ROAD ASSET MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: CASE STUDY UZBEKISTAN

Abstract

Transportation infrastructure assets are not only costly to build but also expensive to maintain in order to adequately meet public expectation. The key issue is to how to manage existing assets in way that it delivers maximum benefit to public taking into account limited financial resources. Road asset management system reviewed from perspective of four major components such as goals, budget, asset and performance. There are several issues at policy level of analysis such as set up long term goals, expansion of road network, traffic safety action plans, environmental impact analysis, economic development and other; at budget level to plan year and multi year financing plan, budget breakdown and cost estimation; at data management level inventory and condition data collection, database management, traffic data and other; at performance modelling level to predict future condition, network level analysis and other; at programme optimisation level to perform economic, environmental and risk analysis, multi-criteria analysis and other; implementation programme to carry out construction, maintenance and operation of assets and other. Proposed approach to network level of analysis simplifies road network evaluation and uses the analytic hierarchy process to rank regions in terms of asset, cost and traffic. The data needed for the analysis is available in road agencies or easy to collect.

Key words: Road asset management system, analytic hierarchy process, network level analysis, prioritization.

Full text

Sodikov'Jamshid'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
1'
ROAD ASSET MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IN DEVELOPING 1'
COUNTRIES: CASE STUDY UZBEKISTAN 2'
'3'
Sodikov Jamshid, Ph.D., 4'
Tashkent Automobile Road Construction Institute, 5'
Tashkent, Uzbekistan, 100060, 6'
Phone: 998946244469 7'
Email: osmijam@gmail.com 8'
'9'
'10'
'11'
'12'
'13'
'14'
'15'
'16'
'17'
'18'
'19'
'20'
21'
22'
23'
24'
25'
26'
Total words = 3839 + 250*6 (4 Figures + 2 Table) = 5,339 27'
28'
'29'

Sodikov'Jamshid'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
2'
ABSTRACT'29'
Transportation infrastructure assets are not only costly to build but also 30'
expensive to maintain in order to adequately meet public expectation. The key issue is 31'
to how to manage existing assets in way that it delivers maximum benefit to public 32'
taking into account limited financial resources. Road asset management system 33'
reviewed from perspective of four major components such as goals, budget, asset and 34'
performance. There are several issues at policy level of analysis such as set up long 35'
term goals, expansion of road network, traffic safety action plans, environmental 36'
impact analysis, economic development and other; at budget level to plan year and 37'
multi year financing plan, budget breakdown and cost estimation; at data management 38'
level inventory and condition data collection, database management, traffic data and 39'
other; at performance modelling level to predict future condition, network level 40'
analysis and other; at programme optimisation level to perform economic, 41'
environmental and risk analysis, multi-criteria analysis and other; implementation 42'
programme to carry out construction, maintenance and operation of assets and other. 43'
Proposed approach to network level of analysis simplifies road network evaluation 44'
and uses the analytic hierarchy process to rank regions in terms of asset, cost and 45'
traffic. The data needed for the analysis is available in road agencies or easy to 46'
collect. 47'
48'
Key words: Road asset management system, analytic hierarchy process, 49'
network level analysis, prioritization. 50'
'51'
'52'
'53'
'54'

Sodikov'Jamshid'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
3'
INTRODUCTION 55'
Transportation infrastructure assets are key factors of economic development, 56'
mobility and social equity. Road asset management system (RAMS) is relatively a 57'
new concept although developed countries have developed roadmap to implement it 58'
but their counterparts are facing obstacles due to lack of systematic approach. Road 59'
sector in many parts of the world is heavily subsidized by government budget. Asset 60'
management is routinely applied in private sector with main objective of getting 61'
highest profit whereas public sector is more concerned with supplying with goods 62'
and services according to public demand and with less concern about profit. 63'
Literature review on asset management revealed that interpretation of the concept has 64'
slightly different variations. Asset Management is systematic process of 65'
maintaining, upgrading, and operating physical assets cost-effectively. It combines 66'
engineering principles with sound business practices and economic theory, and it 67'
provides tools to facilitate a more organized, logical approach to decision-making. 68'
Thus, asset management provides a framework for handling both short and long 69'
range planning [1]. Asset Management is a systematic process of maintaining, 70'
upgrading and operating assets, combining engineering principles with sound 71'
business practice and economic rationale, and providing tools to facilitate a more 72'
organized and flexible approach to making the decisions necessary to achieve the 73'
public’s expectations [2]. Asset management is “a comprehensive and structured 74'
approach to the delivery of the community benefits through management of road 75'
networks” [3]. The goal of infrastructure asset management is to meet a required 76'
level of service in the most cost-effective way through the creation, acquisition, 77'
maintenance, operation, rehabilitation, and disposal of assets for present and future 78'
customers. The key elements of infrastructure asset management are: taking a 79'

Sodikov'Jamshid'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
4'
lifecycle approach; developing cost- effective management strategies for the long-80'
term; providing a defined level of service and monitoring performance; managing 81'
risks associated with asset failures; sustainable use of physical resources; continuous 82'
improvement in asset management practices [4]. Managing highway assets is not 83'
new concept; highway agencies have been using pavement, bridge, and 84'
maintenance management systems for decades. What sets asset management apart 85'
today is the move to merge these single-asset management systems into an integrated 86'
whole. Asset management is a comprehensive process that allocates funds effectively 87'
and efficiently among competing pavement, structure, and other infrastructure 88'
needs [5]. 89'
90'
ROAD ASSET MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 91'
Definition of asset management in above-mentioned paragraph conveys almost same 92'
meaning with slight difference depending on each road agency's goals and strategies. 93'
The key words in all definitions are efficient and effective use of funds to meet 94'
public demand. The definition could be described as asset management is 95'
harmonized combination of engineering principles and sound business practices 96'
which meets public expectations. 97'
Figure 1 shows proposed two-way monitoring scheme for asset management 98'
system. A road agency provides services by applying engineering principles and 99'
sound business practices to meet public expectation. Road agencies monitor key 100'
performance indicators such as technical, economic and other to evaluate agency 101'
performance. Feedback from road users provides insight on the level of satisfaction 102'
for provided services. 103'

Sodikov'Jamshid'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
5'
104'
Figure 1. Two-way monitoring scheme for Road Asset Management System [6] 105'
106'
Existing road asset management systems in developed countries are complex 107'
to implement in developing countries due to high costs related to automated road 108'
data collection and data management systems. The other side of coin is that lack of 109'
standards, guidelines and research in field of road asset management system from 110'
the point of view emerging and low cost technologies such as mobile, GIS and 111'
internet which are developing very rapidly in this part of the world. Implementation 112'
of RAMS is process of change existing pavement management system in way that 113'
road agencies achieve better optimization through adequate evaluation maintenance 114'
and rehabilitation projects. Developed countries implementing more sophisticated 115'
tools and systems to predict performance of the assets and optimize budget more 116'
efficiently. There are certain issues related to implementation sophisticated systems 117'
such as lack of sophisticated analytic tools, database issues, identification of 118'
!259!

Sodikov'Jamshid'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
6'
effective communication devices, jurisdictional challenges, and institutional 119'
challenges [7]. 120'
Life circle cost analysis of assets including roads is currently predominant 121'
approach in evaluation highway projects. Many countries have been utilizing 122'
systems for asset management. For example, the Highway Design and Maintenance 123'
Standard Model (HDM-4) developed by the World Bank and the World Road 124'
Association (PIARC) is used mainly in developing countries. Most of the developed 125'
countries use their own asset management systems such in Canada Transportation 126'
Infrastructure Management System (TIMS) [8]; in UK, Infrastructure Asset 127'
Management software; in New Zealand dTIMS software. These software solve 128'
broad range of problems including cost benefit analysis, traffic safety analysis, 129'
condition performance analysis, environmental assessments and other. 130'
Road agencies daily face various types of challenges. They are at policy level 131'
to set up long term goals, expansion of road network, traffic safety action plans, 132'
environmental impact analysis, economic development and other; at budget level to 133'
plan year and multi year financing plan, budget breakdown and cost estimation; at 134'
data management level inventory and condition data collection, database 135'
management, traffic data and other; at performance modelling to predict future 136'
condition, network level analysis and other; at programme optimization level to 137'
perform economic, environmental and risk analysis, multi-criteria analysis and 138'
other; implementation programme to carry out construction, maintenance and 139'
operation of assets and other. 140'
Following measures in policy, planning and management level direct to the 141'
development of road sector in Uzbekistan [9]: 142'
• To create executive task force for developing standards/norms, for 143'

Sodikov'Jamshid'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
7'
supervising maintenance and operation works, for monitoring traffic safety 144'
and environmental assessments in order to harmonize with international 145'
practice of pavement management system 146'
• Systematic approach for the development road standards and guidelines 147'
taking into account international standards. 148'
• Upgrading equipments, machinery and mechanisms to meet demand for 149'
construction Uzbek National Highway System. 150'
• Staff development and continuous training for road workers, engineers and 151'
managers. 152'
Road agencies both in developed and developing countries face same 153'
obstacles in implementing road asset management systems but with different level 154'
of implementation. RAMS can be grouped in four major components. They are 155'
goals, budget, asset and performance. These components are interconnected with 156'
each other and together they form four pillars of asset management system (Fig.2). 157'
If one of the pillars fail or incorrectly set the whole system will not work in efficient 158'
way to achieve best possible solution. 159'
160'

Sodikov'Jamshid'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
8'
161'
Figure 2. Interaction between RAMS components 162'
163'
Goals set to meet available budget. Based on allocated budget road agency perform 164'
maintenance and construction projects. Before performing maintenance or 165'
construction road agency assess asset condition. The other way is when budget 166'
depends on goals. On long term planning and programming road works budget can 167'
be adjusted depending on goals for each year; in the same way the amount asset 168'
condition data can be adjusted depending on goals, budget and performance. 169'
170'
Road asset management system is sophisticated approach to manage assets, it 171'
requires large amount of data, resources for data collection, storing and 172'
management, utilizes complicated performance prediction and assessment models, 173'
up to date hardware and software. In turn this requires highly qualified experts to 174'
make right decisions based on results obtained from the system. All these 175'

Sodikov'Jamshid'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
9'
requirements are difficult to meet in developing countries therefore there is a need 176'
for simplified approach managing assets. 177'
Review of implementation RAMS in [10] revealed that there are some 178'
similarities in implementation depending on a level of country development. In 179'
some of countries such as Laos, Pakistan, Philippines, Vietnam, Kyrgyzstan and 180'
Uzbekistan were made an attempt to implement RAMS through international 181'
development programs. The reason for that the process of implementation of RAMS 182'
requires large amount of financial and technical resources. International 183'
development programs serve as general reference and RAMS could be implemented 184'
partially. The importance of balance between four pillars of RAMS: goal, budget, 185'
asset and performance could not be overemphasized because it provides adequate 186'
solutions for efficient asset management. 187'
188'
ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS 189'
The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) proposed by Saaty [11] is a very 190'
popular approach to multi-criteria decision-making that involves qualitative data. It 191'
has been applied during the last several decades in various decision-making problems. 192'
The method uses a reciprocal decision matrix obtained by pairwise comparisons so 193'
that the information is given in a linguistic form. The pairwise comparison method 194'
was introduced in 1860 [12]. Based on pairwise comparison, Saaty proposes the 195'
analytic hierarchy process as a method for multi-criteria decision-making. It provides 196'
a way of breaking down the general method into a hierarchy of sub-problems, which 197'
are easier to evaluate. It utilizes multiple criteria, and provides a simple process for 198'
weighting portions of the hierarchy that is difficult to enumerate directly. This method 199'
describe a general multi-factor decision problem in way that decision tree in each of 200'

Sodikov'Jamshid'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
10'
the hierarchy levels include some types of criteria. The idea behind making decisions 201'
is to compare the relative importance of each criterion in adequate manner so that it 202'
can fit into general concepts. They are some of the concerns regarding application of 203'
AHP in making pair-wise comparisons between alternatives, the more alternatives the 204'
more problems occur regarding the consistency of the comparisons, and the 205'
assignments of the scores. An expert makes decision regarding the relative 206'
importance of each criterion and then specifies a preference, which is rated on a scale 207'
from 1 to 9, for each decision alternative. If there are n alternatives, then n*(n-1)/2 208'
pair-wise comparisons are needed. Obviously, for practical application of AHP, the 209'
number of alternatives must be reasonable limited. The result of AHP is a prioritized 210'
ranking that indicates the overall preference of each alternative. The expert 211'
responsible for adequateness of assigned that they reflect the importance of the issues. 212'
The consistency of the judgments of the expert can be measured with a consistency 213'
ratio (CR). The CR is calculated as follows: 214'
215'
217'
219'
Where, CI- consistency index, λmax = the eigenvalue corresponding to the principal 220'
eigenvector n = the number of alternatives or criteria being compared RI = the 221'
random index, a dimensionless value that is a step function of n. 222'
CR of 0.1 or less is considered acceptable. If a decision-maker’s responses fail 223'
the consistency test, then the analyst must repeat iteration until consistent responses 224'
are obtained. Applications of AHP highlighted in various transportation projects 225'
!
216 $
218
(1)
(2)

Sodikov'Jamshid'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
11'
evaluation [13-19]. A popularity of AHP method in solving multicriteria problems in 226'
infrastructure projects, clearly related to easy to use and the way it prioritize 227'
alternatives. The logic behind prioritization is based on expert’s judgment. Besides in 228'
decision-making the method can use quantitative and qualitative data. Despite of 229'
advantages there are some disadvantages such as scaling alternatives from 1 to 9, 230'
weakness of priorities estimation methods, large number of comparisons when many 231'
alternatives exists [20,21]. 232'
Before applying a method it is important to observe the issues, which affect the 233'
outcome of the research. Certain methods are good to apply at policymaking level but 234'
some are good at project level when detailed data available. An expert utilizes general 235'
data at policy level due to a nature of analysis. 236'
237'
SIMPLIFIED APPROACH FOR NETWORK LEVEL ANALYSIS USING 238'
ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS 239'
According to the United States Federal Highway Administration [1], 240'
decision-making in Road Asset Management can be considered at two levels: 241'
• Executive Level (policy/strategic/programming) 242'
• Operational Level (project development) 243'
The first level develops a long-term strategic plan and a short-term program 244'
of projects intended for funding. The second level provides evaluating and selecting 245'
projects in different parts of the network. The two levels of decision-making take 246'
place within political and technocratic processes. Generally, at the more detailed 247'
planning levels, more weight is given to technical decisions. Highway development 248'
and management software HDM-4 v2.0 utilizes multi-criteria analysis based on 249'
AHP when criteria cannot be assigned an economic cost [22]. 250'

Sodikov'Jamshid'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
12'
Road network length is 183 783 km in Uzbekistan. Public roads are 42 530 251'
km, internal local roads are 71 324 km, city streets and roads are 69 229 km. Public 252'
roads are main arterial roads of the country [23]. In order to efficiently manage 253'
public roads and implement road asset management at network level of analysis, we 254'
propose AHP consisting following components (Fig.3). 255'
256'
'257'
'258'
Figure 3. Analytic hierarchy process for network level of analysis 259'
260'
'There are three decision criteria such as asset, cost and traffic. Road agency’s 261'
focus is a policy on how and when to apply maintenance & rehabilitation projects 262'
depending on asset condition, road work costs and traffic. Some researchers [24,25] 263'
proved that to evaluate road condition, pavement roughness namely IRI is suitable 264'
to use. This approach could be useful and meaningful at network level of analysis. 265'
Detailed condition data needed at project level due to what type of repair measures 266'
need to be applied. In this research asset data is evaluated in terms of road network 267'
size. Cost data is a budget for the whole network. Budget can be allocated among 268'
regions taking into account population size in the region. Cost estimation of 269'
highway projects described in detail in [26]. Traffic volume was selected as traffic 270'

Sodikov'Jamshid'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
13'
decision criterion. In evaluation road user costs traffic volume is the most important 271'
factor. There are 13 administrative regions in Uzbekistan. They are marked from Z1 272'
to Z13 as alternative in Table 1. '273'
Table 1. Zones descriptions 274'
Zones&
Regions&
Population&
Vehicles&per&km&&&
Road&Network,&km&
Z1&
Andijon&&
2&672&300&
45&
2459&
Z2&
Buxoro&&
1&683&800&
35&
4002&
Z3&
Jizzax&&
1&166&700&
25&
2543&
Z4&
Qashqadaryo&&
2&722&900&
38&
3454&
Z5&
Navoiy&&
873&000&
20&
4196&
Z6&
Namangan&&
2&279&500&
39&
3355&
Z7&
Samarqand&&
3&270&800&
32&
4128&
Z8&
Surxondaryo&&
2&052&000&
26&
2719&
Z9&
Sirdaryo&&
727&200&
22&
1422&
Z10&
Toshkent&&
2&644&400&
50&
3833&
Z11&
Farg'ona&&
3&229&200&
48&
4175&
Z12&
Xorazm&&
1&601&100&
46&
2265&
Z13&
Qaraqalpaqstan&Respublikasi&
1&680&900&
28&
4175&
275'
First we assign importance for decisions then for each zone. Intensity of 276'
importance varies from 1 to 9; 1 – equal importance, 3- somewhat more important, 5 - 277'
much more important, 7- very much more important, 9- absolutely more important, 278'
2,4,6,8 – intermediate values used when compromise is needed. 279'
Road agency sets a policy to optimize resources efficiently depending on three 280'
decision factors such as asset, cost and traffic. Next step to assign importance factors 281'

Sodikov'Jamshid'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
14'
to each decision factors. Based on heuristic method an asset is 3 times less important 282'
than a budget and 5 times less important as traffic. On other hand a budget is 3 times 283'
less important than a traffic. Importance factors for each zone are calculated for each 284'
parameter such as size of population, vehicles per km and road network size. For 285'
zones the procedure of calculation importance factors are based on percentage share 286'
for each parameter. After obtaining matrices for each parameter, eigenvalues were 287'
calculated. Prioritization of alternatives (zones) repeated until CR value is less than 288'
0.1, calculations showed that after second iteration CR value significantly less that 289'
0.1. The results of AHP for a policy to optimize resources among regions based on 290'
decision factors such as asset, cost and traffic showed in Table 2. 291'
Table 2. Regions ranking based on AHP 292'
Zones
Regions
Ranking
Z5
Navoiy
0.034
Z8
Surxondaryo
0.037
Z7
Samarqand
0.040
Z2
Buxoro
0.045
Z4
Qashqadaryo
0.045
Z9
Sirdaryo
0.059
Z6
Namangan
0.063
Z13
Qaraqalpaqstan Respublikasi
0.077
Z1
Andijon
0.079
Z3
Jizzax
0.104

Sodikov'Jamshid'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
15'
Z12
Xorazm
0.112
Z10
Toshkent
0.116
Z11
Farg'ona
0.129
293'
The results indicated that most of the important regions are in the east Z11, 294'
Z10, Z1 and Z6 and in the west Z12, Z13. Significant share of international goods go 295'
through from east to west. Based on simple AHP approach it was proved that roads in 296'
these regions need priority to improve road condition (Fig 4). 297'
Over the past 10 years Anijon – Tashkent – Nukus – Kungrat highway was 298'
went though planning, designing and presently reconstruction and rehabilitation road 299'
works carried out in Bukhara and Xorazm regions. Based on this analysis for each 300'
region, road agency could proceed to analysis at project level where more detailed 301'
data is needed. 302'
'303'

Sodikov'Jamshid'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
16'
'
Fig'4.'Zoning'for'Network'Level'of'Analysis'

Sodikov'Jamshid'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
17'
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 259'
Transportation infrastructure assets are expensive to build and more expensive 260'
to maintain to meet public expectation. Road asset management serves as key tool to 261'
manage existing assets in way to better and efficiently operate and maintenance all the 262'
road assets. Road agencies both in developed and developing countries face similar 263'
barriers in implementing road asset management systems but with different level of 264'
implementation. RAMS can be grouped in four major components. They are goals, 265'
budget, asset and performance. These components are interconnected with each other 266'
and together they form four pillars of asset management system. If one of the pillars 267'
fail or incorrectly set the whole system will not work in efficient way to achieve best 268'
possible solution. There are several issues at policy level of analysis such as set up 269'
long term goals, expansion of road network, traffic safety action plans, environmental 270'
impact analysis, economic development and other; at budget level to plan year and 271'
multi year financing plan, budget breakdown and cost estimation; at data management 272'
level inventory and condition data collection, database management, traffic data and 273'
other; at performance modeling level to predict future condition, network level 274'
analysis and other; at programme optimization level to perform economic, 275'
environmental and risk analysis, multi-criteria analysis and other; implementation 276'
programme to carry out construction, maintenance and operation of assets and other. 277'
Present status quo of road asset management system is sophisticated approach 278'
to manage assets, it requires large amount of data, resources for data collection, 279'
storing and management, utilizes complicated performance prediction and assessment 280'
models, up to date hardware and software. In turn this requires highly qualified 281'
experts to make right decisions based on results obtained from the system. All these 282'
requirements are difficult to meet in developing countries therefore there is a need for 283'

Sodikov'Jamshid'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
18'
simplified approach managing assets. 259'
Proposed approach to network level of analysis simplifies road network 260'
evaluation. Data needed for the analysis is available in road agencies or easy to 261'
collect. There is also a drawback in this approach that it can only evaluate road 262'
network indirectly through parameters such as asset, cost and traffic. Further research 263'
will be focused on project level of analysis and the ways to simplify methods and 264'
tools. 265'
266'
267'
268'
269'
270'
271'
272'
273'
274'
275'
276'
277'
278'
279'
280'
281'
282'
283'

Sodikov'Jamshid'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
19'
LITERATURE 259'
1. Asset Management Primer, US Department of Transportation, 1999 260'
2. Asset Management for the Road Sector, OECD 2001 261'
3. Strategy for Improving Asset Management Practice, Austroads, 1997 262'
4. New Zealand National Asset Management Steering, 2000 263'
5.Transportation Association of Canada, 1999. 264'
6. Sodikov J.I. Draft report, Implementation road asset management in developing 265'
countries: case study of Uzbek road sector, 2007 266'
7. Transportation Research Board. Asset Management in Planning and Operations : 267'
A Peer Exchange. Transportation Research Circular, No. E-C076, 2005. 268'
8. Transportation Infrastructure Management System (TIMS). 269'
http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/3605.htm 270'
9. Eshonqulov A.U. Further development and improvements for road sector in 271'
Uzbekistan. Proceedings of state conference on “Important issues in road sector of 272'
Uzbekistan”. 2012 273'
10. Mizusawa, Daisuke, and Sue McNeil, "Synthesizing Experiences of 274'
Implementing Asset Management in the World: Lessons Leaned from Pavement 275'
Management Case Studies" 276'
"Transport Policy Studies Review" Vol.9 No.34, October 2006. 277'
11. Saaty T L (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw Hill International. 278'
12. G.T. Fechner, Elements of Psychophysics. Volume 1, (Holt, Rinehart & 279'
Winston, New York 1965); translation by H.E.Adler of Elemente der 280'
Psychophysik. (Breitkopf und Hârtel, Leipzig 1860). 281'
13. Seunglim Kang, Seongkwan Mark Lee, AHP-based decesion-making process for 282'
construction of public transportation city model: case study of Jeju, Korea. Joint 283'

Sodikov'Jamshid'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
20'
International Conference on Computing and Decision Making in Civil and 259'
Building Engineering, 2006 260'
14. Azis, I.J., (1990), “Analytic Hierarchy Process in benefit-cost framework: A 261'
post-evaluation of the Trans-Sumatra highway project”, European Journal of 262'
Operational Research. 263'
15. Hagquist, R.F., (1994), “High-precision Prioritization Using Analytic Hierarchy 264'
Process Determining State HPMS Component Weighting Factors”, 265'
Transportation Research Record 1429, pp 7-14 266'
16. Kim, K., Bernardin, V., (2002), “Application of an Analytical Hierarchy Process 267'
at the Indiana Department of Transportation for Prioritizing Major Highway 268'
Capital Investments”, Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1816, pp 269'
266-278 270'
17. Masami S., (1995), “Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)-Based Multi-Attribute 271'
Benefit Structure Analysis of Road Network Systems in Mountainous Rural 272'
Areas of Japan”, International Journal of Forest Engineering Vol. 7, No 1. 273'
18. Tabucanon, M. T. and Lee, H., (1995), “Multiple Criteria Evaluation of 274'
Transportation System improvement projects: the case of Korea”, Journal of 275'
Advanced Transportation, 29(1), pp 127-134. 276'
19. Kengpol, A., (2002), “The Design of a Support System (DSS) to Evaluation the 277'
Investment in New Distribution Centre Using The Analytic Hierarchy Process 278'
(AHP)”, Capital Investment Model and Transportation Model. 279'
20. R. Ramanathan, A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for 280'
environmental impact assessment. Journal of Environmental Management (2001) 281'
63, 27–35 282'
21. Ali Kamil Taslicali, Sami Ercan. The analytic hierarchy & the analytic network 283'

Sodikov'Jamshid'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
21'
processes in multicriteria decision making: a comparative study. Journal of 259'
aeronautics and space technologies , 2006 Volume 2, Number 4. 260'
22. Henry G. R. Kerali, J.B. Odoki, Eric E. Stannard, Highway Development and 261'
Management HDM-4, Volume 1, Overview of HDM-4, 2005 262'
23. Uzavtoyul Joint Stock Company report, 2012. www.http://uzavtoyul.uz/en 263'
24. Park, K., Thomas, N., and Wayne Lee, K. (2007). ”Applicability of the 264'
International Roughness Index as a Predictor of Asphalt Pavement Condition.” 265'
Journal Transportation Engineering, 133(12), 706–709. 266'
25. Jyh-Dong Lin, Jyh-Tyng Yau and Liang-Hao Hsiao, “Correlation Analysis 267'
Between International Roughness Index (IRI) and Pavement Distress by Neural 268'
Network”, 82th Annual Meeting, 2003. 269'
26. Sodikov J.I., Road Cost Models for Prefeasibility Studies in Developing 270'
Countries. Journal of Infrastructure Systems. ASCE, VA, USA, 2009, Volume 271'
15, Number 4, pp 278-29 272'