Georgia Engineer (June-July) 2011

Volume 18, Issue 3 June | July 2011

INFRASTRUCTURE

GeorgiaEngineerthe

JUNE | JULY 2011 32 The GeorGia enGineer

Publisher: A4 Inc.1154 Lower Birmingham Road

Canton, Georgia 30115Tel.: 770-521-8877 • Fax: 770-521-0406

E-mail: [email protected]

Managing Editor: Roland Petersen-FreyArt Direction/Design: Pamela Petersen-Frey

Georgia Engineering Alliance233 Peachtree Street • Harris Tower, #700

Atlanta, Georgia 30303Tel.: 404.521.2324 • Fax: 404.521.0283

Georgia Engineering AllianceGwen Brandon, CAE, Executive Director

Thomas C. Leslie, PE, Director of External AffairsCarolyn M. Jones, Outreach Services Manager

Georgia Engineering Alliance Editorial BoardJeff Dingle, PE, Chairman

GSPE RepresentativesSam L. Fleming, PE

Tim Glover, PEJimmy St. John, PE

ACEC/G RepresentativesRobin Overstreet

Carley Humphreys

ASCE/G RepresentativesDaniel Agramonte, PERebecca Shelton, PE

GMCEA RepresentativeBirdel F. Jackson, III, PE

ITE RepresentativesDaniel B. Dobry Jr., PE, PTOE

John Karnowski

ITS/G RepresentativesBill Wells

Shaun Green, PE

WTS RepresentativeAngela Snyder

ASHE RepresentativeEd Culican, PE

SEAOG RepresentativeKurt Swensson, PE

GeorgiaEngineerthe

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

54 The GeorGia enGineer JUNE | JULY 2011

THE GEORGIA ENGINEER JUne | JULY 2011

GSPE36

ASCE

ITE44

ACEC38

ITS42

ASHE

SEAOG41

GMCEA40

GEA

GEF WTS39

6 Legislative Update from the 2011 General Assembly

8 Options for Bridge Replacement

12 Advancing Sustainable Energy Management at Wastewater Utilities

16 An Overview of the Effect of Georgia’s Illegal Immigration &Enforcement Act on Construction Contractors

18 Atlanta’s International Terminal on Pace for Spring 2012 Opening

22 Go Green with Pervious Concrete Pavement

24 Projects and Accountability…Georgia Department of Transportation is Delivering

26 Proactive Utility Management: The Importance of Subsurface UtilityEngineering and Utility Coordination

30 2009 Georgia Infrastructure Report Card: A Mid-term Assessment

32 What’s in the News

34 Looking at the World through Sustainability-colored Glasses

Advert isementsAECOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31AEI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Ayres Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Burns & McDonnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Brown & Caldwell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Cardno TBE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33CROM Prestressed Concrete Tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Cummins Power South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Edwards Pitman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Engineered Restorations Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Foley Arch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33G. Ben Turnipseed Engineers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7GCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Georgia Concrete Paving Association. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Georgia Power Company. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Back CoverGeosyntec Consultants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Golder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40GRL Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Hayward Baker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Back CoverHazen and Sawyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4HDR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Heath & Lineback Engineers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37HNTB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37JAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Middleton-House & Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16MidSouth Machine & Service Co.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28O’Brien & Gere. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7PBS&J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Photo Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Pond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Power Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Prime Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3RHD Utility Locating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Rosser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Savannah Technical College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Schnabel Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Silt-Saver Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Front CoverS&ME. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Southern Civil Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Southern Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Stevenson & Palmer Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7T. Wayne Owens & Associates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Terrell Hundley Carroll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17United Consulting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Wilburn Engineering LLC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Willmer Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Wolverton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

The Atlanta StreetcarIn October, 2010, the City of Atlantawas awarded a Transportation Invest-ment Generating Economic RecoveryII (TIGER II) grant for $47 million.This federal grant will fund a portionof the estimated $72 million in con-struction costs for a streetcar project.The alignment currently runs throughdowntown Atlanta and serves some ofthe city’s most important and historicdistricts. This 2.6 mile section is thefirst of several sections that will beowned by the city of Atlanta and main-tained/operated by Metropolitan At-lanta Rapid Transit Authority(MARTA). See story on page 26.

Among many provisions, it reaffirms thatall public contracts (state and local) mustbe with contractors that register with, havean identification number, and use the fed-eral E-Verify system to determine the im-migration status of all employees. Thisrequirement applies to those that contractwith a public employer to provide “physicalperformance of services” which means anyconstruction; “or any other performance oflabor for a public employer within this stateunder a contract or other bidding process.”All such contractors, and their subs, mustprovide an affidavit to the public employerconfirming their compliance.

A major new provision in HB 87 is themandatory use of the E-Verify system by allprivate employers with more than ten em-ployees, which is phased in as follows: em-ployers with more than 500 employees byJan 1, 2012, more than 100 by July 1, 2012,and more than ten employees by July 1,2013. It seems that local governments willbe the primary enforcement agent as theyissue a “business license, occupational taxcertificate, or other document required tooperate a business.”

Water remains one of Georgia’s most

critical issues ever since a federal judge ruledthat most water being withdrawn fromLake Lanier is being done so illegally andmust be terminated during a three-year stayof his order (which expires in July 2012).With the backing of the Gov. Deal, Public-Private Partnerships were authorizes by SB122 for new water supply reservoirs by al-lowing local governments to enter into con-tracts for up to 50 years with private entitiesto plan, develop, and operate reservoirs(and related facilities). GEFA’s Water Sup-ply Division is placed in a lead role for anystate involvement in such projects. $46million was appropriated for water supplyprojects for GEFA, which is the first part of$300 million pledged by Gov. Deal overfour years. v


he 2011 Georgia Gen-eral Assembly ad-

journed April 14th with amixed bag of achievements.In a very tough financial set-ting, an amended 2011budget and the new budget

for 2012 were approved. Both containedcuts all around. They passed a very toughimmigration bill that advocates said wouldpreserve jobs for Georgia and cut costs, butwhich farmers said would ruin Georgia’sagribusiness economy and that some Cham-bers of Commerce said would drive awayconvention business. They passed packagesale of beer and wine on Sunday (subject toa local referendum), but failed to pass a highvisibility tax restructuring bill. And hundredsof other bills and resolutions passed, failed,or got stuck in the process and await a sec-ond chance in the 2012 session.

Nathan Deal seemed to sail through hisfirst session as Governor with a polishedimage for genuine collaboration and conge-niality with legislators. Lt. Gov. CaseyCagle had a much rougher time. The Sen-ate pulled his authority to appoint commit-tee chairs and gave that job to a committeecontrolled by others in the leadership,which seemed a spiteful payback over issuesfrom the 2010 session.

One of the biggest issues going into the2011 session was concern over the recom-mendations of the “Special Council on TaxReform and Fairness for Georgians” to dra-matically restructure Georgia’s tax code andmove away from income-based taxes and to-ward much broader consumption-basedtaxes. In particular, the concern was that thecouncil would recommend that the currentfour percent sales tax be extended to includeengineering services. In the end, the councilrecommended that many other services besubject to sales tax but not professional serv-ices. The council’s recommendations wentto a special committee to draw up legislation,but what came out was very different.Many of the council’s recommendations

were ignored, which left the tax package un-balanced - it did not achieve the intention ofbeing revenue neutral. As the details werejiggled, the revenue estimates did not seemto comport with what was expected. Thespeaker finally pulled the plug on the bill latein the session. It can still be considered in2012 after ample time for critical thinkingand better estimates of revenue attributableto policy changes. At of this writing theGovernor has indicated that he might addthis matter to the Special Session in August2011 calling for redrawing legislative (andCongressional) districts.

Amendments to the state lobbying lawwere not on anybody’s radar screen for the2011 session, but, in many ways, became thebiggest issue for the engineering community.Last year, the state’s ethics law was changedsuch that the definition of a state agency alsomeant local agencies—city, county, schoolboard, local authorities, etc. The law requiresthose who seek to influence a vendor decisionto register as a lobbyist with the Ethics Com-mission and file monthly (twice monthlywhen the General Assembly is in session) ex-penditure lobbyist reports (even if there is notan expenditure to report) and pay heavy finesfor delinquent reporting. These new report-

ing requirements took effect on the day afterthe 2011 General Assembly convened andimmediately created a firestorm (the heavyfines were most onerous to long-time, ‘leg-islative’ lobbyists at the Capitol, most ofwhom were not ‘vendor’ lobbyists). Anotherissued related to business people and ordinarycitizens who make contact with legislatorsduring an association’s ‘day on the hill’ event,was that they would have been forced to reg-ister as lobbyists.

For engineers, the biggest question re-lated to the precise meaning of “seeking toinfluence a vendor decision.” If a junior en-gineer on a current job site visit makes an in-cidental comment to a city engineer about afuture sewage lift station in an industrial parkand mentions how good the firm is at thistype of work, is he/she “seeking to influencea vendor decision” and therefore, must regis-ter as a lobbyist and file reports?

The Georgia Chamber of Commerceattempted to ‘fix’ the law, but it wouldonly have applied to commissioned sales-people. Rep. Ed Setzler drafted creativelegislation that would have loosened re-quirements in a sensible way for those li-censed under Title 43 of Georgia Code(which included the Engineers/SurveyorsBoard). Both of these efforts were ham-pered by a political constraint that theethics code section should not be openeddirectly for amendments. The EthicsCommission helped move things along byissuing an Advisory Opinion (they are pro-hibited from issuing regulations) that blewthings open toward the end of the session.Rep. Edward Lindsey altered his amend-ment (HB 232) that directly addressed theissue. It was promptly passed and signedby the Governor the following day. In theamendment, only those folks that devotemore than ten percent of their time seek-ing to “influence vendor selection” wouldbe required to register as a lobbyist.

The Illegal Immigration Reform andEnforcement Act of 2011 (HB 87) waspassed in the final days of the session.

Legislative Update from the 2011 General AssemblyBy Thomas C. Leslie | Director of External Affairs

Thomas C. Leslie

T

8 The GeorGia enGineer 9JUNE | JULY 2011

OptiOns

fOr�Bridge�

replacementBy Guy Garrett

Repairing America’s aging infrastructure, especiallyits bridges, demands a new approach to construc-tion. In addition to function, safety, and sustain-ability, engineers working on new designs mustconsider environmental impact, timeframes for con-struction, maintenance costs, impact on normal traf-fic flow, and ease of installation.

The American Association of State andHighway Transportation Officials estimated nationalinfrastructure improvements costs at $140 billion in2006 dollars. These estimates reflect the number ofprojects and the increased costs of materials, labor,transportation, and regulatory compliance.

In a 2008 report, the U.S. Department of Trans-portation categorized 12.1 percent of the nation’sbridges as “structurally deficient” and another 14.8percent as “functionally obsolete.” Age, increaseduse, heavier loads, weathering, and deferred mainte-nance all contribute to an increase in the number ofbridges requiring posting or other restrictions. Re-placing these aging structures requires greater effi-ciency from both engineers and contractors, whoface dwindling revenues and stricter requirementsfrom governments at all levels.

Cost escalation is a major concern for projectsponsors. Construction materials costs have beensteadily rising since 2003, but structural steel signif-icantly outpaced concrete by more than 200 percent.According to a 2009 Georgia Department of Trans-portation (GDOT) report, steel prices jumped 45percent compared to 10 percent for structural stoneand 18 percent for ready-mixed concrete.

Agency, regulatory compliance increases per-mitting and mitigation expenses. Project de-signers must seek cost effective solutions withminimal environmental footprints, affecting

decisions concerning materials and con-struction processes.

One popular option for bridge con-struction is precast concrete. Precast concreteproducts, when compared to the more stan-dard steel or poured-in-place type bridges,are less expensive initially and carry lowermaintenance costs since they do not require

periodic repainting or repair to patch spalledconcrete. These products are mass producedin a factory environment where quality canbe closely monitored.

The quality control available in a plantenvironment creates a more durable endproduct. Manufacturers can reduce weatherimpact by storing and mixing raw materialsinside. They also develop standardized pro-duction methods for mixing and formingconcrete to meet a project’s unique specifica-tions. The process includes a series of peri-odic quality controls, such as onsite concretecompression and tensile strength tests to ver-ify the product’s integrity before shipping itto the end-user. The result is a standardized,ready to install product that can often be putinto place in a single day. Faster installationreduces costs and minimizes disruption inlocal traffic flow.

Manufacturing plants pass mandatoryDOT inspections and often participate in in-dustry association programs such as theAmerican Concrete Pipe Association’s Qual-ity Cast, or QCAST, Plant Certification Pro-gram. The ACPA acts as an independentauditor of a company’s plants and periodi-cally schedules onsite inspection of materi-

als, finished products, handling and storageprocedures. The reviewers also conduct per-formance testing and verify quality controldocumentation.

Although precast concrete productshave been used in the United States since1949, designs have changed to reflect thepush towards minimizing environmental im-pacts. Georgia-based precast concrete man-ufacturer Foley Products produces abottomless, three-sided arch culvert. TheFoley Arch spans the entire waterway and isinstalled onto foundations poured on eitherside of the embankment.

“The arch bridges are precast and whenyou install it you are not in the stream bed.You are on one side or the other,” FoleyProducts vice president of operations ChrisDavidson said. “You build a foundation oneach side and erect these bridges withoutever being in the stream bed. If you are inthe stream bed or close to the edge puttingin foundations and piles, you complicateconstruction. With this product the processis quick.”

Durability is another concern addressedby precast products. For example, Foley Archutilizes self-compacting concrete (SCC) in itsarches, placing the concrete into forms tocreate a sturdy product designed for 5,000-6,000 psi depending on the span’s size andthe job’s specifications. Because the processis strictly controlled, the end result can lastup to 75 years.

According to the Federal Highway Ad-ministration’s Web site, “the new generationof high performance concretes has the ad-vantage of being constructed in a controlledenvironment with higher production andcuring standards than normally found in thefield.” For this reason, precast options offerimmediate and long term savings in both fi-nancial and environmental terms. v

11JUNE | JULY 201110 The GeorGia enGineer

Revenue shortfalls add to the cost con-sciousness of state and local governmentswho fund many of the projects. The GDOTpredicts a $7.7 billion funding shortfall overthe next six years due in part to lower motorfuel tax stemming from the sale of fuel effi-cient automobiles. In addition to fewer dol-

lars to fund projects, agencies are facing pres-sure to contain costs and maximize capitalinvestments. In 2007, Lt. Governor CaseyCagle met with the joint House-SenateTransportation Study Committee to create atransportation reform package. It empha-sized accountability, reducing costs, and re-

ducing project timelines. Despite revenue constraints, the need

to replace or repair bridges is significant. InGeorgia, 22 percent of the state’s 8,988bridges monitored by the state’s Depart-ment of Transportation require posting orother restrictions, according to a 2008 re-port compiled by the Georgia Institute ofTechnology. Report authors indicated that“posting or other restrictions may have a se-vere economic impact on the state econ-omy, which depends on the truckingindustry for distribution of resources andmanufactured goods.”

In addition to cost pressures, increasedregulation by federal and state officials cre-ates an urgent need for environmentally-friendly waterway spanning solutions. TheU.S. Army Corps of Engineers recently is-sued regulations discouraging incursion intonatural waterways. Structures should allowfor the free flow of water and protect aquaticwildlife. These actions increase design com-plexity and increase project costs. Accordingto the U.S. Environmental Protection

About the authorGuy Garrett, M.S., M.B.A. is a free-lance writer/photographer based inPanama City, Florida. Previously heworked as a journalist for the Gwin-nett Daily News, the Atlanta JournalConstitution, and the Tennessean.

Over the last few years, several Europeanwastewater utilities have not only demon-strated energy self-sufficiency, but also startedexporting energy to the grid. These utilitieshave used a combination of approaches, in-cluding energy conservation, energy-efficienttreatment technologies, and energy recoveryfrom renewable energy sources to accomplishenergy independence.

Several wastewater utilities in Californiaare close to achieving self-sufficiency and oc-casionally produce energy in excess of onsitedemand. Low electricity costs and the lack ofrenewable portfolio standards have limited en-ergy recovery efforts in Georgia. However, in2008 the Gwinnett County Department ofWater Resources (GCDWR) recognized anopportunity to capitalize on an existing re-source, biogas, and further the cause of energyself-sufficiency at its largest wastewater facilityby redefining wastewater as a resource that canbe processed to recover energy and nutrients.

Like most U.S. wastewater utilities,GCDWR spends over 25 percent of its annualoperating expenses on energy. Actively man-aging this steadily increasing cost is essentialto controlling operating expenses—and cru-cial for strengthening GCDWR’s ability tocope with the revenue impact of reduced watersales resulting from drought-related wateringrestrictions and water conservation, minimizethe impact to rate payers during difficult eco-nomic conditions, and improve the sustain-ability of its operations.

For tackling the energy challenge, waste-water treatment facilities offer several energyrecovery opportunities including biogas de-rived from anaerobic digestion, solar, wind,and low-head hydropower. The F. Wayne

Hill Water Resources Center (Hill WRC),located in Buford, is GCDWR’s most ad-vanced wastewater treatment facility. The fa-cility is permitted to treat a maximummonthly flow of 60 million gallons per day(mgd) of sewage and currently treats half itspermitted capacity. The Hill WRC usesanaerobic digestion to stabilize biosolidsfrom the wastewater treatment process andproduces low British thermal unit (Btu) bio-gas as a byproduct.

For wastewater utilities with anaerobicdigestion process, biogas is currently themost reliable renewable energy source thatcan be beneficially used for various purposes(see Figure 1). Through a life-cycle analysis,GCDWR chose the 2.1-megawatts (MW)biogas-fueled internal combustion engine(ICE) based combined heat and power(CHP) system, also referred to as cogenera-tion, for energy recovery and co-digestion ofnon-hazardous high-strength wastes (HSW)

such as fats, oils, and grease (FOG) fromgrease traps to boost biogas production at theHill WRC.

This renewable energy recovery system(Figure 1, above), known as GwinnettPOWER (Processing Organic Waste for En-ergy Recovery), can supply up to 40 percent ofthe entire Hill WRC power demand (enoughto power 1,500 homes) and recover approxi-mately 7.5 million Btu as heat, well in excessof the process heating demand for maintain-ing the anaerobic digesters in a mesophillictemperature range of 95º to 100º F. Theplanning study estimated the system to have apayback period of nine years at a capital costof $ 10.1 million.

The payback period of biogas energy re-covery systems is greatly influenced by thepower cost, the amount of gas produced, andthe gas quality. At the current influent flowand mass loading, the Hill WRC generatesapproximately 300 standard cubic feet perminute (scfm) of biogas, just over half thefuel needed for the Gwinnett POWER proj-ect. A cogeneration system sized for the avail-able gas had an unacceptably high 20-yearpayback period. However, a larger systemsupplemented with additional biogas gener-ated through co-digestion of FOG and otherHSWs in existing anaerobic digesters re-duced the payback period to a reasonablenine years. In addition to co-digestion, ad-ditional biogas will be generated for the sys-tem through planned improvements to theprimary clarification process and sludgetransfers from the Yellow River Water Recla-mation Facility.


By Srinivas Jalla, PE, LEED® AP | Regional Technology Leader |

CH2M Hill & Tyler Richards | Deputy Director | Gwinnett County

AT WASTEWATER UTILITIES

Advancing Sustainable Energy Management

astewater utilities consume over 21 billion kilo-watt-hours (kWh) of power annually in the United

States (WERF, 2007). This represents, according tothe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), up to 4 percentof the energy used in United States. However, municipal waste-water contains almost 10 times the energy required to treat it(Bagley, 2004). If the energy in wastewater can be fully cap-tured, wastewater utilities can reach their admirable goal of en-ergy independence.

WHill WRC

Figure 1

All photos in this article courtesyof Gwinnett County


The co-digestion of FOG and HSWs al-lows GCDWR to maximize the use of exist-ing anaerobic digestion capacity, create a newrevenue stream in the form of tipping fees,and shorten the project’s payback period.EPA’s report to Congress (2004) on combinedsewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows(SSOs) estimates that FOG waste fromrestaurants, homes, and industrial sourcescontributes to almost half the reported sewerblockages. Therefore, accepting FOG wastefrom grease traps for co-digestion has theadded benefit of reducing sewer blockages andthe potential for SSOs.

The Gwinnett POWER project was ex-ecuted through two separate contracts. Thedesign-build contract for $5.19 million wasawarded in October 2009 for the CHP sys-tem, which includes the 2.1-MW engine-generator, gas conditioning for moisture,hydrogen sulfide, and siloxanes, and heat re-covery from the engine jacket and exhaust. Asecond design-build contract for $3.16 mil-lion was awarded in June 2010 for the FOGand HSW receiving facilities.

In addition to the lower than estimatedconstruction costs, economic viability of theproject was further improved by AmericanRecovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)funds. The GCDWR was successful in win-ning a $5 million ARRA grant (60 percent)and loan (40 percent) administered throughthe Clean Water State Revolving Fund(CWSRF) by the Georgia Environmental Fi-nance Authority and a $3.5 million ARRAgrant from the U.S. Department of Energy. The Gwinnett POWER system will reducethe Hill WRC’s electricity bill by about $1million a year (@ $0.06/kWh) and generateadditional annual revenue of over $0.5 mil-lion from FOG and HSW tipping fees.Based on current market trends the energycosts will likely continue to rise, further in-creasing the savings to the county and reduc-ing the impact on rate payers. The systemalso offers the following additional benefits:• Eliminates natural gas purchases for

process heating needs.

• Generates Renewable Energy Credits(RECs) for possible trading in future

• Reduces the impact of volatility in en-

ergy costs on GCDWR’s operatingbudget.

• Reduces GHG emissions and improvescommunity sustainability; per EPAGHG equivalency calculations, the re-duction is equivalent to eliminatingemissions from almost 3,000 passengervehicles per year.

• Reduces potential for SSOs by provid-ing a disposal site for grease trap wastes.

The CHP portion of the Gwinnett POWERsystem is on schedule to be operational inMay 2011, just in time for use during thesummer months, when power costs are typ-ically the highest. Since the FOG and HSWreceiving station may not be ready forGCDWR’s use before September 2011, theCHP system can either operate at a reducedproduction capacity or blend natural gaswith biogas, as needed, to maximize the sav-ings during the peak electricity cost periods.

The Gwinnett POWER project is a re-sult of GCDWR’s entrepreneurial spiritstimulated by the declining revenues and anambitious objective of “making better useof the resources under our control.” The re-sult is an energy recovery project that satis-fies almost 40 percent of the Hill WRC’scurrent energy demand. Additional treat-ment process improvements are being im-plemented to reduce the Hill WRC’s basepower requirements and increase biogasproduction. GCDWR is currently pilottesting nutrient (struvite) recovery tech-

Gwinnett Countygenerator delivery

nologies to develop an economically viableproject to produce a commercially mar-ketable fertilizer product. Following im-plementation of ongoing projects,GCDWR will have the opportunity to op-erate the Hill WRC as the first sustainable,energy self-sufficient, wastewater treat-ment facility in the region.v

Srinivas has over 16 years of experi-ence in designing wastewater treat-ment systems. At CH2M HILL, he isresponsible for ensuring selectionand implementation of sustainabletechnology solutions for water andwastewater projects in the easternUnited States. Before joining CH2MHILL, he led the sustainability initia-tives at the Gwinnett County Depart-ment of Water Resources.

Srinivas Jalla

sub-subcontractors can instead provide, atthe time of contracting, a copy of a state is-sued driver’s license or state issued identifi-cation card from a state that verifies lawfulimmigration status prior to issuing a driver’slicense or identification card. State issueddriver’s licenses or state issued identificationcards are also required from each independ-ent contractor performing work at the pub-lic project. To assist with compliance withthe IIEA, the attorney general is chargedwith providing a list of states that verify law-ful immigration status prior to issuing a dri-ver’s license or identification card no laterthan July 1, 2011.

Similar to the requirement to providecopies of affidavits obtained at the time ofcontracting upstream within five businessdays of receipt, copies of driver’s licenses andidentification cards provided by contractors,subcontractors, or sub-subcontractors thathave no employees and do not intend to hireany employees to perform the work must beprovided upstream within five business daysof receipt.

Contractors, subcontractors or sub-sub-contractors that provide a false affidavit underthe IIEA are subject to a fine of not morethan $1,000.00 or imprisonment for not lessthan one nor more than five years, or both.Companies that provide a false affidavit arealso prohibited from bidding on or enteringinto any public contract for 12 months.

In light of Georgia’s new immigration law, it isa good time to review your Form I-9s and howyou complete the Form I-9 process. If youwould like our firm to conduct an audit of yourForm I-9s and the process by which you com-plete the Form I-9 for new hires, or if you have

any questions about Georgia's new Illegal Im-migration and Enforcement Act, you can con-tact Philip Siegel directly by emailing him byclicking here or calling him at (404) 469-9197. v

n Friday, May 13, Geor-gia Governor NathanDeal signed into lawthe Illegal Immigra-tion and Enforcement

Act ("IIEA"). This newlegislation goes into effect on

July 1, 2011, and it impacts all constructioncompanies in Georgia that employ morethan ten employees. The new law has a par-ticular impact on construction companiesthat perform public work within the state.

The IIEA requires all Georgia employersthat employ more than ten employees to at-test to their participation in E-verify in orderto obtain a business license. This require-ment phases in over time. Effective January1, 2012, the IIEA requires all employers with500 or more employees to attest to their reg-istration and participation in E-verify as acondition to obtaining a local business li-cense. Beginning July 1, 2012, the E-verifyrequirement applies to employers with 100to 499 employees, and on July 1, 2013, therequirement extends to all employers em-ploying more than ten employees. The IIEAinstructs the attorney general to provide astandardized form affidavit to assist employ-ers with obtaining their business licenses.The form affidavit is to be posted by the at-torney general on the Department of Law’sofficial Web site no later than January 1,2012.

The IIEA also requires all constructioncompanies that perform work on state, local,or county projects in Georgia to participatein E-verify, regardless of the number of em-ployees employed. Under existing law, con-tractors performing work on public projectsin the state of Georgia are already requiredto participate in E-verify. The IIEA does,however, change how the E-verify require-ment is met.

Contractors contracting directly with

the public owner will be required to providean affidavit at the time of bidding which at-tests to the contractor’s registration with anduse of E-verify. If any subcontractors will beengaged to perform work on the public proj-ect, instead of the prime contractor havingto provide notice of subcontracting to thepublic owner as is currently required underthe Georgia Security and Immigration Com-pliance Act, the prime contractor will be re-quired to obtain from each of itssubcontractors an affidavit which has eachsubcontractor attesting to its registration anduse of E-verify. The affidavit must be pro-vided by each subcontractor at the time ofcontracting. Once the affidavit is receivedfrom a subcontractor, the prime contractorhas five business days to provide a copy ofthe affidavit upstream to the public owner.If the subcontractor will be engaging any sec-ond tier subcontractor, or sub-subcontractor,the same requirements apply; the sub-sub-contractor must provide an affidavit to thesubcontractor at the time of contracting, and

the subcontractor has five business days fromits receipt of the sub-subcontractor’s affidavitto send it upstream to the prime contractor.The prime contractor then has five businessdays from its receipt of the sub-subcontrac-tor’s affidavit to provide the affidavit to thepublic owner.

The form affidavit to be used by con-tractors, subcontractors, and sub-subcon-tractors performing work subject to the IIEAis to be posted on the Department of Auditsand Accounts’ Web site no later than August1, 2011.

Contractors, subcontractors or sub-sub-contractors performing work on a publicproject in the state of Georgia that have noemployees and do not hire or intend to hireemployees for purposes of completing thework have no reason to use E-verify becauseuse of E-verify is limited to verifying the em-ployment authorization of new hires. Thenew law recognizes this. In lieu of providingthe affidavit which attests to E-verify partic-ipation, these contractors, subcontractors or


An Overview of the Effect of Georgia’s Illegal Immigration & Enforcement Act

on Construction ContractorsBy Philip J. Siegel | Partner | Hendrick, Phillips, Salzman & Flatt, P.C.

O

International


As the scheduled opening draws near,the pace on the job site is quickeningto make sure that several key elementsof the project will be finished. Asmanagers, contractors, trade workers,and others focus on construction, an-other team of airport employees isworking to ensure a smooth opera-tional transition to the 1.2 million-square-foot facility.

Construction updateThe international terminal, its newconcourse, and the existing interna-tional concourse (Concourse E) willcreate a 40-gate international air travelgateway for Atlanta. It will serve themore than 13 million international pas-sengers who will pass through Harts-field-Jackson each year by 2015, according to estimates by the FederalAviation Administration (FAA).

Construction began in summer 2008. The exterior skin of thebuilding was completed last fall, and much of the facility’s heating

and cooling systems are in place, as ismost of the baggage handling equip-ment.

According to Aviation General Man-ager Louis Miller, more than 300 sub-contractors are qualified to participate inthe project, and more than 1,000 workersare on the site daily.

“The work is moving forward at avery fast pace,” Miller said. “I’m im-pressed with the overall approach of ourconstruction partners, Holder, Manhat-tan, Moody, and Hunt, and I’m pleasedthat the project is tracking on budget andahead of schedule.”

Crews inside the building are work-ing to complete mechanical, electrical,and plumbing systems and to installfloors and ceilings in several areas, in-

cluding the Federal Inspection Station (FIS), the departures level,and the arrivals level.

The automated people mover (APM) extension also is movingforward at the international terminal. The maintenance and storage

o n P a c e f o r S p r i n g 2 0 1 2 O p e n i n g

By Al Snedeker | Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Interna-

tional Airport | Office of Public Affairs

Atlanta’s

TERMINALn about a year, Atlanta’s international terminal will be ready for business. And, as you’dlikely guess, there is much to do before the $1.4 billion gateway opens its doors to theworld. Construction of the Maynard H. Jackson Jr. International Terminal and its 12-gate concourse is more than 75 percent complete. The building is sealed in, electricity is

running throughout, and the place is buzzing with activity. In 2010, crews logged more than 2.8million hours of labor.

I

The Maynard H. Jackson Jr. International Terminaland its 12-gate concourse connect to the existinginternational concourse creating a 40-gate inter-

national travel gateway.

Rendering of the airside court with the Maynard J.Jackson Jr. International terminal. The 1.2 million

square-foot facility is set to open in Spring of 2012.

facility is finished, and technicians are in-stalling the automated train control systemand other components. Ten new APM ve-hicles are being tested and integrated intothe system.

There also has been progress on theeight security checkpoint lanes for interna-tional departing passengers and five rechecklanes for domestic connecting passengers.When the facility opens with these securitycheckpoint lanes, Atlanta-bound interna-tional passengers no longer will need to gothrough the necessary but unpopular bag-gage recheck process.

Outside the building, construction con-tinues on an elevated roadway that will servethe international terminal as well as twoparking structures and a commercial vehiclelot. International passengers will have accessto more than 3,500 parking spaces.

Two 700,000-plus-square-foot aircraftmovement ramps are taking shape. Ramp 9,on the east side of what is known as Con-course F, is paved and nearly complete. Thearea for Ramp 8 on the west side of Con-

course F is prepared and ready for paving.Beneath what will be Ramp 8 is the

APM extension tunnel that connects the in-ternational terminal and Concourse F to therest of Hartsfield-Jackson. About 950 feetlong, the APM tunnel extension was finishedin late 2010.

Look and feelFrom the outside, the international terminalappears nearly complete. The sweeping roofline, gentle metallic curves, and glass façadeare ready to greet passengers next year. Morethan 100,000 square feet of glass panelingand 215,000 square feet of exterior metalpanels make up the building’s shell.

While the building’s exterior has simpleelegance and provides a glimpse of what isinside, the real focus on architectural designis inside the facility.

“The international terminal is designedfrom the inside out,” Miller said. “Wewanted to put most of the architecture insidethe building to create the ultimate experiencefor our passengers.”

Key design elements include high ceil-ings, open spaces, and soaring windows thatprovide clear views of the aircraft apron onone side and the Atlanta skyline on the other.“Passengers will find the new internationalterminal very open, bright, and inviting,”Miller said.

Activation teamSeveral challenges must be overcome beforepassengers can experience the new interna-tional terminal, Miller said.

“Construction is only part of the equa-tion here. We have to really hit the mark ona smooth and successful operational open-ing,” he said.

Hartsfield-Jackson leaders have beenplanning and preparing for the facility’sopening for more than a year. In February2010, a core team was established to managethe activation process and ensure a seamlessoperational transition.

Leading the eight-member activationteam is Balram Bheodari, Hartsfield-Jacksonassistant general manager for operations,


LEED and the Maynard H. Jackson Jr.International Terminal

By Al Snedeker

Effective environmental management isan ongoing commitment at Hartsfield-Jackson. Nowhere is this more evidentthan in the planning, design, and con-struction of the Maynard H. Jackson Jr.International Terminal.

Set for completion in spring 2012,the international terminal is on track forLEED (Leadership in Energy and Envi-ronmental Design) Silver certification.The goal is to create a healthy, sustain-able facility that has a minimal impact onthe environment.

The project is earning LEED certifica-tion points by using recycled and/or re-gionally produced constructionmaterials, optimizing energy perform-ance, and reducing water usage.

One of the most impressive sustain-ability features of the 1.2 million-square-foot terminal and concourse structure is a25,000-cubic-foot “water box.” Thisstructure collects rainwater from the roofof the international terminal and con-course and cleanses it through a seriesof filters before releasing it back into theenvironment. The process greatly re-duces the environmental impact to sur-rounding groundwater.

Another key part of the internationalterminal’s sustainability program is en-suring the quality of indoor air. For ex-ample, low-chemical-emitting paints,sealants, carpeting, and adhesives arebeing used throughout the facility.

Environmentally friendly cleaningproducts and techniques, along with in-creased ventilation and monitoring of in-coming outdoor air, also will earn LEEDpoints for the $1.4 billion project.

Construction of the Maynard H.Jackson Jr. International Terminal beganin summer 2008. The international ter-minal and its 12-gate concourse willconnect to Concourse E via an extensionof the people mover, creating a 40-gateinternational travel complex. v

maintenance, and security.According to Bheodari, more than 20

stakeholder groups have direct roles in theactivation of the international terminal.They include federal and state agencies, localgovernments, airlines, airport tenants, andconstruction managers. The team identifiedmore than 1,700 tasks that must be com-pleted to ensure a smooth opening in spring2012.

“All stakeholder groups and end usersneed to be prepared for opening day and be-yond,” Bheodari said. “The activation team’sresponsibility is to ensure that no one isworking in a silo as we approach the openingof the international terminal.”

Hartsfield-Jackson’s activation teamoversees the ultimate to-do list and has a clearvision of all the moving parts, which includedeveloping standard operating procedures(SOPs), updating and integrating existingSOPs, creating effective training programs,and coordinating public awareness.

“We cannot be subject matter expertson everything,” Bheodari said. “Our job is

to coordinate among the stakeholders toidentify and eliminate any potential issuesrelated to opening day.”

The activation team has establishedworking groups that meet regularly to focuson five functional areas: training, terminal,airside, baggage, and public awareness. Eachgroup is developing operational proceduresrelated to its focus.

“Once they are complete, we’ll con-duct trials and simulations to validate thenew and updated SOPs,” said Robert See-wald, senior project manager for Parsonsand a key member of the activation team.“As we train, we’ll update and refine theSOPs until they are accurate and ready tosupport operations.”

Thousands of people—airline person-nel, concessionaires, emergency serviceworkers, custodial crews, and others—willrely on these SOPs daily as they operate andmaintain the Maynard H. Jackson Jr. In-ternational Terminal when it debuts nextspring. v

Exterior rendering of the

International Terminal.


ervious concrete pavements aregetting a lot of attention thesedays due their environmental

benefits, and the role it can playin managing stormwater runoff. eGeorgia Association of Water Pro-

fessionals recently replaced some of their as-phalt parking spaces at their office inMarietta with pervious concrete as part of ademonstration session conducted by theGeorgia Concrete and Products Association.

More and more businesses and govern-ment agencies in the South and in otherparts of the country are learning about andplacing Pervious Concrete Pavements. Atthe EPA’s National Risk Management Labo-ratory in Edison, New Jersey, 41 parkingspaces were constructed with pervious con-crete to evaluate the potential of pervioussurfaces to reduce or eliminate the effects ofstormwater runoff. e initial applicationsof pervious concrete were done largely inFlorida 25 to 30 years ago. e 1987 CleanWater Act made pervious pavement a goodchoice to control runoff in urban locations.It has been widely used in Savannah, Geor-gia, for example, for more than ten years.

So exactly what is pervious concrete? Ithas the same basic ingredients as conven-tional concrete such as cement, aggregates,and admixtures. e key difference is in thesize and gradation of the aggregates. Typi-cally, a size 89 stone is used with no sand inthe mix and is designed to produce a voidratio from 15 percent to 25 percent. Waterthat gets on the pervious pavement eitherfrom rain or stormwater runoff goes throughthe pavement to an underlying layer of size57 stone with a 40 percent void ratio and in-filtrates slowly into the underlying soil andrecharges the groundwater or gets released ata controlled rate. Pervious concrete pave-ment can handle from three to eight gallonsof water per minute per square foot of pave-ment area which is equivalent to more than275 inches of rain per hour.

e design of the total pavement systemis based on the underlying soil characteris-

tics. e sandy soil on the coastal areas of thestate will absorb the collected water morereadily than the soils typically found abovethe fall line. As a rule of thumb, if a soil isadequate for a septic tank system, it can han-dle the demands from a pervious pavement.Engineering analyses need to be done to de-termine the thickness of the stone layerneeded for the design rainfall and thestormwater runoff area that will be handledby the pervious pavement. e need for anunsightly retention pond can be reduced oreliminated and, for example, will allow formore spaces when used in a parking lot.

Some of the engineering properties ofpervious concrete are a unit weight of 100lbs/cu.ft to 120 lbs/cubit foot, making itlighter than normal concrete with a com-pressive strength of about 2500 psi. eseproperties make it useable for applicationswith lighter loadings such as parking lots,walkways, and streets with some light truckloading, but not suitable for heavy dutytrucks. Research is being done on mix de-signs that can accommodate heavier trucks

by adding a small amount of sand to the mix.e sand addition will reduce the voids andabsorption capacity and must be balancedwith the increase in compressive strengththat is needed for a particular application

ACI 330 for parking lot design has beenused for structural design of pervious pave-ments. e American Concrete PavementAssociation (ACPA) recently developed asoftware program for both the structural de-sign and the hydrologic design for perviousconcrete pavement. is software is availablefrom ACPA at www. acpa.org. Experiencehas shown that the thickness of the perviouspavement needs to be four inches for walk-ways, six inches for light residential streetsand parking lots with minimal light trucktraffic, and eight inches for light commercialand residential streets with about ten to 30trucks per day.

Construction specifications are availablefrom ACI (ACI 522.1). e Georgia DOThas also developed specifications as a specialprovision Section 439, “Pervious ConcretePavement.” A guide specification is also avail-

able from the Georgia Concrete & ProductsAssociation. An important feature of thesespecifications is the requirement to have cer-tified personnel on the job and /or the place-ment of test panels. Certification classes areconducted by the National Ready Mix Con-crete Association (NRMCA). e GeorgiaConcrete and Product Association should becontacted for more information on theseclasses. Construction of pervious pavementis not difficult, but every step is importantand must be done correctly to have the finaldesired drainage properties. Typically, pervi-ous pavement is produced at ready mixplants and placed and spread by hand andlightly consolidated by a vibrating screen orother such device. Care must be taken not toclose up the voids in the mix. Joints are typ-ically formed at 20 ft intervals. Large, heavyduty, asphalt type pavers have been used onsome large projects.

Asphalt parking lots are environmentaldisasters. ere is almost total runoff withpotential contaminants from the oil drip-pings found on the pavement. e runoffwater is heated in the summertime due to thepavement temperatures, and there is the heatisland effect on the air from these hot tem-peratures. Pervious concrete has manystormwater and environmental advantages.e use of pervious concrete is one of theBest Management Practices recommendedby the EPA for the management of stormwa-ter runoff.

Dale Fisher, Executive Director of theNational Pervious Concrete Pavement Asso-ciation (NPCPA), states that the cost for per-vious concrete pavement when compared toconventional concrete is typically five per-cent to 15 percent higher but these cost areoffset by the reduction or elimination of re-tention ponds, piping, inlets, etc. and theoverall project cost often is less than the tra-ditional parking lots using an impervioussurface.

Pervious concrete can contribute to ob-taining points for LEED credits in the areasof stormwater management (LEED creditsix), minimizing site disturbance (LEEDcredit SS 5), Recycled content (LEED creditM4), cool (LEED credit SS7), and local ma-terials (LEED credit M5). ere is no directcredit for using pervious concrete at this

time, but it can help in the categories listed.Pervious concrete also has many sustainabil-ity attributes. About 90 percent of the pol-lutants are carried off by the first ½ to 1 inchof rainfall. is first flush is carried into therecharge bed and into the underlying soilwhich filters the pollutants. Pervious pave-ment recharges the groundwater and canprotect the trees by allowing the air and thewater to reach the roots within the drip line.

ere are a number of projects in Geor-gia and other states that have utilized pervi-ous pavement as part of their total design.e city of Atlanta used it in the parking lotof the city jail built in 2001. A sign erectedat the site proclaims that the “porous con-

crete paving” reduces storm water runoff,conserves water resources, reduces excessurban heat, and makes it an environmentallyfriendly parking lot.

Many of the parking lots use a combi-nation of impervious and pervious surfaceswhere the drive areas are asphalt or standardconcrete, and the parking areas are perviousconcrete. e grading is done so that the im-pervious areas are sloped to the pervious sec-tions. A luxury car dealer’s parking lot

located on Mansell road in North Atlantawas built in this manner as one example.e Atlanta office of the Southface EnergyInstitute, which is an organization that pro-motes sustainable development, used pervi-ous concrete in its hardscapes. e EastAtlanta Library earned a silver LEED desig-nation and has pervious concrete for all of itsparking area and pedestrian plaza. Due to thesmall site, it also uses an underground stor-age chamber to increase the storage capacity.

e Georgia DOT has built two GRTAparking lots recently where pervious concretewas utilized for a portion of the parking sur-face to capture the rainfall and runoff water.Pervious concrete has been used for walkwaysin Jarrell Plantation State Park and recentlyat Gwinnett County’s Freeman’s Mill Park.

Numerous applications have been donein Savannah and the Bluffton area in SouthCarolina. Similar examples of installationscan be found in North Carolina, Florida,and other parts of the country such as Cali-fornia, South Dakota, Michigan, and Min-nesota just to name a few.

Many resources are available to learnmore about pervious concrete and its envi-ronmental benefits, and the role it can playin managing stormwater runoff. e Na-tional Ready Mix Association Web sitewww.perviouspavement.org is an excellentplace to find the information you need to de-sign and specify pervious concrete pavementfor your next project. Assistance is also avail-able locally from the PCA SE office, ACPA-SE office and NPCPA. v

Go Green with Pervious Concrete PavementBy Wouter Gulden P.E. | Director of Engineering and Training | American Concrete Pavement Association Southeast Chapter

P


ome three years ago, a seem-ingly never-ending series of

studies, audits, and reports criti-cized the Georgia Departmentof Transportation on a varietyof fronts. Harsh comments

made headlines across the state.Georgians were left to wonder if the DOTwas an unaccountable, broken, unfixable bu-reaucracy.

It was a difficult time for the men andwomen of the department, who were justifi-ably proud of the transportation system theyhad built and maintained—one of amongAmerica’s best. Nonetheless, they commit-ted to re-examine and revise, if needed, theirprocesses and functions.

What did they find?

That despite the rhetoric, Georgia DOT re-mained fundamentally sound. Just as im-portant, though, that some internalprocedures and controls were outdated,could be sluggish, and weren’t always em-phasized. That DOT’s best intentions oftenwere beyond its available means. That, in-deed, there was room for improvement.

Where do things stand now?

Very much improved.

The sternest criticism was that the Depart-ment ended Fiscal 2008 some $450 millionin debt—a contention many still believe wassimply the result of a complicated account-ing argument. Regardless, the same auditorswho made that initial finding reported just afew weeks ago that the department closedFiscal 2010 with an $800 million+ fund bal-ance. That’s a $1.5 billion turnaround in twoyears.

Reports wondered if Georgia DOTcould manage its work, if its projects weren’tusually delivered late and over budget.Frankly, that contention had some merit.

Improving project delivery and the con-struction process have since been distinctdepartment focal points. The results aretelling:• Aggressive efforts to speed up processes

for buying right of way and beginningconstruction have led to 29 percent and38 percent improvements, respectively.

• In 2010, the Department had 54 majorprojects (costs in excess of $10 million)underway; 49 finished the year onbudget.

• Twenty-one similar projects were com-pleted and opened to traffic last year; 19finishing within budget.

• 2010 saw the completion of more than athousand DOT projects, spreadthroughout all of Georgia’s 159 counties.

• Georgia DOT is one of 39 state trans-portation agencies to voluntarily submititself to a national performance analysis.While evaluations continue, the depart-ment ranks first in delivering projects onor below budget and second in deliver-ing projects by their scheduled comple-tion dates.

• It also was recommended in 2008 thatthe department become more aggressivein maintaining quality control.

The result—a broader application of the al-ready existing DOT program called ValueEngineering (VE), a sort of before-the-factpeer review of a project’s design and con-struction plans. Since then, 173 VE studieshave saved Georgia taxpayers more than$725 million. Every dollar spent on VE in2010 saved $217.

Some in 2008 questioned the depart-ment’s ability to properly manage the $900million allocated to the state’s transportationby the federal stimulus program. In reality,every federal deadline was met; every dollarproperly obligated; and 401 projects areright now providing jobs and improving thecondition, safety, and capacity of roads andbridges throughout Georgia.

Substantial achievements, in my view. I’ve been honored to serve as commissionerof this department for the past 20 months.

We know our need to improve is a con-tinuous, evolving process; that there’s alwaysmore to learn and more we can do; that ourduty to be responsible stewards of the pub-lic’s transportation system and tax dollars re-mains forever. We realize our mission toimprove safety and mobility in Georgia isongoing. v

Projects and Accountability…Georgia Department of Transportation is DeliveringBy Vance C. Smith Jr. • Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Transportation.

Commissioner Vance C. Smith Jr.

S


nowing what lies beneath theearth’s surface can be criticalwhen excavation of any kindis required. From projects assmall as putting up a fence orplanting a tree to as large asconstructing a tunnel orbuilding a bridge, there is al-

ways the possibility of encountering utilities.

Subsurface Utility EngineeringThe lack of reliable utility data during con-struction activities can result in costly con-flicts, delays, service disruptions, redesigns,and personal injuries. There is a far better ap-proach to locating and mapping existingutilities then by relying on old records thatare often inaccurate and, even, non-existent.Utilities are ‘risky business’ and if not han-dled correctly can be very costly and, moreimportantly, may result in loss of life.

Subsurface utility engineering is about

‘risk management.’ As a project owner or en-gineer of record, how much risk are you will-ing to take? There are certain levels ofresponsibility when applying subsurface util-ity engineering services; depending on thequality level used, the higher the qualitylevel, the less risk assumed by the owner. Forexample, the application of Quality Level Aservices (the highest quality level) puts moreliability on the subsurface utility engineer-ing provider and less on the project owner.In reverse, the lower the quality level (Qual-ity Level D) the more responsibility assumedby the owner instead of the provider.

Subsurface utility engineering combinesgeophysics, surveying, civil engineering andnondestructive excavation technologies. Spe-cially trained subsurface utility engineeringprofessionals identify and classify, to variousquality levels, existing subsurface utility dataand map the utility’s horizontal and verticallocations. Subsurface utility engineering is

most beneficial when used early in the de-sign process. By accurately identifying anddepicting the location of existing utilities,designers can make educated decisions onwhether to relocate the utilities or designaround them. It also adds value for the con-tractor by giving them concrete information,helping them to prepare more accurate esti-mates resulting in lower bids. Contractorswill also be better prepared to protect theirworkers during construction.

Subsurface utility engineering is a cost-effective and proven method to reduce, un-necessary utility relocation, utility damage,outage, construction delays (where costs arehighest), injuries, and saves lives.

Utility CoordinationThe proper coordination of utilities is an ab-solute necessity for the success of a project.What is proper coordination? Three thingshave to happen for enhanced coordination

By Randy W. Sanborn, PE

PROACTIVE UTILITY MANAGEMENT: The Importance of Subsurface UtilityEngineering and Utility Coordination

KSurveying the located utilities enables the information to be transferred into CADD.

This will help design engineers determine the final alignment of the streetcar.

MATC officials knew utilities would play amajor role in the development of this proj-ect. “The selected corridor is heavily con-gested with utilities and we knew that one ofthe biggest unknowns was the impact to un-derground utilities,” says Larry Prescott, aMATC Project Manager. “We understoodthe importance of identifying existing utili-ties as early as possible. Knowing where theexisting utilities are is essential to the designof this project.”

Until the subsurface utility engineeringinvestigation is complete, the precise trackalignment in the street is a moving target.Other design features are affected as well; thestreetcar stops and the catenary system can-not be determined until existing utilities areidentified and mapped.

MATC was determined to take a moreproactive approach when dealing with util-ities. In early 2011, Cardno TBE was en-listed by MATC to launch a full blownsubsurface utility engineering investigation.The scope included designating over

160,000 linear feet of underground utilities(Quality Level B), a complete pole datatable, surveying and 60 test holes (QualityLevel A). Most of the utility coordinationwas handled by MATC but like all subsur-face utility engineering services, additionalcoordination was involved.

Coordination with 13 different utilityowners was essential for the success of thisproject. Correlating the subsurface utilityengineering data with each utility companyand determining conflicts was a task withinitself. Not only are we dealing with under-ground utilities but the overhead as well.The catenary system design will present ad-ditional conflicts with overhead utility linesand poles. Coordination with the overheadutility owners will be just as important as co-ordinating with those with underground fa-cilities and may indentify even moreconflicts.

Imagine the congestion of 13 utilities ina 70 foot wide corridor. With the majority ofthese utilities under the roadway, there is very

little room to accommodate the proposed de-sign. The challenge will be to reduce the util-ity relocations as much as possible and stillhave room for the streetcar.

Conflict analysis and subsurface utilityengineering are utility management toolsthat should be practiced in every designprocess. An intimate connection betweenconflict analysis and subsurface utility engi-neering is what enables truly effective utilitiesmanagement. Without subsurface utility en-gineering, conflict analysis lacks depth per-ception, and without conflict analysis,subsurface utility engineering is misguided.But when working closely together, datagathering, processing, management, and dis-tribution become one seamless process.v


to occur; cooperation, communication, andcoordination. The Federal Highway Admin-istration calls these the three c’s and endorseda video entitled, CCC: Making the EffortWorks! Enhanced three c’s between govern-mental transportation departments and util-ity companies and utilization of a utilityconflict analysis seem to provide the answer.

Many utilities are unnecessarily relocatedeach year to accommodate roadway and high-way construction, costing millions of dollars,delaying construction, and creating incon-veniences to the public. The traditional road-way design process assesses utility conflictswhen the design is near completion. The ex-pectation is that any utility in the way simplyhas to move. To make matters worse, utilitiessometimes remain undiscovered until dam-aged during construction activities. With in-creased congestion in the public right-of-wayand our economy’s growing reliance on vari-ous utilities, transportation departments areseeing a need to be proactive and use sophis-ticated methods to plan ahead for potentialutility conflicts.

A key task involved in the utility coor-dination process is the analysis of utility con-flicts. The preparation of a “utility conflictmatrix” is a vital tool for reducing project

costs. The conflict matrix is a spreadsheet in-dentifying potential conflicts by cross refer-encing existing utilities with proposed designfeatures. The end result of this process notonly identifies conflicts but determines testhole locations. This is an iterative processand is based on advanced, accurate utility in-formation garnered through subsurface util-ity engineering. With detailed utilityinformation, it becomes possible to confrontthe cumbersome problem of identifying con-flicts and determining test hole locations andcondensing them into a manageable form.

When utility owners and design teamswork together, mutually beneficial strategiescan be applied. Besides significant cost-sav-ings and drastically reduced construction de-lays, utility owners are more likely tocomplete their relocations when presentedwith a conflict matrix. It demonstrates thatall other options have been thoroughly in-vestigated, rather than the previous methodof forcing utilities to move facilities withoutmuch apparent forethought. Cooperation isyielding, and more desirable results areachieved. What used to be a chaotic issue ofconstruction can now be organized into sim-ple databases that can take full advantage ofsubsurface utility engineering information to

develop a plan of action. Conflict matricesneed to be a significant part of utilities man-agement. Without them, the data from thesubsurface utility engineering activitieswould be disorganized and without merit,and there could be conflicts missed leadingto construction delays and additional costs.

The Atlanta StreetcarIn October, 2010, the City of Atlanta wasawarded a Transportation Investment Gen-erating Economic Recovery II (TIGER II)grant for $47 million. This federal grant willfund a portion of the estimated $72 millionin construction costs for a streetcar project.The alignment currently runs throughdowntown Atlanta and serves some of thecity’s most important and historic districts.This 2.6 mile section is the first of severalsections that will be owned by the city of At-lanta and maintained/operated by Metro-politan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority(MARTA).

A consortium of consultants referred toas Metropolitan Area Transit Consultants(MATC) is under contract by MARTA as itsgeneral engineering consultant. Because ofthe location of the streetcar, MARTA and

Randy W. Sanborn, PE is a directorfor TBE Group Inc. In this role heoversees subsurface utility engineer-ing, utility coordination and survey-ing and mapping services inGeorgia, North Carolina, South Car-olina, and Tennessee. He has exten-sive experience with integratingsubsurface utility engineering andutility coordination into a variety ofdesign projects for the transportationindustry and beyond. Mr. Sanborngraduated with a Bachelor of Sciencedegree in Environmental Engineeringfrom the University of Florida and isa registered professional engineer infour states.

Ground penetrating radar was utilized tolocate the original streetcar rail line whichwas discontinued in 1949 when it was re-

placed by a trolley bus system.

surfaces on their property. Local governmentshave experienced reduced tax revenues due tothe downturn in the economy which has re-duced funding for stormwater programs.

Roads and Transit: At the time of the2009 Report Card, Georgia was the fourthfastest growing state in the nation, yet itranked 48th in transportation funding.Georgia had a higher than average fatalityrate and congestion issues in large metropol-itan areas. One recommendation of the Re-port Card was to provide a more usable,cohesive transit system through more collab-oration between municipalities, and regionaland statewide planning. Another recom-mendation was that stable funding sourcesare needed.

While growth has slowed significantly,there have been some changes regardingtransportation funding. According to theGeorgia Department of Transportation,stimulus funding from the American Recov-ery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 hasfunded about 500 projects with over $1 bil-lion invested to date in Georgia. In addition,the Transportation Investment Act of 2010enabled regional sales tax referendums. InApril 2011, the Atlanta Regional Commis-sion presented the Georgia Department ofTransportation with a ‘wish list’ of over $29billion in projects, including over $13 billionin transit projects. Unfortunately, the pro-posed 2012 penny sales tax referendum forthe 10-county metro Atlanta region is onlyexpected to generate about $8 billion infunding over ten years. On the bright side (ifyou could call it that), according to the TexasTransportation Institute, Atlantans wasted anaverage of 44 hours per year stuck in trafficcongestion in 2009, which is down from 45hours in 2008 and 49 hours in 1999.

Dams: In 2009, Georgia had signifi-cantly underfunded and understaffed theGeorgia Safe Dams Program. More than 33percent of high-hazard dams, which couldcause loss of life if they fail, were considereddeficient by state standards, and there was adam failure analysis backlog of over 500dams. There were 485 state regulated damsper staff member compared to the nationalaverage of 197 dams per staff member. Sincethat time the staffing level has actually de-

creased due to not filling positions vacateddue to attrition. However, the program hasbegun putting the responsibility for inspec-tion on property owners and has been send-ing out letters to dam owners with lists ofEngineers of Record who are state certifiedto assess dams. Property owners are requiredto perform quarterly inspections of theirdams and send reports to the Georgia SafeDams Program.

Overall, water resources planning hascontinued and there have been some addi-tional transportation funding opportunities.However, the downturn of the economy hasput increased pressure on the capital im-provement programs and operating budgetsof local governments and state agencies dueto decreased tax revenues. In many areas, theresources do not come close to meeting theneeds. Much work remains to be done. v


t has been about two years since theGeorgia Section of the AmericanSociety of Civil Engineers (GeorgiaASCE) issued the 2009 Georgia In-frastructure Report Card. The Re-port Card was created to provide a

simple, easy to understand measure of thecondition of the infrastructure in Georgia tohelp the public and policy makers in theirdecision-making. The Report Card com-prised 12 categories: Wastewater, Stormwa-ter, Drinking Water, Energy, Dams, SchoolFacilities, Transit, Bridges, Airports, Roads,Solid Waste, and Parks.

Now that we’re at the approximate mid-point between report cards, the Georgia Sec-tion thought it would be valuable to revisitseveral infrastructure categories that receivedpoor grades:Transit: D+Roads: D+Stormwater: D+Dams: D

How were the original grades assigned?Georgia ASCE assembled a committee of ex-perts who reviewed the status of each infra-structure category by reviewing data fromfederal, state, and local agencies and organi-zations. Grading criteria included condition,capacity, operation and maintenance, fund-ing, future need, public safety, and resilience.In most infrastructure categories, moreweight was placed on condition, capacity,funding, and future need because these arecore criteria and better data were usuallyavailable for evaluation in these areas. Thedata were evaluated against objective gradingcriteria, and a grade was assigned based on atypical grading scale (A = 90-100%, B = 80-89 percent, C = 70-79 percent, etc.)

The purpose of this update is to reviewactivities that have taken place in some of thelowest scoring categories since the ReportCard was issued. At this point, new gradesare not being assigned.

Stormwater: In 2009, progress hadbeen made in regional and state-wide plan-ning with the development of the GeorgiaComprehensive State-wide Water Manage-ment Plan (State Water Plan) and the Met-ropolitan North Georgia Water Planning

District. Two recommendations included inthe Report Card were to focus on resourceprotection in the implementation of theState Water Plan and for local communitiesto consider implementing dedicated fundingsources for stormwater, such as stormwaterutilities. Since the Report Card, the ten Re-gional Planning Councils were appointedand began working. The Regional WaterPlans required by the State Water Plan arecurrently in draft form and are expected tobe completed by the end of 2011.

Based on the Georgia Department ofNatural Resources Environmental ProtectionDivision Water Quality in Georgia 2008-2009 report, the number of stream/rivermiles assessed that do not support designateduses has increased from 7,585 to 7,779. Thiscould be because more miles were assessed in2008-2009 (14,233 miles versus 12,930miles previously). Fecal coliform is listed ascontributing to impairment for over half ofthese miles.

Very few additional stormwater utilitieshave been implemented. Stormwater utilitiesprovide a dedicated funding source forstormwater infrastructure and water re-sources protection by charging propertyowners based on the amount of impervious

2009 Georgia Infrastructure Report Card:A Mid-Term Assessment

By Rebecca Shelton, PE & Dan Agramonte, PE

I


W h a t ’ s i n t h e

N E W S

Harrington Group Inc. Celebrates 25th AnniversaryTwenty-five years ago, Jeff Harrington sawthe need to develop a higher quality, moreinformed resource for providing fire protec-

tion engineering consulting services. Hebegan Harrington Group Inc. as a one-manshop in the basement of his then Lilburn,Georgia home. Over the past 25 years, it hasgrown to become one of the largest and mostexperienced firms headquartered in thesoutheastern United Sates specializing in fireprotection engineering, forensic fire engi-neering, and property loss control consult-ing. It has also emerged from that one-manbasement shop to offices located in twocities: Duluth, Georgia, and Charlotte,North Carolina.

Harrington Group strives to create inti-mate client relationships through deliveringthe “Best Total Solution” to fire protectionengineering problems every time. The firm’smission is to provide clients with creative so-lutions while optimizing the relationship be-

tween cost and benefit. Their specialized ex-pertise includes fire protection design, firebuilding codes, life safety codes, hazard riskassessments, and fire investigation and hastaken the firm throughout the hemispherewith active projects in 20 states, as well as inCanada, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, andMexico.

Harrington Group is proud to celebrate25 years of providing unsurpassed excellencein the fire protection engineering industry.“We are excited about reaching this very im-portant milestone and look forward to pro-viding both private and public sectors withsolutions to their fire protection needs,” saidMr. Harrington.

For more information about HarringtonGroup, please visit: www.hgi-fire.com.v

Jeff Harrington

CDM & Wilbur Smith Associates CombineCDM and Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA)are pleased to announce the acquisition ofWSA by CDM. The combined organizationexpands both firms’ global, full-service capa-bilities in water, environment, transporta-tion, energy, and facilities.

The integration of CDM and WSAbrings together one of the engineering andconstruction industry’s top water and envi-ronment firms with an industry leader intransportation. The addition of WSA’s lead-ing expertise in transportation enhancesCDM’s service portfolio and extends thefirm’s presence in Asia and the Middle East.Similarly, CDM enhances WSA’s capabilitiesin water, environment, and design-buildservices. The two firms have compatible cul-tures and values, complementary capabilities,strong commitments to exceptional clientservice and technical excellence, and well-

matched geographies.According to Richard D. Fox, CDM

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,“Both firms share a common dedication toputting our clients first and a mission to cre-ate innovative, lasting solutions that enhancequality of life, protect the environment, andsupport economic vitality. This provides asolid foundation for coming together. In ad-dition, we have a steadfast commitment toemployee ownership, giving us the freedomto maintain that dedication to our clientsand provide superior opportunities for ouremployees.”

“Uniting with CDM promises contin-ued growth for our firms and our employees.CDM values WSA’s leadership in trans-portation. We will also be looking to WSA’stransportation specialists to advance the ex-pansion of CDM’s transportation servicesworldwide,” noted M. Stevenson Smith,WSA’s Chairman and CEO. “Together, wecreate a stronger entity for the future, espe-cially in a time of ongoing consolidation inthe industry.”

With the transaction completed, thefirms have begun the important transitionprocess to integrate the two organizations. v

Gresham, Smith, and Partners Announces Additional Associate andSenior AssociatesGresham, Smith, and Partners, a leadingmulti-disciplinary design and consultingfirm to the built environment, announcesthe following new associate and senior asso-ciates from the firm's Atlanta office:

AssociateMichael Bywaletz, P.E., has been named anassociate. Michael provides infrastructure-re-lated project management and design for

transportation and stormwater projects. Hehas more than 20 years of design experiencein multiple states and communities.

Senior AssociatesGeoffrey Ax, AIA, NCARB, LEED AP, ex-ecutive vice president of the federal program,has been named a senior associate. Geoffreyhas more than 13 years of design and con-sulting experience and currently focuses hisefforts on expanding a federal client-base tosupport the firm’s overall strategy of marketdiversification. Additionally, Geoffrey hasprovided services through Design-Build proj-ect delivery to the United States Army Corpsof Engineers (USACE), Department of En-ergy (DOE), and Naval Facilities Engineer-ing Command (NAFVAC).

Hal Humphrey, P.E., has been named a sen-ior associate. Hal is a senior engineer in theWater Services Department and has expertise,in the areas of infiltration, inflow and over-

Serving Georgia from...

North Carolina .704.593.0992

..216.831.6131

the integrity

the integrity

Serving Georgia fr

olinaNorth Car

the integrity

om...Serving Georgia fr

olina.704.593.0992

..216.831.6131

flow abatement, collection systems, sewer re-habilitation, and combined sewer separation.He has provided consulting services to sev-eral of the largest utilities in the Southeast.He graduated magna cum laude from theUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham in1997 and has 15 years experience in engi-neering.

Scott Shelton, P.E., has been named a seniorassociate. Scott is an engineer with morethan 15 years of experience designing and

managing roadway projects for public agen-cies. Scott is responsible for managing thedesign, scope, schedule, and budget of majorGeorgia Department of Transportation(GDOT), Gwinnett County, CommunityImprovement District (CID), and other localgovernment projects. Scott was the leadproject engineer on the removal of the re-versible lane system on US 78 which recentlyreceived an ACEC of Georgia EngineeringExcellence Honor Award. v


iscal responsibility, particularlyfor elected officials, demands anew style of decision-making.Those assisting with planningefforts must make compelling

cases for ideas that do not fit the‘low bid’ paradigm. Looking only at whatwe spend now or how we have always donethings, will keep us locked into answers thatare not necessarily defining a sustainable fu-ture. Let’s first describe what we believe aresome of the concepts that need to be exam-ined: solutions that have life cycle costs thatare reasonable (and not just cheaper to ini-tially implement); creation of policies thatencourage true integration of land use andtransportation; incorporation of these prin-ciples in community planning; and ways tospend less or generate new revenue streams.

Communities can shop from a broadmenu of areas to tackle. Focusing here ontransportation and infrastructure, one canaddress development policies and how theyimpact feasibility of alternative forms oftransportation, total life cycle cost of roadconstruction including on-site recycling ofmaterials, runoff treatments, and stormwa-ter management including the appropriateuse of permeable pavements or bioretention.Remembering that what gets measured getsdone, it is vitally important to establish per-formance measures to stay on task.

Orlando Truck StrategyWhile conducting research for the FederalHighway Administration to identify trans-portable solutions to urban goods movementproblems, this creative, sustainable solutionwas identified.

When funds for road improvements arelimited, focusing on low cost-high value so-lutions is very productive. With the extra de-mand that truck traffic places on the roadsin terms of wear and tear, as well as overalloperations, layering on the identification ofpreferred routes can increase the effectiveness

of dollars spent.Identifying areas to designate as freight

villages, through land use policies, allows theconcentration of industrial type or otherheavy vehicle intensive land uses. Among themany benefits are the limited number ofroads and intersections that need to be im-proved to adequately handle the traffic andthe natural encouragement of drivers to fol-low truck routes because of improved func-tionality.

One such area is near the airport andwith wide lanes, large turning radii, and lim-ited access points, the preferred roads be-come the ones of choice.

A Multi-Modal Plan with an Electric Vehicle TwistMulti -modal transportation planning can bedescribed as the integration and interactionamong modes of transportation such aspedestrians, bicycles, passenger vehicles, andtransit where all modes of transportation areconsidered important. Multi-modal plan-ning can occur at various levels such as a cor-ridor, sector, district, community, or region.

Such a plan consists of two primarycomponents: multi-modal streets integratedwith supportive mixed-use land use plans.The foundation of the plan is a policy frame-work to tie it together through guidelinesand standards coupled with incentives, to en-courage implementation of such concepts ascomplete streets, context sensitive design,transit oriented design, and other smartgrowth community development. The bene-fits of a multi-modal system include reducedtraffic congestion, reducing the reliance ontraditional passenger vehicles, fossil fuel de-pendence, and greenhouse gas reduction.

Low Speed Electric Vehicles (LSVs)Historically, golf carts were considered theonly form of LSV’s and with limited practi-cal use. Their evolution and application havegreatly expanded and now can be consideredan important component to a sustainablemulti-modal system. Golf carts have beenused as easy ways for residents to get aroundneighborhoods in planned communities tovisit friends and make trips to communityfacilities, as well to provide communitymaintenance without using cars and trucks.While golf carts have been desirable for theseuses, as they were far more functional, fuelefficient and quieter, they lacked the safetyfeatures necessary to expand their use beyondthese communities, such as seatbelts, horns,windshield wipers, turn signals, and brakeand tail lamps. Federal law requires thatLSV’s have this basic safety equipment andallows them to operate on public roadways

Looking at the World through Sustainability-colored Glasses

By Marsha Anderson Bomar, AICP | Senior Principal Transportation, Planning, & Traffic Engineering | StantecJim Paulmann, AICP | Senior Principal, Planning, & Landscape Architecture | Stantec

with posted speed limits up to 35 mph. Inrecent years, cities and master planned com-munities have planned for and implementedLSV networks as an alternative mode oftransportation.

Pilot Program in Sarasota County, FloridaThe most recent example of planning forLSVs in a multi-modal network was in Sara-sota County, Florida, as part of plans fortheir Economic Energy Zone. This projectwas a public private partnership between thecounty and the Palmer Ranch, one ofFlorida’s largest and highly recognized masterplanned community is owned by formerTampa Bay Buccaneers owner Hugh Culver-house. This program, which was funded inpart by the U. S. Department of Energy,with oversight by the Florida Department ofCommunity Affairs, was a pilot to develop amodel for communities to cultivate greeneconomic development, plan to discouragesprawl, develop energy efficient land use pat-terns, and reduce greenhouse gasses.

One of the main components of thisplan linking land use and transportation wasdeveloping a functional LSV network as partof a multi-modal plan. The land use com-ponent involved a private sector initiative tocreate a model sustainable community an-chored by a major employment center to at-tract clean technology industries and acommercial center. Higher density residen-tial areas would be incorporated into andsurround this area, with lower densities step-ping down from this core area providing amix in housing units. This goal was to pro-vide a jobs to housing balance and link theseareas with an interconnected street patternand separate green radial corridors. Thiswould connect environmental areas and linkthe living and working areas with opportu-nities to walk or bike. An internal LSV net-work was a main component of thesecorridors as a separate designated pathway.This also provides an opportunity for LSVconnection to a transit hub for external con-nections outside the community.

Recognizing that not all residents of thiscommunity would work there and not all em-ployees of businesses in the community wouldlive there, an external multi-modal networkfeaturing an LSV network was developed.

This was based on a standard 20 minutecommute which equates to a six mile LSVservice radius. A corresponding service radiuswas developed for a three mile bike commuteand a quarter mile walking commute. Thedevelopment of the LSV network focusednot only on the jobs to housing connectionbut identified major attractors within thearea including commercial areas, schools,health care facilities, recreation areas andother community services. Connecting these,facilities was accomplished by evaluating the

thoroughfare system to determine whereLSVs can currently share roadways, shareroadways by reducing current speed limits(35 MPH or lower), or create a separate des-ignated pathway.

While even recently LSVs were consid-ered a niche market, their use has been rap-idly expanding around the country. Highertransportation costs (fuel and vehicles), traf-fic congestion, greenhouse gas reduction, andconvenience will likely see an increasing roleof LSVs in our future transportation system.The Sarasota example is a blueprint for bothdeveloping an LSV network in both new sus-tainable master planned communities andretrofits in our existing communities.

Closing ThoughtsMany other examples can be given of waysto create financially sound and responsiblesolutions for all types of transportation re-lated projects. Others might include parkingfacilities that utilize swales to managestormwater runoff eliminating the need forirrigation, or parking systems that are pow-ered by solar panels, or roads that are builtusing ground in place materials for the basereducing truck trips by hundreds. Commu-nities in Canada are required to have Sus-tainability Plans, and many here in the USare beginning to develop them because theymake good sense. What are you doing onyour projects and in your community? v

F

Industrial area intersections not designed forlarge trucks.

Curb and landscaping damaged, utility pole almost in wheel path

Multi-modal plan for sustainable communityshowing reasonable distances for walking, bi-

cycling, and low speed electric vehicles.


We Have a Communication ProblemWe always have a communication problem.Regardless of who you are, I am willing tobet good money that you are having a com-munication problem with someone. Yourwife, sweetheart, children, boss, client, evenyour closest friend, you name it, we all havecommunication problems. Even when we tryour level best to express our message cor-rectly, people will misinterpret the message,or ignore it as not applying to them.

I am hopefully not wasting my time try-ing to communicate with you, yes, you whoare taking the time to read this portion of ouroutstanding publication. “What is the mes-sage I am trying to get across?” you think.“Get to the point.”

Here it is; two things: You are impor-tant and your help is needed. We need helpon many fronts: speakers, mentors, judges,scorers, school career day presenters, work-ing committee members. We can use everytalent you may have, and I know you havethem, or you would not be an engineer. Idon’t care if you are the newest PE or retired,your knowledge and ability to think logicallyand make decisions which can improve thehealth, welfare, and safety of your commu-nity are needed now more than ever.

I can look back over the history of ourcountry and see how we engineers developedthe canals, railroads and steamboats, powerstations, highways and transportation sys-tems, and communication systems that havemade our nation so great. Yes, it was engi-neers who designed and directed the con-struction of these things and the tallbuildings of commerce. Not MBAs, lawyers,or accountants. Maybe the leaders of thetime had a vision of the future or the engi-neers were just great talkers, I don’t know.

Maybe the engineers were the leaders.But if you look at recent times, you find

a lack of vision in both our leaders and ourengineers. Eisenhower saw the value of theinterstate system to move people and goodsacross our country quickly. Kennedy gave usa vision of great space exploration. Both ofthese have given us major improvements inour way of life and our economy. Space tech-nology has increased our lifespan and qualityof life, and improved almost every aspect ofour lives. Engineers were there making thehard decisions on how best to do it. Wedreamed of a new and better world, and itwas built. But something has gone wrong.The great infrastructure we built has wornout and there are no really new designs onthe horizon of our country. Too, the valueof the engineer has diminished. At the turnof the century, engineers were at the top ofthe salary list. Now we are below the fifth.Now the really great transportation systemsreside in other countries. New systems forenergy development also reside there. Wehave no national energy plan even thoughwe’ve dumped billions into the Departmentof Energy. We have no national water con-servation and development plan. We are noteducating our children enough to makethem competitive with other countries,much less self-sustaining citizens.It is notlooking good.

Who is going to lead the cavalry to therescue? NSPE proposes to be the “Voice ofEngineers” for all the states and GSPE therepresentative for Georgia. When you passedyour exam to become a professional engineer,you were by law given the authority and re-sponsibility to make decisions affecting thesafety, health, and welfare of the public. It isyour individual responsibility, yes; each and

every one of you took on the responsibility toguide your company, your clients, your com-munity, and country in making the right de-cisions. You were supposed to become anactive part of a Society of Licensed Engi-neers, NSPE and GSPE, to make your voicemore powerful. If you didn’t join NSPE andGSPE, you lost your voice as an individual.It has long been known that united we stand,divided we fall. The only way our leaderswill look to us for guidance is to have astrong voice and a plan that will solve theproblems they face.

Let me illustrate the current problem.The surveyors of the state have about 1500members that have repeatedly gotten the at-tention of the legislature when they needsomething. There are about 17,000 licensedengineers in Georgia, but less than 1,000 aremembers of NSPE/GSPE. If we need some-thing from the state, or heaven forbid, havethem even think to ask our advice, forget it.That is to me, incredibly sad. For the creamof the crop of engineers who have proven

GsPeNews

Luther O. Cox Jr., P.E. President Georgia Society of Professional Engineers

their skill, knowledge, and reputationthrough testing and references, to have so lit-tle impact on our leaders and the future ofour state makes me cry. We can’t even outdothe surveyors.

As president of GSPE, if I can’t have thesupport of the licensed engineers of Georgia,I have little or no voice in helping the stateof Georgia. Every one of the17,000 engi-neers in Georgia need to be members ofNSPE/GSPE. Think of what we could dowith that kind of participation. Florida engi-neers have great influence in their state, so Iknow large membership gives strength to ourprofessional engineers’ voices. If there is any-thing that I know and believe, it is that anygroup of people, and especially engineers, canaccomplish miracles by working together.

Chances are, if you are reading this, youare a member, but you need to get your fellowengineers to read this and get them to join.And to get active. Besides, it really looksgood on your resume if you can say you areworking in your local GSPE chapter. Thechapters, and we need many more of them,help with networking, give you presentationson current events and projects, and get youup to speed on what you can do to help outat the state level.They award PDH’s to helpyou keep your license. Chapter membersbenefit by getting a better perspective onwhat is going on and what needs to be done.The icing on the cake? I’ve made a lot offriends and met many people who havehelped me in oh so many ways. You can too.

Well, I hope I have effectively commu-nicated the need for every licensed engineerto become a member of NSPE, and GSPE es-pecially. But what about the need for gettingour children interested in becoming engi-neers? When was the last time you partici-pated in a career day at your local schools? Ithappens every spring. I have had the fun ofdoing it a couple of times, and you are miss-ing a great opportunity to look great in theeyes of your children and grandchildren, andtheir friends. All you have to do is take alonga few gadgets to show and explain how engi-neers have been a part of every aspect of theirlives. Should be easy as falling off a log back-wards, and even more fun. Try supportingMATHCOUNTS in your school or chapter,or help kids design a city with Future Cities,

or support contests in World in Motion, orany number of things that require very littletime or effort. But, oh the rewards of watch-ing the eyes light up, and enthusiasm of theyoung ones. Good as Christmas.

Speaking of enthusiasm, it would thrillme to find a kid’s enthusiasm in the 17,000engineers in the state of Georgia. Oh whatwe could accomplish by working together.Guess you know by now, I am enthused.How about you, yes, you becoming the bestpart of the future of Georgia. You are in factvery important whether you know it or not.Join the Georgia Society of Professional En-gineers and become more important by help-ing me make your children’s future brighter.Have I communicated with you? If so,maybe that part of my communication prob-lem is solved. I’ll know for sure when youhave communicated your enthusiasm to meby taking action. I look forward to workingwith you to make the power of your knowl-edge effective in our community and state,maybe even the nation. Check out our Website and see what you can do to make your

engineer’s voice heard loud and clear in thestate of Georgia.

Luther O. Cox, Jr., PE ~ President

“Every man owes a part of his time andmoney to the business or industry in whichhe is engaged. No man has a right to with-hold his support from an organization that isstriving to improve conditions within hissphere.” Teddy Roosevelt-1908 v

38 The GeorGia enGineer 39JUNE | JULY 2011

Tom Gambino, PEPresident ACEC/G

ACeCNews

To view the entire ACEC/G Strategic Plan withdetailed action items please visit the ACEC/G

Web site at www.acecga.org.

Greetings,is is my last article as ACEC/G president,and I would like to thank ACEC’s membersfor giving me the privilege of serving as pres-ident of this fine organization. I hope thatthe accomplishments of our team of officers,board members, committee chairs, volun-teers, and staff have advanced the ACEC/Gcause this year.

As Jim Hamilton assumes ACEC/G’spresidency July 1, 2011, I am hopeful thatour industry will soon pull out of the GreatRecession. I believe that over the past threeyears, ACEC/G has provided our memberfirms with information and counseling thathas helped them to weather the downsizing.I know that the ACEC/G leadership hasworked tirelessly to convey our message tothe state and national capitals. And no mat-ter how small our individual voices, I knowthat our collective voices have been heard.

Many are predicting that the economy,after having reached its lowest point, hasbegun to improve, and I hope that these pre-dictions are true. However, I challenge ourbusiness owners to remain focused on man-aging the inevitable changes to our industry.By getting involved with ACEC/G, you willhave a say in the future of our industry. I alsochallenge our business owners to ensure youryoung leaders get involved with ACEC/G.Each year, more than 50 committees have va-cancies in need of filling. ACEC/G is look-ing for participants for each of thesepositions. If your young employees are likemy young employees, they want to make adifference. Give them a no-cost chance tomake a difference, by nominating them to theACEC/G office for an assignment.

To our young leaders I have only onemessage—get involved. ere are no road-blocks in your way; just call the ACEC/G of-fice and volunteer. Leaders are self-driven,not appointed by others.

To our associate members, I would liketo thank you for your support. e ACEC/Gmember firms and associates have a mutuallysupportive relationship. Our association isbetter because of our associate members, andyou should know that you are appreciated.

Lastly, I would like to thank myACEC/G team. First, to the officers:rough your years of service you haveproven your commitment to our industryand your willingness to give back. Youshould be proud of your accomplishments.ank you so much for your support. Iwould also like to thank the veteran and newboard members for your time in serving onthe board and for your honest feedback. Tothe committee chairs, who are the hardest-working group of industry leaders, I com-

mend you for your leadership, creativity, andtime. To our volunteers and young leaders,thank you for getting involved. I hope youwill continue to stay involved in ACEC/G,because the more you give, the more you getback. Finally I would like to say thank you tothe ACEC/G staff. You guys are the best!ank you for your guidance, patience,prodding, and kindness. As all the presidentsbefore me have come to know, the ACEC/Gstaff is the best staff in the ACEC nation.ank you!

Best regards,

omas D. GambinoPresident ACEC/G v

Accomplishing Our MissionAs I am sure many professional organizationsdo, WTS often struggles in finding ways toserve all of our members to the best of our abil-ity. In our quest to increase membership andgrow the presence of our organization withinthe transportation community, we often losesight of our true mission of “advancing womenin transportation.” During our Strategic Plan-ning Session earlier this year, we identified thegoal of providing benefits that help achieve thismission as a top priority. To achieve this goal,we are continuing to place emphasis on some ofour successful past programs as well as imple-menting some new ones that we believe willstrengthen our chapter by continuing to provethe benefit of being a WTS member.

Mentor-Protégé ProgramIn April, we wrapped up our fifth bi-annualMentor-Protégé Program. Through this pro-gram, seven women new to the transportationindustry were paired with members with morethan ten years of experience. Lunch events wereheld monthly with speakers who presented onCareer Advancement, the Importance of Giv-ing Back, Transportation Financing, Network-ing, Politics, and Business Development. Wewant to thank all of our mentors and protégéswho participated in the program and encouragethem to continue the spirit of mentorshipthroughout their career.

Leadership RoundtableOne of our greatest challenges in accomplish-ing our mission of “advancing women in trans-portation” comes in trying to do this for ourmembers who are high level professionals andindustry leaders. How do we go beyond thenetworking opportunities and technical pro-grams to truly provide benefit to these busy in-dividuals who have attended and presentedcountless technical programs over their careers?In an effort to give back to these key women,WTS is in the process of establishing a Leader-ship Roundtable. This group will be comprisedof 15 to 20 of Atlanta’s leading women in trans-portation. Our chapter will organize quarterlymeetings to provide a forum for these leaders toget together and discuss key issues in trans-portation. We will bring in speakers of regionaland national significance to share informationand moderate discussions with this group. Welook forward to kicking this program off in thecoming months and hope that it will becomean ongoing effort for the WTS Chapter.

Breakfast with the GDOT Commissioner and BoardOne way in which we have always benefitedour members and Corporate Sponsors is byproviding networking opportunities with pub-lic and private sector leaders. We are excited toannounce that we will be hosting a breakfastwith Commissioner Vance Smith and theGDOT board on June 16, before the monthlyGODT board meeting. This event will beopen to members and Corporate Sponsorsonly, as space is limited. Please visit our Website at www.wtsinternational.org/atlanta formore information about this event. v

WtsNews

Jennifer King, PE, PresidentWomen in Transportation Seminar

President Jennifer King, [email protected] Jacobs

Vice President-Programs Laurie Reed, [email protected] HNTB

Vice President-Membership Tonya [email protected] MARTA

Secretary Angela Snyder, [email protected] and Assoc

Treasurer Marissa Martin, [email protected] Smith Partners

Director at Large Beth Ann Marks, [email protected] The LPA Group

Director at Large Heather Alhadeff, [email protected] + Will

Director at Large Jennifer Harper, [email protected] Corporation

Director at Large Helen McSwain, [email protected] PBS&J

Immediate Past PresidentEmily Swearingen, PE URS [email protected]

ProtégéCrystal BanksStacy BlakelyStephanie Carter Yi Lin PeiEva PruittJing XuLyuba Zuyeva

MentorsHelen McSwainMargie PozinClaudia BilottoNicole HallJo Ann TuttleBeth Ann SchwartzAngie Malta

Platinum LevelGold LevelCubicEdwards-Pittman

EnvironmentalHNTBJAT ConsultingThompson

Engineering

Silver LevelCroyPSIURS

Bronze LevelAtkins CH2MHillKimley Horn KYS CommunicationMcGee PartnersReynolds, Smith &

HillSoutheastern Engineering, Inc. (SEI)StantecSTV/RalphWhitehead

AssociatesWolverton &

Associates

Thanks to our 2011 Corporate Sponsors:


Birdel F. Jackson, III, P.E, President GMCEA • [email protected].

GmCeANews

The Black Corps of Engineers and theAlaska-Canada (ALCAN) HighwayBlack soldiers of the 93rd, 95th, 97th (regi-ments) and 388th Battalion (Separate) of theCorps of Engineers were assigned to Alaskafollowing the Japanese bombing of PearlHarbor, December 7, 1941. These soldiersmade a major contribution to our nation’sdefense in World War II. Until the late1990s, their achievements were not recog-nized. The road was critical to the Allied de-fense strategy because of the Japanese Pacificincursions.

The engineering regiments were segre-gated by race. The commander of the con-struction effort, General Simon BolivarBuckner was the son of the general of thesame name who surrendered to GeneralGrant to end the Civil War. He lamented inletters to the assistant chief of engineers thathe did not want to use the troops and that theCanadians preferred white troops. He didn’tthink the black troops could do the job eventhough they had more construction trainingthan their white counterparts. Further hewould schedule “two shifts of 20 hours eachand in out of the way places.” He was alsoconcerned that the very high wages would at-tract large numbers of troops and cause themto remain after the war, with the natural resultof intermarrying with the Native Americanpopulation. The generals conspired to keepthe black troops as far from civilization aspossible. Certain towns were off limits. Leavewas scarce for the black troops.

All the black regiments were com-manded by white officers. Most of them feltthat commanding black troops was detri-mental to their careers. The white officers

lived in Quonset huts while their black troopslived in thin cloth tents. The black troopswere mainly from the south and had not ex-perienced the harsh winter ahead. They weregiven light uniforms and thus improvised todeal with the harsh environment. The blacksoldiers were taught by the Native Americansassigned to the effort that condensation onthe outside of the tents provided an insulatingbarrier that kept the heat in their tents and tokeep their feet dry and prevent freezing.

There was significant teaching andmentoring among the most educated andleast educated of the troops. Several tutoringsessions were conducted and many returnedhome more literate than when they left.

When constructing sections of the road,the black troops were given equipment thatwas scheduled for scrap use. Sometimes atnight, the black troops would commandeerthe equipment used by the white troops andwould double the progress the white troopshad made.

The construction of the 1522 milehighway was completed in eight months and12 days, in -40 degree temperatures thatreached a record low of -79. Though mostlyfrom the south, they persevered. Their effortand that of the Tuskegee Airmen and otherunheralded segregated units hastened the in-tegration of the armed forces following thewar.

These black battalions constituted 35percent or 3,695 soldiers of a total force of10,670 troops. The soldiers were decoratedfor their efforts and shipped out to serve inthe South Pacific and Europe.

The fiftieth anniversary celebration ofthe highway was held in 1992 in Alaska, and

there was limited mention of the blacktroops and their contributions. On March26, 1993, the state of Alaska passed legisla-tion, signed by Governor Hickel, renamingthe bridge over the Gestle River the “BlackVeterans Recognition Bridge”.

Information from an article by E. ValerieSmith, “The Black Corps of Engineers and theconstruction of the Alaska Highway-ALCAN-African American and World War II” v

seAOGNews

Kurt Swensson, PE, SE PresidentThe Structural Engineers Association of Georgia

SEAOG With the beginning of summerthere is much to do. For structural engineersin Georgia, it is time to renew our member-ship in SEAOG for the 2011-2012 year.SEAOG meetings and seminars are a greatplace to form new relationships, learn newways to deal with the challenges of our in-dustry, and seek new career or business op-portunities. We encourage you to visit ourWeb site www.seaog.org for specific infor-mation about our meetings, to renew yourmembership, or become a new member.

Membership with SEAOG has manybenefits including discounts to all SEAOGseminars, AISC Seminars, as well as NCSEAseminars, webinars, and products. These dis-counts alone will cover the cost of member-ship many times over. Membership inSEAOG also puts you on our contact list sowe can keep you informed of opportunitiesto earn your professional development units,actions in the legislature that may affect yourpractice and profession, changes to licensingand registration coming from the GeorgiaBoard of Professional Engineers and LandSurveyors (PELS Board), and proposedbuilding code revisions.

Support of SEAOG with your member-ship helps provide structural engineers in thestate representation in the legislature throughSEAOG’s membership in the Georgia Engi-neering Alliances Legislative Council. It alsogives you a voice with the PELS Board. Mostimportantly, your membership in SEAOGand attendance at functions provides supportfor high quality, low cost, opportunities toearn professional development hours(PDHs) for Georgia, Florida, and other sur-rounding states. This is a vital role forSEAOG and an important service to ourmembers. Through eight monthly member-

ship meetings and at least one eight-hourseminar each year, SEAOG provides all thePDHs required to meet the requirements ofcontinuing professional competency. PDHsfrom SEAOG’s seminars and meetings canalso be used to fulfill the requirements of theSECB Structural Certification. In 2010-2011, SEAOG provided a seminar dealingwith assessment of structures in response toseismic or high wind events. Membershipmeetings included topics ranging from theapplication and use of Good SamaritanLaws, emergency response of structural en-gineers in Haiti, risk management for struc-tural engineers, modular precast structuralsystems, and new advances in active struc-tural monitoring and control.

The board has begun planning for the2011-2012 year and seeks input from ourmembers and structural engineers in Geor-gia concerning topics for seminars or mem-bership meetings as well as speakers ofinterest. You can send any recommendationsor suggestions to us by going to the SEAOGWeb site ( www.seaog.org ) then clicking the“Contact Us” link.

Some major issues of interest in thecoming year include funding and operationof the PELS board, an effort to create a spe-cialty SE License, and taxation and spendingactions affecting structural engineers by thestate legislature.

The proposed state budget for 2012 in-cludes deep cuts in the operation budget forthe PELS Board. It is our opinion that thisbudget was already inadequate to meet thelicensing and registration needs of the statesstructural engineers so the new cuts are aconcern. Through membership in the Geor-gia Engineering Alliance, we have joinedwith other professional engineering organi-

zations in an effort to review and provideinput to the Secretary of State’s office relatedto support for the necessary functions of thePELS board.

With changes to the exam requirementsfor PEs with structural experience in Geor-gia, and active movements to create specialtySE licensing in states across the region andcountry, the SEAOG Board has formed acommittee to pursue the development of aspecialty license for structural engineers inGeorgia. The national debate over specialtyregistration for fields of engineering, such asfor structural engineers, is beginning to heatup, and we want to make certain our mem-bership is kept up to date with the latestideas and thinking on this important issue.We are consulting with NCSEA on samplelegislation, rules, and implementation forsuch a license based on the experience ofother state organizations. A presentation atthe Georgia Engineering Alliances SummerConference on June 21st is intended to be adiscussion with other professional engineer-ing organizations in the state.

The SEAOG board welcomes any ques-tions or comments related to these or otherissues from our members and other profes-sional engineers in the state. You can providecomments at our Web site by following the“Contact Us” link. v

Marion Waters, P.E.ITS President

its News


There is very little doubt that I am on thegeeky side of being an engineer. My wife of41 years tells me regularly that it takes a veryspecial person to tolerate someone with myspecial characteristics. Being the magnani-mous person that I am, I do not take offense,nor do I intend to change.

Being on the geeky side of engineering,I speak and write in acronyms. ITS, ATMS,ITE, ASHE, ASCE, ASTM, GSPE, TMC,TCC, EOC, LCD, LED, VDS, CMS,DMS, MPH, FPS, ADT, AADT, VPD,VPH, GPS, GIS, HDMI, DVI, MPG,MPEG, H.264 and NTCIP are all part ofmy vocabulary.

Guess what? If you are familiar with halfof the terms in the previous paragraph, youare probably on the geeky side too. If youare reading this and recognized ALL of theabbreviations and terms, we probably knoweach other very well. Being well balancedand with a sincere love for my profession, Iam comfortable with my oddities and ec-centricities, but occasionally I run into theuse of an acronym that is undefined. Whenthis happens, I am bothered to the point ofdistraction until I can get a handle on thenew string of letters and the ideas and con-cepts they represent.

One day recently, I began my day as Ivery frequently do, with a quick read of oneof the many technical publications I receiveeither by paid subscription or as a free pub-lication distributed for advertisement. Thatparticular day, I picked the special annualedition of an international magazine pre-senting a wide range of articles setting thestage for a sponsored conference in Europein 2012. The lead article made me reallyproud as I negotiated the odd spelling of Eu-ropean English words such as “REALISED”

instead of realized, and “CENTRE” insteadof center. I was feeling really good when Icame across the term, ICT

Being of an age where memory is thefirst suspect in every case when I encountersomething I don’t immediately recognize(e.g. is this really something new, or shouldI already know this term and have just for-gotten it again?), I immediately became ob-sessed with finding the definition of theterm. Reading further in order to seek con-text, there were three phrases presented inrapid fire sequence which contained thisacronym.

“…better management of its existing net-work and vastly improved ICT deploy-ment in the form of ITS.”

“…before the ICT revolution…”

“The importance of an ICT infrastructurefor urban transport…”

This was even more disturbing to me. Had Ialready forgotten another revolution? Did Imiss a significant shift in the ITS world forthe first version of ICT before it was im-proved?

You simply cannot realize how dis-turbed I was to realize that I must havemissed an entire change in the infrastructureof the transportation used in urban areas.

I immediately charged in to action bycranking the Google engine to the max, andfound gratification learning that this term iswell known (just not to me) and has beendefined for use in a number of applicationareas. The acronym ICT stands for “Infor-mation and Communication Technologies.”

To be specific, for the article and publi-

cation I was reading at the time, it was a gen-eral term referring to the application of In-formation and CommunicationTechnologies within the field of environ-mental sustainability.

Good, I was OK again. It was not mymemory that had failed (again). It was justa term I had not run across in the trans-portation industry. However, as I read fur-ther, I began to be disturbed again, because,these terms and the context in the way theywere discussed SHOULD have been some-thing that I was not only aware of, butshould have been concerned about. I don’twant you to be as uninformed as I was, so,here is a little more on the subject so you willknow when you see it again.

ICT is an extended term for Informa-tion Technology (IT), but it is a much moregeneral term. That is to say that IT is a sub-set of ICT. Likewise, for the transportationcommunity, ITS is a subset of ICT. In otherwords, ICT consists of ITS as well as teleph-ony, broadcast media, all types of audio and

video processing, and transmission and net-work based control and monitoring systems.More and more application areas are becom-ing relevant to sustainable development inindustry, health care, agriculture, and thetransportation industry so we can expect theterm to become more commonly recognized.

So, what is the purpose of all verbiagefor this article?

We must constantly learn and be awarethat even as our industry is changing, it isonly a part of the world of change. We mustadapt and be ready to adapt further by look-ing carefully at what the future of Trans-portation and Intelligent TransportationSystems will be. As transportation moves todifferent forms than we see today, we will seethe term ICT more frequently. Severaltrends will be responsible for driving this

shift in our industry. First will be the in-creasingly expensive cost of oil based vehiclefuels, and the potential electrification of theurban areas (more electric cars and moreelectric service vehicles in urban areas) withelectric recharging stations being deployed(been to California recently?) to reduce thepollution levels and petroleum based fuelusage. Second, we can expect there to bemore emphasis on information to the vehicleand from the vehicle that can be shared withother transportation users.

The ITS GEORGIA Chapter Annualmeeting is in September of this year, and theOrganizing Committee has selected thetheme of 20/20 VISION. We are all excitedby the work the Technical Program Com-mittee has been doing to line up sessionswith topics that will help us achieve a clearer

vision of the future of ITS. In late April of this year, I was very ex-

cited to get the good news that Ms. Shelley J.Row, Program Director of the IntelligentTransportation Systems Joint Program Officein the Research and Innovative TechnologyAdministration (RITA) has agreed to be ourkeynote/opening session speaker for our an-nual meeting. Ms. Row has only recently re-turned from an extensive stay in southernEurope and has extensive understanding ofhow ITS can make our lives better.

Please visit our Web site(www.ITSGA.org) for information aboutour monthly meetings for 2011 and our an-nual meeting to be held September 18 – 20,2011 at the Reynolds Plantation nearGreensboro, Georgia. v

ITS GEORGIA CHAPTER LEADERSHIP

DIAMOND SPONSORTemple

PLATINUM SPONSORSWorld FiberUtilicomURSPBS&JGS&PArcadisSercoDelcanSensys

GOLD SPONSORSControl TechnologiesAECOMTransdynKimley-HornIterisTraficonGarrettcom

SILVER SPONSORSSouthern Lighting & Traffic SystemsMultilinkMaxcell

DaktronicsCambridge SystematicsIntelligent DevicesMidascoGrice and AssociatesVideolarmGannett FlemingQuality TrafficCitilog

PresidentMarion Waters, Gresham, Smith and Partners

Vice PresidentMark Demidovich, GDOT

SecretaryKristin Turner, Arcadis

TreasurerChristine Simonton, Delcan

Immediate Past PresidentAnthony Bradford, GDOT

Ex OfficioGreg Morris, Federal Highway AdministrationJamie Pfister, Federal Transit Administration

DirectorsMarwan Abboud, ArcadisRonald Boodhoo, GDOTSusie Dunn, ARCJohn Hibbard, PBS&JCarla Holmes, Gresham, Smith and PartnersPatrece Keeter, DeKalb CountyScott Mohler, URSTom Sever, Gwinnett County DOTKenn Fink, Kimley-HornBayne Smith, URS

State Chapters RepresentativeKenny Voorhies, Cambridge Systematics Inc.

OUR SPONSORS Thanks to our sponsors, who provide valuable financial assistance to the organization:

tional one percent retail sales tax. This one-cent sales tax referendum is

tremendously important to the future of theAtlanta region. Not only contending withthe daily travel issues, we are falling behindother areas around the country in attractingnew businesses because of our congestionproblems. As one of 12 regions statewide, theAtlanta area would receive approximately $9billion over the ten year collection period tomake improvements in the transportation

system. The funding would be applied to:roadway improvements, roadway and bridgemaintenance, safety and traffic operations,freight and logistics, aviation, bicycle andpedestrian facilities, transit capital, and tran-sit operations and maintenance. I encourageeveryone to be as informed as possible aboutthe regional sales tax program and make thatinformed decision in August 2012.

Our Summer Seminar registration isnow active through our Web site,

www.gaite.org. We invite all transportationprofessionals to join us at the King andPrince Beach and Golf Resort on St. SimonsIsland for our Summer Seminar, July 17-20.We have an outstanding technical programplanned, including a tour of the port ofBrunswick. In addition, we have sportingand social activities, as well as our Dr. JohnMoskaluk Memorial Scholarship Auction.You don’t want to miss this event! v

Thirty members of the Georgia Section at-tended the Southern District ITE Meetingin Lafayette, Louisiana, in April. We joinedover 200 other transportation professionalsthroughout the Southeast to learn about in-novative practices and projects in traffic,planning, and transportation engineering.We enjoyed Cajun hospitality and network-ing with our colleagues and friends withinour nine state district. The Georgia Sectionwas well represented, and we brought homeseveral awards and recognitions that arehighlighted below.

“The Herman J. Hoose DistinguishedService Award” was created to recognize per-sons who untiringly and unselfishly con-tributed to our profession and ourorganization, and who by personal integrity,leadership and example inspired fellow pro-fessionals to greater service. The GeorgiaSection is proud that our own KennyVoorhies, PE, PTOE of Cambridge System-atics was the 2010 recipient of this presti-gious award. Kenny has been active in ITEhis entire career. He was President of theGeorgia Section in 1989 and President ofthe Southern District in 2000.“The John F. Exnicios Government Em-ployee Outstanding Service Award” was cre-ated to recognize public service employeesfor outstanding contributions to their com-munity, to transportation engineering in thepublic sector and to the Southern District ofITE. Todd Long, PE, PTOE of GeorgiaDOT was the 2010 recipient of this award.Todd is the Director of Planning and wasPresident of the Georgia Section in 2004.We are equally proud of Todd.

The Georgia Section received the BestSection Award from the Southern District.Every year the competition is close betweenthe Georgia and North Carolina Sections, aswe both have very strong programs. Our an-


iteNews

Mike Holt, PE, PTOE, PresidentGeorgia Section, Institute of Transportation Engineers

nual report showcased our 2010 activities,which included 39 events, such as meetings,training, webinars, social events, and com-munity service activities. Thanks to DavidLow for his leadership in 2010 that earnedus this award.

GA ITE has two very active universitychapters; one at Georgia Tech and the otherat Southern Polytechnic State University(Southern Poly). The Georgia Tech chaptersponsors an activity every month hosting ameeting, webinar, or technical presentation.The April 2011 Georgia Section monthlymeeting was hosted by the student chapteron the Georgia Tech campus, which high-lighted GDOT Commissioner Vance Smithas the guest speaker. The chapter also sentrepresentatives to various national eventsthroughout the past year, with members hav-ing attended the GA ITE Summer Seminar,ITE’s Southern District Annual meeting, andTRB in Washington. The chapter also spon-sors numerous social events and communityservice projects with students participating inHabitat for Humanity and Atlanta StreetsAlive. The success of the Georgia Tech chap-ter was recognized by the Southern Districtas the runner-up for best student chapterwithin the nine state region, which has 26 ac-tive student chapters. Stephanie Box andChris Rome were in attendance at the Dis-trict meeting to receive this award on behalfof Georgia Tech.

The Southern Poly chapter has had oneof the more productive and successful yearsin recent history, while its membership hasgrown to 25 active members. The studentchapter hosted a number of technical meet-ings and sponsored field trips to different fa-cilities, including Georgia DOT’s GeneralOffice and Transportation ManagementCenter, Cobb DOT’s Transportation Man-agement Center, and United Consulting.

This allowed the student chapter to gainhands-on experience of transportation in-dustry activities. Student members have alsobeen active in attending our Section’smonthly meetings. The Southern Poly stu-dent chapter made the Georgia Section veryproud as they finished a close second placein the District Traffic Bowl competition atthe Southern District Annual Meeting. Thiswas the first year Southern Poly fielded aTraffic Bowl team, and their success earnedthe chapter a $1,500 prize. Bryan Sartin,Josh Conrad, and Zach Lammers repre-sented Southern Poly on the Traffic Bowlteam. Advisor Sung-Hee (Sunny) Kim alsoattended the meeting to support the team.

A huge amount of activity that has al-ready occurred in preparation of the regionalsales tax vote resulting from House Bill 277,the Transportation Investment Act, and thereis even more work to take place prior to theAugust 21, 2012 vote. All of the municipalitieshave submitted their project requests (draft in-vestment list). Now GDOT and its regionalpartners are evaluating the list for meeting theproject criteria. Once the candidate list is fi-nalized, the regional roundtables will eitherapprove or reject the list, with decisions havingto be made by October 15, 2011.

Anticipating that the project list will beapproved, these transportation investmentswould ultimately be decided by each region’svoters during next year’s general primaryelection. To aid in the education and advo-cacy of the program, two groups have beenformed. The Metro Atlanta Voter EducationNetwork (MAVEN) will take a lead role inproviding educational matters, etc. so the cit-izens will have as much data as possible tomake an informed decision at the polls. TheCitizens for Transportation Mobility (CTM)will be the primary advocacy group encour-aging voters to say yes to impose the addi-

Board Position Name E-mail PhonePresident Mike Holt [email protected] (770) 407-7799

Vice President John Karnowski [email protected] (770) 813-0882Secretary-Treasurer Dwayne Tedder [email protected] (678) 808-8840

Past President David Low [email protected] (770) 594-6422Affiliate Director Robert Baker [email protected] (770) 971-5407

District Representative David Benevelli [email protected] (770) 246-6257District Representative Keith Strickland [email protected] (404) 946-5744

Committee Chair E-mail PhoneAmbassador Jody Peace [email protected] (770) 431-8666

Annual Report David Benevelli [email protected] (770) 246.6257

Awards/Nominations David Low [email protected] (770) 594-6422

Audio/Visual France Campbell [email protected] (678) 518-3952

Career Guidance Brendetta Walker [email protected] (404) 364-5235

Clerk Elizabeth Scales [email protected] (770) 200-1735

Comptroller Jim Pohlman [email protected] (770) 972-9709

Finance Martin Bretherton [email protected] (404) 946-5709

Historian Charles Bopp [email protected] (404) 848-6054

Life Membership Don Gaines [email protected] (404) 355-4010

Membership Sunita Nadella [email protected] (770) 423-0807

Mentoring Program Alvin James [email protected] (404) 419-8700

Past Presidents Todd Long [email protected] (404) 631-1021

Web site Shawn Pope [email protected] (404) 460-2609

Young Members Holly Bauman [email protected] (770) 200-1764

Annual Meeting Dan Dobry [email protected] (770) 971-5407

Engineers Week Steven Sheffield [email protected] (404) 893-6132

Program John Karnowski [email protected] (770) 813-0882

Summer Seminar Jonathan Reid [email protected] (404) 364-5225

Winter Workshop Todd DeVos [email protected] (678) 405-3132

Technical Chair Andrew Antweiler [email protected] (678) 639-7540Technical Vice-Chair Winter Horbal [email protected] (770) 368-1399

Georgia Engineer Magazine Dan DobryJohn Edwards

[email protected]@bellsouth.net

(770) 971-5407(404) 264-0789

Marketing Shannon Fain [email protected] (770) 813-0882

Newsletter Vern Wilburn [email protected] (770) 977-8920

Public Officials Education Scott Mohler [email protected] (678) 808-8811

Scholarship Taylor Stukes [email protected] (770) 613-9558

Georgia Conservancy Shaun Green [email protected] (404) 463-2437

ITE International John Edwards [email protected] (404) 264-0789

Legislative Bill Ruhsam [email protected] (678) 728-9076

Georgia Tech Paul DeNard [email protected] (404) 635-8278

Southern Poly Jim Tolson [email protected] (404) 624-7119

46 The GeorGia enGineer

Georgia Engineer (June-July) 2011

Documents

Transcript of Georgia Engineer (June-July) 2011