Click for next page ( 38


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 37
2 The Evolution of and Factors Affecting Underground Development U nderground 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 build- ings 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 park- ing, 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 con- tribute 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 municipali- ties, 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., 37 Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 37 2/6/2013 3:16:08 PM

OCR for page 37
38 UNDERGROUND ENGINEERING FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT 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 resil- ient infrastructure, for reasons related to surface aesthetics, or to minimize the effect of installation on property values. Concern regarding uncoordinated plan- ning 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 peo- ple 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 instal- lations. He advocated for an official authoritative body to regulate underground usage, and he predicted that without such controls new large underground instal- Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 38 2/6/2013 3:16:08 PM

OCR for page 37
THE EVOLUTION OF AND FACTORS AFFECTING UNDERGROUND DEVELOPMENT 39 lations 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 pur- poses 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 provid- ers) 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 seg- ments 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 under- ground space for future services including rapid transit subways and high speed rail (HSR). Protecting access opportunities for such services argues for plan- ning 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. Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 39 2/6/2013 3:16:08 PM

OCR for page 37
40 UNDERGROUND ENGINEERING FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT TABLE 2.1 Estimated Lengths of Major U.S. Underground Utility Services Transmission (miles) Distribution/ Service (miles) Total (miles) Collection (miles) Gas 2,359,080 Gathering .........................41,000 1,212,688 780,392 (DOE, 2006) (PHMSA, 2005) (PHMSA, 2005)a Interstate ........................250,000 Intrastate ..........................75,000 Hazardous Liquid.............160,868 160,868 (PHMSA, 2003) Oil 177,200 Gathering ........................35,000 (Pipeline 101, 2001) Crude................................65,942 (BTS, 2004) Product ............................76,258 Water ...............................660,000 995,644 (EPA, 2007) 854,364 (EPA 2,510,008 (Brongers, 2002) 2007)b Sewer 1,224,000 Public 724,000 (EPA, 2006) Private 500,000 Electric ............................167,643 600,000c 400,000d 1,167,643 (NERC, 2006) Telecom 3,194,921 Underground Cable Metallic 382,472 (FCC, 2006) Fiber 217,266 Buried Cable Metallic 2,178,320 Fiber 217,322 Conduit System Trench 199,541 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. Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 40 2/6/2013 3:16:09 PM

OCR for page 37
THE EVOLUTION OF AND FACTORS AFFECTING UNDERGROUND DEVELOPMENT 41 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 address- ing 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 FHWA Initiatives A Systems Perspective land development Land Use proposal System road Transportation improvement System proposal wetland Water Resources functions and System, example dynamics Other Natural, ecosystems with long-term Cultural Resource system sustainability Systems Interacting Systems Support multiple goals & improve quality of life 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. Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 41 2/6/2013 3:16:09 PM

OCR for page 37
42 UNDERGROUND ENGINEERING FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT 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 phys- ical, social, and technical systems called Complex Adaptive Systems of Sys- tems (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 bet- ter outcomes. Bringing about change in CASoS can be accomplished using conceptual models, system measurements, observational and experimental design, pattern recognition, policy investigation, engineering processes, real- time 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, adapta- tion, 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 spe- cific 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 infra- Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 42 2/6/2013 3:16:09 PM

OCR for page 37
THE EVOLUTION OF AND FACTORS AFFECTING UNDERGROUND DEVELOPMENT 43 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 ap- plications for a specific CASoS and those in red represent those in development. SOURCE: Glass et al., 2011. structure? 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 per- suasive 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 deci- sion 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 Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 43 2/6/2013 3:16:11 PM

OCR for page 37
44 UNDERGROUND ENGINEERING FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT of cost-effective utilidors (underground utility corridors that house multiple utili- ties 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, commu- nity 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 assess- ments 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 facili- ties, for example, has led to a strong preference for underground infrastructure by the public, utility company, and government stakeholders, driven by the cli- matic, 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 Trod- heim, 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). Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 44 2/6/2013 3:16:12 PM

OCR for page 37
THE EVOLUTION OF AND FACTORS AFFECTING UNDERGROUND DEVELOPMENT 45 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 net- works 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 learn- ing 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 main- tenance of underground space and (2) organizational networks of government agencies, private-sector entities, and community groups that pay for construc- tion, 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 informa- tion 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 leader- ship for the duration of project construction, operation, and maintenance is also needed. Public satisfaction with investment in infrastructure requires transpar- ent 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 com- munity of the benefits and costs associated with underground infrastructure. For example, geotechnical databases have been developed for multiple communi- ties 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 fur- ther 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 opposi- tion by those who believe the project is overambitious and overpriced (Ward, 2010). Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 45 2/6/2013 3:16:12 PM

OCR for page 37
46 UNDERGROUND ENGINEERING FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT 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. Work- ers 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 conven- tional 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 Washing- ton, 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 Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 46 2/6/2013 3:16:12 PM

OCR for page 37
THE EVOLUTION OF AND FACTORS AFFECTING UNDERGROUND DEVELOPMENT 47 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 Mu- seum 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 in- teresting 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. 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 develop- ment 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, Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 47 2/6/2013 3:16:13 PM

OCR for page 37
56 UNDERGROUND ENGINEERING FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT 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 reus- able 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 plan- ning 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 infra- structural 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 Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 56 2/6/2013 3:16:16 PM

OCR for page 37
THE EVOLUTION OF AND FACTORS AFFECTING UNDERGROUND DEVELOPMENT 57 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 Com- mon 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 construc- tion 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 manage- ment 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 sustain- able 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 identi- fied 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 plac- ing 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 writ- ing 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). Effec- tive 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. Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 57 2/6/2013 3:16:16 PM

OCR for page 37
58 UNDERGROUND ENGINEERING FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT 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 ar- chitecture, specialized vehicles, technologies for excavation, social business, and the safety and security industry) must be reviewed and revamped to im- prove 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 understand- ing 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 compe- tiveness, 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). aSee 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 valua- tion of underground space as a resource. Effective planning and infrastructure investment decisions require that rele- vant administrators and planners accept the need and responsibility for integrated Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 58 2/6/2013 3:16:16 PM

OCR for page 37
THE EVOLUTION OF AND FACTORS AFFECTING UNDERGROUND DEVELOPMENT 59 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 geologi- cal 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 mul- tiple 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 Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 59 2/6/2013 3:16:17 PM

OCR for page 37
60 UNDERGROUND ENGINEERING FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT 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 opportuni- ties 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. Effec- tive 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 under- ground infrastructure development—the Washington, D.C., Metro, the Metro- politan 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 subsur- face 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 conjunc- tion with the British Geological Survey.9 More reliably documenting all things underground in a searchable database system that includes tools for visualiza- tion—and documenting other unrecorded services encountered during under- ground construction—would vastly improve the ability of planners to maximize 9 See http://www.mappingtheunderworld.ac.uk/ (accessed September 15, 2011). Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 60 2/6/2013 3:16:17 PM

OCR for page 37
THE EVOLUTION OF AND FACTORS AFFECTING UNDERGROUND DEVELOPMENT 61 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 Technol- ogy 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 respon- sibility 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 difficul- ties 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_Pub- lications/200201-30_RevModernPhys-StatisticalMech/200201-30_RevModernPhys-Statisti- calMech.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). Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 61 2/6/2013 3:16:17 PM

OCR for page 37
62 UNDERGROUND ENGINEERING FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT BTS (Bureau of Transportation Statistics). 2004. The Transportation Network: 2004 [online]. Avail- able: 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 Cog- nitive 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 Ster- ling 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 Infrastruc- ture 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. Novem- ber 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 En- vironmental 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). Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 62 2/6/2013 3:16:18 PM

OCR for page 37
THE EVOLUTION OF AND FACTORS AFFECTING UNDERGROUND DEVELOPMENT 63 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_Al- fred%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 sys- tems. 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 Technol- ogy in Countering Terrorism. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. 2011. An Assessment of the Science Proposed for the Deep Underground Science and Engineer- ing Laboratory (DUSEL). Washington, DC: National Academies Press. NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board). 2009. Rupture of Hazardous Liquid Pipeline with Re- lease 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). Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 63 2/6/2013 3:16:18 PM

OCR for page 37
64 UNDERGROUND ENGINEERING FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT Parker, H.W. 2004. Underground Space: Good for Sustainable Development, and Vice Versa. In- ternational Tunnelling Association (ITA) Open Session World Tunnel Congress, May 2004, Singapore [online]. Available: http://www.ita-aites.org/fileadmin/filemounts/general/pdf/ItaAs- sociation/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 Ques- tions: 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 Under- ground 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 Novem- ber 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). Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 64 2/6/2013 3:16:18 PM

OCR for page 37
THE EVOLUTION OF AND FACTORS AFFECTING UNDERGROUND DEVELOPMENT 65 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). Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 65 2/6/2013 3:16:19 PM

OCR for page 37
Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 66 2/6/2013 3:16:19 PM