비용편익 분석에 기초한 공동구의 경제적 타당성 평가 = Economic Feasibility of Common Utility Tunnel based on Cost-Benefit Analysis

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Common utility tunnel is essential to the daily lives of people underground utilities (electricity, gas and supply facilities such as water, communication facilities, sewer facilities, etc.) to improve the appearance by co-acceptance and disaster prevention, important for the conservation of the city``s population was concentrated road construction the city-based facilities. There is recognition of the importance of the various supply treatment facilities in common utility tunnel as infrastructure to accommodate joint according to the city expanded, the demand for infrastructure. In this paper, a cost-benefit analysis using a one-time occurrence, without simply relying on cost or current cost, project manager for the city-dimensional feasibility study conducted, the user level of the maintenance costs and user costs, including social costs items from various angles can be investigated and proposed a mechanism of economic feasibility common utility tunnel. Evaluation of the proposed technique is cost-benefit and cost caused by installing common utility tunnel the existing pipeline area - was investigated by the benefit analysis, extended and repeated common utility tunnel installation depends much affected by the excavation, so users of reducing the number of repeat excavation convenience can be seen that this occurs.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 장수은, "메타분석을 통한 보행통행의 시간가치 추정 연구" 한국교통연구원 17 (17): 13-22, 2010

2 "Special Act for the Construction of Common Utility Tunnel"

3 Gangnamku, "Common Utility Tunnel Feasibility Study and Basic Design for a Comprehensive Report" 821-826, 1998

4 Korea Development Institute, "Carried out Complementary Study" 54-55, 2008

5 Korea Institute of Construction Technology, "A Study on Design and Construction of Common Utility Tunnel" 19-20, 1988

6 Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, "A Study on Activation Plan of Common Utility Tunnel (Phase 1)" 69-72, 2006