Transportation Delivered, Spring/Summer 2010
description
Transcript of Transportation Delivered, Spring/Summer 2010
D E L I V E R E DSpring/Summer 2010
T R A N S P O R TAT I O N >
Construction Phase Services Shine on iROX Stage > pg. 1
Sacramento Regional Transit District Seeing Green > pg. 19
1
7
15
11
25
19
29
35
39
Highway -> Construction ServicesConstruction Phase Services Shine on iROX StageWith four engineers on-site throughout the construction process, iROX never missed a beat. Cover Photo: © Keith Philpott
Aviation -> RegulationsEnhancing Airline Passenger Protections — A New Consumer Protection Regulation Goes Into Eff ectTwo years of research and planning went into crafting the new regulations for “Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections.” Asked by USDOT to complete the regulatory impact analysis, HDR had a front row seat.
Freight Railroad -> Feasibility StudyEast African Rail Expansion Applies North American Freight StandardsA proposed freight rail expansion would provide signifi cant social and economic benefi ts to the east African countries of Tanzania, Rwanda and Burundi. Applying North American Freight Standards might be the key to making it happen.
Land Development -> Planning & EconomicsCentral Indiana Transportation Study Combines Best of Planning, EconomicsThe Central Indiana Transit Task Force combined planning and economics to deliver a long-term transportation plan from the perspective of the private sector. It’s another innovative approach for transportation agencies looking to get the most out of limited fi nancial resources.
Transit -> Light RailSacramento Regional Transit District Seeing GreenConstruction of Sacramento’s Green Line transit extension is underway after years of careful planning and public outreach. Learn how the desire for improved mobility and economic development shaped this ambitious eff ort.
Technical Excellence -> QualityQuality Applied — HDR’s QA/QC ProgramComprehensive quality assurance and quality control procedures can ensure safe, cost-eff ective and effi cient delivery of your project.
Maritime -> Facility DesignGraving Dock Gives Gulf Marine Fabricators Domestic OptionWho needs a heavy lift vehicle when you have a fl oating hull? The ATP Titan’s unique design led designers to an innovative solution for building and transporting the new fl oating production facility.
Financial -> Cost Risk Analysis & Value EngineeringWhat Owners CRAVE™ — Proactive Approach to Project DeliveryWith limited funding available and more scrutiny on how the money is used, agencies need credible, transparent and comprehensive processes to limit risk and get the most bang for their buck. CRAVE answers the call.
Expanding Our Capabilities -> New HiresHDR’s Transportation Program Welcomes John Haussmann, John Hubbell, Sena Kumarasena and Pierre VilainFour key hires bring more than 120 years of transportation expertise and knowledge.
I N T H I S I S S U E
© K
eith
Phi
lpot
t
© Ke
ith Ph
ilpot
t
iROXiROX Shine on
Construction Phase
[1] www.hdrinc.com TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED
Apple has the iPod and Florida has the iROX, also
known as the Interstate 75 Roadway Expansion.
It may not conveniently store thousands of songs
on a device that fi ts in your pocket, but iROX does
represent a cutting-edge approach to managing
large-scale transportation projects.
The Times They are a Changin’When the Florida Department of Transportation
(FDOT) selected ACCI/API, a Joint Venture, as the
design-build-fi nance contractor for the $430.5 million
iROX project, it marked the fi rst time FDOT entered
into a public private partnership (P3). With the funding
in place and the design-build team on board, FDOT
was set to launch the largest single roadway project
in its history — widening 30 miles of I-75 from four
lanes to six, reconstructing 20 bridges, building four
new bridges, creating 23 new stormwater ponds and
installing six noise barriers.
Despite the massive undertaking, the roadway
portion of the project will be completed more than
10 months ahead of schedule.
The team of ACCI/API and design engineer HDR credit
the design-build approach for making the aggressive
design and construction schedule possible. The
typical design-bid-build process is disjointed and
requires three independent boundaries: • Designers are required by ethics to maintain a
distance from builders. • Owners must procure designers and builders
separately. Also, 100 percent plans are required,
which further separates and lengthens the
processes. • Builders are forced to select subcontractors,
equipment and materials based on lowest price.
As a design-build project, iROX successfully
eliminated these boundaries. Project oversight was
handled by Metric Engineering via a construction
engineering inspection (CEI) contract; two builders,
Anderson Columbia Company Inc. and Ajax Paving
Industries of Florida LLC, formed ACCI/API to serve
as the construction manager for iROX; and HDR
provided design engineering and construction phase
services. The goal was for the owner (represented
by the CEI), builders and designers to work together
with a singular responsibility and objective. The
result was a quality project with savings in cost, time
and administration, as well as improved sharing of
knowledge and better risk management.
Stage
Services
By David Gilbert, P.E.
> Having engineers on-site throughout the construction process allowed changes to be made in days rather than weeks.
Highway -> Construction Services
[2]
> The I-75 widening project stretches from Golden Gate Boulevard in Naples to Colonial Boulevard in Fort Myers.
Mike Horan, President of Ajax, said the construction
phase services approach presented a way to
make changes more quickly, which increased
their likelihood of qualifying for a $15 million early
completion bonus. “We were interested in attaining
the bonus by advancing the schedule 150 days
without incurring extended overtime and having
to schedule additional crews and equipment,”
Horan said. “In accomplishing our goals, we
decided to take a proactive approach by using our
design partners from HDR as on-site construction
engineers. The idea here was to advance decisions,
make changes to the design and use a close team of
construction managers and designers on-site who
could expedite the necessary changes to continue
construction non-stop.
“An added value was that the on-site engineers
could listen to our suggestions, learn our methods
and incorporate our ideas into the design when
possible.”
Come TogetherFour HDR engineers — one each for roadway,
drainage, structures and environmental —
brought more than 100 years of combined design
experience to the project offi ce in Fort Myers where
they became integrated with the joint venture.
Felipe Jaramillo, the Project Controls Manager for
the I-75 joint venture, said creating the construction
phase services team provided additional confi dence
for the contractor. “They provided independent
verifi cation of the plans, watching over the requests
for additional information (RFIs), design concerns
and construction,” Jaramillo said. “Because we
worked side-by-side with these guys and went to
lunch with them and went into the fi eld with them,
they really became part of the on-site team in every
way. Building is what we do, and we’re confi dent
in our work, but having this additional layer of
confi dence was a huge benefi t.”
The co-location approach made it easier to develop
relationships between the joint venture, the
construction phase services team and the specialty
subcontractors. Since October 2007, the team
has shared offi ce space, visited construction sites
together and socialized away from the offi ce.
© Ke
ith Ph
ilpot
t
[3]
“It takes the right personalities and skill level to make this
approach work, but in our case we had the right people in
the right spots at the right time, “ Horan said.
Beyond the personal aspect of co-location, having the
engineers on-site allowed quick decisions that sometimes
saved weeks of construction delays.
For example, a confl ict with an existing junction box for
stormwater pond C-5 normally would have required one to
two days to write an RFI, up to three weeks to get changes
back from the engineer and another two weeks to revise the
plan. But with a drainage engineer on-site, a new plan was
developed in three days, verifi ed by the designer the next
day and ready to implement within a week of the issue being
discovered. A process that might have taken fi ve weeks
to resolve was cut down to fi ve days. With 23 stormwater
ponds included in the project, signifi cant delays on one
could produce a domino eff ect that seriously threatened
the overall project schedule.
Jaramillo said there were more than 320 offi cial issues
logged, and many of them had success stories similar to
pond C-5. “One in particular
was the noise wall at Southern
Pines, in Lee County, that
presented some unexpected
utility confl icts because of the
foundation,” he said. “But our
structures engineer was out
there right away to redesign
foundations and avoided any
major utility confl icts. The whole thing was done so quickly
and probably saved us weeks with the contractor already
sitting on the site.”
With a Little Help From My FriendsAs discussed above, typically the engineer works in isolation
from the builder, focusing solely on production of plans and
specifi cations to code. This design process is iterative and
> The iROX eff ort included widening 30 miles of interstate, reconstructing 20 bridges, building four new bridges, creating 23 stormwater ponds and installing six noise barriers.
[ “We had the right people in the
right spots at the right time.”
- Mike Horan, President of Ajax Paving Industries of Florida ]
© Ke
ith Ph
ilpot
t
TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [4]
generates several review and response periods. Finished
design documents are signed and sealed, assembled
into design packages and let to construction. During
construction, the engineer’s responsibility usually is limited
to a few RFIs or shop drawing reviews.
On the iROX project, the construction phase services
approach placed HDR staff in the project offi ce for the
duration of the construction period. From this vantage point,
they were able to observe with greater detail what was
occurring in the fi eld and pre-emptively identify potential
problems. This information is seldom available to the
engineer, but the construction phase services arrangement
provided a number of means to gather it, such as:• Direct fi eld observation — Driving the corridor could
bring to light some issue that needed attention. For
example, one trip revealed exit ramp tapers that were
too sharp. Field observation made it possible to address
this safety issue with the contractor immediately.
• Meetings — With several agencies, contractors and
subcontractors involved in a project of this scale,
meetings were a commonplace occurrence. Attending
these meetings made the on-site engineers acutely
aware of the issues from many standpoints. Having
the engineers on hand also provided assurance to
stakeholders who just wanted to know that everything
was being done per the standards.• Surveys — As the project was constructed, staking
surveys were done for layout of the project. By
interacting in the fi eld, both the surveyors and the
engineers were privy to an exchange of information
that doesn’t exist on a more traditional project.
Takin’ Care of BusinessOnce the engineers were aware of a potential issue, the
information was logged into a customized database
that could be shared companywide using ProjectWise
collaboration software. This allowed engineers in other
> The goal was for the owner, builders and designers to work together with a singular responsibility and objective.
[5] www.hdrinc.com TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED
locations who had worked on the original design to
participate in brainstorming solutions and making
plan revisions. When situations presented multiple
alternatives or needed contractor input, the ACCI/API
joint venture and/or the appropriate subcontractors
were consulted as well. Ultimately, the joint venture
was involved in every proposed change that related to
schedule or cost.
In addition to the ProjectWise databases, each
category of log items was assigned a documents fi le
for collecting written copies of the action items, e-mail
correspondence, marked plans and digital photographs.
Each action item was catalogued by number and
included a brief description, date received, resolution
comments and a date of completion. Log items were
divided into the following four categories:• Project Issues — Project issues were categorized
as design-related challenges that arose during
construction and required the assistance of HDR staff to
ensure a timely and appropriate resolution. • Requests for Information — Written RFIs came from the CEI
or the contractor. RFIs were processed similarly to project
issues, but typically included more complex questions
related to safety, material substitution, detailed discussion
of specifi c design requirements, etc. • Requests for Modifi cation — The contractor submitted
written requests for modifi cation (RFMs), which typically
involved certain components that were already
constructed but were out of tolerance and required a
detailed engineering analysis and design modifi cation. • Shop Drawings — Shop drawings were submitted by
the contractor to be reviewed by the design engineer.
Shop drawings were packaged and assigned a document
number with a second number given to each drawing
within the package.
Having an effi cient system of coordinating and organizing log
items allowed the engineers to focus on resolving issues quickly
and help the contractor keep the construction team on schedule.
Time is on Our SideThe iROX project used 400,000 tons of asphalt pavement,
750,000 tons of reinforcing steel and 1 million tons of lime rock.
As many as 500 construction crew were on site simultaneously.
In every way, iROX was a big project, and that includes the early
completion bonus. The ACCI/API joint venture would earn a $15
million bonus for fi nishing the project by July 27, 2010, seven
months ahead of the owner’s current target date of Feb. 15,
2011. They not only hit the early completion goal, they beat it by
four months — and fi nished more than 10 months ahead of the
owner’s scheduled delivery date.
For Horan, the iROX experience proved that the decision to
incorporate construction phase services was a good one. “I
would not do a design-build project of this size and importance
without on-site engineering services.” ->
> David Gilbert, P.E., is HDR’s Ft. Myers, Fla.,
Offi ce Manager. He has more than 29 years of
experience in transportation management,
planning, roadway design, drainage design
and traffi c analysis. David can be reached at
A U T H O R
© Ke
ith Ph
ilpot
t
[6]
Enhancing
> The Final Rule for “Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections” went into eff ect April 29.
[7]
Airline PASSENGERPROTECTIONS
A New Consumer Protection Regulation Goes Into Eff ect
By Daphne Federing
April 29, 2010, marked the fi rst day that commercial airlines operating in the United States
had to comply with one of the most highly anticipated and heavily debated transportation
regulations in decades — the Final Rule for “Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections.”
More commonly referred to as “The Passenger Bill of Rights,” this new regulation contains
several provisions intended to improve minimum passenger comfort and increase fairness
to consumers, including a highly publicized requirement for deplaning passengers on
domestic fl ights who have been waiting on the tarmac for three hours.
What Prompted the Regulations?While the crafting and approval of this particular regulation has taken more than two
years, the problems it targets are long-standing. Major tarmac delays in January 1999 left
Northwest Airlines passengers in Detroit stuck in planes for over eight hours, attracting
national media attention and congressional pressure on the airline industry. Subsequent
congressional hearings and an investigation by the U.S. Department of Transportation
(USDOT) Inspector General led to commitments from airline companies to improve
passenger service.
And while some carriers did make signifi cant improvements, not all were on board.
Signifi cant tarmac delays continued to occur, some confi ning passengers on planes for up
to 10 hours. The following are among the most memorable incidents in the past four years: • In December 2006, severe weather in Dallas-Fort Worth forced American Airlines to
divert more than 100 fl ights, leading to hundreds of passengers stuck on the tarmac
— some for as long as nine hours.
Aviation -> Regulations
TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [8]
• Also in December 2006, the closure of Denver’s
airport caused two fl ights to be diverted to
Cheyenne, Wyo. An investigation by the USDOT
Inspector General found: “The following morning,
United’s fl ight crew and attendants boarded the
aircraft and departed, leaving all 110 passengers
behind to take care of themselves.”• In August 2007, severe weather caused
passengers to be stranded on planes at
Philadelphia International Airport for up to six
hours.• In February 2007, thousands of passengers on
fl ights at John F. Kennedy International Airport in
New York were stuck on the tarmac for extended
periods — some for more than 10 hours.• In August 2009, a fl ight diverted to Rochester,
Minn., was held on the tarmac overnight for
more than six hours.• In March 2010 — after USDOT’s formal
announcement of the new regulations — a
diverted fl ight was held on the tarmac in Stewart,
N.Y., for more than four hours.
Each of these extended delays has its stories of
rationed chips and snacks, babies crying for hours and
toilets that stopped working.
USDOT concluded that the airline industry’s voluntary
response had fallen short and that regulation was
required. At the same time, eff orts in Congress to
legislate solutions continued to stall and fail. In
response, USDOT began the process of preparing new
regulations to ensure minimum passenger comfort.
As is required for all signifi cant new regulatory actions,
this regulation underwent an extensive review process
including an in-depth analysis of the likely costs and benefi ts to
passengers, carriers and society. The purpose of this regulatory
cost benefi t analysis, termed a regulatory impact analysis (RIA),
was to help USDOT craft as effi cient and eff ective a rule as possible
and make sure that the rule as proposed would be benefi cial to
society overall.
USDOT engaged HDR | Decision Economics to prepare the RIA.
In addressing the questions “What impact will this new rule
have?”, “How much will it cost?” and “How much are these new
protections worth to the passengers?”, HDR drew from key tenants
of transportation economic theory and utilized evidence-based
fi ndings on the value of traveler time and preferences, applying
them in new ways. Premiums on standard values of time for airline
travelers were used to value passenger discomfort when waiting
in planes stuck on the tarmac for extended periods (instead of
spending that same time in the terminal) and when experiencing
uncertainty regarding arrival delays, among other concerns.
According to the analysis, the benefi ts to airline passengers of
the new rule will exceed the costs to airlines of implementing
them. The analysis supported USDOT eff orts to weight competing
concerns of passengers and airline carriers as it developed the fi nal
version of new regulation, which was published in the Federal
Register on Dec. 30, 2009.
What are the Passenger Protections?The Final Rule is structured around fi ve broad provisions, with the
following key protections:
> Tarmac delays due to weather, mechanical issues and other factors resulted in passengers being confi ned to airplanes for as long as 10 hours.
[9] www.hdrinc.com TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED
• U.S. carriers must allow passengers on domestic fl ights
stuck on the tarmac for at least three hours to deplane,
with exceptions for safety, security and air traffi c control
needs. U.S. carriers are required to allow passengers
on international fl ights to deplane if the fl ight is stuck
on the tarmac beyond a previously posted time limit
as part of the carrier’s tarmac delay contingency plans.
U.S. carriers must provide food and water to passengers
on fl ights stuck on the tarmac for at least two hours, as
well as access to clean lavatories during the delay. • U.S. carriers must post information on how and
where to submit complaints (including providing that
information on e-tickets and Web pages) and respond
more directly to consumer complaints. • Chronically delayed domestic fl ights (defi ned as
arriving more than 30 minutes late more than 50
percent of the time for four consecutive months) are
declared to be an unfair and deceptive practice and an
unfair method of competition for which the carrier can
face signifi cant fi nes. • The largest U.S. carriers must publish fl ight delay data
on their Web sites where customers purchase tickets.
The data is to include the percentage of on-time
arrivals, the percentage of arrivals delayed more than
30 minutes, special notations for fl ights that are late
more than 50 percent of the time, and the percentage
of cancellations, if that number is equal to 5 percent
or more. The eff ective date for this provision has been
delayed to June 29, 2010. • U.S. carriers must adopt a customer service plan
and self-audit their adherence to it as a step toward
improving overall customer service.
What’s Next?USDOT will be analyzing how well the new rule meets its
objectives. In announcing the new regulation last December,
USDOT Secretary Ray LaHood noted that the department
has already begun to examine other potential requirements.
HDR continues to assist USDOT as it considers additional
passenger protections. ->
> Daphne Federing is a Senior Economist
in HDR’s Silver Spring, Md., offi ce. She has
over 15 years of experience in national
and regional economic policy research
and analysis, with particular emphasis
on regulatory impact evaluations,
economic development analysis and
national employment, welfare and
housing policies. Daphne can be reached
at [email protected] .
A U T H O R
[10]
Applies North American
Freight Standards
RAIL EXPANSIONRAIL EXPANSIONEast African
[11]
By R. Scott Goehri, P.E., and Jim Conway
Freight Railroad -> Feasibility Study
On Jan. 14, 2005, the United Republic of Tanzania and the Republic of Rwanda
entered into a formal agreement to establish the Central Development Corridor
(CDC). The goal of this agreement is to promote comprehensive regional
economic development. The agreement identifi ed several objectives relating to
social economic development, including human settlement, smooth interstate
trade and mobilization of resources to speed corridor development.
Today, passenger and freight trains move on tracks that are in poor condition and
feature meter-gauge rails on steel ties. Freight containers destined for Rwanda
move from the Tanzanian port at Dar Es Salaam to Isaka, which is located in the
central part of the country. From there, the containers are off -loaded to trucks
and carried to Kigali, Rwanda, on unimproved roads. Expanding the railway
would provide signifi cant social and economic benefi ts to Tanzania and Rwanda.
Furthermore, a spur line from Tanzania into Burundi would open the region to
effi cient movement of mining resources.
An important early step for the CDC was to conduct a feasibility study for
rehabilitation of approximately 600 miles of existing light axle meter-gauge
railroad and construction of approximately 300 miles of new railway to connect
the port at Isaka to Kigali. BNSF Railway Company served in an advisory capacity,
at the request of President Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania and with support from the
United States Trade & Development Agency (USTDA), forming a team to provide
guidance to the CDC during the study. Three key elements were evaluated: • The Port of Dar es Salaam• A new railway link between Rwanda and Burundi to the Tanzanian railway
infrastructure• The existing meter gauge railway infrastructure in Tanzania
The StudyHDR was asked to contribute to the evaluation process by comparing the previous
corridor alignment alternative which utilized International Union of Railways-
(UIC) based passenger standards and evaluation of the existing meter gauge track
against North American Freight Rail standards and practices established by the
American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA).
The project team included two alignment engineers with expertise in alignment
alternatives analysis over long corridors traversing hilly terrain. Also on the team
were experts in geotechnical, structural, hydrology and hydraulics engineering
who provided further considerations to the proposed alignments. The team’s
objective was to create reliable and credible analysis within a very short timeframe
of less than eight weeks while minimizing overall study costs.
RAIL EXPANSION
TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [12] TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [12]
[13]
The analysis focused on a 62-mile section of the 300-mile new construction
corridor. Another company had previously prepared a proposed alignment
for this segment utilizing UIC-based design guidelines. Available viable
information provided to the study team included PDF fi les of the previous
study and alignment alternatives, general location mapping and past reports
of the corridor. The greatest challenge was obtaining credible and comparable
ground elevation data that could be used in the modeling eff ort. The search for
available aerial photography and topographic mapping led to data compiled
by the Space Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission (SRTM). With the SRTM data in
hand, the previous UIC-based study’s horizontal alignment was located using
generated contours from the SRTM data. The team then developed profi les and
cross-sections along the UIC-based alignment and compared them to the PDF
fi le plans, profi les and cross-sections. Digital terrain model adjustments were
made to the existing ground elevation model, which were very similar to the
adjustments incorporated in the UIC-based study. This approach, matching the
available SRTM data to the previous study ground model, established a high level
of confi dence that a true comparison could be made of earthwork modeling
between the UIC-based study alignment and any new proposed alignments
based on North American Freight Standards design and approach.
The resulting alignment analysis proved to off er signifi cant savings in
earthworks over the previous study by utilizing AREMA standards rather than
the previously developed UIC-based design. Even though the defi nition of
the AREMA-recommended typical sections is wider than the meter-gauge
UIC-based standards, the new proposed
alignments more eff ectively used the
existing terrain topography by taking
advantage of AREMA’s tighter horizontal
curves. The result is a proposed reduction
in fi ll heights and cut depths and
potentially a better balance of earthwork
materials.
Once horizontal alignments were set,
vertical alignments were established and
earthwork models created. At that point, a
review of the hydrology and hydraulics of
bridge openings was undertaken. Since
AREMA guidelines provide for shorter-
radius horizontal curves, the alignment
crossings of several streams could be
done with much shorter overall bridge
lengths and utilize standard-length
bridge spans.
Previous estimates utilizing UIC-based
standards placed the overall project
value in excess of $4 billion. Combining
the engineering analysis with the
operational analysis, the study team
projected that the use of AREMA-based
design guidelines would save $1.1
billion in infrastructure costs and reduce
equipment costs by approximately
$583 million. This approach would also
result in a railway with one-third greater
capacity for freight operations while
accommodating passenger service.
The study resulted in acceptance of
AREMA-recommended practices by the
tri-country authority comprised of the
ministers of infrastructure of Tanzania,
Rwanda and Burundi.
Some highlights of the AREMA-based
design criteria included:• 136# continuous welded rail• Standard gauge (4 feet 8½ inches)• Maximum 6-degree curve
> The new study used data from the Space Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission to develop profi les and cross-sections along the previous alignment study.
[13] www.hdrinc.com TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED
> R. Scott Goehri, P.E., is HDR’s Central Region
Freight Rail Manager and Client Manager
for the BNSF Railway. Based in Kansas City,
Scott has 27 years of experience providing
professional engineering services for both
public agencies and private industry. His
relationship with all levels of railroad
management provides him the ability to
understand and communicate the various
project needs between all stakeholders. Scott
can be reached at [email protected] .
> Jim Conway is a Section Manager for
Freight Rail in HDR’s Las Vegas offi ce. He
has extensive knowledge of the design and
construction of railroad facilities including
analysis and design of rail yard upgrades,
mainline trackage and support facilities. He
specializes in railroad operations, logistics,
construction staging and planning. Jim can
be reached at [email protected] .
A U T H O R S
> Currently, containers are carried by rail as far as Isaka, then transferred to trucks and hauled over unimproved roads.
• Maximum design curvature uses 2¼-inch super-
elevation with 100-foot spiral curve, resulting in
minimum permissible design speeds of 30 mph for
freight and 35 mph for passenger• Maximum 1.6 percent gradient, compensated for
curvature (1 degree of curvature = 0.04 percent
equivalent grade)• Minimum curve speed of 30 mph for freight and 35
mph for passenger• 286,000-pound load limit (35.8 tons per axle)• Standard BNSF single-cell concrete voided box beam
girder ballast deck bridge• 10-foot x 10-foot box culvert used for non-bridge
defi ned drainage locations
Project StatusIn December 2009, following submittal of the report by
BNSF to the Tanzanian government, the BNSF project
team went to Rwanda to present the results to the
infrastructure ministers of Tanzania, Rwanda and Burundi.
During the two-day meeting, the team covered details
of every element of the project and answered questions
off ered by the audience. When the meeting concluded,
the infrastructure ministers crafted a joint communiqué
that acknowledged the use of AREMA standards and
practices to be most cost eff ective and, therefore,
recommended the way forward to be: 1) preparation of
a public-private partnership to mobilize private investors
and public and multinational donors for fi nancing; and 2)
the three governments, with assistance from the African
Development Bank, shall engage a project management
consultant to prepare a bankable railway project
document and gather investors/project developers.
This tender, known as the Central Corridor Project, was
anticipated in March 2010. However, in early January 2010,
Tanzania experienced tremendous fl ooding. Upwards of 3
kilometers of track was washed out and nine major bridges
destroyed. The Tanzanian Army is performing emergency
repairs to return the railroad to service but only as a temporary
solution. HDR is part of an international team proposing an
approach to remedy the situation and take advantage of
the opportunity to demonstrate the application of AREMA
standards. With some estimates placing the cost of repair
near $100 million, it is unknown if this event will have adverse
impact to the progress of the Central Corridor Project. ->
[14]
C e n t r a l I n d i a n aC e n t r a l I n d i a n a
> The CITTF study covered nine counties in central Indiana and included the capital city of Indianapolis.
[15]
In late 2008, the Central Indiana Corporate Partnership, the
Greater Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce and the Central
Indiana Community Foundation brought together a group
of business leaders to form the Central Indiana Transit Task
Force (CITTF) to examine the region’s transportation system.
With a view to meeting Central Indiana’s mobility needs and
improving its economic competitiveness, CITTF developed
a series of recommendations for the region’s transportation
system. HDR worked with CITTF to develop and deliver a
comprehensive planning and evaluation approach.
The CITTF study was unique in many ways. First, CITTF’s
mission was to enlist the expertise of private sector
leaders to develop and present a preferred transportation
strategy for Central Indiana based on the economic value
to the region. Second, while the design of highway and
transit systems is traditionally the province of planners and
engineers, evaluating the business and economic case for
a system proposal usually is conducted in a totally separate
domain by economists and fi nancial analysts. But for this
project, HDR formed a multidisciplinary team and created a
sequential process through which: 1) planners and engineers
designed technical alternatives; 2) economists and fi nancial
analysts evaluated their cost-benefi t and aff ordability;
and 3) the results of the economic fi ndings were directly
applied to developing further technical alternatives. The
combined planning and economic process continued until
the best-value combination of highway and transit capital
investments and non-capital initiatives emerged.
StrategyFor the purpose of CITTF’s work, Central Indiana was defi ned
as Marion, Hamilton, Boone, Hendricks, Morgan, Johnson,
Shelby, Hancock and Madison counties. The study also
C o m b i n e s B e s t o f P l a n n i n g ,
Morgan Johnsonsonnn
Shelbyhel
Hendricks
onnM a rioM o Hancock
BB o oo oonneneooooHam i l ton
Madison
napolisndiannnnapnndiannIndiddddddnddI diddd
C e n t r a l I n d i a n a T r a n s p o r t a t i o n S t u d y
Land Development -> Planning & Economics
TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [16]
E c o n o m i c sBy Neil Pogorelsky and Scott Miller
analyzed the need for connectivity
to Indiana communities outside of
this area, including Lafayette, Muncie,
Bloomington and Columbus.
CITTF committed to developing a
regional strategy refl ecting not just
a long-term vision, but one that
could be acted on in the near future.
To be successful, the strategy had
to be easily understood; based on
aff ordable funding options; capable
of addressing how a regional system
might be governed and run; and
include a plan for engaging policy
makers and the public in an active
dialogue. CITTF established the
following principles to govern their
decision-making process:• Approach the issues objectively
and without bias• Look at all reasonable
alternatives regardless
of mode of
transportation or
level of investment• Evaluate and use
all previous work
conducted in the
region• Engage in
a detailed
cost-benefi t
analysis to clearly
understand the economic trade-off s• Communicate that the process was not designed to
replace the existing public transportation planning
process, rather to supplement and strengthen it
Next, CITTF developed a list of key issues within the
community that transportation system investments could
and should address. These issues were incorporated into the
process of evaluating alternatives. Specifi cally, alternative
strategies needed to tackle:• Mobility• A weakening regional core• Congestion• Environment (specifi cally, air quality)• Overall regional competitiveness
With the alternatives
identifi ed, CITTF used
cost-benefi t analysis to
compare: the variations
and combinations of
roadway improvements,
pricing as a means of
congestion management,
bus system enhancements
and rail investments. The
cost-benefi t analysis took into
account the lifecycle cost of each
improvement and compared the
cost with the monetary value of
the expected benefi ts.
CITTF analyzed the funding
requirements of the strategic
alternatives and ascertained where
funding gaps appeared. Further
assessment determined the
reasonableness of likely fi nancing
sources. CITTF also considered
that a regional transportation
system would require a regional
governance structure. An eff ective
structure to manage the roles of
numerous public entities, including
multiple municipalities and
counties, would be as important
to the ultimate success of such
a system as its physical design,
construction and operation.
RecommendationsUltimately, this process led CITTF to
develop a set of recommendations
in four parts: The Future System,
Financing of the Future System,
Governance of the Future System
and Next Steps.
The Future System — Analysis
showed that a multimodal system
makes good economic sense. As
part of this multimodal system,
CITTF recommended signifi cant
expansion of the existing
roadway network in the region,
although at a slightly lower rate
than envisioned in the 25-year
Regional Transportation Plan.
> CITTF recommended a single, regional transit organization to govern a multimodal transportation system.
[ CITTF also considered that a regional
transportation system would require
a regional governance structure. ]
[17]
Whereas that plan called for approximately $8.9 billion in
capital expenditure of which $5.8 billion would be locally
funded, CITTF envisioned approximately $8.3 billion in
capital expenditures of which $5.5 billion would be locally
funded. CITTF recommended that the $600 million savings
be shifted to other transportation infrastructure.
CITTF also proposed implementing tolled express lanes on
certain segments of: 1) I-69 to the northeast of I-465; and
2) on I-65 to the southeast of I-465. These tolled express
lanes would be new lanes added to the existing freeway
and would provide the option of paying a toll to go “express”
to their destination. The lanes would be expected to raise
more than they cost to operate, thus providing a source of
funding for other transportation infrastructure.
Signifi cant expansion and enhancement of the regional bus
system would: 1) reduce the average time between buses
from 30-60 minutes to 10-20 minutes; 2) provide more direct
routes; and 3) expand service within Marion County and into
more counties than served today. Both express and limited
stop bus services would be included.
Finally, CITTF recommended adding passenger rail service
in two formats: 1) an in-street, light rail alignment on or near
Washington Street; and 2) service on existing freight rail lines
north to Fishers and south to Greenwood. The Washington
Street service would run all day. The service on existing
freight lines could run all day on the sections closer to the
center city and primarily during peak hours to the suburbs.
Financing the Future System — CITTF agreed that if new
funds are needed to pay for the system, the funding
approach needs to meet certain conditions:• Any county being served by a revamped transit system
should participate in its funding• The fi nancial burden on each county should be
proportionate to the benefi ts its residents receive• The introduction of new or increased taxes should be
subject to a referendum in each county• Public-private partnerships should be explored
wherever possible
Governance of the Future System — CITTF recommended
the following guidelines for a single, regional transit
organization to govern the system:• Authority and capacity to plan, fi nance, build, operate
and maintain the system• Leadership by an appointed board • Board appointments allocated to participating localities
based on their fi nancial contribution to the system• The ability to leverage federal funds
Next Steps — CITTF strongly believed that all of the
recommendations and fi ndings of their report should be
subject to an intense period of public input, and that the plan
should change as a result of that input. CITTF recommended
several components of this process:• The process should have the support and engagement
of elected leaders across the region• The process should seek genuine input and have
signifi cant impact on the components of a regional
transportation system• The public should have the opportunity to vote, by
referendum, on a funding mechanism to support that
new plan• Simultaneously, communities need to evaluate and
establish land use policies that are supportive of
transit-oriented development
Far Reaching OpportunitiesMembers of the multidisciplinary team who contributed to
the CITTF study believe this integrated “planning/economics”
approach to transportation planning will become more
common as public agencies strive to achieve more with
their limited fi scal resources. Beyond the effi ciencies gained
by working in an integrated manner, the team believes the
fi ndings of the study maximize the technical, economic,
social and fi nancial value for Central Indiana. ->
> Neil Pogorelsky is a Principal
Economist in HDR’s Silver Spring,
Md., offi ce where he focuses on
transportation economics, regulatory
policy and fi nancial planning. He has
13 years of experience in the research
and analysis of transportation policy
and planning and has worked on air,
land and sea transportation issues.
Neil can be reached at
> Scott Miller is a Senior Transit Planner
in HDR’s Phoenix, Ariz., offi ce. He
has over 15 years of experience in
transit operations planning. Scott
specializes in identifying community
transit needs through a combination of
community-based planning techniques
such as citizen planning workshops
and technical analyses of transit
performance and defi ciencies. Scott can
be reached at [email protected] .
A U T H O R S
TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [18]
Sacramento Regional Transit District (RT) is going green —
in more ways than one. As part of an ongoing commitment
to improving mobility and sustainability in California’s capital
city, RT is planning a new light rail extension called the Green
Line. When completed, the Green Line will connect the city’s
downtown to Sacramento International Airport, with several
destinations in between.
RT opened its fi rst light rail transit (LRT) service for local and
regional riders in 1987 and currently operates two lines: the
Gold Line runs east-to-west from the town of Folsom to
the Amtrak Station in downtown Sacramento; and the Blue
Line runs from south Sacramento to the northeast area. The
two lines total 37.4 miles and carry 12 million passengers
annually — well over RT’s original ridership projections.
GREENGREENSacramento Regional Transit District
Seeing
By Kim Pallari and Jim Hecht, P.E.
© Ke
ith Ph
ilpot
t
[19]
Transit -> Light Rail
Transit Promotes GrowthAs the state capital, Sacramento is the nexus of California
political life. With a metropolitan area population of 2.1
million, Sacramento sits at the convergence of two major
rivers, the Sacramento River and the American River. Four
major freeways serve the area — Interstate 5 (designated
federal defense corridor running from Canada to Mexico),
Interstate 80, U.S. Highway 50 and State Route 99 — but
as Sacramento grows, its local roadway system is reaching
capacity. This is especially true for north/south travel. I-5 acts
as the sole north/south arterial for local and commuter traffi c
between central Sacramento and Natomas — a rapidly
growing greenfi eld development area north of downtown.
Already one of the busiest stretches of freeway in the region,
I-5 will be further overburdened if viable transportation
alternatives are not developed. In northern Natomas lies
the Sacramento International Airport, currently undergoing
a $1.1 billion expansion to accommodate an estimated 12
million passengers per year by 2020.
Given the fast-paced growth to the north of Sacramento, it is
no surprise that polls show residents view an LRT extension
between downtown and Sacramento International Airport
as the highest transportation priority in the entire region.
The Green Line LRT extension will provide much-needed
mobility improvements to Sacramento residents and
off set the negative eff ects of rapid growth with positive
environmental and quality-of-life solutions by reducing the
growth in traffi c congestion and air pollution.
As a key player in many local transportation projects,
HDR | The Hoyt Company has worked side-by-side with RT
on the Green Line for close to a decade. The partnership
began in 2001 with development and implementation of
an extensive public outreach program. Since then, HDR has
helped RT with the alternatives analysis and subsequent
eff orts to reaffi rm a locally preferred alternative (LPA). RT also
chose HDR’s combined team of community relations and
national engineering experts to guide the agency through a
> Sacramento’s current light rail system carries 12 million passengers annually - well over original ridership projections.
TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [20]
number of signifi cant design, planning and process hurdles,
including:• Design (30 percent) and project-specifi c environmental
clearance (DEIR and FEIR competed in 9 brief months)
for the fi rst Minimum Operable Segment (Phase 1) • The fi rst design-build procurement for an LRT
extension (DB procurement documents in 9 months)
for Phase 1. This segment is well into construction with
opening anticipated in February 2011.• Design review of the Phase 1 design-build project• Planning for the entire Green Line extension
Transit Serves the PeopleDuring the alternatives analysis, several options were
examined and explored by technical experts, agency
offi cials and the public through perhaps the broadest and
most extensive outreach program ever implemented within
the Sacramento region. The alternatives analysis explored
several possible alignment and transit options, including
bus rapid transit and light rail technologies.
Between 2001 and 2003, hundreds of community and
stakeholder meetings were held, with the outreach team
disseminating project information through a wide and
unique variety of communication tools to help ensure
public awareness, education on key issues and transparency
of process. RT used traditional print media, such as
newsletters and fact sheets, as well as evolving Web-based
tools and an interactive information line. The project team
assembled citizen and technical review panels that met
on a regular basis to help guide project development.
Numerous open houses were held at key milestones to
gauge community opinions, preferences and garner input.
Monthly interagency coordination meetings helped ensure
continued and consistent communication with all of the
responsible agencies. RT even conducted a national peer
review of the project.
The extensive outreach eff orts and ongoing dialogue with
community leaders and project partners were essential to
addressing stakeholder issues and selecting and refi ning
the LPA. RT worked tirelessly to acknowledge and address
all concerns expressed by diverse and passionate voices
during the planning phase. By taking the lead in fl ushing out
the issues early, RT was able to work with the community
through a number of large and small forums to build
trust and understanding of the process and opportunities
for partnership from the public. The primary goal being
to ensure an open and transparent process, RT shared
information openly, provided educational opportunities
through national studies and sought solutions for problems
or concerns.
In December 2003, the RT board of directors approved
selection of an LRT alignment along Truxel Road through
Natomas to the airport. The LPA alignment was ultimately
incorporated into the city’s general plan, as well as the
South and North Natomas community plans. The alignment
is far-reaching, stretching approximately 13 miles through
both established and developing areas and undeveloped
lands as it nears the airport. The line will connect into the
existing light rail system downtown, traveling north through
the landmark, 240-acre Railyards redevelopment and the
promising transit-oriented River District.
Between 2003 and 2007, RT worked to develop and receive
approval on a Programmatic Environmental Document for
the entire LPA. In 2007, RT focused on a Project Environmental
Document for the 1-mile fi rst phase of the Green Line.
Following approval of this document, RT and HDR partnered
on the transitional analysis phase and procurement for the
design-build contract of Phase 1 to Richards Boulevard. The
transitional analysis work continues today and is scheduled
for completion by the end of 2010.
Transit Fuels the EconomyWhen completed, the Green Line will play a key role in
Sacramento’s economic development and further its growth
as a destination city. The southern tip of the extension sits
just fi ve blocks from the California State Capitol, right in the
heart of the business and retail district and within walking
distance of several key tourist destinations.
The Green Line will link to existing Gold and Blue lines
connecting communities in the south area and eastern
foothills to the Sacramento Valley Station which hosts
Amtrak routes to the San Francisco Bay Area. The Green
Line will pass through the future Railyards Development, an
ambitious urban infi ll project that will signifi cantly increase
the size of Sacramento’s current downtown. The Railyards
area has been in decline since the 1930s, but this revitalized
transit-oriented development (TOD) has started building
out their infrastructure and ultimately will feature 2.3 million
square feet of offi ce space, up to 12,000 residential units,
parks, hotels and retail — all located adjacent to a future
intermodal transit facility and high speed rail station being
planned around the historic depot. Plans for this area also
include a proposed 18,000-seat regional public sports and
entertainment complex with the capacity to serve more than
2 million patrons annually. The NBA, city of Sacramento and
state of California are working with a private development
team to bring this project to fruition in 2013/2014.
Another cutting-edge TOD that will host the fi rst northbound
stop on the Green Line is Township 9 — a 65-acre mixed-
[21] www.hdrinc.com TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED
use, master-planned neighborhood
that is integral to the city’s burgeoning
River District. Township 9 provides new
public access to the American River
waterfront, which will soon feature
public amenities such as parks, open
spaces, bike paths and community
spaces.
Several other population centers,
employment hubs and recreational
destinations will benefi t from the
Green Line, including the approved
20 million-square-foot Metro Air Park
mixed-use development, a community
college, several schools and the
Natomas Community Center. The
Green Line allows access to numerous
on-street and off -street bikeways,
including the city’s 23-mile American
River Parkway, which attracts more
than 5 million visitors annually. The
Green Line will link to 60 RT bus routes
and 14 suburban transit operators.
Transit Starts NowRT is so confi dent in the viability of the
Green Line that it is already constructing
the fi rst mile of the extension. This fi rst
phase uses only local funds and is
slated for operation by February 2011.
The goal for future phases is to qualify
for partial funding from the Federal
Transit Administration’s New Starts
Program.
To complete Phase 1, the project
team needed to develop a very
conceptual alignment into a workable
plan. Moreover, it was imperative
that this plan have the full support of
a broad range of private and public
stakeholders. Any controversial issues
needed to be settled quickly so that
an environmental impact report
could be prepared that meets the
strict requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
For a relatively short initial extension,
Phase 1 has posed several unique
challenges. The south end of the
extension connects to track that is
© Ke
ith Ph
ilpot
t
> The southern tip of the Green Line extension sits just fi ve blocks from the California State Capitol, right in the heart of the business and retail district.
[22]
[ When completed, the Green Line will connect the
city’s downtown to Sacramento International Airport,
with several destinations in between. ]
© Ke
ith Ph
ilpot
t
> RT has engaged the public throughout the planning and design process.
[23]
mixed with automobile traffi c and runs through shared traffi c
lanes. Along the proposed route, there is also an underpass
that allows for car traffi c to travel below Union Pacifi c Railroad
(UPRR) tracks. The underpass does not accommodate even
one extra inch of clearance on either side. Fitting the light
rail tracks through this structure required consolidation of
two bike lanes and sidewalks into one multi-use path until a
separate bike/pedestrian tunnel is ultimately constructed by
the Railyards developer.
Because it is possible that the vertical profi le of the Phase 1
track will be raised in the future by about 10 feet, the team
took great measures to create a design that lends itself to
being both effi cient and fl exible. For example, new levees
were built when the American River was shifted to the north
in 1868, but the city of Sacramento maintained the original
levee as secondary protection should there be a breach in
the primary levee. The LRT alignment makes use of one of
several fl ood gates on this old secondary levee. The Railyards
development will include raising the entire development site
to the elevation of the secondary levee; when that occurs,
the LRT tracks will need to be raised, too. Unfortunately, it
is not possible to build the initial Green Line tracks at this
future raised elevation because there is another freight track
that must remain in service for connections from the UPRR
main line. The LRT will cross this UPRR track at grade until the
freight track is eventually taken out of service.
Midway through development of the 30 percent design
and environmental clearance, RT concluded that a design-
build delivery method would be used to help guarantee
project completion by February 2011. HDR worked closely
with RT’s staff to prepare Sacramento‘s fi rst ever design-
build procurement documents for a light rail extension.
The procurement was successfully completed within a six-
month schedule, and HDR continues to provide design
review services during construction.
Transit Guides the FutureWith construction underway on Phase 1, the focus now
is on refi ning the other 12 miles to gain eligibility for the
Federal Transit Administration’s New Starts Program, which
could supply as much as half of the necessary funding
for the project. A cost risk analysis and value engineering
(CRAVE) study helped identify four areas along the original
alignment plans that could be improved, resulting in better
travel times and reliability, reduced traffi c disruption and a
more cost-eff ective project overall. (Learn more about the
CRAVE process on Page 35 of this issue.)
For example, an alternative design that allows the Green
Line to cross Interstate 80 in the median of an existing
bridge instead of building a new structure off ers substantial
cost savings. HDR is investigating further improvements
through re-evaluation of the stations on the alignment and
by working to optimize the planned TODs throughout the
corridor by ensuring maximum densities, reduced set-backs,
shared parking and strong pedestrian connections.
Stakeholder outreach continues to play a key role in
the success of the project. RT is engaged in intensive
coordination with local agencies, including the Sacramento
Area Council of Governments, which is lending its Travel
Demand Forecasting Model to HDR’s ridership estimating
work on the project. While it has often been tedious work
digging into the details of the transportation model and
updating the transportation network, parking prices, bus
routes, rail bias factors, land use assumptions and the
baseline alternative, it has paid off with ridership estimates
that double what had previously been predicted.
Once fi nal alignment and station decisions have been made
and public design charrettes completed, HDR will prepare
a capital cost estimate, operating plan, estimate for annual
operations and maintenance costs and a fi nal ridership
estimate allowing RT to move forward through the New
Starts Program and, ultimately, help bring the Green Line
extension to fruition. ->
> Kim Pallari is a Director of Community
Relations in HDR’s Sacramento offi ce. She
has 10 years of experience conducting
communications, outreach and public/
media relations programs. Kim plans and
facilitates community outreach strategies,
coordinates publicity and marketing
eff orts, and manages all aspects of public
information campaigns. Kim can be reached
at [email protected] .
> Jim Hecht, P.E., is the Business Class Area
Manager for Transportation in HDR’s
San Diego offi ce. He has spent the past 21
years managing the development of rail
transit projects from planning, preliminary
engineering, fi nal design and construction,
to the initiation of service. Jim has hands-
on experience with environmental, right-
of-way, utility and developer agreements,
project management and public outreach
aspects of transit projects. Jim can be
reached at [email protected] .
A U T H O R S
TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [24]
© Sc
ott D
obry
Pict
ures
conforms to reasonable and applicable
standards, and meets HDR’s and the
client’s expectations.”
When thinking of quality in engineering,
the concept of understandable
products that conform to standards
typically comes to mind fi rst. This is for
good reason, as most of our designs are
controlled, in at least some aspect, by
established standards.
Furthermore, the work of a planner or
engineer is only as good as its ability
to communicate intent and detail to
QualityQuality Applied Applied
By Paul Tremel, P.E., and Ed Power, P.E.
Whether it is the quality promise
printed on the bag for a lunchtime
sandwich or an advertisement for a
new car, most companies promise
quality in their product. Our industry
is no exception and due to recent
highly publicized incidents, our
transportation agency clients and
the traveling public are more aware
then ever of quality needs.
This awareness was highlighted
in recent fi ndings of the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB),
which determined that the probable
cause of the tragic I-35W bridge
collapse in Minneapolis, among other
accompanying issues, was a design
error. Insuffi cient quality control
procedures and insuffi cient federal
and state procedures for reviewing
and approving plans were cited as
contributing factors.1 As part of their
investigation, the NTSB found further
examples of more recent design
errors in discussions with other
state departments of transportation
and recommended more stringent
quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) procedures in the industry.
Every engineering fi rm talks about
quality, but owners can quickly
identify who is willing to make the
required eff ort. Every project team
member has the opportunity and
responsibility to make a diff erence in
the quality of products and services
that are provided and, ultimately,
in the quality of our nation’s
transportation infrastructure. The
end user of our products and services
is the traveling public, and they
demand and deserve to have high-
quality, safe transportation facilities.
Delivering Quality Products and ServicesIn addition to the range of standards
and criteria that govern our work,
the diversity of specializations and
practices within the transportation
industry require a high level of
technical excellence along with a
strong measure of creativity and
professional judgment. Given
this broad array of professional
responsibilities and applications,
quality can best be defi ned as
the features and characteristics
of our products and services that
contribute to their ability to satisfy
stated or implied needs. Based on
this edict, HDR’s internal quality
control procedures defi ne a quality
deliverable or service as “one
which is complete in regard to its
intended purpose, is understandable,
[25]
Technical Excellence -> Quality
the user, whether this user is a stakeholder reviewing a
transportation study or contractor building a project. For
a study, it is important for the deliverable to communicate
fi ndings to the end user, such as project scope and impact,
in order to facilitate stakeholder acceptance. For a design,
every project has multiple users — the contractor bids on
and builds the facility, the construction quality staff assure
that the facility is built according to plans and specs, and,
most importantly, the end user (operator or traveling public)
has to live with our designs for the life of the project. In some
cases, the end user will depend on a facility far beyond its
planned obsolescence.
With the push for more sustainable transportation solutions,
project goals include parameters for economic viability,
constructability, how the facility aff ects the community
and the environment, and its overall usability. Quality
control (QC) performed throughout the life of a project with
sustainability in mind yields a product that will stand the
test of time, and early implementation of quality control —
as early as the initial concept stages — can have a direct
impact on a project’s success. From a technical standpoint,
identifi cation of a potential design issue and resolution at an
early stage of project development can signifi cantly reduce
the eff ort necessary compared to resolution of the same
issue later in the project. The stakes become even higher if
an issue is discovered later in the design process or during
construction and much higher yet when the facility is in
service (See Figure 1, pg. 28). Likewise, the total facility cost
is strongly infl uenced by actions early in the project life.
HDR’s QA/QC Program
> A fundamental tenant of HDR’s project development approach is that delivery of a quality product truly involves every team member.
TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [26] TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [26]
Guiding Principles of HDR’s Quality ProgramDelivery of quality products and
services encompasses all aspects of
project development, from the initial
pursuit, scoping, fee negotiations,
project planning and management, to
project execution and project closeout.
HDR’s quality control (QC) procedures
measure the characteristics of a service
or product with respect to established
requirements; whereas quality
assurance (QA) activities provide
confi dence to both HDR and our clients
that our products or services fulfi ll their
intended purpose. The HDR Quality
Control Program consists of a series of
procedures defi ning our requirements
for procuring, establishing, managing
and executing a project.
QA encompasses “all the planned and
systematic activities implemented
within a quality system and
demonstrated as needed to provide
adequate confi dence that an entity
will fulfi ll requirements for quality.”
Understanding the intended purpose
of the project and client expectations
at the early stages of a project are
key aspects of the QA process.
During HDR’s Go/No Go Review and
Proposal and Contract Review, our QA
procedures require that we carefully
assess whether HDR can deliver quality
products and services to this project.
Specifi cally, are the right resources
available to appropriately address
all the technical issues? What are the
project requirements and client’s
needs? What are the risks associated
with delivery of this service or
product in terms of meeting schedule,
technology and budget?
Our QA procedure for project initiation
further addresses assessment and
mitigation of project risks and
establishes a game plan for successful
execution of the project. This game
plan, referred to by HDR as a Project
Guide, but also referred to in the
industry as a Project Management Plan,
establishes the specifi cs of our plan to
successfully execute the project. The
Project Guide includes, amongst other
topics, a communications plan, quality
control plan, health and safety plan,
and detailed schedule for execution.
QC reviews are critical to
producing quality products that
are understandable and conform
to reasonable standards. HDR has a
diverse business base, working with
many diff erent transportation clients
and providing services ranging from
planning studies to fi nal design and
construction across a broad spectrum
of technical disciplines. Yet we are
united with a common commitment
to provide QC reviews of all our
products and services.
Eff ective Quality Control ReviewsA fundamental tenant of HDR’s
project development approach is
that delivery of a quality product
truly involves every team member,
no matter what their job function.
HDR’s quality procedures state that “All
employees are responsible for their
work.” Each employee is encouraged
to incorporate best practices into their
work and strive to produce outstanding
quality in their products. Each team
member is further encouraged to take
personal ownership of the quality of
their products.
That being said, it is very diffi cult
to consistently perform multiple
processes over time without making
errors. To achieve the standard of
quality required of our industry, and
because no one is perfect, engineers
and scientists work in teams and
depend on others to share in the
quality responsibilities of their
deliverables through an integral
checking and QC review process.
It is this partnership between the
designer and checker/reviewer that
is an integral part of HDR’s quality
control practices. Detailed checking
is typically done as part of the design
process and is followed up by formal
QC reviews completed by senior staff
with appropriate technical expertise.
Like many aspects of our business,
performance of an eff ective QC review
draws upon past experiences as much
as technical expertise. So what are the
items emphasized during QC review?
A panel of senior HDR transportation
quality control reviewers shared
their thoughts on eff ective quality
control reviews. The panel included
Bob Brittain, Pam Pierce, Bob Yechout
© Ke
ith Ph
ilpot
t
> Each team member is encouraged to take personal ownership of the quality of their products.
[27] www.hdrinc.com TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED[27] www.hdrinc.com TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED
100%
0
0%DesignPeriod
Leve
l of I
nfl
uen
ce
Decreasing Influence
ConstructionPeriod
OperationPeriod
> Paul Tremel, P.E., is a Vice President and
HDR’s West Region Transportation Quality
Manager. In this role, Paul applies his 22
years of experience in transportation to
facilitate a focus on quality by monitoring
consistency in quality of technical products,
verifying adequacy of internal quality
reviews and supporting integration of
QA/QC Program Procedures throughout the
project development process. He also serves
as the Structures Section Manager for HDR’s
Phoenix offi ce. Paul can be reached at
> Ed Power, P.E., is a Senior Vice President
and HDR’s Transportation Director of
Planning and Design, based in Norfolk,
Va. With nearly 40 years of experience, his
responsibilities include technical, quality
and business oversight for traditional service
areas, including highway, bridge, traffi c,
transportation planning, environmental and
geotechnical. Ed has extensive management
and design experience on large multi-
disciplined projects. Ed can be reached at
A U T H O R S
and Ken Wright — all senior transportation engineers,
representing a variety of technical disciplines. Regarding
the areas of emphasis during a QC review, the panel
responded that verifi cation of consistency between plans
and specifi cations, constructability, clarity and cross-check
between disciplines are typical initial review items. In
addition, they check to see if the documents contain an
appropriate level of detailing to eff ectively communicate
the design and if required special details are shown. An
overview of geometry and order of magnitude for quantities
rounds out the list of common items.
Quality is an Integral Part of Project DevelopmentQuality is built into our products through adherence to
processes and procedures and is achieved by having
technically competent individuals performing the work,
having experienced professionals review the work and
proactively resolving the comments. Quality is verifi ed
through our internal checking and review procedures, which
are woven into the project development process while still
meeting the client’s schedule. As Aristotle said, “Quality is not
an act, it is a habit.” When applied to our industry, Aristotle’s
statement means that quality is a mindset regarding how our
work must be produced throughout the life of the project.
Beyond the obvious implications to deliverables, quality
control requirements also are critical for sustaining business
relationships and maintaining a positive reputation with
clients. We also understand that as members of the
transportation industry, we owe quality products and
services not just to our clients, but also to our communities,
whom we ultimately serve. ->References
1. Collapse of the I-35W Highway Bridge. Tech. Rpt. No. PB2008-916203. Washington, D.C.: National Transportation Safety Board, 2008. Print.
© Ke
ith Ph
ilpot
t
> Identifying a potential design issue and resolving it at an early stage of project development can signifi cantly reduce the eff ort necessary compared to resolving the same issue later in the project.
Figure 1
[28]
Gulf Marine Fabricators
GRAVINGDOCK
By Arthur B. Colwell, NCEES, P.E.,
and Douglas C. Hearn Jr., P.E.
gives
Domestic Option
[29]
In September 2006, ATP Oil & Gas
awarded a contract to Gulf Marine
Fabricators (GMF) for fabrication of
the ATP Titan, a deep-draft fl oating
production structure to be placed in
the Gulf of Mexico’s Mirage fi eld. The
proposed ATP Titan would be the fi rst
of its kind — a Minimum Deepwater
Operating Concept, or MinDOC,
patented by Bennett & Associates as a
cross between a tension leg platform
and a spar. As the fi rst MinDOC-
style hull to be built, the ATP Titan
presented GMF with some unique
challenges, not the least of which was
how to transfer the completed hull
from its fabrication site on land to the
water where it would be wet-towed to
its permanent home.
Alternatives Evaluation Until the ATP Titan, all of the hull
(fl oating) structures that GMF had
been involved with used a common
methodology, i.e., fabricating the
structure quayside, maneuvering it
onto a barge or heavy lift vessel (HLV),
transporting it via wet tow to the site,
and then offl oading the structure
into the water. The Merchant Marine
Act of 1920, more commonly known
as the Jones Act, prohibits structures
fabricated domestically from being
transported by HLV, so all of GMF’s
larger structures (greater than 10,000
tons) previously were fabricated
overseas and then transported to the
United States by HLV. Once the hull
was at its location, the HLV would
be ballasted down and the hull
fl oated off .
GMF wanted to build the ATP Titan
in the United States, so the question
became fi nding an effi cient and
economical solution to address
the Jones Act restriction. The three
primary alternatives considered were:
1) pursuing a Jones Act waiver that
would allow use of an HLV; 2) using a
launch ramp similar to those used in
ship building; and 3) constructing a
graving dock that could be fl ooded
once the hull was completed.
Pursuing a Jones Act waiver off ered
the most cost-eff ective solution but
carried several risks. First and foremost,
the tight fabrication schedule required
work to begin on the ATP Titan while
waiting for the waiver to be issued.
If the waiver was denied, the project
would be too far along to go to a new
plan without incurring substantial
scheduling consequences. Also, the
project schedule would be tied to
the HLV contractor’s schedule. HLV
contractors typically are very busy, and
obtaining a window in their schedule
might be diffi cult.
A launch ramp could be constructed
with a two-degree incline, allowing
the ATP Titan to be skidded into the
water once completed. GMF believed
this method would work, but the
complexity of the skidding operation
made it too time-consuming and
costly.
Ultimately, GMF determined the
graving dock alternative provided the
most fl exible solution, including the
Maritime -> Facility Design
> The graving dock concept allowed Gulf Marine Fabricators to build the ATP Titan in the U.S.
TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [30]
opportunity to reuse it for future projects.
In simple terms, the graving dock would
be a large hole that remained dry during
fabrication, but was deep enough to
be fl ooded and fl oat out the fi nished
hull structure. This option did not tie
the fabrication schedule to an HLV
contractor’s schedule and aff orded more
fl exibility in terms of the overall size and
weight of the ATP Titan structure.
Graving Dock DesignThe fi nal design of the Graving Dock
provided a basin that was 250 feet
wide, 600 feet long and 40 feet deep.
The dimensions were dictated primarily
by the size of the ATP Titan hull, with
some consideration for future use. Major
elements of the graving dock included
steel sheet pile walls, pile-supported
reinforced concrete relieving platforms, a
50-foot-wide by 250-foot-long coff erdam,
a reinforced concrete basin fl oor, and
both surface drainage and under-drain
collection systems.
The walls of the basin are steel sheet piles
anchored near the top by a series of high-
strength, post-tensioned anchor rods.
Temporary anchorage at the bottom of
the sheets was provided by the passive
restraint of the soil in front of the wall.
Permanent anchorage was provided
by the concrete basin fl oor, acting as a
compression strut. The sheet piles have
a coal-tar epoxy coating for corrosion
protection.
The anchor rods were encased within
a pile-supported, reinforced concrete
relieving platform located immediately
outside the sheet pile walls. The relieving
platform, as the name suggests, relieved
lateral pressures acting on the wall below
Elevation 3.0 feet that would otherwise
develop from any surcharge, e.g., cranes,
equipment, stockpiled materials or other
vertical loads acting above the relieving
platform. A combination of precast,
prestressed concrete piles and steel pipe
piles supported the relieving platform. Lateral restraint for the top of the sheet
pile wall and anchor rods was provided by a series of battered steel pipe piles
located at the rear of the relieving platform.
The coff erdam was constructed approximately 85 feet from the existing
bulkhead at the south end of the graving dock and allowed excavation of the
basin. The coff erdam structure consisted of steel sheet piles, and three rows
of temporary wide fl ange wales and steel pipe compression struts. A series of
permanent diagonal struts, a continuous pipe wale near the top of the south
wall and vertical tension rods provided lateral stability for the south wall after
removal of the temporary wales and struts. The north wall of the coff erdam
was designed to be removed and become the north wall of the basin once the
permanent diagonal struts were in place. The permanent diagonal struts and
vertical tension rods were supported at the basin fl oor level by a reinforced
concrete fl oor supported on steel pipe piles.
The basin fl oor between the north wall and the coff erdam was a reinforced
concrete slab designed as a continuous beam on an elastic foundation. Soil
springs at the basin fl oor level were determined from the soil modulus value
provided by the geotechnical consultant, and foundation computer software
was used to model the fl oor. Design loads for the basin fl oor were determined
by the self-weight of the ATP Titan hull and the support sizes and arrangement
provided by the fabricator. Although the design of the fl oor was based on the
specifi c self-weight and support arrangement for the ATP Titan hull, provisions
were made for future projects by providing consistent concrete thickness and
reinforcement throughout the basin fl oor.
> Ultimately, GMF determined the graving dock alternative provided the most fl exible solution, including the opportunity to reuse it for future projects.
[31]
[ The ATP Titan presented GMF with
some unique challenges, not the least
of which was how to transfer
the completed hull... ]
TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [32] TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [32]
Drainage was provided via three independent systems.
The surface of the basin fl oor was sloped to discrete catch
basins, which in turn drained to a sump located at the north
wall of the basin. Groundwater that comes up from below
the basin fl oor drained through an under-drain system — a
network of perforated pipes embedded in a layer of coarse
gravel immediately below the basin fl oor slab. The under-
drain system also drained into the sump at the north wall. A
series of pressure-relief valves was installed in the basin fl oor
in case the capacity of the under-drain system be exceeded.
Finally, groundwater that collects immediately behind the
sheet pile walls was collected in a 4-foot-wide vertical sand
wall and piped via wall drains to the surface drains.
Construction SequenceA compressed project schedule required construction of
the graving dock to begin well before design of most of
the major elements was completed. Initially, the site was
excavated from Elevation 10.0 feet to Elevation 3.0 feet —
the elevation of the relieving platform soffi t. While the site
was being excavated, a series of shallow and deep wells
were installed to lower the groundwater. Once the relieving
platform areas were excavated down to Elevation 3.0 feet,
the concrete piles for the relieving platforms were driven,
followed by the steel pipe piles at the rear of the platforms.
In a typical sequence of construction, the steel sheet piles
would have been installed prior to the relieving platforms, but
extended delivery times for the steel sheet piles prompted
the decision to install the relieving platforms fi rst. Once the
sheet piles started to arrive, they were installed on the east,
west and south sides, immediately behind the relieving
platforms. The sheets that ultimately would be used at the
north wall of the basin were temporarily installed near the
south end to create the coff erdam. As excavation progressed
down into the coff erdam, the levels of temporary wales and
struts were installed. Once the coff erdam was excavated to
fi nal grade, steel pipe piles were installed and the coff erdam
fl oor was placed. When the coff erdam fl oor was completed,
the permanent wales, diagonal struts and vertical anchors
were installed, and the temporary wales and struts were
removed.
Completion of the coff erdam was a key element in the
construction sequence, because the stability of the
coff erdam depended on the passive resistance of the soil
mass on the inside of the basin counteracting the lateral
earth and hydrostatic pressures acting on the outside of the
coff erdam. Thus, until the permanent wales and diagonal
struts were installed, excavation of the soil mass inside the
basin could not be completed.
> In simple terms, the graving dock would be a large hole that remained dry during fabrication, but was deep enough to be fl ooded and fl oat out the fi nished hull structure.
[33] www.hdrinc.com TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED
> Arthur B. “Bud” Colwell, NCEES, P.E., is a
Vice President and the Gulf Coast Regional
Manager for Ports in Corpus Christi, Texas.
He is experienced with design, construction
administration, and project management
for a wide array of structures, including low-
and medium-rise commercial, industrial,
waterfront and military facilities. Bud’s
primary focus area for the last several years
has been the design of heavy fabrication
facilities which support the off -shore energy
industry. Bud can be reached at
> Douglas C. Hearn, P.E., is a Senior
Structural Engineer in HDR’s Corpus Christi,
Texas, offi ce. He is knowledgeable in design
and consulting and has experience with civil
and structural engineering projects across
many areas. Douglas’s primary focus is
on port, harbor and waterfront structures
where he has been involved in all aspects
of planning, permitting, design, estimating
and construction phase aspects. Douglas
can be reached at [email protected] .
A U T H O R S
Once the basin excavation had advanced
to grade within a suitable area, work
started on sections of the under-drain
system, gravel bedding and basin fl oor
slab. Work continued in this manner
until the coff erdam was completed, and
the soil mass immediately north of the
coff erdam was removed. At this point,
the sheet piles forming the north wall
of the coff erdam were removed and re-
driven in their fi nal position at the north
end of the graving dock, and connected
to the anchorage system embedded
in the relieving platform. Excavation
of the remainder of the basin, as well
as installation of the remainder of the
under-drain system, gravel bedding,
basin fl oor slab and sump could then
proceed unabated.
After completion of the basin proper,
the area between the original bulkhead
and the south wall was excavated to the
top of the existing relieving platform.
Excavation was advanced lower in the
area immediately behind the existing
relieving platform, and in the area
between the existing relieving platform
and the existing sheet pile bulkhead, to
expose the existing anchor rods. After
anchor rod locations were determined,
small coff erdams were built at the
intersections of the basin wall extensions
and existing bulkhead to allow removal of
a pair of the existing sheet piles, as well as
installation of a new pair with interlocks
to accept the basin wall extensions.
Once the new pairs of sheet piles were
driven into the original bulkhead, both
concrete and steel pipe piles were
installed for the relieving platform
extensions on the southeast and
southwest sides of the dock, followed by
installation of the steel sheet piles and
relieving platforms. Once the platforms
and walls were completed, the existing
relieving platforms behind the bulkhead
were removed, and the area was
excavated to an elevation that would allow removal of the
remainder of the bulkhead. After the bulkhead was removed,
the area was mechanically dredged to Elevation -30.0 feet, and
the graving dock was complete.
Floating the ATP TitanPhase I of the graving dock construction project, in which the
original hole was excavated, was completed in March 2008.
Phase II — the extension of the walls to the existing bulkhead
and excavation of the soil mass between the bulkhead and
south wall — was fi nished in August 2009. Fabrication of the
ATP Titan hull wrapped up in November 2009. At that time, the
graving dock was fl ooded, and the wales and diagonal struts
supporting the south wall were removed. The south wall of
the graving dock was then removed, allowing the ATP Titan
to be fl oated out of the graving dock and towed to its fi nal
destination. GMF has since started design and construction of
a fl oating gate to enclose the south end of the basin, which
will allow the graving dock to be used for future projects. ->
The authors would like to thank Colin Ocker, P.E., of Cornerstone
Fabrication Solutions, for contributing to this article.
[34]
What Owners
Proactive Approach to Project DeliveryC R A V E™
By Khalid Bekka, Ph.D., and Ken Smith, CVS, P.E.
> CRAVE paved the way for a revised alignment for the Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle that avoided identifi ed risks that were quantifi ed at over $50 million.
© B
rett
Star
k
[35] www.hdrinc.com TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED
Financial -> Cost Risk Analysis & Value Engineering
In the past two decades, infrastructure projects have
seen signifi cant cost overruns and delays. This fact
has shaken public confi dence in cost and schedule
estimates and the ability of public agencies to deliver
projects on time and with the greatest possible value.
Besides the political embarrassment, cost overruns
and delays have signifi cant economic and fi nancial
implications and decrease public benefi ts. Cost
overruns, in particular, reduce overall capital investment
abilities and limit regional competitiveness.
With constraints on available funding, agencies now
face uncertainty in their planning process, making
conventional methods insuffi cient. In this environment,
credible, transparent and comprehensive processes
are essential to building a higher level of confi dence
in cost and schedule estimates. Decision-makers must
know the nature and magnitude of risks to determine
their risk tolerance and make eff ective decisions
throughout the project development stages. By
integrating various techniques and processes such as
cost risk analysis (CRA) and value engineering (VE), a
new process called CRAVE™ helps to eff ectively deliver
projects while continuously accounting for risks and
actively managing risk mitigation.
Traditional engineering projects provide deterministic
estimates of quantities, material prices, construction
costs, timelines and other factors while racking all the
risks under a broad contingency umbrella. This method
lacks the explicit identifi cation and quantifi cation of
the risks and hides the upside risk that many solutions,
including innovative ones, may off er. CRAVE combines
cost risk analysis with value engineering into an
integrated assessment process to assist in evaluating
alternatives, recommending delivery methods and
establishing a credible range for cost and schedule
— eff ectively delivering a project on time and within
budget, as well as providing greater overall value. While
cost risk analysis accounts for risks throughout project
development and determines how they might impact
a project’s cost and schedule, value engineering uses
a performance-based approach that reduces risk and
improves delivery at the highest value to complete a
project.
This iterative process of combining cost risk analysis
and value engineering uses available data and inputs
from the team to develop a probabilistic distribution
for a project’s cost and schedule throughout the
delivery lifecycle. CRAVE has been recognized by the
American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Offi cials, the American Council of
Engineering Companies and the Minnesota Society
of Professional Engineers as a groundbreaking and
transformational risk management process that
permits better project management and a higher level
of credibility.
Cost Risk AnalysisThe cost risk analysis process is a “bottom-up” analysis
of potential impacts to costs and schedule at the
activity level. Risk analysis for project construction
costs is often compared to the contingency line item
in an engineer’s cost estimates sheet (the “traditional”
approach to dealing with risk). Contingencies usually
lump together the consequences of an unspecifi ed
number and type of possible problems. While based
on the expert judgment of the project cost estimator,
contingencies do not allow for an explicit identifi cation
and management of risks. The risk analysis approach
not only refi nes the contingency estimate at any stage
of design, but provides the means to better understand,
quantify and mitigate the diff erent risk items to better
quantify the appropriate contingency amount. Since
contingencies are typically being revised as the design
work progresses, the CRA process calls for regular
reviews and updates of all risk elements as the project
goes through successive phases of design.
Value EngineeringValue engineering has traditionally been perceived
solely as a means for reducing project costs. However,
this paradigm only addresses one part of the value
equation, often at the expense of overlooking the role
that VE can play in improving project performance and
delivery. The VE process used by HDR is a performance-
based approach that evaluates alternatives in a
holistic approach against the baseline design using a
predetermined set of attributes. This unique variation
of conventional value engineering provides delivery
at the highest value to complete a project, with
value defi ned as the performance/cost ratio. Value
engineering as a stand-alone process has proven to
be a very eff ective tool for providing alternatives to the
baseline design, with the alternatives being developed
to meet the project functions while reducing cost and/
or schedule.
[36]
Putting it all Together — the CRAVE ProcessCRAVE combines the proven tools and processes from
CRA and VE into a single advanced project management
process. Both CRA and VE have been extremely successful in
delivering capital projects. CRAVE is an iterative process that
seeks the most eff ective and effi cient solutions and provides
decision support throughout the project delivery lifecycle.
The main objectives of the process are:• Encouraging pro-activity and early planning • Building confi dence and credibility in a project’s plans
and estimates• Developing targeted mitigation strategies for all
anticipated threats• Better allocating risks and identifi cation of project
delivery methods • Ensuring transparency, integrity and accountability
throughout the project lifecycle
With CRAVE, team leaders go beyond traditional problem
identifi cation strategies, providing innovative solutions to
clients’ toughest project challenges — often on a sharply
accelerated schedule. A rigorous analysis is performed
that includes the probabilities and impacts of the VE
recommendations and risk response strategies. The analysis
is performed using state-of-the-art modeling software to
provide the project team the most accurate information
available. At the conclusion of the CRAVE process, a
comprehensive risk management plan is turned over to the
project team to use for continued project management.
CRAVE uses tools to solicit input from the project team and
key stakeholders, quantify risks and track the risks together
with corresponding mitigation strategies. The process
relies heavily on workshops to build consensus among
stakeholders.
The CRAVE process comprises four main steps:
Step 1: Baseline Risk Assessment — This step consists of
reviewing baseline cost and schedule as well as identifying
and quantifying risks related to the baseline.
Step 2: Value Engineering and Risk Response — This step
focuses on developing value engineering recommendations
related to mitigating and/or avoiding risks. It also includes
recommendations for new opportunities and added value.
Step 3: Risk Analysis on Response Strategies — Given that
new and innovative solutions inherently carry risks, this
step is necessary to identify those risks. It also includes a
quantitative tradeoff analysis to assess whether any specifi c
solution is cost eff ective.
Step 4: Tracking, Monitoring and Control — This step identifi es
the risk to owners and the recommended frequency of
risk monitoring. It also establishes the mechanism for
risk reporting and management throughout the project
development lifecycle.
CRAVE is a scalable process, having already been applied
to projects ranging from $2 million to $4 billion, and can
be applied at any phase of project delivery. Larger, more
complex ventures benefi t from dividing the project into
manageable pieces and applying the process multiple times.
The CRAVE Process Applied — Selected Case StudiesSeveral states have benefi ted from applying the CRAVE
process to transportation-related projects. The following
are a few case studies to illustrate how CRAVE was put
to the test.
Mn/DOT Bridges Spurred by the catastrophic collapse of the I-35W Bridge
over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis, Chapter 152 of
Minnesota Laws 2008 provided an historic opportunity
> Applying the CRAVE process to 12 bridges in Minnesota provided a potential repair/replacement savings of $250 million.
© D
on O
wing
s
[37]
to address its bridge preservation
needs. The law called for development
of an improvement program that
accelerated repair and replacement of
trunk highway bridges throughout the
state. The Minnesota Department of
Transportation (Mn/DOT) selected 12
bridges at diff erent levels of design for
this assessment.
While federal requirements mandated
that Mn/DOT perform value
engineering on the projects, the state
also required cost risk assessments.
The challenge was completing 12 risk
assessments and 12 value engineering
studies in less than three months so
results could be available in time for
the next legislative session. CRAVE
was identifi ed as the ideal approach
since it provides a proven platform to
combine both processes.
The process was well received
because it both integrated mandated
processes within a short time period
and addressed the key issue of
eliminating the element of surprise
with regard to fi nancing projects.
CRAVE proved to be a very successful
tool for studying the 12 Chapter 152
projects. In December 2008 dollars, the
pre-mitigation cost for all 12 projects
was $2.1 billion. Following the CRAVE
studies and evaluating the projects
post mitigation, the December 2008
cost for all 12 projects was $1.85
billion, providing a potential savings of
$250 million.
Alaskan Way Viaduct The Alaskan Way Viaduct section of SR
99 has been a fi xture of the downtown
Seattle waterfront for more than fi ve
decades. Today, SR 99 continues to be
a main north-south route through the
city, carrying 20 to 25 percent of the
traffi c traveling through downtown.
However, time, daily wear and tear,
salty marine air and some sizeable
earthquakes have taken their toll on
the structure.
Studies in the mid-1990s showed that
the viaduct was nearing the end of
its useful life, signaled by crumbled
and cracked concrete, exposed rebar,
weakened column connections and
deteriorated railings. The roadway
was even temporarily closed after a
2001 earthquake. The Washington
State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) responded to the studies
by initiating a program to replace the
aging viaduct at an overall cost that
may exceed $3 billion. One of the
projects consists of a two-mile-long
deep bore tunnel up to 200 feet below
the surface. WSDOT implemented the
CRAVE process, breaking the viaduct
replacement program into several
structured risk assessment workshops
and value engineering studies.
Even with the enormous size and
the complexity of the project, CRAVE
proved to be eff ective in assessing
detailed segments of the projects. For
example, the process identifi ed and
quantifi ed alignment-related risks in
terms of soil conditions and impact on
historical properties. This assessment
paved the way for a revised alignment,
avoiding the identifi ed risks which
were quantifi ed at over $50 million.
SummaryCRAVE departs from conventional value
engineering and risk management
by integrating two processes that
previously were seen as unrelated.
Combining cost risk analysis and value
engineering into one iterative process
ensures that risks are identifi ed during
the planning stages and, when
possible, tracked, monitored and
proactively avoided. CRAVE’s unique
ability to build a proactive culture
within the agency and the project
team allows it to yield information that
is essential to decision makers and
ensures proper project prioritization,
adequate delivery method selection
and effi cient risk allocation during the
procurement stage. ->
> Khalid Bekka, Ph.D., is a Senior Vice President in Silver Spring, Md., and
leads HDR’s Economics and Finance practice in the U.S. Khalid has led cost
risk analysis projects for various infrastructure projects in over 20 states,
including major projects such as the Lower Manhattan Recovery Program,
Katrina Rebuild Program and the Alaskan Way Viaduct project. Khalid can
be reached at [email protected] .
> Ken L. Smith, CVS, P.E., is HDR’s Director of Value Engineering, based
in Olympia, Wash. Ken has led more than 200 value engineering studies
during his 30-plus years in the industry. Agencies have implemented
more than 80 percent of the recommendations made by VE teams led by
Ken, resulting in cost avoidance in excess of $1 billion. Ken can be reached
at [email protected] .
A U T H O R S
TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [38]
As HDR grows to better serve our clients, we are pleased to
announce the following individuals have joined the fi rm:
John Haussmann, P.E., has joined HDR as a Vice President
and Principal Project Manager based in Walnut Creek, Calif.
He will focus on major transit projects in California and
throughout the western United States.
Prior to joining HDR, Haussmann was the regional transit
manager for PBS&J’s West and Central regions. From 1997
to 2008, he served fi rst as Chief Operating Offi cer and then
CEO/President of T.Y. Lin International.
Haussmann has more than 30 years of experience delivering
multimodal surface transportation projects. He served as
Project Manager or Principal-in-Charge for varying aspects
of such notable projects as the Red Line 7th Street/Metro
Center Station in Los Angeles; Port of Los Angeles Pier 300
expansion; the Riverside Maintenance Facility and Storage
Yard for articulated light rail cars in Boston; the Railway
Access and Station Remote Airport Check-in for Hong Kong
International Airport; the Northwest Transitway HOV Lane in
Houston; the Ravenel Bridge in Charleston; and replacement
of the eastern span of the San Francisco Bay Bridge.
Haussmann is a registered professional engineer in California,
Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Texas. He serves on the
American Road and Transportation Builders Association’s
Railroad and Public Transportation Advisory Council and is
a member of the National Society of Professional Engineers.
John Hubbell, former General Manager of Transportation for
the City of Calgary, has joined HDR as a Senior Transportation
Consultant, based in Calgary. He will serve as a senior
technical advisor and leader on transportation projects
around the world, with a particular focus on Canadian
projects.
As Calgary’s General Manager for Transportation, Hubbell
oversaw an annual operating budget of $500 million, a
capital budget of $800 million and a staff of 4,000. He
was responsible for all aspects of the city’s transportation
planning, construction and operations, as well as regulation
of the taxi and limousine industry and operation of Calgary
Transit. He was instrumental in establishing Calgary as a
leader in light rail transit, creating one of the most successful
LRT operations in North America.
Hubbell is active in the transportation industry, teaching
transit planning and operations courses and presenting
technical papers at local, national and international
conferences. He has served on the boards of the Canadian
Urban Transit Association and the Transportation Association
of Canada, and is a member of the Institute of Transportation
Engineers.
Sena Kumarasena, Ph.D., P.E., has joined HDR as Technical
Director — Complex Bridges, based in Boston. He brings to
HDR an extensive resume in planning, concept formulation,
design development, construction management and
rehabilitation of bridges of all types.
E x p a n d i n gE x p a n d i n gO u r C a p a b i l i
[39] www.hdrinc.com TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED
Expanding Our Capabilities -> New Hires
t i e sKumarasena is recognized for his specialized knowledge
and expertise on projects with very high technical content
and construction complexity. In 2004, he received ENR’s
newsmaker award for his role on the Leonard P. Zakim Bridge,
a signature cable-stayed bridge in Boston. Other notable
projects include the second Tacoma Narrows Bridge, where
he served as Lead Engineer for the suspended superstructure
independent design. His work on behalf of the Port Authority
of New York and New Jersey includes various design services
on the historic Bayonne Arch Bridge, the Holland Tunnel
and, most recently, serving as Lead Engineer for the main-
span concept through the 30 percent stage of the proposed
Goethals Bridge improvement project. Prior to joining the
fi rm, Kumarasena partnered with HDR on the CSX Mobile
River vertical lift bridge project in Alabama on behalf of the
U.S. Coast Guard.
Kumarasena’s experience also extends internationally,
including a 900-foot main-span arch bridge in India where he
was able to successfully address challenging site conditions
and highly demanding design requirements though
implementation of several innovative design concepts.
Kumarasena holds a B.S. in Civil Engineering, and M.S. and
Ph.D. degrees in Structural Engineering. He is a registered
engineer in Maryland, Massachusetts, California, Washington,
Delaware and New York; a member of the International
Association of Bridge and Structural Engineering and the
American Society of Civil Engineers; and is active in many
technical committees.
Pierre Vilain, Ph.D., has
joined HDR’s economics
and fi nance practice as a Vice
President and will lead the
New York practice.
Before joining HDR, Vilain was a vice
president at Halcrow, Inc., where he led an
economics practice specializing in consulting
services to public- and private-sector clients. Vilain has also
worked for the Louis Berger Group, Econsult Corporation,
the European Investment Bank and the Port Authority of
New York and New Jersey.
Vilain has more than 20 years of experience in transportation
and regional economics and is an expert in demand,
revenue and risk modeling. He has been involved in
numerous public-private partnership initiatives worldwide
and has led a successful policy advisory practice, with
active involvement in transportation policy, urban policy
and regional economic development. His policy advisory
work includes formulating strategies for alternative delivery,
pricing, investment programming, local tax structure and
industrial incentives.
Vilain holds a Ph.D. in regional science from the University
of Pennsylvania, a master’s degree in economics from New
York University and a bachelor’s degree in political science
and economics from Tufts University. ->
[40]
2775
061
0
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE 68114-4049
www.hdrinc.com
Pape
r con
tain
s 30%
pos
t-co
nsum
er fi
berPRSRT STD
US POSTAGEPAID
OMAHA, NEPERMIT NO. 963
Spring/Summer 2010
D E L I V E R E DT R A N S P O R TAT I O N >
A W O R D F R O M T H E D I R E C T O R
It’s hard to believe that we’re nearly halfway into
2010. Despite a down economy, our clients are
busier than ever enhancing transportation options
for communities across the globe. But they’re doing
so with limited funding and a greater emphasis on
accountability.
This issue of Transportation Delivered highlights how HDR helps clients
produce credible, transparent and comprehensive transportation
solutions. Florida’s iROX project (pg. 1) will be completed 10 months
ahead of schedule because the owner, builders and designers worked
together with a singular responsibility and objective. The result is a
savings of cost, time and administration — without compromising
quality.
A fundamental tenant of HDR’s project delivery approach is that delivery
of a quality product truly involves every team member. Quality Applied
(pg. 25) discusses HDR’s approach to quality and the way we integrate
quality concepts into all aspects of project development. HDR’s QA/QC
program recognizes that we owe quality products and services to our
clients and the communities we ultimately serve.
One of my favorite articles in this issue is the piece on East African Rail
Expansion (pg. 11). It’s a testament to how transportation networks
aff ect a community’s quality of life and economic competitiveness. I’m
proud to say that from Central Indiana (pg. 15) to East Africa, HDR is
helping communities deliver successful mobility solutions.
I hope you enjoy this edition of Transportation Delivered.
Eric L. Keen, Director of Transportation
Eric Keen, P.E.
Director of [email protected]
Duane Hippe, P.E.
Aviation Market Sector [email protected] Steve Beard
Transit Market Sector [email protected] Tom Smithberger, P.E.
Freight RailroadMarket Sector [email protected]
Nichole Andersen
Planning & Communications [email protected]
Jeff Massengill, P.E.
Maritime Market Sector Directorjeff [email protected] Ken Hartmann, P.E.
Roadway Market Sector [email protected] David Lewis, Ph.D.
Financial Market Sector [email protected]
Jim Lee, P.E.
Land DevelopmentMarket Sector [email protected]
Ken Wall
Transportation Delivered is produced twice yearly by HDR. Direct subscription inquiries and address changes to [email protected] . To view this publication electronically, go to: www.hdrinc.com/transportationdelivered .
A B O U T H D R
E D I T O R I A L B O A R D
HDR is an employee-owned architectural, engineering and
consulting fi rm that helps clients manage complex projects
and make sound decisions.
As an integrated fi rm, we provide a total spectrum of services
for our clients. Our staff of more than 7,800 professionals
in 185-plus locations worldwide represent hundreds of
disciplines and partner on blended teams throughout North
America and abroad to provide solutions beyond the scope
of traditional A/E/C fi rms.
To learn more about HDR’s Transportation program, visit us at
www.hdrinc.com/transportation .