Discover

A 'common utility duct', sometimes called a common utility conduit, is any structure - above, on, or below ground - that carries more than two types of public utility lines. However, the phrase often refers specifically to underground tunnels.^[1]

Contents

Advantages of common utility ducts

Examples of common utility ducts

See also

References

Advantages of common utility ducts

The advantages of such facilities are the reduction of maintenance manholes, one-time relocation, and less excavation and repair, compared to separate cable ducts for each service. One of the greatest advantages is public safety. When power lines are underground, regardless of whether the ducts are common or separate, they prevent downed utilities from blocking roads, thus speeding emergency access after major natural disasters like earthquakes, hurricanes, and tsunamis. When they are well mapped they also allow rapid access to all utilities without having to dig access trenches or resort to confused and often inaccurate utility maps.

Examples of common utility ducts

Many examples of common utility ducts are found in Japan, where government officials have sought ways to reduce the catastrophic effects of earthquakes in their tectonically active country. Their use, however, is not limited to that country and there are many examples of such common utility ducts. These include:

★ Incorporated with Xinyi^[2] and Sonshan MRTRapid transit lines in Taipei, Taiwan

★ Azabu-Hibiya Common Utility Duct in Tokyo, Japan^[3]

★ Minatomirai District lines in Yokohama, Japan^[4]

★ Poundbury Village in Duchy of Cornwall, Prince Charles' master planned community in England incorporates common utility ducts^[5]

★ "Utilidors" in Disney theme parks

See also

★ District heating

★ Electricity distribution

★ Empire City Subway

★ Public utility

★ Tunnel

★ Utility tunnel

References

1. Taipei Gov Website
2. MAA Website
3. BigEmpire.com Website
4. Yokohama Landmark Building Website

5. Mitchell, Sandy. "Prince Charles is not your typical radical." National Geographic. May 2006. [1] Accessed online 9/14/06