National Academies Press: OpenBook

Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development (2013)

Chapter: 2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development

« Previous: 1 Introduction
Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×

2

The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development

Underground space use has evolved as villages and towns have grown into cities. Water, energy, sewage, and wastes that were once carted in and out of town on street surfaces are now transported via underground conduits. Urban dwellers are often unaware of the connections between essential utility services and structures in the buildings where they live and work and the underground supporting infrastructure and services. Consequently, there is a lack of public appreciation of how critical underground resources are to the proper functioning and high standards of living in U.S. urban areas.

The underground has always provided physical foundation support for buildings and other surface structures. Early building foundations may have been simple sets of stones selected and placed by hand into shallow excavations. Today, foundations for large buildings and skyscrapers may include deep pilings, conduits for geothermal heating and cooling, and multiple levels of basement space that may provide, for example, shopping concourses, underground parking, utility plants, and high-quality storage. Well-designed foundations take into account the soil, rock, groundwater, and other site-specific conditions, and help buildings resist major seismic and extreme wind effects. Hard-won experience, artful skills, and knowledge from many science and engineering disciplines contribute to the development of the processes and procedures used today to site, design, and build large structures.

Although cities grow upwards and outwards, their growth is dependent on underground building foundations and utility infrastructure. In most municipalities, planning and zoning of surface and air spaces are through local governments. Unfortunately, underground space is not similarly planned and zoned, and an explicit value for underground space is not generally recognized (Sterling et al.,

Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×

2012). Formal planning and control of underground space by municipalities is a responsibility to be recognized and acted upon in the United States if sustainable urban development is to be realized. In some countries such as China, planning of underground space is a special focus for responding to urban growth, and such plans have been developed by almost every large Chinese city over the past few years (Guo et al., in press).

This chapter traces the evolution of urban underground space and illustrates how the progressive and piecemeal development of underground space poses significantly more restrictions on future development than in the cases of surface facilities and infrastructure development.

EXPANSION OF THE UNDERGROUND IN THE PAST CENTURY

Sewage systems are placed underground to use gravity to drain sewage away from buildings. Water distribution systems are often placed underground to protect them against freezing and other damage. Telecommunications and electric power supply systems may be placed below ground according to local precedent, in consideration of the value placed on maintaining a secure and resilient infrastructure, for reasons related to surface aesthetics, or to minimize the effect of installation on property values. Concern regarding uncoordinated planning of underground space is not new. In 1914, George Webster, chief engineer and surveyor of Philadelphia, lamented that few large cities planned the space beneath streets, or charted the utilities and services placed there (Webster, 1914). He noted the importance of understanding what the underground was required to accommodate and discussed the need to plan for

• water, hot water, steam, sewer, refrigerating, and gas pipes; electrical conduits; pneumatic tubes; and as yet undetermined future services;

• galleries for pipes and conduits;

• vaults under sidewalks in the public right-of-way as a part of new building construction;

• subways for transit systems and passengers;

• tunnels beneath underground services to accommodate movement of people between business establishments without the need to cross streets or venture into weather; and

• underground freight movement services to connect freight terminals with commercial businesses and industrial establishments.

Webster advocated that underground space should be planned to facilitate future installations and minimize the costs and delays caused by future installations. He advocated for an official authoritative body to regulate underground usage, and he predicted that without such controls new large underground installations

Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×

would come at greater cost and challenge when engineers were forced to work around existing infrastructure.

As we progress into the 21st century, the underground is used for all the purposes listed above, and many of the problems predicted a century ago have been realized. Table 2.1 describes the estimated lengths of major underground utility services in the United States, totaling approximately 10.8 million miles (17.4 million kilometers). Underground infrastructure has expanded to accommodate growing populations and new infrastructure services (and their multiple providers) but is still installed beneath the same public rights-of-way. As traffic becomes more congested with population growth, underground utility work that must be accessed from the surface results in increased traffic problems and expense. It has been reported that approximately 4 million holes are dug in the United Kingdom’s roads and sidewalks by utilities at a cost of approximately $2.25 billion1 per year and consequent indirect costs of approximately $4.5 billion per year (Farrimond, 2004). Analogous costs in the United States could well be many times larger.

Wastewater systems have also been expanded and the underground now accommodates large wastewater transport systems (e.g., sanitary and stormwater sewer systems; combined sewer systems) and combined sewer overflow (CSO) interceptor and storage tunnel systems with large diameter openings. Most segments of wastewater and drainage systems are designed to flow by gravity through pipes and tunnels and are therefore dependent on closely controlled vertical alignments. These systems are generally placed beneath the hodgepodge of existing shallow utility infrastructure, and they may block usage of that underground space for future services including rapid transit subways and high speed rail (HSR). Protecting access opportunities for such services argues for planning and permitting with a goal of preserving underground corridors for major high-value urban infrastructure. Foresight is vital to sustainability because such complex infrastructure is often not needed until much later in a city’s evolution.

ENGINEERING THE UNDERGROUND FOR SUSTAINABILITY

Tunneling, a component of many underground construction projects, shares many properties with other types of construction done in urban societies. Certain challenges, however, may become amplified in an underground setting (Wood, 2000). For example

• there is greater dependence on the ground and understanding ground properties in terms of risk (see Box 1.3) to the construction project itself, other infrastructure, worker health and safety, the environment, and economic interests;

• there is higher interdependence between planning and project design

_______________________

1 Based on 2008 exchange rates.

Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×

TABLE 2.1 Estimated Lengths of Major U.S. Underground Utility Services

Transmission (miles) Distribution/Collection (miles) Service (miles) Total (miles)
Gas
  Gathering …………………….41,000
(DOE, 2006)
  Interstate ……………………250,000
  Intrastate ……………………..75,000
1,212,688 (PHMSA, 2005) 780,392 (PHMSA, 2005)a 2,359,080
Hazardous Liquid………….160,868 (PHMSA, 2003) 160,868
Oil
  Gathering ……………………35,000 (Pipeline 101, 2001)
  Crude…………………………..65,942 (BTS, 2004)
  Product ……………………….76,258
177,200
Water ………………………….660,000 (Brongers, 2002) 995,644 (EPA, 2007) 854,364 (EPA 2007)b 2,510,008
Sewer
  Public
  Private
724,000 (EPA, 2006) 500,000 1,224,000
Electric ……………………….167,643 (NERC, 2006) 600,000c 400,000d 1,167,643
Telecom
Underground Cable
  Metallic
  Fiber
Buried Cable
  Metallic
  Fiber
Conduit System
  Trench
382,472 (FCC, 2006)
217,266

2,178,320
217,322

199,541
3,194,921
Grand Total 10,793,719

aThe total number of gas services in the United States, according to PHMSA (2005), is 63,523,945. This number was then converted to miles by taking an average length of one service line to be 65 ft.

bThe total number of water services in the United States, according to EPA (2007), is about 69,545,307. This number was then converted to miles by taking an average length of one service line to be 65 ft.

cEleven U.S. utilities reported a total of 296,093 miles (Sterling et al., 2009). However, the length of underground electrical distribution is expected to be much less than for gas or water, which are fully underground. A figure of 600,000 miles is assumed as the U.S. total.

dThis figure is a rough estimate based on underground electric service being less than half the length of underground water services.

SOURCE: Adapted from Sterling et al., 2009.

Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×

that arises from the need to stabilize the ground and exclude groundwater or contaminants;

• there are potentially fewer construction methods available given geologic and anthropogenic constraints;

• logistics can be more challenging because of restricted access and addressing worker safety (workers may be great distances from access points); and

• the expertise and time involved from project inception and completion can be great and may include that associated with community buy-in of a project and government compliance issues.

An underground project requires a systems perspective, such as illustrated in Figure 2.1, that emphasizes interactions between interrelated systems including those associated with land use, intermodal transportation, environmental, cultural, and socio-economic systems. This type of approach highlights the unique combination of skills, knowledge, management, and leadership required for successful infrastructure planning, construction, operation, and maintenance for a sustainable urban environment. Figure 2.1 represents a good start to the kind of thinking necessary, but sustainability of engineered systems within urban systems needs to be designed for much greater complexity and adaptability, such as is done for Complex Adaptive System of Systems (CASoS) engineering. CASoS

image

FIGURE 2.1 A systems perspective toward a foundation of interacting systems (shown at bottom/base of this graphic) that includes land use, intermodal transportation, natural, cultural, and socio-economic systems deliver quality of life and multiple benefits for the long-term. SOURCE: FHWA, 2008.

Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×

BOX 2.1

Complex Adaptive Systems of Systems Engineering

An initiative at Sandia National Laboratory has been the development of an engineering framework to solve large complex problems that combine physical, social, and technical systems called Complex Adaptive Systems of Systems (CASoS). CASoS broadly include physical infrastructure, government, people, and ecosystems. They are complex, real or abstract entities composed of systems, and change over time because of interactions within the system or environment (Glass et al., 2008). CASoS engineers use a set of defined iterative processes to solve problems, exploit opportunities, achieve goals, or answer questions in consideration of choices, intended and unintended costs and benefits, uncertainties, and how the system might be altered to yield better outcomes. Bringing about change in CASoS can be accomplished using conceptual models, system measurements, observational and experimental design, pattern recognition, policy investigation, engineering processes, realtime problem definitions (especially in times of crisis), and communication, and building the required intellectual capacity to conduct CASoS engineering focused on applications (Glass et al., 2008). The CASoS framework includes designing a computational model for the context, implementing the model in an actual environment, and reviewing actions at each step for correction, adaptation, and “fit performance” at each stage of action. The figure is a simplified diagram of the elements to be considered in CASoS engineering.

engineering considers the interdependencies and vulnerabilities of systems to reduce risk and maximize security and health (Glass et al., 2011), as described in Box 2.1.

Given such systems of systems approaches, the team that designs, constructs, and manages underground infrastructure needs to be interdisciplinary, and specific expertise will be required to respond to specific challenges (see Appendix C). However, it will be necessary for team members to be able to understand how each component of the project is part of a system of systems.

POLICY, ECONOMIC, AND HUMAN BEHAVIORAL DRIVERS THAT INFLUENCE DECISION MAKING

Electric power lines were already being buried in New York in the late 1800s (Schewe, 2007), but overhead electric lines are still common in cities across the United States. What factors drive acceptance of underground placement of infrastructure?

Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×

image

Figure Simplified diagram developed at Sandia National Laboratories of CASoS engineering application space as a simplified network. The diagram illustrates how CASoS engineering considers the relationships of the CASoS, the goals of engineering (termed aspirations), and elements that can Influence the system (perturbations). Items in black represent existing applications for a specific CASoS and those in red represent those in development. SOURCE: Glass et al., 2011.

In the past century, acceptance of underground utility installation has evolved to be based on a combination of environmental, cost, and performance issues. Long-term performance of underground facilities has yet to be quantified or demonstrated, yielding a source of uncertainty and unknown risk for decision makers. Triple-bottom-line cost estimates—analyses of social, environmental, and economic costs and benefits—for underground facilities may provide persuasive justification for underground installation, but direct and indirect impacts need to be considered for a true lifecycle engineering design.

Higher costs of underground utility installation may make the underground less attractive to the private sector, and government stakeholders often display mixed acceptance to underground installations, sometimes depending on their relationships with utility providers. The long-term outlook of community decision makers has a role in the acceptance of underground utilities. A decision to bury utilities is best made based on real costs and experience, rather than whether stakeholders “like” underground facilities. Technological advances in underground installation processes, system monitoring, and in the development

Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×

of cost-effective utilidors (underground utility corridors that house multiple utilities such as water, sewer, power, and telecommunications) create advantages and incentives to place utilities underground.

Decision making related to the placement of major transportation systems often occurs among people with competing interests. Political views, community lifestyle preferences, and commercial interests in design and construction contracts influence decision making in many communities in the United States. Disruptions related to construction and operation and the impact of projects on taxes can dissuade public acceptance for underground installation. The public may also be concerned about security, fearing that mass transportation systems may allow access to a neighborhood for a large number of unknown people.

Government officials may be concerned with the “success” of a project—that major cost overruns and construction issues are limited and that the finished infrastructure is perceived by the public to have been a wise investment. Some politicians may be concerned that successful completion occurs before the next election cycle to reserve credit for success to the incumbents. Negative and positive experiences of other cities may influence how costs and risks of design options are accepted. Unfortunately, there are few detailed follow-up assessments of major infrastructure investments with data suitable for triple-bottom-line analyses. Without such information, too much focus may be placed on initial cost and too little on long-term performance and urban benefits.

The decision to place technical systems such as energy-related facilities, roads and railroads, shopping centers, waterworks, and wastewater treatment underground is based, often primarily, on technical data related to operational and environmental considerations, and considerations associated with safety, hygiene, disaster prevention, land use, and maintenance costs. Scandinavian experience with underground sewage treatment plants and hydropower facilities, for example, has led to a strong preference for underground infrastructure by the public, utility company, and government stakeholders, driven by the climatic, topographic, and geological environments (Parker, 2004).2 U.S. efforts to develop underground facilities have been modest in comparison; adoption of new approaches is often inhibited by existing administrative controls, design guidelines, codes of practice, and labor practices (NRC, 2011).

A systematic analysis of the networks of decision makers and how the flow of information through the networks facilitates or inhibits decision making may be informative and a powerful tool if carefully applied (e.g., Butts, 2009). Whereas the number of stakeholders indicates that the web of networks in the case of urban system analysis is complex, even complex networks are not random

_______________________

2 For example, the Høvringen and Ladehammeren underground sewage treatment plants in Trodheim, Norway (Nordmark, 2002; Broch, 2006); the Skullerud water treatment plant in Oslo, Norway (Holestöl and Palmström, 1996); and the Juktan hydropower station in Sweden (Rundgren and Martna, 1989).

Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×

in their formation and activity and may be studied to inform decision making. Albert and Barabási (2002) describe the statistical mechanics and dynamics of networks that at one time seemed random, and Watts (2004) summarizes findings about networks, network organizations, and the collective dynamics within networks than can, among other things, foster or inhibit information dissemination. There are extensive literature and computational analyses of analogous complex sociotechnical systems that can be applied to this discussion. For example Carley and others (2009) use quantitative analysis techniques to determine how learning occurs within networks that result in change, and Cataldo and others (2008) explore modeling how different types of software engineering decisions constrain other software engineering decisions and drive the need to coordinate activities.

For the sake of this discussion, networks are simplified into two categories: (1) technical networks involved in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of underground space and (2) organizational networks of government agencies, private-sector entities, and community groups that pay for construction, endure disruptions, and benefit from completed underground facilities. Ideal decision making occurs with continuous interaction between these two networks during all phases of infrastructure life cycle. Identifying the right kind of information to share with the right agents within the right networks to facilitate change that promotes sustainability is difficult, and there is no singular methodology that will work in all urban systems, or possibly within a single urban system over time given the individual and dynamic nature of the networks.

Sustained support of infrastructure investment requires an understanding of how the press and public will perceive the project and associated activities, and how information can be transferred to them. The commitment of political leadership for the duration of project construction, operation, and maintenance is also needed. Public satisfaction with investment in infrastructure requires transparent communication including accurate representation of the value and risks of investment such as those associated with project cost and scheduling. Difficulties sustaining public support for investment decisions may lead to overpromising on design, analysis, and construction in order to get projects under way.3 It may be possible to develop and use tools to raise the collective awareness in the community of the benefits and costs associated with underground infrastructure. For example, geotechnical databases have been developed for multiple communities around the world that can visually display the relationships between built infrastructure and the geologic environment (Reeves, 2010; Thompson, 2010). These may be applied for educational and planning purposes. As explored further in Chapter 5, the comparative assessment of sustainability for underground and surface space-use options requires that adequate data and case examples be

_______________________

3 For example, the multibillion-dollar “Stuttgart 21” project in Germany has generated much opposition by those who believe the project is overambitious and overpriced (Ward, 2010).

Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×

documented so that whole life cycle and triple bottom line impacts of competing options can be evaluated.

User Acceptance of Underground Institutional, Commercial, and Industrial Facilities

Institutional, commercial, and industrial underground facilities have come to be viewed differently by those who work or spend long periods in the facility than by those who choose to use the facility for shorter periods of time. Workers desire spaces that are as comfortable and safe as aboveground facilities. The lack of access to natural light, ventilation, and a spatial frame of reference (e.g., a view) is the most often cited detriment (Carmody and Sterling, 1993). Hence, worker acceptance may depend on the extent to which the facility is underground or windowless, and the type of environment expected for their work in a conventional facility. On the other hand, user acceptance revolves around convenience and safety perceptions, in addition to comfort. Both workers and users can be strongly influenced by quality of design, maintenance, operation, and security. Private and public stakeholder acceptance may be affected strongly by location and design—e.g., does placing all or part of a structure underground enhance its attributes in that location? If so, then costs and user concerns are weighed against the benefits of constructing the facility in that location. Hotels in the Washington, D.C., area, for example, often build several levels underground for parking, meeting, and ballroom spaces. Architectural height restrictions in the D.C. area4 mean that the “windowed” space aboveground is at a premium. Underground space development is the result of codes in place to preserve the aboveground environment. The environment draws people to the area, and the well-designed and safe underground space draws usage (see Box 2.2).

Driving Forces

It is difficult to assess what driving forces are the most important in either advancing or hindering the development and use of underground facilities. Most large urban areas within the United States and around the world exhibit the growth of underground facilities as urban development intensifies. In this regard, one might conclude that no special policies or drivers need to be in place to cause development of the underground—it will happen as a natural result of land use, environmental pressures, and the need to upgrade transportation and utility services for a growing city. The downside of this laissez-faire approach is the chaotic development of the underground, project by project, even when it is well understood in principle that expanded underground uses will follow later. This

_______________________

4 DC ST § 6-601

Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×

BOX 2.2

The Arthur M. Sackler Gallery and the National Museum of African Art, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

The Arthur M. Sackler Gallery (an Asian art museum) and National Museum of African Art at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., are placed underground in the courtyard adjacent to the Smithsonian “Castle” on the National Mall. The function fits an underground structure well—the appearance of the iconic Smithsonian building is preserved, no open space on the National Mall is covered, and museum workers are already used to working in above-ground windowless buildings. High design quality and interesting gallery spaces provide an attractive environment for the public. The figure demonstrates use of space design, art, and natural lighting to create a dramatic, pleasant environment.

image

Figure A sculpture by Xu Bing occupies and can be viewed on each of the four levels of the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery in a beautifully designed space that makes clever use of skylights and artificial lighting. The sculpture as viewed looking down from upper level of four levels. Note the fountain at the bottom of the sculpture that reflects natural light from the skylight four stories above. Credit: Andrea S. Norris.

section examines some of the drivers that can either promote or inhibit development of an expanded and well-ordered underground environment.

Urban planners may plan the city in only two dimensions (with the use of height controls or floor-area ratios used to control building heights) and ignore the importance of the underground in major urban areas. Without federal, state,

Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×

or municipal mission agencies with an overarching responsibility for the provision of urban infrastructure, separate agencies deal independently with issues related to transportation, housing and urban development, homeland security, and energy. Although the individual mandates of these agencies are important, a common approach to underground utility provision and urban planning of the underground is missing. Funding mechanisms for projects or research tend to focus on particular problems or solutions without much consideration of how the solution affects the system of systems in short and long terms. Local or national economic recessions that make investment in public facilities less urgent and less affordable exacerbate the problem, as do initially higher underground project development costs and the long timescales until project completion. Negative perceptions about the interior environments of underground facilities, confusing layouts and lack of reference to surface landmarks that inhibit easy wayfinding, and fears about personal safety in what may be perceived to be poorly designed and operated underground facilities may decrease public support of underground infrastructure.

However, there are many examples of successful underground infrastructure projects that lead to more sustainable societies. Development of some of these is facilitated by the governance structures and systems in place in these locations, some very different from those found in the United States. The strong policies for new infrastructure provision coupled with strong administrative controls for project implementation found in China, for example, would not necessarily be implementable in the United States. Policies that require and facilitate effective long-range planning of underground space use, as are found in locations such as Singapore or Helsinki, Finland, help those locations move closer to sustainability goals. Policies that enforce preservation of the surface environment while permitting facility expansion underground would provide a reason for moving more infrastructure underground where other incentives are not present. These could include building height restrictions coupled with the exclusion of underground space from floor area limitations, or prohibition of overhead utilities. Policies that increase the possibility to easily route infrastructure elements at depth beneath private land, such as Japan’s Special Measures Act for Public Use of Deep Underground (Act no. 87 of 2000; see Konda, 2003) that gives public organizations prior rights to develop deep underground space, can help to avoid some of the legal barriers to broader, more versatile, and rapid development.

Underground engineering and construction is expensive, and construction costs are generally greater than for surface infrastructure. However, full assessment of lifecycle costs and benefits (see Chapter 5) may convince owners and planners that the initial greater investment is the better investment. Changes in policy as described above could lower some costs by, for example, streamlining some of the time-consuming processes related to permitting and rights of way. Other economic drivers are more practical in nature. Urban area and economic expansion may create a demand for new facilities and services, but surface land

Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×

may not be available given increased density of urban development. Still other drivers may be human behavioral, for example, an insistence by the public for a better surface environment and improved public and private services, more awareness of quality-of-life approaches taken in different cities, or demand or response to better design quality in underground facilities, and better integration with the surface that removes negative perceptions about underground space.

Multiple circumstances and drivers accelerate or inhibit acceptance and development of the underground. Issues related to perceived negative perceptions and comfort of the underground are discussed further in Chapter 4, to better assessment of true economic, social, and environmental costs are discussed in Chapter 5, and to improved technologies that allow better understanding of construction and operational risks that increase costs are discussed in Chapter 6. A new approach to infrastructure planning and management that values the contributions of underground engineering to sustainable development is suggested with the committee conclusions in Chapter 7.

It is better not to consider the underground as a universal alternative to the surface—it isn’t—but rather to give due consideration of the underground with respect to the long-term future and sustainability of an urban area. It is critical that future underground development options are not degraded by unplanned or unsuitable earlier uses, that policies and administrative structures provide the right guidance, that the public is fully engaged in developing a long-term vision for its community and community standards, and community expectations regarding how underground facilities will serve it are met.

CROSS-SYSTEMS INTERDEPENDENCIES

As underground use becomes more complex, it is evident that proper respect of the interplay between the surface and underground is necessary during all phases of infrastructure life cycle. Examples of the serious negative effects of poor management of surface or underground infrastructure are provided throughout this report but are not presented to indicate that such is the norm in engineering practice. Box 2.3, for example, demonstrates the effects of a load-bearing structural failure in the underground during construction that compromised surface facilities. During construction, infrastructure is often more susceptible to structural failure because soils may not be fully stabilized until construction is complete. The stability of surface infrastructure is dependent on the stability of the subsurface. Numerous other interdependencies are less obvious. Many of these interdependencies may be critically important to national security.

The Presidential Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection defined infrastructure systems vital to our country (PCCIP, 1997) and prospectively looked at critical infrastructure as the subject of planned measures to protect assets from damage or destruction. Sustaining our nation and way of life were considered dependent on the continued, uninterrupted services of these infrastructure

Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×

BOX 2.3

Failure of a Metro Line in Cologne, Germany, 2009

Construction of Cologne, Germany’s 3.8 km North-South Metro Line (with tunnels for seven underground stations) began in 2004 and was completed in summer 2008. Construction of the stations, two emergency shafts, and an underground turn-off (28 m deep) included the use of cut-and-cover and mining methods with ground freezing. On March 3, 2009, Cologne’s seven-story (five above ground and two below) Historical Archive building, located by the open pit of the underground turnoff, collapsed along with buildings, including homes, located on either side (see Figure 1). Caused by the inrush of ground water and ground material, the collapse resulted in loss of life and extensive damage to the voluminous and valuable historical records of the City of Cologne, the surrounding region, and Germany (Haack, 2009; see Figure 2). Debris and soil were deposited in the building, the temporary steel ceiling and the dewatering system were damaged, concrete was cracked, and surrounding soil was loosened and displaced. There is speculation that the collapse was due to local separation caused by the removal of soil by the dewatering system or a failure of the diaphragm wall structure (Manderfeld, 2010).

image

FIGURE 1 Collapse of multiple buildings resulting from excavation collapse. SOURCE: AP Images.

systems. More than a decade later and after the attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), the list of infrastructure defined as critical by the PCCIP still applies (NRC, 2002), but with greater urgency and entailing more issues, hazards, and levels of protection. Because of the events of 9/11 and significant regional days-long power outages (for example, see Minkel, 2008), the interdependency of infrastructure systems has been elevated to a matter of national concern.

Perhaps in part because of attention provoked by the 9/11 attacks, critical infrastructure networks are now recognized as interdependent systems (NRC, 2002). They include systems that provide potable water, wastewater and stormwater collection and disposal, electric power, fuel distribution, telecommunications, and digital television and Internet connectivity and communications

Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×

Two people in collapsed houses died. Forty-five others (30 in the Archive and 15 residents) were rescued (Haack, 2009). Public anger and a threat that an angry mob would demand abandonment of the entire project, intense speculation about what had occurred, and a “vacuum of official details” were reported after the accident (Wallis, 2009). Initial political responses were that the construction plan in Cologne (or in any densely built-up town) should not have been approved (Haack, 2009). According to a September 2010 engineering report, the cause was still under investigation by the public attorney’s office. Independent experts nominated by the court are reviewing the incident (Manderfeld, 2010). The reverberations of the Cologne accident extended to Amsterdam where a metro line was being planned for an area with similar geologic characteristics. Twice in 2008, there was damage from leaking in the concrete wall of a construction pit for a future metro station on the Vijzelgracht, Amsterdam, and, as a result, neighboring 17th-century weavers’ houses became flooded and unfit for habitation (van Outeren, 2009).

image

FIGURE 2 Diagram illustrating the assumed cause of the accident. SOURCE: Haack, 2009. Reprinted with permission of Alfred Haack.

(including orbiting satellite assets), as well as transportation systems such as roads, highways, bridges, tunnels, transit and railroad facilities, and airports and harbors (Peerenboom, 2001). Other infrastructure systems also provide emergency services, living and working spaces, churches and places of assembly, hospitals and schools, parks and recreation areas, open spaces, and other facilities (NRC, 2002).

As systems, they are characterized in part by a complexity related to the fact that they are owned and controlled by numerous individuals, partnerships and corporations, and local, state, and national governments. This complex ownership model leads to confusion regarding, for example, responsibility for funding and performing essential periodic inspections, maintenance, and repair of individual

Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×

infrastructure elements or systems. There is no clear or consistent understanding of who does what, under what guidelines and budgets, and under what terms.

Cascading Failures of Systems

Interdependencies among infrastructure systems are often not fully understood (Little, 2005). Failure in one element of a system can cause disruptions in one or many other systems, and failure of underground systems can occur as a result of failure of systems on the surface. Disruptions can spread to systems in other cities, states, and countries. For example, cascading failure of interdependent underground infrastructure occurred as a result of the 9/11 attacks on surface infrastructure in New York City. Water main breaks flooded rail tunnels, a commuter station, and a facility that housed all cables for what has been described as the world’s largest telecommunication node. Trading on the New York Stock Exchange ceased for six days as a result of failure of communication infrastructure. International financial stability therefore was linked to a water main rupture in one location (O’Rourke, 2007).

Communication systems failure can result in the cascading failures of electric-powered plants, systems, and equipment. Electric power systems are more often remotely controlled from a central operations station, by wireless or leased telephone lines, the Internet, or by supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems. SCADA systems typically use open architecture software without security protection, making them vulnerable to hackers. Access to a SCADA system could provide opportunity to cause problems with system functionality including overloading a transmission grid (NRC, 2002). SCADA systems can also malfunction when electric power fluctuates or becomes unstable, as was demonstrated by the 2010 natural gas pipeline explosion in San Bruno, California (NTSB, 2011a).

Another example of cascading failure of interdependent infrastructure occurred in August 2003 when an overloaded Ohio utility electric transmission line faulted, shutting down a portion of the transmission grid, leading to failure of the electrical transmission network and the blackout of eight states in the Northeastern United States and southeastern Canada. Fifty million people lost power for up to two days (Minkel, 2008). Cleveland, Ohio, did not have power to pump public water to 1.5 million citizens (Little, 2005), and similar situations were reported elsewhere. Loss of power shut down traffic controls and street lighting, making road and highway travel hazardous, particularly at night. The effects of the failure were far reaching. Refrigeration for food was impossible, and emergency measures were needed, for example, to protect children’s milk supplies (PSEPC, 2006). Service stations could not pump fuel, and people abandoned vehicles wherever they ran out of gas. The rapid cascading effects on other critical services were also observed (Minkel, 2008).

Cascading failure of interdependent infrastructure may result when existing

Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×

underground infrastructure is disturbed by the installation or repair of other services. “Call before you dig” (CBYD) laws5 have been put in place in many areas to reduce this likelihood. More attention needs to be directed to the buried resources that, in many cases, are just below the surface. It is in the interest of property owners and managers to know the location, condition, and state of repair of infrastructure elements that service their properties. Local governments, under public safety and health mandates, have a role in assuring that inspections and maintenance of lifeline infrastructure occurs and is documented and available. State governments have similar responsibilities for electrical power grids, transmission pipelines, and potable water supply systems. Less labor-intensive means of mapping underground utilities, performing and reporting essential lifeline service inspections, and understanding the implications of their interconnections on local users could lead to a better systems approach to planning, construction, operation, and maintenance over the long term to increase the life of critical infrastructure and avoid cascading systems failures. The committee suggests potential research in these areas in Chapter 7.

CONSEQUENCES OF INCOMPLETE PLANNING

The study committee began with an assumption that sustainable development is dependent on the ability of planners to consider future needs. The useful life of critical infrastructure is dependent on the service being installed and determined during design and materials specification processes. Buried utility services are expected to operate for 50 years; transit and sewer tunnels and structures for 100 years. It is often difficult to predict how best to accommodate long-term operation and maintenance of the infrastructure while simultaneously accommodating growing or changing populations, changing infrastructure needs, and new technologies. It is especially difficult to predict what may be the societal needs of infrastructure in 50 to 100 years. Practical methods for determining remaining useful life of utilities and services are needed.

The next sections highlight issues that result from poor or incomplete planning and how these issues relate to those associated with aging infrastructure and the choice of building foundations.

Aging Not-So-Gracefully while Keeping up with Demand

There were approximately 76 million people in the United States at the beginning of the 20th century, and there are approximately 310 million people today (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). The U.S. Census Bureau estimates the U.S.

_______________________

5 For example, see Oregon Law OAR 952-001-0010 through OAR 952-001-0090, available at arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_900/OAR_952/952_001.html. See also www.callbeforeyoudig.org/law.htm (accessed November 11, 2010).

Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×

BOX 2.4

Failure of a Water Main

The 2008 failure of a 66-inch pre-stressed concrete water main resulted in the need for rescue of nine people stranded dangerously in their cars while approximately 150,000 gallons of water per minute rushed down a major street near Potomac, Maryland (Morse and Shaver, 2008). The pipe, 15 feet below the surface, was put into service in 1964. A forensic investigation indicated that pipe corrosion and weakening was caused by the installation of the pipe directly on rock (WSSC, 2009). The pipe was last internally inspected in 1998, but internal inspections do not normally expose the external chemical-based corrosion that occurred.

A 50-by-30–foot hole was created by the force of the rupture, several large trees and a utility pole were downed, and a portion of the road was destroyed. Area schools and roads were temporarily closed. As a result of this event, the responsible agency immediately implemented a real-time, active monitoring program for a majority of its large diameter water main system.

population will be approximately 439 million by 2050 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008), representing a 42 percent growth in the next 40 years. The public expects delivery of a certain quality of life through physical infrastructure, and such growth will create financial and physical pressures to enlarge all infrastructure systems while concurrently identifying ways to extend the useful life and reliability of existing systems. Different and even greater demands on infrastructure will be likely as technologies evolve and new technologies are developed and their delivery becomes expected.6 Infrastructure interdependencies will likely become even more complex, and, as infrastructure systems age, the system of systems is likely to become less reliable. This is not a good scenario for sustainability.

It is reported that a significant portion of the underground infrastructure in the United States is at or has exceeded its projected useful life (USNCTT, 1989; ASCE, 2009). Responsible agencies seek effective ways to stretch dwindling budgets and capital expenditures to address issues associated with aging infrastructure, but a gap exists between appropriated funds and expenditures necessary for infrastructure renewal. In 2002, the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) forecasted an $8 billion annual gap over a 20-year period (2000-2019) for the nation’s aging water infrastructure alone (EPA, 2002). The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) estimated that leaking water pipes result in the loss of 7 billion gallons per day, nationwide, of clean drinking water (ASCE, 2009). Further, the ASCE described that deteriorated wastewater pipelines leak billions of gallons of sewage into the nation’s waterways each year. Personal and economic safety and health may be put at greater risk by an inability to mitigate projected

_______________________

6 For example, Internet access, unheard of just a few decades ago, is considered by many to be a “fundamental right.” See BBC, 2010.

Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×

BOX 2.5

Pipeline Failures in San Bruno, California, and Carmichael, Mississippi

Recent pipeline failures in San Bruno, California, and Carmichael, Mississippi, demonstrate the uncommon but significant risk to surface infrastructure, especially in highly populated areas. The San Bruno, California, natural gas pipeline explosion and fire in 2010 illustrates the potential risks associated with a buried gas pipeline. The line was installed in 1956 beneath land that was subsequently developed into a thriving residential neighborhood. This pipeline relied on a dedicated SCADA system for control of gas flow and pressure. Eight people were fatally injured, and more than 50 residences were damaged or destroyed as a result of the explosion of the 30-inch-diameter steel gas pipeline. A preliminary report from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) indicated the rupture occurred following a power malfunction of the electrical line feeding the SCADA system and resulted in an increase in pressure on the line (NTSB, 2011a). All of these factors point toward finding better means for developing, operating, and maintaining our infrastructure systems.

In 2007, the rupture of a pipeline transporting liquid propane in rural Mississippi released more than 10,000 barrels (approximately 430,000 gallons) of propane. The propane formed a gas cloud and ignited, creating a large fireball that resulted in two fatalities, seven injuries, and four destroyed houses (NTSB, 2009). About 70 acres of grassland and woodland were burned, and more than $3 million of property damages were claimed lost by the pipeline company. The NTSB determined that among the several safety issues contributing to the incident was the inadequacy of regulation and oversight exercised by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration of pipeline operators’ public education and emergency responder outreach programs (NTSB, 2009)

Such events are relatively uncommon. The NTSB lists 17 significant pipeline incidents investigated in the United States in the past 10 years (NTSB, 2011b).

infrastructure system failures that directly and physically endanger citizens (see Boxes 2.4 and 2.5 for examples).

Building Foundations and Future Underground Use

Building foundations constitute a major use of urban underground space, provide necessary building support, and can add value and space to properties. However, building foundations are rarely designed with thought to how the space under or surrounding the foundation may be used in the future. Deep pile foundations of some structures, for example, may make it more difficult to accommodate infrastructure such as transit and road tunnels that have significant horizontal and vertical alignment restrictions. Some foundation designs may

Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×

restrict public rights-of-way. The installation of horizontal soil anchors or “nails” provides lateral support for deep foundations and walls against the pressure of surrounding soil and groundwater, but requires the placement of tiebacks in holes on the sides of an excavation that can extend 30 to 35 feet into adjacent soil or rock. Although tiebacks generally serve no structural post-construction function, they often are left in place and may compromise other uses of the underground in their locations.

Foundation design and construction could include sustainable practices such as the use of removable anchors, if feasible. A longer term approach to foundation design might include designing foundations so that they are more readily reusable or repurposed once the surface infrastructure outlives its useful life. Current practices for reconstruction often include demolition of surface and foundation structures when new construction occurs. A visionary approach to foundation design requires consideration of urban sustainability holistically. It accounts for the collective impact of individual design and construction decisions on future use of the urban underground. Designs may take into account long-term planning for the urban area as a whole, for example, avoiding specific designs in an area zoned for future underground transportation. This approach will be more successful when the urban underground is incorporated into urban growth plans as part of a functioning and evolving system of systems. Optimal planning may sometimes call for preserving the underground for future use.

Institutional Management of Underground Space

As has been described, decisions related to individual underground infrastructural elements are seldom made using a systems management approach in which above- and belowground infrastructure, combined, comprise an integrated system. Governance and institutional management of urban underground space that guides decision making in the United States is fragmented at best, and nonexistent at worst. Public policies that govern urban underground use, with few exceptions, are not well formed. The primary focus of urban planning is the provision of services under the constraints of available surface and air rights and resource development. A great challenge to governance is that ownership of underground utilities, services, and structures is vested in a variety of public and private parties. This and the lack of frameworks for valuation of underground space by municipalities are among issues that frustrate better urban underground planning and management. Municipalities typically allow subsurface operations in their jurisdiction through permitting processes, but lack authority to regulate. Permission to cut into an existing street for any purpose, for example, may require a permit, but the permit typically does not include conditions specific to the utility or service being installed. Further, submission of as-built records of installations may not be required.

Comprehensive mapping of the locations of buried utilities and services

Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×

are rarely available, and as-built records of existing underground facilities may be either publicly unavailable or inaccurate. It is therefore difficult to plan new installations without disturbing existing buried services. According to the Common Ground Alliance,7 a utility is hit or damaged in the United States every 60 seconds (Landes, 2008). Available technologies to detect and map underground infrastructure to minimize striking and damaging their systems during construction activities are not employed often enough.

A national 811 number—the “call before you dig” line8—was launched in 2007 to reach 62 call centers connected with parties that have buried services in their coverage areas. This is a first step in developing institutional management of urban underground space. A positive outcome of CBYD is the sharing of utility and services data by interested parties. The governance gap can begin to close when public policy requires accounting for the use and optimization of underground urban space for the benefit of the people, the economy, and sustainable development.

PLANNING AND GOVERNANCE FOR SUSTAINABILITY

Some cities around the world have made greater progress planning and governing underground space. Helsinki, Finland, a notable example, has identified and protected its prime near-surface rock resources and has developed deep common utility tunnels that limit interference with shallower, people-oriented underground infrastructure, such as that used for transit, pedestrian connections, and parking. This strategy moves away from the more common practice of placing utilities directly beneath the surface. Montreal, Canada, has established the framework by which a largely private network of underground pedestrian connections in the downtown area has turned a northern-climate city into an extensive indoor city that is comfortable and accessible in the harshest winter weather. Perhaps the most ambitious underground planning at the time of writing is being undertaken by the City State of Singapore. The extreme shortage of land and natural resources of this island nation makes use of underground space an important component of overall planning (Hulme and Zhao, 1999). Effective underground space use in Singapore preserves surface space for other uses, including recreation.

The European Construction Technology Platform promotes the concept of a multidimensional city in which people move vertically above and below ground as well as horizontally (ECTP, 2005). Box 2.6 demonstrates European Union

_______________________

7 The Common Ground Alliance is an association dedicated to public safety through damage prevention practices. For more information see http://www.commongroundalliance.com/Template.cfm?Section=About_CGA.

8 For more information see http://www.call811.com.

Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×

BOX 2.6

A Strategic Research Agenda for the European Construction Sector

The European Construction Technology Platform (ECTP)a developed a strategic research agenda for the underground construction sector for the next 25 years that takes into account innovations driven by the market and long-term societal visions (ECTP, 2005). According to the ECTP, future models for urban planning must incorporate new ways to think about underground space and construction concepts so that underground space use can be expanded downward as far as imagination and technologies will allow. Underground infrastructure will be more appealing when directly and conveniently linked to improved surface space and to high-capacity transportation systems that are efficient alternatives to surface transport. The figure is a schematic of what the platform termed a multidimensional city.

The ECTP suggests that all aspects of construction (e.g., organization of supply chains, contractual arrangements, service industries, underground architecture, specialized vehicles, technologies for excavation, social business, and the safety and security industry) must be reviewed and revamped to improve work within an underground environment and to provide supervision and protect against hazards. The ECTP’s research agenda includes a vision and short- and long-term research priorities intended to meet the needs of clients (e.g., through efficient use of the underground and improving our understanding and ability to control the ground itself), allow cities to become sustainable (reducing resource consumption, environmental and anthropogenic impacts, improving safety and security, and enhancing the quality of life), and cause a transformation in the construction sector itself (through increased competiveness, a new knowledge-based construction process driven by clients, information and communication technologies and automation, state-of-the-art construction materials, and attractive work environments) (ECTP, 2005).

_____________

a See http://www.ectp.org/ (accessed October 6, 2011).

recognition of the importance of urban underground space and its vision for the impact on city livability possible with integrated space resource planning.

Growing urban populations have resulted in development of marginal lands (i.e., weak and soft soils) and underused industrial and commercial facilities and associated poor environmental conditions (e.g., pollution, hazardous waste, and contaminated ground). Underground development may also encroach on marginal lands, and developers and contractors must deal with issues such as hazardous waste removal or remediation. This warrants thoughtful and extended consideration by owners, urban planners, developers, and the public about the geotechnical and geo-environmental issues related to all urban construction, about underground space development specifically, and about the explicit valuation of underground space as a resource.

Effective planning and infrastructure investment decisions require that relevant administrators and planners accept the need and responsibility for integrated

Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×

image

FIGURE A new multidimensional city as envisioned by the Focus Area of Underground Construction of the European Construction Technology Platform. SOURCE: ECTP, 2005, p. 9.

long-term planning, and information archiving is needed that ensures information resources are available in a useful form. This implies that both reliable geological and three-dimensional records from multiple sources of existing structures in the underground need to be developed, registered to a common spatial reference, and maintained. Visualization for underground planning is needed particularly in complicated geologies, with significant topographic variations, and when multiple levels of underground facilities are considered (Reeves, 2010). The ability to archive, search, manage, and display complex three-dimensional databases at appropriate degrees of complexity for planning and detailed design tasks would greatly aid the ability to effectively plan urban underground space use. Some aspects of the databases and software needed to undertake this task exist, but many complications remain in terms of permission to access detailed private

Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×

utility data and to manage the uncertainty and varying quality of available data (Reeves, 2010). This discussion is continued in more detail in Chapter 6.

To consider explicit cost-benefits in infrastructure decisions, it is important to establish a methodology to quantify the value of subsurface space opportunities as a resource in urban environments. This would allow comparison of the value of underground space on a par with other urban resources, for example linked to an increasing market value of surface land property. Value for future uses would also encompass the fact that the nature of previous use (e.g., existing infrastructure) can force new infrastructure systems to be placed in increasingly difficult ground conditions, presenting problems for engineers and constructors, and creating additional difficulties related to scheduling and cost control. Effective planning and governance can help efficiently optimize use of underground resources and obtain the most value from the underground resource for the long term. Governance approaches include zoning subsurface vertical and horizontal space, reserving corridors for major transportation systems, and coordinating utility space use requirements in the public rights-of-way.

LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT OF THE UNDERGROUND

There are many fabled successes in underground infrastructure (e.g., the New York City and Boston subway systems) and more recent successes in underground infrastructure development—the Washington, D.C., Metro, the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, and the Chicago Transit Authority. The record of accomplishments extends to the creation of underground utility systems. However, the legacy of more than a century of abandoned or unmapped subsurface infrastructure also presents great problems (Sterling et al., 2009). Positions of abandoned utilities, foundations, tanks, and construction or demolition debris are not recorded or their records discarded. Positions of active utilities can be uncertain or improperly recorded. This situation is not unique to the United States, and some parts of the world have an even longer legacy of abandoned buried infrastructure. A reasonable step toward sustainable planning practices would be the development of a geographic information system database with information about locations of underground infrastructure and artifacts. A 10-year research program is under way in the United Kingdom to develop a prototype multi-sensor ground penetration radar tool that would locate and map buried utilities and services. Three-dimensional maps would then be made in conjunction with the British Geological Survey.9 More reliably documenting all things underground in a searchable database system that includes tools for visualization—and documenting other unrecorded services encountered during underground construction—would vastly improve the ability of planners to maximize

_______________________

9 See http://www.mappingtheunderworld.ac.uk/ (accessed September 15, 2011).

Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×

the use of the underground while minimizing the cost of building and maintaining underground infrastructure.

From 1972 to 1994, the U.S. National Committee on Tunneling Technology within the National Research Council served as the national organization to stimulate advances in tunneling technology and subsurface use (see Appendix C). The committee did not have oversight responsibilities, but it did serve to shape technology, practice, and education and training. Membership included representatives from government, industry, and academe. Its purpose was to promote coordination of activities, including assessment, research, development, education, training, and dissemination of information. It also served as the U.S. adherent to the International Tunneling Association. There has been no similar body since, and in 2012 no official bodies in the United States carried the responsibility of overseeing and approving use of the underground to manage it in the most sustainable manner. The lack of planning for systematic and sustainable use of the underground results in significant added costs and schedule difficulties as new services are installed in very congested urban underground space. The United States envisions installation of High Speed Railroad (HSR) systems, some of them underground, as built in other parts of the world. Grade-separated freight movement systems (for example, railroad tracks and truck roadways) could also be placed underground as part of sustainable urban development. The cost of these or any future underground infrastructure in urban settings will increase because of the inability to plan effectively around existing infrastructure. Research opportunities to develop a framework and management approach to planning, documenting existing conditions, setting land use requirements, and issuing permits for approved uses of the urban underground can be found in Chapter 7.

REFERENCES

Albert, R., and A.-L. Barabási. 2002. Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Review of Modern Physics. 74(1):47-97 [online]. Available: http://www.barabasilab.com/pubs/CCNR-ALB_Publications/200201-30_RevModernPhys-StatisticalMech/200201-30_RevModernPhys-StatisticalMech.pdf (accessed November 8, 2012).

ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). 2009. 2009 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure. American Society of Civil Engineers [online]. Available: http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/sites/default/files/RC2009_full_report.pdf (accessed May 1, 2012).

BBC. 2010. Internet access is ‘a fundamental right’. BBC News: March 8, 2010 [online]. Available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8548190.stm (accessed March 1, 2011).

Broch, E. 2006. Use of Rock Cavern in Urban Areas in Norway [online]. Available: http://www.ita-aites.org/fileadmin/filemounts/general/pdf/ItaAssociation/Organisation/Members/Member-Nations/Egypt/PapersSharm2006/kn05.pdf (accessed May 2, 2012).

Brongers, M.P.H. 2002. Appendix K: Drinking Water and Sewer Systems. Cost of Corrosion, March 2002 [online]. Available: http://www.corrosioncost.com/pdf/water.pdf (as cited in Sterling et al., 2009).

Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×

BTS (Bureau of Transportation Statistics). 2004. The Transportation Network: 2004 [online]. Available: http://www.bts.gov/publications/pocket_guide_to_transportation/2006/html/table_01.html (as cited in Sterling et al., 2009).

Butts, C.T. 2009. Revisiting the foundations of network analysis. Science 325:414-416.

Carley, K.M., M.K. Martin, B.R. Hirshman. 2009. The etiology of social change. Topics in Cognitive Science 1(4):621-650. Available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01037.x/pdf (accessed November 6, 2012).

Carmody, J., and R.L. Sterling. 1993. Underground Space Design: A Guide to Subsurface Utilization and Design for People in Underground Spaces. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Cataldo, M., J. D. Herbsleb, and K.M. Carley. 2008. Socio-Technical Congruence: A Framework for Assessing the Impact of Technical and Work Dependencies on Software Development Productivity. International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement Proceedings of the Second ACM-IEEE [online]. Available: http://herbsleb.org/web-pubs/pdfs/cataldo-socio-2008.pdf (accessed November 6, 2012).

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2006. Transmission, Distribution & Storage. Oct. 2006 [online]. Available: http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/delivery/index.html (as cited in Sterling et al., 2009).

ECTP (European Construction Technology Platform). 2005. Strategic Research Agenda for the European Underground Construction Sector, Draft, October 2005. European Construction Technology Platform [online]. Available: http://www.ectp.org/documentation/FA-Underground-Constructions_SRA-VISION2030-23Nov05.pdf (accessed May 2, 2012).

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. The Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis. EPA-816-R-02-020. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/gapreport.pdf (accessed November 11, 2010). EPA. 2006. Emerging Technologies for Conveyance: New Installations and Rehabilitation Methods.

EPA 832-R-06-004. July 2006 (as cited in Sterling et al., 2009).

EPA. 2007. P. 13 in Distribution System Inventory, Integrity and Water Quality, Jan. 2007 (as cited in Sterling et al., 2009).

Farrimond, M. 2004. The ESWRAC Initiative. Proceedings, ISTT No-Dig 2004 Conference. November 15-17, 2004, Hamburg, Germany [online]. Available: http://www.eswrac.org/download/1/Farrimond.pdf (accessed May 1, 2012).

FCC (U.S. Federal Communications Commission). 2006. Table I.A: Outside Plant Statistics—Cable and Wire Facilities. FCC Report 43-08: ARMIS Operating Data Report (as cited in Sterling et al., 2009).

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2008. To Move Forward with FHWA Initiatives. The Environmental Quarterly 4(3) [online]. Available: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/resourcecenter/teams/environment/vol4iss3.cfm (accessed May 1, 2012).

Glass, R.J., T.J. Brown, A.L. Ames, J.M. Linebarger, W.E. Beyeler, S.L. Maffitt, N.S. Brodsky, P.D. Finley, S.H. Conrad, T.F. Corbet, Jr., R.J. Detry, P.S. Downes, M.A. Ehlen, P.G. Kaplan, A.

Kelic, M. Mitchell, R.A. Mitchell, T.W. Moore, A.V. Outkin, T.-T. Quach, G.E. Reedy, E.D. Russell, Sh. J. Starks, D.J. Sunderland, V.N. Vargas, S. J. Verzi, A.A. Zagonel, E.D. Vugrin. 2011. Pheonix: Complex Adaptive System of Systems (CASoS) Engineering Version 1.0. Sandia Report SAND 2011-3446 [online]. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories. Available: http://www.sandia.gov/CasosEngineering/docs/Phoenix_1.0_12_1_2011_%203446.pdf (accessed November 7, 2012).

Glass, R.J., A.L. Ames, W.A. Stubblefield, S.H. Conrad, S.L. Maffitt, L.A. Malczynski, D.G. Wilson, J.J. Carlson, G.A. Backus, M.A. Ehlen, K.B., Vanderveen, D. Engi. 2008. A Roadmap for the Complex Adaptive Systems of Systems (CASoS) Engineering Initiative. SAND Report 2008-4651 [online]. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories. Available: http://www.sandia.gov/CasosEngineering/docs/CASoSEngineeringRoadmap_09.22.08.pdf (accessed October 26, 2012).

Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×

Guo, D., P.P. Nelson, J. Xie, Z. Chen. In press. Vertical Planning of Urban Underground Space Use in China. 13th World Conference of the Associated Research Centers for Urban Underground Space, Singapore, November 7-9, 2012.

Haack, A. 2009. Construction of the North-South-Metro Line in Cologne and the Accident on March 3rd, 2009. STUVA (Research Association for Underground Transportation Facilities), Cologne, Germany [online]. Available: http://management.kochi-tech.ac.jp/ssms_papers/sms10_194_Alfred%20Haak100126(re-submit).pdf (accessed April 29, 2011).

Holestöl, K., and A. Palmström. 1996. Extensive use of the underground in Oslo is giving a better city. Pp. 103-114 in Proceedings of International Conference on Tunnels for the Third Millennium, Prievidza, Slovakia [online]. Available: http://www.rockmass.net/ap/56_Holestol&Palmstrom_on_Use_of_Oslo_underground.pdf (accessed May 2, 2012).

Hulme, T.W., and J. Zhao. 1999. Underground space development in Singapore: The past, present and future. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. 14(4):407.

Konda, T. 2003. Reclaiming the underground space of large cities in Japan. In (Re)Claiming the Underground Space. J. Saveaur. Swets & Seitlinger B. V.: Lisse, The Netherlands.

Landes, S. 2008. Underground damage occurs once every 60 seconds: Statistics you can’t afford to ignore. Underground Construction (Jan):34-36 [online]. Available: http://www.rhinomarkers.com/DP_Info/Article_PDFs/DIRT_Underground_Construction_01_2008.pdf (accessed May 1, 2012).

Little, R.G. 2005. Tending the infrastructure commons: Ensuring the sustainability of our vital systems. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering. 1(4):263-270.

Manderfeld, J. 2010. Cologne’s Tunnel Tube Disaster, 03.03.2009. Presentation at Annual IMIA Conference, September 14, 2010, Berlin [online]. Available: http://www.imia.com/downloads/guest_presentations/GP19_2010.pdf (accessed April 29, 2011).

Minkel, J.R. 2008. The 2003 Northeast Blackout - Five years later. Scientific American, August 13, 2008 [online]. Available: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=2003-blackout-five-years-later (accessed April 8, 2011).

Morse, D., and K. Shaver. 2008. Water main break forces dramatic rescue of nine. The Washington Post, December 24, 2008 [online]. Available: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/23/AR2008122302853.html (accessed April 7, 2011).

NERC (North American Electric Reliability Council). 2006. Long-Term Reliability Assessment: The Reliability of the Bulk of Power Systems in North America. Oct. 2006 [online]. Available: http://www.nerc.com/files/LTRA2006.pdf (as cited in Sterling et al., 2009).

Nordmark, A. 2002. Overview on survey of water installations underground: Underground water-conveyance and storage facilities. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. 17:163-178. NRC (National Research Council). 2002. Making the Nation Safer: The Role of Science and Technology in Countering Terrorism. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

NRC. 2011. An Assessment of the Science Proposed for the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory (DUSEL). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board). 2009. Rupture of Hazardous Liquid Pipeline with Release and Ignition of Propane, Carmichael, Mississippi, November 1, 2007 [online]. Available: http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2009/Carmichael_ms/index.html (accessed May 2, 2012).

NTSB. 2011a. Pacific Gas and Electric Company: Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Rupture and Fire, San Bruno, California, September 9, 2010. Pipeline Accident Report No. NTSB/PAR-11/01. National Transportation Safety Board [online]. Available: http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2011/PAR1101.pdf (accessed May 1, 2012).

NTSB. 2011b. Pipeline Accident Reports [online]. Available: http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/reports_pipeline.html (accessed May 8, 2012).

O’Rourke, T.D. 2007. Critical infrastructure, interdependencies, and resilience. The Bridge 37(1):22-29 [online]. Available: http://www.nae.edu/File.aspx?id=7405 (accessed February 15, 2011).

Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×

Parker, H.W. 2004. Underground Space: Good for Sustainable Development, and Vice Versa. International Tunnelling Association (ITA) Open Session World Tunnel Congress, May 2004, Singapore [online]. Available: http://www.ita-aites.org/fileadmin/filemounts/general/pdf/ItaAssociation/ITAEvents/OpenSessions/HParker.pdf (accessed April 30, 2012).

PCCIP (President’s Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection). 1997. Critical Foundations: Protecting America’s Infrastructures [online]. Available: http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/pccip.pdf (accessed November 23, 2010).

Peerenboom, J. 2001. Infrastructure Interdependencies: Overview of Concepts and Terminology. National Science Foundation Workshop, June 2001 [online]. Available: http://we-partner.org/onionbelt/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/peerenboom_pdf.pdf [accessed May 7, 2012].

PHMSA (Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration). 2003. Frequently Asked Questions: General Pipeline FAQs [online]. Available: http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/media/pipeline_qa.html (as cited in Sterling et al., 2009).

PHMSA. 2005. Gas Distribution Systems Annual Report Data File Fields, Distribution Annual Report Form RSPA F 7100.1-1, Dec. 2005 (as cited in Sterling et al., 2009).

Pipeline 101. 2001. Overview: How Many Pipelines Are There? [online]. Available: http://www.pipeline101.com/Overview/energy-pl.html (as cited in Sterling et al., 2009).

PSEPC (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada). 2006. Incident Analysis: Ontario–U.S. Power Outage—Impacts on Critical Infrastructure. IA06-002. August 2006 [online]. Available: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/em/_fl/ont-us-power-e.pdf [accessed May 3, 2012].

Reeves, H. 2010. Attributed 3D Geologic Models in the UK and Their Application to Planning and the Sustainable Development of Underground Space. Presentation at the First Meeting on Underground Engineering for Sustainable Underground Development, June 1, 2010, Washington, DC.

Rundgren, L., and J. Martna. 1989. Underground hydropower projects in Sweden. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. 4(2):131-137.

Schewe, P.F. 2007. The Grid: A Journey through the Heart of Our Electrified World. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.

Sterling, R.L., J. Anspach, E. Allouche, and J. Simicevic. 2009. Encouraging Innovation in Locating and Characterizing Underground Utilities. Report S2-R01-RW. Transportation Research Board [online]. Available: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp2/shrp2_S2-R01-RW.pdf (accessed July 10, 2012).

Sterling, R., H. Admiraal, N. Bobylev, H. Parker, J.P. Godard, I. Vähäaho, C.D.F. Rogers, X. Shi, and T. Hanamura. 2012. Sustainability issues for underground spaces in urban areas. Proceedings of ICE - Urban Design and Planning [online]. Available: http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/article/10.1680/udap.10.00020 (accessed July 10, 2012).

Thompson, E. 2010. Geohazards Database Consortium [online]. Available: http://gdc.cee.tufts.edu/ (accessed November 13, 2012).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. National Population Projection. U.S. Census Bureau [online]. Available: http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/2008projections.html#. (accessed November 11, 2010).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. 1900 Fast Facts. U.S. Census Bureau [online]. Available: http://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/fast_facts/1900_fast_facts.html (accessed May 4, 2012).

USNCTT (U.S. National Committee on Tunneling Technology). 1989. Micro- and small-diameter tunneling: The U.S. perspective. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. 4(2):193-199.

van Outeren, E. 2009. Subway Headaches: Amsterdam Metro Line Sinks Deeper into Trouble. Spiegel, April 7, 2009 [online]. Available: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,617894,00.html (accessed April 29, 2011).

Wallis, S. 2009. Köln—Speculation and Anger in Aftermath. Tunnel Talk, March 2009 [online]. Available: http://www.tunneltalk.com/Cologne-collapse-Mar09-Deadly-collapse-in-Cologne.php (accessed April 29, 2011).

Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×

Ward, J. 2010. Stuttgart 21: A Four Billion Euro Makeover. Spiegel [online]. Available: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,710388,00.html [accessed April 30, 2012].

Watts, D.J. 2004. The “new” science of networks. Annual Review of Sociology. 30:243-270 [online]. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29737693?seq=1 (accessed November 7, 2012).

Webster, G.S. 1914. Subterranean street planning. Pp. 200-207 in Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science: Housing and Town Planning. E.R. Johnson, C.L. King, R.C. McCrea, J.C. Ballagh, T. Conway Jr., G.G Huebner, S.S. Huebner, C. Kelsey, J.P. Lichtenberger, L.S. Rowe, and T.W. Van Metre, eds. Philadelphia: American Academy of Political and Social Sciences.

Wood, A.M. 2000. Tunneling: Management by Design. London: E & FN Spon

WSSC (Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission). 2009. Forensic Analysis Links River Road Water Main Rupture to Improper Installation 44 Years Ago. WSSC Media Release: May 20, 2009 [online]. Available: http://www.wsscwater.com/home/jsp/misc/genericNews.faces?pgurl=/Communication/NewsRelease/2009/2009-05-20.html (accessed November 11, 2010).

Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×

This page is blank

Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development." National Research Council. 2013. Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14670.
×
Page 66
Next: 3 Contributions of Underground Engineering to Sustainable and Resilient Urban Development »
Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $59.00 Buy Ebook | $47.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

For thousands of years, the underground has provided humans refuge, useful resources, physical support for surface structures, and a place for spiritual or artistic expression. More recently, many urban services have been placed underground. Over this time, humans have rarely considered how underground space can contribute to or be engineered to maximize its contribution to the sustainability of society. As human activities begin to change the planet and population struggle to maintain satisfactory standards of living, placing new infrastructure and related facilities underground may be the most successful way to encourage or support the redirection of urban development into sustainable patterns. Well maintained, resilient, and adequately performing underground infrastructure, therefore, becomes an essential part of sustainability, but much remains to be learned about improving the sustainability of underground infrastructure itself.

At the request of the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Research Council (NRC) conducted a study to consider sustainable underground development in the urban environment, to identify research needed to maximize opportunities for using underground space, and to enhance understanding among the public and technical communities of the role of underground engineering in urban sustainability.

Underground Engineering for Sustainable Urban Development explains the findings of researchers and practitioners with expertise in geotechnical engineering, underground design and construction, trenchless technologies, risk assessment, visualization techniques for geotechnical applications, sustainable infrastructure development, life cycle assessment, infrastructure policy and planning, and fire prevention, safety and ventilation in the underground. This report is intended to inform a future research track and will be of interest to a broad audience including those in the private and public sectors engaged in urban and facility planning and design, underground construction, and safety and security.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!