.96, thus saving $5.42 for every $1.00 spent. It was concluded that it was very cost effective to use SUE on a regular basis, and that SUE provided tremendous benefits for the DOT, the utility companies, the consultants, and the public.

3. The Ontario Ministry of Transportation’s (MTO) first SUE investigation was performed prior to designing an interchange improvement project. The investigation identified several discrepancies in the record data that could have caused major delays and cost increases. The MTO realized savings of over $62,000 due to the completion of the SUE investigation and had a return on investment of $2.48 for each $1 spent.

4. On a Georgia DOT project a median barrier was installed on a stretch of highway leading to the beach. This highway had high accident ratings, drainage problems, and turtle crossings. SUE information enabled the design consultant to strategically place the wall and equip it to reduce accidents and accommodate both the drainage and the turtles.

5. Designers on a large design-build project in Texas used SUE information and developed plans to avoid relocating several high-pressure pipelines and as a result prevented project delays and saved $3.0 million.

The above, and many more case studies contained in “Subsurface Utility Engineering for Municipalities” were extremely important back in the early days when the value of SUE was unknown. They are not as important today because experience has shown SUE to be a cost-effective best practice on projects involving excavation and subsurface utilities.

Please Don’t Forget:

  The SUE ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE in Nashville on September 17-19.

John Palatiello, Executive Director, SUEA

Post-87 – History of SUE Association

The SUE Association was the brainchild of John Berrettini and Mike Maguire, both of A/I/Data in Baltimore. They contemplated the idea in 2009 and had intermittent discussions with colleagues in other firms, but no action was taken until 2014 when  Berrettini and Justin Klein of the Klein Agency met with John Palatiello to discuss the process of creating an association.

Berrettini and Klein knew Palatiello from his role as Executive Director of the Maryland Society of Surveyors and were aware of his track record as Executive Director of MAPPS, the trade association of photogrammetry and geospatial firms, Administrator of the Council on Federal Procurement of Architectural and Engineering Services (COFPAES), and other association clients he served in the surveying, mapping, and A&E field.

Klein retained Palatiello to do a feasibility study and a dinner meeting of SUE firms in the Middle Atlantic region was convened in Bethesda, Maryland in March of 2015 in which different options for an association were presented and discussed. The representatives of the seven firms present (A/I/DATA, Accumark, JMT, KCI, Klein Agency, AMT, Insight, and AB Consultants) all agreed that next steps should be taken. That resulted in the compilation of names and contact information for principals in SUE firms and the dissemination of an online questionnaire.

Ultimately an “interest meeting” was held in Washington, DC in July of 2018. At that meeting, Palatiello and Berrettini presented a “straw man” of a national association, with a membership of private sector SUE service firms as Regular Members, with suppliers and related firms as Associate Members. Those present endorsed the proposal. As a result, bylaws were adopted and the first board of directors and officers were elected, with Berrettini selected as the first President and Palatiello was named Executive Director. Some of the members of the first board of directors are pictured.

The SUE Association was up and running. More about it and what it was doing will be discussed next week.

HISTORY OF SUBSURFACE UTILITY ENGINEERING

I’ve been told that the SUEA Conference was a GREAT conference. My thanks to all the organizers, moderators, speakers, panel members, and attendees for making it happen.

The Subsurface Utility Engineering Association (SUEA) was officially launched on July 26, 2018. Once convened, John Palatiello (Executive Director), John Berrettini (President of Board of Directors), Nick Zembillas and other Board Members played significant roles. Also, Jim Anspach, who was a speaker at the “kick off” conference. Meetings with Federal agencies and members of Congress ensued, a membership campaign was initiated, and a second conference was held a year later, again in Washington, DC.

Shortly thereafter, COVID hit, putting in-person events on hold and threatening the growth of the fledgling new association. Webinars were held to keep the members engaged and to help recruit new firms to the membership throughout the pandemic. In addition, SUEA worked with the Department of Homeland Security and the Governors of several states to assure that SUE services were defined as critical and essential, thus enabling businesses to remain open and employees to keep working throughout the pandemic. Also, another in-person conference was held in Denver in the summer of 2022. More than 100 people attended and an exhibit hall was sold out.

Today. in addition to growing the membership base to now include more than 70 organizations, SUEA has accomplished the following:

  • Hosted five national conferences.
  • Worked with the Department of Homeland Security and the Governors of several states to assure that SUE services were defined as critical and essential, enabling businesses to remain open and workers to keep working throughout the pandemic.
  • Implemented webinar programs for business, policy, and technical continuing education.
  • Worked with Congress and Federal agencies on infrastructure legislation, PHMSA reauthorization, and a project labor agreement exemption.
  • Worked with the Department of Homeland Security on a national underground asset register, with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on its SUE requirements; and with NCEES and several firms to provide more clarity on the performance of SUE services and the status of state PE and LS licensing laws governing the practice.
  • Was part of efforts to protect GPS from spectrum interference, working with Congress and other stakeholders.
  • Was involved in the implementation of the Infrastructure Act, as well as on Federal procurement reform.
  • Was involved in several states that are looking at potential legislation similar to the law enacted in Colorado.

In 2022, SUEA signed an MOU with the UESI of ASCE agreeing on respective roles and responsibilities and cooperative activities so as to avoid unnecessary duplication. This was BIG. These are the groups that will be working together on major activities in the future, possibly including the next ASCE 38.