Page 1



GeorgiaEngineer Volume 18, Issue 3

June | July 2011


GeorgiaEngineer Publisher: A4 Inc. 1154 Lower Birmingham Road Canton, Georgia 30115 Tel.: 770-521-8877 • Fax: 770-521-0406 E-mail: 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.


The GeorGia enGineer

JUNE | JULY 2011


Advertisements AECOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 AEI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Ayres Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Burns & McDonnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Brown & Caldwell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24


JUne | JULY 2011


Legislative Update from the 2011 General Assembly


Options for Bridge Replacement


Advancing Sustainable Energy Management at Wastewater Utilities


An Overview of the Effect of Georgia’s Illegal Immigration &

Cardno TBE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 CROM Prestressed Concrete Tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Cummins Power South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Edwards Pitman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Engineered Restorations Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Foley Arch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 G. Ben Turnipseed Engineers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Enforcement Act on Construction Contractors

GCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Georgia Concrete Paving Association. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Georgia Power Company. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Back Cover


Atlanta’s International Terminal on Pace for Spring 2012 Opening


Go Green with Pervious Concrete Pavement


Projects and Accountability…Georgia Department of Transportation

Geosyntec Consultants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Golder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 GRL Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Hayward Baker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Back Cover Hazen and Sawyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

is Delivering

HDR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Heath & Lineback Engineers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 HNTB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

The Atlanta Streetcar In October, 2010, the City of Atlanta was awarded a Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery II (TIGER II) grant for $47 million. This federal grant will fund a portion of the estimated $72 million in construction costs for a streetcar project. The alignment currently runs through downtown Atlanta and serves some of the city’s most important and historic districts. This 2.6 mile section is the first of several sections that will be owned by the city of Atlanta and maintained/operated by Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA). See story on page 26.


Proactive Utility Management: The Importance of Subsurface Utility Engineering and Utility Coordination

JAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Middleton-House & Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 MidSouth Machine & Service Co.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 O’Brien & Gere. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 PBS&J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Photo Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Pond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38


2009 Georgia Infrastructure Report Card: A Mid-term Assessment


What’s in the News


Looking at the World through Sustainability-colored Glasses

Power Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Prime Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 RHD Utility Locating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Rosser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Savannah Technical College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Schnabel Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Silt-Saver Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Front Cover S&ME. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Southern Civil Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33





Southern Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40






Stevenson & Palmer Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 T. Wayne Owens & Associates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Terrell Hundley Carroll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 United Consulting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Wilburn Engineering LLC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Willmer Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Wolverton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31


The GeorGia enGineer

JUNE | JULY 2011











Legislative Update from the 2011 General Assembly By Thomas C. Leslie | Director of External Affairs


he 2011 Georgia General Assembly adjourned April 14th with a mixed bag of achievements. In a very tough financial setting, an amended 2011 budget and the new budget for 2012 were approved. Both contained cuts all around. They passed a very tough immigration bill that advocates said would preserve jobs for Georgia and cut costs, but which farmers said would ruin Georgia’s agribusiness economy and that some Chambers of Commerce said would drive away convention business. They passed package sale of beer and wine on Sunday (subject to a local referendum), but failed to pass a high visibility tax restructuring bill. And hundreds of other bills and resolutions passed, failed, or got stuck in the process and await a second chance in the 2012 session. Nathan Deal seemed to sail through his first session as Governor with a polished image for genuine collaboration and congeniality with legislators. Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle had a much rougher time. The Senate pulled his authority to appoint committee chairs and gave that job to a committee controlled by others in the leadership, which seemed a spiteful payback over issues from the 2010 session. One of the biggest issues going into the 2011 session was concern over the recommendations of the “Special Council on Tax Reform and Fairness for Georgians� to dramatically restructure Georgia’s tax code and move away from income-based taxes and toward much broader consumption-based taxes. In particular, the concern was that the council would recommend that the current four percent sales tax be extended to include engineering services. In the end, the council recommended that many other services be subject to sales tax but not professional services. The council’s recommendations went to a special committee to draw up legislation, but what came out was very different. Many of the council’s recommendations 6

Thomas C. Leslie were ignored, which left the tax package unbalanced - it did not achieve the intention of being revenue neutral. As the details were jiggled, the revenue estimates did not seem to comport with what was expected. The speaker finally pulled the plug on the bill late in the session. It can still be considered in 2012 after ample time for critical thinking and better estimates of revenue attributable to policy changes. At of this writing the Governor has indicated that he might add this matter to the Special Session in August 2011 calling for redrawing legislative (and Congressional) districts. Amendments to the state lobbying law were not on anybody’s radar screen for the 2011 session, but, in many ways, became the biggest issue for the engineering community. Last year, the state’s ethics law was changed such that the definition of a state agency also meant local agencies—city, county, school board, local authorities, etc. The law requires those who seek to influence a vendor decision to register as a lobbyist with the Ethics Commission and file monthly (twice monthly when the General Assembly is in session) expenditure lobbyist reports (even if there is not an expenditure to report) and pay heavy fines for delinquent reporting. These new report-

ing requirements took effect on the day after the 2011 General Assembly convened and immediately created a firestorm (the heavy fines were most onerous to long-time, ‘legislative’ lobbyists at the Capitol, most of whom were not ‘vendor’ lobbyists). Another issued related to business people and ordinary citizens who make contact with legislators during an association’s ‘day on the hill’ event, was that they would have been forced to register as lobbyists. For engineers, the biggest question related to the precise meaning of “seeking to influence a vendor decision.� If a junior engineer on a current job site visit makes an incidental comment to a city engineer about a future sewage lift station in an industrial park and mentions how good the firm is at this type of work, is he/she “seeking to influence a vendor decision� and therefore, must register as a lobbyist and file reports? The Georgia Chamber of Commerce attempted to ‘fix’ the law, but it would only have applied to commissioned salespeople. Rep. Ed Setzler drafted creative legislation that would have loosened requirements in a sensible way for those licensed under Title 43 of Georgia Code (which included the Engineers/Surveyors Board). Both of these efforts were hampered by a political constraint that the ethics code section should not be opened directly for amendments. The Ethics Commission helped move things along by issuing an Advisory Opinion (they are prohibited from issuing regulations) that blew things open toward the end of the session. Rep. Edward Lindsey altered his amendment (HB 232) that directly addressed the issue. It was promptly passed and signed by the Governor the following day. In the amendment, only those folks that devote more than ten percent of their time seeking to “influence vendor selection� would be required to register as a lobbyist. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act of 2011 (HB 87) was passed in the final days of the session. The GeorGia enGineer

Among many provisions, it reaffirms that all public contracts (state and local) must be with contractors that register with, have an identification number, and use the federal E-Verify system to determine the immigration status of all employees. This requirement applies to those that contract with a public employer to provide “physical performance of services� which means any construction; “or any other performance of labor for a public employer within this state under a contract or other bidding process.� All such contractors, and their subs, must provide an affidavit to the public employer confirming their compliance. A major new provision in HB 87 is the mandatory use of the E-Verify system by all private employers with more than ten employees, which is phased in as follows: employers with more than 500 employees by Jan 1, 2012, more than 100 by July 1, 2012, and more than ten employees by July 1, 2013. It seems that local governments will be the primary enforcement agent as they issue a “business license, occupational tax certificate, or other document required to operate a business.� Water remains one of Georgia’s most

critical issues ever since a federal judge ruled that most water being withdrawn from Lake Lanier is being done so illegally and must be terminated during a three-year stay of his order (which expires in July 2012). With the backing of the Gov. Deal, PublicPrivate Partnerships were authorizes by SB 122 for new water supply reservoirs by allowing local governments to enter into contracts for up to 50 years with private entities to plan, develop, and operate reservoirs (and related facilities). GEFA’s Water Supply Division is placed in a lead role for any state involvement in such projects. $46 million was appropriated for water supply projects for GEFA, which is the first part of $300 million pledged by Gov. Deal over four years. v









JUNE | JULY 2011


OptiOns fOrBridge replacement By Guy Garrett

Repairing America’s aging infrastructure, especially its bridges, demands a new approach to construction. In addition to function, safety, and sustainability, engineers working on new designs must consider environmental impact, timeframes for construction, maintenance costs, impact on normal traffic flow, and ease of installation. The American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials estimated national infrastructure improvements costs at $140 billion in 2006 dollars. These estimates reflect the number of projects and the increased costs of materials, labor, transportation, and regulatory compliance. In a 2008 report, the U.S. Department of Transportation categorized 12.1 percent of the nation’s bridges as “structurally deficient” and another 14.8 percent as “functionally obsolete.” Age, increased use, heavier loads, weathering, and deferred maintenance all contribute to an increase in the number of bridges requiring posting or other restrictions. Replacing these aging structures requires greater efficiency from both engineers and contractors, who face dwindling revenues and stricter requirements from governments at all levels. Cost escalation is a major concern for project sponsors. Construction materials costs have been steadily rising since 2003, but structural steel significantly outpaced concrete by more than 200 percent. According to a 2009 Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) report, steel prices jumped 45 percent compared to 10 percent for structural stone and 18 percent for ready-mixed concrete. 8

The GeorGia enGineer

JUNE | JULY 2011


Agency, regulatory compliance increases permitting and mitigation expenses. Project designers must seek cost effective solutions with minimal environmental footprints, affecting

decisions concerning materials and construction processes. One popular option for bridge construction is precast concrete. Precast concrete products, when compared to the more standard steel or poured-in-place type bridges, are less expensive initially and carry lower maintenance costs since they do not require Revenue shortfalls add to the cost consciousness of state and local governments who fund many of the projects. The GDOT predicts a $7.7 billion funding shortfall over the next six years due in part to lower motor fuel tax stemming from the sale of fuel efficient automobiles. In addition to fewer dol-


lars to fund projects, agencies are facing pressure to contain costs and maximize capital investments. In 2007, Lt. Governor Casey Cagle met with the joint House-Senate Transportation Study Committee to create a transportation reform package. It emphasized accountability, reducing costs, and re-

ducing project timelines. Despite revenue constraints, the need to replace or repair bridges is significant. In Georgia, 22 percent of the state’s 8,988 bridges monitored by the state’s Department of Transportation require posting or other restrictions, according to a 2008 report compiled by the Georgia Institute of Technology. Report authors indicated that “posting or other restrictions may have a severe economic impact on the state economy, which depends on the trucking industry for distribution of resources and manufactured goods.” In addition to cost pressures, increased regulation by federal and state officials creates an urgent need for environmentallyfriendly waterway spanning solutions. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recently issued regulations discouraging incursion into natural waterways. Structures should allow for the free flow of water and protect aquatic wildlife. These actions increase design complexity and increase project costs. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection The GeorGia enGineer

periodic repainting or repair to patch spalled concrete. These products are mass produced in a factory environment where quality can be closely monitored. The quality control available in a plant environment creates a more durable end product. Manufacturers can reduce weather impact by storing and mixing raw materials inside. They also develop standardized production methods for mixing and forming concrete to meet a project’s unique specifications. The process includes a series of periodic quality controls, such as onsite concrete compression and tensile strength tests to verify the product’s integrity before shipping it to the end-user. The result is a standardized, ready to install product that can often be put into place in a single day. Faster installation reduces costs and minimizes disruption in local traffic flow. Manufacturing plants pass mandatory DOT inspections and often participate in industry association programs such as the American Concrete Pipe Association’s Quality Cast, or QCAST, Plant Certification Program. The ACPA acts as an independent auditor of a company’s plants and periodically schedules onsite inspection of materi-

als, finished products, handling and storage procedures. The reviewers also conduct performance testing and verify quality control documentation. Although precast concrete products have been used in the United States since 1949, designs have changed to reflect the push towards minimizing environmental impacts. Georgia-based precast concrete manufacturer Foley Products produces a bottomless, three-sided arch culvert. The Foley Arch spans the entire waterway and is installed onto foundations poured on either side of the embankment. “The arch bridges are precast and when you install it you are not in the stream bed. You are on one side or the other,” Foley Products vice president of operations Chris Davidson said. “You build a foundation on each side and erect these bridges without ever being in the stream bed. If you are in the stream bed or close to the edge putting in foundations and piles, you complicate construction. With this product the process is quick.” Durability is another concern addressed by precast products. For example, Foley Arch utilizes self-compacting concrete (SCC) in its arches, placing the concrete into forms to create a sturdy product designed for 5,0006,000 psi depending on the span’s size and the job’s specifications. Because the process is strictly controlled, the end result can last up to 75 years. According to the Federal Highway Administration’s Web site, “the new generation of high performance concretes has the advantage of being constructed in a controlled environment with higher production and curing standards than normally found in the field.” For this reason, precast options offer immediate and long term savings in both financial and environmental terms. v About the author Guy Garrett, M.S., M.B.A. is a freelance writer/photographer based in Panama City, Florida. Previously he worked as a journalist for the Gwinnett Daily News, the Atlanta Journal Constitution, and the Tennessean.

JUNE | JULY 2011


Over the last few years, several European wastewater utilities have not only demonstrated energy self-sufficiency, but also started exporting energy to the grid. These utilities have used a combination of approaches, including energy conservation, energy-efficient treatment technologies, and energy recovery from renewable energy sources to accomplish energy independence. Several wastewater utilities in California are close to achieving self-sufficiency and occasionally produce energy in excess of onsite demand. Low electricity costs and the lack of renewable portfolio standards have limited energy recovery efforts in Georgia. However, in 2008 the Gwinnett County Department of Water Resources (GCDWR) recognized an opportunity to capitalize on an existing resource, biogas, and further the cause of energy self-sufficiency at its largest wastewater facility by redefining wastewater as a resource that can be processed to recover energy and nutrients. Like most U.S. wastewater utilities, GCDWR spends over 25 percent of its annual operating expenses on energy. Actively managing this steadily increasing cost is essential to controlling operating expenses—and crucial for strengthening GCDWR’s ability to cope with the revenue impact of reduced water sales resulting from drought-related watering restrictions and water conservation, minimize the impact to rate payers during difficult economic conditions, and improve the sustainability of its operations. For tackling the energy challenge, wastewater treatment facilities offer several energy recovery opportunities including biogas derived from anaerobic digestion, solar, wind, and low-head hydropower. The F. Wayne

Advancing Sustainable Energy Management

AT WASTEWATER UTILITIES By Srinivas Jalla, PE, LEED® AP | Regional Technology Leader | CH2M Hill & Tyler Richards | Deputy Director | Gwinnett County


astewater utilities consume over 21 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of power annually in the United States (WERF, 2007). This represents, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), up to 4 percent of the energy used in United States. However, municipal wastewater contains almost 10 times the energy required to treat it (Bagley, 2004). If the energy in wastewater can be fully captured, wastewater utilities can reach their admirable goal of energy independence.


All photos in this article courtesy of Gwinnett County The GeorGia enGineer

Hill WRC JUNE | JULY 2011

Figure 1

Hill Water Resources Center (Hill WRC), located in Buford, is GCDWR’s most advanced wastewater treatment facility. The facility is permitted to treat a maximum monthly flow of 60 million gallons per day (mgd) of sewage and currently treats half its permitted capacity. The Hill WRC uses anaerobic digestion to stabilize biosolids from the wastewater treatment process and produces low British thermal unit (Btu) biogas as a byproduct. For wastewater utilities with anaerobic digestion process, biogas is currently the most reliable renewable energy source that can be beneficially used for various purposes (see Figure 1). Through a life-cycle analysis, GCDWR chose the 2.1-megawatts (MW) biogas-fueled internal combustion engine (ICE) based combined heat and power (CHP) system, also referred to as cogeneration, for energy recovery and co-digestion of non-hazardous high-strength wastes (HSW)

such as fats, oils, and grease (FOG) from grease traps to boost biogas production at the Hill WRC. This renewable energy recovery system (Figure 1, above), known as Gwinnett POWER (Processing Organic Waste for Energy Recovery), can supply up to 40 percent of the entire Hill WRC power demand (enough to power 1,500 homes) and recover approximately 7.5 million Btu as heat, well in excess of the process heating demand for maintaining the anaerobic digesters in a mesophillic temperature range of 95º to 100º F. The planning study estimated the system to have a payback period of nine years at a capital cost of $ 10.1 million. The payback period of biogas energy recovery systems is greatly influenced by the power cost, the amount of gas produced, and the gas quality. At the current influent flow and mass loading, the Hill WRC generates approximately 300 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) of biogas, just over half the fuel needed for the Gwinnett POWER project. A cogeneration system sized for the available gas had an unacceptably high 20-year payback period. However, a larger system supplemented with additional biogas generated through co-digestion of FOG and other HSWs in existing anaerobic digesters reduced the payback period to a reasonable nine years. In addition to co-digestion, additional biogas will be generated for the system through planned improvements to the primary clarification process and sludge transfers from the Yellow River Water Reclamation Facility. 13

The co-digestion of FOG and HSWs allows GCDWR to maximize the use of existing anaerobic digestion capacity, create a new revenue stream in the form of tipping fees, and shorten the project’s payback period. EPA’s report to Congress (2004) on combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) estimates that FOG waste from restaurants, homes, and industrial sources contributes to almost half the reported sewer blockages. Therefore, accepting FOG waste from grease traps for co-digestion has the added benefit of reducing sewer blockages and the potential for SSOs. The Gwinnett POWER project was executed through two separate contracts. The design-build contract for $5.19 million was awarded in October 2009 for the CHP system, which includes the 2.1-MW enginegenerator, gas conditioning for moisture, hydrogen sulfide, and siloxanes, and heat recovery from the engine jacket and exhaust. A second design-build contract for $3.16 million was awarded in June 2010 for the FOG and HSW receiving facilities. In addition to the lower than estimated construction costs, economic viability of the project was further improved by American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds. The GCDWR was successful in winning a $5 million ARRA grant (60 percent) and loan (40 percent) administered through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) by the Georgia Environmental Finance Authority and a $3.5 million ARRA grant from the U.S. Department of Energy. The Gwinnett POWER system will reduce the Hill WRC’s electricity bill by about $1 million a year (@ $0.06/kWh) and generate additional annual revenue of over $0.5 million from FOG and HSW tipping fees. Based on current market trends the energy costs will likely continue to rise, further increasing the savings to the county and reducing the impact on rate payers. The system also offers the following additional benefits: • Eliminates natural gas purchases for process heating needs. •

Generates Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) for possible trading in future

Reduces the impact of volatility in en-


Gwinnett County generator delivery

ergy costs on GCDWR’s operating budget. •

Reduces GHG emissions and improves community sustainability; per EPA GHG equivalency calculations, the reduction is equivalent to eliminating emissions from almost 3,000 passenger vehicles per year.

Reduces potential for SSOs by providing a disposal site for grease trap wastes.

The CHP portion of the Gwinnett POWER system is on schedule to be operational in May 2011, just in time for use during the summer months, when power costs are typically the highest. Since the FOG and HSW receiving station may not be ready for GCDWR’s use before September 2011, the CHP system can either operate at a reduced production capacity or blend natural gas with biogas, as needed, to maximize the savings during the peak electricity cost periods. The Gwinnett POWER project is a result of GCDWR’s entrepreneurial spirit stimulated by the declining revenues and an ambitious objective of “making better use of the resources under our control.” The result is an energy recovery project that satisfies almost 40 percent of the Hill WRC’s current energy demand. Additional treatment process improvements are being implemented to reduce the Hill WRC’s base power requirements and increase biogas production. GCDWR is currently pilot testing nutrient (struvite) recovery tech-

nologies to develop an economically viable project to produce a commercially marketable fertilizer product. Following implementation of ongoing projects, GCDWR will have the opportunity to operate the Hill WRC as the first sustainable, energy self-sufficient, wastewater treatment facility in the region.v

Srinivas Jalla Srinivas has over 16 years of experience in designing wastewater treatment systems. At CH2M HILL, he is responsible for ensuring selection and implementation of sustainable technology solutions for water and wastewater projects in the eastern United States. Before joining CH2M HILL, he led the sustainability initiatives at the Gwinnett County Department of Water Resources.

The GeorGia enGineer

JUNE | JULY 2011


An Overview of the Effect of Georgia’s Illegal Immigration & Enforcement Act on Construction Contractors By Philip J. Siegel | Partner | Hendrick, Phillips, Salzman & Flatt, P.C.


n Friday, May 13, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal signed into law the Illegal Immigration and Enforcement Act ("IIEA"). This new legislation goes into effect on July 1, 2011, and it impacts all construction companies in Georgia that employ more than ten employees.  The new law has a particular impact on construction companies that perform public work within the state.  The IIEA requires all Georgia employers that employ more than ten employees to attest to their participation in E-verify in order to obtain a business license. This requirement phases in over time.  Effective January 1, 2012, the IIEA requires all employers with 500 or more employees to attest to their registration and participation in E-verify as a condition to obtaining a local business license.  Beginning July 1, 2012, the E-verify requirement applies to employers with 100 to 499 employees, and on July 1, 2013, the requirement extends to all employers employing more than ten employees.  The IIEA instructs the attorney general to provide a standardized form affidavit to assist employers with obtaining their business licenses. The form affidavit is to be posted by the attorney general on the Department of Law’s official Web site no later than January 1, 2012. The IIEA also requires all construction companies that perform work on state, local, or county projects in Georgia to participate in E-verify, regardless of the number of employees employed.  Under existing law, contractors performing work on public projects in the state of Georgia are already required to participate in E-verify. The IIEA does, however, change how the E-verify requirement is met.  Contractors contracting directly with 16

the public owner will be required to provide an affidavit at the time of bidding which attests to the contractor’s registration with and use of E-verify. If any subcontractors will be engaged to perform work on the public project, instead of the prime contractor having to provide notice of subcontracting to the public owner as is currently required under the Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act, the prime contractor will be required to obtain from each of its subcontractors an affidavit which has each subcontractor attesting to its registration and use of E-verify. The affidavit must be provided by each subcontractor at the time of contracting. Once the affidavit is received from a subcontractor, the prime contractor has five business days to provide a copy of the affidavit upstream to the public owner. If the subcontractor will be engaging any second tier subcontractor, or sub-subcontractor, the same requirements apply; the sub-subcontractor must provide an affidavit to the subcontractor at the time of contracting, and

the subcontractor has five business days from its receipt of the sub-subcontractor’s affidavit to send it upstream to the prime contractor. The prime contractor then has five business days from its receipt of the sub-subcontractor’s affidavit to provide the affidavit to the public owner. The form affidavit to be used by contractors, subcontractors, and sub-subcontractors performing work subject to the IIEA is to be posted on the Department of Audits and Accounts’ Web site no later than August 1, 2011.  Contractors, subcontractors or sub-subcontractors performing work on a public project in the state of Georgia that have no employees and do not hire or intend to hire employees for purposes of completing the work have no reason to use E-verify because use of E-verify is limited to verifying the employment authorization of new hires.  The new law recognizes this.  In lieu of providing the affidavit which attests to E-verify participation, these contractors, subcontractors or The GeorGia enGineer

sub-subcontractors can instead provide, at the time of contracting, a copy of a state issued driver’s license or state issued identification card from a state that verifies lawful immigration status prior to issuing a driver’s license or identification card. State issued driver’s licenses or state issued identification cards are also required from each independent contractor performing work at the public project. To assist with compliance with the IIEA, the attorney general is charged with providing a list of states that verify lawful immigration status prior to issuing a driver’s license or identification card no later than July 1, 2011. Similar to the requirement to provide copies of affidavits obtained at the time of contracting upstream within five business days of receipt, copies of driver’s licenses and identification cards provided by contractors, subcontractors, or sub-subcontractors that have no employees and do not intend to hire any employees to perform the work must be provided upstream within five business days of receipt. Contractors, subcontractors or sub-subcontractors that provide a false affidavit under the IIEA are subject to a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years, or both. Companies that provide a false affidavit are also prohibited from bidding on or entering into any public contract for 12 months.

JUNE | JULY 2011

In light of Georgia’s new immigration law, it is a good time to review your Form I-9s and how you complete the Form I-9 process. If you would like our firm to conduct an audit of your Form I-9s and the process by which you complete the Form I-9 for new hires, or if you have

any questions about Georgia's new Illegal Immigration and Enforcement Act, you can contact Philip Siegel directly by emailing him by clicking here or calling him at (404) 4699197. v



International TERMINAL By Al Snedeker | Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport | Office of Public Affairs

on Pace for Spring 2012 Opening


n about a year, Atlanta’s international terminal will be ready for business. And, as you’d likely guess, there is much to do before the $1.4 billion gateway opens its doors to the world. Construction of the Maynard H. Jackson Jr. International Terminal and its 12gate concourse is more than 75 percent complete. The building is sealed in, electricity is running throughout, and the place is buzzing with activity. In 2010, crews logged more than 2.8 million hours of labor.

As the scheduled opening draws near, the pace on the job site is quickening to make sure that several key elements of the project will be finished. As managers, contractors, trade workers, and others focus on construction, another team of airport employees is working to ensure a smooth operational transition to the 1.2 millionsquare-foot facility.

and cooling systems are in place, as is most of the baggage handling equipment. According to Aviation General Manager Louis Miller, more than 300 subcontractors are qualified to participate in the project, and more than 1,000 workers are on the site daily. “The work is moving forward at a very fast pace,” Miller said. “I’m impressed with the overall approach of our Construction update construction partners, Holder, ManhatThe international terminal, its new tan, Moody, and Hunt, and I’m pleased concourse, and the existing internathat the project is tracking on budget and tional concourse (Concourse E) will The Maynard H. Jackson Jr. International Terminal ahead of schedule.” create a 40-gate international air travel and its 12-gate concourse connect to the existing Crews inside the building are workgateway for Atlanta. It will serve the international concourse creating a 40-gate inter- ing to complete mechanical, electrical, more than 13 million international pasand plumbing systems and to install national travel gateway. sengers who will pass through Hartsfloors and ceilings in several areas, infield-Jackson each year by 2015, according to estimates by the Federal cluding the Federal Inspection Station (FIS), the departures level, Aviation Administration (FAA). and the arrivals level. Construction began in summer 2008. The exterior skin of the The automated people mover (APM) extension also is moving building was completed last fall, and much of the facility’s heating forward at the international terminal. The maintenance and storage 18

The GeorGia enGineer

Rendering of the airside court with the Maynard J. Jackson Jr. International terminal. The 1.2 million square-foot facility is set to open in Spring of 2012. JUNE | JULY 2011


Exterior rendering of the International Terminal.

LEED and the Maynard H. Jackson Jr. International Terminal By Al Snedeker

facility is finished, and technicians are installing the automated train control system and other components. Ten new APM vehicles are being tested and integrated into the system. There also has been progress on the eight security checkpoint lanes for international departing passengers and five recheck lanes for domestic connecting passengers. When the facility opens with these security checkpoint lanes, Atlanta-bound international passengers no longer will need to go through the necessary but unpopular baggage recheck process. Outside the building, construction continues on an elevated roadway that will serve the international terminal as well as two parking structures and a commercial vehicle lot. International passengers will have access to more than 3,500 parking spaces. Two 700,000-plus-square-foot aircraft movement ramps are taking shape. Ramp 9, on the east side of what is known as Concourse F, is paved and nearly complete. The area for Ramp 8 on the west side of Con20

course F is prepared and ready for paving. Beneath what will be Ramp 8 is the APM extension tunnel that connects the international terminal and Concourse F to the rest of Hartsfield-Jackson. About 950 feet long, the APM tunnel extension was finished in late 2010.

Key design elements include high ceilings, open spaces, and soaring windows that provide clear views of the aircraft apron on one side and the Atlanta skyline on the other. “Passengers will find the new international terminal very open, bright, and inviting,” Miller said.

Look and feel From the outside, the international terminal appears nearly complete. The sweeping roof line, gentle metallic curves, and glass façade are ready to greet passengers next year. More than 100,000 square feet of glass paneling and 215,000 square feet of exterior metal panels make up the building’s shell. While the building’s exterior has simple elegance and provides a glimpse of what is inside, the real focus on architectural design is inside the facility. “The international terminal is designed from the inside out,” Miller said. “We wanted to put most of the architecture inside the building to create the ultimate experience for our passengers.”

Activation team Several challenges must be overcome before passengers can experience the new international terminal, Miller said. “Construction is only part of the equation here. We have to really hit the mark on a smooth and successful operational opening,” he said. Hartsfield-Jackson leaders have been planning and preparing for the facility’s opening for more than a year. In February 2010, a core team was established to manage the activation process and ensure a seamless operational transition. Leading the eight-member activation team is Balram Bheodari, Hartsfield-Jackson assistant general manager for operations, The GeorGia enGineer

maintenance, and security. According to Bheodari, more than 20 stakeholder groups have direct roles in the activation of the international terminal. They include federal and state agencies, local governments, airlines, airport tenants, and construction managers. The team identified more than 1,700 tasks that must be completed to ensure a smooth opening in spring 2012. “All stakeholder groups and end users need to be prepared for opening day and beyond,” Bheodari said. “The activation team’s responsibility is to ensure that no one is working in a silo as we approach the opening of the international terminal.” Hartsfield-Jackson’s activation team oversees the ultimate to-do list and has a clear vision of all the moving parts, which include developing standard operating procedures (SOPs), updating and integrating existing SOPs, creating effective training programs, and coordinating public awareness. “We cannot be subject matter experts on everything,” Bheodari said. “Our job is JUNE | JULY 2011

to coordinate among the stakeholders to identify and eliminate any potential issues related to opening day.” The activation team has established working groups that meet regularly to focus on five functional areas: training, terminal, airside, baggage, and public awareness. Each group is developing operational procedures related to its focus. “Once they are complete, we’ll conduct trials and simulations to validate the new and updated SOPs,” said Robert Seewald, senior project manager for Parsons and a key member of the activation team. “As we train, we’ll update and refine the SOPs until they are accurate and ready to support operations.” Thousands of people—airline personnel, concessionaires, emergency service workers, custodial crews, and others—will rely on these SOPs daily as they operate and maintain the Maynard H. Jackson Jr. International Terminal when it debuts next spring. v

Effective environmental management is an ongoing commitment at HartsfieldJackson. Nowhere is this more evident than in the planning, design, and construction of the Maynard H. Jackson Jr. International Terminal. Set for completion in spring 2012, the international terminal is on track for LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Silver certification. The goal is to create a healthy, sustainable facility that has a minimal impact on the environment. The project is earning LEED certification points by using recycled and/or regionally produced construction materials, optimizing energy performance, and reducing water usage. One of the most impressive sustainability features of the 1.2 million-squarefoot terminal and concourse structure is a 25,000-cubic-foot “water box.” This structure collects rainwater from the roof of the international terminal and concourse and cleanses it through a series of filters before releasing it back into the environment. The process greatly reduces the environmental impact to surrounding groundwater. Another key part of the international terminal’s sustainability program is ensuring the quality of indoor air. For example, low-chemical-emitting paints, sealants, carpeting, and adhesives are being used throughout the facility. Environmentally friendly cleaning products and techniques, along with increased ventilation and monitoring of incoming outdoor air, also will earn LEED points for the $1.4 billion project. Construction of the Maynard H. Jackson Jr. International Terminal began in summer 2008. The international terminal and its 12-gate concourse will connect to Concourse E via an extension of the people mover, creating a 40-gate international travel complex. v


Go Green with Pervious Concrete Pavement By Wouter Gulden P.E. | Director of Engineering and Training | American Concrete Pavement Association Southeast Chapter


ervious concrete pavements are getting a lot of attention these days due their environmental benefits, and the role it can play in managing stormwater runoff. e Georgia Association of Water Professionals recently replaced some of their asphalt parking spaces at their office in Marietta with pervious concrete as part of a demonstration session conducted by the Georgia Concrete and Products Association. More and more businesses and government agencies in the South and in other parts of the country are learning about and placing Pervious Concrete Pavements. At the EPA’s National Risk Management Laboratory in Edison, New Jersey, 41 parking spaces were constructed with pervious concrete to evaluate the potential of pervious surfaces to reduce or eliminate the effects of stormwater runoff. e initial applications of pervious concrete were done largely in Florida 25 to 30 years ago. e 1987 Clean Water Act made pervious pavement a good choice to control runoff in urban locations. It has been widely used in Savannah, Georgia, for example, for more than ten years. So exactly what is pervious concrete? It has the same basic ingredients as conventional concrete such as cement, aggregates, and admixtures. e key difference is in the size and gradation of the aggregates. Typically, a size 89 stone is used with no sand in the mix and is designed to produce a void ratio from 15 percent to 25 percent. Water that gets on the pervious pavement either from rain or stormwater runoff goes through the pavement to an underlying layer of size 57 stone with a 40 percent void ratio and infiltrates slowly into the underlying soil and recharges the groundwater or gets released at a controlled rate. Pervious concrete pavement can handle from three to eight gallons of water per minute per square foot of pavement area which is equivalent to more than 275 inches of rain per hour. e design of the total pavement system is based on the underlying soil characteris22

tics. e sandy soil on the coastal areas of the state will absorb the collected water more readily than the soils typically found above the fall line. As a rule of thumb, if a soil is adequate for a septic tank system, it can handle the demands from a pervious pavement. Engineering analyses need to be done to determine the thickness of the stone layer needed for the design rainfall and the stormwater runoff area that will be handled by the pervious pavement. e need for an unsightly retention pond can be reduced or eliminated and, for example, will allow for more spaces when used in a parking lot. Some of the engineering properties of pervious concrete are a unit weight of 100 lbs/cu.ft to 120 lbs/cubit foot, making it lighter than normal concrete with a compressive strength of about 2500 psi. ese properties make it useable for applications with lighter loadings such as parking lots, walkways, and streets with some light truck loading, but not suitable for heavy duty trucks. Research is being done on mix designs that can accommodate heavier trucks

by adding a small amount of sand to the mix. e sand addition will reduce the voids and absorption capacity and must be balanced with the increase in compressive strength that is needed for a particular application ACI 330 for parking lot design has been used for structural design of pervious pavements. e American Concrete Pavement Association (ACPA) recently developed a software program for both the structural design and the hydrologic design for pervious concrete pavement. is software is available from ACPA at www. Experience has shown that the thickness of the pervious pavement needs to be four inches for walkways, six inches for light residential streets and parking lots with minimal light truck traffic, and eight inches for light commercial and residential streets with about ten to 30 trucks per day. Construction specifications are available from ACI (ACI 522.1). e Georgia DOT has also developed specifications as a special provision Section 439, “Pervious Concrete Pavement.” A guide specification is also availThe GeorGia enGineer

able from the Georgia Concrete & Products Association. An important feature of these specifications is the requirement to have certified personnel on the job and /or the placement of test panels. Certification classes are conducted by the National Ready Mix Concrete Association (NRMCA). e Georgia Concrete and Product Association should be contacted for more information on these classes. Construction of pervious pavement is not difficult, but every step is important and must be done correctly to have the final desired drainage properties. Typically, pervious pavement is produced at ready mix plants and placed and spread by hand and lightly consolidated by a vibrating screen or other such device. Care must be taken not to close up the voids in the mix. Joints are typically formed at 20 ft intervals. Large, heavy duty, asphalt type pavers have been used on some large projects. Asphalt parking lots are environmental disasters. ere is almost total runoff with potential contaminants from the oil drippings found on the pavement. e runoff water is heated in the summertime due to the pavement temperatures, and there is the heat island effect on the air from these hot temperatures. Pervious concrete has many stormwater and environmental advantages. e use of pervious concrete is one of the Best Management Practices recommended by the EPA for the management of stormwater runoff. Dale Fisher, Executive Director of the National Pervious Concrete Pavement Association (NPCPA), states that the cost for pervious concrete pavement when compared to conventional concrete is typically five percent to 15 percent higher but these cost are offset by the reduction or elimination of retention ponds, piping, inlets, etc. and the overall project cost often is less than the traditional parking lots using an impervious surface. Pervious concrete can contribute to obtaining points for LEED credits in the areas of stormwater management (LEED credit six), minimizing site disturbance (LEED credit SS 5), Recycled content (LEED credit M4), cool (LEED credit SS7), and local materials (LEED credit M5). ere is no direct credit for using pervious concrete at this JUNE | JULY 2011

time, but it can help in the categories listed. Pervious concrete also has many sustainability attributes. About 90 percent of the pollutants are carried off by the first ½ to 1 inch of rainfall. is first flush is carried into the recharge bed and into the underlying soil which filters the pollutants. Pervious pavement recharges the groundwater and can protect the trees by allowing the air and the water to reach the roots within the drip line. ere are a number of projects in Georgia and other states that have utilized pervious pavement as part of their total design. e city of Atlanta used it in the parking lot of the city jail built in 2001. A sign erected at the site proclaims that the “porous con-

crete paving” reduces storm water runoff, conserves water resources, reduces excess urban heat, and makes it an environmentally friendly parking lot. Many of the parking lots use a combination of impervious and pervious surfaces where the drive areas are asphalt or standard concrete, and the parking areas are pervious concrete. e grading is done so that the impervious areas are sloped to the pervious sections. A luxury car dealer’s parking lot

located on Mansell road in North Atlanta was built in this manner as one example. e Atlanta office of the Southface Energy Institute, which is an organization that promotes sustainable development, used pervious concrete in its hardscapes. e East Atlanta Library earned a silver LEED designation and has pervious concrete for all of its parking area and pedestrian plaza. Due to the small site, it also uses an underground storage chamber to increase the storage capacity. e Georgia DOT has built two GRTA parking lots recently where pervious concrete was utilized for a portion of the parking surface to capture the rainfall and runoff water. Pervious concrete has been used for walkways in Jarrell Plantation State Park and recently at Gwinnett County’s Freeman’s Mill Park. Numerous applications have been done in Savannah and the Bluffton area in South Carolina. Similar examples of installations can be found in North Carolina, Florida, and other parts of the country such as California, South Dakota, Michigan, and Minnesota just to name a few. Many resources are available to learn more about pervious concrete and its environmental benefits, and the role it can play in managing stormwater runoff. e National Ready Mix Association Web site is an excellent place to find the information you need to design and specify pervious concrete pavement for your next project. Assistance is also available locally from the PCA SE office, ACPASE office and NPCPA. v


Projects and Accountability… Georgia Department of Transportation is Delivering By Vance C. Smith Jr. • Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Transportation.


ome three years ago, a seemingly never-ending series of studies, audits, and reports criticized the Georgia Department of Transportation on a variety of fronts. Harsh comments made headlines across the state. Georgians were left to wonder if the DOT was an unaccountable, broken, unfixable bureaucracy. It was a difficult time for the men and women of the department, who were justifiably proud of the transportation system they had built and maintained—one of among America’s best. Nonetheless, they committed to re-examine and revise, if needed, their processes and functions.

What did they find? That despite the rhetoric, Georgia DOT remained fundamentally sound. Just as important, though, that some internal procedures and controls were outdated, could be sluggish, and weren’t always emphasized. That DOT’s best intentions often were beyond its available means. That, indeed, there was room for improvement.

Commissioner Vance C. Smith Jr. Improving project delivery and the construction process have since been distinct department focal points. The results are telling: • Aggressive efforts to speed up processes for buying right of way and beginning construction have led to 29 percent and 38 percent improvements, respectively. •

In 2010, the Department had 54 major projects (costs in excess of $10 million) underway; 49 finished the year on budget.

Twenty-one similar projects were completed and opened to traffic last year; 19 finishing within budget.

2010 saw the completion of more than a thousand DOT projects, spread throughout all of Georgia’s 159 counties.

Georgia DOT is one of 39 state transportation agencies to voluntarily submit itself to a national performance analysis. While evaluations continue, the department ranks first in delivering projects on or below budget and second in delivering projects by their scheduled completion dates.

Where do things stand now? Very much improved. The sternest criticism was that the Department ended Fiscal 2008 some $450 million in debt—a contention many still believe was simply the result of a complicated accounting argument. Regardless, the same auditors who made that initial finding reported just a few weeks ago that the department closed Fiscal 2010 with an $800 million+ fund balance. That’s a $1.5 billion turnaround in two years. Reports wondered if Georgia DOT could manage its work, if its projects weren’t usually delivered late and over budget. Frankly, that contention had some merit. 24

It also was recommended in 2008 that the department become more aggressive in maintaining quality control.

The result—a broader application of the already existing DOT program called Value Engineering (VE), a sort of before-the-fact peer review of a project’s design and construction plans. Since then, 173 VE studies have saved Georgia taxpayers more than $725 million. Every dollar spent on VE in 2010 saved $217. Some in 2008 questioned the department’s ability to properly manage the $900 million allocated to the state’s transportation by the federal stimulus program. In reality, every federal deadline was met; every dollar properly obligated; and 401 projects are right now providing jobs and improving the condition, safety, and capacity of roads and bridges throughout Georgia. Substantial achievements, in my view. I’ve been honored to serve as commissioner of this department for the past 20 months. We know our need to improve is a continuous, evolving process; that there’s always more to learn and more we can do; that our duty to be responsible stewards of the public’s transportation system and tax dollars remains forever. We realize our mission to improve safety and mobility in Georgia is ongoing. v

The GeorGia enGineer

JUNE | JULY 2011


PROACTIVE UTILITY MANAGEMENT: The Importance of Subsurface Utility Engineering and Utility Coordination By Randy W. Sanborn, PE

Surveying the located utilities enables the information to be transferred into CADD. This will help design engineers determine the final alignment of the streetcar.


nowing what lies beneath the earth’s surface can be critical when excavation of any kind is required. From projects as small as putting up a fence or planting a tree to as large as constructing a tunnel or building a bridge, there is always the possibility of encountering utilities. Subsurface Utility Engineering The lack of reliable utility data during construction activities can result in costly conflicts, delays, service disruptions, redesigns, and personal injuries. There is a far better approach to locating and mapping existing utilities then by relying on old records that are often inaccurate and, even, non-existent. Utilities are ‘risky business’ and if not handled correctly can be very costly and, more importantly, may result in loss of life. Subsurface utility engineering is about


‘risk management.’ As a project owner or engineer of record, how much risk are you willing to take? There are certain levels of responsibility when applying subsurface utility engineering services; depending on the quality level used, the higher the quality level, the less risk assumed by the owner. For example, the application of Quality Level A services (the highest quality level) puts more liability on the subsurface utility engineering provider and less on the project owner. In reverse, the lower the quality level (Quality Level D) the more responsibility assumed by the owner instead of the provider. Subsurface utility engineering combines geophysics, surveying, civil engineering and nondestructive excavation technologies. Specially trained subsurface utility engineering professionals identify and classify, to various quality levels, existing subsurface utility data and map the utility’s horizontal and vertical locations. Subsurface utility engineering is

most beneficial when used early in the design process. By accurately identifying and depicting the location of existing utilities, designers can make educated decisions on whether to relocate the utilities or design around them. It also adds value for the contractor by giving them concrete information, helping them to prepare more accurate estimates resulting in lower bids. Contractors will also be better prepared to protect their workers during construction. Subsurface utility engineering is a costeffective and proven method to reduce, unnecessary utility relocation, utility damage, outage, construction delays (where costs are highest), injuries, and saves lives. Utility Coordination The proper coordination of utilities is an absolute necessity for the success of a project. What is proper coordination? Three things have to happen for enhanced coordination The GeorGia enGineer

JUNE | JULY 2011


Ground penetrating radar was utilized to locate the original streetcar rail line which was discontinued in 1949 when it was replaced by a trolley bus system.

to occur; cooperation, communication, and coordination. The Federal Highway Administration calls these the three c’s and endorsed a video entitled, CCC: Making the Effort Works! Enhanced three c’s between governmental transportation departments and utility companies and utilization of a utility conflict analysis seem to provide the answer. Many utilities are unnecessarily relocated each year to accommodate roadway and highway construction, costing millions of dollars, delaying construction, and creating inconveniences to the public. The traditional roadway design process assesses utility conflicts when the design is near completion. The expectation is that any utility in the way simply has to move. To make matters worse, utilities sometimes remain undiscovered until damaged during construction activities. With increased congestion in the public right-of-way and our economy’s growing reliance on various utilities, transportation departments are seeing a need to be proactive and use sophisticated methods to plan ahead for potential utility conflicts. A key task involved in the utility coordination process is the analysis of utility conflicts. The preparation of a “utility conflict matrix” is a vital tool for reducing project 28

costs. The conflict matrix is a spreadsheet indentifying potential conflicts by cross referencing existing utilities with proposed design features. The end result of this process not only identifies conflicts but determines test hole locations. This is an iterative process and is based on advanced, accurate utility information garnered through subsurface utility engineering. With detailed utility information, it becomes possible to confront the cumbersome problem of identifying conflicts and determining test hole locations and condensing them into a manageable form. When utility owners and design teams work together, mutually beneficial strategies can be applied. Besides significant cost-savings and drastically reduced construction delays, utility owners are more likely to complete their relocations when presented with a conflict matrix. It demonstrates that all other options have been thoroughly investigated, rather than the previous method of forcing utilities to move facilities without much apparent forethought. Cooperation is yielding, and more desirable results are achieved. What used to be a chaotic issue of construction can now be organized into simple databases that can take full advantage of subsurface utility engineering information to

develop a plan of action. Conflict matrices need to be a significant part of utilities management. Without them, the data from the subsurface utility engineering activities would be disorganized and without merit, and there could be conflicts missed leading to construction delays and additional costs.

MATC officials knew utilities would play a major role in the development of this project. “The selected corridor is heavily congested with utilities and we knew that one of the biggest unknowns was the impact to underground utilities,” says Larry Prescott, a MATC Project Manager. “We understood the importance of identifying existing utilities as early as possible. Knowing where the existing utilities are is essential to the design of this project.” Until the subsurface utility engineering investigation is complete, the precise track alignment in the street is a moving target. Other design features are affected as well; the streetcar stops and the catenary system cannot be determined until existing utilities are identified and mapped. MATC was determined to take a more proactive approach when dealing with utilities. In early 2011, Cardno TBE was enlisted by MATC to launch a full blown subsurface utility engineering investigation. The scope included designating over

The Atlanta Streetcar In October, 2010, the City of Atlanta was awarded a Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery II (TIGER II) grant for $47 million. This federal grant will fund a portion of the estimated $72 million in construction costs for a streetcar project. The alignment currently runs through downtown Atlanta and serves some of the city’s most important and historic districts. This 2.6 mile section is the first of several sections that will be owned by the city of Atlanta and maintained/operated by Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA). A consortium of consultants referred to as Metropolitan Area Transit Consultants (MATC) is under contract by MARTA as its general engineering consultant. Because of the location of the streetcar, MARTA and

The GeorGia enGineer

160,000 linear feet of underground utilities (Quality Level B), a complete pole data table, surveying and 60 test holes (Quality Level A). Most of the utility coordination was handled by MATC but like all subsurface utility engineering services, additional coordination was involved. Coordination with 13 different utility owners was essential for the success of this project. Correlating the subsurface utility engineering data with each utility company and determining conflicts was a task within itself. Not only are we dealing with underground utilities but the overhead as well. The catenary system design will present additional conflicts with overhead utility lines and poles. Coordination with the overhead utility owners will be just as important as coordinating with those with underground facilities and may indentify even more conflicts. Imagine the congestion of 13 utilities in a 70 foot wide corridor. With the majority of these utilities under the roadway, there is very

little room to accommodate the proposed design. The challenge will be to reduce the utility relocations as much as possible and still have room for the streetcar. Conflict analysis and subsurface utility engineering are utility management tools that should be practiced in every design process. An intimate connection between conflict analysis and subsurface utility engineering is what enables truly effective utilities management. Without subsurface utility engineering, conflict analysis lacks depth perception, and without conflict analysis, subsurface utility engineering is misguided. But when working closely together, data gathering, processing, management, and distribution become one seamless process.v

Randy W. Sanborn, PE is a director for TBE Group Inc. In this role he oversees subsurface utility engineering, utility coordination and surveying and mapping services in Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. He has extensive experience with integrating subsurface utility engineering and utility coordination into a variety of design projects for the transportation industry and beyond. Mr. Sanborn graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Environmental Engineering from the University of Florida and is a registered professional engineer in four states.

JUNE | JULY 2011


2009 Georgia Infrastructure Report Card: A Mid-Term Assessment By Rebecca Shelton, PE & Dan Agramonte, PE


t has been about two years since the Georgia Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers (Georgia ASCE) issued the 2009 Georgia Infrastructure Report Card. The Report Card was created to provide a simple, easy to understand measure of the condition of the infrastructure in Georgia to help the public and policy makers in their decision-making. The Report Card comprised 12 categories: Wastewater, Stormwater, Drinking Water, Energy, Dams, School Facilities, Transit, Bridges, Airports, Roads, Solid Waste, and Parks. Now that we’re at the approximate midpoint between report cards, the Georgia Section thought it would be valuable to revisit several infrastructure categories that received poor grades: Transit: D+ Roads: D+ Stormwater: D+ Dams: D How were the original grades assigned? Georgia ASCE assembled a committee of experts who reviewed the status of each infrastructure category by reviewing data from federal, state, and local agencies and organizations. Grading criteria included condition, capacity, operation and maintenance, funding, future need, public safety, and resilience. In most infrastructure categories, more weight was placed on condition, capacity, funding, and future need because these are core criteria and better data were usually available for evaluation in these areas. The data were evaluated against objective grading criteria, and a grade was assigned based on a typical grading scale (A = 90-100%, B = 8089 percent, C = 70-79 percent, etc.) The purpose of this update is to review activities that have taken place in some of the lowest scoring categories since the Report Card was issued. At this point, new grades are not being assigned. 30

Stormwater: In 2009, progress had been made in regional and state-wide planning with the development of the Georgia Comprehensive State-wide Water Management Plan (State Water Plan) and the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning

District. Two recommendations included in the Report Card were to focus on resource protection in the implementation of the State Water Plan and for local communities to consider implementing dedicated funding sources for stormwater, such as stormwater utilities. Since the Report Card, the ten Regional Planning Councils were appointed and began working. The Regional Water Plans required by the State Water Plan are currently in draft form and are expected to be completed by the end of 2011. Based on the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division Water Quality in Georgia 20082009 report, the number of stream/river miles assessed that do not support designated uses has increased from 7,585 to 7,779. This could be because more miles were assessed in 2008-2009 (14,233 miles versus 12,930 miles previously). Fecal coliform is listed as contributing to impairment for over half of these miles. Very few additional stormwater utilities have been implemented. Stormwater utilities provide a dedicated funding source for stormwater infrastructure and water resources protection by charging property owners based on the amount of impervious

The GeorGia enGineer

surfaces on their property. Local governments have experienced reduced tax revenues due to the downturn in the economy which has reduced funding for stormwater programs. Roads and Transit: At the time of the 2009 Report Card, Georgia was the fourth fastest growing state in the nation, yet it ranked 48th in transportation funding. Georgia had a higher than average fatality rate and congestion issues in large metropolitan areas. One recommendation of the Report Card was to provide a more usable, cohesive transit system through more collaboration between municipalities, and regional and statewide planning. Another recommendation was that stable funding sources are needed. While growth has slowed significantly, there have been some changes regarding transportation funding. According to the Georgia Department of Transportation, stimulus funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 has funded about 500 projects with over $1 billion invested to date in Georgia. In addition, the Transportation Investment Act of 2010 enabled regional sales tax referendums. In April 2011, the Atlanta Regional Commission presented the Georgia Department of Transportation with a ‘wish list’ of over $29 billion in projects, including over $13 billion in transit projects. Unfortunately, the proposed 2012 penny sales tax referendum for the 10-county metro Atlanta region is only expected to generate about $8 billion in funding over ten years. On the bright side (if you could call it that), according to the Texas Transportation Institute, Atlantans wasted an average of 44 hours per year stuck in traffic congestion in 2009, which is down from 45 hours in 2008 and 49 hours in 1999. Dams: In 2009, Georgia had significantly underfunded and understaffed the Georgia Safe Dams Program. More than 33 percent of high-hazard dams, which could cause loss of life if they fail, were considered deficient by state standards, and there was a dam failure analysis backlog of over 500 dams. There were 485 state regulated dams per staff member compared to the national average of 197 dams per staff member. Since that time the staffing level has actually deJUNE | JULY 2011

creased due to not filling positions vacated due to attrition. However, the program has begun putting the responsibility for inspection on property owners and has been sending out letters to dam owners with lists of Engineers of Record who are state certified to assess dams. Property owners are required to perform quarterly inspections of their dams and send reports to the Georgia Safe Dams Program.

Overall, water resources planning has continued and there have been some additional transportation funding opportunities. However, the downturn of the economy has put increased pressure on the capital improvement programs and operating budgets of local governments and state agencies due to decreased tax revenues. In many areas, the resources do not come close to meeting the needs. Much work remains to be done. v


W h a t ’ s

i n

transportation and stormwater projects. He has more than 20 years of design experience in multiple states and communities.

t h e

NEWS Harrington Group Inc. Celebrates 25th Anniversary Twenty-five years ago, Jeff Harrington saw the need to develop a higher quality, more informed resource for providing fire protec-

Jeff Harrington tion engineering consulting services. He began Harrington Group Inc. as a one-man shop in the basement of his then Lilburn, Georgia home. Over the past 25 years, it has grown to become one of the largest and most experienced firms headquartered in the southeastern United Sates specializing in fire protection engineering, forensic fire engineering, and property loss control consulting. It has also emerged from that one-man basement shop to offices located in two cities: Duluth, Georgia, and Charlotte, North Carolina. Harrington Group strives to create intimate client relationships through delivering the “Best Total Solution� to fire protection engineering problems every time. The firm’s mission is to provide clients with creative solutions while optimizing the relationship be32

tween cost and benefit. Their specialized expertise includes fire protection design, fire building codes, life safety codes, hazard risk assessments, and fire investigation and has taken the firm throughout the hemisphere with active projects in 20 states, as well as in Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, and Mexico. Harrington Group is proud to celebrate 25 years of providing unsurpassed excellence in the fire protection engineering industry. “We are excited about reaching this very important milestone and look forward to providing both private and public sectors with solutions to their fire protection needs,� said Mr. Harrington. For more information about Harrington Group, please visit:

matched geographies. According to Richard D. Fox, CDM Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, “Both firms share a common dedication to putting our clients first and a mission to create innovative, lasting solutions that enhance quality of life, protect the environment, and support economic vitality. This provides a solid foundation for coming together. In addition, we have a steadfast commitment to employee ownership, giving us the freedom to maintain that dedication to our clients and provide superior opportunities for our employees.� “Uniting with CDM promises continued growth for our firms and our employees. CDM values WSA’s leadership in transportation. We will also be looking to WSA’s transportation specialists to advance the expansion of CDM’s transportation services CDM & Wilbur Smith Associates worldwide,� noted M. Stevenson Smith, Combine CDM and Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) WSA’s Chairman and CEO. “Together, we create a stronger entity for the future, espeare pleased to announce the acquisition of cially in a time of ongoing consolidation in WSA by CDM. The combined organization the industry.� expands both firms’ global, full-service capaWith the transaction completed, the bilities in water, environment, transportafirms have begun the important transition tion, energy, and facilities. process to integrate the two organizations. v The integration of CDM and WSA brings together one of the engineering and Gresham, Smith, and Partners construction industry’s top water and envi- Announces Additional Associate and ronment firms with an industry leader in Senior Associates transportation. The addition of WSA’s lead- Gresham, Smith, and Partners, a leading ing expertise in transportation enhances multi-disciplinary design and consulting CDM’s service portfolio and extends the firm to the built environment, announces firm’s presence in Asia and the Middle East. the following new associate and senior assoSimilarly, CDM enhances WSA’s capabilities ciates from the firm's Atlanta office: in water, environment, and design-build services. The two firms have compatible cul- Associate tures and values, complementary capabilities, Michael Bywaletz, P.E., has been named an strong commitments to exceptional client associate. Michael provides infrastructure-reservice and technical excellence, and well- lated project management and design for The GeorGia enGineer

Senior Associates Geoffrey Ax, AIA, NCARB, LEED AP, executive vice president of the federal program, has been named a senior associate. Geoffrey has more than 13 years of design and consulting experience and currently focuses his efforts on expanding a federal client-base to support the firm’s overall strategy of market diversification. Additionally, Geoffrey has provided services through Design-Build project delivery to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Department of Energy (DOE), and Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAFVAC).

flow abatement, collection systems, sewer rehabilitation, and combined sewer separation. He has provided consulting services to several of the largest utilities in the Southeast. He graduated magna cum laude from the University of Alabama at Birmingham in 1997 and has 15 years experience in engineering. Scott Shelton, P.E., has been named a senior associate. Scott is an engineer with more than 15 years of experience designing and

managing roadway projects for public agencies. Scott is responsible for managing the design, scope, schedule, and budget of major Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), Gwinnett County, Community Improvement District (CID), and other local government projects. Scott was the lead project engineer on the removal of the reversible lane system on US 78 which recently received an ACEC of Georgia Engineering Excellence Honor Award. v

Hal Humphrey, P.E., has been named a senior associate. Hal is a senior engineer in the Water Services Department and has expertise ,in the areas of infiltration, inflow and over-



from... Serving Georgia from... Carolina.704.593.0992 olina.704.593.0992 North Carolina &HQWUDO2IĂ°FH..216.831.6131 &HQWUDO2IĂ°FH ..216.831.6131



JUNE | JULY 2011


Looking at the World through Sustainability-colored Glasses By Marsha Anderson Bomar, AICP | Senior Principal Transportation, Planning, & Traffic Engineering | Stantec Jim Paulmann, AICP | Senior Principal, Planning, & Landscape Architecture | Stantec


iscal responsibility, particularly for elected officials, demands a new style of decision-making. Those assisting with planning efforts must make compelling cases for ideas that do not fit the ‘low bid’ paradigm. Looking only at what we spend now or how we have always done things, will keep us locked into answers that are not necessarily defining a sustainable future. Let’s first describe what we believe are some of the concepts that need to be examined: solutions that have life cycle costs that are reasonable (and not just cheaper to initially implement); creation of policies that encourage true integration of land use and transportation; incorporation of these principles in community planning; and ways to spend less or generate new revenue streams. Communities can shop from a broad menu of areas to tackle. Focusing here on transportation and infrastructure, one can address development policies and how they impact feasibility of alternative forms of transportation, total life cycle cost of road construction including on-site recycling of materials, runoff treatments, and stormwater management including the appropriate use of permeable pavements or bioretention. Remembering that what gets measured gets done, it is vitally important to establish performance measures to stay on task.

Orlando Truck Strategy While conducting research for the Federal Highway Administration to identify transportable solutions to urban goods movement problems, this creative, sustainable solution was identified. When funds for road improvements are limited, focusing on low cost-high value solutions is very productive. With the extra demand that truck traffic places on the roads in terms of wear and tear, as well as overall operations, layering on the identification of preferred routes can increase the effectiveness 34

A Multi-Modal Plan with an Electric Vehicle Twist Multi -modal transportation planning can be described as the integration and interaction among modes of transportation such as pedestrians, bicycles, passenger vehicles, and transit where all modes of transportation are considered important. Multi-modal planning can occur at various levels such as a corridor, sector, district, community, or region. Such a plan consists of two primary components: multi-modal streets integrated with supportive mixed-use land use plans. The foundation of the plan is a policy framework to tie it together through guidelines and standards coupled with incentives, to encourage implementation of such concepts as complete streets, context sensitive design, transit oriented design, and other smart growth community development. The benefits of a multi-modal system include reduced traffic congestion, reducing the reliance on traditional passenger vehicles, fossil fuel dependence, and greenhouse gas reduction.

Industrial area intersections not designed for large trucks. of dollars spent. Identifying areas to designate as freight villages, through land use policies, allows the concentration of industrial type or other heavy vehicle intensive land uses. Among the many benefits are the limited number of roads and intersections that need to be improved to adequately handle the traffic and the natural encouragement of drivers to follow truck routes because of improved functionality. One such area is near the airport and with wide lanes, large turning radii, and limited access points, the preferred roads become the ones of choice.

Low Speed Electric Vehicles (LSVs) Historically, golf carts were considered the only form of LSV’s and with limited practical use. Their evolution and application have greatly expanded and now can be considered an important component to a sustainable multi-modal system. Golf carts have been used as easy ways for residents to get around neighborhoods in planned communities to visit friends and make trips to community facilities, as well to provide community maintenance without using cars and trucks. While golf carts have been desirable for these uses, as they were far more functional, fuel efficient and quieter, they lacked the safety features necessary to expand their use beyond these communities, such as seatbelts, horns, windshield wipers, turn signals, and brake and tail lamps. Federal law requires that LSV’s have this basic safety equipment and allows them to operate on public roadways The GeorGia enGineer

with posted speed limits up to 35 mph. In recent years, cities and master planned communities have planned for and implemented LSV networks as an alternative mode of transportation. Pilot Program in Sarasota County, Florida The most recent example of planning for LSVs in a multi-modal network was in Sarasota County, Florida, as part of plans for their Economic Energy Zone. This project was a public private partnership between the county and the Palmer Ranch, one of Florida’s largest and highly recognized master planned community is owned by former Tampa Bay Buccaneers owner Hugh Culverhouse. This program, which was funded in part by the U. S. Department of Energy, with oversight by the Florida Department of Community Affairs, was a pilot to develop a model for communities to cultivate green economic development, plan to discourage sprawl, develop energy efficient land use patterns, and reduce greenhouse gasses. One of the main components of this plan linking land use and transportation was developing a functional LSV network as part of a multi-modal plan. The land use component involved a private sector initiative to create a model sustainable community anchored by a major employment center to attract clean technology industries and a commercial center. Higher density residential areas would be incorporated into and surround this area, with lower densities stepping down from this core area providing a mix in housing units. This goal was to provide a jobs to housing balance and link these areas with an interconnected street pattern and separate green radial corridors. This would connect environmental areas and link the living and working areas with opportunities to walk or bike. An internal LSV network was a main component of these corridors as a separate designated pathway. This also provides an opportunity for LSV connection to a transit hub for external connections outside the community. Recognizing that not all residents of this community would work there and not all employees of businesses in the community would live there, an external multi-modal network featuring an LSV network was developed. JUNE | JULY 2011

Curb and landscaping damaged, utility pole almost in wheel path This was based on a standard 20 minute commute which equates to a six mile LSV service radius. A corresponding service radius was developed for a three mile bike commute and a quarter mile walking commute. The development of the LSV network focused not only on the jobs to housing connection but identified major attractors within the area including commercial areas, schools, health care facilities, recreation areas and other community services. Connecting these ,facilities was accomplished by evaluating the

Multi-modal plan for sustainable community showing reasonable distances for walking, bicycling, and low speed electric vehicles.

thoroughfare system to determine where LSVs can currently share roadways, share roadways by reducing current speed limits (35 MPH or lower), or create a separate designated pathway. While even recently LSVs were considered a niche market, their use has been rapidly expanding around the country. Higher transportation costs (fuel and vehicles), traffic congestion, greenhouse gas reduction, and convenience will likely see an increasing role of LSVs in our future transportation system. The Sarasota example is a blueprint for both developing an LSV network in both new sustainable master planned communities and retrofits in our existing communities. Closing Thoughts Many other examples can be given of ways to create financially sound and responsible solutions for all types of transportation related projects. Others might include parking facilities that utilize swales to manage stormwater runoff eliminating the need for irrigation, or parking systems that are powered by solar panels, or roads that are built using ground in place materials for the base reducing truck trips by hundreds. Communities in Canada are required to have Sustainability Plans, and many here in the US are beginning to develop them because they make good sense. What are you doing on your projects and in your community? v 35


Luther O. Cox Jr., P.E. President Georgia Society of Professional Engineers

We Have a Communication Problem We always have a communication problem. Regardless of who you are, I am willing to bet good money that you are having a communication problem with someone. Your wife, sweetheart, children, boss, client, even your closest friend, you name it, we all have communication problems. Even when we try our level best to express our message correctly, people will misinterpret the message, or ignore it as not applying to them. I am hopefully not wasting my time trying to communicate with you, yes, you who are taking the time to read this portion of our outstanding publication. “What is the message I am trying to get across?” you think. “Get to the point.” Here it is; two things: You are important and your help is needed. We need help on many fronts: speakers, mentors, judges, scorers, school career day presenters, working committee members. We can use every talent you may have, and I know you have them, or you would not be an engineer. I don’t care if you are the newest PE or retired, your knowledge and ability to think logically and make decisions which can improve the health, welfare, and safety of your community are needed now more than ever. I can look back over the history of our country and see how we engineers developed the canals, railroads and steamboats, power stations, highways and transportation systems, and communication systems that have made our nation so great. Yes, it was engineers who designed and directed the construction of these things and the tall buildings of commerce. Not MBAs, lawyers, or accountants. Maybe the leaders of the time had a vision of the future or the engineers were just great talkers, I don’t know. 36

Maybe the engineers were the leaders. But if you look at recent times, you find a lack of vision in both our leaders and our engineers. Eisenhower saw the value of the interstate system to move people and goods across our country quickly. Kennedy gave us a vision of great space exploration. Both of these have given us major improvements in our way of life and our economy. Space technology has increased our lifespan and quality of life, and improved almost every aspect of our lives. Engineers were there making the hard decisions on how best to do it. We dreamed of a new and better world, and it was built. But something has gone wrong. The great infrastructure we built has worn out and there are no really new designs on the horizon of our country. Too, the value of the engineer has diminished. At the turn of the century, engineers were at the top of the salary list. Now we are below the fifth. Now the really great transportation systems reside in other countries. New systems for energy development also reside there. We have no national energy plan even though we’ve dumped billions into the Department of Energy. We have no national water conservation and development plan. We are not educating our children enough to make them competitive with other countries, much less self-sustaining citizens.It is not looking good. Who is going to lead the cavalry to the rescue? NSPE proposes to be the “Voice of Engineers” for all the states and GSPE the representative for Georgia. When you passed your exam to become a professional engineer, you were by law given the authority and responsibility to make decisions affecting the safety, health, and welfare of the public. It is your individual responsibility, yes; each and

every one of you took on the responsibility to guide your company, your clients, your community, and country in making the right decisions. You were supposed to become an active part of a Society of Licensed Engineers, NSPE and GSPE, to make your voice more powerful. If you didn’t join NSPE and GSPE, you lost your voice as an individual. It has long been known that united we stand, divided we fall. The only way our leaders will look to us for guidance is to have a strong voice and a plan that will solve the problems they face. Let me illustrate the current problem. The surveyors of the state have about 1500 members that have repeatedly gotten the attention of the legislature when they need something. There are about 17,000 licensed engineers in Georgia, but less than 1,000 are members of NSPE/GSPE. If we need something from the state, or heaven forbid, have them even think to ask our advice, forget it. That is to me, incredibly sad. For the cream of the crop of engineers who have proven

The GeorGia enGineer

their skill, knowledge, and reputation through testing and references, to have so little impact on our leaders and the future of our state makes me cry. We can’t even outdo the surveyors. As president of GSPE, if I can’t have the support of the licensed engineers of Georgia, I have little or no voice in helping the state of Georgia. Every one of the17,000 engineers in Georgia need to be members of NSPE/GSPE. Think of what we could do with that kind of participation. Florida engineers have great influence in their state, so I know large membership gives strength to our professional engineers’ voices. If there is anything that I know and believe, it is that any group of people, and especially engineers, can accomplish miracles by working together. Chances are, if you are reading this, you are a member, but you need to get your fellow engineers to read this and get them to join. And to get active. Besides, it really looks good on your resume if you can say you are working in your local GSPE chapter. The chapters, and we need many more of them, help with networking, give you presentations on current events and projects, and get you up to speed on what you can do to help out at the state level.They award PDH’s to help you keep your license. Chapter members benefit by getting a better perspective on what is going on and what needs to be done. The icing on the cake? I’ve made a lot of friends and met many people who have helped me in oh so many ways. You can too. Well, I hope I have effectively communicated the need for every licensed engineer to become a member of NSPE, and GSPE especially. But what about the need for getting our children interested in becoming engineers? When was the last time you participated in a career day at your local schools? It happens every spring. I have had the fun of doing it a couple of times, and you are missing a great opportunity to look great in the eyes of your children and grandchildren, and their friends. All you have to do is take along a few gadgets to show and explain how engineers have been a part of every aspect of their lives. Should be easy as falling off a log backwards, and even more fun. Try supporting MATHCOUNTS in your school or chapter, or help kids design a city with Future Cities, JUNE | JULY 2011

or support contests in World in Motion, or any number of things that require very little time or effort. But, oh the rewards of watching the eyes light up, and enthusiasm of the young ones. Good as Christmas. Speaking of enthusiasm, it would thrill me to find a kid’s enthusiasm in the 17,000 engineers in the state of Georgia. Oh what we could accomplish by working together. Guess you know by now, I am enthused. How about you, yes, you becoming the best part of the future of Georgia. You are in fact very important whether you know it or not. Join the Georgia Society of Professional Engineers and become more important by helping me make your children’s future brighter. Have I communicated with you? If so, maybe that part of my communication problem is solved. I’ll know for sure when you have communicated your enthusiasm to me by taking action. I look forward to working with you to make the power of your knowledge effective in our community and state, maybe even the nation. Check out our Web site and see what you can do to make your

engineer’s voice heard loud and clear in the state of Georgia. Luther O. Cox, Jr., PE ~ President “Every man owes a part of his time and money to the business or industry in which he is engaged. No man has a right to withhold his support from an organization that is striving to improve conditions within his sphere.” Teddy Roosevelt-1908 v




To view the entire ACEC/G Strategic Plan with detailed action items please visit the ACEC/G Web site at

Tom Gambino, PE President ACEC/G

Greetings, is is my last article as ACEC/G president, and I would like to thank ACEC’s members for giving me the privilege of serving as president of this fine organization. I hope that the accomplishments of our team of officers, board members, committee chairs, volunteers, and staff have advanced the ACEC/G cause this year. As Jim Hamilton assumes ACEC/G’s presidency July 1, 2011, I am hopeful that our industry will soon pull out of the Great Recession. I believe that over the past three years, ACEC/G has provided our member firms with information and counseling that has helped them to weather the downsizing. I know that the ACEC/G leadership has worked tirelessly to convey our message to the state and national capitals. And no matter how small our individual voices, I know that our collective voices have been heard. Many are predicting that the economy, after having reached its lowest point, has begun to improve, and I hope that these predictions are true. However, I challenge our business owners to remain focused on managing the inevitable changes to our industry. By getting involved with ACEC/G, you will have a say in the future of our industry. I also challenge our business owners to ensure your young leaders get involved with ACEC/G. Each year, more than 50 committees have vacancies in need of filling. ACEC/G is looking for participants for each of these positions. If your young employees are like my young employees, they want to make a difference. Give them a no-cost chance to make a difference, by nominating them to the ACEC/G office for an assignment. 38

To our young leaders I have only one message—get involved. ere are no roadblocks in your way; just call the ACEC/G office and volunteer. Leaders are self-driven, not appointed by others. To our associate members, I would like to thank you for your support. e ACEC/G member firms and associates have a mutually supportive relationship. Our association is better because of our associate members, and you should know that you are appreciated. Lastly, I would like to thank my ACEC/G team. First, to the officers: rough your years of service you have proven your commitment to our industry and your willingness to give back. You should be proud of your accomplishments. ank you so much for your support. I would also like to thank the veteran and new board members for your time in serving on the board and for your honest feedback. To the committee chairs, who are the hardestworking group of industry leaders, I com-

mend you for your leadership, creativity, and time. To our volunteers and young leaders, thank you for getting involved. I hope you will continue to stay involved in ACEC/G, because the more you give, the more you get back. Finally I would like to say thank you to the ACEC/G staff. You guys are the best! ank you for your guidance, patience, prodding, and kindness. As all the presidents before me have come to know, the ACEC/G staff is the best staff in the ACEC nation. ank you! Best regards,

omas D. Gambino President ACEC/G v

Jennifer King, PE, President Women in Transportation Seminar Accomplishing Our Mission As I am sure many professional organizations do, WTS often struggles in finding ways to serve all of our members to the best of our ability. In our quest to increase membership and grow the presence of our organization within the transportation community, we often lose sight of our true mission of “advancing women in transportation.” During our Strategic Planning Session earlier this year, we identified the goal of providing benefits that help achieve this mission as a top priority. To achieve this goal, we are continuing to place emphasis on some of our successful past programs as well as implementing some new ones that we believe will strengthen our chapter by continuing to prove the benefit of being a WTS member. Mentor-Protégé Program In April, we wrapped up our fifth bi-annual Mentor-Protégé Program. Through this program, seven women new to the transportation industry were paired with members with more than ten years of experience. Lunch events were held monthly with speakers who presented on Career Advancement, the Importance of Giving Back, Transportation Financing, Networking, Politics, and Business Development. We want to thank all of our mentors and protégés who participated in the program and encourage them to continue the spirit of mentorship throughout their career. Protégé Crystal Banks Stacy Blakely Stephanie Carter Yi Lin Pei Eva Pruitt Jing Xu Lyuba Zuyeva

The GeorGia enGineer

JUNE | JULY 2011

Mentors Helen McSwain Margie Pozin Claudia Bilotto Nicole Hall Jo Ann Tuttle Beth Ann Schwartz Angie Malta

Leadership Roundtable One of our greatest challenges in accomplishing our mission of “advancing women in transportation” comes in trying to do this for our members who are high level professionals and industry leaders. How do we go beyond the networking opportunities and technical programs to truly provide benefit to these busy individuals who have attended and presented countless technical programs over their careers? In an effort to give back to these key women, WTS is in the process of establishing a Leadership Roundtable. This group will be comprised of 15 to 20 of Atlanta’s leading women in transportation. Our chapter will organize quarterly meetings to provide a forum for these leaders to get together and discuss key issues in transportation. We will bring in speakers of regional and national significance to share information and moderate discussions with this group. We look forward to kicking this program off in the coming months and hope that it will become an ongoing effort for the WTS Chapter. Breakfast with the GDOT Commissioner and Board One way in which we have always benefited our members and Corporate Sponsors is by providing networking opportunities with public and private sector leaders. We are excited to announce that we will be hosting a breakfast with Commissioner Vance Smith and the GDOT board on June 16, before the monthly GODT board meeting. This event will be open to members and Corporate Sponsors only, as space is limited. Please visit our Web site at for more information about this event. v

President Jennifer King, PE Jacobs Vice President-Programs

Laurie Reed, PE HNTB

Vice President-Membership

Tonya Saxon MARTA

Secretary Angela Snyder, PE Wolverton and Assoc Treasurer Marissa Martin, PE Gresham Smith Partners Director at Large Beth Ann Marks, PE The LPA Group Director at Large Heather Alhadeff, AICP Perkins + Will Director at Large Jennifer Harper, PE URS Corporation Director at Large Helen McSwain, PE PBS&J Immediate Past President Emily Swearingen, PE URS Corporation Thanks to our 2011 Corporate Sponsors: Platinum Level

Bronze Level

Gold Level





Kimley Horn


KYS Communication


McGee Partners

JAT Consulting

Reynolds, Smith &

Thompson Engineering

Hill Southeastern Engineering, Inc. (SEI)

Silver Level





Associates Wolverton & Associates




Kurt Swensson, PE, SE President The Structural Engineers Association of Georgia

Birdel F. Jackson, III, P.E, President GMCEA • The Black Corps of Engineers and the Alaska-Canada (ALCAN) Highway Black soldiers of the 93rd, 95th, 97th (regiments) and 388th Battalion (Separate) of the Corps of Engineers were assigned to Alaska following the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941. These soldiers made a major contribution to our nation’s defense in World War II. Until the late 1990s, their achievements were not recognized. The road was critical to the Allied defense strategy because of the Japanese Pacific incursions. The engineering regiments were segregated by race. The commander of the construction effort, General Simon Bolivar Buckner was the son of the general of the same name who surrendered to General Grant to end the Civil War. He lamented in letters to the assistant chief of engineers that he did not want to use the troops and that the Canadians preferred white troops. He didn’t think the black troops could do the job even though they had more construction training than their white counterparts. Further he would schedule “two shifts of 20 hours each and in out of the way places.” He was also concerned that the very high wages would attract large numbers of troops and cause them to remain after the war, with the natural result of intermarrying with the Native American population. The generals conspired to keep the black troops as far from civilization as possible. Certain towns were off limits. Leave was scarce for the black troops. All the black regiments were commanded by white officers. Most of them felt that commanding black troops was detrimental to their careers. The white officers 40

lived in Quonset huts while their black troops lived in thin cloth tents. The black troops were mainly from the south and had not experienced the harsh winter ahead. They were given light uniforms and thus improvised to deal with the harsh environment. The black soldiers were taught by the Native Americans assigned to the effort that condensation on the outside of the tents provided an insulating barrier that kept the heat in their tents and to keep their feet dry and prevent freezing. There was significant teaching and mentoring among the most educated and least educated of the troops. Several tutoring sessions were conducted and many returned home more literate than when they left. When constructing sections of the road, the black troops were given equipment that was scheduled for scrap use. Sometimes at night, the black troops would commandeer the equipment used by the white troops and would double the progress the white troops had made. The construction of the 1522 mile highway was completed in eight months and 12 days, in -40 degree temperatures that reached a record low of -79. Though mostly from the south, they persevered. Their effort and that of the Tuskegee Airmen and other unheralded segregated units hastened the integration of the armed forces following the war. These black battalions constituted 35 percent or 3,695 soldiers of a total force of 10,670 troops. The soldiers were decorated for their efforts and shipped out to serve in the South Pacific and Europe. The fiftieth anniversary celebration of the highway was held in 1992 in Alaska, and

there was limited mention of the black troops and their contributions. On March 26, 1993, the state of Alaska passed legislation, signed by Governor Hickel, renaming the bridge over the Gestle River the “Black Veterans Recognition Bridge”. Information from an article by E. Valerie Smith, “The Black Corps of Engineers and the construction of the Alaska Highway-ALCANAfrican American and World War II” v

The GeorGia enGineer

SEAOG With the beginning of summer there is much to do. For structural engineers in Georgia, it is time to renew our membership in SEAOG for the 2011-2012 year. SEAOG meetings and seminars are a great place to form new relationships, learn new ways to deal with the challenges of our industry, and seek new career or business opportunities. We encourage you to visit our Web site for specific information about our meetings, to renew your membership, or become a new member. Membership with SEAOG has many benefits including discounts to all SEAOG seminars, AISC Seminars, as well as NCSEA seminars, webinars, and products. These discounts alone will cover the cost of membership many times over. Membership in SEAOG also puts you on our contact list so we can keep you informed of opportunities to earn your professional development units, actions in the legislature that may affect your practice and profession, changes to licensing and registration coming from the Georgia Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors (PELS Board), and proposed building code revisions. Support of SEAOG with your membership helps provide structural engineers in the state representation in the legislature through SEAOG’s membership in the Georgia Engineering Alliances Legislative Council. It also gives you a voice with the PELS Board. Most importantly, your membership in SEAOG and attendance at functions provides support for high quality, low cost, opportunities to earn professional development hours (PDHs) for Georgia, Florida, and other surrounding states. This is a vital role for SEAOG and an important service to our members. Through eight monthly memberJUNE | JULY 2011

ship meetings and at least one eight-hour seminar each year, SEAOG provides all the PDHs required to meet the requirements of continuing professional competency. PDHs from SEAOG’s seminars and meetings can also be used to fulfill the requirements of the SECB Structural Certification. In 20102011, SEAOG provided a seminar dealing with assessment of structures in response to seismic or high wind events. Membership meetings included topics ranging from the application and use of Good Samaritan Laws, emergency response of structural engineers in Haiti, risk management for structural engineers, modular precast structural systems, and new advances in active structural monitoring and control. The board has begun planning for the 2011-2012 year and seeks input from our members and structural engineers in Georgia concerning topics for seminars or membership meetings as well as speakers of interest. You can send any recommendations or suggestions to us by going to the SEAOG Web site ( ) then clicking the “Contact Us” link. Some major issues of interest in the coming year include funding and operation of the PELS board, an effort to create a specialty SE License, and taxation and spending actions affecting structural engineers by the state legislature. The proposed state budget for 2012 includes deep cuts in the operation budget for the PELS Board. It is our opinion that this budget was already inadequate to meet the licensing and registration needs of the states structural engineers so the new cuts are a concern. Through membership in the Georgia Engineering Alliance, we have joined with other professional engineering organi-

zations in an effort to review and provide input to the Secretary of State’s office related to support for the necessary functions of the PELS board. With changes to the exam requirements for PEs with structural experience in Georgia, and active movements to create specialty SE licensing in states across the region and country, the SEAOG Board has formed a committee to pursue the development of a specialty license for structural engineers in Georgia. The national debate over specialty registration for fields of engineering, such as for structural engineers, is beginning to heat up, and we want to make certain our membership is kept up to date with the latest ideas and thinking on this important issue. We are consulting with NCSEA on sample legislation, rules, and implementation for such a license based on the experience of other state organizations. A presentation at the Georgia Engineering Alliances Summer Conference on June 21st is intended to be a discussion with other professional engineering organizations in the state. The SEAOG board welcomes any questions or comments related to these or other issues from our members and other professional engineers in the state. You can provide comments at our Web site by following the “Contact Us” link. v




Marion Waters, P.E. ITS President There is very little doubt that I am on the geeky side of being an engineer. My wife of 41 years tells me regularly that it takes a very special person to tolerate someone with my special characteristics. Being the magnanimous person that I am, I do not take offense, nor do I intend to change. Being on the geeky side of engineering, I speak and write in acronyms. ITS, ATMS, ITE, ASHE, ASCE, ASTM, GSPE, TMC, TCC, EOC, LCD, LED, VDS, CMS, DMS, MPH, FPS, ADT, AADT, VPD, VPH, GPS, GIS, HDMI, DVI, MPG, MPEG, H.264 and NTCIP are all part of my vocabulary. Guess what? If you are familiar with half of the terms in the previous paragraph, you are probably on the geeky side too. If you are reading this and recognized ALL of the abbreviations and terms, we probably know each other very well. Being well balanced and with a sincere love for my profession, I am comfortable with my oddities and eccentricities, but occasionally I run into the use of an acronym that is undefined. When this happens, I am bothered to the point of distraction until I can get a handle on the new string of letters and the ideas and concepts they represent. One day recently, I began my day as I very frequently do, with a quick read of one of the many technical publications I receive either by paid subscription or as a free publication distributed for advertisement. That particular day, I picked the special annual edition of an international magazine presenting a wide range of articles setting the stage for a sponsored conference in Europe in 2012. The lead article made me really proud as I negotiated the odd spelling of European English words such as “REALISED” 42

instead of realized, and “CENTRE” instead of center. I was feeling really good when I came across the term, ICT Being of an age where memory is the first suspect in every case when I encounter something I don’t immediately recognize (e.g. is this really something new, or should I already know this term and have just forgotten it again?), I immediately became obsessed with finding the definition of the term. Reading further in order to seek context, there were three phrases presented in rapid fire sequence which contained this acronym. “…better management of its existing network and vastly improved ICT deployment in the form of ITS.” “…before the ICT revolution…” “The importance of an ICT infrastructure for urban transport…”

cation I was reading at the time, it was a general term referring to the application of Information and Communication Technologies within the field of environmental sustainability. Good, I was OK again. It was not my memory that had failed (again). It was just a term I had not run across in the transportation industry. However, as I read further, I began to be disturbed again, because, these terms and the context in the way they were discussed SHOULD have been something that I was not only aware of, but should have been concerned about. I don’t want you to be as uninformed as I was, so, here is a little more on the subject so you will know when you see it again. ICT is an extended term for Information Technology (IT), but it is a much more general term. That is to say that IT is a subset of ICT. Likewise, for the transportation community, ITS is a subset of ICT. In other words, ICT consists of ITS as well as telephony, broadcast media, all types of audio and

video processing, and transmission and network based control and monitoring systems. More and more application areas are becoming relevant to sustainable development in industry, health care, agriculture, and the transportation industry so we can expect the term to become more commonly recognized. So, what is the purpose of all verbiage for this article? We must constantly learn and be aware that even as our industry is changing, it is only a part of the world of change. We must adapt and be ready to adapt further by looking carefully at what the future of Transportation and Intelligent Transportation Systems will be. As transportation moves to different forms than we see today, we will see the term ICT more frequently. Several trends will be responsible for driving this


shift in our industry. First will be the increasingly expensive cost of oil based vehicle fuels, and the potential electrification of the urban areas (more electric cars and more electric service vehicles in urban areas) with electric recharging stations being deployed (been to California recently?) to reduce the pollution levels and petroleum based fuel usage. Second, we can expect there to be more emphasis on information to the vehicle and from the vehicle that can be shared with other transportation users. The ITS GEORGIA Chapter Annual meeting is in September of this year, and the Organizing Committee has selected the theme of 20/20 VISION. We are all excited by the work the Technical Program Committee has been doing to line up sessions with topics that will help us achieve a clearer

vision of the future of ITS. In late April of this year, I was very excited to get the good news that Ms. Shelley J. Row, Program Director of the Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office in the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) has agreed to be our keynote/opening session speaker for our annual meeting. Ms. Row has only recently returned from an extensive stay in southern Europe and has extensive understanding of how ITS can make our lives better. Please visit our Web site ( for information about our monthly meetings for 2011 and our annual meeting to be held September 18 – 20, 2011 at the Reynolds Plantation near Greensboro, Georgia. v


Marion Waters, Gresham, Smith and Partners

Christine Simonton, Delcan

Marwan Abboud, Arcadis Ronald Boodhoo, GDOT Susie Dunn, ARC John Hibbard, PBS&J Carla Holmes, Gresham, Smith and Partners Patrece Keeter, DeKalb County Scott Mohler, URS Tom Sever, Gwinnett County DOT Kenn Fink, Kimley-Horn Bayne Smith, URS

Immediate Past President

State Chapters Representative

Anthony Bradford, GDOT

Kenny Voorhies, Cambridge Systematics Inc.

Vice President Mark Demidovich, GDOT

Secretary Kristin Turner, Arcadis


Ex Officio Greg Morris, Federal Highway Administration Jamie Pfister, Federal Transit Administration

This was even more disturbing to me. Had I already forgotten another revolution? Did I miss a significant shift in the ITS world for the first version of ICT before it was improved? You simply cannot realize how disturbed I was to realize that I must have missed an entire change in the infrastructure of the transportation used in urban areas. I immediately charged in to action by cranking the Google engine to the max, and found gratification learning that this term is well known (just not to me) and has been defined for use in a number of application areas. The acronym ICT stands for “Information and Communication Technologies.” To be specific, for the article and publi-

OUR SPONSORS Thanks to our sponsors, who provide valuable financial assistance to the organization: Daktronics DIAMOND SPONSOR GOLD SPONSORS Cambridge Systematics Temple Control Technologies Intelligent Devices AECOM Midasco PLATINUM SPONSORS Transdyn Grice and Associates World Fiber Kimley-Horn Videolarm Utilicom Iteris Gannett Fleming URS Traficon Quality Traffic PBS&J Garrettcom Citilog GS&P Arcadis SILVER SPONSORS Serco Southern Lighting & Traffic Systems Delcan Multilink Sensys Maxcell The GeorGia enGineer

JUNE | JULY 2011



tional one percent retail sales tax. This one-cent sales tax referendum is tremendously important to the future of the Atlanta region. Not only contending with the daily travel issues, we are falling behind other areas around the country in attracting new businesses because of our congestion problems. As one of 12 regions statewide, the Atlanta area would receive approximately $9 billion over the ten year collection period to make improvements in the transportation

Mike Holt, PE, PTOE, President Georgia Section, Institute of Transportation Engineers Thirty members of the Georgia Section attended the Southern District ITE Meeting in Lafayette, Louisiana, in April. We joined over 200 other transportation professionals throughout the Southeast to learn about innovative practices and projects in traffic, planning, and transportation engineering. We enjoyed Cajun hospitality and networking with our colleagues and friends within our nine state district. The Georgia Section was well represented, and we brought home several awards and recognitions that are highlighted below. “The Herman J. Hoose Distinguished Service Award” was created to recognize persons who untiringly and unselfishly contributed to our profession and our organization, and who by personal integrity, leadership and example inspired fellow professionals to greater service. The Georgia Section is proud that our own Kenny Voorhies, PE, PTOE of Cambridge Systematics was the 2010 recipient of this prestigious award. Kenny has been active in ITE his entire career. He was President of the Georgia Section in 1989 and President of the Southern District in 2000. “The John F. Exnicios Government Employee Outstanding Service Award” was created to recognize public service employees for outstanding contributions to their community, to transportation engineering in the public sector and to the Southern District of ITE. Todd Long, PE, PTOE of Georgia DOT was the 2010 recipient of this award. Todd is the Director of Planning and was President of the Georgia Section in 2004. We are equally proud of Todd. The Georgia Section received the Best Section Award from the Southern District. Every year the competition is close between the Georgia and North Carolina Sections, as we both have very strong programs. Our an44

nual report showcased our 2010 activities, which included 39 events, such as meetings, training, webinars, social events, and community service activities. Thanks to David Low for his leadership in 2010 that earned us this award. GA ITE has two very active university chapters; one at Georgia Tech and the other at Southern Polytechnic State University (Southern Poly). The Georgia Tech chapter sponsors an activity every month hosting a meeting, webinar, or technical presentation. The April 2011 Georgia Section monthly meeting was hosted by the student chapter on the Georgia Tech campus, which highlighted GDOT Commissioner Vance Smith as the guest speaker. The chapter also sent representatives to various national events throughout the past year, with members having attended the GA ITE Summer Seminar, ITE’s Southern District Annual meeting, and TRB in Washington. The chapter also sponsors numerous social events and community service projects with students participating in Habitat for Humanity and Atlanta Streets Alive. The success of the Georgia Tech chapter was recognized by the Southern District as the runner-up for best student chapter within the nine state region, which has 26 active student chapters. Stephanie Box and Chris Rome were in attendance at the District meeting to receive this award on behalf of Georgia Tech. The Southern Poly chapter has had one of the more productive and successful years in recent history, while its membership has grown to 25 active members. The student chapter hosted a number of technical meetings and sponsored field trips to different facilities, including Georgia DOT’s General Office and Transportation Management Center, Cobb DOT’s Transportation Management Center, and United Consulting.

This allowed the student chapter to gain hands-on experience of transportation industry activities. Student members have also been active in attending our Section’s monthly meetings. The Southern Poly student chapter made the Georgia Section very proud as they finished a close second place in the District Traffic Bowl competition at the Southern District Annual Meeting. This was the first year Southern Poly fielded a Traffic Bowl team, and their success earned the chapter a $1,500 prize. Bryan Sartin, Josh Conrad, and Zach Lammers represented Southern Poly on the Traffic Bowl team. Advisor Sung-Hee (Sunny) Kim also attended the meeting to support the team. A huge amount of activity that has already occurred in preparation of the regional sales tax vote resulting from House Bill 277, the Transportation Investment Act, and there is even more work to take place prior to the August 21, 2012 vote. All of the municipalities have submitted their project requests (draft investment list). Now GDOT and its regional partners are evaluating the list for meeting the project criteria. Once the candidate list is finalized, the regional roundtables will either approve or reject the list, with decisions having to be made by October 15, 2011. Anticipating that the project list will be approved, these transportation investments would ultimately be decided by each region’s voters during next year’s general primary election. To aid in the education and advocacy of the program, two groups have been formed. The Metro Atlanta Voter Education Network (MAVEN) will take a lead role in providing educational matters, etc. so the citizens will have as much data as possible to make an informed decision at the polls. The Citizens for Transportation Mobility (CTM) will be the primary advocacy group encouraging voters to say yes to impose the addiThe GeorGia enGineer

system. The funding would be applied to: roadway improvements, roadway and bridge maintenance, safety and traffic operations, freight and logistics, aviation, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit capital, and transit operations and maintenance. I encourage everyone to be as informed as possible about the regional sales tax program and make that informed decision in August 2012. Our Summer Seminar registration is now active through our Web site,

Board Position President

Name Mike Holt We invite all transportation professionals to join us at the King and Prince Beach and Golf Resort on St. Simons Island for our Summer Seminar, July 17-20. We have an outstanding technical program planned, including a tour of the port of Brunswick. In addition, we have sporting and social activities, as well as our Dr. John Moskaluk Memorial Scholarship Auction. You don’t want to miss this event! v


Phone (770) 407-7799

Vice President

John Karnowski

(770) 813-0882


Dwayne Tedder

(678) 808-8840

Past President

David Low

(770) 594-6422

Affiliate Director

Robert Baker

(770) 971-5407

District Representative

David Benevelli

(770) 246-6257

District Representative

Keith Strickland

(404) 946-5744




Phone (770) 431-8666


Jody Peace

Annual Report

David Benevelli

(770) 246.6257


David Low

(770) 594-6422


France Campbell

(678) 518-3952

Career Guidance

Brendetta Walker

(404) 364-5235


Elizabeth Scales

(770) 200-1735


Jim Pohlman

(770) 972-9709


Martin Bretherton

(404) 946-5709


Charles Bopp

(404) 848-6054

Life Membership

Don Gaines

(404) 355-4010


Sunita Nadella

(770) 423-0807

Mentoring Program

Alvin James

(404) 419-8700

Past Presidents

Todd Long

(404) 631-1021

Web site

Shawn Pope

(404) 460-2609

Young Members

Holly Bauman

(770) 200-1764

Annual Meeting

Dan Dobry

(770) 971-5407

Engineers Week

Steven Sheffield

(404) 893-6132


John Karnowski

(770) 813-0882

Summer Seminar

Jonathan Reid

(404) 364-5225

Winter Workshop

Todd DeVos

(678) 405-3132

Technical Chair

Andrew Antweiler

(678) 639-7540

Technical Vice-Chair


Winter Horbal Dan Dobry John Edwards Shannon Fain

(770) 368-1399 (770) 971-5407 (404) 264-0789 (770) 813-0882


Vern Wilburn

(770) 977-8920

Public Officials Education

Scott Mohler

(678) 808-8811


Taylor Stukes

(770) 613-9558

Georgia Conservancy

Shaun Green

(404) 463-2437

ITE International

John Edwards

(404) 264-0789


Bill Ruhsam

(678) 728-9076

Georgia Tech

Paul DeNard

(404) 635-8278

Southern Poly

Jim Tolson

(404) 624-7119

Georgia Engineer Magazine

JUNE | JULY 2011



The GeorGia enGineer

Georgia Engineer (June-July) 2011  

The Georgia Engineer: June-July issue.