D E L I V E R E DSpring/Summer 2010

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

Construction Phase Services Shine on iROX Stage > pg. 1

Sacramento Regional Transit District Seeing Green > pg. 19

1

7

15

11

25

19

29

35

39

Highway -> Construction ServicesConstruction Phase Services Shine on iROX StageWith four engineers on-site throughout the construction process, iROX never missed a beat. Cover Photo: © Keith Philpott

Aviation -> RegulationsEnhancing Airline Passenger Protections — A New Consumer Protection Regulation Goes Into Eff ectTwo years of research and planning went into crafting the new regulations for “Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections.” Asked by USDOT to complete the regulatory impact analysis, HDR had a front row seat.

Freight Railroad -> Feasibility StudyEast African Rail Expansion Applies North American Freight StandardsA proposed freight rail expansion would provide signifi cant social and economic benefi ts to the east African countries of Tanzania, Rwanda and Burundi. Applying North American Freight Standards might be the key to making it happen.

Land Development -> Planning & EconomicsCentral Indiana Transportation Study Combines Best of Planning, EconomicsThe Central Indiana Transit Task Force combined planning and economics to deliver a long-term transportation plan from the perspective of the private sector. It’s another innovative approach for transportation agencies looking to get the most out of limited fi nancial resources.

Transit -> Light RailSacramento Regional Transit District Seeing GreenConstruction of Sacramento’s Green Line transit extension is underway after years of careful planning and public outreach. Learn how the desire for improved mobility and economic development shaped this ambitious eff ort.

Technical Excellence -> QualityQuality Applied — HDR’s QA/QC ProgramComprehensive quality assurance and quality control procedures can ensure safe, cost-eff ective and effi cient delivery of your project.

Maritime -> Facility DesignGraving Dock Gives Gulf Marine Fabricators Domestic OptionWho needs a heavy lift vehicle when you have a fl oating hull? The ATP Titan’s unique design led designers to an innovative solution for building and transporting the new fl oating production facility.

Financial -> Cost Risk Analysis & Value EngineeringWhat Owners CRAVE™ — Proactive Approach to Project DeliveryWith limited funding available and more scrutiny on how the money is used, agencies need credible, transparent and comprehensive processes to limit risk and get the most bang for their buck. CRAVE answers the call.

Expanding Our Capabilities -> New HiresHDR’s Transportation Program Welcomes John Haussmann, John Hubbell, Sena Kumarasena and Pierre VilainFour key hires bring more than 120 years of transportation expertise and knowledge.

I N T H I S I S S U E

© K

eith

Phi

lpot

t

© Ke

ith Ph

ilpot

t

iROXiROX Shine on

Construction Phase

[1] www.hdrinc.com TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED

Apple has the iPod and Florida has the iROX, also

known as the Interstate 75 Roadway Expansion.

It may not conveniently store thousands of songs

on a device that fi ts in your pocket, but iROX does

represent a cutting-edge approach to managing

large-scale transportation projects.

The Times They are a Changin’When the Florida Department of Transportation

(FDOT) selected ACCI/API, a Joint Venture, as the

design-build-fi nance contractor for the $430.5 million

iROX project, it marked the fi rst time FDOT entered

into a public private partnership (P3). With the funding

in place and the design-build team on board, FDOT

was set to launch the largest single roadway project

in its history — widening 30 miles of I-75 from four

lanes to six, reconstructing 20 bridges, building four

new bridges, creating 23 new stormwater ponds and

installing six noise barriers.

Despite the massive undertaking, the roadway

portion of the project will be completed more than

10 months ahead of schedule.

The team of ACCI/API and design engineer HDR credit

the design-build approach for making the aggressive

design and construction schedule possible. The

typical design-bid-build process is disjointed and

requires three independent boundaries: • Designers are required by ethics to maintain a

distance from builders. • Owners must procure designers and builders

separately. Also, 100 percent plans are required,

which further separates and lengthens the

processes. • Builders are forced to select subcontractors,

equipment and materials based on lowest price.

As a design-build project, iROX successfully

eliminated these boundaries. Project oversight was

handled by Metric Engineering via a construction

engineering inspection (CEI) contract; two builders,

Anderson Columbia Company Inc. and Ajax Paving

Industries of Florida LLC, formed ACCI/API to serve

as the construction manager for iROX; and HDR

provided design engineering and construction phase

services. The goal was for the owner (represented

by the CEI), builders and designers to work together

with a singular responsibility and objective. The

result was a quality project with savings in cost, time

and administration, as well as improved sharing of

knowledge and better risk management.

Stage

Services

By David Gilbert, P.E.

> Having engineers on-site throughout the construction process allowed changes to be made in days rather than weeks.

Highway -> Construction Services

[2]

> The I-75 widening project stretches from Golden Gate Boulevard in Naples to Colonial Boulevard in Fort Myers.

Mike Horan, President of Ajax, said the construction

phase services approach presented a way to

make changes more quickly, which increased

their likelihood of qualifying for a $15 million early

completion bonus. “We were interested in attaining

the bonus by advancing the schedule 150 days

without incurring extended overtime and having

to schedule additional crews and equipment,”

Horan said. “In accomplishing our goals, we

decided to take a proactive approach by using our

design partners from HDR as on-site construction

engineers. The idea here was to advance decisions,

make changes to the design and use a close team of

construction managers and designers on-site who

could expedite the necessary changes to continue

construction non-stop.

“An added value was that the on-site engineers

could listen to our suggestions, learn our methods

and incorporate our ideas into the design when

possible.”

Come TogetherFour HDR engineers — one each for roadway,

drainage, structures and environmental —

brought more than 100 years of combined design

experience to the project offi ce in Fort Myers where

they became integrated with the joint venture.

Felipe Jaramillo, the Project Controls Manager for

the I-75 joint venture, said creating the construction

phase services team provided additional confi dence

for the contractor. “They provided independent

verifi cation of the plans, watching over the requests

for additional information (RFIs), design concerns

and construction,” Jaramillo said. “Because we

worked side-by-side with these guys and went to

lunch with them and went into the fi eld with them,

they really became part of the on-site team in every

way. Building is what we do, and we’re confi dent

in our work, but having this additional layer of

confi dence was a huge benefi t.”

The co-location approach made it easier to develop

relationships between the joint venture, the

construction phase services team and the specialty

subcontractors. Since October 2007, the team

has shared offi ce space, visited construction sites

together and socialized away from the offi ce.

© Ke

ith Ph

ilpot

t

[3]

“It takes the right personalities and skill level to make this

approach work, but in our case we had the right people in

the right spots at the right time, “ Horan said.

Beyond the personal aspect of co-location, having the

engineers on-site allowed quick decisions that sometimes

saved weeks of construction delays.

For example, a confl ict with an existing junction box for

stormwater pond C-5 normally would have required one to

two days to write an RFI, up to three weeks to get changes

back from the engineer and another two weeks to revise the

plan. But with a drainage engineer on-site, a new plan was

developed in three days, verifi ed by the designer the next

day and ready to implement within a week of the issue being

discovered. A process that might have taken fi ve weeks

to resolve was cut down to fi ve days. With 23 stormwater

ponds included in the project, signifi cant delays on one

could produce a domino eff ect that seriously threatened

the overall project schedule.

Jaramillo said there were more than 320 offi cial issues

logged, and many of them had success stories similar to

pond C-5. “One in particular

was the noise wall at Southern

Pines, in Lee County, that

presented some unexpected

utility confl icts because of the

foundation,” he said. “But our

structures engineer was out

there right away to redesign

foundations and avoided any

major utility confl icts. The whole thing was done so quickly

and probably saved us weeks with the contractor already

sitting on the site.”

With a Little Help From My FriendsAs discussed above, typically the engineer works in isolation

from the builder, focusing solely on production of plans and

specifi cations to code. This design process is iterative and

> The iROX eff ort included widening 30 miles of interstate, reconstructing 20 bridges, building four new bridges, creating 23 stormwater ponds and installing six noise barriers.

[ “We had the right people in the

right spots at the right time.”

- Mike Horan, President of Ajax Paving Industries of Florida ]

© Ke

ith Ph

ilpot

t

TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [4]

generates several review and response periods. Finished

design documents are signed and sealed, assembled

into design packages and let to construction. During

construction, the engineer’s responsibility usually is limited

to a few RFIs or shop drawing reviews.

On the iROX project, the construction phase services

approach placed HDR staff in the project offi ce for the

duration of the construction period. From this vantage point,

they were able to observe with greater detail what was

occurring in the fi eld and pre-emptively identify potential

problems. This information is seldom available to the

engineer, but the construction phase services arrangement

provided a number of means to gather it, such as:• Direct fi eld observation — Driving the corridor could

bring to light some issue that needed attention. For

example, one trip revealed exit ramp tapers that were

too sharp. Field observation made it possible to address

this safety issue with the contractor immediately.

• Meetings — With several agencies, contractors and

subcontractors involved in a project of this scale,

meetings were a commonplace occurrence. Attending

these meetings made the on-site engineers acutely

aware of the issues from many standpoints. Having

the engineers on hand also provided assurance to

stakeholders who just wanted to know that everything

was being done per the standards.• Surveys — As the project was constructed, staking

surveys were done for layout of the project. By

interacting in the fi eld, both the surveyors and the

engineers were privy to an exchange of information

that doesn’t exist on a more traditional project.

Takin’ Care of BusinessOnce the engineers were aware of a potential issue, the

information was logged into a customized database

that could be shared companywide using ProjectWise

collaboration software. This allowed engineers in other

> The goal was for the owner, builders and designers to work together with a singular responsibility and objective.

[5] www.hdrinc.com TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED

locations who had worked on the original design to

participate in brainstorming solutions and making

plan revisions. When situations presented multiple

alternatives or needed contractor input, the ACCI/API

joint venture and/or the appropriate subcontractors

were consulted as well. Ultimately, the joint venture

was involved in every proposed change that related to

schedule or cost.

In addition to the ProjectWise databases, each

category of log items was assigned a documents fi le

for collecting written copies of the action items, e-mail

correspondence, marked plans and digital photographs.

Each action item was catalogued by number and

included a brief description, date received, resolution

comments and a date of completion. Log items were

divided into the following four categories:• Project Issues — Project issues were categorized

as design-related challenges that arose during

construction and required the assistance of HDR staff to

ensure a timely and appropriate resolution. • Requests for Information — Written RFIs came from the CEI

or the contractor. RFIs were processed similarly to project

issues, but typically included more complex questions

related to safety, material substitution, detailed discussion

of specifi c design requirements, etc. • Requests for Modifi cation — The contractor submitted

written requests for modifi cation (RFMs), which typically

involved certain components that were already

constructed but were out of tolerance and required a

detailed engineering analysis and design modifi cation. • Shop Drawings — Shop drawings were submitted by

the contractor to be reviewed by the design engineer.

Shop drawings were packaged and assigned a document

number with a second number given to each drawing

within the package.

Having an effi cient system of coordinating and organizing log

items allowed the engineers to focus on resolving issues quickly

and help the contractor keep the construction team on schedule.

Time is on Our SideThe iROX project used 400,000 tons of asphalt pavement,

750,000 tons of reinforcing steel and 1 million tons of lime rock.

As many as 500 construction crew were on site simultaneously.

In every way, iROX was a big project, and that includes the early

completion bonus. The ACCI/API joint venture would earn a $15

million bonus for fi nishing the project by July 27, 2010, seven

months ahead of the owner’s current target date of Feb. 15,

2011. They not only hit the early completion goal, they beat it by

four months — and fi nished more than 10 months ahead of the

owner’s scheduled delivery date.

For Horan, the iROX experience proved that the decision to

incorporate construction phase services was a good one. “I

would not do a design-build project of this size and importance

without on-site engineering services.” ->

> David Gilbert, P.E., is HDR’s Ft. Myers, Fla.,

Offi ce Manager. He has more than 29 years of

experience in transportation management,

planning, roadway design, drainage design

and traffi c analysis. David can be reached at

david.gilbert@hdrinc.com .

A U T H O R

© Ke

ith Ph

ilpot

t

[6]

Enhancing

> The Final Rule for “Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections” went into eff ect April 29.

[7]

Airline PASSENGERPROTECTIONS

A New Consumer Protection Regulation Goes Into Eff ect

By Daphne Federing

April 29, 2010, marked the fi rst day that commercial airlines operating in the United States

had to comply with one of the most highly anticipated and heavily debated transportation

regulations in decades — the Final Rule for “Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections.”

More commonly referred to as “The Passenger Bill of Rights,” this new regulation contains

several provisions intended to improve minimum passenger comfort and increase fairness

to consumers, including a highly publicized requirement for deplaning passengers on

domestic fl ights who have been waiting on the tarmac for three hours.

What Prompted the Regulations?While the crafting and approval of this particular regulation has taken more than two

years, the problems it targets are long-standing. Major tarmac delays in January 1999 left

Northwest Airlines passengers in Detroit stuck in planes for over eight hours, attracting

national media attention and congressional pressure on the airline industry. Subsequent

congressional hearings and an investigation by the U.S. Department of Transportation

(USDOT) Inspector General led to commitments from airline companies to improve

passenger service.

And while some carriers did make signifi cant improvements, not all were on board.

Signifi cant tarmac delays continued to occur, some confi ning passengers on planes for up

to 10 hours. The following are among the most memorable incidents in the past four years: • In December 2006, severe weather in Dallas-Fort Worth forced American Airlines to

divert more than 100 fl ights, leading to hundreds of passengers stuck on the tarmac

— some for as long as nine hours.

Aviation -> Regulations

TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [8]

• Also in December 2006, the closure of Denver’s

airport caused two fl ights to be diverted to

Cheyenne, Wyo. An investigation by the USDOT

Inspector General found: “The following morning,

United’s fl ight crew and attendants boarded the

aircraft and departed, leaving all 110 passengers

behind to take care of themselves.”• In August 2007, severe weather caused

passengers to be stranded on planes at

Philadelphia International Airport for up to six

hours.• In February 2007, thousands of passengers on

fl ights at John F. Kennedy International Airport in

New York were stuck on the tarmac for extended

periods — some for more than 10 hours.• In August 2009, a fl ight diverted to Rochester,

Minn., was held on the tarmac overnight for

more than six hours.• In March 2010 — after USDOT’s formal

announcement of the new regulations — a

diverted fl ight was held on the tarmac in Stewart,

N.Y., for more than four hours.

Each of these extended delays has its stories of

rationed chips and snacks, babies crying for hours and

toilets that stopped working.

USDOT concluded that the airline industry’s voluntary

response had fallen short and that regulation was

required. At the same time, eff orts in Congress to

legislate solutions continued to stall and fail. In

response, USDOT began the process of preparing new

regulations to ensure minimum passenger comfort.

As is required for all signifi cant new regulatory actions,

this regulation underwent an extensive review process

including an in-depth analysis of the likely costs and benefi ts to

passengers, carriers and society. The purpose of this regulatory

cost benefi t analysis, termed a regulatory impact analysis (RIA),

was to help USDOT craft as effi cient and eff ective a rule as possible

and make sure that the rule as proposed would be benefi cial to

society overall.

USDOT engaged HDR | Decision Economics to prepare the RIA.

In addressing the questions “What impact will this new rule

have?”, “How much will it cost?” and “How much are these new

protections worth to the passengers?”, HDR drew from key tenants

of transportation economic theory and utilized evidence-based

fi ndings on the value of traveler time and preferences, applying

them in new ways. Premiums on standard values of time for airline

travelers were used to value passenger discomfort when waiting

in planes stuck on the tarmac for extended periods (instead of

spending that same time in the terminal) and when experiencing

uncertainty regarding arrival delays, among other concerns.

According to the analysis, the benefi ts to airline passengers of

the new rule will exceed the costs to airlines of implementing

them. The analysis supported USDOT eff orts to weight competing

concerns of passengers and airline carriers as it developed the fi nal

version of new regulation, which was published in the Federal

Register on Dec. 30, 2009.

What are the Passenger Protections?The Final Rule is structured around fi ve broad provisions, with the

following key protections:

> Tarmac delays due to weather, mechanical issues and other factors resulted in passengers being confi ned to airplanes for as long as 10 hours.

[9] www.hdrinc.com TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED

• U.S. carriers must allow passengers on domestic fl ights

stuck on the tarmac for at least three hours to deplane,

with exceptions for safety, security and air traffi c control

needs. U.S. carriers are required to allow passengers

on international fl ights to deplane if the fl ight is stuck

on the tarmac beyond a previously posted time limit

as part of the carrier’s tarmac delay contingency plans.

U.S. carriers must provide food and water to passengers

on fl ights stuck on the tarmac for at least two hours, as

well as access to clean lavatories during the delay. • U.S. carriers must post information on how and

where to submit complaints (including providing that

information on e-tickets and Web pages) and respond

more directly to consumer complaints. • Chronically delayed domestic fl ights (defi ned as

arriving more than 30 minutes late more than 50

percent of the time for four consecutive months) are

declared to be an unfair and deceptive practice and an

unfair method of competition for which the carrier can

face signifi cant fi nes. • The largest U.S. carriers must publish fl ight delay data

on their Web sites where customers purchase tickets.

The data is to include the percentage of on-time

arrivals, the percentage of arrivals delayed more than

30 minutes, special notations for fl ights that are late

more than 50 percent of the time, and the percentage

of cancellations, if that number is equal to 5 percent

or more. The eff ective date for this provision has been

delayed to June 29, 2010. • U.S. carriers must adopt a customer service plan

and self-audit their adherence to it as a step toward

improving overall customer service.

What’s Next?USDOT will be analyzing how well the new rule meets its

objectives. In announcing the new regulation last December,

USDOT Secretary Ray LaHood noted that the department

has already begun to examine other potential requirements.

HDR continues to assist USDOT as it considers additional

passenger protections. ->

> Daphne Federing is a Senior Economist

in HDR’s Silver Spring, Md., offi ce. She has

over 15 years of experience in national

and regional economic policy research

and analysis, with particular emphasis

on regulatory impact evaluations,

economic development analysis and

national employment, welfare and

housing policies. Daphne can be reached

at daphne.federing@hdrinc.com .

A U T H O R

[10]

Applies North American

Freight Standards

RAIL EXPANSIONRAIL EXPANSIONEast African

[11]

By R. Scott Goehri, P.E., and Jim Conway

Freight Railroad -> Feasibility Study

On Jan. 14, 2005, the United Republic of Tanzania and the Republic of Rwanda

entered into a formal agreement to establish the Central Development Corridor

(CDC). The goal of this agreement is to promote comprehensive regional

economic development. The agreement identifi ed several objectives relating to

social economic development, including human settlement, smooth interstate

trade and mobilization of resources to speed corridor development.

Today, passenger and freight trains move on tracks that are in poor condition and

feature meter-gauge rails on steel ties. Freight containers destined for Rwanda

move from the Tanzanian port at Dar Es Salaam to Isaka, which is located in the

central part of the country. From there, the containers are off -loaded to trucks

and carried to Kigali, Rwanda, on unimproved roads. Expanding the railway

would provide signifi cant social and economic benefi ts to Tanzania and Rwanda.

Furthermore, a spur line from Tanzania into Burundi would open the region to

effi cient movement of mining resources.

An important early step for the CDC was to conduct a feasibility study for

rehabilitation of approximately 600 miles of existing light axle meter-gauge

railroad and construction of approximately 300 miles of new railway to connect

the port at Isaka to Kigali. BNSF Railway Company served in an advisory capacity,

at the request of President Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania and with support from the

United States Trade & Development Agency (USTDA), forming a team to provide

guidance to the CDC during the study. Three key elements were evaluated: • The Port of Dar es Salaam• A new railway link between Rwanda and Burundi to the Tanzanian railway

infrastructure• The existing meter gauge railway infrastructure in Tanzania

The StudyHDR was asked to contribute to the evaluation process by comparing the previous

corridor alignment alternative which utilized International Union of Railways-

(UIC) based passenger standards and evaluation of the existing meter gauge track

against North American Freight Rail standards and practices established by the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA).

The project team included two alignment engineers with expertise in alignment

alternatives analysis over long corridors traversing hilly terrain. Also on the team

were experts in geotechnical, structural, hydrology and hydraulics engineering

who provided further considerations to the proposed alignments. The team’s

objective was to create reliable and credible analysis within a very short timeframe

of less than eight weeks while minimizing overall study costs.

RAIL EXPANSION

TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [12] TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [12]

[13]

The analysis focused on a 62-mile section of the 300-mile new construction

corridor. Another company had previously prepared a proposed alignment

for this segment utilizing UIC-based design guidelines. Available viable

information provided to the study team included PDF fi les of the previous

study and alignment alternatives, general location mapping and past reports

of the corridor. The greatest challenge was obtaining credible and comparable

ground elevation data that could be used in the modeling eff ort. The search for

available aerial photography and topographic mapping led to data compiled

by the Space Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission (SRTM). With the SRTM data in

hand, the previous UIC-based study’s horizontal alignment was located using

generated contours from the SRTM data. The team then developed profi les and

cross-sections along the UIC-based alignment and compared them to the PDF

fi le plans, profi les and cross-sections. Digital terrain model adjustments were

made to the existing ground elevation model, which were very similar to the

adjustments incorporated in the UIC-based study. This approach, matching the

available SRTM data to the previous study ground model, established a high level

of confi dence that a true comparison could be made of earthwork modeling

between the UIC-based study alignment and any new proposed alignments

based on North American Freight Standards design and approach.

The resulting alignment analysis proved to off er signifi cant savings in

earthworks over the previous study by utilizing AREMA standards rather than

the previously developed UIC-based design. Even though the defi nition of

the AREMA-recommended typical sections is wider than the meter-gauge

UIC-based standards, the new proposed

alignments more eff ectively used the

existing terrain topography by taking

advantage of AREMA’s tighter horizontal

curves. The result is a proposed reduction

in fi ll heights and cut depths and

potentially a better balance of earthwork

materials.

Once horizontal alignments were set,

vertical alignments were established and

earthwork models created. At that point, a

review of the hydrology and hydraulics of

bridge openings was undertaken. Since

AREMA guidelines provide for shorter-

radius horizontal curves, the alignment

crossings of several streams could be

done with much shorter overall bridge

lengths and utilize standard-length

bridge spans.

Previous estimates utilizing UIC-based

standards placed the overall project

value in excess of $4 billion. Combining

the engineering analysis with the

operational analysis, the study team

projected that the use of AREMA-based

design guidelines would save $1.1

billion in infrastructure costs and reduce

equipment costs by approximately

$583 million. This approach would also

result in a railway with one-third greater

capacity for freight operations while

accommodating passenger service.

The study resulted in acceptance of

AREMA-recommended practices by the

tri-country authority comprised of the

ministers of infrastructure of Tanzania,

Rwanda and Burundi.

Some highlights of the AREMA-based

design criteria included:• 136# continuous welded rail• Standard gauge (4 feet 8½ inches)• Maximum 6-degree curve

> The new study used data from the Space Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission to develop profi les and cross-sections along the previous alignment study.

[13] www.hdrinc.com TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED

> R. Scott Goehri, P.E., is HDR’s Central Region

Freight Rail Manager and Client Manager

for the BNSF Railway. Based in Kansas City,

Scott has 27 years of experience providing

professional engineering services for both

public agencies and private industry. His

relationship with all levels of railroad

management provides him the ability to

understand and communicate the various

project needs between all stakeholders. Scott

can be reached at scott.goehri@hdrinc.com .

> Jim Conway is a Section Manager for

Freight Rail in HDR’s Las Vegas offi ce. He

has extensive knowledge of the design and

construction of railroad facilities including

analysis and design of rail yard upgrades,

mainline trackage and support facilities. He

specializes in railroad operations, logistics,

construction staging and planning. Jim can

be reached at jim.conway@hdrinc.com .

A U T H O R S

> Currently, containers are carried by rail as far as Isaka, then transferred to trucks and hauled over unimproved roads.

• Maximum design curvature uses 2¼-inch super-

elevation with 100-foot spiral curve, resulting in

minimum permissible design speeds of 30 mph for

freight and 35 mph for passenger• Maximum 1.6 percent gradient, compensated for

curvature (1 degree of curvature = 0.04 percent

equivalent grade)• Minimum curve speed of 30 mph for freight and 35

mph for passenger• 286,000-pound load limit (35.8 tons per axle)• Standard BNSF single-cell concrete voided box beam

girder ballast deck bridge• 10-foot x 10-foot box culvert used for non-bridge

defi ned drainage locations

Project StatusIn December 2009, following submittal of the report by

BNSF to the Tanzanian government, the BNSF project

team went to Rwanda to present the results to the

infrastructure ministers of Tanzania, Rwanda and Burundi.

During the two-day meeting, the team covered details

of every element of the project and answered questions

off ered by the audience. When the meeting concluded,

the infrastructure ministers crafted a joint communiqué

that acknowledged the use of AREMA standards and

practices to be most cost eff ective and, therefore,

recommended the way forward to be: 1) preparation of

a public-private partnership to mobilize private investors

and public and multinational donors for fi nancing; and 2)

the three governments, with assistance from the African

Development Bank, shall engage a project management

consultant to prepare a bankable railway project

document and gather investors/project developers.

This tender, known as the Central Corridor Project, was

anticipated in March 2010. However, in early January 2010,

Tanzania experienced tremendous fl ooding. Upwards of 3

kilometers of track was washed out and nine major bridges

destroyed. The Tanzanian Army is performing emergency

repairs to return the railroad to service but only as a temporary

solution. HDR is part of an international team proposing an

approach to remedy the situation and take advantage of

the opportunity to demonstrate the application of AREMA

standards. With some estimates placing the cost of repair

near $100 million, it is unknown if this event will have adverse

impact to the progress of the Central Corridor Project. ->

[14]

C e n t r a l I n d i a n aC e n t r a l I n d i a n a

> The CITTF study covered nine counties in central Indiana and included the capital city of Indianapolis.

[15]

In late 2008, the Central Indiana Corporate Partnership, the

Greater Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce and the Central

Indiana Community Foundation brought together a group

of business leaders to form the Central Indiana Transit Task

Force (CITTF) to examine the region’s transportation system.

With a view to meeting Central Indiana’s mobility needs and

improving its economic competitiveness, CITTF developed

a series of recommendations for the region’s transportation

system. HDR worked with CITTF to develop and deliver a

comprehensive planning and evaluation approach.

The CITTF study was unique in many ways. First, CITTF’s

mission was to enlist the expertise of private sector

leaders to develop and present a preferred transportation

strategy for Central Indiana based on the economic value

to the region. Second, while the design of highway and

transit systems is traditionally the province of planners and

engineers, evaluating the business and economic case for

a system proposal usually is conducted in a totally separate

domain by economists and fi nancial analysts. But for this

project, HDR formed a multidisciplinary team and created a

sequential process through which: 1) planners and engineers

designed technical alternatives; 2) economists and fi nancial

analysts evaluated their cost-benefi t and aff ordability;

and 3) the results of the economic fi ndings were directly

applied to developing further technical alternatives. The

combined planning and economic process continued until

the best-value combination of highway and transit capital

investments and non-capital initiatives emerged.

StrategyFor the purpose of CITTF’s work, Central Indiana was defi ned

as Marion, Hamilton, Boone, Hendricks, Morgan, Johnson,

Shelby, Hancock and Madison counties. The study also

C o m b i n e s B e s t o f P l a n n i n g ,

Morgan Johnsonsonnn

Shelbyhel

Hendricks

onnM a rioM o Hancock

BB o oo oonneneooooHam i l ton

Madison

napolisndiannnnapnndiannIndiddddddnddI diddd

C e n t r a l I n d i a n a T r a n s p o r t a t i o n S t u d y

Land Development -> Planning & Economics

TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [16]

E c o n o m i c sBy Neil Pogorelsky and Scott Miller

analyzed the need for connectivity

to Indiana communities outside of

this area, including Lafayette, Muncie,

Bloomington and Columbus.

CITTF committed to developing a

regional strategy refl ecting not just

a long-term vision, but one that

could be acted on in the near future.

To be successful, the strategy had

to be easily understood; based on

aff ordable funding options; capable

of addressing how a regional system

might be governed and run; and

include a plan for engaging policy

makers and the public in an active

dialogue. CITTF established the

following principles to govern their

decision-making process:• Approach the issues objectively

and without bias• Look at all reasonable

alternatives regardless

of mode of

transportation or

level of investment• Evaluate and use

all previous work

conducted in the

region• Engage in

a detailed

cost-benefi t

analysis to clearly

understand the economic trade-off s• Communicate that the process was not designed to

replace the existing public transportation planning

process, rather to supplement and strengthen it

Next, CITTF developed a list of key issues within the

community that transportation system investments could

and should address. These issues were incorporated into the

process of evaluating alternatives. Specifi cally, alternative

strategies needed to tackle:• Mobility• A weakening regional core• Congestion• Environment (specifi cally, air quality)• Overall regional competitiveness

With the alternatives

identifi ed, CITTF used

cost-benefi t analysis to

compare: the variations

and combinations of

roadway improvements,

pricing as a means of

congestion management,

bus system enhancements

and rail investments. The

cost-benefi t analysis took into

account the lifecycle cost of each

improvement and compared the

cost with the monetary value of

the expected benefi ts.

CITTF analyzed the funding

requirements of the strategic

alternatives and ascertained where

funding gaps appeared. Further

assessment determined the

reasonableness of likely fi nancing

sources. CITTF also considered

that a regional transportation

system would require a regional

governance structure. An eff ective

structure to manage the roles of

numerous public entities, including

multiple municipalities and

counties, would be as important

to the ultimate success of such

a system as its physical design,

construction and operation.

RecommendationsUltimately, this process led CITTF to

develop a set of recommendations

in four parts: The Future System,

Financing of the Future System,

Governance of the Future System

and Next Steps.

The Future System — Analysis

showed that a multimodal system

makes good economic sense. As

part of this multimodal system,

CITTF recommended signifi cant

expansion of the existing

roadway network in the region,

although at a slightly lower rate

than envisioned in the 25-year

Regional Transportation Plan.

> CITTF recommended a single, regional transit organization to govern a multimodal transportation system.

[ CITTF also considered that a regional

transportation system would require

a regional governance structure. ]

[17]

Whereas that plan called for approximately $8.9 billion in

capital expenditure of which $5.8 billion would be locally

funded, CITTF envisioned approximately $8.3 billion in

capital expenditures of which $5.5 billion would be locally

funded. CITTF recommended that the $600 million savings

be shifted to other transportation infrastructure.

CITTF also proposed implementing tolled express lanes on

certain segments of: 1) I-69 to the northeast of I-465; and

2) on I-65 to the southeast of I-465. These tolled express

lanes would be new lanes added to the existing freeway

and would provide the option of paying a toll to go “express”

to their destination. The lanes would be expected to raise

more than they cost to operate, thus providing a source of

funding for other transportation infrastructure.

Signifi cant expansion and enhancement of the regional bus

system would: 1) reduce the average time between buses

from 30-60 minutes to 10-20 minutes; 2) provide more direct

routes; and 3) expand service within Marion County and into

more counties than served today. Both express and limited

stop bus services would be included.

Finally, CITTF recommended adding passenger rail service

in two formats: 1) an in-street, light rail alignment on or near

Washington Street; and 2) service on existing freight rail lines

north to Fishers and south to Greenwood. The Washington

Street service would run all day. The service on existing

freight lines could run all day on the sections closer to the

center city and primarily during peak hours to the suburbs.

Financing the Future System — CITTF agreed that if new

funds are needed to pay for the system, the funding

approach needs to meet certain conditions:• Any county being served by a revamped transit system

should participate in its funding• The fi nancial burden on each county should be

proportionate to the benefi ts its residents receive• The introduction of new or increased taxes should be

subject to a referendum in each county• Public-private partnerships should be explored

wherever possible

Governance of the Future System — CITTF recommended

the following guidelines for a single, regional transit

organization to govern the system:• Authority and capacity to plan, fi nance, build, operate

and maintain the system• Leadership by an appointed board • Board appointments allocated to participating localities

based on their fi nancial contribution to the system• The ability to leverage federal funds

Next Steps — CITTF strongly believed that all of the

recommendations and fi ndings of their report should be

subject to an intense period of public input, and that the plan

should change as a result of that input. CITTF recommended

several components of this process:• The process should have the support and engagement

of elected leaders across the region• The process should seek genuine input and have

signifi cant impact on the components of a regional

transportation system• The public should have the opportunity to vote, by

referendum, on a funding mechanism to support that

new plan• Simultaneously, communities need to evaluate and

establish land use policies that are supportive of

transit-oriented development

Far Reaching OpportunitiesMembers of the multidisciplinary team who contributed to

the CITTF study believe this integrated “planning/economics”

approach to transportation planning will become more

common as public agencies strive to achieve more with

their limited fi scal resources. Beyond the effi ciencies gained

by working in an integrated manner, the team believes the

fi ndings of the study maximize the technical, economic,

social and fi nancial value for Central Indiana. ->

> Neil Pogorelsky is a Principal

Economist in HDR’s Silver Spring,

Md., offi ce where he focuses on

transportation economics, regulatory

policy and fi nancial planning. He has

13 years of experience in the research

and analysis of transportation policy

and planning and has worked on air,

land and sea transportation issues.

Neil can be reached at

neil.pogorelsky@hdrinc.com .

> Scott Miller is a Senior Transit Planner

in HDR’s Phoenix, Ariz., offi ce. He

has over 15 years of experience in

transit operations planning. Scott

specializes in identifying community

transit needs through a combination of

community-based planning techniques

such as citizen planning workshops

and technical analyses of transit

performance and defi ciencies. Scott can

be reached at scott.miller@hdrinc.com .

A U T H O R S

TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [18]

Sacramento Regional Transit District (RT) is going green —

in more ways than one. As part of an ongoing commitment

to improving mobility and sustainability in California’s capital

city, RT is planning a new light rail extension called the Green

Line. When completed, the Green Line will connect the city’s

downtown to Sacramento International Airport, with several

destinations in between.

RT opened its fi rst light rail transit (LRT) service for local and

regional riders in 1987 and currently operates two lines: the

Gold Line runs east-to-west from the town of Folsom to

the Amtrak Station in downtown Sacramento; and the Blue

Line runs from south Sacramento to the northeast area. The

two lines total 37.4 miles and carry 12 million passengers

annually — well over RT’s original ridership projections.

GREENGREENSacramento Regional Transit District

Seeing

By Kim Pallari and Jim Hecht, P.E.

© Ke

ith Ph

ilpot

t

[19]

Transit -> Light Rail

Transit Promotes GrowthAs the state capital, Sacramento is the nexus of California

political life. With a metropolitan area population of 2.1

million, Sacramento sits at the convergence of two major

rivers, the Sacramento River and the American River. Four

major freeways serve the area — Interstate 5 (designated

federal defense corridor running from Canada to Mexico),

Interstate 80, U.S. Highway 50 and State Route 99 — but

as Sacramento grows, its local roadway system is reaching

capacity. This is especially true for north/south travel. I-5 acts

as the sole north/south arterial for local and commuter traffi c

between central Sacramento and Natomas — a rapidly

growing greenfi eld development area north of downtown.

Already one of the busiest stretches of freeway in the region,

I-5 will be further overburdened if viable transportation

alternatives are not developed. In northern Natomas lies

the Sacramento International Airport, currently undergoing

a $1.1 billion expansion to accommodate an estimated 12

million passengers per year by 2020.

Given the fast-paced growth to the north of Sacramento, it is

no surprise that polls show residents view an LRT extension

between downtown and Sacramento International Airport

as the highest transportation priority in the entire region.

The Green Line LRT extension will provide much-needed

mobility improvements to Sacramento residents and

off set the negative eff ects of rapid growth with positive

environmental and quality-of-life solutions by reducing the

growth in traffi c congestion and air pollution.

As a key player in many local transportation projects,

HDR | The Hoyt Company has worked side-by-side with RT

on the Green Line for close to a decade. The partnership

began in 2001 with development and implementation of

an extensive public outreach program. Since then, HDR has

helped RT with the alternatives analysis and subsequent

eff orts to reaffi rm a locally preferred alternative (LPA). RT also

chose HDR’s combined team of community relations and

national engineering experts to guide the agency through a

> Sacramento’s current light rail system carries 12 million passengers annually - well over original ridership projections.

TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [20]

number of signifi cant design, planning and process hurdles,

including:• Design (30 percent) and project-specifi c environmental

clearance (DEIR and FEIR competed in 9 brief months)

for the fi rst Minimum Operable Segment (Phase 1) • The fi rst design-build procurement for an LRT

extension (DB procurement documents in 9 months)

for Phase 1. This segment is well into construction with

opening anticipated in February 2011.• Design review of the Phase 1 design-build project• Planning for the entire Green Line extension

Transit Serves the PeopleDuring the alternatives analysis, several options were

examined and explored by technical experts, agency

offi cials and the public through perhaps the broadest and

most extensive outreach program ever implemented within

the Sacramento region. The alternatives analysis explored

several possible alignment and transit options, including

bus rapid transit and light rail technologies.

Between 2001 and 2003, hundreds of community and

stakeholder meetings were held, with the outreach team

disseminating project information through a wide and

unique variety of communication tools to help ensure

public awareness, education on key issues and transparency

of process. RT used traditional print media, such as

newsletters and fact sheets, as well as evolving Web-based

tools and an interactive information line. The project team

assembled citizen and technical review panels that met

on a regular basis to help guide project development.

Numerous open houses were held at key milestones to

gauge community opinions, preferences and garner input.

Monthly interagency coordination meetings helped ensure

continued and consistent communication with all of the

responsible agencies. RT even conducted a national peer

review of the project.

The extensive outreach eff orts and ongoing dialogue with

community leaders and project partners were essential to

addressing stakeholder issues and selecting and refi ning

the LPA. RT worked tirelessly to acknowledge and address

all concerns expressed by diverse and passionate voices

during the planning phase. By taking the lead in fl ushing out

the issues early, RT was able to work with the community

through a number of large and small forums to build

trust and understanding of the process and opportunities

for partnership from the public. The primary goal being

to ensure an open and transparent process, RT shared

information openly, provided educational opportunities

through national studies and sought solutions for problems

or concerns.

In December 2003, the RT board of directors approved

selection of an LRT alignment along Truxel Road through

Natomas to the airport. The LPA alignment was ultimately

incorporated into the city’s general plan, as well as the

South and North Natomas community plans. The alignment

is far-reaching, stretching approximately 13 miles through

both established and developing areas and undeveloped

lands as it nears the airport. The line will connect into the

existing light rail system downtown, traveling north through

the landmark, 240-acre Railyards redevelopment and the

promising transit-oriented River District.

Between 2003 and 2007, RT worked to develop and receive

approval on a Programmatic Environmental Document for

the entire LPA. In 2007, RT focused on a Project Environmental

Document for the 1-mile fi rst phase of the Green Line.

Following approval of this document, RT and HDR partnered

on the transitional analysis phase and procurement for the

design-build contract of Phase 1 to Richards Boulevard. The

transitional analysis work continues today and is scheduled

for completion by the end of 2010.

Transit Fuels the EconomyWhen completed, the Green Line will play a key role in

Sacramento’s economic development and further its growth

as a destination city. The southern tip of the extension sits

just fi ve blocks from the California State Capitol, right in the

heart of the business and retail district and within walking

distance of several key tourist destinations.

The Green Line will link to existing Gold and Blue lines

connecting communities in the south area and eastern

foothills to the Sacramento Valley Station which hosts

Amtrak routes to the San Francisco Bay Area. The Green

Line will pass through the future Railyards Development, an

ambitious urban infi ll project that will signifi cantly increase

the size of Sacramento’s current downtown. The Railyards

area has been in decline since the 1930s, but this revitalized

transit-oriented development (TOD) has started building

out their infrastructure and ultimately will feature 2.3 million

square feet of offi ce space, up to 12,000 residential units,

parks, hotels and retail — all located adjacent to a future

intermodal transit facility and high speed rail station being

planned around the historic depot. Plans for this area also

include a proposed 18,000-seat regional public sports and

entertainment complex with the capacity to serve more than

2 million patrons annually. The NBA, city of Sacramento and

state of California are working with a private development

team to bring this project to fruition in 2013/2014.

Another cutting-edge TOD that will host the fi rst northbound

stop on the Green Line is Township 9 — a 65-acre mixed-

[21] www.hdrinc.com TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED

use, master-planned neighborhood

that is integral to the city’s burgeoning

River District. Township 9 provides new

public access to the American River

waterfront, which will soon feature

public amenities such as parks, open

spaces, bike paths and community

spaces.

Several other population centers,

employment hubs and recreational

destinations will benefi t from the

Green Line, including the approved

20 million-square-foot Metro Air Park

mixed-use development, a community

college, several schools and the

Natomas Community Center. The

Green Line allows access to numerous

on-street and off -street bikeways,

including the city’s 23-mile American

River Parkway, which attracts more

than 5 million visitors annually. The

Green Line will link to 60 RT bus routes

and 14 suburban transit operators.

Transit Starts NowRT is so confi dent in the viability of the

Green Line that it is already constructing

the fi rst mile of the extension. This fi rst

phase uses only local funds and is

slated for operation by February 2011.

The goal for future phases is to qualify

for partial funding from the Federal

Transit Administration’s New Starts

Program.

To complete Phase 1, the project

team needed to develop a very

conceptual alignment into a workable

plan. Moreover, it was imperative

that this plan have the full support of

a broad range of private and public

stakeholders. Any controversial issues

needed to be settled quickly so that

an environmental impact report

could be prepared that meets the

strict requirements of the California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

For a relatively short initial extension,

Phase 1 has posed several unique

challenges. The south end of the

extension connects to track that is

© Ke

ith Ph

ilpot

t

> The southern tip of the Green Line extension sits just fi ve blocks from the California State Capitol, right in the heart of the business and retail district.

[22]

[ When completed, the Green Line will connect the

city’s downtown to Sacramento International Airport,

with several destinations in between. ]

© Ke

ith Ph

ilpot

t

> RT has engaged the public throughout the planning and design process.

[23]

mixed with automobile traffi c and runs through shared traffi c

lanes. Along the proposed route, there is also an underpass

that allows for car traffi c to travel below Union Pacifi c Railroad

(UPRR) tracks. The underpass does not accommodate even

one extra inch of clearance on either side. Fitting the light

rail tracks through this structure required consolidation of

two bike lanes and sidewalks into one multi-use path until a

separate bike/pedestrian tunnel is ultimately constructed by

the Railyards developer.

Because it is possible that the vertical profi le of the Phase 1

track will be raised in the future by about 10 feet, the team

took great measures to create a design that lends itself to

being both effi cient and fl exible. For example, new levees

were built when the American River was shifted to the north

in 1868, but the city of Sacramento maintained the original

levee as secondary protection should there be a breach in

the primary levee. The LRT alignment makes use of one of

several fl ood gates on this old secondary levee. The Railyards

development will include raising the entire development site

to the elevation of the secondary levee; when that occurs,

the LRT tracks will need to be raised, too. Unfortunately, it

is not possible to build the initial Green Line tracks at this

future raised elevation because there is another freight track

that must remain in service for connections from the UPRR

main line. The LRT will cross this UPRR track at grade until the

freight track is eventually taken out of service.

Midway through development of the 30 percent design

and environmental clearance, RT concluded that a design-

build delivery method would be used to help guarantee

project completion by February 2011. HDR worked closely

with RT’s staff to prepare Sacramento‘s fi rst ever design-

build procurement documents for a light rail extension.

The procurement was successfully completed within a six-

month schedule, and HDR continues to provide design

review services during construction.

Transit Guides the FutureWith construction underway on Phase 1, the focus now

is on refi ning the other 12 miles to gain eligibility for the

Federal Transit Administration’s New Starts Program, which

could supply as much as half of the necessary funding

for the project. A cost risk analysis and value engineering

(CRAVE) study helped identify four areas along the original

alignment plans that could be improved, resulting in better

travel times and reliability, reduced traffi c disruption and a

more cost-eff ective project overall. (Learn more about the

CRAVE process on Page 35 of this issue.)

For example, an alternative design that allows the Green

Line to cross Interstate 80 in the median of an existing

bridge instead of building a new structure off ers substantial

cost savings. HDR is investigating further improvements

through re-evaluation of the stations on the alignment and

by working to optimize the planned TODs throughout the

corridor by ensuring maximum densities, reduced set-backs,

shared parking and strong pedestrian connections.

Stakeholder outreach continues to play a key role in

the success of the project. RT is engaged in intensive

coordination with local agencies, including the Sacramento

Area Council of Governments, which is lending its Travel

Demand Forecasting Model to HDR’s ridership estimating

work on the project. While it has often been tedious work

digging into the details of the transportation model and

updating the transportation network, parking prices, bus

routes, rail bias factors, land use assumptions and the

baseline alternative, it has paid off with ridership estimates

that double what had previously been predicted.

Once fi nal alignment and station decisions have been made

and public design charrettes completed, HDR will prepare

a capital cost estimate, operating plan, estimate for annual

operations and maintenance costs and a fi nal ridership

estimate allowing RT to move forward through the New

Starts Program and, ultimately, help bring the Green Line

extension to fruition. ->

> Kim Pallari is a Director of Community

Relations in HDR’s Sacramento offi ce. She

has 10 years of experience conducting

communications, outreach and public/

media relations programs. Kim plans and

facilitates community outreach strategies,

coordinates publicity and marketing

eff orts, and manages all aspects of public

information campaigns. Kim can be reached

at kim.pallari@hdrinc.com .

> Jim Hecht, P.E., is the Business Class Area

Manager for Transportation in HDR’s

San Diego offi ce. He has spent the past 21

years managing the development of rail

transit projects from planning, preliminary

engineering, fi nal design and construction,

to the initiation of service. Jim has hands-

on experience with environmental, right-

of-way, utility and developer agreements,

project management and public outreach

aspects of transit projects. Jim can be

reached at jim.hecht@hdrinc.com .

A U T H O R S

TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [24]

© Sc

ott D

obry

Pict

ures

conforms to reasonable and applicable

standards, and meets HDR’s and the

client’s expectations.”

When thinking of quality in engineering,

the concept of understandable

products that conform to standards

typically comes to mind fi rst. This is for

good reason, as most of our designs are

controlled, in at least some aspect, by

established standards.

Furthermore, the work of a planner or

engineer is only as good as its ability

to communicate intent and detail to

QualityQuality Applied Applied

By Paul Tremel, P.E., and Ed Power, P.E.

Whether it is the quality promise

printed on the bag for a lunchtime

sandwich or an advertisement for a

new car, most companies promise

quality in their product. Our industry

is no exception and due to recent

highly publicized incidents, our

transportation agency clients and

the traveling public are more aware

then ever of quality needs.

This awareness was highlighted

in recent fi ndings of the National

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB),

which determined that the probable

cause of the tragic I-35W bridge

collapse in Minneapolis, among other

accompanying issues, was a design

error. Insuffi cient quality control

procedures and insuffi cient federal

and state procedures for reviewing

and approving plans were cited as

contributing factors.1 As part of their

investigation, the NTSB found further

examples of more recent design

errors in discussions with other

state departments of transportation

and recommended more stringent

quality assurance/quality control

(QA/QC) procedures in the industry.

Every engineering fi rm talks about

quality, but owners can quickly

identify who is willing to make the

required eff ort. Every project team

member has the opportunity and

responsibility to make a diff erence in

the quality of products and services

that are provided and, ultimately,

in the quality of our nation’s

transportation infrastructure. The

end user of our products and services

is the traveling public, and they

demand and deserve to have high-

quality, safe transportation facilities.

Delivering Quality Products and ServicesIn addition to the range of standards

and criteria that govern our work,

the diversity of specializations and

practices within the transportation

industry require a high level of

technical excellence along with a

strong measure of creativity and

professional judgment. Given

this broad array of professional

responsibilities and applications,

quality can best be defi ned as

the features and characteristics

of our products and services that

contribute to their ability to satisfy

stated or implied needs. Based on

this edict, HDR’s internal quality

control procedures defi ne a quality

deliverable or service as “one

which is complete in regard to its

intended purpose, is understandable,

[25]

Technical Excellence -> Quality

the user, whether this user is a stakeholder reviewing a

transportation study or contractor building a project. For

a study, it is important for the deliverable to communicate

fi ndings to the end user, such as project scope and impact,

in order to facilitate stakeholder acceptance. For a design,

every project has multiple users — the contractor bids on

and builds the facility, the construction quality staff assure

that the facility is built according to plans and specs, and,

most importantly, the end user (operator or traveling public)

has to live with our designs for the life of the project. In some

cases, the end user will depend on a facility far beyond its

planned obsolescence.

With the push for more sustainable transportation solutions,

project goals include parameters for economic viability,

constructability, how the facility aff ects the community

and the environment, and its overall usability. Quality

control (QC) performed throughout the life of a project with

sustainability in mind yields a product that will stand the

test of time, and early implementation of quality control —

as early as the initial concept stages — can have a direct

impact on a project’s success. From a technical standpoint,

identifi cation of a potential design issue and resolution at an

early stage of project development can signifi cantly reduce

the eff ort necessary compared to resolution of the same

issue later in the project. The stakes become even higher if

an issue is discovered later in the design process or during

construction and much higher yet when the facility is in

service (See Figure 1, pg. 28). Likewise, the total facility cost

is strongly infl uenced by actions early in the project life.

HDR’s QA/QC Program

> A fundamental tenant of HDR’s project development approach is that delivery of a quality product truly involves every team member.

TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [26] TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [26]

Guiding Principles of HDR’s Quality ProgramDelivery of quality products and

services encompasses all aspects of

project development, from the initial

pursuit, scoping, fee negotiations,

project planning and management, to

project execution and project closeout.

HDR’s quality control (QC) procedures

measure the characteristics of a service

or product with respect to established

requirements; whereas quality

assurance (QA) activities provide

confi dence to both HDR and our clients

that our products or services fulfi ll their

intended purpose. The HDR Quality

Control Program consists of a series of

procedures defi ning our requirements

for procuring, establishing, managing

and executing a project.

QA encompasses “all the planned and

systematic activities implemented

within a quality system and

demonstrated as needed to provide

adequate confi dence that an entity

will fulfi ll requirements for quality.”

Understanding the intended purpose

of the project and client expectations

at the early stages of a project are

key aspects of the QA process.

During HDR’s Go/No Go Review and

Proposal and Contract Review, our QA

procedures require that we carefully

assess whether HDR can deliver quality

products and services to this project.

Specifi cally, are the right resources

available to appropriately address

all the technical issues? What are the

project requirements and client’s

needs? What are the risks associated

with delivery of this service or

product in terms of meeting schedule,

technology and budget?

Our QA procedure for project initiation

further addresses assessment and

mitigation of project risks and

establishes a game plan for successful

execution of the project. This game

plan, referred to by HDR as a Project

Guide, but also referred to in the

industry as a Project Management Plan,

establishes the specifi cs of our plan to

successfully execute the project. The

Project Guide includes, amongst other

topics, a communications plan, quality

control plan, health and safety plan,

and detailed schedule for execution.

QC reviews are critical to

producing quality products that

are understandable and conform

to reasonable standards. HDR has a

diverse business base, working with

many diff erent transportation clients

and providing services ranging from

planning studies to fi nal design and

construction across a broad spectrum

of technical disciplines. Yet we are

united with a common commitment

to provide QC reviews of all our

products and services.

Eff ective Quality Control ReviewsA fundamental tenant of HDR’s

project development approach is

that delivery of a quality product

truly involves every team member,

no matter what their job function.

HDR’s quality procedures state that “All

employees are responsible for their

work.” Each employee is encouraged

to incorporate best practices into their

work and strive to produce outstanding

quality in their products. Each team

member is further encouraged to take

personal ownership of the quality of

their products.

That being said, it is very diffi cult

to consistently perform multiple

processes over time without making

errors. To achieve the standard of

quality required of our industry, and

because no one is perfect, engineers

and scientists work in teams and

depend on others to share in the

quality responsibilities of their

deliverables through an integral

checking and QC review process.

It is this partnership between the

designer and checker/reviewer that

is an integral part of HDR’s quality

control practices. Detailed checking

is typically done as part of the design

process and is followed up by formal

QC reviews completed by senior staff

with appropriate technical expertise.

Like many aspects of our business,

performance of an eff ective QC review

draws upon past experiences as much

as technical expertise. So what are the

items emphasized during QC review?

A panel of senior HDR transportation

quality control reviewers shared

their thoughts on eff ective quality

control reviews. The panel included

Bob Brittain, Pam Pierce, Bob Yechout

© Ke

ith Ph

ilpot

t

> Each team member is encouraged to take personal ownership of the quality of their products.

[27] www.hdrinc.com TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED[27] www.hdrinc.com TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED

100%

0

0%DesignPeriod

Leve

l of I

nfl

uen

ce

Decreasing Influence

ConstructionPeriod

OperationPeriod

> Paul Tremel, P.E., is a Vice President and

HDR’s West Region Transportation Quality

Manager. In this role, Paul applies his 22

years of experience in transportation to

facilitate a focus on quality by monitoring

consistency in quality of technical products,

verifying adequacy of internal quality

reviews and supporting integration of

QA/QC Program Procedures throughout the

project development process. He also serves

as the Structures Section Manager for HDR’s

Phoenix offi ce. Paul can be reached at

paul.tremel@hdrinc.com .

> Ed Power, P.E., is a Senior Vice President

and HDR’s Transportation Director of

Planning and Design, based in Norfolk,

Va. With nearly 40 years of experience, his

responsibilities include technical, quality

and business oversight for traditional service

areas, including highway, bridge, traffi c,

transportation planning, environmental and

geotechnical. Ed has extensive management

and design experience on large multi-

disciplined projects. Ed can be reached at

ed.power@hdrinc.com .

A U T H O R S

and Ken Wright — all senior transportation engineers,

representing a variety of technical disciplines. Regarding

the areas of emphasis during a QC review, the panel

responded that verifi cation of consistency between plans

and specifi cations, constructability, clarity and cross-check

between disciplines are typical initial review items. In

addition, they check to see if the documents contain an

appropriate level of detailing to eff ectively communicate

the design and if required special details are shown. An

overview of geometry and order of magnitude for quantities

rounds out the list of common items.

Quality is an Integral Part of Project DevelopmentQuality is built into our products through adherence to

processes and procedures and is achieved by having

technically competent individuals performing the work,

having experienced professionals review the work and

proactively resolving the comments. Quality is verifi ed

through our internal checking and review procedures, which

are woven into the project development process while still

meeting the client’s schedule. As Aristotle said, “Quality is not

an act, it is a habit.” When applied to our industry, Aristotle’s

statement means that quality is a mindset regarding how our

work must be produced throughout the life of the project.

Beyond the obvious implications to deliverables, quality

control requirements also are critical for sustaining business

relationships and maintaining a positive reputation with

clients. We also understand that as members of the

transportation industry, we owe quality products and

services not just to our clients, but also to our communities,

whom we ultimately serve. ->References

1. Collapse of the I-35W Highway Bridge. Tech. Rpt. No. PB2008-916203. Washington, D.C.: National Transportation Safety Board, 2008. Print.

© Ke

ith Ph

ilpot

t

> Identifying a potential design issue and resolving it at an early stage of project development can signifi cantly reduce the eff ort necessary compared to resolving the same issue later in the project.

Figure 1

[28]

Gulf Marine Fabricators

GRAVINGDOCK

By Arthur B. Colwell, NCEES, P.E.,

and Douglas C. Hearn Jr., P.E.

gives

Domestic Option

[29]

In September 2006, ATP Oil & Gas

awarded a contract to Gulf Marine

Fabricators (GMF) for fabrication of

the ATP Titan, a deep-draft fl oating

production structure to be placed in

the Gulf of Mexico’s Mirage fi eld. The

proposed ATP Titan would be the fi rst

of its kind — a Minimum Deepwater

Operating Concept, or MinDOC,

patented by Bennett & Associates as a

cross between a tension leg platform

and a spar. As the fi rst MinDOC-

style hull to be built, the ATP Titan

presented GMF with some unique

challenges, not the least of which was

how to transfer the completed hull

from its fabrication site on land to the

water where it would be wet-towed to

its permanent home.

Alternatives Evaluation Until the ATP Titan, all of the hull

(fl oating) structures that GMF had

been involved with used a common

methodology, i.e., fabricating the

structure quayside, maneuvering it

onto a barge or heavy lift vessel (HLV),

transporting it via wet tow to the site,

and then offl oading the structure

into the water. The Merchant Marine

Act of 1920, more commonly known

as the Jones Act, prohibits structures

fabricated domestically from being

transported by HLV, so all of GMF’s

larger structures (greater than 10,000

tons) previously were fabricated

overseas and then transported to the

United States by HLV. Once the hull

was at its location, the HLV would

be ballasted down and the hull

fl oated off .

GMF wanted to build the ATP Titan

in the United States, so the question

became fi nding an effi cient and

economical solution to address

the Jones Act restriction. The three

primary alternatives considered were:

1) pursuing a Jones Act waiver that

would allow use of an HLV; 2) using a

launch ramp similar to those used in

ship building; and 3) constructing a

graving dock that could be fl ooded

once the hull was completed.

Pursuing a Jones Act waiver off ered

the most cost-eff ective solution but

carried several risks. First and foremost,

the tight fabrication schedule required

work to begin on the ATP Titan while

waiting for the waiver to be issued.

If the waiver was denied, the project

would be too far along to go to a new

plan without incurring substantial

scheduling consequences. Also, the

project schedule would be tied to

the HLV contractor’s schedule. HLV

contractors typically are very busy, and

obtaining a window in their schedule

might be diffi cult.

A launch ramp could be constructed

with a two-degree incline, allowing

the ATP Titan to be skidded into the

water once completed. GMF believed

this method would work, but the

complexity of the skidding operation

made it too time-consuming and

costly.

Ultimately, GMF determined the

graving dock alternative provided the

most fl exible solution, including the

Maritime -> Facility Design

> The graving dock concept allowed Gulf Marine Fabricators to build the ATP Titan in the U.S.

TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [30]

opportunity to reuse it for future projects.

In simple terms, the graving dock would

be a large hole that remained dry during

fabrication, but was deep enough to

be fl ooded and fl oat out the fi nished

hull structure. This option did not tie

the fabrication schedule to an HLV

contractor’s schedule and aff orded more

fl exibility in terms of the overall size and

weight of the ATP Titan structure.

Graving Dock DesignThe fi nal design of the Graving Dock

provided a basin that was 250 feet

wide, 600 feet long and 40 feet deep.

The dimensions were dictated primarily

by the size of the ATP Titan hull, with

some consideration for future use. Major

elements of the graving dock included

steel sheet pile walls, pile-supported

reinforced concrete relieving platforms, a

50-foot-wide by 250-foot-long coff erdam,

a reinforced concrete basin fl oor, and

both surface drainage and under-drain

collection systems.

The walls of the basin are steel sheet piles

anchored near the top by a series of high-

strength, post-tensioned anchor rods.

Temporary anchorage at the bottom of

the sheets was provided by the passive

restraint of the soil in front of the wall.

Permanent anchorage was provided

by the concrete basin fl oor, acting as a

compression strut. The sheet piles have

a coal-tar epoxy coating for corrosion

protection.

The anchor rods were encased within

a pile-supported, reinforced concrete

relieving platform located immediately

outside the sheet pile walls. The relieving

platform, as the name suggests, relieved

lateral pressures acting on the wall below

Elevation 3.0 feet that would otherwise

develop from any surcharge, e.g., cranes,

equipment, stockpiled materials or other

vertical loads acting above the relieving

platform. A combination of precast,

prestressed concrete piles and steel pipe

piles supported the relieving platform. Lateral restraint for the top of the sheet

pile wall and anchor rods was provided by a series of battered steel pipe piles

located at the rear of the relieving platform.

The coff erdam was constructed approximately 85 feet from the existing

bulkhead at the south end of the graving dock and allowed excavation of the

basin. The coff erdam structure consisted of steel sheet piles, and three rows

of temporary wide fl ange wales and steel pipe compression struts. A series of

permanent diagonal struts, a continuous pipe wale near the top of the south

wall and vertical tension rods provided lateral stability for the south wall after

removal of the temporary wales and struts. The north wall of the coff erdam

was designed to be removed and become the north wall of the basin once the

permanent diagonal struts were in place. The permanent diagonal struts and

vertical tension rods were supported at the basin fl oor level by a reinforced

concrete fl oor supported on steel pipe piles.

The basin fl oor between the north wall and the coff erdam was a reinforced

concrete slab designed as a continuous beam on an elastic foundation. Soil

springs at the basin fl oor level were determined from the soil modulus value

provided by the geotechnical consultant, and foundation computer software

was used to model the fl oor. Design loads for the basin fl oor were determined

by the self-weight of the ATP Titan hull and the support sizes and arrangement

provided by the fabricator. Although the design of the fl oor was based on the

specifi c self-weight and support arrangement for the ATP Titan hull, provisions

were made for future projects by providing consistent concrete thickness and

reinforcement throughout the basin fl oor.

> Ultimately, GMF determined the graving dock alternative provided the most fl exible solution, including the opportunity to reuse it for future projects.

[31]

[ The ATP Titan presented GMF with

some unique challenges, not the least

of which was how to transfer

the completed hull... ]

TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [32] TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [32]

Drainage was provided via three independent systems.

The surface of the basin fl oor was sloped to discrete catch

basins, which in turn drained to a sump located at the north

wall of the basin. Groundwater that comes up from below

the basin fl oor drained through an under-drain system — a

network of perforated pipes embedded in a layer of coarse

gravel immediately below the basin fl oor slab. The under-

drain system also drained into the sump at the north wall. A

series of pressure-relief valves was installed in the basin fl oor

in case the capacity of the under-drain system be exceeded.

Finally, groundwater that collects immediately behind the

sheet pile walls was collected in a 4-foot-wide vertical sand

wall and piped via wall drains to the surface drains.

Construction SequenceA compressed project schedule required construction of

the graving dock to begin well before design of most of

the major elements was completed. Initially, the site was

excavated from Elevation 10.0 feet to Elevation 3.0 feet —

the elevation of the relieving platform soffi t. While the site

was being excavated, a series of shallow and deep wells

were installed to lower the groundwater. Once the relieving

platform areas were excavated down to Elevation 3.0 feet,

the concrete piles for the relieving platforms were driven,

followed by the steel pipe piles at the rear of the platforms.

In a typical sequence of construction, the steel sheet piles

would have been installed prior to the relieving platforms, but

extended delivery times for the steel sheet piles prompted

the decision to install the relieving platforms fi rst. Once the

sheet piles started to arrive, they were installed on the east,

west and south sides, immediately behind the relieving

platforms. The sheets that ultimately would be used at the

north wall of the basin were temporarily installed near the

south end to create the coff erdam. As excavation progressed

down into the coff erdam, the levels of temporary wales and

struts were installed. Once the coff erdam was excavated to

fi nal grade, steel pipe piles were installed and the coff erdam

fl oor was placed. When the coff erdam fl oor was completed,

the permanent wales, diagonal struts and vertical anchors

were installed, and the temporary wales and struts were

removed.

Completion of the coff erdam was a key element in the

construction sequence, because the stability of the

coff erdam depended on the passive resistance of the soil

mass on the inside of the basin counteracting the lateral

earth and hydrostatic pressures acting on the outside of the

coff erdam. Thus, until the permanent wales and diagonal

struts were installed, excavation of the soil mass inside the

basin could not be completed.

> In simple terms, the graving dock would be a large hole that remained dry during fabrication, but was deep enough to be fl ooded and fl oat out the fi nished hull structure.

[33] www.hdrinc.com TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED

> Arthur B. “Bud” Colwell, NCEES, P.E., is a

Vice President and the Gulf Coast Regional

Manager for Ports in Corpus Christi, Texas.

He is experienced with design, construction

administration, and project management

for a wide array of structures, including low-

and medium-rise commercial, industrial,

waterfront and military facilities. Bud’s

primary focus area for the last several years

has been the design of heavy fabrication

facilities which support the off -shore energy

industry. Bud can be reached at

arthur.colwell@hdrinc.com .

> Douglas C. Hearn, P.E., is a Senior

Structural Engineer in HDR’s Corpus Christi,

Texas, offi ce. He is knowledgeable in design

and consulting and has experience with civil

and structural engineering projects across

many areas. Douglas’s primary focus is

on port, harbor and waterfront structures

where he has been involved in all aspects

of planning, permitting, design, estimating

and construction phase aspects. Douglas

can be reached at doug.hearn@hdrinc.com .

A U T H O R S

Once the basin excavation had advanced

to grade within a suitable area, work

started on sections of the under-drain

system, gravel bedding and basin fl oor

slab. Work continued in this manner

until the coff erdam was completed, and

the soil mass immediately north of the

coff erdam was removed. At this point,

the sheet piles forming the north wall

of the coff erdam were removed and re-

driven in their fi nal position at the north

end of the graving dock, and connected

to the anchorage system embedded

in the relieving platform. Excavation

of the remainder of the basin, as well

as installation of the remainder of the

under-drain system, gravel bedding,

basin fl oor slab and sump could then

proceed unabated.

After completion of the basin proper,

the area between the original bulkhead

and the south wall was excavated to the

top of the existing relieving platform.

Excavation was advanced lower in the

area immediately behind the existing

relieving platform, and in the area

between the existing relieving platform

and the existing sheet pile bulkhead, to

expose the existing anchor rods. After

anchor rod locations were determined,

small coff erdams were built at the

intersections of the basin wall extensions

and existing bulkhead to allow removal of

a pair of the existing sheet piles, as well as

installation of a new pair with interlocks

to accept the basin wall extensions.

Once the new pairs of sheet piles were

driven into the original bulkhead, both

concrete and steel pipe piles were

installed for the relieving platform

extensions on the southeast and

southwest sides of the dock, followed by

installation of the steel sheet piles and

relieving platforms. Once the platforms

and walls were completed, the existing

relieving platforms behind the bulkhead

were removed, and the area was

excavated to an elevation that would allow removal of the

remainder of the bulkhead. After the bulkhead was removed,

the area was mechanically dredged to Elevation -30.0 feet, and

the graving dock was complete.

Floating the ATP TitanPhase I of the graving dock construction project, in which the

original hole was excavated, was completed in March 2008.

Phase II — the extension of the walls to the existing bulkhead

and excavation of the soil mass between the bulkhead and

south wall — was fi nished in August 2009. Fabrication of the

ATP Titan hull wrapped up in November 2009. At that time, the

graving dock was fl ooded, and the wales and diagonal struts

supporting the south wall were removed. The south wall of

the graving dock was then removed, allowing the ATP Titan

to be fl oated out of the graving dock and towed to its fi nal

destination. GMF has since started design and construction of

a fl oating gate to enclose the south end of the basin, which

will allow the graving dock to be used for future projects. ->

The authors would like to thank Colin Ocker, P.E., of Cornerstone

Fabrication Solutions, for contributing to this article.

[34]

What Owners

Proactive Approach to Project DeliveryC R A V E™

By Khalid Bekka, Ph.D., and Ken Smith, CVS, P.E.

> CRAVE paved the way for a revised alignment for the Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle that avoided identifi ed risks that were quantifi ed at over $50 million.

© B

rett

Star

k

[35] www.hdrinc.com TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED

Financial -> Cost Risk Analysis & Value Engineering

In the past two decades, infrastructure projects have

seen signifi cant cost overruns and delays. This fact

has shaken public confi dence in cost and schedule

estimates and the ability of public agencies to deliver

projects on time and with the greatest possible value.

Besides the political embarrassment, cost overruns

and delays have signifi cant economic and fi nancial

implications and decrease public benefi ts. Cost

overruns, in particular, reduce overall capital investment

abilities and limit regional competitiveness.

With constraints on available funding, agencies now

face uncertainty in their planning process, making

conventional methods insuffi cient. In this environment,

credible, transparent and comprehensive processes

are essential to building a higher level of confi dence

in cost and schedule estimates. Decision-makers must

know the nature and magnitude of risks to determine

their risk tolerance and make eff ective decisions

throughout the project development stages. By

integrating various techniques and processes such as

cost risk analysis (CRA) and value engineering (VE), a

new process called CRAVE™ helps to eff ectively deliver

projects while continuously accounting for risks and

actively managing risk mitigation.

Traditional engineering projects provide deterministic

estimates of quantities, material prices, construction

costs, timelines and other factors while racking all the

risks under a broad contingency umbrella. This method

lacks the explicit identifi cation and quantifi cation of

the risks and hides the upside risk that many solutions,

including innovative ones, may off er. CRAVE combines

cost risk analysis with value engineering into an

integrated assessment process to assist in evaluating

alternatives, recommending delivery methods and

establishing a credible range for cost and schedule

— eff ectively delivering a project on time and within

budget, as well as providing greater overall value. While

cost risk analysis accounts for risks throughout project

development and determines how they might impact

a project’s cost and schedule, value engineering uses

a performance-based approach that reduces risk and

improves delivery at the highest value to complete a

project.

This iterative process of combining cost risk analysis

and value engineering uses available data and inputs

from the team to develop a probabilistic distribution

for a project’s cost and schedule throughout the

delivery lifecycle. CRAVE has been recognized by the

American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Offi cials, the American Council of

Engineering Companies and the Minnesota Society

of Professional Engineers as a groundbreaking and

transformational risk management process that

permits better project management and a higher level

of credibility.

Cost Risk AnalysisThe cost risk analysis process is a “bottom-up” analysis

of potential impacts to costs and schedule at the

activity level. Risk analysis for project construction

costs is often compared to the contingency line item

in an engineer’s cost estimates sheet (the “traditional”

approach to dealing with risk). Contingencies usually

lump together the consequences of an unspecifi ed

number and type of possible problems. While based

on the expert judgment of the project cost estimator,

contingencies do not allow for an explicit identifi cation

and management of risks. The risk analysis approach

not only refi nes the contingency estimate at any stage

of design, but provides the means to better understand,

quantify and mitigate the diff erent risk items to better

quantify the appropriate contingency amount. Since

contingencies are typically being revised as the design

work progresses, the CRA process calls for regular

reviews and updates of all risk elements as the project

goes through successive phases of design.

Value EngineeringValue engineering has traditionally been perceived

solely as a means for reducing project costs. However,

this paradigm only addresses one part of the value

equation, often at the expense of overlooking the role

that VE can play in improving project performance and

delivery. The VE process used by HDR is a performance-

based approach that evaluates alternatives in a

holistic approach against the baseline design using a

predetermined set of attributes. This unique variation

of conventional value engineering provides delivery

at the highest value to complete a project, with

value defi ned as the performance/cost ratio. Value

engineering as a stand-alone process has proven to

be a very eff ective tool for providing alternatives to the

baseline design, with the alternatives being developed

to meet the project functions while reducing cost and/

or schedule.

[36]

Putting it all Together — the CRAVE ProcessCRAVE combines the proven tools and processes from

CRA and VE into a single advanced project management

process. Both CRA and VE have been extremely successful in

delivering capital projects. CRAVE is an iterative process that

seeks the most eff ective and effi cient solutions and provides

decision support throughout the project delivery lifecycle.

The main objectives of the process are:• Encouraging pro-activity and early planning • Building confi dence and credibility in a project’s plans

and estimates• Developing targeted mitigation strategies for all

anticipated threats• Better allocating risks and identifi cation of project

delivery methods • Ensuring transparency, integrity and accountability

throughout the project lifecycle

With CRAVE, team leaders go beyond traditional problem

identifi cation strategies, providing innovative solutions to

clients’ toughest project challenges — often on a sharply

accelerated schedule. A rigorous analysis is performed

that includes the probabilities and impacts of the VE

recommendations and risk response strategies. The analysis

is performed using state-of-the-art modeling software to

provide the project team the most accurate information

available. At the conclusion of the CRAVE process, a

comprehensive risk management plan is turned over to the

project team to use for continued project management.

CRAVE uses tools to solicit input from the project team and

key stakeholders, quantify risks and track the risks together

with corresponding mitigation strategies. The process

relies heavily on workshops to build consensus among

stakeholders.

The CRAVE process comprises four main steps:

Step 1: Baseline Risk Assessment — This step consists of

reviewing baseline cost and schedule as well as identifying

and quantifying risks related to the baseline.

Step 2: Value Engineering and Risk Response — This step

focuses on developing value engineering recommendations

related to mitigating and/or avoiding risks. It also includes

recommendations for new opportunities and added value.

Step 3: Risk Analysis on Response Strategies — Given that

new and innovative solutions inherently carry risks, this

step is necessary to identify those risks. It also includes a

quantitative tradeoff analysis to assess whether any specifi c

solution is cost eff ective.

Step 4: Tracking, Monitoring and Control — This step identifi es

the risk to owners and the recommended frequency of

risk monitoring. It also establishes the mechanism for

risk reporting and management throughout the project

development lifecycle.

CRAVE is a scalable process, having already been applied

to projects ranging from $2 million to $4 billion, and can

be applied at any phase of project delivery. Larger, more

complex ventures benefi t from dividing the project into

manageable pieces and applying the process multiple times.

The CRAVE Process Applied — Selected Case StudiesSeveral states have benefi ted from applying the CRAVE

process to transportation-related projects. The following

are a few case studies to illustrate how CRAVE was put

to the test.

Mn/DOT Bridges Spurred by the catastrophic collapse of the I-35W Bridge

over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis, Chapter 152 of

Minnesota Laws 2008 provided an historic opportunity

> Applying the CRAVE process to 12 bridges in Minnesota provided a potential repair/replacement savings of $250 million.

© D

on O

wing

s

[37]

to address its bridge preservation

needs. The law called for development

of an improvement program that

accelerated repair and replacement of

trunk highway bridges throughout the

state. The Minnesota Department of

Transportation (Mn/DOT) selected 12

bridges at diff erent levels of design for

this assessment.

While federal requirements mandated

that Mn/DOT perform value

engineering on the projects, the state

also required cost risk assessments.

The challenge was completing 12 risk

assessments and 12 value engineering

studies in less than three months so

results could be available in time for

the next legislative session. CRAVE

was identifi ed as the ideal approach

since it provides a proven platform to

combine both processes.

The process was well received

because it both integrated mandated

processes within a short time period

and addressed the key issue of

eliminating the element of surprise

with regard to fi nancing projects.

CRAVE proved to be a very successful

tool for studying the 12 Chapter 152

projects. In December 2008 dollars, the

pre-mitigation cost for all 12 projects

was $2.1 billion. Following the CRAVE

studies and evaluating the projects

post mitigation, the December 2008

cost for all 12 projects was $1.85

billion, providing a potential savings of

$250 million.

Alaskan Way Viaduct The Alaskan Way Viaduct section of SR

99 has been a fi xture of the downtown

Seattle waterfront for more than fi ve

decades. Today, SR 99 continues to be

a main north-south route through the

city, carrying 20 to 25 percent of the

traffi c traveling through downtown.

However, time, daily wear and tear,

salty marine air and some sizeable

earthquakes have taken their toll on

the structure.

Studies in the mid-1990s showed that

the viaduct was nearing the end of

its useful life, signaled by crumbled

and cracked concrete, exposed rebar,

weakened column connections and

deteriorated railings. The roadway

was even temporarily closed after a

2001 earthquake. The Washington

State Department of Transportation

(WSDOT) responded to the studies

by initiating a program to replace the

aging viaduct at an overall cost that

may exceed $3 billion. One of the

projects consists of a two-mile-long

deep bore tunnel up to 200 feet below

the surface. WSDOT implemented the

CRAVE process, breaking the viaduct

replacement program into several

structured risk assessment workshops

and value engineering studies.

Even with the enormous size and

the complexity of the project, CRAVE

proved to be eff ective in assessing

detailed segments of the projects. For

example, the process identifi ed and

quantifi ed alignment-related risks in

terms of soil conditions and impact on

historical properties. This assessment

paved the way for a revised alignment,

avoiding the identifi ed risks which

were quantifi ed at over $50 million.

SummaryCRAVE departs from conventional value

engineering and risk management

by integrating two processes that

previously were seen as unrelated.

Combining cost risk analysis and value

engineering into one iterative process

ensures that risks are identifi ed during

the planning stages and, when

possible, tracked, monitored and

proactively avoided. CRAVE’s unique

ability to build a proactive culture

within the agency and the project

team allows it to yield information that

is essential to decision makers and

ensures proper project prioritization,

adequate delivery method selection

and effi cient risk allocation during the

procurement stage. ->

> Khalid Bekka, Ph.D., is a Senior Vice President in Silver Spring, Md., and

leads HDR’s Economics and Finance practice in the U.S. Khalid has led cost

risk analysis projects for various infrastructure projects in over 20 states,

including major projects such as the Lower Manhattan Recovery Program,

Katrina Rebuild Program and the Alaskan Way Viaduct project. Khalid can

be reached at khalid.bekka@hdrinc.com .

> Ken L. Smith, CVS, P.E., is HDR’s Director of Value Engineering, based

in Olympia, Wash. Ken has led more than 200 value engineering studies

during his 30-plus years in the industry. Agencies have implemented

more than 80 percent of the recommendations made by VE teams led by

Ken, resulting in cost avoidance in excess of $1 billion. Ken can be reached

at Ken.L.Smith@hdrinc.com .

A U T H O R S

TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [38]

As HDR grows to better serve our clients, we are pleased to

announce the following individuals have joined the fi rm:

John Haussmann, P.E., has joined HDR as a Vice President

and Principal Project Manager based in Walnut Creek, Calif.

He will focus on major transit projects in California and

throughout the western United States.

Prior to joining HDR, Haussmann was the regional transit

manager for PBS&J’s West and Central regions. From 1997

to 2008, he served fi rst as Chief Operating Offi cer and then

CEO/President of T.Y. Lin International.

Haussmann has more than 30 years of experience delivering

multimodal surface transportation projects. He served as

Project Manager or Principal-in-Charge for varying aspects

of such notable projects as the Red Line 7th Street/Metro

Center Station in Los Angeles; Port of Los Angeles Pier 300

expansion; the Riverside Maintenance Facility and Storage

Yard for articulated light rail cars in Boston; the Railway

Access and Station Remote Airport Check-in for Hong Kong

International Airport; the Northwest Transitway HOV Lane in

Houston; the Ravenel Bridge in Charleston; and replacement

of the eastern span of the San Francisco Bay Bridge.

Haussmann is a registered professional engineer in California,

Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Texas. He serves on the

American Road and Transportation Builders Association’s

Railroad and Public Transportation Advisory Council and is

a member of the National Society of Professional Engineers.

John Hubbell, former General Manager of Transportation for

the City of Calgary, has joined HDR as a Senior Transportation

Consultant, based in Calgary. He will serve as a senior

technical advisor and leader on transportation projects

around the world, with a particular focus on Canadian

projects.

As Calgary’s General Manager for Transportation, Hubbell

oversaw an annual operating budget of $500 million, a

capital budget of $800 million and a staff of 4,000. He

was responsible for all aspects of the city’s transportation

planning, construction and operations, as well as regulation

of the taxi and limousine industry and operation of Calgary

Transit. He was instrumental in establishing Calgary as a

leader in light rail transit, creating one of the most successful

LRT operations in North America.

Hubbell is active in the transportation industry, teaching

transit planning and operations courses and presenting

technical papers at local, national and international

conferences. He has served on the boards of the Canadian

Urban Transit Association and the Transportation Association

of Canada, and is a member of the Institute of Transportation

Engineers.

Sena Kumarasena, Ph.D., P.E., has joined HDR as Technical

Director — Complex Bridges, based in Boston. He brings to

HDR an extensive resume in planning, concept formulation,

design development, construction management and

rehabilitation of bridges of all types.

E x p a n d i n gE x p a n d i n gO u r C a p a b i l i

[39] www.hdrinc.com TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED

Expanding Our Capabilities -> New Hires

t i e sKumarasena is recognized for his specialized knowledge

and expertise on projects with very high technical content

and construction complexity. In 2004, he received ENR’s

newsmaker award for his role on the Leonard P. Zakim Bridge,

a signature cable-stayed bridge in Boston. Other notable

projects include the second Tacoma Narrows Bridge, where

he served as Lead Engineer for the suspended superstructure

independent design. His work on behalf of the Port Authority

of New York and New Jersey includes various design services

on the historic Bayonne Arch Bridge, the Holland Tunnel

and, most recently, serving as Lead Engineer for the main-

span concept through the 30 percent stage of the proposed

Goethals Bridge improvement project. Prior to joining the

fi rm, Kumarasena partnered with HDR on the CSX Mobile

River vertical lift bridge project in Alabama on behalf of the

U.S. Coast Guard.

Kumarasena’s experience also extends internationally,

including a 900-foot main-span arch bridge in India where he

was able to successfully address challenging site conditions

and highly demanding design requirements though

implementation of several innovative design concepts.

Kumarasena holds a B.S. in Civil Engineering, and M.S. and

Ph.D. degrees in Structural Engineering. He is a registered

engineer in Maryland, Massachusetts, California, Washington,

Delaware and New York; a member of the International

Association of Bridge and Structural Engineering and the

American Society of Civil Engineers; and is active in many

technical committees.

Pierre Vilain, Ph.D., has

joined HDR’s economics

and fi nance practice as a Vice

President and will lead the

New York practice.

Before joining HDR, Vilain was a vice

president at Halcrow, Inc., where he led an

economics practice specializing in consulting

services to public- and private-sector clients. Vilain has also

worked for the Louis Berger Group, Econsult Corporation,

the European Investment Bank and the Port Authority of

New York and New Jersey.

Vilain has more than 20 years of experience in transportation

and regional economics and is an expert in demand,

revenue and risk modeling. He has been involved in

numerous public-private partnership initiatives worldwide

and has led a successful policy advisory practice, with

active involvement in transportation policy, urban policy

and regional economic development. His policy advisory

work includes formulating strategies for alternative delivery,

pricing, investment programming, local tax structure and

industrial incentives.

Vilain holds a Ph.D. in regional science from the University

of Pennsylvania, a master’s degree in economics from New

York University and a bachelor’s degree in political science

and economics from Tufts University. ->

[40]

2775

061

0

8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE 68114-4049

www.hdrinc.com

Pape

r con

tain

s 30%

pos

t-co

nsum

er fi

berPRSRT STD

US POSTAGEPAID

OMAHA, NEPERMIT NO. 963

Spring/Summer 2010

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

A W O R D F R O M T H E D I R E C T O R

It’s hard to believe that we’re nearly halfway into

2010. Despite a down economy, our clients are

busier than ever enhancing transportation options

for communities across the globe. But they’re doing

so with limited funding and a greater emphasis on

accountability.

This issue of Transportation Delivered highlights how HDR helps clients

produce credible, transparent and comprehensive transportation

solutions. Florida’s iROX project (pg. 1) will be completed 10 months

ahead of schedule because the owner, builders and designers worked

together with a singular responsibility and objective. The result is a

savings of cost, time and administration — without compromising

quality.

A fundamental tenant of HDR’s project delivery approach is that delivery

of a quality product truly involves every team member. Quality Applied

(pg. 25) discusses HDR’s approach to quality and the way we integrate

quality concepts into all aspects of project development. HDR’s QA/QC

program recognizes that we owe quality products and services to our

clients and the communities we ultimately serve.

One of my favorite articles in this issue is the piece on East African Rail

Expansion (pg. 11). It’s a testament to how transportation networks

aff ect a community’s quality of life and economic competitiveness. I’m

proud to say that from Central Indiana (pg. 15) to East Africa, HDR is

helping communities deliver successful mobility solutions.

I hope you enjoy this edition of Transportation Delivered.

Eric L. Keen, Director of Transportation

Eric Keen, P.E.

Director of Transportationeric.keen@hdrinc.com

Duane Hippe, P.E.

Aviation Market Sector Directorduane.hippe@hdrinc.com Steve Beard

Transit Market Sector Directorsteve.beard@hdrinc.com Tom Smithberger, P.E.

Freight RailroadMarket Sector Directortom.smithberger@hdrinc.com

Nichole Andersen

Planning & Communications Managernichole.andersen@hdrinc.com

Jeff Massengill, P.E.

Maritime Market Sector Directorjeff .massengill@hdrinc.com Ken Hartmann, P.E.

Roadway Market Sector Directorkenneth.hartmann@hdrinc.com David Lewis, Ph.D.

Financial Market Sector Directordavid.lewis@hdrinc.com

Jim Lee, P.E.

Land DevelopmentMarket Sector Directorjim.lee@hdrinc.com

Ken Wall

Editorken.wall@hdrinc.com

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

A B O U T H D R

E D I T O R I A L B O A R D

HDR is an employee-owned architectural, engineering and

consulting fi rm that helps clients manage complex projects

and make sound decisions.

As an integrated fi rm, we provide a total spectrum of services

for our clients. Our staff of more than 7,800 professionals

in 185-plus locations worldwide represent hundreds of

disciplines and partner on blended teams throughout North

America and abroad to provide solutions beyond the scope

of traditional A/E/C fi rms.

To learn more about HDR’s Transportation program, visit us at

www.hdrinc.com/transportation .