基于综合效益量化的综合管廊投资决策与成本回收机制  

Investment decision-making and cost recovery mechanisms of utility tunnels based on comprehensive benefit quantification

作　　者：曾国华 汤志立 徐千军[2] ZENG Guohua;TANG Zhili;XU Qianjun(Beijing Jingtou Urban Utility Tunnel Investment Co.,Ltd.,Beijing 100027,China;State Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and Engineering,Tsinghua University,Beijing 100084,China)

机构地区：[1]北京京投城市管廊投资有限公司,北京100027 [2]清华大学水沙科学与水利水电工程国家重点实验室,北京100084

出　　处：《清华大学学报（自然科学版）》2023年第2期210-222,共13页Journal of Tsinghua University(Science and Technology)

基　　金：国家自然科学基金项目(52090084);北京市科技计划项目(Z201100008220009)。

摘　　要：城市综合管廊综合效益显著,是推动城市现代化、科技化、集约化、韧性化的重要举措,但投资决策约束条件及公平合理的成本回收机制的缺失严重制约了综合管廊的可持续发展。该文分析了综合管廊全生命周期综合成本、综合效益的组成及影响因素,提出了以“综合效益与综合成本比大于1”为首要约束条件的投资决策模型。构建了2种综合管廊成本回收机制,即“比例付费机制”(管线单位和政府按综合管廊内外部效益比例付费的成本回收机制)和“缺口补助机制”(管线单位按综合管廊的内部效益付费、政府对缺口资金进行补助的成本回收机制)。系统量化了19个综合管廊项目的综合成本效益关系,综合效益与综合成本比集中在1.50~3.58之间,显示了显著的综合效益。采用“比例付费机制”,考虑长期内部效益时政府分摊比例平均值为52.3%,考虑短期内部效益时为67.2%,而采用“缺口补助机制”,考虑短期内部效益时政府分摊比例平均值为51.3%。考虑入廊时序影响时,当期入廊率每降低30%,采用“缺口补助机制”的政府费用分摊比例均值平均增加8.8%(考虑短期内部效益)。提出了因时、因地制宜的“两步走”实施综合管廊费用分摊有关政策建议,即综合管廊发展初期按照考虑短期内部效益的“缺口补助机制”进行费用分摊,发展成熟期按照考虑长期内部效益的“比例付费机制”。提出了完善综合管廊投资决策配套机制、完善入廊收费使用制度、强化投资建设“开源节流”(成立区域平台公司、探索市场化试点等)的综合管廊可持续发展建议。[Objective] Urban utility tunnels can provide great benefits promoting urban modernization, technologies, intensification and resilience. However, the lack of investment decision-making constraints and fair and reasonable cost recovery mechanisms limits the sustainable development of utility tunnels. [Methods] This study analyzes the comprehensive costs and benefits over the entire utility tunnel life cycle with emphasis on the four categories that most affect investment decisions, namely, the government financial resources and government foresight, the comprehensive characteristics of the construction area, the specification and sequence of pipelines entering the utility tunnel, and the planning, construction and operation level. [Results] The utility tunnel investment decision-making model has a primary constraint condition for investment decision-making that the project must have a benefit to cost ratio greater than 1. Two kinds of cost recovery mechanisms are defined as the “proportional payment mechanism”(cost recovery mechanism for pipeline units and for the government to pay in proportion to internal and external benefits) and the “gap subsidy mechanism”(cost recovery mechanism for pipeline units to pay according to the internal benefits and for the government to subsidy the gap funds). The 19 utility tunnel projects have benefit to cost ratios concentrated between 1.50 and 3.58, reflecting significant benefits. The “proportional payment mechanism” gives an average government share of 52.3% when considering long-term internal benefits and 67.2% when considering short-term internal benefits. The “gap subsidy mechanism” that focuses on short-term internal benefits gives the average government share of 51.3%. The cost recovery mechanism based on the government gap subsidies considering short-term internal benefits shows that every 30% decrease in the entry rate during the current period increases the average government apportionment ratio by 8.8% on average. [Conclusions] A “two-step” impl

关 键 词：综合管廊 综合效益 量化 投资决策模型 入廊率 成本回收机制 

分 类 号：TU990.3[建筑科学—市政工程]