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