Volume 19, Issue 2 | April | May 2012
VOTE YES for T-SPLOST
The GeorGia enGineer
GeorgiaEngineer Publisher: A4 Inc. 1154 Lower Birmingham Road Canton, Georgia 30115 Tel.: 770-521-8877 • Fax: 770-521-0406 E-mail: GeorgiaEngineer@a4inc.com Managing Editor: Roland Petersen-Frey Art Direction/Design: Pamela Petersen-Frey Georgia Engineering Alliance 233 Peachtree Street • Harris Tower, #700 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Tel.: 404.521.2324 • Fax: 404.521.0283 Georgia Engineering Alliance Gwen Brandon, CAE, Executive Director Thomas C. Leslie, PE, Director of External Affairs Carolyn M. Jones, Outreach Services Manager Georgia Engineering Alliance Editorial Board Jeff Dingle, PE, Chairman GSPE Representatives Sam L. Fleming, PE Tim Glover, PE Jimmy St. John, PE ACEC/G Representatives Robin Overstreet Carley Humphreys ASCE/G Representatives Daniel Agramonte, PE Rebecca Shelton, PE GMCEA Representative Birdel F. Jackson, III, PE ITE Representatives Daniel B. Dobry Jr., PE, PTOE John Karnowski ITS/G Representatives Bill Wells Shaun Green, PE WTS Representative Angela Snyder ASHE Representative Ed Culican, PE SEAOG Representative Kurt Swensson, PE
The Georgia Engineer is published bi-monthly by A4 Inc. for the Georgia Engineering Alliance and sent to members of ACEC, ASCE, ASHE, GMCEA, GEF, GSPE, ITE, SEAOG, WTS; local, state, and Federal government officials and agencies; businesses and institutions. Opinions expressed by the authors are not necessarily those of the Alliance or publisher nor do they accept responsibility for errors of content or omission and, as a matter of policy, neither do they endorse products or advertisements appearing herein. Parts of this periodical may be reproduced with the written consent from the Alliance and publisher. Correspondence regarding address changes should be sent to the Alliance at the address above. Correspondence regarding advertising and editorial material should be sent to A4 Inc. at the address listed above.
APRIL | MAY 2012
Advertisements AECOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 AEI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Albany Tech. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Atkins/PBS&J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Ayres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Burns & McDonnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Brown & Caldwell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Cardno TBE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 CDM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Chastain & Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 CROM Prestressed Concrete Tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Cummins Power South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Edwards Pitman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Engineered Restorations Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Foley Arch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 G. Ben Turnipseed Engineers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 GCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Georgia Concrete Paving Association. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Georgia Power Company. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Geosyntec Consultants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Greater Traffic Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Hayward Baker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Back Cover Hazen and Sawyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 HDR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Heath & Lineback Engineers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 HNTB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 JAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Middleton-House & Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Oâ€™Brien & Gere. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Photo Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Pond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Power Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Prime Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 RHD Utility Locating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Rosser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 RS&H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Schnabel Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Silt-Saver Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 S&ME. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Southern Civil Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Southern Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Stevenson & Palmer Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 T. Wayne Owens & Associates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Terrell Hundley Carroll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 TTL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 United Consulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Front Cover Wilburn Engineering LLC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Willmer Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Wolverton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Woolpert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Woodard & Curran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
The GeorGia enGineer
THE GEORGIA ENGINEER
April | mAy 2012
Employment at Private Sector Engineering Firms: More Optimists
Legislative Update on Licensing Restructure
Wicked! No, not the Musical—the Problems.
A Resource for Transportation Professionals
Fueling the Future: The Georgia Regional Future City Competition
Celebrating 100 Years of Georgia Transportation
Construction Progresses on Georgia’s New Nuclear Units
Envision Transportation Assets as Utilities
Hiring: Do It the Steve Jobs Way
What’s in the News
A Different Perspective on the Impact of the Economic Downturn
Institute of Transportation Engineers to Meet in Atlanta
2012 Georgia Engineers Week Awards Gala
APRIL | MAY 2012
ransportation Infrastructure investments provide the platform for economic development, jobs, prosperity, and an expansion of the built environment. The regional TSPLOST referenda hold the possibility of up to $19 billion in direct investment in transportation (or over $10-12 billion if the referenda only pass in metro Atlanta and a handful of the other 11 regions). This results in direct employment for engineers. But that is only the beginning. The economic impact on the state has a fivefold multiplier—a $1 billion investment in transportation creates a $5 billion increase in total state GDP; it stimulates investment is buildings, industries, water/sewer facilities, and those things for which engineers are responsible. v
The GeorGia enGineer
APRIL | MAY 2012
The GeorGia enGineer
Employment at Private Sector Engineering Firms: More Optimists By Thomas C. Leslie | Georgia Engineering Alliance | Director of External Affairs
or the third year in a row, the American Council of Engineering Companies of Georgia conducted a survey of employment at their firmsâ€™ Georgia locations. Following a 27.4 percent decline in headcounts in 2009 and a 6.8 percent decline in 2010, employment increased by 2.3 percent for 2011. These findings seem to track national trends in other metrics; namely that the economy is improving but at an ever so slow pace. The improvement in employment is uneven, however. Significantly, if the largest firm responding to the survey, which also experienced the greatest increase in employment in 2011, is dropped from the data pool, then the remaining 45 firms had an average decline in employment of 1.0 percent. Also, of 46 responding firms, ten reported an increase in employees in 2011, while 16 reported a decrease, and 20 experienced no change. Nonetheless, comparing data from year to year shows that the number of firms with
expanding employment increased from two in 2009 to nine in 2010 to ten in 2011. Conversely, the number of firms with contracting employment declined from 32 in 2009 to 17 in 2010 to 16 in 2011. Firms were also asked if employee hours were reduced through policies such as furloughs or full to part-time. Only four firms reported reducing hours in 2011, compared to 25 in 2010 and 26 in 2009. These data roughly track the same pattern as changes in the responding firmsâ€™ headcounts. The size of firms in Georgia varies widely; from a sole proprietorship to a Georgia operation of an international corporation with hundreds of employees in the state and thousands worldwide. The annual survey sample seems to be representative of this cross-section from one year to the next, with the exception of the very large firms. In 2011, there were an unusually large number of consolidations through mergers and acquisitions. These very large firms have not historically responded to the survey request, and there is no change for 2011. There is no
Table 1. Change in Employment 2009 Total employees at Jan 1* 1,562.5 Total employees at Dec 31* 1,133.7 Change Employees* -428.8 Percent -27.4% Total Firms Reporting 44 Total ACEC Member Firms 240 * full-time equivalent employees
2010 1,896.0 1,767.5
2011 1,341.5 1,372.5
128.5 -6.8% 48 225
+31 +2.3% 46 207
Thomas C. Leslie data available from these surveys to determine the impact of mega-firms on Georgia employment. There are several speculations regarding the absence of mega-firm responses: Georgia is such a small portion of their worldwide operations that it is just not important? It is confidential information? It
Table 2. Employment Prospects for Next Year Next Year is:
Next Year is:
Next Year is:
Layoffs & reduced hours
APRIL | MAY 2012
Table 3. Size Profile of Reporting Firms Number of Firms Firm Size (employees)
401 or more
is unclear who would answer the survey on behalf of the corporation? It seems that employment plans by engineering firms for ‘next year’ reflect a cautious expectation. While fewer firms expect more layoffs and reduced hours than in years past, the change is very modest. Also,
ing the market closely and will hire and fire accordingly”; “We’ll see what happens with the TSPLOST vote.” It is clear that private sector engineering firms, in the aggregate, are close to, or at, the bottom of the economic decline that resulted from the 2008 financial collapse. The Great Recession has had a devastating impact on ACEC member firms. Real estate and construction led the economic ‘bust,’ and engineering design is very closely related. The recovery is weak and, as many economists say, it may take several more years to return to the 2008 employment levels. In March 2012, however, it seems that the optimists in the consulting engineering business outnumber the pessimists, and that in and of itself is good news. v
the number of firms planning new hires next year has increased from 2009 and 2010, but the data does not reflect strong sentiment for 2012. Comments that accompanied this question reflect this tentative outlook: “We may lay-off in early 2012 but hire in the second half ”; “We are watch-
Read the magazine online at: thegeorgiaengineer.com
The GeorGia enGineer
Legislative Update on Licensing Restructure By Thomas C. Leslie | Georgia Engineering Alliance | Director of External Affairs.
ecretary of State Brian Kemp has proposed a radical restructuring of the way occupations/professions are licensed by the existing 43 separate boards staffed by his office. This proposal constituted the most important legislative issue for engineers in the early part of the 2012 General Assembly. By midsession, the proposal was withdrawn due to the absence of support by virtually all licensing boards and several hundred thousand licensees. With the cry of opposition muted by the proposal’s withdrawal, a less strident conversation seems to be occurring. (This is written at the three-quarters mark of the 2012 session.) A recap of the key elements of SB 445 may be helpful. Although the bill is 831 (legal) pages long, the thrust of the bill is far simpler; the length is largely due to the same language change in existing code for 43 separate boards. In SB 445, a Director of Professional Licensing would be designated and would have broad authority related to issuing licensees and taking disciplinary actions. A new ‘super board,’ the Georgia Board of Licensing and Regulation would be composed of seven ‘consumers,’ appointed by the Governor. The existing licensing boards would become “Professional Licensing Policy Boards” (including the Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors) and become advisory to the Licensing Director and the super board. Final authority on most matters (if not all) would rest with the super board, except where it has delegated it to the director. The Policy Boards would do much of what they do now: apply their experience and expertise to questions and issues that are non-routine and make a recommendation rather than rendering a binding decision. It is this aspect of the proposal, the exact relationship between the super board and the policy boards, that has generated the most questions, concerns, and opposition. So what happens now? Secretary Kemp is continuing to meet with representatives of APRIL | MAY 2012
associations and the boards that license their members. He is seeking input from stakeholders for a new bill that is anticipated for the 2013 session. It has been suggested that he should have done this for the current bill. It is doubtful that many people think the current licensing configuration is without fault. From 2006 to 2010 a coalition of engineers and surveyors (Board of Registration Coalition) worked hard to restructure the Board. Issues included (1) inadequate funding (largely due to licensing fees being siphoned off to the General Fund rather than for the Professional Licensing Board (PLB) Division of the Secretary of State’s Office), (2) staff working for the PLB Division Director rather than the Board, (3) the absence of robust disciplinary actions, and (4) a disengagement by licensees from the PELS Board—which was frequently attributed to the notion that “they won’t do anything, so why bother.” Additionally, some on the BOR Coalition cited a wide variety of glitches related to specific applications. Early in 2011, the BOR Coalition concluded that pursuing a legislative solution was just not feasible. In addition, many problems had been resolved due to the diligent work of the Secretary of State’s Office and the strong leadership and energetic work of the members on the PELS Board. Then, just months later the Secretary of State dropped his legislative bomb. It is clear that the Secretary of State heard the gripes and complaints from almost all the boards—in some shape, form, or fashion. In response, the Secretary put forward his proposal. To the angry opposition, he said the easiest thing for him would be to do nothing, to maintain the decades old status quo. In the calming atmosphere of withdrawal, many observers are agreeing that something must be done. While they disagree with the Secretary’s initial proposal, they applaud his boldness for taking action and want to work with him to shape a solution that can gain support. Underlying this controversy is money – not surprising. Secretary Kemp, and almost everyone else believe that the PLB Division is under funded. Part of his rationale for SB
445 was to streamline operations so he could ‘do more with less.’ Another angle on this issue is that the PLB Division should be appropriated a much higher proportion of the fees paid by its licensees… say a phased increase to 90 percent over three years. The issues associated with the PLB Division and operations of the licensing boards will not be mitigated by intentional neglect. Perhaps the 2013 session, when a new proposal by the Secretary of State gains traction, is finally the time to fix a long-standing problem. At that time we can offer a genuine ‘thank you’ to Secretary Kemp for starting down this path. v
Wicked! No, not the Musical—the Problems. Dr. Ruth Middleton House & Doris I. Willmer, PE, FACEC, LEED® AP
icked problems have been around a long time—just not in the technical side of engineering. There we are accustomed to technical complexity but not true wickedness. Until 2008, you could manage your engineering practice the same way you managed an engineering project— using the same verifiable data, having the same predictable outcomes. No longer. Today, the business of engineering is facing ‘Wicked Problems.’ The problems are tough to define, and there don’t seem to be any solutions. This business…is constantly faced with problems that have no apparent solution, in spite of hours and hours of discussion and arguing back and forth. We seem to go in circles and end up back where we started time and time again….Is there a route out of this infinite do loop?—A Business Leader at Gore, parent company of Goretex (Pacanowsky, 1995, p. 39) This is 2012, not 1995; but perhaps you feel caught in the same do loop. Which of these things would you say about that troubling issue your company is dealing with? Check the box in front of every statement that applies. You can’t seem to agree on a clear and concrete definition of the problem. This problem just doesn’t seem to end. You think you’ve arrived at a solution. Then before you can take a deep breath, here it comes again. There doesn’t seem to be any right answer. In fact, now you are asking yourself the question: “What course of action will I least regret?” Not only is there no right answer, there is no tried and tested formula for arriving at the best answer. This problem is like no other. Nothing in your past experience seems to apply. 12
There is no time for trial and error now. Every move you make counts. You just wish you knew (ahead of time) how. You peel away one layer of this problem and there is another. Or two. Or more. There is not one root cause; there are many and interrelated contributors to the issue. Along with the many contributors, there are many possible explanations. And every person in your group has a different opinion about which explanation is most likely. None of these complications gets you off the hook. You will be held accountable and the consequences are significant. How many of these did you check? John Camillus, corporate strategist and Harvard professor, tells us that five is enough. (Camilllus, 2008. p. 99) If you checked five or more of these characteristics, consider yourself faceto-face with a Wicked Problem. (Horst Rittel, the German physicist/researcher/planner, was the first to use this term.) Wicked Problems don’t have ‘right answers.’ Not only is there no right answer, there is no tried and tested formula for arriving at the best answer. Defining the problem is perhaps the biggest part of the problem. With no clear problem definition and no formula for arriving at the best answer, you don’t know what is relevant and what is not. You may not know what really mattered until you arrive at some outcome and look back. In fact, you may not really be able to define the problem until you’ve reached some resolution of it. Aaargh! We are more comfortable with the Tame Problems (another Rittel term) of yesteryear. Unfortunately, the tame approaches we used four or five years ago won’t get good results with the Wicked Problems of today. We must decide and move ahead with less data, less time, and less clarity. Wait for more; lose the opportunity. In fact, applying tame approaches will only make things worse. You are likely to lock into a particular definition of the problem or a particular solution way too soon.
Probably several times. Back to the drawing board again. And again. And again. After every meeting—in which most participants take detailed notes—you will hear sharply different perceptions of what happened: the issues, the key decisions, and the proposed courses of action. “What meeting were they in?” you wonder. You waffle between keeping the team small enough to reach consensus and enlarging it to get more input and more diverse input. You—and others—get so frustrated and so emotional that civility and team process suffer. Sometimes disappear. (Pacanowsky, 1995, p. 39) All of this can get you down. You’re a problem solver. You get things done. What is going on here? Give yourself some credit. You haven’t gotten less competent; the issues have gotten more complex. We like the way Laurence Peter put it: “Some problems are so complex that you have to be highly intelligent and well informed just to be undecided about them.” ~Laurence J. Peter, Peter’s Almanac, September 24, 1982 Undecided or not, you still have to do something. So how do you find a path forward? You can strategize, plan, and implement. In fact, you need to do these things. But the strategies, the plans, and the implementation won’t look like they did before. And you won’t arrive at them in the same way. First, take a look at your pyramid organizational structure. It worked well for delivering tame engineering solutions. (Remember, tame isn’t necessarily easy.) It’s not likely to work well when you are confronting Wicked ProbThe GeorGia enGineer
lems. That pyramid holds the top (you) accountable for strategy; it holds the middle accountable for tactics; and it holds the bottom accountable for implementation. But too much is happening too fast. There’s just too much information for you to process by yourself. No wonder you’re tired! No time for the rest of your organization to wait around while you collect all the data, analyze it, and figure out what to do. The window of opportunity will be gone! No time for discrete steps to unfold in lockstep order. You need to simulcast strategy, tactics and implementation—at all levels and all of the time. (Pacanowsky, 1995, p. 37)
isn’t vulnerable to attack. When you find a Wicked Problem at your doorstep, remember that you will be living with it for a long time. Invite it in, sit with it, listen to it, talk to it, offer it a cup of tea. How? That’s where we will pick up in the next issue with The Wicked Problem Whisperer. v
Next, look at your leadership style. You are probably an excellent transactional leader. You are great at goalsetting and planning; you efficiently execute processes; you’re good at structuring and managing the organization; you wrote the book on command and control. That style worked well with engineering problems. Wicked Problems, on the other hand, are indifferent to it. (Not to worry; transactional leadership will continue to serve you well in very many situations.) Wicked Problems, on the other hand, demand transformational leadership. They will yield only when you explore possibilities, energize, promote different points of view, empower, collaborate. Only then can you find your way through this iterative and confusing tangle of problem definition, potential solutions, actions, and outcomes. (Beinecke, 2009)
Dynamics, 23(3), 36-51.
Bienecke, Richard H. (2009). Introduction: Leadership for wicked problems. Innovation Journal, 14(1), pp. 1-17. Camillus, John. C. (May 2008). Strategy as a wicked problem. Harvard Business
R e -
view, 86(5), pp. 98-106. Pacanowsky, Michael. (Winter 1995). Team tools for wicked problems. Organizational
Peter, Laurence J. (1962). Peter’s almanac. New York: William Morrow & Company. Schumacher, E. F. (1977). A guide for the perplexed. New York: Harper Perennial.
Finally, take a look inside your head. The mindset of logic, linearity, command, and control has served you well. In some situations, it will continue to do so. You can still attack a Tame Problem and deliver the solution. A Wicked Problem, however, simply APRIL | MAY 2012
A Resource for Transportation Professionals Advances in funding, bridge construction, and program delivery help owners do more with less By Ted Zoli, PE | National Bridge Chief Engineer | HNTB Corporation For more about bridges or to download HNTB’s “Limited resources offer opportunity to think about bridges differently” viewpoint, visit: http://www.hntb.com/point-of-view.
ore than one in four U.S. bridges are structurally deficient or funct i o n a l l y obsolete. The need to replace or improve them with ever-shrinking resources is driving innovation and creativity in financing, design, and delivery. Some of the latest developments include: A growing preference for tolling. Nearly half (48 percent) of Americans who responded to a recent HNTB America THINKS survey said in the future they would prefer to pay for the maintenance of existing bridges and construction of new local bridges with tolls rather than higher sales taxes (16 percent), higher gas taxes (12 percent) or higher property taxes (eight percent). Technological advancements are making tolling a more acceptable option for motorists and opening up vast pricing opportunities. Leaps in accelerated bridge construction Innovative methods include the use of bridge movement technology to maneuver bridge sections into place, as well as an entirely new bridge design that eliminates superstructure joints. • The Lake Champlain Bridge project in upstate New York was completed in just over two years. Crews constructed the main span off site at the same time the approach spans were built. The center arch was then floated into position on the water and lifted into place. • The U.S. Highway 6 Bridge, a demonstration project in Iowa, eliminated all superstructure joints (to reduce maintenance costs) and used ultra-high performance concrete (to produce a highly efficient, durable structure). The project: 14
Ted Zoli • Reduced construction time and bridge closure by 90 percent. • Shortened bridge replacement to two weeks of traffic disruption.
About the Author~ Zoli, a 2012 ENR Newsmaker and a 2009 MacArthur Foundation Fellows winner, is chief bridge engineer in charge of technical aspects of HNTB’s bridge practice. Contact Zoli at (212) 915-9588 or email@example.com. Transportation Point Extra is distributed by e-mail to professionals in the transportation industry. To be added to the list, send your request to firstname.lastname@example.org. ©
2012 HNTB Companies. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without written permission is prohibited. Photo courtesy of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation v
Less expensive retrofits and rehabilitations Engineers are developing solutions that result in effective, long-lasting infrastructure. • The Huey P. Long Bridge in New Orleans was widened using a span lift strategy that was faster than traditional stick-build methods and minimized impact to local commerce and the community. Continued design-build adoption New York became one of the newest states to approve design-build legislation in December 2011. Its 1955 Tappan Zee Bridge could be the next major U.S. span to be replaced using design-build. If it’s applied, the multi-billion dollar project could be designed in one year and constructed in four. As an industry, creativity, innovation, and inspiration in the engineering and design process are the drivers that will maximize our investment and deliver real economic growth. The GeorGia enGineer
© Andy Ryan, Photo Courtesy HNTB APRIL | MAY 2012
Fueling the Future: The Georgia Regional Future City Competition
Tony Rizzuto PhD. | Associate Professor | Architecture Department | Southern Polytechnic State University | Chair Georgia Regional Future City Steering Committee 16
The GeorGia enGineer
ur era is increasingly defined by growing concerns with sustainability and the environment, population increases, and the need for cleaner energy. Addressing these concerns requires innovation and creativity, and an increased awareness in our citizenry of how cities and regional centers operate and thrive. Educational programs and competitions play an important role in developing this increased awareness in the next generation and help to secure our future success. The 2012 Future City Competition did just that by challenging its Competition Teams with its theme, Fuel Your Future: Imagine New Ways to Meet Our Energy Needs and Maintain a Healthy Planet. Now in its 19th year, Future City has gained national attention and acclaim for its role in encouraging middle school students to take an interest in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), using hands on applications. Combining research, SimCity4 Deluxe software, and hands on model making, Future City helps students discover how they can make a difference in the world by designing a city of the future for 50,000 inhabitants. This flexible, cross-curricular educational program gives students an opportunity to do the things that professionals in the Engineering, Architecture, and Construction industries do: identify problems, brainstorm ideas, design solutions, test- retest, build, and share their results. With this at its core, Future City builds students’ 21st century skills. Working with a sponsoring Educator and Professional Mentor, Competition Teams, comprised of three middle school students (sixth, seventh or eighth grade), complete the four components of the competition: • A Virtual City designed in SimCity4 Deluxe software • A Research Essay and City Narrative • A Scale Model of a portion of their city • A Presentation of their design concepts
APRIL | MAY 2012
Each Competition Team is asked to design a city for 50,000 residents 150 years in the future. The virtual city component of the competition develops an awareness of how cities function and the kinds of infrastructure they require to thrive and prosper. The 500 word City Narrative provides an introduction to their vision including information about their general concept, life and people, location, creative and innovative infrastructure solutions, housing, city services, and economic base. This essay is accompanied by a 1000 word research essay wherein students conduct research on the year’s topic and use this information to create an innovative solution for the future. As part of their presentation, Competition Teams are required to build a scale model of part of their city using recycled materials. Each model must also have at least one moving part. On the day of competition, each student on the team contributes to a seven minute presentation to the judges that introduces both their city and its unique and creative innovations for the future. Teams from across the Georgia Region compete in the preliminary round for twenty Special Awards and the chance to move on to the finalist round where the top five teams compete for the chance to win the Georgia Regional Competition. The winning team receives an all-expense-paid trip to Washington D.C. to represent our region in the National Future City Competition. This year’s First Prize winner was “Nevaeh (QA2)” from Queen of Angels Catholic School. The Georgia Regional Future City Competition is one of the largest in the nation. This year on January 21, 2012, 142 Competition Teams participated on the campus of Southern Polytechnic State University (SPSU) in Marietta, Georgia. In addition to the 426 student competitors, their educator sponsors, and mentors, the event also had over 180 judges and one hundred volunteers participate. To be a success the Georgia Regional Future City Competition relies on the strength of the professional community who serve as mentors, judges, and volunteers. Working with educators, Future City Mentors serve as coaches, providing insight, helping in problem-solving, and bringing subject 18
Second Place Winners
Third Place Winners
Fourth Place Winners The GeorGia enGineer
area expertise as they work with individual student teams. All mentors are provided with a Mentor Handbook and are provided online training via Bentley Mentor Center for Excellence courtesy of Bentley Systems. Judges review the various components of the competition, including the Virtual City design in Simcity4 Deluxe, the Research and City Narrative Essays, and on the day of competition, the Scale Models and Presentations. Southern Polytechnic State University (SPSU) houses and sponsors the Georgia Regional Future City Competition, providing administrative, logistical, and practical support and overseeing all operational functions of the competition. If you would like to get involved or sponsor the competition, please contact the Georgia Regional Coordinator, Professor Tony Rizzuto Ph.D. at email@example.com. v
APRIL | MAY 2012
Fifth Place Winners
Celebrating 100 Years of Georgia Transportation By Harry E. Strate, PE, M ASCE, T&DI
he last 100 years have been marked by dramatic increases in Georgia’s economy, and civil engineers have been at the forefront of building the infrastructure necessary to support our amazing economic growth. This reflected a collaborative partnership among local, state and federal agencies and the private sector; and reflected the taxpayers’ willingness to invest in their future. At the turn of the century, ‘multimodal’ transportation—railroads, canals, and horse and wagons principally on dirt roads – met the mobility needs of 2.6 million Georgians, 500,000 of whom lived in the Atlanta region. But things were getting ready for a big change, as Henry Ford had just produced the Model A, the Wright Brothers made their first flight, the first electric trolley was established in Atlanta, Savannah was Georgia’s portal to worldwide ocean shipping, and railroads were the key to landside transportation. 1910s In 1915, Henry Ford’s Model T plant came to Atlanta, and people, especially bicyclists and motorists, demanded paved roads to deal with the red Georgia clay. The north-south route of the Dixie Highway between Chicago and Florida was selected and paving began. In 1916, the first Federal-Aid Road Act was passed by Congress, the Georgia Highway Department was created, and the concept of the Federal-Aid Highway Program was created for farm to market roads. The Port of Savannah prospered, and until the 1920s, Savannah was the world's leading exporter of naval stores products, including pine timber, rosin, and distilled turpentine. Savannah's exports, chiefly cotton and naval stores, were greater than the combined exports of all other south Atlantic seaports. 1920s – 1930s In an event probably little noticed at the 20
time, but of great future significance to Georgia, a crop dusting company got its start in Macon in 1924. This company would grow to become Delta Airlines. By 1930, when the city of Atlanta purchased Candler Field for an airfield, and Eastern Airlines began regular flights between Atlanta and New York City, Atlanta’s airport had 16 flights a day, making it the third largest in the United States! Culminating in the 1920s, bridge and structural engineering was a key to the development of downtown Atlanta. Perhaps the first ‘Livable Communities Initiatives,’ the ‘Viaducts of Atlanta’ were created to facilitate numerous at-grade crossings of roads and railroads. Atlanta had at least six major rail lines entering the city; humans, animals, autos, and trucks were in conflict with the rail. The first viaduct was the Broad Street Bridge, which was rebuilt several times, including an iron version built in 1854. Alabama Street, between Peachtree Street and Central Avenue, was at the city’s center, and it would become Underground Atlanta (which later opened as a redevelopment in 1989). Several of the viaducts included Mitchell Street (1899), Peachtree Street (1901); Spring Street (1923); Pryor Street (1929); and Central Avenue viaduct (1929). 1940s - 1950s In the 1940s, with 3.1 million Georgians, transportation activity began to pick up. While rural highway construction continued in earnest, Georgia’s first four lane ‘super highway’ was opened between Atlanta and Marietta. Looking to the future, Atlanta voters authorized $16 million to begin purchasing land for the Downtown Connector—currently, the shared route for Interstates 75 and 85 through downtown Atlanta. The Georgia Ports Authority was created in 1945. During the Eisenhower Administration, Federal transportation legislation was passed that would support the astounding growth and development destined for Georgia. In 1954, the US Rivers and Harbors Act
funded deepening and widening the Savannah River. After a series of Federal-Aid Highway Acts, the 1956 act was passed by Congress and signed by President Eisenhower initially creating a 41,000 mile system paid for by motor fuel taxes—users of the system. Finally, in 1958, Congress created what would become the Federal Aviation Administration that would govern air traffic, airport expansion, regulate safety throughout the industry, and provide a basis for a trust fund to make airport specific improvements paid for by air travelers. The effects of these dramatic pieces of legislation were felt almost immediately in Georgia. Not only was the Port of Savannah dramatically expanded, but the Downtown Connector was opened, and work began on a new $21 million terminal that would be the largest in the country, designed to accommodate over six million travelers a year. It opened in 1961, and was immediately tested with 9.5 million passengers in the first year. 1960s – 1970s Using the resources of the congressionally enacted Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 providing 50 percent of the funding, the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) was authorized by the State legislature in 1965, but it took 14 years before the first MARTA rail service was opened between Avondale Estates and the Georgia State station. In 1971, Georgia State Route 400, a limited access highway was opened from I-285 to its terminus just south of Dahlonega. I-285 was completed in 1970. While the last downtown rail passenger station was closed in 1971, the Atlanta Airport was renamed William B. Hartsfield International Airport as Eastern Airlines began services to Mexico City. Also during this time, I-75 near Cartersville was completed thus replacing the Dixie Highway as the primary north-south route in Georgia. In fact, all border to border interstates – I-20, I-75, I-85, and I-95 – were completed by 1977. The GeorGia enGineer
1980s - 1990s By 1980, there were 5.5 million Georgians ,with 2.2 million in the Atlanta region. Driven by increasing population, employment, and travel demands the Georgia Department of Transportation implemented the ‘Freeing the Freeways’ program in the 1980s directed at relieving congestion. The project took 17 years to complete at a cost of $1.5 billion. As part of this program, the Downtown Connector was widened from three to 6/7 lanes in each direction, and ‘Spaghetti Junction’ was constructed at the interchange of I-285 and I-85 in DeKalb County. Georgia 400 was widened from four to eight lanes in 1989, but it took until 1993 before Georgia 400 inside the perimeter from I-85 to I285 was opened. In all, total lane miles more than doubled in Atlanta from 900 to 1,851 lane miles during the 1980s. After nearly doubling the lanes-miles on Atlanta Freeways, the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) recognized that the key to future efficiency and safety rested with improved traffic operations. The Georgia NaviGAtor, an Advanced Traffic Management System was activated in 1996, and included traffic cameras, changeable message signs, ramp meters, a traffic speed sensor system, and anonymously tracking cell phones to gauge vehicle speed. Several notable bridge structures were designed and constructed around Georgia. Completed in November 1990, the new Talmadge Memorial cable-stayed bridge replaced the old Talmadge cantilever truss bridge (built in 1953), which had become a danger for large ships entering the port of Savannah. The Sidney Lanier Bridge opened in 2003 and is a cable-stayed bridge that spans the Brunswick River, carrying four lanes of U.S. Route 17. When inaugurated, this 480 feet tall bridge was the longest spanning bridge in Georgia. 2000s By 2000, Georgia’s population numbered 8.2 million, with the Atlanta Region accounting for about half or 4.1 million people. Since the Freeing the Freeways program, completion of Georgia 400 inside the Perimeter in 1993, and opening of MARTA’s E-W and NAPRIL | MAY 2012
S lines in 1979 and 1981, respectively, no major transportation capacity had been added until Sandy Springs and North Springs Stations were opened on the MARTA North Line in 2000. Following the trend established by reuse of the Viaducts of Atlanta and the Five Point MARTA Station for the creation of Underground Atlanta in 1989, redevelopment of old manufacturing sites was undertaken. Atlantic Station is a brownfield redevelopment in Midtown Atlanta that opened in 2005 on the site of the closed Atlantic Steel Foundry. Another significant development project was Lindbergh City Center which opened in 2002. It is an example of Transit Oriented Development that takes advantage of the accessibility provided by MARTA’s Doraville and North Springs lines and connection through downtown to Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport. Other brownfield redevelopment is underway in Hapeville near Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport and contemplated in Doraville adjacent to the MARTA Station and I-285.
necessary statewide. Current projects are underway, such as the Jimmy Deloach Connector to provide a high level of last mile accessibility to the port of Savannah, now the fourth largest and fastest growing container port in the nation. Construction is beginning on the Atlanta Street Car to support tourism, economic development, and mobility needs in downtown Atlanta. Other transportation proposals through the Regional Transportation Referendum are being advanced throughout the state to meet the needs of our growing population and sustain our quality of life. The importance of making public investments in transportation infrastructure rests at the heart of our state’s economic future.v About the Author: Harry E. Strate, PE, is a member of ASCE and former Chairman of the Atlanta Chapter of the Transportation and Development Institute. Mr. Strate is a Vice President for Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. and serves as the Transportation Practice Leader for the Southeastern Region.
The Next One Hundred Years As of 2010, the population of Georgia is 9.7 million, with 60 percent living in the Atlanta region. In the future, population and employment are expected to continue to grow. The Atlanta Regional Commission projects that by 2040, the 20 county Atlanta region will grow to nearly 8.3 million, and, if past relationships hold, that would suggest a population for all of Georgia between 12 to 13 million people. As the United States emerges from the ‘Great Recession,’ it is literally and figuratively at a cross-road with its transportation system. Georgia’s past success has been marked by making public and private investment in transportation infrastructure to take advantage of rapidly evolving technology as a player in the global economy. The challenge for the next decades will be to maintain and operate our existing infrastructure while investing and building for the future. To support this development, additional transportation infrastructure will be 21
Construction Progresses on Georgia’s New Nuclear Units By Steve Higginbottom
Plant Vogtle Units Three and Four near Waynesboro, Georgia, took a major step forward Dec. 22, 2011, when the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced it had certified Westinghouse Electric Co.’s AP1000 reactor design. Georgia Power, a Southern Company subsidiary, owns 45.7 percent of the new units. 22
The GeorGia enGineer
The certification brings Southern Company subsidiary Southern Nuclear one step closer to receiving the first Combined Construction and Operating License (COL) for a U.S. nuclear plant. “This is another key milestone for the Vogtle project and the nation's nuclear renaissance,” said Southern Company Chairman, President, and CEO Thomas A. Fanning. “The NRC’s action confirms the AP1000 design is safe and meets all regulatory requirements. The commission now has all of the technical information needed to issue the Vogtle COL.” Upon receipt of the COL, full construction can commence at the site. The NRC will determine when a public vote on the Vogtle COL will occur. Unit Three continues on track for operation in 2016 and Unit Four in 2017. Southern Company subsidiary Southern Nuclear, based in Birmingham, Alabama, is overseeing construction and will operate the two new 1,100-megawatt AP1000 units for Georgia Power and coowners Oglethorpe Power Corporation, the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and Dalton Utilities. In addition to Plant Vogtle, Southern Nuclear also operates two other nuclear plants: Hatch, near Baxley, Georgia, and Farley, near Dothan, Alabama. Plant Vogtle was constructed with the option to expand. Why Nuclear? The most cost-effective, reliable, and environmentally responsible fuel source today, for mass or baseload generation of electricity, is nuclear. Nuclear energy fits in Southern Company’s mix of smart energy sources. It’s a proven technology that produces no greenhouse gas emissions and can relieve cost uncertainty caused by coal and natural gas prices. By 2030, electrical demand is projected to increase 27 percent in the Southeast. Additionally, current and pending legislation and environmental standards are impacting electricity generation fueled by coal. The company is planning to use nuclear units to extend reliable and affordable supplies of electricity in the Southeast. APRIL | MAY 2012
Nuclear generation is projected to be more cost effective than traditional coal and gas resources. Vogtle Units Three and Four are expected to save Georgia customers up to $6 billion in lower electricity rates over the life of the units as compared to a coal or natural gas plant. Nuclear energy is estimated to be between 15 percent to 40 percent less expensive than wind generation and 50 percent to 80 percent less expensive than solar in the southeastern United States. Nuclear capacity can be built to meet local energy demand growth in Georgia. Wind and solar have limited availability in the Southeast and do not offer economic-scaled options. Construction Progresses The construction of the two new electric generating units at Plant Vogtle continues with more than 1,700 personnel focused on safety and quality in their everyday tasks. Work at the site is being done under what’s referred to as a ‘Limited Work Authorization.’ Approved by the NRC, it gives SNC the authority to perform specific safety-related work such as pouring foundations, installing backfill, and doing specified work on the ‘nuclear island’—the area where the nuclear-related components for the new units will be placed. Approximately 300 sections of ten-foot diameter concrete and steel Circulating Water System (CWS) pipes are being put in place for Vogtle Unit Four. Most of the Vogtle Unit Three CWS piping is already set and has been covered with concrete and soil. The CWS pipes will be used to recirculate large quantities of water between the units’ two cooling towers and their respective turbine building condensers. Several million cubic yards of special soils were backfilled and compacted during the excavation of the two new units. More backfilling will take place in the years ahead as the turbine building is constructed. The nuclear islands for Units Three and Four were lined with retaining walls and now extend 40 feet into the ground. The first components that will be put in place inside the nuclear islands are the CR-10 modules. These are the cradles on which the containment vessels will sit. Work
is currently under way on the Unit Three CR-10 at the Containment Vessel Cradle Assembly Pad. Once in place, each CR-10 module and containment vessel bottom will be surrounded by concrete. Between the two nuclear islands is the circular platform for the heavy lift derrick crane. The platform is surrounded by a 300 foot diameter rail-track. This will allow the crane to place the 1,000-ton sections of the containment vessels and large structural modules inside each of the nuclear islands. The first parts of the crane assembly are being placed on the track now, and the 560foot boom is being assembled. Some 3,500 construction workers will be employed on the site at the height of construction. The new units will bring some 800 permanent positions to the Burke County site. Plant Vogtle Units Three and Four represent a $14 billion investment in the state of Georgia. The Georgia Public Service Commission certified $6.1 million of that for Georgia Power as a 45.7 percent owner of the new units. In June of last year, Southern Company, on behalf of Georgia Power, accepted the first conditional commitment in loan guarantees from the DOE. Negotiations between Southern Company and DOE continue, and guarantees should be finalized after the company receives the Combined Operating License. These loan guarantees will result in Georgia Power customers saving approximately $20 million in interest costs annually over the expected life of the loans. That total savings will depend on the final terms of the loans. Southern Company’s exceptional financial strength and 30-year history of safely operating nuclear plants make it a solid, credit-worthy candidate for the DOE loan guarantee. The company is uniquely positioned to meet the obligations of its DOE loan guarantee commitment, which, when combined with other regulatory mechanisms, will provide customers nearly $1 billion in benefits.v 23
Envision Transportation Assets as Utilities By Peter Rahn | HNTB
very day across America, public utilities dutifully provide us with the comforts and conveniences of life. Flip a switch and the light goes on. Raise the thermostat and the gas furnace blazes. Turn the faucet and water rushes forth. While we might take these modern conveniences for granted, we also do not question the necessity of the electric, gas, and water bills we receive. We understand that these utilities cost money and that, since we use them, we must pay for them. Why, then, don’t we view our transportation assets—such as roads, bridges, and tunnels—in the same light? They are in every way like public utilities. We use these assets every day to connect us to the world. We commute, recreate, and travel long distances on them, and all of the goods and services we enjoy make daily use of these assets. Yet, there is a general tendency among the public to view these assets as ‘build-itonce-and-forget-it’ systems, rather than as utilities that require continuing attention and investment. The result is a persistent shortage of appropriate funding for these assets as politicians fear voter reprisals should they raise taxes or initiate tolls. There is one way to break this impasse: Take the bold step of transforming our transportation assets into functioning public utilities. We need only look at the success of our electricity, gas, and water utilities for inspiration. In the U.S., the mechanism for funding these necessities is public utility commissions. Independent boards across the country are responsible for ensuring utility companies have enough revenue to meet the public need, but not so much that they generate excessive income. By removing politics from transportation funding, new independent commissions could regularly adjust fuel tax rates and other fees to ensure our transportation network’s long-term viability. These independent transportation rate commissions could be formed at both the state and federal levels of government. To keep the process in check, Congress or the corresponding state legislature would have 24
the power to overturn by a super majority vote any decision the commissions make. In the states, a public utility approach would ensure safe, adequate surface transportation systems while giving an independent commission oversight authority to prevent transportation agencies from collecting more revenue than is necessary to serve the public’s interest. Commissions have gotten tough jobs done at the federal level. When politics interfered with the need to fund certain necessary activities, the solution has been to move to empowered independent commissions. We’ve seen it happen with the Postal Rate Commission and with the military’s Base Realignment and Closure Commission. In fact, there are examples where successful commissions have built and maintained high-profile infrastructure assets as well. The engineering marvel we know as the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel is run
not by the Virginia DOT, but by a commission made up of representatives from various adjacent counties. They own, operate, and maintain the 17.6-mile complex, using tolls to fund new construction and maintenance. Look farther back in history—75 years—and you’ll find the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission, which was formed to create a bridge between the U.S. and Canada at the site of one of the world’s most impressive natural features. The NFBC now runs three bridges in that region, dealing with the extraordinary challenges of crossing international boundaries and severe environmental conditions. Yet the NFBC has been able to successfully run its operation, supporting itself through tolls, tenant leases, and bonds. Such a time-tested model deserves a closer look. Explore THINK resources at hntb.com/think. v
The GeorGia enGineer
The Huey P. Long Bridge in Jefferson Parish, La., is one of three primary Mississippi River crossings in the greater New Orleans area, and the longest railroad bridge in the U.S. where approximately 50,000 vehicles cross daily. These photos are from June 19, 2010, when the first of three massive segments were lifted in place as part of the $1.2 billion Huey P. Long Bridge Widening Project. The pre-assembly and lift organization was coordinated by HNTB Corporation. The approach was to build the truss on the riverbank, float it downstream and then lift it into place without top or bottom bracing, which saved time and money. APRIL | MAY 2012
Hiring: Do It the Steve Jobs Way By Patrick Valtin
im was the perfect candidate with many years of solid experience as a professional sales rep and had an obvious talent of persuasion and communication skills. But the hiring manager had some strong reservations during the interview. Jim’s strong focus on results ‘right now’ and a certain aggressiveness that could probably overwhelm or upset clients were some of the weaknesses he was concerned about. In regards to Jim’s focus on the purposes of the company, its role in the community, the vital importance of innovation, and unselfish dedication to excellence, he did the perfect job. He sold himself like never before and got hired. Four months later, Jim was fired for lack of vision, lack of dedication, and worst of all, for his lack of honesty in his intentions. The manager knew he had to hire ‘the Steve Jobs way,’ but had no real clue as to how to do it. He hired what he saw and what he heard ‘at the moment.’ He was trapped into Jim’s salesmanship talent. And he was fooled by Jim’s hidden intentions: to get the job, ‘no matter what needs to be said…’
Innovation-minded. Steve Jobs always emphasized the vital importance of hiring people who are innovative—willing to create something from nothing. Applicants are first chosen for their ability and willingness to constantly create, rather than for their technical competence. Future-minded. Employees at Apple are driven by their leader’s vision of the future and they contribute everyday to creating the future, more than just beating the competition. Each of them owns the future of the market because they know they can contribute to creating it. The eagerness to create, not follow the future is a vital attribute observed in top players, no matter the industry. Vision-minded. Everyone joining the company must have a clear picture of its management vision—and fully agree to fight for it, to defend it, and to live with it every day. Applicants who do not seem to get it are systematically rejected. When you hire people who don’t seem to agree with, or care about your company vision, you are potentially employing future enemies.
Passion-minded. Steve Jobs’ first principle is: ‘Do what you love.’ People are hired because they love the product, the company, and its vision. Applicants who do not demonstrate a genuine passion and ‘love’ for the company’s purposes and business philosophy will never make it. Contribution-minded. A statement given by
Steve Jobs’ Hiring Philosophy Steve Jobs was an amazing and unconventional leader in many respects. His reputation as the best entrepreneur of our time can be summarized in a few words: he and his top execs never compromised with the talents and qualifications required of their employees. He personally interviewed over 5,000 applicants during his career. He and his executives considered very different qualities in people than most business owners do. When you thoroughly analyze Apple’s philosophy of hiring, you find out that there has always been fundamental, un-compromising attributes needed to get a job at Apple Inc. You too can apply these attributes when you look at attracting top players and ensure you avoid trouble makers. To help you in the hiring process, here are the main ‘Apple selection attributes.’ 26
The GeorGia enGineer
an Apple recruiter is clear enough: “We didn’t want someone who desired to retire with a gold watch. We wanted entrepreneurs, demonstrated winners, high-energy contributors who defined their previous role in terms of what they contributed and not what their titles were.”
to precisely evaluate honesty. Here are just a few: gaps in the resume, contradictory data between the resume and your standard job application, negative reaction or embarrassment from the applicant to your challenging questions, and lack of accuracy in applicants’ explanations of previous achievements.
So, hire the Steve Job’s way, by all means. But
Engagement-minded. Over two thirds of Americans are not engaged in their workplace. Apple management is strict on employees’ level of commitment. Committed individuals who are inspired by a grand purpose make the whole difference in the most competitive conditions.
Willingness. According to the US Department of Labor, more than 87 percent of employee failures are due to unwillingness to do the job. You can’t simply force someone to do something if they do not want to. Such persons will do what you want in order to keep their job or to avoid penalties. But they will not really put their heart into it.
ter the position—lack of either is enough to
Most applicants will tell you that they are willing, of course. The key to finding out if they are honest is to ask them to prove it. Challenge them to demonstrate that they have been willing to work hard, learn something new, question their old habits, work under tough conditions, etc… The way you do this is simply by asking them to give you specific examples when they had to display such willingness.
is the President of M2-TEC USA Inc. Patrick
Excellence-minded. Steve Jobs was known for his passion of perfection. The company always tries things out until they are perfectly done. The same attitude is expected of every collaborator. Applicants who do not share that passion for excellence do not have a chance. Other Critical Attributes to Evaluate You will notice that these seven points enforced in the Apple’s personnel selection are all personality-related attributes, also called soft skills. They do not always guarantee performance. But the chance of selecting productive people is at least 200 percent higher when focusing on these vital soft skills. It is very well known that recruiters who focus on soft skills in their personnel selection process are, on average, 50 percent more effective in selecting top players. So, in order to avoid falling in the momentary personality trap—as the hiring manager in the above example did, you should also focus on the following two basic soft skills:
don’t forget these two basic attributes in the same process. Inform applicants that your company values and management philosophy imply honesty and willingness/positive attitude as primary selection criteria, no matbe considered unqualified! v About the Author Patrick Valtin is the author of No Fail Hiring and a 24-year veteran coach and trainer in the fields of management and human resources. He has personally trained 85,000 business owners and executives from over 30 countries in the last 23 years on the subjects of business strategies, leadership and people management, hiring, sales, and marketing. For more information, please visit www.nofailhiring.com, www.m2tec.com or call (877) 831-2299.
Honesty. Did you know that one third of all business failures in the USA are due to employee theft? Also, 95 percent of all US companies are victims of theft, and yet only ten percent ever discover it. So this is definitely a crucial criterion to evaluate. Everybody recognizes the importance of honesty so it would make sense to evaluate it PRIOR to evaluating any other soft skill, wouldn’t it? There are strong indicators which allow you APRIL | MAY 2012
W h a t ’ s
t h e
NEWS Brian Allen Named SVP of Business Development for GS&P Transportation Allen Will Expand Client Base, Existing Services As Part of Regional Growth Eﬀorts Gresham, Smith and Partners announces Brian Allen has been named senior vice president of business development for the firm’s Transportation market. As SVP, Allen will lead new business development efforts in the Southeast and help to build on relationships with existing clients. “Brian’s experience with countless transportation projects and issues, working alongside leaders from DOTs and municipalities and with elected officials and other consultants, will be a tremendous addition to our Transportation leadership team,” commented Marshall Elizer, Jr., P.E., PTOE, executive vice president of Transportation, Gresham, Smith and Partners. “We are committed to growing our client base and taking our current client services to the next level. Brian’s skills and resources will serve as excellent tools for us to expand our efforts in delivering practical, achievable, technologically advanced transportation solutions.” “Having grown up in the Atlanta area where transportation was always at the forefront of development discussions, my interest in the transportation industry developed early,” said Allen. “Now, I’m excited about the growth potential I see for the entire Southeast region and I look forward to contributing to its development through my role at GS&P. The firm’s multi-discipline, community-minded approach makes it a true leader in transportation engineering and planning, and I’m confident that we’ll continue to expand our contributions at a local, state, and regional level.” Allen has nearly 35 years of professional experience, including serving as the director 28
of the Gwinnett County Department of Transportation for the last 15 years. While at the DOT, Allen oversaw the maintenance of more than 2,750 miles of county-maintained roadway throughout 15 cities, the county’s bus transit system, and Gwinnett County Airport at Briscoe Field, one of the busiest general aviation airports in Georgia. In partnership with the Georgia DOT, he coordinated the county’s efforts to identify and certify as ‘shovel-ready’ nearly $80 million of transportation projects funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). He also managed the effort to deliver more than $1 billion of Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax-funded roadway widening, extension, and improvement projects throughout his career, including the well-known I-85 & Route 316 Interchange
in Duluth, Georgia. Allen has been professionally active with numerous local, state, and federal government agencies and organizations such as the Gwinnett Chamber of Commerce, the Association County Commissioners of Georgia (ACCG), the American Public Works Association, the Georgia Institute of Transportation Engineers, the Atlanta Regional Commission,, and the American Public Transportation Association. v GS&P Announces Jamie Cochran SVP of Transportation Planning New Planning Practice Leader Will Head Up Project Strategy, Development Eﬀorts Gresham, Smith and Partners announces Jamie Cochran, AICP, has been named senior vice president of transportation planning for the firm’s Transportation market. As SVP, Cochran will lead GS&P’s firmwide transportation planning practice by managing project strategy, business development, and client relationships across offices. “Jamie’s extensive experience in transportation planning is a great complement to our existing staff ’s capabilities,” commented
The GeorGia enGineer
courses in urban transportation and community planning. v
Jamie Cochran Marshall Elizer, Jr., P.E., PTOE, executive vice president of Transportation, Gresham, Smith and Partners. “Her technical expertise in transportation policy, planning, and multimodal mobility coupled with her background in project management, staff development and new business pursuits will not only help GS&P grow its share in the transportation planning industry, but also take our current client services to the next level.” “I’m excited to join the GS&P team and begin expanding our group’s planning services,” said Cochran. “I’ve always been passionate about transportation; I see it as an enormous component in individuals’ and communities’ quality of life. By utilizing my planning experience and capitalizing on my desire to improve people’s daily lives through smart, successful transportation projects, I look forward to continuing the firm’s longstanding tradition of delivering the very best, top-quality work.” Cochran has more than 30 years of experience in the transportation and infrastructure consulting industries. She most recently served as vice president and market leader for planning and transit at a major infrastructure consulting firm in the Southeast. She has worked on transportation plans for the Georgia and Florida Departments of Transportation, the Atlanta Regional Commission, Henry and Paulding Counties in Metro Atlanta, and the Houston-Galveston (Texas) Area Council. Cochran is also an adjunct professor in the Georgia Institute of Technology’s City and Regional Planning Program, where she teaches undergraduate APRIL | MAY 2012
Stantec’s Brett Northenor Named Among NSPE’s 2012 New Faces of Engineering Brett Northenor, P.E., a project engineer with Stantec in Macon, Georgia, has been named a top five finalist in this year’s National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) ‘New Faces of Engineering’ recognition program. Held annually to coincide with Engineer’s Week (February 19-26, 2012), the program promotes the accomplishment of young engineers by highlighting their engineering contributions and resulting impact on society. Northenor, a civil engineer, works on water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure projects throughout the Southeast. He has been design engineer for a number of projects, including two recognized by the American Council of Engineering Companies for their excellence in promoting sustainable design. One of these was the cost-effective overhaul of the ageing Tifton (Georgia) Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant which was designed to cut electricity cost by 40 percent. Northenor promotes sustainable infrastructure design throughout rural communities where budgets are particularly strained. Outside of work, Northenor volunteers with non-profit organizations such as the March of Dimes and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital where he does
fundraising, event planning, and Web site design and maintenance. Northenor holds a bachelor’s degree in engineering, specializing in environmental engineering from Mercer University and is currently pursuing his master’s degree in the same field. Each year, the National Engineers Week Foundation—a coalition of engineering societies, major corporations, and government agencies—asks its members to nominate colleagues 30 years old and younger who have shown outstanding abilities and leadership. As an Engineers Week sponsoring society, NSPE names five young working engineers who are NSPE members for recognition in the program each year. Information on all the New Faces nominees can be found at www.eweek.org. Stantec provides professional consulting services in planning, engineering, architecture, interior design, landscape architecture, surveying, environmental sciences, project management, and project economics for infrastructure and facilities projects. We support public and private sector clients in a diverse range of markets at every stage, from the initial conceptualization and financial feasibility study to project completion and beyond. Our services are provided on projects around the world through approximately 11,000 employees operating out of more than 170 locations in North America and four locations internationally. v
A Different Perspective on the Impact of the Economic Downturn Daniel B. Dobry, Jr., P.E., PTOE | Traffic Engineering Manager | Croy Engineering, LLC
nquestionably the economic downturn over the last several years has caused many negative influences affecting everyone’s lives. The high unemployment rate is an indicator of the difficulty businesses have had creating jobs in a struggling economy. And for those out-of-work folks who need those jobs, the lack or dramatic decrease in income has forced many to adjust their lifestyles to maintain a sustainable standard of living. However, with all of these negative goin’-ons, the world as we know it did not collapse. We human beings are adaptable, and we make the necessary changes to survive. One part of my upbringing was to look for the silver lining in every cloud. So with the enumerable challenges we have all faced, some not-so-bad news can be gleaned. In the following paragraphs, two of the positives that have been experienced related to highway travel and air quality will be presented. As part of the Alternatives Analysis (AA) study in the Northwest Transit Corridor (for current information, visit www.cobbdot.org/connectcobb.htm), a telephone survey was conducted of close to 800 voters. A majority of the respondents stated that for transportation, their primary concern was reducing congestion. The average single occupant vehicle commuter during the peak periods would tend to agree. As transportation professionals, addressing this challenge is very important. But whatever system, or tool kit of multi-modal transportation systems, are put in place, providing reduced travel times as safely as possible should always be in the forefront. There are continuous efforts at all levels of government to reduce not only the number of crashes but their severity as well. A current program being promoted by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) relates to Proven Safety Countermeasures. 30
Visit their Web site at safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/ to get information on the latest FHWA-recommended set of research-proven safety countermeasures. The updated list was developed based on recent safety research to address intersection, roadway departure, and pedestrian issues wherever they may occur. Many of these countermeasures are low-cost solutions, and implementing them can reap the benefits of using solutions that are known to save lives. Interestingly enough, a review of certain annual statewide review indicate that since the onset of the economic downturn, our thoroughfares have been functioning more safely. This is exhibited primarily by the consistent reduction in the number of crashes. The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) collects and compiles crash statistics on the State’s roadway system. After an entire calendar year’s statewide crash data has been analyzed, GDOT produces its Statewide Mileage, Travel, & Accident Data. For each roadway classification, statistics are reported on the number of occurrences and
the rates for total crashes, injury crashes, and fatalities. For all roadways on a statewide basis (data is also available for the individual classifications of roadways), these statistics for the years 2003 through 2009 (the most recent year the data is available) are shown in the table below. The crash information shows that prior to 2005, the number of crashes and their rates were increasing. After 2006, the annual vehicle miles of travel started to and continued to decrease with an upturn in 2009. In conjunction with fewer miles traveled, the number of crash occurrences and their associated rates, reported in per 100 million vehicle miles (MVM), have decreased as well. Consequently, the chances of being in a crash on Georgia’s thoroughfares have gone down. An analysis cause and effect for crashes is performed to identify potential corrective measures that could have the biggest benefit in making the street, or intersection, safer. And there are a myriad of factors that contribute to a crash occurring. But it seems hard to deny that drivers have changed their behaviors while dealing with their economic
Annual Vehicle Non-fatal Injury Non-fatal Injury All Accidents Miles Accidents All Accidents Accidents (per 100 MVM) (millions) (per 100 MVM)
The GeorGia enGineer
challenges, and we are literally running into each other less and less. A little more difficult to put a finger on is that drivers are more conscious of their trip characteristics and are planning the travel time and routes to minimize their costs. Understanding that there are a number of interrelated factors that impact highway safety, since the start of the country’s economic problems, driving Georgia’s highways has become less dangerous. Monitoring and reporting on air quality is performed to protect the public health (especially for those respitorially sensitive groups) and environmental quality. The Air Protection Branch of the Environmental Protection Division of Georgia’s Environmental Protection Division has been monitoring air quality in the State of Georgia for more than 30 years through their Air Monitoring Program. The list of compounds monitored has grown to more than200 pollutants using several types of samplers at sites statewide. The resulting data is reported annually and the most recent compilation is the 2010 Ambient Air Surveillance Report. The full report can be downloaded from their Web site at www.air.dnr.state.ga.us/amp. The production of the 2011 report is in process. I’ll be the first to admit that environmental science is not my strong suit and that there are a myriad of factors (least of all Mother Nature) and processes that impact air quality and what is being presented here APRIL | MAY 2012
only scratches the surface. A number of technological advancements, regulations, and policies have had positive impacts over time. What is being conveyed, though, is that even as these actions have had their effect, there are other recent events that have had an even greater influence on these trends. In July 1997, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an eighthour ozone evaluative standard that was intended to replace the older one-hour standard. This eight-hour standard is met when the average concentration of ozone is measured to be equal to or less than 0.085 parts per million (ppm). In March of 2008, the ozone primary standard level was lowered to 0.075 ppm for the eight-hour averaging time. The figure above shows how past air quality measurements in the Atlanta metropolitan region would relate to both the old standard and the new standard with regards to the number of days that exceed the minimum requirements. Even though there has been a great deal of fluctuation over the past 25 years, there has been a gradual reduction in the number of days exceeding both ozone standards. The recent decrease in exceedance days and its most dramatic decreases to its lowest levels have occurred after 2005. Another important activity of the Ambient Monitoring Program is to effectively reach out and educate the citizens of Georgia
about the effects and status of air pollution. The most prominent method is through the announcements of smog alerts and information provided in the Air Quality Index (AQI). The AQI is a national air standard rating system developed by the US EPA and it provides to the public, on a daily basis, air pollution levels and possible related health risks. The larger the AQI number, the greater the level of air pollution present, and the greater the expectation of potential health concerns. Between 1985 and 2005 the number of days with an AQI above 100 has been relatively cyclic. However, after 2005, the days with an AQI above 100 have decreased to their lowest levels, a time frame consistent with the economic downturn. The information presented here regarding the safety conditions of our State’s highways and the quality of our air are an oversimplification of very complex and complicated issues. However, this analysis in no way is intended to make light of the economic challenges our country faces and the serious consequences that have been felt in the engineering community. It has greatly pained me over the last few years every time I’ve learned about more and more of my engineering brethren who have either lost their jobs or accepted re-assignments to continue to receive a paycheck. And I hope that all of those that have suffered through these tough economic times are once again able to secure their desired level of employment within their chosen career. Here’s hoping that when we get back to more stable and prosperous times, that we continue to enjoy travels that are less likely to include experiencing a crash and cleaner air to breath.
e author would like to thank Michelle McIntosh of Croy Engineering for her assistance in the research and reporting of the GDOT crash data and Susan Zimmer-Dauphinee and Janet Aldredge of Georgia’s EPD Ambient Monitoring Program for their time and eﬀort in providing the air quality information. v 31
Institute of Transportation Engineers to Meet in Atlanta By John D. Edwards | Honorary Member | ITE
he ‘Engineering and Urban Planning Communities’ in Georgia is indeed fortunate to have the opportunity to attend an international meeting of the Institute of Transportation Engineers right here in our capital city. The meeting is scheduled for August 1215, 2012, at the Westin Hotel in downtown Atlanta. This is an unusual opportunity for engineers-the last international meeting of the Institute was in Atlanta in 1978 with 1250 members and spouses attending. This year’s meeting will officially begin on Sunday, August 12, with Keynote Speakers; a review of our T-Splost Campaign (What We Did Right, What We Did Wrong); reports from national transportation experts; technical projects and reports, and an exhibition of transportation products and programs.
Persons listed as possible speakers are:
There are over 30 technical sessions scheduled, ten-12 seminars which provide Pro-
Mr. Thomas Brahms, CEO, the Institute of Transportation Engineers
fessional Development Hours (PDH) of credit for registered engineers, 65-70 trans-
Martin Bretherton, Past Chairman, Traffic Engineering Council, Institute of Transportation Engineers
portation products exhibitors, and 25
Mr. Keith Golden, Commissioner, Georgia Department of Transportation
and Transportation Officials, the Federal
Mr. Todd Long, Director of Planning, Georgia Department of Transportation
transportation award winners selected by the American Association of State Highway Highway Administration, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, the Intelligent Transportation Society of America, and the Transportation Research Board. In addition to the speakers and sessions, the 2012 exhibits will include trans-
Rock Miller, President, Institute of Transportation Engineers
Mayor Kassim Reed, Mayor, City of Atlanta
ment, consulting firms offering transporta-
products and equipment, signal equiption services, and other related items. v
The GeorGia enGineer
2012 Georgia Engineers Week Awards Gala
he engineering community gathered for a night of socializing and celebration to honor the outstanding accomplishments made in the profession by individuals and companies at the 2012 Georgia Engineers Week Awards Gala. This annual gala brings together engineers of all disciplines and academia. Steven Sheffield served as the 2012 Engineers Week Chair and representative for the Institute of Transportation Engineers on the Engineers Week Committee. As the chair, Mr. Sheffield was the Master of Ceremony at the Engineers Week Awards Gala and was accompanied by colleagues that represented additional engineering organizations. James Hamilton, P.E. and Edgar Williams, P.E. were on hand for the event representing the American Council of Engineering Companies, as well as, William Wingate III, P.E. and Luther Cox Jr., P.E. for the Georgia Society of Professional Engineers. Their organizations are the sponsoring partners of the Georgia Engineering Alliance which hosts the annual Engineers Week Awards Gala. Top honors for the evening were presented to HDR Engineering Inc., Thomas Furlow, P.E., and Thomas Gambino, P.E. The Engineering Excellence Award Grand Prize was awarded to HDR Engineering Inc. for the Hickory Ridge Landfill Solar Energy Cover. This project has also been honored at the national level. Thomas Furlow, P.E. of JACOBS was named the 2012 Lifetime Achievement Award Recipient for his dedication to the engineering profession and to his community. The Georgia Engineer of the Year was bestowed to Thomas Gambino, P.E. of Prime Engineering Inc. His acceptance speech was a moving tribute to his profession, office staff, family, friends and his adoring wife, Amelia. Special presentations were made to acknowledging exceptional contributions to the profession. Outreach programs that encourage careers in engineering can have a major impact on our country’s future. Southern Polytechnic State University’s APRIL | MAY 2012
e engineering community enjoyed a special evening honoring the profession Dawn Ramsey has been the State Coordinator for the Georgia Future City Competition and a superior advocate for the engineering profession. For the competition, middle school students design a Future City Model incorporating transportation, energy, water and sewer, housing, and much more. Mrs. Ramsey is retiring after many years of devoting most of her time to growing the state’s competition to one of the largest competitions in the country. Southern Polytechnic State University and the Engineers Week Committee worked together to highlight Mrs. Ramsey’s tireless effort on this worthy competition. The American Society of Civil Engineers Georgia Section has reached a major milestone in 2012. The Georgia Engineers Week Committee celebrated ASCE Georgia Section’s 100th Anniversary at the gala. A special video with ASCE Georgia Section President, James Wallace, P.E. and Past President Melissa Wheeler was featured. It was fascinating to learn that Mr. Wallace became a member while in college and has been a member of the Georgia Section for over fifty years. Ms. Wheeler was honored to be the first female president of the section and is working on the planning committee for the programs and events ASCE Georgia Section will host during their Centennial Anniversary.
Dawn Ramsey of SPSU was honored for hard work and dedication to the Georgia Future City Competition.
William Wingate, III congratulates Garrett Bailey of SPSU as the Student Engineer of the Year as Luther Cox, Jr. and Steven Sheﬃeld observe the presentation. The engineering profession is vital to America’s future, and the companies that sponsor the Georgia Engineers Week are essential to the special programs and events that happen during Engineers Week. The Georgia Engineering Alliance would like to thank the 2012 Georgia Engineers Week sponsors.
Platinum Level Sponsor
CH2M HILL HNTB Corporation JACOBS Kimley-Horn and Associates URS Corporation Uzun & Case Engineers, LLC
Gold Level Sponsor Â Bronze Level
Silver Level Sponsor A4 Inc. / The Georgia Engineer AECOM ARCADIS ATC Associates Brown and Caldwell
Intelligent Transportation Society (ITS) Pond & Company Southern Civil Engineers Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME) Thomas & Hutton Engineering Company W.K. Dickson and Company World Fiber Technologies
HNTB and their client Cobb County Department of Transportation received an Engineering Excellence Honor Award.
î Žomas Gambino of Prime Engineering addresses the audience after being named the 2012 Georgia Engineer of the Year.
HDR Engineering Inc. and their client Republic Services were named the 2012 Engineering Excellence Award Grand Prize Recipients.
Dr. Reginald DesRoches of the Georgia Institute of Technology was awarded the Engineer of the Year in Education.
The GeorGia enGineer
James R. Hamilton, PE President ACEC/G
Atlanta- A Megalopolis? I had a very fortunate childhood in Decatur, Georgia. I knew the city’s mayor- my Dad (Jack Hamilton) and he knew a lot of movers and shakers in the metro area including Mayor Hartsfield and, my favorite- Richard Rich (Rich’s Department store). So, when my fifth grade teacher (Mrs. Williams) assigned us to prepare a social studies project about the future of Atlanta, the Mayor (Dad) suggested that I do an expose about Atlanta potentially being a megalopolis (mind you, this is before the sign at the Darlington apartments said our population was even near 1,000,000). My Dad was just home from strategic planning meetings with five other mayors, county leaders from five counties and of course, the Governor and Lt Governor. The term megalopolis came up as a potential future descriptor of the former Marthasville. A megalopolis is a large urban complex and usually involves several cities, towns,
APRIL | MAY 2012
counties, and communities that link together (usually along transit corridors that move people and commerce). Megalopolis is a Greek word for ‘Great City.’ Megalopoli, founded in 371BC is a town in western prefecture of Arcadia and had a characteristic of ‘unbridled growth in all directions.” I recall that I concluded that yes, the ATL could be a megalopolis—no oceans or other geographic constraints to stop us- why not? I recall drawing a map (with no I-285 on it, as it was not built then), showing the region and our neighboring states, and how this megalopolis would grow and grow (smartly mind you) and perhaps connect to the outlying cities—Macon, Columbus, Greenville, Augusta, Chattanooga, and when connected—we have our megalopolis with Atlanta in the middle. My study concluded that climate, resources, and commerce, combined with transportation would be the drivers of our growth. My Dad’s strategic group of the ’60s cited two potential problems
however. Without enough water or great transportation solutions the growth and our economy will suffer—not only in Atlanta, but throughout Georgia. And so, here we are 50 years later and these two issues are at the forefront—water and transportation. If we miss the 2012 opportunities to address these issues, we set the stage for a very difficult future for Atlanta and Georgia going forward. I could write an entire piece on water as I have spent more time there. This is the year for transportation commitment as the TSplost vote inches closer and closer (July 31, 2012). This transportation related vote is likely the most important event for engineers and for all Georgians- I think more important for Georgia than who occupies the White House for the next four years. I am proud to say that ACECG is very involved with the transportation issue. Our advocacy for you includes engaged participation by our ACEC leaders:
CTM (Citizens for Transportation Mobility) Board of Advisors: Tom Leslie, PE, Ed Ellis, PE, and Jay Wolverton, PE sit on this Board for both ACECG and GEA. First Friday Forum: Tom, Ed, and Jay also attend and provide input on behalf of ACECG at the first Friday forum which puts the top state transportation entities of Georgia in one room clarifying policy, priorities, and strategy. CTM Finance Committee: Tom Leslie sits on this Committee. GDOT/TIA Implementation Task Force includes the following ACECG members: Doris Willmer (Willmer Engineering) Jim Hullett (RS&H) Joe Macrina (Wolverton) John Heath (Heath & Lineback) Rick Toole (WR Toole) Terry Kazmerzak (Parsons Brinkerhoff ) Tommy Crochet (McGee Partners) Davita Jenkins (CH2M Hill) Richard Meehan (Lowe Engineers)
contact me, Tom Leslie or Gwen Brandon. Communicate to your personal network of friends and to your colleagues why this is so important—this affects all Georgians. Vote and encourage others to vote on July 31st—even if you have to submit via absentee ballot!! Whether or not Atlanta becomes a
megalopolis is secondary to how GREAT Georgia is—passing the TSplost is an important piece to our future. Show up on 7/31/2012 and vote Yes! Sincerely, James R. Hamilton, President ACECG v
ACECG is steadfast in advocacy for Georgia engineering firms involved with transportation. Passing the TSplost is in everyone’s best interest. Here is how you can help: Conduct a lunch and learn in your office on why passing the TSplost is so important. If you need information for your meeting ACECG Board of Directors 2011-2012 First Name
Rochester & Associates Inc.
Thomas & Hutton Engineering Co.
Pond & Company
W. R. Toole Engineers Inc.
Rosser International Inc.
Heath & Lineback Engineers Inc.
Engineering Design Technologies Inc. Richard.Mays@edtinc.net
Lowe Engineers LLC
STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
Walter P. Moore and Associates Inc.
Prime Engineering Inc.
Southern Civil Engineers Inc.
E-Mail Address firstname.lastname@example.org
Keck & Wood Inc.
Wolverton & Associates Inc.
email@example.com (770) 447-8999
The GeorGia enGineer
Jim Wallace, P.E., President American Society of Civil Engineers, Georgia Section | e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Please Read and Respond The leadership of the Georgia Section, ASCE, would like to communicate with you, and we would like for it to be a two-way communication. In the following sections of this article I am going to outline some of the activities in which the members of the section are involved, and we hope that you will agree that the activities are worth-while and beneficial to the profession. However, we know that you may have a different opinion, and if you do, we would like to know about it. To help your section leadership do the best job they can, we need to hear from you. I would like to make the following suggestion: first, just let us know that you are reading this article. You can do this by sending an email to email@example.com just put in the subject line, “I read it.” It would be even more helpful if you would carry your response one step further and go to the sec-
tion Web site (ascega.org) and click on the survey regarding the ASCE articles in the Georgia Engineer and other activities of the section. We are very interested in your opinion regarding how we can best meet the three goals that were outlined in the previous issue of the Georgia Engineer. These goals are: (1) Promote the civil engineering profession, (2) Increase participation in the Georgia Section, ASCE, and (3) Promote life-long learning by members of the profession. Your response will help us reach these goals. Thank you for your participation in our effort to serve you better. Georgia Section Activities Contest: What Do Civil Engineers Do? The Georgia Section has created a competition, now in its second year, that basically challenges middle school students (sixth, seventh, and eighth graders) to tell us “What
DO Civil Engineers Do?” Their response can be in the form of an essay, a project, a video, or even a piece of related art—it’s up to the student or team. The teams can be no greater than three members. Cash prizes will be awarded for the top two entries and three additional honorable mentions for each grade level. The deadline for submission is March 2, 2012, after which our panel of judges will rate each entry and determine the winners. The top winners will be presented with the award at the ASCE Georgia Section Meeting held on May 4th, 2011 at the Carlyle House in downtown Norcross. The Georgia Section specifically targeted this age group because there has been a decline of engineers entering the work force in the U.S. and that trend is not expected to improve. Sadly, many young adults these days still do not know what engineers (much less civil engineers) actually do. Therefore,
2011 - 2012 BOARD OF DIRECTORS PRESIDENT Jim Wallace, PE firstname.lastname@example.org
SECRETARY Ernie Pollitzer, PE email@example.com
INTERNAL AFFAIRS Keith Cole, PE firstname.lastname@example.org
PRESIDENT-ELECT Lisa Woods, PE Lisa.email@example.com
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS Dan Agramonte, PE firstname.lastname@example.org
VICE-PRESIDENT Katherine McLeod Gurd, PE Katherine.email@example.com PAST-PRESIDENT Jo Ann Macrina, PE jmacrina@AtlantaGa.Gov TREASURER Rebecca Shelton, PE firstname.lastname@example.org
APRIL | MAY 2012
Northeast Georgia Branch: Paul Oglesby, PE email@example.com Savannah Branch: C J Chance, PE firstname.lastname@example.org South Metro Branch: James Emery, PE email@example.com
YOUNGER MEMBERS Julie Secrist, PE firstname.lastname@example.org TECHNICAL GROUPS John Lawrence, PE John.email@example.com www.ascega.org
introducing students to the civil engineering profession will not only promote civil engineering as an interesting and rewarding career, but will help, we trust, fill the anticipated and current void at a time when our infrastructure is aging and in desperate need of repair. Partnering with Marietta Center for Advanced Academics (MCAA) The Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) magnet academy at MCAA provides third through fifth grade students an integrated, rigorous academic program. Based on the Georgia Performance Standards (GPS), the comprehensive, STEM magnet program uses a balance of texts and technological resources to provide an education that is challenging at higher levels, and faster-paced, than most traditional elementary learning environments. ASCE-GA Section will be partnering with MCAA in their Partners in Education (PIE) program through the Cobb County Chamber of Commerce. The school was recognized as being the first in the state to be STEM-Certified, and there was a ceremony on March 8th where the state school superintendent was in attendance (among other officials). At this time, the officials showcased and promoted our section as being the formal partner with MCAA in the PIE program. Group, Committee, and Institute Activities Environmental and Water Resources Group (EWRG) The EWRG provides leadership in the professional community by serving as an active forum for the discussion of environmental and water resource issues, assisting in dissemination of news and information to the general membership of the Georgia Section, and participating in important decisions that will affect the environmental and water resources future of Georgia. Environmental and water resources engineering is a vibrant field in civil engineering because of government enforcement of environmental regulations, strides in the practical implementation of environmental safeguards, and gradual acceptance of the necessary adjustments in the way we build, develop, and monitor our environment. The EWRG intends to remain a 38
leading source of current environmental information in Georgia. Our program goals include: sponsoring informative technical meetings for engineers; developing closer contact with governmental environmental agencies; continuing the Kindsvater water resources lecture series initiated in 2005; developing stronger alliances with other technical groups; and performing public service projects to serve and educate the public. The EWRG supports the section and technical community in researching and/or position statements as the needs arise. Thus, a primary focus of our efforts is providing learning opportunities for our members that include lectures, field trips, and technical presentations. We hold EWRG luncheon presentations on the third Friday of the month at the office of Brown and Caldwell, located at 990 Hammond Drive, Suite 400, Atlanta, Georgia 30328. Please e-mail romanekAP@cdmsmith.com to be included in the e-mail meeting notifications. Transportation & Development Institute (T&DI) ~ Georgia Chapter The vision of the Transportation & Development Institute (T&DI) is to be the recognized leader for the advocacy of livable communities by promoting environmentally sensitive transportation and land development. The mission of the institute is to promote the interdependence of transportation, land development, and the environment, while uniting the disciplines of planning, design, construction, operation, maintenance, and research in support of sustainable development. By providing a multidisciplinary focus for professional communication, education and collaboration, the institute will enhance the professional knowledge and skills of its members so that they may improve the quality of life. The Institute brings together engineers, planners, industry representatives, citizen groups, developers, public officials, and others dedicated to improving transportation and fostering appropriate development decisions at the local, regional, state, national and international levels. T&DI Georgia Chapter general membership meetings are held every other month on a weekday generally from 11:30 am until
1:30 pm with lunch provided. Typical programs include one to three speakers in a setting conducive to engaged question and answer dialog following presentations. Formed in early 2010, the T&DI Georgia Chapter has hosted numerous meetings with distinguished speakers covering a wide variety of transportation and development topics. The Executive Committee of the T&DI Georgia Chapter will continue to develop interesting, inviting, educational, and thought provoking programs to be held every other month to educate our membership and stimulate conversations that will help bridge transportation and development issues in the southeastern United States. Future meetings are tentatively scheduled for the months of May, July, September, and November of 2012. Please check the T&DI page on the ASCE Georgia Section Web site for more details of upcoming events or contact the T&DI Georgia Chapter Chair, Lenor Bromberg (firstname.lastname@example.org). Geotechnical Committee Georgia Section The Geotechnical Committee—Georgia Section had its beginning in the mid 1950s when a small group of local geotechnical engineers met to have dinner and talk about current geotechnical engineering activities. The Geotechnical Committee has become a recognized, dynamic, and successful organization serving the geotechnical engineering community and the civil engineering community at large. From September to May of each year the Committee offers monthly meetings with dinner and technical discussions and presentations by select speakers. The meetings are typically scheduled on the third Tuesday of each month at 6:30 p.m. at the Headquarters of Georgia Power Company in Downtown Atlanta (241 Ralph McGill Boulevard NE Atlanta, Georgia 30308). The meetings are open to everybody interested in geotechnical engineering and related subjects. Each May, the committee and Georgia Tech present the Sowers Symposium in honor of Prof. George Sowers, who helped start the Geotechnical Committee, taught a great many of our leading and practicing geotechnical engineers, and was a recognized as an The GeorGia enGineer
eminent geotechnical engineer himself. This year marks the 15th Annual Sowers Symposium, which is scheduled on May 8, 2012. Each October or November the Committee plans to host the Terzaghi lecturer for the current year. This lectureship was established by the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division (now the Geo-Institute) of ASCE by the solicitation of gifts from the many friends and admirers of Karl Terzaghi, Hon.M.ASCE. It was instituted by the Board of Directors on October 10, 1960. The committee has been successful in securing these distinguished lecturers for the last 2 years, and we plan and expect that the ‘Terzaghi Atlanta’ lecture each fall will be a recognized and expected annual event. For more information or to be added to the Committee’s e-mail list, please contact Chair Luis Babler (email@example.com) or check us out on Facebook or on the ASCE Georgia Web site:http://www.ascega.org/geotechnical-group/ Sustainability Institute Georgia Chapter The Sustainability Institute of the Georgia Section, American Society of Civil Engineers, was founded in 2010 as part of a national effort. The objectives are to provide institutional knowledge of the role and responsibility of civil engineers in leading sustainable infrastructure practice and design that achieves environmental, economical, and equitable built environment. We have the vision of solving the reality of shrinking resources in providing effective and innovative solutions in addressing the challenges and raising expectations for sustainability and environmental stewardship. The ASCE Code of Ethics requires civil engineers to strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties. To that regard, the Sustainability Institute collaborates on policy, education, and solutions in meeting human needs for natural resources, industrial products, energy, food, transportation, shelter, and effective waste management while conserving and protecting environmental quality and the natural resource base essential now and for future development. APRIL | MAY 2012
For more information or to be added to the committee’s e-mail list, please contact Ban Saman, P.E., Chair, Sustainability Institute-ASCE Georgia Section, firstname.lastname@example.org.
dents is free. Membership in ASCE or SEI is not required in order to attend, but is necessary to vote in elections and hold officer positions. For more information, please contact Darren Howard (DHoward@wje.com). v
Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) Georgia Chapter The Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) is a vibrant community of more than 20,000 structural engineers within the American Society of Civil Engineers. Because SEI members are leaders in structural engineering practice and academia, SEI provides great networking opportunities while stimulating coordination and understanding between academia and practicing engineers—driving the practical application of cutting edge research. The Georgia Chapter of the Structural Engineering Institute holds a monthly meeting and technical presentation on the campus of the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, Georgia. Meetings are typically held in the evenings at 6:30 PM on either the first or third Thursday of the month in the Mason Building (Civil Engineering). The cost is $5 and attendees receive one PDH hour certificate, and pizza and beverages are provided. Attendance for stu-
Ron Osterloh, P.E., President American Society of Highway Engineers / Georgia Section As spring is coming (although winter was not all that ‘wintery’) we at ASHE are excited and optimistic for a great 2012. We have already had a busy start to the year and are quickly ramping up for an even busier spring and summer. ASHE is very excited to announce the formation of a student chapter at Georgia Tech. Under the leadership of our Student Chapter Chairman, Kevin Riggs, and with the help of countless volunteers, ASHE successfully held our first official Student Luncheon Meeting in February. The meeting was a great success and we are eagerly looking forward to growing our student membership base. If you know of any students/interns /coops that could benefit from our new chapter, please feel free to contact Kevin. In an effort to better serve the ASHE membership, we have underway a comprehensive member survey. This survey will allow the ASHE board to enhance the benefits of you AHSE membership. Please feel free to visit survey at the following Web site: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/ASHE2012
Recent Events/Awards We have had a great start to 2012. We have had our January General Membership Lunch meeting as well as our always popular scholarship fundraising Poker Tournament. We had a new winner this year with Kevin ‘it wasn’t rigged’ Riggs beating out a field of 72 players to take the top prize. I would also like to thank our 2011 Georgia Section Membership Award winners: Member of the Year: Rob Dell-Ross; Young Member of the Year: Sarah Worachek; President’s Award: Nikki Reutlinger.
forward to seeing you there. Go to the conference Web site at www.ashe2012.org for more information and to register. We have a full calendar of events including our newly added joint WTS Tennis Tournament, so check the Web site (www.ashega.org) regularly for what’s coming up. We look forward to seeing you soon. Ron Osterloh, P.E., President American Society of Highway Engineers, Georgia Section v
ASHE National Conference: This year’s national conference will be hosted by the Southwest Pennsylvania Section. It will be held in the beautiful Laurel Highland mountains of Pennsylvania at Seven Springs Resort from June 7-10. For those of you who have not had an opportunity to attend one of our conferences, I invite you to an educational and fun filled event. We will have several members attend this event and look Upcoming Calendar of Events March 16, 2012 April, 2012 May 3, 2012
May 17, 2012 -
June, 2012 June 7-10, 2012August 2012 2012 ASHE Poker Champion, Kevin Riggs 40
General Meeting Technical Seminar (Topic TBD) ASHE/WTS 1st Annual Tennis Tournament Golf Tourney (Scholarship Fundraiser) General Meeting National Conference, Seven Springs, PA Babs Abubakari Bowling Scholarship Fundraiser The GeorGia enGineer
2011-2012 ASHE Georgia Chapter Officers President 1st Vice President 2nd Vice President Secretary Treasurer Regional Representative Past President
Ron Osterloh Michael Bywaletz Brian O’Connor Karyn Matthews Richard Meehan Nikki Reutlinger Tim Matthews
email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
Committee Chairs Social Chair Nominating Chair Membership Chair Program Chair Scholarship Chair Student Chapter Chair Technical Co-Chair Technical Co-Chair ASHE Web site Chair Golf Tournament Chair
APRIL | MAY 2012
Elizabeth Scales Tim Matthews Scott Jordan Rob Dell-Ross Sarah Worachek Kevin Riggs Dan Bodycomb Chris Rudd Mindy Sanders Ashley Chan
Elizabeth.firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org Kevin_Riggs@gspnet.com dan.bodycomb@CTE-Eng.com email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
Jim Wallace, P.E., President Georgia Engineering Foundation Secrets of the Georgia Engineering Foundation Disclosed Why did I select such an unusual title for this article? Because, as I and other members of GEF have experienced, we find that when we mention GEF to other engineers, they typically have no idea of how GEF functions, even though the engineering organization of which they are a member is itself a Member Organization of GEF. Those of us that are attempting to lead GEF think that it is important that more of our fellow engineers understand the workings of this organization. Therefore, we are using this article to present a brief statement of the purpose, membership, and accomplishments of GEF. Purpose According to the bylaws of the foundation, it is organized under the Georgia Non-Profit Corporation Code “to foster and maintain the honor and integrity of the learned profession of engineering and the mathematical and physical sciences for the benefit of mankind.” While this purpose may seem somewhat esoteric, it is only the first of several purposes stated in the bylaws and sets the framework for the others. Probably the most widely known of the more specific purposes is “to provide scholarships at approved engineering schools for worthy and qualified applicants.” While the foundation may spend the majority of its time and energy soliciting scholarship funds and reviewing scholarship applications and interviewing scholarship candidates, it is also a strong supporter and participant in activities such as programs at the Benjamin Mays Math & Science High School, the State Science Fair Awards, Exploring Engineer Academy, MathCounts, 42
The current membership is composed of the following organizations: MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS
Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering
American Council of Engineering Companies of Georgia
American Society of Civil Engineers, Georgia Section
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
Georgia Power Engineering Association, Atlanta Branch
Georgia Society of Professional Engineers (State)
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Atlanta Section
Society of American Military Engineers, Atlanta Post
Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers
ASSOCIATE MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS
Georgia Institute Of Technology
Dr. Larry Jacobs
Dr. Edward O’Brien
Southern Polytechnic State University
Dean Jeff Ray
University of Georgia
Dr. Stephan A. Durham
OFFICERS/COMMITTEE CHAIRS Past President
Ways & Means
Jim Remich The GeorGia enGineer
Wheeler Robotics, Rockdale Magnet School, Future Cities Competition, and the Fernbank Engineering Club. Foundation Membership The foundation membership is primarily composed of Organizational Members. Member organizations are organizations the chief objective of which is the advancement of knowledge or the promotion in the public interest of engineering, science, or allied professions that are not organized for commercial purposes. In addition, an individual that is a member in good standing of a member Organization and who resides in the state of Georgia is an Individual member of the Foundation. Each of the member organizations appoints one of its members to represent the organization on the Foundation’s Board of Directors. Individual members may also serve on the board if they are elected to the position of an officer of the foundation. Several individuals, other than those appointed by the member organization andwho have taken an interest in working with the foundation, have subsequently become officers and leaders in the Foundation. Scholarships Oppotunities Giving and Receiving In November 2011 the foundation presented 35 engineering scholarships totaling $53,250.The contributions came from Member Organizations, commercial companies (both engineering and non-engineering), individuals, and Foundation endowments. Each scholarship recipient has to meet the following minimum requirements: Georgia residency, enrolled in an ABET accredited program leading to a Bachelor’s, Master’s or Doctorate degree in engineering or engineering technology, and US Citizenship (with exception of students receiving an IEEE scholarship). Individual scholarships also have additional requirements such as a particular field of study, years of school completed, etc. There are always many more qualified scholarship applicants than there are scholarships. If you or your organization decides to provide an engineering scholarship, why should you consider doing it through the foundation? If you are a member of an orAPRIL | MAY 2012
ganization, you might wish to specify scholarship requirements that are consistent with the work of your organization. If you are an individual, you might like to specify your alma mater as the school in which the recipient would be enrolled, or you might want to designate the scholarship in memory of someone dear to you. In either case, whether you represent an organization or an individual, you might want to meet the scholarship recipient, have dinner with them, and then personally hand them the scholarship check. These are features that are part of the GEF process and may not be available through other scholarship granting organizations. In addition, the Foundation scholarships usually range from $1,000 to $5,000, and this may be more in your range of possibilities than endowing a scholarship through a major university. Finally, if you or your organization would like to provide a scholarship for a deserving engineering student, you might simply want to avoid the hard work that it takes to solicit applications and then review three to four hundred of them, follow this up with personal interviews of around a hundred plus, and finally decide on the final winner or winners. The foundation volunteers have developed a relatively efficient process for doing this. If you are interested in knowing more about the donor process, please contact any of the foundation officers listed above, or simply call the Georgia Engineering Alliance and they will put you in contact with an ap-
propriate foundation officer. In addition, we always seem to have more tasks to accomplish than we have individuals, so if you have the desire to help promote the engineering profession and get to meet a lot of very bright and interesting engineering students, we would certainly like to have you volunteer with us. Give us a call at (404) 521-2324 or reach us by e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org and reference GEF in your subject line. v
“Gort! Klaatu Borada nikto.”
(770) 521-8877 Use A CompAny yoU CAn trUst witH yoUr trAnslAtion projeCt, because a little mistake in another language can have unpleasant results.
John Karnowski, PE Georgia Section, Institute of Transportation Engineers In my bathroom, there is often a stack of newspapers. (For those of you who think this article has already started in the toilet, relax it’ll get better.) For the last few days, the story on top of the stack in the Community section of the paper was praising the volunteers in our county—those that give generously of their time to help others. One such person reported that his reason for volunteering was that he wants to ‘give back’ to the community. This is a sentiment that you hear so often from those humble philanthropists and public do-gooders. With imaginary thumbs pressed into their vests they say, “I owe it others to pay it forward.” Or, “because of what has been done for me…” Or, “I’ve been blessed with much, it is the least I can do.” Sound familiar? This question of ‘why be a volunteer’ keeps gnawing at me. Maybe not as much as Mike Holt’s continual references to Clemson University… but pretty close. I mean, who cares if Clemson came in first in underwater ballet at the World Under Sea Symposium in 1984. (WUSS ’84) But I digress. In our society, it doesn’t seem to be enough to answer the question ‘Why do you do it?’ with just a shrug and ‘I dunno; I just do.’ Maybe people don’t really buy that answer; they want to know the motivation behind someone’s good deeds. Can we not just accept that some people do good just because it is right to do so? Can there be altruism without personal gain? I have a friend who walked in the Susan G. Komen three-day walk—a 60+ mile trek that tests ones physical limits. He did it to honor his sister and his mother-in-law who were both diagnosed with breast cancer 44
within two weeks of one another. He trained for weeks and raised a good bit of money in sponsorships. It was hard, and there was no personal reward in it for him. Ironically, he was diagnosed with cancer himself just three weeks after the walk. Not exactly Karma. I know a woman in my community who noticed a few years ago that there were many children alone during the day in extended stay motels while their parents worked to support their family. During the school year, many of these kids’ only full meal comes from the free lunch at school, but in the summer they literally go hungry. This lady organized her church and some others and began bringing sandwiches and snacks to the motels for the kids. She didn’t do it for recognition or out of a sense of obligation but just because she recognized a need that wasn’t being met. I recently read the story of Tim Shriver of Kennedy fame, who is the CEO of the Special Olympics. He said, “I came to this movement thinking I would help someone else, and here I am 50-plus years old and I think the athletes have taught me more about how to live this life than anyone.” The walker, the feeder, and the organizer are my heroes. They live their life with purpose without waiting to be recognized for it. They aren’t holding a large justice scale with good deeds on one side and sins on the other trying to tip it in one direction. They just do. I recall the everlasting words of that great philosopher, Forrest Gump. You may recall Forrest describing to the woman at the bus stop how he just got up one day and started running. “I just ran. When I got
tired, I slept. When I got hungry, I ate. When I had to go to the bathroom… well… you know.” (If you haven’t seen the movie yet, what’s wrong with you? It’s been out since 1994. Tom Hanks. Won some Oscars.) The point here is that you don’t need a reason to act. Let’s say you are driving down the road and you see someone broken down on the side of the road; maybe because they forgot to put oil in it for the last 73,458 miles, and the car inexplicably died even though their spouse nagged them incessantly to look into the check engine light thingy. (But I digress.) If you have the ability to help that person, then do it. Note, if safety is an issue, call 511 from your voice activated, hands-free device and get a real H.E.R.O. out there. I say all that to say that there are many ways to serve the profession, your community, your fellow man, whoever. But one must act. For example, I had the pleasure of accompanying Brendetta Walker of Parsons Brinkerhoff to the Introduce a Girl to Engineering event during E-week in February. You can tell that she just enjoyed getting to know the middle school girls and would have done it even if no one from ITE knew that she was there. Here are some other opportunities of service without recognition or personal gain: ITE, ASCE, and WTS are planning a Habitat for Humanity build project in May. There is nothing like a good long hard day’s work to make you forget why you did something like that in the first place. I think it is the impact of a hammer against one’s thumb that addles the brain. Last year, a group of ITE members left The GeorGia enGineer
the comfort of their homes for a weekend and descended on Tuscaloosa to help victims of the tornados. They just did whatever they could and left feeling that there
was so much more to be done. Still, they did what they could. So with respect to Nikeâ€™s ad campaign, Just Do It. Donâ€™t be like the man who wakes
up every morning and does ten sit-ups be-
cause there are just so many times one can hit the snooze button. (But I digress.) v
2012 Intl Meeting
Georgia Engineer Magazine
Georgia Tech Liaison
Public Officials Education
Southern Poly Liaison
APRIL | MAY 2012
Scott Mohler, P.E. ITS President Congratulations to newly appointed Georgia Department of Transportation Commissioner Keith Golden and new Northeast Georgia District Engineer Bayne Smith. Georgia is indeed fortunate to have these two professionals in top leadership positions within the department. Both are uniquely qualified to successfully manage the mobility challenges we face in Georgia. Commissioner Golden rose through the ranks of the department serving in planning and operations. He was Director of Operations before becoming Deputy Commissioner and Interim Commissioner last year. He knows the value intelligent transportation solutions bring to address issues of safety, efficiency, and congestion mitigation in our surface transportation system. Commissioner Golden said that he has personal experience with benefits of ITS solutions and will continue to support its deployment. “Having worked in traffic operations during my career, I have firsthand experience with many of the benefits Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) can offer in a transportation system. Georgia DOT consistently analyzes potential uses of ITS throughout our network of roadways. Many aspects of ITS—ramp meters, video detection devices, and coordinated traffic signalization—can be successfully utilized on a daily basis to help manage traffic and congestion and keep motorists informed, Commissioner Golden told ITS Georgia shortly after being formally appointed by the state transportation board.” New District One Engineer Bayne Smith is one of only three GDOT employees to hold both a PE and PTOE (Professional Traffic Operations Engineer) license. He is also on the board of directors of your ITS Georgia Chapter. 46
Bayne began his career working in Traffic Operations at GDOT and was instrumental in developing the NaviGAtor intelligent transportation management system. He also served as state traffic signal engineer until joining URS Corporation in 2001. At URS, Bayne led the national ITS practice and was instrumental in capturing best practices in ITS, and then bringing those best practices and cutting edge ITS ideas to Georgia and other clients all over the U.S. We asked District Engineer Smith his thoughts for implementing new ITS solutions in his district. “I am very excited at the opportunity to rejoin GDOT and help further the implementation of Intelligent Transportation Systems throughout the state of Georgia. GDOT has done an exceptional job at constructing, operating, and maintaining a successful ITS system, and I am excited that future advances in technology will allow us to continue to enhance the system and provide valuable benefits to the motoring public.”
We appreciate Commissioner Golden’s and District Engineer Smith’s commitment to progress and stand ready with them to meet the challenges ahead. Take time to learn about and vote on the TSPLOST in July On Tuesday, July 31, voters will decide if 12 designated districts across Georgia will be authorized to collect a one-cent sales tax for the next ten years to be devoted exclusively to local and regional transportation projects. Doug Callaway of the Georgia Transportation Alliance told a chapter meeting of
The GeorGia enGineer
ITS Georgia the impact of the TSPLOST, if passed, would be to generate almost 28,000 jobs for every $1 billion of revenue generated. The resulting improvements would en-
hance the safety and efficiency of the transportation system all while under local control. Funds collected in each district could
ITS GEORGIA CHAPTER LEADERSHIP
only be spent in the district where they are
collected and only to move forward projects
Scott Mohler, URS Corporation
chosen by local elected officials. Additionally, watch dog groups in each district would
monitor and report to the public how funds
Tom Sever, Gwinnett DOT
are spent. More than 1,600 local projects throughout the state have been selected by city and
Secretary Kristin Turner, Wolverton and Associates Inc.
county leaders. To learn more about the Transportation Investment Act (TIA) refer-
endum and to review proposed projects in
Christine Simonton, Delcan
http://www.it3.ga.gov/Pages/default.aspx. Pass this information along to your friends and neighbors, too. To keep up with the latest ITS Georgia news,
(www.ITSGA.org) or follow us on twitter @ITSGA.Â v
Directors Mark Demidovich Susie Dunn Kenn Fink Eric Graves John Hibbard Carla Holmes Patrece Keeter Keary Lord DOT Bayne Smith Grant Waldrop
GDOT ARC Kimley-Horn City of Alpharetta Atkins Gresham Smith DeKalb County Douglas County URS GDOT
State Chapters Representative Kenny Voorhies
Cambridge Systematics Inc.
Ex Officio Greg Morris Jamie Pfister
APRIL | MAY 2012
Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration