Identifying and clarifying the interfaces between urban underground space and its environment

Urban Underground Space (UUS) development is an increasing topic of discussion internationally. However, from academic research undertaken by the author, there appears to be little discussion of the interfaces between UUS and its environment. These must be clearly identified and clarified to enable effective asset management. Not just of the UUS but its whole environment. The interfaces are identified here as: presence, property, and protection (what is there, who owns it, how and why does it need to be protected). With increasing densification of urban environments globally, considering how these interfaces are managed becomes even more important to effective asset management. After all there are direct and indirect effects of continued operation and change on infrastructure within those urban environments. But how can asset ownership, rights, and responsibilities be determined effectively? How can stakeholders be assured that they are maintaining the right assets, and that they have an understanding how their assets interface with those of others within densely developed urban environments?

This paper introduces a conceptual framework and workflow to assist identification and clarification of asset interfaces within urban environments. These have been developed through the PhD research and professional experience of the lead author within a metro organisation. Such a conceptual framework and workflow is argued to be essential to all urban stakeholders. These include but are not limited to: urban and transport planners, asset owners and managers, legal professionals, and civil engineers, consultants and academics. It is argued that without standardised guidelines and practices for asset identification and clarification, increased adverse risks between UUS and its environment could increase. For example, in London in 2013, an auger penetrated a tube tunnel, due to such lack of clarity. Not only was there a risk of injury and death; there was the adverse effect of delays and suspension of railway services; loss of credibility and reputation to the stakeholders involved; and financial costs to all parties.

Arguably standardised processes for asset identification and clarification within ISO standards such as 55,000, and other international and national standards, guidance, and legislation relating to the management of the built environment, may contribute to minimising such occurrences in future. Not based on individual practice and attitudes of “we do this anyway” but through clearly documented standardised processes and work streams within project proposal, design, construction, and ongoing asset management cycles. The knowledge of these standards and their contents and processes must also be disseminated much more effectively than present through universities and within the workplace.