Georgia Engineer December/ January 2011 by Daniel Simmons

the

GeorgiaEngineer Volume 18, Issue 6 December | January 2012

TRANSPORTATION

2011 TRANSPORTATION SUMMIT See story on page 6

THE GEORGIA ENGINEER

the

GeorgiaEngineer Publisher: A4 Inc. 1154 Lower Birmingham Road Canton, Georgia 30115 Tel.: 770-521-8877 • Fax: 770-521-0406 E-mail: GeorgiaEngineer@a4inc.com Managing Editor: Roland Petersen-Frey Art Direction/Design: Pamela Petersen-Frey Georgia Engineering Alliance 233 Peachtree Street • Harris Tower, #700 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Tel.: 404.521.2324 • Fax: 404.521.0283 Georgia Engineering Alliance Gwen Brandon, CAE, Executive Director Thomas C. Leslie, PE, Director of External Affairs Carolyn M. Jones, Outreach Services Manager Georgia Engineering Alliance Editorial Board Jeff Dingle, PE, Chairman GSPE Representatives Sam L. Fleming, PE Tim Glover, PE Jimmy St. John, PE ACEC/G Representatives Robin Overstreet Carley Humphreys ASCE/G Representatives Daniel Agramonte, PE Rebecca Shelton, PE GMCEA Representative Birdel F. Jackson, III, PE ITE Representatives Daniel B. Dobry Jr., PE, PTOE John Karnowski ITS/G Representatives Bill Wells Shaun Green, PE WTS Representative Angela Snyder ASHE Representative Ed Culican, PE SEAOG Representative Kurt Swensson, PE

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

DECEMBER | JANUARY 2012

ADVERTISEMENTS AECOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 AEI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Atkins/PBS&J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Atlanta Beltline [Job Opportunity] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Ayres Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Burns & McDonnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Brown & Caldwell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 CDM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Columbia Engineering. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Cardno TBE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 CROM Prestressed Concrete Tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Cummins Power South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Edwards Pitman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Engineered Restorations Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Foley Arch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 G. Ben Turnipseed Engineers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 GCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Georgia Concrete Paving Association. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Georgia Power Company. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21, 33 Geohydro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Geosyntec Consultants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Golder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 GRL Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Hayward Baker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Back Cover Hazen and Sawyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 HDR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Heath & Lineback Engineers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 HNTB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 JAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Middleton-House & Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 MidSouth Machine & Service Co.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Brien & Gere. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 PBS&J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Photo Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Pond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Power Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Prime Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 RHD Utility Locating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Rosser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 RS&H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Savannah Technical College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Schnabel Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Silt-Saver Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Back Cover S&ME. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Southern Civil Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Southern Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Stantec. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Stevenson & Palmer Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 TBE Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 T. Wayne Owens & Associates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Terrell Hundley Carroll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 United Consulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Front Cover Wilburn Engineering LLC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 45 Willmer Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Wolverton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

THE GEORGIA ENGINEER

DECEMBER 2011 | JANUARY 2012

2011 Transportation Summit

The PELS Board of Registration Coalition

Transportation Investment Act 2010

Round and Round We Go…

Transportation for the Future of Georgia

High-accuracy Mapping

New Considerations for Joint Venture Agreements

Applying Risk Management to Project Performance

What’s in the News

Transportation Summit 2011 GPTQ Preconstruction Design Awards

What Are We Waiting For? Let it Fly!

In Memorian ~ Danny Elkins Stanley

2011 Transportation Summit The citizens of Georgia have an opportunity to influence the largest transportation program for the state when they go to the polls in July 2012 (unless changed by the 2012 legislature) to vote regionally for a one-cent sales tax to fund the improvements. See story on page 6.

GEORGIAENGINEERBLOG.

GEA

ACEC

GEF

GSPE

DECEMBER | JANUARY 2012

ASCE

ITE

ASHE

ITS

GMCEA

SEAOG

WTS

2011 Transportation Summit By Daniel B. Dobry Jr., P.E., PTOE

ransportation is one of the many components that contribute to Georgia being a destination for businesses and jobs. These production, employment, and consumption activities promote economic development for a vital and growing state. Cost effective access to their markets plus safe and reliable commutes for their employees are factors evaluated when companies are searching for locations to set

and advocacy activities that will occur to ‘translate’ the information voters need to make an informed decision. Direct insight to the inner workings was provided by panel member Bucky Johnson, Mayor of Norcross, who served as the Atlanta Regional Transportation Roundtable Chair. This was the third year that the program’s luncheon was dedicated to recognizing the GPTQ awards winners for design. Prior to up shop. acknowledging the award winners, a very enlightening presentation As the Atlanta metropolitan reon logistics and operations was given gion and the rest of the state has by Page Siplon, Executive Director of grown, providing a safe, cost effecGeorgia’s Department of Economic tive, and an efficient multi-modal Development’s Center of Innovation transportation system has become for Logistics. There were a number of more and more of a challenge. To afquality design winners with the top ford the transportation professional award being given to Cherokee community the chance to learn the County and W. K. Dickinson for the status of current efforts to address expansion and improvements at the these challenges, the Georgia EngiCherokee Airport. neering Alliance hosted their 12th The added bonus for those attenTransportation Summit at the Geordees who are registered professionals gia World Congress Center on Nowas to obtain professional developvember 9, 2011. As an indication of ment hours (PDHs) by participating, the essential role transportation particularly during the breakout sesThe citizens of Georgia have an opportunity to influence the plays, attendance was capped at 400 largest transportation program for the state when they go to sions during the afternoon. There attendees, and those late to register the polls in July 2012 (unless changed by the 2012 legisla- were three different general topics ture) to vote regionally for a one-cent sales tax to fund the im- (Program Delivery, Planning/Enviwere not able to participate. All states rely on funding from provements. ronmental, and Design) that each ofthe federal government to construct major transportation projects. An fered three different sessions. Continued enhancements of Georgia’s unfortunate reality is that the federal transportation bill has not been transportation network are truly multi-modal. Consequently, a samreauthorized, and Congress has acted only by voting for extensions of pling of the sessions presented included the Multi-modal Passenger the existing bill. To offer insight into the implications of the federal in- Terminal, Innovative Interchanges (DDI), the Atlanta Hartsfieldaction, presentations were made by John Horsley, Executive Director Jackson Airport Master Plan, Statewide Freight Programs, Roundof AASHTO, and Art Guzzetti, Vice President of APTA. abouts, and High Speed Rail. GDOT continues to implement The citizens of Georgia have an opportunity to influence the programs to bring improvement projects to fruition in a more effilargest transportation program for the state when they go to the polls cient and timely manner. To inform the attendees on those evolvin July 2012 (unless changed by the 2012 legislature) to vote re- ing programs, there were presentations on Design Build Updates, gionally for a one-cent sales tax to fund the improvements. The Concept Reports, the Highway Safety Manual, and Alternative Bid Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) Director of Plan- Pavements. ning Todd Long presented the status of the myriad of activities for the No question it was an activity packed day but it’s events like Transportation Investment Act (TIA) of 2010 that resulted in all re- the Transportation Summit that support the transportation comgional roundtables approving the financially constrained list of proj- munity in having the most current tools and information to work toects by October 15, 2011. After Mr. Long’s presentation, a panel of wards an enhanced transportation system making Georgia a leader area experts then discussed and answered questions on the education in the country. v 6

THE GEORGIA ENGINEER

DECEMBER | JANUARY 2012

The PELS Board of Registration Coalition By Thomas C. Leslie Role of the Board of Registration The State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors holds a central place in the professional life of design professionals. It is the gateway for younger engineers and surveyors and is the guardian of public health, safety, and welfare for professional practice. But the actions of the PELS Board are not always sweetness and light. The PELS Board must determine who is qualified, and who is not qualified, to become a Professional Engineer or Registered Land Surveyor. If a PE or RLS is accused of running afoul of the Code of Professional Conduct, the PELS Board becomes the tryer of fact and can impose penalties. Formation of the Board of Registration Coalition In November 2003, GSPE, ACEC, and ASCE, with the concurrence of SAMSOG, recommended that the PELS Board conduct a self-evaluation into three broad areas: enforcement of current licensing law, educational outreach to registrants and the public, and internal performance metrics. The engineer and surveyor societies basically wanted a higher performance level by the PELS Board regarding processing of complaints and applications which would staunch the proliferation of specialty certifications, and enhance the professional standing of PEs and RLSs by public sector, third-party reviewers of their work. The Board appointed a committee to consider these matters, which reported its findings in December 2004. In response, a coalition of engineer and surveying associations was formed to think deeply about the needs of the PELS Board and the community of registrants proper response to it. Board of Registration Coalition Member Associations Georgia Society of Professional Engineers American Council of Engineering Companies of Georgia Surveying and Mapping Society of Georgia American Society of Civil Engineers 8

American Society of Highway Engineers Georgia Minority Consulting Engineers Association Institute of Transportation Engineers Structural Engineers Association of Georgia It was agreed that the Coalition members would work to enhance the performance of the PELS Board for the mutual benefit of all registrants. Legislation to Restructure the Board What quickly evolved was legislation to restructure the PELS Board. This approach would have created an independent PELS Board (but it would remain a unit of state government) based on the structures in Florida and North Carolina. A new Secretary of State was elected, who professed to have a plan to study and enhance the effectiveness of the approximately three dozen registration boards under her jurisdiction. It was not until 2007 that the coalition realized that little change was forthcoming. By 2009, the Coalition was re-energized and perfecting legislation to make the PELS Board a separate line item in the state budget (a budget unit) rather than one of three dozen boards in the same budget unit. This legislation failed to pass in the 2010 General Assembly. Meetings with the new Secretary of State The Coalition visited with the new Secretary of State, and the PELS Board in 2010 and 2011 reassessed its strategy. The hard facts in 2010/11 were that the Great Recession had severely depressed state revenues. Any notion of enhanced performance implied greater costs and seemed to be dismissed outof-hand by elected officials (even though, the Coalition supported increasing the current registration renewal fee of $50/two years to pay for enhanced services). The Secretary of State provided information regarding the PELS Board in mid2011 to help assess the PELS Board’s work. The Coalition was clear that the origin of its concern was not the hard work and good intent of the Secretary of State and individual

PELS Board members, rather it was inadequate resources available to it. Date Scan for PELS Board The Professional Licensing Boards Division (PLB Division) is the ‘budget unit’ within the Secretary of State’s office that houses all 36 licensing boards assigned to that office. The General Assembly appropriates money as a lump sum to the PLB Division. The Division allocates money administratively for each board. These boards are also a source of revenue to the state in the form of fees charged registrants as well as fines assessed by the boards in disciplinary actions. All revenue flows to the general fund of the state of Georgia, not to a licensing board that produced the revenue. Only the General Assembly may authorize expenditures and that occurs by its adoption of a budget each year. The PLB Division calculates an allocation of expenses for, and revenue flowing from actions of, each board. The expense allocations include direct and indirect costs, apportioned overhead, and legal fees (the Attorney General’s office). Since license renewal fees cover two years, expenses for both years are combined to properly allocate costs and revenues. For FY 2009 and 2010, the total expenses for the PLB Division (i.e., all boards) was $21.26/licensee and the total revenue was $41.92/licensee. For both years, this means that 50.7 percent of revenue was devoted to the expenses of the 36 boards, and 49.3 percent was diverted to the general fund to help fund other parts of state government. For the PELS Board, the numbers are $17.48/licensee in expenses and $19.77/licensee in revenue, which means 88.4 percent of revenue is devoted to Board expenses and only 11.6 percent is diverted to the General Fund. An examination of all allocated expenses and revenue demonstrates that the PELS Board is getting a very good ‘deal’ compared to other boards—33 boards provide a higher ‘pay-out’ to the state’s general fund, and only two boards get a better ‘payback’ from fees they impose. A special case is the Athlete Agents licensing board, which THE GEORGIA ENGINEER

Total PELS Applications and Examinations License Type

Applications Received

Licenses Issued

Exam Takers

PE FE LS FS Total

1425 1410 119 68

934 549 43 31

484 932 34 56

383 726 22 45

101 206 12 11

3022

1557

1506

1176

330

has 73 licensees, expenses of $25.03/licensee in expenses and $190.72/licensee in revenue. The PELS Board has the third largest number of licensees (35,121), and the cost per registrant is relatively low (only registered nurses and cosmetologists have more registrants—111,149 and 76,416, respectively.) The Secretary of State also provided FY 2011 data regarding licensing examinations. One of the major concerns of many licensed professionals is the effectiveness of the process to discipline engineers and surveyors that violate the Code of Professional Conduct. Part of the concern may stem from the fact that disciplinary actions occur behind the curtain of confidentiality. Disciplinary actions can only become an open record after the case is closed and all appeals exhausted. During the early journey of the PELS Board Coalition, there was a notion that many cases were not being actively prosecuted and that the backlog was large. In the past couple of years, however, it seems that cases have been ‘cleared’ more rapidly and the backlog is

Passed Exam

Failed Exam

much diminished. This sense comes from conversations with members of the Board who confirm that cases are being moved to conclusion more rapidly. A more analytical assessment is not possible based on available data, but the Coalition believes substantial progress has been made. The Secretary of State’s office has provided information relative to the status of disciplinary actions. Conclusion The PELS Board Coalition has concluded that the Board has much improved its efficiency and effectiveness. Board members work hard and attend to their duties with diligence and integrity. The improvement is not due to increasing resources, because the state has continued to diminish funding to the PLB Division and, consequently to the PELS Board. The Board and the Secretary of State have streamlined the application review process and improved internal communications by implementing new computer systems. The economic recession has been

Thomas C. Leslie especially damaging to engineers and surveyors, and this trend may have reduced workload and backlog for the PELS Board. It seems clear that the good work of board members can account for a portion of the enhanced position of the Board. It is essential that licensees have confidence in the Board, file complaints where they observe breeches in the Code of Professional Conduct, and continue to demand high ethical standards of licensees, and high performance of those appointed to the PELS Board. The Coalition plans to continue to meet once or twice per year to review the affairs of our professional licensing board and offer our support for their work and when appropriate, our critique of issues that arise. v

FY 2011 PELS Complaint Statistics Number of Complaints opened in FY 2011 Number of those complaints closed Consent Orders Accepted Cease and Desist Orders Accepted Closed with letter of concern Closed with no action Resolved Fines Assessed Fines Collected Total PELS Complaint Statistics:

64 35 9 2 7 16 1 $73,000* $12,500* 5 from FY08 4 from FY09 9 from FY 10 29 from FY11

*Fines assessed may not be collected until appeals are exhausted, or the disciplined licensee may have moved out of state, or died, or become bankrupt. DECEMBER | JANUARY 2012

Transportation Investment Act 2010 By John D. Edwards, P.E. | Honorary Member, ITE On August 15, 2011, all of the Regional Commissions submitted their constrained improvement project lists to the GDOT in preparation for the regional tax referendum. This article traces the steps and organizational issues for the Atlanta Region and the eleven other regions. The discussion of the Atlanta Region separately from all of the other regions is due to the differences in the transportation issues between the regions. The article is divided into several parts: (1) an Organizational Overview, which is common to all regions; (2) the Adopted Selection Criteria, which is generally similar between regions except for the Atlanta Region; (3) the Public Involvement Process; (4) Opportunities for Engineers; (5) Regional Differences, and finally (6) Challenges for Public Support. Organizational Overview By now, most of us should know about the Transportation Improvement Act of 2010 (TIA 2010), which provides for a ten-year referendum for a one-cent regional sales tax for transportation improvements in each of twelve ‘transportation regions’ in Georgia. There has been extensive coverage in the Atlanta Journal Constitution of the projects and program in the ten county metropolitan area. The purpose of this article is to chronicle the events in the regions in Georgia and to highlight the opportunities for the engineering community in Georgia. First, some operational details. These Transportation Region boundaries are coterminous with the Regional Commission boundaries in Georgia established in 2009. This article will discuss the type of trans10

portation improvements selected for inclusion in the tax referendum for the ‘outer eleven’ transportation districts or regions. Regional Roundtables ~ TIA 2010 provided for a ‘Regional Roundtable’ for each of the regions. This article will review the function of the Regional Roundtables and the elements of the selection of the specific projects within the region. One function of the Roundtables was the development of criteria for the inclusion of specific projects. Several steps in the process included: the development of an unconstrained project listing, a constrained project listing, based on the estimated tax money available, and a ‘final project listing.’ Regional Sales Tax ~ TIA 2010 created special tax districts (now referred to as transportation districts) and a referendum on a sales tax on goods and services for the purpose of financing transportation improvements. The referendum, if approved, would provide a one-cent sales tax for ten years for improvements within each transportation district. Adopted Selection Criteria One of the most important parts of the process of developing a list of projects for the referendum is the development of project selection criteria. The Georgia DOT provided draft criteria for project selection to the Transportation Districts in October 2010. The criteria included general economic goals and objectives, mobility, and safety. In addition, the criteria included a suggested apportionment of funds for each mode of

transportation. The Regional Roundtables were required to approve and/or modify the apportionment for their own district based upon perceived local needs and wishes. The recommended investment by mode is included in Table 1. Origin of Plans and Project Estimates ~ The projects that were considered came from existing plans and cost estimates that were available, studies in the GDOT Work program, MPO long range plans, short range transportation programs and county transportation studies. Preference was given to projects that could be initiated within the ten-year sales tax period. Table 1 on the next page shows the recommended target allocations by program type. In general, seven of the transportation districts accepted the DOT recommended allocations as presented, and three accepted most of the allocations. ARC, Middle Georgia, Heart of Georgia Altamaha and Three Rivers made substantial revisions or simply combined several of the programs into one or two. In the case of Atlanta, transit is a major consideration, and in the case of Heart of Georgia Altamaha the road and bridge maintenance over river crossings is of major concern. Selection Process ~ The initial financially unconstrained project list included improvements developed by the GDOT Director of Planning. The director developed the list by seeking projects from local governments and MPOs and within GDOT’s work program. The initial list was first an ‘unconTHE GEORGIA ENGINEER

Ga 365, Hall County Georgia DECEMBER | JANUARY 2012

Roadway Capital

50-70%

20-50%

40-70%

50-80%

50-70%

50-90%

Roadway, Bridge Maintenance

0-10%

40-50%

50-80%

0-10%

50-90%

Safety, Traffic Ops.

15-50%

5-15%

10-50%

15-50%

5-15%

50-90%

Freight, Logistics

2-10%

0-5%

2-10%

5-20%

0-5%

5-15%

5-20%

0-5%

Bicycle, Pedestrians

1-5%

0-1%

0-5%

1-5%

0-10%

Transit Capital

0-10%

10-40%

0-5%

5-20%

1-5%

0-10%

Transit Operations, Maintenance

0-10%

5-20%

0-5%

5-20%

0-10%

Aviation

Table 1 – Program Areas and Modal Targets strained draft’ wish list without regard to funding. This ‘unconstrained’ list was provided to the Roundtables for consideration. Specifically, a sub-committee of the Roundtable, called the Executive Committee, used the list as a starting point. This first list was produced by a mandated June 1 deadline. A fiscally constrained investment list of projects, using the funding estimate by the state economist from the sales tax for ten years, was used to produce the draft constrained list by a mandated August 15 deadline. The list was then submitted to the Regional Roundtables for final revision and approval. Table 2 illustrates the required reductions from the ‘unconstrained list’ to the ‘constrained list.’ This table gives one an idea of the amount of unmet needs for transportation improvements in each of the regions in the state that exist even with the passage of the regional sales tax referendum. The total requested funding for all the Regional Commissions is $45,658,000, 000 over the next ten years, and the total TIA Funding that will be available is estimated at $12,662,600,000. Thus, only about 27.7 percent of the perceived transportation needs will be funded by the sales tax. 12

Source: Georgia DOT Web site, www.IT3.ga.gov

Regional Differences The project selection process is unique to each Transportation District based on the character and goals of local development, the types of existing transportation facilities, the Roundtable adopted criteria, the level of traffic congestion, and other factors in each region. Rural/Urban Variations ~ One would expect that there would be differences in the perceived needs of transportation improvements based on the development characteristics of the Regions. This is apparent when one examines the Constrained Project Lists. For example, in the Heart of Georgia Altamaha Region, many major projects are for roadway and bridge maintenance, while in the Middle Georgia Region the emphasis is on economic development and safety with the Fall Line Freeway and improvements to the interchange operations such as the I16/I-75 interchange in Macon. In the Atlanta Region, the major emphasis is on capital transit investments and transit operational improvements In the River Valley District, a variety of projects in Columbus, including the exten-

sion of the Riverwalk, the Intercity Bus and Ride Facility, and the South Lumpkin Multiuse Facility (pedestrian, bike trail), attest to the multi-modal character of the TIA 2010. In the Coastal Region, major improvements for widening, improved, and new interchanges are related to I-95 and I-16. These projects will improve freight movement and access to and from the ports and will benefit most of the counties in the region. Another distinction is in the urban/rural transit projects. One would expect that the Savannah and Brunswick urban areas would have substantial allocations to transit improvements but one finds that Liberty County, an urban expansion area for Savannah, has a substantial allocation for a transit system as well. Highway/Transit Differences ~ As pointed out in the previous section, many of the region’s elected officials have the major emphasis of transportation improvements on highway facilities. In fact, except in the Atlanta Metropolitan Region with 52 percent of the investment in transit, the most money is in highway improvements. The Atlanta Region’s proposed investment in transit conTHE GEORGIA ENGINEER

Regional Commission

Total TIA Funding Requested (millions)

Total TIA Funding Available (millions)

% Required to be Cut

NW Georgia

$2,148.3

$905.9

55.7%

Georgia Mountains

3,512.2

803.1

77.1%

ARC

22,900.0

6,140.2

73.2%

Three Rivers

1,665.5

604.6

63.7%

NE Georgia

2,234.9

630.4

71.8%

Middle Georgia

2,478.8

561.6

77.3%

Central Savannah

2,448.0

538.9

77.9%

River Valley

1,253.9

380.8

69.6%

Heart of Georgia

1,233.7

255.5

79.3%

Southwest Georgia

785.5

340.0

56.7%

Southern

2,092.4

429.6

79.5%

Coastal

2,905.4

1,027.0

64.7%

Table 2 – TIA Funding and Project Requests sists of a variety of components. For instance, operating funds are proposed for bus systems: Clayton County ($100 million), Gwinnett County ($40 million), and the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority for service in several other metro counties ($128 million). For MARTA, $600 million is proposed for maintenance to attain a ‘state of good repair’ in the existing system, and $700 million is proposed for a new heavy rail line to the Emory University/CDC development cluster. A detailed study would be funded to lay the groundwork for intercity passenger rail from Atlanta to Griffin. ‘Premium’ transit would be provided from the current MARTA station toward Gwinnett County ($95 million), service in South DeKalb County ($225 million), and from the current Marta station toward Cobb County ($695 million). Also included is funding for a major portion of the Beltline trolley in Atlanta ($602 million). Those regions where there is an existing transit operation (Athens, Augusta, Brunswick, Columbus, Macon, Rome, and Savannah) have allocations in the range of 1.26 percent to 11.61 percent of the total regional investment budget.

Source: Transportation Investment Act 2011, Georgia DOT, August 2011

of ‘selling’ the regional sales tax is making the public aware of the program and its benefits. It is always a challenge to convince the general public to increase tax on themselves, and in these economic times, it is doubly difficult. Recognizing this, the authors of the legislative act provided for a process for the education of the public. The enabling legislation for the referenda mandated full dis-

closure of the project list to the public through a series of public meetings and via a Web site. Process ~ The legislation for the program specified a minimum number of two public meetings and two ‘official’ meetings of the Regional Roundtables. Most of the Regional Roundtables exceeded the requirements with

Public Involvement It is recognized that the most difficult part DECEMBER | JANUARY 2011

some holding five or even more public meetings and up to eight or ten meetings of the Roundtables. A survey of the Regional Commissions by the author indicated most commissions held at least six meetings to secure project requests. Another element of the process was publicity of the program through local newspapers, presentations at civic club meetings, and TV. The Atlanta Journal Constitution has published a series of articles on the program especially for the metropolitan area, and several Regional Commissions reported that extensive local coverage was provided through the news media. In the eleven other regions, local newspapers such as the Athens Banner Herald, Gainesville Daily Times, Augusta Chronicle, Macon Telegraph, Columbus Ledger Enquirer, and Newnan Times- Herald and many others carried articles on the meetings of the Regional Roundtables. Status ~ Currently, efforts are underway through the newly created Georgia Transportation Alliance by the Georgia Chamber of Commerce to educate the citizens on all aspects of the referenda and to advocate for passage in the eleven non-Atlanta regions. For the Atlanta Region, two groups have been organized: Citizens for Transportation Mobility (CTM), an advocacy organization, and Metropolitan Atlanta Voter Education Network (MAVEN), an education organization. These groups have hired staff and campaign consultants and they are raising money to support their efforts. Opportunities for Engineers The Transportation Investment Act 2010 (TIA 2010) could provide the funding for major transportation improvements which are required if the state of Georgia is to compete successfully for job growth with other states. As indicated in the 2009 McKinsey and Company Study, “Meeting Georgia Mobility Challenge,” the state is far behind in funding of these important infrastructure elements. Not only does the TIA 2010 provide funding for much needed transportation faI-285 at the Evening Peak Hour 14

cilities but it provides benefits to the general economy through jobs and income. Estimates of unemployment for engineers in the Atlanta area have been as high as 24 percent. For engineers, the TIA will provide jobs for many unemployed engineers and technicians. Program Management ~ According to officials at GDOT, the approval of the sales tax will almost double the available funds for transportation investments in Georgia (assuming all twelve regions pass the tax). With such a large program, how will project management be handled? The current thought is that several consulting firms with experience in project management could be hired. For individual projects, it is expected that consulting firms will be hired by GDOT to prepare plans for traffic operations, roadways, rights-of-way acquisition, and bridges. These plans will be produced under the direction of the management consultants in a timely manner and to acceptable standards. For capital transit and transit operations plans and programs in the Atlanta Region, the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA) will hire the consultants. GRTA plans to work with the local sponsor of the transit project for delivery. The development of plans and the management of the program will be under the authority of GRTA. Individual Project Plans ~ For individual projects, both roadway and transit, some plans are already available due to the issuance

of past consulting contracts. It is anticipated that most of these design and planning documents may need some updating due to changing conditions. Updating plans and new plans will be done by DOT and GRTA staff with the assistance of individual consulting firms. Regardless of how the responsibility of the work is allocated, there could be a significant amount of work for consulting firms. Where We Go From Here? Surveys of the Regional Transportation Districts by the author indicate that there is little knowledge by the general public of the TIA or the benefits of the proposed tax in providing improved mobility and economic impacts. We, as an engineering society, need to become involved in an education and promotions program to make the general public aware of the benefits of the passage of the 2010 TIA referendum The public’s involvement statewide is what makes this project different than many previous transportation projects. Knowledgeable local officials and citizens drafted and refined the lists of needed projects. Furthermore, the money raised within each region will be spent within that region. The first 75 percent will fund the regional projects on the list. The other 25 percent will be given to each region’s towns and counties to spend on hometown transportation improvements of their own choosing. In the Atlanta Region, there are more ‘regional’ projects, and the enabling legislation stipu-

lates that 15 percent of revenues be allocated to local governments for transportation improvements. So, local decision makers who determined transportation needs will receive 100 percent of the revenues flowing from the referenda tax. But regions have to vote for the investment. Those regions that approve the referendum can use the money for their own local and regional improvements. Those that turn down the opportunity will miss out on the countless dollars that could be put to

work on their behalf. “We know that every $1 billion we spend on transportation improvements supports 28,000 jobs and generates more than $2.5 billion in economic activity throughout the state,” says Heath Garrett, with Connect Georgia, the advocacy campaign of the Georgia Transportation Alliance. These are local projects, selected by local citizens that will bring local jobs. That makes it a smart investment.”

Authors Note John D. Edwards is an Honorary member and a Past President of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, a 20,000 member organization of professional transportation engineers and transportation planners. This article is the product of several persons: Cindy Miller at Atlanta Communications, www.cindymilleratl.com and Todd Long at the GDOT, tlong@dot.ga.gov. v

See daily videos on: georgiaengineerblog.com

DECEMBER | JANUARY 2012

Round and Round We Go...

By Thomas & Hutton Inc.

“I guess what we do is just drive around this circle here, should be the second left exit, there}s the hotel—Hey! Look kids! There’s Big Ben and there’s Parliament! I can’t seem to get over to the left honey, I’ll try again next time... sorry, we’ll get out of this jam in a minute.” Clark Griswold sets the tone for America’s perception of the roundabout by driving in the same circle for hours as the family falls asleep in National Lampoon’s European Vacation. Fortunately, the modern roundabout is much better than what is portrayed in the movie. A modern roundabout is helpful and safer than the traditional intersection to which we are accustomed. A roundabout controls traffic, keeps it flowing, and makes us safer by reducing traffic speed and the likelihood of T-bone or head-on collisions. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, roundabouts reduce all types of collisions by 30 percent, reduce injury by 76 percent, and reduce fatal and incapacitating accidents by 89 percent. Pedestrians are 50 percent less likely to be struck at a roundabout crosswalk than a traditional signalized intersection. A typical intersection has 20 to 30 critical points where 16

vehicles could collide, a roundabout has eight. Don’t mistake a roundabout for a traffic circle. The differences are in the design as roundabouts require traffic entering the circle to yield to traffic that is already moving inside. Many traffic circles do not follow this rule. Roundabouts are smaller than traffic circles. The smaller size makes them safer, slower, and more efficient. Roundabouts are lauded for the aesthetic benefits they provide to an intersection. Roundabouts have proven to be a very effective way to improve traffic operations and enhance safety in difficult intersections. Mark Pickering, P.E., Vice President/Transportation Department Director for Thomas & Hutton stated, “Although relatively new to the United States, roundabouts have been used with great success abroad for quite a while. Unfortunately there are some examples of poorly functioning traffic circles in the U.S. that often create confusion about the functionality and benefits of roundabouts. Consequently, overcoming public apprehension about roundabouts is one of our greatest challenges. Education of the public about roundabouts probably requires as much attention

from the project team as do the design details when planning and implementing a new roundabout. Our experience has been that when properly designed and constructed, roundabouts quickly become very popular with the motoring public.” “Georgia has 16 roundabouts and its Department of Transportation has identified about 100 more intersections where they would work,” says State Traffic Engineer Kathy Zahul. “People are generally opposed to it until they get one, and then they say, “Oh, this is great,” she said. Doyle Kelley, Jr., PE with Thomas & Hutton states, “Thomas & Hutton has been designing roundabouts in our private developments for over 25 years. They were installed for their aesthetic value but ended up working well handling traffic at major entry points. FHWA and state DOT have rediscovered the roundabout in the last few years and are requiring its evaluation at potential signalized intersections. Roundabout rediscovery is providing the traveling public with more efficient, safer intersections.” The ACEC award winning FredericaDemere Roundabout provides an excellent THE GEORGIA ENGINEER

Simons Island resident in a letter to the editor of The Brunswick News. “There’s definitely a learning curve for motorists,” says Jana Tidwell of AAA MidAtlantic. “It’s different than the alreadytrained red-light green-light scenario,” she says. “Once you experience it a few times, you become more comfortable.” The more Americans use roundabouts and experience the convenience and safety, the more widely accepted they will become. v

example of how well a roundabout can function. This was the first multi-lane roundabout in Glynn County, Georgia. The existing lighted intersection was the busiest on St. Simons Island. Frederica and Demere Roads function as primary arterial roadways on St. Simons Island and were often plagued by long traffic queues and travel delays where they intersected. Average daily traffic volumes through this intersection exceeded 25,000 vehicles per day with additional growth anticipated. “Many residents who were not familiar with the concept of the roundabout were opposed to the idea of changing the intersection. They were fearful that no one would know how to maneuver through it,” said Commissioner Uli Keller. “But those who were accustomed to travel and had been to other cities and countries that use roundabouts knew this would work.” The resulting facility improved operation of the intersection from a Level of Service F to Level of Service B, significantly reducing wait times for motorists. “After using roundabouts on St. Simons for a period of time, I would like to say that they are DECEMBER | JANUARY 2012

an excellent way to move—the old inefficient red light system seemed antiquated. We should replace more red lights with the roundabout system,” said Phillip S. Allen, St.

About Thomas & Hutton Founded in 1946, Thomas & Hutton provides quality services and project support to public and private clients. Technical competencies include civil, environmental, structural, and marine engineering; land surveying; land planning; landscape architecture; Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and construction administration. Thomas & Hutton has more than 150 employees in five office locations: Savannah and Brunswick, Georgia; Charleston and Myrtle Beach, South Carolina; and Wilmington, North Carolina. www.thomasandhutton.com www.facebook.com/THEngineers

Diagram Courtesy of Alaska Roundabouts

Conflict Points~ conventional intersection (left) v. modern roundabout (right) 17

Transportation for the Future of Georgia

ithout a blue print of the future, we cannot build it. Looking backward only tells us where we have been. These are trite sayings, but actually very true. We have arrived at our present transportation system by not adjusting to the changes brought about by technology and population shifts. The planners have been trying to force people to make choices they don’t want to make. Think these are somewhat radical statements? I will try to prove these statements to be true. Let’s take a look at a little history and see if we can find out how we got to our present state of traffic congestion. Before interstates, all roads went from town square to town square. You circled the square to find the next highway route number to head out of town. There were many stop signs and signal lights in these towns and cities, and the average travel speed for automobiles or trucks on a cross country trip was very low. Think of automobiles and trucks on one travel lane on hills and curves, and you will understand what it was like in the early ‘50s. Don’t forget bias tires and frequent flats, which was why there were spare tires in the trunk. Also understand the towns were only 20 or 30 miles apart because of how far mules could pull wagons. Speed limits were usually 25 mph inside city limits and 55 outside. Passing skills were required and it meant driving about 15 seconds in the opposing lane, quite a distance and not too safe. The cafes, filling stations, and hotels were all located near the square or at the edge of the city limits. The cities derived much of their income from these travelers. Trains were the main source for cross country passenger and bulk transportation. Of course, this type of ground travel made air travel the desired method for business people. President Eisenhower had experienced the abilities of the Autobahn and approved the building of the interstate system because it could move large volumes of troops and supplies across the U.S. quickly. The inter18

By Luther O. Cox, Jr., PE

state was mainly to be a straight line of travel between large cities, avoiding smaller towns and cities. It was to give a high speed limit and try to keep all traffic moving cross country at the higher speeds. It limited access and exits to avoid having to reduce the speed. It was successful beyond our dreams and design concepts. The interstate highway system changed the infrastructure of the country in ways never imaged by its designers. We did not understand the vast infrastructure changes that would take place because of the great new highway. We did not envision the volume of traffic that would take advantage of the new system. This shows we have to be careful how we design the next great system. Over time the infrastructure shifted to meet the needs of the interstate system travelers. Travel support services moved to interstate exits and small towns dried up. Trucks could average 500 miles per day and could outperform the railroads in hauling bulk goods over longer distances. We now know too many interstates went through major cities, and over time, when the population of vehicles grew, we developed major traffic jams around and through our cities, but not because of interstate travelers, but because of people who found they could live in the country, 15, 20 or 40 miles away from town, and get to their jobs in town quickly using the interstate. More lanes, more entrances, and too few exits into the cities were the answer to the increased traffic volume. The next response was the heavy rail, frequent stop, high terminal cost, mass transportation system like they use in New York and Chicago. But they have very high density populations, and the great majority of large cities do not. It seems to work in places like the Northeast and Chicago. But recent reports tell us even Chicago is choked with drivers wanting to bring their automobiles to town. In the South, the population moved to the country and used the interstate. Presently, the planners seem to have taken the attitude that the solution to transportation problems is to use economic pressure to force people to use mass

transportation systems or restricted interstate lanes.They are not producing any plans to support the commuters by providing them with a fast, flexible, economical commute to town. They are instead using the commuter transportation problem to promote mass transportation. The big push is on for the use of bicycles and walking to work and play. They want people to live, work, and play in or near the city or mass transportation terminals. They justify it by saying it saves lives, and reduces energy use, pollution, smog, and health problems.And they are right that it possibly will. Maybe future generations would rather live close together for this type lifestyle. But what about those who want their children to grow up in small towns or in the country, but need to work in the city? Should this lifestyle be destroyed just because someone thinks it is better for everyone to live in close packed cities and use mass transportation? If the choice of an alternative life style in the country is to be preserved, a better commuter transportation system needs to be designed. Suppose we were to support the commuters’ desire to live outside the city in more spacious surroundings and give their children more opportunity to attend schools in a more rural setting. Having bedroom communities has not been a bad thing. What we really need to look at is what the future transportation system should be like in terms of service to the public that presently exists, and work by zoning and long-term planning to develop dream living styles for the future. Let’s list the things that people of today would like in a dream travel system: 1. Fast and even travel without stress or worry. 2.

No congestion, and not herded together like cattle.

Flexibility, where the individual or party could go and come, wherever and whenever they pleased.

Safe, where the possibility of a collision THE GEORGIA ENGINEER

is almost eliminated. A tremendous savings would be the result through injury and death reductions. 5.

Economical, where the cost of travel is either reduced or the journey conditions improved.

Environmentally improved where the breathing problems are reduced because of fewer emissions. Health costs would go down and absence from the job reduced.

Vehicles not powered by foreign oil. Eliminate the dependence on foreign oil and politics.

Short commuter times in metro areas, say less than 40 minutes.

Short travel times between cities, at say an average speed of 85 mph.

Can such a system be built? The answer is yes! All the technology needed to build such a system is already in existence. We just need to iron out the design details and get busy building it. Fast does not have to mean 100 mph. A constant speed of 70 mph can put anyone within a 70-mile radius of a city to be there in an hour, a thirty five mile radius in a half hour. Present commuters would consider these fast commute times. In fact, at a constant speed of 85 mph, Macon, Columbus, and Chattanooga residents would have reason to drive on this commuter system to get to Hartsfield- Jackson International as well as Atlanta. The secret word is constant. The present transportation systems have stops, and this reduces their average speed significantly. If they could eliminate the stops, their commute time could be drastically reduced. The future system must be without stops for the commuter. Without any doubt, the automobile is still the best, most flexible method of transporting people to where they want to go when they need to go. But we cannot afford the high cost of expanding the present type of interstate system. The costs of additional lanes and bridges are prohibitive. The averDECEMBER | JANUARY 2012

age speed on the interstate now is comparable to the street speeds we used to experience in the â&#x20AC;&#x2122;80s. This drives the fuel costs up and cuts productivity. The present mode of interstate travel involves waiting several lights to get on. Then drivers enter the interstate lanes at low speeds and build up their speed while traffic already on the system changes lanes, slowing traffic in adjacent lanes until it all comes to a halt. Nearing a major interstate interchange, or exit, traffic traveling fast in the fast lanes comes charging into the already stop-and-go traffic exiting the interstate, making it dangerous, and the crash and delay costs are well known. The solution to handling large volumes of traffic is to have a pipeline of vehicles almost bumper to bumper and traveling at a constant fast speed of say 70 mph. This pipe line would have a capacity at full volume of about 265 vehicles per mile and discharge about five vehicles per second or 256 vehicles per minute. This is considerably more efficient than the present lane capacity and average speed on the interstate. But this type of system would require computer control of the vehicle to make it safe and to assure the constant speed. Letâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s look at the changes in automobile design that are available that could make this concept of pipeline delivery of commuters possible. On Star and other communication systems are already being installed on a large number of automobiles, and have been for years. They can control the engine, throttle, and brakes. Google is testing robotic cars and reportedly has over 140,000 kilometers of street experience. Others have been designing and testing completely robotic cars for years. The testing has been aimed for everyday street use; that is to drive in traffic where other vehicles are using humans to control them. If the robot controlled vehicles were in a single line and separated from the other vehicle traffic, the control problem would be greatly simplified. Computer controlled vehicles is certainly the way to go to reduce crashes and achieve high volumes of vehicles traffic. Electricity is the way to eliminate our dependence on foreign countries and their oil. The electric automobile is here and is the way of the future. But it has its limitations at the present time due to the battery

problem. However, if our pipeline had power stations or solar panel electricity available to give the electric vehicle power en route, the battery problem is solved. The battery is ready to go at the end of the commute, and the electric vehicle range is extended to accommodate intercity travel for the commuter. So the computer controlled electric vehicle traveling in a special pipeline at 70 mph within a few feet of each other with all the benefits desired is already a feasible way to travel. And we havenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t looked to future technology since this is all proven present day technology. Notice that the vehicle and the computer system controlling it are all

bought and paid for by the owner of the vehicle, and the costs are bound to go down as more and more commuters see the benefits. The cost of constructing the pipeline is the next problem to address since there are limited funds to build it. This is the part the public has to buy and pay taxes for. As everyone knows, the cost of manufacturing methods makes costs go way down. Suppose the pipeline was a two beam track supporting the left and right sides of the electric vehicle rather than a full lane width of concrete. This is possible for most of the track because the vehicles are not passing and changing lanes. The track design can be simplified and constructed in a manufacturing like method and assembled on site like blocks. Much of the track design would have uniform loading requirements since the weight of the vehicles can be uniform. This would make the cost of the pipeline very much less than the present construction costs. The power companies can install the power lines. There is one more problem to be addressed by the recipient of all this traffic, the city. The city would need to design a parking system to accommodate the influx of vehicles. The present system would not handle it. But there are new designs in parking facilities in Europe, and these designs are very green oriented and efficient at receiving and discharging commuters. Properly located and priced parking facilities to receive the commuters should more than justify the costs of building them. If you want the commuters to keep moving to their destination, the city streets will have to give priority and separation to the robotic vehicles all the way to their parking spot or to an entrance to the other vehicle traffic. Designs are already available for making the bike and pedestrian traffic enjoyable and safe, so there is nothing new in technology there. In the short term, we might afford the cost of developing a buffer system that makes it easy to get on and off the present interstate system. There is technology already in existence and being manufactured in vehicles today that can control the speed and distance between cars. We should begin today to plan on how to integrate that technology into the use of our interstate and thereby raise the av20

erage speed of travel. Fix these two problems and the interstate can handle the present traffic more efficiently and effectively. It is interesting to note we have had no new highway design since the advent of the interstate system, even though the vehicle design has changed, computers are in the hands of kids and doing all kinds of tasks, and the current traffic system is overloaded beyond the ability of the current generation of drivers to control. I don’t think more lanes of concrete pavement are the answer. Even if the above concept is flawed in some areas, we need to look up from what has been to what can be and embrace the current and new technology that is available to make our lives more comfortable and affordable. Let’s design a transportation system for the future, not the past or even the present. If we want to increase the number of lanes on our interstates to increase traffic volume, the concept presented here would be a giant step toward the future of transportation. It could be the model for travel between cities since the electric vehicle battery would not be a problem. We would want to bump the speed up to about 85mph for this mode of travel. My experience is that passengers traveling between cities, although they may like the thought of instant transport, are willing to take some time to do other things, like see the passing scenery or read a book or do business. The computer control relieves the driver of having to pay attention to the vehicle control. This design would be a minimum in-

trusion on the environment and could even be used by Marta to penetrate areas not easily accessed by heavy rail. The electric car is quiet. This system as a network around Atlanta would greatly reduce the pressures on the interstate until such time as we get caught up on a better design for the future of interstates. In other words, if Marta were to claim the system for Metro Atlanta and let the smaller cities and urban areas work toward the longer commuter system, the system could expand Atlanta’s commuter base to areas out to about 90 miles. Even seventy miles per hour translates to better than a mile a minute of commuter time. That would be quite a boon to Atlanta’s growth. It could provide a straight shot into Hartsville-Jackson International Airport. Providing a new and easy way to travel produces major changes in the way we live and make our choices of how to live. The blue print I have described should ignite new ideas on how to transport people beginning now. People could go farther and faster in their automobiles than we ever imagined. Even lay people see the need for this change. While I don’t claim to be original, I do hope that the transportation engineering and city planning community will look at new concepts and see if they can come up with better solutions to solve the transportation problems of our metro area and the state. We need to give the people of Georgia something they can believe in, that the congestion problem can be solved if they vote for the taxes they will have to pay. v

THE GEORGIA ENGINEER

DECEMBER | JANUARY 2012

High-accuracy Mapping By Mark Meade | Photo Science

ngineering professionals often require highaccuracy mapping to effectively plan and design transportation projects. Thanks to technological innovation, mapping and surveying professionals have an impressive array of tools that can provide this detailed, highly accurate mapping. With terrestrial scanning, mobile mapping, and low-altitude photogrammetry solutions capable of providing the accuracy needed, the critical question is: Which solution is right for my project? The answer comes from a careful consideration of a number of factors, including safety, cost, surveying control considerations, timing, accuracy, maintenance of traffic, and derivative product considerations. For many projects, the answer hinges on the ground control requirements that are needed to supMobile mapping, terrestrial scanners, and low-altitude photogrammetry have applications for high-accuracy mapping. Photogrammetric solutions often use control points that are out of the traveled way. Safety and maintenance of traffic considerations are critical to a projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s success.

The real advantage to a photogrammetric approach is the flexibility in the placement of control. 22

port the solution. These requirements, in turn, have a major influence on safety and maintenance of traffic considerations. How do we establish the required control? Where will we need to place the control? How can we ensure the safety of those establishing the control along the roadway? How can we minimize the impact on roadway users? What approach will provide the most information per unit cost along with a rapid turnaround? Mobile mapping provides a great technology solution. But it also requires considerable ground control targets located near each driving path to adequately control the acquisition. This typically requires control placement on the outside shoulders and in the median. For freeways with more than two lanes in each direction, control in the driving lanes might even be required. Yet control requirements within the driving lanes or in the median often pose enough impediments to require an alternate approach. Tripod-mounted scanners can provide the detail

and accuracy required, but production and cost often prevent their application on all but the smallest of project sites. Safety can also be a significant concern with this approach. The advantages of a low-altitude, high-accuracy photogrammetric approach are numerous. It represents a true remote-sensing application and allows for detailed planimetric and topographic data collection from the acquired imagery. The required control can be confined to the outside shoulders of a roadway, or in the case of a freeway, it can be placed on safer, less-traveled streets that are within close proximity. This approach also allows for the creation of high-resolution orthophotos that can be extremely useful during the planning or design phases. Aerial Acquisition Most conventional mapping takes place from imagery acquired at heights ranging from 2,400 to 9,600 feet above ground. Because the acquisition height is a significant factor in determining the error budget for a projTHE GEORGIA ENGINEER

Flying Height

Photo Scale

(AMT)

Forward Gain

Neat Model

60% overlap

80% overlap

Width

300’

1”=50’

180’

90’

315’

500’

1”=83’

300’

150’

525’

800’

1”=133’

480’

240’

840’

1,000’

1”=167’

600’

300’

1,050’

ect, a high-accuracy approach requires significantly reduced flying heights. In general, fixed-wing (airplane) acquisition will be limited to flights of 1,000 feet above ground in developed areas for safety considerations. This altitude produces a photo scale of 1”= 167’ in the imagery and places a limit on the vertical accuracy achievable to about 0.10 feet (measured in terms of a root mean square error, or RMSE). Photo Science performed one of the nation’s first high-accuracy mapping projects in 1998 for the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC). This project included fixedwing imagery acquisition at 1,000 feet above ground in Louisville for Interstates 64, 65, and 71. This project won a national award from the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) for its innovation and contribution to the engineering profession. However, many projects require even higher vertical accuracies on hard surfaces. If so, the image acquisition will be confined to a rotary-wing (helicopter) platform. Helicopters can operate at considerably lower altitudes and acquisition speeds, resulting in significantly better vertical accuracy from the mapping. We have completed projects at altitudes to 300 feet above ground, which provide vertical accuracies of 0.05 feet or better. The table above lists the characteristics of imagery at multiple acquisition heights. The forward gain in the table above represents the distance between successive photos within a flight line. For example, at a flying height of 500 feet above ground and a forward overlap of 60 percent, the distance between successive photos is 300 feet along the flight line resulting in 17.6 photos per linear mile (5,280/300). The width of coverage within the neat model at this altitude is 525 feet. Finally, each inch of coverage in the photo represents 83 feet on the ground. Control Requirements DECEMBER | JANUARY 2012

The real advantage to a photogrammetric approach is the flexibility in the placement of control. The control requirements here are significant, but generally, the control can be placed in areas that provide safety for field crews while minimizing the disruption of traffic. The control will need to be targeted before flight, and the targets must be placed only on asphalt or concrete surfaces. The targets can be relatively small in size given the ultrahigh resolution of the imagery. Control should be located every two to three models along the project area and should be placed near the limits of the neat model on both sides of the photos to maximize the accuracy of the imagery orientation. Precision level runs will be required to establish the accurate elevations for the target positions. Often, real time kinematic (RTK) observations can provide the necessary accuracy for the horizontal position of the targets. Moreover, to minimize the disruption on traffic, it is possible to sequence all control activities in a single pass of the surveying crew. In the case of a major freeway with out-

side shoulders, the level runs can extend along these shoulders without the need to cross active travel lanes. An efficient way to do this in a single pass is to construct the control point locations just ahead of the leveling crew as the crew moves along the shoulder. The level run can then turn through this point thereby establishing the accurate elevation needed as they go. RTK GPS observations are then performed on the same point. Ideally, these observations should make use of dual base stations to provide additional confidence in the observation. Also, after completing the first observation, it is a very good idea to immediately conduct a second, independent observation on the same point. While this is not as desirable as waiting four or five hours for the second observation to ensure the availability of significantly different satellite geometry, it has the advantage of avoiding a second pass through all of the points by the surveying crew in high-traffic areas. Finally, after completing the RTK observations and level runs for the point, a precut template can be placed over the point and a small target painted. At this stage, the crew is free to move forward to the next control location and begin the control activities again for the new point. It should be noted that it is critically important for the field surveying operations to be designed for the appropriate accuracy for the project. The control points should be established at an accuracy level three

times the requirement for the project overall. For example, for a high-accuracy project with expectations for a vertical accuracy of 0.06 feet, the control should be established at an accuracy of 0.02 feet. Anything less accurate will jeopardize the overall accuracy of the project. Aerotriangulation Just as the control placement and surveying methods are critical to a projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s success, so too is the aerotriangulation process that extends control and orientation information to every photograph. The final mapping solution is only as accurate as the weakest link. Careful planning and extreme care during the aerotriangulation process must be present to achieve the desired results. This process starts with the planning of the exposure points of each image, continues with the location of individual control points for the entire project area, and culminates with the measurement and adjustment for the entire project area. These decisions can vary significantly from project to project. Some projects may require parallel lines for full coverage, and if so, then an important decision must be made regarding the side overlap. Often, it is desirable to increase the side overlap from the conventional requirement of 30 percent up to 50 percent or more. Also, the highest accuracy projects might require 80 percent forward overlap in lieu of the more conventional 60 percent overlap. These are all decisions that will contribute to the success of the project when made in the right wayâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;or they can result in

failure if not. Mapping and Orthophotography Careful consideration must also be given to the appropriate platform for carrying out the mapping. Not all analytical stereoplotters and softcopy systems provide the right environment for maximizing the accuracy of the compilation, particularly in terms of extracting elevation data. But by choosing the right compilation environment, extremely accurate planimetric and topographic information can be generated from this highresolution aerial imagery. Gaining high-resolution orthophotography can be a significant advantage to this approach. Resolutions in the orthophotography of an inch or better are easily attainable from this imagery. Just be careful to fully discuss these options with your mapping provider as the file size of individual image tiles can be challenging at these reso-

lutions. Make sure to maximize the usefulness of the imagery in terms of both increased resolution and the manageability of the size of the imagery. For more information about high-accuracy mapping applications and project design, contact Mark at mark.meade@photoscience.com. v

See daily videos on: georgiaengineerblog.com

THE GEORGIA ENGINEER

New Considerations for Joint Venture Agreements

By D. Michael Williams | Rutherford & Christie LLP

y now, many in the construction industry are probably aware of the three percent withholding mandate on government contracts, which becomes effective January 1, 2012. While Section 511 of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act (TIPRA) was enacted in 2005, contractors who perform work for federal, state or local governments should begin considering and preparing for the overall effect that the withholding mandate will have, since the effective date now looms at the end of this year. If you are unfamiliar with the withholding requirement, most trade organizations for industries that regularly provide goods and services to governmental agencies have detailed information about the withholding mandate available on their Web sites. Generally, the law requires that federal, state and local governments with expenditures of more than $100 million withhold as federal taxes three percent of payments for products and services worth more than $10,000. There are lobbying efforts underway to attempt to have the withholding requirement repealed, but so far Congress has yet to pass any legislation that removes Section 511 from TIPRA. A recent report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration seems to have made the efforts to repeal the withholding mandate more difficult. The report found that more than ten percent of contractors performing work for the Internal Revenue Service had delinquent federal tax accounts totaling $10.6 million. Trade organizations for many of the industries affected by TIPRA have debated the effects of the withholding mandate. Opponents of the TIPRA withholding requirement have provided numerous examples of how TIPRA impacts the various industries that regularly conduct business with governmental agencies. In the construction industry, the TIPRA withholding DECEMBER | JANUARY 2012

requirement would impact the creation of project specific entities such as S-corporations, partnerships or joint ventures. The agreements that create these entities need to anticipate the future effects of the TIPRA. For example, a governmental agency is required to withhold $600,000 in payments on a $20 million construction project. Because the payment withheld is applied to the potential tax liability of the entity, the agreement creating and governing the project specific entity will need to address how to account for the tax payment among its members. In addition, because the entity was created for a specific project, it usually would not have large cash reserves. Withholding a $600,000 payment may leave the partnership or joint venture cash strapped and unable to complete the project without a cash infusion. Any agreement that creates and governs a project specific entity should address how future capital needs will be handled. While the TIPRA withholding requirement does not apply to contracts with private entities, any joint venture or other entity created for a specific construction project creates a very complex set of problems that need to be addressed. Any agreement that creates a project specific entity should, at the very least, address the detailed scope of work for each party, a specific procedure for managing the entity, the duration of the relationship, a method by which profits (or losses) will be divided, how future capital needs will be met, and how disputes will be resolved. In addition, joining forces and finances with another company also may require disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, including a companyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s key employees. In such cases, the joint venture or similar agreement should contain a confidentiality provision and prohibit hiring away key employees at the conclusion of the project. Whether addressing problems created by TIPRA or those that are likely to occur on

any project, anticipating potential problems and adopting a mechanism to resolve them proactively can go a long way toward ensuring the success of a joint venture. v D. Michael Williams is of counsel with the law firm of Rutherford & Christie LLP, a certified Women's Business Enterprise with offices in Atlanta and New York (www.rutherfordchristie.com). His trial and appellate practice focuses on construction litigation, commercial litigation, government liability, and zoning and land use litigation. Mr. Williams has served as trial counsel in a variety of construction litigation matters involving contract disputes and claims related to construction defects and material failures. He can be reached at (404) 5226888 or dmw@rclawllp.com.

Applying Risk Management to Project Performance By Sagar B. Khadka, PSP | Project Manager & Charles E. Bolyard Jr., PSP, CFCC | Chairman of the Board/Chief Executive Officer

hen it comes to the subject of risk management in construction, a vast array of literature (text books, best practice guides, standards of practice, etc.) and literary work (technical papers, white papers, case studies, etc.) have sprung up since the early 1970s that, when taken collectively, provide comprehensive material for a construction project team to draw upon and implement a sound risk management plan for its construction project. Particularly in the past decade, almost all major industry conferences (AACEI, ASCE, CMAA, PMI, etc.) have started including a track dedicated to the topic of risk management with the objective of promoting a discussion on benefits of risk management and techniques and tools currently available. And yet, the vast majority of construction projects do not have a formal risk management plan in place. The more prevalent approach is, instead of managing and mitigating risk in the project, that the construction project team’s time is spent in managing the issues, which is the realization of risk itself. Why is it that, despite the existence of a wealth of literature, technical know-how, techniques, and tools on risk management, a majority of construction project teams are not readily implementing risk management? This article discusses one key component in the overall process of risk management—the importance and application of qualitative risk management to project performance. While several variations to the risk management model exist in the industry, there are essentially five steps in implementing a risk management program for capital construction projects. As illustrated in the figure below, the steps required for both the quantitative risk analysis and qualitative risk management are common through Step 3, but a comprehensive risk management plan would need to follow all the steps shown in the model. 26

Risk Planning

Risk Identification

Risk Analysis

Risk Response Planning

Risk Monitoring & Control

DEFINE •Scope •Team •Strategy

IDENTIFY •Risk Event •Impact •Probability

ANALYSIS •Quantitative •Qualitative •Combination

ACTION PLAN •Mitigation Plan •Action Officer •Resolve by

Quantative •Monte Carlo •Others

Mitigation •Transfer •Mitigate •Accept •Avoid •Relax Rules •Contingency

Qualitative •Risk Register •Risk Matrix

The literary works to date, whether they be text books, best practice guides, or technical papers in various trade journals, appear to have placed equal emphasis in all the steps outlined in the risk management model, and rightly so. The best benefits of risk management can be achieved when all bases are properly covered. However, having equal emphasis on all the steps in a typical project risk management model might have given the impression to the construction community that, in order for the project to have a successful risk management plan, it must perform quantitative risk analy-

RE-ASSESS •Weekly •Monthly •Quarterly

sis. The simple fact is that not all project teams have the required resources (technical know-how, funds, etc.) to perform a quantitative risk analysis in their project. The lack of resources in carrying out the quantitative risk analysis might have deterred the project team from implementing any kind of risk management plan at all. The question is: can a project team benefit from having a qualitative risk management plan in their project, even if it is not feasible for them to perform a quantitative risk analysis? The answer is ‘absolutely.’ The primary reason is that these two applications

THE GEORGIA ENGINEER

(quantitative risk analysis and qualitative risk management) serve two different and specific purposes, and complement each other. Implementation of one does not necessarily replace the need for the other. Similarly, the inability to implement one should not deter the project team from applying the other.

quantitative risk analysis different from qualitative risk management. Qualitative Risk Management and its Importance It would be ideal to have the quantitative risk analysis performed at the inception of a con-

struction project for the benefits it provides as discussed in the preceding section. However, it may not be feasible to perform quantitative risk analysis for every construction project due to resource limitations, or the lack of the technical application expertise. What is feasible and within reach of most

Quantitative Risk Analysis Quantitative Risk Analysis is typically performed at the inception of a project to evaluate the viability of the project cost and/or time objectives [1]. This is not to say that the quantitative risk analyses are not routinely performed in periodic intervals during the course of construction. Also, there may be instances in a project where circumstance might call for a quantitative risk analysis in the middle of a project, or at any point in the project life-cycle. Quantitative Risk Analysis is performed, after gathering all the known risk items and prioritizing them, to evaluate: What is the probability that the project will be within the budget? This will help in arriving at the estimate for setting up the contingency funds. If setting up a contingency fund is not an option or if there is a limited budget available, descoping of project may be in order or several other options may be considered. What is the probability that the schedule deadlines will be met? This will help in setting realistic project deadlines. If the risk analysis shows that there is a very low probability of meeting the current deadline, the information gives the project team an opportunity to consider options in deciding a time contingency plan. Besides evaluating the contingency plan for time and cost overruns, decision makers may perform quantitative risk analysis to evaluate such scenarios as the viability of the project itself and reach for alternative programs. [2] [3] [4]. The steps required (risk planning, risk identification, and assessment) in terms of gathering the risk data for quantitative risk analysis are generally the same as those for the qualitative risk management. It is what is done with the risk data, how they are analyzed, and the specific purpose it [quantitative risk analysis] serves, that makes DECEMBER | JANUARY 2012

project teams is the application of qualitative risk management during construction. While quantitative risk analysis offers a snapshot of risks at a certain point in timeâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;essentially at the time it is performedâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;qualitative risk management goes beyond snapshots in time and deals with those project risk events until they are resolved. Qualitative risk management involves taking steps to identify every single foreseeable risk event (things that could go wrong) in the project, analyzing the potential impact of each risk event on the project and prioritizing them based on the severity of impact, creating problem solving strategies to mitigate (recover from) impacts, and keeping an eye on each until the risk item is either averted, mitigated or resolved. As shown in Figure 1, the process of risk monitoring and control ensures continuity in its application throughout the project until it is complete. The key to risk management is that it is always forward looking, anticipating risk events well in advance of their occurrence in the project and taking steps to prevent them from happening, or at least reducing their impact by having a pre-prepared strategy or

plan. This is in contrast to issue management, which is managing problems in the projects that have already surfaced. Put another way, the potential risks that could otherwise have either been eliminated or mitigated through the risk management plan at a lesser cost, when left unaddressed due to lack of a sound risk management plan in the project, usually turn into issues that now must be dealt with at full cost. How much savings can be expected from a sound risk management plan in the project? There is no way to provide an answer that can satisfy all because risks faced by each individual project are different. However, findings from case studies involving two large programs that employed a risk management plan are very encouraging. Presented as the return on investment (ROI), which was defined as the ratio of savings to cost that indicates the value of performing risk management, both case studies reported ROI at over 20 to 1 [5]. Even though the case study involved only two programs, the result is still very impressive. This article, within the context of project risk management, draws the distinction

between quantitative risk analysis and qualitative risk management. While fully acknowledging the significance and importance of quantitative risk analysis, it is not always necessary to perform a quantitative risk analysis on a project in order to be able implement a qualitative risk management plan, which can provide immediate and far reaching value to project performance in terms of seeing the project through to completion on time and within budget. v References Hulett, David T. Quantitative Risk Analysis Fundamentals. https://acc.dau.mil. 2. Hulett, David T. Project Cost Risk Analysis. Hulett & Associates, 2002. http://www.projectrisk.com/index.html. 3. Hulett, David T. Schedule Risk Analysis Simplified. Project Risk Management Journal, 1996. http://www.projectrisk.com/index.html. 4. Singh, A., S. Shiramizu and K. Gautam. Bid Risk and Contingency Analysis. AACE International, Cost Engineering, Vol. 49, No. 12, 2007; 20-27. 5. Hall, E. M. Risk Management Return on Investment. Systems Engineering, Vol. 2, Issue 3. 1999, 177-180. 1.

THE GEORGIA ENGINEER

W h a t ’ s

i n

t h e

NEWS Oregon Engineer Named President-Elect of National Civil Engineering Society Gregory E. DiLoreto, P.E., P.LS., F.ASCE, chief executive officer at the publicly owned Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) in the Portland, Oregon, metro area, was recently named president-elect of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). DiLoreto will be installed on Oct. 21, 2011, during ASCE’s Annual Civil Engineering Conference in Memphis, Tennessee, and will begin his presidency in the fall of 2012. For more than 12 years, DiLoreto has been responsible for the overall management of the second largest water utility company in Oregon, serving more than 200,000 customers in west Portland, Oregon. Prior to taking over TVWD, DiLoreto was the Director of the Department of Environmental Services in Gresham, Oregon, where he was responsible for the city’s water system, sanity sewer and wastewater treatment plant, transportation system, storm and surface water management, parks and recreation, solid waste and recycling, and building and property management. DiLoreto is an active member of ASCE on both the local and national levels. He is currently chair of the Committee on Geographic Units, which fosters communication between the Society and Sections, Branches and Institutes. Prior to his national ASCE service, DiLoreto served as the director, secretary, vice president, and president of the Oregon Section of ASCE. He has played a large role in local government, adamantly voicing his concerns to maintain adequate funding levels for civil infrastructure, and ensures that these funds are available by working with city officials. DiLoreto received his bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from Oregon State UniDECEMBER | JANUARY 2012

ety. For more www.asce.org.

Gregory E. DiLoreto versity, and a master’s degree in public administration from Portland State University. DiLoreto is a registered professional engineer in Oregon and is a resident of West Linn, Oregon, a suburb of Portland. Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) represents more than 140,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America’s oldest national engineering soci-

information,

visit

Middough Atlanta Office Celebrates Three Year Anniversary Middough Inc. celebrates the three year anniversary of their Atlanta, Georgia office this October. With dozens of employees and a wealth of knowledge, Middough Atlanta has been a growth market for the 60 year old company. Middough’s Atlanta staff currently consists of several design and engineering professionals working closely with our other national offices. The Atlanta office staff has an average of 28+ years of experience and is comprised of architects, civil engineers, structural engineers, MEP engineers, and process engineers. President and CEO Ronald R. Ledin says, “With local knowledge, local client relationships, broad expertise, and the stability and resources of an established company, our team is committed to provide the highest quality of service, performance, and project leadership in the Southeast US Region.”

Middough has continued to expand our geography, our organization, our business focus, and our business leadership. During the recent economic downturn, while other firms were downsizing, Middough continued to grow strategically and position ourselves to better serve our clients. Utilizing our shared network and electronic communications, Middough routinely executes projects using support from other offices in a seamless cost-effective manner. Combining our national resources with our ability to execute services locally has allowed our company to continue to grow with our clients and provide ‘Performance You Trust.’ Our relationship based culture promotes teamwork, trust, and commitment to quality. Our credentials are evidenced by these current rankings: • Ranked # 23 of Giants 300 in Building Design and Construction • Ranked # 99 of Top 500 Design Firms in Engineering News-Record • Ranked # 69 of Top 100 Pure Designers in Engineering News-Record Middough’s multi-disciplinary approach provides clients with a multi-discipline, single source for architecture, engineering, and management. We provide a seamless synergy of specialists, resources, and services to take projects from inception to completion. Middough offers a complete range of services to help our clients maintain a competitive advantage in today’s marketplace. From initial planning and feasibility to move-in training, we have the resources to meet the client’s needs. About Middough Inc. For more than 60 years, Middough Inc. has been recognized for its performance and leadership as an international company in engineering, architecture and management services. With major offices in Cleveland, Atlanta, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, and Toledo and additional offices nationally comprising more than 800 professionals, Middough provides a full-range of traditional and specialized design, technical and management services worldwide in 16 industries. For more information about Middough, visit www.middough.com. v 30

Denise McCoy Joins O’Brien & Gere O’Brien & Gere is pleased to announce that Denise McCoy, PG has joined the Company as a Project Associate in its Savannah, Georgia, office location to direct environmental projects for clients in the Southeast. Ms. McCoy has more than 14 years of professional experience with a focus on environmental project management; environmental

footprint by acquiring Ohio-based BBC&M Engineering Inc. The deal, effective October 3, results from S&ME’s purchase of the assets of BBCM. About 75 former BBCM employees joined S&ME, increasing the company’s employment to nearly 1,100. This staff will work from 27 offices in North Carolina, Ohio, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. Though concentrated heavily in the Southeast, S&ME has completed projects throughout much of the U.S. and in the Caribbean. The addition of BBCM is a continuation of S&ME’s strategic growth plan. Announcement of the acquisition was made in Raleigh by S&ME President Randy

Denise MCCoy investigation, remediation, and compliance; hazardous waste site assessments; and soil and groundwater assessment, remediation, and monitoring. Ms. McCoy has provided environmental compliance services for various industries and managed numerous environmental projects from the initial assessment phases to execution and completion of remedial actions for industrial, private, and government entities. As a Project Associate at O’Brien & Gere, Ms. McCoy is responsible for planning, directing, and supervising major complex and diverse projects and is accountable for scope, schedule, and budget, as well as business development and client management. She received a BS in geology from the University of Wisconsin and is a certified professional geologist in Georgia and South Carolina. Contact Denise at: Denise McCoy, PG, Project Associate, O’Brien & Gere, (912) 644-5648, Denise.McCoy@obg.com v Engineering and Environmental Firm S&ME Expands via Assets Purchase of BBCM S&ME Inc. has taken its first steps in expanding beyond its traditional southeastern

Randy Neuhaus Neuhaus, PE. “Clients will benefit through enhanced services, as well as access to a deeper pool of expert talent to help them solve project challenges,” Neuhaus said. “We’re excited to bring on BBCM’s expertise in geodesign services and experience with mine reclamation and earthen structures including dams, landfills, and upground reservoirs.”

See daily videos on: georgiaengineerblog.com

THE GEORGIA ENGINEER

Since 1957, BBCM, a civil engineering firm specializing in geotechnical engineering, geodesign, environmental, materials testing, and construction observation, has provided services to clients throughout the Midwest. S&ME was founded in Raleigh in 1973. Its major service lines include geotechnical engineering; construction materials engineering and testing; environmental services, occupational health and safety; water resources and solid waste engineering; and natural and cultural resources. Market segments served include energy, transportation, industrial, federal, state and municipal government, solid waste, ports and terminals, healthcare, education, and petroleum retailing. v Schnabel Engineering Inc. Announces Best Civil Engineering Firms to Work For Ranking Schnabel Engineering Inc., Glen Allen, Virginia, is pleased to announce that they have been ranked 9th on the “Best Civil Engineering Firms to Work For” list by CE News magazine. The criteria used to make the selection included culture, benefits, compensation, performance/recognition, recruiting and employee retention, and professional development, as well as an employee satisfaction survey. In addition to the above recognition, Schnabel placed 167th on the Zweig White Hot Firm List. The Zweig Letter 2011 Hot Firm List recognizes the fastestgrowing engineering, architecture, planning, and environmental consulting firms in the United States and Canada. Schnabel’s CEO, Mr. Gordon M. Matheson, PhD, PE, PG, stated, “The employees and management team at Schnabel are proud of these accomplishments. We are committed to serving our clients by creating an inviting workplace to attract and retain quality employees.” Schnabel, an employee-owned com-

pany, is an ENR top ten geotechnical engineering firm, employing more than 300 in offices from coast to coast. Schnabel’s specialized services include geotechnical and geostructural engineering, as well as dam and tunnel engineering, environmental services, geophysical and geosciences services, con-

struction monitoring, and resident engineering. These coordinated GeoDesign efforts provide integrated service to every project from subsurface explorations and soil testing, through engineering analysis, design, and construction support. For more information, please visit us at schnabel-eng.com. v

2012 Georgia Engineers Week Awards Gala Georgia Tech Hotel and Conference Center Atlanta, Georgia Saturday, February 25, 2012 Georgia will celebrate the engineering profession at the annual Georgia Engineers Week Awards Gala. Join your colleagues and friends for an evening to acknowledge and highlight the accomplishments of companies and individuals that have excelled in engineering. The following awards will be presented at the Gala on February 25, 2012: Engineering Excellence Awards Grand Prize Award 5 State Awards Honor Awards People’s Choice Award Engineer of the Year Lifetime Achievement Award Georgia Engineer of Year Engineer of the Year for Private Practice Engineer of the Year for Government Engineer of the Year in Industry Engineer of the Year in Education Engineer of the Year in Construction Young Engineer of the Year Engineering Technology Student of the Year Engineering Student of the Year Visit www.engineersweek.com to learn more about the 2012 Georgia Engineer Week.

DECEMBER | JANUARY 2012

THE GEORGIA ENGINEER

DECEMBER | JANUARY 2012

Transportation Summit 2011 GPTQ Preconstruction Design Awards

he Georgia Partnership for Transportation Quality is a continuation of the partnership that began in GQI and continues with high quality solutions to Georgia’s transportation needs. These awards are intended to recognize the creativity, sensitivity and command of technical and organizational skills necessary to forge such solutions. Those eligible to compete were transportation projects in Georgia, by any firm or public agency, demonstrating project based transportation planning and design expertAcworth Due West Road

ise and commitment to the principles to which the Georgia Quality Initiative is dedicated. Design projects mush be constructed and open to traffic for not more than three years upon submission, except as noted. The judging was based on total engineering excellence in the criteria established for each category of entry. In addition, each entry was judged fro excellence based on the general criteria listed below, as appropirate: - Customer Satisfaction - Sustainability - Constructability - Cost Effectiveness - Environmental Protection

Minimal Inconvenience to Transportation Facility Users Aesthetics Completeness and Accuracy of Plans

These are this year’s five (5) awards categories: - Best Traffic Safety/Intersection Design - Best Rural Design Project - Best Context Sensitive Design and Public Participation Project - Best Innovative Solution - Best Airport Design Project and Grand Design Award—the project given most overall points from among these five winning projects

Best Traffic Safety/Intersection Design Parsons Transportation Group and Cobb County Cobb County’s goal was to improve the safety and operational movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic along Acworth Due West Road corridor, between Nance Road and Burnt Hickory Road, about 5.2 miles. This corridor was originally a rural collector road, but due to the growth of single family homes along its length and in the immediate area, Acworth Due West has more recently operated like an urban collector. With 25 intersections, sight distance challenges and a speed limit of 40, there were high crash and accident rates. Limited areas had curb and gutter and continuous sidewalk between intersections, and the disjointed mix of rural and urban design elements were neither pedestrian friendly, aesthetically pleasing or functional.

Best Rural Design Project Gresham Smith and Partners and Clayton County The new 1.7 mile multi-modal Garden Walk Boulevard extension was designed to provide a new connection between Upper Riverdale Road and SR 85 in Clayton County. However, the project had a missing roadway segment at onset—the two-lane rural roadway section of Garden Walk Boulevard that connected to Upper Riverdale Road was formerly known as Hastings Drive. It ended at a cul-de-sac. Immediate surroundings included a floodplain and wetland—a hospital, fire station and businesses, vacant property which Clayton County planned to develop, and dense woods that lined the Eagles Crossing subdivision. The county facilitated coordination with key stakeholders, especially the hospital and fire station and the Board of Education. Garden Walk Boulevard

THE GEORGIA ENGINEER

Best Context Sensitive Design & Public Participation Parsons Transportation Group & Georgia Ports Authority In acknowledgement of Georgia’s growing freight movement, the Jimmy DeLoach Connector project was designed to provide additional capacity and faster roadway access for freight between the Georgia Ports Authority Garden City Terminal and I-95. Garden City Terminal is the largest single container facility in the US in area, capacity and container volume. In anticipation of the Panama Canal expansion, much larger container ships will have access to the East Coast ports, and the roadway network must be able to keep up with the anticipated growth. As a result of the Georgia DOT Statewide Truck Lanes Identification Study, the Department and GPA have been working together to develop a limited access roadway that would parallel SR 21 from the Pierce Avenue intersection and provide direct truck access into the Savannah Port. Best Innovative Solution Gresham Smith and Partners & the City of Roswell The intersection of Norcoss Street/Warsaw Road with Grimes Bridge Road in the City of Roswell handled 28,000 vehicles per day, through traffic between SR 9/Alpharetta Highway and SR 140/Holcomb Bridge Road. The only approach with a dedicated left turn lane was northbound Grimes Bridge Road, but there was no signalized left turn phase. This intersection had a high volume of crashes and peak hour delays. Two design solutions were presented at the PIOHs—traditional intersection improvements with dedicated left and right turn lanes in each direction, and a four-leg roundabout with a realignment of nearby Melody Lane. Public comment revised the concept to accommodate Melody Lane within the roundabout, creating the unique five-leg configuration. This project became the first roundabout constructed in the City of Roswell. It is 130 feet in diameter, with a ten-foot outside urban shoulder and a 20-foot wide circular travel lane. A four-inch high, ten-foot wide concrete truck apron with traversable curb and landscaped island is on the inside. Best Airport Design Project W.K. Dickson and Co. & Cherokee Airport Authority Constructed in the 1960s on a ridgeline within the Etowah River Basin, the airport’s former 3414-foot runway and lean-to that served as the terminal building offered limited opportunities for the area’s business growth and expansion. In spite of the runway limitations, the demand on the facility was at capacity, with over 100 based aircraft and a long waiting list for additional facilities that couldn’t be achieved in the small footprint of the existing airport. The goal was to provide a fully-functional and capable airfield for business jet aircraft with a minimum 5000-foot runway, space for 300 aircraft and a modern passenger terminal facility. This transformational group of projects had an estimated cost of $34 million, funded by the County, FAA and GDOT. Keeping the airport operational during construction required extensive coordination. These improvements, along with its proximity to the I-575 corridor, fully support the economic development plans for Cherokee County and the region.

Jimmy DeLoach Connector

Norcross Street/ Warsaw Road with Grimes Bridge Road

GRAND PRIZE

Cherokee County Regional Airport DECEMBER | JANUARY 2012

THE GEORGIA ENGINEER

What Are We Waiting For? Let It Fly! By Jeff Dingle One thing I have worked very diligently with my kids on over the past 16 years is encouraging them to be fearless in life. Of course, it doesn’t always manifest itself in my household as I have one that loves to watch horror movies and the other can be found with the covers over their head as I ask “Why are you in here watching this movie if you’re so scared!” I won’t say which one of my two that is. I don’t think I got a handle on ‘fearlessness’ until relatively late in life, and it continues to be a struggle just like for most of us I suspect. Fear is a pretty powerful emotion! The phrase I use around our house is “Let It Fly!” I encourage Iana and Samuel to master their class subjects at home, and then Let It Fly on the test without fear of failure. When I talk to them the evening after a test, my first question is always “Did you?” Of course they’re 15 (almost 16, as Iana insists on reminding me) and 12, and their dedication drifts from time to time so they don’t always perform as they would wish. But when they deal with me at home, they know that if they did their best (which is equivalent to Let It Fly) I’ve always got their back and all can be worked out. My Pastor shared this insight in one of his devotionals recently. Researchers have found that about 40 percent of the things we worry about never happen. Thirty percent are in the past and can’t be helped. Twelve percent involve the affairs of others that are not even our business. Ten percent relate to sickness, real or imagined. That means only eight percent of the things we worry about are even likely to happen! My favorite part of this particular devotional was “worry is just interest paid on trouble before it comes due. This means that when you worry, there’s a 92 percent chance you’re paying interest on a debt that’s not even yours! How foolish is that?” Fear is all around us. It’s on TV, the radio, our dinner tables, in our kids’ classrooms, corporate board rooms, mayors offices, county government buildings, the Georgia Legislature, the Governor’s Office, DECEMBER | JANUARY 2012

our U.S. Congress, the White House, and all other locations where leaders are charged to be good stewards over their areas of responsibility. The source of all fear is constantly at work, and enjoys watching the chaos and discontent it creates. I happen to believe that fear is the source of sexism, racism, and all actions and general mentalities that cause us to retreat to our comfortable corners of familiar looking faces and shut the doors when times get tough. Right now, I happen to believe that FEAR is keeping us from believing all the signs that are out there that the worst of this horrific economic recession is over, and we have to get back moving again. Time to Let It Fly! Local, state, and federal revenues are still slow to recover, but they will. We all know that! Here’s a few things on my mind: In my opinion, we have to encourage the passage of the Regional SPLOST in July. As Todd Long continues to tell us, “It’s our Plan A and there is No Plan B.” We in the private sector consulting business have to look even harder at bringing value to our clients for the fees they pay us. Value relates directly to Stewardship. If we intend to work for and partner with Stewards (aka clients) we have to bring them unquestionable value. We also

have to be more aggressive on working outside of our normal bandwidths to engage the tons of private capital that is out there to bring public private partnerships to the tables of our public sector clients. And while we do all these things and others, we must maintain our dedication to contribute daily to the growth of our young engineering professions, healthy and uplifting environments in our work places, small and minority business inclusion, and the protection of our environmental resources. I believe what all of you believe deep down inside, that we can do it all, and do it well. But we gotta Let It Fly! No more

Atlanta Beltline Inc. Senior Transit Engineer Position Available Position Description The Senior Transit Engineer provides environmental planning, civil engineering, design, and construction management services including project management for the organization’s transit capital projects, and performs scope development, plan and specification review, scheduling, budgeting, negotiating, and contract administration. The position will coordinate and direct employees and consultants and ensure a commitment to quality work and timely project delivery through consistent and professional performance of job requirements. The position will demonstrate that design excellence, cooperation with partners, and team building are fundamental values that guide all aspects of our work. The position performs related duties as required. The Senior Transit Engineer will work on a portfolio of streetcar/light rail projects that include segments within the Atlanta BeltLine corridor and the ongoing downtown streetcar project and future extensions. The Atlanta BeltLine is a large scale public infrastructure system that includes, in addition to the transit lines, 33 miles of trails, over 1,200 acres of new parkland, several miles of new streets and streetscapes, public art, brownfield reclamation, and the construction of several thousand affordable housing units in the neighborhoods surrounding an underutilized railroad corridor. Position Responsibilities Under the general supervision of the Director of Transportation, the position will be responsible for design and engineering projects within established budgets and schedules. Specific responsibilities include: • Manage, review, and coordinate civil engineering, design, and field construction efforts for new rail transit lines, operations and maintenance facilities, and other transportation projects as needed. Responsibilities include developing and managing the scope, schedule, budget, and overseeing staff/consultants for projects. Coordinate project efforts with internal staff, consultants, and public and private agencies. Define and negotiate pertinent permits and variances as required by the performing agencies. •

•

Responsible for direct negotiation with attorneys and preparation of formal intergovernmental agreements and other duties as required. Provide contract administration. Review and approve invoices, potential design changes, field orders/force account work and

value engineering proposals. Review organization's critical correspondence to and from contractors and other jurisdictions. •

Provide technical assistance on planning, design, and environmental issues to ensure compliance with the organization's policies and procedures, and state and federal regulations including National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

•

Prepare, review, and evaluate contract technical specifications, bid documents, and cost estimates to ensure adequacy, completeness, economy, maintainability, and compliance with design standards and formal agreements.

•

Direct and manage preparation of federal environmental documents and related state, federal, and local permits.

•

Represent Atlanta BeltLine Inc. at public and inter-jurisdictional meetings to ensure organization interests and policies are addressed.

•

Produce quarterly reports for the FTA. Produce other reports as required.

Position Requirements Bachelor’s degree in Engineering, preferably Civil Engineering or related field. Professional Engineering registration from the State of Georgia or the ability to obtain such registration within six months of being hired. Ten years experience in the design, management, and construction of rail transit projects including five years experience in streetcar and/or light rail lines and support facilities. Experience with multidisciplinary projects in urban environments is desirable. Experience in field construction management is desirable. Proficiency with project management and office software, such as Microsoft Project and other Microsoft Office products. Familiarity with applicable technical software, such as AutoCAD and Microstation. Or any equivalent combination of training and experience. How to Apply Interested candidates should submit a cover letter and résumé to

jobs@atlbeltline.org.

Atlanta BeltLine Inc. is an Equal Opportunity Employer. THE GEORGIA ENGINEER

ACECNews

James R. Hamilton, PE President ACEC/G

Governmental Affairs—my personal connection At some point in running my business, I took an interest in what was going on outside the walls of my business and took notice of our industry as a whole. A huge stepping stone for me involved a trip to Washington, DC, with Tom Leslie. I owe Tom huge thanks for what I learned on this trip and the many subsequent trips. Not only does Tom know how laws are made but he has a keen ability to really ‘connect’ with all facets of the process (mostly the people) both in Washington and here in Georgia. During this trip I began to recognize how the process could affect the success of my business day to day, year to year, and during the life of my business. And, I learned we can have a voice in the process. I have been on the ACEC National Washington trip five times and will be on my 6th ‘fly in’ this spring of 2012. Not only do we get an understanding from ACEC National about upcoming legislation affecting the business of engineering but we also get ‘face time’ with our Georgia congressional delegation. You cannot imagine the significance of these meetings until you sit in the hallowed halls, within the historic chambers, conference rooms, committee rooms, or their surprisingly small yet functional offices where the future of our nation is crafted. Some call it making sausage (creating law); I find it beyond impressive, and it takes an unbelievable commitment for those we elect to do what they do 18+ hours a day. I have a special story of one Washington trip in the mid-nineties when Senator Isakson was Congressman Isakson… One evening of an ACEC National dinner we invited ‘Johnny’ to have dinner with DECEMBER | JANUARY 2012

us- the response was iffy, at best, as their calendars are often overloaded and often changing based on the immediacies of the day. Seated at a 12-person table with an empty chair next to me, I was halfway into a glass of red wine (pre-dinner) after pounding the Washington pavement most of the day. The Georgia ACEC delegation had launched into our dialogue of the needs of the next daywhat congressmen and senators we would see (hopefully) in their Capitol offices, and what we would say about infrastructure issues, taxes on professional services, and other current issues we had on our agenda. I was turned to my right and did not notice our congressman quietly slipping into the seat next to me- soon a genuine warm firm handshake and a hello“My name is Johnny Isakson glad you came to Washington.” After 20 minutes of round table discussion of policy and his advisement on what is on the congressional agenda pertaining to engineering, he turned to me for a brief one-to-one conversation. I asked Johnny how he dealt with the constant lobby advice and how he really made his final decision on key matters—feeling a bit embarrassed about a seemingly non life changing superficial question. His answer changed my approach to governmental affairs as an engineer. Congressman Isakson said: “I came here tonight as I have known Tom Leslie, ACEC/G and many of you for years. I have huge respect for ACEC/G and engineers in general as a matter of fact. When I hear your input, I know it comes from an engineering approach to problem solving. It involves the real facts (no spins) and evaluates the real outcomes. Important to me is that you always contemplate on how decisions affect others, yet it is always the

best approach. It is how you practice everyday. It is how you run your businesses. I have two other dinners to attend tonight but I would not have missed this opportunity to spend 30 minutes with the engineers from Georgia. I need your input and advice as it is very important to me.” Wow, how can you top that? I am proud of what ACEC/G does in governmental affairs for our membership. And I am proud of our association with the Georgia Legislative Coalition through GEA. We engineers do have the facts. We do have the problem solving technique. And yes, we have recognition of the impact of our decisions—it is just how we are wired. It is really all about the ‘correct’ answer, isn’t it? There is a long list of bills in Washington and in our state legislature that go through the sausage process year after year. Tom Leslie has led the charge for many years with dedicated volunteers from our ranks and with the expert advice of Joe Tanner and Associates. We have advised, we have negotiated, we have won, and we have lost but we have been totally engaged in the process due to Tom’s passion and perseverance. Governmental affairs are very important to your business and to you individually as you practice engineering, and ACEC/G is your advocate in this every day. And again—many thanks to Tom Leslie for fueling my passion about governmental affairs. Please ask me the next time you see me“How can I make a difference in governmental affairs.” There is room for you on our team! Sincerely, James R Hamilton, PE 39

GSPENews

William G. Wingate III, P.E. President Georgia Society of Professional Engineers

2011 New PE Recognition Dinner The Georgia Society of Professional Engineers hosted the New Professional Engineers Recognition Dinner for the PEs that passed the professional licensure exam in October 2010 and April 2011. The evening sparked an important reminder to engineering colleagues of the passion needed for the profession. Forty-six engineers were honored. The speakers at the event represented established engineers, as well as one new engineer. GSPE President, William “Trey” Wingate, III, opened the program welcoming the new professional engineers to the engineering profession and the engineering community. Focusing on community, Mr. Wingate stressed the importance of joining engineering organizations and the importance of reaching back and helping future engineers along the path that leads to the profession that is vital to society. The majority of the new professional engineers want to connect with engineering

companies. The American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) is a valuable source for engineering career opportunities. ACEC/Georgia President, James Hamilton, addressed the audience and shared his experiences from taking the licensure exam and waiting for his scores to arrive, to the career and relationships he now has in the engineering profession. It was significant for the new professional engineers to hear from one of their peers. Brannen Butts is a new professional engineer that was not only in attendance to be honored, but he also talked to the audience about the accomplishments they all had achieved. He shared with the group the need to volunteer and be active within organiza-

tions. The new professional engineers are the future leaders in tomorrow’s engineering community. v

THE GEORGIA ENGINEER

In Memoriam ~ Danny Elkins Stanley “Leadership is the capacity to translate vision into reality.” ~ Warren G. Bennis The engineering community lost a leader

Stanley was awarded the honorary mem-

with the passing of Danny E. Stanley.

bership in the First Ranger Battalion of

Danny was the past-president of Thomas

Hunter Army Air Field and honorary

& Hutton and enjoyed a 35-year career

membership in the 75th Ranger Regi-

with the company.

ment for his dedicated work and support

During Danny’s career, Thomas &

of the Rangers and the Ranger Memorial

Hutton grew from 25 employees to over

at Hunter Army Airfield.

425 while he was president. The Savan-

Danny’s passing created an opportu-

nah-based company now has five offices

nity for friends, colleagues, and co-work-

and is a regional leader providing civil en-

ers to come together and share memories.

gineering and related services.

One of those shared was a story from the

Danny’s career with Thomas &

son of the founder of Thomas & Hutton.

Hutton began September 5, 1973. His dedication was apparent through the growth and success of the company. He

Danny Elkins Stanley June 21, 1946 - September 18, 2011

led many projects that stand today as

nah, the company played a part in proj-

outstanding achievements in the engi-

ects such as Savannah River Landing,

neering industry. Danny’s passion for

Hutchinson Island, and numerous infra-

golf and growth along the southeast coast

structure projects.

It was told - “…another memory will stay with me. It was in the Eighties, and Father and I were talking about the future of Thomas and Hutton. “The

engineering

world

has

changed, Tad, and I’m more and more like a knot on a tree that’s growing differ-

combined to create an opportunity for a

Danny served his profession as a

civil engineering company. With Savan-

member of ASCE, NSPE and ACEC.

nah being so close to Hilton Head Island,

Danny was a member of the ACEC-GA

the company provided engineering serv-

board of directors. In addition to his pro-

ices for many of the golf communities in

fession, Danny served his community

Beaufort County and beyond. Hilton

through a number of organizations in-

of Danny Stanley lives on through the ca-

Head Plantation was Danny’s first proj-

cluding Savannah Chamber of Com-

maraderie of the Thomas & Hutton fam-

ect. That experience led to other work

merce Board, (Sports Council and CEO

ily. With each funny story and the echoes

including Dataw Island, Haig Point,

Council), Wachovia Advisory Board, Ro-

of laughter through the hallways, a little

Melrose, Colleton River Plantation,

tary Club of Savannah, Savannah Quar-

piece of Danny carries on. His accom-

Hilton Head National Golf Club, and

terback

Golf

plishments, contributions, and loving

others. Thomas & Hutton served as the

Tournament Committee (co-chairman),

spirit will forever be etched in the foun-

engineer for projects on St. Simons Is-

Georgia Tech Savannah Advisory Board

dation of Thomas & Hutton. Danny

land, Sea Island and The Landings on

(fundraising co-chairman) South Car-

Stanley made the engineering world a

Skidaway Island in Georgia. In Savan-

olina Tourism Council (director). Mr.

better place to be. v

DECEMBER | JANUARY 2012

Club,

Legends

ently than I ever imagined. But keep your eye on Danny Stanley. He’s the future of this company.” Well said, Joe Hutton. The memory

ITENews

Mike Holt, PE, PTOE, President Georgia Section, Institute of Transportation Engineers I have been honored to serve as the Georgia Section ITE President this past year. At the beginning of the year, I reviewed our strategic plan, aligned our committees with these plans, created five initiatives and targeted 11 Goals for 2011. We have made good progress toward each goal through the dedication of our 31 committee chairs and members, which has led to a successful year. Below is the initiative list with our progress through October: Membership Growth ~ Our reported membership at the end of 2010 was 456 members, although we discovered at the beginning of the year that many of these members were not in good standing (dues not paid), had left the profession, had moved, or primarily, were students that had already graduated. Our membership committee worked hard this year to ‘clean the books’ of all unpaid and departed members while recruiting new members. Our current membership stands at 414, including 39 new members in 2011. While our reported membership numbers dropped from 2010, all current members are paid through 2011. Dues invoices for 2012 were e-mailed to all International Members in late October, and all Affiliate Members will be invoiced in November. Please pay your dues on time so our membership committee can focus on recruiting in 2012 instead of collecting dues. Thanks to Sunita Nadella, our Membership Committee Chair, working alongside our Affiliate Director, Robert Baker, to promote this strategic initiative. Program Diversification ~ Our program began to diversify in 2010, as we met at sev42

eral different locations and added technical tours to our monthly meeting agenda. This year we continued this diversification, as we held monthly meetings at Mary Macs, World Fiber Technologies, Garden Plaza Hotel, Maggianos, and MARTA, as well our joint student chapter meetings at Georgia Tech and Southern Poly. Additionally, we held joint meetings with some of our sister professional organizations, including ITS Georgia, ASCE, WTS, and a happy hour with ASHE. In addition to our monthly meetings, we added our inaugural Winter Workshop in 2011. This one-and-a-half-day program was developed for younger members and was scheduled on a Sunday-Monday in order to minimize time away from the office. Our Winter Workshop was held February 27-28 at the Winshape Retreat Center at Berry College in Rome. Our ‘Traffic Engineering Bootcamp’ had 45 participants, and we learned new trends in basic traffic engineering tools, such as signal timing, as well as analysis tools for new concepts, such as

roundabouts and complete streets. The technical sessions were very interactive, and we saw evidence of emerging leadership from our student and young member participants. Please mark your calendars for the last weekend of February 2012, as planning is underway for next year’s Winter Workshop at Unicoi State Park in Helen. Our Summer Seminar is the highlight of our year, as we provide up to 12 hours of technical training at the King and Prince Hotel on St. Simons Island. While our members are able to learn about the latest transportation projects and trends, as well as network with fellow colleagues, our guests and kids enjoy the pool, beach, waterslide park, bowling, and other family activities. Registrants also participate in friendly competition through golf, volleyball, and a 5k race. Prior to the Tuesday night banquet, we conduct the John Moskaluk Memorial Scholarship Auction, which raised almost $7000 this year. Our Summer Seminar participation increased by five percent in 2011 to 315 attendees, including 135 registrants.

ITE members during Technical Tour at Kia Plant THE GEORGIA ENGINEER

we always provide networking opportunities in conjunction with such training. Our monthly meetings always allow for lively discussions during registration, while our Winter Workshop and Summer Seminar provide a venue to develop relationships in a casual environment away from the weekday work pressure.

Jonathan Reid did an excellent job as Summer Seminar Chairman, with much help from Josh Williams, who will be chairing our 2012 Summer Seminar. Technical Training ~ In addition to the Winter Workshop and Summer Seminar, our Technical Committee has been busy this year planning the following technical training opportunities: We conducted a half-day Technical Exchanges in Savannah (Adaptive Signal Control and Fiber Optics) and LaGrange (AASHTO Roadside Design Guide and Innovative Intersections/Safety Initiatives), and we have another training scheduled for December 1st in Roswell to discuss Diverging Diamond Interchanges. We continued our initiative begun in 2010 by providing two technical tours during the year. A Port of Brunswick Tour was incorporated into our Summer Seminar program, and our LaGrange Technical Exchange was followed by a tour of the Kia plant in West Point. We sponsored LTAP training on the Road Safety 365 initiative for GDOT and local governments at three district offices (Atlanta, Cartersville and Macon) with 53 attendees. We held six webinars in 2011, many on updates to the MUTCD in cooperation with Georgia DOT, with a total participation of over 100. Technical Committee members conducted and judged two technical paper competitions—one for the Winter Workshop and one for the Summer Seminar. We started a Simulation Capacity users group on LinkedIn. Thanks to Andrew Antweiler and his committee for chairing the Technical Committee and organizing all the activities listed above. Career Development ~ We have two very active student chapters in the Georgia Section. Georgia Tech and Southern Poly have dedicated advisors and student leadership that has allowed them to excel this year. We held our inaugural Georgia Section Traffic Bowl, a Jeopardy-style competition comprised of transportation related topics, at our March joint ITE-ITSGA meeting. After a DECEMBER | JANUARY 2012

GAITE VP John Karnowski touring Kia Plant very close competition, Southern Poly emerged as the winner and was awarded the opportunity to represent our section at the Southern District Annual Meeting Traffic Bowl in April. Southern Poly had an even closer match at the district event, and they proudly finished in second place among the nine schools that entered the competition. Georgia Tech’s student chapter made us equally proud by finishing second in the Best Student Chapter award among the 26 chapters in the Southern District. Paul DeNard and Jim Tolson have done an outstanding job serving as liaisons to the Georgia Tech and Southern Poly student chapters, respectively. Our third annual Mentoring Program is nearing completion, as we continue to develop our future leadership through mentor/protégé relationships, focusing on issues such as: politics and relationships, dealing with the media, financial management, business etiquette, and presentation skills. Under the leadership of Committee Chair Alvin James, our 2011 protégés include Holly Bauman, Sean Coleman, Nelson Davis, Marco Friend, and Jody Peace. Networking ~ While we have provided much technical training throughout the year,

Our Activities Committee has conducted 14 activities through October, ranging from community service activities to sporting events to happy hours. This committee provides a connection to our younger members (and those younger at heart) who choose to spend some of their free time networking with fellow transportation professionals and developing friendships that transcend the profession. Finally, we will resume a Georgia Section tradition this year that we had taken a break from the past couple years. We will host our Annual Meeting on December 7th at Indian Hills Country Club in Marietta. This evening event will celebrate the success of 2011 and allow our spouses and guests to enjoy an evening with good food and friends as we prepare for the holidays. v “Gort! Klaatu Borada nikto.”

(770) 521-8877 USE A COMPANY YOU CAN TRUST WITH YOUR TRANSLATION PROJECT, because a little mistake in another language can have unpleasant results.

ITS

News

Marion Waters, P.E. ITS President It has been a great pleasure being the President of the ITS Georgia Chapter during 2010 and 2011. I have been honored to serve, and it has been great working with the other officers, directors, and committee members. I have learned a lot, and I look forward to assisting the new Chapter President, Scott Mohler during his tenure in 2012 and 2013. Scott has great abilities and a wonderful experience base to take on the challenges of growing the organization during the next two years. Scott has been active in other professional organizations and brings all of the lessons he has learned from those programs over to ITS Georgia. We should all look forward to supporting him and working under his leadership. My thanks go out to the many folks who have worked to enable our chapter’s outstanding year in 2010. We have had an outstanding series of monthly technical meetings. Our membership has increased, and we have maintained a good student participation. In a very tight year, our chapter

put forth an amazing effort to continue the funding of student scholarships at the same level as previous years. Our annual meeting was successful, with great speakers and a shared vision of the future of ITS (20/20). Best of all, the committees involved a whole new group of younger members to work on the program and lead in the chapter activities. Again, I offer my sincere thanks to each and every one of the folks who participated in any way this past year.

The strength and value of our Chapter is based on its individual members and the services we provide to the organizations that enable these individuals to participate. Please do not forget that our chapter is built on the partnership formed when public sector agencies, vendors, educators, and consultants work together to advance the state of the industry. Intelligent Transportation Systems function to enhance the efficiency of transportation infrastructure in all sec-

the

GeorgiaEngineer Take a look at The Georgia Engineer Blog. Enjoy a new video every day.

GEORGIAENGINEERBLOG.

OUR SPONSORS Thanks to our sponsors, who provide valuable financial assistance to the organization: DIAMOND SPONSOR Temple PLATINUM SPONSORS World Fiber Utilicom URS PBS&J GS&P Arcadis Serco Delcan Sensys 44

GOLD SPONSORS Control Technologies AECOM Transdyn Kimley-Horn Iteris Traficon Garrettcom SILVER SPONSORS Southern Lighting & Traffic Systems Multilink Maxcell

Daktronics Cambridge Systematics Intelligent Devices Midasco Grice and Associates Videolarm Gannett Fleming Quality Traffic Citilog

THE GEORGIA ENGINEER

tors of surface transportation. ITS does not create capacity in any of the transit or transportation systems, but it does enhance the most efficient and effective use of these systems. There are many challenges facing our nation in 2012, and our concern for the state of the transportation infrastructure is just

one. However, our chapter can and should play a role in educating transportation system users, managers, and leaders to the advantages of using the existing infrastructure better. Please visit our Web site (www.ITSGA.org) for information about our monthly meetings for 2012. v

ITS GEORGIA CHAPTER LEADERSHIP President Marion Waters, Gresham, Smith and Partners Scott Mohler, URS ~ President-elect

Vice President Mark Demidovich, GDOT Tom Sever, Gwinnett DOT ~ Vice president-elect

Secretary Kristin Turner, Wolverton and Associates Inc.

Treasurer Christine Simonton, Delcan

Directors Marwan Abboud, Arcadis Ronald Boodhoo, GDOT Susie Dunn, ARC John Hibbard, PBS&J Carla Holmes, Gresham, Smith and Partners Patrece Keeter, DeKalb County Scott Mohler, URS Tom Sever, Gwinnett County DOT Kenn Fink, Kimley-Horn Bayne Smith, URS Grant Waldrop, GODT ~ elect Eric Graves, City of Alpharetta ~ elect Keary Lord, Douglas County DOT ~ elect

State Chapters Representative Kenny Voorhies, Cambridge Systematics Inc.

Ex Officio Greg Morris, Federal Highway Administration Jamie Pfister, Federal Transit Administration

DECEMBER | JANUARY 2012

WTSNews

President

Jennifer King, PE, President Women in Transportation Seminar The fall was a busy time for the WTS Atlanta Chapter. As the temperatures dropped and the leaves began to fall, the WTS Atlanta stayed busy with social, technical, and philanthropic events. Joint Golf Tournament with ITE Early this fall, WTS Atlanta joined forces with ITE GA to host a joint golf tournament. Participants from various firms, agencies, and organizations came together on this lovely day in September to enjoy each other’s company and a round of golf. Congrats to winners Tim Matthews, Richard Meehan, Scott Athey, and Robert Murphy and thanks to all who came out to join us. We hope to see you again next year. WTS Annual Scholarship Luncheon WTS Atlanta held our annual Scholarship Luncheon this October at the Fox Theater in Midtown. The event was attended by over 350 guests, including many representatives from GDOT, the State Transportation Board, ARC, MARTA, the City of Atlanta, local CIDs and numerous consulting firms. Keynote speaker, Tad Leithead, discussed the critical issues regarding transportation funding in the region. The silent auction and raffle, which are traditions at this event, raised almost $6,000 for our scholarship fund. We were pleased to honor several individuals and organizations for their efforts towards advancing women in the transportation industry: Woman of the Year ~ Shelley Lamar, Hartsfield Jackson Atlanta International Airport Member of the Year ~ Jenny Jenkins, McGee Partners

Diversity Leadership ~ Chief Wanda Dunham Employer of the Year ~ HNTB Corporation In addition, we were honored to award several well deserving young women with scholarships to assist them as they pursue undergraduate and graduate degrees in engineering. The following scholarships were presented at this year’s luncheon: Sharon D Banks Memorial (Undergraduate) ~ Amanda Wall Leadership Legacy (Graduate) ~ Jamie Fischer Helene M. Overly (Graduate) ~ Stacey Mumbower Technical Tour In November, WTS offered members the unique opportunity to tour Hartsfield Jackson Atlanta International Airport’s new International Terminal. Attendees were guided on a behind the scenes tour of this $1.4 billion facility that is set to open in the spring of 2012. Upon completion, this facility will provide additional capacity to the airport and will serve to improve the efficiency of international travel by eliminating the baggage recheck process. Thanks again to our Corporate Sponsors, who enable us to host such events. v

Vice President-Programs lreed@hntb.com

Laurie Reed, PE HNTB

Vice President-Membership tsaxon@itsmarta.com

Tonya Saxon MARTA

Secretary Angela Snyder, PE angela.snyder@wolverton-assoc.com Wolverton and Assoc Treasurer Marissa Martin, PE marissa_martin@gspnet.com Gresham Smith Partners Director at Large

Beth Ann Schwartz, P.E.

bschwartz@lpagroup.com The LPA Group Director at Large Heather Alhadeff, AICP heather.alhadeff@perkinswill.com Perkins + Will Director at Large Jennifer Harper, PE Jennifer_harper@urscorp.com URS Corporation Director at Large Helen McSwain, PE hmcswain@matcjv.com PBS&J Immediate Past President Emily Swearingen, PE URS Corporation Emily_swearingen@urscorp.com Thanks to our 2011 Corporate Sponsors: Platinum Level

Bronze Level Atkins

Gold Level

CH2MHill

Cubic

Kimley Horn

Edwards-Pittman

KYS Communication

Environmental HNTB JAT Consulting Thompson Engineering

For up to date information about upcoming WTS Programs please visit the WTS Atlanta Chapter Web site at www.wtsinternational.org\atlanta or contact Jennifer King at jjking@hntb.com. Look forward to seeing you at our next program!

Jennifer King, PE HNTB

jjking@hntb.com

McGee Partners Reynolds, Smith & Hill Southeastern Engineering Inc. (SEI) Stantec

Silver Level

STV/RalphWhitehead

Croy

Associates

PSI

Wolverton &

URS

Associates

THE GEORGIA ENGINEER