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.