Selecting utilities placement techniques in urban underground engineering

Abstract

Placement of utilities has not been generally accomplished in any sustainable technique resulting in a veritable maze in high density urban areas. As underground space scarcity grows in our cities due to the increasing demands for utility services, subsurface facilities such as utility tunnels are becoming more efficient in providing the required infrastructure. There is a growing public awareness of aesthetic considerations and impatience with street cuts and their associated costs, traffic interferences, noise and accidental utility cuts. Unfortunately the lack of data and the difficulty in quantifying the intangibles has made it impossible to arrive at a reasonably accurate figure of overall negative impact on the urban environment of street cuts. Due to this, current practices of traditional trenching depending only on cost indicators remain as first option in urban planning instead of more sustainable techniques, like utility tunnels. However, it is well known that intangible costs to the public and the utilities might make the utility tunnel concept to be economically feasible in the long run. This paper presents a methodology based on AHP and Delphi processes for the selection of utilities placement techniques in which the intangibles are also assessed to avoid short-sighted urban underground planning. HighlightsQuantifying intangibles is a key factor to study negative impact of street cuts. Only use of cost indicators make traditional trenching to remain as first option. Intangible costs might make utility tunnel concept to be feasible in the long term. A methodology based on AHP and Delphi avoids short-sighted underground planning.

A new sustainability framework for urban underground space

“…For the UUS example within the category of the environment pillar with seven core indicators, (7 2 − 7)/2 = 21 comparisons have to be made. A matrix evaluating results of the 'subsidiary criteria' with respect to the overall 'goal' is obtained (Curiel-Esparza and Canto-Perello, 2013;Triantaphyllou and Mann, 1995). Such a large number of comparisons within all three pillars require Super Decisions software (Bobylev, 2011).…”

Prioritization by consensus of enhancements for sustainable mobility in urban areas

“…The measurement of the intangibles is the key factor for choosing this method. The use of the AHP methodology in a wide variety of decisionmaking areas Curiel-Esparza and Canto-Perello, 2013;Martin-Utrillas et al, 2015a) suggests the suitability of this method for structuring relevant knowledge concerning consensus in complex multicriteria problems (Syamsuddin and Hwang, 2010). These comparisons are used to obtain the relative priority of the different criteria in terms of sustainable mobility and to assess the alternatives.…”

Selecting a Sustainable Disinfection Technique for Wastewater Reuse Projects

“…The following step was to feed back the collated information and ask them to reconsider their proposals to move toward a consensus. Those criteria and techniques that the expert panel considers as low importance are removed [21].…”