transportation delivered, spring/summer 2009

D E L I V E R E DSpring/Summer 2009

T R A N S P O R TAT I O N >

Double-tracking Union Pacific’s Sunset Route > pg. 1

http://www.hdrinc.com

http://issuu.com/action/page?page=4

© Ke

ith Ph

ilpot

t

Rehabilitating the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard for NISMO > pg. 33


1

6

11

13

19

23

27

33

Freight Railroad -> Track Design and EngineeringSmooth Railroading for Union Pacific’s Sunset Route A disciplined approach set the stage for efficient design of three 100-mile segments of double track and 984 structures. Cover Photo: © Keith Philpott

Financial -> Risk AnalysisRisk Analysis Sheds New Light on Economics of Transportation ProjectsHDR’s Risk Analysis Process adds probabilities to cause-and-effect variables to create a more accurate evaluation of whether a proposed facility is financially stable.

Aviation -> Facility DesignDesign Standards Help U.S. Customs Manage International AirportsWith more than a quarter of a million international passengers processed in American airports each day, U.S. Customs and Border Protection depends on intelligently designed facilities to keep the country secure.

Transit -> High Speed RailHigh Speed Rail…Coming to a Corridor Near You? As the United States prepares to make a push for high speed rail, HDR’s National Director of Transit Engineering discusses the concept, the technology and the challenges that lie ahead.

Technical Excellence -> Intelligent Transportation SystemsAn Intelligent Answer for the Nation’s Traffic Signal Control ProblemA new technology provides adaptability to traffic signal operations — improving traffic flow by as much as 40 percent.

Private Land Development -> Roadway DesignNavigating the Ortega Highway Widening ProjectThe Rancho Mission Viejo Company took an active role to ensure this roadway project was in keeping with its tradition of responsible development.

Roadway -> TollingThe Evolution of Toll TechnologyOpen road tolling is paving the way for widespread implementation of direct user fees, which could help solve the nation’s transportation funding dilemma.

Maritime -> Pier RehabilitationCreative Approach to Keep NISMO OperationalFaced with the challenge of updating the 90-year-old Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, the U.S. Navy now has options thanks to a unique pier rehabilitation plan.

I N T H I S I S S U E









About one-quarter of Union Pacific Railroad freight cars originate or terminate in Southern California, many of them traveling the Sunset Route between Los Angeles and El Paso. From the El Paso end, Sunset connects to three other major Union Pacific lines, one headed for Kansas City and Chicago; another going to Dallas and Memphis; and the third running to Houston and New Orleans. Loaded with automobiles, building supplies, ethanol, marine containers and other goods, the trains are vital to the railroad’s freight movements throughout the Southern and Midwest regions.

So when it came time to expand the Sunset Route to a fully double-tracked line, it was crucial that the project run smoothly. Initially intended to be a design-build project, the Sunset Route expansion later was adapted to conventional design-bid-build with an accelerated schedule. One benefit that came from the original plan to go design-build was the organization of the multiple disciplines collaborating on the project. One leader was assigned to each discipline group, and those leaders reported directly to the project manager. This structured approach meant that a small team of individuals could both manage their own disciplines and maintain regular communication with leaders from the other groups. The result was an open flow of information that helped simplify a large and complex undertaking.

Double TimeWhen Union Pacific took over the Sunset Route 13 years ago as part of its Southern Pacific acquisition,

about 25 percent of the route’s 760 miles were double-tracked. Until recently, the railroad was committed to adding double track to the remaining sections in short segments. But as anticipated growth of freight traffic along the Sunset Route soared, so did the railroad’s need to complete its expansion.

In 2006, Union Pacific hired HDR to perform design and engineering services for three 100-mile segments. The contract included track, structural and roadway design (for at-grade crossings), geotechnical analysis, and control point and signal placement. HDR brought in Southwest Engineering Corp (now Xorail Inc.) to provide the signal design, and AMEC, MACTEC and Shannon & Wilson contributed to the geotechnical work.

With 300 miles of new track, the Sunset Route project presented a number of challenges in terms of design and coordination. From a design perspective, it passes through seven counties and features 82 road crossings, 756 culverts, 140 bridges, six overhead structures, 3.2 million cubic yards of cut and 4 million cubic yards of fill. There also is a unique section in Segment 1 where a 44-mile-long tangent leads into a 5-mile-long curve.

Another unique aspect of this project was the inclusion of roadway as part of the overall contract. Designing the roadway in-house proved beneficial with the number of roadway profiles that needed to be adjusted to current standards, as well as potential impacts to intersections in locations where roadways ran parallel to the track.

S M O O T HR A I L R O A D I N G

S U N S E T R O U T EBy Amanda Stahlnecker, E.I.T., and Nathan Dickerson, P.E.

U N I O N PAC I F I C ’ SF O R

[1] www.hdrinc.com TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED

Freight Railroad -> Track Design and Engineering

© Ke

ith Ph

ilpot

t

> Double-tracking the Sunset Route will help keep Union Pacific trains on schedule as they move freight from the ports of Southern California to other mainlines throughout the Southern and Midwest regions.

[2]

The results were so successful the project team was asked to complete additional roadway work on the smaller portions of the route.

Disciplined ApproachOn a traditional railroad project, the track team would likely take the lead and other disciplines would be coordinated through them. But since there were so many pieces to the project and the scope of each was so large, organizing the team to fit that scope became the first important step in putting it all together. After evaluating what needed to be

done, the work was divided into six disciplines: • Track • Signal • Geotechnical • Roadway • Structures • Projectcontrols

Leaders assigned to each discipline communicated directly with their counterparts at Union Pacific. They also participated in weekly meetings to coordinate their work. This provided a format for sharing information that affected two or more disciplines.

To keep track of the communications flowing between disciplines, as well as to and from the client, an e-mail account was established for each discipline. All official correspondence was sent using these e-mail accounts, making it easier to compile important decision-making documents when the project was closed, and then turn those documents over to the client.

As with other aspects of the project, the volume of design documentation was anticipated to be much larger than traditional projects. Before work on the project got underway, the team

© Ke

ith Ph

ilpot

t

> Raised aprons were used to improve low flow conditions at many culvert locations. Rock riprap placed at the inlet and outlet ends reduces soil loss in the highly erodible desert soils.

[3]

held formal discussions to determine how worksharing folders would be organized. Procedures were clearly spelled out so designers in Omaha, Tucson, Phoenix, Albuquerque, Denver, Missoula, Boise, Portland and Irvine all could contribute to the project and know exactly where to find the files they needed.

Each office was assigned a folder, which was stored on their local servers to improve download and upload speeds. The procedural documentation even provided instructions on how to name files. A project controller tracked and managed the documents, making sure that Union Pacific would be able to access specific files after the completed project documentation was turned over.

Organization Pays OffAt the beginning of each 100-mile segment, Union Pacific provided the design team a set of straightlines that indicated the proposed work to be completed with the project. This included proposed track location and transitions, setout track and control point locations, and miscellaneous existing features that would be impacted. From these straightlines, a preliminary design was established.

The locations of the setout tracks and control points were not exclusively related to track design; they also impacted how signals and structures were designed. Furthermore, geotechnical analysis would affect locations for all of these features. To coordinate all areas of design, the discipline leads met with the client very early in the design process to discuss concerns and coordination of the preliminary design.

The track design team created a document to accompany the preliminary design to instigate

© Ke

ith Ph

ilpot

t

> Looking south at an adjusted roadway profile at the Sunshine Boulevard grade crossing. Designing the roadway in-house proved beneficial given the number of profiles that had to be adjusted to current standards.

TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [4]

discussions and facilitate easier decision-making by the client. The document included an analysis of the proposed location of control points and setout tracks, relayed potential issues and possible solutions, and recommended the most beneficial location. Without this meeting and document, the likelihood of design volleying back and forth between the various disciplines and the client would have increased dramatically.

ConclusionDesign for the three segments has been substantially completed, with the exception of roadway and signal design for the third segment. Construction on the first segment is nearly complete. Considering the scope of the Sunset Route design, team leaders from HDR and the client agree that the way the project was organized proved to be very efficient. David Heineman, Assistant Chief Engineer — Construction for Union Pacific, said “The team produced quality designs and plans…while accommodating numerous

changes in construction priorities and requests for alternative designs to enable Union Pacific to make the right decisions and create exceptionally more detailed roadway and permitting processes.” ->

© Ke

ith Ph

ilpot

t

> A production tamper lines up new track for the Sunset Route second mainline.

> Amanda Stahlnecker, E.I.T., is a Rail E.I.T. in HDR’s Omaha, Neb., office. Amanda is experienced with track design, plan preparation, feasibility studies, cost estimation and construction support. She can be reached at [email protected] .

> Nathan Dickerson, P.E., is a Project Manager in HDR’s Omaha, Neb., office. Nathan specializes in designing railroad bridges, retaining walls and culverts. He can be reached at [email protected] .

A U T H O R S


Transportation ProjectsR i s k A n a l y s i s S h e d s N e w L i g h t o n E c o n o m i c s o f

By Dennis Bruce and David Lewis, Ph.D.

While economic forecasts help provide insight as to whether a project can generate the necessary revenue to repay debt (such as revenue bonds), traditional forecasting methods fail to account for risk. Sure, the single expected outcome can be supplemented with alternative scenarios to show a range of other possible outcomes, but that approach fails to indicate the probability associated with different outcomes. HDR’s Risk Analysis Process (RAP), on the other hand, measures the probabilities that each particular outcome might occur, thus painting a more realistic and useful picture of whether the proposed facility is financially viable.

How Much vs. How LikelySimply creating “high case” and “low case” scenarios to bracket the central estimate exacerbates the problem of dealing with risk because it gives no indication of the

likelihood associated with alternative outcomes. The commonly reported high case may assume that most underlying assumptions deviate in the same direction from their expected value, and likewise for the low case. While this tells the forecaster how a facility might be impacted, the likelihood that all underlying factors will shift in the same direction simultaneously is just as remote as that of everything turning out as expected.

Another common approach to providing added perspective on reality is sensitivity analysis. Forecasters vary key assumptions one at a time to assess their relative impact on the expected outcome. A problem here is that the assumptions are often varied by arbitrary amounts. The more serious concern is that, in the real world, assumptions do not veer from actual outcomes one at a time. Risks prowl

© Vi

nce S

trean

o

> HDR’s economists first developed the Risk Analysis Process for toll road projects to help insurers such as MBIA evaluate how much of a project’s debt is safe to insure.

[6]

in packs — it is the impact of simultaneous differences between assumptions and outcomes that is needed in order to provide a realistic perspective on the riskiness of a forecast.

RAP provides a way around these problems by measuring the likelihood that an outcome will actually materialize. The forecasters attach ranges (probability distributions) to the forecasts of each input variable, allowing all inputs to be varied simultaneously within their distributions. The approach also recognizes interrelationships between variables and their associated probability distributions.

RAPThe Risk Analysis Process involves four steps: • Step 1 — Define the structure and logic of the forecasting problem • Step 2 — Assign estimates and ranges to each variable and forecasting coefficient within the forecasting structure and logic

• Step 3 — Engage experts and stakeholders in assessment of model and assumption risks • Step 4 — Issue forecast risk analysis Step 1 — A structure and logic model depicts the variables and cause-and-effect relationships that underpin the forecasting problem at-hand. Although the structure and logic model is written mathematically to facilitate analysis, it is also depicted diagrammatically to permit stakeholder scrutiny and modification in Step 3 of the process.

Step 2 — Each variable is assigned a central estimate and a range to represent the degree of uncertainty. Special data sheets are used to record the estimates. The first column gives an initial median while the second and third columns define an uncertainty range representing an 80 percent confidence interval. This is the range in which there exists an 80 percent probability of finding the actual outcome. The greater the uncertainty associated with a forecast variable, the wider the range.

© Vi

nce S

trean

o

> The process begins with identifying cause-and-effect factors, assigning probabilities, then applying them to historical data.


Probability ranges are established on the basis of both statistical analysis and subjective probability. They do not need to be normal or symmetrical. Assuming the bell-shaped normal probability curve means assuming an equal likelihood of being too low and being too high in forecasting a particular value. If a projected inflation rate deviates from expectations, circumstances could cause the deviation to be higher than the median projected outcome rather than lower.

The RAP computer program transforms the ranges into formal probability distributions. This liberates the non-statistician from the need to appreciate the abstract statistical depiction of probability, enabling stakeholders to understand and participate in the process.

Step 3 — The uncertainty analysis developed in Step 2 is known as a frequentist probability. This represents the measured frequency with which different outcomes occur — i.e., the number of heads and tails after thousands of coin tosses. Step 3 addresses subjective probability by assembling an expert panel and determining their degree of belief that an event will occur.

First, panel members are invited to add variables and hypothesized causal relationships that may be material, yet are missing from the model. Then, the panelists are engaged in a discursive protocol during which the frequentist-based central estimates and ranges are modified according to their subjective beliefs. This process is aided by an interactive groupware computer tool that visualizes probability ranges under alternative belief systems.

Step 4 — Once the frequentist and subjective probabilities are defined, the final probability distributions are formulated by the risk analyst. The two sets of information are combined using a simulation technique (Monte Carlo analysis) that allows each variable and forecasting coefficient to vary simultaneously according to its associated probability distribution. The end result is a central forecast, together with estimates of the probability of achieving alternative outcomes given uncertainties in underlying variables and coefficients.

RAP in ActionTalca to Chillán Toll Road, Chile — In 2005 the Talca-Chillán Sociedad Concessionaria, S.A. (the Concessionaire) proposed remediation financing for a bond issued in 1998 to finance the Talca-Chillán toll road. This credit was impaired due to revenues from tolls that were significantly below the original forecast produced in 1998. The impacts of the 1999-2000 recession’s lingering unemployment, high gasoline prices and a massive construction program to the north of the Talca-Chillán concession were all factors that contributed to this shortfall. In support of the remediation financing, the Concessionaire and MBIA, a New York City-based bond insurer, contracted HDR to perform an independent third-party risk analysis of the most recent traffic and revenue forecasts and to develop a risk-adjusted forecast of the project’s debt service coverage.

Through the risk analysis, HDR uncovered several factors that were not explicitly included in the original traffic forecast. For example, the impact of gasoline prices was not a consideration in the analysis. The analysts built this factor

Financial -> Risk Analysis

© Vi

nce S

trean

o

> The Risk Analysis Process paints a more detailed picture of whether a proposed facility is financially stable.

[8]

when re-simulating the traffic and revenue forecast, especially the ramifications of upward spikes in gasoline prices. In addition, historical data for the facility was extremely limited; therefore, the relationship between economic growth and traffic growth could not be ascertained through statistical modeling. HDR developed risk-based elasticity estimates using econometric techniques based on data from other toll roads in the region, and also benchmarked these findings relative to other studies from the economic literature.

HDR simulated a new probability-based traffic and revenue forecast based on our own assessment of these and other factors. The risk analysis revealed that, while there will always be volatility in revenues associated with the facility, the long-term outlook was for robust traffic and revenue growth.

MBIA utilized the risk analysis in support of its internal decision-making about insuring the debt associated with the financial transaction. Since this transaction, MBIA has utilized HDR’s risk analysis services on numerous transactions involving demand-side risk.

Toll Road Feasibility in Southern United States — HDR was approached about assessing the feasibility of developing a toll road in one of the fastest growing areas of the United States. As state and federal funds would not be available for some time, the developer sponsored the feasibility study and worked with local government to explore whether a public-private partnership was an option.

> With the incorporation of probabilities, the risk analysis process helps bond insurers determine not just whether a project can generate the necessary revenue to repay its financing, but whether it is likely to. The result can be lower rates for the project sponsor.


Using RAP, HDR determined that the area in question was a potential candidate for toll-based financing. Future flows of toll revenues would likely be sufficient to cover operating expenses and debt repayment over the long run. The financial strength and marketability of the project was tested by: • “Stressing” the project with tests utilized by the rating agencies to assess bond ratings • Reviewing the project, including the financial feasibility study, with capital market participants such as bond insurers and major investment banks

Through this process, the feasibility study was confirmed, and a major investment bank is now working with the client to take the project to market.

State of Nuevo Leon, Mexico — The State of Nuevo Leon, Mexico, was planning a debt offering and wanted to secure this debt based on revenues associated with motor vehicle registration fees — a highly volatile revenue source. This would be one of the first

transactions of its kind in Mexico. The State engaged HDR to develop an independent risk-based forecast of revenues from motor vehicle registration fees, and to develop the financial model for the transaction.

Using audited historical data on fee revenues, coupled with economic data from the State, HDR developed econometric models that identified the relationship between demand and factors such as economic growth and gasoline prices. Using the RAP process, the analysts developed a model and simulated a probability-based revenue forecast for the State. The forecasts were reviewed with rating agencies in New York and Mexico City. Based on the financial model developed by HDR, registration fees were revealed to be a robust long-term revenue source with less than a 1 percent risk of receipts being insufficient to cover debt and interest repayment.

The State was successful in the debt issuance. Since this transaction, HDR has developed revenue forecasts for more than a dozen other states and agencies in the United States, Mexico and Canada in support of debt issuances and ongoing operations. ->

© Vi

nce S

trean

o

[ the likelihood that all underlying factors will shift in the same direction simultaneously is just as remote as that of everything turning out as expected ]

> Dennis Bruce is a Senior Vice President with HDR Decision Economics in Ottawa. Dennis has developed innovative solutions in the areas of forecasting, risk analysis, business case development and cost benefit analysis. He can be reached at [email protected] .

> David Lewis, Ph.D., is HDR’s National Director of Economics and Finance, based in Ottawa. Dr. Lewis has 26 years of experience developing and applying economic tools such as Cost-Benefit Analysis, productivity measurement, the Risk Analysis Process and public-private investment partnerships. He can be reached at [email protected] .

A U T H O R S

[10]

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reported that 256,897 incoming international air passengers were processed each day during fiscal year 2008, with some airports accommodating more than 2,000 people per hour. Though CBP is responsible for ensuring that each of the 1 million travelers who enter the country by air, land or sea each day is legally permitted to do so, airports present a particularly unique undertaking considering these security operations must take place in facilities not owned or operated by the federal government. Recognizing the need to set uniform customs guidelines for international airports, CBP contracted private-sector design firms, including HDR, to help develop the Airport Technical Design Standards (ATDS).

Setting StandardsOne of the greatest challenges in securing international airports is the fact that they are located within U.S. boundaries, so proper care is required to manage travelers until they have been screened and cleared by inspections officers. While international airports vary in size and passenger flow, the common elements they all share are security procedures and controls.

The ATDS provides applicable design standards for all airports that accommodate travelers arriving from or departing to foreign countries. The standards were created to both facilitate efficient movement of people through the airport and control illegal entry into the United States. In doing so, the ATDS allows the new integrated organizational structure of airport security to function as “one face at the border.”

The new ATDS document makes it easier to implement universal procedures and controls by providing programmatic and spatial layout requirements for all federal inspection services (FIS) facilities. The standards cover wall and ceiling design, sterile corridors, signage, processing areas and booths, secondary inspection areas, holding rooms, remote monitoring control rooms and security requirements. They also incorporate airport operations for baggage handling and passenger movement. The final design of a new

Design Standards

International AirportsHelp U.S. Customs Manage

By May Yang, AIA, LEED AP, and Michael Miller, AIA, LEED AP, CSI-CDT

Rend

erin

gs by

Chris

toph

er Ca

illier

, HDR


or upgraded facility that follows these standards will use structural security, video security, technology and security personnel in an integrated approach to control entry into the United States.

Development of the Airport Technical Design Standards required a tremendous amount of research and work-flow processing. Architects worked with enforcement officials at Customs and Border Protection, and charettes were conducted to acquire a full understanding of the port-of-entry business process. Work-flow analysis was required to assure the passenger and baggage flow was adequate to process arriving passengers with minimal wait times. The final document blends architectural and engineering expertise with current laws and regulations involving port-of-entry operations.

Standards Applied: Harrisburg International AirportThe Susquehanna Area Regional Airport Authority (SARAA) is considering a 45,000-square-foot terminal expansion with FIS facilities at Harrisburg International Airport in Harrisburg, Pa. Based on HDR’s involvement in developing the new ATDS and past experience working with aviation facilities, SARAA contracted HDR to provide concept design and cost estimating services for the new Harrisburg FIS facility.

HDR worked with airport personnel and CBP representatives during the design and planning process, and solicited input from each of the stakeholders to help ensure that the needs and requirements of all parties were properly addressed.

The proposed terminal expansion would house the airport-related functions of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and includes dual-use hold rooms, a CBP coordination and processing center, administrative and support offices, baggage claim devices with secondary baggage X-ray and screening areas. Two new international gates would provide

spaceforservicingtwoGroupIIIaircraft(e.g.,Boeing737)orasingleGroupVaircraft(e.g.,Boeing 747). There also are provisions for the future build-out of concession spaces, including restaurants and retail areas.

As part of the planning process, HDR prepared a LEED audit that included recommendations for various sustainable design solutions and information on how the airport could achieve LEED certification for the expansion. The project team also developed an overall design schedule and a comprehensive work plan for the expansion.

Outlook Despite current economic challenges, international air travel continues to grow. Even as domestic passenger numbers dipped from 2007 to 2008, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics reported the number of passengers traveling into and out of the United States rose by more than 877,000.

What the numbers say is that there is an ever-increasing need for expertise in airport planning and design. HDR applied its knowledge of aviation facilities and airport operations to help U.S. Customs and Border Protection develop the Airport Technical Design Standards that are now being used at airports throughout the country. Those standards were efficiently implemented during design of the terminal expansion at Harrisburg International Airport. ->

Aviation -> Facility Design

Rend

erin

gs by

Chris

toph

er Ca

illier

, HDR

> Artist’s rendering shows the proposed 45,000-square-foot terminal expansion at Harrisburg International Airport.

> May Yang, AIA, LEED AP, is a Project Manager in HDR’s Alexandria, Va., office. May has 25 years of experience in the architecture industry, including taking projects from conceptual design to construction management. She can be reached at [email protected]

> Michael Miller, AIA, LEED AP, CSI-CDT, is a Project Manager in HDR’s Austin, Texas, office. Michael has 21 years of experience with a variety of project types, including commercial, transportation and aviation facilities. He can be reached at [email protected] .

A U T H O R S

[12]

By Dale Muellerleile, P.E.

H I G H S P E E D R A I L

ComingCorridor Near You?

to a

[13]

Following years of planning, public debate and several false starts, the United States is poised to implement a comprehensive high speed rail network connecting major cities throughout multiple regions of the country. A vision has emerged that maximizes the efficiency and capacity of our existing rail network, complements air and automobile travel, unifies the country and promotes safe, energy efficient and environmentally responsible transportation choices to large portions of the population. Congress and the new Administration, through passage of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA), as well as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), have provided the structure to begin implementation of this vision.

DefinitionsFirst, it is necessary to lay out some definitions that can help shape the understanding and debate over where and how high speed rail may be implemented in the United States. “True” or express high speed rail, as implemented in Europe and Asia, reaches top speeds in excess of 200 mph. It utilizes electrified trainsets and requires segregated or sealed corridors, with no intermingling of freight trains. To accommodate the high speeds, it must be fully grade-separated (i.e., no at-grade crossings with other modes) and have exclusive right-of-way with fairly restrictive requirements as to curvature and grades. The French TGV service is representativeof this typeof system,and the proposed California High Speed Rail network is being planned for these types of speeds.

Regional high speed rail provides somewhat slower speeds — 110 mph to perhaps 150 mph — and may utilize either electrified or non-electrified trainsets. Segregation from freight operations and a grade-separated corridor are the norm. Through the use of tilt train technology, high speeds can be achieved on right-of-way with sharper curves than designed for express high speed rail. Amtrak’s Acela service between Washington, D.C., New York and Boston is representative of this classification as are many of the intercity trains operating overseas.

Incremental or emerging high speed rail includes passenger train speeds up to 110 mph. While passenger rail service at speeds up to 110 mph is not incompatible with freight service within a shared corridor (if not shared track), there remain significant challenges with that approach. Current signal system/

H I G H S P E E D R A I L

> Proven technology, and an ever-increasing sensitivity to air quality, emissions, noise and other environmental considerations combine to favor electrified trainsets for speeds above 125 mph.


© D

avid

Bla

zejew

ski

equipment, maintenance and regulatory constraints generally limit freight speeds in the United States to 79 mph. While higher passenger train speeds on the same corridor may be possible with limited civil improvements, a shared corridor requires compatibility of the signal systems, meaning that passenger speeds above 79 mph on a freight corridor require upgrading of the freight system as well — a costly, if not insurmountable requirement.

Furthermore, insurance and liability issues, limited capacity for additional trains, limited right-of-way for additional tracks and higher levels of track maintenance are some of the issues causing legitimate concern by the freight carriers regarding when, where and under what operating conditions they might be willing to allow passenger service. While operations up to 110 mph do not require a fully grade-separated corridor, enhanced protection such

as four-quadrant gates are required, and crossings should be eliminated whenever possible. Numerous studies are ongoing for the introduction of incremental or emerging high speed rail throughout the country. Amtrak and the State of Washington currently operate/fund the Cascades servicebetweenVancouver,B.C.,SeattleandPortlandonashared corridor (including shared track) with BNSF Railway. While current conditions limit passenger train speeds to 79 mph, capacity improvements are under study now that will allow speeds up to 110 mph in the future.

TechnologyThough there are other technologies such as magnetic levitation (mag-lev), monorail and even more exotic propulsion systems being studied and implemented around the world, the focus of this article is on traditional “steel-wheel-on-steel-rail” technology.

> Amtrak’s Acela service between Washington, D.C., New York and Boston is representative of regional high speed rail.

[15]

The availability of proven technology, as well as an ever-increasing sensitivity to air quality, emissions, noise and other environmental considerations combine to favor, if not require, the choice of electrified trainsets for speeds above 125 mph. At slower speeds, the use of diesel or diesel-electric equipment may allow considerable cost savings related to electrifying an existing corridor. The use of tilt equipment — trains that, through active or passive technology allow the car body to compensate for the effects of lateral forces as a vehicle negotiates a curve — allows higher speeds through existing track

curves than conventional equipment. In addition to providing a higher level of comfort and safety on curves, tilt technology can play a critical role in reducing travel times.

Both the Amtrak Acela equipment used in the Northeast Corridor and the Talgo equipment used in the Pacific

Northwest Corridor use tilt technology. Depending on the existing track geometry, tilt technology can provide speed improvements of as much as 20 percent over non-tilt technology. HDR’s engineers have extensive experience in both corridors. We are currently working with the State of Washington on a 20-year incremental high speed program to provide hourly service between Seattle and Portland with travel times of two and a half hours, at speeds up to 110 mph.

ChallengesOf course, much is made of the high maximum speeds of the various equipment choices, and a great deal of engineering is focused on achieving those speeds within a new or existing corridor. But for the end operator of the system, as well as for the traveling public, the real key is not maximum speed but average speed. Existing corridors, and even the last few miles of dedicated corridor in a dense urban area, are likely to have a large number of sharp curves and/or other physical constraints (such as existing bridges, grade crossings or available right of way) that impose what are referred to as “civil speed restrictions.” These restrictions, even when of short distances, greatly affect travel times.

By way of example, a speed restriction of 30 mph on a very short stretch of track in what might otherwise be 45 mph territory can have a significantly higher travel time impact than a much longer stretch of 90 mph speed restrictions in an otherwise 125 mph zone. Speed and curve “balancing” studies are required to

fully optimize travel times between cities and ensure that limited funds for capital improvements are spent most effectively.

As important to travel time as track and signal improvements are, perhaps the most contentious issue regarding the introduction of service from the public’s perspective is the issue of stations. This can quickly become the be-all, end-all in terms of public and political discourse surrounding new service. The benefit of a local station to communities along a proposed corridor is immense. The promise of a new, high-quality modal choice, along with the potential for beneficial land use development in the urban core, makes for strong local pressure to add or expand an existing station stop. To be left, quite literally, standing by the tracks as the train speeds by your community is enough to derail public support.

And while a case can be made that an increase in the number of stations on a corridor increases potential riders, planners and policymakers must wrestle with the fact that with every station stop, overall corridor travel times are increased. Increased travel times reduce the advantage of

Transit -> High Speed Rail

[ for the end operator of the system, as well as for the traveling public, the real key is not maximum speed but average speed ]


high speed rail over automotive and other modes of travel, and will reduce volume among “choice” riders.

The other parameter that is often overlooked is reliability. The “choice,” or premium traveler who selects high speed rail over air or automobile travel, and will even pay a premium for the service, desires reliability perhaps even over speed. For the business traveler, schedule reliability is ultimate. If he or she can rely on the service to arrive and depart at the scheduled time, they will become regular patrons. If the schedule, regardless of posted travel times, is unreliable, they will seek out other modes. This issue becomes most pronounced when a corridor is shared with freight trains or other commuter service operated by competing interests that may not give priority to intercity trains.

StatusThe federal government has identified 10 corridors for high speed rail service in the United States. Over the past decade, states and regions have made investments in planning studies, conducted environmental studies and, in limited areas, introduced new or re-established service. These plans have been both ambitious, as with the Florida, Texas and California High Speed Rail Initiatives, and more modest, such as the Cascades service in Washington state.

While the Texas and Florida projects stalled, at least temporarily, California has moved ahead with an ambitious program to connect San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, San Diego and other major population centers. After completing a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and beginning work on Corridor EIS’s and preliminary engineering, California received voter support in the form of $9.95 billion in approved bonding to advance the project.

With the passage of both PRIIA and ARRA, federal funding is being made available to advance high speed rail throughout the country. Efforts are underway in all the defined corridors to advance previous studies and/or jump-start construction of incremental improvements toward the larger goal of expanded service, both incremental service at speeds up to 110 mph and express service with speeds of 200 mph or higher. President Obama has spoken often of his commitment to developing a high speed rail network as a core part of his vision for upgrading our overall transportation network. His High Speed Rail Strategic Plan, announced on April 16, 2009, emphasized that commitment and encouraged ready-to-go projects that encompass the full range of passenger rail services.

After years of inaction or indifference, federal funding for high speed rail is becoming a reality. Funding for Amtrak has been included as part of the federal stimulus program; additional funding is expected as part of the next transportation authorization. Americans are embracing the need for alternative transportation choices and for cleaner, greener technologies as alternatives to both automobile and air travel congestion.

OperationsCurrently the Federal Railroad Administration is soliciting proposals from interested parties to design, build, operate, maintain and finance high speed rail corridors throughout the country. The proposals can include steel-wheel-on-steel-rail or other technologies and seek to create partnerships with private operators, state commissions, Amtrak and the Class 1 Railroads to develop viable operating plans that can bring high speed rail in this country to a level at or above the worldwide state of the art in passenger transportation.

Funds available through PRIIA and ARRA provide additional opportunities for public-private partnerships to develop and construct intercity and commuter rail networks. Competition for funding will be intense, and advocates of passenger rail service are optimistic that additional funds will flow from both state and federal sources.

ConclusionAfter decades of studies and planning, the United States is poised to join the world in the construction of true high speed rail. The public demand for alternative transportation choices as

[17]

well as cleaner, more energy efficient modes should ensure continued growth in awareness and support for this critical technology.

HDR has been a leader in high speed rail planning and design for over a decade. We have conducted planning studies and environmental documentation for projects in California, Chicago, Washington state, Florida and Nevada, among others. We are currently providing planning and final design services to the State of Washington for incremental speed and capacity improvements in the Pacific Northwest Corridor (Cascades) service, and environmental and preliminary engineering for a section of the California High Speed Rail network. Our engineers have experience working with Amtrak on improvements to the Northeast Corridor for the introduction of the high speed Acela Express

© D

avid

Hon

an

service. We can provide expertise in all aspects of planning, environmental, civil and systems engineering, operations planning and program management for high speed rail. ->

> Dale Muellerleile, P.E., is HDR’sNational Director for Transit Engineering.Dale has extensive experience with transportation facilities for high speed rail, commuter railroads, light rail transit systems and freight rail. He can be reached at [email protected] .

A U T H O R S

> The Cascades service, operated by Amtrak and the State of Washington, is being studied for capacity improvements that would increase maximum speed from 79 to 110 mph.


f o r t h e N a t i o n’s Tr a f f i c S i g n a l C o n t r o l P r o b l e m

INTELLIGENT ANSWERA n

Unnecessary delays and congestion ... The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) estimates that more than 75 percent of the country’s 330,000 traffic signals are operating with outdated or uncoordinated signal timing plans, causing as much as 10 percent of the country’s traffic delays. Maybe that is worth repeating — the traffic signals we use to control traffic flows and maintain safety are responsible for unnecessarily causing 10 percent of additional delays on our roadways!

To put this into perspective, the Texas Transportation Institute’s 2007 Urban Mobility Report showed that roadway congestion in the 437 largest U.S. cities leads to 4.2 billion hours of sitting in traffic and 2.9 billion gallons of wasted fuel per year — equivalent to the fuel produced from 48 fully loaded crude oil supertankers. That adds up to a total cost of $78 billion annually. Most people would agree that potentially slashing 10 percent of a $78 billion congestion bill would be a good thing — especially since the technology to make it happen is readily available.

Cause and EffectThere are two underlying issues at work here. First, the majority of traffic signals in the United States do not receive regular timing updates. Most of us know the reasons. It is time-consuming to collect the necessary data, which means either dedicating staff to complete the work or hiring consultants. With dwindling budgets, these efforts usually fall to the bottom of agency to-do lists or are removed to focus resources on more pressing needs.

Second, most traffic signals don’t adapt to changing conditions. The majority of signal systems operate with only a few timing plans that don’t adequately address daily variations in


By Matt Selinger, P.E., PTOE, HDR; and Reggie Chandra, Ph.D., P.E., PTOE, Rhythm Engineering

f o r t h e N a t i o n’s Tr a f f i c S i g n a l C o n t r o l P r o b l e m

INTELLIGENT ANSWER

[20]

traffic flow. Just think how many times you have waited through a red light while no opposing traffic was present, or the times you sat through multiple green lights just trying to work your way up to an intersection. The bottom line is that outdated timing plans, along with methods and technologies that are 30 or more years old make our signal systems ill-equipped to handle current traffic demands.

A Better WayWhat if there was a shift in technology that allowed traffic signals to think and react like the traffic officers of the 1920s? These traffic officers would stand on a fixed platform in the street, and from this position they could view the traffic in each direction and make decisions on when to change the traffic light they were manually controlling. Their goal was simply to keep traffic moving.

A handful of technologies have been designed to optimize traffic flow in an automated way; however, many suffer from functional limitations or require substantial investment. But a new technology developed by Rhythm Engineering called InSync™ overcomes those issues and provides an adaptive traffic control alternative that costs about the same as a high-end video detection system. HDR is working with Rhythm Engineering to implement its adaptive traffic control system in multiple communities. Current installations have already improved traffic flow by 20 to 40 percent over conventionally timed signals. Considering the lack of funds available for infrastructure capacity improvements these days, having the opportunity to decrease congestion by as much as 40 percent without the need for widening existing roadways is intriguing, to say the least.

InSync at WorkInSync utilizes robotics and artificial intelligence principles to detect vehicles and adjust signal timing and minimize stops along roadways. It includes a newly developed video detection/data collection system and optimizer unit that is installed at each intersection. When deployed, the system “sees” real-time traffic, communicates with upstream and downstream intersections and automatically synchronizes the signals to optimize traffic flow along arterials while simultaneously

> FHWA estimates that more than 75 percent of the country’s 330,000 traffic signals are operating with outdated or uncoordinated signal timing plans.


minimizing side street delay. The system eliminates the need for traditional timing plans. InSync’s artificial intelligence processors are networked to pass data in a distributed network to enable the system to “think ahead” and optimize signal changes based on real-time demand. The system is not limited by analog architecture such as cycle lengths, splits and offset to a fixed point in the cycle. There is no transition during signal operations and no hold on coordinated phases which causes unwanted side street delay.

The optimization unit utilizes two elements to determine signal state changes. Inside the optimizer, a global timing routine focuses on minimizing stops along the main street. At the same time, a local optimizer program looks for opportunities to serve the side streets whenever there are openings in main street traffic. This optimization architecture results in significant reductions in stops along the main arterial and improved side street service — two goals that are generally thought of as mutually exclusive by the traffic engineering profession.

One of the key features of this innovative technology is its compatibility with almost all industry-standard controllers and cabinets. The system is very modular and simply plugs into existing controllers as an overlay and provides inputs or “calls” to the controllers that are set to respond to InSync. It is also compatible with most any central system software, so there is no need to discard existing hardware or software in order to implement adaptive traffic control.

Benefits RealizedHow would you feel if you could reduce congestion, emissions, fuel consumption, travel times and the number of stops on your busiest arterial roadways? What if crashes were reduced and motorist frustration was lower in your community? From installations in the Midwest we are seeing a range of 20 to 40 percent reductions in travel times and stops.

One of the reasons HDR is engaged with this technology is its potential to provide a sustainable return on transportation infrastructure investment. InSync is estimated to reduce fuel consumption by 5,000 gallons per year, per intersection based upon intersections serving 25,000 vehicles per day. This fuel use reduction results in a decrease of CO2 emissions of 97,000 pounds per intersection annually and opens InSync projects to U.S. Department of Energy and FHWA funds aimed at lowering carbon emissions. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 includes $3.2

billion for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG)program,whichprovides federal assistanceto agencies that reduce energy use and fossil fuel emissions. FHWA’s Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)

program also provides funding for projects that improve air quality and even includes provisions for non-attainment and former non-attainment areas.

The Missouri Department of Transportation deployed InSync on 12 signals (2.5 miles) along

Route 291 in Lee’s Summit, one of its problem corridors with unpredictable traffic flow variations. Preliminary studies reveal that InSync reduced travel time by up to 35 percent and stops by up to 94 percent while increasing speed by up to 30 percent.

Other agencies that are deploying InSync include the city of Lenexa, Kan.; city of Little Rock, Ark.; city of Joplin, Mo.; city of Rogers, Ark.; Pennsylvania Department of Transportation; Arkansas Highway Transportation Department; city of Overland Park, Kan.; and city of Leawood, Kan.

Learn MoreHDR has the capability to simulate the operation of the InSyncAdaptiveTrafficControlsysteminVISSIMtoprovidea detailed preview of the benefits the system would have over conventional systems. This analysis would support applications for project funding for programs like the CMAQ andEECBG.Go towww.hdrinc.com/trafficand register forthe Webinar “InSync at Work” to learn more. ->

Technical Excellence -> Intelligent Transportation Systems

[ most traffic signals don’t adapt to changing conditions ]

> Matt Selinger, P.E., PTOE, is the Section Manager for Traffic in HDR’s Omaha office. Matt is experienced with projects involving traffic operations, transportation planning, roadway and traffic design, public involvement and peer review. He can be reached at [email protected] .

> Reggie Chandra, Ph.D., P.E., PTOE, is a Principal Engineer with Rhythm Engineering in Lenexa, Kan. Rhythm Engineering provides solutions for design and deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems.

A U T H O R S

[22]

By Lan Saadatnejadi, P.E.

ORTEGA HIGHWAYN AV I G AT I N G T H E

W I D E N I N G P R O J E C T

> Features such as landscaped medians help soften the look of the highway, in keeping with the scenic, rural nature of Southern Orange County.

[23]

Private Land Development -> Roadway Design

Ortega Highway (SR 74) traverses the scenic areas of rural Southern Orange County, Calif., connecting the city of San Juan Capistrano in the east and Riverside County in the west. Along the way, it passes throughClevelandNationalForestandRanchoMissionViejo(RMV),a127-year-oldcattleranchanddevelopment company. Ortega Highway already serves as a major commuter route, and traffic was expected to increase significantly over the next several years. With the addition of a new high school justoutsideSanJuanCapistranocitylimitsandan8,000-homedevelopmentbeingplannedbyRMV,local agencies began exploring a project to widen a two-mile section of the highway from two lanes to four.

The overall widening plan stretches from Calle Entradero in the city of San Juan Capistrano to approximately 2,000 feet east of the Antonio Parkway / La Pata Avenue intersection in an unincorporated area of Orange County. About one mile of the proposed project area lies within the city limits of San Juan Capistrano, and the other mile is under County of Orange jurisdiction with RanchoMissionViejobeingthesolepropertyowneradjacenttotheCounty’sportion.

The County of Orange, City of San Juan Capistrano, Caltrans and RMV collaborated together toimplement the widening project in a manner that preserved the ranchland and country feel of the surrounding communities. As discussions between all the project stakeholders progressed, officials withtheCounty,thepublicsponsorofthisproject,andCaltransrequestedthatRMVfacilitatedesignoftheCountysegment.HDRworkeddirectlyforRMVtodevelopthewideningconceptsandpreparethe preliminary engineering and final construction bid documents for this complex project.

Expanding Ortega HighwayA 2005 study showed that Ortega Highway served 14,000 vehicles per day as the primary commuter road between Orange and Riverside counties. Overall, traffic is expected to reach a maximum of 42,000 vehicles per day by 2030. Peak-hour traffic conditions were already operating at congested levels in some segments, creating a Level of Service (LOS) of F-3. As a result, daily peak back-up could extend for a couple of miles. The project would widen the roadway from two lanes to four and add bicycle lanes, easing congestion and improving traveler safety for years to come.

RMVunderstoodthehighwayexpansionprojectwasnecessaryforthecontinuedgrowthofOrangeCounty, but their primary concern was that the project be done responsibly. Since 1882, members of theRichardO’Neill,Sr.familyhaveoperatedRanchoMissionViejo,representingasignificantportionof land ownership in Southern Orange County. The original land holding encompassed more than 230,000 acres extending from the foothills of the Saddleback Mountains to the city of Oceanside. The company has a proud tradition of cattle ranching, open space preservation, thoughtful land management, responsible development and community service. In context with the growth and developmentofcommunitiesinSouthernOrangeCounty,RMVhascooperatedandcoordinatedthrough the years with local agencies for improvement of regional infrastructure projects. Therefore, it was important that the aesthetics of the land as well as cultural and biological resources be balanced with transportation needs.

In addition to RMV, Orange County and Caltrans, the City of San Juan Capistrano and the Capistrano Unified School District also had a stake in the project. Since half of the two-mile widening project lies within San Juan Capistrano city limits, the City wanted to be sure its segment

© Im

ages

crea

ted b

y Foc

us 36

0


meshed with the portion that is in the County’s jurisdiction (the Rancho Mission Viejo portion). TheCity’s portion is still under preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) by Caltrans. Also, the school district was building a new high school on the south side of Ortega Highway within the County portion and needed to be sure the roadway would mitigate traffic impacts in and out of the facility. The ranch collaborated with all four agencies to complete the regulatory, environmental and financial requirements, with HDR serving as their design consultant. RanchoMissionViejorecognizedHDR’sexperienceworkingfor public agencies, particularly Caltrans, as the key to navigating through this unfamiliar territory.

Design ConsiderationsThe local community put extraordinary emphasis on aesthetic treatments related to the widening project. Much of RMV’s open land is filled with scenic, rolling hills andopen meadows and the highway leads into a large county park and the Cleveland National Forest that serve as major recreational areas for Southern Orange County. Residents and the ranch operators wanted the highway to blend in with the rural look of its environment as much as possible.

Incorporating trees and other landscaping features was desirable from their standpoint, but those components also had to meet Caltrans’ standards for safety and maintenance.

To reach an agreement, the roadway design team consulted withRMV’s landscapearchitecttodevelopplansandthenpresented those plans to Caltrans. Having experience working on Caltrans projects, the roadway designers had a good sense of how to package the proposal to meet the highway department’s standards. For example, the original two-lane bridge over San Juan Creek had concrete barriers. The plain concrete walls didn’t fit with the aesthetic goals of the client, so the landscape architect created a more elaborate treatment for the barriers. Knowing that a completely new type of barrier would have to go through potentially years of crash testing and analysis, HDR worked with Caltrans to identify a variety of barriers that had already been approved for use in other parts of the state and took those options back to the landscape architect. Together, they were able to find a compromise that met the aesthetic goals of the project and Caltrans’ standards.

Because of the hilly nature of the area, in some sections it was necessary to build retaining walls on one side of the

[ residents and the ranch operators wanted the highway to blend in with the rural look of its environment ]

existing conditions


highway and noise walls on the other. Residents were concerned the result would be an urbanized, tunnel-looking corridor. The roadway team collaborated through a workshop process with the landscape architect to soften the look of the retaining walls using an aesthetic treatment and to design sound walls that utilize a clear acrylic glass on the upper portion so residents could retain their existing view.

Coordinating Between Private and Public SectorsConsidering the number of stakeholders and the challenge of meeting both the aesthetic and transportation improvement goals of this project, the stakeholders have been complimentary of how everyone worked together. From the onset, the process followed a routine pattern of identifying constraints, developing a plan to address them and then collaborating with other stakeholders to adapt that plan to everyone’s needs. The first test was improving the intersection where the new school was being built. Even with a small window to work in, the intersection was done in time for the school opening.

Monthly project development meetings provided a forum for all the stakeholders to keep up with the project status as well as any changes to the design. The design team also communicated daily with the agencies involved in the project. Working with a private developer, the plans changed more than what is customary for a state highway project. Still, the open communication helped avoid friction between the private and public entities who, in the long run, shared a common goal — to create an improved highway that met the needs of residents and respected the scenic landscape. Caltrans’ staff accommodatedplanchangesbyexpeditingsomeofthepermittingprocesses,andRanchoMissionViejoadapteditsdesignsto suit Caltrans’ standards.

Project StatusImprovements began on the County’s portion of Ortega Highway earlier this year and should be completed in the fall of 2010. Construction was phased to allow this vital roadway to remain operational throughout the 18-month schedule. Caltrans currently is working on the required environmental clearance process for the City’s segment of the project. ->

© Im

ages

crea

ted b

y Foc

us 36

0

proposed conditions

> Widening Ortega Highway from two lanes to four and adding bicycle lanes will ease congestion and improve traveler safety for years to come.

> Lan Saadatnejadi, P.E., is HDR’s Southern California Area Manager for Alternative Delivery and Program Management. She spent 16 years with Caltrans, managing projects and leading an office of 60 people before joining HDR in 2005. Lan can be reached at [email protected] .

A U T H O R S

[26]

By Saïd Majdi

T h e E v o l u t i o n o f

Toll Technology

[27]

© Vi

nce S

trean

o

> Today’s toll facilities incorporate cashless, electronic tolling technology to increase throughput and decrease congestion.


Figure 1 - The Evolution of Tolling

ManualMAN

ACM

ETC

ORT

ML/MA

Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V

AutomaticCoin Machine

ElectronicToll Collection

OpenRoad Tolling

Managed LanesManaged Areas

Ever been stuck in traffic and wished you could pay to drive in a lane that was actually moving? As congestion problems on U.S. roadways increase, more and more people are finding themselves in that very situation. If current trends continue, they may just get their wish.

The concept of today’s toll lanes is the latest in a long history of direct user fees on transportation facilities. Toll roads can be traced back thousands of years, certainly well before automobiles began clogging highways. As government funds for transportation improvements shrink, we may even see a day when every inch of the American transportation network is subject to some type of toll. The way toll operators

collect tolls is evolving, too. Stop-and-go tolling is becoming a thing of the past as electronic, cashless technologies are making it possible to convert existing infrastructure to tollways with minimal investment and little or no additional right-of-way.

The History of Modern TollingTo better understand where toll technologies and practices are going, perhaps it is best to look at where they have been. Figure 1 depicts the evolution of tolling in the United States. Tolling began with manned toll booths which required vehicles to come to a complete stop so travelers could hand over a prescribed toll to a toll booth attendant.

This type of operation allowed a throughput of about 300 vehicles per hour per lane. The toll plazas were costly to construct and required substantial right-of-way to channel vehicles in and out of the facility as well as an administration building to house the money collection operations.

Automatic coin machines (ACM) introduced in the 1960s doubled throughput to 600 vehicles per hour per lane and reduced the need for manual handling of money at the toll lane. Unfortunately, the design of the toll facility still required tremendous right-of-way for channeling lanes.

© Vi

nce S

trean

o> Open road tolling allows a throughput rate of up to 2,300 vehicles per lane per hour.

[29]

Roadway -> Tolling

The electronic toll collection (ETC) revolution reached the United States in 1989. With ETC, drivers could establish an account with the toll authority, affix a toll tag to their vehicle and drive through the toll facility without stopping or having to scramble for exact change. The first ETC systems increased throughput to 1,800 vehicles per hour per lane and reduced operating costs—making them very attractive to toll operators. The new toll facilities combined manual, ACM and ETC, but still restricted traffic.

The Now of Modern TollingWith each new phase in toll technology, the clear goal has been increasing throughput. Along the way, the evolution in tolling also has reduced operational costs and the amount of right-of-way needed for collection sites. Today, open road tolling (ORT) allows drivers to pay tolls while traveling at highway speed. Throughput has jumped to 2,300 or more vehicles per hour per lane and physical barriers and channeling lanes are being replaced with a simple gantry over the roadway to support overhead detectors and a roadside cabinet to house other electronic equipment.Vehicleswith a toll tag arerecordedintothesystem,andthetripisloggedtotheuser’saccount.Vehiclesthatdonothaveatagareprocessed using video enforcement.

The success of ORT is driving expansive toll plazas out of existence. Many toll authorities have announced planned conversions of their toll operations to cashless, all-electronic toll collection. Others are still studying the impact of going to cashless operations.

© Vi

nce S

trean

o

> With electronic tolling, drivers establish an account with the toll authority, affix a toll tag to their vehicle and drive through the toll facility without stopping.


Tolling to Manage Traffic DemandThe trend in tolling technology, clearly, has been to free up traffic and make more efficient use of infrastructure. The most recent phase in that evolution is the managed traffic approach. Many metropolitan areas have already implemented other types of traffic demand management tools such as high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)lanes.Thesearemanagedlanes

where access is restricted to vehicles with two or more or three or more occupants. The intent is to reduce congestion in general-purpose lanes

by offering access to a higher level of service to those who opt to carpool. HOV programs around the countryhave been successful, but most have excess capacity.

To further reduce congestion in general-purpose lanes, there has been a blending of the excess capacity in theHOVlaneswithtollingbyofferingHOV lane use to single-occupancy

vehicles (SOV)for a fee. Hence, the conversion of HOVlanestoHOT(high-occupancy toll) lanes, where SOV users pay atollandHOVusersgo free or pay

a toll at a discounted rate. To attract drivers to use HOT lanes, a desirable level of service is maintained by using variable toll rates to control demand

— i.e., tolls at peak hours are usually higher than at other times.

The managed traffic approach isn’t just helping to uncork the bottleneck; it’s actually starting to generate revenue. What began as a congestion mitigation measure is now generating funding for transportation infrastructure projects. The early success of this concept has prompted countries around the world to extend the HOT lane approach from a managed lane to a managed area, using it to combat traffic congestion in central business districts. Drivers in Singapore, London and Stockholm now pay a toll to enter the city center.

The Future of Modern TollingAs toll technology has evolved, a wide range of tools have become available to help intelligently increase capacity and create solutions to the growing problem of congestion. But in the

© Vi

nce S

trean

o

[ the managed traffic approach isn’t just helping to uncork the bottleneck; it’s actually starting to generate revenue ]

> The evolution of open road tolling technologies is leading more toll authorities to cashless, all-electronic toll collection.

> Blending excess capacity in existing HOV lanes with tolling by allowing single-occupancy vehicles to access these lanes for a fee is being explored as a means to reduce congestion.

[31]

battle against traffic demand, the use of technology can only support well-planned transportation infrastructure construction projects. Managed lanes and managed areas are steps in that direction, but the demand-supply gap has grown extreme for many transportation facilities.

The next step is finding the means to substantially improve existing infrastructure. The biggest obstacle is acquiring the funds to do so. The Federal-Aid Highway Program, which provides funding to states for the construction and improvement of urban and rural highway infrastructure, is financed from the proceeds of motor fuel and other highway-related excise taxes deposited in the Federal Highway Trust Fund. But stagnation and even decline in revenues from the fuel tax have left it severely under-funded.

Fortunately, private ventures and public-private partnerships (P3) are emerging as an alternative source of funding. This is changing the funding environment because when private entities invest in a project, they understandably expect a return on their investment; therefore, new roads, bridges and tunnels may not be free to use without some type of user charge. This new funding environment defines a whole new role for toll technology. As toll technology enters the next phase, it becomes the enabler of the successful implementation of transportation infrastructure projects by facilitating the collection of direct user fees.

A discussion has been ongoing regarding whether the motor fuel tax is the right way to finance the Federal-Aid Highway Program. Some have proposed a tax based on vehicle-miles traveled (VMT). In fact, two commissionsrecentlysubmittedreportstoCongressstatingthatVMTisa promising option that needs to be explored as a source for future funding. Both the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission and the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission stated that the fuel tax system is failing to provide adequate revenue to keep up with capacity demands. Converting to a VMT-basedfundingmechanismwouldtakesometimeand

require capital investment, but the return on investment is an equitable, long-term infrastructure funding solution.

Apractical approach to implementing anationwideVMTsystemwould be to use global positioning system (GPS)technology, similar to the technology used in navigation devicesfoundinmanynewervehicles.GPShasthepotentialtodeliveracost-effectivemeansofinstitutingVMTsinceitwould not require any infrastructure for toll collection. This technology makes it conceivable to have drivers in the not-too-distant future pay a direct user charge for miles traveled.

Interoperability is KeyIn meantime, because existing toll roads developed as isolated entities, there wasn’t initially much concern about interoperability. Moving forward, to make any nationwide deployment successful, interoperability is absolutely essential. To that end, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) is guiding the toll industry toward a standard basedon5.9GHzDedicatedShortRangeCommunications(DSRC) technology. This emerging technology provides high-speed, high-data-rate and secure vehicle-roadside mobile communications, and meets the needs of dozens of intelligent transportation systems applications, including electronic payment services.

ConclusionFrom early manual collection toll facilities to open road tolling and managed areas, toll technology has played a vital role in our surface transportation system by improving safety, mobility and efficiency. More toll authorities are planning to migrate to cashless, all-electronic toll collection, resulting in the disappearance of expansive plazas and allowing right-of-way to be reclaimed for other use. Existing HOV lanes are being converted toHOT lanes, and futureprojects will likely include planned HOT lanes or some other tolling system for all the lanes.

Who knows, in a few years, you may no longer have to wish you could pay to drive in a faster-moving lane; your wish will have come true. ->

© Te

rry H

alse

y

> Saïd Majdi is HDR’s National Director of Toll Technology, based in Dallas. Saïd has 15 years of practical experience in managing toll system design, development and integration programs. He can be reached at [email protected] .

A U T H O R S


C re at i ve A p p ro a c h

© Ke

ith Ph

ilpot

t

> Workers install helical piers at the face of the wharf to provide additional axial capacity lost due to timber pile decay.

[33]

C re at i ve A p p ro a c hNISMOto Keep

O p e r a t i o n a lBy Brent Moore, P.E., Kevin Matakis, E.I.T.,

and Michael Krieber, P.E.

Once bustling with the activity of building America’s battleships, the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard now serves a much quieter mission as the home of several decommissioned vessels. The facility dates to 1917, when the Navy’s first official shipyard relocated from Southwark, Philadelphia, to its current site at the confluence of the Delaware and Schuylkill rivers. The Navy constructed ships at the Philadelphia shipyard until 1970 and continued ship conversion and upgrade operations there until September 1996. Today, the facility hosts the


Naval Surface Warfare Center Ship Systems Engineering Station and the Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance Office (NISMO), which is responsible for storing decommissioned vessels.

To ensure the facility continues to operate safely and effectively, the Navy retained Triton Marine Construction and HDR Engineering, Inc. through a design-build contract to rehabilitate approximately 8,200 linear feet of timber pile-supported wharfs and the 1,150-foot timber and steel pile-supported Pier 4. The RFP identified repair of the Pier 4 concrete deck as the Navy’s highest priority to allow ship decommissioning operations to continue safely and efficiently. Pier 4’s current mission is the decommissioning of aircraft carriers USS John F. Kennedy (currently moored along the downstream face of the pier) and the USS Saratoga.

The estimated original service life of Pier 4 was likely in the range of 30 to 40 years. The extended 50- to 60-year life can likely be contributed to periodic maintenance, structural redundancies that allow loads to spread to other elements, and safety factors

which have essentially been exhausted. Now, after decades of steadfast service, the shipyard is showing signs of its age.

Analysis and ConditionFollowing initial visual investigations of the deck surface by the Navy and the design-build team, it was determined that additional in-depth investigations and structural analyses should be performed to gather quantitative and qualitative answers to the reasons for the apparent deterioration of the pier. In addition, defining safe operational parameters for the decommissioning contractor was a key concern.

Pier 4 at NISMO is an 1,150-foot-long by 100-foot-wide pier on the north shore of the Delaware River. The original structure, constructed in 1918, comprises 100 timber pile bents with more than 3,000 untreated timbers supporting a concrete superstructure. A 1969 addition features 17 steel H-pile bents at the end of the pier. A hammerhead crane foundation near the center of the pier consists of timber piles and soil fill enclosed at the perimeter by reinforced concrete sheet

© Ke

ith Ph

ilpot

t

> A welder makes repairs to the existing ship fender system.

> The Base Option recommends constructing a 16-foot-wide roadway with two 40-foot by 44-foot crane lift areas to rehabilitate the Pier 4 deck. The roadway would be placed on a 34-foot-wide concrete cap supported by concrete piles, as shown in the rendering on previous page.


piles. Miscellaneous repairs to the concrete portions of the structure were made in 1940, 1950, 1980 and 1998.

Field investigations, laboratory testing and structural analyses were performed from September 2008 through March 2009. The work consisted of visual above- and below-water evaluations of Pier 4’s structural system, petrographic analyses of concrete cores and microbioligical analyses of the timber piling.

HDR analyzed the capacity of Pier 4 for various load combinations and compared calculated remaining strengths with the demands identified in the analyses. Major components evaluated include timber and steel foundation piles, concrete deck and beams and mooring

hardware. Strength evaluations of existing elements were based on estimated properties of deteriorated sections of the pier. Results of the field investigation and laboratory testing have been extrapolated to estimate the current condition of the entire pier.

ResultsConsidering the original construction materials, details of the design and existing environment, Pier 4 has performed admirably. But age and the evolution of naval vessels demand that the facility be substantially upgraded. The retiring aircraft carriers of today have several times the wind surface area that naval vessels did circa 1918; resulting in higher loads induced into the structures of ports and harbors in which they call.

© Ke

ith Ph

ilpot

t

Maritime -> Pier Rehabilitation

[36]

The current overall condition of Pier 4 is fair to poor and is comparable to other structures that have been functioning in similar marine environments for the same amount of time. Some critical components were determined to be in serious to poor condition, warranting repair, supplementation or complete replacement. Most of the main pier components have lost a significant amount of their original structural capacity.

As a result, the condition assessment and subsequent analyses indicated Pier 4 does not meet Navy design standardsforaTypeIVfacilitymooringoftheUSSJohnF.Kennedyalone,notincludingmooringloadsfromadditional vessels.

Under certain foreseeable circumstances and existing/planned uses, localized or global failure may occur. This could include, but not be limited to, punching through the deck, settlement or excessive deflections of portions of the structure, and, in more extreme cases, structural collapse. HDR recommended that existing use of heavy land-based equipment be further restricted, if not eliminated.

Recommendations & OptionsA traditional approach to restoring the pier to original capacities — completely demolishing the pier and replacing with new construction — would cost in the range of $40 to $50 million. To accommodate a more conservative budget while achieving the Navy’s mission for Pier 4, the design-build team developed non-traditional concepts for narrow deck travel corridors and crane lift areas, with mooring and breasting structures placed within the pier’s existing footprint. The conceptual repairs were tailored to the Navy’s needs, providing a functionalfacilitymeetingequipmentliveloadrequirementsandcapacitytowithstandTypeIVmooringloadsfor the USS John F. Kennedy and the USS Saratoga.

Giventheconstraintthattheinactivedecommissionedaircraftcarriersmustremaininplace,allconstructionwill have to be performed by land-based equipment. Since equipment will have to be placed on the existing pier, construction will need to be carefully sequenced to accommodate the poor condition of the structure.

With these two key limitations, the design-build team proposed phased construction. Phase 1 consists of constructing a roadway corridor down the center of the pier; Phase 2 involves constructing the mooring and breasting structures from the roadway. Based on items the Navy had identified as desirable, a list of additional

© Ke

ith Ph

ilpot

t

> A diver reports on the condition of timber piling and the installation of new helical piers.


features also was developed as was an alternate option that features a wider roadway.

Following are the options presented to the Navy.

Base Option, Phase 1 — A 16-foot-wide roadway with two 40-foot by 44-foot crane lift areas would be constructed and selected steel H-pile repairs conducted. The 16-foot roadway is to be placed on a 34-foot-wide concrete cap supported by concrete piles. The piles will be installed through holes cored through the deck which are slightly larger than the piles. The 34-foot caps would provide a wide footprint for crane outrigger use along the length of the pier. (Use of outriggers on the pile caps will be accomplished by placing steel beams between the caps and resting the outrigger pads on the beams.) The two crane lift areas are located near the middle of the pier but can be placed elsewhere, if desired.

Selected steel pile repairs provide for some live load capacity at the end of the pier, although heavy crane use would not be provided in the repair.

Concrete piles and caps were selected to minimize corrosion and the need for cathodic protection.

Base Option, Phase 2 — Phase 2 consists of constructing nine mooring and two breasting structures on each side of the pier. The breasting structures will be 70 feet long to match the aircraft carrier mooring camels. They would be constructed via the Phase 1 roadway.

A key conceptual feature is to provide a concrete strut between opposing breasting structures since battered pile construction would be extremely difficult with ships moored. This strut design allows the resistance of the opposing sides’ breasting structures to be combined, decreasing the size

and number of piles needed on each structure. The struts would be installed during Phase 1 to a length that would allow for easy connection to the breasting structures during Phase 2.

Alternate Option, Phase 1 — The alternative option includes a 40-foot-wide combination roadway and crane lift area to be constructed along the pier. Construction would be identical to the 40-foot by 44-foot crane lift areas in the Base Option. This alternative also includes repairing all the steel piles to bring the end of the pier back to its original 900 psf live load capacity.

Additional Features — The following items could be included with either the Base Option or the Alternate Option: • Forkliftaccessramps(flat)to the mooring and breasting structures • Newbollardsontopofthe breasting structures

• ProtectiveHDPEsleevesinthe splash zone on the steel piles in the breasting and mooring structures • Corrosionprotectionforthe repaired steel piles • Repairedconcretesheetpileat the hammerhead crane foundation • Demolitionofasmuchofthe existing pier as possible

SummaryThe Navy is currently evaluating the options to determine how to proceed with the rehabilitation and repair project. As a result of the component-type concept developed by the design-build team, the client is able to analyze the individual pieces and identify the ones that best suit their needs. An engineer for the Navy who oversees the project said, “Their (HDR’s) engineering insight has literally saved the Navy millions of dollars that were put back into the project for other important work.” ->

> Brent Moore, P.E., is the Ports and Harbors Section Manager in HDR’s Corpus Christi office. Brent is experienced in design, construction and contract management of waterfront civil and structural projects particularly with respect to design-build contracting methods. He can be reached at [email protected] .

> Kevin Matakis, E.I.T., is a Ports and Harbors Structural E.I.T. in HDR’s Corpus Christi office. Kevin has experience with the design and analysis of structures along waterfronts, particularly those involving interaction between geotechnical and structural applications. He can be reached at [email protected] .

> Michael Krieber, P.E., is a Senior Project Manager in HDR’s Corpus Christi office. Michael is a former port engineer with northern climate expertise. He can be reached at [email protected] .

A U T H O R S

[38]

IBTTA – Incident Management, Safety, and Security7/19 – 7/21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Denver, CO

SASHTO8/28 – 9/2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Biloxi, MS

IBTTA Annual Meeting9/13 – 9/16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Chicago, IL

AREMA Annual Conference and Expo9/20 – 9/23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Chicago, IL

IHEEP 20099/27 – 10/1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > San Antonio, TX

Sustainability, Social Responsibility, Energy Conservation and Fall Maintenance Conference 10/4 – 10/6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >St. Louis, MO

ARTBA Annual Meeting10/6 – 10/9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Charleston, SC

ACI-NA Annual Conference and Expo10/11 – 10/14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Austin, TX

AASHTO Annual Conference10/22 – 10/27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Palm Desert, CA

ACC Annual Conference11/9 – 11/11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Las Vegas, NV

IBTTA Toll Road Summit of the Americas –Brazil11/15 – 11/17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Sao Paulo, Brazil

ARTBA Western Leadership Conference12/8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Los Angeles, CA

IBTTA Transportation Finance Summit12/13 – 12/15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Washington, DC

U P C O M I N G E V E N T SN E W S & A N N O U N C E M E N T SPeople • TimothyK.Dougherty,P.E.,hasjoinedHDRasDirectorofDesign-Build for Transportation. He is based in the firm’s Salt Lake City office.

• MartyJoycehasbeennamedNorthCentralAreaTransportation Program Manager. Based in Chicago, Joyce provides leadership to all transportation programs within the North Central Area.

• JeffDaileyhasjoinedHDRasChicagoDepartmentManager. Dailey previously served as the assistant Executive Director for Project Delivery at the North Texas Tollway Authority in Dallas and was also the Chief Engineer at the Illinois Tollway from 2004 to 2007.

• KurtReichelt,VicePresidentandSeniorProjectManagerinHDR’s Portland office, has been elected to the Intermodal Operations Committee of the Association of American Railroad’s Associate Advisory Board.

• TimothyBennett,VicePresidentandRailSectionManagerinHDR’s Omaha office, has been appointed to the Transportation Research Board’s Committee on Railroad Track Structure System Design.

Projects • ThePortofBrownsvillerecentlyselectedHDRtoevaluatefourexisting terminals and provide planning, design and permitting services for two new terminals. HDR is also assisting with mitigation planning and a federal channel deepening project.

• HDRhasbeenselectedtoprovidegeneralportengineeringservices at the Port of Port St. Joe. The master contract will serve to develop approximately130acresonSt.JosephBayandtheGulfCountyCanal.

Awards • HDRrosetoNo.13inthe2009EngineeringNews-RecordTop500 Design Firms Survey and ranked No. 8 in Transportation.

• TheBoeckmanRoadExtensionProjecthasbeenselectedbythe American Public Works Association’s (APWA) Oregon Chapter as the 2008 Transportation Project of the Year.

• The$19.6millionI-17/CarefreeHighwayinterchangewas named Project of the Year by the Arizona Chapter of the APWA.

T R A N S P O R TAT I O N D E L I V E R E D E D I TO R I A L b O A R D

Technical Contributors to this Issue:Eric Keen, P.E.Transportation [email protected]

Nichole AndersenDirector of Planning & [email protected]

Ken [email protected]

Tom Smithberger, P.E.Director - Freight [email protected]

David Lewis, Ph.D.Director – Economics and [email protected]

Dale Muellerleile, P.E.Director – Transit [email protected]

Stephen BeardDirector - Transit [email protected]

Ralph Batenhorst, P.E.Director – Traffic & [email protected]

Jim Lee, P.E.Director – Transportation [email protected]

Mel Placilla, P.E.Director – Professional [email protected]

Jeff Massengill, P.E.Director – [email protected]

Transportation Delivered is produced twice yearly by HDR. Direct subscription inquiries and address changes to [email protected] . To view this publication electronically, go to: www.hdrinc.com/transportationdelivered .


© Te

rry H

alse

y

DirectionsWelcome to Transportation Delivered, a new publication from HDR. In the past, we’ve shared how HDR works with clients to meet transportation infrastructure needs through our BridgeLine, Rail Line, TransitLine and TransportLine newsletters. Today, we are embarking in a new direction. Transportation Delivered will showcase our entire transportation program, highlighting how our talented and dedicated staff work to provide comprehensive mobility solutions, whether by land, sea or air. We hope you enjoy this first issue of Transportation Delivered.

No matter which direction you are heading,HDR can get you there.

www.hdrinc.com

2410

0709

8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE 68114-4049www.hdrinc.com

Pape

r con

tains

30%

post-

cons

umer

fiberPRSRT STD

US POSTAGEPAID

OMAHA, NEPERMIT NO. 963

Spring/Summer 2009

D E L I V E R E DT R A N S P O R TAT I O N >

T H E H D R A D VA N TA G E

Guidance for TIGER Grant ApplicationsThe American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 appropriated $1.5 billion in discretionary grants to be awarded by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) for capital investments in surface transportation infrastructure. Known as the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) program, these funds areavailable for obligation until September 30, 2011. Grants will beawarded on a competitive basis to fund up to 100 percent of project costs for investments that have a significant impact on the nation, a metropolitan area or a region.

Eligible projects include, but are not limited to: • Highwayorbridgeprojects,includinginterstaterehabilitation, improvements to the rural collector road system, the reconstruction of overpasses and interchanges, bridge replacements, seismic retrofit projects for bridges, and road realignments • Publictransportationprojects,includinginvestmentsin projects participating in the New Starts or Small Starts programs that will expedite the completion of those projects and their entry into revenue service • Passengerandfreightrailtransportationprojects • Portinfrastructureinvestments

StateandlocalgovernmentapplicationsforTIGERDiscretionaryGrantsmust be submitted by September 15, 2009. The Recovery Act specifies that grants may be no less that $20 million and no greater than $300 million. However, U.S. DOT has discretion to waive the $20 million minimum to fund significant projects in smaller cities, regions or states.

Selection CriteriaTIGER grants will be awarded based on specified selection criteria.Primary selection criteria are intended to capture the primary objectives of the TIGER provision of the Recovery Act, includingnear-term economic recovery and job creation; maximization of long-term economic benefits and impacts on the nation, a region or a metropolitan area; and assistance for those most affected by the current economic downturn. Secondary selection criteria include innovation and partnership. Projects will be rated on a scale of highly

recommended, recommended or not recommended for each of the selection criteria.

U.S. DOT guidance emphasizes that benefit-cost analysis will be applied in evaluation of projects. Projects seeking at least $100 million in TIGERgrants must complete a “well-developed analysis of expected benefits and costs,” including a calculation of net benefits and a description of input data and methodological standards used for the analysis. Projects seeking less than $100 million but more than $20 million must include the project’s expected benefits in the five long-term outcomes in the primary selectioncriterialistedabove.Guidanceclearlystatesthat lack of useful analysis may be grounds for denying awardofaTIGERDiscretionaryGrant.

The HDR AdvantageHDR stands ready to help clients navigate theTIGERgrant application process. In addition to general application support, HDR’s Decision Economics team can help build the business case for TIGER funding.Our experts use decision support processes such as Sustainable Return on Investment (SROI) to optimize the total value of projects and to position projects with the best possible case for funding. SROI uses evidence-based cost-benefit analysis to communicate the full value of a project — including the economic, social and environmental value. The result is a business case that is transparent and accountable.

For more detailed information on the TIGER grantprogram, go to www.hdrinc.com/transportation .

To learn how HDR can help, contact your local HDR office, or:Russell Zapalac, Central Region Transportation [email protected]

transportation delivered, spring/summer 2009

Documents

sunset route expansion

roadway project

n t h i s i s s u eabout

efficient design

i v e r e dspringsummer

n s p o r tat

conventional designbid

traffic signal operations