Abstract The traditional method of buried utilities (i.e. water, sewer and gas pipes, and electrical and tele-communication cables) has been using for many decades particularly in urban areas. Repeated excavations are needed to access these underground utilities for maintenance, repair, and renewal activities. Urban areas have been experiencing many street closures and traffic disruptions because of excavation for maintaining underground utilities. These construction works have imposed major costs on public and private utility providers as well as on citizens and local businesses (social cost). Multi-purpose Utility Tunnel (MUT) was introduced as a solution that not only avoids these excavations, but also facilitates inspection and protects utilities. However, MUT is not widely used in most of the countries, because of the high initial investment, safety and security issues, complicated design and construction, and complex coordination of utility companies. Despite the higher design and construction cost of MUT, operational cost-savings can justify the investment from the project point of view. From the organization's point of view and based on cost-sharing, MUT should be more economical as well and the MUT benefits should be distributed fairly, to convince utility companies to participate in the MUT project. Lifecycle Cost (LCC) analysis of MUT and buried utilities method is complicated because of various factors that influence LCC. This paper aims to develop a comprehensive and systematic model for MUT and buried utilities LCC analysis by considering the influencing factors. The output of this model determines the LCC of MUT and buried utilities to ensure the project decision-makers that MUT is the economic method. This model also proposes a model of MUT cost-sharing to ensure the decision-makers of utility companies that MUT is the economic method for their company and also all the utility companies benefit from MUT fairly. This model defined the fairness based on three principals: (a) balance of risk, (b) balanced benefit-cost ratio, and (c) balance in contributed benefit and gained benefit. It is expected that the proposed model promotes using MUT by facilitating economical analysis and decision making for MUT projects from project and organization points of view.

中文翻译：

---

多用途综合管廊生命周期成本评估和成本分摊框架

摘要 埋地公用设施（即水、下水道和煤气管道以及电力和电信电缆）的传统方法已经使用了几十年，特别是在城市地区。需要反复挖掘才能进入这些地下公用设施，以进行维护、修理和更新活动。由于为维护地下公用设施而进行的挖掘工作，城市地区已经经历了许多街道关闭和交通中断。这些建筑工程给公共和私人公用事业供应商以及公民和当地企业带来了巨大的成本（社会成本）。引入了多用途公用设施隧道 (MUT) 作为一种解决方案，不仅可以避免这些挖掘，还可以方便检查和保护公用设施。然而，MUT 在大多数国家并未得到广泛应用，因为初始投资较高，安全和安保问题、复杂的设计和施工以及公用事业公司的复杂协调。尽管 MUT 的设计和施工成本较高，但从项目的角度来看，运营成本的节省可以证明投资是合理的。从组织的角度来看，基于成本分摊，MUT 也应该更经济，MUT 的收益应该公平分配，以说服公用事业公司参与 MUT 项目。由于影响 LCC 的各种因素，MUT 和埋地公用事业方法的生命周期成本 (LCC) 分析很复杂。本文旨在通过考虑影响因素，为 MUT 和埋地公用事业 LCC 分析开发一个全面系统的模型。该模型的输出决定了 MUT 和埋地公用设施的 LCC，以确保项目决策者认为 MUT 是经济方法。该模型还提出了 MUT 成本分摊的模型，以确保公用事业公司的决策者认为 MUT 是他们公司的经济方法，并且所有公用事业公司都可以公平地从 MUT 中受益。该模型基于三个原则定义了公平性：(a) 风险平衡，(b) 平衡的收益成本比，以及 (c) 贡献收益和获得收益的平衡。预计所提出的模型通过从项目和组织的角度促进 MUT 项目的经济分析和决策，从而促进 MUT 的使用。该模型还提出了 MUT 成本分摊的模型，以确保公用事业公司的决策者认为 MUT 是他们公司的经济方法，并且所有公用事业公司都可以公平地从 MUT 中受益。该模型基于三个原则定义了公平性：(a) 风险平衡，(b) 平衡的收益成本比，以及 (c) 贡献收益和获得收益的平衡。预计所提出的模型通过从项目和组织的角度促进 MUT 项目的经济分析和决策，从而促进 MUT 的使用。该模型还提出了 MUT 成本分摊的模型，以确保公用事业公司的决策者认为 MUT 是他们公司的经济方法，并且所有公用事业公司都可以公平地从 MUT 中受益。该模型基于三个原则定义了公平性：(a) 风险平衡，(b) 平衡的收益成本比，以及 (c) 贡献收益和获得收益的平衡。预计所提出的模型通过从项目和组织的角度促进 MUT 项目的经济分析和决策，从而促进 MUT 的使用。