Social cost impact assessment of pipeline infrastructure projects

Abstract A key advantage of trenchless construction methods compared with traditional open-cut methods is their ability to install or rehabilitate underground utility systems with limited disruption to the surrounding built and natural environments. The equivalent monetary values of these disruptions are commonly called social costs. Social costs are often ignored by engineers or project managers during project planning and design phases, partially because they cannot be calculated using standard estimating methods. In recent years some approaches for estimating social costs were presented. Nevertheless, the cost data needed for validation of these estimating methods is lacking. Development of such social cost databases can be accomplished by compiling relevant information reported in various case histories. This paper identifies eight most important social cost categories, presents mathematical methods for calculating them, and summarizes the social cost impacts for two pipeline construction projects. The case histories are analyzed in order to identify trends for the various social cost categories. The effectiveness of the methods used to estimate these values is also discussed. These findings are valuable for pipeline infrastructure engineers making renewal technology selection decisions by providing a more accurate process for the assessment of social costs and impacts.

[1]  Erez N. Allouche,et al.  Quantification of social costs associated with construction projects: state-of-the-art review , 2004 .

[2]  Liu Xiaoyan,et al.  Practical bid evaluation method considering social costs in urban infrastructure projects , 2008, 2008 4th IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology.

[3]  P Bein MONETIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ROADS , 1997 .

[4]  Jose A. Ballesteros,et al.  Noise emission evolution on construction sites. Measurement for controlling and assessing its impact on the people and on the environment , 2010 .

[5]  John C. Matthews,et al.  Multi-Segment Multi-Criteria Method Selection for Buried Pipelines , 2013 .

[6]  Youssef Diab,et al.  An Approach for the Choice of Rehabilitation Techniques of Urban Sewers , 2001 .

[7]  R A McKim Bidding strategies for conventional and trenchless technologies considering social costs , 1997 .

[8]  Susan L. Tighe,et al.  User cost savings in eliminating pavement excavations through employing trenchless technologies , 2002 .

[9]  Gary Barnes,et al.  Per Mile Costs of Operating Automobiles and Trucks , 2004 .

[10]  Ralph Haas,et al.  Traffic Delay Cost Savings Associated with Trenchless Technology , 1999 .

[11]  E N Allouche,et al.  Prediction and mitigation of construction noise in an urban environment , 2003 .

[12]  R L Sterling INDIRECT COSTS OF UTILITY PLACEMENT AND REPAIR BENEATH STREETS , 1994 .

[13]  Ossama Salem,et al.  QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF TRAFFIC DISRUPTION USING OPEN-CUT AND TRENCHLESS METHODS OF PIPE INSTALLATION , 2003 .

[14]  Karel Michielsen Trench Vs Jacking Cost Comparison , 2006 .

[15]  K C Brady,et al.  MITIGATING THE DISRUPTION CAUSED BY UTILITY STREET WORKS , 2001 .

[16]  Brad W. Rister,et al.  The Cost of Construction Delays and Traffic Control for Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of Pavements , 2002 .

[17]  Daniele Peila,et al.  The use of the Analytic Hierarchy Process for the comparison between microtunnelling and trench excavation , 2005 .

[18]  John C. Matthews Integrated, multi-attribute decision support system for the evaluation of underground utility construction methods , 2010 .