Click for next page ( 68


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 67
3 Contributions of Underground Engineering to Sustainable and Resilient Urban Development T he first two chapters of this report discuss the general attributes of under- ground space. This chapter examines how underground space use under- pins the long-term sustainability of urban areas, what additional research may be necessary to enhance underground engineering practices, and what devel- opments in underground engineering would further support urban sustainability. This report does not develop arguments for specific sustainable urban devel- opment approaches; rather, it examines how the underground can support or contribute to those approaches shown or suggested to be sustainable and how underground use directly affects identified sustainability issues. Some key aspects regarding sustainability of urban communities will be briefly explored. This chapter discusses the urban setting as a system of systems, and the broadest relationships between underground space use and the essential elements for urban sustainability. Physical qualities of infrastructure related to transporta- tion, shelter, food, water, and key material resources that contribute to sustainabil- ity or make them vulnerable to hazards are described. The chapter then focuses on more direct relationships in terms of maintaining enduring, livable communi- ties and enhancing risk mitigation through the use of appropriately planned and designed underground facilities. Chapters 4, 5, and 6 examine advances in human safety issues, analytical techniques for lifecycle cost assessment of underground facilities and the broader “triple bottom line” analysis (financial, economic, and social performance), and specific technological advances associated with enhanced sustainability, respectively. 67 Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 67 2/6/2013 3:16:19 PM

OCR for page 67
68 UNDERGROUND ENGINEERING FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT THE BROAD VIEW: THE URBAN SETTING AS A SYSTEM OF SYSTEMS Sustainability is dependent on more than having enough clean water, food, and material goods. As urban areas grow, strategic growth of infrastructure sys- tems is also necessary to allow for efficient and sustainable delivery of water and sewerage service, food, energy, industrial and commercial goods, and informa- tion. Locally created products or services need to be transported or exported, other goods need to be imported, and wastes need to be removed. Physical infra- structure systems are thus critical to the urban system of systems and underpin both a sustainable economy and quality of life. How does the growth of urban populations, the expansion of urban lands, and their associated facilities and infrastructure enhance or hinder the provision of essential materials and services and the creation of stable, sustainable, socially desirable urban communities? What is the role of the underground? As described in Chapters 1 and 2, the underground is best thought of as a resource designed and managed using a system of systems approach to achieve the most sustain- able solutions. Infrastructure is a substantial shaping force in urban and regional development. In developed areas, underground infrastructure may offer one of the few acceptable ways to encourage or support the redirection of urban devel- opment into more sustainable patterns because new support infrastructure can be added relatively unobtrusively. A well-maintained, resilient, and adequately per- forming underground infrastructure is essential to future sustainability of cities. Much, however, can be done to improve the sustainability aspects of underground facilities themselves. Urban sustainability will be more likely if it becomes the expectation among urban planners and managers that the urban setting includes the space resources both above- and belowground, and that both contribute to the healthy function- ing of a city. This chapter discusses some urban resources and their potential roles in a holistic accounting of urban systems; the following section specifically highlights certain uses of the urban underground that greatly contribute to urban sustainability. Utilidors Sustainability planning requires forethought regarding operation and main- tenance issues for the entire life cycle of the infrastructure. Allowing ease of access for maintenance, repairs, and upgrades is a means of insuring that such work can be completed at lower costs. Experience from subway construction and other large underground works has led to interest among some subsurface utility providers in combining utility services in common utility tunnels—often termed “utilidors” (or “galleries” in Europe; see Box 1.4, Figure 2 for an example of a utilidor) (APWA, 1971). Utilidors provide continuous maintenance access Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 68 2/6/2013 3:16:20 PM

OCR for page 67
CONTRIBUTIONS TO SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT URBAN DEVELOPMENT 69 to utilities without the need for digging in the street, are designed to minimize subsurface displacements and other influences that may cause damage to buried and aboveground facilities, and are a more efficient use of underground space than are separately buried utilities. A study by researchers in Spain (Riera and Pascal, 1992) found a distinct economic benefit from locating services in a com- mon tunnel when the value of the underground was included in the calculations during construction of the Barcelona Ring Road. In fact, shared utility tunnels are frequently constructed in Europe where narrow rights-of-way and strong central- ized decision making have favored their use. It has proven difficult to develop utilidors as extensively in the United States. Obstacles include the need to abandon investment in existing service infrastruc- ture, concerns about operational liabilities and risk in a shared or co-located utility environment (e.g., water or gas lines in the same tunnel as electric lines), and administrative concerns related to access to utility lines by others. In addi- tion, initial connection costs may be higher than those for dig and place utilities. Operational issues such as risk and security concerns for utilities, if installed in utilidors, could be circumvented with improved sensor and security systems. The viability, value, and benefits of utilidors may be effectively communicated with (1) development of workable scenarios for secure multi-utility facilities; (2) development of workable scenarios for effective transitioning from current con- figurations; (3) lifecycle cost-benefit analyses comparing separate and combined utility corridors; and (4) demonstration projects. In the United States, utilidors have been built typically as part of major old and new developments or under- ground transportation improvements (e.g., Disney World in Orlando, Florida, with its extensive underground service “city” and the Chicago freight tunnel network). If the United States is to improve the sustainability of its urban utility services and preserve underground space for more cost-effective sustainability opportunities for future services, then this impasse needs renewed attention. Underground Transportation Facilities The long-term sustainability of urban areas is positively affected by the availability of underground transportation systems. Cities such as Singapore have benefited from master plans designed around transportation systems (Hulme and Zhao, 1999). Well-planned underground transportation systems tend to reduce urban sprawl, saving landscapes and protecting biodiversity, and can positively impact land use and development decisions (Bobylev, 2009; Sterling et al., 2012). They provide safe and efficient transportation and decrease the need for and use of automobiles, reducing congestion and travel times, which in turn reduces fossil fuel use and emissions (Besner, 2002). Underground transportation assets can address multiple growth-related chal- lenges in urban areas, but many challenges also remain to be addressed (see Box 3.1). Today, many cities have urban transit subway systems, underground Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 69 2/6/2013 3:16:20 PM

OCR for page 67
70 UNDERGROUND ENGINEERING FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT BOX 3.1 Specific Challenges and Opportunities for Transportation Systems Underground transportation systems will benefit strongly from technical advances as discussed throughout this report. In design and construction, for example, new lining and underground construction technologies are needed that reduce material use and improve long-term facility performance. Under- ground transportation systems in major cities, however, usually represent key infrastructure elements that are pivotal in terms of the urban mobility that sustains the economy and provides quality of life and hence have a special importance in terms of underground space use. Because they are large public investments and subject to many policy and funding constraints, underground transportation systems may not be designed, operated, and maintained for their maximum contribution to overall urban sustainability. The construction of major underground transportation projects often requires significant relocation of in-situ underground utilities along public rights of way. However, the major excavation work and relocation needs of the project provide key opportunities for renewing and rationalizing utility provision in an area to provide for easier future maintenance of those systems. While this represents an extra burden on the transportation project, it can provide an overall benefit to the urban community using a system-of-systems analysis rather than a project-by-proj- ect analysis. Furthermore, in a planning context example, the long-term sus- tainability of an underground transportation system is improved when system designs allow as much flexibility as possible, taking into account future uses, potential for additional transportation lines, and intermodal connections. This again can increase initial costs but provide for better long-term sustainability. express arterials and highways, and grade-separated dedicated freight movement corridors for railroads or trucks. High Speed Rail (HSR) service that includes both above- and belowground components is common in Europe and Asia. Each system has unique characteristics to suit its purpose and location. All will likely improve quality of life and long-term sustainability benefits to the urban center(s) served (Jehanno et al., 2011). Underground transportation, as described in the next sections, can serve to increase community resilience against many natural or manmade hazards includ- ing earthquakes and acts of war than their surface counterparts. Box 3.2 provides an example of the performance of transportation infrastructure crossing San Francisco Bay following the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989. Different types of underground transportation elements and systems and their roles in sustainable urban development are described. Underground Urban Roads and Highways Overloaded and congested urban surface arterial roads can be relocated to aerial or underground alignments to obtain grade separation (e.g., transportation routes at multiple elevations) and exclusive rights-of-way. This can relieve the Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 70 2/6/2013 3:16:21 PM

OCR for page 67
CONTRIBUTIONS TO SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT URBAN DEVELOPMENT 71 surface of crowded traffic, noise, air pollution, and congestion. The multiple transportation levels provided by tunnels may allow dysfunctional arterial roads to be replaced with functional surface roads that improve the quality of life for neighborhood residents and transportation mobility for the city. The physical bar- rier and visual blight that an elevated arterial road may represent can be removed. Adjacent neighborhoods once separated by the road may be able to reunite as a community (see, for example, Einstein, 2004). Removing traffic to a tunnel may also result in a brighter and quieter environment, new land use opportunities, and improved neighborhood property values—all indicators of more livable and sustainable neighborhoods (Parker, 2004). Underground urban roads and highways typically traverse deep below a city from portals at each end that tie into existing service road networks. By going deep, the tunnels avoid building foundations and other in-place services, and leave space closer to the surface for future installations. In most cases tunnels constructed at depth will be the lowest cost among alternative underground solu- tions if a lifecycle cost analysis is prepared (Parker and Reilly, 2009) and geo- logic conditions are respected. Barriers to free-flowing traffic can be bypassed, travel times shortened, and carbon emissions reduced for the same distances traveled by surface road. Further, diversion of traffic from streets allows more pedestrian-friendly environments in the city. However, decisions to build under- ground roadways, regardless of the benefits, are regularly contested (for example in Seattle, Washington; see Box 3.3). The decision to proceed often requires a vote of the people and a coming together of city, county, state, and federal rep- resentatives to reach agreement. This process is often time consuming and can result in increased project costs. Public Transit Subways Public transit is a vital part of many urban areas and an integral part of a sustainable urban environment. Rapid transit facilitates efficient movement of people of every economic class and ethnic group to and from their homes, school, work, health services, places of worship, airports, recreational activities, and other amenities available to urban life. Public transit provides needed mobility to those without cars, and connects and unites neighborhoods and communities to function more smoothly and take advantage of community services. Many cities make public transportation available in the form of bus systems. As popu- lations grow to between 1 million and 3 million, regions may see advantages in electrified rail transits (light rail) (APTA, 2009) that allow faster transit for larger numbers of people. Such systems can operate on streets used by normal traffic, in limited access rights-of-way, and exclusive and grade-separated rights-of-way (for example, elevated or underground as developed for the Muni transit system in San Francisco, California, and the MAX transit system in Portland, Oregon). Heavy-volume transit systems—so called “heavy rail” systems—are needed when populations increase to more than 3 million (APTA, 2009). These are grade Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 71 2/6/2013 3:16:21 PM

OCR for page 67
72 UNDERGROUND ENGINEERING FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT BOX 3.2 Performance of Transportation Infrastructure Following the Loma Prieta Earthquake, 1989 Underground transportation systems can remain operational during, or quickly resume operation following, natural hazardous events such as earth- quakes, tornadoes, lightning, and thick fog or dust conditions. According to a review of several studies documenting earthquake damage, large diam- eter underground tunnels have historically suffered less damage than surface structures (Hashash et al., 2001). The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system operates through cut-and-cover and mined tunnels and serves multiple destinations including San Francisco and Oakland, California, through a 5.5 kilometer subaqueous trans-bay immersed tube tunnel between the two cities. This system improved disaster resilience for this urban area following the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989 by allowing the continued functioning of the economies of these communities. The Loma Prieta earthquake was a magnitude 6.9 event that caused serious physical damage to local infrastructure (USGS, 2009) including dam- age to connections, bearings, and members of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, forcing its closure for more than a month. A 15 meter, 5-lane roadway section dropped from the upper eastbound roadway deck onto the lower westbound deck (see the Figure), killing one person (Dames and Moore’s Earthquake Engineering Group, 2004).a BART crosses San Francisco Bay underground almost directly beneath the Bay Bridge alignment. It was tem- porarily shut down by the earthquake, but there were no passenger injuries, and service resumed in half a day following damage inspection and power restoration. BART patronage rose quickly from an average of 218,000 riders per day to more than 308,000, and service continued around the clock, seven days a week until the Bay Bridge reopened more than a month later (Dames and Moore’s Earthquake Engineering Group, 2004). The Bay Area economy, separated, often in subways such as in the BART system constructed in 1962 in the San Francisco Bay area, and the New York City Transit System, constructed beginning in 1900 (Bobrick, 1981). Subway rapid transit provides the same safe, environmentally sound, fast, low-cost, and comfortable transportation to all people who use it. It has already been mentioned that choosing subway transit because of its relative comfort, savings in time and money, or predictability of the ride reduces the number of commuters on surface roads. Commuters who use rapid transit daily rather than drive personal vehicles cut their carbon footprint significantly (APTA, 2008), and may realize personal health benefits through minimizing stress associated with traffic, accidents, and congestion. From the regional perspective, regional transit system stations attract development of urban centers—small urban communi- ties—because access to the urban areas becomes a major attraction for those relo- cating to the region. The location and services that support more dense, compact development in the vicinity of transit stations—as opposed to the development of urban sprawl—can affect the overall cost to the taxpayers in terms of provision Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 72 2/6/2013 3:16:21 PM

OCR for page 67
CONTRIBUTIONS TO SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT URBAN DEVELOPMENT 73 although damaged by the earthquake, recovered more quickly than would have been the case without the underground BART because significantly large numbers of people were able to get to work (USGS, 1998). FIGURE Collapsed section of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge following the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. The bridge remained closed for more than a month while the BART subway tunnel located almost directly beneath the bridge was running within a day of the earthquake. SOURCE: sanbeiji (CC-BY-SA 2.0), available at http://www.flickr.com/photos/sanbeiji/220645446/sizes/m/in/photostream/. aSimilarly, the upper roadway of a 2 kilometer length of highway of the Cypress Street Via- duct in the San Francisco Bay area crashed onto the lower roadway, killing 42 and injuring several hundred more. of essential services such as schools, police, fire and EMS protection, hospitals, water, sewer, electrical, natural gas, food, and other supply sources, all necessary attributes of developing a sustainable urban environment. The ability to update and replace subway system components such as con- duit, electrical and fiber optic cables, water lines, waste water lines, ventilation systems components, lighting, signage, escalators and elevators, and informa- tion systems makes it reasonable to expect useful service of subway tunnels for more than 100 years. Transit tunnels built in the 1860s in London are still in service today. The long life of underground components tends to reduce lifecycle costs and also reduce demands for both renewable and non-renewable resources (Parker, 2004). All these characteristics contribute to sustainability and justify new rapid rail subways from a lifecycle analysis point of view. Grade Separated and Underground Freight Railroads Combining normal surface and freight traffic, particularly the movement of ubiquitous freight container units, can result in heavy traffic, especially in port Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 73 2/6/2013 3:16:22 PM

OCR for page 67
74 UNDERGROUND ENGINEERING FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT BOX 3.3 Replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct, Seattle, Washington Recent experience in Seattle, Washington, planning the replacement of the earthquake-damaged Alaskan Way Viaduct (AWV) illustrates how difficult the decision to reroute to the underground can be. The current AWV is a double-deck urban expressway (see Figures 1 and 2) running along the Seattle waterfront. It is similar in design and construction to the 1950s-era San Francisco Bay Area Cypress Street Viaduct and Embar- cadero Freeway that both failed as a result of the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989 (USGS, 2009). The AWV sustained non-reparable damaged as a result of the 2001 Nisqually earthquake (PNSN, 2002) and must now be replaced (WSDOT, 2004). Alternative solutions included a new, wider, two-level viaduct on the same alignment, a replacement of the viaduct by a wide surface street carrying significant levels of through traffic, the relocation of the highway on a bridge or tunnel over or under Elliott Bay, and the “do nothing” alternative intended to limit traffic growth and create a demand for better public transit through continued, more disruptive road congestion. The alternatives were studied and publicly discussed. Ballot measures to determine the preferred solution were intensely debated at the local, city, and state levels. Ultimately, the decision was made to bore an urban underground bypass expressway, remove the damaged viaduct, and restore an acces- sible scenic waterfront (see Figure 2). The 3.2 kilometer, four-lane bypass roadway tunnel (Figure 3) will be located deep enough under the city to avoid the century old Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad tunnel in daily use, a large interceptor sewer, and existing building foundations. Seattle will recover views of Elliott Bay, Puget Sound, and the mountains when FIGURE 1 Seattle Washington’s Alaskan Way Viaduct is a double-deck expressway along the city’s waterfront. SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Alaskanviaduct.jpg. Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 74 2/6/2013 3:16:28 PM

OCR for page 67
CONTRIBUTIONS TO SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT URBAN DEVELOPMENT 75 the viaduct is removed. Major disruption of traffic patterns to and through downtown Seattle will be avoided (FHWA, 2011). A landscaped boulevard on the waterfront is planned, similar to that constructed in San Francisco following the failure of the Embarcadero Freeway. Negative effects of the old viaduct on the city were not fully appreciated until the debate for its replacement took place (e.g., Garber, 2009; Lindblom and Heffter, 2009). Proponents of the plan argue that downtown Seattle will benefit from improved open spaces and green zones. FIGURE 2 (Left) Arial view of Seattle, Washington, water front and the prominent Alaskan Way Viaduct and (Right) early concept of proposed new Alaskan Way Street of same area. The new concept increases pedestrian access to the waterfront and improves general access to adjacent commercial enterprises. SOURCE: WSDOT. FIGURE 3 Early concept of the proposed State Road 99 bored tunnel. SOURCE: WSDOT. Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 75 2/6/2013 3:16:29 PM

OCR for page 67
76 UNDERGROUND ENGINEERING FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT BOX 3.4 Grade Separation of Freight in Greater Los Angeles In the greater Los Angeles area, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have grown to be, if taken together, the largest container terminal in the country (AAPA, 2011). They provide a major gateway for containerized goods in and out of Asia. The principal mode of transport of containers away from the ports to the rest of the country is rail. Three major railroads—the Southern Pacific, the Union Pacific, and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSE)—had tracks into the ports from their national track junctions. Historically, railroads have right-of-way over crossing traffic, and so much freight movement at grade brought traffic in a large area of southern Los Angeles County to a standstill multiple times daily as 200-car-long freight trains moved slowly over three sep- arate rail networks to join their national track networks east of the urban area. Concerns over congestion and associated air pollution led to the de- velopment of the Alameda Corridor Project (ACTA, 2012a), a plan to build a 32-kilometer (20-mile)-long freight rail expressway including a 16-kilometer (10-mile)-long top braced open trench, 15 meters wide and 10 meters deep with space on its floor for three tracks and a service road called the “Mid- Corridor Trench.” The Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA) was proposed, organized, and authorized by legislation (ACTA, 2012b). ACTA has authority to raise funds, receive government grants, own and receive property, contract for construction and operations, and do those things necessary to im- plement the plan. In 1994, with the purchase of the Southern Pacific Railroad’s Alameda Corridor track and right-of-way, the corridor project began in earnest. The 10 meter (33 feet) depth of the Mid-Corridor Trench easily provides the ability of BNSF Railway and Union Pacific Railroad, via their trackage rights, to move double-stacked container freight rail flat cars, 200 at a time, in both directions, at 40 mph from the ports to their respective national rail system connection (ACTA, 2012a). First operations began in 2002, and the more than 200 at-grade railroad crossings where cars and trucks previously had waited cities. Drivers may encounter long lines of traffic waiting for freight trains to clear grade crossings or trucks in long queues waiting to clear signalized inter- sections. Significant air pollution from train and truck exhaust, as well as from the traffic waiting to pass, can degrade air quality (Hricko, 2006) and has the potential to negatively impact the quality of life and the economies of nearby neighborhoods (for example, Palaniappan et al., 2006). Grade-separating freight movement from surface streets is part of the solu- tion. Open braced trenches that provide natural ventilation for diesel exhaust have been a preferred solution in places such as southern California for freight trains powered by diesel-electric prime movers (see Box 3.4). In southern California, significant investment in grade separation infrastructure is the result of collabora- tion between the ports, a number of affected cities, the county, state, and federal governments, and the railroads. Some traffic problems can be eased with dedicated and signalized surface Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 76 2/6/2013 3:16:36 PM

OCR for page 67
CONTRIBUTIONS TO SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT URBAN DEVELOPMENT 77 for trains to pass have been replaced with bridges crossing the trench, restor- ing traffic circulation and keeping local neighborhoods connected. Outcomes include sustainability benefits for the region, and operational improvements for the ports and railroads, restoring some of their competitive edge by decreasing freight delivery times. Peak movements were reached with 60 train movements per day in October 2006. Benefits to air quality result from more direct rail routes traveled at greater speeds, reduction of vehicular exhausts at grade crossings, and the increase in the amount of cargo that can be transported by rail instead of by truck (Weston Solutions, 2005). ACTA is designing and will soon construct the Alameda Corridor East project, with more braced trench design and a $500 million construction project to grade separate the long freight trains from the grade crossings throughout a part of the city of San Gabriel. FIGURE A container train of the Alameda Corridor Freight Line in California. The trains travel in an open-braced trench that provides ventilation for the engines and grade separation for container traffic. SOURCE: Courtesy of the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority streets or grade-separated viaduct roadways for freight movement by truck during times other than commute periods. Tunnels also can be used to provide exclusive or preferred lanes for freight movement by truck. For example, in Miami, Florida, a tunnel boring machine-driven tunnel beneath Biscayne Bay is being constructed to create a direct connection from the Port of Miami to local highways and reduce traffic in the downtown area (Port of Miami Tunnel, 2010). In the greater New York metropolitan area, tentative planning has begun again on a freight-only tunnel that would pass under a part of Eastern New Jersey, the Hudson River, Manhattan Island, and part of Brooklyn, New York, possibly providing for the movement of freight trains and trucks between the vicinity of the New Jersey Turnpike and the Long Island Expressway (FHWA/PANYNJ, 2010). The ambi- tious plan indicates growing recognition that not enough surface area exists to provide for the needs and services required to remain competitive in a global Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 77 2/6/2013 3:16:36 PM

OCR for page 67
94 UNDERGROUND ENGINEERING FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT BOX 3.10 Flooding in New Orleans Following Hurricane Katrina The impacts of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans provide a recent lesson regarding resilience and are discussed in detail elsewhere (e.g., Colten et al., 2008). Flooding due to levee system failure set in motion cascading failures and extensive damage to physical and social systems from which the city has not fully recovered years later. Because the pumping station used to pump storm water was not itself protected from flooding, it had to be shut down, dewatered, and dried before operations could start. Houses and buried infra- structure lines became buoyant during flooding (NIST, 2006), in many cases causing the severing of buried utility services (especially gas and water) at entry points into buildings. This created so many leaks in water and gas supply systems that supply pressures were lost and piping systems filled with unsani- tary and salty water (NIST, 2006). The loss of water supply affected fire-fighting abilities and greatly slowed the return of normal living conditions. Flooding emergency generators and fuel—in basements or flood-prone areas would be prudent. Other consequences of climate change may be unknown and warrant exploration. For example could the impacts of rising sea level on underground infrastructure include increased incidence of waterborne disease or the inability to supply water at sufficient pressure for fire-fighting during a disaster? Some problems may emerge from placement of infrastructure underground, but the underground may offer some solutions. Questions related to under- ground construction, for example, include (a): can underground construction, e.g., through reduced fossil fuel consumption and carbon output, be a means to decrease human contribution to climate change? and (b) can underground construction mitigate damage or risk from environmental changes resulting from climate change? The first question involves a series of complex national or global evaluations, including calculation of the lifecycle net energy efficiency and car- bon footprint of underground infrastructure versus surface counterparts (this will be discussed further in Chapter 5). The second question regarding damage and risk mitigation relates to the use of underground space as a physical means to protect against some of the consequences of climate change, such as heavy storms, floods, and sea level rise (Bobylev, 2009). Although unprotected underground facilities can be inundated during floods, they offer increased protection against structural damage caused by water surge and debris impact. Changes in structural forces on buried facilities during storm or flood events are predictable and can be accommodated during design. It may be possible to avoid flooding by raising or protecting entrances to exclude the possibility of water ingress. Sea level rise associated with climate change poses significant risk to underground infrastructure. Global sea levels are projected to rise 8-23 cm by 2030 relative to 2000 levels, and 50-140 cm by 2100 (NRC, 2012). Some systems under construction are being designed in anticipation of future water levels. The difficulty, however, of protecting a whole Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 94 2/6/2013 3:16:44 PM

OCR for page 67
CONTRIBUTIONS TO SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT URBAN DEVELOPMENT 95 of the low-pressure gas distribution system caused corrosion of valves and meters and required extensive replacement. Shallow-buried utility lines were damaged by tree root systems when mature trees were blown over during the storm. Heavy cleanup equipment often damaged hydrants hidden by debris, and shallow-buried utilities were often driven over by such equipment, causing collapse or damage to those utilities. The lack of good or accessible records of utility line, shut-off valve, and other infrastructure element locations hampered utility and emergency services response. In addition, many normal landmarks for locating services were obliterated by hurricane damage and flooding. Re- covery was slowed by the loss of urban services such as power, fresh water, and sanitation—people could not easily return to their neighborhoods even once flooding had receded. Without the residents there to clean up, many administrative and legal issues arose concerning interfaces between personal and emergency response service responsibilities (U.S. Executive Office of the President, 2006). low-lying city from rising sea levels is daunting, examples of which can be found in the Netherlands and New Orleans, Louisiana. The low points of land in the Netherlands and New Orleans are 6.8 m and 1.5-3 m below mean sea level, respectively (Burkett et al., 2003). Underground facilities may require, among other things, special design (e.g., entrances) to make them suitable for sea level rise conditions. Another potential engineered use of the underground in need of greater evaluation is the isolation of energy-related waste products within geologic fea- tures. The injection of carbon dioxide into geologic features for the purpose of carbon sequestration (NETL, 2010) and the isolation of high-level radioactive wastes (McCombie, 2003) are methods being studied for reliability, potential risk to people and the environment over the short and long terms, and interference with other potential underground applications. Sequestration of carbon dioxide is intended to decrease the amount of carbon dioxide—a greenhouse gas—released into the atmosphere. Underground isolation of high-level nuclear waste generated from nuclear-fission-produced electricity may indirectly reduce greenhouse gas emissions because such energy production does not result directly in greenhouse gas emissions. If the political and technical issues surrounding underground isolation of waste can be resolved, or if self-contained underground nuclear plants (each with its own long-term underground storage) were able to minimize the political, transport, and risk factors associated with both nuclear plants and waste storage (McCombie, 2003), reassessment of planning as it relates to climate change could be justified. Such issues are yet to be addressed but are outside the scope of this report. To what heights of sea level rise is it practical to protect cities with walls and levees? Is it reasonable for threatened cities to consider abandoning exist- ing ground floor levels, essentially raising “ground level” up one story as has been done for various reasons in parts of Seattle, Washington (Richard, 2008)? Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 95 2/6/2013 3:16:44 PM

OCR for page 67
96 UNDERGROUND ENGINEERING FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT If this occurred then the existing ground levels could become new levels of pseudo underground space, as has been accomplished in La Defense and La Rive Gauche in Paris, France (Duffaut, 2006) and Tsukuba Science City in Japan (Dearing, 1995) to create improved service infrastructure coupled with a more pedestrian-friendly environment. Given such scenarios, underground engineering technologies could assess whether existing underground pipe and cable networks could withstand additional depths of burial or flood pressure loading, how exist- ing building basements might be reinforced against such load increases, and the potential for increased corrosion, among other characteristics. The potential impacts of climate change on inland cities and communities could also be significant. For example, climate change–induced natural hazard events creating high-intensity rainfall activity will require system designs that capture and convey larger volumes of water to reduce or avoid flood dam- age and economic loss. Changes in annual rainfall will likely impact regional groundwater tables, causing changes in available groundwater supplies. Impacts on existing underground and surface structures caused by changing groundwater levels and the resulting changes in the properties of soil, rock, and materials used in underground construction also may be likely. A long-term and regional view of water management likely will be a key element in establishing resilience for local areas from such climate change effects, as will a more complete under- standing of soil, rock, and construction material behavioral changes caused by changing groundwater conditions. Insurance and reinsurance, as a component of risk management of climate change events for underground systems, likely will be necessary because, although some events may have a low probability of occurrence, the consequences of their occurrence can have far-reaching spatial (geographic) and temporal economic impacts. Short- and long-term performance and infrastructure maintenance requirements will have to be understood in order to enhance resilience and sustainability. Increasing Resilience As discussed in Chapter 1, resilience represents the ability to respond and adapt to change in the environment. In this discussion, resilience includes the ability of an urban community to mitigate the intensity and spatial distribution of damage caused by extreme events or long-term environmental changes (for example, economic recession, climate change). The ability to respond and deliver service functionality quickly following extreme events, and to reduce economic impacts caused by the events, are demonstrations of resilience. Building resil- ience applies to all manner of hazards already discussed and requires removing or minimizing vulnerabilities in essential systems that place the systems at risk. It requires a system of systems approach and consideration of cross-systems interdependencies to avoid the cascading failures of individual systems. Disasters such as Hurricane Katrina (see Box 3.10) can yield some good if Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 96 2/6/2013 3:16:44 PM

OCR for page 67
CONTRIBUTIONS TO SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT URBAN DEVELOPMENT 97 society can learn from experience. How, for example, can underground infrastruc- ture be designed to mitigate buoyancy effects as occurred during the flooding of New Orleans? How can the effects of corrosion of physical infrastructure be avoided? Chapter 2 described aspects of cascading failure caused by the col- lapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers following the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001. The attacks were tragic, but there are lessons from which planners and future responders can learn to apply to underground infrastructure design and operation: • Con Edison Company of New York (electric, natural gas, and steam pro- viders to New York City) used trailer-mounted portable generators to provide spot power and routed temporary feeder lines—called shunts—belowground to con- nect live to dead networks and restore power (O’Rourke et al., 2003; Mendonca and Wallace, 2005). • Redundancy in subway system lines meant that access to most areas was restored in a few days (O’Rourke et al., 2003). • Core stair systems in the World Trade Center towers resulted in evacua- tion routes from high in the towers that were discontinuous or became severed (underground infrastructure escape routes can suffer similarly). • The hazards of dust on air and water quality were not immediately appre- ciated and were ultimately proven to be health hazards for first responders. • A lack of readily available engineering information related to the World Trade Center towers and foundations hindered the ability to assess the potential for building collapse and stability of the foundation wall system. The importance of the robustness of individual systems to overall resilience is highlighted by the above examples. Perhaps more importantly, the interdepen- dencies among whole system of systems—social, economic, information, and physical systems are exposed. Resilience of urban design depends on a multihazard approach to disaster preparation and integrated system design. A mulithazard approach necessitates planning for the most likely risk scenarios and includes enough flexibility to accommodate the unexpected (e.g., NRC 2011b). Integrated and coordinated sys- tems planning includes the need to plan for critical redundancies in systems that, for example, allow adequate response and recovery when part of a system fails. Surface and subsurface infrastructure assets need to be designed and operated as integrated systems with lifecycle maintenance, risk, reliability, and real-time responsiveness in mind. Urban planners and engineers need trusted and vali- dated risk-informed approaches to project planning and design that can balance project needs in terms of service delivery, initial cost, resilience against extreme events, and effective maintenance and operations so that whole life performance is satisfactory. Through adoption of this type of approach for underground space and infrastructure (occupied or not), the consequences of extreme events can be Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 97 2/6/2013 3:16:45 PM

OCR for page 67
98 UNDERGROUND ENGINEERING FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT greatly curtailed and, as a result, society will widely appreciate the underground as an increasingly reliable and secure resource and part of a sustainable society. REFERENCES AAPA (American Association of Port Authorities). 2011. North America-Container Port Traffic: 1990-2010. Port Industry Statistics [online]. Available: http://aapa.files.cms-plus.com/PDFs/ CONTAINER%20TRAFFIC%20NORTH%20AMERICA%201990%20-%202010%20for%20 the%20web.pdf (accessed September 20, 2011). ACTA (Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority). 2012a. Alameda Corridor Factsheet [online]. Available: http://www.acta.org/projects/projects_completed_alameda_factsheet.asp (accessed April 8, 2012). ACTA. 2012b. About ACTA, History [online]. Available: http://www.acta.org/about/history.asp (ac- cessed April 8, 2012). APTA (American Public Transportation Association). 2008. Public Transportation Reduces Green- house Gases and Conserves Energy: The Benefits of Public Transportation. http://www.apta. com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/greenhouse_brochure.pdf (accessed June 25, 2012). APTA. 2009. Changing the Way America Moves: Creating a More Robust Economy, a Smaller Car- bon Footprint, and Energy Independence [online]. Available: http://www.apta.com/resources/ reportsandpublications/Documents/america_moves_09.pdf (accessed April 8, 2011). APWA (American Public Works Association). 1971. Feasibility of Utility Tunnels in Urban Areas. Special Report No. 39. February. Chicago, IL: APWA. Arnold, R.L. 1992. Special Report: Underground flood hits Chicago’s Loop, shutting down businesses for weeks. Disaster Recovery Journal [online]. Available: http://www.drj.com/special/chicago. html (accessed April 4, 2011). Baron,T., G. Martinetti, and D. Pepion. 2011. Carbon Footprint of High Speed Rail Lines. Paris: International Union of Railways [online]. Available: http://uic.org/IMG/pdf/hsr_sustainabil- ity_carbon_footprint_final.pdf (accessed May 18, 2012). Besner, J. 2002. The Sustainable Usage of the Underground Space in Metropolitan Area. ACCUS 2002 International Conference, November 14-16, 2002, Torino, Italy [online]. Available: http:// www.ovi.umontreal.ca/documents/ovi_jbesner2.pdf (accessed April 7, 2011). Bobrick, B. 1981. Labyrinths of Iron: A History of the World’s Subways. New York: Newsweek Books. Bobylev, N. 2009. Urban Underground Infrastructure and Climate Change: Opportunities and Treats. 5th Urban Research Symposium [online]. Available: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/IN- TURBANDEVELOPMENT/Resources/336387-1256566800920/6505269-1268260567624/ Bobylev.pdf (accessed May 24, 2012). Brueckner, J. 1999. Property Taxation and Urban Sprawl. University of Illinois at Urbana, Cham- paign, IL [online]. Available: http://igpa.uillinois.edu/system/files/WP80-taxsprwl.pdf (accessed September 22, 2011). Burkett, W.R., D.B. Zilkoski, and D.A. Hart. 2003. Sea-Level Rise and Subsidence: Implications for Flooding in New Orleans, Louisiana [online]. Available: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/hurricane/ katrina_rita/Sea-Level-Rise.pdf (accessed May 30, 2012). Buzbee, J. 2011. Business goes underground. Progressive Engineer, May/June 2011. [online]. Available:http://www.progressiveengineer.com/features/businessUnderground.htm (accessed June 13, 2011). CA Water Resources Control Board. 2010. Salinity. Groundwater Information Sheet, March 2010 [online]. Available: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/gama/docs/coc_sa- linity.pdf (accessed June 20, 2012). Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 98 2/6/2013 3:16:45 PM

OCR for page 67
CONTRIBUTIONS TO SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT URBAN DEVELOPMENT 99 Carver, A.D., and J.E. Yahner. 1997. Defining Prime Agricultural Land and Methods of Protection. Agronomy Guide AY-283. Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service [online]. Available: http://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/AY/AY-283.html (accessed June 4, 2012). cbs2chicago.com. 2007. 1992 Loop Flood Brings Chaos, Billions in Losses, April 14, 2007 [on- line]. Available: http://web.archive.org/web/20070927231222/http://cbs2chicago.com/vault/ local_story_104140940.html (accessed April 4, 2011). CCAP (Center for Clean Air Policy). 2009. Ask the Climate Question: Adapting to Climate Change Impacts in Urban Regions, A. Lowe, J. Foster, and S. Winkelman, eds. Center for Clean Air Policy Urban Leaders Adaptation Initiative, Washington, DC [online]. Available: http://www. ccap.org/docs/resources/674/Urban_Climate_Adaptation-FINAL_CCAP%206-9-09.pdf (ac- cesed May 18, 2012). Colten, C.E., R.W. Kates, and S.B. Laska. 2008. Community Resilience: Lessons from New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina. Community & Regional Resilience Initiative (CARRI) Report 3 [online]. Available: http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/climate/docs/a2008.03.pdf (accessed July 9, 2012). Dames and Moore’s Earthquake Engineering Group. 2004. The Loma Prieta Earthquake: Impact on Lifeline Systems. Disaster Recovery World [online]. Available: http://www.drj.com/drworld/ content/w1_113.htm (accessed May 14, 2012). Dearing, J.W. 1995. Growing a Japanese Science City: Communication in Scientific Research. London: Routledge. Duffaut, P. 2006. Underground City-Planning: A French Born Concept for Sustainable City of Tomorrow. International Symposium on Utilization of Underground Space in Urban Area, November 6-7, 2006, Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt [online]. Available: http://uww.ita-aites.org/ fileadmin/filemounts/UWW_10/use_07_underground_planning/underground_city_planning.pdf (accessed June 8, 2012). Einstein, D. 2004. A City Reunited. Bechtel Company Magazine [online]. Available: http://www. bechtel.com/a_city_reunited_51.html [accessed May 16, 2012]. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005. National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Urban Areas. EPA 841-B-05-004. U.S. Environmental Protec- tion Agency, November [online]. Available http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/urban/index.cfm (accessed July 9, 2012). FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2011. Innovations in Water Manage- ment Needed to Sustain Cities. FAO Media Center, March 3, 2011 [online]. Available: http:// www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/53479/icode/ (accessed June 20, 2012). FHWA (U.S. Federal Highway Administration). 2011. SR 99: Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project: Record of Decision. FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-F. August. Available: http://www.wsdot. wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/library-environmental.htm. FHWA/PANYNJ (The Port Authority of NY and NJ). 2010. Cross Harbor Freight Program: Draft Scoping Document: Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement [online]. Available: http://www. panynj.gov/about/pdf/DRAFT-Scoping-Document-Appendices.pdf (accessed May 17, 2012). Garber, A. 2009. Alaskan Way Viaduct Legislation Is Headed for the Governor. Seattle Times, April 25, 2009 [online]. Available: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2009119534_via- duct25m0.html (accessed April 12, 2011). Goff, Z. A. 2001. Feasibility of Tube Transportation to Relieve Highway Congestion. Ph.D. disserta- tion. The Texas A & M University. Greene, R.P. 2006. Strong downtowns and high amenity zones as defining features of the 21st century metropolis: The case of Chicago. Pp. 50-74 in Chicago’s Geographies: Metropolis for the 21st Century, R.P. Greene, M.J. Boumann, and D. Grammenos, eds. Washington, DC: Association of American Geographers [online]. Available: http://immigrationseminar.uchicago.edu/events/ GreeneChicagoGeog.pdf. Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 99 2/6/2013 3:16:45 PM

OCR for page 67
100 UNDERGROUND ENGINEERING FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT Hagler, Y., and P. Todorovich. 2009. Where High Speed Rail Works Best. America2050, September 2009 [online]. Available: http://www.america2050.org/pdf/2050_Report_Where_HSR_Works_ Best.pdf (accessed September 20, 2011). Hashash, Y.M.A., J.J. Hook, B. Schmidt, and J.I.C. Yao. 2001. Seismic design and analysis of under- ground structures. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. 16:247-293. Hildick-Smith, A. 2005. Security for Critical Infrastructure SCADA Systems. Bethesda, MD: SANS Institute [online]. Available: http://www.sans.org/reading_room/whitepapers/warfare/security- critical-infrastructure-scada-systems_1644 (accessed July 9, 2012). Hooks, J.M., R.D. Goughnour, W.G. Horn, A.S. Peters, E.S. Smith, G.J. Tamaro, and C.E. Thunman. 1980. A Report of the Design and Construction of Diaphragm Walls in Western Europe, 1979. Report No. DOT-FH-11-8893. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Depart- ment of Transportation [online]. Available: http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=166325 (author’s summary description of the report; accessed April 11, 2011). Hricko, A.M. 2006. Ships, trucks, and trains: Effects of goods movement on environmental health. Environmental Health Perspectives. 114(4):A204-A205. Hull, L. 2010. Now water chaos hits England as taps run dry for 3,000 after burst pipe. Daily Mail, December 31, 2010 [online]. Available: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343205/WA- TER-CRISIS-Now-chaos-hits-England-taps-runs-dry-3-000-burst-pipe.html (accessed March 9, 2011). 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. Huo, H., A. Bobet, G. Fernandez, and J. Ramirez. 2005. Load transfer mechanisms between under- ground structure and surrounding ground: Evaluation of the failure of the Daikai station. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 131(12):1522-1533. Hunt Midwest. 2009. SubTropolis Benefits [online]. Available: http://www.huntmidwest.com/subtrop- olis/benefits.html (accessed May 21, 2012). Inouye, R.R., and J.D. Jacobazzi. 1992. The Great Chicago Flood of 1992. Civil Engineering—ASCE 62(11):52-55. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Geneva, Switzerland: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [online]. Available: http:// www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report _synthesis_ report.htm (accessed June 20, 2010). Jehanno, A., D. Palmer, and C. James. 2011. High Speed Rail and Sustainability. International Union of Railways [online]. Available: http://uic.org/IMG/pdf/hsr_sustainability_main_study_final. pdf (accessed May 11, 2012). Lake, J.D. 1998. NFPA 520: A new standard for subterranean spaces. NFPA Journal (Nov/Dec 1998) [online]. Available: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3737/is_199811/ai_n8816995/ (ac- cessed June 13, 2011). Ledbury, M., and A. Veitch. 2012. The Benefit of Expanding Europe’s High-Speed Rail Network. Pub- lic Service Europe, March 4, 2012 [online]. Available: http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/ar- ticle/1589/the-benefits-of-expanding-europes-high-speed-rail-network (accessed May 17, 2012). Lindblom, M., and E. Heffter. 2009. Alaskan Way Viaduct Tunnel Claims: Who’s Right? Seattle Times, October 17, 2009 [online]. Available: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/poli- tics/2010081563_tunnelclaims17m.html. (accessed April 12, 2011). Liu, H. 2000. Pneumatic Capsule Pipeline—Basi9999c Concept, Practical Considerations, and Cur- rent Research. Proceedings of the Mid-Continent Transportation Symposium 2000, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. May 5-16, 2000 [online]. Available http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/pubs/ midcon/liu.pdf (accessed October 31, 2012). Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 100 2/6/2013 3:16:46 PM

OCR for page 67
CONTRIBUTIONS TO SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT URBAN DEVELOPMENT 101 Liu, H. 2004. Feasibility of Underground Pneumatic Freight Transport in New York City. Prepared for the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. Columbia, MO: Freight Pipeline Company. 99 pp [online]. Available: http://www.uta.edu/ce/cuire/UPFT%20NY.pdf (accessed October 31, 2012). McCombie, C. 2003. International perspectives on the reprocessing, storage, and disposal of spent nuclear fuel. The Bridge 33(3):5-10. Meehan, R.L. 1993. A natural history of underground fuel tank leakage. Environmental Claims Journal 5(3):339-340. Mendonça, D., and W.A. Wallace. 2005. Adaptive Capacity: Electric Power Restoration in New York City Following the 11 September 2001 Attacks [online].Available: http://www.resilience- engineering.org/REPapers/Mendonca_Wallace.pdf (accessed June 4, 2012). Nadis, S. 2010. SubTropolis, USA. Atlantic Magazine, May 2010 [online]. Available: http://www. theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/05/subtropolis-usa/8033/ (accessed May 21, 2012). Nakamura, S., J. Esaki, I. Suetomi, N. Yoshida, and M. Iwafuji. 1997. Investigation, analysis and res- toration of the collapsed Daikai Subway Station during the 1995 Hyogoken Nanbu Earthquake. Pp. 367-376 in Geotechnical Engineering in Recovery from Urban Earthquake: Proceedings of the Third Kansai International Geotechnical Forum on Comparative Geotechnical Engineering (KIG-Forum ’97), January 1997, Kobe. Kansai Branch of Japanese Geotechnical Society. NETL (National Energy Technologies Laboratory). 2010. DOE/NETL Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage RD&D Roadmap. U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technologies Labora- tory. December 2010 [online]. Available: http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/ refshelf/CCSRoadmap.pdf (accessed July 9, 2012). Newman, P., and J.R. Kenworthy. 1999. Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Depen- dence. Washington DC: Island Press. NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology). 2006. Performance of Physical Structures in Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita: A Reconnaissance Report. NIST Technical Note 1476. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology [online]. Available: http:// www.bfrl.nist.gov/investigations/pubs/NIST_TN_1476.pdf (accessed July 9, 2012). NRC (National Research Council). 2008a. Minerals, Critical Minerals, and the U.S. Economy. Wash- ington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. 2008b. Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation: Special Report 290. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. 2010. Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. 2011a. America’s Climate Choices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. 2011b. Building Community Resilience through Private-Public Collaboration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. 2012. Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NY MTA (New York Metropolitan Transit Authority). 2012a. R Resumes Service to Lower Manhat- tan [online]. Available: http://www.mta.info/nyct/service/RestoringRServiceMontagueStTube. htm (accessed December 12, 2012). NY MTA. 2012b. Restoring South Ferry Station [online]. Available: http://www.mta.info/nyct/service/ RestoringSouthFerryStation.htm (accessed December 12, 2012). NY Times. 2012. Mapping Hurricane Sandy’s Deadly Toll [online]. Available http://www.nytimes. com/interactive/2012/11/17/nyregion/hurricane-sandy-map.html (accessed December 12, 2012). O’Rourke, T.D., A.J. Lembo, and L.K. Nozick. 2003. Lessons learned from the World Trade Center disaster about critical utility systems. Pp. 269-290 in Beyond September 11th: An Account of Post-Disaster Research, J.L. Monday, ed. Boulder, CO: Natural Hazards Research and Appli- cations Information Center [online]. Available: http://www.colorado.edu/UCB/Research/IBS/ hazards/publications/sp/sp39/sept11book_ch10_orourke.pdf (accessed June 4, 2012). Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 101 2/6/2013 3:16:46 PM

OCR for page 67
102 UNDERGROUND ENGINEERING FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT Palaniappan, M., S. Prakash, and D. Bailey, 2006. Paying with Our Health: The Real Cost of Freight Transport in California. A Ditching Dirty Diesel Collaborative Report, by the Pacific Institute. Hayward, CA: Alonzo Printing Co., Inc. [online]. Available: http://www.pacinst.org/reports/ freight_transport/PayingWithOurHealth_Web.pdf (accessed June 20, 2012). 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). Parker, H.W., and J. Reilly. 2009. Life Cycle Cost Considerations Using Risk Management Tech- niques. Harvey Parker & Associates, Inc., Bellevue, WA, and John Reilly Associates Inter- national, Framingham, MA [online]. Available: http://www.ctta.org/FileUpload/ita/2009/ papers/O-01/O-01-08.pdf (accessed April 11, 2011). Peila, D., and S. Pelizza. 1995. Civil reuse of underground mine Openings: A summary of interna- tional experience. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 10(2):179-191. PNSN (Pacific Northwest Seismic Network). 2002. Nisqually Earthquake, February 28, 2001, Basic In- formation [online]. Available: http://old.pnsn.org/SEIS/EQ_Special/WEBDIR_01022818543p/ welcome.html (accessed May 18, 2012). Port of Miami Tunnel. 2010. Project Overview [online]. Available: http://www.portofmiamitunnel. com/project-overview/project-overview-1/ (accessed April 8, 2011). Richard, C. 2008. The History of the Seattle Underground. Helium.com, November 13, 2008 [on- line]. Available: http://www.helium.com/items/1236450-the-history-of-the-seattle-underground (accessed July 9, 2012). Riera, P., and J. Pasqual. 1992. The importance of urban underground land value in project evalua- tion: A case study of Barcelona’s utility tunnel. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 7(3): 243-250. Roop, S.S., C.E. Roco, L.E. Olson, C.A. Morgan, J.E. Warner, D.-H. Kang. 2003. Year 4 Report on the Technical and Economic Feasibility of a Freight Pipeline System in Texas. Report No. FHWA/ TX-04/9-1519-4. Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A & M University System. Schofield, J. 2011. London after the Great Fire. BBC History [online]. Available: http://www.bbc. co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/after_fire_01.shtml (accessed May 21, 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. Uffink, T., and H. Admiraal. 2012. Underground Transport of Cargo: A Sustainable Alternative. Proceedings of the 13th World Conference of Associated Research Centers for the Urban Underground Space, Marina Bay Sands, Singapore. November 7-9, 2012. CD ROM (accessed October 31, 2012). UrbanRail.Net. 2007. Subway Maps: Duisburg [online]. Available: http://www.amadeus.net/home/ subwaymaps/en/info/duisburg.htm (accessed April 22, 2012). U.S. Executive Office of the President. 2006. The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. USGS (United States Geological Survey). 1998. The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989—Recovery, Mitigation, and Reconstruction, J.M. Nigg, ed. U.S Geological Survey Professional Paper No. 1553-D [online]. Available: http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/pp1553/pp1553d/ pp1553d.pdf (accessed May 14, 2012). USGS. 2009. Historic Earthquakes: Santa Cruz Mountains (Loma Prieta), California [online]. Avail- able: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/events/1989_10_18.php (accessed Novem- ber 23, 2010). USGS. 2012. Coastal Change Hazards: Hurricanes and Extreme Storms [online]. Available: http:// coastal.er.usgs.gov/hurricanes/sandy/ (accessed December 12, 2012). Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 102 2/6/2013 3:16:46 PM

OCR for page 67
CONTRIBUTIONS TO SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT URBAN DEVELOPMENT 103 Weston Solutions. 2005. Alameda Corridor Air Quality Benefits Final Report: June 10, 2005 [online]. Available: http://www.acta.org/pdf/Alameda%20Corridor_AQ_Benefits_061005.pdf (accessed July 18, 2012). Wren, J. 2007. The Great Chicago Flood: Analysis of Chicago’s 2nd great disaster. Structure Maga- zine (August):35-40 [online]. Available: http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-8/SF- Chicago-Flood-Wren-Aug-07.pdf (accessed April 4, 2011). WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2004. SR 99: Alaska Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Project: Draft Environmental Impact Statement. March 2004 [online]. Available: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/library-environmental.htm#deis [ac- cessed May 14, 2012]. Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 103 2/6/2013 3:16:47 PM

OCR for page 67
Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 104 2/6/2013 3:16:47 PM