Sustainable utility placement via Multi-Utility Tunnels

Abstract Due to the adoption of short-term planning cycles and the requirement for lowest initial construction costs, the conventional method for utility installation and maintenance in the UK is via open-cut. When taking a long-term sustainability perspective there is a growing body of evidence which indicates that this method is socially disruptive, environmentally damaging and significantly more expensive, i.e. unsustainable. One long-term solution to this problem could be the adoption of Multi-Utility Tunnels (MUTs); a tunnel that co-locates more than one utility underground facilitating their subsequent repair and renewal while eliminating the need for continuous surface excavation. Unfortunately considerably higher short-term direct costs remain a significant barrier to adoption of MUTs. However, there is a lack of research to show where the economic tipping point between the two methods occurs and how it might be influenced by utility type, pipe number (i.e. density), pipe diameter, number of excavation and reinstatement (E&R) procedures avoided, location (i.e. undeveloped, suburban and urban areas), and the choice of MUT being adopted (i.e. flush-fitting, shallow and deep). This paper aims to fulfil this research need by investigating the effect of these influences on the economic viability of various types of MUTs. The results indicate that MUTs can provide a more economically sustainable method of utility placement in all three local contexts, with the tipping points occurring where street works are likely more frequent and/or where utility density is high.

[1]  Ian Jefferson,et al.  Achieving sustainable underground construction in Birmingham Eastside , 2006 .

[2]  Christopher D. F. Rogers,et al.  Stakeholder needs for ground penetrating radar utility location , 2009 .

[3]  Davis Langdon,et al.  Spon's Civil Engineering and Highway Works Price Book 2011 , 2010 .

[4]  Nikolai Bobylev,et al.  Mainstreaming sustainable development into a city's Master plan: A case of Urban Underground Space use , 2009 .

[5]  Olivier Blanpain,et al.  Promoting the urban utilities tunnel technique using a decision-making approach , 2004 .

[6]  Dexter V. L. Hunt,et al.  Application of sustainability indicators in decision-making processes for urban regeneration projects , 2008 .

[7]  Mohammad Najafi,et al.  Life-Cycle-Cost Comparison of Trenchless and Conventional Open-Cut Pipeline Construction Projects , 2004 .

[8]  John G. Everett,et al.  Costs of accidents and injuries to the construction industry , 1996 .

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

[10]  Sanjiv Gokhale,et al.  Trenchless Technology: Pipeline and Utility Design, Construction, and Renewal , 2005 .

[11]  Pere Riera,et al.  The importance of urban underground land value in project evaluation: a case study of Barcelona's utility tunnel , 1992 .

[12]  L H Watkins Some Research into the Environmental Impact of Roads and Traffic , 1981 .

[13]  Jorge Curiel-Esparza,et al.  Analysing utility tunnels and highway networks coordination dilemma , 2009 .

[14]  Michael H. Stephenson,et al.  The present and future use of ‘land’ below ground , 2009 .

[15]  Ilkka Vähäaho,et al.  Sustainability issues for underground space in urban areas , 2012 .

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

[17]  Nicole Metje,et al.  Underground asset location and condition assessment technologies , 2007 .

[18]  Jorge Curiel-Esparza,et al.  Risks and potential hazards in utility tunnels for urban areas , 2003 .

[19]  V. Hokkanen,et al.  Four examples of subsurface uses in Finland , 1994 .

[20]  Davis Langdon Spon's Civil Engineering and Highway Works Price Book 2010 , 2009 .

[21]  D. V. L. Hunt,et al.  Assessing the sustainability of underground space usage — A toolkit for testing possible urban futures , 2011 .

[22]  Ian Jefferson,et al.  Sustainable Utility Placement for University Campuses , 2012 .

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

[24]  Jorge Curiel-Esparza,et al.  Establishing sustainable strategies in urban underground engineering , 2004, Science and engineering ethics.

[25]  Samuel T. Ariaratnam,et al.  Cost and Risk Evaluation for Horizontal Directional Drilling versus Open Cut in an Urban Environment , 2008 .

[26]  Fco. de Asís Ramírez Chasco,et al.  The Lezkairu Utilities Tunnel , 2010 .

[27]  Jorge Curiel-Esparza,et al.  Human factors engineering in utility tunnel design , 2001 .

[28]  Julian Canto-Perello,et al.  Sustainable development of urban underground space for utilities , 1999 .

[29]  G. Brundtland,et al.  Our common future , 1987 .

[30]  Mark Gaterell,et al.  Elucidating Sustainability Sequencing, Tensions, and Trade-Offs in Development Decision Making , 2011 .

[31]  Sunil K. Sinha,et al.  Evaluation of Trenchless Technology Methods for Municipal Infrastructure System , 2007 .

[32]  Jorge Curiel-Esparza,et al.  Indoor atmosphere hazard identification in person entry urban utility tunnels , 2005 .

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

[34]  John C. Matthews,et al.  A SOCIAL COST CALCULATOR FOR UTILITY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS , 2010 .

[35]  Christopher D. F. Rogers,et al.  Barriers to sustainable infrastructure in urban regeneration , 2005 .

[36]  Ian Jefferson,et al.  The Development Timeline Framework: A Tool for Engendering Sustainable Use of Underground Space , 2008 .