The Georgia Engineer Dec-Jan 2013 by Luke Clark

the

GeorgiaEngineer GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS Volume 19, Issue 6 | December | January 2013

Savannah Harbor Expansion Program a regional project with national impact

速

The GeorGia enGineer

the

GeorgiaEngineer Publisher: A4 Inc. 1154 Lower Birmingham Road Canton, Georgia 30115 Tel.: 770-521-8877 • Fax: 770-521-0406 E-mail: p.frey@a4inc.com Managing Editor: Roland Petersen-Frey Art Direction/Design: Pamela Petersen-Frey Georgia Engineering Alliance 233 Peachtree Street • Harris Tower, #700 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Tel.: 404-521-2324 • Fax: 404-521-0283 Georgia Engineering Alliance Gwen Brandon, CAE, Director of Operations Thomas C. Leslie, PE, Director of External Affairs Georgia Engineering Alliance Editorial Board Jimmy St. John, PE, Chairman GSPE Representatives Sam Fleming, PE Tim Glover, PE ACEC/G Representatives B.J. Martin, PE Lee Philips ASCE/G Representatives Daniel Agramonte, PE Steven C. Seachrist, PE GMCEA Representative Birdel F. Jackson, III, PE ITE Representatives Daniel Dobry, PE, PTOE John Edwards, PE ITS/G Representatives Bill Wells, PE Shaun Green, PE Kay Wolfe, PE WTS Representative Angela Snyder ASHE Representative Jenny Jenkins, PE SEAOG Representative Rob Wellacher, PE

The Georgia Engineer is published bi-monthly by A4 Inc. for the Georgia Engineering Alliance and sent to members of ACEC, ASCE, ASHE, GMCEA, GEF, GSPE, ITE, SEAOG, WTS; local, state, and Federal government officials and agencies; businesses and institutions. Opinions expressed by the authors are not necessarily those of the Alliance or publisher nor do they accept responsibility for errors of content or omission and, as a matter of policy, neither do they endorse products or advertisements appearing herein. Parts of this periodical may be reproduced with the written consent from the Alliance and publisher. Correspondence regarding address changes should be sent to the Alliance at the address above. Correspondence regarding advertising and editorial material should be sent to A4 Inc. at the address listed above.

DECEMBER | JANUARY 2013

Advertisements Albany Tech. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Atkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Ayres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Burns & McDonnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Cardno TBE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 CDM Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Chastain & Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Columbia Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 CROM Prestressed Concrete Tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Cummins Power South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Engineered Restorations Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 GEL | Geophysics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Georgia Concrete Paving Association. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Georgia Power Company. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Back Cover Greater Traffic Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Hayward Baker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Back Cover Hazen and Sawyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 HDR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Heath & Lineback Engineers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 HNTB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Innovative Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 25 JAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Keck & Wood Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 M.H. Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Middleton-House & Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Photo Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Pond & Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Power Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Prime Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Reinforced Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 RHD Utility Locating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Rosser International. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 RSH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Santa Ed & Elf Evie. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Schnabel Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Silt-Saver Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Southern Civil Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Stevenson & Palmer Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 STV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 T. Wayne Owens & Associates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Terrell Hundley Carroll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 THC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 TTL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 United Consulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Front Cover Uzun & Case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Wilburn Engineering LLC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Willmer Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Wolverton & Associates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Woodard & Curran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

The GeorGia enGineer

THE GEORGIA ENGINEER December 2012 | January 2013

Savannah Harbor Expansion Program A regional project with a national impact

The Newly Reorganized Georgia Engineering Alliance: Collaborative Advocacy

Tunnel Hill The last link from Georgia to the West

Georgia’s New “False Claims Act” New risks and burdens of state and local public works contracting

Q & A with Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp

Recap of the 2012 Transportation Summit

The GPTQ Awards

What’s in the NEWS

WTS Annual Scholarship Luncheon Goes Swimmingly Well

GEA

ACEC

GEF

GSPE

DECEMBER | JANUARY 2013

ASCE

ASHE

ITE

ITS

GMCEA

SEAOG

WTS

Visit: thegeorgiaengineer.com

The Georgia Engineer Web site is new and improved! www.thegeorgiaengineer.com

The GeorGia enGineer

DECEMBER | JANUARY 2013

Savannah Harbor Expansion Program a regional project with national impact By Pamela Little, PE | EcoWise Civil Design & Consulting Inc.

The GeorGia enGineer

n October 26, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) Jo-Ellen Darcy signed the long-awaited Record of Decision for the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project (SHEP) to proceed from the evaluation phase into the construction phase. More than 12 years have passed since the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) began its official studies into deepening the Savannah Harbor to accommodate the larger Post-Panamax ships expected to bring cargo to the United States following the Panama Canal expansion. In August 2012, the Corps issued the final Chief of Engineers Report on the project with a recommendation to dredge the harbor to a 47-foot depth adding five feet to the current 42-foot depth. The report was released just one month after President Obama named the project to the We Can’t Wait initiative for expediting infrastructure projects expected to have exceptional regional and national benefits.

The importance of the SHEP to the regional and national economies was emphasized at the October 30, 2012, State of the Ports Luncheon hosted by the Georgia Chamber of Commerce, where Governor Nathan Deal called the Port of Savannah, “an economic driver for the state of Georgia.” A delegation of individuals from Georgia, including Gov. Deal and Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed, has been working to ensure federal funding will be available for the project. Geographical and political boundaries have been put aside to ensure the success of the expansion and to help it move forward. The total cost of the project has been estimated at $652 million. The cost will be shared between the federal government and the non-federal sponsor, the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT). A Project Partnership Agreement (PPA) will be drafted to DECEMBER | JANUARY 2013

define the terms and responsibilities of the Corps and GDOT. The PPA and an authorization from Congress for the budgeted cost of the project are the final two steps in a long, involved process to authorize the expansion. Congress conditionally authorized the SHEP in 1999 with the ‘unique’ requirement that the Corps consult with the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Administrator of EPA and gain their approval on the selected improvement plan as well as the associated mitigation plan before entering the construction phase. This is the only Corps deepening project to require such an approval. If the project is fully funded by Congress each year per the recommendations in the project plan, it is expected to be complete by the end of 2017. It is expected to take only four years to build the project that was conceptualized in the late 1990s. Over its 50-year lifecycle, the expansion is expected to reduce shipping costs by $174 million per year for US companies, thereby lowering costs for imported goods purchased by consumers. This project has a 5.5:1 benefit-tocost ratio, meaning that for every $1 spent on the project, the country is expected to earn a return of $5.50. Positive effects from the project are expected as far west as Dallas and as far north as Illinois. USACE Savannah District Commander and District Engineer, Col. Jeffrey Hall, said the project, “… will create jobs and improve the nation’s waterways as well as our nation’s global competitiveness.” By increasing the depth of the harbor just five feet, the port will be able to accommodate over 78 percent more cargo per shipment. Today, the largest shipments the harbor receives are approximately 4,600 twenty-foot equivalent containers (TEUs). Once the project is complete, it is expected to be able to receive up to 8,200 TEUs on a single carrier. With so many economic benefits expected from the project, it may be surprising that approval for the project took so long. When asked, Col. Hall indicated that the study period was appropriate for this particular project and was necessary to find the right balance between economic benefit and environmental impacts. He added that in the future, similar feasibility studies could be reduced by narrowing the scope of the project from the beginning and applying SMART— Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Risk Informed, and Timely—criteria to the project goals. The extensive study period and paperwork generated for the project influenced a new goal to reduce Corps studies to a maximum of three years and $3 million. When lined up side-by-side on a conference room table, the study documents, including sixty-four (64) engineering studies conducted on the SHEP, take up twelve feet in length. These studies also took over a decade and over $46 million to complete. 9

The results of such extensive studies are impressive. Just less than half of the budget for the project will be spent to evaluate, monitor, and mitigate environmental impacts. The feasibility studies also involved consultation with other agencies such as the

Georgia Ports Authority (GPA) and GDOT to determine, what, if any, improvements were on their schedules to address growth whether the harbor was deepened or not. As a result of the feasibility studies, USACE Savannah District, Chief of the Planning Divi-

sion, Bill Bailey indicated, “We don’t believe the harbor deepening will cause any additional land-side improvements to be needed.” As for the approximately $306 million to be spent on mitigation and evaluation, the following are all included in the project scope: construction of a new fish bypass around New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam in Augusta; acquisition and preservation of 2,245 acres of wetlands; installation of an oxygen injection system to compensate for potentially lower levels of dissolved oxygen in the water; construction of a raw water storage impoundment for the city of Savannah’s industrial and domestic water treatment facilities; recovery, documentation, and curate of the Civil War ironclad CSS Georgia; as well as environmental monitoring beginning prior to construction and ending ten years after construction to determine the extent of effects from the project. The extensive studies provide both the Corps and the public with a high degree of confidence in the findings to manage the impacts and find solutions for the challenges. The actual deepening will be accomplished through a combination of hopper dredging and cutter-head dredging methods, with dredge material deposition in both EPA-approved ocean-dredged material disposal sites and existing and approved land-side confined disposal facilities. The SHEP is expected to provide great benefits to the nation and to the states of Georgia and South Carolina. The Port of Savannah, including Garden City Terminal and Ocean Terminal, serves up to 44 percent of the US population. Access for exportation of goods grown or made in the Southeast is expected to improve and benefit the regional economy. A study has shown that the state’s deepwater ports already support 352,146 jobs throughout Georgia. On top of these benefits, the port already brings in $1.4 billion in state taxes and $4.5 billion in federal taxes. As imports and exports increase, these numbers are expected to continue to grow. v The GeorGia enGineer

The Newly Reorganized Georgia Engineering Alliance: Collaborative Advocacy By Charles McMillan, PE, LEED AP | GEA Board Member The current members of the Georgia Engineering Alliance (GEA) for 2012 are as follows: GSPE, ASCE, ASHE, SEAOG, ITE, GEF, WTS, ITS, and ACEC. What is going on with the Georgia Engineering Alliance? The Georgia Engineering Alliance (GEA) is reorganizing into a collaborative coalition of professional societies and related industry organizations to serve the broad needs of the Georgia Engineering Community. This new organization will seek members to facilitate a growing spectrum of activities (e.g. legislative advocacy, social, education, and best practices). For the last eleven years, the members of GEA and, by extension, the engineering profession and general public have benefited from coordinated legislative advocacy, centralized staff support, and other events, such as the GEA Leadership Council. In the future, the members of the GEA coalition plan to have a broader membership to expand such collaboration and advocacy. Where we are now: GEA has reached a milestone as it makes the transition from an organization with a professional staff and a large budget, to a volunteer driven coalition. Up until July 1, 2012, GEA provided primary administrative support for ACEC, GSPE, and other services such as Web sites and event registration for a host of other organizations such as ASCE. Since July 1, the board has worked carefully with GSPE, ACEC, The Georgia Engineer magazine, and affiliate members to close out the current GEA activities and to provide a fund for continued operations. In this transition period, the board of GEA has also worked with member organizations to ensure that primary outreach activities of GEA continue for 2012 and 2013. For the last few years, the four ongoing major annual activities of GEA have been: • Legislative Coalition • The Georgia Engineer Magazine • E-Week: Banquet, Awards, Future Cities, Mathcounts, etc. • Summer Conference

DECEMBER | JANUARY 2013

Next steps for GEA: The bylaws of the GEA have been revised and adopted by the current board. The current board of directors (five members) has reached out to all ten current GEA associations to ask these organizations to join the expanded coalition. This will create a new board, with each association having one vote and one board member. It is the desire of the newly formed GEA coalition to include many more of Georgia’s thirty four (34) engineering organizations to join the board as members. During the first part of 2013 the newly expanded board will further refine the mission of the newly formed coalition and develop a plan for funding ongoing activities. One of the challenges for GEA is to decide on what will be the best role for it to play, either as a sponsoring organization (as it has done in the past) or as a facilitator of member activities. At this time, GEA, for FY 2012/2013, is acting as a facilitator on E Week (GSPE is primary member sponsor) and Summer Conference (ACEC/G is primary member sponsor). To provide continuity during 2013, ACEC/G will invoice member organizations for the magazine related expenses in place of GEA. The details of how GEA will function are yet to be finalized. The following is a brief summary of the views and aspirations expressed by the current GEA board: • The governance of the reorganized GEA will be by the Leadership Council (serving as the board of directors). It is anticipated there will be an executive committee, elected by the members. •

Governance should be by representative cross section of the membership. For example, the executive board might be configured to include representatives from at least four of the members.

•

It is desired that the new members of GEA will include all previous members

and that the organization will actively seek to include other participants. An emerging theme of GEA could be summarized by saying that its members seek collaborative advocacy first and foremost. If this goal is pursued, the interests of its members are well served. What is the long-term value proposition of GEA to the engineers of Georgia? Over the last six months I have asked GEA members about the value of GEA. Two consistent comments have been: • Legislative Advocacy: For years there have been extensive conversations about how to collect the political influence of Georgia’s engineering community. A common theme expressed by GEA members is that it is important to build a coalition that allows the engineers of the state to speak with one voice. •

Best Practices: Sharing information and insight on best practices in the various GEA organizations is an obvious benefit of the newly formed coalition.

GEA has an imperative to help engineers adapt to the changing roles we are asked to play. In the future, GEA will serve as facilitator as our professional associations address the ‘new normal’ for our engineering practices and businesses. There are many challenges ahead for the engineers of this state. Please support GEA as it is restructured to better serve the engineers of Georgia.v

Tunnel

HILL

the last link from Georgia to the West

The GeorGia enGineer

By Thomas C. Leslie | Georgia Engineering Alliance | Director of External Affairs

Thomas C. Leslie

o the role of railroads in developing inland Georgia in its early years is oft told. In 1833, business leaders in both Augusta and Savannah organized railroad companies that would build lines into the interior. It was here that timber was being cut and cotton grown, and each commodity needed access to markets. The port at the city of Savannah and the barge trade from Augusta downstream on the Savannah River provided such access. In 1836, railroad advocates met at a General Railroad Convention in Knoxville to consider an â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;extensionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; from Georgia westward to a proposed CincinnatiLouisville-Knoxville line. By the end of 1836, the Georgia General Assembly agreed to the plan and authorized a detailed survey of the route from Chattanooga to a point southeast of the Chattahoochee River. The survey was completed in 1837. The estimated cost of construction was $2,129,920.08. (Who would carry such a cost estimate to nine significant figures?) The southern terminus of the state route was set as the point to which the lines from Savannah and Augusta would converge in what is now downtown Atlanta. Construction of the state route, the Western & Atlantic, was begun in 1838. By 1845, the Georgia Railroad from Augusta was completed to Atlanta, and the Western & Atlantic was operating to Marietta. The Central of Georgia Railroad from Savannah reached Atlanta in1846.

DECEMBER | JANUARY 2013

The W&A was described in 1860 by the line’s Superintendent as “the crookedest road under the sun.” It went around mountains and crossed streams at elevations that kept grades at no more than 30 feet/mile and curves with a radius of 1,000 feet or more. In northwest Georgia, the ridges run NE to SW with deep valleys between, but the W&A runs on a NW-SE line. This makes it hard to find a route around a ridge. Instead, the route seeks a gap through the ridge that allows passage at an acceptable grade. Chetoogeta Mountain, halfway between Dalton and Ringgold and west of I-75, was the one ridge where a gap could not be found and that could not be out flanked. A tunnel seemed to be the only way forward. At the end of 1837, plans were made for grading and bridging streams for the first 50 miles of the 138-mile state route, and in April 1838 contracts were let for construction; by October 1838, contracts were let for the next 50 miles. It was not until late-1839 that a final contract was let for construction of the final segment of the line into Chattanooga, with the exception of the tunnel through Chetoogeta Mountain. Then the unexpected finally caught up with the project. A national financial panic

in 1837 finally resulted in a severe recession that, by 1839, led to the collapse of cotton prices, the withdrawal of credit, and the inability of the state of Georgia to sell bonds to fund the W&A Railroad. One of the W&A’s commissioners traveled to New York and then on to London in an attempt to sell state bonds—there were no takers. Contractors were offered state script— in essence, loans by the contractors to the

state to continue work. During this economic drought, it was reported that state bonds and script sold for as low at 48 cents on the dollar. While work continued, it was considerably slowed. The Georgia General Assembly set as its top priority the completion of the first 50 miles of the line—which was under construction from 1843 to 1845, including grading, stream/river crossings, and laying track.

The GeorGia enGineer

As part of the original agreements reached at the 1836 Knoxville convention, Georgia and Tennessee committed to connect the W&A line to the Nashville & Chattanooga Railroad (N&C RR) at Chattanooga. The original date for Georgia to reach Chattanooga was 1848, but it was delayed by economic conditions. On October 18, 1847, the Tennessee General Assembly approved an Act â&#x20AC;&#x153;giving further time for completion of the W&A Railroad of Georgia toâ&#x20AC;? reach Chattanooga. It provided two more years and set January 1, 1850, as the new date. In order to meet this deadline, the W&A concluded that they would build the line north of Tunnel Hill to connect with the N&C RR and would build the tunnel as the last element of the line. This led to a sixmonth period where trains arriving at Tunnel Hill transferred all passengers and freight to mule-drawn wagons that traversed Chetoogeta Mountain to link the two rail segments. With this delay and added expense, the East Tennessee and Georgia Railroad began assisting the W&A in laying track on the graded roadbed to expedite completion. By 1848, construction of the actual tunnel began, and in October 1849, the first bore was punched through. It was reported that the teams from both sides of the tunnel were within 1/16 of an inch of the correct alignment. Using mostly Irish immigrant workers, the tunnel was carved from the mountain by driving steel rods into the face of the tunnel with sledgehammers. The holes were filled with black powder and detonated to break loose the rock. And the same was repeated for almost a year. The tunnel is an arch about 18 feet high and 12.5 feet wide. Three-foot thick, limestone walls were constructed to about five feet in height. On top of these walls, a two-foot thick brick arch was constructed. Bricks were made nearby with slave labor. The tunnel is 1,477 feet long. By 1850, the tunnel was completed, and track was laid as the final link between Atlanta and Chattanooga. In Tunnel Hill there was much celebration when the first train passed through in May 1850. It was the first railroad tunnel in the entire south. The line was the final link to connect the AtDECEMBER | JANUARY 2013

lantic Ocean (at Savannah) to the ‘West’ (meaning the Mississippi River Valley via the Tennessee River). The economic panic of 1837 and the subsequent recession that lasted until the mid-1840s seem to have dulled the luster of the entire project. Furthermore, during its initial year of two of operation, it became clear that corners had been cut to save money (corruption and mismanagement was to come later during Reconstruction). Most of the rails were not the conventional ‘T’ rails of today but were described as flimsy. The rolling stock was described as insubstantial. It was not until 1853 that a new superintendent was able to correct many of the defects in the line and its operation. During the entire period of major construction from 1839 to 1850, there was a robust debate throughout Georgia over whether to abandon the entire State Line enterprise. Supporters included most elected officials, commercial towns along the route, and cotton producers. The opposition wanted to cut the state’s losses and simply abandon the project or sell it. The naysayers contended that connecting to the ‘West’ would bring more competition (e.g., Midwest-grown corn) and have a devastating effect on Georgia. Some even expressed their

contentment with an isolated status quo. In 1843, the Georgia General Assembly approved an Act that authorized the Governor to sell the entire W&A ‘as it stood’ if he could get $1 million for it. The Act extended this offer for seven years—no offers were received. By 1928, the tunnel had become too small for the much larger modern locomotives. A new tunnel was constructed parallel to the old and only 75 feet to the north. It was just too complicated and unsafe to expand the old one. The old tunnel had a useful life of 78 years—as a railroad. It was largely abandoned and forgotten for many years. In 1992, the tunnel was deeded to the city of Tunnel Hill, and in 1998, the city got a TEA Grant from DOT to help with restoration. ARCADIS was hired to design restoration, and Edwin Brady Construction Company completed the work. The Western & Atlantic Railroad Tunnel and Museum now operates tours of the restored tunnel on a daily basis. There is a certain sameness to the stories about ‘breakthrough’ infrastructure. It was the first railroad tunnel in the old South, and the State Line was the first to move beyond the Appalachian Mountains. Although there are many unique features in the history

of the W&A, there are other attributes in common with many big public works: • Over budget: the 1837 cost estimate was $2,129,920.08. The final construction cost for work during the period 1838-1850 was $4,087,925. •

Behind schedule: Before the 1837 economic panic, there was hope that the entire line would be completed by the mid-1840s; it was not opened until 1850 and was not fully evolved until 1853.

•

Politics: The W&A was a product of multi-state collaboration and political and business leadership. At the same time, there was an almost continuous political debate within Georgia on whether to abandon (and later, whether to sell) the project or not.

•

Enduring value: In spite of all the above, the State Line is still extraordinarily valuable. Even after 162 years of use, it is leased by the state to CSX and is heavily used to move freight efficiently. The old tunnel is also in use today—as a tourist attraction and history museum. v

The GeorGia enGineer

DECEMBER | JANUARY 2013

Georgia’s New “False Claims Act” New risks and burdens of state and local public works contracting By David R. Hendrick, Esq. | General Counsel | Hendrick, Phillips, Salzman & Flatt, P.C.

he Georgia Taxpayer False Claims Act, Georgia Code Sections 23-3120 – 127, took effect in July of 2012. The initial reaction of architects and engineers doing business with state and local governmental authorities is likely a ‘what, me worry?’ approach, thinking that this law is directed at contractors and subcontractors. However, such a narrow and erroneous assumption is made at the peril of unwary design professionals dealing in the public works arena. The Georgia statute is substantially modeled after this federal False Claims Act. It is difficult to advocate against such a broad based law intended to reduce and sanction fraudulent behavior and false claims in the public contracting arena. However, the manner in which this sweeping new law can be employed and the expansive nature of the investigative tools made available to government officials give rise to potential concerns for those potentially affected by it. Decades of experience in application of the federal False Claims Act are instructive in determining the potential application to participants in the construction industry. Moreover, the potential for abusive application is increased by the extension of this state law to local public works and enforcement, upon ‘delegation’ by the Attorney General, by local district attorneys, prosecutors or other “appropriate officials of a local government.” Previously, no such statutory rights or remedies existed in Georgia regarding claims made in the context of design and construction contracting on publicly funded state or local projects. Under this Act, the concept of ‘false’ or fraudulent claims is now expanded to encompass claims of all kinds and descriptions made in connection with activities funded by Georgia state and local governmental agencies, including clearly claims arising in public works construction projects. The most immediate consequence of this Act 18

will be exposure to imposition of sanctions upon a person found to have submitted such a ‘false claim.’ The Act allows imposition of civil penalties (“not less than $5,500.00 and not more than $11,000.00 for each false or fraudulent claim”) and actual damages (with a multiplier trebling the total) on those knowingly submitting, or even aiding in the submission of, such a false or fraudulent claim. Additionally, the violator “shall also be liable to the state or local government for all costs, reasonable expenses and reasonable attorney’s fees” incurred by the state or local government. The Georgia Act opens the door to pursuit of sanctions not only by the state authorities, but also by local governmental officials against parties thought to have submitted false or fraudulent claims in connection with provision of work or services on local public projects. The Act also permits civil enforcement actions to be brought by private persons in which the State or local government may elect to intervene. Such enforcement actions may be initiated by former employees or other insiders with specific knowledge about alleged wrongdoing supporting an assertion that a claim was ‘false.’ The private plaintiff is not only given ‘whistleblower’ type protection from retaliation, but also the additional incentive of sharing in up to 30 percent of the amount recovered in the resolution or settlement of the action it initiated, plus attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs of litigation. Finally, Georgia, for the first time, has adopted the investigative device known as a “civil investigative demand” (“CID”) which can be very broadly employed, even against persons or entities not actually targeted by the investigation and before any actual civil action is commenced under the False Claims Act. CIDs can seek extensive discovery and disclosures from any person or entity believed to be “in possession, custody, or control of any documentary material or information relevant to a false claims law investigation,”

all without the involvement, participation or even knowledge, of the target of the investigation itself. Under the Georgia Act, a ‘claim’ is defined as “any request or demand, whether under a contract or otherwise, for money . . . that is (a) Presented to an officer, employee, or agent of the state or local government or (b) Made to a contractor, grantee or other recipient, if the money or property is to be spent or used on the state’s or local government’s behalf or to advance a state or local government program or interest.” Such sanctions and penalties can be assessed on “any person, firm, corporation, or other legal entity that: • Knowingly presents or causes to be presented a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval; •

Knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim;

•

Knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used a false record or statement material to an obligation to pay or transmit money . . . or knowingly conceals, knowingly and improperly avoids, or decreases an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the state or a local government.

A person is considered to have acted ‘knowingly’ where such person (a) has actual knowledge of the information, (b) acts in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information, or (c) acts in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information. No proof of specific intent to defraud is required, since a person is considered ‘knowledgeable’ even without actual knowledge of the falsity where acting with “deliberate indifference” or “reckless disregard” of the truth or falsity of the information submitted. From this definition, and by reference The GeorGia enGineer

DECEMBER | JANUARY 2013

to the analogous federal statutory language and its application, it is apparent that such a claim would likely include requests, submissions or representations typically made in a construction project context. While such ‘claim’ activities are generally more prevalent on the construction contractor/subcontractor side of the industry, those providing professional services under contract with state or local governmental agencies, including design professionals such as architects and engineers, can be swept up within the reach of the Act as well. For example, such ‘false’ or ‘fraudulent’ claim charges may arise out of such typical submissions, representations, certifications or attestations routinely made by architects and engineers on public works projects as: • Those given under the newly enacted statutory requirement that those contracting with public agencies for performance of construction-related services, including design services, must register and participate in the federal work authorization plan (the E-Verify program) and submit a signed, notarized affidavit attesting to such compliance (see O.C.G.A. 13-10-91); •

certifications of code compliance of design elements;

•

certification or submission of results of investigative and testing activities;

•

certification of payment on contractor applications for payment;

•

certification of substantial completion;

•

certification dealing with DBE/MBE/WBE program compliance;

In addition, there is the submission of their own applications or invoices for payment for services rendered. Moreover, this exposure applies not only to a party contracting directly with the governmental entity, but also to the subconsultants initiating any such submissions or requests. This will apply to all such construction projects undertaken or funded by the state or any of is departments, boards, bureaus, divisions, public authorities commissions “or other governmental entity performing a governmental function for this state,” as well as by ‘local governments’ which is very broadly defined to include any Georgia county, municipal corporation, consolidated government, authority, board of education or other local public board, body, or commission, town, school district, hospital authority, or other political subdivision of the state or of such local government, including MARTA. All participants in the public side of the construction industry are well advised to take

a long and careful look at the potential application of this new False Claims Act to their activities. This law could have far reaching effect on participants in public sector construction projects with the risk of potential imposition of such civil penalties for parties that ‘knowingly’ submit ‘false claims’ on such public works projects, or even publically funded projects. There is now a steep downside if such a false claim is presented, regardless of existence of an actual intent to defraud. v

The GeorGia enGineer

DECEMBER | JANUARY 2013

Q & A with Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp sion of the bill be different as a result of those conversations dialog?

Brian Kemp was appointed Secretary of State by Governor Sonny Perdue in January 2010 and was elected to a full four year term in November of 2010. Prior to that, Kemp served two terms in the Georgia State Senate, leading efforts to cut wasteful spending, streamline government, cut red tape, and support small business growth, all initiatives he has continued to champion as Secretary of State. Professionally, Secretary Kemp has started numerous business interests and is the owner of Kemp Properties, a small business specializing in real estate development, investment, and property management. Secretary Kemp is a lifelong resident of Athens, is a graduate of Clarke Central High School and of the University of Georgia, where he earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Agriculture. On October 24th, ACEC/G Executive Director Michael Sullivan sat down with Secretary Kemp to discuss his legislative agenda and what’s ahead. Obviously, big on your agenda during the 2012 legislative session was the professional licensing reform legislation. Could you outline what was the driving force behind that bill? Well, you are seeing this year it’s all really budget driven. Our agency continues to get less money to operate and more work to do. We are just really on an unsustainable path. You know, I said that last year and I think now, when we had to come out and close the Archives to the public, I think now they are seeing the budget shape that we are in. We are just in a really tough budgetary situation and I think our Licensing Division is a prime example. The Licensing Division budget has been decreased by 17 percent. That’s the least of any part of our agency because it’s my number one priority, obviously, is getting people in the workforce. Unfortunately, we have had to decrease our head22

count in the Licensing Division by almost 32 percent and we continue to see increased workloads. The General Assembly continues to give us new licenses to administer, such as the pharmacy techs two years ago and music therapists last year, while cutting our budget when we already have difficulty servicing the professions we were already licensing. With the immigration reform bill, we are now having to check ‘secure and verifiable” on the documents on all new applications and renewals every time we issue one. That has been a huge amount of work for us, not only having to verify the secure and verifiable document but we now have 25 percent of the people who call the licensing division hang up before talking to someone in the office because they are on hold so long. A lot of that is because of secure and verifiable documents. So, we cannot continue on the path we are on. We’ve either got to get more resources or we have to figure out ways to continue to get more efficient with the limited resources we have. That’s why we introduced the licensing bill last year and that’s why we have been working on the compromise version of the legislation this year. I know that you have been reaching out and talking with some of the groups that had concerns with the previous version of the licensing reform bill. How will the new ver-

The biggest thing that people had a problem with last year was the creation of the seven member consumer board that would handle rules and regulations and also serve as the hearings board. So, in the compromise legislation, we have taken all of that out. We have done away with the seven member board concept completely. We are going to leave rule and regulation making with the existing licensing boards, and they will also continue to be the final stop for the hearings process. The licensing and enforcement side will move to the Secretary of State’s Office, which was in the legislation last year. That will allow us to streamline the whole licensing process and the enforcement process. These are the two biggest complaints I get from people, that it takes too long to get people licensed and into the workforce, and that we are not doing enough to go after those that are competing against people that are doing things the right way. It will be a priority in my office to do the enforcement part of it. As far as the hearings board, you really can’t have a member of the hearings board be a cognizant and be in the final hearings process, because that really violates due process, as you well know. So we are going to have the boards themselves appoint at least ten cognizants from their industry for peer review who will not be members of the board and who we could rely on to work with as we do investigations or other licensing issues that we may have to deal with. None of this is going to change scope of practice, rules and regs; it’s just changing the way the process works. Some of the professions I have talked with tell me they like that because now you have a cognizant or cognizants that are on the board that make a recommendation, and your only appeal is to the full board. So the people who made the recommendation you are appealing are sitting on the board you are appealing that decision to. It’s not really a The GeorGia enGineer

true appeal and some people feel like it’s a stacked deck against them rather than true due process. Under the new system, you are going to be dealing with cognizants that are separate from the board, and if you disagree with their recommendation or what our office says, you can have a true, fresh new hearing in front of a board that has never heard this case before, and they will hear both sides of it and make the decision. So a lot of the professional association people I have talked to really like that for their members and feel like that will be a fairer due process. Most of these things are black and white, and we have to license everyone with very limited resources to do that. What we are trying to do is on these simplified applications where it’s black and white, is to go through and verify that they meet the educational requirements, made their payment, passed their test, and completed whatever ap-

DECEMBER | JANUARY 2013

prenticeship or clinical hours that are required, and so on. Once all of that has been verified as being met, we would go ahead and license that person. But if we get to a gray area, where we are not certain that the requirements have been met, then we can then go to a cognizant and have them look at it to help us decide should we license this person or not. If we decide not to license that person, then they could appeal that decision by asking for a hearing and going before the licensing board for that profession. So, the board would have the final say in those types of situations. Same thing on the enforcement side. What we are trying to do is set up grids for the ‘normal’ types of violations that occur regularly, for example, if somebody forgets to renew their license or something similar. For example, in barbershops one that comes up often is they don’t keep the combs in Barbi-

cide. We don’t need to go to the board on those types of things. We have set fines for that. Everyone knows what those are, and we just go ahead and do those administratively in our office. Ninety-five percent of the people in those types of situations just want to admit guilt, pay their fine, and move on. But for these other more complex cases, where we would be out of our level of expertise, we can rely on a cognizant who is an expert in that field. If we have an enforcement action where we are going to revoke or suspend somebody’s license and that person is OK with that action and they sign it, then that case is closed and we move on. If they disagree, they can request a hearing before the board. Your office continues to see a shrinking budget, yet the licensing side of your office generates significant revenue. What’s the breakdown on that?

The licensees are paying about $24 million to our office each year in licensing fees, and those funds go straight into the State’s General Fund, as you well know. In return, our office is being appropriated about $6.8 million. So, there are millions of dollars of licensees’ money that should be used to support the work we do in licensing but instead those dollars are being sent somewhere else to pay for other things in state government. I’ve been telling the legislature and OPB [the Governor’s Office of Planning & Budget – Ed.] about this for two years, and that we need more money and more people. I’ve already thrown out their idea of closing the

State Archives to the public as a way of saving money. If it gets much worse, we may have to close the Tifton office and lay off some call center workers, investigators, and application processors. Obviously, those kinds of cuts are going to negatively impact our service delivery. In the last year, our licensing times for all the professions have gone from an average of about 60 days up to 70 days. And our renewals that used to be a streamlined electronic process that you did on the Internet and took at most two days, is now averaging ten days. Last year, we had 8,000 people that didn’t send their secure and verifiable document for verifying immi-

gration status. Now, we license about a half a million people, so 8,000 is not such a big number. But when you think about having to write or call or e-mail 8,000 people back to let them know why we can’t complete their renewal, that’s created a helluva lot of work for us. And we get no additional money or people to do that. The immigration reform bill has taken a streamlined process and made it bureaucratic, exactly the opposite of what you would want to be doing in this kind of economy. What are some possible fixes?

The GeorGia enGineer

The way the law reads now, every time the ‘public benefit’ is issued (for example, a license renewal), we have to check the secure and verifiable document. We are going to be asking the General Assembly to modify the law so that we only have to verify citizenship and immigration status one time, rather than having to verify it every time we renew the same person’s license. If we can get the law changed, then it will continue to be a bear for another year, but once we cycle everyone through, we should be able to streamline renewals again. What do you think the chances are of passing a bill that addresses some of the impacts from the immigration reform bill in the upcoming legislative session? I think they will be good. Number one, people are more enlightened to the position we are in our office now. Number two, I have spoken with the Governor about this, and we are either going to be in our own stand-alone bill or we are going to be in a bill that fixes some of the unintended consequences of the immigration reforms and that’s it. I am not going to get caught up in these political games about other issues. This has nothing to do with being soft on illegal immigration. This is about helping small business owners and working Georgians and putting people back to work. This shouldn’t be controversial, and it ought to have bipartisan support. And if anybody monkeys with it, I am going to call them out and tell them that they are hurting working Georgians if they try to put something controversial in the bill.

See daily videos on: thegeorgiaengineer.com

Solving Subsurface Problems Since 1981 • • • • • • •

Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE) Underground utility locating Subsurface mapping and profiling Concrete imaging and inspection Geophysical exploration 3D subsurface imaging Geophysical borehole logging

GA: 770-980-1002 SC: 843-769-7379 NC: 919-406-1808 www.gel.com

Is there anything else you would like to add? Back to the licensing reform bill, nothing in that bill should change scope of practice or current rules and regs or educational requirements. Our intention is not to change any of that. We are only trying to change the process. If there are other ways to do that that people want to offer up, we are more than willing to listen. I think the concessions we have made in the new version make it pretty clear we are listening to folks’ concerns. v DECEMBER | JANUARY 2013

Recap of the

2012 Transportation

Summit

Daniel B. Dobry, Jr., P.E., PTOE | Croy Engineering, LLC

Ashford Dunwoody Road Diverging Diamond Interchange

he ACEC gets a lot of things right, and the 2012 Transportation Summit was another example. At a sold-out function on November 29th at the Infomart, over 400 professionals were provided a full day of insightful information about the transportation opportunities and challenges on the local, statewide, and federal levels. The opening remarks were delivered by ARC Executive Director Doug Hooker. Mr. Hooker framed his comments in the context of the progress the region continues to make in the transportation arena as well as the other areas impacting the Atlanta metropolitan region: population growth, water and sewer; air quality, aging population, etc. A primary ARC goal through the planning process is to achieve mobility, safety, and capacity across all transportation modes. Funding remains a significant concern, and Mr. Hooker verbal26

ized the disappointment we all feel about the failed TIA vote. However, for Mr. Hooker the silver lining is that the region worked collaboratively across numerous political boundaries. The new normal/new economy is regional. Regions make up 35 percent of the land area but provide 65 percent of the economic activity. Mr. Hooker summarized his closing remarks with the guiding principle of ‘innovate locally and export globally.’ Presenting advancements being made statewide, Toby Carr, the recently appointed Director of Planning, shared information on Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) initiatives. Although primarily focusing on the highways’ current and planned programs, Mr. Carr also touched on progress the State is making with regards to the other major economic impacting modes: the ports of Savannah and Brunswick, Hartsfield-Jack-

son Airport, and the railroad network. The State is preparing strategies to maximize the funding to be available through the recently legislated federal appropriations bill: Moving Ahead to Progress (MAP-21). While also lamenting about the outcome of the TIA vote, Mr. Carr shared his excitement for the three regions that did pass the sales tax and GDOT’s efforts for successfully implementing the projects within those regions. The difficulty of shrinking resources and escalating costs affects all levels of government. Decreasing vehicle miles of travel, more fuel efficient vehicles, and lack of a fuel tax increases are primary reasons for the The GeorGia enGineer

Highway Trust Funds difficulties. And even though a six year federal appropriations bill would have been preferable, MAP-21 does maintain and then experience moderate funding increases over the next two years. Matt Reiffer, the national ACEC Transportation Director, spoke of the transportation industry’s three-year effort lobbying of Congress to arrive at MAP-21; and their work has already begun to prepare for the next federal appropriations bill. Although Mr. Reiffer’s comment that “The future is bleak” generated some moaning from the audience, he was upbeat about the continuing efforts to educate law makers about how critical the nations’ infrastructure is, particularly transportation, and that programs that are essential to the nation’s economical growth must be protected. Another important effort Mr. Reiffer shared was the transportation organizations’ continuing efforts to assist in developing a long-term revenue solution for the Highway Trust Fund. Polling is an inexact science. The victory of the TIA vote was never assured but the percentage of the ‘no’ votes was not expected. Understanding the viewpoints and perspectives of the general public aids in developing policies that will generate support for their implementation. Pete Rahn of HNTB, who holds the distinction of having been the head of two different state DOTs, shared the results of his firm’s national polling effort regarding transportation. Although results from a number of questions were presented (To name a few: state of the existing infrastructure; reasons to support implementing tolls; and who should be trusted in making transportation investment decisions), one of the primary perspectives is that a majority of Americans don’t believe what is currently being proposed will solve the nation’s transportation problems. Mr. Rahn urged the audience that we need to put significant effort into finding real long-term solutions that also pass the test of urgency. Continuing the format established a few years ago, the luncheon speaker, Russell McMurry, the recently appointed GDOT Chief Engineer, gave his remarks and then presented the GPTQ Preconstruction Awards (the top project being the diverging diamond interchange at I-285 and Ashford Dunwoody DECEMBER | JANUARY 2013

Gainesville City View Center Pedestrian Bridge Road). Mr. McMurry’s speech centered on the number of innovative programs GDOT has and will be undertaking. The list includes but is not limited to: • Shoulder use on GA 400 • Variable speed limits on I-285 • Roundabouts (their numbers are increasing) • Complete Street Policy Mr. McMurry also discussed new ways GDOT is tackling their multi-modal programs, touched on revised scheduling that is aggressive but reasonable, and included remarks on environmental streamlining which will impact the Environmental Services Office. The recurring theme that Mr. McMurry brought out is that as the public sees the positive results of these programs, the public confidence in GDOT will increase. Following lunch, three different sessions, each with three tracks, were available to obtain specific information on proposed policy and program changes and the status of current projects. Depending on the participant’s

interest, one could sit in on an update to the Atlanta Streetcar, the Multimodal Passenger Terminal, a summary of the new Section 4(f ) policy, Value Engineering trends, and an overview of GDOT’s Design Build activities. The problem I experienced with this year’s breakout sessions was picking which ones to sit in on at the exclusion of others. Even with the problems of funding and the misperception of the general public about the challenges those in charge have in delivering capacity, while adding safety-enhancing and economy-stimulating projects, it is a very exciting time to be a transportation professional. This year’s Transportation Summit provided us the opportunity to hear from the front line folks on all levels, interact with our peers, and motivate us to continue working on providing the transportation network that provides the necessary mobility, safety, and capacity for this country to compete on a global level while satisfying local transportation demands. v 27

The GPTQ AwArds I Beﬆ Bridge/Structural Design

Moreland Altobelli Associates The City of Gainesville and the Gainesville Redevelopment Authority hired Moreland Altobelli to provide engineering services for a new pedestrian bridge to complement the existing midtown area and the planned commercial development on Jesse Jewell Parkway. Public input was actively solicited and addressed the facility’s aesthetics and functionality. Arched precast beams were selected to address the limited clearance. The midspan beam top and bottom are concentric circles. Because of the arched geometry, the design was completed using MicroStation and a variety of software to ensure adequate beam strength and compliance with AASHTO stress limits. Diaphragms were

set in the precast beams to connect with the deck reinforcement and various techniques were used to tie the beams to the abutments and intermediate bents. In addition to the special design beams, curving architectural fences lend an open feeling for pedestrians walking on the bridge, and also to motorists on the parkway below. The Gainesville community considers this bridge as the cornerstone of its midtown redevelopment. The total project budget was $3 million, including design and construction. This project came in under budget at $2.4 million.

II Beﬆ Rural Design Project

Parsons Transportation Group US 19/ State Route 3 is located in Sumter County. The purpose of this project was to

Moreland Altobelli

Grand Design Winner

used under the walking surface of the bridge at ten-foot spacings. Couplers were

ridor is in a rural area with narrow, unpaved shoulders, but the northern end is more urban, including sidewalks on both sides. Challenges included the location of several crossroads, homes, businesses, and agricultural and historic properties. At the

Moreland Altobelli was chosen by our team of judges from among all of the winning projects—it earned the highest scores for overall project quality. The Ashford Dunwoody DDI Project scored high for its: • innovation, • cost-effectiveness, • sustainability, • pedestrian access and • effective public participation.

improve this six-mile corridor from Americus to Smithville by widening the road from one lane in each direction to two lanes in each direction, including a grassed median separation, and improving the shoulders along the road. In addition, the project would replace a structurally deficient bridge over the CSX railroad and widen another bridge over the Muckalee Creek. GDOT retained Parsons for services including geometric roadway design, erosion control and drainage design and structural designs for the replacement and widened bridges. The majority of the cor-

northern end of the project, realignments for perpendicular intersections were needed to improve safety and turn movements. The two bridges posed their own challenges: Extensive coordination with CSX was needed to ensure minimal disruption to railroad operations during the bridge replacement, and careful mitigation was needed during widening the other bridge, which was located over a flowing creek. The increased capacity for this widened and improved roadway affords communities from Americus to Smithville a better access route and will encourage future growth and development in the area. The GeorGia enGineer

n the occasion of the 2012 Georgia’s Transportation Summit, on November 29th, at AmericasMart, Georgia Department of Transportation also awarded their annual GPTQ (Georgia Partnership for Transportation Quality) Awards. Mr. Russell McMurray, Director, Division of Engineering made the presentations. He stated that in the transportation industry, there is outstanding opportunity of partnering and cooperation. Especially in today’s economy, partnering for cost-and time-efficiencies is a demonstration of prudent customer service and taxpayer stewardship, and a way to encourage streamlining and innovation for quality project delivery. These are the first awards issued under the new charter for the Georgia Partnership for Transportation Quality which was signed by the ACEC/GA, the Georgia Highway Contractors Association (GHCA), and the Georgia Department of Transportation. This year’s GPTQ awards recognize projects of innovation and complexity, public involvement and context sensitive design.

DECEMBER | JANUARY 2013

The final project cost was $29.4 million, plus $750,000 for the bridge work.

III Beﬆ Complex Urban Design Project

McGee Partners Eagles Landing Parkway is a main corridor in Henry County, providing connectivity between I-75 and SR 155. The purpose of this project was to ease heavy traffic congestion in the fast-growing county. By widen-

cost of construction was covered by funding received from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The award, totaling $22.3 million, was the second largest single award of stimulus dollars in metro Atlanta. To qualify for the stimulus funds, the schedule for final plans completion was accelerated. The final field plan review was requested on March 9, 2009 and was held just over two weeks later on March 25. The bid construction award was $22.3 million and the project is expected to be completed under budget, and Eagle’s Landing Parkway was open to traffic on April 27, 2012, on-time.

IV Beﬆ Context Sensitive Design and Public Participation Project

ing the Parkway from two lanes to four, the project would also improve pedestrian and motorist safety and provide bike lanes in each direction. Designed on a six-lane footprint, the 44-foot depressed median could be used to accommodate another lane in each direction in the future. The challenges included varying land-use areas nearby, including commercial/retail sites, single family homes, industrial warehouses, and Pates Creek and its associated wetlands. McGee Partners designed the project under contract to Henry County. Eagle’s Landing Parkway corridor includes two bridges located approximately 0.5 miles apart. The first bridge is over the Norfolk Southern Railroad. This bridge needed to not only accommodate the roadway widening, but also needed to be lengthened to address the railroad’s desire for an additional track in the future. The second bridge is over Pates Creek and wetlands. Both bridges consist of a raised concrete median and space to accommodate six lanes in the future. The two inner lanes are hatched, thus providing four lanes on a six-lane structure. The design and required right-of-way for the Eagle’s Landing Parkway widening project were funded by $7.6 million in Henry County SPLOST funds. The entire 30

Parsons Brinckerhoff The Atlanta Street (State Route 9) corridor in Roswell has for decades needed improvements. In 2011, after several studies and designs that didn’t gain public support, the City of Roswell again initiated a planning and design project that would eliminate the three-lane reversible lane system along the corridor, and improve the intersection of SR 9 with Riverside Road/Azalea Drive. This intersection had the highest intersection crash rate in the City. The intersection improvement also included replacement of the structurally deficient bridge on the approach over Vickery Creek, and the whole project would address bike/ped connectivity, and provide an aesthetically pleasing gateway into the city. Given the history of the attempts to solve the many issues along the corridor,

Parsons Brinkerhoff implemented an aggressive public involvement effort with formation of a Citizens Advisory Group, Technical Advisory Group, focus groups, development of a Web page housed on the City of Roswell Web site, household surveys, e-mail blasts, community briefings, and town hall meetings, in addition to the public meetings and public information open houses, with the goal of engaging diverse stakeholders early and continuously, and gaining consensus from property and business owners in the corridor. Among the key partners was the National Park Service, and their guidance proved invaluable as potential environmental impacts arose. There were many challenges to providing all the desired transportation elements in the SR 9 corridor, including Roswell’s historic district, the Chattahoochee River National Recreational Area, and limited existing ROW. The narrow corridor required innovative solutions to make all the elements ‘fit.’ The recommended, and preferred community solution was the design of two multi-lane roundabouts on SR 9, with a thin median in between to restrict left turns. The bridge over Vickery Creek was replaced with two separate structures and a T-intersection on SR 9 to connect the two roadways. This eliminated the need to widen the bridge over the Chattahoochee, which was a substantial cost saving. The project has gone through reviews of design constructability and in particular, roundabout design feasibility. Minor adjustments will be made to the concept design as it moves into preliminary design plan preparation, but the approved concept has met the project goals of achieving community support, removal of the reversible lanes system and minimized impacts to the historical and environmental elements in the project area. This project was in the constrained TIA project list for $20 million and the preliminary concept estimate was at $17 million. Although alternate funding has not been identified, this project has overcome its historical challenges and now has the full support of the community and the City Council. The GeorGia enGineer

V Beﬆ Innovative Solution

Best Innovative Design: Ashford-Dunwoody Road Diverging Diamond Interchange, Moreland-Altobelli. Pictured: Marlo Clowers (GDOT), Brad Hale (M-A), Bill Ruhsam (M-A), Russell McMurry (GDOT), Shrujal Amin (M-A), Jennifer Harper (Perimeter CID), Buddy Gratton (M-A)

Best Context Sensitive Design & Public Participation: Roswell Historic Gateway, ParsonsBrinckerhoﬀ. Pictured: Terry Kazmerzak (P-B), Alice Wiggins (P-B), Rob Dell-Ross (Roswell), Steve Acenback (Roswell), Russell McMurry, Jonathan Reid (P-B), Valarie Birch (P-B)

Best Bridge/ Structural Design: Gainesville Pedestrian Bridge, Moreland-Altobelli. Pictured: Buddy Gratton (M-A), Russell McMurry (GDOT), Joe McGrew (M-A) Best Complex Urban Design: Eagle’s Landing Parkway, McGee Partners Pictured: Chae Yi (Henry Co.), Chris Marsengill (McGee), Russell McMurry (GDOT), Roque Romero (Henry Co.) DECEMBER | JANUARY 2013

Moreland Altobelli Assoc. This innovative intersection reconstruction solution was conceptualized, designed and constructed in a compressed timeframe to address the traffic congestion problems on Ashford Dunwoody Road. The afternoon commute, in particular, was notorious for extensive delays for traffic heading southbound to access I285. PM peak hour traffic also experienced extensive queuing and pedestrian access was neither ADA-compliant nor an easy proposition. In 2009, Moreland Altobelli was tasked to develop cost-effective sustainable, cost-effective solutions for the growing area. The design team worked to develop a plan and concept that would address the congestion issues while reducing the cost of an interchange project to the level of an operational improvement. The determination was to convert the existing partial cloverleaf interchange into a diverging diamond interchange (DDI), used successfully in France for several decades. The first DDI in the US was about to open in Springfield Missouri. The first objectives were to use the existing bridge to avoid the cost of replacement, avoid impacts to nearby businesses, malls, hotels and shopping centers, and to help create a DDI driver education effort. The aesthetics of the DDI were also of great concern, as this project was envisioned as one of the gateways into the PCIDs and the City of Dunwoody. Landscaping, lighting for the pedestrian walkways, unique signal elements all contributed to the aesthetics. Before this project, no one had designed or constructed a DDI in the southeast US, and extensive coordination was needed between the designer, the PCID, local governments, GDOT and FHWA. The coordination effort continued through staging for construction to minimize traffic impacts. The Ashford Dunwoody DDI project is an innovative solution to a problem that occurs throughout metro Atlanta—how to get more capacity out of the existing infrastructure at minimal cost. Construction was fast with minimal impacts to the community. Moreover, this DDI is a long-term, sustainable solution for this busy area. v 31

W h a t ’ s

i n

t h e

NEWS Robinson Associates Consulting Engineers is pleased to announce that Milan Jolley, P.E. has been named as Partner and Vice President. Mr. Jolley holds a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from South Dakota School of Mines and Technology and a Master of Science in Civil Engineering from Iowa State University. He has been employed at Robinson Associates Consulting Engineers for the past eight years. Mr. Jolley will continue to focus on design of new structures while specializing in forensic evaluation of structural drainage system. v Mandatory Commissioning for All Buildings Proposed for Green Building Standard Commissioning for all buildings designed and built under a green building standard from ASHRAE, the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) and the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) would become mandatory under a new proposal open for public input. ANSI/ASHRAE/USGBC/IES Standard 189.1-2011, Standard for the Design of High-Performance, Green Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, provides a design standard for those who strive for high performance buildings. It covers key topical areas of site sustainability, water-use efficiency, energy efficiency, indoor environmental quality, and the building’s impact on the atmosphere, materials, and resources. Proposed addendum p would remove the ‘Acceptance Testing’ provision (Section 10.3.1.1Building Acceptance Testing) for small buildings. The proposed addendum was open for public review from Oct. 19Nov. 18, 2012. To comment on the proposed changes or for more information, visit www.ashrae.org/publicreviews. Currently, the standard implies that 32

when a building area is less than 5,000 square feet it is considered to have simple building systems, and thus requires a reduced level of commissioning effort, referred to as Acceptance Testing, according to Jeff RossBain, a member of the Standard 189.1 committee. However, building area does not relate to complexity as many buildings less than 5,000 square feet can be complex. Under the proposed addendum, building commissioning per Section 10.3.1.2 becomes mandatory for all buildings that are designed and built under the requirements of the standard. “Commissioning is a robust and well supported discipline with established guidelines (ASHRAE and others), a long history of use and with many practitioners,” he said. “The commissioning process is one that adapts to the specific attributes of a given building. A ‘simple’ building would only require ‘simple’ commissioning regardless of size.” Ross-Bain noted that ‘Acceptance Testing’ is not a universally defined activity nor

do there appear to be specific instructions or guidelines within the industry detailing how this activity is formally completed. Also, a review of the mandatory requirements of Standard 189.1 could be interpreted as producing a relatively complex building (i.e. consumption measurement, on-site renewable energy, daylighting control, outdoor air delivery monitoring, economizers, condensate recovery, etc.), which requires a higher degree of commissioning activity. Finally, under the current ‘Acceptance Testing’ section, Standard 189.1 would not meet the minimum commissioning prerequisite of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system, which requires all buildings to undergo the commissioning process. ASHRAE, founded in 1894, is a building technology society with more than 50,000 members worldwide. The society and its members focus on building systems, energy efficiency, indoor air quality, refrigeration, and sustainability within the industry. Through research, standards writing, pub-

The GeorGia enGineer

frastructure and facilities projects. We support public and private sector clients in a diverse range of markets at every stage, from the initial conceptualization and financial feasibility study to project completion and beyond. Our services are provided on projects around the world through approximately 12,000 employees operating out of more than 190 locations in North America and four locations internationally. v

lishing and continuing education, ASHRAE shapes tomorrow’s built environment today. v GSFIC Retains Heery for Commissioning Assignment at Georgia Tech Heery International has been awarded a contract with the Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission (GSFIC) to provide building commissioning services for a new engineered biosystems building (EBB) at the Georgia Institute of Technology. The 200,000-square-foot multistory facility will include labs, offices, classrooms, and associated support spaces. The building is being designed and constructed to achieve LEED Gold certification. Heery is responsible for commissioning mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire protection, communication, and audio/visual systems. The design and construction of the EBB will support growth in the areas of bioscience and biotechnology, allowing Georgia Tech to remain at the forefront of research in health and life systems. The proposed site for the EBB is on Tenth Street, within the block between Tenth Street and Peachtree Place and between State Street and Atlantic Drive. The building is envisioned as the first phase in the development of the EBB complex. Development of the EBB will align with the goals outlined in Georgia Tech’s master plan and campus landscape master plan. In addition, the EBB development will address the planned phase I of the eco-commons, the Tenth Street streetscape, and the future development of the Atlantic promenade. Heery International is an architecture, interior design, engineering, program management, and construction management firm with offices nationwide. As an affiliated company of Parsons Brinckerhoff, one of the world’s leading professional services companies, Heery now operates as that firm’s U.S. buildings operating company. v Michael Buhler Joins Stantec in Duluth, Georgia Brings 35 year background in engineering and business management Michael J. Buhler, PE, LEED AP, has joined Stantec as a principal in the firm’s Duluth, Georgia office where he will lead DECEMBER | JANUARY 2013

land development and municipal engineering services in the Atlanta area. Buhler has a 35 year career in engineering and management of large engineering practices. He has been involved with the design of major civil engineering projects for numerous municipalities, developers throughout the United States, the federal government, including the Department of Defense, and state transportation departments His extensive experience includes responsibilities for design and management of, site development to support commercial, industrial, and retail construction, ports, energy, water infrastructure, and highways and bridges. Buhler is a registered professional engineer and a LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) accredited professional. He is active in the Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce and the Society of American Military Engineers. Buhler holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering from Clarkson University in New York. He joins a growing multi-discipline engineering practice for Stantec in Georgia, where staff in Duluth and Macon provide services in land development, municipal engineering, rail and transit engineering, roadway engineering, transportation, water, and urban infrastructure. Stantec provides professional consulting services in planning, engineering, architecture, interior design, landscape architecture, surveying, environmental sciences, project management, and project economics for in-

Wolverton & Associates Inc. Announces New Department Head Wolverton & Associates Inc. (W&A), a Professional Services Civil Engineering and Land Surveying firm located in Duluth, Georgia has announced the promotion of Mr. Todd DeVos, P.E., PTOE, as their new department head for the Traffic Engineering Department. Mr. DeVos has his M.C.E. from the Georgia Institute of Technology and has 24 years of experience in traffic engineering. He has been with W&A for over five years in the Traffic Engineering Department. He holds a Professional Engineering license in the state of Georgia and also has his Professional Traffic Operations Engineer (PTOE) certification in Georgia. He is professionally affiliated with the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the Intelligent Transportation Systems of Georgia (ITS). Previously, Mr. DeVos was Senior Project Manager for W&A and has extensive experience in transportation engineering and transportation planning. His experience includes managing signal timing plans and modifications, signal design, traffic studies, and corridor and impact studies. Chief Operating Officer, Joseph R. Macrina, P.E. stated, “We want to make sure that we have the best possible leadership in each of our four major firm disciplines. In today’s market we are not only looking for talented engineers and project managers but also leaders with business development, people development, and project management skill sets. Mr. DeVos has proven he has the winning combination of technical, management and leadership skills required to succeed.” v 33

WTS Annual Scholarship Luncheon Goes Swimmingly Well

very year in October, WTS Atlanta hosts their annual Scholarship Luncheon in order to honor scholarship and award winners that have exemplified outstanding achievements in the field of transportation. The venue varies from year to year, but this year more than 300 professionals gathered at the Georgia Aquarium to help WTS Atlanta honor the winners. A silent auction and raffle were conducted during the luncheon where nearly $7,500 was collected which will be used to fund the scholarships that are awarded each year. Jennifer King, WTS Atlanta President, along with Inga Kennedy, served as MCs of the event, which included entertainment from local musician, ‘Milkshake.’ Once lunch was served, Dr. Yvette Taylor, with the Federal Transit Administration, served as the key note speaker and discussed current policy and issues concerning transportation. Once complete, the scholarship and awards portion of the program began. WTS Atlanta awards four scholarships each year to highly qualified college students that meet the requirements set forth by WTS International. Two of the scholarships, Banks and Molitoris, are for undergraduate students, while the Overly and Legacy Scholarships are awarded to graduate students. While the pool of applicants was very strong this year, the chapter chose the following students as the recipients of these awards: The $2,000 Sharon D. Banks Undergraduate Scholarship was awarded to Atiyya Shaw. Atiyya was born in Guyana, South America, and moved to Marietta, Georgia, when she was 11 years old. She attended the Center for Advanced Studies in Math, Science, and Technology at Wheeler High School. She is a civil engineering student at Georgia Tech, where she is active in the Student Alumni Association and Tau Beta Pi, and is currently an intern at CDM Smith. Melissa Allardyce was selected to be the recipient of the Molitoris Leadership Schol34

Jennifer King, Atiyya Shaw, and Jenny Jenkins arship for Undergraduates. Melissa is a fourth-year Civil Engineering student at Georgia Tech. She is vice president of Finance for her sorority and is an active member of ASCE and ASHE. In addition, Melissa was a co-op in Economic Development at the Georgia Power Company and served as vice president of Students of Southern Company and student ambassador on campus. Melissa is studying to get her certificate in Land Development from the School of City and Regional Planning with a focus in Transportation Planning. Melissa will be recommended for the national Molitoris Leadership Scholarship for Undergraduates at the WTS International Conference in the spring of 2013. The Helene M. Overly Graduate Scholarship, worth $2,000, was awarded to Margaret Akofio-Sowah. She is a 2010 graduate of Smith College in Northampton and currently enrolled in Georgia Tech pursuing a

degree in Transportation Systems Engineering. She earned her Master’s degree last year and is currently pursuing her PhD. At Georgia Tech, Margaret’s research is based on transportation asset management as it relates to planning and policy. Outside of academics, Margaret is actively involved in the WTS student chapter at Georgia Tech and is currently serving as president. She is also an active member of the Black Graduate Students Association and ITE. The Leadership Legacy Scholarship for Graduates is one that is selected to be a representation of the Atlanta chapter at the WTS International Conference. This year’s Leadership Legacy Scholarship recipient is a young woman who, as an undergraduate student, won the Sharon D. Banks scholarship, then went on to win the national Banks award in May of this year. Now, as a graduate student, Amanda Wall stands out among all of the applicants as one that is a very high The GeorGia enGineer

Key Note Speaker Dr. Yvette Taylor, Regional Administrator, Region IV Oﬃce of the Federal Transit Administration scholarship recipient

Inga Kennedy, Helen McSwain, Grady High School Gearbox Girlz, Jennifer King

achiever and worthy of being recommended as a potential national winner yet again. Amanda is from Hiram, Georgia and recently graduated with her BS in Civil Engineering from Georgia Tech, where she maintained a 4.0 GPA throughout her entire undergraduate career. While at Tech, Amanda has educated others about alternative transportation through her leadership role within Students for Progressive Transit, an organization she co-founded. Amanda is currently studying transportation systems and policy at Georgia Tech and will graduate this May with her Master’s degree. Although there is no money associated with this scholarship, she will be recommended to win the national Banks award again this year for the chance to win $5,000. After the scholarships were awarded to the graduate and undergraduate college students, a $1,000 check was presented to the

Grady High School Robotics Team as part of the Transportation YOU Program. Transportation YOU is a joint initiative with the USDOT that seeks to provide a hands-on, interactive, mentoring program that offers young girls ages 13-18 an introduction to a wide variety of transportation careers. WTS Atlanta has committed itself as a chapter to the Henry W. Grady Robotics & STEM Alliance’s Grady Gearbox Gangstaz Robotics Team to support outreach efforts to middle and elementary schools, promote STEM interest among girls, and become ‘Big Sisters’ to the students in order to mentor them. The Grady Gearbox Girlz brought their robot to the luncheon and wowed everyone with its capabilities. The last portion of the Annual Scholarship luncheon included awarding deserving recipients with the 2012 Awards for Employer, Member, Woman, and Di-

DECEMBER | JANUARY 2013

versity Members of the Year. These award recipients are nominated and voted on by fellow WTS Atlanta members prior to the luncheon. For 2012, the Employer of the Year was given to GeoStats, a woman-owned business based in Atlanta that focuses on the application of Global Positioning System (GPS) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS), in the collection, analysis, reporting, and display of transportation data. GeoStats has for many years been very involved in WTS Atlanta and this award is much deserved. The Diversity Leadership Award, given to a person or organization who has exhibited outstanding and extraordinary efforts or initiatives in developing opportunities for women and minorities, was awarded to Marsha Anderson Bomar of Stantec. Marsha has helped pave the way for women in a maledominated field and has served as a mentor to so many young professionals in the Atlanta area and throughout the nation. Member of the Year this year was Angela Snyder. Serving as the current Secretary of WTS Atlanta, and project manager of Wolverton & Associates Inc., she strives to improve communication within the organization and grow the chapter. As the incoming president of the Atlanta Chapter, her hard work and passion for the mission of WTS will continue to benefit the chapter. Finally, Woman of the Year, was awarded to Faye DiMassimo, the Director of the Cobb County DOT. Faye’s commitment to the transportation industry and to the region is typified by her efforts in the passing of the 2011 Cobb County SPLOST as well as her work in securing the largest Alternatives Analysis competitive transit grant made in the state of Georgia and one of the largest in the nation. WTS Atlanta was proud to call Faye the Woman of the Year, as she has had such a profound impact on the transportation industry throughout her career as well as on the lives of many young women through her mentoring efforts. WTS Atlanta would like to thank all of its Corporate Partners and Luncheon Sponsors and attendees for making the 2012 WTS Atlanta Annual Scholarship Luncheon a success! v 35

AsHeNews

Ron Osterloh, P.E., President American Society of Highway Engineers / Georgia Section As winter approaches, the ASHE membership renewal period has ended, and I want to thank all the ASHE members who have renewed and welcome all of our new members. The ASHE membership is as strong as it has ever been and thanks to the wonderful programs put together by our programs committee, our excellent social events or-

Another piece of exciting news is that ASHE is working closely with our colleagues at ITE to hold our first joint ITE/ASHE Winter Conference. The conference is scheduled for February 24-25 at the University of Georgia Continuing Education Conference Center in Athens. As the program is evolving, it will be sure to be a great opportunity to collaborate, learn, and socialize.

Officer Installations Officer installations were held in June, and three new board members were added. The 2012-2013 ASHE Georgia Section officers are:

Scholarship Winners Through our continued success at our Golf Tournament and our other events, ASHE was fortunate to be able to award two more students with our 2012 Jim McGee ASHE Scholarship. Mellissa Allardyce and David Peters were the winners. Both students have outstanding academic, work, and extracurricular records and both students also expressed a strong interest in continuing to work in the transportation field after they graduate. Congratulations to Mellissa and David. We have a full calendar of events including our new ITE/ASHE Winter Conference, so check the Web site, www.ashega.org, regularly for what’s coming up. We look forward to seeing you soon.v

President ~ Ron Osterloh, Pond & Company First Vice President ~ Michael Bywaletz, Gresham Smith and Partners Second Vice President ~ Brian O’Connor, Gresham Smith and Partners Secretary ~ Karyn Matthews, GDOT Treasurer ~ Richard Meehan, Lowe Engineers Past President and Regional Rep ~ Tim Matthews, GDOT Director ~ Shawn Fleet, Heath and Lineback National Director ~ Nikki Reutlinger, Atkins Chairs Nominating Committee Chair ~ Tim Matthews, GDOT Program Chair ~ Rob Dell-Ross, city of Roswell Membership Chair ~ Scott Jordan, Cobb County Scholarship Chair ~ Sarah Worachek, Gresham Smith and Partners ASHE Student Chapter Liason ~ Kevin Riggs, Gresham Smith and Partners Technical Chairs ~ Dan Bodycomb, AECOM; Chris Rudd, GDOT Communications Chair ~ Jenny Jenkins, McGee Partners Social Chair ~ Elizabeth Scales, Thompson Engineering Golf Tournament Chair ~ Ashley Chan, HNTB Web site Chairs ~ Mindy Sanders, Hatch Mott MacDonald; Pervez Iqbal, HNTB

The Coveted ASHE Bowling Trophy, Closely Watched by Rob Dell-Ross ganized by our social committee, and the hard work by our membership committee we continue to grow. In addition to our full membership, our new ASHE student section is also growing strong. We currently have over 25 new members and they have elected a student ASHE board that is very energized and active. The fall has brought us many great ASHE events, from bowling to two great ‘standing room’ only lunch meetings. These were highlighted by a very in depth presentation on the new MS4 requirements for GDOT projects and a great lesson on liability in highway design by Dr. Parsonson. In addition to our general meetings, ASHE participated in the Kaiser Permanente Run/Walk at Turner Field and thanks to some very generous sponsors, we were able to enjoy great food, drinks, and company after the race. Another great program that has had an overwhelming success is the In Roads Users Group that meets every month. InRoads users from GDOT, local cities and Counties as well as consultants have been able to come together and share great ideas and help overcome any of the new software’s challenges.

CALENDAR OF EVENTS December 5, 2012 ASHE Holiday Social January, 2013 General Meeting February 24-25, 2013 ITE/ASHE Winter Conference (Athens, Georgia) March 2013 Poker Tourney April 2013 General Meeting May 2013 Golf & Tennis Tourneys The GeorGia enGineer

ACeCNews

Edgar G. Williams, PE President ACEC/G Government Affairs for Consulting Engineers: It’s Not Just about Washington DC If you are scanning this article for speculation on the impact of the November elections, you will be disappointed because the election is still a few days away as this article is being written. I recently bumped into an acquaintance of mine, a well-known and oftenquoted economics professor. Even though he openly discusses his political views and has no motivation to show ‘balance,’ he told me, that in his opinion, the economy is likely to improve no matter who is elected. So, if your guy did not win, maybe there is hope! The presidential election has certainly occupied our attention for many months. I am sure that you, like me are ready to move on and get back to improving business conditions for our places of employment and the clients we serve. The focus of government affairs for most of us in the engineering business is far from the presidential level. Government issues at the state and local levels have much more immediate impact on our business lives. Don’t you think it is an odd paradox that we engineers tend to be fiscally conservative, frequently speaking energetically in favor of smaller government, less regulation, and budget cuts, but, at the same time, ‘government’ is often the driving force in the markets in which we work? Many of us make our living by designing projects intended to meet regulatory requirements for environmental protection, public safety, energy conservation, and other mandates that did not exist until government regulations came into existence. Public infrastructure projects we design, and in some cases our fees, are funded by government sponsored fiDECEMBER | JANUARY 2013

nancing. You could argue that government has made the consulting engineering business possible. To me that suggests we can further enhance our business interests and the public benefit by promoting improvements in state and local laws and encouraging the adoption of sensible regulation and policy. Here in Georgia, ACEC/G has had some significant successes in government affairs this year. We played a key role with GAWP, GMA, ACCG, and the State Chamber in working out expedited permitting for wastewater projects. The ACEC/G Environmental Forum developed language for the new policy statement that allows Professional Engineering certification to replace prolonged construction plan review by EPD, while at the same time providing liability protection in cases where construction is not satisfactory, or operation is inconsistent with the approved operating procedure. In the Transportation arena, a new Georgia Partnership for Transportation Quality (GPTQ) operational charter has

been signed. This partnership agreement between GDOT, the Georgia Highway Contractors Association, and ACEC/G, will enhance the quality and efficiency of future transportation projects in the state of Georgia for years to come. The public and the business community will benefit greatly. There is another side of the impact of government on our business that is also part of government affairs. We can provide better service to our clients if we are not burdened by inefficient policies and regulations. Engineers like solving problems and we would rather earn our fees by solving problems than by managing cumbersome red-tape issues. Even when our firms are serving industrial or private clients and our projects are not funded by government programs, government regulations impact how we operate. I believe that engineers have a better understanding of most issues, both technical and non-technical than the typical citizen. So how do we influence government to correct the problems that hinder efficiency in

our problem solving endeavors? For most of us starting an ‘Occupy’ movement would not fit our style very well. Expressing our opinions individually can be risky and ineffective. Engineers employed in the private sector often walk a fine line in dealing with clients and are unable to openly take a political position. I have seen recent articles that advocate engineers running for office. How about running for office? Serving in an elected position, while also working in consulting engineering, can be very difficult. You have to overcome the challenges of balancing your time, determining what is ‘conflict of interest’ and convincing the public of your objectivity. We have a few examples of Georgia engineers who have done this successfully. I applaud their dedication and commitment.

Our participation in ACEC/G provides a very effective mechanism for making our opinions known and sharing our valuable insight into the issues important to engineers and the state. ACEC/G provides advocacy and information in a way that maximizes the outcomes and minimizes the individual costs and risks. I know the cumulative dollars of our PACs have much more impact than my individual contributions. Contributing to the national PAC as an individual and supporting the state PAC with business contributions allows us to greatly increase the volume of our unified voice. Our ACEC/G national office provides a venue to stay informed about what national legislation and regulation is under consideration and to connect with the federal agencies that are im-

portant to us here at home. ACEC/G provides strength in numbers and a much more effective voice for our interests at the local and federal level than we can produce individually. Additionally, we have the benefit of the Georgia Engineering Alliance (GEA), a coalition of multiple engineering associations with the potential to convey a very credible comprehensive message. The vision for GEA has not changed with the reorganization completed last fall. The reorganization is intended to broaden the base of participation by including more of the many engineering associations active in Georgia. Many organizations will be more credible than just a handful. This unified voice of engineers will be able to more effectively advocate for common issues. ACEC/G and GEA provide the means for Georgia engineers to leverage our effectiveness for positive impact in government affairs, right here in Georgia. v

Read articles on-line at: THEGEORGIAENGINEER.

The GeorGia enGineer

AsCeNews

Lisa S. Woods, P.E., President American Society of Civil Engineers, Georgia Section | e-mail: lisa.woods@jacobs.com | www.ascega.org Greetings! This is the YEAR OF FUN in ASCE. At our meeting November 2 everybody was encouraged to wear their favorite collegiate gear! Look for some photos in the next issue! And hold onto your hats for some other FUN events throughout the year! Engineers Week is fast approaching—February 17-23! Please check our website for volunteer opportunities! Centennial Celebrations As 2012 comes to a close, we are wrapping up our Centennial Activities. Centennial Gala We celebrated our Centennial with a spectacular gala at the Georgia Tech Hotel and Conference Center on September 7, 2012. Comedian and Motivational Speaker Dan Jourdan served as master of ceremonies. Reginald DesRoches, PhD, Chair of the School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, welcomed the over 120 attendees. Melissa Wheeler and Katherine Gurd,

PE provided a picture-filled presentation showing 100 years of civil engineering in Georgia and unveiled the book ASCE Georgia 1912-2012: Celebrating 100 Years of Engineering Excellence. Fourteen Past Presidents of Georgia ASCE were present and recognized. National ASCE President Andrew Herrmann, PE, SECB was the guest speaker, speaking on infrastructure needs in the United States. Ernie Pollitzer, PE presented awards including: • Young Civil Engineer of the Year: Gregory L. Hebeler, PhD, PE of Golder Associates • Georgia Outstanding Civil Engineering Achievement Natural Environment: Browns Canal Streambank Restoration, city of Valdosta • Georgia Outstanding Civil Engineering Achievement Small Project: RM Clayton Water Reclamation Center Co-generation Project, city of Atlanta • Georgia Outstanding Civil Engineer-

•

ing Achievement Large Project: Yellow River Water Reclamation Facility Improvements, Gwinnett County Department of Water Resources Honorable Mention Awards went to the Chattahoochee Raw Water Transmission Line, DeKalb County Department of Watershed Management; Borinquen Dam, Pacific Access Channel, Panama Canal Authority; and East Swift Creek Mitigation Bank, Mitigation Resource Group.

The evening ended with the installation of the 2012-2013 Board of Directors and passing of the gavel from Jim Wallace, PhD, PE to me! A raffle of Atlanta Falcons tickets donated by CH2M Hill raised over $500 for the ASCE Georgia Scholarship Fund. The event was an outstanding commemoration of 100 years of ASCE in Georgia. Centennial Commemorative Book We have released a book celebrating 100

ASCE/GEORGIA SECTION 2012 - 2013 BOARD OF DIRECTORS President Lisa S. Woods, P.E. JACOBS lisa.woods@jacobs.com President-Elect Katherine McLeod Gurd, P.E. AECOM Katherine.Gurd@aecom.com Vice President Rebecca Shelton, P.E. Gwinnett County DWR rebecca.shelton@gwinnettcounty.com

DECEMBER | JANUARY 2013

Treasurer Dan Agramonte, P.E. O'BRIEN & GERE daniel.agramonte@obg.com External Director Keith Cole, P.E. keith.cole@mindspring.com Internal Director Christina Vulova, P.E. URS Corporation christina.vulova@urs.com Secretary Ernie Pollitzer, MS P.E. Sierra Piedmont

epollitzer@bellsouth.net Technical Director Richard Morales, M.Sc., P.E. LB Foster Piling RMorales@LBFoster.com Younger Member Director Julie Secrist, P.E. Lowe Engineers Julie.Secrist@loweengineers.co m Savannah Branch Director C. J. Chance

NE Georgia Branch Director Matthew Tanner, P.E. Breedlove Land Planning Inc. mtanner@landplanning.net South Metro Branch Director Greg A. Wombough, P.E. Universal Engineering Sciences gwombough@universalengineering.com Past-President James R. Wallace, Sc.D., P.E. AMEC (retired) jrwhaw@comcast.net

years of engineering excellence in Georgia. The book showcases 31 unique projects that forever changed Georgia. Written from the unique perspective provided by civil engineers, the book celebrates civil engineering in Georgia by highlighting significant projects. In coinciding with the Georgia section’s centennial (1912 - 2012), the projects are intertwined with major events that occurred during the time period, such as World War II, the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games, and the growth of Georgia’s population from 2.5 million to nearly ten million. The commemorative edition features over 90 photographs, including many unique and historical images that offer insight into the growth of Georgia in the last 100 years. The book spotlights significant achievements such as construction of the tallest hotel in the western hemisphere (Westin Peachtree Plaza), the world’s busiest airport (Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport), and the fourth-busiest port in the United States (Port of Savannah). The book was written mainly by Georgia Section ASCE members. Development of the book was spearheaded by the ASCE Georgia Section Centennial Committee, which was led by Melissa Wheeler, A.M.ASCE and Katherine McLeod Gurd, P.E., M.ASCE. The team

spent countless hours digging through old records and documents to put this historic book together. All team members contributed to the development of this book, which we feel is representative of the enormous impact that civil engineers have made to Georgia’s growth during this time period. Get Your Copy! Pick up your copy at an upcoming Section meeting, or online at: http://www.ascega.org/georgia-ascecentennial-book/. Volunteer Opportunities We have many volunteer opportunities to get YOU involved throughout the year. Our ‘What Do Civil Engineers Do?’ contest urges kids to be creative and offers cash prizes! We are so excited to be partnering with STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) schools around Georgia where we participate in workshops and education—our schools so far—Marietta Center for Academic Achievement (MCAA), Marietta Middle School (MMS), and Liberty Elementary in Canton. The Exploring Engineering Academy at Georgia Tech in June is an awesome program put together by the Boy Scouts and championed by Richard Morales for many years! Some of our Engineers Week activities include Toothpick Bridge Building led by

Book Contributors Celebrate

Installation of the 2012-2013 ASCE Georgia Section Board of Directors 40

Representatives of LB Foster Pose with President Andrew Herrmann Larry Prescott and Introduce a Girl to Engineering led by John Lawrence and Melissa Wheeler. We also participate with GSPE in Mathcounts and for the last several years, we have participated in the SkillsUSA Career Expo at the convention center near Hartsfield. Please contact our Director of External Affairs, Keith Cole, at keith.cole@mindspring.com to volunteer! Remember… Please join us at one of our Section meetings this year! January 4, February 1, March 1, April 5, May 3, and June 7. Please check out our new Web site, www.ascega.org, for more information. New this year!! – We will be holding raffles at select meetings for items like Falcons tickets, etc. Please bring cash. All money collected goes directly to our Scholarship Fund. We are also looking for items to raffle if you or your company would like to donate. I would like to extend a sincere thank you to our sponsors—RWC Hardscapes, Belgard Hardscapes, JACOBS, Hayward Baker, AECOM, Heath and Lineback, ASCE Region 5, ASCE Foundation and LB Foster, and Evonik. Please contact me if you are interested in becoming a sponsor. In closing, please e-mail me at any time if you have questions, concerns, suggestions, or would like to volunteer! Many thanks to Rebecca Shelton and Dan Agramonte for contributing to this article! Take care and have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! v The GeorGia enGineer

GsPeNews

David W. Simoneau, P.E.,. President Georgia Society of Professional Engineers

On October 6, 2012, I had the good fortune to recognize one of the most significant milestones in our profession. The Georgia Society of Engineers hosted a New PE Recognition dinner to honor those men and women who had successfully completed the required experience and passed the second of the two tests necessary to become Professional Engineers in Georgia. Together with our sponsors, Georgia Power, ASCE, ACEC/G, SEAOG, LOC Engineering, Pond & Company, Wolverton & Associates, GEC Engineers, and W.K. Dickson, we were able to say, “Well done!” This amazing accomplishment deserved and received our heartfelt congratulations. The inspired presentations of our speakers made attending this dinner more than worth your time. Ron Scinta, PE, the young engineer speaker, was an excellent choice for that presentation because he had waited some time before finally seeking his professional registration. His success shows the potential for everyone who wants to progress. Our older engineers were represented by John Prien, PE who gave us many reminders of where we have been and where we can go again. As a special show of honor, our featured speaker was Dan Wittliff, PE, President of the National Society of Engineers. While the national society tries to have members of the senior staff attend a meeting in every state at least once a year, we were extremely grateful that Dan could be in Atlanta for this special presentation. Dan’s attendance demonstrates that he wants this profession and all of its members to be the best. While the celebration was wonderful, it is not truly the emphasis of this article. It is however what made me remember what it was like when I became a professional engineer. We all need to remember why we are DECEMBER | JANUARY 2013

where we are in our careers. What brought you to this point? Where do you plan to go? Those questions are asked by everyone at one time or another. If you are like me, you came to this point because you wanted to create things that improve the welfare of others. I enjoy looking at a bare piece of land and thinking about what it will become after I create the plans for the proposed development, get it approved by the local jurisdiction, and the contractor builds it. I even enjoy watching the creation of the other disciplines’ designs as they are constructed. I want the project to be completed and to be done properly. So I came to this place in my career because I enjoy making things better for those around me. Where do we go from here? Engineers should “Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.” This quote from the Code of Ethics for Engineers points out that our driving force should be honor. If we act honorably, we will only work in our areas of expertise. We will admit our mistakes. We will not make misleading statements. In other words, we will follow the Code of Ethics. As one of those who have been around for awhile, I have an obligation to help train those that are coming behind me. That is why I am sold on the idea of the Georgia Society of Professional Engineers. It provides a framework to promote and protect the profession for future generations. While I want to train the younger engineers in my office to be better at the technical part of their designs, I also want to show them how to be honorable. As my company president says, “If there is time to do it over, there was time to do it right.” That entails not only making it technically correct, but prop-

erly designing the project with the highest standards of honesty and integrity. In the long run, honor will win. Join with us to point the way for our upcoming engineers. If the engineers of today maintain the highest standard of honor in all of their dealings with others, the profession will benefit, and we will create a future that everyone will enjoy. As the new engineers were honored at our recent dinner, they also started a journey that puts them in positions of leadership, not only for the projects they design, but also for the younger engineers who have yet to advance to the position of professional engineer. It is the beginning of a new cycle for the future of engineering. v

iteNews

Dwayne Tedder, PE Georgia Section, Institute of Transportation Engineers 2012 President’s message By Dan Dobry I love coaching. Those that regularly coach little league, rec soccer, Upward basketball, flag football, or whatever sport probably agree with me. For me, it is like I get to play those sports all over again but without the pulled hammy. The camaraderie, the thrill of victory, the agony of defeat … all of that. Love it!

I’ve been coaching for 16 years—somewhere in the neighborhood of 35 to 40 teams, multiple sports and hundreds of boys and girls ranging in ages from three to 19. It occurs to me that over this time period, I have learned more about professional leadership from those kids than I could ever learn in a classroom, book, or seminar. I thought I’d share five leadership lessons I’ve learned from coaching kids.

1. Be clear about your objectives. Mark, Jr was a smallish, stocky kid, who had a keen sense for the game of indoor soccer. Because I was determined to teach four and five year olds proper positioning, I told Mark where his defensive spot was and told him that if a ball came into his area, he should kick it away. For the first half of the game, little Mark dutifully glued himself to his one spot and

The GeorGia enGineer

acted like a pinball bumper if a ball were to perchance hit his legs. Me being the astute coach that I am, explained to Mark that he could move back and forth in the defensive zone and didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have to just stand in one spot. So, for the entire Board Position

second half he sashayed side-to-side and kicked the ball if it happened to come to him in his proper pendulum motion. After that, I was a little clearer with Mark on where he should play. 2. Celebrate the little things as well as the

Member

big things. Angel wanted to be part of the team. She liked it when her mom put her hair up for the game and thought shin guards were cool. Truthfully, she really liked the post-game snacks. But Angel, as far as I could tell,

E-mail

Phone

President

John Karnowski

jkarnowski@foresitegroupinc.com

(770) 368-1399

Vice President

Dwayne Tedder

dwayne.tedder@urs.com

(678) 808-8840

Secretary/Treasurer

Jonathan Reid

Reid@pbworld.com

(404) 769-4058

Past President

Mike Holt

mholt@worldfiber.com

(770) 407-7799

District Representative

David Benevelli

david.benevelli@transcore.com

(770) 246-6257

District Representative

Carla Holmes

carla_holmes@gspnet.com

(678) 518-3654

District Representative

Jim Tolson

jtolson@dot.ga.gov

(404) 624-7119

Affiliate Director

Andrew Antweiler

aantweiler@roswellgov.com

(678) 639-7540

Committee

Chair(s)

E-mail

Phone

2012 Intl Meeting

Marsha Bomar

marsha.andersonbomar@stantec.com

(770) 813-0882

Kenny Voorhies

kvoorhies@camsys.com

(404) 460-2604

Activities

Patrick McAtee

PMcatee@ThompsonEngineering.com

(404) 574-1985

Annual Report

Carla Holmes

carla_holmes@gspnet.com

(678) 518-3654

Jim Tolson

jtolson@dot.ga.gov

(404) 624-7119

Audio/Visual

France Campbell

france_campbell@gspnet.com

(678) 518-3952

Awards/Nominations

Mike Holt

mholt@worldfiber.com

(770) 407-7799

Career Guidance

Brendetta Walker

bhargro@bellsouth.net

(404) 364-5235

Clerk

Elizabeth Scales

elizabeth.scales@hatchmott.com

(770) 200-1735

Comptroller

Jim Pohlman

pohlmanj@bellsouth.net

(770) 972-9709

Engineers Week

Steven Sheffield

ssheffield@georgiatolls.com

(404) 893-6132

Finance

Martin Bretherton

wbretherton@hntb.com

(404) 946-5709

Georgia Engineer Magazine

Dan Dobry

ddobry@croyengineering.com

(770) 971-5407

John Edwards

jdedwards4929@bellsouth.net

(404) 264-0789

Georgia Tech Liaison

Paul DeNard

pdenard@dot.ga.gov

(404) 635-8278

Historian

Charles Bopp

charles_bopp@hotmail.com

(404) 848-6054

Host

Sujith Racha

sujith.racha@arcadis-us.com

(770) 431-8666

Legislative Affairs

Bill Ruhsam

bruhsam@maai.net

(678) 728-9076

Life Membership

Don Gaines

dgaines@gcaeng.com

(404) 355-4010

Marketing

Shannon Fain

shannon.fain@stantec.com

(770) 813-0882

Membership

Sunita Nadella

sunita.nadella@parsons.com

(678) 969-2304

Monthly Meetings

Dwayne Tedder

dwayne.tedder@urs.com

(678) 808-8840

Newsletter

Vern Wilburn

vwilburn@wilburnengineering.com

(770) 977-8920

Past Presidents

Todd Long

tlong@dot.ga.gov

(404) 631-1021

Public Officials Education

Scott Mohler

scott_mohler@urscorp.com

(678) 808-8811

Scholarship

Tim Brandstetter

tim.brandstetter@kimley-horn.com

(404) 419-8714

Southern Poly Liaison

Bryan Sartin

bryan_sartin@gspnet.com

(678) 518-3884

Summer Seminar

Josh Williams

josh_williams@gspnet.com

(678) 518-3672

Technical

Winter Horbal

winter.horbal@temple-inc.com

(678) 412-5554

Web site

Shawn Pope

spope@camsys.com

(404) 460-2609

Winter Workshop

Jody Peace

Jody.Peace@arcadis-us.com

(770) 431-8666

DECEMBER | JANUARY 2013

had no athletic ability whatsoever— bless her heart. I spent most games in the early part of the season encouraging Angel not to eat her hair. But on one occasion, it all seemed to click for Angel, and she ran around doing exactly what she was told. It seemed silly to praise her for not picking her nose but it was the kind of encouragement she needed. In the last game of the second season, she scored a goal… and the crowd went wild! 3. Empathize. My then seven year old Rachel was tiny but tenacious. As a defender, she exploded to the ball and rarely let a forward get the better of her. As a goalie, she was fearless… until… The opposing forward was one of those fast growth-spurt kids who towered over everyone else. (I’m pretty sure she was a Dominican 12-year old with a fake birth certificate, but I couldn’t prove it.) The girl orchestrated a fast break and was set to score. Rachel aggressively challenged her and ran directly at her. The Amazon kicked hard and lifted the ball right into Rachel’s face from about ten feet away. It bounced to the side; she steadied herself and took up her position, seemingly unfazed by the ball-to-the-nose shot. The same kid readied her return kick and from six feet away nailed Rachel in the face again. Somehow she was able to corral the ball and throw it away. Only then did she drop to ground. When I went to make sure she was okay, the only thing she said was, “Daddy, I don’t want to play goalie, anymore.” – She didn’t.

the church where we played. I saved my life affirming directions for the car ride home. 5. Coach yourself out of a job. One of my proudest moments as a coach is when the kids ‘get it’ and can essentially coach themselves. I called all the plays for the first three-quarters of our football season. Eventually, the quarterbacks had a good sense for the situation at hand and called their own plays. We won every game that season. That might have had something to do with the fact that we had the oldest, fastest, and biggest kids in the league but I like to believe it was the play calling and execution. In business, as well as in our professional organizations, we have plenty of opportunities to lead. We may not all be bosses, upper management, or presidents but we can all be leaders of some variety. (1) Make sure everyone knows what is expected of the team. (2) When they hit the mark, even if only in a small way, make a big deal of that accomplishment. (3) Put yourself in their position and be ready to step in and change things if it isn’t working out. (4) Don’t be afraid to ask for help from others. (5) And finally, be ready to pass the reins to someone else but make sure you prepare them for it. Dwayne Tedder… it’s all yours.

4. Know when you need help. I have always coached my kids’ teams… always. It is one way I get to stay active in their lives and lets me yell life affirming directions from the sidelines. One season, the age differences got the better of me and we had three kids playing on three different teams. Based on the schedules, it was impossible for me to coach all three teams. I had to let someone else do it. My middle child had a wonderful coach who was also the youth leader for 44

The GeorGia enGineer

its

News

Scott Mohler, P.E. ITS President An innovation in safety and efficiency is coming to Interstate 285 in 2014, and ITS Georgia member organizations are at the heart of the new driving experience that, proven successful, may become the norm for metropolitan Georgia freeways in the future.

“You’re able to move more traffic through with the variable sign system,” GDOT Commissioner Keith Golden told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “If you’ll slow down, you’ll actually get there faster,” Commissioner Golden said, quoting traffic reporter Herb Emory of News Talk WSB radio. The technology behind the system is developed by ITS Georgia member Atkins and

Our 2012 Sponsors

Changes coming to I-285 The concept is simple—utilize technology to vary the real-time speed limit to improve traffic flow and create safer driving conditions. Reducing speeds and harmonizing the flow of traffic upstream of an incident makes for safer driving conditions and ideally prevents secondary accidents that arise from stop-and-go conditions. As part of the program, the overall speed limit will be raised to 65 MPH for the 260,000 or so daily vehicles on I-285, with the variable speed limit zone encompassing the northern section from I-20 in the east to I-20 in the west. Depending on traffic conditions, the speed limit will be adjusted up or down in five-MPH increments. DECEMBER | JANUARY 2013

Temple Arcadis Gresham Smith and Partners Traficon Atkins World Fiber Technologies Serco Utilicom Southern Lighting and Traffic Systems URS Kimley-Horn and Associates Control Technologies Telvent Delcan Cambridge Systematics Stantec Grice Consulting Sensys Networks Daktronics

ITS GEORGIA CHAPTER LEADERSHIP President Scott Mohler, URS Corporation Immediate Past President Marion Waters, Gresham, Smith and Partners Vice President Tom Sever, Gwinnett DOT Secretary Kristin Turner, Wolverton and Associates Inc. Treasurer Christine Simonton, Delcan Directors Mark Demidovich Susie Dunn Kenn Fink Eric Graves John Hibbard Carla Holmes Patrece Keeter Keary Lord Bayne Smith Grant Waldrop

GDOT ARC Kimley-Horn City of Alpharetta Atkins Gresham Smith DeKalb County Douglas County DOT URS GDOT

State Chapters Representative Kenny Voorhies Cambridge Systematics Inc. Ex Officio Greg Morris Federal Highway Administration Jamie Pfister Federal Transit Administration 45

is called Advanced Traffic Demand Management (ATDM). The ATDM system, managed at GDOT’s Transportation Management Center senses conditions on I285 and then calculates the optimum speed per segment to move the most vehicles, the most efficiently. “Atkins is honored to work with GDOT and bring our worldwide ATDM resources to bear on this important project,” said John Hibbard, Atkins ITS Practice Manager and longtime ITS Georgia board member. ITS Georgia member Brooks-BerryHaynie was selected to handle the hardware and installation of the system. BBH project

manager Bill Gunter knows it is high-profile and important for the state and region. “Variable Speed Limit Systems are a first for Georgia and therefore need a team that is up for the challenge. Brooks-Berry-Haynie looks forward to bringing our expertise in ITS and working with our design team, Atkins, to deliver this project to GDOT on time and on budget,” Bill said. We look forward to keeping you updated on progress and results once the system is in place. To find out more about ITS Georgia members who are on the forefront of safety, innovation and efficiency in Georgia scan the QR, or visit http://itsga.org/ourmembers.html.

indicated they wanted to hold the conference at Callaway in 2013, so we’ll see you in Pine Mountain next year. v

2012 Annual Meeting Follow Up I mentioned last time that I felt our 2012 annual meeting at Callaway Gardens was a success. Well we verified that with an attendee survey. Of those taking the survey, 45 percent said the meeting exceeded expectations with 52 percent indicating the meeting met expectations. Eighty-three percent rated the vendor exhibits as excellent, with 69 percent indicating the meeting contained the right balance of networking, sessions and vendor time allocation. Ninety percent of attendees

“Gort! Klaatu Borada nikto.”

(770) 521-8877 Use A ComPAny yoU CAn trUst witH yoUr trAnslAtion ProjeCt, because a little mistake in another language can have unpleasant results.

the

GeorgiaEngineer Take a look at our new and improved Web site: Enjoy a new video every day.

THEGEORGIAENGINEER.

The GeorGia enGineer