TECHBRIEF

Research, Development, and 

Technology

Turner-Fairbank Highway 

Research Center

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296

www.fhwa.dot.gov/research

Feasibility of Mapping and 

Marking Underground 

Utilities by State 

Transportation Departments

FHWA Publication No. FHWA-HRT-18-070 

FHWA Contact: Richard Duval, HRDI-20, (202) 493-3365, 

richard.duval@dot.gov

This document is a technical summary of the Federal 

Highway Administration report Feasibility of Mapping and 

Marking Underground Utilities by State Transportation 

Departments (FHWA-HRT-16-019).

Introduction

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) conducted 

research to document issues associated with State 

transportation departments asserting their responsibility 

to manage utility installations within the highway rightof-way.(1) The research focused on the use of threedimensional (3D) techniques by State transportation 

departments. More specifically, the research addressed 

the following topics:

• Feasibility of State transportation departments 

serving as the central repository of utility data within 

the State highway right-of-way.

• Benefits of having reliable, accurate utility data 

available during project delivery. 

• Barriers to collecting and managing utility location 

data as well as strategies to overcome those barriers.

• Cost to manage 3D utility location data and mark 

utilities with radio frequency identification (RFID) 

technology.

To address these topics, the research team did the 

following: 

• Completed a literature review on the use of 3D 

technology.

• Contacted State transportation departments to 

document business practices and learn lessons from 

a review of a sample of case studies.
2

• Conducted an analysis of strategies, 

barriers for implementation, and return 

on investment (ROI).

• Reviewed the use, benefits, and costs 

of using RFID technology to mark 

underground utility installations.

Research Findings

Feasibility of State Transportation Departments as the Central Repository of Utility 

Data

State transportation departments have to 

know what utility facilities are located within 

the highway right-of-way to manage that 

right-of-way effectively. Developing and 

maintaining reliable inventories of utility 

facilities within the State highway right-ofway is feasible, and an increasing number 

of State transportation departments are 

implementing initiatives to accomplish 

that goal. A common denominator of 

these initiatives is State transportation 

departments’ goal to collect, map, and 

store utility facility data systematically and 

reliably. State transportation departments 

are typically interested in only a few utility 

data items they need to manage the rightof-way, and not the much larger datasets 

that include all kinds of operational data and 

other information that utility owners need 

to manage their infrastructure. Because of 

legal and operational hurdles (i.e., State 

transportation departments managing the 

right-of-way, but external entities owning 

the utility infrastructure), it is currently 

not feasible for State transportation 

departments to be the unique, centralized 

repository of all existing authoritative 

information about utility facilities within 

the State highway right-of-way.

Occupancy of the highway right-of-way by 

a utility facility is usually by permit, easement, lease, or some other legal instrument. With some exemptions, State damage prevention laws require utility owners 

to provide utility facility information to onecall notification centers. However, there is 

no formal requirement for utility owners to 

provide accurate, comprehensive copies of 

their utility facility records to agencies that 

own or manage the right-of-way where the 

utility facilities are located. Utility owners 

are generally opposed to the idea of allowing others access to their records. Reasons 

include commercial concerns, homeland 

security concerns, and a lack of societal 

consensus on acceptable levels of data 

access by authorized stakeholders.

It is common for State transportation 

departments not to know the exact location 

of most underground utility facilities in the 

highway right-of-way. If information about 

those facilities is needed for a highway 

project, State transportation departments 

request the information from utility owners or perform some level of field investigation themselves or through consultants. 

However, the quality and completeness of 

the data depends on the field investigation procedures or the utility owner’s standards and procedures for record generation 

and keeping, which are frequently inadequate for highway design and construction 

purposes.

Strategies to facilitate the development of 

reliable repositories of utility facilities at 

State transportation departments include 

the following (in addition to relevant strategies that are listed for other topical areas):

• Use a utility data model that meets most 

State transportation department needs 

for design, construction, operation, and 

maintenance applications throughout 

the lifecycle of both highway and utility 

facilities.

• Strengthen permitting requirements 

to require applicants to measure 

and submit accurate locations, 

including depth, on all new facilities 
3

and facilities that are exposed for 

maintenance or repair activities. This 

strategy could also include enabling 

State transportation departments to 

assess utility permitting fees that take 

into consideration the actual cost to 

manage the accommodation of utility 

facilities within the highway rightof-way, including developing and 

maintaining accurate, comprehensive 

utility inventories.

• Update State transportation department policies and procedures to achieve 

the goal of managing the right-of-way 

effectively based upon the requirement 

to obtain accurate location of all the 

assets within that right-of-way. This 

includes requiring that utility owners 

provide accurate locations of both 

new and relocated utility assets 

located within the highway rightof-way. It also includes establishing 

reliable protocols to identify, map, 

and document recorded and nonrecorded utility facilities within project 

boundaries throughout the highway 

project delivery process. Updating 

American Association of State and 

Highway Transportation Officials 

utility accommodation guidelines and 

FHWA utility regulations accordingly 

would also assist in promoting a 

uniform implementation of this 

strategy around the country.

Benefits of Having Reliable, Accurate 

Utility Data during Project Delivery

There is a growing demand at State transportation departments for the use of 3D 

modeling to support project design and 

construction. However, only a few agencies 

are using 3D technology for utility installations, clearly indicating that this area 

is new for most agencies. In most cases, 

agencies might collect 3D utility data but 

then develop two-dimensional (2D) plans 

to document the existence of utility installations for inclusion in other aspects of 

project delivery (see figure 1). Anecdotal 

information suggests that 3D utility mapping is more common in Europe than in the 

United States. For many projects in Europe, 

it is relatively common to represent utility 

data in three dimensions throughout the 

entire project limits.

A reliable inventory of utility facilities that 

includes using 3D techniques to assist 

in the effort of developing the inventory 

would provide benefits such as the availability of depth and elevation of utility 

facilities throughout the project, integration 

with aboveground 3D project data, and 

the capability to generate cross sections 

at any desired location. Additional benefits include a 3D representation of subsurface environments with a high concentration of utility installations within a 

limited space, 3D design and analysis of 

utility conflicts, and acceleration of project 

delivery, and fewer delays. Other benefits 

include increased safety, less risk, and less 

damage to utilities, as well as less utility 

exposures for absolute proof of utility installation existence, location, and attributes.

The main barrier preventing the implementation of utility data inventories at State 

transportation departments is the lack of 

funding and resources. State transportation 

departments also have concerns about the 

effort and cost to maintain and update the 

inventory and about monitoring the submission of utility data to maintain systemwide data accuracy standards. Additional 

issues include concerns about data security, access, and privacy; lack of staff and/or 

equipment to conduct an implementation; 

lack of interest by utility owners to participate; and accuracy of the data that would 

reside within the system. Strategies that 

highlight the benefits of having reliable, 

accurate utility data during project delivery 
4

include conducting webinars, creating and 

maintaining blogs, and developing training materials. Because of the differences 

between 2D- and 3D-design environments, 

the outreach programs should focus on 

how a 3D-design environment actually 

works because this environment requires 

designers and coordinators to approach 

project delivery differently compared to a 

traditional 2D-design environment. Focus 

should also be on “just in time” training, 

which includes detailed training for when 

the agency is committed to start designing in 3D. Staff interest and effectiveness 

decreases substantially as the lag between 

training and implementation increases.

Barriers and Solutions for Collecting and 

Managing Utility Location Data

Currently, it is common to depict utility 

lines and appurtenances on certain project drawings right after collecting the data. 

However, this information is not necessarily 

shown or referenced on all relevant project design files or on plans, specifications, 

and estimates. Relocated utilities are also 

frequently not shown on design or construction plans, or changes to the operational status of previously documented 

existing installations are not updated.

It is common to rely on existing utility 

records and one-call markings to obtain 

information about existing utility installations. Although useful, this information is 

typically not accurate or complete enough 

for design purposes. Questions about 

the completeness and quality of existing 

utility as-built information prompted the 

emergence of the Construction Institute 

(CI)/American Society for Civil Engineers 

(ASCE) 38-02, Standard Guidelines for 

the Collection and Depiction of Existing 

Subsurface Utility Data.

(2) Unfortunately, 

many agencies still do not recognize the 

benefits of conducting thorough utility 

investigations. One of the reasons is the 

lack of reliable tools to (1) determine the 

type of utility investigations to conduct 

at different quality levels as a function of 

project type, complexity, and other characteristics and (2) prepare quantitative 

assessments of the risk that an agency 

Figure 1. Illustrations. 2D plan view versus 3D model of underground infrastructure.

Courtesy of Hatch. 

A. Traditional 2D plan view. B. 3D model.

Courtesy of Hatch. 
5

assumes by not pursuing more detailed 

utility investigations. Other reasons include 

a tendency to consider that utility inventories are the responsibility of utility companies and the common practice of collecting 

utility data too late in the design phase.

Most 3D design and construction processes 

focus on grading and paving automated 

machine guidance (AMG) applications. Over 

the years, it has been possible to exchange 

2D computer-aided design (CAD) files in 

their native formats as well as Extensible 

Markup Language (XML) formats. However, 

the same level of interoperability has not 

yet translated to the 3D environment. Data 

exchange standards to facilitate the AMG 

process, such as LandXML, provide very 

limited support for underground facilities. 

For example, LandXML includes a pipe 

network component that supports sanitary sewer, storm water, and water facilities. However, the level of attribution for 

underground facilities is very limited, which 

in turn, limits the ability to use LandXML 

to document existing or proposed utility 

installations in ways that could support 

both AMG applications and other utilityrelated applications at State transportation departments. Furthermore, existing 

3D CAD platforms provide support for 

LandXML import and export operations, 

but it is unknown whether data interoperability across platforms is achievable on a 

consistent basis.

Commonly used 2D and 3D CAD applications handle objects as disconnected geometric elements that only make sense to 

the human brain. As opposed to traditional 

3D modeling, building information modeling (BIM) involves representing the components of a facility as individual objects that 

have geometry, attributes, and relationship 

characteristics. BIM is increasingly used 

during design and construction, including 

project scheduling support, quantity and 

cost management and control, and construction supply chain management.

A variety of geophysical methods are 

available to detect underground utilities, 

including electromagnetic induction (EMI), 

ground penetrating radar (GPR), optical, 

infrared (thermal), magnetic, inertial, and 

elastic wave methods. For any of these geophysical methods, there is more certainty 

about horizontal locations than about vertical locations. Rigorous protocols coupled 

with engineering judgement do enable the 

assessment of depth values, but the resulting data are rarely comprehensive. New 

GPR and EMI array technologies that use 

multiple sensors to produce 3D imagery 

of underground facilities are beginning 

to provide a backbone for preparing 3D 

deliverables when combined with all other 

available utility data sources and high-level 

technical expertise to interpret, analyze, and 

consolidate the data.

A generalized utility process that was 

developed as part of projects R15B and 

R15C of the second Strategic Highway 

Research Program applies to a wide 

range of projects regardless of whether 

design and construction occurs in a 2D 

or a 3D environment.(3,4) This research 

outlined additional activities that augment 

the generalized utility process for projects 

designed and constructed in a 3D environment, including activities prior to building 

a 3D model of existing utility installations, activities for building and using a 3D 

model of utility installations, and activities 

for maintaining the 3D utility information 

current throughout project design and 

construction.

Strategies to address barriers for collecting 

and managing utility location data include 

the following (in addition to relevant strategies that are listed for other topical areas):

• Use standards-based, agency-wide 

utility data collection and reporting 
6

protocols, including appropriate 

surveying, CAD, and geographic 

information system standards and 

specifications. Standards-based data 

collection protocols include referencing 

all spatial data to a common, easily 

retrievable datum and obtaining 

appropriate utility as-built information 

for existing, newly installed, or 

relocated utilities within the highway 

right-of-way. Recognizing the need for 

a national utility as-built data standard, 

ASCE started an initiative to develop a 

standard for recording and exchanging 

utility infrastructure data.

• Develop and implement a utility 

inventory system that includes 

appropriate mechanisms and protocols 

to update the database whenever there 

are changes (e.g., through the utility 

permitting process).

• Promote the use of a generalized 

process for utility conflict management 

that takes into account procedures 

to handle 3D utility data workflows 

with a heavy emphasis on interactive, 

hands-on training on the use of the 

UCM approach to link utility activities 

throughout the project delivery 

process.

Cost to Collect and Maintain 3D Utility 

Data and Mark Utilities with RFID 

Technology

Cost and ROI of Using 3D Models for Utility 

Investigations

Although direct, comprehensive information about the cost to develop 3D utility 

inventories is generally not available, the 

analysis indicates that the cost to develop 

3D utility inventories is primarily a function 

of the cost to collect the data in the field 

because the cost to develop the 3D model 

is relatively minor once the data have been 

collected. In general, 3D modeling has 

reached the point where the cost to develop 

3D models is a normal component of the 

cost of doing business. Because the cost 

to develop 3D models is relatively minor, it 

is difficult to separate this cost from other 

business costs. In general, State transportation departments control 3D modeling 

costs by focusing on basic 3D model functionality, not on sophisticated renderings 

(which tend to increase costs dramatically).

ROI information on the use of 3D modeling for horizontal construction at State 

transportation departments is generally 

not available. Nevertheless, a few numbers are beginning to appear in the literature. For example, the Norwegian Public 

Roads Administration noticed that using 

BIM resulted in a 75-percent reduction in 

the number of construction change orders. 

Construction change order amounts also 

decreased significantly from 18 percent 

of the construction contract amount to 4 

to 10 percent of the construction contract 

amount. Overall, using BIM resulted in 8- to 

14-percent project cost savings.

Examples documenting economic benefits 

from the use of 3D modeling and BIM for 

vertical construction are also beginning 

to appear in the literature. For example, 

using BIM to identify and resolve design 

and construction conflicts for the $350 million Letterman Digital and New Media Arts 

Center at the Presidio of San Francisco, 

CA, produced an estimated savings of over 

$10 million (or almost 3 percent of the total 

project cost). Using BIM for design and 

construction for the $165 million University 

of Southern California School of Cinematic 

Arts complex in Los Angeles, CA, produced 

an estimated cost savings of $6.4 million 

(or almost 4 percent of the total cost of the 

project).

There is a lack of reliable data to develop 

a generalized estimate of the cost to 
7

map utilities in 3D. For traditional utility 

investigations, a rule of thumb is to 

assume 1 percent of the total design and 

construction cost for a project to gather 

quality level B (QLB) data throughout the 

project and quality level A (QLA) data in 

sufficient locations to identify important 

utility conflicts. There could be significant 

variations (e.g., 2 percent estimated in North 

Carolina in the late 1990s and 0.22 to 2.8 

percent in Pennsylvania in the mid-2000s). 

ROI estimates for conducting traditional 

QLB and QLA utility investigations in 

the literature range from 3.42:1 (Ontario, 

Canada, study), to 4.62:1 (Purdue University 

study), to 22:1 (Pennsylvania Department of 

Transportation study), with most ROI 

values fluctuating between 3:1 and 6:1.(5–7)

Assuming, for simplicity, an ROI of 4:1 

and 1 percent of the total project design 

and construction cost spent on a utility 

investigation at QLB for the entire project 

and QLA at strategic or critical locations, 

the result would be savings of about 

4 percent of the total project cost.

Using GPR or EMI arrays adds to the cost 

of conducting utility investigations. There 

is a lack of reliable statistics on the cost of 

using advanced geophysics due, in part, 

to the tendency to use these techniques 

at high-stakes locations characterized by 

particularly complex utility infrastructure, 

which makes it difficult to develop typical 

estimates on a cost-per-linear-foot basis. 

However, trends suggest that the cost of 

using advanced geophysics is likely to be 

lower than (although in some cases of the 

same order of magnitude as) the cost of 

conventional QLB and QLA utility investigations. Given these values, adding advanced 

geophysics to the menu of options for 

conducting utility investigations will still 

likely result in positive ROI values for projects that use those additional techniques. 

Furthermore, lessons learned from the use 

of BIM strongly suggest that the use of 3D 

modeling for transportation projects will 

produce substantial economic benefits. As 

a result, it is reasonable to assume that the 

ROI for preparing 3D inventories of utilities 

could be at least of the same order of magnitude as the ROI for conventional QLB and 

QLA utility investigations.

In addition to relevant strategies that are 

listed for other topical areas, strategies to 

increase the ROI of using 3D models for 

utility investigations (see figure 2) include 

developing a catalog of projects that use 

3D modeling techniques for utility facilities 

during project delivery to (1) quantify the 

cost to acquire and map utilities in 3D in 

a systematic way; (2) evaluate the impact 

of using 3D techniques on the State transportation department’s capability to identify, resolve, and manage utility conflicts; 

and (3) document lessons learned and economic benefits. Assuming ROIs are positive, completing this activity for a sample 

of State transportation departments would 

result in documentation adding credibility 

to the idea of including utilities in plans to 

migrate design and construction practices 

from 2D to 3D throughout the country (see 

table 1).

Cost and ROI of Using RFID Technology to 

Mark and Manage Utility Installations

The application of RFID technology (see 

figure 3) at the Virginia Department of 

Transportation’s (VDOT’s) Northern Virginia 

District is unique among State transportation departments. VDOT started the RFID 

program to mark utility installations that 

had been relocated as part of VDOT construction projects to reduce the level of 

uncertainty with respect to these facilities 

and, more specifically, as a damage prevention strategy. The average cost in place 

for RFID markers at VDOT is $16.22/marker, 

which translates to $0.65/ft of utility line, 

assuming RFID markers every 25 ft. The 

relative increase in utility relocation cost 
8

Figure 2. Illustrations. 3D models generated from 3D geophysical survey and other data sources.

Courtesy of VTN and Underground Imaging 

Technologies. 

Courtesy of VTN and Underground Imaging 

Technologies. 

A. 3D model of project features (first view). B. 3D model of project features (second view).

Category Topic Project Impact

Cost of using 3D modeling/BIM for 

design and construction

Additional upfront costs during 

design Minor project cost impact

Cost of using 3D modeling/BIM for 

design and construction

Difficulty in separating the cost 

to develop 3D models from other 

business costs

Minor project cost impact

Benefits of using 3D modeling/BIM 

for design and construction

Reduction in construction change 

orders 75 percent fewer change orders

Benefits of using 3D modeling/BIM 

for design and construction Project cost savings 4–15 percent of total project cost

Cost of using conventional QLB and 

QLA utility investigations

Cost to gather QLB for the entire 

project and QLA at strategic or critical 

locations

0.2–3 percent of total project cost

Benefits of using conventional QLB 

and QLA utility investigations

Coverage and detection of 

underground of utility facilities 80–90 percent of utility facilities

Benefits of using conventional QLB 

and QLA utility investigations Project cost savings 4 percent of total project cost

Cost of using advanced geophysics to 

develop a 3D inventory of utilities

Cost to gather utility data using 

advanced geophysics 0.1–2 percent of total project cost

Benefits of using advanced 

geophysics to develop a 3D inventory 

of utilities

Additional utility features detected 

and mapped Depends on local conditions

Benefits of using advanced 

geophysics to develop a 3D inventory 

of utilities

Depth identification Significant benefit

Benefits of using advanced 

geophysics to develop a 3D inventory 

of utilities

Project cost savings Unknown but possibly up to 4 

percent of total project cost

Table 1. Project impacts associated with 3D modeling, BIM, traditional utility investigations, and 3D utility investigations.
9

varies according to the type of utility installation. For example, the relative increase is 

0.45 percent for a 24-inch water main that 

costs approximately $145/ft to install, but it 

is 1.1 percent for a pipe that costs $60/ft to 

install.

Program benefits range from the availability 

of geo-referenced utility segment data 

for establishing protection zones during 

construction to the development of a 

reliable inventory of utility features for asset 

management purposes and to facilitate 

future construction activities. Other benefits 

include a more effective utility inspection 

process and improved coordination with 

other VDOT officials, including highway 

construction inspectors.

Most of these benefits are difficult to quantify in terms of fewer delays or lower project 

costs. Available project cost data, including 

change orders, are not sufficiently disaggregated to enable a reliable determination of economic benefits. However, VDOT 

has realized damage prevention benefits. 

For example, VDOT installed RFID markers 

over approximately 700 ft of an 8-inch gas 

line that was relocated for a project along 

Route 50. The relocated gas line was in 

proximity to street light foundations that 

had to be removed during construction. 

The one-call marks on the ground that the 

contractor requested before construction 

corresponded to the location of the old 

main. With this information, the contractor 

started removing the street light foundations. Fortunately, VDOT was able to provide markings on the ground identifying 

RFID marker locations that showed where 

the new gas main was actually located. 

In another instance, a VDOT environmental contractor was performing investigative 

borings along Gallows Road in Falls Church, 

VA, at a location where an 8-inch gas line 

had been relocated. One-call markings on 

the ground had indicated that the gas line 

was located along the existing sidewalk. 

VDOT proceeded to locate the RFID markers that showed the actual gas line location, 

which showed the contractor where not to 

perform the boring.

These are not isolated incidents, considering 

that some 10 percent of underground utility 

Figure 3. Photo. RFID marker next to a trench.

Courtesy of TTI.
10

damage events nationwide can be due to 

visible but incorrect markings. From VDOT’s 

experience, it is reasonable to assume that 

using RFID markers to systematically mark 

the location of relocated utility facilities and 

develop utility inventories based on this 

information has the potential to substantially reduce the number of underground 

facility damage events that currently occur 

due to incorrect utility markings.

Strategies to measure the cost and ROI of 

using RFID technology to mark and manage 

utility installations include the following 

(in addition to relevant strategies that are 

listed for other topical areas):

• Promote the use of RFID markers at 

State transportation departments 

throughout the country to mark 

underground utilities; build reliable, 

comprehensive utility inventories; and 

assist in damage prevention programs 

(see figure 4). This strategy includes 

developing and disseminating training 

materials and programs to teach 

State transportation department 

officials such as project managers, 

designers, inspectors, and surveyors 

on the techniques and protocols for 

using RFID markers. It also includes 

developing a compilation of standards 

and specifications for RFID markers 

to assist State transportation departments during the implementation phase.

• Develop a systematic assessment 

of the total cost associated with the 

damage to underground utilities during 

project construction to complement 

the statistics that the Common Ground 

Alliance (CGA) compiles, which 

currently include the number of events 

that result in utility service interruptions 

and contractor downtime hours but 

do not include information about total 

costs to all affected stakeholders. 

CGA is an association that promotes 

effective damage prevention practices.

Additional Strategies

The research team also identified the following strategies that support the implementation of the previously listed strategies but 

need development or research work:

Figure 4. Illustration. VDOT RFID tag attributes.

Courtesy of VDOT.
11

• Develop a robust reference 3D utility 

data model. Research could assist in 

the development of a robust reference 

data model for storing and managing 

3D utility data (including related 

attribute data) to support all phases 

of project delivery from preliminary 

design to construction and production 

of as-built documentation.

• Develop a robust data exchange 

standard for utilities. Data exchange 

standards such as LandXML facilitate 

the AMG process but do not provide 

adequate support for utility facilities. At 

the same time, data exchange standards 

such as ifcXML are very detailed, but it 

is not clear to what degree they support 

horizontal construction applications. 

Research and coordination with 

standards development organizations 

could assist in the development of 

updated versions of LandXML and 

other data exchange standards such as 

ifcXML to provide the support needed 

to manage utility installations at State 

transportation departments effectively.

• Develop a library of 3D components for 

utility installations. A current issue for 

State transportation departments and 

consultants is the need to standardize 

and disseminate libraries of commonly 

used 3D objects to expedite the development of 3D models. In the current

practice, individual practitioners 

develop their own libraries. Frequently, 

different consultants working for the 

same agency develop separate libraries to represent the same objects, 

which results in inefficiencies during 

project delivery. Coordination with 

the engineering community and trade 

organizations could assist in promoting the establishment of information 

warehouses to exchange libraries of 

commonly used 3D primitives, objects, 

and templates.

• Develop a manual for effective utility 

investigations. Although the CI/ASCE 

38-02 standard guideline provides 

information on how to collect and 

depict utility data for engineering 

applications, there is much confusion 

and lack of guidance on how to conduct 

utility investigations.(2) Research and 

coordination with the engineering 

community could assist in the 

development of a manual to scope, 

procure, manage, and conduct utility 

investigations, with a specific focus on 

best practices for the collection and 

management of utility data, proper 

data attribution, and uncertainty levels. 

This manual would identify and provide 

guidance on effective technologies, 

standards, practices, and procedures 

for identifying and depicting utilities 

throughout project delivery.

• Improve coordination between State 

transportation departments and the 

one-call process. The one-call process 

has been successful in promoting 

damage prevention practices and in 

decreasing the number of incidents 

and damage events affecting underground infrastructure during construction. However, what is working well 

for damage prevention is inadequate 

in addressing typical highway project 

delivery needs. Anecdotal information 

points to systematic issues related to 

accuracy and completeness of one-call 

markings in highway projects. Research 

could assist in documenting these 

issues and formulating recommendations to improve protocols and procedures that could result in more reliable 

data about existing utility installations 

within the highway right-of-way.

• Develop a tool to quantify utility 

location risk levels. Research could 

assist in the development of a reliable 

methodology and prototype tool to 
12

quantify utility location risk levels 

to improve current clash detection 

techniques. This tool is important 

because one of the main reasons that 

State transportation departments do 

not conduct thorough utility 

investigations is the lack of 

understanding of the risk and, 

therefore, the cost associated with not 

knowing where underground utility 

facilities are actually located.

References

1. Quiroga, C., Anspach, J., Scott, P., and 

Kraus, E. (2018). Feasibility of Mapping 

and Marking Underground Utilities by 

State Transportation Departments, Report 

No. FHWA-HRT-16-019, Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC.

2. ASCE. (2002). Standard Guidelines for 

the Collection and Depiction of Existing 

Subsurface Utility Data, CI/ASCE 38-02, 

American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, 

VA.

3. Quiroga, C., Kraus, E., Scott, P., Swafford, T., 

Meis, P., and Monday, G. (2012). Identification 

of Utility Conflicts and Solutions, Report 

No. S2-R15B-RW-1, Transportation Research 

Board of the National Academies, 

Washington, DC.

4. Quiroga, C., et al. (2015). Identification 

of Utility Conflicts and Solutions: Pilot 

Implementation of the SHRP 2 R15B 

Products at the Maryland State Highway 

Administration, SHRP 2 Renewal Project 

R15C, Transportation Research Board of the 

National Academies, Washington, DC.

5. Osman, H. and El-Diraby, T. (2005). Subsurface 

Utility Engineering in Ontario: Challenges 

& Opportunities. Center for Information 

Systems in Infrastructure & Construction, 

Department of Civil Engineering, University 

of Toronto, Ontario Sewer & Watermain 

Contractors Association, Ontario, Canada.

6. Lew, J. (2000). Cost Savings on Highway 

Projects Utilizing Subsurface Utility 

Engineering, Report No. FHWA-IF-00-014, 

Purdue University, Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC.

7. Singha, S., Thomas, H., Wang, M., 

and Jung,Y. (2007). Subsurface Utility 

Engineering Manual, Report FHWAPA-2007-027-510401-08, Pennsylvania 

Transportation Institute, Pennsylvania State 

University, University Park, PA.

SEPTEMBER 2018 FHWA-HRT-18-070

HRDI-20/09-18(100)E

Researchers—This study was performed by Cesar Quiroga, Ph.D., P.E., and Edgar Kraus, P.E., at 

the Texas A&M Transportation Institute, and James Anspach, P.G., and Paul Scott, P.E., at Cardno. 

Distribution—This TechBrief is being distributed according to a standard distribution. Direct 

distribution is being made to the Divisions and Resource Center. 

Availability—This TechBrief may be obtained from the FHWA Product Distribution Center by e-mail 

to report.center@dot.gov, fax to (814) 239-2156, phone to (814) 239-1160, or online at http://www.fhwa.

dot.gov/research. 

Key Words—3D modeling, utility investigations, utility relocations, RFID, return on investment, ROI.

Notice—This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (USDOT) in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no 

liability for the use of the information contained in this document. The U.S. Government does not 

endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only 

because they are considered essential to the objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement—The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides highquality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public 

understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, 

utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its 

programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.