Evaluation of Utility Management Practice in Road Construction Projects of Mekelle City

Mearg Ngusse Sahle; Ashenafi Aregawi

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ajetm.20210604.11

| Peer-Reviewed

Evaluation of Utility Management Practice in Road Construction Projects of Mekelle City

Mearg Ngusse Sahle, Ashenafi Aregawi

Published in American Journal of Engineering and Technology Management (Volume 6, Issue 4)

Received: 19 July 2021 Accepted: 28 July 2021 Published: 5 August 2021

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Poor installation, relocation, maintenance, and management of utilities in a road right-of-way causes; (a) project delays to ongoing road construction projects, (b) repetitive damage and service loss to utilities, and (c) frequent pavement cuts to roads after project completion. This research aimed to evaluate the telecommunication, electric power and water supply utilities management practice in Mekelle city, during the life cycle of road projects, with a special emphasis to the construction phase. The evaluation was made by using 14 project success criteria parameters to measure the performance of stakeholders according to the Ethiopian standards, and benchmarking the current practice with European & U.S.A best practices. Quantitative descriptive-survey approach followed by qualitative-case studies were used for the research. The quantitative data has been gathered using three different sets of questionnaires. Part I contained questions designed to study the pre-construction, and post-construction utility management practices. The respondents were road administrator, utility operators and urban planners. Part II and III of the questionnaire surveyed road designers and contractors for issues of utility management during road design and construction phases respectively. In order to confirm the responses from the questionnaire surveys, observations on 12 ongoing & 6 recently competed road projects, and desk study survey of 5 ongoing road projects were made. Then the root causes of utility management problems were identified using qualitative case studies on the capacity and limitations of individual stakeholders. Based on the data analysis it is concluded that, the current practice of utility management during a road project life cycle is very poor both according to the Ethiopian standards, and in comparison to the European and U.S.A. best practices. 98% of the ongoing road construction projects suffer impacts due to delay in relocating utilities; 43% of the contractors suffered frequent costs of utility damages; and 95% of the recently completed roads suffer from inadequacy of ROW, road-utility conflicts, and non-uniform utility installation practice. The root causes to the utility management problems are (1) inadequate or nonexistent standard guidelines, (2) lack of technology and knowledge for utility management, (3) absence of integrated infrastructure planning and development, and (4) absence of asset management program among the infrastructure planners and operators in Mekelle city.

Published in	American Journal of Engineering and Technology Management (Volume 6, Issue 4)
DOI	10.11648/j.ajetm.20210604.11
Page(s)	47-71
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Utility Relocation, Utility Cut, Utility Management, Integrated Road-Utility Management

References

[1]	Quiroga C., Kraus E., Overman J. & Koncz N. (2015), Integration of Utility and Environmental Activities in the Project Development Process (Report 0-6065-1, Project 0-6065). Texas Transportation Institute, 1-14.
[2]	Bell L., Brandenburg S., Ogle J., & Reinke M. (2014), Evaluation of Utility Relocation Costs & Best Management Practices. South Carolina Department of Transportation, Columbia, South Carolina, USA.
[3]	Scott C. P. (2012), Incentives for utility relocations. National Utilities Liaison, Cardno TBE, 3-9.
[4]	Makam K. K. & Rao C. H. (2015), Time and Cost Overrun Analysis of Highway Projects. Lambert Academic Publishing, Heinrich Blocking str 6-8, 66121 saarbrucken, Deutschland, Germany, ISBN: 978-3-659-75192-9, 34.
[5]	Wijekoon S. B. & Attanayake A. M. C. T. K. (2011), Study on The Cost Overruns in Road Construction Projects in Sri Lanka. University of Peradeniya & Sri Lanka Road Development Authority, 7.
[6]	Cheyuo V. A. (2016), Impact of Relocating Utility Services During Road Construction: The Management of Issues When They Arise. A Thesis Submitted to The Department of Building Technology, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science & Technology, Kumasi, Ghana, 57.
[7]	Makana L., Metje N., Jefferson I. and Rogers C. (2016), What do Utility Strikes really Cost? A report by the University of Birmingham, School of Civil Engineering, 2.
[8]	American Society of Civil Engineers (2002), CI/ASCE 38-02 - Standard Guideline for the Collection and Depiction of Existing Subsurface Utility Data. Reston, VA, 3-8.
[9]	Threlfall R. (2018), Smart infrastructure: mapping underground utilities. KPMG International Cooperative, Swiss entity, 3.
[10]	Karim M., Rizvi R., Henderson V., Uzarowski L.; Chyc-Cies, J. (2014), Effect of Utility Cuts on Serviceability of Pavement Assets - A Case Study from the City of Calgary. Paper presented at 2014 Annual Conference of the Transportation Association of Canada, Montreal, Quebec, 15.
[11]	Ethiopian Roads Authority (2013), Pavement Rehabilitation & Asphalt Overlay Design Manual. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
[12]	Charleston Department of Public Service, (2014), Utility Pavement Cut and Repair Guidelines. City of Charleston Department of Public Service – Engineering Division, 2-15.
[13]	Durham Department of Public Works (2009), Street Cut Pavement Repair Standards. Durham City Department of Public Works – Engineering Division, 2-22.
[14]	Wu D. & Zhang X. (2015), A Framework for Effective Management of Underground Utilities. The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Journal of Advanced Management Science Vol. 3, No. 3.
[15]	KPMG (2018), Smart Infrastructure Mapping Underground Utilities. KPMG, United Kingdom, 3.
[16]	Ethiopian Roads Authority (2013), Geometric Design Manual. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
[17]	Ethiopian Roads Authority (2013), Drainage Design Manual. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
[18]	Ethiopian Roads Authority (2016), Road Sector Development Program 19 Years Performance Assessment. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
[19]	Ethiopian Roads Authority (2015), The Road Sector Development Program – Phase V. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
[20]	National Planning Commission (2016), Growth and Transformation Plan II (GTP II) (2015/16 – 2019/20) – Volume I: Main Text. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
[21]	International Monetary Fund (2018), World Economic Outlook – Challenges to Steady Growth. International Monetary Fund Publication Services, p - ISSN 0256-6877, e - ISSN 1564-5215.
[22]	National Bank of Ethiopia (2018), 2017/18 Annual Report. National Bank of Ethiopia, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 18 & 25.
[23]	Koshe W. & Jha K. N. (2016), Investigating Causes of Construction Delay in Ethiopian Construction Industries. Journal of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, 18-29.
[24]	Temesgen G. (2016), Asphalt Road Pavement Rehabilitation & Maintenance – Case Study in Addis Ababa City Roads Authority. A thesis submitted to Addis Ababa University, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering.
[25]	Azis A. A., Memon A. H., Rahman I. A., Nagapan S. & Latif Q. I. (2012), Challenges Faced by Construction Industry in Accomplishing Sustainability Goals. 2012 IEEE Symposium on Business, Engineering and Industrial Applications.
[26]	Datta M. (2010), Challenges Facing the Construction Industry in Developing Countries. Department of Architecture & Building Services, Gaborone, Botswana, 1-10.
[27]	Gofori B. D. (2011), Challenges of Construction Industries in Developing Countries: Lessons From Various Countries. Department of Building, National University of Singapore, Singapore, 1-13.
[28]	Indiana Department of Transportation (2004), Accountability Communication Coordination & Cooperation. Report of the Utility Relocation Task Force.
[29]	Transportation Association of Canada (2008), Management of Utilities in & Adjacent to the Public Right-of-Way: Survey of Practices. Transportation Association of Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
[30]	Brigman T. L (2005), Utility Owners’ Pre-Construction & Construction Responsibilities. A presentation at the GDOT State Utilities Office, Georgia, USA, 3.
[31]	Ellis D. R. & Thomas H. R. (2003), The root causes of delays in highway construction. Submitted for Presentation at the 82nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C, 13.
[32]	South Carolina Department of Transportation (2006), Factors That Delay Active Construction Projects ¬& Potential Solutions. South Carolina Department of Transportation.
[33]	Kraus E., Li Y., Overman J. & Quiroga C. (2013), Utility Investigation Best Practices & Effects on TxDOT Highway Improvement Projects. Texas Department of Transportation – Research & Technology Implementation Office, Texas A & M Transportation Institute, Austin, Texas U.S.A. Report - FHWA/TX-13/0=6631-1, 31-153.
[34]	Transportation Research Board (March 2012), SHRP 2 Tools for Underground Utility Location, Data Collection, & Analysis. Strategies for Improving the Project Agreement Process, Transportation Research Board, U.S.A.
[35]	Zeiss G. (2014), Geolocating Underground Utility Infrastructure. 3D Infrastructure Reality Capturing Project, City of Las Vegas Main Street. City of Las Vegas, USA.
[36]	Environmental System Research Institute (2017), Whatare geometricnetworks?https://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/10.3/managedata/geometric-networks/what-are-geometric-networks-.htm.
[37]	European Commission Joint Research Centre (2013), D2.8.III. 6 INSPIRE Data Specification on “Utility and Government Services” Technical Guidelines. European Commission Joint Research Centre.
[38]	Turkan Y. & Shane J. S. (2016), Modernizing Road Construction Plans & Documentation. Local Road Research Board, Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, Minnesota, U.S.A.
[39]	Prakash A. (2017), Geographical Information Systems – An Overview. Indian Institute of Information Technology, 1-6.
[40]	Yan J., Jaw S. W., Son R. V., Soon K. H. & Schrotter G. (2018), Three-Dimensional Data Modelling for Underground Utility Network Mapping. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing & Spatial Information Sciences, Delft, The Netherlands, Vol. XLII-4, 711-715.
[41]	Becker, T., Nagel, C. & Kolbe, T. H. (2011), Integrated 3d modeling of multi-utility networks and their interdependencies for critical infrastructure analysis. In: Advances in 3D GeoInformation Sciences, Springer, 1–20.
[42]	Becker T., Nagel C. & Kolbe T. H. (2013), Semantic 3D Modeling of Multi-utility Networks in Cities for Analysis & 3D Visualization. 3D GeoInfo Conference, Quebec, Canada, 1-22.
[43]	Hijazi, I., Kutzner, T. & Kolbe, T. H. (2017) Use Cases and their Requirements on the Semantic Modeling of 3d Supply and Disposal Networks. Kulturelles Erbe erfassen und bewahren-Von der Dokumentation zum virtuellen Rundgang, 37. Wissenschaftlich-Technische Jahrestagung der DGPF, 288-301.
[44]	Bazjanac V. & Crawley D. B. (1997), The Implementation of Industry Foundation Classes in Simulation Tools For The Building Industry, 2-9.
[45]	Hashim, M., Wei, J. S. & Marghany, M. (2010), Subsurface utility mapping for underground cadastral infrastructure. A paper presented in 31st Asian Conference on Remote Sensing (ACRS 2010), 1–5.
[46]	Pouliot J. & Girard P., (2016), 3d Cadastre: With or Without Subsurface Utility Network? 5th International Federation of Surveyors Workshop, Athens, Greece, 1-14.
[47]	Steven W. G. (2006), Factors that delay active construction projects and potential solutions. South Carolina Department of Transportation.
[48]	Virginia Department of Transportation (2013), Chapter 13 – SUE Utility Engineering – Designation and Location. Virginia Department of Transportation, Virginia, USA, 1-7.
[49]	British Standards Institute (2014), PAS 128: 2014 Specification for Underground Utility Detection, Verification & Location. British Standards Institute, London, UK.
[50]	Mainroads Western Australia (2018), Underground Utilities Survey Standard 67-08-121. Asset and Geospatial Information Branch Survey and Mapping Section, Mainroads Western Australia, Government of Western Australia, Australia, 9-12.
[51]	Hesham O. & El-Diraby T. (2005), Subsurface Utility Engineering in Ontario: Challenges & Opportunities – A Summary of Main Findings. University of Toronto, Department of Civil Engineering, Centre for Information Systems in Infrastructure & Construction, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 11.
[52]	Sinha S. K., Thomas H. R., Wang M. C. & Jung Y. J. (2007), Subsurface Utility Engineering Manual. Pennsylvania Transportation Institute, Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., Report PTI 2008-02, 87.
[53]	Environmental System Research Institute (2016), Integrating New York City Information Systems – Improving Situational Awareness for Everyone. Esri, 380 New York Street, Redlands, CA 92373 8100, USA, 7-14.
[54]	Federal Highway Administration (2002), Avoiding Utility Relocations. U.S. Department of Transportation, Publication No. FHWA-IF-02-049, 2.
[55]	Li S. & Cheng H. (2010), Developing a GIS-based Electronic Mark Plant Circulation System in a Collaborative & End-user Computing Approach. MTR, Hong Kong.
[56]	Blue Stakes of Utah Utility Notification Center (2014), Common Ground Alliance – Best Practices. Blue Stakes of Utah Utility Notification Center Inc., 1-5.
[57]	Iowa Department of Transportation (2006), Policy for Accommodating Utilities on the County & City Non-Primary Federal-Aid Road System. Office of Local Systems, Iowa Department of Transportation, Iowa, USA.
[58]	Marti M. M., Knutson K. L. & Corkle J. (2002), Utility Relocation: A Communication & Coordination Process for Local Governments. Minnesota Local Road Research Board, Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.
[59]	Oregon Department of Transportation (2015), Utility Relocation Guide. Oregon Department of Transportation, Oregon, USA.
[60]	Association of Australian Dial before You Dig Services (2019), Dial Before You Dig: User Kit. Victoria, Australia: Australian Association of Dial before You Dig Services Ltd. pp. 6, 21.
[61]	American Association of State & Highway Transportation Officials – Standing Committee on Highways (2004), Right of Way and Utilities Guidelines & Approved Practices – Strategic Plan Strategy 4-4. Highway Subcommittee on Right of Way & Utilities, Federal Highway Administration, 4 & 42.
[62]	Indiana Department of Transportation (2010), What Lies Within – The Hidden Challenge in Reconstructing Hoosier Highways. Indiana Department of Transportation.
[63]	Moeller R., Pestinger J., Frierson M., Kennedy W., McCormick A., Muth C. C., Myers J., Scott P., &t Waymack S. (2002), European Right-of-Way & Utilities Best Practices. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Report No. – FHWA-PL-02-013.
[64]	Colorado Department of Transportation (2011), Guidelines for Accommodating Utilities in the State Highway Rights of Way. State of Colorado, USA.
[65]	Illinois Bureau of Design & Environment Manual (2007, Chapter Six – Utility Coordination. Illinois Department of Transportation, Illinois, USA.
[66]	North Dakota Department of Transportation (2010), Coordination & Notification for Utility Relocation, Adjustments, & Reimbursement Policies & Procedures. North Dakota Department of Transportation. North Dakota, USA.
[67]	Oregon Department of Transportation (2007), Procedures for Utility Relocation/ Reimbursement for Federally Funded Local Public Agency Projects. Oregon Department of Transportation, Oregon, USA.
[68]	Transportation Association of Canada (2016), Guidelines for the Coordination of Utility Relocations. Transportation Association of Canada, Ottawa, Canada. ISBN 978-1-55187-591-0.
[69]	Utah Department of Transportation (2017), Utility Coordination Manual of Instruction. Utah Department of Transportation, Utah, USA.
[70]	Wisconsin Department of Transportation (June 2015), WisDOT Guide to Utility Coordination – Chapter 5, Utility Permits & Chapter 20, Conflicts During Construction. Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Wisconsin, USA.
[71]	Washington State Department of Transportation (2014), Standard Specificaitons for Road, Bridge, and Municipal construction 2014 – M 41-10. Washington State Department of Transportation & American Public Works Association.
[72]	North Dakota Department of Transportation (2006), A Policy for Accommodation of Utilities on State Highway Right-of-Way. North Dakota Department of Transportation, Bismarck, North Dakota, USA.
[73]	City of Orlando (2009), City of Orlando Engineering Standards Manual. Adopted by City Council, Orlando, Florida, 4th ed.
[74]	Kansas Local Technical Assistance Program (2007), Guide for Accommodating Utilities Within Right-of-Way for Counties & Small Cities in Kansas. Federal Highway Administration, Kansas Department of Transportation, Lawrence, Kansas, USA.
[75]	Lincoln-County Highway Department (2016), Accommodation of Utilities on County Highway Right-of-Way. Lincoln County Highway Department, Lincoln, USA.
[76]	New Hampshire Department of Transportation (2010), Utility Accommodation Manual. Bureau of Highway Design, New Hampshire, USA.
[77]	Transportation Association of Canada (2013), Guidelines for Underground Utility Installations Crossing Highway Rights-of-Way. Transportation Association of Canada, Ottawa, Canada. ISBN 978-1-55187-507-1.
[78]	National Joint Utilities Group (2013), NJUG Guidelines on the Positioning & Color Coding of Underground Utilities’ Apparatus. National Joint Utilities Group Ltd. Volume 1, Issue 8.
[79]	Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (2018), Design Manual Part 5 Utility Relocation: Gas-Water-Sanitary Sewer-Electric-Telecommunications-Cable Television. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Bureau of Project Delivery, Pennsylvania, USA. Publication 16.
[80]	Tennessee Department of Transportation (2012), Guidebook for Utility Relocation: Related to TDOT Construction Projects. Tennessee Department of Transportation, Tennessee, USA. 1^st ed.
[81]	Virginia Department of Transportation (2016), Utility Manual of Instructions: Utility Relocation Policies & Procedures. Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation, Virginia, USA. 11th ed.
[82]	West Virginia Department of Transportation (2007), Accommodation of Utilities on Highway Right of Way & Adjustment and Relocation of Utility Facilities on Highway Projects.
[83]	Statewide Urban Design & Specifications (2005), Utility Cut Repair Techniques – Investigation of Improved Cut Repair Techniques to Reduce Settlement in Repaired Areas. Iowa Highway Research Board – Center for Transportation Research & Education, 131.
[84]	Highway Authorities & Utilities Committee of United Kingdom (2006), Practical Guide to Street Works. The Stationery Office, United Kingdom, London, ISBN-13 978-0-11-552746-3, 9-50.
[85]	Clarke R. A. (2008), Designing Major Urban Road Corridors for Active Transportation: The Ottawa Case. A paper prepared for presentation at the Geometric Design in Support of Alternative Transportation Modes Session: of the 2008 Annual Conference of the Transportation Association of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, 14.
[86]	Federal Highway Administration (2003), Program Guide: Utility Relocation & Accommodation on Federal – Aid Highway Projects. Office of Program Administration – Federal Highway Administration, U.S.A., 35.
[87]	Stokes M. L. (2011), Moving the Lines: The Common Law of Utility Relocation. A thesis submitted to Valparaiso University of Law, ValpoScholar, Vol. 45, No. 2, 485.
[88]	Transportation Research Board (2010), NCHRP Synthesis 405 - Utility Location & Highway Design – A Synthesis of Highway Practice. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., USA, 3.
[89]	Sturgill R. E., Taylor R. B., Ghorashinezhad S. & Zhang J. (2015), Methods to Expedite and Streamline Utility Relocations for road Projects (2014 Research Report KTC -14-15/SPR-460-13-1F). University of Kentucky, Kentucky Transportation Center research report, 176 Oliver H. Raymond Building, Lexington, KY 40506-0281.
[90]	Ellis R. (2003), Development of Improved Strategies for Avoiding Utility-Related Delays During FDOT Highway Construction Projects. Summary of Final Report, BC 354-52, University of Florida.
[91]	Occupational Safety & Health Administration (2015), Trenching & Excavation Safety. U.S. Department of Labor – Occupational Safety & Health Administration, U.S.A. OSHA 2226-10R 2015, 4-5.
[92]	Washington State (2011), Can You Dig It? – Washington’s New Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act. The Washington State, Washington D.C., USA, 1-6.
[93]	Nichols, Vallegra & Associates Pavement & Materials Engineers (2000), Impact of Utility Cuts on Performance of Seattle Streets. A report submitted to City of Seattle Transportation Office, Seattle, Washington, 44.
[94]	Shahin and Associates Pavement Engineering (2002), Analysis of the Impact of Utility Cuts in Rehabilitation Costs in Santa Cruz County, CA. A report prepared for the County of Santa Cruz, CA, 1-3.
[95]	Lakkavalli V., Poon B. & Dhanoa S. (2015), Challenges in Utility Coordination & Implementation of Pavement Degradation Fees. Paper prepared for presentation at the Safe Management of Utility Infrastructure within our Roadways Session, 2015 Conference of the Transportation Association of Canada, Charlottetown, PEI, 11.
[96]	Mouaket A. & Capano N. A. (2013), Development of a Pavement Degradation Fee Structure for the City of Toronto. A paper presented at the 2013 Conference of the Transportation Association of Canada, Winnipeg, Manitoba, 14.
[97]	Transportation Services of Toronto (2010), Improvements to the Utility Cut Management Process. Staff Report to Public Works & Infrastructure Committee, Toronto, Canada, 15.
[98]	Habenom G. Z. (2017), Research in Ethiopian Construction Industry: Review of Past Studies & Future Need Assessment. A thesis submitted to Addis Ababa University, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering.
[99]	Matters M. (2014), Manufacturing report 2014. London School of Economics – Center of Economic Performance, London, U.K.
[100]	Deribachew M. E. (2016), Reliability Assessment of Design Practice: Road Design Projects in Ethiopia.
[101]	Ethiopian Roads Authority (2016), Feasibility & EIA study, Detailed Engineering Design & Tender Document Preparation of Jima – Chida Road Project. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
[102]	Siraw Y. T. (2013), Analysis of Factors Contributing to Time Overruns in Road Construction Projects Under Addis Ababa City Administration. International Journal of Science and Research, e-ISSN: 2319-7064.
[103]	Asmelash H., (Writer), & Angesom B. (Director) (9:00 PM, March 6, 2019), Mitsgan Do Milgab? In Angesom B. (Producers), Tezibti Television Series. Dimtsi Weyane Television, Mekelle, Ethiopia.
[104]	Yirsaw Z. (2012), The Problem of Urban Utility Infrastructure Provision in Ethiopia: The Case of Bahir Dar City. MSc. Thesis Presented to Bahir Dar University, School of Urban Design & Development, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.
[105]	Empire of Ethiopia, (1960), Civil Code of Ethiopia Proclamation No. 165/ 1960 (Art. 1460 – 1488). Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 258 – 259.
[106]	The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia – House of Peoples’ Representatives (2005), Expropriation of Landholdings for Public Purposes & Payment of Compensation Proclamation No. 455/2005. The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 3 – 8.
[107]	Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (1994), Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 13.
[108]	Ethiopian Roads Authority (2013), Route Selection Manual. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
[109]	Ethiopian Roads Authority (2013), Site Investigation Manual. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
[110]	Ethiopian Roads Authority (2011), Low Volume Road Design Manual. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
[111]	Ethiopian Roads Authority (2013), Geotechnical Design Manual. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
[112]	Ethiopian Roads Authority (2012), Quality Manual – Volume 4 Feasibility Studies & Design – Part Two. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
[113]	Ethiopian Roads Authority (2012), Quality Manual – Volume 6A Construction Management (Administration). Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
[114]	Ethiopian Roads Authority (2012), Quality Manual – Volume 7A Maintenance Management (Administration). Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
[115]	Ministry of Urban Development & Construction - Urban Planning, Sanitation & Beautification Bureau (2012), Revised Standards for Structure Plan Preparation & Implementation. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 50 – 54.
[116]	Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia- House of Peoples Representatives (2008), Urban Planning Proclamation No. 574/2008. The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 10.
[117]	The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia – House of Peoples’ Representatives (2005), Protection of Telecommunication & Electric Power Networks Proclamation No. 464/ 2005. The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 1-3.
[118]	The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia – House of Peoples’ Representatives (2014), Energy Proclamation No. 810/ 2013. The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 11 & 14.
[119]	Ministry of Works & Urban Development (2006), Integrated Urban Infrastructure & Services Planning Manual. Federal Urban Planning Institute – Ministry of Works & Urban Development, 2 – 65.
[120]	The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia – House of Peoples’ Representatives (2014), Proclamation to provide for the Establishment of Federal Integrated Infrastructure Development Coordinating Agency -Proc. No. 857/2014. The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 3-5.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Mearg Ngusse Sahle, Ashenafi Aregawi. (2021). Evaluation of Utility Management Practice in Road Construction Projects of Mekelle City. American Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 6(4), 47-71. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajetm.20210604.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Mearg Ngusse Sahle; Ashenafi Aregawi. Evaluation of Utility Management Practice in Road Construction Projects of Mekelle City. Am. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 2021, 6(4), 47-71. doi: 10.11648/j.ajetm.20210604.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Mearg Ngusse Sahle, Ashenafi Aregawi. Evaluation of Utility Management Practice in Road Construction Projects of Mekelle City. Am J Eng Technol Manag. 2021;6(4):47-71. doi: 10.11648/j.ajetm.20210604.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ajetm.20210604.11,
  author = {Mearg Ngusse Sahle and Ashenafi Aregawi},
  title = {Evaluation of Utility Management Practice in Road Construction Projects of Mekelle City},
  journal = {American Journal of Engineering and Technology Management},
  volume = {6},
  number = {4},
  pages = {47-71},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajetm.20210604.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajetm.20210604.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajetm.20210604.11},
  abstract = {Poor installation, relocation, maintenance, and management of utilities in a road right-of-way causes; (a) project delays to ongoing road construction projects, (b) repetitive damage and service loss to utilities, and (c) frequent pavement cuts to roads after project completion. This research aimed to evaluate the telecommunication, electric power and water supply utilities management practice in Mekelle city, during the life cycle of road projects, with a special emphasis to the construction phase. The evaluation was made by using 14 project success criteria parameters to measure the performance of stakeholders according to the Ethiopian standards, and benchmarking the current practice with European & U.S.A best practices. Quantitative descriptive-survey approach followed by qualitative-case studies were used for the research. The quantitative data has been gathered using three different sets of questionnaires. Part I contained questions designed to study the pre-construction, and post-construction utility management practices. The respondents were road administrator, utility operators and urban planners. Part II and III of the questionnaire surveyed road designers and contractors for issues of utility management during road design and construction phases respectively. In order to confirm the responses from the questionnaire surveys, observations on 12 ongoing & 6 recently competed road projects, and desk study survey of 5 ongoing road projects were made. Then the root causes of utility management problems were identified using qualitative case studies on the capacity and limitations of individual stakeholders. Based on the data analysis it is concluded that, the current practice of utility management during a road project life cycle is very poor both according to the Ethiopian standards, and in comparison to the European and U.S.A. best practices. 98% of the ongoing road construction projects suffer impacts due to delay in relocating utilities; 43% of the contractors suffered frequent costs of utility damages; and 95% of the recently completed roads suffer from inadequacy of ROW, road-utility conflicts, and non-uniform utility installation practice. The root causes to the utility management problems are (1) inadequate or nonexistent standard guidelines, (2) lack of technology and knowledge for utility management, (3) absence of integrated infrastructure planning and development, and (4) absence of asset management program among the infrastructure planners and operators in Mekelle city.},
 year = {2021}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Evaluation of Utility Management Practice in Road Construction Projects of Mekelle City
AU  - Mearg Ngusse Sahle
AU  - Ashenafi Aregawi
Y1  - 2021/08/05
PY  - 2021
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajetm.20210604.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.ajetm.20210604.11
T2  - American Journal of Engineering and Technology Management
JF  - American Journal of Engineering and Technology Management
JO  - American Journal of Engineering and Technology Management
SP  - 47
EP  - 71
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2575-1441
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajetm.20210604.11
AB  - Poor installation, relocation, maintenance, and management of utilities in a road right-of-way causes; (a) project delays to ongoing road construction projects, (b) repetitive damage and service loss to utilities, and (c) frequent pavement cuts to roads after project completion. This research aimed to evaluate the telecommunication, electric power and water supply utilities management practice in Mekelle city, during the life cycle of road projects, with a special emphasis to the construction phase. The evaluation was made by using 14 project success criteria parameters to measure the performance of stakeholders according to the Ethiopian standards, and benchmarking the current practice with European & U.S.A best practices. Quantitative descriptive-survey approach followed by qualitative-case studies were used for the research. The quantitative data has been gathered using three different sets of questionnaires. Part I contained questions designed to study the pre-construction, and post-construction utility management practices. The respondents were road administrator, utility operators and urban planners. Part II and III of the questionnaire surveyed road designers and contractors for issues of utility management during road design and construction phases respectively. In order to confirm the responses from the questionnaire surveys, observations on 12 ongoing & 6 recently competed road projects, and desk study survey of 5 ongoing road projects were made. Then the root causes of utility management problems were identified using qualitative case studies on the capacity and limitations of individual stakeholders. Based on the data analysis it is concluded that, the current practice of utility management during a road project life cycle is very poor both according to the Ethiopian standards, and in comparison to the European and U.S.A. best practices. 98% of the ongoing road construction projects suffer impacts due to delay in relocating utilities; 43% of the contractors suffered frequent costs of utility damages; and 95% of the recently completed roads suffer from inadequacy of ROW, road-utility conflicts, and non-uniform utility installation practice. The root causes to the utility management problems are (1) inadequate or nonexistent standard guidelines, (2) lack of technology and knowledge for utility management, (3) absence of integrated infrastructure planning and development, and (4) absence of asset management program among the infrastructure planners and operators in Mekelle city.
VL  - 6
IS  - 4
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Mearg Ngusse Sahle

Department of Construction Technology and Management, Ethiopian Institute of Technology Mekelle, Mekelle, Ethiopia
Ashenafi Aregawi

Department of Construction Technology and Management, Ethiopian Institute of Technology Mekelle, Mekelle, Ethiopia

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Mearg Ngusse Sahle, Ashenafi Aregawi. (2021). Evaluation of Utility Management Practice in Road Construction Projects of Mekelle City. American Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 6(4), 47-71. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajetm.20210604.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Mearg Ngusse Sahle; Ashenafi Aregawi. Evaluation of Utility Management Practice in Road Construction Projects of Mekelle City. Am. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 2021, 6(4), 47-71. doi: 10.11648/j.ajetm.20210604.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Mearg Ngusse Sahle, Ashenafi Aregawi. Evaluation of Utility Management Practice in Road Construction Projects of Mekelle City. Am J Eng Technol Manag. 2021;6(4):47-71. doi: 10.11648/j.ajetm.20210604.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ajetm.20210604.11,
  author = {Mearg Ngusse Sahle and Ashenafi Aregawi},
  title = {Evaluation of Utility Management Practice in Road Construction Projects of Mekelle City},
  journal = {American Journal of Engineering and Technology Management},
  volume = {6},
  number = {4},
  pages = {47-71},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajetm.20210604.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajetm.20210604.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajetm.20210604.11},
  abstract = {Poor installation, relocation, maintenance, and management of utilities in a road right-of-way causes; (a) project delays to ongoing road construction projects, (b) repetitive damage and service loss to utilities, and (c) frequent pavement cuts to roads after project completion. This research aimed to evaluate the telecommunication, electric power and water supply utilities management practice in Mekelle city, during the life cycle of road projects, with a special emphasis to the construction phase. The evaluation was made by using 14 project success criteria parameters to measure the performance of stakeholders according to the Ethiopian standards, and benchmarking the current practice with European & U.S.A best practices. Quantitative descriptive-survey approach followed by qualitative-case studies were used for the research. The quantitative data has been gathered using three different sets of questionnaires. Part I contained questions designed to study the pre-construction, and post-construction utility management practices. The respondents were road administrator, utility operators and urban planners. Part II and III of the questionnaire surveyed road designers and contractors for issues of utility management during road design and construction phases respectively. In order to confirm the responses from the questionnaire surveys, observations on 12 ongoing & 6 recently competed road projects, and desk study survey of 5 ongoing road projects were made. Then the root causes of utility management problems were identified using qualitative case studies on the capacity and limitations of individual stakeholders. Based on the data analysis it is concluded that, the current practice of utility management during a road project life cycle is very poor both according to the Ethiopian standards, and in comparison to the European and U.S.A. best practices. 98% of the ongoing road construction projects suffer impacts due to delay in relocating utilities; 43% of the contractors suffered frequent costs of utility damages; and 95% of the recently completed roads suffer from inadequacy of ROW, road-utility conflicts, and non-uniform utility installation practice. The root causes to the utility management problems are (1) inadequate or nonexistent standard guidelines, (2) lack of technology and knowledge for utility management, (3) absence of integrated infrastructure planning and development, and (4) absence of asset management program among the infrastructure planners and operators in Mekelle city.},
 year = {2021}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Evaluation of Utility Management Practice in Road Construction Projects of Mekelle City
AU  - Mearg Ngusse Sahle
AU  - Ashenafi Aregawi
Y1  - 2021/08/05
PY  - 2021
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajetm.20210604.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.ajetm.20210604.11
T2  - American Journal of Engineering and Technology Management
JF  - American Journal of Engineering and Technology Management
JO  - American Journal of Engineering and Technology Management
SP  - 47
EP  - 71
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2575-1441
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajetm.20210604.11
AB  - Poor installation, relocation, maintenance, and management of utilities in a road right-of-way causes; (a) project delays to ongoing road construction projects, (b) repetitive damage and service loss to utilities, and (c) frequent pavement cuts to roads after project completion. This research aimed to evaluate the telecommunication, electric power and water supply utilities management practice in Mekelle city, during the life cycle of road projects, with a special emphasis to the construction phase. The evaluation was made by using 14 project success criteria parameters to measure the performance of stakeholders according to the Ethiopian standards, and benchmarking the current practice with European & U.S.A best practices. Quantitative descriptive-survey approach followed by qualitative-case studies were used for the research. The quantitative data has been gathered using three different sets of questionnaires. Part I contained questions designed to study the pre-construction, and post-construction utility management practices. The respondents were road administrator, utility operators and urban planners. Part II and III of the questionnaire surveyed road designers and contractors for issues of utility management during road design and construction phases respectively. In order to confirm the responses from the questionnaire surveys, observations on 12 ongoing & 6 recently competed road projects, and desk study survey of 5 ongoing road projects were made. Then the root causes of utility management problems were identified using qualitative case studies on the capacity and limitations of individual stakeholders. Based on the data analysis it is concluded that, the current practice of utility management during a road project life cycle is very poor both according to the Ethiopian standards, and in comparison to the European and U.S.A. best practices. 98% of the ongoing road construction projects suffer impacts due to delay in relocating utilities; 43% of the contractors suffered frequent costs of utility damages; and 95% of the recently completed roads suffer from inadequacy of ROW, road-utility conflicts, and non-uniform utility installation practice. The root causes to the utility management problems are (1) inadequate or nonexistent standard guidelines, (2) lack of technology and knowledge for utility management, (3) absence of integrated infrastructure planning and development, and (4) absence of asset management program among the infrastructure planners and operators in Mekelle city.
VL  - 6
IS  - 4
ER  -

Copy | Download