Addressing the Growing Risks of Canada’s Aging Underground Infrastructure

Did you know that in 2023 alone, almost 10,000 incidents of damage to buried facilities were reported from excavation activities in Canada? In nearly 80% of cases, these incidents affected essential utilities like natural gas and telecommunications, while 26% involved water and sewer systems. Excavation errors were the leading cause, responsible for 34% of reported damages.

Yet, this figure may just be the tip of the iceberg. The Canadian Common Ground Alliance’s (CCGA) Damage Information Reporting Tool (DIRT), from which these statistics are gathered, is voluntary, meaning not all incidents are reported. The actual number of damages yearly could be significantly higher, leading to inefficiencies, delays, and even catastrophic failures. This highlights the critical need for improved management and mapping of the country’s underground infrastructure.

The Extent of the Problem

Canada’s subsurface infrastructure is vast and aging, with outdated records and inconsistent data. This extensive network includes water, sewage, oil and gas pipelines, telecommunications cables, and electrical conductors.

For instance, a 2020 Statistics Canada survey revealed that approximately 1 in every 5 km of large water mains in Canada is either in poor condition or its status is unknown. Alarmingly, 9.8% of transmission pipes – such as those in cities like Calgary and Montreal – were classified as barely functional, at high risk of failure, and a potential public safety hazard. This fact was made even more evident with the failure of one of the main water pipelines in Calgary this past summer which caused two months of city-wide water restrictions.

Adding to the challenge, the condition of 10% of large water mains in the country remains entirely unknown, creating a significant blind spot in maintenance and risk planning. The situation has worsened over time: in 2016, 7.5% of large water mains were in poor condition, rising to 9.8% by 2020, while small water pipes in similar condition increased from 10.1% to 13.4%.

With no signs of improvement over the past four years, Canada’s aging infrastructure demands immediate attention to prevent further deterioration and effectively manage the risk of failure.

Similarly, Canada has over 840,000 kilometres of oil and gas pipelines. These underground pipelines, spanning remote and urban areas, are vital for delivering crude oil and natural gas to major Canadian cities.

In 2007, a construction crew in Burnaby, British Columbia, accidentally punctured a crude oil pipeline while working on Inlet Drive. The rupture caused a 15-meter-high geyser of oil that sprayed for about 25 minutes before the pipeline operator stopped it. More than 200,000 litres of oil spilled, affecting around 50 homes and contaminating Burrard Inlet. One of the primary causes was an inaccurate pipeline map.

“Thankfully, no one was injured, but this highlights the need for accurate underground utility records. We need to better understand why these risks occur,” says Steve Slusarenko, Director of the Subsurface Utility Map Data Exchange (SUMDEx).

Managing these hidden networks requires a comprehensive approach that combines advanced technology, industry collaboration, and improved reporting practices. Outdated mapping systems only exacerbate the problem. Relying on inaccurate or obsolete records makes it difficult to locate buried utilities accurately and significantly increases the risk of accidental damage.

Take, for example, the stark contrast in line strikes: Canada reports 10,000 incidents annually, while the U.S. sees a staggering 233,000. In comparison, Japan experiences fewer than 150 line strikes per year, according to data from SUMDEx.

“The key difference lies in data management and mapping quality. Japan excels in this area because they maintain excellent maps and adhere to rigorous protocols, which we aim to replicate in North America,” Slusarenko adds.

The Cost of Utility Damages

In addition to safety risks, utility damages come with a significant economic burden. Accurate data on the economic costs of inaccurate underground utility mapping in Canada is limited. However, studies in the United States provide insight into the financial impact of such inaccuracies. A 2020 estimate from the U.S. Common Ground Alliance suggests that damages to underground utilities cost the U.S. economy approximately $30 billion annually. The figure has only gone up since then. Applying a proportional estimate to Canada, considering its smaller population and infrastructure, it would be safe to assume that the economic cost of inaccurate utility data in Canada could be in the range of $2–3 billion annually.

These damages disrupt essential services, delay construction projects, and trigger ripple effects such as traffic congestion and business interruptions.

Utility strikes have far-reaching consequences beyond direct damages. The true costs associated with utility strikes are often significantly higher than realized. These direct damage costs include sending a crew to assess and repair the damaged pipe or cable. Indirect costs, however, are far greater and include the traffic disruption caused by the strike, injuries and health impacts on both workers and the public, and lost business revenue due to the disruptions.

Research at the University of Birmingham found that the total cost is approximately 29 times the direct cost. This startling finding underscores that the societal cost of underground utility strikes is much larger than typically acknowledged.

Over 60% of construction project cost overruns worldwide are estimated to be caused by last-minute discoveries of underground utilities. Construction typically begins based on existing maps, but when discrepancies or unexpected obstacles are encountered, projects must return to engineers and architects for adjustments, causing massive delays and significant cost overruns.

Several DOTs across the United States are now exploring how to improve the management of the underground infrastructure with modern technologies that reduce risk and injury by detecting, identifying, and mapping their vast underground network.

For instance, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) sought to identify a viable solution to improve the management of utilities in its Right-of-Way. The requirements included implementing a modern cloud and mobile mapping solution to improve the collection, storage, and visualization of buried utilities, notes Slusarenko.

The requirements set forth by CDOT revealed a couple of key findings:

• A two-part solution was required: one part geospatial software and the other part geospatial hardware, seamlessly connected to provide an efficient, cost-effective, and user-friendly solution.
• CDOT needed a centralized data management system to interface with other systems, including GIS and CAD databases. The data needed to flow seamlessly and securely in real-time between desktops in the office and mobile devices in the field.

 A Data Problem

Much of the challenge comes down to incomplete or inaccurate data. While paint marks aren’t inherently bad, they do not provide any information indicating the precision of the utility’s geospatial location or measurable confidence levels to support that the utility was properly located, if located at all. Additionally, the location of these utilities is not captured and stored in a system of record (SOR), and they aren’t easily recalled or shared with others. A well-known fact plaguing the industry is that utility owners either have inaccurate utility location records or no records at all.

“Historically, subsurface utility locations have been marked on an as-needed basis — a locate is performed just before it’s needed to identify features. This process is often seen as necessary but cumbersome, mainly to meet safety and design requirements,” points out Peter Srajer, Chief Scientist at ProStar Geocorp, an expert in subsurface utility engineering.

The data isn’t considered permanent or worth preserving; it’s simply a temporary mark on the ground. However, these features are permanent, and it would make sense to preserve this critical data for future use.

“The preservation of collected data is one of the most important challenges,” says Srajer. “The other issue is the completeness of the data – do you have all of it, how accurate is it, and can you substantiate that accuracy and precision?” he adds.

Many utility owners are reluctant to share their datasets, considering them proprietary or safety-critical to their operations. Addressing these concerns is one of the most time-consuming aspects of assembling a complete dataset and ensuring sufficient quality and accuracy.

“Collecting and siloing data makes it of far less value to anyone working in the area who cannot access it. You may still need to perform a locate, but it is much easier to start from known locations and data than to make assumptions and start from scratch. At that point, newly collected information is used to update the old data, and the quality of the dataset improves as you move forward,” explains Srajer.

Preserving data effectively requires implementing a Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE) mapping system. This involves storing the data and preserving the metadata that provides critical information about its accuracy, precision, and completeness. Equally important is the ability to visualize this data to support informed decision-making.

However, advancements in visualization are often overlooked as a crucial aspect of SUE data management. Without spatial and visual context, understanding the importance and value of the data becomes challenging. While a spreadsheet containing attributes and spatial coordinates may technically hold all the necessary information, it fails to convey how these elements interact with the features collected or what else may exist in the surrounding area.

Another challenge is abandoned or unclaimed utilities, which have no identified owners. These unmaintained and often undocumented lines increase risks during excavation projects.

Improving Reporting and Standards

The lack of mandatory reporting remains a significant barrier to progress in underground utility management. While CCGA’s Damage Information Reporting Tool provides insights into utility damages, participation is entirely voluntary. Without a legal obligation to report incidents, many damages go undocumented.

Trust in collected data is another critical aspect. Properly collecting and storing metadata – such as correction service type, geoid used, coordinate system, and satellite information – enables end users to assess the data’s trustworthiness. Similarly, data from electromagnetic (EM) locator tools should be collected and stored alongside spatial data to provide a more comprehensive understanding of underground infrastructure.

Srajer emphasizes the importance of the Canadian standard CSA S-250, revised in 2020, as a framework for improving utility mapping. This standard provides guidance on recording and depicting newly installed underground utility infrastructure and related structures. Its goal is to promote communication and data sharing throughout the construction lifecycle and the asset’s lifespan.

Additionally, any solution must support Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE) business practices and meet ASCE 38-22 and ACSE 75-22 data collection standards during design, construction, repair, or maintenance activities. The solution must also be compatible with existing survey data collection hardware to be cost-effective, says Slusarenko.

However, regulatory processes often lag behind technological advancements. “The rules and enforcement typically follow after technologies are in use and procedures are established,” Srajer explains.

Building a Safer Future

Despite significant challenges, technological advancements pave the way for better management of Canada’s underground infrastructure. “Ground-penetrating radar, satellite imaging, and GIS are revolutionizing how we map and manage underground utilities,” says Slusarenko.

Srajer emphasizes the growing precision and accessibility of tools like real-time kinematic (RTK) satellite systems and terrestrial services. These tools allow for tailored data collection to meet specific project requirements. Unlike earlier methods that relied on temporary ground markings, modern systems ensure accurate and reliable utility data.

Emerging technologies like machine learning and digital twins further enhance Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE) by improving visualization and enabling data-driven decision-making.

To address the challenges, Canada must invest in modernizing aging systems, adopt advanced technologies, and strengthen reporting practices. Collaboration between government agencies, utility providers, and industry leaders is essential to develop and enforce standards that improve safety and efficiency.

Slusarenko notes, “Fewer damages mean lower societal costs, like reduced traffic disruptions and fewer emergency evacuations. It’s about more than just preventing accidents—it’s about driving innovation and sustainability.”

With a focus on modernization, technology, and collaboration, Canada has the tools and expertise needed to reduce risks and build a safer, more resilient underground infrastructure for future generations.