{"id":6806,"date":"2026-10-07T03:10:46","date_gmt":"2026-10-07T03:10:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.pipetechservice.com\/?p=6806"},"modified":"2026-10-07T03:10:49","modified_gmt":"2026-10-07T03:10:49","slug":"north-american-microtunneling-job-log","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.pipetechservice.com\/id\/north-american-microtunneling-job-log\/","title":{"rendered":"North American Microtunneling Job Log: The Projects That Define the Market"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Microtunneling projects in North America are tracked through an annual trade-press job log of notable drives in the United States and Canada. Read together, the 1980s Florida first crossing, the 3,947 ft Painesville lake intake, Calgary’s 3.4 m storm pipe and Winnipeg’s 5,600 ft boulder drive map a market growing in diameter, length and difficulty.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

People search for a job log of notable microtunneling projects when they need comparable drives, not a definition. The log is an annual trade-press compilation of notable United States and Canadian drives, and the microtunneling projects below are drawn from published industry reporting rather than our own files. Every project fact is attributed to the party that reported it, and every record claim is labeled as a claim. We cover how the log works, how the method reached the continent, which projects define the market, and how to read a log without being misled by a headline number.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Technical
A microtunnel boring machine is remotely operated and cannot carry a crew, so published entries record machine class, diameter and drive length.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

What Is the North American Microtunneling Job Log?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

It is an annual compilation published by the trade magazine Trenchless Technology and compiled by editorial consultant Jim Rush. The North American Microtunneling Job Log lists notable drives under way or recently completed across the United States and Canada, with editions for 2022, 2025 and 2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Entries give the owner, the engineer, the contractor, the microtunnel boring machine model, the pipe type and the reported drive lengths. That is enough to shortlist comparable work, not to design from. In our bid reviews, we treat each entry as an editorial snapshot of what was reported, not a certified register of records.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Scope: every entry here is a reported snapshot with a named reporter. For design or pricing, use the project’s own documents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How Did Microtunneling Reach North America?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The origin date is disputed. One transportation research source dates the first United States microtunneling project to 1983. That source records 14 such projects by 1989; several other sources date the first crossing to 1984, a 600 ft drive of 72-inch pipe under I-95 and the FEC Railroad in south Florida.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The method arrived with equipment suppliers, so early North American trenchless construction leaned on imported machines with local crews. The pipe jacking method moved with them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Iseki Poly-Tech, established in Tokyo in 1971, re-entered North America around 2015. Herrenknecht entered the microtunneling market in 1985 and sold its first machine, an AVN 600, in West Berlin. Akkerman announced 30 years of microtunneling in September 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Which Microtunneling Projects Define the North American Market?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The shortlist below is not a ranking. These microtunneling projects show how the market changed in scale, diameter and difficulty, and each row names the party that reported it. Each machine is a microtunnel boring machine matched to the ground.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Table 1. Representative North American project log entries drawn from published trade reporting.<\/caption>\n
Project<\/th>\nYear<\/th>\nKey parties<\/th>\nScale reported<\/th>\nReported by<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
South Florida first crossing<\/td>\n1983 or 1984<\/td>\nTransportation research source; others say 1984<\/td>\n600 ft of 72-inch pipe under I-95 and the FEC Railroad; 14 United States projects by 1989<\/td>\nTransportation research source; other sources<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Painesville, Ohio, intake<\/td>\n2019<\/td>\nCity of Painesville; Ric-Man; Herrenknecht AVN1500<\/td>\n3,947 ft of 60-in. RCP under Lake Erie, 67-ft shaft<\/td>\nTunneling Business Magazine; a United States longest claim<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Northwest Inner City, Calgary<\/td>\n2022<\/td>\nCity of Calgary; Ward & Burke; Delve Underground<\/td>\n3.4 m inside diameter, 760 m single drive<\/td>\nDelve Underground; largest diameter in North America<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
South Surrey Interceptor, Vancouver<\/td>\nn.d.<\/td>\nMetro Vancouver; Stantec; Ward & Burke<\/td>\n3 m inside diameter RCP, more than 2,600 ft<\/td>\nAmerican Concrete Pipe Association; Canada’s largest<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Ferry Road storm sewer, Winnipeg<\/td>\n2026<\/td>\nCity of Winnipeg; Erritt Construction; Herrenknecht AVN2500D<\/td>\n5,600 ft single drive of 2,400 mm pipe<\/td>\nContractor and trade press; not certified<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Western Bays, New York<\/td>\n2023<\/td>\nAECOM, WSP, Hazen & Sawyer; John P. Picone<\/td>\n439 million USD; 12 drives about 18,020 ft; nine of twelve drives over 1,300 ft<\/td>\nReporter not named in the sources<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
WHCRWA C1 and C2, Houston<\/td>\n2022<\/td>\nWest Harris County Regional Water Authority; Bradshaw Construction<\/td>\n99.5-in. OD steel casing; shafts about 55 ft<\/td>\nThe 2022 job log<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Downtown Tampa Interchange<\/td>\n2026<\/td>\nFlorida DOT; Huxted Trenchless; Iseki Unclemole TCC1350<\/td>\nAbout 2,773 lf of 62.5-in. casing, six drives; jacking load 24.5 to over 124 tons<\/td>\nThe 2026 job log<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Record-holders change hands often: Painesville took a United States claim in 2019 from a 2008 Portland, Oregon drive, and Winnipeg added a newer single-drive claim in 2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Map
Reported entries cluster in Florida, Texas, the New York region, the Pacific Northwest and the Canadian prairies.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Where Is the Work Concentrated Across North America?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Reported trenchless construction clusters in a few regions. South Florida appears first because of the 1980s crossing, and Florida still generates urban work such as the Downtown Tampa Interchange, while Texas and the Gulf Coast contribute water transmission crossings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Northeast is defined by dense corridors: the Western Bays work involved 12 drives and 14 shafts, with shafts 20 to 60 ft deep built using secant piles, soil mixing and jet grouting. Canada adds Calgary, Winnipeg and Vancouver, where reported scale now sets continental benchmarks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Do These Projects Have in Common?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Across regions, the job log entries repeat a few themes. For trenchless construction, the direction of travel is longer, larger and more curved drives in harder ground. Friction published by the Pipe Jacking Association runs about 0.5 to 2.5 tonnes per square meter of external circumferential area. Project values in the log span about 17 to 439 million United States dollars, because scope differs more than unit cost.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Difficulty, not size alone, is the recurring theme. The Winnipeg Ferry Road drive reported roughly 2,000 ft of boulder-rich ground and, in the worst places, 10 to 15 boulders at the excavation face. The contractor estimates that more than 2,000 boulders were crushed, an estimate rather than a verified figure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Chart
Reported diameter and single-drive length have both risen since 2019, though each figure depends on ground, cover and machine class.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

How Should a Contractor Read a Job Log?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Table 2. What each job log field gives and omits when drives are compared for bidding.<\/caption>\n
Log field<\/th>\nWhat the log gives<\/th>\nWhat it usually omits<\/th>\nSubstitute source for bidding<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Drive length<\/td>\nA single-drive length or a cumulative total<\/td>\nWhich of the two the number is<\/td>\nAlignment drawings and shaft location tables<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Diameter<\/td>\nInside, outside or machine cutting diameter<\/td>\nWhich of the three is quoted<\/td>\nPipe specifications and machine data sheets<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Machine<\/td>\nThe machine model, such as AVN1500 or TCC1350<\/td>\nThrust and torque envelope, cutter configuration<\/td>\nManufacturer technical documentation<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Ground<\/td>\nA qualitative description of the dominant strata<\/td>\nStrength, abrasiveness, RQD, water pressure zones<\/td>\nGeotechnical investigation and baseline reports<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Contractors should read a job log entry for comparability, not for a headline figure. Confirm whether a figure is one drive or a cumulative total, and whether the quoted diameter is inside, outside or a machine cutting diameter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Match the ground. Choose a microtunnel boring machine for the hardest ground on the alignment; a machine that performs in soft clay and sand differs from one that holds up in full-face shale or a mixed face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On any trenchless construction drive, check what the log omits: cover depth, water table, curve radii, shaft dimensions and jacking force. Published pipe jacking guidance from the Pipe Jacking Association gives indicative jacking lengths by diameter and notes that longer drives need project-specific risk analysis. ASCE\/CI 36-15, the Standard Design and Construction Guidelines for Microtunneling, and EN 12889 belong beside the log.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On drives we have supported, we verify rather than trust. Use the log to shortlist comparable microtunneling projects, then confirm the details against the project’s own documents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you are the owner comparing bids, read the reporter and the basis first. If you are pricing the drive, read the ground, the cover and the shaft dimensions first.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Does the 2026 Log Signal About the Microtunneling Market?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The 2026 entries point to a busy urban and industrial market rather than a uniform boom. Newer work includes the Los Angeles Roscoe Trunk Line Replacement Unit 2, where Frontier Kemper Constructors was reported as installing 4,142 lf of 82-in. steel casing in four drives, and the Downtown Tampa Interchange, where an Iseki Unclemole TCC1350 was used across six drives. Both name a microtunnel boring machine matched to the ground.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On size, estimates differ by scope. Valuations for the 2025 microtunneling market range from about 0.7 billion to about 3.8 billion United States dollars. Forecasts to 2034 and 2035 run from roughly 1.5 billion to 6.7 billion, with growth rates quoted between about 6.5 and 9.8 percent. No single number should be called the market size.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We have seen records change hands repeatedly as owners enter harder ground; recent microtunneling projects are longer, larger and more curved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Comparing your drive against the ones in this log?<\/strong> Send the alignment and geotechnical report; we will name the closest comparable drive and where the analogy breaks down.<\/p>\n

Request a Free Technical Review<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n\n\n\n