The Georgia Engineer Dec-Jan 2014

G e o r G i a

ENGINEER

速

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS Volume 20, Issue 6 DECEMBER 2013 | JANUARY 2014

GPtQ aWarDs

2013

state BuFFer variance: revisions to GeorGia rule 391-3-7

WasteWater treatment comes to atlanta 1909

2

GeorGia enGineer

G e o r G i a

ENGINEER Publisher: A4 Inc. 1154 Lower Birmingham Road Canton, Georgia 30115 Tel.: 770-521-8877 | Fax: 770-521-0406 E-mail: p.frey@a4inc.com Editor-in-Chief: Roland Petersen-Frey Managing Editor: Daniel Simmons Art Direction/Design: Pam Petersen-Frey Georgia Engineering Alliance 233 Peachtree Street | Harris Tower, #700 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Tel.: 404-521-2324 | Fax: 404-521-0283 Georgia Engineer Editorial Board Thomas C. Leslie, Chair Michael L. (Sully) Sullivan, ACEC Georgia, President Gwen D. Brandon, CAE, ACEC Georgia, Chief Operating Officer GSPE Representatives Tim Glover, PE

ACEC/Georgia Representatives B.J. Martin, PE Lee Philips ASCE/G Representatives Daniel Agramonte, PE Steven C. Seachrist, 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 2013 | January 2014

3

Advertisements AECOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 AEI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Atkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Ayres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Burns & McDonnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Cardno TBE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Columbia Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 CROM Prestressed Concrete Tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Eco-Wise Civil Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Edward Pitman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Engineered Restorations Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Facility Design Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Georgia Power Company. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Back Cover Hayward Baker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Back Cover Hazen and Sawyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 HDR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Heath & Lineback Engineers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 HNTB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 JAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Kennedy Engineering ~ KEA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 M.H. Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Middleton-House & Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Photo Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Pond & Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Prime Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Reinforced Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 RHD Utility Locating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Rosser International. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 RS & H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 S&ME. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Schnabel Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Stevenson & Palmer Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 STV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 T. Wayne Owens & Associates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Terrell Hundley Carroll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 THC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 TTL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 United Consulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Front Cover Wilburn Engineering LLC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Willmer Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Wolverton & Associates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4

GeorGia enGineer

t a b l e

o f

CONTENTS 7

GPtQ awards 2013

15

state Buffer variance: revisions to

GEORGIA ENGINEER December 2013 | January 2014

7

Georgia rule 391-3-7

16

Wastewater treatment comes to atlanta

22

Building Façade inspection

26

asce to release 2014 Ga infrastructure report card

27

Georgia engineering news

28

milestones for transportation investment act

29

the time task Force

31

2013 transportation summit recap

33

exploring engineer academy at Ga tech ~ summer 2013

16 37

acec Georgia news

40

asce Georgia news

41

asHe Georgia news

42

ite Georgia news

44

its Georgia news

45

Wts Georgia news

DecemBer 2013 | January 2014

35

GeF news

29

5

Visit: thegeorgiaengineer.com

6

GeorGia enGineer

Feature

wards for outstanding design of transportation projects were presented at the annual Transportation Summit Conference held in Atlanta on November 7th. The Conference was organized

by ACEC and co-hosted with Georgia DOT. The Georgia Partnership for Transportation Quality is a collaboration between DOT and ACEC that focuses on specific aspects of the relationship between GDOT and professional service firms (engineering, environmental, public participation, etc.) that assist GDOT in executing its work program. Special task forces, composed of representatives from ACEC and GDOT, meet throughout the year to discuss policy issues and suggest ways to improve them and enhance efficient implementation. The awards program is managed by GDOT and is intended to recognize the best firms/projects in a variety of categories. GPTQ is focused on ’pre-construction,‘ but is a successor to several similar partnerships that included GDOT, construction contractors, and design firms.

GRAND AWARD: ~ St. Sebastian Way/Greene Street Extension - Heath and Lineback Engineers Inc. | City of Augusta - GDOT PM | Highway Design - Urban This project exceeded design expectations because of exceptional effort by the Heath and Lineback design team during the design to ensure stakeholder involvement, context sensitive design, and then the finding of innovative solutions. The design was developed through a consistent stakeholder coordination effort involving multiple meetings of a varied shareholder group representing business, hospital, utility, railroad, historical society, and citizen groups. These facilitated meetings sparked ideas which the designers turned into reality, using flexibility and innovation to create solutions that met all needs and desires with minimal impact on the constraints and the environment. A major four lane divided highway-grade separated over the railroad, connector road to the interstate, and the canal were fitted seamlessly into an important historic neighborhood by careful layout of the roadway system and attention to detail.

The location of the project required exceptional coordination by the Heath and Lineback design team because the project limits include the Augusta Historic Canal, a National Heritage Area, the Historic Enterprise Mill, the Broad Street Historic Homes, and the CSX Railroad. The design includes bridges with four crossings of the canal, two crossings of CSX, a grade separation of Riverwatch Parkway and St. Sebastian Way, paths along the canal, and eighteen walls. The new facility offers a solution to all the pre-existing operational failures and ensures that access is excellent.

The Heath and Lineback design team respected the history and culture of the surrounding neighborhoods by an appropriate selection of design methods and materials. Bridges were designed as short span arches with a minimalist profile to avoid visual obstruction and to mimic the existing canal bridges. Red brick was used as the fascia material for all arches and walls to mimic the existing industrial-era cotton mill buildings. The arch bridges were designed to accommodate the Petersburg Canal style boats that now ply tourist trade along the canal.

The Heath and Lineback Engineers Inc. design team provided a new facility that meets the mobility demands of a modern hospital complex surrounded by multiple small businesses, while preserving a vital history, and culture dating back to the Industrial Era. v DecemBer 2013 | January 2014

7

port walls. The public was very interested in saving parts of the bridge, and the SHPO was an advocate for the local preservation desires. An innovative mitigation plan was prepared to preserve the history that the bridge represented, and the plan garnered public and agency support. v

Category: Design of an Alternative Mode Transportation Facility

Winner:

Category: NEPA, Environmental Protection, Preservation, Restoration, and/or Enhancement

Winner: Broad Avenue Bridge, Albany GeorgiaEdwards Pitman Environmental Inc.- GDOT PM Clinton Ford Honorable Mention Chattahoochee Hill Country Regional Greenway Trail- RS&HDouglas County Edwards Pitman was tasked to deliver a NEPA document for the replacement of Broad Avenue Bridge, a structurally deficient bridge which had been closed due to safety concerns within 18 months. Broad Avenue connects downtown Albany with the predominantly disadvantaged neighborhoods in east Albany across the Flint River. Numerous environmental constraints were present that would affect not only the design of the project, but also the pace at which the project could move forward. The existing bridge was historic and had significance as a local landmark. The project setting was constrained by the presence of protected species in the Flint River and the presence of park land, contaminated soils, and archaeological deposits adjacent to and underneath the bridge.

Successful project delivery was made 8

possible by a NEPA process approach that centered on collaboration among the various disciplines and stakeholders to guide the design process. The project team developed solutions into details that met the goal of a fundamentally sound and efficient bridge design with protection of the environmental resources.

The federally endangered purple bankclimber mussel was found in close proximity to both the upstream and downstream sides of the bridge, and the entire area was designated as Critical Habitat for several other protected species of mussels. Formal Section Seven consultation procedures and a biological assessment were required. This process was the critical path and had to be completed on time. The design and environmental team collaborated extensively to develop an acceptable solution. A fundamental decision was to develop a design that clear spanned the river with a main span of 320 feet and set piers on the rocky banks to either side. This eliminated most work in the river and the need for work bridges. Numerous significant historic resources were present in the project area, including the existing bridge. The removal of the existing bridge was an adverse effect, and a detailed mitigation plan was developed. The bridge was significant not only for its architecture, but also because it was constructed by WWI veterans. Several commemorative plaques from WWI were installed in the bridge sup-

Chattahoochee Hill Country Regional Greenway Trail- Reynolds Smith & Hill - Douglas County The Chattahoochee Hill Country Regional Greenway Trail – Douglas County pilot segment was constructed as a demonstration project to showcase the potential of the proposed 98–mile trail to be extended through four counties and numerous municipalities.

Due to the overall vision of the trail, the team was tasked with utilizing innovative design and construction techniques on the 0.75 mile section to illustrate aesthetics, functionality and the unique trail identity of the proposed 98‐mile trail network. The Greenway Trail—Douglas County segment was built in an existing Douglas County Mega Park to maximize security by placing it in an area currently patrolled by park security, in close proximity to staffed facilities, and frequented by numerous visitors. The design of this segment was based on AASHTO’s Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities and GDOT’s Pedestrian and Streetscape Guide (2003). It was completed in accordance with the 98‐mile Chattahoochee Hill Country Regional Greenway master plan that was developed by the Path Foundation. The pilot segment was designed to facilitate connections toward the northeast and southwest connecting many parks, public facilities, and major activity centers including enhanced access to the Chattahoochee River which is currently utilized for kayaking, canoeing, and other recreational activities. Looking long term, identity features such as mile markers and trailblazer signage assemblies were designed and installed to enhance the seamless transition between the different segments as they are conGeorGia enGineer

structed. This pilot segment also developed the typical sections which will be incorporated into future segments as the overall trail system develops. Another goal was to provide access to mobility‐challenged people who previously couldn’t access certain areas of the park. By constructing this trail according to guidelines from the Americans with Disabilities Act, the team created enhanced access for previously underserved users.

In addition, as future phases of the trail are constructed, it will integrate state routes, arterial streets and state Bike routes. Integration with major roadways such as SR 16, SR 70, SR 92, SR 154 and SR 166 will be integral in successfully connecting the trail system with the region, including easy and safe access to trailheads, adequate parking facilities, and enhanced future transit opportunities.

This project exceeds the criteria of the nominated category by initiating a true regional trail system that is meant to facilitate alternative methods of travel. Conceptual alignments of the entire 98‐mile CHCRGT system were chosen to link key activity centers throughout a four‐county region that will enable residents and visitors to make essential and recreational trips without having to get in their cars. The Douglas County Pilot Segment of the Chattahoochee Hill Country Regional Greenway Trail provides a glimpse of what this trail system will look like, and builds excitement for what is to come. v DecemBer 2013 | January 2014

Category: Innovative Solution to a Design Problem | Best Use of New Products

Winner: I-85 Diverging Diamond Interchange at Pleasant Hill Road URS ~ Gwinnett Place CID & Gwinnett DOT Honorable Mention Projects Gulfstream Road and Robert B. Miller Road Widening- Parsons Transportation- GDOT Midtown Roswell Corridor Improvements- QK4- City of Roswell The existing Pleasant Hill Road and I‐85 Interchange was a tight urban diamond. An interchange modification report (IMR)

completed in 2007 recommended a single point urban interchange as the preferred alternative having a conceptual cost estimate of $56 million. The URS team, under the direction of Gwinnett Place CID, considered other alternatives including the DDI. The DDI had an estimated cost of only $7 million.

The DDI configuration is an innovative approach due to its high benefit‐to‐cost ratio and minimal impacts to surrounding properties during construction. Since the existing bridge is in good condition, only minor structural modifications were required to accommodate the DDI configuration. The lower cost was realized in both right‐of way and construction staging activities as compared to the cost of a complete bridge replacement. This project exceeds the criteria for innovative solution in the $49 million that the tax payers of Georgia saved.

The Pleasant Hill Road DDI is the second operating DDI in the state of Georgia and one of only a dozen that have been constructed in the United States. The project has not only improved the interchange’s operational deficiencies and geometric configuration by reducing the number of vehicle conflict points from 26 to 14, but has also increased capacity, and provided safety improvements for pedestrians. The DDI geometry allows for the reduction of signal phases, thereby reducing the delays that result from the transitions from one phase to another. While the DDI is innovative, the safety improvements that it provides should be noted. v

9

Category: Traffic Safety & Intersection Design

Winner: Douglas Road Roundabout ~ Michael Baker Jr. Inc. City of Alpharetta Honorable Mention Mansell Road at North Point Parkway, Triple Left ~ Michael Baker Jr. Inc. ~ North Fulton CID SR81 @ Lake Dow Road, Henry County ~ GDOT District 3 Douglas Road between McGinnis Ferry Road and Jones Bridge Road was primarily access to a number of residential neighborhoods. But over the years it had become a heavy cut through for commuters and truck traffic. Drivers from South Lake Drive and Leeward Walk Circle had difficulty safely crossing or entering Douglas Road. The Michael Baker design team was challenged with maintaining the residential character of the area, encourage slower speeds, improve sight distance for vehicles turning onto or crossing Douglas Road, and discourage truck traffic while minimizing the impact to traffic flow of Douglas Road.

The Michael Baker team designed a roundabout for the intersection of South Lake Drive and Leeward Walk Circle on Douglas Road which included lighting and landscaping. The grade of the intersection was raised to eliminate impacts to the subdivisions avoiding impacts to the Leeward Walk

10

subdivision swimming pool, tennis courts, and parking lot adjacent to the intersection.

Since these facilities were not impacted during construction, they remained open during the summer. Raising the intersection grade also assisted with speed reduction for vehicles traveling northbound on Douglas Road.

Michael Baker also tied the roundabout design into a bridge replacement project over Caney Creek. With this tie-in, continuous

bike and pedestrian connectivity was completed along Douglas Road.

It was imperative that the work be completed during the summer months; hence, the Michael Baker design team obtained authorization from the city of Alpharetta to use a design-build delivery method to meet this requirement and to reduce costs. The designbuild technique allowed the design and right-of-way acquisition to be completed within two months. The design allowed for the effective maintenance of traffic and local access to subdivisions during construction.

Completion of the roundabout ahead of

GeorGia enGineer

and provides clearance for the railroad and two adjacent streets. Second, this design was considered an accurate interpretation of the historic bridge. The design, agreed upon early in the project development, included portal and sway bracing to reduce the trusses on either side of the middle span. Third, the project involved efficient and effective use of the department, Norfolk Southern, and the city of Griffin’s resources by being delivered on time and within the budget in construction.

Fourth, the City wanted to preserve its historic identity in a meaningful way. This project has exceeded the expectations of all stakeholders and is seen by the community as having added lasting value to the city of Griffin. v

Category: Context Sensitive Design | Public Participation Plan

Winner: schedule and prior to the beginning of the school year also allowed access to the subdivisions by school buses.

Since completion of the project, the city of Alpharetta has received very positive responses from residents and has noted an improvement in operations and a decrease in crashes at the intersection. v

Category: Bridge | Structural Design

Winner: Sixth Street over SR 155, Broad Street and Norfolk Southern R/R in Griffin, Georgia ~ GDOT Office of Bridge Design ~ GDOT PM Kimberly Nesbit Honorable Mention Bridge Replacement on SR 25 | Ocean Highway over Norfolk Southern Railroad ~ Parsons Transportation ~ GDOT The department determined that the Sixth Street Bridge over SR 155, Broad Street, and the Norfolk Southern Railroad in Griffin, Georgia needed to be replaced because it was structurally deficient and functionally obsoDecemBer 2013 | January 2014

lete. Operational problems included narrow travel lanes with no sidewalks or shoulders to allow pedestrian movement, unprotected trusses in the center of the bridge, and the insufficient vertical clearance on SR 155, Broad Street, and an active railroad. The pinconnected, Warren truss bridge was located in the Griffin Commercial Historic District, which was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1988. In addition to this designation, the bridge maintained strong community identification as a local landmark. The basic purpose of the project was to correct deficiency, but because of the distinction of historic bridge and its location within the historic downtown, a design that would possess elements of the historic truss bridge was completed. The project would also improve the bridge approaches, construct sidewalks, and provide lighting across the bridge.

This project illustrates several qualities of excellence in transportation design. First, the project satisfied the needs of stakeholders by preserving the appearance of a truss bridge. It was attention to, and the interpretation of, this public concern that made the design a success. In addition, bridge meets all current safety standards, pedestrian access,

Big Creek Parkway ~ Gresham, Smith & Partners ~ City of Roswell Honorable Mention Chattahoochee Hill Country Regional Greenway Trail ~ RS&H ~ Douglas County Big Creek Parkway has been discussed on a planning level by the city of Roswell for more than ten years as a solution to the congestion surrounding SR 140/Holcomb Bridge Road, one of the most congested roadways and interchanges in the Metro Atlanta region. Gre-

11

sham, Smith and Partners developed a context sensitive corridor solution connecting the eastern and western portions of Roswell to improve local access and emergency response times at a much lower cost than the further widening of Holcomb Bridge Road and reconstruction of the interchange at SR 400.

Over the years, the city and its consultant team have undertaken a wide variety of traditional and non-traditional methods to develop a transportation facility using active participation by nearby property owners and other stakeholders. GSP put together a plan of extensive public involvement including multiple public workshops, outreach to large

residential development residents including Spanish speaking residents, and the city’s largest employer, Kimberly-Clark. Additionally, the team developed a fifth-gradelevel lesson plan on transportation and delivered it to 140 students at Mimosa Elementary school, located near the corridor.

Bilingual project information was developed, and the public was engaged via social media outlets such as facebook and twitter. Approximately 3000 comments have been received so far about the project’s planning and design.

GSP has developed conceptual solutions suggested by the community and their own engineers as the locally preferred alternative for the roadway alignment and bridge over SR 400. The preferred alternative includes a signature ‘look’ for the roadway and bridge, new sidewalks and bike lanes, multi-use trails connecting to regional parks and trail facilities, pedestrian amenities, a roundabout, and a suggested ‘road diet’ for part of the corridor to allocate space to accommodate more bicycle and pedestrian usage. v

Category: Design Build

Winner: 1-20 Eastbound C-D Operational Improvements Between 1-285 & Panola Road in Dekalb County ~ GDOT Preliminary Design Arcadis Inc. Final Design Michael Baker Jr. Inc. GDOT identified a need for a quick-response (12-18 months) project to provide short-term, safety, and operational improvements to address high crash rates and a low level of service on I-20 East between I-285 and Wesley Chapel Road. GDOT utilized data that had been collected from the long range I-20 HOV/Managed Lanes and a full CD system projects.

Arcadis provided the preliminary design and environmental documentation. Their design minimized environmental impacts and required no right of way resulting in approval

12

GeorGia enGineer

of a Categorical Exclusion (CE), preserved the Wesley Chapel Road bridge, completed in 2009, identified and received approval of Design Exceptions needed to avoid replacement of the Snapfinger Creek and Miller Road bridges, and eliminated the need to reconstruct a multi-barrel culvert by specifying light weight fill material over the existing culvert because it was not originally designed to carry the proposed roadway elevation.

The DB team of CW Matthews and Michael Baker, Jr. Inc. was responsible for final design and construction. This design team avoided all identified utility relocations, reduced all identified stream and wetland impacts resulting in expedited approval of the CE re-evaluation, optimized sound barriers and retaining walls with special designs for mounting sound barrier to cast in place walls, resulting in significant reduction in fill required while constructing access doors for maintenance behind the sound barriers. The Design-Build team of CW Matthews and Michael Baker also identified the minimum pavement needs and eliminated significant full depth sections resulting in cost savings to GDOT, innovatively utilized geo-foam in conjunction with the MSE wall over the existing culvert, and avoided all construction delays. Construction primarily occurred at night and on weekends to prevent excessive traffic impacts.

The project was completed on time and

DecemBer 2013 | January 2014

at a cost significantly lower than the preliminary estimate. A post-construction travel time survey indicates that it is performing slightly better than preliminary traffic models predicted. v

Category: Highway Design ~ Rural

Winner: US 27/SR 1 Widening and Reconstruction (Early County)~ GDOT Office of Roadway Design Honorable Mention Fall Line Freeway ~ North Gordon Bypass (Wilkinson County) ~ GDOT Office of Roadway Design This project is the widening and reconstruc-

tion of US27 / SR1 from the Blakely Bypass to just north of the Clay County line in Early County. The project provides two 12 foot lanes in each direction with 10 foot outside shoulders (6.5’ paved, 3.5’graded) and a 44 foot wide depressed median including sixfoot inside shoulders (2’ paved, 4’ graded).

This project was of major concern to the local community and business owners.

As a result, the GDOT Design Team coordinated with local business owners to facilitate a design for construction that best fit the needs of the local community. For instance, a recently developed, several hundred acre marksmanship academy and shooting range located along the project indicated their experience of drainage ponding in the area of the shooting range. Although this drainage

13

ponding was a long-time issue for the area, the GDOT Design Team revised the project to include drainage retention structures, correcting the ponding problem.

Another instance of community participation involved a large cattle raising operation located at the north end of the project.

A necessary impact of the project resulted in the splitting/separation of a large cattle farm and process facility. The split was of major concern to this local business because it could severely cripple cattle production. In recognition of these concerns, the GDOT Design Team designed the project to incorporate the construction of a crossing for cattle and other large farm equipment.

As part of the Governor’s Road Improvement Program which provides for the economic development of Georgia by connecting nearly 95 percent of all Georgia cities with populations of 2,500 or more to the Interstate Highway System, this project is a key force for economic development within southwest Georgia. v

14

GeorGia enGineer

State Buffer Variance: Revisions to Georgia Rule 391-3-7 By Heidi Schneider | HNTB Corporation n the state of Georgia, buffers and state waters are governed under the Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Act of 1975, as amended through 2003. ‘State waters’ includes any and all rivers, streams, creeks, branches, lakes, reservoirs, ponds, drainage systems, springs, wells, and other bodies of surface or subsurface water, natural or artificial, lying within or forming a part of the boundaries of the state that are not entirely confined and retained completely upon the property of a single individual, partnership, or corporation. A ‘buffer” is defined as the area of land immediately adjacent to the banks of the state waters in its natural state of vegetation that facilitates the protection of water quality and aquatic habitat.1 Rules 391-3-7.01 and 391-3-7.05 have recently been amended, effective September 5, 2013. There are some changes that engineers and environmental professionals should be aware of that affect impacts to state-protected buffers.

A buffer impact is defined as any encroachment within the protective 25-foot buffer for warm water resources (e.g., perennial streams, intermittent streams, lakes, ponds, etc.) and the protective 50-foot buffer for cold water resources (trout streams and connected waters).

The first change is that buffer impacts are no longer categorized as ‘temporary’ and ‘permanent.’ Rule 391-3-7.01 classifies and defines a buffer encroachment as either a ‘major buffer impact’ or ‘minor buffer impact.’ The definition for a ‘major buffer impact’ is any impact that does not meet the definition of ‘minor buffer impact.’ To meet the criteria of a ‘minor buffer impact,” the following conditions must be met: • Upon [project] completion yields no additional above-ground, man-made materials or structures within the buffer;

I

•

Maintains original grade; and Results in less than 5,000 square feet of buffer impact per stream crossing and/or less

DecemBer 2013 | January 2014

Natural vegetation along a buffered state water, such as a stream, provides protection and enhances water quality. than 5,000 square feet of buffer impact per individual area of encroachment of each project.1 The second change is within the language in Rule 391-3-7.05(2). For Criterion 2a, the language has been clarified to explicitly state that this criterion pertains to an existing infrastructure project or structure. For Criterion 2g, the rule states that the single family home variance is only acceptable if the construction was initiated or local government approval was obtained prior to January 10, 2005. The previous rule did not state a date.

The third change is in the list of requirements for the stream buffer variance application for major buffer impact projects.

Rule 391-3-7.05(3)-(4) lists the details of the requirements. For applications under Criterion 2j that are within ten miles upstream of a 303(d) listed stream, results of a model demonstration that shows no adverse impact to the pollutants of concern must be documented. This was not previously listed as a requirement.

The buffer mitigation rules remain except for the addition of 391-3-7.05(d)(10).

This rule references mitigation as described in the most recent publication of EPD’s Stream Buffer Mitigation Guidance (www.gaepd.org/Documents/techguide_wp b.html#es).

Another important change is that issued buffer variances now have an expiration date.

All buffer impacts must be completed within five years of the date issued on the variance.

Extensions will only be granted if the impact(s) cannot be complete prior to the expiration date, and the applicant can demonstrate a reasonable need for the extension. A buffer variance extension can only be issued once.

For more information on this topic, you can visit www.gaepd.org.

1 Georgia Department of Natural Resources: Environmental Protection Division, O.C.G.A § 12-7-3 (2008), Georgia Erosion and Sediment Act of 1975, As Amended Through 2003. www.gaepd.org/Documents/rules_exist.html v

15

BY TOM LESLIE

Wastewater Treatment Comes to Atlanta

Dr. Karl Imhoff, left, German sanitary engineer, and R. M. Clayton, right, Atlanta City Engineer and Chief of Construction, at an inspection of the Proctor Creek Treatment plant in 1913. (in Municipal Engineering)

I

n 1888, Atlanta began a longterm professional relationship with New York-based, consulting engineer Rudolph Hering, a distinguished, new type of engineer—a sanitary engineer.

Working together with Atlanta’s long-time City Engineer, R. M. Clayton, they developed the first plan for a system of sewers in Atlanta based on modern engineering principles.

Hering’s basic plan included trunk sewers in five distinct drainage basins that carried stormwater and sanitary waste by gravity flow away from the city “as far below the city 16

as may be desired”, where it was discharged, without treatment, into relatively small streams. He described several alternatives for wastewater treatment, but would only go so far as to say that the proposed system of sewers “will not at any time in the future prevent or render more difficult the construction of additional works for complete or partial purification when this is deemed necessary.“ By 1902, the city had been sued for damages by residents immediately downstream of the trunk sewer discharge points. The city agreed to spend $29,400 to extend trunk sewers, and the lawsuits were withdrawn.

In January 1905, the city attorney made clear his official opinion, “I want to say here and now, with all the emphasis that a formal report may command, that the city should complete the extension of its sewers to the corporate limits and then provide disposal plants.” The sewer committee of city council opined, “We recommend that the council of 1905 take up the consideration of septic tanks or purification plants. After the city is relieved of the sewage through the trunk sewers the responsibility (to) dispose of it at the terminal of the trunk sewers still confronts the city fathers. This work cannot be begun too soon.”

GeorGia enGineer

tions, he recommended treatment of only “seventy-five percent of the present, dry weather flow, and allow the remainder to be diluted by the creek water added to the effluent water from the purification works.” no action was taken on Hering’s 1902 report.

“…our great sewerage problem can be solved,” Mayor Robert F. Maddox, January 5, 1909 In December 1902, Rudolph Hering was called to Atlanta by the Council Committee on Sewers and Drains to reexamine its sewer needs. He spent three to four days in Atlanta visiting “the present outfall sewers, together with creeks and surrounding country below the outfalls.” He concluded that the Butler Street, Orme Street, and Loyd Street outfalls “were the ones deserving of the most attention.” In his report, he discussed different treatment methods of sewerage purification, and recommended ”septic tanks, sprinkling filters and settling basins” (i.e., Imhoff tank, trickling filter, and settling basin). Because of the city’s financial limitaDecemBer 2013 | January 2014

The Atlanta Chamber of Commerce prompted a renewed public discussion of the sanitary conditions of the city with its 1908 report, Urgent Needs of Atlanta. The headline finding of the report was that Atlanta’s 1905 total death rate was 2,414.8/100,000 population, whereas the U.S. Census reported the average of 328 cities was 1,637.6 (Chicago was 1,383.8 and Minneapolis was 942.5). The report concluded that the cause was, in general, poor sanitation. It reported that 10,850 of the city’s 27,100 residences were without city water, access to sewer, or both, and there were insufficient resources available for the city to adequately remove night soil, garbage, and livestock manure.

An elite committee of the chamber proposed a bond issue and concluded “beyond the shadow of a doubt that the city ought to use its credit freely to Protect the lives and Property of the People.” Poor sanitary “conditions resulting from this neglect are so Bad that We are reluctant to make them Public.”

In support of this finding, the Atlanta Constitution commissioned a local engineer to investigate the city’s sewer system and suggest solutions. Paul H. Norcross was a partner with Solomon-Norcross Co. in Atlanta, which was described by the newspaper as a “well known civil, sanitary and hydraulic” engineering firm. He wrote two lengthy articles about sewer systems and treatment processes and specific conditions in Atlanta.

The Atlanta Chamber of Commerce continued its political support for a bond issue to fund improvements to the sewer system. In his January 5th inaugural address, the new Mayor, Robert F. Maddox, declared that sanitary improvements are the city’s greatest need, including extension of sewers and the “disposition of sewage.” He declared that “the septic tank and filtration process for the purification of sewerage has long since proved a success, and I believe with this bond issue, in the establishment of such plants, our great sewerage problem can be solved.”

He proposed to double the chamber’s 1908 suggestion for a bond referendum of $0.5 million for sewers and insisted on treatment plants.

After resolving some legal issues and further technical investigation, the date for the vote was set for February 15, 1910. The bond referendum for sewers was expanded to $1.35 million and included the following elements: 1. Three sewage treatment plants: on Proctor Creek adjacent to Maddox Park, Intrenchment Creek just upstream from its junction with the South River, and at the confluence of Tanyard and Peachtree creeks in Bobby Jones golf course. They should be built to be expanded over time.

2.

Forty-eight-inch interceptor sewers to divert dry weather flow from the mouths of the Proctor Creek, Loyd Street, and Orme Street trunk sewers to their respective treatment plant.

3.

Auxiliary intercepting sewers, with pump stations, needed, to carry areas drained by the trunk sewers to the treat17

ment plant, as “shown on the maps prepared by the city engineer.”

4.

Auxiliary sewer for relieving the Loyd Street sewer and points beyond Orme Street.

5.

Lateral sewers at 13 locations

6.

$10,000 contingency

The bond issue was expanded further to include $1.0 million for waterworks, $765,800 for schools, $100,000 for crematories (three new, 100 ton/day incinerators complete with stables), and $250,000 for Grady Hospital, for a total bond package of $3,465,800.

The Atlanta Constitution was a powerful advocate of the bond referendum, both editorially and through in-depth articles on the health hazards of unsanitary conditions and the current sewer system.

The newspaper was simply glowing in its report of the overwhelming approval of the bond referendum. On the day following the vote, it gave banner headlines to the victory and detailed the history of the campaign. The referendum passed “with a safe two-thirds of the registered vote” in all nine wards. In two wards, the vote “came near polling all the votes registered.”

Implementations of the projects in the bond program were largely in the hands of Rudolph Hering, R. M. Clayton, and his Assistant Chief of Construction, W. A. Hansell Jr. Although all the construction contracts were signed at the same time, the actual construction proceeded sequentially: Plant Capacity* Put in Service Proctor Creek 3 mgd August 1912 Peachtree Creek 8 mgd October 1913 Intrenchment Creek 5 mgd May 1914

large, brick trunk sewers, interceptor sewers, two to four mile long, ran to the plant.

These interceptors were designed to carry three times the dry weather flow of sewage, upon which the plant was designed. If the combined flow in the trunk lines exceeded the interceptor sewer’s capacity (during heavier rain events), the ‘excess’ amount would flow into the creek. The presumption was that the combined flow would be diluted by the stormwater flow, and there would be no adverse impact on the stream. The flow in the interceptor (three times the dry weather sewage flow) would continue to the plant for treatment. The plants were designed to treat double the amount of the dry weather flow, so there was a by-pass at the plant that would turn excess flow in the interceptor into the original stream channel.

The design for the treatment plants incorporated a patented treatment unit that went under the name Imhoff tank. Dr. Karl Imhoff was a 37-year old engineer from Germany who devised a process for separating solids from sewage and treating the resulting sludge. It was essentially a large septic tank.

In these early days of wastewater treatment, his process was used in a variety of cities in Europe. Through his New York office and a relationship with Hering, Imhoff waived normal royalties of $4,000, and Atlanta was the first large scale application of Imhoff tanks in America.

The basic design was substantially the same at all three plants. The treatment plants consisted of a series of separate unit

operations that each removed and/or treated a component of the wastewater. Today, engineers think of this treatment train as something close to ‘secondary treatment’: bar screens, grit chamber, Imhoff tanks, sprinkling filters, and sand drying beds for sludge.

According to articles in technical journals, the treatment plants worked remarkably well. The journal Engineering and Contracting ran a newsy article entitled “Operation of the Sewage Disposal Works at Atlanta, Georgia” on April 5, 1914. “When the sewage reaches the plants it is offensive to the

*Rated treatment capacity in million gallons per day of flow

Engineering decisions at this time created locations for combined sewer overflows (CSOs), which became the subject of a lengthy, loud public and legal dispute in modern times. The large trunk sewers apparently had a design capacity of eight times the plant capacity. From the termini of these 18

GeorGia enGineer

nose and eye. When it leaves the Imhoff tank it is nearly clear and only slightly odorous, and when discharged from the sprinkling filter it is as clear as the country stream and as odorless as the water from the old oaken bucket.”

An article in the journal Municipal Engineering in September 1913, “Sewage Purification at Atlanta, Georgia” provided a report on the initial six months of operation of the Proctor Creek plant. With an influent total suspended solids concentration of about 260 parts per million (ppm), the plant achieved 80 percent removal, 50 percent for organic nitrogen, and 72 percent for free ammonia. Dissolved oxygen in the discharge to the stream was 6.4ppm, although it fell from 8.1 ppm in January to 4.5ppm in June as water temperature rose.

Imhoff visited Atlanta in October 1913 for an inspection of the Proctor Creek plant.

His opinion of the plant was unequivocal. “I have inspected all the plants erected in Europe and America, and I find that the Atlanta plants are far ahead of any of them. I can truthfully state that the results obtained from the Proctor creek plant are better than any other plant in the world.” After hearing this, the Atlanta Constitution reported that “Dr. Imhoff smilingly explained that he now sees a fortune in his patent.”

It seems to be a law of nature that no innovative public works project is immune to wacky criticism from various quarters, including from otherwise sensible people. In the present case, it came from Mayor James G. Woodward, successor to Mayor Maddox.

In January 1913, he declared the treatment plants too expensive and too small. The former criticism apparently followed from the diversion of stormwater around the treatment plant and directly to the receiving stream. The latter apparently because the sewage treatment plant operation required “the services of expert men”. Word of this criticism had perhaps made its rounds in the technical community. An article in Engineering and Contracting, April 1914, on Atlanta’s plants stressed the importance of competent daily attention to the plant by well-trained staff. In an editorial tone, the writer said, “It is not fair to the method of disposal or to the parties furnishing the money for the conDecemBer 2013 | January 2014

struction to turn sewage into an Imhoff tank and leave it to work out its own salvation.”

In comments on the same topic, R. M. Clayton told the newspaper, “It is as foolish to expect a plant of this sort to run itself without proper management as to expect a great newspaper to run with newsboys only.”

Rudolph Hering was drawn into the controversy and sent a lengthy telegram to Clark Howell, Editor of the Atlanta Constitution, at his invitation, to respond to the criticism. Mayor Woodward maintained his position and added in a newspaper interview, “I’ll be willing to wager that within six months he will urge reduction (incineration,

as explained below) as the only solution. He says almost that much in this statement.”

At the end of the January 12th Atlanta Constitution article about the brouhaha, Mayor Woodward’s solution to the problem is revealed to be “sewage and garbage reduction,” achieved by means of a proposal from the Chicago Reduction Company. Although the details are skimpy, it appears that ‘reduction’ refers to an incinerator of some sort.

“He says that, if he (the mayor) is authorized to spend $50,000 unhampered he will take care of the garbage and sewage within six months.” The mayor adds, “If I don’t do it I’ll resign from office.”

19

posal of city wastes by an antiseptic process.”

The bond would “also insure perfect sanitary conditions in and around the plants, and positive elimination of all odors or gases.”

The Mayor said “he will place the proposition squarely to the city council and agitate it among the people.”

The sum total of the newspaper reporting on this issue leads to the conclusion that the proposal involved closing the wastewater plants, returning to the collection of night soil that would be treated in some fashion to extract valuable components, and all in conjunction with incineration of garbage to produce electricity.

Available records do not show additional public debate, adoption by council of the proposition by the Chicago Reduction Company, resignation of the Mayor as promised, nor closure of the sewage treatment plants. The following 100 years, however, have seen these changes: the three treatment plants have been closed and their flow diverted to much larger treatment works further downstream; the construction of a tunnel to transfer the Intrenchment Creek plant’s discharge from the South River to the Chattahoochee River, construction of other tunnels to store combined sewage and stormwater flows for treatment after the rain ceases; and the elimination of combined sewer overflows, except in the most intense rains.

Certain things constitute an enduring truth: sewer systems are never complete, and the wackadoddle fringe espouses peculiar opinions seemingly based on suspect analysis. v The 2010 bond issue authorized $100,000 for three incinerators. The newspaper reported that “O. F. Kauffman, local representative of the Chicago Reduction company has made the city, through Mayor Woodward, a proposition to erect a plant within four months and take care of the garbage and sewage without cost to the city.”

The newspaper says that, “Mayor Woodward said that he was informed by one of the rep20

resentatives that the company would make a profit of $152,000 the first year in Atlanta from the sale of greases, ammonia, commercial fertilizers, gas and electric power.”

Among other things, the company would agree “to give a bond conditioned on its totally eliminating the cost of garbage destruction, reduction of garbage cartage to a minimum; total elimination of the cost of operating and maintaining Imhoff tanks; dis-

*Note: The story of Atlanta’s sewer system is told in, “Paying for the Cost of Growth: The Environmental Engineering Debate in Atlanta, 1877 – 1914”, Stuart Galishoff, Georgia State University, Essays in Public Works History, Number 18, Winter 1994/1995, Public Works Historical Society, Kansas City. This provided a very helpful guide in writing this article.

GeorGia enGineer

DecemBer 2013 | January 2014

21

22

GeorGia enGineer

Building Façade Inspection Part 1: Considerations

S

tructural engineers with varied experience in the areas of design, forensics, water and damp proofing, and construction are the best qualified professionals to conduct façade inspections. They have knowledge of how materials behave when subjected to imposed loads and movements. Determining the root cause of a deficiency can be very challenging, though not impossible if you understand how façades and building superstructures are constructed, how they behave when subjected to movement and load, and the possible failure mechanisms involved. This article discusses some of the important considerations that motivate building façade inspections; a subsequent one will describe the actual inspection and documentation process.

Background A building’s façade serves three roles: • Structural resistance to wind, seismic, and gravity loads.

• Environmental protection from the elements, including moisture and temperature.

• Architectural appearance and aesthetics.

Facades are either load-bearing or curtain wall type

DecemBer 2013 | January 2014

and can also be a part of a solid or cavity wall. A solid wall is likely load-bearing and only has one moisture barrier. A cavity wall has the additional benefit of two moisture barriers separated by an air space.

With age, façades may experience degradation as a result of normal wear and tear and chemical exposure. Moisture, either penetrating the exterior or escaping the interior of a building, can cause rust and deteriorate supports. Water vapor pressure trapped within the veneer along with freeze/thaw action can result in cracks and spalls. Building movement in the form of shortening, caused by creep and shrinkage, and foundation settlement can cause cracks, spalls, and buckling of the façade. Differential expansion and contraction, caused by temperature and moisture changes, can also lead to similar failures. As one can imagine, northern climates experience more severe façade degradation compared to southern climates due to the colder temperatures, significant snowfall, extended periods of below freezing temperatures, and larger seasonal temperature changes.

Thirty or more years ago, not much was known about the effects of moisture changes and building movements on façades. Consequently, buildings constructed in this era lack modern detailing, in23

cluding expansion and contraction joints and flexible connections, which address these effects. It is estimated that a piece of masonry falls off of a building in the United States once every three weeks. Unfortunately, it has taken front page news of personal injuries, deaths, and property damage to prompt governmental authorities and large private property owners to impose restrictions.

In 1976, Chicago instituted a façade ordinance to protect citizens and property from falling façade debris. Since then, major cities such as Boston, Columbus, Detroit, Milwaukee, New York, Pittsburg, Philadelphia, and St. Louis have also adopted façade ordinances. The variability of these laws, ranging from visual inspection only to both visual inspection and close-up physical examination, led to the development of ASTM E 2270, Standard Practice for Periodic Inspection of Building Façades for Unsafe Conditions. This standard is intended for adoption by model building codes and local municipalities, as well as owners of multiple buildings. The adopting authority has only

24

to define which buildings within their jurisdiction require inspection based on height, age, and occupancy. movement of materials While façades can degrade locally through environmental exposure to chemicals and moisture pressure and freezing, most deterioration can be traced to differential movements within the façade and supporting structure. Using multiple materials in combination often leads to such movement. If not accommodated by frequent horizontal and vertical expansion joints and flexible interconnections parallel to the plane of the facade, internal stresses can develop, resulting in façade cracks, spalls, and deformation.

The following movements are known to occur. thermal ~ All materials expand and contract with changes in temperature. Fired clay, such as brick and terra cotta, and some stone products, such as granite and limestone, have thermal expansion coefficients similar to that of concrete masonry units (CMU). Marble

and steel have coefficients higher than that of CMU. Aluminum, often used in window and curtain wall framing, has a thermal expansion coefficient approximately three times that of CMU. Exterior cavity walls have the insulating value of an air space and thus will experience a larger temperature differential between the interior wythe, which is exposed to conditioned air, and the exterior wythe, which is exposed to the atmosphere, than a solid un-insulated wall. This can be greatest on a dark–colored, south-facing wall, where surface temperatures can be as much as 40°F above ambient. An insulated four-inch veneer will have an average temperature roughly equal to the exterior surface temperature. A solid, uninsulated wall will have a lower mean temperature than the exterior surface due to the competing interior and exterior temperatures. moisture ~ With the exception of metal, most materials will expand and contract with changes in moisture content. However, fired clay products will not contract by drying; they are the smallest size when they cool after

GeorGia enGineer

leaving the kiln and will continue to absorb moisture from that point, with most of the expansion occurring in the first few weeks, followed by a much slower rate of expansion for several years. This expansion is partially offset by drying shrinkage in the mortar joints. Moisture absorption of concrete masonry, like cast-in-place concrete, is the largest after casting. Both shrink as they cure, but expand when exposed to moisture. The combined movements typically result in a net shrinkage.

Wood will shrink as it seasons until the moisture content is in equilibrium with the environment. Wood will continue to shrink and swell with changes in moisture content.

Wood properties are anisotropic, so shrinkage and swell is greatest tangentially (parallel to the growth rings), half as much radially (perpendicular to the growth rings), and much less parallel to the grain in the long direction of lumber. A four story wood frame building may shrink as much as ¾” or more as the wood dries out. It is important to isolate different materials so that the shrinkage and swelling of one material does not impart stresses onto an adjacent material. elastic Deformation ~ Building materials will deform elastically with changes in stress.

This deformation is reversible and is a function of the stress level within the material.

All forces applied to a building must be considered, including gravity and lateral loads.

In curtain wall construction, the exterior veneer is exposed primarily to lateral loads such as wind and seismic; the only gravity load should be the weight of the facade material above, which can be reduced by horizontal relief angles with integral expansion joints, often installed at floor levels. The supporting building structure will be subjected to all of the gravity and lateral loads and will deform accordingly. Therefore, it is important to use expansion joints and flexible connections to accommodate these movements and ensure that structure loads are not shared by the veneer. Solid composite exterior walls are often load–bearing, and the materials that make up the wall will deform together. It is important that the component materials of a solid wall either have similar properties or incorporate detailing to offset the difference in material DecemBer 2013 | January 2014

properties or minimize their impact. creep ~ Creep is the long term deformation of materials subjected to loads or stress.

Creep in cast-in-place concrete, concrete masonry, and mortar is irreversible, starts immediately upon the application of load, and continues at a decreasing rate. In high-rise buildings, combined elastic, inelastic creep, and shrinkage shortening of columns and walls may be as much as one inch in 80 feet of height. Creep in lumber can range from 0.5 to 1 times the dead load deflection, with half of the creep deflection being irreversible.

corrosion ~ Steel embedded in masonry and concrete includes reinforcing bars, joint reinforcing, ties, anchor bolts, shelf angles, and lintels. Rusted steel embeds that have lost 25 percent or more of their cross sectional area are typically considered to be no longer structurally effective. Additionally, rust requires up to six times more volume than that of the steel from which it was formed. This increased volume results in internal pressures that lead to cracks and spalls in the concrete or masonry in which it is embedded. It is im-

portant that steel embeds be coated with a material to prevent rust, the use of corrosionaccelerating chlorides in concrete and mortar be minimized, and water be diverted away from concrete and masonry. unstable soils ~ Unstable or expansive soil can result in differential settlement of foundations that support building facades and their superstructure backup. It is important to design foundations for uniform settlement to avoid the consequences of differential movement. conclusion Façade inspection is as much of an art as a science and forces structural engineers to think outside the box. No matter how unique and challenging a deficiency seems to be, experience and persistence will lead to the root cause. With roughly only 15,000 buildings subject to façade ordinances in nine cities across the nation, there are a lot of other possible time bombs out there requiring inspection and remedial action. Hopefully other municipalities will adopt ASTM E 2270 before the harmful effects of not 25

ASCE to Release 2014 GA Infrastructure Report Card

By Daniel E. Agramonte, P.E. | O’Brien & Gere & Rebecca Shelton, P.E. | Gwinnett County Water Resources

O

n January 13, 2014, the Georgia Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) will release its 2014 Georgia Infrastructure Report Card. The report card evaluates 14 aspects of Georgia’s infrastructure and will highlight changes since the last report was issued in 2009. The Georgia Infrastructure Report Card follows the release of the latest national report card, the 2013 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure.

Why a report card?

The 2014 Georgia Infrastructure Report Card evaluates 14 aspects of Georgia’s infrastructure. In its assessment, ASCE seeks to answer three straightforward questions: • Does our infrastructure meet Georgia’s needs?

• Is the infrastructure getting better, worse, or staying the same?

• Where should we focus improvement efforts?

To illustrate how the analysis works, we can look at one of the sections in the report card: dams. Funding for the Georgia Dam Safety Program is currently about $600,000 per year which is nearly 18 percent lower than it was in 2008. A total of 6 Dams Safety staff members cover all 4,053 state regulated dams. Of the 484 Category I or high-hazard dams in the state, 130 (or 27 percent) are considered deficient. High-hazard dams include dams of any size that are likely to pose a significant threat to human life or property in case of failure, dams over 25 feet high that impound more than 15 acre-feet, and dams over six feet high that impound more than 50 acre-feet. The number of state regulated dams per staff member is 676, this is over three times the national average of 207.

Georgia’s 2009 grade for dams was a ‘D,’ What do you think Georgia’s 2014 dams grade should be?

What Does it cover?

The 2009 Georgia Infrastructure Report Card assessed 12 aspects of Georgia’s infrastructure: Wastewater Drinking Water Stormwater Energy 26

Dams Airports School Facilities Roads Transit Solid Waste Bridges Parks The 2014 report card adds two sections: ports and rail. Based on the growing importance of ports in Georgia and in particular the widening of the Panama Canal, the ASCE Georgia Section felt it appropriate to add both of these sections to the 2014 Georgia Infrastructure Report Card. The Port of Savannah is the third largest port in the nation. Not only is maintenance and dredging of the port essential to Georgia’s economy, but an effective rail and highway system is necessary to get freight to and from the port.

This demonstrates the critical interconnectivity of different types of infrastructure.

Who Prepares the report card?

The ASCE Georgia Section is comprised of civil engineers from many walks of life, including industry, consulting, the public sector, and academia. In preparing the 2014 Georgia Infrastructure Report Card, the ASCE Georgia Section has focused on ensuring that the various sectors of civil engineering are represented. The various sectors help provide a fair and balanced perspective. Free from external bias, the report card is intended to provide an objective view of Georgia’s infrastructure from trusted subject matter experts.

How is Georgia Doing?

The 2009 Georgia Infrastructure Report Card was a mixed bag. While there were aspect Wastewater Stormwater Drinking Water Energy Dams School Facilities Transit Bridges Airports Roads Solid Waste Parks

some signs of improvement in Georgia’s infrastructure, other areas lagged behind.

Some areas present a very real challenge to Georgia’s future growth. The table below summarizes the grades in the 2009 Georgia Infrastructure Report Card for each of the 12 aspects. In addition to a letter grade, a comparison was made with the previous report card (issued in 2003) to determine the trend.

In 2009, the report card graded dams with a ‘D’ based on the following: (1) an increasing dam inspection backlog, and (2) a shortage of programs to assist dam owners in addressing deficiencies. The 2009 report card also noted that 155 out of 450 high hazard dams (whose failure could cause loss of life) were classified by the state as ‘deficient.’

This unacceptable level of risk led to the lowest grade in the 2009 Georgia Infrastructure Report Card.

What’s next?

The ASCE Georgia Section will hold a press conference on January 13, 2014 at the state capitol. During the press conference, ASCE representatives will field questions and highlight the results of the new report card.

Copies of the report card will also be provided to members of the Georgia General Assembly. The ASCE Georgia Section intends to conduct public outreach following the release of the report card and will be available to answer questions. We look forward to public participation in the press conference and future outreach efforts.v

Grade C D+ C+ BD C+ D+ CB+ D+ C D

trend ↑ ↔ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↔ ↓ ↑ ↔ ↑ n/a 2009 Georgia Infrastructure Report Card Summary (source: ascega.org) GeorGia enGineer

GeorGia

ENGINEERING NEWS

southern civil engineers inc. Joins Kimley-Horn & associates

southern civil engineers inc. Joins Kimley-Horn and associates inc.

On November 1, Southern Civil Engineers, Inc. (SCE) is joining forces with national design engineering firm Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc.

Alpharetta-based SCE was founded in 1983 by current president Jim Hamilton.

The firm has a high profile in the Atlanta land development market. Hamilton, with partner Greg Maxey, senior leaders Bob Vance and Brian Martin, and nine staff members, will transition to Kimley-Horn.

SCE’s Alpharetta office will become a third Atlanta metro area location for KimleyHorn. Other offices are located in Midtown and Norcross.

Asked why he’s making the move to DecemBer 2013 | January 2014

|

Pile Dynamics & university of south Florida receive award

Kimley-Horn, Jim Hamilton responded, “It’s a great match—our cultures are both highly focused on providing our clients with an exceptional service experience, and the combination of our resources will give the clients of both firms even greater service.”

Vice President Emmy Montanye commented, “We have great respect for Jim and his partners; our collective strength will give us an increased ability to serve our clients in this growing market.”

For Kimley-Horn, the move marks the next phase in a continuing expansion of their presence in the Atlanta metro area. In September, the firm brought on a team of local water experts, led by Jeff House and Todd Cochran, P.E. Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. is a 2,000-person firm with more than 60 offices nationwide. The firm has been listed among the top 100 Best Firms to Work For by Fortune for six of the last eight years, and is ranked among the top 20 pure design and transportation firms in the nation by Engineering News-Record. Kimley-Horn provides planning and design consulting services related to transportation, aviation, the environment, land development, transit, urban planning, landscape architecture, and water resources. For more information about Kimley-Horn, please visit www.kimleyhorn.com. v inventors from Pile Dynamics and the university of south Florida receive international nova award for thermal integrity Profiler (tiP) George Piscsalko, P.E., and Dean Cotton, with Pile Dynamics Inc. (PDI), of Cleveland, and Gray Mullins, PhD, P.E., with the University of South Florida in Tampa, Florida, have received the prestigious 2013 NOVA Award from the Construction Innovation Forum (CIF).

The engineers and researchers received the award for the Thermal Integrity Profiler (TIP), an instrument that uses the heat generated by curing concrete to reveal the shape of cast-in-place concrete foundations. The initial research for the TIP was conducted at the University of South Florida. PDI formed

a joint venture with Foundation and Geotechnical Engineering (FGE) of Plant City, Florida to design the instrument and take it to market.

The TIP measures concrete temperatures during the curing process either by a probe inserted into access tubes or by Thermal Wire® cables embedded in the concrete.

“The TIP is an innovation for the deep foundation testing market. It overcomes many of the limitations associated with other non-destructive testing methods, providing an evaluation of the entire cross-section, something that can’t be done with those other methods.

The TIP test is completed within typically 12 – 48 hours after casting the shaft, thus allowing for an accelerated construction schedule.

In contrast, other testing methods are not done until typically five-to-seven days after casting,” said George Piscsalko, Vice-President of Pile Dynamics and one of the award recipients, adding “We are quite honored to have received such a prestigious award.”

In addition to detecting problems either inside or outside the reinforcing cage, as Piscsalko alluded to, TIP is unique in its capability of assessing the positioning of the reinforcing cage and the thickness of the concrete cover. An additional innovative aspect is the automation of the data collection process when THERMAL WIRES are used.

The 2013 NOVA winners, selected from more than 700 nominations from 20-plus countries, were announced November 12 at the Annual Construction Users Roundtable (CURT) National Conference. CURT represents more than 100 of the United States top construction purchasers, the majority of which are Fortune 500 companies. v

27

Milestones for the Transportation Investment Act

By Mike Dover | State TIA Administrator | Georgia Department of Transportation

I

t is just shy of a year since we saw the first penny of the transportation tax levy collected in Georgia.

The three regions —the Central Savannah River Area, Heart of Georgia Altamaha and the River Valley—where voters approved the tax referendum as a result of the Transportation Investment Act (TIA) will eventually benefit from about $1.8 billion for 871 regional transportation projects over the next ten-years. And this does not even include the discretionary funds disbursed directly to local cities and counties in the three regions.

Despite the short time since the Department of Transportation began implementation of the program, the accomplishments are significant. Numerous projects are underway, and some already completed, including the start of construction on one of the largest TIA projects—the $31 million four-lane widening of US 27 in Randolph County— and so many more projects are in the works that will bring long-term benefits to local communities in the 46 counties that passed the tax referendum.

The staff in Georgia DOT’s Office of TIA Delivery including myself and Regional Coordinators Tim Matthews and Kelvin Mullins, along with the assistance of program management from AECOM, see the program expanding each day through personal involvement like visits to all the local governments in the regions, speaking at numerous community meetings, leading forums for the consultant and contractor industries, and establishing solid working relationships with the Department of Revenue (DOR) and the Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission (GSFIC).

Early in the development of the TIA program, my team identified some areas that would prove to be crucial to the long-term success: understanding that tax collections would be slower in the beginning, be cyclical, and potentially increase over the life of the program; realizing the need for detailed schedules of projects to not only cover construction timelines, but also the flow of rev28

enue necessary to match contractor milestones for payments and productivity; and, preparing for contingencies and constraints of staff time and resources to ensure that projects on the voter approved lists could be delivered. We examined each detail individually and as part of the larger picture, to ensure every intricacy of this complex program was considered.

Working in conjunction with other offices at the Department of Transportation, the TIA team integrated the bidding procedure to post TIA projects in the regular GA DOT bid site to take advantage of a system already known to contractors and consultants. TIA projects are also included in the letting forecasts for appropriate planning by contractors. The team developed a TIA Manual, which is currently being updated, for all aspects of the program and projects being delivered from tax collections for use as a guide by anyone from local governments to design consultants to contractors.

I believe one of the earliest accomplishments for the TIA implementation was the development of a dedicated webpage (www.GA-TIA.com) that provides access to relevant and necessary information regarding TIA, including specific project fact sheets, budgets, project photographs, revenue collections, and information for small, veteran, and disadvantaged businesses and media.

This webpage ensures that the public, local governments, and contractors can access the latest information on every aspect of the TIA program, providing transparency and accountability.

Another feature of the program established initially is the local government delivery option. This provides an opportunity for local governments with experience in transportation projects to apply to deliver TIA projects on the investment lists themselves, thereby directly managing the project and its success. Governments receiving approval for local delivery of projects have the advantage of moving the project at an accelerated pace, which could mean that citizens see results from their tax dollars ahead of schedule. In these cases, local governments would receive reimbursement at a later date.

The law that enacted the tax referendum also provided for clear oversight of the program and the efforts of the Department of Transportation. One aspect of that oversight is the five-member Citizens Review Panel for each region that does an annual assessment and report on the budget and progress made for each project. The TIA Office has participated in the Citizens Review Panel meetings and provided relative information on project status and budgets. In December of each year, the panel must issue a report on the projects in each region for review by the public and members of the General Assembly.

Clearly, we will see the real success of the program in the years ahead, but there are already many to be excited about for my office. A solid team is in place, working each day to review and analyze every project, create a schedule of delivery for each, and making that timeline work with anticipated revenue collections to keep projects moving forward at a steady pace. Since late spring, GA DOT began letting TIA projects, some smaller than others, but all important and necessary to delivering the program as promised to voters in the regions.

There is still much more to do, but the reality is that much has already been accomplished in a short time period. The department’s TIA staff continues working on it, and remains dedicated to achieving success of the ten-year program and the effort and resolve required in reaching that goal. v GeorGia enGineer

The TIME Task Force Champions for Quick Clearance of Metro Atlanta’s Traffic Incidents

By Carla W. Holmes, P.E., PTOE & Jeff Corbin ometimes it seems that ‘government cooperation’ is an oxymoron—concepts more often at odds than actually occurring in the real world. To further complicate matters, just add in disparate agencies, various jurisdictions, and a hodgepodge of private and public-sector interests. Then the picture grows grim for the prospect of working together on common goals.

But the leaders and members of the Metro Atlanta Traffic Incident Management Enhancement (TIME) Task Force have managed to unify just such an eclectic mix of people, agencies, and businesses for more than 11 years.

Traffic incidents account for significant impacts to safety, mobility, environmental concerns, economic viability, and overall quality of life. The TIME Task Force mitigates these adverse effects through training, awareness, and the development of professional guidelines and policies for the quick, safe clearance of incidents. TIME provides the forum for first responders and others dealing with crashes to share lessons learned and best practices in traffic incident management (TIM).

Transportation engineers are accustomed to solving problems with the logical application of standards and specifications.

Even seemingly cutting-edge, innovative solutions are based on sound engineering principles. But no matter how well these experts plan, design, construct, maintain or operate transportation facilities, the safety and efficiency of roadways can be severely compromised by the effects of traffic incidents.

Crashes are only predictable in their unpredictability, so traditional engineering needs a hand from TIM’s boots-on-the-ground, hands-on approach.

The Federal Highway Administration defines TIM as the “planned and coordinated multi-disciplinary process to detect, respond to, and clear traffic incidents so that

S

DecemBer 2013 | January 2014

Incidents can require complex recovery operations traffic flow may be restored as safely and ondary crashes occurring in the back-up. quickly as possible. Effective TIM reduces The safety of responders is also jeopardized. the duration and impacts of traffic incidents Longer time on an incident scene equates and improves the safety of motorists, crash to greater exposure to potential injury or victims, and emergency responders.” Every- death.

Surprisingly, more firefighters and pothing hinges on the TIM timeline. The timeline accounts for all aspects of the incident lice officers are injured or killed each year from its detection to verification, response, while working traffic incidents than from roadway clearance, incident clearance, and violent crimes or fires. Tow truck operators recovery to normal traffic flow. Anything are struck and killed far too often, and that can be done to shorten the duration of Georgia Department of Transportation’s any of these phases minimizes congestion (GDOT’s) Highway Emergency Response Operators (HEROs) have suffered loss in and improves safety.

Metro Atlanta’s infamous traffic situa- the line of duty.

It may be taken for granted that everytion stems from too much demand and limited roadway capacity, or recurring one working an incident is doing so as congestion. But more than half of the con- quickly as possible. But with many different gestion encountered daily is the result of roles and responsibilities present, quick clearnon-recurring incidents—crashes, disabled ance may not be at the top of everyone’s list of priorities. These priorities will counteract vehicles, and debris blocking roadways.

Quick clearance of incidents generates one another without good TIM practices in tremendous time-saving and safety-enhanc- place to ensure that quick clearance is part ing benefits. The longer it takes to clear an of every responder’s on-scene responsibilities. incident, the greater the chances for sec- More than a decade ago, metro drivers com29

muted in ‘The Land before TIME,’ a place where incidents were handled vastly different from today. Fire fighters parked engines to block as many lanes as they felt afforded the safest environment. Emergency medical personnel were focused solely on providing advanced care and transporting the injured.

When HAZMAT was involved, roads were shut down at the slightest whiff of spills and leaks. Law enforcement held preservation of evidence at the ‘crime scene’ as their highest objective, and they could not be hurried through their required ‘CSI’-type activities to open blocked lanes.

All the while, transportation agencies and traffic managers were focused on getting lanes open as quickly as possible. Because it was “their road,” they believed they had every right to make it happen. Towing and recovery personnel were an afterthought, not even dispatched until traffic was already gridlocked, often arriving without the proper equipment or training. Responders would meet, in most cases for the first time, at the incident scene and did the best they could, but often with poor results. Complex incident scenes involving multiple jurisdictions as well as multiple agencies further complicated response and clearance times, and led to turf wars.

Recognizing the challenges facing the region, area leaders convened in 2002 after a particularly bad traffic incident on I-85 in Gwinnett County. They all agreed that it was time to work together to address the question, ‘Why does it take so long to clear an incident?’ The subsequent multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional meetings created the Metro Atlanta TIME Task Force.

TIME’s mission is to “develop and sustain a region-wide incident management program to facilitate the safest and fastest clearance of roadway incidents, lessening the impact on emergency responders and the traveling public.” Members of TIME include fire and rescue, police, HAZMAT and towing and recovery companies, emergency medical services, media, transportation, and transit agencies.

Since ‘The Beginning of TIME,’ these agencies have epitomized what can be accomplished with coordination, communication, and cooperation. How did all these 30

agencies begin working together, reducing average incident clearance times by more than 60 percent? They learned more about each other’s procedures and priorities, collectively devising ways to fulfill objectives and shave time off the incident timeline.

Today, TIME’s members join for quarterly meetings, annual conferences, training sessions, special workshops, and after incident reviews (AIRs). On a smaller scale, jurisdictions have formed local TIM teams for their emergency responders to discuss issues and debrief recent incidents. Several agencies have endorsed the Georgia Open Roads Policy (ORP) and its 90-minute incident clearance goals. The Towing and Recovery Incentive Program (TRIP), which provides performance incentives and raises the bar for certified towers to have advanced training and specialized heavy duty recovery equipment, and the development of the Georgia TIM Guidelines are two of TIME’s notable successes.

Gov. Nathan Deal recently proclaimed Oct. 22, 2013 as Traffic Incident Management Day in Georgia, a day that also marked the second annual TIME executive briefing breakfast. This year’s breakfast, co-hosted by GDOT, the Department of Public Safety, and the Atlanta Regional Commission, was held at GDOT to highlight the importance of transportation professionals in the success of TIM. The event brought together more than 70 leaders from all facets of the TIM community with the theme of ‘TIME for Champions,’ discussing the work that still needs to be done to get more regional buy-in for TIM and quick clearance.

Transportation engineers and planners play a vital role in achieving regional TIM objectives. TIME hopes to expand the dialogue and keep lines of communication open between transportation and other TIM professionals. By engaging the broader TIM community regularly and throughout all phases of a transportation project, valuable insight can be gained into the design features and operational characteristics that make facilities more susceptible to incidents, and those that will help or hinder response and clearance time.

And as drivers in the metro area, there are steps everyone can take to keep traffic

flowing safely through an incident scene: • If a traffic incident does not involve death or serious injury and if vehicles are drivable, ‘Steer It & Clear It’ legislation requires that you move the vehicle completely off the roadway.

•

Use caution when passing the scene of an incident; slow down without gawking and rubber-necking.

•

Georgia’s new Move Over Law says drivers must move over whenever possible or slow down when passing emergency vehicles stopped on the side of the highway.

The TIME Task Force has been instrumental in raising awareness about these and other effective measures by partnering with the Georgia Department of Driver Services to include information in driver training manuals. TIME encourages everyone to support their local agencies and elected officials in advancing TIM practices and institutionalizing safe, quick clearance. Anyone can be a ‘Champion for TIME’!

Henry Ford once said, “Coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; working together is success.” Members of the Metro Atlanta TIME Task Force came together for a common cause in 2002, and have sustained and grown the program with great success in accomplishing TIME’s mission and goals. While Washington politicians may not be able to agree on any number of issues, the TIME Task Force has found several areas of accord based on a simple theme: the region is better when agencies come together, stay together, and work together.

Carla W. Holmes, P.E., PTOE, is a Senior Transportation Engineer and Associate at Gresham, Smith and Partners, and is the Program Committee Chair for the Metro Atlanta TIME Task Force.

Jeff Corbin is a Marketing Coordinator with Delcan and works in program / project support for the TIME Task Force and its committees.

For more information on the TIME Task Force, visit www.timetaskforce.com.v GeorGia enGineer

2013 Transportation Summit Recap

By Daniel B. Dobry Jr., P.E., PTOE, AICP | Croy Engineering, LLC he 2013 edition of the Transportation Summit was held on what began as a grey, wet November 7th. The weather seemed to match the undertone of recent summits due primarily to the effects of the economic downturn. But as the day progressed, the sun came out and treated us to blue skies and clean, crisp air. Similarly, this year with an appropriations bill in place (more on this later), three regions passing the TSPLOST referenda, and several counties passing continuation of their local special purpose local option sales tax, the future felt a little brighter for the over 450 public and private sector transportation professionals in attendance.

ACEC President Michael ‘Sully’ Sullivan kicked off the summit by introducing GDOT Commissioner Keith Golden. The top dog (or is it Yellow Jacket?) in transportation for the state of Georgia shared his perspective on the issues and challenges facing GDOT, the progress we’ve made, and what’s in store for the future.

Commissioner Golden began by stating his remarks would be brief because he was interested in the remainder of the program so he could acquire much needed Professional Development Hours. His comment was greeted with appreciation by a significant number in the crowd. He continued his comments by acknowledging the vital role transportation plays in the State’s economy.

He mentioned that the recently implemented Project Manager Program is achieving some of the goals for GDOT operations and continues to be refined. GDOT continues to look for ways to be more efficient and is currently reviewing their invoicing procedures to determine ways to shorten the time from receiving the invoices from the consultants until payment is made. (Someone behind me whispered to a colleague that GDOT should be looking at their negotiation process as well). Keeping the audience grounded, Golden expressed concern that

T

DecemBer 2013 | January 2014

I 85 Diverging Diamond Interchange at Pleasant Hill Road – URS – Gwinnett Place CID & Gwinnett DOT

the current federal transportation appropriation bill will expire in less than two years. It is very difficult to have accurate five-year project funding projections due to the uncertainty in Congress.

Next up was keynote speaker Curtis Foltz, Executive Director, Georgia Ports Authority who gave an update on the state’s ports. Georgia has four ports: Savannah and Brunswick, which each have two terminals, Bainbridge, and Columbus. Mr. Foltz began with a headline statistic: the ports handle over 27 million tons of cargo which was a 2.4 percent increase over last year. Savannah itself experienced an 8.4 percent growth in Twenty foot Equivalent Units (TEUs) from 20002 to 2012 (the largest single increase for U.S. ports) and now ranks fourth in the nation. The Georgia ports have a significant impact on the state’s economy: • 352,146 full and part time jobs • $66.9 billion in sales

• •

$32.4 billion in state’s GDP and $18.5 billion in income.

Interestingly, 156,698 jobs in the Atlanta Region are directly related to ports’ activities.

Foltz also spoke about efforts for the ports to be prepared for receiving large container ships when the improvements to the Panama Canal are completed. Increasing the harbor depth, the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project (SHEP) got a Record of Decision last October. $232 million in state funding is available, with significant federal funding forthcoming. GPA is preparing for the future and expects to invest over $2 billion, including SHEP, over the next ten years.

A panel discussion on Local Capital Improvement Programs, moderated by Chuck Warbington of the Gwinnett Village CID, included representatives from Chatham, Gwinnett, and Cobb counties. Leon Davenport, Assistant County Engineer of 31

Aerial view of I-85 and Pleasant Hill Road DDI

Chatham County, spoke about how their program has evolved from a strictly roads program to include diverse capital projects; the importance of partnering with the state; how right-of-way expenditures have become a larger part of the projects’ budgets; and highlighted projects that directly supported ports activities. Faye DiMassimo, Director of the Cobb County DOT, emphasized the preservation of existing infrastructure; project evaluation by criteria set forth in the EDGE program; and how important project delivery is for voter support for continuation of the sales tax program. Mr. Kim Conroy, Director of the Gwinnett County DOT, shared that over the life of their sales tax programs, Gwinnett has invested over $1.2 billion in transportation improvements; a Citizens Project Selection Committee identifies projects for construction after input from citizens; and emphasizing projects where the capital improvement can reduce overall maintenance cost.

GDOT’s Chief Engineer, Russell McMurry, presided over the annual GPTQ Awards lunch. His remarks were properly titled, ‘By the Numbers’: 46—counties benefiting from passing the Transportation Investment Act (TIA); 871—TIA projects to be done in the next ten years; 1199—num32

ber of fatalities on Georgia’s highways in 2012 (967 so far in 2013); and disconcertedly, 0 – federal dollars to the state if no appropriations bill is passed in FY 2015.

The state and local communities continue to develop and construct exemplary projects, and these are recognized through the GPTQ awards. Joe Carpenter of GDOT Construction Services assisted McMurry in giving a ‘shout out’ for projects in various categories. To mention a few awards, the Context Sensitive Design went to the Big Creek Parkway project sponsored by the city of Roswell assisted by Gresham Smith and Partners, and Innovative Solution went to the I-85/Pleasant Hill Road Diverging Diamond Interchange designed by URS. The Grand Prize winner was the St. Sebastian Way/Greene Street Extensions sponsored by the city of Augusta and designed by Heath & Lineback Engineers. This project entailed the design and construction of a new roadway to connect the downtown Augusta Medical Center Complex with the existing Riverwatch Parkway, a four-lane divided road that accesses directly to I-20. The existing road network that served the Augusta Medical Center Complex was inadequate for employees, patients, and visitors of the complex and for emergency vehicle access. Sep-

arating the Medical Center campus from Riverwatch Parkway is the Augusta Canal, John C. Calhoun Expressway, several city streets, and a CSX railroad line. A major component of the success of the project was finding a roadway solution that fitted seamlessly with the existing infrastructure and significant cultural and historical resources that included the Augusta Historic Canal, the historic Enterprise Mill, Broad Street Historic Homes, and CSX Railroad.

Three sets of breakout sessions were held in the afternoon; there was something of interest for all attendees. The themes of the sessions were Program Delivery, Transit/Planning/Environmental, and Design.

The diversity of the presentations ranged from Legal Aspects of Design to Linkage Between Data, Planning & Operations to Streamlining the Environmental Process, and MAP 21.

What’s not to like about the 2013 edition of transportation summit: hearing from top transportation professionals about what’s happening on a federal, state, regional, and local level; networking with compatriots; recognizing outstanding design projects; and earning those PDHs. Kudos to ACEC for continuing to sponsor, plan, and run this important event. v GeorGia enGineer

Exploring Engineer Academy at Georgia Tech ~ Summer 2013 HanKs. The Georgia Engineering Foundation and the Learning for Life Division of the Atlanta Area Council of the Boy Scouts of America thank the Georgia Engineering Community for making the past 13th Annual Exploring Engineering Academies at Georgia Tech a great success! Special thanks go to the Society of American Military Engineers and the Georgia Engineering Foundation our long term sponsors.

T

event. The academy had a record 52 high school students (boys and girls) in 10th, 11th and 12th grades with direct supervision and mentoring from professional engineers and scientists. Students toured state-of-theart engineering sites around metro Atlanta and on the GaTech campus.

EEA students visit Six Flags and get an engineer’s look at how rides are safely designed and operated. T-shirts provided by SAME, Atlanta Post.

Goal. To encourage the pursuit of an engineering or science career by engaging in hands-on engineering activities, touring engineering facilities, and interacting with engineers, scientists and students from all major engineering disciplines. The five day program consisted of a differing engineering theme each day with concurrent STEM Tracks featuring a Traditional Engineering track and a Focused Science track. The program not only focuses on the important skills needed for success in the field of engineering and science, such as math and science but also looks at problem solving, design and analysis, team building, project management, communications, and leadership. suPPort. Our steering committee plans this annual camp and is made up entirely of volunteers from the engineer community in the Atlanta area and staff from the Learning for Life Division of the Atlanta Area Council of the Boy Scouts of America. Support also comes from the efforts of Volunteers from the Society of American Military EnDecemBer 2013 | January 2014

Students get hands on experience in Georgia Tech's National Electric Energy Testing Research and Applications Center Sciences Laboratories.

33

gineers, Georgia Engineering Foundation, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, the American Institute of Architects, and the American Society of Civil Engineers. The Exploring Engineer Academy Committee thanks all that have participated to make this camp a success for the past thirteen summers.

2014. Join us to support a successful EEA Academy at Georgia Tech June 1 – June 6, 2014: We are planning for 60-75 students to attend the 2014 Academy. Interested students, can sign up for next year’s camp at: www.atlantabsa.org. Click under the EXPLORER tab for an application.

2013. Exploring Engineer Academy – “Highlights In Review” June 2-June 7, 2013

sunday afternoon began with registration at their Georgia Tech dorms, then team-building, and a catered dinner of Varsity hot dogs and burgers. monday ~ Electrical & Mechanical Engineering Day: Tours included; Georgia Tech’s National Electric Energy Testing Research and Applications Center Sciences Laboratories, GT’s Air Quality and Microbiology Lab, AGL Resources Liquid Natural Gas Facilities, the Georgia Aquarium, Georgia Power, Georgia Tech Astronomy Department, Centers for Disease Control, and GT Office of Organizational Development. tuesday ~ Transportation Day: was sponsored by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, the American Society of Civil Engineers. Tours included; Georgia Dept. of Transportation (GDOT) Testing Laboratory, state-of-the-art Toto Plant, Georgia Department of Transportation’s Traffic Management Control Center, the F Wayne Hill Water Resources Treatment Plant, the Emory Bio-Medical Research Department, then back to the GaTech where students started their weeklong Special Robotics Challenge Design Project, and made a trip to the Atlanta Braves home game.

Wednesday ~ Georgia Tech Mechanical, 34

EEA students visit GDOT construction testing labs to better understand how roads are built.

Electrical, & Architectural Day: Tours included; the GE Grid IQ Experience Center, Lockheed Martin Aeronautical production facilities, GaTech School of Architecture senior design studios, GaTech Mechanical Engineering School ME student projects demonstrations, trip to a construction site of an elementary school, GaTech School of Electrical Engineering Microelectronic Research Center, Lockheed-Martin Aeronautical Systems Manufacturing Facilities, a semi-formal dinner at the Villa Christina ballroom with an engineer guest speaker from the law firm Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial (WWHGD). thursday ~ Sustainability and Industrial Engineering Day: Tours included; GaTech School of Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) Lab, GaTech ECE Outreach Office, GaTech Industrial Engineering Facilities, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Terminal to see environmental impacts the airport has to handle, city of Atlanta’s Watershed Management Facility,

GaTech Solar ATLAS Energy and Sustainability Facility, GaTech Research Institute (GTRI), the final round of the Special Robotics Challenge Design Competition, and an open forum discussion with a student panel from Georgia Tech’s Presidential Scholars.

Friday ~ GT Recruitment, Admissions, COOP and Industrial Engineer Day: Tours included; GaTech, Department of Admissions, GaTech Co-Op Program, behind the scenes at Six flags Over Georgia Amusement Park with a look at Superman and Goliath roller coasters, the students returned to the Georgia Tech campus late afternoon to meet their parents, get packed and check out of their dorm rooms, and moved to GaTech facilities for a Banquet Gala Dinner with parents, Ms. Shan Cooper, Vice President of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company and General Manager of the company’s Marietta manufacturing facility, gave her message that ‘life takes you in many directions, but being an engineer opens doors toward exciting opGeorGia enGineer

GeF

News James R. Wallace President Georgia Engineering Foundation

On November 14, 2013, GEF on behalf of its member organizations and donors, provided 39 college scholarships totaling $66,000 to Georgia students pursuing engineering and science degrees during the Annual Banquet at the Dunwoody County Club. Look for highlights of this event coming in the Feb/Mar 2014 edition of the Georgia Engineer.

The Georgia Engineering Foundation (GEF) exists because over 40 years ago Georgia's leaders in the field of engineering saw the need to support and encourage some of Georgia's brightest and most capable young college students. I think it is obvious why we need to encourage the students to major in engineering--our civilization depends on engineers. From the design and construction of

DecemBer 2013 | January 2014

roads, bridges, and buildings to the development of medical devices such as implants and body part replacements, engineers are essential in providing the infrastructure and technologies that make our civilization possible. It is with this concept in mind that members of the engineering profession have, for more than 40 years, continued to pursue the original goal of GEF: to provide for the well-being of the citizens of Georgia, and elsewhere, by helping provide some of the necessary financial needs of our engineering students.

When we look back, we see some of the contributions the outstanding students supported by GEF have made to society. We see those who go to third world countries to bring innovations to provide clean drinking water and sanitation, those who develop medical devices to restore quality of life and save lives, and many other vital technical contributions. To a large extent, we see students who want to give back to society to improve the lives of others.

One of the benefits that come to those who volunteer to work with GEF is the opportunity to meet, and read the scholarship applications of, an amazing group of stu-

dents. In our effort to encourage and support them, they encourage and support us.

I cannot conclude this brief message without expressing my thanks for the contribution of time and effort from members of the GEF Board of Directors and other volunteers. I especially want to acknowledge, with gratitude, the leadership of Jimmy Crowder, GEF President-Elect, who became the acting president of GEF early in the 2012 – 2013 year due to my unavoidable absence. v

35

2013 Georgia Transportation Summit ACEC Georgia and the Georgia Department of Transportation would like to thank the following Coalition and Corporate Sponsors for supporting the Georgia Transportation Summit. Your support was a great part of its success!

Coalition Sponsors

Gold Sponsors

American Society of Civil Engineers American Society of Highway Engineers Georgia Society of Professional Engineers Georgia Transit Association Institute of Transportation Engineers Intelligent Transportation Society Women’s Transportation Seminar

AECOM CH2M HILL

Corporate Sponsors Platinum Sponsors ARCADIS Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc Jacobs

Opening Session Sponsors HNTB Corporation Kimley-Horn and Associates Parsons Corporation STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates Wolverton Associates

GPTQ Preconstruction Design Awards Lunch Sponsors

Kennedy Engineering & Associates Group T.H.C Inc.

GPTQ Technical Sessions Sponsors Clark Patterson Lee Evonik Cyro LLC GEL Geophysics Gresham Smith and Partners McGee Partners RS&H

AMEC Environmental & Infrastructure Inc ATKINS North America Heath & Lineback Engineers

Save the Date! (back by popular demand!)

2014 Georgia Engineers Summer Conference | Hammock Beach Resort | Palm Coast, Florida | June 12–15, 2014

Sun, Fun, and PDHs! What better way is there to earn PDHs, network with colleagues and spend a fun filled family vacation! 2014 Georgia Engineers Summer Conference!

Along with all the fun-filled, family activities there is also golf and an impressive program filled with technical and professional sessions! This year’s conference will again be at the beautiful Hammock Beach Resort in Palm Coast, Florida. Hammock Beach Resort is located just south of St. Augustine on the Atlantic Ocean.

36

For more information on Hammock Beach resort, please visit

www.hammockbeach.com

GeorGia enGineer

acec Georgia Jay Wolverton, PE Chair ACEC Georgia

The New Year is often a time of resolutions, a chance to make positive change and improve yourself in the clean slate of a new year.

News This year, the ACEC Georgia Board of Directors has resolved to continue to build opportunities for our members to get involved in the organization. Let me just mention a few.

Future Leaders is an exciting initiative that has provided 16 classes of the best and brightest young people in our industry with networking and educational opportunities to build their careers—and this year’s class is no different. These 30 professionals come from engineering firms large and small in metro Atlanta and serve in all facets of the organization, including design, marketing, and human resources.

This year’s class of Future Leaders has already attended an Atlanta Braves game,

had an interactive program on presentation skills, and engaged in a session on why people skills are important. There are six more events in store for the group as they learn about the engineering industry, build their connections, and grow as future leaders of their respective firms.

The Future Leaders Program is an important part of our Firm Operations mission, but it also is an integral part of our Political Advocacy value proposition to “fight to protect the professional engineering practice.”

The Future Leaders program is doing just that by giving the next generation of engineers the connections and tools to continue to build our profession, their companies, and the industry as a whole.

Political Advocacy

The Value of ACEC Georgia Serving your firm’s business interests through:

• Advocating at all levels of government to advance policies that impact the business of engineering in Georgia.

• Monitoring the regulatory issues and government agency actions that affect engineers.

• Working for a more pro-business climate and defending against unfair business practices.

• Fighting to protect the professional engineering practice.

Business Development • Providing networking opportunities, meetings, and programs that put you in contact with potential clients, industry peers, and the leaders of the engineering profession.

• Hosting the Georgia Engineers Summer Conference, Transportation Summit, P3 Summit, and other programs that expand your professional knowledge and network.

• Offering informative and relevant seminars, programs, and webinars with presentations from leaders who affect our industry and community.

Firm Operations • Providing a forum for the exchange of business and professional experiences.

• Offering programs and resources on best business practices for member firms.

• Sponsoring the Future Leaders Program to build the next generation of leaders within member firms and the engineering profession.

• We provide executive development training for emerging leaders and firm management.

DecemBer 2013 | January 2014

37

There is also the Leadership Forum, which meets bi-monthly. This group hosts a speaker who gives their insight on relevant issues, and then the participants are asked to weigh-in on the subject. A lot of our Future Leaders graduates have moved onto the Leadership Forum in order to stay involved.

In addition, there are numerous committees you can participate in, such as the Government Affairs Council, the Transportation Forum, and committees on Business Development, Firm Operations, coalitions, communications, leadership development, membership, and programs. What a wide variety of areas to get involved in!

There are opportunities to participate in membership meetings where you can network with your peers as well as hear speakers discuss issues facing our industry. And don’t forget our Transportation Summit, P3/Alternative Project Delivery Summary or our Firm Operations Seminar. ACEC National also provides ongoing training and development opportunities for executives of mem-

ber firms. ACEC has almost daily webinars in every aspect of operations—marketing and business development, human resources, accounting, business management and quality. They range from decision-making tools to trends in mergers and acquisitions. The 2014 calendar—found at www.acec.org/education—is already full and more sessions are added each week.

ACEC National’s Web site also hosts a myriad of on-demand webinars in all topic areas that are available for purchase and download. These resources are available 24/7 and can provide information on topics of interest from risk to project management to public policy. The 2014 Annual Convention will be in Washington, DC in April and provides for in-person and face-to-face education and networking opportunities to connect, learn, and grow. These education and meeting opportunities are all part of our Business Development and Firm Operations missions, helping members effectively grow and run their businesses.

In addition to these networking and learning opportunities, ACEC Georgia needs your involvement in political advocacy, government relations, and contributions to the Political Action Committee (PAC) both nationally and locally. We need our members to attend meetings, seminars, and training sessions and be on committees. We need you to join us in April 2014 as we meet with our legislators in Washington and tell them how they can help our industry thrive. And we need you to continue to tell us what you need from your ACEC in order to make the most of your membership and to make ACEC Georgia the most effective organization it can be.

As you can see, there are numerous ways that you can get involved in your ACEC. In 2014, I ask you to resolve to get involved.

We need your active membership to support our missions of political advocacy, business development, and firm operations and to guide our continued growth. And as always, thanks for all you do for ACEC Georgia. v

ACEC GEORGIA MEMBER FIRMS

Board of Directors Jerry (Jay) Wolverton, Chairman Darrell Rochester, Chairman-Elect Roseana Richards, Treasurer / Charles Ezelle, Secretary Don Harris, Vice Chair / John Heath, Vice Chair / Doug Robinson, Vice Chair David Wright, National Director / Edgar (Eddie) Williams, Past Chairman Anita Atkinson / Jim Case / David Estes / Scott Gero / Rob Lewis / David McFarlin / Kevin McOmber / Taylor Wright

Committees Darrell Rochester, Government Affairs/PAC David Wright, ACEC PAC Champion Rob Lewis, Business Development Jim Case & Don Harris, Firm Operations John Heath, Coalitions Doug Robinson, Communications Brannen Butts & David McFarlin, Leadership Development Charles Ezelle, Membership Eddie Williams, Nominating Eddie Williams, Past Presidents/Chairmen David Estes & Rob Jacquette, Programs Scott Gero, Transportation Forum

38

Staff Michael “Sully” Sullivan, President & CEO Gwen Brandon, Chief Operating Officer Kathy Belcher, Member Services Manager Mia Wilson, Finance Manager

Forums Bill Griffin, Building Systems Corky Welch, Environmental Chris Marsengill, Transportation Brannen Butts, Leadership

ACEC consists of 5,000 firms nationwide and represents approximately 500,000 employees.

ACEC Georgia consists of 206 firms and represents approximately 6,050 employees.

GeorGia enGineer

CONTACT US at ACEC GEORGIA

(404) 521-2324 acecga.org

President & CEO, Michael Sullivan (404) 537-1337 sully@acecga.org Chief Operating Officer, Gwen Brandon (404) 537-1415 gwen.brandon@acecga.org Member Services Manager, Kathy Belcher (404) 665-3539 kathy.belcher@acecga.org Accounting Manager, Mia Wilson (404) 537-1275 mia.wilson@acecga.org Chair, Jerry (Jay) Wolverton (Wolverton & Associates) (770) 447-8999, jay.wolverton@wolverton-assoc.com

Secretary, Charles Ezelle (Thomas & Hutton Engineering Co.) (912) 234-5300 ezelle.c@thomasandhutton.com Vice Chair, Don Harris (URS Corporation) (678) 808-8804 don.harris@urs.com Vice Chair, John A. Heath (Heath & Lineback Engineers Inc.) (770) 424-1668, jheath@heath-lineback.com Vice Chair, Doug Robinson (Walter P. Moore) (404) 898-9620 drobinson@walterpmoore.com National Director, David Wright (NeelSchaffer Inc.) (678) 604-0040 david.wright@neel-schaffer.com

Chair-Elect, Darrell K. Rochester (Rochester & Associates Inc.) (770) 718-0600 dkrochester@rochester-assoc.com

Director, Anita Atkinson (Patterson & Dewar Engineers) (770) 453-1410 aatkinson@pdengineers.com

Treasurer, Roseana Richards (Pond & Company) (678) 336-7740 richardsr@pondco.com

Director, Jim Case (Uzun & Case Engineers Inc.) (678) 553-5200 Jcase@uzuncase.com

DecemBer 2013 | January 2014

Director, David Estes (Ayres Associates), (404) 658-9320 estesd@ayresassociates.com Director, Scott Gero (AECOM) (404) 965-9726, scott.gero@aecom.com Director, Robert (Rob) Lewis (HNTB Corp.) (404) 946-5735 rtlewis@HNTB.com Director, David McFarlin (Long Engineering Inc.) (770) 951-2495 dmcfarlin@longeng.com Director, Kevin McOmber (Clark Patterson Lee) (770) 831-9000 kmcOmber@clarkpatterson.com Director, Taylor Wright (Atkins North America) (770) 933-0280 taylor.wrightt@atkinsglobal.com Past Chair, Edgar (Eddie) Williams (Keck & Wood) (678) 417-4000 ewilliams@keckwood.com

39

asce Georgia

News

Katherine Gurd, P.E., President American Society of Civil Engineers, Georgia Section www.ascega.org Katherine.Gurd@aecom.com

Greetings & Happy Holidays! I hope all of you are taking the time to enjoy the holidays and spend time with your families. Once the holidays have passed, we have some great ASCE events in the works to get you excited for 2014. report card: Over 50 Georgia Section volunteers have been hard at work over the last seven months researching, writing, and reviewing, and we are excited to announce that we will be unveiling our Report Card for Georgia’s Infrastructure on January 14, 2014. The 2014 Georgia Report Card will be the third edition released by the section. We are planning several big events in conjunction with the report card release including a press conference at the Georgia Capitol, meetings with state legislators and agencies, a Georgia Legislative Day in Conjunction with Engineers Week,

and a legislative reception.

The Georgia Legislative Day will be an opportunity to mobilize our members from across the state to come to Atlanta and meet with their State Representatives to talk about infrastructure. ASCE National hosts a DC ‘Fly-In’ each year, where they train volunteers from each state to go to Capitol Hill to discuss engineering issues. The Georgia Legislative Day will follow a similar format on a state level. This will be the first time our section will attempt to host a legislative event of this magnitude, and we need your involvement to make this event a success.

If you’d like to get involved in any of these report card-related activities, please contact our President-Elect Rebecca Shelton at: Rebecca.Shelton@gwinnettcounty.com.

Founding Father’s conference: On Friday, Oct. 19, 2012, Gregory E. DiLoreto, P.E., P.L.S, D.WRE, F. ASCE was inducted as the 2013 ASCE President. During his inaugural address, he quoted Marcus Garvey, saying: “A people without the knowledge of their past history, origin and culture is like a tree without roots.” DiLoreto later continued, “The establishment of the American Society of Civil Engineers was a long and arduous process. On a late winter day in 1836, efforts began to form a national society of civil engineers. Three years later, 40 practioners met in Augusta, Georgia, to call for a society of civil engineers in the United States.” Although these discussions continued for several years, and the America

Society of Civil Engineers and Architects was not formed until 1852, it caught our attention that our very own state has a place in the history of the society.

To celebrate our Society’s history, and our state’s place in it, we are reconvening in Augusta this March for a joint conference with the South Carolina Section of ASCE. Overlooking the historic city center and built shortly before the original Founding Fathers’ visit to Augusta, the beautifully restored Partridge Inn will be the setting for this joint meeting of the bordering ASCE Sections.

The conference will be a two-day event, on Friday March 14th and Saturday March 15th. We will offer a Pre-Conference Social Thursday Evening, followed by PDH-rich technical seminars on Friday as well as tours of Augusta’s notable engineering marvels of the past, present, and future on Saturday.

Please mark your calendars, as I hope you’ll make plans to join us for this historic event!

For more information about the Founding Father’s Conference, please contact our Vice President, Richard Morales, at rmorales@lbfoster.com.

As you can see, we have many exciting things happening in 2014, and these events are just the beginning. We hope you will be a part of them all!

In closing, I’d like to thank our sponsors: AECOM, ATG, Belgard Hardscapes, CH2MHill, Evonik, Haywood Baker, John Group International, and LBFoster. Please contact me if your firm is interested in supporting the Georgia Section. v

ASCE/GEORGIA SECTION 2013 - 2014 BOARD OF DIRECTORS President: Katherine McLeod Gurd, P.E. AECOM | katherine.gurd@aecom.com President-Elect: Rebecca Shelton, P.E. Gwinnett County DWR rebecca.shelton@gwinnettcounty.com Vice President : Richard Morales, M.Sc., P.E. LB Foster Piling | rmorales@LBFoster.com Treasurer : Dan Agramonte, P.E. O’BRIEN & GERE | Daniel.agramonte@obg.com External Director : Shaukat Syed Georgia EPD, Watershed | Protection Branch Shaukat.Syed@dnr.state.ga.us

40

Internal Director : Christina Vulova, P.E. ARCADIS U.S. Inc. | christina.vulova@arcadis-us.com Secretary : Julie Secrist, P.E. T.Y. Lin International Group | Julie.Secrist@tylin.com Technical Director : Luis E. Babler, P.E. Geo-Hydro Engineers Inc. | luis@geohydro.com Younger Member Director: Benjamin L. Moss O’BRIEN & GERE benjamin.moss@obg.com

NE Georgia Branch Director : J. Matthew Tanner, PE Breedlove Land Planning Inc. mtanner@landplanning.net South Metro Branch Director: Bob Nickelson Portland Cement Association BNickelson@cement.org Past-President: Lisa S. Woods, P.E. JACOBS | lisa.woods@jacobs.com

Savannah Branch Director : Laurel M. Webb O’BRIEN & GERE | laurel.webb@obg.com

GeorGia enGineer

asHe Georgia Michael Bywaletz President American Society of Highway Engineers / Georgia Section

I am thrilled to become the ASHE Georgia Section President for the 2013-2014 year. I would like to take a moment to thank Ron Osterloh for his service for the last two years along with the rest of the board, committees, and volunteers that have put forth such a significant effort to make our Georgia Section the success that it is. We are definitely at the front of all the other sections with our events and SOPs. We have had a changing of the guard for a few positions on the board as they progress upward in leadership roles along with a few more volunteers to head committee positions. We are always looking for volunteers to get involved. You never know, you could be an up and coming president.

This past year, I have seen significant growth in our industry. More projects are hitting the streets, giving numerous opportunities for companies to begin recovering from the massive economic slump. The gradual increase should also help make employment opportunities available. We may not see the growth and opportunities we had in 2006-2007 in the near future, but we are finally going in the right direction.

We are also seeing our industry in Georgia taking a new direction. With the new MS4 permit and Green initiatives, sustainability is definitely a-buzz. I have personally been waiting for this initiative to occur for 15 years, and it’s finally here.

Our Student Chapter at Georgia Tech is off and running. We are looking for comDecemBer 2013 | January 2014

News panies to sponsor and present at their monthly meetings. We want to expose our up and coming engineers to all the different facets in which their career can take them.

Please contact Jennifer Stephan at Jennifer.Stephan@tylin.com if you or your company would like to participate in a meeting. recent events In July, we had a great Happy Hour at Monday Night Brewing, which is one of Atlanta’s newest breweries. A good time was had by all not only networking with our fellow engineers but also with the games supplied by Monday Night Brewing. We plan to do it again next year since we had such a good turnout. Also, we are looking forward to our next happy hour event following the Transportation Summit on November 7th.

In August, our 8th Annual Babs Abubakari Memorial Scholarship Bowling Tournament was yet another success. It was attended by 160 bowlers as well as a significant number of spectators and volunteers.

Thank you for making this annual event a continued success.

President ~ Michael Bywaletz, Gresham

Smith and Partners First Vice President ~ Brian O’Connor,

T.Y. Lin International Second Vice President ~ Rob Dell-Ross,

City of Roswell Secretary ~ Mindy Sanders, Lowe

Engineers Treasurer ~ Richard Meehan, Lowe

Engineers Co-Treasurer Rick Strickland, Michael

Baker Corporation Past President ~ Ron Osterloh, Pond &

Company National Director ~ Nikki Reutlinger,

Atkins Director ~ Shawn Fleet, Heath and

Lineback Director ~ Karyn Matthews, GDOT chairs Nominating Committee Chair ~ Tim

Matthews, GDOT Program Chair ~ John Karnowski,

up and coming calendar of events • The popular InRoads Users Group will be starting back this fall. Keep an eye out for more information!

•

•

November 7 ~ Happy Hour following Transportation Summit December 5 ~ Holiday Social

Foresite Group Membership Chair ~ Scott Jordan, Cobb

County Scholarship Chair ~ Sarah Worachek, Gresham Smith and Partners ASHE Student Chapter Liason ~ Jennifer

Stephan, T.Y. Lin International Technical Chairs ~ Dan Bodycomb,

AECOM; Chris Rudd, GDOT In closing, I look forward to supporting a year of dynamic programs, both technical and social, that we have all enjoyed over the past several years. Suggestions are always welcome. Please e-mail them to any board member for consideration. We still have openings for some of our meetings. We look forward to seeing you at our next event! v

Communications Chair ~ Jenny Jenkins,

McGee Partners Social Chair ~ Holly Bauman, ARCADIS Golf Tournament Chair ~ Ashley Chan,

HNTB Web site Chair ~ Pervez Iqbal, Parsons

41

ite Georgia Dwayne Tedder, PE Georgia Section, Institute of Transportation Engineers

This will serve as my last article as President of the Georgia Section of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. I have much enjoyed the opportunities that this year has provided me. We have had a great year of successful events thanks to the volunteer efforts of many committees and members. GA ITE’s list of committee chairs is listed in every Georgia Engineer magazine to provide contact information on how someone can get involved in our organization. The list also gives credit and publicity to those individuals that donate their time and resources to GA ITE towards the goals of making GA ITE a beneficial and successful organization.

I greatly appreciate the efforts of our GA ITE board, committee chairs, and members that have made 2013 a great year for GA ITE. Before I agreed to accept the nomination as secretary-treasurer a few years ago, I had some reservations. The leadership roles in which I have served in GA ITE have been great evidence that you do have to take risk to receive reward. My experience with GA ITE has been very rewarding. I have made mistakes, but I have also seen successes at an organization that I love. GA ITE is really made up of great people. Its members and leaders define it.

My hope is that GA ITE will continue improving on the amenities and benefits that it provides to its membership. As I started this year in this job, I set several goals that I wanted to see GA ITE accomplish during 2013.

42

News several of these goals were: 1. enhanced services and Benefits of membership ~ GA ITE provided networking opportunities like our monthly meetings, team trivia events, and brewery tours. We had great turnout for our events, and I am thankful for those who planned them. GA ITE worked on furthering the transportation engineering profession as we attended the first Engineer’s Day at the Capital and kept our members up to date with training opportunities. We also had several volunteer opportunities such as our work at the Atlanta Community Food Bank and Piedmont Park.

2.

3.

value of membership ~ Our Activities Committee efforts provided numerous ways that provided real value to being a member of GA ITE with networking events. We also had plenty of training classes, seminars, and workshops that were advertised to, and attended by, our members. continuing to make efforts to partner with other organizations ~ We were quite pleased with the Transportation Winter Workshop jointly held with ASHE. GA ITE also participated in a Legislative Reception jointly held with ITSGA, and also we held a monthly meeting with the Georgia Planning Association. GA ITE also partnered with Tennessee ITE for a Technical Ex-

change, and GA ITE had a monthly meeting with representatives presenting from the TIME task force.

4.

Propelling the transportation Winter Workshop ~ GA ITE decided this year to attempt to elevate the size and status of this workshop by partnering with the American Society of Highway Engineers (ASHE) – Georgia Chapter. There were over 100 attendees, and we received excellent feedback from a survey that was conducted.

5.

continuing the success of the Ga ite summer seminar ~ As previously reported in an earlier article that I penned for the Georgia Engineer magazine, we had the highest attendance in five years at this seminar.

6.

Working with the academic membership ~ In 2013, GA ITE was able to have a Georgia Tech professor as the presenter at the GT – GA ITE meeting.

GA ITE also presented the Southern Polytechnic State University chapter president with the award for Engineering Technology Student-of-the-Year.

Southern Poly also had its highest attendance in several years with over 100 GA ITE and SPSU student members at the September monthly meeting.

7.

Branching out to areas of Georgia outside atlanta ~ This was evidenced

leadership Workshop training session

GeorGia enGineer

by the Transportation Winter Workshop in Athens, Georgia and the Technical Exchange in Ringgold, Georgia to name a few.

Coming up at the beginning of 2014, be ready for these events and mark your calendars now: 1. the annual meeting for Ga ite will be held at the Buckhead Club in Atlanta, Georgia on Tuesday, December 10.

We are looking forward to another great year-end event where we pat ourselves on the back a little and have a good time networking, socializing, and recognizing our accomplishments. We also have to elect a new board and induct new officers.

2. transportation Winter Workshop – This event is a partnership between GA ITE and ASHE. It will be on March 2 – 3 at the UGA Hotel and Conference Center in Athens, Georgia.

3.

southern District annual meeting – This is the big meeting for the entire Southern District of ITE. It will be held in Greensboro, Georgia on March 30 – April 2, 2014.

In the last few months, GA ITE has organized several other events that have highlighted projects and programs that are cutting edge in transportation engineering. august monthly meeting – GA ITE had a joint meeting with the Georgia Planning Association and heard a discussion by an esteemed panel on effective street design and traffic operation principles that accommodate older adults and make road, bike, and pedestrian travel safe and accessible for all ages.

GA ITE attended a Braves Game on August 30th. We had over 50 members in attendance. Highlights of the evening included members tailgating before the game and watching the Braves pull off a win! september monthly meeting – Our September meeting was held at the SPSU campus for a presentation from Mr. John Hancock, Assistant State Innovative Program Delivery Engineer, on the I-75 Managed Lanes Project. We had over 100 attendees, which was the highest attendance at this meeting in several years.

DecemBer 2013 | January 2014

technical exchange ~ GA ITE hosted a Technical Exchange on October 3. It was held in Ringgold, Georgia. Presentations were on wireless technologies. Tennessee and northwest Georgia attendees were noted.

Over 40 members attended. This was a GA ITE training event designed to reach out to a non-Metro Atlanta location and to also partner with TN ITE to give engineers in this area a chance for in-depth training.

The GA ITE Leadership Training was held on October 25–26 at The Lodge at Simpsonwood in Norcross, Georgia. GA ITE had a full class of 12 participants at this handson training that GA ITE has been providing for several years. The modules used in the class were developed by GA ITE members and other ITE members from the Southern District. A team building exercise was also enjoyed by participants in addition to the sessions, meals, and accommodations.

Again, I have enjoyed events like these and being the president this year. Thanks to all that made 2013 a successful year for GA ITE. See www.ite.org or www.gaite.org for ways to become a member and get involved. v

Leadership Workshop Team Building Activity

Board Position President Vice President Secretary/Treasurer Past President District Representative District Representative District Representative Affiliate Director

Member Dwayne Tedder Jonathan Reid Andrew Antweiler John Karnowski David Low Carla Holmes Jim Tolson Patrick McAtee

E-mail dwayne.tedder@urs.com reid@pbworld.com aantweiler@roswellgov.com jkarnowski@foresitegroupinc.com dlow@roswellgov.com carla_holmes@gspnet.com jtolson@dot.ga.gov pmcatee@thompsonengineering.com

Phone 404.406.8791 404.364.5225 678.639.7540 770.368.1399 770.594.6422 678.518.3654 404.635.2849 404.574.1985

Committee Activities Activities Annual Report Audio/Visual Awards/Nominations Career Guidance Clerk Comptroller Engineers Week Finance Georgia Engineer Magazine Georgia Tech Liaison Historian Host Legislative Affairs Life Membership Marketing Membership Monthly Meetings Newsletter Past Presidents Public Officials Education Scholarship Southern Poly Liaison Summer Seminar Technical Web site Winter Workshop

Chair(s) Meredith Emory Jim Tolson Mark Boivin John Karnowski Amy Diaz Elizabeth Scales Jim Pohlman Steven Sheffield Charles Bopp Dan Dobry Chris Rome Charles Bopp Vamshi Mudumba Bill Ruhsam Don Gaines Shannon Fain Sunita Nadella Jonathan Reid Vern Wilburn Todd Long Scott Mohler Mike Holt Bryan Sartin Sean Coleman Abdul Amer France Campbell Larry Overn

E-mail meredith.emory@kimley-horn.com jim.tolson@arcadis-us.com markboivin@alltrafficdata.net jkarnowski@foresitegroupinc.com amy.diaz@jacobs.com escales@thompsonengineering.com pohlmanj@bellsouth.net steven.sheffield@co.clayton.ga.us charles_bopp@hotmail.com ddobry@croyengineering.com crome@foresitegroupinc.com charles_bopp@hotmail.com vamshim@laiengineering.com bill@jbwr.net dgaines@gcaeng.com s.fain@delcan.com sunita.nadella@parsons.com reid@pbworld.com vwilburn@wilburnengineering.com tlong@dot.ga.gov scott.mohler@urs.com holtmr@pbworld.com bryan_sartin@gspnet.com sean.coleman@kimley-horn.com aamer@areng.com france_campbell@gspnet.com larry.overn@stantec.com

Phone 404.201.6133 770.384.6570 404.374.1283 770.368.1399 678.333.0283 404.574.1985 770.972.9709 678.479.5391 678.380.9053 770.971.5407 770.368.1399 678.380.9053 770.423.0807 404.931.6478 404.355.4010 404.771.7479 678.969.2304 404.364.5225 678.423.0050 404.631.1021 678.808.8811 404.364.2662 678.518.3884 404.419.8781 770.690.9255 678.518.3952 770.813.0882

43

its Georgia Scott Mohler, P.E. ITS President

As retiring president of the Intelligent Transportation Society of Georgia, I want to thank the membership for allowing me to serve for the past two years. ITS Georgia is one of the leading chapters in the nation, and from my perspective it’s easy to see why.

Our member organizations represent the best in intelligent transportation systems design, deployment, operations, and research. That strength is reflected in the diversity of disciplines represented by our officers, directors, and committees.

In 2013, we continued to grow and excel as a chapter. Membership continues to expand, increasing by more than ten percent in 2013. The chapter’s presence in social media grew to 1,050 opt-in e-mail, Facebook likes, and twitter followers.

Our monthly meeting program was excellent with eight luncheons and a half-day seminar. Topics and attendance in 2013 were:

News its Georgia mission We believe that ITS is a valuable tool for improved management of any transportation system, regardless of the inherent complexity of the system. ITS can help operate, manage, and maintain the system once it has been constructed.

We believe that ITS should be systematically incorporated into the earliest stages of project development, especially into the planning and design of transportation projects.

We believe the best way to achieve this systematic incorporation into the process is through a coordinated, comprehensive program to ‘get out the word’ on ITS to constituencies that might not otherwise consider the relevance of ITS to their transportation system. sembly, gathered Wednesday night to talk transportation issues facing the state. Sponsored by ITS Georgia and Georgia Section ITE the event was the second annual event of its kind. Chairman Floyd introduced the Governor who spoke about transportation programs of his administration and the need to come together to support improvements in transportation infrastructure. These types of networking events help get the word to key decision makers on the benefits of intelligent transportation solutions.

Our big event of the year was the annual meeting in September where we announced

Month Topic Attendees January Transportation Management Center Display Technology 75 February Digitized Intersections 86 March Connected Vehicles 57 April Municipal Video Sharing 55 May Columbia County Workshop 46 June Managed Lanes Implementation Plan 66 July Using Cellular Networks 42 August Transit Solutions Through Traveler Information 62 October Intelligent Railways 61 our new officers and directors for 2014 – In February 2013, an estimated 100 people, including Gov. Nathan Deal, GDOT Board 2015, bestowed Best of ITS awards, and Chairman Johnny Floyd, GDOT Board learned about the latest in ITS solutions, apMembers and Members of the General As- plications and hardware. In 2013, the meet44

ing recorded 130 registrants, 16 sponsors, and 24 exhibitors.

Once again thank you. I have truly enjoyed the past two years and look forward to supporting incoming president Tom Sever.v

ITS GEORGIA CHAPTER LEADERSHIP President Scott Mohler, URS Corporation President-elect Tom Sever, Gwinnett DOT vice President Tom Sever, Gwinnett DOT Grand Waldrop, GDOT, Vice-president-elect secretary Kristin Turner, Wolverton and Associates Inc. Jennifer Johnson, Kimley-Horn, Secretary-elect treasurer Ashlyn Morgan, Atkins immediate Past President

Marion Waters Gresham Smith & Partners Directors Mark Demidovich, GDOT Susie Dunn, Atlanta Regional Commission Eric Graves, City of Alpharetta Carla Holmes, Gresham Smith & Partners Winter Horbal, Temple Inc. Keary Lord, Douglas County DOT Michael Roberson, GDOT David Smith, DeKalb County Transportation Prasoon Sinha, ARCADIS Grant Waldrop, GDOT Mike Holt, Parsons Brinkerhoff, elect Yancy Bachmann, World Fiber, elect Kenn Fink, Kimley-Horn, elect Kristin Turner, Wolverton Associates, elect state chapters representative

Shahram Malek, Arcadis ex officio Greg Morris, Federal Highway Administration Andres Ramirez, Federal Transit Administration

GeorGia enGineer

Wts Georgia Angela Snyder, P.E. President, WTS Atlanta

The WTS Atlanta chapter held its annual scholarship luncheon on October 29 at the Oceans Ballroom in the Georgia Aquarium.

This year’s keynote speaker was Jannine Miller, the Executive Director of the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority. Ms. Miller offered luncheon attendees wisdom from her past experiences working as the Transportation Policy Advisor to Governor Sonny Perdue, the Policy and Programs Consultant for the Georgia State Road and Tollway Authority, and other positions within public agencies in Georgia. Her anecdotes included stories about implementing the new toll lanes on some of the metro area’s major interstates and her own personal dream car—the Ladybug—a vehicle she imagined as a cross between a VW Beetle and a Porsche.

WTS Annual Luncheon Keynote Speaker Jannine Miller, Executive Director of the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA) DecemBer 2013 | January 2014

News Inga Kennedy, with Planners for Environmental Quality, was the Mistress of Ceremonies for the event and led the program that recognizes scholarship recipients as well as individuals and corporations that have made significant contributions to the industry over the past year.

The 2013 Woman of the Year was Lisa Y. Gordon, Chief Operating Officer of the Atlanta BeltLine Inc., for her work with the BeltLine including the most recent public addition to the project—the Eastside Trail.

The Eastside Trail is the first finished section of the project in the old rail corridor and runs from Piedmont Park to Inman Park and the Old 4th Ward.

The Member of the Year award was presented to Daveitta Jenkins, Regional Technology and Quality Manager/Senior Project Manager at CH2M Hill Inc. Daveitta has been a member of the WTS Atlanta chapter since 2000. Daveitta volunteered her time to work on this year’s luncheon as she has done many times in the past. This year she is also the Chair of the Mentor-Protege program that kicked off in early October, an active Transportation YOU mentor, and the WTS Representative on the Transportation Sum-

mit Planning Committee.

The 2013 Employer of the Year was awarded to Wolverton and Associates Inc. a firm committed to promoting the professional and personal achievements of its employees, especially WTS. Wolverton and Associates is active in other organizations as well: ACEC/G, ASHE, ITS, ASCE, SAME, and more. The company encourages employees to become active in professional organizations, supporting them by allowing them the time to become active members and providing resources to be visible in the industry.

Luncheon MC Inga Kennedy of Planners for Environmental Quality Inc. with Albert Edwards, Managing Director of C.E.R.M.

WTS ATLANTA 2013 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Angela Snyder, P.E. President Wolverton & Associates Inc. Marissa Martin, P.E. Vice President, Membership Gresham, Smith and Partners Tonya Saxon Vice President, Programs MARTA Kirsten Berry Secretary HNTB Corporation Jennifer Stephan, EIT Treasurer Gresham, Smith and Partners Beth Ann Schwartz, P.E. Director-at-Large Michael Baker Corporation Helen McSwain, P.E. Director-at-Large Atkins Regan Hammond Director-at-Large Atlanta Regional Commission Shelley Lamar Director-at-Large Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport Jennifer King, P.E. Immediate Past President HNTB Corporation

angela.snyder@wolverton-assoc.com marissa_martin@gspnet.com tsaxon@itsmarta.com kberry@hntb.com Jennifer_stephan@gspnet.com baschwartz@baker.com hmcswain@matcjv.com rhammond@arc.com Shelley.Lamar@atlanta-airport.com jjking@hntb.com

45

gral part of communities throughout the world. The leadership, skills, and perspectives of women are essential to ensure that the transportation systems of the future respond to the needs of all. The chapter is happy to have been able to present Sara Khoeini and Attiya Shaw with scholarships at this year's luncheon. Attiya Shaw and Janille SmithColin were nominated for national scholarships from the WTS organization.

Sara Khoeini received the Helene M. Overly Graduate Scholarship. Sara is currently pursuing her PhD in Transportation Systems Engineering at the Georgia Institute WTS 2013 Member of the Year Lisa Y. Gordon, COO of the Atlanta BeltLine Inc. with Angela Snyder and Pamela Little The Diversity Leadership Award for 2013 was presented to Corporate Environment Risk Management, LLC (CERM). As a minority-owned and operated business, CERM makes a strong commitment to diversity among its staff and team members.

In a firm of 35 employees, nine nationalities are represented. CERM has structured a shadowing program for students in high school, college, and beyond to expose them to engineering, construction, and other life sciences. They also offer an internship program for college juniors, seniors, and graduates to train the next generation.

The WTS mission of transforming the transportation industry through the advancement of women can be realized by encouraging students to further their careers as leaders in the transportation industry. WTS recognizes that transportation is more than simply moving people and goods from one place to another. It is a driver of growth, and an inte-

WTS Atlanta 2013 Employer of the Year Wolverton & Associates (Left to Right) Joe Macrina, COO Wolverton & Associates; Pamela Little, WTS Awards Chair; Mario Macrina, Director of Transportation Wolverton & Associates; Angela Snyder, WTS Atlanta President and Project Manager, Wolverton & Associates of Technology (Georgia Tech). Her research focuses on managed lanes as a form of congestion pricing, and her dissertation is focused on the socio-economic impact of managed lanes for different user groups.

Grady Gearbox Gangstaz Robotics Team and WTS Atlanta Director Helen Tift McSwain 46

Janille Smith-Colin was nominated for the Leadership Legacy Scholarship for Graduates. Janille is also a PhD student in Transportation Systems Engineering at Georgia Tech. Her research is on performance measurement, infrastructure and asset management, and sustainable practices in transportation.

Atiyya Shaw was awarded the Sharon D. Banks Undergraduate Scholarship and nominated for the national Molitoris Leadership Scholarship for Undergraduates from the international WTS organization. This is the second year that Atiyya has won the Sharon D. Banks Undergraduate Scholarship from the Atlanta chapter. Atiyya is in her fourth year of undergraduate study at Georgia Tech in the Transportation Engineering Systems program. She intends to return to Georgia Tech for her master’s degree and in addition to her studies is currently working as an intern at STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates.

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 handson, 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 Girlz brought one of their robots to the luncheon!

For the attendees of the luncheon, a delicious meal was served, a raffle was conducted giving away a $500 voucher to be used towards a flight on Southwest Airlines, and a silent auction held, all to raise money for the scholarships awarded to the deserving women mentioned above. WTS Atlanta would like to thank all those corporate sponsors of the luncheon along with the individuals who attended the luncheon, volunteered their time to plan, and those who assisted during the luncheon—all to support the mission of WTS Atlanta, to advance women in transportation. v GeorGia enGineer