It is well understood that designers and constructors must protect the existing surroundings of tunnel construction, particularly in the selection of excavation methods, ground support and waterproofing systems. However, while this can readily address the existing conditions, the tunnel owner and the designers need to consider the changes that are likely to occur during the life of the tunnel. It is typical for transport infrastructure to have a design life of at least a century. While the effects of constructing the tunnel on its surroundings are a short-term effect, the converse case, the protection of the tunnel, and the need to maintain its integrity, will affect developments over and adjacent to the tunnels beyond the foreseeable future. Decisions made during the design phase have the potential either to facilitate development or to hinder it for the long term. Examples principally from Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Hong Kong show that the provision for future development is addressed in different ways. These have ranged from making no specific provision, putting the onus onto developers to ensure that the tunnels are not affected adversely, to including a loading allowance for future development in the performance specification or contract documents for a tunnel project. These two contrasting approaches have strong points and risks. A highly prescriptive definition of permissible loadings around the tunnel can provide unambiguous guidance for the approving authority and the developer, but runs the risk of being overly conservative to allow for all the envisaged works, while still missing a detrimental combination of effects that theoretically complies with the specified requirements. In contrast, a general requirement to not cause detriment is open to interpretation and potentially difficult negotiations to reach agreement between the tunnel owner/operator and developer and finally the appointed contractor (probably with no contractual relationship with the tunnel owner). In practice, a combination of prescriptive and performance requirements is likely to provide the optimum combination of clarity and flexibility. The author provides examples and recommendations on how such provisions could be structured.
展开▼
