Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 46
47
TABLE 9
LIST OF US TUNNEL AGENCIES THAT RESPONDED TO THE SURVEY
Agency Tunnel Name
Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel--EBL
Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel--WBL
Downtown Tunnel (First)--WBL
Virginia DOT Downtown Tunnel (First)--EBL
NAS Runway #29 Underpass
MonitorMerrimac Memorial Bridge Tunnel
Midtown Tunnel
Liberty Tunnel
Pennsylvania DOT
Stowe Tunnel
Maryland
Fort McHenry Tunnel
Transportation
Authority Baltimore Harbor Tunnel
Oneonta
Cape Creek
Elk Creek
Toothrock
Oregon DOT Arch Cape
Salt Creek
Sunset
Knowles Creek
Vista Ridge Twin Tunnels
Washington State I-90 Mount Baker Ridge Tunnel
DOT I-90 Mercer Island Tunnel
Port Authority of
New York
& New Jersey The Holland Tunnel
Chesapeake Bay Thimble Shoals
Bridge and Tunnel
Authority Chesapeake Channel
Colorado DOT--
Region 1,
Maintenance Section
9 Eisenhower/Johnson Memorial Tunnel (2 bores, 1 unit)
Webster Tube
Posey Tube
California Sunrise On Ramp
Department of
Caldecott Tunnel Complex #1
Transportation
Caldecott Tunnel Complex #2
Caldecott Tunnel Complex #3
Of the five international agencies responding, three reported plan in place. Most agencies have videotaped incidences of
that an investigation was performed almost every time after a car fires.
fire, whereas one responded occasionally, depending on the
fire size. The estimated maximum fire size ranged from 1 For all of the national responses, the strengths of the agen-
to 57 MW (3 to 195 MBtu/hr). The longest duration of a fire cies' fire management programs were diverse from equip-
ranged from 10 min to 120 min (in a Korean tunnel). ment, to coordination of multiple entities, to surveillance and
rapid response. Preparation and planning were the primary
strengths. Of the 19 U.S. tunnels that reported on the kind
EXISTING PRACTICE OF FIRE MANAGEMENT
IN ROAD TUNNELS of fire-detection system used (multiple selections allowed),
18 chose closed circuit television (CCTV) incident detection.
Most agencies (13 of 19 U.S. tunnels) have been successful Of the 20 U.S. tunnels that reported on the kind of fire pro-
and the rest were partially successful in managing fire events. tection system used, all chose fire extinguishers in the tunnel,
All 22 of the tunnels reporting have an emergency response whereas almost all (17) use a standpipe system with fire hose
