spring 2013
T R A N S P O R TAT I O N >
DELIVERED
The Shenandoah River
Bridge’s signature shape is
as pleasing to the bottom
line as it is to the eye.
> pg. 6
© Keith Philpott
in this issue
Mountain View Corridor
By Doug Jackson, P.E., et al.
Doug.Jackson@hdrinc.com
14
Using CMGC to Deliver More Project in Less Time
© Keith Philpott
Mountain View Corridor
Shenandoah River Bridge
Shenandoah River Bridge Design-Build
By Jason Fuller, P.E., et al.
Jason.Fuller@hdrinc.com
6
The Shenandoah River Bridge’s signature shape is
as pleasing to the bottom line as it is to the eye.
8
Delta Design Delivers Big Savings for Shenandoah
River Bridge Design-Build
10
Building the Delta: Erection Engineering
for Shenandoah River Bridge
[2]
> transportation delivered | spring 2013
MAP-21
By David Vozzolo
David.Vozzolo@hdrinc.com
22
Making Sense of the MAP- 21
Fixed Guideway Transit Capital
Investment Program
MAP-21
© Keith Philpott
Northern Rail Extension
Northern Rail Extension
By Simeon, Brubaker, P.E
Sim.Brubaker@hdrinc.com
20
© Keith Philpott
Model for Risk Management in America’s Last Frontier:
Alaska Railroad’s Northern Rail Extension
Perspective
Perspective
By Michaella Wittmann, LEED Fellow, ENV SP, et al.
Michaella.Wittmann@hdrinc.com
26
Envision™ Sustainability Infrastructure Rating
System Addresses Design Challenges
Departments
4
Director’s Letter
| 5 News & Notes | 28
What Moves Us
[3]
direc tor’s Let ter
Welcome to our first issue of Transportation Delivered for 2013.
EDITORIAL BoARD
The transportation market moves into 2013 with many of the same issues challenging
owners and leaders around the world during the past several years—increasing capacity
demands and funding uncertainties. HDR continues to respond to the challenges by
helping our clients develop and implement programs that deliver high value results.
Charlie O’Reilly
Director of Transportation
charles.oreilly@hdrinc.com
While risk management has always been a key factor in successful project delivery, it is
even more so now. If there ever is a time to use risk management models to support
good project outcomes it is when a major investment is being made in projects with
highly unique conditions and environment. The Alaska Railroad’s Northern Rail Extension
opens a door to America’s last frontier, and to many uncertainties when building an
80-mile extension in a remote location with little access or market for services and
materials. On page 20, read how we are working with Alaska Railroad, applying HDR’s
cost risk assessment process to help manage budget and schedule.
New delivery methods, not commonly used in transportation, are paving the way toward
optimizing program and project results. The Mountain View Corridor story on page 14
proves how enhancing the CMGC delivery method with processes such as active risk
management, open book estimates, and active contingency budget management
allowed UDOT to go beyond cost control and, in this case, build almost double the
length of the original project.
There has been some good news on the funding front with the MAP-21 and Fixed
Guideway Transit CIP. The new two-year funding commitment includes more than $21
billion dedicated to transit programs and affects many of the existing FTA major capital
investment grant programs. On page 22, see how HDR’s David Vozzolo is taking the
lead, advising our clients and helping the transit community navigate the changes and
understand MAP-21 criteria and measures.
HDR continues to focus on design innovation as a path to delivering efficient designs to
serve tomorrow’s transportation needs. On page 6, the Shenandoah River Bridge is a
great example of our people working with owners and contractors to develop elegant
and effective solutions.
The last feature article in this edition, on page 26, introduces you to the Envision™
Sustainable Infrastructure Rating System. While LEED established sustainability standards
for buildings or “vertical infrastructure,” there has not been an equivalent
standard for measuring sustainability performance in our horizontal
infrastructure. Envision was developed to help project teams improve
the performance and viability of infrastructure through the application
of more sustainable technologies and methodologies. HDR is a
charter member of the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure, which
administers Envision, and is working with the organization to
advance the program’s use.
I hope you enjoy reading Transportation Delivered.
If you have any questions on the information in
this issue reach out and let us know. Our experts
will be glad to talk with you about their work.
Charlie O’Reilly, Director of Transportation
[4]
Suzanne Putnam
Planning & Communications Manager
suzanne.putnam@hdrinc.com
Ken Wall
Editor
ken.wall@hdrinc.com
Transportation Delivered is a biannual
publication produced by HDR, showcasing
projects that increase capacity, enhance
mobility and improve safety of roadways,
waterways, airways and railways. Direct
subscription inquiries and address changes
to ken.wall@hdrinc.com. To view this
publication electronically, go to:
www.hdrinc.com/transportationdelivered
Transportation Delivered is offset printed
on Utopia Two Xtra Green 80# Dull text,
which is an FSC-certified paper manufactured
with electricity in the form of renewable
energy (wind, hydro and biogas) and
includes a minimum of 30% post-consumer
recovered fiber.
ABOUT HDR
HDR is a global employee-owned firm
providing architecture, engineering,
consulting, construction and related
services through our various operating
companies. Our more than 7,800
professionals are committed to helping
clients manage complex projects and
make sound decisions.
To learn more about HDR’s
Transportation program, visit us at
www.hdrinc.com/transportation
Cover Photo: © Keith Philpott
© 2013 HDR Engineering, Inc.
News & Notes
> Tappan Zee Bridge | Westchester and Rockland Counties, NY
Projects
HDR Lead Designer for New Tappan Zee Bridge
The $3.142 billion design-build contract for the Tappan Zee Hudson
River Crossing between Westchester and Rockland Counties in
New York was approved in late December by the New York State
Thruway Authority board of directors and awarded to the Tappan
Zee Constructors consortium Jan. 18. HDR is lead engineer for the
consortium, which includes Fluor Enterprises, American Bridge
Company, Granite Construction Northeast and Traylor Bros. The
project requirements include strict environmental performance
commitments to protect the Hudson River estuary, including noise,
vibration and air quality monitoring.
The new facility will help alleviate daily traffic jams and improve
safety on the bridge, which handles more than 138,000 vehicles
every day. Key features of the new bridge will include:
• Twin three-mile structures with 1,200-foot cable stayed
main span bridges carrying eight general traffic lanes, plus
emergency lanes and extra-wide shoulders for immediate
express bus service when opened
• A new toll plaza with at least three highway speed E-ZPass
lanes and a dedicated bicycle and pedestrian path on the
northern span
• Safe scenic overlooks, with anti-climb fencing and security
cameras to be monitored 24 hours a day
• Strength and capacity provisions to accommodate various
mass transit modes
AWARDS
Rosca Honored as One of 2013 New Faces of Engineering
HDR’s Gheorghe Rosca, Jr., P.E., has been named one of the 2013
New Faces of Engineering by the American Council of Engineering
Companies. Members from participating engineering societies
nominate colleagues 30 years or younger for consideration. Rosca,
a rail section manager in HDR’s Riverside, Calif., office, has worked
on more than 10 bridge replacements and four double-tracking
projects with construction values of $30 to $100 million. He is the
client manager for the North County Transit District, managing a $12
million on-call contract. He recently was inducted as president of the
Railway Association of Southern California.
CSX Honors HDR, Keller with Outstanding Performance Award
CSX Transportation Inc.’s environmental department recently
honored HDR and Kevin Keller, vice president and a client manager
in the Freight Rail Market Sector, with the Outstanding Performance
Award for 2012. The award is given by CSX each year to a consultant
who has provided exemplary service to its environmental program.
CSX recognized HDR and Keller for work on the JAXPORT Intermodal
Container Transfer Facility in Jacksonville, Fla. HDR assisted with
a successful Transportation Investment Generating Economic
Recovery (TIGER) III grant application for the project, resulting in an
award of $10 million.
PEOPLE
Patrick R. Hickox, P.E., has joined HDR as Bridges & Structures
director. Hickox has more than 24 years of experience in design,
construction and asset maintenance of complex, long-span bridges
with a specialty in cable stayed bridges. His experience includes
projects delivered through traditional means, along with extensive
alternative delivery experience. A registered professional engineer
in 10 states, Hickox is a member of the American Society of Civil
Engineers and American Segmental Bridge Institute.
Ted Daly has joined HDR in the Newark, N.J., office as Ports & Harbors
section leader. He is responsible for managing and growing HDR’s
Ports & Harbors practice in the Northeast and supporting international
projects. Daly has 23 years of experience in design and development
of major coastal, ports, bulk material and container terminals, as
well as marine and facility operations and engineering projects. He
recently spent time in Bogota, Colombia, where he led a financial
feasibility study for the development of a $7 billion dollar pit-to-port
coal project, and a feasibility study for the Panama Canal Authority for
a new container terminal in the Port of Balboa at Corozal.
[5]
[6]
© Keith Philpott
Shenandoah
River Bridge
Design-Build
"Almost heaven, West Virginia
Blue Ridge Mountains, Shenandoah River
Life is old there, older than the trees
Younger than the mountains,
blowing like a breeze"
The opening verse to John Denver’s
“Take Me Home, Country Roads” hints at
the natural beauty of the Shenandoah
River Valley in West Virginia’s eastern
panhandle. Just an hour’s drive from
Washington, D.C., the valley boasts a
blend of wildlife habitat, farmland and
quaint, historic towns. Not surprisingly,
the region has evolved into a desirable
getaway from the frenzy of urban life.
To accommodate increasing travel
demands, the West Virginia Department
of Highways initiated a project to
improve West Virginia 9, including a new
bridge across the Shenandoah River.
HDR developed a delta frame design that
delivered significant savings compared
to proposals for more traditional designs.
The resulting signature shape of the
Shenandoah River Bridge is as pleasing
to the bottom line as it is to the eye.
[7]
D elta D esi g n D elivers
BIG SAVINGS
for Shenandoah River Bridge Design-Build
By Jason A. Fuller, P.E.; and Matthew A. Bunner, P.E.
The unique shape of the new delta-frame Shenandoah River
Bridge strikes a pose worthy of its picturesque West Virginia
surroundings. Equally attractive is the $8 million the West Virginia
Division of Highways (WVDOH) saved thanks to a creative
design solution.
The new Shenandoah River Bridge is part of a project to improve
West Virginia 9 in historic and scenic Jefferson County into a fourlane divided highway. Just 58 miles from the Washington, D.C.
Beltway, and less than 40 miles from Dulles International Airport,
Jefferson County is a prime getaway destination for people living
in the Washington and Baltimore metro areas. In addition to being
the most visited county in the state, Jefferson County is seeing
significant commercial and residential growth.
The highest-ranked priority in the West Virginia eastern panhandle
transportation improvement plan was a five-mile section of WV9
between Charles Town, W.V., and the Virginia state line, which
includes a crossing of the Shenandoah River valley. The valley is both
wide and deep, creating a proposed profile grade nearly 200 feet
above the river and an overall bridge length of almost 1,800 feet.
A bridge made up of a main unit with a three-span continuous
deck truss (400 feet – 600 feet – 400 feet) with short plate-girder
approach units initially was advanced through the design process.
During review of the proposed design it became apparent that
other alternatives might be more cost-effective. The fracturecritical nature of the proposed truss presented additional cause
to consider making a design change. The August 2007 collapse of
the I-35W deck truss bridge in Minnesota occurred relatively late
in the Shenandoah truss design process, and was followed by an
increased scrutiny within the industry of the gusset plates used in
truss construction.
In early October 2009, WVDOH changed the project from a
traditional design-bid-build process to a design-build letting and
invited contractors to bid either the as-designed truss or develop
[8]
and bid a different structure type. Any proposed alternatives were
required to accommodate several design limitations, primarily
aimed at compliance with existing environmental commitments
and previously established parameters for alignment (horizontal
and vertical) and substructure location. As a result, the main span
still needed to be approximately 600 feet.
Following a December 2009 letting, WVDOH selected Trumbull
Corporation as the design-build contractor, with HDR serving as
Trumbull’s design consultant. The project team evaluated both
concrete and steel alternatives before ultimately determining
that a steel delta frame design met all of the owner’s criteria while
providing significant savings over more traditional bridge types.
The Delta Difference
HDR and Trumbull performed preliminary design on both
concrete and steel options, but the anticipated construction costs
for concrete were much greater than for steel. There was enough
of a difference that it became obvious that steel would be more
economical, so the preliminary design of the concrete alternative
was set aside. For the steel evaluation, it was understood that deck
configuration and cost would be similar for all of the bridge types.
The differences in cost, therefore, would be driven by the amount
of steel, unit cost of fabrication and erection cost.
Based on a database of past projects, the team believed that a
steel plate girder bridge with span lengths similar to the originally
proposed truss (400 feet – 600 feet – 400 feet) would result in
approximately 145 pounds per square foot (PSF) of structural steel,
or approximately 50 percent more steel than the truss.
From a superstructure perspective, the overall length of the main
unit would have been ideal for a traditional five-span steel plate
girder unit with span lengths of 250 feet – 300 feet – 300 feet – 300
feet – 250 feet. Such a unit would likely only result in approximately
60 PSF of structural steel; however, the design constraints did not
allow for additional piers.
While investigating the possible plate-girder arrangements, the
team determined that the ideal five-span plate girder option actually
could be achieved if supports for the girders were provided 150
feet to either side of the existing river pier locations. The supports,
envisioned to be steel slant legs at each girder line, could be inclined
and meet at the existing river pier locations. With 200 feet vertically
from the profile grade to the river, the supports could be inclined as
much as 45 degrees and still remain above the required river flood
elevation (there was no requirement for navigational clearance).
This configuration of steel rigid frame is known as a delta frame,
due to its unique triangular appearance. The delta frame design
produced 110 PSF of structural steel, which was slightly above
the original truss weight, but facilitated significant fabrication
cost savings. This fabrication cost savings, along with other costeffective options, offered a savings of about $8 million compared
to the other bidders.
The Final Design
The steel superstructure of the new Shenandoah River Bridge
consists of a five-girder, four-substringer system supported by
five lines of delta legs—one for each girder. Each individual leg
covers a vertical distance of 150 feet and a horizontal distance of
150 feet, creating a girder span of 300 feet between the delta legs.
The spans between the abutments and piers are 400 feet – 600
feet – 400 feet.
Relatively few rigid steel frames have been constructed over the
past several decades. Both slant-leg frames and, to a lesser degree,
delta frames were used more extensively during the 1960s and
1970s. The singular nature of the bridge design meant there were
no directly applicable design codes for portions of the structure, so
the team established tailored design checks. Designers developed
a finite element analysis of the erection procedure so each of the
207 steps could be examined individually, and so the temporary
works and permanent steel framing could be assessed as a system
to provide stability to the structure until completed. The detailed
© Keith Philpott
>> The delta frame presented a more cost-effective
alternative than the originally proposed design
while complying with existing environmental
commitments and alignment parameters.
erection plan had to account for the nearly 200-foot height of
the bridge, the unique procedures for erecting the delta legs, tall
temporary works, a small site footprint, fluctuating river levels and
other challenging site conditions.
The final plans even included a future re-decking scheme, which
was analyzed to ensure its viability. After consideration of changes
to the dead load as a result of removing portions of the deck, the
re-decking scheme involves removing and replacing an outside
third of the deck, replacing the other outside third, then the middle
third. Traffic lanes will be restricted and temporary barriers used.
The Finished Product
The new Shenandoah River Bridge is in aesthetic harmony with its
surroundings. The project exists within a unique ecosystem where
the scenic Shenandoah River is bounded by steeply rising wooded
mountains, providing picturesque locations for canoeing, rafting,
fishing and wildlife viewing. For the bridge to gracefully integrate
into these surroundings, it must complement rather than overpower
them. The shallow plate-girder superstructure is only 10 feet
deep, which, when compared to truss options (which varied from
40 to 80 feet deep) and other options such as segmental concrete
(which would be nearly 35 feet deep near the piers), is much
less obtrusive.
The triangular shape of the delta frame, one of the most basic
structural forms, yields a sense of stability and strength, of
simplicity and functionality. The earth-tone reddish-brown color
of the weathering steel blends with the natural colors of the valley
and is bounded and complemented by the natural concrete color
of the deck and barriers as well as the piers and abutments.
The Shenandoah River Bridge opened in November 2012 and
now ranks as one of the longest delta frame bridges ever
constructed. ->
For more information, contact Jason.Fuller@hdrinc.com.
[9]
© Keith Philpott
Building the
D el t a
>> As construction progressed, the symmetry of the
Shenandoah River Bridge allowed the crew to
apply knowledge gained in earlier stages and
continuously improve their performance.
The Shenandoah River Bridge soars nearly 200 feet above
a wide river valley in West Virginia’s eastern panhandle. It
features a steel superstructure consisting of a five-girder, foursubstringer system supported by five lines of delta legs—one
for each girder. The bridge is one of the longest delta frames
ever constructed, with 300-foot spans between the legs and
600 feet between the main piers.
The Shenandoah River Bridge’s distinctive design demanded
unique procedures for erecting the legs and tall temporary
works and to accommodate the small site footprint, fluctuating
river levels and other challenging site conditions. As part of
our services as lead designer for the project, HDR provided
erection engineering services, including step-by-step analysis
of the structure and design of the temporary support system.
[10]
Step-by-Step
Modeling and analysis of the staged bridge erection
developed as an extension of the final design of the
completed structure. The team modified the non-composite
detailed model used for analyzing the completed structure
steel weight to perform the staged erection analysis.
Falsework towers, tensioned stays and temporary supports
were added to the model. All elements of the modular truss
falsework tower sections were included in the model as
beam elements to facilitate design of the tower elements for
all global and local effects. Stays were modeled as tensiononly cable elements and springs were used to model the
connection (jacks) of cross girders to structural steel girders or
legs. The vertical connection of the cross girder to structural
steel was modeled with compression-only springs.
Erection Engineering
for Shenandoah River Bridge
The project team implemented a geometric nonlinear analysis
to evaluate the structure, including falsework, piece-by-piece
with load tracking. The structure was modeled in 77 stages. A
stage was considered to be the amount of work that could be
completed during a shift or between any appreciable wind or
thermal event. Each stage was separated into individual steps.
A new step was specified each time the lifting crane was
released and a new piece was placed. A total of 207 individual
steps were defined.
Geometry and Loads
The nodal geometry of the structure was defined based on its
final completed position. Stay tensioning forces were iterated
to determine the load necessary to place leg tips in their proper
locations. As new pieces were added, the nodal locations
were adjusted to account for the location and rotation of the
previous piece to which they were being bolted.
The dead load in the staged erection analysis was similar to
the completed structure steel dead load. A detail weight of
7 percent was used, and the geometric nonlinear analysis
provided direct results for first and second order effects.
The team applied a 70 mph wind load to the structure at
the end of each stage, using three attack angles per stage to
envelope the behavior. Within a stage (step-to-step), the wind
results were reduced to 30 mph to simulate the maximum
forces during a work shift. The analysis included a total of 231
wind cases.
Thermal loads were tested by applying a thermal change of
100° F to the structure at the end of each stage to capture
thermal effects from stage to stage. Thermal effects were
reduced to 50° F within a stage to simulate the maximum
forces during a work shift. A total of 77 thermal cases were
applied to the structure.
Checking the Design
As part of the erection engineering process, the team checked
the adequacy of the permanent structural steel (girders, legs,
stringers, cross frames, leg diaphragms, leg lateral bracing
and bearings) and the temporary works (towers, cross girders,
stays and foundations) for all stages of steel erection. The team
used construction load factors based on AASHTO guidelines
to check the elements. The erection procedure provided in
the construction plans was specified to match the modeling
assumptions of the analysis. Temporary elements were
designed and detailed to match the modeling assumptions.
By Jason Fuller, P.E.; Nicholas Cervo, P.E.; Anthony Ream, P.E.;
and Matthew Bunner, P.E.
Analyzing 207 dead load cases, 231 wind load cases and 77
thermal cases acting on 17,634 members, 17,805 plates and
141 springs produces a large amount of data. It was crucial to
envelop the results wherever possible to reduce design and
data extraction time.
Element capacities based on maximum unbraced length
during construction were first checked against maximum
factored loads based on non-concurrent dead, wind and
live loads from any point during construction. As mentioned
previously, wind loads were based on 70 mph and thermal
loads were based on ±100° F. If the non-concurrent loads
exceeded the member capacity based on maximum
unbraced length, concurrent loads occurring during the
maximum unbraced stages were determined and used.
If loads still exceeded capacity, a 30 mph wind and ±50° F
thermal change was used. As a result, wind speeds and
thermal changes during the erection of these elements were
restricted on the plans furnished to the steel erector. Very few
elements required a wind or thermal restriction from stage
to stage.
[ The Shenandoah River Bridge’s distinctive
design demanded unique procedures for
erecting the legs and tall temporary works and
to accommodate the small site footprint,
fluctuating river levels and other
challenging site conditions.
]
A completed delta frame (two legs and girder between) for
one or more girder lines provided a significant amount of
bracing to the temporary towers. After closing a delta frame,
the structural steel also transferred a large portion of dead,
wind and thermal loads during construction to the supports.
Even prior to the formation of a delta, attaching multiple lower
leg pieces to the falsework cross girder and lower knuckle
(and river pier) provided significant rigidity to the temporary
structural system. The participation of the structural steel as
a temporary support helped reduce the size of temporary
works and created a stable, stiff system prior to completion.
[11]
Building the
D el t a
HDR designed the erection process for the girders using similar
tools, procedures and code provisions as the completed final
design. The team considered moments, axial loads, lateral
bending and shears, as well as large unbraced lengths due
to partial installation of cross frames. We gave particular
attention to stages with single or dual girder systems.
Single girders, where erected, were fixed to supports or
temporary falsework cross girders using attached cross
frames. The two girder pieces directly atop the river piers
were spliced on the ground and lifted into place for a total
length of 180 feet and a distance between supports of
150 feet. Weight and space restrictions prevented a dual
girder pick; therefore, the large unsupported length of
the single girder required a top flange stiffening truss to
provide adequate bending resistance. The single girder was
analyzed with a geometric nonlinear buckling analysis for the
unbraced and stiffened top flange to determine buckling
safety factors.
The team checked dual girders with every other cross frame
attached for global buckling of the two-girder system. The
strength and stiffness of the attached cross frames were
checked for their adequacy to prevent global buckling.
Special attention was given to the upper leg pieces when
installed as cantilevers. Once tied to opposing legs using
diagonal stays, these 130-foot-long cantilevers were able to
withstand 70 mph winds without additional bracing.
Putting the Plan into Action
Construction of the steel structure began with erecting the
portion of the steel structure at the second river pier up to
the second abutment, forming one complete side of the
bridge’s framing stabilized by the abutment. The crew then
constructed three lines of deltas at the first river pier. Once
complete, the middle pieces of the center span for the three
lines were erected, connecting the two river pier delta frames.
Following this step, the other two delta lines were erected
at the first river pier and attached to the second half of the
structure. The final step of the steel erection was placing the
girders back to the beginning of the bridge (see Figure 1,
Construction Sequencing).
Executing the plan required falsework towers placed at
six locations along the structure—75 feet on either side of
each river pier (towers 2, 3, 4 and 5) and approximately 100
feet from each end support (towers 1 and 6). Each falsework
[12]
> Figure 1: Construction Sequencing
tower included two legs placed 28.5 feet on either side of
the longitudinal centerline of the bridge, directly in the
middle of the exterior girder/leg bays. The two tower legs
were connected with transverse cross girders that supported
the legs or girders. The tower legs comprised modular truss
frames bolted together to obtain the correct height.
Tensioned stay cables were used to provide support, stability
and geometry during the complex process of erecting the
delta legs. The structural steel legs were constructed in three
pieces. The first piece was a lower knuckle that sits on the pier,
the second was a lower leg section bolted to the knuckle and
resting on a lower cross girder on the falsework tower, and the
final piece was the upper leg, which was bolted to the lower
piece and cantilevered. An upper knuckle piece was then
installed to connect the cantilever leg piece to the girder.
After opposing lower leg pieces were bolted to the lower
knuckle, a horizontal stay was placed between the lower leg
tips and tensioned. This brought the lower leg tips to their
correct cambered position and reduced the reaction loads
acting on the temporary falsework cross girder.
Once an upper leg piece was bolted to the lower leg, a
diagonal stay was attached to the tip of the upper leg piece
and the top of the opposing lower leg at the elevation of the
horizontal stay. This brought the upper leg tip to its correct
cambered position for installation of the upper knuckle piece.
The diagonal stay also reduced major axis bending forces in
the upper leg due to dead and wind loads.
When all five lines of girder delta frames had been constructed
at a pier and braced off the adjacent abutment, the falsework
towers at the river pier were removed. Stays were removed
after the towers to prevent leg deflections from applying
loads to the falsework towers.
The keeper system connecting the structural steel girders
or legs to the falsework cross girders was detailed to allow
© Keith Philpott
>> Construction of the Shenandoah
River Bridge was completed in
November 2012.
for jacking and shimming. Jacking and shimming allowed
for adjustment of girder and leg elevations. Girders could be
vertically adjusted. Also, by coordinating jacking of opposing
legs on either side of a river pier, the delta frame could be
rotated about the fixed bearings to adjust tip elevation of the
girders both vertically and longitudinally. These adjustments
would help facilitate installation of girder pieces.
The majority of the erection was performed using two 300ton cranes with over 300 feet of boom. Occasionally, the crew
brought in a 500-ton hydraulic truck crane to assist with picks
that were difficult to make from the valley floor. The additional
crane(s) were used for the picks near the ends of the spans at
the tops of the valley. To accommodate the use of the cranes,
pile-supported crane pads had to be installed and used at
Abutment 2. Between the abutment and a conspan structure,
the geometry would not permit the cranes to sit directly on
bedrock. To transfer load directly, concrete footings were
located at the top of the fill directly under the outriggers of
the crane. The concrete footings were constructed on H-piles,
which transferred the load directly into the bedrock, bypassing
any conveyance of load to the adjacent substructure units.
Symmetry is Good
Construction success often is defined by production
rates. Because this structure is symmetrical about both
the longitudinal centerline and the transverse centerline,
it comprises four similar quadrants. This proved to be an
advantage as construction progressed. With each section
that went up, including temporary works, the crew gained
experience that sped up the process for subsequent sections.
Construction of the Shenandoah River Bridge began in late
2010, with steel erection from September 2011 to August
2012, and was completed in November 2012. ->
For more information, contact Jason.Fuller@hdrinc.com.
[13]
M ou n ta i n
V i ew
C o r r i do r
Using CMGC to Deliver
more
Project in less Time
By Doug Jackson, P.E.; and Khalid Bekka, Ph.D.
The Mountain View Corridor is a planned freeway, transit and
trail system in western Salt Lake County and northwestern
Utah County, serving 13 municipalities. The Utah Department
of Transportation (UDOT) is implementing Mountain View
Corridor in phases, building infrastructure for initial needs and
gradually expanding systems over time. As program manager,
HDR recently supported UDOT in completing the first of
using the Construction Manager General Contractor (CMGC)
delivery method.
[14]
© Keith Philpott
many projects that will make up the Mountain View Corridor
[15]
To meet the demands and challenges of UDOT’s largest
CMGC project to date, the project team modified
its standard CMGC format to include an innovative
and proactive risk management process, active
contingency budget management, open-book cost
estimating and a structured iterative preconstruction
cost development model. In addition to adapting
the CMGC process, the project team established
four guiding principles that helped set the stage for
successful project delivery: transparency, collaboration,
solution-oriented decision making and flexibility. From
this foundation, the Mountain View Corridor team
generated remarkable results, including:
• Extending the project limit from 9 miles to 15
• Reducing the overall estimated construction cost
from $346 million to $249 million
• Mitigating risk and reallocating $43 million in
contingency budget to purchase right-of-way
and build more of the project
• Shaving a year from the construction schedule by
designing, acquiring right-of-way, and building
simultaneously with no delays to the critical path
> Figure 1: Project Limit Extension
15
9
miles
miles
Why CMGC?
UDOT chose the CMGC delivery method due to a
number of challenges facing the Mountain View
Corridor program. One key factor was UDOT’s plan
to simultaneously deliver two large-scale projects in
the Salt Lake Valley. The $1.2 billion I-15 Core designbuild project was scheduled to be bid and constructed
at the same time as Mountain View Corridor. If both
> Figure 2: Project Map with Highlighted Areas Representing Completed Construction
were design-build projects, the concurrent proposal
processes between Mountain View Corridor and I-15
Core would have significantly strained the consulting and contracting industries for resources, especially in marketing, design
and construction during proposal preparation and preliminary engineering needed to estimate the project cost. Additionally,
design-build proposal preparation requires significant private investment, where as CMGC requires significantly less private
investment during the procurement phase.
Another consideration was the need to conduct major utility relocations. Site conditions were complex because two major
interstate power and gas transmission facilities ran longitudinally along and through the planned freeway alignment. None of
[16]
> Figure 3: Reducing Overall Estimated Construction Cost
> Figure 4: Mitigating Risk and Reallocating Contingency Budget
$100M
$30M
(approx.)
Reduction
Build More
Project
Total
Reallocated
to Project
Construction
Cost
$346M Original
$43M
$13M
$249M
TMP
Purchase
Right-of-Way
PRECONSTRUCTION PHASE
the conflicts were resolved prior to bringing the contractor
on board. With CMGC, the owner could work with the major
utility companies to establish master agreements to allow the
project to move forward and eventually address individual
conflicts. This type of utility risk is very difficult to shift to a
contractor.
Similar to utilities, right-of-way acquisition was not completed
prior to bidding. Approximately 275 individual parcels were
in conflict with the freeway alignment at an estimated cost
of about $212 million. Design progression and input from
third parties created additional challenges throughout the
design process to locate drainage and utility facilities with
minimal right-of-way impact. The CMGC approach allowed
the process to begin and provided a mechanism for the rightof-way team to help optimize the construction schedule and
minimize potential delays.
Ultimately, nearly 150 agreements were required to handle
approximately 500 individual conflicts throughout the
project. A total of 29 cities, service districts, utility companies
and third parties owned or had interests within or adjacent to
the corridor—all with varying levels of development. Because
this was a Greenfield project, UDOT did not have ownership
rights that are typical with most reconstruction projects.
This meant that most of the public and private utilities had
prior rights that UDOT had to acquire. Thus, UDOT had to
conduct extensive negotiations with landowners and utility
companies. Again, CMGC benefited this effort as it provided a
much more flexible project delivery approach.
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Proof is in the Returns
Transparency and Partnership—During the selection process,
a key criterion for UDOT was determining whether the
contractor would willingly participate in a transparent and
collaborative process of open-book estimating and risk
analysis. In the submittal, the contractor was required to
demonstrate to UDOT its approach to estimating the project
and how it would produce and share its estimate directly
with UDOT.
Targeted Maximum Price—The primary objective to be
achieved through the preconstruction phase of a CMGCdelivered project is a mutually agreed-upon construction cost.
For Mountain View Corridor, UDOT chose to use a targeted
maximum price (TMP), rather than a guaranteed maximum
price, to provide maximum opportunity to build as much of
the roadway as it could afford. However, while the final cost of
construction is important, the process followed by the project
team to reach this goal is even more important. Each step built
confidence that the TMP was not simply a representation of
the lowest cost, but that it provided the best project value.
The approach taken for Mountain View Corridor used the
following core elements: 1) open-book estimation; 2) risk
analysis; and 3) project optimization (design and construction
optimization). These elements complemented each other in
successful implementation of the CMGC process. Departing
from a conventional linear approach, the management team
recognized that for a large-scale, complex project, an iterative
process provided the team with an opportunity to work
toward both an agreeable TMP and the best project value.
[17]
> Figure 5: Cost-Reduction Measures
$25M
$12M
$6M
$9.5M
design analysis and
construction innovation
utility relocations
schedule compression
elimination of a rail bridge
Preconstruction Cost Reduction—Cost reduction is perhaps
the most significant achievement attained through the
CMGC process on Mountain View Corridor. The estimated
risk-adjusted construction cost was reduced throughout the
project by approximately $100 million, or roughly one-third of
the initial construction estimate. This reduction was achieved
over a 10-month period using risk analysis in an iterative
process. At each meeting, the team exchanged ideas on
how to avoid or mitigate identified risks. The following items
represent some of the largest cost-reduction measures:
• $25 million saved through design analysis and
construction innovation (DART process)
• $12 million cost reduction in utility relocations
• $6 million saved in indirect cost attributable to
schedule compression
• $9.5 million saved attributable to elimination of a
rail bridge
Contingency Funds Reduction and Reinvestment — The amount
of owner-controlled program contingency decreased
dramatically throughout the project’s construction phase—
dropping 16 percent from year one to year two (from $73
million to $61 million) and an additional 52 percent from year
two to year three (from $61 million to $29 million).
Ultimately, $43 million in contingency was reinvested in
expanding the corridor. One third of the funds were used to
purchase additional right-of-way, and the other two-thirds
were used to build more roadway.
Cost Growth/Change Management — On almost all projects
today, especially high-profile infrastructure projects, a key
measurement of project success is cost growth and change
[18]
management. How much additional money was required
to cover the cost of quantity overruns, changed conditions,
incomplete or inaccurate plans, etc.? This is especially true
for Mountain View Corridor, given the amount of time and
effort put into cost risk analysis, risk mitigation and active
risk management conducted throughout the project. At the
end of the preconstruction phase, the project team set a TMP
for construction of $249 million. Now, three years later, with
construction complete and the roadway open to the traveling
public, the final projected construction cost is approximately
$235 million.
The original construction contract amount was $220 million.
The difference between the original contract amount and the
risk-based TMP of $246 million accounted for high probability/
low-cost impact construction risk, quantity growth attributed
to bidding plans at 60 percent design versus final design
plans, and scope modifications required to expand the
project limits. With all of these items accounted for today, the
contract grew by 6.6 percent, but is still 6 percent under the
agreed-upon TMP for construction.
Schedule Control — Mountain View Corridor was delivered on
schedule, with some segments of the roadway opened early.
One section of the roadway was opened six months early to
provide congestion relief in one of the local communities
where roadway construction was being completed on an
arterial street crossing the corridor. The entire CMGC process
was completed in less than four years—from UDOT obtaining
funding for the project to the roadway opening to the
traveling public. Along the way, the team notched a number
of significant accomplishments, including:
• Collaborative Preconstruction Phase — Owner,
program manager, designer, and contractor worked
collaboratively to plan, design, estimate, mitigate risk,
and reach price agreement (TMP) in 10 months.
• Accelerated Right-of-way Acquisition — With 418
parcels purchased and 140 residential relocations, no
construction delays resulted.
• Efficient Utility Relocation — With 481 utility conflicts,
165 utility agreements, 28 utility companies, and a $47
million relocation cost, no construction delays resulted.
• Fast-tracked Construction — With a 36-month
construction schedule that involved 5.5 million cubic
yards of earthwork, 313,000 tons of asphalt, 294,000
square yards of concrete paving, 10 bridges constructed,
163,000 square feet of retaining wall, and 15 miles of
new roadway, no construction delays resulted.
Photo courtesy of Copper Hills Constructors
>> The Mountain View Corridor CMGC
project opened 15 miles of new
roadway in December.
Delivering Value through Partnership and Flexibility
Given the differences—and the clear trade-offs—among
delivery methods, it is critical that the selection of any given
method be made carefully with consideration given to
project characteristics and the owner’s priorities. Looking
beyond the delivery method, processes and techniques such
as risk analysis and open-book estimation process also are
increasingly recognized as proven factors to success.
For Mountain View Corridor, the CMGC delivery method
provided an ideal framework to implement a number of
innovative and proactive techniques. Furthermore, CMGC’s
progressive and collaborative features provided the balance
between realizing the contractor’s innovation and the owner
maintaining control over the process.
As the Mountain View Corridor experience shows, when the
CMGC delivery method is enhanced with processes such as
active risk management, with a set of workshops and openbook estimates to promote transparency, the outcomes are
robust. In fact, the application of CMGC showcased how
a delivery method can be customized to meet the owner’s
goals. The modifications made for Mountain View Corridor
provided greater control and flexibility in contracting and
decision making, integration of risk analysis and management
methods, risk allocation opportunities, and—above all—
transparency and credibility in the cost and schedule
estimation process.
While CMGC is not appropriate for all projects, its ability to
manage and deliver high-risk projects while minimizing
conflicts and building partnerships proved an exceptional fit
for Mountain View Corridor. ->
For more information, contact Doug.Jackson@hdrinc.com.
[19]
A Model for Risk Management in America’s Last Frontier
© Roman Krochuk | Dreamstime.com
Alaska Railroad’s
Conducting major civil works in the interior of Alaska presents
unique challenges beyond the obvious extreme weather
conditions. For example, resources that might be taken for granted
in most project locations, such as access to high speed internet for
file sharing and basic communication, aren’t available here. More
significantly, the cost and availability of materials and fuel are
heavily impacted when working in such a remote environment.
To be successful, projects such as the Northern Rail Extension
currently being constructed in the Fairbanks region require a very
detailed approach, particularly with regard to risk management.
The program manager, owner, contractor, designers and the rest
of the team must work together to identify and understand the
project risks and to develop mitigation measures to address them.
Northern Rail Extension
The Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) initiated the Northern
Rail Extension program to construct 80 miles of new track
between Fairbanks and Delta Junction. Completing this regionally
significant project will provide freight and potentially passenger
rail service to these communities and allow improved access to
Fort Greely and other military training facilities in the area.
Construction of Northern Rail Extension Phase 1 (NRE1), the first
of four planned phases, includes a bridge, approach road and
levee associated with the alignment’s crossing of the Tanana River
near Salcha. The project is being delivered using the construction
manager general contractor (CMGC) model.
[20]
Risk Management
As program manager for NRE1, HDR is responsible for developing
the risk management approach. The project team implemented
a cost risk assessment (CRA) process throughout the project to
identify and quantify risks related to both cost and scope. A vital
component of the CRA process is a series of risk workshops held
at key stages during the design. Representatives from ARRC,
the program manager, the CMGC and the designers attend the
workshops and collaborate to reach consensus on the outlook
of specific risks. The workshops cover topics on the design status,
materials sourcing and pricing, management and contracting
issues. These sessions produced a consensus-based determination
on the probability of occurrence for cost and schedule risks, and
the impact, if the risk occurred. The discussions are documented
in a risk register.
Based on the project’s progress, the workshops have incorporated
refinements to the bridge and levee designs, developing more
detail for the construction costs and schedules, and obtaining
pricing for subcontracting and materials. Many of the risks that
were identified early in the process have been incorporated into
the baseline cost and schedule as either contractor-controlled or
owner-controlled risks.
At the close of 2012, the remaining uncertainties entail pricing
of materials (steel and riprap) from alternative sources, schedule
for obtaining permits (CLOMR and USACE 404), and site and
weather conditions that could impact construction. As mentioned
Northern Rail Extension
By Simeon Brubaker, P.E.
>> Working in a remote environment such as interior Alaska requires a
detailed approach, particularly with regard to risk management.
previously, constructing big projects in the middle of Alaska
creates considerable challenges with regard to the cost
and availability of materials and fuel. At the mid-point of the
contract, fuel and steel escalation costs remain negative in the
budget. Part of the CRA process focuses on minimizing these
cost risks.
The CMGC considered structural steel fabrication domestically
and in Asia, ultimately selecting a firm in China. To address the
risk associated with fabricating overseas, HDR worked with a subconsultant to provide hands-on reviews of the fabrication yard,
detailed and comprehensive reviews of quality control measures,
documentation, testing procedures, and project submittals and
requests for information. Members of the project team made
numerous trips to China to monitor the fabrication process and
help ensure that the quality control processes were followed
by the fabricator and that the final product was constructed in
conformance with the contract documents.
Another risk identified early in the design phase involves the
foundations for the Tanana River crossing. There was little
historical information available for driving large-diameter piling
in the unconsolidated sand and gravel formations expected on
the project site. HDR facilitated numerous reviews and design
revisions with the client, the engineer of record and the
geotechnical consultant through both the pre-construction
phase and during construction of the project. At this time, nearly
50 percent of the piling has been driven with no major claims from
the CMGC, and the designers have confidence in pile capacities
for the finished product.
More Keys to Success
Truly mitigating risk is made possible by paying extra attention
to all the little things that can impact a project. HDR maintains
a crew of qualified engineers and technicians to administer this
contract, with someone available on-site 24/7 (regardless of the
aforementioned extreme weather conditions). We’ve retained
the services of local surveyors and materials testing labs to work
as sub-consultants, minimizing cost impacts to the client and
providing more intimate knowledge of the project area.
All project information, including correspondence to all parties
involved in the project, daily work reports, materials testing data,
submittals and correspondence from the CMGC, are managed
using a web-based database. This provides the client, designers,
CMGC and other involved parties to access and manage project
documentation in real time, eliminating much duplication and
inconvenience while minimizing the potential for error.
Construction of NRE1 began in July 2011 and is scheduled for
completion by July 2014. Permitting and other pre-construction
work has been done for subsequent phases in preparation for
future funding availability. ->
For more information, contact Sim.Brubaker@hdrinc.com.
[21]
Making Sense of the
[22]
MAP-
21
Fixed Guideway Transit Capital Investment Program
© Keith Philpott
By David Vozzolo
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21)
provides $105 billion in surface transportation funding to
be administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation
(USDOT) through September 30, 2014. MAP-21 represents
a two-year federal funding commitment, including more
than $21 billion dedicated to transit programs.
This new legislation affects many of the existing Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) major capital investment grant
programs, which raises questions for owner/operators,
consultants and others in the transit industry. HDR has
developed our own interim guidance and counsel to
help navigate changes to FTA’s funding mechanisms,
including New Starts and Small Starts and the introduction
of the Core Capacity Improvements program. This article
highlights some of these modifications. More detailed
materials are available online at www.hdrinc.com/map-21,
and will be updated as appropriate.
[23]
The Programs within the Program
MAP-21 maintains the basic eligibility requirements and structure
of the New Starts and Small Starts programs, and introduces some
changes on how bus rapid transit (BRT) projects are defined in
each program. MAP-21 also introduces a new eligible program for
Core Capacity improvement projects. However, funding for the
major capital investment program has not been increased.
New Starts, also known as Fixed Guideway Capital Investment
Grants, continue to be defined as a “minimum operable segment
or an extension to an existing fixed guideway transit system.” New
Starts includes fixed guideway BRT projects in which the majority
operates in separated right-of-way dedicated for transit use during
peak periods, represents substantial investment in a single route
in a defined corridor or subarea, and has features that emulate
services provided by rail (defined stations, traffic signal priority,
short bi-directional headways).
Small Starts are defined as a “new fixed guideway capital project or
a corridor-based bus rapid transit project which is requesting less
than $75 million in Section 5309 funds and has a total capital cost
less than $250 million.” Unlike New Starts BRT projects, the majority
of a corridor-based BRT project does not operate in a separated
right-of-way dedicated for transit use during peak periods.
The new Core Capacity Improvement designation is defined as a
“substantial corridor-based capital investment in an existing fixed
guideway system that increases the capacity of a corridor by not
less than 10 percent.” Eligible corridors must be at or over capacity
or projected to be at or over capacity within the next five years,
and projects must not include State of Good Repair elements for
an existing fixed guideway system.
Cutting the Red Tape
MAP-21 simplifies the project approval process, first by eliminating
the Alternatives Analysis as a stand-alone requirement, relying
instead on local decision-making and a review of alternatives
completed during the metropolitan planning and National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental review processes.
Project sponsors will now submit a letter request to FTA/USDOT
seeking entry into project development for New Starts, Core
Capacity and Small Starts projects. The project is not evaluated
nor rated at this stage, but FTA/USDOT will make a determination
that the project is accepted into the project development phase.
The NEPA environmental review is completed during project
development, and New Starts and Core Capacity project sponsors
must complete this phase within two years or request an extension
from FTA (this new two-year rule does not apply to Small Starts).
Following the NEPA decision and selection of the locally preferred
alternative, FTA evaluates and rates New Starts and Core Capacity
projects based on statutory criteria for approval into the engineering
phase, followed by a full funding grant agreement (FFGA). Small
Start projects are evaluated after the project development phase
[24]
and the NEPA decision and rated in consideration of a single-year
grant or an expedited grant agreement.
Specific definitions of the new project development and
engineering phases are evolving. Originally after the passage of
MAP-21, many within the industry assumed that the level of detail
in the new engineering phase would be identical to the final design
phase in the previous authorization bill (SAFETEA-LU). However,
current thinking is that the new project development phase is
similar to a combination of planning and conceptual engineering,
with perhaps some initial preliminary engineering level of detail
appropriate to define the project and identify potential effects
in completion of the environmental document. The engineering
phase would then include completion of preliminary engineering
and more detailed final design, as appropriate, leading to funding
decisions and execution of a full funding grant agreement.
In Small Starts, project development would encompass
engineering and design, similar to the current process. These
definitions and processes are to be addressed further over the
next several months as FTA continues to prepare interim guidance.
Project Evaluation and Ratings
Under SAFETEA-LU, FTA was required to evaluate and rate New
Starts projects prior to approval into preliminary engineering, final
design and the full funding grant agreement, and to rate Small
Starts projects prior to project development and the project
construction grant agreement (PCGA). Under MAP-21, FTA will not
rate projects until approval to initiate the engineering phase and
execution of the FFGA for New Starts and Core Capacity projects,
and not until the funding decision for Small Starts.
Project ratings are based on project justification, land use policies
and patterns, and local financial commitment for New Starts and
Small Starts. Additional factors addressing capacity needs are
rated for Core Capacity projects. A congestion relief criterion has
been added while the operating efficiencies criterion has been
eliminated. And note that cost effectiveness is specifically defined
in statute as “cost per rider,” eliminating the current “transportation
system user benefit” measure. Quantitative measures will no
longer be compared to the “New Starts baseline” as defined by
FTA, and project sponsors have flexibility in whether comparisons
are made to existing conditions, the no-build or future conditions.
MAP-21 actually increases the number of evaluation criteria for
Small Start projects, but requires that FTA evaluate the benefits of
a Small Start project against the federal share (as opposed to total
project cost) when calculating project justification criteria.
Project ratings for New Starts, Core Capacity, and Small Starts
are based on a five-point scale with comparable weight applied
to each criterion; note the bill includes specific language that a
medium rating may not be required for any single criterion. In
January 2013, FTA published a Final Rule addressing definitions
and rating criteria established prior to MAP-21, and Draft Policy
© Keith Philpott
>> More information on MAP-21 can be found
at www.hdrinc.com/map-21.
Guidance with detailed procedures and rating thresholds for five
of the six criteria and measures. FTA indicates that subsequent
rulemaking and policy guidance anticipated in 2013 will address
the full set of MAP-21 criteria and measures, define the project
advancement process and complete all other requirements.
MAP-21 allows for the use of “warrants” under certain conditions,
enabling projects to automatically achieve ratings for project
justification criteria. Much work needs to be done to apply the
warrants-based approach.
Program of Interrelated Projects
MAP-21 allows the simultaneous development of a combination
of multiple New Starts and Core Capacity projects. Non-federal
funds committed to a project in the Program of Projects may
be used to meet the non-federal share for any other project in
the Program of Projects, though federal share cannot exceed 80
percent for any one project. Any federally funded project within
the Program of Projects must follow the MAP-21 rating and
project advancement process. FTA evaluates and rates all projects
in the Program (federally funded and non-federally funded) as
one applicant. Non-federally funded projects in a Program of
Projects do not need to meet federal requirements that would
otherwise not apply (e.g., NEPA). FTA completes an annual review
of a program implementation plan, and the project sponsor must
repay all federal funds if the complete Program of Projects is not
implemented within a reasonable timeframe. This opportunity
currently does not apply to Small Start projects.
Including a non-federally funded project in a program of
interrelated projects does not impose government requirements
that would not otherwise apply to the project. Additional guidance
is needed on what requirements may or may not be applied.
We Started a Project Under the Old Program—
What Happens Now?
FTA has not yet provided any specific transitional guidance for
projects that are initiating or currently completing AAs, or for
projects currently in New Start Preliminary Engineering and Final
Design phases or the Small Starts Project Development phase. The
APTA Policy and Planning Committee is in discussions with FTA staff
to propose initial guidance. HDR’s online MAP-21 interim guidance
document will be updated as new information becomes available.
Summary
The interpretation in this article represents the latest information
available from FTA and through industry outreach. The landscape of
federal transit funding continues to evolve as FTA and the industry
adapt to the MAP-21 legislation. Though the current authorization
applies only through September 2014, it is anticipated that many
of the policy and procedural changes established during MAP-21
will carry forward to the next authorization bill. ->
For more information, view our online resources at www.hdrinc.com/map-21 or contact
the author at David.Vozzolo@hdrinc.com.
Editors note: David Vozzolo is a nationally recognized leader in planning and development
of rail and bus rapid transit projects, and is Vice-Chair of the APTA Policy and Planning
Committee. He previously served as Deputy Associate Administrator for FTA’s Office of
Planning and Environment. During his time with FTA, David was responsible for designing
and implementing the New Starts evaluation and rating process and eventually managed
the New Starts program.
[25]
PERSPE C TIVE
Envision™ Sustainabilit y Infrastruc ture
Rating System Addresses Design Challenges
by Michaella Wittmann, LEED Fellow, ENV SP; David Taylor, ENV SP; and Mona Eigbrett, LEED AP BD+C, ENV SP
LEED is such a common term in the building industry that it is rare
to even see the acronym spelled out anymore. Of course, LEED
stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design—a
program that became the industry standard for “green” buildings,
or vertical infrastructure. But what equivalent is there for horizontal
infrastructure?
Until recently, there was no single, cross-infrastructure sustainability
rating system available, although there were a number of sectorspecific systems. Increasingly, owners of horizontal infrastructure
are seeing conservation measures and the use of alternative
materials and technologies as part of design requirements.
These requirements won’t go away. In fact, they are likely to be
more common.
To meet these challenges, the Envision™ rating system was
developed as a project assessment tool and to offer guidance
for sustainable infrastructure design. Envision was created by a
strategic alliance of the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure
(ISI) and the Zofnass Program for Sustainable Infrastructure at the
Harvard University Graduate School of Design.
ISI, which was formed by the American Public Works Association,
American Council of Engineering Companies and American Society
of Civil Engineers, recently deployed Envision. A certification tool,
it is meant to provide industry-wide sustainability metrics for all
infrastructure types—an approach similar to its vertical facility
counterpart, LEED.
The tool can be used by infrastructure owners, design teams,
community groups, environmental organizations, constructors,
regulators and policy makers. These groups may be interested in
certifying a project to gain public acceptance, see long-term cost
savings, offer risk-avoidance, achieve third-party verification or
protect and enhance environmental assets.
Envision provides guidance for integrating sustainability into
infrastructure projects, which is often difficult to define and
[26]
measure. The tool could have far-reaching impacts, including
creating cost-effective, more energy-efficient and adaptable longterm infrastructure investments.
How Does Envision Work?
Envision evaluates, scores and gives recognition to infrastructure
projects that use transformational, collaborative approaches to
assess sustainability indicators over the course of a project’s life
cycle. It features assessment tools that can be used for infrastructure
projects of all types, sizes, complexities and locations.
With a collaborative, focused effort, Envision can help owners
develop an infrastructure investment with longer-term viability,
at a potentially lower cost, with fewer negative impacts on the
community. In fact, Envision can help teams develop projects
with significantly reduced impact and move toward restoration of
previously disturbed sites.
Essentially, using Envision helps an organization demonstrate that
a project is the best solution for a community, with the added value
of being measured and verified by a third-party rating system.
Knowing that every solution will not apply to every project, the
creators of Envision built flexibility into the tool. The rating system
can help serve as a roadmap for project sustainability, even if
project certification is not pursued. It can be used as a checklist or
simply to provide guidance when designing a project.
The checklist can help project teams assess project sustainability
and increase awareness of broader community and resource
issues. Both the checklist and guidance manual are free tools that
help set a project’s direction and provide for early project review.
A project also can move through the full process of achieving
certification at the Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum levels. Project
teams review 60 sustainability criteria, called credits, divided into
five categories: Quality of Life, Leadership, Resource Allocation,
Natural World, and Climate and Risk.
© Keith Philpott
>> The Envision program establishes a universal
sustainability rating system for horizontal infrastructure.
The number of points earned for each credit depends on the level
of achievement:
• Improved: achieves performance somewhat better
than conventional
• Enhanced: indicates that superior performance is
within reach
• Superior: features sustainable performance that is
noteworthy
• Conserving: essentially achieves zero impact
• Restorative: restores natural or social systems
Advancing the Tool
HDR is a charter member of ISI and is working with the
organization to advance the use of Envision. Our management
team has made sustainability a high priority and believes that
our professionals can lead the development of sustainable
projects using Envision. HDR has established a goal to reach
100 credentialed Envision Sustainability Professionals (ENV SP)
by the end of 2013, and to have 10 percent of our credentialed
employees become qualified to provide third-party verification
of non-HDR projects. HDR employees currently serve on four of
the seven ISI committees.
ISI and HDR recently presented an Envision webinar to the federal
Partnership for Sustainable Communities—which includes the
Department of Transportation, Department of Housing and Urban
Development and the Environmental Protection Agency—as well
as the Federal Transit Administration headquarters and regional
offices, to provide a better understanding of the tool’s potential
for new transit projects. We conducted a similar webinar for the
American Public Transit Association.
HDR helped the William Jack Hernandez Sport Fish Hatchery in
Anchorage, Alaska, become the inaugural project registered with
ISI, and we currently are talking with a variety of clients about
Envision to determine if it might be used on their projects. Our
goal is to help owners, communities, constructors and others
create cost-effective, more energy-efficient and adaptable longterm infrastructure investments. ->
Find more information at www.sustainableinfrastructure.org or please contact
Michaella.Wittmann@hdrinc.com.
[27]
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE 68114-4049
www.hdrinc.com
PRSRT STD
US POSTAGE
PAID
OMAHA, NE
PERMIT NO. 963
T R A N S P O R TAT I O N >
DELIVERED
3421 0413
SPRING 2013
What Moves Us
Delivering safe, reliable and efficient infrastructure day in and day out is hard work unless
you’re seriously passionate about what you do. The passion our employees have for their
families, communities and industry fuels their desire to develop innovative solutions to today’s
transportation challenges.
Tom Kim, P.E. | Southern California
Transportation Director
Los Ang eles, C A
Tell us a little about yourself and
your family.
Both of my parents worked at Yongsan
(U.S. Army Garrison in South Korea) for the
American government. They met there
and served over 20 years and were then
invited to come to the United States. I was
born in Seoul, South Korea, and when I was
15 years old my family immigrated to the
United States. I am the oldest child with
three younger sisters, and we lived and went
to high school in La Crescenta, Calif. I am
married and have two children, Tommy Jr.
and Pricilla. Tommy Jr. is currently studying at
Cal Poly (my alma mater) and wants to be an
engineer, and Pricilla is studying at U.C. Davis
and wants to be a veterinarian.
What inspired you to get into the
engineering industry?
In school I was very good at math, so
engineering, to me, seemed like a natural
fit. I am the odd one out in my family as
everyone else is in the jewelry business.
What are you most passionate about?
I am passionate about making a difference.
I like that what I do matters and will help the
quality of life for others. I want to contribute
to people’s lives, and I am passionate about
turning a “can’t do” into a “can do.”
Tell us about your role at HDR.
As the Southern California Transportation
Director, I oversee our transportation group’s
operations and program development in the
region. I am a practice builder and manage /
direct high-profile projects.
What has been your favorite project
and why?
I have the opportunity to work on some
fantastic projects across all modes in
Southern California, and with great clients
who consider HDR a trusted advisor. One
project I am engaged in right now is the
Port of Long Beach Pier B Rail Facility. This
project provided an opportunity for us
to work with multiple market sectors and
build a client for life. I also am very
proud of completing the Colton
Crossing Project. This is a critical
link to our nation’s movement of
goods and has a large impact on the
economy. People thought the project
would never be built, and now it is in
construction. ->