georgia enginer (april-may)

GeorgiaEngineerthe

TRANSPORTATION Volume 19, Issue 2 | April | May 2012

VOTE

YES for

T-SPLOST

3

2 The GeorGia enGineer

APRIL | MAY 2012 3

Publisher: A4 Inc.1154 Lower Birmingham Road

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

E-mail: [email protected]

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

Georgia Engineering Alliance233 Peachtree Street • Harris Tower, #700

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

Georgia Engineering AllianceGwen Brandon, CAE, Executive Director

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

Georgia Engineering Alliance Editorial BoardJeff Dingle, PE, Chairman

GSPE RepresentativesSam L. Fleming, PE

Tim Glover, PEJimmy St. John, PE

ACEC/G RepresentativesRobin Overstreet

Carley Humphreys

ASCE/G RepresentativesDaniel Agramonte, PERebecca Shelton, PE

GMCEA RepresentativeBirdel F. Jackson, III, PE

ITE RepresentativesDaniel B. Dobry Jr., PE, PTOE

John Karnowski

ITS/G RepresentativesBill Wells

Shaun Green, PE

WTS RepresentativeAngela Snyder

ASHE RepresentativeEd Culican, PE

SEAOG RepresentativeKurt Swensson, PE

GeorgiaEngineerthe

The Georgia Engineer is published bi-monthly by A4 Inc. for the Georgia EngineeringAlliance and sent to members of ACEC, ASCE, ASHE, GMCEA, GEF, GSPE, ITE, SEAOG,WTS; local, state, and Federal government officials and agencies; businesses and institutions.Opinions expressed by the authors are not necessarily those of the Alliance or publisher nor dothey accept responsibility for errors of content or omission and, as a matter of policy, neitherdo they endorse products or advertisements appearing herein. Parts of this periodical may be re-produced with the written consent from the Alliance and publisher. Correspondence regardingaddress changes should be sent to the Alliance at the address above. Correspondence regardingadvertising and editorial material should be sent to A4 Inc. at the address listed above.


Advert isementsAECOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6AEI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Albany Tech. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Atkins/PBS&J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Ayres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Burns & McDonnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Brown & Caldwell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Cardno TBE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36CDM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Chastain & Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9CROM Prestressed Concrete Tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Cummins Power South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Edwards Pitman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Engineered Restorations Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Foley Arch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24G. Ben Turnipseed Engineers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40GCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Georgia Concrete Paving Association. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Georgia Power Company. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Geosyntec Consultants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Greater Traffic Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Hayward Baker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Back CoverHazen and Sawyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4HDR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Heath & Lineback Engineers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9HNTB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47JAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Middleton-House & Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10O’Brien & Gere. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Photo Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Pond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Power Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Prime Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3RHD Utility Locating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Rosser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6RS&H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Schnabel Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Silt-Saver Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8S&ME. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Southern Civil Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Southern Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Stevenson & Palmer Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6T. Wayne Owens & Associates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Terrell Hundley Carroll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13TTL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46United Consulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Front CoverWilburn Engineering LLC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Willmer Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Wolverton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Woolpert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Woodard & Curran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

5APRIL | MAY 2012

THE GEORGIA ENGINEER April | mAy 2012

GSPE

ASCE37

ITE44

ACEC35

ITS46

ASHE40

SEAOG

GMCEAGEA

GEF42

WTS

9 Employment at Private Sector Engineering Firms: More Optimists

11 Legislative Update on Licensing Restructure

12 Wicked! No, not the Musical—the Problems.

14 A Resource for Transportation Professionals

16 Fueling the Future: The Georgia Regional Future City Competition

20 Celebrating 100 Years of Georgia Transportation

22 Construction Progresses on Georgia’s New Nuclear Units

24 Envision Transportation Assets as Utilities

26 Hiring: Do It the Steve Jobs Way

28 What’s in the News

30 A Different Perspective on the Impact of the Economic Downturn

32 Institute of Transportation Engineers to Meet in Atlanta

33 2012 Georgia Engineers Week Awards Gala

ransportation Infrastructure investmentsprovide the platform for economic devel-opment, jobs, prosperity, and an expan-

sion of the built environment. The regionalTSPLOST referenda hold the possibility of up to$19 billion in direct investment in transportation(or over $10-12 billion if the referenda only passin metro Atlanta and a handful of the other 11regions). This results in direct employment forengineers. But that is only the beginning. Theeconomic impact on the state has a fivefold mul-tiplier—a $1 billion investment in transportationcreates a $5 billion increase in total state GDP; itstimulates investment is buildings, industries,water/sewer facilities, and those things for whichengineers are responsible. v

GEORGIAENGINEERBLOG.

T


Visit: georgiaengineerblog.com

7APRIL | MAY 2012

or the third year in a row, theAmerican Council of Engineer-ing Companies of Georgia con-ducted a survey of employmentat their firms’ Georgia locations.Following a 27.4 percent decline

in headcounts in 2009 and a 6.8 percent de-cline in 2010, employment increased by 2.3percent for 2011. These findings seem totrack national trends in other metrics;namely that the economy is improving butat an ever so slow pace.

The improvement in employment isuneven, however. Significantly, if the largestfirm responding to the survey, which alsoexperienced the greatest increase in em-ployment in 2011, is dropped from the datapool, then the remaining 45 firms had anaverage decline in employment of 1.0 per-cent. Also, of 46 responding firms, ten re-ported an increase in employees in 2011,while 16 reported a decrease, and 20 expe-rienced no change.

Nonetheless, comparing data from yearto year shows that the number of firms with

expanding employment increased from twoin 2009 to nine in 2010 to ten in 2011.Conversely, the number of firms with con-tracting employment declined from 32 in2009 to 17 in 2010 to 16 in 2011.

Firms were also asked if employee hourswere reduced through policies such as fur-loughs or full to part-time. Only four firmsreported reducing hours in 2011, comparedto 25 in 2010 and 26 in 2009. These dataroughly track the same pattern as changes inthe responding firms’ headcounts.

The size of firms in Georgia varieswidely; from a sole proprietorship to a Geor-gia operation of an international corporationwith hundreds of employees in the state andthousands worldwide. The annual surveysample seems to be representative of thiscross-section from one year to the next, withthe exception of the very large firms. In2011, there were an unusually large numberof consolidations through mergers and ac-quisitions. These very large firms have nothistorically responded to the survey request,and there is no change for 2011. There is no

data available from these surveys to deter-mine the impact of mega-firms on Georgiaemployment. There are several speculationsregarding the absence of mega-firm re-sponses: Georgia is such a small portion oftheir worldwide operations that it is just notimportant? It is confidential information? It

9APRIL | MAY 2012

Thomas C. Leslie

Employment at Private SectorEngineering Firms: More Optimists

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

F

2009 2010 2011Total employees at Jan 1* 1,562.5 1,896.0 1,341.5

Total employees at Dec 31* 1,133.7 1,767.5 1,372.5Change

Employees* -428.8 128.5 +31Percent -27.4% -6.8% +2.3%

Total Firms Reporting 44 48 46Total ACEC Member Firms 240 225 207

* full-time equivalent employees

Table 1. Change in Employment

Next Year is: Next Year is: Next Year is:

2010 2011 2012

More layoffs 5 firms 3 firms 2 firms

Reduced hours 5 firms 4 firms 4 firms

Layoffs & reduced hours 2 firms 1 firm -

No Change 19 firms 20 firms 22 firms

New Hiring 12 firms 16 firms 18 firms

No Response 1 firms 2 firms -

Mixed Response - 4 firms -

Table 2. Employment Prospects for Next Year


is unclear who would answer the survey onbehalf of the corporation?

It seems that employment plans by en-gineering firms for ‘next year’ reflect a cau-tious expectation. While fewer firms expectmore layoffs and reduced hours than inyears past, the change is very modest. Also,

the number of firms planning new hiresnext year has increased from 2009 and2010, but the data does not reflect strongsentiment for 2012. Comments that ac-companied this question reflect this tenta-tive outlook: “We may lay-off in early 2012but hire in the second half ”; “We are watch-

ing the market closely and will hire and fireaccordingly”; “We’ll see what happens withthe TSPLOST vote.”

It is clear that private sector engineeringfirms, in the aggregate, are close to, or at, thebottom of the economic decline that resultedfrom the 2008 financial collapse. The GreatRecession has had a devastating impact onACEC member firms. Real estate and con-struction led the economic ‘bust,’ and engi-neering design is very closely related. Therecovery is weak and, as many economistssay, it may take several more years to returnto the 2008 employment levels. In March2012, however, it seems that the optimists inthe consulting engineering business out-number the pessimists, and that in and of it-self is good news. v

(employees) Jan 1 Dec 31 Jan 1 Dec 31 Jan 1 Dec 31

0-5 7 7 9 10 11 11

6-10 7 9 5 6 9 9

11-20 10 12 13 9 8 7

21-40 9 8 12 12 8 9

41-60 5 2 4 3 1 1

61-80 1 3 1 5 4 4

81-100 1 2 3 0 3 3

101-150 3 0 2 2 2 0

151-200 0 1 0 0 0 0

201-300 0 0 0 0 0 0

301-400 1 0 0 0 0 0

401 or more 0 0 1 1 0 0

Table 3. Size Profile of Reporting Firms

Number of Firms

Firm Size 2009 2010 2011

Read the magazine online at: thegeorgiaengineer.com

11APRIL | MAY 2012

ecretary of State Brian Kemphas proposed a radical restruc-turing of the way occupa-tions/professions are licensedby the existing 43 separateboards staffed by his office.

This proposal constituted the most impor-tant legislative issue for engineers in the earlypart of the 2012 General Assembly. By mid-session, the proposal was withdrawn due tothe absence of support by virtually all licens-ing boards and several hundred thousand li-censees. With the cry of opposition mutedby the proposal’s withdrawal, a less stridentconversation seems to be occurring. (This iswritten at the three-quarters mark of the2012 session.)

A recap of the key elements of SB 445may be helpful. Although the bill is 831(legal) pages long, the thrust of the bill is farsimpler; the length is largely due to the samelanguage change in existing code for 43 sep-arate boards.

In SB 445, a Director of Professional Li-censing would be designated and would havebroad authority related to issuing licenseesand taking disciplinary actions. A new ‘superboard,’ the Georgia Board of Licensing andRegulation would be composed of seven‘consumers,’ appointed by the Governor.The existing licensing boards would become“Professional Licensing Policy Boards” (in-cluding the Board of Registration for Profes-sional Engineers and Land Surveyors) andbecome advisory to the Licensing Directorand the super board. Final authority onmost matters (if not all) would rest with thesuper board, except where it has delegated itto the director. The Policy Boards would domuch of what they do now: apply their ex-perience and expertise to questions and is-sues that are non-routine and make arecommendation rather than rendering abinding decision. It is this aspect of the pro-posal, the exact relationship between thesuper board and the policy boards, that hasgenerated the most questions, concerns, andopposition.

So what happens now? Secretary Kempis continuing to meet with representatives of

associations and the boards that license theirmembers. He is seeking input from stake-holders for a new bill that is anticipated forthe 2013 session. It has been suggested thathe should have done this for the current bill.

It is doubtful that many people thinkthe current licensing configuration is with-out fault. From 2006 to 2010 a coalition ofengineers and surveyors (Board of Registra-tion Coalition) worked hard to restructurethe Board. Issues included (1) inadequatefunding (largely due to licensing fees beingsiphoned off to the General Fund rather thanfor the Professional Licensing Board (PLB)Division of the Secretary of State’s Office),(2) staff working for the PLB Division Di-rector rather than the Board, (3) the absenceof robust disciplinary actions, and (4) a dis-engagement by licensees from the PELSBoard—which was frequently attributed tothe notion that “they won’t do anything, sowhy bother.” Additionally, some on the BORCoalition cited a wide variety of glitches re-lated to specific applications. Early in 2011,the BOR Coalition concluded that pursuinga legislative solution was just not feasible. Inaddition, many problems had been resolveddue to the diligent work of the Secretary ofState’s Office and the strong leadership andenergetic work of the members on the PELSBoard. Then, just months later the Secretaryof State dropped his legislative bomb.

It is clear that the Secretary of Stateheard the gripes and complaints from almostall the boards—in some shape, form, or fash-ion. In response, the Secretary put forwardhis proposal. To the angry opposition, he saidthe easiest thing for him would be to donothing, to maintain the decades old statusquo. In the calming atmosphere of with-drawal, many observers are agreeing thatsomething must be done. While they dis-agree with the Secretary’s initial proposal,they applaud his boldness for taking actionand want to work with him to shape a solu-tion that can gain support.

Underlying this controversy is money –not surprising. Secretary Kemp, and almosteveryone else believe that the PLB Division isunder funded. Part of his rationale for SB

445 was to streamline operations so he could‘do more with less.’ Another angle on thisissue is that the PLB Division should be ap-propriated a much higher proportion of thefees paid by its licensees… say a phased in-crease to 90 percent over three years.

The issues associated with the PLB Di-vision and operations of the licensing boardswill not be mitigated by intentional neglect.Perhaps the 2013 session, when a new pro-posal by the Secretary of State gains traction,is finally the time to fix a long-standing prob-lem. At that time we can offer a genuine‘thank you’ to Secretary Kemp for startingdown this path. v

Legislative Update on Licensing RestructureBy Thomas C. Leslie | Georgia Engineering Alliance | Director of External Affairs.

S

icked problemshave been

around a longtime—just not in

the technical side ofengineering. There we

are accustomed to technical complexity butnot true wickedness. Until 2008, you couldmanage your engineering practice the sameway you managed an engineering project—using the same verifiable data, having the samepredictable outcomes. No longer. Today, thebusiness of engineering is facing ‘WickedProblems.’ The problems are tough to define,and there don’t seem to be any solutions.

This business…is constantly facedwith problems that have no appar-ent solution, in spite of hours andhours of discussion and arguingback and forth. We seem to go incircles and end up back where westarted time and time again….Isthere a route out of this infinite doloop?—A Business Leader at Gore,parent company of Goretex(Pacanowsky, 1995, p. 39)

This is 2012, not 1995; but perhaps you feelcaught in the same do loop. Which of thesethings would you say about that troublingissue your company is dealing with? Checkthe box in front of every statement that applies.

You can’t seem to agree on a clear andconcrete definition of the problem. Thisproblem just doesn’t seem to end. Youthink you’ve arrived at a solution. Then be-fore you can take a deep breath, here itcomes again. There doesn’t seem to be anyright answer. In fact, now you are askingyourself the question: “What course of ac-tion will I least regret?”

Not only is there no right answer, thereis no tried and tested formula for arriving atthe best answer. This problem is like noother. Nothing in your past experienceseems to apply.

There is no time for trial and error now.Every move you make counts. You just wishyou knew (ahead of time) how.

You peel away one layer of this problemand there is another. Or two. Or more.There is not one root cause; there are manyand interrelated contributors to the issue.Along with the many contributors, there aremany possible explanations. And every per-son in your group has a different opinionabout which explanation is most likely. Noneof these complications gets you off the hook.You will be held accountable and the conse-quences are significant.

How many of these did you check? JohnCamillus, corporate strategist and Harvardprofessor, tells us that five is enough. (Camil-llus, 2008. p. 99) If you checked five or moreof these characteristics, consider yourself face-to-face with a Wicked Problem. (Horst Rit-tel, the German physicist/researcher/planner,was the first to use this term.)

Wicked Problems don’t have ‘right an-swers.’ Not only is there no right answer,there is no tried and tested formula for ar-riving at the best answer. Defining the prob-lem is perhaps the biggest part of theproblem. With no clear problem definitionand no formula for arriving at the best an-swer, you don’t know what is relevant andwhat is not. You may not know what reallymattered until you arrive at some outcomeand look back. In fact, you may not really beable to define the problem until you’vereached some resolution of it. Aaargh!

We are more comfortable with the TameProblems (another Rittel term) of yesteryear.Unfortunately, the tame approaches we usedfour or five years ago won’t get good resultswith the Wicked Problems of today. Wemust decide and move ahead with less data,less time, and less clarity. Wait for more; losethe opportunity.

In fact, applying tame approaches willonly make things worse. You are likely tolock into a particular definition of the prob-lem or a particular solution way too soon.

Probably several times. Back to the drawingboard again. And again. And again.

After every meeting—in which mostparticipants take detailed notes—you willhear sharply different perceptions of whathappened: the issues, the key decisions, andthe proposed courses of action. “What meet-ing were they in?” you wonder.

You waffle between keeping theteam small enough to reach con-sensus and enlarging it to get moreinput and more diverse input.You—and others—get so frustratedand so emotional that civility andteam process suffer. Sometimes dis-appear. (Pacanowsky, 1995, p. 39)

All of this can get you down. You’re a prob-lem solver. You get things done. What isgoing on here? Give yourself some credit.You haven’t gotten less competent; the issueshave gotten more complex. We like the wayLaurence Peter put it:

“Some problems are so complexthat you have to be highly intelli-gent and well informed just to beundecided about them.” ~LaurenceJ. Peter, Peter’s Almanac, September24, 1982

Undecided or not, you still have to do some-thing. So how do you find a path forward?You can strategize, plan, and implement. Infact, you need to do these things. But thestrategies, the plans, and the implementationwon’t look like they did before. And youwon’t arrive at them in the same way.

First, take a look at your pyramidorganizational structure. Itworked well for delivering tameengineering solutions. (Remem-ber, tame isn’t necessarily easy.)It’s not likely to work well whenyou are confronting Wicked Prob-


Wicked! No, not the Musical—the Problems.Dr. Ruth Middleton House & Doris I. Willmer, PE, FACEC, LEED® AP

W

13APRIL | MAY 2012

lems. That pyramid holds the top(you) accountable for strategy; itholds the middle accountable fortactics; and it holds the bottomaccountable for implementation.But too much is happening toofast. There’s just too much infor-mation for you to process by your-self. No wonder you’re tired! Notime for the rest of your organiza-tion to wait around while you col-lect all the data, analyze it, andfigure out what to do. The win-dow of opportunity will be gone!No time for discrete steps to un-fold in lockstep order. You need tosimulcast strategy, tactics and im-plementation—at all levels and allof the time. (Pacanowsky, 1995, p.37)

Next, look at your leadership style.You are probably an excellent trans-actional leader. You are great at goal-setting and planning; you efficientlyexecute processes; you’re good atstructuring and managing the or-ganization; you wrote the book oncommand and control. That styleworked well with engineering prob-lems. Wicked Problems, on theother hand, are indifferent to it. (Notto worry; transactional leadershipwill continue to serve you well invery many situations.) WickedProblems, on the other hand, de-mand transformational leadership.They will yield only when you ex-plore possibilities, energize, promotedifferent points of view, empower,collaborate. Only then can you findyour way through this iterative andconfusing tangle of problem defini-tion, potential solutions, actions, andoutcomes. (Beinecke, 2009)

Finally, take a look inside your head. Themindset of logic, linearity, command, andcontrol has served you well. In some situa-tions, it will continue to do so. You can stillattack a Tame Problem and deliver the solu-tion. A Wicked Problem, however, simply

isn’t vulnerable to attack. When you find aWicked Problem at your doorstep, remem-ber that you will be living with it for a longtime. Invite it in, sit with it, listen to it, talkto it, offer it a cup of tea. How? That’swhere we will pick up in the next issue withThe Wicked Problem Whisperer. v

Bienecke, Richard H. (2009). Introduction:

Leadership for wicked problems. Innovation

Journal, 14(1), pp. 1-17.

Camillus, John. C. (May 2008). Strategy as a

wicked problem. Harvard Business R e -

view, 86(5), pp. 98-106.

Pacanowsky, Michael. (Winter 1995). Team

tools for wicked problems. Organizational

Dynamics, 23(3), 36-51.

Peter, Laurence J. (1962). Peter’s almanac.

New York: William Morrow & Company.

Schumacher, E. F. (1977). A guide for the

perplexed. New York: Harper Perennial.


ore than one infour U.S.bridges arestructurally defi-cient or func-t i o n a l l y

obsolete. The need to replace or improvethem with ever-shrinking resources is driv-ing innovation and creativity in financing,design, and delivery.

Some of the latest developments include:A growing preference for tolling. Nearlyhalf (48 percent) of Americans whoresponded to a recent HNTB AmericaTHINKS survey said in the future theywould prefer to pay for the maintenance ofexisting bridges and construction of newlocal bridges with tolls rather than highersales taxes (16 percent), higher gas taxes (12percent) or higher property taxes (eightpercent). Technological advancements aremaking tolling a more acceptable option formotorists and opening up vast pricingopportunities.

Leaps in accelerated bridge constructionInnovative methods include the use of bridgemovement technology to maneuver bridgesections into place, as well as an entirely newbridge design that eliminates superstructurejoints.• The Lake Champlain Bridge project in

upstate New York was completed in justover two years. Crews constructed themain span off site at the same time theapproach spans were built. The centerarch was then floated into position on thewater and lifted into place.

• The U.S. Highway 6 Bridge, ademonstration project in Iowa, eliminatedall superstructure joints (to reducemaintenance costs) and used ultra-highperformance concrete (to produce ahighly efficient, durable structure). Theproject:

• Reduced construction time and bridgeclosure by 90 percent.

• Shortened bridge replacement to twoweeks of traffic disruption.

Less expensive retrofits and rehabilitationsEngineers are developing solutions that resultin effective, long-lasting infrastructure.• The Huey P. Long Bridge in New

Orleans was widened using a span liftstrategy that was faster than traditionalstick-build methods and minimizedimpact to local commerce and thecommunity.

Continued design-build adoptionNew York became one of the newest statesto approve design-build legislation in De-cember 2011. Its 1955 Tappan Zee Bridgecould be the next major U.S. span to be re-placed using design-build. If it’s applied, themulti-billion dollar project could be de-signed in one year and constructed in four.

As an industry, creativity, innovation,and inspiration in the engineering and de-sign process are the drivers that will maxi-mize our investment and deliver realeconomic growth.

For more about bridges or to downloadHNTB’s “Limited resources offer opportu-nity to think about bridges differently” view-point, visit:http://www.hntb.com/point-of-view.

About the Author~Zoli, a 2012 ENR Newsmaker and a 2009MacArthur Foundation Fellows winner, ischief bridge engineer in charge of technicalaspects of HNTB’s bridge practice. ContactZoli at (212) 915-9588 or [email protected].

Transportation Point Extra is distrib-uted by e-mail to professionals in the trans-portation industry. To be added to the list,send your request to [email protected].

©2012 HNTB Companies. All rights reserved.Reproduction in whole or in part without writ-ten permission is prohibited.

Photo courtesy of the John D. and Catherine T.MacArthur Foundation v

A Resource for Transportation ProfessionalsAdvances in funding, bridge construction, and program delivery help owners do more with lessBy Ted Zoli, PE | National Bridge Chief Engineer | HNTB Corporation

Ted Zoli

15APRIL | MAY 2012

© Andy Ryan, Photo Courtesy HNTB


Fueling the Future: The Georgia Regional Future City CompetitionTony Rizzuto PhD. | Associate Professor | Architecture Department | Southern Polytechnic State University | Chair Georgia RegionalFuture City Steering Committee

17APRIL | MAY 2012

ur era is increasingly definedby growing concerns with sus-tainability and the environ-ment, population increases,and the need for cleaner en-ergy. Addressing these con-

cerns requires innovation and creativity,and an increased awareness in our citi-zenry of how cities and regional centersoperate and thrive. Educational programsand competitions play an important rolein developing this increased awareness inthe next generation and help to secure ourfuture success.

The 2012 Future City Competitiondid just that by challenging its Competi-tion Teams with its theme, Fuel Your Fu-ture: Imagine New Ways to Meet OurEnergy Needs and Maintain a HealthyPlanet. Now in its 19th year, Future Cityhas gained national attention and acclaimfor its role in encouraging middle schoolstudents to take an interest in science,technology, engineering, and math(STEM), using hands on applications.

Combining research, SimCity4Deluxe software, and hands on modelmaking, Future City helps students dis-cover how they can make a difference inthe world by designing a city of the futurefor 50,000 inhabitants. This flexible,cross-curricular educational program givesstudents an opportunity to do the thingsthat professionals in the Engineering, Ar-chitecture, and Construction industriesdo: identify problems, brainstorm ideas,design solutions, test- retest, build, andshare their results. With this at its core,Future City builds students’ 21st centuryskills.

Working with a sponsoring Educatorand Professional Mentor, CompetitionTeams, comprised of three middle schoolstudents (sixth, seventh or eighth grade),complete the four components of thecompetition:• A Virtual City designed in SimCity4

Deluxe software• A Research Essay and City Narrative• A Scale Model of a portion of their

city• A Presentation of their design

concepts

O


Each Competition Team is asked to de-sign a city for 50,000 residents 150 years inthe future. The virtual city component ofthe competition develops an awareness ofhow cities function and the kinds of infra-structure they require to thrive and prosper.The 500 word City Narrative provides anintroduction to their vision including infor-mation about their general concept, life andpeople, location, creative and innovative in-frastructure solutions, housing, city services,and economic base. This essay is accompa-nied by a 1000 word research essay whereinstudents conduct research on the year’s topicand use this information to create an inno-vative solution for the future. As part oftheir presentation, Competition Teams arerequired to build a scale model of part oftheir city using recycled materials. Eachmodel must also have at least one movingpart. On the day of competition, each stu-dent on the team contributes to a sevenminute presentation to the judges that in-troduces both their city and its unique andcreative innovations for the future.

Teams from across the Georgia Regioncompete in the preliminary round for twentySpecial Awards and the chance to move onto the finalist round where the top five teamscompete for the chance to win the GeorgiaRegional Competition. The winning teamreceives an all-expense-paid trip to Washing-ton D.C. to represent our region in the Na-tional Future City Competition. This year’sFirst Prize winner was “Nevaeh (QA2)”from Queen of Angels Catholic School.

The Georgia Regional Future CityCompetition is one of the largest in the na-tion. This year on January 21, 2012, 142Competition Teams participated on thecampus of Southern Polytechnic State Uni-versity (SPSU) in Marietta, Georgia. In ad-dition to the 426 student competitors, theireducator sponsors, and mentors, the eventalso had over 180 judges and one hundredvolunteers participate.

To be a success the Georgia RegionalFuture City Competition relies on thestrength of the professional community whoserve as mentors, judges, and volunteers.Working with educators, Future City Men-tors serve as coaches, providing insight, help-ing in problem-solving, and bringing subject

Second Place Winners

Third Place Winners

Fourth Place Winners

19APRIL | MAY 2012

area expertise as they work with individualstudent teams. All mentors are provided witha Mentor Handbook and are provided on-line training via Bentley Mentor Center forExcellence courtesy of Bentley Systems.Judges review the various components of thecompetition, including the Virtual City de-sign in Simcity4 Deluxe, the Research andCity Narrative Essays, and on the day ofcompetition, the Scale Models and Presen-tations.

Southern Polytechnic State University(SPSU) houses and sponsors the Georgia Re-gional Future City Competition, providingadministrative, logistical, and practical sup-port and overseeing all operational functionsof the competition. If you would like to getinvolved or sponsor the competition, pleasecontact the Georgia Regional Coordinator,Professor Tony Rizzuto Ph.D. [email protected]. v

Fifth Place Winners


he last 100 years havebeen marked by dra-matic increases in Geor-gia’s economy, and civilengineers have been atthe forefront of building

the infrastructure necessary to support ouramazing economic growth. This reflected acollaborative partnership among local, stateand federal agencies and the private sector;and reflected the taxpayers’ willingness to in-vest in their future.

At the turn of the century, ‘multimodal’transportation—railroads, canals, and horseand wagons principally on dirt roads – metthe mobility needs of 2.6 million Georgians,500,000 of whom lived in the Atlanta re-gion. But things were getting ready for a bigchange, as Henry Ford had just produced theModel A, the Wright Brothers made theirfirst flight, the first electric trolley was estab-lished in Atlanta, Savannah was Georgia’sportal to worldwide ocean shipping, and rail-roads were the key to landside transporta-tion.

1910sIn 1915, Henry Ford’s Model T plant cameto Atlanta, and people, especially bicyclistsand motorists, demanded paved roads to dealwith the red Georgia clay. The north-southroute of the Dixie Highway betweenChicago and Florida was selected and pavingbegan. In 1916, the first Federal-Aid RoadAct was passed by Congress, the GeorgiaHighway Department was created, and theconcept of the Federal-Aid Highway Pro-gram was created for farm to market roads.

The Port of Savannah prospered, anduntil the 1920s, Savannah was the world'sleading exporter of naval stores products,including pine timber, rosin, and distilledturpentine. Savannah's exports, chiefly cot-ton and naval stores, were greater than thecombined exports of all other south At-lantic seaports.

1920s – 1930sIn an event probably little noticed at the

time, but of great future significance toGeorgia, a crop dusting company got its startin Macon in 1924. This company wouldgrow to become Delta Airlines. By 1930,when the city of Atlanta purchased CandlerField for an airfield, and Eastern Airlinesbegan regular flights between Atlanta andNew York City, Atlanta’s airport had 16flights a day, making it the third largest inthe United States!

Culminating in the 1920s, bridge andstructural engineering was a key to the de-velopment of downtown Atlanta. Perhapsthe first ‘Livable Communities Initiatives,’the ‘Viaducts of Atlanta’ were created to fa-cilitate numerous at-grade crossings of roadsand railroads. Atlanta had at least six majorrail lines entering the city; humans, animals,autos, and trucks were in conflict with therail. The first viaduct was the Broad StreetBridge, which was rebuilt several times, in-cluding an iron version built in 1854. Ala-bama Street, between Peachtree Street andCentral Avenue, was at the city’s center, andit would become Underground Atlanta(which later opened as a redevelopment in1989). Several of the viaducts includedMitchell Street (1899), Peachtree Street(1901); Spring Street (1923); Pryor Street(1929); and Central Avenue viaduct (1929).

1940s - 1950sIn the 1940s, with 3.1 million Georgians,transportation activity began to pick up.While rural highway construction continuedin earnest, Georgia’s first four lane ‘superhighway’ was opened between Atlanta andMarietta. Looking to the future, Atlanta vot-ers authorized $16 million to begin purchas-ing land for the DowntownConnector—currently, the shared route forInterstates 75 and 85 through downtown At-lanta. The Georgia Ports Authority was cre-ated in 1945.

During the Eisenhower Administration,Federal transportation legislation was passedthat would support the astounding growthand development destined for Georgia. In1954, the US Rivers and Harbors Act

funded deepening and widening the Savan-nah River. After a series of Federal-Aid High-way Acts, the 1956 act was passed byCongress and signed by President Eisen-hower initially creating a 41,000 mile systempaid for by motor fuel taxes—users of thesystem. Finally, in 1958, Congress createdwhat would become the Federal Aviation Ad-ministration that would govern air traffic,airport expansion, regulate safety throughoutthe industry, and provide a basis for a trustfund to make airport specific improvementspaid for by air travelers.

The effects of these dramatic pieces oflegislation were felt almost immediately inGeorgia. Not only was the Port of Savan-nah dramatically expanded, but the Down-town Connector was opened, and workbegan on a new $21 million terminal thatwould be the largest in the country, de-signed to accommodate over six milliontravelers a year. It opened in 1961, and wasimmediately tested with 9.5 million pas-sengers in the first year.

1960s – 1970sUsing the resources of the congressionallyenacted Urban Mass Transportation Act of1964 providing 50 percent of the funding,the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Au-thority (MARTA) was authorized by theState legislature in 1965, but it took 14 yearsbefore the first MARTA rail service wasopened between Avondale Estates and theGeorgia State station. In 1971, Georgia StateRoute 400, a limited access highway wasopened from I-285 to its terminus just southof Dahlonega.

I-285 was completed in 1970. Whilethe last downtown rail passenger station wasclosed in 1971, the Atlanta Airport was re-named William B. Hartsfield InternationalAirport as Eastern Airlines began services toMexico City. Also during this time, I-75 nearCartersville was completed thus replacing theDixie Highway as the primary north-southroute in Georgia. In fact, all border to borderinterstates – I-20, I-75, I-85, and I-95 – werecompleted by 1977.

Celebrating 100 Years of Georgia TransportationBy Harry E. Strate, PE, M ASCE, T&DI

T

1980s - 1990sBy 1980, there were 5.5 million Georgians,with 2.2 million in the Atlanta region.Driven by increasing population, employ-ment, and travel demands the Georgia De-partment of Transportation implemented the‘Freeing the Freeways’ program in the 1980sdirected at relieving congestion. The projecttook 17 years to complete at a cost of $1.5billion. As part of this program, the Down-town Connector was widened from three to6/7 lanes in each direction, and ‘SpaghettiJunction’ was constructed at the interchangeof I-285 and I-85 in DeKalb County. Geor-gia 400 was widened from four to eight lanesin 1989, but it took until 1993 before Geor-gia 400 inside the perimeter from I-85 to I-285 was opened. In all, total lane miles morethan doubled in Atlanta from 900 to 1,851lane miles during the 1980s.

After nearly doubling the lanes-miles onAtlanta Freeways, the Georgia Departmentof Transportation (GDOT) recognized thatthe key to future efficiency and safety restedwith improved traffic operations. The Geor-gia NaviGAtor, an Advanced Traffic Man-agement System was activated in 1996, andincluded traffic cameras, changeable messagesigns, ramp meters, a traffic speed sensor sys-tem, and anonymously tracking cell phonesto gauge vehicle speed.

Several notable bridge structures weredesigned and constructed around Georgia.Completed in November 1990, the new Tal-madge Memorial cable-stayed bridge re-placed the old Talmadge cantilever trussbridge (built in 1953), which had become adanger for large ships entering the port of Sa-vannah. The Sidney Lanier Bridge opened in2003 and is a cable-stayed bridge that spansthe Brunswick River, carrying four lanes ofU.S. Route 17. When inaugurated, this 480feet tall bridge was the longest spanningbridge in Georgia.

2000sBy 2000, Georgia’s population numbered 8.2million, with the Atlanta Region accountingfor about half or 4.1 million people. Sincethe Freeing the Freeways program, comple-tion of Georgia 400 inside the Perimeter in1993, and opening of MARTA’s E-W and N-

S lines in 1979 and 1981, respectively, nomajor transportation capacity had beenadded until Sandy Springs and NorthSprings Stations were opened on theMARTA North Line in 2000.

Following the trend established byreuse of the Viaducts of Atlanta and theFive Point MARTA Station for the creationof Underground Atlanta in 1989, redevel-opment of old manufacturing sites was un-dertaken. Atlantic Station is a brownfieldredevelopment in Midtown Atlanta thatopened in 2005 on the site of the closed At-lantic Steel Foundry. Another significantdevelopment project was Lindbergh CityCenter which opened in 2002. It is an ex-ample of Transit Oriented Developmentthat takes advantage of the accessibility pro-vided by MARTA’s Doraville and NorthSprings lines and connection throughdowntown to Hartsfield-Jackson Interna-tional Airport. Other brownfield redevel-opment is underway in Hapeville nearHartsfield-Jackson International Airportand contemplated in Doraville adjacent tothe MARTA Station and I-285.

The Next One Hundred YearsAs of 2010, the population of Georgia is 9.7million, with 60 percent living in the At-lanta region. In the future, population andemployment are expected to continue togrow. The Atlanta Regional Commissionprojects that by 2040, the 20 county At-lanta region will grow to nearly 8.3 million,and, if past relationships hold, that wouldsuggest a population for all of Georgia be-tween 12 to 13 million people.

As the United States emerges from the‘Great Recession,’ it is literally and figura-tively at a cross-road with its transportationsystem. Georgia’s past success has beenmarked by making public and private in-vestment in transportation infrastructure totake advantage of rapidly evolving technol-ogy as a player in the global economy. Thechallenge for the next decades will be tomaintain and operate our existing infra-structure while investing and building for thefuture.

To support this development, addi-tional transportation infrastructure will be

necessary statewide. Current projects areunderway, such as the Jimmy Deloach Con-nector to provide a high level of last mileaccessibility to the port of Savannah, nowthe fourth largest and fastest growing con-tainer port in the nation. Construction isbeginning on the Atlanta Street Car to sup-port tourism, economic development, andmobility needs in downtown Atlanta. Othertransportation proposals through the Re-gional Transportation Referendum arebeing advanced throughout the state tomeet the needs of our growing populationand sustain our quality of life. The impor-tance of making public investments intransportation infrastructure rests at theheart of our state’s economic future.v

About the Author:Harry E. Strate, PE, is a member of ASCE andformer Chairman of the Atlanta Chapter of theTransportation and Development Institute. Mr.Strate is a Vice President for Stantec ConsultingServices, Inc. and serves as the TransportationPractice Leader for the Southeastern Region.

21APRIL | MAY 2012


Construction Progresses onGeorgia’s New Nuclear UnitsBy Steve Higginbottom

Plant Vogtle Units Three and Four near Waynesboro, Georgia, took a major step forward Dec. 22, 2011,when the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced it had certified Westinghouse ElectricCo.’s AP1000 reactor design. Georgia Power, a Southern Company subsidiary, owns 45.7 percent of thenew units.

23APRIL | MAY 2012

The certification brings Southern Companysubsidiary Southern Nuclear one step closerto receiving the first Combined Construc-tion and Operating License (COL) for aU.S. nuclear plant.

“This is another key milestone for theVogtle project and the nation's nuclear ren-aissance,” said Southern Company Chair-man, President, and CEO Thomas A.Fanning. “The NRC’s action confirms theAP1000 design is safe and meets all regula-tory requirements. The commission now hasall of the technical information needed toissue the Vogtle COL.”

Upon receipt of the COL, full con-struction can commence at the site. TheNRC will determine when a public vote onthe Vogtle COL will occur. Unit Three con-tinues on track for operation in 2016 andUnit Four in 2017.

Southern Company subsidiary South-ern Nuclear, based in Birmingham, Ala-bama, is overseeing construction and willoperate the two new 1,100-megawattAP1000 units for Georgia Power and co-owners Oglethorpe Power Corporation, theMunicipal Electric Authority of Georgia,and Dalton Utilities.

In addition to Plant Vogtle, SouthernNuclear also operates two other nuclearplants: Hatch, near Baxley, Georgia, and Far-ley, near Dothan, Alabama. Plant Vogtle wasconstructed with the option to expand.

Why Nuclear?The most cost-effective, reliable, and envi-ronmentally responsible fuel source today,for mass or baseload generation of electric-ity, is nuclear. Nuclear energy fits in South-ern Company’s mix of smart energy sources.It’s a proven technology that produces nogreenhouse gas emissions and can relieve costuncertainty caused by coal and natural gasprices.

By 2030, electrical demand is projectedto increase 27 percent in the Southeast. Ad-ditionally, current and pending legislationand environmental standards are impactingelectricity generation fueled by coal. Thecompany is planning to use nuclear units toextend reliable and affordable supplies ofelectricity in the Southeast.

Nuclear generation is projected to bemore cost effective than traditional coal andgas resources. Vogtle Units Three and Fourare expected to save Georgia customers up to$6 billion in lower electricity rates over thelife of the units as compared to a coal or nat-ural gas plant. Nuclear energy is estimated tobe between 15 percent to 40 percent less ex-pensive than wind generation and 50 percentto 80 percent less expensive than solar in thesoutheastern United States. Nuclear capacitycan be built to meet local energy demandgrowth in Georgia. Wind and solar have lim-ited availability in the Southeast and do notoffer economic-scaled options.

Construction ProgressesThe construction of the two new electricgenerating units at Plant Vogtle continueswith more than 1,700 personnel focused onsafety and quality in their everyday tasks.Work at the site is being done under what’sreferred to as a ‘Limited Work Authoriza-tion.’ Approved by the NRC, it gives SNCthe authority to perform specific safety-re-lated work such as pouring foundations, in-stalling backfill, and doing specified work onthe ‘nuclear island’—the area where the nu-clear-related components for the new unitswill be placed.

Approximately 300 sections of ten-footdiameter concrete and steel CirculatingWater System (CWS) pipes are being put inplace for Vogtle Unit Four. Most of the Vog-tle Unit Three CWS piping is already set andhas been covered with concrete and soil. TheCWS pipes will be used to recirculate largequantities of water between the units’ twocooling towers and their respective turbinebuilding condensers.

Several million cubic yards of specialsoils were backfilled and compacted duringthe excavation of the two new units. Morebackfilling will take place in the years aheadas the turbine building is constructed.

The nuclear islands for Units Three andFour were lined with retaining walls and nowextend 40 feet into the ground.

The first components that will be putin place inside the nuclear islands are theCR-10 modules. These are the cradles onwhich the containment vessels will sit. Work

is currently under way on the Unit ThreeCR-10 at the Containment Vessel Cradle As-sembly Pad. Once in place, each CR-10module and containment vessel bottom willbe surrounded by concrete.

Between the two nuclear islands is thecircular platform for the heavy lift derrickcrane. The platform is surrounded by a 300foot diameter rail-track. This will allow thecrane to place the 1,000-ton sections of thecontainment vessels and large structuralmodules inside each of the nuclear islands.The first parts of the crane assembly arebeing placed on the track now, and the 560-foot boom is being assembled.

Some 3,500 construction workers willbe employed on the site at the height of con-struction. The new units will bring some800 permanent positions to the BurkeCounty site. Plant Vogtle Units Three andFour represent a $14 billion investment inthe state of Georgia. The Georgia PublicService Commission certified $6.1 millionof that for Georgia Power as a 45.7 percentowner of the new units.

In June of last year, Southern Company,on behalf of Georgia Power, accepted thefirst conditional commitment in loan guar-antees from the DOE. Negotiations betweenSouthern Company and DOE continue, andguarantees should be finalized after the com-pany receives the Combined Operating Li-cense.

These loan guarantees will result inGeorgia Power customers saving approxi-mately $20 million in interest costs annuallyover the expected life of the loans. That totalsavings will depend on the final terms of theloans.

Southern Company’s exceptional finan-cial strength and 30-year history of safely op-erating nuclear plants make it a solid,credit-worthy candidate for the DOE loanguarantee. The company is uniquely posi-tioned to meet the obligations of its DOEloan guarantee commitment, which, whencombined with other regulatory mecha-nisms, will provide customers nearly $1 bil-lion in benefits.v


very day across America,public utilities dutifully pro-vide us with the comfortsand conveniences of life.Flip a switch and the lightgoes on. Raise the thermo-

stat and the gas furnace blazes. Turn thefaucet and water rushes forth.

While we might take these modern con-veniences for granted, we also do not ques-tion the necessity of the electric, gas, andwater bills we receive. We understand thatthese utilities cost money and that, since weuse them, we must pay for them.

Why, then, don’t we view our trans-portation assets—such as roads, bridges, andtunnels—in the same light? They are in everyway like public utilities. We use these assetsevery day to connect us to the world. Wecommute, recreate, and travel long distanceson them, and all of the goods and services weenjoy make daily use of these assets.

Yet, there is a general tendency amongthe public to view these assets as ‘build-it-once-and-forget-it’ systems, rather than asutilities that require continuing attentionand investment. The result is a persistentshortage of appropriate funding for these as-sets as politicians fear voter reprisals shouldthey raise taxes or initiate tolls.

There is one way to break this impasse:Take the bold step of transforming our trans-portation assets into functioning public util-ities. We need only look at the success of ourelectricity, gas, and water utilities for inspi-ration. In the U.S., the mechanism for fund-ing these necessities is public utilitycommissions. Independent boards across thecountry are responsible for ensuring utilitycompanies have enough revenue to meet thepublic need, but not so much that they gen-erate excessive income.

By removing politics from transporta-tion funding, new independent commissionscould regularly adjust fuel tax rates and otherfees to ensure our transportation network’slong-term viability.

These independent transportation ratecommissions could be formed at both thestate and federal levels of government. Tokeep the process in check, Congress or thecorresponding state legislature would have

the power to overturn by a super majorityvote any decision the commissions make. Inthe states, a public utility approach wouldensure safe, adequate surface transportationsystems while giving an independent com-mission oversight authority to prevent trans-portation agencies from collecting morerevenue than is necessary to serve the pub-lic’s interest.

Commissions have gotten tough jobsdone at the federal level. When politics in-terfered with the need to fund certain neces-sary activities, the solution has been to moveto empowered independent commissions.We’ve seen it happen with the Postal RateCommission and with the military’s Base Re-alignment and Closure Commission.

In fact, there are examples where suc-cessful commissions have built and main-tained high-profile infrastructure assets aswell. The engineering marvel we know as theChesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel is run

not by the Virginia DOT, but by a commis-sion made up of representatives from variousadjacent counties. They own, operate, andmaintain the 17.6-mile complex, using tollsto fund new construction and maintenance.

Look farther back in history—75years—and you’ll find the Niagara FallsBridge Commission, which was formed tocreate a bridge between the U.S. and Canadaat the site of one of the world’s most impres-sive natural features. The NFBC now runsthree bridges in that region, dealing with theextraordinary challenges of crossing interna-tional boundaries and severe environmentalconditions.

Yet the NFBC has been able to success-fully run its operation, supporting itselfthrough tolls, tenant leases, and bonds. Sucha time-tested model deserves a closer look.

Explore THINK resources athntb.com/think. v

Envision Transportation Assets as UtilitiesBy Peter Rahn | HNTB

E

25APRIL | MAY 2012

The Huey P. Long Bridge in Jef-ferson Parish, La., is one ofthree primary Mississippi Rivercrossings in the greater NewOrleans area, and the longestrailroad bridge in the U.S.where approximately 50,000vehicles cross daily. Thesephotos are from June 19,2010, when the first of threemassive segments were liftedin place as part of the $1.2billion Huey P. Long BridgeWidening Project. The pre-as-sembly and lift organizationwas coordinated by HNTBCorporation. The approachwas to build the truss on theriverbank, float it downstreamand then lift it into place with-out top or bottom bracing,which saved time and money.


im was the perfect candidate withmany years of solid experience asa professional sales rep and hadan obvious talent of persuasionand communication skills. Butthe hiring manager had somestrong reservations during the in-

terview. Jim’s strong focus on results ‘rightnow’ and a certain aggressiveness that couldprobably overwhelm or upset clients weresome of the weaknesses he was concernedabout.

In regards to Jim’s focus on the purposesof the company, its role in the community,the vital importance of innovation, and un-selfish dedication to excellence, he did theperfect job. He sold himself like never beforeand got hired.

Four months later, Jim was fired for lackof vision, lack of dedication, and worst of all,for his lack of honesty in his intentions.

The manager knew he had to hire ‘theSteve Jobs way,’ but had no real clue as tohow to do it. He hired what he saw and whathe heard ‘at the moment.’ He was trappedinto Jim’s salesmanship talent. And he wasfooled by Jim’s hidden intentions: to get thejob, ‘no matter what needs to be said…’

Steve Jobs’ Hiring PhilosophySteve Jobs was an amazing and unconven-tional leader in many respects. His reputa-tion as the best entrepreneur of our time canbe summarized in a few words: he and histop execs never compromised with the tal-ents and qualifications required of their em-ployees. He personally interviewed over5,000 applicants during his career. He andhis executives considered very different qual-ities in people than most business owners do.When you thoroughly analyze Apple’s phi-losophy of hiring, you find out that there hasalways been fundamental, un-compromisingattributes needed to get a job at Apple Inc.

You too can apply these attributes whenyou look at attracting top players and ensureyou avoid trouble makers. To help you inthe hiring process, here are the main ‘Appleselection attributes.’

Vision-minded. Everyone joining the com-pany must have a clear picture of its man-agement vision—and fully agree to fight forit, to defend it, and to live with it every day.Applicants who do not seem to get it are sys-tematically rejected. When you hire peoplewho don’t seem to agree with, or care aboutyour company vision, you are potentiallyemploying future enemies.

Innovation-minded. Steve Jobs always em-phasized the vital importance of hiring peo-ple who are innovative—willing to createsomething from nothing. Applicants are firstchosen for their ability and willingness toconstantly create, rather than for their tech-nical competence.

Future-minded. Employees at Apple aredriven by their leader’s vision of the futureand they contribute everyday to creating thefuture, more than just beating the competi-tion. Each of them owns the future of themarket because they know they can con-tribute to creating it. The eagerness to cre-ate, not follow the future is a vital attributeobserved in top players, no matter the in-dustry.

Passion-minded. Steve Jobs’ first principleis: ‘Do what you love.’ People are hired be-cause they love the product, the company,and its vision. Applicants who do notdemonstrate a genuine passion and ‘love’ forthe company’s purposes and business philos-ophy will never make it.

Contribution-minded. A statement given by

Hiring: Do It the Steve Jobs WayBy Patrick Valtin

J

27APRIL | MAY 2012

an Apple recruiter is clear enough: “We did-n’t want someone who desired to retire witha gold watch. We wanted entrepreneurs,demonstrated winners, high-energy contrib-utors who defined their previous role interms of what they contributed and not whattheir titles were.”

Engagement-minded. Over two thirds ofAmericans are not engaged in their work-place. Apple management is strict on em-ployees’ level of commitment. Committedindividuals who are inspired by a grand pur-pose make the whole difference in the mostcompetitive conditions.

Excellence-minded. Steve Jobs was knownfor his passion of perfection. The companyalways tries things out until they are perfectlydone. The same attitude is expected of everycollaborator. Applicants who do not sharethat passion for excellence do not have achance.

Other Critical Attributes to EvaluateYou will notice that these seven points en-forced in the Apple’s personnel selection areall personality-related attributes, also calledsoft skills. They do not always guarantee per-formance. But the chance of selecting pro-ductive people is at least 200 percent higherwhen focusing on these vital soft skills. It isvery well known that recruiters who focus onsoft skills in their personnel selection processare, on average, 50 percent more effective inselecting top players.

So, in order to avoid falling in the mo-mentary personality trap—as the hiringmanager in the above example did, youshould also focus on the following two basicsoft skills:

Honesty. Did you know that one third of allbusiness failures in the USA are due to em-ployee theft? Also, 95 percent of all US com-panies are victims of theft, and yet only tenpercent ever discover it. So this is definitelya crucial criterion to evaluate. Everybody rec-ognizes the importance of honesty so itwould make sense to evaluate it PRIOR toevaluating any other soft skill, wouldn’t it? There are strong indicators which allow you

to precisely evaluate honesty. Here are just afew: gaps in the resume, contradictory databetween the resume and your standard jobapplication, negative reaction or embarrass-ment from the applicant to your challengingquestions, and lack of accuracy in applicants’explanations of previous achievements.

Willingness. According to the US Depart-ment of Labor, more than 87 percent of em-ployee failures are due to unwillingness to dothe job. You can’t simply force someone todo something if they do not want to. Suchpersons will do what you want in order tokeep their job or to avoid penalties. But theywill not really put their heart into it.

Most applicants will tell you that they arewilling, of course. The key to finding out ifthey are honest is to ask them to prove it.Challenge them to demonstrate that theyhave been willing to work hard, learn some-thing new, question their old habits, workunder tough conditions, etc… The way youdo this is simply by asking them to give youspecific examples when they had to displaysuch willingness.

So, hire the Steve Job’s way, by all means. But

don’t forget these two basic attributes in the

same process. Inform applicants that your

company values and management philoso-

phy imply honesty and willingness/positive

attitude as primary selection criteria, no mat-

ter the position—lack of either is enough to

be considered unqualified! v

About the Author

Patrick Valtin is the author of No Fail Hiring

and a 24-year veteran coach and trainer in the

fields of management and human resources. He

is the President of M2-TEC USA Inc. Patrick

has personally trained 85,000 business owners

and executives from over 30 countries in the last

23 years on the subjects of business strategies,

leadership and people management, hiring,

sales, and marketing. For more information,

please visit www.nofailhiring.com, www.m2-

tec.com or call (877) 831-2299.


W h a t ’ s i n t h e

N E W S

Brian Allen Named SVP of Business De-velopment for GS&P Transportation Allen Will Expand Client Base, Existing Serv-ices As Part of Regional Growth EffortsGresham, Smith and Partners announcesBrian Allen has been named senior vice pres-ident of business development for the firm’sTransportation market. As SVP, Allen willlead new business development efforts in theSoutheast and help to build on relationshipswith existing clients.

“Brian’s experience with countless trans-portation projects and issues, working along-side leaders from DOTs and municipalitiesand with elected officials and other consult-ants, will be a tremendous addition to ourTransportation leadership team,” com-mented Marshall Elizer, Jr., P.E., PTOE, ex-ecutive vice president of Transportation,Gresham, Smith and Partners. “We are com-mitted to growing our client base and takingour current client services to the next level.Brian’s skills and resources will serve as ex-cellent tools for us to expand our efforts indelivering practical, achievable, technologi-cally advanced transportation solutions.”

“Having grown up in the Atlanta areawhere transportation was always at the fore-front of development discussions, my inter-est in the transportation industry developedearly,” said Allen. “Now, I’m excited aboutthe growth potential I see for the entireSoutheast region and I look forward to con-tributing to its development through my roleat GS&P. The firm’s multi-discipline, com-munity-minded approach makes it a trueleader in transportation engineering andplanning, and I’m confident that we’ll con-tinue to expand our contributions at a local,state, and regional level.”

Allen has nearly 35 years of professionalexperience, including serving as the director

of the Gwinnett County Department ofTransportation for the last 15 years. While atthe DOT, Allen oversaw the maintenance ofmore than 2,750 miles of county-maintainedroadway throughout 15 cities, the county’sbus transit system, and Gwinnett CountyAirport at Briscoe Field, one of the busiestgeneral aviation airports in Georgia. In part-nership with the Georgia DOT, he coordi-nated the county’s efforts to identify andcertify as ‘shovel-ready’ nearly $80 million oftransportation projects funded by the Amer-ican Recovery and Reinvestment Act(ARRA). He also managed the effort to de-liver more than $1 billion of Special PurposeLocal Option Sales Tax-funded roadwaywidening, extension, and improvement proj-ects throughout his career, including thewell-known I-85 & Route 316 Interchange

in Duluth, Georgia. Allen has been profes-sionally active with numerous local, state,and federal government agencies and organ-izations such as the Gwinnett Chamber ofCommerce, the Association County Com-missioners of Georgia (ACCG), the Ameri-can Public Works Association, the GeorgiaInstitute of Transportation Engineers, the At-lanta Regional Commission,, and the Amer-ican Public Transportation Association. v

GS&P Announces Jamie Cochran SVP ofTransportation PlanningNew Planning Practice Leader Will Head UpProject Strategy, Development EffortsGresham, Smith and Partners announcesJamie Cochran, AICP, has been named sen-ior vice president of transportation planningfor the firm’s Transportation market. As SVP,Cochran will lead GS&P’s firmwide trans-portation planning practice by managingproject strategy, business development, andclient relationships across offices.

“Jamie’s extensive experience in trans-portation planning is a great complement toour existing staff ’s capabilities,” commented

Brian Allen

29APRIL | MAY 2012

Marshall Elizer, Jr., P.E., PTOE, executive vicepresident of Transportation, Gresham, Smithand Partners. “Her technical expertise in trans-portation policy, planning, and multimodalmobility coupled with her background inproject management, staff development andnew business pursuits will not only helpGS&P grow its share in the transportationplanning industry, but also take our currentclient services to the next level.”

“I’m excited to join the GS&P team andbegin expanding our group’s planning serv-ices,” said Cochran. “I’ve always been pas-sionate about transportation; I see it as anenormous component in individuals’ andcommunities’ quality of life. By utilizing myplanning experience and capitalizing on mydesire to improve people’s daily lives throughsmart, successful transportation projects, Ilook forward to continuing the firm’s long-standing tradition of delivering the very best,top-quality work.”

Cochran has more than 30 years of ex-perience in the transportation and infra-structure consulting industries. She mostrecently served as vice president and marketleader for planning and transit at a major in-frastructure consulting firm in the Southeast.She has worked on transportation plans forthe Georgia and Florida Departments ofTransportation, the Atlanta Regional Com-mission, Henry and Paulding Counties inMetro Atlanta, and the Houston-Galveston(Texas) Area Council. Cochran is also anadjunct professor in the Georgia Institute ofTechnology’s City and Regional PlanningProgram, where she teaches undergraduate

courses in urban transportation and com-munity planning. v

Stantec’s Brett Northenor Named AmongNSPE’s 2012 New Faces of EngineeringBrett Northenor, P.E., a project engineerwith Stantec in Macon, Georgia, has beennamed a top five finalist in this year’s Na-tional Society of Professional Engineers(NSPE) ‘New Faces of Engineering’ recogni-tion program. Held annually to coincidewith Engineer’s Week (February 19-26,2012), the program promotes the accom-plishment of young engineers by highlight-ing their engineering contributions andresulting impact on society.

Northenor, a civil engineer, works onwater, wastewater and stormwater infra-structure projects throughout the Southeast.He has been design engineer for a number ofprojects, including two recognized by theAmerican Council of Engineering Compa-nies for their excellence in promoting sus-tainable design. One of these was thecost-effective overhaul of the ageing Tifton(Georgia) Regional Wastewater TreatmentPlant which was designed to cut electricitycost by 40 percent. Northenor promotes sus-tainable infrastructure design throughoutrural communities where budgets are partic-ularly strained. Outside of work, Northenorvolunteers with non-profit organizationssuch as the March of Dimes and St. JudeChildren’s Research Hospital where he does

fundraising, event planning, and Web sitedesign and maintenance.

Northenor holds a bachelor’s degree inengineering, specializing in environmentalengineering from Mercer University and iscurrently pursuing his master’s degree in thesame field.

Each year, the National Engineers WeekFoundation—a coalition of engineering so-cieties, major corporations, and governmentagencies—asks its members to nominate col-leagues 30 years old and younger who haveshown outstanding abilities and leadership.As an Engineers Week sponsoring society,NSPE names five young working engineerswho are NSPE members for recognition inthe program each year. Information on allthe New Faces nominees can be found atwww.eweek.org.

Stantec provides professional consultingservices in planning, engineering, architec-ture, interior design, landscape architecture,surveying, environmental sciences, projectmanagement, and project economics for in-frastructure and facilities projects. We sup-port public and private sector clients in adiverse range of markets at every stage, fromthe initial conceptualization and financialfeasibility study to project completion andbeyond. Our services are provided on proj-ects around the world through approxi-mately 11,000 employees operating out ofmore than 170 locations in North Americaand four locations internationally. v

Jamie Cochran


nquestionably the eco-nomic downturn overthe last several years hascaused many negativeinfluences affectingeveryone’s lives. The

high unemployment rate is an indicator ofthe difficulty businesses have had creatingjobs in a struggling economy. And for thoseout-of-work folks who need those jobs, thelack or dramatic decrease in income hasforced many to adjust their lifestyles tomaintain a sustainable standard of living.However, with all of these negative goin’-ons,the world as we know it did not collapse. Wehuman beings are adaptable, and we makethe necessary changes to survive.

One part of my upbringing was to lookfor the silver lining in every cloud. So withthe enumerable challenges we have all faced,some not-so-bad news can be gleaned. In thefollowing paragraphs, two of the positivesthat have been experienced related to high-way travel and air quality will be presented.

As part of the Alternatives Analysis (AA)study in the Northwest Transit Corridor (forcurrent information, visitwww.cobbdot.org/connectcobb.htm), a tele-phone survey was conducted of close to 800voters. A majority of the respondents statedthat for transportation, their primary con-cern was reducing congestion. The averagesingle occupant vehicle commuter during thepeak periods would tend to agree. As trans-portation professionals, addressing this chal-lenge is very important. But whateversystem, or tool kit of multi-modal trans-portation systems, are put in place, providingreduced travel times as safely as possibleshould always be in the forefront.

There are continuous efforts at all levelsof government to reduce not only the num-ber of crashes but their severity as well. Acurrent program being promoted by the Fed-eral Highway Administration (FHWA) re-lates to Proven Safety Countermeasures.

Visit their Web site atsafety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/to get information on the latest FHWA-rec-ommended set of research-proven safetycountermeasures. The updated list was de-veloped based on recent safety research to ad-dress intersection, roadway departure, andpedestrian issues wherever they may occur.Many of these countermeasures are low-costsolutions, and implementing them can reapthe benefits of using solutions that areknown to save lives.

Interestingly enough, a review of certainannual statewide review indicate that sincethe onset of the economic downturn, ourthoroughfares have been functioning moresafely. This is exhibited primarily by the con-sistent reduction in the number of crashes.

The Georgia Department of Trans-portation (GDOT) collects and compilescrash statistics on the State’s roadway system.After an entire calendar year’s statewide crashdata has been analyzed, GDOT produces itsStatewide Mileage, Travel, & Accident Data.For each roadway classification, statistics arereported on the number of occurrences and

the rates for total crashes, injury crashes, andfatalities. For all roadways on a statewidebasis (data is also available for the individualclassifications of roadways), these statisticsfor the years 2003 through 2009 (the mostrecent year the data is available) are shownin the table below.

The crash information shows that priorto 2005, the number of crashes and theirrates were increasing. After 2006, the annualvehicle miles of travel started to and contin-ued to decrease with an upturn in 2009. Inconjunction with fewer miles traveled, thenumber of crash occurrences and their asso-ciated rates, reported in per 100 million ve-hicle miles (MVM), have decreased as well.Consequently, the chances of being in a crashon Georgia’s thoroughfares have gone down.

An analysis cause and effect for crashesis performed to identify potential correctivemeasures that could have the biggest benefitin making the street, or intersection, safer.And there are a myriad of factors that con-tribute to a crash occurring. But it seemshard to deny that drivers have changed theirbehaviors while dealing with their economic

A Different Perspective on the Impact of the Economic Downturn

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

U

YearAnnual Vehicle

Miles(millions)

Non-fatal InjuryAccidents

Non-fatal InjuryAccidents

(per 100 MVM)All Accidents

All Accidents(per 100 MVM)

2003 109,299 86,739 79 332,321 304

2004 112,349 89,817 123 342,307 305

2005 113,502 91,201 123 348,040 307

2006 113,531 87,734 117 342,158 301

2007 112,627 85,458 114 337,828 300

2008 108,845 77,104 106 306,155 281

2009 109,318 75,832 69 300,425 275

31APRIL | MAY 2012

challenges, and we are literally running intoeach other less and less. A little more diffi-cult to put a finger on is that drivers are moreconscious of their trip characteristics and areplanning the travel time and routes to mini-mize their costs. Understanding that thereare a number of interrelated factors that im-pact highway safety, since the start of thecountry’s economic problems, driving Geor-gia’s highways has become less dangerous.

Monitoring and reporting on air qualityis performed to protect the public health (es-pecially for those respitorially sensitivegroups) and environmental quality. The AirProtection Branch of the Environmental Pro-tection Division of Georgia’s EnvironmentalProtection Division has been monitoring airquality in the State of Georgia for more than30 years through their Air Monitoring Pro-gram. The list of compounds monitored hasgrown to more than200 pollutants using sev-eral types of samplers at sites statewide. Theresulting data is reported annually and themost recent compilation is the 2010 Ambi-ent Air Surveillance Report. The full reportcan be downloaded from their Web site atwww.air.dnr.state.ga.us/amp. The produc-tion of the 2011 report is in process.

I’ll be the first to admit that environ-mental science is not my strong suit and thatthere are a myriad of factors (least of allMother Nature) and processes that impactair quality and what is being presented here

only scratches the surface. A number of tech-nological advancements, regulations, andpolicies have had positive impacts over time.What is being conveyed, though, is that evenas these actions have had their effect, thereare other recent events that have had an evengreater influence on these trends.

In July 1997, the US EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) issued an eight-hour ozone evaluative standard that was in-tended to replace the older one-hourstandard. This eight-hour standard is metwhen the average concentration of ozone ismeasured to be equal to or less than 0.085parts per million (ppm). In March of 2008,the ozone primary standard level was low-ered to 0.075 ppm for the eight-hour aver-aging time.

The figure above shows how past airquality measurements in the Atlanta metro-politan region would relate to both the oldstandard and the new standard with regardsto the number of days that exceed the mini-mum requirements. Even though there hasbeen a great deal of fluctuation over the past25 years, there has been a gradual reductionin the number of days exceeding both ozonestandards. The recent decrease in exceedancedays and its most dramatic decreases to itslowest levels have occurred after 2005.

Another important activity of the Am-bient Monitoring Program is to effectivelyreach out and educate the citizens of Georgia

about the effects and status of air pollution.The most prominent method is through theannouncements of smog alerts and informa-tion provided in the Air Quality Index(AQI). The AQI is a national air standardrating system developed by the US EPA andit provides to the public, on a daily basis, airpollution levels and possible related healthrisks. The larger the AQI number, the greaterthe level of air pollution present, and thegreater the expectation of potential healthconcerns.

Between 1985 and 2005 the number ofdays with an AQI above 100 has been rela-tively cyclic. However, after 2005, the dayswith an AQI above 100 have decreased totheir lowest levels, a time frame consistentwith the economic downturn.

The information presented here regard-ing the safety conditions of our State’s high-ways and the quality of our air are anoversimplification of very complex and com-plicated issues. However, this analysis in noway is intended to make light of the eco-nomic challenges our country faces and theserious consequences that have been felt inthe engineering community. It has greatlypained me over the last few years every timeI’ve learned about more and more of my en-gineering brethren who have either lost theirjobs or accepted re-assignments to continueto receive a paycheck. And I hope that all ofthose that have suffered through these tougheconomic times are once again able to securetheir desired level of employment withintheir chosen career. Here’s hoping that whenwe get back to more stable and prosperoustimes, that we continue to enjoy travels thatare less likely to include experiencing a crashand cleaner air to breath.

e author would like to thank Michelle McIn-tosh of Croy Engineering for her assistance inthe research and reporting of the GDOT crashdata and Susan Zimmer-Dauphinee and JanetAldredge of Georgia’s EPD Ambient Monitor-ing Program for their time and effort in pro-viding the air quality information. v


he ‘Engineering andUrban Planning Com-munities’ in Georgia isindeed fortunate to havethe opportunity to at-tend an international

meeting of the Institute of TransportationEngineers right here in our capital city.The meeting is scheduled for August 12-15, 2012, at the Westin Hotel in down-town Atlanta.

This is an unusual opportunity for en-gineers-the last international meeting of theInstitute was in Atlanta in 1978 with 1250members and spouses attending. This year’smeeting will officially begin on Sunday,August 12, with Keynote Speakers; a reviewof our T-Splost Campaign (What We DidRight, What We Did Wrong); reports fromnational transportation experts; technicalprojects and reports, and an exhibition oftransportation products and programs.

Persons listed as possible speakers are:

• Mr. Thomas Brahms, CEO, the Insti-tute of Transportation Engineers

• Martin Bretherton, Past Chairman,Traffic Engineering Council, Instituteof Transportation Engineers

• Mr. Keith Golden, Commissioner,Georgia Department of Transporta-tion

• Mr. Todd Long, Director of Planning,Georgia Department of Transporta-tion

• Rock Miller, President, Institute ofTransportation Engineers

• Mayor Kassim Reed, Mayor, City ofAtlanta

There are over 30 technical sessions sched-

uled, ten-12 seminars which provide Pro-

fessional Development Hours (PDH) of

credit for registered engineers, 65-70 trans-

portation products exhibitors, and 25

transportation award winners selected by

the American Association of State Highway

and Transportation Officials, the Federal

Highway Administration, the Institute of

Transportation Engineers, the Intelligent

Transportation Society of America, and the

Transportation Research Board.

In addition to the speakers and ses-

sions, the 2012 exhibits will include trans-

portation planning software, traffic

products and equipment, signal equip-

ment, consulting firms offering transporta-

tion services, and other related items. v

Institute of Transportation Engineers to Meet in AtlantaBy John D. Edwards | Honorary Member | ITE

T

33APRIL | MAY 2012

he engineering commu-nity gathered for a nightof socializing and celebra-tion to honor the out-standing accomplish-ments made in the pro-

fession by individuals and companies at the2012 Georgia Engineers Week Awards Gala.This annual gala brings together engineers ofall disciplines and academia.

Steven Sheffield served as the 2012 En-gineers Week Chair and representative forthe Institute of Transportation Engineers onthe Engineers Week Committee. As thechair, Mr. Sheffield was the Master of Cere-mony at the Engineers Week Awards Galaand was accompanied by colleagues that rep-resented additional engineering organiza-tions. James Hamilton, P.E. and EdgarWilliams, P.E. were on hand for the eventrepresenting the American Council of Engi-neering Companies, as well as, WilliamWingate III, P.E. and Luther Cox Jr., P.E. forthe Georgia Society of Professional Engi-neers. Their organizations are the sponsor-ing partners of the Georgia EngineeringAlliance which hosts the annual EngineersWeek Awards Gala.

Top honors for the evening were pre-sented to HDR Engineering Inc., ThomasFurlow, P.E., and Thomas Gambino, P.E.The Engineering Excellence Award GrandPrize was awarded to HDR Engineering Inc.for the Hickory Ridge Landfill Solar EnergyCover. This project has also been honoredat the national level. Thomas Furlow, P.E. ofJACOBS was named the 2012 LifetimeAchievement Award Recipient for his dedi-cation to the engineering profession and tohis community. The Georgia Engineer ofthe Year was bestowed to Thomas Gambino,P.E. of Prime Engineering Inc. His accept-ance speech was a moving tribute to his pro-fession, office staff, family, friends and hisadoring wife, Amelia.

Special presentations were made to ac-knowledging exceptional contributions tothe profession. Outreach programs that en-courage careers in engineering can have amajor impact on our country’s future.Southern Polytechnic State University’s

Dawn Ramsey has been the State Coordina-tor for the Georgia Future City Competitionand a superior advocate for the engineeringprofession. For the competition, middleschool students design a Future City Modelincorporating transportation, energy, waterand sewer, housing, and much more. Mrs.Ramsey is retiring after many years of devot-ing most of her time to growing the state’scompetition to one of the largest competi-tions in the country. Southern PolytechnicState University and the Engineers WeekCommittee worked together to highlightMrs. Ramsey’s tireless effort on this worthycompetition.

The American Society of Civil EngineersGeorgia Section has reached a major mile-stone in 2012. The Georgia Engineers WeekCommittee celebrated ASCE Georgia Sec-tion’s 100th Anniversary at the gala. A specialvideo with ASCE Georgia Section President,James Wallace, P.E. and Past President MelissaWheeler was featured. It was fascinating tolearn that Mr. Wallace became a memberwhile in college and has been a member of theGeorgia Section for over fifty years. Ms.Wheeler was honored to be the first femalepresident of the section and is working on theplanning committee for the programs andevents ASCE Georgia Section will host dur-ing their Centennial Anniversary.

The engineering profession is vital toAmerica’s future, and the companies thatsponsor the Georgia Engineers Week are es-sential to the special programs and eventsthat happen during Engineers Week. TheGeorgia Engineering Alliance would like tothank the 2012 Georgia Engineers Weeksponsors.

Platinum Level Sponsor

2012 Georgia Engineers Week Awards Gala

e engineering community enjoyed a specialevening honoring the profession

Dawn Ramsey of SPSU was honored for hardwork and dedication to the Georgia Future

City Competition.

William Wingate, III congratulates GarrettBailey of SPSU as the Student Engineer of

the Year as Luther Cox, Jr. and StevenSheffield observe the presentation.

T


Program Sponsor

Gold Level Sponsor

Silver Level Sponsor A4 Inc. / The Georgia EngineerAECOMARCADISATC Associates Brown and Caldwell

CH2M HILLHNTB CorporationJACOBSKimley-Horn and AssociatesURS CorporationUzun & Case Engineers, LLC

Bronze LevelIntelligent Transportation Society (ITS)Pond & CompanySouthern Civil EngineersSociety of Manufacturing Engineers (SME)Thomas & Hutton Engineering CompanyW.K. Dickson and CompanyWorld Fiber Technologies

Association Sponsors

Dr. Reginald DesRoches of the Georgia Institute of Technology wasawarded the Engineer of the Year in Education.

HDR Engineering Inc. and their client Republic Services were namedthe 2012 Engineering Excellence Award Grand Prize Recipients.

omas Gambino of Prime Engineering addresses the audience afterbeing named the 2012 Georgia Engineer of the Year.

HNTB and their client Cobb County Department of Transportationreceived an Engineering Excellence Honor Award.

35APRIL | MAY 2012

Atlanta- A Megalopolis?I had a very fortunate childhood in Decatur,Georgia. I knew the city’s mayor- my Dad(Jack Hamilton) and he knew a lot of moversand shakers in the metro area includingMayor Hartsfield and, my favorite- RichardRich (Rich’s Department store). So, whenmy fifth grade teacher (Mrs. Williams) as-signed us to prepare a social studies projectabout the future of Atlanta, the Mayor (Dad)suggested that I do an expose about Atlantapotentially being a megalopolis (mind you,this is before the sign at the Darlingtonapartments said our population was evennear 1,000,000). My Dad was just homefrom strategic planning meetings with fiveother mayors, county leaders from five coun-ties and of course, the Governor and Lt Gov-ernor. The term megalopolis came up as apotential future descriptor of the formerMarthasville.

A megalopolis is a large urban complexand usually involves several cities, towns,

counties, and communities that link together(usually along transit corridors that movepeople and commerce). Megalopolis is aGreek word for ‘Great City.’ Megalopoli,founded in 371BC is a town in western pre-fecture of Arcadia and had a characteristic of‘unbridled growth in all directions.” I recallthat I concluded that yes, the ATL could bea megalopolis—no oceans or other geo-graphic constraints to stop us- why not?

I recall drawing a map (with no I-285on it, as it was not built then), showing theregion and our neighboring states, and howthis megalopolis would grow and grow(smartly mind you) and perhaps connect tothe outlying cities—Macon, Columbus,Greenville, Augusta, Chattanooga, and whenconnected—we have our megalopolis withAtlanta in the middle. My study concludedthat climate, resources, and commerce, com-bined with transportation would be the driv-ers of our growth. My Dad’s strategic groupof the ’60s cited two potential problems

however. Without enough water or greattransportation solutions the growth and oureconomy will suffer—not only in Atlanta,but throughout Georgia.

And so, here we are 50 years later andthese two issues are at the forefront—waterand transportation. If we miss the 2012 op-portunities to address these issues, we set thestage for a very difficult future for Atlantaand Georgia going forward. I could write anentire piece on water as I have spent moretime there. This is the year for transportationcommitment as the TSplost vote inchescloser and closer (July 31, 2012). This trans-portation related vote is likely the most im-portant event for engineers and for allGeorgians- I think more important for Geor-gia than who occupies the White House forthe next four years.

I am proud to say that ACECG is veryinvolved with the transportation issue. Ouradvocacy for you includes engaged partici-pation by our ACEC leaders:

James R. Hamilton, PEPresident ACEC/G

ACeCNews


CTM (Citizens for Transportation Mo-bility) Board of Advisors: Tom Leslie, PE,Ed Ellis, PE, and Jay Wolverton, PE sit onthis Board for both ACECG and GEA.

First Friday Forum: Tom, Ed, and Jayalso attend and provide input on behalf ofACECG at the first Friday forum which putsthe top state transportation entities of Geor-gia in one room clarifying policy, priorities,and strategy.

CTM Finance Committee: Tom Lesliesits on this Committee.

GDOT/TIA Implementation Task Forceincludes the following ACECG members: Doris Willmer (Willmer Engineering)Jim Hullett (RS&H) Joe Macrina (Wolverton) John Heath (Heath & Lineback) Rick Toole (WR Toole) Terry Kazmerzak (Parsons Brinkerhoff ) Tommy Crochet (McGee Partners) Davita Jenkins (CH2M Hill) Richard Meehan (Lowe Engineers)

ACECG is steadfast in advocacy for Georgiaengineering firms involved with transporta-tion. Passing the TSplost is in everyone’s bestinterest. Here is how you can help:

Conduct a lunch and learn in your officeon why passing the TSplost is so important.If you need information for your meeting

contact me, Tom Leslie or Gwen Brandon.Communicate to your personal network

of friends and to your colleagues why this isso important—this affects all Georgians.

Vote and encourage others to vote onJuly 31st—even if you have to submit via ab-sentee ballot!!

Whether or not Atlanta becomes a

megalopolis is secondary to how GREAT

Georgia is—passing the TSplost is an im-

portant piece to our future. Show up on

7/31/2012 and vote Yes!

Sincerely,

James R. Hamilton, President ACECG v

First Name Last Name Firm E-Mail Address Telephone

President Jim Hamilton Southern Civil Engineers Inc. [email protected] (770) 619-4280

President-Elect Eddie Williams Keck & Wood Inc. [email protected] (678) 417-4000

Treasurer Jay Wolverton Wolverton & Associates Inc. [email protected] (770) 447-8999

Secretary Darrell Rochester Rochester & Associates Inc. [email protected] (770) 718-0600

Vice President Charles Ezelle Thomas & Hutton Engineering Co. [email protected] (912) 234-5300

Vice President Roseana Richards Pond & Company [email protected] (678) 336-7740

Vice President David Wright Neel-Schaffer Inc. [email protected] (678) 604-0040

National Director Rick Toole W. R. Toole Engineers Inc. [email protected] (706) 722-4114

Director Bill Griffin Rosser International Inc. [email protected] (404) 876-3800

Director Don Harris URS Corporation [email protected] (678) 808-8804

Director John Heath Heath & Lineback Engineers Inc. [email protected] (770) 424-1668

Director Rich Mays Engineering Design Technologies Inc. [email protected] (770) 988-0400

Director Richard Meehan Lowe Engineers LLC [email protected] (770) 857-8400

Director Margie Pozin STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates [email protected] (770) 452-0797

Director Doug Robinson Walter P. Moore and Associates Inc. [email protected] (404) 898-9620

Past President Tom Gambino Prime Engineering Inc. [email protected] (404) 425-7100

ACECG Board of Directors 2011-2012

37APRIL | MAY 2012

Please Read and RespondThe leadership of the Georgia Section,ASCE, would like to communicate with you,and we would like for it to be a two-waycommunication. In the following sectionsof this article I am going to outline some ofthe activities in which the members of thesection are involved, and we hope that youwill agree that the activities are worth-whileand beneficial to the profession. However, weknow that you may have a different opinion,and if you do, we would like to know aboutit. To help your section leadership do thebest job they can, we need to hear from you.I would like to make the following sugges-tion: first, just let us know that you are read-ing this article. You can do this by sendingan email to [email protected] justput in the subject line, “I read it.” It wouldbe even more helpful if you would carry yourresponse one step further and go to the sec-

tion Web site (ascega.org) and click on thesurvey regarding the ASCE articles in theGeorgia Engineer and other activities of thesection. We are very interested in your opin-ion regarding how we can best meet the threegoals that were outlined in the previous issueof the Georgia Engineer. These goals are: (1)Promote the civil engineering profession, (2)Increase participation in the Georgia Section,ASCE, and (3) Promote life-long learning bymembers of the profession. Your responsewill help us reach these goals. Thank you foryour participation in our effort to serve youbetter.

Georgia Section ActivitiesContest: What Do Civil Engineers Do?The Georgia Section has created a competi-tion, now in its second year, that basicallychallenges middle school students (sixth, sev-enth, and eighth graders) to tell us “What

DO Civil Engineers Do?” Their responsecan be in the form of an essay, a project, avideo, or even a piece of related art—it’s upto the student or team. The teams can be nogreater than three members. Cash prizes willbe awarded for the top two entries and threeadditional honorable mentions for eachgrade level. The deadline for submission isMarch 2, 2012, after which our panel ofjudges will rate each entry and determine thewinners. The top winners will be presentedwith the award at the ASCE Georgia SectionMeeting held on May 4th, 2011 at the Car-lyle House in downtown Norcross.

The Georgia Section specifically tar-geted this age group because there has beena decline of engineers entering the work forcein the U.S. and that trend is not expected toimprove. Sadly, many young adults thesedays still do not know what engineers (muchless civil engineers) actually do. Therefore,

AsCeNews

Jim Wallace, P.E., PresidentAmerican Society of Civil Engineers, Georgia Section | e-mail: [email protected]

PRESIDENTJim Wallace, [email protected]

PRESIDENT-ELECTLisa Woods, [email protected]

VICE-PRESIDENTKatherine McLeod Gurd, [email protected]

PAST-PRESIDENTJo Ann Macrina, [email protected]

TREASURERRebecca Shelton, [email protected]

SECRETARYErnie Pollitzer, [email protected]

DIRECTORS

Northeast Georgia Branch:Paul Oglesby, [email protected]

Savannah Branch:C J Chance, [email protected]

South Metro Branch:James Emery, [email protected]

INTERNAL AFFAIRSKeith Cole, [email protected]

EXTERNAL AFFAIRSDan Agramonte, [email protected]

YOUNGER MEMBERSJulie Secrist, [email protected]

TECHNICAL GROUPSJohn Lawrence, [email protected]

www.ascega.org

2011 - 2012 BOARD OF DIRECTORS


introducing students to the civil engineeringprofession will not only promote civil engi-neering as an interesting and rewarding ca-reer, but will help, we trust, fill theanticipated and current void at a time whenour infrastructure is aging and in desperateneed of repair.

Partnering with Marietta Center for Ad-vanced Academics (MCAA)The Science, Technology, Engineering, andMathematics (STEM) magnet academy atMCAA provides third through fifth gradestudents an integrated, rigorous academicprogram. Based on the Georgia PerformanceStandards (GPS), the comprehensive, STEMmagnet program uses a balance of texts andtechnological resources to provide an educa-tion that is challenging at higher levels, andfaster-paced, than most traditional elemen-tary learning environments. ASCE-GA Sec-tion will be partnering with MCAA in theirPartners in Education (PIE) programthrough the Cobb County Chamber ofCommerce. The school was recognized asbeing the first in the state to be STEM-Cer-tified, and there was a ceremony on March8th where the state school superintendentwas in attendance (among other officials). Atthis time, the officials showcased and pro-moted our section as being the formal part-ner with MCAA in the PIE program.

Group, Committee, and Institute ActivitiesEnvironmental and Water Resources Group(EWRG)The EWRG provides leadership in the pro-fessional community by serving as an activeforum for the discussion of environmentaland water resource issues, assisting in dis-semination of news and information to thegeneral membership of the Georgia Section,and participating in important decisions thatwill affect the environmental and water re-sources future of Georgia. Environmentaland water resources engineering is a vibrantfield in civil engineering because of govern-ment enforcement of environmental regula-tions, strides in the practical implementationof environmental safeguards, and gradual ac-ceptance of the necessary adjustments in theway we build, develop, and monitor our en-vironment. The EWRG intends to remain a

leading source of current environmental in-formation in Georgia. Our program goals in-clude: sponsoring informative technicalmeetings for engineers; developing closercontact with governmental environmentalagencies; continuing the Kindsvater water re-sources lecture series initiated in 2005; de-veloping stronger alliances with othertechnical groups; and performing publicservice projects to serve and educate the pub-lic.

The EWRG supports the section andtechnical community in researching and/orposition statements as the needs arise. Thus,a primary focus of our efforts is providinglearning opportunities for our members thatinclude lectures, field trips, and technicalpresentations. We hold EWRG luncheonpresentations on the third Friday of themonth at the office of Brown and Caldwell,located at 990 Hammond Drive, Suite 400,Atlanta, Georgia 30328. Please e-mail [email protected] to be included inthe e-mail meeting notifications.

Transportation & Development Institute(T&DI) ~ Georgia ChapterThe vision of the Transportation & Devel-opment Institute (T&DI) is to be the recog-nized leader for the advocacy of livablecommunities by promoting environmentallysensitive transportation and land develop-ment. The mission of the institute is to pro-mote the interdependence of transportation,land development, and the environment,while uniting the disciplines of planning, de-sign, construction, operation, maintenance,and research in support of sustainable devel-opment. By providing a multidisciplinaryfocus for professional communication, edu-cation and collaboration, the institute willenhance the professional knowledge andskills of its members so that they may im-prove the quality of life. The Institute bringstogether engineers, planners, industry repre-sentatives, citizen groups, developers, publicofficials, and others dedicated to improvingtransportation and fostering appropriate de-velopment decisions at the local, regional,state, national and international levels.

T&DI Georgia Chapter general mem-bership meetings are held every other monthon a weekday generally from 11:30 am until

1:30 pm with lunch provided. Typical pro-grams include one to three speakers in a set-ting conducive to engaged question andanswer dialog following presentations.Formed in early 2010, the T&DI GeorgiaChapter has hosted numerous meetings withdistinguished speakers covering a wide varietyof transportation and development topics.

The Executive Committee of the T&DIGeorgia Chapter will continue to develop in-teresting, inviting, educational, and thoughtprovoking programs to be held every othermonth to educate our membership and stim-ulate conversations that will help bridgetransportation and development issues in thesoutheastern United States. Future meetingsare tentatively scheduled for the months ofMay, July, September, and November of2012. Please check the T&DI page on theASCE Georgia Section Web site for more de-tails of upcoming events or contact theT&DI Georgia Chapter Chair, LenorBromberg ([email protected]).

Geotechnical CommitteeGeorgia SectionThe Geotechnical Committee—GeorgiaSection had its beginning in the mid 1950swhen a small group of local geotechnical en-gineers met to have dinner and talk aboutcurrent geotechnical engineering activities.The Geotechnical Committee has become arecognized, dynamic, and successful organi-zation serving the geotechnical engineeringcommunity and the civil engineering com-munity at large.

From September to May of each year theCommittee offers monthly meetings withdinner and technical discussions and presen-tations by select speakers. The meetings aretypically scheduled on the third Tuesday ofeach month at 6:30 p.m. at the Headquartersof Georgia Power Company in DowntownAtlanta (241 Ralph McGill Boulevard NEAtlanta, Georgia 30308). The meetings areopen to everybody interested in geotechnicalengineering and related subjects.

Each May, the committee and GeorgiaTech present the Sowers Symposium in honorof Prof. George Sowers, who helped start theGeotechnical Committee, taught a greatmany of our leading and practicing geotech-nical engineers, and was a recognized as an

39APRIL | MAY 2012

eminent geotechnical engineer himself. Thisyear marks the 15th Annual Sowers Sympo-sium, which is scheduled on May 8, 2012.

Each October or November the Com-mittee plans to host the Terzaghi lecturer forthe current year. This lectureship was estab-lished by the Soil Mechanics and Founda-tions Division (now the Geo-Institute) ofASCE by the solicitation of gifts from themany friends and admirers of Karl Terzaghi,Hon.M.ASCE. It was instituted by theBoard of Directors on October 10, 1960.The committee has been successful in secur-ing these distinguished lecturers for the last 2years, and we plan and expect that the ‘Terza-ghi Atlanta’ lecture each fall will be a recog-nized and expected annual event.

For more information or to be added tothe Committee’s e-mail list, please contactChair Luis Babler ([email protected]) orcheck us out on Facebook or on the ASCEGeorgia Web site:http://www.ascega.org/ge-otechnical-group/

Sustainability InstituteGeorgia ChapterThe Sustainability Institute of the GeorgiaSection, American Society of Civil Engi-neers, was founded in 2010 as part of a na-tional effort. The objectives are to provideinstitutional knowledge of the role and re-sponsibility of civil engineers in leading sus-tainable infrastructure practice and designthat achieves environmental, economical,and equitable built environment.

We have the vision of solving the realityof shrinking resources in providing effectiveand innovative solutions in addressing thechallenges and raising expectations for sus-tainability and environmental stewardship.The ASCE Code of Ethics requires civil en-gineers to strive to comply with the princi-ples of sustainable development in theperformance of their professional duties. Tothat regard, the Sustainability Institute col-laborates on policy, education, and solutionsin meeting human needs for natural re-sources, industrial products, energy, food,transportation, shelter, and effective wastemanagement while conserving and protect-ing environmental quality and the natural re-source base essential now and for futuredevelopment.

For more information or to be added tothe committee’s e-mail list, please contactBan Saman, P.E., Chair, Sustainability Insti-tute-ASCE Georgia Section,[email protected].

Structural Engineering Institute (SEI)Georgia ChapterThe Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) isa vibrant community of more than 20,000structural engineers within the American So-ciety of Civil Engineers. Because SEI mem-bers are leaders in structural engineeringpractice and academia, SEI provides greatnetworking opportunities while stimulatingcoordination and understanding between ac-ademia and practicing engineers—drivingthe practical application of cutting edge re-search. The Georgia Chapter of the Struc-tural Engineering Institute holds a monthlymeeting and technical presentation on thecampus of the Georgia Institute of Technol-ogy in Atlanta, Georgia. Meetings are typi-cally held in the evenings at 6:30 PM oneither the first or third Thursday of themonth in the Mason Building (Civil Engi-neering). The cost is $5 and attendees receiveone PDH hour certificate, and pizza andbeverages are provided. Attendance for stu-

dents is free. Membership in ASCE or SEI isnot required in order to attend, but is neces-sary to vote in elections and hold officer po-sitions. For more information, please contactDarren Howard ([email protected]). v


As spring is coming (although winter was notall that ‘wintery’) we at ASHE are excited andoptimistic for a great 2012. We have alreadyhad a busy start to the year and are quicklyramping up for an even busier spring andsummer. ASHE is very excited to announcethe formation of a student chapter at GeorgiaTech. Under the leadership of our StudentChapter Chairman, Kevin Riggs, and withthe help of countless volunteers, ASHE suc-cessfully held our first official Student Lunch-eon Meeting in February. The meeting was agreat success and we are eagerly looking for-ward to growing our student membershipbase. If you know of any students/interns/coops that could benefit from our new chap-ter, please feel free to contact Kevin.

In an effort to better serve the ASHEmembership, we have underway a comprehen-sive member survey. This survey will allow theASHE board to enhance the benefits of youAHSE membership. Please feel free to visit sur-vey at the following Web site: https://www.sur-veymonkey.com/s/ASHE2012

Recent Events/AwardsWe have had a great start to 2012. We havehad our January General Membership Lunchmeeting as well as our always popular schol-arship fundraising Poker Tournament. Wehad a new winner this year with Kevin ‘itwasn’t rigged’ Riggs beating out a field of 72players to take the top prize.

I would also like to thank our 2011Georgia Section Membership Award win-ners: Member of the Year: Rob Dell-Ross;Young Member of the Year: Sarah Worachek;President’s Award: Nikki Reutlinger.

ASHE National Conference:This year’s national conference will be hostedby the Southwest Pennsylvania Section. Itwill be held in the beautiful Laurel Highlandmountains of Pennsylvania at Seven SpringsResort from June 7-10. For those of you whohave not had an opportunity to attend one ofour conferences, I invite you to an educa-tional and fun filled event. We will have sev-eral members attend this event and look

forward to seeing you there. Go to the con-ference Web site at www.ashe2012.org formore information and to register.

We have a full calendar of events in-cluding our newly added joint WTS TennisTournament, so check the Web site(www.ashega.org) regularly for what’s com-ing up. We look forward to seeing you soon.

Ron Osterloh, P.E., PresidentAmerican Society of Highway Engineers, Georgia Section v

AsHeNews

Ron Osterloh, P.E., PresidentAmerican Society of Highway Engineers / Georgia Section

2012 ASHE Poker Champion, Kevin Riggs

Upcoming Calendar of Events

March 16, 2012 General MeetingApril, 2012 Technical Seminar

(Topic TBD)May 3, 2012 ASHE/WTS 1st

Annual Tennis Tournament

May 17, 2012 - Golf Tourney (Scholarship Fundraiser)

June, 2012 - General MeetingJune 7-10, 2012- National Conference,

Seven Springs, PA August 2012 - Babs Abubakari

Bowling Scholarship Fundraiser

41APRIL | MAY 2012

2011-2012 ASHE Georgia Chapter Officers

President Ron Osterloh [email protected] Vice President Michael Bywaletz [email protected] Vice President Brian O’Connor [email protected] Secretary Karyn Matthews [email protected] Richard Meehan [email protected] Representative Nikki Reutlinger [email protected] President Tim Matthews [email protected]

Committee Chairs

Social Chair Elizabeth Scales [email protected] Chair Tim Matthews [email protected] Chair Scott Jordan [email protected] Chair Rob Dell-Ross [email protected] Chair Sarah Worachek [email protected] Chapter Chair Kevin Riggs [email protected] Co-Chair Dan Bodycomb [email protected] Co-Chair Chris Rudd [email protected] ASHE Web site Chair Mindy Sanders [email protected] Golf Tournament Chair Ashley Chan [email protected]


GeFNews

Jim Wallace, P.E., President Georgia Engineering Foundation

Secrets of the Georgia EngineeringFoundation DisclosedWhy did I select such an unusual title for thisarticle? Because, as I and other members ofGEF have experienced, we find that when wemention GEF to other engineers, they typi-cally have no idea of how GEF functions,even though the engineering organization ofwhich they are a member is itself a MemberOrganization of GEF. Those of us that areattempting to lead GEF think that it is im-portant that more of our fellow engineers un-derstand the workings of this organization.Therefore, we are using this article to pres-ent a brief statement of the purpose, mem-bership, and accomplishments of GEF.

PurposeAccording to the bylaws of the foundation, itis organized under the Georgia Non-ProfitCorporation Code “to foster and maintainthe honor and integrity of the learned pro-fession of engineering and the mathematicaland physical sciences for the benefit ofmankind.” While this purpose may seemsomewhat esoteric, it is only the first of sev-eral purposes stated in the bylaws and setsthe framework for the others. Probably themost widely known of the more specific pur-poses is “to provide scholarships at approvedengineering schools for worthy and qualifiedapplicants.”

While the foundation may spend themajority of its time and energy solicitingscholarship funds and reviewing scholarshipapplications and interviewing scholarshipcandidates, it is also a strong supporter andparticipant in activities such as programs atthe Benjamin Mays Math & Science HighSchool, the State Science Fair Awards, Ex-ploring Engineer Academy, MathCounts,

MEMBER ORGANIZATIONSORGANIZATION REPRESENTATIVE

Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering Mark Cundiff

American Council of Engineering Companies of Georgia Roseana Richards

American Society of Civil Engineers, Georgia Section Jim Wallace

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers John Boneberg

Georgia Power Engineering Association, Atlanta Branch David Lips

Georgia Society of Professional Engineers (State) Jimmy Crowder

Metro-Atlanta Chapter Luther Cox

Augusta Chapter Erik Hammarlund

Cobb Chapter Charles Switzer

Northeast Chapter John Oliaro

Northwest Chapter Joe Humphrey

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Atlanta Section Chase Battaglio

Society of American Military Engineers, Atlanta Post Jack Siebert

Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers Art Vogel

ASSOCIATE MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS ORGANIZATION REPRESENTATIVE

Georgia Institute Of Technology Dr. Larry Jacobs

Mercer University Dr. Edward O’Brien

Southern Polytechnic State University Dean Jeff Ray

University of Georgia Dr. Stephan A. Durham

OFFICERS/COMMITTEE CHAIRS

Past President Jeff Amason

President Jim Wallace

President Elect Jimmy Crowder

Vice President Ray Wilke

Treasurer Roseana Richards

Secretary Mark Cundiff

Ways & Means Mike Ray

Life Members Art Bendelius

Scholarship John Ford

Projects Jim Remich

The current membership is composed of the following organizations:

43APRIL | MAY 2012

Wheeler Robotics, Rockdale Magnet School,Future Cities Competition, and the Fern-bank Engineering Club.

Foundation MembershipThe foundation membership is primarilycomposed of Organizational Members.Member organizations are organizations thechief objective of which is the advancementof knowledge or the promotion in the publicinterest of engineering, science, or allied pro-fessions that are not organized for commercialpurposes. In addition, an individual that is amember in good standing of a member Or-ganization and who resides in the state ofGeorgia is an Individual member of theFoundation. Each of the member organiza-tions appoints one of its members to repre-sent the organization on the Foundation’sBoard of Directors. Individual members mayalso serve on the board if they are elected tothe position of an officer of the foundation.Several individuals, other than those ap-pointed by the member organization andwhohave taken an interest in working with thefoundation, have subsequently become offi-cers and leaders in the Foundation.

Scholarships OppotunitiesGiving and ReceivingIn November 2011 the foundation presented35 engineering scholarships totaling$53,250.The contributions came fromMember Organizations, commercial compa-nies (both engineering and non-engineer-ing), individuals, and Foundationendowments. Each scholarship recipient hasto meet the following minimum require-ments: Georgia residency, enrolled in anABET accredited program leading to a Bach-elor’s, Master’s or Doctorate degree in engi-neering or engineering technology, and USCitizenship (with exception of students re-ceiving an IEEE scholarship). Individualscholarships also have additional require-ments such as a particular field of study, yearsof school completed, etc.

There are always many more qualifiedscholarship applicants than there are schol-arships. If you or your organization decidesto provide an engineering scholarship, whyshould you consider doing it through thefoundation? If you are a member of an or-

ganization, you might wish to specify schol-arship requirements that are consistent withthe work of your organization. If you are anindividual, you might like to specify youralma mater as the school in which the recip-ient would be enrolled, or you might wantto designate the scholarship in memory ofsomeone dear to you. In either case, whetheryou represent an organization or an individ-ual, you might want to meet the scholarshiprecipient, have dinner with them, and thenpersonally hand them the scholarship check.These are features that are part of the GEFprocess and may not be available throughother scholarship granting organizations. Inaddition, the Foundation scholarships usu-ally range from $1,000 to $5,000, and thismay be more in your range of possibilitiesthan endowing a scholarship through amajor university.

Finally, if you or your organizationwould like to provide a scholarship for a de-serving engineering student, you might sim-ply want to avoid the hard work that it takesto solicit applications and then review threeto four hundred of them, follow this up withpersonal interviews of around a hundredplus, and finally decide on the final winneror winners. The foundation volunteers havedeveloped a relatively efficient process fordoing this.

If you are interested in knowing moreabout the donor process, please contact anyof the foundation officers listed above, orsimply call the Georgia Engineering Allianceand they will put you in contact with an ap-

propriate foundation officer. In addition, wealways seem to have more tasks to accom-plish than we have individuals, so if you havethe desire to help promote the engineeringprofession and get to meet a lot of verybright and interesting engineering students,we would certainly like to have you volun-teer with us. Give us a call at (404) 521-2324or reach us by e-mail [email protected] and reference GEF inyour subject line. v

Use A CompAny

yoU CAn trUst witH yoUr

trAnslAtion projeCt,

because a little mistake

in another language

can have unpleasant results.

“Gort! Klaatu Borada nikto.”

(770) 521-8877


iteNews

John Karnowski, PEGeorgia Section, Institute of Transportation Engineers

In my bathroom, there is often a stack ofnewspapers. (For those of you who think thisarticle has already started in the toilet, relaxit’ll get better.) For the last few days, the storyon top of the stack in the Community sec-tion of the paper was praising the volunteersin our county—those that give generously oftheir time to help others.

One such person reported that his rea-son for volunteering was that he wants to‘give back’ to the community. This is a senti-ment that you hear so often from those hum-ble philanthropists and public do-gooders.With imaginary thumbs pressed into theirvests they say, “I owe it others to pay it for-ward.” Or, “because of what has been donefor me…” Or, “I’ve been blessed with much,it is the least I can do.” Sound familiar?

This question of ‘why be a volunteer’keeps gnawing at me. Maybe not as much asMike Holt’s continual references to ClemsonUniversity… but pretty close. I mean, whocares if Clemson came in first in underwaterballet at the World Under Sea Symposium in1984. (WUSS ’84) But I digress.

In our society, it doesn’t seem to beenough to answer the question ‘Why do youdo it?’ with just a shrug and ‘I dunno; I justdo.’ Maybe people don’t really buy that an-swer; they want to know the motivation be-hind someone’s good deeds. Can we not justaccept that some people do good just becauseit is right to do so? Can there be altruismwithout personal gain?

I have a friend who walked in the SusanG. Komen three-day walk—a 60+ mile trekthat tests ones physical limits. He did it tohonor his sister and his mother-in-law whowere both diagnosed with breast cancer

within two weeks of one another. He trainedfor weeks and raised a good bit of money insponsorships. It was hard, and there was nopersonal reward in it for him. Ironically, hewas diagnosed with cancer himself just threeweeks after the walk. Not exactly Karma.

I know a woman in my communitywho noticed a few years ago that there weremany children alone during the day in ex-tended stay motels while their parentsworked to support their family. During theschool year, many of these kids’ only fullmeal comes from the free lunch at school,but in the summer they literally go hungry.This lady organized her church and someothers and began bringing sandwiches andsnacks to the motels for the kids. She didn’tdo it for recognition or out of a sense of ob-ligation but just because she recognized aneed that wasn’t being met.

I recently read the story of Tim Shriverof Kennedy fame, who is the CEO of theSpecial Olympics. He said, “I came to thismovement thinking I would help someoneelse, and here I am 50-plus years old and Ithink the athletes have taught me moreabout how to live this life than anyone.”

The walker, the feeder, and the organ-izer are my heroes. They live their life withpurpose without waiting to be recognized forit. They aren’t holding a large justice scalewith good deeds on one side and sins on theother trying to tip it in one direction. Theyjust do.

I recall the everlasting words of thatgreat philosopher, Forrest Gump. You mayrecall Forrest describing to the woman at thebus stop how he just got up one day andstarted running. “I just ran. When I got

tired, I slept. When I got hungry, I ate.When I had to go to the bathroom… well…you know.” (If you haven’t seen the movieyet, what’s wrong with you? It’s been outsince 1994. Tom Hanks. Won some Oscars.)

The point here is that you don’t need areason to act. Let’s say you are driving downthe road and you see someone broken downon the side of the road; maybe because theyforgot to put oil in it for the last 73,458miles, and the car inexplicably died eventhough their spouse nagged them incessantlyto look into the check engine light thingy.(But I digress.) If you have the ability to helpthat person, then do it. Note, if safety is anissue, call 511 from your voice activated,hands-free device and get a real H.E.R.O.out there.

I say all that to say that there are manyways to serve the profession, your commu-nity, your fellow man, whoever. But onemust act. For example, I had the pleasure ofaccompanying Brendetta Walker of ParsonsBrinkerhoff to the Introduce a Girl to Engi-neering event during E-week in February.You can tell that she just enjoyed getting toknow the middle school girls and would havedone it even if no one from ITE knew thatshe was there.

Here are some other opportunities ofservice without recognition or personal gain:ITE, ASCE, and WTS are planning a Habi-tat for Humanity build project in May. Thereis nothing like a good long hard day’s workto make you forget why you did somethinglike that in the first place. I think it is the im-pact of a hammer against one’s thumb thataddles the brain.

Last year, a group of ITE members left

45APRIL | MAY 2012

the comfort of their homes for a weekendand descended on Tuscaloosa to help vic-tims of the tornados. They just did what-ever they could and left feeling that there

was so much more to be done. Still, theydid what they could.

So with respect to Nike’s ad campaign,Just Do It. Don’t be like the man who wakes

up every morning and does ten sit-ups be-

cause there are just so many times one can

hit the snooze button. (But I digress.) v

Board Position Member E-mail PhonePresident John Karnowski [email protected] (770) 368-1399

Vice President Dwayne Tedder [email protected] (678) 808.8840

Secretary/Tresurer Jonathan Reid [email protected] (404) 769.4058

Past President Mike Holt [email protected] (770) 407.7799

District Representative David Benevelli [email protected] (770) 246.6257

District Representative Carla Holmes [email protected] (678) 518.3654

District Representative Jim Tolson [email protected] (404) 624.7119

Affiliate Director Andrew Antweiler [email protected] (678) 639.7540

Committee Chair(s) E-mail Phone2012 Intl Meeting Marsha Bomar [email protected] (770) 813-0882

Kenny Voorhies [email protected] (404) 460-2604

Activities Patrick McAtee [email protected] (404) 574-1985

Annual Report Carla Holmes [email protected] (678) 518-3654

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

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

Awards/Nominations Mike Holt [email protected] (770) 407-7799

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

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

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

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

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

Georgia Engineer Magazine Dan Dobry [email protected] (770) 971-5407

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

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

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

Host Sujith Racha [email protected] (770) 431-8666

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

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

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

Membership Sunita Nadella [email protected] (678) 969-2304

Monthly Meetings Dwayne Tedder [email protected] (678) 808-8840

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

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

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

Scholarship Tim Brandstetter [email protected] (404) 419-8714

Southern Poly Liaison Bryan Sartin [email protected] (678) 518-3884

Summer Seminar Josh Williams [email protected] (678) 518-3672

Technical Winter Horbal [email protected] (678) 412-5554

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

Winter Workshop Jody Peace [email protected] (770) 431-8666


Scott Mohler, P.E.ITS President

its News

Congratulations to newly appointed Geor-gia Department of Transportation Commis-sioner Keith Golden and new NortheastGeorgia District Engineer Bayne Smith.Georgia is indeed fortunate to have these twoprofessionals in top leadership positionswithin the department. Both are uniquelyqualified to successfully manage the mobilitychallenges we face in Georgia.

Commissioner Golden rose through theranks of the department serving in planningand operations. He was Director of Opera-tions before becoming Deputy Commis-sioner and Interim Commissioner last year.He knows the value intelligent transporta-tion solutions bring to address issues ofsafety, efficiency, and congestion mitigationin our surface transportation system.

Commissioner Golden said that he haspersonal experience with benefits of ITS so-lutions and will continue to support its de-ployment.

“Having worked in traffic operationsduring my career, I have firsthand experiencewith many of the benefits Intelligent Trans-portation Systems (ITS) can offer in a trans-portation system. Georgia DOT consistentlyanalyzes potential uses of ITS throughoutour network of roadways. Many aspects ofITS—ramp meters, video detection devices,and coordinated traffic signalization—can besuccessfully utilized on a daily basis to helpmanage traffic and congestion and keep mo-torists informed, Commissioner Golden toldITS Georgia shortly after being formally ap-pointed by the state transportation board.”

New District One Engineer BayneSmith is one of only three GDOT employeesto hold both a PE and PTOE (ProfessionalTraffic Operations Engineer) license. He isalso on the board of directors of your ITSGeorgia Chapter.

Bayne began his career working in Traf-fic Operations at GDOT and was instru-mental in developing the NaviGAtorintelligent transportation management sys-tem. He also served as state traffic signal en-gineer until joining URS Corporation in2001. At URS, Bayne led the national ITSpractice and was instrumental in capturingbest practices in ITS, and then bringing thosebest practices and cutting edge ITS ideas toGeorgia and other clients all over the U.S.

We asked District Engineer Smith histhoughts for implementing new ITS solu-tions in his district.

“I am very excited at the opportunity torejoin GDOT and help further the imple-mentation of Intelligent Transportation Sys-tems throughout the state of Georgia.GDOT has done an exceptional job at con-structing, operating, and maintaining a suc-cessful ITS system, and I am excited thatfuture advances in technology will allow us tocontinue to enhance the system and providevaluable benefits to the motoring public.”

We appreciate Commissioner Golden’sand District Engineer Smith’s commitmentto progress and stand ready with them tomeet the challenges ahead.

Take time to learn about and vote onthe TSPLOST in July

On Tuesday, July 31, voters will decideif 12 designated districts across Georgia willbe authorized to collect a one-cent sales taxfor the next ten years to be devoted exclu-sively to local and regional transportationprojects.

Doug Callaway of the Georgia Trans-portation Alliance told a chapter meeting of

47APRIL | MAY 2012

PresidentScott Mohler, URS Corporation

Vice PresidentTom Sever, Gwinnett DOT

SecretaryKristin Turner, Wolverton and Associates Inc.

TreasurerChristine Simonton, Delcan

DirectorsMark Demidovich GDOT Susie Dunn ARCKenn Fink Kimley-HornEric Graves City of Alpharetta John Hibbard AtkinsCarla Holmes Gresham SmithPatrece Keeter DeKalb CountyKeary Lord Douglas CountyDOT Bayne Smith URSGrant Waldrop GDOT

State Chapters RepresentativeKenny Voorhies Cambridge

Systematics Inc.Ex OfficioGreg Morris Federal Highway

AdministrationJamie Pfister Federal Transit

Administration

ITS GEORGIA CHAPTER LEADERSHIP

ITS Georgia the impact of the TSPLOST, ifpassed, would be to generate almost 28,000jobs for every $1 billion of revenue gener-ated. The resulting improvements would en-

hance the safety and efficiency of the trans-portation system all while under local con-trol. Funds collected in each district couldonly be spent in the district where they arecollected and only to move forward projectschosen by local elected officials. Addition-ally, watch dog groups in each district wouldmonitor and report to the public how fundsare spent.

More than 1,600 local projects through-out the state have been selected by city andcounty leaders. To learn more about theTransportation Investment Act (TIA) refer-endum and to review proposed projects inyour area, please visit:http://www.it3.ga.gov/Pages/default.aspx.Pass this information along to your friendsand neighbors, too.

To keep up with the latest ITS Georgianews, please visit our Web site(www.ITSGA.org) or follow us on twitter@ITSGA. v

georgia enginer (april-may)

Documents